Environmentalism, Kyoto and the Greens

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Desertrat, Aug 27, 2004.

  1. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #1
    I was doing my usual casual browse-through of the Lew Rockwell website on Thursday, and ran across this little jewel. (Well, not "little"; it's a very lengthy read.)

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/Anti-Green.pdf

    I had never run across the name, Bernard Switalski, before. I know nothing, really of his background, but he appears to be far more well-read than I ever thought of being.

    He not only skewers the whole Kyoto/Globular Worming idea, he disembowels it. With references and footnotes. He also gives the political background for what we know today as Environmentalists (with the capital E) and the Green Party.

    Like I say, lengthy. I'm about 1/4 through it. So far, excellent read.

    :), 'Rat
     
  2. mypantsaretight macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    #2
    While that document contains little more than pseudoscientific ramblings that barely touch on any of the most recent or relevant climate data, it does make for a decidedly amusing read. I strongly recommend it as a mental diversion or perhaps good toilet reading.

    In particular I found the author's whole notion of fascism as anti-capitalist to be an entertaining bit of fiction. Poor students of history and political science will find his half-truths compelling, while the rest of us will find much entertainment in unraveling his deceptions.

    Another amusing section is page 54's summary of "statistics" on state-sponsored murder. Add a footnote and call 'em facts, it's the pseudo-intellectual way. I highly recommend readers peruse this section as it's utter disdain for factuality is astounding.

    All in all I give the document four American flags and one Texas flag. Not quite a perfect score, but the author does little more than cobble together a bunch of footnotes. Throw in a little more originality next time and it will certainly earn 5 American flags.

    Thanks for the amusing link. I'm guessing you subscribe to the author's beliefs though and thought this stuff was good. Might I suggest a trip to a university library, and perhaps there you might just start by looking up Reinhard Gehlen and see where that takes you. Good reading!

    m
     
  3. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #3
    The man's qualifications to make scientific pronouncements are a sight to behold. Now I know what the Republicans mean when they talk about "bad science."
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    That is SUCH A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS! Like reading Leo on the Environment, but even less amusing.
     
  5. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #5
    Yeah, right. None of the people quoted ever said what they reputedly said. None of the events reported ever really happened. And nobody died during Stalin's or Mao's reigns and the Holocaust never happened.

    :D, 'Rat
     
  6. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #6
    What the bloody hell is that supposed to mean, 'Rat? Honestly.

    If you want to get a sense of this man's qualifications, take another look at the article.
     
  7. mypantsaretight macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    #7
    I never denied that the quotes were spoken, nor did I deny the deaths during Mao or Stalin's reigns or during the Holocaust. As I said go to the library and look things up for yourself since you obviously missed the glaring factual errors and omissions in that section. Don't take my word for it, execise your mind by looking it up from the original sources.

    If the library was closed when you tried, try again Monday. Opening one's mind and reading the actual source documents is an important first step to intellectual growth.

    m

    BTW, if the first name was too hard for you to find, try George Kennan. Or maybe just look up a bio of Oscar Romero. There's a lot of good original source material if you're willing to read.
     
  8. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #8
    hmm an article by somebody who worked in the oil industry for a _long_ time ...
    without even reading the article i'm pretty sure he isn't happy with the greens ;)

    perhaps the american greens are different.. here they are very liberal ('open-minded'), rational in it's political discussions (aka. 'lack of trench-fighting'), always anti-fascistic engaged, most voted party in the high education part of populaton , and in local governmental positions they are always doing a good job...
     
  9. mypantsaretight macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    #9
    In America much of the confusion in the discussion of politics and related issues is created by an imprecise understanding of the terms being used. The definitions thread was a nice try to bring some sense to things, but it can't overcome the net effects of a lifetime of propaganda.

    This is just one of many examples where words and phrases like fascism, ultra-nationalism, democracy and liberalism are used to nurture an us versus them mentality amongst the populace. If they aren't with us they must be xxxxx <---- insert random pejorative political adjective.

    A good example is "Communism." Look it up and you find one definition. Very similar to the one put forth by Lenin and Marx and such. But the term "Communism" when used by the American government specifically does not use that definition. One needs look no farther than declassified Policy Planning Study documents from the US State Department to see that the operative definition of "communism" in the government's lexicon is "the idea that the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the people." And it doesn't take a genius to realize that that definition and the real defintion have little in common... hence all the confusion.

    This article merely uses that type of confusion in an attempt to tie the Greens to fascism.

    m
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    From over here it does often seem that over there you are living in an alternate reality created by completely distorted language. According to your US terminology, practically every European country is verging on communism. No wonder we don't see eye to eye. :(
     
  11. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #11
    and our favourite newspaper is http://english.pravda.ru/
    (actually i was amused by their 'articles' on the left side under 'fun story' and their flashing links to other articles)
    i had to grin a lot about that one:
    http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/12072_Castro.html

    but the "drinking tips for women" http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/379/13038_womenDrink.html
    are priceless as well ;)

    bookmarked ;)
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  13. mypantsaretight macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
  14. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #14
    takao, most of the US types I know don't use "communism" in comments about European countries, so much as "socialistic". Of course, this ignores the socialistic realities of our system--but, then, we label stuff differently. :)

    Me, I try to separate--for simplicity's sake in casual discussion--viewpoints into "statist" and "individualistic". As a generality, those labelled with the isms--including statism--are in favor of some sort of central government controls to a greater degree than those favoring a high degree of individual sovereignty.

    Those people I've known who have labelled themselves liberal or socialist or communist are comfortable with the idea of a large degree of central governmental controls over society. I am not. I don't see them as having any more desire for a good life for the poor than I; we differ on how this is to be achieved.

    Same for many environmental matters. Similar or equal goals; different methods of achieving them.

    As for the Kyoto accords: They call for the US to reduce CO2 emissions to an earlier level, no matter the effect on our economy or any other facet of our lives. My problem with this stems from the NASA air-constituent measurement of CO2: There is less CO2 in the air mass flowing east from our Atlantic coast than in the air mass entering from the Pacific coast. The US is a CO2 sink.

    'Rat
     
  15. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #15
    I thought it was suppose to be republicans that had problems with scientific realities. :rolleyes: :D

    Don't forget the actual affect on our temperatures the raising of the suns own temperature has caused. Remove that from the equation, and its what greenhouse effects that has been directly caused by man?
     
  16. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    Strange generalization: what about individualism, anarchism, nihilism, libertarianism?
     
  17. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #17
    Okay, skunk. Mea culpa. I was thinking of the more mainstream (?) stuff. Communism, socialism, facism are more historical words, I guess. Or wider spread, maybe...I don't think I've ever thought of "libertarianism" so much as just "libertarian".

    In the FWIW department, one reason I like the word "Statist" is that it's so much less laden with emotion, and I think it's more descriptive of a general political view.

    For instance, I note that High Times is promoting a protest at the RNC. But I'd bet that few of the HighTimers strongly favor a powerful central government. :) Certainly not to the extent as favored by what are labelled NeoCons or those like Sen. Clinton.

    'Rat
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    I suppose you didn't learn the lesson of the tragedy of the commons then. Individuals have no incentive to maintain and improve public resources. The only incentive they have is to use them as fast as possible before they run out or are befouled.

    This does not mean I am against individual freedom. Far from it in fact. I would like to see individual choice and freedom increased, but balanced against maintaining and improving our natural resources.
     
  19. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #19
    "I suppose you didn't learn the lesson of the tragedy of the commons then. Individuals have no incentive to maintain and improve public resources. The only incentive they have is to use them as fast as possible before they run out or are befouled."

    mac, I see the tragedy of the commons quite regularly. The "ejidos" of Mexico are as prime an example as one could wish.

    The owner of property has the incentive. That our government does not stringently enforce its own rules on such entities as miners or ranchers on the public lands does not mean there is not incentive; it merely means a lack of will or brains. Note that private farms and ranches are far better managed than any public lands.

    The worst polluted areas on the planet are in those countries which had the most authoritarian governments we've ever known: Russia, and East Germany.

    Nowhere have I ever said I want NO government controls. Never have even implied that. My favorite example of why I want such as the EPA to be a national-level entity is that of paper mills. If Texas pollution-control laws are more stringent than those of Louisiana, mills in Louisiana will be more economically competitive. That is not a level playing field, which is a desirable goal as I see govenmental responsibility.

    'Rat
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    I knew it! You're a statist! :p
     
  21. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
  22. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #22
    National standards don't always apply nationally. What is necessary in one state may not be necessary in another. Should we make a law requiring everyone has to wear heavy down jackets during the winter just because it is cold in New Hampshire? Could get kind of hot down in Florida.

    As you stated the US is a polution sink???? I'm just taking your word on that. But don't you think certain states are more in need of higher pollution control laws compared to other states. Blame Mother Nature.
     
  23. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #23
    can you think of any reasons (or scientific data) why a certain area (state) might be able to handle higher pollution levels? i mean, i really don't know if thats the case...but your analogy is out in left field.
     
  24. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #24
    Certain states do have to handle higher or lower temperatures. The measure you use to defend from such temperatures is dependent on the individual locale without resorting to an unrealistic national standard.
     
  25. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #25
    are you talking about temperatures as they relate to pollution or what clothing you should wear? i mean, i think i know what you mean...i'm just curious about what the factors would be.
     

Share This Page