FYI the term 'denier' or 'denialist' is not related to holocaust denial, but to being in denial. Denial is a coping mechanism, the first of several stages that are generally thought to be the psychological reaction to hearing bad news (the sequence being, I think: Denial, Anger, Depression, Acceptance).
Denying Climate Change is exactly like denying that you have cancer when your oncologist tells you that you do. It's easier on yourself to consider this reaction as scepticism, although you know that if you were really sceptical you would seek a second opinion rather than simply going home and ignoring the symptoms.
Understanding this reaction as denial helps the rest of us to see that these people are not insane, not necessarily dumb, and not necessarily evil - it is just taking them a little longer to work through the cognitive coping process. Also the term is a useful counter to the labelling of this reaction as scepticism - a term used deliberately to imply that it is the role of those who accept climate change to convince those who do not (a obviously absurd notion, when stated explicitly, which is why that rarely happens).
1. Nuclear power is complex and has enormous startup costs if you intend to build the reactor yourself. This means that you need a lot of startup capital. The startup cost contributes to several other disadvantages.
2. The management of Nuclear power is really confined to nation states. Individuals cannot build and maintain reactors. The centralised nature of Nuclear power rules it out for many communities, e.g. ethnic groups who are quasi ruled by a semi hostile government can then be at a disadvantage if that government controls their power supply.
3. The technology is complex and IP bound. This is a complex minefield to navigate if you choose to build your own reactor. If you buy one off a provider, you will be effectively dependent on that provider for upkeep of the reactor, not an attractive option for many people.
4. Nuclear reactors require fuel - if your country doesn't have the fuel, this means negotiating for fuel off another country - again, leading to potential dependence on other countries.
5. Nuclear power doesn't offer any financial advantages over other options, such as wind or geotherm, once the full cost of ownership is taken into account.
6. Building nuclear reactors seems to make certain paranoid blocs nervous. They then develop a tendency to meddle in your affairs. Why buy into that sort of trouble?
I think that it is good that on behalf of the anti global warming crowd, Bastardi has stepped up and made a specific predictions about what the climate will do in the future. He hasn't described the methodology he used to reached his figures, nor his confidence level, nor is it apparent that he is has taken into account short term impacts due to other causes (variations in solar output,or the effect that various weather events like El Nino/La Nina have etc.). However, we - finally - have a specific prediction, which I agree is a useful thing - because if we lacked anything, it was some demonstrable methodology, theory and observations from those who claim that the temperature is not rising and/or that the observed rise in temperature is due to another (unexplained) factor.
If Bastardis prediction is wrong then it will be a slap in the face to all those who discount what we have observed so far about greenhouse gases and their effect on the atmosphere.
Hypothesis followed by observation... admittedly it cannot be repeated, but it is, at the very least, a step in the right direction.
To expand on my earlier point: only one side really lacks a hypothesis or reliable observation. Scientists arrived at the conclusion that CO2 is a greenhouse gas by observation. This experiment is easily repeated today - as for other gases we label greenhouse gases, it's a matter of infra-red absorption. Secondly, the concentration of said gases in the atmosphere - and in particular CO2, are observed to be on the increase. So even without specific observations of the rise in temperature, we can predict that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas in a gas mixture will lead to an increasing temperature in that mixture when it is exposed to infra-red radiation. The earths atmosphere is a gas mixture. And by the way, we have also observed the atmospheric temperature by various means - results as predicted.
So, if anybody wants to hypothesise that some mysterious, unobserved phenomena will prevent the CO2 doing what it does naturally, then they better be prepared to state specifically what that phenomena is so that it can be proven by experiment. Specifically, if deniers want us to accept their hypothesis that the atmospheric temperature will remain the same despite increasing concentrations of CO2 they need to be specific about the mechanism that will keep the temperature the same.
I've been wondering lately what sort of discovery would we have to make to make travel to Mars a priority at NASA. I don't mean robotic probes. I mean a full fledged manned expedition.
My suspicion would be some sort of mass conversion to something like Sharia Law. This would be the only way to explain the twin regressions we would have to undergo as a species for that event to take place - firstly, to regress to speaking/thinking of human space travel as manned space travel, and secondly, and more fundamentally, a regression in our technological outlook such that we imagine we lived 100 years ago - before the age of robotics. From an objective standpoint robots are so superior at space exploration comparative to humans that the only way we would send humans in place of robots would be if we felt compelled to do so by some as yet unimagined dogma.
Really, in this age, even calling it a human space mission is anachronistic - like loading your horses into a truck and saying you are travelling by horse. Sure, once upon a time we rode on the horses back - just like once upon a time our electronics were so primitive we imagined scenarios where humans would be needed in space. That doesn't mean we still need the horse to travel, much less the symbolism of bringing the horse along merely for the benefit of arousing sentiment.
Though this is not a claim supported by Assange nor the woman involved - which suggests that to be supported there must have been someone else in the room watching, and thus able to supply evidence contrary to that of the two primary parties.
We don't have to feel shame for we aren't the ones who have done this.
You did this - Iraq, Abu Graib, Gitmo, the 'rendition' of political prisoners, the cluster bombing of villages, members of your government making death threats against innocent people (Julian Assange) with no legal action taken, on the basis that 'his' organisation revealed some truths that were embarrassing. You sat by silently while it went on in your name. These atrocities are now part of the US legacy - and to the extent that you could have done something about it and didn't they are your legacy too. That's the point - you can't be proud of the long gone legacy that you didn't participate in and cannot influence, and not be ashamed of the recent legacy that you, in a small way, were part of.
The ones who should feel shame are the progressives/socialists who have been busily destroying our freedoms and sense of love for our country for more than 100 years and lying about what they are doing every step of the way.
I see. Do Palinisms come in pill form now - making them easier to swallow? Socialism isn't what you think it is, and your freedoms haven't been taken away by socialists - but rather by the corporate hand that steers the actions and positions of your faux representatives in the government. Including Tea Partiers - the same thing, but with different spin.
We have to feel, and act on, our sense of responsibility we have in the governing of our own country, and the sense of the debt of honor we owe our founders. But, we can still derive pride that we are a part of something that has done such a great thing, if we are willing to fight to return our country to its founding principles. I am. How about you? If not, then you do need to feel a sense of shame until you decide your country's founding ideals are something worth fighting for.
Then get on with it. A good place to start would be to abandon the notion that the US is somehow different from the rest of the world. This creates a phlegmatic atmosphere - the delusion that somehow, a thread of underlying decency will shine through eventually if we trust the American Ideal and ignore the atrocities of the recent past. The founding principles of your country have been turned into a mythology that your oppressors and their mouthpieces use to stop you acting against them.
It's not for me to try or not to try. However if you want to be consistent, you would need to apply your policy in a consistent manner. That means killing Israelis, Pakistanis, and possibly Americans as well as Iranians. For you to do or advocate otherwise would be hypocrisy.
But I can't help but notice that past military actions against the US and Israel targeted the wrong people and didn't do a bit to reduce the danger that the US and Israel pose to the rest of the world.
I'm not sure specifically what you mean. Are you speaking of the killing of US soldiers in Iraq by insurgents? in that case, I would say that generally that conflict has accelerated the loss of US influence in the region and the world generally, and thus has indeed reduced the threat posed by the US. Although this was a self inflicted wound (ironically as a result of a policy to increase US influence by utilising the military).
You would agree then, that the same treatment be dealt with to any state deemed dangerous? For instance, Israel, an apartheid state which practices a policy of near genocide on those who don't fit the chosen racial profile - and possibly the US, the aggressor in the protracted and disastrous recent conflict in Iraq?
I'm not sure about the tactics, but you have raised an interesting point - which is that the tactic of technology multipliers has a significant downside. When you no longer have the technological edge, opponents with the edge in numbers will have the advantage. Specifically, now that the US has lost it's edge in technology, how long will it be before the reliance on technology multipliers starts to bite?
Not only that, but it benefits for city folk are heavily debated, while the country folk will reap much of the rewards. I don't have a problem with country folk, but I do have a problem with us subsidizing their life choices by living remote from services offered in heavily populated cities. Hell, I'd love to move out to the countryside, and have all the services offered in a city location.
Who is subsidising who? Despite our profiligate (private) spending practices, we as a country are not collapsing into debt, wheras other countries with similiar lifestyle aspirations (e.g. the US and the UK) are. Ever wondered why that is? Well, the reason is that we are paying for the lifestyles of the city dwellers by - literally - digging up regional australia and selling it overseas - mindblowingly huge chunks of the country on conveyors, trains and ships as we speak, making their way to power stations and steel mills in China. The town over from where I grew up has simply disappeared - there's a huge hole where it once was.
So our money is made in regional Australia and spent in the cities - on roads, hospitals, schools, and straight handouts to consumers for spurious reasons. No money goes back to the regions - they have no hospitals. The hoispital where I was born has just closed - despite the town being larger then when I grew up. My family has to make a 60km round trip to see a doctor - 200+ to see a visiting specialist. In Dubbo, the hospital is so underfunded they can't afford to buy meat, the patients go without. If you live in Cobar, the government expects you to travel to Orange, which might as well be across an ocean.
Even if ther $40bn spent entirely in regional Australia, it would be a drop in the bucket toward addressing the real, and constant inequity being experienced by regional australia.
Greatest source of freedom and liberty in the history of the planet.
Maybe the US once was a force for freedom and liberty, but what, exactly, have you done lately? I ask, because out of the corner of my minds eye I can see a pile of bodies - 100 000 civilian Iraqi bodies.
Saved you from living under hitler and then the politburo. Ungrateful pricks.
You didn't. If any thanks or gratitude are owed, then they are owed to those who fought and strove at the time. That legacy belongs to their generation. Iraq belongs to yours.
The West is like a football team. A few seasons ago, the US was like our star player. Cocky, with a tendency for hubris and mouthing off, yet we put up with that, because you were our best player. But now you seem past your prime, out of shape, refusing to train, and, to be frank, an embarrassment on the field. The last few years, you scored a number of own goals. And your cockiness, that bizarre sense of self importance just looks ludicrous to us - a delusion of the weak minded.
So pull yourselves together
We want you on our team, but frankly, we won't carry you, and we won't pretend that past achievements (such as they are) will excuse current performance.
Deserve your fate
Yes we do. We all reap what we sow - at least, we deserve to. Those that cheered on Cheney as he rode to slaughter in Iraq deserve to reap the rewards for that - don't you think?
(A) ia based on the premise that we need a place for people to settle. This is an ideaology based on a frontier mythology which has proven false. If the earth is crowded, then a colony on Mars will not help. We cannot ship enough people to make a demonstrable difference to the liveability on earth - except negatively, since we will need to continue to support the martians with the earths resources, causing further drain and hardship for the vast bulk of humanity.
(B) If our industires are stinking up the atmosphere on earth, then we lack the means to make a liveable atmosphere on Mars. We don't actually need to pollute the earths atmosphere. We just do it because it doesn't cost us personally - except in conscience.
(C) In the repeat of any disaster known to have occurred in paleontological history, the Earth will still be more liveable than Mars. In such an event, the aim would be to preserve as many humans as possible - saving 100 or so on Mars is not a win. What if there were no Chinese there? Is it acceptable for their genome to be wiped out and their culture lost? What if the colony were to turn to Islamic extremism - would be acceptable to you if the only surviving memory of the US was one of hatred and imperialism?
No, if we were really concerned about survivability of that scale of disaster, we would already be working on shelters here on earth. But we aren't, so we aren't. And we aren't really interested in a colony on Mars either, the underlying premises (per you statement) don't stand up to scrutiny - really the colony is just a theme park, yet another monument to a failing ideology. In the past, ancient egyptian rulers expended huge resources building huge machines to guarantee their own immortality. The colony would be the same, but without the grandeur of the pyramids.
Anybody who thinks people should be locked up for life or even murdered because of antireligious religious statements are people that are enemies of western values.
What western values wold those be then? The values that allow us to invade other countries, killing 10's of thousands, just so rich old men can be richer, and then pass it off a few years later as an unfortunate mistake (haha! oops!) and let's never mentioned that again? Have we advanced beyond barbarism ourselves? What's the difference? And what's the difference between their fanatics and our own secular fanatics - you know, the ones who will not permit anything to be done about climate change because it might cost us money Do you imagine our crimes to be less barbarous, our fanaticism less damaging then theirs?
But that is still not correct, since an Invisible Man is not analogous to a Deity. So believing in a Deity is not analogous to believing in an invisible man. Animists believe in invisible men (e.g. our ancestors are physically present with us, but not visible). So your parallel might fit with Animists - and the phrase 'still believe' would certainly fit better (Animism being generally thought to be on the decline, whereas forms of Theism are on the increase). But again, grouping Animists with people who assert that Obama is a Muslim would seem a strange and unenlightening pairing.
Well you see the "getting us there" is just an aim that you picked out of the blue which bears no relationship to any objectively positive outcome, a generally accepted purpose, or a feasible construct. It makes just as much sense to say:
"Discovering new habitable planets while seemingly not researching ways to get me a ham sandwich is kind of like going to a whorehouse with no money. You usually end up very pissed off if you blood sugar gets too low.
Prioritization usually has value. This would be no exception."
See the problem? Learn the difference between a childish fantasy that you want to come true and are not prepared to measure against reality and the common good that inspires the rest of us.
Here's the rub: We're doomed anyway. Sooner or later, something will get us. When the time comes, as individuals or as a species of individuals, our best approach is to face the inevitable with dignity, surrounded by reminders of our achievements and the things we love, and take it on the chin. Not go out screaming and crying. In the past, certainly, whole societies have savaged their resources in a desperate bid to escape death. The egyptians, for instance, expended massive resources in building pyramids, in the hope that they would act as a machine to lift the Pharaoh into the afterlife. Seems to me you are describing the human space program as essentially a death cult.
You're contention with my assertion is based on the starting conditions - i.e., how I believe a CO2 emissions reduction scheme would work versus how you believe a CO2 emissions reduction scheme would work. You're asking for an answer without clarifying your beginning assumptions.
So if I might, I'll summarise your explanation of your position.
When you said:
"Okay, here's your choice - a) watch your children die of starvation this year. b) survive an extra two hurricanes in your lifetime, and relocate inland 5 miles over your lifetime."
You were not referring to the effects of an actual reductions scheme that anybody has proposed to implement. And - if I take your statements at face value, you knew that nobody had proposed such a scheme- you were, in fact, hoping to be free to simply criticise a scheme that nobody was actually advocating. In short, you proposed to burn a strawman.
Thanks for you honesty. You had the option of agreeing to my explanation: that you didn't know that Least Developed Countries are exempt from paying under any scheme under actual consideration ever. Instead you chose THIS explanation. Since your own explanation paints you in a worse light, I'm inclined to accept that you are telling the truth.
So - let's skip the banal, and move on to high point of this little saga.
Really? Excluding the Least Developed countries from emissions mechanisms would mean that emissions are not reduced globally? That's a bold assertion.
Absolutely. The imposition of emissions caps will simply move emissions from one place to another if you leave a loophole like that. This is the whole reason Copenhagen blew up - the whole China/India/US thing, where developing countries are exempted, and simply promise to blow through any reductions made in the first world.
