Think of how stupid this comment is. This is from the guy who destroyed deterministic science and changed it to randomistic and indeterminate. Those words are the words of a pure materialist.

WTF is he even talking about? What does he define as real? Of course, he defines his physical senses as real, but then upon discovering that his physical senses do not present true reality, declares that reality itself is UNREAL! These people are so philosophically illiterate, so illiterate in the history of thought, he literally had no clue that the reality of the physical senses had already been solved more than 2 damned millennia ago!  This wasn’t a discovery of his, or of quantum mechanics – it was discovered millennia ago by simple critical thought, by simple rational critical thinking.  What a fraud this jerk is!

It’s your physical senses that are “unreal” in the sense that they do not present true reality. Photons are not intrinsically “red” in and of themselves; molecules are not intrinsically “sour” in and of themselves; etc. This was known 2400 years ago!! But this damned moron didn’t know that.

I knew that when I was a child. All of my child friends knew it because we talked about how strange it was. My child siblings and my child friends knew about it as we pondered whether or not we all “see” colors in the same way. But this damned moron did not know that. How damned illiterate do you need to be in order to be a materialist empiricist scientist?

100% illiterate, that’s how much! He, and those working with him, really got to that advanced point in life without ever having encountered the intellectual tradition, intellectual history, and all of the books on such.  They had ZERO contact with intellectual history.

So his conclusion is that everything is made of “unreality”! Everything is not real. WTF does that even mean?

And that, too had already been worked out a few hundred years ago before Bohr. The only thing we know for certain which is real is our thought, our own thinking. Our own thoughts are the only thing we know for certain is real, is something that definitely exists.

But of course, to Bohr as a materialist empiricist who believes that only his physical senses are real or should have been real, thoughts are certainly not real, and so why not believe in alive-dead cats, why not believe that the moon doesn’t exist when not looking at it, etc.?

God these people are stupid.  They’re SO DUMB!  Can you imagine how dumb you have to be to be this person (Bohr)!?

No, Niels, the only thing which is shocking here is your intellectual illiteracy, your amazing feat of having zero contact with the intellectual tradition while working within the supposed institutes of the intellectual tradition.  That’s what’s shocking here!

So, your position is that everything is made of “unreality”?

Bohr: “Everything we call real is made of things that are not real.”

Your statement has ZERO meaning.  It is anti-meaning.  It is a contradiction in terms, a category error, of the simplest and most obvious kind.  Well what do you expect from someone who has 0% contact with the intellectual tradition?!  He’s too dumb to even detect the simplest category error in his own sentence.

And from this starting point, from here, they develop their work, develop their theories, and interpret mathematics.  They interpret their mathematics from this starting point about their belief in the unreality of reality, and hence, dead-alive cats, unreal probability functions, and a random, purposeless, meaningless existence that springs from non-existence for no reason and by no mechanism is the result.

And at the same time, they (via Eugene Wigner, 1960, in “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics…) say that it is a mysterious miracle that mathematics can be used for science, for understanding reality – that using mathematics for science is just some convenient but useful mysterious miracle, that is beyond reasonable expectation, that is baffling and has no rational basis!

So let’s summarize this:  Their position is that reality is unreality, and while they use mathematics to study reality/unreality, they simultaneously believe that mathematics is miraculous.

This is the foundation of modern science.  This is the fundamental core foundation of modern scientific thought.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster makes just as much if not MORE sense than this.

And it is from this point that they then bring you Flat Earth Theory disguised as climate alarm as the most actionable and useful product which they have ever presented for immediate political action.

In fact we should simply say that modern science has no basis whatsoever, that it actually has zero philosophical or scientific or empirical or theoretical grounding whatsoever.  Modern science has no position to argue from at all…its position doesn’t even exist, its position is so incoherent and cognitively dissonant that it is not actually possible to rationally extrapolate from it at all.

The only thing one can extrapolate is descent into unconsciousness via the negative dialectic and its increasing incorporation of cognitively dissonant conceptions.  And I think that this has actually occurred, I think that scientists are actually unconscious!

