On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 02:51:02PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Sat, 6 May 2017 02:32:47 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
What's your evidence that anthropogenic climate change is a massive hoax? I know we've been through this before and I don't want another flame fest.... I'm genuinely curious.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.h...
I might as well ask, what's your evidence for human caused 'global' warming, apart from the official story coming from the 'scientific' 'community'.
Where are your *global* temperature records? What about records for solar activity...? How old is the earth's climate? How far do your records go?
What's the theory that allows you to 'predict' the wheather? How reliable is it? What about so called 'chaos' theory? Have you ever bothered to see how accurate the one-week weather forecast is?
The theory is very simple. Carbon emissions trap heat and cause a greenhouse effect which, averaged over time, causes a rise in global termperatures. This is a rise that is backed up by data. Effects beyond this are, I think, very hard to predict.. you mentioned chaos theory :P Some generalizations seem obvious, though, and obviously bad. None of it has anything to do with predicting next week's weather.
I ask because I've had some long conversations with people much smarter than myself whose area of research involves this, and the basic premise seems pretty simple and well established.
Well, it seems to me that you believe what the 'scientific' 'authorities' say. So you believe in authority, and that has nothing to do with science.
I defer to rational thought. It seems to me you have an inability to acknowledge that there are people out there doing legitamite science, who may know more about a subject than you. It has nothing to do with authority the way you've framed it. No one has a gun to my head telling me to believe in this particular theory - I believe it on its perceived merits. Anyway, further argument I think will degenerate, and I'm fucking sick of toxic shit, but thanks for the answer :P
Debating the nitty gritty details of how quickly we are warming the planet with carbon emissions and what exactly the effect is and will continue to be, on weather patterns, the oceans, permafrost, etc etc - discussing this can obviously be done...
It's not like anyone (the nation states of the world) is particularly doing anything to really fight the effect,
I don't think there's much of an effect to fight, but it is obvious that there are 'government activities' related to 'climate change'. And those 'government activities' boil down to transferring money from joe sixpack to 'green' special interests.
except for very token gestures.
I don't think that the tens of billions of dollars that go to special interests including of course the 'scientific' mafia are a token gesture.
In other words, if it's a massive hoax perpetuated by scientists all over the world, they and the various institutions they represent aren't really getting anything from said hoax.
I think that illustrates your bias. You think the 'climate change' story benefits no one although your belief is pretty naive and can be dispelled with 5 minutes searching for "green subsidies" or similar terms.
And anyway, I wasn't too interested in discussing global warming, but cyber totalitarianism.
Your version of Political Correctness provides final answers to all meaningful questions about the human condition. That sounds more like conventional religious fanaticism than the Scientician faith.
bottom line : you criticize the scientific mafia ONLY if they say stuff you don't like. When your scientfic, state-funded mafia vomits nonsense about the global reheating apocalypsis,ii you love them.
The technological, fascist 'progressives' are basically correct when they say that all technical problems can be solved. So if you expect their technical plans to catastrophically fail, you'll wait forever.
Aldous Huxley - The Ultimate Revolution
There's that Scientician faith in action!
Not sure what you mean. Do you have any counterarguments for Huxley?
So far, apart from your enviro-friendly, off-topic tangent, I don't think you said anything too relevant to the problem of technically efficient propaganda, brainwashing, mind-control or whatever term is appropriate.
-- John