JAYDEEJOHN :
I thought I did explain the war costs, or non costs actually. By not going to war would mean total chaos in our fuel availibility, and would crash the economy, whereby millions if not billions would be out of work.
Hundreds of thousands you say? I just used the car industry for 1 example , as theres plenty more, and money always trickles down, as do taxes, per transaction, and the loss in taxes also have to be made up, let alone all the people trying to sell some imaginary fleet of unmade cars and those salesmen trying to sell cars in a weakened market.
I know you see growth as a bad thing, and thats where everyone needs to understand, you cant just stay put, have no growth, it just cant happen, its either grow or die, thats why a downturn can at any time be a bad thing, and what you and others are proposing would cause this, and all the pie in the sky, companies will just create these things, are just that pie in the sky.
Why hasnt Intel just made a better cpu, or nVidia just made a better gpu, or we make cars get 200 miles a gallon?
How are companies just going to appear out of nowhere? How are existing companies just going to whip up that which hasnt ever been made?
And, in the mean time, where do you think 95% of taxes come from? Those corporaions and people that can afford them, thats where, and by stifling them, youre stifling all this pie in the sky development thats not even been created yet.
These things take time, and so does our collective knowledge of our effect, if any, has on our planet.
To roll trillions into the hands of those who put us in wars, step on the poor countries left and right, and only on the words of a few people that cant predict the weather more than 3 days out, and ignore/destroy any alternative voice, which I dont partake in in any way, is madness.
Im not saying we dont need these things anyways, and Im not even saying we arent causing some of this, but what I am saying is, running into this full speed when theres other voices out there saying somethings not right with what some are saying should be heeded, and putting our entire faith into something so lil understood is very very foolish, especially with the way the economy the way it currently is.
It doesnt need another hit, it needs a boost, and Ive been an entrepreneur, and it doesnt come easy, nor quickly, evem when the governments there to walk you thru it, not in never before created markets.
Unfortunately, this is all you know, all youve been taught, and havnt even seen an alternative to what they were just shortly saying, like when i was young, they were predicting another mini ice age.
This time tho, we have a total political advancement behind such notions, and unfortunately, Ive been around long enough not to find our "leaders" as noble as one may want in one
Billions out of work? Lets be sensible. A quarter of the entire world workforce not in any type of employment? Millions, there's a chance. But never billions. Oil supply could have been secured in another way, and if Saddam Hussain had 20% then the rest of the world had 80%. He should have been deposed for his human rights violations, i.e. gassing and shooting his own people. But for oil? There are other ways, and the stuff's running out anyway so we should be weaning ourselves of it rather than running around taking over countries like a crack addict trying to get money.
As I said before they'll be cars but not as we know then as in they won't have combustion engines.
I never said that growth was bad I merely said that it hasn't helped the poorer people of the world, that's two things, we need growth of course, I studied Economics so I should know, but growth needs to be built on firm foundations rather than debt.
Most of the technology is out there now, the turbines, solar cells, fuel cell technology, they're all out there but they need further refinements and to evolve in the way petrol engines have, this evolution and refinement has already started and the rise of nanotechnology will yield useful applications in many of these technologies.
It's clear we've had an effect on the planet, even without the global warming argument, with our destruction of the ecosystems of the world, via over fishing, deforestation, quarrying, oil spills etc. Include global warming and you've got the spring coming earlier, monsoons being out of kilter, more powerful storms and more flooding. So it's clear we have had an effect on the planet.
You already roll trillions into the hands of these people (I assume you are talking about governments), which we elect (in most countries) and leave to run the country, they get to make the decisions and they have to live with the media and opposition and supports of the opposition berating them for making the decisions, sometimes rightly, but sometimes just to argue for arguments sake. Climatologists and Meteorologists are different people, they have similarities however they are different fields of study. So while predicting weather 3 days out is often fraught with inaccuracies predicting the climate is often easier, because by definiton climatologists predict large patches of weather, meteorologist have to be finer and predict within a mile or so which is more difficult to get right.
But just stopping progress will likely be disastrous and while the voices are loud among some sectors of the press and internet among the scientific community they are few in number. The general consensus is that this is happening and it is man-made and as such we can change it. It's interesting to say that it would be foolish with the economy in the way it is, because in the 1930s the economy of the USA (and by extension many others) was in a state far worse than this, Hoover wanted to leave it to the markets but nothing changed, but when Roosevelt came into power he started a massive build program, building dams, roads and other infrastructure giving jobs to people and giving them access to jobs. This should be seen as a chance to do the same, by restarting the economy using these sectors, and although it should be said that the depression wasn't fully resolved until the start of the war we now have a greater understanding of economics. This new sector would be a boost or new jobs initially, and then absorb much of the job losses as they expand into the gap in the market that needs to be left by fossil fuel industries.
It is all I know, but I have not necessarily been taught all of it, rather learnt at least some through reading. How would I know something other than what I know? What you are saying is all you know as well. The mini-ice age theorem was grasped on by the press and apparently had very little real scientific support, this next bit is quoted from an IPCC document (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf) 'The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence (note indicates at least 90% chance of being correct) that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 +0.6 to +2.4 W.m–2' According to the wikipedia article (I know I know should be better) when the press seized upon this idea temperature had stopped falling and begun rising again.
I too know that the nobility our leaders show is flaky at best, age should not be a judge of intelligence or even experience (thick young people, thick old people), in the UK we've been lied to about PFI and other nasties that the Labour government have dealt upon this country in the last dozen years, and I have read and learnt of the quick sale of our infrastructure by the Tories, and as they are the two biggest parties (like the Democrats and Republicans in America) it means I don't really like either and neither will probably change anything.
I don't want time to tell, it's a risk that I'm unwilling to take, I can't stand to see the natural beauty that surrounds us destroyed just in case we were wrong about global warming. The pre-industrial levels of CO2, agreed from ice-cores from ancient glaciers and ice sheets, was 285ppm or so, now that figure stands at 385ppm. That is to say that there is 35% more CO2 in the atmosphere, which is vast and that's from the 500,000Mt that we have produced from burning fossil fuels and clearing forests. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, it loves it, when a photon hits it its bonds vibrate and release the energy in to the surroundings heating them.
P.S. Sorry for the long post.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram