I don't like throwing the fascism word around. It is so ill-defined that you can apply it to so many different societies, but the word always has a negative connotation.
There are some people here who are rational and intelligent liberals. If you're going to have an intelligent conversation about politics, it is probably best not to even use words like fascism which tend to charge your argument with emotion more than reason.
I watched the video you linked to and they tried to make the argument that the protectionist tendencies of liberals towards markets appears fascist. But what about the protectionist tendencies of conservatives towards social issues such as who you can sleep with (or at least marry?)
The only way you can get complete freedom is libertarianism, and we know that doesn't work: http://www.slate.com/id/2202489/
EDIT: I guess complete freedom is Anarchy... but that's not my main point. The point is fascism as a word is just so misused that it is meaningless.
Ice Age - A few of you would be interested in this
Gracias.MSimon wrote:http://www.eeweek.org/assets/Lynn%20Che ... 0Pages.pdf
It is cyclic. Of course there is the usual caveat - "Global warming could....."
IMO why its been retitled "Climate Change."MSimon wrote:BTW I did a post a while back on this at "Power and Control" where the theory was posited by one group that global warming would make oceans saltier while another group said it would make oceans less salty.
You see - what ever happens or does not happen - global warming is the cause. Very convenient. And it increases the odds of getting grant money. What is not to like?
In an Ice Age? Global Warming did it. The Climate is too hot? Global Warming did it. It is now the Climate theory of everything.
Saying "warming makes it colder" sounds preposterous.
"Climate Change" covers all contingencies with a generic nullity. It is nonfalsifiable, and thus eternal.
IMO it is the Post-Enlightenment replacement for God. The near-deification of nature by the bien pensants is implicitly religious.MSimon wrote:In a way Global Warming serves the purpose once occupied by God. Instead of God controlling everything now it is Global Warming. And man's part in all this? As always he is evil. Not to be trusted.
All History of the Western Intellectual Vanguard since the Peace of Westphalia has been the accelerating rejection of Abrahamaic Christianity.
First a Noninterventionist abstract Judeo-Christian God, Newtonian era Deism through its last gasp with Robespierre's Cult of the Supreme Being, to
Atheist rejection of God (The Enlightenment, Voltaire through Lenin). The Pseudo-Faith of Marx imploded 9 November, 1989, so most recently
Reembrace of the noninterventionist supernatural, just so long as it absolutely isn't connected to the Judeo-Christian tradition (Gaianism).
This last step is actually sort of pathetic, a childish temper tantrum refusal to reclaim the God of our forefathers.
Duane
Last edited by djolds1 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Vae Victis
Besides the nationalism, what's there in Fascism a Left-Liberal wouldn't like?Jeff Peachman wrote:I don't like throwing the fascism word around. It is so ill-defined that you can apply it to so many different societies, but the word always has a negative connotation.
Nazism /= Fascism. Nazism is a heresy of Fascism.
Both Communism and Fascism are heresies of Socialism. They are close cousins, siblings even, not opposites. The original Pepsi vs Coke taste test.
Duane
Vae Victis
By clean coal, yes, I mean coal power that does not involve discharging vast amounts of CO2 or any other contaminant into the atmosphere we breath; similarly nor into the seas.MSimon wrote: We have clean coal and it is economical. Now if you mean CO2 free coal that is another story.
I agree with your sentiment Simon, that 'global warming' was become like a new religion to may people, and as with any religion it comes with more than its fair share of zealots, idiots and lies. Like religion, it is also a limb of political power.
Humanity is easier to control and predict if it is aware of a common cause, threat or enemy. The cold war is (supposedly over); enter the new bogey-men of the new age. Everyone loves to watch a good disaster movie unfold; its human nature.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the climate isn't cyclic in nature, nor that any of the phenomenon we observe might happen naturally in any case without humanity present.
it is clear that we are polluting the planet at many levels. from a social and aesthetic perspective, this is a repulsive behavior; from an anthropological, historical perspective, an interesting and perhaps 'decisive' period in human history; from a 'physical' scientific perspective, a set of of 'numerical risks'.
the real questions are therefore:
a) is it desirable
b) is is avoidable
acceptable answers are 'no' and 'perhaps' respectively.
'gutting' economies - no; 'changing' economies 'yes' = else why else would you be here discussing Polywell Fusion? Some short term costs must be born for long term gain, this is the price of change.Based on this we are going to gut the economies of the first world or pass feel good laws and then ignore them.
Its true, this may well represent a case of the 'tragedy of the commons'.Of course China and India are laughing up their sleeves and ignoring the whole deal. Smart folks.
However, a few points in mitigation:
1) the existence of dissent and non-compliance does not excuse us our responsibilities.
2) the 'second' and 'third' worlds start off at a disadvantage, their emergence through the industrial age lags behind that of Europe and the USA. They will not be denied what we currently enjoy, and it would be hypocrisy for the first world to assert they should.
3) The effects of pollution will be felt to a far greater degree by countries such as India and China and as a consequence they are actually more aware of it. I certainly don't think they are laughing about it.
4) They are in a better position to 'leap-frog' technology, since they are at a younger stage of capital growth.
5) economic' inducement and coercion remain powerful instruments - on the flip side however, the actuarial risk and actual cost of 'trade wars' would seem important to give further thought to.
also:
The conveyor/gulf stream flipping has been discredited.
no, i dont think it has, it is possible. importantly, it matters less the extent to which we might cause it to or not; more important, is how we plan and respond to the risk.
I can't tell. Were you joking?Jeff Peachman wrote:
The only way you can get complete freedom is libertarianism, and we know that doesn't work: http://www.slate.com/id/2202489/
EDIT: I guess complete freedom is Anarchy... but that's not my main point. The point is fascism as a word is just so misused that it is meaningless.
Calling the financial system in this country "libertarian" as Weisberg does is just ludicrous!
Kiteman,
If we can get all the CO2 contaminating the air removed from the air and the oceans we can kill all the plant life on earth.
That will make more room for all the animals without all those unsightly plants.
Some kinds of plants will start dying off at 200 ppm and the rest start to go at 90 ppm. Since we are still under 400 ppm I think we can do it. In addition if we get the CO2 down enough I think we can start an ice age which will kill off a lot of unnecessary humans.
It is really lucky that those who really care about the earth hate CO2. I suppose that for the time being it is better than hating Jews.
If we can get all the CO2 contaminating the air removed from the air and the oceans we can kill all the plant life on earth.
That will make more room for all the animals without all those unsightly plants.
Some kinds of plants will start dying off at 200 ppm and the rest start to go at 90 ppm. Since we are still under 400 ppm I think we can do it. In addition if we get the CO2 down enough I think we can start an ice age which will kill off a lot of unnecessary humans.
It is really lucky that those who really care about the earth hate CO2. I suppose that for the time being it is better than hating Jews.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
At the end of the day, we can't predict the precise effects of climate change or the water vapour multiplier for that matter. But the one thing climate science has proved beyond a shaddow of a doubt, is that the behaviour of the Earths atmosphere is complex and can exhibit feedback causing large effects from relatively small changes made to it.
Human civilization has reached a point where the magnitude of the "nudges" we are giving it can be felt and can result in real effects. Whether they will result in an apocalypse or nothing remarkable is another question altogether.
Using Nuclear Power and solar power, we can supply all our energy without cumulatively altering the earths climatic chemistry. Hence it makes sense to switch to them.
I'd rather not play Russian roulette with the future of civilization.
P.S. Maybe it will turnout that adding more CO2 could avert an ice age, maybe the opposite. But the point is we need to be in control of the CO2 switch to deliver or remove precise ammounts as oppose to continously releasing it as an involuntary product of our activities.
