That seems dishonest because the quote explicitly contradicts your conjecture.
He says the debate is over, period.
No he said "If you look at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over", when you deliberately misquote, it looks pernicious.
No contrary arguments allowed, no research that strays from his conclusions allowed.
Of course, he didn't actually say that. That's a straw man argument that you've created (or read elsewhere and repeated). Given that Al Gore has no actual role in the funding for Climate Change research, I find it difficult to see how he could enforce that rule.
He calls such attempts "bullshit."
Specifically he said "They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!"
Most people would agree that calling bullshit on someone telling lies is reasonable.
So what do you think about his quote, "it's not a matter of theory"?
Here's a full quote: ""I want to be polite to you. The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a 'on the one hand, on the other hand' issue. It's not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake."
Once again, it sounds like he's talking about the scientific issues, and not the political ones. Not one of the three quote you provided supports your claim.
I believe such thinking doesn't belong in the debate, but that's the way Gore thinks.
So you want to tell people how they can think? That doesn't seem very libertarian, and given that Gore's statements do not say what you claim they say, I seriously doubt that your guesses about what he's thinking are accurate either. Of course, debate must always end, and the side losing the debate rarely wants to concede that it's over, especially if there is ideology at stake.
Is my stating that out of context? Dishonest?
Quite clearly, yes and yes.
I don't. A key feature of the AGW crowd, and indeed many liberals (new fascist liberals, not classical liberals), is that anyone who honestly disagrees must be a bad person, dishonest, with ill intent.
Of course, you realise that statement appears hypocritical because you are essentially accusing everyone you disagree with of being intellectually dishonest, bad people because they believe everyone they disagree with is intellectually dishonest, bad people. Furthermore, I have made no claims about your moral character, what I have said is that dishonest behaviour is inconsistent with libertarian beliefs. It is a failure to live up to your own ideals.
Thus you will view any contrary statement I make through that lens.
That's possible, though I doubt it. As far I can see I've only criticised your dishonest statements and I provided the evidence that proves that they are dishonest. You may believe what you're saying, you might even be correct in your estimate of Al Gore, however, the evidence you provide to support your accusations has been taken out of context so that the meaning can be manipulated to support accusations that the context clearly demonstrates are incorrect. That behaviour certain fits the English definition of dishonest.
And now you use fallacy to try and prove me wrong?
That's not a fallacy, it's an observation. You should know the difference.
This is what I'm referring to in suggesting that you find some education.
Here's a tip for you: Never tell people they need to "find some education". It's rather rude and arrogant.
Look, this part is rather simple. You are not going to convince me that a person is wrong because you disagree with their position. You will also not convince me that using Ad hominem is ever proper, worthy, correct, or meritorious.
That's a strawman argument, I said specifically that it wasn't an ad hominem. You don't seem to understand the concept that ad hominem is attempt to dismiss your opponent based on who they are. I've made no such attempt to do so. I've informed you why I won't bother to debate with Jane Q. Public. It's statement of fact that I consider her to be crank. I've provided you with the observations that informed my opinion. You are free to make your own decision on her value as a debater.
You can try to circle around the same thing for the rest of your life, many people do. Denying one lacks maturity and education will never move a person to an educated mature position.
And yet, you actually keep using ad hominem attacks on me, by claiming that I am uneducated and immature (claim for which you have no supporting evidence). It appears you need to do a better job of taking your own advice. A lot less superciliousness would probably help as well, your mannerism can be very grating.
Opinions change in time not instantly. The mind takes a long time to comprehend complex issues. It's not anyone's fault, that is the way we are built.
Oh, we're not talking instantly, we're talking months later and she's still arguing the same points have been proven wrong countless times over the course of those months. Every time she is proven wrong, she seems to simply change venue and posts the same, already proven wrong, misinformation elsewhere.
Then debate the point instead of resorting to fallacy. One can not change their opinions or learn new facts without alternative opinions and alternative facts being presented correct?
Been there, done that, it was a pointless waste of my time. The problem with cranks is they tend to be obsessively obstinate about their beliefs to the point where they will gleefully engage in endless circular argument to the point where they often mistake exhausting their opponents tolerance for victory. It's the argument by repetition (ad nauseam) fallacy, if you will. With no moderator, it's a virtually guaranteed way to get the last word in any argument.
Ad hominem attacks and simple fallacy may get you pats on the back from people that already agree with you, but it is impossible to sway someone else with a different opinion with those same tactics.
This is your fundamental error here, I'm not trying to convince Jane that her position is wrong. I'm not saying anyone should ignore her arguments because she's an ignorant crank. I'm saying that I think people are ignoring her arguments (and moderating them down) because she behaves like an ignorant crank. That's not an ad hominem fallacy, rather it is a valid argument because the topic is her actions and other people's reactions to them. A topic which was opened by her complaint about what she perceived as unfair treatment.
A separate and equal point is that I often change my opinion by debating properly, this is how we best learn new facts and alter our opinions.
Congratulations, it is my impression that Jane is not open-minded enough for that.
You experience may be different, of course, it could be confirmation bias if you agree with her. Given the statement in question is riddled with factual errors that have previously been corrected, I'm inclined to disagree.
Honest and rational, from the leader of your side.
Did I tell you who my leader is? Or what side I'm on? Are there just two sides?
"The debate is over" not only applies to those who question the science, but also those who question the political prorities. The Debate Is Over. The High Priest Al Gore has ruled. Honest and rational discussion that contravenes the Scriptures is heresy and will not be tolerated.
Again, you prove my point. Instead of engaging in an honest, rational discussion, you hurl accusations and attack arguments I have not made. A reasonable person would have to conclude you are very bad at this, or you are trying to prove my argument is correct.
Furthermore, the quote you cite is actually: "If you look at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over." The full context directly contradicts the interpretation you have repeated over and over, thus proving my point again because you have deliberately removed context from the quote to change its meaning for propaganda purposes. Using deception to manipulate people into doing your will is fundamentally unethical according to the moral standards of libertarianism. So why do you do it?
According to the link I provided, heat stroke is defined as a body temperature over 40C. So "you can survive 45C heat without any troubles" is ignorant medical advice from a fool. The evidence is you're a liar, an idiot or both.
I notice "proper." In the eyes of the AGW proponents, the only proper discussion is agreement not only on the science, but on the political priorities (who gets our money, which of our freedoms are curtailed). By your definition, nobody can honestly disagree -- it all must be self-serving deception and fraud since "the debate is over."
Nice strawman argument. My definition would be more convincing, if it were my definition. I would define "proper" as honest and rational, but I find it interesting that you claim that my argument that we should be talking about the political priorities and solutions means I think we should skip discussing them. You seem to be doing your best to prove me right, and you have my thanks for conceding the argument so effectively.
Libertarians are using deception and fraud to prevent a proper discussion of the issue, therefore unethical by their own standards. You're essentially claiming that the ends justify the means.
Third, regardless, with the price of everything else they have to pay for, Torontonians can't afford more taxes to pay for shite they don't really need
According to whom? Toronto has been through a decade of yearly budget trimming, there's not much left that "they don't really need". The latest report was trying to convince people that libraries and day care are "gravy" that should be cut.
When they really need to fix the 100 year old sewers before they fail and build some realistic transit. And that means subways.
Strangely enough everyone agrees that subways should be built. The problem is that only some people agree that the subways need to be paid for. The current mayor thinks we should use all existing transit money to build two subway stations.
Above ground transit won't cut it. It's already at critical mass on the surface.
The issue is one of money, the city doesn't have enough money to construct the subways it needs. The province and federal governments are cutting spending, and businesses are hedging their bets against a European recession. Above grade transit increases capacity, even if it doesn't do much to decrease congestion*.
And everything costs too much already.
Ok, grandpa. Want to tell us how you had to walk to school, uphill both ways?
* Studies indicate it will have a temporary congestion reduction which will be consumed by induced traffic in approximately 5 years, but it will increase the actual number of commuters which can be transported by the infrastructure.
The goal appears to be to force everyone else to accept the libertarian do-nothing solution
The goal is to prevent massive increases in government power, massive intrusions on the rights of the people, massive damage to our economy, and massive forced confiscations of wealth to be given those who can figure out a way to hitch a ride on the AGW gravy train.
Those are arguments justifying ignoring libertarian values to force a collectivist response to prevent people from agreeing on a collectivist response. In effect, it's morally evil by libertarian standards and everyone else's as well.
If you don't agree with facts or opinion at least have enough intellect to present valid arguments.
Would you debate the homeless guy on the street who shouts at you that the Martians are coming to take your fillings? No, like I said, it's a waste of time to argue with cranks.
Ad Hominem, a string of informal fallacies, followed by a base rate fallacy does not count.
I wasn't debating the issue, I was explaining why many people just don't want to engage Jane Q. Public in debate. When someone is ignorant and refuses to learn anything about the topic, even after being proven wrong over and over again, they shouldn't be surprised if people just avoid dealing with their crazy ranting.
I'm not sure where the 3% comes from but if he's talking about mitigating the effects of AGW, the cost goes up over time because the effects increase. If we take preventative action, it's generally estimated to be about 1/10th the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change. The longer we wait, the more clean up we'll have to do and the less prevention.
There are a lot of libertarians who are perfectly happy with that, because they figure they won't have to pay as much for the clean up as they would for the prevention.
However, "troll" is perfect valid substitute for "too stupid to post to slashdot". Sorry, Jane, I know you're just a victim of Dunning-Kruger when it comes to climate change but given your history of being a crank, it's just not worth anyone's time to argue with your insanity any more.
You've done a fantastic job of creating and knocking down strawmen and purposefully misunderstanding every word I wrote
That's ironic, considering:
You don't seem to understand that you can't own ideas or music or history or culture.
Which contradicts your original assertion, that songs and ideas are owned by everyone once they are published or performed. So it is you that is spouting nonsense when you then say that ideas cannot be owned. If something can belong to a group of people, it can just as easily belong to smaller group or an individual.
That assertion is stupid on the face of it. "You" obviously isn't the same as "everyone". There are many things which belong to everyone (and therefore no one) and can not "just as easily belong to smaller group or an individual". Beyond the already excellent examples of ideas, music, history and culture, there's the sun, the oceans, the air, space, the stars, the universe, the fundamental laws of physics, mathematics, facts. I could go on, but if you can't understand that everything can't be owned by an individual, then you're just hopelessly stupid.
I'm going to stop arguing, because you are clearly one of those people who simply do not want to have to pay for something that you could get for free, so you have developed this elaborate pseudo-legal and pseudo-historical argument for why you believe artists should not be allowed to profit from their work. Simple as that.
. Katrina and New Orleans is the template for things to come.
They were yelling this is what global warming does! Expect more and more stronger hurricanes like this, the damage will be incredible in the coming years! Yeah, that didn't happen.
It would help your understanding if you read the entire paragraph, I wasn't talking about hurricane strength or frequency, but about the consequences of failing to maintain the infrastructure.
It's pretty much the whole reason libertarian groups are funding anti-climate change campaigns.
Libertarians don't like the massive increase in the size and power of government, and subsequent decrease in the freedom of the people, that would result if many of the ostensible solutions were enacted.
That's fine, libertarians should argue that point, however, for strategic reasons, groups like the Heartland Institute are attacking the science (science that they actually believe is true) for the sole reason of preventing an honest discussion of solutions. The goal appears to be to force everyone else to accept the libertarian do-nothing solution which, if you stop and think about it, is an ironic betrayal of libertarian principles.
EG. "Libertarians are opposed to the collecting and spending of tax dollars for any reason except for the protection of private property." Really? So you feel their party platform advocates taxation specifically for the purpose of private property protection? That's simply incorrect.
On the contrary, it's exactly correct.
It's far more accurate to say they're interested in a minimal government which only performs the duties outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That includes such things as production of a central currency and ensuring the protection of the nation's borders... not just ensuring a police force is funded to protect your personal possessions from theft or vandalism.
All of which is an extension of the prime directive of libertarianism: protecting private property. The maintenance of a stable currency protects monetary wealth which is private property, the maintenance of an army protects private property from foreign governments, the maintenance of a police force protects private property from domestic groups.
And by extension, there's no fundamental reason a libertarian would find his/her philosophy invalidated if "climate change" was proven to be real.
The Heartland Institute disagrees, they think that an acceptance of climate change and the predicted consequence, government action to resolve the crisis will severely undermine the libertarian cause in America. Some of their senior staff have gone so far as to admit that the only reason they oppose climate change at all, is because of the political consequences it would have for the libertarian movement. At a big picture level, climate change punches a giant hole in libertarianism. It's a market failure that could jeopardise the lives of billions, if everyone acting in their own best interest can jeopardise everyone's best interests, then the central claims of libertarianism are demonstrated false. It's the counter-example that proves that libertarianism can't work, and conversely that collectivism not only can work, but is necessary. Mostly, I think they're afraid of it being resolved and having someone write another "Atlas Shrugged" that puts a bullet in Libertarianism instead of Communism.
Climate change represents an existential threat of libertarianism that many libertarians will never be able to see because their ideological blinders prevent them from even recognising the problem. They already "know" that climate change can't be a real problem because they "know" that the markets can't fail.
The United States can't control what the rest of the world does with energy production. If China decides to burn a bunch of coal for the next 75 years because they need the energy and they're unconcerned about the air pollution it creates? What good is it for Americans to suffer higher taxes and more expensive energy costs in the name of "trying to control climate change with cleaner alternatives"?
It's too bad there are never any international conferences where countries around the world could gather and hammer out a treaty to deal with climate change. China imports coal to burn in their power plants, if the countries selling the coal to China raise the price, China will switch to cheaper alternatives. Of course, that's a red herring, because China is now one of the world's biggest producers of solar panels.
Libertarians feel people look to their government far too often to give them solutions to their problems (or perceived problems), vs. attempting to deal with the problems themselves first.
Of course they do, because the Libertarian view point is that people should always deal with problems themselves. It's like asking an abolitionist how much is too much, the answer is obvious before the question is asked.
I'm pretty certain, for example, that when farmers realize they're struggling to keep the
You forgot the most important one: 4) Confirmation bias. Most of the people using food stamps actually don't have expensive cars, but the ones that do are remembered because it confirms a pre-existing belief. It's most likely exactly the same thing as all the nurses who swear that nights with full moons are much busier than other nights. Every time someone applies an actual statistical analysis it turns out there's no significant difference.
For one thing, I doubt his vote was the deciding vote on the issue. It is impossible to quantify how much his advocacy increased the bill's vote count.
I suspect it would be more appropriate to say it's impossible for you to believe that Al Gore's advocacy helped. Frankly, the people who aught to know are convinced he played an important role. The accounts I've read all indicate that Gore spent a lot of time and energy making sure that bill passed. That's good enough for me, however, if you're a political weenie who can't give credit where credit is due, you might come to a different conclusion.
Libertarians are trying to REDUCE the size and scope of government as much as possible, so clearly, they wouldn't side with any group advocating more government spending on programs, hiring more govt. employees to oversee it, etc.
This is exactly the problem, the only reason libertarians quibble with the science is to derail discussion of the solutions because they don't like any of the solutions. That's wrong, they are endangering the public to push a political goal. Libertarians don't want to discuss the solutions because they know that accepting climate change means accepting that libertarianism doesn't work.
I think they're simply of the opinion that it's BAD policy to spend millions of tax dollars
You don't need the words "millions of", or the test of the sentence to sum up libertarian ideology. Libertarians are opposed to the collecting and spending of tax dollars for any reason except for the protection of private property.
Now, I do appreciate the work one of the parent posters did, citing many references regarding possible reduction in food supply from global warming... I admit that's a very real potential downside. On the other hand, does it take into account potential new farmable land that would result from increased temperatures closer to the poles, where it was never an option before?
At least some of them do. That falls into the category of so blindingly obvious, that it is absolutely sure that it has been considered multiple times. The "potential new farmable land" is not very good for growing crops, much of it has been scoured by glaciers, has very little native plant coverage, has no well adapted staple crops, and is significantly different in season and daylight from the lands that currently grow the majority of the world's food. That's just from basic geography. As an example of how much worse the land is. consider that Iowa produces more grain than Canada. It's possible with a lot of work that we may be able to adapt crops and compensate for the lost crop lands, but we're trading known good areas for bad areas with an unknown maximum potential. Most of the world's food comes from a handful of crops that evolved and were domesticated in the fertile crescent in the Middle East. There is little chance that we will come out ahead on the deal.
First, intellectual property is not the same thing as a trade secret.
Obviously. A trade secret is one form of intellectual property, I apologise if "is-a" relationships confuse you. But a song kept secret can be a trade secret, however, once it is made public it becomes a copyrighted work. The copyrighted work is public and belongs to the public. In exchange for losing ownership of the work, the creator is granted a limited monopoly on the right to make copies and performances of the work.
Second, being a consumer of a work of art is not the same as being the creator/owner of one.
You statement is incoherent because you confuse two different issues. Creator is not the same as owner and that's why you don't understand anything about intellectual property.
Your assertion is ridiculous on the face of it, any more than knowing what the Chrysler Building looks like gives me a property right to it.
You are confused. The Chrysler Building is an object which can be owned, it is not intellectual property. If you can't tell the difference between an object and an idea, you should be committed to an asylum for your own safety and the safety of those around you.
The Chrysler Building "belongs to" New York the same way your song "belongs to" the public: it's a part of the culture.
False. The Chrysler Building is a part of New York, it is owned by the Cooper Union and leased to it's current managers. The idea of the Chrysler building, on the other hand, may be part of the culture. The song on the other hand, is definitely public property. If it weren't public property, you wouldn't need a government law to grant an exclusive right to copy the song back to the author.
That's totally different from ownership in a property sense.
There is no property sense to owning a song. How could you own it? Do you have less song if someone else sings it? Where is the song? Can you pull the song out of your pocket and show it to me? You could show me the media which contains a particular recording of a particular performance of the song, but you can't show me the song itself. The song is an idea, an arrangement of notes and words (even that is debatable since covers often re-arrange the notes and/or words). No particular performance of the song is the song. No particular recording of a particular performance of the song is the song. It can not be owned in any sense of the word that makes actual sense.
Once the song has been performed, it is only a matter of time until it enters the public domain, but rest assured once it has been performed, if the song owned by anyone, it is owned by everyone. The creator only owns the copyright to the song. The copyright is not the same thing as the song any more than an iPod is the songs it contains.
You don't seem to understand that you can't own ideas or music or history or culture.
They are owned by the same company and thus run by the same corporate dictator. Who is, of course, backing Romney. So think of this as one Rupert Murdoch's many campaign contributions.
Frankly, I doubt anyone will ever convince roman_mir or cpu6502 that government is anything but evil, and capitalism is anything but the hand of god. I've tried before but they are impervious to reason, logic, and argument. They "know" the "one truth" and all who disagree with them must tremble before the might of the "Free Market".
I put them both on my list so I wouldn't have to see their pedantic rantings any more.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing out of context there.
That seems dishonest because the quote explicitly contradicts your conjecture.
He says the debate is over, period.
No he said "If you look at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over", when you deliberately misquote, it looks pernicious.
No contrary arguments allowed, no research that strays from his conclusions allowed.
Of course, he didn't actually say that. That's a straw man argument that you've created (or read elsewhere and repeated). Given that Al Gore has no actual role in the funding for Climate Change research, I find it difficult to see how he could enforce that rule.
He calls such attempts "bullshit."
Specifically he said "They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!"
It seems he's calling bullshit on people who pretend to be scientists and spread misinformation.
It's not volcanoes
It's not sun spots
It is getting warmer
Most people would agree that calling bullshit on someone telling lies is reasonable.
So what do you think about his quote, "it's not a matter of theory"?
Here's a full quote: ""I want to be polite to you. The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a 'on the one hand, on the other hand' issue. It's not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake."
Once again, it sounds like he's talking about the scientific issues, and not the political ones. Not one of the three quote you provided supports your claim.
I believe such thinking doesn't belong in the debate, but that's the way Gore thinks.
So you want to tell people how they can think? That doesn't seem very libertarian, and given that Gore's statements do not say what you claim they say, I seriously doubt that your guesses about what he's thinking are accurate either. Of course, debate must always end, and the side losing the debate rarely wants to concede that it's over, especially if there is ideology at stake.
Is my stating that out of context? Dishonest?
Quite clearly, yes and yes.
I don't. A key feature of the AGW crowd, and indeed many liberals (new fascist liberals, not classical liberals), is that anyone who honestly disagrees must be a bad person, dishonest, with ill intent.
Of course, you realise that statement appears hypocritical because you are essentially accusing everyone you disagree with of being intellectually dishonest, bad people because they believe everyone they disagree with is intellectually dishonest, bad people. Furthermore, I have made no claims about your moral character, what I have said is that dishonest behaviour is inconsistent with libertarian beliefs. It is a failure to live up to your own ideals.
Thus you will view any contrary statement I make through that lens.
That's possible, though I doubt it. As far I can see I've only criticised your dishonest statements and I provided the evidence that proves that they are dishonest. You may believe what you're saying, you might even be correct in your estimate of Al Gore, however, the evidence you provide to support your accusations has been taken out of context so that the meaning can be manipulated to support accusations that the context clearly demonstrates are incorrect. That behaviour certain fits the English definition of dishonest.
And now you use fallacy to try and prove me wrong?
That's not a fallacy, it's an observation. You should know the difference.
This is what I'm referring to in suggesting that you find some education.
Here's a tip for you: Never tell people they need to "find some education". It's rather rude and arrogant.
Look, this part is rather simple. You are not going to convince me that a person is wrong because you disagree with their position. You will also not convince me that using Ad hominem is ever proper, worthy, correct, or meritorious.
That's a strawman argument, I said specifically that it wasn't an ad hominem. You don't seem to understand the concept that ad hominem is attempt to dismiss your opponent based on who they are. I've made no such attempt to do so. I've informed you why I won't bother to debate with Jane Q. Public. It's statement of fact that I consider her to be crank. I've provided you with the observations that informed my opinion. You are free to make your own decision on her value as a debater.
You can try to circle around the same thing for the rest of your life, many people do. Denying one lacks maturity and education will never move a person to an educated mature position.
And yet, you actually keep using ad hominem attacks on me, by claiming that I am uneducated and immature (claim for which you have no supporting evidence). It appears you need to do a better job of taking your own advice. A lot less superciliousness would probably help as well, your mannerism can be very grating.
Opinions change in time not instantly. The mind takes a long time to comprehend complex issues. It's not anyone's fault, that is the way we are built.
Oh, we're not talking instantly, we're talking months later and she's still arguing the same points have been proven wrong countless times over the course of those months. Every time she is proven wrong, she seems to simply change venue and posts the same, already proven wrong, misinformation elsewhere.
Then debate the point instead of resorting to fallacy. One can not change their opinions or learn new facts without alternative opinions and alternative facts being presented correct?
Been there, done that, it was a pointless waste of my time. The problem with cranks is they tend to be obsessively obstinate about their beliefs to the point where they will gleefully engage in endless circular argument to the point where they often mistake exhausting their opponents tolerance for victory. It's the argument by repetition (ad nauseam) fallacy, if you will. With no moderator, it's a virtually guaranteed way to get the last word in any argument.
Ad hominem attacks and simple fallacy may get you pats on the back from people that already agree with you, but it is impossible to sway someone else with a different opinion with those same tactics.
This is your fundamental error here, I'm not trying to convince Jane that her position is wrong. I'm not saying anyone should ignore her arguments because she's an ignorant crank. I'm saying that I think people are ignoring her arguments (and moderating them down) because she behaves like an ignorant crank. That's not an ad hominem fallacy, rather it is a valid argument because the topic is her actions and other people's reactions to them. A topic which was opened by her complaint about what she perceived as unfair treatment.
A separate and equal point is that I often change my opinion by debating properly, this is how we best learn new facts and alter our opinions.
Congratulations, it is my impression that Jane is not open-minded enough for that.
You experience may be different, of course, it could be confirmation bias if you agree with her. Given the statement in question is riddled with factual errors that have previously been corrected, I'm inclined to disagree.
Honest and rational, from the leader of your side.
Did I tell you who my leader is? Or what side I'm on? Are there just two sides?
"The debate is over" not only applies to those who question the science, but also those who question the political prorities. The Debate Is Over. The High Priest Al Gore has ruled. Honest and rational discussion that contravenes the Scriptures is heresy and will not be tolerated.
Again, you prove my point. Instead of engaging in an honest, rational discussion, you hurl accusations and attack arguments I have not made. A reasonable person would have to conclude you are very bad at this, or you are trying to prove my argument is correct.
Furthermore, the quote you cite is actually: "If you look at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over." The full context directly contradicts the interpretation you have repeated over and over, thus proving my point again because you have deliberately removed context from the quote to change its meaning for propaganda purposes. Using deception to manipulate people into doing your will is fundamentally unethical according to the moral standards of libertarianism. So why do you do it?
According to the link I provided, heat stroke is defined as a body temperature over 40C. So "you can survive 45C heat without any troubles" is ignorant medical advice from a fool. The evidence is you're a liar, an idiot or both.
I notice "proper." In the eyes of the AGW proponents, the only proper discussion is agreement not only on the science, but on the political priorities (who gets our money, which of our freedoms are curtailed). By your definition, nobody can honestly disagree -- it all must be self-serving deception and fraud since "the debate is over."
Nice strawman argument. My definition would be more convincing, if it were my definition. I would define "proper" as honest and rational, but I find it interesting that you claim that my argument that we should be talking about the political priorities and solutions means I think we should skip discussing them. You seem to be doing your best to prove me right, and you have my thanks for conceding the argument so effectively.
Libertarians are using deception and fraud to prevent a proper discussion of the issue, therefore unethical by their own standards. You're essentially claiming that the ends justify the means.
For one, Toronto is the fifth most expensive city in North America. That was just in the news within the last couple of months.
Cost of living.
Second, if you are going to claim that Toronto has some of the lowest property taxes, you need to provide a link.
GTA Residential Property Tax Rates
Third, regardless, with the price of everything else they have to pay for, Torontonians can't afford more taxes to pay for shite they don't really need
According to whom? Toronto has been through a decade of yearly budget trimming, there's not much left that "they don't really need". The latest report was trying to convince people that libraries and day care are "gravy" that should be cut.
When they really need to fix the 100 year old sewers before they fail and build some realistic transit. And that means subways.
Strangely enough everyone agrees that subways should be built. The problem is that only some people agree that the subways need to be paid for. The current mayor thinks we should use all existing transit money to build two subway stations.
Above ground transit won't cut it. It's already at critical mass on the surface.
The issue is one of money, the city doesn't have enough money to construct the subways it needs. The province and federal governments are cutting spending, and businesses are hedging their bets against a European recession. Above grade transit increases capacity, even if it doesn't do much to decrease congestion*.
And everything costs too much already.
Ok, grandpa. Want to tell us how you had to walk to school, uphill both ways?
* Studies indicate it will have a temporary congestion reduction which will be consumed by induced traffic in approximately 5 years, but it will increase the actual number of commuters which can be transported by the infrastructure.
The goal appears to be to force everyone else to accept the libertarian do-nothing solution
The goal is to prevent massive increases in government power, massive intrusions on the rights of the people, massive damage to our economy, and massive forced confiscations of wealth to be given those who can figure out a way to hitch a ride on the AGW gravy train.
Those are arguments justifying ignoring libertarian values to force a collectivist response to prevent people from agreeing on a collectivist response. In effect, it's morally evil by libertarian standards and everyone else's as well.
You are not a doctor, and should not be giving medical advice.
If you don't agree with facts or opinion at least have enough intellect to present valid arguments.
Would you debate the homeless guy on the street who shouts at you that the Martians are coming to take your fillings? No, like I said, it's a waste of time to argue with cranks.
Ad Hominem, a string of informal fallacies, followed by a base rate fallacy does not count.
I wasn't debating the issue, I was explaining why many people just don't want to engage Jane Q. Public in debate. When someone is ignorant and refuses to learn anything about the topic, even after being proven wrong over and over again, they shouldn't be surprised if people just avoid dealing with their crazy ranting.
Indeed, what if global warming is a hoax, and we create a better world for nothing?.
I'm not sure where the 3% comes from but if he's talking about mitigating the effects of AGW, the cost goes up over time because the effects increase. If we take preventative action, it's generally estimated to be about 1/10th the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change. The longer we wait, the more clean up we'll have to do and the less prevention.
There are a lot of libertarians who are perfectly happy with that, because they figure they won't have to pay as much for the clean up as they would for the prevention.
However, "troll" is perfect valid substitute for "too stupid to post to slashdot". Sorry, Jane, I know you're just a victim of Dunning-Kruger when it comes to climate change but given your history of being a crank, it's just not worth anyone's time to argue with your insanity any more.
You've done a fantastic job of creating and knocking down strawmen and purposefully misunderstanding every word I wrote
That's ironic, considering:
You don't seem to understand that you can't own ideas or music or history or culture.
Which contradicts your original assertion, that songs and ideas are owned by everyone once they are published or performed. So it is you that is spouting nonsense when you then say that ideas cannot be owned. If something can belong to a group of people, it can just as easily belong to smaller group or an individual.
That assertion is stupid on the face of it. "You" obviously isn't the same as "everyone". There are many things which belong to everyone (and therefore no one) and can not "just as easily belong to smaller group or an individual". Beyond the already excellent examples of ideas, music, history and culture, there's the sun, the oceans, the air, space, the stars, the universe, the fundamental laws of physics, mathematics, facts. I could go on, but if you can't understand that everything can't be owned by an individual, then you're just hopelessly stupid.
I'm going to stop arguing, because you are clearly one of those people who simply do not want to have to pay for something that you could get for free, so you have developed this elaborate pseudo-legal and pseudo-historical argument for why you believe artists should not be allowed to profit from their work. Simple as that.
Obviously, I must want things for free because I dare to disagree with you.
. Katrina and New Orleans is the template for things to come.
They were yelling this is what global warming does! Expect more and more stronger hurricanes like this, the damage will be incredible in the coming years! Yeah, that didn't happen.
It would help your understanding if you read the entire paragraph, I wasn't talking about hurricane strength or frequency, but about the consequences of failing to maintain the infrastructure.
It's pretty much the whole reason libertarian groups are funding anti-climate change campaigns.
Libertarians don't like the massive increase in the size and power of government, and subsequent decrease in the freedom of the people, that would result if many of the ostensible solutions were enacted.
That's fine, libertarians should argue that point, however, for strategic reasons, groups like the Heartland Institute are attacking the science (science that they actually believe is true) for the sole reason of preventing an honest discussion of solutions. The goal appears to be to force everyone else to accept the libertarian do-nothing solution which, if you stop and think about it, is an ironic betrayal of libertarian principles.
EG. "Libertarians are opposed to the collecting and spending of tax dollars for any reason except for the protection of private property." Really? So you feel their party platform advocates taxation specifically for the purpose of private property protection? That's simply incorrect.
On the contrary, it's exactly correct.
It's far more accurate to say they're interested in a minimal government which only performs the duties outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That includes such things as production of a central currency and ensuring the protection of the nation's borders ... not just ensuring a police force is funded to protect your personal possessions from theft or vandalism.
All of which is an extension of the prime directive of libertarianism: protecting private property. The maintenance of a stable currency protects monetary wealth which is private property, the maintenance of an army protects private property from foreign governments, the maintenance of a police force protects private property from domestic groups.
And by extension, there's no fundamental reason a libertarian would find his/her philosophy invalidated if "climate change" was proven to be real.
The Heartland Institute disagrees, they think that an acceptance of climate change and the predicted consequence, government action to resolve the crisis will severely undermine the libertarian cause in America. Some of their senior staff have gone so far as to admit that the only reason they oppose climate change at all, is because of the political consequences it would have for the libertarian movement. At a big picture level, climate change punches a giant hole in libertarianism. It's a market failure that could jeopardise the lives of billions, if everyone acting in their own best interest can jeopardise everyone's best interests, then the central claims of libertarianism are demonstrated false. It's the counter-example that proves that libertarianism can't work, and conversely that collectivism not only can work, but is necessary. Mostly, I think they're afraid of it being resolved and having someone write another "Atlas Shrugged" that puts a bullet in Libertarianism instead of Communism.
Climate change represents an existential threat of libertarianism that many libertarians will never be able to see because their ideological blinders prevent them from even recognising the problem. They already "know" that climate change can't be a real problem because they "know" that the markets can't fail.
The United States can't control what the rest of the world does with energy production. If China decides to burn a bunch of coal for the next 75 years because they need the energy and they're unconcerned about the air pollution it creates? What good is it for Americans to suffer higher taxes and more expensive energy costs in the name of "trying to control climate change with cleaner alternatives"?
It's too bad there are never any international conferences where countries around the world could gather and hammer out a treaty to deal with climate change. China imports coal to burn in their power plants, if the countries selling the coal to China raise the price, China will switch to cheaper alternatives. Of course, that's a red herring, because China is now one of the world's biggest producers of solar panels.
Libertarians feel people look to their government far too often to give them solutions to their problems (or perceived problems), vs. attempting to deal with the problems themselves first.
Of course they do, because the Libertarian view point is that people should always deal with problems themselves. It's like asking an abolitionist how much is too much, the answer is obvious before the question is asked.
I'm pretty certain, for example, that when farmers realize they're struggling to keep the
You forgot the most important one:
4) Confirmation bias. Most of the people using food stamps actually don't have expensive cars, but the ones that do are remembered because it confirms a pre-existing belief. It's most likely exactly the same thing as all the nurses who swear that nights with full moons are much busier than other nights. Every time someone applies an actual statistical analysis it turns out there's no significant difference.
For one thing, I doubt his vote was the deciding vote on the issue. It is impossible to quantify how much his advocacy increased the bill's vote count.
I suspect it would be more appropriate to say it's impossible for you to believe that Al Gore's advocacy helped. Frankly, the people who aught to know are convinced he played an important role. The accounts I've read all indicate that Gore spent a lot of time and energy making sure that bill passed. That's good enough for me, however, if you're a political weenie who can't give credit where credit is due, you might come to a different conclusion.
Libertarians are trying to REDUCE the size and scope of government as much as possible, so clearly, they wouldn't side with any group advocating more government spending on programs, hiring more govt. employees to oversee it, etc.
This is exactly the problem, the only reason libertarians quibble with the science is to derail discussion of the solutions because they don't like any of the solutions. That's wrong, they are endangering the public to push a political goal. Libertarians don't want to discuss the solutions because they know that accepting climate change means accepting that libertarianism doesn't work.
I think they're simply of the opinion that it's BAD policy to spend millions of tax dollars
You don't need the words "millions of", or the test of the sentence to sum up libertarian ideology. Libertarians are opposed to the collecting and spending of tax dollars for any reason except for the protection of private property.
Now, I do appreciate the work one of the parent posters did, citing many references regarding possible reduction in food supply from global warming... I admit that's a very real potential downside. On the other hand, does it take into account potential new farmable land that would result from increased temperatures closer to the poles, where it was never an option before?
At least some of them do. That falls into the category of so blindingly obvious, that it is absolutely sure that it has been considered multiple times. The "potential new farmable land" is not very good for growing crops, much of it has been scoured by glaciers, has very little native plant coverage, has no well adapted staple crops, and is significantly different in season and daylight from the lands that currently grow the majority of the world's food. That's just from basic geography. As an example of how much worse the land is. consider that Iowa produces more grain than Canada. It's possible with a lot of work that we may be able to adapt crops and compensate for the lost crop lands, but we're trading known good areas for bad areas with an unknown maximum potential. Most of the world's food comes from a handful of crops that evolved and were domesticated in the fertile crescent in the Middle East. There is little chance that we will come out ahead on the deal.
I think the fundamental ignorance is yours.
Of course you do.
First, intellectual property is not the same thing as a trade secret.
Obviously. A trade secret is one form of intellectual property, I apologise if "is-a" relationships confuse you. But a song kept secret can be a trade secret, however, once it is made public it becomes a copyrighted work. The copyrighted work is public and belongs to the public. In exchange for losing ownership of the work, the creator is granted a limited monopoly on the right to make copies and performances of the work.
Second, being a consumer of a work of art is not the same as being the creator/owner of one.
You statement is incoherent because you confuse two different issues. Creator is not the same as owner and that's why you don't understand anything about intellectual property.
Your assertion is ridiculous on the face of it, any more than knowing what the Chrysler Building looks like gives me a property right to it.
You are confused. The Chrysler Building is an object which can be owned, it is not intellectual property. If you can't tell the difference between an object and an idea, you should be committed to an asylum for your own safety and the safety of those around you.
The Chrysler Building "belongs to" New York the same way your song "belongs to" the public: it's a part of the culture.
False. The Chrysler Building is a part of New York, it is owned by the Cooper Union and leased to it's current managers. The idea of the Chrysler building, on the other hand, may be part of the culture. The song on the other hand, is definitely public property. If it weren't public property, you wouldn't need a government law to grant an exclusive right to copy the song back to the author.
That's totally different from ownership in a property sense.
There is no property sense to owning a song. How could you own it? Do you have less song if someone else sings it? Where is the song? Can you pull the song out of your pocket and show it to me? You could show me the media which contains a particular recording of a particular performance of the song, but you can't show me the song itself. The song is an idea, an arrangement of notes and words (even that is debatable since covers often re-arrange the notes and/or words). No particular performance of the song is the song. No particular recording of a particular performance of the song is the song. It can not be owned in any sense of the word that makes actual sense.
Once the song has been performed, it is only a matter of time until it enters the public domain, but rest assured once it has been performed, if the song owned by anyone, it is owned by everyone. The creator only owns the copyright to the song. The copyright is not the same thing as the song any more than an iPod is the songs it contains.
You don't seem to understand that you can't own ideas or music or history or culture.
They are owned by the same company and thus run by the same corporate dictator. Who is, of course, backing Romney. So think of this as one Rupert Murdoch's many campaign contributions.
Frankly, I doubt anyone will ever convince roman_mir or cpu6502 that government is anything but evil, and capitalism is anything but the hand of god. I've tried before but they are impervious to reason, logic, and argument. They "know" the "one truth" and all who disagree with them must tremble before the might of the "Free Market".
I put them both on my list so I wouldn't have to see their pedantic rantings any more.