Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Terra De Libertatem wrote:https://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/ Is a peer reviewed scholarly paper. Also, as for the coal-gas thing, the reason I asked what he meant was because he said "gas is cheaper then coal" yet what we call gas in everyday lingo for fuel COMES from gas. It's really a technicality that you're talking about.

As for the "political agenda part", if you seriously think the EPA, NASA, the Pentagon, as well as scientific boards and researchers (and other countries by the way, a lot of other countries such as Germany also act on climate change) are all lying for a political agenda and taking part in some huge conspiracy with other foreign governments and scientists, I seriously don't know how to respond.

The United Nations

Libiceland wrote:The United Nations

What?

Terra De Libertatem wrote:https://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/ Is a peer reviewed scholarly paper. Also, as for the coal-gas thing, the reason I asked what he meant was because he said "gas is cheaper then coal" yet what we call gas in everyday lingo for fuel COMES from gas. It's really a technicality that you're talking about.

As for the "political agenda part", if you seriously think the EPA, NASA, the Pentagon, as well as scientific boards and researchers (and other countries by the way, a lot of other countries such as Germany also act on climate change) are all lying for a political agenda and taking part in some huge conspiracy with other foreign governments and scientists, I seriously don't know how to respond.

Consensus does not make something true. That's a paper trying to argue that there's a consensus that we're causing the climate to change, and therefore we are. That's, uh, not how anything works at all.

Free States Of Cuba wrote:Nuclear energy has gotten expensive, unless the sector can fix its costs, it's hard to compete with other sources.

The only real problem with nuclear energy at the moment is there's a big fearmongering campaign that "oh if you have nuclear power plants they'll explode and you'll all die", when in reality nuclear energy is probably one of the safest, cleanest, and most reliable forms of energy we have access to. And, more importantly, we're probably only a decade or so off from inventing fusion power, which is more or less infinite energy just for smashing together some particles that are already in the air.

The United States Of Patriots, Fascist Dred

Libiceland wrote:Is there anyone in the region who is good at making flags?

This is a thing I can do.

Rateria, Libiceland

Terra De Libertatem wrote:What?

"As for the "political agenda part", if you seriously think the EPA, NASA, the Pentagon, as well as scientific boards and researchers (and other countries by the way, a lot of other countries such as Germany also act on climate change) are all lying for a political agenda and taking part in some huge conspiracy with other foreign governments and scientists, I seriously don't know how to respond."

Miencraft wrote:This is a thing I can do.

Would you be willing to do it for me?

Rateria

Libiceland wrote:Would you be willing to do it for me?

Not if you give me literally no details, but, assuming you did, then yes I would.

Rateria, Libiceland, Terra De Libertatem

Miencraft wrote:Consensus does not make something true. That's a paper trying to argue that there's a consensus that we're causing the climate to change, and therefore we are. That's, uh, not how anything works at all.

If you're going to disregard the fact that the majority of scientific researchers say that carbon emissions are leading to an increase in greenhouse gases because "that doesn't make it true" then we can't have a discussion, I literally just gave the guy what he asked for, a peer reviewed scholarly paper that showed most scientific researchers and organizations agree with man made climate change.

Libiceland wrote:"As for the "political agenda part", if you seriously think the EPA, NASA, the Pentagon, as well as scientific boards and researchers (and other countries by the way, a lot of other countries such as Germany also act on climate change) are all lying for a political agenda and taking part in some huge conspiracy with other foreign governments and scientists, I seriously don't know how to respond."

What does this have to do with the United Nations?

Terra De Libertatem wrote:a peer reviewed scholarly paper that showed most scientific researchers and organizations agree with man made climate change.

See, that's not what you have to prove though. A paper showing that a bunch of people think X is true does not make X true.

You show a few peer-reviewed papers showing that X is true, then you've got a source. A paper going "a lot of people think this" means absolutely nothing. I could have a study on how many people believe that politicians are reptiles in disguise. I get a majority of people to think that, and I've got this peer reviewed paper that goes "a majority of people think politicians are reptiles in disguise", all I'm proving is people think a thing is true, not that it is true.

Fascist Dred

Terra De Libertatem wrote:What does this have to do with the United Nations?

The United Nations is an organization motivated by far-left socialistic agenda that tries to enforce that agenda on the rest of the world. So if the left thinks climate change is man-made, the UN will force its members to say it is.

Fascist Dred, Libiceland

Post self-deleted by Terra De Libertatem.

Miencraft wrote:See, that's not what you have to prove though. A paper showing that a bunch of people think X is true does not make X true.

You show a few peer-reviewed papers showing that X is true, then you've got a source. A paper going "a lot of people think this" means absolutely nothing. I could have a study on how many people believe that politicians are reptiles in disguise. I get a majority of people to think that, and I've got this peer reviewed paper that goes "a majority of people think politicians are reptiles in disguise", all I'm proving is people think a thing is true, not that it is true.

It's the fact that SCIENTISTS who have done RESEARCH about it have come to the conclusion that it's true. If the mass majority of scientists say something, it's probably a good idea to listen to them.

Miencraft wrote:The United Nations is an organization motivated by far-left socialistic agenda that tries to enforce that agenda on the rest of the world. So if the left thinks climate change is man-made, the UN will force its members to say it is.

Yes, the far left socialists want to destroy the coal industry and transition to cleaner energy because-..it'll make the world cleaner..?

Also- I never brought up the UN. I was talking about foreign governments like Canada or Germany taking action against climate change since there's apparently a political agenda for American scientists.

Post self-deleted by Libiceland.

Miencraft wrote:Not if you give me literally no details, but, assuming you did, then yes I would.

I know, thanks

Terra De Libertatem wrote:If the mass majority of scientists say something, it's probably a good idea to listen to them.

If the mass majority of scientists say we should stop breathing, it's probably a good idea to listen to them.

Just because the "majority of scientists" say something doesn't make it true. Just because they have the research somewhere doesn't make it true. You need to actually see the research they did. You can't just take their word for it.

Terra De Libertatem wrote:Also- I never brought up the UN. I was talking about foreign governments like Canada or Germany taking action against climate change since there's apparently a political agenda for American scientists.

I am aware.

Fascist Dred

Libiceland wrote:I know, thanks

So... are you going to tell me what kind of flag you want or not?

Rateria, Libiceland

Miencraft wrote:If the mass majority of scientists say we should stop breathing, it's probably a good idea to listen to them.

Just because the "majority of scientists" say something doesn't make it true. Just because they have the research somewhere doesn't make it true. You need to actually see the research they did. You can't just take their word for it.

The mass majority of scientists aren't telling us to stop breathing. We've known that natural climate change is real, that greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide and methane) rise and cause temperature increase over time..we've known that for a long time. Why wouldn't man emitting those gases contribute? What I'm saying is that I trust the actual professionals who have been studying this stuff for years. They know more than me and you. I think it's purely out of ideological ignorance that you would deny it.

Also- what exactly is the "political agenda"? What are these far right socialist conspirators going to get out of scientific research that shows we increase the greenhouse effect?

Miencraft wrote:So... are you going to tell me what kind of flag you want or not?

Hahaha I will. I don't want to change my flag completely, I just want to modify it. Something to make it look a bit more libertarian, I am not sure yet. Maybe you have an idea?

Terra De Libertatem wrote:Also- what exactly is the "political agenda"? What are these far right socialist conspirators going to get out of scientific research that shows we increase the greenhouse effect?

Far right?

Libiceland wrote:Far right?

*left. My bad. Typo.

Rateria

Terra De Libertatem wrote:Why wouldn't man emitting those gases contribute?

Because there are nowhere near enough of them. 98% or so of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen - those aren't greenhouse gases. 95% of the remainder is water vapor - we literally can't get rid of that because we'd all die. A remaining 3.6% of that 2% is carbon dioxide - the gas to which global warming is attributed. Of that 3.6% of 2% (which comes out to, I believe, .07% of the atmosphere entirely), human activity contributes 3.4%. So, humanity contributes an amount of carbon dioxide which is a grand total of... .002% of the atmosphere. (Source: National Center for Policy Analysis, http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf)

So, basically, the claim is that two thousandths of a percent of the atmosphere can destabilize the global climate in a planet that's been around for four and a half billion years and has seen far more radical changes.

Also, fun fact: claims that the temperature in the arctic are increasing are probably the result of the fact that the Arctic Circle has been moved 450 miles south of where it belongs. Geographically, it's 66.3 degrees north latitude, but the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment defines the area of their study to be "from 60° to 90° N". (Source: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/ACIA_Science_Chapters_Final/ACIA_Ch01_Final.pdf - Figure 1.2, page 3). Not to mention the fact that they say the Arctic is mostly water but they gauged the temperature of the arctic from stations on land.

The United States Of Patriots

Miencraft wrote:Because there are nowhere near enough of them. 98% or so of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen - those aren't greenhouse gases. 95% of the remainder is water vapor - we literally can't get rid of that because we'd all die. A remaining 3.6% of that 2% is carbon dioxide - the gas to which global warming is attributed. Of that 3.6% of 2% (which comes out to, I believe, .07% of the atmosphere entirely), human activity contributes 3.4%. So, humanity contributes an amount of carbon dioxide which is a grand total of... .002% of the atmosphere. (Source: National Center for Policy Analysis, http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf)

So, basically, the claim is that two thousandths of a percent of the atmosphere can destabilize the global climate in a planet that's been around for four and a half billion years and has seen far more radical changes.

Also, fun fact: claims that the temperature in the arctic are increasing are probably the result of the fact that the Arctic Circle has been moved 450 miles south of where it belongs. Geographically, it's 66.3 degrees north latitude, but the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment defines the area of their study to be "from 60° to 90° N". (Source: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/ACIA_Science_Chapters_Final/ACIA_Ch01_Final.pdf - Figure 1.2, page 3). Not to mention the fact that they say the Arctic is mostly water but they gauged the temperature of the arctic from stations on land.

Here's the thing- in order for ice to melt, you know what temperature it has to be? 1C. That's it. So when that 2% if carbon dioxide rises to the poles and causes a temperature increase from -1 to 1 C. It's a big problem. As for the whole geographic location, the North Pole is constantly changing, but it doesn't matter where it is because [b\]global temperatures are increasing.

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

Terra De Libertatem wrote:Here's the thing- in order for ice to melt, you know what temperature it has to be? 1C. That's it. So when that 2% if carbon dioxide rises to the poles and causes a temperature increase from -1 to 1 C. It's a big problem. As for the whole geographic location, the North Pole is constantly changing, but it doesn't matter where it is because [b\]global temperatures are increasing.

Yes, the Arctic Circle is constantly changing - it's constantly moving northwards. The ACIA moving it 450 miles in the opposite direction is absolutely fraudulent science.

Also, the correlation on most of the graphs that relate CO2 and temperature actually has it backwards - you generally see temperature increase first, then CO2 goes up.

[nation=short]Terra_de_Libertatem[/nation] I also recognise the urgency of climate change, but the Paris Agreement is a disastrous deal for the US. It allows China to double their coal production and pollute without restriction for the next 13 years, while the US must shut down theirs and reduce their emissions. It will cost the world $100 trillion by 2100 to maybe reduce world temperatures by 0.03 degrees Celsius. This would cost the US 6.5 million jobs on net, represent income losses of over $20,000 a year for families of four and cause economic growth to plummet. Meanwhile, developing nations are given massive concessions and money from the UN. There are no enforcement mechanisms and the deal is also illegal, because all treaties need to be ratified by the Senate. Just because Obama says it's not a treaty doesn't make it so.

Trump has just cancelled the biggest tax increase in the history of the world.

And Trump says he's going to see about renegotiating a new deal anyway that's fairer to the US, so what's the problem?

Miencraft, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Fascist Dred, Libiceland

Miencraft wrote:Yes, the Arctic Circle is constantly changing - it's constantly moving northwards. The ACIA moving it 450 miles in the opposite direction is absolutely fraudulent science.

Also, the correlation on most of the graphs that relate CO2 and temperature actually has it backwards - you generally see temperature increase first, then CO2 goes up.

Source? Also, what do socialists get out of this? Third time I've asked.

Pevvania wrote:[nation=short]Terra_de_Libertatem[/nation] I also recognise the urgency of climate change, but the Paris Agreement is a disastrous deal for the US. It allows China to double their coal production and pollute without restriction for the next 13 years, while the US must shut down theirs and reduce their emissions. It will cost the world $100 trillion by 2100 to maybe reduce world temperatures by 0.03 degrees Celsius. This would cost the US 6.5 million jobs on net, represent income losses of over $20,000 a year for families of four and cause economic growth to plummet. Meanwhile, developing nations are given massive concessions and money from the UN. There are no enforcement mechanisms and the deal is also illegal, because all treaties need to be ratified by the Senate. Just because Obama says it's not a treaty doesn't make it so.

Trump has just cancelled the biggest tax increase in the history of the world.

And Trump says he's going to see about renegotiating a new deal anyway that's fairer to the US, so what's the problem?

I'm not arguing against that. I literally said I agreed with Trump pulling out of it.

Pevvania, Narland, Rateria

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

Terra De Libertatem wrote:Source? Also, what do socialists get out of this? Third time I've asked.

Berger, A. L., Obliquity and precession for the Last 5,000,000 Years: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?letter=.&classic=YES&bibcode=1976A%26A....51..127B&page=&type=SCREEN_VIEW&data_type=PDF_HIGH&send=GET&filetype=.pdf

Also, the socialists get to extort money out of people - carbon tax - and they get to shut down industry they don't like. That's what they get out of it.

Fascist Dred

Terra De Libertatem wrote:I'm not arguing against that. I literally said I agreed with Trump pulling out of it.

Oh :P

Rateria, Terra De Libertatem

Miencraft wrote:Berger, A. L., Obliquity and precession for the Last 5,000,000 Years: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?letter=.&classic=YES&bibcode=1976A%26A....51..127B&page=&type=SCREEN_VIEW&data_type=PDF_HIGH&send=GET&filetype=.pdf

Also, the socialists get to extort money out of people - carbon tax - and they get to shut down industry they don't like. That's what they get out of it.

That link doesn't work.

Why don't they like that industry?

Also- a carbon tax isn't the only solution proposed

Terra De Libertatem wrote:That link doesn't work.

Why don't they like that industry?

This is a plot against capitalism

Terra De Libertatem wrote:That link doesn't work.

Why don't they like that industry?

The link works if you copy and paste.

How should I know why socialists think anything? Maybe they don't like it because it's actually functional and they don't like actually functional industries. If it works under capitalism, why do you need socialism?

Terra De Libertatem wrote:Also- a carbon tax isn't the only solution proposed

More importantly, it isn't a solution. It's a way for the government to cheat at getting money by exploiting the current craze.

Consider for a moment that 40 years ago, the problem was global cooling, and we were going to send the world into a new ice age. Then they realized that's not our fault. So it became global warming. Then they realized that's not our fault. Now it's just "climate change", because y'know what counts as climate change? Literally anything. Weather is climate change. Air conditioning is climate change. They can't be wrong now.

Is there some place that we keep track of who's running.

I would like to run for the 5th seat.

Pulceria wrote:Is there some place that we keep track of who's running.

I would like to run for the 5th seat.

It's a pinned factbook.

Rateria, Pulceria

Miencraft wrote:It's a pinned factbook.

sweet!

Miencraft wrote:

How should I know why socialists think anything? Maybe they don't like it because it's actually functional and they don't like actually functional industries. If it works under capitalism, why do you need socialism?

Don't worry, it's not real socialism if it fails. Just ask Venezuela.

*insert sarcastic ball meme here*

Miencraft, Narland, Libiceland

Miencraft wrote:The link works if you copy and paste.

How should I know why socialists think anything? Maybe they don't like it because it's actually functional and they don't like actually functional industries. If it works under capitalism, why do you need socialism?

It doesn't. I tried.

You should know because you're making the claim that there's some giant socialist conspiracy when there's literally no reason for them to do that.

They don't like it being functional? Yes. They just hate things that work. Not that they have a different idea that they think is better or anything. They just don't want things to work.

Terra De Libertatem wrote:It doesn't. I tried.

You should know because you're making the claim that there's some giant socialist conspiracy when there's literally no reason for them to do that.

They don't like it being functional? Yes. They just hate things that work. Not that they have a different idea that they think is better or anything. They just don't want things to work.

They do have a reason. This is a plot against capitalism

Libiceland wrote:They do have a reason. This is a plot against capitalism

And why can't we have capitalist solutions to climate change?

Rateria, Libiceland

Terra De Libertatem wrote:Not that they have a different idea that they think is better or anything.

If they really wanted to secure clean, cheap energy that allows us to be infinitely sustainable, they'd be pushing for nuclear power. They're not. They can gain so much more from this renewable energy craze than they ever could with nuclear energy.

Terra De Libertatem wrote:It doesn't. I tried.

