@rphb
[Climate models are not credible. Thou said it theeself, the systems are chaotic. In complex and chaotic system, even a small assumption error leads to a wildly different result.]
Climate models are credible.
And in the parts that the models aren't credible the reality deviates from the models. You do understand what deviation means? It means bad things are gonna happen - even worse than the models predict. Miraculous unidentified stabilising feedbacks do not exist. Planetary self-regulation is a very slow process, the climate sensitivity is smallest in the middle (holocene climate) and climate sensitivity is higher the further you deviate from the holocene climate. And there is no comeback for the planet from above 30C global average temp.
[The Earth seems to be warming in the last 150 years because cities have grown around our measuring stations. And we don’t have accurate data that goes father back.]
Heat island effects have been taken into account.
And we do have accurate enough data (as proxies) way back.
[Regarding sovereignty, there are no “buts” in it. That is like saying “I like freedom of speech but…”
No it is Absolute. ]
Rubbish.
Total independence would be bidirectional - no foreign trade whatsoever, no contacts whatsoever. Contacts and foreign trade means contracts, preferably social contracts.
[ It is a nations right to rule itself, for a people to freely decide which political affiliations they want to be a part of, that makes it democratic.
Secession is a right, people may not want to leave a political union, especially not if it brings benefits. But if they want to leave and are not allowed, that is the definition of slavery.]
Sure, they can leave the WTO.
And then WTO can leave them and all their products.
[By rejection sovereignty, thou art logically saying that everyone should be a slave, to the global fart control police.]
That is a strawman.
I haven't claimed what you suggest I have.
[We shouldn’t have the United Nations, We shouldn’t have the EU and the USA, we shouldn’t have empires.]
But we still need WTO for environmental regulations.
Look at it as turning the organisation against its creators (the big polluting business).
[I don’t know how many times the Radical Left or other parties have used UN treaties to overrule Danish Law.]
That is why two-tier social contracts are needed and why the national tier has to be based on direct democracy.
[It is not ideal, I want more direct democracy, and I don’t want welfare sponges to have the privilege to vote, but it is relatively close.]
And I agree here. And if the majority of citizens decides this way, then the fat welfare state would be ended.
[There is no need for a global body, no need for empires, because everyone knows what is Good.]
Here I disagree.
Direct democracy is about what is preferable for the majority of citizens.
Dictatorship is about what is good (for the dictator, obviously).
[Now imagine a referendum. The people in China and Mongolia decide if Mongolia should be annexed by China and join as a new province.
Both countries hold a referendum. In china 55% of the population votes in favour of the annexation, in Mongolia 99,8% votes against (some of the votes were invalid and there was this one chinaman in Ulan Bator). But as Mongolia have 3 million people and China have over 1,3 billion, the total result in Absolut numbers are an overwhelming yes.]
The legal decisions over the territory of Mongolia are to be decided by the citizens of Mongolia, not the citizens of China.
[Democratic right? ]
Wrong.
[NO, of course not, that is not how democracy works. A global body is anti-democratic by nature, and it is anti-human and anti-God.]
Global body is fine, for as long as it grows out of nation state social contracts.
That global body is not a company, nor the Establishment. One does not even have buildings for it. Nowadays that can all be done virtually, by the citizens of different countries.
We will virtualise away the global bodies.
[That is the ultimate form of tyranny.
We need to always be able to say No.]
By way of unfortunate accidents, Finland and Estonia are the only rightful heirs of the Roman Empire. The only two non-indoeuropean countries in Europe (if we set aside Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan). Estonia and Finland have virtualised that legacy in order to make sure that Russia's Voldemort shall never get it again. That is what E-stonia is all about. We will chain that virtual legacy with blockchain, we have split it and created (hor-)cruxes that we will hide away in various places. Estonia has a space program and we will hid it underground as well ;-)
And we will use quantum entanglement once it becomes widely available.
My point is that new tech opens up new ways (and re-enables old ways) to practice direct democracy and to keep it from falling into wrong hands.
0
@rphb
[Climate models are not credible. Thou said it theeself, the systems are chaotic. In complex and chaotic system, even a small assumption error leads to a wildly different result.]
Climate models are credible.
And in the parts that the models aren't credible the reality deviates from the models. You do understand what deviation means? It means bad things are gonna happen - even worse than the models predict. Miraculous unidentified stabilising feedbacks do not exist. Planetary self-regulation is a very slow process, the climate sensitivity is smallest in the middle (holocene climate) and climate sensitivity is higher the further you deviate from the holocene climate. And there is no comeback for the planet from above 30C global average temp.
[The Earth seems to be warming in the last 150 years because cities have grown around our measuring stations. And we don’t have accurate data that goes father back.]
Are you mining your climate denial memes from the
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
?
Why don't you mine the answers from there as well.
Heat island effects have been taken into account.
And we do have accurate enough data (as proxies) way back.
[Regarding sovereignty, there are no “buts” in it. That is like saying “I like freedom of speech but…”
No it is Absolute. ]
Rubbish.
Total independence would be bidirectional - no foreign trade whatsoever, no contacts whatsoever. Contacts and foreign trade means contracts, preferably social contracts.
[ It is a nations right to rule itself, for a people to freely decide which political affiliations they want to be a part of, that makes it democratic.
Secession is a right, people may not want to leave a political union, especially not if it brings benefits. But if they want to leave and are not allowed, that is the definition of slavery.]
Sure, they can leave the WTO.
And then WTO can leave them and all their products.
[By rejection sovereignty, thou art logically saying that everyone should be a slave, to the global fart control police.]
That is a strawman.
I haven't claimed what you suggest I have.
[We shouldn’t have the United Nations, We shouldn’t have the EU and the USA, we shouldn’t have empires.]
But we still need WTO for environmental regulations.
Look at it as turning the organisation against its creators (the big polluting business).
[I don’t know how many times the Radical Left or other parties have used UN treaties to overrule Danish Law.]
That is why two-tier social contracts are needed and why the national tier has to be based on direct democracy.
[It is not ideal, I want more direct democracy, and I don’t want welfare sponges to have the privilege to vote, but it is relatively close.]
And I agree here. And if the majority of citizens decides this way, then the fat welfare state would be ended.
[There is no need for a global body, no need for empires, because everyone knows what is Good.]
Here I disagree.
Direct democracy is about what is preferable for the majority of citizens.
Dictatorship is about what is good (for the dictator, obviously).
[Now imagine a referendum. The people in China and Mongolia decide if Mongolia should be annexed by China and join as a new province.
Both countries hold a referendum. In china 55% of the population votes in favour of the annexation, in Mongolia 99,8% votes against (some of the votes were invalid and there was this one chinaman in Ulan Bator). But as Mongolia have 3 million people and China have over 1,3 billion, the total result in Absolut numbers are an overwhelming yes.]
The legal decisions over the territory of Mongolia are to be decided by the citizens of Mongolia, not the citizens of China.
[Democratic right? ]
Wrong.
[NO, of course not, that is not how democracy works. A global body is anti-democratic by nature, and it is anti-human and anti-God.]
Global body is fine, for as long as it grows out of nation state social contracts.
That global body is not a company, nor the Establishment. One does not even have buildings for it. Nowadays that can all be done virtually, by the citizens of different countries.
We will virtualise away the global bodies.
[That is the ultimate form of tyranny.
We need to always be able to say No.]
By way of unfortunate accidents, Finland and Estonia are the only rightful heirs of the Roman Empire. The only two non-indoeuropean countries in Europe (if we set aside Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan). Estonia and Finland have virtualised that legacy in order to make sure that Russia's Voldemort shall never get it again. That is what E-stonia is all about. We will chain that virtual legacy with blockchain, we have split it and created (hor-)cruxes that we will hide away in various places. Estonia has a space program and we will hid it underground as well ;-)
And we will use quantum entanglement once it becomes widely available.
My point is that new tech opens up new ways (and re-enables old ways) to practice direct democracy and to keep it from falling into wrong hands.