The George W. Bush Administration (Karl Rove) governed by the motto: "we're post-reality".
3
I don't know how you form a "common realty" between two people or two approximately equal power groups when in viewing the same factual information one side thinks objectively and the other subjectively. Furthermore, what is the motive when dealing with something as important as climate change to think subjectively? Is it purely short term--and dubious--economic self-interest. That's when "the rock kicks back."
3
I very much enjoyed this column until a paragraph fairly close to the end where he says in the second line, ". . . we do all agree that sick children denied health care suffer, that opioids are addictive, that adults need jobs to put food on their tables."
Sorry, but no, we don't all agree on those things. Fairly recently I heard a Republican Congressman opine that people who lead good lives don't get pre-existing conditions. Presumably that includes children. In that Republican's miserable excuse for a mind, sick children probably are responsible for their own suffering.
By that same token, opioid addiction is simply a moral failing, requiring grit and character to beat. In GOP-World, addiction is never the fault of the drug, but always the fault of the addict - unless the addict is named Rush Limbaugh.
And jobs to put food on tables? Why, then, do Republicans oppose a decent minimum wage? Why do they vilify the unemployed as lazy? Why do they think the worthiest people in the world are billionaires who have inherited their money. You know, folks like the Koch Brothers, the Walton family, and Donald Trump.
I agree that sooner or later the rock will kick back, and I, for one, am looking forward to it.
Sorry, but no, we don't all agree on those things. Fairly recently I heard a Republican Congressman opine that people who lead good lives don't get pre-existing conditions. Presumably that includes children. In that Republican's miserable excuse for a mind, sick children probably are responsible for their own suffering.
By that same token, opioid addiction is simply a moral failing, requiring grit and character to beat. In GOP-World, addiction is never the fault of the drug, but always the fault of the addict - unless the addict is named Rush Limbaugh.
And jobs to put food on tables? Why, then, do Republicans oppose a decent minimum wage? Why do they vilify the unemployed as lazy? Why do they think the worthiest people in the world are billionaires who have inherited their money. You know, folks like the Koch Brothers, the Walton family, and Donald Trump.
I agree that sooner or later the rock will kick back, and I, for one, am looking forward to it.
11
The GOP doesn't do "reality".
For them opinions are superior to facts 24/7/365.
Unfortunately, being inane and mendacious doesn't prevent them from stealing any and all power they can.
As long as the GOP remains in power they will continue killing the planet for short term profits.
Too bad about all the children. Apparently the GOP doesn't give a whit about them either.
For them opinions are superior to facts 24/7/365.
Unfortunately, being inane and mendacious doesn't prevent them from stealing any and all power they can.
As long as the GOP remains in power they will continue killing the planet for short term profits.
Too bad about all the children. Apparently the GOP doesn't give a whit about them either.
2
Our brains and sense organs evolved to deal with the real world.
Our ideas come, or should come, from real perceptions of real things.
Our ideas come, or should come, from real perceptions of real things.
1
Thoughtful essay. We do have a "common reality" but how to make sure that we all see it?
Faux News did not help. Their original charter was to make the Big Lie believable to enough people. Jamestown, indeed.
Faux News did not help. Their original charter was to make the Big Lie believable to enough people. Jamestown, indeed.
3
Sadly, for Johnson, we have physics. The rockiness of rocks is disproved by the emptiness of atoms, and so on down a rabbit hole of increasingly vacuumy (vacuous?) observations. If Johnson can kick a rock, then I can kick a scanning electron microscope, an atom bomb, or even a plasma TV set. As a scientist, my own view is that what provides our shared experience is models. We're evolved to sample the electrical and chemical state of our surroundings in a way that enables us to survive better, and this has only the most abstract relationship to what is "there", which is some combinations of fields, some of which may not even be related to energy, but rather probability. And that's even before we get to Berkeley's more fundamental objections.
4
some common ground is, perhaps, a rock
So Climate change is going to destroy the planet but:
- There is no discussion of building more CO2 free nuclear reactors
- There is no discussion of a new Manhattan project for carbon capture
- The same ideologues who wish us to believe we're all doomed if we don't adopt radical change now have no problems flying to conferences many in private jets.
When the people who scream the loudest start to adopt the monastic lifestyles they require of the rest of us and things like nuclear energy get put back on the table then I'll start taking the sense of urgency seriously. Until then: Yes the planet is warming, but you certainly aren't acting like it's going to be as bad as you claim. So you clearly just want to push the same radical left wing redistribution that has failed where ever it's been tried (see Venezuela for the most recent example)
- There is no discussion of building more CO2 free nuclear reactors
- There is no discussion of a new Manhattan project for carbon capture
- The same ideologues who wish us to believe we're all doomed if we don't adopt radical change now have no problems flying to conferences many in private jets.
When the people who scream the loudest start to adopt the monastic lifestyles they require of the rest of us and things like nuclear energy get put back on the table then I'll start taking the sense of urgency seriously. Until then: Yes the planet is warming, but you certainly aren't acting like it's going to be as bad as you claim. So you clearly just want to push the same radical left wing redistribution that has failed where ever it's been tried (see Venezuela for the most recent example)
3
I accept that we perceive things subjectively.
I accept that whatever we deem "objective" truths are things (for want of a better word) that the vast majority of us agree to see as such. "Objective truth" is essentially inter-subjective and consensual.
When inter-subjective concordance breaks down there is little possibility for consensus -- and no hope for alignment (around what we think of as "objective truth"). Communities crumble. Nations fall.
We need political leadership capable of re-establishing mutual respect between most, if not all, of the various quasi-nations of North America -- for example, and speaking just geographically, New England, the South, the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest -- sufficient to achieve alignment around a shared, inter-subjective sense of what America stands for.
We don't have it in POTUS. On the contrary, POTUS in unaware of the need, and utterly incapable of meeting it; "America First" is a small, resentment-fueled vision inimical to bringing people together. We don't have it in Congress, which has long forgotten there's a country -- a whole country -- for it to serve.
We live in a me-me-me, or perhaps (at best) us-versus them society. Inter-subjectvity is dead in the sphere of national politics. it's been dying there for decades -- since JFK, it seems to me.
I accept that whatever we deem "objective" truths are things (for want of a better word) that the vast majority of us agree to see as such. "Objective truth" is essentially inter-subjective and consensual.
When inter-subjective concordance breaks down there is little possibility for consensus -- and no hope for alignment (around what we think of as "objective truth"). Communities crumble. Nations fall.
We need political leadership capable of re-establishing mutual respect between most, if not all, of the various quasi-nations of North America -- for example, and speaking just geographically, New England, the South, the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest -- sufficient to achieve alignment around a shared, inter-subjective sense of what America stands for.
We don't have it in POTUS. On the contrary, POTUS in unaware of the need, and utterly incapable of meeting it; "America First" is a small, resentment-fueled vision inimical to bringing people together. We don't have it in Congress, which has long forgotten there's a country -- a whole country -- for it to serve.
We live in a me-me-me, or perhaps (at best) us-versus them society. Inter-subjectvity is dead in the sphere of national politics. it's been dying there for decades -- since JFK, it seems to me.
4
We are being held hostage not by those who are blind to scientific facts, but by those who have cravenly manipulated the perception of the masses in order to gain power and wealth.
4
In the '80's, I studied Atmospheric Science as a PhD. I only lasted a year before bailing and going back to Engineering. Initially in meteorology, I switched to climatology for the last 5 months. When asked what I wanted to do, global warming never came up for a simple reason: It had been formalized as an issue 30 years before and by the '80s was being taken seriously by everyone from the President on down. Clearly, it wasn't going to happen. Why study something that isn't going to happen?
I left Atmospheric Science because I was given a class assignment. Arthur C Clarke had written a science fiction novel, 'Rendezvous with Rama', in which Earth is visited by an alien starship. Rama is shaped like a tin can, rotating about its long axis to simulate gravity along its inner surface, and filled with an Earth-like atmosphere. The problem was: describe the climate inside Rama. What happens to the Coriolis effect? Where does it rain, where desert? I failed the question, but not the book. Reading that novel opened up a lifelong love of Science Fiction. I've spent my adult career designing spacecraft.
To me, there is an eeriness to today's climate debate. It's as though I spent the last 30 years on Rama, but have now returned to Earth and found that it has gone backwards in time, towards degeneracy. I feel strangely responsible for this. Somehow this is my fault, for not taking global warming seriously, back when I had the chance.
I left Atmospheric Science because I was given a class assignment. Arthur C Clarke had written a science fiction novel, 'Rendezvous with Rama', in which Earth is visited by an alien starship. Rama is shaped like a tin can, rotating about its long axis to simulate gravity along its inner surface, and filled with an Earth-like atmosphere. The problem was: describe the climate inside Rama. What happens to the Coriolis effect? Where does it rain, where desert? I failed the question, but not the book. Reading that novel opened up a lifelong love of Science Fiction. I've spent my adult career designing spacecraft.
To me, there is an eeriness to today's climate debate. It's as though I spent the last 30 years on Rama, but have now returned to Earth and found that it has gone backwards in time, towards degeneracy. I feel strangely responsible for this. Somehow this is my fault, for not taking global warming seriously, back when I had the chance.
7
I kept waiting for the why-we-all-should-care moment to be delivered in this piece, and it never came. But then I didn't really think it would. Instead, a fuzzy lecture about how rocks are real.
Here's what I see. Most people accept that there is global warming which is going to heavily and adversely affect humans in the near future, but the people who profess to believe this don't behave any differently from those who don't. Scientists have told us it is too late to turn this around unless--and this is a slim chance--the world goes on a crash diet today. Shut down the A/C, park the cars and jets, stop eating meat, and stop reproducing. If people don't have the will to act then belief means nothing.
This would mean extreme sacrifice, and we just aren't those people.
Economies have always been based on ever increasing populations and levels of consumption. The world would be required to adopt a completely different mindset based on a philosophy which hasn't yet been invented.
Here's what I see. Most people accept that there is global warming which is going to heavily and adversely affect humans in the near future, but the people who profess to believe this don't behave any differently from those who don't. Scientists have told us it is too late to turn this around unless--and this is a slim chance--the world goes on a crash diet today. Shut down the A/C, park the cars and jets, stop eating meat, and stop reproducing. If people don't have the will to act then belief means nothing.
This would mean extreme sacrifice, and we just aren't those people.
Economies have always been based on ever increasing populations and levels of consumption. The world would be required to adopt a completely different mindset based on a philosophy which hasn't yet been invented.
7
Thank you. I'm looking for ways to create bridges with people who dismiss the facts. I know deep down we share the concerns about the state of the world. I'd like to see town halls take place across the country that present the facts of Climate change and give people a chance to hear information, ask questions, be presented with the facts without anyone impugned as stupid. We need to start having positive, progressive conversations that educate and bring us together.
2
Propaganda is defined as information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
This is what we are dealing with-- propaganda--not two bubbles. In the distant past two sides might argue about how best to solve a problem, what way to approach and how serious a problem we face. In our current world the people holding the facts are dismissed and the propaganda machine whirls into action. Know your source, who is fueling the information. This is why money needs to be removed from politics and journalistic standards must be upheld. In the past opinion was separate from news and people understood the difference between the two, but that no longer exists in America.
This is what we are dealing with-- propaganda--not two bubbles. In the distant past two sides might argue about how best to solve a problem, what way to approach and how serious a problem we face. In our current world the people holding the facts are dismissed and the propaganda machine whirls into action. Know your source, who is fueling the information. This is why money needs to be removed from politics and journalistic standards must be upheld. In the past opinion was separate from news and people understood the difference between the two, but that no longer exists in America.
2
The essential problem with the discussion on global warming is that one either believes it or doesn't. We all need to start thinking about DEGREES OF RISK.
We buy house insurance on the very tiny risk that our house may burn down, even if we don't smoke in bed. We have car insurance even if we have a spotless record because an accident can be catastrophic.
Even the most die-hard denier must admit that there is a non-zero chance that humans are changing the climate for the worse. The exact chance, whether 100%, 30%, or even 1%, is irrelevant because the price, like our house burning down, is catastrophic. The price for being wrong (i.e., there is no human-caused global warming) is low, because innovation in entire new industries will drive the economy. There is little innovation, and thus little growth, to be had for a continuation of the carbon economy. In fact, facing up to a non-zero chance for a human-caused global warming may be the stimulus that the entire world needs for what has obviously become a low-growth world-wide economy.
We buy house insurance on the very tiny risk that our house may burn down, even if we don't smoke in bed. We have car insurance even if we have a spotless record because an accident can be catastrophic.