I've literally just clicked and dragged that out of my post and into Firefox like three times now and three times it's brought up the PDF. Maybe try a different browser.

Terra De Libertatem wrote:And why can't we have capitalist solutions to climate change?

My point is that there is no climate change

Miencraft wrote:If they really wanted to secure clean, cheap energy that allows us to be infinitely sustainable, they'd be pushing for nuclear power. They're not. They can gain so much more from this renewable energy craze than they ever could with nuclear energy.

I believe in climate change and I'm in favor of nuclear power. I think a lot of liberals are. I think they're just ignorant to that. I never said I agreed with their policies, I just agree with the scientists.

Libiceland wrote:My point is that there is no climate change

The Pentagon, NASA, EPA, a whole bunch of other countries and the vast majority of scientists disagree with you.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Who here has NS++?

I can't, I'm on mobile

Terra De Libertatem wrote:The Pentagon, NASA, EPA, a whole bunch of other countries and the vast majority of scientists disagree with you.

This, again, is a fallacy. Something is not true because a lot of people believe it. It's either true, therefore a lot of people believe it, or it's false, but a lot of people believe it anyways.

See: the delusion that Christopher Columbus set out to prove the Earth was round / was the first European to arrive in the New World. Lots of people believe them. Them believing it doesn't make it true.

Narland, Libiceland

The idea that climate change is happening because the majority of scientists say so is an easy argument to debunk: first it is a clear appeal to popularity and second it is an appeal to authority. But we should understand that neither popular or people in authority are necessarily right all the time.

Miencraft, Narland, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Fascist Dred, Libiceland, Pulceria

He hasn't responded hehe

Miencraft wrote:This, again, is a fallacy. Something is not true because a lot of people believe it. It's either true, therefore a lot of people believe it, or it's false, but a lot of people believe it anyways.

See: the delusion that Christopher Columbus set out to prove the Earth was round / was the first European to arrive in the New World. Lots of people believe them. Them believing it doesn't make it true.

That's not what I said:

Terra De Libertatem wrote: I just agree with the scientists.

The Pentagon, NASA, EPA, a whole bunch of other countries and the vast majority of scientists disagree with you.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:The idea that climate change is happening because the majority of scientists say so is an easy argument to debunk: first it is a clear appeal to popularity and second it is an appeal to authority. But we should understand that neither popular or people in authority are necessarily right all the time.

The scientists came up with the idea first, so no.

Libiceland wrote:He hasn't responded hehe

I'm in class..?

Terra De Libertatem wrote:The scientists came up with the idea first, so no.

So if I came up with the idea that the moon was made out of cheese first, does that make me correct in my assumption?

Post self-deleted by Terra De Libertatem.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:So if I came up with the idea that the moon was made out of cheese first, does that make me correct in my assumption?

If the Pentagon, EPA, NASA, and the majority of scientists in the world thought the moon was made of cheese

Terra De Libertatem wrote:That's not what I said:

You're pretty much saying "a bunch of scientists and some government agencies think this, so it's right". That's a fallacy.

Terra De Libertatem wrote:If the Pentagon, EPA, NASA, and the majority of scientists in the world thought the moon was made of cheese

This is literally just the same fallacy over and over again. A bunch of people believing something doesn't make it right.

Narland, Republic Of Minerva, The United States Of Patriots, Libiceland, Pulceria

Miencraft wrote:You're pretty much saying "a bunch of scientists and some government agencies think this, so it's right". That's a fallacy.

This is literally just the same fallacy over and over again. A bunch of people believing something doesn't make it right.

I'm saying if people who literally do this for a living,have years of research into it, and come up with a conclusion, I'll trust them.

Do you not believe in evolution?

Republic Of Minerva wrote: But we should understand that neither popular or people are necessarily right all the time.

In fact their is more chance of the majority being wrong in this case. because the majority is not all expert authority on the subject. the real people to ask is the minority of specialists.

with the moon being made of chees, specialist say no.

with climate change they disagree, but personally I think its a hoax.

but remember specialist can only make educated guesses so they could be wrong.

the only thing you can prove is that nothing is provable.

Miencraft, Fascist Dred, Libiceland

Miencraft wrote: A bunch of people believing something doesn't make it right.

For example in WWII, thousands if not millions of Germans believed Hitler was right. but that did't make it true.

Pulceria wrote:For example in WWII, thousands if not millions of Germans believed Hitler was right. but that did't make it true.

That's sort of subjective

Libiceland wrote:That's sort of subjective

Granted but still relevant.

another example.

thousands of people didn't agree with Galileo's proposal for the solar system but that didn't make him wrong.

same with the discovery of the oxygen theory that replaced the phlogiston theory .

Miencraft, Narland

Terra De Libertatem wrote:I'm saying if people who literally do this for a living,have years of research into it, and come up with a conclusion, I'll trust them.

Do you not believe in evolution?

Evolution is something for which I have seen the proof and believe the proof.

Your argument is just "these people are right because they're the majority and also they're in a high position".

That's a logical fallacy. You can't just say "the majority of scientists believe this" and pretend that means it's right. Just because the majority believes something does not make it true. Just because people in elevated positions believe something does not make it true. You have to show evidence that what you're saying is true. Saying a lot of people believe it does not constitute evidence.

The United States Of Patriots, Libiceland, Pulceria

Miencraft wrote:Evolution is something for which I have seen the proof and believe the proof.

Your argument is just "these people are right because they're the majority and also they're in a high position".

That's a logical fallacy. You can't just say "the majority of scientists believe this" and pretend that means it's right. Just because the majority believes something does not make it true. Just because people in elevated positions believe something does not make it true. You have to show evidence that what you're saying is true. Saying a lot of people believe it does not constitute evidence.

There is loads of evidence. That's why they believe it. What for you would be proof of climate change? Bangladesh sinking?

Pulceria

Pulceria wrote:For example in WWII, thousands if not millions of Germans believed Hitler was right. but that did't make it true.

You could probably argue that Hitler was right, he just expressed his views the wrong way.

Pulceria

Terra De Libertatem wrote:There is loads of evidence. That's why they believe it.

Okay.

Show me the evidence, then. You're the one making a claim here, so you have to back it up. With the evidence.

The United States Of Patriots, Libiceland

Miencraft wrote:Okay.

Show me the evidence, then. You're the one making a claim here, so you have to back it up. With the evidence.

This might be tough for him, we need to give him some time

Pulceria

Miencraft wrote:Okay.

Show me the evidence, then. You're the one making a claim here, so you have to back it up. With the evidence.

I'm not quite following this discussion. what is he supposed to provide evidence for?

Miencraft wrote:Okay.

Show me the evidence, then. You're the one making a claim here, so you have to back it up. With the evidence.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Libiceland wrote:This might be tough for him, we need to give him some time

?

Terra De Libertatem wrote:https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

don't believe everything the government says :)

Pulceria wrote:don't believe everything the government says :)

They gather the information from scientific research...

When you're beating your meat and Mewtwo joins in

Terra De Libertatem wrote:They gather the information from scientific research...

I don't really care. they have lied before and will lie again. plus I think some of there scientific research isn't all that scientific :)

Terra De Libertatem wrote:https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

?

That doesn't really prove that Climate Change is man made

Miencraft

Republic Of Minerva wrote:The idea that the free market is the best economic system because the majority of economists say so is an easy argument to debunk: first it is a clear appeal to popularity and second it is an appeal to authority. But we should understand that neither popular or people in authority are necessarily right all the time.

Terra De Libertatem

Terra De Libertatem wrote:They gather the information from scientific research...

Ever heard of the global cooling crisis back in the 1900's that was "real" two. the government even said so, then they changed their mind.

P.S. don't bother trying to research about it. because there not a lot of info on the internet about it. ask your grandpa or someone that lived then they will tell you about it.

Miencraft, Narland

Pevvania wrote:

I don't make those arguments though.

The vast majority of economist s are neoliberals, whod disagree with libertarians on goldstandard, free banking and other monetary matters. Some back even single payer

Pulceria wrote:I don't really care. they have lied before and will lie again. plus I think some of there scientific research isn't all that scientific :)

They were wrong before, that's not the same as lying. Also for what reason do you think this scientific research isn't scientific?

Pulceria wrote:Ever heard of the global cooling crisis back in the 1900's that was "real" two. the government even said so, then they changed their mind.

P.S. don't bother trying to research about it. because there not a lot of info on the internet about it. ask your grandpa or someone that lived then they will tell you about it.

"Don't bother trying to research it. There's not a lot of info on the internet about it."="I'm making this up."

Terra De Libertatem

Okay so global cooling was actually a thing but it was disproven as it was based on logical fallacies and cherry picking experiment results. That does take away some of global warming's credibility, but the science of global warming is in support of the greenhouse effect.

Terra De Libertatem

The States Of Balloon wrote:Okay so global cooling was actually a thing but it was disproven as it was based on logical fallacies and cherry picking experiment results.

And what makes you think they're not doing the same thing with global warming? Most of the graphs they have that compare CO2 and temperature actually have temperature increase before CO2 does - it's why you don't see those graphs anymore, you just have them vaguely labeled as "temperature anomaly".

Pevvania wrote:

I mean yeah a free market isn't the best just because a bunch of people say it is - it's the best because it's the system that's lifted more people out of poverty than anything in the history of the human species.

Narland, Republic Of Minerva, Fascist Dred, Libiceland, Pulceria

I am running foe Seat 1!

- I'm the guy that drafted the TIME Amendment, making political engagement accessible for newcomers and fluid to changes in the political landscape

- I have experience in dealing with Libertatem politics

- I'm an independent, not bound to any party's platform

- I fight for what's best for Libertatem!

VOTE ARADITES FOR SEAT 1

Liberosia, Pevvania, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Pulceria

The States Of Balloon wrote:"Don't bother trying to research it. There's not a lot of info on the internet about it."="I'm making this up."

by all means research it. because it did happen. but you will find it hard because its mixed up in global warming and all that mess.

the theory was proven false but my point is people and the government can be wrong.

I suggest that we drop the subject because I can see that I won't convince any of you and you won't convince me. so lets agree to disagree. :)

Miencraft, Narland

"The most important part of a story is not only knowing where it begins, but where it ends. This isn't for any deep or philosophical reason, it's just that if you make things up as you go along your story will have terrible pacing."

Narland, Rateria

It's worth noting that no one here is arguing against the existence of global warming, but rather against the poor arguments presented by the alarmists.

Miencraft, Narland, The United States Of Patriots, Fascist Dred, Libiceland, Jadentopian Order, Pulceria

Republic Of Minerva wrote:It's worth noting that no one here is arguing against the existence of global warming, but rather against the poor arguments presented by the alarmists.

Yeah, I'll admit something is happening, but like I mentioned before, what's happening is exactly what the planet is supposed to be doing.

The United States Of Patriots, Fascist Dred

Just so you guys know, I'm going to be inactive for two weeks or so. I'm going to be on a vacation.

Narland

Rateria wrote:Just so you guys know, I'm going to be inactive for two weeks or so. I'm going to be on a vacation.

Good riddance. Now my notifications can display something other than "Rateria liked your RMB post" ad infinitum

Terra De Libertatem

Rateria wrote:Just so you guys know, I'm going to be inactive for two weeks or so. I'm going to be on a vacation.

Enjoy your time off!

Narland, Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:Enjoy your time off!

are you some kind of booty boy

> tfw when you submit an image to SPB5k and it sits at 0 until the end of time

faux-Japanese porn games

LSPAN: President [nation=short]Hyderbourg[/nation] hires [nation=short]Fascist Dred[/nation] as his Nomenclator. Dred would like you all to know that he says hi.

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Lspan wrote:LSPAN: President [nation=short]Hyderbourg[/nation] hires [nation=short]Fascist Dred[/nation] as his Nomenclator. Dred would like you all to know that he says hi.

I am honored to have been chosen for this important position.

Rateria

they're training our children to shoot cis whites

I like the Heritage Foundation, but boy oh boy do they love shilling for wars. They recently released an article entitled "How do we define victory in Afghanistan?" Lol, I dunno, by pulling out in 2002?

Narland, Republic Of Minerva

Pevvania wrote:I like the Heritage Foundation, but boy oh boy do they love shilling for wars. They recently released an article entitled "How do we define victory in Afghanistan?" Lol, I dunno, by pulling out in 2002?

My boss used to work for Heritage. I like it alright. Not my favorite think tank

Pevvania, Narland

My Empire is having a good and bad start.Any tips on what I can do about this issue

Humpheria wrote:My boss used to work for Heritage. I like it alright. Not my favorite think tank

Senator dude?

The Cato Institute is my favourite, for obvious reasons.

Rateria

Cracking open a cold one with the boys

Rateria

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.