Some new info on the Pickens wind farm scam

you mean the application of this so-called hegelian nonsense to anthropomorphic, er, anthropogenic global warming is your own?

think you got the idea of using it from that lady's site. perhaps the particular application is your own.

with all due respect jim, her ideas about hegel aren't really all that sound. she's proceeds from a very specific political standpoint. she's got zero credentials, zero credibility, and gets her mail c/o the clerk at the local grocery market in buttfuck, alaska. it's great that she's making an effort and trying to apply something theoretical to the world around her, but it's like getting advice on sex from a twelve year old. although, these days...

your's is a relatively arbitrary application of a long debunked metaphysic.

hold on here. if hegel was wrong... hmmmm...

how's this sound... tell me about "reification" and how it might apply to your application of hegel.

ready? go!
 
2minkey said:
you mean the application of this so-called hegelian nonsense to anthropomorphic, er, anthropogenic global warming is your own?

think you got the idea of using it from that lady's site. perhaps the particular application is your own.

with all due respect jim, her ideas about hegel aren't really all that sound. she's proceeds from a very specific political standpoint. she's got zero credentials, zero credibility, and gets her mail c/o the clerk at the local grocery market in buttfuck, alaska. it's great that she's making an effort and trying to apply something theoretical to the world around her, but it's like getting advice on sex from a twelve year old. although, these days...

your's is a relatively arbitrary application of a long debunked metaphysic.

hold on here. if hegel was wrong... hmmmm...

how's this sound... tell me about "reification" and how it might apply to your application of hegel.

ready? go!
Click to expand...

Reification: The premise that things -- animate and inanimate objects -- have human attributes. We hear it all the time from the talking heads on TV news.

"Hurricane Katrina bore down on the Louisiana coast showing no mercy as she took lives and livlihoods from the residents." would be a good example.

In the realm of Hegel it has no value whatsoever unless you want to give human attributes to global warming.
 
2minkey said:
you mean the application of this so-called hegelian nonsense to anthropomorphic, er, anthropogenic global warming is your own?
Click to expand...

By the way, what was that anthropmorphic / anthropogenic segue? Is that where you came up with the reification bullshit?
 
jimpeel said:
Or simply learning to read for comprehension.
Click to expand...

oh yeah, for sure.

now, try picking the relevant usage of "reification."

you can do it. just think about who would become hegel's chief interrogators. i'll give you a hint. think marxian milieu. early 20th century...

you can do it!

tony_little_gazelle_freestyle_1.jpg
 
BeardofPants said:
What's worse? The yobbo trying to be an academic twit, or an academic twit trying to be a yobbo? :hmm:

Oh yeah. :yawn:
Click to expand...

What the fuck does hooliganism have to do with this discussion? Got any other Brit slang ya wanna try out on me?

Hint: Last name "Peel".
 
2minkey said:
oh yeah, for sure.

now, try picking the relevant usage of "reification."

you can do it. just think about who would become hegel's chief interrogators. i'll give you a hint. think marxian milieu. early 20th century...

you can do it!
Click to expand...

Here is your problem. You want to convince me that your interpretation of the tenets of Hegel are the correct, and only correct, interpretation. By the very tenets of Hegel there is no correct interpretation. Hegellian theory, the dialectic, can have many interpretations. You have yours and I have mine and that falls quite neatly into Hegel's thinking.

I have only heard of reification used to describe the human aspect to non-human objects. If you want me to, I can go out and look up the "also" usages; but it will not change my interpretation of the Hegellian Dialectic.

We can take this to PM if you like. Your choice.
 
jimpeel said:
Here is your problem. You want to convince me that your interpretation of the tenets of Hegel are the correct, and only correct, interpretation. By the very tenets of Hegel there is no correct interpretation. Hegellian theory, the dialectic, can have many interpretations. You have yours and I have mine and that falls quite neatly into Hegel's thinking.

I have only heard of reification used to describe the human aspect to non-human objects. If you want me to, I can go out and look up the "also" usages; but it will not change my interpretation of the Hegellian Dialectic.

We can take this to PM if you like. Your choice.
Click to expand...

hmmmm. yeah i'm not really asserting that my particular view of hegel is the correct, but that you're using hegel in a sloppy and largely incorrect way. and that is very much the case. don't believe me? go on down to the university and find yourself a professor of philosophy. have s/he evaluate your application of hegel. see what you get.

yes, jim, let's PM so we don't bore the living shit out of everyone else.
 
Remember that part about how there needs to be an explaination of why the crisis fails to manifest itself? Here's the latest and greatest excuse from the latest and greatest idiot.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GlobalEnvironment08/idUSTRE4966A220081007

Economic woes may give planet a breather
Tue Oct 7, 2008 12:35pm EDT

By Michele Kambas

NICOSIA (Reuters) - A slowdown in the world economy may give the planet a breather from the excessively high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions responsible for climate change, a Nobel Prize winning scientist said on Tuesday.

Atmospheric scientist Paul J Crutzen, who has in the past floated the possibility of blitzing the stratosphere with sulfur particles to cool the earth, said clouds gathering over the world economy could ease the earth's environmental burden.

Slower economic growth worldwide could help slow growth of carbon dioxide emissions and trigger more careful use of energy resources, though the global economic turmoil may also divert focus from efforts to counter climate change, said Crutzen, winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on the depletion of the ozone layer.

"It's a cruel thing to say ... but if we are looking at a slowdown in the economy, there will be less fossil fuels burning, so for the climate it could be an advantage," Crutzen told Reuters in an interview.

"We could have a much slower increase of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere ... people will start saving (on energy use) ... but things may get worse if there is less money available for research and that would be serious."

CO2 emissions, released by the burning of fossil fuels in power stations, factories, homes and vehicles, are growing at almost 3.0 percent a year.

The U.N. Panel on Climate Change estimates that world temperatures may rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius (3.2-7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) this century. The Group of Eight industrial nations agreed in July to a goal of halving world emissions by 2050.

Crutzen was in Cyprus for a lecture organized by the Cyprus Institute, a research foundation.

He caused a stir with the publication of a paper in 2006 suggesting that injecting the common pollutant sulfur into the stratosphere some 10 miles above the earth could snuff out the greenhouse effect.

He believes that dispersing 1 million tons of sulfur into the stratosphere each year, either on balloons or in rockets, would deflect sunlight and cool the planet.

Scientists observed that world temperatures dropped by 0.5 degrees centigrade on average when Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, spewing sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, and Crutzen said the idea originated with a Russian scientist about 30 years ago.

"I am not saying we should do it, but it is one of the options if we continue under present conditions. We should study it," he said. "If you look beyond a decade, two decades, and nothing has been done (to counter warming) then we will have a very serious problem on our hands."

Sulfur is a component of acid rain, which has harmful effects on plants and fish.

"Acid rain is caused by sulfur dioxide emissions from the ground, from the chimneys, and it's 50 million tons per year. The experiment in the stratosphere would be one million tons of sulfur per year. It's negligible," he said.

It would be an extreme endeavor, but for extreme circumstances, he said.

In a 2007 report, the U.N. climate change panel said such geo-engineering options were largely speculative and unproven, with the risk of unknown side effects. Reliable cost estimates had not been published, it said.

"The price is not a major factor... it's peanuts," said Crutzen. "The cost has been estimated by some at 10, 20 million U.S. dollars a year."

(Editing by Kevin Liffey)
Click to expand...
 
jimpeel said:
Remamber that part about how there needs to be an explaination of why the cruisis fails to manuifest itself? Here's the latest and greatest excuse from the latest and greatest idiot.
Click to expand...

The cruisis has maniefested itself already Jimbo.

"if we are looking at a slowdown in the economy, there will be less fossil fuels burning, so for the climate it could be an advantage"

The nobel prize winning scientist idiot is making perfect sense while the non-scientist makes childish insults. Go figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top