" Why do you think that moving our power production away from fossil fuels necessarily means that things like fertilizer have to go away? "
Uhh, perhaps because the vast majority of fertilizer comes from fossil fuel feedstock? Are you seriously this ignorant of the systems you seek to fundamentally change with massive firearm-backed force?
"Those efforts will not bankrupt a single country, let alone all of them"
Why? because you, in your living incarnation of ignorance says it is so? Do you think your opinons carry the weight of some sort of some sort of control language of the universe, such that the things you say simply BECOME true? Because they don't, and you are a fucking retard for thinking that.
"Ahh, the almighty free market, the one that made it so that we had to bail out the banks"
That wasn't the free market you god damn moron. That was George "We Had To Put a Bullet In The Brain Of The Free Market To Save It" "I'm A Communist Fascist Faggot Who Sucks Every Dick In The Universe" Bush. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the free market, and it has doomed us all to starvation and death. Just like you will with your further anti-market GENOCIDE. Christ, do you even understand what the market is? Its human beings trading with each other. That is IT. When you intervene with guns and force, it is no longer a market, but a command economy. Stop being fucking stupid, if you can. If not, kill yourself.
"How about the reports that Exxon did their studies starting in the 70s, and that their own scientists concluded that the "greenhouse effect" (as it was called then) was caused by their own products"
Bad science then as now. CO2 was assumed to be a greenhouse gas, when in fact is is H2O that is the greeenhouse gas. H2O is a major contaminate in CO2 cylinders. Dry CO2 wasn't available when the groundwork was being laid for the CO2 as a greenhouse gas theory. AGW has become so politicized that even repeated failures of climate "scientists" predictions have failed to produce ANY change in their theory, or re-examination of their premises. It's shameful.
But in any event, I don't really care. You morons can all go kill yourselves. I'm going to upload the second the tech becomes available, and pray to fucking science that I never have to see another one of you god damned apes again for the rest of fucking eternity.
"And people who believe that CO2 causes temperatures to rise are the alarmists. Right."
They are ignoramuses who believe what they are told, and have never done a physical chemistry calculation before. CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas relative to Earth's current atmosphere. It has slightly lower heat capacity than the average atmospheric component.
"In other words, that it is actually more expensive to keep using fossil fuels."
No, that means it is more profitable for big banks and other moochers to take government handouts based off of terrible theory and fake data than it is to provide goods and services that are actually desired by the people.
"And, how about this: if solar power becomes a cheap reality, what is that going to do for the quality of life of those 50 million Africans?"
You mean 100% of the Africans who survived the famine caused by the loss of fossil fuel enabled fertilizers? Because that is a few hundred million fewer Africans than exist today. Also quite a few fewer asians, and even a lot fewer white people, including your grandparents who starved to death when AGW "remediation" efforts bankrupted all western countries to the point they could no longer pay pensions and thus allowed all the elderly to die. Something we are disturbingly close to already without idiotic liberals destroying our economy by forbidding the use of carbon based fuels.
"Here's another question for you: can we continue to use fossil fuels indefinitely?"
When was the right time to stop using charcoal to smelt steel? Or to use whale oil to light lamps? When the market dictates we change. Don't pull peak oil out of your ass on me boy. I know economics and peak theory about 1000x better than you do, and will crush you if you try.
"new data shows it's not going to hit us"
This is why you are not a scientist, but a cult follower. Your leaders continuously proclaim impending doom, and when the dates come and go, you continue to believe. Fucking stupid.
It's warmer after "adjustments have been made to force it to be warmer.
Shut up and show me some predictions that have come true. Don't say ANYTHING ELSE (except for a concession that none of the predictions have come true) until you have done that.
There is a continuum. Currently every "capitalist" country actually has a mixed market (ie they have a central bank and thus the centrally plan the price of money, the foundation of free exchange) rapidly sliding into one form of socialism or another. Those that adhere most closely to the capitalist ideal do the best (think Singapore), while those that stray the furthest inevitably collapse (think Zimbabwe--and note that we have the exact same monetary policy as they did leading up to their hyperinflation).
