Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 3 years ago
    There does seem to be a very high correlation between a belief in climate change and a belief in government control of the economy and the assets of productive people.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 3 years ago
      That is not entirely true. Recent Pew Research data says that people who are "science educated" are split along party lines on global warming. However, among self-identified Democrats, those who score low on science awareness tend not to accept APG and global warming in general.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
        "Science educated" is what the climate hysterics call themselves whether they understand science or not, which the loudest propagandists promoting their "science" as authority do not. Environmentalism in general is falsely promoted as "science".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 3 years ago
          The polls in question have their problems, of course, but are not about environmentalism. Does water boil at a higher or lower temperature in Denver versus Los Angeles?

          See here:
          http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/scien...

          However, as Wired writer Rhett Alain pointed out about a different quiz (here: http://www.chronicle.com/article/How-..., these instant investigations ask not about scientific thinking but about the memorization of isolated facts. Even though I scored perfect (of course), I realized that if I had not had specific learning, and was just trying to reason it through, I would have chosen wrong on two of the Pew Research questions. Science is not easy. (See "Science versus Common Sense" here in the Gulch and on my blog: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20... )
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
            The "quiz" also has nothing about climate hysteria belief. Those who have memorized some facts and think that it means they are "science aware" because science is what someone called a scientist says, are most likely when "aware" of authoritarian viro claims in the name of science to believe that is science, too.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years ago
            "Does water boil at a higher or lower temperature in Denver versus Los Angeles?"
            I say this only half jokingly: The tests are about reality and reality has a slight liberal bias. It's only half joking because reality is understood by doing experiments, making observation, and reasoning. A key part of that is being open to answers that are undesirable or different from how our parents and other respected people from the past saw things. It means disregarding people who are overwrought and propagandists, and ignoring fallacious reasoning instead of desperately grasping it as a straw man. I'm not sure if "liberal" is the right word because that can mean almost everything. But if we had to see the test through a political lens, which we don't have to, the test has a liberal bias because it deals in reality.

            Here is a corrected link to the 2nd test: http://www.chronicle.com/article/How-...

            I am surprised on the second test most people got the last question about independent experiments and did not fall for the gambler's fallacy that says if you've tossed heads several times in a row the coin is more likely to land on tails next time.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
              Reality does not have "liberal" bias. Reality doesn't have "biases", it just is. Liberals have a bias to think they know better than everyone else in the name of science. The first ones to ignore are overwrought, hand wringing "liberals" (with or without adopting a pompous "calm"-appearing demeanor anywhere on the Algore-Kerry scale) who think they are saving the planet and are entitled to shove their policies down our throats because they know so much better. Their religion is no more science than Christian Scientists, Scientologists, Scientific Socialists or anyone else stealing the mantle of science to sell his own fervently held beliefs. Being "open" to beliefs different than their parents does not make it science; it usually means they were taught to believe something different in the propaganda of "education" and others making pronouncements based on comfortable-feeling false premises. It is no better than religious conservatives who believe their supernatural is "true reality".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 3 years ago
                It is no better than conservatives who think that they are "science aware" even though they are engineers. Engineers are well-represented among jihadi Muslims and fundamentalist Christians. See the arguments here about "hockey sticks." They latch on to a single egregious case and make a generality out it, denying all evidence of global warming and APG.

                Strictly speaking, reality does not even have a "reality bias." As you say, it has no bias; it just is. That said, however, we know that we achieve more when acting in accordance with reality than denying it. I took CG's statement to mean that in the context of our political theories, those people who have a liberal bias are more in accordance with reality. It is why liberal societies of the West are materially better off than than illiberal societies (dictatorships, failed states). It is why (very generally) the rich are liberal and the poor are conservative.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
                  "Liberal" doesn't mean what it used to. Political elitist "liberals" today are very illiberal, not what used to be known as liberal societies in contrast to statism and religion.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 3 years ago
              Milton Friedman and F. A. Hayek called themselves liberals for those reasons. Just as Ayn Rand sought to recapture the proper meaning of "capitalism" and "selfishness" they refused to give the label "liberal" up to those who are explicitly illiberal.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
                Almost all who call themselves "liberal" today are at least welfare statists, as were Hayek and Friedman despite their appeals to a more legitimate "liberalism"; it was a package deal. The best we can do now is "classical liberal", referring to what "liberal" meant during the Enlightenment founding of the country against conservative statists and oppressive religionists.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years ago
                " they refused to give the label "liberal" up to those who are explicitly illiberal."
                Yes, it's lost its meaning. I hear it used (here in my old-school liberal area) to mean a generic "a good guy" or "honest person". I've heard people say, "her friends thinks he's this nice liberal, but I caught him acting underhandedly."

                It' also has the meaning you're talking about of classical liberal. There's neo-liberal, which is what old-school liberals, aka "the traditional liberal bloc" calls me.

                I use it in the sense of open to new ideas, not doing things JUST because that's the way they were done historically. Since we're always learning new things, reality has a liberal bias.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 3 years ago
    Yes.
    There are two other themes apart from Marxism.

    1. Personal financial self interest.
    What I call 'organizational dynamics' is when people in some group take on the interests
    of that group regardless of evidence or any independent thinking. In particular those who
    may claim expertize will always claim that a particular issue in which they have knowledge
    and employment requires more study and more money (what is called 'funding').
    Scientists in government agencies are particularly prone to this. Names- well known.
    Then there is the parasitic moocher class whose skill is in extracting government money.
    Names- not so well known, the real recipients of government money in so-called
    green/clean/renewable this or that.

    2. Do-goodism.
    There are those who claim to be motivated by altruism.
    There are altruists who spend, usually waste, their own money. Nearly all of these people
    act on emotion and once their opinion is set it is impervious to logic and fact.
    Who- the followers, aka sheeple.
    The louder group practise what I call false-altruism, aka virtue-signalling / moral-posturing.
    Thinking and facts have no relevance to them.
    Their actions are to show how caring they are but involve little actual effort or cost.
    Who- politicians, celebrities.

    The phenomenal growth in the carbon change scare is from how the above themes come together.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jimjamesjames 3 years ago
      RE: 2, Do-Goodism:

      A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business. ERIC HOFFER
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years ago
      AR identified the archetypes of the brute and the witch doctor. The brute survives his mental stultification through violence, justified by his fanatical ideological identification with the witch doctor. The witch doctor survives his cowardice though ideological stolen concepts, justified by his fanatical vengeful romanticism around the brute. "Do-goodism" as you describe it is simply the coalescing of the witch doctors of the world. Today, they are called leaders. "Personal financial self interest" as you describe it is just the summation of all the crony capitalist brutes of the world. Today, they are called visionaries.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbrucer 3 years ago
    Yes. The former head of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, stated explicitly that their goal is to replace free market capitalism with "some other system" -- whatever that may be. No other system provides the efficiencies we have now. Anything different would have to be implemented by government force.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Temlakos 3 years ago
    Yes. If climate change is at all real, and if, as the foremost alarmists say, "the thing speaks for itself" and global temperatures are under exclusive human control, then Marxian control is the only possible remedy. I have never met an AGW alarmist who wasn't a Marxist--at least, not when you questioned him closely as to his possible remedies of the situation. And I would never expect to meet a "capitalist AGW alarmist." The concept I just put in quotes, is oxymoronic.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 3 years ago
    There are mysteries on earth perpetrated by the universe that often change over time. Some people attribute theses mysteries to a ghost. As science reveals more, these people hang on to their ghost belief, altering meanings in order to keep the religion meaningful, or in some cases, merely leaving things contrary and reverting to "faith." So it is with man-made climate change, or global warming or global cooling. Anything negative for humans must be because of humans and we've got to stop it. Thank you Dr. Frankenstein's assistant, Algore.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 3 years ago
    There still is plenty of propaganda on some the cable stations to keep fear-mongering Climate Change. NatGeo seems to be doing a pretty good job of it with their latest program called 2Degrees. This program features mostly Climate Change Activist's spewing their dire warnings with accompanying graphics ,etc. Programs like this keep fueling that philosophy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 3 years ago
    Marxism is about control, and the climate is one big lie which allows people to be controlled in many activities. Climate change as a term is ridiculous, as climate has always changed naturally. Marxism calls for dumbing down people, which is what has happened to the lay person and science, they have no personal education in the field of climate. The are easy pawns for those seeking power via climate lies. Now even the paid "experts: say CO2 is not the issue they thought it was, but they will have to look deeper for the cause of climate change. That's right, too many people getting wise, so they need a new lie to sell to solidify their power quest.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by andrewtroy 3 years ago
    My Grandpa used to always say, "You don't get paid until the job is complete", and part of the job is cleaning up the mess when you are done.

    It doesn't take a PhD. to understand that we can neither drink water out of rivers full of industrial waste, nor can we breathe air full of toxic particulates.

    Is climate change on a global scale a result of energy production? The data is at best contradictory and unclear, but it has been demonstrated that energy production can have an impact on local, smaller scale environments.

    If Marxism is defined as "The political and economic ideas of Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels; specifically, a system of thought in which the concept of class struggle plays a primary role both in analyzing Western society in general and in understanding its allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist society and thence to Communism." [The Tormont Webster's Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary], then it is easy to see how manipulation of small scale environmental issues caused by industry and energy production can be used as the means to seize control of industry and energy production by government and/or anti-capitalist "authorities".

    In this way, I would agree that climate change as a concept IS one whose ideological degree is directly proportional to the degree of Marxian control over economic policy.

    It is therefore imperative for industrialists and energy generators to be responsible producers and follow Grandpa's rule: Clean up your mess when you are done! The selfish payoff will be the inability of anti-capitalists to manipulate small scale environmental issues into global economic regulation and control.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 3 years ago
    The earth has been warming for 22,000 years to get us out of the last glaciation. How clever of the left to develop the Marxist concept of alienation to alienate man and nature. Their goal is to make people guilty for being productive and to transfer power to the government to own the means of production to operate it for the benefit of ocean acidity while telling the people it is for unknown future generations. Don't be fooled it is the concept of alienation which drives the tactics of the left which still relies on Marxist intellectuals in universities to give direction. Their ultimate motive is a profound hatred of the freedom of the human mind in general and producers minds in particular. Climate control is human mind control. It can only be fought by reason and science. Rand was right. Make you afraid of climate changing and since it is going to change whether or not man is here you will happily transfer the control of your life to save it from climate change to the state: that's the Marxist goal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dnr 3 years ago
    Everyone's comments are valid and I agree. I would, however, absolutely disagree with there being any relationship between the two. As y'all have said, climate change has to do with the earth warming and is caused by the sun, the earth itself, etc., etc. Now people tend to immediately mix climate change with "we did it." Since even Marxism can't control the sun the earth, the planets, etc., there is no actual statistical or mathematical relationship. People will always use natural phenomenon to justify the practice of witchcraft. That is why religion started in the first place and why it still persists, i.e., the worship of "mystical sky beings."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 3 years ago
    As related to non-conscious parasitical humanoids?...yes.
    However, the long and dumb of it is...the climate changes in cycles; proving that stupidity or complicity is at work within those that would blame you, the gods or some vital natural element necessary for life to exist.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Riftsrunner 3 years ago
    Climate change is happening. I believe one of the problem has been people like Al Gore has attempted to use it as an income stream. He created an alarm with his 'Inconvenient Truth' movies, then set up a carbon credits firm to act like the Federal Reserve of global warming. He (and the ilk like him) is a major reason I find it difficult to believe anthropogenic global change is a real phenomena, because I now see every paper through that lens. Another problem is you have is a media espousing a knowledge to science, but don't have the expertise to even adequately understand the nuance of the climate sciences. So you get garbage articles that are based on emotion, not on any real grounding in the science.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 3 years ago
    (Minus 1). It is not a question, it is a statement. And it is loaded, independent of the facts about so-called "climate change." You say "Marxist" and you create a bandwagon for people to jump on.

    First, no one denies that the climate changes. We can track it. We do not know all of the driving mechanisms. But climates come and go. Just give it time.

    Second, the debate that matters is over anthropogenic climate change. Are we the cause (or a significant causal factor)? That is still not decided.

    Third - and the resistance here and among other conservatives - is what to do about it, even if anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real. Basically, we do not need to "do" anything: we could just accept it and adapt to the new environment(s).

    Within that adaptation is the individualist response that I will take of me and thou carest for thee. I might move to the mountains. You might buy a boat. I might grow oranges in Michigan. You might set up a solar energy farm in Ohio. Other people, of course, want the government to make sure that we all do the same thing at the same time. That has never worked out well, and I recommend against it.

