Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Biggest offender? How is that different from being the biggest polluter?

Even if China doesn't employ much environmental standards it's pretty telling that they have only recently caught up with the US in terms of absolute figures despite having 4 + times the population.

Plus, it's the US corporations that have moved their factories into places like China where there are lax environmental codes just so they can cut costs and also to ignore worker rights.

Nice twist with the last sentence. This is not about worker rights. Back to what you stated. US is biggest polluter/offender/a-holes...please do not throw that out there without some supporting documentation or links.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Nice twist with the last sentence. This is not about worker rights.

Oh yea that's right because pollution has no effect on workers. You're absolutely right there.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Oh yea that's right because pollution has no effect on workers. You're absolutely right there.

Changing subjects to a coverall statement Come on OTH, you debate better than that! Workers rights was not in question nor in the conversation. Just a blanket OTH statement concerning pollution and the US as the number one polluter.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Changing subjects to a coverall statement Come on OTH, you debate better than that! Workers rights was not in question nor in the conversation. Just a blanket OTH statement concerning pollution and the US as the number one polluter.

Pollution has no borders and it doesn't acknowledge class distinctions. However it seems that people lower down the social ladder feel the brunt of the ill effects of pollution.

[Skybird]

I do not really understand why clima sceptics are even discussing here, just because of the Kopenhagen conference is taking place. It is very clear that Kopenhagen is not about trying to do as much as possible, not to mention: to do as much as is needed. Kopenhagen is about how to get away with having done as little as possible. Kopenhagen is an alibi event. If I were a member of the sceptics' band, i already would be happy and celebrate.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I do not really understand why clima sceptics are even discussing here, just because of the Kopenhagen conference is taking place. It is very clear that Kopenhagen is not about trying to do as much as possible, not to mention: to do as much as is needed. Kopenhagen is about how to get away with having done as little as possible. Kopenhagen is an alibi event. If I were a member of the sceptics' band, i already would be happy and celebrate.

Why would we be celebrating? We see the whole thing as a waste of time, money, and the progress that could be achieved with those things.

Are you suggesting that just because we have not wasted the amount of time and money that we could have on climate change agendas that we should be happy? A money pit is a money pit, no matter how much money is thrown into it. You might as well say that we should be pleased with spending $5,000 instead of $10,000 on a car insurance policy for a car we do not and may never have.

What you do not see, Sky, is the potential of all that capital. The resources that could have been used and the jobs that the associated industries could have created with that capital are now gone. That portion of economic production has been sucked into a political black hole that will never yield anything beneficial. Rather than alowing those monies to fuel commercial progress, we have chosen to steal and then waste them on political nonsense and the special interests that govern that nonsense.

We can crunch the numbers if you like, but I think that you already know that the money spent on climate whatever-happens-to-be-the-popular-term has not yielded satisfactory results. Emissions reductions in participating countries can't even keep pace with worldwide population growth rates, to say nothing of the increasing emissions of nations in the process of industrialization.

What would you have us do? Would you impose a global standard on emissions? Would you seek, in any way, to control societal and/or economic development? People do not work that way, my friend. The consequences of such actions would be disastrous. There is simply no way to impose a singular will upon a species of social individuals.

Our best bet as developed nations is to set an example that cannot be ignored. We must embrace free minds and free markets, in order to develop the kind of societal and economic prosperity that leads to lower birth rates and more efficient products. Some nations may follow and others may not, but those that do not will quickly find themselves outclassed and faced with civil unrest, and will soon be begging for the aid of free nations. Even then, we must offer them nothing but trade.

Slowly but surely, all nations will come to realize and implement the benefits of free trade, so long as we treat them with dignity and respect. There will be blood and tears in the process, but at least they will be ultimately accomplishing something, unlike what they have heretofore been practicing.

[Skybird]

Free market, your celebrated ones, are what has polluted out planet, Lance.

Free market'S economies are the pkayers sending lobbyists to manipulate politicians - that kind of manipoulation you blame politicians for.

It's exactly like I said. You see two devils dancing, but one you call a devil, and the other a saint. God may know why you do that, I do not. I think you are too fixiated on ideology in your thinking, and reject realities over it, wanting to have more of the old recipes that have brought us right to where we are. All you get by that is just this: more power to economic tycoons and monopolists. And both are not about free markets, don't be mistaken about that. capitalism is not driven by the desire to form free markets, but is driven by the desire to prevent them, and deny newcomers equal chances at the starting line. This is what means maximum profit, not to allow as many rivals as possible. Monopolism is the most natural - and only real - attractor of capitalism. Your more romanticised image of it only works in small communities where everybody knows everybody else and feel personally related to him, and every member iof the community sees all the community's propserity and possessions dirctly, so that everybody directly sees how anyone's deeds directly influence these ressouces for the worse or the better. Take away these preconditions and you have the ruling of greed and envy and egoism and monopolism. You cannot avoid it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Pollution has no borders and it doesn't acknowledge class distinctions. However it seems that people lower down the social ladder feel the brunt of the ill effects of pollution.

What, folks in the US do not get the ill affects of pollution? Physical wellness knows no boundries either. Economic or otherwise.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

What, folks in the US do not get the ill affects of pollution? Physical wellness knows no boundries either. Economic or otherwise.

Sure they do but as production is being outsourced into the Far-East the brunt of the pollution problems is felt by Far-Eastern societies.

[Respenus]

It primarily about the method and the attitude that you have. No offence, yet most responses that I see from both side (one has to be truthful), is one of the old division between the free market and the "bloody commies" that we Europeans have come to represent. And this is what is irking us the most, the fact that you put everything down on the level of economics. Or on the other hand, on the level of religion, with "Jesus Christ, our only Lord and Saviour". I'm not claiming that this is how the whole of the USA act, yet you're not giving us a better picture, are you? The more Skybird focuses on the issue of the rationalistic method, the more he is attacked for being bias, even though he always presents both sides of the argument. We are not blameless ourselves, yet we do see things from the alternative, non-economic point of view, between GDP and what can be defined as "right".

The USA/Europe argument is the same as the human right/Islam arguments. Both sides use quasi rational methods to support their views. And while neither is correct in doing so, Europe is ready to accept different views and try to solve the difference without too much violent conflict, while Islam is still deeply entrenched in the Quran and the Shari'ah and reason forbid that it should be any different.

I'm finished with this. Since this moment, I'm happily waiting for the Singularity. Whatever it may bring us. It will at least stop the constant bickering about who's stone is stonier and solve the issue for us. With us or without us.

Oh and this.