Eric attempts to be truthfully insightful – without being boring!

This post is about 2,800 words in length, and takes about 16-20 minutes to read.

Punditry Can Be Dull

In recent discussions with friends and colleagues about an effective method of communicating the nature of fundamental truths in blogs and books, one of the suggestions that arose was to provide commentary and contextualization on current events (news that is-although I am not fond of that term as it’s very vague). While I have done a little of this in my posts regarding Donald Trump and Friends, I’ve felt somewhat torn about spending an enormous amount of time on being simply a different form of news pundit. Plus it seemed a little boring. So, in order to run with this idea while keeping the effort useful and interesting, I’ve decided to mesh some Coherence Verifications, with Truth based explanations and some basic logic, in order to accomplish some contextualization that is less about people’s positions, and more about the energetic and informational quality of those positions.

OK, that sounds really boring when I put it that way. Hmmm… How about I just show you instead of talking about it. Here we go.

Climate change quarrels

Let’s start with an easy one, climate change. That’s a joke by the way. Anyway, on March 9, 2017, the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency in the US, Scott Pruitt, told CNBC,

“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see…”

Now, there’s a lot packed into that quote, so let’s break it down to make certain we give Mr. Pruitt a fair shake.

“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do…”

OK, most people would agree with those words, and they appear to be reasonable. Climate change is affected by many factors, and it would seem that precision measurement of human contributions would be difficult, if not impossible. Wait a second though, something seems amiss. What’s that bit about, “…measuring with precision…”? He is saying that precision measurement of the human contribution to climate change is a prerequisite to his agreement about the impact. That seems somewhat restrictive, and vague at the same time.

He’s also saying that he “thinks” the measuring is very challenging, but his thinking is an irrelevant issue because he leads a science based organization that is designed to rely upon confirmed data. In other words, his thinking isn’t up for examination, facts are. It’s the Environmental Protection Agency, not Pruitt’s Opinion Team (although POT would be a hilarious acronym). His opinion or thoughts on the subject aren’t at issue here, the survival of humanity is. These two highly subjective and questionable issues, his opinion and total precision, make me wonder if something else is going on in his mind, and that’s when we break out the Coherence Verification (CV). Cue musical flourish!

Newbie Note: If you have not yet read the Trump and Friends Part 1 post yet, the numbers and methods below won’t make much sense, so you might want to do that now. If you are short on time, ignore the numbers for now and just pay attention to the descriptions of consciousness levels I am providing.

Targeted Verification Set 1

CV 1. “Scott Pruitt accepts that human activity can have an impact on global climate.” Result: Not yes.

CV 2. “Scott Pruitt rejects that human activity can have an impact on global climate, for a particular reason (versus multiple reasons) in his mind.” Result: Yes.

CV 3. “Human activity can have an impact on global climate.” Result: Yes.

CV 4. “Currently, human activity is contributing to the warming of the earth.” Result: Yes. (Admittedly, this is a development that only fully began about 10 years ago.)

CV 5. “The particular reason Scott Pruitt rejects human activity can have an impact on global climate, is on some scientific grounds.” Result: Not yes.

CV 6. “The particular reason Scott Pruitt rejects human activity can have an impact on global climate, is that he stands to monetarily gain from that rejection.” Result: Yes.

CV 7. “Scott Pruitt intends to monetarily benefit from his existing relationships with fossil fuel producers by rejecting the possibility of human contribution to climate increases via carbon dioxide emissions from the use of fossil fuels.” Result: Yes.

CV 8. The LOC (level of consciousness, per David Hawkins' map, of Scott Pruitt’s thoughts and energy regarding climate change is 56, and the EQL is 177. This indicates complete irrationality, mindless and reckless behavior (akin to drunk driving), and devaluing humans so much that he is willing to sell out his own children and grandchildren for money. In other words, he has no concern for others, even his own offspring, as long as he gets what he wants now, or in the near future.

And, there it is.

Just to be clear, the methodology of his disingenuousness is to put his judgment at such a high level of importance, that it supersedes hundreds of devoted scientific experts in the climate analysis field, and he then creates an unattainable bar to vault above for the changing of his thoughts. Specifically, that there must be precise measurement of human contribution to climate change in order for him to change his mind. This leaves the door open for endless years of illogical dissent to research, baseless claims of uncertainty, and redundant research that will also be refuted because of its lack of a ‘smoking gun’ in climate change causation.

