Are you now or have you ever been a global warming denier?
Guest post by David Ross
Some have suggested that the Fakegate affair has been discussed enough. They are wrong. Peter Gleick is a minor figure in climate science and his actions are of little account. But the reaction of all the global warming alarmists, who see nothing wrong with what he did, is much more significant.
More important still: this is an aspect of the climate debate that everybody can understand. It is much simpler to grasp than the issues raised by Climategate. You don’t need to be a climatologist or scientist or statistician. There’s no need to draw a graph or drill an ice core. All the information you need is straightforward and laid bare.
The fact that, despite all this, those alarmists still can’t distinguish right from wrong, tells many of us more about the climate debate than anything else. Until Gleick and his supporters admit that what they both did is wrong, we shouldn’t let them off the hook.
Others don’t want to see the science content of Watts Up With That diluted. I agree. But would also argue that we humans are part of the biosphere and examining what forcing mechanisms are operating on us and how we react is a scientific issue. I suspect that what many of the alarmists really want is not geo-engineering to “fix” the planet; it is to conduct a large scale controlled experiment in social engineering. Unfortunately for them, they are discovering that people do not behave as predictably as CO2 molecules.
The alarmists main concern seems to be the possibility that their monopoly might be broken and that “contrary” views might be heard in the classroom. As they regard Gleick as a “hero” and heroes are tend to be taken as role-models. I wondered what kind of stuff they do want taught to our kids. So I dumbed-down Fakegate (for the benefit of the ethically challenged) to an analogy that could be used as a classroom assignment.
***************
School Assignment 1: Citizenship and Ethics
Someone hacks your Facebook account and posts all your personal stuff online. They also insert a page with stuff you didn’t write that makes you look like a horrible person. The hacker emails 15 of his friends and says he got all the stuff, including the nasty bits, from your account. His friends show all this stuff to everyone at school and they tell them it all came from your account.
Almost everyone at school, even the teachers, now hates you and tells you so. You tell everyone that the nasty bits are fake and that you didn’t write them. But the teachers don’t believe you. They say that because most of the stuff is true the nasty bits must be as well. They post some of the pages on the school website highlighting the nasty bits and tell everyone not to talk to you.
Some of your friends speak up for you and point out some flaws in the faked parts that prove they are forgeries. The flaws are substantial enough to actually identify the hacker. The hacker then confesses but only to hacking your account. He says he got the page with the nasty bits anonymously in the mail and that he only hacked your files to find out if they were true. You’re shocked because at the same time he was hacking your files you had invited him to come and talk to your friends.
The teachers ignore the evidence of forgery and then try to justify the hacker’s actions, saying that although document phishing and impersonation is wrong, the hacker is a “hero” because they always thought you were a horrible person; horrible persons are increasing and the school is heading towards a horrible person catastrophe.
Q: Discuss the ethical implications of what just happened. There are bonus marks if you can work in a reference to polar bears.
***************
As for junk science, the movies “The Day After Tomorrow” and “An Inconvenient Truth” are both used in our schools to “teach” kids about climate science. But they deserve an article of their own.
One meme currently being propagated by alarmists, that has all the appearance of a coordinated PR campaign, is that skeptics arguments and tactics are no different from creationists who want to “teach the controversy” in schools. I am not religious and don’t want to see creationism taught in schools, other than perhaps a single paragraph mentioning that such views exist. My belief in the theory of evolution has not changed. However, because of the climate debate, I am no longer as contemptuous of creationists as I once was.
It is regrettable that the alarmists are inserting religion into the “debate” (but it is part of a pattern of caricaturing skeptics). They also don’t seem to realize that, as the extent to which they are wrong about the climate becomes increasingly revealed, they will strengthen the hand of those who want creationism taught in schools.
It is however wrong to assert that studying religion cannot teach us anything useful.
***************
School Assignment 2: History
The Medieval Alarm Period
In the Middle Ages, cathedrals could take centuries to build. Three or even six hundred years was not uncommon. Throughout Medieval Europe there were always many cathedrals in various stages of construction. Except that in the decades leading up to the year 1000, very few significant building projects were started and many existing ones were abandoned.
Most of Christendom had convinced themselves that Jesus would reappear on, what they believed to be, the 1000th anniversary of his birth. Nobody saw any point in starting projects or continuing existing ones that would not be finished before the end of the world. We can only assume that this millenarian malaise affected all areas of life, not just church-building. People gave themselves over to fervent prayer and further demonstrated their fervour by roasting heretics. It must have been a grim time. If there had been a Vatican newsletter back then, perhaps it might have sounded like this:
“God’s wrath continued to worsen during 988 – a year in which unprecedented combinations of extreme weather events killed people and damaged property all over Christendom. The clerical evidence for the accelerating influence of human sinfulness further strengthened, as it has for decades now.” [1]
When Jesus failed to appear, the Vatican (or perhaps we should call it the Infallible Panel on Christ’s Coming), assured their flock that the fire and brimstone would definitely start raining down on the anniversary of his crucifixion, instead of that of his birth.
Another three more decades of prayer and malaise followed. When it eventually became obvious to all that Christ wasn’t coming any time soon, the clergy told the people to rejoice, because all their prayers and piety had worked, and God, in all His mercy, had postponed Doomsday. There was then a boom in cathedral building, financed off the backs of the long-suffering peasants as they strove to show their gratitude. And the power and authority of the clergy was stronger than ever.
The church maintained its grip for centuries and became ever more corrupt, as institutions with absolute authority always do. On top of all the taxes and tithes, it eventually introduced a system of carbon credits called indulgences where people could avoid being carbonized in hell by paying a fee to offset their sins. When even the dumbest of village idiots, in the dumbest village, of the dumbest province, saw through this scam, there was a rebellion. Centuries of bloodshed ensued before the people of Europe began to realize that perhaps it would be better to keep church and state separate.
Q: Discuss how crises, either real or imagined, can be used to seize or hold onto power. Bonus marks for making any valid comparisons to current events.
***************
I didn’t mean to offend anyone’s religious sensibilities. We all have our bad epochs. There are many different interpretations of history, but there does seem to be a consensus that it tends to repeat.
Let’s use some material so beloved of left-leaning teachers that it is almost as mandatory in their classrooms as a Koran in a madrassa.
***************
School Assignment 3: English Literature
The 1952 play, The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, portrays the Salem witch trials and popularized the phrase “witch hunt”.
Q: Discuss the language used by the protagonists. Demonstrate how the choice of particular words or appeals to authority can be used to exclude or dismiss counter evidence or opposing points of view. The following excerpts may be useful.
HALE: This is a strange time, Mister. No man may longer doubt the powers of the dark are gathered in monstrous attack upon this village. There is too much evidence now to deny it. You will agree, sir?
HATHORNE: Now, Martha Corey, there is abundant evidence in our hands to show that you have given yourself to the reading of fortunes. Do you deny it?
DANFORTH: What are you! You are combined with anti-Christ, are you not? I have seen your power, Mister, you will not deny it!
Bonus marks for illustrating your answer with current real world examples.
***************
Science is based on observation, religion on authority. The more the global warming alarmists ignore observation and appeal to authority, the more like a religion they become.
***************
School Assignment 3: Citizenship and Ethics
Tick whichever is applicable. People who do not believe in man-made catastrophic global warming should be…
1. branded as deniers.
2. harassed in their homes and workplaces.
3. forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
4. gassed with carbon monoxide.
5. obliterated with explosives.
If you ticked all of the above, full Marx.
References:
1. (inspired by) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/climate-change-denial-_b_1185309.html
2. “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.”
Greenpeace
3. “Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.”
Richard Glover, radio talk-show host and 20 year columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald
4. “I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.
