Odds and Ends
Bye bye ambassador
9 2, 4:42am
' The science is not settled, the science is never settled, it is about seeking truth, and always remaining sceptical, not preaching it.
I am not a scientist by profession, I am a philosopher and an economist, but ultimately it is irrelevant, because we can accept everything the climate change proponents claim, and still reject their conclusions.
Because the underlying problem in their premise, is a miscalculation of resources. And the primary cause of that is the present global fiat ponzi and pyramid scheme of the central bankers.
Thy arguments boils down to that thou hast heard some doomsayers preach about a fiery hell that awaits us, and to prevent this potential future, we have to sacrifise everything that makes life worth living.
Our right to self determination, our body, our mind and our spirit. Thou mentioned the younger dryas, an event that took place 12000 years ago, I guess that was mans fault too.
I am not denying that the climate is changing, it is always changing, one way or another. The global temperatures have been many degrees warmer then it is now, and many degrees colder.
I am not concerned about nature, nature always finds a way. I told thee pride is the worst of all sins. We don't know everything, and we don't control everything. We have to accept, that which we cannot control.
This is really an argument about ethics.
Actions are indeed a part of a consequence, but the consequences are not a part of the action. They come after. If we accept the premise of free will, which is necessary to pass moral judgments. This means that we don’t have to look at what lead up to our actions, we only have to look at our actions themselves. And deem if they are Good or Evil.
When the action itself becomes the focus, the means is what ultimately matters, and not the goal. What is more important, loosing with honour or winning by cheating?
I read a good quote once: in any battle between a relativist and an Absolutist, the Absolutist wins, because he alone is willing to die for his principles.
We need less government, especially less global government and less intrusion, not more. Nature always self correct. As thou so well said
[It boils down to the limits of a bacteria population in a Petri Dish. And if the population somehow gets too large, it drowns in its own gravity well.]
, exponential growth is impossible.
This is a very interesting lecture by professor Al Bartlett
I loved his bottle example. If a bacteria population that lives in a bottle, and doubles in size every minute. And it starts at 11 and it is full at 12, at what time is the bottle half full?
Answer, one minute to midnight. And if they should somehow be able to quadruple their living space with 3 extra bottles, how much more time will they have. Answer 2 minutes. At 12 the first bottle is full, at 12:01 the second bottle is full, and at 12:02 all four bottles are full.
Exponential growth is impossible. But that is exactly what Keynesian economy demands.
They talk about 2% growth, and 2% inflation, but what does that mean? It means that they expect the size of the economy to double every 35 years.
They need to keep the economy growing like that, in order to keep their scam going.
I remember a time, not so long ago, when they tried to use that argument, to scare people about an imminent threat of overpopulation.
Then, after having successfully scared people into not having that many children, they suddenly say that we have too few young people to take care of our old. So we have to import them from the third world. Overpopulation is never a problem; it never grows faster than the resources that are available to sustain it. But they want us to be scared, and look to them for solutions.
Its not complicated, there are right and wrong, Good and Evil, sins and virtues and certain inalienable rights. The world is not complicated, but they want us to be confused. So we don’t know what’s what.