You_Fool wrote:Kemp: You may not have noticed, but my solution is not to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, that is your solution/desire (i.e. libertarian)
As usual, a baseless talking point claim. First, you haven't examined the actual results of what you propose. Your talking point is that the stated goal is not to hurt the poor, nor make the rich richer or the poor poorer. But in reality, the only proposed action to combat "climate change" is carbon taxes, which will positively make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
The notion that freedom makes the rich richer and the poor poorer is plain ignorance. Freedom resulted in the biggest and richest middle class the world had ever seen with America's surge to wealth. (Well, that and the plague)
Freedom didn't give GE a 0% tax rate, corrupt fascists in power did.
Freedom didn't bail out failed banks, insurance companies, and auto makers (all owned by rich people making risky bets) with the money of the middle class/poor, corrupt fascists in power did.
Freedom didn't destroy the family with welfare payments increasing for single parents, raising illegitimacy (a prime driver of poverty and crime) rates in some subcommunities in America as much as from 16% to 80% illegitimacy. Corrupt fascists in power seeking permanent dependent voting block support did.
The notion that libertarian (I'm sticking with the small "l") policies make the rich richer and the poor poorer while authoritarian policies benefit the poor is so silly, ignorant, and idiotic that it's INSANE. Human history is filled with fascists seeking more power, and using that power to benefit themselves. To argue that authoritarianism won't hurt the poor is sadly ignorant.
You_Fool wrote:My solution is for everyone to do more with less, and therefore reduce cost of living for everyone.
An admirable goal, and a noble cultural cause to champion. Personally I try to eat local and reduce my waste as much as I feasibly can. I speak out and vote against wasting billions of dollars of fuel sending fleets to bomb random nations to distract the American people from domestic corruption.
You_Fool wrote:I.e. between picking between 2 cars that fulfill the same basic function, one is a gas guzzler which has horrible emissions and one that is not and does not, my solution is that everyone should pick the second car - either through forced choice or informed choice (preferred) - yes the forced choice bit makes me authoritarian, which is why i prefer the educated choice bit, but also I am ok with that if it means we get to live of the planet for longer.
Here we have two problems. First, who is going to decide what everyone "needs"? Presumably people with more children would get the go-ahead to get large enough vehicles to transport their own families around, right? I mean, that's just logical. You wouldn't propose authoritarian legislation to not let people own cars big enough to move their families! That'd be insane!
What about people who regularly drive their more extended families around? Or carpool? Or drive their kids and others' kids to play together and do stuff? Surely, they'd get exceptions too. I presume your proposed authoritarian policies won't prevent families from taking care of one another. Or prevent families from socializing their children and taking them to play paintball and take them to museums [etc etc etc etc] together.
What about people who enjoy offroading as a leisurely activity? Presumably this would be banned in trucks or anything larger than tiny vehicles. Nevermind that they're more dangerous. Nevermind that driving trucks offroad is life-saving practice for men driving vehicles at war, or rescue services all over the country (and much more for more remote places like Alaska with more extreme climate--though the continental US gets plenty of extreme weather as well).
So where would you strike the balance? Create a huge agency to police who actually needs a permit because they drive their elderly parents and disabled siblings upon request and who just wants the permit to own a bigger vehicle? You couldn't just give permits for larger vehicles to everyone who wanted one or you'd defeat the purpose of the law. So you'd have to have a rather large spy agency to investigate who was abusing the system. And presumably the lives lost due to lack of experience with the large vehicles used in war/rescue operations would just be necessary. For the planet.
Which brings up the second problem. You cite being able to live on the planet for longer. Based on what evidence? What reason do you have to believe that our breathing out is endangering the planet? Which brings us to our next quotation.
You_Fool wrote:I know you like to close your eyes, but you do realise that a vast majority of scientists/anyone who has actually looked into it properly understand how climate change is happening and is a thing that is greatly influenced by humans to the detriment of human continuity on this planet. I know you like to think otherwise and will take any small isolated event that contradicts the greater trends and make the most out of it you can, but do not pretend that your viewpoint is in the majority or the right.
All I see is an appeal to a supposed majority of scientists, which is of course fallacious reasoning. And... nope, that's it. You have absolutely no basis for your position except faith in a fallacy, and faith in your would-be-authoritarian leaders.
You know nothing about the topic, or you would have engaged me over the science. I have already pointed out that there are no good, legitimate scientific studies showing evidence, let alone strong evidence, of human activity having an impact on the climate.
I notice you didn't link any actual studies you thought had worth. The only one ever linked on this forum was garbage, comparing ice cores from thousands of miles apart regarding periods of time tens of thousands of years apart, showing real evidence of nothing but claiming evidence for man-caused global warming.
It's a fact that no models showing man caused climate change have shown any validity whatsoever. Not a single one explains half the history of climate change (pre-man) on the earth, nor recent activity.
So what science, exactly, do you have faith in? You can't point to any studies. You have faith in... politicians who tell you you should be afraid? Or the "scientists" they fund to argue to give them more power over their citizens?
That's it? You're worried about an existential threat to the planet because politicians and a supposed "majority"--which isn't a majority--of scientists telling you to be afraid? With no knowledge of the actual science personally, maybe you should leave the arguing to them.
Because I'm guessing you don't know that the earth hasn't warmed in the past 17 years. And I'm guessing that you don't know that, historically, CO2 levels have always risen AFTER temperatures have risen, suggesting that CO2 levels are largely a result of, not a cause of, higher temperatures.
You're arguing that we should surrender freedom to fascists because, trust them, they need to save the planet. You need better evidence than "I've heard that a majority of scientists say it's true" to convince anyone that you're right.
[I wish I could obey forum rules]
