"Freedom" thread or something

Climate denying libertarianism - FTA:
"But the most serious threat posed today by the “libertarians” is their resistance to serious government action to curb global warming. Surely, individuals can take personal action to reduce their own carbon footprints, but the scope of the crisis requires aggressive intervention by governments to maintain the livability of the planet."

I reckon we'll probably be okay.

Agree with Geoff here, this is one of the subjects where simply hoping that individual citizens will behave appropriately for the good of the future generations is far too risky (not to say naive). The fact that currently some government(s) may still be favouring the interests of big corporations and not the ones of the whole population is no excuse, if that's the case people need to push for a change of policies. I think that I can safely say that European governments are much more wary of this subject than the US one, it's not about 'having a government' but about 'which kind of government do we want to have'.

A climate change argument that may even work on conservatives
FTA:

Indeed, if free-market conservatives really want evidence of climate change, they ought to look towards the insurance markets that would bear much of the cost of catastrophic climate change. All three of the major insurance modeling firms and every global insurance company incorporate human-caused climate change into their projections of current and future weather patterns. The big business that has the most to lose from climate change, and that would reap the biggest rewards if it were somehow solved tomorrow, has universally decided that climate change is a real problem. An insurance company that ignored climate change predictions could, in the short term, make a lot of money by underpricing its competition on a wide range of products. Not a single firm has done this.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: That's very interesting, but it would be a poor scientific argument.

There is NO scientific argument AGAINST climate change.  97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.  If you disagree with them, you're an idiot.  That would be like going to the doctor to find out what's wrong with you, and when they tell you, you tell the doctor he's wrong.  And then finding 96 more who tell you the same thing, and you tell all of them they're wrong too.

People like dtguitar are the reason we can't have nice things. I mean, just look at everything between Yes and ELP/Rush in his sig... yeesh.

Epignosis wrote: manofmystery wrote: People like dtguitar are the reason we can't have nice things. I mean, just look at everything between Yes and ELP/Rush in his sig... yeesh. I forgive him for Kansas.

This is why I could never vote for you, Epig.   

dtguitarfan wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: That's very interesting, but it would be a poor scientific argument. There is NO scientific argument AGAINST climate change.  97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.  If you disagree with them, you're an idiot.  That would be like going to the doctor to find out what's wrong with you, and when they tell you, you tell the doctor he's wrong.  And then finding 96 more who tell you the same thing, and you tell all of them they're wrong too.

If we're using statistics in lieu of science then I want to play! 100% of people predicting catastrophic ecological disaster throughout history from Malthus to the Global Cooling people to people predicting meteors strikes that will wipe out the species to religious fanatics sure that the Rapture is right around the corner, have been wrong. 100% is greater than 97%. QED.

Consensus is not a scientific argument. Most people like the Eagles too, but that doesn't make them a good band.

There.  The basics of climate change science so anybody can understand them. 

Now, Rob says:

Epignosis wrote: I went to a doctor once.  He only wanted to sell me a medicine I would have to take for the rest of my life.  I quit taking it.  I had other medical professionals tell me I was wrong for quitting the medicine.  I now no longer have the problem I was having six years ago. A doctor is just a person who trained to do something, who is still trying to make money doing it.

There is a problem with this argument. 
1) if you go to 97 doctors and they all tell you the same thing, you might use the "they're just trying to sell me something" argument and not buy the drugs they want you to buy.  In this scenario, you might go out and research natural cures and change your diet and such.  But note two things of importance in this scenario: 1. you aren't arguing with their diagnosis, just their prescription.  You're not disagreeing with what they say the problem is, you're disagreeing with what they say the solution is.  And 2. you're going out and trying to solve that problem, and putting time and research into finding another solution to it.
2) what exactly are the climate change scientists trying to sell you?

The reason libertarians don't want to believe in climate change is that their ideology couldn't possibly do anything to fix it.  If climate change is true, then we have a problem with free market ideology, because people are not going to stop using technology that harms the world and causes global warming (cleaner technologies are still more expensive and we need to spend more time and money developing them).  Actually, it's interesting because I recently read a story about how our stupid government is doing the opposite of what's right in two scenarios: they're allowing the student loan rates to double, and they're not taxing pollution.  Basic government theory: tax what's bad and don't tax what's good.  We want people to get educated - educated people are more productive and more peaceful.  So don't tax that.  Allowing the student loan rates is basically taxing education.  Pollution is bad.  So let's tax that.  Our stupid government doesn't know basic government theory.  And libertarian idealism doesn't work in either of these two scenarios, because the free market would allow the student loan rates to double (causing more and more of a feudal system in our nation), and wouldn't ever develop cleaner energy or curb their pollution because it wouldn't make them a quick buck to do so.

dtguitarfan wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: That's very interesting, but it would be a poor scientific argument. There is NO scientific argument AGAINST climate change.  97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.  If you disagree with them, you're an idiot.  That would be like going to the doctor to find out what's wrong with you, and when they tell you, you tell the doctor he's wrong.  And then finding 96 more who tell you the same thing, and you tell all of them they're wrong too.

It's probably better to just say that an exceptionally cogent argument for anthropogenic global warming exists and leave the polemic diction out of it.