Climate Change

Never cared much for cats when in my teens and for years later. Best friend had a couple around his house, but I never touched them or even acknowledged their presence much. Much more into dogs, I suppose.

Maui, 1969. Lived up around Makawao in the highlands with two room mates from San Diego and the girls had a couple of sizable dogs. Driving away from La Haina with a couple of friends in the afternoon one day, I saw a little fluff ball in the middle of the road hunkered down and just being missed by traffic. I told the driver to STOP----and I ran and picked up a little kitten. He had been hit because one of his eye balls was hanging out of his left eye. He snuggled into me and was happy I was holding him, I suppose. I instructed my friend--the driver to find a veterinary office and after some searching, we did. The man on duty removed the little kittie's damaged eye and sewed the socket closed. My first kitty. He was a feisty little bugger and would stand his ground when one of the dogs in the house hassled him He wouldn't give an inch! He was a loving little guy and would sleep next to me at night. I got to loving that little creature.

Got a call from a roofing company to go over from Maui to Honolulu and work on some new houses being built. I did so and the girls said that they would take care of my little buddy. Second day working---I got a very weird feeling--almost like being startled----the thought entered my mind immediately---something happened to my kitty!! I threw my tools down , climbed off the roof and located a phone booth. I was kind of hesitant to call---but I knew I had to. One of the girls answered and was crying. She told me that my little kitty was outside and when she started my car to go to town--it scared the kitty and she hid behind one one of the tires. That was the end of my first kitty.

(An afterthought) Over the years , I have found and gotten many, many kittens and cats homes. My first little kitty never had a chance to grow up, but helped me in my life to appreciate the feline species and also--some things happen that one cannot explain.

 

The results of others HAVE been published. You will just then question the methodology and data. I get it.

Besides, if I publish my results, you have already shown me what I already know would happen anyway. People like you and Tishomingo will question whether I actually got the results that I did. You weren’t there, and so you won’t believe my results. Yes I could get an independent observer involved, but why not then question them?

It’s clear your beliefs are already set in stone, and you will attack every methodology and data presented to you automatically.

“However, the psi controversy is different in one important respect. The vast majority of skeptics often write about the plausibility of various alternative hypotheses, but they almost never test their ideas. This “armchair quarterbacking” is especially true of the current generation of psi skeptics, the vast majority of whom have made no original research contributions to this topic.”

Dean Radin | Skeptical About Skeptics | Page 2

The tests took me two years to complete, and I actually have nerve pain in my arms these days (perhaps the dice rolling played a role?), so I don’t see myself repeating the tests unless with a dice rolling machine, which I may consider.

I’m more interested in RNG right now, but my tests have been paused because of a house flood. I will need to retrieve my RNG from storage in due time.

 

I provided a fucking video showing direct evidence and you refuse to watch it. Not my problem bro.

 

In the world of science, "actual experiments" don't count for much unless they're replicable and subjected to peer review. Filming your experiments would be a start, but in this age of deep fakes and AI-generated imagery, you'd have to do better than that.

 

Yes, that's the way it goes. Publish the results and subject them to critical commentary.

You could get a team of independent observers, but then, of course, we'd look into their credentials, sanity, relationships to you, etc.

Not necessarily. If you present clear and convincing evidence that meets the test of peer review, as has, for example, global warming, I'd probably concede. As Carl Sagan, following Hume, likes to say: "extraordinary claims require and extraordinary level of proof". Since you're claiming something at odds with scientific consensus, I think some high class proof is in order.

If the alternative hypotheses are plausible based on established science and data, it's not up to the critics to prove them. You're the one making the assertion, so the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

But see
Where has the billion trillion gone? | Nature
Meta-Analysis and the Filedrawer Effect | Skeptical Inquirer
The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin - Book Review - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
Radin's responses to his critics are typical of those given by others who operate in the realm of pseudoscience--e.g., conversion therapy, intelligent design, the weird hair guy who's into ancient aliens on the History Channel
, etc. "They laughed at Columbus, etc. ". Mebbe so.

Sad. Too bad you didn't figure out a way to get your experiments before the scientific community while you were still able to do so.

Good luck!

 

“Yes, that's the way it goes. Publish the results and subject them to critical commentary.”

