Liberalism and why I despise it

I can't remember which thread, but I have addressed this before. When I have more time I can present my ideas here if you'd like.

 

Your whole thread about libertarianism as a pr campaign for big business for example. Just about every attack post you make is a generalization.

And about the global warming shit, there's so much manipulated data and name calling from the IPCC and misleading data it's staggering. When the CRU was exposed for the same exact fraudulent statements EVERY SINGLE organization supports and preaches. Personally I just decided to let it slide because there's nothing I can do or say to convince someone like you to let go of your beliefs. And personally it makes no difference to me if a global warming fear monger decides to cut all their CO2 emissions as part of a religious ritual. I think they should take it a step further to cut even more CO2 emissions by holding their breath forever.

 

Do you even know what a generalization is?

Posting a link to an article that examines the origins of Libertarianism isn't in any way a generalization. If you want to say that perhaps the person who wrote the article got their facts wrong that's one thing, but since you don't actually know any facts, you just say 'that makes me feel bad, so it's wrong', and then strawman after strawman after strawman. As far as I can tell, you don't even have a set definition for 'liberals'-- you just lump everyone who is slightly to the left of you into one big group and then using a handful of annoying people to represent every single person in that group.

I don't agree with libertarianism as an ideology and I think it would inevitably lead to huge wealth disparities and social decay, but most of my posts have been spent trying to get even the barest minimum of facts, references, citations or logic out of people who seem to just pull things out of their ass and then follow it up with ridiculous attacks to hide their shallow reasoning.

I'm going to save time and just post a link.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths

It seriously makes more sense to you that the government is trying to hurt the oil industry/kill off jobs and profits for no apparent reason? Why would they want to hurt their own economies?

And this makes more sense than the idea that maybe the energy companies are intentionally trying to confuse the issue so that they can continue to make trillions in profits? You don't think they are seriously threatened by the idea that their product is dangerous? I guess the Iraq War didn't actually happen, because oil isn't even that valuable.

But humor me for a second-- do you at least agree that ice can melt and refreeze? Did you understand the bit about the ice cube melting into a puddle, and that refrozen puddle being thinner and wider than the ice cube?

 

I'm not gonna say much about this global warming issue, but I will say that some scientists (I forgot specific names but I can look them up) who have argued and believed that Global Warming was a lie, have in recent years (like the last 5 years) totally reversed their stance on the issue and now claims it does exist.

And scientific communities worldwide are seeing climate change at the global scale, and Greenland and Iceland also having entire villages relocated because a lot of permafrost is well...melting and changing the geography of the place.

 

..children of old conservatives, who now gave up to the sociological debate over "sustained development". Liberals can believe that God exists in the bank somewhere.:sunny:

 

The earth has been around for a long time and has went through warming and cooling cycles in the past. The idea that climate change is something new is the product of naivete, much less the notion that it must be man-made. I won't deny the impact humans have had on the environment when it comes to pollution, deforestation, overfishing, urban sprawl and the like, but I have not seen a shred of evidence that shows that global warming, if it even exists to the extent that is being claimed by some, is the result of humans or greenhouse gases.

The fact is global warming is basically being used to promote a totalitarian agenda which entails higher taxation, more laws and bureaucracy which restrict personal freedoms, and global governance. Many of the people who are behind the global warming scare (Al Gore, Maurice Strong, etc.) are rich bureaucrats who could not care less about the environment, as they jet set around the world while telling other people how they're supposed to live.

All I have to do is look at the people who are most heavily promoting the global warming ruse (and the agenda they represent) to know that we're not being told the truth.

 

This is not TRUE, in fact what you believe is a half-truth, which is why it's been so convincing.

I'll break this down aspect by aspect:

"The earth has been around for a long time and has went through warming and cooling cycles in the past."

^ True (in fact this is the same claim the scientists who were anti-global warming is caused by humans, SWITCHED FROM, and NOW are advocating that they were wrong, and it is a real phenomena, and the case that humans have caused it is statistically likely.


"The idea that climate change is something new is the product of naivete, much less the notion that it must be man-made. I won't deny the impact humans have had on the environment when it comes to pollution, deforestation, overfishing, urban sprawl and the like, but I have not seen a shred of evidence that shows that global warming, if it even exists to the extent that is being claimed by some, is the result of humans or greenhouse gases."

^FALSE

This is self-contradictory, as deforestation, is a huge PART OF the "global warming" argument. Mankind, causing deforestation of the Amazon forest for example should be at face value factual enough that the planet as a whole lost a HUGE supply of oxygen regeneration and carbon dioxide disposal.

If carbon dioxide, as a gas is proved in labs to retain heat, then it can be logically deduced that the buildup of the gas is contributing to changes in global temperature at higher rates than we've seen in the past, we call this climate change. Global warming is the argument that humans have accelerated the natural rate of climate change, which on it's own if humans were absent from the Earth, would happen at a much slower rate, but yes would eventually happen.

I should also add that we can compare rates of Carbon Dioxide in the air in ratio with other gases in the air, from air-pockets taken from glacier samples from 1000's of years ago.




"The fact is global warming is basically being used to promote a totalitarian agenda which entails higher taxation, more laws and bureaucracy which restrict personal freedoms, and global governance. Many of the people who are behind the global warming scare (Al Gore, Maurice Strong, etc.) are rich bureaucrats who could not care less about the environment, as they jet set around the world while telling other people how they're supposed to live.

All I have to do is look at the people who are most heavily promoting the global warming ruse (and the agenda they represent) to know that we're not being told the truth."


^So because they are rich, they don't care about the environment? That sounds like a fallacy to me, and in Al Gore's case, it's contradictory since he has spent a good chunk of his personal wealth to buy solar panels for his own personal use of solar energy, which frankly if he thought was a scam aren't cheap things to buy. Also, currently mankind has no other method of continent transportation other than to rely on fossil fuels or nuclear power, in sea vessels or by airplane transportation.

So you can't hold that against anybody since there aren't other options of transportation that are green. If you need to get somewhere long distance, plane is still your only option if you are operating in a specific time frame.

----

I could easily just as prove that the "don't believe in global warming" scare was funded by big oil companies, which invented and marketed the whole counter-argument you have just repeated in your attempt to disprove my post.

--

I will also say this it's not just the politicians who are saying global warming exists, and Carbon Dioxide plays a roll in this, this original claim comes from the scientific community, not politicians.

And only a small minority of the scientific community, which is shrinking, is continuing to argue that "global warming/climate change" is an issue humanity shouldn't be concerned with, and have no roll in playing as it is just part of the natural cycle of Earth heating and cooling.

 

The arguments you put forward are weak at best. You claim that because Al Gore has spent money on solar panels, he must really care about the environment. Well, I am sure the amount he has spent on solar panels amounts to mere pennies compared to the amount he has made from his carbon credits scheme. I mean, this is a guy (a charlatan) who purchases carbon credits from a company that he owns himself.

Please, come up with something better than that.

 

And the conservative agenda eliminates the Climate originating CO2 emissions (direct natural measurement of economically decisive indication) from any form of regulations upon the social interaction of what people owe from one generation to another. Now it's the liberals (neo-liberals) who have to recognize the demoralization of the human conscience of consumption habits. Liberalism is alas for the survival of Man (whole-man).:icon_bs

You see: Environment minister P. Kent of Canada does after all believe that that greenhouse gas emissions are a measure of demonization of the poor, and the feeling to avoid it by the regular working class...

 

I really have to wonder why you aren't more suspicious of the multi-trillion dollar oil industry.

BTW, Charles and David Koch are independently richer than the U.S. government. Together, they're at the same level as Bill Gates, and they're the second richest family in the entire world.

This might surprise you, but they're also libertarians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

Since Libertarianism is obviously about fairness and opportunity and helping the planet be the best it can be, I really have to wonder why these unthinkably rich oil/chemical profiteers would ever possibly want to deregulate the economy, or oppose climate change. They must be pretty standup guys to want to put their empire in jeopardy!

BTW: Al Gore isn't even worth half a billion. He isn't even worth half of a half of a billion. And even if he were doing it purely for profit, you're neglecting that the overwhelming majority of legitimate scientists, educated at the most revered and esteemed institutions on the planet, are in almost complete agreement with him. Damn greedy thousandaires!

Interestingly enough, the Koch Brothers have donated a sum almost equalling that of Al Gore's entire net worth to free market and advocacy organizations... some of which doubtlessly include your buddy Marc Morano.

I know you'll just ignore/forget everything I've told you in a few days, but any chance to expose how little you know about what you're discussing at least has a chance of reaching anyone who might be reading this. Oh, and you're also not a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, so of course none of this is in any way relevant to anything you're saying about climate change or how the government is responsible for everything evil and wrong.

 

This too is an argument that challenges you PR.



The one percent is not in uniform agreement with each other about an "ideal" new world order globalist conspiracy. There is a lot of in-fighting.

 

Who says I'm not? I am suspicious of all industry, especially when it's in bed with government.

You operate with the mindset that government and corporations are two separate entities -- I don't.

The thing that annoys me most with some people is that they don't want to face the fact that the elites of the world control everything. At the top there is no distinction between government and the world's richest oil companies. Big money runs the show. Period.

This is utterly ridiculous and completely false. The Kochs are simply a name liberals like to name drop, but they are not nearly as powerful as you claim them to be. And the idea they're the "second richest family in the world" is bullshit. The two richest families in the world are the ones who control the world's monetary system: the Rothschilds and Rockefellers.

It's called the Hegelien dialectic. The system always needs two sides in apparent disagreement in order to maintain its perceived relevancy and move forward with agendas. It doesn't make one side more right than the other.

Gore is worth 100 million, compared to 2 million in 2001. The bulk of that money was made off of global warming and the ensuing carbon credits swindle.

Who is Marc Morano?

Furthermore, I couldn't care less about the Koch brothers. They hold relatively little power and influence compared to the central bankers.

The government and corporations are one and the same, and they both work together to enslave the population. Apparently you don't get that. I am against the government and corporations equally because I see them as part of the same entity. This is why I don't look to the government to reign in the corporations like you do, because that simply isn't going to happen. The government is the main vehicle used in directly controlling the population, so perhaps this is why it appears I am more critical of government. But again, the government is controlled by corporations and vice versa. There is a revolving door between the two that would be ignorant and disingenuous to ignore.

 

You are right, but I would say the core of this NWO group makes up far less than the "1 percent" the OWS crowd constantly refers to. The higher towards the top of the proverbial pyramid you go, the more aligned these elites are in their objectives. While there is no doubt in-fighting that occurs, they are still in allegiance when it comes to their plans to enslave humanity, which they have largely already done.

 

What does this have to do with climate change being real/not being real?? If the oil companies run the show, why are they trying to turn people off of oil??

What does this have to do with climate change being real/not being real??
PS: you're wrong... but I know I'm arguing with a conspiracy nut so whatever... it doesn't change my point.

You don't think people naturally disagree on things?

And if these people are already in charge, have more money than they know what to do with, AND global warming isn't real, why do they need an 'agenda' at all? They've already WON the game.

He is worth $200 million, but most of it is from investments. I'm pretty sure you just believe the whole 'global warming hysteria profiteering' thing because it 'sounds right' and not because you've even taken 20 seconds to google it.

Here:

http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=06167a85-b554-4bda-b5aa-2c4ec72ac090

Gore had stock in Apple and Google. He owned Current TV. He sold off his investments. Yes, he was paid for his appearances/speaking... but that's not where most of his wealth came from.

And I've noticed you've completely ignored the fact that practically every single legitimate climatologist in the WORLD agrees that manmade global warming is a fact.

And logically, even if Al Gore had made billions off of it and took over the world with his global warming hysteria money, it STILL doesn't mean that it isn't actually happening.

That's completely absurd. Earlier in this thread you said that the oil companies controlled the government and now you're saying that people who own oil companies have little power. The Rockefellers made their fortune through an oil company which BTW was broken up by the government.

And my point wasn't even about who was the 'biggest', the point was that the Koch brothers most certainly have the motive and the resources to launch a massive campaign against science/climatologists. Not only do they own oil companies, they also own fertilizer companies that are actually responsible for the release of methane, which is also a huge greenhouse gas.

You're so ready to jump on Al Gore for profiting from climate change 'hysteria' (maybe a few million at most) and yet you're completely unwilling to look at the multi-billionaires who stand to lose so much from climate change-related legislation (trillions of dollars in sales).

I have never said that corporate influence on the government didn't exist. I didn't say that corruption doesn't exist. You've dodged pretty much every single point I made... and it's not like I didn't know that you would.

 

Climate change

I never said climate change "isn't real." The climate is always changing and goes through cycles. My issue pertains to climate change being man-made. Despite your claims, there is no consensus on global warming being the product of human intervention, and there are tens of thousands of scientists worldwide who dispute the notion of global warming being caused by humans.

Here are just a few of those scientists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis

From the article:

And the fact is, the elite wrote in their own publications going back to the 60s that they would use global warming to push their globalist agenda. See Club of Rome.

From the First Global Revolution:

Standard Oil

Sure Standard Oil was dissolved by the government... if you take things at face value, considering the Rockefellers were the most powerful family in the US at the time, and likely still are today. After Standard Oil was "dissolved," it then morphed into seven separate oil companies known as the Seven Sisters, all of which were in the control of the Rockefeller family. This was done simply to avoid the appearance of a monopoly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_%28oil_companies%29

 

That's a really short list, and none of them are climatologists.

You're quoting James Taylor, who works for the Heartland Institute (a huge pro-oil think tank/propaganda machine). He is a lawyer with a Bachelor of Arts, and he gets paid to write articles in Forbes that distort the climate change issue.

The article you linked to doesn't mention 'tens of thousands', it mentions 1,077. Organization Studies is NOT a scientific journal, it is a business management journal... and I'm sure you also missed the fact that the study was co-authored by someone from Alberta, Canada-- global warming denialist hotspot and home to the Tar Oil Sands. The other woman is from a business school in Austria.

Here's the Canadian's page:

http://www.business.ualberta.ca/LianneLefsrud

Her resume:

http://www.business.ualberta.ca/~/m...D/LianneLefsrud/Documents/LianneLefsrudCV.pdf

Oh wow she works for the oil companies! What a surprise! But hey-- when she actually finishes her degree I'm sure she'll make a wonderful shill! I mean... it's not like her doctorate in philosophy is going to get her a job in anything remotely connected to science.

And I found this part especially interesting-- from her CV:

Specifically, I am interested in the role of language and rhetoric to define,
value, and shape our conceptions of technology, energy, the environment and the associated state
and self-regulatory institutions. This drives my research programme.


She actually wants to be a propagandist!

Reading the study you will also find that they didn't interview a single climatologist, and chose instead to interview '1077 professional engineers and geoscientists'. Well, even if they did interview engineers who know nothing about climate science-- geoscience is related to the earth, right?

Of course it is!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_geology

Petroleum geology is the study of origin, occurrence, movement, accumulation, and exploration of hydrocarbon fuels. It refers to the specific set of geological disciplines that are applied to the search for hydrocarbons (oil exploration).

So yeah, basically, they interviewed oil workers on what they thought about manmade global warming.

As for your '10s of thousands':

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/en...s/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

And here they interviewed the general public and asked what their education level was, and anyone with an undergrad in science (BSc) from any university was considered a scientist.

Pretty hilarious.

 

I'm a libertarian of the consequentialist persuasion. Which is to say, a practical/everyday libertarian or agorist. I think natural rights are spooks, as much as the state is a spook.

I'm also conservative in the classical sense of the world, and that is, I am careful about utopias, revolutions, and 'progress'. Even libertarian utopias. Which goes back to my skepticism concerning natural rights.

I think everything is helplessly flawed, which is not to say that everything is equally flawed.

Therefore, the best argument in favor of libertarianism as far as I can tell, isn't a moral one, but an efficiency or cost/benefit one. I'm cool with being called a conservative libertarian, for now.

-----------
Yes, and I also despise all politically correct (Rousseau, Marx, Dem party, Evangelicals) ideologies.

 

Fragile_rock I'm let you take over from here.

You are saying everything I would've said, and are actually highlighting specific into that helped me stop believing what PR is saying about Global Warming.

Some clarification on these terms we've been using interchangeably:

Climate change - is basically changes in climate; it's natural and not caused by man.


Global Warming - the term used to mean the Earth's climate is changing at an accelerated pace, that mankind is responsible for influencing via pollution with carbon dioxide, methane, and deforestation.



Politically all then USA can do is tell it's businesses and individuals to cut back on fossil fuels, and recycle as much as possible.

Brazil is basically out of jurisdiction, but they and other South American countries better put a moratorium on cutting down the amazon for wood pulp, that is used in our toilet paper (because it's the kind of wood that gives the soft feel) and for cardboard for all of our shipping needs.

And all the manufacturing China's been doing is a huge problem too for air pollution.

---

But pragmatically USA can really only control consumption practices of its own people, so it's a good place to start.



PR, i admire where your heart is placed in the sense that you don't like the class warfare type abuses the rich are inflicting on the middle and poorer classes, but fraggle and I are here to show you how you've been mislead.

And you should believe us, because I once held your views about then New World Order, Illuminati, Reptilians, and I saw after a few years of believing this was really me being trolled by corporate propagandist who were exploiting my discontent. The entire conspiracy is a strawman....a very convincing strawman.

 

I really have to wonder who it is that keeps giving me a thumbs down for posting what is essentially just information. I can understand disagreeing with my opinions, but you're seriously in disagreement with the fact that the oil companies are responsible for practically ALL denialist propaganda? What exactly about what I just posted do you not agree with?

All I did was Google a few names and the trail led, as always, to big oil. It isn't like I'm just making this shit up... these people post their own credentials online for everyone to see... doing 20 minutes of online research will get you the same results from any denialist article.

I get that you hate liberals, but why do you hate facts?

 

Hi

What you must understand about Rat is that whatever he says to the contrary he always seems to push a line that would benefit wealth more than the majority of people.

Hot Air

We have had the ‘climate change’ argument many times on the forum and Rat has always been happy to push the same line, which always seems to end in some wealth financed reports.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=362603&page=3

Beware this way be conspiracies…

The Rockefeller/Rothschild mentions go back to Rat’s complete belief in certain conspiracy theories. (I mean this is the man that once put forward the theory that Hitler was Jewish and the bastard son of a Rothschild).

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=104835&page=2

(Rat is it still Lucifer worshipers or is it something else these days?).

It means it can be difficult to debate rationally because it is like debating with a Creationist, a lot of what he is basing his ideas on isn’t rational, its all smoke and mirrors made up from innuendo, supposition and rumour.

From my experience I can tell you that it can be a lot of fun (at least for awhile) popping these conspiracy theory bubbles but you soon see that even when popped the believers still cling onto the hot air they contained.