Placeholder for GW/CC 'How I got here' thread, Part 2

[Jonathan]

Billy has closed further comments on his "Placeholder for GW/CC 'How I got here’” climate doom thread, and just when I thought that he might finally be interested in actual discussion.

So, I’m starting this thread to answer some of the responses that he gave in his last post — and thanks, Billy, for those responses, instead of your typical non-responsiveness.

 

Billy replied to me:

Quote

   On 8/20/2019 at 10:57 AM,  Jonathan said: 
Okay, so can we get past Tyndall now?

We could, sure.  But I really can's say I know what you think you know about Tyndall's scientific work.

 

My understanding is that Tyndall's testing of his hypotheses were well-defined and carefully controlled, and his results were and are repeatable.

I’ve been asking you to provide the same in regard to hypotheses of man-made climate change. Do you understand that Tyndall’s work does not answer my questions?

 

Billy:

Quote

Someone might respond: "I know all that, pedophile."  Another might respond with abrasive what-have-you. Another might affix yet another label to my psyche and morality.

 

You reap what you sow, Billy. Heh. Don’t like being accused and psychoanalyzed? Hmmm. Maybe consider not doing it to others.

Let’s have a conversation. I’ve been asking for one for years. I’ve been asking the same questions, and you’ve been ignoring them, dodging them, and serving “tasty steamed octopus” (in other words, posting everything but answers to my questions while acting as if you’re answering the questions).

I’ve also asked if you have a problem with my requests for you to show me the science, and, if so, to explain why you think that my questions are invalid, improper, not applicable, or whatever. No response. No explanation. Instead of having a discussion, you decide to ignore questions, and then devise ways of testing what I know about Tyndall or Weart, or whomever else.

Quote

   On 8/19/2019 at 10:08 AM,  Jonathan said: 
Billy, what is it about my questions that makes you think that we need instruction in climatological superstructure, radiative physics, etc.?

I disregard posturing and wonder what you know.

 

You don’t need to know how much I know. Science isn’t about establishing authority. He who knows the most doesn’t become right just by having the most knowledge. All that matters is repeatable results of successfully tested predictions of hypotheses. That’s what I’ve been asking you -- over and over and over again -- to provide.

 

Quote

Does the prediction that increasing atmospheric CO2 in a relatively short term will result in an a relatively-quick increase of the Earth's temperature?

 

That’s the question that I’ve been asking you to provide the answers to. Show me the science.

I’ve displayed the patience of a saint. I’ve asked countless times in regard to the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change: "Show me the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record."

 

Quote

Billy says hi. Billy wonders if you would explain how you got here, what your beliefs and understandings are.

 

My belief and understanding is that you have not answered my questions. Nor did Brad when he was here, nor the second meatball.

 

Quote

Billy says he isn't interested in your opinion about him, but is instead interested in, 'what Jonathan believes/knows/suspects/rejects, whether about the basic "Tyndall Gases Effect" and the basic prediction of global warming to come.

 

I’m not interested in suspecting what will happen in regard to "predictions of global warming to come.” Predictions are not the end of science. For the billionth fucking time, I’m interested in the predictions of the past having come true in reality after having been precisely defined. I'm interested in climatology following the requirements of the scientific method.

As I’ve asked ad nauseam:

"I'm asking to see 'the science' which puts the hypothesis to the test, and succeeds reliably and repeatedly. I'm asking for open access to all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what are the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record?”

"How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along."

"What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why?

"Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it?"

 

Quote

I restart at the relative beginning, because I don't see the other guys' cards.

 

It isn’t a card game. Science isn’t about seeing the other guys' cards. It’s about identifying reality via a specific process. You seem to want to believe that I have beliefs that you need to counter. I don’t. I’m asking to see the science. No other method will work. I don’t accept substitutes, and all you’ve been focusing on is substitutes. Focus on the science. Focus on answering my questions rather than trying to guess my beliefs so that you can formulate a strategy to counter them.

 

Quote

 

Here's my one actual question to, say, Jonathan: have any of you ever delved into the Weart book (either in hardback or via the American Institute of Physics website)?

 

 

I haven’t read it. I’ve come across references to it, and quotes from it. I’m neither excited about reading it, nor opposed. Does it answer my questions? If so, please just cut to the chase and say so. Cite the relevant passages.
 

Quote

If the Examining Magistrate will allow follow-ups put to the witness: if not, why not? Is Billy's recommendation a kiss of death?

 

There’s Billy doing exactly what he complains about when the Others™ do it right back to him. Anyway, to answer your question, no, your recommendation isn’t the kiss of death. Why are you so passionate about getting me to read it? Does it address the questions that I’ve been asking for years? If not, why would I find it worth reading? Are you hoping that, since it convinced you, it will do the same for me, and make me forget all about the questions that I’ve asked that you can’t answer?

 

Quote

 

Too many examining magistrates and psychologists can really make the soup hot!

 

You poor darling. Victims who can’t take what they dish out are the most victimized of all victims. It's do damned unfair that people treat you almost as poorly as you treat them.

 

Quote

[ NB, I am almost ready to let this thread die a proper death, by giving it over to the inevitable drift and disappearance. Maybe once a year, during Arctic melt season,  I can come back to check if anyone has changed their costumes or learned some new material.]

Yes, please do come back if you learn that new material, especially if it answers my questions. We really don't need any more of your new material that doesn't answer the questions, or doesn't explain why you won't answer the questions.

J

[Jonathan]

I ran through Billy's original version of this thread, and copy and pasted several of the times that I asked my questions:

-----

Um, Billy, don't interpret or spin my words. Read them. Understand them. I'm saying exactly what I mean.

As I wrote:

"I ask to be able to review the science and to evaluate the success or failure of its predictions. Give me all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what is the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record?"

Provide the above, and then also demonstrate that it is reliably repeatable.

---

Um, do you understand why the scientific method needs to be followed? Do you understand the fact that, regardless of how well-informed someone's hypothesis night be, there are always unknowns that might affect the system and the experiment? Each year we hear about new discoveries that scientists had no clue about, and new technologies that are improving our ability to track and model various phenomena which previously had been impossible. And yet there are still many things that we don't know, and many known phenomena that we are nowhere near to being able to isolate as not having significant effects. That's especially true in the realm of climatology.

Show me the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record.

Nothing else is relevant. Pissing and moaning won't change that reality.

---

Yeah, I don't know how to bridge the communication gap here.

I'm not asking to be educated. I'm not asking for you to determine what you'll need to teach me, what holes in my knowledge you need to show me how to fill, what learning disabilities you'll need to detect in me and remedy, etc. I'm not asking you to guide me and nurture me. I'm not in need of anything like this: "Let's see, hmmm, do you know what molecules are? You've heard of those? Okay, well, that's wonderful, and maybe we can move along a little faster in your education than I had anticipated. Energy? Have you ever heard of that? Tell me what you think the term 'energy' means, and that might help me in gauging where I should start in your little education..."

The resolution being debated in the world today is that significant global warming is currently happening, that it is caused primarily, if not completely, by human activities, that it is very dangerous, and perhaps even catastrophic.

I'm not asking to see 'the science' which led people to hypothesize the above.

Here's a colloquial version of the hypothesis as you seem to want me to learn it:

"Scientist X discovered in 1904 that Y causes badness in certain amounts under certain conditions, therefore it logically follows that, since mankind is producing piles of Y, mankind is responsible for the levels of badness that we've adjusted our raw data to report, and The Doom™ is imminent."

Such statements are not the end of science, but the beginning. They are the point where testing happens via a very well-defined, controlled method which conforms to the questions that I've repeatedly asked, and which is open to review and is inviting and welcoming of criticism. I'm asking to see 'the science' which puts the hypothesis to the test, and succeeds reliably and repeatedly. I'm asking for open access to all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what are the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record?

---

On this thread, I've been hoping to move beyond the panic ploys. Please convince me with the science, I request. Here is what I'll need to see, I say. I've looked for it myself, and haven't succeeded. After following the issue for decades, I've also seen past failed predictions disappear, never to be mentioned again, and others become altered mid-experiment. I've seen the press report blatant untruths, and scientists not correct them -- and I've seen brave individual scientists then step forward to correct the record, earning them vitriol from fellow scientists who were silent about the untruths.

Let's cut through all of that and have a grown up conversation. Show me what I ask to see. It's what I need to be convinced. I need to see the science, not a substitute and some tee hee hees. I need to see reliably repeatable successful predictions, including all of the details that I've listed several times here.

I'll wait. I'll continue to laugh at the non-responsive responses, the silent treatment games, the tee hee heeing, and the panic ploys. I'll wait.

---

Cool. It really shouldn't be a difficult thing to figure out. Just answer the questions. Or tell us why you think that the questions are not valid, if that's the case. Do you not like the scientific method? Do you reject it as being silly or old-fashioned or something? If so, explain why, and then identify what you propose to replace it with.

---

Show me the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record.

---

What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae. The game is that we asked for repeatable, so Brad is going to pretend to not understand the context, and give all sorts of examples of repeatable in regard to noncontroversial pieces of the puzzle, while hoping that we didn't notice that he switched to talking about pieces when we were specifically asking for repeatable entire picture.

It's like someone saying that granite floats on air. You ask for proof via repeatable experiments, and douchebag then goes into the repeatable science of the mineralogical composition of granite, and what evidence there is to label it felsic. Do you know what felsic means? Huh, stupid? No? But yet you have your big important opinions about rocks not floating! Science denier!

That, and another tack is bickering about how badly Brad's being treated, and who said what. Boo hoo hoo. Brad has lots of time for all of that, but no time for answering my questions.

That's fanboy/activist stuff, not science.

Science is actually the mindset that the alarmist fanboy/activists ridicule: critical thinking, skepticism, caution, testing, etc. A truly scientific mindset is that of trying as hard as one can to find flaws in any theory. 

I don't get the impression that Brad, Meatball2, or Billy have ever taken that approach. Their mindset seems to be that of confirmation bias, heroically fighting the silly "denier" rubes, tee hee heeing, and high-fiving.

But maybe I'm wrong. I guess Meatball2 is gone, but I'd like to ask Brad and Billy to tell us about their critical examination of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. What are your biggest criticisms? Do you have any? What holes have you found in the theory? What are the biggest weaknesses in whatever theory you have the most confidence? Do you feel that you have to hide them? Show us your critical scientific side rather than just the fanboy side. After all, even the IPCC identifies severe weaknesses. It admits to significant limitations.

Anyway, there's no need for the trick of trying to obscure the forest with leaves. It's really as simple as X amount of CO2 over time period Y should equal temperature Z. Sounding like a broken record: In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record.

---

Great. Let's start with time and falsifiability.

How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along.

What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why?

And let's add just one more question. Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it?

---

And here, again, are the questions that your surrogate/ringer-wannabe, disappearing Brad, couldn't answer:

How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along.

What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why?

And let's add just one more question. Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it?

-----

J

[Jonathan]

This was MSK's octopus post:

Quote

   On 3/5/2019 at 6:51 AM,  Jonathan said: 
They really don't seem to grasp the differences between the concepts "hypothesis," "prediction," and "conclusion."

Jonathan,

It's funny. When you ask for repeatable scientific results re Climate Change, you always get blah blah blah and they never use the term "repeatable results." 

It's like going into a small eatery and saying, "Do you have an ice cream cone?"

And the person says, "Here's some tasty steamed octopus."

You ask, "What about an ice cream cone?"

The person says, "Look at these green beans and mashed potatoes. How big a portion do you want?"

"But I want an ice cream cone."

"Well, you've come to the right place. Our mac and cheese is amazing."

"Don't you have ice cream cones?"

"Only stupid people think we don't have hamburgers."

"You really don't have ice cream cones?"

"True believer idiot. The dinner rolls are right in front of you. God, some people..." He throws a stack of menus in your face--ones that do not list ice cream cones...

And on it goes. It's amazing to watch.

 

[Brant Gaede]

Science? We don't have no science! We don't have to show you no stinkin' science! 

--not me

[Jonathan]

13 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Science? We don't have no science! We don't have to show you no stinkin' science! 

--not me

Actually, when asked for the science, Billy's response is not that "we don't no need stinkin' science," but that I'm denying the science by asking him to present it. My asking seems to make him feel that I'm unwilling to change whatever view he imagines that I hold.

Scroll up and re-read the different ways that I asked my questions, and then repeated them again and again. I didn't copy and paste all of the times that I asked. And we're still getting nowhere.

Are my questions invalid? Are they, tee hee hee, ridiculous? If so, why? Someone explain, please.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Actually, when asked for the science, Billy's response is not that "we don't no need stinkin' science," but that I'm denying the science by asking him to present it. My asking seems to make him feel that I'm unwilling to change whatever view he imagines that I hold.

Jonathan,

I've posted the following video elsewhere and I've commented on it a few times.

I'm doing it again because it perfectly explains why the manmade climate change doomsayers will not provide cases of repeatable science in answer to your request.

The way these people view science is as a religion, not as a procedure to attain repeatable results in order to validate knowledge.

Adam Skelter (the video dude) defines religion as a survival strategy. He goes into the nature of beliefs and faith. (He uses different words to describe what I have often called a "core story.") And the way he describes it all fits the manmade climate change doomsayers to a tee.

There are beliefs that are sacred to the faithful--beliefs that are life-preserving, ones with survival value. These are, to use a Randian form of saying it, the not to be questioned. The self-evident. The given. One does not ask for proof of these beliefs because there is no proof. These beliefs--to the the faithful--are the standard of proof.

That holds even when one of those beliefs is the superiority of their particular tribe.

An example is the guy I banned (the one you call a meatball  ). When he went back into the Twitter ether, his immediate comment over there was not lamenting that he was excluded from an interesting discussion or wondering if he was disrespectful or whatever. Instead, he said he drew first blood.

In other words, just belonging to a tribe he considered superior was--to him--proof of his absolutely certain knowledge about the truthy truths of manmade global warming. So the important part to him was not to show the science according to scientific standards of observations and measurements followed by experiments and repeatable results. That standard had been replaced by membership in an insider tribe. The important part was to come here (at the request of William) and do battle with the ignorant unwashed in some kind of imaginary contest, then declare victory regardless of what happened, what knowledge was conveyed, or who learned what.

To counterbalance the sacred beliefs, the faithful also hold profane beliefs. These are the opposite of the sacred. The profane beliefs are ones that threaten survival. They also do not need proof since they are so dangerous to the faithful, there is no time for proof.

I could go on, but if you find the time to watch this video, you will see that even though it does not mention manmade climate change, it portrays the proponents perfectly. It becomes easy to understand why these proponents always serve up tasty steamed octopus when asked for an ice cream cone.

Just asking for repeatable results is a profane belief to the manmade climate change faithful--a form of a Satanic exercise so to speak. One does not prove Satan and one does not prove anything about what Satan does. One fights him and the stakes couldn't be higher. The very survival of the planet is at risk and the clock is ticking, goddamit. The followers of Satan will be the death of us all--they dither as the apocalypse approaches. The call to nobility and justice is this. Satan's followers--those who ask questions about the validity of manmade climate change--need to be defeated, not convinced. There is no time to convince them. Besides, who wants to waste time convincing evil wedded to stupid?

The best one can do is warn others by drip-feeding copy-pastes.

 

That's what I have seen so far (along with some pretty pictures.  )

No amount of reason will ever pop these dudes out of their faith long enough for them to ask, "You know... Come to think of it, where are some repeatable results that show human activity altering the climate?"

Fighting Satan is far more exciting.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Thanks MSK. That does indeed resemble the mindset that I run into when I ask to see the science.

J

[Jonathan]

Billy asked about Tyndall because he seems to have thought that we're all science deniers, and therefore would deny Tyndall's work? Perhaps I'm wrong, but that seems to have been Billy's thought process.

Well, I've answered the test.

And I had also posted my own little test. Billy didn't address it. Here it is again:

 

So, below I offer my first 'finding' for our platform on the foundation on the boulevard of agreement.

I've posted this previously here on OL, back when it first came out.

Billy, you had asked if there is an agreed-upon set of 'findings,' even for people who may disagree mightily on entailments. Do you agree that the article below offers an argument that is devastating to the falsehood that it refutes? Do you agree that the article is correct that the method used to arrive at the 97% conclusion is fatally flawed?

 

Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming Claim

 

BY TYLER O'NEIL JULY 10, 2019

CHAT 302 COMMENTS

(Shutterstock)

On Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent NASA a formal complaint, asking the agency to withdraw the false claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming and climate change. The 2013 study purporting to demonstrate that number was fatally flawed and proved no such thing.

"The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false," CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. "That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public."

According to the CEI complaint, NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?"

The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013.

The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains. The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms "global warming" or "global climate change." The study placed the papers into seven categories: explicit endorsement with quantification, saying humans are responsible for 50+ percent of climate change; explicit endorsement without quantification; implicit endorsement; no position or uncertain; implicit rejection; explicit rejection with qualification; and explicit rejection without qualification.

The study found: 64 papers had explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification (attributing at least half of climate change to humans); 922 papers had explicitly endorsed AGW without quantifying how much humans contribute; 2,910 papers had implicitly endorsed AGW; 7,930 papers did not state a position and 40 papers were uncertain; 54 papers implicitly rejected AGW by affirming the possibility that natural causes explain climate change; 15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without qualification; and 9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification, saying human contributions to global warming are negligible.

So how did Cook and his team come up with the 97 percent number? They added up the first three categories (3,896 papers), compared them to the last three categories (78 papers) and the papers expressing uncertainty (40 papers), and completely ignored the nearly 8,000 papers that did not state a position.

Of the papers Cook's team characterized as stating a position, 97 percent (3,896 of the 4,014 papers) favored the idea of man-made global warming.

See the problem? The study completely discounted the majority of the papers it analyzed (66.4 percent — 7,930 of the 11,944 papers analyzed). With those papers included, only 32.6 percent of the papers explicitly or implicitly endorsed AGW (3,896 of 11,944 papers).

But it gets worse. Many of the scientists who wrote the original papers Cooks' team analyzed complained that this study mischaracterized their research.

The survey "included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral," complained Dr. Richard Tol, professor of the economics of climate change at Vrije Universiteit.

He argued that of the 112 omitted papers, only 1 strongly endorses man-made global warming.

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper," wrote geography Ph.D. Craig Idso. "Nope ... it is not an accurate representation," Nir Shaviv, associate professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote.

Ph.D. physicist Nicola Scafetta complained that "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AAGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission."

Cook's team categorized his paper as one that "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%." Scafetta countered, "What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."

Even including Scafetta's incorrectly categorized study, Cook's team only found 64 papers that explicitly endorsed man-made global warming and attributed more than 50 percent of it to human activity. That represents a minuscule 0.5 percent of the 11,944 papers. Even excluding the 66.4 percent of the papers that did not take a position, the 50 percent plus approach only accounts for 1.6 percent of all papers in the Cook study.

The study — and the 97 percent figure that depends on it — is fatally flawed, and NASA has 120 days to respond to the CEI complaint. It is far past time people reject this false claim.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jonathan asked William in the opening post:

"Do you understand that Tyndall’s work does not answer my questions?"

I'd like to draw attention to that particular question because I think that the answer is "No."  

William does not understand that Tyndall - plus Fourier plus Arrhenius - plus the fact that humans produce "greenhouse" gas emissions - is very far from sufficient to demonstrate AGW.

Arctic sea ice is melting.  See!!!  Ergo. QED.

What's all the fuss Jonathan makes but denying the obvious?

I think that that's William's genuine degree of dumb at reasoning on the subject.  It isn't, with him, religionism.  It's scientific stupidity.

Recall his asking, bemused, on May 6 (link below), "So, Sea Ice FRAUD?"

To William's way of thinking, either humans are causing the Arctic melting or it's a fake.

And somehow Weart clinches all this.  I mean, if you haven't read Weart, you just aren't up to scratch as a discussant, in William's view.

Ellen

https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/blogs/entry/660-placeholder-for-gwcc-how-i-got-here-thread/page/20/?tab=comments#comment-2782&ct=1566587819

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

What's all the fuss Jonathan makes but denying the obvious?

I think that that's William's genuine degree of dumb at reasoning on the subject.  It isn't, with him, religionism.  It's scientific stupidity.

Ellen,

Give the video a shot. I know it's a half-hour, but give it a shot.

Using Skelter's way of explaining the epistemology of belief, you might, like Jonathan, see that he's on to something that is relevant to the climate change mess.

Religionism is not either-or in this. It's causal. Religionism causes the denying the obvious and the scientific stupidity. The human mind literally gives more weight to its survival strategy (belief) than it does to reason--and it does so with absolute certainty.

(Note that it works that way with traditional religions. The pattern is identical in all cases.)

I consider William highly intelligent, not stupid. So I get curious about why highly intelligent people believe dumb things to the point of denying the obvious and serving up rationalizations as they wander about in self-congratulations mode with clear display of virtue signals to their tribe.

A believer will not change his mind because of contradictions, proof, etc. That's the error people who try to convince them consistently make. The try to convince with reasoned arguments while ignoring the believer's beliefs (or in some cases, validating those beliefs by using the same jargon).

A believer will only change his mind when he concludes that a sacred belief is no longer sacred and it's profane counterpart is no longer profane. If that certainty cracks, he will sheepishly start looking at what he's been blanking out all along and wonder what got into him.

A very easy-to-see example is what happens to people--highly intelligent and productive people--who come out of Scientology. There are books, TV shows, online videos, etc. galore, all telling this same story, which is why I mention it. Their intelligence didn't go anywhere when they were believers, nor was it hidden. Their certainty about specific beliefs had nothing to do with intelligence or stupidity. Once that certainty got destroyed, the sheepishness came out and they, without exception among those I have seen, developed an enormous hunger to use their intelligence on what they missed, maybe figure out why they were so blind before.

In what I've seen, this climate change thing is identical. It's good to fight for logic, reason, etc., within this issue, but reason will not prevail so long as the believers are well-funded and massive political power is an attainable prize for their tribe. The only way to convince them to let reason prevail about climate science is to lead them to conclude (as opposed to tell them or lecture them) that their beliefs are not the standard of reason. 

That entails a specific skill set that I don't see much in the climate debates. Frankly, I'm trying to figure out how and what to do, myself.

Ayn Rand did it beautifully in presenting capitalism as a virtue instead of an evil with Atlas Shrugged. Many, many people who grew up hearing about the evils of capitalism do not, today, hold hatred for it because of that book. The word "capitalism" is not profane to them as the people who taught them hatred would have them believe. Rand destroyed that indoctrination for most people. Thus they are free to use their own reason when the issue comes up, which they do (with varying results).

