Global Warming: The New Religion

[Danielmellbin]

I agree with all those points! (except that we will continue to meddle in those political decisions that also affect our lives (i.e. GCC and wars) on this side of the pond - as I assume you will with us)

[Messy1]

I heard something on the radio today that something like 3500 temperature probes were placed out in the ocean, or maybe 3500 temp readings were taken from all over the ocean. according to these probes, the temp of the ocean has not risen, it has actually cooled off a tad? anyone have any specifics on this?

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by renrich

I The mindset of the left is that they alone are capable of making the proper decisions to relieve mankind of all problems. Their attitude is that the free enterprise system is too chaotic to be allowed to make these decisions and government(run by them) should step in and take over..

Some what

you must remember back in the 60's and 70's when free enterprise was held back by the socialist government ensuring cars were equipped with seat belts , padded dashes ,collapsible steering columns head rests and god forbid emmission controls as large cities were being enveloped by clouds of smog . The auto sector said by putting these things in your car would raise the prices to prohibitive levels . That was your gov't taking a proactive stand for the people.... those damn leftist socialists

[renrich]

The difference between the right and the left in the US is that the left believes that more laws and more regulations and more government are the answer to every problem. They (the left) have the answers and individuals don't have enough sense to make the proper decisions. The right believes that a government of laws is necessary but the less government the better. What PB is talking about as far as safety devices on cars and emission controls is a good example. The right would say that let the consumer decide whether he wants seat belts, etc and emission controls. The left says we must have laws that force them on the consumer. If you are aware of public opinion in the US most consumers would vote with their pocket books to have safer cars and cleaner burning engines. Dan, you mention the terrible price that the USSR paid in WW2 and there were in deed many deaths there. Perhaps if Stalin had not been a helpmate to Nazi Germany before 1939 they would not have had to pay that price. However, I say that the UK and the US would have won both the ETO and PTO without the Soviets. The ace in the hole for the Allies was the industrial might of the US and it had nothing to do with government and everything to do with the free enterprise system. The free enterprise system gave us Dad Joiner, the wildcatter who drilled the discovery well that founded the East Texas field, The Black Giant, the largest oil field ever found up until that time. That field supplied much of the oil that won the war for the Allies. The free enterprise system gave us the Kaiser Company, that could and did produce merchant ships faster than the u-boats could sink them. The free enterprise system gave us the Ford Company who built Willow Run and turned out the B24s in unprecedented numbers. The free enterprise system gave us GM and Chrysler who turned out the motorised vehicles and tanks that all the Allies used. The free enterprise system built more than 100000 fighters for the US and it's allies and BBs and CVs and CAs and DDs and thousands of landing craft. There is no doubt that the capacity of the US to produce war making apparatus was the decisive factor in the defeat of the Axis in WW2 and that capacity was mainly a product of the free enterprise system, not government.

[Njaco]

as an opposite to Ren's point, look at a government controlled economy such as Germany during the war. Too many designs and failed projects that ate up resources for the projects that did work. A heavy hand on what could be produced and when and in what quanity. Granted Germany had many technological advances but for every ejection seat and jet engine there was somebody trying to put a smokeless ashtray in the cockpit.

I have no problem believing in Global Climate change. But I believe it is a natural occurance with maybe a slight hand from man. What I don't believe and will fight against is the blame -game financed by my money for stupid accords and restrictions. Does anybody remember it was these very same scientists that were predicting a Global Freezing in the '70s? Don't tell me to forget that and believe them now.

They can't even get it straight if eggs are good or bad for you.

[pbfoot]

some how I missed the Global cooling but it was there there are many odd things happening in the world now has anyone heard about the dramatic decrease in the Bee population at least here in N America , I kid you not Bees are disappearing and it could affect the pollination of fruits and veggies

[Njaco]

Yeah, they haven't figured that one out. Did you know there is a whole trade business that you can "rent" bees for your crops? They actually ship them to wherevevr you are for a month or so and then back home. Its a whole industry and its taking a hit.

