Climate change

Well we all know the likely answer to that…

The so called experts are mostly employed in government or government financed institutions and are basically paid to create “scientific” justification for the ongoing manipulation and suppression of free market and persuade the public to endorse the ongoing plunder by central banks and the financial elite.

(Slightly OT, but you can see the pattern: climate “experts” work the same way - mostly leeching on the taxpayer and working full time to justify plunder by state & corporations in order to supposedly prevent catastrophic global warming. Nothing new, really).

I am convinced we’ll see that happen.
Most of us are relatively well off in terms of crypto currencies and knowledge and I’m okay with that challenge. Bring it on!

Good that you asked, @fergish, so that I don’t have to. It’s funny how HB last year on one or two occasions claimed (not literally, but I am lazy to find that post now) that we’ve been educated to believe what “they” want us to believe.
Some “believe” that a “reasonable” level of inflation (theft) is good for the economy. What about the people? Who benefits from having his purchasing power destroyed at a faster rate than his paycheck goes up?

4 Likes

Not so much OT, as plain wrong If this is your example to help illuminate your first point, then I think it failed. It is usually the people complaining about the “suppression” of the free market that make such arguments, then apply them to areas where an unsuppressed free market is clearly not the answer, or anything even close to it - areas such as welfare, Global warming etc. *Nothing new, really)

Agreed…

@janitor, @Al_Kafir,

Since I have been on the forum, I have found that I have had some regard for some of the comments made by @janitor and quite frequently I have been in complete agreement with @Al_Kafir. Since this is a topic that is dear to my heart, it infuriates me when non-biologists, non-scientists and particularly economists and others with fossil carbon interests take a “skeptical” position. Clearly, on this issue, @janitor is speaking nonsense and @Al_Kafir is quite right. However rather than start another, extended tangential argument like what has happened recently in another post, I challenge @janitor to start a new OT discussion on this particular issue so that @Al_Kafir, myself and others can beat some sense into him . .

Regards,
Phil.

2 Likes

Very well said…I was beginning to think I was the only one who noticed the unnecessary insertion of the extremely weak Climate science denialist argument/propaganda in order to “support” a political viewpoint and “promote” erroneously, the same old “Free Market” ideology
Let’s put this to bed shall we…come on…all of yers! :smiley:

I agree with your analysis and I think this was a particularly astute observation and conclusion… :smiley:

2 Likes

To me the climate argument is pretty interesting as it clearly reveals who less respect people pay to science that they can obviously not evaluate on their own. Of course, climate change has to be wrong because someone says I should pay!

The same applies to people who simply state that inflation is bad - it isn´t. It is a political tool, yes, but that doesn´t make it bad. Same as deflation doesn´t have to be bad, but can be. The real question is who controls inflation. If inflation is based on consensus of the majority, I don´t see the problem. Actually there is a cryptocurrency M2C (i believe) that intended to build the option to vote with coins on inflation/deflation.

I don’t think it helps the debate when alarmists build up strawmen to knock down either.

Personally, I would rather the climate change debate was conducted on a climate change forum. At least there is a chance that expert opinions would be heard.

@philip_rhoades I can’t reply to your comment without taking this off topic, but since none of us is open to changing their position, it’s meaningless to try.

So I’ll keep this here and try to compare it with the main topic:

Monetary taxation (inflation) is not a matter of science, but freedom. The same is with various CO2 taxes.
If you “believed” (funny word) that “a little bit” of inflation is good, and I didn’t, what then? You could print your paper money, and I could use gold.

But that’s not how statists roll. What would happen, naturally, would be that workers would want to get paid in gold or silver or something that can’t be manipulated (Safecoin?), and you’ll end up with piles of ever useless paper.
So for this “science” of monetary policy to work, force must be used. You must accept worthless paper, and you must pay your tax and almost everything else (all state “services”, for example) in the same worthless currency.

The green religion works the same way. You could claim that man-made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic climate changes and I could claim they’re not. Then you’d (probably) move a mile or two inland, and maybe invest in some Arctic properties. I’d use the opportunity to buy your Gold Coast beach condo on the cheap. By reselling part of y our vast Arctic corn fields you would get insanely rich and use that money to finance renewable energy research, to hopefully one day make it affordable.

