Noam Chomsky on Stupid People

[Anonymous No.5963638]

Stupid people:

Politicians who deny climate change

...have fanatic religious beliefs
...dominated federal reserve

Elected by populations who

...deny climate change science
...use modern technology to waste resources
...denigrate concepts of sustainability

Cue the deniers:

...tell us:

"Murrr... the Jews"
"dat enviro hippie"
"dat earth is cooling trend on Drudgereport"
"da climate gate"
"Da Algore effectz"
"da I, undergrad, no research no phD think am is jenius"

[Anonymous No.5963642]

[Anonymous No.5963650]

>2013
>not supporting drill baby drill
You will be dead before any major damage will be done to this world, who cares ?

[Anonymous No.5963657]

>>5963650

Major damage is being done right now.

[Anonymous No.5963668]

>>5963638
The earth was at its ideal temperature in 1880. Causing any deviation from this God-given perfect temperature is a sin. Repent before we are smote!

[Anonymous No.5963669]

>>5963638
>Elected by populations
You're saying that like we are living in democracies.

Who's the really stupid guy, I wonder?

[Anonymous No.5963670]

>>5963657

Its hard to explain how fucked up this is: go to a remote area, and examine the flora and fauna. These have all felt the stress of climate change. To think that we are willing to risk destroying biodiversity at all the sites where it flourishes, places nobody goes, and no one may ever see...

To destroy them all without knowledge of them and claim that, in our ignorance, we didn't know what we were doing...

To destroy the climate- the weather, to destroy the ability to shed heat in the daytime easily, enjoy fresh air, the natural world- to sacrifice this so that first world people can drive to 7-11 in SUVs and buy processed meat and slurpees-

knowing that there is no future for our children except in climate-controlled bubbles with the outside air choked with heat, all the animals decimated and scattered...

To be a 3rd world citizen, and having it as bad as it is- hiking 8 miles a day for dirty drinking water, cooking a dung cake for a meager ration in a filthy tent- knowing that over the next several decades holds no promise except a desperate pilgrimage as far as possible from the equator being stalked by famine and disease....

The pride and selfish stupidity of people- their constant denial of anything harmful or bad about their way of life- the mass of heating concrete and glass and interminable march toward a future dominated by coporrate super-citizens..

[Anonymous No.5963671]

>Quoting a world renowned expert about a field he's not an expert on.
Reminded of this

[Anonymous No.5963674]

>>5963650
How can you think like that you fuck? Theres more important things that your personal happiness. We need to plan for the future.

[Anonymous No.5963697]

>>5963670
>>5963670
no they haven't "felt the stress" If you believe this, you are a religious zealot

[Anonymous No.5963707]

>Elected by populations who deny climate change science
bull
few people know about views of their representatives

[Anonymous No.5963719]

>>5963674
Lol no we don't. Get fucked hippie.

[Anonymous No.5963784]

>>5963669

Are we living in democracies? I ask you, smart guy, in what way given that when I go to the ballot box there are 2 parties and only two parties, and any other party is excluded?

The system is rigged against participation. Ref: Nader, et al. 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008

(H.R.Perot in 1992 suggested we could easily have an ATM-style system where people could vote directly in elections) ... is that not democracy? What is this system we are living in which calls itself a democracy? Where are the choices?

Seems more like soft fascism

[Anonymous No.5963793]

>>5963671

Professor Noam Chomsky is a professor emeritus, distinguished scientist, a living genius and quite simply an expert.

There is a threshold at which your argument fails utterly, and it comes on well before we reach Chomsky's level. Its the level at which intelligent people using reason and logic come to conclusions about things.

Its harder than ever to deny climate change. Across america mountain snowmelt has been trending higher and higher. "Experts"- those people whose opinion you seem to care so little about- have posited robust theories backed up by decades of research connecting things like snow melt to the steadily trending upward line of atmospheric CO2.

Deniers are losers who should be shunned. they may be able to marshal armies of stupid people and gain political cachet, but this was predictable.

[Anonymous No.5963802]

>>5963697

Climate change >is< having current consequences. These consequences are felt by people. That is the nature of physical things. Whether they are aware of it right now or not is irrelevant. They will eventually become aware of it because it is the truth. The threshold for livability in regions near the equator, especially areas that are already hot, is being reduced.

Word is going to get out to the 1 billion people who are starving that the reason the water is gone, the desert is expanding and all the animals and plants are dying is because of the first world and its emissions.

At the same time, sooner or later the bulk of the first world is going to have to reckon with the accelerating changes making life harder every day for itself.

People can and are living in a fantasy world where they can ignore events occuring around them, but this doesn't work forever. At some point, the party is over, life just gets harder and harder, and you find yourself and your society spending all its time coping until you or your descendants are just desperate refugees like all the other people we pretend that don't matter.

[Anonymous No.5963808]

>>5963793

This, soo much. Chomsky has spent more time studying and writing about American foreign and domestic policy than almost any politician. To say he's talking out of his area of expertise is a really, really low quality arguement.

[Anonymous No.5963818]

There are plenty of repugnant climate change deniers out there who are otherwise eminent or distinguished in their fields. Kary Mullis, for example. But they are tiny- TINY minorities, and for good reason.

BTW read Kary Mullis's autobiography where he describes his acid trips, visitation by aliens, and belief in astrology. Kary Mullis is an interesting person. I'd hang out with Kary Mullis. But sometimes even geniuses are susceptible to diamond-hard kernels of stupid forming spontaneously in their grey matter. And these lesions of retardedness can't be excised without fatal consequences. So we keep these people around even if they grab co-ed asses or occasionally drive their riding lawnmowers drunk and end up in the public hospital room.

Michael Crichton is dead, and so is denialism. You're either with us or against us. We either fix shit or we go to war against you. You want to fight against science and reason under the same flag with religious zealots and drunken, retarded right-wing undergrads, then you accept the consequences.

We will black ball you in academia, we will black list you in industry, we will out you in your communities, and we will continue to amplify the negative fallout of your denialism in the press, online and convert your children in the public schools.

[Anonymous No.5963819]

>>5963793
Because the studies funded by greenpeace are the only studies that exist, and the only ones that count.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/15/western_antarctic_melting_nothing_unusual/

>Avram Noam Chomsky (/ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[9][10] cognitive scientist, logician,[11][12] political critic, and activist.
>Expert at environmental science
No, your thread is bad and you should feel bad.
That's like saying "Oh, but Einstein said that dinosaurs were around when humans were, so it must be true because he's an expert at physics!". It's pants on head retarded.
It weakens your argument as a whole because it makes it looks like you can't even get a quote from a real expert.

[Anonymous No.5963829]

>>5963808
The hell does politics have to do with climate science?
Are labs currently staffed by senators? Can I find Obama conducting ice core surveys?

[Anonymous No.5963839]

>>5963784
Uh, did you misunderstand my post or did you wish to support it?

[Anonymous No.5963843]

>>5963829

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is from a coal-producing state. What do you imagine he thinks about global warming, and why?

[Anonymous No.5963847]

A. Climate change is Natural. The mean temperature of the earth is not constant

B. Didn't Al Gore say we all be underwater by now?

[Anonymous No.5963852]

>>5963847
Not enough water for that.

[Anonymous No.5963885]

>>5963852

I live in LA. I believe Al Gore mentioned I would be drowned by now

[Anonymous No.5963904]

>>5963885
I think somebody calculated that if all the ice in the world turned to water that'd mean that the sea level would rise by 50 meters.
Don't you have any skyscrapers in LA?

[Anonymous No.5963923]

>>5963818

I like you.

[Anonymous No.5963949]

>>5963847
Al Gore is not a climate scientist.

[Anonymous No.5963958]

>>5963904
>I think somebody calculated that if all the ice in the world turned to water that'd mean that the sea level would rise by 50 meters.
Allow me to very much doubt that number.

[Anonymous No.5963962]

>>5963949
Neither is Chomsky.

Arguing about climate change at this point has as much point as arguing about god. Wait a few hundred, preferably thousand, ideally a million or two years, then you'd be able to tell, how much of climate change is natural, and how much is contributed by technology.

[Anonymous No.5963992]

>>5963962
>Neither is Chomsky.

Which is why you should read actual scientific articles instead. You would find out that anthropogenic global warming is very real and significant.

[Anonymous No.5964017]

I have idea. We curb co2 emissions by 100% and raise oxygen levels by 100%. Global warming is solved.

[Anonymous No.5964034]

>>5963962
No you won't.
Spend the next couple thousand years living so as to totally prevent any possible human caused climate change, then we will be able to determine if it was all happening naturally anyway.
Otherwise that's like just throwing water and chemicals into a cup, drinking it, and then concluding that water must be toxic.

[Anonymous No.5964045]

>>5963819

[Anonymous No.5964078]

Science is hard: education, research, analysis, review, etcetera, it never stops.
Denialism is easy: none of the above is necessary. Just say "no", "I don't believe", "I doubt", etcetera, and you're done.

[Anonymous No.5964110]

>>5963638
ZOMG Noam choksy is say I smart i I believe in pipl who use pictures to prove that climate changes and global warming and anthropogenic CO2 and ZOMGZOMG I SOOO SMURRRRT!!!!

[Anonymous No.5964124]

>>5964045
>SRs please go

Just quit it with the propaganda JIDF.

We all know global warming is a scam.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5964134]

Re: the climate change "scam"...

http://hero.epa.gov/index.cfm?action=reference.details&reference_id=92936

http://quercus.igpp.ucla.edu/teaching/papers_to_read/cox_etal_nat_00.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17962418

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01047.x/full

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=k9n8v_7foQkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA65&dq=radiative+forcing+climate+change&ots=OyXHUApUvY&sig=CHccRpZezBktim8cNRQZCaPDlZI#v=onepage&q=radiative%20forcing%20climate%20change&f=false

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.short

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02791.x/abstract;jsessionid=02AABDF89F34C02B3FCCFF2792592D18.d02t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

[Anonymous No.5964137]

>>5963670
The concern isn't even with third world countries suffering for lack of technology, let alone lack of biodiversity and national parks and wanting your grandkid to be able to see a giraffe. The main problem is that destroying ecosystems is making the world less habitable for US - it extends beyond the hippie shit (which I do still care about). What I have trouble grasping is that many people don't care at all what happens after they die and are convinced that everything will be just fine even if the shit hits the fan 50 years sooner. I admit that I believe we'd be able to tough it out by our nature even without environmentalist sentiment, but it sure as hell is going to cost more.

[Anonymous No.5964139]

>atheists
>making fun of people who deny facts

top lel

[Anonymous No.5964169]

>>5963992
>You would find out that some people think anthropogenic global warming is very real and significant.

[Anonymous No.5964181]

>>5963958
Sorry, I remembered incorrectly.
It was 60-75 meters.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

[Anonymous No.5964211]

>>5963719
I look forward to the day when you and your uneducated, hedonistic ilk are forcibly rounded up and chemically castrated.

[Anonymous No.5964215]

Chomsky is just another worthless pop intellectual for upper middle class Americans to laud at for any given utterance, just like your average pop scientist.
I don't know about his linguistics but his politics are rather unexceptional, and the very notion that knowing more than your average politician about certain political issues entails an expertise on that given issue is laughable.

[Anonymous No.5964221]

>>5963697
It's like you've never even read a recent scientific publication.

Oh wait. I forgot we are on /sci/...

Go back to drudge report you fucking imbecile.

[Anonymous No.5964235]

>>5964045
>>5964124
Trolls trolling trolls

[Anonymous No.5964237]

>>5964215
>Chomsky is just another worthless pop intellectual
>I don't know about his linguistics
Christ you're dumb...

[Anonymous No.5964254]

>Climate change fanatics
>OMG THE SEAS ARE GOING TO RISE 30M IN THE NEXT YEAR IF WE DON"T STAHP POLLUTING. OMG MY GOD JUST BY PRIUSES YOU DUMB FUCKS EVEN THOUGH MORE POLUTION IS CREATED TO PRODUCE A PRIUS THAN A NORMAL CAR USES IN ITS LIFE. LOOK HERE'S A FALLACIOUS APPEAL TO AUTHORITY NOW YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT!

[Anonymous No.5964256]

>>5964237
His political work, which is what he is mostly know for both outside and in academia, are unmemorable.

[Anonymous No.5964276]

>>5964254
Nice strawman there broheim.
Real "Climate change fanatics" don't drive cars anyways.

>>5964256
No.

[Anonymous No.5964286]

Stupid people:
Mathematicians who claim 0.999... = 1
...think you can't travel FTL
...dominated academia

Peer reviewed Physicists who
...claim that god doesn't exist
...claim that atoms exist
...denigrate concepts of creation science

Cue the deniers:

...tell us
"Murr... Einstine"
"dat edgy teen"
"dat school learned dandy"
"da catholic paedophilia scandals"

[Anonymous No.5964289]

>>5964276
That's a load.
Al Gore is known to not only drive cars, but to leave his limousine idling while he gives a 40 minute speech

[Anonymous No.5964307]

>>5964289
Take your argumentum ad Al Gore-ium elsewhere, fuckstain.

[Anonymous No.5964336]

>Merchants of Doubt is a 2010 book by the American science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. It identifies parallels between the climate change debate and earlier controversies over tobacco smoking, acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. Oreskes and Conway write that in each case "keeping the controversy alive" by spreading doubt and confusion after a scientific consensus had been reached, was the basic strategy of those opposing action.[1] In particular, they say that Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, and a few other contrarian scientists joined forces with conservative think tanks and private corporations to challenge the scientific consensus on many contemporary issues.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

[Anonymous No.5964341]

>>5964307
Funny since this whole thread is nothing but an argumentum ad Chomsky, and unlike Gore he's not even a big name in climate alarmism

[Anonymous No.5964343]

>>5964336
Anybody can write a novel.
And my skepticism stems not from other skeptics, but from how batshit insane most fanatics are and the lunacy of some of their claims.
I've seriously had people tell me that climate change is going to cause people to down! That is, they though it was going to happen overnight rather than over 100 years; so fast that you'd have no time to walk up a hill or something

[Anonymous No.5964346]

>>5964343

>Anybody can write a novel.

veiled ad hominem

>And my skepticism stems not from other skeptics, but from how batshit insane most fanatics are and the lunacy of some of their claims.

clear ad hominem

[Anonymous No.5964349]

>>5964346
ad doesn't-know-what-ad-hominem-means

[Anonymous No.5964358]

>>5964336
>For thousands of years people have tried to use their intuition for explaining phenomena the likes of which they did not know much about. In the 17th centuries, after people have been believing things as ridiculous as the idea that there is a God with a specific task of creating lightnings for several millennia possibly even millions of years, the intellectualia concluded humans are prone to make scientific mistakes when using gut feeling and emotions and agreed upon the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Humans of today are not any different than humans of the 17th century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

That what is science follows the scientific method. That what is not science need not follow scientific method.

[Anonymous No.5964359]

>>5964256
His political works are his strong point.
He is basically a brain of historical facts. More specifically, a brain of anti-Western historical facts. He thus makes short work of anyone who attempts to out-fact him (though Dershowitz gave a good go).
It's his theorizing that is a let down. His linguistics will be superceded by theories emanating from evolutionary psychology/biology. And his political idealogy is basically marxism.

[Anonymous No.5964367]

>>5964358

im not sure if i understand the point of your post

what are you responding to?

