An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Pages
▼
Pages
▼
Friday, March 29, 2019
Mark Curtis - The Revolving Door
After UK officials have promoted the interests of arms and oil/gas corporations while in office, what do they do when they leave office? They go and work for them. The revolving door is a key aspect of British oligarchy.
I'm less worried about military and oil/gas engineers than about University professors and environmental activists who infiltrate ranks of leadership only to lavish funds and promote their narrow interests. At least the military defends society and energy powers society. Hard to say anything positive about academics contributions while climatologists are modern day Rasputins with the ear of government
That's a crazy point of view, Ryan. Climatologists can't destroy the planet, but those military-industrial complex spooks can. And green energy offers low cost energy, where smart capitalists could make their fortunes.
I've put out the videos debunking the climate change deniers. We can't call them skeptics as they offer no science of their own, so they are not skeptical, just flat out deniers.
Peter Hadfield, a British conservative, and a scientists, has dismantled all of the climate change deniers arguments, where he found not just a twist of facts, but often out and out lies.
I challenge you to watch a Peter Hadfield video (Potholer54), Ryan, and then you tell me what he has got wrong. You can ask another scientist of your choice to find out what you think Peter Hadfield has got wrong, if you like, and I will get onto Peter Hadfield and ask him about it, and then I will put the discourse out here.
Come on, rise to the challenge, Ryan, you tell me what has Peter Hadfield got wrong about Lord Moncton's and Patrick Moore's climate change science? What has he got wrong about their denial?
Potholer54: "Monckton bunkum Part 5 -- What, MORE errors, my lord?"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PdI3dzdT-JY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PdI3dzdT-JY
Potholer54/Greenman3610 - The Search for Lord Monckton
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WZKzJwMOWAI
Response to "The Global Warming Hoax Lord Monckton & Stefan Molyneux"
Mine was tongue in cheek. I simply reversed the emotive language to vilify and cannonize; This rhetorical device gets used to inculcate in-group members like any religion. By simply reversing the adjectives it triggers the membership by letting them know they encountered an outsider.
The right does this on issues like abortion or guns that are litmus tests issues that aren't negotiable. But not to the same degree as leftists.
Kaivey, "climate change" is a political short hand term to describe a philosophy of scarcity and discipline versus alternatives of abundance and technology.
In terms of engineering, if we wanted to remove carbon dioxide from atmosphere we have cheap, readily available technology to remove it or to produce fuel that removes it. We don't need 'new deals' and mass mobilization, all that doesn't help or contribute anything tangible, it simply makes people feel different and believe in something to create a cohesive feeling like religion used to provide.
There is simply no evidence yet that higher levels of CO2 have any negative impact and abundant evidence of extraordinary benefits to everyone. We've almost completely solved the crop failure and famine problems of the past, we've eliminated deforestation for heating and cooking fuel, we've all but eliminated leading causes of lung disease from open fire cooking and heating. (Opposite philosophy of leftists --> abundance, progress).
Pick your reality. Doesn't matter to me which you chose.
As if emissions from coal, gas, and diesel haven't far surpassed "open fire cooking and heating" as the "leading causes of lung disease" (the leading cause of which is in fact smoking).
Open fire cooking with wood and dung is more dangerous than smoking, especially when done indoors. (More dangerous being a quantitative mortality risk, and not a "dangerous" in the leftist sense of danger to ideological facade where people need "reeducation." In more developer economies where fewer people cook over open fires, smoking tobacco causes more lung disease. However not very many people smoke any more. I know of coal miners that died of lung disease but I'm unaware of any drivers or electricity consumers that died from using diesel or natural gas fuel.
I did think your comment was a wind up, Ryan, but I still bit.
What I like about MNE's is that there are many things that most of us do agree on, whether we're on the left of right. The M.I.C seems to be one of them.
I'm less worried about military and oil/gas engineers than about University professors and environmental activists who infiltrate ranks of leadership only to lavish funds and promote their narrow interests. At least the military defends society and energy powers society. Hard to say anything positive about academics contributions while climatologists are modern day Rasputins with the ear of government
ReplyDeleteThat's a crazy point of view, Ryan. Climatologists can't destroy the planet, but those military-industrial complex spooks can. And green energy offers low cost energy, where smart capitalists could make their fortunes.
ReplyDeleteI've put out the videos debunking the climate change deniers. We can't call them skeptics as they offer no science of their own, so they are not skeptical, just flat out deniers.
Peter Hadfield, a British conservative, and a scientists, has dismantled all of the climate change deniers arguments, where he found not just a twist of facts, but often out and out lies.
I challenge you to watch a Peter Hadfield video (Potholer54), Ryan, and then you tell me what he has got wrong. You can ask another scientist of your choice to find out what you think Peter Hadfield has got wrong, if you like, and I will get onto Peter Hadfield and ask him about it, and then I will put the discourse out here.
Come on, rise to the challenge, Ryan, you tell me what has Peter Hadfield got wrong about Lord Moncton's and Patrick Moore's climate change science? What has he got wrong about their denial?
Potholer54: "Monckton bunkum Part 5 -- What, MORE errors, my lord?"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PdI3dzdT-JY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PdI3dzdT-JY
Potholer54/Greenman3610 - The Search for Lord Monckton
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WZKzJwMOWAI
Response to "The Global Warming Hoax Lord Monckton & Stefan Molyneux"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M
And here we go again, Ryan’s post is whole lot of rant. And remember, Ryan just recently complained about others rant.
ReplyDeleteIt’s the right wing mind at work. No self insight whatsoever.
"Right wing mind" is an oxymoron.
ReplyDeleteMine was tongue in cheek. I simply reversed the emotive language to vilify and cannonize; This rhetorical device gets used to inculcate in-group members like any religion. By simply reversing the adjectives it triggers the membership by letting them know they encountered an outsider.
ReplyDeleteThe right does this on issues like abortion or guns that are litmus tests issues that aren't negotiable. But not to the same degree as leftists.
Kaivey, "climate change" is a political short hand term to describe a philosophy of scarcity and discipline versus alternatives of abundance and technology.
In terms of engineering, if we wanted to remove carbon dioxide from atmosphere we have cheap, readily available technology to remove it or to produce fuel that removes it. We don't need 'new deals' and mass mobilization, all that doesn't help or contribute anything tangible, it simply makes people feel different and believe in something to create a cohesive feeling like religion used to provide.
There is simply no evidence yet that higher levels of CO2 have any negative impact and abundant evidence of extraordinary benefits to everyone. We've almost completely solved the crop failure and famine problems of the past, we've eliminated deforestation for heating and cooking fuel, we've all but eliminated leading causes of lung disease from open fire cooking and heating. (Opposite philosophy of leftists --> abundance, progress).
Pick your reality. Doesn't matter to me which you chose.
As if emissions from coal, gas, and diesel haven't far surpassed "open fire cooking and heating" as the "leading causes of lung disease" (the leading cause of which is in fact smoking).
ReplyDeleteOpen fire cooking with wood and dung is more dangerous than smoking, especially when done indoors. (More dangerous being a quantitative mortality risk, and not a "dangerous" in the leftist sense of danger to ideological facade where people need "reeducation." In more developer economies where fewer people cook over open fires, smoking tobacco causes more lung disease. However not very many people smoke any more. I know of coal miners that died of lung disease but I'm unaware of any drivers or electricity consumers that died from using diesel or natural gas fuel.
ReplyDeleteEmissions from
I did think your comment was a wind up, Ryan, but I still bit.
ReplyDeleteWhat I like about MNE's is that there are many things that most of us do agree on, whether we're on the left of right. The M.I.C seems to be one of them.
”I simply reversed the emotive language to vilify and cannoniz”
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of BS. I’ve seen your posts and you’re not aware of your own rant. Get off the high horse.