• Monocausalism: For the anti-Semite, the problems of the world can invariably be ascribed to the Jews; for the Communist, to the capitalists. And as the list above suggests, global warming has become the fill-in-the-blank explanation for whatever happens to be the problem.
WSJ
11 comments:
"The earth has registered no discernable warming in the past 10 years"
"Last decade warmest on record"
"http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2765726.htm?section=justin
As usual your linked story has nothing to do with anything, and certainly not the point of the post which is that you are the type of person that would have been defending cooling til you switched it warming and now it will switch to climate change. You are a joke. Big fuckin whoop that some org thinks, and I stress thinks, 2009 will be a warm one, NASA has said as much about half dozen times last 12 years only to correct themselves after the publicity died down. Seriously Gary let this one go, its over. Your side has lost.
Really, pointing out that "Bret Stephens" whoever he is is dead wrong doesn't address the point of your post? Well, I can't read your mind, thank god.
You are on the the wrong side. Wrong about the facts, wrong about the science, wrong about the politics. The phony ClimateGate scandal represents the last, desperate gasp of the skeptics and will be soon forgotten.
Anyway, a bet's a bet and I owe you a book report. So here are my thoughts on Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom":
On the whole a most interesting book. I have long felt that the only "conservatives" who had anything worthwhile to say were the "classical liberals", although in many cases their philosophy has solidified into a rigid libertarian ideology. Conservatives proper, as Hayek himself said, have no program, they serve only as a brake on progress, a necessary function as sometimes the brakes need to be applied. To stand athwart history, shouting "stop" in Buckley's famous phrase. As such however their role in history is mainly to lose, also a necessary role.
Hayek acknowledged that liberalism cannot remain static and yet I cannot help but think that he may to some extent have fallen victim to that tendency. Admittedly at the time he wrote, particularly in Europe, liberals were influenced by a socialist ideology that he rightly saw as a threat to liberty and to the values of eighteenth and nineteenth century liberalism. Where he may have failed, and I have not read any of his later writings, is in contributing to a twentieth century liberalism. Now, of course, we need a twenty-first century liberalism, one which recognizes that the flirtation with socialism was a mistake. The twentieth century proved that socialism does not work. It also proved that laissez-faire capitalism does not work. To his credit Hayek acknowledged that a wooden doctrinaire laissez-faire ideology would be a mistake.
In his 1957 preface to his 1944 book Hayek recogized that the socialist system and ideology that he described and opposed was for the most part gone by 1948. In Road to Serfdom he writes against what he called "hot socialism", namely "that organized movement toward a deliberate organization of economic life by the state as the chief owner of the means of production" and acknowledged that "the cetury of socialism in this sense probably came to an end around 1948." Still Hayek was concerned about what might be called "cold socialism" or "soft socialism", namely government regulation and social welfare programs, although he was not opposed to either per se. A legitimate concern I would say, although the nations of Europe have continued in that soft socialist direction, to the point that they all have universal healthcare, now supported even by the conservative parties, and yet all have a high degree of individual liberty. Not one of the "socialist" European nations has become totalitarian.
Perhaps because in his time real socialism was a live option, taken seriously by progressives, Hayek and followers largely supported Conservatives as the alternative. Worse than that Hayek supported Pinochet in Chile, preferring a "liberal dictator" (as if there could be such a thing) over a social democracy.
It has been said recently that "we are all socialists now" but I prefer to think that we are all capitalists now but that we have grown up and faced reality, recognizing the need for and desireablity of regulation of the economy and for social welfare programs. We excluding nearly all of today's so-called conservative movemtent, including of course you Aurorans. Not that there are not many conservative who accept economic and political and scientific reality, although they may disagree with liberals on the particulars, but the "movement" has been taken over by conspiracists, scientific cranks (the anti-global warming skeptics and deniers),religious nuts, evolution deniers and a ragtag army of nuts, flakes, and kooks. What would Hayek think, I wonder?
Wow you are insane. How does your article about how some schmucks think 2009 might be a warm year in any way disprove the point Rhino's article made? Every time in recent memory some org has said a particular year was bound to be the HOTTEST ON RECORD they have been wrong. Repeat. Every time in recent memory some org has said a particular year was bound to be the HOTTEST ON RECORD they have been wrong.
Not 2009 you idiot, the last decade. Your article said no discernable warming in the last decade. My schmuck (actually head of the World Meterological Organization rather than a newspaper columnist) said it was the hottest decade on record. Do you understand??
But let's talk Hayek. Did you notice my book report above?
Rhino up to you if you want to make his report a post, it was your deal and quite frankly im done with this clown.
Donkey, you're kind of slow aren't you? Maybe I should just talk to Rhino.
Yes I am. In fact I can be half and idiot sometimes which at best makes you quarter idiot. One year one decade dont matter, every time one your esteemed scientists or org like NASA have made the claim of HOTTEST EVER they have been wrong and retracted. I expect this one to be no exception and was nothing more than a thinly disquised pr stunt coinciding with Copenhagen. Well I hope his article gets him laid cuz aint nuttin else binding coming out of Copenhagen. Jig is up.
AGW is over.
Copenhagen is a joke.
Anyone who still believes that man is causing any kind of climate change at all is either stupid or in denial.
If these people who went to copenhagen TRULY BELIEVED their bullshit they wouldn't have all flown in private jets and had limo's and shit. I believe the statistic was that they "polluted" more than 60 countries do in a year COMBINED.
Post a Comment