Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Neither has he seen that "documentary" made by a ex wannabe american president candidate.

The two prime sources of "documentation" for many "man is to blame for global warming" belivers.

Al Gore didn't invent the global warming debate.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by General Ludd


I am tempted by the abolition of "democracy" and the establishment of an anarchist green society.

Anarchist green society... Is that possible, without laws and regulation?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by cronos_qc


Anarchist green society... Is that possible, without laws and regulation?

All you need is community and culture.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by cronos_qc


Anarchist green society... Is that possible, without laws and regulation?

No and yes. At first glance it seems impossible, but what you don't realize is that in an anarchist society everything falls apart, and economic collapse -> lower emissions

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


No and yes. At first glance it seems impossible, but what you don't realize is that in an anarchist society everything falls apart, and economic collapse -> lower emissions

When "economic collapse" really means that mass consumer culture is faltering, it is essential to any green society.

[chequita guevara]

Anarchism doesn't mean no laws or regulation. It means no state. There will still be a government.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Anarchism doesn't mean no laws or regulation. It means no state. There will still be a government.

looking of wiki:
Schools on Anarchist Thought:

Mutualism
Collectivist Anarchism
Individualist anarchism
Anarcho-syndicalism
Egoism
Anarcho-capitalism


There is many schools of anarchist thought. But why using the words anarchist, if there is a state but no government. Anyway,I think we're going out topic...

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


No and yes. At first glance it seems impossible, but what you don't realize is that in an anarchist society everything falls apart, and economic collapse -> lower emissions

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's good to be skeptical, but when that skepiticsm is funded by those who benefit from us not doing anything about our actions which are likely contributing, then we must be skeptical of their skepticism. Industrial scientists have a long history of saying what their corporate pay-masters want them to say (or of their findings being hushed up).

That would be true if every argument against humans-to-be-the-only-cause was thev result of such, but that isn't the case. There are lots of independent - even public paid - scientists that are sceptical.

At this point, it's not a topic of scholarly discussion on the level, say, of disagreements on a translation of Beowulf. If climate scientists are correct (and I think they are), then people will die and people will lose jobs. If the deniers are correct, people will lose jobs. Thus, the rational option is to err on the side of caution.

The deniers isn't rigth, so this statement is a little moot, unless, of course, you mean sceptics of human impact. You are quite rigth that this isn't some scholarly ride but reality. There is only one problem with your statement, and that is if it's natural variations that are the cause of the current climate change, then kyoto etc. won't have any effect. The real denial is that research that contradicts human guilt is considered on same level as holocaust denial, and that is pretty dangerous.

While JM would be correct in saying that global warming isn't a threat to our species, he is wrong in saying it isn't a major threat to humans. Most of humanity lives on or near the shore. Increasing sea levels definately threaten us. Throwing weather patterns into disarray threatens us. Millions more people are threatened with death by starvation or disease and resource wars.

The human speices as such isn't in any particular danger - they are like cockroaches - can survive under most climate conditions. The current climatic changes may result in serious sea level risings, but that will first come later. Currently, climatic changes has more serious impacts at the moment. F.ex. Darfur - it's not just a political/religious/racial/oil dispute, but also the fact that what earlier was fertile land now is desert.

We're also quickly reaching the point of no turning back. So given the seriousness of the results, its a little understandable if one side is sounding exceedingly shrill, just as you might expect a passanger in your car to sound as you proceed to drive towards a cliff they've been warning you about over and over.

That would be true if we knew for sure that there was a cliff ahead, but we don't. There are theories and models that say we are, and there are others that contradicts this. If the first are true, then kyoto etc will have an effect, but if the second is right, then it won't. In that case resources should be spent in a different way. Only problem is that it's considered holocaust-denialism to have the aim to try to figure out what is the real cause of current climate changes.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by General Ludd



Al Gore didn't invent the global warming debate.

Nope, but there are actually people that think his movie is science instead of a political statement

[Jon Miller]

I am sceptical because it is such a complicated system. I don't see how they can say that a lot of the things we see today are directly cause by global warming, and the perdictions for the future seem particularly unfounded.

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

One shouldn't discover whether or not there is a cliff ahead by driving 60mph towards it. If human agency is the cause, and we wait until there's 100% proof that satisifies the skeptics beyond even an unreasonble doubt, it will be too late, people will die. If the skepitics are correct and we ramp back the activities that we think are causing or accelerating GW, then we haven't lost anything except some jobs.

People dying > people losing jobs unnecessarily

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am sceptical because it is such a complicated system. I don't see how they can say that a lot of the things we see today are directly cause by global warming, and the perdictions for the future seem particularly unfounded.

Jon Miller

Most of what we see today such as desert spreading and changes in wether patterns can easily be related to current changes in climate. Even the hurricanes aiming for Che can be related to this on a secure basis (no, they don't have a personal grudge against him).

What we don't know is what is causing the changes in climate.

[Jon Miller]

Yeah, but different animal life as well as plant life, and other such things can be responsible as well.

I would hate for us to expend all our resources to fix global warming, and then to discover that that wasn't the major factor...

JM

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BlackCat
What we don't know is what is causing the changes in climate.

There are three possibilities:
A) it is driven by variations in solar output (i.e., the sun's getting warmer)
B) it is driven by the massive release of previously sequestered CO₂
C) or some combination of the two.

The questions then are: is the change in solar output enough to account for the changes we see on Earth and is the increase in CO₂ the cause or the effect of GW. Even if it is an effect, it has a feedback effect, and addition input by humans surely isn't helping matters. Is human activity alone capable for nearly doubling the CO₂ content of the atmosphere in the last 100 years?