Give Me A Break - Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXxKOkzciG4
"ABC 20/20 John Stossel's Give Me A Break on Global Warming" - Video Descrip

Interesting little video.  When you analyze the desires of the environmentalists, it really seems to me like they aren't so much pro-environment as they are anti-business or anti-industrialization.  They want to deny us our energy that is necessary to grow our economy and our GDP and raise our standard of living.

>>40
Yeah, only PHD's from radical left-wing universities with educator ratios that favor democrats over republicans 9-1, right?

>>35

But in reality, modern conservatives don't. Modern conservatives favor social restrictions and capitalism (not that fascism is restricted to capitalism). If you are to go up to a more zealous conservative in this age and ask them what they support, you will find their answers to be more "fascist".

I ask you the same question towards liberalism, that is, if you have an inkling of sense about it. If you are to ask a liberal about what he thinks about fascism, the chances are they will cringe. Liberals are not fascist because they want you to pay more fucking taxes, and they're sure as hell not fascist for supporting social freedom. For the most part, modern liberalism in America is just egalitarianism with a hatred for government involvement in morality.

>>41

The overwhelming consensus of climatologists publishing in peer-reviewed journals is that global warming is real, and caused largely by human activity. But a great many non-peer-reviewed papers exist - junk science, in other words. Grist for political advocates of doing nothing. Don't cite pseudo-science in rebuttal, you'll be wasting your breath. Stick to the peer-reviewed stuff.


Information about atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 420,000 years is here:
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

A good discussion of Global Dimming is here:  http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp

A layman's summary of clathrates in the context of global warming is here:  http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/methane/

>>43
Talking about reliable sources and linking to 2 biased sites. Way to look like a hypocrite.

>>37

socialism = no profit on resources. Hence, priority on energy is not profit, but efficiency and safety. There will be no billionaires/corporations purposely stunting new energy technology/research in sake for profit. That is the basic outlook Greenpeace has.

Of course, you can always say that such is not the case in America. The corporations put efficiency and planet safety before profit, something like that would prompt me to call you clueless and deluded.

Also this would work in a free market system, provided the public is informed. Invisible hand and all that. However, America is even further away from true free markets then from socialism, what, with iron-fisted monopoly on resources so few have.

Hopefully someone gets elected next election that will piss off the envirofags enough that they'll move to Canada or something.

>>45
efficiency = profit and profit = investment into increase of efficiency, dumbass

>>45
You're a fucking retard who knows nothing about even those most basic principles of economics.

>>47
>>48
You guys are brainwashed, I'm merely paraphrasing a solid macroeconomics theory.

>>49
Don't label something you just made up as theory.

>>42
Liberals have abandoned the ideals of original liberals in America in favor of something more fascistic/socialistic.  They no longer favor individual liberty, free markets, and property rights. 

I would also suggest that liberals are not really that great on the 'personal freedoms' or non-economic rights category either.  In the USA the democrat party represents the liberals, and look at how they tend to govern.  They support all of the same infringements of privacy that the republicans do.  They support the war on drugs.  They support gun control. 

I actually don't see much difference between the democrats and the republicans on many issues except that the republicans tend to favor 2nd Amendment rights, School Choice, low taxes, free trade, and border security. 

In contrast, the democrats are often on the anti-liberty side of these issues.  They fight for new gun control laws, they fight to stop School Choice initiatives that would give more freedom to individual parents and families, they fight against low taxes, they fight against free trade, and they fight against border security. 

So the only issue I named there wherein the democrats support the liberty side of things is with regard to the border.  The democrats want more and more lax immigration laws - and I don't think this is due to some kind of libertarian objection they have to hindering people from migrating to where they please, but rather that they just like the illegals because hispanics tend to support them in the elections.

"and they're sure as hell not fascist for supporting social freedom."

Banning guns, telling parents control over where their own children attend school, and in general just trying to run other people's lives is not characteristic of support for 'social freedom.'  Also, what about the 'social freedom' to do with your property as you please? This is why you can't separate freedoms like this.  They are attached to one another.  If you erode property rights, you are taking steps toward eroding other personal freedoms as well since property rights are the cornerstone upon which many of the others depend upon.

videos = science