Topic: Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming? - page 22. (Read 30176 times)

The Planet, like the Market, is a self-correcting system.

If we cause enough change, it will become uncomfortable to live here. At that point, we either leave, or die off sufficiently that equilibrium is restored. Problem solved.

Lol that site is a joke.  Full of pseudoscience, misrepresented facts, and inferences based on falsified data.

Thank you for posting it lol.

ho-hum.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

i believe you're looking for #12...

When you intellectual elite discover that Temperature increase causes more CO2 to be produced, not the other way around you'll be on the road to recovery.  Throughout the history of this planet rises in temperature are followed by CO2 increases.  The Oceans and Land exchange CO2 constantly with the Atmosphere at a level dwarfing what Humans produce by magnitudes, so please stop peddling your propaganda so you can cash in on all those Carbon Credits(otherwise known as the Global Tax).

Now will you guys go put your Big Boy Pants on?

I haven't jumped on any train , but still, the supposed cause-and-effect relationship between human activity and climate change (global warming if you want to call it) is nothing more than a conjecture at the moment. I've read tens of articles in the past few years that make huge assumptions to provide emotional-response reasoning for their undoubtfully true natural findings (ending up in a human-made climate change conclusion).

I don't doubt climate change; I see it happening.

But it seems to me that TheGer's and Ascent's positioning are two sides of the same coin and both do not hold the answer: One goes into denial and will look for anything that will confirm his ideas that the whole thing stinks, and the other goes into self- and collective- blaming of the human race for something that is, IMHO, far bigger than what our mistakes of the last 200 years could have ever caused (thus blame that is unfair).

One is led to not care about the facts which should be obvious, the other is led to carry this burden in him for ever, being that even as a global community we could not possibly change the slightest thing on a planetary scale.

Both will be disappointed and disillusioned in the end.

In the end, it's our passion for learning and finding the whys and the hows that will reveal what is the truth of the matter. And time of course, the tamer of all things (according to an ancient Greek epithet assigned to Time).

I hope I am contributing something into this.

Lol Respected ofcourse means those sellout scientists who tout what they are told to by those pushing the Global Warming Scam.  Hence the whole Climategate scandal where they were caught lying and falsifying data.  Sorry I'm not going to pander to your GW propaganda.  Your House of Cards has already fallen I don't know why you bother to defend it.

I've seen and heard both arguments, and seen lies exposed on only one side of that argument(crippling it).  Can you guess which?  You may keep your Hockey Stick.  Oh and you may keep your Darwin Awards as well.

TheGer,

You should be thankful that I'm willing to write out so many posts to you. I hope you've had a chance to read the one I made above.

Global Warming is a scientific topic. Here's some genuine advice regarding scientific topics: immerse yourself in the scientific literature to better understand it. The academics aren't out to fool you. The peer review process works. So, if you want to discuss the topic and have your opinion respected, then don't restrict your information gathering on the subject to organizations such as FOX news or other such media outlets.

There is plenty of data on the subject. Try and stay with respected scientific sources.

Honestly, the only people clinging to your vision of Global Warming as being a sham are those who want an excuse to continue to pollute. Back when those emails were being released, here's what really happened:

1. Scientists realized the actions of a few would cast a huge blow to the process of education on the subject, and they realized that those who never wanted to believe in it in the first place, such as yourself, would use it as a means to vindicate themselves.

2. Scientists, climatologists, and in general, everyone in the scientific community knew that all the data still pointed to Global Warming.

3. The term Climate Change was adopted due to bad PR, nothing else.

4. Those who stood a chance to influence policy change in such a way that they could continue to pollute and thus improve their bottom line took advantage of the negative publicity with regard to Global Warming at the time to further their goals, by engaging in various campaigns. Conservatively oriented talk radio jumped on the bandwagon as well, further undermining the support for Global Warming.

5. Individuals such as yourself, eager to be on the bandwagon listed in point number 4 above, still cling to the misinformation which was heavily spun at the time.

6. Those who have a job to do with regard to actual research on Global Warming (err, Climate Change), know it's global warming, and continue to do their work. And the scientifically literate politicians are pretty much in solid agreement over global warming as a real issue that needs to be dealt with.

In other words, your fantasy that some bad PR from some two years ago has rendered Global Warming false is just that, a fantasy. And you have the nerve to accuse me of not keeping up with facts.

LOL He just used infowars as a source. hahahahha  Chem trails!!!

I see you've jumped on that wagon.

Looks like I've caused a Global Warming Cultist to out himself.  My friend you are intellectually lazy if you cannot be bothered to do proper information gathering on the issue.  

Even the people who started this Global Warming farce to make money of Carbon Credits have changed the term to Climate Change now because of being so embarrassed by the facts and being outed as fools and liars.

Get with the time bro your compatriots have left you behind.

climategate-for-dummies: http://www.infowars.com/climategate-for-dummies/

It causes global warming. You're the poster child for global warming deniers, and this is why the libertarian notion that the environment will be fine under a libertarian system is fallacy. Libertarians contend that there should be enough freedom for people to do as they wish on their own watch, without intervention. Given that there will always be deniers, and those who choose to wear blinders (often to gain financial advantage), then things will inevitably go south.

Please read this post I made a little ways above for more information: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg320869#msg320869

you manage to completely ignore coal, which is cheap like borscht, and thus is not going to be functionally competed against by unsubsidized renewable energy.

Since CO2 doesn't cause Cancer, contribute to Heavy Metal Toxicity, Produce Coal Dust or Asbestos does anyone know what this guy in on about?

It's kind of like how cigarettes don't cause cancer, it's ok to dump heavy metals in the local river, coal dust never hurt anyone, asbestos is perfectly safe, etc.

The ability of dogmatic people to be willfully ignorant and ignore facts should never be underestimated.

Thank you for making my point. A classic example of how an ideology will destroy the planet.

Oh no!  Look out for the nasty CO2 that Humans Exhale and Plants breathe!

You want to know how Libertarians would address it?  By letting nature takes its natural course of rising and falling levels of CO2 through the eons.  Because a Libertarian nation is not full of a bunch of fools falling for whatever Al Gore tells them we will get along just fine.  And we'll beat anyone who wants to preach differently to us with they're own Hockey Sticks.

What I mean to say, within the context of this thread, and requesting that you make a case for "where if people care about something, they will fix it" is this:

The first thing that is necessary for people to care about something is for them to realize it needs to be cared about. In other words, it needs to be clear that it is a relevant issue. Given the title of this thread, global warming is a great issue to use as an example.

Clearly, some people believe global warming exists and is caused by man. Others acknowledge it probably exists, but is not being caused by man. And yet others don't even believe it exists. So the first problem we have is lack of unity with regard to acknowledging the issue. Let's just suppose for a moment, regardless of your particular belief, that global warming is real and is caused by man. If that is the case, then something needs to be done, but it can't get done if we can't achieve agreement on the subject.

Following from that, we have an example of people wanting something (and trying wholeheartedly to educate others on the issue), but failing to get it. What are the elements that are preventing the people who want it from getting it? Skepticism, lack of education, greed, economic factors, etc.

Let's move on to environmental preserves, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or Patagonia. Let's just presuppose for a moment, that in any given year, 80 percent of the public wants these areas to be preserved. Let's assume that this desire continues from year to year, and allows policy to be enacted which prevents contaminating infrastructure from spoiling these areas. Such a situation might continue for many decades. Then, let's suppose, on some year in the future, public unity on the matter fractures, and there is only 40 percent in favor of preserving the preserves. Politicians, planners, economies, whatever, decide to move in and start doing business, drilling, damming, whatever, to the detriment of the land. Now, let's just suppose, that it was only a three year period in the future that preservation of these areas was unfavorable, and going forward, everyone agrees that, in reality, the areas should not have been encroached upon. Ah, but the damage was done. This is how our planet's natural abundance, complexity and diversity is slowly eroded.

You think it's right to say that people care about things even if they refuse to work to fix or save them?

I'm not saying that people never lie. You will certainly meet people who claim to care about something, but if they only devote other people's resources to it they are just using the issue as cover.

There is no 'case' I can make. The way I tell what people care about is by watching what they do so I'm just always right on this. What is your way of telling what people care about? Listening to what they say?

Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. You can continue to hold this belief, but I challenge you to make a strong case for it here in this forum. I invite you to try though.