Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[Schmelzer]

The usual "you cant see fascism" bs disposed.

Eventually, down that road, you live in a world of competing and equivalently biased, equivalently unsupported, equivalently consequential or inconsequential media claims. No reality at all, after a while.
And so you throw it away - the history, the events, the real world in which real freedom is is established by adults in a community governing themselves, you discard. You invite Putins and Trumps to rule over you, because why not?

LOL, real freedom in the US, the state with the biggest prison population of the whole world, where you can be imprisoned even simply for owning pictures for completely private use.
I would say it is you who lives in such a world of equivalently biased, equivalently unsupported, equivalently consequential or inconsequential media claims. I don't, because I don't care about their lies. I use the freedom to emigrate if I don't like the way how the local mafia boss behaves, and neither Trump's nor Putin's kingdoms are on my list of acceptable places to live. The most dangerous thing for me would be a world government where I could no longer emigrate if I don't like the actual Führer.

 

[iceaura]

The usual "you cant see fascism" bs disposed.

As always, with any information you are handed.

The most dangerous thing for me would be a world government where I could no longer emigrate if I don't like the actual Führer.

And yet you do what you can to bring exactly that down on your head.

Because you can't see fascism coming.

LOL, real freedom in the US, the state with the biggest prison population of the whole world, where you can be imprisoned even simply for owning pictures for completely private use.

Strawman is the only argument you have left, apparently.
Although your bizarre and ill-informed obsession with framing people on kiddie porn charges was clarified recently, for me - apparently that's something Putin's thugboys do routinely. No doubt you simply projected it unto "government", and assumed it worked the same everywhere there is one of these "governments". The alternative for you would be recognizing the nature of Putin's government compared with others - not a happy option.

I would say it is you who lives in such a world of equivalently biased, equivalently unsupported, equivalently consequential or inconsequential media claims.

Of course you would. Right after you said my insistence on the reality of AGW was a Party line, and that you had identified the direction of political pressure on US climate researchers by observing media hysteria about heat waves and bad organisms spreading.

I don't, because I don't care about their lies.

Oh man.

You not only care about "their lies", it's almost all you care about. You base your entire political ideology and interpretation of events and posting here - except for the occasional matter, such as Syria, about which you are informed - on your assessments of "their lies". You have based your denial of AGW entirely on your assessments of "their lies".

Especially visible in the AGW posts, but characteristic of the rest as well, you are obsessed with media claims, you pay attention to little else.

And this also seems to be typical of the absurd denial - the focus on apparent media bias and lies in reporting, rather than the events or circumstances reported on.

The deniers of Jim Crow post media PC contretemps, video pastiches, obsessions over whether white people can say "nigger" or the TV footage was fair to the police officer. The deniers of the Holocaust worry the bone of sympathetic Hollywood movies and whether Jews get their share of negative press. And all of this is used to reflect doubt on aspects of things that happened, stuff that exists.

 

[Trippy]

Schmelzer.

I'll be frank. I've read your response to me several time and it comes across as word salad. If we've genuinely had a miscommunication then the onus is on you to be clearer and more explicit. So far all you've successfully done, from my perspective as your interlocutor, is muddy the waters . I honestly can't decide if you're asking me to do the equivalent provide papers explaining the smell of blue, or provide papers demonstrating unequivocally that things fall when dropped.

I mean, what more, precisely, do you want me to say here? Do you want me to cite the part of the IPCC report discussing it? Do you want me to say "They treat it as an unavoidable, inescapable fact, and Arrhenius' relationship lies at the core of every climate model"? Or do you want links such as this: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html which delve into the nitty-gritty of emperically determining the values of the constants used in the various relations?

Contrary to what's portrayed in the media, all models start from the same place.

They start with the sun, and the amount of EM Radiation it emits.
They consider the amount of sunlight the earth reflects, and the amount it absorbs - its albedo.
They then invoke blackbody radiation, treating the earth as being a greybody that increases in temperature until the sum of reflected energy and emitted energy equals the energy the earth receives from the sun.
For a body with the earths albedo and no atmosphere, this equilibrium temperature is -18°C. The observation that the average temperature of the earth is 15°C is down to greenhouse gasses.
Greenhouse gasses are called this because they have the property that simple harmonic motion, subsequently quantum mechanics, and laboratory observation tells us that these gasses, primarily Carbondioxide, water, and methane absorb IR radiation in a window of frequencies that coincides with the peak range of wavelengths emitted by the earth's surface as a grey-body.
These gasses absorb this IR radiation, some of it is emitted into space, some of it is emitted back in the direction of the earths surface, and some of it is retained as rotational, vibrational, and translational energy - IE, what humans call 'heat'.
There are some models which effectively treat the atmosphere as a grey-body radiating at a fixed altitude, but generally the models that consider the spectral characteristics and bin the absorbance of the atmosphere into buckets with average characteristics are more accurate.

Regardless of the model being discussed, the logarithmic relationship you keep on about, the Beer-Lambert law has been well characterized for 288 years, and was already 168 years old before people started applying it to carbon-dioxide and atmospheric chemistry.

The only thing that's changed is the introduction of quantum mechanics, which refined our understanding of absorption spectra and nullified Knut Angstroms arguments about the water absorption spectrum, and the money that the US Military sank into understanding atmospheric chemistry in the '50s to better keep an eye on Russian nuclear testing. It was during this period that the hypothesis of Anthropogenic global warming/climate change matured from a scientific curiosity that might or could happen, to something that was real, happening, and could have really bad consequences, which led to it being brought to the attention of Jimmy Carter (Or was it Richard Nixon - I forget) and led to the politicization of the issue.

That's another point you don't seem to grasp. The hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming had already been through all the debates in the scientific community that we see being rehashed today in the political arena. It had already had seventy odd years of maturation and consideration as a hypothesis by the time it was bought to the attention of politicians and the public in general.

Honestly, watching your discussions with Iceaura in this thread, I feel like you're a first or second year university student that has just recently taken a physical chemistry paper and stumbled across the Beer-Lambert relationship and its relevance to the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis and is using it in the same way my kids use a new word or idea.

 

[Schmelzer]

I mean, what more, precisely, do you want me to say here?

Nothing. Have you seen some text of type "Trippy, please tell me XXXX" or so? I have no problem at all with understanding the basics of greenhouse effect. I have no disagreement about this with science or the IPCC or so. I do not question AGW.

It is iceaura who calls me an AGW denier, without any base in reality. And, it looks like this, confused you, so that you tried to explain me things I do not doubt and have no problem with.

Of course, if you don't recognize that what iceaura does is grossly misleading, like here:

Right after you said my insistence on the reality of AGW was a Party line,

you end up confused. Reading this, one would never thing that I do not even doubt that there is antropogenic global warming.

 

[Trippy]

Nothing. Have you seen some text of type "Trippy, please tell me XXXX" or so? I have no problem at all with understanding the basics of greenhouse effect. I have no disagreement about this with science or the IPCC or so. I do not question AGW.

It is iceaura who calls me an AGW denier, without any base in reality. And, it looks like this, confused you, so that you tried to explain me things I do not doubt and have no problem with.

Of course, if you don't recognize that what iceaura does is grossly misleading, like here:

you end up confused. Reading this, one would never thing that I do not even doubt that there is antropogenic global warming.

It's not Iceaura that's confusing me, it's you. You've even gone as far as dodging the broader part of my last post. Your latest post would seem to me to contradict your previous post to me:

Sounds like a misinterpretation of the meaning of the question.

Some context:

And now some reformulation of the question.
"Now, to test this hypothesis, one can simply look how this fact is presented in the literature."

Let's also note that to answer the question "How is this fact presented in the literature?" it is not sufficient to say "It has been extensively debated and discussed over the last 120 years, as well as being discussed in the papers outlining climate models ." Why? Because the question is not if, but how. As you can see from the post itself, for politicized sciences there are typical patterns of how some politically unwanted facts are presented. The pattern was explicitly given:

So, to answer this "how" question one would have to study all this, and to compare all this. Much study of detail, which I have, of course, not done and not claimed to have done for AGW.

You asked how Arrhenius' relationship was used/treated in climate change literature, and I told you, it's accepted as being inescapable and unavoidable, and I provided you with a link that discuses the empirically derived value of α as an example. It's at the core of every discussion on the topic, it's fundamental to the subject. But it represents only one part of the puzzle, there are other parts that are equally fundamental, Stefan-Boltzman law, black-body radiation, the conservation of mass and energy.

You've avoided that whole aspect in order to, once again, call Iceaura a liar.

When you focus on one part of the picture, you over look the whole.

 

[iceaura]

It is iceaura who calls me an AGW denier, without any base in reality.
- - - -
Reading this, one would never thing that I do not even doubt that there is antropogenic global warming.

You deny AGW - the reality of it. You do so in the same terms, and with the same arguments, as are used by the media and other public agents of the American fascist political faction currently in control of the Republican Party.

Honestly, watching your discussions with Iceaura in this thread, I feel like you're a first or second year university student that has just recently taken a physical chemistry paper and stumbled across the Beer-Lambert relationship and its relevance to the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis and is using it in the same way my kids use a new word or idea.

You are giving him far too much credit. That implies sincerity, and innocence, and reasonable motive, which is contradicted by evidence. He is actively rejecting, denying, "doubting", AGW - using B-L as a sciency-sounding cover, to conceal the too starkly unacceptable rejection of scientific research and theory at the core of his claims.

