Thread: Catastrophic Failure of Earth Within the Lifetime of Someone Alive Today!?

It's impossible to assess in detail the influence of a chosen political course, like the "climate change crusade", on society, because you cannot say how society would have developed without that political course. All you can do is identify some very broad effects.

Okay, I agree that it would be very difficult to measure jobs under the "what would have been if scenario". Perhaps you meant something else by "global warming trying to go against capitalism?" I fail to see your capitalism/communism connection to global warming.

most of the employment has not gone to scientists but to people from other backgrounds. Even the "climate scientists" tend to be chosen amongst people with other backgrounds than hard science. An awful lot of economists, for example

My comment about providing employment to scientists was semi-serious. Should have added an emoticon there to distinguish it from the rest of the comment about new industries and products for which there is info on the graphs and the article. Again, awaiting clarification on the capitalism concern you have.

The Economist" is a very socialist-oriented publication. I would not trust them, if my life depended on it.

I am truly amazed by this particular viewpoint. The newspaper has quite often openly expressed its opinion on diverse political issues in some of its articles. I have not seen any indications of supporting socialist agenda. In fact, I recall the Economist received heavy criticism on one of its special reports on socialist France. Moreover, they produce sound research, published as special reports in the magazine or available for a fee (Economist Intelligence Unit).

I like the last sentense though, a good warning relating to any media for that matter.

Last night I actually watched the episode of The Newsroom that the thread talks about. It is a load of rubbish, don't worry. Aaron Sorkin's writing can be brilliantly witty in itself, but in terms of the actual content, he seems to be rather ignorant about a lot of things. I remember an episode last season where they stated straight-faced that "American elections are the envy of every other country in the world", which is hilariously parochial, totally inaccurate, and somewhat insulting. Last night, among other stupid statements, they referred straight-faced to CO2 as a "poison gas", when of course it's actually biologically harmless and in fact essential to our ecosystem.

I should point out that this isn't evidence against global warming; no more than it's evidence for global warming. It's a silly TV show. It's utterly irrelevant to the actual science. Anybody who tries to use it to support an argument for or against global warming is being dishonest or just plain silly.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Anybody who tries to use it to support an argument for or against global warming is being dishonest or just plain silly.

Ah - come on! What Fogelbise did here was making a meaningful thread about an important topic, anchoring it in that episode, but otherwise arguing soundly, replying intelligently, unfortunately not to much avail - and esp. important - he brings lots of sources and hard numbers.
While I do think a lot like you, Denziloe, and I don't know the episode - this sounds unfair to me. Cheer up a bit, hm?
Extended Discussion is rather an Intensive Care Patient on here lately, just about hanging on...
Really nice it's here, this thread, thanks Fogelbise!

Climate Change Denial galls me, maybe later more.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

It's a silly TV show. It's utterly irrelevant to the actual science.Anybody who tries to use it to support an argument for or against global warming is being dishonest or just plain silly.

How else am I supposed to take this statement that is in this very thread? You broke my heart. And again, for anyone who was misled by Denziloe's statement, feel free to reread the OP.

Edit: Thank you Steph & Nyxcc! And thank you to Denziloe for the clarification.

Edit#2: I would also like to extend my apologies for assuming what you meant Denziloe.

Originally Posted by NyxCC

Okay, I agree that it would be very difficult to measure jobs under the "what would have been if scenario". Perhaps you meant something else by "global warming trying to go against capitalism?" I fail to see your capitalism/communism connection to global warming.

All the different crusades I mentioned first were - at a first glance - to do with the environment. But on closer inspection they were all misguided, and following them would not in any way have benefited the environment. There is a completely different agenda behind them however: doing whatever it takes to get free enterprise under government control (using ever tougher laws, and - importantly - ever increasing fees, payable to government, for doing business. Witness for example the CO2-allowances, that have to be paid for now - to governments of course).

It may well be argued, however, that the anti-free enterprise element is not at the heart of the matter. This aspect may only be part of the action in order to bring the pro-socialism crowd on board. Ultimately, what is behind it all is probably the perpetual quest for power and control.

Originally Posted by NyxCC

I am truly amazed by this particular viewpoint. The newspaper has quite often openly expressed its opinion on diverse political issues in some of its articles. I have not seen any indications of supporting socialist agenda. In fact, I recall the Economist received heavy criticism on one of its special reports on socialist France. Moreover, they produce sound research, published as special reports in the magazine or available for a fee (Economist Intelligence Unit).

They pay lip service to free enterprise. Central banking cannot exist in a free economy, because central banks are given the solitary privilege of issuing money - and they may do so at their own leisure. Money printing, in a very direct way, controls what money is worth. And therefore the central banks exercise control over the value of peoples monetary holdings - and thereby over their subsequent spending ability. In other words: central banks control the economy, for as long as they hold the monopoly on issuing money.

This is a clear and massive obstruction to free enterprise, and every single person or organisation in favour of freedom and free enterprise should condemn central banking in the strongest terms possible.

Last time I looked, "The Economist" did not condemn central banking at all. In fact, they have a habit of applauding the insight and cleverness of central bankers, and the importance of central banking. Hence this journal, along with so many other media institutions, is formally pro-free enterprise, but practically socialist.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

All the different crusades I mentioned first were - at a first glance - to do with the environment. But on closer inspection they were all misguided, and following them would not in any way have benefited the environment. There is a completely different agenda behind them however: doing whatever it takes to get free enterprise under government control (using ever tougher laws, and - importantly - ever increasing fees, payable to government, for doing business. Witness for example the CO2-allowances, that have to be paid for now - to governments of course).

Why do you think your opinions are so worthwhile? You simply don't know what you're talking about and you haven't bothered to invest any time in finding it out. CFCs were eating a massive hole in the ozone layer which was starting to have serious health consequences. The only reason it stopped worsening was because of a successful international campaign to ban CFCs. Your inference that it simply "got better", proving that it was all hype, is basically just a scientific embarrassment.