TheTrivium4TW
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The international financiers who have taken control of our government have been preparing for their engineered economic collapse for well over decade.
The heavy handed tactics are to see what officers have humanity, which ones don’t and who will get promotions to that “special unit.”
It is also to keep the sheep away and back in their pens.
The oligarchs are also financing their takeover of the movement trying to turn it into a “vote for Obama” ‘fest, but that will only work with they can beat the aware people enough to get them to leave so only the properly programmed remain.
I think the head cracking at OWS will be more severe this year than last year.
I hope not. We’ll see.
Keep up the good fight.
Resistance *IS* victory. You already *are* winning.
It is the other losers who chose to do nothing that are the losers.
“All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”
— Edmund Burke“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
— Plato“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”
— Albert Einstein“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
— Edmund BurkeBot Blogger post=2711 wrote:
But truly anything can be weaponized. Money according to Bill Still has been weaponized, but it needn’t be so.Hi Bot,
Bill Still has presented data and logic that has been very influential to my world paradigm. He’s not alone – I aggregate and analyze data from all over.
Anyway, my analyses leads me to believe that the ONLY way the system promoted by Bill Still could actually work is if there is an educated and aware populace. I’m not talking 10% either, I’m probably talking 40%+, with an even better number well north of 50%.
If the people are going to selfishly pursue their own short term interests at the expense of investing to get informed about the long term structures within their country, then we are doomed.
Psychopaths that lust for power, control and wealth will, invariably take over and beat the crap out of the narcissistic population.
Hence, my focus on trying to educate people.
I try to shop at farmer’s markets and local shops and always pay cash. I typically use $20 bills and and ask the following question when making payment, “Do you know what Andrew Jackson said his greatest accomplishment was?”
The answer is invariably, “No.”
To which I respond with, “I killed the bank.”
If I have to shell over a $5 bill, I share this quote from Lincoln, “I have the Confederacy before me and the bankers behind me and, for my country, I fear the bankers more.”
I then hand them a card with resources to get more information.
El G is right – we are doomed if we think we can be both ignorant and free.
We will be enslaved… and that will eventually mean bad things for the folks that run this website as well… One can’t “duck and dodge” evil that has sucked national wealth dry and runs the military and funds the local police (a friend told me how that DHS money – fresh from the international bankster cartel – keeps on flowing into the local police department… he freaked out a bit when I told him 3-4 years ago that all those “toys” were for the America people when they collapsed the economy by design.
He probably still thinks I’m a “kook” even though the President now claims he has the authority to kidnap, detain, torture and murder American citizens with no due process or presentation of evidence.
You know, that “apple pie” stuff we see emanating from that “Constitutional scholar” (I mean, they think we are soooooo stupit! And they are right to a degree I hate to admit).
Oh, he can take your farm, too – no due process. He just has to feel there is a “threat” (to his bankster financiers, of course).
Or, rather, maybe he’s afraid his emails will be reviewed by the Central State authorities and that will result in retaliation form the “Homeland.”
Ahhh, a little “baseball” to go with that apple pie.
But don’t you dare ask the government for any information… they are top secret! You, subject, are a wide open book to the banksters that finance your government and media.
Some hard lessons will be learned in the not too distant future.
Reverse Engineer post=2710 wrote: Money is not a “thing” like a gun is, Money is a SYSTEM, and systems have emergent properties of their own that don’t exist in individual parts of the system.
They are, however, both “things” that can be used for good or evil. They don’t need to be made of like material in order to be compared in this manner.
Reverse Engineer post=2710 wrote:
A simple example with money is in Friendship. You can be best of friends with someone for years, never have an argument. Soon as you lend money to your friend, everything changes and resentment sets in on both sides usually.That only happens when BOTH value the money more than the friendship.
I’ve lent money and never had it returned. I’m not mad about it. Then again, I don’t lend an amount of money (actually, the ability to claim resources, as you note below) that would endanger the friendship. It all depends on the circumstance. In an emergency, I’m far more generous than when someone wants me to finance play toys.
Again, it is all about the people involved, NOT the money itself. People in America can help educate and feed children being victimized by Debt Money Tyranny, and the criminal psychopaths who run it, half a world away – something that would be impossible without money.
I get it… in this case money is helping to alleviate some of the pain caused by… the definition of money. It is a complex issue. The point is that one group of criminal psychopaths use money to starve people to death (because they are selfish and think other humans are animals or termites, so why care?) while others use money to feed, cloth and educate others.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8392
Reverse Engineer post=2710 wrote:
It is very easy to demonstrate that Money ALWAYS ends badly on a social level, just about every War in recorded history has Money at its core. Doesn’t matter whether the money was Gold, Silver or Fiat either.Just about every war in history was waged with sharp edged instruments – are sharp edged instruments “bad,” too?
Or are the people who wield them badly the true culprits of the evil?
Reverse Engineer post=2710 wrote:
Finally, in the end what Money serves as is Proxy for Ownership of the Earth, which is not the Property of any one man, it belongs to all of mankind as stewards for all the rest of the life which grows upon it. You are living a lie if you claim ownership over the earth, and lieing itself is Evil.Now this is a much broader issue. What exactly does, “it belongs to all of mankind as stewards for all the rest of the life which grows upon it” mean to you – and please be exceptionally detailed.
Some might argue that statement is meaningless… as the public restroom belongs to “everyone,” too – so WHO will be responsible for cleaning it when other selfish people use it without cleaning it?
BTW, i agree with your statement in principle, but if there aren’t practical ways of implementing that principle on a planet with billions of people looking out for #1 well before they look out for others (yes, exceptions exist), it doesn’t have all that much value.
Reverse Engineer post=2710 wrote:
Man is essentially Good, but can be perverted to become Evil. Money provides the seeds and fertilizer for Evil to grow in Man.You haven’t established this claim in a logical way and provided supporting data. The reader is simply left with a choice – trust RE or not.
ashvin post=2708 wrote: [quote=Triv]”Guns are neither good nor bad, it is the people that wield them that determines how the gun is used, not the gun itself.
The history of guns is one of a long line of bloodshed. Do you also believe that guns are evil and should be abolished?”
That is only one part of the equation, Triv. Guns also make it much, much easier and quicker for people with violent tendencies to kill others, as well as people coerced into standing armies (or street-level gangs) and then physically required to kill others. Not that there isn’t any choice involved, because there is, but it is the SYSTEM that inhibits the range and effectiveness of those choices, not the people themselves.
Guns also can serve as deterrents in some situations, or the most effective means of self-defense against oppressive acts, so it’s not all bad for guns. There are probably many other factors that could go into this equation. My point is that having a debate over the ROOT cause of “evil” is apriori meaningless. It’s not guns vs. selfish people, or money vs. selfish people, or any other dichotomy so simple.
re: your original post
When reading many of your comments, I always get the feeling that you have just come across a lot of information about debt dollar tyranny in recent months during your free online research time and you are uber-excited (maybe “excited” isn’t the right word) to go out and spread the message to all of the lost souls. Is that close? If not, then I admire your ability to remain so juiced up about that specific issue for so long.
I understand how you feel, and I think many of us have been there. But the reason that we don’t always share your excitement, or don’t always reference the Fed, debt-based money, etc. in our posts, is because we simply take those things for granted and prefer to focus on other aspects of the same issues. You seem to take that as a sign that we are either ignorant of or refusing to consider the central banking cartel’s role in all of this. So maybe it would help for you to keep reminding yourself that we are well aware of all that.
Hi Ash,It is interesting how people approach issues differently. I’m juiced up because I see an evil, fraudulent system that is engineered to bankrupt and impoverish the world for the benefit of the criminal few.
If I was a Jew in Germany as Hitler ratcheted up his frauds, I’d be “juiced” too, and for the same reason. In fact, even if I wasn’t a Jew in Germany, I’d be “juiced” up because it is evil and irrational to scape goat a general population and I’d know that anyone that evil was also a threat to everyone else. Hitler killed about 1/3 of the people in Germany… millions of them not even Jews or invalids.
I’m “juiced up” because I see a psychopathic “class” of individuals that has already perpetrated a genocide against America back in the Great Depression so they could asset strip people and they are getting ready to do it again.
I’m “juiced up” because these same psychopathic murderers have covertly established “Ghettos” the size of nations and are using that structure to kill off millions of people – today.
I’m “juiced up” because I see “Danger, Will Robinson” right ahead.
This isn’t some random system at work here, Ash. This is evil executing a strategy to hurt people very dearly and very badly – and that’s if the don’t kill you first.
So, no, I don’t think people “get it” or they’d be “juiced up,” too, regardless of the time frame.
This isn’t Germany where a person could get out and go somewhere else.
This is an evil worldwide in scope.
I think most people don’t want to grasp this, and most likely for the reasons provided by RE. They prefer to think of lying criminal Bernanke as an “academic” who can’t “see beyond his equations” than what he truly is… a front man for a class of people that have murdered more people than Hitler. Yes, they are more discrete and use deceit and treachery to get their blood lust topped off… They’ve read Art of War…
“War is all about deception.” ~Sun Tzu
As for focusing on other things… what can possibly be accomplished with wickedly evil people systematically loot society and then wield their wealth in a “capitalist overlay” overlay system that means they will end up controlling the nation’s agenda?
Evil exists. People plan to do ill intent to others. You and RE are of the view that people are basically good and that the systems (that people constructed and refuse to modify, BTW) figuratively grab the wrists of people and lift up behind their back until they do things that hurt and harm others… or don’t do things to prevent harm for others.
I disagree. Imagine a humanity where people cared for others equal to themselves. And I mean truly cared for others equal to themselves – not in words, but in mind, heart and spirit.
While not perfect, it would be far better than the world we see today and guess what? The “systems” would be much different and much better as well.
There absolutely is a root cause (or causes) of evil and I’d argue determining it is not only a worthwhile endeavor, but is also more valuable than almost any other pursuit. If you don’t know the cause, it is much easier to be ensnared by it.
I’m not talking just Darth Vader mask evil, either. It is evil to allow 25 million people, many, if not most, to starve to death each year – and that’s on all the people that don’t take positive action to end the status quo of evil.
If you don’t think that is evil, tuck that thought away – because you may be starved to death by the very same Big Finance Capital psychopaths and nobody will be there to help you (or me) because they had already been taken out.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.Here’s a list of issue that almost nobody talks about because they are busy demonizing their neighbor (but not the mega corporations, other than Big Oil that – but they don’t care, they get monopoly pricing during a Depression!) over spewing carbon into the atmosphere… that’s what you exhale, folks. The financial oligarchs don’t claim to be able to tax your breath, just what you exhale.
Human race being terminated by ‘scientific suicide’
https://www.naturalnews.com/035790_scientific_suicide_humans.html
I basically agree with many of the issues brought up in this article.
Having said that, I have the EXACT SAME criticism with this article as I did with the SS article – supporting data and logic weren’t provided to establish the reality of the claimed issues. The big difference is that, unlike the SS article, this article didn’t claim to “debunk the deniers” of the issues raised, it just claimed to list what the author thinks are the biggest potential environmental disasters out there.
One beauty of the Trivium is that is REMOVES EMOTIONS from the analysis. “Just the facts, ma’am.”
Do note how the Big Finance Capital narrative avoids very real environmental disasters that can be blamed on their corporate fronts (Big Oil being excepted because the “blame” triples their profits – “for the Earth,” of course 😉 and focus the proles on issues that can be blamed on, well, the proles.
Yes, the prole is the problem, NOT THE MILITARY MACHINE WAGING ILLEGAL WARS OF CORPORATE AGGRESSION ALL OVER THE PLANET AND DUMPING DEPLETED URANIUM BY THE TONNAGE (AND THE AEROSOL BLOWS ALL OVER THE PLANET – AND THEY PRACTICE WITH IT RIGHT HERE IN THE USA!).
Then again, that’s the agenda as explained here…
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
~ in The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105 by Alexander King, founder of the Club of Rome and Bertrand Schneider, secretary of the Club of Romehttps://thecounterpunch.hubpages.com/hub/Club_of_Rome
BTW, this doesn’t mean that global warming isn’t real. The data shows warming has occurred, but at a rate just under statistical significance with a 95% confidence level. Given all the fear mongering of “hockey sticks,” this is obviously quite an “unexpected” result. Again, maybe something else caused some cooling effect that offset the warming – the climate, believe it or not, is quite complex.
The real value of global warming is that it…
1. Divides and conquers the proles.
2. Acts as an environmentalist “sink” (think heat sink) and distracts them from the MASSIVE Big Finance Capital mega corporate driven toxification of the entire planet.
3. Triples the profits of Big Oil, even in spite of an ongoing Depression.The Big Finance Capital narrative is that you are in a checkers game.
The Big Finance Capital criminal oligarchs are actually playing 3 dimensional chess and their goal is “more for them and less for you). Oh, and probably several billion of the population dead without being replaced and those left in one state of poverty or another (impoverished people are easier to control).
Exxon was trading at $17.90/share in 1995 and now trades at $84.44. But Mike, that’s not all (cheesy infomercial voice over). I’m not sure how to verify this, but is very likely that the number of shares has been significantly increased in the last 17 years… making the market cap increase even bigger (a guess).
“global warming” sure taught Big Oil a lesson!
Meanwhile, Monsanto is killing off the bugs, the honey bees are being destroyed by pesticides, the food supply is toxified, the water is toxified…. but nobody can talk about those issues because the Big Finance Capital sponsored narrative doesn’t make it “cool.”
Why? Because those issue won’t quadruple their companyies’ profits and stock values. In fact, those issues would destroy those corporations and their method of control over the population.
If you think within the Central Banker, or Big Finance Capital, provided “box,” you will get played for a sucker. Even if the issue is real!
“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”
~Henry Kissingerhttps://www.rense.com/general80/seedsofdestruction.htm
It’s 3-dimensional chess, people. NOT checkers.
“War is all about deception,” Sun Tzu, Art of War
FSofA is Fascist States of America.
RE, I’ve already told you that I don’t think the Fed is the only problem.
I’ve already made it clear that the problems with debt based money didn’t start with the Fed.
I’ve used the term Debt Dollar Tyranny to represent all fraudulent debt based monetary systems (including the euro, the pound and every other one!). However, you do bring up a very valid point – that the phrase itself could mislead some as to its intent… especially when heard in limited context. I’ll think about changing it to “Debt Money Tyranny.” It doesn’t have the same “ring,” but it is less likely to confuse people when applying it globally.
I’ve already explained that Bernanke is a puppet and front man designed to take people’s eyes off the true controllers of the Fed – Big Finance Capital or, if you prefer, the International Money Power. Jackson referred to this class as a “Den of Vipers.” Again, it is misleading your readers to imply that I think Bernanke is somehow “leading the charge.”
Please stop misleading people about my belief system. If you don’t know what I believe, please don’t ASSUME it, build straw men and then burn them down.
Just ask me. I’m more than happy to clarify my beliefs. It isn’t a competition – we are on the same team.
I think your analyses on why people can’t seem to be able to entertain this *reality* is spot on, but what I don’t get is the idea that ignoring the problem is gonna make it go away and avoiding making preparations is going to end up in a better outcome.
That’s so…. kindergarten.
We also disagree on the role money plays in this society.
Money is just a tool – it is neither good nor bad.
People are good or bad, caring or uncaring.
The flaw isn’t in the money, it is in the people that use it.
Correlation is not necessarily causation.
Of course evil people will take advantage of selfish people (it is selfish to not care enough to be involved in something as important as society’s medium of exchange – money) and money is an obvious way to, shall we say, get a big bang for the criminal financier cartel buck.
Hence, money’s long history is mostly one of corruption.Guns are neither good nor bad, it is the people that wield them that determines how the gun is used, not the gun itself.
The history of guns is one of a long line of bloodshed. Do you also believe that guns are evil and should be abolished?
Same is true for knives and most everything else.
Pillows can be used to suffocate people. And they have. Are you going to lay your head on one tonight in spite of this fact?
If you want to make the case that money itself is INTRINSICALLY bad, provide the data you use and the logic applied to that data that caused you to conclude that money is evil and excludes the humans that use it as being the cause of the monetary abuses inflicted upon humanity over time.
It would be best to do this in a single post and avoid any other unrelated issues so the data and logic stand alone and can be reviewed and analyzed without some readers going off on a tangent.