But that’s not how green “science” works. Because you are so sure that “something has to be done” and “now”, you declare everyone ignorant and cozy up with State because that police baton looks very handy.
So suddenly the science gets settled, I am taxed day in day out, and while money’s pouring in for your green projects of urgent nature, you feel confident to engage in gentlemanly discussions about merits of your scientifically proven approach.

In money, thankfully there’s bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, so a partially free discussion (i.e. I go to bitcointalk.org, you go to ft.com) is now possible and our financial and other freedom has been improving. We simply don’t have to talk to statists. They can “invest” in government bonds, we can invest in crypto currencies and tokens.

In “climate changes”, there’s still nothing similar. What’s the point? How can I “win”? If I win, will I be able to avoid the CO2 tax when I buy my airplane ticket tomorrow?

It’s not about science, it’s about freedom.
The economic issue - if there’s any - is not whether CO2 warms up the atmosphere (it does a little), but whether there’s a cheaper way to ensure prosperity. This should be something that every individual would have to decide for themselves, and not something that State can use as excuse to rob a coal miner from the right to work (human rights - LOL!).

4 Likes

That´s true, but it´s a relational mechanism. There are investments that you have to carry out immediately, others you can postpone. But define immediately - that´s impossible. People calculate whether it´s worth to buy a computer or not in the next minute, the next day, the next week or the next month. It´s true a computer may cost less next month, but you also need to calculate the surplus that people generate in this month, you cannot just compare prices. People buy their notebooks because they can generate a surplus even though the hardware loses value. Imagine you´d know that a computer that costs you today 1000 costs only 100 tomorrow - I´d assume that you wouldn´t buy it today and instead take a day off. In other cases one day can be a year: If you assume a strong deflation, you´d certainly wait with building a house and keep renting a flat. So it´s really a question of calculation and that´s why deflation may have really bad effects, but doesn´t have to. You´d also have to take into consideration that deflation is not about single goods but about each and every good in a social context.

I guess many people like the idea of money being apolitical, but it will never be, so it´s really a question of what´s the best way to deal with it. Saying that either delation or inflation is bad by itself shows to me a fundamental lack of understanding of what money actually is.

I think you are mixing scientific with political conclusions. “Does climate change exist?” (scientific question: can be tested empirically) is different to “what should we do about it?” (political question: is decided in a social context)

What I’ve been trying to explain (above regarding inflation and here too) is it’s not a “political” question and it should never be a political question. I’m a coal miner in W. Virginia and I have the Constitutional right to work.
You (a politician) order the EPA to fxxx me up and now I’m jobless in the middle of nowhere.

Who asked me, the miner, to make my “political decision”?
Who asked the factory worker if he wants to get paid in the crappy Reichsmark or Zimbabwe dollar?

1 Like

Is it that you don’t find the obvious and apparent changes alarming, having properly assessed all the evidence? Could you explain your reasoning?

I would expect it is being conducted on a climate change forum… :smiley:
Do you mean you yourself would rather head over somewhere else to discuss it - or are you alternatively saying it should be off-topic…in which case it is your friend @janitor you should be addressing for inserting and bringing up the argument in the first place. This is a pattern isn’t it? Promote your own ideology or point of view - if it goes unchallenged…great…if challenged accuse the challenger of going off-topic…nice

Don’t include me in that sweeping generalisation. I change my positions according to the evidence presented and I’m open-minded. I just haven’t heard any convincing argument yet that isn’t reliant on some conspiracy theory about nearly all the world’s scientists are colluding to get funding or something.
This isn’t even the point…it’s not what the scientists say, as they could be pro or against - its about the actual science - I would suggest that 90 odd percent of the relevant climate scientists agreeing in effect that this problem is mainly caused by man gives some reason to take it seriously though - to consider this “alarmist” is extraordinary… The Corporate retort to this is that the scientists are colluding, rather than the more highly probable explanation.

They’re not colluding, just like regular government employees aren’t colluding to get a secure and cozy government job.
It just works out for them.

I don’t want to complain about this topic title (“Climate Change”), but that’s not the issue.
I already said (before the topic was split off), that CO2 does increase the temperature, but you guys can’t even comprehend that. It is not at all relevant whether climate is changing due to human-generated CO2.

Once again, the problem is that people who “believe” in climate change think they have the right to deny basic human rights of other people (namely, the right to work, among others). That’s the key. Forget about all the “evidence”. The point is without the baton there’s nothing you can do and no one needs to listen to you.

Therefore green statists work with the State to plunder and impoverish people, just like confident monetary experts do through Central Bank.

  • Violence is lesser of two evils (one being catastrophic global warming)
  • Violence is not generally acceptable, except when it’s necessary to save the world
  • People have basic rights, such as the right to work and right to property, unless they have to be thrown on the street and taxed into rheumatic diseases to save coral reefs or something

The same can be said of central bankers. just replace keywords such as “global warming” with “economy”.

One more time: statists (whether they’re central banking or green fanatics) cannot renounce violence to prevent global warming and the lack of inflation.
What’s the point of having a discussion?

So, you are not accusing of any collusion…just pointing out that it “works out for them” - in the same way that Cancer “works out” for those scientists specialising in Cancer? There is no argument/point being made here of any relevance.

So, this is the actual nub of your argument then? It’s the same argument as the ones you make concerning tax, or against regulations, or Democracy. In a Democracy , not based on Absolutist morality, rights will clash occasionally and the “greater good” has to be considered. There are many jobs that are put under threat by global warming too -far more than would be affected by regulations. your case is based on following a minority view course of action that cares little for the majority view,

Then it’s not a very convincing argument. Just even logically thinking about it…if there is a chance that ignoring the problem would completely devastate the world as we know it, so very little economic activity could even take place - at what level of probability would you become alarmed? I mean 1% chance, 10% chance, 50% chance - the view of ninety odd percent of those scientists involved in the area is that the evidence suggests the problem is man made - does that not move you in the same way as 98% of Cancer specialists telling you something? Please explain your rationale…The core reasoning appears to be that if disaster is possible, then it’s worth the risk - the important thing to you being that people should be able to “work” doing whatever they want, whatever the impact. :smiley:

Why? No … I think we might have hit on the confusion - evidence matters.
Edit:

Lol. :smiley:…now that is OT…
Your definitions of violence and fanaticism are clearly way off.

Are you seriously asking me this?

1 Like

Well, you can explain that all day long, it doesn´t necessary make it more true/relevant. As someone who is working is science for years, I can clearly say that science is not neutral - it cannot be. But some people (often people outside of the particular scientific discipline) misinterprete this with arbitrariness, which it isn´t.

When it comes to “proof” then one can easily say that there is the same kind of proof that climate change is real than the theory of evolution. Both theories have their flaws, but they are by far the best theories. Your arguments sound to me like classical Nirvana fallacy.

The rest of what you write sounds to me like a strange misunderstanding of society.

Anyone gave you the constitutional right to work as a coal miner - and even if: constitutional rights are often contradictory, like freedom and equality. Let´s say you´d be a professional hangman, but the society decides not to carry out executions anymore, your complaints would have the same quality. Of course, coal miners often tend to believe its a kind of conspiracy against them, since everything else would question their professional identity. In a social world you need to accept that you are not the only one to make a political decision.

it´s usually written in their contracts…so…well…I guess they agreed upon the conditions.

1 Like

Consider the effect of large amounts of money being made available for climate research, which is a political decision flowing from the UN. Universities will be driven to go after those research grants, so a political decision spurs distorted research in one area. I don’t know if this is accurate, but it may be the case that all kinds of research topics are done which are truly only marginally related to climate change at best, but relating it to that topic is necessary to secure funding.
Now after these researchers have been working under the umbrella of climate research, they realize that they can’t take a negative position on the field without jeopardizing their career, whether they consider this consciously or not, they will not threaten their careers without good cause. Most people probably choose not to focus on a possibly risky topic, when really they are just interesting in continuing their research.
This is how a taboo against certain positions can be dispersed within a field without any need for collusion. I don’t know this to be a fact, but it is plausible to me.
I am reminded of this book Disciplined Minds:

"This book is stolen. Written in part on stolen time, that is. Because like millions of others who work for a living, I was giving most of my prime time to my employer…"
So begins Jeff Schmidt in this riveting book about the world of professional work. Schmidt demonstrates that the workplace is a battleground for the very identity of the individual, as is graduate school, where professionals are trained. He shows that professional work is inherently political, and that professionals are hired to maintain strict "ideological discipline.“
The hidden root of much career dissatisfaction, argues Schmidt, is the professional’s lack of control over the political component of his or her creative work. Many professionals set out to make a contribution to society and add meaning to their lives. Yet our system of professional education and employment abusively inculcates an acceptance of politically subordinate roles in which professionals typically do not make a significant difference, undermining the creative potential of individuals, organizations, and even democracy.
Schmidt details the battle one must fight to be an independent thinker, showing how an honest reassessment of what it means to be a professional in today’s corporate society can be remarkably liberating. After reading this book, no one who works for a living will ever think the same way about his or her job.”

Anyway, I along with @janitor honor the principle of self-ownership. It’s self-evident to me, because who else should have to right to own me? Society is just other people who own themselves, it can’t be spoken of as an organism with its own needs. Voluntary interactions and proportional defensive force to prevent violence or theft, are the only ways I wish to interact with others. I don’t sense these philosophical principles from @Artiscience and @Al_Kafir, given thoughts like:

Anyone gave you the constitutional right to work

and

It’s the same argument as the ones you make concerning tax, or against
regulations, or Democracy. In a Democracy , not based on Absolutist
morality, rights will clash occasionally and the “greater good” has to
be considered.

You know what I sense? Intentional misquoting.

1 Like

Not to me and I’ve already said that I get the dynamic of the Conspiracy theory.

I have and many political decisions that affect all nations flow from the UN - why have you singled out climate change from all the other grants and areas of research - your argument applies equally to all other areas/grants - what’s the distinction? You are merely re-stating Janitor’s point that Climate Scientists have a vested interest to continue research.but this applies to all other Scientists too.
Both of you appear to blow this concern out of all proportion in order to make a point that isn’t even valid. It’s about what the science says, not the scientist - these arguments are extremely similar to those against Evolution and of the same nature as @Artiscience alluded to ie attack Darwin, not the theory - it is dishonest -Do you not believe either, or alternatively how do you distinguish between the 2?
Edit:
I’m also not interested in buying any books or videos etc, so go advertise elsewhere…

[quote=“eggmunkee, post:15, topic:4820”]
Anyone gave you the constitutional right to work
[/quote]Right to work in coal-mines was the quote…as you well know…naughty :smiley:

I was framing the issue from a U.S. citizen’s perspective.
Everyone has the right to work and it does not have to be granted by the government or anyone. That’s a human right.

That is complete nonsense. “The society” doesn’t carry out executions, but the government.

But related to the right to work, you sadly mixed it up with right to job (in public sector at that!). That example I made is about state taking right to destroy someone’s life because of people like you - who think it’s okay to violate other citizens basic human rights.

And you and Team Socialist will eliminate pain and suffering by passing a law?
Or by beating up someone who earns money in the office and taking some of his money to give it to the miner-turned-welfare state slave?
Pathetic thugs.

People,

Although I am continuing to read related stuff on the subject eg Gary Chartier’s “Anarchy and Legal Order”, from what I can see so far, at least the Yankee version of “Libertarianism” is an entire “house of cards” edifice built on top of a simplistic, three word slogan: “taxation is theft”. This “philosophical” edifice appears to have major problems relating to the real world, as it is, and how to sensibly deal with its significant problems (not the least of which is potentially self-induced extinction for H. sapiens in the near future). About the only thing that @janitor has got right (on this thread at least) was his original comment - having a discussion about this stuff is probably a waste of time . .

Regards,
Phil.