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 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.

Do you have a solid set of examples of wide spread gun ownership (by people without military training) in various geopolitical scenarios, especially those with limited government, or as in the scenario favored by myrkul, no government?

You might want to think through various scenarios, such as a high density apartment building, with plenty of children, where most renters, without military training, choose to own a gun because they feel compelled to own a gun due to the society they live in.

Mandatory gun ownership by those who have received training is different than voluntary gun ownership by those who do not require training. Mandatory gun ownership does not imply that one chooses to own a gun or needs the gun. In a society where most choose to own a gun, the implication is that it was necessary to do so, and that is very different from the climate in Switzerland.

The dynamics are completely different. Furthermore, Switzerland has a government, and more importantly, resides in a geopolitical climate which obviously favors the choices it makes. Such geopolitical climates are not guaranteed to be uniform elsewhere, and thus your comparison may be weak for the following reasons, at the very least:

1. Mountainous terrain
2. Swiss banking rules and their history with WWII.
3. Population density
4. Preexisting social distribution within its population.

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

Most of the scientific community accepts anthropogenic climate change. You on the other hand can do nothing but pull up commentary that obviously has a conflict of interest if you do a simple search on the author or publisher. I believe there was a recent link provided by your partner in denial a few posts back which was shown to be published by a Heartland author in Forbes, which didn't even require much sleuthing to uncover its bias.

You know what is really hilarious? Every single link provided by you deniers is just commentary on some right wing blog with an interpretative spin. It's never actually from the original scientific research. And that's the best you can do. Most of the time, it's a failed attempt to discredit me or someone else by trying to associate me with something you find distasteful, which is an even weaker rebuttal.


Your above statement implies three interesting points:

1. The studies done by the oil companies, and by extension, everyone who buys into their influence, are biased and lack credibility. With regard to this point, all I have to say is thank you for making my point.

2. The assumption that the material I cite is the product of the IPCC. You are wrong on this point - see the third point below. As I stated earlier, I read the scientific journals. Do you? I suspect not. Instead, you read blogs and commentary influenced by big oil. Furthermore, I suspect you seek out material which supports your belief, and you naturally arrive at said biased blogs and commentary, because in your searches, you're unlikely to arrive upon very many real science articles. I can state with a high degree of confidence that this assertion summarizes your methods.

3. The assumption that the IPCC is the body actually doing the research and publishing the findings of that research. With regard to this point, I suggest that you stop your witch hunt and simply read science publications.

Oh yeah - you don't actually study science, because it doesn't support your belief.

On a different note: I have requested more than once that someone provide an explanation of their belief about sea level change, and what might cause it or not cause it. I suspect that the sources the deniers go to don't fully explain it, or if by their searches, they did in fact stumble upon some valid science, they'd find the answer does not agree with their ideology.

I've probably spent less than three minutes in my life hearing what Al Gore says. I personally just spend a lot of time studying science, unlike you. I challenge you to post links to the crap you read regularly. I'm sure we'll have a good laugh tracking down the backers of said material.

I suggest you think before you speak. In a libertarian society, there is no law that requires one to keep a firearm, nor is there a mandatory period in which an individual goes through training in the military. If there is no law to keep a firearm, then there is no cause for one such as yourself to dream that in your fabled libertarian society, all would choose to keep a firearm. Nor is there any reason for one such as yourself to fantasize that in fabled libertarian society, all would receive the training that one gets when enrolled in the military.

Remember, in your fantasies, your libertarian society is not Switzerland.

Think before you speak.

If you want to believe it's a scam, then by all means, seek out those who are on your side. I suppose you have evidence the Moon landings were faked as well?

You sound like a conspiracy theorist, man. Seriously, do yourself a favor. For one week - just one week - stop doing Google searches that include the word 'scam' next to 'Global Warming', and instead, just read some science journals. You can begin with Nature and Science. But if you don't want to get bogged down in the academic material, then read Scientific American.

I'm waiting for you to elaborate on the claim you made about Israeli citizens.

I take it we're done here because your defense is falling apart? Is that how arbitration would work for you as well? When you're not in agreement with how the arbitration process is going, you would just proclaim "We're done here" and walk out, thinking you'd get the compensation you seek?

You're the one who doesn't understand arbitration.

No. I asked you to elaborate.

You admit the truth of my statement. But you don't get my land. It was sold to someone else prior to my death and just prior to your case. You lose. And it won't heal until after you've died anyway.


I know perfectly well what arbitration is. Your reply makes no sense.

I will go to arbitration, and I'll bring my lawyers, and I have a huge budget for them, because I've been making a lot of money selling my oil.

Of course, it's possible that I instead chose a farmer's life, cut down the rain forest all around your property, and failed to make any real money engaging in agriculture, and died bankrupt. Good luck getting any money out of me in that scenario as well.

So now we're in a race even though you weren't interested in being in a race prior to me drilling my well? I've now forced you to do something you weren't interested in before.


According to your take on it with regard to oil, it's all about being in a race. But now it's all about you being aware of the resource while I'm sucking water out of the aquifer. What if you don't know what I'm doing - let's say I don't allow you on my property and you're not an expert with regard to aquifers? You may not know the causes of why your land has lost its natural resource until after I've died. Clearly, you wouldn't be in the right to sue who purchased my land just before I died.


Well, golly, it's all about making claims then. Then I guess I can claim all that water in the aquifer, right? Why not? I claim it's just like the oceans. I seriously doubt you have considered, until this moment, how deep land ownership goes. Do you own all the way to the center of the Earth, in the shape of an inverted pyramid for every square parcel you own?


I am going to put a net across the river. My lawyers are better than yours, and you're the only guy upstream, so good luck.


You are not entitled to compensation by me under your ideology unless you have the ability to actually get me to pay you. Good luck.

Elaborate.

The functional purpose is its ability to create money. Twenty years from now, when you need money, the oil won't be there, because I picked your fruit. Your argument falls flat on its face. Remember, you said I can't pick your fruit, and I gave you an example.


My land is large, but the aquifer resides only near the border of our two properties. I may be more than willing to deplete it to satisfy my needs as long as it works until I die. Again, I'm picking your fruit.


Actually, just the opposite: your fish, my fist, everyone's fish. Thus, I'm picking your fruit.


It certainly can. I'm downstream and fishing salmon.


Or you might be of the same mind as me and cut down your forest for the same reasons I did. And the guy next to us, and so forth, until there is less and less rain forest, at which point, it becomes clear we all picked the fruit of our children. It's all fruit picking, and your ideas don't really address it.

Huh?

Oh yeah?

I live next to you and drill 2,000 feet down and start pulling up oil. What is the extent of that oil reserve relative to my land?

I pull water from an aquifer accessed from my land, which is next to yours.

I go out onto the deep blue sea and fish.

A river runs through my backyard and yours, and I fish that river.

The short term profit derived from cutting down the rain forest on my property which is next to yours allows me to live a great life, since I have nobody to pass on my inheritance to. However, the act of cutting down that rain forest has created edge effects at our common property line, which has a deleterious effect on the ecosystem of your property.

Not necessarily. Your logic is terribly flawed.

1. Just because weapons are not restricted does not mean that all people will choose to have said weapons. Those who choose to not have a weapon are vulnerable to those who do have a weapon.

2. If, contrary to point 1 above, everyone chooses to have a weapon, then the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage would likely rise.