This article via the link below by Michael Rosenblum (@Rosenblumtv on twitter) caught my attention more for it's commentary on American culture (or lack thereof) than for any call it makes on the elections. Nevertheless I think he could make a good case for his call on the outcome. I feel differently, I feel Hillary will win, but only because the establishment and their presstitute media will cheat, just like they did to cheat Ron Paul in 2012.
There can be no doubt Ron Paul was screwed in 2012
Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does. Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote, it's actually method. The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy. In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people. That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.
First and foremost, what is this so called 'consensus' anyway. You will be horrified to find out, it's not specifically that global warming is man made. It's simply that humans contribute to climate change in an unknowable way and to…
Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.
I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters. However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link. Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.
I am writing this for one purpose, to be able to post it every time the issue comes up in conversation to prevent myself from dying of boredom on a few key issues with label intellectuals, you know, the sort who drop labels for the singular purpose of demonstrating their talent at dodging real issues by posing as someone who knows the definition of a word.
When it comes right down to it, I personally think most economic and, for that matter, socio-economic systems across the entire capitalism/ socialism spectrum could work if corruption could just be reasonably controlled. Many forget that Socialism still runs on the capitalism economics system and the finer points actually come down to policy and regulations. This is often missed. That being said, I am fairly sure that many of the criticisms of communism for example are valid, and views that it does not work especially well because it tends to kill the inventiveness and passion of the human spirit do stand, but not for the reasons…