TTI Forums

Looks like environmentalist are after human lives again.

http://www.theatlasphere.com/metablog/713.php.

Here is a 20/20 episode about it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BZcp_wcDXec

Al Gore seems to show evidence himself that temperature changes alot (and from times when humans didn't exist). Yet people still believe that rubbish.

Oh please don't tell me that you are a global warming denier.....the last time that argument came up Quin and I almost crashed the server.

I've seen and analyzed the scientific evidence myself. Only paid marketing consultants of heavily polluting corporations say that global warming is a hoax, and only because they'll get to spend their paychecks and die happy before the really bad effects kick in.

I appeal to your basic human intelligence - billions of years of carbon dixoide have been metabolized out of the Earth's environment by plant and animal life and have been sequestered in the Earth's crust. If you dig that up and burn it, surely you must realize that has an effect on global environment. The Earth is a closed system - there's no chemical exchange of any significance going on between Earth and the surrounding space. The increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is objectively measurable. A small amount of research in basic atmospheric chemistry will explain the rest.


AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:The increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is objectively measurable. A small amount of research in basic atmospheric chemistry will explain the rest.

As an Analytical Chemist I can confirm that CO2, NO, NO2, SO2 levels can all be accurately and precisely measured in both the bulk atmosphere and in the stratified atmosphere. The measuring capacity has existed to ever increasing capability for more than 50 years. The trends in gas concentrations have been increasing consistently and dramatically since the industrial age began.

Ya know one thing people often fail to mention about global warming are aerosols – dust. Those gases come from combustion, and combustion (in some cases) relates to work. Work makes dust. The reports I am intrigued by relate to aerosols. Aerosols can be thousands of times more reflective than the priority gases, more effectively trapping heat.

Adding to the curiosity aerosols serve as nucleation sites for cloud formation. So they might be making more clouds reflecting away the initial light before it strikes the earth.

Global warming is a fun topic, many perspectives – complex system. To me it seems that the evidence is piling up much higher on the warming side.

I agree global warming exists--but not that humans are the ones to create it.

The scientist in that video contradict what you just said about being payed off. Though the media agrees with you...

Did you look at the scientific data by people on the IPCC, or by someone else?

Did you know on that large graph that maps the relationship of CO2 and temperature changes, that temperature changes come first, then the CO2 changes... that temperature changes CO2 levels.

I understand its a closed system, but polution is pretty insignificant. http://sepp.org/ is a website attributed to fighting the media claims.

There are more I found from this thread.
http://forum.objectivismonline.net/inde ... topic=4925

Like the thread mentions, its good to see scientific proof from known non-environmentalist and from before it became main media headlines.

I'm not claiming to know what is causing the earth to warm up, but its happened in the past, and it seems aparently that the relationship is temp-> co2, not the other way around.

I speculate it might of something to do with the huge body of water and some temperature cycle attributed to that, but I'm not a scientist of that sort.

Also, its really not a problem any time soon really. Not in 100 years and probably not in 500.

Generally, scientists accept that millions of years ago, the earth was warmer than it is now. They also accept that 20,000 years ago, the earth was colder than it is now. I believe that the earth is getting warmer. I am also perfectly willing to accept the concept that human industrialization has an acceleration effect on the global warming trend, but I think that scientists' insistence on arguing about whom to blame for it is a bit silly, since the historical global average temperatures on earth are much higher than they are now.

Was the earth designed to harbour carbon based lifeforms? What if the amount of carbon sequestered by life on the planet was some kind of abberation, and the earth is sighing in relief at its human saviors' valiant effort to reintroduce carbon into the atmosphere?

Scientists and politicians who champion the global warming cause talk at length about the radical changes that would be needed just to have a minor impact on the global warming trend. They pay attention to it because our way of life is based on a certain temperature range, and they would like very much to stay within it. But what if that is not possible, and was never meant by nature to be possible, since 100,000 years (the commonly accepted span in which homo sapiens have lived) is a really tiny slice of the historical timeline?

