Al Gore: politicians should pay a price for [ climate ] denial: Agree?

[Acidbaron]

Jesus will return but when nobody knows. Everything that happens is God's way and Armageddon is coming and nothing anyone can say or do can stop it. After that, the deniers of God won't exist any more. "Education" is not always the answer, especially if what is being taught is wrong.

Not sure if you are trolling or serious, but in any case you are sadly below the level of a person who i would be able to have a normal conversation with without coming across very condescending, insulting.

But i can understand now why you have no fear of climate change and fear science, you believe space daddy will make everything okay, so i'm going to let you be in your brainwashed little world

[taliey]

For people with a really ree-ree malfunction about what a free market is. The government telling everybody how much they can earn and/or how much of economic activity X they can do, before they have to start giving money away... is not that. That's the government picking who gets what, when, and how much. That's centrally planning. Just because it's not called a Five Year Plan on the binding doesn't mean it's not cut from the same cloth.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

[Garnier Fructis]

It's the first "science" in the history thereof as far as I know that it's treated as religious heresy to test or dispute or challenge. If you were to have sauntered up to Newton, or to Bohr, or to Einstein and said "hey, dude, I think you're wrong", they wouldn't have hounded you from public debate for being a denier, they'd have said put up or shut up. If, say, general relativity were wrapped in the same cloak of religious dogma that AGW is, recent research questioning the Big Bang theory wouldn't be welcome in the public square as an affront to the "settled science". And speaking of Neils Bohr, the Soviets used to make physicists "pay the price" for disputing the settled science that the atom was the smallest particle of matter.

This whole questioning and testing thing already happened last century.

Climate change used to be the fringe theory. Half a century of scientific challenge, test and debate has left it as the last man standing. What you're doing now is no different from going up to a quantum physicist and saying that QM is wrong, and then when they laugh you out of the office you declare to all bystanders that QM is treated as religious dogma.

[Stormdash]

Ronald Reagan was quite fond of saying that if you want less of something, you tax it away.

What he said was "whatever you tax, you get less of it". It wasn't an endorsement of using taxation as means to enact social policy, but a warning that the more aggressively you tax commerce and productivity and wealth creation, the less of these things you'll see.

[Wildtree]

Implying America is the problem not China and India.

The US can hardly make foreign politicians directly accountable. But it can definitely make US politicians accountable.

[Acidbaron]

Implying America is the problem not China and India.

Actually China is surpassing a lot of countries in terms of green energy and the chinese government is very much concerned with population as it's a health crisis.
You know socialist state and all functioning on the overall well being of their citizens.

Not sure about India, but overall it's a global issue and everyone needs to contribute to a solution.

[Wells]

The US can hardly make foreign politicians directly accountable. But it can definitely make US politicians accountable.

Plus our per capita emissions are crazy higher than theirs, so saying we're not a serious part of the problem is incorrect anyway.

[Stormdash]

You have no clue what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

Way to primary source Wikipedia.

Note, that the first sentence of the paragraph after the one that makes the patently ignorant, economically illiterate assertion that cap-and-trade is "market based"... says that the rules of who can do what are set up by central authority. As if to say, that a central authority forms and enforces a plan for the economic activity of any entity that it declares is responsible for emissions.

[Kallisto]

Why has it been proven that the Antarctic ice is actually getting thicker then?

Because of a number of reason that actually point towards humans damaging the atmosphere.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/anta...aining-ice.htm

Seriously when it comes to scientific consensus the debate is over. The only hold outs now are people with heads in the sand going "lalalalalalalalala i can't hear you."
or the politicians who are on the same side. And the secondary are usually just so because of the money they get. Or worse still the out right denial is because simply they believe that "God will not let us damage earth.".

[Wells]

Way to primary source Wikipedia.

Note, that the first sentence of the paragraph after the one that makes the patently ignorant, economically illiterate assertion that cap-and-trade is "market based"... says that the rules of who can do what are set up by central authority. As if to say, that a central authority forms and enforces a plan for the economic activity of any entity that it declares is responsible for emissions.

The requirements you've set up for what constitutes a "market solution" is pretty much just anarcho capitalism

[Garnier Fructis]

I don't understand how people can recognize that the climate is a complex system and then ask really asinine questions like "but if everything is getting warmer, why are some places getting more ice?" as an argument and not a genuine question; which implicitly assumes that the climate is a simple system.

[Wildtree]

Plus our per capita emissions are crazy higher than theirs, so saying we're not a serious part of the problem is incorrect anyway.

If people would only be at least honest..
I can handle someone telling me "hey, I get it, Climate Change is real, but guess what, fuck it, I am after the dollar, after the profits".
I truly can deal with that. At least, that person is honest. And I know how to deal with it.
Contrary to the deniers... They have no excuse.

[Stormdash]

The requirements you've set up for what constitutes a "market solution" is pretty much just anarcho capitalism

There's no "anarchy" in the government being restrained from determining how much of everybody's business they are allowed to do before they have to start ponying up a bill for doing too much of it. Not even vis a vis taxation, just vis a vis regulation how much actual activity they are doing. Government having no business doing that? That's just the normal capitalism.

[Garnier Fructis]

Don't bother with Dch48. He's probably one of those Cornwall Alliance types who believe that we can't possibly fuck up the environment because God made it and God is perfect.

[Acidbaron]

There's no "anarchy" in the government being restrained from determining how much of everybody's business they are allowed to do before they have to start ponying up a bill for doing too much of it. Not even vis a vis taxation, just vis a vis regulation how much actual activity they are doing. Government having no business doing that? That's just the normal capitalism.

So companies doing what they want does not lead to chaotic situation. Why have laws and limits at all surely this was not the cause of a recent economic meltdown (that's sarcasm incase you're incapable of picking this up )

I'm starting to see a trend here between climate deniers

[Endus]

Way to primary source Wikipedia.

When your arguments are informed to at least the level of Wikipedia, then we can move on to more thorough sources.

When you're stating things that are just obviously false on really basic things, you're going to get pointed at these really basic tertiary sources, because that's the level you're operating at.

There's no "anarchy" in the government being restrained from determining how much of everybody's business they are allowed to do before they have to start ponying up a bill for doing too much of it.

What you're describing is, literally, anarcho-capitalism; the idea that, if the government was taken out of the equation, free markets would self-regulate and lead to an improvement in society.

And yes, that's a Wikipedia link, because again, we're having to explain to you basic definitions of terms.

"Capitalism" isn't about restricting government involvement. Pure capitalism's only principles have to do with the ownership of the means of production. A heavily managed state-run economy with private ownership is just as "capitalist" as a completely anarchic free-market system.

[May90]

I believe politicians should pay a price for freedom of speech denial.

[Incredibale]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesk...313-story.html



He's making such vague comments here about politicians "paying a price" that he really should be asked to explain exactly what he means. Of course, the media isn't going to ask him to explain himself. Please don't attempt to run cover for Mr. Gore on such statements. He's a grown man. He knows what he is doing when he make VAGUE comments about "paying a price" politically. He's trying to start a conversation on political punishments for people who oppose his views.

And what does he even mean by "denial"? Does he mean someone who denies the planet is warming? Or someone who denies the future projections of where global temperature is heading? Or both? Or neither? If I approach Mr. Gore with data that shows solar will make fossil fuels obsolete in 2-3 decades, will he label me a "denier" and seek political punishment for me? Do you agree with the general notion of politicians "paying a price" for "denial"?

He as well as other Gaia worshippers want a technocratic elite telling people how to live their lives, down to the smallest detail. The bottom line.

[taliey]

When your arguments are informed to at least the level of Wikipedia, then we can move on to more thorough sources.

When you're stating things that are just obviously false on really basic things, you're going to get pointed at these really basic tertiary sources, because that's the level you're operating at.



What you're describing is, literally, anarcho-capitalism; the idea that, if the government was taken out of the equation, free markets would self-regulate and lead to an improvement in society.

And yes, that's a Wikipedia link, because again, we're having to explain to you basic definitions of terms.

"Capitalism" isn't about restricting government involvement. Pure capitalism's only principles have to do with the ownership of the means of production. A heavily managed state-run economy with private ownership is just as "capitalist" as a completely anarchic free-market system.

I was just going to say that I linked Wikipedia as a good source for establishing general understanding and conceptual learning.

[Nathreim]

Shouldn't we be focusing on more dangerous and immediate environmental issues like water pollution?

You know something that could actually kill us in less than a thousand years.