This seems to sum up the OT US-EU debate quite well

Originally posted by NY Hoya
Yes, it's all a matter of perspective. You can at least understand my point if not going so far as to agree with it, correct?
Of course. From a conservative position and under the assumption that there's no climate problem (or at least nothing that couldn't be solved by self regulation) it makes perfect sense.
What I contest is not the position (that's your opinion) but the assumption (that may be a fact), although that of course also comes down to a certain degree of trust in science. For me it's just too much risk.
I guess due to the view that if we continue down our current path, disaster is inevitable.
That's pessimism. Fatalism would be a thinking like "it's this way and there's nothing we can do about it".
Well, you really can't compare the 60's to anything else.;) I think the 60's were more about sex and drugs than the protests that brought the people together.
Not in Europe, at least not in Germany and France. For some (or many) it may have been that way, but more young people than ever though they have to change things (not that most of them had a clue about how).
Outside of anti-communism protests, I'm unaware of social protests in Europe during the early 80's on a scale approximating the protests of today. If there were, that would certainly hurt my point.
Can speak for West Germany here. Mass protests against nuclear power (Brokdorf etc.) as well as NATO policies and American misslies on German grounds.
 
West Germany should have sent them to the GDR: here's your socialist paradise..and if you don't like it:

Hail, hail East Germany,
Land of vine and grape,
Land where you'll regret,
Any try to escape,
No matter if you tunnel under,
Or take a running jump at the wall,
Forget it, the guards will kill you,
If the electric fence doesn't first.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
West Germany should have sent them to the GDR
You mean because they expressed their Democratic opinion and that state was called the German Democratic Republic?
Well sorry that I have to tell you, but the GDR wasn't really democratic. :p
 
Originally posted by Hitro
Of course. From a conservative position and under the assumption that there's no climate problem (or at least nothing that couldn't be solved by self regulation) it makes perfect sense.
What I contest is not the position (that's your opinion) but the assumption (that may be a fact), although that of course also comes down to a certain degree of trust in science. For me it's just too much risk.

If there were not a sizable number of scientists that disagreed with the position I would agree with you that man made climate change is an enormous problem. It would also help if the past computer generated models environmentalists use to justify measures like Kyoto were more accurate at predicting climate change. None of this would change my position that there are better (more "conservative") ways to deal with things than Kyoto.

Originally posted by Hitro
That's pessimism. Fatalism would be a thinking like "it's this way and there's nothing we can do about it".

It is fatalism in the same sense that you called my views fatalistic. It's this way and there is nothing the current system can do to change things vs. the system is this way and will come up with ways to change things on its own. Neither is fatalism in the broader sense of the word. You seem to have a fatalistic view of capitalism- that a negative impact is predetermined and inevitable.

Originally posted by Hitro
Not in Europe, at least not in Germany and France. For some (or many) it may have been that way, but more young people than ever though they have to change things (not that most of them had a clue about how).

Many of the people here would say the same thing. I think they are deluding themselves. The former leaders of these movements are those who maintain the idealized version, most others have moved on to become normal citizens. I believe the movements in both the U.S. and Europe were closely related, so there is an assumption on my part.

Originally posted by Hitro
Can speak for West Germany here. Mass protests against nuclear power (Brokdorf etc.) as well as NATO policies and American misslies on German grounds.

Ok, point taken.

In general, it still seems like many of the issues that were once fringe left are somewhat more mainstream.
 
Originally posted by NY Hoya
If there were not a sizable number of scientists that disagreed with the position I would agree with you that man made climate change is an enormous problem.
Well you'll have to see that there will always be a sizeable number of scientists that approve the industry's claims, whatever these claims are, for simple monetary reasons. ;)
However, if you believe in the honesty of men you'll certainly not see that.
Many of the people here would say the same thing. I think they are deluding themselves. The former leaders of these movements are those who maintain the idealized version, most others have moved on to become normal citizens. I believe the movements in both the U.S. and Europe were closely related, so there is an assumption on my part.
You may be right, but I think the European movement was far more radical (more left) than the American. After all the European movement also (of course not only) lead to various terrorist movements.
But to come back to the original question, I think both were definately closer to a mass movement that those of today.
In general, it still seems like many of the issues that were once fringe left are somewhat more mainstream.
:lol:
Damn it! :mad: :D
How do you still justify that?
 
Originally posted by Padma
Thanks, Joe. :goodjob:

I spent 23 years wearing the uniform of our country, and still serve it in other ways.

No. Thank you! :)

I should have stayed in, I would be retiring 8 years from now. :hammer: :lol:
 
Amazing how the REAL Americans and Europeans can debate ever so much better :goodjob: to both of you, enjoyed reading this.
 
I think it was Ali G that said that with the current greenhouse effect, in 30 years, England would have the climate of Ibiza. The UK have signed kyoto, haven't they? Why would they do this??
 
Originally posted by bobgote
I think it was Ali G that said that with the current greenhouse effect, in 30 years, England would have the climate of Ibiza. The UK have signed kyoto, haven't they? Why would they do this??
actually....the gulf stream will see it's course changed by the melting ice caps (or summin) and Britain will become like siberia.
 
Originally posted by ComradeDavo

actually....the gulf stream will see it's course changed by the melting ice caps (or summin) and Britain will become like siberia.

I don't think either of those is a certainty, and even those that are predicting the most severe climate change aren't certain what will happen. They figure it will be bad, but they don't know exactly how.

I have heard that theory, and as part of it is the concept that it will make all of Europe cold, perhaps starting another Ice age as ice caps expand and more energy is reflected out into space.
 
Originally posted by knowltok2


I don't think either of those is a certainty, and even those that are predicting the most severe climate change aren't certain what will happen. They figure it will be bad, but they don't know exactly how.

I have heard that theory, and as part of it is the concept that it will make all of Europe cold, perhaps starting another Ice age as ice caps expand and more energy is reflected out into space.
Fair enough, but personally I don't wanna wait and see how bad it gets!
 
Originally posted by ComradeDavo

Fair enough, but personally I don't wanna wait and see how bad it gets!

Also fair enough. Though you personally will have less to worry about if you do that move to Cuba. I suspect that it will still be warm there regardless.
 
Originally posted by knowltok2


Also fair enough. Though you personally will have less to worry about if you do that move to Cuba. I suspect that it will still be warm there regardless.
:lol::lol::lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom