Jasun Horsley, Socio-Spiritual Engineering |392|
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
So I've spent the last few days consuming Jasun Horsley's content on YouTube. It's good stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jasun+horsley
Additionally, Mrs. Primero and I just finished watching season 1 of the television show Strange Angel about Jack Parson's entry into Thelema and rise to NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory fame. It's pretty good.
Trailer:
Good writing, direction, acting, and period accuracy.
Get it here: http://watchsomuch.info/Movie/7210448-S01E10/Strange-Angel-2018
Season 2 is expected for release in the summer of 2019.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jasun+horsley
Additionally, Mrs. Primero and I just finished watching season 1 of the television show Strange Angel about Jack Parson's entry into Thelema and rise to NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory fame. It's pretty good.
Trailer:
Good writing, direction, acting, and period accuracy.
Get it here: http://watchsomuch.info/Movie/7210448-S01E10/Strange-Angel-2018
Season 2 is expected for release in the summer of 2019.
First, sorry about the misidentification.
I think so much depends on what your notion of the 'real' or 'normal' is. If our culture defines boundaries that limit and shape our sense of what is okay to experience, know and think about then that gives us a basis for defining what is irrational and weird.
There's a lovely little book called Other Ways of Knowing by John Broomfield. John makes a critical point that other cultures have very different ideas about what is irrational and weird. We can elect to accept the 'world according to the West', or flick in favour of a more reality friendly way of knowing.
I think what we are doing, by engaging with Skeptiko, is redefining our shared notion of what is okay to know. I wrote my Masters thesis on the question as to whether my culture could accommodate my psi experiences, and concluded it could if the idea of animism (a Western idea) was incorporated. For me materialism has come to dominate 'respectable' thought, and so cast the shadows of irrationality and weirdness on what should be normal and natural. If you are a glutton for punishment I have serialised my thesis on my blog - its way better written than most theses, and, I think, well argued.
Emma Restall Orr's The Wakeful World surveys Western Philosophy and shows that it is not materialistic. In fact materialistic philosophy is very late and not very good. I grew up steeped in materialism, as we all have done, and nothing from my normal education suggested to me that our culture's thought was other than materialistic. Its just not true at all.
Also my experience is that PSI is not 'border' experience, but embedded experience we have been trained to ignore. That training is a kind of rational overlay that teaches us to discount 'irrational' or 'weird' things - invalidate them as having no value. Rupert Sheldrake shows this in his stuff on 'telephone telepathy'. I experience this regularly, but not because I am especially 'sensitive', but because I validate the experience.
For example last week I was sitting in a very noisy pub and simultaneously had an intuition my partner was going to call me and I reached into my shoulder bag to get my phone to send her a text to not call but text. As I pulled the phone out of the bag she called. And I couldn't hear her, nor her me. So we did text.
So often we dismiss our discount intuitions. I don't know how often I have heard people tell me that they 'had a feeling' beforehand and ignored it, to their regret. I have educated myself to heed such feelings. A long time ago I was flying from Adelaide to Melbourne and as I was about to board the plane I had a strong sense there was going to be a drama, so I stepped aside and felt into it. I felt the plane would be okay and land safely at Melbourne. As we approached Melbourne the captain announced there was an issue with the undercarriage and we would delay landing to use up fuel.
It was a classic movie scenario. There was a guy with a respirator and a couple of nurses, a couple of nuns, some young families (wee kids and babies), some old frail folk, some business folk - and me, the token hippy who had a vision that it would be all okay. Of course the plane landed safely.
So I am saying that what is weird or irrational is what you decide, according to the rules you have set for yourself. For me psi is neither irrational nor weird. I don't even bother to tell people what I experience now, unless it is to make a point. And I do not consider myself 'psychic' - as in being especially gifted. I am just a normal bloke who has learned to allow himself to listen and respect his own input.
I think so much depends on what your notion of the 'real' or 'normal' is. If our culture defines boundaries that limit and shape our sense of what is okay to experience, know and think about then that gives us a basis for defining what is irrational and weird.
There's a lovely little book called Other Ways of Knowing by John Broomfield. John makes a critical point that other cultures have very different ideas about what is irrational and weird. We can elect to accept the 'world according to the West', or flick in favour of a more reality friendly way of knowing.
I think what we are doing, by engaging with Skeptiko, is redefining our shared notion of what is okay to know. I wrote my Masters thesis on the question as to whether my culture could accommodate my psi experiences, and concluded it could if the idea of animism (a Western idea) was incorporated. For me materialism has come to dominate 'respectable' thought, and so cast the shadows of irrationality and weirdness on what should be normal and natural. If you are a glutton for punishment I have serialised my thesis on my blog - its way better written than most theses, and, I think, well argued.
Emma Restall Orr's The Wakeful World surveys Western Philosophy and shows that it is not materialistic. In fact materialistic philosophy is very late and not very good. I grew up steeped in materialism, as we all have done, and nothing from my normal education suggested to me that our culture's thought was other than materialistic. Its just not true at all.
Also my experience is that PSI is not 'border' experience, but embedded experience we have been trained to ignore. That training is a kind of rational overlay that teaches us to discount 'irrational' or 'weird' things - invalidate them as having no value. Rupert Sheldrake shows this in his stuff on 'telephone telepathy'. I experience this regularly, but not because I am especially 'sensitive', but because I validate the experience.
For example last week I was sitting in a very noisy pub and simultaneously had an intuition my partner was going to call me and I reached into my shoulder bag to get my phone to send her a text to not call but text. As I pulled the phone out of the bag she called. And I couldn't hear her, nor her me. So we did text.
So often we dismiss our discount intuitions. I don't know how often I have heard people tell me that they 'had a feeling' beforehand and ignored it, to their regret. I have educated myself to heed such feelings. A long time ago I was flying from Adelaide to Melbourne and as I was about to board the plane I had a strong sense there was going to be a drama, so I stepped aside and felt into it. I felt the plane would be okay and land safely at Melbourne. As we approached Melbourne the captain announced there was an issue with the undercarriage and we would delay landing to use up fuel.
It was a classic movie scenario. There was a guy with a respirator and a couple of nurses, a couple of nuns, some young families (wee kids and babies), some old frail folk, some business folk - and me, the token hippy who had a vision that it would be all okay. Of course the plane landed safely.
So I am saying that what is weird or irrational is what you decide, according to the rules you have set for yourself. For me psi is neither irrational nor weird. I don't even bother to tell people what I experience now, unless it is to make a point. And I do not consider myself 'psychic' - as in being especially gifted. I am just a normal bloke who has learned to allow himself to listen and respect his own input.
Hey Michael,
I think we're kinda talking past each other I bit.
I'm just saying that:
1)PSI is real, fundamental to the human experience, and probably fundamental to the functioning of existence.
2)PSI (in the broadest possible definition) is irrational in that it undermines some fundamental aspects of classical logic, ie. The law of the excluded middle (something is either A, or not A), and the law of non-contradiction (That something cannot be both A and Not A).
3)Complex societies (not specifically Western) depend on a rationalised system of laws, bureaucracies and hierarchies.
4)PSI is thus a border phenomena in two senses:
a)It undermines binary oppositions (dead/alive, internal/external, dream/reality, etc.) and blurs boundaries.
b)Complex societies have a tendency to marginalise the irrational aspects of existence (and those involved with them).
5)The boundary blurring nature of PSI's more intense manifestations ('abductions' as one example) can be dangerous to health, especially to those culturally unprepared to engage with the phenomena.
6)Traditional societies acknowledged this danger and mitigated against it with rituals, etc.
7)As the boundary blurring nature of PSI is unsettling to those raised (indoctrinated) in a complex, centralised society, people have a tendency to try and impose a rational framework over PSI's irrational elements (be it claiming PSI as a result of mental illness or a government conspiracy).
And that's about it.
So, I suspect, we don't really disagree on much.
Cheers.
P.S. I've read your theses before and enjoyed it greatly (how many academic works can you say that about?).
Good post.