Background info: The reason this guy is denying AGW is that he recognizes it to be something addressable only by "big" government, and big government is bad and wrong and unacceptable and unnecessary by assumption.

He was explicit about that, earlier on - dismissing reports of increasing likelihood of various disasters from AGW as propaganda from world government advocates, for example.

This is the same reason he denied Jim Crow (using the term as a shorthand reference) in the US - it had to not exist as it did, in order for him to be able to assert that the various Civil Rights laws and so forth were unwarranted impositions of big government that restricted basic freedoms rather than examples of the necessity of government in establishing basic freedoms.

The thread relevant question then arises: is some such assumption at the root of all absurd denials? Not just this guy's, but all of them in general?

 

[Schmelzer]

You asked how Arrhenius' relationship was used/treated in climate change literature,

No, I did not ask you anything. There was a point in that earlier post, formulated misleadingly as a question, which you tried to answer. I have tried to reformulate it, no longer in form of a question, but as something one could do, to test another hypothesis: "Now, to test this hypothesis, one can simply look how this fact is presented in the literature." So, again, there was no request at all for some information about the CO2 effect. It was about something completely different.

What was it about? It was about a sociological hypothesis about how science behaves under political pressure. My hypothesis is that, different from journalist, better named presstitutes, because they distribute every lie they are told to, scientist have some moral values, and have a sufficiently strong aversion against lying. On the other hand, they are not heroes, but have to care for living, thus, prefer methods which are not that dangerous. This leads to a quite predictable type of behavior of scientists under political pressure. If the pressure is extreme, they will leave the field. If some research predictably (for the scientists) leads to a strongly unwanted result, the research simply will not be done.

This hypothesis results in the following hypothesis about what we will observe in scientific and other publications (I have added, for completeness, a point 0):

The general picture for politicized sciences: The degree of distortion by political influence increases in the following sequence:
0.) What would be politically highly interesting, but it not studied at all, or with the studies remaining unpublished.
1.) The content of scientific papers, especially footnotes.
2.) Conclusions and introductions of scientific papers,
3.) Abstracts of scientific papers,
4.) Titles of scientific papers,
5.) Statements made by scientists in popular media,
6.) Statements of journalists in media presentations where scientists also say something
7.) Statements of journalists in other media presentations.

I have developed and tested this model in completely unrelated domains of science, but to do this requires to study the domain of question in a lot of detail. What we had here was a nice check of this model with a paper about child labor. Iceaura has posted it, and reading it allowed me to find in (1) support all the main claims I had proposed before. See here.

What this independently checked theory tells me is that if there is political pressure, you can, nonetheless, find a lot of truth in scientific papers, but you have to study them in detail. My points were that there is political pressure, and that I do not have the interest and time to do such a study to find out the scientific truth, so that I simply refuse to make claims about all beyond the well-established trivial facts.

One reasonable objection by iceaura was that it will be difficult to test the sociological hypothesis above if one does not have some independent information about the truth, the reality. Not knowing what is the truth makes, indeed, testing the hypothesis much more difficult. I have objected that there are enough cases where, in general, the truth is well-known and unquestionable. But it may be nonetheless politically unwanted, so that we have a chance to test the sociological hypothesis. The logarithmic character of the CO2 effect would fit into this scheme, so, I have simply used it as a possibility to circumvent iceaura's objection.

Now, think about the question if your answer would be helpful for checking the sociological hypothesis above using the logarithmic character of the CO2 effect. All your answer tells is that (1) indeed supports the correct facts. Fine, in agreement with the hypothesis, but nothing more.

Background info: The reason this guy is denying AGW is that he recognizes it to be something addressable only by "big" government, and big government is bad and wrong and unacceptable and unnecessary by assumption.

In part correct. This is indeed what made me interested in this question at all. Because I care about claims which are in contradiction with my own theories. But, because I also care a lot about facts, I have not used the comfortable ways out of this, namely that there is no global warming at all, or that it is not caused by the human-caused CO2 increase. The two excuses which iceaura attributes to the evil propaganda. Where science has good arguments, I have no problem to admit this.

What is wrong is that big government is not unacceptable and unnecessary by assumption. Instead, I have, for example, accepted that actually - that means, without a working global reputational system based on modern information technology - government is necessary to enforce contracts, thus, up to now necessary. So, if the facts would tell me that even big government is necessary, I would accept it too, and think about how to minimize the related harm.

 

[iceaura]

I have developed and tested this model in completely unrelated domains of science, but to do this requires to study the domain of question in a lot of detail. What we had here was a nice check of this model with a paper about child labor. Iceaura has posted it, and reading it allowed me to find in (1) support all the main claims I had proposed before.

You were mistaken about that paper. You read it wrong and dismissed its findings, because they conflicted with your presumptions about economic reality - specifically: you presumed that a child labor economy was in an unstable equilibrium in all free or largely unregulated market circumstances in which a better economic equilibrium existed, and the finding of the paper that this was not the case - with an example - was unacceptable to you.

