OffGuardian

Because facts really SHOULD be sacred. Our editors - @catte_black & @kit_knightly

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

We are currently hanging on – barely – thanks to the wonderful people who loyally support us, but it’s not getting easier.

we get thousands of visitors a day – so the simple math is that if every one of you who reads our site were to donate as little as 50p (66 cents) a month then OffG’s future would be secure.

https://t.co/KxeO90XpBQ

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

The UK Column Conundrum https://t.co/AluHEM1szh

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

The UK Column Conundrum https://t.co/AluHEM1szh

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

The Permanent War Government: Who’s Really Calling the Shots in Washington? https://t.co/VSmqcR1ox5

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

Here's where this goes...

Firstly, kiss successful insurance claims goodbye.

Any accident will be blamed on "sub-optimal driver performance", and that time your hands moved briefly from the 10-and-2 or your eyeline wasn't correctly picked up by the mirror sensor will be used to blame your fender-bender on you.

Secondly, there will be a big "people drive dangerously" propaganda push. "ADDW data harvesting has shown up 80% of us might be driving more recklessly than we think", or "most veteran drivers slip in to bad habits, reports show".

Then comes the new legislation to act on this totally fabricated problem. What is it? Oh, it's re-certification. Every driver has to be re-certified after X years on the road.

Or maybe your driver monitoring data will be uploaded to a database and scanned for errors. Those errors put points on your license and if you go over a certain number of points, your ability to drive is taken away pending recertification.

You can appeal, and drive while the appeal takes place. But the appeal fee is greater than the recertification fee, and if you lose, you have to pay legal costs, and you're not allowed to drive for double the usual amount of time.

You'll have to pay a "processing" fee for re-certifying, of course, and if you fail, you'll have to wait X amount of months before you can try again.

Headlines will celebrate both the (fictional) decrease in traffic fatalities and that the smaller number of private vehicles on the road has improved the pollution levels in the inner cities.

An opinion piece from an anonymous "former driver" will appear in the Guardian "I lost my drivers license, and it's the best thing that ever happened to me".

It will talk up how much money they're saving on petrol and road tax, and how much fitter they get walking everywhere and how they know their neighbours so well now.

And all sorts of cosy anecdotes about the charming characters and life-affirming tableaux that public transport exposes you to.

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

The Permanent War Government: Who’s Really Calling the Shots in Washington? https://t.co/VSmqcR1ox5

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

This Week in the New Normal #120 https://t.co/XkT5cAxIa2

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

This Week in the New Normal #120 https://t.co/XkT5cAxIa2

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

The Joy of Being Stupid https://t.co/IOZCejl9It

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

I’m not a liar, you’re misreading the paper.

The initial survey may have had nine questions, but the “97.4% agree” stat is entirely based on responses to just two of them.

And yes, the survey was sent to 10k people and 3000 responded, but the “97.4% agree” stat is only referencing self-styled “climate scientists”, of which there were only 79 in the sample.

It’s all there in the text:

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

Did you know that when people say "98% of climate scientists agree", they're talking about 75 people responding to a 2 question survey 17 years ago?

The more you know.

https://t.co/3tB8cyCbBS

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

It's not every climate scientist, and even if it were, they don't have to be lying - they can be operating under false premises they have been conditioned not to question.

Consensus is very rarely a creation of fact alone, it is shaped by belief, psycho-social forcing factors, convenience and lot more.

We all know majority opinion is no trustworthy yardstick, history has proven it many times.

That's one of the main reasons - both in academia and everyday life - that "everybody thinks so" is not seen as a compelling argument.

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

Best of OffG: A look at the "97.4% of climate scientists” meme https://t.co/uAvfz1sc7H

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

Since when do we keep a running tally of accidental drownings?

[Sky News @SkyNews]

BREAKING: Boy, 16, becomes 12th person to die in water-related incident amid heatwave

https://t.co/PAiZ4D1jU3

📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233, and YouTube

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

How about a 100% cut of VAT on everything? The most absurdly unjustifiable tax there is.

[BBC News (UK) @BBCNews]

Top UK chefs call for 10% VAT cut for pubs and restaurants https://t.co/iwRsziJx0P

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

IMA PANEL: Drawing the AI Line in the Sand #SolutionsWatch https://t.co/qtFPeoBPJj

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

BS. Someone is lying somewhere; no way did a 4-day heatwave do that.

[The Independent @Independent]

Thousands without water supply after reservoirs ‘reach critical level’ https://t.co/wVmiYmz9F6

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

Canadian government when someone aids suicide...

[Sky News @SkyNews]

Canadian man Kenneth Law, who is accused of selling deadly chemicals to people who took their own lives across multiple countries, has pleaded guilty to aiding suicide.

Sky's @Mollie_Malone1 reports.

https://t.co/c6XVV4FcNR

📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233 and YouTube

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

It's not every climate scientist, and even if it were, they don't have to be lying - they can be operating under false premises they have been conditioned not to question.

Consensus is very rarely a creation of fact alone, it is shaped by belief, psycho-social forcing factors, convenience and lot more.

We all know majority opinion is no trustworthy yardstick, history has proven it many times.

That's one of the main reasons - both in academia and everyday life - that "everybody thinks so" is not seen as a compelling argument.

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

So where are they going with this data center stuff?

[The Washington Post @washingtonpost]

The 10,500 diesel backup generators attached to data centers in Virginia produce enough pollution to harm public health in the region even if used rarely, according to a new analysis of emissions permits for The Post. https://t.co/1oYI8ZTFg1

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

@drolkrad_ehT Yes there is, I posted a screen shot already.

[OffGuardian @OffGuardian0]

Did you know that when people say "98% of climate scientists agree", they're talking about 75 people responding to a 2 question survey 17 years ago?

The more you know.

https://t.co/3tB8cyCbBS