To repeat:  It is my proposition, based on the evidence, based on the attempt to interact with them, that scientists are actually unconscious.  They’re not actually there, mentally.  There’s nothing there, but an automaton which can only repeat things it has heard before, and it has no ability to extrapolate or incorporate new thoughts with with its own active mental agency.  It can be told what to repeat by an authority which governs it, but it has no independent mental agency which can “crunch” or produce any new thoughts.

I have shown exactly where, how, and why Flat Earth theory became inserted into modern physics via climate alarm. It is the simplest thing ever.  This one is from Harvard University.  HARVARD damned University(!):

That’s the founding diagram of their climate alarm.  It is exclusively from this model from which climate alarm is then generated by the effects which they extrapolate from this model.

Any normal person I’ve talked to readily engages on what shape the planet Earth is in that diagram, and they readily extrapolate the logical consequences of a belief in Flat Earth theory, i.e. that it’s pseudoscience.  That is a consciousness in action, that is a mind with agency, an active, acting mind which can willingly with agency “crunch” some basic logic it encounters to then extrapolate and form a conclusion.

But here’s how “scientists” respond: “You have no degree or publications in climate science, and so I will not engage with what you’ve put in front of me.”  So, how do you characterize that mind?  It’s unconscious, that’s how you characterize it.  It has no agency, it has no “motivator”, it has no impulse, it has no je ne sais quoi, it has no self-directed computational ability, no ability to “latch onto” concepts or mental/logical problems which exist in the outside world and then intently seek to resolve them.  It’s a-conscious.

I think that via the negative dialectic that scientists have largely been rendered unconscious.  Following the hundred and more years of the application of the negative dialectic as I discussed in this post and subsequent comment.

Their minds have been wrecked: Do they really believe, is their position, really that mathematics is magical and miraculous?  They really believe in magic?  Do they really believe that existence is both real and unreal?  They really believe that “real is unreal”?  How can you possibly put those two postulates together then and produce any coherent mind or thinking at all?

It’s not possible!  You cannot join those two postulates and then continue to think.  Thinking stops at the moment of the joining of those two postulates…which are the “philosophical” (lol) basis of modern science.  Subsequently, what the heck would Flat Earth theory truly matter to them?!  Not a jot, as I have found and demonstrated…they are quite willing to adopt Flat Earth theory as the most important thing that they have ever done.

This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Blame

  1. historyscoper says:

    Quantum mechanics reveals that when we attempt to understand the very tiny we run up against an impenetrable wall, and can never really know what’s behind it. This is not nonsense, it’s closer to proof of God, viz., that the Universe is a program in his mind, and as the created we can never understand the creator, thus physics as an ancient Greek project is a dead end, because God can make it happen but we can only watch it happen and wonder what happened, in other words, man can never completely control the Universe. Einstein’s statement that God doesn’t roll dice with the Universe is thus backwards, because God doesn’t need to use dice, he can make reality (at the macro level we live in) come out any way he wants, including so-called miracles, because the wavefunctions all contain miracles inside them, with vanishingly small but non-zero probabilities. To God alone does it all make perfect sense. Modern physicists who deny God’s existence are actually close to God all the time but the Devil has his hand over their eyes 🙂

    As to the CO2 greenhouse gas hoax, I’ve made it simple to see why it’s moose hockey. See:

  2. Pingback: Blame the Unreal | PSI Intl

  3. Just to review … AGAIN … and to clarify … AGAIN …, … the Fs(1-A)/4 in that diagram form Harvard damn university is the output of Earth going into space, which is pictured as the input, right?

    Now about Bohr, it’s confusing to me how a materialist could be a non-realist. It seems so contradictory. Seemingly, a materialist would be the most real.

    Material means stuff — that which we can touch, sense, feel. If there is nothing real to touch, sense, feel, then there is no material. Senses of material are not material. Senses are not the material being sensed. What thing (material) is being sensed, without stuff?

    Thoughts are not stuff, not material — they are impressions of stuff (material). This is how human perception is organized to react. SomeTHING exists that we grasp with our senses.

