Steps to understanding

We grow through learning. In many respects our education and belief systems act like a staircase. We learn facts and skills and once learned, these "steps" are relied on to build further learning and understanding. Having climbed some way up the staircase, we're disinclined to go back down the stairs to "unlearn" or verify what we've taken as read.

The reasons for this can be many and various: laziness, other priorities or because our status, place and view of the world are reliant on the character and shape of the staircase we've climbed. Revisiting what we think we know may negate everything we've "learned" and have come to believe subsequently; shock horror, we may even discover we're on the wrong staircase leading us to nowhere or worse.

Bearing this in mind, one has to persevere with this next video because if you are of a certain disposition, it will repel you initially but as it unfolds, the beliefs many hold dear are revealed as false, illogical and untenable. You may have to watch it more than once for its true import to sink in. The research we've undertaken within Critical Thinking corroborates most of what is claimed and explained.

Some of us have had to revisit the lower steps on our staircase, giving us a very different understanding of the world - essentially upending our "staircase" - it is a far from comfortable experience but once we've been through shock, anger etc. (a kind of trauma) we have a much better sense of the world as it is today.

If we are not prepared to consider alternatives to widely held beliefs, we risk drifting into "a world where the living envy the dead". Please watch the video, no matter how difficult or repellent you find it - understanding the world as it is is essential for us all.


0 #19 Adam 2017-03-03 11:09
That's quite the riposte, Clive! As I've hopefully made clear, I'm rather agnostic in this question, lacking sufficient understanding of the science, and my method of enquiry is generally to try to absorb opposing views and then find a way of reconciling them.

You've certainly provided me with resources for plumbing those depths... question is, will I find the time? Hopefully, but probably not this week or next! I've forwarded your comment to him and will let you know if he responds.
0 #18 Clive Menzies 2017-03-02 21:26
Quoting Adam:
"I always find this particular strand of conspiratainment odd, as they never seem to deal with the obvious problem - the previous decades in which the rich, powerful and right-wing worked incredibly hard to bury, block and obscure the AGW message.

Hi Adam, this is an old chestnut with no substance :-)

As was highlighted in the "questions for Corbett" video the other day (16min 20secs in), big oil is a significant beneficiary of the AGW myth.

The amount of money funding sceptics - c. $200m over 10 years - is a generous estimate and pales into insignificance compared to the $billions or possibly $trillions invested to support this myth - nearly every business now has an obligation in respect of climate change, if not mandatory, as "greenwash". This is such a lame response to scientific fraud.
Carbon trading, science funding, feed-in-tariffs and the gravy train of conferences around the globe - it just goes on and on.

I'm no fan of the Koch Bros who buy elections and coal is undoubtedly a loser in all this but their financial commitment to opposition is a flea bite in comparison to the AGW gravy train.

We can take this particular strawman argument seriously when someone comes up with evidential proof that there is some substance to it. I've yet to find a climate sceptic who is benefitting financially or otherwise by putting their head above the parapet. On the contrary, it is career suicide. People like Judith Curry (and many others) have to sacrifice their science careers to speak out.

Meanwhile, the fraudsters (Michael Mann, Phil Jones etc.) go on to greater heights supported by the IPCC political establishment.

We need to stick to the fundamental question. Is CO2 driving global temperatures in contrast to evidence of the last 800,000 years that CO2 FOLLOWS temperature? The unequivocal answer is that there is no real world evidence that CO2 does other than in the laboratory. In the real world, natural cycles dominate.

It's financial, Rothschild/Rock efeller scam planned and announced long before they fixed the science.

/rant/Your dismissive friend has drunk the koolaide, as did we all until some of us did the research to discover this AGW myth is based on: political arm twisting, financial incentives, scientific fraud and woefully inadequate climate models generated by over-rewarded, over-recognised charlatans - not unlike most of the economic profession. /end rant/ :-)
0 #17 Adam 2017-03-02 17:29
I'm aware of the 'new Ice Age' theory, and of the ice core data which showed that climate became very unstable for a brief period before a quick descent into much colder temperatures. A couple of billion people dying is merciful compared to what continued warming and rapid carbon and methane release could (allegedly) do. Somehow I'm not sure whether the Bucky Fuller idea that we have the capacity to support the current world population through intelligent use of resources applies in an Ice Age.

Have been thinking about the melting permafrost in Siberia, and how old that is. So the questions I'm wondering about are, if we're in a 'medieval warm period' mini cycle how far in are we?, how long has this interglacial lasted (17000 years?), how long have previous interglacials lasted (20000 years?), is this a typical interglacial?, what are the factors that stimulate a glaciation? - John Hamaker suggested soil demineralization.

Meanwhile I'll leave you with some comments of a friend of mine:

"I always find this particular strand of conspiratainmen t odd, as they never seem to deal with the obvious problem - the previous decades in which the rich, powerful and right-wing worked incredibly hard to bury, block and obscure the AGW message.

Or was this a bait and switch? Were we supposed to discover that the Republicans/Koc h brothers/Exxon were secretly funding institutions to produce fake science discrediting AGW, so that we would then believe in AGW even more?"
0 #16 James Walter 2017-03-01 21:33
Quoting Adam:
James, admittedly I hadn't noticed that part. I hope it's true. I'm not convinced either way!

Well, if we do not prepare for it with the proper crops that can survive a little ice age, billions will die. Read Robert Felix's book, "Not by Fire, but by Ice"
He wrote way before the study I cited. In it he has some crop suggestions.

Another guy, Joshua Pearce at Minnesota Tech University wrote a paper, "Feeding Everyone if the Sun is Obscured and Industry is Disabled" -
0 #15 Adam 2017-03-01 17:31
James, admittedly I hadn't noticed that part. I hope it's true. I'm not convinced either way!
0 #14 James Walter 2017-03-01 13:41
Quoting Adam:
Sorry, pad URL is here:

Have you seen this article about a model of the sun that is 97% accurate going back thousands of years that says we will be in a little ice age in 13 years?
+1 #13 Clive Menzies 2017-03-01 11:30
Quoting Adam:
Sorry, pad URL is here:

Hi Adam

Not much to disagree with - No-one gets into high power unless they're on a (Rothschild) debt leash or blackmailable. He's held on both counts - Jeffrey Epstein and his property debts
0 #12 Adam 2017-03-01 11:13
Sorry, pad URL is here:
0 #11 Adam 2017-03-01 11:13
Regarding the climate change question, I've been aware of Piers Corbyn's work for a while, which as I understand it promotes a similar view to what you posted. Thing is, there's supposedly also a 'global dimming' effect as a result of atmospheric pollution, which would logically mitigate against solar intensity. I still can't see why there can't be both an input from increased solar activity as well as an effect from increased atmospheric carbon.

Re Trump, yes I'm aware of the narrative being promoted in those videos. However I suspect that for the most part it's something that's being spun in such a manner as to distract people's attention from the real issues. I've pasted something a FedBook friend of mine wrote on the subject into a pad here, with accompanying discussion, which in my view gets into the core of the question. Feel free to add your own comments on the pad - I'm always interested in divergent perspectives.
0 #10 James Walter 2017-02-25 13:41
Quoting Adam:
Quoting James Walter:
To Adam: Watch these video on the intelligence community war with Trump

And this one by precious CIA agent

I'll take a look at those links. However, the first video has been removed...

new link to video with Dennis Kucinich

Please register to post comments