I think scientists and politicians would be better served developing ways to maintain our current way of life in a warmer climate. That would save lives in the long term and I also think more people would buy into it and support it.

So, the ocean will be 30 feet higher in 100 years? Let's start raising the average elevation in our coastal cities, etc.

I'm not sure I think you are right on why politicians and the media are getting so into it, but I agree on everything else you said. In a very long time, the water level might rise a little, so what? The market should take care of it. I agree with you on this point.

I think the reason for all the focus on it comes from a deeper root in our education. Kids learn today (at least I did) that global warming is a serious problem. They learn to romanticize living a natural life instead of altering nature to improve ones life.

I know AT is gonna think I'm nuts on this, but I really think it is a rising culture on hating humans and moving back to a "natural" state. While environmentalist aren't explicitly preaching that too much, that is what their goal leads to.

Tolthar wrote:I really think it is a rising culture on hating humans and moving back to a "natural" state. While environmentalist aren't explicitly preaching that too much, that is what their goal leads to.

That's what really caused me and the environmentalist movement to part ways. I can understand the desire to ensure that industry doesn't completely trash the environment, but humans have been altering the earth to suit their own needs for all of recorded history.

In adherence to environmentalist policy, wouldn't we be forbidden from terraforming Mars, for example?

I know AT is gonna think I'm nuts on this, but I really think it is a rising culture on hating humans and moving back to a "natural" state. While environmentalist aren't explicitly preaching that too much, that is what their goal leads to.

I'm going to walk away from this thread - if you really don't understand the scientific method enough to understand why the vast majority of accredited scientists believe anthrogenic global warming is both a fact and a threat to human existence, then nothing I say will ever fix your reason.

But since the above quote was directed specifically at me, I will say this -

If you believe that individuals expressing an honest concern, based on their peer reviewed scientific research, that human beings are rendering their planet unlivable _for humans_ is somehow 'Hating Humans', then your reason is completely damaged.

If I were warning you that you were placing your hand closer and closer to an open fire, based on my direct observation of the proximity of your hand and the fire, the last thing I would expect from Reason is for you to tell me that I am 'just hating you'. That is ridiculous. Even if I were wrong, if my eyes were malfunctioning, or the fire was just an image, it would still be completely unreasonable to compare such a warning with 'Hate'.

If you automatically ascribe malicious intent to those whom you disagree with, how can anyone assume you will argue rationally about the subject?

AT

I understand earth is warming. I understand the pollution is hurting it a little, and that it could become a problem way down the road... I don't understand the environmentalist answer to it. They want something now at the expense of human lives. People are not robots, they do not hit hammers all and create a never end source of pollution. As it becomes a real concern, there will be real answers from the market.

There are already alternatives to much of the air pollution today, but its just not worth it to switch yet. At the most, it might be worth starting to think about it.

Environmentalism is a belief that going back to what is "natural" is an end in itself. This is not true. It is sweeping politics today.

To put it simply, this is what is happening:

Environmentalist and other who are genuinely concerned in a good way, start convincing everyone that they should be concerned. Eventually, it gets taught in all the schools, but the environmentalist movement takes over rather than the right one.

The right one is to look at the facts and keep it in mind when making future decisions. That is not the Environmentalism way. (keep in mind that I'm using induction here). Environmentalist generally want something that would decrease everyone's standard of living, they look back in the progression of mankind instead of forward.

I understand it will be a problem, but the government should keep their hands off and these environmentalist should stick to convincing individualist to make the right decisions, not the government.

That is my main point, not that I deny the existence of global warming.

AT, while you sort out stuff with Tolthar, I have a question for you.

Arakasi Takeda wrote: I'm going to walk away from this thread - if you really don't understand the scientific method enough to understand why the vast majority of accredited scientists believe anthropogenic global warming is both a fact and a threat to human existence, then nothing I say will ever fix your reason.

AT

You said "most" of them think so.

What about those that disagree? How come you don't take their opinion into account?

After all, history has shown that majority of scientists (or those who claim to be) aren't always right? Examples: Galileo, etc, etc.

So, clearly the fact that majority of scientists might hold one opinion had no effect on the truth. (I.e. 50 million Frenchmen can be wrong.)

Accreditation doesn't mean much either, since some of those accredited disagree as well.

So, in the end what matters are facts and not scientific consensus.

----------------------------------------

I've yet to see a good report that gives clear data how human activity is a cause for global warming.

For example, historical statement that CO2 has been rising since Industrial Revolution means nothing unless there is a casual correlation between two.

If you have really good evidence and analysis, I would like to see them, AT. The research I've done has shown me that there is no proof for human activity being the cause, but only the cycles of Sun activity.

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:I understand the pollution is hurting it a little...

Actually, I've not seen reports that prove that it hurts a 'little," and what "little" actually is.

Have you?

I have seen reports that show that CO2 levels are higher than they have ever been before. Thats about it.

Thinking more about it, if you watch that video I showed you, Al Gore shows a graph that correlates CO2 levels with temperature. The host of the video puts those graphs together and shows and shows that the change in temperature always happens first.

I agree with the host that the debate is hardly over. More study will have to be done first... and hopefully less lobbying on the subject.

Interesting enough, Ayn Rand actually talks about this in her Q&A book. She was asked about if the government should do something about it. She said that it should be the people concerned should not be convincing the government, but convince other individuals to changes their decision. Of course, I don't if any technology has changed, but that really has nothing to do with her argument.

Against my better judgement, I'll answer this post because I see at least one legitimate question -

You said "most" of them think so.

What about those that disagree? How come you don't take their opinion into account?

After all, history has shown that majority of scientists (or those who claim to be) aren't always right? Examples: Galileo, etc, etc.

So, clearly the fact that majority of scientists might hold one opinion had no effect on the truth. (I.e. 50 million Frenchmen can be wrong.)

Accreditation doesn't mean much either, since some of those accredited disagree as well.

So, in the end what matters are facts and not scientific consensus.

I did say most, and I did so deliberately. There are minority opinions for almost all theories and hypothesis in modern science. That is science's strength - the scientific process of peer review, testing, and hypothesis falsification.

You made the statement, and underlying assumption, that I 'didn't take the opinions of those who disagree into account'. I might well ask 'why haven't you taken the majority's opinion into account?' I'd assume your motive for asking the question would be the same as mine....serious question as to whether the subject has actually been studied in depth by the speaker.

As a matter of fact, as a scientist, I _have_ taken the minority's opinion into account, and subjected it to careful scrutiny. That is part of the scientific method. That is 'peer review'. The reason I do not agree with the minority's opinion is because, on analysis of their arguments, I find their conclusions lacking. I have dismissed them in the same way I would dismiss someone professing the theory of the Flat Earth. On consideration of the photographic evidence of the planet from space, I have come to the conclusion that the Round Earth theory better conforms to the facts, and that the minority's opinion is ridiculous. In the same fashion, I have concluded that those who profess the minority opinion on global warming are also incorrect.

Now, you state that history has shone that there are many examples where the majority of scientists have been wrong, and single individuals correct. This is not proof of the correctness of your own obvious conclusion on the subject. History is also replete with examples of the majority being correct and individual scientists being cranks....even great ones (Newton believed in alchemy as well as gravitation. We generously forget that fact because of his contribution). Just because a majority of people hold an opinion does not automatically make that opinion wrong, any more than the inverse. As you said, what matters are facts.

You use an unfortunate turn of phrase....scientific consensus...as synonymous with 'opinion' in your statement. This denegrates the real meaning of a scientific consensous, in the same way that stating the Theory of Gravity, is just a 'theory'. Gravitation isn't just someone's opinion - it's a carefully examined, strongly tested hypothesis. It is the _scientific consensus_ explaining why two masses are attracted to each other.

