1. This is several claims and a couple of them are questionable. a. Strong? not sure about that. b. Peer reviewed? Often by a circle jerk of a few scientists that peer review each other. What is more, several of the more powerful ones are on record threatening Journals that publish anything that calls their work into question. That undermines the whole process. What is more, a major problem with peer review is that who is peer reviewing is often kept secret. This is cited as a benefit because they don't have to fear reprisals from peers. However, it also allows for a misunderstanding as to how much rigor is in the process. Further conflicts of interest are utterly hidden. I have a problem with that. c. just a repeat effectively of point a. d. just a repeat of point b apparently.
2. Well, a major part of the outcry is the obvious political entanglements that damage the credibility of the whole thing. a. As to kooks... that's merely ad hominem and has no meaning in actual science. That you cite ad hominem as an argument for your position is really just evidence against your own credibility. b. As to not having papers challenge stuff, there are a lot of papers that challenge a lot of things in AGW and a lot of them are sustained. A big problem with challenging a lot of the stuff they do is that people like you have made it political. Lets say I have iron clad proof that you're full of shit as a scientist... is it in my interest for my career to publish that if I believe there is corruption in the peer review process, that there are conflicts of interest in the universities because of funding, and if I think that there are political issues that might get me blackballed by politicians? Best to keep my head down no? Still, people do get into it. Mostly older scientists because they have less to lose. If you destroy their career they don't care because they were retiring anyway. The younger scientists fear that people like you will see that they are flipping burgers with a PhD. Your consensus is a self fulling prophecy to a certain extent because you've created a climate of fear.
3. As to things being verified, that's actually over stated. I'll cite this by Richard Feynman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Science isn't about blind faith and dogma. You have to verify and check and be skeptical and question. Its a pity you probably won't listen to what I posted. Its entertaining on top of everything else. Shrugs.
4. More ad hominem.
As to what is and is not rational. You haven't been making rational statements. So I don't know where you get off calling anyone else rational or not. You've been spouting fallacies. Those are text book IRRATIONAL statements.
The sat data doesn't go back very far. The dutch data does. Furthermore, I really have to be clear here... I am not questioning the oceans are rising or that the temps are going up. I question the correlation with CO2 emissions. And if you don't have correlation, then you can't have causation.
As to temp data, I'm not interested in talking about that data set because is basically opaque. Its like that joke computer from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... meaning of life is 42. Its a generalizing and averaging issue. Lets focus on the sea levels and the theory. I can audit those. The I can't audit the temp data. Its not reasonable to cite data that can't be audited.
The dutch link takes a bit more work. I'll get back to that if you're open to debate. The issue and the good thing with the dutch data is that it is raw. Also when the dutch started taking these they didn't think the oceans were rising. They just thought the ground was sinking. So their old dike graphs which were kept accurate so they knew how high to make the dikes... Anyway, they're cited as subsistence graphs. But they go back to 1700. The trick is to figure out what the real subsidence was... then tilt the graph so that that line is horizontal. Values above that line are sea level rise and lines below it are sea level fall. Anyway, its a pain in the ass.
Most sea level charts that I see that cite a specific auditable tide gauge show no acceleration in the sea level rise. And where you do see that, if you query that source you tend to find references to a subsistence rate that is not factored into the tide gauge data. When you do that the curve tends to flatten. Look, if I trusted opaque numbers that can't be audited using methodology that is often not fully detailed... then I'd be right there with you and agree with everything you're saying.
I don't trust things that I can't audit. I like information that is either raw or very easily reconstructed because the methodology is detailed specifically enough that I can put whatever transformation in reverse and get the literal original. I don't like super averages of huge data sets. It requires that everything being averaged together be "like" elements. Going through every one of those stations and auditing the information individually is not something I think anyone does when they build these tables. They maybe discard outliers. But I really think you have to go through all those stations one at a time and make sure each one is properly calculated. And that process has to be part of the actual paper that averages them. You have to show in the paper that averages that the things you're averaging can be averaged. Something I'm aware of is that subsistence is a really big problem with these graphs. I really doubt that the majority of people on this site that will tell me I'm a fool for not just listening and believing to whatever you say... I doubt most of them would know what subsistence was if I didn't explain it to them. Once you internalize things like that the political impact of lots of people disagreeing with you becomes ignorable because they didn't look into it at all.
As to terms you won't debate... I won't debate terms that you won't debate. You either debate or you don't.
As to your assertion that science is in fact a democracy, I have no problem with the statement that the consensus is likely to be correct. However, it is not always correct. It is sometimes in error. There are many documented cases of the consensus being wrong. Thus it is a fallacy to say that because the consensus says X that X must be true. You can say that your "vote of hands" idea is often correct. However, it isn't always right. So that isn't evidence of being correct.
As to listening to climate experts... there are climate experts that say many different things and many of them are contradictory. Your policy is to go with t
Neither do you. Its a double edged sword. By this logic, no one has a right to an opinion that doesn't have a given degree. Your premise is fallacious. People without qualification X or Y are sometimes correct. That means having that degree doesn't make you right or someone else wrong.
As such having or not having the qualification doesn't mean anything you're saying is inherently right or wrong.
That is self evident logic. You must concede the point or declare yourself as illogical.
I see a lot of error codes. And I am right nearly every time when I see an error code as to what went wrong.
I know the error codes. You want your bar codes? Have them. I am not trying to take anything from you. Let me have my error code.
At the very least there should be a setting to make the BSOD give an error code or not. Then I can just enable it.
Anyway... I have little patience for people that presume to tell other people on their machines how to structure their own user interface. You're like some fellow presuming to tell me what settings to key into my car seat.
Okay so you concede you have not made a scientific or even rational argument. You've basically spouted a bunch of fallacies...
What you're doing is confusing politics with science. I can play that game too if you want. Want to play politics. Seen the polling numbers of who is supporting whom in the general population?
I'm winning. That's the only politics that matters if you want to play that game.
Look, people let you get away with crap mostly because they let you conflate different intellectual disciplines. I won't.
You want to argue science? Argue scientifically.
You want to argue rationally? Then make self consistent arguments that are not inherently fallacious.
You want to argue politics? Then science and rationality go out the window and we're just seeing which of us can get more people to put our stone into the clay jar to win the election.
The stoics and the sophists have had many wars over the years. Sophists win when things cannot be proven one way or the other. When its all hearsay. When things actually have to work... The universe has a bias to those that subsume their opinions to the empirical.
I know there are lots of marxist socialist states that remain in NATO as a hold over from cold war alliances.
The distaste of these states for the US for not being socialist is a documented reality. The alliances you speak of are already fraying.
Look at the EU collapsing. Look at even democrats in the US talking about changing the nature of NATO to have the US have a smaller role. Look at the Eastern Europeans reject the Western Europeans while reaching out to the US to form a separate alliance.
The UK is leaving the EU and that means they're going to rekindle their relationship with the Common Wealth. This is an option no other power in Europe has available to them.
The party is coming to an end. And while that is going on we are entering a technological transformation that will render your already antiquated ideologies laughable in the same way that the industrial revolution rendered incoherent Feudal policies that were still in practice in many places in the world.
Your politics were crafted in the 1870s or so. Tell me more about the abused factory workers in the automated industrial economy of the near future.
Your grand global revolution that was prophesied didn't happen in time. The game of musical chairs is about to drop you out of the game.
And the Russian research was paid for by the Russian government.
What was the difference?
As to silver bullets... Actually there is if you're not obtuse. The US economy was vastly more productive, efficient, diverse, and innovative. That had compounding effects... production compounds wealth over time. Capital properly invested leads to compounding growth in capital.
Think of the innovation and diversity angle in terms of biology. A bio diverse environment with a higher rate of generational iteration means you evolve faster and explore more adaptations at once.
This is why the Soviets were pretty much always playing catch up technologically.
It isn't. I explained why it wasn't. You need to explain why it is to rebut not merely contradict my conclusion.
Pointblank.
As to the rest of your post... its just obvious rhetorical obtuseness blended with sophistry. So I'm not much moved to engage with you intellectually when you're clearly just squirting ink in the water. You can engage with me if you want. But its not going to be you sniping at me and running away. I will close and grapple.
As to pure research, the pure research happened long before the moon shot. It was all application and engineering after that. And saying they don't do R&D into engineering and practical application is not supportable.
So my examples are actually great.
As to affirming the consequent, why is it that hyper centralized systems have shown to be less productive and innovative then? Here's the problem with your argument. In theory you could be right. However, in practice... aka empirically... you're wrong. And because theory is subordinate to empiricism, you must concede that your theory is incomplete or wrong.
Once you've adjusted your theory to account for its empirical errors, recalculate your conclusions. You're going to be forced to agree with me... by the universe. I will gloat. Its my right.
As to corrupt dictatorships, you centralize power and you get corruption and a dictatorship. So... you're asking for an oxymoron. You want a centralized system that is neither corrupt nor anti-democratic despite massively centralizing authority into a singularity. That's illogical. The centralization of power and authority inherently leads to corruption and tyranny. Centralizing power means reducing the number of people that get to make choices. That inherently leads to tyranny. And once you have tyranny, what you call corruption is just the application of powers they've inherited. If I control everything then why can't I use that power any way I want? That is literally my right under that scenario. That you disagree with how I use the power is merely your opinion. This is why I was saying that so much of marxism relies on "magical thinking". You want things to exist a certain way without having to contend with the negative realities of that system. Its like saying you want to have a submarine but don't want to deal with water pressure. Or you want to build an airplane but don't want to have to deal with drag coefficients, air pressure, power to weight ratios... etc. You can't do that and have an effective system.
Your system does not have any mechanism for dealing with tyranny or corruption. So applying it and then saying it isn't your system because it has tyranny and corruption is irrational. THat's like saying the submarine with a screen door on it is not your design even though it is exactly your design because when put in the water it flooded and sank.
The failure of your system when applied is not evidence that it was not your system. It is merely evidence of failure. There is nothing about marxism that says it can't be corrupt or tyrannical. So citing corruption and tyranny does not make something not marxist.
As to your hand waving at your knowledge of things...Do people on one side of the curtain automatically know more than people on the other? What is more, I can find lots of refugees from such countries that agree with me. So your argument is inherently fallacious on at least two counts. Try again.
Your query is a fishing expedition for a fallacious argument. Don't waste our mutual time with dishonest arguments. I automatically logically deconstruct all arguments. You're not going to slip something through like that. You want to argue that centralizing everything is super profitable and innovative and productive?... It isn't.
