Actually, my brief experience with Deltoid is that spending time there can be very informative. I don’t spend enough time there, and if you think this movie is accurate, or good, and not a bad-piece-of-meat hack propaganda, you should spend more time at Deltoid, too.

spending too much time at Deltoid makes to say very, very stupid things.

They producers have already received over $1 million USD to promote this film, and are very interested in promoting this film in Australia, and working with interested parties to organise some special screenings and so on.

Lord Monckton wonders, ‘Where do they get this money? From foreign governments? I don’t know, but certainly someone should be investigating them.’

Speaking of buses, it seems a bus hit the viewer who was going to see this film in New York. He didn’t show up at the theatre.

And are you talking about death resulting from climate change only? Or all the potential negative outcomes that could result from it? Remembering as well that as a good moral entity I strive to ensure positive outcomes for everyone, not just myself.

I know your response wasn’t intended to be entirely serious. But I’m just wondering if there is a need for voluntary action on climate change or if we should be sceptical of acting at all.

Reminds me of VHEMT… http://www.vhemt.org/ But what they are doing is voluntary.

The global warming movement, as far as it is wrong, is also evil, however. Evil, to me, is the conscious and voluntary use of action to ensure anti-utilitarian outcomes. If they are wrong they are most definitely evil. Especially since they use government to push their way of living on others.

Of course I’m not sure of the science- I’ve given up on that debate. But the movie definitely seems to have some really good points. The environmental movement is always going to be about tradeoffs- we need to look at whether or not those tradeoffs are worth it. But also we can’t be blind to the costs and gains of either side. Yes some people may lose their jobs if carbon is heavily taxed or traded. But that will force market distortion and the creation of new jobs in renewable industries.

It’s a tradeoff, though. And I don’t possess the necessary foresight to predict what is better. I don’t think anyone does. I think it’s largely guess work. I can’t think of a way individual action could answer the AGW question either way, though. Nations, countries and societies as a whole need to take the plunge and follow the guess in either direction. Either do regulate carbon or don’t. Either way the potential costs are huge. Perhaps individuals should just be able to vote with their dollars in a free market? But that still doesn’t answer what we as individuals should be doing….

Let’s ignore government for a moment and let me ask you- what should I, Shem, do about climate change? Assume that my action is replicated by the rest of the world, or at least the majority. Assume that it’s voluntary. What is “right”? Not just “should government force ‘right’ on people?”

http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/05/12/climate-change-movies/