Do anthropogenic climate change deniers matter?

[zookap]

Excuse me? My opinion about global carbon tax is BY NO MEANS arbitrary and unconditional.

Then please explain the bolded excerpt from a previous statement:

I'm really not sure what you are talking about when you say we should tally up the amounts won and lost by everyone but rest assured there is nothing at all that can happen that would convince me to implement a global carbon tax paid to a world bank. I'll drown in the ocean tomorrow before I support such a thing. If sea levels ARE rising I agree we must do something but again: No C02 tax. EVER.

I'm confused as to how you can, metaphorically, in one breath say that there is no possible evidence whatsoever that would ever convince you to support a carbon tax and then with the next breath claim that your opinion is anything but arbitrary and unconditional. To say that no evidence could ever change your mind is to admit the arbitrary and unconditional nature of your opinion.

The condition of my opinion is that everything I have ever seen or heard was not a hallucination but actually happened. The total information contained in all of it tells me, among other things, that when the government lowers a noose around my neck, no matter how loose it is right now, it is still a noose. A global C02 tax would be a noose fashioned from steel cable. Looking about me at the horrible abuse of every other system designed to protect us is not comforting. Am I obligated to trust my life a government that..... wait.... Am I obligated to trust my life to any government NO MATTER WHAT? No, I'm not and neither are you.

If a known child molester held out a lollipop and told you to get in his van would you? OK what if it was 10 lollipops? OK what if he told you the lollipops were special and magic and made you super-smart? No? OK, say the unthinkable happens and you learn that the lollipops REALLY are magic, then would you get into the child molester's van? You still wouldn't? What an arbitrary decision to make!

[++$_]

The condition of my opinion is that everything I have ever seen or heard was not a hallucination but actually happened. The total information contained in all of it tells me, among other things, that when the government lowers a noose around my neck, no matter how loose it is right now, it is still a noose. A global C02 tax would be a noose fashioned from steel cable. Looking about me at the horrible abuse of every other system designed to protect us is not comforting. Am I obligated to trust my life a government that..... wait.... Am I obligated to trust my life to any government NO MATTER WHAT? No, I'm not and neither are you.

If a known child molester held out a lollipop and told you to get in his van would you? OK what if it was 10 lollipops? OK what if he told you the lollipops were special and magic and made you super-smart? No? OK, say the unthinkable happens and you learn that the lollipops REALLY are magic, then would you get into the child molester's van? You still wouldn't? What an arbitrary decision to make!

I'm quite simply at a loss for the words necessary to describe how incoherent, irrational, and unsupported your so-called argument is. Without ANY explanation, you assert that your experience teaches you that a global CO₂ tax (by the way, the O is a letter, not the number 0, because it is the chemical symbol for oxygen) would be the equivalent of a "noose fashioned from steel cable" and "a child molester offering you a lollipop." (I was going to say "metaphorical equivalent", but then you go on to ask rhetorically whether you are obligated to trust your life to a government. So perhaps you literally think a carbon tax would kill you. If this is the case, I'm completely flabbergasted.)

I could say that based on my experience, a law against throwing puppy dogs off cliffs would be a noose made out of titanium cable, but that probably doesn't make any sense to you. I have trouble seeing how a carbon tax would cause strangulation or death, even metaphorically, and you haven't bothered to explain. This is why I think your opinion is utterly arbitrary and unsupported.

You've argued in this thread the following:

the fact that I have political views about this issue is basically an answer of "yes AGW 'deniers' do matter.

And we've been pointing out that political views may or may not be worth something depending on whether they are grounded in the real world or not. Your fears about steel nooses, child molesters, world governments, secret agendas of the green movement, and avowed eugenicists are utterly groundless. You have not produced the tiniest shred of evidence for your point of view, let alone sufficient evidence to substantiate all of your arguments. You can't, because it doesn't exist. I could just as well claim that anti-carbon-tax people want the sea level to rise so they will have more real estate to build underwater pleasure palaces. That's not an opinion that should be given any weight or credence, and neither is yours, or anyone else's if it is based on imaginary facts and bogeymen.

EDIT: I said something stupid in the first version.

[Charlie!]

Guys, it seems that we're being trolled.

[zookap]

The condition of my opinion is that everything I have ever seen or heard was not a hallucination but actually happened. The total information contained in all of it tells me, among other things, that when the government lowers a noose around my neck, no matter how loose it is right now, it is still a noose. A global C02 tax would be a noose fashioned from steel cable. Looking about me at the horrible abuse of every other system designed to protect us is not comforting. Am I obligated to trust my life a government that..... wait.... Am I obligated to trust my life to any government NO MATTER WHAT? No, I'm not and neither are you.

If a known child molester held out a lollipop and told you to get in his van would you? OK what if it was 10 lollipops? OK what if he told you the lollipops were special and magic and made you super-smart? No? OK, say the unthinkable happens and you learn that the lollipops REALLY are magic, then would you get into the child molester's van? You still wouldn't? What an arbitrary decision to make!

I'm quite simply at a loss for the words necessary to describe how incoherent, irrational, and unsupported your so-called argument is. Without ANY explanation, you assert that your experience teaches you that a global CO₂ tax (by the way, the O is a letter, not the number 0, because it is the chemical symbol for oxygen) would be the equivalent of a "noose fashioned from steel cable" and "a child molester offering you a lollipop." (I was going to say "metaphorical equivalent", but then you go on to ask rhetorically whether you are obligated to trust your life to a government. So perhaps you literally think a carbon tax would kill you. If this is the case, I'm completely flabbergasted.)

I could say that based on my experience, a law against throwing puppy dogs off cliffs would be a noose made out of titanium cable, but that probably doesn't make any sense to you. I have trouble seeing how a carbon tax would cause strangulation or death, even metaphorically, and you haven't bothered to explain. This is why I think your opinion is utterly arbitrary and unsupported.

You've argued in this thread the following:

the fact that I have political views about this issue is basically an answer of "yes AGW 'deniers' do matter.

And we've been pointing out that political views may or may not be worth something depending on whether they are grounded in the real world or not. Your fears about steel nooses, child molesters, world governments, secret agendas of the green movement, and avowed eugenicists are utterly groundless. You have not produced the tiniest shred of evidence for your point of view, let alone sufficient evidence to substantiate all of your arguments. You can't, because it doesn't exist. I could just as well claim that anti-carbon-tax people want the sea level to rise so they will have more real estate to build underwater pleasure palaces. That's not an opinion that should be given any weight or credence, and neither is yours, or anyone else's if it is based on imaginary facts and bogeymen.

EDIT: I said something stupid in the first version.

OK first things first: my experience DOES teach me that a noose is a noose no matter how loose it is. I am obviously not talking about a real noose, I mean a tool by which someone can take away my rights at any time. I was not "arguing" anything when I say the fact that I have an opinion means I matter, I thought I was stating the obvious. Whether or not my views are "worth anything" to you doesn't matter because in America they are worth the exact same as yours. I have plenty to substantiate my opinions and the only actual argument I am making is that we should not trust those currently behind the green movement. Now to address your whining about how I referred to carbon dioxide: the O is right next to the 0 on my macbook and I am to lazy to use subscript because it doesn't enhance what I am saying, so no I am not a retard if that's what you were thinking. If you want evidence of world governments being promoted with the green movement I am HAPPY to provide it. Also In my analogy, the known child molester means people who have advocated world government (and a HOST of horrible things) for decades and the magical lollipops are actions taken 'save you' from YOUR bogeyman, AGW. Do you trust them?

www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf - proof of plans for world governemt

go to www.unesco.org and look for the policy paper by Ignacy Sachs called "The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global” - proof of incremental plans for world government via the green movement,written 20 years ago.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75469 - proof the green agenda is being used to strip me of my rights, which as I said is how I define noose for this argument.

This is not everything I go on, it's just to stop all this "non-evidence based" nonsense I keep hearing. I got more upon request but I doubt anything will get past your shields.

Oh and here is Bill gates advocating mass death and depopulation in the name of the greed agenda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUJMR3BU ... r_embedded

[Hawknc]

www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf - proof of plans for world governemt

Global governance does not equate
to world government, which would be
virtually impossible for the foreseeable future,
if ever.

go to http://www.unesco.org and look for the policy paper by Ignacy Sachs called "The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global” - proof of incremental plans for world government via the green movement,written 20 years ago.

The relevant paper. I didn't particularly care for how it was written, but I also didn't see any "proof of incremental plans for world government". Could you please point out the paragraphs which support your case?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75469 - proof the green agenda is being used to strip me of my rights, which as I said is how I define noose for this argument

First off, CNS News lol. Sorry, had to get that out of my system. Which rights are you being stripped of when manufacturers are told to meet certain energy efficiency standards? The right to buy inefficient machines isn't anywhere in the US Constitution or the UDHR that I could find.

Edit: ooh, I forgot one. I'm...not sure you watched that video. I'm actually not sure you've viewed any of the sources you provided, but this one in particular stands out because Bill Gates is saying we can reduce population growth by 10-15% by improved health care and vaccines. That's not mass death or depopulation; in fact, he's not advocating a decrease in the population at all. He's saying we need to reduce the rate of growth, which is simply having less kids. In the video he mentions that one of the four factors - people, services, energy and CO2 per unit energy - needs to go to near zero. Clearly that cannot be people. I don't have the full speech at hand, but I'd bet the non-edited version of that video would show him advocating getting CO2 per unit energy right down to zero, which is kind of not at all what you're accusing him of.

[zookap]

www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf - proof of plans for world governemt

Global governance does not equate
to world government, which would be
virtually impossible for the foreseeable future,
if ever.

go to http://www.unesco.org and look for the policy paper by Ignacy Sachs called "The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global” - proof of incremental plans for world government via the green movement,written 20 years ago.

The relevant paper. I didn't particularly care for how it was written, but I also didn't see any "proof of incremental plans for world government". Could you please point out the paragraphs which support your case?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75469 - proof the green agenda is being used to strip me of my rights, which as I said is how I define noose for this argument

First off, CNS News lol. Sorry, had to get that out of my system. Which rights are you being stripped of when manufacturers are told to meet certain energy efficiency standards? The right to buy inefficient machines isn't anywhere in the US Constitution or the UDHR that I could find.

Edit: ooh, I forgot one. I'm...not sure you watched that video. I'm actually not sure you've viewed any of the sources you provided, but this one in particular stands out because Bill Gates is saying we can reduce population growth by 10-15% by improved health care and vaccines. That's not mass death or depopulation; in fact, he's not advocating a decrease in the population at all. He's saying we need to reduce the rate of growth, which is simply having less kids. In the video he mentions that one of the four factors - people, services, energy and CO2 per unit energy - needs to go to near zero. Clearly that cannot be people. I don't have the full speech at hand, but I'd bet the non-edited version of that video would show him advocating getting CO2 per unit energy right down to zero, which is kind of not at all what you're accusing him of.

Well I guess it is technically true that "global governance" does not directly translate to "global government," that's basically just splitting hairs isn't it? As for the second source I am not sure you even read it if nothing you saw rang a bell about what I am saying. Here are just a few of the things this paper has to say in advocacy of "a virtuous green world."

"Theoretically the transition could be made shorter by measure of redistribution of assets and income. But historical evidence points to the complexity of such solutions not speaking to their political viability. The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades"

Sachs says "ecological sustainability" could be enhanced by, among other things "defining rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policy"

"The operational question is how do we proceed to put mankind on the virtuous green path of genuine stability, social responsibility and in harmony with nature. It is submitted that UNCED 92 should give consideral attention to the formulation oftransitional strategies that could become the central piece of the Agenda 21. These strategies should be designed to take into account four premises that are spelled out below"

I am sure you have heard of agenda 21, right? Included in the "four premises" was:

"The retooling of industries, even in periods of rapid growth, requires ten to twenty years. The reconstruction and expansion of infrastructures requires several decades and this is a crucially important sector from the point of view of environment."

Hang on a second. Reconstruction of infrastructures? Retooling of industries? The premises continue:

"In order to stabilize the populations of the south by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient. Population policies (wait WHAT KIND of policies?!) are not a substitute for development policies but part of a development package. To be really efficient, while keeping with the democratic methods of enforcement, population policy requires a set of [word is not readable] measures who's affects are slow to come"

"That is why an accelerated programme of social and economic development of rural areas should be the outmost priority in the first phase of a realistic population stabilization scheme. Even on the most optimistic assumptions, the effects of such a crash programme cannot be felt before many years"

"Considerations of the efficiency of transition strategies on a worldwide scale imposes on Northern countries the obligation of coping with the major share of the globally required funds. This means that they should, first of all, adopt a concrete set of measures setting the industrialized countries on the transition path. At the same time they must be prepared for a massive net transfer of resources to the south and to the east"

"The solutions can vary in terms of their boldness and take the form of global, multilateral, or bilateral arrangements. Their detailed explanation goes beyond the scope of this paper. They should pursue the following goals:"

Among the goals are "ensuring at least partially the automacity of financial transfers by some form of fiscal mechanisms, be it a small income tax or an array of indirect taxes on goods and services whose production and consumption has significant environmental impacts."

"Whatever the verdict of the scientists about the relative contributions of carbon dioxide and of the methane to the greenhouse effect, the transitional strategy must start by curbing the oil consuption of 500 million cars almost entirely concentrated in the North"

"Teaching curriculs should be changed to include a propredeutic notion of ecodevelopement in all faculties and departments....."
".... The universities should take very seriously to the task of redefining school programs at all the levels"


I have picked through less than half the paper and selected less that half of what I thought was relevant so again, If you saw absolutely nothing I was talking about in this paper, I think you didn't actually read it.

As for the third source, you can lol at whatever you want but are you saying that was a lie? Also you seem to forget that the constitution says "government can ONLY DO THIS" not "citizens can ONLY DO THIS." Just because a right as specific as "the right to buy inefficient machines" isn't in the constitution obviously doesn't mean we don't have that right. However just because a certain power of government is not granted by the constitution DOES mean the government is not granted that power. According to your logic on this, since the right buy fatty chocolate is not in the constitution, It must not be one of my rights.

While, true, Gate's does not directly talking about killing, what do YOU think he is saying when he proposes vaccines as a method of preventing a billion births?

If this thread is supposed to be based on the assumption that AGW is real, an assumption I don't hold anywhere else, I think it is fair that for a few minutes you should assume that both of our worst fears are true. Since I really believe that mine are, this would be a good way for you to try and see it from my point of view. If all that stuff being pinned on the green movement is true, would you still follow it? Not following it does not mean doing nothing about AGW it simply means doing something else (and no, I don't know what.)

[Vaniver]

You know, it's poor form to purposefully misinterpret every word I say so that your disagreement seems more valid. Everyone stop doing this and the world will be a less annoying place, OK?

You consider the world an annoying place? I actually find it rather pleasant. Perhaps the difference in our approaches to life and other people has something to do with that?

[zookap]

Oh and one last little bit: the paper, written 20 years ago, advocates the implementation of these "transitional strategies" over 35 years, which would mean by 2025. What else did you think "Global Governance 2025" meant?

[zookap]

You know, it's poor form to purposefully misinterpret every word I say so that your disagreement seems more valid. Everyone stop doing this and the world will be a less annoying place, OK?

You consider the world an annoying place? I actually find it rather pleasant. Perhaps the difference in our approaches to life and other people has something to do with that?

Pay attention you are doing it right now. I never said I consider the world an annoying place, I said that refraining from doing what you are doing right now will make it LESS annoying. You know nothing of my approach to life or to other people so there is no reason to assume we disagree on such a fundamental level. How's this: If I don't say X, don't assume I am saying X. Can ya do that?

And if you don't have anything to ad to the discussion, you don't have anything to add, man.

[Vaniver]

Pay attention you are doing it right now. You know nothing of my approach to life or to other people so there is no reason to assume we disagree on such a fundamental level. How's this: If I don't say X, don't assume I am saying X. Can ya do that?

Really? I would expect that I at least know something about your approach to me.

I was paying attention, by the way: I'm well aware that I'm playing to the crowd at this point. I choose to do so because your response to a well thought out, sympathetic response was to call it 'poor form' that I called you on your mistakes to 'make my disagreement seem more valid.' In rational discourse, mistakes do make disagreements more valid, and it is poor form to deflect when you are called out on mistakes instead of correcting those mistakes. Every post you have written so far in this thread has had some hasty generalization, and the position you have been communicating to us has been a dancing retreat in response to criticism. You probably feel your position has remained steadfast throughout this discussion: if so, then you should focus your efforts on getting better at communicating.

You have communicated little to us besides your fears. I share some of those fears, but to me they are only concerns: I can keep thinking and considering even if they're on the table. Those Greens that you dislike are in the same situation as you: they are dominated by their fear, and come off as incomprehensible to those whose are unconcerned or only concerned about those issues. The way out, of course, is to abandon the fear- to rationally weigh concerns against one another. A patient has good reason to be afraid of both cancer and chemotherapy, but their best approach is to take a deep breath, abandon their fear, and weigh their concerns.

[Hawknc]

I have picked through less than half the paper and selected less that half of what I thought was relevant so again, If you saw absolutely nothing I was talking about in this paper, I think you didn't actually read it.

I won't argue that the paper isn't preachy or ideological. As I said, I don't like how it was written. But each of the aims in the quotes you provided can be tackled either at a national level, or by way of international cooperation. None of them require or advocate a global government; at worst, they rely on the existing structure of the United Nations, for which the paper was written.

Also you seem to forget that the constitution says "government can ONLY DO THIS" not "citizens can ONLY DO THIS." Just because a right as specific as "the right to buy inefficient machines" isn't in the constitution obviously doesn't mean we don't have that right. However just because a certain power of government is not granted by the constitution DOES mean the government is not granted that power. According to your logic on this, since the right buy fatty chocolate is not in the constitution, It must not be one of my rights.

I'll leave the constitutional arguments to people better versed in them (not being American, I don't know it all that well). But given that the US government already restricts what you can buy for environmental reasons (such as CFC-containing items), this doesn't seem like much of a stretch of their powers.

While, true, Gate's does not directly talking about killing, what do YOU think he is saying when he proposes vaccines as a method of preventing a billion births?

Really? If you increase life expectancy and reduce infant mortality (through vaccines and other forms of healthcare), people don't feel the need to have as many children as they are able to live and work longer. You can have an even larger effect on reducing birth rates by increasing living standards. That's what I think he's saying. How did you interpret it?

Oh and one last little bit: the paper, written 20 years ago, advocates the implementation of these "transitional strategies" over 35 years, which would mean by 2025. What else did you think "Global Governance 2025" meant?

I don't think anybody was arguing what the "2025" portion of the title meant.

[zookap]

Pay attention you are doing it right now. You know nothing of my approach to life or to other people so there is no reason to assume we disagree on such a fundamental level. How's this: If I don't say X, don't assume I am saying X. Can ya do that?

Really? I would expect that I at least know something about your approach to me.

I was paying attention, by the way: I'm well aware that I'm playing to the crowd at this point. I choose to do so because your response to a well thought out, sympathetic response was to call it 'poor form' that I called you on your mistakes to 'make my disagreement seem more valid.' In rational discourse, mistakes do make disagreements more valid, and it is poor form to deflect when you are called out on mistakes instead of correcting those mistakes. Every post you have written so far in this thread has had some hasty generalization, and the position you have been communicating to us has been a dancing retreat in response to criticism. You probably feel your position has remained steadfast throughout this discussion: if so, then you should focus your efforts on getting better at communicating.

You have communicated little to us besides your fears. I share some of those fears, but to me they are only concerns: I can keep thinking and considering even if they're on the table. Those Greens that you dislike are in the same situation as you: they are dominated by their fear, and come off as incomprehensible to those whose are unconcerned or only concerned about those issues. The way out, of course, is to abandon the fear- to rationally weigh concerns against one another. A patient has good reason to be afraid of both cancer and chemotherapy, but their best approach is to take a deep breath, abandon their fear, and weigh their concerns.

You obviously don't get what I am asking you to do. My accusations of "poor form" were not in answer to a well thought out and sympathetic response, they were in answer to a response containing snippy disagreements to things that I never said. I am not "dominated by fear" I am simply more afraid of proven global government than I am of un-proven global warming. The dangers I see in enforcing a global cap and trade system are a little more to think about that he physical pain of chemotherapy. The position I have been advocating the ENTIRE TIME is a position of simply questioning this cap and trade system and making a decision of whether or not to trust it instead of blindly signing it because you think global warming is real. My communication has largely been a response to criticism as you say but that is only because most of you are CLUELESS and blindly deny the notion of world government without even delving into it. If you research this you might still support a carbon tax but it is undeniable that many powerful and wealthy people advocate world government and have done so for DECADES. Now I know you are going to start crying when I don't provide links to it but dry your tears and do five minutes of searching about this stuff and you will see that there is at least SOMETHING to it. Do some more searching and you will see that there is LOTS to it. Read whatever you want and discount whatever you want but for the love of god look at the information before you disagree with it.

[zookap]

I have picked through less than half the paper and selected less that half of what I thought was relevant so again, If you saw absolutely nothing I was talking about in this paper, I think you didn't actually read it.

I won't argue that the paper isn't preachy or ideological. As I said, I don't like how it was written. But each of the aims in the quotes you provided can be tackled either at a national level, or by way of international cooperation. None of them require or advocate a global government; at worst, they rely on the existing structure of the United Nations, for which the paper was written.

Also you seem to forget that the constitution says "government can ONLY DO THIS" not "citizens can ONLY DO THIS." Just because a right as specific as "the right to buy inefficient machines" isn't in the constitution obviously doesn't mean we don't have that right. However just because a certain power of government is not granted by the constitution DOES mean the government is not granted that power. According to your logic on this, since the right buy fatty chocolate is not in the constitution, It must not be one of my rights.

I'll leave the constitutional arguments to people better versed in them (not being American, I don't know it all that well). But given that the US government already restricts what you can buy for environmental reasons (such as CFC-containing items), this doesn't seem like much of a stretch of their powers.

While, true, Gate's does not directly talking about killing, what do YOU think he is saying when he proposes vaccines as a method of preventing a billion births?

Really? If you increase life expectancy and reduce infant mortality (through vaccines and other forms of healthcare), people don't feel the need to have as many children as they are able to live and work longer. You can have an even larger effect on reducing birth rates by increasing living standards. That's what I think he's saying. How did you interpret it?

Oh and one last little bit: the paper, written 20 years ago, advocates the implementation of these "transitional strategies" over 35 years, which would mean by 2025. What else did you think "Global Governance 2025" meant?

I don't think anybody was arguing what the "2025" portion of the title meant.

So a UN policy paper written 20 years ago advocating the restructure of numerous aspects of our society such as implementation of sustainable "population policy" doesn't make you look more critically at the idea of global cap and trade? Do you know what agenda 21 even is? If not, there is only one way of changing that and it's by not sitting smugly trying to make some snippy comment about the fact that I'm not providing you with a link about it.

If you don't live in America and don't know the constitution well enough to carry on a discussion about it, what position are you in to tell ME that the government expansion of power seen in the article I showed you is not a breach of my rights?

Oh and I interpret Bill Gates as saying exactly what he said which is that if we do a good job with vaccines, we can prevent a billion people from being born. I'm not exactly sure HOW the vaccines will do this, but that is what this infamous eugenicist said.

[zookap]

Pay attention you are doing it right now. You know nothing of my approach to life or to other people so there is no reason to assume we disagree on such a fundamental level. How's this: If I don't say X, don't assume I am saying X. Can ya do that?

Really? I would expect that I at least know something about your approach to me.

I was paying attention, by the way: I'm well aware that I'm playing to the crowd at this point. I choose to do so because your response to a well thought out, sympathetic response was to call it 'poor form' that I called you on your mistakes to 'make my disagreement seem more valid.' In rational discourse, mistakes do make disagreements more valid, and it is poor form to deflect when you are called out on mistakes instead of correcting those mistakes. Every post you have written so far in this thread has had some hasty generalization, and the position you have been communicating to us has been a dancing retreat in response to criticism. You probably feel your position has remained steadfast throughout this discussion: if so, then you should focus your efforts on getting better at communicating.

You have communicated little to us besides your fears. I share some of those fears, but to me they are only concerns: I can keep thinking and considering even if they're on the table. Those Greens that you dislike are in the same situation as you: they are dominated by their fear, and come off as incomprehensible to those whose are unconcerned or only concerned about those issues. The way out, of course, is to abandon the fear- to rationally weigh concerns against one another. A patient has good reason to be afraid of both cancer and chemotherapy, but their best approach is to take a deep breath, abandon their fear, and weigh their concerns.

Oh and just so you know, I think you were right when you said we have fundamentally different approaches to people. When I hear somebody preaching about something that sounds crazy to me, I approach it thinking "Huh that sounds pretty outrageous to me. Where on earth would he get an idea of like that from? Must be based on something because even the most misguided and strange beliefs don't simply float down from the sky...."

You seem to approach me thinking "I think the opposite so I know there isn't the slightest bit of logic applied to his harebrained conspiracy theories! He sounds just like all those other crazies who talk about world government so I KNOW he's wrong! Just like those religious freaks."

Not once has my argument directly been addressed. The entire time was spent debating if global government is actually being pushed which WASN'T MY ARGUMENT. A good practice in ANY form of discourse is to try to adopt for just a minute the relevant major premises of whoever you are arguing with. Does that person's logic seem more sound? It almost always does. You can still recognize that those major premises ARE where you differ but finding common ground or the exact differences in beliefs is a LOT easier this way. I like for the sake of argument to temporarily assume that whatever I am being told (as long as it is not directly opposed to what I "know") is true. See if you agree or disagree with the conclusion of the argument as the other guy understands it. Treat the assumptions made in the argument as separate issues because the legitimacy of those assumptions are not what is being argued. Let me clarify how I define it.
The conclusion of the argument is "A"
the assumptions underlying the argument are "B"
the ARGUMENT is "If B, then A"

You agree with any of these things and not the others. In my opinion (and yes I mean JUST MY OPINION) you utterly failed at trying to gain something from this discussion other than air time. Hey though, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Hawknc]

Please don't triple-post, there's no reason you can't have all of that in one post. Especially since you replied twice to the same quote.

So a UN policy paper written 20 years ago advocating the restructure of numerous aspects of our society such as implementation of sustainable "population policy" doesn't make you look more critically at the idea of global cap and trade? Do you know what agenda 21 even is? If not, there is only one way of changing that and it's by not sitting smugly trying to make some snippy comment about the fact that I'm not providing you with a link about it.

It's not a policy paper. It was written by one man for a conference. Agenda 21 is a policy, but since like most UN plans involvement in it is entirely voluntary, I don't see how it poses a threat to national sovereignty.

Oh and I interpret Bill Gates as saying exactly what he said which is that if we do a good job with vaccines, we can prevent a billion people from being born. I'm not exactly sure HOW the vaccines will do this, but that is what this infamous eugenicist said.

Which infamous eugenicist? And why is preventing a billion births over [undetermined time frame] a bad thing? Given overpopulation concerns in some parts of the world, it seems like not such a bad idea to me. (Here's the entire video, for anyone who's interested.)

Not once has my argument directly been addressed. The entire time was spent debating if global government is actually being pushed which WASN'T MY ARGUMENT.

Fair enough. What is your argument?

[morriswalters]

I suspect Bill Gates point is that if you can reduce infant mortality and raise wealth then birthrates would decline. Pretty much as they have in the industrialized nations. If you fear government more than you fear climate change then discussion would seem to be pointless. Assuming the current thinking on this subject is correct then only Governments have the capability to affect the outcome.

[addams]

Do anthropogenic climate change deniers matter? Well, Yes.
I read a physics book a while ago. The author waxed poetic, he said, "Mind may yet guide man's destiny in a capricious universe." What we think matters. What they think matters.
Can we 'magically' think our way into and out of trouble? It might be so. It would take a great many thinkers to create the world that would make you feel safe. Then, you may fall prey to the 'next' thing to worry about.

To the first poster, I would like to say. "Live your life well. Think good thoughts. If, the little experiment that is life on Earth is ends, suddenly or slowly. Know deep down in your heart that you lived well, loved well and laughed often".

When you live green you increase the respect that you have for yourself. That may be the best that you are going to get. Yes. Irresponsible and crass people matter. That said; Go life a happy life. If living Green makes you happy then live Green. The others will well advised to learn my your example. You happiness is the best selling point.
Addams

[rho]

Surely the fact that zookap has managed to entirely derail this thread, ignoring the science and instead refocussing on the obscure paranoia that Bill Gates is a eugenicist actively working to kill people with vaccines*, demonstrates the influence of climate change deniers?

There is a well established campaign of misinformation which does have a demonstrable effect on public opinion. Public opinion is in turn used as a motivation for action (or inaction) by politicians. So yes, climate change, or anthropogenic climate change denial matters because the spread of misinformation, and the wilful slander of honest people in national newspapers or on television actually has an effect on the direction society takes.


*Really?! You have to have a pretty distorted world view to think he was implying that people can be "killed-off with vaccines". Increased health-care spending (of which vaccination is a major part!) increases life expectancy and decreases birth rates. As has already been mentioned in this thread. Given the work that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does, you should really be quite ashamed of letting rhetoric and reasoning as week as yours loose in public...

[Azrael]

Surely the fact that zookap has managed to entirely derail this thread...

Not that it was particularly railed to begin with.