I originally sent this email to some friends & acquaintances, but thought I'd post it here as a blog entry, as it nicely explains my current position on the matter ...
Hi All,
I thought I'd chip in on this - I don't know you all personally but I'm the one who forwarded [my friend] the article [from PC's blog] in the first place.
> The evidence I have seen is strong that global warming is
> definitely occuring. Ice sheets melting, temperatures going up.
Yep - since 1915 in fact:
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/global_temp.html
... despite the fact that our emissions at that point were a damn site lower than they are today ( (838 million metric tons of CO2 as opposed to 7303):
http://exploreourpla.net/climate-change/co2-emissions-historical/
Of course if you look closely at that temperature graph you'll see that it's leveled out over the last few years; whether this is a temporary plateau to be followed by another rise, or a local maximum, no-one yet knows. It's telling though that the IPCC has been scrambling to downscale its predictions of doom since the original report:
http://www.greenhousetruth.com/blog/2006_09_03_ipcc.shtml
So we have:
- a recent history of warming that was greatest when anthropogenic CO2 emissions were an order of magnitude lower than today
- a plateau (starting in 1998, and equaling the previous high in 1934) that may or may not be a peak
- repeatedly downgraded predictions from the IPCC
- solar output variations causing warming on other planets as well as our own (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)
- evidence that CO2 is much less important than water vapour as a greenhouse gas, & that CO2 levels *trail* temperature throughout history (http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html)
> Not denying it, just looking for some fact.
See, you're more generous with faulty epistemology than I am. The burden of proof lies upon he who asserts the positive; if someone asserts that GW is in fact A, then it's up to him to prove it. By refusing to accept an assertion until it is grounded in fact, you're not being a "denier" (and don't get me started about the ad-hominem
basis of that phrase, which some pro-AGW lobbyists are using to associate AGW skepticism with Holocaust Denial) you're merely employing Aristotelean logic.
On the political front: climate change (one way or another, and eventually both) is a reality - the Earth's climate has never really been stable. The question is, how best to deal with that? The answer is - as it is for every other human problem with the environment - is wealth and freedom (which are of course, in the long term,
inseparable).
If we face water shortages, we can produce it from sea-water, and use technology that consumes less. If we face shortages of arable land, we can grow GE crops in the desert, irrigate the desert, or even farm the ocean (which will soon become a necessity as fish stocks are becoming seriously depleted). Wealthy, Western countries don't suffer from overpopulation because having children isn't as beneficial to parents - as seen by declining birth rates in most of those countries.
The real issue is how best to spread wealth-*generation* (not just wealth, for simple charity doesn't fix poverty, and taxpayer-funded aid is theft from the wealthy dressed up as charity) to the entire world. That is, we need to empower people in third-world countries to be as wealthy as those in first-world countries - so that they can best deal with the issues raised by climate change, whatever form that
change takes.
Of course - and here's the rub - none of this is mentioned in the current crop of proposed AGW solutions. The reason for this is that in order for third-world countries to become rich, several policies would have to be enacted in first-world countries:
- genuine free trade (no protectionism, tariffs, embargoes, or production or consumption taxes)
- open immigration, so labor can move across borders as easily as capital does today
- non-interventionism, so countries can develop their own economies & Governments free from political influence from the already-wealthy
Care to bet whether our Government is likely to do the above, or whether they'll just enforce carbon-credit purchases that'll go straight into the back pocket of people like Al Gore (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528)?
This issue (the current political response to AGW) is one of the two that is currently driving me to give up on politics entirely as a mechanism for effecting change.
Yours,
Duncan Bayne
And I'm sure you know what
And I'm sure you know what this one is about
:
Mal, Simon, Wash, Zoe, River, Kaylee, Jayne, Inara, Book
Hilarity!
Letting Go:
Moral Relativity:
Wikipedian Protester:
:D
It's my very favorite comic! It even beats Dilbert.
Which one is your favorite?
I like these two best, right now:
and
Melissa
"Shiny. Let's be bad guys."
xkcd - best web comic around!
Yes, who would have guessed stick figure comics could be so entertaining?
Lance!
Do you read xkcd?
Melissa
"Shiny. Let's be bad guys."
Duncan, was the permission
Duncan, was the permission to post what you want ever in question?
No, never - Linz has always made it clear that people are allowed to post as they like on their own SOLO blogs. I was initially reluctant to do so however given that it's his site, and given that he is so strongly opposed to the idea that the war in Iraq isn't in the best interests of the USA.
However, Linz assured me in a private email that despite all of that I was still welcome to blog about the issue - in fact he wouldn't have it any other way, that he'd rather I stuck around and argued the point here.
Or have you been limited to only post in your own blog and not as a forum topic?
I actually hadn't considered forum topics as a separate issue. As far as I'm aware Linz' invitation (hell, direct challenge to stick around and argue rather than flounce and hide) extends throughout the site.
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Sensorship ?
"he is perfectly happy for me to post about it on my SOLO blog"
Duncan, was the permission to post what you want ever in question? Or have you been limited to only post in your own blog and not as a forum topic?
Carbon Tax is a hoax. Read more at carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.
My blog won't be moving after all ...
... Lindsay has made it clear to me in private that although we're now at odds on this issue, he is perfectly happy for me to post about it on my SOLO blog.
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Dunc
While the boys and girls are putting themselves in harm's way my support for them is unconditional, unstinting and non-negotiable. I do not sit down to sup wine, or remain friends, with those who would subvert them and succour their enemies. All of the points you make have been addressed by me many times on the many Hsiekovian/fatwa threads, where, if I recall, you were silent.
Mistakes made by the good guys don't remotely justify waving a white flag at the bad guys. And the bad guys in this instance are badder than bad; they're beyond bad. They don't threaten just Iraq; it just so happens that they've congregated there, in part so "useful idiots" will blame the resultant mess on the good guys and have them do a runner.
As we speak, the bad guys are in disarray. That's why ordinary folk are coming out to play again. To choose this moment to talk about cut-and-running is unspeakable.
Linz
Congress gave Bush the
Congress gave Bush the go-ahead to invade Iraq in 2002.
Actually, what they did was to allow the executive branch to declare de-facto war, rather than declaring war themselves as the US Constitution clearly states they should. In a hundred years time, I think historians will look back upon that act as being far more significant than the actual outcome of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
It *was* the next step against terrorism, after Afghanistan.
I became convinced that it was too - partly because it might have been, and partly because I wanted it to be. I saw just how evil the Islamic terrorists are, and how useful a free secular Iraq would be to the USA in fighting them.
Had America acted within her own laws, had she invaded Iraq with the same force and aggression that she wielded against Germany and Japan during WII, and had she not followed that invasion by aiding the Islamists in turning Iraq into a theocracy, then it might have been different.
But as it stands, I now think I've been conned, along with a lot of people throughout the USA and the world. Although the Iraqi people were liberated from Hussein (who deserved deposing, and richly deserved his execution), and although many terrorists have been killed there, neither was the primary aim of those in power who pushed for the invasion, and neither is sufficient justification for an indefinite US presence in the country.
Again I say: go tell those folk who are now coming out to play that after a certain date they'll have to hide again and al Qaeda can thereafter do as it pleases.
I'll tell them that if they want a country free from Islamism, a secular democracy that respects human rights, they'll have to secure it for themselves, not rely on the US taxpayer to foot the bill, and US soldiers to die for their freedom. Then I'll tell them that there's a particular time by which they'd better have their shit in order, because at that point, they're on their own.
I don't deny that the presence of the US troops is improving Iraq. Quite the contrary: I think that their presence (especially after the troop surge) is improving conditions in the country no end.
But it is not in the interests of the USA to maintain that presence any more (if it ever was, given the level of duplicity involved in the invasion at senior levels of politics). The only reason to use the US military is to safeguard the USA, and the mission in Iraq isn't doing that to an extent that comes near to justifying the expense.
So, it's time to leave - as soon as a handover to the Iraqi Govt. and security forces can be performed. I'm not suggesting an immediate bug-out, because it's simply wrong to destroy the old Iraqi Govt., and depart before a new one is in place to protect the Iraqis against the Islamists.
The sad thing is that even that modest goal - leaving a government & military in place to protect the Iraqis against Islamism - might prove impossible given the theocratic nature of the Constitution that the Iraqis set up, with American approval & encouragement of course. The imposition of Sharia in Iraq could well come at the hands of the elected Government, not courtesy the terrorist suicide bombers.
As I say, you're free to argue here, Dunc
Thank you for that offer, Lindsay - but I'll be moving my blog off SOLO and onto a different (as yet non-existent) address.
I wouldn't feel right using your site to host a blog that's arguing a position that you are clearly so strongly opposed to, and I don't think it would make any sense to have my blog here, and a separate just-for-Iraq blog elsewhere.
I'll certainly take you up on the opportunity to argue the matter in threads pertaining to Iraq, though, in the hopes of convincing you & others that I'm right. This certainly isn't a flounce, departure, or whatever - just me doing what I'm comfortable doing.
but don't ever come near me. Ever.
That is a bloody shame, Lindsay.
I have been procrastinating about this issue for a while now - in particular I reached the conclusions I've posted here a few weeks ago, and if I'm being honest put off enumerating them (in any detail) precisely because I feared this kind of response from you. I value your friendship and didn't want this disagreement to damage it - for I don't think we are at odds on any of the principles involved.
Obviously, I'll respect your request for as long as you want me to. I just wish it didn't have to be this way. I would love to discuss the issue - in person, over a glass of wine - the next time I'm in Wellington.
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
I
have never been able to understand this 'date for withdrawal' business.
If a date was selected at random...let's say 1 May 2008...what is the difference between that and April 30th 2008...or May 2nd? (or what about 1 January 2010?)
It is a proposal which is talked about by that Socialist Pelosi female in America all the time, but I simply do not understand.
Why not say "we withdraw when it is over"? (as with WW2)
Saddamite bollocks!
Congress gave Bush the go-ahead to invade Iraq in 2002.
It *was* the next step against terrorism, after Afghanistan.
As for all that stuff about announcing your timetable for cut-and-run: makes me sick. Dem-scum treason. Again I say: go tell those folk who are now coming out to play that after a certain date they'll have to hide again and al Qaeda can thereafter do as it pleases.
This is disgusting.
As I say, you're free to argue here, Dunc, but don't ever come near me. Ever.
My apologies - I'd assumed
My apologies - I'd assumed that was aimed at me, not Richard. Again, a nutshell post, but my position on the war in Iraq is:
- It was perfectly legitimate for the USA to topple Saddam as he was a dictator.
- It would be perfectly legitimate for the USA to use Iraq as a military base for operations against Islamic terrorists, provided such actions were approved by Congress (in other words, by a declaration of war).
- The mechanism by which Iraq was invaded was unconstitutional (war was never declared by Congress).
- The justifications for that invasion as put forth by the Bush administration were at best lunacy, and at worst outright fabrications in contradiction of documented existing knowledge of the Iraqi political scene.
- Instead of being used by the US as a springboard to attack hotbeds of Islamic terrorism with force of arms, the invasion of Iraq actually enabled the non-tetrorist Islamists within Iraq to consolidate their control of the country. [Added to clarify:] That should have read "Not only did the US fail to use the invasion as a springboard ... they actually enabled the non-terrorist Islamists ...
The conclusion I've drawn is that the invasion of Iraq - which as I stress was in principle legitimate, and which could have been used as the basis of a sustained war against Islamic terrorism - was carried out in contravention of US law, for purposes other than the defeat of Islamic terrorism and the liberation of the Iraqi people from totalitarianism.
That doesn't mean I think the US should cut and run immediately. But short of declaring war on Iraq, destroying the theocracy that's currently in power, and starting again there's little to be done to fix the errors made early on. Better to (bullet points again):
- Set a date for withdrawal, in other words a complete hand-over to the Iraqi Government, and Iraqi security forces. This would represent a complete & immediate withdrawal at that date, not a drawn-out hand-over that would needlessly endanger small numbers of US troops remaining.
- Seek Congressional authorization for the war - in other words, make future actions in Iraq legal by US law.
- Repeal legislation extending the contracts of those serving the US military, replacing them with mercenaries if required.
- Kill as many Islamic terrorists as possible on Iraqi soil until the withdrawal date is reached.
As to whether I've rejoined the ranks of the Saddamites, that's up to you to judge. My opinions haven't changed since this post. It's just that I've reached the conclusion that using Iraq as a base for a fight against Islamic terrorism in the Middle East was never the intention of those in charge (by which I mean the politicians, not the military).
