INTEGRAL ANTI-CAPITALISM cont'd.

[Layman Pascal]

For an introduction to this expanding meta-thread see Integral Anti-Capitalism pt I. We continue here because we have, hilariously, exceeded this website's capacity...

LAYMAN PASCAL

I agree that holacracy should be singled out for special investigation. The provocative notion that we are dramatically over-emphasizing the need for "conscious leadership" pertains very pertinently to this discussion. Robertson, like ourselves, is pointing to the fact that business (organizations) which integrally improve the interiors and cultural
spirit of their participants are still predisposed to certain outcomes as a result of their actual structural habits of communication and their specific decision-making protocols.
His notion of a constantly self-correcting dynamic organization drawing upon the capacity of individuals to act as tension-sensors relative to the "evolutionary purpose" of the organization is compelling and admirable.

More important is simply that he is making a stand and making an attempt to construct a protocol (constitution). I am not fully versed in the 4.0 version of the holacracy constitution but we should get deeper into some of these proposals.  

Given the level of your current knowledge of their protocols, what would you want to change or add in order to ethically and functionally empower this approach even more?

THEURJ

First some housekeeping in providing links in part I to comments on holacracy: their website, comment 1, comment 2, comment 3 (and 3 more on p. 7), and the first 7 comments on p. 8. 

I’m not yet familiar enough with holacracy to know it might need. So for now I’ll ask questions.  From p. 8 there was a blog post on ownership and the model might (but not necessarily) include outside capital investors. I asked:

“One question immediately pops up on outside investors. Are there limits on the amount of outside capital investment? What if their investment is such that without it the company could not financially survive? And/or depends on it for start-up? Then such investment would control the company, like it or not. If you don't do what I say I'm taking my ball and going home. No ball, no ballgame. Not the same as a mortgage or loan company.”

Granted why such investors are included on the Board there are other stake-holders to balance their input. But are there rules about which outside individuals or companies can invest? Do they have to have similar values like triple bottom lines instead of just profit for their investors? Can a Goldman Sachs provide start-up capital? Or Romeny’s ex-firm, Bain? Just wondering, so perhaps it’s time for those out there more familiar with the system to engage us?

LAYMAN PASCAL

I appreciate your inquiry about the potential influence of outside investors in holacratic systems. Perhaps they have a good protocol for that. Or perhaps not. In general, all "smart groups" need to comprehend and anticipate the distortion influence that donors and enablers wield. The psychology of human nature shows that we may believe ourselves to be quite sturdy and impartial while we are really bending in the breeze.

One of the concerns I had while perusing the holacracy constitution was about the voting procedure for filling roles. There are many parts of their approach which impress. In particular I would like to make not of the necessity to place constraints upon discussion. When the mention of a concern is met with the mention of counter-concerns then the intelligence and practical efficacy of discussions drops dramatically. A highly suspicious mind might even supposed that the human hive is encouraged to engage in the constant casual usage of dysfunctional conversation. So their use of controlled phases in both operational and hiring decisions is admirable. However, their actual voting protocol seems (to my naive glance) to be based on a model of transparent majority. A sophisticated "show of hands".

So this may be an area in which holacratic principles can be expanded to include a more thorough use of "secret ballot" and "averaged ranking".

The former often seems like a show of bad faith and an invitation to covert dangers... but these are considerably outweighed by the liberation of individual intelligence from any conscious or unconscious concerns about the social consequences of their input.

The latter evades a primitive "first past the post" approach in which our intelligence is functionally limited to a yes/no determination about each candidate relative to other candidates.

Another thing I admire about holacracy is that it represents a functional procedure and culture in which participants would appear to become better participants by participating. Their capacity and ethical commitment to the good of the organization through its evolving protocols should be an increasing trend. Any smart group needs to be arranged so that even people who try to distort the results will find their capacity and will to do this reducing over time. Replaced by the inspirational efficacy of the group.