[Anonymous No.5964369]

>>5964349
>implying that understanding greek phrases is important for doing ecology

[Anonymous No.5964386]

>>5964367
The post quoted. Consensus is not a scientific mean. Scientific method is.

[Anonymous No.5964410]

>>5964386

I dont think you understand the point of the book. Its not arguing that science is about consensus.

[Anonymous No.5964426]

>>5964410
I imagine it draws parallels from similar events in the past?

Very nice, but science is about applying scientific method.
These subsidy schemes we have in the EU today and this ecofascism that lead to water heaters of over 1,5 kW power and good old fashioned classical filament light bulb being banned don't have a scientific background. They have a populistic/political background.

[Anonymous No.5964456]

>>5964426

> good old fashioned classical filament light bulb being banned don't have a scientific background.

what? its a known fact filament light bulbs use more electricity than alternatives, sure we can sit and debate whether or not they should be banned but the whole point is about making informed decisions

Heres the thing, most people in the US and other places are scientifically illiterate. Essentially corporations and other people exploit this to further their own motives. Lets examine climate change, maybe 97-98 percent of scientists agree climate change is happening and its caused by humans. In an ideal situation we would encourage the whole population to look at the evidence and decide for themselves, unfortunately as stated above most people are illiterate. In theory we live in a democracy and people can vote on issues and what they want to do about climate change. What the climate change doubters do is plant the idea in peoples heads that there is a "debate" or "controversy" about climate change. Suddenly this enables people to be apathetic about climate change. "oh theres a debate over it I better not worry since people cant agree". Consensus or at least majority rule is about making decisions, I don't think the book ever tries to imply consensus is how science is done.

[Anonymous No.5964497]

>>5964456
>use more electricity than alternative
Yes and no. I now have a 105W light bulb, use to have a 100W one (don't get me wrong, I know it uses less energy than conventional ones, but we set weird ambient brightness in homes ). Furhtermore, THD factors rise and need to be compensated, in addition, if you turn of the lights you don't need you used to not use up much more than 100W/ person at any time when you were home, so this didn't really do that much energy saving.
I believe the ban was lobbied into existence by larger companies that had capacities to make these.

>sit and debate
Nah, this is undebatable. You can't just ban a lightbulb. I don't think you can canibalise on newborns either. Should that be sit-down-debated?

> In an ideal situation we would encourage the whole population to look at the evidence and decide for themselves
You don't understand me, I see. It's not about convincing the population, but about concluding, scientifically, that what is true. We had a nasty history of believing in the cardiovascular disease - saturated fat relation (which I believe most people still believe). It's not about getting a consensus, but about concluding whether something is correct, beyond just your intuition, since you're human and are thus prone to mistakes...........

[Anonymous No.5964502]

>>5964497
....
Now concluding this, before I go to bed. Kyoto protocol ( if my memory serves me wrong than another paper from the same climate change meeting in NY) concludes a public company should be formed which will spread the message of the CO2 - global self destruction theory to commoners. That is not to research, whether the realtion actually holds and how it holds, but to indoctrinate. In the EU, currently the IPCC is this community and it visits social study colleges and tells them all sorts of made up shit (some numbers I happen to know are wrong, yes, I've been to one of their lectures). One thing I really resent is that they heretise anyone who speaks against by concluding he is blind, stupid or bribed since he obviously cannot see climate change since everyone who doesn't believe CO2 is toxic automatically rejects the existence of climate change. I have to be the next in line to draw similarities between what we have today and the Nazi propaganda.I know it's old but damn....of to bed.

[Anonymous No.5964503]

>>5963638
>taking Chomsky serious

lel. He's just some communist clown.

[Anonymous No.5964507]

>>5964211
>hating on hedonism
Hey, I hate climate-change denying scum just as much as the next guy, but folk-hedonism mixed with a bit of utilitarianism does not have to imply callous disregard for future generations.

[Anonymous No.5964587]

>>5964497
>Nah, this is undebatable. You can't just ban a lightbulb. I don't think you can canibalise on newborns either. Should that be sit-down-debated?

talk about grasping at straws

i dont even know whether or not to take you seriously anymore

[Anonymous No.5964603]

People who...

Vote for politicians that are puppets for the military industrial complex

[Anonymous No.5964711]

>>5963671
Using comics as a form of critique should be a bannable offense.

It's not bad enough that you must rely on them to get your message across but that such comics themselves are a form of emotional pandering which rely on assumed truths, never having to explain because it's "just a joke" while still wishing to assert barely explained arguments as the "truth' in the mind of the reader.

[Anonymous No.5964722]

>>5964711
I think as a form of critique it works. It's just unacceptable as an argument.

[Anonymous No.5964909]

>>5964711

>taking these comics seriously

lel

[Anonymous No.5965093]

>>5964017

This would cause snowball earth

[Anonymous No.5965722]

>>5964587
>i dont even know whether or not to take you seriously anymore

Oh, please, don't be like that. Anyhow, I don't realy like the idea of "muh debate made consensus with my mommy and a friend and now all must obey or be put to trial".You can't "debate" a nonsense ban, you just lift it and that's all you do. But is' pointless. The politics and the scare campaign should take a step back at the moment with or without me debating a faggot on 4chan.
If there will be any scientific conclusion about some correlation that actually holds about our negative impact on the environment the population will be much less eager to accept it, because "durr scientists lie". Sadly, when it comes to climatoloigy, scientists do often bend facts to show which side of the bridge they're on, to comform.

[Anonymous No.5965768]

>>5964034

This is a very solid analogy. The lack of rebuttal is lovely.

[Anonymous No.5965778]

>>5964503

He's actually an anarchist. But he's not a retarded libertarian anarchist like the hipsters you may have been exposed to. If you were being intellectually honest, you'd learn the difference.

[Anonymous No.5965799]

>>5963638
>Noam Chomsky
Why is there this odd cult of Noam Chomsky? I mean only pseudo intellectuals take him seriously... oh wait..

[Anonymous No.5965809]

What are you retards arguing about?
Either...
A) there is an endless supply of fossil fuels and inhaling them when combusted has no effect on people's health.
Or
B)we should be using the technology we already have to move beyond fossil fuels.
Simple as fuck.

[Anonymous No.5965813]

>>5965809

The trick is not getting lost in the politics of "how quickly"

[Anonymous No.5965827]

>>5965778
>an anarchist.
>not a libertarian anarchist

[Anonymous No.5965880]

Once again.
Kill a redneck.
Plant a tree.

Or just kill em all.

[Anonymous No.5968103]

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.5968110]

>>5968103
They won't stop coming here.

Those idiots believe science supports their retarded ideas like racism and climate denial. They are all delusional but want justification.

[Anonymous No.5968111]

>>5968103
>>5968099
Stop bumping those shitty threads you faggot.

[Anonymous No.5968141]

>>5968111
How is this a "shitty" thread? It is a well thought out science thread.

[Anonymous No.5968401]

bump for science

[Anonymous No.5968686]

Very good science thread, OP. Very informative. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.5968940]

interesting

[Anonymous No.5968966]

>2013
>denying climate change
shiggy

[Anonymous No.5969092]

So what are some of the legit criticisms on Chomsky?

[Anonymous No.5969147]

>>5969092

There are no legit criticisms. He is a giant among men.

[Anonymous No.5969203]

>>5969092

jewish

[Anonymous No.5969208]

>>5964336
what about the parallel between belief in climate change and belief in god?

[Anonymous No.5969226]

My biggest issue with what Chomsky is free-rider problems among the elites. Eg: Chomsky would claim that elites manipulate the government to create tax havens. But if I were an elite, why would I do all the other elites a favour by creating one of these havens? Why not sit back and let the other elites do the work?

Just the sort of problem you run into when you think about groups as opposed to individuals.

[Anonymous No.5969246]

>>5969226
I can answer that one.
Generally the "grey channels" to smuggle money out of a country were created by states for state reasons. For example, the secret services needed way to get money out of the country to pay informers and pay for hostage ransoms without alerting the media of the other countries.

Later it turned into a way for first officials, then other rich persons to get their money out.

This has all been described by Condamin-Gerbier, a French banker working in Switzerland who did a lot of "family office", when he exposed those systems.

[Anonymous No.5969293]

>>5969246
That sounds believeable. But note that it's by accident that tax havens came into existence. It's not because the elites that run society wanted a way to not pay taxes. This is my understanding of Chomskies view; that elites run society and steer it as they will.

[Anonymous No.5969312]

>>5969293
>it's by accident that tax havens came into existence
As a US citizen I have doubt that.
polite sage because retarded thread

[Anonymous No.5969780]

Denying global warming is not the problem. Proving it to begin with is the problem. Can't be done.

Have you noticed how people have begun to use the term "climate change" instead of "global warming"? This is because they know global warming is not happening, but won't admit it. Using this newer term is their way of weaseling out of admitting their mistake.

[Anonymous No.5969791]

Tax havens being a conspiricy? You niggas high or something?
Tax havens exist because the government taxes.
Governments in other countries see that Mr. American millionaire needs to give 80% of his money to the gubbament. They want more investment in their country so they say "Hey, rich guy. You give us your money to hold on to, we'll use it for investments and the like, and you won't need to pay any tax.".
Like Ireland. They decided they weren't going to tax tech companies, so what did tech companies do? They built branches there. Ireland with tax and no businesses is objectively worse off than Ireland with no tax and a Google office that employs 1000 people

[Anonymous of Hong Kong !A4Y2usJAUE No.5969794]

Chomsky is only good at bashing people dumber than him

His worldview is just as naive as any Westerner, based on feelings and idealism instead of reality and competition. Ever see that vid of him crying over some dead Palestinian kids?

It's mean = It's wrong! etc
No separation of objective good and moral good, and like many leftists, this is done intentionally so they can give the false impression that their shit isn't based on appeals to emotion

Stick to linguistics, gramps.

[Anonymous No.5969811]

>>5964502
I understand you brah.

[Anonymous No.5969830]

They haven't entirely proved the extent of anthropogenic climate change yet, and I'm entirely uncomfortable with sweeping reform being made based on uncertain science.

You'll find that many of the people trying to rush global economic/social reform to combat climate change are socialists. I'm all for increasing funding for climate science studies, or for developing cleaner technologies that reduce carbon emissions, things like that.
However, I draw the line when these people seem to think we need a worldwide organization that controls carbon emissions, or we need to give the UN and other similar bodies more power. Don't try and solve an environmental problem with economic/social reform to further your political agendas, and especially don't corrupt the scientific process while you're at it.

I'm entirely for protecting the environment/banning overtly harmful mining operations, but all these fucking hippies and socialists jumping on the bandwagon looking for social reform are making a mockery of the scientific process.

Thank Christ the conservative party where I live doesn't plan on using a carbon price/economic reform to combat climate change. They're investing in cleaner technologies, and not simply redistributing wealth like the current government is.

Also while I'm at it, fuck Noam Chomsky. He's made great contributions to the field of linguistics, but the guy is a total cunt. He'd step over his mother's grave to further his disgusting political agenda.

[Anonymous No.5969852]

>Believing in Global Warming (Or Climate Change for the faggots who like to move the goalposts)
>2006+7
Its like you faggots arent even trying anymore

[Anonymous No.5969864]

Chomsky isn't all that special in my opinion. Sure he's famous, but his models of language aren't as encompassing as other models. Also when being a political activist is part of your career, you tend to be a little bias.

[Anonymous No.5969878]

>>5969794
>rusemaster 2000

[Anonymous No.5969879]

>>5969852
You're going to feel pretty stupid in 2010 when you suddenly wakeup underwater

[Anonymous No.5969901]

Now, this is just an idea...

Back in prehistoric times, the Earth was tropical all around the globe. Then a meteor came and accidentally the atmosphere. Cue ice age.

Could all the "global warming" be nothing more than a return to the original temperature?

[Anonymous No.5969924]

>>5963793
fun fact: he is also a cambodian holocaust denier

[Anonymous No.5969968]

>>5969924
Why am I not surprised?

[Anonymous No.5970050]

Muh global warming ... I mean climate change! Why trust IPCC, a scaremongering organization that told the world the average temp would be 50C in a couple of decades? It will take at least 600-800 years to reach the same CO2 levels as 65 million years ago. The average temp was 4C higher than today back then. That is if now CO2 is so dangerous as they say. Oh I'm pretty sure these climate change nuts will say we already hit peak oil so why are they worrying?

[Anonymous No.5970078]

>>5969092
He is a ine-hit wonder. No matter what the issue, it's all the fault of US imperialists. As pointed out b Hitchens.:-(

[Anonymous No.5970100]

>>5969780
>Have you noticed how people have begun to use the term "climate change" instead of "global warming"?
Woaw, such an insightful remark for something that has been the norm for years.

>This is because they know global warming is not happening
No, this is because global warming is a global phenomenon, that can translate in local warming someplaces, and local cooling some other places.
Using the term "climate change" helps preventing retardos like you say stupid shit like "but it was a cold winter in my hometown, there is no global warming, checkmate"

[Anonymous No.5970115]

>>5970100
>No, this is because global warming is a global phenomenon, that can translate in local warming someplaces, and local cooling some other places.
This is such total bullshit. When IPCC realized their data was flawed and time caught up with them proving their conclusions false they had to invent a new buzzword. As soon there is flooding somewhere it's climate change. Doesn't matter if it floods every 25 years at that particular spot. As soon there is a tornado somewhere it's climate change. A storm? Climate change. Cold somewhere? Climate change.

[Anonymous No.5970116]

>>5970115
>This is such total bullshit.
All grown, posting on sci, and doesn't understand the concept of an average.

[Anonymous No.5970122]

>>5970116
If you post on sci you would understand that the pro climate change research is a load of bullshit.

[Anonymous No.5970126]

>>5970122
Then why in your post do you mention only crap about the general media treatment and not the research?

[Anonymous No.5970136]

>>5970126
Because the research is based on cherry picked data. For all we know it's natural since it's both been warmer and hotter in recent history. The climate change are most likely out of our control since we can't control our orbit, the sun and axial tilt.

[Anonymous No.5970144]

>>5970136
>why do you mention journalism stuff
>because it's cherry picked data
Seriously, is that supposed to be an answer? Can't you follow a pace of conversation or do you have to completely sway the topic every post?

[Anonymous No.5970152]

>>5970144
Where does the media get their scare mongering numbers from? Out of their own ass or the climate scientists ass?

[Anonymous No.5970168]

>>5970152
Quite frequently the former.

[Crane No.5970174]

>>5963650

This. Stop caring. It doesn't even affect you.

>>5963674
>>5964211

Being this mad. How's your substitute religion going for you? I think I might pollute the environment some more today. Just because.

[Anonymous No.5970192]

Stupid people calling people stupid.

Lets suppose that human-caused global warming is true.

What to do?

For many, the solution is to implement greater taxes, and to cut industry. Those taxes would be used to what? Give money to China so that it could build cleaner coal power plants alongside their high-sulfur coal power plants?

The solution is to de-industrialize the West while ignoring the rapid industrialization of Brazil, China, India, and Africa? Watch hopelessly as there is greater slash-and-burn agriculture, and greater numbers of people chopping down trees for their cooking charcoal?

None of the industrializing nations will give up their chances to grow, and the West is going bankrupt by themselves, so they haven't the trillions to fund a reinvention of those nations--not that the money would actually be put to the use intended.

[Anonymous No.5970199]

>>5970192
You got that wrong, the whole global warming taxes will weigh more heavily on industrializing countries who can't afford expensive solar panels and windmill coverage.

[Crane No.5970202]

>>5970199

Implying that nations who can't afford it would even give a shit...

[Anonymous No.5970209]

>>5970202
Taxes affect everyone involved broski.
We're the market.

[Anonymous No.5970212]

>>5970192
Nah.
The solution is to keep going as we are and then fix the problems as they come using science and engineering instead of using obnoxious hippies and events where you turn your lights off for one hour a year.
When it all comes down to it people like Al Gore will have had nothing to do with the problem being fixed, just with the problem being publicised so much that most of the public's ears have become numb and nobody cares anymore

[Anonymous No.5970216]

>>5970199
Windmills cause climate change.

Firstly, there is the great energy and resources in producing them. Then they can only operate when it is windy enough, but not too windy. Then they chop up the occasionally endangered bird or bat. Finally, they dry out, and warm the ground beneath them.

[Anonymous No.5970218]

>>5970216
What does this post have to do with anything?

[Anonymous No.5970219]

>>5970216
>keyword "windmill"
>starts dump
I'm not convinced you're not a bot.

[Crane No.5970229]

>>5970209

I don't understand what you're aiming at. Are you talking about (a) taxes that 1st world countries impose on developing countries or (b)taxes that every country should introduce for their own people/companies?

(a) This would most certainly only hurt the "little" people in countries like africa, etc. Countries like China would just tell 1std world countries to fuck off. You can't force them to pay climate taxes.

(b) If all countries really are to tax their people etc. then it would indeed weigh more heavily on industrializing countries, like you already mentioned.

[Anonymous No.5970230]

>>5970216
>climate change denier claims man can't cause climate change
>claims man made windmills cause climate change

wololol

[Anonymous No.5970237]

>>5970229
Yeah, China already told the EU to fuck off.

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-china-carbon-tax-eu-flights.html

[Anonymous No.5970276]

>>5968110
racism isn't a real word.

[Anonymous No.5970304]

>>5970276
define "real word"

[Anonymous No.5970336]

>>5963674
>We need to plan for the future.
In the long term I'll be dead. I don't really care, and I don't plan to have children.

[Anonymous No.5970350]

>>5970229
None of those options.
As long as the biggest markets (so the countries who ARE concerned with that) impose carbon taxes, everyone feels the consequences. The seller as well as the buyer.
>avatarfagging

[Anonymous No.5970364]

>>5970304
define "define"

[Anonymous No.5970424]

Even if climate change wasn't true it probably is smarter to act like it was.

>Best outcome when there isn't a climate change and you didn't modify your behaviour: You saved some money.
>Worst outcome when there isn't a climate change and you didn't modify your behaviour: You saved some money.

>Best outcome when there is a climate change and you didn't modify your behaviour: You lose a lot of money and maybe manage to survive somehow.
>Worst outcome when there is a climate change and you didn't modify your behaviour: End of humanity.

>Best outcome when there is a climate change and you modify your behaviour: You stop climate change in time, safe some money and develop better technologies in the process which benefit humanity as a whole.
>Worst outcome when there is a climate change and you did modify your behaviour: You able to slow climate change and to prepare for disaster. Increased chances of survival.

The chance of saving money as the best outcome of not believing isn't worth the risk of mass extinction imho. The worst outcome of believing in a none existing climate change is only slightly worse than the best outcome of not believing in it's existence, but without the same risk.

[Anonymous No.5970465]

>>5970424
What's your reasoning for not spending gazillions on a space rock defense system?
>Best outcome when there isn't an asteroid/comet that hit earth and you didn't modify your behaviour: You saved some money.
>Worst outcome when there isn't an asteroid/comet that hit earth and you didn't modify your behaviour: You saved some money.

>Best outcome when there is an asteroid/comet that hit earth and you didn't modify your behaviour: You lose a lot of money and maybe manage to survive somehow.
>Worst outcome when there is an asteroid/comet that hit earth and you didn't modify your behaviour: End of humanity.

>Best outcome when there is an asteroid/comet that hit earth and you modify your behaviour: You stop climate change in time, prevent the destruction of earth and safe some money and develop better technologies in the process which benefit humanity as a whole.
>Worst outcome when there is an asteroid/comet that hit earth and you did modify your behaviour: You unable to slow climate change and to prepare for disaster. Increased chances of survival.

There are so many Armageddon scenarios out there that actually are real but we don't spend a dime on researching them.

[Anonymous No.5970500]

>>5970424
>it's one case or the other so it's a 50-50 chance

[Anonymous No.5970498]

>>5970465
I think concrete plans against an asteroid threat would be good idea actually.

Regarding other scenarios it depends I suppose, but in terms of climate change it makes sense because there seems enough uncertainty to justify countermeassures while there's the ability to do something about it now where as in terms of most other potential happenings you're only able to prepare for the time after it actually happend. Or rather you're only able to react after the shit already hit the fan.

[Anonymous No.5970518]

>>5970498
Also not trying to prevent on disaster shouldn't be an argument against preventing another. By the same logic it wouldn't make sense to have a standing army with a trillon dollar budget if there isn't an enemy. Ok, that's a tricky one, but you get what I'm trying to say.

[Anonymous No.5970531]

>>5970498
>Regarding other scenarios it depends I suppose,
What about solar flares and shock waves from supernovas that has the potential to sterilize to earth?
>>5970518
In my opinion the worst consequences of CO2 emissions seems to be that it might get colder in the Northern regions and that it might get hotter in equatorial regions. The only thing that seems people agree on is that increased average temps (which we really haven't seen the past decade) can cause flooding in coastal areas.

[Anonymous No.5970543]

>>5970424
Except that's not true at all. Moving away from carbon-emitting energy technology is extremely costly and damaging to the economy. Millions of people could die, wars could be fought, wars could be lost, as the result of that decision.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 and lengthening growing seasons increase crop yields. Stopping these changes could lead to famine, war, mllions of deaths.

Various sorts of disasters could lead to a sudden temperature drop. We don't know that *stopping* global warming wouldn't result in a global catastrophe that could have been avoided if we just kept burning coal.

Pascal's wager is a stupid justification for religion.

[Anonymous No.5970564]

>>5970543
Changing the economy should be part of the solution I suppose, because all we do at the moment is slowing down the crash, making it worse when it actually will happen. The infinite growth paradigm is literally like cancer but on a global level.

[Anonymous No.5970577]

>>5970564
You speak as if "the globe" is our only resource.

[Anonymous No.5970593]

>>5970577
Is there something else?

[Anonymous No.5970603]

>>5970593
Seriously?

There's a whole universe out there. Just because you can't conceive of leaving the cradle doesn't mean we won't.

[Anonymous No.5970614]

>>5970603
That's like a baby saying you shouldn't worry about the milk running out because when you grow up you'll just go to the store and buy some.

[Anonymous No.5970617]

>>5970614
>That's like a baby saying you shouldn't worry about the milk running out decades from now because when you grow up you'll just go to the store and buy some.
Yes, exactly.

[Anonymous No.5970621]

>>5963650
but we wont

[Anonymous No.5970625]

>>5970617
But if you need milk to grow up and you've spilled all your milk because you think you could buy new milk in the distant future you won't be able to because the lack of milk inables you to grow.

[Anonymous No.5970627]

>>5970603
The earth's resources may not be enough to sustain us prior to accessing extraterrestrial resources. The gravity well we are in is a massive barrier.

[Anonymous No.5970655]

>>5963650
This. But to say it is damage is subjective, I like to think of it as change and progress.

[Anonymous No.5970659]

>>5970655
But you're fucked though if there's reincarnation.

[Anonymous No.5970666]

>>5970625
>inables
Your spelling is about on the same level with your reasoning.

>>5970627
It's really not that big a problem. An object in orbit has a little more energy than an equivalent mass of gasoline, and chemical rockets are better than 10% efficient at converting chemical energy to orbital energy.

So the energy cost of taking a person to space is about 8 barrels of oil, or around $1,000. As for the non-energy costs, see SpaceX's work on both producing rockets cheaply, and making them reusable. They're planning to switch to methane fuel, mostly because it's cheaper than their current kerosene, but also for more efficient rockets.

Before someone chimes in with, "But the oil and gas are running out!" keep in mind that hydrogen, methane, and methanol can quite easily be produced using electrical power. Not only is solar power taking off like computer technology did, but nuclear fuel is essentially inexhaustible -- we can even extract it from seawater. So we can do this very convenient thing where we make hydrogen by electrolysis of water, we heat limestone to make lime for concrete, which releases carbon dioxide, and we combine the hydrogen and carbon dioxide in simple reactions to make methane and methanol, for gaseous and liquid fuels.

So we're not going to run out of chemical fuel for rockets.

The reason we haven't made much headway in space is that it just hasn't made sense to go to space yet. We've barely made a dent in Earth's resources, and there's still plenty of room for more people here. Stuff like SpaceX is motivated by romantic notions.

[Anonymous No.5970669]

>>5970666
>Stuff like SpaceX is motivated by romantic notions.
Wut, you meant planetary ressource or something?
SpaceX will save money to international space agencies.

[Anonymous No.5970673]

>>5970666
Hey-oh! ! Nice ad hominem.
Is that all you got?

[Anonymous No.5970679]

>>5970666

Its all so easy! I get it now! And here I was thinking that there was no way to get all the stupid people on Earth to leave!

[Anonymous No.5970680]

>>5970669
If you read up about it, you'll find that the people behind SpaceX have grand plans for things like Mars colonization.

The point isn't to reduce prices for things like the ISS and satellite launch, those are just side-effects. It actually doesn't make business sense to work that hard on pushing those prices down, when you're the one getting paid the high prices in the first place.

They're doing this for the sake of dramatically increasing human activity in space, not to "save money to international space agencies."

[Anonymous No.5970682]

>>5970679
You should read "The Marching Morons" sometime. I think you'd like it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23657356/The-Marching-Morons

[Anonymous No.5970684]

>>5970680
Isn't that Mars crap mostly PR though?
I thought SpaceX was more or less a NASA puppet.

[Anonymous No.5970690]

>>5970684
Actually, a lot of people at NASA are very opposed to SpaceX. Congress has been forcing them to support it, even as it develops man-rated rockets that are on track to make NASA's flagship SLS program obsolete before it gets operational.

[Anonymous No.5971240]

thanks for the scientific info

[Anonymous No.5972733]

best science thread on /sci/