Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Pat (Pradeep Kumar ) Verma
Vancouver, Canada
As a retired physician (MD), I feel it a high moral obligation to insure that I continue to work towards helping people become HEALTHIER HAPPIER ALWAYS SMILING
Please follow me on Twitter http://twitter.com/cuddlendance
Recent Activity
-
Pat (Pradeep Kumar ) commented on the article |Just like adding word natural before gas does make it safe, so does a natural death. Language is all arbitrary crazy and full of paradoxes. Climate is not a subject that should be open to the lay public to debate as they are all totally clueless and incapable of learning much about it to begin to make sense. Calling each other ignorant is not going to help either. Start to follow me on twitter and get a feel of the subject before beginning to offer opinions @cuddlendance
-
Pat (Pradeep Kumar ) commented on the article |Dear Ishe, allow me to show you my debating skills. They dig not bestow upon me those trophies for no reason. Here I am taking on Einstein in his aphorism "you can't solve a problem with the same means that created it" not by a full frontal rebuttal but at least with a meagre exception to that rule. And that is the principle of flash fires used to douse the wells in Iraq intentionally set afire by the losing army. There they used the trick of making all oxygen suddenly unavailable to choke the fires to the oil wells. You attack on poor homeopaths was certainly an overkill. In medicine we do often take that approach when using immunizations e.g. BCG vaccination in fact is made from semi-dead TB bacteria as are all viral vaccines. Snake venoms are used anti-sera in the same fashion. May be if we are sufficiently brilliant we can find out a trick where one manner of pollution and warming can be made to neutralize another means of pollution and warming. That would be the cheapest way to win, don't you think? Something like making Turk and Seth fight with "Whe (sic) Hell Freezes Over"!
Your mention of underlying current (of conscience) is precisely my real itch and reason for participation here. I recently mentioned a bit about the pecuniary interests as driving the need to be right and even more than that. That glitter of dollars is the whole dispute as is always the case in modern (post currency) world. Those who stand to profit from Green jobs are going to be pro GM and those who would lose jobs are going to keep denying it until they manage to sink us all. That is what has to be avoided. We have to do a mass psychological intervention of some sort to deal with that. And that brings me to the Cassandra's dilemma, which I find even more fascinating that you appear to appreciate. I see it going on Mandelian lineage of genetics. It's a bit more than either lose/lose or win/win, depending on the need to be right. That need to be right is what psychologists call cognitive dissonance and it has the ability to explain more than 40% of human behaviour and is in serious play here in the climate debate as well. So there are two additional outcomes of lose/win and win/lose that needed a mention. But the troubling aspect of this experiment which puts is apart from the pollination of peas by Mandel is that we do not have the luxury to do several repetitions of the experiment. We are going to get only one stab at it and who is right or wrong really is immaterial if the outcome is a disaster. That is why I have attempted to argue that even if the risk is meagre the gravity of the risk is so huge that we better not seek additional proof and choose to panic. The reality is that suffering has already begun and is taking place every day. We need not await any further proof. I am going to write an essay rebutting that of Dr. David Evans on Global Warming or Global Cooling? A New Trend in Climate Alarmism based on There Is No Evidence 12 July 2009 however it might be better if someone more qualified in climatology attempted that. I do not find myself well equipped to do so as I am not a climatologist. See if you want to take it up on yourself.
-
Pat (Pradeep Kumar ) commented on the article |
I fail to understand the term " greater transparency" in this debate but if you have a meaning for it that would suffice. If you think I have come to erroneous conclusions the onus is upon you to fix it given that I being the victim of the confusion is not able to detect the flaw but you as the originator of the idea can. It is good that like me you too have posted your real name on here.
Let me point out the problem I have with the frequent use of the phrase "I think" before every sentence in scientific debate. I conclude that this attitude makes it a political debate where everything is a thought. Let us deal with facts for a change. I will be ignoring all remarks about you as a person after reading them carefully because that would not be relevant to the topic of global warming. So if you do not drive around in a SUV you might be not to blame for the warming. I would wish to tap on your talent of Bachelors in Psychology as I do not have the degree but I have read more than necessary so we can talk. That is great. My reason for plunging into the climate issue is because I think I understand human behaviour due to my profound understanding of neuro-psychology and that is the hurdle. All the data on CO2 and warming is futile if no one is changing habits, that is the crux of the problem and many here have briefly pointed out that concern. Not much has been written about that and that is a weakness. Your views on alcohol as an alternative energy source would be relevant to the public only if you devised a way to make people follow that. I think we can work on that and devise methods to make people comply. It is not easy to make people change their habits and obey. Even if most of my assumptions about you are erroneous that is irrelevant to the key issue here that I am interested in. My question to you is what do you think can be done to make people adopt green lifestyle that you seem to be practicing and trying to promote.
How one allocates credibility to work of a 90 year old women is an interesting question. She might well be dementing. But mere age is insufficient clue to anything. We can be extra careful about the significance of that work but if she is right, she is right.
I have seen lot of non-sense even in scientific communities' peer-reviewed articles published in scientific periodicals. So I do feel entitled to poke fun at anything that I find funny. I have taken special interests and done copious reading and obtained special honours from my supervisors in training about my special talent of poking holes in the work published in reputable Neurology publications. Humans make mistakes all the time. It takes a critic like me to find them. But I often forgive and let go.
It is the very fact that I undertook research for 7 years after my MD that allows me to play down scientific periodicals. You would hear people concealing the truth in scientific work. I can cite at least three examples in Canada the most scandalous one of which was in Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto. A pathologist was fired because of blowing the whistle on the flawed research. I guess the plot of the Harrison Ford movie Fugitive was taken from that scandal. If you cannot recall Fugitive you might want to rent the movie again and watch it or go to this link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106977/
In everyone's training it is very important to understand and interpret peer reviewed articles. But that is when you are their peers. Then you go to the next step of becoming their critic and then you find out the scandals that have been introduced. You may also want to watch Pelican Brief and Erin Brokovitch to find out that all that is said in the papers, journals and so on is not really true. The truth gets very dangerous to speak and like Julia Roberts in Pelican Brief you might have to leave the country. The trillions of dollars that are involved in the climate debate are such a power that truth would never see the light of the day and heads will literally roll. It is a very very dangerous game my friend. There are several Steven Segal movies on pollution issues as well if you care to watch them. And I can tell you reality is lot uglier than the fiction. Only no one dares report it as he does not want to get killed or simply vanish without a trace.
I don't need anyone to support my conclusions. To my knowledge my views are so novel that there is nothing published about it. My hypothesis is that if humanity binds together in a universal brotherhood and stop bickering like you and I are doing, there is a lot of hope for getting a lot of good done. But that is not what happened today as hundreds of people were killed through suicide bombing and other evil acts in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
I do not write to make anyone happy to read the message. In fact my whole point is that if steps are to be taken to deal with the NCD pandemic, pollution, homelessness, discriminations, hatred, climate issues, we have to do things that we do not like. We have to start to walk in place of taking the car and so on. That is the real obstacle. We have to find a way to ask people to suffer some pain so that everyone can live happily, and that is not easy. I cannot make you bakes your conclusions on data as I do not have any. All I have is a theory and hypothesis. But it sounds so great that I have no need to base it on data. There is enough collateral evidence that hugs and cuddles work in bonding primates. Harlow has done that work for us and there is no need to challenge it. It is true. If you hug people they love you and tend to obey you and that can mean eating the veggies too. Simple as that. I do not need any proof or data or any other support for my theory. In fact the onus is on the sceptics to show me wrong. So you can present to me data that compassion and caring would not help influence other humans. I am not eager to cite (note the spelling of this word from the site which means place) an article that supports my opinion and I could not even do that because nothing would directly support my view given its novelty.
I am not too thrilled to see your eagerness to read any article and comment on its merits either. I am not into data, articles and research. In fact I want everyone to get away from that. I am into people, living human beings. I want you to go out and hug some 20 people for no reason and ask them to do the same and bind the entire humanity into a chain of brotherhood. When we being to care about each other it would become redundant to even say that it is good idea to pick up our trash and not to pollute things all around and not to deforest our rain forests and make species extinct. We would begin to do that as a duty guided by our own conscience. I am not seeking the opinion of anyone on the climate issue. The only question I would ask you is if you know of a better way to deal with the pollution related mess.
Firstly you have mis-stated the fact by calling it my intent to "killing of aids children in Africa". The correct statement of issue is : Do we in North America have a moral obligation to feed the starving and dying children of Africa, Asia and the rest of the third world. I admitted that the ethics of that are unclear and in my view which I know are not popular there is room to open discussion for passive or even active euthanasia. That is being done now in England as an act of compassion in England. The high court there has legalized it. There is nothing you can do about that. People who have tried it in USA and Canada have been deeply hurt when the courts refused. Even the judges were sorry for the denials. They had to respect the law, so the issue is are we at a stage where we can change the law in USA and Canada on following the Europe. You are welcome to give your views and criticize mine but that would have to be another platform not here.
It sure was never intended to be a dark humour but you are taking a stab at my integrity by misconstruing facts and that would not work. More people are going to side with me now or in future. Yes I am serious and there is no rationality behind your fears because those children are moribund anyway. If starvation does not kill them malaria will or the soldiers will. How many fronts are you capable of protecting them at when you cannot deal with homelessness and lack of healthcare at home herein USA. Why do you even feel that you have the ability to do that. It is very misdirected effort. Get your own home in order before you promise outsiders any help. And if you do wish to help the poor nations do that through equitable wealth distribution which would mean trillions of dollars not a couple of million here and there. That is nothing but photo op political gimmickry.
No one yet has the absolute power over the individual to the point of controlling their lives and death. My point is not to play God. In fact God if did exist, which I know for a fact does not, has already condemned those children to death by starvation. Why would you interfere with the Divine script and infuriate God. He might commission a huge Plague upon all of us. Remember that is the only thing God of the Old Testament is famous for. There are 34 mentions of wrath of God in that book.
I am not clear what you call "danger of collectivism" but I can see that collective action of humans with respect to the CO2 emission has certainly created an awful mess. You are in a serious illusion that we all are ruled be law. There is more lawlessness in the world than law. So calm down and see reality. Start with establishing law and order on Taliban and Al Quida. US and UN both have failed to impose any law on either. And you are disillusioning yourself with law on the planet. The state of lawlessness that is about to ensue from the global warming is something that you are totally unaware of. Ignorance is certainly operating as a huge bliss to deniers of global warming. But that is only a short-lived comfort. Soon we are going to have to face lot more chaos than we are facing now from poverty, disease, climate calamites, wars, unrest and so on. The list is too huge to complete at this point for me. I can do that on my website someday.
The regard to individual rights is on a rapid decline my friend and it will take a lot of money to retain that and we are not going to have that luxury shortly. Sure Aristotle might be a proponent of rule by republic rather than rule by majority. To me there appears to be no significant difference between the two. Use of political terms especially the word fascism never scares me. Nothing scares me actually for my own sake. I am only concerned about the collective fate of the planet and its people and that does scare me badly that is the reason why I am investing time on these posts. That is why the title of this blog site caught my attention. I do not give any serious damn to animal rights, women's rights, gay rights, healthcare insurances, and other topics being debated here. They are all too secondary to this outstandingly vital issue of climate. It is going to subsume all other issues and make them too insignificant to matter at all. If we do not have resources (wealth) to allocate to the issues and needs of the wildlife, climate and people we are going to become passive bystanders of the natural disasters. If we act smart after we join hands and minds there is hope. If we keep bickering as these posts are a clear example of there is NO HOPE and I am know I am absolutely right about this one. And this is the only message I have to spread and I am sure you are not going to accept this simple common sense rule and would keep throwing scientific mumbo jumbo upon me without realizing that I know hundreds of time more on those topics that you ever will. Let us be friend and you follow my advice and befriend and hug 20 people and ask them to do the same. Like those old fashioned chain letter. Let us make a human chain around the globe. A friendly humanity. Deal ? Given that the topics discussed in your post and my reply post are so removed from the topic of whether and how much public need be scared about the impeding global warming (which may or may not happen given some uncertainty about that matter in the minds of some), that I would be compelled to ignore any response to this posted on this blog. I would however respond to them if you write to me directly.