This brings me to another issue relative to voting, both in political and economic groups. That is the relative absence of specific instructions about how to translated ones feelings into a vote-mark. This is almost completely unaddressed in terms of popular elections. To discuss it even seems insidious to some people who fear coercion (and/or wish to maintain the current material power structures).

Protocols should have at least a clear suggestion about how to locate both "gut" and "intellectual" data within ourselves and convert that into a numerical value which can be contributed to a group decision. A lack of clarification at this critical junction may act as an invisible source of drag upon an otherwise very functional group organism.

It might even be possible to define an "integral-level organizational set up" for business or politics by simply compiling a list of areas in which intelligence and capacity are distorted. We might recall that most of Wilber's philosophy has emerged in levels correlated to his discovery of "fallacies" or "basic errors". Integral proposals about business and society could be all over the map unless there is a reasonable set of constraints that make sure they fall in the most lucrative zone.

So other than the potential influence of outside "helpers" and "donors" what other sources of distortion or inhibition do you see going mostly unaddressed in otherwise progressive groups?

THEURJ

My next question of holacracy is who came up with it? It seems to be the pet project of Brian Robertson, his own brainchild. I'm wondering if that is so of if it was a community or P2P project? I mean, the structure of holacracy itself calls for distributed decision-making but was the creation of holacracy itself derived from this process or mostly dictated by Robertson? I've yet to find an answer at the site so I posed this question to them via contact info. I'll provide the response if/when received. I think the answer is pivotal in determining if this thing called holacracy arose from its own medicine.

LAYMAN PASCAL

I look forward that answer if it is forthcoming. The notion of self-arising systems is something which haunts the periphery of these discussions. My fantasy is that we can devise a group protocol which so reliably and simply exceeds the cognitive capacity of the individual participants that it would be foolish to predetermine the purpose and nature of the group. Collectively we could a better job of determining what kind of a collective we should be. "Smartgroups" of this kind could then spread through the world in a very radical social uprising. How possible that is remains uncertain...

As I understand holacracy, the different companies making use of it are assumed to engage in their own mutational modifications of the "constitution". So even if Brian wrote the whole thing out in his bathtub it still retains an open source quality. The answer to whether its current forms are or are not the result of distributed decision-making is almost certainly: sort of.

One of the reasons the holacracy approach is so amenable to business organization is that it seems to depend upon the functional axis of a specified purpose. The aim is somewhat pregiven -- our job is to sell widgets or maximize share-holder profit, etc. His use of the metaphor of the sensors on an airplane derives from a mechanism that is assumed to be designed for a well-known purpose.

My question would be whether or not this "aim" is a necessarily functional element in generating enhanced organizational capacity? Or whether it is simply an artifact of the need to make these systems serve a relatively conventional marketplace task?

THEURJ

Your suggestion of a smart group that arises creatively from a continually evolving set of parameters seems to be the intent and practice of holacracy. As to the organizational purpose of Holacracy One, it seems to have multiple bottom lines including but not limited to profit. For example, see this post in the comments where I noted that the top to bottom pay ratio is 3 to 1, and quoted some of those multiple purposes:

"With Holacracy at play, the game is entirely different: with the decentralization of authority, the separation of people and role, and the dynamic evolution of those roles, we end up with a situation that looks more like free agents going about their work with no central planning. There might not even be a single person who knows about everything you do."

This sounds much more like the sort of emerging P2P organizational structure discussed throughout this thread. And also of significance in the post following this article where The Integral Center of Boulder has "voluntarily relinquished their rights to control their company as owners. Instead, they have ceded authority to a purpose-centered governance process called Holacracy, a model that distributes authority across the organization and gives primary power to the organization itself."

These are indeed advances over the kind of conscious capitalism promoted and AQALly packaged for sale at I-I.

