Poverty is due to moral lacking

[Snark]

That's the great thing about science, though. The more we learn, the better our understanding of reality. Given the equipment (or lack of it) that scientists had to use, their observations were logical. Later study proved them wrong, so they revised their hypothesis. It was the conservative elements, mostly the Church, which resisted the reality.

The same holds true now. Maybe the numbers aren't correct, quite. Maybe this is a statistical anomaly. The thing is, though, that ALL of the numbers indicate that Global Warming is occurring, and most of the numbers show that mankind is playing a significant role. The only thing the deniers have to offer is their constant harping over repeatedly debunked claims. They have no evidence that the scientists are mistaken, or are misinterpreting. They only deny because of their "feelings". Led, again, by the conservatives for political reasons (big oil, anyone?) and by fundamentalists who don't believe their god will let them down.

The global warming fanatics claim accuracies of detail far beyond any possibility of verification. Perhaps 1.5 degrees celsius of warming has occurred. Claims of accuracies to within 1/10 of a degree are ludicrous. Instrumentation to consistently deliver such accuracies have only been available in the last 70 years; reading them with such accuracy by thousands of individuals over such a time is impossible. Accurately reading a thermometer to 1/10th of a degree in a range from 0-120 degrees would require thermometers in excess of 48". Every reading must be made precisely from the same angle. Calibrations must be confirmed. Readings within 5 degrees from tree core samples in one location of the Earth? Even considering such as accurate "data" confounds belief. And we are supposed to disrupt our entire economy over this? Greenland was once much warmer than it is now, as was Europe and the UK. There is ample evidence of a very slight increase in temperature; there is little verifiable evidence that it is beyond normal planetary fluctuations nor that the activities of men have enough to add to it that we should throw our country away. There has been no verification of any data, no corroboration by public organizations. Only conjecture by organizations with huge amounts of money being thrown at them to "prove" a theory that funds the panic industry. To top it off,when the light of disclosure was shined on the instigators and the raw data was demanded the response was "it was accidentally deleted". File cabinets of manual records? Deleted? Follow the money. This isn't "feelings". Interpolations and averages do not deliver such precise measurements and the fraud demonstrated repeatedly in the "global warming" industry is enough to make anyone skeptical. Junk science is still junk. Consensus is NOT science; it is conjecture. Only the same results can be demonstrated by independent analysis can anything approaching science be considered.

[DuncanONeil]

"They have no evidence that the scientists are mistaken, or are misinterpreting."
The penultimate data used is the data set from East Anglia. The original data is not available. The data set is from a very limited pool. Both of these call the data itself into question. The hockey stick graph has been evaluated to determine it is just as likely that CO2 is following the increase in temp as the other way 'round.
Be advised I have never claimed the world was not warming. But there is also evidence that the world itself is cooling, has been for much of a decade.
So the question remains; What is really happening?

That's the great thing about science, though. The more we learn, the better our understanding of reality. Given the equipment (or lack of it) that scientists had to use, their observations were logical. Later study proved them wrong, so they revised their hypothesis. It was the conservative elements, mostly the Church, which resisted the reality.

The same holds true now. Maybe the numbers aren't correct, quite. Maybe this is a statistical anomaly. The thing is, though, that ALL of the numbers indicate that Global Warming is occurring, and most of the numbers show that mankind is playing a significant role. The only thing the deniers have to offer is their constant harping over repeatedly debunked claims. They have no evidence that the scientists are mistaken, or are misinterpreting. They only deny because of their "feelings". Led, again, by the conservatives for political reasons (big oil, anyone?) and by fundamentalists who don't believe their god will let them down.

[Thorne]

The penultimate data used is the data set from East Anglia.

This was only the beginning of the data. Since then there have been multiple sets of different data, all pointing in roughly the same direction. Ice core samples, tree ring data, etc, etc. Sure, some data show variations, for various reasons. Most of them explainable, except to those who insist that such variations are proof of the opposite. The facts are there. The interpretations are where the problems lie. But any interpretation which cherry picks among the facts is virtually useless.

The hockey stick graph has been evaluated to determine it is just as likely that CO2 is following the increase in temp as the other way 'round.

It has been evaluated by whom? By those who don't like the idea of AGW! And one other point to consider is the fact that Global Warming does, indeed, increase the release of naturally occurring greenhouse gases. CO2 which has been trapped in permafrost for millenia is now being released due to the thawing of that permafrost. The same with methane gases.

Be advised I have never claimed the world was not warming. But there is also evidence that the world itself is cooling, has been for much of a decade.

