How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[Richy_T]

In other words, you're not qualified to render an opinion on the subject matter here. Try again.

My point is that most people who do, including statist control freaks like yourself aren't. The difference is, I'm not trying to send us back to the stone age.

[iCEBREAKER]

You believe AGW is happening or not?

"AGW?"  Puh-leez....

AGW is old and busted.  Because ClimateGate.  The new hotness is ACC.  Because if the weather changes, ManBearPig is real.

Do try and keep up:   

CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered     http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
As the evidence of fraud at the University of East Anglia's prestigious Climatic Research Unit (CRU) continues to mount, those who've been caught green-handed continue to parry their due opprobrium and comeuppance, thanks primarily to a dead-silent mainstream media. But should the hubris and duplicity evident in the e-mails of those whose millennial temperature charts literally fuel the warming alarmism movement somehow fail to convince the world of the scam that's been perpetrated, certainly these revelations of the fraud cooked into the computer programs that create such charts will.

Bottom line:  CRU's evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined.

Gotcha. We know they've been lying all along, and now we can prove it. It's time to bring sanity back to this debate. 

The emails are damning enough to global warming believers but the source code that was also leaked from the servers of the now disgraced Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the East Anglia University in England are far more damaging.
http://oneutah.org/environment/global-warming/climategate-source-code-more-damning-than-emails/

Code:

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(…)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

valadj is an array that if we plug in the numbers we get Michael Mann’s hockeystick. The programmers have hard coded a predetermined result.

“We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

    - source code comment for the HADCRUT temperature set

Sigh.

I suppose it's a Good Thing that Occutards like FA are increasingly infesting even this former bastion of rationality.

That indicates word about Bitcoin is spreading among the Max Kremlin lefty airhead types.

So in the spirit of ecumenity, welcome to the real world FA! 

May Satoshi bless you in the future with less ignorance and greater understanding.

[FirstAscent]

In other words, you're not qualified to render an opinion on the subject matter here. Try again.

My point is that most people who do, including statist control freaks like yourself aren't. The difference is, I'm not trying to send us back to the stone age.

I was hoping to have a discussion with you about climate change, but it's becoming apparent that you can't. Anyway, where was that circular logic you were talking about? And where did I mention reverting society to the stone age? You have all these funny assumptions, and they're quite cliched, and frankly, worthless.

[Richy_T]

I was hoping to have a discussion with you about climate change, but it's becoming apparent that you can't. Anyway, where was that circular logic you were talking about? And where did I mention reverting society to the stone age? You have all these funny assumptions, and they're quite cliched, and frankly, worthless.

The question really boils down to whether there is enough humanity driven pollution to make AGW a reality.

If AGW is not a reality then CO2 is not a pollutant (by your earlier definition which does not match that in the OED btw). Unless you are claiming that AGW is driven by things other than CO2 which *are* conventional pollutants.

If you weren't playing lefty word-games and used simple statements like "The question really boils down to whether there is enough humanity driven CO2 emission to make AGW a reality." , there wouldn't really be much of a problem. Your use of words belies your deep-rooted biases.

Since you seem to have made some assumptions about my position, I will say that I think it seems likely that human CO2 emissions may be having some warming effect. What I have problems with are the idea that this is in any way "settled" (code for "Shut up, the sooner we can just stick you in a re-education camp, the better") that it is particularly significant (extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence and all that) and with the suggested solutions ("All you have to do is subscribe to the political dogma that we just happen to have been advocating since 1867").

[iCEBREAKER]

Why can't Keynesians go make their own currency so they can stop trolling?

Keynesians already have dozens of (fake fiat trash) currencies.  The dollar, euro, yen, and yuan are the most prominent examples.

They come here to hate because they're jealous.   

[FirstAscent]

I was hoping to have a discussion with you about climate change, but it's becoming apparent that you can't. Anyway, where was that circular logic you were talking about? And where did I mention reverting society to the stone age? You have all these funny assumptions, and they're quite cliched, and frankly, worthless.

The question really boils down to whether there is enough humanity driven pollution to make AGW a reality.

If AGW is not a reality then CO2 is not a pollutant (by your earlier definition which does not match that in the OED btw). Unless you are claiming that AGW is driven by things other than CO2 which *are* conventional pollutants.

Read it again. We were discussing pollutants. With regard to pollutants, which can be naturally occurring, or caused by humanity, the question is: are we putting out enough pollutants to cause global warming?

This question is not difficult to understand. But since you can't actually or don't want to discuss climate science, you instead want to find hidden subtle twists within such a simple statement. That's definitely a sign that you don't have much to contribute.

If you wish, for your convenience, we can agree to assume the absolute worst about my statement, and actually have a discussion about the science of climate change. I've offered you that opportunity, but you admit that you're not up to it.

[FirstAscent]

Since you seem to have made some assumptions about my position, I will say that I think it seems likely that human CO2 emissions may be having some warming effect. What I have problems with are the idea that this is in any way "settled" (code for "Shut up, the sooner we can just stick you in a re-education camp, the better") that it is particularly significant (extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence and all that) and with the suggested solutions ("All you have to do is subscribe to the political dogma that we just happen to have been advocating since 1867").

Look at the boldfaced statement above. Now, we know you have libertarian views. Fine. How do these work together? You're suggesting that we wait, and wait, and wait, until it's all settled. But perhaps, it's exactly because of your libertarian views, is the reason you want to argue against what others believe to be already settled.

It has now been predicted that the arctic will be ice free in the summers within 20 years. We broke yet another record this year regarding arctic ice melt. Now, factor in ice albedo feedback loops. Google "ice albedo feedback loop". It's not good. And you want to wait.

[Richy_T]

Read it again. We were discussing pollutants. With regard to pollutants, which can be naturally occurring, or caused by humanity, the question is: are we putting out enough pollutants to cause global warming?

Questions:

1)Is CO2 a pollutant? How so?

2)Is AGW caused to any degree by any pollutants other than CO2? (allowing that CO2 is a pollutant for the purposes of this question).

[Richy_T]

Look at the boldfaced statement above. Now, we know you have libertarian views. Fine. How do these work together? You're suggesting that we wait, and wait, and wait, until it's all settled. But perhaps, it's exactly because of your libertarian views, is the reason you want to argue against what others believe to be already settled.

It has now been predicted that the arctic will be ice free in the summers within 20 years. We broke yet another record this year regarding arctic ice melt. Now, factor in ice albedo feedback loops. Google "ice albedo feedback loop". It's not good. And you want to wait.

You put words in my mouth again (surprise surprise). I'm suggesting both that we should be certain of what is occurring before taking actions that would certainly damage the wellbeing and health of millions, if not billions of human beings and that the solutions as proposed by the watermelon faction (that's you) are almost certainly not the correct ones.

[FirstAscent]

Look at the boldfaced statement above. Now, we know you have libertarian views. Fine. How do these work together? You're suggesting that we wait, and wait, and wait, until it's all settled. But perhaps, it's exactly because of your libertarian views, is the reason you want to argue against what others believe to be already settled.

It has now been predicted that the arctic will be ice free in the summers within 20 years. We broke yet another record this year regarding arctic ice melt. Now, factor in ice albedo feedback loops. Google "ice albedo feedback loop". It's not good. And you want to wait.

You put words in my mouth again (surprise surprise). I'm suggesting both that we should be certain of what is occurring before taking actions that would certainly damage the wellbeing and health of millions, if not billions of human beings and that the solutions as proposed by the watermelon faction (that's you) are almost certainly not the correct ones.

Do you have scientific studies showing all this damage that will occur to billions if we take action? Are you aware of the damage that is occurring right now by doing nothing?

[bb113]

How much do you really know about climate science given your belief in the failure of science and climate science in particular?

Bitcoinbitcoin113,

I asked you the above question earlier.

I don't have a belief in the failure of science and climate science in particular. I believe that there has been a failure in science education at the highest levels that has somehow persisted for over half a century resisting all attempts to change it, and this is one reason amongst many (possibly the strongest reason) to not use or accept scientific consensus arguments.

You believe AGW is happening or not?

Who knows, the whole thing is a mess. Either way my personal philosophy sidesteps the issue. We should strive to become more efficient and less wasteful anyway. And even if it was occurring governments should help by no longer artificially encouraging growth, not schizophrenically encouraging growth but also taxing it.

[JoelKatz]

Who knows, the whole thing is a mess. Either way my personal philosophy sidesteps the issue. We should strive to become more efficient and less wasteful anyway. And even if it was occurring governments should help by no longer artificially encouraging growth, not schizophrenically encouraging growth but also taxing it.

I think that would be a big mistake. For one thing, trying to be more efficient and less wasteful may leave us with less wealth and technology to deal with a species-survival threat. For another thing, what most people think of as efficiency is usually extremely inefficient. We may go to lots of effort to develop a solar infrastructure only to invent fusion two years later. Generally, you want to make major changes as late as possible so you have as much wealth, information, and technology when you do it. There is no advantage to having saved lots of a resource when it becomes no longer useful.

[Richy_T]

Do you have scientific studies showing all this damage that will occur to billions if we take action?

Really? I make no claims of veracity of the following chart as I just grabbed it off of google indiscriminately but if you will post up a chart showing the inverse, I will happily consider myself schooled.

Are you aware of the damage that is occurring right now by doing nothing?

Are you aware of how disagreement works? My position is that this claimed damage has not been sufficiently and scientifically demonstrated.

[Richy_T]

Who knows, the whole thing is a mess. Either way my personal philosophy sidesteps the issue. We should strive to become more efficient and less wasteful anyway. And even if it was occurring governments should help by no longer artificially encouraging growth, not schizophrenically encouraging growth but also taxing it.

Amen to that.

I think that would be a big mistake. For one thing, trying to be more efficient and less wasteful may leave us with less wealth and technology to deal with a species-survival threat. For another thing, what most people think of as efficiency is usually extremely inefficient. We may go to lots of effort to develop a solar infrastructure only to invent fusion two years later. Generally, you want to make major changes as late as possible so you have as much wealth, information, and technology when you do it. There is no advantage to having saved lots of a resource when it becomes no longer useful.

Not if we consider genuine efficiency and waste. A big clue is that if something costs more than you make back in savings, it probably is actually inefficient (as you suggest). Ethanol in gas for one incredibly retarded example.

[Rudd-O]

Why can't Keynesians go make their own currency so they can stop trolling?

Cos nobody would use their Ponzi shit.  The only way their scheme "works" (that is, lasts longer than a day in active use) is if they impose it on everyone else violently.

[Rudd-O]

You believe AGW is happening or not?

"AGW?"  Puh-leez....

AGW is old and busted.  Because ClimateGate.  The new hotness is ACC.  Because if the weather changes, ManBearPig is real.

Do try and keep up:   

CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered     http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
As the evidence of fraud at the University of East Anglia's prestigious Climatic Research Unit (CRU) continues to mount, those who've been caught green-handed continue to parry their due opprobrium and comeuppance, thanks primarily to a dead-silent mainstream media. But should the hubris and duplicity evident in the e-mails of those whose millennial temperature charts literally fuel the warming alarmism movement somehow fail to convince the world of the scam that's been perpetrated, certainly these revelations of the fraud cooked into the computer programs that create such charts will.

Bottom line:  CRU's evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined.

Gotcha. We know they've been lying all along, and now we can prove it. It's time to bring sanity back to this debate. 

The emails are damning enough to global warming believers but the source code that was also leaked from the servers of the now disgraced Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the East Anglia University in England are far more damaging.
http://oneutah.org/environment/global-warming/climategate-source-code-more-damning-than-emails/

Code:

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(…)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

valadj is an array that if we plug in the numbers we get Michael Mann’s hockeystick. The programmers have hard coded a predetermined result.

“We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

    - source code comment for the HADCRUT temperature set

Sigh.

I suppose it's a Good Thing that Occutards like FA are increasingly infesting even this former bastion of rationality.

That indicates word about Bitcoin is spreading among the Max Kremlin lefty airhead types.

So in the spirit of ecumenity, welcome to the real world FA! 

May Satoshi bless you in the future with less ignorance and greater understanding.

The level of corruption in the actions of the ClimateGate actors is only surpassed by the level of self-delusion in their worshippers.

[Rudd-O]

In other words, you're not qualified to render an opinion on the subject matter here. Try again.

My point is that most people who do, including statist control freaks like yourself aren't. The difference is, I'm not trying to send us back to the stone age.

I was hoping to have a discussion with you about climate change, but it's becoming apparent that you can't. Anyway, where was that circular logic you were talking about? And where did I mention reverting society to the stone age? You have all these funny assumptions, and they're quite cliched, and frankly, worthless.

No, YOU can't have a conversation about climate change.  You've been shown computer source code evidence here that the whole "climate change" is a FABRICATION, but you resist it.  Clearly you cannot be reasoned with.

[cunicula]

I'm confused. You are taking fabrication of a result as evidence that the result is not true.
Fabrication indicates that the researchers involved were either dishonest and/or incompetent.

If I find a dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinker can we assign libertarianism to the waste bin too?

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm confused. You are taking fabrication of a result as evidence that the result is not true.
Fabrication indicates that the researchers involved were either dishonest and/or incompetent.

If I find a dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinker can we assign libertarianism to the waste bin too?

Yes, you are confused.  Specifically, about the nature and scope of the ClimateGate fiasco.  

You must understand that the ClimateGate critique, of politicized agendas masquerading as science, indicts everything it touches.

You must also understand that in real, proper Science presumption is negative and thus the burden of proof is on those who Truly Believe that ManBearPig is super serial.

It wasn't just the "result" that was fabricated.  Data was intentionally and illegally withheld from the US/UK taxpayers who paid for it, in violation of our respective Freedom of Information Acts and the spirit of the peer-review process.

Your attempt at damage control, spinning to minimize ClimateGate's impact, fails:

Climategate:  the trashy Australian data
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_global_warming_conspiracy_the_trashy_australian_data
A question: what does this say about the data used by the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology about their own predictions of warming catastrophe?

From CBS News:

    

In addition to (the leaked CRU) e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named “Harry”—possibly the CRU’s Ian “Harry” Harris—was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added:

        I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we’re using an off-the-shelf product that isn’t documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn’t coded up in Fortran I don’t know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn’t enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it’s too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

        I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

Dr. von Storch, now at the University of Hamburg’s Meteorological Institute, said Monday that the behavior outlined in the hacked emails went too far… East Anglia researchers ”violated a fundamental principle of science,” he said, by refusing to share data with other researchers. “They built a group to do gatekeeping, which is also totally unacceptable,” he added

Climategate: Why it matters
The scandal we see and the scandal we don't
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

Reading the Climategate archive is a bit like discovering that Professional Wrestling is rigged. You mean, it is? Really?

The archive - a carefully curated 160MB collection of source code, emails and other documents from the internal network of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - provides grim confirmation for critics of climate science. But it also raises far more troubling questions.

The allegations over the past week are fourfold: that climate scientists controlled the publishing process to discredit opposing views and further their own theory; they manipulated data to make recent temperature trends look anomalous; they withheld and destroyed data they should have released as good scientific practice, and they were generally beastly about people who criticised their work.

We serious, reputable scientists simply cannot give credence to any data emerging from the murky manipulated depths of the pseudoscience known as folk climatology!

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.  Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
 - Dr Phil Jones, disgraced former head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

[iCEBREAKER]

And let's not overlook this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data

Hacked climate emails: Phil Jones admits loss of weather data was 'not acceptable'

The climate expert at the centre of a media storm over the release of emails onto the internet has admitted that he did not follow correct procedures over a key scientific paper.

In an interview with the science journal Nature, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia, admitted it was "not acceptable" that records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost.

tl;dr  ManBearPig is a giant global scam, used to scare children and credulous adults into giving the government more of their money.