As to your attempt to say that the Soviets were a success... the western part of Russia wasn't that backward. Its a big country and parts of Russia have been sophisticated for a long time. Saint Petersburg etc. Do I have to compare western and eastern Germany? Do I have to cite the opinions of Eastern Europeans towards the USSR? I mean... you can't win here. You're basically going to be in the position of defending the USSR and that's not going to go well for you.
What you need to do is uncouple the USSR from your own ideas. But the problem is that that's going to open you up to the no-true-scottsman fallacy... actually succeeding in decoupling those two ideas is going to be hard.
Those are the two options I see there... you will doubtless reach for a third option... we'll see if that's any better but I rather doubt it. You're in an indefensible position. And I am the guy that is very happy to kick someone when they're down... not because I'm malicious... but because people tend to have the impression that they don't get kicked when they're down because I can't... Having honor mistaken for incompetence is not productive. So I kick people in the teeth in these discussion when they're down. Nothing way around it absent some self awareness out of the internet peeps... and they really have none.
Well, I don't think right and left are useful and I do think they're vague concepts no matter how you look at them.
However, I find that marxist derrived is highly predictive as to whether things are labeled left and not marxist derrived is highly predictive for things being labeled right. As such, I see those two terms in that context. The one being marxist and the other being something not marxist.
This serves the interests of marxists because they morally tilt right and left to be up and down morally... where in the more marxist you are the more moral you are and the less marxist you are the less moral you are. That is the value of the linear scale. You can set up a false dichotomy and then get people to compete for high moral virtue by agreeing with an ideology they don't especially understand because the more you agree with it the more moral you are in this paradigm.
I reject the paradigm entirely... see the marxism for the marxism. And instead I want to argue everything on an issue by issue basis from base principles because if you don't do that all the choices tend to be pre-scripted tribalistic answers that don't especially mean what anyone thinks they mean.
When you are offered two choices by a rival and you don't like either option... Create a third option.
I didn't say that socialism and communism are the same thing. So that was a strawman.
As to saying that there is not a connection between marxism and socialism doesn't pass the laugh test.
We can have a real discussion about this if you want. You tell me if that's what you want to do. Absent an affirmative I'll just assume you're shit posting.
Nope. I just said that people misrepresent themselves when it is in their interest to do so. I gave the example of David Duke who is doing that right now by saying he isn't a white supremacist. We have a lot of other examples of politicians lying about their leanings and affiliations and goals.
For you to be right, they'd have to be honest consistently even when it is against their interest to be honest. I have no reason to believe in that.
I see, so you're some peasant that defines socialism as "government gives me stuff"... that's not all socialism is... its also monopolization of industry by the government. When an industry is "socialized" it is taken over by the government. And when YOU are socialized, your life is taken over by the government. Where you live. How much you live on. Why you can buy.
That is what socialism is... its centralization. And if it were more effective then it would be more effective. But is demonstrably less effective so its less effective.
If you want to advocate for a system that is demonstrably less effective that is fine. You do that. But be honest about it. You don't get to claim my system is less productive or less innovative because there is no other system in the world that is more effective or productive. You either concede that point or you're pushing a fantasy.
As to this "study" there are a few problems with it that were immediately noticed:
1. Sample size is not stated. 2. The people that collect the data at phase 1 are different enough from the people in phases 2 and 3 to introduce problems. 3. People in higher phases have access to the data in the lower phases which introduces the opportunity to bias results.
Look, why is this so fucking hard for the sophists to grasp. Release the RAW fucking data with full disclosure of methodology with the maximum transparency.
The actual analysis of that data is not something you're even trusted with at this point. Just release the raw data. Raw. Actually raw. Not processed. And if you want to supplement that data with some analysis... super. You do that, cupcake. But for a statistical opinion survey, you'd think we could get access to the raw data.
But no. Pretty much any opinion statistical study would give you that no problem. You wouldn't even have to prompt them. It would just be there. But with these clowns... its probably in a cipher scribed onto a mummy's leg stored in a secret warehouse guarded by ninja vampire assassins.
Because transparency is apparently something totally alien to climate scientists. Its like talking to the fucking Clintons.
Here is the point of this stupid paper... "I have a high number here... na nah na naaaah"... its basically that. This does nothing to further the discussion. Its just childish crap to confuse the proles.
Sure, every American innovation and economic success was due to Germans...
Were this the case, the Nazis would have been right and they were the Master Race because your argument assumes they were super humans. After all, the combined scientific and industrial efforts of the American, British, Russian, etc were utterly without meaning... everything boiled down to the who had some Nazis to milk.
So which is it, are you full of shit or are you a Aryan supremacist?
Because you're so stupid that you literally made an argument that can only be sustained by sucking Hitler's dick.
Not worth it. Admit you were full of shit and walk with what dignity you have left. Absent that... you can of course double down.
Its heads I win and tales you're a nazi. Pick.
*yawn*
Where do you morons come from? You're like the Internet's argument in favor of late term abortion.
Fine. You get what you want... we put on dark colored paint and kill each other by moon light.
You can either let people alone and have their own opinions and leave the politics to the politics. Or you can start fucking with my apple sauce and that's going to mean retribution.
You clearly think you can manipulate the rules better than the opposition to such an extent that you're invulnerable. Well, have fun with that little dream, sweat heart.
Not in the sense of my comparison which was in the sense that people do not always tell you honestly what they believe.
You say that there are no marxists because there are no people that officially run under that title. My point is that people lie about what they believe all the time and it is extremely common in politics.
