I thought you were making a joke. Because I was aware you weren't making sense. But then I realized that this is not the case, because of why you aren't making sense:

I am Batman. (The costume is an obvious means to hide my Vulcan ears.) And I don't particularly care for melon, even in the heat. (Also, as you may know, I'm kinda rich: I have AC and no need to bear the heat outside.)

Zarf BeebleBrix,

I've got a bunch of thoughts about emission taxation (which can be justified if real science substantiates a real threat to the planet/man)(which encourage lower-emission technology via economic incentive via the free market) and lofty ideas of using that tax revenue to finance the production and operation of technology to remove some of that CO2...

But none of that matters, because such proposals have the sole effect of exporting emissions-producing production. The simple fact is, so long as China and other developing nations (who already use coal for a greater portion of their power than the USA) are producing tons of CO2 and increasing that production every year, there's nothing that any one nation can do to to reduce global CO2 emissions.

It disturbs me that everyone so positive that their imaginary Ph.Ds enable them to judge studies they've never read is vehemently arguing for... nothing. They tend to argue for massive emissions taxation, but that just results in exported production. They counter that massive import taxes could be imposed on products produced elsewhere (so they could still effectively tax emissions), but that would only effect production imported to nations with such tariffs.

This brings up a very important point generally overlooked by everyone arguing for massive sacrifices in standard of living for the sake of reducing CO2 emissions (as Zidi was kind enough to provide us with an example of, above):

Most people on the earth are not living so large as Americans and Western Europeans. The majority of people on the planet are not willing to take a significant hit to their already-low (by our standards) standards of living because a bunch of academics and politicians tell them that they don't deserve to develop with the cheap energy that the West has enjoyed in the past century.

So I don't have any magical solution that I'd be happy to support. Anything truly effective (because it has to be global) requires NWO tyranny--What a coincidence that communists are convinced of the science so easily! Ideally, if the case were made with actual scientific evidence, not selective ice-core samples, most nations of the world would negotiate reductions in emissions to some level per capita to avoid Kyoto-style garbage treaties.

Your thoughts?

Zidi,

Thank you for providing an example of my point. Work such as that, which I don't describe as deceptive or "garbage," is extremely limited (Which I've also described on multiple occasions). It's an examination of one correlation using multiple very limited sources of data for two different regions of the globe (ie, with subjective attempts at synchronisation at that).

First, any examination of this one correlation without consideration of the plethora of other factors effecting global temperatures is limited. No scientist has managed to build a decent model working in the man-caused CO2 global warming hypothesis precisely because there are so many other factors involved that they (we) don't understand. I can't stress this generally-overlooked-by-the-wishful-thinking fact enough. Scientists can't rule out countless other factors impacting lag-time between temperature and CO2. Studying this correlation, by itself, isn't conclusive of anything, regardless of the results.

Furthermore, studies such as this one are working with extremely limited data from extreme regions of the globe--and correlating data between different regions of the globe, subject to different changes in climate patterns, at that. Is one polar region necessarily indicative of the temperature and CO2 changes of the whole globe and their correlation? Is the other? Should we expect them to always be impacted by changes in temperature/CO2 at the same rates, despite different surrounding regions and different weather patterns (and different changes in those patterns)?

The answer to all of these questions is no, especially not necessarily. The data being analyzed is extremely limited.

Pretending that what you provided is conclusive evidence of anything, let alone man-caused climate change, is just silly. I'm not choosing to ignore it, I'm simply choosing to evaluate it like I have all of the academic studies I've ever read. I'm simply choosing to be aware of its limitations, which are many, which are huge.

There's no doubt that the fed is stealing from people, but the fact is that basic needs aren't that expensive and the fed isn't making everything 5x more expensive. Hell, the fed steals far less from people every year than over-taxation and wasteful spending. The fed ruling over our fiat system is a problem, but it's not numerically responsible for stealing as much wealth (artificial scarcity) as government spending annually.

Your claim that our fiat currency is responsible for an artificial scarcity of goods is bizarre, because the rate of inflation it leads to (stolen wealth) is far less theft than taxation.

"Relative to what?  When were free market principals at work unfettered by any centralized control mechanism such as fiat currencies?"

The point is that, if you can't produce something for less, your claims that it's artificially scarce are baseless. If you can't demonstrate it to be true, you're just presenting it as something you take on faith, and offering no evidence for it.

You referenced fiat currency as if it's responsible for stealing wealth from everyone, but you didn't back this up with any explanation or numbers. As I've pointed out, the extent of the theft just isn't nearly what you claim. You're just throwing out concepts and ignoring the numbers behind them. If you present ideas as if 3% inflation is a bigger loss to the average person than 40% taxation, you're just not making much sense.

I agree that US government, through the fed, pillages the American people through its fiat currency. But to claim that this artificially increases the cost of living SO MUCH that resources and goods are artificially scarce is just baseless. A few percent inflation isn't ruining the average person's ability to provide for their needs, it's just a small drain on their standard of living. It's not even anywhere near the biggest drain on their standard of living, either.

"1. change our economic paradigm so that it is the peaceful and cooperative (rather than the greedy, lust-driven, thieving, lying, murderous, cheating) who are more biologically successful"

The free market already does this. Massive government and the corruption/inefficiency/incompetence it breeds are what fights this. You have it entirely backwards in your calls for huge government control to overhaul capitalism.

"2.  if the economic paradigm is not changed and it continues to be one which provides for the greedy, lust-driven, thieving, murderous, cheating, etc., to garner more wealth...."

You never made an argument that it rewards these traits to begin with. I argued that it didn't anyway, and you never responded. This thread contains arguments that free markets reward desirable behavior, but it does not contain any arguments to the contrary. Are you planning to make a case for what you're claiming here? We're all ears.

"Our current economic paradigm acts as a eugenics program; but one which fosters in our species the qualities that are NOT conducive to our survival."

You ignored the fact that we reward the poor for having more children, and they've had more and more since we started doing this. You're ignoring the fact that the poor have more children on average than the rich. And you're ignoring every single thing I said about the OP. Are you conceding every point?

You're not really even giving us arguments to debate, discuss, or refute. You're just giving us your assumptions. When they're challenged and ripped apart, you're just repeating them. This thread contains no explanation of your assumptions, nor have you argued a case for them.

So it's developed nations' faults that third world nations run by tyrants are poor?

Henry Ford and his success have been killing infants in Afghanistan for decades?

On what do you base your presumption that the scarcity of resources is artificially imposed? There are only so many homes built to go around--they require a lot of work. There are only so many flat-screen TVs to go around--they require a lot of work.

Relatively free markets all over the world suggest your assumption is baseless. Unless you can produce more of these products for less, you have no basis for your argument that they're artificially expensive and scarce.

I take it you're going to completely ignore all of what I said about your OP. It remains bizarre and pointless.

You haven't made any argument, so I'm not sure what you expect me to argue against.

You imply that there's forced eugenics on the poor, yet you haven't made any proposal as to how that's true. Considering that we subsidize the children of the poor so much that the poor have more of them them than the wealthy, reality appears to be the opposite of what you describe.

I have no idea what you're talking about, and you certainly haven't informed us.

Zidi,

It's a scientific issue first. Since you don't have science to back up claims that CO2 is causing any significant impact to climate, it's not a political issue.

Climate change is not a political issue. "Climate Change" as the name of a socialist/communist campaign against industrialization and free markets is. The fact is that no hard science backs up your claims. Until it does, it's "climate change" the political issue, not climate change the scientific issue with political ramifications.

There are many far more powerful "greenhouse gasses" than CO2. If you eat beef, shut up about industrial emissions. You're an ignorant hypocrite and you need to get your house in order before you try to ignorantly impact others while you cause more harm than they do.

If you reference crappy non-scientific "studies" using selective data from an already very limited pool and massive numbers of "corrections" on top of this to skew results, shut up about industrial emissions. Every idiot who gives bad "science" weight just encourages more wasted tax money on political garbage with no scientific usefulness.

I'm as concerned as anybody about man's actions impacting climate on earth. But to jump ahead and claim the science is in is to make the issue 100% political, which is disrespectful to people who actually care about science and man's impact on the earth.

I take issue with the politicization of an issue which should be scientific at this time. The politicization of the issue decimates the science on the issue because 90%+ of the "science" being done on it is political garbage to further careers and procure funding.

Did any of you brilliant scientists who self-righteously proclaim that man is OBVIOUSLY impacting climate with CO2 emissions see Al Gore's awesome "dockumentary"? Did you catch the fact that he cites evidence of correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels?

Are you educated enough on the matter to have caught that it's misleading and insulting to everyone's intelligence, because CO2 levels have historically followed temperature changes, not the other way around?

If you didn't, maybe you're not scientifically equipped to judge the issue. And maybe you should be more an advocate of real science, not politicians who have absolutely no care in the world what impact man is having: They just want to regulate man, regardless.

East,

It's a cool place and they say it gets colder!

Your jealousy only makes us stronger!

My point being that people like firearms that are useful out to a few hundred yards but still useful 20 yards down a street or 10 feet across a room. The effectiveness and desirability of such weapons isn't going away.

How is it a political issue?

On what basis do you presume ruinous effects of inevitable and natural changes in climate? Michael Crichton cited tons of research for his novel State of Fear which all found that far more money/lives would be saved by weather patterns effected by a few degrees warming.

I love the idea of engineering "biologically successful."

Free people doing what makes them happy isn't good enough. Humanity needs to be bioengineered into something greater! There's this guy who had similar ideas... what was his name. Oh yeah, Hitler. Adolf Hitler.

Hey, that's totally wrong. We only argue online when we're not given a 3 day time-out for making a kid cry!