I challange any capitalist - on this issue

[Invader Zim]

The USA and other countries generaly advanced capitalist nations create huge amonts of CO2 immisions. CO2 acts as a barrier to escaping longwave radiation, which causes the temperature of the earths surface to heat up, resulting in the mealting of the ice caps, sever weather changes.

The increased changes in temerature will onlt be afew degrees however it is estimated that the areas of around the equator and tropics will be desert in 50 years at the current rate of temperature increase. This will mean that huge areas of Africa and India will become very inhospitable, this will cause the death of possibly hundreds of millions.

The southern states praries will be very heavily hit with mass desertification ruining the economy of the USA and sending her into decline. Exesive flooding will wipe out Bangladesh forcing over 100 million people to be evacuated, to other parts of the world creating a huge burden on the economies of nabouring countries with the influx of immagrants.

However this process can be stopped if the Capitalist nations stop their unclean habits within the next few years. Last year in the Johanasberg summit hopes were raised the the USA, who produses 20% of the worlds CO2 emmisions, would cut down on the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, N Gas) and help save the worlds latest major hazard. However the USA catogoricaly refused to save the situation claiming that the reduction of uses of Fossil fuels will ruin the economy of the United states.

Can any capitalist defend their system agaist such an argument i will enjoy finding out?

[kelvin90701]

This is issue is not about capitalism. It is about industrial and technological societies responsibility. The amount of CO2 a nation produces is in direct relation to how much fossil fuel is consumes. So yes the USA is responsible for a lot of CO2. There are other countries that produce a lot of green house gas without fossil fuel. You are trying to explore: what is the responsibility of an industrial and technological society, communist and socialist nations are responsible too. This is a completely new problem to humanity, so there is no right or wrong, moral or immoral regarding what is the responsibility of a technological/industrial society.

A much more tougher question for you too that has not yet been anwered by anyone: Is CO2 in the environment bad? Maybe for humans, but probably not for the planet. Without a doubt greenhouse gas has done something to the planet, but what that something will eventually do, no one knows. So to fully answer your question, we would have to wait and see what greenhouses gases really do to the planet.

What the summit tried to do was stop the experiment we are doing to our planet right now until we figure out what we are really doing to it.

[kelvin90701]

Come over read the "These people work hard" thread.

[lukecrouch]

First, your argument is bogus because it is all speculation. But let's go ahead and assume you're right, if you'd like some individual points addressed...

An increase of temperature by a few degrees causes tropics to become deserts? And this will cause the death of millions, right?

Isn't this assuming that the people in these heated areas will remain where they are and will not adapt their lifestyles or conditions?

At the same time that these areas are becoming deserts, other areas are going through similar climatic changes, right? Aren't other areas becoming warm enough for better farming and for living?

Will Bangladesh's shores hold onto the ocean for the 50 years, and then instantly flood the country, causing the mass evacuations that you stated. Or will it be a gradual migration?

But let's say this apocolyptic vision of yours comes true. Let's say that it happens over 25 years...even shorter a time frame than your projected 50, which I would consider extremely rapid.

If the economic effects are as bold as you imply them to be, we would notice huge repurcusions within the first couple of years.

Thankfully, our system of capitalism isn't a concrete doctrine that must be followed precisely to prevent flaws from under-mining the founding principles. (Unlike Socialism) We can adjust our economic policy to be more environmentally friendly as needs dictate.

Environmental changes are part of the way this world works. When the need for drastic environmental policy reform is needed, it will be enacted...don't jump the gun with speculation.

The confidence in the capitalistic system is that the effects on economy can be noted and adjusted for - if the economy is really being hurt by the environmental effects you stated, the system will change.

Your post seems to carry an underlying feeling of anger towards the US and her economy...do you think that America is intentionally harming the environment for the sake of harming it?

No, the capitalistic system takes advantage of flexibility of resources to produce more output. When the balance of the output weighs equal with the damage to the input, the system will reach stability.

And this is all under the assumption that the claims you made were hard facts. Not the mere speculation you posted.

[Smoking Frog II]

Yeah, but when you debate, right, yopu don't usually put loads of super detail and evidence into your first answer etc. You can do, but the iopposition always get the same strike in. It's better to be crap, then excellent, thus causing a suprise than making two consecutive good posts. Like this, you stand out more.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from Smoking Frog II on 8:43 pm on Mar. 28, 2003
Yeah, but when you debate, right, yopu don't usually put loads of super detail and evidence into your first answer etc. You can do, but the iopposition always get the same strike in. It's better to be crap, then excellent, thus causing a suprise than making two consecutive good posts. Like this, you stand out more.

I agree with you. Come share your opinion about Lincoln Electric at These People Work Hard thread.

[Smoking Frog II]

I'm too fucking lazy to search. Could you post the link please?

[Mazdak]

In my eyes

indisposed.

[lukecrouch]

Quote: from Smoking Frog II on 2:43 pm on Mar. 28, 2003
Yeah, but when you debate, right, yopu don't usually put loads of super detail and evidence into your first answer etc. You can do, but the iopposition always get the same strike in. It's better to be crap, then excellent, thus causing a suprise than making two consecutive good posts. Like this, you stand out more.


I agree that the two posts following the original stand out more. Mainly because the two posts are logical valid arguments and not complete speculation.

But I can't really understand if you're saying that this is a good thing, or if this is somehow "unfair" to the original post...?

In any case, the originator of the post should reply to the issues brought up by the following posts.

[Smoking Frog II]

It's good to stand out in debate, so bounce back, counter attack, be unsuspected. crap and great is a well used technique, better than 2 goods.
#
After all, to coina phrase from Red Dwarf: who would you rather be, A genius who did at twenty three, or Nobby Nobody, who did nothing and lived until ninety eight?

[lukecrouch]

Oh, I understand what you're saying now. I actually never took any debate classes in high school. I was never very serious when I was younger...(although I'm still young!)

But I'm still waiting for responses...I mean, shouldn't an opposer be able to employ crap-and-great (I like that term!) against my arguments? I'm seriously asking as it appears you've had some debate instruction.

[Smoking Frog II]

How old are you? me? I'm 15

[lukecrouch]

I would also like to invite anyone who would like to engage in a debate I started (rather than crapping on =) over in the "beauty of socialism" thread.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 7:13 pm on Mar. 28, 2003
This is issue is not about capitalism. It is about industrial and technological societies responsibility. The amount of CO2 a nation produces is in direct relation to how much fossil fuel is consumes. So yes the USA is responsible for a lot of CO2. There are other countries that produce a lot of green house gas without fossil fuel. You are trying to explore: what is the responsibility of an industrial and technological society, communist and socialist nations are responsible too. This is a completely new problem to humanity, so there is no right or wrong, moral or immoral regarding what is the responsibility of a technological/industrial society.

A much more tougher question for you too that has not yet been anwered by anyone: Is CO2 in the environment bad? Maybe for humans, but probably not for the planet. Without a doubt greenhouse gas has done something to the planet, but what that something will eventually do, no one knows. So to fully answer your question, we would have to wait and see what greenhouses gases really do to the planet.

What the summit tried to do was stop the experiment we are doing to our planet right now until we figure out what we are really doing to it.


The few remaining socialist countries have massively redused their CO2 emmisions. This is a known fact.

we would have to wait and see what greenhouses gases really do to the planet.

By then it would be two late and many millions if not billions would be dead.


A much more tougher question for you too that has not yet been anwered by anyone: Is CO2 in the environment bad? Maybe for humans, but probably not for the planet.

For animals world wide it will mean extinction. Plants are adapted to certain conditions if that changes they die. Even a slight increase in temperature levels on a permanat level means that the enzymes in the plants cease to function on the prior level of efficiency causing a reduction in vegiation on a global scale. Bye Bye rainforests, bye bye rice crop in india which feeds over a hunded million.


Typicall capitalist bull.... Because according to your own scientists in NASA the outcome of global warming will be the worst catastrophy for the enviroment since the dinosours were wiped out. Also imagine the reduction of animals etc thats not good for the enviroment.

lukecrouch
First, your argument is bogus because it is all speculation.

I assume that you are saying that as it has not been provec its all speculation.... Graverty has not been proved... Unless i start floating around im not going to accept that argument. Also most of the world leading scientists in metiorology and biology etc claim that they belive this theory a real issue that must be addressed.

[sc4r]

"An increase of temperature by a few degrees causes tropics to become deserts? And this will cause the death of millions, right?

Isn't this assuming that the people in these heated areas will remain where they are and will not adapt their lifestyles or conditions?"

NO it isn’t. There are 6.5bn people on this planet, the numbers that were supportable without developed infrastructures were in the order of .5bn or less. When the seas rise and existing infrastructure, buildings, facilities, etc. get swamped then people will die because these things are lost. Eventually they may get rebuilt and eventually people will relocate, but the predicted loss of life comes from the fact of change being necessary not from anything inherently better or worse about a warmer planet with different fertile areas.

The point made (by you or someone else I cant remember) that the planet will not be ‘worse off’, only people will be, seems to me completely irrelevant. Personally its people I’m worried about, not some abstract notion of planetary health.


"Thankfully, our system of capitalism isn't a concrete doctrine that must be followed precisely to prevent flaws from under-mining the founding principles. (Unlike Socialism) We can adjust our economic policy to be more environmentally friendly as needs dictate. "

The needs are dictating now but nothing is being done. There is no reason whatsoever to say that socialism has doctrines which must be followed precisely in this context. Socialism has no more rigidity about its doctrines than capitalism, but it does have mechanisms which allow change to be made because it is seen to be desirable overall rather than mechanisms which allow people with wealth to decide to enact change if it benefits them (not all).

With regard to environmental considerations capitalists are in fact caught in a prisoners dilemma, because any action they take will only benefit them if everybody else does likewise. This is precisely what capitalism has no means of enforcing. In the real world the effect is ameliorated somewhat because of course pure capitalism is not practised but the greater the commitment to capitalism rather than democracy the more strongly the dilemma is felt. When you have (as you do) a situation where individual nations are acting as capitalist agents and use no democracy to align their interests then the dilemma returns in full measure.

The US (for example) gains the full benefit of production methods which cause pollution, but the pollution itself is not a cost borne only by the US but by everybody. This makes it more attractive than it should be for the US to continue polluting.

When (as is the case) the riches that result from these methods will actually make it possible for some people (the ones taking the decisions) to avoid the effects of the pollution they cause there is no motivation whatsoever for them to stop.

So under capitalism the people who decide to pollute both benefit from doing so and know they can avoid the negatives. It is not surpising therefore that they decide to continue doing so.



"The confidence in the capitalistic system is that the effects on economy can be noted and adjusted for - if the economy is really being hurt by the environmental effects you stated, the system will change."

There is a quite enormous flaw in your reasoning here; one that is repeated almost every time capitalism is defended. To make sense of what u just said one must assume that capitalism is somehow being run to benefit the overall economy or to benefit people in general. But of course the entire point of capitalism is that it is not, Capitalism does not have a guiding mechanism of this sort.

All of these defences assume that individual capitalists have as their motivation only the desire to create (not consume) more wealth and that they actually consume no more than anybody else. It assumes they take no decisions which are not measured solely by ‘will this create more wealth’. Since this is the exact opposite of the motivation (personal consumption) which capitalist actually say makes the system tick it’s a surprising contradiction.

To repeat Capitalism does not operate for the purpose of improving the economy. It operates for the purpose of increasing the wealth held by individual capitalists. Sometimes the two things are aligned but often they are not. IF for example I am an individual capitalist who has bought futures in, say coffee, then I would actually like to see this part of the economy fail somewhat so that coffee prices rise.



"No, the capitalistic system takes advantage of flexibility of resources to produce more output. When the balance of the output weighs equal with the damage to the input, the system will reach stability. "

Exactly the same points as above. Capitalism does not operate for overall benefit and therefore what you say simply is not true.


"And this is all under the assumption that the claims you made were hard facts. Not the mere speculation you posted."

Global warming is a hard fact. Frankly that one contributory cause is pollution is also a hard fact. Even if it were not it should obviously not mean that we do nothing about the warming since this definitely is. But nothing, or next to nothing is what is being done because while it is in the interests of the people of the world to sort it out, it is not in the interests of the capitalists who run the world. If a billion people die as a result of Global warming none of the top capitalists will be among them.


(Edited by sc4r at 2:44 pm on Mar. 29, 2003)

[Smoking Frog II]

Socialismus ist economic, nicht industriel

[Invader Zim]

You cappies have not addressed the point i raised. My point is what are the capitalist countries going to do about it. Nothing it is uneconomic to stop the death of billions, so the usa wont. This catastrophy will be the greatest act of murder in history. As the USA and other nations will do nothing, even though the ability is there.

How can you cappies support a system which has sentanced over a billion people to die in the future?

[Tkinter1]

Plant and animal life has survived much greater catastrophes than slight increases in temperature. They have wonderful ways of adapting to changing environments(Even in very short periods of time). The earth’s climate is such a complicated system effected by so many different factors, that to assume human-responsibility for the weather would be both arrogant and inaccurate.

The US has banned such ozone depleters as CFC's(clorafloracarbons). Look on the back of any aerosol can.

Companies such as ford have banned the use of TCE(Tricholreothylene) a cleaning solvent for motors.

And a subsidiary of Ford Motors, visteon, is developing environmentally friendly cars that run on alternative fuel sources such as hydrogen/oxygen mixtures.

[according to IPCC], humans will only be responsible for an increase of somewhere between eight-twelve thirtieths of a degree, assuming that our population and CO2 output triple within the next century, which is probably an overestimate. This temperature increase is practically insignificant, and does not warrant any sort of global panic over our influence on the greenhouse effect.
http://www.lakesideschool.org/people/homep...eauL/beaul.html (http://www.lakesideschool.org/people/homepages/huston/chemweb/BeauL/beaul.html)

AK, this took me 30 seconds to find the bare minimum... Are you sure you've done enough research to conclude that capitalist countries aren't doing anything to combat and mitigate green house gases? Are you sure you've done enough research to conclude that there is a significant problem?

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 6:55 pm on Mar. 29, 2003)

[sc4r]

Yes I have definitely done enough research to conclude there is a significant problem. Just about every half way independent expert concludes the same thing. Not just a serious problem but an extremely totally serious one.

Global temperatures have shown a consistent and accelerating rise throughout the 20th century. There was an intermediate peal in 1943 folowed by a sharp decline (could anything ahppening around that time possibly have influenced such things do you think ?) that reak was pased again in the 70's and temperatures are now much higher.