Even the most die-hard denier must admit that there is a non-zero chance that humans are changing the climate for the worse. The exact chance, whether 100%, 30%, or even 1%, is irrelevant because the price, like our house burning down, is catastrophic. The price for being wrong (i.e., there is no human-caused global warming) is low, because innovation in entire new industries will drive the economy. There is little innovation, and thus little growth, to be had for a continuation of the carbon economy. In fact, facing up to a non-zero chance for a human-caused global warming may be the stimulus that the entire world needs for what has obviously become a low-growth world-wide economy.
5
Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of the points in this piece. But this is far too high-handed to matter, and will not help our cause. Can someone please bring it down to earth for once? This is why we lost in the first place.
3
There is a flaw in this essay. The notion that reality is a subjective experience, defined by a person's history and thinking habits, is correct only up to a point.
That demarcation comes in the world of scientific evidence and inquiry. Here, either the data supports you or it doesn't. Scientific arguments are usually settled on that basis, often in a matter of a few years or decades.
Not so with climate change deniers, who have taken an anti truth drug. Kudos to the oil companies for divining the public's vulnerabilities here, Shame on our media for not taking a stand for facts, evidence, and peer review.
Even our courts do this better than opinion makers.
Let's stick to facts. The world is burning up, and the emergency gets more daunting every day. And since the waffling Times is a beacon compared to other outlets, maybe we should get it over with, and just cut our throats now.
That demarcation comes in the world of scientific evidence and inquiry. Here, either the data supports you or it doesn't. Scientific arguments are usually settled on that basis, often in a matter of a few years or decades.
Not so with climate change deniers, who have taken an anti truth drug. Kudos to the oil companies for divining the public's vulnerabilities here, Shame on our media for not taking a stand for facts, evidence, and peer review.
Even our courts do this better than opinion makers.
Let's stick to facts. The world is burning up, and the emergency gets more daunting every day. And since the waffling Times is a beacon compared to other outlets, maybe we should get it over with, and just cut our throats now.
9
The common reality that Democrats need to face is that they've lost almost 1000 state seats since 2009, 27 state chambers, the House in 2011, the Senate in 2015, the White House in 2016, and as result of everything else the Supreme Court in 2017. A reality that is the cause for all of the continual screams that we hear, a reality that Democrats don't seem to want to acknowledge, a reality that Democrats don’t appear to know how to change. The only explanation is that Democrats have become a cult of sorts, unable to apply reasoning, the use of data, to correct an obvious losing platform.
We wouldn’t be in this situation if Democrats were something besides an empty suit, something besides a social media echo chamber. What world do they live in?
We wouldn’t be in this situation if Democrats were something besides an empty suit, something besides a social media echo chamber. What world do they live in?
6
There's another explanation: the Koch brothers.
3
One of the earlier commenters noted how some of his students would still reject the evidence presented to them in the classroom for various reasons, including their faith (how they rationalize that is beyond me), cultural or social norms of the places they were from, or ideologies they have adopted and the concomitant re-inforcement provided by like-minded people. I think that this is an enduring problem that is and has been manifested in societies throughout time.
I think the only hope for all peoples in the world is to fight everyday for the value of education, reasoned discussion, tolerance of diversity, and a philosophy of non-violence. It is in the interchange of ideas, cultures, and religions when applicable that the glimmer of enlightenment begins, embers that have to be carefully fanned and fed to provide enough light to see truth, something that apparently is difficult to see for many. Truth does exist, but some think that it is a piece of clay that can be molded into a shape that they like. Yet, truth is hard to see even for the most discerning quite often, which simply brings me back to the value of the things I mentioned at the start.
Our only hope is that enough of us do see the light and the truth in enough things that we remain in the majority, one that is sufficient to counter all of the false narratives and prophets out there. In our history, we have not always been successful and have paid dearly for it at times. Now is such a time, I think.
I think the only hope for all peoples in the world is to fight everyday for the value of education, reasoned discussion, tolerance of diversity, and a philosophy of non-violence. It is in the interchange of ideas, cultures, and religions when applicable that the glimmer of enlightenment begins, embers that have to be carefully fanned and fed to provide enough light to see truth, something that apparently is difficult to see for many. Truth does exist, but some think that it is a piece of clay that can be molded into a shape that they like. Yet, truth is hard to see even for the most discerning quite often, which simply brings me back to the value of the things I mentioned at the start.
Our only hope is that enough of us do see the light and the truth in enough things that we remain in the majority, one that is sufficient to counter all of the false narratives and prophets out there. In our history, we have not always been successful and have paid dearly for it at times. Now is such a time, I think.
7
Yes, of course reality will come back to haunt all of us if we try to deny it. The trouble is that the comeuppance for those who disbelieve that the climate is changing largely due to human activity will occur long after those people (and many of us) are dead.
The urgent questions that I wish Prof. Lynch had addressed instead are, (1) how can we address the distrust of science and technical expertise that so many have, and (2) how do we actually get everyone back on the same page, factually speaking? Addressing those questions would have made for a useful essay.
The urgent questions that I wish Prof. Lynch had addressed instead are, (1) how can we address the distrust of science and technical expertise that so many have, and (2) how do we actually get everyone back on the same page, factually speaking? Addressing those questions would have made for a useful essay.
7
Two good points here. There is an essay to be written in The Stone (perhaps it has already been written and I have missed it) about the role of post-modern philosophers in convincing us that all truth is relative, facts are only what they appear to be from a particular perspective. I am prone to that line of argument but must admit that it comes back to bite when one is faced with a complex set of realities (the manifestations of climate change and its causes) that are so obviously real.
1
"It is a good objection because if everything we perceive is subjective, what explains the commonalities of our experience? Why do we seem to perceive, at least some of the time, the same unyielding reality?"
This is because, at our root, we are all composed of the same underlying consciousness. While, in reality, our vision may be disturbed or our color perception out of wack, and we ARE NOT actually perceiving the same universe. This is because, although our consciousness is connected we are still individual facets of the 'great mirrorball in the sky'. And each individual facet acts as it's own Universe, by nature, because it has it's own unique perspective.
In light of these facts, we should be glad we ever share any real common perception with each other. I think it helps to be 'conscious of consciousness' from an early age and learn to see people from within their worldview. Every time, I do my little 'person-warping' daydreams I am severely disappointed and want back to my intelligence. This is because, I have created a lot of coping mechanisms for dealing with reality and when I abandon those, I see the world in a harsh light.
I think, perhaps because I was a single child, I developed such a unique perspective, but really, I've just encouraged it's development, and I am pretty sure anybody else could too. What I enjoy is harnessing this perspective to make really beautiful film art, and I hope to share more of it with the world.
This is because, at our root, we are all composed of the same underlying consciousness. While, in reality, our vision may be disturbed or our color perception out of wack, and we ARE NOT actually perceiving the same universe. This is because, although our consciousness is connected we are still individual facets of the 'great mirrorball in the sky'. And each individual facet acts as it's own Universe, by nature, because it has it's own unique perspective.
In light of these facts, we should be glad we ever share any real common perception with each other. I think it helps to be 'conscious of consciousness' from an early age and learn to see people from within their worldview. Every time, I do my little 'person-warping' daydreams I am severely disappointed and want back to my intelligence. This is because, I have created a lot of coping mechanisms for dealing with reality and when I abandon those, I see the world in a harsh light.
I think, perhaps because I was a single child, I developed such a unique perspective, but really, I've just encouraged it's development, and I am pretty sure anybody else could too. What I enjoy is harnessing this perspective to make really beautiful film art, and I hope to share more of it with the world.
In our social world, we deal with the prospect of calamity by finding safe refuge, if we can afford the expense,and if not, we hope for miraculous salvation.This has been mankind's story from prehistoric times onward. Whether it was the biblical Flood, wars, or wherever plague that might be ravaging our world at any given time, the same pattern tends to be repeated over and over. Bishop Berkeley's conjecture simply echoed Platonic philosophy and a bit of medieval Scholastisism that held as an article of faith that ultimate reality is not of this world.
Bishop Berkeley lived on an age of Rationalism, not science. That is a universe apart from our age. Science is evidence based. Denial of the evidence requires an act of will. Small wonder, then,that the Republicans' election strategy focused entirety on emotionalism and invective.
First Amendment jurisprudence has heretofore assumed that people can readily distinguish good arguments and bad. Today we're not so sure. As we learned to our chagrin over the last century, who controls the message has all too often been the deciding factor . That message, if it is to be accepted, may require people to deny what they know to be true. That was the message of commentators, such as George Orwell and Erich Hoffer. We all need to pay close attention.
Bishop Berkeley lived on an age of Rationalism, not science. That is a universe apart from our age. Science is evidence based. Denial of the evidence requires an act of will. Small wonder, then,that the Republicans' election strategy focused entirety on emotionalism and invective.
First Amendment jurisprudence has heretofore assumed that people can readily distinguish good arguments and bad. Today we're not so sure. As we learned to our chagrin over the last century, who controls the message has all too often been the deciding factor . That message, if it is to be accepted, may require people to deny what they know to be true. That was the message of commentators, such as George Orwell and Erich Hoffer. We all need to pay close attention.
6
Once the society went forward with dignifying creationism because is was based on "sincere belief" and "faith" the seed of the present situation was born. we may laugh at the soviet's absurd lysenkoism but the US has fallen into the same toilet with our tolerance of evangelical creationism as a respectable alternative to the evidence. It's too late now- we are, as trump said, a nation of "true believers" but not one of thinkers.
8
Tragically, Johnson will win some climate change "brownie points" when coastal cities are flooded, when super-sized hurricanes kill thousands and inflict billions of dollars of property damage, when climate-triggered droughts, famines, diseases, and mass migrations disrupt the planet, and so on. ...but wait, that's already starting to happen in many places. When these events accelerate, we may all prefer the virtual reality of "The Matrix" to what's actually going on.
3
The "super-sized hurricanes" are indeed already happening. Look at the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 and the New England Hurricane of 1938. Fortunately, these areas have not been hit by anything remotely comparable since.
1
The author's thesis reminds me that there is a big role reversal taking place in the climate change debate.
People who are left of center, and often subscribe to post modernism, have left their post modernist theories at the door before coming into the climate change debate.
Many people who believe in climate change are left of center.
As such, many of them are sensitive and receptive to the ideas of post modernists who say that there are no or few facts and that everything is a social construction. To this crowd, everything can be debated and truth is an illusion.
However, in the case of climate change, these liberals have abadoned all of their post modernist skepticism. They are absolutely sure that the earth is getting dangerously warmer, and that this is caused by man, and they forget that good scientists will never assume anything, with always question everytihing and will know that sometimes scientists get it all wrong: When Pasteur came along, all the other doctors in Paris mocked him as a fool for believing that microscopic germs can cause disease and that doctors should, therefore, sterilize their instruments.
People who are left of center, and often subscribe to post modernism, have left their post modernist theories at the door before coming into the climate change debate.
Many people who believe in climate change are left of center.
As such, many of them are sensitive and receptive to the ideas of post modernists who say that there are no or few facts and that everything is a social construction. To this crowd, everything can be debated and truth is an illusion.
However, in the case of climate change, these liberals have abadoned all of their post modernist skepticism. They are absolutely sure that the earth is getting dangerously warmer, and that this is caused by man, and they forget that good scientists will never assume anything, with always question everytihing and will know that sometimes scientists get it all wrong: When Pasteur came along, all the other doctors in Paris mocked him as a fool for believing that microscopic germs can cause disease and that doctors should, therefore, sterilize their instruments.
7
David, please save the maundering clap-trap. I am a "liberal" and an applied physicist/engineer. Do not conflate "liberalism" with post-modernist views about reality, deconstructionism, or any other literary theory du jour.
Under better circumstances i could imagine being a "Rockefeller Republican," but today nobody with a brain or an ounce of compassion can honorably affiliate with the GOP, or in this environment call themselves "conservative."
Under better circumstances i could imagine being a "Rockefeller Republican," but today nobody with a brain or an ounce of compassion can honorably affiliate with the GOP, or in this environment call themselves "conservative."
13
Likewise. I'm a physicist, and anthropogenic climate change is a fact, supported by evidence.
4
As a full professor for many years, my intellect tells me to agree with what you say. But, my experience in the classroom tells me otherwise.
It is common for students who are non caring or non inquisitive or driven to extreme beliefs by their faiths to categorically reject attempts to form conclusions based about the world on empirical or any other accepted methods of inquiry used by the liberal arts or liberal education.
I have taught and done research on climate change, both its science and policy, for decades. Excepting graduate students, too many undergraduate students simply refuse to consider the reality of anthropogenic climate change and justify their views with unreflective comments such as "scientists have been wrong before," "just because the majority of scientists believe in climate change doesn't make them right–remember Galileo."