She did not achieve that by arguing about statistics. She made a set of other beliefs, ones more aligned with reality, attractive to parts of the human brain that do not grok reason. And she did it in a way each person could use his or her independent reason to think those beliefs through rather than follow the dictates of a tribe.

That, to me, is the path for fighting manmade climate change and winning. (Oddly enough, I think President Trump is partially doing that without even realizing how he's doing it. He's provided a vision of good people, fairness in transactions, and pride in country, as a core set of beliefs instead of the virtue of technocratic elites homogeneously ruling one world and taking care of their inferiors, meaning most of humanity).

So, if you get the time, give the video a shot. Even if you don't agree with everything in it, it certainly comes up with big important relevant questions that nobody is asking. Those questions, to me, are at the root of why William can be so smart and dumb at the same time in discussing manmade climate change.

Michael

[Jonathan]

It could be some of both. At various points, I've gotten the vibe that Billy wasn't grasping what I was asking, and then I would try to put it into different words in order ro try to communicate more clearly, but at other points, I got the vibe that he grasped what I was asking but wanted to bury it, or "blank it out," as Auntie Ayn used to say.

This is a old post where I was trying very hard to communicate to Billy during a point where I was getting the vibe that he wasn't grasping what I was asking, but might be open to trying to grasp it:

Quote

The resolution being debated in the world today is that significant global warming is currently happening, that it is caused primarily, if not completely, by human activities, that it is very dangerous, and perhaps even catastrophic.

I'm not asking to see 'the science' which led people to hypothesize the above.

Here's a colloquial version of the hypothesis as you seem to want me to learn it:

"Scientist X discovered in 1904 that Y causes badness in certain amounts under certain conditions, therefore it logically follows that, since mankind is producing piles of Y, mankind is responsible for the levels of badness that we've adjusted our raw data to report, and The Doom™ is imminent."

Such statements are not the end of science, but the beginning. They are the point where testing happens via a very well-defined, controlled method which conforms to the questions that I've repeatedly asked, and which is open to review and is inviting and welcoming of criticism. I'm asking to see 'the science' which puts the hypothesis to the test, and succeeds reliably and repeatedly. I'm asking for open access to all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what are the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record?

Billy did not seem to understand the difference between hypothesis and conclusion. He reads of Tyndall's conclusions which have played a part in leading people to the hypothesis that man's activities may be causing global warming, and he seems to think that that's the end of it, rather than the beginning. He sees it as a conclusion that logically follows or extends from Tyndall's experiments, when it is actually an entirely separate hypothesis with many more variables, considerations, complications, etc., and which requires its own experimentation/testing, repeatability, etc.

Maybe another hypothetical might help to illustrate:

 Let's play with some fictional metals and an alloy so that we don't get bogged down by someone stupidly arguing that real individual metals or alloys don't have the exact characteristics that I've claimed.

Let's go with Schase, Creeg, and Farnah.

Schase is a metal which has a hardness of 50 on the Jonathan's Fictional Scale, a strength of 70, and a mailability of 10. Creeg is a metal which has a hardness of 30, a strength of 20, and a maliability of 65. These properties have been known for a long time. Barton Twidgeley first scientifically tested the metals' properties back in 1723 and published his results. His experiments have been independently repeated and confirmed thousands of times since.

Billy creates an alloy of the two metals, and calls it Farnah. He announces that, based on the known science of the two metals, we can therefore conclude with certainty that Farnah MUST have a hardness of 80 (because Schase's hardness of 50 plus Creeg's hardness of 30 equals 80), a strength of 90, and a maliability of 75.

We reply that, um, no, we don't know that for certain, we would have to actually test Farnah's properties in order to confirm Billy's hypothesis of its hardness, strength, and maliability. Billy snarls that we should study Twidgeley's work. He asks where we stand on it. Are we rejecting Twidgeley's science, and all of the verifications that have followed, and calling it all fraudulent?

 

Presented with this mindset, it's a tough call on whether it's religiousness, scientific stupidity, or both.

J 

[Ellen Stuttle]

On August 23, 2019 at 9:51 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Religionism is not either-or in this. It's causal. Religionism causes the denying the obvious and the scientific stupidity. The human mind literally gives more weight to its survival strategy (belief) than it does to reason--and it does so with absolute certainty.

Michael,

Please note that the phrase "denying the obvious" in the post of mine which you quoted pertained to what I take to be William's view of Jonathan.

Regarding religionism and scientific stupidity:

It's possible to be both a religionist of one variety or another and scientifically stupid.  It's also possible to be both a religionist of one variety or another and scientifically smart, including at the genius level.  Look at Newton.  The other two combinations are also possible.

The variety of religionism I was thinking of in this context is environmentalism.  My impression is that a high percentage of environmentalist religionists are blithering idiots scientifically.

As to William in particular, I haven't gotten the sense that he's into environmentalism as such.  Instead, I think that what he's concerned about is thawing of the permafrost.  This might be a realistic worry, but not because of human agency, because of some natural processes going on with the Arctic, the nature and causes of which aren't clear.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Billy did not seem to understand the difference between hypothesis and conclusion. He reads of Tyndall's conclusions which have played a part in leading people to the hypothesis that man's activities may be causing global warming, and he seems to think that that's the end of it, rather than the beginning. He sees it as a conclusion that logically follows or extends from Tyndall's experiments, when it is actually an entirely separate hypothesis with many more variables, considerations, complications, etc., and which requires its own experimentation/testing, repeatability, etc.

That's the way William strikes me - as not understanding how long a way it is from Tyndall to the "ergo" and how many complications lie between.

My impression has been that he just doesn't understand what you're asking for.

Something impossible for anyone to provide, btw, as I suppose you well know.  There aren't successful repeatable experiments to be had.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

16 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Presented with this mindset, it's a tough call on whether it's religiousness, scientific stupidity, or both.

Jonathan,

For me, I say it's entirely possible scientific stupidity is part of the mix, but definitely religiousness is.

 

So let's look at scientific stupidity.

As I've posted a lot over the years, I've begun to notice how other people post. I've noticed a pattern in William's posting habits when he copy/pastes.

He is prone to dumping a lot of copy/paste content (with pretty pictures  ) and then makes long (or short) comments in between the items. But when you look at the comments and think about them, they are almost never about explaining what's in the copy/pastes. Anything relating to what's in them is merely brought up to be used as a barb against someone. 

When he addresses actual substance, his comments tend to be boilerplate liberal/progressive talking points goosed up with a colorful style. But he mostly deals with his opinion of the shortcomings of others (also goosed up with a colorful style). That's where I detect the most enthusiasm from him.

It's like he, William, is not present when ideas and facts are discussed--only others are through his efforts. And he has been quite prolific in presenting stuff about and from others.

To use a football metaphor, he's not on the playing field. He's more like a cheerleader or mascot, but with a trickster style. In other words, he does't just want to inspire his side with cheerleading, he wants to sabotage the other side with distractions. But you will not find him running with the football against a defense. So don't look for William on the playing field unless it's during the halftime show. You simply won't find him.

To give a comparison, you will never find him presenting a real case like, say, Tony does (like in the Aristotle wheel thread). One can agree or disagree with Tony, but one cannot accuse him of staying on the sidelines. He gets in the middle of it, faces an argument squarely, and does his best according to what he believes. And, until and unless he is convinced otherwise, he keeps on going. I have total respect for this. 

I notice this stuff because when I want to present a link, unless I'm bantering, I feel guilty as a writer if I don't say something substantive about what's in it. That's why you will find me at times saying I don't have time to say anything. It's to scratch the guilt and try to be honest with readers--to let them know I found the link relevant and interesting and want to share it, but, discussion-wise, I'm half-assing it. When the ideas are important, I want to be read for my own thoughts. And when I do present my own thoughts, that's always a lot of work. Which, I admit, makes half-assing it mighty tempting.  

Getting back to William, does his pattern indicate scientific stupidity? I say "maybe" because I have not been able to detect what he actually knows except he seems to have read a lot, or at least can copy/paste from many different sources. He can namedrop. And he identifies with a side well enough to present its talking points. But knowing what he really knows science-wise is tough if his posts are all one goes by.

Does this lack of handling substance first-hand indicate stupidity about the substance? To me it's a toss-up. Avoiding talking about substance while replacing it with stuff that looks like he knows the substance, could be seen as faking it until you make it. That would indicate stupidity and ignorance. And I can see this possibility clearly.

But if a person is not interested in discussing the substance with an inferior species because they are oh so stupid and he will waste a lot of time and effort to explain the oh so obvious to the oh so clueless, to use one possible frame, he will use this sub-species for entertainment and play games because it gives him a hit of dopamine and serotonin. I see a strong possibility of that being true, also. In that case, he might not be scientifically stupid, but merely playing games like one plays fetch with a dog.

 

Now religiosity.

The pattern of posting I described above most definitely indicates faith in certain sacred beliefs--starting with the belief of the superiority of the tribes William identifies with. And faith-based beliefs merely need to be presented by a believer for him to feel he has made his case. They are never proven or analyzed. In fact, if one tries to discuss proof or analysis of a sacred belief (like showing proof of how a preeminent member of his tribe has hopelessly botched something or outright cheated), this is often seen by the believer as insulting or batshit crazy. This goes for topic-related sacred beliefs, also.

For believers who don't like direct confrontations, mockery works well as a response. But never substance. In fact, substantive discussions by them about their sacred beliefs--other than statements that, at root, need to be accepted on faith to be considered valid--will never be present.

Does that sound like William? Based on what I've seen, it does to me.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

It's possible to be both a religionist of one variety or another and scientifically stupid.  It's also possible to be both a religionist of one variety or another and scientifically smart, including at the genius level.  Look at Newton.  The other two combinations are also possible.

Ellen,

You're talking to the converted.

This point is also quite clear in the video.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

You're talking to the converted.

This point is also quite clear in the video.

Michael

The converted to what?  What's the accusation this time?

I'm not planning to watch the video.  I don't watch or listen to videos except in special cases which I think are important for me to see and/or hear, and you haven't said anything about Skelter's views which make them sound to me like anything novel let alone earth-shattering.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The converted to what?  What's the accusation this time?

Ellen,

I honestly have no idea what you mean.

I was referring to your words that I quoted and saying I agreed with you.

Michael

[Jonathan]

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

Does that sound like William? Based on what I've seen, it does to me.

Michael

Yeah, I see behavior that suggests scientific stupidity as well as religiousness. The stubbornness, the refusal to answer questions and to address specific points, while lecturing everyone about civil discussion and not Othering the Others, smacks of close-minded religion. 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I'm not planning to watch the video.  I don't watch or listen to videos except in special cases which I think are important for me to see and/or hear, and you haven't said anything about Skelter's views which make them sound to me like anything novel let alone earth-shattering.

Ellen,

I am aware you haven't watched the video from the way you write. That's why I kept suggesting it.

Skelter's views actually are rather novel. We will have to see about earth-shattering, but, for as disappointing as it may be to some people  , I don't think that was his intent. I see it as presenting extreme and simple clarity for a more rational frame than what people use when they normally discuss religion.

His way of constructing a conceptual chain reminds me a lot of how Rand did it. Except he relies a lot more on evolution than Rand did. One might call his approach evolutionary epistemology.

No biggie, though.

If you're not interested, you're not interested.

That's your right and privilege.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

On August 23, 2019 at 9:51 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In what I've seen, this climate change thing is identical [to Scientology dynamics you described].  It's good to fight for logic, reason, etc., within this issue, but reason will not prevail so long as the believers are well-funded and massive political power is an attainable prize for their tribe. The only way to convince them to let reason prevail about climate science is to lead them to conclude (as opposed to tell them or lecture them) that their beliefs are not the standard of reason. 

That entails a specific skill set that I don't see much in the climate debates. Frankly, I'm trying to figure out how and what to do, myself.

Michael,

I want to back up and address those two paragraphs, since they might indicate that you mistakenly believe that I have a desire to convince environmentalist "true believer" types that humans aren't causing impending climate doom.  I have no such desire.

I think that the fastest and most effective way to put the skids under those types would be to pull the plug on US financial support.

Slash NSF funding for meteorology to pre-scare levels.  Withdraw US support for the IPCC.  Stop subsidizing solar and wind.

No money, no political power - the environmentalist religionists would find something else besides "climate change" to feel superior about.

There are other countries which are heavily committed to climate alarm.  (Unfortunately, Germany and Austria are among them.)  But the other countries couldn't carry the burden without US support - and there is already increasing rebelliousness among a population which is having trouble with energy costs.  I think that support for the scare in other countries would wither if the US just said no to helping with the costs.

In short, my desire re environmentalist religionists isn't to convince them.  It's to deprive them of money and clout.

I have no desire to convince William either.  What for?  He isn't in a position to affect government policy.

I was simply saying in regard to William that I think that the problem source with him is scientific stupidity.  He believes, but because he's a dupe who thinks that science supports alarm.

You refer (further up in the post of yours I quoted from) to the "pretty pictures" William posts.

I hope that you were being facetious with the "pretty pictures" description and that you realize that what William is saying, in effect, with those images is:  Look how hot the Arctic is getting!  What else do you need to be convinced?

However, what this message indicates to me is scientific stupidity.

The distribution and trends of anomalies listed under the images don't support the thesis of "greenhouse" (properly, re-radiative) gases as major causative driver.  William shows no signs I've seen of understanding the lack of mesh. 

Another prime example which I take as displaying scientific stupidity is William's bringing Brad aboard with no apparent awareness of how easy Brad would be to see through for those who really know the stuff.  Instead, William appears to have thought that Brad would do in Jonathan's peskiness.

I don't disagree with you that William sees himself as belonging to a superior tribe.  Nor do I disagree that reasoning doesn't reach identity-providing belief systems.  It's just that on the particular issue of climate change, I'm not seeing signs that William is using environmentalism as a tribal identifier.  I think that he doesn't have the scientific ability to understand the complexities of climate science and he's genuinely duped by clever maneuverers.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

On August 25, 2019 at 2:39 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

I honestly have no idea what you mean.

I was referring to your words that I quoted and saying I agreed with you.

Michael

I'm confused.  You'd said that religionism causes scientific stupidity.  I countered by saying, paraphrasing, that although it can go along with scientific stupidity, there are cases, including major ones, where it doesn't (and also cases of non-religionism going along with scientific stupidity) .

But no bigee.  Something got lost in translation.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Religionism doesn't cause anything. People cause. 

--Brant

old stuff

[Brant Gaede]

Newton was so smart he could afford his dumbness.

--Brant

when you're real smart you're dumb for there are so many things leftover to be dumb about

like God

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

... you mistakenly believe that I have a desire to convince environmentalist "true believer" types that humans aren't causing impending climate doom.  I have no such desire.

Ellen,

I don't believe that about you. (On the contrary.  )

That's not my way of thinking. And, like you, I have no such desire either.

I left my inner missionary years ago somewhere on a jungle path in Brazil...  

My way of thinking is to identify correctly before judging. So I am probing ideas to figure out what makes these people tick (and all people for that matter). It's the attempt to correctly identify human nature while suspending judgment at the time. 

When I get to the evaluation phase (the cognitive before normative thing), I'm not interested in convincing them, the already convinced elitists and activists. (Once again and by extension, I don't believe you are either.) I am interested in defusing their influence on large swaths of people who haven't thought this through.

In other words, I am interested in getting to people before the doomsday propaganda about this climate change ideology/religion congeals into cement in their hearts and minds--at which point their respective beliefs become beyond the reach of reason.

You want to deprive the manmade climate change elitists of money and power. I agree. But you will not achieve that so long as they have enough people among the broad population convinced they are right, or that they might be right. The easiest and most permanent way to take money and power from an elitist clique is to get the majority of people aware of the situation and threat in terms they can understand.

This is not to convince them. Most ordinary productive people already use common sense so they don't need convincing. But it is to make them aware that what they already think is important to say out loud even when it seems "duh" level obvious, and aware that they have been duped (and the attempt is ongoing), and further, aware if how inconsequential these elitists are in adding any value to their lives.

That's exactly what President Trump did. He didn't just dismiss elitists as stupid. He first bonded with the people at large, bonded with their positive and productive values, and then he dismissed the elitists as stupid. There is a world of difference between the two. That's why Trump pulled it off whereas others are never able to.

But look at how the elitists are still fighting President Trump's changes, which means, even after being trounced, they still mean business. These people are not weak opponents if your goal is to remove their money and power. They go down fighting and they are as vicious as all hell.

That's the way the world works these days--there has to be a sanction, even if only a tacit sanction, by the population at large for a person or persons to gain and/or conserve their power. (Money is trickier.) The old times of a king or queen declaring, "Off with their heads!" doesn't work anymore. Storming a castle and conquering by force is really hard to pull off these days. I agree that there has to be a top down assault from the ivory towers, but if you don't have the ordinary people with you, your efforts are doomed right from the outset. The only way to get the people with you is to speak to them in a form they understand.

The simple fact is, if you can't get people to listen, they will not hear what you have to say. 

So why not, at least, learn something about how to talk to ordinary people persuasively? That is my focus.

11 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I think that the fastest and most effective way to put the skids under those types would be to pull the plug on US financial support.

