Global Warming

[karoaper]

Re: Global Warming

I do have a strong bias for free-markets. That I have never denied and in fact, I will proudly proclaim that I am the lover of all that is market based. However, correct me if I am wrong, I know you stated that it's probably the same with many of us, but are you insinuating that there is such a thing as not having a bias?

If so, I disagree for the following reasons. While we live in an objective world, our understanding of that world can never be anything more than our mind’s subjective experiences with the world. Since everyone is biased, it thereby follows that according to that, there is no such thing as 'clarity of judgement'. All 'clarity of judgement' is therefore filtered through the prism of the individual's subjective experiences. Precisely because we are individuals and experience being and time individually, our perceptions, understandings, and thought processes are always filtered through our individual sense of self.

I completely second the second paragraph, but there's difference between bias and priorities. In other words, you or I may differently value the ramifications of one or another outcome, based on our different priorities/filters, but bias basically represents a predisposition towards a certain outcome, because the other outcome has negative affect on unrelated areas of importance.

I think no one will deny the earth's climate fluctuations. This cannot be emphasized enough, and as you mentioned, the issue pertains to human-caused global warming. Global temperatures are always trending upward or downward. They always have been throughout the lifetime of this planet. Right now the trend is upward, which in itself signifies nothing about causation. It's moderate, as such rises go, but undeniable. The real question is, what evidence is there to support the thesis that humans are having a significant impact on this? Indeed, as a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory physicist once pointed out, in the cycle of ice age glaciations and retreats over the past million years, it's perfectly in keeping with the temporal patterns of recent past climate change that we would be experiencing just such a temperature rise right now.

He had detailed charts that made quite clear that nothing about current temperature trends looked abnormal in the context of the last several hundred thousand years. On the contrary, such an increase is entirely understandable, give or take a couple of hundred years. The physicist offered his conclusion that he saw no reason to either attribute or deny human causation in the current upward trend.

I'd be interested in seeing the article. But as you say, the question is definitely open. I can imagine the problem with proving the causation is there are too many variables, the human effect being only a part of the whole system. There are however new developments, such as record-breaking hurricanes, the rapidly melting ice-core, enlarging ozon hole, etc. At the same time I do acknowledge the question of whether we should consider these developements as part of the manmade downward spiral or as simply a previously unseen part of the chaotic path of the life's process. In other words, using a statistical terminology, are the shifts part of an actual accelerated nonstationarity or are they simply transient bursts of volatility. I deal with this exact question in financial data and it's a tough question. In addition even in finance the question of whether such bursts affect long-term trend is open, let alone in the massively complex dynamics of metereology and ecology.

But the global picture of earth's resilience is not the only scale that we should focus on. There are microcosms of life, where a tepid and temporary equilibrium of all the players does hold, such as biomass ecology. By changing the nature of the ecosystem and habitats the human actions may introduce a shizm that can greately affect such fragile equilibriums, bringing extinction of a biological entity. In such small scales, the questions become much easier to answer. The causation of irresponsibility is easier to prove. Most notibly in case of fauna. The fact that we have many critically endangered species in the world attests to that.

Thanks for a great post as usual, and good luck on your proposal. Stop foruming and work!

Thanks bud. I'll be jumping from joy once it happens. Time to sleep.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Global Warming

Inherent in my talk is the assumption that Homo sapiens are a good (despite a possible ‘wrong turn’ in social development of some). I would hope that it is abundantly clear by now that I am not at all misanthropic. (Again) If I believed that ‘humanity’ was bad, why would I care or do anything? I’d just let things go as they are! ‘Environmentalists’ have a basic assumption that HUMANS should not go extinct and that human beings (mostly) ‘good’ for the planet. [Important citation: "Is Humanity Suicidal?" later]

As far as politics, of any political party in the US, I like the Greens [http://www.gp.org/] the most right now. Anonymouse, you might even like this...

Ten Key Values of the Green Party

Originally ratified at the Green Party Convention in Denver, CO, June 2000.
Platform


1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

4. NON-VIOLENCE
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a “living wage” which reflects the real value of a person’s work.
Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers’ rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our “quality of life.” We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.

7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.

We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.


9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or “unmaking” all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.

Ten Key Values from other state and local Greens.
There is no authoritative version of the Ten Key Values of the Greens. The Ten Key Values are guiding principles that are adapted and defined to fit each state and local chapter.

That's simply socialism with another name. There are alot of incorrect premises and conclusions, and extremely naive and larded assumptions. I have nothing that I like or agree with from that list.

[Anahita]

Re: Global Warming

That's simply socialism with another name. There are alot of incorrect premises and conclusions, and extremely naive and larded assumptions. I have nothing that I like or agree with from that list.

I didn't expect really you to agree with much. I was hoping for jedi mind trick with you. I still have hope to change you mind.

Lucy in the sky with diamonds.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Global Warming

I didn't expect really you to agree with much. I was hoping for jedi mind trick with you. I still have hope to change you mind.

Lucy in the sky with diamonds.

Minds are rarely changed. In many ways minds are already determined from the moment of conception. It's what we mean when we say "people don't change". It's rooted in the character. And you're definitely not going to change my mind with those puny arguments. And no, I am not here to change your mind. My support of the market economy first and foremost is based on the immutable, apodictic laws of economic science, and not on ethical or political considerations like you. For instance, socialism (or in this instance "green economics" which is no different than socialism) is a completely untenable system of social organization under the division of labor most fundamentally because of strict economic considerations. As another example, economic science unequivocally tell us that a shortage will occur if there is an intervnetion into the market or a price cap is placed on a good or service below the market clearing price. In both of these examples, the laws of economic science are operative no matter what an individual’s ethical and political beliefs.

[Anahita]

Re: Global Warming

...Few if any of the environmentalists actually understand economics to see the fallacy of their position.

I do understand that if the animal agriculture industry in the US were not subsidized, hamburger would cost $25 per pound. What is best for Earth should be the least expensive. If we subsidize anything in agriculture in the US, that should be what is good for the future of life (organic, small family farms, for example).

[Anonymouse]

Re: Global Warming

I do understand that if the animal agriculture industry in the US were not subsidized, hamburger would cost $25 per pound. What is best for Earth should be the least expensive. If we subsidize anything in agriculture in the US, that should be what is good for the future of life (organic, small family farms, for example).

First of all, that is incorrect. As a supporter of free-markets, and vehemently against government intervention into the market, I oppose any government subsidies to U.S. industries. If you understood economics and how markets operate, you would understand that subsidies transfer income from the efficient to the inefficient and distort resource allocation, thereby causing shortages, a lowering of quality and increase in prices, not a decrease. By granting favoritism with the power of the government some industries become monopolies such as the millionaire farmers of America. It was last year or the year before that the U.S. for the first time in its history had to import grain because of shortages. Socialistic redistributions and central planning never work, haven't you folks learned that yet?

Furthermore, subsidizing comes from tax money. Where do you think taxes come from? Stolen from the private sector. What if I do not want to subsidize what you want to subsidize? However, that position is never a concern for socialists as you will simply use the force that comes with government for your ends to steal from others.

And on top of that, subsidizing the inefficient producers who would otherwise stand to lose in the market, increases attraction for outsoucing for other companies. Tarrifs and subsidies are still theft and wealth redistribution.

[Anahita]

Re: Global Warming

If you understood economics Furthermore, subsidizing comes from tax money. Where do you think taxes come from? Stolen from the private sector. What if I do not want to subsidize what you want to subsidize? However, that position is never a concern for socialists as you will simply use the force that comes with government for your ends to steal from others.

And on top of that, subsidizing the inefficient producers who would otherwise stand to lose in the market, increases attraction for outsoucing for other companies. Tarrifs and subsidies are still theft and wealth redistribution.

You are very caught up in thinking that anything other than unregulated markets is "socialism." That said, have you heard of "Social Darwinism?" I'm against that.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Global Warming

You are very caught up in thinking that anything other than unregulated markets is "socialism." That said, have you heard of "Social Darwinism?" I'm against that.