As students and teachers increasingly get to know one another and find out whether and to what extent religious ideology is guiding views of the world–contrasted with methods of science in the case of climate change–the tensions and divisions between students and teachers become palpable and, I fear, for the most part not resolvable.
I will bet that most professors agree with what your column. I also bet that even with the thought you have given to common realities, you would be hard pressed to make changes in students who because of faith are dismissive of modes of inquiry and learning that lead to differences with their faith.
It is common for students who are non caring or non inquisitive or driven to extreme beliefs by their faiths to categorically reject attempts to form conclusions based about the world on empirical or any other accepted methods of inquiry used by the liberal arts or liberal education.
I have taught and done research on climate change, both its science and policy, for decades. Excepting graduate students, too many undergraduate students simply refuse to consider the reality of anthropogenic climate change and justify their views with unreflective comments such as "scientists have been wrong before," "just because the majority of scientists believe in climate change doesn't make them right–remember Galileo."
As students and teachers increasingly get to know one another and find out whether and to what extent religious ideology is guiding views of the world–contrasted with methods of science in the case of climate change–the tensions and divisions between students and teachers become palpable and, I fear, for the most part not resolvable.
I will bet that most professors agree with what your column. I also bet that even with the thought you have given to common realities, you would be hard pressed to make changes in students who because of faith are dismissive of modes of inquiry and learning that lead to differences with their faith.
13
I agree, for some reason there is a large difference between having a 4 year college degree and a graduate degree. Per surveys by Pew almost 25% of people with college degrees still believe in creationism, showing that faith still has more weight than 'book learning' for many people. In addition many 'creation scientists' are actually engineers, a demanding profession which tends to produce a fair number of conservative people. My wife and I observe that many college educated co-workers live in 'bubbles', their education provided a profession but not necessarily an open mind.
Graduate work for some reason is not always, but is often different. I guess the process of doing research leading to a thesis and for some a dissertation changes the way that they consider the world. I was just a research assistant and it did for me, helping a couple of students and a professor with research and their thesis and dissertation work. It helped me in high tech when engineers ran up against a wall, and I just fell back on starting with literature searches.
I'm also an engineer, and a common attribute among engineers is that they like to solve problems. A major problem now is 'what is wrong with Democrats', as currently they aren't an effective political party. This is a difficult problem as they don’t seem to want to acknowledge it.
Graduate work for some reason is not always, but is often different. I guess the process of doing research leading to a thesis and for some a dissertation changes the way that they consider the world. I was just a research assistant and it did for me, helping a couple of students and a professor with research and their thesis and dissertation work. It helped me in high tech when engineers ran up against a wall, and I just fell back on starting with literature searches.
I'm also an engineer, and a common attribute among engineers is that they like to solve problems. A major problem now is 'what is wrong with Democrats', as currently they aren't an effective political party. This is a difficult problem as they don’t seem to want to acknowledge it.
2
I don't mind differing views as long as they can be supported by valid measurements or science or rational thinking. I may disagree with the interpretation of said data but that doesn't mean that we are living in different realities...at least I don't think it does...or does it?
There is no obvious way to know that climate change is due to the activities of man. It requires a lot of thought and testing of hypotheses to get to the kind of confidence scientists have about this phenomenon. However, even though the means to this conclusion are not simple the testing and the purpose of the testing and the logic behind it are all transparent to anyone educated in the disciplines employed. The proof is in the growing average temperatures over decades and the increasing frequencies of extreme weather patterns which used to occur far less frequently. This science and the empirical evidence are like Johnson's kicked rock. The problem what we have is that a lot of people think that their perceptions are not subjective if they conform with those of other people. The climate deniers are not consciously defying reality, they are sharing the same presumptions and applying the same experiences to what they are perceiving and so reach the same conclusions in their minds. They really do not appreciate the reliability of scientific knowledge over what they see and understand from their own perspectives.
1
Dear Professor Lynch,
If indeed the matter of the planet's ecological degradation is as dire as common sense would suggest, would not modern civilization itself need to be seriously rolled back for any hope of turning back the avalanche?
That is, would not much of humanity have to follow, say, Bill McKibben's example of 'one child', tiny carbon footprint, etc., as opposed to, say, Al Gore's 20,000 square foot home, jet-setting, mind-numbing hypocritical lectures of what must be done to save humanity?
Point being, no treaty was going to stop Adolph Hitler, and no treaty is going to stop climate change, if indeed we are nearing or have already crossed the threshold of catastrophe. Mankind will not retreat from scorching this earth, ridding it of every last species, poisoning every last drop of water, if there's a buck to be made or a trinket to be had.
Now if the day ever comes when we have more people like Pope Francis and fewer like Donald Trump, this would be a matter worth debating. Until then, we can all start stocking up the sunblock and putting our homes on stilts, because the best is yet to come.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
If indeed the matter of the planet's ecological degradation is as dire as common sense would suggest, would not modern civilization itself need to be seriously rolled back for any hope of turning back the avalanche?
That is, would not much of humanity have to follow, say, Bill McKibben's example of 'one child', tiny carbon footprint, etc., as opposed to, say, Al Gore's 20,000 square foot home, jet-setting, mind-numbing hypocritical lectures of what must be done to save humanity?
Point being, no treaty was going to stop Adolph Hitler, and no treaty is going to stop climate change, if indeed we are nearing or have already crossed the threshold of catastrophe. Mankind will not retreat from scorching this earth, ridding it of every last species, poisoning every last drop of water, if there's a buck to be made or a trinket to be had.
Now if the day ever comes when we have more people like Pope Francis and fewer like Donald Trump, this would be a matter worth debating. Until then, we can all start stocking up the sunblock and putting our homes on stilts, because the best is yet to come.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
6
No, not really. All of the G20 nations are at ZPG or below. The US would be facing rapidly-declining population were not for immigration, including illegal immigration.
We do need to reduce our "carbon intensity" (amount of CO2 produced per capita) dramatically. This is not only feasible, it's actually starting to look cheaper than the alternative ... something that is amazing from the perspective of a decade ago.
We do need to reduce our "carbon intensity" (amount of CO2 produced per capita) dramatically. This is not only feasible, it's actually starting to look cheaper than the alternative ... something that is amazing from the perspective of a decade ago.
6
What? An argument about the reality of reality?
"Perhaps his point was that there are things that our perceptions of reality share in common."
This is in question? This is some kind of deep mystery? What?
"Perhaps his point was that there are things that our perceptions of reality share in common."
This is in question? This is some kind of deep mystery? What?
The commitments in the accord will, according to NASA and other climate scientists, decrease the average temperature 0.8 degrees F - by 2100!
If the real causes - over population and deforestation - are not addressed, this emission 'promise' from countries will do nothing. At all. Except cost money.
I understand that people are mad that the US 'pulled out' but it was the accord/agreement that was bad. It was bad in 2016, it is bad today. When will the political rhetoric stop and the real discussions take place? And then today the DNC stated that the US should pay everyone for every baby they have?!!! Does anyone not realize that the earth is over populated? Or is that for another day?
If the real causes - over population and deforestation - are not addressed, this emission 'promise' from countries will do nothing. At all. Except cost money.
I understand that people are mad that the US 'pulled out' but it was the accord/agreement that was bad. It was bad in 2016, it is bad today. When will the political rhetoric stop and the real discussions take place? And then today the DNC stated that the US should pay everyone for every baby they have?!!! Does anyone not realize that the earth is over populated? Or is that for another day?
8
You are wrong about the estimated temperature change. You are citing a Trump "stat" that has been refuted by the authors who wrote the paper that Trump "cites".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-paris...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-paris...
2
So Mar, what are YOU going to do? Murder billions?
Your real claim is that if there were only a few of you, then your CO2 production wouldn't matter, so everybody must die for your convenience? Really?
Your real claim is that if there were only a few of you, then your CO2 production wouldn't matter, so everybody must die for your convenience? Really?
2
I don't follow that Samuel Johnson was demonstrating a shared reality when he kicked a rock. It didn't hurt my foot, did it? If I think it must have hurt his foot, then we are right back at the original question, aren't we?
I also don't follow that a Berkelian subjective world would be less likely to be consistent than "real" world. The implication of demonstrating that all this is subjective is that the "subjective" world has all the obvious qualities that realists ordinarily attribute to the "real" world - it doesn't go away when we turn our heads in the other direction, it has the consistency it has always had, and so on. Berkeley wasn't some new age guru, saying we could pass our foot harmlessly through that rock if only we believed we could.
So, I'm afraid it isn't about idealism versus realism - and it isn't that the climate change deniers don't believe in a shared reality. It's about false information: they believe that their scientists are better than ours, that we are the ones being fooled, that it's one big coherent reality, and that they are the ones who know how it really works. They have links to studies proving they are right. That's the trouble.
I also don't follow that a Berkelian subjective world would be less likely to be consistent than "real" world. The implication of demonstrating that all this is subjective is that the "subjective" world has all the obvious qualities that realists ordinarily attribute to the "real" world - it doesn't go away when we turn our heads in the other direction, it has the consistency it has always had, and so on. Berkeley wasn't some new age guru, saying we could pass our foot harmlessly through that rock if only we believed we could.
So, I'm afraid it isn't about idealism versus realism - and it isn't that the climate change deniers don't believe in a shared reality. It's about false information: they believe that their scientists are better than ours, that we are the ones being fooled, that it's one big coherent reality, and that they are the ones who know how it really works. They have links to studies proving they are right. That's the trouble.
1
As a Philosopher, Professor Lynch, you should KNOW that Berkeley explained our common conceptions and perceptions by informing us that what we are perceiving are the Ideas of GOD. THAT"S why we share perceptions in common, not because we each have only our subjective Ideas. So with that in mind, let's ask why Christians, who believe that God created all that exists and that THAT creation is perfect because willed by God, why then do they not at the same time absolutely take the Paris accord seriously and want to do even MORE than what was and is required by that Community of Life event. Why do the right wing Christian communities place more credence and hope in an afterlife? Why do they not roar against Foolish Trump's absurd reality of the Physical and Biological World. A HOAX? NOT good for more MONEY?? God is ashamed of this section of his creation, IF God exists. Berkeley's arguments have NEVER been refuted. BUT the rejection of the Paris Accord shows with what contempt Trump and his allies view the creation of their Christian GOD.
3
Could someone reduce this article to a "tweet" and send it to the POTUS, Fox News, and members of the Republican Party in Congress? Maybe they would take note.
Please.
Please.
3
Unfortunately it should be obvious that Capital (business leaders etc), and the Far Left and liberal and conservative political media elites do not actually live in same physical or human reality part of the planet that the 99% do, and so feel free to degrade most of our world in order to gain evermore wealth and power for themselves. And they continue this well aware of likely social anarchy and regional and biosphere collapses in the future, because they believe that then as now they will be able to escape the unpleasant parts of reality because they are superior beings - and of course have all that loot they stole with which to ward of whatever unpleasantness their mismanagement of our planet creates.
3
It would help to get our metaphysics straight. As Roger Penrose said there are three realities (at least). There is physical reality, subjective reality, and the realm of mathematics and Platonic Ideals. To know physical reality you need science.
The liberal readers of The Times think climate change deniers are insane but I think their views make sense in a way. They have realized much better than the liberals that the world presented by the press is a lie, and therefore they feel free to reject the liberal's arguments. Liberals, before you dismiss the other side, look to yourselves.
The liberal readers of The Times think climate change deniers are insane but I think their views make sense in a way. They have realized much better than the liberals that the world presented by the press is a lie, and therefore they feel free to reject the liberal's arguments. Liberals, before you dismiss the other side, look to yourselves.
5
It is not conservatives' rejection of what liberals say that's the problem, but theIr rejection of what science says. They refuse to look beyond their horror of Al Gore and Obama to the physical reality of man-made climate change. That's on them, not the press, and that's why they deserve the label of "deniers."
4
Subjective reality is part of physical reality. A person's pains, sensations, thoughts and emotions are brain activities. There is no credible evidence of non-physical subjectivity.
Physical reality and mathematical reality are overlapping and interacting subsets of the one reality that is the set of facts.
Penrose was out of his realm of expertise when he ventured beyond physics to metaphysics. Apparently he never read Wittgenstein's Tractatus.
Physical reality and mathematical reality are overlapping and interacting subsets of the one reality that is the set of facts.
Penrose was out of his realm of expertise when he ventured beyond physics to metaphysics. Apparently he never read Wittgenstein's Tractatus.
4
"They have realized much better than the liberals that the world presented by the press is a lie, and therefore they feel free to reject the liberal's arguments."
This is a statement that seems to be meaningful when first read, but on further reflection it appears less-and-less so. What does it mean to say "...the world presented by the press is a lie...?" Do you mean that the people who work in media are lying, in the sense of intentionally misleading people about facts and verifiable information? Or, do you mean that there is a monolithic entity known as "the press" that is under a uniform delusion about the real world, whatever that is? If so, how is it that you know? Or, do you suppose that people are so uncritical in their thinking that they merely accept what the read/see/hear from the media?
