Divided we stand, united we fall

Ed Park, MD climate change, culture wars, dr ed park, economics, News 15 Comments

I have been less frequent in commenting on current event and politics but it is not for lack of paying attention. The title of this blog is “divided we stand, united we fall” and it is not mere wordplay but the central engine of reality. Let me explain using eco-fascism as the topic.

I believe that the essence of any healthy relationship with oneself, friends and family, and even other nations and species is having good boundaries. The urge of the narcissist and sociopath is to unite everyone and ignore differences. I cannot be psychologically or spiritually healthy if I believe my own crazy thoughts and allow others to ignore my boundaries. Likewise a family, nation, or species cannot be healthy if it believes everything must be united under one interpretation.

I learned a term this week: The Overton Window. It means the range of acceptable topics to discuss. The Overton Window is the enemy of free thought. In the “cancel culture” if you make great movies but also made a drunken anti-zionist rant while being arrested for a DUI then the racists moniker that Mel Gibson bears negates him as a person. His sin was not being anti-Zionist but rather being outside the window. Likewise, Nobel Prize winner James Watson believes that race is predictive of IQ and he is cancelled.

I want critique the current climate alarmism and point to how it also shows who is controlling the narrative and for what reason. The Overton Window says that you cannot discuss known weather modification programs or if the data comprising the current CO2, temperature, or sea level is accurate. 

The question human consciousness asks but never wants to hear the answer to is “why would they lie?” The simple answer is always money, power, and influence. If you perform some due diligence regarding climate science you will find a plethora of people at the ends of their careers (either by age or apostasy) who deride the new religion of climate change.

I had the pleasure of getting to know Dr. Art Janov, the inventor or primal scream therapy. John Lennon quoted Art when he sang “God is a concept by which we measure our own pain.”  I submit that the old original sin of being a wretched human in need of salvation is not playing as well so it was simply retreaded with the “carbon footprint”.  Brainwashing children, closing the Overton Window by declaring the oxymoronic “settled science”, ignoring fudged data, and using the inherent fear of apocalypse against us, we are being asked to cede control of the levers of the economy and our freedoms.

I saw a Saturday Night Live skit about climate change that suggested increased carbon was bad for trees; it is the opposite. The new economy of monetizing carbon emissions is a scheme for greater global control. If you want to learn about the science of weather, you will find two camps: the true believers of this religion who hold that mankind is causing climate change and the ones who violate the Overton Window and act like scientists by discussing data, theories, and models.

I want to tell you about a true story of a young man I met in college. He was raised Christian and believed that the theory of evolution was wrong. He applied to and was admitted to the graduate program of biological anthropology at Harvard as an occult agent provacateur who was going to use the methods of a very soft science to prove an even softer ontology of Christian fundamentalism.

In a way, he is a tragic and heroic figure. But in another way, he is tragic and comic. Why go to the trouble of joining a religion just to be a sleeper cell saboteur? Certainly most of us waste most of our time clinging to the specifics of belief and dogma because the fear and structure that it engenders creates a comfortable prison of meaning. Most of us would rather be bullied into self-censorship, believe half-truths and lies, and ignore the obvious truth of our liberty within a constantly connected human and world consciousness. 

I recently re-watched both Minority Report and The Matrix and it made me wonder whether the author, Philip K Dick, was so mind-expanded that he was able to predict our future or whether people used his stories as templates.  When I think of the deep cynicism of George Orwell and his predictions about the rise of fascism I also wonder about his mastery of extrapolation.

In the end, we are all free to believe what we want and live according to those beliefs but we are not allowed to harm others based on our religiosity. As Trump as opined in his recent address to the United Nations, people should have religious freedom and respect national sovereignty. Well meaning people genuinely believe that unanimity of opinion is good when in fact being united in “truth” against actual facts is the death of the human spirit and the end of life itself. As I blogged about here, reality is meant to correct our quantum consciousness from creating nonsense worlds to live in.

I leave you with the this brief and eloquent question about climate change addressed to Jordan Peterson that reveals the sub rosa motivation for climate change alarmism which is no different from the bogus alien disclosure stuff nor the the original sin of Adam, Eve, and Satan. 

 

Am I a climate change denier? No, the climate always changes. I challenge you to look up some of the skeptics (aka scientists who won’t sell their souls for a buck) before you join this new apocalyptic cult. From what I can surmise, this is the farthest thing from a “settled science” that you can imagine.

A healthy society can tolerate diversity of thought and Al Gore’s predictions of apocalypse did not come true. Don’t buy into the fear-mongering. People want to invent a “cap and trade” mechanism for controlling carbon emissions when carbon is good for plant life. Scientist propose blocking out the sun with particles? What could possible go wrong there (sarcasm)? The only thing I know for sure is that people are motivated by fear and greed and this new climate change religion is just a rebranding of original sin for profit.

