Malthus and Godwin: The Left’s Prophets

[PoliticalChic]

What is truly absurd is you can make an irrefutable and plausible argument for AGW but not with the BS currently being used.

Urbanization requires tar and asphalt which absorbs visible light in order to radiate infra-red (heat).

The increasing use of glass in construction prevents radiation of infra-red. This is not a greenhouse effect, it is the building of greenhouses that are used as office buildings.

Admittedly this is not high speed AGW but it does actually cause measurable local climate change.

Given the rate of global urbanization it is easy to write scary scenarios about this type of AGW but the "scientists" who do AGW know that they can't make money doing truthful work because once you subtract out reality there is effectively no unaccounted for AGW.

But....if they could just put the sensors next to, say, furnaces......that would prove Global Warming....


....yeah....'

....that's the ticket!

 

[Confounding]

But of course. They are actually writing studies on how the process was corrupted, that's how bad it is.

The vast majority of scientists all over the world recognize global warming as not nonsense. We're like the only country where this shit is even seriously debated. The rest of the world is waiting for the U.S.A to pull its head out of its ass. Your position is that all of those scientists are wrong, and that it's some kind of funding conspiracy with an ultimate goal of giving more power to big government? I have to ask again, how is that even possible? Do you really believe 95%+ of scientists just have no integrity about this issue? Are scientists just particularly nefarious to be capable of such a giant conspiracy? Your position seems insane to me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But of course. They are actually writing studies on how the process was corrupted, that's how bad it is.

The vast majority of scientists all over the world recognize global warming as not nonsense. We're like the only country where this shit is even seriously debated. The rest of the world is waiting for the U.S.A to pull its head out of its ass. Your position is that those scientists are wrong, and that it's some kind of funding conspiracy with an ultimate goal of giving more power to big government? I have to ask again, how is that even possible? Do you really believe 95%+ of scientists just have no integrity about this issue? Are scientists just particularly nefarious to be capable of such a giant conspiracy?

Adults generally eschew vulgarity.

You seem emotionally shaken when your deeply held beliefs are shown to be false.

 

[Confounding]

Adults generally eschew vulgarity.

Adults generally eschew childish name calling. Would you like to talk about what I said rather than divert all attention to the fact that I said a bad word?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Do you understand how peer review works and that scientists are competitive too?

They do not. Don’t waste your time.

 

[bendog]

Do you understand how peer review works and that scientists are competitive too?

They do not. Don’t waste your time.

they don't give a shit. (-:

 

[Confounding]

Don’t waste your time.

All we're doing here is wasting our time, really. Barking at the moon as they say. Almost nobody discusses these things with an open enough mind to actually have an opinion changed, but it's difficult for me to let such profound ignorance go unchallenged. At least when it's all over I'll have been here, fighting the good fight.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Adults generally eschew vulgarity.

Adults generally eschew childish name calling. Would you like to talk about what I said rather than divert all attention to the fact that I said a bad word?

No.

 

[bendog]

Don’t waste your time.

All we're doing here is wasting our time, really. Barking at the moon as they say. Almost nobody discusses these things with an open enough mind to actually have an opinion changed, but it's difficult for me to let such profound ignorance go unchallenged. At least when it's all over I'll have been here, fighting the good fight.

True, but I found the allegation of Russian PAC money interesting, though the OP was less news than consipiracy theory, but still it tied into other stuff I've read.

And Trump's tweets about military money going to the wall did have some informed responses.

Although the Pol Chics have worn out the Second Amend and their personal revelations from the angel Moroni, the Second Amend discussions did originally have some links.

And frankly that OP of chics .... original. You gotta give her that. For the bored, it's not bad.

 

[Confounding]

No.

Yeah, I thought not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you understand how peer review works and that scientists are competitive too?

They do not. Don’t waste your time.

Luckily for the Left, there are fools like you who will believe that truth is more important to those 'peers' than the next research grant.


a."Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from birth what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government to do good."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


b."There is very good reason to believe that much scientific research published today is false, there is no good way to sort the wheat from the chaff, and, most importantly, that the way the system is designed ensures that this will continue being the case."
Big Science is broken


c. ".....a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that's not even the worst part.

Advocates of the existing scientific research paradigm usually smugly declare that while some published conclusions are surely false, the scientific method has "self-correcting mechanisms" that ensure that, eventually, the truth will prevail. Unfortunately for all of us, Wilson makes a convincing argument that those self-correcting mechanisms are broken.

For starters, there's a "replication crisis" in science. This is particularly true in the field of experimental psychology, where far too many prestigious psychology studies simply can't be reliably replicated. But it's not just psychology. In 2011, the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked at 67 blockbuster drug discovery research findings published in prestigious journals, and found that three-fourths of them weren't right."
Ibid.



"The problem with science is that so much of it simply isn’t." Scientific Regress
Scientific Regress | William A. Wilson




Did you know that if you say 'gullible' really slowly, it sounds like 'oranges.'

 

[Confounding]

a."Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from birth what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government to do good."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


b."There is very good reason to believe that much scientific research published today is false, there is no good way to sort the wheat from the chaff, and, most importantly, that the way the system is designed ensures that this will continue being the case."
Big Science is broken


c. ".....a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that's not even the worst part.

Advocates of the existing scientific research paradigm usually smugly declare that while some published conclusions are surely false, the scientific method has "self-correcting mechanisms" that ensure that, eventually, the truth will prevail. Unfortunately for all of us, Wilson makes a convincing argument that those self-correcting mechanisms are broken.

For starters, there's a "replication crisis" in science. This is particularly true in the field of experimental psychology, where far too many prestigious psychology studies simply can't be reliably replicated. But it's not just psychology. In 2011, the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked at 67 blockbuster drug discovery research findings published in prestigious journals, and found that three-fourths of them weren't right."
Ibid.



"The problem with science is that so much of it simply isn’t." Scientific Regress
Scientific Regress | William A. Wilson

That's a great group of links to biased conservative opinion pieces. I notice that none of it seems to dispute in particular the science behind global warming. Do you have any relevant thoughts of your own on this issue? Maybe you'll change your mind and address my earlier post?

 

[PoliticalChic]

a."Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from birth what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government to do good."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


b."There is very good reason to believe that much scientific research published today is false, there is no good way to sort the wheat from the chaff, and, most importantly, that the way the system is designed ensures that this will continue being the case."
Big Science is broken


c. ".....a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that's not even the worst part.

Advocates of the existing scientific research paradigm usually smugly declare that while some published conclusions are surely false, the scientific method has "self-correcting mechanisms" that ensure that, eventually, the truth will prevail. Unfortunately for all of us, Wilson makes a convincing argument that those self-correcting mechanisms are broken.

For starters, there's a "replication crisis" in science. This is particularly true in the field of experimental psychology, where far too many prestigious psychology studies simply can't be reliably replicated. But it's not just psychology. In 2011, the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked at 67 blockbuster drug discovery research findings published in prestigious journals, and found that three-fourths of them weren't right."
Ibid.



"The problem with science is that so much of it simply isn’t." Scientific Regress
Scientific Regress | William A. Wilson

That's a great group of links to biased conservative opinion pieces. Do you have any relevant thoughts of your own on this issue? Maybe you'll change your mind and address my earlier post?

Again?

You're quite a slow learner.

All of those are my thoughts.

I've done what you're incapable of doing: supporting my views.

 

[Confounding]

Again?

You're quite a slow learner.

All of those are my thoughts.

I've done what you're incapable of doing: supporting my views.

You posted a bunch of links to conservative opinion pieces and once again neglected to address my post from earlier. Also, again, nothing in those links seems to dispute the science behind global warming in particular. It seems like you're trying to use those pieces to suggest that science as a whole can't be trusted, and therefor it's not unreasonable to completely blow off climate change science and the staggeringly vast majority of scientists that agree with it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Again?

You're quite a slow learner.

All of those are my thoughts.

I've done what you're incapable of doing: supporting my views.

You posted a bunch of links to conservative opinion pieces and once again neglected to address my post from earlier. Also, again, nothing in those links seems to dispute the science behind global warming in particular. It seems like you're trying to use those pieces to suggest that science as a whole can't be trusted, and therefor it's not unreasonable to completely blow off climate change science and the unbelievably vast majority of scientists that agree with it.

Didn't you know that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a DEMOCRAT Senator?

"Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from birth what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government to do good."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan




You should only open your mouth to change feet.



And...you should alter your avi to the far more accurate 'Confounded.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

Again?

You're quite a slow learner.

All of those are my thoughts.

I've done what you're incapable of doing: supporting my views.

You posted a bunch of links to conservative opinion pieces and once again neglected to address my post from earlier. Also, again, nothing in those links seems to dispute the science behind global warming in particular. It seems like you're trying to use those pieces to suggest that science as a whole can't be trusted, and therefor it's not unreasonable to completely blow off climate change science and the staggeringly vast majority of scientists that agree with it.

"It seems like you're trying to use those pieces to suggest that science as a whole can't be trusted,..."


Your education continues:

There is a tongue-in-cheek reference to what science has become, ...the term used is "SWAG."

It means a 'scientific wild ass guess."
It's meant to poke fun at folks who believe 'scientific' fact that are based on a confident and unquestioning belief,...sometimes called 'faith.'

Here's some examples of SWAG....

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming


What do these have in common?
All of 'em are of the modern fashion called 'science,' but are actually elements of a political agenda. One proof of that claim is that, to be a Liberal, one pretty much must accept them, e.g., 'the debate is over.'


But none of 'em are scientific....yet they are drooled over, praised,...accepted by the many infected with sciolism....
"A pretentious attitude of scholarship; superficial knowledgeability."
sciolism - definition of sciolism by The Free Dictionary

 

[Confounding]

Didn't you know that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a DEMOCRAT Senator?

Yeah, and an advisor to Nixon. Alright, my bad, one of the opinion pieces you posted was not from an ultra conservative.

Your education continues:

There is a tongue-in-cheek reference to what science has become, ...the term used is "SWAG."

It means a 'scientific wild ass guess."
It's meant to poke fun at folks who believe 'scientific' fact that are based on a confident and unquestioning belief,...sometimes called 'faith.'

Here's some examples of SWAG....

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming


What do these have in common?
All of 'em are of the modern fashion called 'science,' but are actually elements of a political agenda. One proof of that claim is that, to be a Liberal, one pretty much must accept them, e.g., 'the debate is over.'


But none of 'em are scientific....yet they are drooled over, praised,...accepted by the many infected with sciolism....
"A pretentious attitude of scholarship; superficial knowledgeability."

I want to reiterate that nothing you're posting disputes the science behind global warming in particular, probably because you know nothing about it. You're trying to cast a blanket of doubt over all science and from there suggest that the giant majority of scientists that support the science behind global warming can be ignored. It means nothing, right? They're all part of a big government conspiracy. I love that you think evolution and non-creationist ideas for the origin the universe are in the same category as global warming. On that much we can agree.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. So….Socialists, Liberals, etc., claim that their special form of government will lead to Utopia.
And number one on the list of ‘correct laws’ would be taking all property from individuals.

That’s what collectivism is: no private ownership.
These are all collectivist doctrines: Communism, Socialism, modern Liberalism, Progressivism, Fascism and Nazism.



And all can be traced back to the 18th and 19th centuries, and William Godwin.

“Godwin identifies the private ownership of land, or what he termed “accumulated property”, as a major obstacle to human progress.

…“the present system of property confers on one man immense wealth in consideration of the accident of his birth” whilst “the most industrious and active member of society is frequently with great difficulty able to keep his family from starving”.

For Godwin, only the abolition of private property and the dismantling of the hereditary wealth which goes with it will free mankind from “brutality and ignorance”, “luxury” and the “narrowest selfishness”.
William Godwin: Political Justice, Anarchism and the Romantics



No private property, and .....voila!.....a whole new human nature...'Can't we all just get along.'

 

[Confounding]

8. So….Socialists, Liberals, etc., claim that their special form of government will lead to Utopia.
And number one on the list of ‘correct laws’ would be taking all property from individuals.

That’s what collectivism is: no private ownership.
These are all collectivist doctrines: Communism, Socialism, modern Liberalism, Progressivism, Fascism and Nazism.



And all can be traced back to the 18th and 19th centuries, and William Godwin.

“Godwin identifies the private ownership of land, or what he termed “accumulated property”, as a major obstacle to human progress.

…“the present system of property confers on one man immense wealth in consideration of the accident of his birth” whilst “the most industrious and active member of society is frequently with great difficulty able to keep his family from starving”.

For Godwin, only the abolition of private property and the dismantling of the hereditary wealth which goes with it will free mankind from “brutality and ignorance”, “luxury” and the “narrowest selfishness”.
William Godwin: Political Justice, Anarchism and the Romantics



No private property, and .....voila!.....a whole new human nature...'Can't we all just get along.'

That's two posts you've neglected to respond to now. I guess the unstoppable PoliticalChic has been put in her place.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. So….Socialists, Liberals, etc., claim that their special form of government will lead to Utopia.
And number one on the list of ‘correct laws’ would be taking all property from individuals.

That’s what collectivism is: no private ownership.
These are all collectivist doctrines: Communism, Socialism, modern Liberalism, Progressivism, Fascism and Nazism.



And all can be traced back to the 18th and 19th centuries, and William Godwin.

“Godwin identifies the private ownership of land, or what he termed “accumulated property”, as a major obstacle to human progress.

…“the present system of property confers on one man immense wealth in consideration of the accident of his birth” whilst “the most industrious and active member of society is frequently with great difficulty able to keep his family from starving”.

For Godwin, only the abolition of private property and the dismantling of the hereditary wealth which goes with it will free mankind from “brutality and ignorance”, “luxury” and the “narrowest selfishness”.
William Godwin: Political Justice, Anarchism and the Romantics



No private property, and .....voila!.....a whole new human nature...'Can't we all just get along.'

That's two posts you've neglected to respond to now. I guess the unstoppable PoliticalChic has been put in her place.

You're the sort of dunce who would buy a ticket to a movie, and demand that they show a different one.

You've voluntarily subscribed to this Malthus/Godwin thread, detailing the flaws and errors in Liberal what-passes-for-thought, and you imagine that I will alter the lesson for you.


As in so many of your endeavors....you couldn't be more wrong.