ParanoiA

With regard to passing laws regarding the mentally ill what I’m suggesting is nothing different to how we handled the mentally ill in the United States back in the 70’s. You know those bad old days of Jimmy Carter. Back then if you were found to have a mental condition that made you a danger to yourself or others you were committed to a mental hospital, treated, and released when your mental state adequately improved. The third time you were committed however you were generally committed for life. Yes there were exceptions, particularly if new more effective medications were developed but generally you were committed for life. Why? Most that were recommitted stopped taking there meds. Likely they only needed to skip them once or they reduced the dose to avoid side effects. In either case that was enough to make them think the meds were causing their problems and they stop taking them all together. Within a few weeks they are recommitted. Do that twice and you wouldn’t be set free. The ACLU however got involved because while committed and medicated these patients were mentally stable and sued to be set free. So now if you need a third commitment you are turned away. Why waste resources on people who have demonstrated that they will quit taking the meds? Why protect the populous when the courts make that protection impossible?

How do you deal with the issues that meds create? In the case of my son, he can either take the meds, which slows him way down and prevents him from getting any kind of work (he looks and talks like he's stoned), which makes him a leech on society. He can't take care of himself because of how he is perceived. That, of course, triggers more depression and intensifies the symptoms. And it dooms my wife and I to a lifetime of care for a grown man. So much for spending our lives together in peace, that shit's over.

If he doesn't take the meds, he can function, find work and take care of himself. But then the "voice" is stronger, and if anything were to happen, then his refusal to take meds would be "the cause" and blah blah blah.

He cannot win. We cannot win. This is a problem for anyone with mental issues that needs medications. The worse the side effects, the more this is a problem.

Everyone "cares" about mental issues, but no one will hire anyone with mental issues. They have to hide it, and they are chained to the insurance-employer arrangement (that Americans love so much and refuse to change despite the problems it causes), and live in fear of lapses in coverage.

Someone being a danger to themselves and others just doesn't carry any weight, anywhere, anymore. They are not "dealt" with, rather they are bounced around and processed dysfunctionally until they eventually just "go away".

I mean come on, my son believed(s) I was going to murder the family and slept with a bow and arrow next to his bed and that was revealed just 2 months ago as a resident in a psychiatric facility...since his release with "stable meds" no one has even called about him. They wait for them to go away and disappear into the woodwork because they are powerless to do anything. They don't know if he's taking his medications, and they don't have the capacity to care. The consequences are fatal. But, nothing.

 

Also, If the armed militia would care to use their handguns against their tyrannical government's standing army any time soon, I'd be very interested in the results.

It saddens me; the weakness of the arguments for handgun ownership - automatic or otherwise.

 

Remember the Afghanistan war we won with our standing army? Oh wait...

Ok, remember the Iraq war we won with our standing army? Oh wait...

Standing armies are really impressive with their might, yet they never seem to actually win against an armed insurgency. It always surprises me how people think the second amendment's suggestion of militias, and the idea of defending ourselves against a tyrannical democracy - which we are becoming - is supposed to look like one standing army against another. We have a lot of history of protracted occupational warfare to pick through and understand. There are no excuses here. An armed American public, and the advantage of militias, is absolutely a remedy for the people to defend their republic.

If assault is a criminal act; then why are assault weapons legal?

 

In other words, why would one allow the sale/ownership of apparatus, who's sole function is to commit an act contrary to law?

You can't buy software specifically for hacking/identity theft from Wal-mart, nor can you buy a device specifically for breaking into cars, or stealing money from an ATM, or counterfeiting banknotes.

 

While it's true that a great number of things can be used as a weapon to commit assault (Knife, baseball bat, various hunting weapons) using such items to assault a person would be secondary to their primary function.

The right and ability of the people to defend their republic is one use of an assault weapon. Not sure they're entirely necessary, even for defending ourselves against the state through our "well regulated militia". The people cannot dominate our standing army, and thus any defense by the people would resemble tactics used in the revolutionary war, Afghanistan, Iraq...and etc. Merely having weapons - although I'm not an expert - would seem sufficient to that end, however remote its possibility.

 

To give your point its due, in fact, we do "know" that things in this case could have been worse; so, on that, you're right. If one or two people were killed in the next similar instance, it's entirely proprer to consider that, "if the assailant hadn't been stopped," at whatever point he was stopped, that, indeed, things could very reasonably be thought to have had a potential to have been much worse.

 

In this case, by the time the police got to the assailant, he'd already killed himself. So, the working hypothesis is that in something less than the time which elapsed in this case, a teacher or staff with a firearm might have intervened and saved more lives. That's of course a possibility.

More than a possibility since we know he encountered 6 adults. 6 adults were face to face with him, all of which *did* intervene as we know they were protecting the children. It's a strong possibility that if they were armed, they would have inflicted damage. But of course, I can't know that, and maybe all 6 fail to make a good shot and it does nothing.

 

Using C Reffsmat's statistics above, in post N° 16, the homicide deaths by firearms (which is 36.7% of the total) comes to 11 505. 1% of that figure supposedly gives us the total school incidents of deaths by firearms (for the year 2009), which then amounts to: about 116 deaths. (This assumes homicides only--that is, no school shooting incidents are assumed in that figure in which a firearm was used in a suicide in which no other life was taken than the suicide's.)

 

Then, reducing the scale to Oklahoma, alone, really puts the proposed law into perspective: this proposition to allow any CLEET trained teacher or staff of a public school to carry or keep a firearm--that is in response to how many actual school shootings in Oklahoma itself?, I wonder.

 

Statistics are great for analyzing the past. You're doing here exactly what I was demonstrating. If someone intercepts Adam at the door, and a couple of people die, none of us ever know that 26 people were going to die. That effects the statistics too. Later, someone says "well only 2 people ever died from school shootings in Newtown, so spending all this money on preventative psychiatric interception, a police officer on duty, reinforced security is just a waste of resoures that could be used in educating our children instead of entertaining our fears".

We don't give enough concern for the unknown. Maybe we can't, I don't know. But this is a problem...

By the way, I think Cap'ns post on the statistics is still a very good point that has to be considered. This goes along with the fleeting nature of emotionally charged legislation that the constitution tries to avert.

Also, iNow's point about psychiatric care has to be the number one solution to me. I don't think any of these other silly things make us much safer at all in comparison to that. It's right at the core.

 

 

It looks like a lot of ideology and statistical manipulation to me from both sides. I'm not sure there is a clear cut conclusion from what I've found so far. But the guy I quoted is clearly not objective...

 

It seems to be an emotionally charged issue, pro gun people would rather die than admit that guns aren't the savior they want guns to be and anti gun people would rather die than admit that guns might not be the evil they want them to be.

 

When i get the time I'll look for more information...

How many studies are objective anyway? A study is usually trying to prove something, or disprove something, and their intentions are not generally objective. They try to conduct the test objectively, which is what Kleck is attempting to do, but I don't think you're going to find any study pro or con that is "objective" on the gun issue.

