The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

Incredible how all psychologist I saw, in my city, and most on web, look like depressed, and in case of JBP depressed and angry. In one interview he (JBP) demosntrated dispise over a female interviewer, not even looking to her but quite faking notes on a paper most time.

I'm not left wing, neither right, but I found most of psychology more phylosophy than science. It's a circus with clows, since we found lot's of "trues" out there, very different one from each other, coming from different psychologists. In one side some religious ones (not talking about JBP now) and i n the other some nearly porn ones defending cheat and nearly bestiality.

Looking to the history of this field, it's even worse. Psychologist and psychiatrist had put something as decease based in the power (or lack of power) of the target people. Much of them worth nothing or should be on jail.

For me it's a bull...t area. Mother in law's house (everycome come with different things anytime and do what they wish. ---/ a brazilian expression I'm trying to translate).

JBP a hero? Becase he expose the crazy sh...t left craziness? I can expose their sh...t too, and also most people here can do the same.
Or because he wrote self help books, to praise men's ego? Many women psychologist do that but praising women's ego. In the end it's self help for who wrote the book and got money ad fame, targeting some public.

I don't have heros, cause I don't see anyone in our era.

But, let's let the left and the liers for one minute. Why politics and politic's power should define science, define what is decease ?
The old freak power of old days did sh... in this filed deacades ago... and now the politic power can do again, but using victimim to push polictic power to impose what is what.
I think people should admit, they, politics and even scientists, in terms of human mind, brain, know nearly nothing and should declare incompetent to say what is what.

The problem it's arrogance to say a simple sentence : "I don't f... know".

[All Darc]

You are right !

But they use in some solar power plants, as storage, due reduced cost compared with batteries.

The salt don' give back all it had stored, but if it keep hot for 24 hours it would be easier to heat eat to the usefull point than heat it form zero (like the first day of use)

Originally Posted by aerohead

*The eutectic salt would not give back all that it had stored.
*Any heat loss of the stored energy would be an issue.
*There would be heat loss at the boiler heat exchanger.
*There would be losses across the turbo-generator.
*There would be losses at the cooling tower heat exchanger.
*There would be inefficiencies associated with the cooling tower fan
*Losses at any working fluid pumps.
I don't think you could beat the efficiency of existing battery technology.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Sociopaths use to have higher IQ, and they are in the entire spectrum of society, all classes, in all colors.
They are crap people, since they are evil. Crap (what I refered about) it's not just about poor ignorant street criminals.

It is estimated 1% of the population are sociopaths. They aren't necessarily "crap people" as you say. Sociopaths have difficulty feeling empathetic or sympathetic towards others, and that doesn't necessarily mean they will act more malevolent than others. There are plenty of other motivations besides sympathy for treating people well.

I'm friends with a sociopath, and he's the last person that would steal, cheat, or otherwise harm you.

Originally Posted by All Darc

Please don't take me wrong or as offensive. But... Why so much people in this forum see Jordan Peterson (The right wing canadian psychologist who wants to socialize pu...y) as a semi God ?

Who is making Peterson out to be a god? Who says he is right-wing? If you think he's right-wing, you're listening to the wrong media sources.

I like to listen to him because he speaks about things in which he's given considerable thought, and is careful to speak truthfully. It's evident when people attack him because he either has the right counter to their attack, or simply says he doesn't know. His credibility is in knowing the limits of his knowledge.

About good X evil... I noticed that media in old days was quite cretins trying to fake, make fool of people, forcing a fake image of thenselves as good guys. Today they don't try it, since it have considerable limits, but try to make people as cretins as them, to the poor cretins with no power see no harm on rich powerfull cretins.

Not sure I follow here. So media used to label people as either good or bad, and now they don't?

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I understood his point, immediately.

I will make it plain: the cost of using fossil fuels is incalculable.

Incalculable in that the variables are so many and complicated that a calculation would be impossible; not incalculable as in so enormous as to be near utter ruin.

