How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[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?

So your answer to my question is yes?

[JoelKatz]

I'm confused. You are taking fabrication of a result as evidence that the result is not true.

If you can't repeat it, it isn't science.

Fabrication indicates that the researchers involved were either dishonest and/or incompetent.

No, that is incorrect. The researchers were honest and competent. The problem was the fundamental methodology of their field wherein results are "calibrated" routinely by ensuring they agree with the "known correct" results of others in their field. For example, NASA uses satellites to measure temperatures. But satellite temperature sensors drift over the years. How do you think NASA recalibrates their sensors to ensure they receive temperature data from their satellites that remain accurate? Assume they are honest and competent, so they use the best data they can find from other sources. That will include the CRU data, and the data that the CRU scientists (we now know) used to calibrated their own data.

To an outsider, it looks like three independent sources all agree. No dishonesty. No incompetence. It's just that the problem is not visible because it's not obvious what standards proxy temperatures are calibrated to.

What can you do to calibrate and tweak your computer models other than to make sure they replicate the "known correct" existing temperature data as closely possible for the past? (Which, we now know, was the CRU data, the data that CRU calibrated to, and other data sets calibrate from CRU. Yay.) Then you turn them lose on the future. So if we have a bogus temperature increase in the past, they will report that same bogus temperature increase in the future. That's what they're *supposed* to do. That's what an honest and competent application of the methodology will produce.

Say you want to measure past temperatures based on ice cores or tree rings. So you measure ice cores or tree rings. Now, how do you convert those numbers to temperatures? Simple -- you take readings from times where temperatures are known from other sources and make a calibration table. So if those other sources have a bogus increase in temperature, so will yours. No dishonesty. No incompetence. Just the nature of the methodology.

And we know there were inputs that put a continuous upward pressure on the "everyone calibrates from everyone else's data" effect, such as urban heat island effects.

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

These were people with high internal moral codes and top scientists. This wasn't a case of a few bad guys. This was the curtain being pulled back and the methodology being exposed.

The Earth is warming though. There's not enough bad science to change that fact.

[FirstAscent]

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.

Are you even remotely aware of what classes of damage I am referring to?

[cunicula]

The Earth is warming though. There's not enough bad science to change that fact.

Thanks for the coherent explanation. I don't follow this stuff.

However, I still take issue with this exchange:

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

Response:

These were people with high internal moral codes and top scientists. This wasn't a case of a few bad guys. This was the curtain being pulled back and the methodology being exposed.

Does this mean that If I find a large group of dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinkers than we can assign libertarianism to the waste bin?

[cunicula]

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.

If you put that shitty argument in an economic model, the conclusion would displease you. The wealth effects would not be large enough to meaningfully affect overall innovation. Alternatively, keep things as vague as possible to better convince ignorant readers.

On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that constraining supply of a good stimulates technological innovation that overcomes the supply constraint.

[FirstAscent]

The Earth is warming though. There's not enough bad science to change that fact.

Thanks for the coherent explanation. I don't follow this stuff.

However, I still take issue with this exchange:

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

Response:

These were people with high internal moral codes and top scientists. This wasn't a case of a few bad guys. This was the curtain being pulled back and the methodology being exposed.

Does this mean that If I find a large group of dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinkers than we can assign libertarianism to the waste bin?

You mean like the endless set of libertarian think tanks which publish things like the Oregon Petition and Environment and Climate News and people like Frederick Seitz and Richard Lindzen all of whom are heavily funded by Exxon/Mobil?

It at least doesn't seem an unreasonable question.

[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.

Are you even remotely aware of what classes of damage I am referring to?

The damage that is caused by global warming because global warming is causing the damage. 

Good day, sir.

[Richy_T]

Does this mean that If I find a large group of dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinkers than we can assign libertarianism to the waste bin?

If everyone was using the output of those libertarian thinkers as the basis for libertarianism, surely. Please show where Popper lied, falsified his data and hid his original results and methodology. Or pick another popular Libertarian source if you would. Claiming that Rand is a shitty writer doesn't count.

[FirstAscent]

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.

Are you even remotely aware of what classes of damage I am referring to?

The damage that is caused by global warming because global warming is causing the damage.  

Good day, sir.

