Global Warmers Promote Dark Ages, Permanently

[leftysergeant]

The one thing all forms of govt lack, and that the invisible hand doesn't lack.

Total BS. That invisible hand has only one goal, and that is to grab. The Hand doeos what is profitable, whether anyone else suffers or not. Government is there to do what needs to be done regardless whethervthere is a profit to be made and to keep that freaking greedy invisible hand off stuff that belongs to all of us.

Every attempt to regulate markets contains the unintended consequences reasons it will fail just as soon as the MBA's come up with ways to enrich themselves and their employers based on the new regulations.

The MBAs screw us even worse when some drunken frat boy or a jelly-brained old movie actor let them loose.

 

[Trakar]

Then you are obviously part of the problem, electing politicians without a clear and proper understanding of their role and fitness to carry out that role.

ROFL. You think you're not?

Been so long since I've elected one, I must be right!
Just look at the condition of this nation!

 

[Unabogie]

The one thing all forms of govt lack, and that the invisible hand doesn't lack

Ha, what total ideological numnuttery. The "invisible hand" doesn't exist. In what society do you claim to see a level playing field? Somalia? Look, the profit motive is as rigid and blind as any other single issue system. Does the profit motive protect against pollution? Fraud? Crime? Negligence? How could it? It's only concerned with maximizing shareholder value. And if your water gets poisoned, or your air gets filled with smog, or your kids' toys have asbestos in them, then screw you, I made a profit!

But thanks for proving my point about rigid ideology taking the place of reasoned, evidence based politics.

 

[AlBell]

But thanks for proving my point about rigid ideology taking the place of reasoned, evidence based politics.

Are you serious? Reasoned, evidence based politics will be a pipe-dream as long as humans are human.

 

[bit_pattern]

Are you serious? Reasoned, evidence based politics will be a pipe-dream as long as humans are human conservative ideologues are conservative ideologues.

Fixed that for you

 

[Beerina]

Are you also familiar with the well documented problems a lack of government control over the economy causes? A completely free market, left to its own devices is going to do what is best for itself, not what is best for everyone.

The trick is to find a happy medium.

...while paying attention to the near infinitely worse problems government can cause (e.g. North Korea) while disallowing the meme of "happy medium" to aid in the ever-ratcheting increase in government control.

Hence my suggestion to force laws to be re-considered and re-voted every 5 years.

 

[Beerina]

So which is worse, those who yell fire in a crowded theater, or those who bar the doors and force others back into their seats as smoke fills the room?

I would be more than willing to trade the slowed economy that massive intervention causes, with the attendant deaths due to lagging technological development vs. every single life saved by regulation.

Every. God. Damned. One.


Just because they don't show up as a sob story in front of a camera doesn't mean they don't exist. I'll bet "we" would be far, far ahead, number of saved lives-wise.


Secondly, people talk as if a few regulations, which I could grant as helpful for the sake of argument, are the real issue.

Let's be real -- it's not. It's the $3 trillion and counting federal budget with massively increasing numbers of employees -- most of the jobs from the "stimulus" preserved federal union jobs. The private sector kept hurting.

So...fire regulations? Ok. And having said that, I'd like to see science study them. For example, laws requiring doors of stalls to open inward so they don't get in the way of people fleeing -- how many lives did that save, vs. how many did it cost because people trip and wipe out and hit their head struggling to maneuver around it just closing the door in normal use?

Anybody? Anybody? Science, wut?

 

[AlBell]

Fixed that for you

You may be silly enough you actually believe it.

 

[leftysergeant]

Are you serious? Reasoned, evidence based politics will be a pipe-dream as long as humans are human.

Nah. All we need to do is get rid of the GOP.

 

[bit_pattern]

You may be silly enough you actually believe it.

Yes, because the people denying the science - as they did with smoking and acid rain - were conservative ideologues (like Seitz) who all, almost to a man, came out of the George C Marshall centre. "libertarian" ideologues have a long, long history of denying science that conflicts with their slavish adherence to lassaiz-faire politics.

 

[AlBell]

Yes, because the people denying the science - as they did with smoking and acid rain - were conservative ideologues (like Seitz) who all, almost to a man, came out of the George C Marshall centre. "libertarian" ideologues have a long, long history of denying science that conflicts with their slavish adherence to lassaiz-faire politics.

Oh, no doubt about it; only Republicans and their backers are venal bastards at heart riding rough-shod over Science.

Far be it for me to disabuse your notions; time might.

One of the biggest current problems Democrats seem to have is separating science from science fiction.

 

[bit_pattern]

Oh, no doubt about it; only Republicans and their backers are venal bastards at heart riding rough-shod over Science.

Far be it for me to disabuse your notions; time might.

One of the biggest current problems Democrats seem to have is separating science from science fiction.

Care to point out where I said anything about dems v. reps? Correct me if I'm wrong but it was renegade, anti science dems that eventually killed of the Waxman-Markey bill, no?

 

[leftysergeant]

Oh, no doubt about it; only Republicans and their backers are venal bastards at heart riding rough-shod over Science.

They are not the only ones, merely the most egregious morons of the lot.

One of the biggest current problems Democrats seem to have is separating science from science fiction.

Not really. We reject out of hand anything that the Rushblob says on scientific matters.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

ENRON. Haliburton. No other argument is needed.

Enron and Haliburton aren't nuclear industry companies.

Outside the former Soviet Union, the number of people who have died due to causes unique to nuclear energy has been exactly zero since the early 1960s.

Meanwhile, coal power cuases or contributes to 150,000+ deaths per year.

No other argument is needed.

 

[Trakar]

I would be more than willing to trade the slowed economy that massive intervention causes, with the attendant deaths due to lagging technological development vs. every single life saved by regulation.

Every. God. Damned. One.


Just because they don't show up as a sob story in front of a camera doesn't mean they don't exist. I'll bet "we" would be far, far ahead, number of saved lives-wise...

That's a bet you've already taken,...and lost.

 

[Polaris]

I have the sinking feeling that despite my telling him to knock it off, I'm going to receive the OP word-for-word in an email forward from my father.

 

[Travis]

Unlike oil drilling it would appear the Department of Energy does regulate the nuclear power industry quite well.

 

[Unabogie]

I would be more than willing to trade the slowed economy that massive intervention causes, with the attendant deaths due to lagging technological development vs. every single life saved by regulation.

Do you have any idea how many lives are saved by the "regulations" on sanitation and food safety? I mean, look back 150 years to see the difference. I really don't think you've thought this through at all.

Now look, I don't want a Communist Utopia any more than I want a Capitalist Utopia. Let me give you an example. I don't want the government running all the restaurants. I want a free market where great cooks and friendly staff will happily cook for me and I'll pay them money for it. Great! But I also want a bulldog of a health inspector who's not bought and paid for by the local restaurant association who'll go in there once in a while and make sure they aren't letting roaches or rats into the food or paying undocumented workers 2 bucks an hour to wash the dishes.

And I want a vigorous FDA or USDA or whomever to follow the food chain up and make sure there isn't ecoli in the lettuce on my veggie burger. So I favor a free market, but I also favor sensible regulation and oversight.

That's common sense, evidence based policy, not based on dogma or rigid ideology.

 

[Furcifer]

I sincerely hope you are wrong.

If a whole lot more people don't mature in their considerations, or start going back to the valium to help the rest of us deal with their paranoia, big issues like global climate change are going to move way down on the list concerns behind a lot of more immediate survival concerns.

Liberals may dislike guns, progressives simply see them as means of marketing specialty technology to paranoid conservatives.
(kinda like making "fantasy swords" for Renaissance Fair enthusiasts - hey, dragon outbreaks happen!)

Do you really think I am?

What other excuse can you make for the lack of progress in the last...what 30...40 years?

I started talking to people and I was surprised at the number of people that just shake their heads "no" when you start talking about nuclear. I think a lot of people view it as a necessary evil.

They'd rather pursue renewables and conservation to the fullest before commissioning another reactor. That could easily take another 10-15 years. Another 5-7 years for surveying and planning, 5-7 for construction...

I always thought you could just sit down with people, explain how safe and efficient nuclear was and people would instantly change their views. Not so.

Now I think it's going to take a Gen IV reactor working for 10 years incident free before people will fully accept nuclear. That's my guess.

Hopefully new technology will come along before then and make people more comfortable with nuclear because I just don't think the threat of climate change is enough.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Now I think it's going to take a Gen IV reactor working for 10 years incident free before people will fully accept nuclear. That's my guess.

Hopefully new technology will come along before then and make people more comfortable with nuclear because I just don't think the threat of climate change is enough.

As I pointed out above, no one has died to causes unique to nuclear energy outside the Soviet Union in almost 60 years. 10 years safe operation under a new design isn't going to achieve what more than half a century under proven technologies hasn't been able to. There's no technology that's going to placate the radical environmentalists as most, if not all of them, have already pledged to oppose fusion technology should it be developed.

We may have to suffer high energy prices and one or more 2003 New York blackouts a year before the peoples desire to have things the way they were overrides their unfounded fears and superstitions.