Are you quite sure this is what I claimed?

Yes, I an quite certain as your basis of claiming global warming is non-existent is based off of a single study, despite numerous studies to the contrary.

 

And, back to the original topic of "The Perfect World", here is the ultimate and absurd realization of science/technology solving all our problems:

The Venus Project

And its progenitor:

Jacqu Fresco

He desires to replace all human thought and decisions with those made by machines. He would eliminate money, and all would produce for the benefit of all mankind (where have I heard that before????)

Doing so would end all hunger, disease, war, etc.

Amazingly, he actually has a very dedicated and significant following. I learned about him through one of my daughter's friend's mother. She is a scientist!!!

She is also from Poland, and among the first generation to grow up outside of the oppression of the Soviet Iron Curtain.

So quickly they forget...

 

Yes, I an quite certain as your basis of claiming global warming is non-existent is based off of a single study, despite numerous studies to the contrary.

Then it is you who is wrong. Not I.

 

I've admitted no such thing.

AWG is testable and falsifiable. Whether or not it can predict the future is another matter altogether.

I stand by my comments...nothing more need be said.

 

Then it is you who is wrong. Not I.

Well, that proves it then, let's all covert over ears and yell, "La-la-la" whenever someone mentions global warming, because the sources you've posted are certainly more credible than years of peer-reviewed science...

 

Well, that proves it then, let's all covert over ears and yell, "La-la-la" whenever someone mentions global warming, because the sources you've posted are certainly more credible than years of peer-reviewed science...

The "La-la-la" was directed at you, not the science. I did not get a chance to read the credible science you posted. Oh wait...you didn't.

 

The "La-la-la" was directed at you, not the science. I did not get a chance to read the credible science you posted. Oh wait...you didn't.

...yet you claim that articles with the domain of: opinion.financialpost.com are credible? Go to LiveScience.com and have a read. I am in a phone right now, I'm afraid it wouldn't allow me to copy that many articles in. You'll have to wait until I get to a computer.

 

This discussion is rapidly spiraling out of control. There is lots of evidence, but no one can force another to look at facts.

If this keeps up I (or another moderator) will close this thread. This has been covered here on AAC before, with similar results.

 

He desires to replace all human thought and decisions with those made by machines. He would eliminate money, and all would produce for the benefit of all mankind (where have I heard that before????)

Doing so would end all hunger, disease, war, etc.

Happily staying away from the AGW subthread....

These kinds of one-level-deep philosphies almost always have the same fatal flaw. They assume that people (and even non-people in many cases) will act a certain way only because that is the way that the proponents want them to act. But that places the entire philosophy so fundamentally at odds with reality that it is worthless from the get-go.

 

Interresting discussion here!

Tension is in the air...I like that! I like AAC.

 

...If this keeps up I (or another moderator) will close this thread. This has been covered here on AAC before, with similar results.

Give me some credit, Bill...I tried to change the subject back to the original topic!

 

These kinds of one-level-deep philosphies almost always have the same fatal flaw. They assume that people (and even non-people in many cases) will act a certain way only because that is the way that the proponents want them to act. But that places the entire philosophy so fundamentally at odds with reality that it is worthless from the get-go.

And it so amazes me that there are folks that fall for these kinds of thing over and over again. Occasionally, they reach critical mass and do some real damage!

 

And it so amazes me that there are folks that fall for these kinds of thing over and over again. Occasionally, they reach critical mass and do some real damage!

On most issues most people are one-level deep thinkers. This is not a big put down, but rather a reflection of the fact that on most issues, most people simply do not have the time, the talent, the interest, or the commitment (and you have to all four, not just one) to learn what the issues even are at the next level, let alone how they relate and what is and what is not reasonable.

As a consequence, people become easy marks for folks that come along and "educate" them, the result being that they have received a very slanted, biased, perhaps even completely fabricated "deeper understanding" of the issue upon which they form their opinion. And make no mistake, many of the folks that are doing the "educating" know exactly what they are doing and are very good at subtlely punching just the right emotional buttons and making all of their "facts" seem so reasonable and obvious. They are going for the emotional buy-in to a position and those become very hard to move no matter how much the objective facts make it painfully clear that the position they have adopted is nothing more than fanciful daydreams.

I've read a few interesting papers on field-dependence and it ties into this whole thing in ways that, upon reflection, are not too surprising. People that are field dependent tend to only think of things in the "big picture" and have a very hard time focusing on individual details. Needless to say, most engineers are highly field-independent (which has it's own drawbacks), but the strong majority, perhaps even 2/3 by now, people in the U.S. are at least moderatly field-dependent and one of the traits associated with field dependence is a deference to authority. In some studies they presented a number of fairly absurd claims about different things and some of them they supported with bogus facts and others they merely associated the position with a well-known person. For some of the claims, they presented different and contradictory claims with one view supported by facts and the other side endorsed by someone famous. People that were strongly field-independent had a strong tendency to dismiss the "endorsed" claims outright and also tended to challenge the facts that were used to support the others. People that were field-dependent tended to adopt whatever position was endorsed by someone famous. Another study took this a step further and found that strongly field-dependent people tended to accept fairly absurd claims that were endorsed even over the actual true claims no matter how firmly supported they were. It also highlighted that the strength of the endorsement was primarily dependent on the degree of celebrity that the endorser had, meaning that it had to be someone real that they knew of, not just a made up person that was supposedly in a relevant position and the name recognition was what mattered most. Thus, it doesn't matter that you have a has-been actor giving you insurance or medical advise in the commercial, the fact that you have seen them in movies and TV shows all your life means that you will accept whatever they say at face value, but if the world's foremost expert on the subject says something different, you will reject them.

 

Wow! I like the energy you have at typing... WBahn!

 

@WBhan:

Wonderful dissertation there. I minored in psychology as an undergrad many years ago, and it would have been nice to have you as a professor! (Are/were you a professor? You write like one.) Unfortunately, I find myself unable to comment about some of the specifics you raised. Such comments would dovetail into the previous unmentionable topic and get this thread closed.

Thanks anyway for the insight!

 

I didn't realize I lived so close to the Venus Project. I'll have to give that place a visit.

 

I tried to watch one of Jacque Fresco's videos (it was part of a packet of propaganda handed (thrusted!) into my hands by the previously mentioned lady/scientist). I had to shut it off mid-stream due to equal parts boredom and disgust.

My take on Mr. Fresco is that he has a huge chip on his shoulder: he comes across as quite angry that, as a younger man, he could have changed the world if only someone, anyone, would have given him money to pursue his world-perfecting inventions.

He is quite a dreamer. He speaks broadly of how some future technologies will save us all...but never speaks of specifics as to how those technologies are to come to exist, except that we should work really, really hard together to make it happen.

I also think he is a Marxist (he denies this). He simply replaces the human collective with a technology based collective...

Edit: also, every single human being drawn in his future-world illustrations (at least of the ones I saw) is a white man, woman, or child. And there are only ever a handful of them...no crowds in his world!

 

Well, perhaps by visiting his operation, I will find learn the specifics of his furture world. Actually, sustainable communities are beginning to pop up all around. More people are warming to the idea.

 

Ok, sorry. So why is ND doing so well in this financial climate?

Well, this is going to be depressing for a lot of you:

http://www.startribune.com/business/205468311.html?refer=y

Looks like we won't be running out of cheap fossil fuels anytime soon. Not to worry, though. I am sure there are already two or three dozen three-letter agencies writing regulations to make extraction impossible -- or at least prohibitively costly.

Tall poppies must be cut down!

 

It doesn`t matter how much more new oil is found.

The fossil fuel industry has five times more fossil fuel in reserve than what we need. And they will continue to extract it for short term profit.

We have hit the 400ppm mark of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/29/global-carbon-dioxide-levels


Do the math:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsIfokifwSo