Interesting.
That same effect is what I refer to as the “Exclusion Barrier”.
That is exactly it. This sheds some more light on the dynamics of people and their negative values. We can see how the following applies in the case of Eyesinthedark:
The negative particle (“Jews” - he is a proper, i.e. emotionally fed antisemite, needs his racial hatred to fuel his political activity against Zionism) keeps circling the positive core. The excluded particle in part defines the ‘‘charge’’ of the whole, the exclusion adds to the strength. If Eyes would think more subtly about Jews, this would in fact weaken him. The same can be seen with the nazi’s and all isolationist organizations. They require a great deal of ignorance about their perceived adversaries in order to be able to properly hate them and mobilize themselves.
As you may have seen I’m now kind of playing with this myself - using “muslim” as a banner for people who are for example irrational, anticapitalist, antiwestern, antisemite, tolerant of medieval religious politics, and/or believing in objective morality. All these are decidedly incompatible with my self valuing, and the term muslim includes all of these properties. I am not completely serious here, but it is perhaps useful to just dump all discarded forms of thinking on one heap, as they do form a kind of goo, and add an emotional element to it to create a real distance.
What about those who aren’t religious freaks and don’t “understand” evolution?
Never-mind that. About warming and in an attempt at a general appeal.
Now that we’ve gotten the trick of not conflating anthropogenic, planetary warming and pollution–or something like that–and the U.K. has come on-board, with professorial support from Richard Lindzen of M.I.T., can’t we all agree that warming is better than cooling, assuming stasis to be improbable?
Yes! We can! (Oops.)
Do you really want those glaciers to be increasing in size and do you really want them crawling down Continents, mountain ranges and over your house? (I know some people do.)
Let’s not forget that our current iteration of civilization grew out of an ice-age. (More about iterations later.)
I live in an area of the U.S. of A. (between 41st and 42nd latitude, Eastern) where there is evidence around every corner that the land was, that is, at one time, covered–that would be entirely–covered by massive glaciers. This is to say nothing of the enormous amount of water that once–obviously–flowed through this area from melting glaciers: immense glacial moraines, gigantic, smooth boulders atop the highest hills.
If you think stasis is likely, then you are an …<whack (to head)-“restraint of pen and tongue”, whack (to head)-“restraint of pen and tongue”>.
Having gotten over that, can’t we all agree to take the scare out of “global warming”?
Indeed you’ve made that very clear. 
Holy hell, you still don’t understand. Yes, heat is part of the process. That doesn’t change the fact that a hurricane does not produce more heat than it consumes (quite the opposite, as I recall).
Some other thread doesn’t rectify the errors he’s made here. His crap about supposedly refuting heliocentricity hasn’t made a good case for him though.
Evidently my statement was much more complex than I thought, as you all seem to be having some trouble.
Convenient. See, if I am in point of fact correct (which I do perceive myself to be in this case), by selecting information as I have, I fit your schema and thus am categorized as “a relatively rigid self-valuing, a fragile intellect.” Unfortunately, you don’t include anything in that which says I’m inherently wrong, only that I’m shallow, ignorant, and weak. I don’t believe I know everything but I do try to restrict my comments on this site to what I do know. That is perhaps where we differ.
A quote from a sales seminar: “If I have learned one thing, people don’t buy bread based on what you tell them. They don’t buy bread on what you show them, oh no. They buy based on what you don’t tell them and don’t show them. If you hide things from them–unpleasant things, things they don’t want to hear, and you can do it in a sincere fashion, every door will open for you.” Basically what I’m saying is all you need to make the observation you’ve made is a crash course in sales tactics, not “value ontology.”
Yeah, I’d probably agree with whatever absurd idea a lunatic with a gun to my head wants me to.
The first bit of science you botched was that “[hurricanes] mostly redistribute, but create slightly more heat (increasing entropy).” This is incorrect, as I have cited.
We were indeed discussing military strategies. You claimed that the US military has the power to create hurricanes at will using "targeted heat” by various methods including “ozone depletion, oceanic atomic explosions, [reflect solar omitted as you attribute it to the Russains] radar and laser focus from satellites, and surface coloring providing light absorption and/or reflection to suit the need.” Neglecting that heat is only one of myriad factors of tropical cyclone formation is a pretty serious scientific error. Even given extremely warm waters, a strong, stacked convection, and ample water vapor, moderate to heavy wind shear can tear the storm to pieces. There is an interesting hypothesis regarding the future of wind shear by Dr. Jeff Masters that seems to also significantly damage your assertion. You may also want to review Dr. Masters’ blogs on the past Atlantic Hurricane season to get a better idea of why I’m suggesting heat alone is no where near sufficient to cause a tropical cyclone.
