Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

The post from Jim Torson via Psiclops contains a couple of quotes which can apply not just on this issue, but on almost everything which is discussed on this Skeptiko site:

If we take out the issues discussed in this thread and replace them with other topics such as near-death experiences or psi, it is pretty much a perfect fit. We see the sceptics on this forum eagerly creating doubt at every opportunity, but they never offer any explanation of their motives. If we consider "in order to delay action to address the problem", that could be a very plausible motive for the sceptics activities.

The comment about the "handful of scientists" sounds an awful lot like the "guerilla sceptics" frequently highlighted by Craig Weiler, where a relatively small number of people are attempting to disrupt the way in which certain topics are viewed.

This is a quite invalid and irrevelant comparison.

Psi "skeptics" are not merchants of doubt; they are merchants of dogma. They start with an unquestionable assumption that psi is totally impossible, and use rhetorical tricks to explain away any evidence of psi functioning. No one of them ever tried to doubt anything regarding psi - they are totally certain that they are right, and everyone who disagree is wrong. But things get worse. The evidence of psi continues to mount, and psi "skeptics" start feeling themselves anxious - they must be right, yet actual reality somehow dares not to submit to their Holy Truth. The way to solve the problem is simple - to transform the anxiety into agression! If evidence contradicts the dogma, it means that the ones who provided such evidence are either deluded fools or vicious liars. So, they should be denounced and denigrated in public: from merchants of dogma, psi "skeptics" transform themselves into merchants of intolerance. However, many heretics are still not afraid and stick to their unholy habit of presenting new evidence. Such sacrilege is not to be forgiven, so psi "skeptics" employ all means of social and institutuional repression available to them to shut up their opponents: after being merchants of intolerance, they become merchants of opression.

So, no debates anymore - the opponents is marginalized and silenced. And without debate, the way to expose stupidity and advance intelligence is lost. So, the more the Reign of Silence lasts, the less active human intelligence becomes, and the more powerful stupidity grows. In the end, merchants of dogma, intolerance and opression unevitably become the merchants of stupidity - and merchants of degradation, because stupid people are unable to meet the new demands of the ever-changing reality, and, therefore, cannot develop. Of course, it does not bother devout dogmaticists, beause they "know for sure" that all signs of their degradation are lies and delusions which are spread by Evil Forces.

As for merchants of doubt, they are much more sympathetic people. They are also usually work as merchants of tolerance and freedom; many of them are also perform a hard but necessary job of being merchants of intelligence and, subsequently, of evolution. People here on the forum probably heard about some of them; for example, one can mention such merchants of doubt as Dean Radin, Charles Tart, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham, Terrence McKenna, Timothy Leary, John Lilly, Robert Anton Wilson, Sam Parnia, Raymond Moody, Stanely Krippner, Marcello Truzzi, William Bengston, Henry Bauer...

Merchants of doubt do not bother me; to the contrary, I'm happy that these people exist. It is the merchants of dogma who frightens me.
 
The psi debate is not the climate debate. Almost all psi skeptics have not looked at the evidence nor have they done research in parapsychology.

Climate scientists who support the conclusion of anthropogenic global warming have done lots research in the field and are very familiar with the evidence.
 
Unless the documentary "Gas Land", a 2010 American documentary written and directed by Josh Fox, was a totally contrived work of fiction, fracking is not what I'd consider a safe or even sane alternative.

Please take a look at the Muller document that I provided for Alex earlier:

http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports...riousEnvironmentalistShouldFavourFracking.pdf

Read section 2.2 on page 7. "Gasland" was indeed a work of fiction. This comes from someone who isn't a sceptic. A reference from a more sceptical source is here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/...ctor-pulls-video-to-hide-inconvenient-truths/

Fracking has actually been going on for a long time: it's only been popularised recently because environmentalists have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that involves oil, coal, or gas. Fracking is actually more environmentally friendly than conventional drilling.
 
This is a quite invalid and irrevelant comparison.
If it's irrelevant, there's hardly a need to comment.

My point was not particularly on the specific topic, but on the types of behaviour and interactions, where in some cases a type of behaviour is criticised, while on other occasions the same behaviour is praised. It does illuminate many of the debates which go on here. Only a very tiny proportion of time in any discussion is devoted to the facts, the vast majority of discussions revolve around different types of human behaviour.
 
Stephen Leslie, I've checked out your profile and it appears that every post you have made on Skeptiko is on this thread. Do you actually have any interest in psi, or have you come here specifically to promote global warming dogma? I'd appreciate a straight answer.
 
Stephen Leslie, I've checked out your profile and it appears that every post you have made on Skeptiko is on this thread. Do you actually have any interest in psi, or have you come here specifically to promote global warming dogma? I'd appreciate a straight answer.

I am actively researching presentiment, though my results are not yet published.

I am concerned that the scientific credibility of parapsychology will be undermined if sites like Skeptiko jump on the denier ship. Other scientists will say, oh, Dean Radin/Rupert Sheldrake, etc. went on that Skeptiko website. You know, they don't understand how science works over there.

So that is my motivation, pure and simple.

I think there is a very good political argument for isolating separate controversies and not chaining them together. If Psi-promoters chain themselves to other controversies, they may sink with them.

I really do respect the scientific consensus on global warming and believe the data.

Anyhow, I thought this website's purpose was to examine evidence on consciousness and spirituality. Global warming is a big distraction and will alienate many potential viewers.
 
Last edited:
I am actively researching presentiment, though my results are not yet published.

I am concerned that the scientific credibility of parapsychology will be undermined if sites like Skeptiko jump on the denier ship. Other scientists will say, oh, Dean Radin/Rupert Sheldrake, etc. went on that Skeptiko website. You know, they don't understand how science works over there.

So that is my motivation, pure and simple.

If that's the case, why have you suddenly appeared here? Skeptiko is one of the most well-known pro-psi sites, after all. Do you post at any other psi sites? Can you name one or two?
 
If that's the case, why have you suddenly appeared here? Skeptiko is one of the most well-known pro-psi sites, after all. Do you post at any other psi sites? Can you name one or two?

Sure, find Stephen Leslie on the Weiler Psi Blog.
http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/rupert-sheldrake/

Sheldrake and Radin will be seen as the scientific heroes of the late 20th/early 21st centuries. Wiseman et al. will the ones freshman students groan at when taking Psionics 101, asking “How could they have been so stupid?”.

Good article. I expect Rubert Sheldrake to bee fully redeemed soon

http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/the-psi-wars-come-to-ted/
I think there may be a lot of agnostics rather than atheists in the psi crowd. Dean Radin is agnostic. I’m agnostic, nonspiritual, and a psi-believer. More than just believing in psi, it has been confirmed that I have presentiment capability via EEG tests. But I’m still skeptical on the existence of God or gods. Even when I was an full-blown atheist several years ago, I still believed in reincarnation and had a somewhat dualistic view of consciousness (David Chalmer’s minimalistic dualism). As for psi, I couldn’t make up my mind. Scientific American kept printing disparaging articles by Micheal Shermer pulling me one way while a few of my friends who claimed to have some psychic ability pulled me the other. Eventually, I figured out that Micheal Shermer is a skeptic-fundamentalist and Scientific American has been doing its readers a disservice by publishing only psi-skeptic articles.

I've been a long time lurker on Skeptiko.
 
I think global warming is about to become worse and worse and blatantly obvious to the general public. If parapsychology ties itself to the denialist camp, acceptance will be slowed down by years.
 
Michael Larkin,

It is very hard to see your own biases. I find you completely biased and you would say the same about me. But that is human nature. One of us will turn out to be correct.

But I hope you understand the political argument about psi-proponents not getting involved in other hot-button issues.

"Stephen Leslie" is not, in fact, my real full name. If I would publish in parapsychology, I do not want other controversies to be combined with it. True, you could probably find out my real full name but I hope you respect my position.

It's Alex's blog of course, not mine, and he can do what he wants. But I still have a right to be upset.
 
Last edited:
I think global warming is about to become worse and worse and blatantly obvious to the general public. If parapsychology ties itself to the denialist camp, acceptance will be slowed down by years.
Why do you insist on using that word "denialist"? Why is the whole issue cast in terms of a bunch of people who are righteous and another bunch who are evil? You're entitled to your beliefs, but you could be wrong, or do you deny any possibility that that might be the case? I'm trying to get beyond the exchange of claim and counter-claim here: I'm trying to get at the underlying psychodynamics of what is going on, which I think Typoz was hinting at, but you saw as irrelevant. It's not irrelevant, I don't think.

It's something that pervades the climate debate, and a number of other debates, including psi, AIDS, LENR, evolution and cosmology. One side is touted as mainstream and beyond question, and the other is demonised. You descend to the employment of peculiarly insulting invective, comparing CAGW sceptics to holocaust deniers, and then wonder why you get vigorous responses to such a patronising attitude.

Let's focus on that issue: it's plain that we're never going to reach agreement on the scientific evidence, so let's agree to disagree on that. I want to know why you are so contemptuous and intolerant of different views.
 
Michael Larkin,

It is very hard to see your own biases. I find you completely biased and you would say the same about me. But that is human nature. One of us will turn out to be correct.

But I hope you understand the political argument about psi-proponents not getting involved in other hot-button issues.

"Stephen Leslie" is not, in fact, my real name. If I would publish in parapsychology, I do not want other controversies to be combined with it. True, you could probably find out my real name but I hope you respect my position.

It's Alex's blog of course, not mine, and he can do what he wants. But I still have a right to be upset.

I'm not interested in your real name: I just wanted to check that you weren't parachuted in for this one thread. I have verified that you are interested in psi, and that's all I wanted to do.
 
. I want to know why you are so contemptuous and intolerant of different views.

I, and the others who agree with me on global warming, would say exactly the same thing about you. I admit I could be wrong but the evidence as I see it points overwhelmingly one way.

Unlike some other people, I think you can agree that I have very much minimized ad hominem attacks in my comments. I have never called someone "stupid" on this thread. I have not compared denying global warming to denying the Holocaust. Yes, I get upset sometimes and use "passionate" language. This is the internet.

It's something that pervades the climate debate, and a number of other debates, including psi, AIDS, LENR, evolution and cosmology.

I think we need to look at each debate independently. I get the impression that some people look at science and say, "mainstream science was wrong about psi; therefore, it's probably wrong about [insert controversy here]". But this is really not the case. The available evidence and social/psychological dynamics are very different for each issue.
 
Last edited:
I am getting tired of this thread. I think I have clearly outlined my position and I have other things to do. So even if you will never agree with me, I hope you at least accept that I argue in good faith based on the evidence I see. I have revealed my agenda in coming here. Michael Larkin, you are intelligent and I know that you debate in good faith. But it is very hard psychologically to see our own biases; that is true for you like it is for me.
 
Nonsense! The whole "global warming" (even much of the mainstream media know eschews that silly term) mania has little to nothing to do with psi research. What you are stating is not much different than saying "if Alex doesn't pick the winner of the Superbowl his work is jeopardized."

You like the word "Nonsense" but it adds nothing to your argument. On the contrary in fact.
 
I, and the others who agree with me on global warming, would say exactly the same thing about you. I admit I could be wrong but the evidence as I see it points overwhelmingly one way.
You reap as you sow. The worst thing you can imply is that because they disagree with you, they're equivalent to neo-Nazi holocaust deniers. That one word, more than anything else, is a red rag to a bull. If CAGW proponents genuinely wanted to engage in proper debate, the one thing they would avoid would be stigmatisation. But they don't. You can ask them politely (and I've done this in a previous thread on the old forum) to desist, but they won't; in fact, they'll use the word even more frequently. It's not that I'm particularly offended by it, because I don't deny the holocaust, but that, more importantly, it signals how the proponents think: not in terms of evidence, but in terms of the evil of the other side, and how best to needle them.
Unlike some other people, I think you can agree that I have very much minimized ad hominem attacks in my comments. I have never called someone "stupid" on this thread. I have not compared denying global warming to denying the Holocaust. Yes, I get upset sometimes and use strong language. This is the internet.
Stuff and nonsense. That one word, "denialists", gives the game away, showing what you really think behind the facade of civility.
I think we need to look at each debate independently. I get the impression that some people look at science and say, "mainstream science was wrong about psi; therefore, it's probably wrong about [insert controversy here]". But this is really not the case. The available evidence and social/psychological dynamics are very different for each issue.

I agree one needs to look at each debate independently, and have differing opinions on each. But you are the one who is concerned about psi not being linked to "denialism", as if it's impossible to be a psi proponent and a CAGW sceptic, or if it's not, one should shut up about that scepticism. To heck with that: if I think something, I'll say it. I'm a psi proponent and a CAGW sceptic and see no conflict between the two positions. In both cases, I go with what I regard as best evidence. You'll doubtless claim you do the same, and I could respect that if you didn't feel the need to resort to invective calculated to annoy and declare your own superior morality. That tells me that there's more going on than strict attention to evidence: you also want to feel yourself the saint and anyone with the timerity to differ, the sinner.
 
The people of the Marshall Islands are our neighbours. They are currently requesting aid from the people of New Zealand to enable them to respond to way GW is ALREADY impacting on them. Or do you think their story is also part of the conspiracy? Well you can explain to them that it doesn't matter if sea water leaches into their drinking supply. You don't need scientists to say what's happening. The people of the Marshall Islands can tell you that. Any 10 year old there can explain to you what you don't understand.
 
Some snippets about "deniers":

I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future. – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2007 “No change in political climate” on the Wayback Machine here
blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/six_million_jews_didnt_die_so_combet_could_smear_a_sceptic#80861

Then Jenkins is woefully ill-informed into how low his colleagues will stoop. Here former Greens candidate Professor Clive Hamilton, a warming extremist, makes that foul link explicit:

Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future. Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming… So the answer to the question of whether climate denialism is morally worse than Holocaust denialism is no, at least, not yet.

Fellow extremist Professor Robert Manne has endorsed that link and that abuse of AGW sceptics:

Scepticism is in general, as it should be, a positive word, denoting scientific or humanistic curiosity and in particular the presence of an open mind…Denialism, a concept that was first widely used, as far as I know, for those who claimed that the Holocaust was a fraud, is the concept I believe we should use

So Jenkins should be in no doubt what the term really signifies and how despicable it is.
And for a little comic relief:

 
Last edited:
"As the US urges world leaders to ramp up action on climate change, the leader of one small island chain in the North Pacific Ocean has already got the message - watching helplessly as rising seas slowly erode his birthplace.

The idyllic beaches on the island of Buoj where Marshall Islands President Christopher Loeak fished as a boy are already submerged, and the ever-encroaching ocean now threatens to wash away roads, schools and airstrips.

"The end of the island gets shorter every year. Some places we used to stand on the beach to fish are now in the water," Mr Loeak, 60, told AFP."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...washing-away-Pacific-leaders-home-island.html

"Speaking to Al Jazeera on Friday, Tony deBlum, minister in assistance to the President of the Marshall Islands, outlined the urgency of the situation.
“This year we witnessed severe drought, tidal flooding and inundation of our fresh water by salt water within the atolls. We now have an ongoing drought disaster in effect in the northern Marshall Islands where we are distributing emergency drinking water and food rations,” he said.

He added that climate change had already had an impact on the economy of the island, and signs of population displacement and movement."

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...hopetoconvinceworldtomoveonclimatechange.html
 
Back
Top