That paragraph is a great example of sophistry. That so few people can understand it, detect it and see it for what it is, is why this world is so stupid and ridiculous.
You’re here to learn logic people…that is the ONLY reason you are here, is to learn logic.
You’re not here to learn love. You’re not here to learn forgiveness of atrocities committed against you or others, you’re not here to find bliss, you’re not here to find happiness. Stop deluding yourself.
You’re not here for anything else but for one thing only: TO LEARN HOW TO REASON.
The only thing that ruins this world is lack of reason. Not lack of love or forgiveness or anything else – it is lack of reason which is the problem of this world.
So get learning how to reason and how to think rationally, and stop with your idiotic feelings, like we see in this idiotic, moronic paragraph from this paid-for sophist dip-shit pretending he’s a scientist.
First sentence: vilifies a green organic gas that is the sole fundamental basis of life along with water and sunlight, and which the biosphere/atmosphere is currently starved of; implies that it caused the “great climate catastrophe’s of the past”, which is a bald sophist lie.
Second sentence: implies that the green organic gas which is the basis of life led to mass extinctions, which is a bald sophist lie.
Third sentence: baseless assertion; also, the green organic gas that is the basis of life promotes plant and hence food and all life growth, not limits it…it makes it easier for us to feed ourselves by increasing crop yields.
Fourth sentence: Every unit of sunlight we prevent from reaching the surface and going to run our toasters instead, is energy that could have went into creating life and plants instead. Therefore it is not environmentally friendly to use solar power. Solar power is not dense enough to provide the power we require – there’s only a lot of it if you have a large collecting surface area. We don’t very well want to cover millions of square miles in solar panels, do we? I’d rather have trees. Power can be produced from high-density, tiny surface area generating stations instead. Solar power is a reversal in mental evolution.
Fifth sentence: The generations that came before us always went for increasing our power and control over physics and nature. Going to solar reverses and severely limits our power and control over nature. Generations before us would have developed newer and safer systems of high-density power generation.
Sixth sentence: What does that have to do with the rest? It is an alarming metaphor only. The green organic gas that we are giving back to the atmosphere so that more plants can grow is not an asteroid coming.
Last sentence: Our excuse is that the world is being run by idiots, who can’t even figure out the first mere thought of what we’re supposed to do here.
The entire paragraph is a lie. And it is based on creating feelings and emotional reaction which confuses people into thinking that they’re being reasonable, when it is actually mere emotional manipulation.
“Yes, Carbon Dioxide is important to life, yet anything that is important to life, in excess amounts, can be destructive. I’m not convinced that we are producing carbon dioxide in mass amounts, or enough to destroy life on the planet. However, on Sundays Cosmos he talked about how mass amounts of carbon dioxide had covered the earth, producing tremendous heat, which caused methane gas trapped in the ocean to be released, making the atmosphere hotter, killing life. – So you think the opposite is true, that the atmosphere is starved of carbon dioxide?”
The atmosphere is starved of carbon dioxide. Usual levels are several times higher than we have now, and the levels had gotten down so low that a FINAL extinction of all life would have taken place. The planet/atmosphere was approaching such a low level of CO2 that photosynthesis would have stopped. That is the final extinction. The atmosphere should have about 4 times the CO2 it does now – that’s how plants evolved, and it is what they still like. That’s what we do in greenhouses to give the plants a boost…poor things, I’m sure they would like that outside too.
The heat/CO2/methane thing he talked about is pure speculation. They’re just making that up. CO2/methane aren’t sources of energy. They don’t produce heat. Hence they can’t heat up the atmosphere. CO2 is not anywhere near excess amounts…even if we burned all existing carbon fuels, we would only get to about 2X the current level, when we need 4X. A warmer planet = more life on the planet. Cold kills(!), not a slightly warmer planet. A warmer planet promotes more life.
The vilification of CO2 is an archonic reaction, because these entities seek to end life. They were trying for the final extinction by reducing the CO2 level down so far. Maybe it was Gaia’s plan or WHATEVER, but man came along just at the right time to re-fertilize the atmosphere with CO2, the basis of life. There are massive plans afoot spanning millions of years…
See here, read the sections, for more info on what’s going on:
A Deconstructionist Argument for the Existence of Phosters and Archons
Posted by Brent Paris on May 30th, 2013 | 13 Comments
CATEGORIES : TOPICAL BLOGS
A Deconstructionist Argument for the Existence of Phosters and Archons:
An important question often put to Gnostics is whether we believe that the Archons and Phosters are existential beings or entities, or are simply archetypal forms within the human subconscious. This question goes to the heart of Gnosticism. The short answer to both questions is yes. The great Gnostic psychologist, Dr. Carl Jung developed the theory of the archetype in psychology. Jung believed that universal, mythic characters or archetypes, preside within the collective subconscious. These Archetypes represent fundamental human motifs of our evolutionary experience; consequentially, they evoke deep emotional patterns.
