.jpg)
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
This Ain't No Spanish Inquisition
Posted April 8th, 2009 by barbi hammond in politically incorrect
NOOBODY EXPECTS A SPANISH INQUISITION!
(dupe)
- Please Login to Add Comments
- show all sub-comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted April 9th, 2009 by admin in response to This is Not the Spanish Inquistion: Just a Debate...
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Thesis: You support Lomborg because his plan promotes efficiency
Posted April 10th, 2009 by barbi hammond in response to [Comment Deleted]Socrates:
It'll take me a while to see the movie. So in the meantime, do you mean "energy efficiency," "cost efficiency," or both?
Energy efficiency, that is, reduction of demands, is key to solving global warming. In fact, reducing demand via energy efficiency alone without any major lifestyle changes and without any new investments in R&D can reduce dangerous human greenhouse gases by up to 40%! So you are capitally correct to point out efficiency as being the key to any climate policy.
However, Lomborg's plan, as I understand it, does not include energy efficiency in its portfolio as a cap and trade does: only cost efficiency of a .05%-1.5% savings of world GDP by opting out of cap and trade and emissions standards, which currently costs 1% of world GDP. Since Stern recommends moving it up to 2%, Lomborg amounts to a .05%-1.5% savings of world GDP by opting out.
According to the Stern Review, no emissions standards (e.g., no international cap and trade agreement) will cost 20%-30% of the world GDP of $54 trillion by 2100. This is staggering. Based on this, Lomborg's recommendation would result in a 19.5%-29.5% loss in world GDP of $54 trillion by 2100. So how do you propose that Lomborg encourages efficiency?
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
Sulfur dioxide
Posted April 9th, 2009 by Brian OConnell in response to This is Not the Spanish Inquistion: Just a Debate...Hi Barbi, Remember how quickly you denounced my sulfur dioxide statements. You got all on the case of it not being a gas ( gas has a very broad definition in my mind) and of being particles. I agree. And remember I said it needs more research. Here is some of that research from NASA:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/
Strange how if you can not deal with the science,you will never think outside the box. Are you seeing how particles and clouds and sunlight all work toghether. And how CO2 is not the main gas of what effects our climate.
Socratic method is useless if you can not think out side of conventions. Barbi, you seem very conventional to me. But thats just in comparison. You probably way out of the box for first tier. Ah, your going to need to come to the table with alot more than, look at these scientists. I gave you what I thought and you easily judged and you had NO thought of your own that was not prepacked for you. You have added nothing to the debate that I already did not know and the kind of cognition it comes from. So Barbi use your socratic method on what you have posted and see if it does not depend on some other persons thought. Then I talk about Physics and what I think the ecological crisis is, which has your CO2 issue way down on the list of priorities. I tell you how powerful social engineers are using fear based on ignorance as a way to gain power. You quickly labelled me as a conspiracy nut. You know what the socratic method would show about your claims. There not yours. Makes it easy to be the green inquisition. Time will tell which one you have already been to me, and its clear from here that its not the socratic method, but time will tell.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Argument: 1. CO2 is not the main gas 2. I am conventional.
Posted April 10th, 2009 by barbi hammond in response to Sulfur dioxideBrian:
If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that
- CO2 is not the main gas of what effects our climate: sulfur dioxide is; and that
- I am conventional.
Argument 1, that CO2 is not the main gas of what effects our climate: sulfur dioxide is, was pre-packaged for you. The argument is therefore not your own thought because you did not think of it or even attempt to provide an argument for your claim, only a link to an article. By your own definition of conventional, this makes you conventional.
The article above, not you, states that
- sulfate aerosols (black carbon emissions) from coal-burning industrial plants in Asia are primarily responsible for Arctic ice melt, not CO2 emissions.
- NASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap.
- volcanoes are responsible for up to 70% of all global warming in the past few decades.
One thing I do give you credit for: I checked it out, and by golly you are correct to point out earlier that human-caused sulfate aerosols (black carbon emissions) in industrial plants in Asia contribute to climate change (although they're not the main cause). My hat goes off to you for that one insight.