There are, of course, natural cycles overlaid upon the Global Warming trends. Sure, there can be several years in a row where the global temperature may drop, slightly. But the overall, long-term trend is towards warming. The highs are higher than historical, generally, while the lows are not as low as historical, generally.

So the question remains; What is really happening?

What is happening is that the world is getting warmer. Not too much question about that. And even if you insist that mankind is not the CAUSE of the problem, man's actions are certainly making the problem worse. Reducing our CO2 emissions may not stop the problem, not anymore at least, but it certainly could help to reduce the ultimate impact. And lets face it, finding cheap, alternative forms of energy, preferably non-polluting, would ultimately help everyone. Denying the problem and blindly carrying on as if there's nothing wrong only makes things worse.

[thir]

Umm ... haven't recent economic developments pretty much proven that market theories are just that: Theories?

Yes!

[thir]

Depends on how you're using the term 'Theory'. The layman's concept of a theory is basically that it's little more than an educated guess, and that almost any theory is just as valid as any other. But in scientific terms (and yes, economics is a science, if not a rigid one) a theory is a model of reality. It explains what can be shown to be true, and predicts new facts which may not yet be understood.

If economics is a science, it is one trying to operate with so many variables it becomes useless. One of which is the incompetance of banks.

Anyway, it is not a science. It is armchair thinking, and much more political ideology than logic or knowledge.

The problem with economic theories as I see them is that they rely on the actions of people, which is a very difficult thing to model. And in the modern world, with almost instantaneous communications and global markets, the problems are multiplied exponentially. When you add in government interference, the results become completely unpredictable. The models might work, on a small scale, but be completely useless once government regulations alter the playing field.

In fact, nothing but a lot more control of this wild capitalism will save another crisis, and another.
The news on our tv was that if Obama and senate/rep had not made this temporary compromise, US would have had to stop paying its officials and vital functions within a very short time.

[thir]

Poverty has many causes. Morals do not determine personal responsibility. Being born dirt poor and doing nothing to improve it means that it will continue for that person.

Meaning the myth that if you really want a job there will always be one, and if you really want an education one is possible.
In other words, it is their own fault, the lazy good for nothing buggers.

Education is available to anyone in this country - legal resident or illegal. Why do specific groups in this country refuse to take advantage of it?

Why ideed? It is a real mystery.

The Soviet system demonstrated how well central planning and government intrusion doesn't work.

It did work for quite a while, in which ordinary people had food on the table for the first time. They had no freedom, but they hadn't had that before either, and anyway, like in China, food is more important. Until you have enough and some - then freedom starts to be important.

The larger the government, the less effective it will be.

This may be true to a certain extent. Unfortunately you can also say that the wilder the capitalism, the more mess!

Competition- not monopoly- in healthcare, education, banking, business, even government, will produce better results.

Well, it certainly hasn't in any of my countries! When health care is big business, they only do what is cost effective and not what is good for patients. Education same.

Banks -they have certainly shown that they are too greedy and incompetent to be able to hold that function in society. And when it goes wrong, as with the businesses, they come whining to the government, wanting interference!

[thir]

This is kind of what happens with economic theory. Under the right conditions, those theories will explain what's happening. But when conditions are altered, generally by some pretty face, or a politician, or any of a number of absolutely inane possibilities, the theories can no longer be used as models. So the economists say, given a population of X, which has a disposable income of Y, performing Z actions will help the economy improve. Politicians say, great! Let's do that, and pass the required laws. Along with new tax laws, and new spending bills, and more appropriations, all of which alter the value of Y, making the whole equation worthless.

Well, reality - a world full of different and increasingly complicated and interrelated economies and wheather and natural disasters and politcal changes and wars and what not - is far too complicated for any theories.

A bigger problem is that economics are not science, a bunch of theories does not science make. Science means proving stuff, in ways that can be dublicated.

Further more, said theories are based on idelogies about what aught to happen if you do X Y and Z, sort of in a lab with no distraction from real life.

[thir]

I take exception o this, I worked my entire life, I paid into the system for over 40 years
I am now disabled, unable medicaly to work, yes I recieive Socialy Security Disability and Assistance from my state for Food, but I EARNED the right to do so, I have never not worked becuse I am or was Lazy, I am under the careof Docotors
So please do not say those who live "off the Goverment" are lazy, mos tof us are not I paid inot the system and are simply getting back what I paid in FICA Taxes for over 40 years,yes there are some out that that are lazy, that find it easier to live off the system but please do not say ALL those ho recieive Social Secirty Diability, or Retirment Pay or Food Stamps are lazy, not having been in that situation you can not place everyone who is in the same boat
That is tenamount to sayig all people of a certain Ethnicity are bad because of a few select one,s not ALL whitesae bad, not all Blacks are bad not ALL Muslims are Radical lke those responsable for 911
Base pepole on who they are and not the class or Ethnicity they come from

Nobody is saying that, not the article, and no I myself, who is merely presenting it for comments.
I happen to agree.

