How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[TheButterZone]

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Anything with an -ism is cult-like.  This is what happens to cult followers, they blind themselves to anything that might invalidate their belief system.

Like that the word "environmentalism" exists?

[stochastic]

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Anything with an -ism is cult-like.  This is what happens to cult followers, they blind themselves to anything that might invalidate their belief system.

Like that the word "environmentalism" exists?

Yes exactly, there are environmentalists that believe (yes believe because they can no do the scientific method themselves) that the world is going to end due to man-made global warming and that the only solution is state run socialism.  This does not mean global warming is not actually occuring.  The problem is their method of trying to fix the problem.

There is no such thing as scientistism.  There is only the method of science.  We see something curious or see a problem, make testable hypothesis (like is the surface temperature of the Earth increasing), and then run an experiment to test the hypothesis and have their findings peer-reviewed.

[bb113]

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Once again, I cant say for sure about climate science. But for all things biomedical (cancer, alzheimer, etc research), nature is actually one of the worst journals out there. You can never even tell what the hell the people did to get their results, let alone assess how valid their conclusions are.

[bb113]

Your critical eye was obviously on vacation the day you cited Richard Lindzen's mutterings. I was the one who did the scrutinizing to show you the garbage that exists out there. And I have to continue to do it in these forums.

I really want to acknowledge that you were right to draw my attention to those details.

[bb113]

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Once again, I cant say for sure about climate science. But for all things biomedical (cancer, alzheimer, etc research), nature is actually one of the worst journals out there. You can never even tell what the hell the people did to get their results, let alone assess how valid their conclusions are.

I want to emphasize this a bit more. It is clear to me Nature does not care about showing your data (they accept dynamite plots), they dont care if you report the sample size, they allow using SEM rather than standard deviation in showing how uncertain the results are (SEM gets smaller if your N is bigger, ie spent more money). This is basic rational person stuff that is not enforced.

I could go on and on, that journal is crap and only lives on due to inertia of consensus and authority. I have really come to the conclusion that the last fifty years of science was just "experts" measuring how sure they are of their opinions. I am not alone, look it up.

Do this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127448.0

[Richy_T]

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

You tried to supply a non-sequitur as a logical progression. That's about all that matters.

[FirstAscent]

We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

The science behind AGW does not purport to recognize anything but humanity driven pollution as the cause of AGW. Granted, one can call attention to the notion that there is not enough humanity driven pollution to cause global warming, but that's all. The question really boils down to whether there is enough humanity driven pollution to make AGW a reality.

I will make a guess as to what you know scientifically about climate change. I believe you think you know a fair amount, and I believe most of what you know is bogus material that you have absorbed through fringe websites which are politically motivated to smear climate science. That's my prediction. I'm challenging you right now, Mr "I have a scientific background." Show us. I will address what you share.

[FirstAscent]

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Once again, I cant say for sure about climate science. But for all things biomedical (cancer, alzheimer, etc research), nature is actually one of the worst journals out there. You can never even tell what the hell the people did to get their results, let alone assess how valid their conclusions are.

I want to emphasize this a bit more. It is clear to me Nature does not care about showing your data (they accept dynamite plots), they dont care if you report the sample size, they allow using SEM rather than standard deviation in showing how uncertain the results are (SEM gets smaller if your N is bigger, ie spent more money). This is basic rational person stuff that is not enforced.

I could go on and on, that journal is crap and only lives on due to inertia of consensus and authority. I have really come to the conclusion that the last fifty years of science was just "experts" measuring how sure they are of their opinions. I am not alone, look it up.

Do this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127448.0

I believe you are attaching way to much significance to your suspicions, likely because it fits what you wish for. Just like you, I can't claim to be familiar with even a tiny fraction of all the published articles, findings, data or discoveries one would find in Nature or it's sister publications, but instead of clinging to the idea that the science must be bad, I actually prefer the process of educating myself on the general aspects of climate science by following it to a fair degree of specificity and the ramifications of it.

I can tell that you instead like to ignore the forest and instead look for an anomaly in a tree, in hopes that it will yield something that you find significant to bolster your preconceived idea that climate science is bunk. How you could believe such a process of investigation could be taken seriously given a complete lack of desire in taking a look at many other trees in our metaphorical forest and a general overview of the forest itself and many of the mechanisms within it is beyond me.

How much do you really know about climate science given your belief in the failure of science and climate science in particular?

[stochastic]

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Once again, I cant say for sure about climate science. But for all things biomedical (cancer, alzheimer, etc research), nature is actually one of the worst journals out there. You can never even tell what the hell the people did to get their results, let alone assess how valid their conclusions are.

I want to emphasize this a bit more. It is clear to me Nature does not care about showing your data (they accept dynamite plots), they dont care if you report the sample size, they allow using SEM rather than standard deviation in showing how uncertain the results are (SEM gets smaller if your N is bigger, ie spent more money). This is basic rational person stuff that is not enforced.

I could go on and on, that journal is crap and only lives on due to inertia of consensus and authority. I have really come to the conclusion that the last fifty years of science was just "experts" measuring how sure they are of their opinions. I am not alone, look it up.

Do this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127448.0

The reporting of statistics of biomedical science involves three steps.
1.  Open SAS.
2.  Do as many statistical tests as SAS allows.
3.  Publish

In fact most biological sciences are like above, except for those in ecology, evolution, or computational biology.

[Rudd-O]

Now I know what reputable and unbiased sources the brainwashed are getting their notions that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not a pollutant.

Well, FirstAscent, if you truly believe CO2 to be a pollutant, and you really want to help the environment, there's really only one thing you can do, isn't there?

Stop polluting.

Well, he can't, because <insert hypocritical reason here>.

Hehe.

I find it funny to see the anthropogenic global cooling, erm, warming, erm, climate change sycophants experience a shit fit / tantrum and start automatically blaming libertarianism for the fact that some people refuse to buy into their mythology.

"What?  YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN MY GOD AND MY ORIGINAL SIN?  DIE, SCUM!"  seems to be what they have literally said here.

Typical.

[bb113]

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Once again, I cant say for sure about climate science. But for all things biomedical (cancer, alzheimer, etc research), nature is actually one of the worst journals out there. You can never even tell what the hell the people did to get their results, let alone assess how valid their conclusions are.

I want to emphasize this a bit more. It is clear to me Nature does not care about showing your data (they accept dynamite plots), they dont care if you report the sample size, they allow using SEM rather than standard deviation in showing how uncertain the results are (SEM gets smaller if your N is bigger, ie spent more money). This is basic rational person stuff that is not enforced.

I could go on and on, that journal is crap and only lives on due to inertia of consensus and authority. I have really come to the conclusion that the last fifty years of science was just "experts" measuring how sure they are of their opinions. I am not alone, look it up.

Do this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127448.0

The reporting of statistics of biomedical science involves three steps.
1.  Open SAS.
2.  Do as many statistical tests as SAS allows.
3.  Publish

In fact most biological sciences are like above, except for those in ecology, evolution, or computational biology.

I think that this is just a symptom of the disease. The disease itself is the "null ritual" meme that pervades all fields of science. The only exceptions are those that actually try to model and predict things (like your examples).

In the context of big business vs science, my point is that scientific consensus means nothing. Most scientists aren't even capable of reasoning properly since their minds have been clouded by indoctrination with nonsense "statistics". This happened to me as well, I only happened to ask why we do things the way we do them. Anyone who actually takes the time to look into what has been going on will come to the same conclusions I have. P-values and statistical significance as widely used is measuring how much effort you put into generating your data. Effect size is measuring the amount of bias in the field.

There has been some progress but it has been more accidental than anything, there is not much low hanging fruit left that can be detected if we continue relying on these methods. Climate scientists do create models and try to predict things, so I suspect that field may be better than most.

Here is the basic error:


The p value is calculated as the probability of the data (or more extreme) occurring by chance if we assume a strawman null hypothesis is true (every null hypothesis is false, because there are always differences between any two groups/things). This number is then erroneously interpreted as an error rate or worse, probability the researcher's pet hypothesis is true. Because the likelihood of "more extreme" and less likely results are averaged in (which even the guy who came up with it, Ronald Fisher, said was indefensible save as an approximation), the error rate seems much lower than it actually is. You can also use bayes' theorem to prove that interpreting the face value of a p-value as a probability requires you set a prior probability the null is false of 75-90%.

Even then, just because the null (strawman) hypothesis is false, it does not make the researcher's pet hypothesis any more likely to be true. The entire thing is a waste of time but it is the foundation of pretty much all modern scientific reasoning, funding, and publishing. Worse it discourages actually looking at data and trying to figure out what is going on, since researchers believe they are using an objective method backed by mathematics and logic, which they are not. They using methods of reasoning that (it looks like so far) were invented by the guy who created the ACT in an effort to provide people with "non-controversial" statistical methods at the behest of his university and publisher.


Edit: and oh yea. Comparing the probability scientific consensus is right with the chance the arguments of politicians and propagandists are right isn't even possible, since you get a divide by zero error. So lets stop doing that.

[FirstAscent]

Now I know what reputable and unbiased sources the brainwashed are getting their notions that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not a pollutant.

Well, FirstAscent, if you truly believe CO2 to be a pollutant, and you really want to help the environment, there's really only one thing you can do, isn't there?

Stop polluting.

Well, he can't, because <insert hypocritical reason here>.

You guys can't even get straight what I say. Sad. I didn't tell anyone here to stop polluting. I told all the libertarians here to stop using fringe websites for their education about climate science. But if you insist I was doing something else, then I don't really mind being in the company of the likes of Warren Buffett. He understands that if he personally pays more in taxes, it won't matter. He knows that a unified effort of paying more taxes by the rich is what amounts to something.

Hehe.

