Thread: Ipcc And United Nations: Climate Crisis

Were all doomed!

Also onus in a earlier post you said their was no differences between a dream brain scan and a lucid dream brain scan. Seriously i asked for links and you gave me none, after i have searched but have found nothing can you pleese provide me with links. Also on your brain explain thing in tutorial pleese take out left/right brain rubbish as it not true common about 80% of neurologist will agree. Also make sure you put in their that we dream even in non rem but their near impossible to remeber.

Concensus... yeah. That's the scientific ticket. Never mind observation, description, prediction, control, falsifiability and causal explanation. Who needs science when we can have DEMOCRACY?

That's why the founding fathers of the US did not intend to create a democracy. People are lemmings. Just ask the lone sheep living in the wolf's democracy - if you can find it.

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

Were all doomed!

Also onus in a earlier post you said their was no differences between a dream brain scan and a lucid dream brain scan. Seriously i asked for links and you gave me none, after i have searched but have found nothing can you pleese provide me with links. Also on your brain explain thing in tutorial pleese take out left/right brain rubbish as it not true common about 80% of neurologist will agree. Also make sure you put in their that we dream even in non rem but their near impossible to remeber.
[/b]

While I appreciate you taking the time to read and offer criticism for my posts (even though this is digressive from the topic at hand), I ask that you please thoroughly read articles with great length like my FAQ, before you offer criticsm. Why:

What are you talking about - "dream brain scan and a lucid dream brain scan"?

As for the left/right brain - please continue to read on below and you will find that I say:

My point in all of this was to state that the hemisphere's are both equally responsible for dreaming and brain processing.

The aforementioned functions of the left/right brain are general functions. Those functions have higher correlated activity in the concordent lobe of the brain. Of course, it would be completely fallacious to assert that that means they are solely responsible for those functions. This would be the same logic as saying, "I use my right are to do most things in life.. therefore, I use my right arm to do everything in life."

NRem dreams I can add a bit about. However, I must say I did not think anyone would have picked that out of my FAQ.. lol.

Back to the topic at hand...

~

Well Jesus might save us when he comes in the second coming

Back to the topic at hand...[/b]

I read a focus comments on global warming. Well they were saying that solving the problem of global warming would put more money into our economy and make us richer like how the war made america strong after the collaspe. They also commented about how the negative image of global warming is actaully more worse then good. It the truth that global warming will get really worse intill it solved and that because the most powerful man is a moron. Also they listen to much to oil tycons like how they got rid of the electrick car.

Originally Posted by pj

Concensus... yeah. That's the scientific ticket. Never mind observation, description, prediction, control, falsifiability and causal explanation. Who needs science when we can have DEMOCRACY?

That's why the founding fathers of the US did not intend to create a democracy. People are lemmings. Just ask the lone sheep living in the wolf's democracy - if you can find it.
[/b]

The concensus is based entirely upon scientific observation.

Even if they did not - all countries agree that there is a climate problem - now the issue is what to do.

Expect to find media skeptics decrtified when they argue these factors as there are now policies set in motion to restrict media flow of information so as to not cloud public information about these matters. You want to know the truth, don't you? I certainly do not want to see anyone else misled about these matters by journalists and news-reporters who have no scientific basis whatsoever.

~

Expect to find media skeptics decrtified when they argue these factors as there are now policies set in motion to restrict media flow of information so as to not cloud public information about these matters. You want to know the truth, don't you? I certainly do not want to see anyone else misled about these matters by journalists and news-reporters who have no scientific basis whatsoever.[/b]

Do people actually pay interest to the news now. Also i bet they find time to talk about celebrity crap.

Originally Posted by pj

Concensus... yeah. That's the scientific ticket. Never mind observation, description, prediction, control, falsifiability and causal explanation. Who needs science when we can have DEMOCRACY?

That's why the founding fathers of the US did not intend to create a democracy. People are lemmings. Just ask the lone sheep living in the wolf's democracy - if you can find it.
[/b]

I have alot of respect for this man.

Here's a GREAT read from the Cato Institute, for some perspective:

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

This isn't a hack piece or the work of a political ideologue. If you REALLY want to understand what is being argued, please take the time to read.

I'm telling you... this "consensus" has nothing to do with global warming or any benevolent effort to "save the world." It is all about curtailing liberty and the accumulation of power for those who would be gods. It is an opportunity for opportunists.

