Alexander Carpenter
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Where the Carbon Cultists get lost… in that “Step Two.”
Somehow, the simple fact that there is no due-cause connection between their fundamentals and their conclusions seems to escape them. As just one small example, they quote Svante Arrhenius from 1896 but never from 1906.
As my mother used to say, “Watch that second step; it’s a doosey.”
Here is an excellent resource for those able (and willing) to learn about something more complicated than most minds limited by the reductionist linearizing science we have all been indoctrinated-with can encompass.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/26/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-521/
These folks are working hard to explore how all those “obfuscations” the Carbon Cultists whine about are the actual determinants of the changes we are seeing in our present climate (and have seen in past climates).
Since the Cult’s errors have been extensively falsified (or “debunked”), the Cult now frantically works to debunk that debunking. That seems rather an imploding spiral of abstraction-mentation and political posturing than any experiencing of the real world. And it is corrupted by sleazy ad hominem rhetoric and reasonableness-cowering within their fortress/prison of belief.
And yes, we all have far more important human activities to concern ourselves with: our industrial toxicity and mechanical disruption of the biosphere are causing real damage, while the trivial quantities of CO2 we are adding to the ocean-atmosphere system are contributing benefit to humanity (as a trim-tab on a natural process) while causing no demonstrable harm.
AFKTT: ‘Obviously nothing to see here’.
His truest statement so far on the climate-CO2 nothing-burger, even if inadvertent.
AFKTT: No further comment necessary
This seems to be a very subtle pre-emptive ad hominem, a passive-aggressive way of calling us ‘fuckwits’ if we don’t (or won’t) get it. Could be a deep-denied-identity-myth projection onto the rest of us, with a little trap attached.
I wonder if the rest of AFKTT’s apparent astuteness on other matters is also based on beliefs he holds, and if that’s so, his incisiveness is not really realpolitic astuteness, but, rather, more rote formulism. Its credibility suffers from that suspicion.
Right on, Dr. D! And not just about the climate nonsense, but in general. I truly appreciate your implacable clarity.
All the climate noise (and more) is addressed at great depth, with great snarkiness, plus political implications, in my Do you “believe”... doc, linked here again:
Not beating my own drum, just completeness-fetish.
Thanks,
AlexanderAs an exercise in pattern-recognition, note the consistent stylistic differences between the standard narrative (SN) propaganda spiel and the more truth-seeking commentators, regardless of actual content. Here’s a (bakers) dozen (originally) right off the top of my head:
SN: Abruptly and simultaneously uses the identical phrases and syntax uniformly across all media and channels — the buzzword (or phrase) du jour, which entirely and forever disappears when some new obsessive panic-du-jour focus leaps out from behind the curtain (unless it’s part of a dunning persuasional looping, as in *).
SN: Unstated presumptions saturate and mire most potential realism in the presentation and render it essentially incoherent (if not downright stupid). Is there no cause-and-effect in the story? Are the events that are described (or judged) actually difficult-to-comprehend emergences or are they willful manipulations with no regard for some elusive “truth”? Any genuine “expert” is very cautious about what he “knows” (as opposed to intuits), while the SN is full of shallow and vapid certainty and unstated assumptions.
SN: There are also stated presumptions. “Premise-mongering” — never failing to pronounce its “official” judgement whenever it pretends to address or even mention a legitimately complex and controversial subject (that is often entirely unresolvable with any simple script) — and never presenting evidence for its judgements:
“…false claims of election-fraud…”
“…unprovoked invasion of Ukraine…”
“…fake science of climate-denial…”
“…safe and effective COVID vaccines…
“…unfounded Russian bio-warfare pandemic claims…”
“…sham referenda in the Ukraine…”SN: Tends to be very vague and non-specific, while better-informed folks tend to start with examining the credibility of known “facts,” and build outward into a matrix of causalities and feedbacks, with specific uncertainties explicitly identified. The SN starts with a fog of generalizations and stays there. Everything else is “misinformation,” “disinformation,” “violent extremism,” …, or even simply “lies.”
*SN: Usually loops through and refers to other tropes and reportings in its recent disseminations (e.g., Bucha II). Its content is inbred, and rigidly exclusive of inconvenient “facts” not consonant with its tropes, memes, and overall advocacy — to the point of outright censorship, often devious and backhanded. From being “unpersoned,” “demonetized,” fired for not getting “vaxxed” (or just talking about it),” to SADS, myocarditis, SWATing, being “disappeared,” to outright assassination.
SN: Doubt is vanishingly rare: all its pronouncements and implications are presented as inevitable truths, without equivocations and nuances (not to mention uncertainty or ambiguity).
SN: There is no past to be found in the SN; there is no history, neither recent nor long ago — and certainly no nuanced multi-level matrices of process about fundamental human nature at play.
SN: There are only good guys and bad guys. Occasionally some interviewee or guest speaker will utter some equivocation or mention an ambiguity, but the shills ignore it and revert to their leading questioning, homing back onto their agenda.
SN: Stories are simple, short, and shallow, and their threats are happening right now (more of that “no past” thing).
SN: Relies on a few “experts” and “authorities,” and seems to expect (inherently assuming) that the masses will uncritically accept as gospel all that they say, and obey all their dictates. No “second opinions,” except for pretend superficial differences between puppets and shills).
“Democrat versus Republican” within the UnipartySN: Exaggerating and emphasizing arbitrary and minor (even trivial) differences between factions (or “blocs,” or cartels,” or TBTF front-banks, or …) that are entirely aligned on major policy choices and actions behind the scenes (and never mentioned).
SN: Disclaimers distinguishing opinion from evidenced facts are vanishingly rare. Factual specificity is almost always absent.
