Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:03 am


Rosa Koire has officially freaked me out speaking about the United Nations Agenda 21. Communitarianism is not for us, our well being, but for corporate tyranny to implement the NWO plan for globalization's complete surveillance and control over all land, trade, and an individuals movement and forthcoming economic impoverishment. Globalization led by one central corporate body of unelected officials. Didn't really understand the last portion of the video about geoengineering, the chemtrails, and how that furthers Agenda 21.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7495
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:41 am

Nice post Wendy.

Of course from my perspective this all comes from hundreds of thousands of years from miseducation about sex. Unless people understand that, nothing will change.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9485
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:14 pm

http://icleiusa.org/membership/
This is the UN's organization that is taking over the USA to accomplish its' Agenda 21. There's a list of the US membership where you can see if your city or county is already infected.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7495
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:58 pm

Agenda 21 is a 350-page document divided into 40 chapters that have been grouped into 4 sections:

Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions is directed toward combating poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.
Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes.
Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups includes the roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and industry, and workers; and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.
Section IV: Means of Implementation includes science, technology transfer, education, international institutions, and financial mechanisms.


The horror! The Horror!

And here of course we have the usual suspects:

capitalists vs. socialists
conservatives vs. liberals
individualists vs. collectivists
and on and on and on.

My point of course is that among the rabid objectivists, there is only one right way in which to understand agenda 21; and only one right way in which to react to it. And this includes both means and ends.

One of us [the good guys] and one of them [the bad guys].

Deontologically as it were.

Beyond all else, it is vital that the "real me" be in touch with what is really going on here so that, in knowing "the right thing to do", the world can be saved in time.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34922
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:59 pm

Biggie wrote
The horror! The Horror!

It's supposed to seem innocuous, duh! That's why we have the climate change crisis in full swing to push this harmless, sustainable lifestyle.

However, the climate change is a lie as well as the UN's alarm about overpopulation when the world wide population has been in a steady decline since the 60's that it may never recover from since the largest populated countries (China and India) are producing 2.1 children or less. In fact most countries are producing less than 2.1 children so people are not going to be replaced within the next thirty years, Africa being the only continent where fertility rates remain high, but as they get more access to birth control, their rates will drop off as well.

Back to the climate change lie, less than 1% of scientists say that climate change is caused by human contributions. The lie that 97% of scientists say that humans are causing climate change was actually based on a study conducted by citizen scientists aka activists who googled through scientific reports about climate change and only looked for keywords (such as human activity) to appear rather than reading the studies to find out what the key words they were searching were being used for. If the words human activity were found present in the study, then that scientist supported climate change. The amount of dishonesty is astounding.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7495
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:37 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Biggie wrote
The horror! The Horror!

It's supposed to seem innocuous, duh! That's why we have the climate change crisis in full swing to push this harmless, sustainable lifestyle.

However, the climate change is a lie as well as the UN's alarm about overpopulation when the world wide population has been in a steady decline since the 60's that it may never recover from since the largest populated countries (China and India) are producing 2.1 children or less. In fact most countries are producing less than 2.1 children so people are not going to be replaced within the next thirty years, Africa being the only continent where fertility rates remain high, but as they get more access to birth control, their rates will drop off as well.

Back to the climate change lie, less than 1% of scientists say that climate change is caused by human contributions. The lie that 97% of scientists say that humans are causing climate change was actually based on a study conducted by citizen scientists aka activists who googled through scientific reports about climate change and only looked for keywords (such as human activity) to appear rather than reading the studies to find out what the key words they were searching were being used for. If the words human activity were found present in the study, then that scientist supported climate change. The amount of dishonesty is astounding.


Right, like there aren't any number folks on the other end of the political spectrum who can't rip these points to shreds. Then it becomes a matter of whether they are, like you, authoritarian in their agrndas.

Over and again, what becomes important to them is not what they believe is true in regard to moral and political value judgments, but that what they believe is true allows them to sustain what I construe to be the illusion of the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do". In other words, "the psychology of objectivism".

Which I then ascribe existentially to dasein and they ascribe essentially to one or another transcending font: God, deontology, political ideology, objectivist reason, nature.

Only here I am no less included in my own argument.

As for climate change, sooner or later the actual reality is going to unfold. 50 years from now either the dire predictions of the left will come to be or the changes will be minimal and the predictions of the right will be born out. Of course few of us are likely to be around to say "I told you so".

Or you can think about it all like this. Suppose we were actually entering a new Ice Age. Our goal would be to warm the planet up as much as possible.

See how it works? Context is everything.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34922
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:08 pm

Biggie wrote
Which I then ascribe existentially to dasein and they ascribe essentially to one or another transcending font: God, deontology, political ideology, objectivist reason, nature.

What does transcending font mean?

Biggie wrote
Right, like there aren't any number folks on the other end of the political spectrum who can't rip these points to shreds.

Note to you Biggie, that saying the above is not the equivalent of the reality of it which has yet to happen. So, the possiblitity is not the reality even though you state it as if it is a fact. You are theorizing only and offer nothing of substance.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7495
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 25, 2020 8:04 pm

WendyDarling wrote: Biggie wrote
Which I then ascribe existentially to dasein and they ascribe essentially to one or another transcending font: God, deontology, political ideology, objectivist reason, nature.

What does transcending font mean?


Again, we need a context.

How about individual reactions to Agenda 21?

We collect 100 people who are familiar with it. People who have formed an opinion about it. But their opinions fall all along the political spectrum. Based on their belief in God, their philosophical assessment of good and evil, their political ideology, their assessment of rational thinking, their conviction that some things are natural and some things are not.

The part I attribute to dasein.

A transcending font [which most call God] would be the person or thing all of these individuals could go to in order to determine definitively and once and for all what all reasonable and ethical men and women are obligated to think and feel about it.

Again, for religious folks, this is because God is almost always said to be both omniscient and omnipotent. For the secular objectivists, it is because they insist that only if you share their own philosophical, ideological, natural etc., value judgments can you be "one of us". In other words, they reconfigure themselves into that font that all others must accept. Then it's just a matter of where the lines are drawn: around race? around gender" around ethnicity? around sexual preference? around Trump? around abortion? around Agenda 21?

Right, like there aren't any number folks on the other end of the political spectrum who can't rip these points to shreds.


WendyDarling wrote: Note to you Biggie, that saying the above is not the equivalent of the reality of it which has yet to happen. So, the possibility is not the reality even though you state it as if it is a fact. You are theorizing only and offer nothing of substance.


What reality? What context? What interpretation of Agenda 21?

What particular set of political prejudices?

In other words, why your rendition of "substance" here and not the liberals?

My point is only to suggest that this substance of yours is the embodiment of dasein as an existential contraption rooted in my signature thread arguments. No more or no less than my own. Only my "I" is considerably more fractured than yours is. And, in particular, I explain why on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

For me, the bottom line in regard to objectivists of your ilk is not what you believe about Agenda 21, but that what you have thought yourself into believing about it has come to embody the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

This part by and large: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34922
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:56 pm

Okay, I need practice...I'll bite. Start a thread and choose a current debatable in a context, Biggie. Share your definitions regarding the subject matter in context.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7495
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:01 am

Iambiguous,

Honestly dude! When you’re 2 years old, you probably said that 2+2 = a million

When you became older, now you know that it is 4.

That’s all your “fractured self”is. Because you didn’t know EVERYTHING !! The first time, facts can’t exist!!

That’s called “narcissism”
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9485
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:24 am

Ecmandu wrote:Iambiguous,

Honestly dude! When you’re 2 years old, you probably said that 2+2 = a million

When you became older, now you know that it is 4.

That’s all your “fractured self”is. Because you didn’t know EVERYTHING !! The first time, facts can’t exist!!

That’s called “narcissism”


Note to others...

Pick one:

He is....

...a double boogie short of a hole in one
...a few fries short of a Happy Meal
...not the brightest bulb in the box
...one twist short of a slinky
...not the sharpest tool in the shed
...a few sandwiches short of a picnic
...a few clowns short of a circus
...a few beers short of a six-pack
...missing a few buttons on his remote control
...a few Bradys short of a bunch.

Unless of course we're all wrong. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34922
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:49 am

WendyDarling wrote:Okay, I need practice...I'll bite. Start a thread and choose a current debatable in a context, Biggie. Share your definitions regarding the subject matter in context.


A "current debatable in a context"? Not sure what you mean.

Do you mean a moral or political issue in which there are men and women all up and down the political spectrum who, in a debate, will argue for or against conflicting goods?

My point though is that in regard to Agenda 21, that is exactly what does happens. Both sides make arguments that, given a particular set of assumptions regarding such things as the human condition, the United Nations, the role of government, the distribution of wealth and power, the global economy, God and religion, individualism vs. collectivism etc., come to conflicting conclusions as to how human beings should interact across the globe.

Indeed, once as an objectivist myself [a Marxist, a socialist, a democratic socialist, a social democrat], I embraced the left/liberal political agenda. Now, however, I have come to the conclusion the arguments of those on the right are equally reasonable given their own set of initial assumptions about all those things above.

Again, my argument revolves around this:

My point is only to suggest that this substance of yours is the embodiment of dasein as an existential contraption rooted in my signature thread arguments. No more or no less than my own. Only my "I" is considerably more fractured than yours is. And, in particular, I explain why on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

For me, the bottom line in regard to objectivists of your ilk is not what you believe about Agenda 21, but that what you have thought yourself into believing about it has come to embody the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

This part by and large: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296


Though, sure, if you would like to explore these relationships more substantively/contextually in regard to another issue like abortion or race or human sexuality or Trump or the welfare state or gun legislation etc., let me know and I will start the thread.
Last edited by iambiguous on Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34922
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:51 am

iambiguous wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Iambiguous,

Honestly dude! When you’re 2 years old, you probably said that 2+2 = a million

When you became older, now you know that it is 4.

That’s all your “fractured self”is. Because you didn’t know EVERYTHING !! The first time, facts can’t exist!!

That’s called “narcissism”


Note to others...

Pick one:

He is....

...a double boogie short of a hole in one
...a few fries short of a Happy Meal
...not the brightest bulb in the box
...one twist short of a slinky
...not the sharpest tool in the shed
...a few sandwiches short of a picnic
...a few clowns short of a circus
...a few beers short of a six-pack
...missing a few buttons on his remote control
...a few Bradys short of a bunch.

Unless of course we're all wrong. :wink:


Iambiguous, you can’t beg your way out of this one:

You’re fractured self (as described by you) is:

1.) you have dreams
2.) you didn’t pick the right political narrative the first or even the second time

The reason I call this narcissism is because if you thought 2+2 equals a million and now you know it’s 4, if YOU got it wrong ONCE!!! Everyone must be wrong about everything!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9485
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:58 am

Ecmandu wrote:Iambiguous, you can’t beg your way out of this one:

You’re fractured self (as described by you) is:

1.) you have dreams
2.) you didn’t pick the right political narrative the first or even the second time

The reason I call this narcissism is because if you thought 2+2 equals a million and now you know it’s 4, if YOU got it wrong ONCE!!! Everyone must be wrong about everything!


Okay, okay I'll add a few more...

He is...

...a few tires short of an eighteen wheeler
...a few pecans short of a fruitcake
...a few sheep short of a flock
...a few colors short of a rainbow
...a few bristles short of a broom

of course I'm just joshing!!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34922
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby WendyDarling » Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:19 am

Biggie wrote
Though, sure, if you would like to explore these relationships more substantively/contextually in regard to another issue like abortion or race or human sexuality or Trump or the welfare state or gun legislation etc., let me know and I will start the thread.

Yes, pick one and define your words that are important.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7495
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby Carleas » Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:31 pm

WendyDarling wrote:less than 1% of scientists say that climate change is caused by human contributions. The lie that 97% of scientists say that humans are causing climate change was actually based on a study conducted by citizen scientists aka activists who googled through scientific reports about climate change and only looked for keywords (such as human activity) to appear rather than reading the studies to find out what the key words they were searching were being used for. If the words human activity were found present in the study, then that scientist supported climate change.

Source? Wiki links to dozens of studies backing up the claim (including ones who seem to begin their study with the claim that you're making), as well as reports produced by mutually-independent scientific bodies also supporting the consensus.