All you know is what you've been told... and what you are told is carefully controlled.
--
Excerpt:

While there is nothing wrong in using those models in an experimental mode, there is a real dilemma when they predict potentially dangerous situations. Should scientists publicize such predictions since the models are almost certainly wrong? Is it proper to not publicize the predictions if the predicted danger is serious? How is the public to respond to such predictions? The difficulty would be diminished if the public understood how poor the models actually are. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to hold in awe anything that emerges from a sufficiently large computer. There is also a reluctance on the part of many modellers to admit to the experimental nature of their models lest public support for their efforts diminish. Nevertheless, with poor and uncertain models in wide use, predictions of ominous situations are virtually inevitable--regardless of reality.

Such weak predictions feed and contribute to what I have already described as a societal instability that can cascade the most questionable suggestions of danger into major political responses with massive economic and social consequences. I have already discussed some of the reasons for this instability: the existence of large cadres of professional planners looking for work, the existence of advocacy groups looking for profitable causes, the existence of agendas in search of saleable rationales, and the ability of many industries to profit from regulation, coupled with an effective neutralization of opposition. It goes almost without saying that the dangers and costs of those economic and social consequences may be far greater than the original environmental danger. That becomes especially true when the benefits of additional knowledge are rejected and when it is forgotten that improved technology and increased societal wealth are what allow society to deal with environmental threats most effectively. The control of societal instability may very well be the real challenge facing us. [/b]

Originally Posted by pj

Here's a GREAT read from the Cato Institute, for some perspective:

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

This isn't a hack piece or the work of a political ideologue. If you REALLY want to understand what is being argued, please take the time to read.

I'm telling you... this "consensus" has nothing to do with global warming or any benevolent effort to "save the world." It is all about curtailing liberty and the accumulation of power for those who would be gods. It is an opportunity for opportunists.

All you know is what you've been told... and what you are told is carefully controlled.
--
Excerpt:
[/b]

I will take the time to thoroughly read this article later today. I first want to make a quick response to this post:

First and foremost - this article is 15 years old - it is dated on 1992. While I agree with a lot of the arguments and speculations, there is 15 years worth of data to consider now.

Secondly, what is wrong with taking action to prevent global warming? How does excusing it off benefit you? Why deny the idea of a climate crisis? Please present to me 'benefits' or reasons that not taking actions to deter global warming would be of more utility than taking actions.

~

Originally Posted by O

Secondly, what is wrong with taking action to prevent global warming? How does excusing it off benefit you? Why deny the idea of a climate crisis? Please present to me 'benefits' or reasons that not taking actions to deter global warming would be of more utility than taking actions.

~
[/b]

What is wrong with it is really very simple: Almost every human activity produces carbon dioxide. EVERY "solution" to this "crisis" involves empowering one agency or another with the power to control, regulate, tax or otherwise intervene in the production of carbon dioxide, which translates quite literally to granting one agency or another even more control over every aspect of life and liberty.

Yes, the article is 15 years old. That fact makes it all the more relevant today, as it was less clouded by the political and economic machine that has since been constructed around this opportunity.

Oceanic sub-surface temperatures are dropping right now. There is a growing body of scientists - whose views are most conveniently not being reported in the mainstream - who believe we will be sinking into another mini ice age similar to the one that occurred in th 1600's again in the next decade or so. There is a growing number of studies from major universities and other institutions - whose findings are most conveniently not being reported in the mainstream (detecting a theme here yet?) - demonstrating striking correlations between the earth's carbon dioxide levels and temperature with solar activity and interstellar ionic particle blasts. There is a direct correlation - which isn't being reported in the mainstream - between the temperature and atmospheric changes going on on the earth and on Mars.

You might also want to take the time to explore, via USGS sources, how much CO2 major volcanic eruptions inject into the atmosphere... and compare that number to human production.

Sell yourself into slavery over this if you really feel you must, but don't expect me to surrender my liberty so quickly.

Originally Posted by pj

What is wrong with it is really very simple: Almost every human activity produces carbon dioxide. EVERY "solution" to this "crisis" involves empowering one agency or another with the power to control, regulate, tax or otherwise intervene in the production of carbon dioxide, which translates quite literally to granting one agency or another even more control over every aspect of life and liberty.

Yes, the article is 15 years old. That fact makes it all the more relevant today, as it was less clouded by the political and economic machine that has since been constructed around this opportunity.

Oceanic sub-surface temperatures are dropping right now. There is a growing body of scientists - whose views are most conveniently not being reported in the mainstream - who believe we will be sinking into another mini ice age similar to the one that occurred in th 1600's again in the next decade or so. There is a growing number of studies - whose findings are most conveniently not being reported in the mainstream (detecting a theme here yet?) - who are demonstrating striking correlations between the earth's carbon dioxide levels and temperature with solar activity and interstellar ionic particle blasts. There is a direct correlation - which isn't being reported in the mainstream - between the temperature and atmospheric changes going on on the earth and on Mars.