As something of a side note, Stephen Hawking seems to have been a full on mouth piece for mainstream ideas. I became a little suspicious of him when I realized that what was claimed was that he was able to communicate with his voice machine by moving a muscle in his cheek. Sounds a bit far-fetched to me.
As something of a side note, Stephen Hawking seems to have been a full on mouth piece for mainstream ideas. I became a little suspicious of him when I realized that what was claimed was that he was able to communicate with his voice machine by moving a muscle in his cheek. Sounds a bit far-fetched to me.
Yep. Here's another conspiracy exposed:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46042179
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46042179
Hey Michael,
I think we're kinda talking past each other I bit.
I'm just saying that:
1)PSI is real, fundamental to the human experience, and probably fundamental to the functioning of existence.
2)PSI (in the broadest possible definition) is irrational in that it undermines some fundamental aspects of classical logic, ie. The law of the excluded middle (something is either A, or not A), and the law of non-contradiction (That something cannot be both A and Not A).
3)Complex societies (not specifically Western) depend on a rationalised system of laws, bureaucracies and hierarchies.
4)PSI is thus a border phenomena in two senses:
a)It undermines binary oppositions (dead/alive, internal/external, dream/reality, etc.) and blurs boundaries.
b)Complex societies have a tendency to marginalise the irrational aspects of existence (and those involved with them).
5)The boundary blurring nature of PSI's more intense manifestations ('abductions' as one example) can be dangerous to health, especially to those culturally unprepared to engage with the phenomena.
6)Traditional societies acknowledged this danger and mitigated against it with rituals, etc.
7)As the boundary blurring nature of PSI is unsettling to those raised (indoctrinated) in a complex, centralised society, people have a tendency to try and impose a rational framework over PSI's irrational elements (be it claiming PSI as a result of mental illness or a government conspiracy).
And that's about it.
So, I suspect, we don't really disagree on much.
Cheers.
P.S. I've read your theses before and enjoyed it greatly (how many academic works can you say that about?).
I think we're kinda talking past each other I bit.
I'm just saying that:
1)PSI is real, fundamental to the human experience, and probably fundamental to the functioning of existence.
2)PSI (in the broadest possible definition) is irrational in that it undermines some fundamental aspects of classical logic, ie. The law of the excluded middle (something is either A, or not A), and the law of non-contradiction (That something cannot be both A and Not A).
3)Complex societies (not specifically Western) depend on a rationalised system of laws, bureaucracies and hierarchies.
4)PSI is thus a border phenomena in two senses:
a)It undermines binary oppositions (dead/alive, internal/external, dream/reality, etc.) and blurs boundaries.
b)Complex societies have a tendency to marginalise the irrational aspects of existence (and those involved with them).
5)The boundary blurring nature of PSI's more intense manifestations ('abductions' as one example) can be dangerous to health, especially to those culturally unprepared to engage with the phenomena.
6)Traditional societies acknowledged this danger and mitigated against it with rituals, etc.
7)As the boundary blurring nature of PSI is unsettling to those raised (indoctrinated) in a complex, centralised society, people have a tendency to try and impose a rational framework over PSI's irrational elements (be it claiming PSI as a result of mental illness or a government conspiracy).
And that's about it.
So, I suspect, we don't really disagree on much.
Cheers.
P.S. I've read your theses before and enjoyed it greatly (how many academic works can you say that about?).
Even in my Northern Irish family, with all its Christian overlays, psi was considered part of heritage. I read about 'Christianised' cultures where the same 'suppression' applies. Christianity, and its later heir, materialism, did set out to crush the 'pagan' sensibilities of animist cultures with its insistence of only one source of spiritual okayness. Psi was 'demonic' or 'satanic' because it permitted experience outside the grasp of the clergy.
Re point 6, the taboo traditions refer to a wider sense of energetic potency and the need to maintain control over exposure to places, things and states that could cause harm. This refers to a finely tuned state of awareness - something few of us have now because of how we live. Its more than just psi as we usually understand the term. We are better off thinking acute awareness in an environment understood in energetic/spirit terms. Where such awareness is intentionally cultivated by lifestyle and environment there are often highly ritualised behaviours that manage the sensitivity. In traditional cultures that move away from conditions of acute awareness ritualised behaviours remain as traditions, even when the actual need for them ceases to be practically necessary.
But, at the same time, some 'ritual' behaviours that have no apparent material use still serve to alter energetic states. For example, the sensitive will tell you that washing your hands, even when they are not 'dirty' in a physical sense still removes 'psychic' 'dirt'. So psi as a reference to 'powers' and psi as a reference to energetic states are related, but distinct areas.
And thank you for your kind comments about my thesis. You are the first to confess to reading it. That's something in itself! And liking it? I am relieved. So many theses are not written in a manner that is kind to the reader. I remember reading Hansen's The Trickster and the Paranormal and being in awe of the theses he cited - such gold that never made it to print. Then I recalled attending a course on how to write a readable thesis, when the presenter commented that most theses were so dull and badly written they'd be read only by the author, the poor soul roped into editing and the markers. But then, reflecting on Hansen, maybe the problem was also exposure and access.
For what it was I thought it was written well enough to be readable. But it is so hard to persuade anybody to undertake what I know they think is a torture willingly. Thank you for saying publicly that it was readable.
Isn't tedious that there are folk who feel free to lie in order to press their POV? I have subscribed to a US site - scopes.com - which is a fact checker. Of course I can't prove that's what it does. But outside a paranoid spirit it does seem to be on the level. Lies and BS seem to be pretty much standard fare these days. Truth is what I feel.
My sense is that conspiracy is the SOP of our culture. I am deeply influenced by Peter Frankopan's The Silk Roads. I have the audiobook, which is something like 20+ hours of listening. But its a masterpiece. Frankopan looks at history from the perspective of what we call the 'Middle East'. If you have the time and the capacity I can't recommend this book highly enough.
"It all comes down to two things - control and power. All the rest is bullshit." This was a quote from a forensic psychologist character in the BBC show Loch Ness. On one level its a cynical comment. On a deeper, and more complex metaphysical level, it is very true. Personal control and personal power is what we aim for. But if we do so in a pathological way that expresses as control of, and power over, others we go astray.
Apparently the original idea of 'sin' was 'missing the mark' - not getting what we aim for. If we aim for personal control and power, and think that means controlling and having power over others maybe that's a kind of projection that misses the mark in terms of personal objectives.
I think the seeds of conspiracy are sown when we decide a thing on our terms. As a public servant I will talk from that perspective when I say that public office is corrupted the moment an official introduces their self-interest into a situation. Why has always astonished me is that few public servants are aware when they do it. Self-interest is not a crime, but it has no place in the work of a public official. And yet public office is riddled with self-interest. Some of it is mild, but it is all part of a foundation on which larger sins are built.
Diminishing public office is no solution. All that does is increase self-interest. I am yet to find a single credible text anywhere in any field that supports the proposition that self-interest is better for our collective wellbeing than communal interest. That POV is not held by folk who dominate our so-called 'free enterprise' system of capitalism. That's why I think that conspiracy is an ineradicable condition of our present culture.
My sense is that conspiracy is the SOP of our culture. I am deeply influenced by Peter Frankopan's The Silk Roads. I have the audiobook, which is something like 20+ hours of listening. But its a masterpiece. Frankopan looks at history from the perspective of what we call the 'Middle East'. If you have the time and the capacity I can't recommend this book highly enough.
"It all comes down to two things - control and power. All the rest is bullshit." This was a quote from a forensic psychologist character in the BBC show Loch Ness. On one level its a cynical comment. On a deeper, and more complex metaphysical level, it is very true. Personal control and personal power is what we aim for. But if we do so in a pathological way that expresses as control of, and power over, others we go astray.
Apparently the original idea of 'sin' was 'missing the mark' - not getting what we aim for. If we aim for personal control and power, and think that means controlling and having power over others maybe that's a kind of projection that misses the mark in terms of personal objectives.
I think the seeds of conspiracy are sown when we decide a thing on our terms. As a public servant I will talk from that perspective when I say that public office is corrupted the moment an official introduces their self-interest into a situation. Why has always astonished me is that few public servants are aware when they do it. Self-interest is not a crime, but it has no place in the work of a public official. And yet public office is riddled with self-interest. Some of it is mild, but it is all part of a foundation on which larger sins are built.
Diminishing public office is no solution. All that does is increase self-interest. I am yet to find a single credible text anywhere in any field that supports the proposition that self-interest is better for our collective wellbeing than communal interest. That POV is not held by folk who dominate our so-called 'free enterprise' system of capitalism. That's why I think that conspiracy is an ineradicable condition of our present culture.
Do keep in mind that site is run by degenerates with an extreme Leftist bias.
Their propaganda gimmick is amusing to watch, but do keep in mind their motivations.
The best propaganda is like Rat Poison ...99.9 % true and good corn meal anyone could safely eat.
Their propaganda gimmick is amusing to watch, but do keep in mind their motivations.
The best propaganda is like Rat Poison ...99.9 % true and good corn meal anyone could safely eat.
I think its ironic that folks who constantly counsel the rest of us to not believe anything we read (i.e., in this case Snopes) provide poorly written "articles" from just as questionable websites as evidence.
So Snopes is run be degenerates with an extreme leftist bias, while New American is the unbiased bastion of truth and morality?
Oh, and if cavorting with prostitutes renders one degenerate, immoral and unworthy of trust; what does offering to pay a pornographic actress for sex engender?
So Snopes is run be degenerates with an extreme leftist bias, while New American is the unbiased bastion of truth and morality?
Oh, and if cavorting with prostitutes renders one degenerate, immoral and unworthy of trust; what does offering to pay a pornographic actress for sex engender?
I do keep in mind the questionable credentials that others attribute to sources of information - as well as my own doubts. I'd be pleased to be advised of a right wing fact checking site, one that would be equally reviled by the left.
I have been entertained by even the most rudimentary act of fact checking, even if it is to remind me that my presumptions are not always well grounded. Sometimes Googling a source will reveal enough to make on doubt its reliability, and other times it reveals a cascade of vitriol poured upon it. Whatever, getting both sides of a story can be helpful.
When you can't trust a primary source (unless you really want to because it confirms a bias already held), sometimes what you have to do is discover its context, and then decide whether what it says is something you can consider as possibly true.
I have ceased to favour any side in politics. I distinguish between perception and interpretation. Extreme left and extreme right may have perceptions that are useful to appreciate, if you want a balanced understanding. My experience is that if I want a worthwhile interpretation then I will seek out far more skilled and knowledgeable commentary. Too often we think an explanatory story is an interpretation. It isn't. Most of us can't analyse for nuts - because we don't know enough. Opinions are not analysis. Mostly they are social narratives - personal stories. They are mostly 'noise', but there is usually a signal there - if you listen with skill.
Because I don't think I know stuff (I just have opinions) I don't become seduced into thinking what I think and say is right. In fact I think its not. But is it pointing in the right direction? That depends on where I think I want to go.
I have been entertained by even the most rudimentary act of fact checking, even if it is to remind me that my presumptions are not always well grounded. Sometimes Googling a source will reveal enough to make on doubt its reliability, and other times it reveals a cascade of vitriol poured upon it. Whatever, getting both sides of a story can be helpful.
When you can't trust a primary source (unless you really want to because it confirms a bias already held), sometimes what you have to do is discover its context, and then decide whether what it says is something you can consider as possibly true.
I have ceased to favour any side in politics. I distinguish between perception and interpretation. Extreme left and extreme right may have perceptions that are useful to appreciate, if you want a balanced understanding. My experience is that if I want a worthwhile interpretation then I will seek out far more skilled and knowledgeable commentary. Too often we think an explanatory story is an interpretation. It isn't. Most of us can't analyse for nuts - because we don't know enough. Opinions are not analysis. Mostly they are social narratives - personal stories. They are mostly 'noise', but there is usually a signal there - if you listen with skill.
Because I don't think I know stuff (I just have opinions) I don't become seduced into thinking what I think and say is right. In fact I think its not. But is it pointing in the right direction? That depends on where I think I want to go.
If anyone's interested, here are the links to Michael's thesis. I do, for what it's worth, recommend it as an expansive and thoughtful read. It is also deeply autobiographical at times.