Human civilization has reached a point where the magnitude of the "nudges" we are giving it can be felt and can result in real effects. Whether they will result in an apocalypse or nothing remarkable is another question altogether.
Using Nuclear Power and solar power, we can supply all our energy without cumulatively altering the earths climatic chemistry. Hence it makes sense to switch to them.
I'd rather not play Russian roulette with the future of civilization.
P.S. Maybe it will turnout that adding more CO2 could avert an ice age, maybe the opposite. But the point is we need to be in control of the CO2 switch to deliver or remove precise ammounts as oppose to continously releasing it as an involuntary product of our activities.
Sure we can tell what the multiplier is. You just have to design the right experiments.
In addition it is well known that CO2 follows heating - it does not precede it.
It is the oceans. You heat them up: they evolve CO2. Once the current cooling trend has been in effect for about 5 or 10 more years I expect atmospheric CO2 to stabilize despite man's additions - natural sources of CO2 are about 4X that of man made sources.
In any case - given what can be reasonably done cost effectively in the USA and the fact that China's CO2 output is above the USA's and is rising (not to mention India - or the fact that Europe is planning more coal plants) we might just as well let technology take its course. We will be almost completely off coal by 2065.
Forcing the issue is going to waste a lot more capital than natural technological evolution.
As to catastrophe - it is hype. Levels of CO2 have been at 1,000 ppm and above and earth temps were low. We are no where near runaway.
You want something real to worry about? The New Madrid fault is due. The Yellowstone Caldera could blow. A large asteroid could be a problem. None of those problems are being tackled. We have a monofocus on CO2.
We could solve the asteroid problem if we did a crash program on BFRs and if they worked a crash program on BFR rockets. All at significantly less cost than the CO2 mitigation plans currently underway. In fact we could solve the CO2 "problem" by planting trees at 1/10th the cost of eliminating coal fired plants.
It is a wallet extraction scheme.
In addition it is well known that CO2 follows heating - it does not precede it.
It is the oceans. You heat them up: they evolve CO2. Once the current cooling trend has been in effect for about 5 or 10 more years I expect atmospheric CO2 to stabilize despite man's additions - natural sources of CO2 are about 4X that of man made sources.
In any case - given what can be reasonably done cost effectively in the USA and the fact that China's CO2 output is above the USA's and is rising (not to mention India - or the fact that Europe is planning more coal plants) we might just as well let technology take its course. We will be almost completely off coal by 2065.
Forcing the issue is going to waste a lot more capital than natural technological evolution.
As to catastrophe - it is hype. Levels of CO2 have been at 1,000 ppm and above and earth temps were low. We are no where near runaway.
You want something real to worry about? The New Madrid fault is due. The Yellowstone Caldera could blow. A large asteroid could be a problem. None of those problems are being tackled. We have a monofocus on CO2.
We could solve the asteroid problem if we did a crash program on BFRs and if they worked a crash program on BFR rockets. All at significantly less cost than the CO2 mitigation plans currently underway. In fact we could solve the CO2 "problem" by planting trees at 1/10th the cost of eliminating coal fired plants.
It is a wallet extraction scheme.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
> In fact we could solve the CO2 "problem" by planting trees
I like trees, I like living near trees, walking under trees, and I generally push the idea of tree planting around new homes, but for some reason, virtually every green I stumble across is very anti-tree..
I'm really confused how anyone can be anti tree
> Levels of CO2 have been at 1,000 ppm
I don't suppose you or anyone has a handy URL which points to a nice grapth which shows this ? so I can wave it at the next green I see when we argue CO2 history..
I like trees, I like living near trees, walking under trees, and I generally push the idea of tree planting around new homes, but for some reason, virtually every green I stumble across is very anti-tree..
I'm really confused how anyone can be anti tree
> Levels of CO2 have been at 1,000 ppm
I don't suppose you or anyone has a handy URL which points to a nice grapth which shows this ? so I can wave it at the next green I see when we argue CO2 history..
