Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, Debating the Nature of Reality |574|

Alex,

I was surprised how hysterical Bernardo sounded about Global Warming.

The email release was in 2009, and was never fully explored to see what it meant. However there was clearly heavy pressure being put on researchers to conform to the warming narrative - e.g. email discussions included pressurizing journals that dared to publish information contrary to CAGW, and discussions about blocking a woman's PhD for similar reasons.

However to me, perhaps the clincher is the details about Venus. Originally it was discovered that the atmosphere there is almost entirely CO2 and the temperature at the surface is hot enough to melt lead.

Perhaps this is why the Magellan probe was equipped to measure the temperature and pressure all the way down through the atmosphere. Here are th eresults.
View attachment 2515

View attachment 2516

From the second graph it is immediately clear that the pressure at the surface of venus is enormous - approximately 92 Atmospheres, and that you have to read the temperature at 49 Km to get a useful comparison with Earth. The grey line on the first graph shows the temperature in the atmosphere at that point to be approx 66 C.

Thus Venus has an atmosphere which is mainly CO2, and receives about 4 times as much energy from the sun (because it is so much nearer) and yet it is only modestly warmer than earth.

I wonder what Bernardo has to say about that.

I'll discuss other aspects of this interview later.

David

Your attempt to project the consequences of an increase of co2 on Earth from conditions on Venus is oversimplified. Venus’ atmosphere is so reflective that the planet absorbs only 2.5% of solar energy (Earth absorbs 50%). Global Warming is about changes on Earth on a timescale measured in centuries. Not billions of years.
 
Last edited:
Your attempt to project the consequences of an increase of co2 on Earth from conditions on Venus is oversimplified. Venus’ atmosphere is so reflective that the planet absorbs only 2.5% of solar energy (Earth absorbs 50%). Global Warming is about changes on Earth on a timescale measured in centuries. Not billions of years.

It was quite hard to get those graphs - even though they were the result of a US satellite and used to be on a NASA website. I also heard a discussion about Venus on the BBC between three planetary scientists, and pointed out this issue by email to each of the contributors (separately). None of them even acknowledged my query.

Do you know of a website that puts those details into a better context?

David
 
I’m not sure which discrepancy you are pointing out David. Venus receives little new heat while little heat is lost in space by radiation due to all the carbon dioxide absorbing the longer wavelengths of the infrared. An equilibrium is obtained.
 
... invite him back when he is prepared ( and not "empty handed" as he legitimately complained ) - turn him into an ally once he has properly digested Dr Curry's CV and her current views.

I totally get what you're saying and the spirit where it's coming from, but this NEVER works... have tried it many times. it's not about the data :)
 
At present, nothing can convince me to criticize BK when it comes to his proselytisation of idealism. That said, I believe his scientific background -- coupled with his natural leaning to empathy -- has closed his eyes to the possibility that his views on climate science might be wrong.

His defence of "models" leaves me uneasy. We get "models" everywhere, even when they're not explicitly named as such. What do models model? Usually, an accepted consensus narrative, and often people just accept such narratives without question.

To me it seems that if you get "initiated into Academia" it is doubly hard for some to look at what comes out of these temples in any objective way, sort of like a denial of self, Or it could just be that its easier to train a smart dog?
 
Your attempt to project the consequences of an increase of co2 on Earth from conditions on Venus is oversimplified. Venus’ atmosphere is so reflective that the planet absorbs only 2.5% of solar energy (Earth absorbs 50%). Global Warming is about changes on Earth on a timescale measured in centuries. Not billions of years.

Spock said the Next Ice age is coming....he seemed far more convincing !
 
I’m not sure which discrepancy you are pointing out David. Venus receives little new heat while little heat is lost in space by radiation due to all the carbon dioxide absorbing the longer wavelengths of the infrared. An equilibrium is obtained.

But in terms of an equilibrium, the CO2 can't just go on absorbing heat. The narative on Earth is that the CO2 in the stratosphere absorbs the long wavelength radiation and re-emits isotropically, thus slowing its escape to space.

You have half persuaded me that Venus might not be relevant to this discussion, but if I tentatively concede that it doesn't alter my view of CAGW when the catastrophic heating only appears when models have been tuned to produce it - e.g. the scientists are unsure of the magnitude (or even, I think the sign) of the feedback loops that control the ultimate change of temperature for an incremental change in CO2 level.