You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.
Jill Singer, writer for the Melbourne Herald Sun
5. 10:10 video -has to be seen to be believed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Mw5_EBk0g
***************
Final Assignment: Question for everybody
There used to be a time when junk science was not taught in our schools and our kids were not indoctrinated. There used to be a time when scientists and everybody could debate in a climate of free enquiry, free of censorship and intimidation. Has the climate changed?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There used to be a time when junk science was not taught in our schools and our kids were not indoctrinated. There used to be a time when scientists and everybody could debate in a climate of free enquiry, free of censorship and intimidation. Has the climate changed?
This is, sadly, a false statement. Junk science, and antiscience, have always been taught in our schools and continue to be taught today. There was never a time when scientists could debate in a climate of free enquiry, although the present is seriously not too bad compared to most of human history, at least in some parts of some countries.
To put it bluntly, climate research simply has to stand in line with creationism, intelligent design, whether or not eating oats reduces heart disease, whether or not humans actually have “rights”, “God given” or otherwise, whether Jesus is Lord or Allah will condemn you to a fiery hell and burn your skin off repeatedly for the offense of not believing in him, whether Marx was a prophetic visionary describing an ideal society or a cigar-smoking Grouch-o, whether or not a supernatural human “soul” exists, and whether sitting with the bathtubs really does help you win at poker or bridge. And I won’t even touch things like “Obama is a Muslim”, or a communist, or “Bush is an Idiot”, or in thrall to the oil industry.
Human indoctrination starts almost before children can talk. Easily a third, maybe two thirds, of what they learn is pure social fiction and religion — human morality, for example, is a complex network of non-verifiable fictions taught by rote and reinforcement conditioning, not reason.
We do not now have, nor have we ever had, a rational society or universal, empirically supported worldview. We are working towards one, perhaps, but it is hard work. We haven’t even managed to dump scriptural mythology and theology, in spite of the fact that there is far less evidence supporting either one than that supporting either side in the climate debate. Note how careful you were in your examples above not to “offend” religious persons — why is it that you have to be careful not to offend when you point out that their beliefs are almost certainly false? We spend so very much time on this blog addressing the “religion” of CAGW, but so very little discussing real religion that is so very much worse.
I’m just sayin’… we’re a long ways away from rational, as a society. If we were rational, we might do something like actually plan for our energy future instead of relying on some sort of random meandering into the future, driven by the uncertain winds of greed and scarcity. If we did that, we might find that some of the measures being proposed to deal with the imaginary threat of CAGW are things that we might support anyway, for very good reasons that have nothing to do with a threat real or imagined from CO_2.
One of the things I like least about the entire CAGW controversy is the way a perfectly reasonable question and field of scientific endeavor has been suborned to accomplish a narrow political goal that in the end has nothing to do with the question itself. We refuse steadfastly to actually plan for a global future and take rational action to accomplish our vision, preferring instead to follow our noses through the chaos of conflicting interests in the hope that they will lead us somewhere we want to go in the end.
I doubt it.
rgb
Latimer Alder says: March 18, 2012 at 4:02 am
Withdraw not a single word, mon brave. Stick to your guns. That you annoy the religious and teh green alike is no surprise. For you actually puncture their self-regard in exactly the same way.
I agree with Mr. Alder. Although I am not religious, I have beliefs that I hold dear and take offence to when mocked or ridiculed. That doesn’t change the fact that every once in a while it’s a good idea to audit your beliefs and especially how you respond to those who disagree with you. Put yourselves in the shoes of a warmist. Aren’t those of you who are upset with Mr. Ross’s reference to Christianity if not behaving at least emoting in a manner similar to those who believe in AGW? AGW alarmists are every bit as upset when someone questions their religion as you are when someone questions yours. No matter how pure the intent, I believe all of mankind’s institutions, including mankind’s religions, have their weaknesses and episodes of bad behavior by some of their practitioners. Mr. Ross didn’t equate all of Christianity with AGW, he just pointed out a few of the questionable practices of both religions.
