It equates to ultimate authority. There’s no ultimate authority in secular institutions. — praxis

I dispute that. The ultimate authority is the Oligarchy, which runs secular institutions.

I’m not sure how you get that sacredness “literally” means that. That, of course, is not what it means, much less literally means. I assume that’s one sense of it that you got from a dictionary. — praxis

That's what the word means. Sacred, holy that word means set apart for a particular purpose. That's literally what it is. You can look it up.

Lol. There was plenty of debate about Newton's theories, but the evidence was overwhelming. Nor was it proven "wrong" by Einstein or quantum theory. Not even close. Leave your simplistic Nickelodeon ideas of the history of science for Twitter. — Xtrix

Yes it was. Einstein completely overturned Newton's theory of gravity. Anyway, I'll respond to whatever nonsense you posted. Then I'm done. I'm not wasting my time anymore.

No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.

This is where there is a consensus. — Xtrix

And? Consensus is a fallacy. There was no debate over whether Newtonian mechanics was false, until Einstein... and Quantum Theory. There was no debate whether Ptolemaic Astronomy was false.. until Copernicus. There was no debate over Aristotle's Categories... until Hume, and Descartes and the Enlightenment. You can say "there's no debate" but it doesn't mean a damn thing. Honestly.

No, I accept things that have overwhelming evidence -- like a spherical Earth, like that the holocaust happened, like evolution, like gravity, like climate change. Economic or sociology theories have nothing to do with this, although there are some solid ideas even in those fields as well. — Xtrix

LOL Don't even get me started.

Anyway, economic and sociology, LIKE climate science, LIKE biology, LIKE physics, pretends purports to be scientific. I'm asking you, how on Earth are you going to accept one of these as "science" and the rest as not. Or do you? I'm asking you what your criteria is, and how do you demarcate it?

You don't want to answer because you don't have an answer. You cannot establish what is science. You don't even know what science even is.

It has happened, it's happening already. Look at the last 10 hottest years on record. This year is shaping up to be one of the hottest as well. — Xtrix

Yes, climate changes. Water is wet. I don't know what to say. You don't seem to understand that evidence has to be interpreted. It's a massive leap to say, because climate is changing, therefore x, y, z are also true. You have to make the case that x, y and z are true. But you're assuming because climate is changing, a bunch of these claims which you'd assumed and not provided any reason to believe they are genuine are also true. That's not the case.

LOL. Oh, so they ARE a part of the global conspiracy? Interesting. Tell me more, Dr. Science. — Xtrix

No, I'm saying that there is no neutrality when it comes to looking at the world. The Chinese Communist Party could be correct, that's fine. I'm not making an ad hominem, just because they're communists doesn't make them wrong. But I'm pointing out that Wikipedia is not a neutral source. Nothing is.

Glad you've "read NOAA." Was that the book? lol. — Xtrix

The website.

What study might that be, exactly? — Xtrix

The one you pretended to know about.

Good for you. I myself am agnostic about gravity and whether the Earth really is flat. Who knows? Things change. I'm also agnostic about God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. — Xtrix

You seem to be very selective on what you're skeptical about.

You're a climate denier. You've already made that quite clear. You've used standard denialist lines, when asked to cite any sources you provided two well-known climate "skeptics," ignore or dismiss NASA and the IPCC (and apparently even Wikipedia) because of some conspiracy claims about the government, say climate science is based on 'models,' etc. — Xtrix

You can continue to say that, but you're wrong. And that's because you can't reason. You allow your emotions to drive your interpretation of the evidence and the world.

The fact is that the evidence of climate change is overwhelming. It's already happening, and will continue to get worse unless major changes are enacted. There's consensus from scientists all over the world on this. The evidence is clear and easily understand if we care to understand it, which you clearly do not. — Xtrix

Climate change is happening. Yes. It always has. It always will. I've never said otherwise. I'm not arguing that climate doesn't change. I'm arguing against the bunches of other claims you've made, but totally failed to substantiate.

I already explained my view, and you don't understand it. My view is agnosticism. I don't subscribe to ideologies and positions, all knowledge is tentative and always changing. Same as anything.

I'm not a "climate denier" nor am I a "climate skeptic" nor am I a "climate activist" I am not any of these things. I question them all because they are all equally suspect, none of them have made a sufficient case to doxastically believe in. None. That's it.

You've already given yourself away buddy. You've proven you only read fringe bullshit about climate change. This is yet another example. — Xtrix

No. I've read NOAA, I actually have it bookmarked LOL I just don't believe your claims because you have absolutely nothing to substantiate them. Only rhetoric.