Yes, I know. What you fail to admit is that when faced with Statistics that significantly go beyond the average in a Psi test, your “critical commentary” disguises itself as valid criticism instead of revealing itself to be what it usually is instead: A Defense Mechanism of a priori beliefs about a certain underlying Paradigm about how reality works. For example: A firm belief that Consciousness originates in the brain.

“You could get a team of independent observers, but then, of course, we'd look into their credentials, sanity, relationships to you, etc.”

Ok fine. But It’s too easy to use much of this as another defense mechanism. “Sanity” for example you could easily use to dismiss an entire study. And how and where exactly should I get these independent observers? Please share in case I want to try a new test of 25,000 rolls

“Not necessarily. If you present clear and convincing evidence that meets the test of peer review, as has, for example, global warming, I'd probably concede. As Carl Sagan, following Hume, likes to say: "extraordinary claims require and extraordinary level of proof". Since you're claiming something at odds with scientific consensus, I think some high class proof is in order.”

You say that, but I’m not sure I believe you. Why should I? You already don’t believe my Dice results.

“If the alternative hypotheses are plausible based on established science and data, it's not up to the critics to prove them. You're the one making the assertion, so the burden of proof is on you to prove it.”

That’s all already being done while you sit back and armchair quarterback everything from your high throne of cynicism. I’ll stick with getting actual work done.

“Sad. Too bad you didn't figure out a way to get your experiments before the scientific community while you were still able to do so.”

Not sad at all. Why would I get my experiments in front of people when I’m in the middle of them? I was far too fascinated by what was going on to worry about any of that. And it’s not like I knew where to turn to get a team of high profile Physicists chomping at the bit to see my results . Besides, I had come across Radin’s studies in the middle of the process out of pure curiosity. The nice thing is I know my results. I don’t actually care whether you believe me or not.

 

Well, when you finish your experiments and get them published, then we may concede that you're right. Until then, it's the nature of science to be skeptical.

But you know, it's ironic you should be taking this position when it's your own work that's in question. Climate scientists have been laboring on their own research, making and reporting their findings, and subjecting them to peer review. And it's YOU who've been saying it's all hokum. They're making it up. Seems to me there's a double standard there.

 

The double standard is that you don’t like that people are still critical of the results of climate change studies. You’re relying on “peer review” authority and not thinking for yourself on the matter.

Are we so certain that peer review is the best way to get to Truth? Are we sure that bias doesn’t play a major role in it? How about money or funding? Plays zero role?

For example, Cold Fusion would end a lot of massive funding overnight, not only for Oil, but for Hot Fusion.

“When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed.“

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

 

You are certainly entitled to your own beliefs, based on your own experiences. I certainly follow mine, some of which are based on a religious experience that might be either real, illusory, or a psychotic break. And like you, I don't care what anybody else thinks, although I welcome their feedback and arguments. Science is the gold standard of human knowledge, but I don't think it has a monopoly on truth. However, it seems to be the most accepted, tested approach to valid and reliable knowledge. And if you want to convince others of something extraordinary, you'll probably need proof, unless you're the head of a religious cult.

According to John 20:29, Jesus told Thomas: "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." That may be right, but it's not scientific, and it won't satisfy the skeptics who reasonably doubt that a crucified and recently deceased man assured us that it's true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (Sagan; Hume). Based on Bishop Spong's assessment of The Fourth Gospel, John was speaking as a practitioner of Merkabah mysticism and as a member of the Johanine community that also produced Revelation. (The drugs on Patmos must have been as good as the ones some participants on HF may have encountered.)

Science also ultimately depends on faith--in empirical data and on the reliability of the people who gather it. So far, it's yielded impressive results.
The Top Ten Scientific Discoveries of the Decade | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
The 5 most groundbreaking scientific achievements of the decade
These are the top 20 scientific discoveries of the decade
Great Modern Inventions that Changed the World |  
Newton's Legacy
I try to avoid leaps of faith, but I've made the "hop" of faith in trusting scientists over conspiracy theorists. I must concede that the lizard people could be running things. I think most rational people trust the scientific evidence over David Eckes and the others you've cited to back up your skepticism. Nothing is certain, not even that. But I tend to trust the integrity of scientists, some of whom I know, over anonymous individuals whom I encounter in internet forums--such as you. I evaluate your credibility on the basis of your posts. For all I know, you might biased, on the take, a shill for the fossil fuel industry, nuts, or a space cadet who's taken one trip too many. So could I, except for the fossil fuel industry connection. Forum participants can use their own judgement to decide which is more likely.

