Sam
Instead of accepting the AGW propaganda disseminated by the media accompanied by the allied politicisation of scientists, science bureaucrats, science organisations and science journals, readers should benefit by consulting factual references such as Robert M Carter, "Climate: the Counter Consensus", published by Stacey International in 2010, or Mark Lawson, "A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy", published by Connor Court in 2010

Raycom,

My point is exactly opposite of what you say Im doing...'accepting AGM propaganda'...Im saying think independently by going through the given facts, the more fundamental the fact the better...and built up to eventually concluding what the facts lead to...and nothing more...

but mate...the book you refer to, Robert M Carter, "Climate: the Counter Consensus...its 351 pages long...

and in the end Ive got a feeling we both are never going to get to the proper floor of debate where we can exchange information that leads to meaningful understanding of each other and our common situation...but Ill try to go through this book once Ive bought it...

sam

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that, Squeers.

>>Pericles, sorry for delays; my time is not my own.<<

I suggest you take steps to reclaim it in its entirety, it is the single most important resource at our disposal.

But if you were simply apologizing for being unable to provide an instant response, don't - this isn't Twitter, it's a Forum.

But this still puzzles me about your approach:

>>Capitalism doesn't raise people out of poverty--as if they were wretchedly waiting to be saved, it cultivates them to draw off profit, then leaves the bubble to collapse under the inevitable weight of attrition.<<

The freeing of the Chinese economy to operate on more capitalistic lines has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty over the past thirty years. Estimates range from 400 million to 500 million.

Is your suggestion that a) this was in fact communism at work, b) these people still actually live in poverty, and the numbers are pure propaganda, c) that because the rationale was to turn these folks into a "market", the improvement in their lives is somehow invalid, or d) other?

Incidentally, the "profit" that you mention is actually the driving force behind capitalism. Without it, there would be no improvement for the 400-500 million. It allows people to earn, and spend. Surely you cannot object to that?

>>Economically and ecologically, prosperity in the global system is counterbalance by poverty--its detritus.<<

This is not a zero-sum game that we are talking about here. In other words, 400 million people elsewhere in the world did not suddenly become impoverished as a result of the 400 million who improved their lot in China.

Pericles,

I hope you include in your rationale of Chinese progress the 500 million children who grow up without parents in "poor" rural villages. They see their parents once a year if they're lucky, and whole villages now contain only children and grandparents...sort of evens out the other 500 million lifted out of poverty. No middle ground, you see -it has to be 10 percent growth or nothing.

Here's a bit more info on the advent of GM crops in India and the ensuing tsunami of debt and suicides.

"...in 1998 when the BJP-led coalition was in power at the centre, India was forced by the World Bank's structural adjustment policies to open up its doors to global seeds vending corporations like Cargills, Monsanto, Syh gents, etc. Consequently, the input economy underwent a big change. Farm saved seeds gave way to corporate seeds, which required much more fertiliser, pesticide and irrigation."

Good old structural adjustments, eh.

http://www.gits4u.com/agri/agri2.htm

One of the priorities for World Bank support is improving access to rural finance - "removing government control and ownership and strengthening the legal framework for loan recovery and the use of land as collateral."

The World Bank and the IMF appear to act as doormen for Western corporations, however, any good they might achieve is overridden by their voracious need to profit at any price - and Indian farmers are caught squarely in the web of debt set up by these orgainisations.

Pericles,

Apologies. I quoted the wrong figure for parentless children in villages - estimated at between 50 and 150 million...still pertinent. These villages haven't seen any improvement and now they are devoid of an entire generation.

They are not my numbers, Poirot.

>>I hope you include in your rationale of Chinese progress the 500 million children who grow up without parents in "poor" rural villages<<

I was simply referring to official figures, calculated against an agreed norm of "poverty".

(You failed to provide a link for the "parentless children in villages" calculation, by the way. I'm sure that you will quickly rectify that omission.)

Nor are the numbers rescued from poverty a "rationale of Chinese progress". Simply a measurement, that you may feel free to dispute with the authors.

Any qualitative judgment that flows from these figures is ones own, of course. And mine is that the Chinese are largely "better off" as a result of the opening of the markets over the past thirty years.

Is that what you are disputing? That their idea of "better off" is somehow flawed, because it does not meet some arbitrary standard that you consider more appropriate than poverty?

Have you asked the Chinese population how they feel about it? Because those that I have spoken to are immensely proud of their "progress", and fully intend to continue along the path that they define as "prosperity" for as long as they possibly can.

I suspect that they can survive your disapproval of their aspirations.

At least, I'm sure they will try