Few independents doubt that man made pollutants have a significant effect. But even if this were not so it would not mean that we should be ignoring the basic problem (rising temperatures) and not looking for a solution. The truth is that the USA in particular does not want to investigate possible solutions because it is all too bloody obvious that it is indeed the case that industrial pollution is involved.

The USA (and others) have done some things to reduce the amount of pollutants they put out (mandated by democratic decision and enforced by law not simply a capitalist response BTW) but clearly not enough.

[M1 Abrams]

With the exception of a few, you are all idiots merely making up facts. Only those that cited sources have valid arguments. All the rest....well.....um......forget it. Yet another attempt to attack America. A ridiculous one at that. Grow up. You are all children. Some of you quite literally.

[sc4r]

Quote: from M1 Abrams on 9:08 pm on Mar. 29, 2003
With the exception of a few, you are all idiots merely making up facts. Only those that cited sources have valid arguments. All the rest....well.....um......forget it. Yet another attempt to attack America. A ridiculous one at that. Grow up. You are all children. Some of you quite literally.

It's a favourite right wing tactic to demand sources. Whn they are provided it makes absolutely no difference because they are dismissed as useless. On one memorable occasion a right wing forum demanded that the entire contents of the Human Genome project report PLUS ALL THE SUPPORTING DATA !! (I am not making this up) be uploaded onto the message board so that the forum could 'explore the truth for themselves' ROFL.

With something like Global warming sources are entirely superfluous anybody wanting to see that there are numerous versions of the 'truth' has only to type the word into a search engine to be presented with 1000 expositions. I can find a source to 'prove' almost anything I want on this subject and including one would demonstrate flat nothing.

If you want to dispute fact, dispute them. If you want to dispure reasoning, dispute it. If you simply want to go into denial mode you can do that too, but dont expect us to dance to your tune because of it. Howver for anyone interested here are a few starter links, the first is to the US Environmetal Protection Agency.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming....nt/climate.html (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html)

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~tbp/global.htm


(Edited by sc4r at 12:33 am on Mar. 30, 2003)

[Tkinter1]

http://www.epa.gov/

"The truth is that the USA in particular does not want to investigate possible solutions because it is all too bloody obvious..."

www.epa.gov Browse the 'Key Topics' on the right hand side.

(My original post was directed mostly at AK for saying the US has done nothing)

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from AK47 on 11:40 am on Mar. 29, 2003

For animals world wide it will mean extinction. Plants are adapted to certain conditions if that changes they die. Even a slight increase in temperature levels on a permanat level means that the enzymes in the plants cease to function on the prior level of efficiency causing a reduction in vegiation on a global scale. Bye Bye rainforests, bye bye rice crop in india which feeds over a hunded million.


Typicall capitalist bull.... Because according to your own scientists in NASA the outcome of global warming will be the worst catastrophy for the enviroment since the dinosours were wiped out. Also imagine the reduction of animals etc thats not good for the enviroment.

lukecrouch
First, your argument is bogus because it is all speculation.

I assume that you are saying that as it has not been provec its all speculation.... Graverty has not been proved... Unless i start floating around im not going to accept that argument. Also most of the world leading scientists in metiorology and biology etc claim that they belive this theory a real issue that must be addressed.




You totally butchered my quotes to make your point. You can not say for sure what greenhouse gases are going to do to the planet. Something is going to happen to the planet. You can not say for sure what that something is going to be. That is what more intelligent minds than you and me are trying to determine, what that something is going to be.

The rationale for limiting greenhouse gas is to buy time to find out exactly is going to happen to the planet; not what could happen or what you think could happen. I know without a doubt that in some northern agriculture zones, CO2 has been a blessing. Crops dig CO2, the extra greenhouse gas is like steroids for them. Just by this evidence you don't see me argue for unrestricted greenhouse gas emmisions. I argue something is happening and maybe the planet is better off without crops on CO2 steroids. No one knows for sure.

The greenicks are right when they accuse western nations of not wanting to limit greenhouse gases for selfish reasons, maybe we might be better off not restricting greenhouse gases for the impact on industry.

We must weigh what we will gain for what we may loose; and no one knows what the final balance sheet looks like.

[Anti communist]

Ok, I will cast some doubt on this whole global warming thing. How do we know what the earth's temp was 1,000 or 1 million yrs ago? There were no thermometers back then were there? We don't know. We can take an educated guess at best. And I say an educated guess isn't enough to get you an accurate reading.

Also, knowing that the earth goes into an ice age every few hundred thousand yrs, where the tropics are very cold and most of North America is covered by ice, doesn't it seem possible, and even likely that the earth's temp would fluctuate a couple of degrees one way or the other in between those ice ages. I think the last ice age wasn't that long ago. We might still be warming up for a few more hundreds of thousands of yrs before it starts cooling off again.

This whole global warming thing is yet another tool of the left, and the anti Americans (the UN included) around the world to try to limit our success and economic growth.

