How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[myrkul]

Oh, and you better get right on reading the 100,000 plus science papers on the subject so that you can make your informed decision about the consensus. Get on it, man! The scientists are out to get you! It's a big conspiracy!  

I'd just like to point out at this juncture that the scientific consensus was, at one point, that phlogiston caused and was released during fires.

Scientists can be wrong, even in great numbers. A wise man looks even at the consensus with skepticism.

[Rudd-O]

Oh, and you better get right on reading the 100,000 plus science papers on the subject so that you can make your informed decision about the consensus. Get on it, man! The scientists are out to get you! It's a big conspiracy!  

I'd just like to point out at this juncture that the scientific consensus was, at one point, that phlogiston caused and was released during fires.

Scientists can be wrong, even in great numbers. A wise man looks even at the consensus with skepticism.

Agreed. Trying to derail a conversation with "you should not question the scientific consensus" is not cool.

[FirstAscent]

There is a scientific consensus. A consensus is more likely right than wrong in today's age. Not always. but usually.

Please attempt to show some good science by those in opposition to the consensus.

We pollute. Pollution isn't good.

Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.

What does that leave us with? A warming of the planet. An industrial age which pollutes. A lot of falsified science denying climate change. A scientific consensus which in theory could be wrong, but likely isn't.

Wow. You guys are so convincing.

Let me get this straight then: your 5 percent of lying self serving sellout scientists are more likely to be correct than the 95 percent scientific consensus? Is that it?

If there's a chance that the 95 percent are wrong, then obviously there's a bigger chance your 5 percent of sellouts and document falsifiers and people receiving donations from Exxon/Mobil are wrong as well.

What I see is a bunch of libertarians whose political agenda can't handle the reality of climate science, and then must proceed to delude themselves into believing it's all a conspiracy, and thus like to grasp at straws in the dark, and then hope whatever they find will be enough to fool the rest of us into being deluded as well. Ah, the power of propaganda and self delusions!

You guys are the pathetic brainwashed herd that has been heavily influenced by a bunch of garbage out there in the form of bad science and propaganda published by the think tanks. Sad. And doubly sad that as a result, you think the mainstream is the brainwashed.

[bb113]

There is a scientific consensus. A consensus is more likely right than wrong in today's age. Not always. but usually.

Please attempt to show some good science by those in opposition to the consensus.

We pollute. Pollution isn't good.

Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.

What does that leave us with? A warming of the planet. An industrial age which pollutes. A lot of falsified science denying climate change. A scientific consensus which in theory could be wrong.

Wow. You guys are so convincing.

I disagree, I have seen convincing arguments that most of what science has measured in the last 50 years or so is actually just the prevailing bias (ie expert opinion like NASA used to predict 1/100,000 chance of fuel tank explosion in the 80s and then ignore the dangers of foam debris for 20 more years, which is why they are losing all funding). In more technical terms, the prior probabilities implicitly used by scientists are so strong (they believe their hypothesis has 75-90% chance of being true before doing any experiments)  that it requires unreasonably strong data to the contrary to affect the final assessment of the result. All of science is losing credibility due to this.

I don't have time right now to go figure out which are the most important climate science papers, but my experience with scientists in my field tells me most have no concept of how to deal with uncertainty or alternative explanations, they instead just sweep it under the rug with dynamite plots and p-value "gold stars" sold to them by the various false-positive dealers (SPSS, SAS, etc). Perhaps this is going on in climate science, perhaps not. To me it doesn't really matter since my opinion aligns with the reduce growth/stop polluting/alternative energy movement anyway.

[bb113]

If there's a chance that the 95 percent are wrong, then obviously there's a bigger chance your 5 percent of sellouts and document falsifiers and people receiving donations from Exxon/Mobil are wrong as well.

No, the results are inconclusive both ways. Both sides are concluding things based on insufficient evidence (if climate science is like biomed science, which I don't know for sure).

See the first link in this post and take the job:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127448.0

[Richy_T]

We pollute. Pollution isn't good.

Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is claimed to be caused by CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. whether AGW is real or not, when supporters do this kind of thing, it harms their argument (though I've seen plenty of blunders on the denier side too to be fair).

I think AGW and CAGW are interesting ideas and deserve to be studied and properly proven or disproven by appropriate scientists in the field. Unfortunately, the issue has been hijacked by those who would have us living in the stone age and have been running around chicken-littleing about global warming/global cooling/peak oil/nuclear/the steam engine/the wheel/fire since forever. As such, I stand in strong opposition to any change which could radically alter our quality of life until and unless we have much more solid proof. (This is the true implication of the precautionary principle by the way).

[bb113]

We pollute. Pollution isn't good.

Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is claimed to be caused by CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. whether AGW is real or not, when supporters do this kind of thing, it harms their argument (though I've seen plenty of blunders on the denier side too to be fair).

I think AGW and CAGW are interesting ideas and deserve to be studied and properly proven or disproven by appropriate scientists in the field. Unfortunately, the issue has been hijacked by those who would have us living in the stone age and have been running around chicken-littleing about global warming/global cooling/peak oil/nuclear/the steam engine/the wheel/fire since forever. As such, I stand in strong opposition to any change which could radically alter our quality of life until and unless we have much more solid proof. (This is the true implication of the precautionary principle by the way).

You should consider the possibility that there are very few or no appropriate scientists in the field. As a burgeoning scientist, I will tell you this is a very real possibility. There is even extensive literature on what is wrong with science culture, written by scientists, if you care to look it up.

edit: I should say that despite this, modern science is still leaps and bounds beyond trusting the opinions of random people (ie religious leaders, politicians, and marketing/propaghanda tools).

[FirstAscent]

We pollute. Pollution isn't good.

Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is claimed to be caused by CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Really? Where did you hear that? Was it your favorite libertarian think tank? Or was it from the Handbook for Global Warming Deniers? Either you're 1) brainwashed by the very propaganda you consume, or you're 2) knowingly spreading disinformation, or 3) you're just not qualified to discuss such matters. Which one?

Ever hear of dust pollution? How about thermal pollution? Light pollution? Noise pollution?

Try 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.

Quoted from here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pollutant

I would like an answer to the three options given to you in my first paragraph of this post.

whether AGW is real or not, when supporters do this kind of thing, it harms their argument (though I've seen plenty of blunders on the denier side too to be fair).

What thing was that? Saying CO2 is a pollutant? Ah, perhaps we need to consider that you're the misinformed one causing harm to your own argument.

Suggestion: stop using your politically motivated agenda to color your knowledge of science. You won't look like such an idiot.

[TheButterZone]

We pollute. Pollution isn't good.

Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is claimed to be caused by CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. whether AGW is real or not, when supporters do this kind of thing, it harms their argument (though I've seen plenty of blunders on the denier side too to be fair).

Those who would declare CO2 (exhalations) a pollutant and take steps to combat it would have to advocate for the extermination the human race and all non-plant life on earth to be intellectually consistent. I have no doubt the sociopaths government is almost entirely composed of will do this, and begin genocide once they finish disarming all the law-abiding civilians of the world.

[FirstAscent]

We pollute. Pollution isn't good.

Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is claimed to be caused by CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. whether AGW is real or not, when supporters do this kind of thing, it harms their argument (though I've seen plenty of blunders on the denier side too to be fair).

Those who would declare CO2 (exhalations) a pollutant and take steps to combat it would have to advocate for the extermination the human race and all non-plant life on earth to be intellectually consistent. I have no doubt the sociopaths government is almost entirely composed of will do this, and begin genocide once they finish disarming all the law-abiding civilians of the world.

How ridiculous. Ever hear of Owens Lake? Your remarks smack of politically motivated crap which can't distinguish anything outside of a black and white world of all this or all that. See my above post, and combine that with some more intelligent study on the matter. My reference to Owens Lake should help you along the way.

[cunicula]

How about Lake Nyos?

'On August 21, 1986, possibly as the result of a landslide, Lake Nyos suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby towns and villages.'

I suppose this is a false story perpetuated by the liberal media. The deaths were due to a collective and voluntary decision to cease breathing.

Anything is a pollutant if you create enough of it.

[TheButterZone]

So, destroy all lakes and land then, before the extermination of all living creatures, the biggest "pollution creators". Got it.

Tyranny vs liberty.

[FirstAscent]

So, destroy all lakes and land then, before the extermination of all living creatures, the biggest "pollution creators". Got it.

Tyranny vs liberty.

Sadly, you didn't get it. So instead, you made some silly remark that means nothing. What garbage.

[cunicula]

So, destroy all lakes and land then, before the extermination of all living creatures, the biggest "pollution creators". Got it.

Humans produce about 1 kg of CO2 per day per person. That is 365 kg per year. For the total world population that is about 2.5 billion metric tons per year.
The world output of CO2 emissions is about 30 billion tons. After we exterminate all human life, we still have the other 27.5 billion metric tons per year to worry about.
Environmentalists suggest we reduce the 27.5 billion tons to a sustainable level and allow humans to survive.

What is the objective of exterminating all life again?

Tyranny vs liberty.

I cannot be free until individuals like you cease to pollute the world with their thoughts. I suggest you participate in your proposed emissions reductions program.
We can use your example to persuade other volunteers.

[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. Geez. How stupid of me not to have gone to the one and true source for climate science: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/12/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

How laughably predictable.

[FirstAscent]

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.

[TheButterZone]

So, destroy all lakes and land then, before the extermination of all living creatures, the biggest "pollution creators". Got it.

Humans produce about 1 kg of CO2 per day per person. That is 365 kg per year. For the total world population that is about 2.5 billion metric tons per year.
The world output of CO2 emissions is about 30 billion tons. After we exterminate all human life, we still have the other 27.5 billion metric tons per year to worry about.
Environmentalists suggest we reduce the 27.5 billion tons to a sustainable level and allow humans to survive.

What is the objective of exterminating all life again?

Tyranny vs liberty.

I cannot be free until individuals like you cease to pollute the world with their thoughts. I suggest you participate in your proposed emissions reductions program.
We can use your example to persuade other volunteers.

In your "reality", humans cannot logically survive the chicken little BS apocalypse (propagated by tyrants and the mostly unqualified funding recipients and qualified sociopath tyranny-lovers thereof). It will happen no matter what means you propose and implement to deal with it, whether you come up with Quixotic, godlike "solutions", or admit that only one will achieve your ends. Self-defeating, unless you're projecting your wish for my death and it's really you who wants to get beamed off this rock.

I reject your reality which requires aggression to achieve its brutal ends, and substitute our own. Either humans will continue living, or not. It's your choice whether you will politically support closeted mass-murdering tyrants who will enact THE Final Solution, or not.

[cunicula]

In your "reality", humans cannot logically survive the chicken little BS apocalypse (propagated by tyrants and the mostly unqualified funding recipients and qualified sociopath tyranny-lovers thereof). It will happen no matter what means you propose and implement to deal with it, whether you come up with Quixotic, godlike "solutions", or admit that only one will achieve your ends. Self-defeating, unless you're projecting your wish for my death and it's really you who wants to get beamed off this rock.

I reject your reality which requires aggression to achieve its brutal ends, and substitute our own. Either humans will continue living, or not. It's your choice whether you will politically support closeted mass-murdering tyrants who will enact THE Final Solution, or not.

Hmm..., I suggest you reduce your methamphetamine intake. You are exhibiting symptoms of paranoid psychosis.

[TheButterZone]

I cannot be free until individuals like you cease to pollute the world with their thoughts. I suggest you participate in your proposed emissions reductions program.
We can use your example to persuade other volunteers.

In your "reality", humans cannot logically survive the chicken little BS apocalypse (propagated by tyrants and the mostly unqualified funding recipients and qualified sociopath tyranny-lovers thereof). It will happen no matter what means you propose and implement to deal with it, whether you come up with Quixotic, godlike "solutions", or admit that only one will achieve your ends. Self-defeating, unless you're projecting your wish for my death and it's really you who wants to get beamed off this rock.

I reject your reality which requires aggression to achieve its brutal ends, and substitute our own. Either humans will continue living, or not. It's your choice whether you will politically support closeted mass-murdering tyrants who will enact THE Final Solution, or not.

Hmm..., I suggest you reduce your methamphetamine intake. You are exhibiting symptoms of paranoid psychosis.

LOL!

Moving from advising me to commit suicide, to libel. Isn't it supposed to be <libel> first, THEN 'kill yourself'?

[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.