Earth in the Balance - by Al Bore
A good example of what’s wrong with this book can be found in the introduction, where Al Gore informs us that, as a young Congressman, he once devoted a vast amount of time to studying the nuclear arms race, and in the process came up with a complex set of “solutions” for dealing with the problem, which he proceeds to lay out for us in mind numbing detail. In contrast, at about the same time another politician, Ronald Reagan, also looked at the problem and came up with a much simpler solution - get rid of Communism.
Part of me thinks it’s unfair to poke fun at this book; after all, Al Gore takes his subject matter (and himself) so very seriously. But a larger part of me thinks that’s exactly why we should poke fun at it. This is the sort of work that humorist PJ O’Rourke would shred with a literary buzz saw, asking questions like “How could all that intelligence produce something this stupid?”
A large part of the problem is that the intelligence and seriousness so often devolve into moral and intellectual pomposity, as evidenced in grandiose statements like “We must all become partners in a bold effort to change the very foundations of our civilization.” Who, after all, upon reading such a fatuous comment, would not want to take the author and swat him with a rolled up newspaper?
Actually, to be fair to Gore, so long as he sticks to actual facts, and policy specifics for dealing with them when it comes to the environment, he’s on fairly solid ground. The problem, of course, comes when he leaves the safety of the dry land of science and political realism and goes wandering off into the realm of Big Ideas. This is because, for most people, Big Ideas invariably lead to Bad Ideas, and this book contains a veritable boatload of them, the most notable being that Global Warming is nothing less than the coming Apocalypse and that we must mobilize Heaven and Earth in our efforts to stop it. Gore’s fundamental problem is his dogmatism on the subject, not only has he breezily dismissed any and all skeptics, he’s also concluded that it is without question a brewing catastrophe of Biblical proportions. As a result, all reason, common sense, and self-restraint go out the window in his efforts to marshal the entire globe in his Final Crusade against … warm weather! Which is probably why he and his fellow Chicken Littles have met with a wall of indifference from the general populace. Most of us don’t think Global Warming is real, and even if it is, it will probably make things better, not worse. And Americans, who have rousted themselves in the past and sacrificed to confront evil in the form of slavery, Nazism, and Communism, are not about to work themselves into a frenzy of patriotic fervor to wage war against a bunch of hot air.
Dana:
Eric wrote:
That paragraph brings to mind such a vivid mental picture! I’d love to see that.
24 August 2006, 11:22 amIs this part of their problem? | Redstate:
[...] Eric, reviewing former Vice President Gore’s book, Earth in the Balance, wrote: A large part of the problem is that the intelligence and seriousness so often devolve into moral and intellectual pomposity, as evidenced in grandiose statements like “We must all become partners in a bold effort to change the very foundations of our civilization.†Who, after all, upon reading such a fatuous comment, would not want to take the author and swat him with a rolled up newspaper? [...]
24 August 2006, 3:47 pmDana:
Eric wrote:
Now we know why he flunked out of divinity school.
24 August 2006, 4:34 pmArthur Downs:
Any idea who ghosted the Gore book?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Note that the book allegedly written by John Dean about Nixon (that Oliver Stone used as the basis for his ‘mockumentary’ was not even read by Dean before its publication. Hr claimed that his wifey-poo (who was living with a madam when they met)would not let him take a pen in bed with him during a period of alleged sickness.
Then again, given the ludicrous literary quality of the book obviously writted by the Carter duo, there may be a reason for ghosting.
24 August 2006, 5:49 pmYorkshire:
I heard Algore in an excerpt from his movie, which is the book, and he sounded like a TV evangelist. Somehow he actually, or pretends to actually believe this crap. In the Global Scamming Department, opposite views are verboten. Like any far left lib, the extreme is the norm, and the real norm be damned.
24 August 2006, 9:39 pmblubonnet:
Well, the entire rest of the worlds’ scientists believe in it. The only ones in this country who do not are the ones paid by the oil companies and the chumps who believe those shills. Facts are inconvenient truths to those huffing and puffing out the right wing rags’ rhetoric. You are a miniscule teensy tiny percentage of a percentage point on this planet that is buying into the Exxon Mobil funded blather. But factual data in insignificant when it comes to right wing talking points.
Happy green-house gassing!
26 August 2006, 3:32 pmEric:
Nobody REALLY seems to believe in Global
26 August 2006, 3:53 pmscammingwarming, or else the push would be to make a maximum effort to develop more nuclear power, the only big energy source available that does NOT burn fossil fuels. The US Senate clearly doesn’t believe in it, hence the vote that went something like 95 - 0 against signing the Kyoto Treaty. The Slick Willie Administration did next to nothing on the issue during its two terms, in fact, the 90’s were the decade that saw big, bigger, and humongous SUV’s become the vehicles du jour. Global Warming is simply the latest fashionable worry, now that the Population Bomb, widespread heterosexual AIDS in the USA, and other trendy panic issues of the past have become passe.Dana:
Welcome back, Blu!
The real question is, of course, why will a warm up of a couple of degrees be a disaster? It has been noted that earth’s temperature is approaching a point it was 400 (or was that 2000?) years ago. Well, mankind certainly survived then, and you can hardly blame temperatures then on the infernal combustion engine!
Historically, we are in a cold period in the earth’s climate; for most of the planet’s history, the poles were not frozen.
Some have said that if we have a few degrees of warm up, the regions closer to the equator will not be as arable as they are today. Perhaps. But that same few degrees of additional warmth would mean that arable land would extend closer to the poles.
26 August 2006, 5:26 pmYorkshire:
There was a headline today “Glaciers Growing Due to Global Warming.” Then this was going to be the year just like last year or worse for hurricanes. Bigger and more. Hundreds striking the USA, when maybe 6 or 7. This year, way, way behind last year. Then I read where Mars and Jupiter are warming. I guess or excess emissions are going there. If you listen long enough, cold is because of warming, and warming is because of cold.
This is a science that was built by liberals to control the West and was as anti-capitalistic as anything we have seen lately. All scientists do not agree. They never will. Carbon Dioxide is not the only part of this. If so, explain the 1930’s. One of the warmest decades on record.
Also there is a rhythm to hurricane cycles. Again, just because the lib scientists have declared this does not make it so. The Kyoto treaty would have made the west 3rd world countries. And that was the overall goal since the west had the biggest sanctions.
