 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Space Forum » ... The Solution to Global Warming Everyone Can Agree... |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| not-jonathan... |
 Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Democracy and Freedom!
The best solution to climate change is found in a world dominated
by proper and legitimate free market democracies.
A global catastrophe is likely if the world finds itself dominated
by corrupt and incompetent dictatorships.
One form of society is highly adaptive, resilient to change and
has countless nested self correcting mechanisms. And 'change'
of almost any kind is considered an opportunity for a new market.
While dictatorships like China and others might just fuel their
rapid industrialization with coal, and with few environmental
controls.
The collective ability of society to adapt to changes should
determine if our biosphere is headed for a new level of
stability, or some unpredictable calamity.
Imho. Thank you for reading.
Jonathan
s |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| not-jonathan... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"o%nbo" <k at (no spam) l.com> wrote in message news:4ade4a31$1 at (no spam) dnews.tpgi.com.au...
[quote]
"not-jonathan" <Biteme at (no spam) myass.com> wrote in message
news:NtSdne1XQ6yP2kPXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
Democracy and Freedom!
The best solution to climate change is found in a world dominated
by proper and legitimate free market democracies.
Impossible to have a solution to a non-existent problem!
All we can do is adapt to any natural climate variations.
[/quote]
I just don't think this question should be whether
warming is happening or not. The question should
be whether society should gain the ability to
manage the biosphere to the benefit of all?
I think is you scroll down to fig 1-5, the problem
becomes clear. Change is coming. Whether the current
rate of change prevents the next ice age, or set's
is off is the big question. Having the ability to manage
the biosphere should be useful for ...either...possibility.
"From this plot, it is clear that most of the last 420 thousand years
was spent in ice age. The brief periods when the record peaks
above the zero line, the interglacials, typically lasted from a few thousand
to perhaps twenty thousand years. These data should frighten you.
All of civilization developed during the last interglacial, and the data
show that such interglacials are very brief. Our time looks about up."
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
[quote]
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a solar house) and think there are
a dozen good reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels, but.global warming
is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| o%nbo... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"not-jonathan" <Biteme at (no spam) myass.com> wrote in message
news:NtSdne1XQ6yP2kPXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]
Democracy and Freedom!
The best solution to climate change is found in
a world dominated
by proper and legitimate free market
democracies.
[/quote]
Impossible to have a solution to a non-existent
problem!
All we can do is adapt to any natural climate
variations.
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john fernbach... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 7:26 pm, "not-jonathan" <Bit... at (no spam) myass.com> wrote:
[quote]Democracy and Freedom!
The best solution to climate change is found in a world dominated
by proper and legitimate free market democracies.
A global catastrophe is likely if the world finds itself dominated
by corrupt and incompetent dictatorships.
One form of society is highly adaptive, resilient to change and
has countless nested self correcting mechanisms. And 'change'
of almost any kind is considered an opportunity for a new market.
While dictatorships like China and others might just fuel their
rapid industrialization with coal, and with few environmental
controls.
The collective ability of society to adapt to changes should
determine if our biosphere is headed for a new level of
stability, or some unpredictable calamity.
Imho. Thank you for reading.
Jonathan
s
[/quote]
Jonathan, I'm a green socialist, as everybody knows, and I somewhat
disagree.
But let's suppose for argument's sake that you're correct. Well -
when is your GODDAMNED CAPITALIST SYSTEM actually going to show the
flexibility to fix the climate change problem?
Or excuse my French. My biases are showing.
When is your favorite flexible, adaptive "free market" economic
system actually going to take radical action to cease using fossil
fuels and start relying on renewable forms of energy?
It's one thing to CLAIM that free market democracies actually are
adaptive & wonderful and all.
It's another thing whether they actually deliver the goods.
As a half-baked student of Karl Marx, I strongly agree with you (and
with Marx) that capitalist economies excel at "revolutionizing the
instruments of production, and with them the relations of production,
and thereby relations of the whole society."
The history of capitalist industrialism to date has demonstrated that
the system repeatedly "revolutionizes the instruments of production"
and replaces older technologies with newer ones all the time.
So "free market democracies" COULD -- theoretically -- abandon their
old, environment-destroying industrial technologies and energy sources
(eg fossil fuels) and base their future prosperity on the development
and commercialization of new, environment-friendly, non-carbon energy
sources.
But ARE THEY ACTUALLY GOING TO DO IT?
Can American capitalism, in particular, actually enact meaningful
climate legislation without threatening thousands of coal miners &
auto mechanics & oil patch mayors with higher unemployment -- which
"free market" libertarians in the US insist that the government cannot
and should not try to relieve?
