Setting the Landscape
As we have learned in my ongoing series on the fraud of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, climate pseudoscience invented an artificial, fictional scheme by which the atmosphere can heat itself up without the Sun, so that they could create an alarmist political movement to vilify the life-creating-gas of carbon dioxide. What we are going to learn now is that this is not just a political movement. It is something much more profound.
I first want to speak on the level of insanity that we’re dealing with on this issue: The people who believe in the greenhouse effect, believe it makes no difference to think of the planet as either flat, or spherical, and they believe that a flat planet Earth must actually do a better job at explaining the “average system” than a spherical planet Earth. They believe it makes no difference whether we model the input power of sunshine at -18oC, or at +49oC. They believe that if you fictionalize the input power of the Sun to -18oC, on average, on a flat Earth, and then create a greenhouse effect to explain why it is so much warmer than this on the ground, that this is a more valid way of thinking about the planet Earth than its reality of actually being spherical with +49oC of heating input. I have literally had to write out differential calculus equations proving that the Earth can be modeled as a sphere, and with real-time power from the Sun, and that it makes things very hot, and that this produces wildly different results than a flat Earth requiring the invention of a greenhouse effect. But still, some people prefer to believe in thinking of the planet as flat.
That is as simple as my criticism is: I look at the standard atmospheric greenhouse schematic and energy budget from climate science, see that it has a flat Earth and that sunshine is cold, and so I ask, “What difference does it make if you treat sunshine as hot, its real strength, and the Earth as a rotating sphere?”.
That is the entire essence of my criticism. Do these things make a difference? Why wouldn’t they? (read my Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect). Hot is different than cold: QED. The essential idea is that real Sunshine is hot, and can melt water from ice and keep it melted (liquid), whereas the Sun is not strong enough to do that by itself in the climate-science model which uses a reduced power of sunshine. How much of a difference does it make? I don’t honestly know exactly, but I am trying to figure it out. Already, it is clear that heat-trapping from latent heat is the only real place heat gets trapped, and that this keeps the poles and other cool places much warmer than they would otherwise be if no liquid water was present, and that the Sun can keep the oceans liquid all by itself. I would like to know why it “doesn’t” make a difference, when it is so clear that it does? I see no reason to continue assuming the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect, especially one based on a flat Earth model and which has no clear or realistic physical description, and who’s definition constantly changes depending on what the criticism is.
So let us think about that. We are having a debate between whether the Earth is round, versus if it is flat, and whether Sunshine is hot, versus if it is cold, and if these differences make a difference… And people take this debate seriously, and in fact they would prefer to not have it at all! I take the debate seriously because I can’t believe how insane people must have to be, in order to believe that a flat Earth with cold sunshine actually means anything scientifically. The people who believe in a flat Earth greenhouse effect take the debate seriously because they are mentally deficient, notwithstanding whatever sophistic excuses they invent to justify their beliefs. These are the simple facts. In the 21st Century, with space stations orbiting the Earth, robots looking for life on Mars, and space probes visiting the planet Pluto, you literally have to be mentally deranged to defend an idea that rests on the planet Earth being flat. Every sane person should be perfectly happy and ecstatic to see if we still need an atmospheric greenhouse effect when treating the Earth dynamically with real inputs. But there is a reason this is not so, as we will see.
Thus, it becomes very apparent that what we are dealing with is not something which can be communicated or debated within the realm of rationalism, but is something else entirely outside the realm of conscious rational awareness. We have to identify where such a profound degree of insanity exists similarly in other places and find where people can be so insane such as to believe in the opposite of reality with fervent zeal.
Basic Human Psychology and Philosophy
I would like to introduce you to the concept of an “archetype”. From Wikipedia:
“An archetype is a universally understood symbol, term, statement, or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. Archetypes are often used in myths and storytelling across different cultures.”
Archetypes are thought patterns which are subconsciously held by the human population, spanning all barriers of space and time and culture, which unconsciously direct our customs, desires, belief systems, etc. The most common archetype of the entire human race, spanning all history, cultures, and locality, is the “Hero Archetype”. (See the documentary film “Finding Joseph” for more explanation.) Almost all of our movies, all of our books, all of our entertainment, etc., tell exactly the same story: the story of the archetypal hero. It is a story of a single and very infrequent individual, the one person in a billion, who through some form of internal strength that they never knew they had, overcomes both internal and external challenges and obstacles, and radically transforms both them-self, their soul, and even sometimes the outside world. They overcome the obstacles and self-limiting beliefs which kept them from being free and kept them from living the real life which was out there waiting for them. Neo, in the first Matrix movie, is the perfect hero, and he tells the perfect archetypal story of overcoming the world, and his own beliefs about it, as an illusion. So, archetypes are important, and it is important to know that we humans have them, seemingly built-in to the way we live out our lives. We’ll come back to this.
Next, if you are familiar with philosophy you may have heard of the “Hegelian Dialectic”. From Wikipedia:
“The Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis.”
The Hegelian dialectic explains that every phenomenon that exists, exists along-side its “dialectical twin“, which is its opposite. For example: love vs. hate; anarchy vs. statism; good vs. evil; etc. One phenomenon can be called a thesis, and its dialectical twin is then called the antithesis. The thesis and antithesis basically vie for supremacy, but because they’re dialectical twins, neither of them wins-out in totality in the end. What does occur in the end is called the synthesis, and this is where the battle gets resolved. For example, anarchy vs. statism may end in the synthesis of a republican democracy. The Hegelian dialectic is thus a process of thesis, antithesis, and then synthesis. The synthesis then becomes a new thesis, which generates a new antithesis, and these will contrast with each other until yet a new higher synthesis is achieved. It is basically a form, or even an exact description of, archetypal evolution, and the idea is that as the thesis/antithesis pairs become resolved, in the synthesis, better and more powerful archetypal conditional states are achieved. For example, republican democracy is better than either statism or anarchy.
Can anyone state what the dialectical resolution (synthesis) is between good and evil? If you can, put it in the comments below; there is certainly an answer, but you must think about it to realize it. Or as another example, what is the antithesis to republican democracy?
Lastly, we must understand the psychological condition known as cognitive dissonance. From Wikipedia:
“Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of people when holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.”
Almost every single person alive suffers from some form of cognitive dissonance, and we will discuss these ahead. It is not a state a person needs to be consciously aware of, and is generally a psychological state that is only subconsciously present, and it can lead to extremely irrational and outright dangerously insane behavior if the dissonance is not resolved. The manifestation of dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, etc., can literally break a person’s mind. One way of resolving the cognitive dissonance is, obviously, via the dialectical method, or in other words just by thinking about the problem and its options. But the important point is that most people are not consciously aware that they are holding mutually contradictory ideas as true, and it is as if they have compartmentalized these cognitions, to keep them separate. Many people can simply live their entire life in such a state as this, because of the fact that rational resolution of internal thought patterns is the last thing most people think or care about. It requires a conscious, active love of rationality, reading, philosophy, psychology, logic, science, mathematics, self-awareness, and self-criticism, to become aware of all this in the first place, but the vast majority of people, including most scientists, aren’t mentally capable of this type of cogitation. The only personality types which you will find consciously improving their mental fidelity are Myers-Briggs INTP and INTJ types: introversion (as opposed to extroversion), intuition (as opposed to sensing), and thinking (as opposed to feeling) are the hallmarks of idealist rationalism, and this combination represents less than 5% of the population. Everyone else watches American Idol, or “sports”, or is otherwise busy following their friends, seeking physical thrills, or believing in faith. To be sure, most scientists are actually not of the idealist-rationalist type, but are more generally “sensing” types. And by the way, don’t worry if you have the “right type” of personality or not; that’s not what this is about…and I am sure rationalism actually extends to more types that the two I stated, so apologies for being so exclusive about it.
So that’s where I’ll end it for now, before beginning to put it all together. The important concepts are: archetypes, the Hegelian Dialectic, and cognitive dissonance. When properly unified these form the basis of religion; we will go through the main example of such, and then explain how it relates to the modern meme of climate change alarm and carbon vilification, and what the true purpose of these are.