So instead you prefer to pretend to know what scientists pretend to know? I'm all for healthy skepticism but when it gets called a myth based on the idea that the gubment conspires with the scientific community to force individuals to invest in a new industry, at best to save a portion of the human race, at worst to improve our way of life, when an entire half of the mainstream political spectrum advocates for reductions in the EPA and publicy denounces the idea all the time, I call shinnanegins. I don't understand how people who simultaneously complain about our wars and dependence on foreign production also complain when something actually tries to get implemented that could change all that. The benefits outweigh the possible negatives. I have yet to hear a counter global warming argument that sounds the least bit rational. I'm implying that I don't think anyone is capable of deciphering speculation from observation anymore.
Global Warming = an ice age because as the polar ice is melting, it's cooling the oceans at extreme latitudes which is disrupting oceans currents, which are a major driver of weather. Whether is it man made or naturally occurring is moot. It is happening. It will have an impact on our economy, culture, way of life whether Governments try to act on it or not. Doing away with Governments or limiting their ability to try to react to it will not stop it nor it's effect on our lives. Government may not be able to act to stop it, but acting like it wouldn't affect our lives without Government is facile.
I love how the benefits are certain and the negatives are only possibilities. Taxing CO2 will definitely cause the climate to change in a way that is beneficial to us, but it will only possibly hurt the global economy. Clown shoes. What are you saying here? I think if the government does anything it should be to prepare for change, not pretend that setting up a global derivatives market for the banksters will cool the Earth.
Apparently, from an objective standpoint, weather prediction is actually relatively accurate. About 70% accurate if I remember right. I understand what you're trying to say, just pointing out something interesting.
Reality is harsh. It will hurt the global economy by giving investors a new industry to invest in thus creating jobs, allowing us to sever toxic ties with archaic allies, and introducing new, reusable, taxable resources?
this is the important part. by this reasoning (and i agree) expanding the authority of governments will not stop it nor it's effect on our lives, and acting like i wouldn't affect our lives with government is facile. ^^ that being the case i will always choose the path to more personal freedom
That would be interesting if you had any evidence, or frame of reference. I'm going to guess a 5 day forecast is 50% accurate. 10 day is... 20% 100 years is .0001%
Central economic planning doesn't work, that much we do know. Everything you do in your daily life requires oil/petroleum, good luck.
Energy is a new industry? There's already an industry and people are investing in it. And you want to raise taxes so that we can give those corporations welfare, right? Because things like corn ethanol are such huge successes?
You are confused about giving up national sovereignty over changes in the weather? You are confused about fascism on the march world wide? You are confused about regulating and taxing carbon when we are carbon a based life form? You are confused about calls for climate courts and one child policies world wide? The solutions that I want is to get our energy resources here at home. The people's best interest is not the same as international committees and military think tanks which are proposing massive depopulation and strict controls on everyday life as they bind us all socially, economically and religiously in to a Utopian hell on Earth. That is because you are being irrational. How is it rational to geo-engineer the planet with out and open public discussion? Shouldn't we consider the costs? How about genetically modified crops and animals? It is all being done in the name of science over supposed threats caused by too many people. The reason that the global economies are stagnating is because it is a necessary part of the solution to global man made crisis. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “The current course of development is thus clearly unsustainable. Current problems cannot be solved by piecemeal measures. More of the same is not enough. Radical change from the current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity. Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that address the root causes of poverty and environmental degradation are required and they are required now.“ – from the Earth Charter website ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?†- Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Little by little a planetary prayer book is thus being composed by an increasingly united humanity seeking its oneness. Once again, but this time on a universal scale, humankind is seeking no less than its reunion with 'divine,' its transcendence into higher forms of life. Hindus call our earth Brahma, or God, for they rightly see no difference between our earth and the divine. This ancient simple truth is slowly dawning again upon humanity, as we are about to enter our cosmic age and become what we were always meant to be: the planet of god." - Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This argument you're making with the bolded statements employs the same argument form as Pascal's Wager (which I hope you're aware of). If you'd like to debate the science, debate the science. Don't try and convince us that passing legislation is better than not because if we're wrong, bad things will happen. This isn't even close to a logical argument. They are allowed an opinion. Believing or not believing in something doesn't prohibit someone from having an opinion on a different subject. --- I respect anyone who has taken the time to look at the science and is willing to share some of their research and subsequent findings with us; however, don't expect to convince anyone with clearly invalid arguments like the whole "If we don't do X, bad things may happen. Therefore, we need to do X" or "Scientists understand Y, therefore they must be able to understand Z."
Yes, they can. Not believing in X doesn't make you wrong about Y. This is simple logic. People who are unable to employ simple logic in order to review their own statements shouldn't be taken seriously.
Just like the Enviro-Zealots ... your blinded by your ideals of what your wanting to happen. Because YOU only want it for good reasons, you think only good can come it. Your refusing to believe the possibility that we are making knee jerk decisions that will cause more harm than good. All of the new technologies we have to look at to help reduce carbon emissions ALSO wreck the environment. When the government attempts to facilitate policy that has not proven to help significantly, at reasonable cost to consumers, then as you said, we call shenanigans. " the road the hell is paved with good intentions" I don't have to pretend to know anything. They make it very clear what they don't know. Climate science involves ALL sciences. Since i have yet to see a study that's half as comprehensive as the studies they do with DNA, Subatomic Physics, Or any other advanced science, its not a stretch to make the assumption they simply don't know yet. God damn .... your citing the possibility of future technology/resources, and before we even have these technologies/resources your ready for the government fatten their coffers by taxing them? Us free market guys can say the same of the socialist religion. Since socialists typically know nothing about the market and the things that actually make it work, but pretend they have the answers all wrapped up in social government, it would be easy for us to say you have no clue what your talking about, and write you off ( indeed in some cases this happens) however you have not seen us making the statement that you are not entitled to be taken seriously about something else, based on that prior logic. Typical "progressive" = A person who THINKS they know that much more than the rest of the populace, and react to this false realization by assuming everyone else is stupid and beyond comprehending. Its because of this they think its okay to inflict their beliefs upon other people, in order to "benefit them." " your not entitled to be taken seriously, because you don't believe in something i think is very basic" Whats really happening is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect This is the third time i have had to use that link.
Your opinion cant be taken seriously. Do you like the arbitrary ridiculousness of your thought process? If I keep this up i'll win every argument I ever get in!
Libertarians are a principled minority that charish voluntarism so we can't rely on ad hominem to win arguments, we have to convince people through the use of archaic concepts like logic and reason. Discussion is the only way to do this. Authoritarians are all about coercion so they can just make fun of the intelligent minority, it's not like they need their approval. Most of them have only been trained in ad hominem and don't even know how to educate or defend their position.
Because global climate change couldn't be humans fault AT ALL, zip, zero, null. Pollution is just a liberal scam.