sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
Finally a reasonable, concise and credible affirmation of my understanding that the global warming bandwagon is the biggest boondoggle of our time.
Thank you Ainwood.
~Chris
Thank you Ainwood.
~Chris
linky: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdfPreviously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
How does asking people to fix a free market problem equate to socialism?
If anything, global warming concerns are part of the libertarian agenda.
fixing this "free market program" includes significant backsteps in comfort and productivity.
Chris, you're pretty good at explaining things, so maybe you can 'babystep' me through your thinking. I don't see how getting polluters to pay others to not pollute (in order to maintain a sustainable level of pollution) is socialist. Given that there's only so much sequestering biomass available (at any given time, like any other resource, it should grow with the market), it makes sense (to me) to make it into a market.
See, so does any other attempt to capture an externality. I just don't get it. While curbing CO2 will obviously hinder short-term economic growth, it certainly won't stop it. I mean, can you compare this CO2 issue to the acid rain issue, and explain to me how efforts to curb acid rain was (by its nature) socialist?
WI think it really boils down to control. Toronto has just banned the incadecent light bulb for example. This is where I disagree that global warming is a libertarian issue.
I can see your point here. I would counter by saying that the issues of global warming prevention is something being dealt with at the governmental level, not the individual level (of course individuals will be involved). This means that for Canada to meet its treaty obligations with other countries, the country will have to make changes internally so that our externalities are being reduced or paid for. Clearly banning the incandecest bulb is a 'reduction' type move.
However, merely banning behaviour does not preclude the idea that it's a libertarian issue. Ideally, we'd charge people for the damages they do when they punch each other (for example), but there is no really good system to set up such a payback (we can agree that the civil assault lawsuit is an attempt, but it is lacking). For this reason we have also banned the activity of 'punching each other without consent'. Is this anti-libertarian? Kinda. But not fully.
So, banning the bulb (which, actually, I think is merely being discussed in Toronto, and maybe Austrailia) restricts personal freedoms, but it also brings the country in line with the country restricting its externalities.
And, without a doubt, factoring in externalities is a very, very imporant part of the libertarian mindset.
You also make good points, but I fear more the coming "reduction type moves". I venture that in coming years if this global warming train continues there will be more to go: big cars, coal fired power plants, green grass golf courses here in Arizona, synthetic rubber tires (or tyres, whatever)...this list can and will grow.
My gut tells me that the sun rotates around the earth, I've learned to discount my gut on some topics though it pains me. As Nitsche said (paraphrasing) in all desire to know there is a bit of pain.
Also if we take the IPCC report as an example (in their mittigation section) not all AGW (anthropogenic greenhouse warming) types want to shut down industrial society. As I understand it AGW was a main topic in a recent economic forum by the EU, again they certainly don't want to shut down industrial society.
Edit: Oh and most economists have heard of the 'tragedy of the commons'
I guess you're answering for immortal1: I was mostly wondering how wanting to factor in the damages (economically) was 'socialist'.
I can't really argue that the science is not 'in'. I think it's been in for quite awhile. To me, the science part of the debate is reminiscent of the evolution debate.
We'll have a choice to either ban them, or get people to pay a fair (not subsidised) value for these products. Personally, I'd choose the second option.
We all know that universal acceptance of global warming as being man made is a socialists wet dream. Environmentalism has always been a lynch pin for the modern socialist movement.
Here's the circle we're going to go around. Since neither you nor I are socialist (I assume), I cannot really see how it is socialist to take steps to preserve the environment and I don't know if a non-socialist can explain it to me. I guess I might be defensive that my views have been lumped in with the commies.![]()