Democracy and AGW

[yukonmuffin]

right... America. Maybe catch phrases are your best options. Try using guns and woman in your argument. might be more effective then facts and polar bears.

side note: My only exposure to America is Alaska (witch should be part of the Yukon) and L.A. forgive me for being narrow minded.

[G. Adams]

*sigh*

Off topic already.

This thread is just to establish how far you would be prepared to have freedom limited to counter AGW. This isn't, in the slightest, about the science of global warming. I just want to know where your line in the sand is.

Right, I'll respond directly to a few contributers to this thread.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Sonart snip & paste You want my answer? I doubt that I'll live long enough to see the day people finally wise up to the Big Lie they've been fed that AGW isn't happening. But if I do, I'll be in the front lines of the masses who, enraged beyond reason by the danger the Big Lie has put us in, storm Washington and London to lynch every politician and pundit who ever lied to them. Of course, by that time, democracy and personal liberty will be irrelevant... people will simply be begging for whatever system will save them.

Ignoring all the bluster in that statement, it still looks like you have avoided the specific question.

Put simply, would you be prepared to support a dictatorship to counter AGW?

As a follow up to that question, how far along the road to catastrophe would we have to be before you submitted to a green dictatorship? Presuming we don't change our ways and we continue just as we are (in reality such stasis is virtually impossible, we will at the very least shift a little in one direction or the other).

[G. Adams]

Quote by: soothsayer According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this. The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise. They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’. This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics. DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online Climate "science" faces a new controversy after the Met Office denounced research from the Copenhagen summit which suggested that global warming could raise sea levels by 6ft by 2100. The research, published by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, created headline news during the United Nations summit on climate change in Denmark last month. It predicted an apocalyptic century in which rising seas could threaten coastal communities from England to Bangladesh and was the latest in a series of studies from Potsdam that has gained wide acceptance among governments and environmental campaigners. Besides underpinning the Copenhagen talks, the research is also likely to be included in the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This would elevate it to the level of global policy-making. However, the studies, led by Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of ocean physics at Potsdam, have caused growing concern among other experts. They say his methods are flawed and that the real increase in sea levels by 2100 is likely to be far lower than he predicts. Jason Lowe, a leading Met Office climate researcher, said: "These predictions of a rise in sea level potentially exceeding 6ft have got a huge amount of attention, but we think such a big rise by 2100 is actually incredibly unlikely. The mathematical approach used to calculate the rise is simplistic and unsatisfactory." Climate change experts clash over sea-rise ‘apocalypse’ - Times Online

This doesn't deal with the actual question I raised. Either answer it or find a new thread to dump your load on.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: barts You're posing a logical impossibility. You can't have voters and a dictatorship. However, given that climate change is a life or death issue, a dictatorship that addressed the problem is preferable to a democracy that can't. With the former, at least, the dictatorship can be overthrown in the future, with the latter you're dead. It's an easy, but fanciful, choice that you pose. It would be better for all if governments declared a real war on climate change rather than a bogus war on terror.

I'm not stating that in the scenario the dictatorship already exists, but to rephrase for clarity, read citizens/subjects instead of voters.

However, thank you for responding to the question with an answer. In response, I would like to ask you at what point along the road to an AGW catastrophe would you support dictatorship over democracy? What warning signs would you need to see before you made the leap?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: lsbskins1 This would be why we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. You don't have to impose dictatorial conditions on the masses to achieve a change in policy. It is also one of the best arguments for a trained and independent bureaucracy. You present a false dilemma. I do not have to choose between killing freedom and killing the planet and I will not play that game.

Then you disagree with the statements made by those scientists who think democracy is undermining the effort against AGW?

But I don't think I'm creating a false dilemma here. The voters could be offered the option between two parties (presuming other parties are insignificant); one who is offering to maintain representative democracy but it says it will only continue policies of trying to educate and inform the populace about the dangers of AGW, the other says it will suspend all individual rights (only approved actions are legal, rather than the traditional Anglo style of it's legal unless a law says it's unlaw) and pursue whatever courses of action it's scientific advisors say are needed, and will pursue any supporting policies to carry our it's counter measures (eg, crushing dissenting opinion). Which party would you support?

