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

Thomas wrote:

Maybe you and okie should both visit a communist country for yourself someday. Until you do, it's pointless to debate the matter, and I admire Walter for his patience to even try.

Good advice Thomas. And you folks hurry up. There is just 2 of them left in the universe (caveat: a tourist visa for N Korea is much harder to get than for it caribean paradize counterpart).

0 Replies

- The People's Republic of China (since 1949)
- The Republic of Cuba (Cuban Revolution in 1959)
- The Lao People's Democratic Republic (since 1975)
- The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (since 1948)
- The Socialist Republic of Vietnam (since 1976)

That's five.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

All this trifling with communism (= calling all and everything so) is an insult to those who those who had to suffer from it.
And still do.

You've got that right.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

All this trifling with communism (= calling all and everything so) is an insult to those who those who had to suffer from it.
And still do.

I'll third that!

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

So why don't you tell us about fundamental principles and concepts of society that Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism have in common with the global efforts for reducing the negative effects mankind has on this planet that you'd sum up as "environmentalism".

I'm listening.

The common point of all these ideology is they want a global order to impose "conciousness" by potitics. This is a project in the realm of utopia which ends up in totalitarism. Global warming is only an excuse for state interventionism. A good excuse since it would allow the bureaucrats to influence almost all aspects of our life : how to consume, how to move, how to be entertained, how to get warm...

Another common point is they all fail. Environmentalism has not even reached the state of totalitarism before failing (well, except the "small" scale Khmer Rouge return-to-the-country experience which killed "just" 2 millions Cambodians).
Don't believe it? Look for yoursel at the early failure of Kyoto. A "world governement" à la Chirac is not only utopic, it's pure stupidity. If your dream is an utopia, it's your right. But don't blame mankind when it's not fulfilled.

0 Replies

Quote:

The common point of all these ideology is they want a global order to impose "conciousness" by potitics.

Not conciousness, Cleanliness.

If business could be trusted to not f*ck up the environment on their own, we wouldn't need regulation. Overwhelmingly they have proven that they cannot be trusted in this fashion; therefore, regulation is needed.

It's a simple concept

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

- The People's Republic of China (since 1949)
- The Republic of Cuba (Cuban Revolution in 1959)
- The Lao People's Democratic Republic (since 1975)
- The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (since 1948)
- The Socialist Republic of Vietnam (since 1976)
That's five.

You must be kidding right? The success and survival of China (and recently of Vienam after years of economic backwater, hundred thousands of "boat people") are precisely due to their turning back from communist ideology and embracing free market. Accept N Korea which is literally starving, these countries are communists only by name.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
The common point of all these ideology is they want a global order to impose "conciousness" by potitics.

Not conciousness, Cleanliness.

If business could be trusted to not f*ck up the environment on their own, we wouldn't need regulation. Overwhelmingly they have proven that they cannot be trusted in this fashion; therefore, regulation is needed.

It's a simple concept

Cycloptichorn

No, conciousness, NOT cleanliness. That's what activists from WWF to Greenpeace or the Sierra Club want for others. Just look at their manifesto.

As to regulation, hey, the USA, the country of libertarianism is also home of the most litigatious people, lawyers, the strictest, most complicated and mulitple laws, be it about environment (do you know that gasoiline standards arre different for each and every states in the USA?), business, finance or even divorce. No tanker without a double-hull can approach the USA's coasts whereas in Europe, "trash boats" (bateau poubelle) continue to roam our overcrowded seas and sometimes spawning huge oil spill : see the Erika or the Prestige oil spills on the coast of France, just where I live and go boating. The country of free market is also overcharged with regulations, funny isn't it?

Nobody can dispute some regulation is needed. The question is "is the regulation we are talking about needed and is this based on sound science". To me, as far as GW is concerned, the answer is "neither of them".

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
The common point of all these ideology is they want a global order to impose "conciousness" by potitics.

Not conciousness, Cleanliness.

If business could be trusted to not f*ck up the environment on their own, we wouldn't need regulation. Overwhelmingly they have proven that they cannot be trusted in this fashion; therefore, regulation is needed.

It's a simple concept

Cycloptichorn
Hey, the USA, the country of libertarianism is also home of the most litigatious people, lawyers, the strictest, most complicated and mulitple laws, be it about environment (do you know that gasoiline standards arre different for each and every states in the USA?), business, finance or even divorce. No tanker without a double-hull can approach the USA's coasts whereas in Europe, "trash boats" (bateau poubelle) continue to roam our overcrowded seas and sometimes spawning huge oil spill : see the Erika or the Prestige oil spills on the coast of France, just where I live and go boating.

Nobody can dispute some regulation is needed. The question is "is the regulation we are talking about needed and is this based on sound science". To me, as far as GW is concerned, the answer is "neither of them".

The regulation is needed because the problem with pollution goes far beyond arugments about climate change and supposed global warming. GW is a part of the overall pollution problem that we face, but no matter how the science falls out on it, it is a good idea to not pump more toxic chemicals into our environment than absolutely neccessary.

The regulation which helps keep soot and to a certian extent CO2 out of our atmosphere does nothing to hurt and potentially helps. The only ones who are really hurt by it are corporate profiteers.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

No, conciousness, NOT cleanliness. That's what activists from WWF to Greenpeace or the Sierra Club want for others. Just look at their manifesto.

So? Look at various crazy groups on any issue. You think they define the middle ground of the argument? Hardly. The vast majority of proponents of Climate Change models are far more moderate in their concerns and goals then those you mention.

Moreso, these groups intentionally take a far harder line then they think is acheivable - the whole 'foot in the door' mentality of progress. If they demand the world, and only get the moon, it's still a victory; but would they have gotten the moon without their demands? Hard to say

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The regulation which helps keep soot and to a certian extent CO2 out of our atmosphere does nothing to hurt and potentially helps.

I totally agree. But that's what beeing done long ago. The lead concentration in city's air is near zero. Particulate matters are dropping sharply. SO2, NOx and many other pollutants have been reduced dramatically. You can find no atmospheric pollutant which has increased in concentration over the last 2 decades in rich countries. If the environment is so polluted, how would you explain that life expectancy is increasing at almost an "alarming" (word of a greeny) rate for each and every rich country, and most poor countries, for example about 3 months EVERY year since 1990 in France ?

0 Replies

minitax wrote :
"The question is "is the regulation we are talking about needed and is this based on sound science". To me, as far as GW is concerned, the answer is "neither of them".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(from my earlier post) robert murdock said : "The planet deserves the benefit of the doubt."

i'd rather throw my lot in with robert murdock .

even is there some doubt about about global warning , "buying insurance" (that's what it is to me) is not likely going to destroy the earth - global warming quite possibly might .
imo not being pro-active against global warming is like waiting to buy insurance until the fact has been proven (the accident has taken place or the house has burned down - of course , there are plenty of people that prefer to live that way and they'll complain bitterly about the nasty insurance companies or the cruel world) .
hbg

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The regulation which helps keep soot and to a certian extent CO2 out of our atmosphere does nothing to hurt and potentially helps.

I totally agree. But that's what beeing done long ago. The lead concentration in city's air is near zero. Particulate matters are dropping sharply. SO2, NOx and many other pollutants have been reduced dramatically. You can find no atmospheric pollutant which has increased in concentration over the last 2 decades in rich countries. If the environment is so polluted, how would you explain that life expectancy is increasing at almost an "alarming" (word of a greeny) rate for each and every rich country, and most poor countries, for example about 3 months EVERY year since 1990 in France ?

Medical techonology and nutrition continue to advance apace. There is little doubt that this has some effect on raising life expectancies across the board.

Here in the US there is still a major problem with water pollution - levels of mercury are rising in many places and certainly aren't falling. There are areas of the Gulf of Mexico where you wouldn't dare go in the water.

Pollution is a huge problem that will have to be gotten on top of in America, because so much of our travel and transit relies upon inherently polluting models; this will have to change, and better to start now than later.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

even is there some doubt about about global warning , "buying insurance" (that's what it is to me) is not likely going to destroy the earth - global warming quite possibly might .
imo not being pro-active against global warming is like waiting to buy insurance until the fact has been proven (the accident has taken place or the house has burned down - of course , there are plenty of people that prefer to live that way and they'll complain bitterly about the nasty insurance companies or the cruel world) .
hbg

The notion of buying an insurance at a cost of several times the face value is absurd.
It's just like insuring your home. You must prioritize costs. You can insure your home for every possible event, from meteorite collision to terrorist attack, fall of a jumbo jet, explosion by your own kids to flooding, hail ...
But if you end up ruined by your 5-star insurance policy with no money left to renovate, decorate, repaint, plant flowers or even build a pizza stove or a swimming pool, you'll be called a stupid. But if you do the same with climate, you'd be called the world savior and the savior for future generations. That's nonsense !!!!

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

The common point of all these ideology is they want a global order to impose "conciousness" by potitics.

Don't know. What kind of "conciousness" did Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism want to impose?

miniTAX wrote:

This is a project in the realm of utopia which ends up in totalitarism.

I absolutely agree that communism as a concept for society on a nation-wide (or, as mandated by the Communist Manifesto, worldwide) scale has failed. I can be argued, though, that the Israeli kibbutzim have been very successful and have not ended up in totalitarism. Rather in capitalism....

miniTAX wrote:

Global warming is only an excuse for state interventionism.

That's what you are saying. But suppose for a moment (contrary to your beliefs) that AGW was real - what course of action would you suggest that would need no state interventions at all?

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

The notion of buying an insurance at a cost of several times the face value is absurd.

I find it a bit harsh to attach a price tag to the planet we are living on, but given that you are talking about a "face value" and given that you accept that certain kinds of state interventionism is acceptable but other are not - what amount of money would you be willing to pay for an "insurance", miniTAX?

0 Replies

minitax wrote :
"The notion of buying an insurance at a cost of several times the face value is absurd. "

so what is the face value (or insurable value) of the earth ?
and what is the premium(cost) of protecting the "basic assets"(air , water ...) of the earth ?

how can the premium be several times the face value of the earth , as you put it ?
(that does not seem like an actuarially sound value assessment).
hbg

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

miniTAX wrote:
The common point of all these ideology is they want a global order to impose "conciousness" by potitics.

Don't know. What kind of "conciousness" did Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism want to impose?

Class (or rather absence of class) conciousness. Exploitation by bourgeois (or rather the suppression of it) conciousness ? And then the conciousness of the superiority of socialism ? Of mankind over nature : the atheist communists were also the biggest spoilers, see what they've done to the Aral Sea, to Siberia, to the Baltic sea with their nuclear submarines...

old europe wrote:

I absolutely agree that communism as a concept for society on a nation-wide (or, as mandated by the Communist Manifesto, worldwide) scale has failed. I can be argued, though, that the Israeli kibbutzim have been very successful and have not ended up in totalitarism. Rather in capitalism....

I can also cite the most fulfilled and ancient form of communism which is some priesthoods (all salaries in the same budget, no personal money or savings, all expenses voted and agreed by all members...). But examples of failures are much more numerous. What would you choose ?

old europe wrote:

That's what you are saying. But suppose for a moment (contrary to your beliefs) that AGW was real - what course of action would you suggest that would need no state interventions at all?

If AGW was real, I would like to know how it is quantified. Then I would like to know about the consequences. So I'll decide.
Scenario 1 : you stop warming by spending 50 billions $ in reducing GHG (mitigation) So Canada or Siberia, which would benefit from warming (how otherwise, it's cold countries!) would gain nothing and a very hot country would lose nothing.

Scenario 2 : you do nothing. No money spent in mitigation. So Canada or Siberia, would benefit from warming. Hot countries would lose something which may be greatly reduced if adaptation mesures were taken with for example the above 50 billions $.

Compare Sc1 and sc2 and give me evidence that sc1 is superior to sc2 ? You can't. So I don't want be imposed scenario sc1 which is dictated by non elected bureacrats, translated in Kyoto and which has already failed just after 1 year of its application. If you want to take action fine. But then do so rationaly and not with the simple asumption that "if something must be done, so the first decision is the right one".

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

old europe wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
The common point of all these ideology is they want a global order to impose "conciousness" by potitics.

Don't know. What kind of "conciousness" did Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism want to impose?

Class (or rather absence of class) conciousness. Exploitation by bourgeois (or rather the suppression of it) conciousness ? And then the conciousness of the superiority of socialism ? Of mankind over nature : the atheist communists were also the biggest spoilers, see what they've done to the Aral Sea, to Siberia, to the Baltic sea with their nuclear submarines...

And capitalism doesn't want to "impose" a kind of consciousness? What about the belief in the superiority of free markets? What about the belief in the from-rags-to-riches scenario, the belief in vertical mobility? What about the capitalistic belief of man's ability to control nature?

Really, we went off on this tangent because okie argued that the environmentalists are nothing but communists-turned-green.

That's a ridiculous statement. I'll grant you that you know more about communism (or Communism) than okie.

But if the only argument you can find for this suggestion is your assumption that communism wants to "impose a consciousness", I'd say that's as weak a case as I've ever seen one.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

I find it a bit harsh to attach a price tag to the planet we are living on, but given that you are talking about a "face value" and given that you accept that certain kinds of state interventionism is acceptable but other are not - what amount of money would you be willing to pay for an "insurance", miniTAX?

I don't buy the notion of insurance. It is twisted thinking by the precautionary principle believers. If we go that way, why don't you take an insurance against a big meteorite collision, against a major volcanoe explosion (the Tambora explosion in 1815 caused Europe to cool several degrees for more than 5 years and an estimated 200.000 deaths), and why not an insurance for the Earth stopping to spin ?

Climate change always occurs. The best insurance you can get is to help the poor being more prosperous, alphabetized, less prolific to stop overpopulation and make them more immune to unexpected events. I don't see how spending money to reduce GHG emission would help. Maybe you can tell me ?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know