John, the earth has always produced CO2, yet being the earth, there was balance and this was absorbed by trees. Since the industrial revolution, man has been altering this balance burning fossil fuels, intensive farming and deforestation. You should not confuse natural events with everything which is happening in nature. Clearly, man is having an impact on nature. This has been demonstrated many times over. The science behind CO2 as a greenhouse is 150 years old The mathematical prediction behind the rate of warming is 110 years old and has been ratified as a very good estimate by more modern complex models Only 3% of scientists think man is not having an effect on climate The oil companies think man is having an effect on climate The world wide scientific panel estimates that it is 95% certain that climate change is heavily influenced by man But hey, if you want to ignore all that then that's up to you. By the way, in other scientific discoveries, the earth isn't flat either. It's round.
I never quite get this point from the "global climate change - who cares?" section of the population. Of course the planet and nature don't give a tinker's cuss what we do with the planet. It could all be desert and rock for all it cares. And one day, no doubt, there will be an asteroid collision and the earth will not look anything like the one we know and love. The point to the whole debate is that mankind is set up to live under current conditions, not new conditions. So if you don't care that various animals disappear, that there is no skiing industry, that entire agricultural industries go to the wall, that mass migration is the norm and that none of the cultures you currently know survive, that cities become ghost towns as people move out, that fish stocks disappear etc etc etc, then sure - climate change is not an issue and we shouldn't worry about it. Let's just adapt to the new deal. That adaptation will take place to a backdrop of wars (over water, notably) as cultures rub up against each other and all sorts of other teething pains. But ultimately, in cosmological terms, it won't make any difference to anything.
Woo-hoo. I'd quite like to know what other things are "just too important to be left to the markets". I thought the whole point was that the markets were never wrong and we could have faith in them.
that's the whole thing tho. debates are about enlightening. not rubbing yer face innit.he admits he was wrong. i am never wrong but you wont see me rolling innit.:smile:
Yes, I am delighted that johnv has owned up to seeing that not everything can be run by one single rule and I'm not trying to rub his nose in it. But it opens up a serious question: if electricity can't be left to the markets, what else can't? I thought Pete's comment was very much on the money (a continuum of private to public control depending on the industry). I'm just interested to see if johnv shares that view or if it is a step too far for a free-marketeer.
What about roads? Or should they all be private with tolls? In which case, rail? Libraries? Swimming pools? Should there be a public milk monopoly to guarantee a fair price to farmers from whom supermarkets would have to buy?
a free thinking man can see the difference.21centry essentials+agreements on trade. ie free movement and not at the mercy of of unions or corporations re food water or hygiene. or ebola or isis. niches got bigger and smaller, think we need to get smaller.
dude i am that pished i can barely see the screen. but i tell you what. if they nationalize food and give woman wife's the minimum wage.. im aff. :smile:
Accepting that some things cannot be left to the markets along does not necessarily mean that they can be left solely in the hands of politicians either. In exchanging market forces for party-political forces you risk changing one tyranny for another.
