What is the value of the State?

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 12:35:05PM +0000, \0xDynamite wrote:
> >>>    I think I know more about physics and its manipulation by state
> >>>    mafias than you do.i ii
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > It is not exactly a hoax.  Rather, they cherry pick the evidence,
> > torture the data, use nonsensical statistical methods, and reject
> > unwanted evidence as error, as for example
> > https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
> 
> Given the website you cited, I think YOU are cherry picking your methodology.
> 
> I'll make this simple, dumbasses.  You don't need ANY evidence to
> conclude LOGICALLY and NECESSARY that billions of years of fossil fuel
> burned in 400 years of industrialism is going to have MASSIVE effects.

Actually, you do need evidence.

: perhaps we humans is Nature's way of getting all that locked up
carbon (a very small amount in the scheme mind you), BACK into the
atmosphere so the planet doesn't freeze over.

You say big bad governments are exactly the lesson we need?

There's a scientifically as-proven-as-the-opposite-conclusion
conclusion that we only just got the industrial revolution going soon
enough - another 1 or 2 thousand years and atmospheric carbon levels
would have dropped to absolutely critical levels for any plant life
at all.


> Do you understand, billions of years of solar input stored in oil and
> coal reserves is completely burned within 1/10000000 of that same
> time?

You're missing the bit that plants when they die under ground (and
other dead things - animals, sea critters etc), lock up valuable
carbon so it cannot be used by life.

The dominant life cycle on this planet is absolutely dependent on
atmospheric carbon.


> The attempt to prove with any other methodology is a red herring.

Our failure to take stock of the big picture is a phenomenon which is
the result of political intention.


> But
> the real truth IS more complex and that is what keeps the problem
> unsettled.  The climate, after industrialism, is like a pendulum
> between unstable attractors:  ICE Age or Desertification of the Earth.

So you say. Nice to hear God dropped in to clarify all our dumn asses
though... we'd be fooked otherwise.


> The resolution of that swing is reconciled with only one variable:  GOD.
> 
> If you reject that possibility prima facie, then you see why nothing
> gets reconciled or stable:  BIAS.

If we don't accept that a) there is God, b) God wants wild
atmospheric swings on this particular planet at this particular point
in time, then c) not seeing this is bias.

Got it.

Thanks for the flarification.