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.

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.

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. — h060tu

I haven't what? Jesus you're a horrible writer.

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. — h060tu

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

The 97% number was popularized by two articles, the first by Naomi Oreskes, now Professor of Science History and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, and the second by a group of authors led by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland.

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.

But that's fine -- you ignore NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, the Royal Academy, the entire MIT climatology department (besides Lindzen), etc.. and keep on believing whatever you want to believe.

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.

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.

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.

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. — h060tu

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.

Not what might be the case based on models, predictions, hand waving, media personalities, documentaries, alarmism and a autistic 16 year old. — h060tu

Typical climate denial lines. Yawn.

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. — h060tu

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

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. — h060tu

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

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. — h060tu

What study might that be, exactly?

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. — h060tu

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.

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. — h060tu

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.

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 understood if we care to understand it, which you clearly do not.

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. — h060tu

Because climate science is "model based"?

Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.

These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:

NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
CRU direct surface temperature analysis

Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:

Satellite Data
Radiosondes
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Sea ice melt
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Permafrost melt

There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.

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. — h060tu

Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.

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.

Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can’t be sure the earth isn’t hollow either.

This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by …

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
… in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?

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.

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.

Anyway, economic and sociology, LIKE climate science, LIKE biology, LIKE physics, pretends purports to be scientific. — h060tu

Ohhh, I see...tell me more!

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? — h060tu

I'm interested in evidence which, in this case, is overwhelming. If you want to debate Keynesian economic policy and its effectiveness, that's fine -- but that's not climatology.

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. — h060tu

I never claimed to. In fact I have another thread going right now that discusses the nature of science. But who cares? We're talking about evidence, not the philosophy of science.

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. — h060tu

The climate is changing, and at a rate beyond natural variability. The reason it's changing is because of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from fossil fuel use and deforestation, etc. This isn't complicated. The predictions that were made (and documented) in the last 20 years or so have proven remarkably accurate, although they were often too optimistic. This has been extensively documented for years -- and I'm sure you've read all about it.

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. — h060tu

Gotcha.

What study might that be, exactly?
— Xtrix

The one you pretended to know about. — h060tu

Which was what? Or are you the one pretending?

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. — h060tu

Ah, thanks Dr. Freud. Nailed it. I guess I WANT to believe that the climate is changing at an alarming rate because of my "death instinct"? Definitely not the extensive, overwhelming evidence from thousands of scientists around the global that have studied this their whole lives.

I'll go with an ignoramus on the Philosophy Forum! He has the "real" truth! Just like Donald Trump does. Everything else is "fake news."

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. — h060tu

Ah, there it is. The new denialist line: "the climate is always changing!"

But don't take it from me:

"So technically that's true. The climate has always been changing. But for various reasons, the current change that we're experiencing now is particularly alarming, and that is because in the history of human civilization, the climate has never changed this rapidly. And that's really what concerns scientists. It's not the fact that there is change, but it's the speed of that change."
--STEPHANIE HERRING, climatologist

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. — h060tu

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.

There was no debate whether Ptolemaic Astronomy was false.. until Copernicus. You can say "there's no debate" but it doesn't mean a damn thing. Honestly. — h060tu

It does mean something -- it means there's overwhelming evidence, which should be taken seriously by ignoramuses like you. Or you can side with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who are in your camp.

Regardless, what is your evidence that explains the data, then? What's the alternative that you're offering?

Probability is the language of science. There is no proof; there are no absolute certainties. Scientists are always aware that new data may overturn old theories and that human knowledge is constantly evolving. Consequently, it is viewed as unjustifiable hubris to ever claim one’s findings as unassailable.

But in general, the older and more established a given theory becomes, the less and less likely it is that any new finding will drastically change things. Even the huge revolution in physics brought on by Einstein’s theory of relativity did not render Newton’s theories of classical mechanics useless. Classical mechanics is still used all the time; it is, quite simply, good enough for most purposes.

But how well established is the greenhouse effect?

Greenhouse effect theory is over 100 years old. The first predictions of anthropogenic global warming came in 1896. Time has only strengthened and refined those groundbreaking conclusions. We now have decades of very detailed and sophisticated climate observations, and super computers crunching numbers in one second it would have taken a million 19th century scientists years with a slide rule to match. Even so, you will never ever get a purely scientific source saying “the future is certain.”

But what certainty there is about the basic issue is close enough to 100 percent that for all practical purposes it should be taken as 100 percent. Don’t wait any longer for scientific certainty; we are there. Every major institute that deals with climate-related science is saying AGW is here and real and dangerous, even though they will not remove the “very likely” and “strongly indicated” qualifiers. The translation of what the science is saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere.

The rest of the issue — how high will the temperature go, how fast will it get there, and how bad will this be — is much less certain. But no rational human being rushes headlong into an unknown when there is even a 10 percent chance of death or serious injury. Why should we demand 100 percent certainty before avoiding this danger? Science has given the human race a dire warning with all the urgency and certainty we should need to prompt action.

We don’t have time or reason to wait any longer.
___________

The above is from a climatologist, as well. Your arguments are so predictable I can literally copy and paste ready-made responses, because so many ignoramuses make them.

It's quite pathetic. (I know I shouldn't "shame" people, but this level of ignorance is just astounding. The logic used to justify it is even more staggering.)

I couldn't rightly say. I had a quick glance at Alabama on wiki and it looks like it used to be rural but now the largest employers are the army and various State or Federal employers. We don't have communist countries in the EU. :razz:

In any case, the most logical place for me would be somewhere in the Elzas/Alsace as I speak French and German, land is cheap and arable. It's also only a 6 hour drive away.

Some things that are remarkably ideological from my point of view.

it would relate to raising taxes specifically on the wealthy and corporations, because I'm tired of the class warfare, which is how this usually plays out. — Hanover

You go from raising taxes on the wealthy and corporation to class warfare without any intermediate steps. Let's assume it's true. What do you think about Warren Buffet when he said this:

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”?

How do you relate that to the declining labour share of GDP development and income inequality?Or the fact CEO pay has risen by 940% since 1978 but worker pay only by 12%? This while GDP grew with nearly 90% since then?

Do you see all these facts as illustrating a problem or do you think it's fine and normal? If so, what exactly are CEOs doing today that they weren't doing in 1978 that justifies a 940% pay increase? Or that debt funded asset inflation was behind the 2008 recovery leading to big profits for banks and their CEOs even though regular people were no way better off before covid-19 happened than before 2008?

I know we're not going to agree on this in any way, shape or form but at least I'd like to know the thinking behind it.

I'm also opposed to campaign finance reform because I'm close to an absolutist on free speech. — Hanover

Why should having more money effectively give you a bigger voice and more influence? Shouldn't it just be one man, one vote? Or you don't think there's any tit-for-tat involved with campaign donations? Or do you think because it's legal, it's not corruption?

https://www.salon.com/2020/04/28/pulitzer-winner-chris-hedges-these-are-the-good-times--compared-to-whats-coming-next/?fbclid=IwAR0keNaiaDmF6cwoVl-LMBfT-93j4dxSr_ib7VqejwFA7R4pVmB6FGmuIZI

What is a person voting for if they back Biden on Election Day 2020?

The humiliation of courageous women like Anita Hill who confronted her abuser. You vote for the architects of endless war. You vote for the apartheid state in Israel. Biden supports those things. With Biden you are voting for wholesale surveillance by the government, including the abolition of due process and habeas corpus. You vote for austerity programs. You vote for the destruction of welfare. That was Biden. You vote for cuts to Social Security, which he has repeatedly called for cutting, along with Medicaid. You vote for NAFTA, you vote for "free trade" deals. If you vote for Biden, you are voting for a real decline in wages and the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs.

With Biden you are also voting for the assault on public education and the transfer of federal funds to Christian "charter schools." With Biden you are voting for more than a doubling of the prison population. With Biden you are voting for the militarized police and against the Green New Deal. You are also voting to limit a woman's right to abortion and reproductive rights. You are voting for a segregated public school system. With Biden you are voting for punitive levels of student debt and the inability of people to free themselves of that debt through bankruptcy. A vote for Biden is a vote for deregulating banking and finance. Biden also supports for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.

A vote for Biden is also a vote against the possibility of universal health care. You vote for Biden and you are supporting huge, wasteful and bloated defense budgets. Biden also supports unlimited oligarchic and corporate money to buy the elections.

That's what you're voting for. A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for more of the same. The ruling elites would prefer Joe Biden, just like they preferred Hillary Clinton.

:flower:

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. — h060tu

Or you could talk to any gardener anywhere, or anyone who pays attention to the ground where they live. All the "little" evidence. Insects and small animals where they never were before, growing seasons advanced by weeks, species of plants expanding Northwards in the North, South in the South, and so forth. "Global warming" and "climate change" are just words. What they refer to is real. To the extent you deny, you deny a reality. Denying reality is a sign of mental problems. It's that simple.

You go from raising taxes on the wealthy and corporation to class warfare without any intermediate steps. Let's assume it's true. What do you think about Warren Buffet when he said this:

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”? — Benkei

I didn't suggest we needed to increase tax revenues, so I've not advocated for any increases, either on the rich or the middle class. Biden wanting to increase taxes on the wealthy (especially if he is alignment with what you are saying) would be to redistribute the wealth, which is what I was objecting to.

How do you relate that to the declining labour share of GDP development and income inequality?Or the fact CEO pay has risen by 940% since 1978 but worker pay only by 12%? This while GDP grew with nearly 90% since then? — Benkei

What do you think about the increase in salaries of Premier League soccer players over the years compared to whatever the lower level players are now making?

Why should having more money effectively give you a bigger voice and more influence? Shouldn't it just be one man, one vote? Or you don't think there's any tit-for-tat involved with campaign donations? Or do you think because it's legal, it's not corruption? — Benkei

Every person does have one vote. I don't follow your equation of speech to voting.

How much should you be allowed to speak before the government arrests you for speaking too much?

Anyway, money gives you all sorts of things, like better clothes, better food, better schooling, and even a bigger megaphone to scream and yell from. I'm just wondering what it is that you wish to say that isn't being heard. The ability of the average guy to be heard is much higher today than it was when there were just newspapers and a few major television stations. The only way to be heard back then was to write a letter to the editor that might or might not be published. Now, all I have to do is write whatever bullshit I want and some guy in the Netherlands starts offering me his perspective (which I do appreciate). My point is that there isn't this massive group of silenced people who just can't afford a place at the podium to be heard. Your biggest beef, I'd suspect, is the disproportionate power the US has and that it's controlled currently by the conservative micro-majority, thus subjecting the planet to what amounts to be an overall minority opinion. I can only imagine what it feels like to be in your shoes with Trump steering this great big ship we call the world and all you can do is look on in shock and dismay. You call it a tragedy. Me, a comedy.

I suggest you read my post again. Slowly this time. And try to filter out the assumptions you're making on what I'm trying to say and then try to reply to what I'm saying. There's too much in your post that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. Especially what you think "my biggest beef" is. Where did that come from?

I stand by my post as fully responsive. Maybe re-read it.

Then I can only conclude you must suffer from early onset dementia. You used to be an intelligent poster. That reply wasn't it.

Then I can only conclude you must suffer from early onset dementia. You used to be an intelligent poster. That reply wasn't it. — Benkei

You're a grouch. Go back to sleep.

How do you relate that to the declining labour share of GDP development and income inequality?Or the fact CEO pay has risen by 940% since 1978 but worker pay only by 12%? This while GDP grew with nearly 90% since then? — Benkei

Some economists believe that a relatively low growth rate is normal for a rich nation, because there’s less of an incentive to work, people have fewer children, and so on, and that a declining GDP will increase inequality to destabilizing levels if unmitigated by policies that include wealth redistribution. AI development could further sink the divide. Is that an expression? Anyway, some kind of redistribution policy seems inevitable.

Some economists believe that CEOs have become very stable geniasses who more than deserve a pay rise.

"Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan took another step toward running for president on Tuesday, saying he has formed an exploratory committee to look into his chances of winning the Libertarian Party's nomination."

Every person does have one vote. I don't follow your equation of speech to voting.

How much should you be allowed to speak before the government arrests you for speaking too much?

Anyway, money gives you all sorts of things, like better clothes, better food, better schooling, and even a bigger megaphone to scream and yell from. I'm just wondering what it is that you wish to say that isn't being heard. The ability of the average guy to be heard is much higher today than it was when there were just newspapers and a few major television stations. The only way to be heard back then was to write a letter to the editor that might or might not be published. Now, all I have to do is write whatever bullshit I want and some guy in the Netherlands starts offering me his perspective (which I do appreciate). My point is that there isn't this massive group of silenced people who just can't afford a place at the podium to be heard. Your biggest beef, I'd suspect, is the disproportionate power the US has and that it's controlled currently by the conservative micro-majority, thus subjecting the planet to what amounts to be an overall minority opinion. I can only imagine what it feels like to be in your shoes with Trump steering this great big ship we call the world and all you can do is look on in shock and dismay. You call it a tragedy. Me, a comedy. — Hanover

He's probably referring to lobbying and donors.

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it

Me and some rich CEO might both have a vote (and just one vote), but he has the means to meet up with politicians over champagne and hookers and donate $100,000 to their re-election campaign. Guess who has the biggest voice and most influence?

I've voted as well as if I could. I voted third party. — Benkei

If you are from Chicago you can vote more than once :wink:

Some economists believe that a relatively low growth rate is normal for a rich nation, because there’s less of an incentive to work, people have fewer children, and so on — praxis

A poor country can indeed get more easily higher growth figures. Getting people to earn 2$ a day from 1$ a day is quite easy. Getting people earn from 100$ to 200$ is another thing. What's the "some" here for? I guess that is quite reasonable.

and that a declining GDP will increase inequality to destabilizing levels if unmitigated by policies that include wealth redistribution. — praxis

Actually, in an economic recession (declining GDP) income inequality typically decreases. The poor stay poor, but the rich aren't getting the profits. This happened for example in my country when we had a serious economic depression (thanks to speculative bubble and a banking crisis) in the 1990's.