TorgoX loves to say nonsensical and insupportable things like "Bush is a fascist." Oh, he doesn't come right out and say it, because saying what you mean is so gauche.
But really, my point in writing is to rebuke his silly attack on global warming skeptics. In this case, something brand new pops up, and he expects people to immediately recognize it as proof of some case. He decries that people should actually take time to study the evidence. It's amazing to me that people can take this stance at the same time they criticize people for supposedly ignoring science. He is, in fact, asking people to ignore science by jumping to conclusions about what this evidence means.
Take his sentence, "The data from the icecores will be denied." Maybe, but maybe that will be because it is actually flawed. Who can say, before the fact? '"More research" will be needed.' Maybe because the initial research was incomplete.
I could make equally damning charges of the other side. How about: the data from the icecores will be said to prove that global warming is caused by man. They will say no more research is needed, that the case has been proved absolutely.
I take it back, that is not equally damning, it's more damning. And at least as true.
And as side note, the title of that article, "900,000-year-old ice may destroy US case on Kyoto," is false. The case against Kyoto was never that we don't need to reduce pollution, but that Kyoto was a piss-poor way to do it, for many reasons, including -- but not limited to -- the fact that "developing nations" were significantly exempted, and that the U.S. would be harmed more than most developed nations in that the baseline data used for reduction targets was taken just before the latest U.S. economic boom, which makes U.S. targets far greater -- even proportionate to the amount of pollution produced -- than the others.
You could make the case, perhaps, that the U.S. should have to reduce proportionally more because it is the baseline that matters, and it is just unlucky for the U.S. that it has so much further to go. But then why not make a similar argument for developing nations? Clearly, there are some factors that are, if not more important than the need to reduce pollution, mitigating of it, but they pretend -- in the case of the U.S. -- that reducing pollution is all that matters, so suck it up!
Of course, the greatest argument against Kyoto is simply that the U.S. doesn't need an international treaty to fix its problems, and therefore we are better off doing it on our own. I'd vote against it for that reason alone. But I'm cool like that.
Re:Are you suggesting
pudge on 2005-04-27T00:57:04
Are you suggesting that the U.S. can solve the world's pollution problems all by itself
No, I thought it was clear "the U.S.... fix its problems" referred to the U.S. pollution problems. Each nation can deal with their own pollution problems.
Re:Are you suggesting
VSarkiss on 2005-04-27T01:53:19
So you're saying pollution doesn't cross borders? If I dump toxic waste in the Rio Grande, it will know to stop at the Mexican border? If we release smoke into the atmosphere, it will know not to go over the ocean?Each nation can deal with their own pollution problems.Pollution is not a local problem, and shouldn't be treated like one. I know this won't change your mind because "you're cool like that", but your argument is becoming nonsensical.
Re:Are you suggesting
pudge on 2005-04-27T02:15:08
So you're saying pollution doesn't cross borders?
No, I said nothing of the sort.
your argument is becoming nonsensical.
No, it isn't. Rather, you don't understand it, so it seems nonsensical.
Of course pollution can be a problem that crosses borders. So too with many things, such as the economy. If the U.S. has to have certain pollution standards for Mexico's sake, does Mexico have to have a certain economic standard of living for the U.S.' sake?
Pollution is not a local problem, and shouldn't be treated like one.
What does that mean? The U.S. should follow some international agreement to do something it doesn't want to do? If so, then how could that treaty or law ever be ratified, if it is not something we want to do? And if we want to do it, why do we need an international agreement?
Or maybe you think it should be imposed on the U.S. against its will. How do you propose this should happen? This would be a direct assault on the very notion of democracy.
Kyoto was a terrible idea. If the U.S. citizens want to cut down on pollution, they can vote for laws and politicians who would make laws that will cut down on pollution. If they do not want to cut down on pollution, then the principle of democracy says that no such cuts should happen. And if some other country doesn't like it, it is their right to introduce sanctions against us or attempt to come to a common agreement where we would get something in exchange for a change in our behavior.
This is how the real world works, but it not how Kyoto works, which is why it never had a chance of passage. And don't blame Bush for it not passing: the Senate never would have passed it, not under Clinton, not under Bush, not when the Democrats had a majority in the Senate, not when the Republicans had a majority.
If you want to blame someone, blame the people of the U.S. who don't want such terribly drastic cuts that would seriously hurt our economy.
Re:Are you suggesting
rafael on 2005-04-27T07:25:15
What does that mean? The U.S. should follow some international agreement to do something it doesn't want to do? If so, then how could that treaty or law ever be ratified, if it is not something we want to do? And if we want to do it, why do we need an international agreement?Agreements, be it between people or nations, are all about not doing what one wants to do. Compromises. Living together. My freedom ends where my neighbour's begins. (And this is how the construction of the European Union happened.) This selfish, arrogant, egoist, asocial statement "We're the US, we do only what we want to do" is precisely the root cause of the raising anti-US hate everywhere in the world since the Republicans took over this country.
Re:Are you suggesting
pudge on 2005-04-27T14:00:46
This selfish, arrogant, egoist, asocial statement "We're the US, we do only what we want to do" is precisely the root cause of the raising anti-US hate everywhere in the world since the Republicans took over this country.
That's ridiculous. Every country always does only what it wants to do, unless it is forced to do otherwise, or gets something in return. The U.S. is no different.
Re:Are you suggesting
rafael on 2005-04-27T16:16:38
Every country always does only what it wants to do, unless it is forced to do otherwise, or gets something in return.You're confusing countries with corporations or sociopaths. Maybe that's due to this scary right-wing meme, "running the country like a business".
Re:Are you suggesting
pudge on 2005-04-27T16:24:21
You're confusing
Not remotely. In fact, it's true of all organizations and all people, including yourself. You never do what you don't want to do.
If you could offer a counterexample, please feel free.
Perhaps you're thinking of charity. But that's a poor example, since the U.S. is the most charitable nation on Earth. And it's a poor example also because people only give charity if they WANT to give charity.
Re:Are you suggesting
phillup on 2005-04-28T00:07:48
You never do what you don't want to do.
If you could offer a counterexample, please feel free.
Ever been in the military?
Ever kill someone?
Just because something is the best course of action*, doesn't mean you actually want to do it. What you wanted was the outcome, and many other ways of achieving it would have been preferrable.
* As defined by the person that survived the ordeal.Re:Are you suggesting
pudge on 2005-04-28T00:29:36
Just because something is the best course of action, doesn't mean you actually want to do it.
I don't mean "want" in some emotional sense, relating to "desire" or somesuch. Realize the context: we are relating to the acts of a national government. I am using it in the utilitarian sense, where is it nearly synonymous with "will."
So if you do it, then yes, it does mean you want to do it, you have a will to do it. If I intentionally killed someone, it would be because I wanted to.
The point is that everything everyone ever does, and so to with every nation, is in their own perceived self interest, according to their own will, even if it is giving charity (makes us feel good).
Re:Are you suggesting
TeeJay on 2005-04-27T08:51:05
Hang on a minute...
Being a democracy sometimes means doing what people and business don't want.
Everybody else managed to pass Carbon laws and targets despite the 'huge economic harm'.
Also the developing nations pollution is negligable in comparison to the United States - even China and Russia Pollute less than the united states.
Finally what with the US claiming to be the last superpower and guardian of freedom, etc self-policing, etc the magnaminous thing to do would be to sign up.. but no it has too many special interests.
Finally you can't blame the voters - Washington and particularly Bush and the Republicans have such strong links with the oil industry and other major pollutors that even if the american people asked for green laws they would never get them.
Its not about american democracy and freedom its about american corporate self interest, corruption and a bad choice at the last election.Re:Are you suggesting
link on 2005-04-27T09:02:49
> Finally you can't blame the voters - Washington
> and particularly Bush and the Republicans have
> such strong links with the oil industry and other
> major pollutors that even if the american people
> asked for green laws they would never get them.
Blame the voters. They voted for Bush(well 52% of
60% of them or whatever it was) and they deserve
the blame for whatever he does.Re:Are you suggesting
pudge on 2005-04-27T14:08:35
Everybody else managed to pass Carbon laws and targets despite the 'huge economic harm'.
What do you mean "everyone else"? Are you implying the U.S. has no such laws and targets? If so, you should go read a book, then come back and discuss.
Or do you mean all the other nations signed onto Kyoto? Well, you'd be wrong there, too. Several other nations have not ratified it, including Australia.
Also the developing nations pollution is negligable in comparison to the United States - even China and Russia Pollute less than the united states.
As that is not an argument against anything I actually said, wrote, or thought, I won't respond to it.
Finally what with the US claiming to be the last superpower and guardian of freedom, etc self-policing, etc the magnaminous thing to do would be to sign up
Based on what? That is seriously flawed logic. At best it's question-begging, at worst it's just picking words out of a hat and hoping they mean something.
You did not address any of my actual complaints about Kyoto. Do so, if you care about actual dialogue.
Its not about american democracy and freedom its about american corporate self interest, corruption and a bad choice at the last election.
So you are anti-democracy? I can't see another reasonable way to describe the idea that we can only cut our pollution through an international agreement, instead of handling it on our own. Maybe the last phrase is more evidence you are anti-democracy?
Re:Are you suggesting
drhyde on 2005-04-27T09:19:04
>> your argument is becoming nonsensical.
> No, it isn't. Rather, you don't understand it,
> so it seems nonsensical.If I can't understand your argument it is either because you aren't explaining it well or it is nonsense. This is entirely independent of whether I agree with your argument.
> Or maybe you think it should be imposed on the
> U.S. against its will. How do you propose this
> should happen? This would be a direct assault on
> the very notion of democracy.And this comes from a Bush supporter! Oh, trés amusant!
Re:Are you suggesting
pudge on 2005-04-27T14:15:27
If I can't understand your argument it is either because you aren't explaining it well or it is nonsense.
No, there are other options, including your lack of ability to understand. I wasn't blaming him for not understanding it. It's a truism that miscommunication could be the fault of the sender, the receiver, or a combination of both. However, I would hasten to add that what I was describing was not new or innovative, is a very common and pervasive view, and that if one don't understand it -- which was clearly the case -- it certainly largely falls on the receiver.
Look back. I simply noted that each nation can take care of its own problems. For someone to take from this that I meant pollution does not cross borders is a ridiuclous leap of logic, unless one is unfamiliar with the concepts I was describing.
And this comes from a Bush supporter!
I defy you to actually provide any evidence whatsoever that Bush has assaulted the notion of democracy. I am confident you can do no more than resort to ridiculous ad hominem, and not back it up with substance.
Re:Are you suggesting
echo on 2005-04-27T16:14:10
I simply noted that each nation can take care of its own problems
Hi, my name is Majid, I live in Bagdad, and I couldn't agree with you more.Re:Are you suggesting
pudge on 2005-04-27T16:25:22
It's really neat how you're able to remove my quote from one context and place it in another so as to change its meaning!
Re:Are you suggesting
echo on 2005-04-27T17:26:21
I don't see that I've changed its meaning at all.Re:Are you suggesting
properler_head on 2005-05-03T06:31:15
It's really neat how you're able to remove my quote from one context and place it in another so as to change its meaning!I could not agree more with Pudge. Uttered by a non american the same remark cannot carry much weight.
Re:Are you suggesting
phillup on 2005-04-27T17:44:46
Each nation can deal with their own pollution problems.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-13-pollution-_x.htmSo, is pollution that originates in other countries a problem that the U.S. would deal with?While the United States is cutting its own emissions, some nations, especially China, are belching out more and more dirty air. As a result, overseas pollution could partly cancel out improvements in U.S. air quality that have cost billions of dollars.
If so, on what basis? And how? You aren't going to suggest that we have the right to invade countries because of air pollution now... are you?
It seems to me that in order to address pollution crossing the border from at least our two neighbors... will require some kind of international agreement.
Kyoto is only different in scale.
It seems to me you can't address pollution in your own country unless you address pollution for the entire world. Air doesn't stop moving at the border.
You *can* reduce emmissions from your own country, but that doesn't mean squat if you haven't addressed the fact that much of the pollution isn't coming from within the U.S.
So, you either come up with a plan that involves as many people as possible, let's call that an international agreement... or you solve the problem for the entire planet all by yourself.
Or, you blow smoke up everyone's ass... mutter the words "hard work" a lot and remain ineffectual.Re:Are you suggesting
pudge on 2005-04-27T18:19:42
While the United States is cutting its own emissions, some nations, especially China, are belching out more and more dirty air.
I hope you're not suggesting Kyoto is the answer to this problem, since Kyoto is law in China.
So, is pollution that originates in other countries a problem that the U.S. would deal with?
Through mutual agreements, perhaps, where they get something, we get something in return, and so on.
It seems to me that in order to address pollution crossing the border from at least our two neighbors... will require some kind of international agreement.
I see I was not clear on this point. I am not against international agreements, if that is what the people of a particular nation want. I am against a one-size-fits-all international framework that every nation is expected to sign on to, and if they don't, it means they are therefore in the wrong.
Your quote is exhibit A for why Kyoto is wrongheaded. China is getting worse while the U.S. is improving, yet the U.S. is not a part of Kyoto, while China is.
Re:Are you suggesting
phillup on 2005-04-27T23:58:26
I hope you're not suggesting Kyoto is the answer to this problem, since Kyoto is law in China.
I believe Kyoto is the answer to to this problem like Bush's plan to fix Social Security is the answer to that problem.
Something is needed, that doesn't mean that you can't actually make matters worse with your actions.
I was under the impression that one of the biggest faults with the agreement was that there were not any mandatory limits for developing countries, like China.
If that is the case, I'm not sure it being the law there means much.Re:Are you suggesting
pudge on 2005-04-28T00:30:27
I believe Kyoto is the answer to to this problem like Bush's plan to fix Social Security is the answer to that problem.
Bush has no plan to fix Social Security. Or at least, he never introduced any plan to the public, nor to the Congress.
Re:Are you suggesting
phillup on 2005-04-28T16:40:19
That is true.
Let's just consider what I said a "forward looking" statement. (Based on what he has put forth so far)
Either way, I'm pretty sure you get my drift.Re:Are you suggesting
pudge on 2005-04-28T17:03:17
Well, there's two primary parts, meant to address two different problems.
The first, which most people say won't fix SS, is the personal accounts. What is true is that it won't fix SS *solvency* problems, which is a straw man, as it is not meant to (well, in truth, it could help prevent future solvency problems, as it will reduce the long-term liabilities at the same time it is reducing the revenues, making it easier to manage, but that's not really the point of it). It's meant to help fix the problem of SS being a raw deal for many people, by allowing them to opt out if they choose.
The second, which certainly will help fix SS solvency problems, is changing the benefits structure. To say this won't help fix SS is ridiculous, since it address the problem directly: as expenses overtake revenues, we reduce expenses.
What confuses a lot of people is that they see this big looming transition cost, but it's financially sound. You're not paying more, you're just paying it up front, instead of down the road, which actually means it costs less. A lot of people think it makes the whole thing cost more, which is just false. It just moves the costs up front. Of course, that sounds great -- and it is -- as long as we can find a way to pay for it up front, which so far no one's been able to do.
Re:Are you suggesting
pudge on 2005-04-28T17:06:12
Oops, didn't finish. Stupid Safari. Here's the rest:
The lack of plan to pay for the transition costs is one of my big reasons for, right now, disliking personal accounts. The other is that I am not convinced I will have substantial control over the money in those personal accounts. What is "ownership" without control?
Re: to reply or not to reply
pudge on 2005-04-27T14:16:31
You are right it is all a global world wide( well everyone apart from america and north korea ) plot to destroy america while simultaneously saving the rest of the world
That's a beautiful straw man.
Next time you want to attack a view, it would be nice if you fairly represented it. Otherwise, you just look petty and foolish.
Re: to reply or not to reply
milardj on 2005-04-27T15:09:38
pudge - According to "Top 10" you have 797 entries. It seems like 790 of them are in reply to something TorgoX posted.TorgoX - keep pushing those buttons because I don't want pudge's output to drop.
Re: to reply or not to reply
Purdy on 2005-04-27T16:20:36
Why doesn't TorgoX allow comments? He used to... must have missed that chapter. Re: to reply or not to reply
VSarkiss on 2005-04-28T15:31:15
He does have comments turned on, but only on technical stuff. He stopped right after the 2004 election. Go figure.
Re: to reply or not to reply
link on 2005-04-27T22:06:54
That constitutes an attack? I don't want to attack views I want everyone to agree with me,I do not even care about that very much.
If Kyoto isn't a sensible first step to reducing greenhouse gases(and saving the world) or at least making oil last a little longer until we can come up with something we can use for more than a generation or two then why did 141 countries ratify it?Re: to reply or not to reply
pudge on 2005-04-27T23:20:06
That constitutes an attack?
Of course. You were sarcastically denigrating my view by parodying it.
If Kyoto isn't a sensible first step to reducing greenhouse gases(and saving the world) or at least making oil last a little longer until we can come up with something we can use for more than a generation or two then why did 141 countries ratify it?
You started with the straw man fallacy, and now you've moved to the appeal to authority fallacy.
Re: to reply or not to reply
sigzero on 2005-04-27T19:23:14
Maybe you should *not* have...it would have made more sense.
