[NeonSamurai]

I am only going to comment on a few things that really stuck out for me in your argument Haplo.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

"By explaining the thinking process (or lack thereof) behind the deniers of climate change, and pointing out how they simply are too caught up in their own selfishness or fear of change, those of us who embrace the problems can feel self righteous and intellectually superior. This allows us to also set aside any argument or fact from those nay sayers, as their error in thinking already shows any point they make that we don't like are irrelevant."

Honestly I have yet to see any compelling evidence from the "deniers" side as you put it, that overwhelms all the evidence in support of man made climate change. Sure there are a few anomalies here and there, there always are. But the vast majority of evidence supports the theory of man made climate change. This is the key thing, as science goes by where the bulk of the evidence is, pseudo science however cherry picks a few arguments that appear to disprove the theory, and tries to present them as theory breakers. It doesn't work that way though, as science will forever be imperfect, and there will always be anomalies. Anomalies don't in of themselves disprove a theory, but they may point to some flaws which may later be overcome by improving the theory, or creating a new one which accounts for the anomalies along with everything before.

Another key thing is that most of the world's scientific community supports the theory. Yes there are scientists who do not agree, but again there always will be (there are scientists who disagree with the theory of gravity too). It is however usually telling when there is a majority consensus in the scientific community.

We could talk about the supposed falsification of data. But I have yet to see any evidence that it has happened to any great degree. I have seen one big smokescreen being thrown up by certain media people over it, consisting of misinterpretation, misquoting (out of context), etc. but I have yet to see anything that is truly damning. Perhaps though the investigation will turn up some misconduct, as I'm sure it happens. After all science is a human endeavor, and humans are flawed beings.

If you like though, we can start a new topic on the subject (I can hear the groans already ) and I will, time permitting, try to address any evidence you care to provide.

Not all human behavior is egotistical. On the contrary, humanity has shown itself to be capable of extremes - both in selfishness and in selflessness. While our nature may be one of selfishness, our intellect allows us to act beyond that nature. From the person who puts themselves at risk for another, to the sacrifice every parent makes for their child when they could easily just say no, humanity as a whole often acts unselfishly - whether those acts are rational or not. Its also telling that the premise attempts to equate individuality and self determination with being "egotistical" - since an individual would "assess if own standards shall bow to standards of others". If it were not for the "egotism" of those who, individually, made decisions to rise against the injustice of the standards of others - the entire world would be still be supportive and accepting of such acts like slavery, women as property, etc.

Well there are some major social psychology and sociology theories that totally disagree with your claim. They actually ascribe all social actions that appear to be altruistic on the surface, to actually be egotistically motivated. One theory is that we do altruistic things to feel good about ourselves, which implies that the motivation behind the altruistic action is in fact self serving (self gratification). This is just one of a handful of prominent theories which try to explain altruistic behavior. I would also add that altruistic behavior tends to be rather rare, and that 98% of the time we act in totally egocentric behavior.

Anyhow not gonna delve too far into the theories unless you really want to, as that is a rather expansive subject.

Any individual who does for themselves and is hard working has an advantage (strong) in any free market economy over someone who is lazy (weak).

If only that were true, then all hardworking people would be well off. Like my grandparents who worked very hard (you can't even imagine how hard they worked) every day of their lives, and spent a good part of it in abject poverty, often with barely enough food. Hard work does not make one successful, in spite of what the American dream claims. To be successful in a free market economy, you need to get other people to work hard for you, to make you money from their hard labor. To do that, you need capital, some luck, and often a cutthroat mentality. Then your grand kids will get lazy from inheriting your success, and waste it all being lazy and spoiled.

IMHO the American Dream is a total lie, one spawned to give the workforce hope, so they will keep working hard. The worker likes to dream that someday through hard work, he will move up and be the boss. But he never does move up, and all his hard work puts money into the boss's pocket, not his (sure he is payed, but he never gains, just maintains). Its a great idea though, make your workers think they can become the boss, and they will keep working hard and be less likely to rebel, believing that some day they will move up. The occasional story of success (often due to a lot of luck, or some very smart people) bolsters the fallacy that everyone can be successful if they just work hard. This is just one reason why I am not a big fan of the free market system.