I’m honored that you three feel compelled to come and derail this thread on my behalf.
You have not even begun to think about what you are recalling.
I wasn’t going to say it, but indeed. You were thinking fusion keeps going because of the cool breeze that all this fusion produces.
I understand the difference between an dynamic running on turbulence-heat and an engine running on fuel producing heat and pressure, but neither dimisnishes heat. Unless it breaches the law of conservation of energy. It is of course possible that such a hurricane draws heat from one place (for example the air above it) and leaves that place cold, while increasing the temperature in other places. That’s not what you are saying though.
Ah, so his science is not wrong. See how quickly that turned around. Yes, you added “at least”, but even so it’s clear that you were just saying what you felt like saying.
To the observer, there’s nothing complex about a hypocrit. To himself, the consequences of his statements seem endlessly complex. How else could he avoid them?
It only took me fifteen minutes of reading your posts to see what you’re worth intellectually. I have no doubt that you are not quite as weak in all areas. You would not be alive if you were.
Basically all you do here is show that the one aspect of VO that I have explained to you is valid and verified in practice. Of course value ontology is compatible with economic and marketing strategies. It’s also compatible with physics, chemistry, biology, psychology - it brings all fields under a single “law”.
Naturally you can only bitch about something like that even if you could understand it - after all you didn’t get it from a book that was recommended to you by a man who waxes his beard.
You probably don’t really mean “agree”, but it’s possible that you’d actually change your mind at gunpoint - given that the gun was polished and the hand holding it gloved in silk.
Adorable.
The ‘d’oh’ is regarding your apparent inability to see how an internal combustion and a sun do not ‘run’ by the same method as a hurricane. But you are quite right; that’s not what I’m saying, because that’s not how it works. The hurricane ‘draws’ in vapor from below, creating a drop in pressure, which in turn pulls in surrounding air. The rising column of vapor condenses, which fuels the warm core of the storm. Cool air is ejected via the outflow (cirrus clouds), some sinking back down the column.
Where did I say his science isn’t wrong? I just acknowledged that an unrelated thread is unrelated.
How exactly am I being hypocritical?
Again with the petty insults. I apologize for my diminutive remark regarding you and James’ effectively equating all the BTL members to pawns, but did it really piss you off that much?
…so wait. I should only value information I get from books recommended to me by men that wax their beards? Is that also explained by “value ontology?”
You’re right; I meant that I’d tell him/her I agree. But thinking further, whether or not I actually changed my belief would be discursive. For instance, if I didn’t believe a little girl with an ice cream cone in a delightful little pink dress was an unlikely candidate for homicidal mania, and said little girl proceeded to kick me in the gut, pull a gun on me and demand that I believe she is in fact a likely candidate for homicidal mania, I’d be obliged to alter my opinion. Also, why would the gun being polished and the assailant wearing silk change my mind?
I wish you the best in all your endeavors.
So the heat is relocated.
"James may use scientific words, but his science–at least in this case–is wrong.
.
“James has yet to evidence his credibility to me”
Then read what I linked.
See above.
Yes, as you came out of nowhere just to make an insult.
It was a joke.
How inventive!
I still don’t see why I’m a hypocrite for not wanting to read his “Rational Metaphysics” as proof of his credibility re the mechanics of hurricanes and conspiracy theories, but I’ll read some to appease you; I recall having read some of his RM thread on BTL (did he post it here too?) and being somewhat underwhelmed.
Actually, I opened the thread to see what it was all about. It’s just that the first page was dominated by you and James cryptically going back and forth about plans and warnings, and when he proceeded to describe how he ‘gave’ us–the other members of BTL–to you a la warm apple pie for the new neighbor, I was somewhat taken aback, especially given that I hadn’t ever talked to James prior to his rants (which both Capable and I found somewhat ridiculous) on BTL. I concluded that I was reading a rather pretentiously fantastic (as in ‘of or relating to fantasy’) conversation in which I was an object, at least to some degree, and I made the poor decision of commenting on it. As you’ll note, I refrained from engaging it further.
Beginning where?
Yeah, I thought it was pretty cute too.
Some researchers claims it’s false, because they have studied the ice samples at the poles and concluded it’s a repeated occurance ever since the dinos millions years ago.
I’m wondering how NASA was making these observations in 1880.
Once you understand that James is crazy, everything he says sort of makes perfect sense.
Either global warming is real, or untold tend of thousands of scientists around the world are in a secret conspiracy to lie about it, or HAARP is secretly frying polar regions with high every radio waves to melt the ice as well as steadily adding electromagnetic energy into the atmosphere to raise global temperatures.
On the other side, the global warming skeptics are either right, or stupid naive people with no real training or access to scientific work and data, and/or they’re connected somehow to the big energy companies and lobbying groups (Republican party in the US, which is the #1 obstructor of global climate change efforts and progress)… yeah, I’m going with this last one.
Global warming is evidently real. It’s not entirely beyond doubt what the aggregate of causes looks like but in any case it’s not stoppable if its man made, considering that China is heading in no direction to stop it and no one can stop China without stopping the world economy.
We’re just going to have to accept a lot of flooding.
My comment was addressed at what I took the be a suggestion that this was satellite data. Of course that is not the case and it may not have been suggested. But I thought the idea was comical enough.
Atmospheric carbon recycling and very slight (fractions of a percent) redirection of sunlight by one or several massive solar arrays of mirrors would be enough to fix global warming just fine. We simply need global solutions, since it’s a global problem.
One positive side effect will be that our science of weather and weather tech will jump forward by centuries.
Yes - and what about the irony of having to deal with an energy scarcity on the one hand and an excess of heat on the other?
How is James crazy?
People who believe in the Big Bang without evidence are crazy.
Aether was never disproven.
True, we should be recycling heat excess into useable energy.
I had an idea that if we expanded solar arrays across surfaces of the earth, I mean like 10,000x the current number of them in existence, this would absorb so many photons and prevent their redirection back into the atmosphere that it might actually have a measurable effect to reduce global warming. It’s a simple equation, incoming light-heat versus ability to use and absorb it. Of course it’s way more complex in reality and there are so many feedback loops, such as absorption and release of CO2 by the oceans, methane and CO2 release from frozen areas melting, agriculture creating more methane and CO2, developing countries increasing carbon footprints, all of this is going to have an impact. It’s a runaway problem, because the worse the problem gets then the worse it’s going to keep getting, exponentially so, since the problem is self-feeding.
I can propose many ideas to help out, but in the end there is little real political will for this. The US refuses to sign environmental treaties or to enact carbon trade policies, which would be tremendously helpful, and the US is also falling behind in solar and other renewable energy research and innovation. Did you know carbon cap and trade was originally an idea proposed by conservatives? Just like with the individual mandate from the Obamacare, these ideas stated out as Republican solutions they ended up abandoning as soon as their wealthy constituents told them to. I would like to see government grants on the order of tens of billions of dollars to science and innovation groups to really get all this going… but obstructionists and ideological climate change deniers like Trump and the GOP are the number one problem preventing it. You have Republicans in the US deeply beholden to huge conventional energy corporations and it’s no surprise that they will fight hard to prevent the world from transitioning out of fossil fuels and into an awareness of ecological and climate problems that are becoming very dire.
Did you know that species extinction right now is nearly in par as it was when the asteroid hit and killed off the dinosaurs? We’ve already seen the first mammals go extinct due to global warming. And even if tomorrow all carbon emissions were reduced to zero around the world, temperatures would still keep increasing because carbon sticks around in the atmosphere and creates a self-reinforcing effect on temperatures. Only a given amount of carbon can be recycled per unit of time by living ecosystems or absorbed into oceans. In fact, one of the most dire situations I’ve heard climate scientists talking about is that at some point the oceans will be one carbon-saturated, meaning the waters cannot hold anymore atmospheric CO2 and will instead actually start releasing more CO2 back into the amosphere.
smithsonianmag.com/science-n … 180955138/
I would be far more likely to vote for any candidate for US president who takes these issues seriously. Or at least acknowledges their existence. No more children’s games and bedtime stories of pretending this shit isn’t real.