Or alternatively, in a representative democracy the government states that it cannot effectively combat AGW with limitations upon it's powers or allowing citizens such broad freedom. Thus, it will be suspending all individual rights and ending all constitutional restraints upon the power of government. Would you support or resist such a move?

[barts]

Quote by: soothsayer According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on comparing what you've stated above with this from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre which was posted on 5 January 2010,

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over December 2009 was 12.48 million square kilometers (4.82 million square miles). This was 920,000 square kilometers (350,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for December, but 210,000 square kilometers (81,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in December 2006. Ice extent was less than normal over much of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, including the Barents Sea, part of the East Greenland Sea, and in Davis Strait.

There's, of course, more data available and all of it points to a warming Arctic, despite the expected and normal fluctuations.

As Sonart points out this is a science issue, not a public opinion or political one. The world climate is warming, deal with it. Or, don't deal with it. "It's your funeral".

[Derach]

Quote by: barts There's, of course, more data available and all of it points to a warming Arctic, despite the expected and normal fluctuations.

Funny how each side portrays the others' arguments as 'normal fluctuations', while their own arguments are proof of (or denial of) AGW.

Anyway, back to topic...

Copenhagen failure shows only overthrowing capitalism can avert climate catastrophe | League for the Fifth International

Copenhagen shows that the movement to save humanity and its natural environment must become fully and consciously anticapitalist, revolutionary socialist, and internationalist in its goals. Only a globally planned economy directed at social justice and a sustainable environment can meet our needs. Nothing short of this will do.

Complete with gulags, mass starvations, political executions and slavery, no doubt.

just an interesting twist

[G. Adams]

Quote by: barts I'd appreciate your thoughts on comparing what you've stated above with this from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre which was posted on 5 January 2010, There's, of course, more data available and all of it points to a warming Arctic, despite the expected and normal fluctuations. As Sonart points out this is a science issue, not a public opinion or political one. The world climate is warming, deal with it. Or, don't deal with it. "It's your funeral".

Please don't respond to someone going off topic, it just encourages the derailment further.

Same goes Derach, this thread is particular. If you want to discuss sea ice either do it in a generic global warming thread or in a new one entirely.

[soothsayer]

This doesn't deal with the actual question I raised. Either answer it or find a new thread to dump your load on.

Which is the"inconvenient truth" thread?

The post demonstrates the blatant absurdity with which the pseudo-science is being addressed:
with an international power grab.

Anyone entertaining the acceptance of the establishment any global governmental body ostensibly formed in response to this hoax indicates the success of their propaganda machine.

How the ludicrousness of the Copenhagen fiasco wasn't enough to make many take notice is astounding:

YouTube - Chavez at COP15: Capitalism the 'Silent and Terrible Ghost in the Room'

What level of abject serfdom will the propagandized public come to accept as a result of this global control campaign? Medieval history shows us quite a bit.

What this thread should make clear is that that is the intention of the perpetrators of this crusade.

[Derach]

Quote by: G. Adams Please don't respond to someone going off topic, it just encourages the derailment further. Same goes Derach, this thread is particular. If you want to discuss sea ice either do it in a generic global warming thread or in a new one entirely.

OK mr thread gestapo. Why don't you try a less bating and more discussional topic then? What do you expect people to say?

Yes, we need a dictatorship to control AGW

No, we don't need a dictatorship to control AGW.

If we play by your silly rules, there will be only 2 responses to your silly thread.

ps. Notice I tried to open your ridiculously narrow thread to some discussion by actually posting a link that pertained directly to the OT.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: soothsayer Which is the"inconvenient truth" thread? The post demonstrates the blatant absurdity with which the pseudo-science is being addressed: with an international power grab. Anyone entertaining the acceptance of the establishment any global governmental body ostensibly formed in response to this hoax indicates the success of their propaganda machine. How the ludicrousness of the Copenhagen fiasco wasn't enough to make many take notice is astounding: YouTube - Chavez at COP15: Capitalism the 'Silent and Terrible Ghost in the Room' What level of abject serfdom will the propagandized public come to accept as a result of this global control campaign? Medieval history shows us quite a bit. What this thread should make clear is that that is the intention of the perpetrators of this crusade.

OMFG, I feel like a helpless substitute teacher trying to direct the kid's attention to the blackboard.

Sooth, please stop pulling this thread in different directions. I just want responses to the question. Further debate can be led from here in the future in a new thread.

If you want to contribute Sooth, you can, just say whether you would be prepared to support a dictatorship if it appeared that it was only way to counter AGW. There's no need for links, it's no one elses facts or opinions that I am interested in, just how you would react given that option.

[soothsayer]

What do you expect people to say? Yes, we need a dictatorship to control AGW

Several posters have indeed admitted as much throughout these threads.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Derach OK mr thread gestapo. Why don't you try a less bating and more discussional topic then? What do you expect people to say? Yes, we need a dictatorship to control AGW No, we don't need a dictatorship to control AGW. If we play by your silly rules, there will be only 2 responses to your silly thread. ps. Notice I tried to open your ridiculously narrow thread to some discussion by actually posting a link that pertained directly to the OT.

I expect people to at least answer the OP. If they want to elaborate a little more that's fine but having this degenerate into yet another "is AGW occuring or not?" is pointless, which is why I'm trying to keep people to the topic at hand.

And more than one answer is possible by elaborating on the conditions under which a green dictatorship would be acceptable to them. Your post for example would have been absolutely fine if you had just answered the question before linking to outside material.

However, as I'm specifically trying to work out how many people would countenance such a system, having only two answers would be fine because then I'd have results to actually look at, instead of 20 pages of stuff nothing to do with what I'm asking.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams I expect people to at least answer the OP. If they want to elaborate a little more that's fine but having this degenerate into yet another "is AGW occuring or not?"

And I think this question deserves an answer. I believed I've done so, to the best of my ability. You did frame the question weird, saying "if totalitarianism is the only way to do X"...but since that's not the case, I felt I had to make my own version. I also noted the logical impossibility of creating a decent alternative argument operating under your premise. If indeed tyranny is the only workable solution, then that is the only solution. No other argument would make sense, if you want the problem -- whatever it is -- to be addressed, let alone solved. And, of course, if you actually don't want the problem to be solved, you are practically saying nothing.

Grandpa h.

[Derach]

I guess I also just disagree with the premise that totalitarianism can solve AGW any better than it has solved poverty, national security, religious purity, expansionaism, greed or any other motive that has inspired dictators through history.

Besides, wouldn't it be a hoot if some plague rendered man extinct and global warming went on anyways!?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Yukon right... America.

I'm an American, on an American discussion board. So sue me.

Quote by: G. Adams This doesn't deal with the actual question I raised. Either answer it or find a new thread to dump your load on. How far you would be prepared to have freedom limited to counter AGW?

If you will answer this question...

IF, 5 years ago, several astronomers announced that they'd discovered that a huge asteroid was on a collision course with earth, and NOW, after 5 years of intense research, 97% of the world's astronomers confirmed that, "Yes, there's a huge asteroid headed this way with a 93.764% (plus/minus .5%) chance of striking the earth 5 years from now." And it was determined that we could divert the asteroid and save the planet, but that to do so would require the massed and unified efforts of every developed nation of earth, at an absolutely staggering cost and strict rationing of resources, resulting in a lower standard of living for everyone.

Would you agree to accept that some sacrifice was needed to save the world, or would you pout that you didn't want your money and your liberties being usurped by no damn UN?


FACT: Every year we delay acting on AGW only makes it harder to reverse it, therefore every year we delay only makes the solutions necessary that much more drastic.

HOPEFULLY, the freedom to innovate and profit from that innovation will make it possible for us to solve the problem, but only so long as that freedom is based on a solid foundation of reality. If 'freedom' simply means insisting on denying that reality, then freedom becomes a problem instead of a solution.

At some point, G, 'Freedom' becomes an irrelevant concept. If you were carrying around infectious Tuberculosis, then I'm really not much concerned with your personal freedom. If your political sensitivities over personal freedom interfere with the necessity of saving the planet, I'm not really much concerned with that either.

As Ben Franklin said, "Either we all hang together, or we all hang seperately."

By which he meant that we have to ignore our petty, individual concerns and unite - and sacrifice if necessary - to solve the larger problem, or we lose to that problem. If you think preserving your personal freedom is worth ending life on earth as we know it a hundred years from now, I really have to question your priorities. But mostly I wouldn't want to be you trying to defend such petty self-interest 50 years from now.


.

[yukonmuffin]

lol sorry for the thread jack there Adams.

Quote by: Sonart I'm an American, on an American discussion board. So sue me.

International site hosted in America.

so...

Quote by: Sonart IF, 5 years ago, several astronomers announced that they'd discovered that a huge asteroid was on a collision course with earth, and NOW, after 5 years of intense research, 97% of the world's astronomers confirmed that, "Yes, there's a huge asteroid headed this way with a 93.764% (plus/minus .5%) chance of striking the earth 5 years from now." And it was determined that we could divert the asteroid and save the planet, but that to do so would require the massed and unified efforts of every developed nation of earth, at an absolutely staggering cost and strict rationing of resources, resulting in a lower standard of living for everyone. Would you agree to accept that some sacrifice was needed to save the world, or would you pout that you didn't want your money and your liberties being usurped by no damn UN? FACT: Every year we delay acting on AGW only makes it harder to reverse it, therefore every year we delay only makes the solutions necessary that much more drastic. HOPEFULLY, the freedom to innovate and profit from that innovation will make it possible for us to solve the problem, but only so long as that freedom is based on a solid foundation of reality. If 'freedom' simply means insisting on denying that reality, then freedom becomes a problem instead of a solution. At some point, G, 'Freedom' becomes an irrelevant concept. If you were carrying around infectious Tuberculosis, then I'm really not much concerned with your personal freedom. If your political sensitivities over personal freedom interfere with the necessity of saving the planet, I'm not really much concerned with that either. As Ben Franklin said, "Either we all hang together, or we all hang seperately." By which he meant that we have to ignore our petty, individual concerns and unite - and sacrifice if necessary - to solve the larger problem, or we lose to that problem. If you think preserving your personal freedom is worth ending life on earth as we know it a hundred years from now, I really have to question your priorities. But mostly I wouldn't want to be you trying to defend such petty self-interest 50 years from now.

... is that a yes?

Global warming isn't going to annihilate us. Small gradual steps (hydrogen cars is my favourite) are probably going to be sufficient. No need to sacrifice anything big... H2 cars would be awesome. the hot burning temp would be great for northerners (I hate it when my care takes forever to heat up.)

[Derach]

never mind ... off topic

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: yukonmuffin International site hosted in America.

{{snore}}

Quote by: yukonmuffin Global warming isn't going to annihilate us.

Says who?

SNIPPED FROM #334

Quote by: Georgia So what? This is like Chicken little.

Quote by: sonart Is it really? Watch this video (don't let the title fool you) It's about a different climate phenomena, but towards the end the connection to AGW will scare the piss out of you. Try to bear in mind that most predictions of the affects of AGW only stretch out over the next 50 years or so, and merely predict mass starvation, massed migrations, mass wildlife extinctions, flooding, desertification, catastrophic ocean problems, etc. Apparently they either don't want to imagine beyond that point or they assume we'll have solved it by then. The REAL problem, of course, lies with a whole variety of unexpected feedback loops. We've already seen the effects of them, since global warming is happening faster than predicted. Examples: Permafrost melting - Along with glaciers and ice fields, vast areas of formerly permanently frozen tundra - permafrost - are melting, releasing long held CO2, adding to what humans are creating and thus accelerating global warming even more. White Ice/Dark Water - White ice fields and glaciers reflect heat back into space. Dark seawater absorbs heat from the sun and gets even warmer... melting more ice... making the water even warmer... melting more ice. Increased Water Vapor - Global warming leads to higher humidity in the atmosphere. This was one of the first consequences of warming that I learned of many years ago. It's why they predicted all those big hurricanes... because warm water and humidity are the engines that drive ocean storms. What they forgot is what every novice skeptic always loves to blurt out... the single most effective greenhouse gas in the atmosphere isn't CO2 or Methane. It's water vapor. Increased humidity means more water vapor in the atmosphere means even more greenhouse effect. You getting the picture at all? What this all means is that as some 'Point of No Return', global warming will become a self-accelerating mechanism that we won't be able to stop no matter what we do. Decade after decade, the globe keeps warming... 1 degree, 2, 3, 4, 5... completely out of our control. At what point... 59 years?... 100 years?... 150 years?... does the earth simply become unlivable? You tell me.

Quote by: yukonmuffin Small gradual steps (hydrogen cars is my favourite) are probably going to be sufficient.

Again, sez who? You? When do we start? Before or after it's too late to do anything?


.