One percent produce 20 times more Greenhouse gasses than 50% of population - Page 16 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15206572
I'll liken the political *subjective factor* to a person's own diet -- are *most* people just going to fall into routine shopping habits at the store, or does one make *conscious choices* about what they eat -- ?

Likewise, is politics *100%* top-down fascist, like what Trump was aiming for, or is there the mass involvement of people on the ground, consciously, that makes an impact in how society does things -- social norms. Here's a ground-breaking iconic archetypal instance, from history:


Pioneering African-American actor Sidney Poitier dead at 94

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/0 ... t-j08.html


Your critique of the liberal 'chattering classes' is well-taken, but you've misapplied it to *all of society*, conflating the 99% with the elite 1%, for whatever reason.

Bottom-up people *need* to be conscious of what they're saying and doing, and that takes a fair amount of 'homework', including 'talk'. It's not just wait-out-the-clock elitist 'chattering', it's hopefully in socially constructive ways, as in how to capture carbon from the atmosphere as speedily as possible.
#15206611
Truth To Power wrote:Occam's Razor is not a logical fallacy, don't be so absurd. It refutes you. Deal with it.

Lurkers, TtP doesn't accept obvious refutations of his claims.
I leave it up to you to decide if the below refutes the above claim of his.

TtP, Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics are all more far more complicated than Newton's Gravity theory and his view of, such as it was, of the reality of atoms and other such tiny things.
. . . Yet, science accepts them as a better theory than the old theories, because they describe the results of experiments better.

Occam's Razor is not a hard and fast law about reality. It is a guide when all else is equal.

For ACC, aka, GW, all else is not equal.
TtP did admit that CO2 does have a very tiny effect. He claimed that it is so small as to be trivial and not significant. I refuted his claim, that included no numbers at all, by pointing out that the amount of heating world wide needed is tiny.(This heating varies with the seasons, but in the norther winter it is the southern summer and in the northern summer it is the southern winter, so it is close to the same every day.) I numbers are => If the world is currently heating 1 deg.C over the next 15 years, then this amounts to 0.0001825 deg.C / day. This is about 2 /10,000 of a deg. C / day. TtP never refuted my figures, he just doubled down on his claim that CO2's effect is not significant.
. . . I'll leave it to the Lurkers to decide if 0.0001825 deg. is the amount he thinks is not significant, yet adds up over the 5478.75 days in 15 years to a 1 deg. C increase in temp.

.
#15206631
QatzelOk wrote:
(my reply is from the 1920s)




World trade fell to a third of the 1928 figure. But despite the myths spread by some politicians and economists since, it was not the controls on trade which created the slump—which was well underway before they were introduced—but the slump which led to the controls.

The slump tore apart the lives of those who had been impoverished observers of the ‘Golden Twenties’. They were to be found trudging the streets of all the West’s great cities, with gaunt, tired faces and in threadbare coats, on their way to or from soup kitchens. They were also to be found on the peasant holdings of the rest of the world, dreading the loss of their land, worried that the price of their crops would never rise sufficiently to pay rents and taxes, and trying to keep alive on what they could grow themselves. Those who were least ‘advanced’ in capitalist terms—subsistence farmers still barely integrated into the cash economy—survived best. Those who relied on selling their labour power had nothing to fall back on. Even the old escape route of emigration to the Americas was blocked by mass unemployment.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 470
#15206651
Truth To Power wrote:No, it is a principle of logical and scientific reasoning that enables us instantly -- and correctly -- to dismiss fallacious claims that would otherwise require laborious refutation, such as claims that medical cures were obtained by prayer rather than treatment, or that climate has been changed by the increase in production of cheese, thermometers, or CO2.

It is definitely logical, and definitely supported by science. See above.

No, you simply made that up. My assumption is only that absent any evidence that they have been rendered inoperative, the previous causes are most likely to be the cause of a similar effect.

Occam's Razor is not a logical fallacy, don't be so absurd. It refutes you. Deal with it.


Occam’s Razor does not refute the claim that GHGs are driving global warming.


    Similarly, in science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the development of theoretical models rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.[5][6] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since failing explanations can always be burdened with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they tend to be more testable.[7][8][9]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

So no, Occam’s Razor cannot be used as a way of determining which of two competing hypotheses is true.

Thus your attempt at refuting science through this heuristic maxim failed.

Do you want to try again, or should we agree that you failed to refute the claim that GHGs drive global warming?
#15206678
ckaihatsu wrote:I...I'm saying you're being *too dismissive*, and even cynical, with your offhand throw-away criticism / critique there...

Nebulizing Hydrogen Peroxide - Demo

My point was that inexpensive alternatives become dangerous, illegal, or socially scorned... when a new tech finds an entrepreneur community to promote it. We can't have school because the Internet wants to control it and make money off of it. We can't have sex with each other because the sublimation of sexuality makes us more slave-like. Etc.

Walking and bicycling are too dangerous in most N.A. cities, becasue that's the way car and oil dealers like it. This principle would be enough to make people hate technology... if we weren't so brainwashed by the media products "brought to you by" the same tech-profiteers.


And yet there's the *subjective* factor, such as all of the international anti-coup, anti-military protests and movements in the last few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2019_protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2020_protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2021_protests

Here, my point was that bottom-up becomes illegal (dangerous, socially scorned) just as it is becoming a vector for change. You haven't proven otherwise by listing protests that didn't change our current situation.

It's good PR to allow "ineffective" protests because this can be used to convince Joe Sixpack that he is "free" - for the two minutes he has to watch protest videos.
#15206685
I didn't actually stutter -- you *misquoted* me there for no good reason.


QatzelOk wrote:
My point was that inexpensive alternatives become dangerous, illegal, or socially scorned... when a new tech finds an entrepreneur community to promote it.



Why are you stumping for *entrepreneurs* -- ? They're just glorified *capitalists*. And, no, their activity and associations with technology do *not* cause them to be socially reviled, contrary to what you're indicating.

I don't know if maybe you're referring to the general humanities-technology *schism* in academia and society....


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

Spoiler: show
Image



---


QatzelOk wrote:
We can't have school because the Internet wants to control it and make money off of it.



No, schools need to be closed with all classes online because of the *pandemic* and the medical risk of being in close proximity to others.


QatzelOk wrote:
We can't have sex with each other because the sublimation of sexuality makes us more slave-like. Etc.



Speak for yourself. You're hardly in the realm of politics anymore. It sounds personal.


QatzelOk wrote:
Walking and bicycling are too dangerous in most N.A. cities, becasue that's the way car and oil dealers like it. This principle would be enough to make people hate technology... if we weren't so brainwashed by the media products "brought to you by" the same tech-profiteers.



Okay, I think your anti-commercialism has its place. Just don't go overboard -- remember that people *require* material necessities for everyday life and living, and that under capitalism those necessities can only be procured through the production of commodities, with all of the complexity that that entails.


QatzelOk wrote:
Here, my point was that bottom-up becomes illegal (dangerous, socially scorned) just as it is becoming a vector for change. You haven't proven otherwise by listing protests that didn't change our current situation.



Yeah, sure, *of course* I understand this societal dynamic -- people have been *killed* over 'disruptive' technologies just as people have been killed over disruptive *politics* / movements.


QatzelOk wrote:
It's good PR to allow "ineffective" protests because this can be used to convince Joe Sixpack that he is "free" - for the two minutes he has to watch protest videos.



Yes, the 'color revolutions' of the early 2000s, for example.
#15206702
ckaihatsu wrote:Why are you stumping for *entrepreneurs* -- ? They're just glorified *capitalists*.

I prefer the word "entrepreneur" and it's not because French words are glorified by anglophones.

It's because it literally contains the concepts of "between" and "take" - as in "Tony, just wedge your hulking body and hairy gymbot arms between two people and take a percent of whatever they're exchanging."

It's obvious - at least in French - how useless this function really is.

Farmer's markets finally allowed poors to buy tomatoes in the 30s by... eliminating the entrepreneur (middlemen).
Last edited by QatzelOk on 11 Jan 2022 15:30, edited 2 times in total.
#15206747
Pants-of-dog wrote:Occam’s Razor does not refute the claim that GHGs are driving global warming.

Sure it does, and you even provided the proof:
Since failing explanations can always be burdened with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they tend to be more testable.

See? Time and again we have seen anti-CO2 hysteria mongers cobble on ad hoc hypotheses to rescue their falsified claim that CO2 is the principal driver of global temperature.
So no, Occam’s Razor cannot be used as a way of determining which of two competing hypotheses is true.

But it can be used to determine which is more likely and more scientific.
Thus your attempt at refuting science through this heuristic maxim failed.

Wrong.
Do you want to try again, or should we agree that you failed to refute the claim that GHGs drive global warming?

Thank you for agreeing, and posting the proof, that Occam's Razor provides a sufficient refutation of the claim that CO2 is the principal factor governing global temperature.
#15206750
ckaihatsu wrote:Why are you stumping for *entrepreneurs* -- ?

Maybe because they create the production systems that relieve scarcity?
They're just glorified *capitalists*.

No. Marx used the term, "capitalist" to erase the relevant distinctions between the economic roles of entrepreneur, rentier, employer, investor, and speculator. Marx's preference was always to remove as much information as possible from concepts to prevent them from being used for clear, logical thought and argument.
#15206751
Steve_American wrote:Lurkers, TtP doesn't accept obvious refutations of his claims.

Because they are obviously fallacious.
Occam's Razor is not a hard and fast law about reality. It is a guide when all else is equal.

Right.
For ACC, aka, GW, all else is not equal.

Yeah, it is.
TtP never refuted my figures, he just doubled down on his claim that CO2's effect is not significant.

No, I identified the fact that your calculation ignored the tendency to thermal equilibrium.
#15206762
ckaihatsu wrote:
Why are you stumping for *entrepreneurs* -- ?



Truth To Power wrote:
Maybe because they create the production systems that relieve scarcity?



They manage *capital*. That's human-person activity, in the service of increasing the total world pool of exchange values, even at the cost of financialization and perpetuating the wealth gap, and/or the class division.

After the decade-plus-long economic fallout of 1929, and more recently 2008-2009, it's certainly understandable if people have paused to consider if the capitalist economic system is really worth all the trouble that it causes:



Effects on the economy

In the wake of the 2007-2010 financial crisis, a number of economists and others began to argue that financial services had become too large a sector of the US economy, with no real benefit to society accruing from the activities of increased financialization.[19]

In February 2009, white-collar criminologist and former senior financial regulator William K. Black listed the ways in which the financial sector harms the real economy. Black wrote, "The financial sector functions as the sharp canines that the predator state uses to rend the nation. In addition to siphoning off capital for its own benefit, the finance sector misallocates the remaining capital in ways that harm the real economy in order to reward already-rich financial elites harming the nation."[20]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial ... he_economy



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
They're just glorified *capitalists*.



Truth To Power wrote:
No. Marx used the term, "capitalist" to erase the relevant distinctions between the economic roles of entrepreneur, rentier, employer, investor, and speculator. Marx's preference was always to remove as much information as possible from concepts to prevent them from being used for clear, logical thought and argument.



Your defensiveness aside, a capitalist is anyone who uses capital to make profits, from the economic exploitation of wage laborers.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image
#15206773
In reply to me TtP wrote:

Truth To Power wrote:Because they are obviously fallacious.

Right.

Yeah, it is.

No, I identified the fact that your calculation ignored the tendency to thermal equilibrium.


Lurkers, do you even know what TtP is talking about here?
Of course, as temps increase, radiation from Earth back toward space increases.
Some tiny bit of it is slowed by CO2 and other GHGs to heat the Earth, air or oceans.
My back of an envelope calculation showed that if the temp will increase by 1 deg.C over the next 15 years, the daily amount of heating is 2/10,000th of a deg.C. This is a tiny amount. But, it keeps adding up, day after day.

.
#15206783
Truth To Power wrote:Sure it does, and you even provided the proof:

See? Time and again we have seen anti-CO2 hysteria mongers cobble on ad hoc hypotheses to rescue their falsified claim that CO2 is the principal driver of global temperature.

But it can be used to determine which is more likely and more scientific.

Wrong.

Thank you for agreeing, and posting the proof, that Occam's Razor provides a sufficient refutation of the claim that CO2 is the principal factor governing global temperature.


You misread the Wiki article.

It says the opposite of what you think it does. It specifically says that Occam’s Razor cannot be used to disprove a hypothesis.

So, you cannot refute the claim that GHGs are causing climate change.

Would you like a third try, or do you want to move on to the next claim that you have not refuted?
#15206800
QatzelOk wrote:I prefer the word "entrepreneur" and it's not because French words are glorified by anglophones.

It's because it literally contains the concepts of "between" and "take" - as in "Tony, just wedge your hulking body and hairy gymbot arms between two people and take a percent of whatever they're exchanging."

It's obvious - at least in French - how useless this function really is.

Farmer's markets finally allowed poors to buy tomatoes in the 30s by... eliminating the entrepreneur (middlemen).


Since I posted this, other posters have defended the use of "capitalist" and "entrepreneur" without really dealing with what these words actually *mean.*

This is a major problem with the English language: the etymology says nothing to most speakers of it.

The root meanings of words remain a mystery to anglophones (unlike most other modern languages)
#15206810
Pants-of-dog wrote:You misread the Wiki article.

No, you did.

It says the opposite of what you think it does.
It specifically says that Occam’s Razor cannot be used to disprove a hypothesis.

One needn't disprove a hypothesis to refute and dismiss it.
So, you cannot refute the claim that GHGs are causing climate change.

No, I merely can't disprove it. I can't disprove the claim that granola devils are causing climate change, either. That is very much the point of invoking Occam's Razor to refute and dismiss claims that posit extraneous factors.
Would you like a third try, or do you want to move on to the next claim that you have not refuted?

If you are going to deny and mischaracterize fundamental principles of scientific reasoning, you have already refuted yourself.
#15206812
@Truth To Power

It is perfectly possible to disprove a verifiable claim. This is called "falsification" and is used all the time in science.

But you do not need to disprove the claim that GHGs cause climate change. You could provide evidence that contradicts the claim.

But at this point, it seems clear that you can not refute the claim. You may come back to this if you want, but I will simply ignore it if you just misuse Occam's Razor again.

Now please refute the claim that anthropogenic climate change is causing sea level rise.
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18

@Puffer Fish The first article you posted in y[…]

@wat0n I feel that it makes no sense to addre[…]

@Pants-of-dog The exception for rape strongly i[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

His mistake is interpreting restraint as weakness[…]