Would you suggest that, because the majority of scientists hold the consenus that Newtonian Gravitation is the correct theory (for macroscopic objects not traveling at or near the speed of light, or consisting of twenty + solar masses - where Relativistic effects dominate), they must be wrong, because there are a few scientist who disagree? Or how about the 'Theory' of Evolution, and it's minority 'Intelligent Design' opinion? The argument you are attempting to make on that account has no rational weight behind it.

I've yet to see a good report that gives clear data how human activity is a cause for global warming.

For example, historical statement that CO2 has been rising since Industrial Revolution means nothing unless there is a casual correlation between two.

If you have really good evidence and analysis, I would like to see them, AT. The research I've done has shown me that there is no proof for human activity being the cause, but only the cycles of Sun activity.

I would humbly suggest that the reason you have 'yet to see a good report' is because you are intentionally not looking for one. The fact is, there are plenty of such reports. That is _why_ the present scientific consensus around the entire world currently leans towards anthrogenic warming. The IPCC report, for example, was the result of intensive peer reviewed testing. By any account, it is a good scientific document. But you ignore it.

Perhaps you would care to explain on what _scientific_ grounds you believe that this document is incorrect? What faults to you find in its empirical testing? What conclusions do you challenge, and on what evidentary grounds?

The full text of the Fourth IPCC Consensus report is available here, with its citations, should you care to directly quote the places you disagree with:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

AT[/url]

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:
I understand the pollution is hurting it a little...

Actually, I've not seen reports that prove that it hurts a 'little," and what "little" actually is.

Have you?

I know this is going to come off as very rude....but if you are not convinced that pollutiuon 'hurts a little', I suggest skipping reports entirely and convincing yourself with a simple experiment.

Lock yourself in a hermetically sealed room with a car, and start the engine running. In very short order, I think you will convince yourself that pollutants are dangerous to your health 'a little'.

Now, I understand that global warming isn't carbon monoxide poisoning, but the idea that putting the pollutants created by burning fossil fuels directly into the air has 'no effect whatsoever' is so patently false even with the most cursory logic, that I fail to understand how deniers can even convince themselves. Its so obviously fallacious - surely you must accept that the stuff moving from the crust to the atmosphere does _something_ . You do at least hold that the property of conservation of mass/energy is real, and the stuff just doesn't vanish, right?

Therefore, the only _possible_ logical conclusion is not whether polluting does something, but _what_ it does. The idea that it does _nothing_ cannot stand under even the most strained logic.

AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote: I would humbly suggest that the reason you have 'yet to see a good report' is because you are intentionally not looking for one. The fact is, there are plenty of such reports. That is _why_ the present scientific consensus around the entire world currently leans towards anthrogenic warming. The IPCC report, for example, was the result of intensive peer reviewed testing. By any account, it is a good scientific document. But you ignore it.

AT

Thanks. I looked into this report.

IPCC is a group that works for UN. Hmm. I already have a problem. UN is an immoral institution to start with, since it included mass murdering countries like USSR without any problems.

But, as I said, facts are facts regardless who made them.

So, I looked more into it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergover ... sm_of_IPCC

Some really interesting stuff is going on here. A lot of political wars over what should be science without a touch of political pull.

Here's an interesting part:

Political influence on the IPCC has been documented by the release of a memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration, and its effects on the IPCC's leadership. The memo led to strong Bush administration lobbying, evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust Robert Watson, one of the world's leading climate scientists, from the IPCC chairmanship, and to have him replaced by Pachauri, who was seen at the time as more mild-mannered and industry-friendly.

That's scary stuff. So, governments can "oust" scientists from the IPCC group and essentially control who gets to be on the IPCC?

And then you get into some serious problems with graphs in IPCC reports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Oh, man, there is so much crap around this business. There is no way I'm going to trust IPCC that is controlled by UN and governments around the world.

This is simply not science.

IPCC is an intergovernmental organization led by UN. The process of the organization is first to issue a condensed issue for politicians to act by, decided by members of every UN-country. Then, the various main authors, mostly are not (competent) scientists, are to write the complete report that is going to support the condensed issue. In this process scientists are asked to comment on the report. No matter what their comments are they are taken as in support of the report. This has nothing to do with science.

As far as I can see, the "global warming" is an effect of us going out of our most recent small ice age, that took place roughly between 1600 and 1800.

As to the relation between the CO2=death and the "sceptics", from my reading of papers, discussion in the norwegian academia, on television and recent books, the number of sceptics are rapidly increasing. Daily there are op-eds going against glopal warming in the newspapers. There are discussions between independent scientists, largely in fields of statistics, geology, biology and chemistry, and the environmental center at my University (Oslo). More and more documentaries are sent presenting various sceptics, for instance on the theory of Svensmark. And in addition an acquintance of mine recently published a book on the issue. I can see similar trends in atleast Sweden and Denmark. In contrast the opposition is now on the defensive.

Tolthar Lockbar wrote: As it becomes a real concern, there will be real answers from the market.

There are already alternatives to much of the air pollution today, but its just not worth it to switch yet. At the most, it might be worth starting to think about it.

This is an interesting sentiment. And one where I think Objectivism breaks down – environmental regulation. Any form of environmental regulation takes the “free” out of free market.

So when you claim that the market can address the issue of pollution - I’d have to disagree. Markets are in the business of efficiently transferring goods and services, not social engineering.

One of the big reasons for outsourcing jobs from the US and Europe revolves around avoidance of environmental regulation. The outsourcing of textile production, dying and finishing are classic examples. It is cheaper to avoid regulations, and produce textiles in India (just don’t drink the water in India.) The reality is that the government in each country creates a unique regulatory environment for businesses to operate under. This regulatory disparity is a major reason why liaise fare capitalism can not exist. A different playing feild exists for identical businesses in each different country.

History is also replete with examples where industry, elected to create pollution in order to maximize their own profits.

Musashi wrote:Any form of environmental regulation takes the “free” out of free market.

I think that the freedom inherent in an objectivist economy does provide for a form of environmental regulation that I find to be acceptable: the actions of the consumer.

In a market free from taxes, tariffs, pork barreling and subsidies, competition would eliminate entities that produced excessive pollution, IF this is something that consumers would base their buying decisions on (I would like to think they would, if they really cared).

Furthermore, in this truly free market, workers are free to pursue employment wherever they wish. So if a particular company is polluting excessively, regulation will come in the form of no one wanting to work there, IF this is something that workers would be willing to base their employment decisions on (I would like to think they would, if they really cared).

But, if society indicates their lack of interest in living in a clean, healthy environment by refusing to modify their buying / employment behavior, then the people have spoken and that's that...

But I recommend the following:

A. Begin to develop technologies that combat pollution. If the populace refuses to create a market for green goods and services, wait until things are so dirty that they can't even remember the color green and then unleash your solution.

B. Begin to develop green technologies that are cheaper or more efficient than dirty technologies. Fusion power plants would be nice. Cars that run on water, solar powered lawn mowers, etc. If it's cheaper (no fossil fuels, no corrupt oil companies using the government to shut down clean, cheap alternatives?) or better, the consumers will use it.

Thanks. I looked into this report.

IPCC is a group that works for UN. Hmm. I already have a problem. UN is an immoral institution to start with, since it included mass murdering countries like USSR without any problems.

Can you please explain to me the logical reasoning of the above? An institution is immoral because one of its members is immoral? Judging the entire group by the actions of one individual?

That institution also happened to be started under the auspicies of the United States. Does that automatically mean the US is immoral, by association? What principle of logical reasoning justifies your statement?

But, as I said, facts are facts regardless who made them.

I'm glad that you recognize the above, which makes your next set of statements worthy of a head explosion.