Pat Verma
HUGS@cuddlendance.com
-
Pat (Pradeep Kumar ) commented on the article |
The PDF article "Cognitive and Behavioral Challenges in Responding to Climate Change" so kindly cited by Emily is bit tricky to read for the group so I have taken the liberty to cite the bottom half of the abstract for the information of the group which would emphasize the need to scare (which in my vocabulary includes humiliation) and the abstract says the following:
Climate scientists have identified global warming as the most important environmental issue of our time, but it has taken over 20 years for the problem to penetrate the public discourse in even the most superficial manner. While some nations have done better than others, no nation has adequately reduced emissions and no nation has a base of public citizens that are sufficiently socially and politically engaged in response to climate change. This paper summarizes international and national differences in levels of knowledge and concern regarding climate change, and the existing explanations for the worldwide failure of public response to climate change, drawing from psychology, social psychology and sociology. On the whole, the widely presumed links between public access to information on climate change and levels of concern and action are not supported. The paper's key findings emphasize the presence of negative emotions in conjunction with global warming (fear, guilt, and helplessness), and the process of emotion management and cultural norms in the construction of a social reality in which climate change is held at arms length. Barriers in responding to climate change are placed into three broad categories: 1) psychological/ conceptual, 2) social and cultural, and 3) structural (political economy). The author provides policy considerations and summarizes the policy implications of both psychological and conceptual barriers, and social and cultural barriers. An annotated bibliography is included.
Pat Verma
-
Pat (Pradeep Kumar ) commented on the article |
Slandering the messenger if you can't fight off the overwhelming message and don't like the message is below the belt and pretty shoddy. Grow up a bit. Fight like a man. Innuendo of irrelevant matters is too cowardly a way to declare victory when you have been utterly defeated in your pseudo-scientific crusade. These trickes are just too chilidish and beneath me. Okay?
Pat Verma
-
Pat (Pradeep Kumar ) commented on the article |
Nothing in my response can support your false admission that my reply has you troubled. You have not proved that you are troubled nor have you proved a link to my response. Remember the burden of proof that we spoke of. What your thrust is on blame shifting. You have been defeated on every single false argument that you advanced. Instead you attacked me for being a racist. I am a person of the dark color so immune from being accused of being a racist. My use of word Nigger, was just an attempt at poking fun at your mis-spelling. I never have felt nor would ever feel the need to show my superiority over anyone else by showing that he belongs to an inferior race of negro. I am able to do a superb job at showing anyone down by use of my intelligence alone. I need not and in fact cannot play the white supremacy card because I am not white to begin with. I am in fact a victim of racism for over three decades.
No the "N" word is not acceptable in Canada. I have already told you that racism is alive and well in Canada but that is not the topic of debate here so I would not go into details. Why would I attempt to derogate you by calling you a Nigger. You are not a black man or at least I do not know that. I know that such language has no place anywhere and I never used it in the context you are implying that I did. I know that you must not tolerate use of hate language, nor would the administrators of this site but who is using the "N" word to begin with. You are trying to cook up a false allegation to falsely discredit me. That is not going to happen. If mere reading the word has offended you I have no hesitation in apologizing. However, I was using it to point out that just by accidental misspelling you had come so close to using the "N" word, a bit of caution with spellings was needed. Remember you having apologized for having been sloppy with spellings? Let us get back to the topic of steps we need to take to deal with the global warming. Okay?
Slandering the messanger if you cant fight off the message and dont like the message is below the belt and pretty shoddy. Grow up a bit.
Pat Verma
-
Pat (Pradeep Kumar ) commented on the article |
Source of my views on the Low-level clouds that are said to be involved in a positive feedback mechanism that could exacerbate global warming - according to a study of cloud and temperature records from the north-eastern Pacific Ocean. Scientists in the US have found that low-level cloud cover decreases when the sea surface gets warmer. Fewer clouds mean that more sunlight reaches Earth's surface, leading to further warming.
is http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39908 -
Pat (Pradeep Kumar ) commented on the article |
Your folly there with the saving of those unfortunate children could be a very misguided attempt at prolonging of their miseries. If for the sake or comprehension of reality you were to accept the truth of global warming you must then concede that the population explosion and the feared number of 9 billion is a big factor underlying that. And through keeping these starving children alive you are once again contributing directly to the aggravation of the problem of global warming. It makes lot more sense to investigate the causes of their starvation and seriously consider the issue of allowing their sacrifice to be permitted to be made so that those who can survive do. This question would certainly be faced by the human race when we grow to 9 billion by asking who would be among the billion out of that who must go so that the rest 8 billion may survive, and if that decision is not made properly everyone would risk perishing. So the NCD pandemic, population explosion and the climate are profoundly intertwined and must be dealt with in one single comprehensive plan. We have not yet matured to that level of comprehension of this gamut of problems. All comments that would address this issue are welcome but no nonsense.
Pat Verma
-
Pat (Pradeep Kumar ) commented on the article |
Can anyone enlighten me on this point I came across in a vague passing that with the warming of the surface temperatures we are noting poorer quality clouds with low moisture content and poorer probabilities of precipitation. Seemed reminiscent of the phenomenon of hanging rain over deserts I read about long while back.
Pat Verma
-
Pat (Pradeep Kumar ) commented on the article |
Instead of finding my attitude rude and condescending, especially to someone you have had no prior interaction with is more accurately stated as zero tolerance for nonsense. Sure my nastiness here on the posts is directed at the few stubborn targets only. You might recall the three tools I use. HUGs, HUMOR and HUMILIATION. So here I find myself using the third one most. The fact of prior interaction or not is not relevant. Your future communications would dictate how respond to them. I would admit that on my website cuddlendance.com I have to lure people with the HUGS and HUMOR and there would be little justification for humiliation I am being iron fisted not ironic. This bit of pun is sure humorous.
What unpleasantness?
Now you dig yourself by stating "empirical data" which you assert suggests that solar activity does play a role in global temperature. Now without asking you the experiment that was undertaken by illiterate grandmother at age 90 did know that she would have to sit in the sun to make her knees warm up. What is the magic there. In fact any and every energy form on Earth came or comes from the sun. End of debate on this point.
Should we really refer to the whole Arctic region as a sea is open for debate in my mind. Now what was generated in the mid 1500's. can really have no relevance today unless we can trace the entire curve of the studied trend with some reliability.
Sure let us assume that CO2 levels in the air is not the end-all and be-all of the global climate. But you read about my telling you that most of the CO2 is in the vegetation and in the oceans. Our blood too carries dissolved CO2 in it. That controls pH and high CO2 in breathed air has serious implications on person's health and small changes make big difference, especially if the kidneys are not in top shape. That is what I mean, some arrogance with me is natural given how much I know. So that must be taken into account when dealing with me.
Let us talk of your personal experiences with beef and dairy industry in California. We have a similar headache in Alberta too. K.D Land and Oprah got burnt fighting with them. Beef and Diary are not going to love the environmentalists. Cows are producing megatonnes of CO2 and Methane and that is a source of pain to the environmentalists. There is a lot of sense in the methane tax and I can see how it would kill some dairy farms.
Now my friend, with all sympathy for your lost job, something I lost 13 years back due to head injury rendering me crippled. You must stop seeing the reality as having "lost livelihood over a tax" you can see yourself as a martyr where the good of the community prevailed over your personal interests. As you just heard me telling you that makers and vendors of "green" products are going to be laughing so all that is going to happen is a transformation of jobs. The older CO2 emitting what I have called RED jobs are going to be replaced with these new era GREEN Jobs. Now I also have suspicions how far these Green jobs are going to stay green. I am sure the manufacturing, shipping and installing of solar panels is going to add to the CO2 overload. But the environmentalist might not wish to speak of that but I will make sure that someone does look at that. I am only on the side of truth. I am not an ally to any one personally and arbitrarily. I will go with the logic, rationality and truth. With all my due sympathies of your job loss, I have to give you hope that there are plenty of openings coming up in the green job rush if you want to call it that. The environmentalists are going to push for them and they are there for you to go and grab.
I can spend time and try to persuade that the theory of global warming can be proven, but I can bring you on board with me without doing that so I will take that route for you now. As I was telling you that I am of a genius level IQ, and have wide knowledge database. I know a lot of law too. So the term burden of proof is a legal one and there are several levels. In criminal law it is called beyond a reasonable doubt and in civil law it is probability balance. I am sure you know this. So you cannot sell me that a scientific fact always carries a too great burden of proof. Science is merely gathering of information. Proof is needed only to support a theory. If the temperature today is 70F there is no need to prove anything other than the thermometer is reading it correctly.