The NASA study on which the article is based states that black carbon emissions from coal-burning industries in the Northern Hemisphere is responsible for 50% of Arctic ice melt. That is to say, black carbon emissions from these plants, which are located primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, spew out sulfate aerosols (black soot) from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. This soot moves and clusters over the Arctic contributing to 50% of the Arctic ice melt. The other 50% is still human CO2 emission causing Arctic ice melt. Black carbon soot from incomplete combustion of fossil fuel, while responsible for half of Arctic ice melt, is still second behind human CO2 as a human greenhouse gas in anthropogenic global climate change since it is not as abundant as human CO2 and is largely confined to the Northern Hemisphere. The study recommends adding black carbon emissions to the list of human greenhouse gases to regulate.
The good thing about this finding is that sulfate aerosols only stay in the atmosphere from a few days to a few weeks as opposed to human CO2, which lasts several hundred or more years, once injected into the atmosphere. Sulfates are therefore easier to mitigate, although mitigating sulfates instead of CO2 is foolish (as the article recommends), since CO2 is still the main cause of climate change and stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, once it is released. Thus, claim number 1., sulfate aerosols (black carbon emissions) from coal-burning industrial plants in Asia are primarily responsible for Arctic ice melt, not CO2 emissions, is not quite true because CO2 is still responsible for half of it. Ultimately, CO2 is a much greater concern than sulfates because it stays in the atmosphere much longer and doesn't go away for a long, long, time and continues to rise very fast. However, these sulfates are still a serious concern because they result in less albeido or reflection of the sun from melting Arctic ice and decreasing ice cover. Thus, both emissions are a concern and your argument 1., that CO2 is not the main gas effecting climate, is false.
CO2 reduction via emissions standards is likely to greatly reduce black carbon emissions as well, since both greenhouse gases are industrial by-products of fossil fuel combustion. All the more reason to insist on a moratorium for these coal-burning factories and introducing an emissions standard to put a ceiling on both, and for you to agree with the conventional scientific wisdom of human-caused global warming until you actually study the conventional science first prior to attempting to "debunk" it. Unless you just "want" to be unconventional just to be "different."
As for 2. NASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap, this is kind of true, but very misleading so is mostly false. Strange that they used this as the article title.
CO2 accounts for 50% of Arctic ice melt but is still the primary cause of global climate change globally. The clean air regs reduced reflective sulfate aerosols to combat ozone depletion. These reflective sulfate aerosols differ from black carbon emissions because they reflect sunlight rather than absorb it and produce a cooling effect rather than warming effect. Thus, regulating these aerosols removed the cooling effect over the Arctic, but this does not mean that aerosol regulation caused melting ice cap, but rather that unregulated CO2 and black carbon emissions are causing Arctic ice melt. CO2 and black carbon emissions should therefore be regulated as well.
As for 3. volcanoes are responsible for up to 70% of all global warming in the past few decades, this is false. Humans emit 150X the amount of CO2 than volcanoes. Volcanoes contain sulfur dioxide (the reflective and cooling kind) in addition to CO2, and produce a short-term temporary cooling. Thus, although volcanoes were responsible for climate change in pre-historic times, human CO2 emissions are responsible for climate change today.
If by "conventional" you mean agreeing with mainstream science on matters of a scientific kind is "conventional," then call me conventional. I am not a climate expert so have no reason to disagree with it based on my readings. In that sense you are "unconventional."
Based on your link above and arguments elsewhere, you have demonstrated repeatedly a conventional layperson agenda of trying to disprove human-caused global warming. From a scientific standpoint, you are unconventional (I grant you that) but are not postconventional, but only preconventional in your scientific understanding. Not to say that you're not postconventional in other areas since you may well be for all I know.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Being unconventional without thinking independently
Posted April 11th, 2009 by barbi hammond in response to Sulfur dioxideHere is a summary of your article, Brian, written by Lewis Page, IT Blogger, and my examination of these various assertions made by order of appearance.
