Russell Coker wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, Rohan McLeod<rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
It may further be possible to show that the hypothesis of 'global warming', is consistent with " human CO2 emissions". Thus far and no further can science go. Except that there is considerable evidence to show that human CO2 emissions are making the difference. Quite possibly
Whether 1/ something should be done and if 2/ what ; are the domain of ideology and politics. The scientific research indicates that significant areas of farmland will be destroyed and thus remove the ability to feed the world's human population so it seems clear that something should be done if we base things on the assumption that the majority of the population needs to be kept alive. I think that most people will agree with such an assumption. Less than one micro-second after I am dead ; I would think the future of the human-race ; and indeed the future of life in the universe will be; of little concern to me. Bio-diversity; the quantity and quality of human lives are obviously things that human beings care about; but expecting some basis for what should be achieved and how; are surely ideological questions; to expect agreement is not consistent with history; nor would one expect it to be .
As for what should be done, there are lots of things being done right now.
No doubt; but just don't expect agreement
The work on renewable energy sources and energy efficiency is being done but far too slowly. Some people have ideology issues
For me an ideological statement is simply a statement of what should or shouldn't be; we tend to believe our own values reflect some absolute state of the universe; whilst the values of others are 'ideologies'
which make them think that huge amounts of tax money should go to supporting fossil fuel industries which wouldn't even be profitable in a free market. But anyone who knows the science can easily determine that it would be better to have tax money go to research that leads to better products for everyone. Well I probably agree; but I doubt the proposal will receive much support amongst right-wing anarchists (for example)
Even if it wasn't for global warming there are lots of other problems related to fossil fuels.
......snip..... Endorsement of the free market also
predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. "Endorsement of the free market"; could mean 1/ having the opinion that 'a competitive free-market'; results in higher per capita production than some form of control economy; Which would seem to be broadly consistent with history but it could also mean 2/ having the opinion that an 'unregulated competitive free-market'; best supplies the needs of society; ..Adam Smith's 'invisible hand Which some like me would contend is a pathetic unfalsifiable irresponsible delusion. Actually there's a lot of evidence that the deluded "free market" people who want corporations to do anything they like without regulation is bad for the economy and for the citizens.
The mute point being of course 'bad'
Competition in the market based on enforcable contracts (government regularion) Well I'm not sure that anti-monopoly , anti-trust laws can be considered contracts; but certainly a free-market with out them would rapidly descend into monopolies. The reason I say belief in Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' is a pathetic, irresponsible delusion is more fully explained here:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0aOfcVEMVoKUFl4OGVDekR6TlE regards Rohan McLeod