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by renrich

Dan, you mention the terrible price that the USSR paid in WW2 and there were in deed many deaths there. Perhaps if Stalin had not been a helpmate to Nazi Germany before 1939 they would not have had to pay that price. However, I say that the UK and the US would have won both the ETO and PTO without the Soviets. The ace in the hole for the Allies was the industrial might of the US and it had nothing to do with government and everything to do with the free enterprise system.

Well the hopelessness of Stalins leadership brought on the scope of the casualties in '41. However in the 30's he was aware that the SU was not ready for war (those purges sure didn't help) and so tried to delay Hitlers unavoidable war in the east. Dont get me wrong - i looove capitalism and free societies - but the survival of SU had everything to do with government and nothing to do with free enterprise. Without a sickenengly(!) strong government the casualties suffered in the first months would have brought about a crushing defeat.

I agree that the PTO would have been "easily" won without any Soviet help. But the ETO is an other matter - I fail to see how the Western allies would have inflicted the millions of casualties on the Germans that the Soviets did - or how they would even get ashore if the Atlantic wall had not been "underprepared" and largely manned by 4th rate troops. Without the invasion of the SU the germans would have also had the oil reserves to have a "flyable" airforce to counter the allies. The Nazi rule would have collapased eventually - but for other reasons. I do not disagree with the fact a free enterprise system is by far the best system that has ever been spawned - however in times of crisis "every man for himself and his profit" does not work - and this is where a strong government comes in handy. (i.e. WW2, GCC and so on...).

[renrich]

Easily is not the word to describe the victory of the Allies(without SU) over the Axis. It would have been tougher. Are you assuming that SU sells oil to Axis? No sure thing. Anyway, what would probably have won the war ultimately was Hamburg instead of Hiroshima, Wilhemshaven(spelling?) instead of Nagasaki! However, there are plenty of other insects to do the job of pollination.

[Njaco]

Boy, talk about a thread going haywire! Bees pollinating SU oil reserves during WWII - whats this thread about?

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Boy, talk about a thread going haywire! Bees pollinating SU oil reserves during WWII - whats this thread about?

lol - true - sorry - that happens

Just to quickly finnish of the "sideshow" discussion: Nukes over Europe? - never would have happened (If not for the obvious reasons - Then because Germany would have retaliated with gas/chemical attacks on the UK). A German industry/army not crippled by manpower/material losses would have been able to hold the Atlantic wall. At the time of D-Day there was 160 divisions in Russia - not counting their allies. By comparison there where only 66 in all of western Europe (many of questionable quality). Furthermore the germans had already suffered more than 3 million in casualties in the east - that number would double before the end of the war. Regarding oil: Germany didn't need more oil than what they could get from Ploesti - not having 20-30 Panzer divisions tearing around the Russian countryside (and at the time of Barbarossa they where still importing plenty from Russia - don't see why that would have stopped?). I mean imagine fully equipped and rested elite formations guarding the west and joined by me262's and the likes (no panthers "sadly" as the T34's influence probably wouldn't have happened). Anyway its alot of "what if" history - but all in all I find it very unrealistic that the western allies could have invaded Europe without an Eastern front.

Anyways - ill stop "misusing" this thread for now - back to Global warming

[renrich]

Don't kid yourself!

[Danielmellbin]

erm... okay...

[JugBR]

i believe its not just the "liberal media" or the hippies from greenpeace are concerned about this issue.

but of course there´s lobbies in both sides, there´s lobbies behind the liberal politicians or the eco-politicians and also there´s lobbies behind the other side.

i dont care about politcs and politicians, i think is cool to discuss the new technologies like the hydrogen engine or the ethanol, wich isnt a new tech, but also can replace the oil.

if these new technologies could benefit the consumer, giving more fuel efficient engines, or with cheaper alternative fuel, its a great deal. the oil barrel is too high.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Yeah, they haven't figured that one out. Did you know there is a whole trade business that you can "rent" bees for your crops? They actually ship them to wherevevr you are for a month or so and then back home. Its a whole industry and its taking a hit.

So it could "bee" a good thing then... You could get rid of the killer bees.