You might also want to take the time to explore, via USGS sources, how much CO2 major volcanic eruptions inject into the atmosphere... and compare that number to human production.

Sell yourself into slavery over this if you really feel you must, but don't expect me to surrender my liberty so quickly.
[/b]

This is where I must ask - what should be done then? You do not deny that there is a climate crisis, right? What do you propose should be done to help the situation?

~

Originally Posted by O

This is where I must ask - what should be done then? You do not deny that there is a climate crisis, right? What do you propose should be done to help the situation?

~
[/b]

What have we done for the other "climate crises"? How did we stop the Big Freeze that we were all told was going to happen in the early 70's? How did we fix the mini ice age that occurred in the middle ages?

What CAN humans do? Have you reviewed the UN's own revised (within the past two weeks) expectations of what will happen if we do or don't do anything - and compared that to the costs involved?

I am not so arrogant to believe that we humans CAN do anything. Nothing I've seen or am seeing convinces me that anything is going on we can ever hope to influence in any way at all. Nor am I a person who believes I have any claim to your life or anybody else's, for this cause or any other. I refuse to use the present hysteria to enslave you.

So what should be done? Let's start with divorcing scientific process and methods from the political machines they are beholden to. Let's stop accepting every easily accessible "fact" as gospel. Let's stop mistaking consensus for reality.

Let's start opening our eyes and minds to the absolute fact that there is a group of people in this world who believe they can run our lives better than we can - and that they believe they have some kind of ordained right or destiny to do so.

That's a start.

It's nature's way of telling you
Soon we'll freeze...
It's nature's way of telling you
Dying trees...[/b]

exerpt from "Nature's Way", by Spirit - 1970

You make good points - I like them. In no way should this crisis be utilized for dictative means. I would hope that the entire UN has no intention of this. If they do, there is little we can even do about that - no matter what excuse they use - it is every nation.

I must say that it is not a fair comparison to compare this crisis to the middle ages ice age or the potential ice age we heard about in earlier days. That mundane rebuttle aside, I must make a more important rebuttle:

From what I understand, you are saying that we should not dictate a method to try and solve this. Also, you infer that there is not even a point to trying. This here really disheartens me to think that many people will not even try to help the situation because of their apathy.

Consider this:
- People were told many many times that drinking is bad for you and kills you. The government even introduced prohibition. Did that help? No - it made it worse.
- People are getting fatter and fatter - are people getting more exercise even though they are being told that they should? No.
- Smokers continue to smoke no matter how many advertisements and research go into how wrong it is.
- STD's have only been increasing and developing regardless of safe-sex education.
- People still drink and drive regardless that there is a plethora of evidence and statistics for the dangerous nature of doing so.

People will continue to do things even if they think it is bad for them. People will continue to do things even if the government takes a dictative stance. What must happen? Perhaps a review of the culture and economy within - why are people inclined to use antagonistic energies rather than energy-conservative? Perhaps we need sociologists and social psychologists involved in the process to determine the best means to bring about change.

With the type of logic I constantly hear against global warming preventive methods inclines me to believe that the following will most likely happen - people will be told what they are doing is bad for the environment, but they will continue to do so anyway! It does not even matter! So what has to be done is to focus on why people choose to do those certain things and offer incentives to energy efficient means, not just plain beating it into your head not to do something. Does this require dictative measures? Perhaps - the onus is on us humans to take some initiative, to take some responsibility for the enormous amount of crap we produce every year, every day! What has been offered as an alternative? "It's natural, the planet will adapt along with us. Be skeptic about those scientists because they are most likely utilizing these issues for glory." Tell me - if the government goes about and initiates an environmental action plan which offers greater incentives for environmentally safe products, cars, food, etc. what is the wrong in that? How do you lose? What is the ethical and moral evil in this?

How many people do you see going about picking up garbage?

What will it take for you to take actions to prevent global warming and a climate crisis? Must we wait for an ice-age for the skeptics to go, "Oh shit, yeah you were right"? Must we wait for global deaths to change your mind? And why debate it? Because your cautious that the government will become dictative and control what you do and cannot do?

Frankly, I am glad that people are arrested and fined for driving drunk. Time to do the same for the people doing this to our own damn planet.

~

I found this interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/con...e.ap/index.html

You are one who would entrust the government with your best interests. You are willing to trust your life and well being to... them. You believe the answer to the human condition is government - which only gains and holds power through confiscation of property and curtailment of liberty.

I am one who views the government - ALL government - as utterly corrupt and untrustworthy. I believe the answer to the human condition is individual liberty and individual responsibility.

