“When you talk to them regarding climate change there is a deafening silence , they are aware of the climate scientists findings..”
Well for starters they aren’t climate scientists pushing these lies. They are rather transplanted physicists, computer programmers and mathematicians. The pushers are all ignorant of epistemology and natural philosophy. And most of the pushers came to the field totally ignorant of the complexities of weather and of the Earths climate system.
But what do we see here?
“When you talk to them regarding climate change there is a deafening silence , they are aware of the climate scientists findings”
Findings? FINDINGS? We see that you have abandoned evidence and will try any sort of scam on. No amount of “findings” will substitute for evidence. And evidence isn’t evidence without a specific hypothesis.
So we’ve all just got to be quits with these mystical maths-fantasies, and get back to the basics. Particularly the basics of PROCESS. The process of the scientific method.
YES I ANTICIPATED THAT THE USUAL DROPKICKS WOULD GO WILD OVER THIS ONE. SINCE THEIR MENTALITY IS NOT MORE SOPHISTICATED THEN THE CARTOON CHARACTERS ON “THE SIMPSONS” …. THOSE CLASSMATES OF LISA SIMPSON WHO SUGGESTED THAT SHE WAS GOING TO MARRY A CARROT WHEN SHE GREW UP.
YOU REALLY ARE A FUCKING DUMMY AREN’T YOU? YES YOU ARE! AND LIKE HITLER (BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION) YOU ARE A NATIONAL SOCIALIST.
We will notice something in common to all those who will pull the stunt that Carlos just tried on.
All of them will have a history of the fervent support of mass-murder to suck up to a dictator. This is pretty predictable. Small-time fascists spend a lifetime projecting their national socialism onto others.
“….totally giving up fossil fuels is not scary “…a transition can also be exciting and rewarding….“
“OK, Lewandowsky can demonstrate how “exciting” it is for us by living like Australopithecus afarensis for a period of ten years, then reporting back on his “exciting” experiences.”
Yeah its pretty funny isn’t it. I sometimes wonder if this mental problem with the warmers and the divide between us isn’t partly a city-country deal. We of course know that many of the global warming pushers weren’t educated in weather systems at all, but are ring-ins from physics, maths and computer programming. They all seem to be adepts and true-believers in maths-magic.
But there may be something else going on here: Who are the scientists, who push this global warming nonsense … who grew up on outdoor plumbing, fed the chickens as one of their choors, burnt their own rubbish, made tree-huts and stayed overnight in a hut they’d made in the bush? Such people may be quite thin on the ground. Yet the skeptics in Australia that have a connection with the far North, the far West or Woop woop more generally, seem to be numerous out of propertion to the population of the sort of digs they hail from.
It may be pretty unhealthy to be bringing these kids up in concrete jungles, even in swish surroundings, prior to their teenage years. The pushers don’t seem to have any understanding of, or affinity for, nature. Which may be deeply ironic but it seems that way just the same.
Here is this deeply mentally ill Lewandowsky fellow, and as Valentines comments hint, he appears to be harbouring the fantasy of living like some sort of nature-boy. If Lewandowsky was deprived of wide open spaces before his thirteenth birthday, and this bad craziness is the result, then I suppose one might feel a little bit sorry for him.
He’s a deeply messed-up individual. Someone needs to look inside his head and a course of remedial action needs to be agreed upon.
Graeme Bird :
18 Aug 2010 6:08:46pm
Clearly you are over-promising with your claims to be a philosopher. Any philosopher worth his salt would have seen through the global warming racket by at least 2005 and likely well before that.
Whereas we carve subjects up into specialities to make them manageable, the fact is that all knowledge is holistic, and the methodologies in every area of the search for truth, are more or less the same, or at least similar.
So the fact that you were taken in by the global warming racket, even as late as 2010, must cast grave doubts on your competence as a philosopher.
I HAVE CHOSEN THE TO ASSOCIATE MY GOALS WITH AN EXAMPLE OF LONG-TERM PLANNING, AND WITH A COMMONLY KNOWN PHRASE IN THE GERMAN LANGUAGE. A PHRASE THAT ANY EDUCATED PERSON CAN READILY TRANSLATE INTO ENGLISH. I AM NOT ASHAMED TO HOLD THESE PARTICULAR GOAL. NATIONAL SOCIALISTS HAVE OTHER GOALS AND THEY ARE USUALLY ABOUT 140-160 DEGREES DIFFERENT FROM MY OWN, AND ONLY ABOUT 10-30 DEGREES DIFFERENT FROM YOURS.
ONCE AGAIN WE GET BACK TO YOUR STUPIDITY. YOUR CRUDE IDIOCY. BY YOUR OWN CHOICE YOU HAVE DISPLAYED A MENTALITY THAT RECALLS LISA SIMPSONS CLASSMATES SAYING “SHE ADMITTED IT” NOT LONG AFTER PREDICTING THAT LISA WOULD GROW UP TO MARRY A CARROT.
BUT DON’T BE TOO HARD ON YOURSELF FUCKWIT. SOME OPERATION KEELHAUL SUPPORTER WAS ALWAYS GOING TO SHOW THEMSELVES TO BE A MORON AT THIS MOST SLIGHTEST OF PROMPTINGS.
IF YOU HADN’T OF QUICKLY MADE A COCK OF YOURSELF, PROBABLY JASON SOON OR SOME OTHER STALIN APOLOGIST, WOULD HAVE DONE SO IN YOUR STEAD.
“In the case of the stimulus letter, I had no problems in this respect. Except for a now-discredited minority of ‘new classical’ theorists, no serious economist denies that, under the right circumstances, fiscal policy can be effective. ”
Well thats magnificent that you have all this support in numbers. But don’t hide behind your colleagues.
But before you try and prove it you might want to review this thread:
Graeme, it speaks volumes that rightwing deadshit parties expect individuals to pay for their own candidacy. No wonder they never get anywhere and no one listens to them, and few want to run for them electorally. Long may this situation reign.
Well actually last time they did pay my candidacy. But then when the race was on I donated the cost of it to them. I figured it was fair since I hadn’t put in any real effort to running. And I think the older blokes in the LDP are top-flight people. Its a lot of the twenty and thirty-somethings that I don’t seem to gel with.
The hard-core closet marxists in the nation of Australia have made a group committee decision to vote for the Greens. The conspirational nature of these people and their committment to Stalinist “democratic centralism” is just astonishing. The internal coherence of these people really is impressive.
Clive Hamilton, Quiggin and Bahnisch have all gone public with this Marxist strategic move. Other civilians have been seen to have made the switch this one time.
I don’t know WHY they are doing this. They may even save the nation by drawing votes away from Labour. You would have to be a member of the leftist conspiracy to even guess at the strategic reason for this.
And when it comes down to it the members themselves may not know the real reason they are doing this. Outsiders just do not understand how Stalinist Democratic Centralism works. But you see, once the decision has been made by the centre, everyone commits to the decision totally. They may argue bitterly for a year about it. But once the decision is made they are all true believers from that point on.
To show that this is a central Marxist decision, of an absolutely binding nature, just have a read of the linked thread. Seldom do you get these displays of universal endorsement on any blog. Not even on the notoriously closed-minded Larvatus Prodeo. They just all line up and agree with total certainty. The certainty is real. Because the decisions taken at the centre represent TOTAL TRUTH to these people.
Here’s a bit of a window into how these communists work. Check out Paul Norton. He knows full well that Julia is a commie. But he denies it utterly. All the communists in the country can be relied on to hose down revelations about prominent communists in this country being communist. They get really pissed off and try to make you feel embarrassed for using your own terminology. They may want to be called a social democrat one year. The next year they may have a new phrase for themselves. I’m a bit of a wowser when it comes to adopting the new lingo. So I’m quite happy to go on calling these commies commies.
But ironically the communists go out of their way to identify politicians who are communists. Phillip Adams spent his whole time promoting Kevin Rudd. Thus tipping me off that Kevin wasn’t the conservative he was pretending to be. Not a fiscal conservative nor any sort of conservative.
And as well Bahnisch started promoting Gillard many years ago and thereby tipped me off that she was a communist.
I agree with your analysis about Communists calling themselves Social Democrats. It’s easy enough to tell the difference too. Although Communists might tactically pretend to be Social Democrats, it’s the hatred that gives them away in the end. Advocating modest income redistribution doesn’t usually manifest itself with a burning white-hot hatred of your political opponents and your very civilisation – that can only come from a hidden source, Communism.
The other sign is a refusal to give formal support to property rights unless embarrassed or hectored into doing so. Even a genuine Social Democrat will voluntarily support property rights without much prompting. But a Communist can only do so tactically, often with their feet held to the flames. If it takes 50 blog comments to harangue someone around to NOT advocating the destruction of property rights, it’s pretty clear that their defacto position is to oppose property rights.
“Forgot to add that it’s not just Johns opinion, but the opinion of a majority of polled expert economists.”
Completely irrelevant. This generation is losing its understanding of what evidence is. I’ve told you precisely where these economists are getting it wrong. They are treating GDP as if GDP were aggregate demand. But GDP is only a subset of aggregate demand. They are using GDP to determine when a recession starts and finishes. GDP is inappropriate for this purpose.
This is what they are doing. This is why they believe wrongly that they have empirical evidence. This is just a fact. Ask them for evidence they will use GDP. There is no getting around it that this is what they are doing. There is no getting around it that this is a mistake that they are making.