More on Gore
I was recently criticized for only showing the negative side of the global warming debate. I admit that I do not believe in anthropogenic (man made) global warming. I admit that I side consistently with the sceptics. In the interest of maintaining some civility on this site, I hereby present two sides.
The first is a recent article from the Associated Press that claims that scientists are praising the science behind Al Gore's new movie.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science_3
The second is a quickly released rebuttal from the United States Senate. In a majority press release, the members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works takes the AP to task for claiming that "AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” ".
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
Where do you stand on the issue? Have your thoughts been shaped mainly by one side or the other? Or do you look at both sides of the issue to get a more clear opinion?
Here is a thought that catches my thinking most clearly:
"Freeze or fry, the problem is always industrial capitalism, and the solution is always international socialism."
~~ Dr. Malcolm Ross
posted by dataman @ 7:31 PM
8 Comments:
Me, where doubt exists, I tend to err on the side of caution. Which direction that caution will take will probably depend upon what you value most and see as most relevant within your geographical and social and temporal context, within your lifetime and that of your children.
But might I suggest, perhaps, that a solution, should one be needed, might perhaps lie altogether outside the economic polemic? The world does not begin and end with economic theories, be they capitalist or socialist. Money is an artificial symbolic structure: and somehow day and night and rain and differing levels of tides and tidal surge managed to come before it existed, and will continue after it has been forgotten. For all that Galileo and Copernicus challenged and usurped centuries of solid geo-centric "truth", the heavens continued to do what they did: and in time Copernicus and Galileo were overruled by Newton, who was overturned by Einstein, who was undermined by Planck.
For now, whatever our ability to influence our planet, our ability to manipulate the greater universe remains insignificant on that scale, at least. Considering our constant technological drive to shape our environment to our desires, considering our apparent need to exert influence and control: is insignificance -- helplessness, in the face of environment -- really that much more preferable to us?
I appreciate your comments. I am always interested in alternative opinions. I am especially glad when they are not shrill, ad homonim attacks.
I understand your concern about erring on the side of caution. If that is truly the case, I would ask if you would be willing to also be cautious in inflicting serious economic damage on our economy on the basis of a poorly researched theory. It makes little sense to me to rush to correct what might easily be a poorly understood cyclic trend. It also makes little sense to me to cripple the greatest economy in the world and yet let much of the rest of the world off the same hook. The fact that this "solution" also happens to fit the same mold as wealth redistribution and world socialism. It makes me question the motives of those who would rush us into this solution.
I see no point in shrill, ad hominem attacks. Sometimes the initial tone of the comment (or post!) dictates what returns: enough times that I try to say what I think without phrasing it as an attack or a demand. Sometimes it doesn't: and one receives the flames regardless. That is the nature of a free Internet. (Asbestos suits optional.)
As I said, which direction that caution will take will probably depend upon what you -- or any individual, for that matter -- value most and see as most relevant within your geographical and social and temporal context, within your lifetime and that of your children. Your primary focus appears to be economic, as it is currently understood within laissez-faire capitalist theory. Among other things, I find economics and economic cycles (also) to be poorly understood. A truly free market needs no advocates: for it will do what it will, of its own accord.
I do find it ironic and somewhat self-contradictory that the government of the nation most advocating free market economics is also so relentless in piling on the tariffs. If the domestic free market economy, as it stands, is so very optimal: then tariffs would be counterproductive. If not: then what is being actively created by the foreign economic policies of the United States is the opposite of a free market.
And, apologies, but here you make a major assumption:
The fact that this "solution" also happens to fit the same mold as wealth redistribution and world socialism.
In my case, it happens not to be an accurate one ... unless, of course, you consider "socialism" to be anything other than laissez faire economics. For me, I don't see simple wealth re-distribution, any more than blind adherence to any economic theory, as any kind of solution at all. I can't speak for others.
And, because I am not really seeking a debate, here and now (time issues, my end), I limit my puzzlement at your use of "the greatest economy in the world" to a single question: what do you use as the measure? By most conventional measures (GDP, per capita income, foreign/domestic debt ratio ...), the United States economy is not, and is slipping.
Glad you liked the fireworks link!
Actually, by the measure of total GDP, as of 2005, the economy of the USA is nearly three times as large as the next largest economy, Japan. According to the World Bank, the USA is over $12 Trillion in annual GDP. Japan is $4.5 Trillion.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf
Sorry about the misspelling of ad hominem. My daughter is the Latin Scholar in our family.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oh, I had to look it up too. I was not trying to make a point of it. World Bank point (and post) noted :) I had forgotten that the consumption element of GDP doesn't take into account per capita government debtload to achieve that level of consumption -- ironically, quite the opposite.
Your website has a useful information for beginners like me.
»
Very pretty site! Keep working. thnx!
»
Post a Comment
<< Home