Matt²
New
An open letter to Peter Russell (emailed to him and posted on the Skeptiko forum)
Dear Peter,
I listened to and very much enjoyed Alex Tsakiris's recent interview with you, and have visited your site, where there's also much to enjoy.
I noticed that you seem to be a supporter of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, whereas I am extremely sceptical, suspecting that most of the warming since around 1880 has been natural, and that the issue has been over-hyped. I don't want to have a great argument with you about that, since otherwise our world views are similar; rather I want to mention the fact that this important issue, should I prove to be correct, has different implications for a putative meta-paradigmatic shift.
Environmentalism on the face of it has laudable aims, but I think that with the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) hypothesis in particular, it is showing signs of having become a surrogate organised religion, with some of the characteristic intolerance of that. I know you were brought up a Christian, as was I (at around the same time), and that we both rejected the dogma whilst discovering a yearning for the spiritual. You certainly don't strike me as intolerant, but many supporters do; and I myself used to simply accept the orthodoxy until I started investigating the science when "Climategate" broke. However, even James Lovelock--the father of Gaia theory and modern environmentalism--has himself become somewhat sceptical.
I don't think that science is the issue, so much as scientism. I believe that so-called consensus is considerably less prevalent than promulgated in a couple of methodologically dubious "scientific" papers. I also think Kuhn would have agreed that consensus tends to prevent rather than promote paradigm shifting, and hence, instead of adopting it as a positive influence upon hastening the approach of de Chardin's Omega Point, I think its exposure as being bogus is what may well provide a catalyst. Of course, there is enormous resistance to that from the scientific establishment, which by and large is invested in the support of CAGW and has much face (not to mention political influence and funding) to lose should the issue turn out to be a latter-day (and even more destructive) version of Lysenkoism.
I agree with you about the influence of the Internet. Without it, evidence running counter to orthodoxy could not have become so widely or quickly known. We no longer have to rely only on the word of academia, politicians and the mainstream media, all of which have axes to grind and a buck to make out of frightening the general populace with tales of coming Armageddon unless we change our consumerist ways. I'm all for being less consumerist, but I don't need to be propagandised to exercise restraint. I try to do so because I agree with you that it's spiritually healthier not to be too attached to "thingness".
A Sufi dictum has it that things that appear to be in opposition may in fact be working in harmony; and as you mention in one of your videos, the ambiguity in the Chinese conception of crisis includes an aspect of opportunity. We may not always be able to perceive the ways in which the universe is unfolding, and misinterpret some of those as threats rather than opportunities--perhaps indispensable necessities.
I think we can both agree that models aren't reality, but climate science relies heavily on them, and empirical data is increasingly contradicting them. Sooner or later, I believe the crisis point will be reached, and at that point--if I'm right--a huge blunder will be exposed. That said, I'm an optimist: I think that whatever happens, the trend is going to be towards what we both hope for: the next great meta-paradigmatic shift. Hopefully that will usher in an age of greater commonsense and a reformation of the way we currently practise science and think about reality. Also, an age in which powers that be will cease trying to use fear to control people, each of whom I believe to be a noble manifestation of the desire of Source Consciousness to come to know Itself better.
Namaste,
Michael Larkin
Michael, since you have invested your time into the Global Warming issue, have you watched this video;
If not, would you please and provide your opinion? I ask because this video has singularly changed my outlook on the subject and I would like to have an opinion that would have critical thinking behind it.
Thanks...
Matt