    Locally, you can have a lot of impact on your community. People flock to the polls every four years, but it is the "dog catcher" jobs that really affect your daily life. It is an absolute fact that trees are important to mitigating the effects of urban heat. You do not need to save all of your neighbors, but you can make sure that your home enjoys the benefits of free trees for Arbor Day, If you want. (Or your kids' school, or your church, or whatever is important to you.) It is not "Marxist" to participate intelligently in the affairs of your community.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lucky 3 years ago
      In the Zen Master tradition, our in-house logician MM uses contrarianism to enlighten.
      But surely this time, majorly tongue-in-cheek?

      Warning- long maybe boring response follows, if I had more time I would have written less, anyway, as follows.

      The context of the subject line is clearly that of anthropomorphic climate change.
      But for the strict constructionist- natural events are a great rallying cry whereby the political class gain more power by claiming to act for the common good. The actions are backed by governments and forced.

      The theory- depends on putting aside the laws of science and especially of thermodynamics, phony equations assuming flat surfaces ignore the directions of radiation dispersion after interactions with molecules. Faulty solutions to differential equations quantify this supposed energy flow.

      The evidence- there is global manipulation of temperature data, actual data has been 'lost', what is called data is largely fake, the word used is homogenization.
      Changes in ocean levels are best described by tectonic movements. There are claims of 100 meters per hundred years, some statistical methods could give a figure of 1 meter per hundred years. Many claims of sea level rise are really land subsidence.
      Ocean acidification claims are fantasy, oceans are and will remain alkaline.
      CO2 is released by oceans, see Henry's Law. No need for concern, in fact CO2 is beneficial for vegetation and therefore animal life.
      Governments and universities with substantial government grant income actively suppress criticism, censor dissenters and remove them from employment.

      The notorious hockey stick contradicted all current knowledge of global temperatures over the past millennium, no surprise when you find out how it was derived.
      Predictions/forecasts based on the scam never eventuate -
      profits before subsidies from renewable energy generators, numbers of polar bears, the energy output from wind generators, extent of Arctic and Antarctic ice, amount of snow. Even the 'backcasts' are ridiculous, 'there have been more' hurricanes, more floods, more droughts, no, there have been fewer.
      Then there is the preposterous precautionary principle- if there is any claim that something bad can happen then unlimited resources must be spent to stop it.

      still not decided This scare has no basis in logic or science and belongs in political activism and psychology. Reducing the power of government would cut the scare. Let us choose what campaigns and delusions we spend our money on.

      MM's last two paras are correct- " It is not "Marxist" to participate intelligently in the affairs of your community ",
      but it is when stupid participation is compulsory, every aspect was used by Stalin's regime and the recipe is strict Alinsky and Gramsci.

      The supporters are in on the scam, or are liars, or dupes, or soft in the head and are furthering state control by destroying individual freedoms and economic wealth.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years ago
        Well said and to add from Mark Marano of Climare Depot
        Mann is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with climate science today. He is a hardcore political activist, very thin skinned, does not take criticism well at all, and he surrounds himself within his own little world of supportive warmist activists. Even the scientists in Mann’s “own little world” resented his knee-jerk reactions to criticism from other scientists, as made clear in this Climategate email from a colleague who sent it anonymously to a list of trusted scientists:
        is the author of the books Dire predictions: understanding global warming (2008) and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (2012), which have been described as self-aggrandizing scare tomes. He is a member of the Council of Advisers of the Climate Accountability Institute, which held the Planning Workshop that guided the state attorneys general “AGs United for Clean Power” to prosecute climate skeptics.

