Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


Veteran Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ghostwheel

  • Rank
    Veteran Member


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
  • Astrology Sign
  • Brain Dominance


  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

12,825 profile views
  1. I agree with the assignment of ESTP.
  2. Thanks for your explanation. I really, really hope you are spot on correct about this.

  3. Thanks for putting in the time to share your knowledge on such a difficult and esoteric subject.

  4. This brings back some memories. Years ago, I read books about all three men: Rife, Naessons and Becker. I still have the books on my shelves even today. Becker's work struck me as totally legitimate. The other two, I've always wondered about.
  5. You haven't delved into it enough. We can know—that's why they're always drilling for ice cores in Antarctica. There are myriad documentaries on just this point exactly, all at your fingertips on YouTube, or elsewhere in print on the net. This is called "global dimming." It is known by climate scientists. You can watch a NOVA documentary about it on YouTube, if you care to. Essentially, global dimming creates a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. The more pollution there is in the air, the more it cools the planet by reflecting heat back into space. However ... the cooling effect of global dimming only lasts a few months, at most. Sulfates fall out of the atmosphere fairly quickly, all things considered. New pollution, therefore, is continually required to maintain a cooling effect. So if we stop burning carbon to try to stop the warming, once the sulfates fall out of the sky, things actually get even warmer. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, on the other hand (unlike sulfates) will have a warming effect for a thousand years. The heating effects of CO2 are, hands down, more powerful than the global dimming effects of air pollution. Even now, with average global temperatures reaching continually new highs, C02 has the stronger effect. You have a small sampling of information about this topic, from which you've drawn incorrect conclusions. But the good news is that there are plenty of excellent sources, all easy to find, that can complete your picture.
  6. How do you define an "elite"? I don't tend to think as elitism as a problem, per se, but rather greed and selfishness. If you convince me the elite (as you define them) are greedier or more selfish than non-elites, I'll likely jump aboard. People who accuse, say, Suzuki of being a hypocrite for flying in an airplane ... I have no time or sympathy for. You'll hear the same critique of Gore, which I think is equally bullshit. However, your example of NAFTA is of a different "type". When politicians and business leaders (elites?) support policies in conflict (let's not use the word contadiction - too absolutist) with goals such as climate stabilisation, you are right to call them out. BTW, I was saddened but not surprised that BC didn't raise their carbon tax last week. A missed opportunity, I believe.

  7. That is why I tried to address possible motivators for denialism here. I am in sympathy with mistrust of elites, but from this mistrust, denialists draw absurd conclusions.

  8. Yes, probably so. Still, RC has responded positively to some past posts of mine, so I thought there might be hope.

  9. Great work, though I think at points you might be waxing a bit too technical for our resident denialists to fully comprehend. Still, I am at a loss myself as to how to get through to them.

  10. I should know better, but he's new here, I thought I'd give it a try.

  11. Denialist obfuscations like the above have been around for several decades now. They've been repeatedly addressed: Source: Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions. Other sources abound. Mr. Corbyn needs to read what I've written in down in post #36 above.
  12. I'm not unconscious of the fact that the liberal elite that sounds the climate alarm is itself rife with hypocrisy and delusion. Scribbler is not exempt from this, but he presents the basic science well.

  13. I will look into him just because it's you who recommended. Truth!

  14. Oh, good grief! Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter. CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean? July was the Hottest Month Ever Recorded; 2016 Set to Make 1998 Look Cold by Comparison. Please... You can understand this if you put a little bit of diligence into learning the basic science and proceeding from there. Why not browse around a bit on Robert Scribbler's global warming site, just for a starter? I should add that Scribbler has a number of political and policy delusions that I'm mercifully undeceived by, but I don't imagine that you would be seduced by them yourself. On the other hand, for putting basic climate science into comprehensible terms he's fantastic.
  15. At its most basic, global warming boils down to physical chemistry. Certain gaseous molecules trap heat in certain ways. It's called the "greenhouse effect" and it's been basic science since the 19th century. On the issue of denialism and elite behavior, though, things are bit more complicated. In fact, I'm half sympathetic to this aspect of the denialist argument. It has an emotional pull to it that those of us who have deprogrammed ourselves from establishment groupthink are bound to feel, more or less. The argument is not logically sound, but it is sophisticated enough to merit discussion. Essentially, there's a contingent of denialists that have a profound distrust of our ruling elites (as well they should), and point out self-serving and hypocritical behavior on their part in relation to the issue of anthropogenic global warming. For example, elites proposing carbon tax schemes that enable investment banks to skim off billions. Another example would be elites whose actions are hypocritical such that their protestations on AGW would seem to be contradicted by their actions. On that last part, take Al Gore. He was in favor of NAFTA. Just one of the things NAFTA did was to enrich giant, subsidized, mechanized, American petroleum-based corporate agriculture while displacing millions of Mexican small farmers. Obviously, if you believe in AGW and truly understand its implications, then you want less subsidized, mechanized, petroleum-based everything, and more locally-based self-sufficient communities. Keep the millions of small Mexican peasant farmers doing their thing, they have a much smaller ecological footprint. As the denialist argument goes, 1) the carbon tax proposals which seem designed to enrich corrupt investment banks indicate that AGW is simply a hoax the elite are using to enrich themselves at everybody else's expense, and 2) the hypocrisy of Al Gore and other elites indicates that they are just lying about AGW; it's all a scam. Well, no. The science of AGW as presented in the peer-reviewed journals is a thing in itself, independent of any policy recommendations made in response to it. So elites like Goldman Sachs may try to turn the crisis of AGW to their advantage (of course they would), but that doesn't mean AGW itself is a hoax (it isn't). Elites like Al Gore may be so enamored of the rewards that the establishment offers that their thinking on the issue of AGW becomes contradictory. But the fact that elite thinking is subject to error, confusion, blind self-interest and Orwellian double-think has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. If Glodman Sachs tries to utilize the crisis of AGW to rake in more tens of billions, that's a blight on them, not on the science. And if Al Gore is too enamored of being an establishment superstar—with all the attendant rewards—such that his thinking on economic policy is incompatible with effectively reducing carbon emissions, that hypocrisy is his own personal psychological and cognitive failure. It has nothing to do with the science. I understand myself how self-serving and hypocritical our ruling elites are, so I'm uncommonly sympathetic to others who are in the same cognitive space. But it is a logical error to start with the premise "elite behavior on AGW is self-serving and hypocritical" and from that conclude "AGW itself is therefore a hoax."