FYI - China and India are Developing Nations, not Least Developed Nations (like Bangladesh). In fact (per my last post), they are right at the top of the heap - the so called "Newly Industrialised Nations". Hence, they are irrelevant to the point you are trying to defend (which, to repeat, is that excluding the poorest of the poor, the Least Developed Countries, will render the scheme ineffectual).
More specifics on the movement of emissions from developed to developing countries:
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/developing-nations-blamed-for-co2-increase.html [scidev.net]
"The study finds that in 2004, emissions from developing economies made up 73 per cent of the global growth in emissions largely due to moving energy-intensive activities from developed to developing countries."
So Least Developed Countries
and
Developing countries
The latter category includes the so called "Newly Industrialised Nations" which exhibit the phenomena you are describing (e.g China, South Africa, India). The former (the Least Developed Countries) -
I love you guys. Correct you are. No need to learn how to get and keep humans in space. We can wait to learn that shit and get good at it when we absolutely have to do it.
I am also sure that whatever it is that drives that need will have the decency to call ahead and let us know so that we have the time.
We send humans to space because in the end it is where we need to be. The sooner the better.
But again, what you are stating as fact is just opinion. In you opinion, we "need" ( rather than "want" ) to be in space. But the same argument can be made for the popsicle skyscraper - i.e.
No need to learn how to build and maintain giant flavoursome ice structures. We can wait to learn that shit and get good at it when we absolutely have to do it.
And
We build popsicle skyscrapers because in the end that is what we need. The sooner the better.
The lady doth protest too much. Your question is meaningless without the further clarification I'm asking for.
But once again, you need to learn what clarification means. You are essentially asking me to describe the mechanics of how are CO2 emissions reduction scheme would work. But if you DON'T KNOW how the scheme would work how can you know that the cost of fuel in Kenya will double? And how can you know that implementing the scheme will cause children to starve?
So the assertion you made was fairly straightforward: that the implementation of a carbon emissions trading scheme will lead to a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya.
1. If you insist on me telling you whether or not Kenya is excluded from a cap/other form of restriction on emissions, then I will tell you, but I will have to conclude that since you don't know that, that your whole argument is fallacious, because you didn't even understand the detail of the scheme you were commenting upon.
2. Otherwise you can describe your theoretical scheme, the details of which you know enough about to calculate it's effect on fuel prices in Kenya, and we drill down on the accuracy of your model.
In future, you might not want to enter into discussions on topics which you nothing about.
When you're talking about implementing CO2 emissions caps on only the 1st world countries, how does that prevent global CO2 emissions from creating the same kind of warming you suspect would happen without caps?
You frame your question in terms of avoiding caps in 3rd world countries, but that framing contradicts your motivation in the first place.
You made the assertion at hand - you should know whether or not the 'caps' (if caps are used in as a mechanism) apply to Least Developed nations or they do not. Secondly, I've been fairly clear on my motivation:- which is for you to show your working on the assertion you are defending.
In the wider sense, I'm well aware of the denialist practice of attempting to shape discussions in order to create the impression that the burden of proof lies with someone else ( a classic burden of proof fallacy. So I'm also motivated to ensure that that doesn't happen in this conversation.
Is this simply an inherent hypocrisy in your position, or do you not understand how you're undermining your own assertions?
Given that you made (and are defending) the assertion at hand, your statement reads like a Chewbacca Defence.
2. When I use the phrase "extreme weather events" am I referring primarily to hurricanes?
And now I'm supposed to be a mind reader for you? How about this - when I use the phrase "da kine", am I referring primarily to food?
I expect you to keep track of where we are at in this conversation. If not, you can always look back into the history of this thread - or answer the question when it's asked, and avoid this problem in the first place. So again:
2. When I use the phrase "extreme weather events" am I referring primarily to hurricanes?
1. Is Bangladesh bordering on the North Atlantic, or in fact, nowhere near it?
Does global temperature determine weather, or is it in fact completely independent of weather distribution?
Again with the fallacious attempts to change the subject! Sorry Bullwinkle, that trick never works. Here's a tip: Don't quote weather data about the North Atlantic the prove your assertions about climatic changes in Bangladesh, when data on the latter is readily available. Unless you expect to be able to prove and demonstrate levels of uniformity in climate changes.
Why not? Because we've been doing that for hundreds of years, it's called astronomy, and its never attracted as much capital investment as the robotic spaceflight program which gets all its funding by riding on the coattails of the human spaceflight program.
The reason that the human space program attracts the funding is because it is a boondoggle, a pork barrel. I don't know whether the money for actual exploration gets siphoned off this pork or not - I'm guessing it's directed funding, that projects like the Mars Rovers get funded because they are exciting and prestigious - whereas the conjoined twins of human rated launcher and space station get funded because it helps to elect some old fart. talk about your grand society, your last bastion of Pure Progress.
Anyway, aren't you basically saying we should support human spaceflight because we can cook the books to do the real stuff, we can siphon off funds to do the things that excite and inspire us? Isn't that a cost benefit analysis in itself?
Human spaceflight is the last bastion of pure Progress. Technological, secular ideological, grand society style progress.
I put it to you that the majority of people - including myself, disagree with that opinion. And it IS an opinion, and not a fact. And there is no obligation on our part to fund human spaceflight or any other other supposed last bastion of pure progress, like giant escalators that lead to nowhere, or monorails, or popsicle skyscrapers.
It's the same reason why the British and the French set out to colonize the world. There was no economic justification for it, it's just what great nations do.
A brief examination of history would indicate that the reason that the British and the French set out to "colonise" the world was very much for economic reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Denying Climate Change is exactly like denying that you have cancer when your oncologist tells you that you do. It's easier on yourself to consider this reaction as scepticism, although you know that if you were really sceptical you would seek a second opinion rather than simply going home and ignoring the symptoms.
Understanding this reaction as denial helps the rest of us to see that these people are not insane, not necessarily dumb, and not necessarily evil - it is just taking them a little longer to work through the cognitive coping process. Also the term is a useful counter to the labelling of this reaction as scepticism - a term used deliberately to imply that it is the role of those who accept climate change to convince those who do not (a obviously absurd notion, when stated explicitly, which is why that rarely happens).
1. Nuclear power is complex and has enormous startup costs if you intend to build the reactor yourself. This means that you need a lot of startup capital. The startup cost contributes to several other disadvantages.
2. The management of Nuclear power is really confined to nation states. Individuals cannot build and maintain reactors. The centralised nature of Nuclear power rules it out for many communities, e.g. ethnic groups who are quasi ruled by a semi hostile government can then be at a disadvantage if that government controls their power supply.
3. The technology is complex and IP bound. This is a complex minefield to navigate if you choose to build your own reactor. If you buy one off a provider, you will be effectively dependent on that provider for upkeep of the reactor, not an attractive option for many people.
4. Nuclear reactors require fuel - if your country doesn't have the fuel, this means negotiating for fuel off another country - again, leading to potential dependence on other countries.
5. Nuclear power doesn't offer any financial advantages over other options, such as wind or geotherm, once the full cost of ownership is taken into account.
6. Building nuclear reactors seems to make certain paranoid blocs nervous. They then develop a tendency to meddle in your affairs. Why buy into that sort of trouble?
If Bastardis prediction is wrong then it will be a slap in the face to all those who discount what we have observed so far about greenhouse gases and their effect on the atmosphere.
Hypothesis followed by observation... admittedly it cannot be repeated, but it is, at the very least, a step in the right direction.
To expand on my earlier point: only one side really lacks a hypothesis or reliable observation. Scientists arrived at the conclusion that CO2 is a greenhouse gas by observation. This experiment is easily repeated today - as for other gases we label greenhouse gases, it's a matter of infra-red absorption. Secondly, the concentration of said gases in the atmosphere - and in particular CO2, are observed to be on the increase. So even without specific observations of the rise in temperature, we can predict that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas in a gas mixture will lead to an increasing temperature in that mixture when it is exposed to infra-red radiation. The earths atmosphere is a gas mixture. And by the way, we have also observed the atmospheric temperature by various means - results as predicted.
So, if anybody wants to hypothesise that some mysterious, unobserved phenomena will prevent the CO2 doing what it does naturally, then they better be prepared to state specifically what that phenomena is so that it can be proven by experiment. Specifically, if deniers want us to accept their hypothesis that the atmospheric temperature will remain the same despite increasing concentrations of CO2 they need to be specific about the mechanism that will keep the temperature the same.
I've been wondering lately what sort of discovery would we have to make to make travel to Mars a priority at NASA. I don't mean robotic probes. I mean a full fledged manned expedition.
My suspicion would be some sort of mass conversion to something like Sharia Law. This would be the only way to explain the twin regressions we would have to undergo as a species for that event to take place - firstly, to regress to speaking/thinking of human space travel as manned space travel, and secondly, and more fundamentally, a regression in our technological outlook such that we imagine we lived 100 years ago - before the age of robotics. From an objective standpoint robots are so superior at space exploration comparative to humans that the only way we would send humans in place of robots would be if we felt compelled to do so by some as yet unimagined dogma.
Really, in this age, even calling it a human space mission is anachronistic - like loading your horses into a truck and saying you are travelling by horse. Sure, once upon a time we rode on the horses back - just like once upon a time our electronics were so primitive we imagined scenarios where humans would be needed in space. That doesn't mean we still need the horse to travel, much less the symbolism of bringing the horse along merely for the benefit of arousing sentiment.
Though this is not a claim supported by Assange nor the woman involved - which suggests that to be supported there must have been someone else in the room watching, and thus able to supply evidence contrary to that of the two primary parties.
We don't have to feel shame for we aren't the ones who have done this.
You did this - Iraq, Abu Graib, Gitmo, the 'rendition' of political prisoners, the cluster bombing of villages, members of your government making death threats against innocent people (Julian Assange) with no legal action taken, on the basis that 'his' organisation revealed some truths that were embarrassing. You sat by silently while it went on in your name. These atrocities are now part of the US legacy - and to the extent that you could have done something about it and didn't they are your legacy too. That's the point - you can't be proud of the long gone legacy that you didn't participate in and cannot influence, and not be ashamed of the recent legacy that you, in a small way, were part of.
The ones who should feel shame are the progressives/socialists who have been busily destroying our freedoms and sense of love for our country for more than 100 years and lying about what they are doing every step of the way.
