|
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 |
thomas pars
Joined: 29 Jan 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
 Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 5:53 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I don't know what to say. This in a nutshell is why I hate American politics. On her graphic on the Acorn scandal they show a government doc that reads something like, ACORN has a litany of problems, but nothing illegal took place. What kind of a talk show host takes "litany of problems" and acts like a bad thing if that program is shut down? For the OP, do you think that people should have to pay taxes to an organization that has a litany of problems? What is Rachel Maddow thinking? If you have an organization that promotes itself as helping the poor, wouldn't it actually be nice if it did that? Or because it is on the same "side" that you are you should give it a pass.
As far as climate gate goes, I am also astonished at her position. It seems clear that some scientists took a real phenomeon, global warming, and used it as way to get money and publicity. The guy in charge did not even keep his data. Its just one more fraud in an ocean of them. But feel free to ignore them, as they are on the same side as you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| As far as climate gate goes, I am also astonished at her position. It seems clear that some scientists took a real phenomeon, global warming, and used it as way to get money and publicity. The guy in charge did not even keep his data. Its just one more fraud in an ocean of them. But feel free to ignore them, as they are on the same side as you. |
Wait, Climategate has been debunked? And no one posted about it? Where's Axiom? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't think it has been debunked. Everyone is still arguing as to what the leaked emails mean. To me its clear that Phil Jones et al were pretty shifty. However, Mann was exonerated in an some sort of an investigation, and various academic organizations have done the same for the ipcc, despite all the weird Indian glacier claims. The water is so muddy it is hard to say whats going on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| What kind of a talk show host takes "litany of problems" and acts like a bad thing if that program is shut down? For the OP, do you think that people should have to pay taxes to an organization that has a litany of problems? |
The military has a litany of problems. Far, far more problems than ACORN. Time to defund it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| What kind of a talk show host takes "litany of problems" and acts like a bad thing if that program is shut down? For the OP, do you think that people should have to pay taxes to an organization that has a litany of problems? |
The military has a litany of problems. Far, far more problems than ACORN. Time to defund it? |
Couldn't hurt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kabrams
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Location: your Dad's house
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As far as climate gate goes, I am also astonished at her position. It seems clear that some scientists took a real phenomeon, global warming, and used it as way to get money and publicity. The guy in charge did not even keep his data. Its just one more fraud in an ocean of them. But feel free to ignore them, as they are on the same side as you. |
Have you actually read the emails? I mean ALL of the emails, in order? Take note of the dates, the RE: and the actual "changes" made by a few scientists.
I have read as much as I can, and my impression of the situation has changed. It's not easy reading and will take some time, but it's better than simply reading excerpts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| What kind of a talk show host takes "litany of problems" and acts like a bad thing if that program is shut down? For the OP, do you think that people should have to pay taxes to an organization that has a litany of problems? |
The military has a litany of problems. Far, far more problems than ACORN. Time to defund it? |
The United States has a litany of of problems. Time to abolish it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox,
Actually I think the military (and political class that uses it) does need a reduction of funding at the very least.
JayKimf,
I think the comparison between a country and a government organization is silly. People and ideals make a country, and problems in a country are usually solved by addressing problems in management, ie the political and beauracratic establishment. Thats what occured here. An organization was doing a poor job of accomplishing its mission, and a democratic congress defunded it. It doesn't seem revolutionary. As far as abolishing it, if the majority of the people of America ever decide they want to, they can abolish it, or change it, or do most anything they want. Yes, yes, I know about the civil war, but I dont think secession is an apt comparison, as although it featured states rights, the right they were talking about was slavery, which changes things a bit.
Kabrams,
As you suggested I only read excerpts, but those were sketchy enough to convince me that the scientists involved didn't seem interested skeptical observation to determine whats going on, but to win an argument. If I spent more time and read the emails further, do you believe I would change my opinion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thomas pars
Joined: 29 Jan 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why is the right so angry about global warming?
I really can't figure it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thomas pars wrote: |
Why is the right so angry about global warming?
I really can't figure it out. |
Because, if anthropogenic global warming genuinely exists, it's a problem that can only realistically be solved through governmental intervention in the market place. Corporations will ultimately follow profit, regardless of the impact it has on the world. Destabilizing countries, profitting off of warfare, selling products they know are harmful; corporations do all these things without balking, so long as there's money involved. They can't help but do these things if there's money involved; if they refuse, another corporation will simply do it in their place. Only well planned, well implemented governmental intervention could solve such a problem (as an aside, Cap and Trade is not an example of such intervention).
In short, if real (and I myself remain uncertain of whether or not it is), AGW completely destroys the right-wing world view. Corporations become a dangerous liability willing to devestate the world in pursuit of profit, and government becomes the only solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thomas pars wrote: |
Why is the right so angry about global warming?
