Apparently Mr. Connolley has edited 5428 Wikipedia articles, most about climate. Die Kalte Sonne:
Unbelievable but true: The Wikipedia umpire on Climate Change was a member of the UK Green Party and openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC. So it was not a referee, but the 12th Man of the IPCC team.
I’m not sure how accurate the translation is, but it suggests he was somehow part of the IPCC “short list” team. See it here at Die Kalte Sonne via this Google Translate link:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kaltesonne.de%2F%3Fp%3D7858
With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.
John Whitman:
re your post at January 31, 2013 at 1:46 pm
No! You cannot reasonably “expand” the meaning of socialism to distort it into the opposite of what it is. Your distortion is so malign that I refuse to copy it.
Frankly, that is as bad as the insane ravings of the troll posting as ‘temp’.
This thread is proving to be a clear demonstration to onlookers of how zealots will corrupt any statement of truth as a method to promote their objectives.
You, temp and Connolley are of a kind. And this thread is demonstrating why your behaviour is dangerous to all.
Richard
Bob:
You are mistaken. All totalitarianism is evil. But that does not mean that all totalitarian governments share a common philosophy.
That mistake leads to guarding against one group of totalitarians while allowing others to take power.
National Socialists tried to exterminate Jews and socialists. An assertion that socialism is akin to National Socialism is as offensive as saying Judaism is akin to National Socialism.
Richard
temp, you agree that Pure Capitalists require property rights. Do those rights “come from government?” No. But a minimal government of some sort is required to define, preserve, and defend those rights to the satisfaction of society. Without the codification of property rights, there cannot be any practical social agreement as to what the rights are. Where there is disagreement, those who deny the right will win unless a society (through the form of a limited government) steps in and demarcates the limits of rights.
As for whether rights come from government or God, they come from neither. There is this excellent monolog which well argues that rights are not natural.
richardscourtney says:
January 31, 2013 at 2:35 pm
“Frankly, that is as bad as the insane ravings of the troll posting as ‘temp’.”
Don’t let reality, logic, science, empirical or observational data get in the way of your fantasy version of your perfect world.
“All totalitarianism is evil”
I agree which is why socialism is evil…
“An assertion that socialism is akin to National Socialism”
Is the truth… funny thing about socialists is every socialist claims they have the one “true” socialism. Though they use the exact same ideas and every past socialist.
I also note that your not saying anything bad about authoritarians…
Under pretty much every definition listed so far… hitler would be an authoritarian not a totalitarian… So your cool with hitler right?
And really whats the difference between a totalitarian committing genocide vs an authoritarian… hmm lets see in a totalitarian government only the government supports the genocide… well thats clearly not hitler. On the other hand an authoritarian government is where the people support the government in its genocide… hmmm yeah sounds a lot more like hitler.
The simple reality is that you can’t face reality richards courtney. You have let to provide one bit of an argument based in anything other thing whining. This is the problem with socialists… they can never explain socialism.
Which is of course why only “They” know “true” socialism because no one understands socialism but them.
This is of course classic marx which said that the scientific method was designed to oppress the “proletarian” and that science was of the “bourgeois”. Only through “marxist” science can “marxism” be properly explained.
Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
“It is a matter of dispute whether, prior to the middle of the nineteenth 15 century, there existed any clear conception of the socialist idea—by which is understood the socialization of the means of production with its corollary, the centralized control of the whole of production by one social or, more accurately, state organ. The answer depends primarily upon whether we regard the demand for a centralized administration of the means of production throughout the world as an essential feature in a considered socialist plan. The older socialists looked upon the autarky of small territories as ’natural’ and on any exchange of goods beyond their frontiers as at once ’artificial’ and harmful. Only after the English Free-Traders had proved the advantages of an international division of labour, and popularized their views through the Cobden movement, did the socialists begin to expand the ideas of village and district Socialism into a national and, eventually, a world Socialism. Apart from this one point, however, the basic conception of Socialism had been quite clearly worked out in the course of the second quarter of the nineteenth century by those writers designated by Marxism as “Utopian Socialists.” Schemes for a socialist order of society were extensively discussed at that time, but the discussion did not go in their favour. The Utopians had not succeeded in planning social structures that would withstand the criticisms of economists and sociologists. It was easy to pick holes in their schemes; to prove that a society constructed on such principles must lack efficiency and vitality, and that it certainly would not come up to expectations. Thus, about the middle of the nineteenth century, it seemed that the ideal of Socialism had been disposed of. Science had demonstrated its worthlessness by means of strict logic and its supporters were unable to produce a single effective counter-argument.
It was at this moment that Marx appeared. Adept as he was in Hegelian dialectic—a system easy of abuse by those who seek to dominate thought by arbitrary flights of fancy and metaphysical verbosity—he was not slow in finding a way out of the dilemma in which socialists found themselves. Since Science and Logic had argued against Socialism, it was imperative to devise a system which could be relied on to defend it against such unpalatable criticism. This was the task which Marxism undertook to perform. It had three lines of procedure. First, it denied that Logic is universally valid for all mankind and for all ages. Thought, it stated, was determined by the class of the thinkers; was in fact an “ideological superstructure” of their class interests. The type of reasoning which had refuted the socialist idea was “revealed” as “bourgeois” reasoning, an apology for Capitalism. Secondly, it laid it down that the dialectical development led of necessity to Socialism; that the aim and end of all history was the socialization of the means of production by the expropriation of the expropriators—the negation of negation. Finally, it was ruled that no one should be allowed to put forward, as the Utopians had done, any definite proposals for the construction of the Socialist Promised Land. Since the coming of Socialism was inevitable, Science would best renounce all attempt to determine its nature.
At no point in history has a doctrine found such immediate and complete acceptance as that contained in these three principles of Marxism. The magnitude and persistence of its success is commonly underestimated. This is due to the habit of applying the term Marxist exclusively to formal members of one or other of the self-styled Marxist parties, who are pledged to uphold word for word the doctrines of Marx and Engels as interpreted by their respective sects and to regard such doctrines as the unshakable foundation and ultimate source of all that is known about Society and as constituting the highest standard in political dealings. But if we include under the term “Marxist” all who have accepted the basic Marxian principles—that class conditions thought, that Socialism is inevitable, and that research into the being and working of the socialist community is unscientific—we shall find very few non-Marxists in Europe east of the Rhine, and even in Western Europe and the United States many more supporters than opponents of Marxism. Professed Christians attack the materialism of Marxists, monarchists their republicanism, nationalists their internationalism; yet they themselves, each in turn, wish to be known as Christian Socialists, State Socialists, National Socialists. They assert that their particular brand of Socialism is the only true one—that which “shall” come, bringing with it happiness and contentment. The Socialism of others, they say, has not the genuine class origin of their own. At the same time they scrupulously respect Marx’s prohibition of any inquiry into the institutions of the socialist economy of the future, and try to interpret the working of the present economic system as a development leading to Socialism in accordance with the inexorable demand of the historical process. Of course, not Marxists alone, but most of those who emphatically declare themselves anti-Marxists, think entirely on Marxist lines and have adopted Marx’s arbitrary, unconfirmed and easily refutable dogmas. If and when they come into power, they govern and work entirely in the socialist spirit.
The incomparable success of Marxism is due to the prospect it offers of fulfilling those dream-aspirations and dreams of vengeance which have been so deeply embedded in the human soul from time immemorial. It promises a Paradise on earth, a Land of Heart’s Desire full of happiness and enjoyment, and—sweeter still to the losers in life’s game—humiliation of all who are stronger and better than the multitude. Logic and reasoning, which might show the absurdity of such dreams of bliss and revenge, are to be thrust aside. Marxism is thus the most radical of all reactions against the reign of scientific thought over life and action, established by Rationalism. It is against Logic, against Science and against the activity of thought itself—its outstanding principle is the prohibition of thought and inquiry, especially as applied to the institutions and workings of a socialist economy. It is characteristic that it should adopt the name “Scientific Socialism” and thus gain the prestige acquired by Science, through the indisputable success of its rule over life and action, for use in its own battle against any scientific contribution to the construction of the socialist economy. The Bolshevists persistently tell us that religion is opium for the people. Marxism is indeed opium for those who might take to thinking and must therefore be weaned from it.”
In the end this is exactly what socialists play at today… never ever being able to use facts, logic or the scientific method to prove anything…
This is why global warming is a socialists play for power… they use fantasy computer models to say how the world should work in they’re view not how it really does. It doesn’t matter if they are proven wrong and wrong again. In the end “socialism must be”.
“But a minimal government of some sort is required to define, preserve, and defend those rights to the satisfaction of society. Without the codification of property rights, there cannot be any practical social agreement as to what the rights are. Where there is disagreement, those who deny the right will win unless a society (through the form of a limited government) steps in and demarcates the limits of rights.”
Few problems here. You compare apples to oranges.
“Without the codification of property rights”
Why? Thats a government action… but lets assume its correct. I an anarchist codified this belong to me… and if you got a problem with that well you can take it up with my code enforce… mr ar-15.
So I have “codified” property rights under anarchy.
“there cannot be any practical social agreement”
As a pure individualist I don’t believe in the concept of “social agreement”… hit the road before i codify your @ss with my ar-15.
” Where there is disagreement, those who deny the right will win”
You sure my ar-15 disagrees…
“unless a society (through the form of a limited government) steps in and demarcates the limits of rights.”
Why? I have an ar-15 no need to any government I can do it myself.
Now aside from the above arguments that are purely individualist in nature. A lot of your arguments are more along the line of government vs person or person vs person…
If you look at it from a government vs government view your arguments fall apart. What “social contract” does the US government have with other government that they own said land? Who enforces? Etc etc etc.
The concept that government must exist to enforce something is simply wrong on its face. To treat people somehow different from government is also wrong for the most part. No two government “enter a social contract” any different then any two people. So how do government enforce said social contract… the same way two people would. Thus you argument falls apart because in the end the government must do when it governs the same a a person must due in “anarchy”.
And while I tend to agree with the quote… it is the simple reality… the difference between a subject and a citizen is a gun. Or more directly scientifically. The difference between a slave and a free person is the power through any means to keep ones self free.
This is also why fascism is pure fantasy under the idea that somehow you can own but not control… or someone can control all but not own all.
If you have the power to control it without any recourse through the owners power, then you own it period. Which is why fascism is simply a socialist fantasy where they pretend that they only control the means of production but in fact really they own and control the means of production.
Colin Porter says: @ur momisugly January 31, 2013 at 6:36 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No one has a monopoly on truth. You should look at several sources and compare and then make up your own mind.
The big problem we have today is a one note ♬ MEDIA ♬ that allows no dissenting view points.
SEE: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-the-secret-list-of-the-bbc-28-is-now-public/
hehe poor mods are probably beating themselves with a hammer to the head, with all of the high end sociology being posted that they have to read through to make sure we’re at least somewhat behaving.
temp, Why? I have an ar-15 no need to any government I can do it myself.
Go on. Tell me Gold Hat is a Capitalist and not an Anarchist.
In fact, Dobbs, was quite toward the Anarchist side himself when paranoid.
Howard, the prospector, was the Capitalist, trading his skill and knowledge for the labor of Dobbs and Curtain. In the end, Howard is left with his life, his sense of humor, and the respect of a Mexican village.
An anarchist uses an AR-15.
A Capitalist uses contract law.
Wow! This turned out to be one of the most engaging queues of comments and arguments that I have read in a looooong time! Other than some over-the-top bloviated name calling, this was an engaging read! Who would have thought that a post about that weasel Connelly (his choice of avatar, not an appellation from me) would have turned to a heated and pointed discussion of capitalism, anarchy, socialism and it’s end state communism?!! References and quotes from 1984 and Stormship Troopers, as argument supports, provided wonderful recollections of treasured readings from decades ago.
And then there was this ‘lob and volley’:
” Where there is disagreement, those who deny the right will win”
You sure, my ar-15 disagrees….
Priceless!!!!
MtK
– – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
Socialism supports in law the physical force necessary to redistribute wealth of some minority, against their principles, for the benefit of the principles of ‘socializers’ who claim noble righteousness in crusades for ‘social benefits’.
Authoritarianism is the means for socialization. As I just stated, socialization is achieved thru the authority of law to force wealth redistribution.
I think socialists do not hide that essential nature of socialism. So I fail to see why you are against it. The many socialists who are my close associates are proud of what they do, they exclaim there victories gleefully to me as an arch individualist / capitalist.
I, in principle, oppose for any reason the redistribution of wealth in that regard . . . absolutely and unequivocally. The primary fundamental moral imperative in my reason based philosophy is no person, government or social group can have any legal right to initiate force against an individual. Socialism is absolutely and in principle in violation of that moral imperative.
And Richard, you are being extremely uncivil to me again like you did after Christmas on the two Monckton threads involving science/religion. I sincerely request you stop the lack of civility. I have never been uncivil to you.
It is very disturbing for me to see you claim that I am a troll after all these many years and thousands of comments here and at other blogs.
John
Stephen Rasey says:
January 31, 2013 at 4:33 pm
I must admit I have no idea about the quote in question or movie it comes from. So going to skip over that part.
“Howard, the prospector, was the Capitalist, trading his skill and knowledge for the labor of Dobbs and Curtain. In the end, Howard is left with his life, his sense of humor, and the respect of a Mexican village.”
Thats fine but since I have no context for it I don’t know for sure.
“An anarchist uses an AR-15.
A Capitalist uses contract law.”
Well capitalists of many types use contract law… but what is contract law? For some it is law backed by the governments use of force… for others it is simply law backed by they’re own use of force.
Once again contract law doesn’t need the government to be in there. A contract can be between two individuals… and enforced by 1 or both of those individuals. The idea that one must have government is purely of the ever increasing socialist side of the scale.
One doesn’t need the government to have a working economy… trade has happened all throughout history without a government and it will again in the future.
Connelly, like Gore, and any who torture the truth, eventually discredit themselves; eventually seems too long to wait, but the authoritarian solutions are worse than the problem. Gore, Connelly, et al have created fertile ground for the growth of WUWT and a hundred+ other sites that flourish by allowing all kinds of confirmation bias to be aired. Nothing is more subject to confirmation bias than politics as one sees here in off topic and on topic posts alike. Roger Williams of Providence Plantation (and freedom of religion) fame said something like, “When you mix politics and religion, you get politics.” Similarly, when you mix science and politics, you get politics with many members of each side thinking their politics is justified because many on the other side believe AGW or creationism or any number of other things that are examples of politicized science and not science. Confirmation bias is so seductive that no one here is a virgin even though many here act as if they were.
John Whitman says:
January 31, 2013 at 5:32 pm
“It is very disturbing for me to see you claim that I am a troll after all these many years and thousands of comments here and at other blogs.”
This would be a bit my fault on that. I asked him to explain his socialism to me… and he tried and failed badly. He’s still a bit traumatized from that whole having to confront his ideals and finding them badly lacking.
You’ll note that he’s being smart and completely refusing to post any info on how socialism will work in his view… 3rd rule of marx and he’s rocking it hard.
We can sit here and nitpick about capitalism vs pure capitalism and where this extreme is because capitalism has rational thought and science to back it up. Sure we may never agree where a pure capitalist begins or ends… but we roughly the general area…
Once you start defining what socialism is, the general area always includes hitler, stalin and so many other socialists who were heros of socialism until they weren’t socialists. Which means not only must they run through the huge hoops of arguing an illogical ideology but they must also make sure to make the “new” “better” socialism “vastly” different from the “old and broken” “not” socialism of the past… all while being exactly the same.
As above within mises book… the easiest way to shut a socialist up is simply to ask him to explain in detail how his socialism will work. The smart one refuse to response… the useful idiots try and then fail.
– – – – – – –
temp & Stephen Rasey,
I am an individualist / capitalist. Government is beneficial to handle any conflict of individuals in some predetermined objective way. I think it is reasonable to expect to be able to successfully devise a necessary kind of government. I see courts, police and military. I find nothing else rationally needed for government.
I cannot see a rational basis for no government.
temp and Stephen Rasey, you seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals of the political concept of individual rights and capitalism contrasted to authoritarianism and socialism.
AND temp => you get 10 bonus points in my book for quoting Von Mises.
John
RE: Rasey 1:04 pm It will be interesting to see if the page on Winston Smith gets edit activity. (5 edits since Dec. 4, 2012. Last Jan. 18.)
Winston Smith Wikipedia page:
I guess he couldn’t help himself. It was the minor grammatical removal of 3 unnecessary words.
John Whitman says:
January 31, 2013 at 6:26 pm
I have enjoyed talking to you and Rasey about this and as I am not an anarchist(but close) I agree with you some government is needed. I always found the best way to sum of much of the debate in the simple quote
“Government is a necessary evil.”
Collectivists/socialist focus only/almost only on the “necessary” while individualists focus only/almost only on the “evil” part. Simple reality is yes government is needed but unless heavily controlled and restricted it will kill you. Any form of what would be considered socialism/that half of the scale and your already looking at major problems. Socialism has a habit of only stopping once its run its course… similar to a plague but far more deadly.
End run though I wish I could hang out and talk more since this is the first time in a long time i’ve run into some people with some knowledge about capitalism/economics/sociology that isn’t based solely in “useful idiot” propaganda. However going to be away from net for 3-4 days so this convo will die… but feel free to torment poor richard hehe.
O and about Mises I do like him even if he does like the “big government” hehe.
The text beneath that heading adds the qualification that the list contains only “notable” scientists–presumably many more non-notable scientists qualify.
Further, Wikipedia adds, “To be included on this list it is not enough for a scientist to be merely included on a petition, survey, or list. Instead, the scientist must make their own statement.” That must have cut down on the entries.
I bet twice as many notable names could be added (e.g., R.G. Brown at Duke). I suggest that someone start a “Notable Scientific Skeptics Nomination Project” thread with the aim of adding them to WP’s list. WP will require a citation to their published or posted skeptical statements, but someone other than the nominator could track it down.
Probably many names could be added by contacting notable scientists who have signed petitions or made online comments but not gone more formally on the record with their own quotations. They could be asked to make a post to that thread stating their position in their own words.
I suggest that someone visit Wiki and enter Dr. Evans name on the list–it’s missing.
Incidentally, I note that the number of names on the list has been cut from about 45, which it was three years ago, to 35. Presumably Connolley and his crew used nit-picking objections about the stature of the people listed and/or the wiki-worthy status of the sources in which their comments were made.
It would be worthy of an article here on WUWT to compile a list of all the names that have been removed, as a way of demonstrating Wiki’s absurdity, bias, and corruption. Also, it would result in a nearly complete worldwide compilation of the names of prominent dissenting scientists in climate-related fields, which could be posted online and cited in the future. (Does such a list exist already?)
Once our side compiles a list of prominent dissenting scientists, someone can insert a link to it into Wikipedia’s article on the topic prefaced by a remark to the effect that “A longer list, which includes short comments by the scientists involved, can be found HERE (link).” Let’s then see what feeble and/or outrageous excuse Connolley’s Crew uses to delete it–which we can then publicize.
richardscourtney said, “An assertion that socialism is akin to National Socialism is as offensive as saying Judaism is akin to National Socialism.”
That’s silly.
I am surprised you would make this statement. Communism, National Socialism, and Fascism are all different flavors of socialism. Maybe you haven’t studied economics and history.
The difference between a commie and a socialist is as follows;
A communist will take everything you own and shoot you.
A socialist is like a pcket thief. He will empty your pockets again and again and again. Finally you die, just as poor as when you were born.
conoly is only a computer programmer, no scientist at all. this fact makes him mad. he wants to be more than he is and he is becoming utterly nasty when you remind this average main stream advocat of this fact.
The politics discussion on this thread is very negative. Everyone is picking out what they don’t like and pointing out that it is bad.
Well, nothing is perfect.
A positive question to ask is, “What should we do?”. And I would propose the answer is “Eternal vigilance”.
Temp makes it clear that property rights are an absolute good, to him. There can be several objections :
Theological (who made property rights, God).
Philosophical (why do you have the right to that.. all the world was free once and does that apply to intellectual property… what about free speech and democracy?)
Practical (who enforces property rights, the man with the biggest gun… who makes him God and why can’t it be me).
There may be others. So be vigilant when someone claims that somethinhg as simple as divided ownership of the means of production will ensure the freedom of the workers.
Communism has the flaw of letting only a few people determine what the best use of the means of production is. And who makes them right? It is brutal when they are wrong.
Fascism (including National Socialism) uses the love of the State, the Nation and the Leader to unify the will of the people an thus to ensure that the divided ownership of the means of production is channelled in the same way. Although, to work there must be coercion to ensure people stay aligned. It is brutal.
Socialism also relies on coercion but only with the will of the people. There is a democratic process that permits the Governement to be kicked out if they take too much from the owners in order to build a society that benefits all…
But only if the people are vigilant.
So let us not call each other names. And let us not assume that the other is evil.
NA pleae, let us not assume we are right.
Sorry, that rant should end with,
“And please, let us not assume we are right.”
Friends:
I said that in furtherance of their cause zealots will distort any truth and represent lies as being reality.
I claimed that this is not confined to advocates of AGW such as Connolley but is typical of all extremist advocates.
And I argued that constant defence against totalitarianism is needed if its imposition is to be avoided.
In this thread my claims have been demonstrated by right-wing nut-jobs.
None has asked me
(a) why I am a socialist,
(b) what socialism is, and
(c) why I oppose totalitarianism.
Had they done that then they could have argued with the realities I stated and represent. Instead they have proclaimed distortions of reality which they want to promote.
Simply, they fear (know) they would lose a debate about the subject so they pretend the subject is other than it is.
Zealots. Bigots. Totalitarians. They are all dangerous people.
The danger they present has been demonstrated by right-wing nutters on this thread.
Connolley’s actions on Wicki demonstrate how they do it.
Richard
richard, so you are friendly invited to express here your rejection of conolys idiotic agw totalitarism
richardscourtney says:
February 1, 2013 at 1:39 am
OK. I’ll bite, even though maybe you don’t view me as a ‘friend’.
Why are you a socialist? ; and
What (in your view) is socialism?
– although philosophically it may be more sensible to take those in reverse order, since it may be that the reason(s) why you are a socialist stem automatically from your definition of it.
In addition, I accept that I am not exactly asking you what the definition is because I don’t personally subscribe to objectivism, at least not in politics, religion etc. and, anyway, I’ve heard many different definitions from many people all of whom who claim to be socialists (although in fact a lot of them turn out to be social democrats).