    Once we discard our acceptance of “thing”, then we discard our senses as well, since they, then, have no basis for existing.

    Senses do not exist without the things they sense. Even if we can never grasp these things, we must acknowledge the possibility of things’ existence, lest we deny our own physical “thingness” — our own physical being, in which case we deem ourselves non-realities (i.e., non-existences), who are in existence speaking of their non-existence.

    Language, then, becomes totally absurd and useless, when, practical experience shows us that language is most useful in our worldly dealings.

    Science took a bad term in trying to divorce its language from the language of worldly beings.

  4. “term” = “turn”

  5. Joseph E Postma says:

    Lovely analysis Robert! Just right! Just perfect.

    And yes, that is the output being used as the input…just right.

  6. jerry krause says:

    Hi John,

    I had noticed that you were allowing readers to make comments about some recent postings of Joe’s thoughts. But not this one. Why?

    I only read his introduction and went to make a comment and found that I could not.

    Please read Richard Feynman’s story–Los Alamos From Below–in “Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman!” Niels Bohr was a honest scientist who did not claim to be an authority.

    I doubt, but do not know, if Joe or you know about Bohr’s planetary model (in which the electron orbited the proton of the hydrogen atom) which was based upon the ideas of classical physics. It explained the line spectra observed when the light emitted by substances when heated was studied. Bohr’s model worked for the hydrogen atom as it predicted the wavelengths of the line spectra observed for the hydrogen atom and forced the conclusion that the energy levels of the electron of the hydrogen atom was quantized as described by quantum numbers which resulted from Bohr’s classical analysis of this two-body system (one proton and one electron). But it did not work for the three body problem of the helium atom (one nucleus and two electrons).

    Plus, as I told my chemistry students, Bohr had to have realized that his planetary model of atoms could not explain a snowflake which clearly has a ‘geometric’ structure. As did other crystals like diamond.

    But back to the Bohr and the other physicists who had to believe in quantum mechanics based upon observations even if they admitted they could not understand it as they ‘understood’ classical mechanics. These physicists at Los Alamos designed the ‘atomic’ bomb which was constructed according to their design and which worked the first, the second, and the third time it was first tested.

    Hence, these modern quantum mechanical physicists have a pretty remarkable track record doing something which they ‘honestly’ could not understand as they conventionally had defined the word–understand.

    Clearly it is Joe who does not understand these historical facts.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Hi Jerry, Joe asked us to turn off comments here at PSI but he welcomes any and all comments on his blog at

  7. Yes Jerry I know those things. They can work with it but they don’t understand why. They couldn’t understand and had no further progress to make in understanding due to their philosophical illiteracy, due to their remarkable lack of contact with the intellectual tradition. You’re missing the point entirely. How much more could have been done if they understood.

  8. Joseph E Postma says:

    A teenager can steal and drive a car to go pick up booze…a physicist can use mathematics without understanding it, and can manipulate reality while thinking it is unreality, to produce a nuclear bomb. Wow, great invention by the way.

    But the teenager would be vastly improved by learning why the car works, and how to build it, and how to maintain it, and how to properly drive it, etc. The scientist would be vastly improved by learning why mathematics works, how to properly utilize it, by not believing that real = unreal, etc.

    It is better to understand, than to not understand.

  9. Joseph E Postma says:

    They chose to not understand or to put any further effort into understanding, even though the tools and knowledge required for understanding already existed within the commonly-known intellectual tradition.

    Bohr saying that his “understanding is that real = unreal” demonstrates a LACK of understanding. Or critical, rational thought.

    Just because you can use something, does NOT mean that you understand it!

  10. Joseph E Postma says:

    Toddlers use IPad’s.

  11. I don’t understand a hammer completely, but I damn well can drive a nail with it.

    Even great mathematicians don’t understand what they are doing. They use the tools, and say that understanding is not in their job descriptions, like quantum-mechanics mechanics.