I see. Do Palinisms come in pill form now - making them easier to swallow? Socialism isn't what you think it is, and your freedoms haven't been taken away by socialists - but rather by the corporate hand that steers the actions and positions of your faux representatives in the government. Including Tea Partiers - the same thing, but with different spin.
We have to feel, and act on, our sense of responsibility we have in the governing of our own country, and the sense of the debt of honor we owe our founders. But, we can still derive pride that we are a part of something that has done such a great thing, if we are willing to fight to return our country to its founding principles. I am. How about you? If not, then you do need to feel a sense of shame until you decide your country's founding ideals are something worth fighting for.
Then get on with it. A good place to start would be to abandon the notion that the US is somehow different from the rest of the world. This creates a phlegmatic atmosphere - the delusion that somehow, a thread of underlying decency will shine through eventually if we trust the American Ideal and ignore the atrocities of the recent past. The founding principles of your country have been turned into a mythology that your oppressors and their mouthpieces use to stop you acting against them.
Feel free to try.
It's not for me to try or not to try. However if you want to be consistent, you would need to apply your policy in a consistent manner. That means killing Israelis, Pakistanis, and possibly Americans as well as Iranians. For you to do or advocate otherwise would be hypocrisy.
But I can't help but notice that past military actions against the US and Israel targeted the wrong people and didn't do a bit to reduce the danger that the US and Israel pose to the rest of the world.
I'm not sure specifically what you mean. Are you speaking of the killing of US soldiers in Iraq by insurgents? in that case, I would say that generally that conflict has accelerated the loss of US influence in the region and the world generally, and thus has indeed reduced the threat posed by the US. Although this was a self inflicted wound (ironically as a result of a policy to increase US influence by utilising the military).
You would agree then, that the same treatment be dealt with to any state deemed dangerous? For instance, Israel, an apartheid state which practices a policy of near genocide on those who don't fit the chosen racial profile - and possibly the US, the aggressor in the protracted and disastrous recent conflict in Iraq?
I'm not sure about the tactics, but you have raised an interesting point - which is that the tactic of technology multipliers has a significant downside. When you no longer have the technological edge, opponents with the edge in numbers will have the advantage. Specifically, now that the US has lost it's edge in technology, how long will it be before the reliance on technology multipliers starts to bite?
Not only that, but it benefits for city folk are heavily debated, while the country folk will reap much of the rewards. I don't have a problem with country folk, but I do have a problem with us subsidizing their life choices by living remote from services offered in heavily populated cities. Hell, I'd love to move out to the countryside, and have all the services offered in a city location.
Who is subsidising who? Despite our profiligate (private) spending practices, we as a country are not collapsing into debt, wheras other countries with similiar lifestyle aspirations (e.g. the US and the UK) are. Ever wondered why that is? Well, the reason is that we are paying for the lifestyles of the city dwellers by - literally - digging up regional australia and selling it overseas - mindblowingly huge chunks of the country on conveyors, trains and ships as we speak, making their way to power stations and steel mills in China. The town over from where I grew up has simply disappeared - there's a huge hole where it once was.
So our money is made in regional Australia and spent in the cities - on roads, hospitals, schools, and straight handouts to consumers for spurious reasons. No money goes back to the regions - they have no hospitals. The hoispital where I was born has just closed - despite the town being larger then when I grew up. My family has to make a 60km round trip to see a doctor - 200+ to see a visiting specialist. In Dubbo, the hospital is so underfunded they can't afford to buy meat, the patients go without. If you live in Cobar, the government expects you to travel to Orange, which might as well be across an ocean.
Even if ther $40bn spent entirely in regional Australia, it would be a drop in the bucket toward addressing the real, and constant inequity being experienced by regional australia.
Greatest source of freedom and liberty in the history of the planet.
Maybe the US once was a force for freedom and liberty, but what, exactly, have you done lately? I ask, because out of the corner of my minds eye I can see a pile of bodies - 100 000 civilian Iraqi bodies.
Saved you from living under hitler and then the politburo. Ungrateful pricks.
You didn't. If any thanks or gratitude are owed, then they are owed to those who fought and strove at the time. That legacy belongs to their generation. Iraq belongs to yours.
The West is like a football team. A few seasons ago, the US was like our star player. Cocky, with a tendency for hubris and mouthing off, yet we put up with that, because you were our best player. But now you seem past your prime, out of shape, refusing to train, and, to be frank, an embarrassment on the field. The last few years, you scored a number of own goals. And your cockiness, that bizarre sense of self importance just looks ludicrous to us - a delusion of the weak minded.
So pull yourselves together
We want you on our team, but frankly, we won't carry you, and we won't pretend that past achievements (such as they are) will excuse current performance.
Deserve your fate
Yes we do. We all reap what we sow - at least, we deserve to. Those that cheered on Cheney as he rode to slaughter in Iraq deserve to reap the rewards for that - don't you think?
(A) ia based on the premise that we need a place for people to settle. This is an ideaology based on a frontier mythology which has proven false. If the earth is crowded, then a colony on Mars will not help. We cannot ship enough people to make a demonstrable difference to the liveability on earth - except negatively, since we will need to continue to support the martians with the earths resources, causing further drain and hardship for the vast bulk of humanity.
