|
The 2nd edition of Chris Essex and Ross McKitrick’s Taken By Storm: the Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming, can be now ordered from Canada stores. (International distribution next spring.) The first edition sold out. |
 |
From the foreword by the distinguished Sir Mortimer Long-Bore;
I had initially supposed this to be a book of independent thinking and skeptical attitude. My fears were well-founded. The authors recklessly question the widely-accepted doctrines of global warming and the conclusions of the very eminent International Expert Panel on Climate Change [sic]. This is deeply disturbing to me. We cannot allow people to undermine the consensus position on global warming, after all the effort that went into imposing it.
The greenhouse effect is lifting the global temperature to dangerous levels. This is proven by elementary Newtonian physics as used in our most advanced computer climate models. The global temperature is warmer today than ever before in the planet’s history; modern computerized climate models can predict future warming with impressive numerical precision; the greenhouse “fingerprint” has been positively identified in global temperature data. We have complete certainty that our future is imperiled. We observe that sea levels are rising, storms are increasingly violent, droughts and floods ravage the land, animals are dying, and the Arctic ice cap is gone, I am told. One reels at the horror of it all.
The authors are wrong to question any of this. Morally wrong. Nor are the authors even qualified to make commentary on this sublime topic. One is an applied mathematician who apparently works on topics in radiation and fluid dynamics. The other is an economist who studies environmental policy. What claim has either to expertise on global warming or climate change? For tutelage on issues of such importance I counsel reliance on the authority of qualified experts. You may find, as I did, the book An Inconvenient Truth to be greatly informative in this respect.
Just in time for your Christmas lawn chair!
Update – Dr. McKitrick responds to “critics” (that’s a polite word for it) in the comments.
I was totally taken in by the foreword, until I read the fictious expert’s name and credentials. “Prof. Long-Bore” -perfect! “Stonetablet College” – how appropriate! What a wonderful piece of sarcasm.
I’m getting my hands on this asap.
Why are all the global science experts barking up the wrong tree?
Brown paper bags of cash under the table?
G-wan. = TG
I just love how they can now prove things using computer models now. I wish I had heard of how to do this, as I am a programmer.
The Kyoto thingie (a chord – to strangle Freedom) was cooked up by Uncle Mo tse Strong for his “Cells (Habitats) for humanity (state slaves)” project. After the Coalition of the willing netted Saddam the cash for oil dried up so the Kyota thing was to kick in with cash for hot air! If Canada had re-elected Paulie II, we would have a 50 cent dollar and the Republic of Alberta would be making up their own constitution.
I doubt that Ed would be the President though…maybe Stephen Harper would have that job. Alta would not be paying for hot air or for incompetent other Canadian provinces and territories and that would leave the rest of us paying for hot air while walking and freezing in the dark.
Unfortunately, the foreword (although provided as a sarcastic comment) is precisely what seems to count for the bulk of AGW proponents arguments.
Yes, there are a few AGW supporters who argue beyond some of these points, but even they definitely fall in line with the 3rd paragraph where the credibility of all who question AGW is highly suspect.
Really, most pro-AGW stories should be placed on a satirical site like TheOnion where at least we can just enjoy their entertainment value.
I’ll be looking for this book online, just in time for Christmas…
Would I be correct in assuming Bilderberg Heather Reisman will miss the joke and have special center isle displays of this book at Chapters….or will she be tipped off to its sarcastic deflating the political science of AGW and “ban” the book from sale through Chapters and indego like she does with most politically incorrect literature?
Hey Kids, let’s all go down to the Chapters book burning party! We’ll toast mallows on the burning Reagan Bios.
It took a few seconds to click, but it’s always good to start the day with a good chuckle.
Thanks Kate.
The UN IPCC predicts that average temperatures will go up by 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years. http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Are we in Canada actually supposed to take that as a bad thing? Right now it’s about 9 degrees where I am. I wouldn’t mind 15.4 degrees to be honest.
There’s more days where a 6.4 degree increase would be a good thing than a bad thing. And for many Canadians a 6.4 degree increase for every day of the year would be a good thing.
Well, jema54, it is a wonder you can muster the coordination to enter text on your mommy’s computer.
Step back, take a quick read of the post you made and wonder at your deep, thorough and complete stupidity.
It is a marvel to behold.
Please keep posting, as it amuses so many of us who actually can clothe and feed ourselves.
“Do not read it. I have not read it, and you should not either; indeed, I threw my copy on the fire. I only regret that burning the book was my only remedy. In a better age I would have burned the authors with it.”
Wonderful satire. Someone’s got a great sense of humour.
Very slightly off topic: I saw a billboard that proclaims”Ethanol-Mother Natures’ fuel!”. Is coal, wood, and oil not also “Mother Natures'” fuel? Just wondering.
“The global temperature is warmer today than ever before in the planet’s history”
Didn’t the Earth used to be a molten ball of fire?
Another moonbat comes flittering out of the cave.
‘tory_watcher.’ I’m scared. Really, really scared.
Please keep posting. Since so many leftards quit yesterday, we’re down a few to toy with.
Irwin:
Scared of what? Nobody was trying to make you afraid of anything. Just pointing out that some of you are hilariously stupid.
As to being a “leftard” – hardly. I am private sector all the way and have created more wealth than you can conceive of.
Back to the window – another order coming in….
Fantastic.
Hilarious.
Only slightly sad.
If I’ve said it once , I’ve said it a thousand times , Blame AGW on the PIRATES . Cool graph and everything !
Is it funny or just sad that, as the grandchild of German Jews who barely escaped the holocaust, and who each lost many cousins, uncles, aunts to the Nazis, that the new Church of Global Warming holds that I am equivalent to those who deny the existence of the holocaust, merely because I question certain long-term computer models?
We have been taken by storm here on Vancouver Island.. Comox .. Courtenay, Seriously..
Trees down over our neighbours building..
Heavy Tree branches hanging on wires..
Must disconnect before power goes off..=TG
“created more wealth than you can conceive of.”
Oh, really? How did you assume that?
“Just pointing out that some of you are hilariously stupid.”
Like your words served with ketchup?
Never trust an economist to teach you about climate science (Ross McKitrick), just as you should never trust an economist to run a country populated with human beings instead of numbers.
Christopher Essex, being one of the original “Friends of Science” group with Tim Ball is in the pockets of the energy companies.
This book originally came out in 2002 and the science behind it has been shown to be empty many times and is nothing new.
Re- TG at November 12, 2007 12:12 PM
Questions for you TG seeing you live in Comox. How long have you lived there? I left there in 1987 and at that time it was visibly evident that Comox glacier was shrinking. What is its status now? Do they still ski at Forbidden Plateau?
albatros.
Do you really think anybody is going to consider your review superior to, I don’t know, Lindzen, Soon, Patterson, Tsonis, etc?
Aren’t you a student?
Some of you should click on the ” PIRATE ” link above , it’s from today’s American Thinker . Looks like the seabird has a few of the Tricks of the Tirade dowm pat .
albatross39a, you are spewing talking points without basis in fact, like a usual lefty. What McKittick and Essex did was to show that the science behind Mr. Mann’s hockey stick graph was in fact a fraud. This has been proven, and is on record in the US Senate. Mr. Mann’s computer ‘algoreithm’ (not a typo – just like the reference to the big liar himself) had a well designed ‘bug’ that made even random sets of numbers look like a hockey stick. That is not science, its a hoax. Peer Review is not an audit of the data and processes used. That is why there is now a site by McIntyre called Climate Audit. They look at the data and programs used to “prove” global warming. The Global warming scare mongers hate this because they then have to answer serious questions – and they can’t. As for your claims that sceptics are in the pocket of ‘big oil’. It’s pathetic, proving only your ignorance. The big money in this debate is mostly “public” – stolen from taxpayers – and granted by leftwing bureaucrats ONLY to those who will search for the elusive “proof” of man’s sins. Those doing real science are left out in the cold. The founder of the Weather Channel has come out calling the politicalization of climate change science a hoax. You’d do well to listen to him. You are being scammed and lied to by the fear mongers.
Alby,
Glaciers all over the CDN west are receeding as they have since the mid-1800’s after the end of the little ice age.
Glaciers grow and shrink over millenia. It’s nothing new.
Yes Irwin I’m a fourth year undergrad in environment and physical geography with a focus on human influence on the environment (including climate change). This of course is far more than Ross McKitrick has done in this field. My degree will be finished this June and next year I plan to add a second degree in anthropology, probably followed the year after with a B.ed. I hold a commercial pilots licence. I’m a 25 year veteran of the Canadian Air Force as a flight engineer, which means I have traveled extensively into places that tourists fear to tread. I have been to all ten of Canada’s provinces, lived in five of them for at least four years. I’ve traveled the Canadian Arctic extensively in all three territories. I have stood on the southern tip of Point Pelee, the Western edge of Graham Island, British Columbia, the Northern point of Elsmere Island and climbed Signal Hill in St. John’s. If you are unaware of the significance of these four places in Canada I suggest you get out a map and take a look. I have visited 48 out of 50 US states, only missing Delaware and New Jersey. I’ve traveled to 49 different countries to date and set foot on five continents. I have shaken hands with three members of the royal family during different occasions, two prime ministers of Canada, a couple of governors general and many others interesting personalities from Soviet Generals to Norman Schwarzkopf. I have landed in mine fields, picked up dead bodies and crashed in a helicopter once. I climbed the Pyramid of Khufu, walk among the Moai of Rapa Nui, crawled inside an ancient Roman fort, driven around Loch Ness and list could go on.
I’m a really crappy typist, especially when I leave my glasses somewhere else, but in short Irwin I’m not just some 20 year old undergrad and I wasn’t born yesterday.
“Yes Irwin I’m a fourth year undergrad in environment and physical geography with a focus on human influence on the environment (including climate change)”
Weren’t you recently a strong black woman with a PhD in Amsterdam?
The problem, albatros, is that it’s false to assume that someone’s years of life (I am presuming your birth year is 1939) can be correlated with a ‘stock of knowledge’ or with an ability to think critically and logically. Your years and your hand-shaking experiences don’t necessarily provide knowledge.
For example, that’s a very strange remark for you to make, when you say “Never trust an economist to run a country populated with human beings instead of numbers”. Are you suggesting that only a medical doctor should run a country?
And- numbers, as ought to know, are a MODEL of the actual objects. Instead of storing cows in our backyards, we MODEL the value of the object (cow)into a number (itself modeled as money) and store that number. Would you prefer the cows?
An economist has the ability to understand models, and economic modeling is a basic requirement for helping ensure the robust economic health of a nation.
You, after all, focus exclusively on models – the AGW theme is based only on models – It is unfortunate that you disregard the actual facts that rebut these AGW models. You also disregard the unreliability of models – and these models in particular.
By the way, another problem with your statement is its use of the passive tense, wherein you say that “it has been shown to be empty”. By whom?
And using ad hominem (in the control of oil) is never, ever, a sign of one’s knowledge of critical thinking ability.
Can we get over the hockey stick now?
http://www.desmogblog.com/nrc-exonerates-hockey-stick-graph-ending-mann-hunt-by-two-canadian-skeptics
The “founder of the Weather Channel” is just a TV weather man, and business man, nothing more. He is no expert on climate change, but I would love to see what’s in his investment portfolio.
Alby’s favorite word,I.Very telling.
“Weren’t you recently a strong black woman with a PhD in Amsterdam?
Posted by: Andrew at November 12, 2007 2:14 PM”
Uh, no. But I have been to Amsterdam.
albatross,
Spent too much time smoking something there.
And you are just a commercial pilot and former flight engineer. Just because you drink the kool-aid at school doesn’t mean much.
enough
ET. No the 39 was my age when the handle was invented eight years ago. The point of that post was to point out that I am not a 20 year old undergrad but I also speak from experience.
“Are you suggesting that only a medical doctor should run a country?”
-Not at all human response is not predictable. If you believe modelling climate which is based on predictable science is complex, then human behaviour is immeasurable. I’m saying that those who realize that people do not act like a set of number in a society should run a country and that is where economists fail. Time and time again it has been proven that human reaction a given situation, especially when one throws in cultural change and the illogical responses by religion, cannot be predicted by numerical models.
“You, after all, focus exclusively on models – the AGW theme is based only on models”
Not at all, that is completely wrong. Models play an important part in understand the effects of climate change, but there is far more to it than that.
“By the way, another problem with your statement is its use of the passive tense, wherein you say that “it has been shown to be empty”. By whom?”
How much ya got? http://www.sciencemag.org/
“And using ad hominem (in the control of oil)…” Have you never noticed that one common denominator in climate scepticism, money with its close friend, egoism?
by: enough at November 12, 2007 2:38 PM
“And you are just a commercial pilot and former flight engineer.”
Your point?
albatross – several things:
First, economics and climate are not amenable to predictable models, which are linear, but operate in complex models. Complex modeling cannot predict with any accuracy.
Second, for your point on ‘an economist should not run a country’ to be valid, you’d have to show quite a few things:
-All economists think only in numerical models.
No economist can think, except within a numerical model.
The economist cannot translate this numerical model to any other kind of model.
I doubt that you’d be able to provide any proof of this.
Kindly remember that you are saying that an economist cannot think except within a numerical model, and yet, you claim that someone working in climate change, can think both within models and outside of models. Is there any reason for the difference? Do you have proof of the Closure of The Economic Mind?
Third, I think that you need to provide an opinion on what the knowledge base of a national leader should be. You are saying that they must not have any economic knowledge; what else must they not have?
Remember, the human mind thinks by means of models. That’s valid in all thought.
So- what disciplines are, according to you, valid for someone to work in, and then, try to be president/pm/leader of a country?
No, I haven’t noticed the common denominators in the rejection of AGW of ‘oil, money, or egoism”.
I certainly reject AGW and am not embedded in any of those values.
Furthermore, I’d be interested, logically, how you can connect the three.
Do all egoists also have connections to oil and to money? Isn’t ‘money’ merely a metaphor of ‘oil’, and therefore, is an illogical part of the triad? It’s like saying: This is my dog, Rex, pet. They ‘reduce’ to one object, not three.
Oh- and you haven’t commented on my point that years of experience in meeting people doesn’t equate to knowledge in a field. You support AGW; I don’t.
albatros39a,
“I’m a fourth year undergrad in environment and physical geography with a focus on human influence on the environment (including climate change).”
This is why you have nothing intellegent to say on the subject. You aren’t being educated with facts but brainwashed by ideologically driven propaganda.
For starters, you area of study has its bias in the second half of your discription of it. Real science doesn’t start with assumptions and try to mine the data to “prove” it.
“Yes Irwin I’m a fourth year undergrad in environment and physical geography with a focus on human influence on the environment (including climate change).”
Well, I suppose this explains your position. As the false political ideology of AGW is being exposed, your degree, at least as it has to do with climate change, may well become an embarrassment.
Four years, damn!
Anthropology is a safe backup, I suppose. Although, economics is far safer.
alby,
“just as you should never trust an economist to run a country populated with human beings instead of numbers.”
You have only as much relevance to any discussion as your experience? It follows that your experience as a commercial pilot would allow you to comment only on a limited scope such as model of aircraft you flew only during the times and specific weather pattern that you flew in. Maybe only comment on your specific employer for that period you were employed. Rather limits you in what you are authorised to comment on.
enough
enough at November 12, 2007 4:18 PM
I think you missed a few things there.
I can easily see why a second edition is necessary. There were several substantial errors in the first edition.
Tim Lambert shows that they did not calculate average temperatures since if there was missing data at a station they just filled in the gaps with zeros. Which means the average temperature in June for a station in the US could be zero!
Eli Rabitt takes a look at their thermodynamics and points out that McKitrick calculated the Stefan-Boltzmann law
based on Celsius!!!!
These are not trivial errors since each completely negates the point they were making!
Regards,
John
Alby,
Yes, I did not quote your full resume.
Out of all the jobs and skillsets in the world I take it that only your specific combination is acceptable?
Interesting that multitudes of economists have been slamming the GST reduction. Now that the PM is an economist that is not acceptable enough. Do you also have to be a special kind of economist?
I get the feeling that it is an ever moving target that would only be deemed appropriate by you. Seems kind of selfish that only you get to decide who can run the country.
enough
Too bad Alby’s in the pockets of Big Carbon and Big Education. It totally invalidates anything he says.
ET. Let me just say that I have met few economist who put a human face on their numbers. Economists from Harper to Lomborg to Ross McKitrick will tell us how much it’s going to cost us if we do something about AGW, but fall short in telling us how much its going to cost us if we don’t do something. Time for me to ask you what does an economist have to do with the science of climate change? Now remember I’m not talking models, I’m talking the understanding of the physics, chemistry and biological influences behind the science, not modeling climate.
In science 1+1 will always equal 2, but when faced with the human factor and greed the outcome of 1+1 could equal three or 10. Humans are unpredictable where science is concerned. If humans were predictable we could accurately predict who will be a murderers and who will be the rapists. When it gets to climate climatologist do not attempt to predict weather, there are too many variables to attempt such a thing. Climate being science based on physics and chemistry, models can do a decent job at predicting future weather averages (climate).
“Oh- and you haven’t commented on my point that years of experience…” It has absolutely nothing to do with experience in the field of climate, nothing at all. It’s simply one piece of the experience collection after someone asked “aren’t you a student.” Irwin asked, so I told him. I take it you were attempting to construct another straw man.
“…I certainly reject AGW and am not embedded in any of those values.
Furthermore, I’d be interested, logically, how you can connect the three…”
Are you an Albertan ET? Does your local economy depend on fossil fuels in some way? Are there religious influences preventing you from looking at the negatives of climate science and the positives of environmental protection? Are you a partisan conservative/conformist? An unwavering capitalist maybe?
I acknowledge that we as Canadians have a few things to gain from a warming world. Right now we don’t know enough about climate to understand how we can regulate the warming to benefit all of humanity around the world. We don’t even know what a optimum climate is If we knew how much CO2 we could safely dump into the atmosphere to achieve an optimum climate, I’d be the fist to say lets go for it. We don’t know how to do this and we risk crossing the line between beneficial climate changes to achieve the optimum climate and entering runaway greenhouse effect.
I certainly have things to lose by fighting climate change. I like airplanes and travel, but I know that these will have to change in a warming world. You’ll notice I said change, not go away completely. I believe if mankind did away with flying large turbine aircraft that inject tonnes of carbon into upper troposphere and lower stratosphere and returned to ocean travel, we would do more for the mankind than just helping the planet. In this day of internet, it’s rare that we need to be anywhere on the face of the planet within hours.
I own a 2007 Dodge Ram with a Hemi. I love my truck and can justify owning one by limiting its use to only when I need to use it. I take the small car when I have to or a bicycle or bus when I can. My next car I’m planning is a plug in Prius and I plan to install a small wind turbine to power it. That kind of setup should cost me almost nothing in fuel to get back and forth to town. I’m doing this to reduce greenhouse gases sure, but also because I’m cheap and don’t like giving money to oil companies.
“So- what disciplines are, according to you, valid for someone to work in, and then, try to be president/pm/leader of a country?”
Off the top of my head I’d say, lawyers are always good just as are teachers, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists. People like economists and geologists are good as advisors only.
“enough at November 12, 2007 5:42 PM ”
Well ok enough, I suppose that is your opinion and I’ll take it as just that.
Alby, my hubby has a favorite saying. “Educated into imbecility”, a very apt phrase for so many people.
Albatros has also claimed to have served in the military for a decade, studied climatology and a few other carreers. Alby has claimed to be an expert in just about every field at one time or another. Not worth the time of day to debate. Deluded pathetic loser living in mom and dad’s basement.
Well by all means then we should prohibit anyone who is not a part of this semi exclusive club from leading us. Lawyers, teachers, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists only may rule us.
To me that sounds like the logical extension of your statement. Personally, I like democracy. Freedom to choose is a good thing.
enough
Albatros39a;
I find it very concerning that before you have finished your studies or begun a career of research into AGW, you have obviously already come to your conclusions.
Of course you realize that any published conclusions you may generate in the future will be highly suspect given your documented denial of all researh that disagrees with your own personal beliefs.
Objective research generally involves ones own, while considering others’ existing research – even that which you emotionally disagree with. Simply brushing off any such research as “in the pocket of oil” is academically laughable.
Do your profs encourage reaching conclusions prior to first-hand research?
Will you detach your emotional beliefs during your research?
Who grants more money on AGW research and/or propoganda – Oil Companies or Big Government/Goverment Agencies/Special Interest Groups/UN/Hollywood/Former Politicians?
Who’s payroll will you be on when/if you finish your studies?
Surely you have looked into this as most people (not all i suppose) look at the related work sector in regards to a chosen field of study…
The way you have such blind faith in an unproven subject leads me to believe you are a person of great faith. Do you also subscribe to Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Buddhism?
-Albertaman at November 12, 2007 6:23 PM
No, only one career. I’m only working on the second.
-eliza at November 12, 2007 6:18 PM”
Your husband sounds like a Conservative, and we know how they hate what they don’t understand.
-enough at November 12, 2007 6:39 PM
One would think somebody that has studied human behaviour would be in a better position than a leader who hasn’t. That is how we ended up with a PM who believes that locking up criminals is the way to prevent crime. The problem with that is they have to commit the crime to get locked up and somebody ends up being the victim of that crime. Wouldn’t it be better to have eliminated the reason to commit that crime in the first place? Nobody is threatening you choice in who to vote for. All I’m saying is that certain people’s qualifications make them much more capable of leading a nation of human beings than people with other qualifications. An economist simply lacks the understanding of human beings to make as an effective leader.
John Cross,
I’ve appreciated your tact. It is completely unlike the religious fervor, whipped up by the left, when it comes to this topic.
I don’t think anybody here is denying climate change. In other words, the climate changes. I have observed this at my cottage, at home and on my travels.
However, and more pointedly, do you believe AGW is the main culprit in this? Do you know for a fact, whether the temperature direction is consistent enough to make factual claims based on true historical data? And most importantly, do you believe that Kyoto is the solution?
albatross – no, that won’t do. You haven’t explained why you declare that an economist mustn’t be a leader of a country. You said – because they deal in ‘numbers’.
I told you this didn’t make sense – that all of us think in ‘models’, ie, using symbolic terms , eg. numbers or money value of house or services, numbers or amount of vitamins per day, numbers or calorie content, temperature outside, etc etc.
Now, you are backing off from your ‘numbers’ and adding another term – “put a human face on numbers”. What the heck is that?
Your example of AGW is absolutely ridiculous. Are you serious? Are you saying that the leaders of the world’s countries ought to be elected on the basis of their acceptance of AGW and their actions on dealing with it? What Cloud are you drifting on?
No leader of a country can be elected on the basis of the issue of climate change. Do you know why? Because a nation doesn’t operate only within the system of climate change! How irresponsible can you get?
And remember, a LOT of scientists accept climate change but they DON’T accept AGW. So, they don’t accept that man can mechanically control the climate.
Furthermore, although a responsible analyst can tell you the costs of doing X, Y and Z, eg, closing a hundred factories, building whatever, and etc, no-one on this planet, or elsewhere in the universe, can tell you the costs of NOT doing these actions. Do you know why? Because no-one knows the effects of climate change. No-one.
No, climate is not based on the mechanical principles of laboratory physics and chemistry. You are making a profound error. Climate is not analyzable by reductionist methods used in the lab. Climate is a COMPLEX SYSTEM and therefore, cannot ever be reduced to mechanical procedures.
No, my comment about your experience relates to your use of it to assert your opinion that your claims about AGW are valid.
No, I’m not an Albertan – or ‘wavering capitalist’. I think, albatross, and that means that I critically examine data – and that’s why I don’t accept AGW.
You admit that we don’t know enough about climate to regulate it! So, how can you believe in AGW? Are you serious – do you think that we humans can ever regulate climate????
Would you explain why a lawyer is a good choice as leader of a country? Do you think that someone whose only interest is in Winning The Case, rather than focusing on the Truth, is a good leader?
Would you please provide some proof that ‘an economist simply lacks understanding…” That’s quite a remarkable statement. ALL economists lack understanding of human nature. Incredible. Could you provide some proof? Or is this just your own personal opinion..In which case..it’s confined to you.
Could you provide proof that a lawyer, sociologist, anthropologist, psychologist..’understands human nature’? Ever heard of Ruth Benedict and her outline of human nature? Did she understand it? Margaret Mead? Heh. How about Durkheim? Equal nonsense. A lawyer??? Tell us of their understanding of human nature. Tell us how valid Freud was..Heh.
Also, a teacher?[of what?] And a sociologist, anthropologist, psychologist? You do realize that you’ve moved your choices into the academic areas where you can get away with pure empty speculation, where you can hypothesize without any necessity for proof. So, you want, as leader, a Cloud Dweller, a utopian, someone who hasn’t a clue about the practical effects of their rhetoric?
Have you read any of the outlandish hypotheses of both past and present sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists? They all live in a world of fancy. Not fact.
Oh- and could you please tell us the reasons for crime, and how to eliminate crime? You sound very sure of yourself in this area. Please inform us of the reasons for all crime.
That includes shoplifting, vandalism, drug gangs, extortion, smuggling, registering your ships in another country to evade taxes, kidnapping, identity thefts, break and enter…Please, albatros, help us. Tell us the causes of each of these crimes.
Hasn’t it occurred to you that a nation rests on their economic robustness – and that therefore, an economist is a pragmatic choice?
Do you know what course you should take, albatross – but it may not be available. You should take a course in critical thinking. Or elementary logic – propositional and syllogistic. Also, the relation of algebra to logic. These would point out to you the necessity for your opinions to be grounded in fact not fancy.