    Do you understand that each number on a number line is really an infinity to which human perception is blind? If you don’t, then locate that number exactly — good luck, because no matter how close to it you think you are, there’s still an infinity all the way around it. We stop that infinity at the human level of sensory experience. We should not say that existence does not exist past a certain constraint of this sensory experience — we should just say that we have reached the limit of our senses.

    David Bohm had the right idea. (^_^)

  12. Joseph E Postma says:

    Haha excellent Robert! Great stuff. Wow, you know about Bohm!? You are more than you have let on.

    I wonder if Jerry knows about Bohm!? hahahahhaah!! Probably not, because he’s so stupid.

  13. Herb Rose says:

    Hi Joseph,
    The problem lies with an education system that wants answers not understanding. If you know the accepted answer you don’t have to think about the question. The accepted answer to is light a wave or a particle is it’s which ever you wish. “Photon” is just giving a name to ignorance and calling it knowledge. The uncertainty principle is based on a belief that if you can’t know both the position and velocity of something it means it doesn’t have them. Physics today is about making any excuse to explain anything irrational. Abandon reason and find something to use as an answer.

  14. Yes exactly, just that.

  15. jerry krause says:

    Hi Joe and Robert,

    Joe is correct that I do not know about David Bohm, but if I am interested it is now possible to easy find who he was and what he did if it had something of significant importance. Which (significant importance) on a scale of 1 to 10 I consider myself to be barely an 1.

    However, Robert, I have a question for you. Do you judge that Joe really understands: “I don’t understand a hammer completely, but I damn well can drive a nail with it.” Newton, in his preface wrote (as translated by Motte): The ancients considered mechanics in a twofold respect; as rational, which proceeds accurately by demonstration; and practical. To practical mechanics all the manual arts belong, from which mechanics took its name. But as artificers do not work with perfect accuracy, it comes to pass that mechanics is so distinguished from geometry, that what is perfectly accurate is called geometrical; what is less so, is called mechanical.”

    So Joe, I see Robert doing something practical as he drives a nail even if he does not understand the hammer completely.

    You both have a good day, Jerry

  16. Fuck off, Jerry. Idiot. Ugh.

  17. David Wieland says:

    Joe, when I first encountered your site, I found it to be informative enough to overlook the ranting parts. But lately your rants are dominating your posts and are too crudely insulting for me to point anyone to for an antidote to alarmist propaganda. What’s going on?

  18. I guess what’s wrong is anger over flat Earth theory in modern physics, and asshats like Jerry are still interested merely in one-upsmanship with me personally, as with the rest of them, and no one really truly gives a shit. My fucking career is on the line, my life stability, my house, people threaten my family and my daughter…but it’s all merely about one-upsmanship…I do this for free, in my spare time, have read over 100 books in math and physics and philosophy to make sure I know what I’m talking about, to make sure I can speak against flat Earth theory…and no other professional scientists I work with give a single shit, and they too merely look at it as a game of one-upsmanship against me personally, and they think I have a political agenda hence no need to listen, while my position is 100% mathematical and theirs is 100% political. Dumb damned people everywhere. I’m full of hate…extreme hate and disdain for all the damned stupidity.

  19. jerry k,

    I didn’t even understand your question, and so I have no clue how to answer anything about what I think of Joe’s understanding. What was your question? — rephrase it. Thanks.

    David W,

    I tend to focus on what I sense is the considerable knowledge behind the rants. Yeah, I know, rants are not scientific, not standard professional decorum, not the expected course, not savvy, not politically correct, etc. But do you disown your dog, when he bites you? I don’t — I try to figure out how not to piss him off and continue to coexist with him, because I still like the beast.

    Do I think Joe would have more followers without the rants? — probably, but it’s his choice to rant. I’m sure he has taken note of your repulsion. I’m guessing he will continue to proceed how he sees fit.

    I only know that I continue to gain something in an outside-the-box sort of way.

    Come on, ride the rapids, David !

    If you can accept the continuing stupidity of the climate-alarm mania, then you can accept a few rants from someone who has great insight into the stupidity. One is just more grating than the other, which is con-artist calm.

    If you prefer con-artist calm, then I guess you might prefer to be in the company of con-artist stupidity.

