Cap and Trade implications.

[djolds1]

Anthropologic Global Warming caused by CO2 emissions is an overhyped myth that will eventually prove to be a costly mistake to our society. The ultimate lesson we will learn is that abandoning scientific method and treating science like religion is a dangerous proposition. It causes people to falsify data. It causes people to selectively pick data to make their points. It causes people to not look at the big picture. It causes people to put too much trust in artificial constructs (models) that are based on incomplete and biased theories.

Oh, its about to get better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15tier.html

"Until recently, the impact of Title IX, the law forbidding sexual discrimination in education, has been limited mostly to sports. But now, under pressure from Congress, some federal agencies have quietly picked a new target: science."

Its unfair, but excellence in high level abstract science is overwhelmingly located among men. This will push political correctness even further into science.

Heck, even the whole concept of "them" and "we" is so inappropriate that it makes me shake my head. Red/Blue, They/We, Black/White, FoxNews/ABC, blah blah blah...

Dyadism is fundamental to human and animal thought, and quite probably a basic component of the structure of the physical universe. We should escape us/them dichotomies with the completion of proton decay in 1E40 years or so.

Duane

[ravingdave]

Anthropologic Global Warming caused by CO2 emissions is an overhyped myth that will eventually prove to be a costly mistake to our society. The ultimate lesson we will learn is that abandoning scientific method and treating science like religion is a dangerous proposition. It causes people to falsify data. It causes people to selectively pick data to make their points. It causes people to not look at the big picture. It causes people to put too much trust in artificial constructs (models) that are based on incomplete and biased theories.

Oh, its about to get better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15tier.html

"Until recently, the impact of Title IX, the law forbidding sexual discrimination in education, has been limited mostly to sports. But now, under pressure from Congress, some federal agencies have quietly picked a new target: science."

Its unfair, but excellence in high level abstract science is overwhelmingly located among men. This will push political correctness even further into science. Duane

This is the only part of your statement that I dissent with. Why is it unfair ?

I see people that are taller than me, I see people that are better looking than me, I see people richer than me, smarter, faster, more knowledgeable etc.

It is a fundamental part of existance and evolution that characteristics evolve that confer a benifit on the recipient. (sometimes it's a mixed bag. I believe I read somewhere that genetic anemia was a north european evolved response to death by the plauge. Apparantly yersinia pestis requires iron, and anemic people are less susceptable to it. So you get partial immunity to a disease, but you suffer for it. )

I think science is for the most part a "meritocracy" and if there are so few women in it, it isn't unfair, it's just the way it is.

For what it's worth, men make up more than their fair share of kooks criminals and idiots. For whatever reason, women tend to congregate in the average, while men tend to be more extreme. I have heard that the IQ curve for women is a bell curve, while the IQ curve for men tends to be an inverted bell curve. Don't know if it's true, but I find it plausible.


David

[djolds1]

If you are that offended by my phrasing, I think it probably has as much to do with your thin skin as it does with my sarcastic tone.

Good humor is one thing. Ad hominem another.

Considering that you are so comfortable calling other people "warmingists" and actually seeming to believe that anyone who believes in AGW is practicing "Gaianist Gnosticism", I guess I felt that you had set a tone that allowed for a little bit of playful sarcasm. Obviously, I was wrong.

Generalist characterizations /= personal conversation. The later deserves greater civility.

I find it a little funny that you continue to focus on one phrase and ignor the fact that I am saying that you are picking trends that are INTENTIONALLY misleading.

1998 was an exceptionally hot year. Starting a trend in 1998 is misleading.

I was perhaps overly enthusiastic in my initial post, attempting to make my basic point that the last decade statistically shows little to zilch warming, as often claimed. I attempted this clarification and admission of somewhat overstated claims in my second post, while offering supplemental data to the general claim.

That you exploded that into a grand indictment of conspiratorial intent is... mystifying.

2002 was hotter than 2000. You intentially claim a flat trend starting in 2002 as evidence that the 2000's were flat. But it was colder in 2000 than in 2002 and 2000 is definitely part of the 2000's.

2002 was the start point I was familiar with from another source, and contains the majority of the decade. However, starting from 2000/month 252, the best fit line through today also appears to be flat, based on appraisal by eyeball Mk1.

http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/phot ... _08520.png

Regardless, reviewing your original post on Gaianist Gnosticism, I am pretty sure that I am barking up the wrong tree trying to suggest adding a bit of moderation to your arguments. I am trying to understand it, but find myself incapable. I even looked up Gnostism. I can't figure out how people can both love Gaia and consider Gaia a prison. But then you don't seem to be sure whether 'warmingists' are 'communists', 'radicalized environmentalists', 'atheist humanists', or 'North Atlantic elites'. They seem to be 'putative', running 'kangaroo courts', 'grabbing power', practicing thier 'religious faith', 'wiggling', following their 'inner spark' to find their 'transcendent focus', and otherwise acting with rather large egos because they believe themselves to be the "Smart People".

Analysis of political trends among the transnational/NGO types boosting global warming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnatio ... gressivism
http://www.johnreilly.info/sw.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davos_Man

Huntington has a good tho not unflawed analysis of civilizational dynamics.

In many ways, global warming/activist environmentalism has become the successor to failed communism as the home for social-activist politics.

A point made by Patrick Moore in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_ ... _programme

The "religious" basis of socialism/communism was atheist humanism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

With the fall of the prophet Marx, a new basis of belief conducive to continued social-activist perspectives was needed. Deifying nature fits that bill fairly well, and even molds itself to feminism.

IOW there is a distinct social group and perspective driving the popularization of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming for discrete shared intents. The upper and middle tiers of this group can be correctly described as Davos Men/Transnational Progressives.

"Smart People" is a quote from the tv show "The West Wing" that's always stuck with me. The President was going on that he cares not a darn about what the people think and makes his decisions based on what "the smart people" tell him. It captures the mindset to a "t" IMO.

My apologies if I dove in at too abstract and pre-analyzed a level. You are correct that I should have lined up the fundamentals of my social analysis in a more modular & introductory fashion.

Duane

[djolds1]

This is the only part of your statement that I dissent with. Why is it unfair ?

I see people that are taller than me, I see people that are better looking than me, I see people richer than me, smarter, faster, more knowledgeable etc.

It is a fundamental part of existance and evolution that characteristics evolve that confer a benifit on the recipient.

Some people are tall and deemed physically attractive, others short and thus reputed to be ugly. Distribution of traits isn't fair, the general social and sexual consequences of those distributions aren't fair.

But that doesn't mean that said unfairness is wrong or in need of intervention to correct it. Life is unfair. Adapt.

(sometimes it's a mixed bag. I believe I read somewhere that genetic anemia was a north european evolved response to death by the plauge. Apparantly yersinia pestis requires iron, and anemic people are less susceptable to it. So you get partial immunity to a disease, but you suffer for it. )

IIRC, the genetic afflictions among the Ashkenazim are much the same.

I think science is for the most part a "meritocracy" and if there are so few women in it, it isn't unfair, it's just the way it is.

The West has been replacing "equality of opportunity" with "equality of outcome" for decades. Its finally come around to high level science.

Actions have consequences. So too do memes.

For what it's worth, men make up more than their fair share of kooks criminals and idiots. For whatever reason, women tend to congregate in the average, while men tend to be more extreme. I have heard that the IQ curve for women is a bell curve, while the IQ curve for men tends to be an inverted bell curve. Don't know if it's true, but I find it plausible.

Men and women have nearly the same mean intelligence, and as you pointed out, the bell curve for women is tall and thin, grouped closely around the mean. For men the bell curve is lower and flatter, though not negative. More geniuses, but also more idiots, than women.

Makes sense in evolutionary terms. To keep her children alive, a woman can't be too stupid, but also doesn't need to be a genius. Men on the other hand win if they end up on the high side of the bell curve. Thus their biology is more justified in "taking risks" to win, even tho that means they might lose. In that vein, male biology tends to be more unstable & weaker than female at the molecular level, more vulnerable to disease, etc. I think that instability washes over into other traits.

Duane

[ravingdave]

Amen!



David

[scareduck]

I think that instability washes over into other traits.

For instance, this.

[djolds1]

I think that instability washes over into other traits.

For instance, this.

I've been partial to this for awhile.

Duane

[Nanos]

Perhaps that explains:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... id=4176945

I've heard the area mentioned has the worst of what modern life can offer, particularlly I reckon a lack of hope.

With the UK attitude one of, its only going to get worse and there are no solutions, and myself having spent time chatting with sucidial people, it would appear that the lack of progress for those at the bottom is causing people to see death as a realistic solution due to lack of oppertunities.

Some say I have an infectious attitude when I talk about things in person, if only I could translate that into larger groups of people to get them motivated to help themselves, things might get done a little faster around here.


It kinda reminds me of a time in my last job when people was complaining that I was making them go home early as I had improved effiency such that all the work got done early. And as soon as my management period was up, they removed some of my changes so they had more work to do and went back to their old ways of not having enough hours in the day and always days behind schedual, and stressed to boot..

Sometimes I just don't understand peoples reasoning..

[MSimon]

Nanos,

It is the socialist ideal. Jobs. Workers create wealth.

You are more American. Increased productivity (ideas) create wealth.

[Nanos]

Perhaps I'm just in the wrong country