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
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by -1- » August 1st, 2017, 6:08 am

Four percent of one percent is a really small number. They say it's double of what it used to be at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England.

Would that make a difference in the heat-retaining capacity of the atmosphere? I don't know; only empirical experiments can satisfactorily answer that. It's not an experiment that is hard to design and execute... has anyone read about one or done one here?

CO2 is not the only green house gas... there is methane, ethane, Ethan the Airhead, (I.e. Mission Impossible hero), etc. Apparently huge amounts of methane are released into the atmosphere by cows (don't ask by what process... you don't want to know). And these cows are nothing in comparison to ants and termites, when it comes to methane production. Ants and termites are pros; they create X number times more methane than all the cows put together in the world.

This concludes your first lesson on popularized Earth psciences.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » August 1st, 2017, 6:09 am

Steve3007 wrote:So you don't know what it is about CO2 that makes it analogous to the glass in a greenhouse and you don't know that 0.04% is not the same quantity as 1/400%? But you are still convinced that you know enough about Climate Change to make a decision about it? Your argument being that less than 1% is a really small number? I'm not entirely convinced.

Back to driverless cars: In your view, part of the conspiracy to steal our mobility or just a bad idea? You haven't made it clear which you think is true.
They are a bad idea AND fully exploitable, for the Agenda 21 agenda, which compounds the bad idea.

I know enough about climate change? I leave that up to unexploitable climate scientists. Einstein's theory of relativity was not a result of some consensus and Galileo was up against the establishment authoritarian narrative of his time, which these days is the Orwellian doublespeak called 'sustainability'.

Steve3007
Posts: 4902
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » August 1st, 2017, 6:14 am

-1-:
Would that make a difference in the heat-retaining capacity of the atmosphere? I don't know; only empirical experiments can satisfactorily answer that.
This was my point on that particular issue. The answer to the question "Can a concentration of 0.04% CO2 have a significant warming effect?" is not: "Of course not, that's a really small number. Small numbers of things don't have any effect." The answer is to do some basic research on the EM radiation absorption characteristics of CO2. To at least find out something about what is claimed before deciding whether we agree with those claims.

-- Updated Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:16 am to add the following --
I know enough about climate change? I leave that up to unexploitable climate scientists.
That approach would be fine if you were not offering strong opinions on the subject. It appears that you are offering strong opinions on the subject. It's basic common sense that if you want to decide whether or not you agree with somebody you have to first have some idea of what they're actually saying. Isn't it?

-- Updated Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:22 am to add the following --

(To be clear: That second quote was from Razblo. Not -1-.)

-- Updated Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:30 am to add the following --

So is this:
They are a bad idea AND fully exploitable, for the Agenda 21 agenda, which compounds the bad idea.
Just to press the point again: Given that (in your view) driverless cars are both a bad idea AND can be exploited in order to stop the common folks from being able to go where we want, do you think that they are explicitly being developed for that purpose? In your universe, did the bosses of Google have a brainstorming session with the other conspirators/puppets/puppet-masters to try to figure out how to control the populace for their evil ends, and one of them said: "I know! Driverless cars!"

I'm just interested to know how this whole global conspiracy thing works.

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » August 1st, 2017, 8:06 am

Steve3007 wrote:
I know enough about climate change? I leave that up to unexploitable climate scientists.
That approach would be fine if you were not offering strong opinions on the subject. It appears that you are offering strong opinions on the subject. It's basic common sense that if you want to decide whether or not you agree with somebody you have to first have some idea of what they're actually saying. Isn't it?
Yes, I have some idea of what they are saying. "Some", I suppose, may equate to 'layman'. It has been explained to me the complexity inherent in climate measuring is depicted too simply and therefore convenient agenda wise.
Steve3007 wrote: So is this:




Just to press the point again: Given that (in your view) driverless cars are both a bad idea AND can be exploited in order to stop the common folks from being able to go where we want, do you think that they are explicitly being developed for that purpose? In your universe, did the bosses of Google have a brainstorming session with the other conspirators/puppets/puppet-masters to try to figure out how to control the populace for their evil ends, and one of them said: "I know! Driverless cars!"

I'm just interested to know how this whole global conspiracy thing works.


