Leaderboard

You are talking about fiat currency. This topic is about Fractional Reserve Banking. It is *not* a discussion on fiat currency. Nobody here would support the notion of a fiat currency. So, as usual, you're simply arguing against a strawman: an argument that nobody has ever made here.

But they are the trapppings of power this republic adopted , from the very government with which it broke. Off with their robes!!

I'm not so sure this is donations/private industry solutions issue. If I were an aspiring climatological engineer, and got the donations to build, say, a high-altitude sulfur ion dispensing rocket (one solution already proposed, to spur cloud formation and thus increase albedo), would you be okay with me firin' that sucker up, and tryin' her out? What if I sent it up and somehow managed to create a superstorm that swept into Southern Cal and killed 100,000 people? (Okay, maybe a bad example) I think an argument exists to regulate any attempts to affect weather until simulations can be run, and small scale experiments set up. The introduction of controlled inputs to the Earth's atmosphere would take our climate models out of the reactive phase, and into the proactive. This implies a gov't role, and properly so, since destructive weather, although unintentional, must be regarded as a use of force against fellow citizens without their consent. But, yes, I agree that man is the proper solvent for such a problem. The question is an interesting one, because it leads us naturally to the more general question: If warming was shown be as serious a threat as Algore claims in his schlockumockery, should we only act if it's found that man caused it? Are we willing to see Northern Europe and most of North America glaciate for the sake of preserving Mother Nature's will? The Algores of the world seem to be saying that if it's man's fault, we should place our minds on the sacrificial altar, rather than address the problem rationally. But, if it's nature's fault, then that's just hunky-dory, and we all just have to live with it. I reject both propositions, and, if GW turns out to be a serious threat, regardless of its cause, I see this as a tremendous opportunity to finally tame one of the most unpredictable forces of nature using our rational minds. The knowledge gained would likely lead to innumerable new opportunities to expand the creative and productive potential of man.

Kabana, Firstly, you did not address my point, which was: you think scientists are easily fooled, but you think they ought to decide what our laws should be. More importantly, as pointed out in the post by Marc K. quoting RadCap, it dosen't matter... either way, men should be free to produce.