Can American capitalism change its present suicidally stupid patterns
of energy production without hurting the profits of the electric
utility industry, thus threatening the pension funds of older
Americans who are already being hurt badly by the latest financial
crisis and the latest capitalist world recession?
I'm not so sure that American capitalism can do this. Not when it's
hamstrung by idiotic libertarian ideologues and partisan Republicans,
who staunchly refuse to let the government rescue the capitalist
system when it needs it the most.
And not when it's paralyzed by the cowardice and conservativism of
"moderate" Democrats, many of them from coal-producing states, who are
likely to vote with the fossil fuel lobbyists & the Republicans when
it comes to legislating on climate change & its solutions.
So I think it's possible that in the United States, anyway, your
famous "free market democracy" is going to fall flat on its face when
faced with the challenge of transitioning out of our current energy
economy and into a more climate-friendly one.
If you love capitalism so much - how are you going to keep this from
happening, dude?
If the biggest capitalist corporations in America & the world continue
to be addicted to fossil fuel exploitation, and if the hundreds of
corporate lobbyists plaguing Capitol Hill prevent the US Congress and
the Obama White House from doing anything meaningful to correct the
biases of the coal, oil, utility and natural gas boys -- your "free
market democracy" is going to FAIL, isn't it?
And in failing, demonstrate to every thoughtful environmentalist that
"free market democracy" is actually just another word for eco-suicide? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:57:24 -0400, "not-jonathan" <Biteme at (no spam) myass.com>
wrote:
[quote]
"o%nbo" <k at (no spam) l.com> wrote in message news:4ade4a31$1 at (no spam) dnews.tpgi.com.au...
"not-jonathan" <Biteme at (no spam) myass.com> wrote in message
news:NtSdne1XQ6yP2kPXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
Democracy and Freedom!
The best solution to climate change is found in a world dominated
by proper and legitimate free market democracies.
Impossible to have a solution to a non-existent problem!
All we can do is adapt to any natural climate variations.
I just don't think this question should be whether
warming is happening or not. The question should
be whether society should gain the ability to
manage the biosphere to the benefit of all?
I think is you scroll down to fig 1-5, the problem
becomes clear. Change is coming. Whether the current
rate of change prevents the next ice age, or set's
is off is the big question. Having the ability to manage
the biosphere should be useful for ...either...possibility.
"From this plot, it is clear that most of the last 420 thousand years
was spent in ice age. The brief periods when the record peaks
above the zero line, the interglacials, typically lasted from a few thousand
to perhaps twenty thousand years. These data should frighten you.
All of civilization developed during the last interglacial, and the data
show that such interglacials are very brief. Our time looks about up."
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
[/quote]
I don't know about this, but what is a gov lab
doing publishing such a frightening image at the
end of this page?
The lab must really be busy with research
to be able to publish online enough to get 2.7 million
hits on google.
While I agree that either warming is possible,
from whatever cause or randomness, the ice age
looks like the most likely possibility if the graph
showing a cooling drift over the last 900 years
before the recent warming data spike.
Having UHI mask a cooling plunge would
be really a disaster in the making, but maybe
nothing could prevent cooling if it is caused by
snow cover, even blowing black dust over the
snow fields might not be enough.
Maybe this will cause hanson to rethink
the problem.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| o%nbo... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"not-jonathan" <Biteme at (no spam) myass.com> wrote in message
news:E4adnUpx6_f000PXnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]
"o%nbo" <k at (no spam) l.com> wrote in message
news:4ade4a31$1 at (no spam) dnews.tpgi.com.au...
"not-jonathan" <Biteme at (no spam) myass.com> wrote in
message
news:NtSdne1XQ6yP2kPXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
Democracy and Freedom!
The best solution to climate change is found
in a world dominated
by proper and legitimate free market
democracies.
Impossible to have a solution to a non-existent
problem!
All we can do is adapt to any natural climate
variations.
I just don't think this question should be
whether
warming is happening or not. The question should
be whether society should gain the ability to
manage the biosphere to the benefit of all?
[/quote]
I think Canute tried something like that without
success a few hundred years ago.
Some people never learn ...
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| n00b-... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"john fernbach" <fernbach1948 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:faf5b743-4b94-47ea-9cfb-e2b37f48de57 at (no spam) a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 7:26 pm, "not-jonathan"
<Bit... at (no spam) myass.com> wrote:
[quote]Democracy and Freedom!
The best solution to climate change is found in
a world dominated
by proper and legitimate free market
democracies.
A global catastrophe is likely if the world
finds itself dominated
by corrupt and incompetent dictatorships.
