Beyond dialectic ; Is man-made global warming a red herring?

First is the post that drew my response. (Here is the page/article in which they are posted).

 

 

Pfc. Parts wrote - quoting a phrase from my earlier posting :

 

Binra writes: "The title of this web page is an example of 'framing'"
(Why do so many Americans doubt that global warming is real?)

It's certainly an example of "framing" as you say, where the term "framing" has been introduced by so called "social scientists" during the past 30 years, Before that though it had a different name. It was called the "Hegelian Dialectic" and was based on the work of a German philosopher of science named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in the 1800s.
The essence of Hegel's argument was that the discourse be based on only two extremes (the Earth is being destroyed by human action vs. the Earth is not being destroyed by human action). This concept was later developed by Karl Popper (who only recently passed in 1994) as what we now know of as the "scientific method".
Popper's contribution was what we call "the null hypothesis" and he proposed that any hypothesis that couldn't be "falsified" (proven incorrect) was not a scientific hypothesis. For that advance on Hegel's basic work, he was awarded a Nobel Prize.
The Hegelian Dialectic is too easy to subvert, which is why Popper's solution was so well received. Hegel's philosophy is easily abused by people who simply change the goal posts to make their point. Hegel allows you to change your argument; Popper doesn't. You have a hypothesis that says increased CO2 will cause a proportional and predictive increase in average global temperature. Popper would tell you the null hypothesis is that average global temperature varies "naturally" or is random; it is not influenced by human produced carbon dioxide.
Our observations over the past 18 years and 9 months are that carbon dioxide has increased and average global temperature has not. This supports the "null hypothesis" and denies the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis. For this reason, scientists who adhere to Karl Popper's philosophy of science reject the AGW hypothesis.
Believers in the AGW hypothesis don't reject it based on this evidence. They continue to lobby political organizations to take steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without regard to evidence.
That isn't scientific as we currently understand the term, which is why so called "deniers" are very concerned about the plans of "warmists" to tax everyone on the planet for carbon dioxide emissions; there's no scientific basis for it.

To Pfc. Parts 

I am glad to have drawn such a response for everyone to share in. Thankyou. (I read Kuhn recently and had noticed Popper as another truth loving scientist).

More generally:

I observe that patterns of denial operate within and upon consciousness, as a segregative and separating or splitting off 'that which is being denied' - such as guilt, fear, rage, inadequacy, shame, powerlessness (and beneath these even positive attraction and desire associated with the previous list) - and the denying or 'controlling' mind of surface presentation.

Any such 'solution' operates the 'power' to judge and redefine ones experienced reality into terms that allow the 'power' of a coercive sense of control, to persist/survive.

The morass of complexity of this 'magical' attempt to define/explain reality is itself full of the accumulated emotional charge of millennia of layering of such denials and fragmentations - and the mind associated with 'control' is lost within its own narratives of inherited conditions that it false believes it is free of and free to attain mastery over Life.

The love of truth is not Itself a method or technique - but a quality of recognition that may indeed begin with a recognition of falsity, and evils or destructive, dysfunctional and futile or self-defeating act or thought.

Self-contra diction is in-congruency and an incongruency is a dissonance that is open to narratives of inner conflict that then frames our approach to our relational experience - our world.

My primary discernment of the Climate change idea is running upon the human guilt and fear (and rage) that is the same as it ever was but wearing different clothes.

Un-owned (denied) emotional charge attracts and is open to manipulative intent. It gives power to manipulative (loveless or oppositional intent to that which aligns truly with one's Life - as opposed to falsely derived self concept).

The immediate sense I receive in meeting such intent is of a loss of relationship or communication to assertive denials and persuasive coercions and threats. So regardless at first if there is a man made element and indeed a forecastable trend to be discerned or linked to events we can influence - the WAY in which it is being conducted is a sort of Chicken Licken/Foxy Loxy deceit - with which I want no part - excepting as now to reflect or witness to - from a perspective that is not merely reactive nor accepting the narrative that is being leveraged and propagated by agendas I do not share or opportunists who don't care for true relation or communication.

And so such issues become a reflection by which to become more deeply aligned with what I feel truly aligned with and supportive of - and to disassociate with what I do not.