[Thorne]

If economics is a science, it is one trying to operate with so many variables it becomes useless.

Well, I used the term loosely. It IS a science, but a "soft" science, like psychology. Rather than predicting definitive outcomes, it predicts trends. And yes, it is far from precise.

One of which is the incompetance of banks.

Actually, it's the incompetence of BANKERS that is the problem, and economic theory can take that into account. It's just not comfortable when you do, so many economists ignore that, preferring to blame the "volatility of the market."

It is armchair thinking, and much more political ideology than logic or knowledge.

In large part it's a combination of all of these. Which makes it very easy to misuse.

In fact, nothing but a lot more control of this wild capitalism will save another crisis, and another.

I disagree. Removing the controls of capitalism would work far better, I think. Tighten the controls on monopolies, of course, and strengthen consumer protections, but let the markets work. A competitive marketplace has always been beneficial to both industry and consumers. Adding regulations which make it impossible for innovators to break into the marketplace only makes things worse.

The news on our tv was that if Obama and senate/rep had not made this temporary compromise, US would have had to stop paying its officials and vital functions within a very short time.

Doubtful. A good reason not to put to much stock into TV news. NON-vital functions might have had to be stopped, temporarily, which would not have been good for those government workers, but no way they would let the vital functions shut down.

[thir]

No! You did not buy anything. Your were taxed to fund a Government benefit program!

Twisting words as I see it. I too have payed taxes all my life (haven't we all?) and a lot of them, and I expect to get back what I need when I need it. That is the deal.

[thir]

Doubtful. A good reason not to put to much stock into TV news. NON-vital functions might have had to be stopped, temporarily, which would not have been good for those government workers, but no way they would let the vital functions shut down.

They would have had no choice. I do not place too much stock in tv news, but this kind of thing is not something you just bandy about. And previous craches have been foreseen.

[Thorne]

They would have had no choice. I do not place too much stock in tv news, but this kind of thing is not something you just bandy about. And previous craches have been foreseen.

There have been threats like this before. No one has ever really seen WHAT might happen. I can say, though, that it's doubtful the politicians will lose any money over it.

[DuncanONeil]

This I can agree with you! But the problem is that is the Government that decides IF you get anything & how much!

Twisting words as I see it. I too have payed taxes all my life (haven't we all?) and a lot of them, and I expect to get back what I need when I need it. That is the deal.

[DuncanONeil]

The Government has shut down a bunch of times. every time it has only been non-essential services. In simple terms the military do not get furloughed, though the civilians in Supply would likely.

They would have had no choice. I do not place too much stock in tv news, but this kind of thing is not something you just bandy about. And previous craches have been foreseen.

[DuncanONeil]

I was working for the Government during a period of time when there were 15 shutdowns of Government. As I was working for various parts of DoD never once did I get sent home.

There have been threats like this before. No one has ever really seen WHAT might happen. I can say, though, that it's doubtful the politicians will lose any money over it.

[lucy]

Duncan, you make that sound as if the government is some obscure organization whose ultimate goal is to make everybody miserable and f*** them up their asses.
It is, however, the people YOU voted into office. YOU put them in charge and nobody else. Just sayin'.

[MMI]

Thought you might all like this pearl from an ex-public schoolboy (that's a fee-paying non-state school btw).

"If the poor aren't educated properly, they won't be able to do the jobs we need them to do properly."

Make of that what you will.

[Thorne]

"If the poor aren't educated properly, they won't be able to do the jobs we need them to do properly."

This could be restated in a less "priveleged" manner.

"If the poor aren't educated properly, they won't be able to get the jobs they need to escape poverty."

It's mostly a question of defining "properly".

[thir]

There have been threats like this before. No one has ever really seen WHAT might happen. I can say, though, that it's doubtful the politicians will lose any money over it.

No, it would be a number of official functions shutting down because they cannot be paid for.

[Thorne]

No, it would be a number of official functions shutting down because they cannot be paid for.

Which might not necessarily be a bad thing. At least we could determine which of those functions are truly necessary.

[MMI]

"Poverty is Due to Moral Lacking"

Assuming "moral lacking" means the absence of any distinction between right and wrong, and accepting that the consequence of poverty is hunger, dependency, disease and death, then it must be. With most of the world's wealth in the hands of just 2% of the population, and that Two Percent believing it has actually "earned" its fortune by its own good honest toil, there is next to no chance that the Two Percent will do anything to alleviate poverty elsewhere. Amoral.

