<revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Note: Google Groups now says that it does not support sending messages > to sci.environment, despite the fact that I sent my previous messages > to it; hence I am only posting this message to the other four groups.
That was strange yesterday, but sci.environment is back up today.
> <Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote > > > TSI is significantly involved in temperature increase and decrease.
> > How sad for you that the total energy output from the sun (TSI) has > > decreased over the last 20-30 years as the earth's temperature has been > > rising.
> Well, I just googled "total energy output from the sun TSI" (without > quotes) and the first item that came up was a March 2003 SPACE.COM > article entitled "Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling > Global Warming" (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ > sun_output_030320.html).
> The first paragraph says "In what could be the simplest explanation > for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's > radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late > 1970s.", which rather contradicts your assertion.
And as journal articles have pointed out, this is not sufficient to cause the current warming.
> What is perhaps more significant is a graph showing "Northern > Hemisphere Land Temperature and Solar Cycle", with an "Astrophysical > Journal" source and showing temperatures clearly decreasing over a > period of 30 years or so (quite possibly 1943-74 which Fran > mentioned).
> The graphs in the Wikpedia pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/ > wiki/Global_dimming andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record) > show cooling from 1940-50, particularly looking at 5-year averages, > and no noticeable cooling in the subsequent decades. Those Wikipedia > graphs are clearly a fabrication; I can't see how an ice age could > seriously have been predicted in the 1970s if it hadn't actually got > colder in the previous 20 years!
> Does anybody know of any graphs for southern hemisphere temperatures, > which I have heard haven't actually increased when northern hemisphere > ones have?
> Maybe I haven't browsed as many science websites as others, mainly > getting information from mainstream media and New Scientist (which > incidentally had a small item recently predicting cooling over the > next decade!) However, it is difficult to distinguish disinformation > from the truth with big vested interests at stake, so I prefer to put > my views on public forums such as these and let both sides put their > views forward and we'll see who wins the argument. I'm perfectly > prepared to change my position and support the global warming > consensus if there's strong enough evidence for it.
Dog.com> wrote: > Fran wrote: > > On Aug 13, 5:06 am, Steve Wallis > > <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> Note: Google Groups now says that it does not support sending messages > >> to sci.environment, despite the fact that I sent my previous messages > >> to it; hence I am only posting this message to the other four groups.
> >> On 11 Aug, 15:20, "V for Vendicar"
> > Of course, the GPC [global polluters cartel] spruikers have blown a > > proposal for research by a handful of scientists into a world wide > > scientific consensus. They simply have no regard for honesty.
> > Fran
> You could insert AGWers(for GPC) to correct the paragraph.
But that would be incorrect, because the IPCC, unlike a cuple of press articles, does represent the consensus of opinion on fruitful inquiry and policy.
> Dog.com> wrote: > > Fran wrote: > > > On Aug 13, 5:06 am, Steve Wallis > > > <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >> Note: Google Groups now says that it does not support sending messages > > >> to sci.environment, despite the fact that I sent my previous messages > > >> to it; hence I am only posting this message to the other four groups.
> > >> On 11 Aug, 15:20, "V for Vendicar"
> > > Of course, the GPC [global polluters cartel] spruikers have blown a > > > proposal for research by a handful of scientists into a world wide > > > scientific consensus. They simply have no regard for honesty.
> > > Fran
> > You could insert AGWers(for GPC) to correct the paragraph.
> But that would be incorrect, because the IPCC, unlike a cuple of press > articles, does represent the consensus of opinion on fruitful inquiry > and policy.
> Fran
Well it's a "concensus", but you have to look who is on the IPCC to get better picture.
Fran wrote: > On Aug 13, 9:36 pm, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n- > Dog.com> wrote: >> Fran wrote: >>> On Aug 13, 5:06 am, Steve Wallis >>> <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Note: Google Groups now says that it does not support sending messages >>>> to sci.environment, despite the fact that I sent my previous messages >>>> to it; hence I am only posting this message to the other four groups. >>>> On 11 Aug, 15:20, "V for Vendicar" >>> Of course, the GPC [global polluters cartel] spruikers have blown a >>> proposal for research by a handful of scientists into a world wide >>> scientific consensus. They simply have no regard for honesty. >>> Fran >> You could insert AGWers(for GPC) to correct the paragraph.
> But that would be incorrect, because the IPCC, unlike a cuple of press > articles, does represent the consensus of opinion on fruitful inquiry > and policy.
Rather they manufacture it. They write the policy guides, they don't ask anyone else for a consensus.
Thanks for the link. I've just posted the following message there:
No-one has yet commented on the massive disparity in temperatures between the two graphs shown at the top of this page during the post- war boom (roughly the first three decades after the Second World War).
In a debate I've been involved in on various newsgroups (http:// groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/ 912fb81971711597), a supporter of global warming called Fran mentioned "global dimming" reducing temperatures from 1943-74.
However, I have discovered that there are two completely different graphs of average northern hemisphere temperatures on the internet! The graph shown in "The Great Global Warming Swindle", displayed at the top of this page, looks to be based on the same data as a March 2003 SPACE.COM article entitled "Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming" (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ sun_output_030320.html). This page came top when I googled "total energy output from the sun TSI" (without quotes). The graph on it uses data from an article by Baliunas and Soon in the Astrophysical Journal. This seems to tally with Fran's dates.
However, two Wikipedia pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Global_dimming and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record) look to have similar data to the "Land-Ocean Temperature Anomaly" line in the second graph on this page (except the Wikipedia pages show 5- year rather than 11-year averages). These show falling temperatures in the 1940s but not in the subsequent decades
It seems utterly ridiculous for predictions to have been made about a new ice age in the 1970s (rather than earlier decades) if temperature had not been falling as the latter graphs suggest. One set of graphs must be based on fake data, and my current opinion that the latter ones are fake appears to be supported by the NASA GISS data from individual measuring statements linked to by Whata Fool on http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thr....
I have heard (I can't remember where) that the southern hemisphere has not been warming in recent decades unlike the north. Does anybody have any data about southern hemisphere temperatures? If not, why not?
My particular take on the climate/weather, irrespective of whether CO2 is really the main contributor to global warming, is that it is being controlled by conspirators on the side of big business in the big political struggles in the world (to some degree or other, and maybe less so now than in the past). A BBC documentary "The Science of Superstorms" largely about the USSR regime's measures to affect where radioactive rainfall from Chernobyl came down and Chinese measures to stop rainfall at the time of the Olympics opening ceremony indicate that some level of control is possible. As weather forecasting has improved, so has the ability to control it - and having high levels of warming in some parts of the world and low levels in others suits the divide-and-rule agenda of unethical forces in positions of power.
Steve I'm keeping this off the alt.politics.socialism.trotsky NG as no one any more appears interested. Hopefully you'll have a good discussion here on this.
I forgot to mention in the above comment that the whole argument that the sun is not to blame is based on data/graphs that may be fabricated.
There are massive vested interests, on both sides of the global warming debate, so fabrication of data is to be expected.
Bearing in mind that one set of data for cooling during the post-war boom (despite higher production of carbon dioxide than earlier in the 20th century when temperatures were rising) is incorrect and clearly fabricated, the same may be true of recent solar radiance data.
> Thanks for the link. I've just posted the following message there:
> No-one has yet commented on the massive disparity in temperatures > between the two graphs shown at the top of this page during the post- > war boom (roughly the first three decades after the Second World War).
> In a debate I've been involved in on various newsgroups (http:// > groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/ > 912fb81971711597), a supporter of global warming called Fran...
She is very much an opponent of global warming.
There are few actual *supporters* of global warming, although of course there are those who think it does not exist.
>I forgot to mention in the above comment that the whole argument that >the sun is not to blame is based on data/graphs that may be >fabricated.
>There are massive vested interests, on both sides of the global >warming debate, so fabrication of data is to be expected.
>Bearing in mind that one set of data for cooling during the post-war >boom (despite higher production of carbon dioxide than earlier in the >20th century when temperatures were rising) is incorrect and clearly >fabricated, the same may be true of recent solar radiance data.
Get serious, I didn't realize leftists could be politically paranoid about conspiracy theories.
I can accept there might be some, even unconscious, manipulation of conclusions and presentation of fact due to personal opinions and political or commercial agendas, but data is recorded fact, and only an idiot would attempt to publish false data.
>> I forgot to mention in the above comment that the whole argument that >> the sun is not to blame is based on data/graphs that may be >> fabricated.
>> There are massive vested interests, on both sides of the global >> warming debate, so fabrication of data is to be expected.
>> Bearing in mind that one set of data for cooling during the post-war >> boom (despite higher production of carbon dioxide than earlier in the >> 20th century when temperatures were rising) is incorrect and clearly >> fabricated, the same may be true of recent solar radiance data.
> Get serious, I didn't realize leftists could be politically > paranoid about conspiracy theories.
Right wing Cabal??????????
Republicans planted Monica's Lips on Billy Clinton's penis.
> I can accept there might be some, even unconscious, manipulation > of conclusions and presentation of fact due to personal opinions and > political or commercial agendas, but data is recorded fact, and only > an idiot would attempt to publish false data.
> >I forgot to mention in the above comment that the whole argument that > >the sun is not to blame is based on data/graphs that may be > >fabricated.
> >There are massive vested interests, on both sides of the global > >warming debate, so fabrication of data is to be expected.
> >Bearing in mind that one set of data for cooling during the post-war > >boom (despite higher production of carbon dioxide than earlier in the > >20th century when temperatures were rising) is incorrect and clearly > >fabricated, the same may be true of recent solar radiance data.
> Get serious, I didn't realize leftists could be politically > paranoid about conspiracy theories.
> I can accept there might be some, even unconscious, manipulation > of conclusions and presentation of fact due to personal opinions and > political or commercial agendas, but data is recorded fact, and only > an idiot would attempt to publish false data.
"conspiracy theories" are just that, theories that usually have little evidence behind them. Socialists are concerned about class struggle and everything...EVERYTHING flows form this.
>> Thanks for the link. I've just posted the following message there:
>> No-one has yet commented on the massive disparity in temperatures >> between the two graphs shown at the top of this page during the post- >> war boom (roughly the first three decades after the Second World War).
>> In a debate I've been involved in on various newsgroups (http:// >> groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/ >> 912fb81971711597), a supporter of global warming called Fran...
>She is very much an opponent of global warming.
>There are few actual *supporters* of global warming, although of >course there are those who think it does not exist.
>-jh-
Best to ignore revolutionary socialists, he was just trying to put his comrade down under (everybody knows its down there, but nobody cares) in the limelight.
>> >I forgot to mention in the above comment that the whole argument that >> >the sun is not to blame is based on data/graphs that may be >> >fabricated.
>> >There are massive vested interests, on both sides of the global >> >warming debate, so fabrication of data is to be expected.
>> >Bearing in mind that one set of data for cooling during the post-war >> >boom (despite higher production of carbon dioxide than earlier in the >> >20th century when temperatures were rising) is incorrect and clearly >> >fabricated, the same may be true of recent solar radiance data.
>> Get serious, I didn't realize leftists could be politically >> paranoid about conspiracy theories.
>> I can accept there might be some, even unconscious, manipulation >> of conclusions and presentation of fact due to personal opinions and >> political or commercial agendas, but data is recorded fact, and only >> an idiot would attempt to publish false data.
>"conspiracy theories" are just that, theories that usually have little >evidence behind them. Socialists are concerned about class struggle >and everything...EVERYTHING flows form this.
>David
I'm concerned about class struggle, and always struggling to make enough money to buy enough diet cola and Reese Cups.
But it really doesn't matter, I have known thousands of people in a dozen states, and only met one communist and three socialists.
>> On Aug 14, 4:18 pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote: >>> Steve Wallis <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I can accept there might be some, even unconscious, manipulation >>> of conclusions and presentation of fact due to personal opinions and >>> political or commercial agendas, but data is recorded fact, and only >>> an idiot would attempt to publish false data. >> "conspiracy theories" are just that, theories that usually have little >> evidence behind them. Socialists are concerned about class struggle >> and everything...EVERYTHING flows form this.
>> David
> I'm concerned about class struggle, and always struggling > to make enough money to buy enough diet cola and Reese Cups.
It's the Big Corporate Junk Food Industry getting corporiate welfare... release the *Strategic Mini-Mart Reserves* to get the price down.
>> I forgot to mention in the above comment that the whole argument that >> the sun is not to blame is based on data/graphs that may be >> fabricated.
>> There are massive vested interests, on both sides of the global >> warming debate, so fabrication of data is to be expected.
>> Bearing in mind that one set of data for cooling during the post-war >> boom (despite higher production of carbon dioxide than earlier in the >> 20th century when temperatures were rising) is incorrect and clearly >> fabricated, the same may be true of recent solar radiance data.
> Get serious, I didn't realize leftists could be politically > paranoid about conspiracy theories.
> I can accept there might be some, even unconscious, manipulation > of conclusions and presentation of fact due to personal opinions and > political or commercial agendas, but data is recorded fact, and only > an idiot would attempt to publish false data.
There is a whole spectrum among ostensible leftists. If you believe, as some alleged leftists do, that 9/11 was a conspiracy, then what the hey?
I've just posted the following arguments on the thread "sci.environment censorship or deleted? Graphs justifying global warming theory fabricated" on the following newsgroups (sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.misc, sci.skeptic, sci.environment.waste)...
On 15 Aug, 01:17, "Mike Jr." <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Aug 14, 7:35 pm, "Mike Jr." <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Aug 14, 4:20 pm,Steve Wallis<revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Someone twice directed me to the "Skeptical Science" website, > > > subtitled "Examining the science of global warming skepticism". I have > > > just posted the following comments on the web page discussing the most > > > common argument used by those sceptical of global warming theory, > > > entitled "Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global > > > warming?" (http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots- > > > global-warming.htm).
> > > --
> > > No-one has yet commented on the massive disparity in temperatures > > > between the two graphs shown at the top of this page during the post- > > > war boom (roughly the first three decades after the Second World War)
> > When you talk about temperature you have to ask "where?". Do you mean > > just land? Land and ocean? Surface or mid-troposphere?
Good point.
A graph showing cooling from the 1940s to 1970s (http://www.space.com/ scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html) shows northern hemisphere land temperature.
One of the Wikipedia pages used to justify global warming theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record which redirects to "instrumental temperature record") states "The instrumental temperature record shows the fluctuations of the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans as measured by temperature sensors."
I've just discovered even more blatant evidence of fabrication that I didn't notice before - the Wikipedia page I mentioned above shows clear warming between 1950 and 1975, whereas the global dimming page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) shows fluctuations but no clear warming or cooling over the same period. Clicking on the graph on the latter page yields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png, which supposedly explains it. The instrumental temperature record graph is shown on that image page, with the text "Instrumental temperature record of the last 150 years. This data is the same as the black curve in the figure." The two curves are actually very different as I have just explained!
The graph at http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warmin... supposedly shows the "land-ocean temperature anomaly" and very little change over the 1950-75 period (I presume this is on a similar basis to the Wikipedia pages - somebody please correct me if I'm wrong). It's nearly 48 hours since I posted my comments on that page and nobody has yet countered my arguments...
> > Note that only the UAH scientists calibrated their satellite data to > > data collected by weather balloons.
> > --Mike Jr
Thanks a lot for that link. It shows a later time frame than I was talking about, but that graph massively undermines the graphs suggesting substantial warming from the 1980s. If anybody objects to the UAH scientists' claim that only their data has been calibrated to that collected by weather balloons, please say so!
> Better charts can be found here. See Figures 1, 2, and 3.
That's a very interesting and persuasive page giving counter-arguments to global warming theory. Have advocates of that theory critiqued Roy Spencer's arguments?
<revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > I've just posted the following arguments on the thread > "sci.environment censorship or deleted? Graphs justifying global > warming theory fabricated" on the following newsgroups (sci.physics, > sci.astro, sci.misc, sci.skeptic, sci.environment.waste)...
>I've just posted the following arguments on the thread >"sci.environment censorship or deleted? Graphs justifying global >warming theory fabricated" on the following newsgroups (sci.physics, >sci.astro, sci.misc, sci.skeptic, sci.environment.waste)...
>On 15 Aug, 01:17, "Mike Jr." <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Aug 14, 7:35 pm, "Mike Jr." <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote: >> > On Aug 14, 4:20 pm,Steve Wallis<revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> > > Someone twice directed me to the "Skeptical Science" website, >> > > subtitled "Examining the science of global warming skepticism". I have >> > > just posted the following comments on the web page discussing the most >> > > common argument used by those sceptical of global warming theory, >> > > entitled "Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global >> > > warming?" (http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots- >> > > global-warming.htm).
>> > > --
>> > > No-one has yet commented on the massive disparity in temperatures >> > > between the two graphs shown at the top of this page during the post- >> > > war boom (roughly the first three decades after the Second World War)
>> > When you talk about temperature you have to ask "where?". Do you mean >> > just land? Land and ocean? Surface or mid-troposphere?
>Good point.
>A graph showing cooling from the 1940s to 1970s (http://www.space.com/ >scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html) shows northern hemisphere >land temperature.
>One of the Wikipedia pages used to justify global warming theory >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record which >redirects to "instrumental temperature record") states "The >instrumental temperature record shows the fluctuations of the >temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans as measured by >temperature sensors."
>I've just discovered even more blatant evidence of fabrication that I >didn't notice before - the Wikipedia page I mentioned above shows >clear warming between 1950 and 1975, whereas the global dimming page >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) shows fluctuations but >no clear warming or cooling over the same period. Clicking on the >graph on the latter page yields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png, >which supposedly explains it. The instrumental temperature record >graph is shown on that image page, with the text "Instrumental >temperature record of the last 150 years. This data is the same as the >black curve in the figure." The two curves are actually very different >as I have just explained!
>The graph at http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warmin... >supposedly shows the "land-ocean temperature anomaly" and very little >change over the 1950-75 period (I presume this is on a similar basis >to the Wikipedia pages - somebody please correct me if I'm wrong). >It's nearly 48 hours since I posted my comments on that page and >nobody has yet countered my arguments...
>> > Note that only the UAH scientists calibrated their satellite data to >> > data collected by weather balloons.
>> > --Mike Jr
>Thanks a lot for that link. It shows a later time frame than I was >talking about, but that graph massively undermines the graphs >suggesting substantial warming from the 1980s. If anybody objects to >the UAH scientists' claim that only their data has been calibrated to >that collected by weather balloons, please say so!
>> Better charts can be found here. See Figures 1, 2, and 3.
>That's a very interesting and persuasive page giving counter-arguments >to global warming theory. Have advocates of that theory critiqued Roy >Spencer's arguments?
What do you think you are doing, if you are down-playing Global Warming, you may have really made the international socialist leaders angry, Anthropogenic Global Warming is their last hope of gaining the support of free thinking people.
I didn't notice David Walters' messages asking me to stop posting to alt.politics.socialism.trotsky until after I sent the last message. I think he was getting particularly exasperated with me due to me undermining global warming theory, which could (if such theories are accurate enough) put the future of the world at risk. With such a lot at stake, the irritation crossposting another message could cause him is surely outweighed by balancing out my earlier comments with the following (in reply to a message on sci.phyiscs et al):
On 16 Aug, 22:30, "Mike Jr." <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I have read through this but I don't find their arguments persuasive.
> The relative humidity of the atmosphere is not 100%. Yet the oceans > are a vast reservoir of water. Why isn't the atmosphere saturated?
I have to confess that I am out of my depth with all those equations. Maybe I should bow out of this debate and leave the discussion to those who understand the physics. On the other hand, scientists have got to justify their arguments in ways that the general public can understand. With last week's New Scientist main story being about scientists predicting cooling over some if not all of the next ten years (see http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?topic=10244), it is going to be particularly difficult for those who agree with global warming theory to persuade the rest of us that massive action on CO2 emissions is vital for the future of humanity. And without mass pressure from the general public, politicians are likely to take little if no action.
As I've stated in previous messages, I differ from most sceptics of global warming theory in being a strong advocate of renewable forms of energy - and would even welcome nuclear power if a cheap safe non- polluting version was possible (as those using thorium may perhaps be). The earth's resources are running out (including uranium) and, if such forms of power can be used at a similar cost, it makes sense to adopt them. I cannot be completely sure that catastrophic global warming wouldn't happen, and even if I was sure, persuading most fellow environmentalists and socialists of that would be well nigh impossible.
I do have something to offer scientists on both sides of the global warming debate, however. I was the main designer and sole developer of an AI/simulation language SDML (which stands for Strictly Declarative Modelling Language) based on logic - without exceptions that break the logic, unlike with the main logic programming language Prolog. I intend to publish a new version of it soon, as open source Smalltalk code so others are more likely to trust it, on the website www.sdml.org.uk. For more information in the meantime, visit www.socialiststeve.me.uk/sdml.htm.
As I've pointed out, there are conflicting graphs showing temperatures between 1950 and the 1970s showing temperatures falling a lot, falling moderately, staying much the same or rising. If the code used to produce such graphs from the raw data was written in a logical language and published so that others can have more faith in the accuracy of such graphs, then it could help us come to some sort of consensus. In an earlier message, Mike Jr said "Note that only the UAH scientists calibrated their satellite data to data collected by weather balloons." I'd like to set the ball rolling (which means "get us started" for those who don't understand that English slang phrase!), by comparing the data of those scientists (including Roy Spencer) with the weather balloon data - if anybody can direct me to it (if it can be explained to me in terms I understand). [Mike directed me to a website with a lot of public data on (go to http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links) but weather balloon data doesn't seem to be there]. It might be asking a lot to expect climate modellers to recode their models (or develop new models) in SDML, then that would be ideal (if my language is fast enough)...
>I have to confess that I am out of my depth with all those equations. >Maybe I should bow out of this debate and leave the discussion to >those who understand the physics. On the other hand, scientists have >got to justify their arguments in ways that the general public can >understand. With last week's New Scientist main story being about >scientists predicting cooling over some if not all of the next ten >years (see http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?topic=10244), >it is going to be particularly difficult for those who agree with >global warming theory to persuade the rest of us that massive action >on CO2 emissions is vital for the future of humanity. And without mass >pressure from the general public, politicians are likely to take >little if no action.
>As I've stated in previous messages, I differ from most sceptics of >global warming theory in being a strong advocate of renewable forms of >energy
No, where you really differ is in advertising socialism, most people favor viable alternate energy and energy efficient devices, but only a percent or so of the US population even considers socialism as acceptable.
I know, federalism is almost as bad as socialism, but it does not burn the bridges of returning to freedom if things get too bad.
There is no real global warming, it is possible that it hasn't been getting as cold at night or in winter, which an El Nino could cause, and higher minimum temperatures have the same effect on the silly meaningless global annual average temperature or anomaly as higher maximum temperatures would.
It should be easy to check in you area that there have not been many all time record highs lately, or possibly no all time record highs at all recently.
What would happen in a socialist state if you were to try advertising freedom with such fervor?
On 21 Aug, 22:49, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> No, where you really differ is in advertising socialism, most > people favor viable alternate energy and energy efficient devices,
People might not favour renewable forms of energy if they have to pay more for it. And politicians sceptical of global warming (or perhaps because they are funded by fossil fuel companies) might not prioritise investment into such forms of energy, preferring to continue the divide-and-rule agenda, trying to get working and middle class people to blame each other for environmental problems...
> but only a percent or so of the US population even considers socialism > as acceptable.
I've heard that most people in the USA associate the word "socialism" with the Stalinist states that collapsed in the USSR and Eastern Europe. Very few leftists advocate that form of society any more. If you ask people do they want freedom or socialism, most people would say "freedom". I would say both.
> What would happen in a socialist state if you were to try > advertising freedom with such fervor?
It really depends on what form of "socialist" state you live under. Trotskyists argue for hierarchies of committees based on workplaces, with only the working class in control of society, and a "workers' militia" to try to ensure the continuation of that form of society. Perhaps participating in discussions of socialism that could undermine David Walters' Trotskyist agenda is behind his objection to crossposting to alt.politics.socialism.trotsky...
But do you really have "freedom" when the choice is between two very similar capitalist political parties, an extremely undemocratic electoral system, electoral fraud that kept Gore and Kerry out of power (see my group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/us-electoral-fraud) and big business control of the media?
With the horrendous economic problems of the worldwide capitalist economic system (massive food and fuel price increases, collapsing house prices, companies going bust as a result of the credit crunch), more people can be won to socialist economic policies.
I advocate more moderate socialist policies than Trotskyism, which are winning mass support in Latin America. Arguing that socialism means you can't return to capitalist "freedom" (i.e. the freedom to exploit workers) and the alleged unpopularity of socialism is contradicted by the recent referendum in Bolivia, won with over 67% of the vote by Evo Morales, who has nationalised energy, mining and telecommunications companies.
|
