Climate change

Started by somatichypermutation, November 22, 2013, 07:22:22 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: FightTheFuture on January 07, 2014, 04:04:02 AM
CO2= plant food

More CO2= healthy plants

CO2 = gooood



Next?


Oh to have a life as simple as yours. Do you have L and R stamped on each shoe?

onan

Quote from: FightTheFuture on January 07, 2014, 04:44:11 AM




My scientists and THEIR  extensive 20 year study says your science is full of shit.

[url]http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094]http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094] [url]http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094 [/url]

OK, first off, I doubt you realize there is more than one type of photosynthesis. Secondly, I am tired of your initial responses that go directly to swearing. If you want to respond as an adult, do so, otherwise ignore me. I have tried on so many posts to find some level of common ground with you since your "common ground" response about The X Files.

I am done with the childish stuff.

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on January 07, 2014, 05:08:09 AM
That assumes that the "original" climate is desirable. In fact we're still in an ice age, and the climate we have now is a recent change from an earth that before the late Pliocene had significantly higher C02 than we have now. Life did fine before the late Pliocene and was actually more diverse. However, the earth before the industrial age was doing strange things, such as converting much of North Africa into a desert whereas it was historically arable land.

I read the synopsis and I would wonder one thing: The sun already varies in luminosity thusly impacting both the water cycle and the atmosphere simultaneously. The current pause in warming itself has been chalked up to that. That would imply that it that they can and are being compensated for at the same time right now I would think.

Oh I don't think it will ever get so far as to need shields or high albedo spraying. The earth has shown itself to be a remarkably self-correcting system across its history. It has sustained multiple catastrophes that make climate change look like tinker toys in comparison. If it can recover from an asteroid impact, actually several of them apparently, without losing ALL life then that's one hell of a robust system. Rising C02 doesn't even present an unusual state for Earth, instead we've been living in the unusual state.

The sad truth of the matter is that somewhere along the lines climate science went wacky. If you apply the same burdens of proof that are used in physics to climate science, you don't get the same reaction. If we did, the large Hadron Collider could not have been switched on due to a few scientists suggesting that it could go badly. We called them alarmist quacks and fired her up anyway. Yet when that same alarmism crops up in climate science, which it seems clear at this point that the earth is not reacting as they predicted, we don't seem to hold them to the same standards. Instead we do the freak out and at worst spend billions on potentially nothing and restrict human development, or at best mitigate something that may have ended up beneficial. Where did the idea that climate change is bad actually come in?

Well, it came in because of the anti-humanist movement decided it was a good thing to scare the shit out of everyone. Malthus started that garbage, scared the hell out of everyone that we would run out of land to grow food for an increasing population, the ideas were cited in every atrocity from the Irish Potato Famine to Nazi Germany, and . . . well . . . um . . . we invented better agricultural practices and Malthus' concept appears to have been a gross oversimplification. Yet that same anti-humanist ideology is still with us today, scaring the piss out of people.

But the proof is in the pudding. Greenpeace is opposing ITER. Now, why is that? It promises to be the saving grace as far as alternate energy. But they oppose it. They're not so stupid as to be scared of words like thermonuclear. No, they oppose it because they oppose human development and progress. The green movement wants a downgrade of human civilization. You will see a day where the question "What is the Keck Telescope's carbon footprint? Is it worth it?" is asked if we keep going down this road.

Well, if that's how things are, then I want a damned solid chunk of real proof that the problem exists and I want a damned solid chunk of proof that the human brain can't fix it with engineering before we start talking about slowing down progress. I have yet to be given that damned solid chunk of proof here in -4 Missouri with 12 inches of snow on the ground.

Thanks for this well thought out and stated response. I have never heard of the Greenpeace movement against ITER. That's... wow.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: Agent : Orange on January 07, 2014, 05:33:46 AM
Thanks for this well thought out and stated response. I have never heard of the Greenpeace movement against ITER. That's... wow.


Oh I know, I nearly had a coronary when I started reading their press releases. Here, this will say it all.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance/


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on January 07, 2014, 05:08:09 AM
That assumes that the "original" climate is desirable. In fact we're still in an ice age, and the climate we have now is a recent change from an earth that before the late Pliocene had significantly higher C02 than we have now. Life did fine before the late Pliocene and was actually more diverse. However, the earth before the industrial age was doing strange things, such as converting much of North Africa into a desert whereas it was historically arable land.

I read the synopsis and I would wonder one thing: The sun already varies in luminosity thusly impacting both the water cycle and the atmosphere simultaneously. The current pause in warming itself has been chalked up to that. That would imply that it that they can and are being compensated for at the same time right now I would think.

Oh I don't think it will ever get so far as to need shields or high albedo spraying. The earth has shown itself to be a remarkably self-correcting system across its history. It has sustained multiple catastrophes that make climate change look like tinker toys in comparison. If it can recover from an asteroid impact, actually several of them apparently, without losing ALL life then that's one hell of a robust system. Rising C02 doesn't even present an unusual state for Earth, instead we've been living in the unusual state.

The sad truth of the matter is that somewhere along the lines climate science went wacky. If you apply the same burdens of proof that are used in physics to climate science, you don't get the same reaction. If we did, the large Hadron Collider could not have been switched on due to a few scientists suggesting that it could go badly. We called them alarmist quacks and fired her up anyway. Yet when that same alarmism crops up in climate science, which it seems clear at this point that the earth is not reacting as they predicted, we don't seem to hold them to the same standards. Instead we do the freak out and at worst spend billions on potentially nothing and restrict human development, or at best mitigate something that may have ended up beneficial. Where did the idea that climate change is bad actually come in?

Well, it came in because of the anti-humanist movement decided it was a good thing to scare the shit out of everyone. Malthus started that garbage, scared the hell out of everyone that we would run out of land to grow food for an increasing population, the ideas were cited in every atrocity from the Irish Potato Famine to Nazi Germany, and . . . well . . . um . . . we invented better agricultural practices and Malthus' concept appears to have been a gross oversimplification. Yet that same anti-humanist ideology is still with us today, scaring the piss out of people.

But the proof is in the pudding. Greenpeace is opposing ITER. Now, why is that? It promises to be the saving grace as far as alternate energy. But they oppose it. They're not so stupid as to be scared of words like thermonuclear. No, they oppose it because they oppose human development and progress. The green movement wants a downgrade of human civilization. You will see a day where the question "What is the Keck Telescope's carbon footprint? Is it worth it?" is asked if we keep going down this road.

Well, if that's how things are, then I want a damned solid chunk of real proof that the problem exists and I want a damned solid chunk of proof that the human brain can't fix it with engineering before we start talking about slowing down progress. I have yet to be given that damned solid chunk of proof here in -4 Missouri with 12 inches of snow on the ground.

I'm going to ramble a bit here so apologies in advance. In the early 80's we had Thatcher as our PM, she was (and still is) a Marmite person. Personally I loathed the bitch. I did so because the area I lived and worked was destroyed by the direct result of her economic policies. Think of Detroit wasteland. However that isn't my point.

At the time, the unions, white as well as blue collar went on the march and tried to overturn these policies. What happened was a feeling of common purpose being involved. The embryonic Greenpeace with (I think ) their sole ship Rainbow warrior was out in the Southern Ocean getting their RIBS between the harpoon guns and the whales the Japanese were hunting. Back home, demonstrations dragged everyone in. Gay and Lesbian rights, Ethnic minorities rights, environmentalists were seen as a joke by many, and we had a solitary political party called the 'Sunshine Party' which evolved to be the Greens. They put the case forward for not wearing clothing made from killed animals..the anti fur lobby was in full swing. Animal rights activists made the headlines; especially the idiots who raided mink farms and released minks into the wild; Naturally these predators carved up the very wildlife these activists claimed to be protecting!

Not all were nut cases of course and the political spectrum across the board lobbied for better animal husbandry, and got it. The UK no longer exported calves for veal. But Greenpeace were really only known for trying to stop whale hunting.

The climate thing was a bit of a sneaky uppity thing as I seem to remember. It began as I remember with Al Gore; who most in the UK vaguely remembered as being the former VP. Other than that, very few knew much about him. His film was widely dissected in the media here in detail. Has he a point? After all back in the 70's I remember being told by one of the best teachers I had the privilege to be taught by (geography) that we were on course to the next ice age. He dragged up analysis on the overhead projector and I remember the class being terrified at the prospect that we could freeze to death in our lifetime. It must be true because various TV programmes said the same thing.

Now, this is where it got a bit cross purposed. From an early age we've been implored to cut down on pollution of all kinds. Litter, oil spills, smoke, pretty much anything that could turn grass black and trees defoliate.  The Exxon Valdez was an ongoing disaster that went on for months on our news. It was his fault, no it was their fault, no, it is OUR fault...It's OUR fault. The suggestion being that we love our nice things. We love comforts and a car that can cocoon us in palatial spender...but we in the west also love relatively cheap and plentiful food. And cheap flights to anywhere in the world. And as computers became more common, the dawn of the internet we could burn oil to make those things..and on we went, with the voice in the peace telling us we were killing the planet we claimed to love so much.

Species were shown to being extinct because of the human need to want more and more.. Forests destroyed to build roads, Indonesia now has landslides almost daily because it's logging policy has destroyed the top soil infrastructure.. Greenpeace now got involved in the whole thing. Away from whales, they now moved to pretty much anything that could potentially harm the planet.

I do think pollution and climate change have been thrown in the same pot. I'm not in favour of any pollution, it riles me no end to see someone discarding a cig butt end or throwing paper out of a car window. So when a multi-national pollutes with impunity it really pisses me off. China and India are the biggest growing economies in the world, China is building enough roads every three months that would cover the British Isles thirty times over-all of it, every square yard. In the last five years they have spent $713 BILLION US on road and water transportation. They growing, so they pollute, on a massive scale. They're at a point the UK was in in the industrial revolution, only very much more so.

Climate Change. Yes. It's happening. Most definitely. Have we contributed to it? Possibly. Can we change it? Pass. Would we if we wished to? It depends, I don't think anyone knows what lies in fifty years. Maybe our kids will freeze to death in the northern hemispheres. In Africa is a different thing though, the Sahara desert is expanding year on year. Of all the humans that ever lived, 50% are alive now. Water wars will occur in the future, our population is expanding faster than we can keep up. Homelessness will get worse, not better. As will famines. Habitable land will get less, species will become extinct.

Enjoy the ride.

Oh, man, Yorkie, I think you should change your name to York B. Wells!  What you say is all too true, but that was not a post that put me in my happy place this morning. 😩

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: West of the Rockies on January 07, 2014, 09:27:41 AM
Oh, man, Yorkie, I think you should change your name to York B. Wells!  What you say is all too true, but that was not a post that put me in my happy place this morning. 😩


Have I spoiled your day mate?  :-\

Sorry. Not sure about the Wells connection though...

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on January 07, 2014, 09:44:50 AM

Have I spoiled your day mate?  :-\

Sorry. Not sure about the Wells connection though...

Just that your words had a Wellsian doom and gloom tone, Yorkie, that's all.  Man, we never should have shut down Eureka: Henry, Zane and Fargo could fix this.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: West of the Rockies on January 07, 2014, 09:57:45 AM
Just that your words had a Wellsian doom and gloom tone, Yorkie, that's all.  Man, we never should have shut down Eureka: Henry, Zane and Fargo could fix this.

I've only heard Wells a few times, but from what others say I take your point. I wasn't meaning to be a doomsayer, just putting my take on the debate.

As I have said several times, I would be thrilled if it turned out that climate change were all an overblown bit of nonsense.  If it is not nonsense (and the majority of planet scientists feel climate change/global warming IS very real and largely human-caused), then we are in for some hell on earth.  A sobering discussion on the topic is not fun, but it is more than necessary I believe.

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on January 07, 2014, 05:08:09 AM

...The sad truth of the matter is that somewhere along the lines climate science went wacky. If you apply the same burdens of proof that are used in physics to climate science, you don't get the same reaction. If we did, the large Hadron Collider could not have been switched on due to a few scientists suggesting that it could go badly. We called them alarmist quacks and fired her up anyway...


I think you get exactly the same reaction.  The overwhelming scientific evidence was that the LHC was safe, and the alarmists were outed as quacks.  Just as in climate science, where the overwhelming scientific evidence proves human influenced climate change, and the handful of naysayers practice pseudoscience quackery.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on January 07, 2014, 12:25:20 AM

I probably do, since I included this in my post:



Which you almost immediately confirmed, thanks.
Oh, I have no doubt that you are aware of the words, can even spell them correctly, it is their actual meaning that seems to elude you.

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on January 07, 2014, 07:05:58 PM
Oh, I have no doubt that you are aware of the words, can even spell them correctly, it is their actual meaning that seems to elude you.


Well, you know, it's the 'settled science' quacks that use the weather to further their climate agenda, not me.  I just point it out.

The thing is, they can't seem to even predict that accurately.  So not only are the climate projections they've been making since at least Al Gore's book flat out wrong, so are their weather predictions.   On top of that they keep revising their 'facts' - and the revisions never seem to be in their favor.

These people are the 'Green' branch of the 'Progressive' Fascists, just as 'Occupy' is the militant branch.  They hate Capitalism and Liberty.  This 'green' front is about denying us the energy we need.


Look, I'm for the environment, against pollution, concerned (very) about things like the plastic bits in the ocean and the poisoning of our groundwater, but lying about drastic climate change then lying about it being man made in an attempt to further a Socialist one-world government agenda is not going to address any of that.

Ruteger

You have to be mentally ill to be a Democrat. Everything these diseased animals have advocated has been proven a detriment  to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

onan

http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors-intermediate.htm

QuoteWhat Al got right
Retreating Himalayan Glaciers
Contrary to James Taylor's article, the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate never said growing glaciers are "confounding global warming alarmists" - that's a quote from the Heartland Institute website written by... James Taylor. He's actually quoting himself and attributing it to the AMS! To put the Himalayas in context, the original AMS study is not refuting global warming but observing anomalous behaviour in a particular region, the Karakoram mountains. This region has shown short term glacier growth in contrast to the long term, widespread glacier retreat throughout the rest of the Himalayas due to feedback processes associated with monsoon season. Overall, Himalayan glaciers are retreating - satellite measurements have observed "an overall deglaciation of 21%" from 1962 to 2007. In essence, the Karakoram glaciers are the exception that proves the rule.

Greenland gaining ice
Re Greenland, a big clue is the study's title: Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland. The study finds increasing ice mass in the interior due to heavier snowfall - an expected side-effect of global warming - and doesn't factor in all the melting that occurs at the edges of the ice sheet. Overall, Greenland is losing ice according to satellite measurements here, here and here.

Antartica cooling and gaining ice
Antarctic cooling is a uniquely regional phenomenon. The original study observed regional cooling in east Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the Pole causes increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching eastern Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau. The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century". While East Antartica is gaining ice, Antartica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently had the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years.

Hurricanes
The dispute isn't that global warming is causing more hurricanes but that it's increasing their severity and longevity.

What Al got wrong
Mount Kilimanjaro
Indeed deforestation seems to be causing Mount Kilimanjaro's shrinking glacier so Gore got this wrong. In his defence, the study by Philip Mote came out after Gore's film was made. But Mote puts it in perspective: "The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence."

Dr Thompson's thermometer
Al Gore refers to a graph of temperature, attributing it to Dr Thompson . The graph is actually a combination of Mann's hockey stick (Mann 1998) and CRU's surface measurements (Jones 1999). However, the essential point that temperatures are greater now than during the Medieval Warm Period is correct and confirmed by multiple proxy reconstructions. More on Dr Thompson's thermometer.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on January 07, 2014, 08:22:04 PM

Well, you know, it's the 'settled science' quacks that use the weather to further their climate agenda, not me.  I just point it out.

The thing is, they can't seem to even predict that accurately.  So not only are the climate projections they've been making since at least Al Gore's book flat out wrong, so are their weather predictions.   On top of that they keep revising their 'facts' - and the revisions never seem to be in their favor.

These people are the 'Green' branch of the 'Progressive' Fascists, just as 'Occupy' is the militant branch.  They hate Capitalism and Liberty.  This 'green' front is about denying us the energy we need.


Look, I'm for the environment, against pollution, concerned (very) about things like the plastic bits in the ocean and the poisoning of our groundwater, but lying about drastic climate change then lying about it being man made in an attempt to further a Socialist one-world government agenda is not going to address any of that.
Using political bias to refute scientific proof - how original, and entirely irrelevant. 

The simple facts are that not a single recognized scientific body refutes the scientific proof of human influenced climate change.  None. Zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

In surveys of peer reviewed and published scientific studies, between 95 and 98 percent of climate scientists - and 90 percent of ALL scientists, regardless of discipline - concur that climate change is real, and significantly impacted by human activity.  (You can find this easily yourself on pretty much every science website anywhere, but here is an example: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp )

So yeah, the science is in. 

You can choose to conflate this with credible, or incredible, potential remedies to the issue, or silly nonsense implying that anyone with a college degree is part of some one world government conspiracy - hell, you can believe the earth is flat, that Jesus had a pet dinosaur, or that Ian Punnett made himself deaf to get out of his C2C contract - if you like. It's a free country, and you are free to be as misguided and uninformed as you choose.

But with respect to science, you will be wrong. 

The people with the data are the so-called scientists at East Anglia.  That's where nearly all the data goes to be analyzed.  They are the ones collecting and analyzing the data and reporting it.  Everyone else is repeating what they say second hand.

The thing I just can't get past is all those hacked emails at East Anglia just before the Copenhagen Conference.  They were caught red handed lying about it - those emails were chock full of questions between them about how to distort information, how to amplify data that supports their position, how to bury data that doesn't.  They flat out made up certain data in order to bridge gaps they needed bridged.  On top of that, the people who developed their software said they aren't using it correctly. 

They had some resignations and reassignments, and got some of their cronies to come 'audit' their work and tell everyone it was all ok after all, but the damage is done.  None of it is to be trusted, in my opinion.  Especially when so many predictions have been so wrong - no matter what they claim. 

But hey, if you like your policy you can keep it.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on January 07, 2014, 09:55:37 PM
The people with the data are the so-called scientists at East Anglia.  That's where nearly all the data goes to be analyzed.  They are the ones collecting and analyzing the data and reporting it.  Everyone else is repeating what they say second hand.

The thing I just can't get past is all those hacked emails at East Anglia just before the Copenhagen Conference.  They were caught red handed lying about it - those emails were chock full of questions between them about how to distort information, how to amplify data that supports their position, how to bury data that doesn't.  They flat out made up certain data in order to bridge gaps they needed bridged.  On top of that, the people who developed their software said they aren't using it correctly. 

They had some resignations and reassignments, and got some of their cronies to come 'audit' their work and tell everyone it was all ok after all, but the damage is done.  None of it is to be trusted, in my opinion.  Especially when so many predictions have been so wrong - no matter what they claim. 

But hey, if you like your policy you can keep it.
No, it is a department of a small English University, not some global clearing house for climate data.  In fact, only 160 gig of data was hacked, most of it e-mails between four guys.  And they didn't make stuff up, and weren't fired, etc., etc.

Don't you have google where you live?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Also, any luck finding a single scientific body of national or international standing that refutes human driven climate change?  Just one?

But hey, if you let politicians do your thinking for you, why bother educating yourself, right?

aldousburbank

Quote from: Ruteger on January 07, 2014, 08:58:42 PM
You have to be mentally ill to be a Democrat. Everything these diseased animals have advocated has been proven a detriment  to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Well, except for the free condoms.

analog kid

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on January 07, 2014, 10:34:32 PM
No, it is a department of a small English University, not some global clearing house for climate data.  In fact, only 160 gig of data was hacked, most of it e-mails between four guys.  And they didn't make stuff up, and weren't fired, etc., etc.

Don't you have google where you live?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Also, any luck finding a single scientific body of national or international standing that refutes human driven climate change?  Just one?

But hey, if you let politicians do your thinking for you, why bother educating yourself, right?

Yeah, the controversy over those hacked emails was thoroughly debunked. I was surprised to see someone still referring to them recently, but it's apparently still a thing. Same with the "Oregon Petition."

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on January 07, 2014, 10:34:32 PM
No, it is a department of a small English University, not some global clearing house for climate data.  In fact, only 160 gig of data was hacked, most of it e-mails between four guys.  And they didn't make stuff up, and weren't fired, etc., etc.

Don't you have google where you live?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy



This sure is a nice cleaned up version the events.  Reading that, one wonders why they even needed an investigation. 

It's called damage control.  You think the folks willing to lie about everything else - and always seem to have all the resources they need - aren't above putting out a BS Wiki entry?   Or pretending they aren't the clearinghouse for this dreck?  How is it the countries of the world just packed up and went home from Copenhagen when news of the deceit broke, and haven't scheduled anything like it since?


This Wiki entry has been, uh, modified downward since I last looked.  Too bad - before they were gloating about all the info they generated and controlled.  Being caught red-handed and needing to lie low for awhile will do that for an organization's prestige.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

Anyway, believe what you like.



Quote from: RealCool Daddio on January 07, 2014, 10:34:32 PM
... Also, any luck finding a single scientific body of national or international standing that refutes human driven climate change?  Just one?...


You mean the people that depend on government funding and take East Anglia reports for gospel? 

You don't like science to be political - me either, but guess what - sometimes it's political.  Especially when it comes to furthering the anti-capitalist, anti-West agenda and it's defended practically until the death when it is another link in the step-by-step one-world-government agenda.


If you want another example of a policy built on a pack of lies that is still supported by the people pushing it, look no further than ObamaCare.  If there were a Wiki entry denying that was sold and sustained by a saturation lying operation, would you take comfort in that?

Like I said, believe what you like.

Quote from: analog kid on January 07, 2014, 11:50:14 PM
Yeah, the controversy over those hacked emails was thoroughly debunked. I was surprised to see someone still referring to them recently, but it's apparently still a thing. Same with the "Oregon Petition."


Nope, lies are still considered lies, even with Obama in office. 

An organization doesn't get to have their cronies 'investigate' them, then declare all is well.  Why is that so easy for Libs to understand if it happens on Wall St, but never when it's the government involved?

analog kid

Quote from: Paper*Boy on January 07, 2014, 11:54:18 PM

Nope, lies are still considered lies, even with Obama in office. 

An organization doesn't get to have their cronies 'investigate' them, then declare all is well.  Why is that so easy for Libs to understand if it happens on Wall St, but never when it's the government involved?

Because that isn't what happened. No matter how much Rush Limbaugh says it did. The emails were public record. Everyone got to see them. The controversy amounted to a lot of nothing.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Paper*Boy on January 07, 2014, 11:50:56 PM

You don't like science to be political - me either, but guess what - sometimes it's political.  Especially when it comes to furthering the anti-capitalist, anti-West agenda and it's defended practically until the death when it is another link in the step-by-step one-world-government agenda.


Are you sure you're not David Icke? You sure say the same things. You ought to show your solidarity and get on a demonstration with him.

Mind you; It will involve you standing with CND and anti capitalist protesters. The dilemma!

Are there any problems out there -real or imagined - where the answer is NOT some form of Marxism?

Seriously.

onan

Quote from: Paper*Boy on January 08, 2014, 05:17:41 AM
Are there any problems out there -real or imagined - where the answer is NOT some form of Marxism?

Seriously.

Are there any problems out there -real or imagined- where the answer is NOT some form of Capitalism?

Either or conditions rarely lead to adequate solutions.

I swear that the regular posters here on these god-forsaken political threads could all be standing on the street together watching a plane fly by.  When asked to report what we saw, three of us would say a single-engine jet.  Three would say it was a twin-engine prop plane.  One would insist it was a glider.  Another would say he saw nothing.  If we could then review the digitally-recorded evidence of the flyby, no one would change their views.  Someone would argue the recording had been tampered with while another would insist it showed a different plane in a different location.

Has anyone here ever really and truly changed your views based on something you read here?

Ben Shockley

Quote from: analog kid on January 07, 2014, 11:50:14 PM
Yeah, the controversy over those hacked emails was thoroughly debunked. I was surprised to see someone still referring to them recently...
That's P*B's long-standing M.O.  Keep flogging something in hopes that someone --if only just one-- who hasn't heard the debunking will be swayed.  He's a well-conditioned and persistent mo fo, if nothing else.
I can only assume that he really trusts whoever guaranteed him passage on the spaceship to the Reserve Planet that the energy-extractive capitalists apparently have waiting for them.

Ben Shockley

Quote from: West of the Rockies on January 08, 2014, 02:14:34 PM
I swear that the regular posters here on these god-forsaken political threads could all be standing on the street together...
Has anyone here ever really and truly changed your views based on something you read here?
Uh-- WestOf, you know that for you, I have nothing but posting love.  But this is something I always wonder about with your perpetual tone of "both/all sides do it and are totally equal."  In your example of the plane spotting: do you allow for the possibility than any observer(s) could actually be objectively correct and the remainder objectively incorrect?
I mean, just checking:  because (and maybe this is just me thinking too much) you even made it seem like "there is no correct answer" --as if trying to avoid judgment of and offense to even imaginary persons-- with your not providing an initial "factual" description of the plane the observers saw.

Ben Shockley

Quote from: onan on January 08, 2014, 05:29:29 AM
Either or conditions rarely lead to adequate solutions.
And militant denialism never does.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod