Let Climate Change Skeptics house's burn down

[applecorped]

http://www.examiner.com/article/forbes-contributor-let-climate-change-skeptics-houses-burn-down

"Steve Zwick, a Green Tech contributor for Forbes Magazine, has an idea he thinks will change people's minds about global warming. Track the skeptics and let their houses burn down. On Thursday, he wrote:

Let’s take a page from those Tennessee firemen we heard about a few times last year – the ones who stood idly by as houses burned to the ground because their owners had refused to pay a measly $75 fee.
We can apply this same logic to climate change.
We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices"










I say charge them double for heat in the winter.

​

http://www.examiner.com/article/for...hange-skeptics-houses-burn-down#ixzz1sced1tkd

 

[TragicMonkey]

I've noticed that being a jerk to jerks doesn't make them less jerkish, but it does make you more jerkish.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

This is just a hyperbolic version of the classic "externalities" problem. The author letting their houses burn is about as likely as him swapping their land for flooded coasts. That is to say, not likely at all.

 

[Trakar]

This is just a hyperbolic version of the classic "externalities" problem. The author letting their houses burn is about as likely as him swapping their land for flooded coasts. That is to say, not likely at all.

Well, that's the thing, these delayers are counting on a welfare state to protect them from their arrogant ignorance, and while I feel their actions are practically "criminal," I believe in uplifting and helping even the least among us,...a tide that actually raises all boats.

 

[BravesFan]

The myth involved with the OP is that it's possible for us to do anything about climate in the short term (well , in the lifespan of those whom's houses we should allow burn)

Isn't that just a dumb thing to say? Does he really think we can alter climate in 50 years time by driving a Prius and pooping in buckets?Cuz, by saying "let it burn" he is stating that the proclamations of said deniers is somehow causing others to act in kind and hence leading to a future (within the 50 years) that could be avoided if they were spreading the word of climate change.... That's a sillier thing to say than to deny it to begin with.

 

[stevea]

One can have a principled skeptical position toward global warming and the extent to which is can be responsible for CAGW and also the the extent to which any proposed solutions can be either implemented or effective.

So how does this article differ from the constant drumbeat of the Left to curb free speech they oppose ?

Odd that a Forbes stringer wouldn't recognize that the free market accomplishes his goal nicely and without force. People who believe their property will flood or that food prices will rise should sell the property an invest in food production, and people who believe otherwise would do the opposite (buy potentially flood-able property and sell options against th expectation of rising food prices). Of course for this to be effective we'd need to curb the Leftish tendency for equality of results - no bailouts or welfare for the losers - - no unusual restriction on these speculators - social Darwinism.

 

[Trakar]

The myth involved with the OP is that it's possible for us to do anything about climate in the short term (well , in the lifespan of those whom's houses we should allow burn)

Isn't that just a dumb thing to say? Does he really think we can alter climate in 50 years time by driving a Prius and pooping in buckets?Cuz, by saying "let it burn" he is stating that the proclamations of said deniers is somehow causing others to act in kind and hence leading to a future (within the 50 years) that could be avoided if they were spreading the word of climate change.... That's a sillier thing to say than to deny it to begin with.

So if the consequences of one's actions are delayed in their fullest expression until after one's death, it shouldn't ethically or morally impact their decisions behaviors and actions?

 

[casebro]

I haven't kept up with the latest satellite data. Is the record high year still '97, or are we back on track in parallel with CO2?

Hey, if CO2 is the cause of AGW, would allowing anybody's house burn just add to the problem? Sounds like the proposal in the OP is counterproductive.

 

[BravesFan]

So if the consequences of one's actions are delayed in their fullest expression until after one's death, it shouldn't ethically or morally impact their decisions behaviors and actions?

Nope, because the consequences of their actions can't be expressed while they are alive, so there isn't any fire to be put out. see? Perhaps 150-200 years from now if sea levels have risen and all the other predictions hold true, people could gather and piss on their graves. But to say,"let their houses burn" makes no sense.

We can't stop climate change, not in the short term

The full effects won't be hitting us within 50 years, so no revenge to be gotten

They are just scientists with dissenting opinions. If this is how you think dissenting opinions should be treated in science I think you would have loved the middle ages.

Regardless if they are incorrect, shouting down the opposition is juvenile uncivilized behavior.

 

[applecorped]

Pitchforks are fun though.

 

[Travis]

Seems to me a trap and release program would be more effective and entertaining.

 

[Furcifer]

http://www.examiner.com/article/forbes-contributor-let-climate-change-skeptics-houses-burn-down

"Steve Zwick, a Green Tech contributor for Forbes Magazine, has an idea he thinks will change people's minds about global warming. Track the skeptics and let their houses burn down. On Thursday, he wrote:

Let’s take a page from those Tennessee firemen we heard about a few times last year – the ones who stood idly by as houses burned to the ground because their owners had refused to pay a measly $75 fee.
We can apply this same logic to climate change.
We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices"
I say charge them double for heat in the winter.
​

Wow, a 5 alarmist.​

 

[Trakar]

Wow, a 5 alarmist.

I don't see any "alarmism," but he is definitely a "retributionist."

 

[Furcifer]

I don't see any "alarmism," but he is definitely a "retributionist."

You don't see any alarmism in saying we should track private citizens and let their houses burn down in the name of climate change?

The guy is just another climate change nutter.

 

[Trakar]

You don't see any alarmism in saying we should track private citizens and let their houses burn down in the name of climate change?

The guy is just another climate change nutter.

Alarmism - excessive or exaggerated alarm about a real or imagined threat.

This person's inhumanity isn't alarmism, merely sociopathy, even if his nutter proposals are framed in climate-change concerns.

 

[Beerina]

For any of your assertions to be true, you must be a fortune teller. Even climate change scientists don't claim to "know" what the results of all this will be. So , you are willing to seek some sort of crazy retribution on people who dare differ with your religion (and yes they way you rant about it it's become a religion for you) based on the estimates of scientists? What if they were wrong about the repercussions? That would be embarrassing eh?

Or murderous. A quick look at North vs. South Korea shows you should be careful before declaring Doom!!! prominence over an environmental issue and therefore government controls are the cat's meow solution.


I'll take the worst GW has to offer as a downside over massive government intrusion any day. Because I care about lives and am a humanitarian.

 

[applecorped]

I'll take the worst GW has to offer as a downside over massive government intrusion any day. Because I care about lives and am a humanitarian.

FTW.



Good night everyone.




End thread.

 

[Furcifer]

Alarmism - excessive or exaggerated alarm about a real or imagined threat.

This person's inhumanity isn't alarmism, merely sociopathy, even if his nutter proposals are framed in climate-change concerns.

And you don't think allowing people's homes to burn, quite possibly with them in it, is "excessive"?

I agree the man is potentially a sociopath, but going on TV or using the media to make such excessive and exaggerated claims about or in the name of global warming is alarmism.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

FTW.



Good night everyone.




End thread.

Right. Ideology about government and economic policies over scientific studies about the causes and effects of climate change.

We're skeptics .

 

[Trakar]

And you don't think allowing people's homes to burn, quite possibly with them in it, is "excessive"?

I agree the man is potentially a sociopath, but going on TV or using the media to make such excessive and exaggerated claims about or in the name of global warming is alarmism.

No, literally claiming that homes are going to be bursting into flames due to global warming effects within the next 50 years would be alarmism. Those claiming that we as a society should eye-for-an-eye hold those to account who delay and attempt to stall proactive steps to address humanity's role in AGW are merely unhelpful idiots with sociopathic tendencies, rather like the same types of idiots urging the use of nuclear weapons against their perceived threat from Iran.

http://christwire.org/2012/02/gas-prices-prove-why-america-must-nuke-iran/