Engineers were always going to combine cars and robotics. Google shows a lot of interest in possible ways to control speech and message by manipulating algorithms, etc. It is largely a media company after all. Robotics engineers would not have been grown within the company. They would be hired. Probably hired based on the work in robotic vehicles prior to Google hiring them.

It is no great leap from message control to human movement control. It is no great leap to consider various other global giants and tax funded authorities combining their resources. You would be naive to think otherwise. Fan of Science mentioned before that somehow I must be just some mere conspiracy nut if I don't trust governments. This suggests even government watchdogs and whistle blowers must somehow be mad people. Who needs watchdogs, eh? Who needs oversight committees, eh? Why should there be public consultations, eh? There is good reason the asking for transparency become public demands because it is more often a fight rather than accepted protocol.

Everything human-wise has happened before.

Like I have suggested, try Dr Peterson. If one is interested in philosophy then he is a worthy listen. He, by the way, is not mentioning Agenda 21. But he understands human psychology and totalitarian tendency. Don't be afraid now.

Although I do not know why transported videos have disappeared from this platform. Anyway, the clip I refer to is found in youtube under the heading 'Dr. Jordan Peterson | Nationalism vs Globalism'

Just 12 minutes of your life.

-- Updated August 1st, 2017, 8:14 am to add the following --
It's working on iOS.

Steve3007
Posts: 4902
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » August 1st, 2017, 9:52 am

Razblo:
(On Climate Change)
Yes, I have some idea of what they are saying. "Some", I suppose, may equate to 'layman'. It has been explained to me the complexity inherent in climate measuring is depicted too simply and therefore convenient agenda wise.
If it's possible to make an informed decision about Climate Change using a basic layman's understanding then fine. But I would argue that even a layman's understanding at least includes a basic appreciation of why the term "greenhouse effect" was coined and why CO2, in the quantities that it exists in our atmosphere, has the effect that it does. This is the basic science. If you don't know anything about it, how do you know what's wrong with it?

If you think that a simplistic view allows people to misrepresent it, as you've suggested, then go looking for more detail. But if you want to have any chance of getting to the truth it's no good deciding in advance what you think and then going out to look for like-minded people who can back that up. If you've already decided that Climate Change is one part of a wider conspiracy of some kind then you'll probably go looking for evidence of that. It seems to me that the trouble with the modern world of vast quantities of easily accessible information is that you can probably find someone to back up pretty much any story you want to believe. To go back to the dot-drawing analogy: With a very large number of dots at your disposal it's possible to draw pretty much any picture you like.
...Just 12 minutes of your life.
When you first quoted some of Dr Jordan Peterson in post #63 I thought he raised some valid and interesting points. You may have already gathered that I'm pretty sceptical of the conspiracy theorists' technique of pulling together disparate things like driverless cars and Climate Change to weave into a pre-decided narrative, but I still think that broader more philosophical questions about human nature, totalitarianism, nationalism, globalism, utopianism and so on are interesting to talk about.

I'm at work now so can't watch a YouTube video, but will watch it when I get home and let you know what I think.

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » August 1st, 2017, 10:01 am

Steve3007 wrote:Razblo:
(On Climate Change)
Yes, I have some idea of what they are saying. "Some", I suppose, may equate to 'layman'. It has been explained to me the complexity inherent in climate measuring is depicted too simply and therefore convenient agenda wise.
If it's possible to make an informed decision about Climate Change using a basic layman's understanding then fine. But I would argue that even a layman's understanding at least includes a basic appreciation of why the term "greenhouse effect" was coined and why CO2, in the quantities that it exists in our atmosphere, has the effect that it does. This is the basic science. If you don't know anything about it, how do you know what's wrong with it?

If you think that a simplistic view allows people to misrepresent it, as you've suggested, then go looking for more detail. But if you want to have any chance of getting to the truth it's no good deciding in advance what you think and then going out to look for like-minded people who can back that up. If you've already decided that Climate Change is one part of a wider conspiracy of some kind then you'll probably go looking for evidence of that. It seems to me that the trouble with the modern world of vast quantities of easily accessible information is that you can probably find someone to back up pretty much any story you want to believe. To go back to the dot-drawing analogy: With a very large number of dots at your disposal it's possible to draw pretty much any picture you like. .
I was merely being facetious and cheeky on "greenhouse". However, it is a silly term when one considers what we deem the function of a greenhouse before "greenhouse' became used in climate science vocabulary.

So, the planet warms up. Big deal. More evaporation, more rainfall, more tropical. It is still forwarded by climate-related scientists that it is not a human created issue.

-- Updated August 1st, 2017, 10:11 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote: CO2, in the quantities that it exists in our atmosphere, has the effect that it does. This is the basic science. .
The science of co2 in atmosphere, it's quantities and it's presumed effects is not "basic".

It is highly complex. The ocean systems are highly complex. The highly complex ocean systems, their influence on everything, make the co2 discussion meaningless. So, this is where 'sustainability" propaganda looks to something that seems "basic". You have gobbled it up hook, line and sinker.....because it sounds simple. Nice and simple. Holy f**k!

Steve3007
Posts: 4902
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » August 1st, 2017, 11:15 am

The science of co2 in atmosphere, it's quantities and it's presumed effects is not "basic".
Yes, the Earth is indeed a complex system and a study of it is more than just "basic science". What I was referring to as basic was the fact that CO2 absorbs EM radiation in the infrared and is more or less transparent to it in visible wavelengths, together with the fact that the Sun's peak emissions are in the visible range which the Earth absorbs and re-radiates with a peak in the infrared. Whatever you might think of the complexities of climate science, these basic facts are part of what ensures that the Earth is not permanently freezing. A little greenhouse effect is a good thing.

Your comments such as this:
It is claimed the 'greenhouse effect' is caused by levels of Co2 in the atmosphere. It is admitted universally that Co2 is 400th of 1% of the atmosphere. Think about that amount.
were what suggested that you haven't grasped these basics.

As I've said before, there's nothing wrong with that. You only need to have knowledge of a subject if you wish to express opinions about it.

-- Updated Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:22 pm to add the following --

By the way, sooner or later we'll get told by a moderator that this is all off-topic and has nothing to do with the subject of loyalty in the context of President Trump. But I guess we can just keep going until that happens.

-- Updated Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:27 pm to add the following --
The highly complex ocean systems, their influence on everything, make the co2 discussion meaningless.
Are you proposing that CO2 doesn't absorb infrared and that the basic physics of CO2 molecules has been misunderstood? Or are you saying that the effect of that absorption has no significant effect on global temperatures? Or are saying that various other complex factors outweigh that effect? Or all three? Or something else?

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » August 1st, 2017, 11:54 am

Steve3007 wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)


Or are you saying that various other complex factors outweigh that effect?
Yes. That one.

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Fan of Science » August 1st, 2017, 12:51 pm

Razbio is stunning in his denial of science. Razio ignores every elite scientific body on this issue. Razio ignores every major western university on this issue. That's because they all state that the planet is warming, due to human activity. That's a fact of science. So, instead of referring to the major scientific bodies, Razio gets his information from unreliable sources who deny the basic facts? That's the position a person takes when they are driven by ideology and not a desire for the truth.

One hundred percent of the warming for decades now is due to humans. All other factors would have cooled the planet. As far as the alleged "tiny" amount of carbon added to the atmosphere, Razio completely overlooks the research that shows that this has caused a huge amount of additional energy in the atmosphere. We are speaking of many multiples of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Anyone can look this up.

Of course, Razio is also a conspiracy theorist, which explains Razio's denial of basic science.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Greta » August 1st, 2017, 8:35 pm

The question I'd like to know is why Razbio supports notions by fossil fuel companies to the public? The conflict of interest is obvious. Fossil fuel companies have trillions of dollars' worth of infrastructure that they want to use up before decommissioning. So they concocted a disinformation campaign to buy them more time.

Trump has many fossil fuel interests, as do many, many politicians and their friends. From here it will be interesting to see how long fossil fuel companies can keep gouging us while sustainable energy companies produce cheaper power? The companies are under attack from all sides as other nations are furiously trying to get to what is basically a massive economic honeypot - largely free and sustainable energy.

I wonder if the overseas developers of renewable technology will sell their work to the US at bargain prices when the situation becomes more urgent? More likely the US will pay top dollar for technology that they themselves could have developed. So it goes.

