Until you realize that there are lots of corporations, many competing with each other, and many having opposite agendas. Then you realize that Socialist countries also have corporations, and their governments are even MORE closely tied to them. Then you realize that our government used to be worse than it is today, as all of this used to be done in smokey back rooms run mostly by men and monopolies. Then you realize that you can still start a big successful corporation of your own (ask Google), and that even if you don't, you can still make a pretty good living. Then you realize that people still want to come and live in our country. Then you sleep just fine at night.
It isn't neocons vs. traditional. It is "compasionate conservatives" vs. traditional conservatives. A neo-con seems to just be a slur meaning "Jewish Republican," as far as I can tell. However, a neo-conservative is really just a conservative who does not want to squander our hard fought Cold War victory. They want to use our new super power status to democratize dictatorships that were previously propped up by the U.S.S.R, etc. The left throws it around like the 'n' word. They want to "socialize" everyone by way of the U.N.
I predict that G.W. will have a statue in Baghdad in 20 years. I know of at least one Kurd who named their child after Dick Cheney after the first Gulf War.
Most conservatives are too busy working, raising a family, and earning a living. This is the reason they are called the "silent majority." They listen to the radio because other forms of media do not cater to them and they either spend a lot of time in their car or they can listen to the radio in the background while working. They use the software that other people they trust recommend to them, as they don't have time to be fanboys or whatever. They understand that there is nothing new under the sun, and that technology is just a facilitator.
Liberals feel that there is no heaven, and therefore they have to create one on earth. They worship science and technology as their saviour, because they need something that allows them to live longer and enjoy their earthly heaven more. They seek worldly pleasures and don't want anything to stand in the way of that. They act like they are for the poor, but actually look down on them as being the rednecks, white trash, trailer park, right wing Christian, wal-mart shoppers who they fly over on the way to New York. They generally come from wealthy families. Their secular religion currently has three big sins: Not being politically correct, income inequality, and contributing to global warming. They were raised on the "super friends justice league" notion of government and look at the U.N. as being the manifestation of this. They hate the fact that not everyone agrees with them, so they circumvent their government by using the UN and the courts to legislate.
Fascism is the merger of State and corporate power.
So France is Fascist? Its corporations are partially owned by the government. You sir are the Moron.
Traitors or fools. What's your point? Of course, Bush was the one who went wild making up evidence, doctoring intelligence[...]
You mean the same evidence that Hillary Clinton talked about to Code Pink that Bill Clinton had? You mean the same evidence that Bill Clinton gave for bombing Iraq during the Monica Lewinski scandal? You are so blinded by your own hate and twisted ideology.
Hell, you don't even need a dictator for fascism. Just look at America.
Yes, political correctness is very Fascist. It is worse than the government limiting free speech. It is like everyone being a policeman. Other than that, I make a pretty good living, so I cannot complain. I am very happy to live here and not in France.
So? Bush is loyal to the oil companies, not to America. That was my point which you seem to be trying to make for me.
They didn't need Bush, OPEC and speculation had made it so that they were making money left and right. It started before Bush took office. Oil company "welfare" was present under Clinton too, you know. In fact, the subsidies were passed under Clinton. France must care more for Oil companies than their people too, as TOTAL made just as much money.
I bring up Clinton to demonstrate that if Clinton did the same thing, then obviously Bush couldn't have been the originator. I do not imply that you are a Clinton supporter. Obviously, you are either a libertarian or an anarchist. Either way, you seem to just want somebody to hate and blame for your misery other than yourself. You seem like a very angry person.
The right deeply disagrees with the fundamental basis of Liberalism, that all people should be equal under the law. They have a firm belief that some people are just superior "elites" and that the full power of the state should be used against the individual in order to promote (or often "enforce") that inequality. Even in small quantities, that side is fundamentally incompatible with a free society. [...] Your typical right wing mass murder is based on the right wing notion of the "elite". Those that aren't the right color, religion, race, shoe size, whatever their particular idea of superiority is, are inferior, perhaps "subhuman" and worthy of extermination. That's also why racists and religious extremists are considered right wing.
You are merely describing the "Nationalist" part of "National Socialism." Socialism + Nationalism + Dictator = Fascism. Nobody has ever convinced me that Fascism was anything more than Dictatorship mixed with Nationalistic Socialism. In fact, they even called themselves national socialists. Racists that practice socialism for their own race, but no others are still considered socialists. Theocracies that practice socialism for their own religious followers are just theocratic socialists. These are just different flavors/sects of socialism.
Shrub ain't a family member. He's quite probably the worst traitor this country has ever seen. Anyone who wasn't aware of that already at the time of the Dixie Chicks thing wasn't paying any attention. It's not like they weren't doing *exactly* what they said they'd do back in 2000 in the event of an attack.
Most Democrats signed the war resolution, including Hillary Clinton. We have voice recordings of Hillary Clinton, trying to convince Code Pink that she did her own 10 years of research, and that during Bill's presidency they had known about the WMDs and that Saddam had to go. John Kerry said during the 2004 elections that "knowing now what he didn't know then, he would have invaded Iraq". So I suppose all these people are traitors too?
That doesn't change the fact that Fascism largely *is* government, corporations, and religion conspiring against the people. Socialism is government controlling business, lifestyle, thought etc. It's possible to actually look a little closer and see how it does have something to do with all of those.
You are describing dictatorship vs. liberal socialism, not Fascism vs. Socialism. Fascism is just another word for Nationalistic Socialistic Dictatorship.
Wow, let me see if I understand your point. It's ok for the government to rob me at gunpoint and give that money *as a fucking free gift* to already massively profitable oil companies and your pathetic attempt at a defense of that action is that I could have bought stock and recouped some of my losses?!?!
What I was getting at is that ALL oil companies got rich, not just American oil companies. The French government owns TOTAL. So is it a Bush conspiracy, or a Socialist conspiracy, or both? Where does OPEC come into play? Why did they allow prices to drop to.99 a gallon during the 90s and lose all their profits? Why did Clinton give Haliburton "no bid contracts" during the 90s and nobody mentions this? Why is George Soros investing in Haliburton right now and nobody mentions this?
Crap. [...] To reach fascism you then need to continue on and on to the right until the government controls the markets in favor of the privileged few. This is seen in things like corporate welfare for the richest oil companies etc.
Nonsense. Any form of government that is combined with a dictator is going to seem like the other end of the spectrum. There was little difference between Stalinism and Fascism. The "Volkswagon" was a socialist concept (the people's car), for instance.
People turned against the Dixie Chicks because the Dixie Chicks were right.
It doesn't matter if they were right. You don't bad mouth a family member outside the family.
This is seen in things like corporate welfare for the richest oil companies etc.
You mean rich "public" oil companies. You could have bought stock in these companies. Where were you when they were losing money? The only reason why these things exist is because money corrupts the political system. It has nothing to do with Capitalism, Fascism, or Socialism. Do you think that France does not have this problem? They stood to make money off of secret deals with Saddam. How's that for an ally? How about that evil rich Total company that the French government runs. Talk about corporate welfare! Everyone bashes the war as being about oil, yet nobody offers any solutions to cut our dependency. They want to blame right wingers and Bush. Yet I do not know of a single socialist country (or communist country) that wasn't dependent on oil in some way. Before you start talking about France and Nuclear power, you'd better check the leftist position on this during the past 40 years. They wouldn't let us build them. You sir are the fool.
It doesn't matter where your rights "come" from. Rights still can be fostered or suppressed by ones community, society, government or local thugs.
The philosophy and mindset of a people and its government matters. That is why. Laws are made and a country's people are treated according to a philosophy. If your philosophy is that government gives you your rights rather than just protects your rights from others, then you will approach lawmaking and justice differently. Our country has slipped too far in that direction and people forget what our government was founded upon.
And I don't think you are informed enough to explain what leftists believe.
By leftist, I am obviously referring to socialists and communists/neo-communists who make up the largest of the group. Most people would have understood what I meant. I am very informed.
The philosophy and mindset of a people and its government matters. That is why. Laws are made and a country's people are treated according to a philosophy. If your philosophy is that government gives you your rights rather than just protects your rights from others, then you will approach lawmaking and justice differently. Our country has slipped too far in that direction and people forget what our government was founded upon.
It isn't Bush, it's political correctness brought to you by the left.
Also, just because people seem to think that they can go to foreign countries and diss our country without consequences (i.e. loss of record sales, DJ's not playing their records on the airwaves, etc.) doesn't mean that government is limiting freedom of speech. All I hear is people protesting and appeasement over the national media. The only sin anymore is global warming and economic inequality. Everything else goes.
Correct, on the very left of socialism is communism. On the very right of socialism is "national socialism"/fascism (Hitler was a socialist). This is why people refer to the right wing as fascist. This doesn't apply to America. The right wing in America is Capitalist and Christian. The most extreme right wing in America would probably just make us look more like our early country (more Christian, less tolerant). Contrary to popular opinion, the KKK and Neo Nazis in America are left wing.
I find it amazing how the american "patriotism" reminds me of communism actually.
Sometimes with all the flag waiving and such. However 'patriotism' now is probably not too much different than in early America, before communism existed in people's minds. Back then, they might have tarred and feathered people like Nanci Pelosi. Politics used to stop at the water's edge. You don't 'diss' your brother or sister outside the family. This is why people turned against the Dixie Chicks, not for the reason they want you to believe.
I personaly know enough true leftists who believes in -individual- liberties far more than most of "rightists" do.
My rights do not come from government. The constitution was written to limit the power of government and protect my rights, not to grant me rights from some "high and mighty" government. Leftists do not believe this way. They believe the opposite. They believe that rights are granted by the state.
It is societal order who makes civil liberties real or eliminates them.
The government post office makes money off of junk mailers who send us tons of junk mail daily that just ends up in the trash.
What a joke. First of all, any company that produces x tons of potential 'waste' should subsidize or provide for the cleaning up or recycling of that waste rather than leaving this up to the consumer. They can do this by getting together with other companies and setting up a mechanism or pay a third party. All the government has to do is pass and enforce a law. The government does not need to be in the business of providing services or having 'fees/taxes' for this.
I'm going to get flack for this, but we need to seriously take our country back:
1. Repeal the income tax and force the feds to get their revenue only from trade between the borders (as originally intended). 2. Limit government function to protection and governing, not providing services or social engineering. 3. Reduce congress pay to the national average adjusted for inflation each year (and lock it in that way). Get rid of private jet travel and bodyguards, etc. They are citizens just like you and me. Force them to be in their districts at least half of the year. 4. Repeal all entitlements (social security, medicaid, etc.). Volunteer organizations WILL step up to the plate. 5. Give responsibility for education back to local communities. 6. Say no to socialism, which contradicts free society. The constitution is to protect the individual from the state, not to grant priviledges to the individual via some all powerful super friends justice league central government (or UN), like liberals/socialists would have us believe.
Nonsense. You go back and read old newspapers. There was a famous Newsweek story about global cooling in 1975, which did not reflect the scientific opinion of the time, and pretty much nothing before that.
" Here is a quote from the New York Times reporting on fears of an approaching ice age.
"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again."
That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.
Let me repeat. 1895, not 1995.
A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age."
The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."
By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming:
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933. The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.
An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared:
"Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."
A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade."
The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable." These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don't they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of former Vice president's brand of climate alarmism.
After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today's voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom.
Even if true, it is irrelevant to the point under discussion, which was the fact that the actual funding for climate science does not originate in any significant way from your leftist conspiracy.
1. Having to keep government funding rolling in is a big part of the problem.
2. Once this stuff hits the desk of UN beaurocrats, this BECOMES what it is about.
3. Scientists, like journalists, are prone to bias and activism just like everyone else.
Non sequitur. We were talking about typographical errors in the IPCC AR4. Perhaps you would like to stick to the points being discussed, instead of launching into an irrelevant anti-leftist tirade every time you're proven wrong.
So if I critique the tables and the data, will I be convicted of "injecting confusion in the mix in order to slow policy down" or will I be labelled a "denier," or both?
The situation in climatology isn't any different from any other field of science
Not really true. Two big differences:
1. We have had global warming and global cooling alarms every 10-30 years since documented news history. Go back and read old newspapers.
2. There are leftist groups using the environment as a front against capitalism. I've already offered proof of that.
Sane person's response: Guess I need to print out the revised draft. (Which is what I did last week.)
The New Stan Price's response: IT'S A LIBRUL CONSPIRACY!!!1!!
No, Chirac's response was to tax America. Pelosi's response is bigger government and higher taxes. Activist response is to call skeptics "deniers". The scientists response is "increase our funding." My response is "not so fast."
The vast majority of climate research comes from places like the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Department of Energy, etc. What you get out of the Sierra Club and the like is mostly political policy papers, not much in the way of climatology research appearing in scientific journals.
Yes, which opens up a whole new can of worms about having to keep the welfare (funding) coming in. So you have people with an agenda using research by people who need to keep funding going. It's a recipe for disaster.
And of course, the SPM is starting to reveal errors:
" The SPM contains an embarrassing typographical error in connection with an issue identified as a hot-button issue: the contribution of Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise. It also failed to report WG1 model results on Antarctic contributions to lowering sea levels in the 21st century.The actual WG1 Report stated that all studies projected a negative contribution of the Antarctic to sea level in a warming 21st century due to increased precipitation:
all studies for the 21st century find that Antarctic SMB (surface mass balance) changes contribute negatively to sea level, owing to increasing accumulation [10.6]
Instead of reporting this, the SPM included a table showing a substantial contribution from Antarctic ice sheets from 1961-2003, saying:
[Models] include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking. The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993-2003, but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future. For example, if this contribution were to grow linearly with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table SPM-2 would increase by 0.1 m to 0.2 m. Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise. {10.6}
What happened to the negative contributions in the WG1 Report itself? Here is a copy of the table itself, showing that the Antarctic ice sheet is the largest contributor to recent sea level rise. One set of units is in m/century and one is in mm/year, from which derives the confusion. "... "one major probelm i see between the 2 tables is not even the fact that antarctica is assumed to be a possitive influence on sea level, but rather how much of an increase is observed.
if the SPM table is taken as is , then observed SLE is +180mm/century, when "fixed (m/century -> mm/yr)" the table yields, +180mm/yr or 1800mm/century the WG1 table if taken as is gives +1.8mm/yr or 180mm/century
so its clear that the "note for correction" should not be "convert to mm/yr" but convert m to mm while maintaing the temporal scale...
that is EVEN IF the WG1 table is correct in assuming that antarctica, if a +ve factor in SLE, then the should see a an increase on 18cm per cantury if the trend holds for the next century, that is less then daily tide variation in most parts of the world!
and if one of to follow the SPM as gospel, the increase would by either a WHAPPING 18cm in the next century ( about 0.18mm per year or the high average for the thickness of a human hair strand!!), or if they follow their own revision recommendation the value jumps to 1.8 METERS per century (or 18mm per year)!!!
neither of which agree with the WG1 figures!!!!!!! "
In other words, you are still ignoring the fact that global warming is real and has real consequences
No, go back and read what I said. Waste as a whole can be bad for the environment, I've never been for companies releasing anything into the public space. I don't have a problem with us cleaning up our CO2 emissions.
>> Even if CO2 cutbacks are needed and the threat is real, it doesn't change the fact that global warming is being used by leftists as a tool to gain power.
> That is not a "fact", it is your paranoid fantasy, which I am not particularly interested in discussing.
No, it is fact. The "Union of Concerned Scientists" is a prime example:
Geenpeace, the green party, WWF, and the Sierra Club are well known leftist organizations. These groups and their affiliates fund many AGW global warming studies. The left leaning media also hypes them up. Are you denying this? It is quite obvious.
I don't particularly care about what your paranoid fantasies are. The fact is, global warming is real and has real consequences, as do our choices concerning emissions.
Greenpeace, the green party, WWF, Sierra Club, Chirac wanting to tax the US, "communities of concerned scientists" using leftist psycho-babble jargon. Patterns aren't paranoia, they represent reproduceable scientific proof (unlike global warming, which is much more difficult to test and reproduce). These scientists chose to create "communities of concerned scientists" and get their funding from leftist groups and go through the UN. They also are complaining about Exxon funding alternate studies as being "disinformation" rather than looking at the facts in the studies. They adopt words like "denier". Intelligent climatologists (i.e. peers) who don't buy into all of this are starting to be fired from their jobs. This is not paranoia, it is fact. I don't have a problem with solving our waste problems (it isn't a carbon problem, it is an emissions/waste problem because any waste can cause natural imbalance if there isn't a counterbalance to that waste). I've never had a problem with this from day one.
Water vapor is not responsible for global warming. Water vapor is the reason why the Earth averages ~60 degrees instead of 0 degrees. CO2 is the reason why the temperature of the Earth has increased since pre-industrial times, i.e., global warming.
If the amount of water vapor has risen in the past 200 years, then its capacity to trap heat has also risen. This makes it just as much to blame as CO2.
Once again, you demonstrate that your objections to global warming are based on your political fantasies, not on science.
No, patterns are fairly scientific. Even if CO2 cutbacks are needed and the threat is real, it doesn't change the fact that global warming is being used by leftists as a tool to gain power. They have been searching for some environmental issue that resonates (i.e. stick to the wall), and they have finally found one. It isn't paranoid fantasy, it is the truth. Malaria is killing more people each day, yet AIDS and global warming get all the attention. Why do you think this is? The mainstream press' priorities are leftist priorities. How many stories on slashdot are there about Malaria?
unlike in libertarian fantasyland, the government is needed sometimes to step in when pure monetary incentives are lacking
The government is supposed to govern and protect. If a company is poisoning the public space, then this falls under governance and protection. However, this is not what is behind the global warming movement. Leftists are constantly trying to find issues that will help them gain power. They have used environmental issues from day one because they know that the obvious weakness of consumerism is waste. Proof: Sierra Club, Greenpeace, WWF, Green Party, etc. They couldn't use "water vapor" even though it is a much worse greenhouse "gas" because people would just laugh. They couldn't use methane or other chemicals because the market has a chance of solving these issues (take acid rain and CFCs, which they already attempted). CO2 is the perfect answer. We breathe it out every day, but it isn't as innocent sounding as "water" and most energy companies emit it in fairly large quantities.
If there's no monetary incentive to develop technology, it does no good to compete.
I agree with that 100%, however competition is a very necessary part of the monetary incentive equation. It is what adds diversity of invention into the equation and pushes people to move faster and do better.
> Simply telling companies to not pollute (or taxing them) is easy, coming up with solutions is the hard part.
That's nice, but it is not an argument about the relative merits of the free market vs. regulation.
Solutions come from competition. Competition for price is a big factor, although quality of life is also a factor (health food industry is a good example). Companies that pollute are penalized monetarily and therefore cannot offer a cheaper price. Those companies lose, while companies that don't pollute win (if they can still come under the polluters adjusted price). As long as the consumer does not end up paying more and the government does not end up with the tax revenue for doing nothing, and instead it goes to make up for tax incentives for those tackling the problem or whatever (not foreign governments either), I don't have a big problem with that. However government is wasteful and needs to be lean and mean and in the business of governing, not providing services or taxing everything or doing too much social engineering.
Free market = less taxation and regulation + more invention/solutions + meets consumer demand
Heavily regulated = more taxation and regulation + less invention/solutions + does least necessary to comply
Competition for customers was not their incentive for reducing pollution; regulation was.
Competition speeds up technology development. If the technology isn't there then it does you no good to regulate. Simply telling companies to not pollute (or taxing them) is easy, coming up with solutions is the hard part. If the government has been regulating all this time, why are these companies not completely clean? Why is more government the answer? The answer is that government has been part of the problem. If they are making money taxing these companies, then why would they want the companies to clean up? It would be in their best interest to keep the tax revenue coming. Meanwhile, consumers would be paying the tax, plus breathing the pollution, plus paying higher prices for energy.
If the US wants to, say, cut foreign aid, that is its right, but that does not obviate its responsibility regarding AGW
We need to work towards deregulation and free markets and ending all emissions into public spaces that do not have proven counterbalances. I don't see an emergency like you do though. We need to work towards only trading with democracies and only giving democracies a vote in the UN. We also need to penalize socialist countries and government affiliated corporations, as they hamper free markets.
Not just because of nuclear power, but also fuel economy (which I mentioned) and other reasons.
What new inventions or technology has France come up with in the last 30 years? They haven't contributed to forward progress that much that I know of. It would be nice for all of us to sit around and drink wine and eat cheese and have a government enforced job for life, but the real world just doesn't work that way. Have you seen their unemployment rate? It is 3rd world. Cavemen didn't pollute that much either.
In the scientific literature, they do present the facts. In their own free time, they can do whatever they want. (And do you also object to climate skeptics making a fuss in the media about their views, or should they confine that to the journals as well?)
If a climate skeptic is not a scientist, but an activist using scientific studies to back up their claims, then that is okay. Scientists can easily lose their credibility if they become activists. They should be looked upon as fact gatherers without a bias. The peer review system is not without flaws, in case you start going down that road.
Wow, talk about Orwellian doublespeak. The energy sector pollutes so much because it is so heavily regulated. Amusing. Also funny how the industrial sector cut way back on pollution after regulation was put in place.
Pollution regulation is different than sector regulation. The government basically controlled the Utility companies. Little progress was made because the companies did not have to compete for customers. Thus they used old technology (because it wasn't advancing) that was more likely to pollute. The government was the cause and is to blame.
But in this case, a tax is in many ways the least heavy-handed way to proceed:
As long as these companies get all their money back when they do comply, plus interest. Why should the government get the money? They were the cause of the problem to begin with.
Nobody is claiming that other countries don't contribute to the problem. It is, however, a fact that the US contributes the most to the problem.
The US gives more to other countries in aid than any other country. Maybe we should stop doing that. You know, so we can make things equal. We also contribute more to scientific and technological progress than any other country. Maybe other countries owe us for that too. In fact, we rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII, maybe they should pay us for that too. The list goes on and on. We will probably be the ones to find the solution to the world's pollution whoes first too, despite socialist dogma about how good socialism is for the environment. So this blame or tax America more stuff is just ridiculous.
Incidentally, France is (last I heard) the fuel economy leader in Europe (and is something like 50% more efficient than the US). It also has some of the least CO2 emissions in the energy sector, relative to its GDP, of any comparable European nation, due to its heavy reliance on nuclear power. You may pick on France because you think they're a bunch of America-hating socialist snobs, but they're actually leading the way in many respects as far as GHG emissions are concerned.
Only because of Nuclear Power, which I mentioned. Are you for Nuclear Power? We could have went that route. The Jane Fondas and Green Socialists here didn't want it, remember? If France ever has a melt down or two, their pollution could surpass ours in deadliness. What are they doing with the waste?
Mother Nature hasn't had to deal with a bunch of anthropogenic sources. Ever.
Mother nature has dealt with worse nonanthropogenic sources, even during the time humans have existed from what I know, correct?
("Too much CO2 produces cooling"??)
There were ice ages in history where there was more CO2 in the atmosphere than at the present time. The CO2 probably wasn't the cause of the cooling, right? I assume at a certain point the earth would turn to being as hot as venus.
When climatologists use the phrase "business as usual", they refer to scenarios in which no effort is made to reduce emissions
Although scientists are humans and do worry about their children and the environment, they should leave the activism to activists and just present the facts. They don't need to adopt politically correct leftist psycho-socio babble orwellianisms.
There was a hell of a lot of government regulating going on with that "free market".
I've never considered a free market one that allows companies to kill people freely, or anything like that. I don't know very many people who do. I am all for a government that governs, just one that governs as little as possible. First of all, the energy sector has never been part of the "free market" that I know of. It is and always has been heavily regulated. Even oil companies are at the mercy of OPEC. This is partly why the energy sector is so antiquated and still pollutes like it does. A true free market responds to the consumer. The "we spend extra money on bottled water so that we don't have to drink tap water" consumer. The "we drink $5 a cup coffee and drive a prius" consumer. I would buy a large SUV with zero pollution before I would buy a large SUV that pollutes, wouldn't you?
Also, there really have not been any good solutions to the CO2 problem offered up, at least not ones that make good economic sense. It is easy to impose the full force of the government on someone and make them pay a tax, it isn't as easy to come up with good solutions to the problem. It is easy to vilify big oil and evil corporations and capitalism, however even idealistic socialist countries have problems with CO2. France doesn't run on electric cars, they use oil like the rest of us.
So you're against all taxation, then. Even most libertarians have more sense than that.
No, but if you have to tax, you should tax individuals directly and not through hidden means. If the individual feels it directly, they are more likely to think about whether or not it is fair. Taxation should be limited and rare because it is the majority imposing its will on the minority, and all of us are in the minority at some point or another.
Not even remotely. The evidence for AGW has only been getting stronger, and the predictions are getting more accurate. They're not suddenly going to jump to the opposite conclusion. The evidence in favor of AGW is conclusive.
The earth will cool due to natural cycles. Mother nature has a way of balancing itself out over time. When it does, the scientific community will blame it on the sun (which doesn't factor in when the earth is warming, only when it is cooling), or having "over" too much CO2 in the atmosphere, thus having the opposite effect.
it is a technical term in the climate community referring to the scenario in which no effort is made to reduce emissions.
What is the climate comunity? Some leftist group? I am part of the community, and I care about what I breathe. Scientists should not be political, so surely you are not talking about them. Let me guess, you wear little ribbons to prove that you care more than everybody else?
Yeah, we can see how well the free market has solved that problem so far.
Where have you been? Cars don't pollute as much as they did in the 50s. Factories don't either. Have you seen pictures from the industrial revolution timeframe? The free market, together with government actually governing, has solved quite a bit of problems. Communist countries, on the other hand, were dirty all the way up to collapse. Socialist countries such as France are really no cleaner than the US. They have nuclear power plants, which the environmentalists here oppose, but the free market is willing to build them.
Duh. Every new scientific study in every field ever has changed its predictions from previous studies. That's what happens when science improves.
Right, which was my point to begin with. Scientists might produce a study 5-10 years from now (or the weather might get really cold) and AGW would be debunked completely.
A carbon tax may be the best solution, actually.
Why would one reward the government by allowing them to steal money from consumers (companies don't really pay taxes, they pass it on to the consumer) when it was the government that passed the laws (or did not pass the laws) to allow the corporations to pollute to begin with? This sounds like a horrible idea. If the government does not want these companies to operate, they should not give them permits to operate. I have a better idea. We should tax countries that are not democracies and should also tax countries that are socialist or have government affiliated businesses, because they slow free market capitalist progress and make us less safe, etc.
I think it is interesting that you apparently feel there is no political or economic advantage in binding international agreements.
I am not against international agreements per se, but we must be careful about them. This is because they trump the constitution and only work if all sides are following them, no sides are cheating, and the treaty benefits all sides equally. Letting other countries catch up to our economy while we get the shaft isn't exactly a good deal for us. Taxing our companies and giving the money to the UN or other countries is an even worse idea. Of course, there are examples like our dealings with North Korea during the 90s and the Oil for Food program in Iraq to show you that international agreements aren't always what they are cut out to be.
... but that should be weighed against the longer term damages that may accrue under the business-as-usual alternative.
Business-as-usual is the BEST "alternative." Technology and market forces have solved quite a bit of problems that we have faced up to this point, and they will continue to do so. Going back to the stone age, or slowing our technology developement or economy would be the worst thing for the environment. Our corporations have cleaned up quite a bit since the industrial revolution. People are living longer, etc. While it is true that we cannot just dump anything into the atmosphere or environment, it is also true that necessity is the mother of invention. If we want it bad enough, we will use business-as-usual market forces and human endeavor to solve the problems we have. The government should govern and get out of the way.
... what?? Have you missed the, um, thousands of papers published about global warming over the next century? You could start by reading the climate study (IPPC AR4) which this Slashdot story is about.
IPPC has had to change it's predictions since the last "study." This new summary does not have predictions. They are going to wait until policy is in place and everyone buys into their hype, then they will release the predictions that won't come true. Very convenient. Name the papers that had predictions that were made 10 years ago that have come true? What were the predictions for today?
Expecting the US to do its fair share in reducing emissions, given its contribution to them, is neither socialism nor a guilt trip.
I am not against a market approach for dealing with all major emissions (even if they aren't considered pollution). This is common sense. What I am against is a larger government, more taxes, a negative effect on our great Capitalistic economy, etc. I am definitely against the socialist and dictator jokers at the UN deciding these things. In fact, we should show that it is possible and pain free first, then help other countries do it by using our example rather than some treaty. At the rate China is moving, I would be more worried about China right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Until you realize that there are lots of corporations, many competing with each other, and many having opposite agendas. Then you realize that Socialist countries also have corporations, and their governments are even MORE closely tied to them. Then you realize that our government used to be worse than it is today, as all of this used to be done in smokey back rooms run mostly by men and monopolies. Then you realize that you can still start a big successful corporation of your own (ask Google), and that even if you don't, you can still make a pretty good living. Then you realize that people still want to come and live in our country. Then you sleep just fine at night.
It isn't neocons vs. traditional. It is "compasionate conservatives" vs. traditional conservatives. A neo-con seems to just be a slur meaning "Jewish Republican," as far as I can tell. However, a neo-conservative is really just a conservative who does not want to squander our hard fought Cold War victory. They want to use our new super power status to democratize dictatorships that were previously propped up by the U.S.S.R, etc. The left throws it around like the 'n' word. They want to "socialize" everyone by way of the U.N. I predict that G.W. will have a statue in Baghdad in 20 years. I know of at least one Kurd who named their child after Dick Cheney after the first Gulf War.
Most conservatives are too busy working, raising a family, and earning a living. This is the reason they are called the "silent majority." They listen to the radio because other forms of media do not cater to them and they either spend a lot of time in their car or they can listen to the radio in the background while working. They use the software that other people they trust recommend to them, as they don't have time to be fanboys or whatever. They understand that there is nothing new under the sun, and that technology is just a facilitator.
Liberals feel that there is no heaven, and therefore they have to create one on earth. They worship science and technology as their saviour, because they need something that allows them to live longer and enjoy their earthly heaven more. They seek worldly pleasures and don't want anything to stand in the way of that. They act like they are for the poor, but actually look down on them as being the rednecks, white trash, trailer park, right wing Christian, wal-mart shoppers who they fly over on the way to New York. They generally come from wealthy families. Their secular religion currently has three big sins: Not being politically correct, income inequality, and contributing to global warming. They were raised on the "super friends justice league" notion of government and look at the U.N. as being the manifestation of this. They hate the fact that not everyone agrees with them, so they circumvent their government by using the UN and the courts to legislate.
Fascism is the merger of State and corporate power.
So France is Fascist? Its corporations are partially owned by the government. You sir are the Moron.
Traitors or fools. What's your point? Of course, Bush was the one who went wild making up evidence, doctoring intelligence[...]
You mean the same evidence that Hillary Clinton talked about to Code Pink that Bill Clinton had? You mean the same evidence that Bill Clinton gave for bombing Iraq during the Monica Lewinski scandal? You are so blinded by your own hate and twisted ideology.
Hell, you don't even need a dictator for fascism. Just look at America.
Yes, political correctness is very Fascist. It is worse than the government limiting free speech. It is like everyone being a policeman. Other than that, I make a pretty good living, so I cannot complain. I am very happy to live here and not in France.
So? Bush is loyal to the oil companies, not to America. That was my point which you seem to be trying to make for me.
They didn't need Bush, OPEC and speculation had made it so that they were making money left and right. It started before Bush took office. Oil company "welfare" was present under Clinton too, you know. In fact, the subsidies were passed under Clinton. France must care more for Oil companies than their people too, as TOTAL made just as much money.
I bring up Clinton to demonstrate that if Clinton did the same thing, then obviously Bush couldn't have been the originator. I do not imply that you are a Clinton supporter. Obviously, you are either a libertarian or an anarchist. Either way, you seem to just want somebody to hate and blame for your misery other than yourself. You seem like a very angry person.
The right deeply disagrees with the fundamental basis of Liberalism, that all people should be equal under the law. They have a firm belief that some people are just superior "elites" and that the full power of the state should be used against the individual in order to promote (or often "enforce") that inequality. Even in small quantities, that side is fundamentally incompatible with a free society.
.99 a gallon during the 90s and lose all their profits? Why did Clinton give Haliburton "no bid contracts" during the 90s and nobody mentions this? Why is George Soros investing in Haliburton right now and nobody mentions this?
[...] Your typical right wing mass murder is based on the right wing notion of the "elite". Those that aren't the right color, religion, race, shoe size, whatever their particular idea of superiority is, are inferior, perhaps "subhuman" and worthy of extermination. That's also why racists and religious extremists are considered right wing.
You are merely describing the "Nationalist" part of "National Socialism." Socialism + Nationalism + Dictator = Fascism. Nobody has ever convinced me that Fascism was anything more than Dictatorship mixed with Nationalistic Socialism. In fact, they even called themselves national socialists. Racists that practice socialism for their own race, but no others are still considered socialists. Theocracies that practice socialism for their own religious followers are just theocratic socialists. These are just different flavors/sects of socialism.
Shrub ain't a family member. He's quite probably the worst traitor this country has ever seen. Anyone who wasn't aware of that already at the time of the Dixie Chicks thing wasn't paying any attention. It's not like they weren't doing *exactly* what they said they'd do back in 2000 in the event of an attack.
Most Democrats signed the war resolution, including Hillary Clinton. We have voice recordings of Hillary Clinton, trying to convince Code Pink that she did her own 10 years of research, and that during Bill's presidency they had known about the WMDs and that Saddam had to go. John Kerry said during the 2004 elections that "knowing now what he didn't know then, he would have invaded Iraq". So I suppose all these people are traitors too?
That doesn't change the fact that Fascism largely *is* government, corporations, and religion conspiring against the people. Socialism is government controlling business, lifestyle, thought etc.
It's possible to actually look a little closer and see how it does have something to do with all of those.
You are describing dictatorship vs. liberal socialism, not Fascism vs. Socialism. Fascism is just another word for Nationalistic Socialistic Dictatorship.
Wow, let me see if I understand your point. It's ok for the government to rob me at gunpoint and give that money *as a fucking free gift* to already massively profitable oil companies and your pathetic attempt at a defense of that action is that I could have bought stock and recouped some of my losses?!?!
What I was getting at is that ALL oil companies got rich, not just American oil companies. The French government owns TOTAL. So is it a Bush conspiracy, or a Socialist conspiracy, or both? Where does OPEC come into play? Why did they allow prices to drop to
Crap. [...] To reach fascism you then need to continue on and on to the right until the government controls the markets in favor of the privileged few. This is seen in things like corporate welfare for the richest oil companies etc.
Nonsense. Any form of government that is combined with a dictator is going to seem like the other end of the spectrum. There was little difference between Stalinism and Fascism. The "Volkswagon" was a socialist concept (the people's car), for instance.
People turned against the Dixie Chicks because the Dixie Chicks were right.
It doesn't matter if they were right. You don't bad mouth a family member outside the family.
This is seen in things like corporate welfare for the richest oil companies etc.
You mean rich "public" oil companies. You could have bought stock in these companies. Where were you when they were losing money? The only reason why these things exist is because money corrupts the political system. It has nothing to do with Capitalism, Fascism, or Socialism. Do you think that France does not have this problem? They stood to make money off of secret deals with Saddam. How's that for an ally? How about that evil rich Total company that the French government runs. Talk about corporate welfare! Everyone bashes the war as being about oil, yet nobody offers any solutions to cut our dependency. They want to blame right wingers and Bush. Yet I do not know of a single socialist country (or communist country) that wasn't dependent on oil in some way. Before you start talking about France and Nuclear power, you'd better check the leftist position on this during the past 40 years. They wouldn't let us build them. You sir are the fool.
It doesn't matter where your rights "come" from. Rights still can be fostered or suppressed by ones community, society, government or local thugs.
The philosophy and mindset of a people and its government matters. That is why. Laws are made and a country's people are treated according to a philosophy. If your philosophy is that government gives you your rights rather than just protects your rights from others, then you will approach lawmaking and justice differently. Our country has slipped too far in that direction and people forget what our government was founded upon.
And I don't think you are informed enough to explain what leftists believe.
By leftist, I am obviously referring to socialists and communists/neo-communists who make up the largest of the group. Most people would have understood what I meant. I am very informed.
The philosophy and mindset of a people and its government matters. That is why. Laws are made and a country's people are treated according to a philosophy. If your philosophy is that government gives you your rights rather than just protects your rights from others, then you will approach lawmaking and justice differently. Our country has slipped too far in that direction and people forget what our government was founded upon.
It isn't Bush, it's political correctness brought to you by the left.
Also, just because people seem to think that they can go to foreign countries and diss our country without consequences (i.e. loss of record sales, DJ's not playing their records on the airwaves, etc.) doesn't mean that government is limiting freedom of speech. All I hear is people protesting and appeasement over the national media. The only sin anymore is global warming and economic inequality. Everything else goes.
You can be left wing, without being communist
Correct, on the very left of socialism is communism. On the very right of socialism is "national socialism"/fascism (Hitler was a socialist). This is why people refer to the right wing as fascist. This doesn't apply to America. The right wing in America is Capitalist and Christian. The most extreme right wing in America would probably just make us look more like our early country (more Christian, less tolerant). Contrary to popular opinion, the KKK and Neo Nazis in America are left wing.
I find it amazing how the american "patriotism" reminds me of communism actually.
Sometimes with all the flag waiving and such. However 'patriotism' now is probably not too much different than in early America, before communism existed in people's minds. Back then, they might have tarred and feathered people like Nanci Pelosi. Politics used to stop at the water's edge. You don't 'diss' your brother or sister outside the family. This is why people turned against the Dixie Chicks, not for the reason they want you to believe.
I personaly know enough true leftists who believes in -individual- liberties far more than most of "rightists" do.
My rights do not come from government. The constitution was written to limit the power of government and protect my rights, not to grant me rights from some "high and mighty" government. Leftists do not believe this way. They believe the opposite. They believe that rights are granted by the state.
It is societal order who makes civil liberties real or eliminates them.
I arrest my case.
The government post office makes money off of junk mailers who send us tons of junk mail daily that just ends up in the trash.
What a joke. First of all, any company that produces x tons of potential 'waste' should subsidize or provide for the cleaning up or recycling of that waste rather than leaving this up to the consumer. They can do this by getting together with other companies and setting up a mechanism or pay a third party. All the government has to do is pass and enforce a law. The government does not need to be in the business of providing services or having 'fees/taxes' for this.
I'm going to get flack for this, but we need to seriously take our country back:
1. Repeal the income tax and force the feds to get their revenue only from trade between the borders (as originally intended).
2. Limit government function to protection and governing, not providing services or social engineering.
3. Reduce congress pay to the national average adjusted for inflation each year (and lock it in that way). Get rid of private jet travel and bodyguards, etc. They are citizens just like you and me. Force them to be in their districts at least half of the year.
4. Repeal all entitlements (social security, medicaid, etc.). Volunteer organizations WILL step up to the plate.
5. Give responsibility for education back to local communities.
6. Say no to socialism, which contradicts free society. The constitution is to protect the individual from the state, not to grant priviledges to the individual via some all powerful super friends justice league central government (or UN), like liberals/socialists would have us believe.
Nonsense. You go back and read old newspapers. There was a famous Newsweek story about global cooling in 1975, which did not reflect the scientific opinion of the time, and pretty much nothing before that.
"
Here is a quote from the New York Times reporting on fears of an approaching ice age.
"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again."
That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.
Let me repeat. 1895, not 1995.
A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age."
The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."
By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming:
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933. The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.
An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared:
"Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."
A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade."
The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable." These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don't they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of former Vice president's brand of climate alarmism.
After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today's voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom.
Much of the 100-year media history on climate change that I have documented here today can be found in a publication titled "Fire and Ice" from the Business and Media Institute. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/200 6/fireandice/fireandice_timeswarns.asp "
From: http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id= 263759
Even if true, it is irrelevant to the point under discussion, which was the fact that the actual funding for climate science does not originate in any significant way from your leftist conspiracy.
1. Having to keep government funding rolling in is a big part of the problem.
2. Once this stuff hits the desk of UN beaurocrats, this BECOMES what it is about.
3. Scientists, like journalists, are prone to bias and activism just like everyone else.
Non sequitur. We were talking about typographical errors in the IPCC AR4. Perhaps you would like to stick to the points being discussed, instead of launching into an irrelevant anti-leftist tirade every time you're proven wrong.
So if I critique the tables and the data, will I be convicted of "injecting confusion in the mix in order to slow policy down" or will I be labelled a "denier," or both?
The situation in climatology isn't any different from any other field of science
Not really true. Two big differences:
1. We have had global warming and global cooling alarms every 10-30 years since documented news history. Go back and read old newspapers.
2. There are leftist groups using the environment as a front against capitalism. I've already offered proof of that.
Sane person's response: Guess I need to print out the revised draft. (Which is what I did last week.)
The New Stan Price's response: IT'S A LIBRUL CONSPIRACY!!!1!!
No, Chirac's response was to tax America. Pelosi's response is bigger government and higher taxes. Activist response is to call skeptics "deniers". The scientists response is "increase our funding." My response is "not so fast."
The vast majority of climate research comes from places like the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Department of Energy, etc. What you get out of the Sierra Club and the like is mostly political policy papers, not much in the way of climatology research appearing in scientific journals.
...
Yes, which opens up a whole new can of worms about having to keep the welfare (funding) coming in. So you have people with an agenda using research by people who need to keep funding going. It's a recipe for disaster.
And of course, the SPM is starting to reveal errors:
"
The SPM contains an embarrassing typographical error in connection with an issue identified as a hot-button issue: the contribution of Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise. It also failed to report WG1 model results on Antarctic contributions to lowering sea levels in the 21st century.The actual WG1 Report stated that all studies projected a negative contribution of the Antarctic to sea level in a warming 21st century due to increased precipitation:
all studies for the 21st century find that Antarctic SMB (surface mass balance) changes contribute negatively to sea level, owing to increasing accumulation [10.6]
Instead of reporting this, the SPM included a table showing a substantial contribution from Antarctic ice sheets from 1961-2003, saying:
[Models] include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking. The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993-2003, but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future. For example, if this contribution were to grow linearly with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table SPM-2 would increase by 0.1 m to 0.2 m. Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise. {10.6}
What happened to the negative contributions in the WG1 Report itself? Here is a copy of the table itself, showing that the Antarctic ice sheet is the largest contributor to recent sea level rise. One set of units is in m/century and one is in mm/year, from which derives the confusion.
"
"one major probelm i see between the 2 tables is not even the fact that antarctica is assumed to be a possitive influence on sea level, but rather how much of an increase is observed.
if the SPM table is taken as is , then observed SLE is +180mm/century,
when "fixed (m/century -> mm/yr)" the table yields, +180mm/yr or 1800mm/century
the WG1 table if taken as is gives +1.8mm/yr or 180mm/century
so its clear that the "note for correction" should not be "convert to mm/yr" but convert m to mm while maintaing the temporal scale...
that is EVEN IF the WG1 table is correct in assuming that antarctica, if a +ve factor in SLE, then the should see a an increase on 18cm per cantury if the trend holds for the next century, that is less then daily tide variation in most parts of the world!
and if one of to follow the SPM as gospel, the increase would by either a WHAPPING 18cm in the next century ( about 0.18mm per year or the high average for the thickness of a human hair strand!!), or if they follow their own revision recommendation the value jumps to 1.8 METERS per century (or 18mm per year)!!!
neither of which agree with the WG1 figures!!!!!!!
"
From http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1118#more-1118
In other words, you are still ignoring the fact that global warming is real and has real consequences
p ?grpid=6631o m_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=58
No, go back and read what I said. Waste as a whole can be bad for the environment, I've never been for companies releasing anything into the public space. I don't have a problem with us cleaning up our CO2 emissions.
>> Even if CO2 cutbacks are needed and the threat is real, it doesn't change the fact that global warming is being used by leftists as a tool to gain power.
> That is not a "fact", it is your paranoid fantasy, which I am not particularly interested in discussing.
No, it is fact. The "Union of Concerned Scientists" is a prime example:
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.as
http://scholarwarriortimes.com/index.php?option=c
Geenpeace, the green party, WWF, and the Sierra Club are well known leftist organizations. These groups and their affiliates fund many AGW global warming studies. The left leaning media also hypes them up. Are you denying this? It is quite obvious.
I don't particularly care about what your paranoid fantasies are. The fact is, global warming is real and has real consequences, as do our choices concerning emissions.
Greenpeace, the green party, WWF, Sierra Club, Chirac wanting to tax the US, "communities of concerned scientists" using leftist psycho-babble jargon. Patterns aren't paranoia, they represent reproduceable scientific proof (unlike global warming, which is much more difficult to test and reproduce). These scientists chose to create "communities of concerned scientists" and get their funding from leftist groups and go through the UN. They also are complaining about Exxon funding alternate studies as being "disinformation" rather than looking at the facts in the studies. They adopt words like "denier". Intelligent climatologists (i.e. peers) who don't buy into all of this are starting to be fired from their jobs. This is not paranoia, it is fact. I don't have a problem with solving our waste problems (it isn't a carbon problem, it is an emissions/waste problem because any waste can cause natural imbalance if there isn't a counterbalance to that waste). I've never had a problem with this from day one.
Water vapor is not responsible for global warming. Water vapor is the reason why the Earth averages ~60 degrees instead of 0 degrees. CO2 is the reason why the temperature of the Earth has increased since pre-industrial times, i.e., global warming.
If the amount of water vapor has risen in the past 200 years, then its capacity to trap heat has also risen. This makes it just as much to blame as CO2.
Once again, you demonstrate that your objections to global warming are based on your political fantasies, not on science.
No, patterns are fairly scientific. Even if CO2 cutbacks are needed and the threat is real, it doesn't change the fact that global warming is being used by leftists as a tool to gain power. They have been searching for some environmental issue that resonates (i.e. stick to the wall), and they have finally found one. It isn't paranoid fantasy, it is the truth. Malaria is killing more people each day, yet AIDS and global warming get all the attention. Why do you think this is? The mainstream press' priorities are leftist priorities. How many stories on slashdot are there about Malaria?
unlike in libertarian fantasyland, the government is needed sometimes to step in when pure monetary incentives are lacking
The government is supposed to govern and protect. If a company is poisoning the public space, then this falls under governance and protection. However, this is not what is behind the global warming movement. Leftists are constantly trying to find issues that will help them gain power. They have used environmental issues from day one because they know that the obvious weakness of consumerism is waste. Proof: Sierra Club, Greenpeace, WWF, Green Party, etc. They couldn't use "water vapor" even though it is a much worse greenhouse "gas" because people would just laugh. They couldn't use methane or other chemicals because the market has a chance of solving these issues (take acid rain and CFCs, which they already attempted). CO2 is the perfect answer. We breathe it out every day, but it isn't as innocent sounding as "water" and most energy companies emit it in fairly large quantities.
If there's no monetary incentive to develop technology, it does no good to compete.
I agree with that 100%, however competition is a very necessary part of the monetary incentive equation. It is what adds diversity of invention into the equation and pushes people to move faster and do better.
> Simply telling companies to not pollute (or taxing them) is easy, coming up with solutions is the hard part.
That's nice, but it is not an argument about the relative merits of the free market vs. regulation.
Solutions come from competition. Competition for price is a big factor, although quality of life is also a factor (health food industry is a good example). Companies that pollute are penalized monetarily and therefore cannot offer a cheaper price. Those companies lose, while companies that don't pollute win (if they can still come under the polluters adjusted price). As long as the consumer does not end up paying more and the government does not end up with the tax revenue for doing nothing, and instead it goes to make up for tax incentives for those tackling the problem or whatever (not foreign governments either), I don't have a big problem with that. However government is wasteful and needs to be lean and mean and in the business of governing, not providing services or taxing everything or doing too much social engineering.
Free market = less taxation and regulation + more invention/solutions + meets consumer demand
Heavily regulated = more taxation and regulation + less invention/solutions + does least necessary to comply
Competition for customers was not their incentive for reducing pollution; regulation was.
Competition speeds up technology development. If the technology isn't there then it does you no good to regulate. Simply telling companies to not pollute (or taxing them) is easy, coming up with solutions is the hard part. If the government has been regulating all this time, why are these companies not completely clean? Why is more government the answer? The answer is that government has been part of the problem. If they are making money taxing these companies, then why would they want the companies to clean up? It would be in their best interest to keep the tax revenue coming. Meanwhile, consumers would be paying the tax, plus breathing the pollution, plus paying higher prices for energy.
If the US wants to, say, cut foreign aid, that is its right, but that does not obviate its responsibility regarding AGW
We need to work towards deregulation and free markets and ending all emissions into public spaces that do not have proven counterbalances. I don't see an emergency like you do though. We need to work towards only trading with democracies and only giving democracies a vote in the UN. We also need to penalize socialist countries and government affiliated corporations, as they hamper free markets.
Not just because of nuclear power, but also fuel economy (which I mentioned) and other reasons.
What new inventions or technology has France come up with in the last 30 years? They haven't contributed to forward progress that much that I know of. It would be nice for all of us to sit around and drink wine and eat cheese and have a government enforced job for life, but the real world just doesn't work that way. Have you seen their unemployment rate? It is 3rd world. Cavemen didn't pollute that much either.
In the scientific literature, they do present the facts. In their own free time, they can do whatever they want. (And do you also object to climate skeptics making a fuss in the media about their views, or should they confine that to the journals as well?)
If a climate skeptic is not a scientist, but an activist using scientific studies to back up their claims, then that is okay. Scientists can easily lose their credibility if they become activists. They should be looked upon as fact gatherers without a bias. The peer review system is not without flaws, in case you start going down that road.
Wow, talk about Orwellian doublespeak. The energy sector pollutes so much because it is so heavily regulated. Amusing. Also funny how the industrial sector cut way back on pollution after regulation was put in place.
Pollution regulation is different than sector regulation. The government basically controlled the Utility companies. Little progress was made because the companies did not have to compete for customers. Thus they used old technology (because it wasn't advancing) that was more likely to pollute. The government was the cause and is to blame.
But in this case, a tax is in many ways the least heavy-handed way to proceed:
As long as these companies get all their money back when they do comply, plus interest. Why should the government get the money? They were the cause of the problem to begin with.
Nobody is claiming that other countries don't contribute to the problem. It is, however, a fact that the US contributes the most to the problem.
The US gives more to other countries in aid than any other country. Maybe we should stop doing that. You know, so we can make things equal. We also contribute more to scientific and technological progress than any other country. Maybe other countries owe us for that too. In fact, we rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII, maybe they should pay us for that too. The list goes on and on. We will probably be the ones to find the solution to the world's pollution whoes first too, despite socialist dogma about how good socialism is for the environment. So this blame or tax America more stuff is just ridiculous.
Incidentally, France is (last I heard) the fuel economy leader in Europe (and is something like 50% more efficient than the US). It also has some of the least CO2 emissions in the energy sector, relative to its GDP, of any comparable European nation, due to its heavy reliance on nuclear power. You may pick on France because you think they're a bunch of America-hating socialist snobs, but they're actually leading the way in many respects as far as GHG emissions are concerned.
Only because of Nuclear Power, which I mentioned. Are you for Nuclear Power? We could have went that route. The Jane Fondas and Green Socialists here didn't want it, remember? If France ever has a melt down or two, their pollution could surpass ours in deadliness. What are they doing with the waste?
Mother Nature hasn't had to deal with a bunch of anthropogenic sources. Ever.
Mother nature has dealt with worse nonanthropogenic sources, even during the time humans have existed from what I know, correct?
("Too much CO2 produces cooling"??)
There were ice ages in history where there was more CO2 in the atmosphere than at the present time. The CO2 probably wasn't the cause of the cooling, right? I assume at a certain point the earth would turn to being as hot as venus.
When climatologists use the phrase "business as usual", they refer to scenarios in which no effort is made to reduce emissions
Although scientists are humans and do worry about their children and the environment, they should leave the activism to activists and just present the facts. They don't need to adopt politically correct leftist psycho-socio babble orwellianisms.
There was a hell of a lot of government regulating going on with that "free market".
I've never considered a free market one that allows companies to kill people freely, or anything like that. I don't know very many people who do. I am all for a government that governs, just one that governs as little as possible. First of all, the energy sector has never been part of the "free market" that I know of. It is and always has been heavily regulated. Even oil companies are at the mercy of OPEC. This is partly why the energy sector is so antiquated and still pollutes like it does. A true free market responds to the consumer. The "we spend extra money on bottled water so that we don't have to drink tap water" consumer. The "we drink $5 a cup coffee and drive a prius" consumer. I would buy a large SUV with zero pollution before I would buy a large SUV that pollutes, wouldn't you?
Also, there really have not been any good solutions to the CO2 problem offered up, at least not ones that make good economic sense. It is easy to impose the full force of the government on someone and make them pay a tax, it isn't as easy to come up with good solutions to the problem. It is easy to vilify big oil and evil corporations and capitalism, however even idealistic socialist countries have problems with CO2. France doesn't run on electric cars, they use oil like the rest of us.
So you're against all taxation, then. Even most libertarians have more sense than that.
No, but if you have to tax, you should tax individuals directly and not through hidden means. If the individual feels it directly, they are more likely to think about whether or not it is fair. Taxation should be limited and rare because it is the majority imposing its will on the minority, and all of us are in the minority at some point or another.
Not even remotely. The evidence for AGW has only been getting stronger, and the predictions are getting more accurate. They're not suddenly going to jump to the opposite conclusion. The evidence in favor of AGW is conclusive.
The earth will cool due to natural cycles. Mother nature has a way of balancing itself out over time. When it does, the scientific community will blame it on the sun (which doesn't factor in when the earth is warming, only when it is cooling), or having "over" too much CO2 in the atmosphere, thus having the opposite effect.
it is a technical term in the climate community referring to the scenario in which no effort is made to reduce emissions.
What is the climate comunity? Some leftist group? I am part of the community, and I care about what I breathe. Scientists should not be political, so surely you are not talking about them. Let me guess, you wear little ribbons to prove that you care more than everybody else?
Yeah, we can see how well the free market has solved that problem so far.
Where have you been? Cars don't pollute as much as they did in the 50s. Factories don't either. Have you seen pictures from the industrial revolution timeframe? The free market, together with government actually governing, has solved quite a bit of problems. Communist countries, on the other hand, were dirty all the way up to collapse. Socialist countries such as France are really no cleaner than the US. They have nuclear power plants, which the environmentalists here oppose, but the free market is willing to build them.
Duh. Every new scientific study in every field ever has changed its predictions from previous studies. That's what happens when science improves.
... but that should be weighed against the longer term damages that may accrue under the business-as-usual alternative.
Right, which was my point to begin with. Scientists might produce a study 5-10 years from now (or the weather might get really cold) and AGW would be debunked completely.
A carbon tax may be the best solution, actually.
Why would one reward the government by allowing them to steal money from consumers (companies don't really pay taxes, they pass it on to the consumer) when it was the government that passed the laws (or did not pass the laws) to allow the corporations to pollute to begin with? This sounds like a horrible idea. If the government does not want these companies to operate, they should not give them permits to operate. I have a better idea. We should tax countries that are not democracies and should also tax countries that are socialist or have government affiliated businesses, because they slow free market capitalist progress and make us less safe, etc.
I think it is interesting that you apparently feel there is no political or economic advantage in binding international agreements.
I am not against international agreements per se, but we must be careful about them. This is because they trump the constitution and only work if all sides are following them, no sides are cheating, and the treaty benefits all sides equally. Letting other countries catch up to our economy while we get the shaft isn't exactly a good deal for us. Taxing our companies and giving the money to the UN or other countries is an even worse idea. Of course, there are examples like our dealings with North Korea during the 90s and the Oil for Food program in Iraq to show you that international agreements aren't always what they are cut out to be.
Business-as-usual is the BEST "alternative." Technology and market forces have solved quite a bit of problems that we have faced up to this point, and they will continue to do so. Going back to the stone age, or slowing our technology developement or economy would be the worst thing for the environment. Our corporations have cleaned up quite a bit since the industrial revolution. People are living longer, etc. While it is true that we cannot just dump anything into the atmosphere or environment, it is also true that necessity is the mother of invention. If we want it bad enough, we will use business-as-usual market forces and human endeavor to solve the problems we have. The government should govern and get out of the way.
Really? Who has gotten legal threats to "stop teaching heresy"?
g 020507.htm
... what?? Have you missed the, um, thousands of papers published about global warming over the next century? You could start by reading the climate study (IPPC AR4) which this Slashdot story is about.
Apparently, this guy:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warmin
IPPC has had to change it's predictions since the last "study." This new summary does not have predictions. They are going to wait until policy is in place and everyone buys into their hype, then they will release the predictions that won't come true. Very convenient. Name the papers that had predictions that were made 10 years ago that have come true? What were the predictions for today?
Expecting the US to do its fair share in reducing emissions, given its contribution to them, is neither socialism nor a guilt trip.
I am not against a market approach for dealing with all major emissions (even if they aren't considered pollution). This is common sense. What I am against is a larger government, more taxes, a negative effect on our great Capitalistic economy, etc. I am definitely against the socialist and dictator jokers at the UN deciding these things. In fact, we should show that it is possible and pain free first, then help other countries do it by using our example rather than some treaty. At the rate China is moving, I would be more worried about China right now.