--- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> (Due to popular demand, the system is often too busy to respond; so
> try back often. Right click playbacks to 'save target as...' to
> download selections to your computer for replay later at your
> convenience and as often as you want)
>
>
>
> HistoryChannel: Little Ice Age, Big Chill
> Weather extremes are driven by global warming as the Earth comes out
> of this recent ice age! A chronicle of the period of cooling from the
> 14th to mid-19th centuries known as the "Little Ice Age" examines its
> various effects. Included: scientific speculation on whether a
> similar cooling could occur again and what its impact would be.
> (2005)
> http://txliberty.dyndns.org/inetpub/wwwroot/webfiles/LittleIceAge.wmv
>
>
>
> -Terry Liberty Parker
> AND Find More Free On-demand Playbacks On-line via
> AustinLibertyInterNet Radio/TV
> at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/links VoiceCall
> 1.512.462.1776
>
> every Sunday 7pm (central) to ?
> I host informal discussion
> to which all are welcome
> who want to consider ideas & issues
> of Liberty & Justice for ALL
>
> ON-LINE:
>
> Look for me (especially Sunday eves) as:
>
> TxLiberty on Yahoo Messenger
>
>
paul) I have found this post from Roderick Long to be generally
accurate on the subject of global warming:
=======================================================
I suspect I'm one of the few political bloggers who has no opinion
about global warming. My problem is that I know too many intelligent
and sincere people, with way more scientific expertise than mine, on
both sides of the issue. Many on the left seem to assume that anyone
who's skeptical about the cause and/or extent of global warming must
be in the pay of the corporations; and many on the right seem to
assume that anyone who thinks global warming is serious and manmade is
just a shill for big government. I know from personal experience that
both of those assumptions are just plain false.
But I suspect the stereotypes both stereotypes are largely
true of all too many of the politicians and lobbyists involved in the
debate. As I've written elsewhere:
We might compare the alliance between government and big business
to the alliance between church and state in the Middle Ages. Of course
it's in the interest of both parties to maintain the alliance but
all the same, each side would like to be the dominant partner, so it's
no surprise that the history of such alliances will often look like a
history of conflict and antipathy, as each side struggles to get the
upper hand. But this struggle must be read against a common background
framework of cooperation to maintain the system of control.
Now the main difference, insofar as there is one, between the
Establishment Left and the Establishment Right in this country is that
while both are the running-dog lackeys of the neofascist
government-business alliance, the Establishment Left somewhat favours
a shift in power toward government, while the Establishment Right
somewhat favours a shift in power toward business. Playing up the
threat of global warming thus serves the interests of the statocratic
faction, while playing down that threat serves the interests of the
plutocratic faction and so you'd expect to see the two sides taking
the sides they're taking, regardless of what the truth actually is.
But it's just a squabble within the ruling class.
In fact, of course, if global warming does turn out to be serious
and manmade, that shouldn't lead us to grant more power to the state;
the more serious the problem, the more disastrous any centralised,
bureaucratic solution is likely to be. And if on the other hand global
warming turns out to have been overhyped, that shouldn't lead us into
complacency about the plutocracy either. Both halves of the
ruling-class machine need to be dismantled, whatever the weather may
bring.
I talked about people who take the sides they do primarily on the
basis of scientific evidence, and about people who take the sides they
do primarily on the basis of political calculation. But I don't think
either of those groups is the majority. Most people with positions on
global warming don't have sufficient scientific expertise to belong to
the first group, and aren't dishonest enough to belong to the second
group.
I suspect most people take whatever position they take on global
warming because people are generally more likely to read, and/or to
believe, whichever scientific case best fits in with their worldview.
If you're conventionally left-wing, then you're probably accustomed to
thinking of business interests as selfish and irresponsible forces
that need to be reined in by public-spirited civil servants, and so
you're going to view claims that seem to support the business
community with heightened suspicion. If, on the other hand, you're
conventionally right-wing, then you're probably accustomed to thinking
of business interests as decent hard-working folks who are constantly
being demonized and micromanaged by rapacious regulators, and so
you're going to view claims that seem to support government regulation
with heightened suspicion.
Even if these respective value-judgments were correct, one should
be cautious about allowing them to influence one's view of the
evidence. But I don't think they're even correct; one should avoid
putting too much faith in either the bosses or the bureaucrats.
=============================================
-paul
http://lastfreevoice.com/
http://kubby2008.com/
