Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » August 2nd, 2017, 5:02 am

Given I believe something you concluded as to what I meant? Something I "seemed" to be saying is something I therefore must believe?
In saying "there is no such thing as Climate Science" you seem to be saying that the scientific method is not applicable to the Earth's climate. Is it outrageous and dishonest of me to say that's what you seem to be say?!? How could I possibly conclude that you're saying anything else? But if you're not saying that, then by all means tell me what you are saying!!



Post #103:
Yet again, an example of your dishonesty.
In post #65 you also accused me of dishonesty for saying things like this:
Apart from meaning that we're all victims of a global conspiracy to enslave or kill us involving most of the rich and powerful people in the world who all play golf together while hatching their dastardly plots.
In post #66 I addressed this accusation and conceded that the part about golf was a stretch. At no point did you mention golf. But I pointed out that you have in fact explicitly stated that you believe there is a very wide ranging global conspiracy involving numerous high profile people and groups to confiscate private property and immobilise us - i.e. to enslave us. You had no reply to what I said there. You just carried on.

Why do you continue to falsely accuse me of dishonesty? Will you ignore post #104 too?

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » August 2nd, 2017, 5:10 am

Greta wrote:The question I'd like to know is why Razbio supports notions by fossil fuel companies to the public? The
I'm right here.

This strategy of speaking over someone to my mind suggests some sort of fear in that there appears to be a reach out to one's tribal associates, some assumed force of numbers, rather than construct a response to whom it otherwise abstractly refers. Just plain rude.

Got your pitchforks ready?

Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » August 2nd, 2017, 5:12 am

The dialog started about Donald Trump. It then moved on to Climate Change and you then moved it onto Life On Mars. Given that you have done this, do you think it unreasonable for me to ask where else you're going to take it? Why is it dishonest to ask a question about where the conversation will go next, given your tendency to move around various different subjects?

Are you sure that you won't soon start talking about 9/11?

-- Updated Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:18 am to add the following --

One thing we do agree on: It does seem curious that both Greta and F of S refer to you in the 3rd person.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7229
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Greta » August 2nd, 2017, 5:39 am

Steve, I'm ignoring him. There's no evidence, nothing that can change his mind so there's not much point.

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » August 2nd, 2017, 5:49 am

Steve3007 wrote:
Given I believe something you concluded as to what I meant? Something I "seemed" to be saying is something I therefore must believe?
In saying "there is no such thing as Climate Science" you seem to be saying that the scientific method is not applicable to the Earth's climate. Is it outrageous and dishonest of me to say that's what you seem to be say?!? How could I possibly conclude that you're saying anything else? But if you're not saying that, then by all means tell me what you are saying!!
You missed this reply to that so I repeat: There are many, many different disciplines which can factor into climate. There is not science discipline reduced as a specific 'climate science'.

-- Updated August 2nd, 2017, 5:53 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:

Post #103:
Yet again, an example of your dishonesty.
In post #65 you also accused me of dishonesty for saying things like this:
Apart from meaning that we're all victims of a global conspiracy to enslave or kill us involving most of the rich and powerful people in the world who all play golf together while hatching their dastardly plots.
We're "all" victims? "The rich"? As if I been so universal in my statements? This is your conspiracy.

-- Updated August 2nd, 2017, 5:55 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:
In post #66 I addressed this accusation and conceded that the part about golf was a stretch. At no point did you mention golf. But I pointed out that you have in fact explicitly stated that you believe there is a very wide ranging global conspiracy involving numerous high profile people and groups to confiscate private property and immobilise us - i.e. to enslave us. You had no reply to what I said there. You just carried on.
I had given the example of Agenda 21.

-- Updated August 2nd, 2017, 5:57 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:

Why do you continue to falsely accuse me of dishonesty? Will you ignore post #104 too?
I had replied to that but here I repeat: We had discussed motivations for 'scientific' conclusions.

-- Updated August 2nd, 2017, 5:59 am to add the following --
Greta wrote:Steve, I'm ignoring him. There's no evidence, nothing that can change his mind so there's not much point.
It sounds like she is talking to you Steve. Interesting the correct response construction. No fear of Steve.

Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » August 2nd, 2017, 9:11 am

Razblo:
You missed this reply to that so I repeat: There are many, many different disciplines which can factor into climate. There is not science discipline reduced as a specific 'climate science'.
There are many different sub-disciplines to other subjects too. What's wrong with having an overall heading? Physics has many different complex sub-disciplines. That doesn't mean there isn't a branch of science called Physics.
We're "all" victims? "The rich"? As if I been so universal in my statements? This is your conspiracy.
You listed:

Obama, the Clintons, the Bushs, the Rosthchilds, Soros, various heads of Wall St banks, Saudi Kings, owner of Amazon/WaPo with his CIA contracts, billionaire Mexican owner of New York Times and Elon Musk.

Do you think it dishonest of me to summarise that as a list of rich and powerful people?
I had given the example of Agenda 21.
You did, yes. You postulated that Agenda 21 is part of a conspiracy to outlaw private property and immobilise people, did you not?


---

Anyway, perhaps it would be a good idea to dig up one of the various past discussions about Climate Change that have happened over the years on the science section of this website and we could transfer that thread of this discussion over there and all have fun throwing bits of the internet at each other. What do you say?

-- Updated Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:24 pm to add the following --

Here are a couple to choose from:

onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... it=climate

onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... it=climate

The first one was started by the poster called DarwinX who was on here for a long time with his bestselling series of "X is a Fraud" topics (where X is a whole variety of different things about which DarwinX was somewhat sceptical).

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » August 2nd, 2017, 10:49 am

Steve3007 wrote:

There are many different sub-disciplines to other subjects too. What's wrong with having an overall heading? Physics has many different complex sub-disciplines. That doesn't mean there isn't a branch of science called Physics.
There is a PhD in Physics.
Now let us list some disciplines which must be well understood in themselves (which also has to mean in their interacting relationship with each other), and must impact on climate (therefore come under a heading of 'Climate' (note: no existing PhD of Climate).

.meteorology
.atmospheric chemistry
.atmospheric physics
.astrophysics
.oceanography
plus studies of the whole terrestrial biosphere of forests, rocks, crops, soils, ice... All the above interacting with each other in ways that are not understood perfectly (yet we hear of 'global warming' as "done").

And then there is all this rather convenient focus on Co2. A focus which gives an impression of a simply understood solution.

F of S likes to point out Co2 absorbs radiation, but levels are the point and what the cause of any level is another factor. Apart from the Co2 hypothesis (yes, it is a hypothesis. Not a "done" deal at all), there can be other reasons for warming which of course has been the case of the earth's long historic cycle.


Steve3007 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You listed:

Obama, the Clintons, the Bushs, the Rosthchilds, Soros, various heads of Wall St banks, Saudi Kings, owner of Amazon/WaPo with his CIA contracts, billionaire Mexican owner of New York Times and Elon Musk.

Do you think it dishonest of me to summarise that as a list of rich and powerful people?
[/quote]

I mention a very tiny handful of rich people, small enough to be in the line I wrote which you quoted here. How is that "MOST of the rich"?

"What are you going to drag in next? Faked moon landings? 9/11 didn't really happen? (There were no planes/the buildings were deliberately destroyed/there were no buildings etc. take your choice and enjoy the associated YouTube videos.)

I still find this desire to paint pictures interesting."

You dishonestly attributed what YOU had actually "painted" as mine. You find this "interesting".

You should perhaps comment on what I actually say. You could perhaps 'break it down' as with questions, but adding more to it and then being cynical of your additions is, I feel, a dishonest method.

Maybe you could have a try at the question I posed to Greta given the cynicism of my criticism of the either Elon Musk or Google cars. After all, they seem to represent a beacon of sustainability.

What would be the source of energy for electric cars if everyone had access to one?

Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » August 2nd, 2017, 11:08 am

I agree that it's a good idea to stick to one point at a time.

The sources of energy for electric cars are currently mostly coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear and wind - the same as for other electric devices. If the entire fleet of cars in the UK (for example) were replaced with electric cars I think I've read somewhere that it would result in a 30 or 40% increase in electricity use. Something like that. So if we think that switching to electric vehicles is going to reduce carbon emissions it looks like we have a big problem to solve. Although, as I understand it, another driver for the desire to switch to electric cars is reducing pollution in towns and cities.

Does any of the above have any bearing on the question of whether human activity is a significant factor in climate change?

Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Fan of Science » August 2nd, 2017, 11:19 am

Razio is a full-blown science denier and conspiracy theorist. Basically, they deny the most basic facts, which is that 100% of climate change is due to human activity, as the planet has been heating up, and all non-human factors over the last several decades would have cooled the planet. He also ignores the fact that climate change is accelerating, as we have positive feedback effects. CO2 emissions lead to greater methane CH4 emissions, and H2O emissions, as water is also a greenhouse gas. As oceans warm, more water vapor enters the atmosphere, which compounds the problem. As ice melts, more methane is released. As ice melts, we lose the benefit of the ice bouncing radiation back out into space. Climate scientists do not just focus on CO2 but have been warning people about numerous positive feedback loops that can lead to a run-away greenhouse effect. That's what we have on Venus by the way, where a planet has temperatures hot enough to melt lead.

Trump hides the climate science developed by NASA. Why? Why is Trump such a scared little fascist that he refuses to release science data that US taxpayers pay for? How come Trump is so afraid of the science if he thinks his denial of climate change is right? The truth is Trump is afraid of the science and bans its publication because even he knows he's lying his ass off on the science.

Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » August 2nd, 2017, 11:54 am

Fan of Science (and Razblo):

I have had arguments about climate change in the past and I'm fairly familiar with the way the argument tends to go. It usually involves a fair bit of digging through internet based sources in order to try to present the counter arguments. It's time consuming and you generally get to the end of it and think "what was the point of that?"

Nevertheless, if you're going to engage in this kind of discussion at all then sooner or later I suppose you have to do that. You can't just keep asserting that the other person is wrong. So, to that end, I've re-started an old topic and tried to summarise Razblo's position in a new post.

Either one can decide that it's not worth the effort and/or we don't have the time, or we can tackle the points one at a time by citing evidence. I think it's pointless to do anything in between those two. So here it is:

onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... 45#p292645

Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Fan of Science » August 2nd, 2017, 1:23 pm

I've referenced the National Academy of Sciences, and also have given the basis, including the specifics regarding scientific results that support climate change being caused by humans. I don't have to wade through a bunch of online pseudo-nonsense and conspiracy ******** at all. All I have to do is point people in the right direction, and they can see for themselves that elite scientific bodies like the National Academy of Sciences support human-caused climate change. That's where people are supposed to get their science from --- the top science organizations, not from lunk-heads on social media platforms. That's where the crazies hang out precisely because their opinions can not survive peer-review and the scientific method.

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » August 2nd, 2017, 10:26 pm

Fan of Science wrote:I've referenced the National Academy of Sciences, and also have given the basis, including the specifics regarding scientific results that support climate change being caused by humans. I don't have to wade through a bunch of online pseudo-nonsense and conspiracy ******** at all. All I have to do is point people in the right direction, and they can see for themselves that elite scientific bodies like the National Academy of Sciences support human-caused climate change. That's where people are supposed to get their science from --- the top science organizations, not from lunk-heads on social media platforms. That's where the crazies hang out precisely because their opinions can not survive peer-review and the scientific method.
Yeah man. Carbon credit tax funded 'research'. Be weary of the term 'elite' as in 'elite scientific bodies'. Hitler had those.

Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » October 25th, 2017, 2:46 am

So, is the Republican majority now falling apart due to people on Trump's own side finally losing patience with his self-centredness and obsession with dismantling Obama's legacy and boasting about how he's the best at everything? Or are these latest criticisms of the president by soon-to-retire Republican senators part of the promised draining of the swamp? Will Steve Bannon's dream, as declared in his recent speeches, of replacing large parts of the Republican party swamp with more Trump-loyal and Trump-like people soon be realized?

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7229
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Greta » October 25th, 2017, 3:09 am

Fan of Science wrote:Razio is a full-blown science denier and conspiracy theorist. Basically, they deny the most basic facts, which is that 100% of climate change is due to human activity, as the planet has been heating up, and all non-human factors over the last several decades would have cooled the planet. He also ignores the fact that climate change is accelerating, as we have positive feedback effects. CO2 emissions lead to greater methane CH4 emissions, and H2O emissions, as water is also a greenhouse gas. As oceans warm, more water vapor enters the atmosphere, which compounds the problem. As ice melts, more methane is released. As ice melts, we lose the benefit of the ice bouncing radiation back out into space. Climate scientists do not just focus on CO2 but have been warning people about numerous positive feedback loops that can lead to a run-away greenhouse effect. That's what we have on Venus by the way, where a planet has temperatures hot enough to melt lead.

Trump hides the climate science developed by NASA. Why?
I agree. The issue is the influence of the energy and arms industries (who rely on steel). It is clear that many millions are being paid by fossil fuel companies to conservative political parties in the west. Oil, coal and shale/gas companies have billions of dollars worth of infrastructure at risk and intend to protect their turf, and their government handouts, and to lobby hard against equivalent grants going to sustainable energy industries. There are equivalent issues elsewhere, such as the inordinate influence of big pharma on doctors and medical associations, major beef producers and their influence on supposed heart health and anti cancer organisation, and so forth.

This is what happens if you shrink governments to the point where they are less powerful and influential than private companies. You get powerful entities acting for themselves rather than representing the the public as governments once did to a greater extent.

Post Reply