Global Warming

[Giardiasis]

I didn't say that I didn't want to deal with the Political realities . What I said was that this should not be about left versus right . The fact that so many people such as yourself believe that it is about that makes me sad because it means that it is harder to just debate the issue for what it is .
I can't find a socialist who believes what you ask because i don't know any socialists but actually it doesn't prove anything ( I know a number of left leaning people but i would class none of them as socialists) . Just because people with left leaning ideas may have that view doesn't mean that those with right leaning ideas don't. I actually have quite a few friends who I would class as conservative in their views who believe in the need for a price on carbon .
Not everybody's views are as neat and tidy as you make out.

The policy choices to combat an assumed problem is indeed left vs right. The left always want more government control, the right want less. So that is why any solution that involves more taxes, greater government influence in the economy and so on will divide the public along the political compass.

The question of whether AGW = crisis is a scientific one, which doesn't really involve the general public. If that is what you are referring to then I agree.

However the left are fascinated with "causes", and will use them as an excuse to exert greater government control, ala swine flu, bird flu, millennium bug, peak oil, DDT, smoking etc. The point I'm making is that a lefty doesn't need to look at the scientific evidence available to form an opinion that AGW = crisis, they are willing to believe it simply because it is a nice "cause" they can get their hands on to further their designs of big government.

 

[Sintiger]

The point I'm making is that a lefty doesn't need to look at the scientific evidence available to form an opinion that AGW = crisis, they are willing to believe it simply because it is a nice "cause" they can get their hands on to further their designs of big government.

This is your opinion only . My opinion and my experience is that this is garbage .

I think I will leave it at that .

 

[tigersnake]

The old 'fake 80 years worth of scientific data and mis-interpret results to fan public fear and foster world government' trick. Thats the third time I've fallen for that this month.

 

[AngryAnt]

The policy choices to combat an assumed problem is indeed left vs right. The left always want more government control, the right want less. So that is why any solution that involves more taxes, greater government influence in the economy and so on will divide the public along the political compass.

Strange then that the history of liberal democracy in the west shows that right wing governments tend to spend just as much, increase laws and legislation, increase taxes and the like just as much and as often as so-called left wing governments. This is despite any differences in political ideology.

Left and right are old and tired political concepts.

 

[Giardiasis]

Strange then that the history of liberal democracy in the west shows that right wing governments tend to spend just as much, increase laws and legislation, increase taxes and the like just as much and as often as so-called left wing governments. This is despite any differences in political ideology.

Left and right are old and tired political concepts.

The left and the right divide is different in different western countries. Politicians like to spend other people's money regardless of ideology. Also a right wing government doesn't mean they will follow right wing policy, and vice versa. The left and the right divide is certainly not as pronounced as it once was, given the utter failure of communism. The battles are now fought over the level of government in people's lives.

 

[AngryAnt]

The left and the right divide is different in different western countries. Politicians like to spend other people's money regardless of ideology. Also a right wing government doesn't mean they will follow right wing policy, and vice versa. The left and the right divide is certainly not as pronounced as it once was, given the utter failure of communism. The battles are now fought over the level of government in people's lives.

The left and right divide is not as pronounced as it once was, given the utter failure of fascism.

See what I did there?

 

[Giardiasis]

The left and right divide is not as pronounced as it once was, given the utter failure of fascism.

See what I did there?

Not really; Fascism is as totalitarian as Communism. They are not polar opposites like the free market vs state controlled economies are.

 

[AngryAnt]

Not really; Fascism is as totalitarian as Communism. They are not polar opposites like the free market vs state controlled economies are.

Totalitarianism is neither left nor right.

 

[Giardiasis]

Totalitarianism is neither left nor right.

It is not compatible with the right because of the obvious conflict between minimalist government involvement in the economy and state control of people's lives. Fascism is not a right wing (i.e. conservative) ideology.

I'd argue totalitarianism is only compatible with the left. Let's looks at wiki; "Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the power of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible." Sounds pretty left wing to me.

 

[Tiger74]

It is not compatible with the right because of the obvious conflict between minimalist government involvement in the economy and state control of people's lives. Fascism is not a right wing (i.e. conservative) ideology.

I'd argue totalitarianism is only compatible with the left. Let's looks at wiki; "Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the power of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible." Sounds pretty left wing to me.