Slash NSF funding for meteorology to pre-scare levels.  Withdraw US support for the IPCC.  Stop subsidizing solar and wind.

No money, no political power - the environmentalist religionists would find something else besides "climate change" to feel superior about.

I agree with this, but my point is: how do you think that could come about? A decree from Trump and then it's done?

That's not the way it works.

This is a long and nasty fight and the elitists have lots of behavioral scientists and propagandists on their team, so they know how to talk to ordinary people persuasively. They don't keep it up consistently because, bless their little hearts, they are too snooty to do so. They get distracted with their own awesomeness--it overwhelms them.  And they always get to a point where they believe they are done, that they've corralled the human livestock so to speak for good, so they start exposing themselves for the power-grubbing authoritarians they really are.

Once that happens, they begin to learn all over again that their own money and power depend on the sanction of the population. So they lose some power and go back to basics and do it all over again. That's what has to be fought.

As to William, I talk about him because I like to gossip.

 

But just as Wynand underestimated Toohey, I believe you underestimate William. He doesn't know fully how to persuade, but he's trying out different things on OL folks all the time and he's learning. (Bless his little heart, he has his own vanity, so he fucks up a lot.  )

btw - Re pretty pictures, you see them from a perspective far, far removed from my perspective (at least as far as William is concerned). Not that you are wrong, I don't believe you are. But in terms of persuading ordinary folks, your technical perspective is irrelevant. 

In other words, my repeated comment about the pretty pictures is a form of dismissal of their importance from the perspective of an ordinary person. Those pictures are not persuasive to folks at large, not persuasive in the slightest for the climatisionist agenda. Generally, pictures enhance the persuasiveness of a message, but in this case, most people don't look at them longer than to register that they are pretty pictures and think... hmmmm... I guess this means something. And then they move on. A picture of the globe with stats is simply not relevant to most people. From their perspective, it doesn't connect with anything in their daily lives except media BS. (But it is pretty.  )

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is for the reader.

Later, when I start making videos, I will extract segments of videos I like and comment on them within a video of my own.

For now, though, I have to refer to the entire thing. That's the case with this video by Lionel.

The part about McCabe is the least interesting thing in this video.

The interesting part is where Lionel discussed how many people in the conspiracy theory world have had a "red pill" moment. He did a brilliant job of it, too. The way he described it, the experience sounds like a certain kind of religious conversion, a flash of insight where you were one person one moment, then fundamentally changed in a critical way the next. The Christians call it "born again."

I am very interested in this experience. I had one with Atlas Shrugged in my first year of college. That was the first time I had read anything by Rand. I read the entire book in a blinding state of focus and intense relief for two days (not quite two, but more than one). I didn't have time to think about the words for most of it. I merely saw the images in my mind. I wasn't the same after. Also, the images were borne out to be accurate when I later read the book again a few times.

(Apropos, this mental zone of not having time for words, but instead seeing images sometimes happens to me when I read fiction. These days, though, since I have discussed so many nuances of different issues by writing online, I mostly get there when I listen to an audiobook. Reading and getting there is more difficult these days. I still do it sporadically. But listening to an audiobook gets me there much, much easier when the story is good.)

Getting back to the intense blinding transcendent moment, this is what happens with a lot of conspiracy folks and, I believe, this is one of the glues that encase sacred beliefs within the "beyond reason" area of their minds (in the manner given in Adam Skelter's video earlier in this thread). Also, this experience is definitely the main way a person lets go of sacred beliefs. It's the only thing I can think of that consistently smashed the barrier around sacred beliefs. One thing is for sure and once you see it, you can't unsee it. It's hellishly hard to let go of absolute certainty, the "not to be questioned" belief, without a transcendent moment.

Does this kind of transcendent experience make the person consistent? No. After this experience, the person has a hell of a lot of learning to do and generally makes a hell of a lot of mistakes. I know I did. It's hard to rebuild an entire moral world-view from a base (even a solid base)--or suddenly be able to use one's reason in a different manner than before--and live by it. And once it seems some progress is being made, more hard gets piled on top of that, and it's exponential. A lifetime of mental habits has to be thrown out and a new code internalized. This is why Lionel--and I--are so tolerant of certain conspiracy theory people and so harsh with others. One has been red-pilled and sometimes sounds wacky, but he or she is finding their way. The other kind is merely faking it for notoriety to gain some kind of advantage.

Here's a great example. In racial politics, Candace Owens had such an experience when she got crucified for not jumping on the feminist bandwagon. But she took it to race and she has been sharing it to one black person after another. Not to activists like Al Sharpton, etc., mind you. She has been leading people to have this transcendent experience who were simply living their lives and following the cultural trend around them. That trend is what they grew up with. That's what others around them did. So that's what they did. Suddenly they ran smack dab into the brick wall of Candace, she took their blinders off and showed them a vision that deeply resonated with their own inner experiences and observations that had been forced to remain underground in their minds. She allowed them to validate their own hidden thinking, to accept the evidence of their own eyes, and they become transformed. These are the ordinary people, not the leaders.

This experience (manipulated, of course) is how manmade climate change was sold to the masses. (Remember Gore's video and "muh polar bears"?  That was a great vehicle to lead people to a feeling of transcendence. There were many, but that's beyond the scope here.) Only such a transcendent experience--on a widespread scale--is how the whole charade can be undone.

In my opinion, President Trump's open disbelief of the climatisionist agenda has been more important to undoing the charade than any individual policy action he has taken as President. A stand by a charismatic president is just as powerful as an Oscar-winning movie. By the time he finally buries that particular coffin with policy, there will be ton-loads of red-pilled people in the general population with him. This will help it stay buried and any vampires or zombies that arise at the witching hour from the grave will be shooed away like flies.

Who knows? Maybe after that, real and objective climate science can enter the mainstream if needed. Otherwise, it can stay among the specialists where, in my opinion, it belongs.

Michael