SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: neolib who wrote (261022)4/8/2008 7:11:54 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
The two graphs speak for themselves however. In one case people look at the global temp curve and blather about things stopping in 1998. Those same individuals look at the LFPR and think nothing has happened from the 1990's on related to freer trade.

1 - Each argument has to stand on its own. Even to the extent that you can identify inconsistency (or you can imagine that you identify some inconsistency) in some people that you argue against it doesn't actually support any of your contentions.

2 - On the global warming issue, many argue not that the Earth didn't warm, or the Earth isn't going to warm, or even that human emitted CO2 doesn't add upward pressure on temperatures. The argument is rather that we don't know what temperatures will be, or exactly why they will be at that level, or exactly what the consequences (positive and negative) of them being at that level will be, so we shouldn't implement massively expensive programs to slash CO2 emissions at this time. Stating that is hardly inconsistent with the idea that we should intervene heavily and probably expensively in order to try to cause the LFPR to increase a bit. Restrictions on trade are an expensive intervention in the market.

3 - You downplay or ignore the point that the LFPR is a percentage rate. Its limited in a way which most economic changes, and even for that matter possible global warming trends are not. The end of its growth had to happen, and since there isn't any major recent social changes in regard to unemployment its not a surprise that it doesn't still display an upward trend.

4 - There where clear social reasons why the LFPR went up. Those social changes are not happening at anywhere near the rate they where in the past, because most of the change has already happened. OTOH human emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gassed continues. So the end of the growth in LFPR has a much better explanation than the recent stop in the climb of temperatures. Now this post isn't an argument against AGW theory. Climate and temperature changes on all different scales, for all different reasons. I'm not arguing against AGW here but rather against your comparison of AGW and LFPR.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News