Alexander Carpenter
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Huh? “Fake website”? No substantive response? No “actual science”? This is sounding more and more neurotic. Get real.
Ad hominem? Seems pretty compassionate to me: we all have blind spots; to point a significant one out and still recognize astuteness in other areas is not only fair, but a kindness and perhaps even generous.
So what’s your point, AFAIK? What’s the payoff? What’s it take for you to get real in this highly-structured discipline of science?
The climate narrative that AFAIK espouses so desperately is the The Science(tm) narrative promulgated by the desperados-in-charge and their captive “experts” and “authorities.” Their “science” is terminally politicized, and falsifiable almost effortlessly (all available online to any kindergartener who bothers).
The real climate science is difficult, being an engagement with a complex non-linear open system, one that our habitual reductionist linearizing “science” cannot comprehend. To even begin to “grok” nature, one must adopt an evolving complexity-aware paradigm, and then be willing to be humble and earn to live with uncertainty. This requires a certain level of maturity generally not present in people who need to believe and who need to profess conventional beliefs to maintain their social status and personal identity-myths.
This is a challenge significantly more difficult than most people can engage, and this is still difficult for people who can see through mendacity in other domains less rigorous (in other words, politics has no rigorous “scientific method,” even if we can be systematically skeptical and apply modern-paradigm engineered epistemology).
AFAIK: How come a graph that is deliberately terminated 95 years before the present is labelled ‘YOU ARE HERE’?
Does the perpetrator of this piece of deceit want to suggest that the present is the year 1927?
Or does the perpetrator of this deceit want to hide something -such as that data from recent decades shows a very different trend- in order to promote an entirely fake narrative?The non-idiot AFAIK reveals his idiot hysterics and ignorance about climate change science by asking a frantic and angry rhetorical question about what he characterizes as “deliberate” deception. Even a schoolchild can look into this matter and learn that the proxy data AFAIK is ranting about is presented as 100-year averages because of how the subject material is accumulated, preserved, and measured. And then there is the historical trajectory that matters far more than what is happening right now to outraged “victims” of deceit.
Simple enough, one would think. However, AFAIK has consistently missed every actual science boat in this domain. There must be some deep emotional wounding for him (or anyone, for that matter) to be so shrill and lost in his own “fake narrative” that he has somehow internalized in obeisance to a standard narrative he seems unable to falsify. That falsification is readily done, and at the simplest levels.Here, AFAIK, see if you can wrap your testy mind around this and learn the scientific method (this doc starts out simple, and gets as complicated as the subject matters require):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0vrpxs5olpserhx/Do%20You%20%22Believe%22%20in%20Climate%20Change%3F.docx?dl=0And since I am willing to forgive AFAIK his follies, please forgive me for all the snark in this doc…
And for more on the scientific method and its maturing sequellae, try this work-in-progress doc on for size:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vnz3ml5z730mds/Epistemological%20Engineering.docx?dl=0And here’s Karl Denninger on cryptos (and also note the comments):
But wait. What about this engineered (contrived) failure of cryptos as a setup for Central Bank digital “currencies”? Wipe out all the current ones (well-deserved, for the most part) and then induce/con the gullible dupes that still trust the government (and its central-bank owners) into accepting the “official” one.
“Methane” is a nothing-burger. Whoops, now I’m a “methane-denier.” Horrors!
Better that than being than an ignorant idiot-dupe and fellow-traveller. Learn the actual, factual science, kids, and stop making fools of yourselves. Learn the absorbtion-spectra of these radiative gasses, and how the atmosphere is already saturated, such that adding more does next-to-nothing. Learn how “greenhouse effect” is a complete misnomer. Learn the basics. so you can revise your premises. It is just as available as the standard-narrative lies… If only you could (or would?) tell the difference.
And look within and try to figure out what has made you so vulnerable to being fooled and owned.From Dr. D:
Here’s a good rundown by Chris Hedges on the leadup to war:
“The West has been baiting Moscow for decades. I reported from Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War. I watched these militarists set out to build what they called a unipolar world — a world where they alone ruled.
https://scheerpost.com/2022/10/24/chris-hedges-stop-worrying-and-love-the-bomb/
AFAIK:
“When your premises are wrong, you will ask the wrong questions, get the wrong answers, and believe in them”
Absolutely!
It also helps, when making political arguments and emotional arguments, to ignore all the facts and make up your own shit as a replacement for facts! (as all politicians in NATOstan nations do).Political arguments? Yes, universal. Scientific arguments? Not on your life. In science we have much-more-readily-available objective facts, which, despite all the politicization of science, totally falsify the standard narrative as it relates to both epidemiological and climate science (both intense in the propaganda-mill over the past few years).
So you in particular should stop ignoring all the important truths, making shit up, and just prattling the Carbon Cult fear-mongering that is being used by those same politicians (as dupes and puppets of their Lords and Masters). It’s not enough to be able to see through the political lies; to not be a dupe yourself you have to be able to see through the “science” lies as well.
The information to accomplish that is as readily available online as the lies, were you to bother to look and dig deeper into the complexities and nuances, and to acknowledge the incomplete nature of contemporary climate science as compared to the specious certainty of the politicized-science lies. So shut up until you do your due diligence. Otherwise you disgrace yourself and undermine your credibility.
What is the origination of your climate blind-spot? Why subscribe to this religion-like folly, that is even more dangerous to our civilization than most of the more-obviously-political lies? In ultimate fact, your politicized version of “climate denial” is just another political lie, and it appears to have fooled you by pretending to wear a white lab coat.
Do you have an emotional fear-fetish that blinds you in this area?
Let us know. Explain yourself (and outside the narrow range of in vitro factoids and fakey “reasonableness” you rely on so far).It appears that AFKTT can’t tell the difference between in vitro and in vivo. And makes up “units” of… something… something probably as meaningful as “average global temperature.” Total gibberish, but it’s “reasonable.”
When your premises are wrong, you will ask the wrong questions, get the wrong answers, and believe in them (especially if those premises are belief-based — ie, religious in nature). Belief is the sanity-killer.Once again, EVERYTHING that AFAIK is saying about climate is either just dead wrong or irrelevant. Either he is a shill for some seductive power-bloc, a Climate Cult religious nut, or willfully ignorant on this issue. There is a sufficiency of accurate, non-panic-porn, genuine-science information readily available; perhaps AFAIK needs the neurotic certainty that contemporary climate science cannot deliver — impeded, as it is, by politicization and complexity. But progress is being made, and it isn’t leading anywhere near the “reasonable” fantasies AFAIK prattles on about.
Ironically, the best estimates of future climate are consonant with the paleo-climate record of the past 5000 years that is leading us down into another glaciation.
Well shiver my timbers, Matey,
The mystery remains why AFAIK can be so incisive in his skepticism of the political Standard Narrative while at the same time be such a fatuous science-denier about our actual understanding of climate variability, and a vapid toady to the climate-panic energy-control aspects of that Narrative. Puzzling…
I reckon that some people just cannot be consistent in applying their intelligence, and have belief-bound blind-spots in their worldview. Sad…Fully agree with DBS about AFKTT’s energy essay (and others of his, as well). It’s not too fawning, I trust, to describe them as brilliant.
it’s interesting how in some matters (mostly political and logistic) many people can apply their pattern recognition algorithms and intuitive common sense, and come up with genuinely insightful commentary — even, occasionally, wise.
However, when addressing science matters clouded by a “consensus,” prejudiced by a belief that science is simplistically “logical,” and crippled by indoctrination into beliefs about the infallibility of reductionist linearizing semi-science, too many people completely fail at sanity and realism.
This is true of the climate noise, about Covid and its “vaccines,” about nutrition… the list goes on and on.
When I read (fairly often) people quoting the late and lamented Al Bartlett that “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function…”, I recognize that that inability is a subset of our collective inability to comprehend complex non-linear systems.
Both those inabilities are being challenged by an increasingly obvious need to develop a working complexity-ware paradigm, however tentative and nascent, with which to adequately address our real-world challenges (since our present paradigm is failing us every day in every non-trivial way).
So it is with compassion that I propose that AFKTT (and many others) go back and re-assess from scratch his climate-change beliefs, and stop pretending mastery quite so aggressively and foolishly — which subverts his credibility in other domains.
The genuine science is available for that process; however, it delivers uncomfortably indeterminate explanations of how climate-change works overall. At the very least, though, it entirely falsifies the politicized conclusions of the corrupted pseudo-science used to justify its social manipulations.
So snap out of it!Science is not “logical;” science is factual.
It is people that are “logical,” and they can only be logical with what they know and within the constraints of how they think. And logic only works in a simple-minded way, with few elements, even when multiple syllogisms are tortured into interacting.
Logic is rhetoric, and misleads the ignorant and stupid into traps of folly.
Everything that AFKTT says may be “logical,” but it has all been falsified by facts, and his insecure claque trots right along, using (can you believe it?) AFKTT as an “authority.”
“Ocean acidification” is his latest fatuous claim, with no actual physical evidence to support it, only “logic” that leaves out most of the facts and is based on in vitro “experiments” that include a tiny subset of the complex interactions found in Nature (in vivo). The kindest thing we can say about that is that it’s pretentious and pathetic.
And most pathetic of all is that the actual, increasingly complexity-aware science is available to all who can look past the politicization of pseudo-science and the propaganda-driven belief-structures and status-seeking alignments of the insecure and cowardly (or at least hypocritical).
That this nascent science it still indeterminate should only bother the neurotic who find emotional solace in certainty within the Mob.
Snap out of it!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.
