What is the value of the State?

John Newman jnn at synfin.org
Mon May 8 12:37:34 PDT 2017


On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 02:51:02PM -0300, juan wrote:
> On Sat, 6 May 2017 02:32:47 -0400
> John Newman <jnn at 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.html
> 
> 	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
> > >>> 
> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WaUkZXKA30
> > >> 
> > >> 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 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170508/0764c7ef/attachment.sig>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list