LAYMAN PASCAL

(comment pending)

This is an interesting moment. Apparently Amazon.com is experimenting with a version of holacracy as well. It clearly represents a theoretical advance over the typical kind of conscious capitalism which combines advanced sentiments with a potentially dangerous and uninspected ideological allegiance to more primitive routines of social organization and wealth production. Yet we cannot know the results of the experiment in advance.

I have tremendous optimism about emergent p2p organizational structures. Experimentation is utterly necessary and should be strongly encouraged. I am also very hopeful that advances can be made in terms of quantification. This is very central in my thinking lately.

It seems that experimental protocols for advances social organization systems suffer from the lack of a quantifiable evaluation of their respective degrees of "collective intelligence". Most people are drawn to such possibilities by ethical and aesthetic criteria which do no necessarily persuade the world. So I would love to see experimentation supplemented by the attempt to devise a metric for estimating the intelligence of a social organization protocol.

Along similar lines, my "tetrabucks" type notions represent the possibility/necessity to structure our currency at a level that correlates to advanced P2P organizational structures and post-pluralistic consciousness.

The potential of an evil holacracy has hardly been broached. If it works -- it works. Other than simply the tendency of less complex people not to use more complex systems, and the tendency of more complex systems to complexify their participants, there needs to be some inter-organizational structures which incline all organizations int he direction of broad human well-being. It is my assertion that as long as primary areas of value remain outside monetization the actions of groups trying to utilize official social credits will constantly become unstable.

So I am imagining a line leading from pathological capitalism to standard capitalism to conscious capitalism to trans-capitalist network organizations to such organizations bound together by a integrated set of metrics for determining the intelligence of groups and splicing together (at least) four broad domains of human value.

Along these lines -- how will we decide whether holacratic integral business is working better?

THEURJ

As to how we determine whether alternative economic paradigms are 'working,' I'd suggest that even by the standards of typical business democratic workplaces like co-ops are successful. If by that we mean the organization runs smoothly, has low employee turnover, high employee satisfaction, makes a profit or surplus over operating costs, and other such typical measures. Plus they fulfill their stated purposes as expressed in theRochdale principles, like community education, cooperation, democratic control, etc.

I'd say the same applies to holacracy. They also have to accomplish the usual business parameters like above but also meet stated principles like in their constitution. Given Robertson's business acumen I'm sure at the site he has precise and measurable indices to track such progress, though I didn't try to find them as yet.

LAYMAN PASCAL

(comment pending)

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

I just followed the links to one about "evolution-powered" organizations based on a "transpersonal model" of organization. This pleased me as it matched my ideas of "New Virtue (types 1 and 2)" and "New Sin (types 1 and 2)," both of which take into account (are relative to) evolution's "calling," direction, trajectory, "nudge," "press,"  "needs," etc. . Yes, a non-local sense of patterns emerging all about in order to form some new reality up/out here in the classical-object realm (gross body).

The transpersonal or evolution-powered model seems to take into account the quantum substratum (David Bohm's and Basil Hiley's "Implicate Order," Vedic "Subtle Body" realm, or what I've recently taken to calling "transistence" -- which is the realty depth layer between "inistence" in the deepest zone and existence in the most surface zones.)

"Evolution" then reflects the subtle or quantum realm within the gross or classical realm. The transparancy increases as the big bang slows down, thereby allowing Universal Mind to begin to catch up and/or pass the matter. Universal Mind is becoming more insightful about It's own Thoughts and more lucid about It's own Dreams. Mind shines through also in the de-materialization of marketplace products and in the dematerialization of money. Things previously looked at as being nouns begin to be increasingly seen as verb-like processes or even verb-"services" instead of material "goods."

Actually the material goods are still acknowledged as being real, but are understood as being a second-order reality which is a means to the "functions," "processes," or "services." In old spiritual terms, material goods, as well as material beings, are seen as being "vessels." Minds everywhere begin to see interconnected factors and interaction effects, and synergy, etc. Hybrids of all sorts emerge. At first they look like regressive bastardizations, but soon we realize that greater mental flexibility is allowing us to adapt to reality in a more effective, efficient, and proficient way. People start to see more categories of basic "human resources" instead of just a few models.

