You are completely sidestepping the following points:

1. What if you don't have the force capable of stopping said infringement?

2. I guess the weaker targets aren't deserving of freedom then.

Don't you see the fallacies of your fantasies? Let's review:


What if you don't have the force capable of stopping said infringement? You're assuming everyone has that power and strength.

Citing barbaric traditions of the past is hardly the model of freedom you're looking for.


I guess the weaker targets aren't deserving of freedom then.

Seriously, go rethink your ideas for a few years and come back when you're eighteen.

Many in this thread cling to the immature and naive belief that freedom as they see it is a natural consequence of nature if governmental bodies don't exist. Sorry to burst your fantasy, but freedom as you see it does not naturally arise in the absence of government.

Why? Please explain. I'm assuming that you're bright enough to be thinking that my question isn't as dumb as it sounds and that perhaps you're being set up.

Yes, and the net temperature rise coincident with the rise of the Industrial Age appears to be happening despite the slide into a new ice age as predicted by the Milankovitch cycles. One cannot really argue that Milankovitch cycles are the cause of Global Warming, as they indicate that we are sliding into the next ice age since about 6,000 years ago.

So what's causing a temperature rise and melting glaciers?

Completely independent of any ambiguity regarding cloud layer feedback loops, there are ice albedo feedback loops, which have no ambiguity with regard to their processes.

It is not my responsibility to prove that I have any knowledge on these subjects. But by clearly stating that I do, it would be obvious that I am inviting discussion on those topics if you would only engage, rather than harp.

The above statement is dripping with troll excrement. I clearly stated earlier that I do know about the following: ice albedo feedback loops, water density as it relates to global sea level rise, Milankovitch Cycles, and species extinction as caused by climate change. You willfully put on your blinders then.

As for what you are saying, perhaps my refusal to acknowledge exactly what your opinion is is because you have not been effective at articulating it.

Why don't you clearly state what your opinion is instead of asking us to guess it?

As to my purpose, thus far it has been to indicate the severe effects climate change will have upon our ecosystem if we choose to ignore it, and point out that you indeed are a victim of the propaganda put forth by libertarian think tanks, despite you not knowing it.

As a supplement to my primary purpose here, it would appear that my secondary purpose is to defend myself against your trollish remarks.

There are zero problems with the timeline outlined above. I think your desire to skip over it (sweep it under the rug, so to speak) is because it's an outrageously true and embarrassingly inconvenient summary of my dialog with you.

I already stated something true about you that you didn't even know. Go reread the thread. It goes like this:

1. I said your opinion is in large part affected by propaganda.

2. I said that propaganda is created by various deceptive institutions such as the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, individuals such as Frederick Seitz, and all funded by Big Oil.

3. You denied this, stating that I could not know anything about how your opinions are formed. To corroborate this, you indicated that your skepticism is in part based on statements made by Richard Lindzen, a scientist.

4. I then pointed out that Richard Lindzen writes for The Heartland Institute, has views similar to Frederick Seitz, and is a member of a think tank funded by Exxon Mobil.

5. LOL.

Sorry, but my posts have been very relevant to the post you have quoted from me above, as they have built the foundation which helps define and guide what compelling science really is.

Nothing appears to be more indicative of a strawman argument than this statement:


Sad.

There is nothing stereotyped about my reasoning. I'm pointing out the connections between the source material which makes claims that AGW is not real and why that material is not real science, but rather generally, deceptive propaganda masquerading as science. That's rather serious. It's rather unfortunate that you must belittle it because it's been demonstrated that that propaganda has indeed swayed your opinion.

Actually it makes sense - in order to cover up the embarrassment of you having fallen for said propaganda (Richard Lindzen), confusing it for real science, you now feel the need to indicate that the information I have provided is of no consequence to this thread.

Please show some compelling science that is not in favor of AGW.

Lindzen resigned from the IPCC panel after the IPCC rewrote what he authored. He also claims that there is little to no link in tobacco smoke and lung cancer. He is also a member of a Maryland based think tank funded by Exxon Mobil. He's a keynote speaker for the Heartland Institute.

Plenty of other stuff too. Google him. The IPCC does not agree with him.

How is demonstrating in detail that the source of skepticism regarding climate change is linked to deception funded by Big Oil, rather than actual credible science?

Laughably, you were the one claiming that your skepticism was not derived from such material after I accused you being susceptible to such material. You then went on to indicate that your skepticism was derived in part by a debate, which I then pointed out to you that the participant in said debate (the one you mentioned) was indeed one of the very associates of the questionable firms and institutes I mentioned earlier. That's funny.

And very relevant.

Post credible scientific research which seriously calls into question AGW and show that that published research was not carried out by individuals who have links to organizations and institutes masquerading as experts in climate science but in fact are libertarian think tanks funded by big oil.

And that is exactly the point. The best argument against the credibility of AGW is a deceptive and essentially faked document, masquerading as a publication of the National Academy of Sciences (but is not really) and developed in part by a man who was first hired by RJ Reynolds to obfuscate the dangers of tobacco smoke, and later by Exxon Mobil to obfuscate climate change.

And what is so hilariously funny is how those who claim to be skeptics also claim to not be swayed by the propaganda of certain institutions, but instead cite debates by individuals who are in fact associated with those very institutions. And those institutions continue to cite the Oregon Petition as if it actually had merit.

Sad and pathetic.

I don't know how you would know. But you made the statement, so presumably you do know. Why are you asking me how you would know what you claim? Perhaps you should retract your accusation?


Please explain the justification and necessity of said propaganda and the general absence of science supporting it by individuals not associated with those organizations putting out the propaganda.


The conclusion is: there would seem to be a near complete lack of credible science against AGW. The evidence is the apparent inability of those against AGW to put forth material that is neither deceptive nor funded by those who stand to gain the most financially from solutions which would inhibit AGW.

So the murderer of a homeless man will face the repercussions of the homeless man?

The polluter will face the repercussions of those who don't know they were polluted?

The thief will face the repercussions of the victim even though the victim can't afford to pay someone to find who the thief was?

 

I believe this statement is inconsistent with reality. Do you agree?

I do know stuff about climate change. Don't make accusations. Do you want to talk about ice albedo feedback loops, water density as it relates to global sea level rise, species extinction, or perhaps Milankovitch cycles?