Actions are louder than words

Exxon invests ~20 million a year in delaying effective climate change solutions. Have they done this for 10 years this campaign has cost them 200 million.

What did this buy them? Access to approximately 100 billion barrels of oil equivalent in the Kara sea alone, amongst other things. Any idea how much will this profit Exxon?

I guess the Exxon funding of the FUD campaign is surely amongst the best industrial investments ever made in modern history. Well done!

Given Exxon's safety records I'm thinking they just straight up hate the environment, actively and maliciously.

cynic,

what does profit represent?

think carefully before answering.

Miffed at not getting an answer, Paul?

I feel your pain . . . you've left a few on the table yourself.

not miffed.
maybe he's thinking

If you have a question, ask away.

Paul

There is nothing wrong with profit per se - in fact it is an essential part of how our economy works and every company should do every legitimate thing in its power to generate profit. But............

Would you accept a company trying to increase it's profits by employing child slaves? Would you accept a company trying to increase it's profits by flauting occupational health and safety laws and putting the lives of its workers at risk? Would you accept a company trying to increase its profits by using sub-standard materials when it manufactures products or builds infrastructure? Would you accept a company trying to increase it's profits by dumping hazardous waste into rivers?

I am going to suggest not. So why the fuck would you accept a company trying to increase its profits by lying about science and jeopardising the future health of the environment and of human civilisation? By substantially increasing the financial burden on future generations because of their failure to deal with a forseeable and treatable problem when it is pointed out to them?

Because that is exactly what Exxon et al is doing right now. They are harming future generations in order to increase their short term profits. And that - in my mind anyway - is completely unacceptable. I wonder why you would think otherwise?

If you have a question, ask away. --Paul

Does that mean you intend to answer?

Because if not, then what is the point of asking?

Those are also questions, by the way.

"what does profit represent?"

It represents a break of the Free Market, according to which, the sale of goods will be done at the marginal price of production or others will exploit the profit and take the customers away from the profiteering provider.

mandas,
1] "employ" and "slaves", not consistent

2] the law should be enforced

3] see 2]

4] see 2]

5] see 2]

wow,
quite acceptable
(I would add a couple specifc items, but they are essentially present in your answer)

"1] "employ" and "slaves", not consistent"

employ: to use.

"2] "employ" and "slaves", not consistent"

See RIAA exec's daughter caught using P2P to infringe copyright and the Jammie Thomas case.

None of them are, in fact, answers, merely mistakes or assertions of what ought to happen, not what IS happening.

em·ploy/emËploi/
Verb: Give work to (someone) and pay them for it.
Noun: The state or fact of being employed for wages or a salary: "in the employ of a grocer and wine merchant".

em·ploy Pronunciation (m-ploi)
tr.v. em·ployed, em·ploy·ing, em·ploys
1.
a. To engage the services of; put to work: agreed to employ the job applicant.
b. To provide with gainful work: factories that employ thousands.
2. To put to use or service. See Synonyms at use.
3. To devote (time, for example) to an activity or purpose: employed several months in learning Swahili.
n.
1. The state of being employed: in the employ of the city.
2. Archaic Occupation.
[Middle English emploien, from Old French emploier, from Latin implicre, to involve : in-, in; see en-1 + plicre, to fold; see plek- in Indo-European roots.]

She was busily employed (in) writing letters.

collecting stamps employs a lot of his time

to employ secret measures to get one's ends

Well,
I suppose Mandas will need to advise the intended meaning.

Nope.

If there are multiple meanings and one doesn't fit (slaves aren't paid), then that meaning (employed: paid for work) is rejected.

Repeat the exercise until you have a meaning that does fit.

If no such meaning exists, THEN you can complain: "employ" and "slaves", not consistent.

Because "employ and slaves" and "not consistent" are not consistent.

I'll wait until he defines his terms.
Thanks,

Or, as seems to be your metier, you can rely on someone else doing the thinking for you.

"I'll wait until he defines his terms."

Well, you'll remain wrong until then, because "employ" and "slave" are not inconsistent.

That's a pretty impressive level of dishonesty to deliberately misread the obvious intended meaning of a sentence and then refuse to comment further on the matter until the poster in question clarifies that they were using the word "employ" in a fashion that makes sense and not a fashion that makes no sense.

I suppose you two would like to define slave for mandas too?

Your inability to understand pretty straightforward use of the English language reflects on you, not anyone else. There's an obvious meaning of "employs slaves", and it's clearly "utilizes slaves".

I suppose it's better for you to argue dishonest pedantry than to just address the plain meaning of the statement though.

