Global Warming now officially bullshit

When you look at the world through the lens of the Econ 101 class you took at your community college, you will end up denying anything that exists outside economic paradigms such as supply and demand.

This kind of two-bit fuckwitry is not something new.
 


Speaking of twobit fuckwitry, supply and demand aren't economic paradigms. They are physical reality.
 
The twobit fuckwitry comes in when naive idealists decide freemarket capitalism solves every problem that a society can face.

Needless to say these guys are best suited to posting on internet forums rather than actually implementing their ideas.
 
Ar Scion said:
The twobit fuckwitry comes in when naive idealists decide freemarket capitalism solves every problem that a society can face.

Needless to say these guys are best suited to posting on internet forums rather than actually implementing their ideas.
Click to expand...

They'd probably be able to actually implement their ideas if socialists weren't so busy sabotaging them.
 
Ar Scion said:
The twobit fuckwitry comes in when naive idealists decide freemarket capitalism solves every problem that a society can face.
Click to expand...
What is truly fuckwitry is the use of logical fallacy (strawman) in an argument.

Ar Scion said:
Needless to say these guys are best suited to posting on internet forums rather than actually implementing their ideas.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if this is a knock on yourself or if you actually believe you have the high ground, all things equal.
 
guerilla said:
What is truly fuckwitry is the use of logical fallacy (strawman) in an argument.


I'm not sure if this is a knock on yourself or if you actually believe you have the high ground, all things equal.
Click to expand...

Mr ad hominem wants to point out my straw man fallacy? I'm amused. Stick to negative repping people who show you up, buddy.

You're smart enough to stall on defending your beliefs though. Don't want to be torn to shreds in your own internet hangout. This is what you think will make society better right?

Epic. Private defense agencies who fail to protect someone will be punished with a bad rating by the Better Business Bureau.

I just hope the families will be able to ask for a refund.
 
Ar Scion said:
You're smart enough to stall on defending your beliefs though. Don't want to be torn to shreds in your own internet hangout. This is what you think will make society better right?
Click to expand...
What is society? I'm an individualist. I don't think a society is anything more than a collection of individuals. Socialists may differ on this, choosing to avoid seeing individuals, and addressing everyone in a collective sense. That however does create a contradiction.

This is what I believe is just.

Ar Scion said:
Epic. Private defense agencies who fail to protect someone will be punished with a bad rating by the Better Business Bureau.
Click to expand...
Right, because the courts and electoral system really keeps politicians and cops who fail to protect people accountable, right?

Ancap/voluntaryism is not strictly consequentialist. The means matter as much as the ends.

Mr ad hominem wants to point out my straw man fallacy?
Click to expand...
Does that make it not a strawman?

I'm amused. Stick to negative repping people who show you up, buddy.
Click to expand...
I -rep people who engage in fallacy and I +rep people who argue honestly. So maybe you should contribute, and even if we differ politically, there is some value in acknowledging your participation here.
 
It's just a scam to tax people more... "Buy Your Carbon Credits HERE!!" - why should we be taxed or feel like we have to pay for a naturally occurring element... comets and meteors bring lots of carbon emissions into Earth's atmosphere each year... and so we have to pay for that?

Wake up people.
 
guerilla said:
What is society? I'm an individualist. I don't think a society is anything more than a collection of individuals. Socialists may differ on this, choosing to avoid seeing individuals, and addressing everyone in a collective sense. That however does create a contradiction.

This is what I believe is just.


Right, because the courts and electoral system really keeps politicians and cops who fail to protect people accountable, right?

Ancap/voluntaryism is not strictly consequentialist. The means matter as much as the ends.

Does that make it not a strawman?

I -rep people who engage in fallacy and I +rep people who argue honestly. So maybe you should contribute, and even if we differ politically, there is some value in acknowledging your participation here.
Click to expand...

By definition individualists don't need changes in the state and collection of individuals to facilitate them. However reality does not comport. Individualists do need changes in state and society to facilitate sustained individualism.

If you want to make sense of your individualism you start by defining the extent of your individualism. We know it is dependent, but to what extent. And when you determine how dependent it is, does it remain individualism any longer?

The point to take home here is that theories catch fire upon entering the atmosphere. By the time you practically implement them in a sustainable system, they are drastically different thanks to one single variable: Human nature.

Human nature fucks all textbook theories beyond recognition as soon as they enter the real world.

Voluntaryism faces the same problem.

None of these theories addresses human nature because they were written up by political scientists and economists, and as long as they won't, they will fail.

Do you think a voluntaryistic(?) system will be thoroughly self regulating and require no intervention? How will the system deal with crime?

I'm not flaming here, I really am curious how you will reconcile crime with a voluntaryistic value system.
 
Moxie said:
^ lol, please find us scientists who study climatology, preferably those published in journals, not a petition that your local dentist may have signed.

Climate change consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

^lol Please be a little more witty than trying to pose a rebuttal based on any one given name in that list. A little more research could go a long way for you. Instead of looked for a way to support your position, try to examine the real facts in front of you.
 
A dentist might be on the high end, as a real fact is they accepted anyone with a science-related degree. Looking for petitions like that isn't most people's idea of research.
 
Hardly. This petition has been ongoing for a very long time. It was also submitted as an argument to the opinion that only a few scientist are in rejection of the global warming theories.

This list is supported by the ex president of the American Academy of Science. This isn't just some pathetic internet submit petition. As a matter of fact, the petition is by mail only.

Each scientist had to given a summary of their area of expertise in their field along with their vote to petition.

Global Warming/Cooling was bad science to begin with, and reputable scientist have been trying to combat agenda based scientists with their political ties and media friends from the beginning.

Regulation and profiteering from the threat of Global Warming is the only reason that this is still an issue today. If it were not so, then there would be no political backing or media coverage to constantly support the theory.

That petition is a fantastic show of support against bad science and should not be dismissed so lightly; especially without due diligence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erect
No, it's not an internet petition; it was started years ago with the help of Exxon and friends.

The ex president guy also used to work for a tobacco company. His "research" at that time was denying the claims of tobacco being harmful.
 
Yeah, you're going to have to do more than a two minute wiki. For a little transparency, back in the 80's, he supported the fact that there was no conclusive evidence that second hand smoke would have long term adverse health effects under normal conditions. There is either scientific proof, or there isn't. Currently, there is no scientific proof of global warming. If there were, then there would be no contestation.

Alternatively, your false claim on who began the petition would hold no bearing on the signers and suporters even if it had been true. Nice try though.

Despite any attempt to discredit 31,000 scientists (that would be a person holding an academic degree in science) from their scientific research, and opinions on other's research, the fact remains that their collaborative voice sounds far more loudly than yours or mine.

You have those that believe what they are told, and those that weigh the evidence for themselves. Everyone should strive to become the latter.
 
"The evidence" in science is peer-reviewed research from those in that particular field of study. Gravity still hasn't been scientifically proven, either. Science is about odds and probabilities. A petition or a talk radio guy screaming into a microphone isn't go to change the actual numbers that have already been recorded. If you are so concerned with proof, then there is a whole lot less evidence available to prove that 1,000s of climate change scientists are part of what would be one of the biggest conspiracies in history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom