Lol. Right, just like creationists have "one side" and "evolutionists" have another view. Or, better, flat-earthers have a view and NASA has another view. Both totally plausible. — Xtrix
Now you're just babbling nonsense. Why "hypothesis" are you talking about? There's overwhelming evidence for the effects climate change will have. It's only a matter of degree, which will depend on whether we act or not. We're already seeing the effects, which are WORSE than the scientists predicted years ago. — Xtrix
No, there's evidence to back them up -- overwhelming evidence which, once it's explained to you, is more than convincing. All you have to do is make a little effort. Even a simple wikipedia search is fine. Or are they part of the global conspiracy too? — Xtrix
No, they're worth my time. I've read both, in fact. I've given sources that go over their points thoroughly. I'd be glad to go over their lies here as well.
— Xtrix
No you haven't. — h060tu
Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means.
— Xtrix
No they don't. That number is from a comic book writer. It's fallacious. — h060tu
You've already given yourself away buddy. You've proven you only read fringe bullshit about climate change. This is yet another example. — Xtrix
It's been attacked by climate deniers like yourself, but later studies have corroborated it. It's based on published articles on climate change, thousands of them. There have also been extensive polling done. Even if the number is 90%, which is extremely unlikely, to have this level of consensus in science is rare. It really tells you something about the level of evidence. — Xtrix
Now you're just babbling nonsense. Why "hypothesis" are you talking about? There's overwhelming evidence for the effects climate change will have. It's only a matter of degree, which will depend on whether we act or not. We're already seeing the effects, which are WORSE than the scientists predicted years ago.
— Xtrix
No, there isn't. Because it has not happened yet. — h060tu
Not what might be the case based on models, predictions, hand waving, media personalities, documentaries, alarmism and a autistic 16 year old. — h060tu
No, there's evidence to back them up -- overwhelming evidence which, once it's explained to you, is more than convincing. All you have to do is make a little effort. Even a simple wikipedia search is fine. Or are they part of the global conspiracy too?
— Xtrix
Right, because Google, Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, the Chinese Communist Party and several others who donate to Wikipedia don't have any influence at all over the content that might be adduced there. None. — h060tu
You've already given yourself away buddy. You've proven you only read fringe bullshit about climate change. This is yet another example.
— Xtrix
No. I've read NOAA, I actually have it bookmarked LOL I just don't believe your claims because you have absolutely nothing to substantiate them. Only rhetoric. — h060tu
That actual study says nothing about antropogenic climate change. It talks about climate change without qualification. When you actually break down the study into the various ways in which scientists think what is causing climate change, the numbers go way below 70%. I know the study, and it doesn't corroborate anthropogenic climate change. — h060tu
I already explained my view, and you don't understand it. My view is agnosticism. I don't subscribe to ideologies and positions, all knowledge is tentative and always changing. Same as anything. — h060tu
I'm not a "climate denier" nor am I a "climate skeptic" nor am I a "climate activist" I am not any of these things. — h060tu
I question them all because they are all equally suspect, none of them have made a sufficient case to doxastically believe in. None. That's it. — h060tu
Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means.
— Xtrix
No they don't. That number is from a comic book writer. It's fallacious. — h060tu
No, I accept things that have overwhelming evidence -- like a spherical Earth, like that the holocaust happened, like evolution, like gravity, like climate change. Economic or sociology theories have nothing to do with this, although there are some solid ideas even in those fields as well. — Xtrix
It has happened, it's happening already. Look at the last 10 hottest years on record. This year is shaping up to be one of the hottest as well. — Xtrix
LOL. Oh, so they ARE a part of the global conspiracy? Interesting. Tell me more, Dr. Science. — Xtrix
Glad you've "read NOAA." Was that the book? lol. — Xtrix
What study might that be, exactly? — Xtrix
Good for you. I myself am agnostic about gravity and whether the Earth really is flat. Who knows? Things change. I'm also agnostic about God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. — Xtrix
You're a climate denier. You've already made that quite clear. You've used standard denialist lines, when asked to cite any sources you provided two well-known climate "skeptics," ignore or dismiss NASA and the IPCC (and apparently even Wikipedia) because of some conspiracy claims about the government, say climate science is based on 'models,' etc. — Xtrix
The fact is that the evidence of climate change is overwhelming. It's already happening, and will continue to get worse unless major changes are enacted. There's consensus from scientists all over the world on this. The evidence is clear and easily understand if we care to understand it, which you clearly do not. — Xtrix
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.
This is where there is a consensus. — Xtrix
Anyway, economic and sociology, LIKE climate science, LIKE biology, LIKE physics, pretends purports to be scientific. — h060tu
I'm asking you, how on Earth are you going to accept one of these as "science" and the rest as not. Or do you? I'm asking you what your criteria is, and how do you demarcate it? — h060tu
You don't want to answer because you don't have an answer. You cannot establish what is science. You don't even know what science even is. — h060tu
But you're assuming because climate is changing, a bunch of these claims which you'd assumed and not provided any reason to believe they are genuine are also true. That's not the case. — h060tu
No, I'm saying that there is no neutrality when it comes to looking at the world. The Chinese Communist Party could be correct, that's fine. I'm not making an ad hominem, just because they're communists doesn't make them wrong. But I'm pointing out that Wikipedia is not a neutral source. Nothing is. — h060tu
What study might that be, exactly?
— Xtrix
The one you pretended to know about. — h060tu
You can continue to say that, but you're wrong. And that's because you can't reason. You allow your emotions to drive your interpretation of the evidence and the world. — h060tu
Climate change is happening. Yes. It always has. It always will. I've never said otherwise. I'm not arguing that climate doesn't change. — h060tu
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.
This is where there is a consensus.
— Xtrix
And? Consensus is a fallacy. There was no debate over whether Newtonian mechanics was false, until Einstein... and Quantum Theory. — h060tu
There was no debate whether Ptolemaic Astronomy was false.. until Copernicus. You can say "there's no debate" but it doesn't mean a damn thing. Honestly. — h060tu
it would relate to raising taxes specifically on the wealthy and corporations, because I'm tired of the class warfare, which is how this usually plays out. — Hanover
I'm also opposed to campaign finance reform because I'm close to an absolutist on free speech. — Hanover
What is a person voting for if they back Biden on Election Day 2020?
The humiliation of courageous women like Anita Hill who confronted her abuser. You vote for the architects of endless war. You vote for the apartheid state in Israel. Biden supports those things. With Biden you are voting for wholesale surveillance by the government, including the abolition of due process and habeas corpus. You vote for austerity programs. You vote for the destruction of welfare. That was Biden. You vote for cuts to Social Security, which he has repeatedly called for cutting, along with Medicaid. You vote for NAFTA, you vote for "free trade" deals. If you vote for Biden, you are voting for a real decline in wages and the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs.
With Biden you are also voting for the assault on public education and the transfer of federal funds to Christian "charter schools." With Biden you are voting for more than a doubling of the prison population. With Biden you are voting for the militarized police and against the Green New Deal. You are also voting to limit a woman's right to abortion and reproductive rights. You are voting for a segregated public school system. With Biden you are voting for punitive levels of student debt and the inability of people to free themselves of that debt through bankruptcy. A vote for Biden is a vote for deregulating banking and finance. Biden also supports for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.
A vote for Biden is also a vote against the possibility of universal health care. You vote for Biden and you are supporting huge, wasteful and bloated defense budgets. Biden also supports unlimited oligarchic and corporate money to buy the elections.
That's what you're voting for. A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for more of the same. The ruling elites would prefer Joe Biden, just like they preferred Hillary Clinton.
No. I've read NOAA, I actually have it bookmarked LOL I just don't believe your claims because you have absolutely nothing to substantiate them. Only rhetoric. — h060tu
You go from raising taxes on the wealthy and corporation to class warfare without any intermediate steps. Let's assume it's true. What do you think about Warren Buffet when he said this:
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”? — Benkei
How do you relate that to the declining labour share of GDP development and income inequality?Or the fact CEO pay has risen by 940% since 1978 but worker pay only by 12%? This while GDP grew with nearly 90% since then? — Benkei
Every person does have one vote. I don't follow your equation of speech to voting.Why should having more money effectively give you a bigger voice and more influence? Shouldn't it just be one man, one vote? Or you don't think there's any tit-for-tat involved with campaign donations? Or do you think because it's legal, it's not corruption? — Benkei
How do you relate that to the declining labour share of GDP development and income inequality?Or the fact CEO pay has risen by 940% since 1978 but worker pay only by 12%? This while GDP grew with nearly 90% since then? — Benkei
Every person does have one vote. I don't follow your equation of speech to voting.
How much should you be allowed to speak before the government arrests you for speaking too much?
Anyway, money gives you all sorts of things, like better clothes, better food, better schooling, and even a bigger megaphone to scream and yell from. I'm just wondering what it is that you wish to say that isn't being heard. The ability of the average guy to be heard is much higher today than it was when there were just newspapers and a few major television stations. The only way to be heard back then was to write a letter to the editor that might or might not be published. Now, all I have to do is write whatever bullshit I want and some guy in the Netherlands starts offering me his perspective (which I do appreciate). My point is that there isn't this massive group of silenced people who just can't afford a place at the podium to be heard. Your biggest beef, I'd suspect, is the disproportionate power the US has and that it's controlled currently by the conservative micro-majority, thus subjecting the planet to what amounts to be an overall minority opinion. I can only imagine what it feels like to be in your shoes with Trump steering this great big ship we call the world and all you can do is look on in shock and dismay. You call it a tragedy. Me, a comedy. — Hanover
What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it
I've voted as well as if I could. I voted third party. — Benkei
A poor country can indeed get more easily higher growth figures. Getting people to earn 2$ a day from 1$ a day is quite easy. Getting people earn from 100$ to 200$ is another thing. What's the "some" here for? I guess that is quite reasonable.Some economists believe that a relatively low growth rate is normal for a rich nation, because there’s less of an incentive to work, people have fewer children, and so on — praxis
Actually, in an economic recession (declining GDP) income inequality typically decreases. The poor stay poor, but the rich aren't getting the profits. This happened for example in my country when we had a serious economic depression (thanks to speculative bubble and a banking crisis) in the 1990's.and that a declining GDP will increase inequality to destabilizing levels if unmitigated by policies that include wealth redistribution. — praxis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.