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: 5141
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » July 31st, 2017, 11:15 am

Fan of Science:
In fact, self-driving cars will allow far greater freedom for many disabled people, including the blind, as well as the elderly, and very young, as they will be able to get around in private cars without needing to drive them.
Maybe the conspirators will use these self-driving cars to bump off blind and disabled people? Nazi-style?

You've got to admit it's possible.

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » July 31st, 2017, 11:19 am

Steve3007 wrote:Razblo:
The puppets/co-conspirators of/with your previously stated perception, that being "international law" and "enforceable global law''. Such definitions had already been perceived by yourself.
I'm having trouble understanding the grammar of this one. Are you saying that "international law" is a puppet? As I understand that word in this context, a "puppet" normally refers to a person or people. Not a concept.
Your "international law", your "global law enforcers" (was that not your WTO?), would be the puppet masters.

Another day for the others.

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Fan of Science » July 31st, 2017, 11:21 am

There are a lot of psychological studies on conspiracy theorists -- basically they tend to be dishonest and distrustful of government. Because they are dishonest, they assume that people in power will also behave dishonestly and engage in conspiracies to screw people over. It's nonsense on steroids. Isn't it amazing how conspiracy-theorists can "explain" everything after the fact but never make any predictions, that are not common-sensed ones, that prove accurate? Alex Jones predicted the swine flu vaccine would kill millions and bring about martial law. When it didn't happen, he claimed his warnings stopped the event. How so? Millions took the vaccine. Yet, conspiracy theorists still tune in to the crazy ravings of Alex Jones.

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » July 31st, 2017, 11:25 am

Fan of Science wrote:Climate change is most definitely not a myth. Temperature increases are associated with the increase in greenhouse gases, which is why the inner atmosphere is heating up, and not the outer one, which would be more consistent with the Sun causing the temperature rise. The evidence for climate change is well-documented, which is exactly why you have offered nothing rational to refute the science. Science-deniers and conspiracy theorists are dangerous. We cannot survive based on idiocy.
Many hundreds of climate scientists would disagree with the myth of the cause of slight rise of temperature. Those scientists are not science deniers.

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Fan of Science » July 31st, 2017, 11:28 am

Not true. Every scientist agrees that greenhouse gases absorb radiation, and that the absorption of radiation will lead to higher temperatures. There are a small handful of climate scientists who claim that the damage done due to temperature increases is not that bad. However, they are contradicted by the facts, especially the fact that the rate of ice melt is occurring far faster than anyone thought would occur.

In poll after poll, 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the planet to heat up. That's about as high as it gets. That's about what it is for biologists who believe in evolution, and scientists who believe smoking causes lung cancer. Since you deny what 97% of the climate scientists are stating is fact, that makes you a science-denier.

-- Updated July 31st, 2017, 11:31 am to add the following --

Trump --- climate science was invented by the Chinese to harm US manufacturing.

Conspiracy theorists --- applaud Trump for "telling the truth" about climate change.

Actual facts: Greenhouse affects were predicted by a Swedish chemist who lived more than a century ago, and was not Chinese. The Chinese themselves are also taking measures, like reducing their coal production, because they believe that climate change is occurring and human-caused.

Nothing like the facts to ruin a good "conspiracy theory."

Steve3007
Posts: 5141
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » July 31st, 2017, 11:35 am

F of S:
There are a lot of psychological studies on conspiracy theorists...
I'm also quite interested in the way that the internet has encouraged conspiracy theories because it touches on the subject of how we decide what is true and what is not in a world of almost infinite information. It shows that we're all, to a greater or lesser extent, vulnerable to confirmation bias. We all (to a greater or lesser extent) have a tendency to form a worldview and then go looking for things to confirm it. Obviously the scientific approach is to actively look for evidence that will falsify the belief that we are testing. But it seems very difficult to make oneself do that. I've noticed it in myself. It's a tendency that I have to fight against.

That's why I like to try to study conspiracy theorists. I'm not very good at it though.

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » July 31st, 2017, 11:38 am

Fan of Science wrote:Not true. Every scientist agrees that greenhouse gases absorb radiation, and that the absorption of radiation will lead to higher temperatures. There are a small handful of climate scientists who claim that the damage done due to temperature increases is not that bad. However, they are contradicted by the facts, especially the fact that the rate of ice melt is occurring far faster than anyone thought would occur.