After all, think of the political speeches of ANY politician. Does the political opposition of any of these people think they are being entirely honest about those positions? They do not.
Which means your claim that there is only upfront frankness in politics is the statement of either a completely naive new born baby... or a fucking liar.
Which of the two are you? Are you literally a toddler? Because if you're not... you're completely full of shit.
Its not an extreme hyperbole. You're saying you want to turn everyone against everyone. You want us all to start denying service and not using the businesses of people that don't ascribe to the values of our tribe like a bunch of fucking primitives.
That you don't understand what you're doing is not surprising to me. That was in fact my point.
You do not know what you're doing. You're the baby with a hand grenade. And you're sucking on the pin.
As to you having no problem with people refusing service on ideological grounds. You would of course extend that to any professional relationship? You're going to either have to admit to hypocrisy on this or admit the boycott idea is destructive. There's one way out of the box you made for yourself. You can either leave through the door or sit in it.
As to you NOW saying you're against both. Excellent, so you agree with me that the boycotts are destructive and should not be encouraged.
High five.
As to even bigger hyperboles... actually segregating coffee shops racially is less of a hyperbole than the country being over. Also, we have existing examples of racial segregation. Typically against white people not for them... but technically the same thing. And as to the destructive nature of it... it doesn't really knit a community together when you're doing that sort of shit. So... yeah... basically the same thing in all ways that matter.
1. As to warning that things can fail. They do fail. So while most such claims are false... one of them is eventually right. Rejecting my statement out of hand means that you'll be surprised when it happens.
2. As to me guessing correctly that you would have a double standard on that association argument.
Boom... head shot.
As to doctors and big deals... freedom of association. Right? I told you your idea would destroy everything. You didn't understand and you probably still don't.
3. As to some chicken sandwich place... you go where you want. When you tell everyone to stop doing business with them because someone that founded the company makes a legal political contribution using his own money to voice his own opinion in the political process... and your response is BURN THE HERETIC... yeah, that's a problem. You shop where you want. Don't however force the zoning commission to deny them a business license in the area or harass people that just want to get lunch. And both of those things happened.
That's well beyond you personally making choices. That's using collective action to punish opposing political views.
And again, I have no problem with that so long as it goes both ways. Which means I don't have to serve you if I don't feel like it. Freedom to refuse service, am I right?
Again, it has to go both ways or not at all. You want to have an opinion? Have any opinion you want. Its a free country. We're not talking about opinions. We're talking about financially ruining people that don't ascribe to your politics.
Not The Same Thing.
And if you'll let me ruin your economic situation simply for pissing me off, then lets do it. Lets fuck ourselves over as fast as we possibly can by undermining everything.
4. As to hobgoblins, I see... it doesn't matter... then you clearly won't mind when we take the opposing position and permit businesses to deny service to customers on the basis of politics?
Hobgoblins indeed, sir.
5. As to things being tools and thus being right in one case rather than another... sure, and if we judge that to be what is in your interests versus someone else's then you are quiet correct.
The problem with these ideas is that you're weaponizing them. And that means you're incentivizing other people to do the same thing. And if you think you're the only one that can think of something nasty to do with the law... you are kidding yourself.
We can play fair and be honest about our positions or we can smear dark paints on our faces and play who is a better killer by moonlight.
You're forcing people to take an adversarial position towards you.
By concentrating power in the government and making those not invested in government office less powerful?
Apparently you want to go back to the old Nobility days... when the rich were not only rich but lords and masters of everyone.
You're just moving money into the hands of the government.
It was the separation of the money from the government that helped give rise to our freedoms in the first place. You re-concentrate power and wealth and we're all fucked.
Which is why most neo nazis tell people they're neo nazis.
Obviously certain political factions have a history of not being upfront. That's just a fact.
As to problems with Marxists, define your premise sophist. Upon what are we to judge goodness or badness? If your definition is so loose that the marxists don't get judged bad, I'll show how your own system is so loose that probably Nazis or something get judged acceptable. And if you're system is too tight so that only marxists are judged good, then I'll show that you're probably citing fluffy kittens or something as evil.
I know you want to play definition games. And that's okay with me. I'm as good with them as anyone. Your move. Define goodness and badness... Or withdraw the statement.
Any idiot can take someone out of context. I said this:
I mean really... That said, it would be interesting to see how this "wobble" effects the distribution of thermal energy on the planet. I suspect that we're going to get a few people saying "look at the climate change!'... ignoring that maybe the earth has tilted one way or the other slightly which could account for changes in climate in parts of the world.
Whatever... everything is climate change and everything would be improved if we just put the Marxists in power... just ask the Marxists. *rolls eyes*.
You took my statement out of context to make it sound like I said something else and then responded to it. I was referring to "a few people" that would be specious enough play games with the number. Not everyone. your cherry picked quote implied I said something which I did not.
Your apology is already on record and accepted. Good day.
Slashdot Mirror
1. This is several claims and a couple of them are questionable.
a. Strong? not sure about that.
b. Peer reviewed? Often by a circle jerk of a few scientists that peer review each other. What is more, several of the more powerful ones are on record threatening Journals that publish anything that calls their work into question. That undermines the whole process. What is more, a major problem with peer review is that who is peer reviewing is often kept secret. This is cited as a benefit because they don't have to fear reprisals from peers. However, it also allows for a misunderstanding as to how much rigor is in the process. Further conflicts of interest are utterly hidden. I have a problem with that.
c. just a repeat effectively of point a.
d. just a repeat of point b apparently.
