Auto Added by WPeMatico

A (relatively honest) global warming debate, until the end

Veritassium host Derek Muller  interviews himself on the subject of global warming, and for a few minutes there is a relatively honest discussion of the issues. Until,  that is, until minute 5:50. when the host, in his guise as good guy, speculates that it would probably be cheaper for us and better for the planet if we abated out emissions of CO2 now rather than later. To which his bad side, replies “no thanks”.

Here is the rub. The advocates of doing something to abate CO2 production engage in many suppositions

  • that abatement of CO2 production can be achieved on a global scale
  • that measures taken will in fact achieve the results set out for them
  • that it will be more affordable than adapting to the projected,  increased consequences of global warming that would otherwise occur
  • and, perhaps most importantly, that humans can be transitioned from their dependence of fossil fuels in a democratic way.

Just as the debate really could have engaged, good guy Veritassium asked the bad guy alter ego why he was wearing sunglasses. And so the principal non-scientific questions were conveniently ducked. Happens all the time.

This is not to disparage Veritassium, which is a solid science show. But it is a critique of the global warmists for consistently assuming away the practical problems.

 

I much prefer the approach adopted by Bjorn Lomborg which is that, if humans had a hundred problems to solve, global warming through CO2 increases would be the hundredth priority, behind the other 99.

Try to be more virtuous today

The scientific accomplishments of white culture exceed the entire rest of the world not just qualitatively but in kind. The difference is absolute . Indeed, until the time in the 19th or 20th ceturies when these cultures adopted the scientific method and the mental habits and assumptions that made it possible, they did not possess “science” as we undertand the term. Many have written about Arab, Chinese and Hindu “science”. These civilizations, each for its own intrinsic reasons,  did not reach what today is recognized as the form of rational inquiry known as “science”. Some historian of science said that the achievements of Faraday and Maxwell in their work on electromagnetism exceeded the wntire corpus of Arabic civilization’s contributions to knowledge, Al-Khwarizmi and Al-Ghazali notwithstanding.

Seems strong, doesn’t it? Yet it is true.

Is this racism? Is this cultural chauvinism?  I hardly know and I care not. The attacks on white people and “whiteness” -which is a stand-in for cultural habits that made the modern world, are relentless. How soon before bridges fall down? How soon before this magnificent and complex apparatus that keeps us alive and warm (it is -10C outside as a I write) falls to peices because not enough order-creators are available to prevail against the disorder creators? Kind of like a table full of squabbling children and no adult supervison, only worse because the adults have resiled from their educative duties, refuse to cook, refuse to set an example, refuse to enlighten, refuse to think straight, refuse to do any hard work and bang the table for someone to serve them. They have low impulse control and they are armed with AK-47s. I have seen the future, brethren, and it’s murder.

 

Here’s my formula for Coca-Cola and other anti-white personnel training programs. Try to be less black today, for starters. Try to be less superstitious, undeducated, lazy, presumptuous, aggressive, ill-disciplined and ignorant. It would be a good start.

Whites are not inherently superior to anyone. Their cultures allowed them to attain superiority for a time in world affairs. Whether they keep it, or not, is up to them. At the moment they seem intent on destroying themselves with self-loathing, assisted by the doltish ideologies of half educated black professors who could not think clearly if they tried.

Try to be more virtuous today. It is a good start. If you interpret that as trying to be more white, you won’t go far wrong. But stick to virtue, and you will see the issue more clearly than the miseducators at Coca Cola.

 

Amuse yourself greatly with David Berlinksi

I don’t have anything to say today, or this year, better than what David Berlinski said two years ago in a speech introducing The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. The wit, the precision, and the audacity is amazing. “Most of science is not falsifiable. I never understood Karl Popper“. Wow! Disputing Karl Popper?!! Listen to the impassioned young man arguing against him during the Q and A. Berlinski  says falisifiability is”simply too simple a concept to treat of the delicacy and interconnectredness  or the articulation of a scientific theory”. Is the young man right? Is Berlinksi playing Artful Dodger? Is he being serious?

Amuse yourself. Listen and discuss.

 

The origin of Life

Watch this man, Dr. James Tour. The origin of life: we haven’t a clue. We have no idea how to build the simplest bacterium. So all the stories you have hear about early experiments putting an electric charge through simple chemicals in a flask are total bullshit (the Miller-Urey experiement in 1952) in that nothing further has flowed from those experiments. And there exists a collaboration between bullshit science and the media that leads other scientists who do not know what they are talking about to assume that “science” has answered the question of the origin of life when it has not.