It's been attacked by climate deniers like yourself, but later studies have corroborated it. It's based on published articles on climate change, thousands of them. There have also been extensive polling done. Even if the number is 90%, which is extremely unlikely, to have this level of consensus in science is rare. It really tells you something about the level of evidence. — Xtrix

That actual study says nothing about antropogenic climate change. It talks about climate change without qualification. When you actually break down the study into the various ways in which scientists think what is causing climate change, the numbers go way below 70%. I know the study, and it doesn't corroborate anthropogenic climate change. And it CERTAINLY doesn't corroborate alarmism. It's actually SCIENCE, and what you're doing is not science, but does contain BS.

Now you're just babbling nonsense. Why "hypothesis" are you talking about? There's overwhelming evidence for the effects climate change will have. It's only a matter of degree, which will depend on whether we act or not. We're already seeing the effects, which are WORSE than the scientists predicted years ago. — Xtrix

No, there isn't. Because it has not happened yet. Science is about empirical evidence what is the case. Not what might be the case based on models, predictions, hand waving, media personalities, documentaries, alarmism and a autistic 16 year old. If you don't understand that, I cannot help you. I really cannot.

No, there's evidence to back them up -- overwhelming evidence which, once it's explained to you, is more than convincing. All you have to do is make a little effort. Even a simple wikipedia search is fine. Or are they part of the global conspiracy too? — Xtrix

Right, because Google, Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, the Chinese Communist Party and several others who donate to Wikipedia don't have any influence at all over the content that might be adduced there. None.

Lol. Right, just like creationists have "one side" and "evolutionists" have another view. Or, better, flat-earthers have a view and NASA has another view. Both totally plausible. — Xtrix

Except climate science uses totally different methods than biology or physics. Do you accept mainstream economic theory also? Because it's been wrong... every single time.

So, if you're going to pretend that all things which call themselves "science" are all equally scientific and demonstrable, then you're going to have to rigorously defend that claim.

Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means. — Xtrix

No they don't. That number is from a comic book writer. It's fallacious.

No, they're worth my time. I've read both, in fact. I've given sources that go over their points thoroughly. I'd be glad to go over their lies here as well. — Xtrix

No you haven't.

First, it's Madeleine Albright. Second, the quote you refer Albright saying was about UN Sanctions, which were put on after the Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Later Albright was against the invasion of Iraq, — ssu

That makes your case... not at all. It makes mine.

Later Albright was against the invasion of Iraq, so what has that do to with Guatemala, really? — ssu

Good for her. Give her the Nobel Peace Prize.

And thirdly, how about that the Carter administration barred all sales of military equipment to Guatemala and later extended the ban to commercial sales because of the atrocities? — ssu

I didn't say that there weren't different visions within the Oligarchic structure. There are. Wilsonianism is one of those.

Or, when you say that the intent was to kill the Guatemalan people, who would then pick the Banana's? — ssu

You're either not understanding what I'm saying, not reading, or not caring. They wanted to kill Guatemalans, but I didn't say they "planned a genocide of the population" those words never surfaced. They killed the Guatemalans that they needed to kill to secure the resource they wanted. They didn't kill them all. They killed as many as necessary to get what they wanted to get. It's the same reason Albright thought it was "worth it" to kill 500,000+ kids. Maybe 4,000,000 wouldn't be worth it. But to her 500k was. Again, it was a Cost-Benefit Analysis. It wasn't some mass extermination campaign, and I never even implied that.

What I earlier forgot to mention is also the omnipotence that conspiracy theorists give to the elites, the Illuminati and/or the US. — ssu

Which I never did. I always say that there are different factions, sects and interest groups within the superstructure of the Oligarchy which do different things and want different things. Case and point, MI6 has a different interest than the CIA, has a different interest than FSB, has a different interest than Mossad, has a different interest than the Vatican, has a different interest than the Mafia, has a different interest than the Rockefellers and so on and so on. Sometimes those interests converge, like during Operation Gladio, sometimes they do not. I never said anything different.

The IPCC is not the US government, it's a number of research institutes and thousands of scientists.

Good to see you're very skeptical about things, yet swallow the bullshit of Lindzen wholesale. Interesting. :roll: — Xtrix

I never "swallowed" anything. His view is one view. IPCC is another. Until there is evidence that can establish the likelihood of one hypothesis over the other, then there is underdetermination of hypothesis. That has always been my position. Always. Never said anything different.

You assume that because I question your assumptions, that I am a "denier" I am not a "denier" I am Agnostic on the question. I don't know, and neither do you and neither do they. There's a just a lot of claims, and nothing to back them up.

So two climate change deniers. This is what you read? Not the IPCC, not NASA, not NOAA, not the thousands of climatologists out there studying this -- you quote two well known liars (Lomborg less so, although his distortions are incredible as well -- although he's been promoted by imbeciles like Jordan Peterson). — Xtrix

LOL So scientists you disagree with are not worth your time, only ones that already confirm your preconceived bias. That's amazing.

Yeah, this conversation is over. You're just a propagandist, an ideological robot. That's fine, but I'm wasting my time talking. My time is important, yours not so much.

So I think I see where this non-discussion is going. More mouthing off by science ignoramuses who think they know more than people that have studied this their entire lives because they've spent a few minutes thinking about the subject. It's embarrassing. — Xtrix

Yeah, that's what you're doing. I never did that. I cited two climate scientists who agree with me. And I cited a journalist who would agree with you. You're the one doing what you claim I am.

No, they're very alarmed indeed. Rightfully so. — Xtrix

They're really not. Political activists, media personalities and the UN and other globalist fronts are. But nobody serious is.

No, completely wrong. Saying the "only real good solid data" is embarrassing. There's a number of excellent sources of data on the climate, which you would know if you deigned to read anything about the subject. — Xtrix

The government is not a source. There was a "source" about WMDs in Iraq. It's fake. I don't trust the government "data" on anything. Economics, WMDs, their secret programs and operations destroying other people's countries, creating false flags, lying to the American people, infiltrating groups and manipulating events, mind control programs. Yeah, no. I don't trust the government "data" unless it's methodology is sound. If the methodology is sound, I'll believe it. But I don't take government data at face value.

No, it isn't. CO2 is one factor involved, yes. There are others -- including energy sources, energy consumption, climate policy, etc. etc. — Xtrix

Yes, but the article itself was about CO2. If you want to be dishonest, then be dishonest. I don't really care. Moral anti-realist.

Richard Lindzen at MIT. That's one climate scientist. I'm not an expert, but he is. And I haven't studied climate science as a layman, in years. So I don't really want to have a debate on this.

Another book I read was by a Swedish guy named Bjorn Lomborg (took me FOREVER to remember this guy and the title of the book,) called Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming another climate scientist.

I'm not an expert, but there's a lot of alarmism going on. Elizabeth Kolbert, who wrote The Sixth Extinction a massive alarmist tome, is a journalist, not a scientist. There are other such books and misinfo/disinfo out there.

Bill Nye, also not a scientist. He's like a Disney character basically. He has no scientific credentials.

Completely wrong. — Xtrix

Completely correct.

Lol. Right, and you know because you're a climatologist. Please explain where these "models" go wrong. I myself would love to know -- as I'm sure most climate scientists would as well. — Xtrix

They already know. Most climate scientists aren't alarmists.

No one is arguing this. Pure straw-man. — Xtrix

Not really. Your article was about CO2. You post an article about CO2, and I replied to it, and then you say it is a strawman. Don't post articles if you haven't read them.

Yes, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas, but doesn't last nearly as long as CO2. There's also plenty of other factors of climate change, as you mentioned. Deforestation, agricultural practices, energy sources, industry, etc. All major contributors. What's your point? — Xtrix

My point is, one measly article about lowering CO2 is about as relevant to curbing climate change as astrology is relevant about finding a planet in the Andromeda galaxy.

A building. That simple. — jacksonsprat22

So a house is an institution?

What "actual scientists" are you referring to, exactly? Please name one. — Xtrix

Well, there's a scientist at MIT who's name currently escapes me, but I'll gladly look for his name for you.

No, they won't "tell you" because there are a number of projections which depend on what we do now. — Xtrix

Yes, and those number of projections are based on completely faulty and speculative models of how climate has evolved. Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass, stuff that could change for more reasons than merely the climate. And in fact, the only real good solid data on climate that we have is only since the Industrial Revolution.

They can, and they have. — Xtrix

CO2 emissions are not even remotely the only, or even the primary driver of climate change. And in fact, not even among greenhouse gases.

CO2's role is very overplayed. Methane gas might be worse.

Missing your point. A church, by definition, is an institution. — jacksonsprat22

Then you must have a loose definition of institution. I guess a small family would constitute an institution in your view. How far are you willing to go with this? Is a single individual an institution? A particle?