The point that Kleck makes is that his National Defense survey data is well within the margin of error by at least 20 other surveys, whereas the National Crime Victimization Survey data doesn't come close to a single other survey.

This is also mid 90's data, and his survey comprised of phone calls to 5000 households. You're right, problems on all sides. But I think Kleck as been quite scientific about the criticisms.

I can't get enough data on the methodology of the NCVS survey to have an opinion on it myself. I suspect Kleck is closer to the truth about defensive gun use, particularly the frequency of discharge. Too many studies depend on actual shootings, which is going to be extremely low for defensive gun use.

Police pull their weapons and use them for defense far more often than they shoot people with them. Same with civilian defense.

There is much in detail I'll have missed concerning the shooting incident; I heard that Lanza drove his mother's car to the school; assuming he parked it as close as possible to an entrance, how far should he have had to walk to break in to the building without being seen approaching, armed and dangerous?

 

This I ask for practical reasons. Let's imagine the proposed law had been in effect and even further, (hard to imagine, but) some of the staff or teachers had easy access to a firearm--where, exactly, would that easy-access be? To be effective, it would have not only to be in the classroom, but in easy reach of the teacher since, in any realistic scenario, either a gunman gains entry to the classroom or he's seen and stopped prior to that--but how and by whom using what means?

 

I don't see how the proposed law would be or could be made feasible. Elementary school teachers, wearing side-arms throughout their day--in the classrooms, in the halls, in the lunchrooms? Have the legislators considered the daily effect of all this on the children? And, then, suppose that few or no teachers elect to keep a firearm, despite (assuming passage) their right to do so?

 

It strikes me as a truly bad 'good idea', allowing school teachers/staff to carry arms in and around the school.

 

This measure "moves the problematics" to another venue. What then about school buses? Wouldn't there have to be an armed guard on-board each of those? The driver? A separate guard?

 

My view of the moment is that there exists no good practical solution to the vulnerability of public schools. They may be made safer but not entirely safe. This kind of incident cannot be completely prevented short of taking measures which are themselves so extreme that "the cure" is overall untenable, unacceptably severe--even in a nation where such events can be expected to occur somewhere every few years or every year, though with fewer and varying losses of life. Remember that the objective was from the first suicidal. With that as a factor, preventive measures are hard-pressed to cover every potentiality.

I'm not sure how far Adam Lanza had to walk to the door, but it is being reported that he shot his way in since they would not buzz him in.

For a gun to be effective it would have to be reachable fairly quickly, like in the classroom. I'm thinking teachers keep them in a thumb print safe in the room. Other administrators, especially with more authoritative roles carry them right on their waist. Just like an officer.

In this shooting, you would most certainly have a couple of dead innocent people. If the principal - who did physically engage Adam - drew a gun instead of a fist, would she have achieved a fatal shot first? A shot good enough to wound him, such that when other administrators close in on the shooter he is easier to trap and wait for better trained personnel?

It seems silly to run through these scenarios like this. You can't really accurately foresee how bad or how good these events can turn out. People are capable of amazing things, sometimes, and sometimes not.

Then there's always the chance a child gets shot and killed, and because we didn't know that the future could have given us 20 dead kids, we think the event failed. If there were any armed counter attack against Adam Lanza that resulted in a single person's death, we might be talking about how dangerous it is to have guns in schools even for trained personnel - not realizing they had just averted a massacre.

I think it's more important to give them all the tools they can use in an emergency, and accept that we aren't perfect. Unless we are ready to put an armed officer in every school room, I'm not sure what choice we have besides "hoping" that no one goes to our kid's school to do something like this.

Adam Lanza's mother was a well trained gun owner... hell... that's where he obtained them.

Despite her ready access to guns and years of training, she still got killed.

 

IMO, the logic above doesn't hold up to even cursory scrutiny.

 

What really winds up happening is you get cross fire and bullets flying from multiple directions instead of just one.

I will refer to Swansont's point about strawman arguments. The proposal isn't that no armed person will be killed, or that anyone around being armed will stop all murder.

The above logic works very well in combat. Try explaining cross fire and bullets flying to combat veterans that used that very method to neutralize the enemy and save themselves.

The greater the ratio of armed "good" people to "bad" people, the greater the chance for those good people to survive and neutralize their enemy.

Also, your argument fails because we don't know how he achieved a firearm in his hand to kill her with. He was likely not a masked intruder, or busy shooting others, to therefore initiate a counter attack from her.

 

What is the deal with Adam Lanza's mother? Was she really a gun enthusiast? Or did she just buy guns for her son to keep him happy?

I've heard reports from mild gun ethusiast that discovered the joy of shooting to all out claims she and her family were/are doomsday preppers. I think we'll just have to wait and see. It's truly stunning the lack of credible information reported.

Either way, I think it's a safer bet that he attained a firearm and shot her without an announcement of his true intentions.

First, remember that handgun licenses require classes. While I merely have to attend an 8 hour class to obtain an open concealed carry (Oklahoma is open carry now) for my personal protection, I doubt very seriously that's all that police get. I would say that any government agent, such as a teacher or custodian, would need to demonstrate a more thorough understanding of firearms and combat before carrying a weapon in the course of duty. Something more intense, like the kind of training police get.

I live in Oklahoma, and I like the idea. I like the idea of more people armed. It increases the ratio of good to bad armed citizens. Remember, guns tend to equalize power.

We know that teachers and a principal physically intercepted the shooter at Sandy Hook. If they were armed, there may be less death - a lot less.

Yes, a teacher could go off on a classroom in a murder-suicide. And more armed teachers suggests an armed teacher nearby will attempt to stop them.

A police officer is not good enough - there is only one of them, and they typically are nowhere near as armed as a mass murderer.

How about making it mandatory for all government school staff to carry weapons? Part of the interest here is that we are forced to send our children to government schools, assigned typically by geographic location as opposed to informed choice. We are forced to relinquish all protective power over our children and surrender them to strangers, as a matter of course, approx 8 hours a day from the time they are 6 to about 18.

In that vein, I think I have a right - as a parent - to insist my child is protected at least as well as I would have protected them if I were not forced to drive to a government building and surrender them to the care of strangers.

Of course, there's the flip side to that for parents that don't like guns and don't want their kids surrounded by them. I understand that too.

Here, a little school "choice" goes a long way. Change to a voucher system where the money follows the kiddos, and let parental choice be the market force that brings about various solutions to school security.

 

Great post, mate. Here's where my head is on the question you've posed, and I'd be curious to read your response.

 

Universal healthcare, with particular focus on access to mental health facilities and support. Don't make it something one must pay for. Don't make it hard for people to just walk in for assistance. Make it as easy as possible. Give the folks with mental hardship a place to get support, and a place and process for their families to get them into support without calling the police or involving jail cells.

 

Universal healthcare with an emphasis on mental health coverage. The guns and the shootings are the symptoms. This idea IMO treats the root causes. It won't stop every tragedy... Nothing will, but our approach should be to take smart steps to minimize the number of them. What do you think? Would you support universal care to help reduce the numbers of these issues?

 

 

I'm not sure I could get on board with total Universal healthcare. I'm not directly opposed to it either, at least not conceptually. (Not very libertarian of me, I know, but who's perfect?) I would like to see a brand new, refreshing idea on allocating healthcare resources to the public without the assymetry with market forces, without the notions of "rights" to other's labor, without the middle man insurance coverage model for maintenance and routines, and etc. Perhaps that's another conversation...

I would absolutely support tax payer paid access to mental health - evaluation, treatment, brick and mortar, all of it. But I have to be honest, I have a very real dog in this fight.

The day of the Sandy Hook tragedy there was a psychiatrist sitting in the news studio at our local radio station. He said something that I have personal experience with. He shared that he couldn't count the number of times - just this year alone - that he referred someone as a danger to themselves or others only to receive a call a short while later, from someone usually in the ER, or County/City Health facilitiy "He said what? That he was going to hurt somebody? Well, he isn't saying that now. We have to discharge him. We can't hold him."

And he was beside himself trying to explain, essentially....'well duh! He wants to leave! Of course he isn't saying that!'

This is exactly what happened with my older son. The terrible reality is...he shares some disturbing attributes with Adam Lanza, and other murderers of that type.

He is quiet and withdrawn. He is alone, and fights to be so, despite our attempts to engage with him and motivate him. He has heard voices telling him that I want to kill the family, and he has gone so far as to set up a bow and arrow next to his bed to intercept me if I were to begin a rampage. We can't get mental health services to act. Why? Because he isn't saying it now.

We got him in a pschiatric facility for about a week, voluntarily - just enough time to "stabilize" him with meds, and then back home because the voices are quieter and no longer saying disturbing things. And he never threatens me; he actually cried about it and was shocked that we would think he wanted to kill his father.

And now he's off those psychotic meds because he cannot function. It makes him slow. He's an adult, and he has bills to pay and needs to work. These bills are not utilities and food - he lives with us. No, these bills are the result of criminal fines and punishment. And he can hardly manage to even look for a job, let alone find one, let alone actually work there. These meds will gaurantee he never gets hired. He clearly has mental issues, but there is no "official" status of such mental problems. None of it is even remotely interesting to a judge or court system. He has to be a resident, or else he is fully functional. That's our choices. They will not keep him as a resident, they will only keep him long enough to "stabilize" his meds and then send him back out into the world.

These forces are working against him, not with him. He is getting no support. We do all we can. And it's not enough. I have insurance, and have offered to cover any costs, all he has to do is set the appointments (they won't let me do it). He won't do it. He doesn't want to talk about his issues. This is dangerous. Luckily his old job needs people so bad they actually called him to come back, and hope is beginning to creep across his face. Being productive is therapeutic. Otherwise, he wouldn't be working and would be waiting for bench warrants to be issued, and eventually land in jail.

So, yes, I agree with a renewed approach to mental health. I'll take anything at this point. There has to be at least some bit of common sense applied. Such as: People who want to do harm to themselves or others, will lie about it. I didn't realize that point alluded anyone at all, but apparently it is a major problem with holding people against their will. If you don't want to be held against your will, just stop saying stuff and presto! You're free.

And I won't even get into the dysfunctional relationship between facilities. One doctor at facility A refers patient to facility B, a danger to himself and others. Facility B processes the patient as if they know nothing at all. 'Uh, didn't doctor so-and-so send any information about him?' 'They just said he was having problems at home'. 'Uh...seriously?' And then the brick wall starts being built...."We will evaluate him and the doctor will determine if he needs to stay here".....2 hours later...."The doctor has determined he can go home, we don't feel we can treat him here"..."Uh...do you remember that he was sent here because he was trying to leave facility A after making dangerous statements about hurting himself and others?" "Oh, he didn't make any dangerous statements to us, he isn't saying anything like that now".

It goes something like that....just imagine how many more are out there. We haven't given up on ours, but it sure is a lonely, frustrating battle.

Why can't the government require that all firearms in a person's home be stored in gun safes? And that those safes can only be opened by keying in a PIN, like at an ATM machine. That requirement would have prevented that young man in CT from gaining access to his mother's guns.

I haven't read any updated news yet, so maybe you know something I don't. But manipulation is just as easy, and as far as I know, just as likely in this case. "Hey Mom, do you still have my birth certificate in the safe? Can I get it?"

Or she may have had a predictable system in place, easy to work around for adult members of the family since we're usually concerned about children.

 

 

Because the paranoid gun owner needs to have instant access to his arsenal.

 

Well, the top reason for a home owner to have a weapon for self defense is the overwhelming practical reality: the police can't get there in time to save you. They can't be in all places, and they just don't know when my family is being attacked. (And, interestingly enough, they aren't even constitutionally or legally bound to step in and save you. They have a right to save themselves and not protect you. Not a popular quality, no, but courts keep ruling that way).

So it makes no sense to own guns to protect yourself from attack if you cannot get to your weapons during the attack.

We have an actual gun safe, no PIN entry, rather a high quality combination lock with no key back up. You either know the combination, or you don't get in. Or you call Browning and pay a ton of money for someone to come out and get you back in your safe.

We simply leave the safe unlocked throughout the night, with our bedroom door locked. The kiddos can't come in and get into the safe while we're asleep of course, not that they have ever tried, and we can access weapons immediately if needed. And part of our morning routine is to get our stuff out and lock it up. We keep our personal effects in there so this is pure habit at this point, and works well for us. I suggest a similar system for others. Keep the tech low on the safe, and avoid buying "security theatre" safes, from Wal-Mart and the like.

I'll tell you, this Connecticut thing has caused me to question everything I have stood for on this issue. I think it has to. That doesn't mean I have abandoned what I believe, but rather that what I believe needs to be properly audited. If you aren't rethinking your position on this issue, then you aren't thinking at all.

I was moved by Obama's speech last night. He properly lectured us and I received his message. I appreciated it. Something has to change, I agree. I read all of those names, and I've seen the pictures, read the stories, and my heart is truly broken. The scope of tragedy here is unbearable. It brought this grown man to tears, a few times now.

I am just not sure what tangible, legal thing can be changed that would prevent what happened, other than attaching legal consequences for faulty gun security. I would love to just show up and say, "Ok, let's talk about gun control". But these guns were registered to a law abiding citizen, as far as we can tell. And they were legal to own. They were "controlled", save for any carelessness by the mother, should that come to light in this case.

The worst mass murder on American soil was achieved with box knives and airplanes. The second was achieved with manure and fuel. Will affecting the availablity of guns activate imagination for more sinister methods of mass death? If Adam Lanza couldn't get guns, would he have built a bomb instead? Would it be more or less effective, more or less of a nightmare?

I just don't know. I really don't know.

I would love to fortify all schools with state of the art security - like one large "safe room" or "safe building". But that won't prevent this either. A silently raging parent can get "buzzed in" and then go off on a killing spree. Even with metal detectors, it isn't 100%, and again, suicide-homicide missions don't pay a lot of respect to lights and buzzers going off.

