Daveboy, almost all the people doing the articles on the observed warming in the Arctic are field scientists, the fellows who go out in all kinds of weather and climates and do the actual field work. Now if you have some actual scientists that work in the field in this area and have differant data, why don't you post their articles?
We both know why. Because the fellows doing the field work all come back with the same data. In the Arctic, the warming is proceding far faster than even the 'alarmists' predictions. And there are some very serious feedbacks associated with that warming.
Obviously, world socialism is the only thing that will save us.
LOLOLOLOL.......rightwingnuts.....it's like Pavlov's dogs......conditioned to drool at the sound of '
socialism'...
Of course I haven't seen any of us climate scinece realists mentioning socialism as the "
only" solution to the crisis or even mentioning it at all. You seem to be the one bringing it up. It's your conspiracy theory, I guess.
One quick question though, daveboy. Purely hypothetical. Just for a moment, try to imagine that you turn out to be wrong about all this and the warming and climate changes get progressively worse and more disastrous and do indeed, undeniably, threaten to kill most or maybe even all human life on Earth. OK, just imagine that it has gotten so bad that even you have become convinced by the undisputable evidence in front of your face. OK, just imagine that. And now let's say that it also turned out to be obvious, even to you, that the only possible way to prevent that outcome would be to have a world government capable of dealing with a crisis that threatens the whole world and that government would of necessity have to be basically what you would probably call "socialist" since they would have to be working to save the humans and the biosphere rather than corporate profits. OK, the question. Would you personally prefer to accept and live with 'socialism', knowing it was really the only way to prevent utter catastrophe or would you choose to die a proud, defiant capitalist knowing that your children and grandchildren along with the rest of humanity were also going to die within a century because of your choices?
I'd really be interested in hearing what you think and what you would choose under those particular hypothetical circumstances.
In the 50's and 60's, America adopted a cold war nuclear defense strategy called MAD (seriously) which stood for Mutual Assured Destruction. It meant that we kept building more and more nuclear weapons so that we would have had enough hardened, mobile or submarine launched nuclear weapons to destroy the Soviet Union even if they should launch a first strike nuclear attack. The detonation of that many nuclear weapons in such a war would have thrown so much crap high into the atmosphere that dust and particulates would have shrouded the Earth for literally years and caused something that scientists studying the matter would come to call "nuclear winter", and in the process, would kill everybody on the planet. The slogan in America at the time was "
Better Dead Than Red". The people who said it seemed to genuinely believe that it would be preferable to die and take the whole world with them, than to live under a different economic system. At that time the boogieman word that the rightwingers had been conditioned to freak out at was "
communism". These days it is "
terrorist" first and then "
socialism". Will the new rightwingnut slogan be
"Better To Fry Than Have To Share My Stuff"?
Please note that I am not advocating socialism here or in any way saying that socialism is the only solution to the climate change crisis. This was a hypothetical question about how far some people would take their political ideologies if the real world started to seriously intrude.
