Topic: Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming? - page 15. (Read 30176 times)

I don't follow the argument. Yes, I agree that some of the motivations would exist even in a Libertarian society. But certainly some of the biggest motivations (the fear of a massive, coercive, economy-killing government response) would not. So I don't see why you think it would be "bigger lies".

This already happens on a regular basis, by the libertarian 'think tanks'. See this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/dissecting-brownlashers-40283

The problem with this is that a more libertarian society would have the denial crowd spreading bigger lies: there's nothing to prevent a polluting industry from paying people for fabrications. There is an incentive to lie because even in an environment without class action lawsuits, industries would still need to maintain a public image.

Besides, simple facts of human nature like negative externalities and the tragedy of the commons mean that while this evil "coercion" would not exist, nor would any other force to prevent global catastrophe.

There is a huge incentive for those who have invested massive emotional capital in libertarianism - to subvert the science as widespread acceptance of the science tends to destroy libertarianism - why? because the libertarians have nailed their ideas to the mast of denialism.

Ecological Services are worth a huge component of the total global economy - yet to value ecological services, you require intervention in the market. libertarian political economy represents economy killing ideas.

If you think there's something wrong with it, please feel free to say so. But "That's what you think" just isn't constructive.

Thanks for your completely theoretical speculation

There's a huge incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming means a coercive government will place onerous restrictions on people. There is no incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming does not mean widespread economy-killing coercion.

So, on the "head in the sand" front, a Libertarian society would have huge advantages over ones like ours.

You are exactly correct. See this thread for examples of how they deceive: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/dissecting-brownlashers-40283

"Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?"

lol - pretty easily -

just deny that it exists at all. slur the science and run a deception campaign.

Geez, there's a lot of individuals in this thread who are heavily bought into the drivel spewed forth from the brownlash community. To sum up their conclusions: "Yes, my source of information is from Environment & Climate News, clearly the most trusted source in science reporting, even though it's edited by a guy who has no degree in science, and does not ever practice science, but instead is an advocate of property rights."

I'm sure they'll trot out the Oregon Institute petition next.

Simply by ignoring all "truths" put out by institutions that are under centralist control and therefore serve their masters and not the objective search for truth.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/

Also finding it hilarious that the warmistas cant seem to provide any sources even after repeated requests from several posters, yet have no problem playing grand inquisitor demanding sources then ignoring them, and playing Miss Cleo divining poster's belief systems.

But you still haven't provided "credible evidence of significant anthropogenic climate change from sources without a conflict of interest."

Why not???

Because it's .....

Why the **** would anyone need to do that?

Almost NOTHING on this planet happens without a conflict of interest, since people need to eat and therefore need someone to pay for what they do.

Researchers working in universities in general DON'T make very good money. And that's where 99 % of climate research is made. If it's a scam it is not going very well, judging from the fact that the ones I know take the bus to work because they can't afford a car.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious when deniers pull out Al Gore and "government scientists" when the concept goes back almost 50 years (though the term global warming wasn't coined until the mid-70s), and the science it's based on is approaching 200 years. That alone says EVERYTHING about the amount of understanding the denier camp has.

What people really want to do, when permitted to make up their own rules, is cooperate and specialize. They will make up the rules that makes that as efficient as they possibly can because the vast majority of individuals expect to personally thrive in that type of environment. You don't need centralization or single-mindedness to ostracize people who treat their fellow men unjustly. Each person finds it in their individual self-interest to ostracize such people.

Lol you didn't watch any of them who are you kidding?  Any Global Warming fool would be picked apart arguing against that information.  You keep your New Age Religeon buddy, we'll keep the facts and common sense.

"I did watch some of them. I'm trying to understand why you think anyone would be impressed by those links."

I think my post above qualified as being more thoughtful and earnest. I also think it was filled with some reasonable advice. Interpret it as you wish. As for evidence, I indicated how you could go about discovering evidence on your own.

I wouldn't bother reading a study done by a govt linked entity. The chance of bias is too high.

EDIT:


So you don't have specific evidence? M'kay.


I give up. My logic is no match for your mind reading skills.

The rest... tl;dr. It's useless when you ignore repeated calls for evidence

I wouldn't bother reading a study done by an oil company. The chance of bias is too high. Like I've repeatedly said, I read science publications, and the overall sense I get from such reading is that science is overwhelmingly on the side of anthropogenic climate change.


Nowhere in your above statements did you refute my guess that you don't regularly read science publications. If I provided you with some particular page, document, etc., you would simply claim that I cherry picked that document.

The only thing I can ask you to do is to start regularly reading science publications. Examples include Nature, Science, and on a more layman's level, Scientific American. Seed Magazine is good too, but I suspect that you wouldn't agree with a lot of what they say, and as a result, you'd claim it's all a bunch of hogwash. But take Nature and Science: it's just science. Yes, scientists do have bias, but they love and respect the scientific process. They're interested in discovering things, and finding the truth through the beautiful process of science. If you love science, then you'll start reading that material on a regular basis. And the takeaway from all that is, you'll slowly realize that what the scientists are overwhelmingly saying is that climate change is happening and it's being caused in large part by humanity.

Really important statement, please read: Honestly, I used to have little or no interest in climate change, and had no opinion on it one way or another. I have read continuously science publications because of my interest in quantum physics, space exploration and genetics. But over the past several years, in that process of reading science publications, I kept encountering articles and studies on climate change. I started reading them. And over and over again, I became more familiar with the methods the scientists were employing to collect data, correlate data, and analyze it. The more I learned, the more interesting it became, and now I look forward to reading science on the subject. I went from somebody who had no agenda or interest with regard to climate change to someone who genuinely enjoys reading about the scientific research done in the field. And once you immerse yourself into the subject matter at a scientific level, you won't be convinced by commentary, blogs or anything like that.

That is why when someone creates a link that is a journalist's commentary on the subject, or a blog by a non scientist, especially cherry picked by someone who does not want to believe in climate change, it's going to have close to zero effect on me.

Likewise, if I post a link, you're going to just claim I cherry picked it. It's pointless.

My request is this: start reading lots of science on the subject of climate change, written by the scientists themselves, and over time, perhaps a year, you can come to whatever conclusion you want to.

But the absolutely wrong way to go about it is to seek out material that supports your point of view, especially material that is not written by the scientists engaging in the research. Just read the science journals, without looking for articles that refute or support your view - just read the magazines and publications for other reasons, and over time, I'm fairly confident your viewpoint will change. I personally believe your viewpoint will change as a result of doing that. I don't think your viewpoint will change as a result of links I specifically point you to.

Clearly I can never win this debate because I am arguing with a mind reader. If you care to know what my opinion is on climate change is, it's that I don't know. Because I am yet to be presented with conclusive evidence that doesn't come from either a govt mouth piece media outlet or from "scientists" on the government payroll. This is the same reason why I reject "evidence" from "scientists" & "studies" sponsored by oil companies. Both these bodies have a conflict of interest so I reject studies tied to both. It seems you only reject that of the oil companies.



I suggest you quote specific evidence or admit that it does not exist. If it does then prove me wrong. I welcome it. saying "read science publications" is useless. There are many studies out there. Which one should I look at? Which page? Not all are credible.