Philosophy and Analysis of Climate Change - Global Warming - CO2 Significance on Global Temperatures

This may be just because of ignorance on my side but I can't seem to find any evidence of the significance of CO2 in our atmosphere contributing to Global warming. (Let alone that being from man-made sources or not)

Here is what I did learn that I was unsure about before:

~~~~~

Global Warming Trend
(This section has nothing to do with C02. We're just discussing a trend that the world is warming without discussing it's cause first.)

It seems from all the information in this article, that to deny a trend in rising temperature, seems an assault on science and data itself.

So that means if the data and science is strong, at it appears to be so, then no assault on such data will give you any success, and their opinion that a trend in global warming is occurring would remain victorious.

A review of the data published on the site, that tries to imply a trend in global warming:

• NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
• CRU direct surface temperature analysis
• Satellite Data
• Radiosondes
• Borehole analysis
• Glacial melt observations
• Sea ice melt
• Sea level rise
• Proxy Reconstructions
• Permafrost melt

So the author says:

"There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend."

I would tend to agree with him on this point because of the data he has presented.

~~~~~~~~~

CO2 level rise

I think at this point it's fairly obvious that 100 years after the Industrial revolution, we have released a lot more CO2 in the air than would have been naturally produced.

So I think just from a common sense perspective, CO2 rising makes sense with the general facts I've observed in the world and learned from history.

Here is a graph to add some evidence to the conversation that CO2 levels have indeed risen:


I am very critical of graphs that have no true zeros for their x-axis, as all people who know statistics should be.

It hides the true significance of the curve upward or downward when you zoom in on a graph like this one does.

You get a much higher trend upward than you would if you had a true zero on the graph.

So to mathematically describe the change better, you could take the highest value, subtract it from the lowest, and divide by the lowest to get a percent change.

So the percent change in carbon dioxide since the 1960's is approximately 19% higher; which is still a significant increase in CO2.

~~~~~~~~~~

Greenhouse Effect - Causation

So the causation between CO2 and Temperature rise is the green house effect.

It seems that CO2 though is much weaker than other influences that warm the earth, historically speaking, and that CO2, historically speaking, has LAGGED temperature.

Meaning in the past first temperature went up, before CO2 went up. That just meant that historically speaking, there always seems to be forces stronger than CO2 that change the earth's temp more.

So what I'm getting at is that even if we accept the common and sound science that CO2 increases temperature, we found it does so weakly, compared to other things that have done it in the past such as large volcanic eruptions.

But that doesn't mean CO2 has no effect, just because it doesn't initiate the change from a cold planet to a hot one. It still helps in the background.

Example:

Imagine you're in a home and that home represents the earth. Now when the sun comes up and the light shines through the windows, the home starts to warm up, but what if during that time, you also had a heater going at 76 degrees?

If the home is 70 degrees, it would take the heater a while to get it to 76, but it's having an effect regardless. At the end of the day the sun is doing most of the hard work, as it'll get it to 76 before the heater does, but again the heater is having a small effect anyways.

So it's wrong to say that the heater has no effect, just like it's wrong to say CO2, even if it's not the initiator of warming cycles, automatically has nothing to do with warming cycles. It still helps.

~~~~~~~~~

Significance

Now here is where my ignorance seems to meet the crux of the argument, or if this was music I'd say here is the crescendo; for the writers we'll say we're getting to the climax :D.

We agree that the world is warming and we also agree CO2, according to current science, through the greenhouse effect contributes to it.

But is the role CO2 plays in our environment significant?
Is it a strong enough force on it's own to cause the types of damage we worry about?

Example:

If I could convince 100 people to all rub their hands together for 10 minutes, at the same time, every day, for 10 years, could we as a group increase the world's temperature?

I think you're probably laughing as you read that, or at least chuckling slightly, because you know that the small amount of heat we create isn't nearly enough to warm the entire earth.

It isn't significant enough.

~~~~~~~

So the question now goes to CO2, is it's power significant enough to rise global temps?

As we admitted before CO2 is hardly the initiator of global temperature changes, historically speaking, but it may have a role in keeping temperatures high and spreading the temperature evenly across the world.

But again, are high CO2 levels, a significant risk to increasing world temperatures?

I can't find any exact proof of that. It may be again because of my own ignorance, but I can't seem to find how significant CO2 specifically is in respect to global temperatures and greenhouse gases.

~~~~~~~

Man Made Greenhouse Gases v.s Naturally Made

So this discussion is about Greenhouse gases, rather than CO2 because as the argument goes, it's their effect that warms the earth, and if they're correct that effect is significant enough to change global temps.

To be exact, here are all greenhouse gases we should worry about according to those that say they're a threat:

Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F).[1]The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[2][3][4] Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so have different effects on radiation from water vapor.

Sources:

1. 1) IPCC (2007). "Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science" (PDF). IPCC WG1 AR4 Report. IPCC. pp. p97 (PDF page 5 of 36). http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf. Retrieved 21 April 2009. "To emit 240 W m–2, a surface would have to have a temperature of around −19 °C. This is much colder than the conditions that actually exist at the Earth’s surface (the global mean surface temperature is about 14 °C). Instead, the necessary −19 °C is found at an altitude about 5 km above the surface."
2. 2) Kiehl, J.T.; Trenberth, K.E. (1997). "Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78 (2): 197–208. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078>2.0.CO;2. http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf. Retrieved 21 April 2009.
3. 3) Schmidt, Gavin (6 Apr 2005). "Water vapour: feedback or forcing?". RealClimate. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142. Retrieved 21 April 2009.
4. 4) Russell, Randy (May 16, 2007). "The Greenhouse Effect & Greenhouse Gases". University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Windows to the Universe. http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html&edu=high. Retrieved Dec 27, 2009.

A simple question comes back to mind when people talk about fighting Climate change:

Is the man-made portion of CO2 WE release significant enough on it's own to cause climate change?

If we only release 1% of all greenhouse gases, then we have no hope in stopping it's effects.
If instead we release 20% or more of all greenhouse gases, we may have some effect if we limit our release of gases.

So how much greenhouse gas do we emit compared to nature? Again this is only an important question if we answer the first one mentioned above, if Greenhouse gases are even a significant factor in Global Warming. If they are the cause of it.

If greenhouse gases are significant, and they're not like my 100 friends that rub their hands in vain, then what percentage of those gases do we contribute?

There is a nice article about this here, which basically states that we only contribute about .28% of the Greenhouse Gases in the air, and that number becomes 5% if we ignore water vapor as climate scientists do because they say it's not a forcing variable. That means if we were to cut all Greenhouse Gas creating processes in half, we'd save only 2.5%.

That fact is unreasonable of course, to cut back by that much, but is a 2.5% savings going to help us much?

Even if it does help us, there's still the other 2.5% that plagues us, so is it worth it?

~~~~~~~

Final Thoughts

So at least we learned some things as we went through this process of analysis.

We learned that warming is occurring and that CO2 levels are rising by about 20% since the 1960's.

But what we learned as far as Greenhouse gases are concerned is that in general, we have a small effect on how much we send into the air.

Only about 5%(ignoring water vapor) of Greenhouse Gases in the air, are up there because of us, and even if we cut all output in half, we'd still have put 2.5% up.

Again that's assuming the 5% we put up there is a significant increase in Global temperatures at all.

So there remains a lot of unanswered questions for me at the end of this.
Maybe that's why this issue isn't definitively decided.

At the end of the day the argument is not about whether the Earth is warming or not, or if we increased levels of CO2.

The argument is about how much of the greenhouse gases we're responsible for and to what extent the amount we put up there affects global temperatures.

If that question was clearly answered I don't think any skeptics would remain.

Until I get a clear answer to that I remain a skeptic of Carbon Taxes, Cap and Trade, and Carbon Regulation.

I'm more concerned with stopping Malaria, Cancer, Poverty, and giving every child a decent Education. I mean even Renewable energy is more important and more dire/urgent a situation than Climate change is now.

Those I think should be our focus and where our priorities stand until the Climatologists can get their argument properly explained.

Free will

(Free will is simply the ability to choose for yourself your own path. Whatever doors or options nature throws at you, at the end of the day, you pick which door you go through and why. Choice; that's the essence of free will.)

Someone had the audacity to claim they had no free will to which I replied:

"Lol :D

In a world where no one has free will, no one should go to jail or be punished for crimes they did, that they had no control over.

In a world where there is no free will, there is no such thing as self control, which means you can't tell people to stop screaming at you, because according to you, they can't control themselves.

To say the world affects me, does not negate free will, it just means "my choices" vary.

Btw I did not choose to write this, so I cannot be blamed for it! :D"

~~~~~~~

Philosophically speaking I mentioned:

• 1) The injustice of punishment based on the victims necessity to commit evil.

• 2) The laughable assault on self control, to which any person knows that he or she is in full control of his emotions and reactions.

• 3) The world constantly giving me new inputs is constantly giving me new options to choose from, and these new inputs that affect me, are still at the mercy of my control when I "choose" the proper output I want generated by the new inputs.

Example:

I am 6 years old and someone shows me I have the power to lie now.

I don't choose to lie a that moment but from then on I have that option and I didn't have that option before that moment.

My epiphany of this act known as lying, has given me a new choice of action.

The environment didn't choose for me to start lying, it only taught me this new possible road I could take, but that if I took it, it would be my choice.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Final Thoughts

I find the best way to remove responsibility for yourself and your actions, is this illusion of believing that you have no free will.

As you saw from my last sentence, the person above can not blame me for my reply, because according to him, I have no control over my actions. :D

To any true philosopher, I feel this concept is amusing to reflect upon, but completely laughable to believe.

Contentment, Fame, and The Human Condition

(Nothing else matters. Our world is complete. Our bliss everlasting. Can we ever feel that way again?)

This won't be the kind of article that tries to propose the answers to a problem, simply because this problem is a part of the human condition. It's a problem that baffles me and takes over a strong majority of my life.

To answer it would quell a lot of secondary and tertiary problems that result because of it but to answer it takes an immense amount of contemplation and forward thought.

~~~~~~~~~~

Contentment

Why am I not content? Why do i want more and why do I not settle for what's obviously amazingly good already?

If you look at my particular situation, I'm in the top 1% of the world's population as a factor of wealth. Most people in the world have significantly less than me, and that fact never escapes my mind, and yet I want more. Why?


Are any people content with what they have or are we all facing this condition together, some facing it better than the rest?

Maybe we can gain clues by looking into the lives of those who live contently. The people that feel they have everything they need to live sufficiently happy.

~~~~

A possible Clue

I saw a great video with philosophers, lawyers, and economists all debating certain issues of the time and one point was raised that really inspired a lot of thought. Go to the 35 minute mark to see the part I'm speaking about.

A reference to the great philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau is made, when he mentions that happiness is the relationship between the gap in what you want and what you're able to get.

So maybe that's it. Maybe I'm so discontented because I know how much greatness awaits out there for the top .001% of the world. Maybe being forced to view such greatness for so many years has skewed my picture of happiness.

In that case, what am I supposed to do? How do I unskew my view of the world and show myself that I'm happy as I am now.

~~~~~~~~~

Fame

This all builds to fame, which can be seen as an outlet to happiness. But most people who have learned anything about fame, know that Fame sucks.

It's hard to be anything but frank about this topic. There is very little upside to the world that is fame because your whole life and privacy is in one quick swoop, annexed and taken over by the world.

Fame is a plague on the life of a person, and one that keeps chipping away at your self esteem and your view of the world.

But I and a lot of others are willing to do certain things to obtain it. Why?

Why isn't our logic strong and clear enough to keep us away from that hole? If given the chance, most people, regardless of how bad they know fame is, do take it. Why?

What is with our human condition that lowers us to these levels and makes us so unsatisfied, and so illogical.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Happiness

At the end of the day, we want fame, and contentment for one simple reason; happiness.

We want that calm bliss, sitting in our boat on the lake, as the water softly ripples beneath us. We want the world to turn endlessly all around us, as we sit, content in our own little world as if nothing can intervene in this sanctified land.

We want felicity. I love that world by the way; it's so poetic and illustrative of the world I'm trying to create.

Felicity, pure pleasure and an endless calm that quells every throb inside us.

So why is that such a hard place to reach, and why can't a member of the top 1% of the world, reach it?

We have more riches than any time before us, and any empire before us, and still we want, desire, and need more?

~~~~~~~

Why are humans so greedy?

Maybe the human condition is simply our inability to look at what we have, and just accept it fully. After all, won't there always be someone who has more?

I can say this fully and with no regrets though: The human condition can not be answered logically and reasoned through. We already have many reasons not to be greedy, yet we still partake in that past time.

To quell my heart in this matter and polish my world view will require an experience or a feeling in this world, that will forever calm me for the rest of my time here.

Whatever experience that is, will make me a better person. It will allow me to enjoy what I have and to stop wanting for more.


If you've found this experience and quelled your desires, than consider yourself the Nobility of the world.


To be without want is to not want to find being; especially through material gains.

May we all reach that felicity some day.

Our Deductive World

(It's our finite truths versus the absolute, but at the end of the day we can't get anywhere without the few finite truths that we have learned. We always start with those assumptions)

There is no real wall between science and philosophy. The only difference between the two is one is a creative and assumed world, while the other is less creative and less open to debate. So first off, you need to put aside this notion that to speak philosophy is not to speak science, that’s not the case.

Philosophy is Math, Logic, and Creativity.
Science is observation, Logic, Math, and preconceived notions that hold credence(Theories/Laws).

ab•so•lute

• free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
• not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.
• complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
• free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.

An Informal Logical argument for living in an inductive, non absolute world
(A world where we know nothing absolutely)

1) Either I my observation and reasoning is limited and imperfect and it will remain that way, or it is perfect and unlimited.

2) Either our observation and reasoning as a species, together, is perfect and absolute, or it’s imperfect and we could all still be incorrect. (The earth being flat, spontaneous generation, etc etc)

3) If my observation and reasoning, and the world’s scientist’s observation and reasoning is imperfect and limited then anything based on that limited observation and reasoning is also imperfect and limited. Therefore it follows that we will never know anything is true or absolute.

4) My reasoning and observations could be faulty. There is no way to prove my reasoning is absolutely correct, or that my observations are completely correct.

5) There will always be doubt and therefore our knowledge will never be Absolute.

That lack of perfection and that inability to prove things absolutely(without any doubt) means anything we try and prove or disprove, or conjecture on (this is 99% likely), is at the end of the day just hearsay. It’s our best guess.

So rather than living my life saying, “It’s more than likely that gravity exists”, I say, “Given the proofs about gravity, I conjecture such and such… ”.
From a scientific standpoint, we haven’t even seen enough observations to make credible theories.

From a scientific perspective, we haven’t even explored enough of our own universe to conjecture about the nature of anything.

But if we use that mentality to color our world, we would never have created the internet, made modern day breakthroughs in medicine, or seen the gigantic feats of engineering that all rely on this faulty inductive science.

I even go so far as to dislike the probability argument. I dislike to hear that something has a more than likely outcome of being true. We all know uncertainty exists, it’s just some of us choose to live our lives knowing it’s there but accepting certain realities.

• The Theory of Gravity
• The Belief in God
• The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy

They are all things I know to be true, even if I can’t deductively prove any of them correct, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The people thinking it’s my responsibility to prove all those things absolutely are thinking in absurd terms.

Lets accept the doubt that exists in our inductive world, but lets also allow the terms such as “prove, disprove, fact, and fiction”.

To live in a world where we cannot accept the idea of a “fact” is the most absurd idea of all.

Let’s accept our limited, inductive, and imperfect world and stop thinking in terms of probability and uncertainty.

The existence of truth and falsehood cannot be denied.

The Philosophy or essence of Law

(The effects of good laws may be enough to change them, even if they're rooted in justice. But what do we do when even those new practical laws become abused or create new effects that give us unforeseen problems?)

I first must pose a situation to define the context of the discussion of law and hopefully make our discussion a bit more practical and down to earth.

A war criminal known for genocide has come to speak at your University. Your friends have decided to go hear him speak and you decide to come along. Unbeknownst (Unknown) to you, they and a group of others are planning to interrupt his speech repeatedly until he stops speaking or they are all taken away.

The speech begins and one by one the chants and screams start. Warnings are issued and the chancellor of the University himself stands to quiet the interruptions. All actions are in vain. Finally police mounted at the entrances start escorting your friends out one by one.

You think in all this commotion, if we should uphold free speech for war criminals and at what point can we silence an individual.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The roots of the argument

A similar situation occurred to me and the first thought that came to my mind was that free speech must be upheld. But then I asked myself why I felt that.

My answer was simple:

"If we deny the right of speech to one person, even justifiably, such a law could be used unjustly to silence us. So to protect us all we exclaim Free speech."

But do you what I did there? I reasoned not on the law itself but it's application. I reasoned unjustly corrupting the application of a good law that might silence evil people who spread discord in the land simply because it's application might be abused.

So that brings up another question.

Should good laws be changed for fear of their application's unjust misuse?

Which poses another question.

Should laws be made on their practicality of application, as it applies to the real world rather than the essence of good and evil?

~~~~~~~~~

Fear

Suddenly I was in murky territory. I was using possible applications or situations of corruptions to make laws. I had forgotten the essence of law itself, which is in my humble opinion, to preserve Good and expel evil for the sake of the citizens of a country, thereby allowing each of them to live safely and justly.

~~~~~~~~~

Back to the example

So some would argue that a war criminal guilty of killing many innocent adults and children does not deserve the right to speak, let alone even live. Most could argue that sincerely I feel.

But most don't argue that simply because they fear for their own right. They fear that a tyrant would abuse and use wide sweeping interpretations of this law to create their own agenda and unjustly silence his opponents.

So I ask myself, Who is correct? How should laws be written? Who's future possible problems with applications of laws should we trust? Do laws have any essence in good and evil whatsoever? Can those laws built on practicality too be abused?

To prove that a law based on the practicality of it's application can be abused and misused, would bring us back to our original problem and now we'd be without the essence of Good and evil.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Arguments of practicality

The drug war as it's called in America is a very good example of this practicality argument. Some say drugs practically can never be removed from society and are the cause of much strife in the land because of their funding of organized crime.

I tend to agree with that position however controversial it may be. I prefer a non organized syndicate any day, over a few thousand more deaths by people who sadly used a substance they shouldn't have. I only make such a distinction, however tough it may be, because I feel the organized crime syndicate would murder equal if not more numbers of people than would members of society whom legally bought and ruined their lives on heroin for instance.

So look what i have done. I have taken away the essence of good and evil in a law, in this case preserving human life and rejection these evil drugs, so that I may make a more practical law that would destroy a good number of organized gangs.

Is the creation of these organized gangs an unforeseen effect of creating laws based on good and evil?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reconciliation

So how can this be reconciled? Am I a walking contradiction? How can the canvas be white and not white at the same time?

If i define something i cannot undefine it at the same time.

Should laws be based on their application, opening a myriad of problems associated with who decides and who is more correct about their future implications; or should they go back to their roots of justice/injustice, good and evil?

Sometimes it's better to pose the question, and contemplate on the answer, rather than grab in the dark for false hope.

In this case I won't grab for the answer, but search for what may be an unending quest for the essence of law.

I will lay one rule down though and that's that the ends will never justify the means and I refuse to use that logic to take a person's right away for a prophecy that may or may not come to fruition.

That is a road filled with death, destruction, evil, corruption, and injustice; something the law can never stand for.

Redefined focus

(Focus on what's best in life and blur the bad. Efficiency in life will never occur unless you focus on the right aspects of it and understand what to leave behind.)

A few new redefined focuses I've thought about that i had to share:

• 1) Money does not equal wealth, and neither equal happiness.

• 2) Being Busy isn't the same as being productive.

• 3) The timing is never right for the most important things in your life. Doing things eventually or soon never happens unless you plan it.

• 4) Being bold and doing radical changes to your life, for the sake of happiness and not at the expense of others, is probably the best thing anyone can do. These changes, as a point of necessity before you choose them, must make you happier regardless of the consequences.

• 5) Be different but not ignorant. Walking on your hands is not the same as deciding to walk faster or slower, one is different one is ignorant and inefficient .

• 6) Do it now. What is it? Whatever you want done. Dream it, Plan It, Do it.

• 7) Perspective is what focuses life, like a camera lens. Remember the grave when you feel materialistic, remember others success when you feel proud, and remember the billions of others who have less than you when you feel greedy.

• 8) Execution is everything. An idea changes shape as it's executed. The best final results come from the best execution, not the best ideas. I can have the greatest business idea for a store ever but if I don't execute it right and I go bankrupt, it's not the Ideas fault, but how I ran my business.

• 9) Be thankful for your blessings because, truthfully, everyone is blessed. If you're religious like me you give your thanks for these many blessings to God who has been nothing but generous with us. Besides blessing us with our 5 senses, all our limbs, the ability to stay healthy, our family, our friends, protecting our honor by hiding our secrets, and spreading our success without us lifting a finger; God constantly forgives us for our lack of notice of His blessings and our many slip ups that are the result of our ignorance or irrationality.
  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Final Thoughts

My new focuses, My new outlooks, My new schedule. Take what you can philosophically of the above and contemplate, contemplate, contemplate.

Every nugget of knowledge has wisdom. There is no way I, or any other author, can extract all the wisdom stored in our data(nuggets of knowledge/observations).

The Superficial is Easy

It's been a while but seriously this had to come out. Literally I couldn't sleep until I got this off my chest.

This isn't just ordinary run of the mill frustration you see on Philosophy by a Phoenix, this is disillusionment. This is loss of hope. This is full on disbelief.

~~~~~~~~~~

I see it, What more do I need?

The superficial is SOOOOOOOOO easy to spot. The hair, the eyes, the face, the skin, it's all right there in front of you. But we stay on it. We obsess. We stare. We disregard the rest.

It's pathetic, shallow, and it's corrupting America.
It's infuriating.

Are we nothing but our shells? Can a person not live like their shell dictates they should?

~~~~~~~~~~

Philosophy and why this matters

Philosophy, as Plato described it, was the inner workings of everyday ideas and thought. What philosophers were SUPPOSED to do was to LEAVE the cave of the everyday, transcend regular thought in a sense, and EXPLORE the outside.

With new ideas, points of view, and insight they came back into the cave to share with the world their epiphanies.

I'M IN A WORLD WHERE THAT ISN'T HAPPENING ANYMORE. How can I continue to live in a world where the topic of the day is someone's shell? A person's worth is simply their shell.

~~~~~~~~~

This isn't just looks

If all you've read into this so far is beauty, you're not reading far enough. This isn't just about beauty, this has to do with the masks we where. There are so many people who are so good at wearing masks that other people buy their stories and ACCEPT their SHELLS.

Their persona, their facade, their alter ego is what society perceives them to be. No one drives deeper, no one questions these presuppositions, and no one works to be critical anymore.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why it's so personal

Sincerity is easier to spot for some than others. When some people see insincerity, the mask being put on, and a fake alter ego taking over, it's like watching someone sip poison.

Then it's like watching your friends sip poison as they buy that persons story.
The superficial is easy to accept but it's hard to be critical of, in this day and age.

The seemingly nice guy, is the prideful, always manipulating, selfish person who lies underneath his exterior mask.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Light shining from the distance


The only thing keeping me from loosing all hope together is a friend who is the exact opposite of their shell. In nearly every way I've poked and prodded they've chosen the higher path.
Most people don't see the value in such a person and they may be glanced off by you because you didn't prod deeply.

You might think they're just an ordinary preppy or valley girl, and would label them as such.
Most DO this. Most have written this person off. Most do not understand this person's value.

I live in a world where to be sincere, to sacrifice your superficial life, and to transcend out of our normal caves is the work of Mad men.

And ALL I mean by leaving the cave, is leaving the norm. Asking tough questions. Trying to examine people based on their TRUE feelings and ideas, not what they portray.

Testing what they portray.
Being Critical of what they portray.

Leaving the cave, hundreds of years ago, required much more work than that and required justifying your positions but philosophers nowadays don't even need that to be considered out of the cave.

Now just testing the waters, making sure someone is who they say they are, is extreme.

The superficial is easy, it's boring, it's a mask. Prod deeper into who someone is.
Don't be that stereotypical pig of a guy or that woman who needs the John Wayne cowboy.

LOOK BEHIND the superficial. You might actually find a person lying behind the veil.