I'm saying that needs to be front and center of their thinking and for some it is and some it isn't."
When desires of government bureaucrats is "front and center" of thinking for a company making consumer products, then the company isn't working for it's customers any more. This is a system that has been tried before (and currently, in some places). In the 1930's and 40's it was called Fascism.
there are no checks and balances
... of regulators, yes, I agree.
all markets will gravitate to monopoly/ oligopoly naturally
If you mean "all markets with excessive intervention by uninformed central planers will gravitate to monopoly/ oligopoly naturally" - I agree. If you mean all free markets do that - I've got about 400 years of history that prove you wrong.
this quasireligious notion that markets will remain balanced and fair and virtuous by magic free market fairy is an insane belief on the order of antivaxxers and creationists, directly contrary to economic facts and economic history
When you say it like that, it's nothing but an unassailable straw man ploy aimed at denigrating anyone that disagrees with your extreme position. I could turn this around on you and use similarly loaded words, lump all supporters of regulation in with statists, totalitarians, eugenicists and communists, as well as point out these folks are on the wrong side of economic history and economic facts. But you're not interested in having a reasonable position, but in painting anyone that questions an armed bureaucrat's intentions as a total anarchist.
you need to protect society from capitalism's extremes. if some of those protections and regulations have problems, those problems are tiny compared to no protections or regulations. protections and regulations can be cleaned up and refined, but never removed. to not understand why less protections and regulations is far worse is to not understand the topic
The problem with this type of prioritization (which many markets, especially labor markets, are currently experiencing), is that free markets have many checks and balances from competition, consumers, and reputation that are sorely lacking in the regulatory system. What that means is that regulators regulate based not on the best information and feedback, but based on self-interest and political influence without regard to actual impacts on the macro economies. Capitalism uses self-interest as a driver as well as a check, as consumers and producers work toward a mutually beneficial equilibrium. These checks do not exist in the monopoly of regulation and power brokering, which can result in either regulatory capture by influential market players, or the destruction of market players by regulators seeking political power. The political system in the US, most clearly at the federal level but also in some of the local levels as well, simply isn't as responsive to the desires of its constituency or the available market information as it needs to be. This leads to many harmful interventions. Ethanol requirements are a good recent example of harmful regulation hurting markets and consumers. Uber and Lyft are challenging regulators that have created virtual monopolies for cab companies, and have blocked those companies from providing services in many places. People building "tiny homes" often find there are localities where their choice of housing is illegal due to regulations from one direction or another.
protections and regulations can be cleaned up and refined, but never removed
That's not a feature - it's a bug. Regulations live on, grow, and are defended even where they are unnecessary or harmful.
The difference between Europe and America: * In America 100 years is considered a long time
I hear this shit all the time from Europeans. Oh your country is only 200 years old. Fucking racist, we had people here 30,000 years ago, just because they're a different colour doesn't mean it's less relevant.
And ultimately we're all 2000th generation African, so we all share a common history. It's not like humans in this part of the world just popped out of thin air 200 years ago. Your 5000 year old relics are equally my 5000 year old relics, since their connection to either you or I is so equally distant.
What kind of legacy did the native americans leave 2000-3000 years ago to civilisation ? The Romans built roads, acquaducts, conquered the known world, invented Roman Law (that underpins most non common law systems even today). The Chinese had similar accomplishments. The Greeks invented Democracy (although Greek democracy was different from modern day democracies), managed to conquer territories up to India , had great philosophers etc... American history starts in the 16 th fucking century with European explorers. Your nation comes into existence in the late 18th century. So yeah you're a young nation.
Apparently you've never heard of tribes such as the Creeks, Alabamas, Natchez, Chitimachas and Choctaws. They left ruins of their civilizations, many older than the Romans, all over the American southeast. All the Southwest states contain countless ancient remains and Native American sites. In the Texas panhandle you can visit the Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, which contains some ancient flint excavation pits thought to have been used for up to 12,000 years.
The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean.
'm sorry, but the above is a very basic result from chemistry - typically something taught in high school. It's also something you experience in everyday live - a warm coke will go flat faster, but you also need some way to get the sparkle into the coke (by exposing it to CO2 at a very high partial pressure). This is not magic, it's basic physics and chemistry.
Hmmm... CO2 concentrations in liquid, sure. But what does that have to do with PH? You indicate that it's self-evident, but it's not to me. Maybe you can explain that relationship in high-school sciencey language. There are actually 3 different ways to measure PH, one of which is specific to ocean chemistry (the PH Seawater Scale - sws).
I'm very hard trying to avoid ad-hominem.
No, it's not, actually. Especially in science (not the scientific community that is awash in politic, but the work of science it certainly is).
Above, you admit that you do not fully understand basic high-school level chemistry.
Nice try. See above.
What makes you think that you can understand graduate-level climate science papers?
I can't understand everything, certainly, but much of it is accessible to me. Much of it because I'm good at maths. And language.
Your Junk Science link discusses and mentions only one paper. It takes the results out of context and misrepresents the paper by conflating temperature-driven processes (including e.g. seasonal changes) with CO2 driven processes (which increase the base level the pH varies around. Junk Science also take results from one inland lake in Japan and extrapolates that to the worlds ocean - talk about unjustified extrapolation.
I think you are misreading it. They are using the data from the lake in Japan to demonstrate specific relationships. For 280,000 years. It's no more an extrapolation than "More CO2 increases the greenhouse effect." Physical properties are physical properties.
At your second link, Sustainable Oregon , I fail to find a single link to a peer-reviewed paper. There may well be one, but if so it's carefully hidden among links to so-called think tank publications, denier blogs, and self-published (as opposed to scientific) opinion pieces.
Most of that is a review of the ONE study on ocean acidification that keeps getting quoted. And those reviews are pretty damning to that study, IMHO.
So, in your opinion the climate effects of sulfur and ash from mega volcanoes sufficiently active to cover a surface equivalent to Europe is directly equivalent to the passage of CO2 from 300ppm to 400 or even 500ppm. Care to justify what is clearly an enormous mistake?
From ad hominem to straw man, I guess. I never made any such claim - the topic is ocean acidification. I don't even know where you're getting any of this from - unless it's simply an extension of the "attack the messenger" argument that I have already ignored.
More ad hominems to ignore.
Yes, all things being equal, warmer water holds less dissolved CO2, i.e. it becomes less acidic. But all things are not equal. The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean. And that is something we can actually observe, both in the lab and in nature.
You seem to be more familiar with this aspect of the science than I am. I have not looked into those claims although I've skimmed some of the arguments on both sides.
What I found interesting was the critique of the published numbers of PH readings. There are a lot of questions in the detail of what is being measured. Most of all, the most often-quoted studies that extrapolate changes BACKWARD - to the turn of the century - using trends from only 15 - 20 years of data. I haven't seen an explanation for this, but the EPA's website only shows readings from 1980 - 1985. They don't do the backward extrapolation, though.
It's a bad idea to take one's science from most blogs or propaganda outfits. Check Google Scholar for peer-reviewed scientific papers.
Google filters those. But peer-reviewed papers are what I look for as an ultimate source. That's the reason I posted the links above. They include many references to the peer-reviewed work.
Ph level is a sliding scale with acid on one side and alkaline on the other. If Ocean water is moves from alkaline to neutral to below 7 on the scale, which is what tehy are saying is/will happen, then it is becoming acidic. It is currently at an 8.1 out of a 14 point scale.
They are saying it, but is it true. The EPA's website only shows data from about 1985, at the earliest, but PH has been measured fairly accurately since the mid-19th century. And it doesn't match the extrapolated history.
They might do better to focus on issues like this. "You are killing the earth's food supply, including your own" probably goes farther with more people than "It will get a degree or two hotter over the next 100 years".
You're right - exaggeration works better. We call it "propaganda". Effective for making Americans afraid of terrorists, too, even though they are 10,000 times more likely to be killed by a hail storm.
There is zero chance I am voting a ticket of people who willfully ignore science and start wars even if they fixed immigration.
Not voting for any Democrats, then?
Why do you believe that this country was founded on free market principles? The concept didn't even exist at the time this country was founded. Go check the Constitution and quote me the section that mentions free market principles.
You seem to be another victim of the failing American public education system. While the term "free market" may have been coined after the Constitution, it was a well-known concept to the founders. They were, many, heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke, and while he may not have used that term specifically, his philosophy very much involved what we now call free market principles. Even more so, in fact, because the idea of taxing labour was anathema to him and the founding fathers that he influenced. Property rights and freedom were inseparable.