Furthermore, isn't the argument against climate science an argument with the science being reported? Or is it that if everything the media reports on is ipso facto a lie, then it is right to reject everything derived from media, including, say, a scientist reporting their findings in the NYT? That doesn't seem very reasonable, does it?
This is a statement that seems to be meaningful when first read, but on further reflection it appears less-and-less so. What does it mean to say "...the world presented by the press is a lie...?" Do you mean that the people who work in media are lying, in the sense of intentionally misleading people about facts and verifiable information? Or, do you mean that there is a monolithic entity known as "the press" that is under a uniform delusion about the real world, whatever that is? If so, how is it that you know? Or, do you suppose that people are so uncritical in their thinking that they merely accept what the read/see/hear from the media?
Furthermore, isn't the argument against climate science an argument with the science being reported? Or is it that if everything the media reports on is ipso facto a lie, then it is right to reject everything derived from media, including, say, a scientist reporting their findings in the NYT? That doesn't seem very reasonable, does it?
1
Trump will probably start believing in global warming and climate change when he's sloshing around inside Mar a Lago. I'd hope that's soon except he'll probably move to my neighborhood.
2
No, he'll be like King Canute and order the sea to retreat. If we're lucky, he'll go out with the tide.
2
You've touched on a real problem with many facets. "Seeing yourself as living in a broader common reality can therefore feel a bit traitorous to your own narrative." Why is that? In philosophy we are always looking for bedrock. In this case it's the economy. The enlightenment project is to facilitate different peoples living together. It has been working well, when we have economic growth and when, as in the mid twentieth century, we somehow managed lower inequality. Capital now has a much greater share of the pie, and a virtual stranglehold on the political system. There is a growing underclass, their average lifespan is decreasing, addiction to pain medications has become epidemic. A significant minority of people who have lost status and who feel now they have nothing to lose have embraced a charlatan as their leader. They feel more comfortable in his alternate reality. They don't care about the difference between fact and fiction. With Capital's stranglehold on the political system controls are being taken off Finance Capital, and tax and spending policies that favour inequality are being promulgated. Greater inequality leads to decreasing trust in the common good. The more people are economically insecure, the more they feel they have nothing to lose, and the more fervent the embrace of alternate realities. The Capitalist system had better find some brakes now or we will be driving off a cliff.
7
The main problems with avoiding reality come when the Rock kicks back. Dewey rejected the idea that we encountered reality directly through sense data. Instead he saw experience as arising from a series of tryings and undergoings. We do something to reality, and then reality does something back to us. You do need to assert that reality is completely mind-independent to acknowledge this fact about human experience.
3
How can you tell when your side has it wrong? (Of course, the mere asking of this question suggests that it is not really "your side".) Answer: the requirement that you say you believe in things that are either manifestly not true or arguably not true. The fierceness of the demands on your allegiance to falsehood is a test of both the extremism of your side, and also the sense of belonging to "your group".
Religions demand belief in objectively false ideas of heaven or reincarnation. Politics offers its own set of required beliefs from the superiority of the working man/peasant to "trickle down" economics.
Surviving daily life requires some allegiance to objective truth. You can't take your hands off the steering wheel of a car, push the accelerator to the floor, and maintain that state until you arrive at your destination and survive many such events. Religions that run off the rails take their believers, and others with them when they "drink their cool-aid". A farmer can't plant crops and fertilize them with salt get a crop.
Republicans today are acting far more like a religious cult that has run off the rails then a political party. Their leaders take oaths to Grover Norquist, the NRA, the Koch brothers, and other fantasy purveyors that supersede both their oath of office, and their grip on reality. Followers are increasingly required to believe things that are objectively false. Unfortunately, we will all be forced to drink their cool-aid unless they are stopped.
Religions demand belief in objectively false ideas of heaven or reincarnation. Politics offers its own set of required beliefs from the superiority of the working man/peasant to "trickle down" economics.
Surviving daily life requires some allegiance to objective truth. You can't take your hands off the steering wheel of a car, push the accelerator to the floor, and maintain that state until you arrive at your destination and survive many such events. Religions that run off the rails take their believers, and others with them when they "drink their cool-aid". A farmer can't plant crops and fertilize them with salt get a crop.
Republicans today are acting far more like a religious cult that has run off the rails then a political party. Their leaders take oaths to Grover Norquist, the NRA, the Koch brothers, and other fantasy purveyors that supersede both their oath of office, and their grip on reality. Followers are increasingly required to believe things that are objectively false. Unfortunately, we will all be forced to drink their cool-aid unless they are stopped.
7
I know it's tempting to seek equivalence between right and left, but perhaps you can offer examples of Democrats (who are "left" only relative to the Republicans, not to the world's broader political spectrum) have claimed photos aren't what they appear to all to be, where budgets have trillion dollar errors, where scientific judgments by nearly all the world's scientists are casually refuted, where obvious incompetence and ignorance are treated as knowledge. I could go on, but it's really so exhausting...
14
The difference between what our perceptions tell us about what we see and what they don't has been recognized for as long as people have communicated between each other. We particularly see it in the art produced by people where they reduce reality to artificial representations of what they sense and what those senses mean with lines and shadows and tones. But Berkeley hit upon something that seemed impossible to answer from pure reasoning, how do we identify whether anything that we perceive exists separately from our perceptions? Indeed, the experiences of the previous centuries had undone the presumptions that all truths were known to the great minds or from God through the Bible, and that people could learn those truths by becoming familiar with that knowledge. The discovery of America debunked that view and by the early 1700's the reliability of science was offering the ability to discern what was real without resorting to the dubious reliability of our perceptions. Man has been able to learn more about reality than ever before and does things which only existed in the imagination until now. So the current rejection of science seems bizarre. However, the current attitudes towards evolution, climate change, and the dangers of vaccinations all represent people's beliefs that science cannot be trusted but the perceptions which they share with others can be. It's a reaction against the modern and against knowledge which they don't like.
2
Berkeley was right about our perceptions being all in our minds and indeed our investigations into the behavior of the brain when taking in sense information confirms this. However, Berkeley was wrong in concluding that our perceptions were the only way to confirm reality, our scientific methods all presume that perceptions can be misleading and require confirmation with empirical evidence and have proven to produce extremely reliable explanations of reality over three centuries, now. In doing so science has often debunked the asserted truths about reality asserted by esteemed authorities who until the early 1700's were thought to be infallibly accurate. The modern world has been divided about the reliability of empirically based explanations of reality and the accuracy of great thinkers like Aristotle and of God as expressed in the Bible. Our form of government is based upon the modern empirically based view of reality where there are no absolute truths which be understood by man and so requires a secular state with legal limits upon those in authority but many do not share this attitude. We must acquire what we know and if our families and communities disbelieve scientific knowledge if it contradicts Biblical truths or Aristotle, we will tend to think the same. Only the failure of those attitudes to conform with our experience will tend to make us aware that they could be wrong.
We are bedeviled by the limits placed upon us by mortality. We
We are bedeviled by the limits placed upon us by mortality. We
Wow - the stone now recognizes that there exists and external reality that all observers have access to - what an incredible leap forward into the 17th century. The enlightenment which kicked off the scientific revolution and carried along with it the idea of representative democracy by no coincidence was built on this concept hundreds of years ago - however the assault on this simple idea has been non-stop ever since by powerful institutions - the church in 1700 has now had been joined by big business and the republican party. The belief in external reality accessible to all erodes power because it denies the existence of people with a direct line to the truth, hence we all have to argue based on shared observations - this is anathema to dictators and con men - about time philosophy spoke in favor of this approach instead of obfuscating the truth, and by that, lending comfort to the powerful.
2
When I was studying psychology in early 1970s a joke told by one professor was that neurotics dangerously build castles in the sky, but psychotics furnish and move into theirs.
That observation hews close to your subject Mr. Lynch. Either there are objective truths, or reality is even stranger than some of the phenomenon predicted by Quantum Theory, and verified.
In their 2002 work "Critical Thinking" Bowell and Kemp assert that (paraphrasing) "...the fundamental concept of logic is 'truth'. ... the overarching concern of the critical thinker is typically with the truth, or lack of it ... Discomfort with the word 'true' is sometimes due to a failure to distinguish 'truth' from 'belief' ..."
Societies traditionally have granted a lot of latitude to those who struggle with the interface of belief and experience or experiences argue against that belief or beliefs, religion frequently being the primary example.
But at a point latitude can't be granted. The earth is round, not flat; the sun is at the center of the solar system; if you're held under the water long enough, you'll drown; human beings have walked on the moon.... We 'know' some things to be true.
Belief that there is no climate change in denial of the experience of rising seas, melting ice caps, et al, and refusing to accept the vast body of evidence supporting that contention, rises to the level of the neurotic.
Agitating against experience as well as data is to risk furnishing and moving into the castle.
That observation hews close to your subject Mr. Lynch. Either there are objective truths, or reality is even stranger than some of the phenomenon predicted by Quantum Theory, and verified.
In their 2002 work "Critical Thinking" Bowell and Kemp assert that (paraphrasing) "...the fundamental concept of logic is 'truth'. ... the overarching concern of the critical thinker is typically with the truth, or lack of it ... Discomfort with the word 'true' is sometimes due to a failure to distinguish 'truth' from 'belief' ..."
Societies traditionally have granted a lot of latitude to those who struggle with the interface of belief and experience or experiences argue against that belief or beliefs, religion frequently being the primary example.
But at a point latitude can't be granted. The earth is round, not flat; the sun is at the center of the solar system; if you're held under the water long enough, you'll drown; human beings have walked on the moon.... We 'know' some things to be true.
Belief that there is no climate change in denial of the experience of rising seas, melting ice caps, et al, and refusing to accept the vast body of evidence supporting that contention, rises to the level of the neurotic.
Agitating against experience as well as data is to risk furnishing and moving into the castle.
12
This author hit on something with the story of kicking a rock as a means to prove the truth. As I see it, that's the problem we face on getting consensus on climate change: it requires reliance on experts rather than empirical evidence. Our species is wired to trust empirical evidence and distrust others. To see, to touch, to hear is to know. The unfortunate moral for us is that in the last 115 years, but especially since WW2, the vast powers of industry has both undermined and far exceeded our capability to love and care for each other and the land.
2
Yes, we all agree that children denied health care suffer and that adults need jobs to put food on their table, but apparently our realities are so different that the chasm preventing reaching a consensus on what should be done cannot be bridged. The idea that we live in a common reality is in reality a partial truth becoming ever more partial. Individual realities overlap sufficiently for societies to function. Polls tell us that for only 2% of Americans is the environment/climate change their most pressing concern. I would suggest that the majority of them are also in the 2% of wealthiest Americans. Stated rather loosely, if you're living in a gated community or its urban equivalent, sending your kids to private school, flying 1st class/chartered jet, drinking primarily bottled water, and your biggest immediate problem is finding a replacement full time maid and/or nanny, then the climate appears to be the only thing beyond your control and where you share a common reality with the majority of your
fellow citizens whose primarily concerns are clearly quite different. To use mathematical terms, the overlap of these two different sets of reality was never entire but has been steadily diminishing. In short, GET REAL!
fellow citizens whose primarily concerns are clearly quite different. To use mathematical terms, the overlap of these two different sets of reality was never entire but has been steadily diminishing. In short, GET REAL!
2
First let me state, I am not anti religion. Religion at its best is an effective social system of support for the neediest. However, extreme religious beliefs do damage to social bonds in a diversified society by creating an "us vs. them" mentality.
Religion is the elephant in the "deny reality" room. Denial of reality, in at least a few isolated historical instances, is a requirement of belief. I frequently travel the country by car and I am antique enough to still depend on the radio for my entertainment. All that is available on the lower end of the fm range is Christian stations, mostly right wing, which mostly spew political hatred. There is little talk of salvation but lots of talk of evil liberals. And while the Christian community is very vocal in its criticism that Muslim moderates do not do more to combat Muslim extremists, the truth is that Christian moderates do very little to combat Christian extremists. So far most of that extremism is playing out politically. But if that should fail again, as when Obama was president, the rhetoric becomes more departed from reality and more violent.
The only good thing about the Trump presidency is that the right wing extremists are temporarily satisfied. But it won't last and when words fail, violence will follow (remember Oklahoma City) and the criticism that Christian moderates did not do enough to combat Christian extremism will be just as valid as that same claim made against Muslims.
Religion is the elephant in the "deny reality" room. Denial of reality, in at least a few isolated historical instances, is a requirement of belief. I frequently travel the country by car and I am antique enough to still depend on the radio for my entertainment. All that is available on the lower end of the fm range is Christian stations, mostly right wing, which mostly spew political hatred. There is little talk of salvation but lots of talk of evil liberals. And while the Christian community is very vocal in its criticism that Muslim moderates do not do more to combat Muslim extremists, the truth is that Christian moderates do very little to combat Christian extremists. So far most of that extremism is playing out politically. But if that should fail again, as when Obama was president, the rhetoric becomes more departed from reality and more violent.
The only good thing about the Trump presidency is that the right wing extremists are temporarily satisfied. But it won't last and when words fail, violence will follow (remember Oklahoma City) and the criticism that Christian moderates did not do enough to combat Christian extremism will be just as valid as that same claim made against Muslims.
4
What we call "religion" is not really religion - it is moral posturing plus a justification of prejudices modeled on ancient practices depicted in a sanctified historical document from that time.
5
This article seems to me so much of the "balance" fallacy. Surely, there are some on the left who live in some element of wishful thinking. But as Paul Krugman so often points out, only one side wholeheartedly disbelieves reality and promotes an imaginary world. The current right wing must be overcome and relegated to obscurity for our country to have any chance for the future.
15
Most scientists agree that projected reductions in carbon emissions produced by the Paris Agreement wouldn’t stop climate change and probably wouldn’t significantly slow global warming, even in the highly unlikely event the parties to the agreement met their reduction goals. And global warming would continue even if manmade emissions were entirely eliminated, abet at a slower pace. The planet always warms between ice ages. It will continue to war until the next ice age intervenes. Rather than gambling on non-binding and unenforceable agreements, we should explore carbon dioxide removal technologies that reduce the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. At the same time we need to developed strategies to cope with the effects of climate changes, which are inevitable.
2
You've got to do better than this. You might want to expand your reservoir of sources to include empirical studies. I suggest you start by spending two hours watching this program from NOVA. It will change your outdated view of how the climate works: Earth from Space. Should be required viewing for all humans: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/earth-from-space.html
But contrary to most of what you assert, all respected scientists agree -- which is the foundation for the Paris Accords -- that we must reduce our carbon emissions to avoid raising the planet's temperature no more than 2 Celsius. This is established science.
The Paris Accords are legally binding, contrary to your assertion. Read up on it and find out more. http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php
The planet always warms between ice ages? Earth's cycles aren't static and predictable, as you suggest. There will be no "next ice age" because of the overheated atmosphere we've created. But what's more important about this statement is that it reveals your ignorance about the significance of the ice that is on the planet now (what remains of it since we're busy melting it) and how it regulates the climate, plays a crucial role in keeping the planet's climate hospitable to life.
But contrary to most of what you assert, all respected scientists agree -- which is the foundation for the Paris Accords -- that we must reduce our carbon emissions to avoid raising the planet's temperature no more than 2 Celsius. This is established science.
The Paris Accords are legally binding, contrary to your assertion. Read up on it and find out more. http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php
The planet always warms between ice ages? Earth's cycles aren't static and predictable, as you suggest. There will be no "next ice age" because of the overheated atmosphere we've created. But what's more important about this statement is that it reveals your ignorance about the significance of the ice that is on the planet now (what remains of it since we're busy melting it) and how it regulates the climate, plays a crucial role in keeping the planet's climate hospitable to life.
16
The ice always melts between ices ages. The polar caps and been ice free before and will be ice free again. Earth has been much warmer in other ecological eras. Under terms of the Paris Climate Agreement, both China—by far the world’s largest carbon producer—and India—the fourth largest carbon producer—would continue to increase emissions until 2030. In 2030 they will probably drop out of the pact, which is no-binding and has no enforcement mechanisms. Some Northern European countries intend to reduce carbon admissions burning biomass to run their generators. They argue that biomass emissions should not be county4ed because it’s “green energy,” not fossils, but it’s actually is worse than coal or oil because it destroys trees and plants that absorb carbon dioxide.
1
It appears, Mr. Case, that you have missed the fact that the planet is warming at an alarming speed which is nothing like the thousands of years it takes to come out of a glacial period.
In addition to that, you ignore the fact that we know why this is happening: we've measured it. We know the Earth is out of energy balance in the positive direction while the measured energy we receive from the Sun has not increased. There is only one explanation for this: something is holding the heat in. We know what that is because we long ago measured the infrared absorbing properties of CO2, and we are currently measuring a 40% + increase in atmospheric CO2 compared to 200 years ago.
These are measured, empirical facts, not supposition. I encourage you to broaden your understanding of them, and see if you can still abide the argument that the dramatic warming we are seeing is a naturally occurring phenomenon that's no different from what's happened before in geological time.
In addition to that, you ignore the fact that we know why this is happening: we've measured it. We know the Earth is out of energy balance in the positive direction while the measured energy we receive from the Sun has not increased. There is only one explanation for this: something is holding the heat in. We know what that is because we long ago measured the infrared absorbing properties of CO2, and we are currently measuring a 40% + increase in atmospheric CO2 compared to 200 years ago.
These are measured, empirical facts, not supposition. I encourage you to broaden your understanding of them, and see if you can still abide the argument that the dramatic warming we are seeing is a naturally occurring phenomenon that's no different from what's happened before in geological time.
7
A promising approach to attacking Climate Change is creating 24/7 cheap green technology rather than more words.
Remarkable new energy systems are being born. Several are discussed at aesopinstitute.org
Most reflect hard to believe new science. Some exploit a loophole, only recently recognized by scientists at Argonne National Laboratory in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. See SECOND LAW SURPRISES on that website.
Engines can run 24/7 on atmospheric ambient (solar) energy, without fuel! They can scale and provide a cheap alternative to rooftop panels, wind and solar farms and conventional power plants of every variety.
Such breakthroughs usually require a generation to gain acceptance. We do not have that luxury.
Innovation is taking place at severely underfunded small firms. Mass production of the best systems will inevitably follow. The task is to speed the process on an emergency basis.
A laser like focus to slow climate change is urgently needed. Debate is clearly futile. Cost-competitive technology that replaces fossil fuels fast is a positive alternative that will make a difference.
“In this present world …a revolutionary idea or invention is hampered in its adolescence – by want of means, by selfish interests, pedantry, stupidity and ignorance. It is attacked and stifled, and passes through bitter trials and tribulations.” NIKOLA TESLA
Trolls attack new science and severely slow support. A few determined bold individuals can change the energy landscape.
Remarkable new energy systems are being born. Several are discussed at aesopinstitute.org
Most reflect hard to believe new science. Some exploit a loophole, only recently recognized by scientists at Argonne National Laboratory in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. See SECOND LAW SURPRISES on that website.
Engines can run 24/7 on atmospheric ambient (solar) energy, without fuel! They can scale and provide a cheap alternative to rooftop panels, wind and solar farms and conventional power plants of every variety.
Such breakthroughs usually require a generation to gain acceptance. We do not have that luxury.
Innovation is taking place at severely underfunded small firms. Mass production of the best systems will inevitably follow. The task is to speed the process on an emergency basis.
A laser like focus to slow climate change is urgently needed. Debate is clearly futile. Cost-competitive technology that replaces fossil fuels fast is a positive alternative that will make a difference.
“In this present world …a revolutionary idea or invention is hampered in its adolescence – by want of means, by selfish interests, pedantry, stupidity and ignorance. It is attacked and stifled, and passes through bitter trials and tribulations.” NIKOLA TESLA
Trolls attack new science and severely slow support. A few determined bold individuals can change the energy landscape.
3
One of the misperceptions, fed by the likes of the Kochs and the Heartland Institute, is that the terms "climate scientist" and "climate alarmist" are synonymous. Many of the former came to their conclusions about the earth's climate trajectory not from an environmentalist mindset but from a logical examination of first principles using high level knowledge of mathematics, physics and geochemistry to arrive at their findings. Although there are valid scientific and economic debates to be had, why a conservative minority of Americans, and it is pretty much only Americans, would want to deny the validity the scientific fundamentals is perplexing.
11
to me the climate denying reasons are a lot like the cocaine addicts from the early 70's. at that time they wanted that immediate rush now and sooner once freebase was invented. my point is that people are well aware of the change in the world throughout their lives. they loudly deny that sure it might happen but it has not happened yet so the data must not be correct. and so it goes Covfefe everywhere. to find logic from a denier is impossible. what is the logic in doing nothing.
3
TD sees all policy as win-lose in a zero sum game. Somehow...losing New Orleans, Miami and NYC to the oceans falls on the side of "win".
I fear that Homo sapiens sapiens is such a flawed being that it will be the cause of its own destruction. Dinosaurs and other planet Earth inhabitants of that time can blame a meteorite impact for their demise. Homo sapiens sapiens will have only themselves to blame. Sigh!!
4
Back in the 70s, when I was a philosophy grad student, one of my friends had been an undergrad at Northwestern. One of his profs there was enthralled with solipsism. Sure enough, at the end of one semester there was one question on this prof's final exam: refute solipsism, or, if it cannot be refuted, explain why.
My friend wrote down his answer: Who wants to know? He turned in his paper and left.
The prof went ape and gave him an F. My friend appealed to the department faculty who, to their lasting credit, reversed the F and awarded an A.
As for me, I'm working class white ethnic with anger issues in the family. My part time high school and college jobs were blue collar in multiracial environments.
An attitude of "Hello, fellow human" would go a long way. Almost all of the people I had long conversations with were black.
It was sobering to realize many people I talked to were overqualified for their jobs because of racism; and horrifying to realize many black people could read white people so exquisitely well because their lives and freedom had long depended on it.
I'm trying to communicate that there are deep philosophical and practical reasons to engage with one another.
My friend wrote down his answer: Who wants to know? He turned in his paper and left.
The prof went ape and gave him an F. My friend appealed to the department faculty who, to their lasting credit, reversed the F and awarded an A.
As for me, I'm working class white ethnic with anger issues in the family. My part time high school and college jobs were blue collar in multiracial environments.
An attitude of "Hello, fellow human" would go a long way. Almost all of the people I had long conversations with were black.
It was sobering to realize many people I talked to were overqualified for their jobs because of racism; and horrifying to realize many black people could read white people so exquisitely well because their lives and freedom had long depended on it.
I'm trying to communicate that there are deep philosophical and practical reasons to engage with one another.
21
Maybe there is a truth so obvious and so painful that we ignore it to stay sane.
Maybe human beings are just not capable of surmounting our animal brains, our evolutionary background. Perhaps we are really the best that can be, and constant wars and greed politics is what humans are all about.
Bloody tribalism. Shia vs. Sunni, Irish Catholic vs. Protestant, rich vs. poor.
Maybe it is a survival thing, when all is said and done. Humans will survive because we cannot be other than stupidly warlike, tribal, and small bandish.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
Maybe human beings are just not capable of surmounting our animal brains, our evolutionary background. Perhaps we are really the best that can be, and constant wars and greed politics is what humans are all about.
Bloody tribalism. Shia vs. Sunni, Irish Catholic vs. Protestant, rich vs. poor.
Maybe it is a survival thing, when all is said and done. Humans will survive because we cannot be other than stupidly warlike, tribal, and small bandish.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
So our only hope is evolution.
Right! but what causes this dichotomy? How do we get such divergent views about reality? There is a fuzz of media that has divergent facts and rationales. Both right and left have pushed their agenda's using fuzzy facts and equally fuzzy rationales in their predictable outlets. How does that split keep getting wider and wider? Why don't we get to see some of the arguments in the media as preposterous. As we get pushed intellectually further and further apart, how do we get back to a shared sense of purpose?
Enjoyed your 'diatribe' (i.e. criticism) of those basking in willful ignorance about the facts (most republicans, it seems, let alone our idiot in chief), whose magical thinking allows them to ignore the facts upon which we know reality. Reason, in short supply right now, must be based on the facts, as shown by empirical evidence, and by logic, both glaringly absent in Trump's infinite stupid torpor of ineptitude, a necessary evil to justify his iniquities, based on hate and division, racism and xenophobia, spite and vengefulness, evermore evident as he realizes that people around him treat him with the disdain he so richly deserves.
4
You say that “we do all agree that sick children denied health care suffer, that opioids are addictive, that adults need jobs to put food on their tables.” It’s the “all” that bothers me. You might try “Some people think that . . .” or you might try “Although many people think that . . .” and after the rest of the sentence add “and they don’t give a damn.” After all, when those sick children, opioid addicts, and starving adults die off, there will just be more food on the tables of the ultra-rich. Remember, we are dealing with a bunch of folks who abhor the Theory of Evolution while stealing and twisting the concept of survival of the fittest. I’m rich. I survive. Therefore I am fittest.
