Worldview Division: a Sword that Cuts Both Ways

The following is about our future, the future of our children, and what defines us as a species.

As I write this, my wife is a few miles away, hiking up Pikes Peak. I’m not with her because I’m paralyzed. I’m happy she can charge up mountain trails surrounded by green forests and clean air. I hope you can too, along with your children and your future generations.

Regardless whether you believe climatic change is real, or whether it’s caused by human pollution…regardless whether you support embryonic stem cell research or oppose it, or whether you’re a Liberal, a Conservative, a Christian, or how you vote, please consider the following as a bird’s-eye view of how our socio-political system exploits human psychology.

In the stem cells debates, religious Conservatives threatened the long-range financial goals of BIO, Pharma, and Big Medicine. To enlist public support, these industries promoted a monetary agenda under a banner of “miracle cures,” a strategy that rallied the political left and enticed Conservatives to break ranks and support their cause.

Regarding climatic change, Liberal environmentalists threaten the long-range financial goals of Big Oil, Coal, and fossil fuel related industries. To enlist public support, these industries promote a monetary agenda under a banner of “economic stability and growth,” a strategy that rallies the political right and entices Democrats to break ranks and support their cause.

Those who cast climate change as worldview issues claim Big Government should have no right to determine how industry meets the market demand for energy. The catastrophic consequences of climatic change, however, are not a matter of worldview debate…no more than two trains—one loaded with chlorine gas and the other with nuclear waste—heading for a high-speed collision in the heart of a major city. After all, who complains over FRA regulations that safeguard the public from railway smash-ups?

Whenever industries and politicians cast non-philosophical issues as bones of worldview contention, I know they’re pulling my strings (1). For thousands of years, that’s the way the game’s been played: control the masses by telling them what they want to hear or what they don’t. Regarding Earth’s climatic balance and the grim future that stares us in the face, we can no longer afford to think with our egos and emotions. We need to face the truth.

1. Political Bias Affects Brain Activity, NBC January 01, 2006


Twice a surrogate stem cells spokesperson for the GW Bush White House, J. Perry Kelly ended his association with the political right over its distortion of global warming for short-sighted political gain and economic profits.

~ by jperrykelly on May 4, 2011.

6 Responses to “Worldview Division: a Sword that Cuts Both Ways”

  1. Dear Mr. Kelly: You seem to have missed the trillions of dollars and Eu’s that have been poured into rat hole doing research on Mann-made global warming/climate change when the basic concept of “greenhouse gas effect” has never been proven by creditable scientific experiments. I don’t know how much space you allow on replys, so I’ll just start with a little satire and hopefully theres room for some references. I have about 10,000 pages of text that shows that any climate change that is occuring is by Natural causes. There is more out there that I have not included in my storage.

    A satire
    The great danger of increasing CO2 and the every dangerous methane!

    With ever increasing concentration of CO2 and Methane (CH4) in the atmosphere we are in a death spiral to wildly increasing temperatures that will allow the farmers in Georgia to plant two crops of rice and many crops of carrots each season. The concentration of CO2 has gone from a mire value of 320ppm to the unthinkable value of 390 ppm. This tremendous increase has caused a tremendous temperature increase of o.6 degree F over 100 years. We are in great danger. Children will die of heat strokes walking to school. The old will die from insufficient Oxygen. They loose consciousness and grasp for breath until they succumb.
    This fairy-tale is what the “green world “want you to believe. This is not the end , this is only the beginning. The next chapter is that Methane that is released from the bottom of the ocean, lakes, streams, rice patties, under every pile of wet leaves, every compost pile, every garbage land fills, the tundra of Alaska, Canada, Russia ,where ever there is anaerobic bacterial action. Now with all these sources there are only 3 to 4 parts per billion and there is no data that this value is increasing. There are fantasies that if the global temperature increases there will be great releases of Methane from the tundra. What has happened to all the methane that has been released over the last million years?
    Robert Howarth, the Cornell scientist(?), has the intelligence of a pond frog. There is no creditable experimental data that proves that the “greenhouse gas effect” It is a fairy-tale.
    Now this does not matter as Dr.R.H has met the woman of his dreams. A fair young co-ed that is just as unintelligent as he is, an active member of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, a proponent of the “STOP coal generator power plants”
    When Dr. H.R. kissed the young innocent unintelligent maiden they both turn into pond frogs. They were so happy that their “carbon foot print” reduced to almost zero. They hoped off to swim in the nearest scum covered pond where they disturbed the sludge in the bottom to release CO2 and Methane (Ch4)