[Ghost Writer]

"This whole global warming thing is yet another tool of the left, and the anti Americans (the UN included) around the world to try to limit our success and economic growth."

I think I have made a new friend. I completely agree with this quote.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 12:15 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

[hazard]

typical capitalist propaganda:

global warming = economic prosperity
environmentalism = leftist tree hugging
communism = antidemocracy

the issue of global warming cannot be defended by any of the ideas as presented by the "proamerican" factions represented here. dismissing the problem as unprovable, or unknowable is not a defence, it is a dismissal. arguing that social countries contribute to the problem missess the point: they are forced to compete with capitalism in order to retain autonomy and keep their people free from the slave market of america. ecological damage is the price of industry is assinine, it assumes that there is only the present, no past, no future.

then again, there is no future for humanity if the capitalist's remain in power. greenhouse gas emissions are the case and point.

[Ghost Writer]

"You totally butchered my quotes to make your point."

Is Ak47 still doing that? I thought we agreed that you would be more honest in your debating tactics? Come on, quit butchering the text of other people's work?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Anti communist on 10:30 am on Mar. 30, 2003
Ok, I will cast some doubt on this whole global warming thing. How do we know what the earth's temp was 1,000 or 1 million yrs ago? There were no thermometers back then were there? We don't know. We can take an educated guess at best. And I say an educated guess isn't enough to get you an accurate reading.

Also, knowing that the earth goes into an ice age every few hundred thousand yrs, where the tropics are very cold and most of North America is covered by ice, doesn't it seem possible, and even likely that the earth's temp would fluctuate a couple of degrees one way or the other in between those ice ages. I think the last ice age wasn't that long ago. We might still be warming up for a few more hundreds of thousands of yrs before it starts cooling off again.

This whole global warming thing is yet another tool of the left, and the anti Americans (the UN included) around the world to try to limit our success and economic growth.


This whole global warming thing is yet another tool of the left, and the anti Americans (the UN included) around the world to try to limit our success and economic growth.

1. Its hardly a leftist plot as NASA scientists descovered it. That really has to go in the hall of fame for stupidity, that even out does Mazdaks stupidity.

Ok, I will cast some doubt on this whole global warming thing. How do we know what the earth's temp was 1,000 or 1 million yrs ago?

Actually we do by studying fosilised animals etc. Also it can be studied by looking at the soil profiles. These flutuate in size according to atmospheric conditions in the past temperature for example.

Also, knowing that the earth goes into an ice age every few hundred thousand yrs, where the tropics are very cold and most of North America is covered by ice, doesn't it seem possible, and even likely that the earth's temp would fluctuate a couple of degrees one way or the other in between those ice ages.

Yes we do have iceages and it takes a few thousand years for the temperature to drop or rise a degree or so, and reach the right temperatures. Not 100 years to increase on a global level of 2 degrees. Your own argument backs up mine im afraid.



But i thin k the most important thing to realise is that the American government is refusing to change their situation even though their own scientists at NASA are telling them the situation. Even though this is a course of action that is jepodising the livelyhood and more importantly of billions of people world wide. Just for a few short term profits that is discusting.

[Anti communist]

AK47 said: 1. Its hardly a leftist plot as NASA scientists descovered it. That really has to go in the hall of fame for stupidity, that even out does Mazdaks stupidity.

I'm not defending NASA. They are full of tree hugers. Just because they're NASA doesn't mean they aren't leftist. NASA used to be a great agency in the 60's, but it's too politically correct now.

AK47 said: Actually we do by studying fosilised animals etc. Also it can be studied by looking at the soil profiles. These flutuate in size according to atmospheric conditions in the past temperature for example.

You mean the same fossils that still can't tell us for sure if birds evolved from dinosaurs or not. I think soil can tell you something but not predict the earth's temp to the last degree 1 million yrs ago.

AK47 said: Yes we do have iceages and it takes a few thousand years for the temperature to drop or rise a degree or so, and reach the right temperatures. Not 100 years to increase on a global level of 2 degrees. Your own argument backs up mine im afraid.

Again, being that we don't know what the actual temp was at this time after the last ice age, how do we know this is not normal?

[kelvin90701]

Global climatic changes have happened for millions of years without human intervention. I disagree with the right wingers here in that we should do nothing regarding limiting greenhouse gases. I agree witht he right wingers that global warming is being used as a weapon to limit the economy of the USA. The reality is no one knows what the final outcome of greenhouse gases on the planet. I am pretty sure no matter what humans do to the planet with greenhouse gases, the planet will do just fine. What will happen to humans? Don't know. The recent global warming could be due to more than average volcanic activity during the time period humans have been keeping records. No one knows. More or less solar radiation. No one knows. Humans are preforming an experiment on the climate by the addition of greenhouse gases. What is the outcome of this unintentional experiment? No one knows.

We should not base world wide public policy on incomplete scientifc theory and political agendas for or against a free market. At the same time it would be prudent to slow down the unintentional experiment on the planet until all the facts are in.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Anti communist on 5:33 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
AK47 said: 1. Its hardly a leftist plot as NASA scientists descovered it. That really has to go in the hall of fame for stupidity, that even out does Mazdaks stupidity.

I'm not defending NASA. They are full of tree hugers. Just because they're NASA doesn't mean they aren't leftist. NASA used to be a great agency in the 60's, but it's too politically correct now.

AK47 said: Actually we do by studying fosilised animals etc. Also it can be studied by looking at the soil profiles. These flutuate in size according to atmospheric conditions in the past temperature for example.

You mean the same fossils that still can't tell us for sure if birds evolved from dinosaurs or not. I think soil can tell you something but not predict the earth's temp to the last degree 1 million yrs ago.

AK47 said: Yes we do have iceages and it takes a few thousand years for the temperature to drop or rise a degree or so, and reach the right temperatures. Not 100 years to increase on a global level of 2 degrees. Your own argument backs up mine im afraid.

Again, being that we don't know what the actual temp was at this time after the last ice age, how do we know this is not normal?


1. Prove that NASA a US Gov funded organisation is "full of Lefist Treehuggers". Because we both no your talking out your arse which seems to be a typical capitalist trait.

2. The last ice age was approximatly 10,000 years ago, so any fossilaisation will be small and therefor gives an extreamly higher level of accuracy.


Again, being that we don't know what the actual temp was at this time after the last ice age, how do we know this is not normal?

3. See .2


We should not base world wide public policy on incomplete scientifc theory

So if thats the case we should not take graverty into consideration when thinking about new forms of flight and plain manoverablity... Because thats only a scientific theory.

Sorry but you Cappies are to eager to defend the USA even though you obviously do not fully understand the damage it does to the enviroment. And to condem some of the greatest scientists in the world as "leftist tree huggers" Is possibly the most ignorant thing i have heard on this board.

[sc4r]

What do the 'Gobal warming - do nothing' positions nearly all come down to ? They say 'we cannot be 100% sure'.

This is true of any non trivial real life problem and it must be the most pathetic argument imaginable. I cannot be 100% sure the Sun will rise tomorrow or that drinking the contents of a bottle labelled H2SO4 will be a bad idea, but I'm for sure not going to act as though I can ignore such things.

Whats even more bizarre is where these arguments come from - The capitalist right, the very people who supposedly know about business. I can tell right now that no business plan ever included remotely the sort of firm basis for its predictions that global warming has. Economic policy does not either.

In fact the actual difficult problem is not deciding if Global Warming is a problem that needs some very serious action right now; it is trying to fathom why anyone except the richest and most callous people in the world would oppose doing something about it.

The only suggestions I can come up with are :

1) they are so in love with an ideology which provides them with short term advantage that they know cannot be used to solve the problem that they would rather keep the ideology than address reality.

2) That there are people in charge of setting opinions who actually may benefit from Global warming who are so good at it that they genuinely have managed to brainwash mnay people. And that these people (Americans in particular) have a sort of low level realisation that they personally rather than the world at large will not suffer the worst effects and dont care sufficiently to upset the f-gravy train under these circumstances.


(Edited by sc4r at 12:59 pm on Mar. 31, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from sc4r on 12:53 pm on Mar. 31, 2003
What do the 'Gobal warming - do nothing' positions nearly all come down to ? They say 'we cannot be 100% sure'.

This is true of any non trivial real life problem and it must be the most pathetic argument imaginable. I cannot be 100% sure the Sun will rise tomorrow or that drinking the contents of a bottle labelled H2SO4 will be a bad idea, but I'm for sure not going to act as though I can ignore such things.

Whats even more bizarre is where these arguments come from - The capitalist right, the very people who supposedly know about business. I can tell right now that no business plan ever included remotely the sort of firm basis for its predictions that global warming has. Economic policy does not either.

In fact the actual difficult problem is not deciding if Global Warming is a problem that needs some very serious action right now; it is trying to fathom why anyone except the richest and most callous people in the world would oppose doing something about it.

The only suggestions I can come up with are :

1) they are so in love with an ideology which provides them with short term advantage that they know cannot be used to solve the problem that they would rather keep the ideology than address reality.

2) That there are people in charge of setting opinions who actually may benefit from Global warming who are so good at it that they genuinely have managed to brainwash mnay people. And that these people (Americans in particular) have a sort of low level realisation that they personally rather than the world at large will not suffer the worst effects and dont care sufficiently to upset the f-gravy train under these circumstances.


(Edited by sc4r at 12:59 pm on Mar. 31, 2003)


i wholehartedly agree with that statement.

[Solzhenitsyn]

You're argument assumes too much. It rests on the theory that certain factors have to hold true for your scenario to logically come about.

