January 13 2006

RESPONDENT: Hey Richard ... now why don’t you tell us why you really took a 7 week hiatus from this virtual loony bin? In this day & age, computer problems tend to be resolved before 2 lunar cycles.

RICHARD: [... elided ...] I was doing some detailed research so as to gather more background information for another project which may, or may not, be one day be released for publication under the aegis of The Actual Freedom Trust. If nothing else such research makes me better-informed.

RESPONDENT: Don’t be so coy ... spill your guts.

As I am not being coy your peremptory admonition is entirely gratuitous.

You specifically asked me to tell you and your co-respondent (with whom you were speculating about speculative reasons for a speculated moodiness) why I really took a 7 week hiatus from writing to this mailing list, as in this day and age computer problems tend to be resolved before 59.06 days, so I obliged with the relatively detailed explanation above. [now elided]

January 17 2006

RESPONDENT: The clones cannot wait to drop a few more hard earned dollars, yen, euros or gold on your latest get free quick scheme.

RICHARD: As the proposed project, being at such a preliminary stage, might very well never see the light of day (and thus may never be released for publication) your presumptuous assertion is entirely impertinent.

RESPONDENT: It is hardly impertinent ...

RICHARD: The following is what I wrote (as part of my response to your request regarding what I did over the seven weeks I was not writing to this mailing list):

• [Richard]: ‘... suffice is it to say for now that, amongst other things, I was doing some detailed research so as to gather more background information for another project which may, or may not, be one day be released for publication under the aegis of The Actual Freedom Trust. If nothing else such research makes me better-informed’. [endquote].

And here is what I mean by the word ‘presumptuous’ in the context of your [quote] ‘latest get free quick scheme’ [endquote] assertion:

• ‘presumptuous: characterised by presumption [the taking upon oneself of more than one’s position etc. warrants; overconfident opinion or conduct, arrogance] or undue confidence; forward, impertinent’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Now I ask you: where would I go to for information (which if nothing else makes me better-informed) about what you have characterised as a [quote] ‘get free quick scheme’ [endquote] ... namely: how to become actually free from the human condition? Did it not give you pause to think, before reaching for the keyboard, that whatever it was I was researching one thing was for sure: information on how to become actually free from the human condition it most certainly was not.

As briefly as possible (as I have no interest in becoming side-tracked): what I was mainly searching for, over about three weeks, were the facts upon which the currently-popular ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ hypothesis was (purportedly) based ... and the reason why it took that long was because I could not find any (being based upon unverifiable-in-the-laboratory quantum mathematics*) it is not all that surprising, with the benefit of hindsight, that there be none).

Thus, as your presumptuous assertion most certainly does not pertain to the matter in hand it is indeed entirely irrelevant; out of place; inappropriate, incongruous; absurd ... in a word: impertinent.

_____________________

Footnotes:

*) [Spencer Weart]: “In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a “greenhouse effect” which affects the planet’s temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. (...)

Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1939, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of both carbon dioxide and temperature had been rising, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. (...). An American physicist, E. O. Hulburt, pointed out in 1931 [page 1876, “The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth”, by E. O. Hulburt; 1931, Physical Review 38] that investigators had been mainly interested in pinning down the intricate structure of the absorption bands (which offered fascinating insights into the new theory of quantum mechanics)†) “and not in getting accurate absorption coefficients”. (...). E. O. Hulburt was an obscure worker at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, and he published in a journal, the Physical Review, that few meteorologists read. (...).

Around 1938 an English engineer, Guy Stewart Callendar, took up the old idea. An expert on steam technology, Callendar apparently took up meteorology as a hobby to fill his spare time. (...). For he understood that even if the CO2 in the atmosphere did already absorb all the heat radiation passing through, adding more gas would change the height in the atmosphere where the absorption took place. That, he calculated, would make for warming. (...). Callendar’s publications attracted some attention, and climatology textbooks of the 1940s and 1950s routinely included a brief reference to his studies. But most meteorologists gave Callendar’s idea scant credence. (...).

There was also the old objection, which most scientists continued to find decisive, that the overlapping absorption bands of CO2 and water vapor already blocked all the radiation that those molecules were capable of blocking. (...). Most damaging of all, Callendar’s calculations of the greenhouse effect temperature rise ignored much of the real world’s physics. In particular, any rise in temperature would allow the air to hold more moisture, which could mean more clouds. Callendar admitted that the actual climate change would depend on interactions involving changes of cloud cover and other processes that no scientist of the time could reliably calculate. Few thought it worthwhile to speculate about such dubious questions, where data were rudimentary and theory was no more than hand-waving. Better to rest with the widespread conviction that the atmosphere was a stable, automatically self-regulated system. The notion that humanity could permanently change global climate was implausible on the face of it, hardly worth a scientist’s attention. The scientists who brushed aside Callendar’s claims were reasoning well enough. (Subsequent work has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was, as his critics thought, mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions. And the physics of radiation and climate was indeed too poorly known at that time to show whether adding more gas could make much difference). (...).

Like nearly everyone, he argued for conclusions that mingled the true with the false, leaving it to later workers to peel away the bad parts. While he could not prove that global warming was underway, he had given reasons to reconsider the question. (...). The complacent view that CO2 from human activity could never become a problem was overturned during the 1950s (...). Among the first products were new data for the absorption of infrared radiation, a topic of more interest to weapons engineers than meteorologists.

The early studies sending radiation through gases in a tube had an unsuspected logical flaw – they were measuring bands of the spectrum at sea-level pressure and temperature. Fundamental physics theory, and a few measurements made at low pressure in the 1930s, showed that in the frigid and rarified upper atmosphere, the nature of the absorption would change. The bands seen at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, all smeared together. Improved physics theory, developed by Walter Elsasser during the Second World War, and laboratory studies during the war and after confirmed the point. At low pressure each band resolved into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps between the lines where radiation would get through.

These measurements inspired the theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan to grind through some extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere the saturation of CO2 lines should be weak. Thus adding more of the gas would make a difference in the high layers, changing the overall balance of the atmosphere. (...). Nobody could say anything more specific without far more extensive computations. By 1956, these could be carried out thanks to the increasingly powerful new digital computers.

The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere, nailing down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would increase the interference with infrared radiation. Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass announced that human activity would raise the average global temperature “at the rate of 1.1 degree C per century”. (...). [emphases added] ~ (from “The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect”, by Spencer Weart; 2003-2005 American Institute of Physics). (https://web.archive.org/web/20060104072605/www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm). copyright © 2003-2005 Spencer Weart & American Institute of Physics

†) Mr. Albert Einstein (well-known for his ‘imagination is more important than knowledge’ quote) had this to say, in 1920, when reminiscing about the birth of his relativity theory in 1907:

• [Mr. Albert Einstein]: ‘There occurred to me the ‘glücklichste Gedanke meines Leben’, the happiest thought of my life ... for an observer falling freely from the roof of a house there exists – at least in his immediate surroundings – no gravitational field. Indeed, if the observer drops some bodies then those remain relative to him in a state of rest or uniform motion, independent of their particular chemical or physical nature (in this consideration the air resistance is, of course, ignored). The observer therefore has the right to interpret his state as ‘at rest’. [endquote; italics in the original] (page 178, ‘Subtle Is The Lord’, by Abraham Pais; ©1982 Oxford University Press).

The observer (irregardless of the ... um ... the ‘right’ to subjectively interpret what is actually occurring as being a state of rest) is, of course, falling at a rate of thirty two feet per second per second because of the very gravitational field Mr. Albert Einstein somewhat solipsistically intuited/ imagined did not exist for such a person.
He also intuitively/ imaginatively attributed reality to a mathematical device (‘quanta’) devised by Mr. Max Planck to solve a hypothetical problem (known as the ‘ultraviolet catastrophe’) about a perfect, and thus non-existent, black-box radiator – which statistical solution was never intended to be taken as being real until Mr. Albert Einstein appropriated it for his own purposes – and thus was quantum mechanics spawned.

Mr. Werner Heisenberg, of the uncertainty principle fame, dispensed with the main plank of science – causality (cause and effect) – altogether:

• ‘The law of causality is no longer applied in quantum theory’. (page 88, ‘Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science’, by Werner Heisenberg; ©1966 Harper and Row, New York).

Now, quantum theory may be a lot of things – a mathematical model useful for predicting certain events for instance – but, being sans causality, science it surely ain’t.

April 05 2006

RESPONDENT: Do you believe that there is good scientific evidence for global warming?

RICHARD: Presuming that you are referring to anthropogenic global warming (and not geological global warming) you may find the following informative:

• [Richard]: ‘... what I was mainly searching for, over about three weeks, were the facts upon which the currently-popular ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ hypothesis was (purportedly) based ... and the reason why it took that long was because I could not find any (being based upon unverifiable-in-the-laboratory quantum mathematics it is not all that surprising, with the benefit of hindsight, that there be none)’.

