tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post5565667951336183172..comments2024-02-14T01:23:04.849-05:00Comments on View From Above: Global Warming News - June 2009Hawkeye®http://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-58898174124677349132009-07-28T19:17:03.172-04:002009-07-28T19:17:03.172-04:00Elroy,
Too bad. I'm pleased to disappoint you....<b>Elroy</b>,<br />Too bad. I'm pleased to disappoint you.<br /><br />(:D)Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-41740615280229219782009-07-28T19:09:10.417-04:002009-07-28T19:09:10.417-04:00What a cop out! You make claims that I rebut, and ...What a cop out! You make claims that I rebut, and I provide conclusive evidence to support that rebuttal, but what happens? 'I don't agree' simpers Hawkeye®.<br /><br />This is becoming more and more typical of conservatives as they spin further out to the looney right with their 'birther' rants and cries of 'Obama is a socialist fascist!' – it is getting harder to engage them in rational and coherent debate.<br /><br />Instead conservatives run from the issues, deny the facts and disappear down bizarre conspiracy rabbit holes that make the moon landers and Roswellites look sane.<br /><br />C'mon, Hawkeye® – be a man. Have the courage of your convictions! If I'm wrong, prove it! Don't just whine – win in the market place of ideas...if you can.<br /><br />And that, I fear, is the problem. I suspect that its not a matter of not wanting to prove me wrong so much as being unable to. <br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />ElroyElroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-39980655109410759742009-07-27T07:43:32.622-04:002009-07-27T07:43:32.622-04:00Elroy,
Like I said, I'm sure someone agrees wi...<b>Elroy</b>,<br />Like I said, I'm sure someone agrees with you... but not me.Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-37646971230290079102009-07-27T02:49:40.419-04:002009-07-27T02:49:40.419-04:00‘Capitalism means "big polluters"
The ...‘Capitalism means "big polluters" <br /><br />The more pollution the bigger the profit, as pollution control costs money. These costs are then borne by the public. However, the big polluting industries have many lobbying and campaign contribution dollars, so…<br /><br />http://www.planethazard.com/<br /><br />‘Capitalism can't preserve the environment’<br /><br />Not ‘can’t’ so much as ‘doesn’t’ or ‘won’t’. Ever seen the Oktedi River? http://www.nodirtygold.org/poisoned_waters.cfm<br /><br />The former mountains of Tennessee and Kentucky? <br /><br />http://www.ilovemountains.org/<br /><br />‘Capitalism excludes rational and sustainable planning’ <br /><br />The chaotic nature of capitalism does not lend itself to rational and sustainable planning because of the myth of ‘competition’ and shareholders’ demands for high annual returns. Large shareholders, like pension funds, will dump stock if it doesn’t return unsustainably high dividends, and the constant threat of takeover and/or merger, which ultimately (and counter-intuitively) destroys shareholder value, keeps companies from long-term planning.<br /><br />http://www.frankendesign.com/pdf/EuropeTeachUncleSam.pdf<br /><br />‘Capitalism "thirsts for profit"’<br /><br />Of course it does. It has to. It is the nature of the beast. What do you call a company that does not make a profit?<br /><br />Capitalism has no morality – it will do whatever it has to do to get ahead. Thus 'morality' must be imposed upon it, and that morality is regulation. <br /><br />‘Capitalism creates an "unhabitable planet".’ <br /><br />Many of the above links show environmental devastation due to capitalist exploitation. Hyperbole? Proof? See for yourself.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />ElroyElroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-32156698022460300892009-07-27T02:49:32.752-04:002009-07-27T02:49:32.752-04:00PS. Oops! I forgot this!
‘The slanderous -- OK, l...PS. Oops! I forgot this!<br /><br />‘The slanderous -- OK, libelous -- statements to which I refer are those against capitalism in general.<br /><br />For a start, one cannot defame or libel a concept. An ideology is not a person and a philosophy is not an individual. Who’s going to file suit? Will it be a class action made up pf CEOs of the Forbes 500?<br /><br />‘They are clearly defamatory…’<br /><br />Wow! You sure are all for freedom and liberty! Call the Thought Police! Citizen Elroy just criticized the dominant paradigm! You know who took legal action against those that criticized the dominant paradigm? Hitler. Stalin. The descendents of Mao still do. What illustrious company you keep. I suggest you re-read Animal Farm and 1984.<br /><br />Still, as truth is the best defense against a libel charge, let’s see what’s true, huh? Really, some things are so self-evident that they shouldn’t need explaining, but for you I’m happy to plough a furrow or two through the bleeding obvious.<br /><br />‘Capitalism exploits nature’ <br /><br />Yup. Mining, logging, fishing, agriculture, oil and chemical pollution etc – all of these activities exploit nature for the profit of shareholders. <br /><br />http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/Primer<br />http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0807.htm<br />http://overfishing.org/<br />http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2001/08/07/the-war-against-small-farms/<br />http://www.pollutionissues.com/index.html<br /><br />‘Capitalism exploits workers’ <br /><br />Don’t get me started! Of course capital exploits labor – its how capital creates profit. How far back in western history do you want to go? How many Asian sweatshops would you like to visit? The industrial revolution was where wholesale exploitation really got going, and if it weren’t for Union agitation the exploitation would still be as bad. As it is, capital just moved to Asia instead.<br /><br />If people are employed to do a job for less compensation than is required to provide food, shelter, education and healthcare etc, they are being exploited, and there are millions of those people in the USA right now, today.<br /><br />http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/<br /><br />And don’t forget that modern capitalism is dependent on a certain percentage of the citizenry being unemployed at any one time, about 5% – 15%. This, due to simple supply and demand, keeps labor costs down. It is called the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU) and says that if unemployment slips below a certain level, inflation will occur so, to tame inflation, a certain amount of the people will have to be unemployed. Sadly, not only are they unemployed but are then abused for being so by conservatives who do not realize that the unemployment is a direct result of the policies they advocate.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU<br /><br />And then you have the slaves, who pick your fruit. Right there, in the US. Don’t believe me?<br /><br />http://www.ciw-online.org/slavery.html<br />http://labornotes.org/node/2134<br /><br />‘Capitalism treats nature as a free gift’ <br /><br />Sure does. Corporations pay peanuts as royalties...<br /><br />(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/01/1083224643894.html<br /><br />http://www.christianaid.org.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/march2009/mining-companies-deprive-Africa-millions.aspx)<br /><br />...and log, drill, mine, fish until there is nothing left. <br /><br />http://forests.org/links/Destruction/welcome.asp<br /><br />Then they move on. Sometimes they don’t even pay the royalties at all.<br /><br />http://www.montrealgazette.com/more+free+rides+mining+industry/1560198/story.htmlElroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-38905343212041446502009-07-27T02:45:24.602-04:002009-07-27T02:45:24.602-04:00‘You make it sound like that's a bad thing. Co...‘You make it sound like that's a bad thing. Companies that make money employ people.’<br /><br />Sure. On the other hand, however, people are forced to sell 1/3 of their lives in order to make companies money.<br /><br />‘Companies that lose money go out of business…’<br /><br />…without paying the employees. But anyway, some companies get bailed out. And some go out of business not because they lost money but because another bloated great behemoth buys it because said behemoth must expand or die. And some companies get crushed by the ‘competition’ from the larger companies who employ all manner of tactics like predatory pricing and dumping to make sure that there is no competition, as it is the natural condition of capital to seek a monopoly.<br /><br />‘Companies that make money buy things and put other people to work.’ <br /><br />Yes. So? What of it? It doesn’t give them carte blanche to do what they want. Again, I have nothing against business per se, I just think that with rights come responsibilities. <br /><br />‘Companies that make money expand and build new facilities, hire architects and consultants and engineers and construction workers and lawyers…’<br /><br />…in China. Or Mexico. Or wherever. It is a myth of Reaganomics tat the wealthy will reinvest. They don’t. Or certainly not enough.<br /><br /> ‘Companies that make money pay local taxes and state taxes, thereby supporting government. What's wrong with that?’<br /><br />Nothing, if they paid. But they don’t. <br /><br />http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/04/11/most_us_firms_paid_no_income_taxes_in_90s/<br /><br />Companies play one state and/or country off against the next in the hunt for tax breaks, so often you find that the state/country will pay a corporation to stay in their territory.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom<br /><br />So, there you go Hawkeye® – referenced and linked. I look forward to your well-reasned and intelligent rebuttal.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />ElroyElroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-84628188155682792332009-07-27T02:45:16.415-04:002009-07-27T02:45:16.415-04:00‘As usual you are long-winded and tiresome. What h...‘As usual you are long-winded and tiresome. What happened to not droning on? Oh well, I guess it was too good to be true. I thought you had actually learned how to be concise.’<br /><br />You raised many issues. The truth is rarely plain and never simple. <br /><br />‘And like Alby Dallas, you are guilty of the same broad generalizations and unsupported claims.’<br /><br />You accuse the author of not being specific in an article which is plain addressing the broader view but then accuse me of ‘droning on’ when I attempt to flesh out the article’s perceived shortcomings.<br /><br />And what claims have I not unsupported? Please, tell me and I shall rectify the omission.<br /><br />‘As for Monckton, if he is so "debunked" then why are Democrats afraid of him? Why won't they allow him to testify in Congress? Why did Al Gore refuse to appear with him on Capitol Hill? Why has Al Gore refused to debate with him?’<br /><br />Probably because he is thoroughly debunked and credibility-free old nutbag. Congress’s time and resources are not infinite, therefore it is fair to argue that only those with a serious and credentialed point to make should and can be heard, otherwise the place would be clogged with fruitcakes. <br /><br />‘As for the rest of your comments, I'm sure someone agrees with you... but not me.’<br /><br />Ah yes, but WHY don’t you agree? Just saying ‘I don’t agree’ is hardly a vigorous defence of your beliefs. Do you not agree because you have a well-reasoned and intelligent rebuttal that you are keeping from me? Or because formulating a well-reasoned and intelligent rebuttal would force you to confront some information that could upset your current points of view.<br /><br />‘Yeah, and so what? The purpose of a corporation is to make money.’ <br /><br />That’s right. Well done.<br /><br />‘The purpose of a dog-catcher is to catch dogs. The purpose of a fireman is to put out fires. The purpose of a church is to save souls. The purpose of an aid organization is to provide aid. So what?’<br /><br />So a lot. The difference is dog catchers, fire departments, churches and aid organizations or not ‘for-profit’ organizations per se – they do not have shareholders to please as a priority.<br /><br />If firemen, for example, were a for-profit operation, then they would operate like HMOs – you would take out insurance from one of a range of immolation prevention providers would, on he occasion of your house burning down, dispatch a fire engine. Of course, if you didn’t have insurance then any firemen that turned up would not be able to fight the fire, or they might turn up to find that the fire was started by a hot coal rolling from the fire place in which case it was caused by a ‘pre-existing’ fire and thus not covered etc.<br /><br />That’s the problem – capitalist enterprises exist to enrich the elite that hold shares in that enterprise by any means necessary. Many companies have fallen apart when their core function is no longer required, but many others have diversified and found core functions totally unrelated to the original.Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-90239880283579478622009-07-23T20:07:34.308-04:002009-07-23T20:07:34.308-04:00P.S.--
You said...
"‘The provision in the l...P.S.--<br /><br />You said...<br /><br />"‘The provision in the law I am talking about is the one that says the purpose of the corporation is simply to make money for shareholders. Every jurisdiction where corporations operate has its own law of corporate governance. But remarkably, the corporate design contained in hundreds of corporate laws throughout the world is nearly identical."<br /><br />Yeah, and so what? The purpose of a corporation is to make money. The purpose of a dog-catcher is to catch dogs. The purpose of a fireman is to put out fires. The purpose of a church is to save souls. The purpose of an aid organization is to provide aid. So what?<br /><br />You make it sound like that's a bad thing. Companies that make money employ people. Companies that lose money go out of business. Companies that make money buy things and put other people to work. Companies that make money expand and build new facilities, hire architects and consultants and engineers and construction workers and lawyers. Companies that make money pay local taxes and state taxes, thereby supporting government. What's wrong with that?<br /><br />How many people do you employ? How many people have you hired? How much do you pay in taxes? How many new buildings have you built? How many architects, engineers, consultants and construction workers have you hired lately? How many reams of paper do you buy in a week? How many millions of dollars do you pump into the local economy?<br /><br />No, I didn't think so.Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-43647016598642449512009-07-23T19:53:01.395-04:002009-07-23T19:53:01.395-04:00Elroy,
As usual you are long-winded and tiresome. ...<b>Elroy</b>,<br />As usual you are long-winded and tiresome. What happened to not droning on? Oh well, I guess it was too good to be true. I thought you had actually learned how to be concise.<br /><br />And like Alby Dallas, you are guilty of the same broad generalizations and unsupported claims.<br /><br />As for Monckton, if he is so "debunked" then why are Democrats afraid of him? Why won't they allow him to testify in Congress? Why did Al Gore refuse to appear with him on Capitol Hill? Why has Al Gore refused to debate with him?<br /><br />As for the rest of your comments, I'm sure someone agrees with you... but not me.<br /><br />Sorry.Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-38703566269685810582009-07-22T20:17:51.891-04:002009-07-22T20:17:51.891-04:00‘If you notice, in all of my Global Warming articl...‘If you notice, in all of my Global Warming articles I try to provide links and references wherever possible.’ <br /><br />As you should given that you are quoting directly obscure, arcane and specific information that is hardly mainstream. <br /><br />‘The author ends with another over-simplification: "we can start down the democratic socialist path…’ <br /><br />Yes? What’s wrong with that? There are many socialist democracies who are doing very, very well right now, despite the US banking system’s attempts to sink them. High employment, low homelessness, free universal health care, high social mobility, well educated…who wouldn’t want that? Oh, that’s right…you.<br /><br />‘— a path of harmony with nature…’ <br /><br />Does this mean you prefer disharmony with nature? Like the Tennessee mountain toppers? <br /><br />‘…grassroots democracy and respect for life." <br /><br />‘Ohhh... I feel so much better now.’ <br /><br />Good. I’m so glad.<br /><br />‘You guys are so arrogant and full of yourselves it's pathetic.’<br /><br />Huh? Aren’t you conservatives all about grassroots democracy and respect for life?<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />ElroyElroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-49272835539448988152009-07-22T20:17:29.349-04:002009-07-22T20:17:29.349-04:00Still, as you are obviously feeling unGoogley toda...Still, as you are obviously feeling unGoogley today, let me help:<br /><br />‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’ by Milton Friedman, 1970.<br /><br />‘There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.’<br /><br />I guess he didn’t see Goldman Sachs comimg! Quaint, huh? ‘without deception or fraud’! Silly old sausage!<br /><br />Read the whole thing! <br /><br />http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html<br /><br />‘I don't know.’<br /><br />Well, as an avowed Reagan Republican, you should.<br /><br />‘I'm not that up on Friedman quotes…’<br /><br />Surely if you are going to espouse the tenets of an ideologue’s philosophy you should have at least have a passing familiarity with those tenets? Hmm?<br /><br />‘…but I guess the Marxists like that one.’ <br /><br />Nah, we much prefer to point to the fact that it is the law of land. <br /><br />From http://www.work-ethics.com/info/businessethics1.html<br /><br />‘The provision in the law I am talking about is the one that says the purpose of the corporation is simply to make money for shareholders. Every jurisdiction where corporations operate has its own law of corporate governance. <br /><br />But remarkably, the corporate design contained in hundreds of corporate laws throughout the world is nearly identical. That design creates a governing body to manage the corporation, usually a board of directors, and dictates the duties of those directors. In short, the law creates corporate purpose. That purpose is to operate in the interests of shareholders. <br /><br />In Maine, where I live, this duty of directors is in Section 716 of the business corporation act, which reads: ...the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders.... ’<br /><br />In other words, it is illegal to not act in best interests of the shareholders.Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-63140287708414693322009-07-22T20:16:53.007-04:002009-07-22T20:16:53.007-04:00'The author says "The big polluters spend...'The author says "The big polluters spend millions advertising themselves as “green”, while they continue to plunder the Earth to keep the shareholders happy." That, in my opinion, is a "wild accusation". The author provides no proof for such an accusation.'