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 . Human civilization does give a .
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.
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...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?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 outside right now, old man!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?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.
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.
That's bull . 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.
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 because it is cheap. so we waste and waste, hoping that alternatives will bail us out.
#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?
do you understand the concept of private enforcement?
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 cons utional ideals, the rights of citizens would quickly impede the corporate capitalist machine. Is that authoritarian WC? or just upholding the cons ution?
It already exists. It doesn't need to be written in.
Where you are wrong is that they are not mutually exclusive, and you want to regulate against others because you think they are.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