Or, I am dealing with k00ks.

I'll wait for mandas, go about and bother someone else.

I hope he doesn't tax your patience. I've waited for you on about a half dozen unanswered questions for months, Paul.

Go start at #7 on this thread for the funniest non-exchange of all.

I am dealing with k00ks.

Every time you look in the mirror, I should think.

Skip,
If you have a point or wish to be constructive, please do.

My point is that you don't answer questions--a posture that strikes me as the opposite of "constructive".

I would ask, "What am I missing here, Paul?", but that would require that you . . . answer a question.

employ - to use

Anything more?

No wonder deniers have trouble with science when they have trouble even understanding simple English words. Of course they are being deliberately obtuse.

Then the simple answer is no.

"cynic,

what does profit represent?

think carefully before answering."

PHEW! I caught the whiff of troll right off with this one.

Is there a troll-school where one learns these techniques for poking and prodding people, then tap-dancing around and posing smug faux-Socratic questions....but never actually making a statement? Just snipe at the border of a conversation, and reel it in with constant re-directs and sidetracks and other bullshit.

Creationists pull the same crap.

Paul: Tell me about your father. Define "is". Give me your top three reasons why capital is spelled with an a and not an o. Think carefully before you answer... for I may snag you in a rhetorical trap and go back and forth endlessly on the definition of a word!

I see you've been reading here for quite some time.

So now we've gotten around the pedantic need for a definition of "employ" will we see PaulinMI cover the rest of mandas' post? I'll paste it here so there's no need to struggle looking for it:

"I am going to suggest not [and Paul has confirmed this]. So why the fuck would you accept a company trying to increase its profits by lying about science and jeopardising the future health of the environment and of human civilisation? By substantially increasing the financial burden on future generations because of their failure to deal with a forseeable and treatable problem when it is pointed out to them?

Because that is exactly what Exxon et al is [sic] doing right now. They are harming future generations in order to increase their short term profits. And that - in my mind anyway - is completely unacceptable. I wonder why you would think otherwise?"

"No wonder deniers have trouble with science when they have trouble even understanding simple English words. Of course they are being deliberately obtuse."

You mistake their viciousness.

The idea is to make YOU do all the work. All they have to do is say "No, it's not true". That's easy to say. The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas. The best way to have lots of ideas is to make up crap ones. The deniers have cottoned on to the method and don't give a fig for the endpoint. They don't want and can't use a good idea.

This also means they never have to admit an error.

See Wegman, Monckton and Anthony Watts for examples.

Gentlemen,
Perhaps I miss the point, but all questions here have been answered.

Is that an attempt at humor?

No
Pls elaborate

Please refer to post 7.

As have ours, PaulinMI.

You're here to waste honest people's time.

I think that has been addressed.
Is there a particular question you have?

No, as I said, our questions have been answered: you're here to waste honest people's time.

Yeah.

Much as I differ with Wow from time to time . . . Paul, it seems you get a weird pleasure from being evasive, vague, and cryptic. Climate debate as poetry or postmodern angst or something.

Bottom line is you don't dialogue.

Suit yourself

As usual an incomprehensible and pointless answer.

It would be like saying "blue" if someone asked if you wanted to have lunch.

You know, it just now occurs to me . . .

is Paul one of those dialogue bots I read about a few issues ago in the *Atlantic*? They are programmed into chat forums to try to act like real people but it always comes off sort of weird and incoherent.

Ok. So I go bush for a few days to light a few fires and when I come back I note there is virtually a whole thread pedantically arguing about the definition of one of my words, and whether or not questions that I posed have been adequately answered or not.

Perfect.

No, I really mean it. That's absolutely beautiful. Because nothing more perfectly encapsulates the deniers position than what has gone on around here over the past few days.

Deniers don't have any other way of arguing against the science of climate change than to throw shit; to argue pedantic and irrelevant points; toss in a few red herrings; and to present ideology as if it were fact.

You have shown us all what you truly are Paul. Nothing more than a pedantic, ideological denier with nothing of substance to offer the debate. I know your main argument against climate science is, and always has been, that efforts to mitigate climate change will return the economy to the dark ages, for which you have never presented any evidence and for which you totally disregard the costs associated with NOT mitigating against climate change. But you have plumbed new depths of irrelevance in your latest series of posts.

Good job!

Return to the dark ages?

Having just got our brand new shiny solar panels on the roof, the 'dark ages' look further and further away. Our only challenge now is to see if we can keep power out higher than power in. That way we get power for nothing and money to spend on other things. What a win!