It would also be correct to argue that fossil fuels has been an incalculable good for humanity. Nearly every measurable way to evaluate the health of humanity, from life expectancy, wealth, rate of poverty, disease, free time, GDP, infant mortality, travel time... is positively correlated with fossil fuel consumption. The great good is incalculable due to the many variables at play, and in the sense of the enormity of the good.

Originally Posted by All Darc

Incredible how all psychologist I saw, in my city, and most on web, look like depressed, and in case of JBP depressed and angry. In one interview he (JBP) demosntrated dispise over a female interviewer, not even looking to her but quite faking notes on a paper most time.

Peterson has admitted to depression himself. It's difficult having a higher order of thinking and having to constantly interact with lower order thinking, or having your higher order thinking subverted to lower order thinking. Very depressing.

As far as responding to interviewers; there is a difference between asking a question to increase your knowledge or with the intention of having a rational debate in the pursuit of knowledge, and simply asking rhetorical questions meant to associate a person as a "type" that is not worth even listening to.

I've seen him respond very positively to interviewers, even ones that don't necessarily agree with him. It just depends on if they are truly trying to have a discussion, or if they just want to appeal to their base of mindless followers.

I'm not left wing, neither right, but I found most of psychology more phylosophy than science. It's a circus with clows, since we found lot's of "trues" out there, very different one from each other, coming from different psychologists. In one side some religious ones (not talking about JBP now) and i n the other some nearly porn ones defending cheat and nearly bestiality.

The health of the mind is related to philosophy. Everyone has philosophical beliefs, even if they haven't given it much thought or can articulate what they are. It's an inescapable reality that philosophy and psychology are related since they both reside in the mind.

The main difference in philosophies come down to whether we are given purpose, or if we must invent our own purpose. In the former, we have a lot to live up to (burden), in the latter, all sorts of evil are permissible.

For me it's a bull...t area.
JBP a hero? Becase he expose the crazy sh...t left craziness? I can expose their sh...t too, and also most people here can do the same.

In the US, the culture has shifted so much that you can't even mention the craziness. That's part of what has propelled his popularity; his aggressive defense of the freedom of speech.

Or because he wrote self help books, to praise men's ego? Many women psychologist do that but praising women's ego. In the end it's self help for who wrote the book and got money ad fame, targeting some public.

Have you read any of these books you are mentioning? Do you think they have benefited nobody but the authors? Are farmers the only winners since they are paid for their crops?

I don't have heros, cause I don't see anyone in our era.

I tend to not view people through the hero lens because we all have our faults. Still, there are some people who are worth listening to more than others, and some ideas are better than others.

Why politics and politic's power should define science, define what is decease ?

Humans are involved in those areas. All of the benefits and drawbacks of human nature will apply here.

I think people should admit, they, politics and even scientists, in terms of human mind, brain, know nearly nothing and should declare incompetent to say what is what.

The problem it's arrogance to say a simple sentence : "I don't f... know".

Agreed. Problem is that sheep (the majority of us) follow people who project power. To project power, you need a certain level of arrogance and non-admission of limitations. Who would vote for a person who honestly says they would probably do very little to solve illegal immigration, for example? Rather than admit it's a tough problem, we get someone who says the solution is easy; just build a great great wall.

[freebeard]

But, let's let the left and the liers for one minute. Why politics and politic's power should define science, define what is decease ?
The old freak power of old days did sh... in this filed deacades ago... and now the politic power can do again, but using victimim to push polictic power to impose what is what

What?

I think people should admit, they, politics and even scientists, in terms of human mind, brain, know nearly nothing and should declare incompetent to say what is what.

Speak for yourself.

The problem it's arrogance to say a simple sentence : "I don't f... know".

Wouldn't that be humility?

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I understood his point, immediately.

I will make it plain: the cost of using fossil fuels is incalculable.

That is fine to say as long as you also realize intrinsically that fossil fuel has allowed human civilization to balloon far beyond being able to survive on current real time solar flows. We cannot just stop without the economy crashing and the world starving and falling apart. And there is no scale of rebuildables that can be implemented to maintain our numbers now without it.
.
And
.
We have all but eaten our seed corn of affordable liquid fuel to attempt a complete retrofit.

[All Darc]

Most sociopaths are evil, since most of the moral brakes who stops most people from make bad acts it's pain. Empath it's basecly pain, feel pain when we see others in pain, or pain from shame related to public judgment, and more rarely happyness with other peeople welfair. Sociopaths don't have it.

The worst sociopaths are the ones that have no empathy (all) and also can some some happy feeling when watching people in pain. They are the sadistic ones, and at least, thankfully, these types are the manoroty of sociopaths.

Maybe you are confusing some aspergers with sociopaths. Few sociopaths follow rules due conscience. Most who follows do it just for not gewt problems with law or get jail.
Psychologist are sh...t to diagnose, since there are cases of psychologist fall in love with psychopaths, and a psychitric who was murdered by hew own daughter who was psychopaths and the mother didn't even know.

Today functional pet scans are the best way to diagnose.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It is estimated 1% of the population are sociopaths. They aren't necessarily "crap people" as you say. Sociopaths have difficulty feeling empathetic or sympathetic towards others, and that doesn't necessarily mean they will act more malevolent than others. There are plenty of other motivations besides sympathy for treating people well.

I'm friends with a sociopath, and he's the last person that would steal, cheat, or otherwise harm you.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Who is making Peterson out to be a god? Who says he is right-wing? If you think he's right-wing, you're listening to the wrong media sources.

I like to listen to him because he speaks about things in which he's given considerable thought, and is careful to speak truthfully. It's evident when people attack him because he either has the right counter to their attack, or simply says he doesn't know. His credibility is in knowing the limits of his knowledge.

Well, that the impression I got on web. HE spokes many trues, and many ones I used to talk before found his videos.. But sellective trues can be similar to lies if we sellectively speak trues.
We can feel his bias over women, sellectiving speaking trues, the trues that praise the male public ho bought his books, the guys cheated by women, or the guys who didn't got the women they wisk.

In one video JBP spoke about forbiden women to have many partners. Well, he didn't said "let's put a new law to stop theis pu...." But gave some impression like that, using the arguying of enough women to the male population, using the overgamia, supergamia, something like that, saying it leads to lack of women. Well, it's like slamic people think, give women to man.
If women don't want uglly or poor man, it's their right, in same way man have right to reject fat and uggly women.

If society educated man with neurosis or "duty to proof be a man all the time", leading them to go over all women who gave signal that wants hin, they can't complain now that women get sex or get man more easily than man, just needing to be available or make signals.

Not sure I follow here. So media used to label people as either good or bad, and now they don't?[/QUOTE]

[All Darc]

Following your quotes.

1- For example this battle, more poitics than science, over themes linked to sexuality, gays, lesbian, trangenders. Sicence treated these groops like sh...t for decades, and now politics wants to use public force an opinion and students to define what it's decease. Both are wrong. And we must remamber that something be a decease do not means that we have the right to impose things or "treatments" (s...t -another theme for debate) over the people who have it.

2-Science know little about brain, despite be a lot more than 50 years ago. THey should not be arrogant in define like if they had always the answer.Like I sai, they need courage to say when don't know something.

3-Humility ? I's about know limits, just true and not speculation placed as true. True it's brave, while fake knowledge it's arrogance and cowardice.
Arrogance made science a politic weapon. Science (bad science) have a whole history of crimes against humanity, even nowadays. ANd in terms of brain it's more phylosophy than science when it comes to define things.

Originally Posted by freebeard

What?

Speak for yourself.

Wouldn't that be humility?

[All Darc]

Redpoint, you edited and added more text... Háa háaa.... (like I often do)
I will need to follow.

Media is pushing crap behavior, selfish, vanity, porn in ways never before. The people who decades ago had to be dissimulated to be accepted, cause they were so imoral or so selfish to get along, today don't even have to.
If society, the usal Joe (like said in USA) became as freak as the freak people who have power, there will be no nice Joes to defiant the freak powerfull people. Public opinion will not work in good direction, will not boicot or acuse the freak industry, cause industry would had turn these pewople in another freaks.