    Their great love for the environment leads them to be the flower children for the Pied Pipers of Gorezillaism and Promoter of the Fairy-tale of “greenhouse gas effect”
    Now this is a fairy-tale.
    The disaster is that 90 % of the world has swallowed this Fairy-tale hook line and sinker. They are willing to put the financial system of their countries into total bankruptcy. That bleeding heart do gooders are willing to send all their saving to the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Federation, to save the world and the polar bears that have increased in population by 25 to 30% in the last 10 years instead of becoming extinct.
    The extent of these frauds and the ignorance of people is illustrated by the Bernard Madoff ponzie schemes and so many other fraud we learn about everyday sometimes every hour.
    Mann- made global warming and the “greenhouse gas effect” has been shown by physics and thermodynamics to be unreal but the general public has been so convinced by liars like AL Gore –the Pied Piper of Gorezillaism, Michael Mann, James E. Hansen, Joe Romm, Lisa Jackson, the UN IPCC, Barrack Obuma, Naomi Oreskes and dr. Steve Chu and many, many, others that they will go to their graves still believing in the Super lie!!

    The fact that astrophysicist are showing by real data that we are going into an ICE Age will not have any effect.
    As P.T Barnum and Bernard Madoff said There’s a Sucker Born Every Minute”
    It is now the moral duty of the Royal Knights of the Round table and the Joan s of Arc of the Holy Land of Skeptics to take up their Swords of Physics and the Shield of Thermodynamics to Destroy the Sky Dragoon and rescue the children of Hamlin and the World from the mind destroying Pied Pipers of Gorezillaism.
    The Super Hero’s of the Twentieth Century must join the fight for fact and and truth.
    List of references:
    The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
    Scientific Publishing Company,
    Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
    that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
    from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons
    from: at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

    The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

    “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

    After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
    Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

    University of Pennsylvania Law School
    A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
    and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
    at the University of Pennsylvania
    Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
    Jason Scott Johnston
    May 2010
    This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
    Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
    Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
    Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
    Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author)

    Web- site references: Ponder the Maunder
    The Great Climate Clash -archives December, 2010 , G3 The greenhouse gas effect does not exist.( not yet peer reviewed).
    many others are available.
    The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
    The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
    —Albert Einstein
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.” Benjamin Franklin

  2. Thank you for your intelligent response. Although the focus of your comments avoided the subject of this post—the use of worldview division to manipulate public opinion—the content of your thoughts provides a perfect example of how human psychology leads us to embrace agendas that support our egos, worldviews, ambitions, and convenience.

    Your phrases such as “the flower children for the Pied Pipers of Gorezillaism,” and “R.H., the Cornell scientist, has the intelligence of a pond frog,” and “bleeding heart do gooders,” ooze with contempt for anything green. Contempt is an emotion produced by the brain’s limbic (emotional) center, not the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (the objective center of the brain that incorporates new concepts and data rationally). Moreover, in a LinkedIn discussion—where you posted the preceding comments—you admit your worldview beliefs exerted a strong influence in the stance you took on stem cells. Might not your emotions and existing beliefs also cause you to embrace climatic change denials?

    In my opinion, neither side of our polarized society is inherently wrong. However, our passions and beliefs render us vulnerable to powerful corporations that safeguard profits by spinning their agendas to exploit the human tendency for self-delusion (1,2). If you’re willing to consider that such might be the case regarding fossil fuel usage and climatic change, I urge you to visit:

    Thank you for contributing to this discussion.

    1. Westen D,, Neural bases of motivated reasoning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 11/06;18(11):1947-58.
    2. Political bias affects brain activity, Jan 24 2006

  3. Those who do not accept the idea that human activity can alter the earth’s climate should at least admit that something is changing it.

    There is accepted geological/paleontological evidence that the earth’s climate has varied greatly over time, so variation itself is not the issue. The cyclical history of global glaciation recorded in polar ice indicates that we should now expect global cooling, not warming. Yet receding glaciers, melting sea ice and mountain snowcaps indicates the opposite.

    Climate change does not mean that a slight increase in global temperatures will boil lakes, cook our children as they play outside, or inundate the land by melting polar ice. To me, climate change is as simple as a subtle shift in global wind flow and ocean currents. In 1930, farmers living in the Great Plains of America found out what happens when you combined drought with poor agricultural practices. We have named that phenomenon the “Dust Bowl”. A slight shift in rain patterns could cause desertification of productive agricultural areas around the world. What will happen to the world’s food supply?

    We’re already in trouble ( and it will only take a subtle push on the climate to create a major problem for our food security on a global basis. The first real crisis will likely be food related riots, political instability, and probably warfare between nations over food and water resources. By the time ocean levels rise, there will be no doubt that we should have taken some kind of action.

    Here’s my advice to the doubtful – Don’t argue about greenhouse gases, prove that the climate is not changing. If you come to the conclusion that it is changing, then you should explain what mechanism is causing it and propose a course of action. If you don’t agree that the climate is changing, then you needn’t worry about crackpots like me that think it is.

  4. Hello Ed. Thank you for your comments. In my opinion the first consideration should be safety. Like you, I agree the climate is changing, and it’s changed rapidly compared to historical climatic changes in Earth’s history–and precisely in step with Man’s carbon output. Given the degree of effect these changes will have on food productivity, the spread of tropical diseases away from the tropics, coastal changes, medical conditions related to environment, weather extremes, and economic disruptions that far outstrip the effects of an ordered transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, it’s madness our species would rather cling to its delusions at any cost rather than meet this challenge with unity, courage and resolve. Again because of safety, my training as a train dispatcher suggests if Man can do anything to avoid or moderate this fate, we should do it without hesitation–a course that makes especially good sense since fossil fuel usage represents a dead end energy paradigm regarding costs of extraction and long term availability.

    • Dear Mr. Kelly:

      Erring on the side of safety is the ideal response to this situation. Unfortunately, money speaks louder than reason or scientific evidence.

      The petroleum industry is like any other, it seeks to maximize profits. Corporations (e.g. Mobile/Exxon, BP, etc.) are economic constructs that have neither morals nor ethics, they respond to laws and threats of legal action. What they do have is tons of money and some of the fellows in Washington are punch-drunk on it. If we don’t wake up and establish a reasonable energy policy,
      we’re going to go off the road and hit a tree.

  5. Ed, your analogy about an auto smash-up against a road-side tree is spot on. Regarding pollution and climate change, I fear our species is just like the driver you envision. He spies a massive oak along the highway that’s ‘seemingly’ a long way off, and he knows he’s in danger of falling asleep, drifting off the road, and hitting the tree—or maybe he’s in “I need to pull over” denial. Either way, even moving at 70 mph, he’s got plenty of time to make up his mind and do ‘something’…

    …except that speed, time and distance are extremely relative. The danger that seemed remote from a mile away ‘seems’ to draw closer far more rapidly from a hundred yards. In the final seconds, the driver awakes in horror—too late to save his life or the lives of others whose happiness hinged on his ability to face reality and act accordingly—as the tree ‘seems’ to explode in his face. It did for me. The above scenario presents why I’m paralyzed for life.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: