I've heard anyone who makes over $500,000 yearly, and I've heard anyone with net worth more than 9 million.
Both of these seem a bit extreme to me... what is the real figure?
The true "1%" are people who got rich because of corporatism aka those who only got rich because of ridiculously favored government contracts and favoritism.
Ask the average #OWS'er though?...Well then they're pretty much anybody in the country who have something that you don't have and can't get, but somehow think that they don't deserve to have whether they worked for it or not.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-02 2:15
>Ok, so who IS the 1% ?
Obama, Soros and most of the Democrats. :)
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-02 8:30
Income and net worth are different things though I would expect the majority are both.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-02 14:50
Let's not pretend that left-wing hate for anyone who earns more money then they do is exclusive to 1% of people. The hate is directed at "the rich" in general which seems to consist of anyone who employs or supervises anyone in the work place. This isn't defined of course because saying "We are the 60%!" has less of an impact, since you can't imply that your views make up a sheer majority of the population and are therefore validated.
>Obama only has a net worth around 1.3 million
>Obama 1.3 million
>1.3 million
And your point.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-03 21:53
>Let's not pretend that left-wing hate for anyone who earns more money
They don't hate money. They hate anything that they can not control.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-04 6:14
>>10
Actually, I think they do hate money when they talk about how evil it is and its inherent nature of causing greed, which is laughably insane. Makes you want to carry around print outs of a certain Atlas Shrugged speech.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-04 10:39
>>11
>conservatard
>Atlas Shrugged
>using fiction to back up your ideology
No wonder you're so deluded.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-04 11:31
lolا
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-04 11:32
اللهم ارحم قاهر الفرس ومذل اليهود ومدمر الصليب قائد الامة الشهيد الرمز صدام حسين رحمه الله وتقبله في عليين واللهم اجمع كل من يحب صدام معه في جنات الخلد وكل من يكرهه مع المجرم بوش الصغير والطاغية الهالك الخميني والسكسثاني الاطرم ونصر ابليس ومقتدى القذر والحقير بلير ياربي انك على كل شئ قدير واللهم انصر الجهاد والمجاهدين في العراق وفلسطين وافغانستان والشيشان والصومال وكل مكان ياربي . ls
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-04 11:34
████████████
___★__★__★____
████████████
Name:
12011-12-04 13:15
*sigh*
Can I just get a real answer please?
Sheesh! You'd think this was /lounge/!
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-04 22:38
>>11
That's the excuse liberals make. It's a political game. They don't have any reason why they would actually want to do anything about poverty. If poverty went away, they would lose an important political demographic that votes for them.
In order for them to "fix" poverty, they need to control America's wealth though taxes or other means like socialism. Then they can use this wealth to buy political capital in the form of earmarks and such. The taxpayers get stuck with a lot of debts. Their political allies get a steady stream of the taxpayers money. The poor stays poor.
Liberals don't hate money. They love spending other people's money. Money is only evil if they don't control it or don't get a piece of it.
They do the same scam with racism.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-04 22:50
>>12
Wow. It's like you immediately attacked him for no other reason than you thought he might not be a libtard without even making a point yourself or a real attempt at criticism.
Remind us again why libfags have a rep as intolerant raging faggots? :)
>attacked him for no other reason
>without even making a point yourself or a real attempt at criticism
That sure would be some impressive hypocrisy. Troll harder faggot.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-05 12:37
>>12
>>using fiction to back up your ideology
So what you're saying is that nothing written in a work of fiction can have any relevance or wisdom applicable in the real world? If not, would you care to rebuke said speech with reason and logic? Assuming you've read the book.
>>17 If poverty went away, they would lose an important political demographic that votes for them.
Apparently, in your world, the working class doesn't exist.
So what you're saying is that nothing written in a work of fiction can have any relevance or wisdom applicable in the real world?
Bahahahaha! Nice strawman. That's not anything close to what I said. It's just laughable to use a quote from a novel to try to win an argument. And no I won't "rebuke" it because you haven't done anything to earn that much effort or time from me. It would be like a liberal telling you "I'm right because here's a speech from someone in Grapes of Wrath. Now refute it or I win!"
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-05 18:22
>>22
>It's just laughable to use a quote from a novel to try to win an argument.
I wasn't aware this was about "winning" but okay. So will you at least back up with logic why you think quoting a speech from a novel that adequately responds to a common logical fallacy is wrong? Because so far the only reason you've given is "it's fiction."
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-05 19:57
>>1
We need a diagram of either the cumulative distribution function (CDF) or the probability distribution function (PDF), for the incomes of citizens of a particular domestic economy. The former is preferable. An accurate such for net worths of every individual may not even be sufficiently documented, due to privacy concerns.