No my friend you never need to eliminate all other possible variables. What you do is control them. You compare two sets of things. You take a dozen plants. Feed six the plant food and not feed it to the other six and see if the fed plants were taller. You focus on the variable under study and let nature deal with the task of making sure that all other variables are controlled.
One need not show that CO2 is the only factor to cause global warming. No one is even suggesting that. It is a multi-factorial mess. We don't have to split hair over who is how much at fault. All we need to do is that CO2 has got something to do with it. It does not even have to be a proved theory. Even a hypothesis that is still awaiting proof would do. The example I gave you is that of the possible gravity of threat. If the threat is very serious you don't bother with high level of proof, you flee based on minimal evidence. Awaiting the confirmation can prove delay and let me tell you, if you now trust that I do know what I am talking that would be a mistake to wait for the confirmatory proof. The sooner you land a GREEN job the sooner your desire for that solid proof would vanish. You would start singing he environmental songs to sell the solar plates.
Nature never allows us the power to eliminating all other variables and it is foolish to try to do that. It costs too much. Let us not try to do what is not possible to do on earth, we simply have too many variables. It's a regular sin nothing to do with statistics to extrapolate causal or anecdotal observations and make generalizations based on them. True. But conclusions from correlational data are fit for generalizations. Mind you all generalizations are subject to exceptions including this one. So that creates plenty of room for vagueness and that if real life, VAGUE. What to do? If you are craving absolute certainty, short of taxes which you obviously hate the only certainly that you are able to enjoy is death. I am sure you won't settle for that.
Learn to live with the vagueness and gray. Stop chasing white and black.
True no result is above retesting and re-evaluating, but let me assure you the data on CO2 and warming is well tested and truly verified. You have to trust the people who have done that. They are trustworthy. It is rigor not the scientific riggers (not even scientific niggers) which demand this or that. We often do not have the luxury of verifying things. When you go grocery shopping and pick up some cabbage you are best of trusting the clerk who weighs it for you. Do not bother calling the manager and compel that he eliminate all variables before you purchase. You would be banished from that store and not able to buy food any more. There has to be some level of trust between us. What the obligations on the scientific community are they are being discharged fairly well, even if not perfectly. We are not perfect. We cannot leave the door open for other theories and possibilities. The thing is that we cannot undertake a controlled experiment given that we do not have the luxury of having two earths. Nor can we use the Earth of 1900 and of 1800 to compare reliably with Earth of 2000 if we are to control all variables.
Okay I will allow you to get away with the assertion that California politics as a bit more complex than I think or understand. But I am not buying that there has not been a severe drought for about 15 years, even mild and moderate ones count.
The admission that the Valley is a desert is sufficient for my purposes. Water supply is short and I would not be bothered what has more or less to do with. If you are blaming the snow pack distribution then you should fear that warming would melt them and render California a desert.
Your allegation that tax surplus of the last decade was squandered, is not unique. That is the job of the politicians and that is the sole purpose you elect them for, stop complaining or stop voting. I am telling everyone to take the power back from their hands and do things yourself, Grow up! Quit whining.
I resort to aggressive language when dealing with people who have NO point of view and are just babbling and venting anguish. You affirm that by admitting that your loss of job is the reason why you post. My reason for posting is that I have time to educate people common sense and their mistakes, and I see no point in pointing it out mildly. If the most bitter language fails, nothing would work to make people change their habits.
I appreciate the sentiment that you do not wish to engage in a "negative dialogue" . What I promise and offers is facts and rational thinking. I want you to adopt that too and if you have a point fire back at me. In that way I can teach you how to debate things. I have been an outstanding debater in my college and medical school years. I appreciate your attempts to make things as positive as I can but your problem is going to be you cannot present a falsehood to me in a positive manner given that fraud is always negative.
I do standby my view that "Only few elite humans are truly capable of rational thinking based on facts and rendering conclusion that stand the test of time." Let me tell you that out of the 7 billion of us of which 1 billion are infants, toddlers and senile seniors, half of the 6 billion are illiterate. Of the 3 billion educated people few have university degrees. In sum the people who are truly capable of analysis and comprehension of abstract are a handful 2-3% of the whole global population and they have to be allowed to lead things for the good of the whole herd.
I can even take upon myself to show that your attempted challenge to my statement is thoughtless and proof in itself of my assertion. It is like you have challenged Arnold to wrestle with you. Your arbitrary submission that "no conclusion should stand beyond it's functionality" is in itself irrational. A conclusion serves a specific function. An example would be an assertion that very high CO2 levels in air promote warming of the climate. It serves only that function.
While it is true that we humans do not have all the answers but it is missing the part that we human need only a few hundred answers in our lives to complete it. We live so short you would not believe it, we do not count in the big scheme of things at all. I would support your views critical of rigidity of views but to a limit. There are views that must be held rigidly. You are never going to persuade me to believe that I am not Pat. You can persuade me into thinking that CO2 is not the major element underlying warming. But then you would have to plug in some other thing in its place to explain all the things that I am going to ask you to explain.
What "usually" ends up being to the individuals detriment is often an unknown. In fact the same thing that was good for the same person at one time can be detrimental to him at another. So all is very context dependent. The fact that your generalization is prefixed with usually means that it cannot be applied universally and is essentially meaningless for all practical purpose. You need to make a narrower statement a very targeted one. Tell me doing what is certain to cause me injury like if I inhaled a megatonne of CO2 in an hour I will die.
Learning to integrate new information in one's repertoire will only make one better, wiser, and make better decisions only if the information is correct and is used in the correct context. There is a saying that there are no wrong answers only the wrong questions. So any answer would be correct if the question is posed in a manner that fits the answer. That should suffice to emphasize the context aspect. It is vital to understand that the debate on this blog is over not how rotten or caustic person I am or whether I am a genius or an imbecile but how much panic should be raise in the minds of the pubic to insure that the steps that need to be taken to avert the possible disaster are taken. Sure it might happen that the Armageddon that we are panicking about is coming in 2050 never comes. No environmentalism is going to commit suicide over that, believe me. We all would be much relieved if that never comes true, but we know better. In any event we are much better off having a fire truck in our village in anticipation of the possible fire as opposed to trying to order one after the village is on fire. Would that be prudent?
Sure the mark of wisdom can be one who can fully entertain an idea without being prejudicial but failure to fully accepting it as his own to me means that the person has not arrived at any conclusion and that is cowardly. In fact it is my conclusion that the refusal to admit the possibility of the climate calamites that I say are coming is an attempt on the part of such cowardly uncertain people who are imposing deliberate ignorance upon themselves as they do not want to take responsible action after concluding that it is going to happen. So denial is their defence, akin to the pregnant teenager who has missed a period but refused to go to doctor to find out whether she is pregnant or not. It is common wisdom that she better find out the truth sooner than later.
I must with regrets, dismiss your request to re-evaluate my definitions. They are pretty much set and have been for couple of decades. I cannot afford to change and keep on changing my own views if I have taken upon me the task of changing others. That won't work out well. If people rely on me to guide them I better be stable like the railway tract or they would all be derailed. What would help me in engaging in debates and persuade people to follow the message of harmony, brotherhood, altruism, acceptance, fraternity etc., is reasonably well known to me and is well outlined on my website and that all is cast in stone. My harshness here is what has been called in some circles as "tough love". My philosophy is and it has worked fairly well, that if I give a couple of jolts to a person more like the thing that you might have seen doctors doing with paddles on the chest to the dead people, and hope that the person would come back alive, and if that does not work I deem the person incorrigible and dead and move on to who would listen to me. I am not a big believer of the flowery "more positive and constructive dialogue" . This is a chick phrase to suck guys into doing stupid things which they would not otherwise do. How can a dialogue be positive when I am telling someone that he is an idiot and he is telling me that I am even a bigger idiot. In spirit of brotherhood of men I am compelled to reciprocate you and I too wish you peace and good fortune. Luckily for me I am at a great height of peace with myself and content with my fortune and that it why I find myself suited to send out that message to others. I am attempting to set up what I call happiness coalitions in every city. You are invited to read up on that concept as my website Vancouver Happiness Coalition gets all set up. So in conclusions whether you believe the CO2 mess and the global warming and stuff or not just take up a job selling solar panels and you would find peace. Spending more time on my website would help as well. It is very therapeutic I am told. Staying in touch with me would be a good idea for you to learn where you are off the tract and how you have been derailed and how you can get back on that tract by making right choices. You and anyone else is welcome to me write to me directly. The address is on the website and is
Cheers
Pat Verma.