The motive appeared to be, as in all these other cases, that the key and necessary role of government coercion (here, in moving an economy off of a stable but sub-optimal equilibrium) is unacceptable to you.

So you deny the reality.

My points were that there is political pressure, and that I do not have the interest and time to do such a study to find out the scientific truth, so that I simply refuse to make claims about all beyond the well-established trivial facts.

You were and are wrong about the pressure - which screwed up your deductions completely. Part of the reason you were wrong about the pressure (in addition to the bias from your presumption that big government was not necessary) was that you insisted on making several claims about the facts of AGW, despite not having done the study you abstractly acknowledged was necessary,

and your claims were of course - as one can see would be likely - false.

I have not used the comfortable ways out of this, namely that there is no global warming at all, or that it is not caused by the human-caused CO2 increase. The two excuses which iceaura attributes to the evil propaganda.

No, that's not the "comfortable" way out - it was for a while, but has become untenable: the propagandists have moved on, to exactly what you are posting. That's the comfortable way out now, the Republican Party line in the US - exactly what you post, denying AGW.

So, if the facts would tell me that even big government is necessary, I would accept it too, and think about how to minimize the related harm.

No, the plain evidence here is that you will not do that. You have failed to do that in at least three relevant cases: AGW, Jim Crow, and child labor (four, if we count your flirtation with Holocaust denial based on government suppression of fascist political movements in Germany)

You will instead refuse to consider or recognize the facts, and post almost anything however absurd in preservation of your ignorance.

Hence the thread category: Holocaust and similar (similarly absurd) denials.

 

[Schmelzer]

You were mistaken about that paper. You read it wrong and dismissed its findings, because they conflicted with your presumptions about economic reality - specifically: you presumed that a child labor economy was in an unstable equilibrium in all free or largely unregulated market circumstances in which a better economic equilibrium existed, and the finding of the paper that this was not the case - with an example - was unacceptable to you.

I dismissed that content because it was wrong, with arguments why it is wrong. Anyway, this was not the part relevant here.

No, that's not the "comfortable" way out - it was for a while, but has become untenable: the propagandists have moved on, to exactly what you are posting.

I have never supported them, not even at a time when they were comfortable. And, please decide at least what is the actual line of the deniers - that there is some warming, but CO2 is irrelevant for this, or that there is some human-caused warming.

The usual denial bs disposed.

 

[iceaura]

I dismissed that content because it was wrong, with arguments why it is wrong.

You had no argument. You simply denied the existence of the equilibria, and the nature of the real world example.

I have never supported them, not even at a time when they were comfortable.

Nobody said you did.

And, please decide at least what is the actual line of the deniers - that there is some warming, but CO2 is irrelevant for this, or that there is some human-caused warming.

They - you - use the claimed triviality ("some" warming) of the CO2 effect to justify "doubt" - your term, their term - of AGW. That's AGW denial.

You deny AGW. That's absurd.

 

[Schmelzer]

New record: Four lines, four lies.

You had no argument. You simply denied the existence of the equilibria, and the nature of the real world example.

Lie nr. 1. Let's just quote the argument made here

The one article I have considered in detail was based on an elementary error, thus, has not shown it. And even not really claimed that it can be really trapped for a long time. The point was that there may be some intermediate periods with multiple equilibria, and if, by accidents, forbidding child labor happens in such a moment, then its fine.

But let's see how plausible it is. First of all, the family fights for subsistence, only that's why the children work. Now the child loses its job. Fight for subsistence becomes even harder. This family is immediately and directly harmed.

The researcher invents some side effects of the broken window - less working force once children no longer work, means higher pays for workers. So some workers will be happy by gaining more. The happy glazier repairing the broken window. But to work for the particular harmed family, the gain in increase for the father should be greater than the loss by the child getting nothing. This is something one can invent, but already extremely implausible. The side effect of higher wages - higher prices for the goods - is completely ignored. But the overall price-independent picture - the children no longer produce anything, the society has less to distribute - shows that, like for the broken window, the overall effect will be negative.

Then, the society as a whole is never trapped in child labor. Because, according, again, to your link, even in the worst cases much less than half of the children work. Thus, there are enough non-working children where to invest education and so on, and one can be sure that forbidding child labor will not really improve the education of the children of the poor. In fact, they loose the professional education one obtains from "learning by doing", and what they get is usually indoctriantion in public schools which even in modern Western societies creates horrible levels of functional analphabets.

Nobody said you did.

Lie number 2: "You specifically and explicitly supported the "sure there is some warming, but not from the CO2 boost" line"

They - you - use the claimed triviality ("some" warming) of the CO2 effect to justify "doubt" - your term, their term - of AGW.

Lie nr. 3: No, I have also never questioned the claimed size of the pure CO2 effect.

You deny AGW. That's absurd.

Lie nr. 4, I don't.

 

[Trippy]

No, I did not ask you anything.

I didn't say you asked me anything in that post.

There was a point in that earlier post, formulated misleadingly as a question, which you tried to answer. I have tried to reformulate it, no longer in form of a question, but as something one could do, to test another hypothesis: "Now, to test this hypothesis, one can simply look how this fact is presented in the literature." So, again, there was no request at all for some information about the CO2 effect. It was about something completely different.

And the information you were 'seeking' was buried in my responses. Either you haven't noticed it, or don't like it. I can't decide which.

What was it about? It was about a sociological hypothesis about how science behaves under political pressure. My hypothesis is that, different from journalist, better named presstitutes, because they distribute every lie they are told to, scientist have some moral values, and have a sufficiently strong aversion against lying. On the other hand, they are not heroes, but have to care for living, thus, prefer methods which are not that dangerous. This leads to a quite predictable type of behavior of scientists under political pressure. If the pressure is extreme, they will leave the field. If some research predictably (for the scientists) leads to a strongly unwanted result, the research simply will not be done.

This hypothesis results in the following hypothesis about what we will observe in scientific and other publications (I have added, for completeness, a point 0):

The general picture for politicized sciences: The degree of distortion by political influence increases in the following sequence:
0.) What would be politically highly interesting, but it not studied at all, or with the studies remaining unpublished.
1.) The content of scientific papers, especially footnotes.
2.) Conclusions and introductions of scientific papers,
3.) Abstracts of scientific papers,
4.) Titles of scientific papers,
5.) Statements made by scientists in popular media,
6.) Statements of journalists in media presentations where scientists also say something
7.) Statements of journalists in other media presentations.

One reasonable objection by iceaura was that it will be difficult to test the sociological hypothesis above if one does not have some independent information about the truth, the reality. Not knowing what is the truth makes, indeed, testing the hypothesis much more difficult. I have objected that there are enough cases where, in general, the truth is well-known and unquestionable. But it may be nonetheless politically unwanted, so that we have a chance to test the sociological hypothesis. The logarithmic character of the CO2 effect would fit into this scheme, so, I have simply used it as a possibility to circumvent iceaura's objection.

Now, think about the question if your answer would be helpful for checking the sociological hypothesis above using the logarithmic character of the CO2 effect. All your answer tells is that (1) indeed supports the correct facts. Fine, in agreement with the hypothesis, but nothing more.

Here's the thing that you missed in my responses:
1. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis predates political pressure.
2. The political pressure has come about because fifty years ago the scientists went to the politicians and said "We should really do something about this."
3. By the time the scientists took it to the politicians there had already been 75 years worth of debate, among the scientists, without political pressure, as to whether or not it would happen. It matured from a scientific curiosity that can't happen to something that is not only happening, but is concerning during that time.
4. The specific piece of information you have chosen to rest your hypothesis on, Arrhenius' relationship, lies at the core of climate models in spite of any political pressure.
5. The specific piece of information you have chosen to rest your hypothesis on, Arrhenius' relationship, is an area of active and ongoing research in spite of any political pressure.
6. The specific piece of information you have chosen to rest your hypothesis on, Arrhenius' relationship, is explicitly discussed in the literature in spite of any political pressure.

It may be, in your opinion, that Arrhenius' relationship is a politically unwanted fact, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation, it only serves to potentially spotllight your personal ignorance on the matter.

 

[iceaura]

Lie nr. 1. Let's just quote the argument made here

That's a strawman argument - they don't count. You posted no argument against the theory, research, or findings, of the paper I linked.

Lie number 2: "You specifically and explicitly supported the "sure there is some warming, but not from the CO2 boost" line"

You did. That's not a lie.

They - you - use the claimed triviality ("some" warming) of the CO2 effect to justify "doubt" - your term, their term - of AGW.
Lie nr. 3: No, I have also never questioned the claimed size of the pure CO2 effect.

Once again pretending to misread, and strawmanning. All of your attempts to change the subject to the "pure CO2 effect" and "doubt" of anything else are standard AGW denial.
You have explicitly "questioned" AGW, basing your "doubt" on a claimed triviality of effect from the CO2 boost. That is a standard currently popular denial of AGW, and is a standard line from - among others - the Republican Party government officials currently in control of government science funding in the US.

Like this guy, chair of the House Science Committee since 2012 (the House controls the budgeting and funding, in the US system. That committee controls the House science and research funding. The Chair of that committee controls its agenda.) https://www.desmogblog.com/lamar-smith

btw: check out the vocabulary recommendations here: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...olitical-strategy-climate-doubters-conference
Sound familiar?

And that political pressure you keep talking about? Here is an essay from that guy, the single most significant and primary source of political pressure on US climate researchers, delivering the current standard Party line used by the government officials under his funding and agenda oversight,

who are currently transferring field researchers to desk jobs, wiping data bases, requiring the compilation of political and personal dossiers on researchers in the field who receive government funding, and so forth: http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/24/dont-believe-hysteria-carbon-dioxide/

He talks like you, don't he - same approach, same arguments; how did that happen?

Lie nr. 4, I don't.

You just did, again. You have posted Republican Party line denials of AGW, standard denier's propaganda and rhetoric, in at least half the posts in which you call me a liar for saying you deny AGW.

 

[Schmelzer]

Here's the thing that you missed in my responses:
1. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis predates political pressure.
2. The political pressure has come about because fifty years ago the scientists went to the politicians and said "We should really do something about this."
3. By the time the scientists took it to the politicians there had already been 75 years worth of debate, among the scientists, without political pressure, as to whether or not it would happen. It matured from a scientific curiosity that can't happen to something that is not only happening, but is concerning during that time.
4. The specific piece of information you have chosen to rest your hypothesis on, Arrhenius' relationship, lies at the core of climate models in spite of any political pressure.
5. The specific piece of information you have chosen to rest your hypothesis on, Arrhenius' relationship, is an area of active and ongoing research in spite of any political pressure.
6. The specific piece of information you have chosen to rest your hypothesis on, Arrhenius' relationship, is explicitly discussed in the literature in spite of any political pressure.
It may be, in your opinion, that Arrhenius' relationship is a politically unwanted fact, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation, it only serves to potentially spotllight your personal ignorance on the matter.

All this is fine. Except that there is no specific hypothesis of mine resting on the Arrhenius' relationship. And now? What is the point?

Just to clarify again: Iceaura has attacked my general sociological hypothesis with a side remark, I have answered with a side remark about one possibility how the problem, if it appears, could be solved, with the Arrhenius' relationship used as a simple example. Sorry, but nothing rests on this.

That's a strawman argument - they don't count.

"You had no argument" remains a lie. That I had no argument which you have accepted as valid is a triviality, you never accept arguments. But even if your acceptance would really count, "you had no argument" remains a lie, "you had only a strawman argument" would have been correct.

Some other repetitions of you lies disposed. Like lie number 2: "You specifically and explicitly supported the "sure there is some warming, but not from the CO2 boost" line" remains, of course, a lie. That iceaura has found some republican who follows a different line, so what? This does not make the lie number 2 true.

He talks like you, don't he - same approach, same arguments; how did that happen?

Even if true (I'm too lazy to check), I couldn't care less, because it does not matter. You obviously don't get the point that "Hitler said 2+2=4" is not an argument in a mathematical discussion.

 

[Trippy]

All this is fine. Except that there is no specific hypothesis of mine resting on the Arrhenius' relationship. And now? What is the point?

Just to clarify again: Iceaura has attacked my general sociological hypothesis with a side remark, I have answered with a side remark about one possibility how the problem, if it appears, could be solved, with the Arrhenius' relationship used as a simple example. Sorry, but nothing rests on this.

A 'side remark' that, and i'm quite sure that any reasonable third party would agree with me here, you rested an awful lot of weight on for quite a number of posts, through which you appeared to be wielding as a shield against iceaura replying to you with what you labeled as 'the party line'.

My point is, in part that the warnings predate the party line and rest in hypotheses that themselves have withstood as much as three hundred years of scrutiny. Even the youngest of the hypotheses that the idea of anthropogenic climate change rests upon, quantum mechanics, is regarded as being highly successful and, individual interpretations aside, has withstood every test thrown at it in the last nearly 100 years. The hypothesis of global warming itself withstood seventy five years of rigorous scientific debate before being bought to the attention of politicians, in that time every aspect of the hypothesis, starting from "Can it even happen?" has been debated by some of the heaviest hitting scientific minds of the last 150 years (EG Knutt Angstrom and Svante Arrhenius) - including many (or all) of the conservative talking points that we see bandied around today.

The warnings, in my opinion, warrant a little more than trite dismissal with convenient and comfortable soundbites.

In my opinion, the more I have come to understand of the science itself and the history of the science, the more it seems to me that allegations of political pressure are themselves conservative talking points, soundbites that people who are uncomfortable with the hypothesis for whatever philosophical reason they bring to bear can fall back upon when confronted with some uncomfortable truth.

Because I mean, gosh, imagine if we cleaned up our discharges and there was clean air and clean water for everybody and it was all for nothing because some models were wrong. The absolute horror of it all.

 

[iceaura]

But even if your acceptance would really count, "you had no argument" remains a lie, "you had only a strawman argument" would have been correct.

Strawmen are not arguments about the matter at hand. You don't get to post strawmen - like this:

The one article I have considered in detail was based on an elementary error, thus, has not shown it. And even not really claimed that it can be really trapped for a long time. The point was that there may be some intermediate periods with multiple equilibria, and if, by accidents, forbidding child labor happens in such a moment, then its fine.

as the basis of "arguments".

No. As explained to you at the time: The points made were that multiple stable equilibria always and permanently exist under certain very common circumstances, that one of them involves child labor, that the child labor involved in such an equilibrium state is therefore not "intermediate" or "temporary" but instead a feature of a stable equilibrium (one that market or other merely economic forces alone cannot move the system away from), and that real world examples of such traps commonly exist - as is evident by examination of the assumptions behind the theoretical argument, and documented by the researchers in a typical real world case.

Your strawman did not acknowledge any of that, and therefore was not an argument against those points. You made no argument at all against that paper, or any of my observations and points I was supporting by linking it. You simply denied them.
- - - -

All this is fine. Except that there is no specific hypothesis of mine resting on the Arrhenius' relationship.

But your general "hypothesis", your denial of AGW, your "doubts" and "ifs" and "withheld approvals" and so forth, rests on misuse of it in several posts on this forum.

Just to clarify again: Iceaura has attacked my general sociological hypothesis with a side remark,

Claiming that your denial of AGW is a "sociological hypothesis" is denial of AGW.

I have answered with a side remark about one possibility how the problem, if it appears, could be solved, with the Arrhenius' relationship used as a simple example

That's a false claim about AGW, and the word "if" is denial of AGW.

Even if true (I'm too lazy to check), I couldn't care less, because it does not matter.

So you don't care that your entire posting on AGW (and Jim Crow, btw) is a parrot's repetition of American Heritage Institute media feeds, also known as the official US government and Republican Party line. OK.
But you several times and with repetition claimed to regard the posting of Party lines as significant aspects of other people's arguments, back when you didn't know what the Party line on AGW was.
So are you also going to discard your entire argument from deduced media bias to deduced political pressure on research, because you no longer care about such political factors?
My bet is no, your denial of AGW requires that sequence of invalid deductions - from ignorance to non-existence of that which you do not "approve" - and so you will still employ it.

Because that's how absurd denial, the topic of this thread, functions.

 

[Schmelzer]

A 'side remark' that, and i'm quite sure that any reasonable third party would agree with me here, you rested an awful lot of weight on for quite a number of posts, through which you appeared to be wielding as a shield against iceaura replying to you with what you labeled as 'the party line'.

This is the specific of discussions with iceaura, and a consequence of iceaura's permanent lies. I have to correct the repeatedly, this leads to otherwise completely unnecessary repetitions of irrelevant side remarks.

Note also that "Party line" is a sociological observation, it distinguish not truth from lies, but what is considered politically so important that those who reject it have to attacked personally, as "deniers", and what is irrelevant so that disagreement is unproblematic. So, the "Party line" can be as a truth, as a lie. So, most scientific truths, with a few exceptions (genetics) have been in agreement with the Party line of Stalin time.

In my opinion, the more I have come to understand of the science itself and the history of the science, the more it seems to me that allegations of political pressure are themselves conservative talking points, soundbites that people who are uncomfortable with the hypothesis for whatever philosophical reason they bring to bear can fall back upon when confronted with some uncomfortable truth.

I have written the above before reading this, and it looks like I had the correct feeling. Sounds like you think that I have AGW "Party line" has somehow the purpose of denying it. No, no, no.

As explained to you at the time: The points made were that multiple stable equilibria always and permanently exist under certain very common circumstances, that one of them involves child labor, that the child labor involved in such an equilibrium state is therefore not "intermediate" or "temporary" but instead a feature of a stable equilibrium (one that market or other merely economic forces alone cannot move the system away from), and that real world examples of such traps commonly exist - as is evident by examination of the assumptions behind the theoretical argument, and documented by the researchers in a typical real world case.
Your strawman did not acknowledge any of that, and therefore was not an argument against those points.

Of course, because the paper itself writes quite different things:

The occurrence of multiple equilibria is by no means necessary in this model. If a country's labor force becomes more productive (because of better technology, for instance), ... we shall soon have an economy with a unique equilibrium where only adults work. We believe that industrialized countries are in such a situation. If on the other hand, labor is very unproductive, so BD shifts to the "left," we could have a unique equilibrium and child labor is a necessary phenomenon.

You made no argument at all against that paper, or any of my observations and points I was supporting by linking it. You simply denied them.

Except that's yet another lie, so I wrote "Contains a trivial economic error, by not taking into account that the prices will raise too." commenting

]Suppose all children are pulled out from work, say because of a total ban. What effect will this have? Clearly, the first effect of this will be a shortage of labor. And given that child and adult labor are usually substitutes, the wages of adults will rise in response to the excess demand for labor.' But as adult wages rise, it is possible, given our above assumption, that parents will not now want to send their children to work.

Claiming that your denial of AGW is a "sociological hypothesis" is denial of AGW.

YMMD.

and the word "if" is denial of AGW.

That's even better. ROTFL.

 

[iceaura]

Note also that "Party line" is a sociological observation,

You got the sociology wrong.
Meanwhile, denial of AGW is not a sociological observation. You got the physical reality wrong also.

Of course, because the paper itself writes quite different things:

That's not different. That is accounting for the circumstances. The paper accounted for the circumstances.

Except that's yet another lie, so I wrote "Contains a trivial economic error, by not taking into account that the prices will raise too."

Except they did, of course. Stable equilibrium, remember?
You appear to have mistaken an argument you made against the efficacy of one form of government intervention (an error on your part, but let that pass) for an argument against the stability of child labor - if your argument were sound, it would have the opposite implication.

Sounds like you think that I have AGW "Party line" has somehow the purpose of denying it. No, no, no.

Yes, yes, yes. Sure, in theory the Party line could be scientific fact you would acknowledge - but not in this case. You posted the reasoning, remember - the bias in the media you observed, the Party line you deduced from it, the political pressure on the science you deduced from that, and the doubts about the AGW claims you therefore found justified - to the point that you felt it was reasonable to "withhold approval" from them.

All of that simply ignorance and error paraded in the service of an explicit political bias (against big government and world government) you posted: the media you were observing was not biased as you assumed, the Party line in the US was and is the opposite of your claim, the political pressure on the scientists likewise the reverse of your presumptions, and AGW itself a separate issue - a physical reality you were completely unjustified in "withholding approval" from.

You put yourself in the intellectual position of someone who "withholds approval" from plate tectonics because you observe the media is biased against creationism.

 

[Schmelzer]

You appear to have mistaken an argument you made against the efficacy of one form of government intervention (an error on your part, but let that pass) for an argument against the stability of child labor - if your argument were sound, it would have the opposite implication.

No, Basu's argument is simply wrong.

Suppose all children are pulled out from work, say because of a total ban. What effect will this have? Clearly, the first effect of this will be a shortage of labor. And given that child and adult labor are usually substitutes, the wages of adults will rise in response to the excess demand for labor.' But as adult wages rise, it is possible, given our above assumption, that parents will not now want to send their children to work.

I argued: "Contains a trivial economic error, by not taking into account that the prices will raise too."

Let's elaborate this using a simply model which excludes distortions caused by the differences between different branches and effects of external markets. So, the workers produce only one good (say wheat) and are paid not with money but with a part of their production, the firm (which owns, say, the land) receives some other part of it.

The income is below the subsistence level, thus, children work too. Now children are forbidden to work. With less work, the same amount of land will give less wheat. So, the part of the wheat the family gets will be lower too.

This simple model includes the raise of wage for adults caused by the decrease of supply on the labor market - one adult will now use a greater amount of land to produce, thus, will create more wheat, thus, receive a greater part of it, thus, "higher wage". But it also includes the effect of raise of prices - once the produced amount of wheat decreases, wheat becomes more valuable in exchange markets with whatever else. So, one can see from this model that, once one gets rid of additional distortions related with different effects on different markets, the income will reduced by forbidding child labor.

Ok, this reduction of the family income may not completely exclude the possibility of two equilibria. One would be only the adult working, on the whole land, getting for the family more than beyond subsistence level. The other one above working, and getting together even more, but with the parent working only on the part of the land, it would be not enough. And working on the other part too would be not an available choice, given that the children of other parents would work there. But these two equilibria are an artefact of the model, where the only choices are binary, children do work 100% or don't, and that all people have the same subsistence level and so on.

If one removes this artificial binary choice, and allows for partial work of children, the two equilibria disappear into nothing. Because all families will, then, reduce their child labor by using partial child labor util they reach their subsistence level. Then, the reduced support of labor increases the area for each worker, thus, the product and the income in wheat. This allows a further reduction of the child labor part. Where this process ends? There is, by construction, the other equilibrium - a state where the only adults work, and get more than their subsistence level. Can there be another end, with children working some time and adults working all the time, but every family owning only subsistence level? No. Because this would mean more workers, thus, more product, thus, larger part to the workers, thus, more income in wheat than in the other equilibrium, thus, income higher than subsistence level.

 

[Schmelzer]

You posted the reasoning, remember - the bias in the media you observed, the Party line you deduced from it, the political pressure on the science you deduced from that, and the doubts about the AGW claims you therefore found justified - to the point that you felt it was reasonable to "withhold approval" from them.

Nice try. "Withhold approval" for what? Not for AGW (global warming caused by CO2 increase caused by humans).

Repetitions of your beliefs (without additional evidence) disposed. The answer to the other remarks see here.