In poll after poll, 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the planet to heat up. That's about as high as it gets. That's about what it is for biologists who believe in evolution, and scientists who believe smoking causes lung cancer. Since you deny what 97% of the climate scientists are stating is fact, that makes you a science-denier.
The "97%" is a hoax. There are many, many scientists that say what you are saying, but they get grants and funding. Follow the money. The truthful climate scientists are not on the gravy train.

By the way, it is ludicrous to trust government. They are human beings who gouge, scratch and scrape to get to the top. To not trust government is to understand human nature and its flaws.

You seem to want it both ways. Trust government unless its a Trump government. It's still government. If you really trust government then believe any government.

-- Updated July 31st, 2017, 11:48 am to add the following --

Washington is infiltrated by criminal gangs. Techniques are employed to compromise legislators. Money food and sex, particularly sex. Drugs, money and sex.

Steve3007
Posts: 5141
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » July 31st, 2017, 12:12 pm

Razblo:
Your "international law", your "global law enforcers" (was that not your WTO?), would be the puppet masters.
As I said, "International Law" is not a person so it can't be a puppet or a puppet-master. So, are you saying that the people who created "International Law" are the puppet-masters, and 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 are the puppets?

-- Updated Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:15 pm to add the following --

Also, can we get back to what all these puppet-masters and puppets are doing. What do they want to do that they're not already doing? You've mentioned abolishing private property and controlling our movements. Why, in your view, do they want to do that?

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Fan of Science » July 31st, 2017, 2:36 pm

The fact that in poll after poll 97% of climate scientists state that humans are causing the planet to heat up is not a hoax. You merely claiming that it is a hoax gets you no where --- at least not among people who don't accept the ridiculous claims of conspiracy theorists. How come the National Academy of Sciences in 2014 issued a statement that humans causing climate change was a fact, as much as science can ever establish something as a fact, highly unlikely to change, if there are all of these scientists questioning climate change? Name a single scientist who denies the laboratory evidence that carbon in CO2 absorbs radiation? Name one. Name one single scientist who denies the basic laws of thermodynamics that tells us if radiation is being absorbed that temperatures will rise? Name one. Name on single scientist who states that the isotopes are telling us that the additional carbon in the atmosphere is not caused by human productive activities? Name one? All you will be able to cite to are a handful of scientists who are paid a lot of money by groups interested in continuing carbon emissions who will say that the damage being done by carbon emissions is not all that bad. They are not going to deny the basic science that anyone can replicate in a lab.

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

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

Steve3007 wrote:Razblo:
Your "international law", your "global law enforcers" (was that not your WTO?), would be the puppet masters.
As I said, "International Law" is not a person so it can't be a puppet or a puppet-master. So, are you saying that the people who created "International Law" are the puppet-masters, and 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 are the puppets?
It's a system. It has natural momentum due to basic flaws of human nature. The US constitution would not have been created as an attempt to counter this human flaw if such systems were never going to arise. Climate fears lend themselves to be exploited for these obvious ends - ends for control. We know that empires have arose and fell. Check out the Dr Jordan Peterson vid. He is not a conspiracy theorist. He is a historian, social scientist and psychologist.

Steve3007 wrote:Also, can we get back to what all these puppet-masters and puppets are doing. What do they want to do that they're not already doing? You've mentioned abolishing private property and controlling our movements. Why, in your view, do they want to do that?
CONTROL!

-- Updated August 1st, 2017, 2:02 am to add the following --
Fan of Science wrote:The fact that in poll after poll 97% of climate scientists state that humans are causing the planet to heat up is not a hoax. You merely claiming that it is a hoax gets you no where --- at least not among people who don't accept the ridiculous claims of conspiracy theorists. How come the National Academy of Sciences in 2014 issued a statement that humans causing climate change was a fact, as much as science can ever establish something as a fact, highly unlikely to change, if there are all of these scientists questioning climate change? Name a single scientist who denies the laboratory evidence that carbon in CO2 absorbs radiation? Name one. Name one single scientist who denies the basic laws of thermodynamics that tells us if radiation is being absorbed that temperatures will rise? Name one. Name on single scientist who states that the isotopes are telling us that the additional carbon in the atmosphere is not caused by human productive activities? Name one? All you will be able to cite to are a handful of scientists who are paid a lot of money by groups interested in continuing carbon emissions who will say that the damage being done by carbon emissions is not all that bad. They are not going to deny the basic science that anyone can replicate in a lab.
Professor Ivar Giaever (Nobel Laureate in Physics)

Jay H. Lehr, PhD (senior scientist at AR Environmental Services Inc)

Dr Don Easterbrook (Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University)

.Global warming ended in 1998

.There has been NO global warming since 1998. Global warming from 1978 to 1998 has been replaced by global cooling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs&t=7s

-- Updated August 1st, 2017, 2:16 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:
2. How can they not be incredibly efficient for control of movement?
That's supposedly another one of the advantages. Or so I've read.

One of the supposed advantages of a country having a large fleet of driverless cars is the improvements to traffic flow. The fact that control of the cars would be centralised means that they could, for example, drive very close together, like the carriages of a train, without the danger of collisions.

At least, that's the reason they give (Google ane the like). But perhaps the real reason for centralising the control of all these cars would be so that the conspirators could, at a moment of their choosing, take control of them and do with them as they please. Stop them all, or drive them off a cliff or something. Take away our rights to travel where we see fit. Right?

One thing that strikes me about this though: Why? These co-conspirators get fat by owning and controlling the businesses we work for, right? We're they're cash cows, right? So why would they want us to do anything different from what we're already doing? If they take control of our driverless cars and stop us from getting where we want to go, the chances are they'll just stop us from getting to work. That's not going to help them is it?

If those fat cats are already doing very well by exploiting the labour of us workers, why not (from their point of view) just carry on with things as they are? Why make us all miserable and therefore less productive by spoiling our ability to walk and drive where we choose? If I were them, I'd leave things as they are and keep on raking in the cash. Wouldn't you?

If I were them, I'd say something like this: "Ha! Let the poor fools have their country walks and their pathetic little cars! Let them have their bread and circuses! And I'll keep raking in the proceeds of their labour!"
.
Conceivably any unlicensed driver could use a driverless car. So not only the disabled but also children and non-drivers generally. That would create clog far more so than now.

So many cars requires a lot of energy production. So more coal etc.

Many more roads to construct to reduce clogged highways. That is a lot of concrete. The production of cement requires coal burning.

It is obvious that all these extra non-driver drivers could not be accommodated realistically and the scale of road production needed for "freedom" would fall well short of the dream being sold.

It is my view that driverless cars will mean the opposite of freedom relative to the freedom we have now because realistic restrictions for the reasons above would mean some form of ballot as to who actually gets to use these cars and how they are used.

-- Updated August 1st, 2017, 2:37 am to add the following --
Fan of Science wrote:The fact that in poll after poll 97% of climate scientists state that humans are causing the planet to heat up is not a hoax. You merely claiming that it is a hoax gets you no where --- .
It’s Said That ‘97% of Climate Scientists Agree’ About Global Warming – But Do They?

By Neil Frank | June 9, 2017 | 1:43 PM EDT

A variety of studies have purported to find an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists on global warming. However, the studies rarely specify what it is to which the scientists agree. Usually it is nothing more than that the earth has warmed since 1800 and that human activity has contributed significantly to the warming—something almost no skeptics would deny. No study—whether a survey of published articles or a survey directly of scientists—has found anything remotely near a 97 percent consensus not only that the earth has warmed and that human activity has contributed significantly but also that human activity has been the primary driver, that the warming caused by it is dangerous, and that attempting to prevent future warming by reducing CO2 emissions would do more good than harm—and those are the issues debated.

In 2004 Science published the results of a study by historian Naomi Oreskes claiming that “without substantial disagreement, scientists find human activities are heating the earth’s surface.” But an attempt at replicating the study both found that she had made serious mistakes in handling data and, after re-examining the data, reached contrary conclusions. As Benny Peiser pointed out in a letter to Science (Submission ID: 56001) that Science declined to publish but that the Cornwall Alliance summarized in 2006:


Oreskes claimed that an analysis of 928 abstracts in the ISI database containing the phrase “climate change” proved the alleged consensus. It turned out that she had searched the database using three keywords (“global climate change”) instead of the two (“climate change”) she reported—reducing the search results by an order of magnitude. Searching just on “climate change” instead found almost 12,000 articles in the same database in the relevant decade. Excluded from Oreskes’s list were “countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change; and that climate modeling is highly uncertain.” Further, even using the three key words she actually used, “global climate change,” brought up [not 928 but] 1,247 documents, of which 1,117 included abstracts. An analysis of those abstracts showed that

only 1 percent explicitly endorsed what Oreskes called the “consensus view”;
29 percent implicitly accepted it “but mainly focus[ed] on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change”;
8 percent focused on “mitigation”;
6 percent focused on methodological questions;
8 percent dealt “exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change”;
3 percent “reject[ed] or doubt[ed] the view that human activities are the main drivers of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years’”;
4 percent focused “on natural factors of global climate change”; and
42 percent did “not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.”

Neil L. Frank, Ph.D. (Meteorology), was the longest-serving Director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–1987) and is retired Chief Meteorologist of KHOU-TV, Houston (1987–2008). Living in Fulshear, TX, he continues research on global climate change while serving as a Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7138
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Greta » August 1st, 2017, 2:55 am

It truly is amazing how resourceful climate change denialists are. Polar caps? What polar ice caps? The fact that greenhouse gases capture heat in the atmosphere? Apparently unimportant. That's only physics, not as important as politicking apparently. Pacific Islanders displaced by sea level rise? As far as I can tell the response is that they don't matter. What about the fact that humans put 50x more carbon into the atmosphere than volcanic eruptions? Might that make a difference? Apparently the atmosphere can absorb any amount of carbon without every heating up - a magic trick!

Meanwhile, most corporations and insurance companies are preparing for climate change; these are not bodies known to part with money lightly, so if they are spending money preparing for it, then that says that something is up, even if one trusts nothing 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, 3:20 am

Greta wrote:It truly is amazing how resourceful climate change denialists are. Polar caps? What polar ice caps? The fact that greenhouse gases capture heat in the atmosphere? Apparently unimportant. That's only physics, not as important as politicking apparently. Pacific Islanders displaced by sea level rise? As far as I can tell the response is that they don't matter. What about the fact that humans put 50x more carbon into the atmosphere than volcanic eruptions? Might that make a difference? Apparently the atmosphere can absorb any amount of carbon without every heating up - a magic trick!

Meanwhile, most corporations and insurance companies are preparing for climate change; these are not bodies known to part with money lightly, so if they are spending money preparing for it, then that says that something is up, even if one trusts nothing else.
The argument is not global warming. The argument is why. Human activity or everything other than.

-- Updated August 1st, 2017, 3:22 am to add the following --
Greta wrote: What about the fact that humans put 50x more carbon into the atmosphere than volcanic eruptions?
Co2 is 400th of 1% of the atmosphere.

-- Updated August 1st, 2017, 3:33 am to add the following --

"Greenhouse effect". Are not greenhouses used for growing things?

Steve3007
Posts: 5141
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » August 1st, 2017, 3:36 am

Co2 is 400th of 1% of the atmosphere.
I'm not going to bother with a long discussion about Climate Change because it's been done, but since this is the second time you've made this mistake I'll pull you up on it. It's not a 400th of 1%. It's 400 parts per million. That's 0.4%. You've presumably seen the figure of 400 somewhere and got a bit confused about the maths. A trivial mistake, perhaps, but I'd suggest that if you've misunderstood something as basic as this it's probably best to assume that you're not qualified to make an informed assessment of the science (and the attending mathematics) of climate change. I'm not. As for all subjects in which I'm not a specialist, I have to rely on people who have actually studied the subject and understood it before proclaiming my views on it.

Also, you again seem to be using the argument which goes something like: "A fraction of 1% is a really small number, so it can't have any effect." That's not an argument!

-- Updated Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:37 am to add the following --
"Greenhouse effect". Are not greenhouses used for growing things?
Presumably you do at least know why it's called that? You don't have to be a specialist for that.

-- Updated Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:39 am to add the following --

0.4% was a typo. I meant 0.04%. D'oh!

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

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » August 1st, 2017, 3:46 am

Steve3007 wrote:
"Greenhouse effect". Are not greenhouses used for growing things?
Presumably you do at least know why it's called that? You don't have to be a specialist for that.

-- Updated Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:39 am to add the following --

0.4% was a typo. I meant 0.04%. D'oh!
So I didn't make that mistake before?


Yes, that's right. 0.4%

Regardless, greenhouses are for growing things. Maybe a scarier propaganda term should be used.

-- Updated August 1st, 2017, 3:46 am to add the following --

0.04%, I mean (as I wrote before).

Steve3007
Posts: 5141
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » August 1st, 2017, 4:44 am

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.

Post Reply