Look at the problems we're having in Iraq. Consider that the US spends nearly as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Think about this country's history a bit. Check out our nuclear arsenal.
Do you really think that a foreign invasion would be successful, no matter the circumstances?
Providing for the common defense is *one of* the jobs of a government, and not, in my opinion, the most important one.
That there are a number of countries that have partially or totally demilitarized lends support to that idea.
Leaving the issue of farm subsidies and price supports aside, why don't you take a look at the amounts of money being spent on defense and farm subsidies. On the defense side of things, we outspend just about the rest of the world combined. Don't you think that there might be a little wiggle room there, out of $1 trillion? Maybe a bit of inefficiency? When was the last time the DoD even managed to complete an audit?
Or why not social security? Medicare? Medicaid? In light of those expenditures, picking out farm subsidies is just plain bizarre.
I've never understood how people can decry intellectual endeavors as being pointless. Where does this derision come from? Do you feel the need to assert your imagined superiority over those that are participating in this debate? Does that stem from insecurity, intolerance, or some other form of idiocy?
It's not required that you care about any of this. Shitting on people that do care is thoroughly reprehensible.
I see. So the discussion isn't worth having, by reason of an analogy? Or can we just call that a straw man?
I suppose we'd all better find something else to do. Given how much of Slashdot is devoted to pointless arguments, the only thing that makes sense is to shut the whole site down.
Or maybe you could make an effort to raise the level of discourse. That would be good, too.
On the subject of free software, I don't think there is a whole lot of argument, aside from perhaps a vocal minority. Most people here would agree that software should be free and open, and although it would be ideal to have everything be FOSS, most people are willing to compromise a little in order to have a working system. As long as we approach the ideal, and continue to progress towards it, we can be relatively happy. The reverse is probably also true, and probably we are a bit more outspoken when something is perceived to be a backwards step, but that is probably only human.
The above report gives a summary of the historical data, which seems damn hard to come by online. The short form is that salmon stocks fluctuate wildly for reasons that are little understood.
The cleanup effort was a media circus. Nobody had any idea what to do about it, there were no preparations*, no science, and very little thought involved. The primary method of oil removal was to spray boiling water on the beaches. I think the idea was that if the oil didn't kill everything, the cleanup would fix that. I was reading a NOAA paper earlier on the effectiveness of that technique, which was negative, but I seem to have lost the link.
Beyond that, I can try to dig up more local sources tomorrow, if you'd like. Certainly I could provide a wealth of anecdote, but I'm sure that more concrete data is available within the community.
The Exxon spill may not be the best example. The cleanup efforts were probably more harmful than the spill itself, and the environment has completely recovered since then. My authority on the subject comes from having lived in Valdez, AK for nearly my entire life; I can provide further sources if need be.
This criticism should not be taken as arguing against your point in general.
There's a relative paucity of teens on here. I was introduced to/. in...hmmm...I suppose I must have been about the same age. That would have been about eight years ago. Obviously I didn't register then:)
I was just kind of wondering what sort of bizarre life experience leads one here at your age. The topics here tend to be rather abstruse.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it does not cool the planet. Inorganic materials have been shown to absorb carbon dioxide. If employed on a large scale it would reduce the levels of atmospheric carbon, thus cooling the planet. It would probably not be cost-effective and is almost certainly not the right way to go about things, but that certainly dispels the notion that plants are the only thing that can cool the planet.
Dark things absorb solar radiation and re-radiate it as heat. Solar panels absorb solar radiation and store the energy; a 100% efficient solar panel would indeed work to cool the planet, but even non-ideal solar panels will likely re-radiate comparatively little energy.
The link is current as of April 2008. Your reference to the World Food Programme does not actually support your argument; I will explain further in a moment.
As far as infrastructure and energy density, those are beyond the point. Nuclear power is finite. It's great now, but ultimately unsustainable. Solar power will be available for somewhat longer than life on Earth will be possible. There will be a point where renewable energy sources will be the only ones available to us; why hasten that day? Nuclear power should be used only where other energy sources are infeasible. As a minor note, the cost per watt for solar power has recently become lower than nuclear or coal.
On the job side of things, a quick search seems to indicate that renewable energy sources would employ more people. The most concise link I could find on the subject is unfortunately a blog, but there seems to be much more information here, if you care to wade through it.
Now, there are a few details that you have clearly not considered. First, simply pouring water on a desert does not make it ideal for growing crops. Most often all that does is create an erosion problem. Soil that is suitable for growing crops is quite different from desert sand, and is the result of a completely different ecosystem than what is found in desert. It is theoretically possible to change one into the other, however this takes both time and far more money than would ever be realized from such a venture. I would hate to see the manufacturing process for obtaining the organic materials and fertilizers required; we have more than enough problems with that sort of mess as is. Further, where would the water come from? If you're proposing to build huge expensive nuclear desalinization plants and colossal water pipelines, at huge (presumeably taxpayer) expense, and then use all of that on plants? Something tells me not many people would be supportive of this idea.
We come back to the most important flaw in what you propose. Aside from the other glaring issues (I have not even mentioned nuclear waste), the problem of hunger stems not from inadequate production, but inadequate distribution. North America clearly has no problems feeding its inhabitants, nor does Europe. Neither do we have excessive problems with obtaining sufficient drinking water. What sense does it make to increase the food supply in North America when not only are we not having a problem here, but as you say, the cost of shipping food is becoming more costly all the time? Why irrigate US deserts when Africa is starving?
As to your last point, lack of clean water does not mean lack of water. Water is a necessity for human life; where it is not present, neither are we. Filtering and sterilizing water is less expensive than desalinization by several orders of magnitude. The solution is not to unnecessarily "produce" more water, but to clean what water is already present.
I'm sure you've heard the term 'word salad' to describe nonsensical sentences. I'd like to coin the term 'fact salad' to describe your arguments. I realize this may rankle, but I would take it as a spur to more carefully research your positions before claiming someone else is wrong.
What better way to cool the planet than to green the deserts?
Yes, that's what you should have said. It's a good question, and outside my ability to answer. However, to say that it is the only way to cool the planet is highly misleading.
We don't currently produce enough food for the whole planet.
Your arguments run counter to themselves. "If we green the deserts..." "Darker colors retain heat." So by that logic, we should leave them as deserts so to better reflect the sun's heat.
Solar cells are designed to convert sunlight to electricity, not heat. An efficient solar cell will not add heat to the atmosphere.
Plants need CO2 for food, yes, in a simplistic sense. Implying that we therefore need elevated levels of atmospheric carbon is misleading. I'm having to assume that by "nuclear plant" you mean a nuclear-powered desalinasation facility, and it's enough to say that that would be hugely expensive and technically challenging, contrasted with something like a solar furnace or solar panels which are a relatively cheap and have no dangerous waste products. Fuel for nuclear power plants is abundant at the moment, but finite.
Also, modern industrialized agriculture being what it is, I'd say that it'd probably be best to leave the deserts well enough alone.
So, I say that your argument is flawed and your proposal is both impractical and unsound in principle.
The short answer is that that tachyons can't transmit information. The short explanation is that Einstein's theories prevent it.
Anything with mass cannot reach the speed of light; it would require an infinite amount of energy. Anything without mass travels at the speed of light. Tachyons are obtained by throwing imaginary numbers into the mix.
Dark matter is thought to be matter that does not interact with other matter except gravitationally. We don't have much of an idea what that would look like, but it would obey the rest of the physical laws as we understand them.
If you have any other questions I can try to answer them. Wikipedia has a good article on faster-than-light.
Also, I hope that you don't mind me correcting you, but the the word is 'piqued'.
Not to detract from your point, but the Inuit do use iceboxes when they are available. It's not freezing in Alaska all year, and being able to keep foodstuffs at a consistent temperature is useful. The components of western civilization that they have adopted nearly universally are alcohol, firearms, and snowmobiles, but I believe most villages that have power also have iceboxes.
Murdering people can be an effective way to change the law--you are correct in that much. But nonviolent civil disobedience has been shown to be quite effective. What purpose does it serve to obey an unjust law?
I believe, however, for civil disobedience to be effective, it must be public---as public as possible. For further details, I would refer to the relevant work on the subject by M. K. Gandhi et al.
Why would I care about feelings of people whose most dear beliefs and positions I am trying to discredit?
Don't care about their feelings, care about the feelings of the people who you are trying to persuade.
What "yesterday argument"? Americans' unwavering belief in their glorious history is very much the current problem.
Given the wide publication of 'A People's History of the United States' and other similar literature, I would say that is an overbroad generalization. "Yesterday's argument" is explained by the context of that sentence. I am sure that re-reading my post will clear up that difficulty for you.
Being someone's enemy does not make me a savage.
I'm sorry if your English isn't very good, but it is not necessary to be a savage to be characterized as having savage behavior. That error almost seems deliberate.
I would rather express my idea in the form that can be judged by the content. Smart people will get it, and I am not interested in convincing dumb people, humiliating them is good enough.
Your content is spurious and devoid of anything but self-righteous vitriol.
Conceal facts that are already announced by your opponents, so rhetoric is used to twist their meaning and distract the observers. I thought, that was pretty obvious.
You must not have actually read what I wrote.
As opposed to what, political propaganda that is reliable in being wrong, misleading and manipulative? Appeal to authority when my original claim is that authority figures are lying? It's not like my experience is not backed by tens of millions of other people who had seen the same (though most wouldn't bother talking to Americans unless you ask them).
Perhaps you have a problem with only reading what you want to read. Back your assertions. If tens of millions of people agree with you, there should be some indication of that. Probably out of tens of millions you can even find an economist. Hell, you can't even find the "authority figures" you're railing against. Who are you fighting here? Do you have this argument in the mirror each morning?
Really? Actually I did both, it's just the result is something you don't like, so you can't accept it. Congratulations, you are a true American patriot.
Now this is just slander and projection. Clearly you cannot distinguish between criticism of what you say and criticism of how you say it. If you'd taken the time to comprehend my statements, you'd find that I have been focused solely on the latter.
"I did both." Bullshit. Your writing is abysmal, and you have no facts, and a single vehement assertion. How many ways can I rephrase this? You can't just jump to the end of the argument, declare victory, and have done. If events happened as you say they did (and we have no particular reason to doubt you), then they can't have vanished into a void. There must be some evidence---produce it.
Understand that what you're doing is the equivalent of saying (with great rancor) that the mountains on Pluto are green. Despite what you think, few people really care one way or another. However, while there is no particular reason why what you say should not be true, it is not made true merely by your word alone.
If you cannot muster any evidence, then you are no different than the stereotypical American you deride. Your militant belief in your own self-righteousness is identically despicable.
Why should you not be an asshole? Because it's unpleasant to read and does not lend support to your argument. No matter if you've argued with friends in the past over this; they aren't here now, and most people here are either not American or not compelled to be an asshole as a matter of course. You can't win yesterday's argument by being savage today.
Rhetoric is necessary to influence people. It is what distinguishes effective communication from mere words strewn on a page. Concealing fact can fall within the bounds of an effective argument, but this is not generally the case. Also, there are other ways of concealing fact. Secrecy, for example, is probably far more effective than rhetoric.
Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable, and your own unsubstantiated opinion is fit for no purpose that I'm aware of. The same is true of this other fellow, and of myself: none of us have any more inherent credibility than any other. To promote your view, then, you must have a well-written argument, or have a set of facts that speak for themselves. Since you have no apparent aptitude for the former, the latter is necessary.
As to the standard of proof, that is for your opponents to decide. I think you'll find the bar is set rather low; I would accept anything more reliable than opinion. You could probably even find an economist that you liked and argue why his opinion should be considered reliable. Facts and figures would, of course, be appreciated.
Perhaps you could write a Journal on this subject, since the discussion here is likely over.
Slashdot Mirror
If the work you do is equal in every respect, then you should probably be rewarded equally. If not, then some sort of value judgement comes into play.
That's what we're talking about. The basis of value (in terms of currency) is labor, as opposed to a commodity (gold).
If you disagree with that, please explain; I will listen without prejudice.
The government is inefficient, sure, but do you really believe that all that money vanishes when Uncle Sam gets ahold of it?
What is this nonsense about "possibly increasing the national debt"? Like there's some possibility that it won't?
Your statements are hugely overbroad. Just spewing out these things as an idealogical point is scary. Please qualify your remarks.
Look at the problems we're having in Iraq. Consider that the US spends nearly as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Think about this country's history a bit. Check out our nuclear arsenal.
Do you really think that a foreign invasion would be successful, no matter the circumstances?
Providing for the common defense is *one of* the jobs of a government, and not, in my opinion, the most important one.
That there are a number of countries that have partially or totally demilitarized lends support to that idea.
Leaving the issue of farm subsidies and price supports aside, why don't you take a look at the amounts of money being spent on defense and farm subsidies. On the defense side of things, we outspend just about the rest of the world combined. Don't you think that there might be a little wiggle room there, out of $1 trillion? Maybe a bit of inefficiency? When was the last time the DoD even managed to complete an audit?
Or why not social security? Medicare? Medicaid? In light of those expenditures, picking out farm subsidies is just plain bizarre.
Assuming the value of all work is equal, yes. That would be such an idiotic claim that I suspect your misunderstanding of the OP is intentional.
I've never understood how people can decry intellectual endeavors as being pointless. Where does this derision come from? Do you feel the need to assert your imagined superiority over those that are participating in this debate? Does that stem from insecurity, intolerance, or some other form of idiocy?
It's not required that you care about any of this. Shitting on people that do care is thoroughly reprehensible.
Who says you have to draw a line?
From a purely idealogical standpoint, what problem is there for wanting open hardware as well?
I see. So the discussion isn't worth having, by reason of an analogy? Or can we just call that a straw man?
I suppose we'd all better find something else to do. Given how much of Slashdot is devoted to pointless arguments, the only thing that makes sense is to shut the whole site down.
Or maybe you could make an effort to raise the level of discourse. That would be good, too.
On the subject of free software, I don't think there is a whole lot of argument, aside from perhaps a vocal minority. Most people here would agree that software should be free and open, and although it would be ideal to have everything be FOSS, most people are willing to compromise a little in order to have a working system. As long as we approach the ideal, and continue to progress towards it, we can be relatively happy. The reverse is probably also true, and probably we are a bit more outspoken when something is perceived to be a backwards step, but that is probably only human.
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/sp08-13.pdf
This appears to be a current summary of the Prince William Sound fisheries. Since the oil spill, PWS has been quite well studied.
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/japan/aquaculture/proceedings/report22/kron.html
The above report gives a summary of the historical data, which seems damn hard to come by online. The short form is that salmon stocks fluctuate wildly for reasons that are little understood.
The cleanup effort was a media circus. Nobody had any idea what to do about it, there were no preparations*, no science, and very little thought involved. The primary method of oil removal was to spray boiling water on the beaches. I think the idea was that if the oil didn't kill everything, the cleanup would fix that. I was reading a NOAA paper earlier on the effectiveness of that technique, which was negative, but I seem to have lost the link.
Beyond that, I can try to dig up more local sources tomorrow, if you'd like. Certainly I could provide a wealth of anecdote, but I'm sure that more concrete data is available within the community.
The Exxon spill may not be the best example. The cleanup efforts were probably more harmful than the spill itself, and the environment has completely recovered since then. My authority on the subject comes from having lived in Valdez, AK for nearly my entire life; I can provide further sources if need be.
This criticism should not be taken as arguing against your point in general.
Arthur C. Clarke:
"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert."
There's a relative paucity of teens on here. I was introduced to /. in...hmmm...I suppose I must have been about the same age. That would have been about eight years ago. Obviously I didn't register then :)
I was just kind of wondering what sort of bizarre life experience leads one here at your age. The topics here tend to be rather abstruse.
Where did you hear about slashdot?
It could be worse.
You could be an AC :(
You are absolutely right! Online reviews are complete and utter bunk!
Luckily, a solution exists. Clearly, when buying a new car, the appropriate thing to do is Ask Slashdot :D
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it does not cool the planet. Inorganic materials have been shown to absorb carbon dioxide. If employed on a large scale it would reduce the levels of atmospheric carbon, thus cooling the planet. It would probably not be cost-effective and is almost certainly not the right way to go about things, but that certainly dispels the notion that plants are the only thing that can cool the planet.
Dark things absorb solar radiation and re-radiate it as heat. Solar panels absorb solar radiation and store the energy; a 100% efficient solar panel would indeed work to cool the planet, but even non-ideal solar panels will likely re-radiate comparatively little energy.
The link is current as of April 2008. Your reference to the World Food Programme does not actually support your argument; I will explain further in a moment.
As far as infrastructure and energy density, those are beyond the point. Nuclear power is finite. It's great now, but ultimately unsustainable. Solar power will be available for somewhat longer than life on Earth will be possible. There will be a point where renewable energy sources will be the only ones available to us; why hasten that day? Nuclear power should be used only where other energy sources are infeasible. As a minor note, the cost per watt for solar power has recently become lower than nuclear or coal.
On the job side of things, a quick search seems to indicate that renewable energy sources would employ more people. The most concise link I could find on the subject is unfortunately a blog, but there seems to be much more information here, if you care to wade through it.
Now, there are a few details that you have clearly not considered. First, simply pouring water on a desert does not make it ideal for growing crops. Most often all that does is create an erosion problem. Soil that is suitable for growing crops is quite different from desert sand, and is the result of a completely different ecosystem than what is found in desert. It is theoretically possible to change one into the other, however this takes both time and far more money than would ever be realized from such a venture. I would hate to see the manufacturing process for obtaining the organic materials and fertilizers required; we have more than enough problems with that sort of mess as is. Further, where would the water come from? If you're proposing to build huge expensive nuclear desalinization plants and colossal water pipelines, at huge (presumeably taxpayer) expense, and then use all of that on plants? Something tells me not many people would be supportive of this idea.
We come back to the most important flaw in what you propose. Aside from the other glaring issues (I have not even mentioned nuclear waste), the problem of hunger stems not from inadequate production, but inadequate distribution. North America clearly has no problems feeding its inhabitants, nor does Europe. Neither do we have excessive problems with obtaining sufficient drinking water. What sense does it make to increase the food supply in North America when not only are we not having a problem here, but as you say, the cost of shipping food is becoming more costly all the time? Why irrigate US deserts when Africa is starving?
As to your last point, lack of clean water does not mean lack of water. Water is a necessity for human life; where it is not present, neither are we. Filtering and sterilizing water is less expensive than desalinization by several orders of magnitude. The solution is not to unnecessarily "produce" more water, but to clean what water is already present.
I'm sure you've heard the term 'word salad' to describe nonsensical sentences. I'd like to coin the term 'fact salad' to describe your arguments. I realize this may rankle, but I would take it as a spur to more carefully research your positions before claiming someone else is wrong.
What better way to cool the planet than to green the deserts?
Yes, that's what you should have said. It's a good question, and outside my ability to answer. However, to say that it is the only way to cool the planet is highly misleading.
We don't currently produce enough food for the whole planet.
That appears to be incorrect.
Your arguments run counter to themselves. "If we green the deserts..." "Darker colors retain heat." So by that logic, we should leave them as deserts so to better reflect the sun's heat.
Solar cells are designed to convert sunlight to electricity, not heat. An efficient solar cell will not add heat to the atmosphere.
Plants need CO2 for food, yes, in a simplistic sense. Implying that we therefore need elevated levels of atmospheric carbon is misleading. I'm having to assume that by "nuclear plant" you mean a nuclear-powered desalinasation facility, and it's enough to say that that would be hugely expensive and technically challenging, contrasted with something like a solar furnace or solar panels which are a relatively cheap and have no dangerous waste products. Fuel for nuclear power plants is abundant at the moment, but finite.
Also, modern industrialized agriculture being what it is, I'd say that it'd probably be best to leave the deserts well enough alone.
So, I say that your argument is flawed and your proposal is both impractical and unsound in principle.
We "must" have higher levels of CO2? Really? And desert irrigation is the only way to cool the planet? I am skeptical.
Solar panels warm the planet how? By increasing the amount of sunlight striking the Earth's surface? I think you may be mistaken there.
Being stoned is pretty good.
The short answer is that that tachyons can't transmit information. The short explanation is that Einstein's theories prevent it.
Anything with mass cannot reach the speed of light; it would require an infinite amount of energy. Anything without mass travels at the speed of light. Tachyons are obtained by throwing imaginary numbers into the mix.
Dark matter is thought to be matter that does not interact with other matter except gravitationally. We don't have much of an idea what that would look like, but it would obey the rest of the physical laws as we understand them.
If you have any other questions I can try to answer them. Wikipedia has a good article on faster-than-light.
Also, I hope that you don't mind me correcting you, but the the word is 'piqued'.
No, no, and the last question is probably a no, but you could elaborate on what "it" refers to for a more definite answer.
Information cannot propagate faster than the speed of light. The speed of light is an absolute limit.
Not to detract from your point, but the Inuit do use iceboxes when they are available. It's not freezing in Alaska all year, and being able to keep foodstuffs at a consistent temperature is useful. The components of western civilization that they have adopted nearly universally are alcohol, firearms, and snowmobiles, but I believe most villages that have power also have iceboxes.
Murdering people can be an effective way to change the law--you are correct in that much. But nonviolent civil disobedience has been shown to be quite effective. What purpose does it serve to obey an unjust law?
I believe, however, for civil disobedience to be effective, it must be public---as public as possible. For further details, I would refer to the relevant work on the subject by M. K. Gandhi et al.
Why would I care about feelings of people whose most dear beliefs and positions I am trying to discredit?
Don't care about their feelings, care about the feelings of the people who you are trying to persuade.
What "yesterday argument"? Americans' unwavering belief in their glorious history is very much the current problem.
Given the wide publication of 'A People's History of the United States' and other similar literature, I would say that is an overbroad generalization. "Yesterday's argument" is explained by the context of that sentence. I am sure that re-reading my post will clear up that difficulty for you.
Being someone's enemy does not make me a savage.
I'm sorry if your English isn't very good, but it is not necessary to be a savage to be characterized as having savage behavior. That error almost seems deliberate.
I would rather express my idea in the form that can be judged by the content. Smart people will get it, and I am not interested in convincing dumb people, humiliating them is good enough.
Your content is spurious and devoid of anything but self-righteous vitriol.
Conceal facts that are already announced by your opponents, so rhetoric is used to twist their meaning and distract the observers. I thought, that was pretty obvious.
You must not have actually read what I wrote.
As opposed to what, political propaganda that is reliable in being wrong, misleading and manipulative? Appeal to authority when my original claim is that authority figures are lying? It's not like my experience is not backed by tens of millions of other people who had seen the same (though most wouldn't bother talking to Americans unless you ask them).
Perhaps you have a problem with only reading what you want to read. Back your assertions. If tens of millions of people agree with you, there should be some indication of that. Probably out of tens of millions you can even find an economist. Hell, you can't even find the "authority figures" you're railing against. Who are you fighting here? Do you have this argument in the mirror each morning?
Really? Actually I did both, it's just the result is something you don't like, so you can't accept it. Congratulations, you are a true American patriot.
Now this is just slander and projection. Clearly you cannot distinguish between criticism of what you say and criticism of how you say it. If you'd taken the time to comprehend my statements, you'd find that I have been focused solely on the latter.
"I did both." Bullshit. Your writing is abysmal, and you have no facts, and a single vehement assertion. How many ways can I rephrase this? You can't just jump to the end of the argument, declare victory, and have done. If events happened as you say they did (and we have no particular reason to doubt you), then they can't have vanished into a void. There must be some evidence---produce it.
Understand that what you're doing is the equivalent of saying (with great rancor) that the mountains on Pluto are green. Despite what you think, few people really care one way or another. However, while there is no particular reason why what you say should not be true, it is not made true merely by your word alone.
If you cannot muster any evidence, then you are no different than the stereotypical American you deride. Your militant belief in your own self-righteousness is identically despicable.
Why should you not be an asshole? Because it's unpleasant to read and does not lend support to your argument. No matter if you've argued with friends in the past over this; they aren't here now, and most people here are either not American or not compelled to be an asshole as a matter of course. You can't win yesterday's argument by being savage today.
Rhetoric is necessary to influence people. It is what distinguishes effective communication from mere words strewn on a page. Concealing fact can fall within the bounds of an effective argument, but this is not generally the case. Also, there are other ways of concealing fact. Secrecy, for example, is probably far more effective than rhetoric.
Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable, and your own unsubstantiated opinion is fit for no purpose that I'm aware of. The same is true of this other fellow, and of myself: none of us have any more inherent credibility than any other. To promote your view, then, you must have a well-written argument, or have a set of facts that speak for themselves. Since you have no apparent aptitude for the former, the latter is necessary.
As to the standard of proof, that is for your opponents to decide. I think you'll find the bar is set rather low; I would accept anything more reliable than opinion. You could probably even find an economist that you liked and argue why his opinion should be considered reliable. Facts and figures would, of course, be appreciated.
Perhaps you could write a Journal on this subject, since the discussion here is likely over.
Haven't you made this exact same post before? It's a good one, to be sure, but perhaps you could expand on it slightly?
Just a thought.