(B) If our industires are stinking up the atmosphere on earth, then we lack the means to make a liveable atmosphere on Mars. We don't actually need to pollute the earths atmosphere. We just do it because it doesn't cost us personally - except in conscience.
(C) In the repeat of any disaster known to have occurred in paleontological history, the Earth will still be more liveable than Mars. In such an event, the aim would be to preserve as many humans as possible - saving 100 or so on Mars is not a win. What if there were no Chinese there? Is it acceptable for their genome to be wiped out and their culture lost? What if the colony were to turn to Islamic extremism - would be acceptable to you if the only surviving memory of the US was one of hatred and imperialism?
No, if we were really concerned about survivability of that scale of disaster, we would already be working on shelters here on earth. But we aren't, so we aren't. And we aren't really interested in a colony on Mars either, the underlying premises (per you statement) don't stand up to scrutiny - really the colony is just a theme park, yet another monument to a failing ideology. In the past, ancient egyptian rulers expended huge resources building huge machines to guarantee their own immortality. The colony would be the same, but without the grandeur of the pyramids.
Anybody who thinks people should be locked up for life or even murdered because of antireligious religious statements are people that are enemies of western values.
What western values wold those be then? The values that allow us to invade other countries, killing 10's of thousands, just so rich old men can be richer, and then pass it off a few years later as an unfortunate mistake (haha! oops!) and let's never mentioned that again? Have we advanced beyond barbarism ourselves? What's the difference? And what's the difference between their fanatics and our own secular fanatics - you know, the ones who will not permit anything to be done about climate change because it might cost us money Do you imagine our crimes to be less barbarous, our fanaticism less damaging then theirs?
America: Better in some ways than Russia
You should start an advertising company.
Drink Dioxin! It's less poisonous the strychnine.
But that is still not correct, since an Invisible Man is not analogous to a Deity. So believing in a Deity is not analogous to believing in an invisible man. Animists believe in invisible men (e.g. our ancestors are physically present with us, but not visible). So your parallel might fit with Animists - and the phrase 'still believe' would certainly fit better (Animism being generally thought to be on the decline, whereas forms of Theism are on the increase). But again, grouping Animists with people who assert that Obama is a Muslim would seem a strange and unenlightening pairing.
"Discovering new habitable planets while seemingly not researching ways to get me a ham sandwich is kind of like going to a whorehouse with no money. You usually end up very pissed off if you blood sugar gets too low.
Prioritization usually has value. This would be no exception."
See the problem? Learn the difference between a childish fantasy that you want to come true and are not prepared to measure against reality and the common good that inspires the rest of us.
Yes. In other words, a work of fiction.
It's starting to look like there's a new Leader of the Free World.
As a non-American, I have to tell you that there has never been a Leader of the Free World, nor is it likely that there ever will be.
Here's the rub: We're doomed anyway. Sooner or later, something will get us. When the time comes, as individuals or as a species of individuals, our best approach is to face the inevitable with dignity, surrounded by reminders of our achievements and the things we love, and take it on the chin. Not go out screaming and crying. In the past, certainly, whole societies have savaged their resources in a desperate bid to escape death. The egyptians, for instance, expended massive resources in building pyramids, in the hope that they would act as a machine to lift the Pharaoh into the afterlife. Seems to me you are describing the human space program as essentially a death cult.
Yes - I did notice. Thanks....
You're contention with my assertion is based on the starting conditions - i.e., how I believe a CO2 emissions reduction scheme would work versus how you believe a CO2 emissions reduction scheme would work. You're asking for an answer without clarifying your beginning assumptions.
So if I might, I'll summarise your explanation of your position.
When you said:
"Okay, here's your choice - a) watch your children die of starvation this year. b) survive an extra two hurricanes in your lifetime, and relocate inland 5 miles over your lifetime."
You were not referring to the effects of an actual reductions scheme that anybody has proposed to implement. And - if I take your statements at face value, you knew that nobody had proposed such a scheme- you were, in fact, hoping to be free to simply criticise a scheme that nobody was actually advocating. In short, you proposed to burn a strawman.
Thanks for you honesty. You had the option of agreeing to my explanation: that you didn't know that Least Developed Countries are exempt from paying under any scheme under actual consideration ever. Instead you chose THIS explanation. Since your own explanation paints you in a worse light, I'm inclined to accept that you are telling the truth.
So - let's skip the banal, and move on to high point of this little saga.
Really? Excluding the Least Developed countries from emissions mechanisms would mean that emissions are not reduced globally? That's a bold assertion.
Absolutely. The imposition of emissions caps will simply move emissions from one place to another if you leave a loophole like that. This is the whole reason Copenhagen blew up - the whole China/India/US thing, where developing countries are exempted, and simply promise to blow through any reductions made in the first world.
FYI - China and India are Developing Nations, not Least Developed Nations (like Bangladesh). In fact (per my last post), they are right at the top of the heap - the so called "Newly Industrialised Nations". Hence, they are irrelevant to the point you are trying to defend (which, to repeat, is that excluding the poorest of the poor, the Least Developed Countries, will render the scheme ineffectual).
More specifics on the movement of emissions from developed to developing countries: http://www.scidev.net/en/news/developing-nations-blamed-for-co2-increase.html [scidev.net] "The study finds that in 2004, emissions from developing economies made up 73 per cent of the global growth in emissions largely due to moving energy-intensive activities from developed to developing countries."
So Least Developed Countries and Developing countries The latter category includes the so called "Newly Industrialised Nations" which exhibit the phenomena you are describing (e.g China, South Africa, India). The former (the Least Developed Countries) -
do not.
HTH
I love you guys. Correct you are. No need to learn how to get and keep humans in space. We can wait to learn that shit and get good at it when we absolutely have to do it. I am also sure that whatever it is that drives that need will have the decency to call ahead and let us know so that we have the time.
We send humans to space because in the end it is where we need to be. The sooner the better.
But again, what you are stating as fact is just opinion. In you opinion, we "need" ( rather than "want" ) to be in space. But the same argument can be made for the popsicle skyscraper - i.e.
No need to learn how to build and maintain giant flavoursome ice structures. We can wait to learn that shit and get good at it when we absolutely have to do it.
And
We build popsicle skyscrapers because in the end that is what we need. The sooner the better.
Don't pretend to speak for us and what we need.
The lady doth protest too much. Your question is meaningless without the further clarification I'm asking for.
But once again, you need to learn what clarification means. You are essentially asking me to describe the mechanics of how are CO2 emissions reduction scheme would work. But if you DON'T KNOW how the scheme would work how can you know that the cost of fuel in Kenya will double? And how can you know that implementing the scheme will cause children to starve? So the assertion you made was fairly straightforward: that the implementation of a carbon emissions trading scheme will lead to a doubling of the cost of fuel in Kenya.
1. If you insist on me telling you whether or not Kenya is excluded from a cap/other form of restriction on emissions, then I will tell you, but I will have to conclude that since you don't know that, that your whole argument is fallacious, because you didn't even understand the detail of the scheme you were commenting upon.
2. Otherwise you can describe your theoretical scheme, the details of which you know enough about to calculate it's effect on fuel prices in Kenya, and we drill down on the accuracy of your model.
In future, you might not want to enter into discussions on topics which you nothing about.
When you're talking about implementing CO2 emissions caps on only the 1st world countries, how does that prevent global CO2 emissions from creating the same kind of warming you suspect would happen without caps?
Well, thanks for introducing a strawman.
You frame your question in terms of avoiding caps in 3rd world countries, but that framing contradicts your motivation in the first place.
You made the assertion at hand - you should know whether or not the 'caps' (if caps are used in as a mechanism) apply to Least Developed nations or they do not. Secondly, I've been fairly clear on my motivation :- which is for you to show your working on the assertion you are defending.
In the wider sense, I'm well aware of the denialist practice of attempting to shape discussions in order to create the impression that the burden of proof lies with someone else ( a classic burden of proof fallacy. So I'm also motivated to ensure that that doesn't happen in this conversation.
Is this simply an inherent hypocrisy in your position, or do you not understand how you're undermining your own assertions?
Given that you made (and are defending) the assertion at hand, your statement reads like a Chewbacca Defence.
2. When I use the phrase "extreme weather events" am I referring primarily to hurricanes?
And now I'm supposed to be a mind reader for you? How about this - when I use the phrase "da kine", am I referring primarily to food?
I expect you to keep track of where we are at in this conversation. If not, you can always look back into the history of this thread - or answer the question when it's asked, and avoid this problem in the first place. So again:
2. When I use the phrase "extreme weather events" am I referring primarily to hurricanes?
1. Is Bangladesh bordering on the North Atlantic, or in fact, nowhere near it?
Does global temperature determine weather, or is it in fact completely independent of weather distribution?
Again with the fallacious attempts to change the subject! Sorry Bullwinkle, that trick never works. Here's a tip: Don't quote weather data about the North Atlantic the prove your assertions about climatic changes in Bangladesh, when data on the latter is readily available. Unless you expect to be able to prove and demonstrate levels of uniformity in climate changes.
Why not? Because we've been doing that for hundreds of years, it's called astronomy, and its never attracted as much capital investment as the robotic spaceflight program which gets all its funding by riding on the coattails of the human spaceflight program.
The reason that the human space program attracts the funding is because it is a boondoggle, a pork barrel. I don't know whether the money for actual exploration gets siphoned off this pork or not - I'm guessing it's directed funding, that projects like the Mars Rovers get funded because they are exciting and prestigious - whereas the conjoined twins of human rated launcher and space station get funded because it helps to elect some old fart. talk about your grand society, your last bastion of Pure Progress.
Anyway, aren't you basically saying we should support human spaceflight because we can cook the books to do the real stuff, we can siphon off funds to do the things that excite and inspire us? Isn't that a cost benefit analysis in itself?
Human spaceflight is the last bastion of pure Progress. Technological, secular ideological, grand society style progress.
I put it to you that the majority of people - including myself, disagree with that opinion. And it IS an opinion, and not a fact. And there is no obligation on our part to fund human spaceflight or any other other supposed last bastion of pure progress, like giant escalators that lead to nowhere, or monorails, or popsicle skyscrapers.
It's the same reason why the British and the French set out to colonize the world. There was no economic justification for it, it's just what great nations do.
A brief examination of history would indicate that the reason that the British and the French set out to "colonise" the world was very much for economic reasons.