2. Well, a major part of the outcry is the obvious political entanglements that damage the credibility of the whole thing.
a. As to kooks... that's merely ad hominem and has no meaning in actual science. That you cite ad hominem as an argument for your position is really just evidence against your own credibility.
b. As to not having papers challenge stuff, there are a lot of papers that challenge a lot of things in AGW and a lot of them are sustained. A big problem with challenging a lot of the stuff they do is that people like you have made it political. Lets say I have iron clad proof that you're full of shit as a scientist... is it in my interest for my career to publish that if I believe there is corruption in the peer review process, that there are conflicts of interest in the universities because of funding, and if I think that there are political issues that might get me blackballed by politicians? Best to keep my head down no? Still, people do get into it. Mostly older scientists because they have less to lose. If you destroy their career they don't care because they were retiring anyway. The younger scientists fear that people like you will see that they are flipping burgers with a PhD. Your consensus is a self fulling prophecy to a certain extent because you've created a climate of fear.
3. As to things being verified, that's actually over stated. I'll cite this by Richard Feynman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Science isn't about blind faith and dogma. You have to verify and check and be skeptical and question. Its a pity you probably won't listen to what I posted. Its entertaining on top of everything else. Shrugs.
4. More ad hominem.
As to what is and is not rational. You haven't been making rational statements. So I don't know where you get off calling anyone else rational or not. You've been spouting fallacies. Those are text book IRRATIONAL statements.
The sat data doesn't go back very far. The dutch data does. Furthermore, I really have to be clear here... I am not questioning the oceans are rising or that the temps are going up. I question the correlation with CO2 emissions. And if you don't have correlation, then you can't have causation.
As to temp data, I'm not interested in talking about that data set because is basically opaque. Its like that joke computer from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... meaning of life is 42. Its a generalizing and averaging issue. Lets focus on the sea levels and the theory. I can audit those. The I can't audit the temp data. Its not reasonable to cite data that can't be audited.
As to links, here is a fun one:
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanogr...
The dutch link takes a bit more work. I'll get back to that if you're open to debate. The issue and the good thing with the dutch data is that it is raw. Also when the dutch started taking these they didn't think the oceans were rising. They just thought the ground was sinking. So their old dike graphs which were kept accurate so they knew how high to make the dikes... Anyway, they're cited as subsistence graphs. But they go back to 1700. The trick is to figure out what the real subsidence was... then tilt the graph so that that line is horizontal. Values above that line are sea level rise and lines below it are sea level fall. Anyway, its a pain in the ass.
Most sea level charts that I see that cite a specific auditable tide gauge show no acceleration in the sea level rise. And where you do see that, if you query that source you tend to find references to a subsistence rate that is not factored into the tide gauge data. When you do that the curve tends to flatten. Look, if I trusted opaque numbers that can't be audited using methodology that is often not fully detailed... then I'd be right there with you and agree with everything you're saying.
I don't trust things that I can't audit. I like information that is either raw or very easily reconstructed because the methodology is detailed specifically enough that I can put whatever transformation in reverse and get the literal original. I don't like super averages of huge data sets. It requires that everything being averaged together be "like" elements. Going through every one of those stations and auditing the information individually is not something I think anyone does when they build these tables. They maybe discard outliers. But I really think you have to go through all those stations one at a time and make sure each one is properly calculated. And that process has to be part of the actual paper that averages them. You have to show in the paper that averages that the things you're averaging can be averaged. Something I'm aware of is that subsistence is a really big problem with these graphs. I really doubt that the majority of people on this site that will tell me I'm a fool for not just listening and believing to whatever you say... I doubt most of them would know what subsistence was if I didn't explain it to them. Once you internalize things like that the political impact of lots of people disagreeing with you becomes ignorable because they didn't look into it at all.
As to terms you won't debate... I won't debate terms that you won't debate. You either debate or you don't.
As to your assertion that science is in fact a democracy, I have no problem with the statement that the consensus is likely to be correct. However, it is not always correct. It is sometimes in error. There are many documented cases of the consensus being wrong. Thus it is a fallacy to say that because the consensus says X that X must be true. You can say that your "vote of hands" idea is often correct. However, it isn't always right. So that isn't evidence of being correct.
As to listening to climate experts... there are climate experts that say many different things and many of them are contradictory. Your policy is to go with t
Neither do you. Its a double edged sword. By this logic, no one has a right to an opinion that doesn't have a given degree. Your premise is fallacious. People without qualification X or Y are sometimes correct. That means having that degree doesn't make you right or someone else wrong.
As such having or not having the qualification doesn't mean anything you're saying is inherently right or wrong.
That is self evident logic. You must concede the point or declare yourself as illogical.
I see a lot of error codes. And I am right nearly every time when I see an error code as to what went wrong.
I know the error codes. You want your bar codes? Have them. I am not trying to take anything from you. Let me have my error code.
At the very least there should be a setting to make the BSOD give an error code or not. Then I can just enable it.
Anyway... I have little patience for people that presume to tell other people on their machines how to structure their own user interface. You're like some fellow presuming to tell me what settings to key into my car seat.
You do what you like... that's "you".
Okay so you concede you have not made a scientific or even rational argument. You've basically spouted a bunch of fallacies...