Comments 15

  1. Great blog!

    First of all, I believe strongly in reducing pollution and taking care of our environment. Living by a busy road causes real health problems. But the simple truth is, humans are responsible for about 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. So, at about 405 parts per million CO2, we are responsible for about 12 ppm. Below around 250 ppm, plants struggle. It’s common to raise it to 1,200 ppm in a greenhouse to dramatically increase production, with no downside. The 12 ppm we produce, it has been estimated, increases food production enough to feed several million people. I’ve read that it is responsible for $200,000,000,000 in food, but am skeptical of that claim. At any rate, the CO2 in the air changes dramatically depending on where you measure it and the local season. Plants suck it up dramatically. It is a self-setting system. Additionally, the small influence CO2 has on weather is not linear. If a certain amount is responsible for a 1 degree difference, doubling the CO2 does NOT cause a 2 degree difference. It would be 1/2 a degree. If we DOUBLED the CO2 we produce, brought it up to 417 ppm, the impact on weather would be miniscule, but plants would thrive. THE ONLY CLIMATE MODELS WITH ANY ACCURACY WERE BASED ON THE SUN CYCLES (weather on the sun). Cows farting have absolutely nothing to do with the cycles the sun goes through.

    This ‘climate change’ insanity is nothing but a power grab by the liberal elite. It is DISGUSTING! This liberal insanity is not confined to ‘climate change.’ These constant attacks against our President is an attempt to invalidate my vote. Talk about a constitutional crisis! Invalidating elections because an election has thwarted their globalist agenda is the biggest constitutional crisis our country has ever faced. They are trying to rip this country apart. THEY WILL NOT SUCCEED.

    1. Post
      Author

      Dear Joe,

      Thank you for sharing your knowledge. When we look at the ice core data going back thousands of years, the CO2 has indeed varied substantially. I am not doubting some human contribution but the use of CO2 as the main engine and the magnitude of our influence deserves skepticism.

      Thanks

  2. We all know that climate changes.
    The real question is: Does man effect the climate?

    Man does influence the climate.
    One only needs to go to a smoggy city to verify that.

    1. Post
      Author

      Pollution is real and frankly not the issue that I am concerned with. Acid rain is also real and is not the issue.
      My issue is selling fear and debasing consciousness. Fear mongering is not ok. Fish mongering better. Let’s keep the oceans clean and eat clean fish! I am merely pointing to the fact that this is a nascent religion and I’m not a true believer.

  3. Dear Dr. Park:

    Your view of the climate change research that has thus far been conducted is similar to mine. In particular, the methods of this research are indicative of a religion rather than a science. I’ve delved deeply into the question of so many people believe this religion to be a science. The answer that I have found is that these people are unaware of the fact there are conditions under which the proposition called “unit measure” is false. “Unit measure” is the proposition that “1 is the measure of a sure event.” “Unit measure” is true under the condition that the law of the excluded middle (LEM) and the law of non-contradiction (LNC) are both true. Otherwise, “unit measure” is false. Proponents of the religion believe the LEM and LNC to be unconditionally true.

    Terry Oldberg

  4. Ed, you stated the truth of a very complex situation, very well.
    The only constant in nature IS change. The climate has always changed. Thinking that we mere humans can drive our planetary climate, to some vague perfected state, IS unnatural, and frankly very frightening. We don’t understand the inner workings of Earth’s climate, we can barely accurately predict tomorrows weather, much less the climate for 20 years in advance. To think that these same professional can actually steer the climate is shear lunacy.
    It will be our abilities to adapt and technically meet our future needs that will save our species, if we don’t implode our societies via antisocial media and sensationalized editorials sold as news. Or the overpowering of society by some form of government taxation and micromanagement.
    Our future should be all about upholding individual rights, for ALL individuals, even those we disagree with and allowing each of us respect and the freedom to make our own choices and chart our own paths through life.
    Thank you for speaking your mind and trying to enlighten others, as well as trying to extend the quality of our lives.

    1. Post
      Author

      Thanks, Carl! I hope you watch the Jordan Peterson segment. He quite rightly points out there is no plan and no way to measure impact. The rank order experiment reveals the lack of true passion for “climate change” when compared with the real and actionable items that we can improve. More geniuses from improved childhood nutrition! I am on board with that

  5. But isn’t the carbon emitters and climate deniers also profit/jobs/politically based. Although we don’t ned to be alarmist we have to admit that us humans are destroying our environment at pace. Carbon is good for tree growth up to a point but it also increases the water acidity which leads to desolving carbonates i.e. coral reefs etc. Thousands of scientist cant all be on someones payroll etc. Oil and coal would rather be of consern to politicians /businessmen’s because changing to a less carbon based energy sources would mean huge losses in jobs and empires may crash. Just because its now becoming a type of socialist cult doesn’t mean its not scientifically based.

    1. Post
      Author

      I don’t know that humans are destroying the environment but they are polluting it for sure. I am less concerned about who makes money as making sure we have greater freedom, cleaner environments, and sustainable growth.

  6. Ed, Ed, Ed…. I cannot begin to tell you how disappointed I am in your comments about climate change. I have dedicated the last 30 years of my life to both environmental activism and conservation. To say that your statement that the people who advocate for addressing anthropogenic climate change are part of a cult is off-putting in the extreme.
    It baffles me how climate change deniers can contend that a desire to address the very real problem is a nefarious plot to get rich off of the solutions (cap and trade for example) when the reality is that billions of dollars are being spent by the corporations and individuals who are benefitting from the fossil fuel industries. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/07/us-hotbed-climate-change-denial-international-poll
    It is not just climate change. Our food supply is now replete with micro-plastics, glyphosates and other industrial by-products. Our pollinators are dying off in apocalyptic numbers. Millions of species will go extinct over the next few decades if measures are not taken to reverse the trends. The excess carbon in the atmosphere winds up in the oceans is destroying the coral reefs. This is just part of the litany of problems caused by an out-of-control consumer economy and non-renewable, non-sustainable industries.
    Let’s look at the reality of the situation. We now have 415 ppm carbon in the atmosphere. The earth has never experienced this level before. The highest it ever got was 410 ppm. At that time, the earth’s temperature was 15 degrees warmer and the oceans were 25 meters deeper! So the IPCC stated goal of limiting temperature increases to 1.5 degrees is laughable. Most of the excess heat and carbon are accumulating in the oceans which turn over every 1,500 years. So even if we were to magically convert to 100% renewable energy this afternoon, there is still the problem of all that heat and carbon to address.
    I do agree that some of the proposed technological solutions are ludicrous and have a hidden agenda. Having said that, we now know how to reverse the damage that we have done since the industrial age began. Our current conventional agricultural systems are nonsustaining. That is not debatable. We are losing top soil at a rate where in about 55 years it will all be gone. Ag also contributes about a quarter of the carbon released into the atmosphere. The solution is to convert from chemical fertilizers to organic mulch and biochar addendums. Soil can easily store 50 tons of carbon per acre and intensive gardening can store up to 800 tons per acre. Holistic management would restore the grasslands of the Midwestern USA, African veldt and the steppes of Russia and the Ukraine.
    We also need to plant trees (not plantations) and allow forests to regenerate. There are at least 350 million hectares just in Latin America that if allowed to regrow would pull massive quantities of carbon down from the atmosphere.
    I could go on and on discussing wetlands, mangrove forests, coral reefs, etc., but would rather that you do some research on these yourself.
    IMO we do not need to get back to pre-industrial carbon levels of about 270 ppm. In fact, scientists were probably correct that we actually were headed into another ice age in the 1970’s. It was only the massive release of carbon into the atmosphere that changed the trajectory. Lowering atmospheric carbon to 350 ppm should do the trick. Note that these low-tech solutions also reverse species loss, clean up our food supply, protect fisheries, and solve a lot of other quality of life problems.
    By implementing these steps we buy ourselves a decade to get off fossil fuels. The reality is that renewables are now more than competitive with oil, coal and natural gas IF their politically corrupt subsidies are removed.
    Finally, I am anything but an easily manipulated individual. I have worked in this field most of my adult life. The people who are doing the oftentimes thankless work of trying to reverse the very real negative trends are some of the most courageous, selfless independent thinkers that I know. Lumping them into a category of cultists is really misguided at best. I encourage you to get out and meet some of them in the field. I have always respected your intellect and ethics. This blog was a real surprise to me.

    1. Post
      Author

      Dear Curt, thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully address my blog. I respect your passion and knowledge which far exceeds my own. My concern is mainly about the establishment of a new religion of climate alarmism that is being used to silence debate and does little to further the very worthy agenda items you bring up.

      I am for balanced stewardship of the environment, reducing pollution, and developing sustainable and abundant ecosystems for everyone.

      I am against weaponizing children to fear climate apocalypse so that lobbyists and corporate interests can create new economies of weather futures, cap and trade, and pick favorites in who gets to add carbon. Peterson brings up some good points. We can all benefit from decreased poverty and cleaner environments. This is not a zero sum situation but rather a situation where we can all agree and work towards goals.

      The central premise of my blog is that climate alarmism is bears all the signs of a religious cult engendered by people with vested interests.

      Like you, I would like people to focus on reducing pollution, understanding sustainable and renewable energy and agriculture, and preserving biodiversity.

      I am not denying some contribution of human activity; it is merely a question of degree. Even if we render ourselves extinct, the Earth will continue to function. I hope this clarifies my position and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I am open to being mistaken about impact of human-driven climate change but I doubt I will ever sign up for the “church of the climate apocalypse and wretchedness of man”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *