Fixed it. The second referenced article is now the article that I meant: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

It gets worse the longer you watch it.

As time permits, all your links can pretty much be shown to be lacking in substance, full of holes and inconsistencies, or even better, shown that they are in fact arguing against your theory. However, let's start with just a few. How about this one:


Rather than expend the time myself to explain the problems inherent in how this article might support your theory, why don't you just read the article yourself, as it casts some pretty heavy skepticism on your preferred theory that solar radiation is the cause of our planet's global warming.

Now on to this one:



Read the article itself, and you'll see that it's actually debunking the theory you're promoting. And while you're there, take a look at the solar irradiance chart provided. You might want to notice how the solar irradiance is actually declining for the period in which claims are made that some (not all) of the solar system's planets are undergoing warming.

By the way, thanks for the links on the theory of the solar system heating up - they pretty much save me the time in collecting articles myself to disprove your point, because the articles you posted do it so well.

Thank you for pointing out the deficiencies of your approach: i.e. you offer no solution.

A more rational approach involves people asking: "what are all the problems and how do they interrelate, and what can we do to address these problems?" Rather than insisting on a particular political ideology to solve the problem, why don't we seek to understand the problem in all its finer nuances, and then see what can be done. That's a better approach.

Ok, I've looked at quite a few of your links. A lot of what you're saying is based on the premise that CO2 follows warming by the sun.

Take a hard look at this graph which you provided: http://www.biocab.org/GWMA-002_op_987x740.jpg

Please try and explain it to me as best you understand it. I'm not asking you because I don't understand it. I want your interpretation of it.

Now, you may accuse me of performing biased research by selectively choosing to find science which backs up my claim, however, I have plenty of methods of demonstrating to you that my research is nowhere near as biased as yours. I suggest, while engaging in your own research, you look hard at the funding sources for a lot of the material you're digging up. Look hard at the political agenda of those who are behind the information you're researching.

Are you familiar with Milankovich cycles?


So you're in agreement with me that Global Warming is happening - just not the cause. Here's another test to determine the integrity of the programs you're seeking information from: are they explaining to you what the effects of Global Warming are? Let's say a number of the literature you've read or the number of the global warming documentaries you've watched concede that Global Warming is happening (regardless of cause), then, if they're comprehensive and their goal is to engage in real science, as opposed to simply furthering the agenda that Global Warming is not anthropogenic, then it stands to reason that they would have no reason to conveniently not address what the effects of Global Warming are, regardless of cause. So, my test of the unbiased quality of the research you're absorbing, is to ask you how much information you've gleaned along the way regarding the effects of Global Warming.

Be prepared for a long debate.

Are all of you familiar with Frederick Seitz?

Sadly, you've been a victim of the very think tanks I mentioned. Stop reading the 'science' newsletters being written by the very think tanks I mentioned. Science is placed in quotes above because you're not reading the science journals. Cite your sources, and we can continue.

EDIT: Oh, I see you did post some links. Sorry, I didn't see those.

At the expense of exploiting the environment which sustains us. When the pace of technology outpaces the natural compensatory systems of the biosphere which sustains us, then we find ourselves in our current unfortunate situation.


An excellent summary of the half assed thought which got us into this bad situation. Shelve the the Bible next to Grimm's Fairy Tales and work towards thinking about sustainability, and the complex interactions of the ecosystems which are not endlessly bountiful if abused. Do you know how many years it took the Earth to produce one day's usage of oil? And most importantly, ask yourself why the numerous libertarian think tanks behind the denialism industry (first tobacco, then climate change), engage in such deceptive propaganda (the Oregon Institute petition, etc.). Answer: it's because they can't sell the goals of libertarianism itself (no regulations) as being effective methods to address these larger issues, so they instead try to manufacture the doubt that such problems even exist.

Frederick, you are familiar with Frederick Seitz, aren't you?

So is a house like a body? Is this where you're falling into the trap of thinking a sofa is like land, an animal is like an automobile, etc? Is this where you trot out the homesteading rule?

And?

No. There is no reason to apply the analogy to cars. Cars are not people. Standing and walking bodies on sidewalks are not cars. Go suggest another analogy or accept the fact that people on sidewalks are not cars in motion.

Bitcoin2cash throws common sense out the window again. No surprise though.

You would have no case here as it's obvious you're the one who is aware of both your condition and the general conditions of what sidewalks are like. The world does not work the way you think it does. Sorry.

The problems:

1. The free market perpetuates that which is really profitable to a few at the expense of the rest of us. They employ heavily funded misinformation media campaigns and pseudoscience quite successfully to uneducate the public. There is a well documented history of this going on at least back to the tobacco industry, and although the misinformation being spread relates to undermining scientific research, if one looks at the real agenda, it can be attributed to libertarian think tanks whose primary goal is to eliminate regulation. It's interesting that they're generally unsuccessful at selling the idea of deregulation and pure free markets directly, so they have to resort to campaigns which distort and mislead.

2. The uneducated public, the ignorant, the naive and so forth, often the result of the above mentioned media campaigns, do not collectively sue everyone to keep everyone regulated.

3. Additionally, there's a lot of neighborly "I'll look the other way if you do."

4. Nobody wants to be hated by their neighbor. That's understandable, but it allows for an inconsistent and ineffective reduction of pollutants or environmental destruction - it's better if a centralized agency regulates, thus neighbors don't have to adopt the burden of feeling like a tattletale.

5. For every type of pollution or negative effect which affects the environment that most are aware of, there are ten more that the average Joe is not aware of. The cascading effects of anthropogenic environmental change are complex, despite what bitcoin2cash says. As just one among many many effects, consider the temperature that is required for female alligators to be born vs. male alligators. It takes only a few degrees to tip the balance to 100 percent male or 100 percent female. Factor in the fact that species in the Northern Hemisphere are relocating northwards at an average of four miles per decade to compensate for temperature changes. However, this is increasingly difficult in today's environment when the habitat is not available for relocation - i.e suburban sprawl, differing northward relocation rates of symbiotic environmental features, etc.

What you are doing is engaging in selectively labeling what is inappropriate. That is inappropriate. Putting pure free markets on a pedestal is kind of evocative of Frederick Seitz.


Could be. Is it giving us the efficiency we need and want? Right now?

Exploitation? Sorry, but I want less of that. Read the post to better understand how free markets work. Force? I guess. Have you ever heard the term 'market forces'? They're a natural consequence of markets.

By the way, do you have any suggestions on how automobiles might become more efficient, or is your contribution limited to accusing others of being sociopaths?

The market needs to be guided because unguided markets exploit until the end, even ramping up exploitation efforts near the end, trying to outrace their competitors. Ignorance and greed are not the best factors to guide markets, but they are the default ones.

Sorry, but it's not like you think. Houston has very strict parking limitations which can relate to vehicle weight and length, as well as strict lot size regulations, and a government which backs up the contracts made in the absence of the zoning laws. It is interesting, but it still results in anomalies, and HOAs are pretty much the rule of thumb - trading one tax for another.

Exactly. But their arguments are so bizarre, and it's interesting to draw them into their own logic.

Zoning laws are designed for issues like this: commercial, residential, retail, industrial, etc. However, common sense should prevail as well. Running machine shop type tools in your home can be ok under certain circumstances, such as when it's a hobby and not full time, the tools are in the garage, and the garages are designed such that they don't share a common wall with another resident's living space. If you can run a mill or other such type of machine in your living space without actually bothering your neighbor, then more power to you. This is why we have judges. The fact of the matter is, in that video, both the speaker's viewpoint and Ronald Coase's viewpoint were a bit nutty. But it's par for the course to be exposed to these viewpoints in this forum, where prudent thinking takes a backseat to most everything else.

He didn't care until he moved his office? Then why did he move his office?