Or can we? Is there a way to lock down a school, auto-magically when triggered, such that every door to every room is bullet proof and secured while authorities are notified?

I will have any conversation we need to have. I am just at a loss as to how to truly prevent this.

I was really amazed by Robbie Parker, Emily Parker's father. Very impressed.

 

Impressive, but even more depressing and sad considering how many parents of these slain children are grief stricken beyond consolation, beyond comfort. These poor parents lost 6 and 7 year old kids. I don't know how you come back from that.

 

I was trying to make the point that people and the market can behave irrationally, but you define whatever happens as rational, so I dropped that point.

 

let's see if we can get to the heart of this thread - you seem to care about property at least. Is global warming a violation of property?

 

And review some of your previous posts for the violin - you blame people like me for your retirement options. I don't mind really, just saying it isn't going to bring me closer to your POV.

On the first point, to split a hair, irrationality is something you infer, nothing you can prove. You ultimately have to define "good", which we cannot (and we know is at the heart of the naturalistic fallacy), particularly for someone else. It's a subjective game, which was more my point.

On the second point, I'm just not sure. I'm not comfortable drawing a conclusion on that yet. And, in terms of resolution, it's largely irrelevant, a distraction, unnecessary and detrimental to full scale cooperation. Too many are defensive about the consequences of such an answer, and use that to deny the predicament instead of using science and reason to analyze it. Of course, this is the point I've been harping on post after post...there are better ways to mobilize humanity against this threat. No matter how "right" we may be, if humans perceive us to be wrong - even if "irrational" - then we lose. We must find a winning strategy, as opposed to a losing one.

On that last point, you are probably correct. No amount of violins and victim arguments have managed to sway conservatives and republicans to see the POV of gay marriage. I shouldn't suppose pointing out how you victimize others would work on you either. Again, things you have in common with the "other" side.

 

The question of rational or irrational, doesn't matter much. Corporations and people will dump hazardous waste, cut corners, look the other way, and rationalize it. The risk/benefit ratio CAN be controlled somewhat. If you risk jail time or large lawsuits or must succumb to inspections, that increases the risk. Public attention to green corps increases the rewards.

Its really mostly about making good choices easier and bad choices more difficult. Since bad != more expensive and that is how many things are decided, sometimes it needs to be pushed in that direction. I'm not saying make gas illegal, just try to factor in more of the true cost that the market cannot.

Trying to factor in the true cost of gas could get complicated really quick. I think all the wars in the Middle East were due to oil. If not for oil, I think we would never have engaged with the Middle East, much as we do with Africa. That's a huge cost.

Just want to say that I don't think your position is completely invalid. I think your point in regards to standards was correct, that's probably how it did happen. I think that's how it should work, opposing views clash and out comes something that nobody really likes, but most can live within.

If you find it unbearable to live within, well take your own advice and don't play the victim/blame violin, that won't persuade many people.

 

You just changed the context of your own point. You were talking about exercise, eating "better", smoking and condoms - not violations of public and other's private property.

Taking your points in the original context creates quite an offensive set of assumptions. That because I have a different value set than you, life in general should be more expensive for me. Just more morality engineering, just like the religios. Why shouldn't I try to make things more expensive for you to choose vegetables and jogging? I'm not sure why liberals have such a problem with the religious right since they have so much in common. Both of them claim to have found some kind of truth that dismisses the input of the rest of the population of the world.

You've only met a handful of humans in your lifetime, much less know them very well, much less any significant portion of the approximately 330 million that live in your nation-group perimeter, much less the 7 billion that live on the entire planet. And somehow, you're so impressed with some bit of logic you've discovered, that you don't need to hear any of their thoughts and opinions to preempt them with your own. The hubris is truly astonishing.

I'm sorry that longevity and an over obsession with safety, boring and uneventful lives is what you revere. I admire something a little different: A shorter, hyper risk-reward, experience driven existence that I never once thought I should force onto anyone. Too bad I'm so "extreme" about my thoughts and opinions that I don't propse to legislate them on anybody...

Taking your points in the newly imported context aren't nearly so offensive. I have never once argued against regulations, rather a lot less of them. I think there are better ways to implement what regulations attempt to achieve without creating a low bar standard, but they'd still be considered regulations. The government has a role in such things, absolutely.

And government intervention is doing the opposite, unfortunately. They have a protagonist role, and they've totally rejected it for the antagonist one. Instead of forcing the market to reflect true cost, they have been complicit in hiding those costs. That's the whole purpose of subsidy - bury the costs in the tax code so we don't feel the cost individually.

Figuring in war costs would be an interesting study. I'd love to see it. Preliminarily, I see an issue with going to war over a product that the industry didn't ask to war about. It's one thing if "Big Oil" lobbies for war for oil, it's another if the politicians fear the rising costs and availability of oil and do it on their own.

And I'm not sure where that last line of yours came from. The violins and victim game are the tools of the statists that cry out against the people (the market) and consistently take their case to small groups of people that monopolize force and control (governments).

 

 

Because we as humans have evolved focus on the problems of today at the expense of the longer term issues. Until the very recent past, we had no real drivers forcing us to focus on global environmental health or risks to third and fourth generation offspring we have yet to conceive. Our experiences were limited to local communities and packs, and our thinking and decision making processes reflect that.

 

Another issue is one of priority, along the lines of Maslow's hierarchy. If we're struggling to obtain dinner tonight or to protect the wellbeing of our loved ones in poor neighborhoods with little money, then of course we're not going to voluntarily pay more for energy or the fuel we need to get us back and forth from our minimum wage job. The needs of the moment take priority over the needs of the future or the civilization as a whole. People "choose cheap energy" even when they know it's bad because circumstances prevent them from personally doing what they think is right. This choice is rather often made even though they know and stipulate that said choice is detrimental to the environment, to our future, and to the rest of life on the planet.

 

The suffering and dying we know will come tomorrow is not here today, and hence is deprioritized relative to the problems of the present.

 

I think that does accurately describe those closer to the poverty line and becomes less true for those further away from it. Incidentally, this is what the government-force solution struggles with – poor countries that see little benefit in heeding the West’s claims of a warming earth. No amount of convincing moves them.

But this does not describe the middle class or the rich, the bulk of America and the world population. At least half of the humans on the earth are capable of planning for long term survival and success, which requires prioritizing future struggles. Arguably, that’s *why* they’re not poor. The very nature of markets, R&D and how new things start out as expensive – a relative esoteric consumer base – refutes the notion that problems of the future cannot be prioritized over problems of the present.

And again, this supports my point about focus on the markets. Government cooperation in the form of drafting laws that force their citizens to behave a certain way completely ignores their local, short term struggles. A focus on markets to produce alternative sources cheaper than the status quo is how you satisfy short term struggles. Again – their proverbial pocket books convinces them without saying a word.

The fact that electric vehicles are being produced by so many recent startups is proof that there is a consumer base, already, that is choosing expensive, low supply alternatives to cheap, already established high supply existing products. They are choosing the future over today.

What I’m advocating is investing in the information side of that so that ALL consumers capable of long term planning are putting their money into alternatives. Right now, we have a polarized consumer base due to the GW argument and only a small portion of those capable of prioritizing tomorrow’s issues over today’s conveniences – people with wealth – are participating in alternative energy solutions.

 

I believe this is a MAJOR flaw in your thinking. In addition to the simple issue of relative priorities and difficult circumstances I referenced above, humans overall don't tend to behave like rational actors. Decades of evidence shows this, and John has already quite adequately elaborated on how this lack of rational action occurs in practice, and his comments more than adequately demonstrate why your assertion here is little more than fantasy. We know people don't always act in their best interests, so it's in OUR best interests to stop assuming they will and to engage in alternative approaches.

 

This is the fundamental philosophical divide. I believe their choices *are* rational - for their sensibilities. Is it rational to jump out of a perfectly good airplane? Is it in their best interest to let them jump out of airplanes with glorified umbrellas just so they can get a thrill? The risk-reward would not seem rational.

John's point proposes to defer to groupthink for "proper choices". The sovereignty of the group over the sovereignty of the individual. The ole democracy vs. republic dilemma. If the group decides that John's choices are not rational, then the group must correct John's choices.

I reject that the group has any moral or ethical claim over my choices. The group would have to be armed with my sensibilities, to know my goals in life, to know what makes me happy, to know what I prioritize as important, to know my particular culture..etc. I have a hard enough time knowing this about myself, let alone to have to field a diverse group of strangers.

I see the result of our choices as empirical evidence. If exercise is better for me, then why aren't I doing it? I'm not doing it because I apparently find greater value in not exercising, choosing short term convenience over longevity - as opposed to a failure of properly rendering my intentions. This is a valid choice - to choose short term gains over longevity. And there are good arguments for it. Getting killed by a bus at 30 years old could mean exercise and sacrifice was a waste.

My intentions are apparent by what my ass is doing, despite the conversation my mouth is having.

 

False dichotomy. Experience very clearly shows that innovation comes from many sources, and self-interest and force both play a role. To argue otherwise is to disconnect one's position from reality.

 

It's not a false dichotomy since you either apply force or not. Governments getting together to discuss GW and how they can each draft laws to bully their citizens into ignoring market forces - the aggragate will of the populace - is the force design that seems to be the focus of eco warriors and GW activists. It's failing miserably because those same people misplace their ire at the market, as if it is not an expression of the populace. They will actually disparage markets to an audience...an audience that *is* the market. Their ire is aimed at the people of the world, but they act as if they are separate from "markets".

To believe the stick produces more free thought and innovation over the carrot is to disconnect one's position from reality. The central economic control practiced by the soviet union as opposed to the mostly free, distributed economic freedom of the West is a fabulous example of that.

 

The time we have to act is short, but the time required for the markets to respond is long. Even if we assume the market can respond as quickly as it needs to to mitigate the rapidly increasing global average annual temperatures, you have to account for the state of consumer flexibility in todays economy.

 

Ultimately, when you argue for increased demand and consumer power, you must also account for how consumers can do achieve all of this in a depressed economy where unemployment is high, wages are down, spending power is diminished, and job security is low. Those are, after all, the conditions before us right now and all of these factors REDUCE the likelihood your proposal will achieve the needed solution. The time we have to act is short. The flexibility of consumers is low, and the time required for markets to change things is long. All of these factors lend themselves to choosing a more directed, regulated, and goal-oriented approach.

 

That first line is a bit misplaced. If everyone suddenly demanded apples instead of burgers, McDonald's would have mass apples for sale inside of a week. They are not going to sit around for couple of years ignoring the demand for apples. Apple producers would immediately react with increased focus on production.

You couldn't even get a law drafted in a week, let alone passed in a month. And no government law could make apples grow any quicker either.

No, it's information dissemination that takes the time. The market reacts to changes in consumer behavior immediately. The consumers changing their behavior is what takes the time, relative to government coercion.

If a product doesn't yet exist, then government force will not be any quicker at forcing the market to invent it than plural consumer demand. And strong enough consumer demand will trump force any day. Only if the consumer demand is too low, will government force and control (laws, subsidies, distortion of market information) initiate invention. That's what we have now. A lot of government intervention instead of a stronger, more robust response that could be brought on by massive consumer demand. The demand is too low, in part I believe because of focus on government cooperation and intervention, thereby ignoring the consumer base. This effect is doubled due to the aversion of government force by almost half of the consumer base.

I advocate activating as much of the consumer base as possible - that half that is polarized about the GW issue, in addition to the numbers of uninterested, uninformed consumers that possess incomplete and distorted information.

Gas subsidies is a great example of distorted information. The consumer is not realizing the full cost. The information is imperfect to say the least. Correcting that is another step to fixing the information gap with alternatives.

Sure they can, and it even happens using your own logic. The government is just a really big consumer in this scenario.

 

True, just like how China is going to be persuaded to use natural gas. They have double the US reserves and it's cheaper than coal. As a consumer, I agree.

But my point was about countries attempting to cooperate in coersion of each other's citizens. That isn't working. Only an ideologue would still grasp at this when imperical evidence shows that the world of governments are not persuaded. They aren't doing it. It's that simple. And you know this. It's an incredible disappointment for the environmentally concerned.

 

Finally, I'll also note that John's decision to eat a burger and drink a beer instead of eating eating a carrot and drinking wheatgrass juice has only an impact on his personal health, but his and your and my decisions to drive a car or truck or whatever and pollute the air we share impacts all of our health. You can choose to accept the costs of not exercising without impact to your fellow citizens, but you cannot choose to pollute the air without negatively influencing those around you.

 

Those decisions you make no longer only impact you, they impact us all, and other nonhuman animals, and future generations, and all of the countless other things we rely on like farming and fresh water... hence a stronger incentive for rapid acting, smart, centralized regulation and pressures to make the change happen... We can choose to simply drift out at sea on the raft of the free market and just cross our fingers hope for the best (and hope that it happens in the time needed to actually make a difference) or we can put an outboard motor and rudder on this thing and steer where we know we need to head based on all of the information we've collected on the topic for the last 60 years.

 

And how is that working for you? You can only use coersion for your own country. The interaction with the rest of the world is a natural free market of sovereign entities. You will need to conquer all of them before you can "steer" them. They are not being steered.

You can continue to make these impassioned arguments for force, and die by them. Or, you can try something else. What you are doing is not working, no matter how sensible it may seem to regulate your fellow man.

For all the reasons you mentioned above, I suggest disseminating the correct information to the planet of consumers since their governments will not get on board.

First of all, I apologize for the above post. That's awfully long winded, even for me. I won't blame anyone if they ignore most of it.

GW is truly a Tragedy of the Commons. Until there is a countable toll in lives and money associated with climate change there will never be any united push for change. Even then, I doubt much will change. It will be survival of the most fortunate. I have personally discussed the issue with those researching climate policy. The overwhelming position is that the 2C temperature increase cap is firstly not at all safe to begin with and secondly a pipe dream. We will likely exceed the 2C mark unless there is radical worldwide change.

 

If the US and other developed nations could come to some resolution, what do you say to emerging countries like India and China? "Hey we've had our fun, sorry we beat you to it. But all thsoe emissions you are releasing with your emerging economy, well you need to stop that sorry!"

 

The thing is that in the USA, we have completely screwed ourselves with cheap fuel. We have allowed our infrastructer to develope around cheap fuel. We drive miles upon miles to work. We spend endless hours commuting. Our homes are far away, we thrived on sprawl. So now what to do? We are so vulnerable. One fuel shock to the system and we are done. There was a very good graph on the NYT website (can't find link right now) that showed how higher fuel taxes and prices impacted driving habits and consumption. The net result was that those countries with higher prices had less consumption (not surprising). But also many of those countries have equal or better standard of living to the US. But if there is ever a fuel crisis or a crisis such as GW, those countries are far better equiped to make change because there community, lifestyle, cities, towns have developed under the pressure of higher fuel prices. A 2$ spike in fuel in a country that pays 8$ a gallon already will have an impact. A 2$ spike in the US would be catastrophic. So less consuption and higher prices is not just to slow GW, it is needed as a security measure. But there are millions of homes and strip malls and fast food restaurants that exist soley by sucking the pipe of cheap fuel.

akh, I understand your frustration. Essentially, you're disappointed with the choices the people of the world are making. We've tried going to their governments to make them change, but they aren't interested.

The only other option is go to the people themselves, or conquer the entire world so we can make them change.

It's important to note that our cheap fuel that is undermining our well being was aided by government intervention. It required the distortion of information and markets to happen. To be honest though, I think it would have happened anyway. But we would have realized the full cost if government had stayed out of it and perhaps would be a little easier to transition today.

I sincerely believe the most realistic chance of massive, global change is cheaper alternatives to status quo. And I don't mean government manipulated information to make it "appear" cheaper - but actually for reelz, cheaper. The only words to be spoken after that is: would you like gas for X, or this alternative for 1/2X?

I believe an activated American consumer base can do that: self interested demand.

 

Science is beholden to reality. In the context of science, string theory is not a scientific theory. Not yet, anyhow.

And doesn't this present the problem? I have never read or heard anyone say "string hypothesis" or "string speculation". By my experience anyway, it is exclusively referred to as "string theory".

When people say "it's just a theory", aren't they emboldened by this misuse of "theory"? And doesn't this feed the anti-science narrative, to point out how string theory and evolution theory are both "just" theories? Because they've equated the two, because those who misuse the word have inadvertantly equated the two, at least in terms of scientific rigor.

I think it's also part of the greater issue of dumbing down the scientific method for the masses by media. This is just one symptom. Why don't I hear the "as we know it" disclaimer anymore when I'm watching How The Universe Works? We only hear "scientists believe" about a handful of times involving speculative, but plausible scientific ideas in the media. The viewer is left with the impression that all of this programming is "fact" minus a fraction of responsible disclaimers.

This all feeds the counter narrative that science is arrogant and careless, based on wild speculations and little evidence. After all, they're "just theories", just like string theory.

 

The word is 'hypothesis'. You might want to recheck your definitions.

I did, which is why I had to backtrack in trying to use "hypothesis" to essentially mean "theory" that has not yet undergone all the rigorous testing.

Honestly, I'm a perfect example of the John Q Public you all are talking about. I thought I was at least more scientifically literate than the "average" person, but maybe not. Here's an example of where we get confused:

http://psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/ss/expdesintro_2.htm

Second entry on a google search.

 

A theory is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world. A theory arises from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted.

 

 

 

A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study. For example, an experiment designed to look at the relationship between study habits and test anxiety might have a hypothesis that states, "We predict that students with better study habits will suffer less test anxiety." Unless your study is exploratory in nature, your hypothesis should always explain what you expect to happen during the course of your experiment or research.

 

 

• A theory predicts events in general terms, while a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a specified set of circumstances.

 

 

• A theory has been extensively tested and is generally accepted, while a hypothesis is a speculative guess that has yet to be tested.

 

That part in bold is where I was getting the notion that a hypothesis is more specific than a theory. If this is wrong, then this has to be part of the problem. Granted, about.com is not a 'science' site. But then again, if the average person has to go to all the trouble to find a bonefide and proven scientific source - to define two simple words - then what does that tell us about how these words have been mangled and carelessly used that they deviate so much?

I don't have to go to a lexicographer's source to be sure I'm getting the correct definition of "green bean". Lots of sources will do, because we don't have a problem with "green bean" being incorrectly used for peas, lima beans and asparagus (all of which are *gross* by the way).

The top returns on a google search for "difference between theory and hypothesis" returns several questionable sources before we get to what appears should be a more formal source:

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html

Sorry, I would have pasted the text but I'm running into some quirks with this new forum software and IE. Anyway, the explanation on that page is terribly lacking in specifics, kind of sloppy. Reminds me of Discovery channel and how scientists complain about the way they dumb down and sometimes outright destroy the scientific method.

So the entire page of results contains wiki answers, yahoo answers, enotes.com, wisegeek.com and etc...and then finally, at the bottom of the page we get, what I think anyway, is the real deal from NASA. I am about to go all through it. It provides a test so you can see how well you understand the difference between Facts, hypothesis, theory and belief.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/371711main_SMII_Problem23.pdf

Too much disparity and apparently scientific illiteracy run amok. That's the problem as I see it. The solution sure looks like a long and winding road...

Scientists already use the term "hypothesis" when it's appropriate. That's not the issue under discussion here. The issue is the education level of the nonscientific populace. If someone is trying to debunk a scientific idea by saying "it's just a theory," then I hardly think calling it a hypothesis is going to ameliorate that particular type of ignorance and incredulity.

Fact: Obama won the election of 2012.

Fact: Chocolate is good.

So you’re saying the wide spread misuse of "fact" into opinions wouldn’t create the same problem with the word “fact” that you are experiencing with “theory”? And that a return to correct usage is irrelevant? Weird.

Actually, from what I read hypothesis isn't the correct word either since it is more specific than a theory. What is a theory called that has not been repeatedly observed and tested, incorporating facts, laws, predictions and tested hypotheses? Whatever that word, that's the one you should be using for dark energy and other stuff that is carelessly called theory by scientists.

How about the return of "hypothesis"?

Is Dark Energy a theory, or hypothesis? Don't you move from hypothesis to theory as repeated testing fails to falsify the hypothesis until some subjective "tipping point" of data?

Maybe the problem is the overuse of the word "theory" by scientists, when they really should be using "hypothesis". I mean, there's a huge difference between the test data related to evolution and the data related to dark energy. Yet, I hear "theory" used almost exclusively.

Perhaps people are losing respect for the scale of "theory" because it's used for ideas that have not weathered the testing to be called such.

Right then. Glad that this exchange with you was so fruitful. Thanks for the reminder.

And nothing to say about the discussion at hand, or any of the points made. Fruitful, indeed. I take a lot from that.

If we left it to markets we'd still have lead in our gas and paint and we'd have cars without catalytic converters and we'd have CFCs in our aerosol cans and we'd have arsenic in our drinking water and segregated water fountains and all manner of other things that you seem to think would magically not be there if only we left it to the "free market." There are many principles for which you argue that have a genuine place in helping improve things, but why do you so consistently sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect, paranoia? It always feels like it has to be all or nothing with you.

Nice redirection. How about responding to what I’ve actually written in this discussion? Where is the “magic” in the markets as I’ve advocated in this solution? What I’ve suggested directly addresses the problems we are experiencing, both with the polarization of deniers and the lack of response by governments and markets

.

Both of those are resolved by perfecting the information in the market.

When conservatives and deniers are no longer defending their way of life and instead are pursuing a cheaper, more stable and dependable energy alternative, then they stop being enemies and we start working to the same end.

Or is it more important to score points and deride their ideology while we wait on governments to do something? How is that working so far?

P.S. If you want to have another libertarian ideological audit and put me on the witness stand to fend off all the “oh yeah, but what about…” exceptions, you’ll have to be a sincere, honest intellect instead of the silliness you pulled last time. I’m not interested in a return trip. You know where the thread is at, my points are there, where my values are located and where they’re not. That you missed it and throw “amorphous” around like grass seed is a problem that you have, and I’m not motivated to fix it for you.

This is one of the things that really pisses me off about the Republican stance on this. They scream "free market!" but they scream even louder when we talk about pulling the subsidies that give oil an unfair advantage over alternative energies (like existing infrastructure wasn't enough of an advantage). This messes up the free market pressures that higher gas prices would undoubtedly bring to bear. We're only seeing the few efforts at alternatives because gas prices in the US spiked a little over $5/gal back in 2008. If we stopped subsidies, that kind of pricing would finally allow the market to make long overdue corrections.

Absolutely. They only like the free market when it benefits them. They're all for subsidies for their own pet BS. And they also distort the GW argument because of their fears of the socialist suggestions to fix it. I've always wondered...would they also disavow night and day if they thought socialists were going to try to blow up the sun?

That's why I think a refreshed appeal to markets to correct this can bring many logically challenged conservatives back into reality. When they no longer fear "the socialists" and "eco warriors" maybe they can accept GW market based solutions - again, with a strong appeal to economics. Electric is cheaper, I'm convinced. It's the vehicles that are hard to design and build.

This is true. The believe the problem is that most people have a hard time accepting the consequences of cheap energy (fossil fuels). There is not a sense of imminent danger, its not tangible or visceral enough for most people to consider in the course of their average day.

Exactly, the message and energy needs to be directed at them, to fix the perfect information gap. Markets are only as successful a representation of consumer choice as the information they have. This is why the market is not responding to our GW concerns as rapidly as you’d like – because not enough participants in the system possess or believe the information.

Its not belief, it is what the evidence supports. I do ride a bike. I have not turned on my heat this winter despite the fact that the temps dip into the low thirties. I only ran my A/C (thermostat set at 85) this summer when it hit 105+ for a week. But not many would do this.

Sounds like you follow your belief. And it is belief in scientific evidence. Others don't believe the scientific evidence, or in science. Really need to work on persuading them. I suggest not polarizing them and inflaming their belief system, and instead try to disarm them with respect. People are much more flexible when they are not defensive. Pass a GW law on a denier or ridicule him and he'll cling to his anti-science beliefs out of spite. Human nature.

This has happened solely because of market conditions?

Not solely, no. But certainly mostly. According to that link, a $57,000 dollar Tesla Model S drops $7500 dollars in government subsidy (I do not agree with) to leave it at $50,000. Tesla didn't go into business to exploit a $7500 credit, and I doubt that credit becomes the deciding factor for most people ready to blow 50K on a car. But it must have some effect, I admit. The pressure from consumers and rational self interest, I believe, accounts for most of the motivation to go into business.

I agree that governments are failing at this. The fact that there is no agreement and that China "scoffs" at us should be more of an example of the extreme difficulty of this situation. If governments (small groups of individuals) can't agree and move forward, how do you expect individuals to behave differently? We are in a country were people signed petitions to secede from the union as the result of the last election. Yet, somehow everybody is going to agree to make individual changes to halt or mitigate AGW? No way, not a chance. It will never work that way. Humans just don't work like that.

And yet, if the market could produce comparable electric cars *cheaper*, all of China and the rest of the world *will* switch, won't they? To deny that is to deny they are rational economic participants. Their "agreement" is achieved by appealing to their economic interests.

The only question now is can the market produce such things cheaper? And I believe that is remedied by persuasion redirected from governments to the populace; increased demand.

Governments cannot achieve this. There is no sideways argument to suddenly achieve their agreement. Real benefits get the job done. With a generalized animosity toward fossil fuels as a result of successful persuasion of the populace, this will translate to the rest of the fossil fuel applications.

Surely you aren't denying the market will respond directly to demand. The only real question here is can enough consumers be persuaded. I think that's far more realistic and achievable than hundreds of governments agreeing and creating equitable laws to use force to get it done.

It is not force, but persuasion. Again, there are people who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, that evolution is false, that the earth is flat, that one god or prophet is better than the others, that cows are sacred, that pork should not be consumed, that green is better than blue, that not all art is art, that ...yet all people of the world will share "belief in the predicament"?

Well it is force when governments create laws to do it. I'm advocating persuasion directed at consumers, or the populace.

As for the rest, despite all the differences, approximately 2 billion people believe in Christianity, and a little more for Islam. If 2 billion people believed in GW and practiced it in their actions, that would be more than enough market pressure to produce magnificent results and blow our minds. We don't actually even need that much, though it would be great. Only enough to get humans innovating and consuming the innovations, getting things cheap enough that the rest of planet acts in their economic self interest.

General overview of the problem and the chemistry.

http://www.pmel.noaa...cidification%3F

 

The process can reverse, but my understanding is that it takes much more time for this to occur (several hundred years), and as long as there is an increase in dissolved CO2 the oceans will continue to become lower in pH (less alkaline, they are not truly acidic at this point).

I see. So it looks like we need to get this stopped, fast. I've made my arguments, so I won't beat the dead horse.

And keep in mind, I don't actually have a problem with a government effort to reverse the process with some kind of fantastical future tech. That actually seems to me a perfect example of government jurisdiction. Similar to fighting wars, it is large in scale, and it is in our national interest and does not involve interfering with the rights of anyone, anywhere. (Other than the confiscation of monetary property for taxes, which I do not oppose). And the world would probably love us again.

While I generally agree, this approach is not at all easy. How exactly will free markets cause change?

Markets don't *cause* change, consumers do. Consumers through their buying practices send messages to the market on what they want. As unrealistic as my scenario above is (the idea that the entire world rejects gasoline cars overnight) - if consumers actually did that, the market will stop selling gasoline cars instantly, and start selling whatever it is they are buying. The free market *will* change, absolutely. When in history have consumers stopped buying a product (actions) while the market continues to make it anyway? That's a business model that will fail extremely quickly, ha ha.

In the real world, this process takes a bit more time, but is effectively the same result. The market is responding to our behavior, they don't direct it. It may seem that way sometimes, when we choose the irresistible gasoline energy and infrastructure already in place. But again, that's because individually we have chosen to hold cheap energy in higher regard than GW. If we really thought we were going to suffer and die on massive scales, then why would cheap energy be chosen?

Let me ask this..for those of you who believe in GW, do you drive gasoline cars? Do you get your electricity from coal power? Do you practice your belief? Or do you make excuses to use the cheap energy alternative? This is what I mean by our mouths having the same conversation as our asses. If people really believe we are doomed, they would act like it. They will finance a $50,000 dollar electric car if they truly believed death was the likely alternative. Or ride a bike - even 20 miles, if they really believed in doom.

By in large oil, coal, and natural gas are still cheap energy. Yet, if you really look at the data and evidence, we are heading towards an irreversible situation, one that will occur long, long before any market condition will create a switch in mentality. I believe this is the problem, the free market cannot address the issue.

Governments are failing miserably at this. They are not doing it. You know this. They play games with silly "resolutions" that require complete ignorance to appreciate. China scoffs at us and they are poised to be the next superpower in just a handful of years and they are half the population of the world.

Meanwhile, what little consumer pressure has been put on the market is yielding great results. Many new innovative electric car companies are popping up. Everything is uber expensive, as we are in the R&D phase. More pressure would bring more results. Starting with every decision you make. Solar panels, switching your home from gas to electric, building energy efficient homes and revolutionary tech methods to control climate, lights and etc that optimize every kilowatt.

I have switched to electric and luckily my power plant uses dams and moving water to turn the 3 phase generators for most power generation, or so they claim. That kind of pressure would be harder to apply, but it's still possible. Although, I'm doing it for different reasons than GW. I want energy independence, and an energy revolution.

At the end of the day, people will innovate and work harder when motivated by self interest (money, adoration, altruism) than they will by force, and belief in the predicament is key to that.

And it not just climate change, we have to seriously consider ocean acidification from dissolved CO2 as a major problem. Even if you can manage to deny all the evidence in support of AGW, can you really deny the acidification issue? http://www.nature.co...l/ngeo1635.html

I'm not a denier, just to be clear. I see the AGW argument as mostly a distraction. Energy independence and the value recognition of energy evolution - particularly for the poor - is far less of a polarizing argument that conservatives and deniers can get behind. Once electric cars and other solutions become cheaper then it doesn't matter what anybody believes - they world will be on board. The result is what matters, not the details of the argument.

We need to tailor our arguments for successful outcome, not to prove points, even if they are sound. My two cents, anyway.

Edit: Oh, I forgot to ask you. Is the acidification issue something that is capable of being reversed? I don't know much about it. From there we can think about how to motivate humans to do it.

The piece being missed here is that actions speak louder than words. GW solutions have been largely about words - words spoken by governments, arguing and compromising in the field of law. Only a fraction of the planet is invested in this solution since governments make up a considerably smaller portion of the human race than the citizens of the world. Solutions are watered down disappointments of what actually needs to happen. Activists mainly target laws and legislatures to direct their proposed changes, and indict markets in the process, which then polarizes those who admire voluntary human exchange, or markets. Then those market admirers get all stupid and link the science of GW with the solutions of misguided, controlling eco warriors - cut from the same cloth as most activists that would rather convince a small group of government agents that will force the citizens to comply, rather than take their case to the citizens of the world.

The result? Not enough citizens of the world *acting* on a belief of GW. The market does not respond to words, because they are made up of the people of the world. People respond to actions. And people will always act more proficiently and promptly when they believe something than when they are forced to comply with something.

It's not rocket science. If everyone in the world literally stopped buying gasoline cars tomorrow, guess how long gasoline automobiles will continue to be made. Now compare that with how long and fruitless a legal movement involving the governments of the world would take to implement the same result. And would anyone believe that governments and legislatures wouldn't create a ton of exceptions and watered down compromises effectively leaving at least a quarter of the gasoline cars in demand?

The market will create whatever we want. We have to want it. And that means our asses have to have the same conversation our mouths are having. Hershey's doesn't pay attention to exclamations of chocolate love. It responds to sales - the act of purchasing chocolate.

Convince the citizens of the world that GW is real, and their actions will follow. While that takes time, it will take less time than convincing small groups of government ying yangs to create laws to bypass the respect of individual choice. Redirect all of that energy to your neighbors, your citizens. Change the argument to embrace freed markets, that markets are necessary for the cure, and you'll be shocked how quickly the GW deniers switch gears. And when our actions begin to follow our words, the market will transform magnificently and provide the solution far quicker.

What do you have to lose? Your government targeted solution is not happening. The fight is lost. The solutions they play around with equate to digging trenches with spoons.

But when you make statements that you would support terrorism (or you wouldn't be against it) if certain people who you feel have done you wrong were the targets...that is about as extreme and radical as you can get. I have read some fairly inflamatory ideas and remarks on this forum. But in all honesty, this is the first time I have found them to be as frightening as yours. You say nobody will die by your hand, but your previous comments suggest that you would be fine if others did die, if it furthered your ideology. That's messed up! There are some clerics in Iran and Taliban leaders elsewhere that share your approach. They preach and applaud death to "infadels", but will claim to have no blood on their hands.

Not to further my ideology, that isn't personal enough. This is about personal resentment, not ideology. Because I don't actually promote ideology as much as I promote tolerance to ideology. I'm about everybody getting their way. I'm not about picking and choosing which way is correct, and then making everybody do it. I resent that.

Politics is not a game to me. It effects my life. The qualify of my life is greatly deteriorated by the controlling choices of my countrymen. They have set up so many rules and stuctures that anyone who thinks the least bit differently than the majority just can't freaking move. I can't do anything without bumping into some law, some bullshit screwing up my idea, trying to force me to be another sheep...an american widget.

I have to waste a lot of time, a lot of money, and lot of anger and resentment to live how I want. And I haven't succeeded.

An example I've used before is retirement. My idea of retirement is different than the mainstream. My idea of retirement is not about saving gobs and gobs of cash and hoping I don't die before I plow through it, eating up resources at break-neck speed. Rather, my idea of retirement is focusing on more self sustaining solutions, resource conservation and etc...so I don't need gobs and gobs of cash.

But paying into social security removes money that could have been used for solar panels. Could have been used to help build and pay for my modest ICF home, perhaps built into a hill, or bermed up nice. Could have been used to drill a well, or develop some small plot of land for agriculture, raising cows, or etc. It could have been used for more permanent, efficient retirement solutions.

But I don't get to do that. I have to participate in social security, divert money from solutions I find more appealing, in place of solutions that are almost antithetical to my entire beliefs. That divertion of money is very real. I feel it every paycheck. That could have been a land payment, on the way to achieving my idea of retirement.

I have to waste a lot of time, a lot of money, and lot of anger and resentment overcoming your ideas for my life to achieve my ideas for my life. I find that very extreme. And even moreso if you expect me to do it without being mad.