So, you're basically asking what the 99th percentile for income is. The Internal Revenue Service would have this the information.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-05 20:22
What would be also interesting to know is the CDF for disposable income, that is income after taxes. We would be able to quickly identify the difference of income and disposable income, along all tax brackets. It's a known fact that, many people in each tax bracket pay zero taxes on their taxable income because of tax deductibility.
Another thing of interest is human income equivalent to registered corporations, since they're legal persons. Undoubtedly a corporation's revenues and expenditures are usually much higher than any individual's, but of corporate revenue or corporate profit (corporate revenue subtract corporate expenditure), which one corresponds to human income? (Asked since human entities and corporate entities sustain "life" under slightly different functional principles. Does net worth of an individual who makes zero profit neither ever increase nor ever decrease?)
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-05 21:23
>>21
>Apparently, in your world, the working class doesn't exist.
And why would you make an obviously retarded assumption like that?
I wasn't aware this was about "winning"
Oh whatever. Why do you need to carry a copy around then? To prove your point, right? You can call it whatever you want, but that's still "winning" an argument on some level. Even if you're not arguing with anyone specific.
So will you at least back up with logic why you think quoting a speech from a novel that adequately responds to a common logical fallacy is wrong?
It's not necessarily wrong. It's mostly just lazy on your part. You don't need to give the matter any real thought or come up with any ideas of your own. You can just regurgitate someone else's idea. You don't even need to fully understand it. And when that's the argument you come up with in response to something, it's logical to assume that it's the best you've got.
Also, part of any speech's effectiveness is its context. Who is giving it and why? Even if it's relevant in today's society, at least some of its punch comes from fictional events in a fictional universe. And it should be obvious but examples from fiction don't prove anything. "Welfare is bad because Atlas Shrugged will come true," is a fucking retarded position. Not that this is your position, just an example. I could just as easily come up with a "liberal" example by the way.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-05 22:48
To enter the top 1% in income you need $350000 a year.
To enter the top 1% in wealth you need $10000000.
To enter the top 1% in spirit you need to get a degree in petroleum engineering and put all your money on the stock market.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-06 0:13
>I could just as easily come up with a "liberal" example by the way.
No thanks. We don't need to be reminded that liberals take retarded positions. This is normal for them.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-06 3:06
>>24
You meant, "probability density function."
;)
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-06 10:52
>>29
More shit talking with nothing to back it up. That's what 4chan conservatrolls do best!
>It's mostly just lazy on your part
What? If someone before me has responded to a logical fallacy in quite some detail, better than I could verbalize it then why should I not refer people to it? If I understand it and agree with it, why is it important that I express it only in my own words when my position is identical?
>And it should be obvious but examples from fiction don't prove anything.
But the speech doesn't refer to any characters or the fictional scenario, it is quite independent of the story, like someone explaining what a strawman argument is and why it is wrong to use it. At this point I question whether or not you even know what speech I am referring to and its contents.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-06 22:07
>>31
I'm simply stating a painfully obvious truth. There is no need for the raging butthurt. It's cute the way you assume that if it's not a libfag, it must be a conservative.
If I understand it and agree with it, why is it important that I express it only in my own words when my position is identical?
Because if someone wants to discuss it with you or has questions, you should be able to give them a reply. If you're not able to express the idea on your own to begin with, then you probably wouldn't be very good at having a conversation about it. Although fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you actually can have a real conversation on the subject. In that case, no, I guess there is nothing wrong with referencing something like that. Although handing copies out would be a condescending, douchey move but you sound like you didn't mean that literally anyway.
But the speech doesn't refer to any characters or the fictional scenario, it is quite independent of the story, like someone explaining what a strawman argument is and why it is wrong to use it. At this point I question whether or not you even know what speech I am referring to and its contents.
I'm assuming you mean this:
I admit that I've never read Atlas Shrugged but I am familiar with its plot outline and thesis. And I did skim through that speech before my last reply. "...and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities," is an example of something fictional referenced in it. Even if he didn't mean that cities were literally becoming jungles, this references the decay happening in the novel and not reality. And even if it didn't explicitly mention fictional events, the subtext would still be there. For example, this line: "...which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them." It obviously applies to the real world but it's much more effective in the context of Atlas Shrugged where people actually do stop producing.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-07 18:31
>>34
>Because if someone wants to discuss it with you or has questions, you should be able to give them a reply
Why says that I can't or won't!? Please don't try and construe intention to be that of handing out photocopies to just anyone who walks by without giving them any chance to respond, as I refuse to or are unable to.
>"...and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities," is an example of something fictional referenced in it.
But it doesn't detract at all from the validity of the argument itself, it's totally negligible.
But it doesn't detract at all from the validity of the argument itself, it's totally negligible.
I disagree. A big part of the argument is that collectivism just doesn't work. You really do need examples to back that position up. Not that there aren't plenty of examples in the real world, but all or almost all of the examples she decided to use in that speech were made up.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-09 13:05
>A big part of the argument is that collectivism just doesn't work.
It's a speech about the value of money responding to the notion of money as morally evil. I really don't give a fuck what you think about collectivism.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-09 17:01
the value of money collectivism
If you think these two subjects are unrelated then you're very confused. They are completely entangled. I don't see how you could even think about one without considering the other. That's why money exists in the first place, because collectivism is so impractical.
>>26 And why would you make an obviously retarded assumption like that?
People don't vote for Democrats because of ``poverty''. A huge chunk of their voter base are working class.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-10 20:51
>A huge chunk of their voter base are the welfare class.
fixed
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-11 2:01
Carlos Slim and every other walking ethnic stereotype on the planet.
The 1% is because of Capitalism, not because corruption or favoritism. The economic system we life on is inherently unbalanced. The rich people tend to be more rich, and the poor people tend to be more poor. Is like playing a realtime strategy game. Once one player is stronger, it keeps growing stronger, while the other players weaken.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-07 12:38
>>45
>while the other players weaken.
That's not really an aspect of capitalism. You need to honestly examine why any individual person is poor before you call it an inevitable consequence of the economic system. Poor people tend to be poor and remain poor because they are uneducated and make poor decisions. Someone intelligent enough to increase their income and leave "poor" status behind rarely stays poor for long unless there other factors involved.
Name:
strategos!!Li82Oww1WEWDvJJ2012-01-07 17:25
>>46
I supose being uneducated is something just natural for the poor people, like the eye's color, or having two legs, isn't it?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-08 7:20
>47
Capitalism is factor in favor of providing better education opportunities for poor people, capitalists desire a skilled educated workforce and will invest in training schemes and promote literacy to achieve this.
Capitalism doesn't solve this problem completely but then it's not supposed to be a utopia that solves every problem like communism, fascism, anarchism or socialism, utopias only exist in your imagination, on the other hand capitalism is a practical policy that can be implemented and promoted to help reduce problems. Actual improvements to people's lives are more desirable than ideological extremism that strives for perfection while in practice achieves far less compared to pragmatism.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-08 14:10
>>47
It's statistically true that poor people tend to be uneducated.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-08 20:01
>>46
Or like me: poor because we don't want to join the stupid rat race, but just want to enjoy our lives with our family.
Problem is: just plain poor doesn't exist anymore. now it's : "dirt poor", or "filthy rich"
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-08 22:06
The 1% is just a term Lefty fags use to demonize anyone who owns a successful business. You don't own a business, therefor, you are a victim and are being robbed somehow. Everyone should be rich and not have to work. Except for the rich people who have to pay most of the taxes. We out number them 99 to one, therefor, we should take everything the 1% have because it was stolen from us somehow. This is Democracy after all!
Then, we will spread the wealth by giving all of our money and the money we take from the "rich" to the elite who give the money to other rich people to spread the wealth. Then these other special rich people who are on our side will give to those who obey them. Then we all become equally poor except for the elite who rule us all.
>>55 accuse person of being aligned with Hitler
I said no such thing. Your ``arguments'' are completely irrational, and each post you author will only prove that assertion further.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 1:30
>>39
>People don't vote for Democrats because of ``poverty''.
No, they vote because they bought into the class warfare, racism and social justice bullshit that the Democrats exploit but never try to fix.
Obamacare is the perfect example of that. It made healthcare even more unaffordable and Obama handed out of waivers to all of his political friends and allies. Hypocrisy at it's best.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 1:40
Nearly 20 percent of new Obamacare waivers are gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Nancy Pelosi’s district.
>>57 No, they vote because they bought into the class warfare, racism and social justice bullshit that the Democrats exploit but never try to fix.
The reason I know that most people that vote Democrat (at least historically) is because they were long-known as the ``working people's party'', and it was like that until a decade or so ago. This idea that the Democratic Party is for the working person is of course slowly fading away.
It's funny, every political party that has historically been for worker's rights have degenerated into faux right-wing hyper-capitalist groups of dipshits that give a huge middle finger to working class people all over. The Democratic Party in the United States, UK's Labour party after the 1970s, Australia's Labor Party after the early 1960s. It'll only be a matter of time before Social Democratic parties in continental Europe follow suit. Left-wing economics are dead, left-wing social ideas seem to be here to stay, though.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-12 0:57
In short, The Left has become the party of cultural suicide and blackhole economics. The Right is whatever the liberal journalists declare it to be.
Welcome to the age of dishonesty. Your vote isn't worth shit anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 2:59
>>34
You know it's impossible to disagree with that speech, since money in the form that Rand describes it(in the form I thought of it when I was 11 years old) is just a neutral tool of exchange.
The only problem is that in the real world money became something completely different - I think we should have more kinds of money - the money described by Rand and the game money used for stock speculation double-deriving/insuring and so on - kinda like gold/gp in your game of choice - that way the people that work could work and one day say: 'fuck the system of inflationary "gain' above our heads" and make the exponentially growing overhead of inflated funds moot in an instance.
But since we have a single concept of money for both working and speculating with - one can only derive that the monetary system is definitely a fucked up concept to say the least.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 3:35
>>61
>in the form I thought of it when I was 11 years old
You know someone has a good argument against Rand when they start with some cheap comment along the lines of 'I thought Rand was cool in college but then hurr durr!'
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 7:59
>>62
You know that someone has a good idea of what money is when they think it is tied to intrinsic labor-value (labor in its most widest sense, e.g. something we might consider useful or awe-inspiring - something positively influencing production: brilliance/ability to adapt and think ahead/manual skills and everything in between).
antiTl;dr: Nassim N. Taleb - Black Swan for starters
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 19:05
>>59 Democrats
>"working people's party"
>was like that until a decade ago
What planet was this on? On Earth, the Democratic Party since the Rosenfelt Administration has been the party of "vote fer us an' we'll give ya this nice big welfare check, here nigger nigger nigger, here nigger nigger nigger, and remember, those mean old Republicans want to take your welfare check away from you"
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 23:45
>Democrats
Obama just killed a plan to create tens of thousands of jobs with an oil pipeline project. He did it and laughed at America when he did it.
He's rich and doesn't give a fuck.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-19 2:32
>>65
>Tens of thousands
with modern production and construction methods - more like a few hundred + a thousand managers + billions of dollars of worthless capital in "investments'.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-19 11:11
>>65
Hurr nurr ima bury my head in the sand and pretend global warming doesn't exist! Liberuls talk about it so it must be a made up lie derk derk. Nerp!
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-19 16:33
>>67
Hurr nurr ima bury my head in the sand and pretend green bullshit doesn't destroy the economy.
implying the economy is more important than having a liveable planet
Try again retard!
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-19 17:49
>implying "global warming" wasn't always a fraud to terrify the public into letting the government control even more of our lives
>implying Stephen Schneider didn't admit it openly in his interview with Discover Magazine in October 1989
implying right wing conspiracy theories are more credible than actual scientists implying Stephen Schneider represents all climate scientists
You really are making this too easy.
Speaking of the 1%, I just saw this funny political commercial dealing with the 1% v 99%. Really funny and innovative advertisement. Better than the normal junk you see online.
Small changes in average temperature can have drastic effects on climate. And 1934 was a statistical anomaly. I can lie with cherry-picked numbers too you stupid twat.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-20 20:15
>implying "climate scientists" are real scientists. PROTIP: real science has falsifiable hypotheses
>implying Stephen Schneider didn't create the "global warming" meme in the first place and the discipline of "climate science," despite not even having a background in meteorology
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-20 21:59
implying that "if we don't drastically reduce carbon emissions, shit will hit the fan" is unfalsifiable implying you even know what falsifiable means implying it's not common for scientists to change disciplines
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-20 22:10
Everyone is the 1% implying that there is a 99% would mean that 99% of the people in the world agree on the same things and want the same things in reality the world it split into a shit load of groups that are like .01 % each with the same goals
If winters are more severe, it's because of "global warming." If winters are less severe, it's because of "global warming." If the aggregate climate data does not change, "renormalize" it until it does. Proclaim IMMINENT DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM if Whitey does not go back to the caves. Get caught making shit up with "hockey stick" graph. Deny it shamelessly. Hackers give your email archives out, showing you spending decades promising to "hide behind the non-disclosure agreement" and "finding a neat trick" to "hide the decline." Liberal newsmedia imposes total blackout. Apply for another government grant.
"climate science" is politics, not science.
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." --Stephen Schneider, interview in "Discover" Magazine, October 1988
tl;dr if "cancer researchers" working for a tobacco company got publicly exposed engaging in this type of blatant lying and shenanigans, would you believe anything they had to say? no? why do you believe "climate science" cranks, then?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-21 12:50
The "top 1%" are the same people who push socialism, high taxes and "global warming" propaganda so certain big industrialists can crush competition (create monopoly) by making all of their competitors pay higher taxes, while they themselves are exempt from it. Then later, when the economy has had enough and people protest, they swoop with their big media outlets and blame capitalism for the crisis and not government intervention.
A shame Occupy Wall Street is in their pockets too, since all OWS has demanded so far is more and more government up people's asses.
If winters are more severe, it's because of "global warming." If winters are less severe, it's because of "global warming."
Source please.
If the aggregate climate data does not change, "renormalize" it until it does.
Riighhht... because normalizing data isn't common at all. Mathematics is some mysterious voodoo that scientists use to trick us.
Take quotes out of context. Spin your own conspiracy theory. Rinse. Repeat.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-21 19:04
What's out of context about it, broseph?
Is it still a "conspiracy theory" when those responsible admit publicly what they're doing in interviews with the press?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-22 5:40
"finding a neat trick" to "hide the decline." What's out of context about it, broseph?
Seriously?
As for the Schneider quote, all he's admitting is that they sometimes dramatize their findings to help dumb them down enough for public consumption. Dry facts are not very persuasive. And like it or not, scientists have to sometimes be persuasive. That's not the same story you've managed to spin at all.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-22 15:08
>scientists have to sometimes be persuasive.
They do? Really? A scientist's job, a scientist's calling, is to find and publish objective, empirically proven facts about the way the universe works. And that is all. Period. Full stop.
Schneider et al, and all the "climate science" gang, have been using public money to create agitprop for the environmentalist wackos. That is a breach of the public trust, not to mention criminal. They should be forced to repay all the grant money, then imprisoned.
Government scientists have to be persuasive to get their checks of government funding, hence their theories have to be in line with the Party, otherwise they get no funding.
No scientist outside of the government or the UN seriously considers man-made global warming to be the unquestionable truth the media portrays it to be.
A scientist's job, a scientist's calling, is to find and publish objective, empirically proven facts about the way the universe works. And that is all.
Oh, you poor naive fool. I really wish that were the way it worked. But scientists always, always have to ask someone for money to operate. That doesn't make them corrupt; it's just how the world works.
No scientist outside of the government or the UN seriously considers man-made global warming to be the unquestionable truth the media portrays it to be.
That's a good point. But even if it isn't an unquestionable truth, the best decision based on what we currently know can still be to take precautions against it. That's more the media's and even the public's fault for wanting to deal only in absolute truths.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-27 17:40
>But scientists always, always have to ask someone for money to operate.
And their findings must always be in concert with the Party's diktats this week, or those big juicy grants get chopped right off. Soviet psychiatric hospitals were filled with "madmen" who questioned the state, and Soviet "science" proved them insane. They too had an entrenched kleptocracy that used "science" to prove whatever Official Truth the State wished to proclaim that week.
>That doesn't make them corrupt;
cor·rupt
[kuh-ruhpt] Show IPA
adjective
1.guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.
2.debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.
3.made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.
4.infected; tainted.
5.decayed; putrid.
verb (used with object)
6.to destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal, etc., especially by bribery.
7.to lower morally; pervert: to corrupt youth.
8.to alter (a language, text, etc.) for the worse; debase.
9.to mar; spoil.
10.to infect; taint.
Mix clean water with dirty water, you get dirty water. Mix shit with milk, what results is unfit for human consumption regardless of the proportions. Mix science with politics, you get politics. Mix science with religion, you get religion. Mix truth with lies, you get lies.
>it's just how the world works.
It's how Stephen Schneider's world worked, but we can do better.
>But even if it isn't an unquestionable truth,
If it isn't an unquestionable truth, why is it being sold to us as if it were?
>the best decision based on what we currently know
Which is nothing. We know NOTHING about the Earth's climate and it is the height of arrogance to suggest that a few decades of temperature readings from major cities, with or without vast heaps of dubious "renormalized" data from sources like tree rings--all from a single tree, by the way, that 4000 year old bristlecone pine in California, which astonishingly allows "climate science" to see worldwide temperatures down to a fraction of one tenth of a degree Celsius going back to the Bronze Age--and to claim that we know what the Earth's normal temperature is, is risible. Oh, let's just make something up and publish another paper saying life on Earth is doomed. CHA-CHING, we got another grant!
>can still be to take precautions against it.
Precautions against what? "Keep dancing, it keeps the elephants away!" "I don't see any elephants." "It's working!"
>That's more the media's and even the public's fault for wanting to deal only in absolute truths.
Yeah, we KNOW BETTER than those unwashed rabble, and it's FOR THEIR OWN GOOD, right?
If you want to send all of Western Civilization back to the caves, then by God give me some proof. At least give me a testable hypothesis.
One notes that Brazil, China, and India are making the proper polite noises in public but when one looks at their actual economic policies, it's easy to see that they're laughing their asses off at your self-flagellating, puritanical, white-colonialist eco-religion. I wonder why.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-27 22:34
And their findings must always be in concert with the Party's diktats this week, or those big juicy grants get chopped right off.
There is more than one party, you know. I'm sure someone like big oil companies would be willing to fund climate-skeptical science.
but we can do better.
I agree my friend. If you have a better method of allocating funds to science I'm all ears. But as it stands, whoever writes the best (read: most persuasive) grant proposals gets the most money.
why is it being sold to us as if it were?
Because the media and even most scientists think that people are generally stupid. Because uncertainty doesn't sell and we live in a world where everyone has to sell something to someone at some point to be successful. It sucks. Again, I don't scientists are the problem here.
Which is nothing...
What we really have are mathematical models. Granted, there is no control earth to verify the models with so we can never say with absolute certainty that burning carbon causes catastrophic events. But those models are based on the same physical principles as the ones that are used to design bridges and spacecraft or just about any other piece of technology you have ever used.
then by God give me some proof. At least give me a testable hypothesis.
What would it really take to convince you? A prediction of future temperatures? Remember, it's average temperatures over many years that matter. And numbers are never persuasive.
that the entire north polar ice cap would be melted by 2013. We have eleven more months to see whether this prediction turns out to be true or false. That's a testable prediction. We can put it to empirical test and see whether it's true or false. PROTIP: the north polar ice cap was still there, at last observation.
If you don't have testable predictions, what you have is called "opinion," and like assholes, everyone's got one but they don't produce anything very useful.
Scientists publish their data. Scientists don't have secret computer models nor secret data. Scientists don't say "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind," "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act," "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
Science is mathematical modeling of reality, empirically constrained. Science strives for spareness of form with maximum generality. Science discards models which make predictions not borne out by reality.
If they can't predict whether it will rain in two weeks, why should we believe they can predict what the temperature will be in two hundred years? And how could we test it anyway, given that neither of us is likely to live long enough to read the thermometer when the day comes?
>What would it really take to convince you? A prediction of future temperatures? Remember, it's average temperatures over many years that matter. And numbers are never persuasive.
Until "climate scientists" present empirical proof of their radical and alarming claim that Ragnarok is upon us unless the entire human race goes back to the caves right now, the null hypothesis holds. And it really is that simple.
"Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," says Gore.
Wow, you really managed to spin that out of proportion.
If they can't predict whether it will rain in two weeks, why should we believe they can predict what the temperature will be in two hundred years?
Because these are two completely different problems. Meteorology is not the same as climate science. Predicting a storm is difficult because it's a chaotic system. The outcome of a storm predicting model is too sensitive to initial conditions to be useful. Modeling average global temperature is much easier since we know how much energy is coming in from the sun, how much is able to escape from the atmosphere into space and what the content of the atmosphere is.
No, no, no. You should have just quit while you were ahead. All you have shown so far is the fallacy of argument from authority, over and over. "Mann and Jones and Al Gore are smart and know stuff, so everyone should do what they say."
When they have an atmospheric model that can take 1990's climate data and predict current temperatures--not even weather, just temperatures--let us know. They promise to be able to predict decades into the future. Let them start with 1990 and predict 2010. That's just twenty years, and that shouldn't be too hard, right?
This aside from the considerable technical problems. For example, I don't know where I'd begin modeling average global temperature down to one tenth of a degree Celsius, because I don't know where I'd begin measuring average global temperature down to one tenth of a degree Celsius. Do you take temperatures at sea level? Do you measure temperatures higher up also? Do you rely on satellite measurements only, going back a few decades only? Do you need, perhaps, a very sensitive thermometer in every cubic kilometer of air in the Earth's atmosphere? More? If you do that, do you average them? Or use a table of weighted averages? Who creates the table and decides on the weighting? Do you measure temperatures only in urban areas ("climate scientists" love this one, see also "urban heat island effect"), or in rural areas also? Never mind the Earth. What's the average temperature of the county you live in, down to one tenth of a degree Celsius? How would you measure it? These are not trivial questions. And don't bother asking Mann and Jones, their data and models are secret. "Trust us. We know what we're doing."
We don't know what we're measuring right now, nor do we have more than derived guesswork about the Earth's "average global temperature" fifty or a hundred years ago. And on the timescale of just the existence of our species, much less the existence of complex vertebrate life or the existence of the planet, a century is not even one flap of a gnat's wings. We have the tiniest thimbleful of hard data, with which "climate scientists" wish to fill the Grand Canyon with DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM. And I'm not buying it. Remember the null hypothesis.
When you look at the history of these people, one comes away with the distinct impression that these were angry spoiled children, furious with Daddy, who have been obsessed with the idea of proving that Daddy/America/Nixon/capitalism/Whitey have SINNED AGAINST GAWD AND NATURE and THE END IS NIGH. Psychiatrists call this "l'idee fixe," the fixed idea. "Pollution is causing a new ice age and you're all DOOMED!" "No, wait, white people's sinful insistence on not living in mud huts is causing 'global warming' and you're all DOOMED!" "No, wait..."
More Stephen Schneider quotes:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989
"I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming." From his article "Misleading Math about the Earth: Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist," Scientific American, January 2002.
When they have an atmospheric model that can take 1990's climate data and predict current temperatures--not even weather, just temperatures--let us know. They promise to be able to predict decades into the future. Let them start with 1990 and predict 2010. That's just twenty years, and that shouldn't be too hard, right?
Flawed logic. Later into the future = more carbon = more change.
For example, I don't know where I'd begin modeling average global temperature down to one tenth of a degree Celsius, because I don't know where I'd begin measuring average global temperature down to one tenth of a degree Celsius.
I think you may have a little misconception as to what mathematical modeling means. You can build a useful model without precise measurements. We know the laws of physics. We know how radiation heat transfer works. We use it every day to design engines and turbines. You can guess an average temperature to start with and then run your simulation with different starting temperatures. If there is always a significant increase no matter the starting temperature, then the model tells you that adding carbon increases temperature.
And for the record, I didn't say it was easy, just easier than predicting a storm. As for how to calculate average temperature, I'm not a climatologist but this is how I would do it and I assume this is how they do it too because it's the only way that makes sense. Take temperature and multiply it by the mass of how much atmosphere is at that temperature. If there are sections for which you're missing data, interpolate (include this in your uncertainty calculations). Do this until the entire atmosphere is accounted for. Add all of these up. Now divide by the total mass of the atmosphere.
Like I said before though, we don't have a way to completely validate our models because we don't have an extra earth. That doesn't mean we should ignore what the models tell us. And burning less carbon is not the same as living in caves. Grow the fuck up.
When you look at the history of these people...
And... you've just demonstrated that you can't look at this objectively. Stay comfortable in your little world where everyone is out to get whitey. That way you have an excuse if you fail just like those whiny minorities!
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-08 12:39
The 1% is the bourgeoisie(capitalists/business owners). Technically that is more than just 1% though if you are counting the petite-bourgeoisie. Class warfare and ultimately a socialist revolution is what needs to be focused upon, not an Obama reelection campaign.
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-12 22:44
>>91
Wow, you've just demonstrated that you have no arguments at all other than appeal to authority. "These people are smarter than you, so you should let them control your life, because, uh, just because."
I think you may have a little misconception about what science is and what science isn't. No falsifiable hypothesis = not science.
Tell me, is there any qualification to get into the "Climate Science" mafia? Or can anybody claim to be one and start cashing the big fat checks for the doomsday predictions?
Grow the fuck up, indeed. The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes here.
>>93
I'm surprised you didn't compare yourself to Galileo and claim you're being "persecuted" for "your beliefs", though I'm sure that's to come soon. "Climate science mafia", jeez, could you get any more whiney and populist? You can deny that global warming exists, but it's *almost* like denying that gravity exists. I say "almost" because the former is not as noticeable in day-to-day life.
demonstrated that you have no arguments at all other than appeal to authority.
What? No, I demonstrated that the way you're evaluating this is flawed. "They can't tell me exactly what the temperature will be tomorrow within a tenth of a degree so all of their evidence is useless." See, I would give you hard data but you'd just stick your head in the sand and claim that mathematics is voodoo.
>"You can build a useful model without precise measurements. We know the laws of physics. We know how radiation heat transfer works. We use it every day to design engines and turbines. You can guess an average temperature to start with and then run your simulation with different starting temperatures. If there is always a significant increase no matter the starting temperature, then the model tells you that adding carbon increases temperature."
You really need to read the leaked Climategate emails and look a little more closely at the computer code from their so-called models. It was written to show a significant increase regardless of starting conditions, the sun ceasing to radiate energy, etc. "I found a neat trick to hide the decline."
They've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
>>96 They'll make that illegal soon, wait and see
Uh, yeah. Sure. just like it's already illegal in many countries to ask questions about the so-called "holocaust."
I'm against those laws, particularly because I'm an advocate for complete unmitigated free speech. They're not constructive, and they just end up making martyrs of deniers/"revisionists". It would be much better and effective if instead of laws against that, governments, politicians, academics, countered the denial head on, but of course it's easier to deal with it all via legal sanction.
>>98 Climategate
Towing that old horse again? Yeah, and other scientists have said within that "leak" some of the papers in there are outright trash. Apparently, some do the research sloppy and other scientists help improve it. This is the open exchange of ideas at work, and news organizations (especially ones sponsored by oil companies) take this stuff completely out of context and foment populist reaction against the whole system, saying it's corrupt, which is clearly not the case. This also makes the implication that climate research is only being done at the University of East Anglia (http://www.uea.ac.uk/) which of course is bullshit. They've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
No denialists are grasping at straws, and if they didn't have big news media constantly taking things out of context, they wouldn't have a pot to piss in.
You really need to read the leaked Climategate emails and look a little more closely at the computer code from their so-called models. It was written to show a significant increase regardless of starting conditions, the sun ceasing to radiate energy, etc.
Ok, show me a specific example of this.
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-15 9:00
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-17 4:33
i always thought the 1% was all the nepotism
google the bush family tree
Stop TPP to save people both in the U.S. and Japan #USA #Japan #TPP Please sign the petition! http://bit.ly/wj4EZ6
We petition the obama administration to:
STOP 1%-led TPPA negotiations and defend the rights of his own people, NOT bankers and corporate America.
TPPA (Trans-Pacific Partnership) is a secretive, super free trade pact covering 24 fields including medicine, insurance, finance, investment, labor and government procurement, allowing corporations to exploit ordinary people.
This is economic colonization by corporations.
This trade pact puts the interests of corporations above that of the citizens of signatory nations. It enables corporations to sue governments if their profits are threatened by government action to protect citizens.
If TPPA is introduced, jobs will be lost, the price of medicine and insurance fees will go up, wages will get lower, working conditions will erode, the environment will be degraded, and the gap between the rich and the poor will widen for all member nations!
Stop TPPA of 1%, by 1%, for 1%!
Please sign here⇒http://bit.ly/zTkaKA
(This petition is due on March 2nd)
>>98
Still waiting for you to show me an example. I would like to continue this conversation.
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-29 21:31
>>1 I've heard anyone who makes over $500,000 yearly, and I've heard anyone with net worth more than 9 million.
What is their nationality/religion? Does their skull pass goniometer test? Do they have fused earlobe? If not, they are most likely these ugly illegal immigrants, expelled from eastern europe.
Name:
Anonymous2012-03-01 0:35
>>100 some of the papers in there are outright trash. Apparently, some do the research sloppy and other scientists help improve it.
But you can't love the comments like: "I can't see either of these [critical] papers being in the next report. [We] will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
They really show the true state of science, where scientists act similar to prosecutors, searching for evidency, and forging it if nothing found, while ignoring the alibi of the prosecuted.
If you pay them enough, modern scientists can prove even the existence of bigfoot and aliens. So is the power of science!
Name:
Anonymous2012-03-01 20:50
>>109
So what one person says in private via email somehow represents the entire scientific community? Never mind that those papers actually did get published.
So what one person says in private via email somehow represents the entire scientific community?
It is a glimpse inside the kitchen, with all its fat rats, audacious cockroaches and unsanitary mess: publish biased results, suppress critical reviews.
Never mind that those papers actually did get published.
Because there was such a drama. But in other, less publicized cases, the System could easily suppress uncomfortable results. For example, Intel could pay computer scientists to publish and survey only ineffecient algorithms, so the users would feel they need a faster CPU.
>>64
Has never heard of the Works Progress Administration. Keep voting against your own interests and browsing Stormfront, that'll show 'em!
>>109 If you pay them enough, modern scientists can prove even the existence of bigfoot and aliens. So is the power of science!
In your "science", maybe. The "science" of chiropractic, anti-vaxxers, "alternative" medicine, homeopathy, etc.
>>124
Only here and /newnew/ and various other small outlets is it allowed, but in the open public it leads to immediate ostracization and persecution from the jew controlled society and government.
Name:
Anonymous2012-08-21 17:38
>>121
Indeed. And if you want to know who really has power in a society, look around you and listen carefully, and observe who's allowed to be angry and who's allowed to make demands of others.
Except if you're not white, a Muslim, European, Indian, Chinese, live in Africa, a Leftist intellectual, work for the UN, live in South America, or on any web forum. Half of the Obama supporters on his campaign blog sites had little or no problems with declaring their hate for the Jewish people and Israel. OWS movement was started by a guy running an openly anti-Semitic Magizine.
Seriously, you're clueless. That happens when all you do is research new copypasta about 'JOOOOOOS' all day and don't pay any attention to the rest of the world. You are ignorant.