Global Warming Series: Part I - Vested Interests

The most serious threat compromising the future habitability of the planet is the long-term consequences of Global Warming. Climate models predict that a continued increase of global temperatures will irrevocably jeopardize the integrity of our life-supporting biosphere, leading to a vast spectrum of environmentally destabilizing effects; including heat-waves, rising sea-levels, frequent hurricanes, declining global food stocks and a loss of ecosystems and biodiversity. A recent report from the IPCC, a gathering of the world’s leading experts on the subject, concluded with 95 percent certainty, that human activity – primarily the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation – is the dominant cause of the current trend.[i] Furthermore, an analysis of 11,944 peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1991 and 2011 was recently conducted; showing 98.4 percent of the studies also endorsed the position that the rise in global average temperatures over the past century is almost entirely human-induced.[ii] If these estimations are correct, a social imperative arises, requiring a deep reflection of our current socio-economic practices and whether they are suitable for our continued survival on this planet. 

While the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been settled within the scientific literature, opinion is strongly divided within the political arena and amongst the general public at large, unfortunately with increasing skepticism. For example a 2007 Harris poll found that 71 percent of Americans accepted the science behind man-made climate change, but by June 2011 it had declined to just 44 percent with identicial patterns showing up in the U.K. and Australia. Scott Keeter, director of survey research at the Pew Research Centre for people, described the statistics in the United States as 

"amongst the largest shifts over a period of time seen in recent public opinion history"[iii]

Simultaneously, there has also been a predictable backlash amongst the politically conservative, with many claiming that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, masterfully concocted by the U.N., environmentalist extremists and ‘Marxist economists’ to mislead the public with fraudulent data and fear-mongering. The sole purpose being to reinvent themselves as the saviors of the planet as a façade for implementing a ‘One World Government Tyranny.’ A prominent target is former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who introduced Global Warming to a wider audience with his award winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Conservative pundits argue that Gore benefits from promoting the theory of anthropogenic global warming, even going as far to claim that he is the world’s first ‘carbon billionaire,’ from directly profiteering off of the climate and energy policies he urges the governments to adopt.[iv] This also includes the fact that he partly owns ‘Generation Investment Management,’ the company he advocates people purchase carbon credits from in an attempt to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations. However, if we are to be impartial with an examination of global warming in any real sense, it must also be acknowledged that the vested interest argument could easily be applicable to both sides of the ideological spectrum. A cursory glance at history will reveal a plethora of examples of how corporate interests have funded front-groups and public relation campaigns that purposefully attempt to distort and misrepresent the scientific consensus to the public, in order to maintain maximizing profits regardless of the environmental or social cost. A classic example being the Tobacco Industry which was found guilty under the RICO statute because it...

“knew the dangers of smoking as early as 1953 and conspired to suppress this knowledge. They conspired to fight the facts, and to merchandise doubt”[v]

In relation to global warming, there are many entrenched interests who benefit from the both current economic system and energy infrastructure, who would stand to lose a lot of money and political power if action were taken to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere. For example a 2013 study by Riley Dunlap and political scientist Peter Jacques found that 72% of books that challenge the scientific consensus on global warming were linked to conservative think-tanks.[vi] Furthermore, a February 2013 report in the Guardian revealed that between 2002 and 2010, a network of anonymous U.S. Billionaires had donated nearly $120 million to groups casting doubt about the science behind climate-change.[vii] Hence, anyone trying to get an understanding of Global Warming merely by invoking the 'who benefits' argument is largely futile. While I do agree that the profit-motive is worth taking into consideration when attempting to identify any potential conflict of interests in a study, it shouldn't be dismissed merely on that basis -- for profit isn't the only bias.  Subsequently, the funding of a particular scientific study doesn't provide us with enough information on whether or not a certain claim has any actual credibility. If Anthropogenic Global Warming is indeed a left-wing scam, then the arguments for it should be transparently false regardless of funding and very easy to dismantle, right?  In this series, I will be examining global warming skeptic claims and seeing whether or not they stand up to scrutiny. It is my hope that those who are doubtful will be open to changing their opinion when confronted with a communication of the science absent of political rhetoric. In the words of Mark Lynas...