Ross wrote: “But the reaction of all the global warming alarmists, who see nothing wrong with what he did, is much more significant.”
This statement, which is the premise of the rest of the post, is a lie. Many mainstream climate scientists and science reporters have clearly stated that what Gleick did was wrong. Gleick himself stated that what he did was wrong. Some activists, such as DeSmog blog, have defended Gleick’s actions and you have every right to criticize them, but it is dishonest to claim all those warning about climate change see nothing wrong with what Gleick did.
Helen Hawkins says:
March 18, 2012 at 2:27 am
As a devout Catholic, I find it strange that the people who are pushing the AGW scam and many of the the AGW skeptics say the same things about my faith…..
___________________________________________________________
Helen, the attack on Religion was “necessary” and “deliberate” if “Socialism” was to be implemented.
The threads of this decision going back into history are long as usual. The easiest place to start is the Webb’s Fabian Society and London School of Economics (LSE). If you investigate LSE you will find it is linked to world leaders like former Fabian chairman/ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, Director of the World Trade Organization Pascal Lamy, Bill Clinton and even Gaddafi’s son.
The motto on the Fabian Stain Glass Window reads:
I can not think of anything more blunt then that window for getting the message across except for George Bernard Shaw’s writings: The Real George Bernard Shaw which is a real eye opening read. It makes you feel you are nothing more than cattle => chattel => Slave.
So much for freedom in the new improved world of Global Governance by the Fabians.
The following explains the tie-in between the Fabians, the attack on Christianity and the rise in the “worship” of Gaia (Mother Earth)
Few ordinary citizens know that a man who has a great influence on the economy of the USA and the world, John Maynard Keynes (Keynesian economics) was a member of the British Fabian Society.
Keynes himself stated:
Again it is quite plain that the goal is destruction of our current society to shatter it to bits, and then Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire!
You can read the rest at their website.
John Dewey, Father of Progressive Education, was an early signatory of The Humanist Manifesto (1933) Here is what he had to say:
More on Dewey
Two views of the Fabian Society:
Fabian Society and their Secret Agenda
1884 and still going – How the Fabians Policy of Gradualism Made Our Democracy Possible, Provided the Basis of the Welfare State and is needed to solve the Problems We Face in the Future.
I discuss in another strand of this mess Carrol Quigley, Bill Clinton’s Mentor, HERE
Archonix says:
March 18, 2012 at 3:14 am
Why didn’t you use a diffeent religious example,then? The japanese “consensus” on the status of the shogunate, for instance, or the emperor. Or the hindu caste system. Why is it always christianity?
_________________________________________
Because that is the History that most English speaking people are familiar with of course.
Remember to separate the nasty doings of corrupt humans from the teachings. Even if you are not a Christian (I am an agnostic) that does not mean the teachings are to be despised especially the moral code which is currently under discussion.
I am not a religious person by any means, but you have to admit the way cheese, bacon, and tomato taste together make a darn good case for. 8^)
wws says:
March 18, 2012 at 5:52 am
not so much Marx as someone else, no? “he who cannot be named.”
You mean Hitler? If you do, I wasn’t aware of a general ban on the usage of the name? Guess if I come back to read this and it says “[SNIP]ler” then I’ll be proven wrong!
“History repeats itself” only to the extent that those in power can benefit from hypnosis of the masses and repeating the same tricks. We are intentionally miseducated by an elitist controlled system in both science and history. Carbon Climate Forcing is Faux Science created to FORCE a Carbon Commodity Market. To understand this you must first recognize the under LYING problem, a fraudlent monetary system. See “Fractional Reserve Banking Begat Faux Reality” for a good intro.
[i do wish to contact David Ross for additional history corrections, Anthony has my email, thanks]
Thread needed some levity, ….