The Two Percent earned nothing - they took it, and the wealth they "created" was through the hard work of others.

In fact, the Two Percent is likely to take steps to ensure it retains its privileged position: Multi-national corporations using poor nations to produce raw materials, paying pitiful wages, and paying the lowest prices for the goods they buy; dumping food and goods onto these nations at prices that undercut local producers, preventing the growth of independent agriculture and industry; nourishing corruption by supporting client rulers who provide favoured nation deals they can't afford in return; and attaching penal conditions to the aid that is provided, causing what wealth poor nations do have to be handed over to wealthy countries as "debt" repayment. Immoral.

The fact is, the Two Percent doesn't give much of a fuck ... what it does care about is keeping its own privileges and comforts, at everyone else's expense. Meanwhile they pretend they have worse problems of their own, that must be tended to first. Evil.

Today 21,000 children died around the world

"The silent killers are poverty, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. Despite the scale of this daily/ongoing catastrophe, it rarely manages to achieve, much less sustain, prime-time, headline coverage."

In other words, although we have the means to do much so much good around the world, we would rather ignore the problem. Only when there is a major catastrophe will the western media pay any attention to the disaster - as a form of entertainment - but within days, or weeks, their interest, and that of the audience, will fade away, and the gossip programs will take primacy once more.

The wealthy nations of the world have promised to increase the amounts of aid they give, and in 1970, they set a target of about 0.7% of GNP to be given annually from about 1975. Those nations are now giving about 0.2% to 0.4% pa, some forty years later. The USA is notable laggard. More recently, the EU nations set a new target for achieving the target: they are all failing. The cost for vested interests is too high.

I see no answer but war, and it is likely that the poor will lose, and and lose again, and will be made to pay for their temerity. However, once there have been sufficient martyrs for the cause of the impoverished, maybe there will be some kind of revolution that makes life easier for some. A token.

Don't think the Two Percent will have given up their position of dominance. That will never happen.

[thir]

"Poverty is Due to Moral Lacking"

Assuming "moral lacking" means the absence of any distinction between right and wrong, and accepting that the consequence of poverty is hunger, dependency, disease and death, then it must be. With most of the world's wealth in the hands of just 2% of the population, and that Two Percent believing it has actually "earned" its fortune by its own good honest toil, there is next to no chance that the Two Percent will do anything to alleviate poverty elsewhere. Amoral.

The Two Percent earned nothing - they took it, and the wealth they "created" was through the hard work of others.

In fact, the Two Percent is likely to take steps to ensure it retains its privileged position: Multi-national corporations using poor nations to produce raw materials, paying pitiful wages, and paying the lowest prices for the goods they buy; dumping food and goods onto these nations at prices that undercut local producers, preventing the growth of independent agriculture and industry; nourishing corruption by supporting client rulers who provide favoured nation deals they can't afford in return; and attaching penal conditions to the aid that is provided, causing what wealth poor nations do have to be handed over to wealthy countries as "debt" repayment. Immoral.

The fact is, the Two Percent doesn't give much of a fuck ... what it does care about is keeping its own privileges and comforts, at everyone else's expense. Meanwhile they pretend they have worse problems of their own, that must be tended to first. Evil.

Today 21,000 children died around the world

"The silent killers are poverty, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. Despite the scale of this daily/ongoing catastrophe, it rarely manages to achieve, much less sustain, prime-time, headline coverage."

In other words, although we have the means to do much so much good around the world, we would rather ignore the problem. Only when there is a major catastrophe will the western media pay any attention to the disaster - as a form of entertainment - but within days, or weeks, their interest, and that of the audience, will fade away, and the gossip programs will take primacy once more.

The wealthy nations of the world have promised to increase the amounts of aid they give, and in 1970, they set a target of about 0.7% of GNP to be given annually from about 1975. Those nations are now giving about 0.2% to 0.4% pa, some forty years later. The USA is notable laggard. More recently, the EU nations set a new target for achieving the target: they are all failing. The cost for vested interests is too high.

I see no answer but war, and it is likely that the poor will lose, and and lose again, and will be made to pay for their temerity. However, once there have been sufficient martyrs for the cause of the impoverished, maybe there will be some kind of revolution that makes life easier for some. A token.

Don't think the Two Percent will have given up their position of dominance. That will never happen.

Maybe it will..we are making ourselves so vulnerable with more and more technology and in other ways - maybe the system will crach, and maybe in a way that gives us a chance to start over.