> In my opinion, depriving you of the freedom to live in a non-ruined environment is a much more fundamental lack of freedom than the choices you are talking about being restricted.
You're assuming that the restrictions will make a difference between ruined and non-ruined. I disagree.
I have good company. Even the AGW advocates pushing the restrictions admit that the proposed restrictions won't have that effect.
Even if you believe in AGW, why do you support restrictions that do nothing to address it? More to the point, shouldn't you actually oppose such restrictions because they cost money that might be used to fight AGW?
Yes, I'm serious. Look at what the folks pushing the restrictions have predicted about the effects of said restrictions. They've predicted no benefit.[1] If you're assuming that those predictions are wrong, why?
> But attempting to include the scientists who have reached a conclusion based on scientific results among them helps no one.
Which scientists are you referring to?
Note that most of the "scientists" who have weighed in actually haven't looked at data.
[1] Yes, those advocates have also predicted that AGW will have huge costs. My point is that the proposed restrictions won't reduce those costs.
You're assuming that the restrictions will make a difference between ruined and non-ruined. I disagree.
I have good company. Even the AGW advocates pushing the restrictions admit that the proposed restrictions won't have that effect.
Even if you believe in AGW, why do you support restrictions that do nothing to address it? More to the point, shouldn't you actually oppose such restrictions because they cost money that might be used to fight AGW?
Yes, I'm serious. Look at what the folks pushing the restrictions have predicted about the effects of said restrictions. They've predicted no benefit.[1] If you're assuming that those predictions are wrong, why?
> But attempting to include the scientists who have reached a conclusion based on scientific results among them helps no one.
Which scientists are you referring to?
Note that most of the "scientists" who have weighed in actually haven't looked at data.
[1] Yes, those advocates have also predicted that AGW will have huge costs. My point is that the proposed restrictions won't reduce those costs.