[mxlm]

They more or less do want it, despite their protestations. See: "keep your hands off my medicare" (Medicaid? Whichever). Conservatives talk a good game, but go ask the average GOPer if they'd be okay with, I dunno, a 20% reduction in benefits from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

ETA: incidentally, I'm not sure it's fair to be beating up lib for his hypocrisy. He's a conservative. The GOP has been the party of raging hypocrites since at least Reagan. They talk about fiscal responsibility but they haven't actually exercised fiscal responsibility in twenty nine years. The deficit grew enormously under Reagan, comparatively modestly under Bush the Better, and then enormously under Bush the Worse. For chrissake, BtW proposed an enormously expensive prescription drug benefit plan and didn't make any arrangements to pay for it. And how did the GOP respond to this proposal? By passing it!

That American conservatism can lay claim to the position of fiscal responsibility without being laughed off stage is itself hilarious.

[Inquisitor]

Keep ad hominems out of this.  If you have an issue with his arguments, address it.  Do NOT waste time and space with a personal attack.  

No. When he starts making arguments, I'll take issue with them. right now he might as well be an Alex Jones rss feed. That demionstrates a complete lack of respect for the argument and from what I can tell, a complete lack of indepenent, rational though. So no. If he wants to stop acting like a moron, fine.

You have at least take the time to answer the question (well, you think you are answering the question),

Yes, carbon credits are a way to regulate emissions, if we were going back to horse and buggy, there would be no credits, it would be a ban. If you want to emit more, you buy more credits. I honestly am not sure that's the right approach, but its hardly eschewing technology.

You might think they are too expensive to buy, so that "limits" you, but they are an EXPLICIT mechanism to allow for some folks to emit more. You can do this thing that we thnk is dangeorus, but it will cost you more. The concept is to me, like treating it as a consumeable, finite resource.

I used to carry a radiation badge, the NRC (or whatever they are called nowdays)  has it on file I am told, so I know what my lifetime dose of radiation is (and if it ever exceeds a certain number, I am not allowed to work with radioactive materials again). I see it as a similar principle, if I wanted to take the risk, and if I could pay to be allowed a higher dose, I might.

But that's not the issue at hand, is it? That's a potential policy direction based on the issue at hand, but that is 100$ seperate from the questions about the science. Does science drive policy? Sometimes yes it does, nuclear waste disposal regulation is strongly driven by the science of radiooactive decay. Does radioactive decay happen regardless of regulations around wasste disposal?

[Mika]

I'm saying that the value of carbon credits is somewhat artificial, since they do not arise as part of natural free-market processes, and the demand for them is created by government intervention.  The artificial demand leads to an artificial increase in value, much like what has happened to ethanol thanks to the government mandate that it be included in all gasoline sold in the United States.

Could you explain how the import tariffs do not skew the markets artificially?

[SpardaSon21]

Um.  Of course the tariffs skew the market artificially, and I wish the tariffs didn't exist.  While ethanol would be cheaper if they didn't exist, I doubt ethanol would still be a viable fuel source.

[Colonol Dekker]

his topic is bubbling over.

Liberator, cool your jets plox or i'll remove your fuel pipe

Thanks

xx

[Scotty]

So you don't think companies should be discouraged from running the planet into the ground? Say my chemical company is dumping heavy metal waste into your backyard. Would you or would you not like the government to drive my company out of business? This is the same thing, but on a global scale. Certain practices must be discouraged because they will lead to global economic and environmental collapse if allowed to continue unconstrained. That's not arbitrary or opinion-based, it's a decision that can be made solely on rational, empirical data. There is no slippery slope there.

Actually, I think that if something is bringing immediate harm to an individual, it should be curtailed.  In the above example, had I the power, I would forbid that company from dumping anywhere people can be directly affected and harmed.  (In essence, I wish the government's job did not exceed "keep us from being physically harmed, and keep the infrastructure passable.  Then you can have some of my money as taxes." but I highly doubt that's going to happen) (as I typed that, I realize that's far too simplistic to sum up my thoughts.  Add regulate interstate commerce, a Federal court system and maintenance of a standing army to that, and I won't take up any more space with this since this isn't about my beilef in exactly what government should be able to do.)  So, to answer your question, no.  I would not want the government to drive a company out of business for an easily rectifiable issue.  What I'm saying is that the market, and conscious consumers, should do the dealing with that, not the government.

What you're missing is that (in theory, anyway) the money is invested in industry and creates more wealth between the steps. All banks make money by loaning out money that belongs to other people. My background is in political science and technology policy, not pure economics, so I can't tell you the details of how the system broke down, but it's nowhere near as simple as you describe.

I'm aware of  how banks work, I'm was just trying to illustrate how the banks were going beyond trading other people's money, but rather trading the promise of said money being available sometime in the nebulous future as concrete capital, more specifically on a risky loan.  The bank that bought it would then trade it to ANOTHER bank at a large rate, with still no great likelyhood of it ever being paid off.

AND NOW TO RECENT ARGUMENTS:

ad hominems still have no place.  If you disagree with him, fine.  Say so, and say so scathingly.  Just keep phrases like "you're a moron" out of it please.

[NGTM-1R]

I don't think you can say "you're a moron" to Liberator is an ad hominem at this point. All available evidence suggests it to be more like a statement of fact. "You're a coward" and "you have no independent thought at all" would also appear to fall into this category.

[Scotty]

Well, truth be told, fact is irrelevant.  It's still a personal attack, and disrupts the thread (case in point).

[Thaeris]

That statement is not conducive to an intelligible discussion, NTGM-1R, and in a sense makes you no better (or worse, for that matter) than Lib.

[NGTM-1R]

That statement is not conducive to an intelligible discussion, NTGM-1R, and in a sense makes you no better (or worse, for that matter) than Lib.

On the contrary. Dismissing Liberator from the discussion is one of the most important aspects to make it intelligible, since he's not discussing, he's trolling.

[General Battuta]

Honestly, when he refuses to respond to arguments against his points, he leaves himself open to ad hominems since there's no other way to relate to him.

[Inquisitor]

I would forbid that company from dumping anywhere people can be directly affected and harmed.

Its defining "directly affected" that seems to be part of the problem here, if you don;t deny the premise of warming outright.

It took YEARS to figure out that dioxins were as terrible as they were. Lots of people got very sick because we didn't act quickly enough (and curiously, there was a not dissimilar level of denial from a pretty similar segment of the political spectrum) and HEAVILY regulate their use (not to mention stop using them in weapons).

Or Thalidomide? Years to figure out what the affect was and then it was heavily regulated, spawning all sorts of new rules and regs from the likes of the FDA.

So, if it doesn't affect people for a generation or two, no regulation? I am not trying to trap you, I just don't understand where people draw the line?

[karajorma]

Okay guys, calm down with the personal attacks. Personally I agree that Liberator has left himself open to nothing else since he is not actually bothering to debate and simply is engaging in a policy of repeated "**** and run" posts.

However the solution to that is not to insult him but simply to report his post so that the admins can deal with his repeated attempts to troll this topic.

HLP's policy on flaming is pretty clear, it's not allowed. I'm not prepared to make an exception for Lib simply because he can't debate like a rational adult. Scotty is 100% correct that it is just as much of a disruption as the original trolling it is a response to. I'm not going to start handing out bans and monkeyings to anyone who insulted Liberator this time but I will if it continues.

Not doing so would simply invite complaints that the admins do not apply penalties for such behaviour fairly.

If Liberator continues to troll, report it and he'll be doing it elsewhere as he'll be joining the other monkeys.

[Liberator]

This is my last post in this thread, and I'm just gonna sum up my thoughts on this subject.

1) Is the climate of the Earth getting warmer?  
Yes.

2) Do we have anything to do with it?
Not in my opinion.

3) Is the movement toward more efficient technologies a bad idea?
Not on it's own, but the way it's being handled is horrible.  Any adoption of more efficient tech should be market driven, not by the government forcing immature, unproven, and potentially unsustainable(from a raw materials standpoint) down the throats of industry and the public.

Lastly, since I wrote this over the course of several hours as I had to go do something.  It's becoming more and more obvious that any position that doesn't fall lock step into perfect alignment with "yours"(and you know who you are) is what is not tolerated.  I may be a moron, I may be the stupidest person here, but by God I will say this.  I am through with the condescension and insults.  Take your holier than thou, self-righteous bull**** and stuff it someplace, cause I'm done.

[General Battuta]

No offense, mate, but the criticism leveled at you had nothing to do with your opinions, it had to do with your failure to defend them or engage in normal debate rather than drive-by behavior.

*shrug*

And no, there is no 'you' who is conspiring against Liberator. We have people like Sushi and Goober and Scotty who do not hold liberal views, but who get along fine here.

[karajorma]

It's becoming more and more obvious that any position that doesn't fall lock step into perfect alignment with "yours"(and you know who you are) is what is not tolerated.

Incorrect. You are welcome to hold and espouse whatever position you like. However in a debate you must actually debate. You have failed to do this. Those who have defended their opinion have been tolerated perfectly well.


The "I'm a victim" defence is the last refuge of someone who has acted badly but wants to make out that they are being persecuted for their opinions rather than their actions. It rarely holds up because you can always point to someone with a similar opinion who hasn't been victimised.

[Bobboau]

I remember someone calling him on some picture in al gore's book, and when he presented it everyone jumped on him for trying to distract from the importaint points. or at least that's how I remember it going down, too busy with something else, and too lazy to hunt down and review  that section of the thread.

[Nuclear1]

I am through with the condescension and insults.  Take your holier than thou, self-righteous bull**** and stuff it someplace, cause I'm done.

Funny how that's something very similar to what I've wanted to say to you, but never did, mostly because I don't throw tantrums when people call me out for acting like a little child in political debates.

You're not a victim here, stop acting like it.  You've routinely insulted people who hold liberal views, but we usually just take it as a result of you being brainwashed by conservative talk radio.  When people finally start telling you it's unacceptable to call liberals "pointy-headed intellectuals" without any basis for such claim other than it's what Glenn Beck likes to call the people who disagree with him, you don't lash out and go BAWW BAWW BAWW I'M BEING PERSECUTED!

You stop what you're doing, look at yourself, and think of a way you can avoid it in the future.

[Mika]

Any adoption of more efficient tech should be market driven, not by the government forcing immature, unproven, and potentially unsustainable(from a raw materials standpoint) down the throats of industry and the public.

Government doesn't design the technology. They guide companies to research and public to adopt them. This is not very different from using import tariffs on products "NOT manufactured in the good old US of A". However, I don't understand how exactly it's unsustainable?

[karajorma]

I remember someone calling him on some picture in al gore's book, and when he presented it everyone jumped on him for trying to distract from the importaint points. or at least that's how I remember it going down, too busy with something else, and too lazy to hunt down and review  that section of the thread.

That's really only one case though. And his **** and run style of posting probably contributed directly to that happening.