Skip to main content

Setting the scene

There are rough seas ahead.  

Initially it will not be so apparent, not while I make few connections essential to make clear my intended basic premise, always open to moderation. It will also not be so apparent right now, while I establish principles that can be applied universally, and to which I can refer back to later on if a valid need to reference or challenge them arises.  

As themes develop and interconnect there will likely be increasingly provocative claims made and questions asked.  When emotions run high human beings tend to defend their statements because with the push of a button their words are suddenly cast into existence in the digital realm of cyberspace.  It’s so easy these days to put yourself out there, to put your image and reputation on the line, your public identity.  I don’t like my comments ripped apart by others especially for others to so easily witness. This will interfere with free processing of information because it invites in a sort of ego based agenda, like a vampire into your house that will suck the life blood from the process and leave only a shriveled husk of personal pride lying dead on the floor.

Now before I get into the really contentious stuff we need to set up a M.O. or define with reasonable fairness a few ground rules of engagement.  This will really be the only vaguely closed or defined aspect of the blog and I've designed them to make the content manageable, focused enough, and to remain clear enough so as to understandable by all.  I welcome suggestions are how to improve the method, I initially included the following text in red but have decided due to to feedback that it is not useful:but  I really don’t see the usefulness of long and rambling philosophical utterings involving metaphysical perspectives on themes that achieve precisely nothing useful or practical.

As Carl Sagan so sagely cautions, I don’t want my mind to be so open that my brain falls out.  This kind of intellectual posturing seems by design to be more useful as marketing tool for one’s brilliance and less useful for achieving set goals, especially if they are to be commonly understood.

There is also a very good case to be made about the clear meanings of words.  For example, I don’t think that, if after a long debate when possibly cornered by a sequence of logic, one should make a case about how “To me, when I say that I believe in god, I mean that god is nature, and the laws of physics”.  That is a subjective association and I put forward that it is not a useful connection to make in a shared forum unless clarified upfront. Even then I see it belonging more in the metaphysics realm; I question its communicative usefulness when there is already a very loaded understanding of a word such a “God”.  The phrase “The laws of physics” already exists and the word “nature” can have very general connotations if used incorrectly in specific context, such as in defining the nature of a deity, …. See what I mean?

Even more importantly for my objectives to be realized I think subjective evaluations should only be made in that context, IE as opinions qualified accordingly. The statement “That is wrong” is a useless judgment unless qualified, IE “That would be considered wrong by society/my mother/church/the judge”.  Even better might be “That is currently illegal”.



I think this depersonalized approach will put the focus on the content rather than the agenda’s of the individual.  I will do my best to abide by this code and I would relish being exposed for any conduct contrary to this commitment.  

Popular posts from this blog

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

First and foremost,  what is this so called 'consensus' anyway.  You will be horrified to find out,  it's not specifically that global warming is man made.  It's simply that humans contribute to climate change in an unknowable way and to…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/04/sheep-science.html?m=1

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.


Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.


Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…