Look! Global Warming’s Beautiful Hot Sky!
Does a record cold day in Chicago prove or disprove Global Warming? It may do neither, but one would not know by reading “Science” on WordPress. (my blog host) Like taking a poll; the results are not necessarily proof of anything other than opinion. Opinion’s only proof is of itself.
It’s cold in my yard today! I’m sure those global warming followers will blame the globe heating up for it.
It’s hot at my house now, outside that is, I’m sure those global warming people will blame the globe heating up for it. They’d blame me for it if I had the heat on!
I’m going to open the fridge to cool the house now.
Now enter the actual snicker part; where I allege specific weather events are, or are not caused by global warming, and pretend I have proved something.
This pseudo scientific “debunking” known as the global warming debate, has become the biggest shell game winning strategy played upon a population, that might have already sealed the earth’s and our fate.
The long range nature of much atmospheric molecular change takes on a very long arc or consequence. The earth will survive, Life will survive, but civilization as we know it, is on the chopping block. It isn’t just climate, other large-scale environmental influence is underway. Here is just one example of them. Did you know the magnitude of ocean bottom net dredging going on? It is hard to conceive; the size of two USAs a year are said to be trolled up to gather everything valuable. The bottom left a mud stirred wasteland. Don’t let environmentalist or scientist let you know that this will have consequence? If so, do we ever have issues of the soul. And yet there seems to be a big industry in denial of truth for faith in opportunistic lifestyle, and the lust for bigger profit at earth’s expense. Spare no expense.
The ice core evidence (worldwide melting mountain glaciers) has revealed what atmospheric molecular scientist expect must happen; both hemispheres are experiencing apparently unprecedented warming simultaneously. Doesn’t matter if there is a record cold snap somewhere, or even if a glacier or icepack somewhere begins to grow. Overall, record highs are beating record lows by 2 to 1 for some time now. It is overwhelmingly clear that humankind is creating climate change on a vast scale. So where does this debate haze come in? Is the question.
Counter intuitive notions, such as in “Nuclear Winter”, where cold may follow global warming as an aspect of its imbalance, are often used as snicker worthy contrapuntal evidence of global warnings lack of solid foundation. For is not warming, warming? A lot of snickering from assumptions such as this, proliferates like carbon dioxide onto blogs, as emotional slanted “proof” of global warming’s not qualified for prime time followers. You can’t have it both ways!
Maybe not in imaginary land criterion for truthful consistency, but in earth reality? Block out enough sun, and not possessing the right elements in the atmosphere to make up for the lack of heat gain, and low and behold; global warming, by many a means, can countervail human ideas of consistency. Opposite effects do not necessarily prove inconsistency in complex system dynamics such as earths atmosphere.
You will notice the climate science debunkers picking away at observed facts, by how we think about them, or are led to think they are not as presented by science, because they seem inconsistent when framed opposite out of context. The easy way to do this is to charge one fact at a time with uncertainty, (They claim it is warming then blame record cold on it too!) until the illusion is created that they all are now suspect. No one said anyone is not clever here, nor that powerful interest make a killing off of manipulating the planetary commons, and so need damn the messengers in democracy.
The questioning of global warming is effectively spurious; to use ignorance against populations, that their lifestyles not adapt to consequences, but instead pretend to be fine. Thus you can keep buying my polluting stuff and blame “bad science” for inciting environmentalist wackos to jump to unreasonable conclusion. The argument becomes a political quality of character assumption. Denial of scientific fact in context of theory, is now big industry for societal and environmental exploiters.
The so called Christian right, in some circles, also is conducting a war on real science, by entering their own ad-hominem pseudo science to logically explain observational associations. I received info from someone in my family that claims Charles Darwin was not a real scientist, and have long been aware of this belief framing of information seemingly presented to poison science in the minds of so called “true believers”. I put that in this argument, for there seems to me to be quite a symbiosis of faith based anti-science going on in the name of science, and, or the Creator. (Who by inference, created that which is true of science and religion) Much conservatism of the political activist kind, is self obsessed; warmed by its own internal contradiction. Rationalization is the logical way out of traps truth has set on ideology and opinion.
The internal argument is externalized to assuage cognitive dissonance from wreaking emotional havoc. Targets of projection are sought out; liberal medias and scientific inquiry are good stand-ins for the “source” of perceived problems; for conservatism claims to be of answer and not of problem. Thus the problem becomes not being true and pure to conservatism enough. Circular reasoning loop closed and conserved. (This is my opinion in case you were wondering.)
The real misleading going on is in the nature of fact itself; whether evidence and theory are truth, proof, ideas, or outright misleading or ignorance driven. Some of the scientific and policy interest community have jumped on situational “proofs” by alleging things such as a bad hurricane, are caused by global warming. They may not mean that they are staking their reputation in objectivity on this particular hurricane being “caused” by global warming, but suggesting it is a kind of phenomenon that should become more likely, but this is not how the thrill seeking press, and even some of these scientist put it. It seems to be presented that; ‘This flood is likely caused by global warming’. The ensuing apparent contradiction of scientific objectivity over situational cause can be, and so is, used to indite the character of scientist as being not good. And being called a scientist does not mean your character is conventionally “good”.
And so the fake argument goes on, as on blogs like this on WordPress. I went to one I usually avoid that is on Worpresse’s “Hot Community Post” board. Why do I avoid it? Its scientific-like interest seem pollution industry self validating, or ideologically led fact finding, for it seems obsessed with issues that would lead uninformed observers to believe there actually is an argument over global warming that is truly fact based. The argument is over faith and inclination, and not rightly the scientific method itself, nor the theory on Global Warming, that is by magnitude of orders superior in objective respects to those “Global Warming Advocates” debunkers. However, this particular post may be caused, in certain respects, by global warming! But is not proof of it.
We are witnessing a time* where manipulative interest, as they always have, are using issues in the public media commons to convince us of things from their own point of view. We may all do this in any of our communication; be attempting to convince another of something, but the use of populations to steer behavior to favor manipulative interest has the delusional potential to promote the power of ignorance to mislead minds, where it may well be minds which are deciding the fate of a planet.
If I can render you fundamentally ignorant of God, and dependent upon me for interpretations of faith and spirituality, I have you. I tell you this book is true, and these beliefs. If I can present logic, or rationalization, that seems emotionally valid, I can steer you away from the connectivity of objective truth, giving you my subjective truth as your own. To be defended and assumed to be the case. Then I have you. You now accept my facts with my interpretive spin as your own thought on what really is. Your and my own ignorance can be used to “prove” to us the “real” truth. Another truth? Humans will believe most anything is true given the right sociological and psychological motivators. Opportunism can rule most any of us.
One clue to the emotional basis of much alleged objective truth is the amount of snickering debunking that goes on around the issues. This often, in my view, is an indicator of the degree of ignorance being defended by ideological or philosophical bias—it needs lots of attitudanal bluff to seem substantial. Bias and argument may be wholesome in many things; being biased against lies and deception for instance, but when it is over the nature of reality regarding the nature of truth, one of us is likely more wrong. Having an attitude becomes much more proof than actually having facts in context, to those in safe harbors of ignorance.
The psychological island that often contains this arguments avoidance, is an existential relativism which can claim reality is whatever I wish. On that island, or the seas around it, large associations of others may be wishing against you, no matter your wish that they not. I guess that island still connects undersea whether I wish it to or not. Yep. Manipulative interest know this is the case, and can take that to the bank as well. Human vulnerability, is a past, present, and futures commodity.
It is true that scientific theory is not truth. But as an individual citizen, I have much more faith in the rigors of scientific scrutiny (peer review) and its bent toward objective reality, than I do of the other faith based communities who seem to require no evidence for doubt, or proof. On their island life rafts of belief they huddle in confidence; that land will be found walkable, but waves demand such attention!
Connecting land underneath? What connection?
*(This is my theory from what to me seems viable evidence)