During the meanwhile, Pruitt will be getting paid in one form or another by his friends in the oil business. Golly, that’s a sweet deal if you have no moral structure or care for the rest of humanity. Cool for him, hot for the rest of us!

Sorry, I slipped into snarky mode. Let’s return to Pruitt’s statements to see what else we might glean about his thought process that will ‘guide’ the EPA.

”…there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact [of human activity on global climate]…”

I’d like to be super duper clear about this part of Pruitt’s statement. It’s falsifiable in about a minute of Google searching. Go ahead. Check it out for yourself. However, because of the terminology he uses in that part of his statement, he can always claim his statement is true. The words, “tremendous disagreement” effectively mean very little. When people use words that are vague, unscientific, and hyperbolic, it will always allow them to retroactively defend the position they took because they can later define a different meaning of the words they used. You are seeing this trickery quite bit of late.

To defend his position now, all he needs are a handful of vociferous critics of the preponderance of scientific data, and he can claim there’s, “tremendous disagreement.” Handy, yes? Never mind who employs those vociferous folks. Never mind that they are only about 3% of scientists weighing in on the issue. Never mind those noisy few are using analysis methods that may be questionable. As long as Pruitt has, “tremendous disagreement,” whatever that means, he’s in the clear.

Now, let’s check in with Pruitt’s energetic/informational reality, to define what’s actually behind his tremendousness.

Targeted Verification Set 2

CV 9. “Scott Pruitt believes there is “tremendous disagreement” about the degree of impact of human activity on global climate change.” Result: Not yes.

CV 10. “Scott Pruitt thinks there is “tremendous disagreement” about the degree of impact of human activity on global climate change.” Result: Not yes.

CV 11. “Scott Pruitt feels there is “tremendous disagreement” about the degree of impact of human activity on global climate change.” Result: Not yes.

CV 12. “Scott Pruitt accepts there is “tremendous disagreement” about the degree of impact of human activity on global climate change.” Result: Not yes.

CV 13. “Scott Pruitt consciously lied about there being “tremendous disagreement” about the degree of impact of human activity on global climate change.” Result: Yes.

So, we can now see that Pruitt just straight up lied. Well, that clears things up a little. Let’s look at the final portion of this jam packed Pruitt statement.

”…so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see…”

Are you starting to see how slippery this statement is in part, and on the whole? Pruitt sneaks in one word that makes all the difference here at the end of his answer, and again, allows him an escape hatch in the future when he gets called on his dissembling. Do you see it now? Nice work, it is the word, “primary.” Never discount the adjectives, they matter.

You see, by saying that he doesn’t agree that human activity is a “primary contributor,” he’s able to eventually say that he was right that it isn’t a primary contributor because it’s unlikely that scientists will ever be able to point out one primary contribution to global warming. There are just too many variables. Additionally, no legitimate scientist is going to ever strictly identify human activity as the primary contributor to climate change because of the host of variables, and the fact that all of nature is a complete system. One event effects the next, which effects the next, and so on.

This is another case of setting the scientific confirmation bar so high, that it exceeds the limits of basic logic. Granted, there could be some hypothetical time in the post-apocalyptic future where human pollution becomes such a grotesque mess that scientists could blame global warming on humans, but Pruitt would likely be long dead by then, so what does he care?

Let’s do one last round of verifications on this, “primary contributor” issue to wrap up the analysis.

Targeted Verification Set 3

CV 13. “Scott Pruitt is consciously aware that it’s unlikely there will ever be sufficient scientific evidence in the near future to point to human activity as a “primary contributor” to global warming.” Result: Yes.

CV 14. “Scott Pruitt currently intends to ever accept evidence of global warming.” Result: Not yes.

CV 15. “Scott Pruitt is interested in environmental protection.” Result: Not yes.

CV 16. “Scott Pruitt accepts mutually confirmed scientific evidence of any sort.” Result: Not yes.

CV 17. “Scott Pruitt will consider his time as head of the EPA successful if he eliminates its ability to constrict businesses.” Result: Not yes.

CV 18. “Scott Pruitt will consider his time as head of the EPA successful if he dismantles and eliminates the EPA entirely.” Result: Yes.

Well, I suppose that sums it up. Pruitt is entirely sidelining truthfulness in this conversation he is having with CNBC because he has no acceptance of basic science, he intends to make money as the head of the EPA (or shortly thereafter) through being paid by fossil fuel companies, is trying to make it impossible for there to be sane discussions about the health of the environment, and really just wants to destroy the EPA. I guess you can give him a high grade for misinformation and self-enrichment. That’s something, right?