Spain

Power for nothing and money to spend.

See mandas, the free market has solved the problem already!

Hypotenuse.

Glad we're communicating, Paul-bot.

Skip,
What is relavent about Spain in the low carbon solution set?

Wednesdays, that's what.

"What is relavent about Spain in the low carbon solution set?"

http://www.abengoa.es/corp/web/es/index3.html

No hablo Espanol? Try here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20012060-54.html

Oh, and this too: http://greentechnolog.com/2008/11/solar_panels_in_spanish_cemetary.html

Marjoram.

If you can't follow me, Paul, that's your problem.

Well,
I was familiar with the subsidized wind power in Spain that just about broke the country, but subsidized solar makes the point just as well.

Thanks for the info!

Well,
I was familiar with the subsidized wind power in Spain that just about broke the country, but subsidized solar makes the point just as well.

Thanks for the info!

Double post
Bot mal-function

Lounge chair.

"....See mandas, the free market has solved the problem already!...."

So ummmmm, what has any of this to do with the 'free market'?

I know you are a great believer in the free market Paul - so much so that you probably support Ron Paul for President. But could I ask you to explain how subsidies fit into this free market scheme of your? I guess you would be a strong advocate of all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry being withdrawn wouldn't you? And given that the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed an extremely high level of government support for decades, it would be consistent with the principles of equity for those subsidies to be immediately and permanently withdrawn, for no more government support being given for oil exploration, and for the renewable industry to be given the same level of support that used to be given to the fossil fuel industry until they are on an equal footing.

I wonder where you think taxation and regulation fit into this 'free market philosophy of yours. You responded to my questions about companies dumping hazardous chemicals in the river etc by suggesting that "...the law should be enforced...". Surely any law that prevents companies from dumping hazardous chemicals as being antithetical to a 'free market', as would prohibitions against slavery et al.

You appear to be a typical proponent of the 'free market'. You are against regulations and taxation that YOU don't agree with, but are all in favour of regulations that help your particular ideology. I wonder if you think whether or not there should be a completely open and free market, with no restrictions on the volume or type of goods that could be imported into the USA. Flood the country with cheap agricultural products? Sure - that's the free market! Allow the unfettered flow of labour into and out of the country with no immigration restrictions? Well absolutely, that's what the free market allows!

But then, maybe you are not as stupid as your pronouncements make you sound. Maybe you really don't believe in the 'free market'. Maybe its just a moronic mantra that you spruik without giving a nano-second's thought to what it really means. Because you know what - there is no such thing as a 'free market'.

mandas, as quickly as possible -

But could I ask you to explain how subsidies fit into this free market scheme of your?
-- they don't, Sarcasm, sorry.

I guess you would be a strong advocate of all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry being withdrawn wouldn't you?
-- yes, absolutely (no sarcasm)

And given that the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed an extremely high level of government support for decades, it would be consistent with the principles of equity for those subsidies to be immediately and permanently withdrawn, for no more government support being given for oil exploration
-- yes,

and for the renewable industry to be given the same level of support that used to be given to the fossil fuel industry until they are on an equal footing.
-- nice try, no

I wonder where you think taxation and regulation fit into this 'free market philosophy of yours. You responded to my questions about companies dumping hazardous chemicals in the river etc by suggesting that "...the law should be enforced...". Surely any law that prevents companies from dumping hazardous chemicals as being antithetical to a 'free market', as would prohibitions against slavery et al.
-- private property rights and ownership would go a long way to eliminating regulations

You appear to be a typical proponent of the 'free market'. You are against regulations and taxation that YOU don't agree with, but are all in favour of regulations that help your particular ideology.
-- of course, but if they appear legally enforceable, they should be followed. If they are burdonsome to some degree and others agree, they can be changed. How about you, do you favor regulations that help your ideology?

I wonder if you think whether or not there should be a completely open and free market, with no restrictions on the volume or type of goods that could be imported into the USA.
-- yes, a free person should be able to purchase goods or enter into trade freely

Flood the country with cheap agricultural products? Sure - that's the free market!
-- agreed, that would free up local resources to perform more valuable tasks and prevent inadvertant subsidies from growing

Allow the unfettered flow of labour into and out of the country with no immigration restrictions? Well absolutely, that's what the free market allows!
-- well, almost. the states each have the responsibility to control immigration to their state and it can be configured as allowed by the particular state constitution.

But then, maybe you are not as stupid as your pronouncements make you sound.
-- oh, I may be, but one can always learn

Maybe you really don't believe in the 'free market'. Maybe its just a moronic mantra that you spruik without giving a nano-second's thought to what it really means. Because you know what - there is no such thing as a 'free market'.
-- well, we may strive to get as close as possible to the ideal, and there certainly is no such thing as a fair market.
(sorry again if that first bit of sarcasm was missed.)

Spruke.

"-- private property rights and ownership would go a long way to eliminating regulations"

No, they wouldn't.

This is the central weakness in the libertarian dogma.

The idea that everyone would play fair if property rights and ownership were somehow all-powerful (and how are they regulated?) is actually quite laughably naive. All it would actually mean is powerful self-interest will rule and any obstruction to profit (e.g. environmental regulation, employment laws, perhaps slavery regulations) will become ignored anachronisms.

Or of course the technology fairies will also influence the antisocial mindset of the corporations when they finally make their appearance.

Forasmuch as we wither without a wit we want women wooing.

Care to answer, Paul?

well Chris,
some do prefer a corporate/government partnership
with bribes and payoffs as a regular course of action

Indeed they do.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

'specially this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney

it has infected nearly every industry in the US

So you're up for removing the subsidies for those companies and the higher taxing of them to regain the monies spent, yes?

So you're up for removing the subsidies for those companies
-- yes

and the higher taxing of them to regain the monies spent
-- same tax as everyone else

Nope, same tax as everyone else won't work.

It would be like saying that a thief can keep their ill-gotten gains as long as they don't do it again.

Do you propose to try that with every person/company which benefits by special tax law (sometimes called loopholes)?

Did it look like I was?

No.

it would seem then, to be promoting unfavorable treatment for one industry

Yes. Your problem is what, exactly?

(Hint, you don't get copyright on plumbing work, you don't get patent rights on performances, you don't get medical trials in gardening).

Same treatment for all or as close as possible

[Intellectual property rights are another on my "items to eliminate" list, if that's where you're going, although having trouble making the connection to fossil fuel industry]

And this is as close as possible.

lost now, sorry

Yes, you are.

Two thirds.

"-- private property rights and ownership would go a long way to eliminating regulations"

"[Intellectual property rights are another on my "items to eliminate" list"

There's glory for you.

Or...

You use these terms as if they have some objective meaning, but they are all social and legal constructs. "Private property rights" inherently create a series of regulations

"Private property rights" inherently create a series of regulations.

And "free" trade and movement of products can impinge mightily on 'private property rights'. I live in an island country free of many agricultural pests and diseases that afflict most others. I'd say that 'free' trade allowing meat, veg, fruit and grains open slather on entry to my country would constitute a grave infringement on my property 'rights' if I had a vineyard or farm or orchard.

I also live in an area at the end of a very, very long river. 'Free' and unrestricted 'rights' assumed by others to take all the water they can get from that river upstream is also a grave infringement on the water 'rights' I and my neighbours have held in the water that previously reached us.

The 'no regulation' advocates finish up picking and choosing which enforceable rights to which kinds of property they find acceptable - depending on where they live and what they do.

It's nonsense. Accept that regulation is actually desirable in many instances. Argue about the best designs and the best enforcement methods. But don't pretend we're aiming for some 'freedom' that we're innately, everywhere and all the time entitled to.

Or move to Somalia.

And I accept that adelady has defined both sides in such a way that no further discussion is necessary.

Thank you.

Fred.

The thing is Paul that reading adelady's post it is at least perfectly clear what (s)he meant. If you meant something else and you actually are interested in communicating then you should clarify what you meant.

I suspect that you don't want to do this because adelady's logic will apply to any non Humpty Dumpty definition of private property rights.

Paul

Even given Adelady's arguments - and I full well know what she is speaking about because I live in the same city as she does - I wonder if you could explain this contradiction in your earlier post please:

"......I wonder if you think whether or not there should be a completely open and free market, with no restrictions on the volume or type of goods that could be imported into the USA.
-- yes, a free person should be able to purchase goods or enter into trade freely...."

".....Allow the unfettered flow of labour into and out of the country with no immigration restrictions? Well absolutely, that's what the free market allows!
-- well, almost. the states each have the responsibility to control immigration to their state and it can be configured as allowed by the particular state constitution...."

You appear to be all about the free market, but when it comes to the free market exchange of labour you suddenly appear to change tack, and be all about legislation and states' rights. Surely if the free market exists, there should be no restrictions on the free flow of labour; state constitutions or not. Why do you think states - ie governments - should be able to regulate the labour market? Aren't any regulations antithetical to the 'free market'?

In the words of a famous former Australian politician - please explain?

Possible translation, mandas:

It's the idea of competition among states for satisfying their populace. The presumption is the John Galts of the world will flock to "small government" meccas like Arizona (who, for example lo and behold, is cracking down on illegals), and the rest of us socialist sheep with our melodramatic ideas of acting on environmental risk will just have to wither away when Atlas shrugs.

I encounter libertarian/free market orthox-ites from time to time and I've heard this idea before.

Its a sort of neo-Jeffersonianism purged of obvious anachronisms like agrarian idealism and slavery (I assume.)

skip

Yeah - the libertarians and their ideals of the 'free market' fixing everything. I have always wondered who - under this free market system - would have built the interstate highway system, or who would have set aside large tracts of arable land for national parks? Perhaps Ron PaulinMI can explain that as well.

Or how we and our UK and ANZAC colleagues would have beaten the Nazis and Japanese Empire . . . with a handsome performance from Our Son of a Bitch Stalin (that one cost us, to be sure.)

I never get a clear answer to that one either.

Yeah - the libertarians and their ideals of the 'free market' fixing everything.
I have always wondered who - under this free market system - would have built the interstate highway system.

-- It was initially defense dept in the US.
But, the answer could be, maybe no one.

or who would have set aside large tracts of arable land for national parks?
-- Again, perhaps no one, at least not national.

Perhaps Ron PaulinMI can explain that as well.
-- hey, I like that name, better than Biel at least.

On you point about free exchange of labor, again people, and that is up to (should be) the states, products, not so much.
Libertarian may not be the completely right assignation, it is somewhat more about the constitution(s).

And without collective action enforced through . . . whatever we agree is best (taxes, cap-and-trade, emission standards, some combination of the above and/or something else) . . .

. . . this is the key, Paul . . .

*no large scale action will ever be taken on climate change.*

Why? Because it is in no one's individual interest to do so.

And what, for the love of God, does that last shattered paragraph even *mean*?

Paul, if you're a stroke victim you have my most genuine sympathies but if you're just playing games then what does this say about you?

"And what, for the love of God, does that last shattered paragraph even *mean*?"

It means "look at me!" and "Don't look behind the curtain".

Last paragraph?

About the constitution(s)?

It means we (as a govt or collective, as skip likes to call it) may do as the constitution allows, no more.

On individual interest or lack thereof, maybe you could use that observation to predict what the real solution might look like?

It means we (as a govt or collective, as skip likes to call it) may do as the constitution allows, no more.

Explain the relevance to this discussion. Are you suggesting acting on climate change violates some Constitutional principle?

what the real solution might look like?

It's encoded in my previous posts. Think of it like an Easter egg hunt.

Why would I explain myself clearly when I can just make cryptic twaddle?

Come on Paul, give it the old . . . college try.

Hey guys! Miss me? I've been in hospital for the past week with a ruptured apendix - not something I recommend by the way.

I'm probably coming at this far too late, but would love to question Ron PaulinMI more about post #88:

"......I have always wondered who - under this free market system - would have built the interstate highway system.
-- It was initially defense dept in the US.
But, the answer could be, maybe no one.
or who would have set aside large tracts of arable land for national parks?
-- Again, perhaps no one, at least not national...."

Does that not suggest to you that the free market has severe limitations, and cannot be relied upon to 'fix' huge issues such as national transportation and the environment? As such, what makes you think the 'free market' would be able to play a leadership role in fixing climate change, without extensive Government intervention?

See, that's the problem. The free market - or at least the idea of a free market that cannot exist anywhere because it is a nonsensical concept - is about self interest. It creates problems such as the tragedy of the commons; it does not fix such problems. These can only be resolved by Government intervention.

The 'free market' is the problem, not the solution.

Miss you?
I noticed you'd not posted anything, but ... a ruptured appendix! That beats 'the dog ate my homework' every time.

Clearly, your thinking is still OK. Hope the body catches up quickly.

That shit could kill you dead, Mandas.

Best of luck recovering, although if any free market or minimalist government principles were violated in your treatment, would it have been best to let you perish?

(I am assuming no clauses or Amendments to the American Constitution were violated as your treatment occurred in Australia.)

Yeah skip - a few free market principles were violated in my treatment. You see, we have universal medical coverage here in Australia. I guess you (or Paul anyway) would call it SOCIALISM!!!!!!!

I spent five days in hospital, had all the necessary drugs, doctors, nurses, etc, etc. And the only thing I had to pay at the time was for the drugs I took home with me. Yes, I pay slightly higher taxes to have this level of medical coverage, but you won't find too many people in this country who would wish it were any different.