Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[New England and The Maritimes]

I just can't find myself disagreeing with Bluth. Any human construction is valuable only in its benefit to humans. If a system is hurting us, we ought to remove or alter that system until it is beneficial again. There's no reason to view constructs like social contracts and economy in any other light aside from blind ideological fanaticism.

[Vazdania]

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?

If you dont believe in democracy then sure, go right ahead.

In my opinion your suppress votes that way. It would be similar to me saying, because you are liberal your ignorant and obstructive so we should get rid of your vote.

[Costa Alegria]

I just can't find myself disagreeing with Bluth. Any human construction is valuable only in its benefit to humans. If a system is hurting us, we ought to remove or alter that system until it is beneficial again. There's no reason to view constructs like social contracts and economy in any other light aside from blind ideological fanaticism.

So that means I can go around freely shooting people I disagree with for the benefit of society?

[Free Soviets]

I just can't find myself disagreeing with Bluth. Any human construction is valuable only in its benefit to humans. If a system is hurting us, we ought to remove or alter that system until it is beneficial again. There's no reason to view constructs like social contracts and economy in any other light aside from blind ideological fanaticism.

So that means I can go around freely shooting people I disagree with for the benefit of society?

come on, that doesn't even rise to the level of a strawman.

though you can, in fact, shoot people. but only if the harm of shooting them is vastly outweighed by the harm of not shooting them. you know, sort of exactly like why under the appropriate circumstances you are ethically allowed - hell, obligated - to shoot somebody in order to defend yourself or others.

[Free Soviets]

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?

If you dont believe in democracy then sure, go right ahead.

In my opinion your suppress votes that way. It would be similar to me saying, because you are liberal your ignorant and obstructive so we should get rid of your vote.

except being an ignorant and obstructive liberal isn't going to result in the collapse of global civilization and suffering on an almost unimaginable scale. at least not in any obvious way. this makes that case somewhat different from climate change.

[Trotskylvania]

So that means I can go around freely shooting people I disagree with for the benefit of society?

come on, that doesn't even rise to the level of a strawman.

though you can, in fact, shoot people. but only if the harm of shooting them is vastly outweighed by the harm of not shooting them. you know, sort of exactly like why under the appropriate circumstances you are ethically allowed - hell, obligated - to shoot somebody in order to defend yourself or others.

What is it that makes teleological theories of justice so incomprehensible to most people?

[Greed and Death]

I just can't find myself disagreeing with Bluth. Any human construction is valuable only in its benefit to humans. If a system is hurting us, we ought to remove or alter that system until it is beneficial again. There's no reason to view constructs like social contracts and economy in any other light aside from blind ideological fanaticism.

The way to so drastically change the system is revolution.

Because if you don't have the votes to get you're way, you most certainly will lack the states to amend the constitution.

Though on a side note if you don't have the votes, you likely also lack the man power to succeed in a revolution.

[Vazdania]

If you dont believe in democracy then sure, go right ahead.

In my opinion your suppress votes that way. It would be similar to me saying, because you are liberal your ignorant and obstructive so we should get rid of your vote.

except being an ignorant and obstructive liberal isn't going to result in the collapse of global civilization and suffering on an almost unimaginable scale. at least not in any obvious way. this makes that case somewhat different from climate change.

well... ._. it could...

[Freiheit Reich]

Climate change is happening but not because of overpollution as fear mongers claim. There are 2 sides to this debate. Even my environmental geology professor disagrees with Al Gore's documentary.

If we are concerned than plant more trees to absorb CO2 and encourage more wind and solar power. The USA is way behind on this. Carbon tax schemes are wrong though and many economists argue against them.

[Tubbsalot]

Climate change is happening but not because of overpollution as fear mongers claim. There are 2 sides to this debate. Even my environmental geology professor disagrees with Al Gore's documentary.

Nobody who knows anything has claimed that climate change occurs because of 'overpollution'. Nor do they claim that Al Gore isn't an idiot. That's not two sides, that's "some people agree climate change is happening; some of those people are clever, some are stupid."

[Free Soviets]

Carbon tax schemes are wrong though and many economists argue against them.

name two that aren't also denialists.

[Free Soviets]

come on, that doesn't even rise to the level of a strawman.

though you can, in fact, shoot people. but only if the harm of shooting them is vastly outweighed by the harm of not shooting them. you know, sort of exactly like why under the appropriate circumstances you are ethically allowed - hell, obligated - to shoot somebody in order to defend yourself or others.

What is it that makes teleological theories of justice so incomprehensible to most people?

simple absolute commandments are just so much easier on the ol' thinky bit.

[Greed and Death]

Carbon tax schemes are wrong though and many economists argue against them.

name two that aren't also denialists.

Names not know off the top of my head but a large number who think the carbon tax is too small of a change to how we do business.

[Mavorpen]

Climate change is happening but not because of overpollution as fear mongers claim. There are 2 sides to this debate. Even my environmental geology professor disagrees with Al Gore's documentary.

Al Gore isn't a scientist. Al Gore isn't regarded in the scientific community as a Messiah and an all knowing God when it comes to Climate change. Al Gore did not perform the research and gather the data experimentally using his own hands. Al Gore was not the first person to release information about Climate Change.

Al Gore was a man who brought Climate Change to the national scale, allowing anyone, no matter how scientifically illiterate, to have a basic grasp of Climate Change.

[Free Soviets]

name two that aren't also denialists.

Names not know off the top of my head but a large number who think the carbon tax is too small of a change to how we do business.

even those, though, almost uniformly say that pollution taxes are good ideas. they just make good economic sense compared to most of our other taxes. the issue after that is over whether a carbon tax alone can get the job done, or whether a carbon tax is less desirable than a cap and trade system, or whatever.

[Free Soviets]

Climate change is happening but not because of overpollution as fear mongers claim. There are 2 sides to this debate. Even my environmental geology professor disagrees with Al Gore's documentary.

Al Gore isn't a scientist. Al Gore isn't regarded in the scientific community as a Messiah and an all knowing God when it comes to Climate change. Al Gore did not perform the research and gather the data experimentally using his own hands. Al Gore was not the first person to release information about Climate Change.

Al Gore was a man who brought Climate Change to the national scale, allowing anyone, no matter how scientifically illiterate, to have a basic grasp of Climate Change.

yeah. he's done good work on this issue all the way back through the late 70s/early 80s, honestly.

[Ostroeuropa]

Al Gore isn't a scientist. Al Gore isn't regarded in the scientific community as a Messiah and an all knowing God when it comes to Climate change. Al Gore did not perform the research and gather the data experimentally using his own hands. Al Gore was not the first person to release information about Climate Change.

Al Gore was a man who brought Climate Change to the national scale, allowing anyone, no matter how scientifically illiterate, to have a basic grasp of Climate Change.

yeah. he's done good work issue all the way back through the late 70s/early 80s, honestly.

Popularizers of science are given some leeway with regard to mistakes, and for good reason imo.

[Arkinesia]

No, deniers should not be disenfranchised. Climatology is a growing science, and the (ill-informed) cries of these idiots drive us to grow the field of climatology, which is a net benefit to everyone.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

If you dont believe in democracy then sure, go right ahead.

In my opinion your suppress votes that way. It would be similar to me saying, because you are liberal your ignorant and obstructive so we should get rid of your vote.

except being an ignorant and obstructive liberal isn't going to result in the collapse of global civilization and suffering on an almost unimaginable scale. at least not in any obvious way. this makes that case somewhat different from climate change.

No.

Short of the rather unlikely runaway-greenhouse wet-venus scenario, anyways.

[Free Soviets]

except being an ignorant and obstructive liberal isn't going to result in the collapse of global civilization and suffering on an almost unimaginable scale. at least not in any obvious way. this makes that case somewhat different from climate change.

No.

Short of the rather unlikely runaway-greenhouse wet-venus scenario, anyways.

you don't need an absolute venus-esque runaway greenhouse effect. all you need is to dust bowl-ify the major crop growing regions of the world, raise the sea levels enough to cause massive flooding of the major cities of the world every time there is a storm, make said storms more intense and more frequent, cause the systematic collapse of ecosystems, and render large regions of the globe effectively uninhabitable. the resource wars will handle the rest. and these are the expected results of our current emissions path...by the end of the century. the outlook for the next will make even this picture seem rosy and nostalgia-inducing.

human civilization is utterly dependent on the incredibly stable climate we've had since the end of the last glacial maximum. especially with there being this many of us. we don't have any spare iowas sitting around to feed everyone.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

Show me an in-depth, well-cited, peer-reviewed study by a reputable author/organization that comes to the conclusion that climate change will result in the collapse of modern civilization.

Otherwise, you're full of it.

[Norstal]

Show me an in-depth, well-cited, peer-reviewed study by a reputable author/organization that comes to the conclusion that climate change will result in the collapse of modern civilization.

Otherwise, you're full of it.

Yeah, like, how would civilization collapse when our major farming regions are no longer major farming regions? It's just absurd, Free Soviets. We have infinite food.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

Because clearly climate change obliterates all agricultural land ever, agricultural advances do not increase production at all, we don't already produce an incredible surplus of food, and there are no methods of making food that are entirely independent of climate!

[Greed and Death]

Names not know off the top of my head but a large number who think the carbon tax is too small of a change to how we do business.

even those, though, almost uniformly say that pollution taxes are good ideas. they just make good economic sense compared to most of our other taxes. the issue after that is over whether a carbon tax alone can get the job done, or whether a carbon tax is less desirable than a cap and trade system, or whatever.

Yeah well your not getting any of because the Gerrymander allows the 16 craziest % of the country to elect 50% of the House of Representatives.

So better to think of plan B building an ark.

[Free Soviets]

Show me an in-depth, well-cited, peer-reviewed study by a reputable author/organization that comes to the conclusion that climate change will result in the collapse of modern civilization.

Otherwise, you're full of it.

Yeah, like, how would civilization collapse when our major farming regions are no longer major farming regions? It's just absurd, Free Soviets. We have infinite food.

indeed.

just so we're all on the same page:
this is the somewhat optimistic future:

(click to embiggen)

Mean annual sc-PDSI_pm for 2060–2069 calculated using the 22-model ensemble-mean surface air temperature, precipitation, humidity, net radiation, and wind speed used in the IPCC AR4 from the 20th century and SRES A1B 21st century simulations. Red to pink areas are extremely dry (severe drought) conditions while blue colors indicate wet areas relative to the 1950–1979 mean.

that there is fucking ridiculous drought everywhere we can grow food. as the yearly average! The entire great plains of the US will spend its time in an ongoing drought more severe than the dust-bowl got. and that's just past halfway through the century under an emissions scenario we are not on course to get ourselves down to.

and, of course, our other food-growing regions are the river deltas...which will be getting salt watered by the rising seas.

but yes, i'm sure somebody will build us a spare iowa.