Climate activists climb, superglue themselves to globe at Universal Studios

What kind of fantasy land do you live in? China is producing more CO2 than the US and Europe COMBINED! In a decade India will pass up America as well. Any cuts made to American CO2 production will be dwarfed by massive increases in those two countries.

PS: If you think that the Chinese have anything other than utter contempt and disgust for the "white left", you haven't been paying attention. The opinion of American liberals has less than 0 influence on them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baizuo

Be rational dude and SPECIFICALLY name the consequences of global warming using peer reviewed papers. This is something you guys never do.... you just chicken little (kind of like I do with Muslim immigration).

 

We didn't choose it either, not on this continent. There's a reason I referred to it as an oxymoron in my first post. It is. Libertarians want even less government control than I do.

Put it this back in the day young kids used to be given list of words from which they were to choose the one that did not belong. If the list contained the words freedom, libertarianism, and paternalism, the last would be the one logical people would say didn't belong.

 

Actually you did. It was coined by American economist and published in the American Economic Review.

Amuses me that you're whinging about the vocab and ignoring its market orientated nature, particularly in contrast to radical economic alternatives.

 

When you call something paternalistic that is in every way the antithesis of paternalistic expect be called on it. Oh and name the economist.

 

Thaler. Nobel prize winner

 

On my local news, they showed some of those nut bags with a sign pasted to the glass, "hands super glued to pane" I do not have proof they were glued but proof of the signs.

 

First, Thaler is a right winger to the same extent you are a bowl of tomato soup.

Second he believes people need to be nudged to make the sort of decision he thinks they. That is the very soul of paternalism but it isn't the least bit libertarian.

 

He's a behaviourist. I said his analysis was taken up by right wingers as it offers an approach based on maintaining market forces, rather than adopting government direct control. Stop asking for repetition.

 

This man.

 

Name one.

 

One what? Be more precise.

 

One right winger that adopted that terminology on this side of the Atlantic

 

I'm really not interested in your vocab whine. As I said, its amusing that right wingers ignore market based analysis that is seen as restricting the role of public sector regulation. As I said, the point is that right wingers- ignorant of this type of analysis- are typically drawn to the childish or the churlish.

 

“... I didn’t know birds like human eyeballs mommy.”

 

So you don't know of any right wingers used the oxy moron thought not.

 

Thanks for helping to prove my point!

 

What point? That you can't back up your assertions?

 

That right wingers aren't aware of market based analysis that argues freedom of choice can pro-trump government regulation. Loved how you pretended otherwise, given I've repeatedly referred to the knowledge deficiency.

 

Strawman.

 

A poor effort! I've made it clear again after again. The approach provides a means to argue that government regulation can be avoided. Right wingers, ignoring such analysis because it uses the word paternalism, are effectively empowering the regulation argument. They're increasingly forced towards ludicrous arguments such as climate change denial.

Of course it may be that they aren't really interested in freedom of choice. It may be that they aren't actually interested in market based argument. They might just be corrupted by authoritarianism, as suggested by the psychologists.

 

That's never been my argument. I am quite well aware that right wingers prefer less regulation the argument is that characterizing less regulation as 'paternalist libertarianism is an affront to the English language and an assault upon common sense whoever coined the term.

 

Actually it has been your argument. You weren't aware of libertarian paternalism. When informed of it, you just whinged about the vocab.

The source of the knowledge deficiency is an interesting line on enquiry. You get endogeneity in the climate denier. Some are just classic anti-science. They're going to go with denial, no matter the evidence. Its ultimately a form of cognitive dissonance, with information sources selected to maintain a backward understanding. However, there are also those just gagging to go with "its supply and demand ain't it" classic market cheering. Without any understanding of the different debates, including libertarian paternalism, they're then forced to downplay the problem.

 

It does flat line the economy thereby slowing carbon emissions.

 

No evidence that pigovian tax flat line the economy. Effects are marginal, obviously.

 

The problem was the oxymoron from the beginning, as I have alluded to in every damn post. It is your propensity to substitute jargon for actual critical thought that is at issue here. For instance the term climate denier is absurd on its face, as no one denies there is climate the argument is over how much if any man contributes to warming and how much of that is owed to a 1 part per ten thousand increase in CO2 in the last hundred years.