If CO2 rises then atmospheric carbon-fixing organisms like plankton would also greatly increase potentially mitigating any global warming effect. Global warming advocates still have yet to provide sufficient evidence that a causual relationship exists between CO2 emissions and very recent tempurature trends. We've been using fossil fuels for a long time now. Why hasn't this happened sooner? Is the trend really about the greenhouse effect or is it a another cyclic warming trend that occurs natually from time to time in the absence of CO2 emmisions?
Questions, Questions, Questions.

I think a lot of this is like the "hole in the ozone layer theory". We discovered the ozone layer in the 50's and theorized that it was spread perfectly over the globe. Then in the 80's when we actually begin to study the ozone layer in depth we find this is not true. Instead of scientists adjusting their theory to fit the evidence, eviromentalists manufactured a crisis. The same holds true with "global warming". They identify what could reasonably be described as a natural trend and use that to manufacture the threat of a non-existent danger.

To prove the global warming hypothesis it's advocates need to demonstrate that this is not part of a pattern that would occur naturally in the absence of CO2 emissions. All of that and I still haven't offered a rebuttal to their evidence/assumption that the tempurature on earth is, in fact, increasing.

Questions, Questions Questions.

(Edited by Solzhenitsyn at 12:45 pm on Mar. 31, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Solzhenitsyn on 7:42 pm on Mar. 31, 2003
You're argument assumes too much. It rests on the theory that certain factors have to hold true for your scenario to logically come about.

We've been using fossil fuels for a long time now. Why hasn't this happened sooner? Is the trend really about the greenhouse effect or is it a another cyclic warming trend that occurs natually from time to time in the absence of CO2 emmisions?
Questions, Questions, Questions.

I think a lot of this is like the "hole in the ozone layer theory". We discovered the ozone layer in the 50's and theorized that it was spread perfectly over the globe. Then in the 80's when we actually begin to study the ozone layer in depth we find this is not true. Instead of scientists adjusting their theory to fit the evidence, eviromentalists manufactured a crisis. The same holds true with "global warming". They identify what could reasonably be described as a natural trend and use that to manufacture the threat of a non-existent danger.

To prove the global warming hypothesis it's advocates need to demonstrate that this is not part of a pattern that would occur naturally in the absence of CO2 emissions. All of that and I still haven't offered a rebuttal to their evidence/assumption that the tempurature on earth is, in fact, increasing.

Questions, Questions Questions.

(Edited by Solzhenitsyn at 12:45 pm on Mar. 31, 2003)


We've been using fossil fuels for a long time now. Why hasn't this happened sooner?

It has. The average temp has increased by several degrees in the past the past 200 years. Also their is a considerable lag time on this process. At the shortest 30 years...

Is the trend really about the greenhouse effect or is it a another cyclic warming trend that occurs natually from time to time in the absence of CO2 emmisions? their is a natural trend yes but it takes many centuries to even increase by a degree or so.

as to the Ozone i know very little about that...

However i would like to thank you you have come up with logically constructed argument, with a level of skill that this board is sometimes lacking.

[lukecrouch]

"NO it isn’t. There are 6.5bn people on this planet, the numbers that were supportable without developed infrastructures were in the order of .5bn or less. When the seas rise and existing infrastructure, buildings, facilities, etc. get swamped then people will die because these things are lost. Eventually they may get rebuilt and eventually people will relocate, but the predicted loss of life comes from the fact of change being necessary not from anything inherently better or worse about a warmer planet with different fertile areas."

But aren't you still assumming that the environmental effects are fast enough that people will be unable to adapt in time or re-locate infrastructure in time?

"The US (for example) gains the full benefit of production methods which cause pollution, but the pollution itself is not a cost borne only by the US but by everybody. This makes it more attractive than it should be for the US to continue polluting."

This is a very good point. Which is why I'm not opposed to environmental protection. I am opposed to the idea that because the US pollutes the most, it means capitalism is the cause.

Capitalism and free enterprise are the foundation of the US economy, but that does not mean that they are the cause of pollution. If a socialistic system produced as much as America with existing technology, it would pollute as much. Production causes pollution.

Even in a globally-socialistic economy, production would cause pollution. The only ways to lower pollution are to either to improve technology, or lower production. This is the reason socialist countries HAVE lower pollution...because they have lower production.

"There is a quite enormous flaw in your reasoning here; one that is repeated almost every time capitalism is defended. To make sense of what u just said one must assume that capitalism is somehow being run to benefit the overall economy or to benefit people in general. But of course the entire point of capitalism is that it is not, Capitalism does not have a guiding mechanism of this sort."

Actually, it is called "price." The price mechanism in capitalism dictates how inputs and outputs are balanced. Ideally, a low price on inputs and a high price on outputs - more productivity per input.

"All of these defences assume that individual capitalists have as their motivation only the desire to create (not consume) more wealth and that they actually consume no more than anybody else. It assumes they take no decisions which are not measured solely by ‘will this create more wealth’. Since this is the exact opposite of the motivation (personal consumption) which capitalist actually say makes the system tick it’s a surprising contradiction."