<br /><br />When writing it is customary to take into account their prospective audience’s level of understanding of the issues being discussed, therefore it could reasonably be assumed that Green Left Online’s patrons know first hand about oil company ‘greenwash’ and do not need to informed as to that basic bit of knowledge. <br /><br />Still, since you are obviously in the dark about such matters – what a sheltered life you do lead! – check this out:<br /><br />http://stopgreenwash.org/<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwash<br /><br />BP are one the great exponents of corporate greenwash, but there are many more depending on how hard you want to look – you think there are none so you obviously don’t want to look too hard at all.<br /><br />‘It's a emotional BS.’<br /><br />No, it’s a fact, a tactic, something that happens in the real world. Look around.<br /><br />‘It's always the same with you guys. Business is bad. The rich are bad. They're all hypocrites. They "rape, pillage and plunder". But of course, no examples of same.’<br /><br />Golly! Talk about broad generalization, over-simplification and emotional BS! Look, not all business or rich people are bad, but some are relentless and some are greedy – lots, actually, but it depends on your definition of ‘rich’. <br /><br />And they’re not all hypocrites – some businesses and people are unapologetically rapacious and greedy, and make no bones about it.<br /><br />‘The author writes "Right-wing economist Milton Friedman said..." That is the "quote" to which I was referring. OK, so he didn't actually use quotation marks, but he does attribute a statement to a person without any references. ‘<br /><br />No, he attributes an idea. <br /><br />‘Maybe Friedman's statement is so well known that it doesn't require a reference?’ <br /><br />Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. Actually, it’s the title of one of his more famous essays! But he didn’t provide any analysis in his title! Just made the wild accusation! Oh, the irony.Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-88575848394532706522009-07-22T20:16:23.811-04:002009-07-22T20:16:23.811-04:00I suggest you read this:
http://www.monbiot.com/...I suggest you read this: <br /><br />http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/10/the-real-climate-censorship/<br /><br />‘They don't want a debate. They want people to fall in line.’<br /><br />Kind of reminds me of the Iraq War debate, or 9/11. See here: <br /><br />http://letsaskelroy.blogspot.com/2008/08/axis-of-evidence.html<br /><br />The author says that "The root cause of the ecological crisis is capitalism’s drive to maximise immediate profits above all else." That is a left-wing talking point. You guys say that EVERY problem is caused by capitalism. C'mon. Get real.’<br /><br />No, it’s not a ‘talking point’ per se – it happens to be true. The never-ending growth demanded by capitalism is eroding the planet at an ever-expanding rate. <br /><br />Tops are whipped off mountains in Tennessee and fisheries are plundered and depleted off Africa while rivers are poisoned in New Guinea and the Amazon rain forest is flattened in Brazil in order to please shareholders and to stop stocks being dumped by markets.<br /><br />The top priority is that profits are maximized immediately. Do I say EVERY problem is cause by capitalism? Name me one that isn’t.<br /><br />‘The author says that "The UN has estimated that the total cost of [fixing a bunch of environmental problems] is about the same as just a few months of global military spending." That is another unsubstantiated claim. No analysis is provided for this claim. But let's discuss it.’<br /><br />OK, let’s.<br /><br />‘If the IPCC estimates that it will cost 5.5% of global GDP to reduce global warming by 9/100ths of a degree F…’<br /> <br />Uh huh…<br /><br />'then to accomplish anything significant will cost more like 100% of global GDP.’ <br /><br />Care to, um, substantiate that claim? References, mayhaps? Where do you get this figure from?<br /><br />‘And that only addresses global warming, and not all the other stuff the author mentions. Why heck, even 20% of global GDP is more than "just a few months of global military spending’.<br /><br />A deflection. The author was discussing the UN’s estimation of the cost of conserving tropical forests, reforesting the Earth to an environmentally healthy level, reversing desertification, developing renewable energy and implementing energy efficient practices, not the IPCC’s estimate of the costs to reduce climate change.Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-30619353682748311412009-07-22T20:15:49.682-04:002009-07-22T20:15:49.682-04:00No, it is highly substantiated claim, as the colos...No, it is highly substantiated claim, as the colossal amount of bandwidth you take up trying to refute those claims will attest. No analysis is provided because, I would suggest, that the author not unreasonably assumes that most everyone reading the article would be across the basic arguments. <br /><br />The article was not trying to argue whether GW is real – the author is obviously quite happy with the science that says it is – but what the effects of what GW might be.<br /><br />Let’s parse a-while. ‘The threat of climate change means that for the first time humanity is faced with the very real possibility of extinction.’ <br /><br />OK, there’s a claim.<br /><br />‘The root cause of the ecological crisis is capitalism’s drive to maximise immediate profits above all else. The UN has estimated that the total cost of conserving tropical forests, reforesting the Earth to an environmentally healthy level, reversing desertification, developing renewable energy and implementing energy efficient practices is about the same as just a few months of global military spending.<br /><br />This is only one example of why this system is profoundly at odds with a sustainable planet. The exploitation of nature is as fundamental to the profit system as the exploitation of workers.’<br /><br />And there’s some substantiation. OK? Get it?<br /><br />‘Unfortunately, as I've shown repeatedly, it's the fear-mongers who shut down all debate and claim "consensus". It's Al Gore that refuses to debate with Christopher Monckton.’ <br /><br />Monckton? You want Monckton debunked? See here: <br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/moncktons_fantasy_world.php<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/moncktons_ripping_yarns.php<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/chinese_navy_sails_again.php<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/02/monckton_on_the_spm.php<br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/<br /><br />http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/20/irony-gate-viscount-monckton-a-british-peer-says-his-paper-was-peer-reviewed-by-a-scientist-how-droll/<br /><br />http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/19/american-physical-society-stomps-on-monckton-disinformation-thank-you-climate-progress-readers/<br /><br />‘It's the Democrats in Congress that refuse to hear expert testimony from skeptics. It's the EPA that prejudged the endangerment finding and concealed contradictory evidence. It's the MSM that promotes AGW and ignores opposing viewpoints.’Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-65168366004484856312009-07-22T20:15:15.188-04:002009-07-22T20:15:15.188-04:00'The very title "Capitalism Kills the Ear...'The very title "Capitalism Kills the Earth" is an overly-broad generalization. Some people, such as T. Boone Pickens for example, are capitalists who seek to implement "earth-friendly" technologies such as wind energy, solar, etc. Therefore, if SOME capitalists do "good" things for the earth, then NOT ALL capitalism "kills the earth".<br /><br />Yes, the title is broad because the concept is broad. Broadly speaking, capitalism kills the earth. Mining, manufacturing, over-fishing, logging, agribusiness, intensive cattle rearing, oil extraction etc – all these things irreparably damage the earth.<br /><br /> Whether the gain is worth the pain is another question, but the simple truth is that the above practices are poisoning the planet. Simple. <br /><br />Wind energy and solar are the sort of technologies that the Green Left have been begging the world to consider for years – and I know that the minerals and practices required to manufacture turbines and solar panels are not much good for the planet either, but hopefully the passivity of the technology will offset the damage caused by making it – but its only now that some have seen the chance of turning a profit on them have opportunists like T. Boone Pickens have come sniffing around. <br /><br />And talking of Pickens, he may be touting renewables now, but will he ever make up for the damage he caused when he was an oilman?<br /><br />But as you note, the title of the piece is Capitalism Kills The Earth, not ‘Capitalists Kill The Earth’. See the difference? The piece is addressing an ideology, not those who practice it. If the piece were called ‘Capitalism Kills The Earth Apart From Some Of Its Practioners Who, Although Having Created More Than Their Share Of Damage, Are Quite Nice Guys Really’ does lack a certain snap. <br /><br />Still, if this is the standard you adhere to I trust that any headlines that you write which contain the word ‘Socialism’ will go on to explain that some adherents of wealth equality are actually trying to do the right thing by humanity are not quite the monsters some might take them to be.<br /><br />‘The author says that "The threat of climate change means that for the first time humanity is faced with the very real possibility of extinction.’ <br /><br />And so it is. You know the arguments perfectly well – you just being disingenuous. Or bloody-minded. Whatever. The point is that if industrialization continues at its current rate then we will run out of oxygen and die. And, according to some, fry. There are not enough resources on the planet to sustain unending growth. <br /><br />There. Prove me wrong. Prove there are. Tell me where they might be. <br /><br />‘That is an unsubstantiated claim (and fear-mongering too). No analysis is provided for this claim. By what mechanism will "climate change" cause human extinction? Is it global warming? Now that's worth debating, and I've been participating in the skeptics' end of the discussion through these articles.’Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-76014935569304580502009-07-21T10:17:26.656-04:002009-07-21T10:17:26.656-04:00Elroy,
Why am I not surprised?
The very title &qu...<b>Elroy</b>,<br />Why am I not surprised?<br /><br />The very title "Capitalism Kills the Earth" is an overly-broad generalization. Some people, such as T. Boone Pickens for example, are capitalists who seek to implement "earth-friendly" technologies such as wind energy, solar, etc. Therefore, if SOME capitalists do "good" things for the earth, then NOT ALL capitalism "kills the earth".<br /><br />The author says that "The threat of climate change means that for the first time humanity is faced with the very real possibility of extinction." That is an unsubstantiated claim (and fear-mongering too). No analysis is provided for this claim. By what mechanism will "climate change" cause human extinction? Is it global warming? Now that's worth debating, and I've been participating in the skeptics' end of the discussion through these articles.<br /><br />Unfortunately, as I've shown repeatedly, it's the fear-mongers who shut down all debate and claim "consensus". It's Al Gore that refuses to debate with Christopher Monckton. It's the Democrats in Congress that refuse to hear expert testimony from skeptics. It's the EPA that prejudged the endangerment finding and concealed contradictory evidence. It's the MSM that promotes AGW and ignores opposing viewpoints. They don't want a debate. They want people to fall in line.<br /><br />The author says that "The root cause of the ecological crisis is capitalism’s drive to maximise immediate profits above all else." That is a left-wing talking point. You guys say that EVERY problem is caused by capitalism. C'mon. Get real.<br /><br />The author says that "The UN has estimated that the total cost of [fixing a bunch of environmental problems] is about the same as just a few months of global military spending." That is another unsubstantiated claim. No analysis is provided for this claim. But let's discuss it. If the IPCC estimates that it will cost 5.5% of global GDP to reduce global warming by 9/100ths of a degree F, then to accomplish anything significant will cost more like 100% of global GDP. And that only addresses global warming, and not all the other stuff the author mentions. Why heck, even 20% of global GDP is more than "just a few months of global military spending".<br /><br />The slanderous -- OK, libelous -- statements to which I refer are those against capitalism in general. They are clearly defamatory: capitalism exploits nature; capitalism exploits workers; capitalism treats nature as a free gift; capitalism means "big polluters"; capitalism can't preserve the environment; capitalism excludes rational and sustainable planning; capitalism "thirsts for profit"; capitalism creates an "unhabitable planet". These statements are also hyperbole by the way. The author provides no proof for such accusations.<br /><br />The author says "The big polluters spend millions advertising themselves as “green”, while they continue to plunder the Earth to keep the shareholders happy." That, in my opinion, is a "wild accusation". The author provides no proof for such an accusation. It's a broad generalization, an over-simplification, and emotional BS. It's always the same with you guys. Business is bad. The rich are bad. They're all hypocrites. They "rape, pillage and plunder". But of course, no examples of same.<br /><br />The author writes "Right-wing economist Milton Friedman said..." That is the "quote" to which I was referring. OK, so he didn't actually use quotation marks, but he does attribute a statement to a person without any references. Maybe Friedman's statement is so well known that it doesn't require a reference? I don't know. I'm not that up on Friedman quotes, but I guess the Marxists like that one. If you notice, in all of my Global Warming articles I try to provide links and references wherever possible.<br /><br />The author ends with another over-simplification: "we can start down the democratic socialist path — a path of harmony with nature, grassroots democracy and respect for life." Ohhh... I feel so much better now. You guys are so arrogant and full of yourselves it's pathetic.Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-54034866979734905382009-07-21T08:10:23.341-04:002009-07-21T08:10:23.341-04:00Nick,
Well, try to stay cool.
(:D) Best regards.....<b>Nick</b>,<br />Well, try to stay cool.<br /><br />(:D) Best regards...Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-78724783667709232682009-07-21T08:09:27.565-04:002009-07-21T08:09:27.565-04:00Amy,
Thanks for your kind words.
(:D) Best regard...<b>Amy</b>,<br />Thanks for your kind words.<br /><br />(:D) Best regards...Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-43685262792072588382009-07-21T05:32:41.982-04:002009-07-21T05:32:41.982-04:00I have been reluctant to butt heads with your good...I have been reluctant to butt heads with your good self over the GW issue – you are obviously a man obsessed – but I will gladly take up cudgels on behalf of my maligned comrades over Green Left Online.<br /><br />Over-simplified and broadly generalized? It makes no claims to be otherwise! It is a broad and simple, macro, big picture statement! It is unarguable that the environment is, for business, an externality for which we, the great unwashed, pick up the tab. Now, whether you think that is a good thing or not is a debate to be had, but it is a fact. <br /><br />Left-wing talking points? Lazy thinking. Dismissing a notion by ‘oh, that’s just a left-wing talking point’ is, frankly, pathetic. It has an arrogant air about it as it supposes that those accused of using talking points are unable to think for themselves and are just reiterating the daily list sent down from on high, just like FOX News does.<br /><br />This juvenile sneering attempts to negate the opposition’s POV by claiming them to be stupid and unable to defend their position instead of actually getting them to do so, and so it backfires – the truly dumb are those that merely jeer ‘Talking point!’ and move on as it displays in them an intellectual deficit which has no place in the market place of ideas and ture debate.<br /><br />Both sides try to frame the issues and both sides try to disseminate their frames in any and every way possible, so instead of just contemptuously shrugging them off, why not TALK about them, talk about WHAT is wrong with the spin, WHY it distorts, WHY it is or isn’t inaccurate – indeed, you could even start by stating where the ‘left-wing talking points’ are in this article. <br /><br />As for ‘slanderous attacks’, for a start it would have to be a ‘libelous’ attack – ‘slander’ is the defamation by speech while ‘libel’ is defamation by the written word – but I cannot see who exactly is being libeled so mabe you could point it out? Thanks.<br /><br />And what ‘wild accusations’ are you on about? MILD accusations, more like. Nothing in this piece is particularly over the top, it merely points out that free market capitalism in incompatible with the preservation of the natural environment. If you have an effective argument against that fairly straightforward proposition then I’d like to hear it.<br /><br />There are no references for the quotes because there are no quotes. Who is quoted here? Where? See? None. As for proof, it is not for the writer in a short editorial to ‘prove’ their point beyond all reasonable doubt, especially when the points they are making are self-evident – if you have a problem then let’s here it, or them – just saying ‘This is nonsense because I disagree with it’ is not an argument given to intellectual rigor.<br /><br />Is it emotional? Yes, but so what? The future of the planet is an emotional issue. You skeptics have it hard, I know – poor luvs! – but this article is not about GW is particular, it is more about the industrial world in general so don’t feel too victimized. <br /><br />So, in short, your critique is all over the shop. You talk of slander, ahem, libel, a very specific crime, and of wild accusations while simultaneously whining that the piece is over-simplified and broadly generalized. You make wild accusations, provide no proof or analysis of your claims, demand impossible proofs and, frankly, get emotional, but what you DON’T do is explain WHY the article is wrong.<br /><br />So. How about it? Get specific and I’ll get specific back. Otherwise you are guilty of over-simplifications and broad generalizations, and we can’t have <br />that, can we?<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />ElroyElroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-47102035042675895752009-07-20T23:53:54.587-04:002009-07-20T23:53:54.587-04:00Hey it also works as:
papanick2009@live.com
nick...Hey it also works as: <br />papanick2009@live.com<br /><br />nicky j.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-659286464621298022009-07-20T23:50:31.884-04:002009-07-20T23:50:31.884-04:00Global heating in the upper desert of Los Angeles ...Global heating in the upper desert of Los Angeles county.<br /><br />Hello all. We've had extremely high temps but no records set, even if it was 111* this past sat and 108* sunday. Its been the wind that has been hot and the humidity low until today, Monday at 22%.<br />So its like August instead of July.<br />Still as I said no records. Thank God the temp drops at night and we turn the A/C off and open the windows. Thanks for the Ice Wein note. same gor Germany's Icewein.<br />Angus the scot aka: nicky j.<br />New email papanick2009@hotmail.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-90705713820262145972009-07-20T22:58:03.625-04:002009-07-20T22:58:03.625-04:00Great stuff, Hawkeye! Great stuff!Great stuff, Hawkeye! Great stuff!Amy Proctorhttp://amyproctor.squarespace.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-42147630912653489932009-07-20T13:32:12.483-04:002009-07-20T13:32:12.483-04:00Shelly,
Cranium meltdown? ...They musta been stand...<b>Shelly</b>,<br />Cranium meltdown? ...They musta been standing in the sun too long.<br /><br />(:D) Best regards...Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-85477827891537790772009-07-20T13:30:32.529-04:002009-07-20T13:30:32.529-04:00Bob,
Thanks for the kind words. It's been exce...<b>Bob</b>,<br />Thanks for the kind words. It's been exceptionally nice here too. Windows open most of July... unheard of!<br /><br />(:D) Best regards...Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-32864255015236818442009-07-20T09:58:05.536-04:002009-07-20T09:58:05.536-04:00To cold to porch here in the evening. There has on...To cold to porch here in the evening. There has only been about a half a dozen evenings worth sitting outside. The days are rarely above 78, which is good for my MS, buy lousy for crops. Saturday's high was about 72. Now this is July in muggy Ohio???<br /><br />We went to the drive-in last night to watch ICE AGE (animation) and everyone who was sitting outside in their lounge chairs were wrapped in blankets. I stayed in the car.<br /><br />I started a dialogue with the folks here one evening who love CNN and other glober warming channels and you just as may be arguing about Chevy vs Ford. Facts held no position, but by golly CNN did.<br /><br />We are doomed as a society. Not from glober warming, but from cranium meltdown.<br /><br />P.S. I will take a Ford any dayJust call me Shellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04695036328983073870noreply@blogger.com