BTW, I do get that it may be impossible to get people to care enough about their money system so that it could be set up to work well, thereby making any monetary a disaster for humanity… but, again, that doesn’t make money bad, it is the flaw in humans that expresses a flawed monetary system as a symptom of the human selfishness problem.
And this just burns me… to see my fellow countrymen being played as fools by the policies that surround climate change.
The Pentagon is out shilling for an increased national security threat (and budget increase – you know it) due to “climate change.” He cites the need for “humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.”
https://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=116192
No mention of the fraudulent debt based societal asset stripping monetary system that effectively murders millions of children every year due to the impact of the poverty it inflicts on those it indebts.
Let’s assume (I must, nobody provides the data and logic so I can’t reach a conclusion one way or the other – Just can’t know without the data and logic) climate change is real and the hockey stick is about to hit and Al Gore’s beach front home is about to be submerged…
That still shouldn’t give the criminals running the monetary enslavement and starvation system a pass on the evil they perpetrate across the globe.
Nor should Panetta get a pass for funding al Qaeda to start civil wars and dark African genocides in sovereign countries that pose no external threat.
But the media wants to give the a pass and blame their evil deeds on “climate change” – it is *your* fault, you greedy pigs who won’t give up baseball for your children to “save the planet.”
Of course, only those people that don’t walk to all practices and games. They obviously would not qualify as “greedy pigs” that care more about juvenile entertainment than the planet.
Truthfully, it is a logical fallacy to call someone a pig for driving their kids to a baseball game. There isn’t enough data to reach that conclusion. However, if I didn’t understand the Trivium method, I might fall victim to that style of fallacy.
It’s all about reality, not what emotionally makes us “feel better.”
Feelings and emotions can be easily manipulated and controlled.
Data and logic can not.
“In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.”
― Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic EraJust for kicks…
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ”
― Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic EraA couple comments:
1. Nobody has pointed out a single instance in which I claimed data and/or logic didn’t exist where I was mistaken. Darn, I really wanted to learn something. I don’t suppose anyone will… 1. Admit they can’t or 2. Actually show such an instant so I can learn something. That’s too much to ask, isn’t it?
2. Looks like Frank bailed once he was cornered into “believing his lying eyes” and rejecting Appeal to Authority logical fallacy that he so embraced so tightly. I hope he makes the right choice and learns to trust his eyes and not the Big Finance Capital funded “authorities” that are robbing society blind.
3. This whole experience has only highlighted the general dearth of understanding regarding the Trivium method in general and logic in particular. Many people just don’t “get it.”
“Lots of people on TV, the newspaper and the internet said it was true, so it is true, I don’t care what the actual law says” isn’t acceptable “logic.”
“You are an irresponsible pig” just doesn’t logically follow “you have the nerve to require data and logic in order to be able to reach a conclusions regarding SS’s claims.”
There appears to be some “logic over ride” mechanism that literally short circuits the brain’s logic sequence. The Trivium is the anecdote. It is the fallacy “malware” remover. But many people don’t want it. They don’t want to go where the data and the logic lead, they simply want to go where the want to go – I don’t know how else to explain it.
It’s Bizarro world.
steve from virginia post=2669 wrote: I couldn’t do it. I just couldn’t. Just say no to Trivium
I sat through a 4 hour baseball game yesterday (our guys won) and those plastic seats just took it out of me, the desire to read line after line after line of argument in favor of something, probably more automobiles and automobile waste.
The bottom line in America is always the car. It is the axle around which the entire stupid enterprise rotates. Anything that might restrict the hegemony of the car over every aspect of citizens’ lives is a threat. Climate change: it might add a few bucks to the price of a gallon of gas. That gigantic pickup truck might more worthless than it is now. Horrors! We cannot have that!
That American way is so flimsy that only lies and cowardice can keep it afloat. The approach is to take responsibility, to meet challenges and take necessary steps. This requires something other than rhetorical sleight of hand: simple courage.
Sorry, none of that here, just business-y gutlessness.
Some Americans aren’t interested in responsibility they want others to make the problems go away by sweeping them under the rug. Some of the lies are more subtle, they are word games that seek to evade responsibility, what is bizarre is anyone would do so for others’ benefits at the expense of their grandchildren.
Steve, you seem to infer that I oppose conservation. That conclusion was based upon faulty logic stacked upon faulty logic.
Apparently, logic can’t compete with emotional satisfaction. At least, that’s what it appears to be from where I stand.
BTW, how is the walk to home and away baseball games?
Congratulations on the win – I sucked at baseball, but that’s a while back. Actually, I probably still suck.
You do walk to all the games and practices, right?
All that misplaced righteous indignation about the world and excuses coming from a guy who won’t give up a trivial baseball game to “save the planet,” well, that would be absurd, wouldn’t it?
I’m sure you do walk, though.
Thanks for setting that great example for everyone else. 🙂
PS – One either accepts SS or one is an energy pig is false argument. Perhaps Ash can stop by and explain which logical fallacy that encompasses.
FrankRichards post=2656 wrote: Dear Triv,
Snicker. Moving on.
Hi Frank, but did you “move on” believing the fallacy of a “dual mandate” or did you actually rely on data and apply logic to realize that the Federal Reserve has a singular mandate that it has broken for 25 some-odd years?
Or are going to rely on a set of “authorities” to spoon you your belief system without respecting you enough to share the data and logic they used to arrive at their conclusion?
Make the right choice… believe your “lying eyes.”
All this talk about “state spending” to save the day, but NOBODY talks about “money” being debt and the absurdity of issuing more debt to “fix” a problem of debt saturation.
That TRUTH is *off limits*.
Just as the TRUTH that the Federal Reserve…
1. Lies about its mandate.
2. Broke its true mandate that it hides through its lies.
3. The breaking of said mandate is one of the main reasons America finds itself in financial crisis.Nope, nobody talks about THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENTS of our situation….
The emperor’s “wardrobe” is clearly off limits.
“The emperor has not clothes.”
~MoiWhy doesn’t anyone care enough to discuss this nature of the reality in which we live?
How do they control the information flow?
How do we break down their media “Berlin Wall?”
Hi All,
Please help me to understand why this “Earth shattering” reality is met with… abject apathy and silence.
I think I’ve brought up the data and the logic behind why Ben Bernanke is a villain, not just some stupid “academic,” enough in recent topics that we should revisit this as a topic unto itself.
Ash – what do you think about Greenspan / Bernanke **LYING** about his true singular mandate so they could break their legal mandate for 25 years running and, thereby, creating the condition for the upcoming collapse?
All engineered for the proles by design. I mean, wouldn’t you want to know Fed policy to break their mandate back in 1985? The insiders did – they control the Fed through the BODs.
What are the ramifications of this – an actual crime syndicate with Ben Bernanke as their front man?
BTW, I don’t think Ben Bernanke has any real power. He reports to the Fed’s BOD who ultimately control who was hired and, in reality, control the person they hired. Surely they wouldn’t hire a “loose cannon.”
Who sits on the Fed’s BOD? Guys like Jamie Dimon (JP Morgan) and Lloyd “God’s Work” Blankfein (Goldman Sachs).
Who controls these BODs? Ultimately, the BODs of the corporations that employ them. Who controls the BOD of the mega corporations that employ them?
THE OWNERS.
George Carlin – The Owners (some bad language, A+ information)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0OJEFlq7A
Why doesn’t anyone within the establishment call out the Fed’s criminal activity and lying?
Media? Silent.
Education? Silent.
All manner of politicians (including Ron Paul)? Silent.
Clergy? Silent.
The magnitude of this is so large, it impacts so many people… yet people can’t even seem to be able to muster a comment.
I think most people are simply pulling the covers over their eyes because they can’t emotionally accept that the system is this rigged, that the table is this tilted.
But the evidence says it is – and I choose to deal in this reality.
Does anyone else?
ashvin post=2679 wrote: Triv,
In my example, I cited a paper by BB as support for my statement, which implies that you can access the paper and check the “data/logic” that he used to derive the conclusion. So, according to my definition, there was no ATA fallacy.
Yes, if one has access to the data and the logic then they can actually evaluate the argument and try to falsify it – the very basis of of what science is supposed to be.
ashvin post=2679 wrote:
When I said “personal characteristics”, I really meant those characteristics of the source that are directly relevant to the issue at at hand. So it is fair game to bring up the fact that a researcher has fudged data in the past, or done something else intellectually dishonest, in order to cast suspicion on his current claims.I don’t trust Bernanke because I know he’s a lying murderous, thieving criminal and I know he knows it, too. I’m sure he’s well aware of Sun Tzu’s statements that “war is all about deception” and “the best warriors never have to fight.”
However, I *still* can’t refute an argument made by Ben Bernanke just because he made it. What I can do, though, is go over the data and logic with a finer toothed comb. Realistically, though, on all important issues, that fine tooth comb ought to be extremely fine to begin with.
Again, it all boils down to data and logic.
Liars tell the truth all the time. The only way to vet it is to know their data and logic.
ashvin post=2679 wrote:
Exactly. No one is arguing that we should just rely on what authorities say to determine reality. I AM arguing that we cannot dismiss arguments simply because they cite legitimate authorities for their claims (i.e. they are not logically fallacious), and rather we must do exactly what you did with the Fed law and data to attack the argument.Ash, did you actually read past the beginning of the first SS article review? I know I started out, shall we say, a bit “snarky,” and I could see how that could turn you off to the rest – bad form on my part. As explained previously, I’m kind of sick of the whole thing because I know the oligarchs are using the good intentions of many environmentalist minded people to promote their societal face ripping policies. Yeah, that had nothing to do with the article and I should’ve kept my irritation out. Again, bad form on my part.
I repeatedly said that the faulty logic used (just trust the “authority”) didn’t mean that the actual claim was false. Repeatedly. The use of logical fallacy doesn’t mean a lie is being told, it just means that the logic presented as sufficient is actually not sufficient (and, technically, that’s a lie, hence the use of the phrase “logic lie,” not to be confused with the claim itself being a lie).
ashvin post=2679 wrote:
Do you see how that undermines your original arguments on the other thread about the SS site?I think you believe the argument is undermined because you don’t understand what I actually argued. I NEVER argued that any of the claims presented were false. Never. I never claimed they were true.
What I claimed was that logical fallacy was used (just trust us, we don’t need to present the actual data and logic or links to it – that’s a logical fallacy – call it whatever name you like!) to allegedly prove certain claims – and that the logic, being logical fallacy, didn’t actually establish what the article said it did.
Again, without the actual data and logic itself, I CAN’T MAKE A DETERMINATION. When they didn’t present the data and logic to support their claims, then I called them on it.
That is what my review did, NOT attempt to debunk the claims (which, even if possible, is impossible within the bounds of that article given the lack of data and logic presented).
So, no – my review wasn’t undermined at all given that I didn’t even offer a conclusion as to validity of the conclusions.
The way to undermine my review is simple, though. I made quite a few very specific claims following the format of, “A was claimed by article, data B and logic C was not presented to support claim A, therefore, we must simply trust in the “authority” of the article author and that is a logical fallacy.”
In order to undermine one of those claims, all one has to do is find where the article actually provides the data B and logic C where I claim it was not presented.
That ought to be a very simple task, IF IT EXISTS. I didn’t find it when I said I didn’t find it, but I make mistakes. I’ve reread a few posts of mine and the grammar and misspelling errors have been more than a few – not intentional, but errors do creep in when I’m knee deep in stuff I’m trying to do.
ashvin post=2679 wrote:
You say that you were only dealing with one specific article, but I can tell you right now that all the other ones follow the same format (making a lot of claims that are supported by citations to external references). When you think about it, that’s really the only practical way they could do it.I have no problem citing external source AS LONG AS THE EXTERNAL SOURCES PROVIDE THE DATA AND THE LOGIC.
When I claimed it did not, it is because I went to the external source AND DIDN’T FIND IT. In one case, I cited a paragraph from the external source and explained that it didn’t have the data or logic to actually support the conclusion (which might be right or wrong, I don’t know because I can’t review the data and the logic!).
If all their articles lack mounds of data and logic to support their conclusions then, essentially, their argument is “trust us, not the debunkers.”
Now, they may be right, but the logic they claim proves is false logic.
Data.
Logic.
If not presented, it is concealed.
Concealed data and logic can’t prove anything.
ashvin post=2679 wrote:
I agree.But the fact that you don’t “know” a claim (supported by reference to authority) is true does not mean you “know” the claim is logically false, i.e. inherently suspect.
I agree – just because the logic is bad doesn’t mean the conclusion is bad. That’s exactly why I repeated that fact throughout the first SS review – I didn’t want people to get confused on that point (and they do quite easily!).
However, I absolutely suspect any policy driven from “on high” because I KNOW, through other data and logic analysis, that the “money power” criminals have tremendous power and are driven to r*pe and pillage society under the guise of “do goodness.”
That’s there MO so I am suspect. Again, that doesn’t prove anything about their policy, the data and logic have to prove that.
For example, restricting carbon and then giving a “money power” corporate front an exemption is an example of using government power to eliminate their competition, create monopoly pricing for an insider business and portraying the tripling of power prices as “for the Earth” when these people are poisoning the planet with depleted uranium, pesticide facsimile “food,” toxic waste in the water, etc…
If they really cared about the environment, they wouldn’t be spreading their military industrial waste across the planet as fast as they possibly can. If they really cared about carbon, they wouldn’t create fake reasons to go to war – probably the worst single cause of carbon emissions.
Again, just because the policy makers are criminals and liars doesn’t mean that the Earth isn’t warming because of CO2 (or, potentially, thousands of hundreds of other elements or pollutants).
I seriously can’t reach a conclusion without the data and supporting logic.
However, information has come out that there has been no significant global warming to a 95% confidence level.
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
I also know that the headline is misleading (it wasn’t a U-turn) and that people who cite this as proof global warming isn’t occurring are doing so falsely.
But I also don’t recall anyone of the global warming proponents back in the mid 90s saying, “watch out, we are looking at just under significant warming at a 95% confidence level if we spew out more man carbon dioxide than ever before over the next 15 years.”
I do recall, something about “hockey stick” alarmism, though. Oh, but that data “disappeared.”
Ash, do you know why, for example, something like Linux can’t “disappear?”
Because it is open and there are millions of copies of it. If ONE person loses it, millions of others have it.
So, basically, they were asking us to believing one person who REFUSED to release the data for open discovery and transparency?
Call that approach what you will, but it isn’t the path to TRUTH for the masses. But it does work very well for insiders who only have to find one insider’s price tag to get their agenda through.
Isn’t that always the preferred method of corrupt people – consolidate power as narrowly as possible and then dictate “reality” to the proles?
Anyway, I don’t trust the “establishment.” If they said the sky was blue and I could look up and see the blue sky, I’d probably take pictures and video with multiple cameras just to make sure.
These criminals have toxified the food (people ASSUME based on AUTHORITY they wouldn’t do that). They’ve toxified the water (again, people ASSUME the AUTHORITY wouldn’t do that, but they do).
The flu shot appears to be every bit of a hoax as ingesting hydrofluorosilicic Acid toxic waste, as well as the 100s of toxins that can accompany it… including radioactive isotopes.
Even though the EPA scientists (“the authority”) has come out and opposed water fluoridation until the data and logic can actually support the policy, they are ignored by the criminals who profit from toxifying our water (toxic waste is profit center now, not cost center), the long term illnesses this policy generates and the generally reduced IQ of the population that has been linked to this practice (easier to deceive (with Appeal to Authority? 😉 and rip off people who are less intelligent).
Once deceived, shame on them. Twice deceived, shame on me.
ashvin post=2649 wrote: Triv,
I appreciate your latest response because it gets to the heart of our disagreement:
My point here is that YOU are making a grave mistake by LISTENING TO AND RELYING ON ANY AUTHORITY. YOU need to understand the data being communicated by that person and you need to apply the necessary TO REACH YOUR OWN CONCLUSION.
By your definition of ATA fallacy, anyone who ever cites an authority for support is committing a “logical lie” and should automatically be considered suspect. You are (admittedly) using “logical fallacy” to mean “a subjectively ‘unreasonable’ statement used in an argument” instead of the technical definition, which is closer to “an objectively incoherent statement”.
