US: thanks for destroying our world!

SaviorComplex
And yet you are still using a computer, the internet, developed by evil capitalists. Yes, it is evil capitalists that are destroying the world. Perhaps we should look for our salvation in the communist nations; you'll be waiting a very long time, China and Cuba are not developing innovations, such as that wonderful computer you are hypocritically using to complain about the evil capitalists.

Of course, I am sure you will blame that all on the capitalists as well.

Spoken like a true capitalist sheep. Using a computer does not make me a hypocrite. I paid for my computer using my hard earned cash. The same goes for my internet connection. Like anyone else living in the west, I was born in a capitalist country. I simply have no choice but to make the best of a bad situation. Just because I live in a capitalist country, doesn't mean I have to like it. I would gladly change it given half a chance.

What's Wrong With Capitalism?

C is for 'Carrot' as in 'at the end of the stick'.
You move toward what you desire, it moves away, unless you're one of the few who get to hold the stick itself.

A is for 'Anti-socialism'.
You will find few nations who are more anti-social than the purely market driven ones. Capitalists are typically against nationalized healthcare, environmental regulations, and other socially beneficial programs. Opposition to these types of programs is anti-social behavior.

P is for 'Pretend'.
Capitalist corporations pretend their will is more important than the will of the people and use their vast reserves of money to influence politics in their favor. This puts increasing pressure on everyday people to somehow justify their own social needs without the ability to throw money around.

I is for 'Idiocy.'
The relentless pursuit of capital turns most people into blithering idiots, who have lost their better judgment. When a majority of a population lose their common sense in this manner, it can be said that nation is suffering from an epidemic of idiocy.

T is for 'Treadmill'.
The harder and faster you pursue popular notions of necessity or happiness... the more likely you are to spend all your energy and get nowhere.

A is for 'All' as in 'We can't ALL be rich.'
There are over 260 million people in the United States. A $6 trillion economy could NEVER support a citizenry of 100% millionaires. In fact, $6 trillion divided among 260 million citizens is only $23 thousand per person. Get your head out of the clouds... you will never be rich.

L is for 'Losers'.
In any system, if you have winners... you also have losers. Under Capitalism, the number of 'winners' is ever shrinking while the population of 'losers' grows and grows.

I is for 'Ism'.
Capitalism is one of many 'isms'. It's closest relative, of course, is 'feudalism'.

S is for 'Slavery'.
They added wages and some jobs even give benefits, but your labors still benefit someone else more than they benefit you. Therefore, you are being exploited. Mild or not, that's a form of slavery.

M is for 'Mental Illness'.
A Capitalist system nurtures greed, a dibilitating disease that can only be controlled with wisdom and deliberate concentration. Those who cannot control their own greed are suffering from mental illness.

WORLD SOCIALISM
www.worldsocialism.org...

Wow Another "Hate America First " post, What a surprise.... Way to many cry-babies and whinners spewing falsehoods like they are facts...Blaming America for the woes of the world when most of the world couldnt be bothered to lift a finger to do ANYTHING for any other country...Pfft....

reply to post by kindred


Christ, that was pretty idiotic.

Please, when debating points, don't resort to such childish rhetoric. We're here to deny ignorance, not to force our points on one another by means of misleading rhetorical devices.

Capitalism is, like a republic, the "least bad." Nothing you do can ever replace human virtue, and there will always be injustice to fight. But the problem lies in the fact that socialism is not a natural product of humanity.

Capitalism relies on voluntary transaction - the lack of coercion - something that exists in all cases except for monopoly. And when using the term, "monopoly," understand that a monopoly is only a monopoly when it prevents new enterprise from entering the market (it may own the market because it is the most efficient and serve customers). It allows people's natural needs and wants to regulate prices, wages, investment, and so on.

Socialism, on the other hand, and communism (its big brother), is a planned economy. The transactions are all forced - coerced. There is no motivation to better serve customers to pay better wages - since it's all controlled or downright run by the state. In fact, not only is there no motivation to set them properly, but it's impossible. The invisible hand - that is, the collective product of human supply and demand - is destroyed in a centrally planned economy. As there is no omniscient being that can properly provide for what the invisible hand would, it is nearly scientific law that socialism is far less fair, efficient, and wealth-producing than capitalism.

Things that must be run by the state, to separate myself from anarcho-capitalism, are such functions as military defense, law making, and law enforcement.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by birchtree
THE US AGREED TO CONDITIONS OF EMISSIONS CONTROL IN BALI ON THE 14TH !!!!!!

Originally posted by DrZERO
The issue IS that it’s unclear. No one truly knows how the atmosphere functions as a whole, no one truly knows why the planet is warming.

So because we are not sure which is warming faster, we don't know anything really. That's essentially what you are saying.

We know a lot, but not all. We've known about GHGs for over one hundred years, and for a similar time we have known about their effects on climate.

And then to bring that arrogance to the next level and blame one country?

I don't.

Once again, if you are the programmer/researcher that comes up with these simulations and models and you expect warming, you can manipulate those models/simulations into giving you just that.

So now you are basically claiming the scientists are dishonest. Nice.

If models are so easily manipulated, then we would never have any inconsistency.

I think global warming is part of a natural cycle that the Earth has been going thru for eons. There is just as much data that shows warmer temperatures precede higher carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around

Both happen. You need to move away from binary thinking. Temperature increases result in reduction in gas solubility. And CO2 is a GHG, which therefore causes warming.

Let me clarify for you, I am not arguing against the properties of GHG's or the fact that the Earth is experiencing a warming trend. The point of this thread is to blame mankind for this trend, and more specifically to point the finger at one country, the U.S.A.

We can blame mankind for a proportion of warming almost certainly. As I said earlier, I don't blame one country, I think that's silly. All industrial nations have some responsibility.

Can you please show me where I said that we should, "fogeddabowtit" because the climate is very complex? What I said was that at this time our understanding of the climate and the way the atmosphere works is marginal at best, and yet we are going to use this limited understanding to come to definitive conclusions as to what is, and what is not "causing" global warming, and then base entire economic policies on these conclusions, when in truth no one really knows for sure.

Not marginal at all. Certainly incomplete. Forget about the economy, that's a different issue. And like all science, we come to tentative conclusions.

You're playing an interesting game here though. We have a few major influences on climate that we do know about. Solar activity is pretty much ruled out for the latter part of the 20th century onwards, cosmic rays the same. What's left?

When we see massive changes in GHGs, along with other human effects, it's not hard to put 2+2 together. When you can show that the physics underlying GHGs is wrong, then we might just ignore their large increases. When we don't see the fingerprints of GHG-mediated warming, then we might also ignore them.

So, out of three major known variables, two are pretty much unlikely to be of current importance, and the last is showing major changes (along with other human impacts).

[edit on 17-12-2007 by melatonin]

And how come the U.S. always gets the blame. Anyone else see this article in Time:

article

Forests, especially in the lush tropics, suck and store carbon, which is released when trees are cut down or burnt. At the current rate of destruction, deforestation is estimated to account for up to 20% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of carbon stored in tropical forests is staggering — Brazil alone has nearly 50 billion tons — and its loss would ensure dramatic climate change. Scientists estimate that without a change in business as usual, more than half of the Amazon forest would be logged by 2030, releasing 20.5 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

So ...

People living in the tropical areas are contributing 20%, that's 20% of "human-caused" greenhouse gas emissions. Assuming, of course, that humans are actually causing global warming - which has never been proven.

Where's the outcry for those countries to stop their people from destroying the earth?

No, let's just do what we always do - for every problem facing any of us - and blame the U.S.

[edit on 12/17/2007 by centurion1211]

reply to post by kindred


"I simply have no choice but to make the best of a bad situation. Just because I live in a capitalist country, doesn't mean I have to like it. I would gladly change it given half a chance."


Yes you do have a choice you can take your unhappy non appreciated "Hard Earned Cash" buy yourself a plane ticket and move yourself to a Country where you prob wont have a choice about liking it, then when you decide you dont like it you will realize that you then will not have a choice to do something about it. So I am all for it. In fact I bet there are plenty of people here that would be glad to give a donation for you to get out of your "Bad Situation"


[edit on 17-12-2007 by birchtree]

[edit on 17-12-2007 by birchtree]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by DrZERO
The issue IS that it’s unclear. No one truly knows how the atmosphere functions as a whole, no one truly knows why the planet is warming.

So because we are not sure which is warming faster, we don't know anything really. That's essentially what you are saying.

No that is not what I'm saying, I'm saying no one truly knows why the planet is warming

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by DrZERO
And then to bring that arrogance to the next level and blame one country?

I don't.

Finally some common ground!

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by DrZERO
Once again, if you are the programmer/researcher that comes up with these simulations and models and you expect warming, you can manipulate those models/simulations into giving you just that.

So now you are basically claiming the scientists are dishonest. Nice.

If models are so easily manipulated, then we would never have any inconsistency.

No I am not basically claiming all scientists are dishonest but thank you for the accusation. I am saying that there are many scientists who interoperate and skew the information depending on who is funding them and what they (the funders) want the outcome to be. Many scientists rely on such funding so if they do not give the desired results they do not get any more money.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by DrZERO

Let me clarify for you, I am not arguing against the properties of GHG's or the fact that the Earth is experiencing a warming trend. The point of this thread is to blame mankind for this trend, and more specifically to point the finger at one country, the U.S.A.

We can blame mankind for a proportion of warming almost certainly. As I said earlier, I don't blame one country, I think that's silly. All industrial nations have some responsibility.

Yes we can blame mankind for a proportion, for a minute fraction of a percent. Hardly enough to point fingers at any country or industrialized nations as a whole.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by DrZERO
Can you please show me where I said that we should, "fogeddabowtit" because the climate is very complex? What I said was that at this time our understanding of the climate and the way the atmosphere works is marginal at best, and yet we are going to use this limited understanding to come to definitive conclusions as to what is, and what is not "causing" global warming, and then base entire economic policies on these conclusions, when in truth no one really knows for sure.

Not marginal at all. Certainly incomplete. Forget about the economy, that's a different issue. And like all science, we come to tentative conclusions.

The effects on the economy by forcing Carbon Dioxide emission limitations on countries is at the heart of this debate, and this thread

You're playing an interesting game here though. We have a few major influences on climate that we do know about. Solar activity is pretty much ruled out for the latter part of the 20th century onwards, cosmic rays the same. What's left?

solar activity is ruled out why?



[edit on 17-12-2007 by DrZERO]

Originally posted by melatonin
When we see massive changes in GHGs, along with other human effects, it's not hard to put 2+2 together. When you can show that the physics underlying GHGs is wrong, then we might just ignore their large increases. When we don't see the fingerprints of GHG-mediated warming, then we might also ignore them.

What exactly are the other "human effects," and what is their proportion to the changes in the GHGs, specifically Carbon Dioxide?

So, out of three major known variables, two are pretty much unlikely to be of current importance, and the last is showing major changes (along with other human impacts).

So you are saying that output from the Sun is not an important factor in global warming or our climate?

If you live in America you are rich. The fact that you have a computer, the free time to waste here, and the freedom to type what you want to say is proof enough to that fact. I love how people feel guilty about their wealth and try to make everyone else feel that they are the problem.

I'm sure there are plenty of people living in socialist countries that would gladly trade places wth you.

Originally posted by Mdv2

That the American people have always been too stubborn to change their polluting habits is not a new fact.

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Well Mdv2, your statement here seems to have been repeatedly proven.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by Beachcoma]

Beachcoma, I would like to hear what you are doing for the environment? If you are driving a car and consuming things wrapped in plastic and eat meat, you yourself are short of your plan for what Americans should do.

Originally posted by jedimiller

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

All heil jedimiller.

I like driving in my BIG truck. I crank up the air conditioner when it gets hot and I crank up the heat when it gets cold.

and there lies the problem doesn't it? ignorance and lack of compassion for other countries in the world, as long as you are warm in your little truck emmiting all that co2 you are fine with it. that's why we need to apologize to the rest of the world.

Heil to jedimiller indeed! One of the very very few people in this thread who understands it. 4thDoctorWhoFan, thanks for proving my point.

I used the SUV as metaphor, but as of now all the you-hate-America people have proven to be incapable to come up with a good motive for choosing the big fuel consuming SUVs over less consuming cars. Once again, the carmakers cannot be blamed, they do offer more fuel efficient cars like the example I've mentioned already: Ford Focus.

Many others on here, don't have a clue either. It's not about using a computer or using a fridge, it's about the willingness to live your life in an efficient and environment saving way. The I-don't-care attitude is the most selfish and ignorant attitude a person can have. Basically, these people don't care about the future perspectives for their children.

Originally posted by Mdv2

Heil to jedimiller indeed! One of the very very few people in this thread who understands it. 4thDoctorWhoFan, thanks for proving my point.

No problem friend, the US has lots to apologize about. Global Warming, War, racism, torture. etc.


I do my best to help the environment and I know that some people just don't care as you've seen from your thread. Again, I apologize for my horrible administration and the people who think they are the world. I hope I can make a difference and maybe you already have opened up some eyes. I'll add you as my friend.

Originally posted by jedimiller
I do my best to help the environment and I know that some people just don't care as you've seen from your thread. Again, I apologize for my horrible administration and the people who think they are the world. I hope I can make a difference and maybe you already have opened up some eyes. I'll add you as my friend.

Jedi - there's no need for you to apologize! I remember when nice Mr Bush won his second term in office, seeing a pic of some people in New York holding up a banner saying "Sorry world, love, half of the USA"...

The practical point of the matter is that the US is such a vast place that it is literally difficult for some people to conceive of these matters in any sense beyond their own immediate concerns. I don't know exactly where you're based, but I do see that it must be easier to get worked up by environmental matters when the evidence of environmental destruction surrounds you - as it does me here in London.

If you live on a big ranch under blue skies where the storms are no worse than they've ever been, if you've never left your own state and you couldn't point to China on the map (and have no need to) - why on earth would you care about the effect your jeep's emissions had on the rest of the world? You can't practically get people to change their way of thinking when they can't witness the problems you tell them exist.

In the same way, it's very hard to tell developing countries they can't use polluting technologies that in the medium term would radically improve their lives, just because we've learned over 200 years of enjoying the benefits that there is also a downside. It's just not going to happen.

The problem is when I write that argument down people will say I am being defeatist, or that I am too easily giving up on what is fundamentally necessary for our survival. I'm not. That's why I campaign for localised environmental action over global environmental action - because I believe it is much easier to persuade people to change the things that will adversely effect them personally than those that will adversely effect people a thousand miles away in a different culture they've never seen.

If you blame 4thDrWhoFan for the world's problems because he's an arrogant, selfish tool, you get nowhere because the bottom line is he or she is not able to take on the level of responsibility you're lining him or her up with. If you suggest to him that recycling his cans will save him money on tin items in the future, he might, just might see the sense in what you're saying.

And if everyone is environmentally aware for the selfish reasons they're so comfortable with, maybe the global effect will be the same.

LW

first, I've got to ask....
someone pointed out that 20% of the gasses let loose if through deforestation.....
I also know that coal gives off way more of these gases than our cars do, and I am serious, I've seen trains going though my cities that are unbeleivable long, with car after car of coal being transported.....our power stations burn an unbelievable amount of coal...
so don't planes....
which leads me to say this straight up......how much CO2 is being let loose everytime our world leaders gather to discuss global warming, or any other issue. Hey, maybe we could put a big dent into the problem is we just come up with a secure on line conference room for them all to meet in instead!!

why all the focus on the cars....
this would have been grand if our awareness on the situation was back in the 70's before the urban spawl hit and we were building our mass transit system. but it didn't, and well, most of our mass transit systems aren't much use when it comes to getting to work. I'd have to walk practically half way to work before I found a bus stop for crying out loud! within my shop, there's a few who walk to work, there's a few who rely on the bus system, there's a few who ride mopeds, there's only one suv, and my boss has a truck...
out of all the people I've know, the few who have had suv's had them for their business, or because their families were just too large for anything else.
I'm sure there are some who own suv's just because they like them, but well, this is the poor section of town I am talking about...
I don't care what kind of disincentive you come up with when it comes to co2 emmissions, the biggest problem makers have the $$$, they are gonna do what they like... Gore is still gonna have his massive heating bills and he's still gonna be flying all over the world. So isn't the polywog politicians! So aren't the businessmen and women.
The disincentives will only effect those in my neck of the woods....the costs will cause the buslines and amtrak to shut down, people who are just scrapping by now will not be able to pay the extra money for the gas, not even for the little mopeds. the little shop I work at where half the production is energized by human energy will find it can't afford to heat the place and shut down...
but, gosh darn it!!! those million dollar mansions will still be built! the inside of them will have 100% pure wooden floorboards, cabinets, and the like. They will still be discarding their perfectly good crap for newer and better crap, the consumption will continue for those who can afford it. and quite frankly, and incentives to change will only change those who really are having trouble making ends meet now..and they are the ones buying most of their crap from the goodwill and the salvation army!! so, the unwanted crap from the better off will end up in the landfill instead!!