So far all the dire predictions of the last 15 years of the scammers has not come true.
On a recent trip I resaw a glacier I had seen in 1988. It had moved back. Then the tour guide said it was also in the back position in the 1600’s. Global scamming is ignored for one big reason, and that is the disciples of doom are preaching all or nothing in absolute terms. And if there is anything about the earth, it is not absolute, it is always in chaos.
26 August 2006, 7:49 pmFrank Staheli:
Totalitarian governments have created by far the worst environmental catastrophes.
26 August 2006, 10:54 pmblubonnet:
Hi, Dana,. I’m sure all you guys’ opinions are the ones the oil companies have paid to make gel in your mind.
All the world’s scientists, minus the few Cheveron/Exxon/Mobile/BP paid ones acknowledge global warming. Many in Congress have been paid by the oil companies as well.
Our Congress is the corporate world’s congress, not ours. Only a few are the exception. How is it that you know more than the world’s scientists? I’m talking ALL the world.
Have you seen Al Gore’s movie? I didn’t think so.
26 August 2006, 11:40 pmblubonnet:
Well, this government is trying to be a totalitarian government. Unitary power, spying (without a warrant), torture, holding Muslim Americans in detainee camps without charge, limiting free speech to “free speech zones”, only allowint 15 minutes of wearing an anti-Bush T-shirts in a government building, and if I thought about it a while longer, that is wanted to make a project out of that subject, I could go on way longer than you’d appreciate.
Bush administration wars with depleted uranium, white phosphorous and God only knows what else is poisoning the environment and killing people that arent’ even born yet with birth defects and/or cancer. What a good ol’ guy that Bush is. Don’t you think he’s a wonderful Christian that you’d just love to have a beer with?
26 August 2006, 11:49 pmHarry Arthur:
Patrick J. Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the CATO Institute. He is past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, winner of the American Library Association’s worldwide competition for public service writing and an author of the 2003 climate science “Paper of the Year,” awarded by the Association of American Geographers
Among his many articles and books are three excellent works: “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media”; “Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming;” and “Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming.”
Bjorn Lomberg is an Associate Professor of Statistics in the Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark. He has published in international journals in the fields of game theory and computer simulations. The author, himself a former member of Greenpeace, is critical of the way in which many environmental organizations make selective and misleading use of the scientific evidence.
Professor Lomberg has written an excellent work titled “The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World.”
Dr. John Christy recieved his PhD in Climate Dynamics in 1987 from the Univeristy of Illinois. For the past two decades, he has investigated various aspects of the globe’s climate as Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He and Dr. Roy Spencer (also UAH) combined their talents to produce a satellite-based set of global temperature products that accurately depict temperature variations since 1979, earning the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and a Special Award by the Americna Meteorological Society.
Dr. Christy is a contributor to the excellent volume titled: “Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death.” The volume also details the hyped exagerations regarding over population, mass extinctions, imminent famines, biotechnology, and energy shortages, among others.
etc, etc, etc …
“All the world’s scientists”? Hardly. “ALL the world”? Not by a long shot. Care to cite just 5 concrete examples of human-caused global warming or will sweeping generalizations and ad hominem suffice for a logical argument?
The truth is that there is a wide disparity among the scientists of the world regarding the global warming issue and its cause, whether human or otherwise. The works cited above are but a few examples of well documented, well researched and well argued scientific opinions differing from Al Gore’s cinemagraphic exagerations.
27 August 2006, 1:01 amHarry Arthur:
Another excellent source for discussions and debunkings of the latest “scientific” (media) fads: junkscience.com
27 August 2006, 1:23 amHarry Arthur:
And finally the “Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’”
Wonder why Algore, if his facts are so, you know, “indisputable”, won’t debate the Junk Science folks? hmmm …
27 August 2006, 1:36 amblubonnet:
I’m very sure that if you follow the money, you will discover that a check came to John Christy and Roy Spencer either directly or indirectly from oil companies. Dare you to google up their names with oil companies.
27 August 2006, 1:45 amHarry Arthur:
So you’re very sure that anyone who disagrees with what you claim is the current scientific orthodoxy is in the pockets of the oil companies, but everyone else receives funding from … whom exactly?
Go for it. You’ve made the accusation. I don’t feel like wasting my time today attempting to prove a negative.
On a minor note of logic. So what? Even if the oil companies pay their salaries and buy their kids toys for Christmas, it is not a valid logical conclusion to assert that their arguments are therefore invalid. This is just a baseless ad hominem assertion. Absent any evidence to the contrary these are honorable men doing honorable work for honorable universities.
Care to cite 5 concrete examples of anthropogenic caused global warming?
27 August 2006, 2:06 amHarry Arthur:
I wouldn’t be so “sure” … this is fairly unequivocal:
Neither Spencer nor Christy receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from state and federal grants or contracts.
You can check this UAH site if you’d prefer to confirm it yourself.
27 August 2006, 2:18 amDana:
Blu wrote:
Back when I was a student at the University of Kentucky, an iterant traveling preacher going by the name of Jeb Smock would show up for a week, every fall and again every spring; I think that the Campus Crusade for Christ paid for him, but I’m not certain.
The UK authorities limited him to the patio outside of the Student Center for his very loud preaching; they allowed him to speak, but restricted him to an area in which he wouldn’t disturb classes. This might be considered a violation of free speech, or it might be considered a practical regulation. While I personally believe that such regulations are not allowable under a strict reading of the First Amendment, I mention this to point out that this happened back in the 1970s, during the Ford and Carter Administrations.
Limiting speech to free speech zones and setting times for demonstrations and the like (through the use of things like parade permits) might violate the First Amendment if it were brought seriously to trial, but the fact is that such regulations are hardly novel: I’ve seen examples all over the place, at least since I became an adult, during every administration we have had.
27 August 2006, 7:01 amDana:
One other point. You have commented many times on this site, and the set-up requires you to provide an e-mail address. I know it’s the correct one, since we have corresponded privately on a couple of occasions. In addition, you’ve commented previously on Patterico’s site, with the same set-up. Both of us get an originating IP ping every time you comment. (If you’ve commented on other conservative sites, I haven’t seen it.)