Using the latter definition, one can identify logical fallacies in an argument and discredit the entire style of argumentation without ever discussing the substance of the argument. That is because the method of argumentation is absurd by definition, and therefore should not be taken seriously. Using your much more lax definition of logical fallacy, I do not believe we can dismiss the method of argumentation at all.
Instead, we must look to the substance of the argument to see if it has any merit. For example, if I wrote that “a central bank must exist in modern financial economies to manage unemployment and inflation” and cited a paper by BB as support, then you cannot simply dismiss my argument because of the mere fact that I cited an “authority” in the field. You would have to attack the personal characteristics of BB (maybe he is clearly a lying crook) and/or the substance of his reasoning to attack the argument (as you know, that wouldn’t be very hard to do).
Hi Ash,
The extended definition of ATA has an assumption embedded into it. An “authority” is essentially defined as someone who can’t be wrong (for any reason, self interest, lying crook or simply a, shall we say, “useful idiot” in a position of authority who has been fed bad data, for example – you know GIGO).
My argument is that one can’t exclude the “authority” being wrong (for any reason) unless one knows the data and the logic that underlies the claim or argument made by said “authority.” In fact, how can one even know who is an “authority” or not without actually delving into the data and logic used by the “authority?”
You can’t believe the “news” – they have no obligation to tell the truth and they openly lie to benefit the financial interests of those that pay the bills… Youtube “Unsettling Accounts” (and cross reference the claims to make sure they aren’t faked!).
This is from Appeal to Authority as cited in 42 Fallacies…
“When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.”
It is a “logical lie” (fallacy is a form of lie, it isn’t truth) to claim one KNOWS something based upon the authority of another.
No, all you know is what someone else said. It might be true, it might not be true. Only the “evidence” can resolve that issue.
An example of this just occurred on the SS thread. It was claimed that the Fed has a dual mandate based on the “authority” of Ben Bernanke, the media, the politicians, the talking heads, etc…
Uh, no. That’s a fallacy. That fallacy occurred because… wait for it…
“When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.”
… in spite of the “authority” being an actual 100% subject matter authority (Ben knows his mandate inside and out and he lies through his teeth to make sure MOST PEOPLE don’t ever find out what it is – since the Fed broke it for ~25 years and it is a root cause of the coming collapse).
Obviously, having an actual authority make a proclamation isn’t sufficient to prove a claim is factually correct.
To claim it is, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, just doesn’t make any sense.
So, my definition of ATA is consistent with the actual definition of ATA excluding the trivially disprovable portions of the definition (yeah, people lie… hello?!?!? Real world calling the naive – I understand Nicole is quoted as saying “the system IS corruption”).
IOW, an actual “authority” is not always reliable. In fact, the best way to deceive masses of people is to promote actual authorities that lack honesty and integrity – we see it all around us today.
In fact, I believe it is a pillar of Big Finance Capital social control and manipulation of the masses today.
Just to be clear for those not paying attention to the minutiae, when Ash uses the term “discredit,” he means the argument, NOT the conclusion(s). The conclusions may well be 100% true. Or not. What it does is discredit the idea that the argument logically establishes the truthfulness of the conclusion, AKA, reality.
When someone claims that Ben Bernanke’s pronouncements of a dual mandate make it so, they are committing a fallacy with 100% certainty.
It isn’t true, therefore, the logic used to arrive at that wrong answer isn’t true, either.
I’ve read the law. I posted it on the SS thread and elsewhere.
The Fed’s mandate is singular. Ben’s lying.
If one has to rely solely on the “authority” of someone’s claim, how can one know whether the claim is real or not – especially in matters of world wide import?
How can I be sure, with 100% certainty, that this can’t occur…
“When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.”
…when I rely on “authority” alone?
The reality is I can’t, hence my claim data and logic is required in order for people to truly KNOW a conclusion is accurate, completely false or somewhere inbetween.
Having the ability to falsify something is a pillar of science. ATA means the lowly proles will have no way to actually falsify something or challenge the dictates from “on higg.”
What value would it have to debate which one of the Fed’s dual mandates (based on Bernanke’s authoritative claim) is more important when the Fed doesn’t even have a dual mandate?
You could have such a lively debate… but what would it prove?
Absolutely nothing.
ATA doesn’t mean the data presented is wrong, it just means that you CAN’T KNOW whether it is right or wrong and you can’t exclude being misled by an “authority” figure and you have NO CHANCE to try and confirm it or falsify it. Therefore, you can’t KNOW whether something is true or false, although, you may well believe it if you choose to. People do every day.
As for your Bernanke example, all I would know is that ATA was used to establish the need for Central Banks and that is logical fallacy – so that argument can’t be used to establish the need for Central Banks.
I can’t disprove the statement, I can’t accept the statement, I just wasted some time and learned nothing more than someone is either trying to deceive me or they simply have no clue how to make a proper argument that actually has value in establishing the ultimate claim.
Attacking Bernanke himself is simply ad Hominem and that proves nothing, either. BTW, my attacks on Bernanke are backed by data and logic which I gladly share even though people are entirely uninterested in the truth of this evilness. They aren’t ad Hominem attacks. They are factual attacks.
As for attacking the **substance** of Bernnake’s argument – I couldn’t do that unless I actually had access to the underlying data he used (to vet it out and make sure it is accurate and not skewed one way or another) and the logic he applied.
That’s why I can prove he’s lying when he says he has a “dual mandate.”
I have the actual law. I can read it and understand it. I know the mandate, I know the results of following the mandate are different entities.
Denninger went and took the Federal Reserve data that proves the Fed has broken their very own mandate for 25 years running!
I followed Denninger’s Fed links to verify the data itself so I could be confident the chart was correct!
BTW, his current Debt to GDP charts are wrong because his GDP data is off (~19 trillion). I know that, too, because I sourced the actual data.
If I just trusted Denninger and made the argument the chart was right based on his “authority,” I’d would have fallen for a logical fallacy.
ATA makes perfect sense… and there is no logical fallacy that describes believing an actual authority that is lying to you.
So, either the definition isn’t logical or I just identified a brand new class of logical fallacy. I don’t think I did the latter. Believing a lying legitimate authority is ATA, from my perspective.
BTW, I get that the truth of this approach isn’t applicable all day, every day the truth is, but the every day application isn’t – we’d be overwhelmed). But is key to understand that, if you didn’t do the research yourself, you don’t actually KNOW it.
Not knowing something with certainty doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
You might get 95% of things right without doing the “due diligence” to KNOW and be able to confirm, falsify or get somewhere inbetween.
Maybe even 99%.
But when you get that 1% wrong (even 0.1%) and it is your monetary system or your food supply or your water supply or your diet or your medical system or your energy policy or your economic system…
Look out.
ashvin post=2596 wrote: Triv,
Your original post certainly took a tone that seemed to imply the entire SS site is a sham, filled with fallacious arguments that were not worthy of your 3rd grade math teacher’s class. Frank and I do not believe that is true at all, and also that you have failed to make a remotely good case for why it is. If you have another one to make, I’d like to hear it, but, if not, I’d rather not continue to go around endlessly in circles on this same issue of ATA logical fallacy.
Hi Ash,
Yes, I am skeptical, but I thought that was the point of science, no?
(yeah, skeptical… in the name… good thing…), that is because I KNOW the financial oligarchs are using climate change to push their agenda that isn’t friendly to humanity.How do I know this? Their round table think tank said it was so!
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution, consultants to the UNOf course, they aren’t demonizing themselves, Ash – humanity is bad. Not the ruling oligarchs.
And, yes, Big Finance Capital (Big Oil is a subdivision) funds climate change hysteria…
The WWF’s Vast Pool of Oil Money
https://climatechange.mensnewsdaily.com/2012/04/11/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil-money/
…so they can create artificial shortages to jack up profits and to use Big Government, another subdivision, to outlaw their competition and charge monopoly pricing.
Obama’s EPA Grants Carbon-Waiver to GE
https://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/obama-s-epa-grants-carbon-waiver-to-ge-t6780.html
They deny energy to third world populations and starve them to death, “to save the planet.”
Watch the video and then tell us where it is right, where it is wrong and why? Do you really support people in huts with children sucking in smoke? It is OK, it is “for the planet!”
All the while Big Finance Capital tootles around in their yachts that burn more fuel in a day than the average does in a year.
Yet, somehow, Big Finance Capital (BFC) funded initiatives are allowed to set policy to enrich BFC at the expense of everyone else.
All the while they are dumping their toxic waste into the water systems after filtering it through our children.
All the while they are toxifying our food supply with GMO and creating an environment where bees and bugs won’t thrive any more – and that could be a LOT worse for humanity than climate change. I could see this leading to famine… and global warming will be blamed and Big Oil will get $8 a gallon in a depression. “For the Earth,” of course.
Nothing could go wrong when the bugs have 5-10% to eat of what they used to have to eat, right Ash?
But few people think about that… it is global warming pushed as the narrative all day and night.
They lie to go to war and use tons and tons of depleted uranium – and then lecture us on climate change and shut down their “carbon” competition while giving themselves waivers and monopoly profits.
Depleted uranium is wicked stuff – it vaporizes, gets inhaled and then the countdown to an early death or children with birth defects begins.
They suck billions out of tax payers and lay them off while they send their plants to pollute elsewhere (billions for oligarchs, net pollution the same).
Al Gore cries about carbon in America and invests in China where it is Wild West levels of pollution and his slaves controllers have to put up nets around the facility that enriches Gore. Uh, yeah – he really cares, Ash.
Oh, lookee here…
Apple Board Member Al Gore Faces Conflict of Interest Shareholder Proposal
Apple’s Climate Change Policy Benefits Gore’s Personal Investments and Not Shareholders, says National Center for Public Policy Research
https://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Apple_022312.html
Where is the “stop the wars because they are using to much carbon and oil” campaign, Ash?
Where is the “stop the wars because they are using to much carbon and oil” campaign, Ash?
Where is the “stop the wars because they are using to much carbon and oil” campaign, Ash?
Where is the “stop the wars because they are using to much carbon and oil” campaign, Ash?
Where is it?
have you ever asked yourself that question?
Why is a Rothschild out writing books on global warming and promoting it to kids?
Why do the Rothshchild’s own a carbon trading scheme to rip society off some more?
So, yeah, I think there are many, many environmental issues, but I don’t let the MSM (financial oligarchs) direct my line of thought because they *always* have an agenda – and it isn’t in your best interest.
They are out murdering people in the name of global warming to “save the planet” that they, themselves, are doing more to destroy than anyone else.
Honduran Farmers Slaughtered In Name Of Global Warming
https://www.infowars.com/honduran-farmers-slaughtered-in-name-of-global-warming/
Yes, the oligarchs found the enemy of humanity and it is you, Ash. It surely isn’t them, they are special. Too Big To Fail and all. You, you are the enemy and Too Small To Save. But they are experts at making people feel good while ripping their faces off.
I DON’T KNOW what impact carbon emissions (or any of thousands or tens of thousands of pollutants potential variables) are on the Earth’s overall temperature.
If someone wants to re-engineer society based on a claim, they have to provide the data and logic to support it, not claim it based on “authority” when we are up to our necks in false “authority.”
Who, exactly, do you think funds the United Nations? Do you really think they work in the interests of humanity?
Watch “The Empire In Africa” on Netflix to see how they roll.
The WWF’s Vast Pool of Oil Money
https://climatechange.mensnewsdaily.com/2012/04/11/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil-money/
Even though Big Oil is behind climate change, they are often cited as the boogy men who oppose it…
https://www.infowars.com/big-green-oil-money-wwf-founded-with-money-from-royal-dutch-shell/
They manipulate people based upon ignorance. Of course, nobody wants to admit ignorance. Those that aren’t ignorant GLADLY cite “chapter and verse” as to why they believe what they do.
Those that don’t are suspect. They have to be. Otherwise, one is wide open to accept a fallacy as truth – and millions of people have given up their lives early for doing just that.
ashvin post=2596 wrote: Triv,
I had a feeling we’d just end up running around in circles in this discussion.
Here is the short and sweet version of my argument to you:
The SS article you referenced does not contain the logical fallacies you have claimed that it does. All of the major conclusions that were stated in the article, and that you took issue within your original post, came with citations on the Intermediate tab. You have acknowledged these citations exist, but have not explained why you think they are inadequate or amount to non-credible expert sources, thus making the original argumentation in the SS article ATA fallacy. The burden of proof is on you to go through these sources and figure out what they are lacking in credibility, substance, methodology, whatever.
Ash, yet you still don’t (can’t?) cite an example where I was wrong – as in, you said there was no citation here, here it is and here is where it is and this is the data and logic that you say doesn’t exist.
I asked before… but we have to trust you that your claim is correct… and I’m guilty of ATA only if people fall for your ATA, is that it?
But I’ll bite, just to prove you completely wrong or, perhaps, I might learn something… let’s see.
I posted the following claim in the Intermediate tab analsyis….
“Paragraph3: Climate sensitivity is apparently defined as the amount of temperature change that occurs for given change in net energy at the top of the atmosphere (radiative forcing). “The most common way of describing climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature if atmospheric CO2 is doubled.” NO support for this method provided.”
Please explain where the article allows me to verify that this “most common way” is actually the best way. In other words, where does the article support that this is the most valid way to describe climate sensitivity.
The links provided in P3 ASSUME “the most common way,” so please don’t misrepresent them as explaining why this “most common way” is the best way. I’m not interested in common, Ash, are you? I want to know what is best. It addresses “what this means” not how we get to the initial point of using “the most common way.” What other ways were considered? Why were they rejected?
Getting into specific details is the way to ferret out legitimate issues, Ash. NOT making general claims that nobody can possibly falsify without actually getting into specific details.
FrankRichards post=2562 wrote: Triv,
“Aha”. I sincerely did not understand your methodology. My complaint was, and is, that you were ignoring all other means of deciding on the reliability of an article except the, to me, relatively sterile one of medieval scholastic logic. In particular, my reference to the Quadrivium, was implicitly to Arithmetic as a proxy for all math. A more direct phrasing would have been “And WTF isn’t there a flippin’ word about what they say, rather than how they say it?”
How can I comment on the validity of an article that doesn’t establish its data and logic? If they can’t transfer the information to me, my comment is worthless, as is anyone else’s. One MUST have data and logic in order to have a valid opinion. I fone has the data and logic it is simple to present it – or at least links to it.
That’s the point.
In addition, I said I would evaluate other articles, not just one “aimed at casting unwarranted doubt on the entire website by cherry picking one article.” I picked the #1 article and planned to go from there. I couldn’t “cherry pick” (is that an admission the article was actually very weak – why thank you! 😉 an article because I only read the first article.
FrankRichards post=2562 wrote:
By the way, I do find your extensive disquisition on Bernanke and the Dual Mandate to be a strawman. Any regular reader of TAE has read enough references to the Dual Mandate by politicians, economists and econobloggers to know that there are at least hundeds of “authorities” who claim to have seen it.And it is still a 100% completely false claim. I show you their mandate so you can SEE IT… Bernanke does not, the media does not, the politicians do not….
It’s right here…
Section 2A. Monetary Policy Objectives
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.
[12 USC 225a. As added by act of November 16, 1977 (91 Stat. 1387) and amended by acts of October 27, 1978 (92 Stat. 1897); Aug. 23, 1988 (102 Stat. 1375); and Dec. 27, 2000 (114 Stat. 3028).]
https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section2a.htm
It is included in this PDF, along with PROOF POSITIVE that the Federal Reserve criminal broke its mandate.
https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3324744/wmdebt-graph-3-79k?tr=77
It is a PDF hosting site – I know people haven’t been conditioned to accept them by the social engineers, but it isn’t dangerous.
ATA is EXACTLY how so many people could be DECEIVED about the Fed’s true mandate, which they have CRIMINALLY BROKEN FOR DECADES!
Let me be clear… This is the SINGULAR mandate of the Federal Reserve per their own website…
“The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production,”
The expected results of following the SINGULAR mandate, BUT NOT THE MANDATE ITSELF, is here, from their own website…
“so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”
Do A in order to get B result. A is mandate, B is result from following mandate, BUT NOT THE MANDATE ITSELF. A is the mandate.
In good old Orwellian deceptive fashion, the Federal Reserve liars have DECEIVED EVERY GROUP YOU’VE CITED into believing a fallacy.
This was EXACTLY my point! It is proved beyond all doubt BECAUSE I DIDN’T TRUST AN AUTHORITY, I WENT TO THE DATA AND APPLIED LOGIC TO IT.