One form of society is highly adaptive,
resilient to change and
has countless nested self correcting mechanisms.
And 'change'
of almost any kind is considered an opportunity
for a new market.
While dictatorships like China and others might
just fuel their
rapid industrialization with coal, and with few
environmental
controls.
The collective ability of society to adapt to
changes should
determine if our biosphere is headed for a new
level of
stability, or some unpredictable calamity.
Imho. Thank you for reading.
Jonathan
s
[/quote]
Jonathan, I'm a green socialist, as everybody
knows, and I somewhat
disagree.
But let's suppose for argument's sake that you're
correct. Well -
when is your GODDAMNED CAPITALIST SYSTEM actually
going to show the
flexibility to fix the climate change problem?
======================================
There is no "climate change problem", it's a
socialist scam designed to introduce global
governance and wealth redistribution.
"Scientist" Admits Using Climate Change To Further
His Socialist Agenda
Read this book if you want insight into the mind
of a "scientist" who has surrendered all moral
authority to speak truthfully about global
warming.
August 6 2009
Book Review:
Why We Disagree About Climate Change By Mike Hulme
Cambridge University Press, 2009 432 pages,
ISBN-13: 978-0521727327
QUOTE: We need to ask not what we can do for
climate change, but to ask what climate change can
do for us
QUOTE: socialists like Hulme can frame the global
warming issue to achieve unrelated goals such as
sustainable development, income redistribution,
population control, social justice, and many other
items on the liberal/socialist wishlist.
QUOTE: We will continue to create and tell new
stories about climate change and mobilise them in
support of our projects
QUOTE: These "myths," he writes, "transcend the
scientific categories of 'true' and 'false'." He
suggests that his fellow global warming alarmists
promote four myths, which he labels Lamenting
Eden, Presaging Apocalypse, Constructing Babel,
and Celebrating Jubilee.
QUOTE: It is troubling to read a prominent
"scientist" who has so clearly lost sight of his
cardinal duty-to be skeptical of all theories and
always open to new data. It is particularly
troubling when this "scientist" endorses lying to
advance his personal political agenda.
More than a few people will be tempted to buy this
book based on the promise, implicit in its title,
that it examines the ideas and motives of both
sides in the global warming debate. But that is
not what this book is about. It is the musings of
a British socialist about how to use global
warming claims as a means of persuading "the
masses" to give up their economic liberties.
That the author, Mike Hulme, is a "scientist" who
helped write the influential reports of the IPCC
and many other government agencies makes this book
even more disturbing.
Narrow-Minded Outlook
Hulme frankly admits his perspective is colored by
his politics-"democratic socialist"-and it soon
becomes apparent that the only disagreements about
climate change he's aware of are those occurring
between the left (people who think like him) and
the far left, people he describes as
"eco-anarchists," "eco-socialists," and
"eco-authoritarians."
Opposition from centrists, conservatives,
libertarians, and nonideological scientists who
dispute his alarmist spin on the complicated data
of global warming merit hardly any mention.
Warming Gospel in Doubt
The notion that science can be determined by
government agencies proclaiming to speak on behalf
of entire scientific communities might be
passively accepted in Old Europe, but it is
jarring for an American reader.
Opinion polls show two-thirds of us do not believe
global warming is manmade, and more than 30,000
American scientists (including more than 9,000
with Ph.D.s) have signed a petition saying there
is no convincing scientific evidence that human
activity will cause catastrophic global warming.
A group of scientists called the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has
produced an 880-page rebuttal of the latest IPCC
report containing more than 4,000 references to
peer-reviewed science. I edited that work.
There is a debate taking place about global
warming in America, and it is not the one
described by Hulme as being between those who
favor "cap and trade" and those who favor even
more radical changes in political, social, and
economic behavior.
Rather, it is about how much of the warming of the
late twentieth century was natural and how much
was manmade, whether the consequences of that
warming were on balance positive or negative, and
whether anything should be or could be done to
prevent or delay future warming.
This debate-the real public policy debate-is
entirely missing from Hulme's book.
Ideological Agenda
Convinced that the scientific debate is over and
he won, Hulme devotes most of his attention to
finding ways to overcome "barriers other than lack
of scientific knowledge to changing the status of
climate change in the minds of
citizens-psychological, emotional, and behavioural
barriers." He attempts to explain the public's
failure to respond to his calls for action in
terms of popular theories of irrational group
behavior, such as anchoring, fear of change, and
so on. He lacks the power of introspection that
would have led him to understand the fountains of
his own irrational beliefs.