This provides more personal identity "clothes" to try on and to use in order to actualize our innate gifts or "relative potentials" (not pure or absolute potential, but relative to our incarnational form/structure). Education begins (at some point) to teach to these human resource types or "gifts."

And human resources become more of a focus than static external resources like iron ore (UR) and physical infrastructures (LR). "Resources" are seen across the Integral quads. A "calling" within a person's spirit or mind is seen as a "real" (perhaps not objective, but real nonetheless)  resource which can either be tapped into or wasted/lost. The ever-increasing transparence of Mind (shining through -- translucence, as Arjuna Ardagh would say) happens along with the increased mental flexibility.

All are part of the Biblically-prophesized "Tree of Life." The prophesy was (IMO) an intuition that correctly anticipated an evolutionary process leading up to a more dynamic way of seeing/understanding life/existence/reality. We'll get the "knowns" (discrete realities, "things," facts) down-pat, and then we'll start to get a sense of the unknown dynamics operating deep within the knowns. Quantum field theory is part of the Tree of Life shift of seeing reality in a more dynamic way. Not only "non-local," but also, "trans-local." A substratum which links to the surface reality we mastered during the Tree of Knowledge era/stage. 

darrell

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

well ,andrew , what i said is that in the situation with the climate change ....

science is not at all as conclusive as certain quarters make belief.

and ....looking at germany i can see only sheer madness ruling,

going back to windmills and

sort of forward with sunpower is

a. crazy because it does not work for an industrial nation and

b: thinking that people who build windparks etc are just nice guys with no ulterior motive (lots of taxpayers cash) ...is pretty naive.

its strange that pomo has become such an enemy of technology.....

i think that nuclear energy with the latest technology is the best and most clean energy humanity has

and notseeing that because of outdated ideological  reasons just shows that pomo and popomo isnt half as

smart as it thinks it is.

in germany it was a commison of priest, theologians and ethic professors which decided to

stopp germanies nuclear power plants and put the whole country on a stupid course back into the

medieval age ..germany is fast on the way to become a third world country electrically...... in this panel of

experts was not a single nuclear or any other physisist, which just shows who runs the show

it is not scientific knowledge but beliefs , various green beliefs  . the effect right now of this insane green

policy is that the energy price for then normal citizien has more then tripled in the last 2 years ! alione and now more the  600.000 families a year are cut of the electricity because they cant afford the bills anymore

meanwhile the 1 billion chinese and 1 billion indians do not care a rats ass about anything and pollute

and who is going to stop them ? the white west ?? hahahaha that would be racism haha and there is nothing

that a green meme dude fears more then that label .,soooo.....

i am just more of a realist , and i can see everyday what damage 

half cooked green ideas  are doing to a society

once they are actually politically applied , something that probably

in the USA never will happen .

so ...

really wordwide the green movement is luckily on the decline because the proprietors , the most extrem once are the germans ,  managed to get themselves in such a mess,

that other countries

now look and say :

hey this is just silly and insane.

so the german idiocy is at least good for something.

because you know its one thing to pipe up some ideas but it is a completly different story

when a whole country is hi jacked by these fanatics as germany has been and then one can see

howthese ideas are just ...that .....some ideas . nothing is proven here

in any case i do not know why intelligent people belief  these weather frogs :usually they cant get it even right 2 weeks in advance ,but now they say the know  what  the weather will be

in 100 years hahahahaha

i wonder who of us will be around sue them when they prove wrong ......see ?

tomorrow i also predict what the weather will be in 200 years hahahaha , jesus how dumb can you get ?

mm

[Edward theurj Berge]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. From this news release therein:

"According to the Working Group III contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, it would be possible, using a wide array of technological measures and changes in behaviour, to limit the
increase in global mean temperature to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. However, only major institutional and technological change will give a better than even chance that global warming will not exceed this threshold" (my emphasis).

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

i also read the "news". but unlike you i can discern empty propaganda when i see it.

this is just so much hog wash , there was a investigative journalist , a woman, who looked into the last report of this panel of the is it ICCP or what , she looked into the details, with quite a few helper s, it was tedious because there are over a 1000 scientist who contributed (appearantly) to that last report. nobody else ever made that effort ,i forgot

what she was called ( since i am not as prepared as you theurj since i am not fighting a war as you seem to be doing here , and therefore fore me its enough to educate myself and then i forget the details ,but if i find  a bit of time, i will try to find her and her report so that you can have the benefit too ) anyway she proved that most of these "1000 leading scientist" where just students or very much beginners and many had strange äh fundings or corrupting influences and certainly ery little experience and/or authority in their fields. on the other hand serious researcher who are not playing along, or lets say their results of their research is not backing the clima hysterics of the iccp , well they were systematic ignored .: )) she found that

so the iccp is essentially just like a big lobby group, for the green industry and green projects and green organizations etc . its all just like a religion , its a belief, and a huge business model of course too. BUT

there IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE ANYWHERE OF ANYTHING AT ALL  . check it out .

the world is getting colder since 15 years or at least not hotter , in any case it has been a lot hotter about a 1000 years ago for a period of 200 years and THAT is a fact and THAT was not caused by co2 , and so on , if one starts to seriously look into this iccp stuff , it has about as many holes as swiss cheese and its clear THOSE WHO ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE HERE  make tons of money !!!! and the others are just ..well ...äh being used . :)

...you all are being had by the green lobby. thats all ! wake up. or keep sleeping makes no difference to me

because what a bunch od americans think on this issue is any just not important.

in germany the green madness rules supreme and i mean by "rule" they run the government !! and all media and academia as well , its unbelievable but then the germans have proved already severla times that they have genetic defect : you can tell them any crap if you do it appearantly sincere enough , loud and long enough and mix the words "sacrifice for the good of humanity " "noble cause" "we are the leading edge" into the mix they are even able to kill 6 millon jews and think they do the world a favour,

figure sitting in the dark and cold without electricity , thats really nothing compared to the shit they have been talked into before.  in any case they dont notice how their life quality is steadily sinking since since they are so busy

installing the fucking 4th reich, this time in green!

and  there bloody fanatism is ruining mine and everybody else´s life  .

bloody jerks

and you theurj ....you should know better then belief such bullshit .

psychology , ever heard of that? these green organizations have lost their innocence A LONG TIME AGO

now they are into careers and money and they bend all the rules necessary to get the comfy life .

its like any other corporation : green peace , amnesty international , the many ngo´s etc they are just interested in perpetuating their little life´s like any other institution and no public "man made" clima change hysterics  means :  lot s of monies and jobs wont come their way anymore , its that simple !

these are just a career plans for most these days,.....you just have no idea

in germany IF you are not green you can not make a career in almost any field especially not in

academia, journalism and politics, tendency getting so bad ,young free well educated and especially intelligent people leave germany in drones because they are sick and tired to have some green dumb head telling them what to think ! and what to eat or generally how to live their lives

if you write as a journalist something negative but scientifically true about the new clima change religion,

you will have no job the next day. clear ?

so the fucking öko fascists need not any more pampering . and they wont get from me .

so stop repeating this propaganda and re search a bit better for the underlying facts !

mm

[Edward theurj Berge]

Wow, you're repeating completely unsubstantiated propaganda from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. And you are their perfect audience.

[Edward theurj Berge]

The following is an excerpt from the book Reality Check which supports these studies:

“Mooney (2012) also describes research which shows that conservatives (especially modern Republicans) are particularly prone to deny scientific realities such as evolution or climate change. […] Conservatism also tends to be associated with a variety of other personalty traits, including dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity and uncertainly, fear of death, fear of change, less openness to new experiences, less integrative complexity in their thinking, less nuanced thinking, more need for so-called closure, and so on. Liberals, on the other hand are characterized by some of the opposite personality traits: rejection of dogma, tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainly, less fear of death or change, more openness to new experience, curiosity about the world, and more complex and nuanced thinking without the need for simplicity or closure” (300).

