| marc9000 writes: Do you propose that we amend the Constitution to declare that the can by-pass the political process and dictate rules and regulations however it sees fit? |
No. Do you propose that the scientific community should be ignored or distrusted when governments consider legislation?
| marc9000 writes: The calculations for the eventual death and suffering can be taken into consideration before anyone dies ... |
Thanks! What a sweetheart!
| marc9000 writes: ...alongside the calculations of possibilities of corruption, of what companies will be destroyed by new political action, what companies (and politicians) will stand to benefit greatly from new political action, etc. |
If we knew how to calculate possibilities of corruption, political science would be a true science and we'd live in a completely different world now. Sorry. There's no such science.
Facts are facts, whether they're from science labs or accounting departments. It's the job of our legislators to legislate intelligently, taking all available info into consideration and resisting corruption. If legislation (or lack of it) causes harm to the population, something need to change (or be done).
If laws, rules, and regulations benefit the well-being and happiness of the overall population, who cares which political or industrial players might win or lose?
| marc9000 writes: As only one example, government mandated airbags sometimes kill children and small adults. It's considered, by the government, to be a worthwhile trade-off. |
Good call by the government. A good trade off. Thousands of lives have been saved.
| marc9000 writes: They can make estimates, (unprovable of course) of how many lives airbags save,... |
The stats are very solidly provable. Obviously and painfully true. They prevent much more harm than they cause. Like vaccines.
| marc9000 writes: ... and they can point fingers at parents every time a child is killed. If we don't like it, if we don't agree with them, that's just tough for us. |
Yes. People pointed fingers. The parents hadn't even fastened their kids' safety belts, or put the seat facing the right way.
Yes. It's tough for uninformed ignorant people to understand.
| marc9000 writes: There is a huge difference between free market accountability versus government accountability. |
And cheers to that! Human suffering only counts as an intangible asset - negative goodwill - on balance sheets in a free market. It has to count for a lot more in government.
marc9000 writes:| glowby writes: What freedoms do you have to sacrifice, for people to be forbidden to poison one another? |
The system we have works just fine. If you don't agree, what would your solution be? |
Dude! You're the one complaining about the system! They want to do what's right in the long term for the people, the economy and the planet; and you're whining about liberties and "factions".
marc9000 writes:| glowby writes: No one needs to be convinced that murder is bad. You wouldn't hesitate to condemn terrorists for poisoning a municipal water supply. But if a corporation does it, maybe it's OK because ... liberties? |
No. But a possibly corrupt faction can't make knee-jerk decisions concerning political action. |
True. Since the beginning of time. Your point? The scientific community is probably the least prone to corruption of all. They have to prove their ideas to each other and the world. In writing. With supporting data and reasoned conclusions. If they turn out to be just a little wrong, they're called out for it. Their work is revised or rejected. If they fake data or lie about methods, they risk losing their careers. Immediately. Can you think of another "faction" like that?
| marc9000 writes: What should have been done to fix it? (global warming) I've been asking that question over and over in this thread, and I'm not getting any answers. |
It's because "fixing" it is impossible. The best we can hope is to slow the process we set in motion, and mitigate the cost in dollars and human suffering. Some day Earth's climates might approximate what they would have been, had we not fouled things up so bad. But by then we'll have extincted many more species, and coastal populations will have been forced inland. The dead will be buried.
You're asking the wrong question. It's, "What should be done to stop making things worse and minimize the damage?"
| marc9000 writes: I've pointed out the necessary products that are only available through fossil fuel use, that would cause enormous problems if they were banned by government. |
And we've pointed out that these products are not endangered. Many can easily be made without fossil fuels today. If fossil fuels are indeed necessary, they'll be available. No one is proposing an outright ban.
| marc9000 writes: Climate alarmists always imply that there has been lavish, unnecessary use of fossil fuels that have caused the problems. |
No. They don't. They say it's mainly the use of fossil fuels for electricity, heating, transportation, and industry.
| marc9000 writes: Which ones should have been banned long ago? Auto racing? Pleasure boating? Major sporting events? The antique auto industry? Michael Bloomberg's 72 gallon per hour helicopter? ... |
Again: No one is proposing an outright ban.
| marc9000 writes: Too many farting cows? WHAT? |
You do understand that cows aren't fossil fuels, right?
| marc9000 writes: What have poisons got to do with the climate? |
You said CO2 pollution is just a "claim by a faction" because it's invisible and undetectable. I said a lot of poisons are too. Undetectable in the water supply. So when a lab reports poisons, is it just a "claim by a faction"?
It's an alarm going off. Not that different than our smoke, monoxide, and radon detectors. And not that different than all the facts that prove we accidentally screwed up the whole Earth by spewing massive amounts of garbage exhaust into the atmosphere.
| marc9000 writes: Here's a vid that makes the case for why free markets, not government, is best suited to "do something about" challenges to society. |
Quaint. You might as well tell us how free markets are best at ending wars, drug abuse, or prostitution.
Obviously, free markets helped create global warming, as did governments. Neither one functions well without the other, for good or bad. Together they can accomplish a lot. Lax government regulations played a large in creating this crisis. Setting free markets free is the stupidest possible thing we could do.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