The real purpose of this book isn't revealed until
far into it. "The idea of climate change," Hulme
writes at page 326, "should be seen as an
intellectual resource around which our collective
and personal identities and projects can form and
take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for
climate change, but to ask what climate change can
do for us."
According to Hulme, climate change can do a lot:
"Because the idea of climate change is so plastic,
it can be deployed across many of our human
projects and can serve many of our psychological,
ethical, and spiritual needs."
In other words, socialists like Hulme can frame
the global warming issue to achieve unrelated
goals such as sustainable development, income
redistribution, population control, social
justice, and many other items on the
liberal/socialist wishlist.
Knowingly Telling Lies
Like the notorious Stephen Schneider, who once
said, "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
mention of any doubts one might have. ... Each of
us has to decide what the right balance is between
being effective and being honest," Hulme writes,
"We will continue to create and tell new stories
about climate change and mobilise them in support
of our projects."
These "myths," he writes, "transcend the
scientific categories of 'true' and 'false'." He
suggests that his fellow global warming alarmists
promote four myths, which he labels Lamenting
Eden, Presaging Apocalypse, Constructing Babel,
and Celebrating Jubilee.
It is troubling to read a prominent "scientist"
who has so clearly lost sight of his cardinal
duty-to be skeptical of all theories and always
open to new data. It is particularly troubling
when this "scientist" endorses lying to advance
his personal political agenda.
Read this book if you want insight into the mind
of a "scientist" who has surrendered all moral
authority to speak truthfully about global
warming.
Avoid it if you are looking for a book that
explains why we disagree about climate change.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3823
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 4:26 pm, "not-jonathan" <Bit... at (no spam) myass.com> wrote:
[quote]Democracy and Freedom!
The best solution to climate change is found in a world dominated
by proper and legitimate free market democracies.
A global catastrophe is likely if the world finds itself dominated
by corrupt and incompetent dictatorships.
One form of society is highly adaptive, resilient to change and
has countless nested self correcting mechanisms. And 'change'
of almost any kind is considered an opportunity for a new market.
While dictatorships like China and others might just fuel their
rapid industrialization with coal, and with few environmental
controls.
The collective ability of society to adapt to changes should
determine if our biosphere is headed for a new level of
stability, or some unpredictable calamity.
Imho. Thank you for reading.
Jonathan
s
[/quote]
I can extensively agree with that analogy. However, why do you and so
many others need to have so many phony Usenet/newsgroup accounts?
What exactly are you hiding from us?
Are you suggesting that we should all be as phony and bogus as
yourself?
Your Spectra and "IceAgeTheories" are each interesting:
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/Spectra.html
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/IceAgeTheories.html
So, why are you hiding yourself behind multiple bogus names, and why
are tax payers having to pay for whatever it is that you actually do?
Are you any part of the BHO team (such as Steven Chu)?
In other words, what is your true motivation? and what is your
objective?
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 20, 9:29 pm, john fernbach <fernbach1... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 7:26 pm, "not-jonathan" <Bit... at (no spam) myass.com> wrote:
Democracy and Freedom!
The best solution to climate change is found in a world dominated
by proper and legitimate free market democracies.
A global catastrophe is likely if the world finds itself dominated
by corrupt and incompetent dictatorships.
One form of society is highly adaptive, resilient to change and
has countless nested self correcting mechanisms. And 'change'
of almost any kind is considered an opportunity for a new market.
While dictatorships like China and others might just fuel their
rapid industrialization with coal, and with few environmental
controls.
The collective ability of society to adapt to changes should
determine if our biosphere is headed for a new level of
stability, or some unpredictable calamity.
Imho. Thank you for reading.
Jonathan
s
Jonathan, I'm a green socialist, as everybody knows, and I somewhat
disagree.
But let's suppose for argument's sake that you're correct. Well -
when is your GODDAMNED CAPITALIST SYSTEM actually going to show the
flexibility to fix the climate change problem?
Or excuse my French. My biases are showing.
When is your favorite flexible, adaptive "free market" economic
system actually going to take radical action to cease using fossil
fuels and start relying on renewable forms of energy?
It's one thing to CLAIM that free market democracies actually are
adaptive & wonderful and all.
It's another thing whether they actually deliver the goods.
As a half-baked student of Karl Marx, I strongly agree with you (and
with Marx) that capitalist economies excel at "revolutionizing the
instruments of production, and with them the relations of production,
and thereby relations of the whole society."
The history of capitalist industrialism to date has demonstrated that
the system repeatedly "revolutionizes the instruments of production"
and replaces older technologies with newer ones all the time.
So "free market democracies" COULD -- theoretically -- abandon their
old, environment-destroying industrial technologies and energy sources
(eg fossil fuels) and base their future prosperity on the development
and commercialization of new, environment-friendly, non-carbon energy
sources.
But ARE THEY ACTUALLY GOING TO DO IT?
Can American capitalism, in particular, actually enact meaningful
climate legislation without threatening thousands of coal miners &
auto mechanics & oil patch mayors with higher unemployment -- which
"free market" libertarians in the US insist that the government cannot
and should not try to relieve?
Can American capitalism change its present suicidally stupid patterns
of energy production without hurting the profits of the electric
utility industry, thus threatening the pension funds of older
Americans who are already being hurt badly by the latest financial
crisis and the latest capitalist world recession?
I'm not so sure that American capitalism can do this. Not when it's
hamstrung by idiotic libertarian ideologues and partisan Republicans,
who staunchly refuse to let the government rescue the capitalist
system when it needs it the most.
And not when it's paralyzed by the cowardice and conservativism of
"moderate" Democrats, many of them from coal-producing states, who are
likely to vote with the fossil fuel lobbyists & the Republicans when
it comes to legislating on climate change & its solutions.
So I think it's possible that in the United States, anyway, your
famous "free market democracy" is going to fall flat on its face when
faced with the challenge of transitioning out of our current energy
economy and into a more climate-friendly one.
If you love capitalism so much - how are you going to keep this from
happening, dude?
If the biggest capitalist corporations in America & the world continue
to be addicted to fossil fuel exploitation, and if the hundreds of
corporate lobbyists plaguing Capitol Hill prevent the US Congress and
the Obama White House from doing anything meaningful to correct the
biases of the coal, oil, utility and natural gas boys -- your "free
market democracy" is going to FAIL, isn't it?
And in failing, demonstrate to every thoughtful environmentalist that
"free market democracy" is actually just another word for eco-suicide?
[/quote]
It's all pretty much in those kosher Big Energy hands of those in
charge of most everything that counts.
As long as self-policing is not viable or otherwise working, our only
option is to suck it in and flat our go for it before China, India and
Russia end up with all the cookies.
I'm all for stopping a good portion of our hydrocarbon depletion and
of its environment pollution, including much of the hard-rock and
mineral mining that's also devastating to our environment. There are
technology alternatives and considerable efficiency gains that could
not only replace our dependency on fossil/bio fuels to one of
renewable and fusion that resolve most of our energy needs.
If you're interested, Steven Chu and I have ideas, and even logical
ones at that.
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 20, 10:03 pm, "n00b-" <k... at (no spam) l.com> wrote:
[quote]"john fernbach" <fernbach1... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:faf5b743-4b94-47ea-9cfb-e2b37f48de57 at (no spam) a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 7:26 pm, "not-jonathan"
Bit... at (no spam) myass.com> wrote:
Democracy and Freedom!
The best solution to climate change is found in
a world dominated
by proper and legitimate free market
democracies.
A global catastrophe is likely if the world
finds itself dominated
by corrupt and incompetent dictatorships.
One form of society is highly adaptive,
resilient to change and
has countless nested self correcting mechanisms.
And 'change'
of almost any kind is considered an opportunity
for a new market.
While dictatorships like China and others might
just fuel their
rapid industrialization with coal, and with few
environmental
controls.
The collective ability of society to adapt to
changes should
determine if our biosphere is headed for a new
level of
stability, or some unpredictable calamity.
Imho. Thank you for reading.
Jonathan
s
Jonathan, I'm a green socialist, as everybody
knows, and I somewhat
disagree.
But let's suppose for argument's sake that you're
correct. Well -
when is your GODDAMNED CAPITALIST SYSTEM actually
going to show the
flexibility to fix the climate change problem?
=====================================
There is no "climate change problem", it's a
socialist scam designed to introduce global
governance and wealth redistribution.
"Scientist" Admits Using Climate Change To Further
His Socialist Agenda
Read this book if you want insight into the mind
of a "scientist" who has surrendered all moral
authority to speak truthfully about global
warming.
August 6 2009
Book Review:
Why We Disagree About Climate Change By Mike Hulme
Cambridge University Press, 2009 432 pages,
ISBN-13: 978-0521727327
QUOTE: We need to ask not what we can do for
climate change, but to ask what climate change can
do for us
QUOTE: socialists like Hulme can frame the global
warming issue to achieve unrelated goals such as
sustainable development, income redistribution,
population control, social justice, and many other
items on the liberal/socialist wishlist.
QUOTE: We will continue to create and tell new
stories about climate change and mobilise them in
support of our projects
QUOTE: These "myths," he writes, "transcend the
scientific categories of 'true' and 'false'." He
suggests that his fellow global warming alarmists
promote four myths, which he labels Lamenting
Eden, Presaging Apocalypse, Constructing Babel,
and Celebrating Jubilee.
QUOTE: It is troubling to read a prominent
"scientist" who has so clearly lost sight of his
cardinal duty-to be skeptical of all theories and
always open to new data. It is particularly
troubling when this "scientist" endorses lying to
advance his personal political agenda.
More than a few people will be tempted to buy this
book based on the promise, implicit in its title,
that it examines the ideas and motives of both
sides in the global warming debate. But that is
not what this book is about. It is the musings of
a British socialist about how to use global
warming claims as a means of persuading "the
masses" to give up their economic liberties.
That the author, Mike Hulme, is a "scientist" who
helped write the influential reports of the IPCC
and many other government agencies makes this book
even more disturbing.
Narrow-Minded Outlook
Hulme frankly admits his perspective is colored by
his politics-"democratic socialist"-and it soon
becomes apparent that the only disagreements about
climate change he's aware of are those occurring
between the left (people who think like him) and
the far left, people he describes as
"eco-anarchists," "eco-socialists," and
"eco-authoritarians."
Opposition from centrists, conservatives,
libertarians, and nonideological scientists who
dispute his alarmist spin on the complicated data
of global warming merit hardly any mention.
Warming Gospel in Doubt
The notion that science can be determined by
government agencies proclaiming to speak on behalf
of entire scientific communities might be
passively accepted in Old Europe, but it is
jarring for an American reader.
Opinion polls show two-thirds of us do not believe
global warming is manmade, and more than 30,000
American scientists (including more than 9,000
with Ph.D.s) have signed a petition saying there
is no convincing scientific evidence that human
activity will cause catastrophic global warming.
A group of scientists called the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has
produced an 880-page rebuttal of the latest IPCC
report containing more than 4,000 references to
peer-reviewed science. I edited that work.
There is a debate taking place about global
warming in America, and it is not the one
described by Hulme as being between those who
favor "cap and trade" and those who favor even
more radical changes in political, social, and
economic behavior.
Rather, it is about how much of the warming of the
late twentieth century was natural and how much
was manmade, whether the consequences of that
warming were on balance positive or negative, and
whether anything should be or could be done to
prevent or delay future warming.
This debate-the real public policy debate-is
entirely missing from Hulme's book.
Ideological Agenda
Convinced that the scientific debate is over and
he won, Hulme devotes most of his attention to
finding ways to overcome "barriers other than lack
of scientific knowledge to changing the status of
climate change in the minds of
citizens-psychological, emotional, and behavioural
barriers." He attempts to explain the public's
failure to respond to his calls for action in
terms of popular theories of irrational group
behavior, such as anchoring, fear of change, and
so on. He lacks the power of introspection that
would have led him to understand the fountains of
his own irrational beliefs.
The real purpose of this book isn't revealed until
far into it. "The idea of climate change," Hulme
writes at page 326, "should be seen as an
intellectual resource around which our collective
and personal identities and projects can form and
take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for
climate change, but to ask what climate change can
do for us."
According to Hulme, climate change can do a lot:
"Because the idea of climate change is so plastic,
it can be deployed across many of our human
projects and can serve many of our psychological,
ethical, and spiritual needs."
In other words, socialists like Hulme can frame
the global warming issue to achieve unrelated
goals such as sustainable development, income
redistribution, population control, social
justice, and many other items on the
liberal/socialist wishlist.
Knowingly Telling Lies
Like the notorious Stephen Schneider, who once
said, "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
mention of any doubts one might have. ... Each of
us has to decide what the right balance is between
being effective and being honest," Hulme writes,
"We will continue to create and tell new stories
about climate change and mobilise them in support
of our projects."
These "myths," he writes, "transcend the
scientific categories of 'true' and 'false'." He
suggests that his fellow global warming alarmists
promote four myths, which he labels Lamenting
Eden, Presaging Apocalypse, Constructing Babel,
and Celebrating Jubilee.
It is troubling to read a prominent "scientist"
who has so clearly lost sight of his cardinal
duty-to be skeptical of all theories and always
open to new data. It is particularly troubling
when this "scientist" endorses lying to advance
his personal political agenda.
Read this book if you want insight into the mind
of a "scientist" who has surrendered all moral
authority to speak truthfully about global
warming.
