[Pants-of-dog]

It has nothing to do with trust, the established facts in that report are enough to call bullshit on the entire charade. It was a fake inquiry conducted by establishment apparatchiks and we all knew the conclusions it would reach before it ever got underway. Before it even started I would have bet my house and my pension that they wouldn't find any significant wrongdoing. The whole thing's a fucking joke.

Which established facts show that the inquiry was fake?

————————————

What refutations? I saw only concessions and double-speak.

Please note that you failed to provide evidence for relevant arguments that actually addressed my claims.

Let us start again: the OP does not show a correlation between increased temperatures and biodiversity because there is no correlation.

It merely mentions that previous warm eras had more biodiversity. This is not correlation.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It merely mentions that previous warm eras had more biodiversity. This is not correlation.

Actually it is, in all past hot-houses there was higher bio-diversity; hence we have a correlation between hot-houses and higher bio-diversity.

In fact, that is the point of the OP; its examining the conditions correlated to those hot-houses as a means of making an argument as to what a future hot-house might look like.

That is LITERALLY what the OP is about, that is its entire premise.



Does this imply causation as to guarantee that a future hot house will have higher bio-diversity? Of course not.

However, if we are going to think scientifically, regarding induction, past relationships are meant to give us an indicator of what a future hot-house might look like.

That is exactly what the OP argued.

For instance, the OP also argued that past hot-houses had higher sea levels (not just higher bio-diversity); the OP takes this same premise to discuss what sea levels might be like with future hot houses. Hence, on all points, the OP article is using past hot houses and the ecological conditions to which they are correlated (that obtained in those times) and inductively extrapolating that data to make predictions about what a hypothetical future hot-house epoch might look like, ecologically speaking.

So, the OP is arguing that past hot-houses had higher sea-levels, X amount of C02, and X amount of bio-diversity. They take this correlated data to then draw an inductive inference about future hot-houses.

Simple as that.

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually it is, in all past hot-houses there was higher bio-diversity; hence we have a correlation between hot-houses and higher bio-diversity.

In fact, that is the point of the OP; its examining the conditions correlated to those hot-houses as a means of making an argument as to what a future hot-house might look like.

That is LITERALLY what the OP is about, that is its entire premise.



Does this imply causation as to guarantee that a future hot house will have higher bio-diversity? Of course not.

However, if we are going to think scientifically, regarding induction, past relationships are meant to give us an indicator of what a future hot-house might look like.

That is exactly what the OP argued.

For instance, the OP also argued that past hot-houses had higher sea levels (not just higher bio-diversity); the OP takes this same premise to discuss what sea levels might be like with future hot houses. Hence, on all points, the OP article is using past hot houses and the ecological conditions to which they are correlated (that obtained in those times) and inductively extrapolating that data to make predictions about what a hypothetical future hot-house epoch might look like, ecologically speaking.

So, the OP is arguing that past hot-houses had higher sea-levels, X amount of C02, and X amount of bio-diversity. They take this correlated data to then draw an inductive inference about future hot-houses.

Simple as that.

As I already pointed out many times, the OP is not a comprehensive list of all previous hothouse eras.

So, if you think all previous hothouse eras had higher biodiversity because of the ones listed in the article, you are incorrectly assuming that he OP listed them all. It did not.

[Victoribus Spolia]

As I already pointed out many times, the OP is not a comprehensive list of all previous hothouse eras.

So, if you think all previous hothouse eras had higher biodiversity because of the ones listed in the article, you are incorrectly assuming that he OP listed them all. It did not.

Please list the other hot-houses you would like to discuss.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please list the other hot-houses you would like to discuss.

It is a simple matter for you to use Google and find the appropriate wiki article.

I have already asked you for evidence that there is a correlation between higher global temperatures and increased biodiversity.

The last few times I asked for this evidence, you pointed me to the OP, and I then pointed out that it is not a complete (i.e. comprehensive) list.

Now that we have finally agreed that the OP is not evidence due to its incomplete nature, please provide evidence for your claim that there is a correlation between higher global temperatures and increased biodiversity.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It is a simple matter for you to use Google and find the appropriate wiki article.

I'm not doing your research for your claim.

Until you provide such, your claim regarding the OP is unsubstantiated and will therefore be dismissed.

Likewise, a correlation does not need to be comprehensive to be established, a comprehensive case of which there are no possible or actual exemptions (which would be impossible to prove given the problem of causation and human finitude). Is not the claim, the claim is that these hot-houses are sufficient and relevant examples which adequately furnish the case of precedent.

If you disagree, please provide the counter-argument.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm not doing your research for your claim.

Until you provide such, your claim regarding the OP is unsubstantiated and will therefore be dismissed.

Likewise, a correlation does not need to be comprehensive to be established, a comprehensive case of which there are no possible or actual exemptions (which would be impossible to prove given the problem of causation and human finitude). Is not the claim, the claim is that these hot-houses are sufficient and relevant examples which adequately furnish the case of precedent.

If you disagree, please provide the counter-argument.

These are the exact reasons why I am dismissing your claim that increased biodiversity is correlated with increased global temperatures: lack of evidence, and a lack of desire to do your work for you.

[Truth To Power]

Let us start again: the OP does not show a correlation between increased temperatures and biodiversity because there is no correlation.

Of course there is: biodiversity is greatest in tropical climates, least in polar climates.

It merely mentions that previous warm eras had more biodiversity. This is not correlation.

Ah, yes, actually, it is. And there are excellent reasons to expect more biodiversity in warmer climates: higher temperature accelerates the hydrological cycle by increasing the evaporation rate, meaning that more water is available to support biological processes; and the Third Law of Thermodynamics implies that more energy is also available for biological processes at higher temperatures.

[Sivad]

"In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961

[Pants-of-dog]

@Sivad

Do you think that scientists who receive funding directly from fossil fuel companies and consortiums should be believed without critical examination?

[Sivad]

@Sivad

Do you think that scientists who receive funding directly from fossil fuel companies and consortiums should be believed without critical examination?

I don't think anyone should be believed without critical examination. Everything stated in that video is verifiable fact so it's not a matter of credibility or trust. What do you think of Ike's warning of the "scientific-technological elite"?

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't think anyone should be believed without critical examination. Everything stated in that video is verifiable fact so it's not a matter of credibility or trust.

Which facts do you think are relevant?

What do you think of Ike's warning of the "scientific-technological elite"?

I think that the supposed “scientific-technological elite” have no real way of capturing the power of the government at this time, and are especially powerless when it comes to actually changing energy use policy as a response to global warming. This is clear from the fact that the vast majority of governments are doung nothing about climate change.

It seems to me that the capitalist elite, specifically the fossil fuel magnates, are far more capable of influencing public policy and have actually been doing so.

[Sivad]

“scientific-technological elite” have no real way of capturing the power of the government

You have that backwards, it's the technocracy that captures science. The technocracy uses junk science to manipulate society.

[Pants-of-dog]

How exactly are the technocrats seizing control of the government through climate change policy?

[Sivad]

How exactly are the technocrats seizing control of the government through climate change policy?

You're asking me how gaining control over the primary energy source would empower the technocracy?

[Pants-of-dog]

You're asking me how gaining control over the primary energy source would empower the technocracy?

Which power source is that?

As far as I can tell, most environmental groups calling for action do not see us using a single power source. Most envision us using many sources, depending on things like local geography, political stability, prevailing winds, climate, etc.

If you think that controlling primary energy sources has an undue impact on government policy, then you implicitly agree that the fossil fuel industry has undue influence on government.

[Sivad]

Which power source is that?

As far as I can tell, most environmental groups calling for action do not see us using a single power source. Most envision us using many sources, depending on things like local geography, political stability, prevailing winds, climate, etc.

That's all delusional bullshit. There is no one technology or basket of technologies that can replace fossil fuel. And if the technocracy was serious about alternatives it would be investing massively in r&d. The managerial elites don't want to end the carbon economy, they want full control of the carbon economy, it's classic oriental despotism.

A carbon empire (also known as a carbon despotism, or carbon monopoly empire) is a social or government structure which maintains power and control through exclusive control over access to carbon energy. It arises through the need for climate change mitigation, which requires central coordination and a specialized bureaucracy.

Power, both over resources (food, water, energy) and a means of enforcement such as the military are vital for the maintenance of control.

If you think that controlling primary energy sources has an undue impact on government policy, then you implicitly agree that the fossil fuel industry has undue influence on government.

Absolutely. Unlike you I have an honest perspective, I don't deny the obvious because it's politically inconvenient.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's all delusional bullshit. There is no one technology or basket of technologies that can replace fossil fuel. And if the technocracy was serious about alternatives it would be investing massively in r&d. The managerial elites don't want to end the carbon economy, they want full control of the carbon economy, it's classic oriental despotism.

So your argument is that the “elite” do not want to switch to non-fossil fuels and instead want us to continue using fossil fuels?

Then they would not be supporting the IPCC or any efforts to mitigate climate change.

This then undermines your previous claims that they are manufacturing the whole climate chnage thing for personal gain.

Absolutely. Unlike you I have an honest perspective, I don't deny the obvious because it's politically inconvenient.

And since Dr. Patrick Michaels is receiving funds from the fossil fuel industry, his claims are probably suspect.

[Sivad]

So your argument is that the “elite” do not want to switch to non-fossil fuels and instead want us to continue using fossil fuels?

You put elite in scare quotes like there's not a managerial elite. It really is a trip interacting with the babbitt mentality.

To answer your question though, the carbon economy will end eventually but the world is decades away from that transition and because control of carbon emissions would give that managerial elite unprecedented control over global civilization it's the perfect pathway for expanding technocratic global governance. They're going to continue exploiting the shit out the CACC theory for power and profit because why let a good crisis go to waste.

Then they would not be supporting the IPCC or any efforts to mitigate climate change.

That doesn't follow, why wouldn't they?

This then undermines your previous claims that they are manufacturing the whole climate chnage thing for personal gain.

Never claimed any such thing. All I ever said was a potential crisis is being exploited for power and profit.

[Pants-of-dog]

You put elite in scare quotes like there's not a managerial elite. It really is a trip interacting with the babbitt mentality.

No, that is not why I used scare quotes. This thing where you assume things about me is almost always incorrect. Try again?

To answer your question though, the carbon economy will end eventually but the world is decades away from that transition and because control of carbon emissions would give that managerial elite unprecedented control over global civilization it's the perfect pathway for expanding technocratic global governance. They're going to continue exploiting the shit out the CACC theory for power and profit because why let a good crisis go to waste.

Maybe? I doubt it. Who exactly are these elite and why do you think they want to do this instead of simply capturing carbon tax schemes in order to keep externalising the cost of pollution?

That doesn't follow, why wouldn't they?

Because the IPCC and other people trying to stop global warming are trying to get us to stop using fossil fuels altogether.

Never claimed any such thing. All I ever said was a potential crisis is being exploited for power and profit.

Since your claim was something vague about the elite using something to get control of us through something and something, it is hard to decipher what your claim is.

At this point, you seem to be arguing that the fossil fuel elite are supporting the IPCC in order to rule us all.

——————

EDIT: Here is the link for the text you copied and slightly modified:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny- ... lizations/

Here is the original text:

A hydraulic empire (also known as hydraulic despotism, or water monopoly empire) is a social or governmental structure which maintains power through exclusive control over water access. This system of government arises through the need for flood control and irrigation, which requires central coordination and a specialized bureaucracy. This political structure is commonly characterized by a system of hierarchy and control based around class or caste. Power, both over resources (food, water, energy) and a means of enforcement, such as the military, are vital for the maintenance of control.