One thing is clear beyond question. On past performance we will ultimately face another ice age. When that happens the human race will really be in trouble.

The problem with many scientific computer models, is that you take a system that is already too complex to be solved analytically and then add a large number of contributory processes that can only be estimated crudely. The end result is an enormous computer program with a fair share of bugs, that is then tuned until it gives the 'right' answer.

David
 
I think, the most important in the global warming debate is to separate the empirical observations of a gradual warming - that evidently does happen - from the questions of its causes (is it anthropogenic?) and consequences (will it be catastrophic?).

The latter two questions are largely based on theoretical inferences and modelling, rather than directly observed brute facts; the main deception promoted and perpetuated by the power elite - and, thus, the mainstream institutions, academic ones included - is that they represent their theories as "facts" (while they are not).

And these theories - or, rather, apocalyptic prophesies, given their hyperemotionalistic doomsaying qualities - are not very much confirmed by the incoming evidence. To the contrary, they are repeatedly and persistently disconfirmed by it, which is evident by the fact that they are still not massively dying because of planetary climate catastrophe (while, according to the predictions by the foreseers of the climate armageddon, loudly and incessantly reiterated since 1980s, we all should have perished long ago).

In fact, as long as experience of everydayness is concerned, the warming makes things much better. In the European Russia, where I live, the warming is exceptionally fast, even more so than in the rest of the Northern Hemisphere (and what about the Southern one, BTW? Does it warm as fast as the Northern one, or not? Can someone provide info, please?). Yet, it is not engulfed in the devastative barrage of the "extreme weather events", as it should have been, according to the "significant warming means deadly catastrophe!" mainstream dogma. Neither ratio nor intensity of dangerous weather and weather-related events - say, floods in spring or forest fires in summer - is notably higher than it always was (for sake of justice, it should be noted that the European Russia is overall not much threatened by the forces of nature: no tornadoes, tsunami or earthquakes here). While the pleasant effects can be felt by ever longer, warmer, drier and brighter warm periods, which, in the "Middle Belt" of the European Russia, habitually last from May to September... but nowadays, due to warming, they oftentimes extend to the late April and early October as well.

Right now, as I write this in the late night of the October 25th (in Nizhny Novgorod, the Moscow time zone), there was yet no first snow, and the night temperatures are still above zero. In the years of my childhood, the late October was the time of first night frosts and snowfalls, yet now it ceases to be the case, such events are moved to the early November. In the spring, intense melting of snow and ice starts in the late March, rather than in the early April. And in summer, in the recent years, the wild swimming seasons occasionally started in the late May, or ended in the early September - while when I was a kid, it was hardly thinkable to swim in lakes or rivers earlier than in the early June or later than in the late August.

So, I'm all for the further warming - which is, thankfully, most likely is predominantly a natural cycle rather than an impact of a human activity, so all the vehement efforts to "fight climate change" won't change climate, only society - and for the worse, due to their oftentimes authoritarian and repressive nature.
 
Last edited:
But in terms of an equilibrium, the CO2 can't just go on absorbing heat. The narative on Earth is that the CO2 in the stratosphere absorbs the long wavelength radiation and re-emits isotropically, thus slowing its escape to space.

You have half persuaded me that Venus might not be relevant to this discussion, but if I tentatively concede that it doesn't alter my view of CAGW when the catastrophic heating only appears when models have been tuned to produce it - e.g. the scientists are unsure of the magnitude (or even, I think the sign) of the feedback loops that control the ultimate change of temperature for an incremental change in CO2 level.

One thing is clear beyond question. On past performance we will ultimately face another ice age. When that happens the human race will really be in trouble.

The problem with many scientific computer models, is that you take a system that is already too complex to be solved analytically and then add a large number of contributory processes that can only be estimated crudely. The end result is an enormous computer program with a fair share of bugs, that is then tuned until it gives the 'right' answer.

David

Hej David,

I'm happy that we can find some common ground in the discussion. I agree with you in everything you write about the climate computer models. For the same reason I'm not trying to persuade you of anything but what we can derive from basic science and simple physics experiments we can redo here on Earth. Stuff that's really underlying modern society and everybody take for granted.