A suggestion: next time check out the sources of your article. This is a sign of thinking independently, which is far better than being unconventional without thinking independently. Or being unconventional just to be "different."
1. Arctic warming caused by human activities.
Very likely (the IPCC defines "very likely" as 90% or more).
2. These human activities are clean air regs: not CO2.
False.
NASA states that according to a computer climate model study, these human activities are a combination of human CO2 emissions from around the world + plus black carbon (BC) emissions from industrial plants from Asia + less atmospheric cooling from from sulfates due to clean air regulations. The BC emissions from Asia, according to the study, may account for 45% or more of Arctic warming since 1976. As such, BC emission works to significantly accelerate a previously existing and ongoing condition, global warming from human CO2, initially triggered by rising CO2 emissions since the start of the industrial revolution and now exacerbated by BC emissions and CO2 emissions from industrialized China.
NASA states that while clean air regs are "improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates": not that clean air regs are the cause of Arctic warming. Thus, the main title is misleading, suggesting that regulating pollutants causes Arctic warming. Warming is actually caused by other factors, such as unregulated CO2 and BC emissions from industrializaton.
3. The general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s--particularly in the Arctic--may have resulted in changes of solid aerosol particles, rather than elevated CO2.
False.
The general upward trend in temperatures globally has been, and continues to be, rising human CO2 emissions. Elsewhere since 1976, the upward trend of the Arctic and Northern latitudes may have been accelerated by black solid aerosol particles (BC) and less atmospheric cooling by sulfate regulation, which may account for 45% of Arctic warming since 1976.
According to NASA, "Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases," says Shindell.
Accordingly, "right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is just as strong as that of aerosols," says Socrates. Thus, 3. "The general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s--particularly in the Arctic--may have resulted in changes of solid aerosol particles, RATHER than elevated CO2," is false because NASA does not make an either/or proposition as the writer of the article does, but rather makes a "not-only-but-also" proposition instead.
4. "Dirty Chinese coal to save us all?" (article subtitle).
False.
This rhetorical question is based on the premise that since geoengineers and advisors to Obama propose a back-up plan of injecting sulfates into the atmosphere to artificially prevent a tipping point and catastrophic climate change in case of emergency, that sulfates injected into the atmosphere by Chinese coal-burning factories can do a similar job if left unregulated.
This is false because sulfates from volcanoes, as proposed by geoengineers, have a net cooling effect on climate because these particles are bits of glass and dust and reflect heat and sunlight. Sulfates in the form of black carbon soot from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels from China, on the other hand, absorb heat rather than reflect it resulting in an opposite effect of warming. So this assumption is false, as it presumes that all sulfates emitted have a net cooling effect. It is also a contradiction of the writers previous statement that "Soot, rather than reflecting heat as sulphates do, traps solar energy in the atmosphere and warms things up." Lewis Page is therefore caught in a performative self-contradiction.
5. Boffins from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have said that aerosol levels from dust storms and volcanoes alone would account for as much as 70 per cent of the temperature rise seen in the Atlantic ocean during the past 26 years, leaving carbon simply nowhere.
False.
Boffins's study refers to a short-term local weather variable (not global climate change) confined to the Northern Atlantic (not the whole Atlantic Ocean) produced by natural aerosols from dust storms and volcanoes, which are only temporary weather patterns because aerosols, whether man-made or volcanic, only stay in the atmosphere from a few days to a few weeks at a time (see NASA article) and do not result in long-term centuries-long climate change as human CO2 emissions do. Were it possible for dust storms and volcanoes to produce climate change, natural variations would have produced climate change in pre-industrial times (which it did not). Furthermore, Boffin makes clear in his paper that these observations that he makes in Northern Atlantic weather (not climate) are additional changes on top of ongoing CO2 rise affecting long-term global climate change. Thus, Boffin does not dispute the scientific consensus on CO2 but confirms it, leaving Lewis Page's assertion on carbon simply nowhere.
