5 ms·
You're misunderstanding the purpose of the solution by taking it at face value. I think it is important to step back and think about why the global warming mo
by lzw 16y ago
You're misunderstanding the purpose of the solution by taking it at face value. I think it is important to step back and think about why the global warming movement is being perpetrated. The real "problem" is the lack of a world government and the lack of power of governments over people's lives. Thus "Cap and trade" and all these other proposals that will not work on the face of them are actually solutions because they give governments dictatorial control over industry and people's lives....and they bring us closer to a global government.
I believe the left does not really care about people, especially poor people, at all. These people are just stepping stones or excuses to increase their power -- much the way wars and fear of terrorism are useful to the right.
I've learned enough economics and attempted to explain to people on the left in very straightforward economic terms how a given policy will actually hurt poor people, and never once have I managed to persuade a leftist to oppose that policy. They don't care, or they just decide that because I'm speaking economic science I must be a republican and therefore evil.
I am coming to believe that ideology inhibits thought.
- scrod 16y ago>I am coming to believe that ideology inhibits thought. Your comments demonstrate that quite clearly.
- lzw 16y agoAw, gee, a snotty insult with no actual substantive response. Stay classy, hacker news! Sure, the snotty insult gets upvoted and the response pointing out that it is not useful or adding to the conversation gets downvoted. Votes are driven by ideology, not objectivity, eh?
- Gobiner 16y agoYou've made over a dozen posts in this discussion making factual claims without posting a single link to back up your assertions. Coupled with this ridiculousness: "I believe the left does not really care about people, especially poor people, at all" you can't seriously be miffed that people aren't putting in a lot of effort to refute your positions.
- anthonyb 16y ago> ... world government ... Bingo! I think we have the whole climate denier phrasebook now...
- lzw 16y agoI sure wish you would actually respond to the arguments, maybe make salient points. Instead of simply snidely characterizing everyone who doesn't agree with your ideology. Also: It reflects on the nature of hacker news that the snotty response has upvotes.
- anthonyb 16y agoSee my previous replies. You still haven't answered any of my original arguments, btw.
- lzw 16y agoThis is another form of insult. You lie about what I have said in order to characterize me in a negative way. Ad hominem. Reality is, I have responded to your "Arguments" such that they are, and you have simply ignored my responses. If science is really on your side, why so evasive? Why are you arguing to the person rather than to the point?
- anthonyb 16y agohttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867943 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867943
- lzw 16y agoYou link to a place where you confused me with someone else, as justification for making personal attacks? See also: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867917 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867917 So, you refuse to respond to arguments, you admit it, and you demand that people make arguments to someone else, and then you lie about me to accuse me of being evasive, and then you link to an argument you made where you confused me with someone else (after ignoring my previous arguments) to support the claim that I'm ignoring your arguments? In short, you have attacked me, lied about me, ignored my argumments, not provided any arguments of your own, and instead linked to someone else's blog and demanded that your opponents debate them. I think I'm done. You can continue to be evasive or make personal attacks. I can't stop you. But there is no point in wasting any more time on you. You have, by the way, proven my point, by once again being a supporter of AGW who: 1. Is not familiar with the science. 2. Is unwilling or unable to make arguments. 3. Is unequipped to respond to scientific arguments. 4. Who rests their advocacy on the claims of others that tehy assert are "Scientists" 5. Engages in personal attack. 6. Engages in dishonest statements. 7. Rejects the scientific method. You have demonstrated all of these, and this forces me to remain convinced in my belief that advocates of AGW are anti-science religious zealots.