Are you laughing smugly at what you believe is your own cleverness? I don't see any cleverness here. What I see is a kneejerk reaction by a libertarian who doesn't know that much about the topic at hand.

I find it funny to see the anthropogenic global cooling, erm, warming, erm, climate change sycophants experience a shit fit / tantrum and start automatically blaming libertarianism for the fact that some people refuse to buy into their mythology.

"What?  YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN MY GOD AND MY ORIGINAL SIN?  DIE, SCUM!"  seems to be what they have literally said here.

Please share what you know about climate science. I'm waiting.

[FirstAscent]

How much do you really know about climate science given your belief in the failure of science and climate science in particular?

Bitcoinbitcoin113,

I asked you the above question earlier.

[bb113]

How much do you really know about climate science given your belief in the failure of science and climate science in particular?

Bitcoinbitcoin113,

I asked you the above question earlier.

I don't have a belief in the failure of science and climate science in particular. I believe that there has been a failure in science education at the highest levels that has somehow persisted for over half a century resisting all attempts to change it, and this is one reason amongst many (possibly the strongest reason) to not use or accept scientific consensus arguments.

[hashman]

How the heck is Milton Friedman supposed to be a libertarian? He advocated monetary intervention by a giant centralized state!

+1
It's amazing how many people just trust the language of corrupt hypocrites with their "free trade" regulations, and then blame free trade for the resulting catastrophes. 

Though opposed to the existence of the Federal Reserve, Friedman argued that, given that it does exist, a steady, small expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy.
Friedman was an economic adviser to Republican U.S. President Ronald Reagan. His political philosophy extolled the virtues of a free market economic system with minimal intervention.

Does wikipedia need correcting?

Yes.

Well, maybe it's OK if you know how to read it.  He "extolled the virtues of a free market economic system"..  that was what I referred to as "the language of corrupt hypocrites". 

Take a look at how much the size of federal spending (aka time-integrated taxes) increased under Reagan. 

[flatiron]

Why can't Keynesians go make their own currency so they can stop trolling?

[Richy_T]

We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

The science behind AGW does not purport to recognize anything but humanity driven pollution as the cause of AGW. Granted, one can call attention to the notion that there is not enough humanity driven pollution to cause global warming, but that's all. The question really boils down to whether there is enough humanity driven pollution to make AGW a reality.

Gotta love your circular logic. AGW is happening because of pollution and it's pollution because it's causing AGW. By conflating CO2 emissions with pollution, you immediately prejudice the argument. The usual word games

I will make a guess as to what you know scientifically about climate change. I believe you think you know a fair amount, and I believe most of what you know is bogus material that you have absorbed through fringe websites which are politically motivated to smear climate science. That's my prediction. I'm challenging you right now, Mr "I have a scientific background." Show us. I will address what you share.

Meh, I'm not climate scientist and I haven't particularly followed it for a while. I don't trawl "fringe" websites either (standard mud-slinging attempt duly noted though). However, even when I was a lefty environmentalist myself, all the political bullshit and media hysteria surrounding what was a solid scientific endeavor was palpable. My point is that as a scientist you get used to picking out the wheat from the chaff and what's flying around today is mostly chaff (on both sides. I've seen deniers confuse CO2 with CO for example and others who think that NO2 and other real pollutants from exhaust gases get turned to CO2 by the catalytic converter).

[Richy_T]

I believe you think you know a fair amount, and I believe most of what you know is bogus material that you have absorbed through fringe websites which are politically motivated to smear climate science.

I believe you are attaching way to much significance to your suspicions, likely because it fits what you wish for.

Oh the irony...

[FirstAscent]

We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

The science behind AGW does not purport to recognize anything but humanity driven pollution as the cause of AGW. Granted, one can call attention to the notion that there is not enough humanity driven pollution to cause global warming, but that's all. The question really boils down to whether there is enough humanity driven pollution to make AGW a reality.

Gotta love your circular logic. AGW is happening because of pollution and it's pollution because it's causing AGW. By conflating CO2 emissions with pollution, you immediately prejudice the argument. The usual word games

Try again. My words are quoted right there. Specifically point out the circular logic.

I will make a guess as to what you know scientifically about climate change. I believe you think you know a fair amount, and I believe most of what you know is bogus material that you have absorbed through fringe websites which are politically motivated to smear climate science. That's my prediction. I'm challenging you right now, Mr "I have a scientific background." Show us. I will address what you share.

Meh, I'm not climate scientist and I haven't particularly followed it for a while.

In other words, you're not qualified to render an opinion on the subject matter here. Try again.

[FirstAscent]

How much do you really know about climate science given your belief in the failure of science and climate science in particular?

Bitcoinbitcoin113,

I asked you the above question earlier.

I don't have a belief in the failure of science and climate science in particular. I believe that there has been a failure in science education at the highest levels that has somehow persisted for over half a century resisting all attempts to change it, and this is one reason amongst many (possibly the strongest reason) to not use or accept scientific consensus arguments.

You believe AGW is happening or not?