What you're doing is confusing politics with science. I can play that game too if you want. Want to play politics. Seen the polling numbers of who is supporting whom in the general population?
I'm winning. That's the only politics that matters if you want to play that game.
Look, people let you get away with crap mostly because they let you conflate different intellectual disciplines. I won't.
You want to argue science? Argue scientifically.
You want to argue rationally? Then make self consistent arguments that are not inherently fallacious.
You want to argue politics? Then science and rationality go out the window and we're just seeing which of us can get more people to put our stone into the clay jar to win the election.
The stoics and the sophists have had many wars over the years. Sophists win when things cannot be proven one way or the other. When its all hearsay. When things actually have to work... The universe has a bias to those that subsume their opinions to the empirical.
I know there are lots of marxist socialist states that remain in NATO as a hold over from cold war alliances.
The distaste of these states for the US for not being socialist is a documented reality. The alliances you speak of are already fraying.
Look at the EU collapsing. Look at even democrats in the US talking about changing the nature of NATO to have the US have a smaller role. Look at the Eastern Europeans reject the Western Europeans while reaching out to the US to form a separate alliance.
The UK is leaving the EU and that means they're going to rekindle their relationship with the Common Wealth. This is an option no other power in Europe has available to them.
The party is coming to an end. And while that is going on we are entering a technological transformation that will render your already antiquated ideologies laughable in the same way that the industrial revolution rendered incoherent Feudal policies that were still in practice in many places in the world.
Your politics were crafted in the 1870s or so. Tell me more about the abused factory workers in the automated industrial economy of the near future.
Your grand global revolution that was prophesied didn't happen in time. The game of musical chairs is about to drop you out of the game.
Chao.
And the Russian research was paid for by the Russian government.
What was the difference?
As to silver bullets... Actually there is if you're not obtuse. The US economy was vastly more productive, efficient, diverse, and innovative. That had compounding effects... production compounds wealth over time. Capital properly invested leads to compounding growth in capital.
Think of the innovation and diversity angle in terms of biology. A bio diverse environment with a higher rate of generational iteration means you evolve faster and explore more adaptations at once.
This is why the Soviets were pretty much always playing catch up technologically.
I'm sorry that your god is a lie. But it is.
It isn't. I explained why it wasn't. You need to explain why it is to rebut not merely contradict my conclusion.
Pointblank.
As to the rest of your post... its just obvious rhetorical obtuseness blended with sophistry. So I'm not much moved to engage with you intellectually when you're clearly just squirting ink in the water. You can engage with me if you want. But its not going to be you sniping at me and running away. I will close and grapple.
As to pure research, the pure research happened long before the moon shot. It was all application and engineering after that. And saying they don't do R&D into engineering and practical application is not supportable.
So my examples are actually great.
As to affirming the consequent, why is it that hyper centralized systems have shown to be less productive and innovative then? Here's the problem with your argument. In theory you could be right. However, in practice... aka empirically... you're wrong. And because theory is subordinate to empiricism, you must concede that your theory is incomplete or wrong.
Once you've adjusted your theory to account for its empirical errors, recalculate your conclusions. You're going to be forced to agree with me... by the universe. I will gloat. Its my right.
As to corrupt dictatorships, you centralize power and you get corruption and a dictatorship. So... you're asking for an oxymoron. You want a centralized system that is neither corrupt nor anti-democratic despite massively centralizing authority into a singularity. That's illogical. The centralization of power and authority inherently leads to corruption and tyranny. Centralizing power means reducing the number of people that get to make choices. That inherently leads to tyranny. And once you have tyranny, what you call corruption is just the application of powers they've inherited. If I control everything then why can't I use that power any way I want? That is literally my right under that scenario. That you disagree with how I use the power is merely your opinion. This is why I was saying that so much of marxism relies on "magical thinking". You want things to exist a certain way without having to contend with the negative realities of that system. Its like saying you want to have a submarine but don't want to deal with water pressure. Or you want to build an airplane but don't want to have to deal with drag coefficients, air pressure, power to weight ratios... etc. You can't do that and have an effective system.
Your system does not have any mechanism for dealing with tyranny or corruption. So applying it and then saying it isn't your system because it has tyranny and corruption is irrational. THat's like saying the submarine with a screen door on it is not your design even though it is exactly your design because when put in the water it flooded and sank.
The failure of your system when applied is not evidence that it was not your system. It is merely evidence of failure. There is nothing about marxism that says it can't be corrupt or tyrannical. So citing corruption and tyranny does not make something not marxist.
As to your hand waving at your knowledge of things...Do people on one side of the curtain automatically know more than people on the other? What is more, I can find lots of refugees from such countries that agree with me. So your argument is inherently fallacious on at least two counts. Try again.
Your query is a fishing expedition for a fallacious argument. Don't waste our mutual time with dishonest arguments. I automatically logically deconstruct all arguments. You're not going to slip something through like that. You want to argue that centralizing everything is super profitable and innovative and productive?... It isn't.
As to your attempt to say that the Soviets were a success... the western part of Russia wasn't that backward. Its a big country and parts of Russia have been sophisticated for a long time. Saint Petersburg etc. Do I have to compare western and eastern Germany? Do I have to cite the opinions of Eastern Europeans towards the USSR? I mean... you can't win here. You're basically going to be in the position of defending the USSR and that's not going to go well for you.