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbo ... imate.htmlNanos wrote:> In fact we could solve the CO2 "problem" by planting trees
I like trees, I like living near trees, walking under trees, and I generally push the idea of tree planting around new homes, but for some reason, virtually every green I stumble across is very anti-tree..
I'm really confused how anyone can be anti tree :-(
> Levels of CO2 have been at 1,000 ppm
I don't suppose you or anyone has a handy URL which points to a nice grapth which shows this ? so I can wave it at the next green I see when we argue CO2 history..
*
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The probability of natural disasters does not increase with human population, thus the change of a super volcano or an asteroid hit are no greater than they were over the last 10,000 years or so. True, they could happen but over the next thousand years, its pretty unlikely.MSimon wrote:Sure we can tell what the multiplier is. You just have to design the right experiments.
In addition it is well known that CO2 follows heating - it does not precede it.
It is the oceans. You heat them up: they evolve CO2. Once the current cooling trend has been in effect for about 5 or 10 more years I expect atmospheric CO2 to stabilize despite man's additions - natural sources of CO2 are about 4X that of man made sources.
In any case - given what can be reasonably done cost effectively in the USA and the fact that China's CO2 output is above the USA's and is rising (not to mention India - or the fact that Europe is planning more coal plants) we might just as well let technology take its course. We will be almost completely off coal by 2065.
Forcing the issue is going to waste a lot more capital than natural technological evolution.
As to catastrophe - it is hype. Levels of CO2 have been at 1,000 ppm and above and earth temps were low. We are no where near runaway.
You want something real to worry about? The New Madrid fault is due. The Yellowstone Caldera could blow. A large asteroid could be a problem. None of those problems are being tackled. We have a monofocus on CO2.
We could solve the asteroid problem if we did a crash program on BFRs and if they worked a crash program on BFR rockets. All at significantly less cost than the CO2 mitigation plans currently underway. In fact we could solve the CO2 "problem" by planting trees at 1/10th the cost of eliminating coal fired plants.
It is a wallet extraction scheme.
Imminent pressing dangers are most likely to be the ones created by rising populations, famine and desertification from mass agriculture, plague as a result of larger populations creating a bigger niche for diseases that attach humans or the large monocultures of plants and animals we farm, and indeed climate change and acid rain.
In the graph I saw showing carbon dioxide levels going up in autunm and down in spring, by eye it takes about 4 years before one year's spring CO2 levels are the same as another year's autumn CO2, this fits in to the idea that natural sources of CO2 are 5X that of manmade sources But those natural sources are clearly cyclical while manmade sources are cumulative.
I'm not really sure whether your CO2 levels over the eons argument works, once you are allowed to shift the position of the earths land masses as a free parameter I'd say alot of other things just become noise. That has nothing to do with the question will rapidly rising CO2 levels affect our civilsation adversely. (Natural history is filled with minor extinctions) Its quite possible even if climate change killed billions, future generations a million years hence would simply see it as a blip in some "more or less" continuous geological progression.
The inter glacial thing was interesting, maybe releasing CO2 over a period of 5000 years or so would do our climate some good and avert an ice age! I still say we're realeasing it too quickly and we don't understand atmospheric chemistry well enough yet to acertain the optimal rate at which it should be released, 2000 years is plenty of time on the timescale of a technologically advanced civilisation to answer those questions, we don't need to rush off and release it now without any comprehension of the immediate consequences of such a sudden change.
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
The "Tree-Hugger" greens are "anti-tree"? I'm guessing you have some tortured rationale for this, and are waiting for somebody to ask. So I'll ask.
Huh?
I don't know anyone who is against planting trees, liberal, conservative, or martian.
MSimon, how about acid rain? That's not something to worry about? I agree that with new technology that coal plants are plenty clean, just so long as we make sure that it's being used. But it's not without any ecological ramification, and making it clean is not without cost. Generally I'm with you that we can let things take their economical evolution, and we'll be fine on this subject. But that's not the same as saying that we ought to not pursue alternatives.
After all, that's what this whole site is about, right? I mean one could argue like, "Hey, this fusion stuff costs money, right. Let's give it in tax rebates instead, and fix the economy." Aren't we trying to provide an energy source that, amongst it's other virtues of cost and such, would be clean?
I mean what's the downside?
In any case... you've been watching too much Discovery Channel, which has of late fallen into the same sort of fear-mongering mode to sell commercial time that the mainstream media has adopted. When you saw the special on the Yellowstone Caldera eruption, you didn't miss that part where they said that we're not over a weak spot now, and wouldn't be for many thousands of years, did you?
As for asteroid collision, it happens all the time. Sure, in theory a large one could be on it's way right now. But by that argument you ought to take your lightning rod with you every time you leave the house. You know, just in case. Statistically a "extinction level event" collision (or a smaller one hitting a city) is less likely than you getting struck by lightning on a clear day. The Tunguska blast failed to kill anyone, despite it's size(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event).
The Madrid Fault? Well... let's just say that I think that anyone who lives on a coast that can be hit by a hurricane has already taken their lives into their own hands. As a conservative, are you telling me that we have to save every individual, even from their own decisions? If you live in an earthquake zone, be sure your insurance is paid up.
Horrific natural disasters occur all the time. They are, unfortunately, mostly unpredictable with current technology. Oh, sure, the Indonesians are putting up an early warning system for the next Tsunami. But that just means that the next time it'll be a flood somewhere. And if we put up dikes for the flood there, then it'll be an earthquake elsewhere. Or a volcano that nobody expects elsewhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADcutin). Or you might be swallowed up by a sinkhole (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17303991/). Or your continent might be subjected to famine due to a plague of locusts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Locust_Outbreak).
We can spend all our capital on trying to prevent these inevitable occurances. But until we have a lot more capital, our efforts won't be enough to stop natural disasters. So, from a conservative POV, why don't we just grit our teeth and stop worrying about what "might" go wrong, and focus on getting the more capital for the moment.
Again, that's what fusion power represents. More capital being produced as energy is much cheaper.
Or, uh... I won't pester you with my pet unlikely apocalypse scenario if you don't pester me with yours?
In any case, I think your science on your side of this is just as suspect as the science on the other side. That is, there are charlatans on both sides of the issue, confused people on both sides, biased people on both sides, and most of all, a general lack of understanding of one of the most complex systems that can be imagined - our global climate.
Where I agree with you in general is that the burden of proof is on the side of those who have to prove that something must be done. And they haven't made a conclusive case. What they have is a hypothesis. What I'd say is, however, that given that it is as complex as it is, the test of the hypothesis will likely be in terms of increasing greenhouse gasses to a very high level.
And why test that if we don't have to? Clean power is a win-win. As I've said, forget global warming, let's just get electric cars so I can visit my cousins in Los Angeles without choking.
Isn't Conservation a Conservative thing?
Mike
Huh?
I don't know anyone who is against planting trees, liberal, conservative, or martian.
MSimon, how about acid rain? That's not something to worry about? I agree that with new technology that coal plants are plenty clean, just so long as we make sure that it's being used. But it's not without any ecological ramification, and making it clean is not without cost. Generally I'm with you that we can let things take their economical evolution, and we'll be fine on this subject. But that's not the same as saying that we ought to not pursue alternatives.
After all, that's what this whole site is about, right? I mean one could argue like, "Hey, this fusion stuff costs money, right. Let's give it in tax rebates instead, and fix the economy." Aren't we trying to provide an energy source that, amongst it's other virtues of cost and such, would be clean?
I mean what's the downside?
In any case... you've been watching too much Discovery Channel, which has of late fallen into the same sort of fear-mongering mode to sell commercial time that the mainstream media has adopted. When you saw the special on the Yellowstone Caldera eruption, you didn't miss that part where they said that we're not over a weak spot now, and wouldn't be for many thousands of years, did you?
As for asteroid collision, it happens all the time. Sure, in theory a large one could be on it's way right now. But by that argument you ought to take your lightning rod with you every time you leave the house. You know, just in case. Statistically a "extinction level event" collision (or a smaller one hitting a city) is less likely than you getting struck by lightning on a clear day. The Tunguska blast failed to kill anyone, despite it's size(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event).
The Madrid Fault? Well... let's just say that I think that anyone who lives on a coast that can be hit by a hurricane has already taken their lives into their own hands. As a conservative, are you telling me that we have to save every individual, even from their own decisions? If you live in an earthquake zone, be sure your insurance is paid up.
Horrific natural disasters occur all the time. They are, unfortunately, mostly unpredictable with current technology. Oh, sure, the Indonesians are putting up an early warning system for the next Tsunami. But that just means that the next time it'll be a flood somewhere. And if we put up dikes for the flood there, then it'll be an earthquake elsewhere. Or a volcano that nobody expects elsewhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADcutin). Or you might be swallowed up by a sinkhole (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17303991/). Or your continent might be subjected to famine due to a plague of locusts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Locust_Outbreak).
We can spend all our capital on trying to prevent these inevitable occurances. But until we have a lot more capital, our efforts won't be enough to stop natural disasters. So, from a conservative POV, why don't we just grit our teeth and stop worrying about what "might" go wrong, and focus on getting the more capital for the moment.
Again, that's what fusion power represents. More capital being produced as energy is much cheaper.
Or, uh... I won't pester you with my pet unlikely apocalypse scenario if you don't pester me with yours?
In any case, I think your science on your side of this is just as suspect as the science on the other side. That is, there are charlatans on both sides of the issue, confused people on both sides, biased people on both sides, and most of all, a general lack of understanding of one of the most complex systems that can be imagined - our global climate.
Where I agree with you in general is that the burden of proof is on the side of those who have to prove that something must be done. And they haven't made a conclusive case. What they have is a hypothesis. What I'd say is, however, that given that it is as complex as it is, the test of the hypothesis will likely be in terms of increasing greenhouse gasses to a very high level.
And why test that if we don't have to? Clean power is a win-win. As I've said, forget global warming, let's just get electric cars so I can visit my cousins in Los Angeles without choking.
Isn't Conservation a Conservative thing?
Mike
jmc,
If you are growing food warmer and more CO2 is better.
In any case by about 2065 to 2100 we will be off fossil fuels due to technological advance. There is no rush.
BTW volcanism goes up during cold periods. Them suckers spew lots of CO2.
The imminent danger is all from shoddy computer models. Which do not take into account any of the sun cycles. Not the 11 year. Not the 22 year. Not the 300 year etc.
And the cycle that seems to be starting now is very weak. We have just come off of 11,000 years of rising solar output. It ain't CO2.
BTW you can just consider man to be a large series of volcanic eruptions.
If you are growing food warmer and more CO2 is better.
In any case by about 2065 to 2100 we will be off fossil fuels due to technological advance. There is no rush.
BTW volcanism goes up during cold periods. Them suckers spew lots of CO2.
The imminent danger is all from shoddy computer models. Which do not take into account any of the sun cycles. Not the 11 year. Not the 22 year. Not the 300 year etc.
And the cycle that seems to be starting now is very weak. We have just come off of 11,000 years of rising solar output. It ain't CO2.
BTW you can just consider man to be a large series of volcanic eruptions.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
They hate CO2, and yet they keep farting, emitting CH4, a much more potent green house gas!MSimon wrote:Kiteman,
It is really lucky that those who really care about the earth hate CO2. I suppose that for the time being it is better than hating Jews.
Perhaps we need to start a campaign. "Be smart, don't fart!" and tell them all to go plug themselves.
