|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 9:05 pm Post subject: what kind of state will be required? |
 |
|
Fodder for those of us who think the climate change obsession is a cover for total government:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/17/expenses-mps-bankers-climate-change
| Quote: |
This is the kind of politics no mainstream politician dares address. It requires abandoning a half-century of political assumptions: your children will not be better off than you � in fact, in many significant material ways they will be worse off; car use will have to be dramatically curtailed, as will flights; working hours will have to be reordered to share employment; foreign holidays will be rarer; cheap food, a thing of the past. And along with these unpalatable home truths will be the need for intervention in the minutiae of people's lives: how much you heat your home or use water; how you move and eat.
The role of state intervention will be huge; people's choices will have to be "edited", admits Anthony Giddens in his recent book, The Politics of Climate Change. Leaving individuals to find the moral strength to resist the cultural pressures will simply not be effective (the MPs' expenses saga would seem to justify this conclusion). Our lives will have to be regulated in ways that we can't imagine. Consumer advertising will have to be curbed to prevent it exploiting insecurity and anxiety to create new markets. The fact that the Australian government has banned all light bulbs that are not low energy is a glimpse of what is required.
What will be difficult is the governance of these changes: what kind of state will be required to push these changes through and what powers will it need to do so? |
A totalitarian one as aggressive and militant as Mao's China or Stalin's USSR.
Continuing on:
| Quote: |
Crucially, how will we weigh the loss of personal freedoms against the hope of survival of human beings?
...
Equally difficult will be the massive cultural revolution required to reorient a set of values |
Another time, another year zero obsession. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So the idea is that all the science is wrong because the only moral prescription is complete totalitarianism?
*shakes head* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Even absent government attempts to mitigate it, climate change will force changes in lifestyles by itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
So the idea is that all the science is wrong because the only moral prescription is complete totalitarianism?
*shakes head* |
He is not saying the science is wrong, but rather that governments will use this pretext as another power grab to micromanage our lives instead of only doing the macro things like getting us off all fossil fuels as quickly as practicable. I highly doubt that mises is denying that ice chunks the size of US states have fallen off Antarctica.
mises, how do you deal with the "conspiracy theorist" epithet when it is hurled at you, and which no doubt Kuros is getting ready to do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Meh. There is a whole hell of a lot of dissent by scientists on this issue.
The science relies on huge quantitative models, and like financial models, the climate models, are only as good as the assumptions and historical length/depth of data used. One example is the so-called hockey stick, which is only such if you carefully edit the data to create the shape you want, which is exactly what they did. Not all that different to LTCM, who made sure that their financial models didn't include the last bout of volatility.
I don't trust it. I don't trust the group think. I don't trust the dogmatic ideologues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So you are denying the state-size chunks of Antarctica falling off? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're referring to the the Wilkins Ice Shelf, right? The sea water portion is 1500 years old and the glacier fed portion is 300 years old.
Glaciers expand and contract over time. It has always been this way. And frankly, 300/1500 years isn't at all a long period of time for nature. It is entirely normal for these to melt and then form and then melt and then form. There is not established time line for what is a normal cycle of expansion and contraction and the climate doesn't not function with clean maths.
Did you know that virtually all planets in our solar system are experiencing warming?
Anyways, it appears we're entering a cooling period from decreased solar activity.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS271US271&q=solar+activity+%22global+cooling%22&btnG=Search
Climate alarmism, given the huge -earth sized- holes in our understanding of how the climate functions, is strongly suggestive of top-down group think. The models do not work.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BS.Dos.
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The science relies on huge quantitative models, and like financial models, the climate models, are only as good as the assumptions and historical length/depth of data used. |
| mises wrote: |
| Did you know that virtually all planets in our solar system are experiencing warming? |
So, models that suggest climate change on Earth should be discounted because other models tells us the solar system is getting warmer? C'mon mises, that's a blatant contradiction. If you're going to invalidate one on the grounds that it's based on assumptions or because of dubious data, then it follows that we should be equally dubious of the other. Maybe that was your point. It just seems, and for whatever reason, that you subscribe to one and not the other.
I've neither the desire or interest to participate in a protracted argument over whether climate change actually exists or not, especially one which is circumscribed within a conspiratory credo. I think there are plenty of other valid reasons to be concerned about the environment and our behaviour within it aside from rising CO2 levels.
That aside, I thought the political implications in Bunting's article were very thought provoking, especially when she asks "how will we weigh the loss of personal freedoms against the hope of survival of human beings?". I think here, it's valid to raise the question as to what ultimately is of greater value to us; our deeply entrenched liberal values that enables us to make autonomous choices, irrespective of the wider consequences or, the environment. If it is indeed the latter, then the question is just how much of the former would we be prepared to surrender? If it's the former, then maybe, and as someone else has pointed out, we should carry on regardless and hope it sorts itself out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
So the idea is that all the science is wrong because the only moral prescription is complete totalitarianism?
*shakes head* |
He is not saying the science is wrong, but rather that governments will use this pretext as another power grab to micromanage our lives instead of only doing the macro things like getting us off all fossil fuels as quickly as practicable. |
That's ridiculous! You think the power companies and transportation industries are completely defenseless? You think Americans are going to allow their precious suburban dream to be ruined by something as amorphous as climate change?
The politicians are going to look for the easiest way out: developing technology that eliminates/mitigates the harm of greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, some sacrifices will be made. But small changes, such as changing over to flourescent lightbulbs, can make a significant difference over a whole society.
Anyway, I look forward to bantering with you two about this issue. Here I stand firmly aligned with Obama (okay, reasonably allied with him).
| mises1 wrote: |
| Meh. There is a whole hell of a lot of dissent by scientists on this issue. |
| mises2 wrote: |
| I don't trust it. I don't trust the group think. I don't trust the dogmatic ideologues. |
So which is it? Mises1 or Mises2? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So, models that suggest climate change on Earth should be discounted because other models tells us the solar system is getting warmer? C'mon mises, that's a blatant contradiction. |
The contraction isn't from me. My point is that we do not sufficiently understand how the climate operates.
| Quote: |
| If you're going to invalidate one on the grounds that it's based on assumptions or because of dubious data, then it follows that we should be equally dubious of the other. Maybe that was your point. |
It is my point.
| Quote: |
| It just seems, and for whatever reason, that you subscribe to one and not the other. |
I subscribe to the "we don't know" position.
| Quote: |
| I think there are plenty of other valid reasons to be concerned about the environment and our behaviour within it aside from rising CO2 levels. |
I strongly agree. It is possible to support environmental regulations and not accept the standard global warming theory. Just as it is possible to be religious and not accept that Christ is a god or possible for a dolphin to be a mammal but not all mammals to be dolphins. Etc.
| Quote: |
| That aside, I thought the political implications in Bunting's article were very thought provoking, especially when she asks "how will we weigh the loss of personal freedoms against the hope of survival of human beings?". I think here, it's valid to raise the question as to what ultimately is of greater value to us; our deeply entrenched liberal values that enables us to make autonomous choices, irrespective of the wider consequences or, the environment. If it's the latter, then how much of the former would we be prepared to surrender? |
She is demanding a "cultural revolution" and for the state to control the entirety of the economy for the benefit of a particular set of assumptions about the climate, assumptions I believe to be hysterical. I am perfectly comfortable with reasonable regulation -like Obama's moves on fuel economy- but the hysteria over climate change will produce hysterical policy from hysterical individuals, like the one who wrote the Guardian piece.
mises1 wrote:
| Quote: |
| Meh. There is a whole hell of a lot of dissent by scientists on this issue. |
mises2 wrote:
| Quote: |
| I don't trust it. I don't trust the group think. I don't trust the dogmatic ideologues. |
Why must those be from different perspectives? It isn't as if the discussion has stopped and all opinions merged, but the issue is certainly presented as if that is the case. Sure, all the sociologists and lefty op-ed writers agree, but the actual scientists don't.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The fact that the Australian government has banned all light bulbs that are not low energy is a glimpse of what is required.
|
This is an example of totalitarianism? Really?
Population growth + resource scarcity alone indicate lifestyles are going to have to change, even without adding environmental degradation into the equation. Quality of life will not continue to be defined in purely material terms.
I'm going to do one of the old man things: When I was a kid (yeah, yeah, I know), one of the big issues was what were we going to do with all the free time we would all have when we got to our 40's and 50's. It didn't turn out that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BS.Dos.
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Check out Blue Gold - World Water Wars. I think this could seriously put the Global Warming issue on the back burner over the coming years. I know environmental documentaries are ten a penny atm, but this really is a shocking eye opener.
It's not been posted on Youtube etc yet, but the maker of the movie has apparently given the okay for it to be downloaded, so you wouldn't be doing anything illegal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Good grief. I'm an absolutely frothing-at-the-mouth, Daily Mail-reading Tory and even I believe in global warming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.
The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.
Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.
This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.
Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A totalitarian one as aggressive and militant as Mao's China or Stalin's USSR. |
So people will be sent to labor camps and hung by their thumbs?
| Quote: |
| The science relies on huge quantitative models, and like financial models, the climate models, are only as good as the assumptions and historical length/depth of data used. |
Good on ya. So why, after offering all the financial analysis you do, would you fall back on crap like this:
| Quote: |
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. |
Numbers are meaningless. It's about proportion.
| Quote: |
| One example is the so-called hockey stick, which is only such if you carefully edit the data to create the shape you want, which is exactly what they did. Not all that different to LTCM, who made sure that their financial models didn't include the last bout of volatility. |
Party foul. Not done the research on the hockey stick.
| Quote: |
| I subscribe to the "we don't know" position. |
Sounds a lot like Itaewonguy's position on evolution.
| Quote: |
| Climate alarmism, given the huge -earth sized- holes in our understanding of how the climate functions, |
If you don't know, then how do you know there are "earth-sized holes".
LOL. The Senate Minority Report? From 2008?
I understand you're Canadian, but do you understand who the US senate minority at the time was?
It was the Republicans. Submitting GOP-sponsored assessment of climate change while railing against group-think and ideology indicates earth-sized lapses in your judgment.
| Quote: |
Did you know that virtually all planets in our solar system are experiencing warming?
|
And you think space research is a waste.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
