Trio and Friends

Ondrej wrote:I think you have missed part of my argument. What difference do all these sacrifices you are making have? That is the real crux of the matter. I would venture to guess that it has basically zero effect. That is why everyone is clambering to involve the government. And that is where we get into trouble.

Yes most environmentalists say that individual choices will not make enough difference, and that is why the government has to get involved. But how should the government get involved? Is it not merely (1) by providing a tax to equate with the externality charge that a company is causing by polluting the planet? And (2) by making laws saying you can't use certain chemicals that turn out to be really damaging to the earth. They're not trying to turn socialist and tax you twice as much. Sure, those laws mess with the economy, but so do the laws about selling heroine, or putting pornography on public billboards, or even selling guns to children. And I don't think that is a slippery slope that leads to North Korea. I don't see any evidence for that. Every first world nation has such laws and always has had them - in fact such laws were largely invented out of Christian values about protecting people. All that's changed is, we learned some things about the climate that require a few more laws.

So I don't see what's so bad about either of those kinds of government intervention. They're not unprecedented. They're not inherently communist. They're not a departure from all the values we hold dear as Western nations. On the contrary, they're in continuity with them. No?

Ondrej wrote:But have you heard yourself? What do you mean? Everyone blames the seller. Where do you incessantly hear that the seller is absolved of responsibility? News, TV, commercials, movies, your friends? Who claims this? And is it in any way the "norm"? I think the seller can bear some blame in some situations but I don't think I have ever heard even once that the buyer bears all the blame for harmful transactions.

By "capitalism" I meant, since you hold to it, what your understanding is of how things ought to be. Sure, we all like to blame others if we can get away with it. That's just part of (sinful) human nature. And sure, we should perhaps remind everyone that the buyer is endorsing whatever they buy in the act of buying it. The buyer endorses the entire chain of causation that led to the product they are buying. Our expenditure is our way of voting for the kind of world we want to live in. All I wanted you to do was admit that the seller also bears some responsibility as well, since they are also contributing to the chain of causation.

Ondrej wrote:But that's not quite a fair comparison. Burning fuel is not sinful in the same sense. If I heat my house by burning wood it is "terrible" for the environment compared to, say, coal, or natural gas, but if all I have is a fireplace I can manage to stay warm by burning wood even if I have no coal or natural gas. Of course the standards of the environmentalists have gone way beyond this and coal and natural gas are just as sinful now. But the point is that this is not a clear cut sin at all. It is like messiness. Messiness can be quite troublesome and for someone who has their life all organized and perfect, someone else's messiness can be distressing. However, that person may be dealing all sorts of troubles and the mess is so low on their priority list that it doesn't even register as a problem. Once their life is sorted out, then maybe the mess will become a higher priority. But the environmentalists are trying to make the mess the priority when everyone else has much bigger problems.

We can debate whether this is true or not, but most environmentalists would claim that climate change is everyone's problem and that it is big. It would mean the end of millions of people's way of life, the destruction of the equilibrium of the ecosystem, leading to the extinction of millions of species, rendering huge swathes of land uninhabitable and unfruitful for farming. It's one thing to say that they're wrong. But you can't say that if they're right it's not everyone's problem. Granted the poorest among us can be exempt from thinking about it for now, but precisely because they're poor they can't possibly be the worst offenders, because it takes money to contribute to global warming.

Ondrej wrote:Nobody ever tries to drum up serious apocalyptic scenarios about what the world would look like without fossil fuels. There are not scores of scientists creating dire projections about what could go wrong if we end the use of fossil fuels. If we did we would have a much more nuanced picture. If all you are focused on is the projections of a group of people who get their funding from telling us the world is coming to an end and you fund nothing of the opposite sort and shun any scrap of good news, of course you will think the world is coming to an end. If I told you there was a scientific study that showed that the hotter a region gets, the more clouds it creates, termed the iris effect, that acts to cool that area, then you would simply look for reasons why you can disregard that study. Because people disagree, you have to prove you are right, because you have to prove you are right, you can't be objective about the facts. This makes good news bad news. Nobody on the climate change side of the debate wants to be wrong. It is in their interest that they disregard anything that calls them into question. The politicization and funding has corrupted the science. That's why "all" the scientists agree.

I'm pretty sure nobody wants climate change to be real. As I mentioned once a while ago, many of my friends suffer from climate anxiety, a perpetual stifling fear that nothing they do can be enough, and it's already too late and we're all doomed. I think if you could persuade them that they needn't worry so much they would be eternally grateful. When you shared that article about the ice growing on the south pole, Gemma's first reaction was "that's encouraging!" But then she found more recent evidence that led to the opposite conclusion (though not being a geographer I didn't follow the complexity of the argument).

Of course, we are all suspicious of any new argument that overturns a long-held position. I think that's right because it prevents us from flip-flopping all the time, changing our minds on a penny. We are also suspicious of any argument that seems motivated to maintain the status quo. There is much more motivation to keep our comfortable lives as they are, and to find arguments to support our comfortable lives, than to be persuaded of something that would require we make our lives a little less comfortable or that would force us to spend more money for no immediate gain to ourselves. I really think that motivational bias and its effect on truth-seeking works in favor of climate change and not against it. So few people stand to gain something if it's true, vs. so many people who have to change their lives radically.

But how should the government get involved? Is it not merely (1) by providing a tax to equate with the externality charge that a company is causing by polluting the planet?

There are a lot of IFs that precede this. If it is true that gradual warming is indeed detrimental. If it can be demonstrated precisely how much CO2 is man-made vs natural. If a dollar amount for release of CO2 can be calculated (not just arbitrarily set). If the carbon tax is actually spent only on the sequestration of CO2. If such things were straight forward to calculate you would have a much better argument. But when CO2 is not actually even a pollutant, when there is disagreement in the scientific community about the dire predictions, when plenty of the previous predictions have been wrong, then establishing what the externality cost actually is is near impossible.

And (2) by making laws saying you can't use certain chemicals that turn out to be really damaging to the earth.

Water is really damaging to the earth. While I am in favor of banning some things, it is easy to get ban-happy and prevent people from using things. For example you can't buy liquid nitrogen or tons of other chemicals out of fears over safety.

In a similar vein, all kinds of complicated emissions equipment is being installed on vehicles that customers have to pay for. In the diesel world lots of these systems were being removed because they shorten the engine life, degrade performance, and add significant complexity (more to go wrong). Recently the EPA started cracking down and handing out fines for removal of these components. It's bad enough that they are forcing the customers to buy things they don't want but then on top of that they don't let you remove the things you didn't want.

They're not trying to turn socialist and tax you twice as much.

I'm sure not all of them. But have you read the green new deal? Or how about "you will own nothing and you'll be happy" https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/worl ... -10-years/

There is already chatter about climate lockdowns https://www.project-syndicate.org/comme ... cesspaylog

Socialism is the only way https://climateandcapitalism.com/2019/1 ... te-change/
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/0 ... m-s19.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... atastrophe

"Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. The really good model is communist China." https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... admits-it/

Here again from the Gurdian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... capitalism

"This variance will play out clearly as the time to develop full-fledged policies and legislation based on the Green New Deal nears. Already the centrists and the right are taking advantage of the situation and accusing the left of using climate change as a excuse to promote a social justice agenda. They are not mistaken." https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/ ... eparately/

Forgive me if I don't believe you.

All that's changed is, we learned some things about the climate that require a few more laws.

That is not all that has changed. Plenty has changed. The main stream culture has rejected Christianity and with it the ethical underpinnings. Why trust institutions? They were made trustworthy by the rigid, continual integrity of the people that occupied them. It is the fruit of the spirit profiting the whole world. But if the people that inhabit our institutions fail to have integrity then our institutions are untrustworthy. The power they wield is misplaced. But to correct this it will take a long time of wearing away the facade of greatness. On top of the degradation of our institutions is the growing popularity of socialism. It is always just a few more laws.

(I'm out of time to comment at this point but I do want to continue with the rest of your comments later.)

But you can't say that if they're right it's not everyone's problem. Granted the poorest among us can be exempt from thinking about it for now, but precisely because they're poor they can't possibly be the worst offenders, because it takes money to contribute to global warming.

When it becomes a problem you won't have to say it and convince everyone. The reason you have to try to convince people is because it is actually not a problem currently. When it actually becomes a problem that manifests itself, if the government gets out of the way, people will figure out solutions. Probably not for climate change but how to adapt in the changing environment, which amounts to the same thing.

I don't think the poorest among us are exempt. It is fashionable to blame fossil fuel companies for example but they are not burning the fuel, they are selling the fuel. They are selling the fuel to much poorer people than themselves. You might suggests that they are selling a large portion to power companies, this is true, but the power companies are also selling power not consuming it. The same for any big business. The reason they are in business is because everyone is giving them money because it makes their life better than they can manage on their own. This is precisely why the government must intervene, because people will not choose "correctly" for themselves. If we artificially doubled fuel prices, then people might start to choose "correctly", which is to say, what you want rather than what they want. You may give them a pass as far as pointing blame but you certainly don't give a pass when it comes to clean energy (or lack thereof), that is what the government is called in for. To enforce that the things you prioritize must be prioritized by all.

I think if you could persuade them that they needn't worry so much they would be eternally grateful.

They needn't worry so much. There is more to life than remaining alive for some time. That is life wasted. A short life can be deeply meaningful. Go live meaningfully, not worrying about things you do not control. Don't try to split hairs over whether you "need" this or that. You need nothing. What is your objective? What things will facilitate that? Don't treat yourself like a slave but pursue your objectives. Be honest. Work hard. Be on time. Be presentable. Honor your father and mother. Be kind. Be patient. Be generous. Consider others as more important than yourself. Love your enemy. Bless those who persecute you. These are more important than climate change. And if climate change is true, they will be all that much more valuable.

But then she found more recent evidence that led to the opposite conclusion (though not being a geographer I didn't follow the complexity of the argument).

I would be surprised if you couldn't find an argument against it. The fact that it's political makes this a guarantee. The question is, did she stop looking once she found the answer she was looking for? That is the way of these things. You can say nobody wants it to be true but that is not how they behave.

Of course, we are all suspicious of any new argument that overturns a long-held position. I think that's right because it prevents us from flip-flopping all the time, changing our minds on a penny. We are also suspicious of any argument that seems motivated to maintain the status quo. There is much more motivation to keep our comfortable lives as they are, and to find arguments to support our comfortable lives, than to be persuaded of something that would require we make our lives a little less comfortable or that would force us to spend more money for no immediate gain to ourselves.

I think I agree. Except the long-held position is that of climate change. And the status quo is the same. You seem to be insinuating otherwise.

I really think that motivational bias and its effect on truth-seeking works in favor of climate change and not against it. So few people stand to gain something if it's true, vs. so many people who have to change their lives radically.

People stand to gain https://www.heritage.org/environment/co ... ange-money

But I think it's more than money. It is fashionable. Why do people seldom wear bow-ties? Why do all the girls wear yoga pants? Climate change is just a way to signal you're part of the "in" crowd. You gain social points by showing how concerned you are. That's just the first step. Then everyone else sees how concerned you are and they say, "oh, wow, there might be something to this". The cycle perpetuates itself and people become more and more hysterical until you generate climate anxiety in people because there is nothing they can really do about it. It is not about whether it is true or not, it is about whether it is trendy to say, how many clicks and likes does it get. To think this does not influence science and policy is to hold scientists and politicians up as though they are not also people too. Scientists and politicians also want to be trendy.

Ondrej wrote:While I am in favor of banning some things, it is easy to get ban-happy and prevent people from using things.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Of course there's an extreme where too many things are banned, just like there's an extreme where too few things are banned. It's easy for some people to get ban-happy and ban too many things, but it's equally easy for other people to ban too few things because they will make more money if such things are not banned. There's a lot of motivation both ways - why only focus on the motivation to ban too much?

Ondrej wrote:It's bad enough that they are forcing the customers to buy things they don't want but then on top of that they don't let you remove the things you didn't want.

But you've already agreed that polluting someone else's air or land is something that falls within the remit of government control. So it's only fair to "force" people to reduce pollutants if they obviously affect other people. (as a side note, I observe you only use the violent words, like "force at gun point" when the law is something you disagree with. When you agree with a law, the violent language mysteriously disappears).

Ondrej wrote:have you read the green new deal? Or how about "you will own nothing and you'll be happy" https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/worl ... -10-years/

There is already chatter about climate lockdowns https://www.project-syndicate.org/comme ... cesspaylog

Socialism is the only way https://climateandcapitalism.com/2019/1 ... te-change/
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/0 ... m-s19.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... atastrophe

"Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. The really good model is communist China." https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... admits-it/

Here again from the Gurdian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... capitalism

"This variance will play out clearly as the time to develop full-fledged policies and legislation based on the Green New Deal nears. Already the centrists and the right are taking advantage of the situation and accusing the left of using climate change as a excuse to promote a social justice agenda. They are not mistaken." https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/ ... eparately/

Forgive me if I don't believe you.

These are just random journalists and a few crackpots. You can always find someone on the internet who makes an outrageous claim, but you can't fairly tar everyone else with that brush. I guess I should have been more specific with my use of the word "they." I didn't mean that nobody wants socialism, only that the desire for socialism is not a sufficient cause for the entire science of climate change. Besides, the examples you're giving are the opposite way round. These are people who already believe in climate change and are now turning to socialism as a solution, not people who have always longed for socialism and are finding a convenient excuse in climate change.

That is not all that has changed. Plenty has changed. The main stream culture has rejected Christianity and with it the ethical underpinnings.

That is not, strictly speaking, true. But that is a big enough topic to deserve its own thread.

When it [i.e. climate change] becomes a problem you won't have to say it and convince everyone. The reason you have to try to convince people is because it is actually not a problem currently. When it actually becomes a problem that manifests itself, if the government gets out of the way, people will figure out solutions. Probably not for climate change but how to adapt in the changing environment, which amounts to the same thing.

It is already a problem. Yes, some of these are predictions, but many of the events the article describes are past and present as well. It's not a problem in America, which is why there are still climate deniers in America. There aren't climate deniers most other places in the world.
For example, in Canada it's clear that the earth is getting warmer if you have enough of a memory to remember what things looked like 30 years ago.
In america it is clear to those who remember or who look at statistics. I know Randall Monroe is just a web comic writer but he is also a scientist and he does a lot of research before making any claims like this.

Ondrej wrote:They needn't worry so much. There is more to life than remaining alive for some time. That is life wasted. A short life can be deeply meaningful. Go live meaningfully, not worrying about things you do not control. Don't try to split hairs over whether you "need" this or that. You need nothing. What is your objective? What things will facilitate that? Don't treat yourself like a slave but pursue your objectives. Be honest. Work hard. Be on time. Be presentable. Honor your father and mother. Be kind. Be patient. Be generous. Consider others as more important than yourself. Love your enemy. Bless those who persecute you. These are more important than climate change. And if climate change is true, they will be all that much more valuable.

All of this applies just as much to your "worrying" about America becoming socialist which seems to be almost an obsession, given how much of what you say emerges from that underying concern.

Ondrej wrote:I would be surprised if you couldn't find an argument against it. The fact that it's political makes this a guarantee. The question is, did she stop looking once she found the answer she was looking for? That is the way of these things. You can say nobody wants it to be true but that is not how they behave.

That's the thing - it's not political anywhere else except America. In the UK, it's not a party-divisive thing (it seems everything, even things like mask wearing, become party-divisive in America). In the UK there is merely a spectrum between people who act on their convictions and people who don't do anything about it, even though they agree that something needs to be done. So she doesn't have any "political" motivation to reassert climate change. I don't know if she stopped looking when she found that or not, but one has limited time and can't keep researching endlessly things one is already convinced of. Do you "keep looking" for arguments against Jesus' resurrection? I'm sure, however, that if you provided some counter-evidence she would take it seriously.

Ondrej wrote:People stand to gain https://www.heritage.org/environment/co ... ange-money

But I think it's more than money. It is fashionable. Why do people seldom wear bow-ties? Why do all the girls wear yoga pants? Climate change is just a way to signal you're part of the "in" crowd.

It's not fashionable where I live. Sure, everyone accepts the reality - you would be super-paranoid not to, liable to believe any conspiracy theory about the moon landing being faked or whatever. But hardly anyone actually does anything about it.

For example, we joined a group of 8 parents who were having their first child around the same time. Of these 8, we were the only ones who went to the effort of buying washable diapers, even though it is a common statistic that a disposable diaper takes 500 years to decompose and one of the worst ways you can turn the planets resources into non-biodegradable trash. Everyone believes in climate change, but hardly anybody actually acts on that belief.

why only focus on the motivation to ban too much?

Because too much is already banned.

I'm trying to think of examples where things weren't banned and it was a catastrophe for society. Typically some people act unwisely and get burned and then we learn how to handle things. If gasoline were invented today it would be only in the hands of researchers and professionals. The average Joe cannot go out and buy liquid nitrogen, for example (I know I have brought this up before but it is so annoying). We have it in our heads that the average Joe can do nothing. I think this is because the wealthy people who decide these kinds of things can do nothing. They leave everything up to the "professionals" not thinking about where the professionals come from and shying away from trying their own hand at anything blue collar related.

But you've already agreed that polluting someone else's air or land is something that falls within the remit of government control.

Have I? Probably so. How far does it extend? Can you exhale your CO2? Should people be allowed to drive cars at all (and by extension everything powered by fossil fuels)? Should the government crack down on barbecues? How about 4th of July fireworks? It is just that most people aren't modifying their diesel trucks that it is accepted. I think what is most irritating about this is that they are basically preventing people from tinkering in their garage with their cars/trucks which is a favorite American past time. It is another step toward fast cars only in the hands of the wealthy. Another step toward you can't do it only the professionals can.

as a side note, I observe you only use the violent words, like "force at gun point" when the law is something you disagree with. When you agree with a law, the violent language mysteriously disappears

My bad. I have tried to diligently remove "force" from my vocabulary. It is unclear, as you previously specified. I initially said "force at gunpoint" to hammer home the idea that government is ultimately using a gun to ensure certain outcomes. I think that point was made. Then you made the point that the government doesn't really force you to do anything, you can always choose. I agreed. Now I try to use the word "coerce" to more accurately represent what happens. I'm not sure if I slipped up somewhere but if I said "force" I probably meant "coerce". I believe I have dropped all reference to "gunpoint" because I am assuming we are on the same page with that.

These are just random journalists and a few crackpots.

How do you decide that? The green new deal is authored by a US politician. The quote "own nothing and be happy" is authored by Klaus Schwab of the world economic forum. I thought the Guardian was reputable. What do you have against their positions? This is what is coming, what everyone is pushing for.

How do you know what you "know" is not crackpot? Just because everyone around you agrees?

It is already a problem.

My point was that when it becomes a problem like, I'm out of eggs, people will need to solve the egg problem. The big problem climate people have is that it's not a problem currently. What do I need to do today, this week, this month? Climate problems only factor in if you go out of your way to make them factor in and your effect is nil. If you spent an extra hour at work you would be better off even in the long run.

in Canada it's clear

(full disclosure I didn't read the link yet) You're going to seriously tell me that Canadians would prefer it to not get warmer? There is so much land up there that would be perfectly habitable if it weren't so freakin cold all the time.

In america it is clear to those who remember or who look at statistics.

(I did click this link) No it's much more complicated. Is the globe warming? Is it due to CO2? How much of the CO2 increase is due to human activity? If the globe warms what is the effect? Can we change it? What will that cost? Is it worth it? The climate change narrative says your either for or against and doesn't leave any nuance for the range of these questions. If you agree that there is some warming (and there is dispute there) then you are whisked off to the conclusion that we should ban fossil fuels and anything else is catastrophic. "All the scientists agree" but on what exactly? How much of the narrative is putting words in their mouths (by the journalists who are trying to spin a sensational story to get clicks).

All of this applies just as much to your "worrying" about America becoming socialist which seems to be almost an obsession, given how much of what you say emerges from that underying concern.

Yes absolutely! The only way to fix America is for the people, no, for me to practice the fruit of the spirit. "The people" is someone else. America is sick, it is on me. I don't know what I can do, especially since I am debating a guy in Britain (I could perhaps convince myself I was doing something having a debate with another American ). But it is on me to conduct myself in a fitting manner. I am deeply grateful of those who came before me and built up this unbelievable world (honor your father and mother). I am trying to make what I produce of the highest quality (patience, diligence). When I was going to work in person I was making sure to dress more professionally (dress appropriately). I have many times praised difficult reviewers of my work (bless those who persecute you) and lauded their importance (love your enemy). I perceive myself at the bottom of the hierarchy at the laboratory, although I'm not sure if this is a character flaw in myself; my own blindness. I could argue 'consider others as more important than yourself' but I'm not quite convinced this is appropriate (i.e. true). I think I should be comfortable with thinking of myself more highly than I do and then being the servant of all. ... In any case, I wasn't giving advice I do not apply to myself. I suppose it didn't take a text wall to say that but it's written out now...

But hardly anyone actually does anything about it.

How do you know it's not just fashionable to say when nobody actually does anything about it? That's what I mean it's just fashionable. Everyone says it so I'll just repeat it too. Everyone agrees not because everyone knows, they're just going along with the crowd. Nobody does anything because you haven't shown them what to do that is effective. You have just said there is a problem, and they have agreed because it seems that everyone has agreed so they will nod too not wanting to look out of place. The same can be said for many pop culture issues. There is a narrative, and then there are the pesky nuanced facts on the ground. Most people are just trying to get on with their day (i.e. the thousand other problems they have) and will just agree politely that yes that's a problem too.

Ondrej wrote:I'm trying to think of examples where things weren't banned and it was a catastrophe for society.

How about abortions, food products that cause obesity, pornography, guns, cigarettes? All of those things have led to mass misery, long-term health problems, and/or death. We sometimes don't see catastrophes that are right in front of our eyes because we have gotten so used to their presence, like a frog in gradually boiling water. I'm not even suggesting all these things ought to be banned. I'm merely saying, more modestly, that not banning them has certainly led to a lot of problems - and probably a lot more collateral damage than we realize.

Ondrej wrote:How far does it extend? Can you exhale your CO2? Should people be allowed to drive cars at all (and by extension everything powered by fossil fuels)? Should the government crack down on barbecues? How about 4th of July fireworks? It is just that most people aren't modifying their diesel trucks that it is accepted. I think what is most irritating about this is that they are basically preventing people from tinkering in their garage with their cars/trucks which is a favorite American past time. It is another step toward fast cars only in the hands of the wealthy. Another step toward you can't do it only the professionals can.

This is another version of the slippery slope argument. It keeps coming up: "if you allow X, then where do you stop before you get to Y? Where do you draw the line?" I don't presume to know where the line should be drawn because I am not an expert, but that's very different from saying that I'd happily go along with a gradual slide into a totalitarian state. I wouldn't. We're talking about the most right-wing country in the world right now - the USA - which has far less economic regulation than any other wealthy first world nation. A little more won't hurt - it will only make it more like Sweden, Norway, or Germany, which are doing fine, full of free and happy people, and not on the brink of turning into North Korea.

Ondrej wrote:My bad. I have tried to diligently remove "force" from my vocabulary. It is unclear, as you previously specified. I initially said "force at gunpoint" to hammer home the idea that government is ultimately using a gun to ensure certain outcomes. I think that point was made. Then you made the point that the government doesn't really force you to do anything, you can always choose. I agreed. Now I try to use the word "coerce" to more accurately represent what happens. I'm not sure if I slipped up somewhere but if I said "force" I probably meant "coerce". I believe I have dropped all reference to "gunpoint" because I am assuming we are on the same page with that.

Sorry, I didn't mean to take an accusing tone. I was referring to much earlier conversations on google hangouts, such as the one about maternity/paternity leave. I've split my thoughts on this off into another thread.

Ondrej wrote:How do you decide that? The green new deal is authored by a US politician. The quote "own nothing and be happy" is authored by Klaus Schwab of the world economic forum. I thought the Guardian was reputable. What do you have against their positions? This is what is coming, what everyone is pushing for.

The Guardian is indeed reputable. But you must be careful to note that the article you shared comes from their "opinion" section, which hosts a huge spread of opinions from right to left in order to stimulate debate. Articles in the 'opinion' section do not imply an endorsement by the Guardian of their content.

But that's a superficial point. My more substantial point is that to quote a handful of opinions, even by reputable or powerful people, by no means indicates that "this is what is coming, what everyone is pushing for." Please note that every first world nation has shifted to the right over the last 10 years. Perhaps Britain has done so most dramatically. Every single election in the last 13 years has shifted us further to the right. So how can it be true to say that "everyone" is pushing towards the left? Sure, America just elected a democrat, but as point 6 on this post astutely pointed out, that was quite likely given the circumstances and doesn't indicate a general trend.

What do you mean by "everyone"? I once pointed out that every American I know, regardless of their political opinions, sees themself as the persecuted minority, fearful of the takeover from the majority that is not themselves. You denied that you saw yourself that way, but your comments reveal otherwise. All the leftist opinions like climate change, denigrating American history, etc. are what is "fashionable" and what "everyone" unthinkingly accepts. Yet from the other side, it seems as if "everyone" in america is denying climate change, at least by their actions, and refusing to admit any responsibility for their past. I can provide evidence for this if you haven't come across it.

Ondrej wrote:How do you know what you "know" is not crackpot? Just because everyone around you agrees?

This is a huge philosophical question that I'd be happy to discuss but would lead us too far astray here. In summary, nobody "knows" that their views are not crackpot. That is why it's so helpful and refreshing to encounter a radically different perspective, and that was the point of FoeFace.

Ondrej wrote:My point was that when it becomes a problem like, I'm out of eggs, people will need to solve the egg problem. The big problem climate people have is that it's not a problem currently. What do I need to do today, this week, this month? Climate problems only factor in if you go out of your way to make them factor in and your effect is nil. If you spent an extra hour at work you would be better off even in the long run.

Environmental scientists tell us that, by the time it has become that obvious and immediate a problem, it will be too late to fix it. It is like watching the floodwaters rise and refusing to do anything about it until water has entered your house. It is like gambling all your money away and refusing to change your ways until you are broke. There are hundreds of daily life scenarios where the problem must be addressed long before it presses.

Ondrej wrote:You're going to seriously tell me that Canadians would prefer it to not get warmer? There is so much land up there that would be perfectly habitable if it weren't so freakin cold all the time.

It's nothing to do with what people would prefer. The link is not about preference, but about visible change to the climate. We can discuss how we feel about it after we've established the reality.

Ondrej wrote:If you agree that there is some warming (and there is dispute there) then you are whisked off to the conclusion that we should ban fossil fuels and anything else is catastrophic.

That is a caricature. Please engage with the most intelligent and sensible opinions, not the most extreme ones. Let's not get carried away by the culture war polemics. It is quite possible to believe that we need to do something and yet remain capitalist in basic disposition. It's quite possible to argue that we as individuals need to reduce our carbon footprint by our daily choices, without going all the way and saying that we should all become communists.

Man, this thread is getting too long. I'm going to split off the rest of my comments into another one.