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Um ...
My post was actually a reply to Richard, who can't get an ought from an is but nonetheless opposes the toppling of Saddam. He has no problem with his "oughts" when they're anti-American. Yes, it did appear from your comments that you'd joined him, as he obviously thought himself. Whether it's "fucking worth it" is over to you Dunc. But if you *have* rejoined the Saddamites, I repeat, don't come anywhere near me.
That's just me. I'm not everyone else here. But I am entitled to my opinion, and my hygiene, oddly enough.
Jesus H Christ
... are even more disgusting when they try to hide behind humour
I actually didn't attempt to apply humour to the issue of Islamic fundamentalism - it would be inappropriate, except if used to mock said fundamentalism.
Try this for size, then go tell all those folk coming out to play that it's all wrongheaded.
Yes, there are Islamic terrorists in Iraq. Yes, the US is enjoying military success against the Islamic terrorists in Iraq. The reports I've seen indicate that the troop surge in Iraq is having the desired effect - there are more dead terrorists, fewer stepping up to take their place, and Iraq is a safer place as a result.
However, I no longer think that Islamic terrorists pose the greatest threat to the West. I now think that moderate Muslims - who do not support terrorism but who share the same end goal as the terrorists (the imposition of Sharia) - pose a greater threat - as do the fascist systems of Government that will be encouraged as a response to both terrorism and Islam in general.
Just don't come anywhere near me, you evil bastards.
See, this is why I was avoiding posting about this issue until I had a coherent, complete article to hand. You read two brief posts, and jump to an entirely incorrect conclusion about what I wrote. Perhaps that's my fault for being unclear, but either way, a response like that is hardly an incentive for me to stick around and post a detailed explanation.
I find myself sitting here at my keyboard and thinking "is it even fucking worth it?" Hardly the emotion I'd associate with being inspired to "The total passion for the total height."
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Saddamites
... are even more disgusting when they try to hide behind humour.
Try this for size, then go tell all those folk coming out to play that it's all wrongheaded. Just don't come anywhere near me, you evil bastards.
Linz
(No subject)
Okay, I had to do
Okay, I had to do it:
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
PS: Im in ur thredz,
PS: Im in ur thredz, derailin ur topicz!
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Ahhhh memes ANYWAY, great
Ahhhh memes
ANYWAY, great post Duncan.
I plan to blog about this in (a lot) more detail shortly, including an explanation of where I think politics is going in the near future, and what I plan on doing about it.
I look forward to it...
PS: Im in ur thredz, derailin ur topicz!
My bucket^H^H^H^H^H^Hfreedom of expression!
It's not just that it's wrong-headed (i.e. that it won't achieve stated aims) but that the war on terror provides the perfect defense for Muslim organizations using democracy to enforce sharia: "but we don't support terrorism!"
Of course they don't - while in the minority, it'd be political suicide to do so. But make no mistake: the aims of the 'moderate' who votes for a pro-Sharia candidate has exactly the same ends in mind as the lunatic with the explosive vest; he's just learned the better way of achieving those aims in the context of Western society.
I plan to blog about this in (a lot) more detail shortly, including an explanation of where I think politics is going in the near future, and what I plan on doing about it.
* As for the subject, all is explained here.
Although "I can has minarchy?" has something of a ring to it 
** Further on the matter of lolcats, I suspect Lindsay is absolutely ignorant of the existence of same, and will likely pop a stent if we manage to encourage their use on SOLO
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
I iz pickin ur brainz
Misplaced focus on terrorism? - Duncan, you Saddamite!
But you are right that currently popular proposed solutions to both problems are wrong-headed, and dangerously so, too, in my opinion.
What I'd like to know is, what is it that's driving you to give up on politics entirely as a mechanism for effecting change? And, if not politics, what are you going to do instead?
Good post, Duncan
Very nicely summarised. Thanks
In a nutshell - the
In a nutshell - the misplaced focus on terrorism (a military tactic) when politicians & citizens should be concerned with self-described peaceful, moderate Muslims seeking to abrogate human rights through the democratic processes of Western countries.
---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!
Yo, Duncan
That's a handy synopsis of the real issues.
Don't keep us in suspense, now. What's the other issue that is currently driving you to give up on politics entirely as a mechanism for effecting change?