How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 18.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on November 24, 2012, 04:22:17 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 03:09:46 AM

Now I know what reputable and unbiased sources the brainwashed are getting their notions that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not a pollutant.

Well, FirstAscent, if you truly believe CO2 to be a pollutant, and you really want to help the environment, there's really only one thing you can do, isn't there?

Stop polluting.

No, there isn't one thing I can do. There are many things I can do. One of them is to point out the propaganda and lies and ignorance among the crowd who use sites like Atlas Shrugs or the Heartland Institute or who knows what to get their 'facts' on climate change.

Oh, and it's already been explained what pollutants are. It's not just my belief. Stop reading the fringe sites to get your scientific knowledge.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bb113 on November 24, 2012, 08:37:28 AM

Edit: Also all you repeat is argument from consensus and argument from authority mixed with arbitrary references to what you deem as important events. Look I am not even anti-AGW, I am pro-rationalism. Modern science is widely recognized to be driven by publish or perish and anything that results from it should be scrutinized with a critical eye. That is all I was saying a year ago.

Your critical eye was obviously on vacation the day you cited Richard Lindzen's mutterings. I was the one who did the scrutinizing to show you the garbage that exists out there. And I have to continue to do it in these forums.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 03:21:49 AM

It even gets better. Bitcoinbitcoin113's idol for climate science is Richard Lindzen. On the Atlas Shrugs site, we find this quote from Mr. Lindzen, himself:

Quote

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

Note that bitcoinbitcoin113 originally mentioned Richard Lindzen about a year ago, citing him as the original source of his climate change skepticism. I pointed out that he's a regular speaker for the Heartland Institute, and sold his services to the tobacco industry to claim that smoking shows no correlation with cancer before moving on to taking money from Exxon/Mobil to say things about climate science.

I have said it so many times, and I'll say it again. Show me something that denies climate science, and I'll show you connections to libertarian think tanks, sellout scientists, donations from Exxon/Mobil, deceptive fabricated documents, and bad memes spread by libertarian blogs.

Every fucking time.

And every person who gets on here and toots his horn about how illegitimate climate science is can't ever pull something original or intelligent out of his ass. It's all a bunch of seedy, stupid, second rate shit that can't hold up under any scrutiny.

I must thank all of you deniers (and Google) for making it so easy for me to find fault with the shit you guys post.

The only reason you interpreted me referencing him as being my "idol" is that you have heroes and idols. I don't go in for that stuff personally.

Edit: Also all you repeat is argument from consensus and argument from authority mixed with arbitrary references to what you deem as important events. Look I am not even anti-AGW, I am pro-rationalism. Modern science is widely recognized to be driven by publish or perish and anything that results from it should be scrutinized with a critical eye. That is all I was saying a year ago.

cunicula

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1003

Quote from: myrkul on November 24, 2012, 04:30:32 AM

Get bored, without me?

Yup

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Get bored, without me?

Quote from: cunicula on November 24, 2012, 04:28:30 AM

full legitimate force of state authority

No such thing.

cunicula

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1003

Quote from: myrkul on November 24, 2012, 04:22:17 AM

Well, FirstAscent, if you truly believe CO2 to be a pollutant, and you really want to help the environment, there's really only one thing you can do, isn't there?

Stop polluting.

Not true, he can use the full legitimate force of state authority to confiscate assets and restrict the freedom of all people who pollute.

Like here in Singapore, we are trying to
1) Use satellite imagery to locate pollution sources in Indonesia.
2) Combine the satellite data with land registry info to identify the owners of pollution sources.
3) Confiscate the assets of Indonesians who own polluting properties. [Luckily, all of these rich Indo landowners have assets in Singapore ripe for seizure.]

Burn your rainforest -> Get your bank account confiscated

That is the name of the game. State enforcement FTW.

If the Indos want to pollute, they should keep their assets of our soil. That is called voluntary exchange.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 24, 2012, 03:09:46 AM

Now I know what reputable and unbiased sources the brainwashed are getting their notions that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not a pollutant.

Well, FirstAscent, if you truly believe CO2 to be a pollutant, and you really want to help the environment, there's really only one thing you can do, isn't there?

Stop polluting.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: cunicula on November 24, 2012, 03:03:35 AM

I cannot be free until individuals like you cease to pollute the world with their thoughts. I suggest you participate in your proposed emissions reductions program.
We can use your example to persuade other volunteers.

Quote from: cunicula on November 24, 2012, 03:48:11 AM

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 24, 2012, 03:42:30 AM

In your "reality", humans cannot logically survive the chicken little BS apocalypse (propagated by tyrants and the mostly unqualified funding recipients and qualified sociopath tyranny-lovers thereof). It will happen no matter what means you propose and implement to deal with it, whether you come up with Quixotic, godlike "solutions", or admit that only one will achieve your ends. Self-defeating, unless you're projecting your wish for my death and it's really you who wants to get beamed off this rock.

I reject your reality which requires aggression to achieve its brutal ends, and substitute our own. Either humans will continue living, or not. It's your choice whether you will politically support closeted mass-murdering tyrants who will enact THE Final Solution, or not.

Hmm..., I suggest you reduce your methamphetamine intake. You are exhibiting symptoms of paranoid psychosis.

LOL!

Moving from advising me to commit suicide, to libel. Isn't it supposed to be first, THEN 'kill yourself'?

cunicula

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1003

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 24, 2012, 03:42:30 AM

In your "reality", humans cannot logically survive the chicken little BS apocalypse (propagated by tyrants and the mostly unqualified funding recipients and qualified sociopath tyranny-lovers thereof). It will happen no matter what means you propose and implement to deal with it, whether you come up with Quixotic, godlike "solutions", or admit that only one will achieve your ends. Self-defeating, unless you're projecting your wish for my death and it's really you who wants to get beamed off this rock.

I reject your reality which requires aggression to achieve its brutal ends, and substitute our own. Either humans will continue living, or not. It's your choice whether you will politically support closeted mass-murdering tyrants who will enact THE Final Solution, or not.

Hmm..., I suggest you reduce your methamphetamine intake. You are exhibiting symptoms of paranoid psychosis.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: cunicula on November 24, 2012, 03:03:35 AM

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 24, 2012, 02:50:46 AM

So, destroy all lakes and land then, before the extermination of all living creatures, the biggest "pollution creators". Got it.

Humans produce about 1 kg of CO2 per day per person. That is 365 kg per year. For the total world population that is about 2.5 billion metric tons per year.
The world output of CO2 emissions is about 30 billion tons. After we exterminate all human life, we still have the other 27.5 billion metric tons per year to worry about.
Environmentalists suggest we reduce the 27.5 billion tons to a sustainable level and allow humans to survive.

What is the objective of exterminating all life again?

Quote

Tyranny vs liberty.

I cannot be free until individuals like you cease to pollute the world with their thoughts. I suggest you participate in your proposed emissions reductions program.
We can use your example to persuade other volunteers.

In your "reality", humans cannot logically survive the chicken little BS apocalypse (propagated by tyrants and the mostly unqualified funding recipients and qualified sociopath tyranny-lovers thereof). It will happen no matter what means you propose and implement to deal with it, whether you come up with Quixotic, godlike "solutions", or admit that only one will achieve your ends. Self-defeating, unless you're projecting your wish for my death and it's really you who wants to get beamed off this rock.

I reject your reality which requires aggression to achieve its brutal ends, and substitute our own. Either humans will continue living, or not. It's your choice whether you will politically support closeted mass-murdering tyrants who will enact THE Final Solution, or not.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

It even gets better. Bitcoinbitcoin113's idol for climate science is Richard Lindzen. On the Atlas Shrugs site, we find this quote from Mr. Lindzen, himself:

Quote

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

Note that bitcoinbitcoin113 originally mentioned Richard Lindzen about a year ago, citing him as the original source of his climate change skepticism. I pointed out that he's a regular speaker for the Heartland Institute, and sold his services to the tobacco industry to claim that smoking shows no correlation with cancer before moving on to taking money from Exxon/Mobil to say things about climate science.

I have said it so many times, and I'll say it again. Show me something that denies climate science, and I'll show you connections to libertarian think tanks, sellout scientists, donations from Exxon/Mobil, deceptive fabricated documents, and bad memes spread by libertarian blogs.

Every fucking time.

And every person who gets on here and toots his horn about how illegitimate climate science is can't ever pull something original or intelligent out of his ass. It's all a bunch of seedy, stupid, second rate shit that can't hold up under any scrutiny.

I must thank all of you deniers (and Google) for making it so easy for me to find fault with the shit you guys post.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Now I know what reputable and unbiased sources the brainwashed are getting their notions that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not a pollutant. Geez. How stupid of me not to have gone to the one and true source for climate science: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/12/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

How laughably predictable.

cunicula

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1003

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 24, 2012, 02:50:46 AM

So, destroy all lakes and land then, before the extermination of all living creatures, the biggest "pollution creators". Got it.

Humans produce about 1 kg of CO2 per day per person. That is 365 kg per year. For the total world population that is about 2.5 billion metric tons per year.
The world output of CO2 emissions is about 30 billion tons. After we exterminate all human life, we still have the other 27.5 billion metric tons per year to worry about.
Environmentalists suggest we reduce the 27.5 billion tons to a sustainable level and allow humans to survive.

What is the objective of exterminating all life again?

Quote

Tyranny vs liberty.

I cannot be free until individuals like you cease to pollute the world with their thoughts. I suggest you participate in your proposed emissions reductions program.
We can use your example to persuade other volunteers.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 24, 2012, 02:50:46 AM

So, destroy all lakes and land then, before the extermination of all living creatures, the biggest "pollution creators". Got it.

Tyranny vs liberty.

Sadly, you didn't get it. So instead, you made some silly remark that means nothing. What garbage.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

So, destroy all lakes and land then, before the extermination of all living creatures, the biggest "pollution creators". Got it.

Tyranny vs liberty.

cunicula

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1003

How about Lake Nyos?

'On August 21, 1986, possibly as the result of a landslide, Lake Nyos suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby towns and villages.'

I suppose this is a false story perpetuated by the liberal media. The deaths were due to a collective and voluntary decision to cease breathing.

Anything is a pollutant if you create enough of it.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 23, 2012, 10:58:44 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on November 23, 2012, 05:32:40 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 23, 2012, 03:30:31 PM

We pollute. Pollution isn't good.

Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is claimed to be caused by CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. whether AGW is real or not, when supporters do this kind of thing, it harms their argument (though I've seen plenty of blunders on the denier side too to be fair).

Those who would declare CO2 (exhalations) a pollutant and take steps to combat it would have to advocate for the extermination the human race and all non-plant life on earth to be intellectually consistent. I have no doubt the sociopaths government is almost entirely composed of will do this, and begin genocide once they finish disarming all the law-abiding civilians of the world.

How ridiculous. Ever hear of Owens Lake? Your remarks smack of politically motivated crap which can't distinguish anything outside of a black and white world of all this or all that. See my above post, and combine that with some more intelligent study on the matter. My reference to Owens Lake should help you along the way.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: Richy_T on November 23, 2012, 05:32:40 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 23, 2012, 03:30:31 PM

We pollute. Pollution isn't good.

Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is claimed to be caused by CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. whether AGW is real or not, when supporters do this kind of thing, it harms their argument (though I've seen plenty of blunders on the denier side too to be fair).

Those who would declare CO2 (exhalations) a pollutant and take steps to combat it would have to advocate for the extermination the human race and all non-plant life on earth to be intellectually consistent. I have no doubt the sociopaths government is almost entirely composed of will do this, and begin genocide once they finish disarming all the law-abiding civilians of the world.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Richy_T on November 23, 2012, 05:32:40 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 23, 2012, 03:30:31 PM

We pollute. Pollution isn't good.

Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is claimed to be caused by CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant.

Quote from: Richy_T on November 23, 2012, 05:32:40 PM

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Quote from: Richy_T on November 23, 2012, 05:32:40 PM

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Quote from: Richy_T on November 23, 2012, 05:32:40 PM

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Really? Where did you hear that? Was it your favorite libertarian think tank? Or was it from the Handbook for Global Warming Deniers? Either you're 1) brainwashed by the very propaganda you consume, or you're 2) knowingly spreading disinformation, or 3) you're just not qualified to discuss such matters. Which one?

Ever hear of dust pollution? How about thermal pollution? Light pollution? Noise pollution?

Try this:

Quote

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

Quoted from here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pollutant

I would like an answer to the three options given to you in my first paragraph of this post.

Quote

whether AGW is real or not, when supporters do this kind of thing, it harms their argument (though I've seen plenty of blunders on the denier side too to be fair).

What thing was that? Saying CO2 is a pollutant? Ah, perhaps we need to consider that you're the misinformed one causing harm to your own argument.

Suggestion: stop using your politically motivated agenda to color your knowledge of science. You won't look like such an idiot.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: Richy_T on November 23, 2012, 05:32:40 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on November 23, 2012, 03:30:31 PM

We pollute. Pollution isn't good.

Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is claimed to be caused by CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. whether AGW is real or not, when supporters do this kind of thing, it harms their argument (though I've seen plenty of blunders on the denier side too to be fair).

I think AGW and CAGW are interesting ideas and deserve to be studied and properly proven or disproven by appropriate scientists in the field. Unfortunately, the issue has been hijacked by those who would have us living in the stone age and have been running around chicken-littleing about global warming/global cooling/peak oil/nuclear/the steam engine/the wheel/fire since forever. As such, I stand in strong opposition to any change which could radically alter our quality of life until and unless we have much more solid proof. (This is the true implication of the precautionary principle by the way).

You should consider the possibility that there are very few or no appropriate scientists in the field. As a burgeoning scientist, I will tell you this is a very real possibility. There is even extensive literature on what is wrong with science culture, written by scientists, if you care to look it up.

edit: I should say that despite this, modern science is still leaps and bounds beyond trusting the opinions of random people (ie religious leaders, politicians, and marketing/propaghanda tools).

Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 18. (Read 24009 times)