SN: Is quick to tell us their agenda-driven inventions about what significant world figures are themselves thinking and want to accomplish, and even how they will go about manifesting it. That helps to concentrate focus on a few “bad guys” and turns responsibility into blame. Elected leaders become evil dictators compulsively exercising their neuroses or dancing on their puppet-masters’ strings — but that never happens with the “good guys.”
SN: Is very diligent at charging its designated demons with its own personnel’s malign (but secretive) motivations and behaviors. By their projections you will know who they really are. They diligently obfuscate who they actually represent behind their slick facade.
SN: Blind to the offenses of its “good guys” while persecuting its “bad guys” for the identical (but with other names) practices and behaviors.
In other words, this is not an adult conversation. It is indoctrination full of abstractions and absolutes. It is belief-and-narrative-entrainment into a fortress/prison of identity-myth. It is “cognitive warfare.” It is social engineering. It functions to emotionally and cognitively exhaust its audience, and inculcate disempowered fecklessness, and passive despair. The result is malignant insouciance in the masses, who are “led” by sociopaths working for the engineers.
Completely ignoring the substance and evidence of other narratives, the SN is, in effect, “gaslighting” us all (including themselves, so there’s positive feedback for individual and collective insanity). And their ad hominem “conspiracy theorist” rhetoric has become an ironic joke as so many such theories are confirmed through sanity and by evidence. So have the “wokish” manipulations (ESG, identity-politics, gender posturings, …).
If you can question it, it’s science; if you can’t question it, it’s propaganda.
When your premises are wrong, you will ask the wrong questions, get the wrong answers, reach the wrong conclusions, and believe in them (especially if your premises are belief-based), driving just about every cognitive bias there is. Belief is the sanity-killer.
“It is useless to reason a man out of something he has not been reasoned into.”
Jonathan SwiftHere’s another little tidbit for your delectation (and projections):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gzvqplscd3b9857/Hard-Won%20Wisdoms.docx?dl=0
It’s very curious how people with at least adequate skepticism (and even, occasionally, incisive pattern-recognition and brilliant insights) in some content-domains have blind-spots in others. Is that from failing to apply those skills in areas where they have for some reason adopted poorly-examined and unevidenced beliefs? Or maybe for no reason, just emotional affiliation or outright self-myth identification or some neurotic projection confined to, or trapped in, that domain. Or maybe if it’s a science domain, it’s because they aren’t particularly good at science and applying the scientific method.
I ask because of the anomalous attachment of the otherwise astute “Afewknowthetruth” to his(?) fortress/prison of belief in the Carbon Cult panic-porn narrative about our always-slowly-changing climate. That narrative has been definitively falsified, yet remains within the Standard Narrative with a purely political agenda. The actual science is settled; the noise is corrupt manipulation and fear-mongering propaganda.
One comprehensive refutation of the Carbon Cult nonsense (scientifically speaking) can be found here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0vrpxs5olpserhx/Do%20You%20%22Believe%22%20in%20Climate%20Change%3F.docx?dl=0But that’s parenthetical. My real motivation for this comment is to propose that a systematic practice of epistemological discipline would benefit us all, not just those unable to distinguish between belief and experience (or just knowledge). To that end, I submit a work-in-progress that examines this situation:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vnz3ml5z730mds/Epistemological%20Engineering.docx?dl=0This is obviously a draft, and needs further refinement — contributions would be welcome from this commentariat.
Thanks in advance. Philosophically speaking this challenge to our civilization is right up there with the need to develop a complexity-aware paradigm to replace the imploding reductionist linearizing “science” paradigm that has Peter Principled itself to the cusp of outright failure of our public dialogue and its premises.
I have a request for this commentariat: around a year (or two) ago I read a report about a long-term, large-scale, observational, empirical analysis of the overall health in countries that were heavily childhood-vaccinated (not covid, but all vaccines) compared to countries that were minimally vaccinated. It found that although in the heavily-vaccinated countries the incidence of the diseases that were explicitly vaccinated-against was lower, the overall health of the populations was also lower, with other disorders higher than in the less-vaccinated countries. As I recall, Japan was one of the less-vaccinated countries, and the US was one of the most.
But I can’t find a reference to that paper. Do any of us have access to that study (or something similar), with a link to it?
There are all sorts of sanctimonious red-herring noise and excuses about the ethics of RCT studies, but that does not apply to an observational-overview study, but could provide an excuse to suppress this one (and similar).
Please advise.
Thanks…Note the accountability reaction is happening, at least in France.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/534744-france-covid-incompetents-held-account/
There is no indication of exactly what murderous incompetences are being faulted, but I reckon we’ll find out. One would think that clinging to the “vaccine” narrative and disallowing say, Ivermectin, would qualify.What “climate emergency”?
Combating lies and manipulations in one domain does not excuse tolerating and repeating lies and manipulations in another.
Belief is the killer of sanity. Yet another example of politicized “institutional science” opposed to genuine science.
“Maybe I’m a bit early, not just because this would go against the overwhelming narrative grain, but also because the process itself that will lead to this, is not yet advanced enough. But perhaps that would merely mean an early warning.”
Easy, there, Big Guy — you would’t want to be charged with “prematude anti-vaccism,” would you?
The “withdrawn” Ivermectin “study” has all the earmarks of a “poisoning the well” setup, designed in advance to be discredited and thereby discredit any examination of Ivermectin in a Covid context. The classic “poisoning the well” example is the clearly-forged documents confirming the truth of the younger Bush’s military-service evasions. But when the forgery was revealed, the truths were discredited in a guilt-by-association logic error.