You're talking about it as if there isn't any cost. Do you have ANY idea how many people will starve TO DEATH if fuel becomes more expensive? Is it really worth murdering 50 million Africans in the most horrible way possible to prevent a disaster that might only be real in your mind?
Another alarmist like you used the asteroid analogy. I came back with this: you predicted the path that would intersect with Earth. We observed the area where it should have been at a given time and found nothing was there. Does that modify your claim that we will be hit? If so, you are a scientist, if not, then you are a religion. Guess what climate alarmists do every time one of their predictions fail?
You should read the article better. The eastern part isn't even 15 meters deep. It's not navigable by anything of size.
And it was first navigated in 1906. That should tell you something. You should also be told something by the fact that the wiki has a listing of EVERY SINGLE SUCCESSFUL TRAVERSAL of the passage, all the way up to today. It's not open any more today than it was in 1906.
Just saying it's discredited doesn't make it discredited, however much you want to pretend like your faith is science.
Still waiting for low lying islands to go underwater. Let that happen, then I will give your ideas a second look. I don't think it will. You know, that or any of the other idiotic claims you people have made over the years (ice-free north pole, or a series of hurricane swarms somewhere/everywhere).
So, are these crowds of people just teleporting in front of the cars or what? You aren't likely to be running into people when you are going more than 30 mph, and you can stop within 10 meters or so. They would have to put a LOT of effort into hiding from the thing, and jump out at the last second.
"That isn't my experience of the system fitted to my 44 tonne truck"
I have no idea what you are talking about, but unless you JUST bought that truck within the last few months (when Mercedes started offering partial self driving functionality on big trucks), then you are talking about some other kind of system. And besides, we are talking about cars here, not big rigs. Cars are a lot easier to stop.
Doctors told the mother of a friend of mine that she had cancer. Put her on intense chemo. So intense she lost an eye, and lived in absolute misery for a couple of years. Then she went down to MD Anderson and the doctor told her she didn't have cancer, and never did.
People do awful things to other people in their own self interest. Including lying, fabricating data, etc.
Your meteor prediction is a good one. For example, you would predict an orbital path that would bring it near Earth in 15 years. The world holds its breath as it watches for the close approach. It doesn't happen. What does that do to your impact theory? If you took a note from a climate scientist, you would double down rather than changing your mind.
How about when A SINGLE ONE of the predictions made by the priests of the AGW comes true?
We were supposed to have an ice-free northwest passage, record-breaking hurricane seasons, and low lying islands were supposed to slip beneath the waves. NONE of it has happened.
Scientists make predictions based on theory. When observations don't match predictions, the theory is modified. This does not happen in climate "science", therefore it is not science.
"The increased energy in the system is already turning all of weather to a parade of freak outliers and unpredictable quirky events that occasionally spike off the charts"
Yeah, I'm posting right now from the wall of the 78th cat 5 hurricane to hit the US coast in the last month. It's terrible, this global warming!
When your predictions are CONSISTENTLY wrong, it's time to re-examine your theory, not double down. Actual scientists know this.
I see you, like the vast majority of people, have no idea what that term means. HINT: If you have a central bank, you aren't capitalist. HINT 2: If you have corrupt, thieving government officials, then you aren't anywhere NEAR capitalist. The role of government in a capitalist society is to prevent and punish aggression from within and without. Not to rob the people and enrich those in power.
"There is no genetically defined prejudice against people with different skin color"
Nope, sorry. This is shown in videos of the youngest children. Babies focus more on white dolls than black ones. Facts won't go away just because they are uncomfortable.
Also, just waving your hands around and saying "that isn't so" isn't proof.
"we grew up too poor to afford the *luxury* of being racist. We had more important things to worry about than the color of our friends skin"
You act as if that is some kind of point. This has nothing to do with being friends with anyone. Most white people have black friends. I do and have since I was a little boy. That doesn't change the fact that blacks are perceived as being more masculine and less trustworthy based solely on skin color (as shown with the same effect occurring in India), and that this occurs in all human societies, including those populated entirely by black people.