Back in my misspent youth I read a delightful science fiction short story that posited that “reality” is nothing more than the sum total of what we believe, changing as belief cohered around a new idea. The word was flat because that’s what the most people believed. Somebody came up with the idea that it was round, and when believing tipped in that direction that became “reality.” It seems to me now that belief is totally chaotic, and my belief is that the world is chaos. Okay, guys, start joining in that belief!
Back in my misspent youth I read a delightful science fiction short story that posited that “reality” is nothing more than the sum total of what we believe, changing as belief cohered around a new idea. The word was flat because that’s what the most people believed. Somebody came up with the idea that it was round, and when believing tipped in that direction that became “reality.” It seems to me now that belief is totally chaotic, and my belief is that the world is chaos. Okay, guys, start joining in that belief!
2
My quibble is that a significant proportion of one side does not recognize fact. They let their belief system dominate logic. I think we are at the current impasse not because the left thinks jobs are a silly concern but because because the right accepts their reading of scripture which allows them bigotry.
No logic, no shared experience can conquer faith.
In addition the establishment GOP does not accept the needs and rights of those less fortunate. They hide behind small government but really they just don't want to pay taxes especially money that goes to those people.
I reject the premise of this piece, it is a false equivalency.
No logic, no shared experience can conquer faith.
In addition the establishment GOP does not accept the needs and rights of those less fortunate. They hide behind small government but really they just don't want to pay taxes especially money that goes to those people.
I reject the premise of this piece, it is a false equivalency.
2
The rejection of consensus reality is not symmetric between left and right, and this is a point that needs to be made and remade in the context of articles like these.
6
It's easy to take advantage of a population ignorant of science where 41 percent of Americans say people and dinosaurs co-existed.
12
Go to Greenland and kick the rocks there. Go to Antarctica and drop a rock in the cracks in the ice shelf that grew 17 MILES in 2 months.
Science is predictive. Einstein predicted that the time space continuum could be bent. The LIBY installations have registered 3 collisions, combinations of black holes that have measurably shook space/time.
Sometimes it takes awhile for tech to catch up with theory. The problem with Global Warning is not 'it could be false. It is that is likely true and we can only avoid the consequences if we start changing our behavior now.
I do not know how old you are but I just turned 60 with my family history I could be alive in 2052. This isn't something that our kids and grandkids have to deal with it is ours. Does that not make covering our bases, hedging our bets and erring on the side of caution more real to you?
Science is predictive. Einstein predicted that the time space continuum could be bent. The LIBY installations have registered 3 collisions, combinations of black holes that have measurably shook space/time.
Sometimes it takes awhile for tech to catch up with theory. The problem with Global Warning is not 'it could be false. It is that is likely true and we can only avoid the consequences if we start changing our behavior now.
I do not know how old you are but I just turned 60 with my family history I could be alive in 2052. This isn't something that our kids and grandkids have to deal with it is ours. Does that not make covering our bases, hedging our bets and erring on the side of caution more real to you?
6
It is with the best of intentions here that Prof. Lynch tries to bridge the gap between those who perceive the rock of global warming ahead in the path and will move it so he and others to follow will not trip on it, versus those who do not see it or do nothing until they actually ram their foot into it with a startled "D'oh!" Only at that point do both groups of people share the same reality. Is the "crisis" of climate really or not? Is it really a "Crisis" with a capital "C" or is it just a maybe?
The struggles between those who want to avoid climate change in the future by making changes now are offset by those who - either willfully or out of ignorance - do not acknowledge the coming danger at all. We have come to a point where the struggle for a coherent public policy is so contentious that progress towards solving this problem is at a standstill.
It's not that we shouldn't keep trying to educate, to persuade, to demonstrate to others that 'Hey there's a rock in the road, don't hit it!" But I fear that the rock itself is there to stay until enough people do. Does this sound familiar? "Hey, three dozen fatal accidents have already happened at this intersection, we need to fix it!"
A few crop failures will be allowed to happen, a few cities be allowed to flood, before enough people agree that climate change needs to be addressed.
The struggles between those who want to avoid climate change in the future by making changes now are offset by those who - either willfully or out of ignorance - do not acknowledge the coming danger at all. We have come to a point where the struggle for a coherent public policy is so contentious that progress towards solving this problem is at a standstill.
It's not that we shouldn't keep trying to educate, to persuade, to demonstrate to others that 'Hey there's a rock in the road, don't hit it!" But I fear that the rock itself is there to stay until enough people do. Does this sound familiar? "Hey, three dozen fatal accidents have already happened at this intersection, we need to fix it!"
A few crop failures will be allowed to happen, a few cities be allowed to flood, before enough people agree that climate change needs to be addressed.
6
John Searle in "Mind, Language, and Society: Philosophy in the Real World" distinguishes between two realities. There is the reality of brute facts and there is institutional reality. Brute facts include: the earth orbits the sun and has done so for billions of years, rocks (except when extremely hot) are solid, and consciousness is a biological phenomenon (e.g., ingestion of opioids affects consciousness). Brute facts are, as Dr. Johnson meant to prove, independent of us human observers. Institutional facts include: the Australian Dollar is worth three quarters of a US dollar, there is a tennis match going on in France, and Scott Pruitt is head of the EPA. Institutional facts are, as Bishop Berkeley perceived, dependent on us human observers.
A brute fact is that the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere causes the retention of heat near the earth's surface.
An institutional fact is that the EPA is less effective if it is run by someone who doesn't acknowledge the brute facts.
Our current problem is that institutional reality is being shaped by sheer ignorance or willful neglect of brute, material facts. The solution to this problem will either be institutional (the ignorant will learn about reality or they will be voted out of power) or it will be brutal (war, famine, pestilence and death).
A brute fact is that the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere causes the retention of heat near the earth's surface.
An institutional fact is that the EPA is less effective if it is run by someone who doesn't acknowledge the brute facts.
Our current problem is that institutional reality is being shaped by sheer ignorance or willful neglect of brute, material facts. The solution to this problem will either be institutional (the ignorant will learn about reality or they will be voted out of power) or it will be brutal (war, famine, pestilence and death).
57
OUTSTANDING post!!
1
Wow. Thank you very much Observer 47.
Sadly, even accepting a "common reality" is not an effective antidote for the kind of dissociation from truth described by Michael Lynch. I'll leave you to come up with your own examples. I want to know why the common reality is sometimes innocuous and sometimes harmful.
1
By chance last evening, I read two essays in The New Yorker that approach the question of "kicking a rock" from a different perspecive.
Both, written in early june 2015, discuss the substance of Pope Francis's Encyclical "Laudati Si" in terms of its reception among the body of the faithful, long accustomed to the conservative thought of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
With reference to the ease with which humans construct and remain in their own "epistemic world", Naomi Klein's essay "A Radical Vatican" seemed extraordinarily enlightening, as well as optimistic. (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-visit-to-the-vatican)
If anyone wishes to read a shorter essay, on the topic, James Carroll's "The Renewed Importance of Pope Francis’s Encyclical on Climate Change" is equally valuable. (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-renewed-importance-of-pope-f...
I heartily recommend reading both essays.
Both, written in early june 2015, discuss the substance of Pope Francis's Encyclical "Laudati Si" in terms of its reception among the body of the faithful, long accustomed to the conservative thought of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
With reference to the ease with which humans construct and remain in their own "epistemic world", Naomi Klein's essay "A Radical Vatican" seemed extraordinarily enlightening, as well as optimistic. (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-visit-to-the-vatican)
If anyone wishes to read a shorter essay, on the topic, James Carroll's "The Renewed Importance of Pope Francis’s Encyclical on Climate Change" is equally valuable. (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-renewed-importance-of-pope-f...
I heartily recommend reading both essays.
3
The easiest way to control people is to convince them to let others think for them.
3
it took all of geological history (7 billion years) followed by all human history (several million years) for the world's population to reach 1 billion around 1800.
in just 200 years our numbers have reached almost 8 billion, with no end to population growth in sight.
the earth and its resources are finite. we have strained them beyond capacity. just ask the fish in the sea, if you can still find any.
overpopulation ? you bet.
climate change? not a chance.
can we do anything about either of them ???
good question!
in just 200 years our numbers have reached almost 8 billion, with no end to population growth in sight.
the earth and its resources are finite. we have strained them beyond capacity. just ask the fish in the sea, if you can still find any.
overpopulation ? you bet.
climate change? not a chance.
can we do anything about either of them ???
good question!
8
As a scientist I find it amazing that the denial of Reality seems to go hand-in-hand with an ever-increasing knowledge and ability to know about in objective terms. With the rise of the "Big Data" era it is even starting to be possible to have comprehensive and objective knowledge about human affairs and not just natural sciences related matters. Is the human brain being overwhelmed and causing this retreat into ignorance. Or is something more sinister going on.
2
Most of the people in the U.S. who deny that climate change is real are in thrall to religion, specifically those who ascribe to literal readings of the bible (something never intended by those who invented the stories, which were meant to be read metaphorically) and who prefer an authoritarian system that relieves them of the burden of thinking for themselves. Granted, they are fearful (ignorance will do that to a person) and so look to authority figures to make them feel safe. This is a huge problem in the U.S., where people who don't follow these superstitious belief systems (scientists, experts, people who actually know what they're talking about) are viewed as "ungodly" and heretical, and therefore their ideas are not worthy of consideration. Add in the dark money that fuels suspicion of science (coming from the likes of the Koch brothers, who pour millions into manipulating these people's ideas through propaganda spewed out from media outlets like Fox) and you can see the problem. The short answer? Stupidity is what drives denial. Willful ignorance. Anyone with half a brain can find reputable information about this issue, but instead, they prefer to stay in the dark. It's not that different from the way this particular population approaches other complex problems (healthcare, birth control, getting along with people who look different or love differently, people who don't believe in their particular superstition about how we came to be, and so forth).
3
I think fear is what drives many people like sheep into the mental and emotional slaughterhouse of religion. Perhaps fear of death, or fear of ambiguity, or fear of loneliness, but fear is what gives meaning to many. Fear is the opposite of hope but both combine to drive people into a view of the world/ our planet has some great purpose, value, meaning or transcendence. We are evolved mammals on a small planet near medium star. a distant neighbor to trillions of stars. It's kinda scary!
If Lynch means for anything here to refute skepticism, solipsism, or subjective idealism, then the argument--unsurprisingly--fails. Any reason that undermines my knowledge that there's really a rock here undermines my knowledge that there's really another person is here, undermines my knowledge that we have the same perceptions, etc. But Lynch knows that.
(Interestingly, it's a common error on the intellectual left to try to explain or explain away physical things by arguing that everything is "socially constructed" and/or all our beliefs are socially caused. But that's the *least* coherent view in the vicinity. It requires us to be skeptical about the reality of rocks and trees but--inexplicably--credulous about the reality of other human beings...who are, whatever else they might also be, physical things like rocks and trees, and things we only know via perception, just like rocks and trees...)
A better approach might be: none of us are really philosophical skeptics; so let's stop slipping into skepticism when the evidence goes against our political preferences. That plea for consistency is more easily defended.
But props for at least gesturing at the fact that the left is as bad as or worse than the right. Trump ignores science when convenient...but the postmodern academic left is *deeply committed* to an anti-rational, anti-scientific, anti-realist position--the philosophical underpinning for political correctness (aka the "social justice" movement).
(Interestingly, it's a common error on the intellectual left to try to explain or explain away physical things by arguing that everything is "socially constructed" and/or all our beliefs are socially caused. But that's the *least* coherent view in the vicinity. It requires us to be skeptical about the reality of rocks and trees but--inexplicably--credulous about the reality of other human beings...who are, whatever else they might also be, physical things like rocks and trees, and things we only know via perception, just like rocks and trees...)
A better approach might be: none of us are really philosophical skeptics; so let's stop slipping into skepticism when the evidence goes against our political preferences. That plea for consistency is more easily defended.
But props for at least gesturing at the fact that the left is as bad as or worse than the right. Trump ignores science when convenient...but the postmodern academic left is *deeply committed* to an anti-rational, anti-scientific, anti-realist position--the philosophical underpinning for political correctness (aka the "social justice" movement).
1
The difficulty of society grappling with a problem such as global warming/climate change?
A book I'm reading now sheds light on the human difficulty in approaching this problem, and in general the problem of opening one's eye to truth, a wider and more honest view of existence: DeLillo's "Underworld". From this book we see that in any number of ways people seek to stabilize themselves by limiting their view, picking and choosing from existence preferred elements to construct a mental order. Take baseball, which DeLillo writes brilliantly of in his book: Plenty of people lose themselves in baseball, an artificial reality superimposed on existence. But this is what occurs with any game, religion, political parties, this or that interest.
Psychologists these days are fond of speaking of "confirmation bias", that we see what we want to despite evidence to the contrary, but imagine something of the opposite, a person who cannot really lose himself in anything, or if losing himself in something losing himself in what he must really check for its necessity such as engineering or math or philosophy, but even then suffering constantly that the problem of wider integration, truth, the secret of existence is elusive...
It just does not seem to me most people can stand the responsibility of existence, the glare of multiple problems, the constant need to put this and that together, to discover and learn this and that...Climate change is a terrible thought, better to watch baseball.
A book I'm reading now sheds light on the human difficulty in approaching this problem, and in general the problem of opening one's eye to truth, a wider and more honest view of existence: DeLillo's "Underworld". From this book we see that in any number of ways people seek to stabilize themselves by limiting their view, picking and choosing from existence preferred elements to construct a mental order. Take baseball, which DeLillo writes brilliantly of in his book: Plenty of people lose themselves in baseball, an artificial reality superimposed on existence. But this is what occurs with any game, religion, political parties, this or that interest.
Psychologists these days are fond of speaking of "confirmation bias", that we see what we want to despite evidence to the contrary, but imagine something of the opposite, a person who cannot really lose himself in anything, or if losing himself in something losing himself in what he must really check for its necessity such as engineering or math or philosophy, but even then suffering constantly that the problem of wider integration, truth, the secret of existence is elusive...
It just does not seem to me most people can stand the responsibility of existence, the glare of multiple problems, the constant need to put this and that together, to discover and learn this and that...Climate change is a terrible thought, better to watch baseball.
3
The most prevalent common reality we have is that U.S. politics is dominated by special interest politics. As the Times story on why the GOP "thinks" climate concerns are a hoax, one need only look at the story's observation that a principal advocate of climate denial are the Koch Brothers whose refinerys process 600,000 barrels of oil per day. Clean energy threatens that flow of profits and thus keeping the use of oil high through political action is one of their top priorities. Not ideological, just money.
All else flows from that -- their political organizations which are three times larger than that of the Republican Party, all the propaganda organizations they fund, all the think tanks and captive scholars they underwrite, all the events they sponsor. It is all about keeping the oil and profits flowing.
Any Republican that takes a different view is "primaried" and keep in private life.
The Republican Party in the 19th Century was owned by JP Morgan, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Big Steel and a few other trusts. Today is owned by the Koch Brothers, Big Oil, and a handful of Hedge Fund billionaires. And the GOP is doing what its owners want them to do.
All else flows from that -- their political organizations which are three times larger than that of the Republican Party, all the propaganda organizations they fund, all the think tanks and captive scholars they underwrite, all the events they sponsor. It is all about keeping the oil and profits flowing.
Any Republican that takes a different view is "primaried" and keep in private life.
The Republican Party in the 19th Century was owned by JP Morgan, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Big Steel and a few other trusts. Today is owned by the Koch Brothers, Big Oil, and a handful of Hedge Fund billionaires. And the GOP is doing what its owners want them to do.
39
Thomas Friedman in talks regarding his most recent book has said that he thinks both political parties are in the sorry states they are in as neither is organized to address the world today, being burdened by their individual histories. The 2016 is just the latest cycle to give voters essentially no good choice.
My personal take is that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both grifters unworthy of serious consideration by anyone. That they were both pushed very hard by news media- including this paper- is a distressing truth. Serious policy was cast aside for the horse race and the spectacle of the Trump circus. Had we had an election between John Kasich and Bernie Sanders we would have had a much better campaign and election.
My personal take is that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both grifters unworthy of serious consideration by anyone. That they were both pushed very hard by news media- including this paper- is a distressing truth. Serious policy was cast aside for the horse race and the spectacle of the Trump circus. Had we had an election between John Kasich and Bernie Sanders we would have had a much better campaign and election.
10
The are many interesting and puzzling epistemic questions that arise at the intersection of modern stochastic sciences and regulatory politics. This column raises none of them. I look forward to a column on the epistemic status of mathematical models. Zeno's motion problem is a good place to start. Modern models of the economy and behavior of brokers can fill a paragraph. Then we can move on to the political issue of selling the grand climate models to regulators (and, in the more democratic countries, to politicians and the public). In that way philosophers of science and ethics might help advance the conversation.
3
This is a wonderful echo, in the echo chamber! These are interesting times, if only we had another place to witness them from. Unfortunately, the best hope we have lies in education, and that's not a quick fix. Philosophical meanderings to a sophisticated audience miss the point. Apparently, to a large number of people, "facts" and "science" are the possession of the elite and what really matters are our instincts and gut feelings. In order to have a meaningful democracy we must educate our populace that facts matter. But to do this education, housing, the opportunity to improve ones life must be the reasonable expectation of all. Social justice provides the way forward, humanistic education is the guiding light, and reflections on Berkeley and Johnson, are, to put it kindly, irrelevant!
15
"Democracies don’t work if we don’t acknowledge that we all live in the same world, facing the same problems--"
Unfortunately our species can't seem to face the problem of our own numbers that not only fuel climate change, but depletion of resources including clean air and water, and the highest rates of extinction in 65 million years. Climate change is now the priority but just the tip of our environmental iceberg.
Unfortunately our species can't seem to face the problem of our own numbers that not only fuel climate change, but depletion of resources including clean air and water, and the highest rates of extinction in 65 million years. Climate change is now the priority but just the tip of our environmental iceberg.
26
Actually, today's political climate and alternative realities underline Berkeley's point, not Johnson's. From the time we're in utero, our brains are being shaped by our experiences. Our ideas and perceptions of the world are shaped by everything we are exposed (or not exposed to). So for one type of thinker, human-caused climate change is real and for another it isn't, regardless of the evidence in not only the science, but the signs around us in weather, birds, insects, etc.
You could say "get in your belly (like Johnson) and out of your head (like Berkeley)." We all need to do this, because even some very vocal environmentalists don't practice what they preach in their daily living habits.
You could say "get in your belly (like Johnson) and out of your head (like Berkeley)." We all need to do this, because even some very vocal environmentalists don't practice what they preach in their daily living habits.
It reminds me of businesses that venue shop to find the easiest tax or regulatory treatment. People seek the position which confirms what they want to hear and they find ready opinions to back them up on the internet.
3
“We need to start reconnecting with the obvious truth that we do live in a common reality.”
Great idea, but how do you do that when there is so much deliberate misinformation that is intended to obscure it? The crowd size at Trump’s inauguration should have been part of that common reality, but instead it was the genesis of the phrase “alternative facts.” So how are you going to establish a common reality for a subject as complex as climate change?
Great idea, but how do you do that when there is so much deliberate misinformation that is intended to obscure it? The crowd size at Trump’s inauguration should have been part of that common reality, but instead it was the genesis of the phrase “alternative facts.” So how are you going to establish a common reality for a subject as complex as climate change?
25
While things like 'comfort', 'joy', 'love', 'freedom', and 'self-actualization' may be experienced differently, they are all positive and desirable... as discomfort, repression, hate, pain, and depression are negatives and not desirable.
.... so, things that enhance our collective positive perceptions must be broadly accepted goals... their achievement a sign of a successful politic... No ??
.... so, things that enhance our collective positive perceptions must be broadly accepted goals... their achievement a sign of a successful politic... No ??
4
This is an great essay and fits well with an article yesterday about a teacher's experience in trying to teach climate change in coal country - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/us/education-climate-change-science-c....
I take issue with those who say people cannot or will not come to a reasonable decision if given the facts. It depends upon how those facts are presented and how you treat people you are trying to convince. If you allow them the respect to come to their own conclusions and they know it, they will eventually get there.
I take issue with those who say people cannot or will not come to a reasonable decision if given the facts. It depends upon how those facts are presented and how you treat people you are trying to convince. If you allow them the respect to come to their own conclusions and they know it, they will eventually get there.
6
I read that same article but I took away that the young can be taught, are able to learn.
Their elders can not admit to any mistaken beliefs. When confronted with alternative facts that diminish their entire belief system they just hold on to their guns and bibles all the tighter.
Getting rid of sexism, racism etc is a multi generational task. You need to change what people say at home in front of their children. We are on that road. We have made those words unacceptable in public and gradually we are making them unacceptable everywhere, well at least we were until drumpf let loose the floodgates.
Yeah we all need food and shelter but a healthy community needs a broader base than that.
Their elders can not admit to any mistaken beliefs. When confronted with alternative facts that diminish their entire belief system they just hold on to their guns and bibles all the tighter.
Getting rid of sexism, racism etc is a multi generational task. You need to change what people say at home in front of their children. We are on that road. We have made those words unacceptable in public and gradually we are making them unacceptable everywhere, well at least we were until drumpf let loose the floodgates.
Yeah we all need food and shelter but a healthy community needs a broader base than that.
1
Mr. Lynch's point are a kind of unconscious or self-parody. The 'rock to kick' in the case of climate change is to go down to the seashore (any seashore) and observe how much the ocean's level has changed. Use your own common sense; measure it from the time you were a child, or measure it from the last time you took a vacation. The essence of the climate change/disaster scenario is a projection; it is trend; it is a series of scenarios with different weightings of probabilities. If Mr. Lynch wants to join me for our next vacation at the seashore in New Jersey, we can together go to the edge of the ocean and 'kick the rock.' that is a common reality that does not depend on selecting favorable statistics, numbers, theories, evidence out of a endless plethora of such materials. I would like to get into a common reality, but climate alarmists have their own. See Oren Cass's articles, particularly the one in Foreign Relations, for a discussion of this trend-drawing-to-disaster ideology - and it is ideology, not the common reality of facts which we mutually share.
3
Climate change is indeed a projection. it just happens to be based upon the best scientific evidence we have. We can ignore it but we cannot simply dismiss it with a rudimentary experiment of the one you propose. Our founders (who were enlightenment thinkers all) are turning in their graves at the lack of evidence based thinking and the refutation of experts.
10
Bartleby, I agree with several of your statements. I welcome the acknowledgment that climate change is a projection. But the purpose of the rock-kicking exercise is not to conduct science, but to meet a philosophic challenge - that we can't even get into a 'common reality.' Yes, we can do so. But the common reality depends on what we can observe with our five senses today. When I prepare a witness for trial, sooner or later we get into a discussion about the hearsay rule, which is complicated. I always explain to my witness: you can always testify about what you saw, heard, smelled, felt, etc. with your five senses. That is the problem with Mr. Lynch's op-ed piece - he starts by a discussion of common reality - and ends with the identification of a problem with is a projection.
1
You cannot witness quantum entanglement with your five senses without significant aids. Is this too a projection? What constitutes scientific understanding today is not limited to sensory observation, but a complex of measurable observations, computational models, and statistical inference. The measures, models, and statistics are often complex, probabilistic, and non-intuitive, but they represent the most reliable means for attributing causality to a given phenomenon. If you were to go to an oceanographic institute on your visits to the seashore, you might be surprised at the degree (no pun intended) to which they can study climate changes. Here's one link to Woods Hole, for example:
http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/climate-ocean
http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/climate-ocean
3
Sigh. This poorly constructed soggy argument for a collective reality can't even support itself. Pretty much everyone agrees the earth is warming. There's little denial of that fact today. The causes of global warming are disputed by some and those causes, unlike the effects, cannot be objectively observed.
What we must seek to do is to better educate people in scientific methodology, in better understanding probabilities and data. Good luck with that. I'd rather spend my day kicking rocks. Barefoot.
What we must seek to do is to better educate people in scientific methodology, in better understanding probabilities and data. Good luck with that. I'd rather spend my day kicking rocks. Barefoot.
4
Philosophers like to think that we live in a world where reality is mediated by “beliefs.” Their epistemological bias prevents them from seeing that the convictions we utter in life and politics are more like attitudes, gestures and brickbats hurled in a fight than “statements” with “semantic content.” They take political discourse too literally because they have no comprehension or stomach for warfare. They should take science less seriously, and pay more attention to the rhetoric of science and its effectiveness as a weapon.
2
The brain is constructed so that it can infer reality from appearances. However, it's not 100% efficient, and often appearances are insufficient to allow reliable inference. It then generates false ideas, and because humans mostly learn from others, not from reality, false ideas can spread unchecked. This is why it's important to make systematic checks against reality - empiricism and science. It's like moving through a totally dark house: one has to feel one's way through the furniture and doors.
8
The author would do himself, and climate scientists (and other scientists) a favor by thinking some things through:
For example, the world average temperature is said to have gone up a couple of degrees in the past few years. In our daily lives we experience daily temperature fluctuations of about twenty degrees. How many people actually perceive a two degree difference in the environment, or care? A lot of 'scientific' knowledge is difficult to impossible to 'wrap one's head around' if you will. For example, when is the last time you heard the tv weather person say "at 7:35 PM the rotation of the earth will cause us to no longer see the sun." No, he or she will say "sunset" tonight is at 7:35. My point is: we ignore 'scientific reality' all the time. I would have expected a more subtle and informed article from a practicing 'philosopher.'
An speaking of climate change, the predictions a few years ago were that the increased temperatures in the atmosphere would result in more storms and more devastating storms. The opposite has occurred so far. After years of silence from the 'scientists' we were recently informed that the higher temperatures did in fact increase winds but that resulted in "wind shear" effects that prevented hurricanes from forming. In the interval, insurance companies had raised rates in anticipation of more storm damage. So now we all pay higher insurance rates, the money flows straight to the bottom line and investors are celebrating. Oops?
For example, the world average temperature is said to have gone up a couple of degrees in the past few years. In our daily lives we experience daily temperature fluctuations of about twenty degrees. How many people actually perceive a two degree difference in the environment, or care? A lot of 'scientific' knowledge is difficult to impossible to 'wrap one's head around' if you will. For example, when is the last time you heard the tv weather person say "at 7:35 PM the rotation of the earth will cause us to no longer see the sun." No, he or she will say "sunset" tonight is at 7:35. My point is: we ignore 'scientific reality' all the time. I would have expected a more subtle and informed article from a practicing 'philosopher.'
An speaking of climate change, the predictions a few years ago were that the increased temperatures in the atmosphere would result in more storms and more devastating storms. The opposite has occurred so far. After years of silence from the 'scientists' we were recently informed that the higher temperatures did in fact increase winds but that resulted in "wind shear" effects that prevented hurricanes from forming. In the interval, insurance companies had raised rates in anticipation of more storm damage. So now we all pay higher insurance rates, the money flows straight to the bottom line and investors are celebrating. Oops?
6
George - the global temperature averages have gone up " a couple of degrees", but its been over the past 130+ years, NOT the "past few years". And given the business as usual case, its likely the global temperature will rise another few degrees in the next 100-years. The worlds glacier regions have retreated significantly, while the Arctic has been warming at rates never before seen in the past 20,000-years based on geologic and biologic data. Should Greenland's glaciers continue to melt, we will see sea level rise measured in multiple feet, not inches, in the next century. As for storm severity increasing - did you not remember Hurricanes Sandy, Ike, and Katrina, etc in the past decade?
13
Really? So, your argument is that a two-degree change to average world temperature is insignificant, because why? You have good knowledge of the appropriate scales from which to judge the planet's temperature fluctuations? If so, where did you obtain that knowledge?
As to weather disruptions, since it's June and I'm wondering what coat to wear...Climate change isn't about the weather, but there does indeed appear to be evidence of an increasing trend toward weather extremes (CA being a good example).
Also, using the word "sunset" instead of going into a detailed description of planetary motion isn't the denial of science. It's language. As to the last word in your first paragraph, the scare quotes are snarky. What's the point?
As to weather disruptions, since it's June and I'm wondering what coat to wear...Climate change isn't about the weather, but there does indeed appear to be evidence of an increasing trend toward weather extremes (CA being a good example).
Also, using the word "sunset" instead of going into a detailed description of planetary motion isn't the denial of science. It's language. As to the last word in your first paragraph, the scare quotes are snarky. What's the point?
6
Perhaps it is time to learn about what scientists have learned about our climate (as opposed to weather), and also learn something about probabilistic events.
The world on average is warming. Farmers and gardeners know that Spring is coming earlier and Fall is coming later. There is a well-understood mechanism for this: extra CO2 from fossil fuels in the atmosphere. Each year, we are setting far more record highs than record lows across the globe. Each year, the CO2 dissolved in sea water increases a bit. The numbers add up when smoothed by looking over a long enough interval (usually 5 years).
Picking one piece of data from a short time or small location (with values well within the statistical variations that we should expect) to "prove something" is to ignore the science.
Our paleolithic ancestors understood the patterns of sunrise and sunset and predicted them with precision, forecasting when to plant and harvest crops--because from then until a few decades ago, sunrise happened at a given horizon point at the time when it was safe to plant crops. (They also knew that somethings this was wrong, but did not know a volcanic eruption thousands of miles away dumped sulfur dioxide into the air to cause it.)
Our paleolithic ancestors had a better understanding of reality and the normal variations in weather compared to climate than you seem to have. A late freeze did not result in abandonment of Stonehenge.
The world on average is warming. Farmers and gardeners know that Spring is coming earlier and Fall is coming later. There is a well-understood mechanism for this: extra CO2 from fossil fuels in the atmosphere. Each year, we are setting far more record highs than record lows across the globe. Each year, the CO2 dissolved in sea water increases a bit. The numbers add up when smoothed by looking over a long enough interval (usually 5 years).
Picking one piece of data from a short time or small location (with values well within the statistical variations that we should expect) to "prove something" is to ignore the science.
Our paleolithic ancestors understood the patterns of sunrise and sunset and predicted them with precision, forecasting when to plant and harvest crops--because from then until a few decades ago, sunrise happened at a given horizon point at the time when it was safe to plant crops. (They also knew that somethings this was wrong, but did not know a volcanic eruption thousands of miles away dumped sulfur dioxide into the air to cause it.)
Our paleolithic ancestors had a better understanding of reality and the normal variations in weather compared to climate than you seem to have. A late freeze did not result in abandonment of Stonehenge.
1
Good essay. Reminds me of a comment I often make in discussions about the environment: "you only visiting this planet?". A gentle reminder that this world is our only world. Nobody has anyplace else to go.
59
Unfortunately, not true. The Abrahamic religions are based on the premise that our true selves-our souls- are indeed just visiting this planet. This is the very reason, I believe, that allows so many seemingly caring Christians to allow themselves to have incongruous views about the very Earth God has given them. Eternal happiness awaits in the Kingdom of God, where ever that is, not here on Earth.
The mere idea of communication confirms the import of physical reality. Climate change evidence is mere steps awareness and from there to concordance. Our problem is willingness to walk.
There is no credible evidence that climate change is largely anthropomorphic. Our climate is dictated by the sun: Gamma rays, solar flare, etc.
America has done an amazing job in reducing man-caused pollution in the past 40 years, but we should not destroy our economy to appease eco-Marxists
America has done an amazing job in reducing man-caused pollution in the past 40 years, but we should not destroy our economy to appease eco-Marxists
7
Un fortunately for you the climate text books from the last sixty years contain experimentally-verified evidence of humanity's ability to affect climate. The evidence of humanity's capability to impact global climate dates from the 1970s, starting with the discovery of the effects of halocarbons on the ozone layer. At best human activity exacerbates natural events (eg making cyclones more destructive), at worst human activity is inducing events (eg droughts and melting glaciers) that will have widespread destructive impacts.
Even without climate change many of the proposed policies would have long term benefits due to the finite nature of resources such as coal and oil.
Above all, understand that "god will let it happen to you".
Even without climate change many of the proposed policies would have long term benefits due to the finite nature of resources such as coal and oil.
Above all, understand that "god will let it happen to you".
46
There is credible evidence that global warming is caused by human activity: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-c...
17
Try listening to this podcast: Science VS - Climate change...the Apocalypse?
It's an attempt to codify the science without taking a political stand. After all, the science is where the focus should be. But, I will say (truth in disclosure), that there is plenty of evidence for anthropomorphic influence on the climate. The political question is, what do we choose to do about it?
https://gimletmedia.com/climatechange
It's an attempt to codify the science without taking a political stand. After all, the science is where the focus should be. But, I will say (truth in disclosure), that there is plenty of evidence for anthropomorphic influence on the climate. The political question is, what do we choose to do about it?
https://gimletmedia.com/climatechange
6
Everyone constructs their own reality but for many people the efforts of scholarship required to build a solid, logical world view are too fatiguing, even frightening. For them it is easier to take some one else's world view and use it as the lens through which to perceive 'reality'. Religion and other political ideologies are the type specimens of this.
Once a person has accepted a comfortable, affirming world view they will fight , even kill, to protect it. Because the intellectual effort required to deny and rebuild a world view is so great people will cling to a demonstrably erroneous ideology such as religion, even as it destroys them.
Once a person has accepted a comfortable, affirming world view they will fight , even kill, to protect it. Because the intellectual effort required to deny and rebuild a world view is so great people will cling to a demonstrably erroneous ideology such as religion, even as it destroys them.
87
Unfortunate that 'religion' so often is the lazy choice to make a point.
It reveals, I think, a biased and a narrow view, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept... and quite often the reality....
It reveals, I think, a biased and a narrow view, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept... and quite often the reality....
2
I don't think it is about energy, I think it is learning/understanding that all these years one has believed in untruths. It is about holding onto your reputation and self worth at any cost no matter how ridiculous.
4
No one constructs their own reality. Everyone participates in the construction of their own (and other's) understanding of reality. Our understanding of reality is largely a social construct. Few people figure out the Pythagorean theorem on their own.
Reality exceeds our understanding. Intellectual humility is a virtue. Shakespeare understood this. The pursuit of factual knowledge is an endeavor without end.
The Socratic method is effective because it acknowledges that reality exceeds our understanding and teaches that the answer to one question leads to another question. That is not to say that there is no definitive answer to any question. That is to acknowledge that there is more to be learned.
Reality exceeds our understanding. Intellectual humility is a virtue. Shakespeare understood this. The pursuit of factual knowledge is an endeavor without end.
The Socratic method is effective because it acknowledges that reality exceeds our understanding and teaches that the answer to one question leads to another question. That is not to say that there is no definitive answer to any question. That is to acknowledge that there is more to be learned.
2
Thank you, nice piece, similar to Krugman's recent column "Making Ignorance Great Again". However, is your fanciful last sentence really helpful to your cause? "Sometimes the rock kicks back"? Oh really? Why not leave such images to the authors of children's books and simply say, "When we kick enough rocks, we end up with sore or broken toes"? The self-inflicted pain of reality-deniers will become increasingly apparent to all, and I bet I'm not the only one waiting for a certain coastal luxury resort in Florida that I will not name to be swept out to see just like at Sandy Hook -- "It's the climate, stupid."
1
Kick the rock, but just once. Then do something about carbon emissions.
13
I find the problem which is of the most immediate concern is the lack of critical think and meditation through out the general public. It appears that we are on a journey where the most coveted object is to be able to get the answers to the questions we have not by thinking and reflection on the various solutions but by asking Siri, Cortina, or Alexi. A life lived without reflection is a life not lived at all. If you do not think about what value to put into something, than you have no idea what is of value. There is no argument that many of the liberal commentators to these articles are prone to the same reflexive thinking as those of the conservative commentators, but I find none of the conservative commentators defending Trump for his ability to govern, it is always about what he says and how what he says agrees with what they think. None of them can place themselves as being responsible for running the Federal Government just because they think the same things Trump says, and don't understand that talking and doing are 2 different things. Trump never gave any indication that he was capable of being president, had no experience that indicated that he could function as president, but none of that mattered, as long as they agreed on the same issues. Just how many of them would call their plumber to perform open heart surgery on themselves, a total lack of critical thinking. If we can't agree the sun rises in the East then what can we agree on?
36
I saw horns on the heads of humans. Attempting to understand what I saw I understood this was common in my research . with visionaries ,prophets,mystics and this is what they saw on the head of Moses. What i saw with the horns were two humans in my life trying to put me under their complete control .
The world I had entered was so very beautiful filled with awareness great beauty,harmony and honoring my growing awareness my very flesh body itself was transforming into beauty and a desire to give and share from this newly discovered world
Where would it bring me? I thought i could pick up a stone and it would transformed into something you would never want to throw away never mind kick
What that means is forever more I would be aware that the world I had come from if push came to shove all would kick the rock away after spending a life time ignoring it.
Descending back into the world I left behind how easy to become brainwashed unless i practice rituals to maintain the presence of worlds circling around us invisible to the stone ignorers and kickers of rocks
The world I had entered was so very beautiful filled with awareness great beauty,harmony and honoring my growing awareness my very flesh body itself was transforming into beauty and a desire to give and share from this newly discovered world
Where would it bring me? I thought i could pick up a stone and it would transformed into something you would never want to throw away never mind kick
What that means is forever more I would be aware that the world I had come from if push came to shove all would kick the rock away after spending a life time ignoring it.
Descending back into the world I left behind how easy to become brainwashed unless i practice rituals to maintain the presence of worlds circling around us invisible to the stone ignorers and kickers of rocks
2
I follow what is going on the southwest shore of Wolfe Island, Ontario and Cape Vincent, New York.
Lake Ontario has not been this high for sometime.
Smarter people than me say it will level off in a couple of weeks.
Level off? If I was a property owner when does it go down?