Are all Climate crisis deniers conspiracy theorists?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Quantum Quack, Sep 25, 2019.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, it didn't.
    As your inability to provide evidence or argument illustrates.
    It does not. (You have no visible argument, for starters. The exact meaning of the word I used is central to my observation and claim, for another.
    I think that's why you don't use it, and why you so often do that - especially in matters of which you are ignorant and politically agenda driven (like AGW).
    You have to misrepresent what other people say, or your "replies" make no sense even to you.
    The seller's ownership.
    Yep. In a capitalist system, remember? That was your assumption.
    ? Same thing. In a market capitalist system exchange of capital establishes your ownership of the good - you bought it, in the vernacular. That is the central and defining feature of a capitalist system.
    Exchange of capital is "allowed", in market capitalism, by definition.
    Admit? I insisted on that, repeatedly, over your objections. I defined different economic systems by the different ways they establish ownership - feudalism vs capitalism, for a clear and recent and significant example. (Inherited wealth, the economic core of feudalism, is quite obviously owned, and quite obviously not acquired by exchange of capital.)
    Now I am trying to get you to pay attention to that fundamental characteristic of economic systems.
    In capitalism one acquires ownership by purchasing things, handing over money or some other measure of capital in exchange - this is so basic to capitalist systems that in most of them any entity capable of purchasing something can acquire ownership: in the US even corporations, legal structures with no material existence at all, can buy and own stuff.

    All of which muddles the issue you are trying to muddle - your simultaneous advocacy of both AGW denial and various conspiracy theories which at first glance seem unrelated, thereby providing anecdotal evidence for an underlying relationship of some kind as the thread implies. In your case the anecdotal evidence appears with extensive postings in explanation and defense of both the AGW denial and the conspiracy theories, which providentially suggest mechanisms for what seem at first glance to be unrelated phenomena not only in your posting but in that of the many others sharing your basic viewpoints.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2020
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,640
    So your answer is - no, you still can't imagine a steady state economy persisting through half the participants failing. And then you claim _I'm_ stupid. Great stuff; you definitely belong on the Internet.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That's what, the fifth consecutive idiotic misreading you've posted as a paraphrase? (I claimed you were either lying or stupid. I didn't bet. Could even be a combination of some kind.)

    And the third of fourth time you have been warned against paraphrasing like that - directly warned, with illustrative examples quoted

    I'm perfectly willing to entertain some other explanation for this display of yours - but these are not complicated posts, and the failures of paraphrase are basic.

    But you could always show me up by moving on to a topic - you could, say, post an example of this situation you are insisting I can observe at any time.

    To remind you of what you are trying to post an example of:
    Notice that I even explained and illustrated my objection, briefly (didn't want to insult beyond necessity).

    You could use that to start from: in your alleged steady state capitalist economic system with its 50% success/failure rate, how were the effects of accumulation leveled? You can use the example you post to illustrate.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2020
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,640
    What will you do, call me more names? Believe me, I am quaking in my boots!
    I did - failure rate of new companies. I know you don't understand it. That's fine.
    At this point it's clear that you do not want a discussion - you want a platform to demonstrate your perceived intellectual superiority. I'll leave you to your stage; I can see how much you like it.
     
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    I have used it, in the corrected version, it remains valid.
    No. Even if the ownership of a lot of things is gained via the market, there are other ways to gain ownership. Namely all the other ones which are present in societies without such a market.
    Exchange is not establishment. For an exchange, the ownership of the exchanged thing already has to be established. The exchange only changes the particular owner.
    No problem. Feel free to define capitalism by the existence of a market for capital goods.
    The point being? These are additional possibilities to gain ownership which are not present in feudalism. Fine. The other possibilities to gain ownership do not disappear. In particular, the usual way to establish ownership - by creating the particular good - does not disappear too. As well as the other possibilities to transfer ownership.

    So, learn yourself to express your ideas in a clear form, instead of whining about misreadings of your confused writings.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    When you replace my vocabulary with yours you change the meaning.
    Exchange of capital establishes ownership, in a capitalist system. By definition.
    Whatever the government allows or sets up.
    "In a market capitalist system - - " etc - - do try to keep up. You quoted that.
    The usual way to become an owner of something in a market capitalist system is by exchanging capital for it.

    Creating a particular good does not necessarily establish ownership in a market capitalist system - depends on the law. In an industrial market capitalism, for example, "creation" of the good is almost irrelevant - few factory employees own what they make.
    Purchasing it does, paying for its creation does, etc, by definition. Capital exchange.

    Meanwhile, the answer appears to be "yes": all climate crisis deniers appear to be conspiracy theorists. In your case the conspiracy is the standard rightwing authoritarian media feed's "deep state".
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Good point!
    Many a AGW critic/denier will defend their position by claiming some sort of imaginary financial gain construct...
    Deeps state, Cabal, you name it .

    The real problem though is that there really isn't any money in denying it, in fact there could be more money in accepting it..
    So we have a paradoxical position ...
    Claiming a financial motive being behind AGW belief is absurd.
     
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    But in this case, the change was irrelevant because without the replacement my argument remains valid too.
    So we obviously use different definitions of "establishes". My interpretation of "establishing ownership" is that there was no ownership before. Either because the thing owned after the establishment of ownership did not even exist before (and was produced), or it existed by was not owned by anybody, so that everybody was free to take it and to own it. This is establishing ownership. Everything else is change of ownership.
    Becoming an owner is something different from an establishment of ownership. If I pay for something which is already owned by another person, no ownership is established, only the owner is changed.
    Creating a particular good necessarily establishes ownership. Not necessarily of the guy who creates it, this would be only the simplest case. But there was no good before, now it exists, and it is owned by some well-defined person. Ownership has been established. Moreover, in a free market society it depends on the contracts between the participants who owns the piece they have created together. The law only establishes how much of it the government robs.
    Of course, this is self-evident. "Conspiracy theorist" is a propaganda label used against all those who reject the politically correct (or official government, but as long as Trump rules there may be differences) versions of whatever. Once the climate crisis theory is politically correct, those who reject it are automatically conspiracy theorists.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,640
    Some people do have a financial incentive, like solar system manufacturers.

    However, comparing the financials for AGW mitigation and the financial incentives for climate change denial are like comparing an elephant to a mouse, and then worrying that the mouse will be too heavy for your floor. Oil and coal companies in the US alone make a quarter trillion dollars in profit a year. That's just profit. Meanwhile, all solar companies in the US do about 70 billion dollars of business a year. That's total business, not profit. Profit would be closer to 5 billion, less than 2% of oil and coal companies.
     
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    There are other things which decide about the money paid for lobbyism (the American word for bribery). Namely, how much of the profits depend on government subsidies. For green energy it is close to 100%, without the governments supporting them they would be in danger of bankruptcy. Oil and coal do not depend on subsidies (there have been such dependencies in some regions where coal mining was no longer efficient, given competition by other states, but this is afaiu irrelevant today). So they have no point in investing in climate science. What would be their point? If "climate deniers" win, the green energy firms go bankrupt. But they don't gain anything, the economy on subsidies does not go to coal and oil, but to other government programs, like the army or whatever. Instead, those oil firms which, for some diversification, also have some investment into green energy to gain some of the green government money, will even lose.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Your argument was directed at issues and claims that did not exist. The fact that it was also poorly reasoned and wrong - "invalid" - doesn't matter.
    The huge US government subsidies for oil and coal dwarf those for almost any other industry - even discounting the military subsidy.
    Exxon - among others - invested many millions in climate science, using the knowledge to help them redesign their ocean drilling platforms, guide their Arctic exploration and infrastructure, predict future markets etc.

    They just kept it secret, in house and proprietary, for commercial advantage

    and to avoid undermining their political campaigns against AGW mitigation via regulation and taxation of fossil fuels.
     

Share This Page