For example we can demonstrate that carbon dioxide slows down heat escape to space. It can easily be measured in any high school chemical laboratory by filling a sealed tank with a transparent top with CO2 and then radiating either visible light from the top into the tank and measuring the heat increase in the tank. Or infrared radiation can be radiated from the bottom and then measured on the outside of the top of the tank and noting the decrease in infrared measured outside the tank top. A recent experiment used a balloon. A simple experiment on global warming | Royal Society Open Science (royalsocietypublishing.org)

There are other problems with fossil fuels than the risk of global warning. Coal burning emits mercury that can be absorbed into the food chain - don't eat sword fish in the mediterranean for example.
 
Hej David,

I'm happy that we can find some common ground in the discussion. I agree with you in everything you write about the climate computer models. For the same reason I'm not trying to persuade you of anything but what we can derive from basic science and simple physics experiments we can redo here on Earth. Stuff that's really underlying modern society and everybody take for granted.
Great, and please remember that I am not a planetary scientist. Also remember that those same dodgy computer models are the main tool used to persuade everyone that there is a crisis.
For example we can demonstrate that carbon dioxide slows down heat escape to space. It can easily be measured in any high school chemical laboratory by filling a sealed tank with a transparent top with CO2 and then radiating either visible light from the top into the tank and measuring the heat increase in the tank. Or infrared radiation can be radiated from the bottom and then measured on the outside of the top of the tank and noting the decrease in infrared measured outside the tank top. A recent experiment used a balloon. A simple experiment on global warming | Royal Society Open Science (royalsocietypublishing.org)
CO2 has a much lower thermal conductivity than air, and I wonder if that is not what is being measured here. The thermal conductivity of air 'contaminated' with 400 ppm would be essentially the same as 'pure' air.

Incidentally the greenhouse effect is at best an analogy. A greenhouse works by blocking the convection of heat from the warmed soil, it has nothing to do with radiation. I have seen one warmist website that admitted this fact at about page 5.

The curious thing about the supposed heating effect is that it relies on heat travelling from a cold place (the stratosphere) to a much warmer place. Since there is no equilibrium here, I guess that doesn't prove anything, but should make one think.
There are other problems with fossil fuels than the risk of global warning. Coal burning emits mercury that can be absorbed into the food chain - don't eat sword fish in the mediterranean for example.

Well gas other than coal gas, would hopefully be OK?

On the practical side, it is also worth noting that the supposed warming is detected using a static array of measuring stations. The locations of these are arbitrary (e.g. not on a grid) and are needed to go back to 1880. Over time various things have happened:

Some stations have dropped out, and the data they would have reported is now calculated by computer!

Many other stations have become more urbanised, which raises their temperature by up to several degrees C. This effect (and some others), is handled by computer processing (what else).

The problems associated with these temperature measurements have been reported by him in excruciating detail. I followed this for a short while after the 2009 release of the climate emails.

When I was working in science, I sure would not have become excited about analysing such corrupted data!

The total temperature increase since 1880 is approximately 1.2 C, although there are some efforts to computer process past measurements!

Please note that I am not opposed to many other green initiatives - such as the reduction of plastic waste, particularly in the oceans.

David
 
Hello. I'm new to the forum but have been a long-time listener of the show. I wanted to jump in here after listening to Bernardo Kastrup's excellent analytical idealism course. I sense this is the bridge between the psi research world and the professional scientific world that will support the next generation of reality seekers. It so elegantly solves the Hard Problem and explains psi phenomenon. I can't help but think of how seamlessly the Global Consciousness Project and NDE data tie into the paradigm. Kastrup mentions this connection but avoids using psi data in his course. I understand the reluctance to upset the institutional science apple cart, but if he's going to speak to lay people, why not include psi? We can handle it.
 
Hello. I'm new to the forum but have been a long-time listener of the show. I wanted to jump in here after listening to Bernardo Kastrup's excellent analytical idealism course. I sense this is the bridge between the psi research world and the professional scientific world that will support the next generation of reality seekers. It so elegantly solves the Hard Problem and explains psi phenomenon. I can't help but think of how seamlessly the Global Consciousness Project and NDE data tie into the paradigm. Kastrup mentions this connection but avoids using psi data in his course. I understand the reluctance to upset the institutional science apple cart, but if he's going to speak to lay people, why not include psi? We can handle it.

hi Zeke... thx for the post.

I'm wondering what you thought of barnardo's other comments and his implicit endorsement hope some pretty dodgy science... not exactly backdoor materialism but doesn't it kind of lean in that direction?
 
Incidentally the greenhouse effect is at best an analogy. A greenhouse works by blocking the convection of heat from the warmed soil, it has nothing to do with radiation. I have seen one warmist website that admitted this fact at about page 5.

David

Yes that's right. The "nonclementure" is a bit off here.

Well gas other than coal gas, would hopefully be OK?

David

Unless it's russian.
 
Hell, I can forgive Alex for blind-sidedly attacking BK for his climate change beliefs, but it's still not possible to blow off climate change as unreal. In the Philippines, no dry season yet again, & GQP bastard climate change deniers point to the hurricane season as being below normal, which is BS. Hurricane Roslyn was a Category 3 storm which narrowly missed resort areas in Mexico. What a pity that Toad "Cancun" Crud didn't get his escape destination smeared all over the landscape.
Rejecting dino-shit burning is the best thing that's happened to humanity since we figured out that slavery is wrong. The benefits of stopping f**k-you fuel use will soon out weigh the costs of changing what we need for energy supplies. Screw anyone who wants to keep burning dog shit oil & natural gas, especially if you think nuke-clear is some kind of alternative.
 
Hell, I can forgive Alex for blind-sidedly attacking BK for his climate change beliefs
The Blind Side thing is a Smoke screen. if you remember, I was directly quoting his published position on global warming.

but it's still not possible to blow off climate change as unreal.

That's why I played the dr. Judith Curry clip. she is not blowing off global warming, but she's not ready to surrender her rights/freedoms to a fake science technocracy.
 
hi Zeke... thx for the post.

I'm wondering what you thought of barnardo's other comments and his implicit endorsement hope some pretty dodgy science... not exactly backdoor materialism but doesn't it kind of lean in that direction?

I assume you're referring to his article and global warming comments. His very human reaction about global warming caught my attention and made for good listening on my bike ride. :) Global warming is not in my swing zone, so I cannot offer any debate on the issue. But, I agree with your larger point about large scale conspiracy and power grabbing through the abuse of science. I respected scientific reporting much more before listening to your podcast. ET disclosure and the recent CoVid fiasco paint an obvious picture, and I have a hard time imagining how we get ourselves out of this mess. Minority views must be allowed and promoted with a free exchange of ideas. Removing the censorship power of social media giants would be a good start. Hopefully, Elon Musk will show the way. Maybe you can get him on your show.
 
Hell, I can forgive Alex for blind-sidedly attacking BK for his climate change beliefs, but it's still not possible to blow off climate change as unreal. In the Philippines, no dry season yet again, & GQP bastard climate change deniers point to the hurricane season as being below normal, which is BS. Hurricane Roslyn was a Category 3 storm which narrowly missed resort areas in Mexico. What a pity that Toad "Cancun" Crud didn't get his escape destination smeared all over the landscape.
Rejecting dino-shit burning is the best thing that's happened to humanity since we figured out that slavery is wrong. The benefits of stopping f**k-you fuel use will soon out weigh the costs of changing what we need for energy supplies. Screw anyone who wants to keep burning dog shit oil & natural gas, especially if you think nuke-clear is some kind of alternative.

What's the alternative, then, Kim? Windmills and sun batteries? These can work only in a limited number of places, where most days are sunny and / or windy (and even such supposedly "green" sources of energy come with severe ecological and social costs). Nuclear energy is actually the best alternative we possess right here and now, especially is handled with care and caution. Disasters like Chernobyl, Fukushima, or many less (in)famous ones? They do happen; but, if one compares the overall ecological and social risks and costs of nuclear and fossil fuel energies, one will see that the former is the best we have in the moment.

To add, I will be only happy if some radical new energy source - say, LENR / cold fusion - will become widespread, and resolve our energy crisis for centuries to come. The problem is, the most difficult here is not as much inventing some new energy sources, but rather promoting them to the point of a widespread usage, which is almost impossible in the current social and epistemic climate, which is very unfriendly to such dominant-worldview-disrupting and social-stability-shattering innovations. To obtain new energy on a large scale, one should find a way to reshape society and its episteme on a comparable level...
 
I assume you're referring to his article and global warming comments. His very human reaction about global warming caught my attention and made for good listening on my bike ride. :) Global warming is not in my swing zone, so I cannot offer any debate on the issue. But, I agree with your larger point about large scale conspiracy and power grabbing through the abuse of science. I respected scientific reporting much more before listening to your podcast. ET disclosure and the recent CoVid fiasco paint an obvious picture, and I have a hard time imagining how we get ourselves out of this mess. Minority views must be allowed and promoted with a free exchange of ideas. Removing the censorship power of social media giants would be a good start. Hopefully, Elon Musk will show the way. Maybe you can get him on your show.

Yeah but it's really a lot more than the global warming thing. I played him the clip from Diana Walsh Pasulka to reinforce the fact that the misinformation component of this stuff is significant... and all the real players in controversial fields are spending a considerable amount of time/ effort/ energy trying to filter through this noise. I don't think Bernardo totally got this. for example, when it comes to UFOs he seemed pretty comfortable with the idea that there's a lot of kooks and nuts in the field so I can just ignore the field... rather than, "gee, the evil empire sure has put a lot of effort into cultivating the "kooks and nuts" factor... I wonder why they've done that"

Then, we could ask the similar question regarding global warming. why is there climateGate 1, climategate 2, and climategate 3? why do they work so hard at shouting down add junk-ifying the science and promoting the anti-science climate alarmists position? again, this has nothing to do with the data per se... it's just looking at the deception / conspiracy.
 
Yeah but it's really a lot more than the global warming thing. I played him the clip from Diana Walsh Pasulka to reinforce the fact that the misinformation component of this stuff is significant... and all the real players in controversial fields are spending a considerable amount of time/ effort/ energy trying to filter through this noise. I don't think Bernardo totally got this. for example, when it comes to UFOs he seemed pretty comfortable with the idea that there's a lot of kooks and nuts in the field so I can just ignore the field... rather than, "gee, the evil empire sure has put a lot of effort into cultivating the "kooks and nuts" factor... I wonder why they've done that"

Then, we could ask the similar question regarding global warming. why is there climateGate 1, climategate 2, and climategate 3? why do they work so hard at shouting down add junk-ifying the science and promoting the anti-science climate alarmists position? again, this has nothing to do with the data per se... it's just looking at the deception / conspiracy.
This seems to be the origin of the climate scare:

https://www.technocracy.news/club-of-rome-the-origin-of-climate-and-population-alarmism/

In essence, the concept of preserving the climate was a bogus excuse to try to control the population growth.

David
 
Yeah but it's really a lot more than the global warming thing. I played him the clip from Diana Walsh Pasulka to reinforce the fact that the misinformation component of this stuff is significant... and all the real players in controversial fields are spending a considerable amount of time/ effort/ energy trying to filter through this noise. I don't think Bernardo totally got this. for example, when it comes to UFOs he seemed pretty comfortable with the idea that there's a lot of kooks and nuts in the field so I can just ignore the field... rather than, "gee, the evil empire sure has put a lot of effort into cultivating the "kooks and nuts" factor... I wonder why they've done that"

Then, we could ask the similar question regarding global warming. why is there climateGate 1, climategate 2, and climategate 3? why do they work so hard at shouting down add junk-ifying the science and promoting the anti-science climate alarmists position? again, this has nothing to do with the data per se... it's just looking at the deception / conspiracy.

Bernardo makes me comfortable with the possibility that we all live in fully separate individual worlds inside a shared system.
I used to (for most of my adult life and still often do) ask myself in regard to religion, "What if they're all right?".
It's much easier for me to make sense of that, than to understand how someone as brilliantly deep-thinking as Bernardo could be completely blind in regard to the Climate & Ukraine things being tied to a leadership who's ultimate goal is for the masses of humanity to assume the role of automatons or cattle. Conversely or otherwise, I'm stuck with the thought that maybe I shouldn't be pedestalizing anyone at all and even have compassion that really smart people are often just really learned people on journeys like everyone else.

And then the God thing. .. Bernardo tried to do this whole dance of "hey, guess what guys, I call God God now, lol, isn't that neat!?" Um, No, B. Actually you kinda skipped right past the fact that this change in perspective has a pretty significant ties to your methodological conclusion of there being a base indivisible unit of reality and that all being definitively a construct of consciousness..... So what's "God"'s part in that, Bernardo? If you haven't thought into this then you have some work to do.
 
Back
Top