What you need to do is uncouple the USSR from your own ideas. But the problem is that that's going to open you up to the no-true-scottsman fallacy... actually succeeding in decoupling those two ideas is going to be hard.
Those are the two options I see there... you will doubtless reach for a third option... we'll see if that's any better but I rather doubt it. You're in an indefensible position. And I am the guy that is very happy to kick someone when they're down... not because I'm malicious... but because people tend to have the impression that they don't get kicked when they're down because I can't... Having honor mistaken for incompetence is not productive. So I kick people in the teeth in these discussion when they're down. Nothing way around it absent some self awareness out of the internet peeps... and they really have none.
Well, I don't think right and left are useful and I do think they're vague concepts no matter how you look at them.
However, I find that marxist derrived is highly predictive as to whether things are labeled left and not marxist derrived is highly predictive for things being labeled right. As such, I see those two terms in that context. The one being marxist and the other being something not marxist.
This serves the interests of marxists because they morally tilt right and left to be up and down morally... where in the more marxist you are the more moral you are and the less marxist you are the less moral you are. That is the value of the linear scale. You can set up a false dichotomy and then get people to compete for high moral virtue by agreeing with an ideology they don't especially understand because the more you agree with it the more moral you are in this paradigm.
I reject the paradigm entirely... see the marxism for the marxism. And instead I want to argue everything on an issue by issue basis from base principles because if you don't do that all the choices tend to be pre-scripted tribalistic answers that don't especially mean what anyone thinks they mean.
When you are offered two choices by a rival and you don't like either option... Create a third option.
I didn't say that socialism and communism are the same thing. So that was a strawman.
As to saying that there is not a connection between marxism and socialism doesn't pass the laugh test.
We can have a real discussion about this if you want. You tell me if that's what you want to do. Absent an affirmative I'll just assume you're shit posting.
Nope. I just said that people misrepresent themselves when it is in their interest to do so. I gave the example of David Duke who is doing that right now by saying he isn't a white supremacist. We have a lot of other examples of politicians lying about their leanings and affiliations and goals.
For you to be right, they'd have to be honest consistently even when it is against their interest to be honest. I have no reason to believe in that.
As to conspiracies... Was Julius Caesar assassinated in the Roman Senate? So conspiracies exist. Have coup d'états happened? So conspiracies exist. Have there been revolutions? So conspiracies exist. Do you think there are special interests in politics where deals are cut in secret to see that bills are passed, loopholes included, etc etc etc? Then what the fuck do we call that?
Your position is a fallacy. Your argument is a reductio ad absurdum.
I see, so you're some peasant that defines socialism as "government gives me stuff"... that's not all socialism is... its also monopolization of industry by the government. When an industry is "socialized" it is taken over by the government. And when YOU are socialized, your life is taken over by the government. Where you live. How much you live on. Why you can buy.
That is what socialism is... its centralization. And if it were more effective then it would be more effective. But is demonstrably less effective so its less effective.
If you want to advocate for a system that is demonstrably less effective that is fine. You do that. But be honest about it. You don't get to claim my system is less productive or less innovative because there is no other system in the world that is more effective or productive. You either concede that point or you're pushing a fantasy.
Science is not a democracy.
As to this "study" there are a few problems with it that were immediately noticed:
1. Sample size is not stated.
2. The people that collect the data at phase 1 are different enough from the people in phases 2 and 3 to introduce problems.
3. People in higher phases have access to the data in the lower phases which introduces the opportunity to bias results.
Look, why is this so fucking hard for the sophists to grasp. Release the RAW fucking data with full disclosure of methodology with the maximum transparency.
The actual analysis of that data is not something you're even trusted with at this point. Just release the raw data. Raw. Actually raw. Not processed. And if you want to supplement that data with some analysis... super. You do that, cupcake. But for a statistical opinion survey, you'd think we could get access to the raw data.
But no. Pretty much any opinion statistical study would give you that no problem. You wouldn't even have to prompt them. It would just be there. But with these clowns... its probably in a cipher scribed onto a mummy's leg stored in a secret warehouse guarded by ninja vampire assassins.
Because transparency is apparently something totally alien to climate scientists. Its like talking to the fucking Clintons.
Here is the point of this stupid paper... "I have a high number here... na nah na naaaah"... its basically that. This does nothing to further the discussion. Its just childish crap to confuse the proles.
Sure, every American innovation and economic success was due to Germans...
Were this the case, the Nazis would have been right and they were the Master Race because your argument assumes they were super humans. After all, the combined scientific and industrial efforts of the American, British, Russian, etc were utterly without meaning... everything boiled down to the who had some Nazis to milk.
So which is it, are you full of shit or are you a Aryan supremacist?
Because you're so stupid that you literally made an argument that can only be sustained by sucking Hitler's dick.
Not worth it. Admit you were full of shit and walk with what dignity you have left. Absent that... you can of course double down.
Its heads I win and tales you're a nazi. Pick.
*yawn*
Where do you morons come from? You're like the Internet's argument in favor of late term abortion.
Fine. You get what you want... we put on dark colored paint and kill each other by moon light.
You can either let people alone and have their own opinions and leave the politics to the politics. Or you can start fucking with my apple sauce and that's going to mean retribution.
You clearly think you can manipulate the rules better than the opposition to such an extent that you're invulnerable. Well, have fun with that little dream, sweat heart.
Not in the sense of my comparison which was in the sense that people do not always tell you honestly what they believe.
You say that there are no marxists because there are no people that officially run under that title. My point is that people lie about what they believe all the time and it is extremely common in politics.
After all, think of the political speeches of ANY politician. Does the political opposition of any of these people think they are being entirely honest about those positions? They do not.
Which means your claim that there is only upfront frankness in politics is the statement of either a completely naive new born baby... or a fucking liar.
Which of the two are you? Are you literally a toddler? Because if you're not... you're completely full of shit.
Its not an extreme hyperbole. You're saying you want to turn everyone against everyone. You want us all to start denying service and not using the businesses of people that don't ascribe to the values of our tribe like a bunch of fucking primitives.
That you don't understand what you're doing is not surprising to me. That was in fact my point.
You do not know what you're doing. You're the baby with a hand grenade. And you're sucking on the pin.
As to you having no problem with people refusing service on ideological grounds. You would of course extend that to any professional relationship? You're going to either have to admit to hypocrisy on this or admit the boycott idea is destructive. There's one way out of the box you made for yourself. You can either leave through the door or sit in it.
As to you NOW saying you're against both. Excellent, so you agree with me that the boycotts are destructive and should not be encouraged.
High five.
As to even bigger hyperboles... actually segregating coffee shops racially is less of a hyperbole than the country being over. Also, we have existing examples of racial segregation. Typically against white people not for them... but technically the same thing. And as to the destructive nature of it... it doesn't really knit a community together when you're doing that sort of shit. So... yeah... basically the same thing in all ways that matter.
1. As to warning that things can fail. They do fail. So while most such claims are false... one of them is eventually right. Rejecting my statement out of hand means that you'll be surprised when it happens.
2. As to me guessing correctly that you would have a double standard on that association argument.
Boom... head shot.
As to doctors and big deals... freedom of association. Right? I told you your idea would destroy everything. You didn't understand and you probably still don't.
3. As to some chicken sandwich place... you go where you want. When you tell everyone to stop doing business with them because someone that founded the company makes a legal political contribution using his own money to voice his own opinion in the political process... and your response is BURN THE HERETIC... yeah, that's a problem. You shop where you want. Don't however force the zoning commission to deny them a business license in the area or harass people that just want to get lunch. And both of those things happened.
That's well beyond you personally making choices. That's using collective action to punish opposing political views.
And again, I have no problem with that so long as it goes both ways. Which means I don't have to serve you if I don't feel like it. Freedom to refuse service, am I right?
Again, it has to go both ways or not at all. You want to have an opinion? Have any opinion you want. Its a free country. We're not talking about opinions. We're talking about financially ruining people that don't ascribe to your politics.
Not
The
Same
Thing.
And if you'll let me ruin your economic situation simply for pissing me off, then lets do it. Lets fuck ourselves over as fast as we possibly can by undermining everything.
4. As to hobgoblins, I see... it doesn't matter... then you clearly won't mind when we take the opposing position and permit businesses to deny service to customers on the basis of politics?
Hobgoblins indeed, sir.
5. As to things being tools and thus being right in one case rather than another... sure, and if we judge that to be what is in your interests versus someone else's then you are quiet correct.
The problem with these ideas is that you're weaponizing them. And that means you're incentivizing other people to do the same thing. And if you think you're the only one that can think of something nasty to do with the law... you are kidding yourself.
We can play fair and be honest about our positions or we can smear dark paints on our faces and play who is a better killer by moonlight.
You're forcing people to take an adversarial position towards you.
And if you believe that, then you believe that David Duke isn't a white supremacist. Just ask him... he'll tell you he isn't.
Believe him?
People are not always what they say they are...
Which is why the USSR as a far more centralized and socialist society has dramatically superior science than the more wasteful capitalist countries.
Right, dogshit for brains?
I'm not trolling. I'm right. And you can't handle it.
By concentrating power in the government and making those not invested in government office less powerful?
Apparently you want to go back to the old Nobility days... when the rich were not only rich but lords and masters of everyone.
You're just moving money into the hands of the government.
It was the separation of the money from the government that helped give rise to our freedoms in the first place. You re-concentrate power and wealth and we're all fucked.
Which is why most neo nazis tell people they're neo nazis.
Obviously certain political factions have a history of not being upfront. That's just a fact.
As to problems with Marxists, define your premise sophist. Upon what are we to judge goodness or badness? If your definition is so loose that the marxists don't get judged bad, I'll show how your own system is so loose that probably Nazis or something get judged acceptable. And if you're system is too tight so that only marxists are judged good, then I'll show that you're probably citing fluffy kittens or something as evil.
I know you want to play definition games. And that's okay with me. I'm as good with them as anyone. Your move. Define goodness and badness... Or withdraw the statement.
Either way I am happy.
Sorry
Apology accepted.
Any idiot can take someone out of context. I said this:
I mean really... That said, it would be interesting to see how this "wobble" effects the distribution of thermal energy on the planet. I suspect that we're going to get a few people saying "look at the climate change!'... ignoring that maybe the earth has tilted one way or the other slightly which could account for changes in climate in parts of the world.
Whatever... everything is climate change and everything would be improved if we just put the Marxists in power... just ask the Marxists. *rolls eyes*.
You took my statement out of context to make it sound like I said something else and then responded to it. I was referring to "a few people" that would be specious enough play games with the number. Not everyone. your cherry picked quote implied I said something which I did not.
Your apology is already on record and accepted. Good day.