The manipulator doesn't care that carbon dioxide isn't  proven to relate to global warming once a VERY LOUD "consensual" ASSERTION has imprinted the association to allow leverage thereby, not least because it operates an overwhelming capacity to propagate and protect its 'narrative' against question or challenge.

There are many other such examples that belie what passes as Science, as a subversion to human corruptions, consciously or as a victim of deceits.

So many other points - but the key point is to be willing to question and challenge our own thinking and experience when the reflections indicate that we have lost our honesty in presuming to war FOR truth rather than rest in it. The 'fight against evil' is one of the primary deceits by which one's own denied correspondence is kept hidden - and given power - by the mask of righteousness that then blindly rides roughshod over the living. 

And...

odin2 to binra

By appealing to consensus, Believers concede that they have no empirical evidence to support their hypothesis that humans (primarily through CO2 emissions) are the primary cause of global warming.

binra to odin2

 

Believers are troubled to find their 'very important truth' that Overrides Everything Else, is not being believed or agreed with and so they seek to assert their 'truth' upon the unwilling - who may have any number of reasons as to why they don't share the asserted truth. This includes the way it is being purveyed and the kind of agendas that are coming up through it.
That humans are operating self destructively and also destroying or at least significantly degrading Earth Life - is a worthy issue that the Red Herring of GW is successfully usurping for a corporate carbon austerity fascism - masking as a collective necessity.
Sowing dissension and conflict is PART OF the device that works destruction and yet fools think they are fighting for Good against Evil.
There is no real UNDERSTANDING of the nature of EMOTIONALLY driven MENTALITY. Such mentality is in the illusion of freedom and control and fighting reinforces such identity theft.

and... the first post of mine into this page:

“95% certainty"

I wonder if scientism is a form of humourless blindness.
From where I stand the more of such % 'science' is propagandised the more self-invalidating it announces itself in plain sight!
However, I don't require anyone stand with me to be 100% certain that I am listening within to the a current discernment of this moment and indeed movement of being. Nor does my 100% for me detract from anyone else's freedom to be any percent aligned with their own choice.
For whatever the data, and however that is then interpreted, one is accepting or not accepting according to choices made.
When this is brought to awareness, it will operate reintegratively - to a harmony within a wholeness of embrace and appreciation.
But when attention is forced into specific focus, awareness of wholeness is sacrificed for an assertive and coercively defined will or self - and a segregative agenda is enacted that operates division and rule, over and through conflict.
I don't have any studies or papers - but the Perspective of observation is readily available and any moment in which a willingness to see arises, serves perfectly to verify what I say here.
The title of this web page is an example of 'framing' so as to induce the unwitting reader into an asserted presumption by which a true perspective is masked or hidden.
Certainty is not the domain of science. It cannot and never will find it while it is purports to be science of a mind divorced from its true Field of Consciousness.
Reproducibility is supposed to make science fact - but the desire to make fact is called a wish or indeed a lie - and any lie calls upon more such 'facts' to support or hide its true status.
It isn't merely climate change augmented by human effects going on - but changes in the Field of Consciousness in which the Idea of Humanity is invited to evolve that are accelerating and intensifying.
The jamming signal by which an exploration/experiment in separation has been conducted is being rendered ineffective.
Why do so many scientists doubt that consciousness is real? - or subordinate or invalidate it in 'consciously (sic) focussing exclusively without!



and to my red herring remark:

odin2 to binra

Exactly. The myth of AGW is distracting from and sucking resources away from real environmental problems.

I would put it much stronger than that. There are issues arising from an insane identification of humankind and its agendas that are much more destructive than the GW scenarios. And because 'trouble at home' is hidden by diversionary tactic of trouble OUT THERE - almost no one is looking at what and where the core problem is - and if they do - and somehow find some way to articulate it - almost no one is willing to listen - because it is the direction of associations we are conditioned most to avoid, and undermines the persona we have so much investment in as a way of denying what we most hate or deny in ourselves.
And so 'problems' are 'solved' by methods that suppress the form while propagating their agenda.
Insane thinking leads to insane perceptions, justifications and reactions. One cannot reason with an insane thinker until they have some glimmer of recognition of their insanity.
Rather than projecting it onto everyone and everything OUT THERE. If we are not realigned with a true sanity then our best intentions will be subverted by agenda we are not even aware of.
Hell bent on destruction  - but at least there is a ninety something percent consensus in believing 'we' are right!
Mutually Agreed Distraction.