Things do not have to necessarily be socialism, to be socialistic. Green economics, at least from what you posted, is so close to socialism we may as well call it socialism. However, if it makes you happy, I'll refer to it as socialistic.

And please stop with your teaching tone of "have you heard of Social Darwinism?" Everyone and their mom have heard of it, so what? What is it that you are against?

[Anahita]

Re: Global Warming

Things do not have to necessarily be socialism, to be socialistic. Green economics, at least from what you posted, is so close to socialism we may as well call it socialism. However, if it makes you happy, I'll refer to it as socialistic.

And please stop with your teaching tone of "have you heard of Social Darwinism?" Everyone and their mom have heard of it, so what? What is it that you are against?

I understand you have, but I don't believe everyone has actually heard of "Social Darwinism." SO, I teach. You help me teach. I will help you, too, sweetheart.

Social Darwinism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

"Socialists have alleged that capitalists used Social Darwinism to justify laissez-faire capitalism and social inequality. Others use it to justify racism and imperialism. Many used Social Darwinism crudely to argue against any sort of universal morality or any sort of altruism."

Due to various historical and other factors, the 'playing ground' is NOT fair for everyone. Capitalism--expecially in the US--was built on human slavery and on the destruction of Nature, for example. Still is, IMHO. That, TO ME, is not only stealing, but wrong in many other ways. That system, as it is, is KILLING (nature, human beings, and much more). Unfettered global capitalism is a psychotic economic system (as it is right now)...

Thou shall not kill.
Thou shall not steal.

Though those making lots of money off killing redefine Robbin Hood's work as 'stealing.' I'm not against all taxes.

As my heart gently bleeds--per Beatles
Check out Mr. Business Man--Pscho killer, Talking Heads

[Anonymouse]

Re: Global Warming

I understand you have, but I don't believe everyone has actually heard of "Social Darwinism." SO, I teach. You help me teach.

Social Darwinism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

"Socialists have alleged that capitalists used Social Darwinism to justify laissez-faire capitalism and social inequality. Others use it to justify racism and imperialism. Many used Social Darwinism crudely to argue against any sort of universal morality or any sort of altruism."

Due to various historical and other factors, the 'playing ground' is NOT fair for everyone. Capitalism--expecially in the US--was built on human slavery and on the destruction of Nature, for example. Still is, IMHO. That, TO ME, is not only stealing, but wrong in many other ways. That system, as it is, is KILLING. It is a psychotic economic system as it is right now...

Thou shall not kill.

Thou shall not steal.

First of all, it is a myth that somehow capitalism is built on exploitation. There is a difference between state capitalism, or what we call mercantalism and actual capitalism.

Furthermore, there are larded assumptions both in your post and the wiki you quote from, the one giant larded assumption being is that there ever was such a thing as fairness, that there ever will be such a thing as fairness, or that if fairness is even desirable.

The other larded assumption is that of, again, equality. All egalitarian ideologies whether it is socialism, Marxism, environmentalism flow from this simple premise, albeit being incorrect. The playing ground was not and cannot ever be fair. That is a fallacy, yet millions like you parrot and believe these ideologies which only exist in the abstract. You cannot even define equality much less what is equal. That is unheard of in nature which replicates different DNA chains for all 6 billion inhabitants.

Social Darwinism, is simply a name, nothing more and nothing less, given to the state of the world as it was recognized to be for millenia. It wasn't until 'enlightenment' and the French revolution (thanks to the Mason and Jacobins) that people began to parrot and believe such gobbledygook as egalite. Egalite is a revolt against not only nature and common sense, but it is a revolt against all things human. I have always been of the persuasion that egalitarians try too hard to believe.

By the way, only people totally ignorant of economics will parrot the nonsense that somehow nature is more valuable than man. Only environmentalism comes close to this insanity and it is the reason for why it's nothing more than a nihilistic ideology, with hatred of all that is unique and creative about the individual. To these inverted souls, the life of "nature" (whatever that is) and animals, are more valuable and higher on the scale of spirit than man.