You obviously haven’t been afraid that the jackbooted thugs of the evil President Bush were going to arrest you. Indeed, people like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore and all of the rest, who say the vilest things about President Bush, are all still out there, free, and able to continue to express their opinions. There are a couple of sites which promote immediate impeachment of the President, at least one of which has a list of supporters including people with prominent names; all of them are still out and free (except for Mumia abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer who is listed as a supporter of one such site). Mrs Sheehan has taken her protest to the borders of the President’s personal residence.
I’ve got to ask: if you believe that the Bush Administration is suppressing freedom of speech, why aren’t these people in jail?
27 August 2006, 7:10 amEric:
What about nuclear power, Blu? If people were SERIOUS about stopping Global Warming (which, apparently, they aren’t) then that’s the most obvious solution. It doesn’t pollute (well, aside from radioactive waste) and most important, it emits no “greenhouse gasses”. How else are you going to power all those electric cars and buses and choo-choo trains the environmentalists want us to ride? But the enviros hate nuclear power. They also hate hydro-electric power (from dams) because it “ruins the scenery” and keeps those poor endangered minnows from reproducing, or something. And then of course there’s windmills, but rich Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Walty Cronkite don’t like them blocking their ocean front views and interfering with their yacht races. When it comes to “Global Warming”, liberals want to tell us where to go, then stand in the road to keep us from getting there. Sure makes a lot of sense, huh … ??
27 August 2006, 10:21 amYorkshire:
Harry Arthur replied:
August 27th, 2006 at 1:01 am e
Patrick J. Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the CATO Institute. He is past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, winner of the American Library Association’s worldwide competition for public service writing and an author of the 2003 climate science “Paper of the Year,†awarded by the Association of American Geographers
Thanks, I made these arguments and read a few of what you cited. The problem with computer models cited by the Cassandras is that they just keep going up without a thought of chaos. And not all scientists who disagree with the theory are paid by oil.
Blu, you have made the assertion, now prove it. We will not disprove it.
27 August 2006, 12:36 pmblubonnet:
I don’t claim to be a scientist. I do know that the oil companies pay millions to “scientists” to keep people confused. I also know that the vast majority of the world’s scientists are on the side of YES GLOBAL WARMING IS A REALITY. Like 99.9%. I know that a NASA scientist recently was harassed by the administration for not complying with the plan of lying to the American people. He dared tell the truth. That’s all I need to know. It’s legal to lie because it is free speech. The huge corporations utilize that law to the hilt.
You still haven’t figured out that Bush is a servant of these companies.
Regarding the ability to speak freely, YES, we still have that. However, it is being stepped on periodically whenever the powers in the WH get the notion. Unless we bellow loudly, they surely would eliminate it.
Despite the fact that Bush in 2001 announced publicly that procedures were being taken to thwart all monies to Al Queda, when the NYT said it recently, the harassment the NYT got from it was an effort to intimidate the NYT. The real reason was that the administration is truly so bumbling and beligerant, and absolutely corrupt, that when the NYT publishes those things, they “need to be put in their place”.
Thank God we do still have free speech. Thank God that Michael Moore told of the slimy past and present of George W Bush. He is absolutely a criminal. MM was a hero to expose all that he did. I know you believe the shills for the administration that tried to prove he (MM) lied all through his movie. Well, it did not work. The realities of GWB are out in the open.*
You guys keep standing on the side of conservatism, and you will help keep the American public decieved, and keep making the huge corporate interests fat.
This government is all corporate. This is the fascist state of America. No, I’m not speaking metaphorically.
*Incidentally Harry the ST,Petersburg Press article made the final acknowledgement that YES the bin Laden group were given priviledged exit in the air just after 911 when the rest of air travel was closed down, and YES on the day of 911, George HW Bush Sr. was meeting with a bin Laden family member, and others in the Carlyle Group (investment and military equipment firm) on 911.
27 August 2006, 2:40 pmblubonnet:
Dana, incidentally, you make a big deal of a “fatuous” statement made by Gore, but you ignore aoll the empty rhetoric that Bush vomits up like, “Freedom is on the march” (It isn’t incidentally).
27 August 2006, 2:46 pmEric:
I’m glad you brought up Mike Moore, the King of the Phonies, the “working class” multi-millionaire who just “cares” about the little guy (hint: he doesn’t). I wrote a review of a biography about him and posted it on Amazon.com a while back. I’m gonna post it here under “Eric’s book & movie reviews”. Go check it out, if you want to hear the truth about MM.
27 August 2006, 3:02 pmblubonnet:
Well, Eric, your perspective is valuable….why?
27 August 2006, 3:18 pmblubonnet:
Michael Moore has endured derision for merely telling the truth. The huge power with the money have the means to control what a certain gulliable percentage of the population believe. That would be you. There are those like yourself that need a father figure that the right wing authoritarian side of the aisle represent. It is power abused. Truth is marginalized regularly. You will always see that the big money is where the big lies are.
Yes, MM made big money. He has also been operating humanitarian services for Katrina victims, and exposing the corruption in industries that need to be exposed. That is honorable. He has been honored with the Paul Wellstone award. Well, par for the course, the saviors get crucified.
I’m quite sure that any sources you offer will be funded by corrupt and massive corporate power. Look behind the curtain Dorothy.
27 August 2006, 3:29 pmblubonnet:
Also, the CATO institute is funded by corporate biggies. If you really want to learn (Do you?) click onto the below link, and then click onto each individual think tank listed and see who is behind the think tank. It is an attempt to obscure the origins of the money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#Funding
27 August 2006, 3:41 pmYorkshire:
“I also know that the vast majority of the world’s scientists are on the side of YES GLOBAL WARMING IS A REALITY. Like 99.9%.”
Please document this assertion. I’m sure you have ready documentation. I’m sure you would not make a statement without it. I’m really curious. And what kind of scientists? How many are meteorologists? How many are climatologists? How many do really study climate? I’m really curious on your statement. And the answer is I’m not doing the work so don’t answer just look it up.
27 August 2006, 3:41 pmEric:
Wowee! Mike (The Human Hindenburg) Moore actually got an “award” from “Partial” Paul Wellstone!! Gee, I’m impressed! Hollywood, however, was less so when they booed him off the stage for his horrible speech at the 2003 Oscars. It’s no coincidence that his work of fiction, Fahrenheit 911, not only received no awards, it wasn’t even nominated for any. Seems even liberal Hollywood knows a far left lunatic nutcase when they see one …
PS You really should read that book. Very eye-opening, to say the least …
27 August 2006, 3:47 pmblubonnet:
Here is osme more on you guys’ “experts” Spencer and Christy.
27 August 2006, 4:29 pmhttp://mediamatters.org/items/200605230001
blubonnet:
You guys bring up some documentation. Actually, what qualifies as documentation to you guys?
I’m not surprised you bought the anti-Michael Moore BS that was successfully dumped into the conservative airways to protect the little Bush kid from his DD&B base from believing the reality of what the little shit is, a criminal!
27 August 2006, 4:35 pmDana:
Well, Blu, I don’t dispute that we seem to be getting slightly warmer, because that’s what the data show. What I do have a problem with is the notion that it is a catastrophe, since the data also indicate that the climate has been this warm, and slightly warmer, in recorded human history, though before the infernal combustion engine, and the fact that Mars and Jupiter are also (apparently) getting slightly warmer. That suggests to me that it is a natural process.
27 August 2006, 4:36 pmYorkshire:
You guys bring up some documentation. Actually, what qualifies as documentation to you guys?
I’m not surprised you bought the anti-Michael Moore BS that was successfully dumped into the conservative airways to protect the little Bush kid from his DD&B base from believing the reality of what the little shit is, a criminal!
Well, what do you have that is in the moderate sense, not far left wing? Anything Blu. You are making the assertions that 99.9% of scientists agree. I find that number astonishing. And while you’re making allegations, what proof Bush is a criminal. You’ve been reading too much fiction lately.
27 August 2006, 5:02 pmEric:
Blu;
Even his former allies think Mike Moore is a total jerk! As one put it “He’s one of those types who ‘loves humanity’, but just hates people”. His reputation for lies and exaggerations is well established, ditto for his narcissism and megalomania. It’s gotten to where no normal person takes anything he says seriously any more.
27 August 2006, 5:09 pmblubonnet:
Okay, why is what you say so? Because it is commonly what conservatives are told to think? I’ll be looking forward to taking all this on later. Too much of my day has been spent here. There is plenty to fill you in on, and I will later. In the mean time, if you happen to have the time this particular day, why don’t you provide me with all the reasons your opinion is credible.
27 August 2006, 5:16 pmArthur Downs:
Wowee! Mike (The Human Hindenburg) Moore actually got an “award†from “Partial†Paul Wellstone!!
And where is Wellstone now? Should Moore join him? I can almost hear the fat frying.
27 August 2006, 5:45 pmEric:
Dear Miss Blu;
Nobody “tells” me to think anything. I simply read, observe, and reason things out for myself, unlike the poor slobs who actually take Mike Moore’s cleverly packaged baloney at face value. Ironically, Moore does far more to discredit liberals than he does conservatives, what with his rabid rants, his highly dubious “facts”, his sneering disdain for his fellow countrymen, and last but far from least, his radical Left loony ideology, best summed up by critic Andrew Sullivan: “Subliterate bitter-mongers such as Moore, men of the Left for whom cynicism, rather than decency, is almost instinctual.”
27 August 2006, 7:13 pmYorkshire:
Within the last few months Bill Clinton said Kyoto should be enforced or words to that effect. seems like his Vice President negotiated the treaty only to be abandoned and left on the scrap heap by Bill. Why? It didn’t do well in the polls. So Bill, one to never take a chance unless he could win, never presented it to Congress for Ratification. But now that there are no polls chasing him on the subject, he’s for it. I’d say there goes a man of no convictions.
On the other hand President Bush was advised not to approach Social Security. It would cost him. He had two choices, do nothing, or try to reform it. He took the hard way and tried to reform it only to end up with nothing.
Now who has more convictions??? I’d say Bush for trying something that must be done, and suffered in defeat, or Bill doing nothing, and risking nothing, and ending with nothing.
So don’t say Bush is punishing the earth. Six years before there was a George Bush as President, there was a do nothing hiding from risking anything. If it was so damn important then, Bill should have spent the political capital to pass it.
So when you’re up for more personal attacks on Bush, go blame Clinton because we should be under 10 years of Kyoto.
27 August 2006, 8:53 pmHarry Arthur:
Who funds Mediamatters?
No agenda with them of course. Their “debunking” of the skeptics is really nothing more than an exercise in “begging the question.” They assume that the so-called majority is correct and then use this assumption to prove that … the majority is correct. Of course their stated purpose is to expose “right wing misinformation.” I guess that tends to color their objectivity ever so slightly, no? But then logical analysis of arguments isn’t one of our strong points, is it?
Documentation? I don’t need no stinking documentation. Why, I’m just a mind-numbed right wing robot. I just regurgitate what I’m told by the Rovian radio waves beemed into my head at night while I’m sleeping.
*BTW, I’ve already “documented” that no one except the military and intelligence agencies flew while the airspace was shut down after 9/11. I don’t intend to argue that a second time.
blu, I sense that you’re not very happy living in this horrible country. Perhaps you should consider France. They’re so much more “enlightened” there. You know, of course that Bush has no intention of leaving office when his term is up.
28 August 2006, 7:20 amEric:
Truth is, Bill Clinton didn’t do beans about “Global Warming” during the eight years of his regime. Neither did Al Bore, his Number Two Man, despite having yammered about it being pretty much the coming Apocalypse in that famous book of his that I reviewed above. Remember, Slick Willie’s theme was “It’s the Economy, stupid”, and if Detroit was making big bucks and employment was humming along nicely due to all those big new SUV’s being sold, then he wasn’t about to kill the proverbial Golden Goose, and certainly not in the name of some highly questionable (some might say “mythical”) theory.
28 August 2006, 7:20 amHarry Arthur:
Here are the facts about which 100% of the scientists, including those I cited above agree: the atmosphere is warming.
What is not universally agreed upon is whether the warming is anthropogenic, the extent of warming, whether we can do anything about it and whether it really matters.
The problem I have with the “sky is falling” crowd, including Algore, is that they’re so darn sure of the “fact” that this is all caused by human activity and that if we don’t do something drastic immediately that we’re all doomed. But the predictions vary wildly depending on how the researcher tweaks the particular model. Fact: there is no model that has enough power to simulate the actual atmosphere. Fact: there is no model that even comes close to describing cloud activity.
What we’ve got is a secular religion wherein we ostracize the “non believers.” This whole issue has been politicized to the extreme by the “true believers” with their arrogant assertions of absolute knowledge and their dismissive attitude toward all who dare question the orthodoxy. And this is “science?” Unfortunately, the MSM has bought into the arrogance and is well along in convincing the American public that we need to ruin our economy as we joust at this latest windmill. Oh, yes, please don’t forget to fund more research.
We hear about glaciers shrinking, sea levels rising, ice caps melting, etc, etc. Of course we never hear of record cold temperatures, sea levels falling, glaciers growing or any number of other phenomena that indicate a complex natural system that, if we were intellectually honest, we would admit we haven’t begun to understand. And as soon as someone like Dr. Michaels or Dr. Christy or Dr. Lomberg dares question the “majority view” they are vilified with statements like we’ve seen from blu and the Mediamatters folks. Why, you know these scientists are all in the pockets of big oil. Why, you know Bush is owned by big oil. Why, these people are funded by, oh my God, the “big business boogey man.” And on and on. Yes, all very “scientific.”
But of course there is also the UN. It has done such wonderful work on the subject. The problem is that if you spend the time to read the actual reports there is far more ambiguity in the “documentation” then there is in the executive summaries. Why? Well it seems that the political staff writes the executive summaries. Now there’s a nice bit of research for those with “inquiring minds:” how close is the summary to the actual body of work?
28 August 2006, 7:53 amHarry Arthur:
Also, the CATO institute is funded by corporate biggies. If you really want to learn (Do you?) click onto the below link, and then click onto each individual think tank listed and see who is behind the think tank. It is an attempt to obscure the origins of the money.
As I’ve said before, so what? EVERY organization is funded by someone or by corporations or by endowments. By your logic every single one of them and everyone who is associated with them is not to be trusted. Personally, I’d trust the CEI over George Soros. Are you familiar with the Rockerfeller family? Which organization do you think funds the majority of the “progressive” think tanks? It’s hard to imagine a better example of “big money.” Using your “logic” I can immediately disregard every single one of your sources simply because they are “leftist” funded or inspired or are funded by “big money.”
Really, blu, you ought to take a course in logic. This argument is simply another ad hominem. I’m really wondering whether you’ve yet made an argument that isn’t an ad hominem.
The question is not the source of funding for these organizations and individuals. The question is simply whether what they say comports with demonstrable truth and whether it makes logical sense.
Care to give us 5 examples of anthropogenic warming?
28 August 2006, 8:50 amEric:
“Really, blu, you ought to take a course in logic. ”
If Left Wingers did that, well, they wouldn’t be Left Wingers any longer …
28 August 2006, 9:11 amDana:
York wrote:
As President, Mr Clinton refused to submit the Kyoto Accords to the Senate for ratification — because he knew it would be defeated. The Senate then enacted a “sense of the Senate” resolution calliong for it to be defeated, something like 98-0.
I’d say that President Bush ought to submit Kyoto to the Senate for ratification. Let them vote on it!
28 August 2006, 11:59 amYorkshire:
Reality does suck when the leader of the DEM Party then, Bill, had no guts to give the libs a chance to explain themselves. No guts, no glory.
28 August 2006, 12:56 pmHarry Arthur:
On the subject of “big money” again. Hard to let the nonsense about this go. If “big money” is “bad” then why should anyone have wished to elect a “big money” Kerry over a much smaller “little big money” Bush. If “big money” is “bad” then why do we listen to organizations like “TruthOut” or “MoveOn” both supported heavily by “big money” George Soros and other “big money” Hollywood lefties?
Or is it that individual “biggies” are OK but corporate “biggies” are “bad”? You do know of course that corporate “biggies” are at the very least answerable to their BOD and to the SEC while individual “biggies” are not? What is it about corporations that is so essentially evil? Is it that they provide the jobs that those of us who work rely on for a living? Or is corporate just intrinsically evil? Is there a particular size of corporation where they’re not a “biggie” yet so they’re “good”?
Such arguments are nothing less than ridiculous ad hominem best used when one has no real alternative ideas on how we ought to conduct ourselves as a nation.
Still waiting for 5 examples of anthropogenic warming.
28 August 2006, 2:49 pmYorkshire:
You’ll wait for your 5 examples and I’ll wait untill the backup data for the 99.9% of all scientists agree, and we’ll just get old.
28 August 2006, 6:14 pmblubonnet:
Okay, is the fact that all industrialized nations in the WORLD have signed the Kyoto agreement except the US and Australia hold water for you? Actually, a Clinton official did sign it on November 12,1998. Bush ignores it. (Did anyone here see the move “Syrianna”? Bush is an oil-man, you know, and the tactics of business in that movie all inter-twined with CIA, and petroleum-business, ARE the business tactics and values of Bush and his friends.) Okay, I don’t have all the names of all the scientists that were consulted for all these nations to have decided that global warming is real, or even five, but all other industrialized nations believing it (-Austrailia) is enough for me. Apparently not you guys though.
As you harangue Michael Moore who exposed the truth about Bush and all his friends that profit off of his pro-corporate, anti-environment policies that also are keeping the major networks in the cash flow big-time as sponsors, are also controlling your perceptions of what is going on. Of course your MSM sources that are having a back scratching party with this administration are going to marginalize Michael Moore. MM exposed what a scoundrel Bush really is, exposing his history. Yes Michael Moore is fat. So what!!! How immature to even make that a point in a serious discussion about the world, along with Sadaam Hussein.
While you are calling Michael Moore names, your beloved Bush has been acknowledged by a prosecutor of the Nurmberg trials as being a full blown war criminal himself as worthy of the Hague as any of the worlds’ despots. The link is below. All the “nah, nah, nah” stuff about MM with the egregious acts of Bush and Blair? What is more important to you? That Michael Moore is big and fat, and percieved by some idiot as an idiot?
http://keld.newsvine.com/_news/2006/08/25/339922-bush-and-saddam-should-both-stand-trial-says-nuremberg-prosecutor
29 August 2006, 1:29 amblubonnet:
Is it worth my time to try and share information with you righties? Will you look at the link? Will you care? Will you try to rationalize the plethora of war crimes commited by the United States policy from the administration and Pentagon? You all need to expand your sources into the many donation only funded sites like Democracy Now for example.
