http://www.theamericanscholar.org/wh...ows/#more-7077
Printable View
http://burycoal.com/blog/2010/07/19/...limate-change/
The key point in the Laughlin article is that climate change right now is affected by population growth and activities, aka, anthropogenic, which the oil/gas/coal/US CoC/corps deny because they want to maintain their short-term predatory profits no matter what the cost.
It's "academic" that the earth doesn't give a shit. Human civilization does give a shit.
Human civilization is arrogant enough to believe that it can do something about it, and further, that it is able to make a permanent change in the planet's climate.
I still think a superbug is just going to wipe out most of the population when we get too big. The Earth always has a way of keeping things in check.
By the third paragraph, the guy is calling his "assumptions" "common sense," with misleading conclusions like "since the earth has survived all these catastrophies, it is a survivor and we are here as proof." He neglegects to mention that almost every life form that went through these changes was extinguished.
Earth may be a survivor, but we are a fragile species old man.
Quote:
Common sense tells us that damaging a thing this old is somewhat easier to imagine than it is to accomplish—like invading Russia. The earth has suffered mass volcanic explosions, floods, meteor impacts, mountain formation, and all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict, and it’s still here. It’s a survivor. We don’t know exactly how the earth recovered from these devastations, because the rocks don’t say very much about that, but we do know that it did recover—the proof of it being that we are here.
but this guy has all the answers right? so fos...Quote:
Experts are little help in the constant struggle in this conversation to separate myth from reality, because they have the same difficulty...
link? source? just some old man rambling?Quote:
The amount of rain that has fallen on the world since oxygen formed is enough to fill the earth 100 times.
man its hot as hell outside right now, old man!Quote:
Global warming forecasts have the further difficulty that you can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. In principle, changes in climate should show up in rainfall statistics, hurricane frequency, temperature records, and so forth. As a practical matter they don’t,
its funny this guy dispels all commentary by so-called "experts" at the start as being of limited value, then throughout he uses the theories/data/info that results from these "experts" hard work over time...
so its up to this guy's "simplicity" formula to teach each and every other expert on the planet?Quote:
In such situations it’s essential to weigh facts more strongly if they are simple, and use this practice to sweep away confusion whenever you can.
yes of course earth has undergone natural climate change over the years. but this does happen to be the first time an inhabitant has taken the earth by her feet and shook her till all the carbon came out of her pockets...
it also happens to be the first inhabitant who has the benefit of self awareness and intelligence...
so just because we might not be able to avert disaster...does that mean we shouldnt even try?
if you have alterior motives, such as continuing the exploitation of the planet's natural resources at an unbeleviable pace for astronomical profit, you would argue just as the old man in this article.
if seeing the face of a little child makes you truly want to see the propogation of our species, you might take a different route.
He's not saying man is a survivor. He's merely saying the Earth MUST have survived, because we (man) are here to record that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
Just like you can believe that the odds of life spontaneously occurring are ridiculously low, but that the process must also have occurred, because I'm typing this right now.
This is all lunacy.
Environmental regulations concerning the forced lifestyle change of a countries energy habits will kill more lives than global warming.
Just imagine had we limited ourselves to few petroleum consumption, a disaster like Katrina would have been 10x disasterous.
Capitalism and Free Markets make Climate change fiascos less deadly.
As implemented, Capitalism and Free Markets make Climate change fiascos more common, they promote the inefficient use of resources, at breakneck pace, they promote use of those resources without regard to harmful effects on either the environment, wildlife, local populations or global populations, and they cause a hesitance on the part of users to diversify energy economies or use resources wisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
That's bullshit. Standard Oil in the 1800s not only made the best kerosene by distilling it from all the harmful trace gases, but also stored those trace gases that no one would do, to sell them to makers of products that needed them. This efficiency was driven by profit. Standard Oil was the most efficient company of it's time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
Infact, good buisinesses that thrive know how to efficiently use their resources.
Besides, if anyone can demonstrate harm to the commons, this could be brought up to court. No need to have a beauracracy set arbitrary guidelines on what is good and not.
Capitalism and Free Markets with limited govt serve the people.
Parker, i don't know how you call yourself a libertarian.
#1. most profitable business in the world is oil. this is one of the most inefficient uses of natural resources we have ever devised. we essentially take one of the most concentrated energy sources and use it in hugely wasteful processes. and no one gives a shit because it is cheap. so we waste and waste, hoping that alternatives will bail us out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
#2. businesses resources do not equal the same thing as natrual resources that they harvest, exploit and sell. just because they can get the last drop out of things like labor and equipment doesnt mean that the way they market and sell their products are wise, and dont pollute and cause secondary costs that counteract the cheapness of the initial market offerings. and besides, it boils down to the public and the public is dumb as a box of rocks.
ever wonder why there are so few wooded areas in england? research what happened to all their trees and how they faced a crisis after they harvested them with reckless abandon...before the peasants almost froze to death when they had no more trees to heat their homes.
#3. I didnt call for regulation, but even so, a libertarian just wants the majority of that legislation drafted and implemented at the state level, by politicians who are local and still answer to the people.
and also, just because a law is on the books doesnt mean it has to be followed with a full blown regulatory body to enforce. the law can be enforced privately by citizens who sue corporations who trampel on their rights as citizens, property owners, employees, and residents. you should focus on understanding this difference.
#4. dont believe the conservative party line. you can be conservative in terms of spending and still be be horrified at the things we do to our environment. you can believe in conservative fiscal policies and still disagree with setting the industry throttle on wide-open. you can believe in being responsible stewards of the environment, responsible spenders in govt, and keeping politicians responsible to the people all at the same time.
the reason you will rarely here this from the typical conservative is that many are already wealthy, they know how to make wealth, they have the resources necessary to do so, they already have a taste for $, and so they naturally advocate the raping of our resources for whatever profit they can muster.
many conservatives want to have a club they can call their own. Personally I am not interested in accepting anyone else's opinions wholesale...because of this I cant agree with repubs on certain things, I think liberals miss the boat on a lot of things as well, and so I probably tend to piss off everyone with an affiliation to one of the two major parties at some time or other.
He's too authoritarian to be a libertarian, isn't he?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
do you understand the concept of private enforcement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Lemmee answer that for you WC...no you dont.
its called protecting your rights in a court of law.
its a mechanism that must be written into legislation so that people have a right to sue on their own behalf, rather than having govt enforce the laws on their behalf.
cutting edge I know...its only been around forever...
Food for thought:
True libertarian would concede that a corporation's rights could not supercede the rights of a single individual.
Liberty is the bottom line.
True republican would crush the individual's liberty in the name of profit at every turn. just like a TRUE AUTHORITARIAN. Turn over your resources or we will take your land little man.
Even though the lip service is there, Liberty is not the benchmark with repubs...$$$ is. unless your talking about corporate liberty, that is...
you guys need to understand what a libertarian school of thought actually is. Ill give you a hint...if you truly uphold constitutional ideals, the rights of citizens would quickly impede the corporate capitalist machine. Is that authoritarian WC? or just upholding the constitution?
It already exists. It doesn't need to be written in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
Where you are wrong is that they are not mutually exclusive, and you want to regulate against others because you think they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
So a "true libertarian" would eliminate a right to freely and privately chosen collective property ownership? That's a new one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
Very interesting article.
Well of COURSE the planet will survive as a planet regardless of what we do to it. We could launch every nuclear weapon ever built, and it would be just a scratch on the surface of the Earth. But that's referring to the Earth as it is from the standpoint of a body in space. It will continue to remain a relatively small rock orbiting a relatively average sun, regardless of what we do to it.Quote:
Common sense tells us that damaging a thing this old is somewhat easier to imagine than it is to accomplish—like invading Russia. The earth has suffered mass volcanic explosions, floods, meteor impacts, mountain formation, and all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict, and it’s still here. It’s a survivor. We don’t know exactly how the earth recovered from these devastations, because the rocks don’t say very much about that, but we do know that it did recover—the proof of it being that we are here.
However, there is evidence that what we are doing to the planet's ecosystem (not the crust) is gradually, but increasingly, killing life on the surface. The reason Earth is so special isn't because it's a rock orbiting a star, but because it's a living planet with millions of species of animal and plant. The fault in logic here is that supposing the Earth survives as a planet is not the same thing as proposing that it's ecology will remain intact -- and the ecosystem of the planet is what's so precious, and why we should be so concerned with saving it.
It's a horrible step in logic from saying, "Well, the planet will be here long after we are gone" to "we can do whatever we want". Wow. You mean we cannot destroy a rock that weighs roughly 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms? That's akin to saying, "Well, I don't know how to build a bomb big enough to blow up Texas, so I'll just litter, dump sewage, and pee on buildings everywhere I go. If everyone does the same thing (and some Texans make me wonder) then it won't destroy Texas as a landmass, but it will make the state a lot less pleasant to live in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
Or, maybe the point is, if humans were somehow able to "stabilize" the climate, wouldn't it be the first time Earth's climate has been stable in 4½ billion years?
As opposed to actively destabilizing it, as we appear to be doing now?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
But are we, is the question. Maybe accelerating the process, sure, but the point is, the Earth will shift its temperature to an extreme all on its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
..and thats the disconnect between history and predictive science. The Earth has shifted its temperature of its own accord and completely unrelated to humans about every 100k years or so (according to the article).
Are we on the backside of that 100k year plan? I dont know, article doesnt say (explicitly, anyway).
Point is, even if you shut off the power to the world and stopped every car in its tracks, failed to produce oil or burn coal, the Earth will still ultimately rise in temperature and the polar glaciers will melt.
There is nothing humans can do to stop this, even if we were an extinct species, the planet lives on and goes through its cycles.
Do you agree that exacerbating or expediting said warming could have disastrous effects, if that is indeed what is occurring?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
fatalism aside, the question is still what can be done on our part to create a more homeostatic relationship with the environment for our lives and the generations of lives to come before the final curtain.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
The climate is not and never has been homeostatic.
There is no "balance of nature".
Sincerely,
T.Rex
great. but where in my post did i even mention "climate" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Well, you said "environment", which is not static either.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
neither is homeostasis; it is a dynamic process that tries to maintain a static balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
and environment is not climate.
failQuote:
Originally Posted by rjv
`Homeostasis ` is the property of either an open system or a closed system, especially a living organism, that regulates its internal environment so as to maintain a stable, constant condition. Multiple dynamic equilibrium adjustments and regulation mechanisms make homeostasis possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis
Not all of us.:nopeQuote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
If that is indeed what is occuring, then I would only agree on it having an effect, with terms like "disastorous" being debatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
My point is this, and only this.
Global warming is nothing new, it is only unpredictable. Is civilization accelerating the natural cycles of Earth? I dont know, nor does anyone else.
Scientists point to this or that, with some of them being on the disaster side and some on the "cant do shit about it" side.
Politics have muddied the waters to the detriment of the argument, IMO. We see the (Western) governments of the world embracing this self-guilt, not on its science, but on its political vehicle capacity.
I mean, what politician wants to look soft on crime, drugs, education and now the new, cool thing, the environment/global warming?
So, to be honest, anything a politician or Congress thinks about the issue is of no importance to me whatsoever. Its a method to garner votes, not effect change.
The actual impact the industrialized world has on the climate of Earth is strictly debatable, with no mountain of proof on the contending side that implicitly states that humans are the direct reason the Earth's climate is warming at some undetermined (but apparently accelarated) rate.
The burden of proof lies with the global warmers, not society at large.
My response continues below...
Now that I fully agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
Not once did I say we should abandon alternative energy research. I am a big proponent of renewable energy technology. It onyl makes sense, in the here-and-now and the long run, that our power be derived from some other source than fossil fuels.
Not because fossil fuels are finite or damaging to the world at large, but because the economic viability of coal and oil will soon outpace our ability to afford it.
If our infrastructure isnt heavily modified for the oncoming train of reality of oil supply and pricing, then we deserve our collective fate.
I fancy myself an outdoorsman. Not to CC's extreme (although, I am envious) or even CH's (dude has hiked about everywhere, it seems), but I love open land, abundant wildlife and clean bodies of water. I care and adhore my environment, especially here in Michigan where there is so much to see and enjoy.
But I am also a realist who knows government fear tactics are a sure fire reason to be extremely skeptical. Especially when "time is of the essence" on matters that, scientifically, are measured in geological terms (that is eons). There is no hurry to restrict our carbon lifestyle on the doomsday proclomations of a complicit government run by special interest groups who make money and investment on the ideas they push as facts.
To wit, lets pretend for a moment that the entire Western world all got on the same page as it pertains to global warming. All the restrictions, cap+trade, government subsidy, tax increases on fossil fuels (that are passed on to consumers, not companies, your cost of living goes up), the works...
Its a double edged sword that works to cut two ways.
1. It gives governments a new and adjustable revenue stream based on carbon output at both the supplier level and the consumer level. Its a double dip that, depending on the fear of the day, can be increased or decreased as necessary. Seeing as the governments of the world control how many "credits" are put into the market, they then make money on the taxes of each credit transaction. A triple dip. Brilliant piece that is.
2. Most importantly, it restricts trade with countries who are not compliant. For instance, India. A highly educated and native English speaking country that is woefully underdeveloped and is only recently taking massive steps to industrialize their nation. Basically, a big, giant hungry competitor who hasnt lived the sweet life for the past century and still knows what the word "work" actually means, unlike the sedentary Westerners who think piloting a desk all day qualifies as "productive work". Ah! But if they want to do business with the largest consumer market-sphere the planet has ever seen, they must restrict their carbon output, severly hindering their needed industrialization process to actually compete with the monopolizers. Long story short, they either accept their "environmental ultimatum" and be happy to only be the outsource location of service calls and engineers to the Western world and let their people rot on the vine or worse, emigrate out of the country. Or they cut their nose off to spite their face and tell the largest consumer markets in the world to "Fuck off". Either way, the West wins.
Which is, IMO, exactly what this entire political debate is about. The big fish are flailing in their own debt and new monetary streams are needed to flesh their budgets out (cap+trade and new taxes on everyone that consumes fossil fuels) with the added benefit of elbowing out the upstarts from playing at the big table. They sell it as a means to ween Westerners off of fossil fuel when everyone of them and us know that isnt even possible.
My question is, what climate impact are we trying to avert that requires quick action on our behalf? What coming paradox could even be avoided if the whole world shut down tomorrow?
I tend to believe nothing at all. Whats done is done and whats to come is to come. The Earth has laid the evidence at our feet that it goes through fits every now and again. It has shown to be extremely cold and extremely warm while nary a human was still in some primordial soup heating up on the gaseous output of a warm planet.
I find it extremely off-putting that so many see their existence germane to the discussion of Earth's cycle of processes. It could be a shift toward or away from the galactic center, a change in pitch of our solar orbit, a weakening of our magnetic fields that allow too much of our Sun's cosmis radiation through...or it could be about the time Earth hits menapause for the umpteenth time in its very long existence.
I prefer to think of climate change and our environment on economic viability terms. Being a more self-sufficent society, especially as it pertains to energy, is of extreme importance because the future is not bright for fossil fuel output and consumption. I think our government should definitely give giant tax breaks to renewable energy companies that are bringing new and more efficent products to market and the consumer will readily decide that unhooking themselves from the "Grid" is far more economical than the status quo. The consumer should then see a tax break for switching to more equitable and efficent energy mode.
I dont think government should be out soliciting guilt on the populace for a problem that may or may not even exist. Government should not be creating a new credit system for corporations to ration at market while controlling the supply and hurting their populace. Private citizens and organizations can do what they wish with their time, if its to spread propaganda and guilt or the saving of souls for the finite spots in the after-life, its a free country. But government should have no hand or say in the matter beyond the benefits a self-reliable nation of renewable energy allows.
I see global warming in the same light as terrorism, crime and drugs...the country always needs its "War on Something" to spread the fear and garner votes. It has all the vanilla appeal of all the other War on's...to be against it is to be a buffoon. Who doesnt want less crime? Or less terrorism? Or less drugs? Or less global warming?
But it also has the same exact underlying problems, too. Global warming is an abstract noun without a means to directly influence it. The less time my government and its people spend their money and time on abstract problems with no quantifiable solution that doesnt entail the degradation of our laws, our cost of living and our way of life, the better.
Well humans better find a way to make it so, or else we're all screwed if the Earth decides to get a bit warmer or a bit colder.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
If the Earth decides it's ready for another Ice Age, we can't do squat about it.
I guess we'd all be encouraged to burn more fossil fuel.
Probably. Or build some bunkers with generators and stock up on canned foods.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
another ice age should not be the standard for us to judge an ecological crisis by and, if that is the extreme measure we want to wantonly reference in order to justify environmental misconduct, then let's just adapt nihilism as the modern day maxim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
Or, perhaps enviro-catastrophists should recognize that much of our recent warming is from our recovering from the last "little" ice age?
if you want to connect my comment to some large set that has no defined characteristics so be it, but my comments on environmental regulation were not at all connected to current global warming theories (which i do not subscribe to by the way). if you want to make that connection then that is about as spot on as your understanding of homeostasis.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
That's right. Hard to compete with natural celestial forces:Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
http://www.stuffintheair.com/images/...g-21199090.jpg
http://www.mb-soft.com/public3/earthec0.gif
As the eccentricity gets smaller, the average annual solar radiation increases.