The Lie of the Century: Global Warming

[Red Student]

Unfortunately most people who identify their political views as Left, or even those who have Socialist views are totally brainwashed by the neo-liberal dogmas of the ruling class.

The brainwashing is very pervasive and entrenched. Most truths that people have are actually dogmas deeply planted in their brains. This situation in actually not very surprising, different societies had different truths that all (even the revolutionary-minded) believed as self-evident.

I have been trying on this forum to attack some of these dogmas, with little success. My last try was to discuss homosexual acts, the response I got was that this subject is of no ‘importance’ to the proletariat (a very conceded remark in my opinion), but actually it is very important; for example most people who vote Republican in the US do so because of social issues and not because it is in their material interest to do so.

Socialism is not socially liberal. The left got voted into government in Spain and instead of nationalizing a couple of corporations they legalize same-sex marriage. If they had abolished marriage I could understand that, but to legalize same-sex marriage is to fall head over heals in the neo-liberal trap.

The left got voted into government in Italy, and what do they do? They get into a ‘battle’ with the Vatican to legalize same-sex marriage!

Homosexual acts maybe are not the most ‘important’ issue but it is one of the bars of a cage that the neo-liberals have constructed to imprison progressive thought in it. Another bar, a very nasty one, is Global Warming!

People on the left think that because big corporation apposed the idea of Global Warming it must be then, by logical inference, a progressive idea! Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is true that oil and motor corporations apposed the idea of Global Warming (not any more), but they are only one faction of the ruling class the other being the neo-liberal Financial Capitalists.

Take for example the Kyoto Protocol, I am deeply dismayed when progressives criticize Bush for pulling out from the treaty; it is the only good thing that he has done in his life; even though he did it for the wrong reasons we shouldn’t complain!

Before clarifying I would like to explain something about Financial Capitalism; this capitalism is a Malthusian genocidal wealth-destroying kind of capitalism. Industrial capitalism grows by expanding the market; financial capitalism grows by contracting the market! Best example is Russia, in the 90’s the GDP declined by 60% and at the same time Russian billionaires ‘made’ their billions. Financial capitalism destroys wealth and concentrates the reminder in a few hands; this has happened now all over the third-world from Mexico to Argentina; Africa’s wealth has been totally destroyed and the billions exported to the North.

The Kyoto Protocol was an instrument to stop countries like China and India from industrialising and sustain the current status quo of rich north and poor south. The simple fact that people like Clinton and Gore supported it should be enough for progressives not to support it. The same people who support the Kyoto Protocol complain about the population explosion, and advocate all kind of genocidal practices in the third world countries, in the name of ‘development’!

Gore’s film about Global Warming is called ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. I, on the other hand, call Global Warming ‘A Convenient Excuse’. Cynical politicians who don’t care about the poisons in our water, food and air, who do nothing to limit the pollution in the cities (were workers live) cry their eyes dry about Global Warming and the danger to Polar bears!


Read the following about how environmental activism has been restricted to the Global Warming myth, although the reasons he gives are rather naïve:

In the meantime, environmental protection advocates might consider a return to their original important themes of protecting the environment from destruction, pollution, over-harvesting, massive deforestation, and habitat destruction. All these processes of environmental degradation are taking place right now before our very eyes, and they are not all related to global warming.

People who are concerned about protecting the earth might also turn their attention to this question - Why has so little concrete effort been made to reduce the release of CO2, compared to such a great outcry and hysteria about global warming?

Why has “global warming” become such a passionate subject?

Read the following about how warming has been going on for the last 500 years independent of CO2:

From the data provided in the earlier sections, it is quite obvious that the temperature change during the last 100 years or so includes significant natural changes, both the linear change and fluctuations. It is very puzzling that the IPCC Reports state that it is mostly due to the greenhouse effect Radiative and other forcings are considered to explain the present warming of 0.6°C/100 years, so that they cannot be a confirmation of the term “most.” Further, unfortunately, computers are already incorrectly “taught” that the 0.6°C rise during the last hundred years was caused by the greenhouse effect, so they cannot prove the greenhouse effect and cannot predict accurately the degree of future warming.

Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”?

Read the following about why computer models don’t work:

The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate "realistic" simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance.

The Lorenz paradigm and the limitations of climate models

The following is really my favourite one, it simply says that a Plant has a diameter, has a mass, but it has no temperature!

Averages of the Earth’s temperature field are thus devoid of a physical context which would indicate how they are to be interpreted, or what meaning can be attached to changes in their levels, up or down. Statistics cannot stand in as a replacement for the missing physics because data alone are context-free. Assuming a context only leads to paradoxes such as simultaneous warming and cooling in the same system based on arbitrary choice in some free parameter. Considering even a restrictive class of admissible coordinate transformations yields families of averaging rules that likewise generate opposite trends in the same data, and by implication indicating contradictory rankings of years in terms of warmth.

Does a Global Temperature Exist?

If, after reading the articles, you have questions I’ll be happy to answer them.

A great place to read about the fallacies of Global Warming, and the mistakes of the IPCC, is this blog: Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog (most entries are scientific, skip those!).

[orwellcommie]

I haven't seen where you did much debunking of the science of Global Warming.  I do however understand your distinction between industrial capitalism and finanacial capitalism.  It is indeed possible that the fight against global warming could have and adverse effect on the proliteriate, this might very well be totally nessisary as from what I can tell the science behind this thread is valid.  But there is still hope comrad we need not disadvantage the proliteriate by dismantleing the industrial base of the developed world.  There exsist technologies that would allowed continued industy while limiting the adverse pollution caused by modern tactics.  Case in point transfering to the large scale use of wind mill generated energy.  Wind energy is all but totally non poluting it's a technology that has exsisted for a very long time it's there is no debate over weither or not people could use wind to create electrical energy and it could be done on a sufficient scale to suffer on decrease in the productive output of the worlds industrial ecconomies, the main obsticle here isn't technical but political.  Where there is a political will to transfer to non poluting methods to run the ecconomic base of nations the solution presents itself.

[Red Student]

I haven't seen where you did much debunking of the science of Global Warming...

I don't know what you mean with "debunking". Have you read the Climate Science blog, there was a good post a couple of days about why the IPCC science doesn't work.

But there is still hope comrad we need not disadvantage the proliteriate by dismantleing the industrial base of the developed world.

Is this a point I made? I wrote this post some time ago but I don't think I was ever for de-industrialisation (actually I am sure of it).

Case in point transfering to the large scale use of wind mill generated energy.

"large scale wind mill generated energy"!! There is no proof that such a thing would EVER work.

Where there is a political will to transfer to non poluting methods to run the ecconomic base of nations the solution presents itself.

I believe that human being are capable of anything, but first tell me what you mean with pollution? Are you talking about CO2 or SO2?

[marlin]

Red Student is right to raise alarm about global warming — "Global warming", "Peak Oil", the campaign against nucliar energy, biofuels, etc., etc., are components of a form of warfare — "Green" warfare — being waged against the masses worldwide. Carbon dioxide is a non poisonous atmospheric trace gas. It has existed in much higher atmospheric concentrations in the past than today, with no signal in the whole of the paleological record of it ever having caused runaway global warming anywhere. The computer model generated idea that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide can somehow reflect or re-radiate heat or energy back to the surface thereby causing additional warming, is a straightforward violation of the second law of thermodynamics, which holds that heat always moves from regions of higher density of heat to regions of lower density of heat. When a CO2 molecule absorbs IR radiation it causes an increase in the kinetic energy of the particles that form that molecule. This kinetic energy (or motion) causes the particles to emit heat, which is transferred to other less hot regions of the molecule or towards other systems of lower heat density. Thus, the radiative effect of C02 cannot violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Contrary to the notion suggested by the IPCC models, C02 in the stratosphere cannot warm the troposphere. The troposphere is dominated by water vapor, where the 2nd law also applies, since the temperature gradiant increases as we move toward the surface. In other words, nothing in the atmosphere can warm the surface radiatively. Land and oceans radiate IR, atmospheric water vapor (and to a lesser extent C02) absorb IR, and by conduction and convection, heat is transferred to other atmospheric components such as oxygen and nitrogen. Radiation from the troposphere up is from all the components of the atmosphere, dominated by nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapor. It’s a mistake to consider radiation on its own, or to think in terms of “re-radiate”.


Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161

Heat Stored By Greenhouse Gases
http://biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html

Greenhouse warming? What greenhouse warming?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html

Consensus? What consensus?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html

[eco-socialist]

Comrades, I have attempted to write this in as neutral a tone as I can because I wanted to get my point across as clearly as possible and to avoid alienating anyone. I hope you can read this with an open mind...
 
So far Red Student and Marlin have not convinced me of the validity of their arguments for two reasons:
1.   Blogs are not scientifically valid and I think that Red Students’ quote on this sums up the science behind his/her argument- “I don't know what you mean with "debunking". Have you read the Climate Science blog... (most entries are scientific, skip those!).”
2.    The first two links on Marlins response would not load-and so I cannot comment on the validity of them. However the other two were both from the SPPI website which is, although having some relevant and interesting info, a very biased site, which does not attempt to give each argument even representation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
It is true that we in MEDC countries have no right to condemn or even put pressure on LEDC countries, rich in non-renewable resources, to stop their extraction and use of such materials. Our use of such resources enabled us to oppresses and enslave so many in the establishment and continuation of our numerous and vast colonies-used to aid the expansion of capitalism.

However I fail to see how you can believe that the struggle towards a greener world is an assault on the proletariat and on poorer countries in general.

Red Student: ‘The Kyoto Protocol was an instrument to stop countries like China and India from industrialising and sustain the current status quo of rich north and poor south.’
Although there is obviously truth to this; there are a number of points which I would like to make in relation to renewable and non-renewable energy here.

Firstly: the majority of workers in the majority of the poorest or least ‘developed’ countries do not benefit from the wealth which is accumulated from the extraction of resources from within their respective countries. It is the members of the elite within those countries who truly benefit from the trade of coal, oil, etc; whilst the majority of the populace remain in poverty. It is the capitalist system itself which will keep the proletariat enslaved-not the switch to renewable/green energy.

Secondly: The West’s dependence on foreign oil/coal etc is the cause of many recent conflicts (i.e. the Iraq war) which have worsened the lives of working people in all countries involved and have been a disgrace to all humanists.

The switch towards a greater dependency on renewable energy whilst incorporating CHP’s and other less wasteful energy generators will do a lot to save the planet from this crises as well as making the lives of the workers of all countries comparatively better-not worse. This is because it will enable all countries to be self sustained on a far greater level and overall be more sustainable. It will mean that every country will produce its own energy from the resources available to it. It will provide jobs for people in MEDCs as the renewable energy factories will need to be built and maintained. It will decrease the abuse of workers in LEDCs as foreign multinationals, such as Shell, will not be exploiting them for their resources.

For these reasons alone I cannot see why any true socialist/communist/humanist/etc would oppose green energy so
strongly.

Red Student: ‘"Large scale wind mill generated energy"!! There is no proof that such a thing would EVER work.’
That is as foolish an argument as to say that socialism cannot work on a world wide scale because we have never seen it before! Green energy, such as wind power, has been proven to work on a small scale even with the unbelievably low level of investment it has received. It can work on a global scale; however the transition from our dependency on fossil energy to ‘green’ needs to be a slow progressive change-not an instant one. This is why we need to begin this process now.

Fossil fuels are beginning to run out and as a result we face not having adequate energy supplies in the not too distant future. This is evidence enough that we need to explore into greener energy. Green energy is still in an early stage of development and needs a chance to flourish. However it must be encouraged or it never will develop to the point it can. Large multinationals and governments are fundamentally opposed to green energy because it will lose them money-at least in the short term.

As I said, it would benefit the workers and increase the sustainability of all countries. However it would lessen the control that governments have over the energy we use and would lose them money. At the moment they are our only means of receiving energy; and a switch to renewable energy would change that. It would give them (albeit it only slightly) less control over our money, our lives, and our standard of living; as well as decreasing the taxation they can use etc. So obviously, (being capitalist,) they are very unwilling to allow this to happen.

This is why many governments are turning towards nuclear power instead of ‘green’ to reduce their dependency on fossil fuels, (for example France, Poland and the UK.)

Marlin says that: ‘Red Student is right to raise alarm about...the campaign against nuclear energy’
I cannot understand how you can be in favour of nuclear energy. Even if what you say about green energy being used as “a form of warfare...against the masses worldwide” was true, I don’t see how this could justify nuclear.
For starters nuclear energy is not renewable, but is extremely dangerous-especially to the workers in its plants. It is one of, if not the most expensive and wasteful forms of generating energy. The cost of relocating plants and disposing of nuclear waste is astronomical-as well as being unsafe. The land used for nuclear generators cannot be built on for decades after the plant closes down and the energy which can be produced through nuclear is also far less than what green energy offers.

In regards to business, making any change in the way any business is run (especially when it comes to something slightly uncertain such as green energy) would risk the short term profit of said business and consequently is out of the question for any capitalist multinational.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Red student quote: ‘Why has so little concrete effort been made to reduce the release of CO2, compared to such a great outcry and hysteria about global warming?’
This quote seems to support my argument completely. What you say on financial capitalism seems to me to be relatively solid. However explain to me how if there is such a ‘great outcry’ from the public and such support from financial capitalists, as well as ‘big corporation(s)...not any more... opposed [to] the idea of Global Warming’ that so little changes have taken place? If all these different groups wanted/were willing to turn away from fossil energy, what is stopping them? The fact is that business is opposed to renewable energy. Renewable energy would not destroy wealth but would simply distribute it, on a global scale, slightly more evenly. That is also why governments are opposed to it. There is also still a lot of doubt amongst the public when it comes to global warming; which is due to a number of factors:
•   Misinformation tactics from business/industry;
•   Lies with regard to the effectiveness and economic benefits of green energy;
•   Ignorance combined with guilt-most people have never looked into the realities of global warming and continually hear a contradiction of opinions. A consequence of this is the blind support of global warming sceptics which enables the public to simply not worry about the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------
On a separate issue; Red student said with regards to ‘homosexual acts’ that ‘Socialism is not socially liberal.’ You may not believe that socialism is socially liberal but surely you cannot argue that socialism does anything other than work towards a society which benefits all people; in terms of wealth, representation and equality.

And it is narrow-minded, ignorant prejudices, such as the homophobia expressed by Red student, which go against the core principles of socialism and present a key barrier in establishing a better society based on socialist principles.

[Red Student]

1.   Blogs are not scientifically valid and I think that Red Students’ quote on this sums up the science behind his/her argument- “I don't know what you mean with "debunking". Have you read the Climate Science blog... (most entries are scientific, skip those!).”

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!

This blog is by a scientist: Roger Pielke Sr.; it is not a blog by some snot nose kid writing from his basement, he is Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado in Boulder
Emeritus Professor of the Department of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University, even his son, Roger Pielke Jr. is a climate scientist.

The scientific entries that I recommended the readers to skip are TECHNICAL you won't understand them no matter how smart you think you are!!

"Blogs are not scientifically valid", what kind of nonsense is this supposed to be?? It only proves that you didn't even click the link...typical smug ignorant American answer...

Firstly: the majority of workers in the majority of the poorest or least ‘developed’ countries do not benefit from the wealth which is accumulated from the extraction of resources from within their respective countries. It is the members of the elite within those countries who truly benefit from the trade of coal, oil, etc; whilst the majority of the populace remain in poverty. It is the capitalist system itself which will keep the proletariat enslaved-not the switch to renewable/green energy.

The typical western position, the west got rich by polluting but no one else is allowed to do the same...Do members of the elite in the US share their wealth with smug ignorant eco-socialists like yourself? Get out of your basement and take a look at the world you live in and leave the rest of the world to themselves; they don't need you to tell them how to live.

The switch towards a greater dependency on renewable energy whilst incorporating CHP’s and other less wasteful energy generators will do a lot to save the planet from this crises as well as making the lives of the workers of all countries comparatively better-not worse. This is because it will enable all countries to be self sustained on a far greater level and overall be more sustainable. It will mean that every country will produce its own energy from the resources available to it. It will provide jobs for people in MEDCs as the renewable energy factories will need to be built and maintained. It will decrease the abuse of workers in LEDCs as foreign multinationals, such as Shell, will not be exploiting them for their resources.

Typical smug ignorant petty-bourgeois 'let's save the world' nonsense...renewable energy (doesn't exist, but let's pretend) WON'T STOP IMPERALISM...is this clear for you or not? Anyway we want crises, we want more war, and we don't want PAX AMERICANA or even PAX WESTERN-A and not even PAX SMUG-IGNORANT-A...

That is as foolish an argument as to say that socialism cannot work on a world wide scale because we have never seen it before!

As a rule I don't answer idiots who blatantly lie, but today I will make an exception. First, we have seen large scale socialism. Second, I didn't say it wont work because it has never worked, I said there is no proof period.

And it is narrow-minded, ignorant prejudices, such as the homophobia expressed by Red student, which go against the core principles of socialism and present a key barrier in establishing a better society based on socialist principles.

You are an ignorant American who never read a book in his life, you won't know the core principles of socialism if it hit you in the face. I am not narrow-minded but you don't even have a mind of your own (narrow or otherwise). As long is people like you (ignorant) exist we will never see a better society...

[Red Student]

Comrades, I have attempted to write this in as neutral a tone as I can because I wanted to get my point across as clearly as possible and to avoid alienating anyone. I hope you can read this with an open mind...

I wish you had told us you are only 16 years old, come back when you are 26 maybe I'll let you ask a question. Nothing worse than a kid who thinks he knows something; anyway I was right when I said you are "ignorant"...try to deny that.

[eco-socialist]

"I wish you had told us you are only 16 years old...Nothing worse than a kid who thinks he knows something"

I don’t see what relevance my age has to do with your argument-unless it is solely a way to try and destabilise mine.
 

"The typical western position, the west got rich by polluting but no one else is allowed to do the same...Do members of the elite in the US share their wealth with smug ignorant eco-socialists like yourself? Get out of your basement and take a look at the world you live in and leave the rest of the world to themselves; they don't need you to tell them how to live."

How was I trying to tell the rest of the world how to live? In fact in a paragraph before the one you are quoting from I clearly said that: “we in MEDC countries have NO right to condemn or even put pressure on LEDC countries, rich in non-renewable resources, to stop their extraction and use of such materials. Our use of such resources enabled us to oppresses and enslave so many in the establishment and continuation of our numerous and vast colonies-used to aid the expansion of capitalism.”

No, the elite in the US do not share their wealth with me; maybe this is because I live in England, (amazing that you were able to use your staggeringly matured intellect to find out my age and yet somehow missed where I live.) What you say on the elite supports my entire argument-which is that the wealth accumulated from the extraction and use of non-renewable energy in LEDC countries does not benefit the proletariat- you have basically just agreed with my entire argument on fossil fuels! 

And out of interest, what basement is it that you keep referring to? I know that you can’t mean mine-as I live in a flat and don’t have a basement-but I am anxious to find out where it is so that I can move my computer down there, develop a “snot nose” and read as many reactionary ignorant posts as you can write.


"You are an ignorant American who never read a book in his life, you won't know the core principles of socialism if it hit you in the face."

Perhaps you could explain to me, using your profoundly rational, unbiased, in-depth knowledge of this subject, what socialism is, in your opinion.


"Typical smug ignorant petty-bourgeois 'let's save the world' nonsense...renewable energy (doesn't exist, but let's pretend) WON'T STOP IMPERALISM"

I have two points to make here:
1.   I did not say that renewable energy would stop imperialism; I simply said that it would work to redistribute the wealth SLIGHTLY more evenly and that this is why it is opposed to by capitalists. At the moment all, or at least most of, the energy used by western MEDC countries is imported from LEDC countries and this would stop that, and along with it abuse from oil companies, NOT ALL companies. And that it would also provide more jobs for all countries. My arguments on this are pretty clear.
2.   Renewable energy does exist, and no matter how long you deny it, you won’t change that fact. Here is just one examples of what renewable energy can offer:
“Iceland is unique among modern nations in having an electricity system that is already 99.9 percent reliant on indigenous renewable energy-geothermal and hydroelectric. The overall energy system, including transportation, is roughly 68 percent dependent on renewable sources. This, some experts believe, prepares the country well to make the transition from internal combustion engines to fuel cells, and from hydrocarbon to hydrogen energy.” (taken from the Global energy network institute.)


“You are only 16 years old, come back when you are 26 maybe I'll let you ask a question.”

Good news, I turn 17 in a few days! This means that you have 9 years to reach an adult level of political understanding-or maybe we should wait until I turn 30 just in case 9 years isn’t long enough for you.

[isolatedmonkey]

Has anyone else noticed that comrade Red Student  tends to go around starting arguments with other comrades, makes vast assumptions on them and then never replies again?

[eco-socialist]

This was just given to me regarding the issue of global warming by a comrade who is beyond the description of 'youth':

"Marxism and climate change/global warming

Marxism is a whole lot more than an effective revolutionary guide to overcoming the capitalist system.

It has that capacity precisely because it is based on an objective analysis of the processes at work in capitalism. This analysis does not float unattached to the concrete reality that preceded our existence as a conscious species able to reflect on our experience and develop ideas about our future. Marxism has a proud tradition of active involvement in scientific debate, of integrating its findings and being at the forefront of radical  conclusions about the implications for the future of humanity.

 A so called Marxist that thinks that we can ignore objective realities – eg about the impact of out of control CO2 /greenhouse gas emissions – because the capitalists manipulate any and every situation to their advantage vv the working class and the oppressed masses, has not understood the relationship between the task we face as revolutionaries and objective circumstances. In effect they are – perhaps unwittingly – prisoners of idealism.

Nature existed before us. The planet has been getting on with its creative and its destructive processes independent of what we might want, need or hope for. Its our job to understand that and prevent capitalism from throwing humanity into the disaster of ignoring the source providing for our needs sanely, effectively and fairly. Nature is only abundant to those that grasp her processes and work with them! She is, and will be , ruthless if we ignore them.

So the question is – what is this process, is it real ?, what does it mean, what can we do and how can we take control so that what needs to be done is done in the interests of all of us. Marx explained very eloquently that capitalism is in nobody'sinterests – yes – not even in the interests of capitalists! And they are proving that very clearly in their reckless disregard for the future of humanity by turning our natural resources into tinsel and profit, wasting and destroying, condemning future generations to chaos and planet degradation – exactly as they always have and always will. There is no contradiction between saving the planet from global capitalism and saving humanity from exploitation and poverty. They are the same struggle.

Trotsky warned that there was not much time left, that capiltalism is in a phase where it tends to barbarism because it has nothing progressive to offer, is incapable of furthering humanity’s interest. That explains a whole lot better why the planets workings and resources are recklessly misused than some conspiracy theory about fooling us all into false panics about imaginary dangers in order to gain/retain the upper hand vv challenging peoples/nations. Our answers cannot come from just one level of reality!
Just because lots of “greens” are perhaps, crudely put “petit bourgoise reactionary utopians” doesn’t mean there is no issue to be faced here.
 A good measure of the vitality of a movement is how it responds to new challenges – ones you can’t regurgitate from “texts” That’s perhaps the issue? Has this …. So called …. Internationalist movement got answers to the challenges humanity faces? Or do they prefer to reduce it all to tried and tested formulas. Are they using Marxism as a tool to effectively organise against the class that stands in the way or as some defence against self criticism? Whose interests is that in? putting our heads in the sand is no answer. This is our planet, we must fight for it , show leadership, mobilise in ways that pull in those that care about “green” issues – because we recognise more clearly and more fully just what will defeat those that are ruining lives, humanity and the planet!"

[gugoll]

Very good answer eco-socialist.
Unfortunately lately I'v seen several people who claim to be Marxists to reject obvious facts as global warming and Peak Oil.Are really so much "Marxists" victims of idealism.The world is changing and we must change with it to survive.The development of new energy sources is vital for the survival of humanity.These people actually seem to believe that oil will aways came out of the wells and we will burn it forever without impact for the environment.This is clearly a ideological mindset.

[MVPaviaItalia]

Since I've been writing a very long article on this subject (the last part will be published next week), I would suggest you to check the section on climate change that has been created on In Defence of Marxism. Find it at http://www.marxist.com/climate-change/. The deniers are right-wing politicians and bourgeois lobbies, this conspiracy theory is not a serious Marxist position.

[RedGreen]

Yeah, it is lacking factual basis, and is a favorite argument of those who believe that Israel runs the US, that all world leaders are actually demons that are part of a satanic cult, that snake-people were behind 9/11, the Russian revolution was all a scheme by world bankers who hired Lenin, etc. These people are Libertarian extremists who are actually rushing to defend capitalism and it's deeds, while basing their condemnation of world leaders on a religious mantra. They ignore all facts, except the ones they create for themselves.

Also, Red Student seems to be taking a rather Stalinist or possibly Maoist position on what Marxism and Socialism really are. And anyone can type some numbers into a box, how do we know how old you really are?

[Empiricist]

Those who denied that global warming exist, are those who denied the fact of science, the fact of proof, the fact of evidence.

If you denied science then you denied the reality of the world today

[Universal]

Well, my beliefs have been shaken in global warming what with America having a VERY cold winter and all. But i do agree with you that the left wing need to do stuff the left states they do in our systems. I am anti-gay and lesbian, but i still give then the rights that they deserve on a society base. However, in most places in the world, church has been separated from state(I'd hope) and to infringe state on church is the same as church infringing on state. So a good argument would be that church is separated from state so state should be separated from church(aka, no gay or lesbian marrage).

In closing, i define marrage as between a man and a woman, not two men or two woman.