74
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 03:12 pm
I don't agree with Cyclo's point about the revolving door between industry and Government Regulatory agencies - there is none. There is however a reviolving door between single issue advocacy groups and these government regulatory agencies - and the effects of that are mostly bad. I have a great deal of experience with the U.S. Department of Energy. It is populated with lawyers, professional bureaucrats, the usual drones and the odd transfer from various environmental groups. Except for the few remaining physicists from the old Atomic Energy Commission there are very few people there with practical experience in the industries they so ineptly regulate. They were preoccupied with the endless internal turf wars among the departments of this huge bureaucracy and generally incapable of any rational, objective analysis. The same is true (though to a lesser extent) of the Environmental Protection Agency.

I believe entrusting the direction and authoritarian control of things as important, complex, and ubiquitous as the regulation and direction of energy production, distribution, and use, not to mention the design of automobiles and other vehicles to such self-serving bureaucracies would be a formula for disaster. Markets are much more efficient and adaptable.

I think Frank, perhaps inadvertantly, let out a deep-seated psychological motive that is also an important factor among the purveyors of global warming catastrophies and the need for authoritarian controls as a remedy. Here is the telling quote;

Frank Apisa wrote:
And for people too selfish to allow the cancer known as homo sapiens to be eradicated from the universe before it exports its barbarity into the cosmos. [/unquote]

I am for the continued health and welfare of this homo sapiens, on the earth and wherever he may go. I don't regard him as a cancer on the earth. I believe that the continued physical and economic welfare of the billions of people who inhabiit the earth is the ultimate standard by which we must evaluate the tradeoffs in this and other like questions.

Again we are fascinated with numerical simulations of what might evolve in Global warming. None of them can claim scientific reliability as accurate specific forecasts, for reasons i have already elaborated. However, they do merit further study. Equal attention should be paid to modelling and forecasting the human consequences of the usually half-baked 'belling-the-cat" solutions being proposed by zealots so interested in controlling the lives of others.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 04:01 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Equal attention should be paid to modelling and forecasting the human consequences of the usually half-baked 'belling-the-cat" solutions being proposed by zealots so interested in controlling the lives of others.


"zealots controlling the lives of others" Thats what it boils down to. The environmental movement is the new home of many of the extremist communist - socialist factions of the world. They figure the environmental horse offers them the best chance to ride to victory. One only need observe their agenda and their primary political targets to figure out what they are really about.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 04:13 pm
I don't think it is any kind of socialist conspiracy. Instead such things tend to attract those who are personally inclined to favor and sometimes seek authoritarian, Platonic "solutions" to the ills of the world. Perhaps to them individual free choice simply doesn't look like a solution.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 04:27 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I don't think it is any kind of socialist conspiracy. Instead such things tend to attract those who are personally inclined to favor and sometimes seek authoritarian, Platonic "solutions" to the ills of the world. Perhaps to them individual free choice simply doesn't look like a solution.


I think that it's mostly that they can't believe us hard hearted, pragmatic conservatives actually want clean air, clean water, a livable planet, interesting critters, and a beautiful environment as much as they do and are perfectly willing to do what is necessary to have all that.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 04:32 pm
okie wrote:


A hundred years ago, X + Y = Z
now, X + Y = Z + 1 maybe......
So if X + Y used to equal just Z, and now if it maybe equals Z + 1, you have concluded that therefore Y must have increased by 1.

False logic Steve. X may have been the factor that has increased, and in fact it is a proven fact that X is variable, X being the non-man variable. X is proven to vary, no longer a theory, so why do you vest yourself into the conclusion that Y (man) has to be the cause of Y increasing by 1, all without any shred of proof? Although a simple concept, you apparently cannot understand that just maybe X might have increased by 1 instead of Y, this assuming that it has actually increased by 1. This concept clearly appears to be beyond your understanding.
yes maybe it is, and clearly beyond your capacity to articulate it
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 04:41 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Many people are convinced that an impending climactic catastrophy confronts us, one that merits drastic action to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Many appear to wish to see a return to a bucolic pre industrial world -
well if youre putting me in that category you misunderstand my position. I dont think impending climatic catastropy confronts us, I think impending climatic catastropy possibly confronts our great grandchildren.

Moreover I dont think whatever we do now will have a really significant affect, although having determined what the problem is, it would be a good idea to stop contributing to it, in fact criminal not to.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 05:27 pm
That's why I didn't go to the Chigaco meet which was,according to the assertions, a HUGE SUCCESS.

And why I am not going anywhere in the forseeable except the pub.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 05:35 pm
spendius wrote:
That's why I didn't go to the Chigaco meet which was,according to the assertions, a HUGE SUCCESS.

And why I am not going anywhere in the forseeable except the pub.
I am beginning to understand you Spendy. Its taken a while. Still on the John Smiths smooth?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 05:47 pm
It's Extra Smooth steve. It is at its finest in this weather.

And only £1.85 a pint.

Can you believe that?

Obviously it will be dearer in London to pay for the Tate Modern and the Dome bullshit.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 06:00 pm
spendius wrote:
£1.85 a pint.
Shocked Shocked Exclamation Ce n'est pas possible mon ami. Le Monsieur Jean le Smith est tout le monde at least two bloody quid. Where did you say you lived? Smile
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 06:04 pm
It's a secret. We don't want you silly sods coming here and giving all the landlords big ideas. And the estate agents.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 08:11 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Many people are convinced that an impending climactic catastrophy confronts us, one that merits drastic action to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Many appear to wish to see a return to a bucolic pre industrial world -
well if youre putting me in that category you misunderstand my position. I dont think impending climatic catastropy confronts us, I think impending climatic catastropy possibly confronts our great grandchildren.

Moreover I dont think whatever we do now will have a really significant affect, although having determined what the problem is, it would be a good idea to stop contributing to it, in fact criminal not to.


No I don't put you in that category with resoect to a climactic catastrophe. However, I do believe we have different views about the availability of petroleum going forward.

With respect to protecting our grandchildren, I believe the best thing we can do is to encourage the modernization of economies throughout the developing world, even though that may raise short-term demand for energy, and focus on the development and deployment of the right new (and existing) technologies in a cost-competitive way for the production of our new energy needs and the development of more efficient land transport systems. I believe a lightly regulated free market is the best way to do that, and that government control of research and production technology is a sure path to failure.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 09:45 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I don't think it is any kind of socialist conspiracy. Instead such things tend to attract those who are personally inclined to favor and sometimes seek authoritarian, Platonic "solutions" to the ills of the world. Perhaps to them individual free choice simply doesn't look like a solution.


Of course there is a wide variety represented within the environmental movement. I think most are merely a product of the current educational system, people who've grown up watching bambi cartoons and listening to teachers talk about the rain forest, ozone depletion, and global warming, so of course how could anyone be so cruel as to be anti-environment. Whether knowingly or not however, the solutions are almost always portrayed as through government. Big business and corporations are painted as the culprits, as repeatedly illustrated by such programs as 60 Minutes through the years, and as reinforced by the educational system.

However, I think a small percentage of the movement and an important component of the driving force of the movement are made up of communists, marxists, and socialists that believe government is the answer to all of the world's ills, including impending environmental disaster. I have come to think that some of these people don't care a whit about the environment, but simply are using the environmental movement to further their own political agenda.

One of the biggest tipoffs to this alignment of political agendas with the environmental movement is that most of the environmental organizations are heavily involved in opposing activities carried on by corporations and other private businesses, as well as targeting free market countries like the United States. They don't seem to oppose the rampant pollution and environmental disasters in totalitarian or communist countries. They may give a token lip service now and then to such, but for the most part they don't seem to care about China, North Korea, Cuba, and other similar places, and they did not care about the old Soviet Union when it was still intact. Their most enthusiastic support is reserved for tackling the United States and the evil multi-national corporations. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, if some of the people actually cared about the environment instead of their political agenda, they would be just as interested in the pollution and environmental problems in communist countries.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 10:08 pm
okie wrote:
However, I think a small percentage of the movement and an important component of the driving force of the movement are made up of communists, marxists, and socialists that believe government is the answer to all of the world's ills, including impending environmental disaster. I have come to think that some of these people don't care a whit about the environment, but simply are using the environmental movement to further their own political agenda.


Well, well, well, to mention nothing of Bush's goal to bring democracy to the whole world...
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 11:34 pm
Okie- It is clear that Mr.Imposter exaggerates. I am quite certain that he cannot find a quote in which President Bush says: I want to bring democracy to the whole world. That would, of course, not be too bad an idea since democracies the world over have generally proven themselves more interested in economics and trade than in war mongering.

You are quite right, Okie, in your analysis that the bed guys-- Iran, North Korea, Cuba are totalitarian and being totalitarian have to constantly act as if they are being attacked. The Communist System has failed miserably. The Socialistic Ideals in countries such as Germany and France have shown that Socialism cannot co-exist with economic health--(view the horrible 11% unemployment in Germany and the ridiculous 35 hour week demand in France).

It is clear that people like Mr. Imposter must strike out in any way he can since he is reflexively Anti-Bush but to anyone who knows Economics, it is clear that our Economic engine and our Per Capita wealth are outstanding when compared to the rest of the world,

The elites in Europe are fond of attacking the US for a wide variety of reasons, but those who have lived in Europe for any length of time know two things are pre-eminent in their thinking.

First, They are quite Envious of the USA

Second, they would not hesitate to come here immediately if they had the chance.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 02:22 am
cicerone imposter wrote:

Well, well, well, to mention nothing of Bush's goal to bring democracy to the whole world...


I don't think that is possible, but if it did happen, it would be nice. Much preferable to murdurous dictatorships and backward communist countries where people end up starving to death and suffering innumerable other atrocities at the hands of the almighty state, all because somebody had a vision of creating utopia. The problem is dictators believe in democracy also, but only up until they get elected of course.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 02:55 am
The greatest threat to the well-being of planet Earth is American conservatism...the pus currently oozing from lesions in the American body politic.

It is unfortunate that so many otherwise good and decent men and women have been duped by this pathetic excuse for a political philosophy...but such is the case. The humans currently living on this rock have to deal with that reality.

I don't know just how close to the "tipping point" we are with regard to global warming, but I am alarmed that so many scientists with knowledge of the field seem to think their is great danger at hand.

The knee-jerk conservatives who seem to think that following the conventional party line is the only way to go on the issue are a silly, laughable, but dangerous, lot who should be lucky enough to finally gain the decency and common sense to be ashamed of themselves for their cavalier attitude in this instance. But I don't hold out much hope that they will.

Fuk it!

We deserve what we are getting for having so many of us be ignorant enough to buy into this hypocritical stance.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 03:05 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
The greatest threat to the well-being of planet Earth is American conservatism...the pus currently oozing from lesions in the American body politic.


At least I give you credit for apparently being honest, Frank. I just believe you are totally and terribly wrong, and that everything I believe and my parents believed and fought for, and that millions of patriotic Americans died for also believed, is totally in opposition to what you believe. Be assured of this much at least, I will cast my vote at the ballot box every chance I get to defeat the people that think like you.

Frank, you have enough honesty to expose the true agenda of people that profess to care about the environment. It is obvious it is not about the environment at all, but instead it is your political agenda.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 03:08 am
Quote:
A hundred years ago, X + Y = Z
now, X + Y = Z + 1 maybe......
I dont believe Bertrand Russell in his book Principia took account of the okie factor. I had no idea the very basis of mathematics and the logic on which is based actually changed with time. Prove the above and there is a Nobel Prize for you okie. Alternatively I shall have to go around awarding Okies when I see statements such a that. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 03:31 am
parados wrote:
So which costs more in labor and money? walking to work or building a levee and stronger houses?

I haven't researched it in detail, but aggregated over the entire population, I'd say it's probably walking to work. I don't live particularly far from my workplace, but walking to work would add four hours of unproductive labor to my day. If I spent those four hours productively instead, I could make a lot of money to buy a better house with or pay taxes for levees with.

parados wrote:
Which would have been cheaper in the long run. Everyone reduce their driving by 5% or repairing New Orleans after the levee breeched?

The driving reduction, but I think it's a misleading comparison. New Orleans was frequently flooded even before global warming became a problem. (For illustration, just look up "New Orleans" in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.) I seriously doubt that you could have prevented Kathrina with a 5% reduction in driving.

parados wrote:
We can build levees but they always have risks that have to be factored into the equation as well. Now imagine a world in which every major coastal city is behind a levee.

I have no particular problem with this. Even today, the Netherlands are a country in which every major city is behind a levee. And the Netherlands strike me as an attractive country, though I would never admit this in the Fifa World Cup thread. I don't see why the world as a whole couldn't be an attractive place with every major coastal city behind a levee.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/02/2025 at 01:17:41