Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Hah. You wish. Considering our current defense budget is a third of our annual budget, your idea would cost more than the entire GNP.

 

Jesus...Is this true?

 

Does that shock you, Vega? Of all the stuff you hear about the U.S., this cant come as a suprise.

 

I knew that was big, by European standards, but that big? I really didn't imagine it possible.

I am not an USA citizen and it is not my business, but its hard to understand how American citizens approve that...and that's all I am going to say. I really don't want to talk about Politics here.

 

Most of us DON'T approve of it Vega, but our Fascist Leaders insist on it so their Corporate Owners will keep paying them their meager stipend out of their war profits. Our system is now completely out of control here. I hope you do better than we have there in Europe.

 

It's not a matter of politics, it's a matter of survival. After WW2, the soviets started rattling their sabers, because they thought we wouldn't have the stomach for another war. We had a couple of "warmup" games with them in Korea and Viet Nam, but these were kept somewhat under control by the threat of nukes on both sides - the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) strategy. So it became a war of economics instead of battles - thus the term "cold" war. It costs a shitload, but anything's better than WW3.

 

In The Guardian today

The denial industry

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

Excerpts:

"For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them?"

"ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids."

"The website Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled 'junk science'. The findings they welcome are labelled 'sound science'."

"By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. "

"While they have been most effective in the United States, the impacts of the climate-change deniers sponsored by Exxon and Philip Morris have been felt all over the world. I have seen their arguments endlessly repeated in Australia, Canada, India, Russia and the UK. By dominating the media debate on climate change during seven or eight critical years in which urgent international talks should have been taking place, by constantly seeding doubt about the science just as it should have been most persuasive, they have justified the money their sponsors have spent on them many times over. It is fair to say that the professional denial industry has delayed effective global action on climate change by years, just as it helped to delay action against the tobacco companies."

BillyDoc

 

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday;
Love your environment, uproot a Bush.

 

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."



http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html#article_continue

 

About the only evidence I have ever encountered that says there is a true consensus of unbiased experts that Global Warming is in fact real is the continued insistance of a few organizations through press releases that there is consensus! Are these the same folks who earlier this year claimed an el Nina here on the west coast which has now transformed into an el nino? Or the same folks who by consensus warned us that the 2005 hurricane season was a result of global warming and that we could expect the trend to continue? Sorry folks but long term climate prediction is like political science, economics and yachting! Just fun ways to waste time and spend money!

 

Simple Economics. During the Depression, when people were the poorest, we instituted a number of Public Works Projects through organizations such as the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). These groups were given bold projects to complete and a large bankroll to get them done. For workers, they hired young unemployed and healthy men who gave a year (or a few years, I'm not sure exactly how it worked) of service in exchange for a steady paycheck in a time of great uncertainty.

The result of the projects were multifold- The U.S. got great things accomplished that would not otherwise have been done; tens of thousands of jobs were created; Those jobs put money into peoples' pockets and that money was then spent, which spurred economic growth.

When you listen to economists talk, you realize that one of the best things for an economy (if not for personal financial stability) is to spend spend spend. When an economy spends money, it's value is increased over and again. If I earn ten dollars and give ten dollars to a shop keeper for some meat and the shopkeeper gives $8 to a distributer who gives $6 to a farmer, then the ten dollars of pay has created $24 of income and the U.S. economy has grown by $24. But if I pocket that $10, then the economy hasn't grown at all.

So, spending is good (economically speaking). And spending is exactly what will happen when people are poor and need goods to support a given comfort level, and the poorer they are, the MORE of their paycheck they will spend in order to be more comfortable (Maslow's Hierarchy of needs). What does this have to do with national defense?

Well, Military Spending is one of the few areas where nearly ALL of the money is spent within the United States. We don't buy foreign aircraft, we don't buy foreign guns, or foreign missiles. Every dollar spent in the United States is pumped into the United States' economy. In other words, the large military spending sounds extreme, but in actuality, it isn't that bad because it helps spur economic growth. In other words, our overall economic health is increased by spending the money in a way which supports American workers and American business. It's not as good as hiring unskilled laborers who need a roof over their head, but hiring extra blue-collar production workers and engineers nevertheless does have a dramatic income on GDP.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying it's a wise use of resources. However, I will say that, as I see it, defense spending is a lot like "public works projects" from an economics standpoint.

 

All cool if you don't have to borrow all the money you're spending. Eventually that money has to get paid back.

 

Not the only front in the disinformation campaign.

Take a look at the nut cases who promote abiotic oil theory for a real laugh.

 

Not exactly. Ever hear of a guy named Alan Greenspan? He, and most other leading economists say that when your economy is weak, you should borrow money. In order to borrow money, you lower interest rates. Fortunately, the government controls interest rates, so they can easily make borrowing quite attractive. And then, when the economy is strong, you raise interest rates in order to control inflation. Raising interest rates makes the money you borrowed at a lower interest rate "cheaper" to pay back.

So for this to make sense economically, you have to appreciate that the modern american economists are predicting a strengthening U.S. economy in years to come. Notice, interest rates recently rose in the U.S.. This is telling us that the economy is improving. When Bush started the war? Interest rates were down in the dumps. In other words, the war has had a positive effect on GDP and it is being reflected in the economy (the war is NOT the only cause, but it is one cause of many, including the absence of further terror strikes on US soil).

Remember, a few years ago, there was actually talk that the U.S. could fall into a depression. The problem is, you can only lower interest rates so much. Afterall, you can't PAY people to take money. So as the interest rate approaches 0%, you are in a depression. So what happened? Military spending (spending money within the United States) rose dramatically. The problem though, is that the work has to have an "output". We didn't need any more roads (although some in Chicago could certainly stand to be repaved). So we projected the "work" into a war.

Now, I am not so cynical as to say that Bush started this war for economic reasons, although I'm sure some liberals would take what I've said and run with it. However, I do believe that the war was a convenient application of economic principles and that, had the U.S. economy been stronger at the time, we would not have invaded Iraq. That doesn't, of itself, make the Iraq War right or wrong in my mind- it simply made it feasible. Again, liberals might say it was the justification and I suppose they are entitled to their opinion. Personally, I won't get into that debate because there are no clear answers and a hell of a lot of opinions. I'm just sticking to the economics of the issue and the cold-hearted economics say that the military spending and projection of power were very good things for the U.S. economy.

And, how's this for a thought? Should Iraq stabilize over the next ten years, the United States' economy will grow significantly stronger as a result of the stabilization. However, if we pull out, there will be a mini-depression. In order to pull out, politically, either party will have to be in a position where the U.S. economy can afford to do so. That means, we need to see HUGE interest rates (indicating high economic growth and low unemployment) before we can pull out without hurting our economy.

 

Not sure if this now constitutes a hijacked forum but I'm curious now. How do you define a strong economy and how will it affect all of the people who have borrowed monstrous sums to purchase overvalued property at unusually low interest rates over the last couple of years.