…

The ol’ externalities argument is the best way to undermine confidence in the efficacy of markets and thus the most reliable way to justify government intervention in economic affairs. This has been especially true since the fall of communism. Radical environmentalism is the last, best chance for the implementation of socialism.

Why do you think Earth Day happens to fall on Lenin’s birthday?

“Crying Dutchman”

Classic

Certainly the rate of pollution by man has improved from what it was a few decades ago in the sense that there is increased responsibility, awareness and technology to control or neutralize pollution, on that point I agree, but to claim the pre-human pristine (your word in fact) state of the planet was never as unpolluted as it is now is clearly a jaw-dropping fallacy. I have to ask – are you on the same planet as the rest of us?

Perhaps I misinterpreted the comment you made though – if so, consider my responses completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, as the money flows more easily, they feel more empowered to stray farther and farther from the truth. If you read the websites habituated by these people, they refuse to even discuss the very deep problems with their research.

Their science gets worse and worse, and still the money flows.

Money should go to those who want to double-check the existing research, and find out why it is so self-contradictory.

Money should also go to those who want to do cost-benefit analyses of the key trade-offs. For example, if you had 3 trillion $$$ to spend, how many lives could you save if, (1) you used it to help the poor directly, or (2) you used it to ‘fight’ with global warming? The UN will NEVER address such questions.

On December 18th, 2007 at 8:34 am, nyc123me said:

No, I am not kidding. While the planet was pristine before man arrived, afterwards, he began his quest of, well as trehuggers view it, “wanton destruction”. Up untik Teddy Roosevelt decided that there were placrs in this country that were just too damn beautiful to mess with, man in this country was continually expanding and destroying everything. There was pollution rvrtywhere that had been going on non=stop since man walked upright/was booted out of the garden. Especially follwing the Industrial Revolution, when all that fast and quick industrialization produced more chemicals and pollutants than the world had ever seen let alone known what could do to us or that was harmful.

Enter the modern era of the Republican created EPA and the chemists with a cnscience and people who see and realize what the rapid expansion of all this success and industry means and the damage it has done to the world and the environment. Thus the clean-up began. It took a few decades, with the bulk of it beginning in the seventies, but as we stand now…

yes, right now we stand where we are now cleaner than we were than before the industrial revolution and possibly even than when man began roaming the earth based on all I just stated.

Now you prove you stance as to why we aren’t? Why are we dirtier? Hmm?

nyc123me said:
“The simple fact is, the air and water and earth is by far cleaner and healthier than it has ever been since well before the Industrial Revolution began, if not before man walked the earth. Period.” #70

You’re kidding, right?

I don’t think he is.
I wonder how many times the Cuyahoga River caught fire before man walked the Earth? Global Warming or not, that is some serious pollution.

You’re kidding, right?

The diplomat in charge of the United Nations climate talks in Bali is known as the “hard man” of climate negotiation — broke down in tears during the conference last week.

The London Daily Mail reports Yvo de Boer of the Netherlands burst into tears while addressing the conference and was escorted from the platform. De Boer was attempting to defend his staff against charges from Chinese officials that his team ignored conference protocol — a relatively minor procedural matter. Moments earlier de Boer had warned delegates that a failure to reach an agreement on greenhouse gas emissions could — “plunge the world into conflict.”

Then, one observer said, — “He was in a flood of tears. Three colleagues — one of them a woman — formed a protective group around him and escorted him out of the hall. It was all very dramatic.”

Poor baby.

Still that way?