As Naadir Jeewa, a reader, correctly pointed out in the cited article above, "Boffins: Atlantic temperature ruled by dust, not by CO2,"
"Open access version of paper is available at http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~amatoe/
El Reg's spin makes two major errors:
1. Confusing local trend studies with global trends.
This paper specifically deals with the North Atlantic. The authors clearly state that temperatures are higher than those predicted by CO2 forcing models by a further 0.3C.
2. Confusing short-term with long-term
The paper specifically talks about decadal variations, not the long-term CO2 forcing.
@Time:
Here's the last few paragraphs in full -
"Over the last 30-years temperatures in other tropical ocean basins have been rising steadily, but at a slower rate than the Atlantic (31). At the same time projections of surface temperature increases under a doubled carbon dioxide climate suggest that the Atlantic should be warming at a rate slower than the other observations (32). We suggest this apparent disconnect between observations and models may be due to the influence of Atlantic dust cover. Our results imply that since dust plays a role in modulating tropical North Atlantic Ocean temperature, projections of these temperatures under various global warming scenarios by general circulation models should account for long-term changes in dust loadings. This is especially critical as studies have estimated a reduction in Atlantic dust cover of 40-60% under a doubled carbon dioxide climate (33), which, based on model runs with an equivalent reduction of the mean dust forcing, could result in an additional 0.3-0.4°C warming of the northern tropical Atlantic."
@An experimental test---
6. ...but it's at least possible that this has something to do with the fact that global temperatures have actually dipped slightly over the last couple of years.
Irrelevant.
Climate Change 101 teaches that noise from short-term weather patterns (2 years or less) should not be confused with long-term climatic changes measured on scales of hundreds or thousands of years or more: that is to say, if you want to know this, do this. If you want to know the weather, go see a meteorologist. If you want to know the climate, go consult a climatologist.
7. Dr James Hansen, is more or less the father of the carbon-driven global warming menace. He won't be pleased at the suggestion that carbon emissions may not be such an overriding concern after all.
False.
Carbon emissions are an overriding concern: once injected into the atmosphere, CO2 remains in the atmosphere for several hundreds of years (unlike BC) before cleared. Until then, CO2 continues to further saturate the atmosphere unabated and continues to be the fastest rising human greenhouse gas. Aerosols, which are also a serious concern, come second after CO2. And as both BC emissions and CO2 emissions are the by-products of coal-burning industrial plants, we have all the more reason to demand a moratorium on these plants to mitigate these dangerous pollutants, whether CO2 or BC, as Hansen has rightfully demanded.
8. Shindell's research, backed by other recent studies, suggests that it might be a lot more cost-effective to tackle emissions of black-carbon aerosols. Filtering soot from exhausts would be hugely easier than capturing and sequestering CO2, building a fully wind/electric Blighty or other ambitious eco-schemes.
Partially true.
The most cost-effective means to tackle emissions is to put a ceiling on CO2, BC, and other dangerous human emissions and reduce them to safer levels. This will encourage energy efficiency to prevent a tipping point and catastrophic climate change. BC should be added to this list of mitigation. Filtering soot from exhausts, in addition to capturing and sequestering CO2, in addition to a moratorium on all new coal plants to be built, is very likely to be necessary to prevent a catastrophic climate change caused by a temperature rise of 2.5 C. This will require climate policies and international agreements that promote energy efficiency and a ceiling and reduction on emissions. The "action plan" is currently estimated by the Stern Review to be 2% of the global GDP. A "no policy ("no action") plan" is estimated to be a 20-30% loss of global GDP (of $54 trillion) by 2100. This is staggering.
Furthermore, the NASA article doesn't clarify whether China employs sulfate scrubbers in their coal plants to remove sulfates (which have a net cooling effect). It only discusses increasing BC aerosols (which have a warming effect) from China via climate model study. Without this clarification and without real world data to back it up, it is difficult to tell whether Arctic warming is truly accelerated by BC aerosol increase or by CO2 emissions increases instead. All we can tell is that it is warming. And at an alarming rate at that.
It is presumed that without any type of scrubber or sequestration of pollutants in these plants, the combined cooling from sulfates and warming from black carbon emissions would produce a net 0 effect in Arctic temperature and/or a net cooling effect as was the case prior to clean air regs across the U.S. and Europe.
Concluding thoughts
Being unconventional doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with thinking independently.
Brian, you wrote:
"Strange how if you can not deal with the science,you will never think outside the box.
Yes, it is strange, I grant you that; but not surprising.
Based on my review of the article and checking out its sources, there is no indication to me that you have dealt with the science nor have thought outside the box, Brian. Otherwise, you would have directed me to science. This article is from an IT website and written by an IT person who badly misinterpreted NASA for political reasons. You are therefore duped by an IT specialist's opinion, so are not dealing with the science; just some right-wing nut's opinion.
Are you seeing how particles and clouds and sunlight all work toghether [sic].
Yes, I'm seeing how things all work together fine: the question is, are you.
And how CO2 is not the main gas of what effects our climate.
No. But nice try, better luck next time.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
The science?
Posted April 20th, 2009 by Brian OConnell in response to Being unconventional without thinking independentlyHi Barbi, Your right I have not shared the science that I come from, and how I see climate change. I told you that on a cosmological level science is believing in a myth. I pointed you to an already complete theoretical science that does not have this myth ( Matter=Mass). I made a very simple statement that does not go into it at all. Based on this new unified theory, thermodynamicshas been turned upside down. So you know those computer models of the climate. They use non-linear fluid dynamics for their modelling a incomplete theory of thermodynamics. Guess what hurricanes and tornadoes and weather patterns are following. The electrodynamic model beased on plasma cosmology and not the accepted models of thermodynamics. Basically their is a pattern that holds true for all holons. I give you this symbol to study. A toroid or torus . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroidal_and_poloidal
The theory that is the most complete in this field(plasma cosmology) is http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theory.shtml
This is a huge change in how we understand thermodynamics. It is not gravity that is the determinant for large objects but the subatomic forces which have not been unified till this work. So our sun is not a nuclear process. The earth is one of the planets inside of the field of the sun. The field of the earth interacting with the Sun and cosmic rays is what determines the climate. The paticles in the air are ionized with the earths field. Hurricans are a plasma level event that completes issue of the ascending order of entropy. Basically weather is a elctrodynamic event that atoms and molecules are following.Not the current theory of thermodynamics that gives the modelling between atoms and molecules without understanding how they interact on a subatomic level. The analogy I like is a body of water. The electrodynamic forces are acknowledged on the suface, like a travelling ripple on water, but were excluded when dealing with sound waves in the water, that travel much faster and coherent. This was the area left to quantum physics that had to deal with the instantaneous of events, they failed because they gave it a wave particle duality when plasma has structure and gravity is a subatomic event (in the water instead of the ripple on top).
My problem on this forum has been the amount of education neccassary for my points to make any sense. I give and gave you material that supported what I have been saying. I can go on and on about how this changes how we understood EVERYTHING in the UR and LR.
Your conventional to ME in that you BELIEVE the science and the scientist without understanding the principles and methods they use. Not that your center of gravity is conventional. But not completing the orange development would lead one to depend on those that have the authority of orange.
We have the same issue in economics with computer modelling. But this is off your focus. It is strange that your corner stone of your argument is science and I find you science blind, (the ability to work with scientific proposistions in your own mind ). Remember how I told you my shock to find scientist did not have the ability to look at the axioms themselves.(1% of 1% can) A loss of unique self in the process. We give alot of our own cognative power to others(experts), when we look at those others more expert minds there is no one special behind the curtain as far as ability , but a indocrinated mind, not free and thus does not have the ability to look at the basic axioms. Like what is gravity? What is matter? What is light? What is inertia? You experience these? Yes. Think your mind it not involved in your experience of mass, matter? thats a tuff one. What is this that lights the objects of the world? What is the sun? That sun that drives the weather. Is the sun outside of you or are you made of light( alot of it)?