“If we reject data-driven empiricism and evidence as the basis for identifying and solving problems, we have nothing left but vacuous ideology and self-referential myth-making.” [viii]

[i] IPCC Report: UN Scientists 95% Sure Humans To Blame For Climate Change

[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/27/global-warming-humans_n_4000525.html]

[ii] Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature 

[http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article]

[iii] Klien, N (2014) This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs The Climate, (Canada, Alfred A. Knopf) pp. 30

[iv]Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire 

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html] 

[v] Oreskes, N and Conway, E (2010) Merchants Of Doubt: How A Handful Of Scientists Obscured The Truth On Issues From Tobacco Smoke To Global Warming, New York USA: Bloomsbury Press pp. 33 

[vi] Klien, N (2014) This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs The Climate, (Canada, Alfred A. Knopf) pp. 33

[vii] Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks 

[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network]

[viii] Time To Call Out The Anti-GMO Conspiracy Theory 

[http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/]

New Horizons

David Humes View On Miracles

Believers and sceptics’ alike need a form of criteria in order declare something a miracle. According to Hume a ‘miracle’ is an anomalous event caused “by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.” Hume also proposes that if such an event were to occur, it would have an apparent interference in the ‘laws of nature’ which he described as being “established by firm and unalterable experience.” For example, the law of gravitation or irreversible biological decay which is based upon empirical observation. In a religious context miracles are related to beliefs of ‘divine intervention’ as denoted in biblical scriptures such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Conversely, this appears to have a potential conflict with the modern scientific viewpoint, as such beliefs make claims about the natural world on the basis of religious authority and personal experience, rather than any discernible evidence. Thus naturalistic scientists indicate that belief in miraculous events are untenable and even erroneous. The following will assess the possibility of miracles through David Hume who provided strong objections in his famous essay ‘Of Miracles’

The term ‘miracle’ is used commonly to refer to fortuitous events such as recovering from a terminal illness, prevailing against the odds in a contest or even coincidental happenings. While it can’t be denied that various events like this occur, it could also be argued that some believers are exceedingly ample in what they classify as divine intervention. Hume strongly dismissed ostensible claims such as the examples mentioned above and summed this up by stating “Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it has ever happened in the common course of nature” indicating that although these occurrences are remarkable and statistically unlikely, they are banal instances, unworthy of being categorized as a proper miracle as they do not violate a law of nature.

He presents three key arguments to support his reasons for being against the credibility of miracles. The first is ‘The Balance Of Evidence Argument’ where Hume establishes that a miracle is an event that does not comply with our patterns of ‘uniform experience.’ He concludes that “the wise man always proportions his belief to the evidence” and that the law of nature is authentic. Hence, according to Hume it is more rational to perpetuate a belief in the established law, therefore inexorably invalidating any singular experience testimony that a miracle has occurred, as it goes against repeated observational evidence based on past experience. While this may seem like a convincing argument, there are glaring issues with the proposition that a singular experience testimony is always inferior to repeated observational evidence. For example, the scientific method is unique in that everything it holds to be true is also inherently falsifiable and therefore suggests the possibility that a long-held scientific theory could be proven wrong eventually. Hume’s argument is problematic in regards to this scientific inference, where scientists may be shown evidence that conflicts with a given theory. Therefore, if we followed this argument, scientists would have to reject singular experiences which don’t adhere to past uniform experience.

Following from this critique of the ‘Balance of Evidence’ Hume also proposed a more appropriate argument called ‘The Wrong Laws Argument.’ While still aiming to establish that we are never rationally obligated to believe that certain events are miraculous, he makes adjustments to the questionable premise that was proposed in the first argument. Hume argues that if we are confronted with an event that seemingly violates an established law of nature; instead of jumping to the conclusion that a law of nature has been violated, he encourages us to accept that perhaps we were mistaken and have not correctly understood the relevant laws of nature. Hume argues that although our sensory experience is the only method by which we can rationalize and understand the world around us, that does not mean that it is exempt from error. People with religious dispositions are more likely to jump to the conclusion that an event was a miracle. Concurrently, if we combine this with our limited knowledge about how the universe actually functions, it seems more rational to conclude that we were incorrect in our beliefs. Human understanding is emergent and following historical precedence, events that were assumed to be of a supernatural nature, were later shown to have naturalistic causes. Hume states, "It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous events, that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous ancestors; or if civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from these barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority, which always attend perceived opinions." Despite this, it could also be argued that if an event violates a law of nature, and is never firmly established to be caused by known law of nature regardless of thorough scientific analysis; then this would be sufficient evidence to acknowledge that a miraculous event has occurred.

A third argument that Hume proposes is ‘The Purely Anomalous Event Argument.’ This argument takes into consideration that an event could violate a law of nature and thus be considered anomalous. However it does not necessarily have to be the result of a supernatural divine intervention; a prerequisite for an event to be considered a miracle. This could be seen as quite a contentious claim to assume that an anamolous event doesn’t have a supernatural cause, however philosophers and scientists often appeal to ‘Occoms Razor’ under such circumstances, which is the principle that asserts that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. Therefore the simplest of two separate competing theories is favoured over the more complicated one. In this case it is preferred to hypothesize that the anomalous event was uncaused, rather than speculating about unknown supernatural phenomena.

Despite its iconoclastic conclusion the principle argument Hume puts forward is “That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony to be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact, which it endeavours to establish.” His overall philosophy is that, if we accept miracles and laws as they are defined above, then there lacks any significant evidence in the possibility of miracles and they are impossible. There may be various criticism in Hume’s evaluation of miracles, such as defining a miracle as an ‘exception,’ or excessively restricting the appropriate evidence that a miracle has occurred, in regards to ‘The Purely Anomalous Event Argument.’ He even goes so far as to downgrade a believers subjective experience of a miracle. To combat this, theists instead attempt to sidestep these arguments against the possibility of miracles by changing the definition to something more appropriate, claiming that it is “An event (ultimately) caused by God that cannot be accounted for by the natural powers of natural substances alone.” This is how early theistic philosophers such as Gottfried Leibniz and Thomas Aquinas defined a miracle. Described in this way, anomalous events then become more plausible as they do not violate a law of nature, as defined by Hume and therefore his whole argument collapses.

In conclusion, upon evaluating Hume’s argument for the possibility of miracles, it seems that he is basing his arguments on scientific inference, which is quite different from talking about miracles in a religious context. However, in his defence he makes some very compelling arguments in regards to primitive civilizations who perceived certain events as miracles, which in modern day society we would perceive as normal. In this context, anomalous events could be described as an ever receding perception of scientific ignorance. This also brings into question, the credibility of miracles in a religious context as regards to biblical scriptures from the Bronze Age which document events where divine intervention has evidently occurred. However, while this may be true, it’s also worth noting that if you take the religious definition of miracle into consideration, then Hume doesn’t necessarily prove that miracles are impossible. In fact such a conclusion would conflict with his own personal firm convictions that “no matter of fact is impossible.” Hume’s, scientific observation provides us with a guideline with disproving miracles from a naturalistic perspective, but outside of that belief in anomalous events appears to be purely based on individual hope and subjective sense of reality.

Bullshitter or Not?

Find more videos like this on VloggerHeads

The Stetz - Masses

1st Music Video I shot, edited & directed...

Talking With DJ Netik & That Bird On Hollyoaks

Us talking with World DMC Champion DJ Netik after the gig
he also came back to my friends house for a mix and a scratch which was pretty mad...

Also..The Chick with the blonde hair is off the UK TV series hollyoaks. dont think she was famous when this was taken, but i remember talking to her and she said she was an actress... then I saw her on TV a few months later and was like "fuck..thats that blitzer from the Netik gig..." lol

The Bad Craic With The Gay Landlord

So to be blunt...my old Landlord was a Pure Asshole.

I had rented the flat for most of the lease, and during that time he had bombarded us with the usual property development type crap that Northern Ireland Housing had now become accustomed to in the past few years. Fairplay I guess, it was HIS property - and in his shoes what better time to do it, while there was a couple of young guys, who were still paying rent and who didnt really have a clue to take complete advantage of. For the most of it...I initially didnt really give a shit, it was a bit of a pain in the ass movin shit about, but aslong as it was done in a day or two who cared right?...it was only when he began to take the piss out of the situation, that it really became an issue. Being a cheap skate and hiring cowboys who would eventually turn round and say...

"well boys....aint gona have any working water for a week?"
"eH...Rite...how'm I meant to take a shower, go to the toilet etc...etc.."
"uck well...we'll leave the tap in the kitchen on sure"
"rite...take a crap in the kitchen sink..gotcha"

Total bullshit really, and that WASNT the worst of it. Near the end of our lease he had basically left the place in such a state that I was hardly really living in it and just began referring to it as 86b Paper Street (the house from fight club) No Carpets, mould and mushrooms growing all over the place, leakage... The Place was a fucking shithole! And I was Paying for it! It pretty much began effecting my mental health, quite often id come home from work, kick shit about, and then dramatically exit to find a couch to sleep on for the night.Eventually we ended up speaking on the phone, and the frustration had built up so much that I told him exactly what I thought about the situation, and that it was bullshit that I had to pay rent for this and that I was contemplating going to environmental health or a Solicitor to find some kind of compensation for my troubles. But all I got in return was a bunch of Legal mumbo jumbo, and indirect blackmails. He'd apparently taken photos of "weed smokin apparatus" and In his own fruity phrase "Its Either my way or the highway..." I didn't really take kindly to this and eventually jus told him to fuck off (literally) and hung up. Anytime he tried phoning I just didnt answer. I kept my head down for the following 2 weeks, just trying to get through it. But shit had to hit the fan sooner or later...

It was the weekend of the Twelfth. I had been staying at my brothers for a few days, mostly because I had been at a party with him and just ended up crashing there for convenience. On The Saturday Morning, I got a lift into the centre Bangor, where my flat was. I decided it would be a good idea to go back and get the essentials...Money, Fresh Clothes, Phone Charger... I walked round near the entrance and low and behold my landlord and his boyfriend were standing there. I rolled my eyes, wondering what amazing conversation we were about to get into...but it was not quite what I expected...

"Have The Police Got To You Yet Philip..."

"Eh...no??"

"Rite!"

He began dialing the police and telling them to get down immediately. I could feel my heart rate dramatically increase as I was obviously wondering what the fuck had happened. I tried asking but my landlord kept on the phone to the police while his gimpy boyfriend stood there looking like a boy who had lost his parents.... Eventually he began talking, but was very vague about what had happened because he was convinced I had something to with it. He told me blood was found at scene... I mean fucksake had someone been stabbed?! He said there was an estimation of £5000 damage (Bullshit) And kept on saying that what had happened was a Prisonable offence and insisted that I was going to jail because I was a joint tennant (Some More Bullshit...) I felt angry and anxious at the same time. The Police soon arrived and took me to the station, I knew I was innocent so I was more than happy to go down and give a statement but its when I got to the station that the real bullshit happened. I didnt really appreciate the way I was treated down there. Firstly I went and got my details taken by this guy name, age etc..etc.. and he then came to the mandatory "have you taken any drugs in the past 24 hours..." but instead he decided to be a total asshole and ask...

"What magic pillz were you taking at this shindig"

I mean what the fuck?!

"Eh...well...I havent taken any drugs...and I wasnt at this shindig..."
"Hmm...well your red eyes lead me to believe different"

Some asshole drinking coffee behind him kinda gave out a sorta amused chuckle. Total bullshit considering I ACTUALLY wasnt on anything, I dont even take drugs. I mean what the fuck do you say in that situation?? Yeah Columbo, You got me...Im completely outta my head...Please write down that I came here, obviously heavily fucked and talked the to the wall...in japanese I was really fucked off with the patronisation and had too bite my tongue aloada times but I got through it and eventually got taken to my cell. Jail is pretty much shit. You get given a wee matress, which isnt even really a matress. Its like one of those mats you get in gyms to do sit ups on, and a matching pillow. You also get a plate of microwaved vegetables. Bon Appetite! So after a flawless examination from the doctor, I got taken to the interrogation room for my statement. I basically explained everything! That I hadnt been in the flat since 8:30am Thursday Morning, that Id stayed at my brothers when all this had happened, that on Friday afternoon we had went to tescos and it was closed so went to Asdas, we bought chicken and broccoli... Everything I had done in the past 2 days. I cleared up lots of things and even gave my own theories. Like if someone Had broken in and done this, forced entry may have not been needed because the latch on the door was fucked. Basically talked non stop for 20 minutes and was hoping by the end of it that I had got across the point that I had nothing to do with it.... but then, the guy on the right who hadnt talked throughout the whole statement decided he was "bad cop" obviously watched too many interrogation films, tryna be like fuckin Jackie Bauer. He comes out with...

"So...what your tryna say is Mr.Blair...is that this was all just a coincidence, that you happened to be there?"

What a stupid cock. I couldnt believe it. I actually COULDNT believe it. SUCH a stupid cliche question to ask. At that point the frustration had just built up once again and in a split second decision I couldnt help but come out with a stupid response to his stupid question

"Well...not that you mention it...I was sorta gettin this real bad...I duno...rash between my legs because Id been wearing the same underwear for 2 days, and at that point...Coincidentally...I decided to go home and get a fresh pair"

They both sorta gave out chuckles but also had a look of bewilderment. I didnt say it in a cheeky way because I didnt think it was a good idea. I more or less acted stupid and said it in a genuine serious way...as if I believed what I was saying was relevant to the investigation... So after that, they pretty much came to the conclusion that I was innocent (aslong as my witnesses checked out) and after that they let me go. So in general it was a bit of a headwreck at the time, but its funny as fuck now.