opinion posting

[DavidS]

Damn, I came on a couple of hours ago to announce that I posted another opinion on my website, and got so wrapped up in the other posts that I forgot! Anyway, I did.

[Alisium]

I hope you don't mind, but I would like to respond, very shortly, to your last two opinion posts there. I'll assume you put it out there for a little feed-back.

On Conservative Principles:

I agree, our Founding Fathers weren't conservatives. In fact, they were liberals. However, the politics of the USA has changed so, in the last two hundred plus years, that the terms, liberal and conservative, as we apply them today, would be unrecognizable to the Founders.

Today's conservative ideas of limited government, low taxes ect. would have been the liberal ideas of the time.

On Global Climate Change: (GCC)

I used to be a radical environmentalist. I would still say that I am in many regards. However, the GCC ship has sailed for me. It started with several instructors at Oregon State University, of all places, and finished with the current dozen or so scandals (including the Phil Jones admission) and the realization that there is, in fact, no real scientific consensus on [anthropogenic] GCC.

[DavidS]

A, Yes indeed, I welcomed response when I announced that posting here. Even response that disagrees with me.

Excellent point on politics shifting. Henry "Scoop" Jackson was a US congressman and senator from Washington state. Early in his career, he was considered one of the more liberal members of Congress. His positions didn't change, but the political landscape shifted so much during his tenure that, by the time of his retirement (occasioned by his sudden death), he was widely considered to be one of the most conservative.

The "conservative value" of limited government held by our Founding Fathers was aimed at royalty and the aristocracy. Interestingly, when looked at objectively, the three most "imperial" presidents of the last half century were conservatives, not liberals.

My final point on climate change remains valid regardless of recent scandals and lack of consensus on anthropogenic causes. That's no excuse for continuing to dump huge amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

[BlackenedX]

I would have to agree with Dave on the GCC issue. Yes there is no scientific proof that there is global warming nor is there any imminent threat of a climate catastrophe (that we know of) but let me but it to you this way:

Imagine you are in a Closed room so that no air may escape or be let in. In the center of the room is a powerful heat source (representing the Earth's core). Now as time passes by the heat source will begin to heat up the room and since the room is airtight (like the Earth's atmosphere), that heat has no where to go. Now you realize at this point that it's only a matter of time until that heat source heats the room up to the point where you will eventually fry to death if you don't succumb to heat exhaustion fist.

Now this is the way the Earth works and ALL SCIENTISTS realize this. The counterpoint that some scientists make against this theory is the following: Whenever that room (the Earth) becomes too hot, a man will throw a bunch of ice into the room to cool it down (symbolizing an Ice age). This keeps heat in check so long as the ice continues to come on schedule...say...every couple million years or so. (for this example lets say that a guy throws ice in every five minutes without breaking the airtight seal in the room).

Now lets throw a wild card into our system in equilibrium: The human race and pollution. To represent pollution, the man in the room will place an additional heat source in the room. Now that there are two heat sources in the room, the room will heat up faster. Now lets say the room got up to about 100 degrees Fahrenheit with one heat source and the ice cooled the heat down to 0 degrees. Now that we have two heat sources lets say we get to 120 degrees. And since the amount of ice doesn't change we only cool down to 20 degrees. If this cycle repeats we will end up with 40 degrees, then 60,80,100,etc... Since the time of delivery nor the quantity of the ice has changes since the addition of the heat source, the room is no longer able to attain equilibrium and will eventually reach a point where the person will die (the extinction of the human race).

Global warming cannot be reversed, since there is no technology available today that can induce an ice age (nor would it be wise to tamper with the climate), but global warming can be halted if the heat source can be extinguished ( the stop of pollution). Equilibrium will never be reestablished but the the halt of global warming will prevent the system from becoming any more skewed.

I apologize for the length of the post but I made this as easy as possible to understand. There is also the factor of carbon dioxide in an airtight system versus the lack of sufficient plant life for photosynthesis but ill save that for another post .

[DavidS]

Alisium, I appreciate your response to my posting, and you had some facts that I can't disagree with, so I respect your opinion while disagreeing with you. Blackenedx, thank you for your response. Well done analogy. A, I posted another opinion, occasioned by your statement that the Founding Fathers wouldn't recognize today's America. With which point I adamantly agree. But that's not all they wouldn't recognize.

[Alisium]

Sorry I couldn't get back earlier on this, but I work four twelve hour shifts and at the end of the day, the mind screams to be left alone.

David, I have two points of consideration, regarding your second to last remark.

Interestingly, when looked at objectively, the three most "imperial" presidents of the last half century were conservatives, not liberals.

The first point to consider, is that President Obama has done nothing, really, to turn back President Bush's security policies. In fact, he has expanded them. Everything from the heinous Patriot Act to the UCAV bombardment of Pakistan. Likewise, the Hon. Clinton was every bit the the American imperialist and preemptive strategist that President Bush was. Just take a thoughtful look at the 1990's. I and my friends have more than one medal for America inserting it's core values into an unwilling LDC.

To this point, I want to submit, for your consideration, that this is less symptomatic of any political party and more an effect of post Cold-War Globalization. The idea that there is a need in the world today for a global cop to maintain security for a connect core of wealthy nations from the nefarious actions of a disjointed gap by providing a stable and secure platform for the growth of personal and economic freedom withing that gap that ultimately will cause it to shrink.

What I mean by that is, threats to US national security, and to the "West" in general, come from the Less Developed Countries where the population is downtrodden, the youth are embroiled in regional conflicts that give life to the drug and gun trade, and the absolutely hopeless join Al Qaeda.

It's very a simplistic answer because of the forum. However, it's a solid idea that is fleshed out in current and past events. By the time Mr. Bush was in office, we had already adopted these policies. However, not as a grand strategy, but more as a reflex to issues around the world. The tragedy is that Mr. Bush came very close to the grand strategy for our Defense Department, but never quite made it happen, or sold it to the global public. Until we focus our efforts, we are inevitably going to clumsily flail about the world as we try do the world's work.

If you haven't already, I recommend reading The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas P.M. Barnett. It's the grand strategy of which I spoke earlier. Below are a few of my favorite quotes from his book to give you a taste of what Dr. Barnett is selling.

...with that lead comes responsibility, for either we use our tremendous power as a nation to make globalization truly global, or we condemn some portion of humanity to an outsider status that will naturally morph - through pain and time - into a definition of the enemy. And once we have named our enemies, we will invariably wage war, unleashing the death and destruction that come with it.(Barnett 124 par. 1)

A Chinese friend of mine... explained... "Before Tienanmen, we believed that freedom is 90 percent political and 10 percent economic. A few years later, we came to realize the real freedom is 90 percent economic and 10 percent political." ... think about your own daily life and then try and tell me that second formula isn't a better description of how things really work for the vast majority of American.(Barnett 129 par. 3)

And my all-time favorite.

It is neither a Republican nor a Democrat approach when America strikes back at the Gap, because when the Gap strikes out at America, it has little to do with the policies of one administration or another

(Barnett 167 par. 3)

Barnett, Thomas P.M. The Pentagon's New Map. New York, NY: The Berkley P.G., 2005. Paperback.

Second point. Short one. Neo-Cons (as both 41 and 43 are) are a different animal than a proper Conservative. However, I doubt that even a "proper Conservative" would be unable to not play imperialist in today's global realities.

Back on GCC:

If we are not the root cause of global climate change, and if the world, is not getting warmer, as it appears to me is the case, then there is no need to wreck economies in a break-neck race undo what has not been done.

However, I will agree that we do not have an unalienable right to pollute our planet. I only advocate for smarter science and more focused efforts. One of my greatest laments regarding the sensationalization of GCC is that there are so many other, and much more immediately pressing, environmental issues that have resources, attention and "give a care" stripped from them to fuel a movement that is based on shaky science, at best.

The environment is something that I deeply care about. It's what I went to school for and it's a field that I hope to build a lasting career in. In particular, I want to design and redesign human population centers so that they are eco-efficient. Check this guy out. He's a personal hero of mine and a man I wish to, professionally, emulate.

William McDonough. It's roughly 1.5 hours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzLd6dUmu70

Also, here's a link to a presentation by Dr. Barnett.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/133238

Thanks for the mental sparring. I enjoy it. May I suggest that you put a link to your site in your signature so that we can find it more readily?

And finally, I like commas!

SF

[Alisium]

Ha!

Just read the new opinion. Nice one! And there is a point or two I may have to concede on, but I have to get back to bed. It may take me a few days to respond.

One more thing.

Blackendx. Thank for your post. I fully understand the concepts of a closed system and a positive feedback loop. And I agree, there are more than a few things that we humans can throw off kilter on this planet. However, I cannot accept the science of GCC as it stands.

Every scientific theory must, MUST, jump four important hurdles in order to be accepted as a sound theory.

1. Is it observable?
2. Is it reproducible/testable?
3 Does it have the backing of a reputable organization or publication? More or less, what is the source?
4. Is there a disinterested consensus?

Right now, GCC is failing on three of four of those and possibly all four.

I would also argue that the reason for our cyclic global warming and global cooling periods is not because we are an absolute closed system. There are external actors that help keep the cycle going.

[DavidS]

Alisium, I'd love to have a sit-down conversation with you. I suspect we aren't that far apart.

On imperial presidents, Nixon's was called "the Imperial Presidency," both during his time in office and for some years after. Despite his reputation, most of what Reagan did was for the benefit of the haves, and the have-nots could go suck eggs. For proof, look at the distribution of wealth in this country before his presidency, and what it was in the immediate aftermath. That's imperial. The Neo-con philosophy is that of a rapacious imperialist. Granted, the neo-cons aren't true conservatives. I have friends who are conservatives, and they hate the neo-cons more than I do. I don't see all that much that Clinton did that could be called "imperialistic"--and don't tell me Somolia; Bush 41 sent the Marines in a month before Clinton took office. As for Obama, he's trying to get us out of Iraq, where we shouldn't have been in the first place, and trying to do in Afghanistan what we should have done eight years ago. Hey, we were attacked from there; that's self-defense, unlike Iraq. My understanding is the UAV attacks in Pakistan are with the cooperation of the Paki government and military; we're helping them as well as doing ourselves good.

The Patriot Act, oh yeah. I think Joe McCarthy would have loved it. HUAC, the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, would have had a field day with it, black listing and ruining the lives of patriotic Americans who disagreed with it.

On your recommendation, I just now added Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map to my "to buy" list.

On Global Climate Change, the only one of your hurtles I don't see it jumping is #2, reproducible/testable. It's certainly observable: Many insect species are shifting their territories northward, as are a number of mammals. The major ice sheets (Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland) are undergoing significant shrinkage. A high percentage, if not great majority, of glaciers around the world are shrinking. Weather is going batty, with increasing extremes. Admittedly, a winter like this one just ending doesn't at all feel like global warming, but that's weather, not climate.

To my knowledge (I'm not an expert, merely an interested layman) there is general consensus, ie way over 90%, in the scientific community that human activity is affecting climate change. There was just an international scientific convention, meeting, whatever it was, on the subject, and agreement was just about unanimous that human activity is affecting global climate change.

I don't read much in the way of hard science. Practically nothing, actually. But the popular journals of science that I read are unanimous on the subject of human contribution to a rapid climate change. No, I don't read them because they agree with me on the subject, I began reading them before I knew what their opinion was. In at least one instance, long before I had an opinion myself.

So I don't understand your reasoning in saying that GCC is failing on at least three of the criteria.

By the way, rather than seeing taking steps to reduce, and even reverse, human impact on climate as being economically disruptive and causing hardship, I see it as a tremendous opportunity. If we, the US, develop renewable energy sources, think of how much our trade balance would be affected through reduced importing of foreign oil, and licensing of the technology to other countries! It galls me no end that tiny Holland seems to be leading the world in that regard, while we lumber along belching out megatons of greenhouse gasses. Sure, (literal) smokestack jobs will disappear, but they'll be replaced by jobs manufacturing, installing, and maintaining the new energy technology.

In 1941, we had a theory. In 1945, we had Heroshima and Nagasaki.

In 1961, John F. Kennedy committed the United States to putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade. In 1969, we had, "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

I don't see any reason why, if we put our minds to it, we can't completely get completely off the oil standard within twenty years.

[MikeClark]

Wow, this has been one heck of a series of posts. We evidently have some real thinkers among us.

My own thoughts in response to all this is that the engine of this country's progress in economics and sociality is fed primarily by "laissez faire", by letting alone. As a simple example of this, consider slavery. When we consider the social justice problems of the South, most of it was kept in place by government action, first by the laws enforcing the inequities of slavery, and later by Jim Crow laws. Once these were removed things gradually improved on their own. I'm not sure if the federal lawss that were intended to turn things around actually made the process occur more quickly, or slowed it down, but it was in fact freedom that improved the situation of the descendants of slaves. Some have said that if the Civil War had not happened, slavery was doomed anyway, inherently doomed because of the eventual rise of mechanization. Slave-worked farms could not possibly have economically competed with mechanized farms, and slavery would have died out on its own.

As far as global climate change is concerned, I agree there is no real consensus in the scientific community as to what is going on and what is causing it, but a look at the temperature variations on earth over the past should cause us all to begin to doubt that mankind is in control, either consciously, or unconsciously. Check this article in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

Of great interest should be this chart:



In words, then, keeping in mind that in this chart the most recent time is on the left, it seems really dubious to ascribe the current observed fluctuation as being somehow unusual, and human-caused. A million years ago there were hardly none of us here, and yet temps we in just as much flux. Those charts which seem to show some kind of dramatic uptick in the last century should be viewed in context with what has been happening over the last few million years.

[BlackenedX]

Great post mike I understand where your coming from. Your graph actually proves my point that the Earth heats up naturally through the absorption of the sun's heat inside the earth's insulated atmosphere and then cools down through a brief ice age period. My argument is that the increase in animals/humans, who naturally release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and in artificial heat pollutants, we are increasing the rate at which the earth heats up and will consequently either cause an ice age sooner than projected on the natural earth cycle or will cause the earth to heat up too quickly for an ice age to have time to take effect, causing the atmosphere to disintegrate and ultimately destroying all life on Earth. Although this most likely wont happen for possibly millions more years, it is still a major problem that we are offsetting the Earth's natural climate equilibrium.