Should you care?

I return now to my concern about being a pundit. I’ve put all this effort into writing this for you, but what if you don’t care? What if I’ve just inadvertently added to the noise out there, and honestly, you’re just done with all the negativity and confusion, so you just ignore my crafty little combination of logic and consciousness assessment? Even worse, what if this detailed analysis of one of the key individuals in the US Federal Government is so grim, that it just kind of spawns a desire in a bunch of people to crawl into a cave and hide from all the badness? Seriously, I’m concerned about you and how this impacts you.

I’d like to say I have a specified solution to the destructive capabilities of the Scott Pruitts and Donald Trumps of the world so that you could emerge from the cave you were cowering in, and step out into a brighter day. And here’s where I tell you what I’d rather not tell you.

I don’t have an immediate solution for their choices and actions.

Sure, you can march in the streets with signs saying Pruitt is the antichrist or some such invective. Yes, you could start an organization against POT (that’s the Pruitt Opinion Team I mentioned earlier). You could also just yell and curse at the television news broadcast like many I know. The problem is, none of those activities actually accomplish anything. They may help people feel good for a time, and I really don’t have anything against protest, but nothing actually proactive and transformative arises from being against things and people. We’ve done a lot of that in human history, and baby step moments of progress can emerge from those efforts, but not much else. Maybe the answer is to be promoting something, rather than fighting against negative situations? Maybe you can be concerned, AND be transformative…

Truthfulness is a Remedy

You have available to you, right this second, a supremely powerful tool for personal, social, and political transformation, that will also carefully and thoroughly eradicate the kind of deception you have seen above. You have the ability to be radically truthful with yourself, and then with others. This engenders clarity in yourself, and raises the truthfulness and reasonableness of those you encounter. I’m not just talking about being basically honest here, as I suspect you are already doing that. I’m talking about some occasionally uncomfortable, always cleansing and enlightening, pervasive truthfulness.

It’s time to stop the Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Mother Goose, “Now I lay me down to sleep…,” girls can’t do science and boys are better at math bull pucky humans propagate in order to deceive kids. Tell them life is about the fact they are perfect and have equal value to all others. Tell them about the value of truthfulness, sharing, and connection in all situations. You can do that today.

It’s time to stop saying, “I love you,” when we really mean, “I’m trying like hell to like myself enough to quit insulting and attacking myself about every thirty seconds. I’ll work on loving you the best I can in the meantime.” You can do that today.

It’s time to stop saying, “I feel fine,” when what we really mean is, “I’m in the middle of an existential crisis, I’m scared to death, and I don’t know what to do. Can I have a hug?” You can do that today.

It’s time to stop acting like an opinion is a fact or a truth. It’s not, even when it’s reasoned. You can do that today.

It’s time to stop treating belief systems (whether religious, political, or personal) that diminish anyone, or marginalize anyone, or damn anyone, or hurt anyone, as anything other than a throwback to an ignorant, tribe-centric form of fear based hatred. You can do that today.

It’s time to stop imagining your thoughts and choice are better than, or supersede mine, and the fittest will eat the weakest, and that’s just nature, so effing live with it. The truth is that nature is cooperative, everyone is one part of one ecosystem, and Darwin was sorely mistaken (his EQL was 406 and he believed that all humans were inherently bad, sinful things that deserved destruction, so of course most of what he saw was destruction and death in his ‘analysis’ of nature). You can do that today.

It’s time to stop, at the very least, overt lying. You can do that today.

It’s time to follow through with becoming the positive traits you have promised yourself you’d live by, and give complete truthfulness a try. It’ll be shocking to some, hard to adapt to on certain days, and seem scary initially. However, I can absolutely certify that it will scare the Scott Pruitts of the world back into their dark, dank psychological caves if enough of us do it consistently. We can all do that today.

Nothing cleanses and redeems like the truth. Nothing clarifies like the truth. Nothing transforms like the truth.

It is when we allow the little lies in, that the disease begins to grow. It is when we accept that lying in ‘marketing’ is normal, that the disease spreads. It is when we give up the demand for truth in our leaders, that the disease metastasizes. It is when we are so afraid that others will learn of our own habits of dissembling, that we become inured to the pangs of severe human pain that ring out when we avoid the truth repeatedly. It is then, that disease becomes a “primary contributor” to the termination of human advancement.

Just ask Scott Pruitt.

Keep being inceptional my friends!