That' what I'm trying to say, the new strategy to slave society it's to create slaves with poor moral and still with no power. It's like a bullying tough bad guy in school trying to convince little frail bonne nerds that the good way to run day by day problems it's solve things in physical dispute.

Back on pshychology, it's ironic, they are suposed to treat minds but most can't help thenselves, as they are more depressed, more prone to suicide. Many have terrible family problems with wife and kids. And if you get 4 different ones, they often have different diagnoses, different ways to judge and see the things. One can mix religion, and other can mix por libertin behavior. It's a jungle, a circus... How can we take such thing seriously ???? Come on...
And the criminal way these science behaved along history, and still a bit today. They use local culture as argument such "but society it's that way", and if society change there will be new rules and what they did n past will be considered crime, like it's today about treatments for gays, lesbian etc...

I saw a article of a brazilian psychology association where they where disgusted about some proposed law, and the law proposition was really disgusting, but it was exactly what most psychologistz and their associations preached 10 or 15 years before.

How take seriously such lack of character, such disgrace, such cowards, such ping-pong balls that run like chicken or kiss a...es based in power or public opinion?
For me most of then are just garbage. Don't have sanity or moral even for thenselves. And I repeat, many should be on jail.

Democracy... the problem of this system is that it can't be much better than the people who vote. Stupid people ellect stupid or cretins, and dispise the rest.
But science would not be like that. It should have more character, otherwise it fails about their purpose.

[freebeard]

For example this battle, more poitics than science, over themes linked to...

Not touching that. The truth is so far outside the Overton Window it's unspeakable.

And we must remamber that something be a decease do not means that we have the right to impose things or treatments (**** -another theme for debate) ove the people who have it.

??? Define 'decease'?

Science know little about brain, despite be a lot more than 50 years ago. THey should not be arrogant in define like if they had always the answer.Like I sai, they need courage to say when don't know something.

What they know is not nothing. (is that a double negative?)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=electrical+geodesics
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=new+cell+in+human+brain

ANd in terms of brain it's more phylosophy than science when it comes to define things.

At bottom, it's all Quantum Mechanics. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=quantum+gravity
________

there will be no nice Joes to defiant the freak powerfull people

Compare the regressive Left with a Trump rally. Who's winning?



I'll need to be away from the keyboard for a few moments.

[All Darc]

A polar bear it's not ill, on artic. But on California he would be a albine.
Yes, decease can vary a lot, and that's why we can't be arrogant.

But in things like a transsexuals who demand surgery and hormon treatment from government... well.... if they were okay with thenselves they would not demand surgery and hormon treatment for the rest of their lifes. A dicease, probably (if affect people life deeply), but this did not give us right to hurt them, force them or any other freak things like did in the past (by medicine, psychology, psychiatry,state, chucrh).
The problem is that polictic, extreme left, it's trying to impose things without know. A deacese or not, a right or not to get free surgery??? The answer it's not easy and they can't call of Hitler everyone who do not agree 100% with them.
For the oposite side the right wing can't do the same to please their politic ideology.

Knownledge it's still limited about brain, despite deep research.

Trump ??? Sociopaths get support in "thin cows times", or when people are afraid. Probably someting connect to base instincts from appe humanoid times. Cold blood were good fighters when rival tribes conflicts happens and had more leadership.
And left it's not innocent just because they said they wish help poor people.

Most conservatives are not conservatives, but just hate gays, immigrants, latins and hate the left. They still cheat wife, beat, steal, do the horrible things that chuchs supposed fight. I'm speaking in general, since there is a wide variable between all that. This talk of morals and God it's laughtable, in the same way the left talk of rights and humanity also have a lot of hypocrisy.
I remamber there is reasonable people in both, right and left wings. I spoke in general way to just make a example.

I need to get out too.