 

For the record, I don’t purely only believe Climate Change is a Conspiracy. In my twenties, I gobbled up the narrative about environmentalism and Climate Change, formerly known as Global Warming. It’s just that as time has gone on, a new emphasis has taken hold. Perhaps there is Truth to the climate changing but maybe the source of the change is still not exactly certain. Perhaps indeed also the narrative has been hijacked and propagandized into a narrative of fear-mongering for other purposes. I suspect the real Truth could be a little bit of both. The climate could be changing, but it always has, and maybe it’s not necessary to go into collective panic about it because CNN says you should.

Cold Fusion could play a role in this because of how egregiously attacked it was from the very beginning. What you call valid criticism I see as something else, like an aggressive stifling of an ACTUAL solution. It’s not just Capitalists who wouldn’t want a cheap and efficient form of infinite energy. There’s plenty of political and scientific reasons to suppress this as well. It is very similar with Tesla’s Free Energy.

Regarding Psi, that is also relatable to Tesla. Why did the Government seize his papers from his hotel room right after he died? Why did the Government (DIA) hire Dean Radin to conduct Project Stargate if it’s all “rubbish”?

It could be that the deeper layers of top-secret Government and Military research don’t want the general populace to know about any potential Truths to Psi, Cold Fusion, or Free Energy. There are plenty of cross-layers between Science and the Military.

 

If you put it that way, we agree. Except I give more stock to the climate scientists. Science is always tentative, but so far, I think it's served us well.

Cold fusion would be so cool! Whether we don't have it because of a conspiracy against it or because it simply isn't feasible, remains to be seen.

The DIA was very interested in the possibility of Psi, because the Russians were and we needed to keep up. No evidnce that either was on the right track.

 

Fair enough response

 

Psi wasnt particularly taken seriously until around the 1830s. Prior to that was an age of reason-enlightenment. Began then a spiritual concept. Sadly at sametine was the westward expansion. So what happened was some of the essences of psi collapsed in on themselves. Meaning that expansionism overtook any decency spirit may have commenced. Prior to reasnlitment was the church. So ya see we sorta buried ourselves alive.

 

Sorry I just got out of work. And here is Radin’s response to your commentary, which I was already aware of, and which I already posted the link of Radin’s response in the very same post as the original Radin video.

Here it is…again.

https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/9csgu/

“To date, 11 of 28 conceptual replications of this experiment, reported by four independent teams, have reported statistically significant outcomes (p< 0.05, two-tail), where only one would be expected by chance. Given the implications of psychophysical effects on our understanding of the role of consciousness in the physical world, we encourage others to attempt to replicate this experiment.”

 

Be your own jury & make a tiny attempt to cloudbust. Or make a streetlamp go on or off. Or perhaps participate in a native psi ceremony or a sweatlodge. Have your palms read. Or get an astrological reading. Or participate in a drumcircle. Or go on a visionquest or walkabout. Or observe some celestial body redshifts. However it is true that some humans actually do without knowing it or too proud to admit. Actually utilize a form of psi to block their own perceptions. This psi blocking is actually is actually easier to do than normal psi. But not recommended. & there are other forms of negative psi. But conscious use of this attracts lizzies & repels etherics. A problem with psi block is it can also block potential good psi learners.

 

Even if there is 100% agreement, peer-review is not some ultimate arbiter of Truth to begin with. All it takes is one person who can potentially pull the rug out from underneath an entire established Paradigm, as Kuhn points out well in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. Science is never “final”, and that includes for Climate Change, Cold Fusion, Psi, and every other subject in Science, including Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.

However, I rely on empiricism that I can verify for myself. You keep relying on what Nature magazine and CNN have to say. That’s one of the big differences between me and you.

And the Psi Tests have been replicated for the record, and Radin encourages others to do their own experiments. It just so happens that I have.