One of the articles in the "these studies" link (#12):

"When faced with a conflict, liberals are more likely than conservatives to alter their habitual response when cues indicate it is necessary. Our results are consistent with the view that political orientation, in part, reflects individual differences in the functioning of a general mechanism related to cognitive control and self-regulation. Stronger conservatism (versus liberalism) was associated with less neurocognitive sensitivity to response conflicts. At the behavioral level, conservatives were also more likely to make errors of commission. Although a liberal orientation was associated with better performance on the response-inhibition task examined here, conservatives would presumably perform better on tasks in which a more fixed response style is optimal."

David M. Amodio, John T. Jost, Sarah L. Master, and Cindy M. Yee, "Neurocognitive Correlates of Liberalism and Conservatism," Nature Neuroscience, Sep. 9, 2007

[Edward theurj Berge]

Also see this report by the California Office of Planning and Research, which provides scientific evidence debunking many climate denier claims. Yes, they use the IPCC but also the US National Academy of Sciences, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the UK's Royal Society. I guess the latter three are part of the climate change hoax too? It's all a giant green conspiracy made up of those greedy scientists? Listen to Alex Jones much?

“There isn’t a scientific consensus on climate change. Lots of scientists have signed a petition against it.”

In fact, there is a very strong scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is caused by humans. Recent studies have shown that about 97% of active climate researchers agree that climate change is human-caused. And the few who disagree have substantially less climate expertise than the 97%. Some years ago, a petition rejecting a consensus on climate change garnered press attention, with its proponents claiming they had collected thousands of signatures from scientists. In truth, the signatories largely had training irrelevant to climate science such as veterinary medicine or no scientific expertise at all.
(Anderegg et al. (2010). Doran and Zimmerman (2009).)

“Scientists are out for personal gain, publishing alarmist studies to capture research grants.”

There is no evidence to support this argument. Scientists who participate in the IPCC climate assessments are not paid, nor are those who participate in panels for the National Academy of Sciences. Career advancement in the sciences is not based on holding popular views, but on publishing original research. By contrast, many deniers have received funding from entities with a financial stake in fossil fuel-based energy system.

“The Climategate scandal showed that scientists have manipulated data to invent the climate problem.”

“Climategate” was coined to refer to a series of hacked emails from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia in 2009. No evidence of scientific wrongdoing was ever found. No fewer than seven committees, including bodies from the U.S. and British governments, looked into the emails and all reached the conclusion that the scientists committed no research misconduct, their results were accurate, and nothing in the emails refuted the overwhelming evidence of climate change.

(House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, March 24, 2010; University of East Anglia, April 12, 2010; Pennsylvania State University, June 4, 2010; The Independent Climate Change Emails Review, July 2010; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 29, 2010; U.S. Department of Commerce, February 24, 2011; National Science Foundation, August 15, 2011)

[andrew]

Hey mm, firstly, I am not interested in getting involved in any quarrels that you and theurj may have. 

 On your post point by point:

It's truer than not that corporate democrats couldn't care less about the climate or the earth. Their relationship to these issues is singularly to capitalize on it.  I could go further and even suggest that they are hoarding all this money to be the kings in future hunger games scenarios. Having said that, human caused climate pollution is real, but it's not just that; destroying the largest carbon captures by destroying massive forest eco systems is simply horrible, too. So, there is this combined sociopathic behaviour that transcends one single issue. 