Small govt is not some bastion of the right. Howard oversaw a massive expansion on govt intervention within the Australian economy and society, and Bush did the same.

Small govt is a marketing tool now, and that's it. The only real examples left are some in the USA, and what they want I'm assuming you would find unpalatable. Virtually no military, shut down of a vast number of international agreements and trade, law and order pared back to the bare bones. Small govt means you look after yourself, for nearly everything.

Most people confuse small govt with low taxation, and funding for areas like the arts. They expect however an expansion in areas they support like law and order, but this is against true small govt beliefs.

 

[Giardiasis]

Small govt is not some bastion of the right. Howard oversaw a massive expansion on govt intervention within the Australian economy and society, and Bush did the same.

Small govt is a marketing tool now, and that's it. The only real examples left are some in the USA, and what they want I'm assuming you would find unpalatable. Virtually no military, shut down of a vast number of international agreements and trade, law and order pared back to the bare bones. Small govt means you look after yourself, for nearly everything.

Most people confuse small govt with low taxation, and funding for areas like the arts. They expect however an expansion in areas they support like law and order, but this is against true small govt beliefs.

As I've said previously, a right wing government doesn't mean right wing policies, and vice versa. All politicians like to spend money.

For example, if a right wing government in Europe even made the suggestion of a drawing down of entitlements, the ensuring riots would bring them quickly back into line.

What I envisage as right wing would be the US before the New Deal.

 

[Tiger74]

As I've said previously, a right wing government doesn't mean right wing policies, and vice versa.

For example, if a right wing government in Europe even made the suggestion of a drawing down of entitlements, the ensuring riots would bring them quickly back into line.

What I envisage as right wing would be the US before the New Deal.

Not small govt though. In the decades leading up to the New Deal, the USA embraced Federalism over states rights, engaged in colonial conquests in Cuba, the Phillipines, and Puerto Rico, introduced the anti trust laws to dismantle Standard Oil, and exerted it's military might through displays of power like the White Fleet.

These are not acts of a small govt.

 

[Sintiger]

This left - right thing is just garbage . There are so many exceptions to the box it puts policies and views into it becomes useless .

If you study US Politics you will find that the largest spender in Government as a percentage of National income was Ronald Reagan , the smallest was Bill Clinton . The only US President since JFK to increase Government emplyees per head of population in the last 50 years in Ronald reagan.
Yet he is held up as the great hero of small Government . He didn't reduce taxes either because he massively increased fuel taxes which offsett Income tax cuts. All he did was redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich . Yet most of his policies would be considered conservative .

I have said it before people do not fit into these boxes . Stereotypes just insult thinking people's right to make up their own minds on issues one by one. My own views are a mixture . I am sure I could espouse views here that would make Gia think I was a raving leftie but I am also a massive believer in the market , the critical role of private enterprise , ensuring the availability of capital , encouraging small business and mobility of labour .

Maybe I am a ri-eftie ???

 

[Giardiasis]

Not small govt though. In the decades leading up to the New Deal, the USA embraced Federalism over states rights, engaged in colonial conquests in Cuba, the Phillipines, and Puerto Rico, introduced the anti trust laws to dismantle Standard Oil, and exerted it's military might through displays of power like the White Fleet.

These are not acts of a small govt.

You are always going to find examples that contradict the rule, the anti trust laws being the big one there. I still think it is the best example of what I think constitutes right wing government.

The right advocate a strong military, I don't think it counters the argument of small government. Small government is still government, and the defence function comes under that banner.

 

[Tiger74]

You are always going to find examples that contradict the rule, the anti trust laws being the big one there. I still think it is the best example of what I think constitutes right wing government.

The right advocate a strong military, I don't think it counters the argument of small government. Small government is still government, and the defence function comes under that banner.

My point is right wing is not about small govt, it's a myth. Libertarians support small govt, and they have been sidelined for generations.

A large military and an interventionist military is completely against the core values of a small govt ideal. small govt ideals are non interventionist, and using military muscle to excerpt influence on others contradicts this.