Avoid it if you are looking for a book that
explains why we disagree about climate change.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3823
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
[/quote]
Earth has been getting warmer, our atmosphere is wetter and obviously
resources are depleted and otherwise our frail biodiversity
environment is artificially polluted. It's also called thawing out
from the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see.
10% < 25% of this global warming trend is caused by humanity.
That leaves us with 75% < 90% that's outside of human factors.
The rich and powerful (such as yourself) can always adapt by moving to
higher ground and cranking up the HVAC and/or going high tech (usually
government subsidized), and otherwise the middle class and poor can
just go off and die.
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 4:57 pm, "not-jonathan" <Bit... at (no spam) myass.com> wrote:
[quote]"o%nbo" <k... at (no spam) l.com> wrote in messagenews:4ade4a31$1 at (no spam) dnews.tpgi.com.au...
"not-jonathan" <Bit... at (no spam) myass.com> wrote in message
news:NtSdne1XQ6yP2kPXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
Democracy and Freedom!
The best solution to climate change is found in a world dominated
by proper and legitimate free market democracies.
Impossible to have a solution to a non-existent problem!
All we can do is adapt to any natural climate variations.
I just don't think this question should be whether
warming is happening or not. The question should
be whether society should gain the ability to
manage the biosphere to the benefit of all?
I think is you scroll down to fig 1-5, the problem
becomes clear. Change is coming. Whether the current
rate of change prevents the next ice age, or set's
is off is the big question. Having the ability to manage
the biosphere should be useful for ...either...possibility.
"From this plot, it is clear that most of the last 420 thousand years
was spent in ice age. The brief periods when the record peaks
above the zero line, the interglacials, typically lasted from a few thousand
to perhaps twenty thousand years. These data should frighten you.
All of civilization developed during the last interglacial, and the data
show that such interglacials are very brief. Our time looks about up."http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a solar house) and think there are
a dozen good reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels, but.global warming
is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
[/quote]
As long as we have such a nearby moon that's so massive and
contributing 2e20 N/sec, and especially as we keep getting closer to
the vibrant and massive Sirius star system, there's no way this planet
is ever going to see another ice-age, not even if every hydrocarbon
consuming human on Earth were removed.
The question is, how thawed, hot and stormy is it going to get?
Can we (all ten billion of us) survive with deeper and more expansive
oceans that are extensively dead-zone populated?
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tunderbar... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 6:26 pm, "not-jonathan" <Bit... at (no spam) myass.com> wrote:
[quote]Democracy and Freedom!
The best solution to climate change is found in a world dominated
by proper and legitimate free market democracies.
A global catastrophe is likely if the world finds itself dominated
by corrupt and incompetent dictatorships.
One form of society is highly adaptive, resilient to change and
has countless nested self correcting mechanisms. And 'change'
of almost any kind is considered an opportunity for a new market.
While dictatorships like China and others might just fuel their
rapid industrialization with coal, and with few environmental
controls.
The collective ability of society to adapt to changes should
determine if our biosphere is headed for a new level of
stability, or some unpredictable calamity.
Imho. Thank you for reading.
Jonathan
s
[/quote]
Some people see no difference between "free market democracies" and
"corrupt and incompetent dictatorships". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
john fernbach wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 7:26 pm, "not-jonathan" <Bit... at (no spam) myass.com> wrote:
Democracy and Freedom!
The best solution to climate change is found in a world dominated
by proper and legitimate free market democracies.
A global catastrophe is likely if the world finds itself dominated
by corrupt and incompetent dictatorships.
One form of society is highly adaptive, resilient to change and
has countless nested self correcting mechanisms. And 'change'
of almost any kind is considered an opportunity for a new market.
While dictatorships like China and others might just fuel their
rapid industrialization with coal, and with few environmental
controls.
The collective ability of society to adapt to changes should
determine if our biosphere is headed for a new level of
stability, or some unpredictable calamity.
Imho. Thank you for reading.
Jonathan
s
Jonathan, I'm a green socialist, as everybody knows, and I somewhat
disagree.
But let's suppose for argument's sake that you're correct. Well -
when is your GODDAMNED CAPITALIST SYSTEM actually going to show the
flexibility to fix the climate change problem?
[/quote]
What makes you believe we can control the climate? It's no more possible to do that than to go faster than light. Any fool knows there are so many variables that make up climate that many of them are unknown. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 1:54 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]"I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
:
: What "hard rock" mining other than gold is there?
:
Copper, zinc, nickel, lead, ...
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
[/quote]
Those hard-rock obtained elements at the very least.
