I'm not arguing that the planet is not getting measurably warmer. That's a fact.
However we both know that is not the *agenda* of global warming. The Global warming agenda is about shutting down or making more expensive the use of carbon based fuels. It's about imposing expenses on the US and Europe while not imposing the same costs on many other countries.
I don't agree that there are not external causes to human actions. I don't agree that there are not ways to address this without imposing a huge tax on the developed world while giving developing countries the freedom to burn with abandon.
I'm automatically suspicious because of the people I see pushing the global warming agenda. Just like I'm automatically suspicious of "smoking is safe" studies by the tobacco industry and "there is no global warming" studies by scientists backed by major oil corporations.
If it is bad to burn oil and coal, then it is bad for everyone to burn oil and coal.
I've seen "solid" scientific facts turned over several times in my life time. Each time the folks who were wrong just went "oh well, OOPS! My bad!"
I'm not ready to turn the world upside down and impose huge costs on it to satisfy the latest scientific fad.
This is astounding: Again, the more paranoid amongst us might think that climate-change deniers fundamentally hate economic prosperity and want to see humanity across the globe reduced to subsistence levels of economic activity for a generation or more.
I came to the opposite opinion.
The people pushing global warming are those who hate modern society, humans as a species and hate progress seem to be backing this issue most using it as a way to stop progress, stop drilling, stop logging, stop breeding (by 1st worlders anyway), stop personal transportation, personal freedom, etc.
It is astounding because it shows how two people can take the same input data and come to completely opposite opinions.
The automatic assumption that anyone who isn't certain about global warming is a republican is one of the aspects of the debate that makes me so suspicious.
I haven't voted for a republican in close to 20 years.
I've seen many hysterias in my lifetime that turned out to be very wrong. I've seen many "great new solutions to everything" that turned out to be very wrong.
But this time... it's different! This time it's REAL! This time, they won't switch to a different viewpoint in 20 years!
I wonder if you could argue that co2 is high because the temperatures are high.
i.e. a lot of CO2 is being released from melting ice and permafrost lately. These would happen regardless of the basic reason for the temperature rise.
Perhaps historically, when the temperature goes up, Co2 is released into the atmosphere.
---
Despite being fairly cynical about the entire subject- anyone with a brain can see that we are releasing a lot of stored carbon by burning hydrocarbons into the environment fairly quickly. I know plants suck up some of it of course.
You say: The fundamental problem is when you base your beliefs on anything but evidence
Man- you are implicitly trusting that the evidence you see is complete and unaltered. All a corporation has to do is buy enough scientists (or back those who naturally believe in and do research supporting their causes) and you will buy it.
You say: This has always been the case:
It hasn't always been the case.
People used to be constrained by morality more. I'm not a religious person myself but I can see that there was a common morality that made things work. It was put into people before they were old enough to think logically. Even if they did something bad, most felt guilty about it. Today, many non-sociopaths seem to have less and less guilt because they don't agree with or share a common moral code- it's not that they can't distinguish right and wrong- it's that they have their own private morality of "whatever is good for me- is good."
I agree with your point about in smaller, (and stable) communities. However, I disagree in this regard. many smaller communities define: "What's good for us is good." so it is okay for them to behave terribly to people outside of their small circle. Honor is a stupid concept that lets you be taken advantage of by people who lack honor. But when everyone lack's honor, we don't have a society. Society is fine with a small number of people who are different or who are immoral- but when everyone is - you lose cohesion. Everything becomes relative.
As for the last point: I (and the parent poster) have lost the ability to trust or identify any "real credible" sources.
How can we evaluate data which is probably at least partially false. Several times studies like this have been caught ignoring data that didn't fit the viewpoint they were trying to advance. Several times studies have been discounted because big oil/tobacco backed them (even tho facts are facts, right?).
Long term- science works- facts are facts.
Short term- it is subject to group thinking, politics and even basically religious belief that certain concepts are right.
That's the fundamental problem when trust breaks down isn't it.
We have clear evidence that * lots of people lie. * lots of corporations and governments lie.
That's why we *used* to say, "We need to be better than than- we need to do it the hard way because if we don't -we will become as bad as "they" are." As long as only a small minority lie, they gain advantage. When everyone lies tho- the minority loses it's advantage and the rest of society falters.
It is why christian societies used to have an edge- a man's word was his bond. Even if he was evil- you could trust him to not break certain parameters. You can get a lot done based on that trust. Once you lose that shared trust- that line that even an evil person won't cross- it's every man for himself.
So many companies and governments have lied now- that we just can't trust them. But since the fundamental research is selected with an agenda- we can trust the fundamental research less with each passing year.
Don't get me wrong- I come from libertarian backgrounds and favor minimal government.
The problem with both anarchy and libertarian philosophy is that they have no way to address the problem that occurs the second anyone gets significantly more power than average.
The government used to cut those people down to size but now the government is owned by them so even strong government couldn't do it.
It seems there is an inevitable progression towards some kind of nobility and higher class that takes an increasingly disproportionate share of the resources until it gets so bad that there has to be bloodshed to get a reset. But with the advance of technology, it is getting easier for them to put that day off forever.