You ASSUME it is impossible to deceive so many people, but you haven’t analyzed the data and logic, so I analyzed it for you.
Yes, they are all deceived. Every one of those “dual mandate” people are spreading fallacy BASED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN.
“When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.”
~42 FallaciesThis isn’t an intellectual exercise. I KNOW Bernanke is a fraud and I KNOW all those institutions are REPEATING THE LIES of the Federal Reserve. ALL OF THEM DUPED BY LOGICAL FALLACY, with some surely knowing to keep it quiet – someone has to keep accidental truth off the airwaves, lest the proles stop falling for this deceptive fallacy!
FrankRichards post=2562 wrote:
Therefore, for him to give a reference in the middle of a speach or press conference (not a formal paper) would be bad oratory in that it would make him appear foolishly pedantic rather than someone attempting to convey information or impart understanding. Then again, the folks who did all that burbling about that totally meta stuff were pedants, so, hey.It is a lie, a distortion, a deception, a fallacy – as proved beyond all doubt, above. Using their own law. Section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act.
Why lie about their true, singular mandate? BECAUSE THEY CRIMINALLY BROKE IT FOR MORE THAN 2 DECADES! If they didn’t lie about it, and if people weren’t such ignorant suckers for believing the lie, THE WORLD’S POPULATION WOULD KNOW THAT THE FED CRIMINALLY CREATED THE WORLD’S LARGEST BUBBLE THAT IS LEADING TO THE WORLD’S LARGEST COLLAPSE.
Instead, the Fed pretends something else did this as the proles suck their ATA logical fallacy thumbs.
FrankRichards post=2562 wrote:
And emperical backup: a google for ‘”Dual Mandate” “Federal Reserve”‘ got me a reference to Section 2a of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended. My section of the interweb is being cranky this morning, but I know, again from emperical experience, that it would take me one google to find where the Federal Reserve Act is buried in the US Code, one to find the government website with the US code, and then a search for section 2a. Simple enough to not require breaking up the flow of a speach.Yet Appeal to Authority is enough to keep 99.9%+ people from actually doing the leg work, so they just repeat the FALLACY. The FALLACY FROM AN AUTHORITY.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”
~Adolf HitlerYes, the social engineers studied the methods used to control populations throughout history… have you?
“When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.”
~42 FallaciesGoogle “Bernanke dual mandate”
“I think…the dual mandate [there is no dual mandate – he’s lying!!!] has worked fine..we have as good an inflation record as any other central bank. I don’t think it’s been a major problem. So I think it’s served us well. That being said, Congress created the Fed, Congress gave us our mandate. If you determine that you want to change it, we will of course do whatever you assign us to do.”
~Ben BernankeThe mandate is singular.
“The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production,”
They didn’t follow their mandate, so now unemployment is high and going higher and inflation has been monstrous for some time (oh, yeah, The Fed lies about inflation, too… and its “stable” prices mandate, too – they are criminals!) and the economy is blowing up and Nicole and Ilargi have to run around the world telling everyone to prepare or they may end up dead.
If one can allow themselves to FULLY GRASP the logical inferences in this post, and most people simply can’t as evidenced by the historical non responses to it, one will recognize the POWER of ATA to deceive the masses.
The Trivium is ENGINEERED to protect one from such DECEPTIONS.
Ben Bernanke doesn’t fool me like he had you snookered. I know he’s a criminal, I don’t need an “authority” to tell me. I know many authorities are corrupt to the core, too – so relying on corrupt authorities is a fool’s errand.
Data and logic. Data and logic. Without that, you literally know nothing.
Yet, the average American has very strong opinions with almost no data and no logic, hence, the skids are greased for the social engineers to manipulate and control society in ways that will end killing hundreds of millions of them in due time.
Even so, most people will continue to look at the same crowd who criminally did this to them as “authorities.”
It is so sad to see this play out in real time.
einhverfr post=2560 wrote: Some odd thoughts that come up reading through the accusations of logical fallacies.
The first is that the correct boundaries of the ATA fallacy are remarkably hard to define in part because every one of us has to go on other people’s authority on all manner of things. The idea that we can be an expert in everything is no longer really possible. Therefore in any work we end up having to aggregate other people’s conclusions. This thus strikes me as a problem. We can’t go verify every result of everyone ourselves. We can’t even memorize all the core research. And so we end up having to incorporate it by reference. In some cases this is harder because an authority is an authority over something by definition. If the Pope says something about Catholicism, it is by definition correct, so ATA in that area is a tautology, not a fallacy. Same with the Supreme Court and the state of federal law in the US. But even there you have to be careful.
But with science this problem runs into all sorts of issues, and it isn’t clear where lines can be drawn.
I wonder if this is a problem of social complexity and whether it essentially means that scientific progress is fundamentally unstable itself.
ein, excellent insight. Regarding the Pope, he may be the “truth” when it comes to Catholicism, but he isn’t the “truth” when it comes to Christianity. Someone who conflates the two is committing a logical fallacy.
While we can’t all be experts at everything, we can admit that we don’t *know* something until we have become an expert in the data and logic used to reach conclusions.
IMHO, that’s the point.
Most people think they KNOW that ingesting fluoride is good for one’s teeth. The EPA scientist union thought they KNEW that, too – until they actually did the research.
https://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm
I’ve tried to reverse engineer the what Thomas Jefferson called “tyranny over the mind of man” and the financial oligarchs LOVE to use “authorities” to spread fallacies, to control and manipulate populations to the benefit of the financial oligarchs and their corporate fronts. The fluoride issue is just one example.
Lying about Federal Reserve’s mandate so they can break it and destroy the economy is another.
https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3324744/wmdebt-graph-3-79k?tr=77
The flu shot is another.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller27.html
Remember one thing – the “news” media has ZERO legal obligation to tell you the truth…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
Remember another… the think “news” viewers are “sheep” – it’s all one big inside joke on the American people…
https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/fox-news-zings-cnn-msnbc-holiday-card-just-164515834.html
Golden Oxen post=2636 wrote: @pipefit Putting Ash in the same league as James Turk or Jim Sinclair on the subject of finance, especially inflation deflation analysis is a mistake. They are the deans of the subject matter, qualified, have been correct for decades, specialized in the topic their entire lives, have assumed much wealth from practicing what they preach. Ash may qualify in the brain department but lacks the focus and track record due a lot to his age. You forgot to mention Jim Grant, who is smarter than all of them put together.
Hi Golden, thanks for the “thanks.” Did you open up that PDF, directly linked in a later post? If not, open it up – it is the silver stake in the heart of the Vampire Squid, yet almost nobody will even acknowledge that it exists once it is posted. It is bizarre – I guess they can’t emotionally handle the system is so wacked that it will present a murderous demon like Bernanke as legitimate.
Yes, just like Dahmer wielded knives to wreak his havoc, Bernanke wields monetary policy to eventually, in due time, starve millions to death… and the system grovels to him. It really isn’t “The Bernank,” though. He’s a stooge for the people who really control the actions of the Fed, including hiring front men like Bernanke. The OWNERS of the mega banks whose CEOs sit on the Board of Directors ultimately control the policies of the Fed.
Now, I’m not anti-gold or silver. They have a HUGE benefit over other forms of wealth – no counter-party risk (and the counter-party is literally a ravenous, blood thirsty, thieving Vampire Squid Demon). Well, that’s not entirely true, the “counter-party” could be a foreign military used by the Financial Oligarchs to strip us of our gold and silver or through us into “re-education camps” that the U.S. government they’ve captured is now busy setting up…
Yes, The Re-Education Camp Manual Does Apply Domestically to U.S. Citizens
https://www.infowars.com/yes-the-re-education-camp-manual-does-apply-domestically-to-u-s-citizens/
This is why I vigorously out these criminals – and unless people wake up to reality and kick these criminals out, there will be nothing but enslavement for our progeny.
Based on my research, though, every indication is that these financial oligarchs will orchestrate a wicked deflation, ahead of the eventual hyperinflation, in order to create an environment where they can trade their trillions in cash and debt ownership into ACTUAL POSSESSION OF REAL ASSETS
That deflation means that bank credit will be eliminated – ZEROED OUT. That can’t happen to gold or silver unless it is at the point of a gun. The banks and retirement accounts can easily be stolen.
TAE’s argument is that it will be tough to get gold and silver at current prices when credit is no longer offered to most people and 95% of our currency is simply credit based.
I listen to hours and hours of people who think we go right into hyperinflation. While I disagree with that analysis, they have so much other valuable insight that has helped me to learn a lot.
While there are many complexities, I think a major one boils down to WHO is actually in charge.
Most straight to hyperinflation folks think that the government is in charge, Obama actually rules the roost from on high, and the government will act to protect its own interests.
Given this, the government will act in its own interest and print money.
I could not disagree more. In my view, the “money power” is perched atop all governments and they rule from behind the scenes. They fill Obama’s telemprompter and he simply reads it. Obama has no real power to stop the wars, as Kennedy found out. And then his brother found out.
The borrower (government) is SERVANT to the lender (money power). No sovereign government would allow Debt Dollar Tyrants to wage economic warfare against their citizens through the Federal Reserve System. No sovereign nation would allow, indeed aid and abet, the criminal bubble blowing of the Federal Reserve…
Weapons of Mass Debt
https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3324744/wmdebt-graph-3-79k?tr=77Debt Dollar Tyranny
https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3325954/debt-dollar-tyranny-2-54k?tr=77These systems are FRAUDULENT!
“Government” has provided cover for this FRAUD since 1913. The most aggressive opponents of this banking / warfare model have had consistently bad outcomes…
Lindbergh’s grandson was kidnapped and murdered.
Louis T. McFadden was poisoned.
Two Kennedy’s were killed fighting the war mongering.
The Operation Northwoods false flag murderer Lemnitzer was PROMOTED TO HEAD NATO!
Larry McDonald’s plane was shot down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puNCkwjuxJ0
Note the tactic of the CFR guy to avoid addressing the answers given and to keep highlighting “conspiracy.” One side is giving data and evidence, the other side is saying things like “he’s my friend” and “is that part of the conspiracy?”
BTW, the ONLY evidence that plane was shot down by Russians is our government – and they are caught lying all the time. I don’t know what exactly happened, but I know it worked out well for the financial oligarchs to get rid of this guy who was out publicly exposing them.
There is a LOT more data that supports this view.
Now, once once takes the position that the international financiers are running the show, once would have to logically conclude that they do so in their self interest.
TBTF&J banksters? That fits the mold perfectly. The government actually protects these criminals from prosecution.
Now, if the financial oligarchs own trillions in debt receipts (and main street owes that debt), one has to ask a simple question…
“Is it in the best interest of the financial oligarchs to bust the debtors and take physical possession of their goods before hyperinflating to balance their books (the banks are already bankrupt – asset prices could go to zero and they are still safe at TBTF&J, but their competition is not) or bailing out those who are in debt and eating the losses themselves?”
IMHO, the answer is pretty obvious. That doesn’t mean they won’t “quantitatively ease” their own losses by using public debt/money to prop up markets while the true insiders get out at much higher prices, though, which is what I believe we are witnessing. You don’t expect Fed liars to tell the truth about their operations do you?
Even if this view is true, it doesn’t mean one is safe since the government is essentially an arm of the financial oligarch empire.
NOBODY IS SAFE.
Not even the oligarchs themselves, as infighting can lead to blood shed.
So having some gold makes sense. Spending every last dollar ahead of a likely deflationary depression, especially when they don’t have control over the resources they need to live, is probably not very wise.
I just can’t imagine these people risked going to jail for life to steal “fiat” in order to turn around and make the “fiat” worthless WHILE STILL IN THEIR HANDS.
All the “straight to hyperinflation” people need to address why the “money power” is accepting very low interest rates on their capital is they KNOW they are going to hyperinflate in the near future. Remember, the money power controls the quantity of money, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
They need to explain why JP Morgan is giving 4% 30 year loans out to anyone qualified ahead of this imminent hyperinflation that the OWNERS of JP Morgan will help to orchestrate.
These two Achilles heels of the straight to hyperinflation crowd don’t address this other than to dismissively say “they are stupid.” They usually point to Bernanke as being an “academic” who “doesn’t get it,” all the while assuming Bernanke actually has the ability to make his own decisions and screw over his employers (which he never does, his policies are the policies that benefit his controllers b/c they control his policies!).
I’ve studied these people – and they are anything but stupid.
Nicole’s insight that there will be a “deflationary spiked pit” ahead of the eventual hyperinflation makes perfect sense from the POV of the criminal banking cartel that controls trillions in cash and trillions more in debt.
I mean, would YOU hyperinflate while holding trillions upon trillions in debt and cash or would you bust the debtors and roll up all their assets under your corporate fronts first? Once you own much of the world through your corporate fronts, the value of money doesn’t matter much – you already won the real life game of Monopoly – and that’s the whole reason you set up Debt Dollar Tyranny in the first place. To asset strip society.
I hope you don’t take this as an attack on gold – it isn’t. I’m hard core data and I just want to get it right. In fact, I fully plan to buy some gold after the economy breaks.
I have no intent to offend one side or the other.
I just don’t get guys like FOFOA who claim homeless people will be able to buy homes for almost nothing… as though the other end of that deal has no power when they hold all the cards… and an extra 8 aces to boot.
PS – another hyperinflation argument is that the stock market is going up because of inflation expectations… but they never mention the stock market is small potatoes compared to the bond market – which is pointing towards deflationary collapse.
PSS – If YOU were evil and wanted to orchestrate a deflation, you would want everyone positioned for hyperinflation in advance of the deflation, wouldn’t you? Ouch! These people in control aren’t dumb and anyone who thinks they are is basing their analysis on a fallacy.
pipefit post=2624 wrote: RE said, “The system will collapse due to its own complexity and energy dependence.”
I pretty much agree with that. The difficult thing is to predict the trajectory. Think about it. Here we are, five years into the collapse, and as far as I can tell, the online community is split almost 50-50 between hyper inflation and deflation trajectories.
What does that tell you about the ‘worth’ of the information on the web. Take a guy like Ash. He is obviously very bright. But so is Jim Sinclair, James Turk, and 100 OTHER inflationists. Half of these very smart guys are dead wrong, and yet, they are all looking at the exact same information. The information can’t be very good. Or at least MOST of it is no good.
pipefit post=2624 wrote: RE said, “The system will collapse due to its own complexity and energy dependence.”
I pretty much agree with that. The difficult thing is to predict the trajectory. Think about it. Here we are, five years into the collapse, and as far as I can tell, the online community is split almost 50-50 between hyper inflation and deflation trajectories.
What does that tell you about the ‘worth’ of the information on the web. Take a guy like Ash. He is obviously very bright. But so is Jim Sinclair, James Turk, and 100 OTHER inflationists. Half of these very smart guys are dead wrong, and yet, they are all looking at the exact same information. The information can’t be very good. Or at least MOST of it is no good.
This is where the Appeal To Authority definition that Ash is clinging to by the lapels absolutely falls apart and exposes its entire absurdity.
Ash’s definition is correct… From 42 Fallacies…
“This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.”
The problem is that this has absolutely zero useful value when trying to determine what is *reality*, which is the whole reason for understanding logical fallacies (those things that appear to be logical truth but are, in fact, logical fallacies… or lies).
Further on in the definition, 42 Fallacies finally let’s rubber meet road.
“When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.”
This, BTW, can be done without regard to the legitimacy of the “authority,” which means that exemption for “real” authorities makes no logical sense since they can’t establish their authority over an issue without actually providing adequate EVIDENCE supporting the truth of an issue. This makes that alleged exemption for “true authority” meaningless.
History has born out that “authorities” are wrong all the time. They might not know, they might be corrupt, they may have an alternate agenda, they may have been established as an authority to lie and manipulate the people for the criminal financial oligarchs that currently are bankrupting with the world through fraud.
As I said to Ash, the absolute best way to deceive people is to have an authority to do it – especially when the goal is to deceive the nation or a world.
In addition, how is someone supposed to know who an authority is, unless they can see “ADEQUATE EVIDENCE” that doesn’t consist of “I said so, I’m an expert.”
It isn’t so much Ash’s fault – because the definition is what it is and he’s relying on the ATA of the accepted definition. Yes, that’s an ATA, too.