White people lived in mud huts until not that long ago. And only a few of the most traditional societies in Africa still live like that, or those in the most oppressed, anti-capitalistic societies. Capitalist nations, like Botswana, boast GDPs that rival first world nations, and are really only called anything other than first world because they have crappy neighbors.
"So, human skin color determines other characteristics?"
If you don't believe that, then you don't believe in racial discrimination. Skin color doesn't directly dictate characteristics. IE an all white or an all black society can and have historically been equally barbarous or ascendant. But mix the two together and something strange happens. The society stratifies according to skin tone. This has happened in many entirely separate cultures (India being a good examples--dark skinned South Indians have rarely ruled over light skinned North Indians). This is clearly not due to some inherent mental defect caused by increased melanin production, but by societal interaction. Placing more trust in light skinned people, and less trust in dark skinned people. Even the Incas were said to be ruled by light skinned (and even blond headed) people, where the Aztecs worshipped some ancient whites they may have encountered as gods (and thus perhaps mistook blond haired, blue-eyed Spaniards for Gods). White skin is bad for you, in that it increases skin cancer. Light colored eyes are bad for you as well, as you more quickly lose your sight in old age. Yet these characteristics have been strongly preserved. There must be a reason for that.
" Too bad IQ tests are a poor indicator of overall intelligence"
No, it is a very good indicator of that. It's just that it correlates almost exactly with skin color, more precisely than with genetics (ie Australian aboriginals and Southern Indians have very low IQs on average, not just Africans, or some certain subset of Africans, as would otherwise be predicted by genetic theory).
It seems to me that skin color causes other people to behave differently towards you. As shown in studies of the perceptions of young children (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2553348&page=1), dark skin is perceived as "bad", "ugly", "masculine", "dishonest" where white skin was perceived as the opposite. Think about how interactions with people who have such genetically defined prejudice against you would effect your development. This is what we call a "self fulfilling prophesy". Kids who aren't trusted tend to be more anti-social--period. This is well known, as kids, including white kids, who get caught in the system tend to remain in it and become ever more criminal. IE they are treated like criminals, so they become criminals.
Failing to recognize these features/biases in human cognition doesn't help anyone. It only hurts us. ALL of us. Most especially the disadvantaged groups we claim that we are trying to help. Fact is: they need to be isolated from white people, because they trust them more than they should, at the expense of their own who are trusted less than they should be, based on individual merit. Communities like Greenwood prospered, until they ran afoul of whites. Then they were annihilated. The current system certainly seems to have failed blacks. Seems like it is time for a change.
"It's also unscientific to ignore peer-reviewed research that shows conclusively there is absolutely no difference in intelligence level "
That would be the case, were it true. But it isn't, sadly. It is so much easier to just wave your hands and claim that we are all the same, but we aren't. It might not even be genetic. I suspect that anyone who was born with dark skin would see a similar, if less pronounced effect as the sheep wearing the scary mask: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Human brains all work the same. Problem is that human brains interpret differing skin colors to have differing characteristics, something that might just be a self fulfilling prophesy. One that can only be solved by that most anti-liberal of solutions--segregation.
"is it just because they dont want to be perceived as being weak on crime?"
That is exactly it. Politics is a game of one upsmanship. If you EVER say that we should go easier on criminals, you lose the election to the political version of the internet tough guy. Then you serve 30 years in prison for having a fucking joint.
Slashdot Mirror
" Why do you think that moving our power production away from fossil fuels necessarily means that things like fertilizer have to go away? " Uhh, perhaps because the vast majority of fertilizer comes from fossil fuel feedstock? Are you seriously this ignorant of the systems you seek to fundamentally change with massive firearm-backed force?
"Those efforts will not bankrupt a single country, let alone all of them"
Why? because you, in your living incarnation of ignorance says it is so? Do you think your opinons carry the weight of some sort of some sort of control language of the universe, such that the things you say simply BECOME true? Because they don't, and you are a fucking retard for thinking that.
"Ahh, the almighty free market, the one that made it so that we had to bail out the banks"
That wasn't the free market you god damn moron. That was George "We Had To Put a Bullet In The Brain Of The Free Market To Save It" "I'm A Communist Fascist Faggot Who Sucks Every Dick In The Universe" Bush. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the free market, and it has doomed us all to starvation and death. Just like you will with your further anti-market GENOCIDE. Christ, do you even understand what the market is? Its human beings trading with each other. That is IT. When you intervene with guns and force, it is no longer a market, but a command economy. Stop being fucking stupid, if you can. If not, kill yourself.
"How about the reports that Exxon did their studies starting in the 70s, and that their own scientists concluded that the "greenhouse effect" (as it was called then) was caused by their own products"
Bad science then as now. CO2 was assumed to be a greenhouse gas, when in fact is is H2O that is the greeenhouse gas. H2O is a major contaminate in CO2 cylinders. Dry CO2 wasn't available when the groundwork was being laid for the CO2 as a greenhouse gas theory. AGW has become so politicized that even repeated failures of climate "scientists" predictions have failed to produce ANY change in their theory, or re-examination of their premises. It's shameful.
But in any event, I don't really care. You morons can all go kill yourselves. I'm going to upload the second the tech becomes available, and pray to fucking science that I never have to see another one of you god damned apes again for the rest of fucking eternity.
"And people who believe that CO2 causes temperatures to rise are the alarmists. Right." They are ignoramuses who believe what they are told, and have never done a physical chemistry calculation before. CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas relative to Earth's current atmosphere. It has slightly lower heat capacity than the average atmospheric component.
"In other words, that it is actually more expensive to keep using fossil fuels."
No, that means it is more profitable for big banks and other moochers to take government handouts based off of terrible theory and fake data than it is to provide goods and services that are actually desired by the people.
"And, how about this: if solar power becomes a cheap reality, what is that going to do for the quality of life of those 50 million Africans?"
You mean 100% of the Africans who survived the famine caused by the loss of fossil fuel enabled fertilizers? Because that is a few hundred million fewer Africans than exist today. Also quite a few fewer asians, and even a lot fewer white people, including your grandparents who starved to death when AGW "remediation" efforts bankrupted all western countries to the point they could no longer pay pensions and thus allowed all the elderly to die. Something we are disturbingly close to already without idiotic liberals destroying our economy by forbidding the use of carbon based fuels.
"Here's another question for you: can we continue to use fossil fuels indefinitely?"
When was the right time to stop using charcoal to smelt steel? Or to use whale oil to light lamps? When the market dictates we change. Don't pull peak oil out of your ass on me boy. I know economics and peak theory about 1000x better than you do, and will crush you if you try.
"new data shows it's not going to hit us"
This is why you are not a scientist, but a cult follower. Your leaders continuously proclaim impending doom, and when the dates come and go, you continue to believe. Fucking stupid.
It's warmer after "adjustments have been made to force it to be warmer.
Shut up and show me some predictions that have come true. Don't say ANYTHING ELSE (except for a concession that none of the predictions have come true) until you have done that.
There is a continuum. Currently every "capitalist" country actually has a mixed market (ie they have a central bank and thus the centrally plan the price of money, the foundation of free exchange) rapidly sliding into one form of socialism or another. Those that adhere most closely to the capitalist ideal do the best (think Singapore), while those that stray the furthest inevitably collapse (think Zimbabwe--and note that we have the exact same monetary policy as they did leading up to their hyperinflation).
You're talking about it as if there isn't any cost. Do you have ANY idea how many people will starve TO DEATH if fuel becomes more expensive? Is it really worth murdering 50 million Africans in the most horrible way possible to prevent a disaster that might only be real in your mind?