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » August 2nd, 2017, 2:30 am

Fan of Science wrote:Razbio is stunning in his denial of science. Razio ignores every elite scientific body on this issue. Razio ignores every major western university on this issue. That's because they all state that the planet is warming, due to human activity. That's a fact of science. So, instead of referring to the major scientific bodies, Razio gets his information from unreliable sources who deny the basic facts? That's the position a person takes when they are driven by ideology and not a desire for the truth.

One hundred percent of the warming for decades now is due to humans. All other factors would have cooled the planet. As far as the alleged "tiny" amount of carbon added to the atmosphere, Razio completely overlooks the research that shows that this has caused a huge amount of additional energy in the atmosphere. We are speaking of many multiples of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Anyone can look this up.

Of course, Razio is also a conspiracy theorist, which explains Razio's denial of basic science.
Are you speaking to me or anybody other than me? Notice how my question is constructed to respond directly to you. In other words, why be so rude? I am right here.

-- Updated August 2nd, 2017, 2:32 am to add the following --
Greta wrote:The question I'd like to know is why Razbio supports notions by fossil fuel companies to the public? The conflict of interest is obvious. Fossil fuel companies have trillions of dollars' worth of infrastructure that they want to use up before decommissioning. So they concocted a disinformation campaign to buy them more time.

Trump has many fossil fuel interests, as do many, many politicians and their friends. From here it will be interesting to see how long fossil fuel companies can keep gouging us while sustainable energy companies produce cheaper power? The companies are under attack from all sides as other nations are furiously trying to get to what is basically a massive economic honeypot - largely free and sustainable energy.

I wonder if the overseas developers of renewable technology will sell their work to the US at bargain prices when the situation becomes more urgent? More likely the US will pay top dollar for technology that they themselves could have developed. So it goes.
What would be the source of energy for electric cars if everyone had access to one?

-- Updated August 2nd, 2017, 3:56 am to add the following --

There is actually no proof that us humans are causing warming.

The evidence is actually against the hypotheses that we're causing the warming because there's been warming and cooling cycles all through the history of life, and some of them are longer than others, such as the last ice age before this was 300 million years ago and then it was warm for nearly 300 million years before it cooled again like it is now. So that's a big cycle. But there are smaller cycles, and the ice age we are in now has cycles called 'major glaciations' which there have been over 20 of in the last two and a half million years when the ice age set on in the northern hemisphere. Ice age in the Southern Hemisphere many million years earlier because it is completely different, but the earth has cooled gradually in fits and starts for the last 50 million years.

'Eocene Thermal Maximum'
We are at the tail end of a 50 million year cooling period and that is apparently well known, and the graphs are available on the internet to show you that 15 million years after the time of the dinosaurs went extinct the earth was at its hottest in hundreds of millions of years (Eocene thermal maximum). This is apparently well known but it is ignored.

So we've had these 22 major glaciations and for the last million years they've been every hundred thousand years almost in lockstep with the 'Milankovich cycles' which has to do with the orbit of the earth and the tilt of the earth, varying over time. So we know that cycle.

We also know that there was a 'Minoan' warm period, a 'Roman Egyptian' warm period, a 'Medieval' warm period and now the modern warm period. In between each of them were are cooing periods, the last one being the 'Little Ice Age' which began to end around 1700 as the temperature started warming again rather than cooling. Just for example, the last time the River Thames froze over in England was 1814. It had been freezing over regularly for about 3 to 5 hundred years before that, but it stopped then and hasn't frozen over since.

WE DIDN't CAUSE THAT WARMING FROM 1700 TO 1814 ( obviously). And we didn't cause this warming trend to start at all in 1700.

NASA now has so manipulated its temperature curve as to hide the cooling that occurred between 1940 and 1970. They just eliminated it.
Why would they do that?
1.8 billion dollars in public funding.
The same reason NASA keep saying there might be life on Mars 40 years after it's been absolutely certainly proven that there isn't any life on Mars. They just float the 'life on Mars' thing every time they want to send a rocket there so that people will be in favour of it because we might find life there. But they know James Lovelock proved, when he designed the life detection system for the first Mars Lander, which was looking at the atmospheric composition, he proved there was no life there. For example, if he went to another planet and found there was lots of oxygen in the atmosphere, you could be almost certain there was life on that planet even if you couldn't see it, because oxygen wouldn't be in the atmosphere if it weren't for life. There was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere.