- Glacier melt creates ice albedo feedback loops, This creates an accelerating warming.
- Glacier calving creates rising sea levels. It also changes ocean currents.
- Warming causes an ocean density decrease. This also creates rising sea levels.
- Warming causes species habitat relocation northwards in the northern hemisphere
- Warming causes species habitat relocation southwards in the southern hemisphere
- Habitat relocation causes annual movement equal to miles per year
- Annual movement in miles per year causes species to hit barriers
- Barriers are suburbs, bodies of water, uninhabitable terrain, etc.
- Barriers cause species extinction
- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate
- Extinctions destroy ecosystem services and trophic cascades
- All of life (including humanity) require ecosystem services to live
- Extinctions also result in information loss
- The information in question is genetic material, social systems, biological processes, biological structures, etc.
- This information drives technology in the form of research and development
- Potentials are: material science, computer science, medicine, engineering

A burgeoning human population of 7 billion plus people is ever more dependent on technology and future technology to properly survive, and have quality of life. If we destroy our ecosystem services, and continue with high extinction rates, it is analogous to bleeding like crazy.

If we destroy all the information that resides within biodiversity, the ultimate end is a vastly simplified planet, like a desert of sand. There's so much less information to tap in such a world. Our real wealth currently exists untapped in the rich complex state of life.

And I haven't even discussed all the other ecosystem services.

Now, regarding GDP. It's a poor measure of much of anything, and economists are beginning to realize that. GDP includes cleanup services, maintenance services, etc. These are not improvements in well being. An economy that spends increasingly large amounts of money on cleanup, correction, maintenance, etc. is not improving, but its GDP is increasing.

So, I'd encourage you to study modern economics, steady state economics, ecology, island biogeography, climate science, trophic cascades, EPA successes, etc., etc., etc.

Of course, you're free to continue to pontificate, and one day while doing so, perhaps not within the comfort of a forum like this where all your peers generally don't educate themselves on such matters, you might find yourself looking like a fool.

Good day, sir.

[FirstAscent]

I failed to mention a couple other effects:

- Changing precipitation patterns which vastly render existing agriculture unusable
- This increases costs
- Increased storm violence

I added the new post because I saw you were online, and you might not have seen it otherwise.

[cunicula]

Does this mean that If I find a large group of dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinkers than we can assign libertarianism to the waste bin?

If everyone was using the output of those libertarian thinkers as the basis for libertarianism, surely. Please show where Popper lied, falsified his data and hid his original results and methodology. Or pick another popular Libertarian source if you would. Claiming that Rand is a shitty writer doesn't count.

You can't pick the libertarians or it is obviously an unfair comparison. I'm only familiar with the bottom of the barrel. (At least that is my charitable assumption)

[FirstAscent]

Does this mean that If I find a large group of dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinkers than we can assign libertarianism to the waste bin?

If everyone was using the output of those libertarian thinkers as the basis for libertarianism, surely. Please show where Popper lied, falsified his data and hid his original results and methodology. Or pick another popular Libertarian source if you would. Claiming that Rand is a shitty writer doesn't count.

You can't pick the libertarians or it is obviously an unfair comparison. I'm only familiar with the bottom of the barrel. (At least that is my charitable assumption)

Read all about the Oregon Petition. It's all you need to know. Pay attention to the mimicry employed on the cover sheet. Then find the list of signers on the petition (purported to be experts on climate science), and then google their names to try and find published papers they've authored. Instead, you'll find what they really are. Of course, we could then proceed to Environment and Climate News, a rag published by the Heartland Institute, where the editor of the rag is a libertarian and analyst for property rights. Yes, property rights, not an expert on climate science, or any science, for that matter. Then there's the George C. Marshall Institute. And Frederick Seitz. Richard Lindzen. The Cato Institute. Look into what they publish, what their credentials are, who funds them, etc.

[FirstAscent]

On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that constraining supply of a good stimulates technological innovation that overcomes the supply constraint.

Very concise and well articulated. There's also a lot of evidence that capitalism unchecked results in picking the lowest hanging fruit until its exhausted. It goes like this:

1. The resource might have many uses. It also may have many beneficial effects to the environment.

2. The resource might also have many future as of yet undiscovered uses.

3. However, it's only harvested for one particular use, wasting other possible uses.

4. As it diminishes in supply, its price rises, and more harvesters enter the market to capitalize on the higher market price. More technology and effort is applied to harvest it.

5. To use the resource, it undergoes an irreversible transformation. It's not like metal or water.

6. Unchecked capitalism harvests it until its gone or nearly gone. Collateral damage occurs throughout these processes.

7. Capitalism finally seeks alternative solutions, but the world is poorer, due to the benefits or future benefits the original resource provided or could have provided.

[myrkul]

- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate

This is false. Global extinctions have happened numerous times throughout Earth's history. You're not concerned about "all life on earth," you're focused on maintaining the status quo. "Mother Earth" will be just fine. Humans, maybe not so much. Of course, we're an adaptable bunch. I bet we pull through.

Advocate this stuff if you want, but please be honest about what you want from it.

[Richy_T]

On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that constraining supply of a good stimulates technological innovation that overcomes the supply constraint.

Very concise and well articulated. There's also a lot of evidence that capitalism unchecked results in picking the lowest hanging fruit until its exhausted. It goes like this:

1. The resource might have many uses. It also may have many beneficial effects to the environment.

2. The resource might also have many future as of yet undiscovered uses.

3. However, it's only harvested for one particular use, wasting other possible uses.

4. As it diminishes in supply, its price rises, and more harvesters enter the market to capitalize on the higher market price. More technology and effort is applied to harvest it.

5. To use the resource, it undergoes an irreversible transformation. It's not like metal or water.

6. Unchecked capitalism harvests it until its gone or nearly gone. Collateral damage occurs throughout these processes.

7. Capitalism finally seeks alternative solutions, but the world is poorer, due to the benefits or future benefits the original resource provided or could have provided.

Central planning is the way forward, comrades. It only failed before because it wasn't done right. This time we shall surely prevail!

[Richy_T]

- Glacier melt creates ice albedo feedback loops, This creates an accelerating warming.
- Glacier calving creates rising sea levels. It also changes ocean currents.
- Warming causes an ocean density decrease. This also creates rising sea levels.
- Warming causes species habitat relocation northwards in the northern hemisphere
- Warming causes species habitat relocation southwards in the southern hemisphere
- Habitat relocation causes annual movement equal to miles per year
- Annual movement in miles per year causes species to hit barriers
- Barriers are suburbs, bodies of water, uninhabitable terrain, etc.
- Barriers cause species extinction
- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate
- Extinctions destroy ecosystem services and trophic cascades
- All of life (including humanity) require ecosystem services to live
- Extinctions also result in information loss
- The information in question is genetic material, social systems, biological processes, biological structures, etc.
- This information drives technology in the form of research and development
- Potentials are: material science, computer science, medicine, engineering

- Changing precipitation patterns which vastly render existing agriculture unusable
- This increases costs
- Increased storm violence

Some of these are predicated on warming to a degree which I claim hasn't been proven to exist. The other assumption is that such warming is all caused by human action and not simply natural cycles, some are wild speculation, some are not even caused by supposed warming. Some of these are not yet known to be long term trends (weather is not climate as we are frequently told). And of course, any possible benefits from warming are totally discounted (not that I am a flag waver for that but it should be noted). And exactly what proportion of new discoveries in the sciences are made from rooting out and analyzing obscure species and not from some goober in a white coat sitting in front of a computer anyway? We used to get aspirin from willow trees you know.

Again, proposed solutions will cripple first and second world economies (and enrich certain well connected people *cough*AlGore*cough* of course). If it's so abundantly clear this is an issue, why are we seeing comments in computer code about fudge factors? If I claim all swans are white, why is there a sack of black feathers stuffed in my closet?

[FirstAscent]

- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate

This is false. Global extinctions have happened numerous times throughout Earth's history. You're not concerned about "all life on earth," you're focused on maintaining the status quo. "Mother Earth" will be just fine. Humans, maybe not so much. Of course, we're an adaptable bunch. I bet we pull through.

Advocate this stuff if you want, but please be honest about what you want from it.

Thank you for this hilarious post. First you apparently need to invoke singular events such as cataclysmic asteroid impacts or events so far back in geological time in environments so different from ours to imply the extinction event occurring now is not unprecedented. However, the extinction event happening right now is unprecedented. Context matters. And I doubt you're as educated on the matter as much as you dare think you are.

But the really funny part about your post:

"Mother Earth" will be just fine. Humans, maybe not so much.