What I did find, however, was that in 1900 Mr. Knut Ångström put as much carbon dioxide in total as would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere into a tube and sent infrared radiation through it yet the amount of radiation which got through scarcely changed whether he cut the quantity of gas in half or doubled it.

(...)

RICHARD (to Respondent No. 23): As that (...) is an example of scientific evidence it is no wonder (modern) science is in the parlous state it is.

RESPONDENT: I have also found no evidence of human causes driving global warming after looking closer at the evidence. Why then do the majority of scientists endorse this view?

RICHARD: As it is questionable both whether there is any global warming and whether a majority of scientists do endorse the view that humans are the effectors it would be better to respond generally ... to wit: more than a little of modern science could be categorised as being opinion-based ‘science’ (rather than evidence-based science).

November 28 2009

RESPONDENT: According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists The Doomsday Clock is still set at five minutes to midnight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

RICHARD: So? Whatever arbitrary setting it is, which the directors of the ‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ choose to put Mr. Hyman Goldsmith’s 1947 ‘Doomsday Clock’ at, it makes no difference to the historical fact that, despite chemical weapons being available for hundreds of years, biological weapons for more than a hundred years and radioactive weapons for over half a century, human beings have not destroyed every man woman and child on the planet. On the contrary, humankind has shown a truly remarkable restraint despite being reactively driven by blind nature’s instinctual passions.

Even more to the point: the percentage per population killed in wars has been steadily decreasing; the democratisation of nations has been progressively increasing (and democracies rarely, if ever, go to war against each other); that hyped-up catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (which nowadays influences those director’s doom and gloom opinions more than chemical, biological and radioactive weapons) is increasingly being revealed to be more about scientolism than the scientific method (and that is putting it politely); and talk of technological threats has been around since the Luddites in the early 1800’s.

March 13, 2023

RICHARD: As I have been asked to expand upon the mathematics referred to by the words “based upon unverifiable-in-the-laboratory quantum mathematics” in my 13 January 2006 response to an online request – (regarding what I did over the seven-week period 02 November to 14 December, 2005, when I was not writing to the Actual Freedom Trust mailing list) – this is an apt moment to point out how the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is based upon flat earth mathematics.

It would appear the guys-n-gals at Quantumville recalled the high-school formula for determining the surface area of a disc consists of its radius squared times pi (i.e., r² × π) and how the greater surface area of a sphere consists of its radius squared times pi times four (i.e., r²π × 4).

Thus a disc with a radius of 1 will have a surface area of pi (i.e., 3.14) and the same disc converted to a sphere will therefore have a surface area four times more than the original disc (i.e., 12.57). Applying this mathematical thinking to the terraqueous planet we all live on their abstractive minds effectively reduced it to a flat disc which has been expanded four times.

Then they mentally painted this flat earth black.

Thereupon they reduced the (measured) insolation of the oblate spheroid known as Planet Earth to a quarter of its real-world strength – and directed it to impinge upon every square millimetre of their phantom planet twenty-four-seven forever and a day – thereafter applying a radiance versus temperature constant and thus they had their flat earth temperature of -18° Celsius.

As this is at odds with the +15° Celsius real-world temperature they confected the “greenhouse effect” to account for the missing 33° Celsius.

This is where the weirdity of a blackbody flat earth bathed twenty-four-seven with quadruply-weakened sunbeams turns into utter bizarrerie as they deemed some trace gases in the frigid upper troposphere, busily absorbing infrared light radiating from the blackbody surface and emitting it in all directions, to be thus radiating some of it back to the heat-source and thereby raising its temperature via this ‘back-radiation’ thaumaturgy the requisite thirty-three degrees (from -18°C to +15°C).

Moreover, this sci-fi scenario conveniently ignores how the other atmospheric gasses constituting some 99% of the air we all breathe – which are heated at ground-level by conduction and thence by convection as hot air rises and cold air sinks to such an extent as to dominate in determining the thermal structure of the lower atmosphere (troposphere) – are also emitting infrared light in all directions.

Furthermore, no externally heated substance – be it heated by conduction (direct transference from the heat source), by convection (heated gases rising and mingling and mixing with sinking cooler gases), or by radiation (via the heat source emitting infrared light) – can actually raise the temperature of its heat-source (let alone to such a precise degree as 33° Celsius, no more and no less, provided some specified trace gases remain at pre-industrial parts-per-million levels).

