Every so often, I do like to drop some of the references and material that’s doing my head in at the present time.

For starters the one that blew my doors off last week was the great global warming swindle

Take the hour or so to turn most of the received wisdom on climate change and our quasi-malthusian political environment on it’s head.  The ramifications of this well put together and scientifically rock solid, ( or at least, as well grounded on the face of it as any science that appears in the media), program are dizzying.

On a related note, it’s no secret I’m a fan of Webster Tarpley, so it gratifying to see he has a wealth of material available on youtube, much of it relating to things beyond september 11, into a general critique of malthusianism  of late.

Similarly with Ray Kurzweil, although I find him more two dimensional as a thinker and he basically gives the same talk, word for word, every time, it’s worth hearing it a few times to absorb the impact of the things he’s saying. Imagine if the future could actually be better than the present? Kind of novel, isn’t it?

And I’d be woefully remiss if I didn’t drop some more Uncle Terrence goodness. The psychedelic salon is unloading literally dozens of hours of  previously unheard on the  internet trialouges with terrence, rupert sheldrake, and ralph abraham, which will turn your head every which way but loose if you listen to much of it.

Rock on, kids.


9 thoughts on “Revenge of the Alchemical Echo Chamber

  1. Hate to piss on your bonfire but the program you refer to has been pretty much debunked. As well put together as it is, it is NOT scientifically rock solid in any sense. Aside from numerous lies of omission, it appears that many of the graphs used to back up the program’s argument have been meddled with.

    The British journalist George Monbiot has dealt with the science in his article ‘Channel 4’s Problem With Science’, (available on his website).


    And the excellent Media Lens have also countered the claims and opened up a dialogue of sorts with the program’s creators.


    I think that the problem lies with making predictions full stop. To think that we could possibly understand the nature of the entire gaian system is wishful thinking as it quite obviously works on an incomprehensible level of complexity. Which is not to say global warming does or does not exist.

  2. Yeah, I’m jumping on the swindle-swindle bandwagon. “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is the tin-foil hat butcher-job of a relatively sound libertarian argument for dirtier-but-quicker economic development. I generally think yes, we are responsible for this crap this time–not that geological factors can’t affect things, but we have basically trashed the environment. That said, I’m all for more pollution if it’s used for purposes of modernizing and development, especially because more developed nations (EXCEPT THE US) tend to regulate themselves, though they could all stand to improve on that. 70% of the US economy,e.g., is “service” oriented, which means mostly finance and tech, far cleaner than auto manufacturering. Compare with Iran, which wants nuclear power becasue they burn so much oil, their number one export–their number two export is cotton, something totally… That said, though, mind you that recently Reason magazine advocated the legalization of DDT and leaded gasoline. All that’s not to say that the 300-year-old banking conspiracy and their wierd agenda which floats around like a ghostly echo don’t benefit from playing up Global Warming.

    Second, “Crap and Trade” carbon emissions brokering as suggested by Al Gore is dumber than shit. We already have effective “cap and trade”–it’s call a “fine” (the libertarians need to grow up, there will always be a need for government–even the darlings of the anarcho-primitivists, tribal socieities, have governments–which means regulations against violating the public trust and good). Exact same economic effect, minus the government subsidization (once the libertarians grow up they will realize that cap-and-trade is just another subsidized cost to give mid-and-large sized firms an unfair advantage).

  3. I don’t think anyone needs to worry about ‘pissing on my bonfire’.

    I’d have to say I still don’t find either side terribly convincing. it’s just exciting to see an actual debate instead of straw man arguments backed by hysteria.

    That’s the problem with science these days, or perhaps always: a debate can easily turn into a witch hunt.
    who do you believe; the scientists who say they were hoodwinked into appearing on a controversial tv show, or the scientists who say they were railroaded into appearing in spurious climate change studies, and their signatures falsified? Maybe both. Probably both, from what I can see.

    I’ve always found it kind of odd on some level that co2 of all things is supposedly a problem, seeing as how volcanoes, dead vegitation, the oceans, and every animal on earth, are pumping out way more of it than our cars and factories.

    I don’t doubt the visible effects of warming. i can see them for myself where i live the weather has been abusrdly strange in the last few years. but I still have grave doubts it’s anything to do with us.

    I notice no one bothered trying to ‘debunk’ the little ice age or the warming period in the middle ages.

    In my experience, thinking that human beings actually know shit about shit is usually a recipe for embarrassment.

  4. I am suspicious of Al Gore. I think it highly unlikely that Gaia has chosen him as her special spokesperson.

    Think about this. Gaia is a new God and apparently has a new self appointed priesthood. Just like the Priesthood of the gods of Yore, it fairly obvious what potential for mass manipulation is there.

    I mean for a while it was hard to get people to buy into priests holding people ransome through threats of judgement of the Gods through bad weather.

    But suddenly its a lot more plausible again.

    If some Christian preacher guy says the bad waether is caused Yaweh, judging us for our sexual license, losts of people would just KNOW he;s full of shit.

    But then the same people will listen to Al Gore tell us Gaia is judging us for our sins. You know like every time you turn on the AC or drive your SUV, Gaia kils a polar bear.

  5. This has been a great slew of replies and I’d love to see this topic explored further. For a long time I half-scoffed at the “global warming is a myth” headlines, but I think that is *exactly* what it is, in regard to its mythic proportions. This all has made me realize how little data and observation have grown to mean — they seem only to be useful when supporting the already-arrived-at conclusion. Sound familiar, in regard to science butting heads with religion?

    From “Business of Global Warming Feels a Lot Like Inquisition”, written today by William Buckley: “The whole business is eerily religious in feel. Back in the 15th century, the question was: Do you believe in Christ? It was required in Spain by the Inquisition that the answer should be affirmative, leaving to one side subsidiary specifications.” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/business_of_global_warming_fee.html

    This reminds me of “Loose Change” somehow. I’m not big into 911 stuff, but the little I’ve been exposed to definitely has me prepared to question. Yet what bothered me about “Loose Change” is that they start with things worth questioning, and then BAM jump to conclusions that seem to be way overreaching (the “because some of this doesn’t make sense, it must be Bush” sort of thing).

    And finally, this quote from Rig. Int.:

    “We shouldn’t presume, in our disdain of the official story (whatever story that may be, and however official), that we’ve reached the truth once we stand with it’s official opposition, because we may be either boxing ourselves in with rigid either/or thinking, or be boxed in by the authorities who mean to control both thesis and antithesis. “

  6. But a lot of this argument is about the nature of the public debate, not the climate science debate. The science is going ahead, and i more or less trust the current consensus, and I’ll trust it when it changes, too. It can be hermetic but it’s readable in places like ‘Nature’ or Realclimate (with a little salt). The debate on what to do about it is something different. That debate is being framed in quite apocalyptic terms. Religious and mythic indeed. And when debates go that way you have to start wondering about agendas.
    And there are a lot of voices that i think should be in this debate that don’t seem to be on the invitation list. What is the (academic as opposed to fringe) economic consensus on this, for example.

    Which seems separate to zac’s point- that there is hope in our future.

  7. Yeah I more or less trust the current scientific consensus too (and prob. will when it changes). But I think you’re going to be wondering about a helluva lot of agendas Ixis. It seems to me that nowadays most everything is being framed in apocalyptic terms. I don’t put it down to any agendas though. People just aren’t aware of what they’re doing. I think everything we are seeing is the midlife crisis/mental breakdown of humanity, where the conscious mind has become so intelligent and self aware as to realise how little power it actually has. Collective self-negation of conscious will happening automatically and driven by ?.

    There is always hope. Because hope is an intangible conscious choice that has very little to do with accurate perception of reality.

  8. Yeah I more or less agree that lot of this argument is about the nature of the public debate, not the climate science debate. But I think you’re going to be wondering about a helluva lot of of voices in this debate that don’t seem to be on the invitation list.

    It seems to me that nowadays most everything in the midlife crisis/mental breakdown can be hermetic but it’s readable in places like ‘Nature’ or Realclimate (academic as opposed to fringe).
    What is the conscious mind, for example.

    There is always hope. There is hope in our current consensus being framed in apocalyptic terms.

    Collective self-negation is an intangible conscious choice that has very little to do with accurate perception of reality.

  9. Here is some evidence regarding the futility of prediction:



    “The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.”
    Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project.

    “Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.”
    Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s