Peter_Puget Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 What happens when you ignore substitution and technological change. PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 I'm gonna buy another SUV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 I just love the Cato Institute. They make it possible to enjoy conspicuous consumption by taking away the guilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRoark Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Excellent article, Peter, thank you. I know lots of tree-huggers and liberals will attempt to shit on this thread (as two have already) and turn a blind eye to the facts in the article. That does not take away from the message within the article - all these scientists claiming that the sky is falling don't necessarily see the whole picture of how people can adapt and overcome obstacles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Excellent article, Peter, thank you. I know lots of tree-huggers and liberals will attempt to shit on this thread (as two have already) and turn a blind eye to the facts in the article. That does not take away from the message within the article - all these scientists claiming that the sky is falling don't necessarily see the whole picture of how people can adapt and overcome obstacles. Damn it now I have to read the whole damn thing so I can argue with you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRoark Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Excellent article, Peter, thank you. I know lots of tree-huggers and liberals will attempt to shit on this thread (as two have already) and turn a blind eye to the facts in the article. That does not take away from the message within the article - all these scientists claiming that the sky is falling don't necessarily see the whole picture of how people can adapt and overcome obstacles. Damn it now I have to read the whole damn thing so I can argue with you You'll agree once you read the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Interesting to note that other items of environmental degradation that the author artfully ignores have INCREASED. No one was predicting that species extinction would be occurring at it's current rate, that aquifer depletion in the mid-west would lead to suits between farmesrs and cities, or that global warming would be increasing at the present rate. So - if the point is that natural systems are difficult to predict - that's true. Why do you always seem to scour the internet for these trolls from private right-wing think tanks like the Reason Policy Fondation. Try another channel. It could broaden your horizon and get you away from the BMW elite set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted February 5, 2004 Author Share Posted February 5, 2004 Hey HRoak - Notice the tactic Jim uses. After admitting that the much publicized projections were in fact totally wrong he attacks the man! There you go! The perfect example of the same process that produced the original reports. Arrogance, condescension and lack of respect for others - I dream of a society in which everyone has respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Hey, I don't disagree with many of the points the author made. There are a lot of chicken littles out there. They have ulterior motives. They would like to see more of the natural world protected, but they realize that the vast majority of the world, doesn't really give a shit about preserving biodiversity and preventing extinction. Knowing that people only care about their own preservation, they seek to recast the debate as one in which man and beast are in the same ship going down together. On the other side of the coin, the conservative think tanks want us to believe that we can continue on our current path and that there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Technology will get us out of any problem that may arise. Thus far it has, but at the expense of the natural world. The problem is that this way of thinking doesn't assign any intrinsic value to anything that we don't consume. Somewhere there should be a middle ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Hey HRoak - Notice the tactic Jim uses. After admitting that the much publicized projections were in fact totally wrong he attacks the man! There you go! The perfect example of the same process that produced the original reports. Arrogance, condescension and lack of respect for others - I dream of a society in which everyone has respect. i'll go one step further than jim. i'm going to point out that projections are often wrong (ie. the new medicare bill) and then i'll attack the man (Shrub is a lying kiebler elf) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRoark Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Hey, I don't disagree with many of the points the author made. There are a lot of chicken littles out there. They have ulterior motives. They would like to see more of the natural world protected, but they realize that the vast majority of the world, doesn't really give a shit about preserving biodiversity and preventing extinction. Knowing that people only care about their own preservation, they seek to recast the debate as one in which man and beast are in the same ship going down together. On the other side of the coin, the conservative think tanks want us to believe that we can continue on our current path and that there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Technology will get us out of any problem that may arise. Thus far it has, but at the expense of the natural world. The problem is that this way of thinking doesn't assign any intrinsic value to anything that we don't consume. Somewhere there should be a middle ground. Dude, read the fact that he is citing data refuting earlier predictions. Whoopdifuckingdo if you don't "agree" with him or his facts; that doesn't change their validity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 To say that I "don't disagree" with him means that I agree, okay? Your reading comprehension isn't too good today. If you had read the article you would have seen that the predictions always had the word "known" reserves. That is to say the copper mines currently in production will run out, means we will run out unless we open new mines. It's that part that the chicken littles don't like. It means we have to scrape a square mile of virgin forest off the earth to get at the copper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Ah PP - Well, lets put the whole picture togeter. The author works for a right-wing think tank that consistently is pushing positions for industry. He writes an article bashing science predictions on the natural environement as worthless, while disregarding the a lot of important information. If the article went something like this - While ecologists have often underestimated man's effect on natural systems, there is often a deficit in understanding the complicated interactions of social policies, trends, and their effects to the environment - then if he presented some of the underestimates and some of the big mis-predictions it would be an objective report. The guy is an industry shill. How about some orginal thoughts PP - ya gotta get those right-wing sites off your favorites list, or at least add some balance to them. Here's the site, judge for yourself http://www.rppi.org/index.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRoark Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Your reading comprehension isn't too good today. You're lucky I read your fucking inane posts. I read the article, which, if your reading comprehension was at par you would have gotten from my post. Fuck off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRoark Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Ah PP - Well, lets put the whole picture togeter. The author works for a right-wing think tank that consistently is pushing positions for industry. He writes an article bashing science predictions on the natural environement as worthless, while disregarding the a lot of important information. If the article went something like this - While ecologists have often underestimated man's effect on natural systems, there is often a deficit in understanding the complicated interactions of social policies, trends, and their effects to the environment - then if he presented some of the underestimates and some of the big mis-predictions it would be an objective report. The guy is an industry shill. How about some orginal thoughts PP - ya gotta get those right-wing sites off your favorites list, or at least add some balance to them. Here's the site, judge for yourself http://www.rppi.org/index.shtml Jim = left-wing fucktard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 It's interesting that just because we haven't run out of the resources that are described in this article in the time predicted in 1972 that we should continue to voraciously consume the planet. Hmm... Fuck the world. I'm off to buy a Hummer, eat a bunch of McDonald's food, and dump some oil down the storm drain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Jim = left-wing fucktard Anyone still wondering why some left-leaning folks on this site are accused of presenting an elitist attitude? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 HRoark called my posts "inane" . I am crushed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRoark Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Jim = left-wing fucktard Anyone still wondering why some left-leaning folks on this site are accused of presenting an elitist attitude? No. Because they do present an elitist attitude. You are all led by your big-money elitist front-runner, John Kerry, the richest man in the Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 keep digging dude. I don't know anything about kerry. One thing I do know is he would be a better president. As would my former candidate endorsement, a braying donkey with a nasty meth habit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainierwon Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Ah PP - Well, lets put the whole picture togeter. The author works for a right-wing think tank that consistently is pushing positions for industry. He writes an article bashing science predictions on the natural environement as worthless, while disregarding the a lot of important information. If the article went something like this - While ecologists have often underestimated man's effect on natural systems, there is often a deficit in understanding the complicated interactions of social policies, trends, and their effects to the environment - then if he presented some of the underestimates and some of the big mis-predictions it would be an objective report. The guy is an industry shill. How about some orginal thoughts PP - ya gotta get those right-wing sites off your favorites list, or at least add some balance to them. Here's the site, judge for yourself http://www.rppi.org/index.shtml Jim = left-wing fucktard Look who's calling who a fucktard ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-) n. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. 1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. 2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class. Everyone knows that politically the word "elitist" has very negative connotations. It's one of those words that is used so glibly, but is seldom understood. HRoark, please explain what you mean when you call Jim and I elitists. Are you saying we believe we should be immune to criticism of our belief? Where do you get that notion? Okay, I'll grant you the intellectual superiority part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Hey HRoak - Notice the tactic Jim uses. After admitting that the much publicized projections were in fact totally wrong he attacks the man! There you go! The perfect example of the same process that produced the original reports. Arrogance, condescension and lack of respect for others - I dream of a society in which everyone has respect. Petey, better talk to your boy HRoark. He's not exactly engaging in civil, respectful discourse. But you like his tactics because he's on your side, right? This condescending argument doesn't go very far. Clearly there are nonrenewable resources. When you burn all the coal, there's no more coal to burn. Even if, after we've mined all of the metals out of the Earth's crust, we find a way to recycle our manufactured products to obtain new raw materials, it seems that it will be more expensive to do so than to use the now scarce raw material. Don't closed systems (like Earth) tend toward becoming an undifferentiated pile of matter and energy? It's pretty difficult to overcome entropy. There has to be a middle ground that doesn't involve calling each other fucktards and throwing insults at anything that smells like "liberals" or "republicans". Grow up. The intellectual types sound elitist, HRoark, because they want to engage you in facts and debate while you cop out with "fucktard". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Ah PP - Well, lets put the whole picture togeter. The author works for a right-wing think tank that consistently is pushing positions for industry. He writes an article bashing science predictions on the natural environement as worthless, while disregarding the a lot of important information. If the article went something like this - While ecologists have often underestimated man's effect on natural systems, there is often a deficit in understanding the complicated interactions of social policies, trends, and their effects to the environment - then if he presented some of the underestimates and some of the big mis-predictions it would be an objective report. The guy is an industry shill. How about some orginal thoughts PP - ya gotta get those right-wing sites off your favorites list, or at least add some balance to them. Here's the site, judge for yourself http://www.rppi.org/index.shtml Jim = left-wing fucktard Another intellectual response Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted February 5, 2004 Author Share Posted February 5, 2004 Jim Sadly Jim my parents are liberal beatnik types although they moved libertarian for awhile they now believe in gun control! I was sent to experimental hippy dippy schools where I was fed a diet heavy in this kind of stuff. I can remember some of these very same studies being discussed. Of course I ate it up only to discover later that things didn’t work out the way I was told they would. I learned that a few hundred years ago Malthus presented what amounted to be the same story. For years Malthus had been used as an example of silly thinking in economics classes. Turns out that many of these studies have now replaced the “Malthusian example” and at the time they were first published were held up to ridicule by many economists. (an economist by the way is someone who studies resource allocation) As I became aware of how BS these studies were I realized that they were not impartial scientific research but in fact part of a broader political campaign. I believe that the author’s “sexing up” their issues in these articles is far more of an egregious sin than any as yet unproven sexing up of CIA reports produced by our president Mr. Bush before Iraq was liberated. Free your mind Jim! Jim quote: The guy is an industry shill. How about some orginal thoughts PP - ya gotta get those right-wing sites off your favorites list, or at least add some balance to them. Your slings and arrows cannot penetrate the truth which shields me! Ian – keep digging dude. I don't know anything about kerry. One thing I do know is he would be a better president. As would my former candidate endorsement, a braying donkey with a nasty meth habit. Check this out from a liberal who once called Mother Teresa the “whore of Calcutta”: Tavis: Do you think that President George W. Bush deserves to be reelected? Hitchens: [sighs] Well, it's a tough call for me. I wasn't-I certainly wasn't for his election the first time round. I didn't want Albert Gore, either, and I'm glad it wasn't Gore, by the way. One has to face that fact. I must say I'm a bit of a single issue voter on this. I want to be absolutely certain that there's a national security team that wakes up every morning wondering how to take the war to the enemy. I don't have that confidence about any of the Democratic candidates, but I think that a Kerry-Edwards ticket would be made up of people who have shown that they are serious on this point, yeah. So I'm not dogmatically for the reelection of the President, but I'm for applying that test as a voter. Heck the link is from NPR even ChucK and Jim would approve! Slothrop Petey, better talk to your boy HRoark. He's not exactly engaging in civil, respectful discourse. But you like his tactics because he's on your side, right? This condescending argument doesn't go very far. Howard is a man, and in the words of Charles Bronson just before he kills Henry Fonda in Once Upon a Time In the West , a dying breed. I don’t own him and I don’t agree with everything he says but I do understand how he chafes at the restraints and conditioning imposed upon him by the liberal/media/government entity. I do agree with that bit about condescending arguments not going very far which is why yours stopped short of the plate. PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.