        Mann is also a direct collaborator with the RICO20 professors, who along with U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), have called for prosecution of all climate skeptics. Mann’s arrogant, intolerant and vengeful attitudes — as reflected in his writings and even his Twitter feed — have caused even colleagues to be wary of him, and spurred the targets of his attacks to redouble their efforts. In a June 2016 speech, Mann tried to convince the Democratic Party Platform drafting committee that Democrats must act urgently to enforce his alarmist agenda before the “right wing denial machine” distorts his message.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years ago
      Minus 1. It is a question. It is a yes or no question. If you answer no, that is how you would disagree. If you answer no, I doubt very much if people on this forum would assume Mike Marotta to be a Marxist. Obviously, the question was disliked enough to warrant clicking and writing several paragraphs. I didn't know there was a problem with "loaded" questions in Objectivism. You've proven me incorrect, sir.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
        There is always an objective problem with loaded questions posing as straightforward. It is a "yes or no" invalid or dubious question based on and promoting a false premise. It counts on conservatives to buy into it, which they do in droves since "Marxism" now means to them (whatever you mean by it) almost anything they don't like in politics. "Ideological degree" of a concept doesn't even make any sense. To rationalize it as a straightforward question you have to strain to ignore all this, claiming one could answer 'yes' or 'no' despite it being loaded.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
      Aside from separating science from politics (which most of the climate hysterics and many conservatives do not), Marxism is not the only kind of statism or collectivism. The viros' worship of an intrinsic value of nature superseding the rights and objective values of man is not following Marx. Some of them are influenced by Marx, but it is mostly against production for the benefit of humans at the "expense" of the rest of nature, not a labor theory of value, economic determinism, class warfare, or other Marxist premises.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years ago
      " And it is loaded,"
      Yes. I am unclear on the meaning of "ideological degree", so I can't say if an concept's ideological degree is proportional to something else.

      "Are we the cause (or a significant causal factor)? That is still not decided."
      Right, but the evidence is overwhelming. Findings that human activities are not a significant cause of global warming would be shocking. Weirder things have happened in science, but I can't bank on a surprise discovery finding exactly what we wish were true.

      "the resistance here and among other conservatives - is what to do about it "
      My resistance to taking any radical action to it is I have not seen an estimate of costs of reducing it vs the costs to deal with the effects in the future. If we can come up with even a rough estimate of the net cost of actions to other people's property, there should be some way to account for those costs. Otherwise you have activities that seem profitable but are really just stealing from people somewhere else at some other time.

      Unlike the bogus question of whether human activities cause global warming, I think we truly have not quantified these costs.

      The main thing I hear from climate change deniers is the straw man argument that some people want to exploit the problem politically. Naomi Klein describes in her book how she used to see signs of climate change, e.g. weather events that are probably a part of climate change, and feel horror. But then she realized that one solution to the problem involves taking money from people who are producing value and CO2 and giving it to people who are not. Well great, she wanted to do that anyway. So then she learned to stop worrying and love climate change. People like that exploiting the issue to sell socialism are doing as much damage as deniers.

      "Other people, of course, want the government to make sure that we all do the same thing at the same time."
      Let's reject the idea of the gov't making sure people all do the same thing out of hand without comment.

      "Within that adaptation is the individualist response that I will take of me and thou carest for thee."
      Shouldn't the individualist be responsible if his activities on his own property are travelling and trashing someone else's property?

      " you can have a lot of impact on your community"
      I completely agree with this. Some climate change denier somewhere has a bogus argument allowing him to profit from damaging others' property. Someone somewhere is milking gov't programs to get a free-ride paid for by my quarterly estimated deposits. I should vote for people who try to stop that, but I can influence my life way more by taking care of myself--- reducing my own emissions, not lying to milk gov't programs, and if I so desire helping others do the same.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 3 years ago
        It is a fact that 19th century courts could have found in favor of property rights, but ruled in favor of the "public benefit" to pollution. Strict property rights would lead to other solutions.

        There is a difference between how rivers are viewed in wet climates versus dry, not surprisingly. Here in the American West, we had range wars over the fact you do not have a right to destroy your neighbor's property by cutting off his water, just because he was downstream from you. Islamic law developed the idea of a "foundation" as we understand it sometime before 1600 AD: the object in question was a water well -- no one could "own" it but the "owners" were responsible for managing it. They expanded that idea to financial foundations, family foundations, again, about 1600 AD. So, there are precedents.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years ago
    We'd have to define "ideological degree".

    Activities that accelerate global warming and Marxism are similar in that they both involve people benefiting from taking/trashing other people's property.

    They're also related in that global warming is such a big a problem that people who never let a crisis go to waste try to exploit it politically. That's not peculiar to global warming, though. It's the same reason the day of 9/11 attacks people were planning wars with countries unrelated to the attack and shortly after they passed the PATRIOT Act. They didn't come up with those ideas the day of the attack. The attack was the crisis you could use to sell the new product.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo