Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Then what do you propose we do, if the climate change deniers continue their stubbornness indefinitely and continue to promote humanity's destruction for their own private interests?

...

Respect their freedom of speech?

Who ever suggested doing otherwise?

[Globocom Enterprises]

Well damnit, I'm the last idealogically right-wing person on NSG.

Don't Lie!

[Mezique]

Well damnit, I'm the last idealogically right-wing person on NSG.

Don't Lie!

Sorry! I didn't see your posts! I was disheartened to go on after reading the OP.

[Blakk Metal]

Then what do you propose we do, if the climate change deniers continue their stubbornness indefinitely and continue to promote humanity's destruction for their own private interests?

Ignore them?

Humanity is hardly doomed by climate change. Humanity will adapt.

Can't adapt in a hundred years.

Not if we wanna start growing gills since land's gonna get swallowed up.

There ain't enough ice.

And so it was decided that all policies should be banned from government, and society descended ascended into anarchy.

Those people also qualify as deniers.

If someone don't think that global warming is sped up by man and that man has a significant part in stopping it (by reducing our emissions), then that person is just as ignorant as a denier.

Which is why Mars is experiencing warming as well?

By what rate?

Criminals who have payed their "debt" to society should no longer be punished once they've served their time.

Its absurd that we don't allow them to vote.

Never mind that they are, well, criminals? What interest do they have in the welfare of a nation?

They're willing to get kidnapped for it?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

*LOOKS IN HIS WALLET*

I've got 900 bucks in there... can someone tell me what 900 out of 4.54 billion is? I just need to know the percentage.

I've got all these people convinced that this $900 is WAY more important than the other 4.54 billion LOL, what a bunch of suckers.

So what you're saying is, rape should be legal, because in the grand lifespan of the Earth, it's been happening all the time, amirite?

No, what s/he is saying is, since there have been variations in climate throughout the entire existence of the earth, even when humans were not around, then obviously humans are not responsible for any currently-ongoing changes in climate.

Which is of course totally nonsense and a ridiculously ignorant thing to say. Even if it were indeed the case that humanity had no effect on any currently-ongoing climate change, that would not be a valid argument in support of it since it is obviously true (as I point out here, for what was when I posted the second time in this thread) that different underlying causes can have the same outcome.

[Globocom Enterprises]

Don't Lie!

Sorry! I didn't see your posts! I was disheartened to go on after reading the OP.

Yea I barfed in my mouth too.

I want to say I'm joking, but the way this discussion is going, if any of these kids get elected someday, guys like you and I are going to be rounded up and put into concentration camps.

Well after we lose our right to vote,
to think,
and to own a gun.

They'll call it a "social program".

[Agymnum]

Sorry! I didn't see your posts! I was disheartened to go on after reading the OP.

Yea I barfed in my mouth too.

I want to say I'm joking, but the way this discussion is going, if any of these kids get elected someday, guys like you and I are going to be rounded up and put into concentration camps.

Well after we lose our right to vote,
to think,
and to own a gun.

They'll call it a "social program".

Relax. If I ever get elected you'll be free to whine about the welfare state and liberal policies I push.

[The Theban Legion]

I didn't check... Did anyone quote Voltaire yet? I would but I don't want to risk repitition.

[Globocom Enterprises]

Oh by the way, antartica's Ice grew by 16,000 square kilometers this year.

Source? United States Navy - Ice Research.

[Agymnum]

I didn't check... Did anyone quote Voltaire yet? I would but I don't want to risk repitition.

If you're doing the whole, "I do not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."

1. That's not Voltaire (it's one of his friends; mis-attributed to Voltaire).
2. I just did it.

[Mavorpen]

So what you're saying is, rape should be legal, because in the grand lifespan of the Earth, it's been happening all the time, amirite?

No, what s/he is saying is, since there have been variations in climate throughout the entire existence of the earth, even when humans were not around, then obviously humans are not responsible for any currently-ongoing changes in climate.

Which is of course totally nonsense and a ridiculously ignorant thing to say. Even if it were indeed the case that humanity had no effect on any currently-ongoing climate change, that would not be a valid argument in support of it since it is obviously true (as I point out here, for what was when I posted the second time in this thread) that different underlying causes can have the same outcome.

Omg... someone kill me. Did it ever occur to you that the post was satire?

[Mavorpen]

Oh by the way, antartica's Ice grew by 16,000 square kilometers this year.

Source? United States Navy - Ice Research.

Give the actual link.

[Ethel mermania]

No, what s/he is saying is, since there have been variations in climate throughout the entire existence of the earth, even when humans were not around, then obviously humans are not responsible for any currently-ongoing changes in climate.

Which is of course totally nonsense and a ridiculously ignorant thing to say. Even if it were indeed the case that humanity had no effect on any currently-ongoing climate change, that would not be a valid argument in support of it since it is obviously true (as I point out here, for what was when I posted the second time in this thread) that different underlying causes can have the same outcome.

Omg... someone kill me. Did it ever occur to you that the post was satire?

i don't know, how do you feel about eugenics?

[Globocom Enterprises]

Yea I barfed in my mouth too.

I want to say I'm joking, but the way this discussion is going, if any of these kids get elected someday, guys like you and I are going to be rounded up and put into concentration camps.

Well after we lose our right to vote,
to think,
and to own a gun.

They'll call it a "social program".

Relax. If I ever get elected you'll be free to whine about the welfare state and liberal policies I push.

I hope you're right. Hell I'd support you if you made sense are the people's freedoms are retained. But I'm putting buckshot in the face of the first person who says I can't vote anymore.

[Agymnum]

Relax. If I ever get elected you'll be free to whine about the welfare state and liberal policies I push.

I hope you're right. Hell I'd support you if you made sense are the people's freedoms are retained. But I'm putting buckshot in the face of the first person who says I can't vote anymore.

You wouldn't support me. Just because I retain your freedoms, doesn't mean I'm your shoe-in candidate.

I'm liberal economics-wise and social-wise, and I'm for higher taxes. I'm the polar opposite of you.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I'm not sure why so many people here seem to think that the "freedom" to kill millions to billions of people is a real freedom that has to be respected, or is more deserving of protection than the freedom of those millions to billions to live.

I'm not sure why so many people here seem to think that getting to draw a few circles on a piece of paper at the school gym up the street every year or so is an integral part of freedom, but actually being alive to live your life as you see fit isn't.

No one's denying your right to be personally fine with all that death and destruction, or to express publicly just how fine you are with it. We're just saying that you can't go through with actually carrying that death and destruction out, because unlike you we actually value individual liberty and freedom and the democratic organization of society.

[Choronzon]

Electoral democracy is not a suicide pact, and it's certainly not an end in itself. Rather, it's a means to ensuring the well-being of humanity, and there should be no hesitation to set it aside when it becomes a hindrance to that end, just as we would set aside a hammer with no compunctions when it comes time to cut a plank in two.

If the climate change deniers continue with their willfull ignorance and obstructionism, well, we are not obligated to let them sacrifice all of humanity for their own short-term private interests. Our lives are more important than their oil revenues. If saving mankind requires removing their access to the political system, should we do it?

^ Totally effed and inconsiderate. Your world view is so very narrow minded. You've failed to convince the world and in your rage, you don't appreciate the notion that any number of your disagreements on the world and govt. would be perfectly acceptable to the majority of the population that YOU be disenfranchised and denied internet access for the good of mankind.

Oh look, YGO is pretending like he cares about democracy.

Thats cute.

[Globocom Enterprises]

Oh by the way, antartica's Ice grew by 16,000 square kilometers this year.

Source? United States Navy - Ice Research.

Give the actual link.

1. First thing son, not ALL information is on the internet, at a click a-way.

2. pwnd.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The sun has set over the central Arctic Ocean and sea ice extent is now increasing. While much attention has been paid to the record minimum Arctic ice extent set on September 16, 2012, winter sea ice extent in Antarctica has reached a record high. The Antarctic extent increase is an interesting response to changes in circulation patterns in the Southern Hemisphere.

Go snoop around online, and you'll find a -little- news

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... er-record/

And if you go back into the NSIDC research, you'll find the data regarding the 16,000 square km growth this year. (Check 3 weeks back - I read the thing all the time.)

[Mavorpen]

1. First thing son, not ALL information is on the internet, at a click a-way.

2. pwnd.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The sun has set over the central Arctic Ocean and sea ice extent is now increasing. While much attention has been paid to the record minimum Arctic ice extent set on September 16, 2012, winter sea ice extent in Antarctica has reached a record high. The Antarctic extent increase is an interesting response to changes in circulation patterns in the Southern Hemisphere.

Go snoop around online, and you'll find a -little- news

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... er-record/

And if you go back into the NSIDC research, you'll find the data regarding the 16,000 square km growth this year. (Check 3 weeks back - I read the thing all the time.)

That's WINTER extent, and the increase in winter extant ice in Antarctica AGREES with the climate change models. What really matters is the fact that ice is melting significantly faster and every summer it decreases less than the previous.

Try again, but this time try to understand the science you're putting forward. Further explanation: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... _south.php

[AiliailiA]

Ok lets recap. The climate is changing, always has and always will.

Granted.

Man is not responsible for this fluctuation now anymore than he was 5 million years ago.

Proving that NEGATIVE is actually harder than proving the positive "humans activities have affected the climate".

Denying all evidence for the latter does NOT establish the former. You profess to use logic, well surely you must be aware that a conclusion can be correct no matter how many arguments made for it are faulty.

So you prove your statement: "Man is not responsible for this fluctuation now anymore than he was 5 million years ago". Without asking me to prove the opposite, without relying on debunking the opposite. Prove it.

Scientist sluts provided with a lab by the looting government have tried to create man made climate change in order to fleece industrialists. Finally the government can use this stolen property to buy more votes and and ensure everyone's burdens are paid for by someone else's fair share. This sums it up.

Cap and trade does not "fleece industrialists". It forces industrialists to compete with each other for a "capped" quantity of emissions ... ie, "trade" the right to emit pollutants. Not only does government not get money from that, but the restriction of industry actually decreases the tax base of the government (smaller profits to tax by corporate tax, and fewer paying jobs to take income tax from).

Note that I'm not a fan of cap-and-trade. It was the system preferred by big polluters! They would rather compete with others doing business the same way they do, than pay whatever the government decides in future is fair "rent" for polluting a common resource. It would restrict their ability to grow, but never make it any less profitable to do what they're doing now.

I prefer a carbon tax. That is, government decides what the cost to everyone of polluting the atmosphere is, taxes pollution of the atmosphere, and decides how to spend that money redressing the problem. But even though I'm your ideological enemy in that I don't see such taxes as a good way to raise general revenue. If a government I ran wanted more revenue it would raise other taxes too ... so I'm at a loss to see why any government would concoct a conspiracy on a scale of decades aimed at addressing a problem it knows (or strongly believes) isn't really a problem, by limiting rather than expanding their taxable base, and very likely returning more benefit to future governments than to the current one. In real life, governments are partisan: they don't fight unpopular battles to increase the tax revenue of the government after them. In fact, they usually do the opposite: spend by borrowing and leave the debt for the next elected government to deal with.

I don't know why I spent so many words on this last part of your "recap". I'm familiar with "conspiracy" beliefs: what matters is that you can "see" something that others aren't aware of and that is gratifying in a world where there is so much real knowledge and no individual can grasp it all. It feels good to know something that the vast majority don't, and no-one can deny you beliefs where it really matters which is in your own mind, so these self-indulgent beliefs spring up on subjects that everyone thinks they know something about. The President, or global warming, or 9/11.

So I'm not really expecting you to change your mind. I'll just say that you haven't established a plausible motive for government to devise the conspiracy.

[Mavorpen]

Oh... he's gone. Big surprise.

[Xochi]

So should anyone who wants to increase the national debt be banned from voting, too? Should there be an IQ test for people who intend to vote? Should gay rights supporters be the only group allowed to vote? Should you ignore that there's plenty of evidence to refute "man-made" climate change and that climate change is a cycle-driven process which is simply in its "global warming" period? Do volcanoes exist? Probably not since the Earth has produced far more greenhouse gases on its own for eons than man could ever hope to match.

Yes, let’s all close our minds to the other side and embrace a one party system. How do I get a cushy spot in your politburo? (Ironic, since your side are the ones who cry about "voter IDs" being a detriment to voting.)

[Ethel mermania]

I'm not sure why so many people here seem to think that the "freedom" to kill millions to billions of people is a real freedom that has to be respected, or is more deserving of protection than the freedom of those millions to billions to live.

I'm not sure why so many people here seem to think that getting to draw a few circles on a piece of paper at the school gym up the street every year or so is an integral part of freedom, but actually being alive to live your life as you see fit isn't.

No one's denying your right to be personally fine with all that death and destruction, or to express publicly just how fine you are with it. We're just saying that you can't go through with actually carrying that death and destruction out, because unlike you we actually value individual liberty and freedom and the democratic organization of society.

and we are saying, those that suggest that the avocation of the disenfranchisement of a mass of the citizenry who have the unmitigated gall to disagree with their special opinion, have something seriously wrong with them and need to be removed from american political process post haste.

[AiliailiA]

Oh by the way, antartica's Ice grew by 16,000 square kilometers this year.

Source? United States Navy - Ice Research.

This is true. Sea ice in Antarctica hit a 30 year record, which is pretty much as long as there have been good satellite observations of it.

Average global temperatures have increased but the increase is less in the Southern Hemisphere. Antarctica is surrounded by oceans that have always been very cold, in the winter it gets very cold there (colder than the Arctic), so any precipitation WILL fall as snow.

It is not "global warming is all bunk because Antarctica". That's clutching at straws.

[Shnercropolis]

no, I'd prefer mocking them and making them feel like bad people.
More effective in the long term.