"Leading Scientiusts" are apparently defined as those who agree with you guys. Others are, presumably, "Trailing Scientists".
Before I even ...( 2 months ago by sixbillionmorons)
Before I even looked down here, I would have bet anything I'd find morons ranting that Global Warming isn't real. They're like creationist; they just will not face reality. Every reputable scientist on the Earth says it's real, so a few corporations that profit from pollution plant some misinformation and the morons swallow it like the obedient little whores that they are, and then regurgitate it all over the web.
Why can't we ask ...( 2 months ago by dwatson67lobo)
Why can't we ask questions? Why are we seeing global cooling? Why are ocean temperatures dropping? Why do the polar ice caps melt routinely throughout earths history? This radical environmentalism is the new communism. Its a mean to control us- higher taxation, rationing energy, telling us what lightbulbs to buy, mandating and regulating business. Its goal it to destroy our freedom and free market capitalism.
They do actually. ...( 2 months ago by hardhittn63)
They do actually. Read a book.
The goal of the ...( 2 months ago by offsprng46)
The goal of the overwhelming majority and the most prominent of environmentalists is to save freedom and free-market capitalism. Let's say you're right though, and all of the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere (a proven greenhouse gas) is, for some unknown reason, not causing the long-term warming trend. If we do act and it turns out you're right, then the only loss we suffer is (for the sake of argument) a loss of some economic growth.
However, if we ...( 2 months ago by offsprng46)
However, if we don't act and it turns out that you're wrong, then the consequences are potentially catastrophic, up to and including the end of human civilization. So, unless you can say with 100% certainty, with no doubt whatsoever, that climate change (either the temp change itself or its negative impacts) is a hoax, your argument is bankrupt. Decisions, decisions - (maybe) slightly less wealth and avert a possible catastrophe, or slightly more wealth and risk total annihilation...
Seems kinda like ...( 2 months ago by offsprng46)
Seems kinda like asking if you'd rather have cake or death (even if the risk of death is only, say, 1%) - I'll take cake, please.
The question you must ask yourself - and which your conscience must address - is whether you are so certain that you're right that you're willing to bet the lives of yourself, your friends, your family, and everyone you've ever met. Or, put another way, is it smarter to go ahead and buy that homeowner's insurance, even if you don't expect your house to burn down?
So, by all means, ...( 2 months ago by offsprng46)
So, by all means, ask questions - but if you're obviously being disingenuous or willfully ignorant (as you are), don't expect those whose kids' future you're putting at risk to pull any punches.
I'd also like to point out that most of you denialists are right-wingers that sold and defended the invasion of Iraq in part by citing Cheney's "1% doctrine." Well, the possible effects of unchecked climate change are far worse than a tactical nuclear weapon detonation in a large American city.
So why doesn't the ...( 2 months ago by offsprng46)
So why doesn't the same logic apply to global warming, or are you neo-con ideologues simply too dense to notice this glaring inconsistency?
Now, on to the bit about control - is it totalitarian for the government to stop you from dumping raw sewage into a river that runs through my property? No, because by doing that I'm robbing the people downstream of much of the value of their property, pocketing the benefit for myself (a market failure or externality). Same principle applies to CO2.
Because releasing ...( 2 months ago by offsprng46)
Because releasing enormous quantities of CO2 puts me at risk and violates my rights - even under an extreme libertarian (I lean towards libertarian myself, FYI) paradigm - the government is justified in taking action to stop polluters.
This does not necessitate the abandonment of capitalism, the implementation of central planning, or anything of the sort. Claiming that's the aim of all environmentalists is a patently dishonest straw-man, not least because we span the entire political spectrum.
Likewise, it's a ...( 2 months ago by offsprng46)
Likewise, it's a straw-man to assert that action on the part of government necessitates any of the following:
- Higher Taxation: Not at all. I agree with Al Gore that the best policy is a revenue-neutral tax on CO2 emissions, offset dollar for dollar by a tax break on labor. I've never heard anyone propose a simple increase in taxes as a solution to climate change. Furthermore, the rate and amount of taxation is independent of the amount of CO2 abated. This is just a red herring.
- Rationing Energy: ...( 2 months ago by offsprng46)
- Rationing Energy: Name me a single policymaker who advocates rationing as a long-term solution to this problem. Rationing is a method of allocating goods, CO2 can be abated far more effectively through a system of market allocation.
- Telling Us What Light Bulbs To Buy: OK, here's a question - externalities aside, if markets are as completely efficient as laissez-faire ideologues claim them to be, why would people buy incandescent bulbs that cost far more overall than CFLs?
- Mandating and ...( 2 months ago by offsprng46)
- Mandating and Regulating Business: The consensus amongst policymakers - that providing incentives to business to reduce CO2 emissions is, with rare exception, more efficient than top-down, command-and-control regulations - is nearly as universal as the consensus about climate change amongst climatologists.
QED^10, bitch. It's rather sad how you anti-rational right-wingers must resort to disingenuous question-begging, straw-men, outright lies, and disinformation campaigns to prove your point.
You bring shame to ...( 2 months ago by dwatson67lobo)
You bring shame to libertarians. They are for a minimal government just above anarchism. Getting government involved to regulate a conjured hoax of CO2 emissions linked with global warming is not libertarian. Environmentalists for freedom and free market capitalism? Surely you jest, windfall profit tax on oil companies, only industrialized nation in the world not drilling or exploring for additional resources, no nuclear power, no additional refining, no clean burning coal, shall I continue?
There are a few who ...( 2 months ago by dwatson67lobo)
There are a few who disagree that we must abolish our dependence on foreign oil and for that matter fossil fuels in general. But holding our country's economy hostage to propaganda before any renewable technology has been patented and developed, or even commercialized? Europe is building 70+ nuclear plants now, the "Old Soviet Union" is giving huge tax breaks to their energy companies to find additional resources and develop alternatives.
The Old Soviet ...( 2 months ago by dwatson67lobo)
The Old Soviet Union is drilling off Alaskan shores, we cannot. France, China and Cuba are drilling off of Florida shores, we cannot. China and India have already passed resolutions at the UN stating they will be held to Kyoto protocol because it wil damage their economies. China has doubled its oil usage in 10 years, and will triple its usage today in the next 10 years. While the people here in the U.S. suffer from rising energy prices.
If you do claim to ...( 2 months ago by dwatson67lobo)
If you do claim to be a libertarian, then your candidate would be Bob Barr. He again establishes the fact of the myth of man made global warming and an overwhelming dissent among top scientists. He would be a true libertarian and let American oil companies explore, drill and refine oil....you know, do what a business is supposed to do without the government getting in the way or being a burden to the market place. If you want alternatives, offer the companies huge tax incentives, period.
there is still lots ...( 2 months ago by Oceanica22)
there is still lots of discussion between scientist on this topic, there is NO consensus at all. liberal facism ,coop between big bussiness and gov policy.
My positions on the ...( 2 months ago by offsprng46)
My positions on the environment are perfectly consistent with libertarian ideals; if you're imposing a cost on me that I didn't agree to undertake, I'm perfectly justified in using the power of the state to stop you. For the record though, I'm a pragmatic, consequentialist libertarian.
I'm curious as to your theoretical justification for the claim that CO2 doesn't cause global warming, as the evidence for its greenhouse properties is quite beyond dispute.
good leadership = ...( 1 month ago by elrynx2)
good leadership = George Bush
SYKE! diversification of fuel will be difficult;people would much rather just have a universal fuel but they better put up and shut up. Of course no one wants to believe it but it is an authenticated truth. Even if man isn't causing it we still have to get off an unrenewable source of oil and foreign oil altogether. Humans can't just destroy the beauty of this planet
All of those ...( 1 month ago by jakewayd)
All of those climate scientists are crooks. They steal from the tax payer through the government to fund their completely faulty research. May they rot in hell.
there is still lots ...( 1 month ago by Oceanica22)
there is still lots of discussion between scientist on this topic, there is NO consensus at all. This is a coop between big bussiness and gov policy.
WOW!! This is one ...( 3 weeks ago by stabnore)
WOW!! This is one of the most balanced segments I have seen.
The debate is not over.
The wordl has bee ...( 1 week ago by JonThm)
The wordl has bee ncooling, unnoticed fro three years, as CO2 output of the world ahs gone up. CO2 wil lcause the next ice age!
SYKE! diversification of fuel will be difficult;people would much rather just have a universal fuel but they better put up and shut up. Of course no one wants to believe it but it is an authenticated truth. Even if man isn't causing it we still have to get off an unrenewable source of oil and foreign oil altogether. Humans can't just destroy the beauty of this planet