    Just another perspective for you to consider.

  20. Joseph E Postma says:

    Oh that’s a good one: the calm of a con-artist, or the righteous indignation of a real human?

    Exactly, take your pick. I for one LOVE the righteously indignant. I love them. Even when I find myself the target of their rants, I see FUCKING PASSION YOU GODDAMNED USELESS ROBOTIC BRAINDEAD EMOTIONLESS DRONES!!!!!!!!!!

    So I pick the informed ranter over the emotionless calm con-artist every time. Like Jerry above…what’s he doing but trying to calmly pass off a con on us? What it is his one-upsmanship about but solely trying to con people into making it look like there’s some edge on me and therefore we needn’t worry about flat Earth in modern physics any longer?

    God sakes…WTF is wrong with people!!?!?

    Oh yah people are raping children but hey we shouldn’t show too much passion in caring about it; oh yah people are raping minds and teaching flat Earth theory disguised as modern science but we shouldn’t be passionate about correcting this.

    Before the Christmas break the physics department where I work had a department lunch. I saw my Master’s thesis supervisor there, who I hadn’t seen in a couple of years, and asked if he was going to read my book. Want to know his answer? “I have no intention of reading your book, and I think that you must have become massively misinformed.” So I said: “Well that’s why you should read my book, to see what my position actually is and what I actually write about…the mathematical idealism I discuss itself is interes….” Cut off by him, saying: “No, I will not. Nice seeing you, and good luck finding work in science after your current contract expires.” That was my Master’s thesis supervisor! The sole person you become professionally and even personally closest with in that setting over the course of your educational training in the core sciences. But hey, at least he looked at me. No one else there can even look me in the eyes.

    Yah I should just be calm. God forbid I type something on the internet to let out some steam. Yah, just stay calm as your throat is sliced, right? God forbid anyone fights.

    This world is far too civilized. There is a point at which the degree of civilization becomes destructive to a healthy human being and mind.

  21. After reading a bit about Bohr, I’m starting to wonder whether anybody but Bohr himself actually had a grasp of what he himself believed. I get the feeling that different scholars have opposing views about Bohr’s philosophy.

    I wonder whether people misunderstood him and propagated this misunderstanding, and whether it was this misunderstanding of him that caused things to go to philosophical hell.

    In my view, complementary descriptions in different settings do not constitute paradoxes that disable a practical concept of a unified reality. Taking complementary descriptions out of their specific technical set ups and trying to force fit these outside those specific set ups (to generalize experimental-paradox outcomes to everyday experiences) would be a critical error of philosophy.

    In other words, metaphors can be taken too far, and something like this might be what has taken place. A misapplication of the idea of the tools of quantum mechanics, then, might be the problem.

    Or the wrong sense of the paradox might be the problem. There might be a deeper sense in which the paradox disappears. This deeper sense of things might not involve precise numerical measures. Precise numerical measures might loose meaning, for all practical purposes, beyond the range of human senses (or amplification of human senses).

    I think Bohr possibly could have felt this way, and his words might have been misinterpreted or opportunistically reshaped to fit somebody else’s agenda. I don’t know — I haven’t studied it in depth.

  22. Joseph E Postma says:

    From: ################
    Sent: January 8, 2019 10:56 AM
    To: Joe Postma
    Subject: a mirror for you

    Maybe you can see how bad it looks if you let rip, so that you will hopefully never again sink to those depths.
    Daily Beast: ‘Fox & Friends’ Guest: Fossil Fuels ‘Actually Improve the Environment’ – Warmist claim: “In fact, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and too much of it (which we have) will likely kill us.”
    Young Turks TV smears: “A hack named Marc Morano…fascinating bouquet of racism and corruption…there is not one real person who is going to that site seriously…nitwit you know what he is Marc Morano is a welfare queen and he takes welfare from the right wing to lie to you and make these preposterous statements…”
    Morano’s hate mail: “How do you F*CKING SLEEP AT NIGHT!? Do you realize that you represent TREASON?? What you’re doing by lying to American is a form of TREASON. Putting lies into the MSM is a form of TREASON, and you’ll be busted for your lies and I hope to see your asses INDICTED for your nonsense. GO F*CK YOURSELF!”
    “Are you a f*cking moron. Shut the f*ck up you idiot. Fossil Fuels destroy people lives with cancer and other diseases.”