(Ha! this real-world matter-of-factness does not apply to all the phantom planets in the noncausati quantum solar system, of course, which are busily raising the surface temperature of its central star – the heat-source for all those blackbody flat planets – above 5778° K via a massive-scale variant version of this phantasmagorical ‘back-radiation’).

To summarise:

1. The physical earth is not flat.

2. The physical earth is not black.

3. The physical earth is not static (it is constantly rotating).

4. The physical earth is not bathed with quadruply-weakened sunbeams.

5. Sunlight does not impinge upon every square millimetre of the physical earth twenty-four-seven (only during daytime).

6. Sunlight does not impinge with equal intensity upon every square millimetre of the daytime hemisphere (most obliquely at polar latitudes and dawn-dusk regions).

7. All atmospheric gases are heatable (not just several trace gases).

8. All heated atmospheric gases radiate infrared light (not just several trace gases).

9. The physical atmosphere insulates the daytime hemisphere from heating-up to unliveable temperatures (unlike its nearest neighbour the airless moon).

10. The physical atmosphere insulates the night-time hemisphere from freezing to unliveable temperatures (unlike its nearest neighbour the airless moon).

11. In the physical world no externally heated substance can raise the temperature of its (periodically-heated) heat-source.

12. In the physical world some specified trace gases can (as evidenced in notable past eras) exceed by several thousand parts-per-million those several hundred parts-per-million pre-industrial levels deemed sacrosanct by influential doomsayers and/or panicmongers.

tl;dr: there is no “greenhouse effect” in actuality (nor “greenhouse gases” either).

It is all quite risible. And yet, according to ‘JonnyPitt’ on the “Cause of Bias” thread at the Discuss Actualism Online forum – who apart from currently being in a state of denial and rank absurdity also appears to have plugged that hole in his superiority complex of 2013 vintage – it is both Richard and Vineeto who have cognitive limitations similar to “tone deafness” or “dyslexia” and are (allegedly) on the record with some “verifiably bat-shit crazy” opinions as well as, of late, being “stubbornly irrational” to boot, and not those mathematically abstractive guys-n-gals at Quantumville.

• Update: In regards to ‘JonnyPitt’ (of the above “Cause of Bias” infamy), it is pleasing to notice—in Message № 411 (June 03, 2023; 3:16 AM) on the ‘Global Warming-Climate Change’ thread at the Discuss Actualism Online forum—how he has come to realise, after appropriate research and informative message exchanges, that Anthropogenic Global Warming is junk. As this suitably-researched and fruitfully-discussed realisation of his irrefragably signifies he can no longer insist that Richard and Vineeto have cognitive limitations similar to “tone deafness” or “dyslexia” (especially when constrasted with those mathematically abstractive guys-n-gals at Quantumville)—nor continue to maintain they are (allegedly) on the record with some “verifiably bat-shit crazy” opinions as well as being “stubbornly irrational” to boot—then his parenthesised [quote] “AGW is junk” [unquote] realisation bodes well for future commonsensibility.

*

• Supplementum: Richard and Vineeto have had their attention drawn to a remarkably well-written article on this Anthropogenic Global Warming topic—an article composed using a layperson’s terminology which any layperson can readily comprehend—by Mr. Dale Cloudman and published by ‘Café Américain’ on April 12, 2024, titled “The Vacuity of Climate Science”. Vineeto contacted the author, with a view to obtaining permission to publish an exact copy here on the “Facts (Actuality) vis-à-vis Groupthink (Orthodoxy)” section of The Actual Freedom Trust website—which he has kindly and generously granted—as his “Vacuity” article fleshes-out the above “tl;dr” line to a nicety. Viz.:
The Vacuity of Climate Science.

*

• Addendum: According to Andrew on the “Global Warming-Climate Change” thread at the Discuss Actualism Online forum – who myopically commended ‘JonnyPitt’ recently regarding how he “took one for the team” in starting his flawed-from-the-get-go “Cause of Bias” thread – the contents of this March 13, 2023, article (with its ten paragraphs summarised and numbered one-to-twelve, above, for convenience in comprehension) is but “an opinion” Richard and Vineeto have.

(Incidentally, and just in case it has escaped any casual reader’s notice, the entire “Cause of Bias” thread at the Discuss Actualism Online forum is rendered null and void by the marked absence of examples of bias from those in whom identity in toto is extinct).

Accordingly, Richard and Vineeto invite Andrew to publicly point out which of those summarised items numbered one-to-twelve, for convenience in comprehension, are not factual and/or are not actual such as to represent “an opinion that Richard and Vineeto have”.

• Update: In regards to Andrew’s ill-founded claim (re-presented in the Addendum above), it is pleasing to notice—in Message № 379 (May 27, 2023; 12:43 PM) on the ‘Global Warming-Climate Change’ thread at the Discuss Actualism Online forum—how he has come to comprehend, after several weeks of well-considered research and informative message exchanges, that Anthropogenic Global Warming is false (with a ninety-nine-point-nine-nine recurring percent surety). As this thoughtfully-researched and productively-discussed surety of his irrefragably signifies he can no longer claim that the contents of the further above March 13, 2023, article (with its ten paragraphs summarised and numbered one-to-twelve for convenience in comprehension) is but “an opinion that Richard and Vineeto have” as previously asserted—then his [quote] “99.99 recurring %” [unquote] surety bodes well for future pragmaticality and especially so when the immediate benefit of such surety is how lovely it is for Andrew, these days, to look up at the sky without the Anthropogenic Global Warming doom and gloom beliefs clouding his appreciation.

*

• Addendum Two: According to Nick on the “Cause Of Bias” thread at the Discuss Actualism Online forum – who in Message № 139 advises he found an article which “points out some flaws” in Mr. Knut Ångström’s 1900 falsification of Mr. Svante Arrhenius 1896 hypothesis (videlicet: “A Saturated Gassy Argument, by Spencer Weart, in collaboration with Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, 26 Jun 2007, on the Real-Climate website) – both Richard’s and Vineeto’s understanding is limited by being shaped by their knowledge and life experience (and may be trusting research, news, or information which seems reasonable but is wrong) and thus believing something to be true which, in the end, turns out to be a lie or a mistake.

Please be advised Richard accessed an earlier version of the “Saturated Gassy Argument” article nigh-on seventeen years ago – having been advised of its existence at 3:23 pm on November 20, 2006, in the comments section of a weblog he was then writing to requesting the replicable experiments which repudiated Mr. Knut Ångström’s experiment (else ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ thus remains a falsified hypothesis) – only to discover Prof. Pierrehumbert does not “point out some flaws” (other than an unexplained minor quibble regarding the length of the tube Mr. Ångström sent infrared radiation through) but, instead, shifts the focus of such infrared radiation from ground-level to the frigid regions of the upper atmosphere.

The entirety of Richard’s comments-section correspondence requesting details of any replicable experiments – inclusive of sending a high-tech version of Mr. Knut Ångström’s ground-level experiment in 1900, which falsified Mr. Svante Arrhenius’ 1896 hypothesis, to the those frigid regions of the upper atmosphere (which the August 1960 Project Manhigh proved entirely feasible) – has just now been published on The Actual Freedom Trust website for the first time at the following URL. Viz.:

Richard’s Replicable Experiments Requests

*

• Addendum Three: According to Sock-Puppet ‘Lexej’ on the “Global Warming-Climate Change” thread at the Discuss Actualism Online forum – who, apart from rather-revealingly shooting from the lip at the get-go, in Message № 01 on his baselessly-titled “Richard is Wrong About Smoking” thread (wherein after conceding how “causality between smoking and adverse health outcomes cannot be conclusively shown” nonetheless clutches tightly to his cockamamie hypothesis because (ostensibly) enfeebled and rapidly-ageing tobacco-users and “their stench, their yellow teeth and cracked skin” are “very annoying” for some unnamed fit people who, unlike himself, are too polite to state such things directly) – Richard is both “complaining” as well as “confused” (twice) about the neo-ludditean Anthropogenic Global Warming scam and thereafter makes a vacuous and thus meaningless assertion about “a whole bunch of various obvious errors” based upon two groundless presumptions (i.e., “you seem to be...”and “you seem to think...”) masquerading as a basic premiss and leveraged off a prior assumption (i.e., “I assume you are...”).

Howsoever, it only took the sharp-eyed forum member Rick a very short while to expose how this elderly-codger was posting blocks of copyrighted text, purloined sans provenance attribution from The Actual Freedom Trust website, to ‘The Motte’ forum, under the screen name ‘Sky’, and, thereafter, copy-pasting the agnosic groupthink-orthodoxy reactions from there, as if they came from his own agnosy, onto the “Discuss Actualism Online” forum.

Well done, Rick!

Sock-Puppet ‘Sky’ is but one of a multitude of aliases whereby a devious and deceptive spinner-cum-bull-artist-cum-flat-out-liar has been cyber-stalking the discoverer of the long-sought breakthrough in human experiencing – which epoch-changing facilitation of the already always existing peace-on-earth brings to an end all the anger and anguish, all the misery and mayhem, which epitomises the human condition – since they first began disseminating all manner of made-up stuff about Richard some 24+ years ago in October 1999.

Accordingly, and primarily for the benefit of those who came along later, a fully-referenced duly-annotated exposé of this integrity-challenged puppeteer (i.e. Sock-Puppet ‘Lexej’ et alia) – which has languished amidst other unpublished material on an external hard-drive and other back-up media for these last fourteen years – has just been published on The Actual Freedom Trust website for the first time. Viz.:

‘Assortment of Epithets’: Confutation.

*

• Addendum Four: According to Holy Lord on the “Global Warming-Climate Change” thread at the Discuss Actualism Online forum – who uncomprehendingly lauded Adam (vide: “nice work!”) for what he had self-admittedly written pedantically about general circulation models (GCMs) in a miss-the-mark-entirely reaction to Richard’s “flat-earth-mathematics” article of March 13, 2023 (further above, with its \ ten paragraphs summarised, and numbered one-to-twelve, for convenience in comprehension) – he is not dubious about the “basic physics” which govern the premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

• Update Three: In regards to “The Rift” thread at the Discuss Actualism Online forum—and pertaining to which rift Kuba had perspicaciously utilised the terms “the old school actualism versus the new school actualism” on April 06, 2024, whereupon Claudiu helpfully re-posted Holy Lord having earlier written “This ‘Team Richard’ mentality is insidious and a dead end as far as actual freedom is concerned” on May 13, 2023, as well as re-posting his communication to Vineeto, over five years ago, about how he had “retreated to the social identity ‘sand pit’ to play–where it is safe and familiar” on December 18, 2018—it is noteworthy how Claudiu has been (privately) advised by this schismatically-minded buffering socius that he has left the building (albeit without articulating why he [quote] “had to depart” [unquote] in such an unbecoming fashion).

And thusly has the primary motivation for establishing the “Facts (Actuality) and Groupthink (Orthodoxy)” mini-website, in general, and the “Anthropogenic Global Warming” webpage, in particular, been concluded—although not in the optimal manner as was reasonably anticipative, at the time, as to pick up one’s marbles and go home cannot in any way, shape, or form be characterised as an optimum outcome—and fini can be called upon all these proliferating addendums and updates.

Please note it is not the first time—nor is it likely to be the last—that a watering-down of the practice and aims of actualism be attempted (the ‘affers’ and their ‘aff’, along with their aff trademark technique, their ‘sweet-spot’ bastardisation of the mirificence of being naïveté, immediately spring to mind, as does the actuality-mimicking manic state, of recent reportage prior to the kitchen being vacated, tout-de-suite, as any temperature gradient on the calid side of tepid is not withstandable by fractious entities) and it is handy to know that “Simple Actualism” = ‘Sandpit Actualism’ (to coin a catchphrase) as to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

For those who came in late—and for those of-a-sudden interested in refreshing their memories—a potted version of the background and/or context for the above addendum and updates can be accessed at Section Five of “The Formation and Persistence of Social Identity” article on Richard’s Personal Web Page (although the entirety of the article is essential reading for info on the origins of the social identity, on its real-world necessity, on its multivalenced personae, on its persistence when shadowy remnants seek to coalesce and reassert control, and on its ultimate relinquishment).

Also, for a broad comprehension of why a basic freedom—why the peace-on-earth freedom from the instinctual passions and the feeling-being formed thereof—does not bestow meaning-of-life wisdom, and its ilk (e.g., dianoetic sapience, sagacity, etcetera), the section spanning what is known as the Kath-Template pithily explicates how the epithet ‘toothless-tiger’ is particularly apt (unless attended to beforehand then all of a newly-free person’s beliefs, truths, values, principles, prejudices, and etcetera, up to and inclusive of the all-pervasive ‘peasant mentality’, remain fully intact) and is useful as a shorthand descriptor of what essentially constitutes peace-on-earth, in the current lifetime, as a flesh-and-blood body.