The USA has a myth that they were isolationists until ww1, but when you pull apart the threads you see this is marketing and not fact. The conquest of Florida, the war with Mexico, the fun and games with Canada, all acts of a govt prepared to use it's military to achieve it's expansionist goals. They decry colonial expansion, but retained colonial possessions they acquired in the Philippines, Peurto Rico, and Cuba. They used military force to gain economic access rights in Japan. They declared war on separatist states who succeeded from the Union (slavery was not the main motivator for the war, the issue of states rights was the bigger debating point),

The right have no ownership of small govt, because they like interventionist govt as much as the next guy.

 

[Giardiasis]

So what is small government then to you? What functions does small government serve? It sounds like anarchism at the moment.

 

[Tiger74]

No, small govt means they stay out of your life unless absolutely necessary.

That's the problem with it, no poli can resist imposing their agenda on others.

 

[Giardiasis]

No, small govt means they stay out of your life unless absolutely necessary.

That's the problem with it, no poli can resist imposing their agenda on others.

Couldn't agree more with your last sentence.

I'd like to know what is deemed necessary. I know Friedman said 4 functions:
1. protect the country against foreign enemies, national defense.
2. protect the individual citizen against abuse and ccion by other citizens
3. define the rules of the game we play. e.g. What's private property?
4. provide a mechanism for adjudicating disputes about the meaning of those rules, a judicial system.

 

[Merveille]

Is the debate over?


Bill Gray, a professor emeritus at Colorado State, has been a member of the American Meteorological Society for more than 50 years. In a lengthy post at Watts Up With That, he expresses his dismay at the manner in which AMS has sold out science in the interest of politics:


'I am very disappointed at the downward path the AMS has been following for the last 10-15 years in its advocacy of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis. The society has officially taken a position many of us AMS members do not agree with. We believe that humans are having little or no significant influence on the global climate and that the many Global Circulation Climate Model (GCMs) results and the four IPCC reports do not realistically give accurate future projections. To take this position which so many of its members do not necessarily agree with shows that the AMS is following more of a political than a scientific agenda. ...

We AMS members have allowed a small group of AMS administrators, climate modelers, and CO2 warming sympathizers to maneuver the internal workings of our society to support AGW policies irrespective of what our rank-and-file members might think. This small organized group of AGW sympathizers has indeed hijacked our society. ...

James Hansen's predictions of global warming made before the Senate in 1988 are turning out to be very much less than he had projected. He cannot explain why there has been no significant global warming over the last 10-12 years.

Many of us AMS members believe that the modest global warming we have observed is of natural origin and due to multi-decadal and multi-century changes in the globe's deep ocean circulation resulting from salinity variations. These changes are not associated with CO2 increases. Most of the GCM modelers have little experience in practical meteorology. They do not realize that the strongly chaotic nature of the atmosphere-ocean climate system does not allow for skillful initial value numerical climate prediction. The GCM simulations are badly flawed in at least two fundamental ways:

1. Their upper tropospheric water vapor feedback loop is grossly wrong. They assume that increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause large upper-tropospheric water vapor increases which are very unrealistic. Most of their model warming follows from these invalid water vapor assumptions. Their handlings of rainfall processes are quite inadequate.

2. They lack an understanding and treatment of the fundamental role of the deep ocean circulation (i.e. Meridional Overturning Circulation - MOC) and how the changing ocean circulation (driven by salinity variations) can bring about wind, rainfall, and surface temperature changes independent of radiation and greenhouse gas changes. These ocean processes are not properly incorporated in their models. They assume the physics of global warming is entirely a product of radiation changes and radiation feedback processes. They neglect variations in global evaporation which is more related to surface wind speed and ocean minus surface and air temperature differences. These are major deficiencies.

It is surprising that GCMs have been able to get away with their unrealistic modeling efforts for so long. One explanation is that they have received strong support from Senator/Vice President Al Gore and other politicians who for over three decades have attempted to make political capital out of increasing CO2 measurements. Another reason is the many environmental and political groups (including the mainstream media) have been eager to use the GCM climate results as justification to push their own special interests that are able to fly under the global warming banner.

To put it less delicately, an enormous amount of money has flowed into the global warming movement. It is lavishly funded, mostly by governments. For an AGW enthusiast to admit that his models are patently wrong would mean an end to the gravy train. Hence the ongoing frauds that are perpetrated in the name of climate change.'

 

[Freezer]

What the hell would he know...?

I bet he's one of those 'dumb' scientists.