Another alarmist like you used the asteroid analogy. I came back with this: you predicted the path that would intersect with Earth. We observed the area where it should have been at a given time and found nothing was there. Does that modify your claim that we will be hit? If so, you are a scientist, if not, then you are a religion. Guess what climate alarmists do every time one of their predictions fail?
You should read the article better. The eastern part isn't even 15 meters deep. It's not navigable by anything of size.
And it was first navigated in 1906. That should tell you something. You should also be told something by the fact that the wiki has a listing of EVERY SINGLE SUCCESSFUL TRAVERSAL of the passage, all the way up to today. It's not open any more today than it was in 1906.
HAHAHA. Yeah, I'm sure that that's the case, and you didn't just pull that vertical ice measurement out of your ass.
Just saying it's discredited doesn't make it discredited, however much you want to pretend like your faith is science.
Still waiting for low lying islands to go underwater. Let that happen, then I will give your ideas a second look. I don't think it will. You know, that or any of the other idiotic claims you people have made over the years (ice-free north pole, or a series of hurricane swarms somewhere/everywhere).
"What if the braking distance is too long?"
So, are these crowds of people just teleporting in front of the cars or what? You aren't likely to be running into people when you are going more than 30 mph, and you can stop within 10 meters or so. They would have to put a LOT of effort into hiding from the thing, and jump out at the last second.
"That isn't my experience of the system fitted to my 44 tonne truck"
I have no idea what you are talking about, but unless you JUST bought that truck within the last few months (when Mercedes started offering partial self driving functionality on big trucks), then you are talking about some other kind of system. And besides, we are talking about cars here, not big rigs. Cars are a lot easier to stop.
No. And the northwest passage isn't navigable. If it were, China would be spending a half a trillion dollars on a new Central American canal.
Yes, I mean, look at that unending line of category 5 hurricanes, and the ice free north pole!
Go find somewhere else to run around with your hair on fire.
Doctors told the mother of a friend of mine that she had cancer. Put her on intense chemo. So intense she lost an eye, and lived in absolute misery for a couple of years. Then she went down to MD Anderson and the doctor told her she didn't have cancer, and never did.
People do awful things to other people in their own self interest. Including lying, fabricating data, etc.
Your meteor prediction is a good one. For example, you would predict an orbital path that would bring it near Earth in 15 years. The world holds its breath as it watches for the close approach. It doesn't happen. What does that do to your impact theory? If you took a note from a climate scientist, you would double down rather than changing your mind.
How about when A SINGLE ONE of the predictions made by the priests of the AGW comes true?
We were supposed to have an ice-free northwest passage, record-breaking hurricane seasons, and low lying islands were supposed to slip beneath the waves. NONE of it has happened.
Scientists make predictions based on theory. When observations don't match predictions, the theory is modified. This does not happen in climate "science", therefore it is not science.
"The increased energy in the system is already turning all of weather to a parade of freak outliers and unpredictable quirky events that occasionally spike off the charts"
Yeah, I'm posting right now from the wall of the 78th cat 5 hurricane to hit the US coast in the last month. It's terrible, this global warming!
When your predictions are CONSISTENTLY wrong, it's time to re-examine your theory, not double down. Actual scientists know this.
Yeah, I mean, look at the ice caps! Completely gone, just like they said they would be!
"And most of Africa is Capitalist"
I see you, like the vast majority of people, have no idea what that term means. HINT: If you have a central bank, you aren't capitalist. HINT 2: If you have corrupt, thieving government officials, then you aren't anywhere NEAR capitalist. The role of government in a capitalist society is to prevent and punish aggression from within and without. Not to rob the people and enrich those in power.
Villages. Try towns and cities.
And kiln-fired mud bricks are NOT the components used to make a mud hut. That would be sticks and mud.
Purchasing power parity (PPP). That $7000 a year buys the equivalent of a middle class lifestyle there.
"There is no genetically defined prejudice against people with different skin color"
Nope, sorry. This is shown in videos of the youngest children. Babies focus more on white dolls than black ones. Facts won't go away just because they are uncomfortable.
Also, just waving your hands around and saying "that isn't so" isn't proof.
"we grew up too poor to afford the *luxury* of being racist. We had more important things to worry about than the color of our friends skin"
You act as if that is some kind of point. This has nothing to do with being friends with anyone. Most white people have black friends. I do and have since I was a little boy. That doesn't change the fact that blacks are perceived as being more masculine and less trustworthy based solely on skin color (as shown with the same effect occurring in India), and that this occurs in all human societies, including those populated entirely by black people.
Waze figures that out pretty quickly.
Big data, son.
Actually, it would just hit the breaks. Or, you know, swerve the other way.
Computers can hit the breaks a lot faster than a human, and better too.
White people lived in mud huts until not that long ago. And only a few of the most traditional societies in Africa still live like that, or those in the most oppressed, anti-capitalistic societies. Capitalist nations, like Botswana, boast GDPs that rival first world nations, and are really only called anything other than first world because they have crappy neighbors.
"So, human skin color determines other characteristics?"
If you don't believe that, then you don't believe in racial discrimination. Skin color doesn't directly dictate characteristics. IE an all white or an all black society can and have historically been equally barbarous or ascendant. But mix the two together and something strange happens. The society stratifies according to skin tone. This has happened in many entirely separate cultures (India being a good examples--dark skinned South Indians have rarely ruled over light skinned North Indians). This is clearly not due to some inherent mental defect caused by increased melanin production, but by societal interaction. Placing more trust in light skinned people, and less trust in dark skinned people. Even the Incas were said to be ruled by light skinned (and even blond headed) people, where the Aztecs worshipped some ancient whites they may have encountered as gods (and thus perhaps mistook blond haired, blue-eyed Spaniards for Gods). White skin is bad for you, in that it increases skin cancer. Light colored eyes are bad for you as well, as you more quickly lose your sight in old age. Yet these characteristics have been strongly preserved. There must be a reason for that.
" Too bad IQ tests are a poor indicator of overall intelligence"
No, it is a very good indicator of that. It's just that it correlates almost exactly with skin color, more precisely than with genetics (ie Australian aboriginals and Southern Indians have very low IQs on average, not just Africans, or some certain subset of Africans, as would otherwise be predicted by genetic theory).
It seems to me that skin color causes other people to behave differently towards you. As shown in studies of the perceptions of young children (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2553348&page=1), dark skin is perceived as "bad", "ugly", "masculine", "dishonest" where white skin was perceived as the opposite. Think about how interactions with people who have such genetically defined prejudice against you would effect your development. This is what we call a "self fulfilling prophesy". Kids who aren't trusted tend to be more anti-social--period. This is well known, as kids, including white kids, who get caught in the system tend to remain in it and become ever more criminal. IE they are treated like criminals, so they become criminals.
Failing to recognize these features/biases in human cognition doesn't help anyone. It only hurts us. ALL of us. Most especially the disadvantaged groups we claim that we are trying to help. Fact is: they need to be isolated from white people, because they trust them more than they should, at the expense of their own who are trusted less than they should be, based on individual merit. Communities like Greenwood prospered, until they ran afoul of whites. Then they were annihilated. The current system certainly seems to have failed blacks. Seems like it is time for a change.
"It's also unscientific to ignore peer-reviewed research that shows conclusively there is absolutely no difference in intelligence level "
That would be the case, were it true. But it isn't, sadly. It is so much easier to just wave your hands and claim that we are all the same, but we aren't. It might not even be genetic. I suspect that anyone who was born with dark skin would see a similar, if less pronounced effect as the sheep wearing the scary mask: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Human brains all work the same. Problem is that human brains interpret differing skin colors to have differing characteristics, something that might just be a self fulfilling prophesy. One that can only be solved by that most anti-liberal of solutions--segregation.
"is it just because they dont want to be perceived as being weak on crime?"
That is exactly it. Politics is a game of one upsmanship. If you EVER say that we should go easier on criminals, you lose the election to the political version of the internet tough guy. Then you serve 30 years in prison for having a fucking joint.