You own your government which has just as much power as you do.
Let me introduce you to Vinny, whose government has as much power as he does. Or to William Gates, whose government has as much power as he does.
Anarchy is great if you are the biggest guy on the block or the population is very low.
Otherwise it is immediately going to break down as you try to form powerblocks to protect yourself from groups of your neighbors who feel they can legitimately use your car, your house, your body, etc.
I agree that if you downloaded real songs from them, then it is probable that the rest are. However, a SCREENSHOT showing they have more songs, doesn't prove a lot when Riaa has so much money to earn for each copy they sue for.
However, from what I hear on some file sharing services your odds of getting a bad song is pretty high.
They may even be serving something that they think is Sandman but is really a trash file uploaded by riaa's agents.
Yes I could have said I don't have confidence in... I don't have faith in... I don't think the justice system is just any more... I can't count on the justice system to be fair any more etc.
However, I believe that it is accepted usage the way that I wrote it.
The other person pretty much covered it. They have lawyers on staff with para legals so the costs are fixed. If you think about it, that is even more incentive to make at least enough lawsuits to cover those fixed costs.
They may have been intentionally sharing a file they owned copyright to (say a 3 meg picture file of themselves) that they renamed to "stones-gloria.mp3" because they are vehemently against copyright infringement.
But if I'm not going to admit that I believe in jury nullification.
I just don't believe in the justice system any more. They've criminalized so much- we've seen innocent people sent away to bolster a prosecuting attorney's record so many times- and seen attorney's not just defend but get people off on a technicality that they know are scum. It's just a big game to them.
The law, and it's enforcement, is increasingly arbitrary and random.
Sarbanes Oxley is about requiring 20 pages of paper work for a 1 line code change. This is fair, since we all know it was those wild programmers at Enron who were the root of the problem and not lying top executives.
But the president can still cut a $20k check without any paperwork or even a cross-cosigner.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not arguing that the planet is not getting measurably warmer. That's a fact.
However we both know that is not the *agenda* of global warming.
The Global warming agenda is about shutting down or making more expensive the use of carbon based fuels.
It's about imposing expenses on the US and Europe while not imposing the same costs on many other countries.
I don't agree that there are not external causes to human actions.
I don't agree that there are not ways to address this without imposing a huge tax on the developed world while giving developing countries the freedom to burn with abandon.
I'm automatically suspicious because of the people I see pushing the global warming agenda. Just like I'm automatically suspicious of "smoking is safe" studies by the tobacco industry and "there is no global warming" studies by scientists backed by major oil corporations.
If it is bad to burn oil and coal, then it is bad for everyone to burn oil and coal.
I've seen "solid" scientific facts turned over several times in my life time. Each time the folks who were wrong just went "oh well, OOPS! My bad!"
I'm not ready to turn the world upside down and impose huge costs on it to satisfy the latest scientific fad.
This is astounding:
Again, the more paranoid amongst us might think that climate-change deniers fundamentally hate economic prosperity and want to see humanity across the globe reduced to subsistence levels of economic activity for a generation or more.
I came to the opposite opinion.
The people pushing global warming are those who hate modern society, humans as a species and hate progress seem to be backing this issue most using it as a way to stop progress, stop drilling, stop logging, stop breeding (by 1st worlders anyway), stop personal transportation, personal freedom, etc.
It is astounding because it shows how two people can take the same input data and come to completely opposite opinions.
The automatic assumption that anyone who isn't certain about global warming is a republican is one of the aspects of the debate that makes me so suspicious.
I haven't voted for a republican in close to 20 years.
I've seen many hysterias in my lifetime that turned out to be very wrong.
I've seen many "great new solutions to everything" that turned out to be very wrong.
But this time... it's different! This time it's REAL! This time, they won't switch to a different viewpoint in 20 years!
I wonder if you could argue that co2 is high because the temperatures are high.
i.e. a lot of CO2 is being released from melting ice and permafrost lately. These would happen regardless of the basic reason for the temperature rise.
Perhaps historically, when the temperature goes up, Co2 is released into the atmosphere.
---
Despite being fairly cynical about the entire subject- anyone with a brain can see that we are releasing a lot of stored carbon by burning hydrocarbons into the environment fairly quickly. I know plants suck up some of it of course.
Hey-- go tilt at those windmills man.
My day for doing that is done.
I'm tired of fighting fake giants.
Yea.. Rome assimilated the hell out of Carthage.
Of course, that actually was sort of the beginning of the end for them. Their political power was waning so they had to destroy things.
You say:
The fundamental problem is when you base your beliefs on anything but evidence
Man- you are implicitly trusting that the evidence you see is complete and unaltered. All a corporation has to do is buy enough scientists (or back those who naturally believe in and do research supporting their causes) and you will buy it.
You say:
This has always been the case:
It hasn't always been the case.
People used to be constrained by morality more. I'm not a religious person myself but I can see that there was a common morality that made things work. It was put into people before they were old enough to think logically. Even if they did something bad, most felt guilty about it. Today, many non-sociopaths seem to have less and less guilt because they don't agree with or share a common moral code- it's not that they can't distinguish right and wrong- it's that they have their own private morality of "whatever is good for me- is good."