The term “archetype” comes from the Greek root words archein, meaning “original or old” and typos, meaning “pattern, model or type.” The combined meaning is an “original pattern” of which all other similar persons, symbolic objects, or religious concepts are derived and modeled. The term archein also referred to the nine chief magistrates of ancient Athens, being derived from the Greek arkhon “ruler,” or arkhein “to rule.” The early Gnostics believed that the Archons were fallen angels that had fallen from the higher realm to the physical plane. After their fall, they became the celestial rulers of our imperfect universe, the realm of illusion or Samsara. The Gnostics believed that the physical plane was an imperfect copy of a higher perfect realm. In some Gnostic myths, the creator of the lower physical realm was Ialdabaoth, the demiurge, or the Architect.
The Greek term Phoster means, “that which gives light, an illuminator.” The ancient Gnostics believed in light beings known as Phosters or illuminators. Indeed, one very famous Phoster was named Lucifer, Latin for “the bearer of light.” The Gnostics believed that the Phosters, or light beings/angels, were humanities’ spiritual guides, guides leading humanity along our evolutionary path, back to the light of illumination, to gnosis or knowledge of reality as it actually exists.
Still, the important question is this, are the Archons and Phosters real? Or are they simply Jungian archetypes that have somehow influenced human physiological development? For the longest time, I wanted to see these archetypes from a purely rationalist point of view. I accepted that there are certain emotional and evolutionary themes that repeat themselves in history. But I resisted the notion that extraterrestrial or higher entities actually influence the human condition.
Unfortunately that view does not reflect the realities of the human condition. Our lives are full of suffering, as our Buddhist friends will quickly acknowledge. And often, this suffering seems to be directed. There are evil people in the world, who seem to never suffer, and good people who seem to never catch a break. How can we explain the overpowering feeling of darkness, when not just one thing goes wrong in our lives, but a whole series of apparently unconnected events fall upon our heads?
There is the second explanation, that the Archons and Phosters are actual existential entities. As a rationalist, schooled in the post-modern deconstructionist methodology, I wanted to resist the second explanation, but as an intuitive Gnostic I can no longer ignore the evidence of my senses. Let us use deductive reasoning to make the argument that the ancient Gnostics were correct.
The first piece of evidence is sentience, the ability to consciously think and to know. As humans, we are the most rationally developed and most self-conscious species on the planet. But there are also thousands of other species living here that are also conscious. You know this if you are a pet owner. My cat knows where her food is, she knows where her bed is, and she knows who I am. Effectively, her consciousness is simply a scaled down version from my own. (If you asked my cat, she would assure you that I am the lower life form, bound to a life of serving her kitty treats.) This isn’t rocket science, just this weekend I watched as a gorilla my local zoo, looked me in the eyes through a Plexiglas barrier, with a weary disgust. He then grabbed his blanket and retired to his private sleeping quarters. It’s obvious that consciousness is scaled, from the relatively simple level of a cat, to the higher levels of the primates on our planet.
The second piece of evidence is the known scale of the observable universe. Our sun is just one of an estimated two-to-four hundred billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy. This gives us an estimated two-to-three trillion planets in our galaxy. And there are at least two hundred billion galaxies in the known universe. So there are hundreds of trillions of planets within the known universe. Earth is not particularly unique given these numbers. It is therefore a mathematical certainty, that there are, billions of living and thinking species within our universe. Many of these alien species are less intelligent and evolved than we, such as the examples given on our home world. (I’m not talking about politicians!) But mathematically, it is equally as certain; that many of these alien species are much more advanced. And despite the naïve belief that these alien civilizations are benign, it is just as likely that many of them are quite hostile or aggressive. These are overwhelming mathematical probabilities that cannot be denied.
The third piece of evidence is the known age of the universe. The known age of our universe is about 14 billion years. It is therefore reasonable to assume that life has been evolving in our universe for much longer than it has been evolving here on Earth. Earth is only about 4.5 billion years old. So it is probable that life was evolving in our universe long before our planet came into existence. These ancient and advanced life forms may have evolved beyond the need for physical bodies.
These numbers do not lie, the data argues strongly in favor of the existence of higher life forms beyond our world. These super aliens are our prime suspects in the hunt for Archons and Phosters. The ancient Gnostic’s description of these beings appears to square with the mathematical and observational data. There is an Illuminati tradition that there can be up to 72 Archons and/or Phosters in any given solar system. The Illuminati say that the number of Archons or Phosters presiding over a solar system has a tremendous influence upon life in a solar system. According to this theory, our planet is inhabited by 36 hostile Archons, among them Ialdabaoth, the demiurge, and his side kick Samuel, the ‘blind god’ or devil. They are kept somewhat in check by only 12 earthbound Phosters. In some Gnostic traditions, the number of Phosters on Earth is 36, matching the number of Archons. If the Illuminati numbers are correct, then the Phosters are out numbered on our planet, fighting three to one odds. This goes a long way towards explaining why our planet seems to be under the domination of evil emotional energies. The 12 Phosters are effectively fighting a rear guard action to protect the best souls of humanity as they evolve and experience gnosis. The most well know Phoster is of course Christ. But he assisted by several others. According to the Illuminati, neither the Archons nor the Phosters can act upon the physical plane directly. They cannot cause storms or earthquakes like gothic demons. They can only influence the physical plane on the mental and emotional level. And so the struggle to control Earth takes place on the mental and emotional level.
If you are a Gnostic, you already know that my underlying theory rings true. If you are not, then please think about the numbers. Think about the evolution of consciousness and knowledge on our planet. Can you really exclude the possibility that there are other intelligences that can influence the human mind, especially if these intelligences are allowed to do so? In one important way, gnosis is the ability to recognize the influence of an Archon or a Phoster in you mind and in the personalities of others, and to then act accordingly. Think about this post and let me know your thoughts.
I accept the theory of archetypes as these are simply souls who have evolved in a certain direction maximally or becoming maximal, and as souls can incarnate then these maximal archetypes can also take incarnated form. As it is all about energy frequencies, we are frequencies and they are frequencies, and frequencies can resonate (like two guitar strings beside each other), then we can tune to those archetypes via meditation and simply by desire and intention.
I’ve dealt with the archons and I know pretty deeply part of what their gameplan is going forward. Eye’ve (lol) seen their plan and how many millions of years it occupies. And I’ve seen how humans were modified by a Phoster (Prometheus/Lucifer) to battle the plan of the archons. Dark entities seek to end life. They truly are dark, and seek non-existence. Lucifer’s number is 666, and it just so happens that the Fourier frequency wave number of the molecule which indicates human progress and the human defence of life is the inverse of 15 micrometers, which is 66666.666666666666…….. WAVEnumber.
That’s why the archons hate that molecule.
Yeah, but apart from all that…
Is that a denim shirt over denim jeans? My God! What was he thinking?
Hah, very funny…exactly. I get it 😉
What I noticed in his statement is his assertion that solar energy is “free energy”. So why does it need to be so heavily subsidized and costs so much to install? Hydrocarbons are “free” as well; it is just that they are buried in the ground and need to be dug up, refined and distributed.
Solar energy likewise needs to be “mined” if you will. The raw materials for solar panels needs to be mined using machinery powered by diesel fuel and then transported to a foundry in trucks powered by diesel fuel. The foundry no doubt uses the energy heat that is supplied by burning fossil fuels. The metal billets or sheets are then transported to a factory via trucks that burn diesel fuel. The factory will be powered by electricity, which again worldwide comes primarily from the burning of fossil fuels. The solar panels are then shipped in vehicles powered by fossil fuels and are then stored in warehouses that use electricity to either heat or cool the building. Once bought the installer will transport the solar panels to your home in a gasoline powered vehicle. Beyond that, whether you live on or off of the grid you solar energy needs back up fossil fuel produced energy for when the sun doesn’t shine, which is half the time.
Also, there are employees all along the way that need to be paid so that they can buy food, which is grown, transported, processed and distributed using fossil fuel based energy and clothes that are made in many cases from oil itself–synthetics–in factories powered by fossil fuels and houses made out of materials that are also harvested, processed, transported and constructed using power tools and diesel powered machinery. These same people who work in the mines, in the trucking industry, in the factories and warehouses and those who install the solar panels have to get from home to work every day, which usually means a trip in a fossil fuel powered vehicle,
The same is true for “free wind power” and biofuels producers do not use ethanol to produce ethanol because it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than you get back when you burn it.
The bottom line is this: a “carbon free” economy is an “energy free” economy, because without fossil fuels there won’t be any solar panels, wind mills or ethanol either.
Excellent commentary Carl.