Steve B says: @ur momisugly March 18, 2012 at 2:59 am
James Sexton says: @ur momisugly March 18, 2012 at 1:37 am
Well said James but what you are missing is the “death by degrees”. The Marxists introduced things by degrees…..
_______________________________________
Actually there are at least two flavors of Marxists.
The Communists want to introduce change through violent revolution. It is the Fabian Socialist who are the “death by degrees”.
You might want to investigate their newest twist, pushed by Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and the London School of Economics (LSE) It was developed by LSE Director Professor Anthony Giddens. http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/globalDimensions/globalisation/aThirdWayForTheEuropeanUnion/Default.htm
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/284/
Sam The First says:
March 18, 2012 at 5:15 am
“And politicians themselves are particularly prone to this fatal disability” (the inability to admit mistakes), “which is why so many are refusing to acknowledge the science, and the sceptics’ arguments, on this topic.”
Not to defend mealy-mouthed, double-talking, belly-slithering Politicians, BUT . . . Politicians who admit mistakes are branded: ‘Flip-Floppers’. This is usually not a ‘Sustainable’ outcome.
Steve from Rockwood says:
March 18, 2012 at 6:50 am
Science is a form of religion.
Do you believe that or do you know that?
See. That is a (your) statement, without any reason and without arguing what religion is the philosophical terms. This practice fulfils not the claims of thee science of logic.
Therefore you’re your statement is meaningless as argument; it is from your belief system.
Scientists are always skeptical of the beliefs of others but rarely their own.
This statement is your personal theory, and the problem with it is, that you cannot know for sure what’s going on in the consciousness of each scientist. The idea of science is that a scientist is searching knowledge and adding knowledge about the order of nature. Knowledge starts with the very own recognition that something cannot be true and in the same time untrue. This is indeed a very own recognition of him, but therefore not necessary for you.
It seems easy to argue that this knowledge is ‘a form of religion’, but the alternative is that you accept that something is true and in the same time untrue.
In 2004 I was in Oxford in a small hotel and in TV ran in the evening a soap. Two young (church) men wanted to convince (among other things) a pretty girl of Jesus and asked her intelligently:
“Do you think that or do you think what Jesus taught is the truth, or do you think that what Jesus taught is wrong? ” She looked to ceiling and said after a while: “Both!”
That is mayby love but not truth. Science is the search to that nonlocation where love and truth is one.
What is the (your) reference to recognise that something is true?
A coin?
V.
I saw the author’s use of a mythological medieval history as being, not a declaration of truth, but strictly for the purposes of analogy.
I’m a Christian, I know his account of history is drastically off and biased, but I’m sure he was taught it and did not come up with it on his own – just like his belief in spontaneous generation, or that an effect somehow miraculously can exceed the sum of its causes. Those matters simply aren’t the topic at hand.
I agree with Dr. Ware; the Christian Judeo values and ethics are what our most basic laws are based on and drive a decency of humane social behavior. Those psychopathic leaders over our known history drive many civilizations into demise and that represents the person, not the “religion.”
For those who claim to be non-religious, that is a notion of false thinking. You believe in something and you behave in a religious way. You are not random in thought and process.
Mr. Sexton also is on the track of clear thinking. The self motivated greed takers that consume the rest of us at any cost to humanity are not interested in civil social behavior, but are focused on their deceitful climb to a new order driven by ravenous power grabbing. The hate mongers divide and conquer. Examples abound.
As for the real problem we face, aim high. History will repeat itself; history writers leave out the parts that caused history to repeat itself and our education system is missing the concept of that wisdom.
Read “In The Garden Of Beasts”
Good post Mr. Ross. Here is my overly simplistic answer to the final assignment. What I see lacking in our education system is the implementation of critical thinking skills.
I agree with Dr. Ware; the Christian Judeo values and ethics are what our most basic laws are based on and drive a decency of humane social behavior. Those psychopathic leaders over our known history drive many civilizations into demise and that represents the person, not the “religion.”
For those who claim to be non-religious, that is a notion of false thinking. You believe in something and you behave in a religious way. You are not random in thought and process.
Mr. Sexton also is on the track of clear thinking. The self motivated greed takers that consume the rest of us at any cost to humanity are not interested in civil social behavior, but are focused on their deceitful climb to a new order driven by ravenous power grabbing. The hate mongers divide and conquer. Examples abound.
As for the real problem we face, aim high. History will repeat itself; history writers leave out the parts that caused history to repeat itself and our education system is missing the concept of that wisdom.
The AGW movement is an example of how a lie can spread and drive ignorance. Read “In The Garden Of Beasts.”
But critical thinking is not what you want in an obedient populace, …..
Beesaman says: @ur momisugly March 18, 2012 at 4:48 am
…… Maybe, just maybe, we are starting to see the re-emergence of an animist Green-Faith based around Gaia, in which Mann et al are certainly taking upon the trappings and actions of high priests. Maybe they are not scientists after all but Druids of the Heat!
_________________________________________
Oh it has more than just the trappings of religion. One of the goals is to create a new World Wide Religion hence the attacks on Christianity (Divide and conquer at work)
Maurice Strong, chair of both UN Earth Summits, and his mystic wife Hanne are looking at several religions and picking an choosing what they want to use in creating a “New Religion”
This is a link to Maurice Strong’s “Religious” retreat: http://www.transition-dynamics.com/crestone/9crestonecolorado.html
“Mike says:
March 18, 2012 at 9:20 am
Ross wrote: “But the reaction of all the global warming alarmists, who see nothing wrong with what he did, is much more significant.”
This statement, which is the premise of the rest of the post, is a lie. Many mainstream climate scientists and science reporters have clearly stated that what Gleick did was wrong.”
Misplaced comma ?
But the reaction of all the global warming alarmists who see nothing wrong with what he did, is much more significant.”
Try and have a little faith
Please don’t rewrite this to un-offend certain people. I can handle reading things that do not agree with my world view. Succumbing to repression of ideas you don’t like and censorship is what the bad guys do. And that’s not us.
In this excellent book by Stephen Gould, it suggests quite clearly that there was a great deal of social unrest during the first millennium. I read this book just before our second millennium when it first came out. It is a very interesting book.
http://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Millennium-Rationalists-Precisely-Arbitrary/dp/0674061640/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_7
(note the use of a very generic second person plural – no individual is being addressed)
well that’s very good if way late.
this battle has always been about right and wrong and until people start fighting it on those grounds they are just playing patacake.
it’s not about science; it’s about stealing everything and more – including liberty.
and the battle can’t be won until it is fought on moral grounds.
so figure out how to define right and wrong – something the parents who abandoned you in public schools where lord.of.the.flies tribalism turned half a generation into unapologetic liars and thieves.
the idea that ‘at least they had something to believe in’ (to paraphrase the marin parents of the american taliban) is where you lost, giving evil equal time is wrong. evil shouldn’t have a passing grade to save its self esteem.
time to buy out – if you can figure out why it is wrong. to do that you need to be able to define ‘right and wrong’.
good luck. they don’t teach anything like that in schools any more – it requires reasoning. they don’t teach reasoning any more, so there are few who can do it reliably and accurately.
if a child passes age 4 without being able to define right and wrong in a single sentence, his moral educators have failed failed failed. as willy wonka said- blame the parents.
heh. this is all about self harming by proxy and vehement denial of failure on the fundamental choice of ‘to think or not to think’. maybe you would if you could but you can’t – you were abandoned in a public school too, right? maybe that’s the source of all the self loathing that makes the suffering feel so righteous? isn’t martyrdom fun when you can’t even say what your own cause is?
don’t worry – the enemy is united behind a cause and has a self consistent morality – that’s why they win over the hoi polloi who still haven’t got a feck.
[ok that’s getting over the top – tone it down – Anthony]
We have many examples in the world of “extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds”.
Global warming is one major delusion, not to be underestimated. It has cost society a trillion dollars in squandered resources. It is apparently a core belief of most government leaders – hence the abundance of nonsensical “green energy” policies that have only served to significantly reduce energy reliability and increase energy costs for everyone.
And please understand: If you live in the developed world, access to reliable cheap energy is your lifeline – you and your family would easily perish without it.
Global warming cults are incredibly rigid in their beliefs. The absence of global warming in the past decade does not cause them to reflect.
Neither does the failure of every single scary prediction by the IPCC and the global warming “scientific” elite.
Neither does the public evidence of professional, ethical and scientific fraud by this same CAGW elite in the ClimateGate 1&2 emails.
Neither does the criminal behaviour of Peter Gleick – witness the chorus of approval for his odious behaviour by the Gleick Klub.
Not even global cooling will shake the belief systems of these avid global warmers. These warming dervishes were not strong thinkers to begin with – they are Lenin’s “useful idiots”, who will continue to believe the lies of the global warming elite long after that elite has abandoned these lies in favor of shiny new ones.
Charles Mackay provides a glimpse of our future, from ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”, published in 1841:
• “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
• “Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder’s welcome.”
• “We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.”
Archonix,
The Shogunate (Bakufu) was not a religious institution. It was a military dictatorship imposed by the power bloc supporting the Matsudaira/Tokugawa faction after the defeat of the power bloc supporting the Toyotomi succession. It was the culmination of a long period (1490?? to 1615) of repeated conflict in which ever more powerful regional warlords contended for political dominance of the whole country. This period in itself was the culmination of a long and violent process of militarily adjusting the balance of power between the Imperial court and the Samurai clans. There was no consensus in maintaining its rule. That was done by brutal repression , land bribes, hostage taking, military force, financial impositions, hostage taking and control of inheritance rights. When the opportunity presented itself the old Toyotomi faction (The Satsuma clans for example) polished up it’s grudge, carpe’d the diem and set up a puppet regime of their own. Even the suppression of Christianity by the Bakufu was not a particularly religious act but a reaction to the political influence of the church and suspected colonialist tendencies on the part of the Portugese.
Now I suspect the author referenced christianity because it’s part of the cultural heritage of many of the blog readers, including agnostic, infidel heretics like , well , me. Cultural empathy regarding the Sengoku-Jidaii is perhaps less prevalent
JimB says:
March 18, 2012 at 7:48 am
Volker: I have no idea whether your equations are “true” or not. You forgot to define the elements used in them. And the units of mass and energy.
JimB, the used dimensions are defined by the science community; you can find it in each physics textbook:
1 [J] = 1 [V A s] = 1 kg m^2 s^-2
The equations do seem to be equating mass and energy per Einstein’s revelation.
Yes, Einstein had a belief in the object velocity, but a velocity is not an observable in physics, it is a term from moving trains or horses. What is a velocity? In space? I don’t know.
Fields are good. V/m .
A load is good. A sec.
A ‘mass’ of: 1.7801 * 10^-36 [V A sec^3 m^-2] is equal to an Energy of 1[eV].
A force F [N] has the dimension [V A s m^-1].
The angular moment D [kg m^2 sec^-1] has then the dimension [V A s^2] and is equal to Planck’s constant h. Multiplied by a frequency [1/s] it is an energy [V A s] (A moving frequenting planet represents an energy).
The gravitational constant g [m^3 kg^-1 s^2] has then the dimension [m^5 s^-5 V^-1 A^-1].
The gravitational force F [ g x m1 x m2 x r^-2 ] has the dimension [V A s m^-1].
Because ‘mass’ m [kg] = E * µ0 * epsilon0 (permeability and permittivity of the universe) there is no need for a kg anymore and not for a velocity.
m = E µ0 epsilon0
V.