Obviously there's iron but also uranium, thorium and even in some
instances coal that has a surface and/or mixed layer of earth and rock
that has to get removed and dumped somewhere, as well as having been
washed/processed with multiple millions of tonnes of fresh water
that's no longer drinkable unless you're doing a Dr.Kevorkian thing.
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:11:52 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradguth at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 20, 9:29Â pm, john fernbach <fernbach1... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:26Â pm, "not-jonathan" <Bit... at (no spam) myass.com> wrote:
Democracy and Freedom!
The best solution to climate change is found in a world dominated
by proper and legitimate free market democracies.
A global catastrophe is likely if the world finds itself dominated
by corrupt and incompetent dictatorships.
One form of society is highly adaptive, resilient to change and
has countless nested self correcting mechanisms. And 'change'
of almost any kind is considered an opportunity for a new market.
While dictatorships like China and others might just fuel  their
rapid industrialization with coal, and with few environmental
controls.
The collective ability of society to adapt to changes should
determine if our biosphere is headed for a new level of
stability, or some unpredictable calamity.
Imho. Â Thank you for reading.
Jonathan
s
Jonathan, I'm a green socialist, as everybody knows, and I somewhat
disagree.
But let's suppose for argument's sake that you're correct. Â Well -
when is your GODDAMNED CAPITALIST SYSTEM actually going to show the
flexibility to fix the climate change problem?
Or excuse my French. Â My biases are showing.
When is your favorite flexible, adaptive "free market" Â economic
system actually going to take radical action to cease using fossil
fuels and start relying on renewable forms of energy?
It's one thing to CLAIM that free market democracies actually are
adaptive & wonderful and all.
It's another thing whether they actually deliver the goods.
As a half-baked student of Karl Marx, I strongly agree with you (and
with Marx) that capitalist economies excel at "revolutionizing the
instruments of production, and with them the relations of production,
and thereby relations of the whole society."
The history of capitalist industrialism to date has demonstrated that
the system repeatedly "revolutionizes the instruments of production"
and replaces older technologies with newer ones all the time.
So "free market democracies" COULD -- theoretically -- abandon their
old, environment-destroying industrial technologies and energy sources
(eg fossil fuels) and base their future prosperity on the development
and commercialization of new, environment-friendly, non-carbon energy
sources.
But ARE THEY ACTUALLY GOING Â TO DO IT?
Can American capitalism, in particular, actually enact meaningful
climate legislation without threatening thousands of coal miners &
auto mechanics & oil patch mayors with higher unemployment -- which
"free market" libertarians in the US insist that the government cannot
and should not try to relieve?
Can American capitalism change its present suicidally stupid patterns
of energy production without hurting the profits of the electric
utility industry, thus threatening the pension funds of older
Americans who are already being hurt badly by the latest financial
crisis and the latest capitalist world recession?
I'm not so sure that American capitalism can do this. Â Not when it's
hamstrung by idiotic libertarian ideologues and partisan Republicans,
who staunchly refuse to let the government rescue the capitalist
system when it needs it the most.
And not when it's paralyzed by the cowardice and conservativism of
"moderate" Democrats, many of them from coal-producing states, who are
likely to vote with the fossil fuel lobbyists & the Republicans when
it comes to legislating on climate change & its solutions.
So I think it's possible that in the United States, anyway, your
famous "free market democracy" is going to fall flat on its face when
faced with the challenge of transitioning out of our current energy
economy and into a more climate-friendly one.
If you love capitalism so much - how are you going to keep this from
happening, dude?
If the biggest capitalist corporations in America & the world continue
to be addicted to fossil fuel exploitation, and if the hundreds of
corporate lobbyists plaguing Capitol Hill prevent the US Congress and
the Obama White House from doing anything meaningful to correct the
biases of the coal, oil, utility and natural gas boys -- your "free
market democracy" is going to FAIL, isn't it?
And in failing, demonstrate to every thoughtful environmentalist that
"free market democracy" is actually just another word for eco-suicide?
It's all pretty much in those kosher Big Energy hands of those in
charge of most everything that counts.
As long as self-policing is not viable or otherwise working, our only
option is to suck it in and flat our go for it before China, India and
Russia end up with all the cookies.
I'm all for stopping a good portion of our hydrocarbon depletion and
of its environment pollution, including much of the hard-rock and
mineral mining that's also devastating to our environment. There are
technology alternatives and considerable efficiency gains that could
not only replace our dependency on fossil/bio fuels to one of
renewable and fusion that resolve most of our energy needs.
If you're interested, Steven Chu and I have ideas, and even logical
ones at that.
~ BG
[/quote]
What "hard rock" mining other than gold is there? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:15 am
|
|