What one study are you rejecting, based on what, and what about all the many many others that reach the same conclusion?
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6050
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:11 am

Carleas wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:less than 1% of scientists say that climate change is caused by human contributions. The lie that 97% of scientists say that humans are causing climate change was actually based on a study conducted by citizen scientists aka activists who googled through scientific reports about climate change and only looked for keywords (such as human activity) to appear rather than reading the studies to find out what the key words they were searching were being used for. If the words human activity were found present in the study, then that scientist supported climate change.

Source? Wiki links to dozens of studies backing up the claim (including ones who seem to begin their study with the claim that you're making), as well as reports produced by mutually-independent scientific bodies also supporting the consensus.

What one study are you rejecting, based on what, and what about all the many many others that reach the same conclusion?


Had a video that went over all that but I can't remember its title. I'll continue looking, but in the meantime I've added an interesting article link. https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#6511766b3bb3
Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.


http://climatechangereconsidered.org/nipcc-scientists/ This website may be a legit group of scientists who aren't getting any payoff. I read some sections that dispute the climate change conspiracy and they even have a category where they respond to their critics. I plan on reading those eventually.

Several supposed climate alarmist, scientific organizations have perpetrated bogus findings and false claims leaving out the majority of scientists, scientists who are even members of those organizations who never consented to their organizations claims who do not state that humans are causing climate change. However as the climate hysteria escalates, climate scientists who speak out are excommunicated from their jobs, their labs, their grants, their reputations are smeared and they are bullied into silence.

“It should trouble everyone in the scientific community that the primary response of its leading voices when they encounter a voice they don’t like is to try to get that person fired from their job. That is doesn’t trouble anyone very much says something,” wrote Roger Pielke, Jr. in a blog post this month. Pielke is a scientist who concluded a decade ago that climate change was not contributing to more extreme weather events such as hurricanes and floods, a finding that was eventually supported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

By exposing this flaw in climate science, Pielke has since been targeted by powerful climate interests determined to destroy his career and reputation. He has been called a climate denier, even though he believes human activity is causing climate change and he supports a carbon tax. President Obama’s top science adviser, John Holdren, wrote a lengthy missive against Pielke, which prompted one Democratic congressman to call for an investigation into Pielke’s research (he is a professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder). The coercion was so great that Pielke left the field of climate science a few years ago.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/04/peoples-climate-march-climate-change-bullies/
Last edited by WendyDarling on Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7495
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:23 am

There is no climate emergency, say 500 experts in letter to the United Nations

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/
Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:

1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7495
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:09 am

Wiki
His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[152]

I'll bet you big bucks that he and his help didn't read through 24,210 articles in a year or less. This smells fishy like what I was trying to describe where they add key words in a google search of abstracts, such as entering the words "no anthropogenic warming" without actually reading the papers. Only five papers had the words "no anthropogenic warming" in them, so wham-bam-thankyou-ma'am, his findings of only five scientists who said there was no anthropogenic warming. Today, science is driven by money and there's no level too low for those trying to cash in to sink.

I'd really like to read his paper. How though? I tried to follow a few links and it's not easily made available to the public.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7495
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby Carleas » Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:00 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Had a video that went over all that but I can't remember its title.

Obviously I don't know for sure, but from this description this sound's like an obviously unreliable source.

WendyDarling wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#6511766b3bb3

Space architect Larry Bell, writing an opinion piece in Forbes, and unsure what "significant" might mean to a climate scientist.

I don't want to spend too much time dunking on this, because it's a bad source and he cites better sources that you cite again that I'll address separately. But I should point out that he argues 1) there's no consensus, 2) the consensus is caused by funding and institutional pressure; 3) we should dismiss opinions from non-specialist (or panels including non-specialists), 4) we should take seriously climate skeptics who are "environmental business leaders" (see also: space architect).

WendyDarling wrote:This website may be a legit group of scientists who aren't getting any payoff.

Sure, or it could be a branch of a farm lobbying organization that spent years arguing that cigarettes aren't bad for your health because its constituents include tobacco farmers. Who can really tell?

WendyDarling wrote:However as the climate hysteria escalates, climate scientists who speak out are excommunicated from their jobs, their labs, their grants, their reputations are smeared and they are bullied into silence.

Space architect Larry Bell points to a bruhaha at the American Physical Society, in which a group of scientists opposed the APS' position on climate change. Were these scientists summarily fired and dismissed from the organization? No, the organization convened a panel to review the literature and determined that their position on climate change was well supported, but decided to review the statement for "clarity and tone".

Which is not to say that we can't find a lot of people who are dicks to people they disagree with, of course wecan. But claims of a witch hunt are overblown (as are claims about what exactly most academic climate scientists are looking for; seems like the in the APS case some of the scientists were objecting to the word "incontrovertible", which does seem somewhat unscientific).

WendyDarling wrote:1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.

Yep, that's the consensus.

WendyDarling wrote:I'd really like to read his paper. How though? I tried to follow a few links and it's not easily made available to the public.

Found on scholar.google.com:
https://www.rescuethatfrog.com/wp-conte ... l-2015.pdf

(Also, for future reference, sci-hub often has papers when Google Scholar only links to an abstract (sci-hub.tw). It's like Pirate Bay for scientific papers)

You are right that they did not read the papers, only the titles and abstracts. Given the perceived consensus, I think that's a reasonable approach, since a paper that challenges or doesn't accept the consensus position would be likely to note that in the abstract. They aren't interested in most of what the paper has to say, so reading the paper as a whole would be overkill. But reading the abstract should give a good estimate of the level of consensus.

Even to the extent we reject it, the response isn't to throw out everything. Knowing that the abstracts for only 5 out of 24,210 papers mentioning
"global warming" or "climate change" explicitly reject human-caused global warming tells us something important about the level of consensus. Even if we think the paper itself overstates its conclusion, what's a reasonable estimate of how much that changed the consensus? 5%? 10%? That would still leave a near-universal scientific consensus that humans cause (some part of) climate change.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6050
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:09 pm

Carleas wrote
I don't want to spend too much time dunking on this, because it's a bad source and he cites better sources that you cite again that I'll address separately. But I should point out that he argues 1) there's no consensus, 2) the consensus is caused by funding and institutional pressure; 3) we should dismiss opinions from non-specialist (or panels including non-specialists), 4) we should take seriously climate skeptics who are "environmental business leaders" (see also: space architect).


He's saying that there is no legitimate consensus due to funding, institutional pressure, and politics. He gives examples why the evidence of research even you use in Wiki is faulty. The stuff you refer to in Wiki is bogus but you can't understand that the climate alarmists aren't really doing science so much as pushing their fear mongering agenda. What about the 30,000 scientists who signed a report than man-made emissions are not causing global warming? 30,000 Does that look like 97%, 98% or the 100% that one of your Wiki scientists claim agree in global warming?

Wiki
James Lawrence Powell reported 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[153] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[154]


You think that they read the abstracts...no they didn't. They googled for key words, that's all. None of those supposed scientists read the articles and none have any idea how the words they googled were applied in the papers, only that those words were present. Really disingenuous research. Carleas, most of what Wiki offers as evidenced science are these research shams and organizations supporting those research shams that never applied any real scientific investigation into their stats. Huge batches of unread paper with key words in them. No one read what the key words were referring to. Total sham of evidence about what the papers say and what the scientists actually think.

I can't believe that this is the type of science you support.

Carleas wrote
Space architect Larry Bell points to a bruhaha at the American Physical Society, in which a group of scientists opposed the APS' position on climate change. Were these scientists summarily fired and dismissed from the organization? No, the organization convened a panel to review the literature and determined that their position on climate change was well supported, but decided to review the statement for "clarity and tone".

Which is not to say that we can't find a lot of people who are dicks to people they disagree with, of course wecan. But claims of a witch hunt are overblown (as are claims about what exactly most academic climate scientists are looking for; seems like the in the APS case some of the scientists were objecting to the word "incontrovertible", which does seem somewhat unscientific).


Although the APS council turned down the request, it has, however, agreed to one proposal from Kleppner’s committee: that the society’s Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) should “examine the statement for improvements in clarity and tone”. Princeton University atomic physicist Will Happer, who was one of those leading the proposal for change, sees that fact as a form of vindication. “They basically sent both statements back to their committee on public affairs and asked them to reconsider,” says Happer. “I think it’s a big victory for us. Many of [the people who signed the petition] took quite a bit of risk in signing this statement.”


If climate scientists who deny global warming aren't bullied, why would Happer say "took quite a bit of a risk in signing the statement?" If honest scientists weren't bullied, there would be NO risk in speaking the truth.

University dumps professor who found polar bears thriving despite climate change

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/

Google police haven't made that article disappear yet but they will because it doesn't support the climate change narrative and it makes the climate alarmists look bad.

Carleas wrote
Yep, that's the consensus.


And where is the consensus that it's causing problems and is harmful to the environment? A general consensus that both natural and man-made climate change contributions are happening is not the issue, the negative effects are the issue.

Thanks for the sci-hub link Carleas. That will help with our future debates.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7495
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby Carleas » Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:46 pm

WendyDarling wrote:He's saying that there is no legitimate consensus due to funding, institutional pressure, and politics.

He's saying 1) there's no consensus, and 2) there's no legitimate consensus. But his evidence in support of the latter undermines the former. There is a consensus, it's clearly visible in the published climate literature. If you want to argue that institutional pressure and anti-orthodoxy witch hunts are the reason for the consensus, fine, but first you need to acknowledge that there's a solid consensus in expert opinion as expressed in published literature. Otherwise, you're offering an explanation of a phenomenon you don't think we're observing.

WendyDarling wrote:What about the 30,000 scientists who signed a report than man-made emissions are not causing global warming?

Here is the petition's website, where you or I or anyone can find a form to mail in to add our illustrious names to the petition.

Your credulity dial is all over the place. On the one hand, published research that provides information about methods and limits its search to articles published in climate science journals is "disingenuous" and a "sham", but an anonymous petition that anyone can fill out, collated by a cooky little medical nonprofit, which treats doctors, electrical engineers, and mathematicians as experts, is dispositive. Why do you trust the OISM petition more than the dozen surveys of climate scientists and reviews of climate science literature, written by different people, exploring the question using different methods, published by different journals in different countries, and all pointing to a strong consensus?

And even if we trust the OISM, why do we treat it as particularly strong evidence against a consensus? The pool of "experts" in the fields they include would be more than 10.6 million, so 30k is .3%, and we still seem to be left with a 99.7% consensus.

WendyDarling wrote:If climate scientists who deny global warming aren't bullied, why would Happer say "took quite a bit of a risk in signing the statement?"

Because denying well attested conclusions is associated with bad science. Believing things for bad reasons is bad science. And not giving someone a promotion or tenure or a book deal because they're a bad scientist is not bullying.

I don't mean to say that challenging the orthodoxy is always bad science, but it is usually bad science, and taken by itself it is bayesian evidence of being a bad scientist.

WendyDarling wrote:Google police haven't made that article disappear yet but they will because it doesn't support the climate change narrative and it makes the climate alarmists look bad.

Ooo, this has the makings of a testable prediction: how long do you think it will take to get disappeared? What search terms should we test, and when, to see? And when we find that it's still there, what belief of yours will change?

WendyDarling wrote:A general consensus that both natural and man-made climate change contributions are happening is not the issue...

This contradicts your earlier claims that, "less than 1% of scientists say that climate change is caused by human contributions." Happy to move on if you retract that claim.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6050
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:55 pm


Climate scientist discusses the climate change hoax as part of the UN's Agenda 21, how the hoax was started, who started it, etc.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7495
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby Carleas » Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:45 pm

Do you understand the arguments in that video well enough to make them yourself? If so, please make them yourself. If not, please admit that you are not well-enough informed on this to have a strong opinion.

Also, to rephrase a question you ignored in my last post: "Why do you trust [this Youtube video] more than the dozen surveys of climate scientists and reviews of climate science literature, written by different people, exploring the question using different methods, published by different journals in different countries, and all pointing to a strong consensus?"

More generally, what makes a source reliable to you, other than confirmation bias?
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6050
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Postby promethean75 » Wed Feb 19, 2020 1:33 am

jesus christ wendy.... you picked a fight with carleas too?! I thought I told y'all to stay away from that guy. Listen, the dude bought a philosophy forum, mmkay. You don't buy a philosophy forum unless you're really, really, really into debating.

You wanna know my secret? You wanna know why I'm always right? Because I don't argue with carleas.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Next

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users