I respect that Dana reads the Truth-Out articles that come his way. Good on you, Dana. Especially when you find something that is less than accurate!
29 August 2006, 1:36 amHarry Arthur:
Waiting for answers to my “big money” questions. “…donation only” sites? From whom?
I don’t suppose I’ll be getting an answer to my request for 5 examples of anthropogenic warming?
Soros money: good; business money: bad? So that’s how it works. Now I believe I’ve got it.
Is this your point?
Syrianna is where we should turn for facts about how businesses, particularly the oil business, work in the world? I guess it shows the value of propaganda. I’m sure George Clooney is proud of his work.
I’ll stick with my recommendation for taking a course, or even reading a book, about logical thinking and analysis. Until then, what’s the point of this mud wrestling exercise?
29 August 2006, 8:01 amYorkshire:
Blu says of Kyoto:
Actually, a Clinton official did sign it on November 12,1998. Bush ignores it.
The Constitution says it in effect if in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur
The reality is there is no treaty binding the USA to Kyoto. And the fact that other countries signed it is not a reason for our own sovereign country to committ suicide of our whole system. And no one has met their goals yet, and won’t. Kyoto was a feel good piece of paper that was meant to cause great economic harm to the USA. And the libs complain work is being exported? Well Kyoto would have shut down vast amounts of industry and sent it to countries that had no Kyoto penalties. The real suffering we would have had was our standard of living would be pulled down immensely at the whim of some foreign beaurocrat enforcing our industry in our sovereign nation. Talk about a depression, it would be there when some 4th world bean counter tells you you can’t drive or heat your house.
The left has been trying to destroy the US for years. If they can’t do it militarily, they’ll do it economically.
29 August 2006, 8:05 amEric:
Oh goodness! Blu gets her “facts” about global politics from a fictional movie, “Syriana”. No wonder she worships Mike Moore, another notorious dealer in fiction …
29 August 2006, 8:15 amArthur Downs:
One can become very misinformed by treating movies as sources of facts. Both Bambi and China Syndrome spread a lot of disinformation. There was that Olover Stone movie based on the (alleged) writings of aninsider who neither wrote the book nor read the galley proofs before printing. John Dean admitted the truth in a sworn deposition that was forced from him when he was foolish enough to let . Gordon Liddy force him into filing a libel suit. Liddy referring to Dean “marrying a prostitute” must have gotten wifey-poo in a snit. Dean should have learned from Oscar Wilde that it is bad to initiate a lawsuit when the facts are not on your side.
The first Ghostbusters film that showed the EPA guy as an abusive putz gave that film some claim to be a documentary.
On an even brighter Hollywood note, there have been reports than our Marines obliged Saddam to repeatedly watch the Southpark film that showed Saddam as Satan’s abusive gay lover. We can hope that this was true.
29 August 2006, 1:19 pmblubonnet:
No surprise, your’e confused again, Eric. I said that the movie is an example of the kind of operations that go on among oil companies.
Well, since we have the baddest military around, we do whatever the hell we want, but it has caused great disgust from the rest of this planet. As far as suicide goes, why don’t you think of the effects of global warming upon your children and grandchildren in fifty years from now.
Better yet, go see the movie. You have opinions galore about it, but have not bothered to see it. Bring a notebook with a little book-light so as each fact conmes up, write it down, so you can research it and dispute it. Think of how satisfying that would be if you could dispute it, and the material you had to back it up (your argument) had legs.
29 August 2006, 2:20 pmblubonnet:
Harry, when two different perspectives are out there, contrary to one another, WHO would have reason to lie? Doesn’t your bible say that it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than a rich man to heaven? Doesn’t it say that money is the root of all evil? Well, personally, I am not against wealth. I respect the many that work hard to achieve it. But, when people are dying, by the thousands in a war that has been declared illegal by a Nuremberg prosecutor, and the ones making big money are saying the opposite, not to mention the many non-corporate sources, it requires me to make a judgement. There are also, many other obscure sources that have brought their high standards of honor and journalistic ethics to speak independently, I choose the sources that are not making big money off of their reporting. You wouldn’t know though, because you only use those huge corporate sources as information.
Add to that there were many historical icons that warned of the influence of the military industrial complex. It frightened Eisenhower and Lincoln. I don’t have all my quotations with me to share their words right now. (I’m moving into a new house soon. Much is packed up). This point in history, that MIC is operating from the Whitehouse, and is also funding virtually all the television and radio networks. The oil companies are tied into the ones profitting off of the war. Lies are commonplace.
There are those that are part of the plan to be the military force of the planet, PNAC that own most of the media. Rupert Murdoch. Others too. Please google up “Orwell Rolls in His Grave” and watch it online.
29 August 2006, 2:44 pmblubonnet:
Anthropogenic origins, Harry, see the movie.
Willfully maintaining your misinformation will probaly the end result for you guys through all this exchange taking place here. Waste of time for anyone to share with you.
29 August 2006, 2:52 pmYorkshire:
Actually, a Clinton official did sign it on November 12,1998. Bush ignores it.
Only the President can sign a treaty with the 2/3 agreement of the Senate - Read your constitution.
(Did anyone here see the move “Syrianna� Bush is an oil-man, you know, and the tactics of business in that movie all inter-twined with CIA, and petroleum-business, ARE the business tactics and values of Bush and his friends.)
You put this here as a statement of fact.
I also know that the vast majority of the world’s scientists are on the side of YES GLOBAL WARMING IS A REALITY. Like 99.9%.
Again you put this here as a statement of fact.
We asked to back these and other facts. You don’t want to do that. A discussion can come from facts, not baseless accusations you throw out for us to disprove. You read this stuff in far left wing sites and buy it hook, line and sinker, and then you question us for not believing it.
29 August 2006, 6:44 pmHarry Arthur:
Harry, when two different perspectives are out there, contrary to one another, WHO would have reason to lie?
No, there are many more perspectives than just the two extremes (false dichotomy). And unless you have the ability to discern other’s thoughts, you have no possible way of determining others’ motives.
Doesn’t your bible say that it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than a rich man to heaven? Doesn’t it say that money is the root of all evil?
In answer to the first question: sort of. Unfortunately you’ve taken this comment by Jesus recorded by Dr. Luke in Luke 18:18-27, out of context. This is a summary of a discussion that Jesus had with a “rich young ruler” about goodness and whether the man could attain eternal life on his own merit. Jesus’ response to him was simply to show him that salvation comes from God alone, not from human effort, and certainly not from riches. The context is the man’s attitude about his wealth not the fact that he was wealthy. Jesus is simply telling the rich man that he can’t make it on his own, no matter his personal resources of either physical wealth or his own spiritual effort. This is why Jesus suggested to the man that he donate all his goods to the poor and follow Jesus. He was simply engaging a man who had previously declared that he had “kept the whole law” (impossible) in a sincerity check. He was holding up a mirror for the man to see his own true motives. The teaching here regards self-sufficiency apart from God. Money is merely incidental.
In answer to the second question: emphatically no. This is an error that many people make in not reading the Bible carefully. The passage is found in I Tim 6:10 and the context is Paul’s warning to a young minister named Timothy. The actual quote begins in verse 9: “But they that will (totally focus on becoming) rich fall into a temptation and a snare …” continuing in verse 10 with “For the love of money is the root of all evil …”. The Bible emphatically does not state that “money is the root of all evil” in any context in any passage anywhere. As with the first statement, the clear context lies in the attitude of those with money and the danger in coveting riches above a relationship with God. In any case, it is simply beyond us to discern others’ attitudes.
There is no concept anywhere in the Bible, period, that suggests that money is intrinsically evil.
…in a war that has been declared illegal by a Nuremberg prosecutor…
As I stated previously, he’s welcome to his opinion but he has no legal or moral authority to declare anything of the kind.
…the ones making big money are saying the opposite, not to mention the many non-corporate sources, it requires me to make a judgement.
You have every right to make a judgement, as do we all. Is it possible that your judgement is wrong? Is it possible that the the “non-corporate” sources have their own agenda, e.g., power, prestige, hatred of Bush, hatred of the US, etc? It’s certainly possible that they are mistaken in their analysis even if they were without an agenda or bias. You seem to be suggesting that you have some special insight into the world that the rest of us do not share. Interesting viewpoint. Are you sure? Perhaps it is you who have been mislead by those on the left who simply wish to reaquire power they’ve lost through the political process?
There are also, many other obscure sources that have brought their high standards of honor and journalistic ethics to speak independently, I choose the sources that are not making big money off of their reporting.
See my preceding comment on this statement. You are begging the question again. You have assumed that only your favorite sources have “high standards of honor and journalistic ethics” and then used your assumption to prove their veracity. Is it possible they have an agenda? Is it possible their analysis is wrong?
Secondly, your choice is those who are not “making big money off their reporting.” They’re not selling newspapers, books or movies? You clearly approve of Michael Moore, yet he has become a multimillionaire courtesy of his movies. He may not be as rich as John Kerry or Ted Kennedy but he has clearly made what any reasonable person can only characterize as “big money” off his so-called reporting. I will also state emphatically that much of his reporting is demonstrably inaccurate, or at the very least misleading.
George Soros is a billionaire who funds TruthOut and MoveOn to the tune of multiple millions of dollars, yet I believe you’ve quoted from both. I would suggest that there is not a single source you can quote that is “untainted” by “big money” in some manner. As I’ve indicated before, this whole “big money” issue is simply a smoke screen for an ad hominem argument.
You wouldn’t know though, because you only use those huge corporate sources as information.
My concluding comment is that this statement is unfortunately all too characteristic of your commentary and also characteristically wrong. First, you can’t possibly know what I don’t know. Second, you absolutely can’t possibly know what sources I use for information. We’ve had a number of discussions in the past and if you read a single one of my replies you’d quickly come to the conclusion that I have carefully evaluated every source to which I’ve been linked. Your problem with my replies is simply that I often disagree with your sources because very often they are clearly biased, sometimes factually incorrect, often illogical, and most often don’t pass my “common sense” test.
I’d still like to hear about some of that anthropogenic climate change.
29 August 2006, 10:59 pmEric:
Dear Miss Blu;
It wouldn’t be satisfying. Why should I dispute garbage? If some ninny insists that 2 + 2 = 5, or that the sky is green, I’m not gonna waste my time trying to “disprove” him.
Sincerely,
30 August 2006, 12:39 amEric
blubonnet:
Regardimg issue of global warming, I’m still going to lean torward the ones making money for just being a scientist. Not the ones making money being a “climatologist” and being a representative for global warming being “ficticious”. There is a whoe lot more of those that are just getting paid as a mere scientist that say global warming is real and is occurring directly in unison with the use of petro.
Regarding the war, I’ve seen and heard Iraqis on documentaries that have told of the horrors and injustices put upon them based on a war sold to us as an attempt to catch Saddaam Hussein and eliminate his “WMDs”. All of which have been proven to be false. Even people that worked in the Pentagon told of Rumsfield coming into their offices and saying that after 911, to come up with, hell or high water, Iraq connectedness, in other words according to Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, “lie, if necessary”. There is so much more that makes the point of the fact it was a lie that led us into this war. There are documents of Rumsfields’ orders for torture also. These neo-cons are absolute war criminals. Completely without conscience. No doubt, a prosecutor at Nuremberg has some credibility on what that would be. There is so much more. I tire of trying to explain what should really be obvious to anyone though. If after all that Bush has done, all the dead bodies, all the pollution from depleted uranium, the trampling of the United States Constitution, and you’re still standing behind him, then there is not another thing I could possibly say. You’d be standing behind Sadaam Hussein if you were in his country.
30 August 2006, 1:04 amYorkshire:
based on a war sold to us as an attempt to catch Saddaam Hussein and eliminate his “WMDsâ€. All of which have been proven to be false.
This strawman I love the most from the left. In the 90’s, most western countries reported that Saddam had WMD’s. Even the Left’s beknighted saint Bill was almost ready to go to war over the issue. He even bombed Bahgdad because of it. Now that Bush took the whole body of knowledge collected in the 90’s and used it to attack Iraq before they used the supposed WMD’s which every most western countries said were there, Bush Lied. Give me a freaking break. If there is a sure thing from the Left they talk out of both sides of their mouth and other body parts. If Bush Lied, So did Clinton. Deal with it.
30 August 2006, 7:46 amEric:
Dear Miss Blu;
The problem with Global Warming theories is there’s still far more speculation than actual science. They’re basically looking into a crystal ball and guessing what’s gonna happen in the future. And don’t forget the issue of peer pressure. Algore doesn’t know jack about science, yet he bellows like a walrus at anybody who dares to criticise or question his “proof” that global warming is real. And of course, any person who is skeptical of the global warming dogma is smeared as simply being a “shill” for the oil companies. So, if you’re a scientist, it’s a lot easier to just go with the herd than to stick your neck out.
Sincerely,
30 August 2006, 8:57 amEric
Harry Arthur:
Regardimg issue of global warming, I’m still going to lean torward the ones making money for just being a scientist.
Complete lack of understanding in how “scientists” are compensated, particularly research scientists. Every scientist receives funding from somewhere. Either they are employed by universities, government agencies or they receive direct research funding from some entity. There is no “mere scientist” pay. To impugn the character of those who disagree with the majority, and with whom you might disagree is a sorry excuse for a rational argument and contributes absolutely nothing whatsoever to the debate.
Not the ones making money being a “climatologist” and being a representative for global warming being “ficticious”.
Huh? So who exactly should study the climate? We shouldn’t listen to climatologists?
There is a whole lot more of those that are just getting paid as a mere scientist that say global warming is real and is occurring directly in unison with the use of petro.
What do you do for a living? Will your job be effected by the reduction of CO2 emissions to the levels required by Kyoto? When the economy slides into recession, are you ready to excuse Bush for simply following Kyoto. Do you realize that complete adherance to Kyoto will reduce warming by about .4 degree Celcius in the next 50 years? Is it worth it? Are you ready to build hundreds of nuclear plants to make up the difference? Nuclear power contributes NO CO2 to the atmosphere. Do you realize that approximately 96% of the “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere are natural and that we can do nothing whatsoever to reduce them? Why is it that every advance in computing power that improves the predictive ability of the climate models inevitably results in reducing the magnitude of predicted warming?
Eric has connected the dots the dots for you. Is is just the slightest bit possible that scientists, being the perceptive folks that they are, look around at the personal vicious ad hominem attacks leveled against those who dare question the orthodoxy, and decide it’s easier to embrace the latest fad and protect their research grants than to swim upstream?
30 August 2006, 9:34 amblubonnet:
I’ll just believe what the rest of the worlds’ scientists say, not the small percentage of those that think contrary. I don’t trust corporate funding. You do. You go ahead.
Incidentally, you might look into the legal, ethical challenges that oil companies deal with regularly. Watch some documentaries online regarding them. You won’t find glowing reports of honor.
You have no idea how corrupt and powerful your “information” sources are. Wander around on that Wikipedia link I offered up a ways. Lying has become a highly polished art form in the “think-tank” operations funded by big business that are invested into and making huge amounts of money from war, and your belief opposing the world’s scientists. Your delusion serves them well. I doubt very much you can or will fathom it. You don’t want to know. I’m done here. Bye!
31 August 2006, 2:13 amHarry Arthur:
Your delusion serves them well. I doubt very much you can or will fathom it. You don’t want to know. I’m done here. Bye!
This comment ranks in the top ten of the most arrogant, self-righteous comments I’ve ever heard. Yet, not a single answer to any of the questions I’ve posed or the arguments I’ve made. No ideas, just more anti-business, leftist invective and unsubstantiated assertions of malfeasance. Very disappointing to say the least, that this is what passes for dialogue from the left these days. And Wikipedia is an authoritative source? Incredible.
31 August 2006, 8:27 amArthur Downs:
I’ll just believe what the rest of the worlds’ scientists say, not the small percentage of those that think contrary. I don’t trust corporate funding. You do. You go ahead.
But how can you trust a person such as George Soros, a very successful money-changer with a goal of undermining society?
What service does he render to the public? What products does he produced or sell?
Coporate America gets a lot of disdain from the economically illiterate who would be confused by a balance sheet. Yet consider the alternatives. Look at the ‘Workers’ Paradise’ in what was East Germany. They waited years to buy what was a turd on four wheels called a Trabant (ugly, polluting, unreliable, lousy performance, lousy gas mileage) when on the other side of the border, those nasty corporations called Daimler-Benz, Porsche, and BMW turned out masterpieces.
Some folks would do well to get jobs.
31 August 2006, 9:12 amYorkshire:
Just a friendly little reminder of the present the Left gave us New Orleans. On the one year anniversary one of the pressing projects most wanted is the Netherlands type closure structure at the mouth of Lake Ponchatrain. Well, Congress authorized the design and construction of such a thing in the mid 70’s. Our no answer friends on the Left disguised as caretakers of the earth, and known as enviromentalwhackoes stopped this in court. The idea went for another 10 years, but the court action stopped it dead. So Congress and the Corps went back to levee building. So remember how the Left participated in the destruction of New Orleans. As usual, the Left has no answers, no solutions, but knows what’s right or wrong for you and will stop progress.
31 August 2006, 9:36 amDana:
My congratulations to Eric: no posting on this site has ever gotten as many (non-Spamâ„¢) reader comments as this one!
31 August 2006, 11:57 amEric:
Arrogance & self-righteousness practically define the Left. Their knowledge of economics is miniscule, yet they blather on about how everything bad in the world is the fault of “greedy” companies. Left Wingers always assume an attitude of moral superiority even when arguing complete garbage. Their arrogance is exceeded only by their ignorance.
31 August 2006, 2:13 pmDana:
Eric writes:
I have long said that if liberals understood economics, they would not be liberals.
Economics is predicated on the observed human behavior of trying to maximize return for work: people work, hoping and trying to get the most back from work.
Corporations are greedy — because they exist for the sole purpose of maximizing return to investors. No one invests money hoping not to see a profit, and corporate managers who do not produce profits quickly find themselves to be former corporate managers.
The liberal notion of economics, socialism or some mushy form of it, is predicated on the idea that people want to share the wealth. And on certain small scales, some do. But in large groups, in whole systems, that isn’t human behavior.
And, of course, it has been the “greedy” systems which have produced the greatest rewards for their investors and the highest standards of living for their societies, precisely because they maximize return for work.
31 August 2006, 2:53 pm