You imply that the well being of humanity is not so important. Does not libertarianism support the lot of humans? I will forever link back to this post when you claim one of the following:

1. When you say I think humans don't matter as compared to the environment.

2. When you claim AnCap or libertarianism is all about helping people have better lives.

[FirstAscent]

On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that constraining supply of a good stimulates technological innovation that overcomes the supply constraint.

Very concise and well articulated. There's also a lot of evidence that capitalism unchecked results in picking the lowest hanging fruit until its exhausted. It goes like this:

1. The resource might have many uses. It also may have many beneficial effects to the environment.

2. The resource might also have many future as of yet undiscovered uses.

3. However, it's only harvested for one particular use, wasting other possible uses.

4. As it diminishes in supply, its price rises, and more harvesters enter the market to capitalize on the higher market price. More technology and effort is applied to harvest it.

5. To use the resource, it undergoes an irreversible transformation. It's not like metal or water.

6. Unchecked capitalism harvests it until its gone or nearly gone. Collateral damage occurs throughout these processes.

7. Capitalism finally seeks alternative solutions, but the world is poorer, due to the benefits or future benefits the original resource provided or could have provided.

Central planning is the way forward, comrades. It only failed before because it wasn't done right. This time we shall surely prevail!

Not what we said. We said or implied constraints and/or regulations.

[FirstAscent]

- Glacier melt creates ice albedo feedback loops, This creates an accelerating warming.
- Glacier calving creates rising sea levels. It also changes ocean currents.
- Warming causes an ocean density decrease. This also creates rising sea levels.
- Warming causes species habitat relocation northwards in the northern hemisphere
- Warming causes species habitat relocation southwards in the southern hemisphere
- Habitat relocation causes annual movement equal to miles per year
- Annual movement in miles per year causes species to hit barriers
- Barriers are suburbs, bodies of water, uninhabitable terrain, etc.
- Barriers cause species extinction
- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate
- Extinctions destroy ecosystem services and trophic cascades
- All of life (including humanity) require ecosystem services to live
- Extinctions also result in information loss
- The information in question is genetic material, social systems, biological processes, biological structures, etc.
- This information drives technology in the form of research and development
- Potentials are: material science, computer science, medicine, engineering

- Changing precipitation patterns which vastly render existing agriculture unusable
- This increases costs
- Increased storm violence

Some of these are predicated on warming to a degree which I claim hasn't been proven to exist. The other assumption is that such warming is all caused by human action and not simply natural cycles, some are wild speculation, some are not even caused by supposed warming. Some of these are not yet known to be long term trends (weather is not climate as we are frequently told). And of course, any possible benefits from warming are totally discounted (not that I am a flag waver for that but it should be noted). And exactly what proportion of new discoveries in the sciences are made from rooting out and analyzing obscure species and not from some goober in a white coat sitting in front of a computer anyway? We used to get aspirin from willow trees you know.

Oh really? If you say so.

In other words, I see nothing in your above statement other than your speculation and hope that what you're saying is close to the truth. In actuality, everything I mentioned has been heavily studied and documented. Want an example?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

[myrkul]

- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate

This is false. Global extinctions have happened numerous times throughout Earth's history. You're not concerned about "all life on earth," you're focused on maintaining the status quo. "Mother Earth" will be just fine. Humans, maybe not so much. Of course, we're an adaptable bunch. I bet we pull through.

Advocate this stuff if you want, but please be honest about what you want from it.

Thank you for this hilarious post. First you apparently need to invoke singular events such as cataclysmic asteroid impacts or events so far back in geological time in environments so different from ours to imply the extinction event occurring now is not unprecedented. However, the extinction event happening right now is unprecedented. Context matters. And I doubt you're as educated on the matter as much as you dare think you are.

But the really funny part about your post:

"Mother Earth" will be just fine. Humans, maybe not so much.

You imply that the well being of humanity is not so important. Does not libertarianism support the lot of humans?

You make some pretty huge assumptions here:

1, You assume that global warming is anthropogenic (I contend that it is not - we're actually cooler than most of Earth's history), and 2, you assume that libertarianism will be damaging to the environment (I contend that it would not - States, such as China, are the worst polluters).

So, yes, feel free to link back to my post. It won't back up any argument you're making, though.

I don't imply that the well being of humans is unimportant, but that humanity is what you're looking to save, not "the earth." I just want you to be honest about it.