(As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

(As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism

Postby kramer » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:19 am

From Eric Holthaus, Grist writer and meteorologist regarding the new IPCC report:

"The world's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism as a key requirement to maintaining civilization and a habitable planet."



“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 17043
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby John Q. Public » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:27 am

OMG!!! Capitalism's doomed!

So I should abandon my plans for making a fortune selling tin foil MAGA hats? (As if the tin foil tariff wasn't bad enough!)
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 22727
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby Wabash » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:32 am

I'm trying to see the downside if the alternative is extinction.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

MDDad
Posts: 11532
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby MDDad » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:39 am

Extinction? Really? That's being a bit Chicken Little, isn't it?

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 17778
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby Fordama » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:54 am

Yeah, so I read the attached article, plus some others from other sources, and of course they didn't say what kramer claims they said. That's what Eric Holthaus said, not "tops scientists."

Plural and singular are really important concepts.
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 17043
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby John Q. Public » Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:06 am

MDDad wrote:Source of the post That's being a bit Chicken Little, isn't it?

But predicting the end of Capitalism as we know it isn't?
Don't look at me, I just work here.

MDDad
Posts: 11532
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby MDDad » Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:16 am

I didn't say that. But yes, the end of an economic system is a little less Chicken Little than the extinction of our species.

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 17043
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby John Q. Public » Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:23 am

Barely a little if you think on it longer than 2 or 3 seconds.

Funny, though, that somebody could take news that could drive capital investment - and demand - in the clean energy sector as "systematically dismantling capitalism" when it's just the opposite.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 22727
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby Wabash » Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:39 am

John Q. Public wrote:Source of the post news that could drive capital investment - and demand - in the clean energy sector as "systematically dismantling capitalism" when it's just the opposite.

Exactly my thought. Investment in clean tech will be its own capitalist opportunity.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby kramer » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:17 pm

Fordama wrote:Yeah, so I read the attached article, plus some others from other sources, and of course they didn't say what kramer claims they said. That's what Eric Holthaus said, not "tops scientists."


There is no "attached article" to Eric's tweet. There is a long chain of tweets below it and I couldn't find the article that "didn't say" what Eric said.

Please post the link to the article you got from the twitter link in the OP. Or tell us what twitter handle you got it from so the truthfulness of your claim can be verified. (most likely Fordama reply: crickets...)

Also, I've been reading the actual IPCC report (got all the PDFs downloaded) and this is where its at, in bits and pieces. They say fundamental system and institutional change is needed to save the world. Lots of calls for carbon tax to help the poor. Social justice. Equity. All the SJW snowflake wishes that the left has always had. Only leveraging 'science' to achieve the left-wing goals.

By the way, there is also a set of IPCC papers that we "maggot scourge on the earth" can't access (love the transparency) because they are strictly for political policy makers to use to implement the leftist agenda and "unprecedented" lower life-style changes. Don't forget, the IPCC is an organization that is part of the UN which is led by a former president of Socialist international (SI) and SI states on their website that they want nothing less than world government.

Its a big scam that you are too little to see because of low-info, low-gravitas.

And aain, please post the link you read that you got from the OP. If you can't, won't, or don't, then does that mean you lied?
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 22727
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby Wabash » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:52 pm

Sounds good if it saves the human race.

The worst case scenario is we develop energy sources that DON'T poison our air and water.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby kramer » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:21 pm

Fordama, still waiting for you to post the link where you said "I read the attached article". See my post on Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:17 pm for specific information!

If I don't hear from you soon, I'll PM you a reminder...

:D
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby kramer » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:31 am

More "tin foil" fun stuff for JQP:

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution."

- Christiana Figueres, Top UN Climate Change Official, 03 February 2015.
Source link below:
https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz ... entionally


These idiots, don't they know there's lots of left-wing millionaire and billionaires who are invested heavily in intermittent green energy? Ending capitalism will cause them financial losses.
Last edited by kramer on Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 17778
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby Fordama » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:35 am

kramer wrote:There is no "attached article" to Eric's tweet. ]

He's got more than one tweet about it, plus other articles. Then you can use the google machine, too.

The scientists didn't say what you claim they said.
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 17778
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby Fordama » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:36 am

kramer wrote:
These idiots,


No, the idiots are the ones ignoring the science because they're scared it may interfere with their political beliefs.
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby kramer » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:54 am

Fordama wrote:He's got more than one tweet about it,


But you said "Yeah, so I read the attached article,", not "Yeah, so I read the attached articles,". Big difference. And I don't care about the other articles or his other tweets, I want JUST the "attached article" from Eric's tweet that you 'claimed' you've read.



Fordama wrote:The scientists didn't say what you claim they said.

Eric is right.
I've downloaded the entire set of IPCC PDFs. There are so many references in it to equality, justice, poverty, wealth redistribution that it reads more like a socialist manifesto than a 'science' document.

And it does mention several times "transforming" the world's political system but does so indirectly.

Again, there are also another set of documents that only government policy makers are allowed to see. How do you know he hasn't gotten ahold of them or is privy to them?
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby kramer » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:57 am

Fordama wrote:No, the idiots are the ones ignoring the science because they're scared it may interfere with their political beliefs.


"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution."

- Christiana Figueres, Top UN Climate Change Official, 03 February 2015.

This is total interference with my political beliefs.

Pointing these things out is why you are scared and frightened that skeptics like myself are pointing out the fraudulent or shoddy or exaggerated science of climate change as well as the political left-wing aspirations of chaotic climate solutions.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 22727
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby Wabash » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:56 am

You’re very right about the political nature of this issue. But the genesis of the dispute is, to me, telling. This is to me a classic example of the Right disliking and so opposing science that conflicts with its ideological and business-oriented constituencies.

The science has grown organically for a generation now, and the notion that political bias is its only supporting structure is to me the most utter conspiracy theory nonsense (see most of your rants about how it’s all a plot to enslave us). The “denier” movement has always and continues to be politically originated and supported. Its protests that the accepted scientific view is somehow equally tarnished (at least) by bias is a classic case of argumentative jiu jitsu – trying to turn the tables on an opponent in an effort to mask their own shortcomings.

The Right doesn’t like a lot of modern science, from evolution to studies on the non-efficacy of abstinence education to any number of environmental works (anything that suggests that unbridled commercial exploitation of the planet or any part thereof might not be a good thing), and on and on. The culmination of that trend, of course, was the muzzling of the government’s science agencies that began under Bush II.

I have a lot of questions about climate change – its severity, the planet’s potential ability to address it through natural processes, how best to combat it. In that sense, I agree with your statements that there’s a lot that’s not “settled’ about the area. But, by the same token, there’s a great deal that to any rational observer IS settled, as even your posts very significantly note – and that knowledge alone should give any rational observer pause.

We don’t know a lot about most branches of science, however hubristic our technology might make us. We don’t really understand a lot of the mechanisms of evolution, or quantum physics, or our own body’s chemical or biological processes. Should we then scrap those fields of knowledge because the science isn’t “settled”? If so, be prepared to give up your cell phone, microwave, and modern medicine, along with a whole lot of other things, because they’re all predicated on our current “incomplete” and “unsettled” science.

The deniers demand a standard they know is impossible – full encyclopedic knowledge, to the most minute detail – because it’s obviously unobtainable, and thus offers a position from which even the most obvious truth can be gained. It’s the same tactic the tobacco companies used for generations, holding studies linking smoking to various diseases to standards of individual certainty that are impossible to meet, and then dismissing their validity when they failed to meet such absurd and artificially imposed standards.

The “it’ll ruin the economy” argument also rings hollow. Briefly put, it’s crying wolf the same way the Right has cried wolf over any and every environmental proposal for the past fifty years. We live vastly safer, healthier, and happier lives today than our parents did in 1959 because of environmental laws and regulations that were all attacked at the time of their enactment as job and business killers (not to mention incipient government tyranny and destructive of the free market). Yet business has thrived over those same fifty years, and not withered. Indeed, whole new fields of entrepreneurship have arisen precisely because of the need to address those governmental environmental mandates (aka “government created jobs").

The “ruin the economy” meme also fails to notice the ruin our current system of energy production and use are daily wreaking on our nation and society. We daily poison ourselves and the planet, bankrupt ourselves by sending billions of dollars to oil producing countries who at best hold our values in polite disdain (when not funding the very terror machines that imperil us), and we cling to technologies that are daily becoming buggy whip obsolete. America grows best when it invests in the new and shucks off the old and outmoded. Henry Ford innovated, and became a giant. General motors over the past half century clung to old ideas about product and production, and look where that got them.

We have to change. We will anyway, it’s inevitable. The issue is will we be masters of that change or victims? Will we be leaders in developing new technologies that stop us from pumping millions of years worth of previously sequestered CO2 and other pollutants into the environment, and that will wean us from economically funding hostile governments around the world lucky enough to sit on top of patches of petroleum, or will we stay in their thrall. The latter, I suggest, is the real oppressive alternative, and the former alone offers us and our posterity true freedom.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 17778
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby Fordama » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:03 am

kramer wrote:
Pointing these things out is why you are scared and frightened...

The only thing scary and frightening is that there are still a huge number of idiots who won't accept the scientific evidence.
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: (As I’ve been saying all along) World's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capita

Postby kramer » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:50 pm

Wabash wrote:You’re very right about the political nature of this issue. But the genesis of the dispute is, to me, telling. This is to me a classic example of the Right disliking and so opposing science that conflicts with its ideological and business-oriented constituencies.


Wrong. We dislike science that is being leveraged to end capitalism and bring about global socialism.

Wabash wrote: The science has grown organically for a generation now, and the notion that political bias is its only supporting structure is to me the most utter conspiracy theory nonsense (see most of your rants about how it’s all a plot to enslave us).


Never said politics was the "only" reason for 'fixing' climate change. There's a number of other leftist goodies that they are looking to do with fixing the climate.


Wabash wrote: The “denier” movement has always and continues to be politically originated and supported. Its protests that the accepted scientific view is somehow equally tarnished (at least) by bias is a classic case of argumentative jiu jitsu – trying to turn the tables on an opponent in an effort to mask their own shortcomings.


"Tarnished" eh?... click the link of my signature (after reading it).

Wabash wrote: The Right doesn’t like a lot of modern science, from evolution to studies on the non-efficacy of abstinence education to any number of environmental works (anything that suggests that unbridled commercial exploitation of the planet or any part thereof might not be a good thing), and on and on. The culmination of that trend, of course, was the muzzling of the government’s science agencies that began under Bush II.


The Republican party isn't real the anti-science party
The Atlantic, Nov '13

Liberals and conservatives deny science equally: study
NYPost, 2017


Wabash wrote:We don’t know a lot about most branches of science, however hubristic our technology might make us. We don’t really understand a lot of the mechanisms of evolution, or quantum physics, or our own body’s chemical or biological processes. Should we then scrap those fields of knowledge because the science isn’t “settled”? If so, be prepared to give up your cell phone, microwave, and modern medicine, along with a whole lot of other things, because they’re all predicated on our current “incomplete” and “unsettled” science.


No Republican is questioning 97% of the other fields of science, settled or unsettled.

Wabash wrote: The deniers demand a standard they know is impossible – full encyclopedic knowledge, to the most minute detail – because it’s obviously unobtainable, and thus offers a position from which even the most obvious truth can be gained. It’s the same tactic the tobacco companies used for generations, holding studies linking smoking to various diseases to standards of individual certainty that are impossible to meet, and then dismissing their validity when they failed to meet such absurd and artificially imposed standards.


Again, read my sig, then click the link to verify.

Click link below to read how these 'scientists' actually worked:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/p/climategate_05.html

Wabash wrote: “it’ll ruin the economy” argument also rings hollow. Briefly put, it’s crying wolf the same way the Right has cried wolf over any and every environmental proposal for the past fifty years. We live vastly safer, healthier, and happier lives today than our parents did in 1959 because of environmental laws and regulations that were all attacked at the time of their enactment as job and business killers (not to mention incipient government tyranny and destructive of the free market). Yet business has thrived over those same fifty years, and not withered. Indeed, whole new fields of entrepreneurship have arisen precisely because of the need to address those governmental environmental mandates (aka “government created jobs").


Those environmental laws, many of them pushed by NGOs who were backed by rich people, families, and foundations, ended up helping to 'move' part of our manufacturing base offshore. Maurice Strong, a rich person, once said that (I'm paraphrasing) "we should bring about the demise of manufacturing in the developed world". And guess where it went? Asia (mostly).

Wabash wrote:The “ruin the economy” meme also fails to notice the ruin our current system of energy production and use are daily wreaking on our nation and society. We daily poison ourselves and the planet, bankrupt ourselves by sending billions of dollars to oil producing countries who at best hold our values in polite disdain (when not funding the very terror machines that imperil us), and we cling to technologies that are daily becoming buggy whip obsolete. America grows best when it invests in the new and shucks off the old and outmoded. Henry Ford innovated, and became a giant. General motors over the past half century clung to old ideas about product and production, and look where that got them.


Speaking of buggys and whips, electric cars have been around since around 1840.
NASA'S James Hansen says wind and solar won't cut it.

Show me a new idea that can cheaply provide energy 24/7/365 that doesn't use fossil fuel and doesn't have any major environmental impacts and I'm all in. I am NOT trying to protect fossil fuel companies.

Wabash wrote:We have to change.


Why?

Wabash wrote:We will anyway, it’s inevitable.


We're not going to change because its inevitable, we are going to change because this issue is fully backed, supported, and funded by many rich people, families, and foundations.

Wabash wrote:The issue is will we be masters of that change or victims? Will we be leaders in developing new technologies that stop us from pumping millions of years worth of previously sequestered CO2 and other pollutants into the environment,


If carbon dioxide is a "pollutant', why do soda companies inject it into their pop and why is it plants and tree food?
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

Return to “Science and Technology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests