2 ms·

> Which of course is largely the case with the AGW detractors, too. Maybe, but AGW detractors and advocates are not mirror images even though both groups put o

by anamax 15y ago

> Which of course is largely the case with the AGW detractors, too. Maybe, but AGW detractors and advocates are not mirror images even though both groups put on their pants one leg at a time. For example, the AGW detractors don't want to restrict my choices, impose taxes on me, etc. The AGW detractors are largely weath creators while the AGW advocates are largely rent-seekers. The AGW detractors have never said that AGW advocates should be jailed for taking their position. And so on.

lutorm 15y ago
Well there's an unbiased view... In my opinion, depriving you of the freedom to live in a non-ruined environment is a much more fundamental lack of freedom than the choices you are talking about being restricted. And the wealth "creators" you talk about seem a lot more like "cost externalizers" than "wealth creators" to me. The AGW advocates also haven't called AGW detractors "jihadists" for taking their position. And so on. There are ideologues who don't know the science on both sides. But attempting to include the scientists who have reached a conclusion based on scientific results among them helps no one. Taking a position based on actual data is not an ideological statement, regardless if whether there are other people for whom it is.
- anamax 15y ago
  > In my opinion, depriving you of the freedom to live in a non-ruined environment is a much more fundamental lack of freedom than the choices you are talking about being restricted. You're assuming that the restrictions will make a difference between ruined and non-ruined. I disagree. I have good company. Even the AGW advocates pushing the restrictions admit that the proposed restrictions won't have that effect. Even if you believe in AGW, why do you support restrictions that do nothing to address it? More to the point, shouldn't you actually oppose such restrictions because they cost money that might be used to fight AGW? Yes, I'm serious. Look at what the folks pushing the restrictions have predicted about the effects of said restrictions. They've predicted no benefit.[1] If you're assuming that those predictions are wrong, why? > But attempting to include the scientists who have reached a conclusion based on scientific results among them helps no one. Which scientists are you referring to? Note that most of the "scientists" who have weighed in actually haven't looked at data. [1] Yes, those advocates have also predicted that AGW will have huge costs. My point is that the proposed restrictions won't reduce those costs.

by anamax 15y ago

lutorm 15y ago

Well there's an unbiased view... In my opinion, depriving you of the freedom to live in a non-ruined environment is a much more fundamental lack of freedom than the choices you are talking about being restricted. And the wealth "creators" you talk about seem a lot more like "cost externalizers" than "wealth creators" to me. The AGW advocates also haven't called AGW detractors "jihadists" for taking their position. And so on. There are ideologues who don't know the science on both sides. But attempting to include the scientists who have reached a conclusion based on scientific results among them helps no one. Taking a position based on actual data is not an ideological statement, regardless if whether there are other people for whom it is.

anamax 15y ago
> In my opinion, depriving you of the freedom to live in a non-ruined environment is a much more fundamental lack of freedom than the choices you are talking about being restricted. You're assuming that the restrictions will make a difference between ruined and non-ruined. I disagree. I have good company. Even the AGW advocates pushing the restrictions admit that the proposed restrictions won't have that effect. Even if you believe in AGW, why do you support restrictions that do nothing to address it? More to the point, shouldn't you actually oppose such restrictions because they cost money that might be used to fight AGW? Yes, I'm serious. Look at what the folks pushing the restrictions have predicted about the effects of said restrictions. They've predicted no benefit.[1] If you're assuming that those predictions are wrong, why? > But attempting to include the scientists who have reached a conclusion based on scientific results among them helps no one. Which scientists are you referring to? Note that most of the "scientists" who have weighed in actually haven't looked at data. [1] Yes, those advocates have also predicted that AGW will have huge costs. My point is that the proposed restrictions won't reduce those costs.