Using the price mechanism, all entities in a capitalistic system want to minimize the price of input and maximize the price of output. The difference between the two is profit - creating wealth.

But notice the equation works on ALL entities, personal and corporate. If a person is able to obtain the same utility from lower cost inputs, they have created an increase, or wealth, of utility.

"To repeat Capitalism does not operate for the purpose of improving the economy. It operates for the purpose of increasing the wealth held by individual capitalists. Sometimes the two things are aligned but often they are not. IF for example I am an individual capitalist who has bought futures in, say coffee, then I would actually like to see this part of the economy fail somewhat so that coffee prices rise."

Everyone in a capitalistic system is an individual capitalist. Their system dictates it to them, just as socialism does.

Socialism is the pull-your-own-weight system, and capitalism is just how-far-can-you-pull-your-weight system. Some people can pull their weight much farther than others...why should we restrain them?

Some people can't pull their own weight....and in capitalistic systems, firms and government can set up help for these people.

While it doesn't make someone "feel" good to say it, the people who CAN pull their own weight are not responsible for the people who can't.

But don't go cappie-bashing on me yet...I believe all capitalists should be generous and that those who need help should all be taken care of before we just run wild with our wealth. Sadly, a lot of capitalists don't feel this way, and they let the poor suffer. While that is terrible, that doesn't mean it's their responsibility. (Unless they are Christian, but I'm trying to leave my religious ideals out of this.)

"Exactly the same points as above. Capitalism does not operate for overall benefit and therefore what you say simply is not true."

Capitalism operates, as you said, for the benefit of individual capitalists - which is everyone in the capitalistic system.

But we've (I've) strayed from the original subject...

My point is that production causes pollution...which is a contributory cause to global warming. Wether that production takes place in socialism or in capitalism is irrelevant.

Actually, I would think that since a free market encourages innovation more than socialism, the technology to reduce pollution from production would be better improved in a capitalistic system.

And right now America is not inclined as much towards this technology because, as you said, our system does not suffer the full cost of the full product.

So, take heart! You may not have turned me to socialism with this debate, but you have made me think more critically about the global effects of American pollution.

What is then needed is a mechanism to assign the full cost of environmental damages causes by America to America.

But I still hold that technology and production are the cause pollution. And that only these two things can be adjusted to decrease pollution...

But I do admit that America does not have the appropriate incentive to improve technology to decrease pollution.

[apathy maybe]

Let us assume for one minute that most of the people here arn't Christian/Jewish fundementalists that believe that the world was created on Tuesday the 27 of March 4021 years ago (or whatever), and therefor have some understanding of fossils and ice cores. (if you don't find out about them.) Now most scientists say that birds did evolve from dino's. Most also agree that climate change is happening. Why because the can not only see the effects (on coral reefs and islands (nations like Tuvalu)) but also by looking at ice cores they can see what the world was like x number of years ago.

Now as to why capitlists are ignoring the evidance all I can say is either stupidity (droughts in Australia and Mid-USA aren't good for business) or else they are doing what they did in the book Stark by Ben Elton. keep fucking up the world regardless and when the time comes just leave. go in great ships away from the cradle.

As to why scientists are left wing. generally you need to be smart to be a scientists. generally you have to be smart to be left wing.

[Solzhenitsyn]

As to why scientists are left wing. generally you need to be smart to be a scientists. generally you have to be smart to be left wing.

No, that's not correct. Scientists are generally left wing because the left favors institutional mechanisms that quickly in implementing the scientist's proposed solutions, many times without any rational oversight whatsoever. Secondly, scientists aren't always right or have pure motives. Just look at the DDT paranoia which is costing tens of thousands of Third Worlder's their lives.

The American Right believes it's not good for any experts to implement their own policies without at least some debate on the matter. Otherwise, the situation could degenerate into an Orwellian technocracy with scientists (technocrats) implementing whatever policies whenever they wished.

[von Mises]

Now as to why capitlists are ignoring the evidance all I can say is either stupidity (droughts in Australia and Mid-USA aren't good for business) or else they are doing what they did in the book Stark by Ben Elton. keep fucking up the world regardless and when the time comes just leave. go in great ships away from the cradle.

Maybe we should impose some sort of tax in order to stimulate scientist to come up with a solution to stop forests from burning or vulcanos from erupting. Even better, we should all stop breathing.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from von Mises on 3:56 pm on April 2, 2003

Now as to why capitlists are ignoring the evidance all I can say is either stupidity (droughts in Australia and Mid-USA aren't good for business) or else they are doing what they did in the book Stark by Ben Elton. keep fucking up the world regardless and when the time comes just leave. go in great ships away from the cradle.

Maybe we should impose some sort of tax in order to stimulate scientist to come up with a solution to stop forests from burning or vulcanos from erupting. Even better, we should all stop breathing.

Thats just the kind of responce i was expecting from a capitalist... who knows the argument is lost.