In SES Ken goes into the evolution of the noosphere and how perception comes from ones perspective. Well if the cognative mind does not developed to the point where object subject space is not transended then, they can not see perspectives that are non dual. And thus not be able to question the axioms and assumed principles of science. There isn't an ability to question since other options are not available in their space. You seem like this with me. Your not scientifically focused(really) and your not economically focus, but damn focused of the fear that those you trust are telling you the truth. Sounds very familiar to the issues man had before the orange level of development.
Barbi your on the green/red vicious circle. Look out for the black hole. It could just shoot you through the other side of the toriodal flux.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
Doohicky by any other name...
Posted May 3rd, 2009 by Richard LaymanBarbi quoted:
And here a qoute from http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/iraq.cfm which is painfully true:
I believe that the first World Federation will likely be orange-to-green. My hope is that it will be healthy green, but who knows? I believe that any such green World Federation will make substantial strides toward world harmony, but it will eventually face the inherent limitations and contradictions of all first-tier perspectives. The equivalent of worldwide, politically-correct thought-police will surface—a green Inquisition, if you will—whose subtle brutalities, accompanied by a series of extremely unpleasant economic events brought about by green's hobbling of orange business, will force a second-tier, yellow, World Federation to move haltingly into place. (Orange business cripples ecology; ecological green cripples orange business; both are forms of first-tier violence, neither of which is countenanced by yellow, and thus the first World Federation will likely be characterized, among numerous other forms of wholeness in practice, by a reconciliation between capitalism and ecology.) But that, I believe, will be at least a century or so away.
Until that time, I harbor the pain of vision unrequited. Until that time, the loneliness of integral heavily weighs on any who yearn for wholeness in action. Until that time, the bright promise of a tomorrow that coheres is no consolation but source of torment, for those of you who are so cursed.
------------
In my opinion this World Federation thingy that will end KW's torment in one hundred years is just another doohicky (Re "We Need a Doohickey").
Theoretical solutions (theoretical doohickies as opposed to technical doohickies) to most of our modern problems have existed almost as far back as Socrates and Plato. Technical doohickies have been around almost that long.The perennial problem is that mankind is pushed and pulled over the coals by its emotions far more than reason. And the only thing I would expect less than the Spanish Inquisition would be some eleventh hour rescue by evolution.
But the bit about the green inquisition reminded me of a scifi premise I thought up years ago. Society becomes fanatically green. Environmentalists are the new Nazis (a common republican fantasy, right?). The sate owns/regulates everything, except that the state is just a cover for a corrupt and violent corporate oligarchy, the same one creating the giant sucking sound on Wall Street right now...
Everybody listen: it is just possible the world will descend into darkness forever.
Richard
--
There is no answer. There is no solution. There is only practice. (Anon.)
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
This is Not the Spanish Inquistion: Just a Debate using the Socratic Method.
Posted April 8th, 2009 by barbi hammondInquisition
(def. 1: web definition):
A former Roman Catholic tribunal for the discovery and punishment of heresy b: an investigation conducted with little regard for individual rights c: a severe questioning
Inquisition
(def. 2: Monty Python definition):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A
Inquisition
(def. 3: a so-called "Integral" definition):
The equivalent of worldwide, politically-correct thought-police will surface—a green Inquisition, if you will—whose subtle brutalities, accompanied by a series of extremely unpleasant economic events brought about by green's hobbling of orange business, will force a second-tier, yellow, World Federation to move haltingly into place. (Orange business cripples ecology; ecological green cripples orange business; both are forms of first-tier violence, neither of which is countenanced by yellow, and thus the first World Federation will likely be characterized, among numerous other forms of wholeness in practice, by a reconciliation between capitalism and ecology.)
I don't know who wrote the above or how current it is in Integral thought (the link is located somewhere below, which I haven't gone to since the article appears to be in reference to Iraq. This debate is on climate change, not Iraq: although I will eventually get to it to see what it's "about").
Why this is "so-called Integral" and not a genuine Integral presentiation, although the person himself or herself may be highly advanced and have an Integral center-of-gravity:
It fails to differentiate healthy orange from unhealthy orange business and healthy green from unhealthy green ecology, assuming that all orange business cripples ecology and that all ecological green cripples orange business. As a consequence, healthy orange and green memes (conservationism, tried and true policies such as cap and trade, economic and energy efficiency, the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, peaceful environmental activism, and the dignities of modernity) are confused with unhealthy orange and green memes (environmental degradation and waste, untried policies such as a carbon tax, personal and collective irresponsibility, dangerous and expensive policies such as no mitigation, out-of-control consumption and debts (both individually and collectively), obsolete theories such as global cooling, eco-terrorism and radical environmental groups such as PETA, oppositional and radical eco-radical activism, and the disasters of modernity).
Since the vast majority of what is being supported in green ecology today is based on healthy orange and green values, definition 3 is an erroneous portrayal of healthy orange business and its relation to healthy green ecology, which do not cripple each other and are nonviolent. Certainly, it will require a yellow leadership to bring it all together most wisely and effectively, but the healthy aspects of orange and green are already in place to achieve an integrality between business and ecology without crippling each other.
"I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition" (famous line from Monty Python) but it looks that way based on the excerpt above. I neither expect nor see a Green Inquisition although I do expect that an Integral discussion on climate change will honor Socrates and not abandon core principles of science and philosophy, namely objectivity and debate, in pursuit of what is Integral. Not simply go with political correctness to guide what it means to be "Integral" by playing the "map game" or dismissing climate change as a MGM because you don't know the science, or otherwise fight the concept of climate change legislation threatening because of some political ideology: which is not Integral, but political correctness.
So I'm extending an invitation to all Integral Life members, not just Bernhard (who is welcomed as always and appreciated for his contributions), to a philosophical debate using the Socratic Method of argument and reasoning. This debate does not require any formal training or expertise in any scientific field: high school level is OK. However, if scientific evidence is presented or if evidence from any other field is presented in an argument (such as economics), you must be able to defend your position rationally. Then you can do so Integrally. Don't try to offer an Integral perspective without offering a rational argument first.
The following dialogue is an aborted attempt to follow the Socratic method of debate, which was then misconstrued as the Spanish or the Green Inquisition.
The Dialectical Process
(Since I was the first one to think of this thread, I get to play the role of Socrates):
From "We Need a Doohickey"
Socrates:
Here is your opportunity to defend your position rationally.
Posted April 7th, 2009 by barbi hammond in response to [Comment Deleted].
You claim, but then deleted (which is still what you maintain, I will assume, since all of your comments were deleted),
"One thing is to defend an idea which I find convincing, another thing is to be stuck to this idea."
You've provided links to Bjorn Lomborg's and Cophenhagen Consensus's alternative solutions to cap and trade which you find to be convincing. In turn, I've read and thoroughly refuted them logically but you've yet to offer any defense in response. I therefore decided to critique these arguments in a mythical story-book fashion to get your response. Which, if I understand it correctly, is that my story is joking so is red. This is no response, but a red herring that is logically unrelated to the truth of your claims.
Just by pronouncing a story as "red" or going into the psychology of shadows does not make a position on climate policy any more rational or superior to amber or red (let alone, arational and Integral). So here is your opportunity to not only agree with your position or to be convinced of it but to also defend these positions rationally:
Bjorn Lomborg's interpretation of CC: doohickey [R&D] instead of mitigation
CC's plan: doohickey + mitigation + adaptation
While CC pays lip service to the concept of mitigation, both Lomborg and CC oppose cap and trade and recommend R&D yet do not offer an alternative plan for placing a ceiling or cap on industrial and agricultural pullutants in order to slow the rapid and ongoing rise of dangerous greenhouse gases. Because of this, neither plan is a viable solution to global warming. Especially when Lomborg contends that it won't be until 2050 before the solar panels are cheap and efficient enough to replace CO2 emission.
From a strictly logical and scientific standpoint, this does not appear to be logical or scientifically sound [click We Need a Doohickey and my Green Global Warming Skeptics thread for full refutation]. Remember: Integral rests on a solid foundation of scientific rationality although it is beyond science and logic and is integral and arational. You must therefore offer a defense that is rational. Then you can go forward and defend them from the standpoint of Integral.
Bernhard:
Counterquestion: Can you explain me the difference between healthy orange and the mean orange meme? Perhaps it would become clear if you wrote a story of healthy orange.
And here a qoute from http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/iraq.cfm which is painfully true:
I believe that the first World Federation will likely be orange-to-green. My hope is that it will be healthy green, but who knows? I believe that any such green World Federation will make substantial strides toward world harmony, but it will eventually face the inherent limitations and contradictions of all first-tier perspectives. The equivalent of worldwide, politically-correct thought-police will surface—a green Inquisition, if you will—whose subtle brutalities, accompanied by a series of extremely unpleasant economic events brought about by green's hobbling of orange business, will force a second-tier, yellow, World Federation to move haltingly into place. (Orange business cripples ecology; ecological green cripples orange business; both are forms of first-tier violence, neither of which is countenanced by yellow, and thus the first World Federation will likely be characterized, among numerous other forms of wholeness in practice, by a reconciliation between capitalism and ecology.) But that, I believe, will be at least a century or so away.
Until that time, I harbor the pain of vision unrequited. Until that time, the loneliness of integral heavily weighs on any who yearn for wholeness in action. Until that time, the bright promise of a tomorrow that coheres is no consolation but source of torment, for those of you who are so cursed.
Socrates:
You responded with a counter-question, not with an explanation of your position; so you have yet to present an argument for your case. Here is your position:
Bjorn Lomborg's interpretation of CC: [R&D] instead of mitigation
CC's plan: [R&D] + mitigation + adaptation
No cap and trade or emissions regulation for either plan.
The dialectical method of reasoning is built on a series of thesis:antithesis and ends in finality or conclusion. In this particular dialogue it is you, the defender, who is defending a thesis (claim, point, argument, case, etc.). My task as Socrates is to examine your case by a series of questioning (antithesis). The Socratic Method is a way of maintaining order in a debate by critically examining each and every point made by the defender of the claim to its logical conclusion. As you are the one providing the thesis and defending your case, it is your task, as defender, to argue and defend your position logically. It is therefore my task, as Socrates, to question and examine your position.
I asked you to explain your position, and your response was a counter-question to my question of your position. In a logical argument, a question is followed by a logical response: not by another question or counter-question in response to the question of your position. Since it is you who is making a claim, it is Socrates who is examining your claim by asking you to explain. The questioner in this case is I, Socrates, who seeks an explanation of your claim. Socrates does not interject its own counter-claims or counter-arguments into the defender's claim or position but adheres strictly to the task of questioning and examining the claims presented by the defendant. Likewise, the defendant does not interject its own counter-questions into the examiner's questions but adheres strictly to the task of defending his own argument or claim. Thus far, you have not provided any argument or explanation but have presented instead a series of unsubstantiated claims and counter-questions. It is thus your task to argue these claims in a logical manner.
But to answer your counter-question: the difference between a healthy orange meme and a mean orange meme is that a healthy orange meme adheres to the Socratic method whereas a mean orange meme does not. Instead, a mean orange meme makes up its own rules or provides a set of claims without offering an argument to support his or her position.
A healthy orange meme can defend a position rationally and logically; whereas an unhealthy and mean orange meme resorts to political correctness and logical fallacies such as appeal to authority. A healthy orange meme seeks to adhere to the Socratic method in an argument or debate; whereas a mean and unhealthy orange meme and puts down the Socratic method as a Green Inquisition. A healthy orange meme considers the latest scientific data and all arguments objectively; whereas an unhealthy orange meme uncritically accepts Integral political correctness as the end-all and be-all of Truth. Those are the basic differences between healthy and unhealthy orange meme. I could go further to discuss the dignities and disasters of modernity, but I rest my case here and return now to strictly examination of your claims, which I have asked you to explain on a rational level. Here is your position:
Bjorn Lomborg's interpretation of CC: [R&D] instead of mitigation
CC's plan: [R&D] + mitigation + adaptation
No cap and trade or emissions regulation for either plan.
Here is another opportunity to defend your position rationally using healthy orange meme.