I, on the other hand, logically think it through and conclude that definition is not logically consistent, because the two sentences I quotes are not consistent.
It appears to me that the Sophists likely used their “money power” to wiggle into the definition of ATA because they know that is such an effective way to manipulate and control the masses, they don’t want to unduly alert the masses to their con game.
You know, the same way they deceived the entire economics profession to ignore private debt. Or deceive the entire world, including the economics profession, as to the true mandate of the Federal Reserve.
Or to deceive the world into accepting filtering commercial grade, industrial toxic waste through their children without any legitimate studies proving it was effective as advertised (yeah, that lab coat worked wonders for the social engineers – read Edward Bernays’ Propaganda, the social engineers have!).
Or how they deceive the world to take flu shots and pump themselves up with heavy metals without even doing real science to show it is effective.
The social engineers also love tricking people into thinking correlation is causation… and they are the authorities.
My point here is that YOU are making a grave mistake by LISTENING TO AND RELYING ON ANY AUTHORITY. YOU need to understand the data being communicated by that person and you need to apply the necessary TO REACH YOUR OWN CONCLUSION.
This isn’t Ash (or Ilargi or Nicole or Steve Keen) vs Faber, Rickards, Grant, etc…
This is data and logic vs data and logic and each one will have a slightly different take.
BTW, those who pay attention to the data and logic will know that Nicole and Ilargi believe that the end game is also hyperinflation (not sure about Ash, but I seem to think this is his view as well), so anyone who portrays this issue as “inflation vs deflation” and pits TAE with other commentators doesn’t fully understand the issue or is a very poor communicator.
The point is – unless you can explain WHY you believe something is right and WHY you believe something is wrong, you are ripe pickings for the fallacy monster.
That includes data and logic.
without such, there is no way to critically examine the veracity of said claims so one can reach their own conclusions based on their own set of beliefs and value system.
Ultimately, anyone making a claim without backing it up with data and logic is hiding something – mainly, the data, the logic and the ability of another another person to critically evaluate their claim.
Reverse Engineer post=2618 wrote: [quote=TheTrivium4TW post=2614][quote=Reverse Engineer post=2599][quote=TheTrivium4TW post=2592]It just dawned on me today that the Great Depression was, in actuality, an engineered holocaust of the American people engineered by the financiers to asset strip society and transfer real wealth to their interests.
7 million Americans were murdered as a a direct consequence of Debt Dollar Tyranny.
Its as though Hitler’s only crime was in being too direct and not marketing his criminal activity.
The Great Depression was entirely a debt dollar phenomenon.
Labor was cheap, resources were cheap, yet 7 million died because there wasn’t enough debt dollars.
This just dawned on you TODAY?
You must have missed reading “Calculus of Starvation” over on the Diner.
https://www.doomsteaddiner.org/blog/2012/04/06/calculus-of-starvation/
RE
Hi RE,Interesting article. I have to agree – we don’t know how many people died as a direct result of the Great Depression – so the 7 million I presented has a HUGE potential variance.
However, your article didn’t go anywhere near the premeditated genocide perpetrated by international financiers wielding weapons of mass debt as though they were “gas chambers.”
We all kind of knew it… but actually zeroing in that REALITY and focusing in on it… WOW! **
That article is the Tip of the Iceberg Triv. Over on Reverse Engineering, I worked up a pretty good theory and justification for the idea that the Native Population of the FSoA was purposefully eradicated by the Illuminati via Disease Vectors PRIOR to the “discovery” of the New World by Columbus in 1492, during the period from around 1000 AD to 1450 AD after the Vikings originally “discovered” the “Skralings” inhabiting the N&S American continents.Various estimates put the Native Population at around 30-50M up to around 1400 or so, but by the time the Brits were colonizing in the 1600s, the total population fo Natives was down to perhaps 3-5M, roughly a 90% knockdown of the population PRIOR to colonization. When migrating colonists hit the Missouri Valley in the late 1600s, it was already like a “Ghost Town”. There was clear evidence of Farms and a population that simply disappeared before they ever got there.
All this occurred LONG before Debt-Dollar Tyranny Triv. This is just the latest manifestation of a very long running game here.
I’ll see if I can dig up the stuff on Reverse Engineering for republication in the Diner.
RE
Hi RE, I look forward to hearing other people’s analysis on this – thanks for doing the legwork. Hopefully, others will find value in the paradigm shift. So many people desperately want to think these are all “mistakes” by ignorant “academics.” If only…It is a Straw Man to imply or claim I lay all society’s throughout history on Debt Dollar Tyranny (I’ve noticed this theme of yours more than once) simply because I don’t.
However, it is their strongest method of control and manipulation as of right now.
I’m in the fight right now, hence, I’m focusing on right now.
If we can take “the money power” from these people, return it to the people to whom it belongs (the process to do this has to be determined), throw these criminals in jail, wipe out their fraudulent debts, asset strip their wealth (including their multi-national corporate fronts), return each nation’s oil to its rightful owners (that’s the people of the nation) and teach people how to live properly and sustainably (none of which is a “money power” incentive), we’d be waaaaaaay ahead of the game.
Perfect, no way. The ultimate root cause to everything is that people inherently can’t seem to care about others equal to themselves.
In short, we are selfish (and selfishly justify being so) and that eventually leads to bad outcomes.
pipefit post=2625 wrote: Hi Tri, you said-“www.keepandshare.com/doc/3324744/wmdebt-graph-3-79k?tr=77
Nobody who understands that chart could ever take Ben Bernanke or anyone else at the Fed seriously. “
Maybe all your convincing talk about the evil ones has made me paranoid, because I’m a bit reluctant to click on a link to a link to a link, lol. Maybe you’re one of ‘them’, and found out I voted for Ron Paul, lol? If this chart is critically important to your analysis, why not just post it directly, or at most post a link directly to it? If you’re one of ‘them’, could I have 2-bedroom suite with a terrace at Gitmo?
pipefit, it is called a PDF file hosting site.
The “establishment” obviously hasn’t conditioned you to “trust” them yet. I’m not sure what you think will be different than me posting the file directly here… perhaps you could explain so I can learn something.
I have attached the file to this post.
Reverse Engineer post=2615 wrote:
I don’t think Obama-sama is “adored” any more than any other Puppet, from Sarkozy to Merkel to Olli Rehn. Said puppets are used for so long as they are useful, then pitched into the wastebasket when necessary, usually with a good Golden Parachute so new Puppets are lured into the game here. Comletely FLUSHING a Puppet and setting him up for a takedown like say Elliot Spitzer doesn’t happen too often. You really have to mess with the plans to get flushed that way.The O-man probably will get re-elected because he still is useful and a particularly pliable puppet. Regardless of the Puppet installed here as POTUS though, the results will come out the same. The system will STILL crash regardless.
I agree – Obama is just a tool for these criminals to use up.
But he does keep the Democrats off the streets and it sure is easier to wage wars, fund al Qaeda to start a genocide in Libya and Syria, etc… with this criminal in power.
MLK was all about content of character… the American people are all about “party” and skin color.
Aldous was a wicked insider minion, but he hit the nail on the head here…
“That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.”
― Aldous Huxley, Collected Essayspipefit post=2604 wrote: If ‘they’ have an Achilles heel, you won’t read about it on the internet. That is the catch 22. Kind of like those big rock festivals of the late ’60s. If you remember it, you weren’t there, lol.
My reverse engineering of the system is different than yours.
The financial oligarchs don’t spend untold billions educating us to think a certain way and influencing us with propaganda because the truth will never be read. They do that in order to make sure most folks won’t care if they see the truth or will, in fact, revolt at the truth.
I guarantee you that rock solid, 100% absolute beyond all doubt, evidence that the Federal Reserve is a lying, criminal organization is NOT information they want out there, which is why they censor it from all MSM media.
But it is out there… in this post even.
https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3324744/wmdebt-graph-3-79k?tr=77
Nobody who understands that chart could ever take Ben Bernanke or anyone else at the Fed seriously. They are criminals – breaking their own law to create the epic bubble of all bubbles that will, with mathematical certainty, lead us into the epic Greatest Depression of all time.
Yet that link has probably elicited one or two people that responded as though they have clue one as to what that chart represents.
Why? The billions spent on programming and conditioning were well worth the “cost” (as defined by them issuing debt to society so they can spend the money to manipulate us).
From my view, there is no future unless we can uproot these murderous, thieving, psychopathic criminals – and that means we have to resist them anyway we can.
In a way, it is fortunate that nobody really takes me seriously – it they did, then that is when the “whack team” gets busy.
Breitbart dying the day of his big announcement (heart attack at 43 and the “news” knew what it was within hours, selling that narrative to condition people. Two weeks later, video came out that had nothing to do with what he said he was going to show to “vet Obama”. Now his coroner is dead – poisoned).
Gary Webb exposed the CIA as running the drugs into South Central and complained he was being followed and men in dark suits were seen climbing his home… shot twice in the head… suicide of course.
The DC Madam “committed suicide” after claiming she wouldn’t commit suicide and complained to her rental manager she was being followed.
Five members of Jessica Lynch rescue team, all knowing her narrative of heroic deeds to rally the suckers in America were false, were killed off one by one in a short period of time. So many were dying so fast that Lynch went public and said it was all a hoax, probably fearing for her own life.
I could go on – Barry Jennings dying right before the 911 Commission report was released.
The Bloomberg reporter who sued the Fed died within a year of his initiating that lawsuit – in his early 50s.
The oil analyst that kept screaming about the Gulf of Mexico disaster died during the aftermath of the disaster (and shut up about it, too!).
Lincoln was killed – and he cut the banksters out of the monetary loop.
Garfield publicly outed the banksters as controlling the economy and a couple weeks later he was killed.
Jackson fought the banksters tooth and nail and he’d be dead except for two misfired guns.
Anti Fed Charles Lindbergh Sr.’s grandson was kidnapped and killed, for no apparent reason.
Louis T. McFadden outed the Fed as a criminal cartel and he was poisoned to death.
Kennedy obstructed Operation Northwoods, he was killed and Operation Northwoods went live within 9 months – and LL Lemnitzer, the guy who presented Operation Northwoods to Kennedy and was demoted for it, was promoted to head NATO once Kennedy was out of the way.
In the end we all die, though.
That’s a certainty.
What is up in the air is what we stood for while alive.
The vast majority of people will have “jelly fish” written on their gravestones for eternity.
Real tyrant fighters aren’t killed because of tyrants, they are killed because of all the jelly fish that do nothing so the tyrant fighters stick out like a sore thumb.
When our progeny are spitting on our graves, I want it to be a mistake when they spit on mine, not well deserved retribution.
But hey, morality, integrity, decency, goodness, concern for others… all outdated, right? Crazy folk dwell there.
Reverse Engineer post=2599 wrote: [quote=TheTrivium4TW post=2592]It just dawned on me today that the Great Depression was, in actuality, an engineered holocaust of the American people engineered by the financiers to asset strip society and transfer real wealth to their interests.
7 million Americans were murdered as a a direct consequence of Debt Dollar Tyranny.
Its as though Hitler’s only crime was in being too direct and not marketing his criminal activity.
The Great Depression was entirely a debt dollar phenomenon.
Labor was cheap, resources were cheap, yet 7 million died because there wasn’t enough debt dollars.
This just dawned on you TODAY?
You must have missed reading “Calculus of Starvation” over on the Diner.
https://www.doomsteaddiner.org/blog/2012/04/06/calculus-of-starvation/
RE
Hi RE,Interesting article. I have to agree – we don’t know how many people died as a direct result of the Great Depression – so the 7 million I presented has a HUGE potential variance.
However, your article didn’t go anywhere near the premeditated genocide perpetrated by international financiers wielding weapons of mass debt as though they were “gas chambers.”
We all kind of knew it… but actually zeroing in that REALITY and focusing in on it… WOW! **
It’s like Jewish folks still voting for Hitler’s 2nd in command after he gassed them by the millions – and they have no idea who they are dealing with…. except for a few…
Reality is so much stranger than fiction.
** BTW, this is essentially the model they use to keep Africa and other places in abject poverty, too. The only difference is those places weren’t allowed to develop first (they never won their Revolutionary War to get some breathing room).
ben post=2586 wrote: anybody expecting Occupy to maintain a monolithic pacifism will have those expectations dashed, despite what the MSM has done to emasculate men by constructing a false and pernicious feminism for women. those men that can’t be emasculated are funneled into living vicariously through professional sports and engaging in other supposedly masculine pursuits. i suspect that non-pacifist public resistance to DOT is partially a reflection of this social programming. Occupy is in the process of deprogramming itself.
I’ll take issue here – watching sports isn’t masculine, sticking up for civil liberties, caring and protecting your family and your children’s future, supporting your community, caring about your neighbour, sticking up for those not able to stick up for each other and being there to lend a helping hand as needed – THAT’S MANLY!
Obsessively watching sports is for adolescents who can’t grow up into anything that remotely resembles “manly.”
Two major objectives of APs are to scare off legitimate people who would otherwise publicly support the movement and to justify banging protester heads. I do have to say, though, that it is quite the wake up call for “liberals” who think they can just go down and express their opinion to the feudal lords and their minions.
Dorothy, we ain’t in Kansas any more.
Reverse Engineer post=2585 wrote: [quote=steve from virginia post=2581]
The citizens did not win outright: the plutocrats were saved by Roosevelt and John Maynard Keynes. But enough of a victory was gained to give notice to the masters of the universe that the lowest orders have the power to destroy them.The citizens did not “win” Jack Shit as a result of the Great Depression, and I hardly think the Rothschilds, Rockefellers or Duponts were handed notice that the lowers orders were any threat whatsoever to them at that time.
RE
https://www.doomsteaddiner.org
Frankly, RE, I’m just stunned at the power of marketing, the ability of humans to rationalize and thr credulity of people to believe the “official” narrative..It just dawned on me today that the Great Depression was, in actuality, an engineered holocaust of the American people engineered by the financiers to asset strip society and transfer real wealth to their interests.
7 million Americans were murdered as a a direct consequence of Debt Dollar Tyranny.
Its as though Hitler’s only crime was in being too direct and not marketing his criminal activity.
The Great Depression was entirely a debt dollar phenomenon.
Labor was cheap, resources were cheap, yet 7 million died because there wasn’t enough debt dollars.
No wonder I’m entirely focused on exposing these people who are worse than Hitler, but adulated by a completely deceived public – I sense a disturbance in the force..
These people are passive aggressive and covert up to a point, but when they unleash their Weapons of Mass Debt, more people will die than in a nuke blast on a medium sized city.
“On the other hand, it is still uplifting to see the European protesters in action, fighting for their rights until the bitter end, whatever end that may be.”
Hi Ashvin,
It isn’t that simple. It isn’t “good people fighting for their rights” vs “bad government taking good people’s rights.”
The average person is in a dishonest Matrix delusion and can’t be bothered to exit. In fact, the vast majority of people will fight to in their dishonest illusion.
Take Americans for example. They are saturating future generations with debt. Do “good” people care to take action and actively resist this evil? Absolutely. Can the average American get off their fat *ss in front of the TV screen to do anything? Not a chance.
The evidence is clear – we have two groups of greedy people. One group has large numbers and lower expectations, they want what they think is “theirs” and couldn’t care less about the consequences to others.
The other side is small in number with a level of greed so large it would sink the Titanic so fast it would knock the Earth out of orbit. They are well educated and very adept at using their knowledge to manipulate the greedy masses.
I know of two people that want to have a real debate – what can we afford and how how can we divvy that up so that society is the most healthy.
Myself and Karl Denninger. Nobody wants their goodies limited.
Even though Denninger “gets” debt based money, he doesn’t seem to understand that it is actually a financial weapon engineered to damage society and enrich the crooks who set it up, as well as their progeny and inner party. Therefore, he doesn’t focus on the need to end it as much as he should. He supported Bill Still who gets it, but somehow that doesn’t translate into urgency for Denninger.
Maybe one day.
Nicole is right – we need to look at our greedy selves in the mirror and make that change.
Just like a windowless van predator may use candy to appeal to a kid’s greed for sweet candy to get them in the van, the financial predators only get away with their evil so long as we consent to their program.
Why do we consent?
GREED. Qualitatively it is the same, but the financial oligarchs definitely have a quantitative advantage on greed – so I’m not saying society is as greedy as the financial oligarchs.
But society is greedy enough to get in their windowless van – and that’s all they wanted.
@Board,
It is true that our ballot box vote doesn’t count. The only vote that really counts is when spend money.
Here are some tips to make a dent in The Borg:
1. Use cash. Main Street doesn’t have enough bank credit and federal reserve notes to pay back its debt. Giving the financial oligarch front corporation (Visa / MC / mega banks) 3% of everything of you spend on a credit card only makes the matter worse. ~10% of transactions are cash now. 90% of what we spend spins off 3% to the financial system that is literally waging war against us and the world.
2. End your relationship with the mega banks. I think they have 55% of the total deposits. 100 – 55% = the IQ of America. Right now it is at 45. We are dumber than a door knob. Door knobs are smart enough not to bank with mega banks. We can wise up. But until we do, we will look up to door knobs with intellectual envy.
3. Buy local and buy small. If everyone did this, mega corporations would go away and small, local development and businesses would flourish.
4. Grow your own food as much as possible. Start small. I know I will.
5. Boycott Monsanto’s hell demon GMO food. Actively support the Label GMO effort in CA. If CA forces labels, the nation might get labels.
https://responsibletechnology.org/resources/state-of-the-science
Their facsimile “food” changes the cell structure and color of mammal male “organs,” if you know what I mean. Open the PDF – you get pictures. There is more than one way for them to deal with their #1 concern for THEIR planet… over population.
6. Cut your cable TV, cut your expensive phone bills. Overall, identify the enemy (big, multination demon spawn corporations with cute commercials) and avoid them like the plague. If you have to shop there, punch yourself in the nose first – just to make sure you *really* need to shop there. That was figurative, but you get the idea.6, Support efforts to end debt based money. Youtube “The Secret of Oz,” “Debunking Money” and “Renaissance 2.0.”
7. Educate people. There are like minded, informed people out there, but you have to wade through a few Matrix Zombies first. Try and develop a local community of like minded people. Database skill sets Work within this group to keep you efforts local. Get a master gardener will accept some labor in return for teaching time.
8. Share ideas and experiences with others so we all can learn.
Welcome to the “Reality Community.” Yes, it is a bizarre existence where reality is much, much stranger than fiction – and almost nobody seems to care as they are led down the path to slaughter.
The root cause of excessive debt is nothing less than the DEFINITION of money.
Bank credit and federal reserve notes, euphemistically known as “money,” are DEFINED as debt.
That’s what it is. if society wants more money to trade goods and services, it must, BY DEFINITION, go into debt.
The mechanics have been flow charted here:
https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3325954/debt-dollar-tyranny-2-54k?tr=77
The charts is both simplified and necessarily complicated and based on the typical lack of response, most folks don’t actually comprehend what it it imparts.
The magnitude is of the information is staggering.
The monetary system has been weaponized and engineered to bankrupt society to the benefit of the very few.
This isn’t conspiracy theory, it is mathematical fact.
While the naive go on about a broken system, the system is working EXACTLY as it was designed to do.
The Federal Reserve is a factual criminal Trojan Horse organization… there is no debate – they’ve broken their mandate for 25 years and that led to the world’s largest credit bubble in human history.
The bubbles are the root causes of the depressions – the magnitude of the depression being about inversely proportional to the size of the proceeding bubble.
https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3324744/wmdebt-graph-3-79k?tr=77
Again, 100% fact – and the lack of penalty associated with Section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act indicates malice aforethought.
Karl Denninger has claimed to have read the entirety of FinReg and says their is not one “or else” penalty contained therein.
If true, and you must verify for yourself, that means it isn’t a law, but a clever marketed means of deception.
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
— William Casey, Director of Central Intelligence. An observation by the late Director at his first staff meeting in 1981.The best “solution,” which still involved pain, is to end debt based money (end it for good – no solution can come until this is done), prosecute the criminals that did this to society as traitors, claw back their wealth, set up controls on the quantity of money and properly education the populace so they understand what is truly important instead of the slave making facades they focus on now.
ashvin post=2524 wrote: Wow, Triv, talk about using logical fallacies in an argument. What do you call it when someone tries to respond to another person’s argument by completely substituting that argument for another one and then attacking it? Oh yeah, STRAW MAN. Your last post is chalk full of them.
First of all, I never said that ATA fallacy cannot be present when an expert is involved.
Not empirically, but you strongly implied it by 1. taking issue with my approach in the first place and 2. when you typed this from a previous post…
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
“The appeal to authority fallacy results from someone claiming X to be true because some claimed “expert” said it was true, even though there is no reason to think that the person is actually an expert in the field and/or is within the scientific consensus. The fallacy does not happen anytime someones states a scientific/empirical conclusion without going into detail about how that conclusion was derived.”You then cited this from a link I posted…
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
“Not every appeal to authority commits this fallacy, but every appeal to an authority with respect to matters outside his special province commits the fallacy.There is no mention by you that appealing to an actual authority on a matter can be an ATA. the implication is that you are arguing against that point.
You original argument, your statement and your citation all strongly imply that actual experts can be trusted and that when they make proclamations they aren’t ATA. After all, that was your criticism, no?
My response was against that criticism. Now you claim that wasn’t your criticism.
OK – but don’t go acting like you were crystal clear in your argument. there was no attempt at a Straw Man on my part – I read what you posted and that really sounded like what you were arguing.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
Just because someone is an authority in area A doesn’t mean you can trust them implicitly if getting at the truth is the goal.Which was exactly the approach I took for that article – and you criticized that approach.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
In fact, with regards to scientific discussions, I said the expert must be within the specific field at issue, within a scientific consensus and his/her work (i.e. the derivation of his conclusions) must be referenced. Obviously, even that does not establish that the cited conclusion is CORRECT – it means no fallacy has been committed in the argumentation.His work must be referenced. How does that square with this…
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
The fallacy does not happen anytime someones states a scientific/empirical conclusion without going into detail about how that conclusion was derived.Do they have to present their work or not?
I think you might be a bit confused about the objective. The objective was to analyse the article in question. It made a certain claim that it could debunk an argument and then it argued its position. The context of the analysis was the article ALL BY ITSELF. Nothing was ever said to infer otherwise. In fact, I went out of my way to be clear that the use of ATA DOESN’T MEAN THE CLAIM IS FALSE! It just means the logic used was false and the article didn’t do much more than proclaim “trust us, we’re experts.”
Uh, no – if you claim to be able to prove something in an article, “just trust us, we’re experts” isn’t gonna cut it for me. It doesn’t mean their conclusions are wrong, it just means their article stinks.
My issue with the article was that the article didn’t cite the derivation of their conclusions. I was very specific in the criticism. Anyone is free to say, “no, they cited the actual data here – you must’ve missed it.”
Nobody did that. You now claim the actual data is required, yet you criticized my analyses for claiming logical fallacy when no data or methodology was reference.
In a previous post, you said,
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
Usually, extensive references must be used, and from what I see, the Intermediate tab provides plenty of those.I don’t know how much more clear I can be… I was very specific about what I called ATA. If there are actual references when I claim there are not – do point them out. It would be trivial to do so. In fact, I’d appreciate it – I like analyzing data.
But you didn’t do that. Is it laziness or was my analysis correct? If my analysis was correct and there were no links to extensive references, why post that they are there?
It would be trivial to just expose the error I made… if there was an actual error made. If not, well, then it wouldn’t be so easy.
Your confusing me here, Ash. Maybe you could rephrase your contention in as concise a manner as possible to help “un confuse” me.
Show me one place where I was wrong in claiming that there was no complete supporting data and I will learn something new.
If yo can’t – fess up about it. I did try to be pretty thorough, but I do make mistakes.
Creating hypothetical mistakes and critiquing based upon them is, well, tacky.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
That last part is what you are really failing to understand. Instead of arguing the substantive points made/referenced in the SS article, you are trying to discredit the entire site by claiming they use logical fallacies, or “lie through logic”.Uh, no. I see I wasn’t clear in the first post, though, so I can see where my lack of clarity could easily cause your confusion.
My purpose was to evaluate the article as a stand alone entity. The website as a whole is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to big so I have to go at it in bite sized chunks.
So the critique is about the article and NOTHING MORE.
The article did make specific claims. My analysis is that they failed rather spectacularly in meeting their claims.
Again, as I repeated over and over and over in the analysis, the use of logical fallacy (just trust me, I’m an expert, you don’t need to know why we did what we did) DOESN’T MEAN THE CONCLUSIONS ARE ACTUALLY IN ERROR.
Logical fallacy is synonymous with logical lie. They are the same thing. It is something that promotes itself as logic when it isn’t – that a lie.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
The point of my responses were to tell you why that isn’t true, and why the examples you provided are not logical fallacies. None of that means we should automatically accept the data presented and assume it is true.And I wholeheartedly disagree with your analysis until you show me where where I erred in claiming that back up data data wasn’t presented when it was presented (and I missed it).
You haven’t done that. Until you do, your claim is no more valid than the doctor claiming smoking isn’t unhealthy or Ben Bernanke claiming he has a dual mandate.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
Same thing with BB and the Fed. If I write some conclusion about Fed policy and use some paper written by BB or even his comments in a speech as a reference, I am NOT committing a logical fallacy. BB could be the devil incarnate and lying through his teeth about everything related to the Fed, but that doesn’t mean my argument is logically incoherent in any way, shape or form.When you argue the Fed has a dual mandate and claim Ben Bernanke’s words as the the authority, you ABSOLUTELY are using logical fallacy. One called Appeal to Authority.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
People must determine the legitimacy of Ben’s arguments/statements for themselves by consulting different sources and putting in the effort to understand macroeconomics, political corruption, etc.IMHO, you are being hypertechnical about the definition of Appeal to Authority.
The point of ATA is that the “authority” is promoted as all that is necessary to establish a fact. You know, this is correct because authority A says so.
“The Fed has a dual mandate because Ben Bernanke says so.”
That statement is an appeal to authority – the speaker is trying to say that it is logical to believe the statement is true based upon the authority presented AND NOT THE ACTUAL THE ACTUAL LAW, WHICH THEY KEEP WELL HIDDEN.
Guys like Edward Bernays took this logical fallacy and turned it into a science of manipulation – and their best manipulations occurred when they were able to get legitimate authorities, like Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, to execute this fallacy.
You are correct about the typical application of ATA – a real authority can be trusted. The problem is that you don’t know someone is a “true authority” unless they can produce the inputs to their conclusion and they are available for analysis.
Well, that’s the exact same thing asked of everyone else, so there really is no distinction that ought to be made.
If you assume authority, you’ve fallen prey to ATA. If you don’t assume authority, you have the “grammar” anyway – because you can’t know whether someone is an authority or not unless they can prove it.
It is really a circular way to try and establish an “authority” without ever providing the EVIDENCE that they are an authority.
Not gonna work here. If you don’t like the rational given above, give me another name that makes sense and I will use it instead of ATA.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
You are committing a huge logical fallacy yourself when you try to manufacture logical fallaciesSince Ben Bernanke appealing to his authority in an effort to deceive the public about the Fed’s mandate, in order to trash his true mandate, is a “manufactured” fallacy in your view, what is the correct name for this logical fallacy?
The problem with the ATA definition is that it ASSUMES a legitimate “authority” is always honest. that’s a demonstrably false assumption.
Bernanke is an expert in the Federal Reserve and its mandate. He’s also a lying piece of trash. You seem to think this means that no ATA has been committed based on definition with a bad assumption built into it. I see Ben Bernanke, a legitimate expert at his craft, appealing to his authority in order to keep people from actually going to the data.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
by associating experts in climate science with experts in finance and pointing out how the latter have been responsible for so many destructive effects in the worldYou missed the point entirely. The point was that trusting accepted “authorities” doesn’t always lead to correct results. It says nothing about climate science at all.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
Same thing with the lab coat doctor example. Your logic is that “the SS articles are committing logical fallacies by referencing climate experts for their conclusions, because tobacco companies in the past have fallaciously appealed to people in lab coats (perhaps doctors, perhaps not) to promote false claims about smoking”.No, my logic is that the SS article (not articles, I only reviewed one article that had two tabs) used logical fallacy when they appealed to an authority to make their point and withheld the actual data and methodology used to reach that conclusion.
Even though you admit…
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
I said the expert must be within the specific field at issue, within a scientific consensus and his/her work (i.e. the derivation of his conclusions) must be referenced.I claimed appeal to authority when the author didn’t produce the derivation of their conclusions and settled for, “just trust us, we are the authority.”
The doctor and lab coat example was to point out that the logic used to “just trust us, we are experts,” even when they are experts, can turn out catastrophic.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
There is really no logical connection between the two.I was actually comparing the logic you apparently promoted initially – “just trust them, they are experts” and applied it to three different cases – two of which were known disasters. The third might be golden or it might be rusty. We need data.
On the one hand you argue that no data is needed (as my critique only came when relevant data was omitted or incomplete), on the other hand, you argue that…
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
I said the expert must be within the specific field at issue, within a scientific consensus and his/her work (i.e. the derivation of his conclusions) must be referenced.If they “must” produce the derivation of their conclusions, why are you criticizing me when I point out they don’t do that in that article?
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
Also, the fact that many “experts” are heavily biased by academic pressures and monetary incentives cannot be used to discredit ALL experts as unreliable sources of information.I didn’t do that.
I only addressed one article.
BTW, what percent of economists do you believe have a credible view of how the economy actually works?
Just curious. I’m sure you will claim some association that I didn’t intend and burn it up, but the intent here is that one can’t ASSUME a group of highly educated are “on the right track.”
ONE NEEDS DATA AND METHODOLOGY.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
If you can look at the specific sources cited by SS and find information about why those sources should not be trusted for whatever reason (other than generally saying they are “conflicted”), then that’s a different story. So far you have not done that. You have simply tried to discredit the site by the mere fact that they have appealed to authoritative sources for support.Ash, i think you took the critique way to personal.
“The site” wasn’t part of the review. One, single, solitary article was.
I never said any of the information presented was inaccurate.
Not once. Not for one iota of information.
You are hear defending what wasn’t even at issue.
I repeatedly made it clear that the use of logical fallacy (defined as hey, trust me, you don’t get know stinkin’ data or methodology!) DOESN’T MEAN THE CLAIM IS FALSE.
Rather, it just means the logic is false, which it is.
Now, this SS review red herring has gone on long enough, wouldn’t you say?
I started a Logical Fallacy thread that is more appropriate for this discussion.
Do feel free to actually analyze what I wrote and point out were I missed the NECESSARY data and methodology behind a claim so that I can correct the ATA claim and update it to “provided sufficient evidence – claim certified!”
If you can’t, though, admitting it shouldn’t be hard.
Again, the ONLY issue I commented on was the logical fallacy embedded throughout the article.
You can claim that claims of “just trust us” aren’t logical fallacy all day long, but that’s ticky tack – I don’t know these people from Adam and people who review those articles likely don’t, either.
They can’t just proclaim themselves experts and demand worship of their views.
Should I trust them because you say so? How do I know you are an expert of judging climate science expertise?
I have no comment on the actual data presented (hint – which is why I didn’t comment on the actual data presented and made it clear that logical fallacy doesn’t mean the data is false… multiple times).
How could I – when they failed to present the data and methodology?
I can’t critique what I can’t access via the article.
And that was the take away from my analysis – the article was pretty empty and didn’t achieve its claimed objective, except for the “faith based community” that just wants to “believe” an “authority” that may or may not be a legitimate authority.
Having said that, embedding articles with “just trust us” isn’t a great way to win friends and influence others.
Hopefully, the quality of articles improve.
FrankRichards post=2522 wrote: Uh, Triv, my actual phrasing was “simultaneous application of”. You are completely inverting the meaning of what I said. Not only did I not say you should use only the Q, I specifically said you should use both at once rather than just the T as you seem to prefer.
I will rephrase: You appear to be deliberately limitiing yourself to the use of a single analytical tool, when even in your context there are others available, which could ALSO be used.
Third time around. Sometimes a quantitative analysis can resolve an issue much more directly than the qualitative one that you seem to strongly prefer. I am not a particularly visual person, but I still frequently find that Analytic Geometry (which had to wait for Rene Descartes, somewhat after your period), in the form of a graph is just as dispositive and more readily comprehended [by me, ymmv] than a chain of syllogisms.
Hi Frank – so you wanted a graph, eh? I agree – visuals representations can be much easier to see. I’m not sure how I would do that. I suppose I could graph the number of logically fallacy I identify per paragraph, but one wouldn’t have any way to validate are argue the legitimacy of the logical fallacy without actually reading the text.
If you have any ideas, I’m open to them. I could easily have a blind spot here.
ashvin post=2515 wrote: No, it’s not, and your own link shows that my definition is correct.
“Not every appeal to authority commits this fallacy, but every appeal to an authority with respect to matters outside his special province commits the fallacy. Example: ‘These pills must be safe and effective for reducing. They have been endorsed by Miss X, star of stage, screen, and television.'”
Hi Ash, the quoted sentence says that people outside their expertise are committing Appeal to Authority. It doesn’t say all experts within their field CAN’T commit Appeal to Authority.
So we are back to square one – the only way to evaluate the veracity of the claim is to understand the detail of how they arrived at that claim.
IOW, it doesn’t say an expert in a field can’t commit an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy – and the only way to know is to verify the underlying data and logic.
That would be equivalent to saying that an expert in a field can’t lie or be wrong or be swayed into not telling the whole truth through financial or other incentive.
Only chumps would believe that, right?
The problem with that view is that it assumes 100% honesty and zero conflict of interest AND perfect knowledge on the part of the true authority – each invalid assumptions.
The whole point of the Trivium is to help one determine reality, not assume it into existence when it really doesn’t exist.
Only a chump would believe there are no conflicts of interest or dishonest people on the planet. I see nothing but a cesspool of conflict of interest and dishonest people. How is that “hope and change” working out? This is especially true on any politicized issue or where there are big pools of cash to be extracted from others.
Example #1: A doctor (in a lab coat, of course) used to do commercials saying smoking was safe and actually helped sore throats. MMMM, good!
Was the claim a fallacy? Absolutely. Smoking is harmful. it damages throats. Did the doctor say this? Nope. Did the doctor explain the limitations of the research and that a claim of being safe couldn’t reasonably be made? Nope. The advertiser wouldn’t pay him to do that, even though it was true, and he wanted the cash.
Did the doctor appeal to his authority as a medical professional? Absolutely. That doctor’s lab coat on TV appeared for an important reason. Doctors can be trusted.
That doctor would have failed my 3rd grade teacher’s math class – AND FOR GOOD REASON. So would all the naive people who believed that doctor based upon his position of authority AND NOT THE EVIDENCE ITSELF.
The people who took your view smoked away and felt they were doing no harm to their health. Many of those people paid with their lives for making that error in judgement.
The people who took my view stepped back and asked, “while that is a nice lab coat, doctor, where can I find the actual safety data – I’d sure like to know what studies were done, how they were done and how those studies reached the conclusion you just claimed.”
This actually happened. This is REALITY.
An “expert” doctor in the medical field promoted something as healthy AND IT WASN’T. The ONLY way for the observer to be sure was to research the safety data themselves AND NOT RELY ON THE AUTHORITY ALONE! Even legitimate authority.
It is a simple concept. The person who added that addition to the definition is wrong. They ASSUME the expert has 100% actual data and is 100% honest. This is an invalid assumption that is trivial to prove false.
Millions of people who fell for this real world “Appeal to Authority” logical fallacy paid with their lives.
Did you know that Edward Bernays developed the Appeal to Authority using doctors and lab coats? He did so for its Appeal to Authority value – he knew people would be suckers for medical authority and set out to leverage this to enhance the profits of those who employed him. More info can be found by Youtubing “Century of Self.”
ashvin post=2515 wrote:
If I was referencing Ben Bernanke to establish a fact about current Fed monetary policy, it would not be an ATA fallacy. Similarly, SS referencing respected climate scientists and their studies as support for definitions of climate sensitivity to CO2 absorption is not a fallacy. You cannot expect every single piece of supporting data to be included within the main text of the article, yet that is what most of your initial criticisms amounted to.Example #2:
Ben Bernanke is a cesspool of Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.
Ben Bernanke says that the Federal Reserve Mandate has a dual mandate – to promote low unemployment and stable prices.
HE’S FACTUALLY WRONG AND LYING WHEN HE SAYS IT.
READ THE LAW FOR YOURSELF, ASH!
https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section2a.htm
He’s LYING. Since I don’t fall for Appeal to Authority, I KNOW THIS. I rely on the actual law, NOT THE WORDS OF AN “EXPERT.” Almost nobody else does, though, PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY FALL FOR THIS APPEAL TO AUTHORITY LOGICAL FALLACY.
Lest you be deceived here, the expected results of following the mandate ARE NOT THE MANDATE ITSELF. Yes, it is Orwellian to fraudulently pawn off the expected results of the mandate as the mandate itself, but Ben Bernanke has a very good reason to do it, as did Alan Greenspan. You’ll see why shortly.
Bernanke is a lying, deceptive piece of trash and HE GETS AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE HE CLAIMS TO BE THE AUTHORITY ON THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND THE NAIVE TAKE HIM AT FACE VALUE!
Even smart guys like you fall for it and claim he can be trusted on all things Federal Reserve!
No, he can’t be trusted.
He’s a lying piece of trash who criminally participated in the creation of the world’s largest credit bubble which will lead to the world’s biggest depression.
He’s playing his role forking the entire planet by CRIMINALLY BLOWING THE WORLD’S LARGEST BUBBLE IN HUMAN HISTORY!
https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3324744/wmdebt-graph-3-79k
BTW, in case you didn’t figure it out, Bernanke lies about his mandate BECAUSE THE FED HAS BROKEN ITS TRUE MANDATE FOR 25 YEARS RUNNING!
Taking monetary and credit aggregates PARABOLIC to the nation’s long term productive potential BREAKS Section 2A’s Federal Reserve mandate!
Oh, how nice it must be to have a “law” with no penalties. The “authorities” tell us that FinReg fixed everything, so we are safe now, right Ash? Feel warm and fuzzy yet – the experts have spoken, right?
Total BS, Ash. My understanding of FinReg is that there are no penalties for breaking it (they aren’t even laws without penalties). It’s all a hoax by the criminal insiders who continue looting everything not nailed down to this very day.
Don’t trust me – read it yourself and let me know if you find any penalties.
100s of millions are going to die, if not billions, because of his black letter law criminal activity he covers up by lying about the true nature of his mandate.
EVIL exists, Ash, and we can’t be chumps about it and expect good outcomes.
America is going to be sent into the greatest depression ever – as is the world.
But hey, Ash, IT WASN’T BERNANKE APPEALING TO HIS AUTHORITY SO HE COULD LIE ABOUT NOT FOLLOWING HIS TRUE MANDATE, right?
100% wrong.
That’s classical Appeal to Authority. Socrates would not be fooled like you were. It was an “expert” in the Federal Reserve and it was wholly within his expertise AND HE’S A LYING PIECE OF DECEPTIVE TRASH.
The Trivium will flush that out. That’s what it was DESIGNED TO DO!
That’s the entire point!
An adherent to the Trivium method would be able to identify his deception and have a better grasp on reality – the whole point of the Trivium is to help its adherents determine learn what is real and what is not.
But he lied, Ash. The expert lies through his teeth every time he speaks about his mandate. He uses Appeal to Authority to deceive people BECAUSE HE’S EVIL.
Arrrgh – that pOS upsets me almost as much as the apathy of my fellow citizens!
It’s right in plain sight, Ash.
How about Eric Holder – he says it is legal to send guns down to drug cartels so they can murder 1000s of people with them. Must be true – an expert has spoken!
Nobody gets in trouble – its a good program, Ash. The experts say so.
I guess those really were “paperwork” errors when the banks knowingly filed false paperwork with the court. Silly me, I thought that was perjury – filing known false documents with the court in order to deceive the court regarding standing and steal homes from people. But the “experts” say differently.
Believe the government experts, not my lying eyes, right Ash?
Oh, look, Corzine didn’t do anything illegal, including lying under oath, because the “experts” would prosecute him if he did anything illegal.
Oh, wait, I guess JP Morgan officials who bribed Jefferson County officials (the officials were sent to prison for accepting the bribes!) didn’t break any laws because they haven’t been pursued. The experts would surely pursue JP Morgan employees if they had done something wrong.
I guess it is possible to have someone guilty of accepting a bribe that without actually having been bribed. The “experts” believe it, so it must be true.
I guess Bernie Madoff actually ran a $50 billion Ponzi scheme all by himself. After all, the “experts” would be pursuing the other people in involved in the scheme (cough, JP Morgan, cough – look it up!).
I mean, really Ash?
Really?
Of course the crooks running the system want their financed and promoted experts to have the “word of truth” without ever providing a shred of actual evidence.
The current definition is simply empirically wrong – experts in their field CAN AND DO LIE AND MISLEAD and use appeal to their authority as a key tool to carry out their deceptions. Sure, the reason may vary, but it happens and it happens all the time.
Bernanke lies. Guys who fall for Appeal to Authority will never bother to look up the data – exactly as the crooks running the system want it.
Me – “Uh, excuse me, Mr. Bernanke. You say your mandate is low unemployment and stable prices. I’d like to see the law so I can read it myself.”
Ash – “Oh, stop bothering Bernanke, dude, he’s an expert – there’s no need to see the stinking law.”
Me – “But that’s a logical fallacy – just because he’s an authority and says it doesn’t make it true.”
Ash – “Naw, it must be true – he’s an expert. That’s not logical fallacy. You just don’t seem to like Bernanke.”
And that’s one smooth deception aided through the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Authority.
When someone says the Fed has a dual mandate because Ben Bernanke says so, what kind of fallacy is that if it is not Appeal to Authority? It is false and it is an appeal to Ben Bernanke’s authority… but somehow it isn’t an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy… Really?
FrankRichards post=2506 wrote: Thanks Ash, you saved me a bunch of reading. Trivium’s argument smelled that way to me, but I waited to check it out until after reading the whole thread.
An aside to Trivium. This is not the first time that IMO you’ve tried to use only the trivium to analyse subjects better illuminated by simultaneous application of the quadrivium, and maybe even some of that fancy Moorish al-Jabr.
Hi Frank, so you think the application of the Trivium is mutually exclusive to applying arithmetic, geometry, music theory and astronomy?
That’s an incorrect view, but it is meaningless enough that I don’t really have a clue what you are saying and can’t address your criticism.
If you would care to be more concise in explaining exactly how I can improve the approach, I’m all ears.
The best approach is:
“You said X, but I don’t think X is correct because of A,B and C.”
The meaningless approach is:
Instead I get stuff like “I think you have an agenda and should apply the Quadrivium instead of just the Trivium” (when they aren’t mutually exclusive – do you really think one can’t use numbers when applying the Trivium? Really?).
Yet I mostly get meaningless responses.
This quirk in human nature is very bizarre from my vantage point.
BTW, attacking the Trivium, in what appears to be a completely false way, is a Red Herring logical fallacy.
That is, unless you can cogently back up your originally claim that the Trivium is somehow lacking which, for those that understand the Trivium, should be entertaining when attempted.
ashvin post=2502 wrote: Triv,
I believe you are throwing out the “logical fallacy” claim rather carelessly at this point. From your POV, Skeptical Science is lying through logic to promote an unspoken agenda. From my POV, you went to SS expecting to find a site that promotes TPTB agenda without any real science, and you found exactly what you were expecting to find by incorrectly identifying logical fallacies all over the place.
1. If you think I misused my application of logic fallacy, point out and example and explain why it was used incorrectly. I was detailed for a reason. You have plenty of evidence to raise specific issues – so why not do it? I think I applied the principles exactly as intended.
2. Instead of actually pointing to data in order to make your first claim, you then question my motives. Again, my analysis was very detailed – you can question my grammar (maybe I misunderstood something or missed something) or my logic. This is what transparency is all about.
While my current opinion matches that of James Lovelock – that the system is so complex we don’t really know what is going on with any degree of certainty – I’m open to new information. I really am pursuing the truth – and my current best observation of the truth is that the system is complex and AGW adherents haven’t been able to simply prove what they claim and reality has not conformed to their hypothesis (got hockey stick?).
I’m also very clear in the analysis to claim that the use of logical fallacy doesn’t negate the truth or falsity of what is being alleged. It might be true, it might not be true, it is just that the logical fallacy ISN’T THE PROOF. You need more.
Instead you choose to impugn my objective instead of actually support your critique of what I wrote. At least at the beginning of your missive here.
BTW, the beauty of what I wrote is that my intent, however Machiavellian you will assume it is, doesn’t matter.
My analysis above is empirical.
ashvin post=2502 wrote:
The appeal to authority fallacy results from someone claiming X to be true because some claimed “expert” said it was true, even though there is no reason to think that the person is actually an expert in the field and/or is within the scientific consensus. The fallacy does not happen anytime someones states a scientific/empirical conclusion without going into detail about how that conclusion was derived.That’s 100% totally false.
A fallacy in which a rhetor seeks to persuade an audience not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for the famous.
https://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/appealauthterm.htm
In fact, Ash, the absolute best technique for applying purposefully deceptive Appeal to Authority logical fallacy IS TO HAVE AN EXPERT PRESENT IT.
Think Alan Greenspan, Ash. Then think Ben Bernanke, Ash.
Your definition is EMPIRICALLY WRONG IN THE MOST DANGEROUS WAY POSSIBLE.
No data for the proles… we are the experts, shut up and sit down, proles.No, I’m a free person with intellect and I want to be respected. They haven’t stolen my intellectual dignity just yet.
ashvin post=2502 wrote:
It might be practical for little kids to do that on their 3rd grade arithmetic exam, but it’s not at all practical for these types of complex scientific theories.You’ve completely fallen for Appeal to Authority – we have to trust our “masters” to tell us the truth (you know, guys like Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke – because if this principle applies here, it applies elsewhere).
No evidence for the proles.
That *is* what you are arguing here, Ash – and that’s the the Shangri-La environment for Sohpists. They control you.
As for me, Ash, I need data. If they can’t provide the supporting the data – how can anyone know it exists? How can they know it wasn’t corrupted by the political process or financial gain?
ashvin post=2502 wrote:
Usually, extensive references must be used, and from what I see, the Intermediate tab provides plenty of those.I was detailed in my analysis, Ash. So critique what I said if you think it is wrong.
It is actually quite telling that you refuse to address specific issues in a way that your criticism can be critiqued. BTW, you might be right – maybe I missed something. Maybe I misunderstood something.
But impugning my intentions and providing a 100% false definition of Appeal to Authority logical fallacy isn’t gonna educate me, Ash.
ashvin post=2502 wrote:
It’s easy to sit back and criticize the way people construct articles, and obviously they will not be perfect, but it’s not at all easy to actually write the articles, especially when it comes to something like AGW.Especially when you make claims alleging to prove people wrong and the basis of that claim is “hey, just trust us, we’re experts!”
No, you provide the data that supports your view. They chose not to do this in case after case after case.
It’s a fact. It is what it is. Don’t blame me – I didn’t write the article!
ashvin post=2502 wrote:
You are also failing to understand how SS is organized, and therefore claiming that the article you linked is a straw man argument. SS clearly breaks down their articles by specific AGW critiques that actually exist and have been cataloged in their database. They even provide a rough measure of how “popular” each critique is. The one you chose (past climate change suggests natural, non-human factors are the cause of current climate change) is apparently the most popular, representing 4.6% of all critiques in their database.OK, you made a specific claim. That wasn’t too hard, now was it?
The specific issue is that SS claimed that people argue that past climate without human factors, BY DEFINITION, means that humans CAN’T be impacting climate now. I don’t know who votes or how they vote, but that, on the surface is an IDIOTIC argument on its face. It is completely irrational and illogical.
Yet, somehow, the idiotic gets puts forth and ranked #1. Fine.
However, the real argument skeptics make is that climate is always changing, therefore, you can’t automatically pin climate change now on human activity as in, “see temperatures are rising, therefore, humans are doing it.” In other words, we need to see the data, we need to know how it was collected and we need to know all the assumptions and we need to know all the logic to be able to verify the results being presented THE AUTHORITY.
That’s where the trouble tends to begin, based on my experience.
No mention of that argument, much more popular argument in this article. So, where is the much more popular argument listed on SS?
If I had to bet, it isn’t listed on SS, because any reasonable person would lump the actually popular argument in with the article linked at the #1 spot because they are so closely related. I haven’t looked – so I don’t know. I could be wrong – and I know Ash will point it out if I am. 😉
ashvin post=2502 wrote:
“Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age.”There are plenty of other critiques addressed on the website. 153 of them to be exact. You seem to very critical of the fact that this particular article did not provide the data for why GHGs and CO2 contribute to warming, and simply assumed it was true (even though they did provide a reference). Perhaps you would find more of the specific you were looking for if you simply moved to a different critique, such as this one:
I’ll put that article next when I have some time do another review (s/b within a week or so). BTW, you missed the objective of this thread – I thought it was clear, maybe it wasn’t. I am reviewing articles one at a time, not the entire website or even AGW itself.
That article was, overall pathetic at achieving its goal – even if everything they said was true (and it might be – but they sure didn’t support the claim with that article).
First of all, this critique was about that article alone. Inferring beyond the article is not correct nor recommended. As I stated on multiple occasions, the articles use of epic logical fallacy doesn’t mean the claims are false – it just means that article, and that article alone, is basically useless at achieving its intended purpose.
Second of all, I went to the links and included them in the critique – I even quoted text from one of the links. Now, if I missed a link, do point out that link specifically so I can understand and address your concern. Otherwise, your comment is pretty useless other than to imply I didn’t do the research without any way for me to counter that point.
Let me tell you a little story, Ash. The Wall Street “experts” told everyone that they had “models” showing housing could rise forever.
The gullible believed these “authorities,” these “experts.”Now, we both KNOW those “models” were a joke because one can’t have exponentially growing housing prices when incomes are flat.
But they said it and the gullible believed it.
When guys like me said, “hey, I want to see the model, the data and the assumptions that went into it,” we were told we had ulterior motives.
Some things never change, do they, Ash?
BTW, this doesn’t mean imminent, catastrophic AGW is right or wrong. I don’t know – I’m still looking for the data, the assumptions and the models so I can critique them.
Like Wall Street’s permanently growing house price models, it is awful tough to get a hold of them.
sensato post=2486 wrote: Why don’t you take these issues up directly with the folks at Skeptical Science? Or RealClimate.org?
First, I’m not interested in signing up on another website to post comments. 😉
Second, I want a rather peaceful environment in which to analyze their arguments (I’ve only done their first argument so far!) and methodologies. Clearly, they have an agenda there and agendas tend to blur one’s vision of the reality, which is why a website purporting to be about “science” can throw out non stop logical fallacies without blinking an eye.
Third, I think there is more of a mix of pre-conceived views at TAE that will be more open in their responses yielding better debate and more knowledge transfer.
Fourth, I may well post over there at some point, but it will probably be after a review of what I’ve posted here in order to make it more concise and easily debatable, lest I get little more than endless logical fallacy bombs tossed my direction. After all, the posters over their seem to be completely captured by logical fallacy based on that first “article.”
Fifth, who knows – maybe that crowd comes over here for logical debate, as opposed to logical fallacy spewing sophistry, and TAE gets more exposure and the Skeptical Science crowd can better get prepared for the engineered economic collapse (why should the bankers get it ALL? – Nicole Foss) that awaits them.
This link…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Claims an ~3 degree change for every doubling in CO2.
so I set out to see if see if the Earth’s temperature is 3 degrees higher when CO2 was half as high.
This Climatologist chart came up after a quick search…
https://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
It indicates temperatures are actually down where they were 2,400 years ago.
Is this real?
Here’s another chart (I included NASA in the search to get “establishment” temperature data)…
https://riversedge.hubpages.com/hub/Earths-Temperature-Brief-History-of-Recent-Change
In this chart at least, there is no 3 degree change in the last 10,000 years as predicted by the hypothesis presented in the article.
When it is admitted that temperatures in the last 15 years have not significantly increased enough to be able to claim a trend (and we don’t even know how all this data was collected and if collection changes significantly impacted result) with any degree of certainty,
One ought to be skepticalhttps://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
This doesn’t disprove AGW as some claim, but it surely wasn’t the predicted outcome from the alarmists (remember the hockey stick?).
It is recent phenomena that should be considered.
“Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC”
I need to see the data set and all a detailed description of how that data was collected before I can validate whether the data is anything more than GIGO.
We need to see the actual data and how it was derived and all the scientific skeptics of any data set need to air their grievances WRT to the data.
‘Gaia’ scientist James Lovelock: I was ‘alarmist’ about climate change
https://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change“It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.”
1. What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Basic Tab
Paragraphs 1-2: Sceptical Science claims that climate change on Earth has a root cause. Absolutely.
P3: Somewhat deceptive – call it a partial Straw Man logical fallacy. While I’m sure some lazy, repeater types probably make the argument that prior natural temperature change makes it IMPOSSIBLE for humans to change the planet’s temperature now, most don’t make that absurd argument. Rather, the argument is that climate is always changing and one can’t assign a root cause to that change without strong empirical evidence.
Actually, that argument is mostly Straw Man logical fallacy and with only a small smidgen of truth to it.
“Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.”
This is setting up to be an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy in the context of this article – just trust US! We’ll see if they tie up this logical lie within this article.
Real skeptical scientists need the underlying data in order to reach conclusions, not some authority, who may well have a hidden agenda, dictating truth to the masses.
Mind you – even if this Appeal to Authority logical fallacy logical lie is left open in this article, it doesn’t mean the statement itself is false. It doesn’t mean it is real, either. It means we don’t know and the author used a logical lie in order to sway their audience to reach a false conclusion based on the data included in the article.
P4: They claim a level of measurement exactness that simply doesn’t exist. They can estimate temperature changes in the past within a certain degree of confidence, but the concept of estimate is left out, as is the confidence level and expected variation – but it sure does give the uninformed reader the impression this is some kind of exact science and these people are the authority of that science.
A claim is made that the past is understood and the following claim is made: “a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C.” No evidence is presented. This is a logic deception called Appeal to Authority. Note, the logic is used to lie, but the information may or may not be true – you don’t know, nor can you know, from reading this article.
P5: “What does that mean for today? Rising greenhouse gas levels are an external forcing, which has caused climate changes many times in Earth’s history. They’re causing an energy imbalance and the planet is building up heat. From Earth’s history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify the greenhouse warming. So past climate change doesn’t tell us that humans can’t influence climate; on the contrary, it tells us that climate is highly sensitive to the greenhouse warming we’re now causing.”
This is called Appeal to Authority “piled high.”
This article did little more than prove the author is well versed in sophistry and DID NOT have an agenda to actually educate the reader.
This author would also fail my third grade math class if they tried to pull this same crap on my third grade teacher.
“I don’t care what the answer is, what I want to know is HOW YOU DERIVED YOUR ANSWER.”
This author isn’t about to tell his/her readers in this article.
Again, the information itself may or may not be true, but the logic used to assert truth within this article was based upon logical lies.
This is why The Trivium is critical to evaluating information to determine whether someone is being up front or deceptive with you.
I noticed an Intermediate Tab – so let’s see if that clarifies the logical fallacies in the Basic Tab.
Intermediate Tab
P1: The same Straw Man logical fallacy is presented – the reality is that almost all the skeptics claim that a changing climate today doesn’t automatically mean humans did it. Rather, empirical evidence is required to establish that – and this would be a great place to present it. I’m not holding my breath. Are you? 😉 Why not be honest and address the actual argument instead of picking out a comically weak argument?
They then mentioned “peer reviewed science” in a sentence with no further information. This means nothing. I hope they provide additional information to clarify later in the article.
P2: More heat in than out means more heating – that’s seems pretty obvious. Internal variability deserves a mention and they mention it – sounds good to me. “Radiative forcing” is defined as “the change in net energy flow at the top of the atmosphere.”
P3: Climate sensitivity is apparently defined as the amount of temperature change that occurs for given change in net energy at the top of the atmosphere (radiative forcing). “The most common way of describing climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature if atmospheric CO2 is doubled.” NO support for this method provided. We have to trust their authority that this is the most relevent, most accurate method of describing climate sensitivity. Ah, yes, that’s a logical fallacy – Appeal to Authority. The author is using logic to lie.
Also note that the author DEFINED CO2 as being a critical part of this process without actually establishing it is a critical part of this process.
My third grade teacher would mark this author wrong – she wants to know THE DATA AND LOGIC behind making CO2 THE VARIABLE used to define climate sensitivity – which wasn’t presented here.
The rest of the paragraph has some links that basically make the case that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas and that more Greenhouse gas means more absorbed heat and that this is quantified as 3.7 Watts/m^2. The chart presented at this link…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
..shows CO2 doubling from about 10,000 years ago – is there an extra 3.7Watts/m^2 now than 10,000 years ago? Seems like a quick check to make sure the “machinery” is working right.
Wait a minute… they claim “The radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Watts per square metre (W/m2)” and linked to…
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
The problem is that there is no actual detailed discussion of how that 3.7 Watts/m^2 was derived.
There is this…
The simple formulae for RF of the LLGHG quoted in
Ramaswamy et al. (2001) are still valid. These formulae are
based on global RF calculations where clouds, stratospheric
adjustment and solar absorption are included, and give an RF of
+3.7 W m–2 for a doubling in the CO2 mixing ratio. (The formula
used for the CO2 RF calculation in this chapter is the IPCC
(1990) expression as revised in the TAR. Note that for CO2, RF
increases logarithmically with mixing ratio.) Collins et al. (2006)
performed a comparison of five detailed line-by-line models and
20 GCM radiation schemes. The spread of line-by-line model
results were consistent with the ±10% uncertainty estimate for
the LLGHG RFs adopted in Ramaswamy et al. (2001) and a
similar ±10% for the 90% confidence interval is adopted here.
However, it is also important to note that these relatively small
uncertainties are not always achievable when incorporating the
LLGHG forcings into GCMs. For example, both Collins et al.
(2006) and Forster and Taylor (2006) found that GCM radiation
schemes could have inaccuracies of around 20% in their total
LLGHG RF (see also Sections 2.3.2 and 10.2).Unfortunately, there are no links to the references for easy access, nor are there any quotes from said articles to show the methodology used to arrive at 3.7 Watts/m^2. That’s why the link was provided and it failed to perform its provided function.
P4: “So when we talk about climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, we’re talking about the change in global temperatures from a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2”
Uh, that’s not quite just as simple as “So…” More like, “Given these Appeal to Authority claims in this article and, assuming all else is equal (that increasing CO2 doesn’t cause mitigating effects – but they don’t mention that assumption), when we talk about climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, we’re talking about the change in global temperatures from a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2”
Again, this might be spot on, but this article is a cesspool of logical fallacy – faulty logic, lying logic.
“This forcing doesn’t necessarily have to come from CO2. It can come from any factor that causes an energy imbalance.”
The grand extrapolation is just thrown in for good measure. No supporting data, no supporting logic, no discussion of complexity, nothing. Just an Appeal to Authority statement.
As before, the statement may or may not be true, but this article is WORTHLESS in determining the truth of the matter up to this point in the article.
P5: “How much does it warm if CO2 is doubled? If we lived in a climate with no feedbacks, global temperatures would rise 1.2°C (Lorius 1990)”
Click on Lorius – “all other factors remain fixed.” Is this a valid assumption? This isn’t addressed at all. its just assume by the Authority.
They also mention water vapor as being a positive feedback look, as well as a negative feedback loop.
P6+: “Climate sensitivity can be calculated from empirical observations.” Uh, but including CO2 in the definition of climate sensitivity could be completely subjective. This article sure doesn’t present a logical case that it isn’t.
Another Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.
I don’t just trust logical liars. They have to do better to convince someone who applies the Trivium method.
The rest of the article is built upon prior logical fallacy – perhaps most apparent is the assumption that “all else is equal” except what they want to choose as being unequal.
BTW, all this analysis, assuming this author ignorantly relied on logical fallacy and didn’t do so to be purposely deceptive, makes for a good hypothesis.
Hypothesises need to be tested.
So we need open source temperature data, collection locations and methods of collection in order to see if this hypothesis makes sense.
I prefer actual data to logical fallacy.
You guys haven’t even mentioned the major reason why a steady state economy simply isn’t possible – the Ponzi nature of Debt Dollar Tyranny. It has to grow or main street is monetarily sucked dry by the predatory, parasite oligarchs.
It is like a vehicle with an accelerator button and a lock wheels button – that’s it.
“Why should the bankers get it all?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-geWu-E9ys
indeed!
ashvin post=2347 wrote: RE,
Note the word “literal” in front of Matrix. I suspect you knew that I was using it literally, because you know that I agree with everything you said about our coercive institutions (see The Debt-Dollar Discipline Parts I-III). Now we are getting into a quibble over words, but I think it’s clear that high levels of coercion/influence is distinct from actual “programming”, like computer software is programmed.
In my comment about the European 19th century socialist revolutions (which does not include the Bolshevik Revolution), I was referring mainly to the pan-European Revolutions of 1848. The fact is that I only have to provide one example of a major event within human society in the last few centuries that was not orchestrated by TPTB to undermine the “absolute control” myth. I believe there are more than one, but one will suffice.
The Bolshevik Revolution and the susbequent long-running Communist State of the Soviet Union was most certainly influenced by external, elite powers, to the point where I will even admit that it was planned all along to help the forces of evil. But can we say the same of the 1848 revolutions, or the Spanish Revolution in 1936? Or the numerous anti-capitalist revolutions in Latin America (most of the US/CIA orchestration was done to overthrow socialist regimes threatening to nationalize resources and replace them with puppet capitalists).
Was Jimmy Hoffa a CIA operative (as opposed to just another influential person who was assassinated by the CIA)??
Getting back to the Matrix, Triv,
The reason I brought it up was because you made an argument that our long-running system has “architects”, who have made sure that its specifically designed structures will cause people to think/behave in certain ways. Maybe you haven’t seen the movies, but that’s exactly the same word they use to described who designed the Matrix. Candace and I took issue with the use of the word “architect”, because it implies exactly the “black and white” way of thinking that you are now criticizing me of. I do not believe the system as a whole was designed by a conscious human force from the top-down, even though significant parts of it were (i.e. the FRA/Fed, Breton Woods Agreement, U.N., etc.).
So, you are correct, there is no total “black” of programming, but nobody is wrong because nobody is arguing that. You miss the point that there is a gray area of “programming,” “control” and “manipulation” that is occurring in societies across the world. It isn’t 100%, but it is quite effective. So effective, in fact, it baffles me how it could possibly work. I’m still trying to reverse engineer it.
Propaganda, massive amounts of logical fallacies, a media controlled to where it hides the biting truth that humanity really needs to know… its all out there.
I do not miss that point. I have been making that very same point in many different articles over the last 2 years. This whole discussion with you and RE has been to place emphasis on that point over either of the other extremes, i.e. there is very little control held by those at the top or there is absolute control held by those at the top.
By the way, you grossly misstate the positions of Alex Jones and David Icke. The ENTIRE reason they are out fighting and resisting these tyrants in the “infowar” is PRECISELY because they don’t think these tyrants have the kind of control you claim they say they have.
No, I am not misstating Icke’s position in terms of how human civilization has evolved throughout history. Just look it up. The only time he believes TPTB have lacked control is right now after the year 2012, due to spiritual energies that will swamp the Earth, emanating from the center of our galaxy and channeled through the Sun. He does claim to be a force for positive change against the NWO agenda, but, IMO, his actual ideas/message lead me to believe that he is the exact opposite of that. Here’s a video I posted up in DD about this issue – it’s well worth the listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbEgvx1qelw&feature=player_embedded
Hi Ash,
We are completely talking past each other and understanding isn’t about to come if it hasn’t already.
Perhaps the wall falls as the you see Henry Ford’s insight become even more true…
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creation of inextinguishable debt.” Henry Ford
The bad guys need to be outed. Those who wait for the bad guys to step forward up and share their blueprint for manipulating the masses (when they’ve already shared it, but people don’t want to listen, even when repetitively quoted) will fall into the “inattentive to duty” category.
“The brave man inattentive to his duty, is worth little more to his country than the coward who deserts in the hour of danger.”
~Andrew JacksonThe hour of danger is now.
It is true – TAE’s approach is to tell people to go get some supplies and hide in a corner as someone is breaking into their home.
Other people, who understand that the neighbor said he would break into the home and stab everyone to death, are telling people that hiding away isn’t enough.
I so hope you are right. I so think you are wrong.
