I have written an number of articles on this Blog and elsewhere which deal with how capitalism is destroying the planet. I always use the term that capitalism if it is not ended "will destroy life on earth as we know it." I have been using this qualification "as we know it" deliberately. As I feel that some insects will survive and some creatures at the very depths of the oceans. Now I am not so sure. Nuclear war, massive overheating, pollution piled on pollution, could these perhaps wipe out all life. Could the planet be left a lifeless rock. Lifeless even in the oceans. Maybe even no oceans. I was thinking of this today after reading a short article in the bosses main daily paper The Wall Street Journal. It is entitled: "Pollutants are found in deep-sea animals." The author is Ellie Kincaid. The scientists who conducted the research on which this article is based deployed research probes to trap living creatures dwelling in deep-sea tranches as far down as four to five miles. Capitalist apologists for the destruction that their system is doing to the environment through pollution have been arguing that chemicals which were produced in the past and were very poisonous but which are no longer produced would disperse in the environment and not cause a problem. Well it seems that is not so.
The experiment referred to here found levels of polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, an extremely destructive and life damaging chemical historically used in electrical equipment, to be as much as fifty times greater at the ocean depths than measurements for this chemical in crabs living in a highly polluted river in China. Researchers believe that the chemical most likely originated from land fill leaks and other sources and reached the ocean depths by sticking to particles of organic matter and sinking down to the depths where scavenging crustaceans ate them. So I am rethink my position on this issue. Capitalism might not just destroy life on earth as we know it. It might destroy all life on earth. The urgency of the international socialist revolution grows by the day.
I understand that you are a busy man, but if you could find the time i would be interested in hearing your response to the criticism i made about the theory of global warming
ReplyDeleteHi Sam,
ReplyDeleteI didn't write this article but Which article are you referring to I can't find your comment.
I commented on the article Life on Earth as we Know it. In my comment i wrote that Global warming is a giant hoax. The earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time independent of human activity. Ice ages have been followed by warm periods followed by ice ages since the beginning of time. If in fact (i don't believe that they have the tempeture records to prove that the climate is getting warmer as certainly were not recording tempertures 40 or 50 years ago let alone 100 years ago) that earth's climate is getting warmer it is due to natural processes independent of man's actions.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to take the time to re-write all the points i made but there is no evidence but there is no evidence to support the theory of global warming.
For instance NO one has ever proven that CO2 is heat trapping gas. No one has ever proven that the CO2 emitted by your cars engine ends up in the earth's atmosphere. Most if not all of CO2 breaks up into carbon dust before it can reach the earth's atmosphere. Even the advocates of the theory acknowledge that there is an infintismal amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere.
The heat trapping is supposed to take place in the earth's atmosphere right? Well the temperture in the earth's atmosphere is incredibly cold. how can there be heat trapping in a place where there is no heat?
If CO2 traps the heat from the suns rays as they are leaving the earth's atmosphere why doesn't the CO2 block the heat from the sun rays on the way in? Of course the advocates of theory have some ridiculous theory that the character of the sun's rays are altered when they bounce off the earth. This is just a theory NO one has ever proven that the rays are altered in such a way that the imaginary CO2 in the earth atmosphere traps the heat.
Just because an idea can be used to criticize a market economy does not mean that idea is right.
The Pentagon, the UN, Nato, the Vatican, over 90% of the world scientists agree that there is climate change and that over all the planet is heating. And that human activity is a major factor. Are they all wrong? Also I would ask Sam what is causing the melting of the ice caps. I am sorry but denying that the earth is heating just helps the fossil fuel industry. And talking about the planet heating and cooling over millennia is no help. Given the present heating life on earth as we know it will be destroyed long before some new millennia. Sean.
ReplyDeleteI thought of another weakness in your argument. You say 90% of the scientist subscribe to the theory of global warming. on the surface that sounds impressive, but what kind of Scientists? they are climate scientists. Climate science reason for existing is global warming. It doesn't exist without it. Saying that 90% of the scientists believe in global warming really means 90% of the scientists who invented the theory of global warming believe in the theory of global warming. It doesn't sound quite so impressive when you put it in its proper context.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to what i wrote yesterday?????
ReplyDeleteI don't see anything missing
ReplyDeletei wrote a long response on Monday and it did not appear. This is the 2nd time this has happened it would seem that facts for working people does not publish ideas critical of their own.
ReplyDeleteThere is a long response on Monday from you. Is that not the one? If you wrote another one and it is not there it is possible it was deleted by mistake. I am the individual responsible for posting so if it was missed or deleted it would be me but I can't recall this. Send it to the email on the side of the blogs dill post it. However, we don't always post everything, if something is abusive for example. Also, it is a bit of an absurd position to take that industrial capitalist society is not have a catastrophic affect in the environment in more ways than one. I am not going to spend too much time debating with someone who denies this.
ReplyDeleteYou have mis-represented my position. On two occasions i explained multiple holes in the theory of global warming and showed the short comings in your response. You deleted my posts and then you hurl personal insults at me, i suppose that is your way of engaging in debate.
ReplyDeleteI agree the production of CO2 pollutes the environment, CO2 released into our enviornment breaks up into carbon dust and comes back to earth and pollutes rivers and lakes but then it doesn't get reach the earth's atmosphere where it is supposed to trap heat from the sun. Your reference to pollution disproves the theory of global warming but you probably do not understand that.
The people at your web site have shown themselves to be incapable of defending your position. Your solution is to delete criticism that you are not knowledgeable enough to answer.
thank you. if it's not too much trouble please publish the post on Monday that you chose to keep from readers. Let them decide if my views are unfounded, not you.
ReplyDeleteRichard,
ReplyDeleteI have observed your exchanges with "Sam" with a sense of amazement. Like religious zealots, sometimes people can't be convinced against their own perception of the world and that becomes their own reality. Sam mentions many things, but there are two that I happen to agree with: 1) global warming is a natural process, and 2) there isn't much we can do to stop that process. Now, anything else he says I don't waste my time with. I would like to refer Sam to the Stern Report from 2005 and, Stern's nemesis William Nordhaus, the premier mouthpiece for capitalist around the world, the majority of whom have already accepted the reality of global warming and that human activity has exacerbated the problem since the late-nineteenth century. Just look at Exxon's own science research in the 1970s. Sam does not elaborate on the more dangerous greenhouse gas, Methane, and completely ignores the deforestation of ancient forests and the tropics to implement industrial agriculture plantations to grow commodity crops for global markets. I might also add the question he has about "trapping" solar radiation can be answered in any geography textbook chapter concerning the atmosphere, but I will give them a freebie and ask Sam to look into the term "negative forcing"... I will not hold my breath, though
You just fucked yourself Sam. You have accused me,therefore this blog, without merit, of consciously and deliberately "keeping from readers" a point of view I/we disagree with.
ReplyDeleteYet I responded to your concern and explained that although I have not done that (and I am responsible) it's possible it was deleted by mistake. It's possible we never received it. I offered that if you send it to the e mail address I'd put it up for you. I don't have it. What's up, you don't want to expose yourself with an e mail address? I just checked, it's not there. Don't bother now Sam whoever you are. I am not wasting any more time on you.
Sam writes off over 90% of he world's scientists. In my comments i also pointed to the fact that the Pentagon, the UN, NATO, the Vatican are also amongst those who see climate change as a major and immediate threat and caused by human that is capitalist activity. Sam does not mention the opinion of these forces, no left wing anti capitalist entities by any means. By the way I try to use the term climate change not global warming as while I am convinced by the empirical evidence that global warming is a fact the supporters of the fossil fuel industry try to use the term global warming and then point to parts of the planet where the temperature has rose due to the melting of the ice caps in the regions rose to this happening. I would like to hear why Sam thinks the Pentagon, NATO, the Vatican all thing that climate change is a major and immediate threat. And I also wish to refute the abusive and incorrect allegation that this Blog does not print what it does not agree with. Sean O'Torain.
ReplyDeleteI am convinced that Sam196 is a troll who has just started "blogging" this month and our Facts For Working People Project was the first target. The unavoidable downfall of logic and discussion on a globalized computer platform open to everyone. Let's not get sidetracked on this single opinion. We should continue our progress and contributions to the discussion and how they can help raise the consciousness of the working class.
ReplyDelete