I agree with your point about in smaller, (and stable) communities. However, I disagree in this regard. many smaller communities define: "What's good for us is good." so it is okay for them to behave terribly to people outside of their small circle. Honor is a stupid concept that lets you be taken advantage of by people who lack honor. But when everyone lack's honor, we don't have a society. Society is fine with a small number of people who are different or who are immoral- but when everyone is - you lose cohesion. Everything becomes relative.
As for the last point:
I (and the parent poster) have lost the ability to trust or identify any "real credible" sources.
We can not trust the data.
How can we evaluate data which is probably at least partially false. Several times studies like this have been caught ignoring data that didn't fit the viewpoint they were trying to advance. Several times studies have been discounted because big oil/tobacco backed them (even tho facts are facts, right?).
Long term- science works- facts are facts.
Short term- it is subject to group thinking, politics and even basically religious belief that certain concepts are right.
I think you mean... the rest of the world "knows" it is a "fact."
That's the fundamental problem when trust breaks down isn't it.
We have clear evidence that
* lots of people lie.
* lots of corporations and governments lie.
That's why we *used* to say, "We need to be better than than- we need to do it the hard way because if we don't -we will become as bad as "they" are." As long as only a small minority lie, they gain advantage. When everyone lies tho- the minority loses it's advantage and the rest of society falters.
It is why christian societies used to have an edge- a man's word was his bond. Even if he was evil- you could trust him to not break certain parameters. You can get a lot done based on that trust. Once you lose that shared trust- that line that even an evil person won't cross- it's every man for himself.
So many companies and governments have lied now- that we just can't trust them.
But since the fundamental research is selected with an agenda- we can trust the fundamental research less with each passing year.
While I agree, it makes me wonder how the lack of protection over the last several years would play into any trial.
Are they already "Xerox"'d?
Sounds more like small government than anarchy.
Don't get me wrong- I come from libertarian backgrounds and favor minimal government.
The problem with both anarchy and libertarian philosophy is that they have no way to address the problem that occurs the second anyone gets significantly more power than average.
The government used to cut those people down to size but now the government is owned by them so even strong government couldn't do it.
It seems there is an inevitable progression towards some kind of nobility and higher class that takes an increasingly disproportionate share of the resources until it gets so bad that there has to be bloodshed to get a reset. But with the advance of technology, it is getting easier for them to put that day off forever.
And how do you keep a group of thugs from taking advantage of you without having an authority to coerce them with.
And so then how do you keep that coercive group from keeping you from dong other things you want to do?
And how do you keep it from doing whatever is necessary to protect the children.
Wow! You have talking dogs? COOL!
It will get cheaper and cheaper to kill more and more people.
Some small group or series of groups of wack jobs will design nasty viruses.
Lots of people will die.
Governments will become increasingly fascist and controlling.
Corporations will continue to increase in power and learn how to subvert any alternative news flows with propaganda.
And there will be porn... lots of it.
And then someone starts a mosh pit.
You own your government which has just as much power as you do.
Let me introduce you to Vinny, whose government has as much power as he does.
Or to William Gates, whose government has as much power as he does.
Anarchy is great if you are the biggest guy on the block or the population is very low.
Otherwise it is immediately going to break down as you try to form powerblocks to protect yourself from groups of your neighbors who feel they can legitimately use your car, your house, your body, etc.
I agree that if you downloaded real songs from them, then it is probable that the rest are. However, a SCREENSHOT showing they have more songs, doesn't prove a lot when Riaa has so much money to earn for each copy they sue for.
However, from what I hear on some file sharing services your odds of getting a bad song is pretty high.
They may even be serving something that they think is Sandman but is really a trash file uploaded by riaa's agents.
Yes I could have said ... ...
I don't have confidence in
I don't have faith in
I don't think the justice system is just any more...
I can't count on the justice system to be fair any more
etc.
However, I believe that it is accepted usage the way that I wrote it.
The other person pretty much covered it.
They have lawyers on staff with para legals so the costs are fixed.
If you think about it, that is even more incentive to make at least enough lawsuits to cover those fixed costs.
They may have been intentionally sharing a file they owned copyright to (say a 3 meg picture file of themselves) that they renamed to "stones-gloria.mp3" because they are vehemently against copyright infringement.
I've been selected for juries before.
It's pretty easy to get deselected.
But if I'm not going to admit that I believe in jury nullification.
I just don't believe in the justice system any more. They've criminalized so much- we've seen innocent people sent away to bolster a prosecuting attorney's record so many times- and seen attorney's not just defend but get people off on a technicality that they know are scum. It's just a big game to them.
The law, and it's enforcement, is increasingly arbitrary and random.
Don't let it worry you. We've always been at war with East Eurasia.
The earliest place I read of the concept is in "The Prince".
Basic "Bad Lieutenant" strategy.
Sarbanes Oxley is about requiring 20 pages of paper work for a 1 line code change. This is fair, since we all know it was those wild programmers at Enron who were the root of the problem and not lying top executives.
But the president can still cut a $20k check without any paperwork or even a cross-cosigner.