i mean folks that dont have actual problems. americans, western europeans. the pakistani dude doesnt care about global warming, his village is controlled by the taliban and his daughter was killed by a mob of extremists. the guy in sudan is worried about being sold into slavery. the fella in mumbai is hoping he will get a job so he will not have to live in garbage. those folks have real problems. problems we could help solve if we gave a damn. we dont give a damn. we pretend like global warming matters instead. if you live in bangladesh and a new pollution factory opens up, a factory that will bring money to your family and community and feed people and modernize your village, should you care that the factory emits lots of carbon? or should your nation sign some modern version of the kyoto protocol that would restrict the competitiveness of your factory? we (first world rich white folks) like problems that are clean and we can keep at arms length. we base our priorities on what makes us feel good, not what makes a difference.
I understood the context of your response, I just wanted to know if you had a hard definition for that term. Which you just cleared up for me, Thanks!
Since you feel so elevated among us unfeeling white folks, how much are you giving to charity to help your fellow man? Since I'm a rich white guy, I give away lots of money and time to help people I've never met. Alot of my fellow rich white folks do it as well. We also volunteer our time and energy, sometimes when both are at a premium. That doesn't seem consistent with the characterization that white Americans only do what feels good, instead of making a difference. And Martin, c'mon, didn't Vietnam, Somolia, Iraq and Afghanistan show you that throwing American money and manpower doesn't fix societal problems overseas? You can't be that naive. The world can be a ****ty place, and often the only fix for problems is time. But I agree, drastic, restricting, costly measures to fight global warming is not where our time and energy should be.
Actually there is. It is established that greenhouse gasses have increased since the beginning of human deforestation years ago and then again dramatically with the coming of the industrial revolution 200 years ago. Global warming has occurred in parallel. We know this from ice cores giving us a continuous climate record as far back as 4,000 years. It is also established that the burning of fossil fuel produces greenhouse gasses and the amount of that can be accurately calculated using records available in the last 200 years. This amount of greenhouse gas did not teleport to Rigel 7. It joined the atmosphere. The gist of the entire IPCC report and the consensus of the climatologists reports within it was the evidence, analysis, and conclusions that tie the human-produced gasses that must exist with the increase in greenhouse gases also documented in the evidence. Read it for yourself. You are making a political tax argument. I have not argued for taxation here. I'm defending the science behind human-induced global warming and arguing for the practical, prudent, and affordable replacement of polluting industries with greener ones, as the technology becomes available. Some "fixes" would be great, but will just have to await technological advances. But other fixes are quite feasible now, are happening big time in other countries, and are cost-effective, especially in the long run. We are behind the curve because of this political foolishness. If Al Gore is for the environment, then the conservatives must be against the environment. It is one of the many reasons that the republicans have lost the moderates and the young people. The "environmentalists are kooks" crowd is becoming much smaller and less relevant as a result. Correct. You have my absolute agreement there. Ah, but the inverse is not correct. Politicians must use science as they must use history, current events, social studies, language and all other knowledge available to them as they create policy. Better informed politicians are better politicians. We must certainly not let the politics of "no" blind us to scientific accomplishment, it has done too much to get the USA where it is. We lead the world and we need to retain that lead. You are the one that keeps bringing the third world into this, I have said nothing about them and you are arguing with me, not with some anonymous "white first world liberals". You keep trying to politicize the issue. I advocate for the environment for the benefit of all of us. For the advancement of the human species. For the pleasure of everybody. And for my personal enjoyment of life. You're simply trying to tie environmental advocacy with advocacy against disease and starvation in the third world to craft an oblique objection. Third world problems are primarily due to overpopulation. Nature remedies overpopulation with starvation and disease. It's natural selection. It's their karma. It has having nothing to do with the global warming issue, obviously. I won't miss the poor bastards much and neither will you. So quit crying crocodile tears.
i do better than give. i leave everyone alone. i dont try to manipulate them into my scheme for saving my own conscience. but for the record i would liek to know what percentage i should give in order to be a good person. perhaps there is a sliding scale and i can just give enough to be a decent person? if that makes you happy, great. the goal of life is to be happy. do you think you deserve a pat on the back for wanting to be happy? we all want to be happy. perhaps you have a need to remind yourself that you are a good person, and the charity stuff helps. congrats. i would argue that in the long run we will improve afghanistan. but for the most part i think the best thing we can do is remove all free trade barriers from everywhere. it costs us less than nothing and it helps virtually everyone in almost every way.
I hate to get off subject here, but removing all free trade barriers wouldnt help these countries necessarily. It would take a Century for it to have any impact on these poor countries you mention. The main reason being that we have a comparative and absolute advantage in the limited products, raw materials, and/or technology that we would consider trading or they could possibly produce. Not to mention the political strife and conflict barriers that these countries would have to get over before they could even begin to organize a situation where barrier free trading would be beneficial to either country.
oh what a comically short amount of time. 4000 years. but a tiny second of earth time. there have been many times previous to humans that the greenhouse gas was far higher than it is now. how did it get there if not for humans? and how can we know that the same process isnt doing it now, yet again, as it should be expected to do? right i know you like to be vague about what you favor. which is weird because we need drastic measures, al gore says the future of human civiliazation is at stake. do you agree with him? and if you do agree, then why not drastic measures? because if your premise is that human live is sacred or important, and worth saving, that the problems on earth are worth fixing, that we should save our species from pain and suffering, then there are things far far more immediate than global warming, things we can change now. that we do not care about these things is a clue about our insincerity. if i had an award to give you i would. you cant really believe that global warmign will make your life worse. the one tenth of a degree that it might warm before you die wont bother you much, i promise. it isnt about overpouplation at all. it is about poor politics. and if you are on the darwin thing then why cant you apply that to warming? we are rich white folks and we have the resources to survive the warming. the poor will suffer when the heat comes. natural selection, right? no crocodile tears from me. no tears, period. i dont give a damn who dies.after i am gone, nothing matters. i hope the flames of armageddon are licking at my deathbed. you are the one who presumably cares about humans. but you dont. you are like me.