Edit: I suppose one could accede to a kind of Platonism of information where there 'is' information (disembodied, ethereal) which gets instantiated/emboided in particular bio/physical arrangements, but that would be -like all Platonism materialism - to put the cart before the horse. — StreetlightX

Fixed that for you.

All there is, said Democritus, are atoms and the void. Atoms are eternal, imperishable, and indivisible. But at the same time, by their being able to combine in countless ways, and by virtue of their variety, they can account for all the manifold phenomena in the world of appearance. The idea of the atom solved the problem of 'the many and the one', by granting to 'the many' the attributes of indivisibility, eternity and imperishability previously accorded to the One. This was the genius of atomism ... — Wayfarer

Except Quantum Mechanics totally refuted atomism.

I do believe information is a thing. It's not material. Matter is created by information, and in fact, information, which is not material, transfers between so-called material beings.

I'm not a materialist, or a dualist, I believe in Idealism, but I'm using matter for the sake of argument. I haven't yet seen a coherent definition of what "matter" even means, or is. To me, it's like talking about a Pulamorph or a Glorf, or a Puppersyndir. Meaningless.

If other countries can do it, so can we — Xtrix

But they can't do it.

But otherwise, yes it can be done and has to be done if we want to survive. — Xtrix

"If we want to survive?" We'll survive climate change easily. Talk to any climate scientist, like actual ones, not activists, and they'll tell you. Sure, it will have an effect, but it's definitely not the hottest climate in the whole history of the climate, and it's also not cataclysmic.

Treating something as sacred is to establish value. You can value things without being religious. The mark of religion is a definable institution such as a church and people associating with each other. — jacksonsprat22

Durkheim wouldn't agree. And on the second point, neither would I. Buddhism isn't a defined institution. Neither is Christianity really. Only a couple of Churches are actually institutions, the rest of them are all over the place.

But anyway.

Sure, but there's still a fairly clear distinction between philosophy and science, even if it is blurry in places and shifts its ground. — bert1

I don't know if it is so clear. Paul Feyerabend believed there was nothing that distinguished science from magic. Ironically, Michael Shermer agreed with him.

Generally, and imperfectly, philosophical questions are not resolvable by making a physical observation. If they are, they tend to cease to be philosophical questions, and become scientific. That's roughly right isn't it? — bert1

Well, empirical observation. I wouldn't call it physical, because I don't believe in physicality. But yes, empirical observations would be scientific.

Although bizzarely flat Earthism seems to be making a comeback. So maybe I'm totally wrong. — bert1

Well, I don't agree science forces agreement and philosophy doesn't. I think institutions force agreement, and science and philosophy are both molded by the experience and knowledge of the human beings at any given level of knowledge or circumstances in history. Academic philosophy is very much "forced agreement" as much as science is. But that's because of the academy, not because philosophy as such is that way. I would say the same about science. It's the scientific institutions, wedded to the University system, publishing irrelevant studies in unknown, unaffordable and unreadable journals, corporate and government funding, or whatever that force agreement.

I'm interested in what you think distinguishes philosophy from science. If you don't think it is reliance on physical evidence, what is it? Are you more comfortable with the concept of observation perhaps? — bert1

I think science is about method, about what the Greeks called techne and philosophy is more about theory, what the Greeks call episteme. Science's success is measured on how well it does, on the basis of instrumentalism and reliabilism, not anything objective in the world.

Maybe not absolutely 100%, no, but some questions are pretty settled aren't they? They are settled enough to base life and death decisions on, for example, that converting kinetic energy to heat in a brake will reliably slow a car. — bert1

Right. It's reliabilism. I agree. The theory works sufficiently enough to account for that problem. But that doesn't make it a fact, it makes it a hypothesis that works extremely well, but could change given time and more evidence and so on.

Taken literally what you said above, doesn't make sense at all. Really, to kill the Guatemalan population? Like Hitler with his "final solution" with the Jews? Likely that wasn't your intent, but this is what source criticism is like. That the civil war in Guatemala was the longest in Latin America 1960-1996 and about two hundred thousand died wasn't the intent. — ssu

Yes it was. That was the intent. Just like Madeline Albreight admitted, on tape, that a few hundred thousand if not a million Iraqis dying was a "sacrifice she was willing to make" or something to that effect. Yes, they knew what would happen if they installed a murderous dictator and directed him to kill the population. They knew, and they thought the sacrifice worth the action.

This is the typical error that conspiracy theorists make: the agenda of someone is inherently evil, totally diabolical. — ssu

Some people literally are. "We came, we saw, he died."

That the United Fruit company wanted to change the demographics of Guatemala like Hitler wanted with Europe sounds very peculiar. — ssu

Well, I never said that, so of course it would be. What I said was, the CIA made a calculation, on the behest of the Oligarchs, and decided that killing people would be worth saving however many millions of dollars and whatever supply chain they thought worth saving. It's just a Cost-Benefit Analysis, applied to human life.

In a way conspiracy theorists go a notch further than let's say Noam Chomsky, an archetypal long term critic of the US establishment who sees as his role to criticize the US in every aspect. In fact there's a surprising equivalence between Noam Chomsky and Alex Jones. A lot of the points are the same, which are facts. But then there's the difference. Chomsky doesn't see 9/11 as an "inside job", doesn't see that the Illuminati want to decrease the population by all the bad things happening in the World. Chomsky might see as the only good thing that the US funded and AIDS program under Bush (or similar events), but typically real conspiracy theorists don't see anything good. Except Trump when it comes to Alex Jones. — ssu

Because Chomsky isn't infallible. He doesn't know all of the evidence. Nobody can, by the nature of the human condition. Conspiracy theories are a hypothesis, everything is a hypothesis. Sometimes there are incommensurability of hypothesis.

Chomsky doesn't know that the Israeli app Odigo warned of the 9/11 attacks before they happened, as Haaretz reports and Al Franken admitted on live radio. Chomsky doesn't know of the existence of Thermite at the site of 9/11. He doesn't understand the physics of the fact that jetfuel cannot melt steel. He doesn't know of the dancing Israelis who gleefully celebrated the event. He didn't know of the Plan for a New American Century's aspiration for a "Pearl Harbor event" to justify invading other countries. He didn't know the existence of building seven and the Oligarch who just happened to buy insurance on the building, I think within hours of 9/11. And so on and so forth.

So, Chomsky doesn't know those things, so he doesn't make those arguments. On the other hand, Chomsky is potentially actually part of the conspiracy. Ironically enough. He himself admits that he worked at MIT at the very same time the military and Pentagon was working with MIT to develop new military technologies.

Anyway, suffice it to say, you just lambast "conspiracy theorists" just like the CIA intended in their memo literally inventing the term to discredit conspiracy theorists, and praise Chomsky, but you don't seem to know or care that perhaps Chomsky is simply unaware of, or never considered the evidence behind particular hypotheses (which is what "conspiracy theories" are, just a different hypothesis) and therefore the reason why he doesn't entertain them.

Christopher Hitchens just basically used ad hominems against people on the left who were against the war against Iraq (not "in Iraq") and people who pointed out the official story of 9/11 as a hypothesis doesn't take into account all of the relevant information and data.

Now, what do you think is the nature of that which limits limited conscious experience? would it be also a kind of conscious experience or could it be something different from it? — Daniel

What limits conscious experience? Universal conscious experience limits subjective conscious experience. At least, that's what I believe. But it's also possible that subjective conscious experience limits itself. As David Hoffman points out in his book "The Case Against Reality" hiding reality and truth from our eyes keeps us focusing on things beneficial for our survival, adaptation and well-being. If we saw reality as it is, it would be maladaptive and harsher on our chances to continue existing.

In relation to the people who run the academic establishment. As Niels Bohr said, science progresses one grave at a time. The old gatekeepers died, the old paradigm does with them. New gatekeepers bring in the new paradigm. B.F. Skinner was supplanted by Chomsky. Newton by Einstein, then by Bohr, Plank and Heisenberg. Alfred Marshall by John Maynard Keynes and so on.

Being in love is an interesting experience. When you lust for someone, you just have an increased heart rate, blood rushing and a quick urge and rush or whatever. And then you move onto other things. But being in love is like your whole being is totally enthralled to the idea of being with, connecting with, thinking of, and focusing on the other. It's very interesting.

I'm not big on love, because I think there's too much superficiality to it in our society, but I do experience the emotions of love.

But yes, not that I care, but I've been called an anti-realist. — creativesoul

Interesting. I'm not quite there yet, but I'm interested in that view.

I'd love someone to sell truth to me. Because from where I stand, it's a totally incoherent concept that has no defined meaning apart from some everyday lingo that we use it in.

"I saw Donald Trump in studio the other day."

"Sure..."

"It's true, he was eating a taco bowl with the production crew."

But otherwise, don't know what truth means.

I ask myself that all the time.

I am an Idealist, and I don't say that. Mind is very real. It's the only real thing out there.