It's irrelevant whether humanity is responsible for global warming or not, because the underlining problem is greed. Most people don't give a damn and even the governments themselves will simply use it as an excuse to tax people and line their own pockets. Also at the same time they will do absolutely nothing to help or improve the situation. Capitalism and greed will probably end up destroying this planet. Looking on the bright side, those who inherit this world afterwards will eventually have a better standard & quality of life.

Birchtree
Yes you do have a choice you can take your unhappy non appreciated "Hard Earned Cash" buy yourself a plane ticket and move yourself to a Country where you prob wont have a choice about liking it,

Talk about contradicting oneself. If there's one thing capitalism likes, it's your hard earned cash and it's very much appreciated.



[edit on 18-12-2007 by kindred]

one glance at russia before it fell kind of tells me that it doesn't matter what kind of economic system is involved...the greed will still eventually win out.
It's a fact of life and has been true throughout the ages.
so, I imagine we're not gonna fix that little human flaw before we consume all our resources and living in air tight bubbles of cities never to see the light of day again.

and yet, still....we're faced with some major problems, and I wouldn't even put green house gases on the top of the list. our male fish are turning to female for crying out loud!
we need to cut down on the consumption. not only is energy used to produce all this stuff (thus co2 is created), but we are using our other resources up in it's production. and most people don't need half of what they buy. whatever happened to the idea that we take what we need and leave the rest for someone else? not only are america's children gonna suffer because all the pollution that is created and the lack of resources, but they also will be suffering because, with all that lack, they are gonna be the ones to be hit with OUR BILL that is owed to china and the rest of the world, because we've consummed far more than we could afford.

Originally posted by DrZERO
What exactly are the other "human effects," and what is their proportion to the changes in the GHGs, specifically Carbon Dioxide?

Stuff like black carbon, land use changes, etc. You can assess the relative forcings in the latest IPCC report.

So you are saying that output from the Sun is not an important factor in global warming or our climate?

The sun is very important in the climate of the earth.

However, it doesn't appear to undergoing much change for a few decades. To be affecting climate currently, we would expect a significant upwards trend. It is very likely to have played a significant part in the earlier period of the 20th century, not so much now.

ABE: earlier post...

The effects on the economy by forcing Carbon Dioxide emission limitations on countries is at the heart of this debate, and this thread.

Dunno, thought it was generally a 'USA sux0rz' thread.

The problem is that some people are starting from the position of 'this is economically bad' and then to 'it doesn't exist', I feel. When it should be assessed the other way round. If you think it's not economically feasible to act, fair enough. If you don't want to act because SUVs are your life's love, fair enough. If you don't like government interference and the possibility of taxes, fair enough. But that should not lead people to obvious confirmation bias and ideological pursuits to obscure the science, they are different aspects of the issue.

As for the remainder of the the earlier post. You can say 'we don't truly know' all you like, we have a fair degree of certainty of the causes. And by saying that scientists manipulate the data to give predetermined results, I call that dishonest - I don't believe the vast majority do this. Just like I call the US government dishonest by manipulating reports and gagging scientists for a predetermined need to obscure the science - "vulnerability: science".

[edit on 18-12-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by kindred
Capitalism and greed will probably end up destroying this planet.

The planet will be just fine. It's been through a lot worse than we can throw at it. We, on the other hand, may well be badly affected.

You may think this is a semantic argument - but I don't. Mixing up the planet with our fragile existence ON the planet is symptomatic of the slightly arrogant approach people take towards their environmental responsibilities (I know you don't, Kindred, but others do).

LW