That, in a nutshell, the key difference between our points of view. You are a willing slave. I'm not. There is no common ground to be found here.

Originally Posted by pj

You are one who would entrust the government with your best interests. You are willing to trust your life and well being to... them. You believe the answer to the human condition is government - which only gains and holds power through confiscation of property and curtailment of liberty.

I am one who views the government - ALL government - as utterly corrupt and untrustworthy. I believe the answer to the human condition is individual liberty and individual responsibility.

That, in a nutshell, the key difference between our points of view. You are a willing slave. I'm not. There is no common ground to be found here.
[/b]

This is disheartening. Firstly, you know as well as anyone else that no one is willing to be a slave.

Let us find common ground - it may possibly emulate what the UN is hoping to accomplish.

Considering your rationale, it leads to a communistic world. Unforunately, the countries we live in are not communistic. The logic behind your posts truly lead to a universally independent world where there is not dictatorship and no governing party.

Of course, I do not think you want this either.

What must happen? There must be precautions in place for these governing parties and their ordinates. We must have many people involved - everyone, preferably. But how? This is where the political debates come, right? Representatives.. voting.. etc. Find a reliable way to control a populus and you will have solved a debate that has been lasting as long as humans have been.

On the plus side, we do have a concensus in the UN. Speculations aside, there is a consensus. I am sure that you hope, as much as I do, that the UN's plan of action is reponsible and respective to our freedom of life of freedom of will. How can we be sure of this though..? I wish I knew.

What do you think..?

~

US and Australia, get on track!
Sign and hold to the Kyoto Acoord, a small step in the grand scheme of ...well...continued existence of life into the future generations!

If not...
I say the rest of the world band together and declare WAR on these

ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!

Hey if its good enough for Bush....

Originally Posted by Conforming

US and Australia, get on track!
Sign and hold to the Kyoto Acoord, a small step in the grand scheme of ...well...continued existence of life into the future generations!

If not...
I say the rest of the world band together and declare WAR on these

ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!

Hey if its good enough for Bush....
[/b]

What is sad is that I can easily see a politician saying this...

~

Originally Posted by pj

I am one who views the government - ALL government - as utterly corrupt and untrustworthy. I believe the answer to the human condition is individual liberty and individual responsibility.
[/b]

pj, aren't corporations corrupt and untrustworthy too? Wouldn't the rights that would curtailed be mostly those of big corporations that could care less about the environment and anything but making money? (Yes there would probably be some individual financial sacrifice too, but people spend more on bottled water than gasoline so I think we could handle it.) A corporation is not the same as an individual when it comes to liberty (and there shouldn't be a corporate shield when it comes to responsibility). Even assuming the chance of global warming is not likely, how could it be bad to 1)reduce pollution, 2)find alternative energy sources for those that are finite or destructive like coal-mining, and 3)get the US free of dependence on middle-eastern psychopathic fundamentalists? Unless somebody actually believes that the oil is continually replacing itself from below (and I've met educated people who think that this is true), the way we are living is obviously not sustainable. Great for a few people now, not so good for the kids. I don't understand why people now aren't willing to sacrifice a little so the world doesn't totally suck for future generations.

Seriously, I want to know why a reasonable person such as youself would be against making multinational oil companies a little less incredibly wealthy, if only as insurance. What am I missing?

P.S. I liked your Spirit quote--don't hear them very often anymore! I saw them a long time ago, I think they opened up for Steppenwolf.

Even assuming the chance of global warming is not likely, how could it be bad to 1)reduce pollution, 2)find alternative energy sources for those that are finite or destructive like coal-mining, and 3)get the US free of dependence on middle-eastern psychopathic fundamentalists? Unless somebody actually believes that the oil is continually replacing itself from below (and I've met educated people who think that this is true), the way we are living is obviously not sustainable. Great for a few people now, not so good for the kids. I don't understand why people now aren't willing to sacrifice a little so the world doesn't totally suck for future generations. [/b]

exactly!

personally i have not yet made a decision about global warming, as i haven't researched it nearly enough yet. it could very well be a "conspiracy" by the political elites, but that doesn't seem very likely, as their power is inexorably tied in with that of transnational corporations (including oil of course).

but that is irrelevant. oil itself, though incredibly useful, is incredibly dirty. i don't want the next generation to be a slave to it.

if "global warming" policies target fossil fuel pollution, even by means of deceit, i'm all for it...

seems like a win-win.

hang on, is it just me or is there plently of literature out there showing that this is one of the COLDEST times in the history of the world? Not just human civilization.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

pj, aren't corporations corrupt and untrustworthy too? Wouldn't the rights that would curtailed be mostly those of big corporations that could care less about the environment and anything but making money? (Yes there would probably be some individual financial sacrifice too, but people spend more on bottled water than gasoline so I think we could handle it.) A corporation is not the same as an individual when it comes to liberty (and there shouldn't be a corporate shield when it comes to responsibility). Even assuming the chance of global warming is not likely, how could it be bad to 1)reduce pollution, 2)find alternative energy sources for those that are finite or destructive like coal-mining, and 3)get the US free of dependence on middle-eastern psychopathic fundamentalists? Unless somebody actually believes that the oil is continually replacing itself from below (and I've met educated people who think that this is true), the way we are living is obviously not sustainable. Great for a few people now, not so good for the kids. I don't understand why people now aren't willing to sacrifice a little so the world doesn't totally suck for future generations.

Seriously, I want to know why a reasonable person such as youself would be against making multinational oil companies a little less incredibly wealthy, if only as insurance. What am I missing?

P.S. I liked your Spirit quote--don't hear them very often anymore! I saw them a long time ago, I think they opened up for Steppenwolf.
[/b]

Wow... where to start on this? In five minutes, I can't get too far... but all questions are worthy of being addressed. (I decided to avoid this thread until after the grand release of the UN report summary. Now that I know we're all gonna die and we can't do anything about it, it seems safe to tread these not so icy waters. I've also been wildly busy and will continue to be so for a few more days. Business is good - and that's a wonderful thing&#33

The key to answering your very complicated question goes back to where the authority lies. Who is going to decide that it isn't OK for oil companies to be making a 7.9 to 8.6 percent profit margin - or that it is ok for Microsoft to be making 35%+ profit margin? Where are we going to invest that authority? In government??? As we move forward into an economy ever more dependent on energy sources, why would we want to PUNISH and make more expensive these company's ability to do business? What if my little one man operation started turning a 35% profit margin? Should government step in and start punishing me for creating that much wealth? (35% of little is still little, of course... but still.)

It is key to remember who owns these publicly-owned companies too. Who owns these stocks?

Also - why were and are the governments and these huge corporations playing games together at all? These "tax breaks" that are going to be repealed - why were they implemented in the first place? The answer, plain and simple, is government corruption.

It all comes down to who owns us, Moonbeam. We the People own these corporations. Anybody who has an investment account or retirement fund owns these companies. I do not believe governments are worthy of having their fingers in any of my pies. I also don't believe that government is going to ever solve anything - even if there really IS a "climate crisis." They will capitalize on it, indeed... as they always do. Solving it would end up being detrimental to their ends - which are to accumulate and hold wealth and power.

*sigh* I'm out of time. In the meantime, the following compilation of headlines (courtesy of James P. Hogan,) is kind of fun to read and helps put things in perspective:
--
GLOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s

The Times, February 24, 1895
"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again"
Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate.

New York Times, October 7, 1912
"Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age"

Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
"The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak."

Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923
"Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."

Time Magazine, September 10, 1923
"The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."

New York Times, September 18, 1924
"MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s

New York Times, March 27, 1933
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise"

Time Magazine, January 2, 1939
"Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.

New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.

U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
"[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."

GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974
"Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect"
Reported that "glaciers have begun to advance"; "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter"; and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool".

Science News, March 1, 1975
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."

International Wildlife, July-August, 1975
"But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime."

New York Times, May 21, 1975
"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?

Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992
"About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades."

Time Magazine, April 19, 2001
"[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."

New York Times, December 27, 2005
"Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming"

The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006
"Billions will die, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a 'broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,' and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive."

really now.
http://www.lezh.com/globaltemp.gif

Thanks for taking the time to answer, pj. Friday! Hope your weekend slows down.

Originally Posted by pj

It is key to remember who owns these publicly-owned companies too. Who owns these stocks?
[/b]

I guess I feel like the people have as much control over corporations just because they have a mutual fund or some shares as they do over the government.

Originally Posted by pj

Also - why were and are the governments and these huge corporations playing games together at all? These "tax breaks" that are going to be repealed - why were they implemented in the first place? The answer, plain and simple, is government corruption.
[/b]

I think it is because they are run by the same people, jobs titles just change as they switch from private to public and back again.

Huge corporations are not people and do not deserve the rights and freedoms of an individual in my opinion. I don't think that exercising some control over these corporations that now have massive power and influence and the ability to damage so much is anti-freedom. They'll still find a way to make a profit I bet. I just can't see how erring on the side of safety while we still can is a bad thing.

You're right, I should tear up my Libertarian Party card. Guess I'll have to become an anarchist... they're so annoying tho, so disorganized and always complaining.