    My reply:

    “No, the swearing really doesn’t bother me at all. The caps, the expletives, the expressions, etc., are all read by my mind as representing emotional energy and intent and indignation, while what is said quantitatively stands in for the facts trying to be expressed through that passion.

    I don’t know why people have such a hard time separating the qualitative nature of expression and the emotional charge and passion it is meant to express, from the quantitative content which is simultaneously being expressed.

    Maybe it’s a country-boy thing. We fucking swear as a matter of course. “Where’s the fuckin’ hammer”? “Look at that stupid fuckin horse carrying that branch around in its mouth.” “These god-damned stupid fucking chickens need feeding.” “What a nice fucking day…fuck that Sun is great.” “I fuckin love fishing.” “What in the fuckin hell did these animals do in here?” “Is that too heavy for you to lift or something? – No, Go fuck yourself.”

    “What the fuck do you mean you slammed it into reverse? You stripped the god-damned transmission! Don’t you know how to drive a fucking tractor!?”

    So no, I read that comment and what I think is ridiculous about it is the quantitative content it is trying to express…that climate rationalism is treason!!!??? Hahaha. That fossil fuels destroy people’s lives!!?? Hahaha!!”

    And so here now, in the context of this blog:

    What in the fuck are you doing with Flat Earth theory as the starting point for your god-damned retarded political goals!? That’s Flat Earth theory you fuckin’ idiot!

  23. Joseph E Postma says:

    It’s not like I do it all the time. I rarely do it. WHEN IT DO IT, it is meant to grab your damned attention and take it a bit more seriously.

    WAKE UP(!!!!), we are being lied to on-purpose, with conscious intent to harm, by shills, by disinformation ops, by etc etc etc. The end-point of this is the destruction of consciousness and of human existence.

    But let us have a pleasant British-ly polite discussion about our throats being sliced, while they’re being sliced, and if anyone gets too provincial or dare I say low-brow in this discussion, then we shall admonish them for such barbaric manners, for the person slicing our throats might be embarrassed by our company!

    FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  24. Speaking of niceties in modern discourse, you know what irks me? — those camera-manikin, local news reporters, recounting murders and tragedies with their pleasant-toned voices, speaking to the listening audience, as if we were children in a day care center … or those drug commercials on TV, backed by soothing music, with accompanying visuals of joyous family reunions and social pleasantries, as the announcer quietly and cheerfully runs down the list of serious contraindications.

    Wouldn’t you think that an intelligent society would foster news reporters who acted out
    the tone of the story that they were reporting, or that drug companies would produce adult soundtracks that reflected adult intelligence and understanding of real-world risks?

    Now let us quietly and cheerfully continue to spread the falsehoods of CO2 warmageddon.
    Curse those who curse our CON-tentment in CON-tinuing this CON-sensus script.

  25. Joseph E Postma says:

    This world contains amazing degrees of insanity.

  26. Herb Rose says:

    Hi Joseph,
    One of the advantages of being a country boy is being able to identify bullshit.

  27. Herb R,

    That’s just not true — some PhD’s are experts at creating it … oh, … you said, “IDENTIFY it” — I guess those “some” are BS-identifying challenged, which means those who are fullest of it cannot identify it — sort of like being nose blind, I guess. (^_^)

    I’m not a country boy, but I think I can identify it, … maybe not as well. I DID used to help one of my girlfriends of years past care for her horse — I often think of that horse (not the girlfriend so much).

  28. Pingback: Flat Earth in Modern Physics | Climate of Sophistry

  29. Pingback: Flat Earth in Modern Physics: How Climate Alarmists are using Warped Science - SUBNOMICS

  30. Planomenon says:

    Joseph E Postma
    what convinces you earth is moving and curved?

  31. Eratosthenes and Johannes Kepler.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s