 

From Wikipedia:

Tour has written extensively on his viewpoint that all scientific studies to date are wholly inadequate to account for life. In multiple essays in the Inference: International Review of Science, Tour argues from a chemical perspective that the molecules needed for life – nucleotides, carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids – are too complex to have been formed by probabilistic chance and the methods to assemble those structures into a cell are unknown. Ultimately, he believes that on matters of life’s origin, which is the genesis for all evolution, that scientists are “utterly clueless”.[62][63][64][65] Though he remains open to the possibility that future research will afford an explanation.[58]

Follow the science! That’s an order!

A hodge-podge entry today.

Sabine Hossenfelder is a German nuclear physicist who bears a distinct relationship to a dominatrix. I am strangely attracted to her. I feel the need for domination and discipline. She stars in a stand-up physics blog called Backreation. In this episode, she takes exception to those who think science is a kind of Ten Commandments. She draws a very sharp distinction between faith or belief on the one hand, and what science can ever show. I wish more people abided by this distinction. Normally her language is more polite than in this episode. Science is a matter of fact. It does not tell us what to do. Science does not know the direction in which we should go.

 

Manhattan Contrarian profiles one of the most dreadful fanatics I have ever met, John Holdren, Obama’s science advisor. I was once subjected to his presence in a room of thirty people. I can assure you that he is as close to an exterminationist as you can get, though it is couched in suitably ecological terms of overpopulation. Co-author with the Ehrlichs of anti-human drivel.

 

The point is, in the new Biden/Harris administration, “Science is back”, so shut your trap and fall into line, skeptics. As the Manhattan Contrarian ends his piece:

“Or, to put it another way, “science is back”! De-develop the United States? Forced population control? A “planetary regime” to control all “resources”? The “science” requires it! All the “smart” people from Harvard know that. You can understand why Holdren is excited about a Biden presidency. Are you?”

Conrad Black was right when he said the US population will have a bad case of buyer’s remorse, quickly, in the new regime.

 

 

 

Where you come from

I am sure you will want to know this. Violent cosmic events have produced the material for your flesh and bones. In the future we will have graphs showing what dark energy is (if it exists) and what black holes produce (if anything, besides gravity waves).

For myself I do not think that any currently accepted view of the universe – Big Bang, cosmic inflation, dark matter, dark energy, string theory – will survive the next century intact. I say this not because I have doubts or special insights about the contemporary theoretical picture, but because we have gone through several revolutions of cosmology since the 1400s, and we will go through more.

 

The dominance of materialism

The shortest definition of materialism is that it holds that everything in the universe is matter and its motions. Hence for materialists, the “hard problem” is to explain the existence of consciousness. Whereas,for what are called “idealists”, the hard problem is the existence of matter. Does it have existence independently of mind? Then there are those who think that mind and matter both exist, independently of one another.

Here is an anecdote about the philosopher-scientist Rupert Sheldrake:

“The British scientist Rupert Sheldrake told me about a talk he gave to a group of scientists who were working on animal behaviour at a prestigious British University. He was talking about his research on dogs that know when their owners are coming home, and other telepathic phenomena in domestic animals. The talk was received with a kind of polite silence. But in the following tea break all six of the senior scientists who were present at the seminar came to him one by one, and when they were sure that no one else was listening told him they had had experiences of this kind with their own animals, or that they were convinced that telepathy is a real phenomenon, but that they could not talk to their colleagues about this because they were all so straight. When Sheldrake realised that all six had told him much the same thing, he said to them, “Why don’t you guys come out? You’d all have so much more fun!” He says that when he gives a talk at a scientific institution there are nearly always scientists who approach him afterwards telling him they’ve had personal experiences that convince them of the reality of psychic or spiritual phenomena but that they can’t discuss them with their colleagues for fear of being thought weird.”

And here, in a nutshell, is the great Sheldrake explaining why science is so badly constipated by materialist assumptions. Science as a world view has come to constrict the process of open-minded inquiry, which is what science ought to be. Science is a process, not a wholly-owned subsidiary of dogmatic materialism.

For a better explanation of Sheldrake’s views, see his book The Science Delusion.

Rupert Sheldrake is brilliant

Rupert Sheldrake is the British biologist who has been taking a stick to the materialist assumptions of modern science. He does so because he thinks we have conflated materialism with science – the former being a doctrine about whatever could be real with a method of inquiry for determining fact.

His point is that science is blocked because it has been in the grip of materialist doctrines, of the kind that the High Priest of materialism, the Selfish Gene theorist, Richard Dawkins, relentlessly promotes. Sheldrake holds that the universe is not limited to material forces and that it is radically evolutionary.

I have corresponded with Sheldrake on occasion, read his books, and am convinced that he is correct. Regardless, Sheldrake has maintained his composure and conducted himself with civility while being constantly savaged by zealots of materialism. It is one of his amazing strengths.

Sheldrake will not persuade materialists that a) they have a doctrine and b) that it is limiting their science. They would assert that their doctrine is in fact reality and their science is impeccable, because materialist. Speaking of intellectual phase locking.

Sheldrake’s website is here.