A critical eye on Peter Zeihan

From time to time I have shared videos from geopolitical analyst Peter Zeihan because he's right about a lot of stuff.  But I'm no zombie.  Unlike a mindless horde of woke leftists, I like to validate my beliefs and part of that comes from applying a critical eye towards what I believe in.  Question your beliefs.  Yaron Brook, whom I also like, spent a long form monologue critiquing Zeihan's analyses.  While he also appreciates Zeihan's assessments, he also raises some valid points about where he believes Zeihan was not correct, or not completely correct.

As I said, the critical eye towards your own accepted views is one of the best tools a person has to check if he or she is on the right path. That's what critical thinking is all about.

What if global warming met critical thinking?

It is apparently turning into a "What If" kind of day here at Nonsensible Shoes.

When someone tells you the debate is over you should see a red flag.  If they have then winning argument, and they know it, they would be open to debate you any time anywhere because they know they will win the debate, and prove that your counter arguments are weak and will fail.  When someone tells you the time for debate is over it is because they don't want to debate because they either do not have the inclination to bother debating you (which sounds an awful lot like fascism; do it my way or else!) or they cannot win and do not want to be found out.

But the global warming crowd insists the debate is over.  They insist 'scientists' all agree.   How do you you know the debate is over?  Where you there?  Did you see the final global warming debate on CNN and the rest of us missed it? No.  Do you know with certitude that all scientists (or even most) agree?  Have you seen a list of scientists around the world, their relevant credentials and their 'vote' on the validity of anthropomorphic global warming? No. 

So why are you assuming that the liberal media are being honest? Are you that naive?  To accept everything that the media, including the news media and Hollywood, tells you is truth is naive at best and self-defeating at worst. You set yourself up for a life in an Orwellian dystopia with such an attitude.  You serve yourself better by questioning everything.  Of course that means with a critical thinking skepticism.  Obviously there is truth in every person, including the media.  But there are also lies in every person and there is also bias in every person.  Bias is universal. And so too it seems, is confirmation bias, which the media counts on their repetition of the global warming mantra for sustaining public belief.  That's what is keeping you from rational thought on global warming.

Let me pose a few what-ifs for you.

What if you asked a sports announcer who was going to win the next Superbowl, and the guy you asked just got 8 of 14 games right in last weeks regular season game predicitions.  He's 57% accurate about the immediate future and you are asking him to predict much farther into the future. So why is it that people who cannot get the weather correct more than say 3-5 days into the future have such supposed certitude of what weather is going to be like in 100 years?

What if you knew that the earth has been through stages of global Ice Ages and near-global tropical conditions for millions of years, that predate humans and that such enormous changes are cyclical and on a scale that far exceeds human capacity to impact our earth?  What if you knew our average global temperature are at or near multi-epochal lows? Go ahead, look it up.   You'll be surprised by some of what you find. 

What if you questioned the 'conventional wisdom' of global warming?  What if you did research into both points of view to find the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments? If you were right, you'd be better equipped to argue with both global warming skeptics like myself (how do you think I ended up here?).  And if you were wrong, what then? Would you have to stop hanging out with your friends?  Would life be over? Or would you be forced to question everything you thought you believed? Or maybe just some of it? There's no harm in engaging in the exercise of real research - unless you are just afraid of what you might find.

Saturday Spotlight - Critical Thinking

To think critically, you have to be able to question what you see.  That's exactly the opposite of how progressive liberals want you to think.  They want you to accept that they are the enlightened critical thinkers and therefore simply agree with them.  That sort of approach is a recipe for failure not only for the nation, but for the progressive movement.  That movement will continue to whittle down individual thought and critical analysis until there are no new ideas anymore.  That spells doom. I will not be shedding a tear.

Chemtrails: There's a sucker born every minute.

In fact, it has to be at least twenty suckers per minute based on how many people fall for stupid stuff.  In the past these people were sold snake oil, nowadays, it's things like global warming and government conspiracies that they're being sold.  The latest one I've just become aware exists is the chemtrails conspiracy.  Forget the reasons for the different snake oils we receive on a constant basis - it's either for money or for misdirection - the real fight is to get people educated to the point where they are questioned what they are told. 

Privatizing Water

The campaign against bottled water, brought to you by the eco-fascist green folks of Al Gore's ilk, continues unabated. This morning on the subway I saw one of those backpacks that students wear, where it is festooned with buttons. I see these all the time. If you live or commute near an institute of higher learning you probably do too. The typical stuff was on display, education is a right, drop fees - end poverty, unlearn sexism. All are standard fare for the backpack. But so is the green agenda - sustainability, climate change and "unbottle it - keep water public". 

I'm not sure these students are fully aware of the consequences of their positions. Some perhaps are, but others just absorb what the environment provides. But the campaign to keep water public, based on the idea that plastic bottles are a danger to the earth misses the mark on so many levels.