You know, deGrasse Tyson is a poster boy for big bang creationism, and he has never exhibited a capacity for reason. He’s just another salesman. Here is a brief overview of the big bang creation fantasy:
THE RISE AND FALL OF BLACK HOLES AND BIG BANGS
Is it any wonder that the likes of deGrasse Tyson talk so much nonsense about AGW? He always talks nonsense.
Agreed. Thanks Joe.
Joe, I’ve received another attempt to explain the ‘greenhouse effect’…
Same od BS: “Owing to their symmetrical shapes, the principal atmospheric components N2 and O2 do not absorb infrared light, but the minor components water vapor and carbon dioxide are strong absorbers, especially in the long-wavelength region of the infrared. Absorption of infrared light by a gas causes its temperature to rise, so any source of infrared light will tend to warm the atmosphere; this phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect.
The incoming radiation from the Sun (which contains relatively little long-wave infrared light) passes freely through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the Earth’s surface, warming it up and causing it to re-emit some of this energy as long-wavelength infrared. Most of the latter is absorbed by the H2O and CO2 , the major greenhouse gasis [sic] in the unpolluted atmosphere, effectively trapping the radiation as heat. Thus the atmosphere is heated by the Earth, rather than by direct sunlight. Without the “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere, the Earth’s heat would be radiated away into space, and our planet would be too cold for life.”
This is the other aspect of sophistry, that the gases that CAN emit IR apparently trap it, and the atmosphere can only radiate out WITHOUT IR radiating gases!!
“so any source of infrared light will tend to warm the atmosphere; this phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect.”
Well first a heat source can only heat something up which is cooler than it. This is not the greenhouse effect. Neither is the greenhouse effect the simple fact that the warmer surface heats the cooler atmosphere.
“Thus the atmosphere is heated by the Earth, rather than by direct sunlight. Without the “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere, the Earth’s heat would be radiated away into space, and our planet would be too cold for life.”
Conduction heats the atmosphere too, and if O2 and N2 can’t radiate, then THEY trap heat in the atmosphere and keep the atmosphere from radiating its heat away into space.
God sakes…I mean the sophistry and scientific idiocy of this…what’s WRONG with these people? They are seriously compromised people!
Crothers, your assertion that the COBE (etc) missions were measuring water emission from the Earth is pure sophistry. Eye see what you are, Stephen.
Joseph – Once again, Thank You for your postings, you do not disappoint. What did soundly disappoint was that Neil deGrasse Tyson program when I, by chance, happened to tune in and hear those very same first few sentences, I had to tune out immediately. The sophistry is maddening when it’s presented as an assertion. Rather than leading to mass extinction, I had thought that the explosion of mammalian life was attributed to elevated levels of earth’s atmospheric CO2.
You said: “The atmosphere is starved of carbon dioxide.” In the carbon cycle of life, CO2 could be considered the single point of failure. I’ve considered that if evil aliens were determined to destroy all life on Earth in a single step, what would be the most efficient. Would “parking” the moon between the Earth and Sun, for an eternal eclipse, destroy all life on earth? Perhaps over time, but a space-age ray that cold zap the CO2 covalent bonding and break out the carbon from the O2 would eliminate all carbon based life forthwith. Should artificially restricting atmospheric levels of CO2 be considered rationing of life itself? That also sounds evil.
“You are here to learn reason … the ONLY reason you are here, is to learn logic.” I may have mentioned my exercise in logic in a previous post, and I invite everyone to try the same reductio ad absurdum, i.e Proof By Contradiction. The conclusion of the alarmists’ theory is that increasing the current level of atmospheric CO2 is harmful to life. We negate that to get –> increasing the current levels of CO2 is not harmful to life and then we search for real-world contradictions. Finding a real-world contradiction would prove the alarmists’ conclusion. I have yet to find a contradiction, only examples of irrefutable validation, such as:
polar bears consume seals
seals consume fish
fish consume plankton
plankton consume CO2
:-> more CO2 => more plankton => more fish => more seals => more polar bears
… ipso facto –> polar bears benefit from increased levels of CO2
That’s wonderful Thomas, thanks for the pleasant logic. Those who say that logic is devoid of feeling are wrong – they are simply not philosophers! For the true thinker, logic feels wonderful, and you know it when you see it, and you know it when it is lacking.
Great sci-fi script you have there…that’s a great insight. Of course it analogizes perfectly to this idea about “archons” who might seek to end life on the planet.
There is no such thing as a green house gas effect nor is there a calculation referring to a Green House Gas Law in all of avionics/aeronautics, the field that invented computer climate modeling when calculating orbits for Mercury and Apollo.
The Ideal Gas Law is used to calculate temperature of a volume of atmospheric air.
Adding reflective medium to a fluid bath, laced with reflective media,
that stops yet more light from a fire reaching a heat sensor,
can’t make that heat sensor show,
more energy arrived at that heat sensor,
more energy arrived at that heat sensor.
It really is so basically and obviously wrong…
The energy has already been used to heat…it can’t be used again to heat even more, nor be trapped to heat some more.
Joe, we know that AGW is a business enterprise, not science. But you said “Crothers, your assertion that the COBE (etc) missions were measuring water emission from the Earth is pure sophistry. Eye see what you are, Stephen.” What do you mean Joe? What am I Joe? Do you deny that water emits microwaves? Do you claim that The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is not nonsense? Do you claim that COBE et al actually measured the temperature of the Universe and anisotropies therein?
I refer you to the following:
Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille: The Cosmic Microwave Background
Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille, ‘On the validity of Kirchhoff’s Law’
Why is the fact that CO2 has 3 absorption bands. The frequencies associated with these coincide with peak emission calculated by Wien’s law from objects at ~1073 K, ~673 K and ~193 K.
The absorption of energy from an object at 193 K is trivial in the extreme.
The amount of energy from terrestrial energy around this band width is also fairly trivial.
The absorption of energy around the other bandwidths is much more significant BUT the only source of energy associated with these bandwidths is the solar radiation which has significant amounts of energy in these bandwidths.
The amount of energy from terrestrial energy around these band widths is non existent !
If CO2 is a significant source of thermal energy in the atmosphere almost all absorption is due to the incoming solar energy anyway – not the feeble terrestrial radiation.
Not that I believe for one minute 0.04% of the atmosphere has anything other than a trivial thermal effect – negligible – nada – close to zero.
Pingback: You are Here to Learn Reason! by Joseph E Postma - AETHERFORCE
Have you even gone to secondary school… Carbon dioxide does not produce heat, but it traps heat by reflecting the sun’s light waves and converts them into heat waves as the energy is lost from the light rays. Anyways, carbon dioxide strengthens the atmosphere, leading sunlight to be reflected back on ground, therefore heating up the Earth.
Nice opening question – might ask it of yourself. Here’s why:
John: ” [CO2] traps heat by reflecting the sun’s light waves and converts them into heat waves”
If CO2 reflects the sun’s light rays, then since the sun’s light rays are coming from outside the atmosphere, then the CO2 would be reflecting the sun’s rays back out into space.
John: “carbon dioxide strengthens the atmosphere”
WTH does that even mean…lol. What constitutes the “strength” of a mixed gas?
John: “leading sunlight to be reflected back on ground”
The sun’s light rays don’t come from the surface of the Earth.
John, just start by reading basically any post on this blog. Read at least 5 posts, say.
Joseph Fourier himself demonstrated that there is no atmospheric radiant greenhouse effect.
What John should of ask is, “Haven’t you been reading the decisions of the Supreme Court?” because certain elements of his explanation of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis seem to have been drawn from Mass vs. EPA (2007). “. . . when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat.”
Here is John’s statement: “Carbon dioxide does not produce heat, but it traps heat by reflecting the sun’s light waves and converts them into heat waves as the energy is lost from the light rays. Anyways, carbon dioxide strengthens the atmosphere, leading sunlight to be reflected back on ground, therefore heating up the Earth.”
Since both he and the Supreme Court use derivations of the word “reflect” in their statements we can add one more version of the “greenhouse effect” to our list. This is the “carbon dioxide and water vapor act like big mirrors in the sky” version of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis.
What the language in both cases betrays is an deficit of understanding concerning fundamental thermodynamics. 1) First the meaning of and relationship between the reflectivity, absorptivity, transmissivity and emissivity of matter and 2) second the meaning of the word “heat”. Since “heat” is thermal energy in transit, than “trapped” thermal energy, i.e., thermal energy that stays where it is at–thermal energy that is not in transit, cannot be “heat”.
Here is a textbook definition of “heat” found in Gordon J Van Wylen, Thermodynamics, John Wiley, 1960, p 59. “Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon. If we consider the hot block of copper as a system and the cold water in the beaker as another system, we recognize that originally neither system contains any heat (they do contain energy, of course.) When the copper is placed in the water and the two are in thermal communication, heat is transferred from the copper to the water, until equilibrium of temperature is established. At that point we no longer have heat transfer, since there is no temperature difference. Neither of the systems contains any heat at the conclusion of the process. It also follows that heat is identified at the boundaries of the system, for heat is defined as energy being transferred across the system boundary.”