I really can't figure it out. |
Why is the left so angry about skepticism towards AGW? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| thomas pars wrote: |
Why is the right so angry about global warming?
I really can't figure it out. |
Because, if anthropogenic global warming genuinely exists, it's a problem that can only realistically be solved through governmental intervention in the market place. Corporations will ultimately follow profit, regardless of the impact it has on the world. Destabilizing countries, profitting off of warfare, selling products they know are harmful; corporations do all these things without balking, so long as there's money involved. They can't help but do these things if there's money involved; if they refuse, another corporation will simply do it in their place. Only well planned, well implemented governmental intervention could solve such a problem (as an aside, Cap and Trade is not an example of such intervention).
In short, if real (and I myself remain uncertain of whether or not it is), AGW completely destroys the right-wing world view. Corporations become a dangerous liability willing to devestate the world in pursuit of profit, and government becomes the only solution. |
Garbage
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae5_2_1.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thomas pars wrote: |
Why is the right so angry about global warming?
I really can't figure it out. |
The right is angry about global warming because it is transparently socialist sanctimony but with the superficially valuable and pleasing appearance of science.
| Quote: |
Michael Mann�s �hockey stick graph� was constructed with computers (�garbage in, garbage out�) to �prove� that a wonderfully steady climate prevailed over the world for nearly a thousand years and then suddenly, in the twentieth century, Modern Industrial Man with his disgraceful appetite for material things that make his life longer, pleasanter and easier, started polluting the air and water and earth with disgusting �emissions� that heated the planet, which is now set to become so hot that � Oh, all sorts of dire consequences will follow. And drastic, impoverishing remedies must be hastily applied world-wide by diktat. The population of the world must shrink, so have no children and die early. If you insist on surviving, go back to living hand to mouth like your primitive ancestors.
Yes, it would be a far better, though probably harder, aim for the citizens of democracies to lower the level of stupidity in their governments, rather than the temperature of the earth.
http://www.theatheistconservative.com/2010/05/10/cooling-it/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| thomas pars wrote: |
Why is the right so angry about global warming?
I really can't figure it out. |
Because, if anthropogenic global warming genuinely exists, it's a problem that can only realistically be solved through governmental intervention in the market place. Corporations will ultimately follow profit, regardless of the impact it has on the world. Destabilizing countries, profitting off of warfare, selling products they know are harmful; corporations do all these things without balking, so long as there's money involved. They can't help but do these things if there's money involved; if they refuse, another corporation will simply do it in their place. Only well planned, well implemented governmental intervention could solve such a problem (as an aside, Cap and Trade is not an example of such intervention).
In short, if real (and I myself remain uncertain of whether or not it is), AGW completely destroys the right-wing world view. Corporations become a dangerous liability willing to devestate the world in pursuit of profit, and government becomes the only solution. |
Garbage
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae5_2_1.pdf |
| Quote: |
And so too should it be in the case of any alleged environmental damage. If an individual, or an individual business enterprise, is incapable by himself of causing global warming or ozone depletion, or whatever, on a scale sufficient to cause harm to any other specific individual or individuals, then there is absolutely no proper basis on the individualistic philosophy of Mises for prohibiting his action.
The individual should not be punished for consequences that can occur
only as the result of the actions of the broader category or group of which he is a member, but that do not occur as the result of his own actions. Thus, even if it is true that the combined effect of the actions of several billion people really is to cause global warming or ozone depletion (neither of these claims has actually been proven�the claims of global warming have all the certainty of a weather forecast, extended out to the next 100 years!), but even if, as I say, the claims were true, it still would not follow that any proper basis existed for prohibiting any specific individual or individuals from acting in ways that, only when aggregated across billions of individuals, resulted in global warming or ozone depletion or whatever.
If global warming or ozone depletion or whatever really are consequences of the actions of the human race considered collectively, but not of the actions of any given individual, including any given individual private business firm, then the proper way to regard them is as the equivalent of acts of nature. Not being caused by the actions of individual human beings, they are equivalent to actions not morally caused by human beings at all, that is to say, to acts of nature. |
This kind of thinking reinforces my point rather than detracting from it. If AGW were really the case, people engaging in unlimited capitalism would continue to blunder along destructively, using inane and obviously invalid justifications like this to continue defending their actions until it resulted in real harm. Private enterprise simply can't help itself; even if an individual business sees their actions are contributing to harm and limits themselves, another will step up and continue where it left off. So long as there's profits to be made, people -- unrestrained by the law -- will do what it takes to acquire them, even if it means others coming to harm.
As such, there are only two responses possible for the true believer of your faith. One of them is the baseless optimism approach: hey, it'll all work out, because humans are creative! The other is angry denial: AGW is simply not true, period! The poster in question was asking about the people in the second category.
It's fine to be a skeptic on this topic. Skepticism is good. Anyone who goes beyond skepticism, however, is doing so for reasons of ideology, nothing more. |
|
| 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
