i trust the science less when it is used for political manipulation. also, regarding humans damaging the earth, i think we are always searching for evidence that people are hurting the precious earth. it makes us feel important. so the science gets skewed. i dont really think that humans can exist without being in a pretty much perpetual state of worry about what they are doing to the earth. at this point i always paraphrase voltaire. if there were no imminent human caused earth destruction, we would create one.
Understandable, but realize that it is the political activists who use it to manipulate policy, not the scientists. Popular science, maybe (like Al Gore's movie). But professional science in refereed journals has to pass much peer review and editorial scrutiny by tightly competitive experts who hold each other to high standards. Unsupported "skewing" of conclusions has little opportunity to survive and get published.
but for the most part we are dealing with predictions, which are impossible to disprove. most other scientific topics are about describing hows and whys and that stuff is reviewable and observable. but predicting the destruction of the earth is something that anyone can say and you cannot prove them wrong. and throughout history there is always a jerk saying the end is near for one reason or the other. and it ends up being like a environmental pascals wager. we all sit around and say "what if it were true? we have to do something!".
You cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence of something that doesn't exist. And to clarify (for lsu-I-like), I don't deny the existence of global climate change. I dispute whether humans, in all their meagerness, have any effect on it.
true but if you know enough to hold a position you cant claim ignorance when asked about it. not if your stance is always a moderate position for the sake of being moderate. I understand this is where you stand but its pretty general dont ya think? No Im just anti-government boy. My stance is the same as anyone who wants to keep our intrusive government out of our lives whenever possible. that means, I do not favor cap and trade (pollution credits) since it will be one bureaucratic clusterphuck of who pollutes and who doesnt/whats pollution and what isnt. but mainly because it will increase costs for everyone and add even more taxes discouraging industry. the exact opposite of what is needed. all in the name of reducing our carbon footprint. setting an artificial market price for emissions is lunacy. ok i understand that. i was just trying to understand if you think we should do anything specifically. I just wanted a talking point. I would like the free market to work out the business end of it, especially since we can NEVER be certain what we do is beneficial or make any difference whatsoever; yet once the government has free reign over this there is no turning back. your pockets are open for business. my stance is overly simplistic. if the government is the regulatory board, it will fail. history proves its the most inefficient business model ever and subject to fail. Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals ok so if you agree there is global warming, does the science you agree with dictate humans can correct this? if so, how? no but I know my principles of economics dictate where i stand on the issue first and foremost. then it becomes more black and white for me. if you have no principles you never know where you stand on anything; until those that do make theirs known. im not sure you understand this nor ever will. and this is the fundamental problem here. im actually a part-time economist. you favor doing something as long as its voted on by the people. this makes it prudent and pragmatic. how do we determine whats practical and what isnt? i say if it involves government control/taxes/crushing private industry, its impractical. anything determined by the free market is practical and if it isnt it will fail on its own. the business of government will never go away once in place. no, you put yourself out there even if you arent aware you dont choose a position. thats commendable. no and on this we agree. unless someone can prove their action will make an absolute difference then we do nothing. i understand this although it cant be determined until the extremes on both sides of the graph are set. i think the difference is, the extremes have opinions based on principles and fundamentals while a constant moderate basis his on the other two. thats a philosophy; not a position per se. In general, that could prove correct the majority of the time; although it says nothing about where someone stands in particular.
What I'm wondering is if companies or states participating in western free markets have employed or are employing non-free market tactics when dealing with third world countries such as countries in Africa. This is based on... a suspicion that scientists are deceivers?
western countries help destroy developing countries with terrible anti-free trade policies. for example, our agricultural policies and protectionism are doing massive damage to developing countries. instead of trading with african farmers, we put them out of business by subsidizing our own farmers and dumping artificially cheap crops on them. that keeps them from having a chance at self-sufficiency. african farmers have no chance because the american taxpayers are spending billion in an effort to ruin them. they are desperate to be self-sufficient, to run their own farms, to sell crops, but they cant because we dont let them. and now we are making it worse by screwing up corn prices even worse than before, by diverting crops into ethanol, in a terribly misguided effort to save the environment. it is because we do not trust the market to feed us that we make people starve. when we keep other countries dependent on our crops, it means the food is filtered through thir political systems, which means their leaders control it and use that power to crush the people. so they are stuck. so their countries are poor, hungry and the leaders control everything, which pretty much destabilizes and destroys any chance poor countries have to succeed. poor food policy, anti-free trade protectionism and subsidy, this kills far more people than global warming. but liberals prefer to worry about the precious mother earth and anthropomorphize it and cry about the pain we cause her. nobody cares about real problems. i would weep about it if i gave a damn, which i dont. moderate and prudent folks thought they knew how to run the global food market. they took a pragmatic position and watched as their policies killed people by the millions. the free market is too scary and extreme! everyone, including scientists, is desperate to matter.
You almost sounded objective their, except for the rant about how liberals want to subsidize farmers, which is complete myth, republicans want to subsidize farmers, promote American hegemony among that industry, and sustain protectionism more than the left ever has, regarding farming. Whats next the liberals want to bring back slavery?opcorn:opcorn:
