Big Richard

Aug 14 2011, 07:20 PM

DragonLegend

Aug 14 2011, 05:29 AM

You are very immature. I ignore you for days, then decide maybe I was wrong and should discuss things with you, and this is how you respond.

You're the immature one starting a conversation you know nothing about and acting as if you're the right based on your false evidence. I told you many times to get a legitimate education on the subject by reading the actual book or studying some of Marx's principles and yet you continue to shove your head further up your ass and ignore the reality. This is the reason why its intellectuals that discuss communism worldwide and retards like you that criticize it without even taking time to learn about it.


as for Jack, you're saying its impossible for a transition from socialism to communism simply because the risk of a tyrant? There's risks of tyrants in every system. And if you were to study communism you would know that its the people of a society that will demand the transition and not a government doing it for them. As for pointing to the US living standards, we live better but at who's expense? Are you really living well or are you just feeding off the scraps that the elite 1% leave behind? Capitalism is not complete yet in this country, the attacks on unions and worker's rights are exactly the consequences predicted by Marx those in a capitalist society would experience. Because in a capitalist society the workers are to be exploited whereas communism allows for the working class to protect itself. Besides if either of you would take time to educate yourselves on the subject you would know that Marx didn't even think communism was 100% right he in fact invited constructive criticism. He also believed that the next step after communism would be a utopian society devoid of government entirely. Communism is not meant for this generation or lifetime. It is a long, long process of the dialectic of ideas that will continue to produce a better and better system until we can reach a point where the wealth isn't competed for and the mentality of the people has changed from the consumerism driven into the brains of citizens under a capitalist system. Capitlism is an improvement from feudalism, the next step (and we are seeing its demand for change now) is socialism.

If you disagree I can only tell you to read about first before you judge and that history and the future will ultimately support Marx's theories.

Big Richard

Aug 15 2011, 03:02 AM

when did nasa say it made it all up? that would severely discredit them and it would be world wide news yet I have never even heard that before

Big Richard

Aug 15 2011, 08:27 AM

Marx stated it would be a society that undergoes these changes through the clash between a thesis and an antithesis forming a synthesis and this would eventually lead to the ideal society. if you are talking about a united global society than thats different, and I would say that one society would follow the other. The world doesn't evolve at the same time, even today we still have monarchies. And what was it then jack because I'm wondering what someone who's never even been there and has never lived under Tito would know how it was.

Big Richard

Aug 15 2011, 03:47 PM

i looked into it and this is what I found :

"The traditional media picked up the story as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December, with media outlets like Fox News giving the controversy increased coverage.[8] Because of the timing, scientists and policy makers speculated that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference.[9] In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus, with the AAAS concluding "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway...it is a growing threat to society."[10]
Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports criticised climate scientists for their disorganised methods, bunker mentality and lack of transparency. Climate scientists and organisations pledged to restore public confidence in the research process by improving data management and opening up access to data.[11][12] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/


and :

"The most quoted email is from Phil Jones in 1999 discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine):

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html


even skepticalscience says its not a conspiracy. And I just clicked the first couple links off google search of CRU email hacked and thats what I got.

Big Richard

Aug 15 2011, 08:45 PM

lol that pilgrim link was far from a good example I didn't even understand where it was going. "People work a hell of a lot harder for themselves than they do for others" thats western individualism you're exemplifying. It is different in the East where the mentality is different. And you're not really working for others in a communist society, communism is all about empowering the working class and forming a bond between them. You're working for yourself, but at the same time aren't putting anyone else down. Thats also another assumption you're making about raping other countries. My parents lived in yugoslavia under Tito's leadership and they told me all about it, I've had long discussions with my father about how the system worked there. Communism does have a government, I don't know where you got the idea that there isn't. Yugoslavia had worker self-management and associated labor which are two major components of Marxism, among other things. Its system was mostly socialist but it was still the closest any society has gotten to Marxism.

The country collapsed because after Tito's death the new leader tried to initiate "shock-strategy" free-market reforms and fucked up the economy. It was not Tito's fault that the new guy was inept. War ignited because of nationalism. It is far too complicated to simplify it like you did. I can explain to you how it went down if you're truly interested but it had absolutely nothing to do with communism.

Big Richard

Aug 15 2011, 03:47 PM

i looked into it and this is what I found :

"The traditional media picked up the story as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December, with media outlets like Fox News giving the controversy increased coverage.[8] Because of the timing, scientists and policy makers speculated that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference.[9] In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus, with the AAAS concluding "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway...it is a growing threat to society."[10]
Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports criticised climate scientists for their disorganised methods, bunker mentality and lack of transparency. Climate scientists and organisations pledged to restore public confidence in the research process by improving data management and opening up access to data.[11][12] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/


and :

"The most quoted email is from Phil Jones in 1999 discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine):

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html


even skepticalscience says its not a conspiracy. And I just clicked the first couple links off google search of CRU email hacked and thats what I got.

DragonLegend

Aug 16 2011, 06:03 AM

Try actually reading the articles. But I'm sure you have, actually. Sucks to admit your religion was a scam, doesn't it?

Big Richard

Aug 15 2011, 10:13 PM

Big Richard

Aug 15 2011, 03:47 PM

i looked into it and this is what I found :

"The traditional media picked up the story as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December, with media outlets like Fox News giving the controversy increased coverage.[8] Because of the timing, scientists and policy makers speculated that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference.[9] In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus, with the AAAS concluding "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway...it is a growing threat to society."[10]
Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports criticised climate scientists for their disorganised methods, bunker mentality and lack of transparency. Climate scientists and organisations pledged to restore public confidence in the research process by improving data management and opening up access to data.[11][12] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/


and :

"The most quoted email is from Phil Jones in 1999 discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine):

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html


even skepticalscience says its not a conspiracy. And I just clicked the first couple links off google search of CRU email hacked and thats what I got.

nothing to say about this dragon or gs?

Quote:

 

sorry, i don't feel like getting into an agw discussion. i was only giving CFCs as an example of what huge impact people can have on the environment when they're not careful and you kept bringing up agw. anyway i can predict the discussion will just be us pointlessly linking each other to scientific articles. meh