Why do so many not accept climate change data?

‘I\’m sure the Sierra Club \”buys their own researcher\” as well. In this day of age can there be \”unbiased\” researchers? I\’m starting to think that is becoming more and more an impossibility. ALL of the them have predispostions which makes scientists conclude the way they do.’

The science is irrelevant. Whatever is or is not done about whatever climate change is or is not occurring will be driven by what people are willing to pay. At this point, few is any of the nations and individuals supporting climate change legislation will pay any significant portion of the cost associated with any proposed solution to the supposed problem. Regardless of emotion, etc., wealthy nations are not going to cut their economic throats to satisfy these advocates of ccl. Nor should they.

I commented in a post on this theme a few weeks ago that “the future is apocalyptic” - I think Earl is right in his analysis, that nobody is going to change the way they live very much, because we like having cars and computers and big TVs and things, and we buy out of season produce that has been flown half-way round the world. I do think the science is more robust than the sceptics would have us think; the only variable is how long it will take for things to begin to seriously fall apart. The Greenland icecap IS melting, and the melt is accelerating. That means the North Atlantic is going to change in character, because of the amount of fresh water going in, and the effect that will have on salination stratae, temperature bands, deep ocean currents, and the consequent position of the jet stream. The consequences range from the relatively inconsequential (it rains more in England - the only ones who care are the increasing number flooded out of their homes) to the catastrophic (a major distruption of the deep ocean ‘conveyor belt’ currents, with major consequences for climate and environment - the last time it happened, it was connected with major species extinction).

The truth is probably between the extremes. And if that is hastened by rich nations refusing to ‘cut their own economic throats’, well, first they may see their economic throats strangled by the consequences of climate change, second, those Christians who advocate or encourage it will have to asnwer to the Almighty for their selfish shortsightedness and lack of compassion for the billions who will suffer.

Ever how it is styled, lying does not become us. In discussing such a topic as this, it is simply not in me to prevaricate. It is odd that such simply honesty should be thought refreshing. Perhaps everyone needs to practice such simple forthrightness. The result might be like a breath of fresh air to many similar discussions.

To clearly identify the innate sinfulness of mankind is not to celebrate much less comment it. But like a snake, such plain identification serves to locate it and recognize it for the threat that it poses. There is no compassion is failing to tell the truth about the truth, no matter how inconvenient might be that truth.

The broadly acknowledged extreme cost of widely proposed ccl can not be imposed only on “wealthy” nations leaving second and third tier nations insulated from expense. Especially as demonstrated by the long term conduct of the un, eu, oas, NATO, etc., altruism, compassion, emotion, empathy, generosity, sympathy and other acts of kindness are so random, occasional and remote from everyday decision making.

The cost of living is the price of everyday life. It is a fact that individuals must face whether they live in a refrigerator box under a bridge overpass, an apartment overlooking the river or an estate out in the country. Given the reality of china adding a new coal fired electric generation plant weekly, given the reality of growing populations in second and third tier nations, given the increasing demand for energy, given the reality of current wide spread unemployment in developed nations, to pretend that proposed ccl will not result in economic suicide for many the working class people of many developed nations requires nothing less than a willful detachment from and denial of reality. To describe the result of that denial as “doing our economics differently…” is like a doctor approaching a fully awake patient on a operating table, picking up a chainsaw and telling him, “This is going to sting.”

Richard you say “per capita basis” but fail to realize or mention whichever that they have over 1 BILLION PEOPLE. The fact is as nations we CAN point fingers at China and India AND at the same time address use by the West as well. However, if India and China are not on board then no amount of wraggling by the West is ever going to change the climate (if we assume the extremes which I don’t believe just like Tony says “The truth is probably between the extremes. “)

Do we know that we don’t have sufficient resources? In the 70’s people said peak oil was at 2010 then later on it was 2020 then 2040 now some are saying 2080 or even in the 2100. How are we to believe the “gloom and doom” like you want us to believe when it keeps getting pushed out and out? Even if it is God forbid 2040 I have no question that industry will come up with new energy sources that don’t affect the environment. We see that every day and every day that goes by it gets cheaper and cheaper.

The fact remains every day we find more and more carobon and in addition new energy sources outside of carbon. The fact remains that with the higher petroleum prices businesses are coming up with new ways for energy that reduce the carbon consumption. Every year more and more affordable ways to find energy are coming about.

“In the 70’s people said peak oil was at 2010 then later on it was 2020 then 2040 now some are saying 2080 or even in the 2100. ”

The Hubbert theory is that the graph of oil production will follow a bell curve. He wrote this in 1956, and predicted accurately that US production would peak in the 1970s. World production was expected to peak around 2000, and would have done so had not the reductions in production in the 1970s put the peak back by 5-10 years. So we’re probably now around the top of the bell, and beginning to see oil production beginning to diminish.

We will not simply run out, we’ll see production decline, supplies diminish, prices rise, and wars break out as nations compete to secure their oil (witness the issue in Sudan at the moment). The current worldwide recession has included record oil prices for two quarters in 2008 - possibly disguised by other factors, possibly a hidden and aggravating factor in the causes of the recession.

Sorry, DH, but I think predictions of peak oil coming in 2100 are hugely optimistic if not fanciful. I think it’s already happened. More sources of energy, yes, but we simply cannot sustain our present consumption and lifestyle even with alternative energy sources. Human greed is despoiling the whole planet. You can’t deny it, and you can’t hide from the challenge.

To me what is not refreashing about caring for the environment so that Capitalism is not impeded upon? Why come up with solutions which impeded capitalism when one can come up with solutions which do not with the same goal achieved? That really shows to me the “alterior motive” of environmentalists.

Earl, you hit on the point that I have been trying to make but not as good as you. I’m starting to think that people who say they are “for the environment” use that as an excuse for forced “wealth redistribution”. Rather then lump the two together why can’t we just focus on the environment seperate from the capatialism vs. other economic model arguments?

Being for the environment and promoting capitalism are not mutually-exclusive. One can support both of which I am one of.

I’m starting to think that people who say they are “for the environment” use that as an excuse for forced “wealth redistribution”.

In other words, Greens are Reds.

Great stuff, DH! Crystal.

Ignore him, Richard. Treat him like an hallucination. It’ll be a compliment really: hallucinations have more substance to them.

I am writing in plain text. If someone wants to know what I am writing, they have only to read the plain text. I always take special care to write very slowly so that everyone will have plenty of time to read what is written. I cannot help it if someone should be in such a hurry to jump to their conclusion that they skip what has been said.

I wrote, “Regardless of emotion, etc., wealthy nations are not going to cut their economic throats to satisfy these advocates of ccl. Nor should they.” Beyond hyperbole, the kyoto accords are toxic to Western economic standing. The only ones who support it are those who will not be greatly affected by it. The major wealthy nations including the U.S. have not implemented its protocols which are rightly perceived as economically damaging. Such action may be judged as selfish, but to admit to the reality of such action is only honesty. That the major nations act in their own economic self-interest reflects their legitimate obligations to their citizens. Again, one may judge such self-interest selfish, but that does not legitimate one’s failure to act in the self-interest of one’s citizens.

Earlier in this thread in regard to ccl, I wrote, “The science is irrelevant. Whatever is or is not done about whatever climate change is or is not occurring will be driven by what people are willing to pay.” If from that sentence one draws the meaning that capitalism trumps science, then a refresher course in basic English is in order.

In life there are tangibles the value of which cannot be easily accounted or monetized. Certainly these things do greatly enrich the lives of many people. The value of a clean environment would seem to be self-evident. But one cannot avoid the human cost that are a equally vital part of that equation.

Capitalism trumps everything. It’s the American way.

Test your theology against capitalism and if the teachings of Jesus and the Prophets are found wanting then twist them until they defend capitalism. Test your science against capitalism and tweek the science until it yields profit.

Next we’ll be memorising the Rules of Acquisition and we’ll be fiddling with each other’s ears instead of having sex.

Richard, live long and prosper. V

“Earlier in this thread in regard to ccl, I wrote, “The science is irrelevant. Whatever is or is not done about whatever climate change is or is not occurring will be driven by what people are willing to pay.” If from that sentence one draws the meaning that capitalism trumps science, then a refresher course in basic English is in order.”

Okay. This is how I read what you said (in paraphrase).
“It doesn’t matter if science shows climate change to be a serious threat to the world as a whole. The only way something will be done about it is if people with money decide it’s important.”
To me, that means that capitalism (specifically its doctrine of minimising expenditure unless it is to make more profit) has more of a say in climate change than the science does. What does it mean to you, Earl?

‘Well don\’t you all believe that Socialism and Communism are \”found wanting\” from Scripture? I have never said that Capitalism is \”Biblical\” or for that matter any economic system is Biblical but Richard, Kim, Beth and the like keep promoting one system over the other which Scripture does not do. With regard to Jubilee it doesn\’t refer to \”property rights\” but to the loaning of money. Also it was an OT Messianic Law for which Christ fullfilled (notice I didn\’t say \”done away with\” but \”fulfilled\”). You look at Abraham, David, Solomon, Joseph, etc. property rights were protected. At the same time, even though property rights are promoted in Scripture, there is an underlying understanding that we are \”stewards\” of the property that is entrusted to us since all property is technically owned by God. However, if on earth we happen to \”own something\” there are rights to that ownedship while on earth with the responsibilty as stewards to God who owns that property beyond the ownership we have on earth. If that makes sense. So nothing I said regarding \”property ownership\” contradicts the understanding that God ultimately owns it.’

Either in a bricks and mortar setting or by distance learning there are many means by which one may improve one’s reaching and comprehension skills. For further information, just remember, Google is your friend.

Maybe what this entire discussion does boil down to is that America is not european. Now it is true that several centuries ago there were those in England who sought to force Americans to accept their ideas about how to build and run a country. Those odd little people and their odd little ideas were returned to England. Since then America has managed to set the standard to which the world aspires.

Absent force of arms, if one wishes to gain support for ones position, one must persuade. If one fails to persuade, one may retreat into bitterness and resentment. But until one manages to persuade people to support one’s position, one will fail. If you only succeed in alienating those whose support you need, you have defeated yourself and the very position you seek to establish.

In the matter of ccl, I wrote, “The science is irrelevant. Whatever is or is not done about whatever climate change is or is not occurring will be driven by what people are willing to pay.” Why is this the case? Because scientists have no authority to make decisions about cc or anything else. Who then makes these decisions? Politicians make these decisions. And at least in the United States, these politicians are elected representatives of citizens. If one does not persuade these citizens, then it does not matter how many scientist conduct how many studies. If one cannot or will not speak to and persuade these citizens, “the science” is as irrelevant as a Aztec calendar.

Does this mean that “people with money” decide what is important? Yes it does. It means that people with money, i.e., citizens, tax payers, voters, decide what will be done with their money and what will not be done with their money. That is the American way. It may not suit europe. It may not suit the un. But that is the American way.

While the first sentance is a little over the top, I would say that the second sentence is true and isn’t superiority. It isn’t superiority to say “America has managed to set the standard to which the world aspires.” Why else would people from all over the world desire to come to our nation? This was how this nation is founded. It isn’t superiority to say that “America sets the standard for which the world aspires.” I will say that the “little people and little ideas” comment seems “over the top” even if I do happen to disagree with much of the “European politics” and happen to agree with the foundation of what Earl says.

Richard, If it is any consolation I wouldn’t call you, Kim, or any other resident of England as being “little” or accuse you all of having “little ideas”. Earl and I may agree at the foundation but in any conversation there is bound to a couple of sentences that are “over the top”. Heck, you guys know every once in a while I say some “over the top” things. Then I have to eat crow and apologize and then we go fullcircle and the “circle goes around again”.

Earl, we still agree at the heart and don’t take what I say to heart. I really appreciate your comments. Keep up the good work.

Now it is true that several centuries ago there were those in England who sought to force Americans to accept their ideas about how to build and run a country. Those odd little people and their odd little ideas were returned to England. Since then America has managed to set the standard to which the world aspires.

Earl, Richard is British, so his response to such hilarious impertinence is civil, but I’ll bet he’s thinking what this 100% American, a coarse New Yorker, will just come out and spit out: What an asshole.

Hey DH, that 1/2″ must be from the neck up.

“With regard to Jubilee it doesn\’t refer to \”property rights\” but to the loaning of money.”

Rubbish. Lev.25:23 is quite explicit: “The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants.”

Your comments about sovereign airspace derive from a non-biblical nationalism, and the very comment you made illustrates its nonsense:. You seem to suggest that a nation can have control over the atmosphere in its airspace, when the facts of weather and poluttion indicate the contrary. The more profound (and biblical) truth is that the nations are set up by God to live together as neighbours; it is our gospel responsibility to love our neighbours, so not to destroy their land or air. Nationalism tends to separate neighbours along frontiers, and divide people into opposing camps which fear each other. Internationalism accepts the variety of tribes and nations and seeks to live together in harmony, as Christ leads us.

Is “internationalism” a better word for you than “socialism”?

The problem, DH, is that the garbage isn’t leaving the orifice it’s supposed to. To wit:

Those odd little people and their odd little ideas were returned to England.
That’s the rhetoric of nasty nationalism, relieved only by the absurd irony that most of the American revolutionaries were themselves English, i.e. those “odd little people”. (Earl, of course, means “British”, but we’re used to American ignorance about the UK, let alone about the geography and culture of the rest of the globe, except those nations where the US is waging war.)

Since then America has managed to set the standard to which the world aspires.
That’s just stupid, no, nuts - out of touch with reality - all these by-the-inscrutable-providence-of-God poor foreigners sitting around “aspiring” and dreaming of green cards. It’s like that nonsense about the 9/11 terrorists being motivated by jealousy of the American way of Life. As Terry Eagleton inimitably puts it: “The idea, touted in particular by some Americans, that Islamic radicals are envious of Western freedoms is about as convincing as the suggestion that they are secretly hankering to sit in cafés smoking dope and reading Gilles Deluze.”

And fuelling all this toxic gas: the God and Country myth of American exceptionalism, a principality and power all the more baleful for its Christian camouflage.

Perhaps better than “odd little people… odd little ideas” would be the phrase “obsolete little people… obsolete little ideas…” After all, even in that era was it not already obvious that the sun was setting on monarchy and titled privilege? Yes, some might think “obsolete” is the better word.

The statement “America has managed to set the standard to which the world aspires” is not an expression of inherent superiority but simply a recognition of reality. When it comes to freedom, opportunity, innovation, adaptability, openness, the pattern to which the world turns is American.

Kim… when it comes to what you might think of me, you are mistaken. Your mistake probably stems from the company you keep.

Now as regards the American Revolution, those who rebelled were not only english but Welch, Scotch, Irish, Acadian and even French, African and Spanish. But they were most certainly not uniformly english. Especially in the last century, many Americans traveled the world fighting wars in foreign nations. Many nations today owe their freedom and even their existence to the sacrifice of American lives and the loan of American money which together served to rescue them from extinction by fascism, communism and totalitarianism. And no doubt many Americans learn much as they sailed, flew and marched through these foreign nations. To date, the armies of foreign nations have not been given an opportunity to march through the United States.

When it comes to making decisions that affect society, the American way of representative democracy is patently superior to every other form of government. The American way permits all legitimate citizens an equal vote in determining the interest of the nation. Those decisions are not made by any self-anointed elite class. Those decision are made by the people. Everyone from scientist to community organizers, social critics and contemplative thinkers right on up to the rank and file common everyman of society, they all get to have their say. But in the end, the decisions are not made by any one individual or group. No matter how much they may think themselves privileged by birth, intellect, education, heritage, etc., no one individual or group makes these decisions. These decisions are made by the people. They are the ones with the money. It is their money that will be spent by the government they elect. They have every right to decide how that government will spend their money. That is the American way. It is fundamentally moral. It is fundamentally ethical. It is at odds with the interest of europe. It is at odds with the preferences of the un. But it is not in any way at odds with the way of Christ.

Earl,

“The statement “America has managed to set the standard to which the world aspires” is not an expression of inherent superiority but simply a recognition of reality.”

I am going to have to stop reading the blog when I am eating my breakfast, it is getting far too messy on my keyboard.

From your elevated position in the most superior country in the world is possible that you have not noticed that there are democracies in many other countries in the world.

I for one have two reactions to your rants (well other than laughter and disbelief which come first)

a) I’m with Kim and Pam. As Pam said “It’s also clear that ‘the American way’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the teachings of Jesus or of the Prophets”

b) I for one have no interest whatsoever in gaining a green card, why would I want to live in such a heaven country?

If you represent the alternative to being “obsolete little people” is to be as you describe then I am going to choose to be obsolete every day of the week.

“Either in a bricks and mortar setting or by distance learning there are many means by which one may improve one’s reaching and comprehension skills. For further information, just remember, Google is your friend.”

Earl, your constant jibes at the comprehension and intellect of those who seek to clarify what you’re saying are puerile. I would give you some advice that I find invaluable - assume that, if someone has misunderstood you, the fault is with the way you expressed yourself. If, after clarifications, someone still misunderstands you, then leave the thing alone.

There’s nothing wrong with my reading and comprehension; I just needed more information from you in order to understand the nuances of what you were saying. You could have provided that information without the gratuitous insults. Dare I say that doing so would have been the more Christian approach?

It may be that there are some persons who value monarchy and titled privilege. There are even some who value autocracy, authoritarianism, dictatorship, etc. But the evidence of revolution is that people prefer freedom. This has been the case in America. This has been the case in France and England. And in a more tortured journey, this has been the case in Russia. This is the case in the “velvet revolution.” It is the case in the current political stew that is boiling over in Iran. It does get better and better as obsolete ideas and the people who cling to them are replaced by democracy. Perhaps though it does seem to some a little disconcerting. Surely Cornwallis thought it so when the tune of the day was “The World Turned Upside Down.”

It is good that you have found this discussion helpful. But please note, “Superman” is a fictional character. The lectures to which you refer have been dealing with history, politics and current event that are the American reality. Perhaps from the other side of the pond it only seems like the stuff of dreams.

Certainly there are other democracies in the world. Remarkably the largest democracy in the world just happens to be a nation that also rejected colonial rule for freedom and independence.

As Neil Diamond once sang, it does seem like everyone is coming to America. But America is not for everyone. There may yet be people who prefer less effective even obsolete ways of living. Such persons would probably feel out of place in America. It is understandable that they would be happier remaining where they are. America is a land of opportunity. But America is not for everyone. For those who do not want or seek such opportunity, there are many other places where they can live.

Thank you for all the kind words. It is always nice to be appreciated.

Indeed, I don’t think you’d find any bigger a gap between rich and poor over here than in the US.

The gap between rich and poor is far greater in the US than in the UK.

The poor in the US are far worse off than in the UK. (Also, I’d note that when I left Belgium 21 years ago, the poor in the UK were certainly poorer than the poor in Belgium and Holland.)

I presumed that ‘keeping the poor poor’ was part of the objective.

The comment suggesting that the UK is not a democracy simply reveals the speaker’s complete ignorance. But we should never allow total ignorance to stop us speaking as if we were the experts.

Tony, what did I say that was so against the environment? I said that from a soverign nation basis each nation has a responsibility with its airspace and all aspects of its environment to help the environment and each nation has a responsibility not to have its pollutants enfringe on other soverign nations. Therefore the “soverign airspace” of nations must be protected if they operate within the constructs of the “rule of law” and promote democratic freedom.

For me I don’t “fear” any nation as long as those nations don’t enfringe on peoples freedom and democracy, etc. God desires all people to live in freedom.

I have no problem with nationalism as long as it is not placed over ones love for God. I do love other nations and in fact think the UK and its people are some of the best in the world. I consider many of the people of Europe in the same way. When I mention things about America that are great it is for the love of other people to have freedom that I say those things. That is very biblical. When I see many of the nations of Central America desiring things which are in fact “shooting themselves in the foot” it is the compassion for the people who desire to shoot themselves in their foot” and the people who are forced to live with people who shoot themsleves in their feet that I feel for (aka Hugo Chavez and all the peopl who support him). The same goes for Iran, N. Korea, the Muslim nations of the world, etc.

John Wesley’s commentary:
http://bible.christiansunite.com/wes.cgi?b=Le&c=25
http://www.freegrace.net/gill/Leviticus/Leviticus_25.htm

Here is the proper view of property ownership biblically:
http://biblebaptistpublications.org/socialism.html

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue03/property.htm

Why be ambiguos Tony? The fact remains that these things DO need to defined. I’m getting the impression that you need to get rid of your antimosity toward the US. I truly don’t have that even though I might disagree with some of the Socilized things.

I just don’t buy this whole “class warfare” thing when we are all people. When one looks at the comparison like I did and the lack of definition therein then one can see that the gap is not as much as it appears. That is NOT to say we should not care for the poor for we should. However, one shouldn’t project an antimosity that shouldn’t be there or promote that sort of thing therein.

“…if not greater than the UK”. Come on. This whole UK vs. US thing with regard to income gap is truly hogwash. The poor are poor and the rich are rich and there are responsibilities therein. We all have a responsibility “to or or not eat” and we have a responsibility to “help the poor”.

We still haven’t addressed the greater need of “poor in Spirit” and the lack thereof in Belgium and Holland let alone Scandinavia with 90% not even going to church. To me “Though I give all I have to the poor and have not love I’m a clanging gong.” The most important love is the one that leads to eternal life. With Holland, Belgium and Scandinavia with such a greater percentage with personal moral failure it only makes sense that one must not neglect to identify the importance of bringing what I have to light.

We still haven’t addressed the greater need of “poor in Spirit” and the lack thereof in Belgium and Holland let alone Scandinavia with 90% not even going to church.

I agree with Tony that this is a red-herring. James 2:14-18 (James 2:18 But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith.)

I can’t imagine what sort of connection you want to make between ‘poverty in spirit’ and ‘poverty’. Are you suggesting that societies which allow poor people to be poor are societies with more faith in God? Both the Old and the New Testaments suggest the reverse: that those societies that don’t care for their poor are offending against God and his commandments.

And how are we to take seriously someone who says in almost one breath that the poor in the US are not really poor but let’s have some sympathy for those making $200,000 because they are not really rich?

From what I understand of your faith in the way that you’ve revealed you thoughts here on this blog over the last few years, your faith is a private faith that is about correct doctrine and private spirituality. Personally speaking, I don’t think this is a full expression of the Christian faith.

Beth, I think what Earl was trying to say is that in the US there is a greater opportunity for a person who is poor to start a business, be innovative, etc. to be economically successful. For me personally, that is not to say that the UK is worse but that the opportunity in the US is greater. For me, if I was poor I would rather live in a place where with a little ingenuity could “move up” with hard work as opposed to the opposite. That is not to say that poor are not working but that one can have the unlimited potential for economic success from economic hardship in the US. To me that is an amazing thing about America.

aka story of “Aunt Annie’s pretzels”, “Papa John’s pizza”, all people who started businesses from garages, etc.

Being able to start a business or be economically successful is beyond just “education”. In the US the “skies the limit”. In the UK there happens to not be as much (notice I didn’t say this in the absolute sense) incentive for people do what is needed to be economically successful, innovative or entrepreneurial. That is not to say that the UK doesn’t have poor people become entreprenuers but that there is not as much incentive or encouragement for that to take place.

Again I’m not speaking to the US as being “greater” because I love the British people, government, culture, etc. (food that is another story ) I guess Earl and I are focusing on the higher amount of Socialism which limits productivity, innovation, entreprenuership, etc. At least the UK has more Capitalism than other European countries but has some measure of Socialism as part of its economics. In fact in the absolute sense the US has some measure of Socialism (however small) but it is less than other nations.

In the US the “skies the limit”. In the UK there happens to not be as much (notice I didn’t say this in the absolute sense) incentive for people do what is needed to be economically successful, innovative or entrepreneurial.

You appear to be saying two things I don’t agree with.

1) That any poor person in the US can become as rich as he or she wants. This is a meaningless statement largely because we can’t measure ‘wants’. I’d also venture to say that most people who operate their lives on the basis of greed are never satisfied anyway. (Remember the ‘fear and greed’ maximum of capital markets.)

2) That there is ’something’ inherent in the economic structure of the UK that business progress. So if someone would have achieved 10X in the US economy, they will only be able to achieve X in the UK economy because the UK ’system’ will stymie them at every turn. From 21 years of living in the UK, I think this is also incorrect.

Where I will give you as a concession is that there is generally a higher tax rate for European corporations than for US corporations; and there is usually more government regulation. However, the situation of Corporate Europe is a different discussion from whether or not one is able to pull oneself up out of poverty in any given culture.

The fact that most Europeans I know come back from their first trip to the US saying ‘I can’t believe the richest country in the world lets people live in such squalor’ might give you a hint.

And, to be honest, it really is a bit rich that two people who have never lived in the UK are telling those of us who do how we are incorrect about what life is like in the UK.

” I think what Earl was trying to say is that in the US there is a greater opportunity for a person who is poor to start a business, be innovative, etc. to be economically successful. ”

Actually, what Earl was saying (at least, the point to which I responded) was little to do with economic opportunity, and more to do with the political differences - you know, where he contrasted revolutionary societies (France, the US) with non-revolutionary societies which preferred monarchy and titled privilege. My point is that it is actually utterly irrelevant to most people. Nothing you have said so far has addressed that point - basically, Earl was talking utter rubbish, based upon caricature rather than experience or analysis. The monarchy is not relevant to our economy. Most nobles are irrelevant - they have inherited wealth from previous generations (much like upper-class families in the US); they generally prefer conservative to progressive government (as in the US); at their best, they invest in and support local and regional economy - you might have noticed when you were over here in May that the heritage and history industry is quite strong.

In short, I pointed out where Earl was failing to see what is really going on over here. Nothing since has told me I was wrong.

Tony, I guess I was focusing on a small point of your discussion with Earl. As you can see some of what Earl said I disagreed with. I was just rephrasing it to show to what level I agreed with Earl and how that might promoted greater dialogue between our differences and the misconceptions thereof - you with the US (which is clearly apparant) and me with the UK and Europe (which you all seem to think).

In conclusion, I’m proud of America. I can tell you all story after story of people who were poor who started businesses and are economically successful. It seems obvious that the opportunity of “unlimited potential” is unmatched anywhere in the world. Are there poor people? yes but the poor are poor for infinitely various reasons beyond some being victims. One can’t look at all of the poor as victims. At the same time not all poor are able by no fault of their own aka disability, abuse, etc.

Earl you have an amazing ability to string together entire sentences and paragraphs that sound good but are totally devoid of actual content. I’m glad for your parents. There are loads of people in the UK who could tell very similar stories. I can point you to a neighbourhood in North London filled with many people who ‘made it big off their own back’ and who own £5 million mansions - many of whom were immigrants to the UK.

Proving that the US is a good place to live does not prove that the UK is a bad place to live. You have valid experience about the US but you are spouting ignorant stereotypes about the UK. This is not the 18th century.

“You fail to recognize that the majority are NOT inherited wealth but people who started their own companies or work for companies as executives.”

In the first place, it depends on what you define as ‘upper class’. In the second, what you say of the US could be equally said of the UK. Which is what I’ve been saying all along.

Mythology aside, it does not appear that broad economic opportunity such as is available in the United States does not seem to be mirrored in the european context. It may be that there are locals where there are exceptions, just as in the United States there are areas and even entire states where economic opportunity is not as robust.

In popular thought and experience American society is broadly supportive of personal individual freedom and independence, capitalism and competitive meritocracy. Evaluated against european social welfare assumptions, the American experience is to be preferred. It produces greater opportunity for all persons to advance according to their own resources and willingness to work. It provides the greatest equity for all persons, not punishing or rewarding anyone based on some supposition of social justice that privileges one person over another.

If one is to suppose that personal experience is the sole qualification for commenting on any subject, even a society, then it would appear that absent recent residential experience in and wide travel throughout the United States, one would be equally unqualified to offer even an opinion as to day to day life in the United States.

I give about as much credence to Klien and ap’s liberal perspective as some might give to the Heritage Foundation.

Richard, I’m sure we can find other “experts” which conclude the opposite. One has to truly look at the details of the research to see if there is data being unintentionally or intentionally (making no value judgements) being excluded, how was the data obtained, does the conclusion fit the data (it may in some areas but in other areas doesn’t), etc. It also doesn’t factor in where the “money” is obtained. If one makes the same amount but taxes such to where there is more “equal distribution” then yes in an absolute sense people will be making more but then on a per capita basis the national debt will be higher and many other “negative factors” of data will not show up in the “research” from the articles presented.

Here is a site to explain the “difference” in the data as I explained:

http://ncf.uschamber.com/wp-content/uploads/backgrounderanalyzingeconomicmobilitycompensation.pdf

Simply put, such glittering generalities are as substantial and consequential as the promises of politicians offered during an election cycle. Like the “facts and figures” appealed to in “academic studies,” they are aptly described by the words of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, “Full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing.”

Bespectacled, wearing contacts or straight from a Lasix lab, professors with years of training and experience in teaching not unlike similar rare individuals who teach the various disciplines of music, art or scupture; apart from actual commercial or entrepreneurial accomplishment, they are at best unconvincing.

Richard, the article I referenced DID address the economic mobility issue by address the limitations and some flaws in the research with regard to the “economic mobility” research you have referenced.

‘The OECD and other critics use data that underreflects the actual US economic mobility rate when one takes into account ALL factors. They give a rational, detailed account for the understated data used by many who project lower US economic mobility rates.

Paragraph one identifies that there are people, politicians, etc. that say that the US is becoming “less economically mobile”. The following three paragraphs explain how the data they use fails to account for other data and fails to account for other factors which show that the US is MORE economically mobile. It only contends that if the data that these groups use is artifically lower than it should be that makes the conclusions from these “groups” be “in question”.