How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[cunicula]

Well, FirstAscent, if you truly believe CO2 to be a pollutant, and you really want to help the environment, there's really only one thing you can do, isn't there?

Stop polluting.

Not true, he can use the full legitimate force of state authority to confiscate assets and restrict the freedom of all people who pollute.

Like here in Singapore, we are trying to
1) Use satellite imagery to locate pollution sources in Indonesia.
2) Combine the satellite data with land registry info to identify the owners of pollution sources.
3) Confiscate the assets of Indonesians who own polluting properties. [Luckily, all of these rich Indo landowners have assets in Singapore ripe for seizure.]
 
Burn your rainforest -> Get your bank account confiscated

That is the name of the game. State enforcement FTW.

If the Indos want to pollute, they should keep their assets of our soil. That is called voluntary exchange.

[1714837736]

1714837736

[1714837736]

1714837736

[1714837736]

1714837736

[1714837736]

1714837736

[1714837736]

1714837736

[myrkul]

Get bored, without me?

full legitimate force of state authority

No such thing.

[cunicula]

Get bored, without me?

Yup 

[bb113]

It even gets better. Bitcoinbitcoin113's idol for climate science is Richard Lindzen. On the Atlas Shrugs site, we find this quote from Mr. Lindzen, himself:

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

Note that bitcoinbitcoin113 originally mentioned Richard Lindzen about a year ago, citing him as the original source of his climate change skepticism. I pointed out that he's a regular speaker for the Heartland Institute, and sold his services to the tobacco industry to claim that smoking shows no correlation with cancer before moving on to taking money from Exxon/Mobil to say things about climate science.

I have said it so many times, and I'll say it again. Show me something that denies climate science, and I'll show you connections to libertarian think tanks, sellout scientists, donations from Exxon/Mobil, deceptive fabricated documents, and bad memes spread by libertarian blogs.

Every fucking time.

And every person who gets on here and toots his horn about how illegitimate climate science is can't ever pull something original or intelligent out of his ass. It's all a bunch of seedy, stupid, second rate shit that can't hold up under any scrutiny.

I must thank all of you deniers (and Google) for making it so easy for me to find fault with the shit you guys post.

The only reason you interpreted me referencing him as being my "idol" is that you have heroes and idols. I don't go in for that stuff personally.

Edit: Also all you repeat is argument from consensus and argument from authority mixed with arbitrary references to what you deem as important events. Look I am not even anti-AGW, I am pro-rationalism. Modern science is widely recognized to be driven by publish or perish and anything that results from it should be scrutinized with a critical eye. That is all I was saying a year ago.

[FirstAscent]

Edit: Also all you repeat is argument from consensus and argument from authority mixed with arbitrary references to what you deem as important events. Look I am not even anti-AGW, I am pro-rationalism. Modern science is widely recognized to be driven by publish or perish and anything that results from it should be scrutinized with a critical eye. That is all I was saying a year ago.

Your critical eye was obviously on vacation the day you cited Richard Lindzen's mutterings. I was the one who did the scrutinizing to show you the garbage that exists out there. And I have to continue to do it in these forums.

[FirstAscent]

Now I know what reputable and unbiased sources the brainwashed are getting their notions that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not a pollutant.

Well, FirstAscent, if you truly believe CO2 to be a pollutant, and you really want to help the environment, there's really only one thing you can do, isn't there?

Stop polluting.

No, there isn't one thing I can do. There are many things I can do. One of them is to point out the propaganda and lies and ignorance among the crowd who use sites like Atlas Shrugs or the Heartland Institute or who knows what to get their 'facts' on climate change.

Oh, and it's already been explained what pollutants are. It's not just my belief. Stop reading the fringe sites to get your scientific knowledge.

[myrkul]

Now I know what reputable and unbiased sources the brainwashed are getting their notions that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not a pollutant.

Well, FirstAscent, if you truly believe CO2 to be a pollutant, and you really want to help the environment, there's really only one thing you can do, isn't there?

Stop polluting.

No, there isn't one thing I can do. There are many things I can do. One of them is to point out the propaganda and lies and ignorance among the crowd who use sites like Atlas Shrugs or the Heartland Institute or who knows what to get their 'facts' on climate change.

Oh, and it's already been explained what pollutants are. It's not just my belief. Stop reading the fringe sites to get your scientific knowledge.

I don't get my scientific knowledge off the fringe sites.

What I don't understand is how you can be so hypocritical, sitting there polluting like mad, all the while telling everyone else that they should stop. If everyone who was so adamant about the environment stopped polluting, the problem would largely go away.

[cunicula]

What I don't understand is how you can be so hypocritical, sitting there polluting like mad, all the while telling everyone else that they should stop. If everyone who was so adamant about the environment stopped polluting, the problem would largely go away.

So if I spew toxic gas into the air and it kills your family that is your problem? What if it takes 10 years to kill them via cancer? What if it takes 50 years and only gives your grandchildren birth defects? What if it takes 100 years and kills your great grandchildren? Do we draw a line somewhere?

How is pollution distinct from other forms of violence?

[FirstAscent]

Now I know what reputable and unbiased sources the brainwashed are getting their notions that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not a pollutant.

Well, FirstAscent, if you truly believe CO2 to be a pollutant, and you really want to help the environment, there's really only one thing you can do, isn't there?

Stop polluting.

No, there isn't one thing I can do. There are many things I can do. One of them is to point out the propaganda and lies and ignorance among the crowd who use sites like Atlas Shrugs or the Heartland Institute or who knows what to get their 'facts' on climate change.

Oh, and it's already been explained what pollutants are. It's not just my belief. Stop reading the fringe sites to get your scientific knowledge.

I don't get my scientific knowledge off the fringe sites.

What I don't understand is how you can be so hypocritical, sitting there polluting like mad, all the while telling everyone else that they should stop. If everyone who was so adamant about the environment stopped polluting, the problem would largely go away.

I'm up for a good argument if you can provide one. What you're saying now is pretty weak.

[myrkul]

I'm up for a good argument if you can provide one. What you're saying now is pretty weak.

CO2 is a pollutant. You're polluting right now. If you cared as much as you say you do, you'd stop.

[FirstAscent]

I'm up for a good argument if you can provide one. What you're saying now is pretty weak.

CO2 is a pollutant. You're polluting right now. If you cared as much as you say you do, you'd stop.

Really weak, in more ways than one. Elaborate.

[MoonShadow]

I'm up for a good argument if you can provide one. What you're saying now is pretty weak.

CO2 is a pollutant. You're polluting right now. If you cared as much as you say you do, you'd stop.

Really weak, in more ways than one. Elaborate.

Your are producing co2, stop it.

[MoonShadow]

What I don't understand is how you can be so hypocritical, sitting there polluting like mad, all the while telling everyone else that they should stop. If everyone who was so adamant about the environment stopped polluting, the problem would largely go away.

So if I spew toxic gas into the air and it kills your family that is your problem? What if it takes 10 years to kill them via cancer? What if it takes 50 years and only gives your grandchildren birth defects? What if it takes 100 years and kills your great grandchildren? Do we draw a line somewhere?

How is pollution distinct from other forms of violence?

I don't think you have any idea how many times I've personally seen this weak argument used.

[TheButterZone]

Has he answered your questions in that old thread yet, myrkul? New posts don't cover up loose ends...

[Richy_T]

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

[Richy_T]

Edit: Also all you repeat is argument from consensus and argument from authority mixed with arbitrary references to what you deem as important events. Look I am not even anti-AGW, I am pro-rationalism. Modern science is widely recognized to be driven by publish or perish and anything that results from it should be scrutinized with a critical eye. That is all I was saying a year ago.

+1. I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around. Most of what I see (on both sides) just makes me want to face-palm. The court of public opinion, particularly with modern media and politicians in general is a terrible place for this debate to be playing out.

[iCEBREAKER]

I must thank all of you deniers...

"Deniers?"

Thanks for finally Godwinning this stupid thread.  When you have to imply those who disagree with you are neo-Nazis, you lose!

That's internet code.

[FirstAscent]

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

[stochastic]

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Anything with an -ism is cult-like.  This is what happens to cult followers, they blind themselves to anything that might invalidate their belief system.

[cunicula]

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Anything with an -ism is cult-like.  This is what happens to cult followers, they blind themselves to anything that might invalidate their belief system.

Stochastic, we should really go back to the re-education thread. Those are unhealthy thoughts.