An inquiry into animism as a source of meaning in response to radical and disruptive non-ordinary experiences.
INTRODUCTION TO THESIS CHAPTERS
http://aspiringanimist.com/2018/07/09/introduction-to-thesis-chapters/
CHAPTER 1 – short version
Introduction and Methodology
http://aspiringanimist.com/2018/07/09/thesis-chapter-1-short-version/
CHAPTER TWO
Mounting evidence of something incomprehensible and how the dominant discourses of my culture’s ontology failed to offer explanation.
http://aspiringanimist.com/2018/07/19/chapter-two/
CHAPTER 3
An exploration of Animism and how I came see it as a potentially valid knowledge system
http://aspiringanimist.com/2018/08/...e-it-as-a-potentially-valid-knowledge-system/
CHAPTER 4
An exploration of animistic ideas in the contemporary Western world
http://aspiringanimist.com/2018/08/...stic-ideas-in-the-contemporary-western-world/
Dig it.
An inquiry into animism as a source of meaning in response to radical and disruptive non-ordinary experiences.
INTRODUCTION TO THESIS CHAPTERS
http://aspiringanimist.com/2018/07/09/introduction-to-thesis-chapters/
CHAPTER 1 – short version
Introduction and Methodology
http://aspiringanimist.com/2018/07/09/thesis-chapter-1-short-version/
CHAPTER TWO
Mounting evidence of something incomprehensible and how the dominant discourses of my culture’s ontology failed to offer explanation.
http://aspiringanimist.com/2018/07/19/chapter-two/
CHAPTER 3
An exploration of Animism and how I came see it as a potentially valid knowledge system
http://aspiringanimist.com/2018/08/...e-it-as-a-potentially-valid-knowledge-system/
CHAPTER 4
An exploration of animistic ideas in the contemporary Western world
http://aspiringanimist.com/2018/08/...stic-ideas-in-the-contemporary-western-world/
Dig it.
We are on the same page here, essentially. The problem is not just that people lie, but they fail to say what is true with deep conviction. Some folk will assert what they say to be true without any sense it is not. I do not think that 'truth' is a reality. Truthfulness may be the best we can hope for. I consider myself a skeptic in the proper philosophical sense of the word. Ultimately I take total responsibility for what I am induced to believe.
Of course detecting deception must also be a serious activity. But it has to be fun too. I spent 3 months paralysed in an intensive care unit being subjected to morning commercial television every day. I could not cry out or in any way indicate my suffering. So I developed an intense internal dialogue to counter the utter tripe that flowed from the screen. I had to make it a game. Now its a reflex.
Of course detecting deception must also be a serious activity. But it has to be fun too. I spent 3 months paralysed in an intensive care unit being subjected to morning commercial television every day. I could not cry out or in any way indicate my suffering. So I developed an intense internal dialogue to counter the utter tripe that flowed from the screen. I had to make it a game. Now its a reflex.
I do. Email me at michael.patterson3@icloud.com
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html
Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study
...
Researchers with UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Princeton University recently walked back scientific findings published last month that showed oceans have been heating up dramatically faster than previously thought as a result of climate change.
In a paper published Oct. 31 in the journal Nature, researchers found that ocean temperatures had warmed 60 percent more than outlined by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
However, the conclusion came under scrutiny after mathematician Nic Lewis, a critic of the scientific consensus around human-induced warming, posted a critique of the paper on the blog of Judith Curry, another well-known critic.
“The findings of the ... paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”
Co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake.
“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”
Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.
“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”
Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study
...
Researchers with UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Princeton University recently walked back scientific findings published last month that showed oceans have been heating up dramatically faster than previously thought as a result of climate change.
In a paper published Oct. 31 in the journal Nature, researchers found that ocean temperatures had warmed 60 percent more than outlined by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
However, the conclusion came under scrutiny after mathematician Nic Lewis, a critic of the scientific consensus around human-induced warming, posted a critique of the paper on the blog of Judith Curry, another well-known critic.
“The findings of the ... paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”
Co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake.
“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”
Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.
“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”