 

You're  right that weather will be less predictable on micro reporting, but that doesn't mean the larger climate is not being changed dramatically. I too, see the cooling that you're talking about in western Canada as i haven't seen sustained hot weather in 10 years. I also suggest that the military industrial complex is playing a role in this, also. Anyone who believes that they are not experimenting with weather modification technology is being intentionally naive. Who's geo-engineering what should also be of grave concern.

I am having a problem with one line of your logic, though. On another thread you are asking us to consider science as a means of verifying life after death or NDE's; and yet, on this thread you are dismissing a science that is one hell of a lot easier to verify than what happens when one dies. Something that i believe can (never) be anything but anecdotal. 

I totally believe what you're saying about what's happening in Germany but i'm  not sure bad implementation is the same as a bad idea. First and foremost, the less fortunate should not be on the hook for this experiment and that wreaks of the modis operandi of the austerity measures of the oligarchs. Surely, there could have been tax credits put in place for those people. It's certainly discouraging to hear your take on what is going on there as Rifkin paints a somewhat different picture.

Here is link on a monied republican and what he is doing which is encouraging. Whether these folks can solve these complex problems within the same paradigm( Ka$h) is something i am skeptical of; but we'll see :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

[andrew]

And picking on Piketty: 

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/04/23/thomas-piketty-capital...

Coyne says egalitarianism is an archaic sentiment! Rand would love 'em!

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/23/andrew-coyne-it-migh...

Coyne is not mentioning the trends that are setting up Canada to become just like the U.S. It may be true that right now things are still okay , but we are definitely headed in the wrong direction. I imagine he finds Canada's exceedingly high rate of Co2 pollution acceptable. Anything to hail the god Ka$h. Neoliberalism at its finest.

Well, mm, in one of these articles they called green initiatives insane. About what i would expect from carbon polluters.

[andrew]

Coyne probably would give the rabid Canadian Christian  Zionists that run the country a free pass, but oh the horror of having a just and fair society based on egalitarian principles.

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

hahahaha

you are ..really brainwashed , well poor sod, in this case no sense to keep arguing.

you get to keep your arguments.

isnt that great .: )

be well in lalala land

mm

theurj said:

Also see this report by the California Office of Planning and Research, which provides scientific evidence debunking many climate denier claims. Yes, they use the IPCC but also the US National Academy of Sciences, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the UK's Royal Society. I guess the latter three are part of the climate change hoax too? It's all a giant green conspiracy made up of those greedy scientists? Listen to Alex Jones much?

“There isn’t a scientific consensus on climate change. Lots of scientists have signed a petition against it.”

In fact, there is a very strong scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is caused by humans. Recent studies have shown that about 97% of active climate researchers agree that climate change is human-caused. And the few who disagree have substantially less climate expertise than the 97%. Some years ago, a petition rejecting a consensus on climate change garnered press attention, with its proponents claiming they had collected thousands of signatures from scientists. In truth, the signatories largely had training irrelevant to climate science such as veterinary medicine or no scientific expertise at all.
(Anderegg et al. (2010). Doran and Zimmerman (2009).)

“Scientists are out for personal gain, publishing alarmist studies to capture research grants.”

There is no evidence to support this argument. Scientists who participate in the IPCC climate assessments are not paid, nor are those who participate in panels for the National Academy of Sciences. Career advancement in the sciences is not based on holding popular views, but on publishing original research. By contrast, many deniers have received funding from entities with a financial stake in fossil fuel-based energy system.

“The Climategate scandal showed that scientists have manipulated data to invent the climate problem.”

“Climategate” was coined to refer to a series of hacked emails from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia in 2009. No evidence of scientific wrongdoing was ever found. No fewer than seven committees, including bodies from the U.S. and British governments, looked into the emails and all reached the conclusion that the scientists committed no research misconduct, their results were accurate, and nothing in the emails refuted the overwhelming evidence of climate change.

(House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, March 24, 2010; University of East Anglia, April 12, 2010; Pennsylvania State University, June 4, 2010; The Independent Climate Change Emails Review, July 2010; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 29, 2010; U.S. Department of Commerce, February 24, 2011; National Science Foundation, August 15, 2011)

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

hahaha

andrew andrew

i am not dismissing a science no no , i say the science isnt settled yet AND one side of it is hijackd for ideological reasons ! thats what i am saying.

so as long there is this serious and well founded doubt inside the real (not the imagined by the likes theurj) world wise science community about whether there is actually MAN MADE global

climate change or just normal EARTH/SUN/COSMOS/  weather fluctuations as there always has been some very dramatic too, so long i say hold your horses with stupid ad hoc measures that cost lots of money and have disastrous sideeffects as well like destroying germanies industrial base for example (which might be the reason the USA is pushing that agenda so happily ...in germany)

so...same goes for nuclear power . there has been amazing advancements in nuclear fusion technology and the newest power plants are completley save and the the waste problme has been solved as well BUT do we hear abiout that ?? no no what we hear is some hysteria about a big desaster in japan , where good green nature has killed 20.000 people with water and earthquaking, BUT the meltdown of the powerplant has ...killed no one and will kill no one either in the future . you see THIS real item of news we do not hear and this is what i call the green media cartell and the IPCC is part of the same cartell

so this is not about science at all but about belief : the green ersatz religion of pomo sensiblities

thats what i am talking about. not the science IF and WHEN science conclusivyl proves that there is a problem wich is manmade and by whatever , even co2 i am all for finding some solutions.

but that is as of now NOT THE CASE no matter how hysterically thurj screams around .

you see i am german and the green party was born in germany and i remember well the beginnings and of course i used to be green myself sort of till pretty soon i discovered that this is just IDEOLOGY

we started with the scare : the german forest is dying etc , the clube of rome wrote a fat book full of lies

in the late 70´s which scard everybody because we took that gesabbel for thruth . later we saw NOTHING THEY PREDICTED  ever came true . the  german forest is doing very well : ))

but we also noticed what kind of nuts got incresingly more fanatic, and more popular because 80 % of germany´s media workers are green ! or left or both. then they took power 14 years ago and now germany has become

an international  joke.

so really , read what i say . the science is NOT settled no matter what prince charles believes : )

mm

andrew said:

Hey mm, firstly, I am not interested in getting involved in any quarrels that you and theurj may have. 

 On your post point by point:

It's truer than not that corporate democrats couldn't care less about the climate or the earth. Their relationship to these issues is singularly to capitalize on it.  I could go further and even suggest that they are hoarding all this money to be the kings in future hunger games scenarios. Having said that, human caused climate pollution is real, but it's not just that; destroying the largest carbon captures by destroying massive forest eco systems is simply horrible, too. So, there is this combined sociopathic behaviour that transcends one single issue. 

 

You're  right that weather will be less predictable on micro reporting, but that doesn't mean the larger climate is not being changed dramatically. I too, see the cooling that you're talking about in western Canada as i haven't seen sustained hot weather in 10 years. I also suggest that the military industrial complex is playing a role in this, also. Anyone who believes that they are not experimenting with weather modification technology is being intentionally naive. Who's geo-engineering what should also be of grave concern.

I am having a problem with one line of your logic, though. On another thread you are asking us to consider science as a means of verifying life after death or NDE's; and yet, on this thread you are dismissing a science that is one hell of a lot easier to verify than what happens when one dies. Something that i believe can (never) be anything but anecdotal. 

I totally believe what you're saying about what's happening in Germany but i'm  not sure bad implementation is the same as a bad idea. First and foremost, the less fortunate should not be on the hook for this experiment and that wreaks of the modis operandi of the austerity measures of the oligarchs. Surely, there could have been tax credits put in place for those people. It's certainly discouraging to hear your take on what is going on there as Rifkin paints a somewhat different picture.

Here is link on a monied republican and what he is doing which is encouraging. Whether these folks can solve these complex problems within the same paradigm( Ka$h) is something i am skeptical of; but we'll see :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk