Terrorism generally kills fewer people than die in automobile accidents in the US each year.
Generally, but not always. Worst case is when said "terrorists" get control of a country and start doing at the country-level what they were doing at the local level. For example, the Cambodia genocide probably claimed more victims than died in car crashes globally for its duration (the years 1975-1979).
Of course, those deaths aren't considered terrorism because they're inflicted by the hand of the state. But they're a direct consequence of not doing something about a group that would be considered terrorists today.
Which is my point, treaties only have value when they're recognized and can be enforced. Just saying a treaty exists as the previous AC did, doesn't mean much on its own.
I already own the moon with the rest of the world under the current treaty
Not everyone recognizes the "current treaty". And I can draft up a new treaty in the next five minutes which doesn't recognize your claim to anything on the Moon or elsewhere.
No country that has actually put people in space is a signatory to the Moon Treaty. While the Outer Space Treaty is a similar obstruction to owning property in space, the Moon Treaty is much more of an obstacle. As a result, the only countries to have signed the Moon Treaty are pretty much those which have no expectation of ever doing anything on the Moon.
In today's multi/transnational corporate world the USA does not exist.
A statement which is obviously wrong by noting that multinational corporations and the US coexist.
The famous Authur Jensen speech from 1976 comes to mind.
You mean the famous Ned Betty soliloquy scene in the movie, "Network"? Where among other things, he claims that large businesses are the nations even though they obviously aren't (they don't have monopoly on force, taxation power, or any sort of sovereignty). You are basing your reasoning on fiction, cheap speeches in a fake world.
Anybody who tries will be 'liberated'. And the biggest part of the problem is that people keep on blaming policy and politicians for this, and nobody will look in the mirror and admit that they voted for it, To them I say, *you asked for it, thankyouverymuch.*
I think here the disease just may end up being the cure. I can't say for sure, since people have this remarkable ability to blame others for their own failings.
Why is there a "controversy" about Global Warming, and why is there none about "Terrorism"?
We know that paramilitary attacks on civilians happen and that they generally get worse when nothing is done about them. The people engaging in the activity learn both how to do the attacks more effectively and more frequently and also how to profit more from such actions.
Terrorism also kills a lot of people. Iraq Body Count has 7,500 killed in Iraq so far this year. Most of those are via what would be considered terrorism by some party. The Mexican Drug War includes a lot of such activities including the occasion killing in the US.
Climate change isn't going to get worse merely because we're not doing something about it.
Finally, there's the matter of evidence. It's easy to see bodies. It's hard to see a vague temperature change - especially when much of that change may only reside in the imagination or biases of the researchers claiming to see the effect.
but he doesn't perceive his interests and the actions he is taking to pursue his interests to be wrong, so he goes ahead with it. If he didn't perceive it as such, he wouldn't do it.
No, a lot of people do things that they think are wrong. And it doesn't really matter since the action not the intent is what makes something have harmful consequences.
Aehmm... a gouvernment with an overview over internal and external politics and economic data HAS more information available than any businessman on its own.
So what? It's not useful information for running a business. Businesses don't really need to know that much about the world outside of their target market. And the voluntary act of trade guarantees that those party to it are acting in their interests.
What your interest are relies largely on your perception
I bet you, me, and Mr. Maduro agree in large part on what Maduro's interests are. It's not a perception problem when the core of the matter remains no matter whose perception is used.
How would you know if you were seeing the results of that funding or not?
Propaganda is pretty damn obvious. That's why.
The Koch brothers don't need to generate certainty that climate change isn't a problem, they only need to create enough doubt to enable themselves to continue operating the way they always have.
So why is it that the Koch brothers only need to provide a little doubt and not the AGW theory advocates? Where's this magic asymmetry coming from?
From their financial statements, greenpeace spends about $35 million a year on climate change programs. The WWF spends about 80 percent of their budget on programs, and about two thirds of that is spent directly on conservation programs, leaving about 25% (33% of 80%) or roughly $66 million of their total budget that is spent on education and advocacy campaigns, most of which have little to do with climate change.
Those numbers ignore that most of the programs can easily be linked to climate change propaganda. As an example, if I want to donate online to the WWF to save some endangered species, I will be exposed to some climate change headlines. Last I checked, those made up most of the news stories that WWF puts on its main website.
I consider that situation analogous to some Christian soup kitchens. They feed the poor ass their primary mission, but those they help get some Christian propaganda with their food.
That's the problem. We are doing something. We're pumping lots of shit into the air. The alarmists are suggesting we stop doing that. Your idea of doing nothing about the problem is more accurately stated as continuing to change the composition of the atmosphere, which doesn't have quite the same cautious sound as "do nothing".
Ok, what is the problem? We aren't doing that just to do it. To suggest we "stop doing that" without understanding why we're "pumping lots of shit into the air" is harmfully ignorant.
And that's the hidden truth of "doing nothing". By doing nothing, we build and sustain a great civilization.
I suppose instead we should ignore the processes by which models are created which consistently exaggerate the effects of AGW and other climate change?
If the Poor and Powerless were abusing the system to control SMART PEOPLE (i.e., Libertarians and programmers who made big money ten years ago) then they wouldn't be Poor and Powerless, would they?
HINT: the above is not a trick question.
No, it's a logical fallacy. Labeling someone "Poor and Powerless" doesn't make them so. And of course, the people maintaining the system which Rand was complaining about would not be poor and powerless in any sense.
The climate change "alarmists" are the passengers pointing out that the car appears to be moving at a high rate of speed, and that might not be such a great idea, considering we don't know where we're going.
Fine, we'll go with your analogy. I'll point out here that "alarmists" generally don't understand why the car is moving or what a cliff is. Second, the problem here is that there's paint on the windshield not that the car could be heading towards a cliff. If it stops where it is, it might be in the wrong lane at a sharp turn. Getting smacked by some other disaster you didn't see isn't necessarily an improvement over the possibility of going over a cliff that might not be there.
It's also worth noting that the alarmists haven't actually demonstrated that there is a cliff.
The climate change "deniers" are the passengers going "WOOOOOO!!!!!!!!" like it was spring break.
There's this great delusion that all "deniers" will hold their opinions no matter what. I'm sure some of them will do so. But a lot of them are such simply because climate alarmists can't be bothered to make a case for why we should do something. It's reasonable that if we're to consider mitigation plans, we should also consider other choices, particularly, the one of doing nothing about the problem. Merely, assuming that doing nothing is worse than doing something is faulty logic.
No, it is a perception problem. You're perceiving, based on your moral compass and emotions, that the consequences are/will be bad, while the guys doing it in Venezuela, with their own moral compasses and emotions, don't see it as such.
Don't confuse a conflict of interest with perception.
As to the situation, there are several things that make it more than perception. First, soldiers closed down several stores. What was the point? The TV's aren't going to shoot back.
It doesn't take a lot of perception to think here that the soldiers are being misused since their purpose is to defend against heavily armed threats not enforce some petty law or political intrigue. Maduro had more appropriate and better trained personnel for handling this sort of thing.
Second, it's an escalating factor. Some Slashdotters have complained about US interference in Venezuela politics. This sort of over-the-top and probably illegal display of power is how foreign powers get allies and this category of coups happen. If Maduro can't be bothered to follow the law, then why would his opponents do so?
There's the perverse economic incentives which have been discussed before. Who in the world has any reason to import electronics or similar gear now that they can be forced to sell at a substantial loss? Obviously, Maduro doesn't care, but he's not the only person in Venezuela. Some of them want TVs.
It wouldn't matter what Maduro's perceptions where, if he weren't in a position of power. Different perceptions don't on their own automatically create a problem. Having the power to implement that viewpoint over the protests of people with rival viewpoints makes a problem.
Finally, it's not obvious to me that Maduro actually is acting on his perceptions rather than his interests. He might agree with me entirely, but still act that way merely because being President of Venezuela is a really nice gig.
but in the United States it sure as hell can be, and that quite simply is a fact
I see weasel words in your supposed declaration of fact. "Can be" != "is".
At the risk of a straw man, you seem to be insinuating that the way we've been doing things here in the US with respect to medical care is acceptable. If (and only if) that's the case, fuck you.
And your sort of moral bullshit has been used in the US to rationalize Obamacare. Because random homeless guy and food deserts, we must screw up society even more than it already is. What's the point of a morality for which you haven't considered the consequences or can afford to have?
What cliff? You assert the existence of something which you haven't bothered to provide evidence for. I'll note also that in your analogy, we can just look out the windshield to see whether there actually is a cliff or not. With global warming, we're told to take things on faith. Well, I don't trust the predictions enough to take them on faith.
The Koch brothers run a privately owned company with an estimated income of around $100 billion per year
Nobody runs a company, private or otherwise, with an income of $100 billion per year. Saudi Aramco probably comes close, but they aren't run by the Koch brothers.
3) No one know how much money the Koch brothers spend on climate change propaganda.
Koch industries is a privately owned company and thus doesn't have to reveal how much money it spends on anti-climate change propaganda. It seems likely, however, if they spend as little as 1% on opposing climate change they'd outspend the Greenpeace and the WWF entirely. Once you account for the actual breakdown of spending on climate change for those groups, the Koch brothers could easily outspend them with 0.1% of annual revenue.
The problem with such breezy assumptions is that if the Koch brothers really are spending that kind of money, then why aren't we seeing the results? They should be able to get a lot of reporters to downplay climate change for example. Instead, we see reporters who strain to get climate change into a story.
This is a ridiculous assumption to make, however, it may surprise you to know that Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and the European Union have other things to spend their money on than climate change.
The EU plans to spend roughly 30 billion Euro per year on climate change for 2014-2020. That's apparently 20% of its budget. And while Greenpeace and the WWF have other things to spend money on, they're primarily propaganda organizations. Even those other things are used to further the messages that these organizations wish to send.
Ah, yes. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." Incidentally, I've never really been a big fan of Greenpeace either, but I try not to let the messenger colour the message.
No, that's not my job anymore. I just happen to remember the past.
But to stop global warming completely in it's tracks would cost us close to 2% of world GDP, fairly close to what the world spends on sewers and sewage treatment.
Which is a large amount and probably underestimated by the people who made the study in question. Public sanitation is an obvious public good. Stopping global warming "in its tracks" is not.
It is interesting how successful the Koch brothers were with their anti-AGW Think Tank funding. They couldn't discredit the science, so they discredited scientists instead. And have created this fantastic meme that it is the scientist side of this discussion that has a big economic interest in it.
Oceania always had a need for an Emmanuel Goldstein. Here, the Koch brothers are attributed with a near mythical level of persuasion even though on the propaganda front they're greatly outspent, for example, by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the EU.
My view is that over the decades, the environmentalism movement has fucked over a lot of people. I know I became disenchanted when Greenpeace (US branch, I believe) libeled Du Pont (incidentally with global warming FUD) while I was working there around 1990. The society-wide distrust of the AGW theory is one of those consequences.
People might still be willing to make small but meaningless sacrifices (such as recycling programs) for the environment, but when it affects your life and those you care about for little, if any, gain, people get more discerning.
You know as well as I do that the deniers will cry about how it was the Suns fault all along
A scenario which hasn't really been ruled out, you know. All sorts of things have been blamed for why climate models don't match reality - sunlight blocking soot, solar activity changes, and heat absorbed by oceans. I see it as models not matching reality. It may be that one or more of these excuses are valid or it may simply be that the models are in error.
whenever the higher intensity state returns we'll be right back where we are now.
Which isn't a bad place to be. Keep in mind that humanity does other things than merely emitting carbon dioxide such as reducing poverty.
On the other hand it seems that a prospering planned economy would need a plan classes better than what Venezuela is doing... (Heck I doubt they have a plan at all!)
Doesn't really matter to be honest. If you're planning down to the scale of selling TVs and consumer electronics, then you're both doing too much micromanaging and operating well outside any area of knowledge or expertise you might have.
Slashdot Mirror
The truth will ultimately be told in the long term statistics, IOW the climate.
I agree.
Terrorism generally kills fewer people than die in automobile accidents in the US each year.
Generally, but not always. Worst case is when said "terrorists" get control of a country and start doing at the country-level what they were doing at the local level. For example, the Cambodia genocide probably claimed more victims than died in car crashes globally for its duration (the years 1975-1979).
Of course, those deaths aren't considered terrorism because they're inflicted by the hand of the state. But they're a direct consequence of not doing something about a group that would be considered terrorists today.
Which is my point, treaties only have value when they're recognized and can be enforced. Just saying a treaty exists as the previous AC did, doesn't mean much on its own.
I already own the moon with the rest of the world under the current treaty
Not everyone recognizes the "current treaty". And I can draft up a new treaty in the next five minutes which doesn't recognize your claim to anything on the Moon or elsewhere.
No country that has actually put people in space is a signatory to the Moon Treaty. While the Outer Space Treaty is a similar obstruction to owning property in space, the Moon Treaty is much more of an obstacle. As a result, the only countries to have signed the Moon Treaty are pretty much those which have no expectation of ever doing anything on the Moon.
In today's multi/transnational corporate world the USA does not exist.
A statement which is obviously wrong by noting that multinational corporations and the US coexist.
The famous Authur Jensen speech from 1976 comes to mind.
You mean the famous Ned Betty soliloquy scene in the movie, "Network"? Where among other things, he claims that large businesses are the nations even though they obviously aren't (they don't have monopoly on force, taxation power, or any sort of sovereignty). You are basing your reasoning on fiction, cheap speeches in a fake world.
Anybody who tries will be 'liberated'. And the biggest part of the problem is that people keep on blaming policy and politicians for this, and nobody will look in the mirror and admit that they voted for it, To them I say, *you asked for it, thankyouverymuch.*
I think here the disease just may end up being the cure. I can't say for sure, since people have this remarkable ability to blame others for their own failings.
Most of these claims are parodies of the extreme weather confirmation bias where any weird weather is seen as proof of climate change.
Why is there a "controversy" about Global Warming, and why is there none about "Terrorism"?
We know that paramilitary attacks on civilians happen and that they generally get worse when nothing is done about them. The people engaging in the activity learn both how to do the attacks more effectively and more frequently and also how to profit more from such actions.
Terrorism also kills a lot of people. Iraq Body Count has 7,500 killed in Iraq so far this year. Most of those are via what would be considered terrorism by some party. The Mexican Drug War includes a lot of such activities including the occasion killing in the US.
Climate change isn't going to get worse merely because we're not doing something about it.
Finally, there's the matter of evidence. It's easy to see bodies. It's hard to see a vague temperature change - especially when much of that change may only reside in the imagination or biases of the researchers claiming to see the effect.
but he doesn't perceive his interests and the actions he is taking to pursue his interests to be wrong, so he goes ahead with it. If he didn't perceive it as such, he wouldn't do it.
No, a lot of people do things that they think are wrong. And it doesn't really matter since the action not the intent is what makes something have harmful consequences.
Aehmm... a gouvernment with an overview over internal and external politics and economic data HAS more information available than any businessman on its own.
So what? It's not useful information for running a business. Businesses don't really need to know that much about the world outside of their target market. And the voluntary act of trade guarantees that those party to it are acting in their interests.
What your interest are relies largely on your perception
I bet you, me, and Mr. Maduro agree in large part on what Maduro's interests are. It's not a perception problem when the core of the matter remains no matter whose perception is used.
How would you know if you were seeing the results of that funding or not?
Propaganda is pretty damn obvious. That's why.
The Koch brothers don't need to generate certainty that climate change isn't a problem, they only need to create enough doubt to enable themselves to continue operating the way they always have.
So why is it that the Koch brothers only need to provide a little doubt and not the AGW theory advocates? Where's this magic asymmetry coming from?
From their financial statements, greenpeace spends about $35 million a year on climate change programs. The WWF spends about 80 percent of their budget on programs, and about two thirds of that is spent directly on conservation programs, leaving about 25% (33% of 80%) or roughly $66 million of their total budget that is spent on education and advocacy campaigns, most of which have little to do with climate change.
Those numbers ignore that most of the programs can easily be linked to climate change propaganda. As an example, if I want to donate online to the WWF to save some endangered species, I will be exposed to some climate change headlines. Last I checked, those made up most of the news stories that WWF puts on its main website.
I consider that situation analogous to some Christian soup kitchens. They feed the poor ass their primary mission, but those they help get some Christian propaganda with their food.
That's the problem. We are doing something. We're pumping lots of shit into the air. The alarmists are suggesting we stop doing that. Your idea of doing nothing about the problem is more accurately stated as continuing to change the composition of the atmosphere, which doesn't have quite the same cautious sound as "do nothing".
Ok, what is the problem? We aren't doing that just to do it. To suggest we "stop doing that" without understanding why we're "pumping lots of shit into the air" is harmfully ignorant.
And that's the hidden truth of "doing nothing". By doing nothing, we build and sustain a great civilization.
I suppose instead we should ignore the processes by which models are created which consistently exaggerate the effects of AGW and other climate change?
If the Poor and Powerless were abusing the system to control SMART PEOPLE (i.e., Libertarians and programmers who made big money ten years ago) then they wouldn't be Poor and Powerless, would they?
HINT: the above is not a trick question.
No, it's a logical fallacy. Labeling someone "Poor and Powerless" doesn't make them so. And of course, the people maintaining the system which Rand was complaining about would not be poor and powerless in any sense.
The climate change "alarmists" are the passengers pointing out that the car appears to be moving at a high rate of speed, and that might not be such a great idea, considering we don't know where we're going.
Fine, we'll go with your analogy. I'll point out here that "alarmists" generally don't understand why the car is moving or what a cliff is. Second, the problem here is that there's paint on the windshield not that the car could be heading towards a cliff. If it stops where it is, it might be in the wrong lane at a sharp turn. Getting smacked by some other disaster you didn't see isn't necessarily an improvement over the possibility of going over a cliff that might not be there.
It's also worth noting that the alarmists haven't actually demonstrated that there is a cliff.
The climate change "deniers" are the passengers going "WOOOOOO!!!!!!!!" like it was spring break.
There's this great delusion that all "deniers" will hold their opinions no matter what. I'm sure some of them will do so. But a lot of them are such simply because climate alarmists can't be bothered to make a case for why we should do something. It's reasonable that if we're to consider mitigation plans, we should also consider other choices, particularly, the one of doing nothing about the problem. Merely, assuming that doing nothing is worse than doing something is faulty logic.
No, it is a perception problem. You're perceiving, based on your moral compass and emotions, that the consequences are/will be bad, while the guys doing it in Venezuela, with their own moral compasses and emotions, don't see it as such.
Don't confuse a conflict of interest with perception.
As to the situation, there are several things that make it more than perception. First, soldiers closed down several stores. What was the point? The TV's aren't going to shoot back.
It doesn't take a lot of perception to think here that the soldiers are being misused since their purpose is to defend against heavily armed threats not enforce some petty law or political intrigue. Maduro had more appropriate and better trained personnel for handling this sort of thing.
Second, it's an escalating factor. Some Slashdotters have complained about US interference in Venezuela politics. This sort of over-the-top and probably illegal display of power is how foreign powers get allies and this category of coups happen. If Maduro can't be bothered to follow the law, then why would his opponents do so?
There's the perverse economic incentives which have been discussed before. Who in the world has any reason to import electronics or similar gear now that they can be forced to sell at a substantial loss? Obviously, Maduro doesn't care, but he's not the only person in Venezuela. Some of them want TVs.
It wouldn't matter what Maduro's perceptions where, if he weren't in a position of power. Different perceptions don't on their own automatically create a problem. Having the power to implement that viewpoint over the protests of people with rival viewpoints makes a problem.
Finally, it's not obvious to me that Maduro actually is acting on his perceptions rather than his interests. He might agree with me entirely, but still act that way merely because being President of Venezuela is a really nice gig.
What's happening in Venezuela will have real world consequences. It's not just a perception problem.
but in the United States it sure as hell can be, and that quite simply is a fact
I see weasel words in your supposed declaration of fact. "Can be" != "is".
At the risk of a straw man, you seem to be insinuating that the way we've been doing things here in the US with respect to medical care is acceptable. If (and only if) that's the case, fuck you.
And your sort of moral bullshit has been used in the US to rationalize Obamacare. Because random homeless guy and food deserts, we must screw up society even more than it already is. What's the point of a morality for which you haven't considered the consequences or can afford to have?
What cliff? You assert the existence of something which you haven't bothered to provide evidence for. I'll note also that in your analogy, we can just look out the windshield to see whether there actually is a cliff or not. With global warming, we're told to take things on faith. Well, I don't trust the predictions enough to take them on faith.
The Koch brothers run a privately owned company with an estimated income of around $100 billion per year
Nobody runs a company, private or otherwise, with an income of $100 billion per year. Saudi Aramco probably comes close, but they aren't run by the Koch brothers.
3) No one know how much money the Koch brothers spend on climate change propaganda. Koch industries is a privately owned company and thus doesn't have to reveal how much money it spends on anti-climate change propaganda. It seems likely, however, if they spend as little as 1% on opposing climate change they'd outspend the Greenpeace and the WWF entirely. Once you account for the actual breakdown of spending on climate change for those groups, the Koch brothers could easily outspend them with 0.1% of annual revenue.
The problem with such breezy assumptions is that if the Koch brothers really are spending that kind of money, then why aren't we seeing the results? They should be able to get a lot of reporters to downplay climate change for example. Instead, we see reporters who strain to get climate change into a story.
This is a ridiculous assumption to make, however, it may surprise you to know that Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and the European Union have other things to spend their money on than climate change.
The EU plans to spend roughly 30 billion Euro per year on climate change for 2014-2020. That's apparently 20% of its budget. And while Greenpeace and the WWF have other things to spend money on, they're primarily propaganda organizations. Even those other things are used to further the messages that these organizations wish to send.
Ah, yes. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." Incidentally, I've never really been a big fan of Greenpeace either, but I try not to let the messenger colour the message.
No, that's not my job anymore. I just happen to remember the past.
But to stop global warming completely in it's tracks would cost us close to 2% of world GDP, fairly close to what the world spends on sewers and sewage treatment.
Which is a large amount and probably underestimated by the people who made the study in question. Public sanitation is an obvious public good. Stopping global warming "in its tracks" is not.
It is interesting how successful the Koch brothers were with their anti-AGW Think Tank funding. They couldn't discredit the science, so they discredited scientists instead. And have created this fantastic meme that it is the scientist side of this discussion that has a big economic interest in it.
Oceania always had a need for an Emmanuel Goldstein. Here, the Koch brothers are attributed with a near mythical level of persuasion even though on the propaganda front they're greatly outspent, for example, by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the EU.
My view is that over the decades, the environmentalism movement has fucked over a lot of people. I know I became disenchanted when Greenpeace (US branch, I believe) libeled Du Pont (incidentally with global warming FUD) while I was working there around 1990. The society-wide distrust of the AGW theory is one of those consequences.
People might still be willing to make small but meaningless sacrifices (such as recycling programs) for the environment, but when it affects your life and those you care about for little, if any, gain, people get more discerning.
You know as well as I do that the deniers will cry about how it was the Suns fault all along
A scenario which hasn't really been ruled out, you know. All sorts of things have been blamed for why climate models don't match reality - sunlight blocking soot, solar activity changes, and heat absorbed by oceans. I see it as models not matching reality. It may be that one or more of these excuses are valid or it may simply be that the models are in error.
whenever the higher intensity state returns we'll be right back where we are now.
Which isn't a bad place to be. Keep in mind that humanity does other things than merely emitting carbon dioxide such as reducing poverty.
Or possibly a lot earlier than you think. I guess we'll just have to see what actually happens.
On the other hand it seems that a prospering planned economy would need a plan classes better than what Venezuela is doing... (Heck I doubt they have a plan at all!)
Doesn't really matter to be honest. If you're planning down to the scale of selling TVs and consumer electronics, then you're both doing too much micromanaging and operating well outside any area of knowledge or expertise you might have.