How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 17.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 11:26:28 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on November 24, 2012, 04:01:59 PM

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

You tried to supply a non-sequitur as a logical progression. That's about all that matters.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: bb113 on November 25, 2012, 07:36:30 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 11:26:28 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on November 24, 2012, 04:01:59 PM

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Quote from: Richy_T on November 24, 2012, 03:55:18 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 23, 2012, 11:39:44 PM

Quote

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Once again, I cant say for sure about climate science. But for all things biomedical (cancer, alzheimer, etc research), nature is actually one of the worst journals out there. You can never even tell what the hell the people did to get their results, let alone assess how valid their conclusions are.

I want to emphasize this a bit more. It is clear to me Nature does not care about showing your data (they accept dynamite plots), they dont care if you report the sample size, they allow using SEM rather than standard deviation in showing how uncertain the results are (SEM gets smaller if your N is bigger, ie spent more money). This is basic rational person stuff that is not enforced.

I could go on and on, that journal is crap and only lives on due to inertia of consensus and authority. I have really come to the conclusion that the last fifty years of science was just "experts" measuring how sure they are of their opinions. I am not alone, look it up.

Do this:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/someone-needed-to-search-old-academic-papers-and-textbooks-127448

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 12:20:54 PM

Your critical eye was obviously on vacation the day you cited Richard Lindzen's mutterings. I was the one who did the scrutinizing to show you the garbage that exists out there. And I have to continue to do it in these forums.

I really want to acknowledge that you were right to draw my attention to those details.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 11:26:28 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on November 24, 2012, 04:01:59 PM

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Quote from: Richy_T on November 24, 2012, 03:55:18 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 23, 2012, 11:39:44 PM

Quote

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Once again, I cant say for sure about climate science. But for all things biomedical (cancer, alzheimer, etc research), nature is actually one of the worst journals out there. You can never even tell what the hell the people did to get their results, let alone assess how valid their conclusions are.

stochastic

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 25, 2012, 04:37:47 AM

Quote from: stochastic on November 25, 2012, 02:13:19 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 11:26:28 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on November 24, 2012, 04:01:59 PM

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Quote from: Richy_T on November 24, 2012, 03:55:18 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 23, 2012, 11:39:44 PM

Quote

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Anything with an -ism is cult-like. This is what happens to cult followers, they blind themselves to anything that might invalidate their belief system.

Like that the word "environmentalism" exists?

Yes exactly, there are environmentalists that believe (yes believe because they can no do the scientific method themselves) that the world is going to end due to man-made global warming and that the only solution is state run socialism. This does not mean global warming is not actually occuring. The problem is their method of trying to fix the problem.

There is no such thing as scientistism. There is only the method of science. We see something curious or see a problem, make testable hypothesis (like is the surface temperature of the Earth increasing), and then run an experiment to test the hypothesis and have their findings peer-reviewed.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: stochastic on November 25, 2012, 02:13:19 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 11:26:28 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on November 24, 2012, 04:01:59 PM

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Quote from: Richy_T on November 24, 2012, 03:55:18 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 23, 2012, 11:39:44 PM

Quote

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Anything with an -ism is cult-like. This is what happens to cult followers, they blind themselves to anything that might invalidate their belief system.

Like that the word "environmentalism" exists?

cunicula

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1003

Quote from: stochastic on November 25, 2012, 02:13:19 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 11:26:28 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on November 24, 2012, 04:01:59 PM

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Quote from: Richy_T on November 24, 2012, 03:55:18 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 23, 2012, 11:39:44 PM

Quote

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Anything with an -ism is cult-like. This is what happens to cult followers, they blind themselves to anything that might invalidate their belief system.

Stochastic, we should really go back to the re-education thread. Those are unhealthy thoughts.

stochastic

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 11:26:28 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on November 24, 2012, 04:01:59 PM

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Quote from: Richy_T on November 24, 2012, 03:55:18 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 23, 2012, 11:39:44 PM

Quote

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Anything with an -ism is cult-like. This is what happens to cult followers, they blind themselves to anything that might invalidate their belief system.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Richy_T on November 24, 2012, 04:01:59 PM

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Quote from: Richy_T on November 24, 2012, 03:55:18 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 23, 2012, 11:39:44 PM

Quote

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 04:21:49 AM

I must thank all of you deniers...

"Deniers?"

Thanks for finally Godwinning this stupid thread. When you have to imply those who disagree with you are neo-Nazis, you lose!

That's internet code.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: bb113 on November 24, 2012, 09:37:28 AM

Edit: Also all you repeat is argument from consensus and argument from authority mixed with arbitrary references to what you deem as important events. Look I am not even anti-AGW, I am pro-rationalism. Modern science is widely recognized to be driven by publish or perish and anything that results from it should be scrutinized with a critical eye. That is all I was saying a year ago.

+1. I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around. Most of what I see (on both sides) just makes me want to face-palm. The court of public opinion, particularly with modern media and politicians in general is a terrible place for this debate to be playing out.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 23, 2012, 11:39:44 PM

Quote

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Has he answered your questions in that old thread yet, myrkul? New posts don't cover up loose ends...

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: cunicula on November 24, 2012, 12:46:51 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 24, 2012, 12:32:51 PM

What I don't understand is how you can be so hypocritical, sitting there polluting like mad, all the while telling everyone else that they should stop. If everyone who was so adamant about the environment stopped polluting, the problem would largely go away.

So if I spew toxic gas into the air and it kills your family that is your problem? What if it takes 10 years to kill them via cancer? What if it takes 50 years and only gives your grandchildren birth defects? What if it takes 100 years and kills your great grandchildren? Do we draw a line somewhere?

How is pollution distinct from other forms of violence?

I don't think you have any idea how many times I've personally seen this weak argument used.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 01:07:08 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 24, 2012, 01:01:15 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 12:49:47 PM

I'm up for a good argument if you can provide one. What you're saying now is pretty weak.

CO2 is a pollutant. You're polluting right now. If you cared as much as you say you do, you'd stop.

Really weak, in more ways than one. Elaborate.

Your are producing co2, stop it.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on November 24, 2012, 01:01:15 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 12:49:47 PM

I'm up for a good argument if you can provide one. What you're saying now is pretty weak.

CO2 is a pollutant. You're polluting right now. If you cared as much as you say you do, you'd stop.

Really weak, in more ways than one. Elaborate.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 12:49:47 PM

I'm up for a good argument if you can provide one. What you're saying now is pretty weak.

CO2 is a pollutant. You're polluting right now. If you cared as much as you say you do, you'd stop.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on November 24, 2012, 12:32:51 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 12:27:05 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 24, 2012, 05:22:17 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 04:09:46 AM

Now I know what reputable and unbiased sources the brainwashed are getting their notions that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not a pollutant.

Well, FirstAscent, if you truly believe CO2 to be a pollutant, and you really want to help the environment, there's really only one thing you can do, isn't there?

Stop polluting.

No, there isn't one thing I can do. There are many things I can do. One of them is to point out the propaganda and lies and ignorance among the crowd who use sites like Atlas Shrugs or the Heartland Institute or who knows what to get their 'facts' on climate change.

Oh, and it's already been explained what pollutants are. It's not just my belief. Stop reading the fringe sites to get your scientific knowledge.

I don't get my scientific knowledge off the fringe sites.

What I don't understand is how you can be so hypocritical, sitting there polluting like mad, all the while telling everyone else that they should stop. If everyone who was so adamant about the environment stopped polluting, the problem would largely go away.

I'm up for a good argument if you can provide one. What you're saying now is pretty weak.

cunicula

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1003

Quote from: myrkul on November 24, 2012, 12:32:51 PM

What I don't understand is how you can be so hypocritical, sitting there polluting like mad, all the while telling everyone else that they should stop. If everyone who was so adamant about the environment stopped polluting, the problem would largely go away.

So if I spew toxic gas into the air and it kills your family that is your problem? What if it takes 10 years to kill them via cancer? What if it takes 50 years and only gives your grandchildren birth defects? What if it takes 100 years and kills your great grandchildren? Do we draw a line somewhere?

How is pollution distinct from other forms of violence?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 12:27:05 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 24, 2012, 05:22:17 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 04:09:46 AM

Now I know what reputable and unbiased sources the brainwashed are getting their notions that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not a pollutant.

Well, FirstAscent, if you truly believe CO2 to be a pollutant, and you really want to help the environment, there's really only one thing you can do, isn't there?

Stop polluting.

No, there isn't one thing I can do. There are many things I can do. One of them is to point out the propaganda and lies and ignorance among the crowd who use sites like Atlas Shrugs or the Heartland Institute or who knows what to get their 'facts' on climate change.

Oh, and it's already been explained what pollutants are. It's not just my belief. Stop reading the fringe sites to get your scientific knowledge.

I don't get my scientific knowledge off the fringe sites.

What I don't understand is how you can be so hypocritical, sitting there polluting like mad, all the while telling everyone else that they should stop. If everyone who was so adamant about the environment stopped polluting, the problem would largely go away.

Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 17. (Read 23958 times)