Here's an interesting part:

Political influence on the IPCC has been documented by the release of a memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration, and its effects on the IPCC's leadership. The memo led to strong Bush administration lobbying, evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust Robert Watson, one of the world's leading climate scientists, from the IPCC chairmanship, and to have him replaced by Pachauri, who was seen at the time as more mild-mannered and industry-friendly.

That's scary stuff. So, governments can "oust" scientists from the IPCC group and essentially control who gets to be on the IPCC?

Oh, man, there is so much crap around this business. There is no way I'm going to trust IPCC that is controlled by UN and governments around the world.

This is simply not science.

[I intentially left out the 'Hockey Stick quote' for later]

So you state that the important things are the facts, not who made them. Your immediate followup quote was to attack the institution of the IPCC, instead of addressing the global warming report itself.

Do you not see the obvious contradiction there?

Worse yet, your reasoning is atrocious - Company A attempts to use inappropriate political pull to influence State B into change the makeup of a non-government panel of scientists C, in order to specifically change the leader of C to someone more 'industry-friendly' to Company A's position on what should be a neutral study.

Your conclusion: C is evil.

Not Company A, the one using the aristocracy of pull. Not State B for allowing Company A to try to lobby them, but _C_ the non-governmental panel....THAT'Syour villian. That's the one whose facts you won't address.

Don't serious Objectivists believe you fault the one making the inappropriate attempt to pull, not the victim of it? Or do you have some other quotation from the non-fiction on Objectivism I have missed? How do you justify the train of logic above?


Ignoring your demonstratably ad hominen attacks above, the only 'legitimate' concern you raise about the report itself is the so-called 'Hockey-Stick' controversy, a buzz-word with global climate change deniers. I say 'so-called' deliberately, because it isn't a controversy to anyone who understands applied statistical analysis.

The entire question boils down to the following: Using a series of know data points, construct a mathematical function whose value over time approximates these points at appropriate times, and extrapolates their value into the future.

It's exactly the same mathematical analysis used to study stock prices, chemical reactions, and a variety of other natural phenomenon. The mathematics for approximating functions operates under a very strict set of axioms, but there are several slightly different methods to go about it, each with their own assessment of error values, boundary conditions, etc.

The point of the analysis is to come up with a predictive model of which can be tested against the actual change over time of a phenomenon. If the observed values over time fall within the error margins of the function, then the predictive model is good. If they do not, then the predictive model has a fault and must be re-examined.

In the IPCC report, the predictive model is change in global average tempurature over time (I believe the wikipedia portion you quoted is for the North American prediction to be precise, similar graphs exist for other reports studying climate change in different portions of the world). An argument arose over whether the inital function suggested by one research group was adequately constructed using proper mathematical modelling. Most specifically, the interest is in the error margins of the function, related to the reliability of climate data points from the Middle Ages.

What you apparently did not take away from the very URL you sighted is that the 'controversy' does not, in fact, revolve around the shape of the climate modeling function itself - but on the assessment of the error bars due to the earliest data point collection. Adjusting the error bars does not change the shape of the function itself, only the spread. The test of the function, as a climate model, lies in its ability to accurately predict the change in global average tempurature over time. For the last ten years, the climate model has been accurate well within its error margin.

The idea that there is something wrong with the function itself is a piece of commonly believe _propoganda_, not a mathematical or scientific fact. It was spread by those who have a specific agenda in distorting actual science for their personal gain. If you look at the experiments for discerning _actual_ global tempurature data, and apply good old fashioned bias-blind mathematical principles to it, the resulting mathematical prediction is inescapable. Like all scientific theories, it may eventually fall out of line with real observation, but so far it hasn't. That is what science calls a 'working theory'. And it is why global climate change is a scientific concensus by the majority of the world's researchers.

AT

Then, the various main authors, mostly are not (competent) scientists, are to write the complete report that is going to support the condensed issue. In this process scientists are asked to comment on the report. No matter what their comments are they are taken as in support of the report. This has nothing to do with science.

Can you support any of the ad hominens you are making above with actual evidence? You state the scientist are not competent - what proof do you offer? You state that, when other scientists are offered a chance to make comments 'no matter what their comments are they are taken as in support of the report' - please cite your evidence for this as well.

You attack the authors, not the data or analysis. You imply the process is biased, but offer no support. Both are logical fallicies, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

As far as I can see, the "global warming" is an effect of us going out of our most recent small ice age, that took place roughly between 1600 and 1800.

This fallacy of reasoning is directly related to the 'Hockey Stick controvesy' I mentioned in my reply to Oleksandr - they always appear side by side. The question of how much error exists in the measurement of Middle Age global tempurature is exactly a question of the severity of that 'small ice age'. The fact is there is little support for suggesting that ice age was 'more severe than currently understood', in order to favor 'softening' (extending) the error margins on the current prediction models. The data points correspond well through the collection of _multiple_ different methods - ice cores, tree rings, soil chemistry, etc.

As to the relation between the CO2=death and the "sceptics", from my reading of papers, discussion in the norwegian academia, on television and recent books, the number of sceptics are rapidly increasing. Daily there are op-eds going against glopal warming in the newspapers. There are discussions between independent scientists, largely in fields of statistics, geology, biology and chemistry, and the environmental center at my University (Oslo). More and more documentaries are sent presenting various sceptics, for instance on the theory of Svensmark. And in addition an acquintance of mine recently published a book on the issue. I can see similar trends in atleast Sweden and Denmark. In contrast the opposition is now on the defensive.

Again, can you sight specific sources for the above (I'd personally like to research them myself) - the majority of respected scientific journals, research institutions, and mainstream journalism all relate the opposing viewpoint - concensus continues to grow, not retreat.

AT

Sophid wrote:

Musashi wrote:Any form of environmental regulation takes the “free” out of free market.

I think that the freedom inherent in an objectivist economy does provide for a form of environmental regulation that I find to be acceptable: the actions of the consumer.

The consumers are speaking plainly, look in the department stores. The bulk of the merchandise is being produced in countries with less stringent environmental policies (admittedly also lower cost labor as well). The consumer wants the highest value, regardless of the impact on a region where the goods are produced. The distributor wants the merchandise with lowest cost and highest value in order to gain repeated business from customers and highest profit margins – again not concerned with outside impacts.

Sophid wrote:A. Begin to develop technologies that combat pollution. If the populace refuses to create a market for green goods and services, wait until things are so dirty that they can't even remember the color green and then unleash your solution.

I really appreciated reading Dr. Robert Boyle’s essay on crossing the River Thymes, written about 150 years ago. The river was so polluted that people frequently lost consciousness and died from exposure to the fumes. A ferry sank, and the all the passengers were rescued from drowning , all died some days later from poisoning due to being immersed in the water. I think there is a tendency to believe that pollution is somehow a new thing. In fact, historically and on a localized level pollution was far worse. And the pollution reached those levels in an unfettered marketplace. Government regulations helped to reverse the trends, but it wasn't an overnight sensation.

musashi wrote:I really appreciated reading Dr. Robert Boyle’s essay on crossing the River Thymes, written about 150 years ago. The river was so polluted that people frequently lost consciousness and died from exposure to the fumes. A ferry sank, and the all the passengers were rescued from drowning , all died some days later from poisoning due to being immersed in the water. I think there is a tendency to believe that pollution is somehow a new thing. In fact, historically and on a localized level pollution was far worse. And the pollution reached those levels in an unfettered marketplace. Government regulations helped to reverse the trends, but it wasn't an overnight sensation.

And who owned the river and what parts? Was it private or public?

If it was public, then there is your reason for it getting that bad. Only way Government can fix this is through restrictions.

If it was private, then the private owners down stream or even at the pollution entry point should of been able to sue the factory for the invasion of their private property.

If they happen to own every part of the river that the pollution effected, then the ferry companies should of had to make a deal, and should of been informed about the pollution--therefor, it is not the factory, but the ferry company's fault. If it was private, the blame could of been put somewhere and the court system should fix it. I doubt it was private though...

About Sorphid's comments about the consumer's choice: I agree. People seem to assume that buyers are robots in the face of what they buy. This is completely not true. I'd say 10-20% of people at my work don't shop at Walmart because they import everything from china. The funny thing is: they are a walking contradiction since I work at a furniture distribution center that imports from china.

Look at the Apply sales compared to other PCs (and Apples used to be twice as expensive almost). Hell, I used Linux for years because used to think MS was were "greedy dollar chasers". (I still think they are, but now I respect them for it.)

http://www.seoexploits.com/?s=guesses

The first part will be declared as "Ad hominens" but the second part actually touches real evidence.

For instance: why is mars experiencing the same warming up we are?

Also, most graphs look at the last 500,000 years, try looking at 5 mil ago:



If you put the co2 graph with the temp graph, you will see that temp changes always come first. Not that correlation means causation, but its worth looking at.

Lasty, I'll end with a quote about science in a free market: "No problem, no funding".

Similar to arguments regarding smoking, the emission of hazardous chemicals into the general environment as a result of human industry presents an interesting quandary between objectivist entrepreneurship and property right/violence limitations. A situation where a corporate entity's production results in a negative impact upon a local ecosystem, causing discomfort to local populations is in effect a form of property violation and simultaneous assault. By setting up shop next to somebody and forcing them to inhale toxic chemicals from your production process, or making their own arable land untenable as a result of toxic seepage you violate their very basic and objective rights. Translating this to a global scale, given the knowledge we have of the impact of various chemicals on ecosystems and the evidence of the negative impact of contaminants on the environment it's safe to say that continuing to work with outdated technologies for the sake of simplicity is absolutely reprehensible. The true hatred for humans is exhibited by those who act without restraint, unduly affecting the lives of those around them. Can an objectivist argument be made in favour of smoking on a city bus? Probably from a personal freedom perspective, but given the weight of scientific evidence that exposure to cigarette smoke is at the very least detrimental, it seems more like an act of assault upon those whose air you share.

As far as the global warming debate itself goes, the simple empirical evidence indicates a negative effect on any closed system by any excessive action. Eating too much junk food isn't healthy. Driving too many cars isn't healthy. Drinking too much soda isn't healthy. Smoking too many cigarettes, well, ain't healthy. The bottom line is that we've created a society where excess is upheld as viable, even though excess (especially when taken biblically as the sin of Gluttony) can clearly be exhibited to create situations where violence and property right violation are the only possible outcomes. It's hard to accept that maybe behind all the objectivist 'individualism' that there is a common good, but when our survival and means is very reliant upon a greater force (that of the natural world which our skinny hairless monkey bodies inhabit) it makes sense that we rise as individual masters of our destiny, upholding at the same time fear and respect for the finality of the real.

It's not a system of death, or a hatred of humans but an understanding that everything we have made can be obliterated in the blink of an eye.

Nature > You. And if you think otherwise, you need to take your hands off the keyboard and go canoing in your local forest/rainforest/mountains.

As for me and myself I'd sooner make minor lifestyle adjustments in the interests of prolonging my individual persistence. Faced with the potential of being party to my own demise, I'm going to study very closely and act very carefully. Ignoring warnings, dismissing them as 'neoliberal propaganda' or outright denying the gravity of a given situation is self-defeating. Look at the way the global public was siezed up in the fury to defend themselves from the terrorist threat, which occured on a minor scale and to an isolated section of the population. Compare this to the environmental response in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Tsunami, etc. (not saying these were generated by global warming at all, just that they're definitely indicative of the 'worst case scenario'). 'Defending humanity' from a few thousand wasted renegades in the mountains has become a multi-billion dollar industry while environmental reclamation and restoration projects dominate what amounts to less than a percentile of industrial output. The irony is difficult to overlook.