I'm sure there are better examples than this to show that capitalism, in all its excesses and exploitation, leads to ruined societies and the natural habitat within. If McCain can cite an incorrect source, so can Marxists.
Actually, dh, the most polluted areas of the earth are areas in which property rights have been subverted by the government in the name of "rational, harmonious planning".
http://earthtrends.wri.org/updat...pdates/node/
244
Meanwhile, capitalism has consistently been proven as the best way to maintain, while still utilizing, natural resources. Here's one example:
http://www.fee.org/publications/...le.asp?
aid=4525
And if that wasn't enough for you, here's another pile of evidence:
http://www.fee.org/publications/...le.asp?
aid=3220
Make the distinction between free market capitalism and what is sometimes called state capitalism. A free market with property rights does protect the environment. Government privileges, subsidies, etc., can often lead to destruction.
Yes, Marxists are about as funny as global warming denialists!
Funny thing is that the denialists have been predicting a cooling coming, your side had predicted warming. Who got it right?
I'm somewhat neutral on the warming issue, but I take issue with the GW claims of certainty.
The claims being made, regardless of what they are, are projections of future trends. We simply cannot have certain knowledge of such.
Ben K. compares AGW denial to the economic claims of Marxists, but the Marxist economics claims are of a quite different epistemological nature and *are* capable of being disproven.
Similarly, Al Gore's claim the AGW denier is equivalent to Flat Earthism is wrong; flat earth is a testable hypothesis capable of refutation, and isn't a prediction about an unknown future.
We're all trying to predict the future with incomplete models & understanding, and certainty is simply impossible.
Have a look at the recent study of Roe and Baker for a better understanding of (un)certainty.
Gore is right about AGW denialism being like flat-earthism in one respect; the AGW denialist approaches the issue not as a scientist or skeptic but rather as someone with a conclusion already in mind. If the AGW denialists were basing their arguments in hard science and not rhetoric and equivocation, I'd say differently. When they come out with an attribution study (of better quality than Scaffeta and West) I'll say differently.
But for now the argument is:
"Al Gore! Climate varies naturally, you dumb scientist. Socialism. Hoax. Mars is warming. Al Gore. Pop believer in global warming got the science wrong therefore scientists are wrong. Complexity. I don't believe they can do the math therefore they can't do the math. Al Gore al gore..."
Commenting by HaloScan