Steve3007
Posts: 4902
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » August 2nd, 2017, 4:15 am

Razblo:

I watched the clip of Dr Peterson speaking. I think he makes some good points about the benefits of local government, the instabilities that arise when the top is too far above the bottom and the benefits of cultural identification - the sense of being part of a tribe with a shared history and reference points. A couple of odd things he said which spring to mind:

1
He kept referring anachronistically to the EEC - the European Economic Community. Ironically, if it had remained as just an economic community, as he refers to it, then a lot of people who were in favour of the UK leaving the EU would have been happier to stay. It's a point that Nigel Farage has frequently made. For many people, it was the morphing from the original "common market", whose primary goal was to facilitate trade, to the European Union, with the far more wide-reaching aim of economic and political and even cultural union that was the main problem.

2
Right at the start, he was talking about the phrase "too big to fail". Oddly, he seemed (from what I could tell from his brief disusion of it) to have completely missed the point of that phrase. Obviously the point is that having any organisation "too big to fail" is a bad thing and everybody knows that! That's why the phrase was coined. It wasn't coined simply to state that some organisations are too big to fail as if that is an acceptable fact of life.

We can all see perfectly well that one of the things which causes financial crises like the one in 2007 is when there are organisations whose failure would cause such massive problems that they have to be artificially propped up by government, as the G W Bush administration (and other governments including the UK) had to do. It's obviously anti-competitive. For efficient competitive markets to work, failure of individual players in that market is a vitally important ingredient. It's not that the Bush administration didn't know that. Of course they know it. I don't think the US Republican party can realistically be accused of being secret socialists who want central government to be in the business of running banks! They had no choice. It was that or let the entire financial system collapse.

That's why there are laws (in countries like the US and UK) against Monopolies and Cartels. Because it's a well documented and recognised failing of unfettered free markets.

So maybe I misunderstood because he was already talking about it at the start of the clip, but it looks on the face of it as though Dr Peterson missed the point there.

-- Updated Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:25 am to add the following --
The same reason NASA keep saying there might be life on Mars 40 years after it's been absolutely certainly proven that there isn't any life on Mars. They just float the 'life on Mars' thing every time they want to send a rocket there so that people will be in favour of it because we might find life there.
Oh Razblo, you do love to join those dots don't you? All the stuff you said about Climate Change is an old, old argument which has been done so I'll leave Greta to talk about that if she wants to. Maybe discuss it later if I have the time and energy. But where have you dug up this stuff about Mars? OK, so the Viking probes in the 1970s did some experiments with inconclusive results due the chemistry of the Martian surface. Why make a conspiracy out of it? 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.

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » August 2nd, 2017, 4:33 am

Steve3007 wrote: 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.
Yet again, an example of your dishonesty. The disingenuousness of attributing things unsaid by myself and injecting them into this dialogue.

-- Updated August 2nd, 2017, 4:35 am to add the following --

Oh, by the way. There is no such thing as a 'Climate Science'.

Steve3007
Posts: 4902
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » August 2nd, 2017, 4:38 am

The dialog started about Donald Trump. It then moved on to Climate Change and you have now 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?

-- Updated Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:43 am to add the following --
Oh, by the way. There is no such thing as a 'Climate Science'
The above sentence seems to be saying that there is nothing whatsoever about the Earth's climate which can in any way be analysed using the scientific method. Given that you believe that, it seems odd that you've spent such a lot of time talking about it.

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » August 2nd, 2017, 4:56 am

Steve3007 wrote:The dialog started about Donald Trump. It then moved on to Climate Change and you have now 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?

-- Updated Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:43 am to add the following --
Oh, by the way. There is no such thing as a 'Climate Science'
The above sentence seems to be saying that there is nothing whatsoever about the Earth's climate which can in any way be analysed using the scientific method. Given that you believe that, it seems odd that you've spent such a lot of time talking about it.
We had discussed motivations for 'scientific' conclusions.

Given I believe something you concluded as to what I meant? Something I "seemed" to be saying is something I therefore must believe?

Man. Just more dishonesty.

-- Updated August 2nd, 2017, 5:01 am to add the following --

There are many, many different disciplines which can factor into climate. There is not science discipline reduced a a specific 'climate science'.

It is inconvenient, but there it is.

Post Reply