United States Heading towards a Depression?

If you believe that, I would like to sell you a very nice bridge in Brooklyn.

You mean, you don't UNDERSTAND climate change, it's just FUN to believe in it, right?

 

No, you, in particular have proven foolish to me many times over. I'm not going to flog a dead horse. If you can't follow the science I have no desire to debate it. The science is in and only nutjobs don't agree with it. Simple really. What to do about it? What if i'm wrong? What if you're wrong? Rhetorical, no answer required.

 

Bush, there IS no science.

If you can point me towards any actually scientific proof of significant man-made climate change, I'd be very glad to read it. Just keep in mind that I have no bias or personal interest in the man-made climate change debate. I'm only interested in the science.

 

here's one I liked though a search for "latest on climate change" in Google points to a few more.

Added:
Here's another with scientific reponses to skeptic's arguments.

 

Bush, I'm looking for ORIGINAL RESEARCH - not someone's interpretations of anonymous data. You are giving me interpreted data, which is the entire problem with climate "scientists".

1. What exactly are the gases interacting with the atmosphere?
2. How are these gases introduced into the atmosphere and what are the equations used to calculate their release?
3. How are these gases measured?
4. What is the chemical MECHANISM by which these gases interact with the Earth's atmosphere (I"m looking for equations).
5. How is chemical and temperature changes in the atmosphere calculated? (I'm looking for equations).

 

What an appalling elitist attitude. It's this type of thinking that has let government and other monopolistic groups run rampant for years; "Oh don't worry about x it's not our job. Let the 'experts' decide for us. It's not our place to have an opinion... who are we to question the experts? ... back to sleeeep ...".

@Gworld, don't think I've forgotten. I'll have to find my first and second year economics notes to be as informative as possible, but I'll get around to it don't worry. Just to let you know it isn't I who has disproven LTV, it's in the public domain and is a well established fact amongst economists. Like I said, read up on the "Great Contradiction" for just one introductory refutation of Marxist predictions. Even the fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw exposed the logical fallacies in LTV.

There are so many positions to take to disprove the theory I'll have to make considerable thought where to begin; should I start at the theory's foundation that value is only created by labour? Or maybe explain the 'transformation problem'? Or maybe that ironically it does not cure worker exploitation but merely shifts the circumstances? Or maybe that Marx never developed any form of consumer theory, which is infinitely more valuable in determining value? Or maybe that, rather arrogantly, it assumes the theory has some absolute, godly wisdom as to what "real" wages are? Or maybe I should annotate some failed real world applications or some common sense and observable applications of its inverse (Austrian school) theory of utility, that I doubt anyone here would disagree with, especially seeing as we're not incredibly wealthy? Hmm.. choices, choices, choices.

As a side note, the most pressing issue for me is that Marxist-sympathisers seem to depend on a subconscious yet mutual agreement with Capitalists that exploitation of others is some how unnatural or shame worthy. This leads me to believe that the former have a rather skewed view of reality and a sense of self importance as they believe they are in fact the ones with the exclusively correct opinion - though not expressed as such - while being completely unable to realise the chaotic and violent world around them. The world is unfair and our natural environment proves this and the notion that some will always be dominant over others. To believe otherwise is to be dishonest. Marxist proponents would have one believe they have the monopoly on semantics; that exploitation is never consensual and serves no mutual benefit or that domination is only ever violent and literal.

Under a free market system, that is, one free from coercion, even the poorest man, given enough ambition and critical thought, can succeed in accumulating wealth through the domination, exploitation or satisfying of a want of those around him. There are countless rags-to-riches stories which owe themselves to the considerably ruleless economic environment we live within, which would not be possible under an authoritarian "fair" Marxist implementation.

I once had the fortune of reading this from another internet user:

 

Ask a climate-change scientist your questions. This is science not religion therefore there will be an answer.

Think what you like. I have stated I BELIEVE IN THE THEORY. Why argue with idiots over it? Sure it may be fake, though constantly worsening weather tells me theres a good chance they're right. I'm no scientist, I've never claimed to be a scientist. If I get ONE thing wrong then you jump down my throat and people believe it's all bullshit. It's too serious a problem for us idiots to discuss the realities. Are you a climate-scientist or you just have all the answers?

 

Ok ok ok bro, relax. I'm not jumping down your throat. I was just highlighting that the particular line of thinking applied to what you said is dangerous. We are debating in here, right?

Worsening weather is incredibly subjective and I cringe to read it being being provided as evidence. Analysis depends on the largest sample of data obtainable so to claim that you've noticed "worsening weather" over the course of a few years or even throughout your life time is essentially a non-sequitur.

No need to get defensive. The sign of a healthy society is the ability to debate, after all that is the engine of refining correction and creating new ideas.

Back to the CO2 theory: what you've written above creates a form of circular reasoning fallacy. You make a predetermined assumption that there firstly is a problem then that it's serious therefore negating any of our input on establishing the authenticity of the claim, thus adding to the problem.

No I am not a climate scientist but like many here I wish to gain as much knowledge about the world as I can and attempt to be as correct as I can. Brushing us aside as "idiots" and unworthy of contribution is a grave academic injustice.

 

Debating stuff we have no idea about. Yes, we are.

Seeing the worsening weather is all I have personally come across, that's one thing I can debate.

Not being defensive, just know the only people arguing against it are the 'birther types' so I really don't see the point of adding more confusion to an already confusing subject.

I did not think up the theory myself. I just agree with it.

I didn't mean you or anyone here is an idiot. Just meant we are idiots on the subject when compared to a climate scientist. If the theory is wrong we piss-up 10 billion a year. If the theory, as told by REAL scientists is right and we spend nothing on trying to counteract it then how stupid are we? Notice the anti-AGW debaters are radio-shock-jocks who have NO idea about the climate?

 

I don´t need to answer your blah blah capitalism is good and Marxism is bad, so I just wait for you to find your notebooks, so you can show us how you refute the labour theory of value.

 

Speak for yourself. Corwin and Obamanation seem to have a good grasp of the issue and Corwin has requested raw data and the actual science behind the theory, which you've yet to provide.

Now now, let's keep focus on the subject at hand lest more logical fallacies fall in to the mix.

Yeah we get that, that's not what's being debated. Surely if you agree so strongly you wouldn't mind providing the evidence that formed your opinion.

That's an oversimplification. It's not just a case of wasting a lot of money. These taxes, subsidies and penalising legislation have a profound impact on socio-economics and industry. I'm not one to preach the end of the world is nigh, as you mentioned the opposition party in your country has claimed, but there will be very negative long term effects if this policy is allowed to continue. History is riddled with government wading in doing what it thinks is right and making matters much worse; funnily enough many of these examples can be taken from "the great experiment" in Soviet Russia.

What you said about radio-shock-jocks is a red herring. It has nothing to do with us and has the same logic as "notice how most of the bankers are jews?" or "notice how most wall street brokers are italian?".

That speaks volumes, G. Selective reasoning, spoken like a true leftist. If you'd taken the time to read my post you'd realise I'm spoiled for choice.

 

Let's face it BRum, you're full of shit, or at least talking out of your arse. A debate I'm not getting into with you. Cheers.

 

That is the problem. This is science, but it's being treated like a religion. See, people are believing in man-made climate change based on faith, not science.

And I haven't met an experienced climate-change "scientist", someone who is an expert in their field. I use "expert" the way Scientific American defines expert - someone who has made three significant scientific contributions to their field.

I would like to read about a scientist that is an expert in the Earth and it's atmosphere (non-climate change) that has also done research in man-made climate change. And therein lies the problem - people calling themselves climate change "scientists" have no unrelated accomplishments.

Look, in the interest of full disclosure, I'd like to believe man-made climate change is true - I really really do - because I can make a shitload of money getting grants in that field - but silly me, I have ethics and a conscience.

 

Woah ok buddy. Looks like I hit a nerve there. I expected more from you Bushranger. Answering an entire post with an opinionated insult throws any credibility out of the window and suggests you're having difficulty explaining yourself. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, isn't it?

If you don't want to discuss it further, fine. I won't ask you about it again.

 

Now here's why I got up set with you BRum.

Here I say I'm a believer and it doesn't cost much at all.

Here I explained the reasons WHY I believe it. Not why it's happening but WHY I believe in it. I want us to acheive ZERO emmissions. That can NOT be a bad thing imho.

Here I explain again I believe there is a problem and so do 95% of scientists.

At Corwin's insistence I searched Google, same as he can do himself, and found a site I liked, even though I know it's not up to me to do the research. But, you know, people ask you to do stuff so you do it anyway.

At this point I have said enough on the subject. I know I don't know enough about the problem itself and have watched buffoons dance around like flies throwing stones and insults whilst trying to avoid a zero emmissions target that MOST of the world is aiming to acheive but still you argue that I should be the one to explain it all to you.

Again i'm forced to explain myself. What's to explain. I have told you I believe in the theory, I want to achieve zero emmissions and i'm happy to pay my way. Yet you still believe I have to answer Corwin's questions and get into YOUR debate which made me resort to this.

How many years did tobacco companies dance around the fact smoking kills? Even today they claim it's good for you. Let's face it BIG companies will do whatever they can to keep peddling their wares. Oil, electricity, gas, COAL, every one of them is a huge industry that will get away with murder if we let them.

I'm really not here to debate something I know is too big for me to solve. Since I stopped frequenting DP so often I have bought a house, a new car, increased my business worth, see my family a lot more, set up a complete new office in town... The last thing I want is to get stuck here again trying to explain my side of things, especially on a subject I am not an expert in. These days, i'm here for the fun of it, to destress. The last thing I want or need is having some person not listening to what i'm saying, to go off on their own tangents, trying to drag me into a debate when I have explained 5 times I BELIEVE IN THE THEORY AND I'M HAPPY TO PAY MY SHARE to acheive a zero emmissions economy. Throwing money at this problem WILL solve it so let's just fecking do it. No offense intended.

 

Just do it. Noone I've seen fighting on the other side has ethics or a conscience.

 

ok you brought up the discussion again, cool.

Why did you get upset? We're only writing to each other. No need to let emotions get involved.

Aye, but that's simply not true, it's cost a hell of a lot. Direct monetary cost is just one small aspect.

I know that, we were explaining the fallacies in what you believe. Reducing emissions to zero is a bad thing, though. For one it will never happen and the whole campaign attempting to do so will wreck many things on the way, in the end. It's like taking a hammer to a screw and being pleased when you finally get it in, despite having wrecked the screw and the object holding the screw.

Like you said, you're giving your opinion and your belief that's what we're addressing. Corwin said he has already read the "science" behind it and wanted you to provide what made you form your opinion.

Can't you see how ridiculous this is? If it's not up to you to research or read about it, why do you have an opinion on it then? This seems really contradictory.

Yes, of course you should. If you have an opinion on something you should be prepared to defend it and explain why you believe it. Am I missing something here? I thought this was really elementary.

Listen mate, no one is forcing you to do anything. We're just talking, no one has a gun to your head. That's great that you don't mind contributing money to this cause, but don't you understand that you happily acknowledge this is just your opinion yet you expect others to be forced to pay for this too? Something they may not agree with at all. It's like the religious making me pay a tax to prevent satan from destroying the earth.

I agree with you on this, but I also believe the state is just as bad. I'm suspicious of corporations and the establishment when they try to sell me something. Not that his applies to you, but I've found that so many of those on the left are prepared to renounce corporations and big business all day but act as though the government, which is also gigantic and arguably has more power than business, is perfect.

That's great mate, I'm happy for you. I know that DP can be a trap sometimes. I must admit I've spent way too much time arguing on here in the past and have wasted whole days before. Like you I've learned to refrain from endless arguments. Saying this, if you aren't prepared to defend your position then it's probably best you don't mention it in the first place. I hold myself up to this too. Like I said, I won't ask it of you any more.

At the end of the day this isn't personal. Most of us have never met

I nominate this thread as being the longest, craziest and most undirected!

 

You're having me on. My whole last post was explaining why I got upset lol. Circles man, circles.

So does doing the government laundry. I prefer it be put towards cleaner emmission technologies.

Zero emmissions may be a fallacy but aim high and be surprised how far we get towards the goal. It takes money so give them the money. Try.

Which I gave my opinion/reasons (growing more & more factories, not less) and not being good enough, required scientific links. If we want to continue this capitalistic creed, which isn't too bad at all imho, then we need to decrease emmissions with it or face oblivion imho. Nobody suggests we can keep growing infinutum forever without reducing our emmisions along side that.

I have done my research. I have come to the conclusion zero emmissions is a good thing to work towards. We are in fact doing the opposite.

I thought I answered this already (growing factories).

I think it's the most sensible way forward. You want me to argue against that? The difference, if you care to look at the second link I posted, is that this is science, not religion. The answers to your questions can be found if you care to look for them. Ask Google your questions, if you have any.

I have nothing against corporations, just the corrupt corporations. Energy is, imho, the most corrupted industry in the world. Entertainment follows just behind.

It started as a passing comment lol. I mentioned we just had a carbon tax so don't expect a GST rise any time soon. You took it from there like I'm supposed to have all the answers.

Agreed.

 

If the total CO2+Methane load is increasing the average temperature (and there's plenty of evidence that it is), lowering that load will decrease the increase in temperature. Whether it's man-made or not is irrelevant, what's important is that it be man-cured in the future. If not, we're setting things up for winter vacations in what's now tropical jungles (which will become temperate forests).

It sounds to me as if someone (who shall remain nameless Corwin) doesn't understand much about the science behind the climate change situation. Glaciers that have been solid since before the beginning of civilization are melting. Who cares whether it's CO2 that we created or CO2 that nature created? If we cut our contribution, the total will decrease and the increase in temperature will slow down (or maybe even stop). Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

Rukbat, to point out just a couple parts of your post:

Can you cite this please? It isunderstood that glaciers and the caps are cyclical in that they grow and shrink every so often.

This isn't what's difficult to understand. It's the fact that proponents of anthropogenic global warming seem to parrot these type of statements without thought of the science but rather some sort of imagined "well known common sense" that those who disagree are missing. With your statement above you're presuming that our contribution:

1. has a significant impact on the environment
2. that this impact is negative
3. there is an indisputable and measurable link in causation between global temperature and CO2
4. the cost of carrying out these policies does not cause more harm than good

These type of statements are so loaded it's untrue. If you want to convince someone it's best to start at the beginning and with citations. It's too easy to just claim several things in one sentence when scientists are struggling to prove the most basic principles behind these massive generalities. For instance, point 1 isn't even settled yet.