[lzw]

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the solution by taking it at face value. I think it is important to step back and think about why the global warming movement is being perpetrated. The real "problem" is the lack of a world government and the lack of power of governments over people's lives. Thus "Cap and trade" and all these other proposals that will not work on the face of them are actually solutions because they give governments dictatorial control over industry and people's lives....and they bring us closer to a global government.

I believe the left does not really care about people, especially poor people, at all. These people are just stepping stones or excuses to increase their power -- much the way wars and fear of terrorism are useful to the right.

I've learned enough economics and attempted to explain to people on the left in very straightforward economic terms how a given policy will actually hurt poor people, and never once have I managed to persuade a leftist to oppose that policy. They don't care, or they just decide that because I'm speaking economic science I must be a republican and therefore evil.

I am coming to believe that ideology inhibits thought.

[anthonyb]

> ... world government ...

Bingo! I think we have the whole climate denier phrasebook now...

[lzw]

I sure wish you would actually respond to the arguments, maybe make salient points. Instead of simply snidely characterizing everyone who doesn't agree with your ideology.

Also: It reflects on the nature of hacker news that the snotty response has upvotes.

[brazzy]

You have yet to provide any arguments. Snide and snotty counterfactual statements are what you have provided.

[nailer]

He mentioned that 'cap and trade' won't be successful because nobody has the power to implement it.

That's not 'snotty and counterfactual'. Respond to it.

[anthonyb]

You probably want to go back and reread his cap and trade paragraph again, because I think you've misinterpreted it.

Thus "Cap and trade" and all these other proposals [...] give governments dictatorial control over industry and people's lives....and they bring us closer to a global government.

ie. cap and trade == evil world government

[anthonyb]

See my previous replies. You still haven't answered any of my original arguments, btw.

[lzw]

This is another form of insult. You lie about what I have said in order to characterize me in a negative way. Ad hominem. Reality is, I have responded to your "Arguments" such that they are, and you have simply ignored my responses.

If science is really on your side, why so evasive? Why are you arguing to the person rather than to the point?

[anthonyb]

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867943

[lzw]

You link to a place where you confused me with someone else, as justification for making personal attacks?

See also: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867917

So, you refuse to respond to arguments, you admit it, and you demand that people make arguments to someone else, and then you lie about me to accuse me of being evasive, and then you link to an argument you made where you confused me with someone else (after ignoring my previous arguments) to support the claim that I'm ignoring your arguments?

In short, you have attacked me, lied about me, ignored my argumments, not provided any arguments of your own, and instead linked to someone else's blog and demanded that your opponents debate them.

I think I'm done. You can continue to be evasive or make personal attacks. I can't stop you. But there is no point in wasting any more time on you.

You have, by the way, proven my point, by once again being a supporter of AGW who: 1. Is not familiar with the science. 2. Is unwilling or unable to make arguments. 3. Is unequipped to respond to scientific arguments. 4. Who rests their advocacy on the claims of others that tehy assert are "Scientists" 5. Engages in personal attack. 6. Engages in dishonest statements. 7. Rejects the scientific method.

You have demonstrated all of these, and this forces me to remain convinced in my belief that advocates of AGW are anti-science religious zealots.

[anthonyb]

You keep using that word, "arguments". I don't think it means what you think it means.

[Zuider]

Well, if your antics serve as an ostensive definition of what you consider to be "argument", then you do have a rather unique conception of the term.

[anthonyb]

I asked a pretty straightforward question in response to someone posting a paper. It's not my fault that they can't answer it.

[scrod]

>I am coming to believe that ideology inhibits thought.

Your comments demonstrate that quite clearly.

[lzw]

Aw, gee, a snotty insult with no actual substantive response. Stay classy, hacker news!

Sure, the snotty insult gets upvoted and the response pointing out that it is not useful or adding to the conversation gets downvoted. Votes are driven by ideology, not objectivity, eh?

[Gobiner]

You've made over a dozen posts in this discussion making factual claims without posting a single link to back up your assertions. Coupled with this ridiculousness: "I believe the left does not really care about people, especially poor people, at all" you can't seriously be miffed that people aren't putting in a lot of effort to refute your positions.