My issue with the field of economics is economists like to view themselves as studying complex systems of numbers when they are really studying complex systems of people. And people are fickle. They will believe in abstract concepts that exist only in the human mind like, say, a currency, until the moment they don’t. And no one can really predict that moment. It can occur quickly or it can occur imperceptibly over time.

The invisible hand only works so far.

I would choose to take my chances with the invisible hand of the market over the heavy hand of a government.

If that were true you wouldn’t live in Canada.

It’s not for lack of trying on the part of your socialist friends but we do not live under the heavy hand of the government in Canada. Yet.

Don’t evade your own statement. You presumably have the means to live in a place that better reflects your ideology and claim you would do so. Yet here you are.

Sorry, but your statement is quite clear. It’s not my misunderstanding. I took your comment at face value.

Apparently. My mistake may have been assuming you stand behind your comments.

My comment was unclear – I didn’t mean to suggest meteorologists produce climate models (climate “scientists” do). Perhaps I’ve been reading too many Chris Keam comments and it is having a negative effect.

Do you mean someone like the Chair of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri who was an engineer with Indian Railways? Oops, make that former chair since he was forced to resign over that sexual harassment charge. Perhaps he was just researching his latest soft core porn novel.

Or maybe you mean John Cook, the former self employed cartoonist who was the author of the survey that incorrectly said 97% of scientists accept catastrophic AGW? Michael “the Hockey Stick” Mann who is a Nobel Prize Certificate of Participation winner? Al Gore? The Pope?

Pachauri does not create climate models, to my knowledge.

With John Cook, you at least got the field right. Yes, he is a climatologist. His paper didn’t say that 97% of scientists accept AGW (catastrophic is how deniers like to categorize it). It said that 97% of the published papers support AGW. Many papers have more than one author. You should read Cook et al (2013). Or, if you like, Oreskes (2004). Or Doran (2009). Or Anderegg (2010). If that is just too much work, reference a legitimate scientific academy that has a contrary position. Meteorologists don’t count. But don’t get confused by the consensus studies. Consensus studies don’t prove that the science behind AGW is sound. It is because the science is sound that the consensus is so high.

Yes, Michael Mann is a climatologist. If you think Al Gore is a climatologist you should seek help. The Pope is not a climatologist, but speaks to the moral issues of failing to act.

Next you’re going to tell us that it isn’t warming. Or that if it is, it isn’t human caused. Or if it is human caused, that it will be beneficial. Or if it isn’t beneficial, that it is too expensive to do anything about it, because “we just aren’t sure…” And then incorporate some wild claims about a one world government, seeking to restrict your freedom to pollute.

And back on topic, the original post talked about “attempting to discredit the target and imply that their views should be ignored” That seems to be exactly what you are doing. If you don’t have any science or evidence to support your position, I suppose it is all you’ve got.

You should stick to posting the results of your Google searches, Chris, as no one is going to be paying attention to the opinions of someone who has at various times has proposed things like ending poverty by the spontaneous, worldwide disarmament by all countries, fixing the affordable housing problem by having all sellers spontaneously reduce their selling prices and by advocating that Canada adopt an open border policy on immigration.

Now was it Einstein or B. Fuller who proposed solving the affordable housing issue in Vancouver by having all the sellers reduce their selling price at once?

Doesn’t matter. There is a big difference between simply sharing the ideas of other people and proposing those ideas as solutions to specific problems. So what is it? Are you prepared to stand behind your previous comments proposing these ideas as solutions or are you distancing yourself from them now that you realize they are not very useful as real solutions to any problem.

Ever the artful dodger avoiding the issue which was do you still stand behind your statement that the solution to fund the eradication of world wide poverty is worldwide disarmament or have you changed your mind and you were merely sharing someone else’s perspective on the issue?

Chris Keam • a year ago

“”So your solution to finding funding for all the problems of the world is a spontaneous, worldwide disarmament by all countries.”

Yes.”

Can’t accuse you of equivocating with that response can we. Clearly you believe this to be a viable solution to the issue or you are proposing a solution that you know to be impossible to implement. Either way, not very flattering but neither is it surprising.

And you have succeeded in demonstrating that you not only don’t stand behind the comments you make, if you can’t find a way to weasel out of them, you just pretend they never happened. (Hard to make the case that “yes” is a nuanced response, isn’t it). Something to reflect on before you decide to accuse someone of not standing behind their comments.

Ahh Chris, just when it appears that you have made a major breakthrough actually admitting to changing your position you go and spoil it by characterizing it as a “miniscule” change and it fact it really wasn’t a change at all since it was “within the same attitudinal framework”. Wow. I know progressives can twist themselves into a pretzel shape to justify their position but you have taken that to a whole new level.

I acknowledged that you believe you haven’t changed your position but don’t sweat it. Promoting ideas like open borders and spontaneous worldwide disarmament makes it pretty clear that reading comprehension is the least of your challenges.

This is utter nonsense. True, we have not repeated the carnage of the two World Wars but ironically it is probably nuclear weapons that greatly contributed to this outcome as the two main competing ideologies, capitalism versus communism, fought smaller proxy wars with conventional weapons to avoid the mutual
annihilation of a nuclear war. As well, for the last 25 years we have not even really worried about the risk of a
nuclear war although that may all change if the Iran deal sparks a proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

However, to say this is a sign of a trend is to less violent
conflict is over reaching. If this were true, you would be arguing against yourself since there has been no disarmament and in fact there are more sophisticated weapons in the hands of non-state armies than at any other time. But it is not true. And you are very naïve if you believe that ISIS is not a threat just because the number of casualties do not add up to those of a major conflict.

Ironically, your two issues are related. Immigration itself is neither good nor bad but there have been serious negative consequences of immigration under a
multi-cultural environment where differences are celebrated rather than the common, shared values of a Western secular society. Consequently, we are now trying to address the de-radicalization of the no shortage of ISIS recruits from Western countries. Western European countries are trying to reboot their immigration philosophy but it could very well be too little, too
late.

Those Humvees they drive look familiar. I wonder where they got them?

Great link. thanks for making my point for me!