When the people turn to the government, and ask what it is going to do....

the Government says TAX! TAX TAX TAX!

As if a tax ever solved anything except impoverishing those who cannot afford the lawyers to defeat it, and the money to move where the tax isn't.

When I hear a reasonable solution that applies fairly upon the corporations ONLY, THEN we can have a reasonable talk about whether it is even remotely possible for Man to control Nature.

There has been numerous studies that show many people won't alter their beliefs that they have held.

http://www.care2.com/causes/new-study-says-facts-dont-matter-when-it-comes-to-politics.html

Last edited Sun Feb 1, 2015, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)

And I thought that this was going to be a serious post about the difference between people who think that what matters is empirical evidence and people who think that what matters is what percentage experts believe a particular thing...

..............what is rent seeking?..............
an example.
in the year 1200, a feudal landlord owns property
that includes a part of a navigable river.
One day, the landlord puts a chain across the river,
and charges a toll to raise the chain.
The landlord is charging for something
that was formerly free.
............................
It would be helpful if the environmental-movement
would stop trying to take other people's money.

Legal vs. illegal is easy, but justice is much more in the eye of the beholder.

perhaps discussing some examples would help.

is it unjust enrichment when somebody
who feasts on Wagyu Beef,
wags his finger at me and tells me
that the electricity I need for summer A/C
uses too much carbon?

how about when somebody who flies around
in a Falcon50, sets up a business,
then uses his influence as a former elected
official to try to get that business
designated as the arbiter of carbon-offset claims.

how about when.(2009 Copenhagen)
the presidents of 4 S.American countries have a
meeting. The only item on the agenda
is how to get as much money as possible from
the United States.

The OP article makes a good point:
> You have to understand that in America there are two different types of science.
> There’s science that is profitable for corporations, which is good and
> righteous and rock solid. That’s the Smartphone, the water heater, the GPS,
> the 700 channels on the 62 inch flat screen, the boner pills, and so on and
> so on. And then there’s the science that costs corporations money, which is
> fraudulent, con-artist mumbo jumbo. Under that second definition are things
> like climatology, pollution measurements, oceanography, and other disciplines
> that might fuck up the profit margins of energy producers and manufacturers.

Every day of delay means more profit and less time to remediate damage.

The unfortunate result is that the pro-corporate trolls *always* turn up to support
the anti-science agenda (hello .3 & .4).