Self Induced Coma

Mar 25, 2016

How world views affect the ability of the believers to perceive reality as it relates to climate change or anything else that conflicts with the foundation of their belief premises.

Recently there was congressional hearing about the Flint, MI water crisis, where Governor Snyder was being grilled. A congressman asked the governor “you tell us you only learned about the lead in the Flint water problem in October of 2015! Yet your aids had been communicating about the problem in emails for the last fifteen months? Do you expect us to believe that you had been in a medically induced coma for all that time prior to October of 2015?

I would have to come to the Governor Snyder’s defense here, he was not in a medically induced coma at all. It was in a self induced coma. He is after all a Republican governor. Does it seem like we are seeing a lot more off this kind of thing nowadays, or is it that we are just more conscious of it?

Recently on Facebook I have been seeing more and more postings by various troll organizations like the Oil and Gas Industry of (insert your state here), The Friends of Coal, etc. Sometimes if I am feeling a little frisky, I will leave a comment or two and start a rather unproductive comment thread that can last a few days. Usually I will start out by saying, we need to stop using fossil fuels or coal, that subsidies for said fuels needs to stop, and that they should be preparing to go out of business. As you can imagine such comments do not meet with a receptive greeting on such a industry posting.

The exchanges can be best characterized by Popper’s Law which states “all logic systems tend to be internally consistent inside their own frame of reference”, which is code for given the universe view of the belief holder, his ideas usually are consistent with his or her foundation premises.

For example, if you believe in God and Devil, and that the Devil is actively trying to pervert mankind to his own ends, then the idea of witches and witchcraft may make some kind of sense. So does burning alleged witches at the stake, as they are going to hell anyway, right?

If your universe view includes logic and reason, coupled with science, you might just have a different take on this witch question.

Supposedly we now live in the 21st century, and have put these kinds of superstitions behind us, although one would not know it from watching the daily news.

On a different subject Global Climate Change or Warming we are seeing a great deal of evidence of such Self Induce Coma. Unless you have been in a coma since 1988 when Hansen first spoke to Congress telling them Global Warming had arrived, to not notice the changes in the climate would actually require being comatose. Yet there are still people out there whose basic foundation premise remains, that there is no such thing as global warming, or that if there is, that it is having no discernible effects.

I say you can no more have a debate about the subject of Global Warming with such a person, then you can have a debate with a person over the temperature that water boils at sea level. Such things are known facts, and not disputable unless physical laws can magically change in the universe. The effects of CO2 (a minor atmospheric constituent gas) in the atmosphere as a heat trapping gas have been well known for over 170 years. Given that a pre-industrial level of CO2 is known to warm the planet 60F, and that with no CO2 the average temperature of the planet would be below 0 F, it is not hard to imagine what increasing the amount of this gas in the atmosphere by 40% would do. The only way around these physical facts is to mentally discount all the science painstakingly collected for the last 170 years, and to just make buffoon statements like the climate goes through cycles, and is going through one of them now.

It is sad really, to attempt a dialog with the "walking unconscious" like this, and to realize in your heart of hearts they are impervious to facts or reason, and to even try, is a total miss-allocation of your energy. They inhabit a different universe then you do. If you had a time machine and could go back in time 500 years let’s say, and try to reason with the trial judges in a witch case to convince them not to burn the defendant because there just is no such thing as witches, you would only put yourself in the same mortal danger as the defendant. The differences in these two examples are far less then you think, minus the stake, and the burning faggots.

New projects in the Gilkison universe are that my wife and I have bought a 2012 5th wheel Keystone Cougar 293 SAB. This is not in line with my carbon foot print reduction campaign as you can well imagine. Initial mpg test showed an 8.2 mpg average towing it with my Ford F-150 XLT from the dealership to my house. However we have a plan. Phil Knox and I have designed a boat tail to add to the 5th wheel trailer that could increase towing mpg by 25% (or from 8.2 mpg to 10.2 mpg). This will make a difference in our wallet when we do go on excursions.

Now that we have this major purchase out of the way we want to buy a used 2012 Nissan Leaf EV for a second car, and retire the Ford F-150 for our daily driving. We think we can reduce the yearly miles on the truck from 15K to 3K or a 80% reduction. The nice thing about potentially having an electric car is that we have 5.1 KW of grid tie solar power, and we can primarily recharge the car using the Sun. This month we sold $96.44 worth of electricity to El Paso Electric and I think any experienced EV owner on this site would have to admit that much electricity can drive a Nissan Leaf a long way.

I have had people arguing with me online that the car took fossil fuels make, the solar panels took fossil fuels to make, etc, but they never seem to have any well to wheel numbers to back up their claim that the whole venture is a net negative. These arguments remind me of the horse buggy manufacturer circa 1890 arguing that the infernal combustion engine was never going to supplant the horse. They were literally and figuratively up to their arm pits in horseshit making this argument.

If our plans come together this year (and so far they have) we will have reduced our carbon footprint by over 80% by the end of the year over what it was in 2012.

Abrupt Climate Change is kicking into high gear now, and there is no time left to argue about it. The physical processes that govern the climate on this planet do not care what your politics are, what gods you worship, or what you think about anything at all. It is going to respond to more heat trapping gasses in the atmosphere (up to 470 ppm equivalent now) and as all the amplifying feedback's kick in, Climate Change is going exponential.

So buckle up, we are in for a rough ride. Potential Arctic ice cover loss this late summer, a 2 C warming by 2020, on up to a 4 C warming by 2030. If we shut down industrial civilization right now, and stopped all emissions, all this would probably come to pass. The loss of global dimming from air pollution alone would insure this outcome as well as the warming that is already locked in. If you are damned if you do, and damned if you don’t, then do, to quote Guy McPherson. Things are going to get interesting to say the least.

Times Article Viewed: 5166


blog comments powered by Disqus