Bitcoin Forum
September 23, 2017, 04:44:01 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?  (Read 28966 times)
barbarousrelic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 675


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 02:15:37 PM
 #1

I asked this in a related thread and it didn't get addressed so I'll ask again here. How would a libertarian society address the problem of certain entities emitting enormous amounts of C02, leading to global warming?

An answer I've received elsewhere was that a libertarian society would allow you to sue power companies that output large amounts of C02. I don't like this answer for two reasons:

1) Depending on the type of libertarian society there may not be a court system the power company would agree to be sued in, and they might not obey the decision anyway.

2) Even individual power companies don't emit enough C02 to noticeably affect global C02 levels. Global C02 levels only get measurably affected by the combined output of hundreds of the coal burning plants in the world. You would have to simultaneously sue every power company in the world, which is completely impossible right now and would be even harder still in a world with less centralization.

How would a libertarian political order address this? And more generally, how would it address the problems that arise when a great number of parties each contribute small amounts of pollution into common resources?

Do not waste your time debating whether Bitcoin can work. It does work.

"Early adopters will profit" is not a sufficient condition to classify something as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. If it was, Apple and Microsoft stock are Ponzi schemes.

There is no such thing as "market manipulation." There is only buying and selling.
1506185041
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506185041

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506185041
Reply with quote  #2

1506185041
Report to moderator
1506185041
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506185041

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506185041
Reply with quote  #2

1506185041
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506185041
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506185041

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506185041
Reply with quote  #2

1506185041
Report to moderator
1506185041
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506185041

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506185041
Reply with quote  #2

1506185041
Report to moderator
1506185041
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506185041

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506185041
Reply with quote  #2

1506185041
Report to moderator
ben-abuya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 323



View Profile WWW
July 03, 2011, 02:25:15 PM
 #2

Here's one answer:

Start a clean power company that emits a lot less co2 than your competitors' power plants. People who value clean energy will be willing to spend more money on your power than on your competitors. If there aren't many people willing to pay the extra cost, then perhaps most people don't agree with you that emitting co2 into the atmosphere is a big problem, or that addressing it is worth the current cost.

http://lamassubtc.com/
Lamassu Bitcoin Ventures
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 02:41:35 PM
 #3

Arguably humans are very bad at cost-benefit analysis when benefits are very immediate and costs are in the far future. It's also difficult to deal with problems where, when the major effects show up, it is too late to do anything about it. Humans also seem to be evolutionary designed to think about linear change much easier than non-linear change. All this to say, it's unlikely that global warming would be dealt with effectively in a libertarian society, but it doesn't seem to be being dealt with very well in non-libertarian societies as well.

There are a variety of problems like this though where I think that increasing the likelihood of socializing people to think of themselves as isolated individuals (which market-based transactions tend to do) rather than as part of a larger communities, including the community of beings living on this planet, can have bad effects overall.

Not an argument for authoritarian structures or states, since as mentioned I don't exactly see those dealing with this issue, and it is theoretically possible for an anarcho-capitalist society to deal with global warming, but it is unlikely I think.

JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2011, 02:42:36 PM
 #4

How would a libertarian political order address this? And more generally, how would it address the problems that arise when a great number of parties each contribute small amounts of pollution into common resources?
The short answer is that no known system handles this well, other than perhaps a dictatorship with a dictator who really likes a cold planet. You can see how badly Democracies are handling this. However, the basic solution to these kinds of problems is prosperity and technology. So if you think a Libertarian society will lead to prosperity, you can expect it to solve these kinds of problems better than other systems. If you don't think it leads to prosperity, then you should reject it regardless of how it handles negative externalities.

Not long ago, the big negative externality was horse poop and rotting bodies in the streets. Technology and prosperity solved that.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 02:59:55 PM
 #5

In a Libertarian society people would be well educated enough in science to realize that global warming is designed as a tool to push a tax scheme, not environmental policy, and that the earth is heating because of increased solar activity, not because of human activity.

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
Sovereign
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80



View Profile
July 03, 2011, 03:11:00 PM
 #6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMxgYY_q-AI

12uB1LSPrAqeEefLJTDfd6rKsu3KjiFBpa
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 03:19:53 PM
 #7

An answer I've received elsewhere was that a libertarian society would allow you to sue power companies that output large amounts of C02. I don't like this answer for two reasons:

1) Depending on the type of libertarian society there may not be a court system the power company would agree to be sued in, and they might not obey the decision anyway.

2) Even individual power companies don't emit enough C02 to noticeably affect global C02 levels. Global C02 levels only get measurably affected by the combined output of hundreds of the coal burning plants in the world. You would have to simultaneously sue every power company in the world, which is completely impossible right now and would be even harder still in a world with less centralization.

How would a libertarian political order address this? And more generally, how would it address the problems that arise when a great number of parties each contribute small amounts of pollution into common resources?

If a power company refuses to use courts then it will have a tough time settling disputes where it's the victim. It's going to be a riskier investment which means fewer people are going to invest and those that do invest will invest less. No business is going to get very far and a large business that requires a huge startup cost won't even get off the ground without agreeing to abide by a court's ruling. If it does agree to abide by a court's ruling yet fails to obey then it's violated a contract and can be forced to comply and be charged with the costs of forcing it to comply.

It doesn't matter how much pollution you emit. If you can prove damage is being done to your property and you can measure the amount of pollution emitted then you'll be able to sue proportionally to that damage. You also won't have to sue every polluter on the planet simultaneously. I'm not even sure why you asserted that. You can sue them one at a time. Also, assuming everyone will be a victim then a class action lawsuit can be filed and you won't even have to do much, just sign your name somewhere.

The bottom line is, as long as people value pristine land, clean air and fresh water, there will be a cost associated with spoiling them. Businesses that can avoid these costs will increases their profits, expand and eventually drive the less green companies out of business. The market can handle pollution and has an incentive to do so, as long as we respective property rights and allow victims of pollution to recoup damages from polluters.
barbarousrelic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 675


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 03:21:55 PM
 #8

Here's one answer:

Start a clean power company that emits a lot less co2 than your competitors' power plants. People who value clean energy will be willing to spend more money on your power than on your competitors. If there aren't many people willing to pay the extra cost, then perhaps most people don't agree with you that emitting co2 into the atmosphere is a big problem, or that addressing it is worth the current cost.

The problem is that an individual's actions alone will have zero effect on the global C02 level. It is only when millions of peoples' actions are combined together that an effect is made. So an individual has to choose between the more expensive clean power source, with no measurable benefit for their individual decision, and the cheaper power source, with no measurable detriment to their individual decision.

Logical individuals, even if they highly value a low global C02 level, will choose the cheap and dirty power source because it has a net cost benefit for themselves with no measurable pollution increase for their individual decision.

Do not waste your time debating whether Bitcoin can work. It does work.

"Early adopters will profit" is not a sufficient condition to classify something as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. If it was, Apple and Microsoft stock are Ponzi schemes.

There is no such thing as "market manipulation." There is only buying and selling.
blogospheroid
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 132


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 03:22:17 PM
 #9

One way I can see is communication, repeated communication, followed by boycotts and when a sufficient number of people agree, contingent contracts.

Contingent contracts are contracts that trigger after a sufficient number of people agree to a proposition. They can be combined with money amounts kept in escrow. Once a sufficient number of people agree to a contract, then the technologies that need to be developed are developed and people maintain an account of who contributed.

If the issue is serious enough, the boycotts on the people who did not contribute will be serious.
barbarousrelic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 675


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 03:24:47 PM
 #10

It doesn't matter how much pollution you emit. If you can prove damage is being done to your property and you can measure the amount of pollution emitted then you'll be able to sue proportionally to that damage. You also won't have to sue every polluter on the planet simultaneously. I'm not even sure why you asserted that. You can sue them one at a time. Also, assuming everyone will be a victim then a class action lawsuit can be filed and you won't even have to do much, just sign your name somewhere.
There is a safe (and necessary) level of C02 in the Earth's atmosphere. Suing an individual power plant will result in them saying, accurately, that their output alone does not bring the Earth's atmospheric C02 levels above the safe level.

Do not waste your time debating whether Bitcoin can work. It does work.

"Early adopters will profit" is not a sufficient condition to classify something as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. If it was, Apple and Microsoft stock are Ponzi schemes.

There is no such thing as "market manipulation." There is only buying and selling.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 03:31:22 PM
 #11

There is a safe (and necessary) level of C02 in the Earth's atmosphere. Suing an individual power plant will result in them saying, accurately, that their output alone does not bring the Earth's atmospheric C02 levels above the safe level.

Let's say that you're standing inside of an empty tank that goes up over your head with your feet strapped to the bottom. Some guy dumps in a 5 gallon bucket of water. It splashes around your feet, no harm done.

Now let's say you're up to your neck in water in that same tank. Some guy dumps in a 5 gallon bucket of water and you drown. Is it a defense for him to say that his bucket of water alone wouldn't have killed you if the tank was empty?
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2011, 03:36:14 PM
 #12

Logical individuals, even if they highly value a low global C02 level, will choose the cheap and dirty power source because it has a net cost benefit for themselves with no measurable pollution increase for their individual decision.
They will do that until enough individuals enter into a mutually-binding agreement to all switch to a clean power source as soon as they reach a critical mass of people such that the individual benefit from switching exceeds the individual cost. They may even refuse to do business with people who refuse to enter into such agreements.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 03:40:26 PM
 #13

Logical individuals, even if they highly value a low global C02 level, will choose the cheap and dirty power source because it has a net cost benefit for themselves with no measurable pollution increase for their individual decision.
They will do that until enough individuals enter into a mutually-binding agreement to all switch to a clean power source as soon as they reach a critical mass of people such that the individual benefit from switching exceeds the individual cost. They may even refuse to do business with people who refuse to enter into such agreements.
It's often too late by then. Damage has already occurred.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 03:41:50 PM
 #14

The bottom line is, as long as people value pristine land, clean air and fresh water, there will be a cost associated with spoiling them. Businesses that can avoid these costs will increases their profits, expand and eventually drive the less green companies out of business. The market can handle pollution and has an incentive to do so, as long as we respective property rights and allow victims of pollution to recoup damages from polluters.

This type of thinking is so fallacious, it is absurd. Each business, an entity in its own right, and often small, focuses on serving its bottom line, and will always try and get away with what it can and assume that its competitors can and will do the good thing.

Is there money to be made by the timber industry in the Amazon basin? I think so. Are entities exploiting that? I think so. Is it destroying biodiversity as a result? I think so. Can we get that resource back? No.

As Paul R. Ehrlich says:

"The scale of the human socio-economic-political complex system is so large that it seriously interferes with the biospheric complex system upon which it is wholly dependant, and cultural evolution has been too slow to deal effectively with the resulting crisis."

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
barbarousrelic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 675


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 03:45:02 PM
 #15

There is a safe (and necessary) level of C02 in the Earth's atmosphere. Suing an individual power plant will result in them saying, accurately, that their output alone does not bring the Earth's atmospheric C02 levels above the safe level.

Let's say that you're standing inside of an empty tank that goes up over your head with your feet strapped to the bottom. Some guy dumps in a 5 gallon bucket of water. It splashes around your feet, no harm done.

Now let's say you're up to your neck in water in that same tank. Some guy dumps in a 5 gallon bucket of water and you drown. Is it a defense for him to say that his bucket of water alone wouldn't have killed you if the tank was empty?

I think this is a more accurate analogy: Let's say you're wearing cement shoes in a tank that drains out 6 gallons per minute and normally has 3 gallons a minute flowing in. Four people have also come along and start throwing in 1 gallon per minute each. Is any one of them legally liable for killing you?

They will each argue that their 1 gallon per minute was well within the safe level of contribution that the tank would accept without causing any danger to its inhabitants.


The liability analysis gets even more muddled when you multiply all the numbers by several thousand.

Do not waste your time debating whether Bitcoin can work. It does work.

"Early adopters will profit" is not a sufficient condition to classify something as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. If it was, Apple and Microsoft stock are Ponzi schemes.

There is no such thing as "market manipulation." There is only buying and selling.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 03:47:45 PM
 #16

Do corporations want to drill in the Arctic Refuge? Yes, they do. Will they if allowed to? Yes! What if there were no governing regulations with regard to that? They'd already be there in large numbers.

Do the Chileans want to build a large hydroelectric system in Patagonia? Some entities do. It's all about the bottom line. Destroy and damage that which you can't get back, to service the bottom line.

It's fallacious thinking that will leave us with nothing in the end. It's the classic slippery slope. The first real example of it was the mass megafauna extinctions in Europe and North America around 13,000 years ago. And it's been going on since then.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 03:48:51 PM
 #17

This type of thinking is so fallacious, it is absurd.

Just put forth your argument. There's no need to make this personal. That kind of comment adds absolutely nothing to the discussion and only serves to make it less civil.

Each business, an entity in its own right, and often small, focuses on serving its bottom line, and will always try and get away with what it can and assume that its competitors can and will do the good thing. Is there money to be made by the timber industry in the Amazon basin? I think so. Are entities exploiting that? I think so. Is it destroying biodiversity as a result? I think so. Can we get that resource back? No.

Which business is going to last longer, one that clear cuts until it runs out of a trees or one that cuts down trees and plants new ones? The business that plans for the future will be around longer. It's better for the long term bottom line to engage in sustainable practices.

As for biodiversity, how much rain forest do we need? Just mark off a section of it and claim it has an ecological preserve. Problem solved. I'm sure plenty of medical companies will also donate a little to this because who knows, some species of bug may cure cancer someday.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 03:51:23 PM
 #18

I think this is a more accurate analogy: Let's say you're wearing cement shoes in a tank that drains out 6 gallons per minute and normally has 3 gallons a minute flowing in. Four people have also come along and start throwing in 1 gallon per minute each. Is any one of them legally liable for killing you?

They will each argue that their 1 gallon per minute was well within the safe level of contribution that the tank would accept without causing any danger to its inhabitants.


The liability analysis gets even more muddled when you multiply all the numbers by several thousand.

Each of them are legally liable for murder.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 03:56:42 PM
 #19

Which business is going to last longer, one that clear cuts until it runs out of a trees or one that cuts down trees and plants new ones? The business that plans for the future will be around longer. It's better for the long term bottom line to engage in sustainable practices.
Businesses that believe replanting clear cut forests is a substitute for preexisting old growth forests are engaging in the destruction of a resource that is not being replenished, as replanted clear cut sections are not the same as old growth forests. Thus, by your way of thinking, the businesses either don't realize the destruction they are causing, or do it willfully.  

As for biodiversity, how much rain forest do we need? Just mark off a section of it and claim it has an ecological preserve. Problem solved. I'm sure plenty of medical companies will also donate a little to this because who knows, some species of bug may cure cancer someday.
What's destroyed, and what is being destroyed could be what we need in the future. And when it is destroyed, then we start looking to that which is not destroyed. For example, the Arctic Refuge or Patagonia. It doesn't stop.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:03:02 PM
 #20

bitcoin2cash:

Your arguments are only showing your naivete. There is a balance here, and the size of human impact has reached a point where it cannot be allowed to continue at its current rate. It's been going on for a long time, and the pace is increasing. Your proposed methods will not decrease this pace. They will only increase it.

Your proposals encourage a reactive rather than proactive method. However, the reactive method only reacts when excessive irreversible damage has been done. Already, irreversible damage has been done. There is a finely nuanced understanding that is required by all entities involved, and servicing the bottom line encourages glossing over those finer nuances. Your arguments are an example of selectively choosing to ignore those finer nuances.

And that is the heart of it right there: when servicing the bottom line, one can always choose to be ignorant about the finer details if it will allow greater profitability.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:06:14 PM
 #21

Businesses that believe replanting clear cut forests is a substitute for preexisting old growth forests are engaging in the destruction of a resource that is not being replenished, as replanted clear cut sections are not the same as old growth forests.

I didn't claim they were. My point was, if you replant trees, you don't have to keep cutting more and more old growth. At some point you can go back and cut down the new growth. The problem with clear cutting is that it's unsustainable.

What's destroyed, and what is being destroyed could be what we need in the future. And when it is destroyed, then we start looking to that which is not destroyed. For example, the Arctic Refuge or Patagonia. It doesn't stop.

Go claim sections of the Arctic Refuge or Patagonia and make it an ecological preserve. Problem solved. It sounds like you're saying that you want the world to be untouched. That's unreasonable. You need to come up with some kind of plan whereby we preserve as much biodiversity as possible, in case we might need it, without bringing the rest of the world to a grinding halt.

Your arguments are only showing your naivete.

Your insults are only showing how hysterical you are. I'm now ignoring you. Congratulations on completely alienating someone that could have been persuaded to your viewpoint had you not been so belligerent. You're really not helping your cause.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:09:22 PM
 #22

Go claim sections of the Arctic Refuge or Patagonia and make it an ecological preserve. Problem solved. It sounds like you're saying that you want the world to be untouched. That's unreasonable. You need to come up with some kind of plan whereby we preserve as much biodiversity as possible, in case we might need it, without bringing the rest of the world to a grinding halt.
The Arctic Refuge is claimed as an area that is supposed to be untouched. And the same goes for Patagonia! That's the whole point. It's the slippery slope in action.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:10:35 PM
 #23

Your insults are only showing how hysterical you are. I'm now ignoring you. Congratulations on completely alienating someone that could have been persuaded to your viewpoint had you not been so belligerent. You're really not helping your cause.
I will attempt to be civil. I do wish you to come around to my viewpoint. Accept my apology.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2011, 04:15:09 PM
 #24

It's often too late by then. Damage has already occurred.
I agree. But the political process is even slower and even less reliable. There are no perfect solutions. There may not even be any really good ones.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:17:59 PM
 #25

I will attempt to be civil. I do wish you to come around to my viewpoint. Accept my apology.

Thanks. All you have to do is attack the arguments and not me personally. I may be naive, brainwashed or whatever but I'm not going to just take your word for it. You'll have to convince me. I'm also sympathetic to your cause. However, I refuse to condone any solution to the problem that involves initiatory violence against other people or their property.

The Arctic Refuge is claimed as an area that is supposed to be untouched. And the same goes for Patagonia! That's the whole point. It's the slippery slope in action.

The problem is that it's owned by governments and not private citizens. If I owned the Arctic Refuge and you tried to drill into it then I'd stop you, with force if necessary. That's why I said it needs to be claimed by a person or group of people.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:20:43 PM
 #26

It's often too late by then. Damage has already occurred.
I agree. But the political process is even slower and even less reliable. There are no perfect solutions. There may not even be any really good ones.
I agree with you. But I believe until some process that works is in place, regulation is very important, and we're not stringent enough, because most people think along the lines of: "Drill, baby, Drill!" That's a sign that education is lacking. What is needed is an understanding that the trajectory in place is not leading in the right direction. We must seek alternatives. Education and technology are paramount, and a realization that growth cannot be sustained.

Unfortunately, nations competing with each other forces growth for the purposes of funding national security.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:24:04 PM
 #27

The problem is that it's owned by governments and not private citizens. If I owned the Arctic Refuge and you tried to drill into it then I'd stop you, with force if necessary. That's why I said it needs to be claimed by a person.
Doug Tompkins only has so much money. We're still in a crisis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Tompkins

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:28:54 PM
 #28

Your proposals encourage a reactive rather than proactive method. However, the reactive method only reacts when excessive irreversible damage has been done. Already, irreversible damage has been done. There is a finely nuanced understanding that is required by all entities involved, and servicing the bottom line encourages glossing over those finer nuances. Your arguments are an example of selectively choosing to ignore those finer nuances.

There isn't an economic school of thought on earth that doesn't agree with this statement.  It's only those hard liner libertarians that think a free market will magically be sufficiently proactive.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:32:51 PM
 #29

Although hurting the environment is bad PR and all that, most people only pretend to care about the environment. There is a "libertarianism and externalities" thread that kinda goes on about this: the consensus here appears to be "we kinda suck at controlling externalities, but so do governments".

This is pretty weak. At a minimum, tradable emissions permits are a very capitalist solution, and there is already an international framework (Kyoto accord). Yes, it's not working perfectly and never will... But I have a lot more confidence in long-term diplomatic pressure than planetwide cooperation on a prisoner's dilemma.

I'm sure this will attract a witty insult to my intelligence for supporting an already floundering, globally statist solution.  Grin  I eagerly await a free market solution that actually works better, if anyone has heard of one that I haven't seen... It should be theoretically possible.
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2011, 04:37:48 PM
 #30

...  and a realization that growth cannot be sustained.

Unfortunately, nations competing with each other forces growth for the purposes of funding national security.
You're wrong, the growth is good and absolutely can be sustained. The view that the growth is unsustainable comes from the mistaken assumption that sustaining something means continuing to go in the precise direction. This is not so. Sustaining growth means continuing to grow. It's like you look at a curving highway and think "there's no way you can keep going to San Diego, you'd run off the road". No, you turn with it.

We've sustained unsustainable growth for centuries simply by changing the way we grow as needed and on schedule.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:39:29 PM
 #31

I don't condone initiatory violence to solve problems. If you damage my property or it's clear that your actions will damage my property, I can stop you but I can't do anything until there is a clear and present danger. I don't have to wait for you to shoot me, just until you threaten me. It can be proactive but not to the point where there's never a threat in the first place. There has to be a threat before it's legitimate to respond in kind.

It doesn't matter if not using initiatory violence "doesn't work". Let justice be done though the heavens fall. Even if the world will implode unless we initiate violence against a minority of people, my only response will be "it had to end sometime". In the long run, we're all dead. Let's live our lives nobly until then.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:43:46 PM
 #32

We've sustained unsustainable growth for centuries simply by changing the way we grow as needed and on schedule.
I think it might be accurate to say it like this:

We've sustained unsustainable growth for centuries simply by changing the way we grow as needed, but behind schedule, and at the expense of living on a world with ever diminishing resources.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:48:15 PM
 #33

Actually, I think my above statement is not strong enough. By using the term resources, it implies a simple commodity, where one unit of x is just like another.

Instead of ever diminishing resources, I would say ever diminishing resources and natural complexity.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:48:45 PM
 #34

Quote
Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?

reading the posts above, the answer should be obvious.

it wouldn't.  it would dither.  it would slice and dice reality with polite legal and quasi-legal fictions.  it would assign blame incrementally, and feel bad about itself decrementally.  it would grant exemptions for wealth, while refusing to recognize that wealth was the cause.  it would politicize, and demonize.  it would deflect, and obfuscate.

it would do everything - and more - seen in the posts above.  posts in, arguably, one of the most purely libertarian sites around.

*

it would die.

*

here is the truth:

some very few things are so big that they transcend politics.  or national government.

global warming is one of them.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:52:48 PM
 #35

Quote
Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?

reading the posts above, the answer should be obvious.

it wouldn't.  it would dither.  it would slice and dice reality with polite legal and quasi-legal fictions.  it would assign blame incrementally, and feel bad about itself decrementally.  it would grant exemptions for wealth, while refusing to recognize that wealth was the cause.  it would politicize, and demonize.  it would deflect, and obfuscate.

it would do everything - and more - seen in the posts above.  posts in, arguably, one of the most purely libertarian sites around.

*

it would die.

*

here is the truth:

some very few things are so big that they transcend politics.  or national government.

global warming is one of them.

Therefore initiating violence against other people is moral?
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2011, 04:58:06 PM
 #36

We've sustained unsustainable growth for centuries simply by changing the way we grow as needed, but behind schedule, and at the expense of living on a world with ever diminishing resources.
Was oil a resource in 1650? Was uranium a resource in 1850? Is the moon a resource today?

If yes, fine, resources are diminishing but the universe is huge. Our growth may only be sustainable for a few trillion years. (Assuming this is the only universe.)

If no, how do you know resources are diminishing? It seems we're finding new resources at least as fast as we're using them up.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 05:03:24 PM
 #37

If not, how do you know resources are diminishing? It seems we're finding new resources at least as fast as we're using them up.
Sure. The Singularity will arise, and provide us with the technology to build a space faring species, resulting in a solar system wide economy, enveloping first the Asteroid Belt, then the gas giants, then the Kuiper Belt, then the Oort Cloud, then the nearby stars, ultimately resulting in a trans-human diaspora across the Milky Way. The Human Experience will ultimately harness the power of stars, and most of us will live in Dyson Spheres until the heat death of the Universe.

But until such time, the Earth is where it's at.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
July 03, 2011, 05:05:55 PM
 #38

If not, how do you know resources are diminishing? It seems we're finding new resources at least as fast as we're using them up.
Sure. The Singularity will arise, and provide us with the technology to build a space faring species, resulting in a solar system wide economy, enveloping first the Asteroid Belt, then the gas giants, then the Kuiper Belt, then the Oort Cloud, then the nearby stars, ultimately resulting in a trans-human diaspora across the Milky Way. The Human Experience will ultimately harness the power of stars, and most of us will live in Dyson Spheres until the heat death of the Universe.

But until such time, the Earth is where it's at.

Oil will be more expensive without government subsidies. Alternate energy sources, no longer with a subsidized competitor, would be competitive in the marketplace and something would take its place, making it obsolete and removing the problem.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 05:09:46 PM
 #39


Therefore initiating violence against other people is moral?

never.

but defending ones self from violence is always moral.

who is initiating violence?  i mean - the truth of global warming is clear - and only argued by people like Lord Monckton (who is not a Lord and has a degree in journalism, but has nevertheless been invited to testify before Congress - by Republicans like Inhofe, who is purely owned by Exxon), or Rick Santorum.

at this point, the people who are initiating violence are those who defend one more day's profits of big oil - and who are paid to do so, thinking they'll get to join the club.  they won't.  but they will create a billion climate refugees in the course of the next three to four decades.  where will they go?  how will they get there?  what will they eat?  violence, you were saying?

JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2011, 05:13:17 PM
 #40

If not, how do you know resources are diminishing? It seems we're finding new resources at least as fast as we're using them up.
Sure. The Singularity will arise, and provide us with the technology to build a space faring species, resulting in a solar system wide economy, enveloping first the Asteroid Belt, then the gas giants, then the Kuiper Belt, then the Oort Cloud, then the nearby stars, ultimately resulting in a trans-human diaspora across the Milky Way. The Human Experience will ultimately harness the power of stars, and most of us will live in Dyson Spheres until the heat death of the Universe.

But until such time, the Earth is where it's at.
Still, we are finding new resources faster than we are using them up. Blubber, horses, coal, oil, uranium, solar, there is no evidence even the usable resources on Earth are decreasing. We are better off using the resources more quickly and developing the technology and prosperity to find more resources than we are trying to slow ourselves down. You don't turn the wheel of the car until you get to the curve.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 05:18:27 PM
 #41

Still, we are finding new resources faster than we are using them up. Blubber, horses, coal, oil, uranium, solar, there is no evidence even the usable resources on Earth are decreasing. We are better off using the resources more quickly and developing the technology and prosperity to find more resources than we are trying to slow ourselves down. You don't turn the wheel of the car until you get to the curve.
I disagree with this. I stand behind the statement made by Stanford professor Paul R. Ehrlich:

"The scale of the human socio-economic-political complex system is so large that it seriously interferes with the biospheric complex system upon which it is wholly dependant, and cultural evolution has been too slow to deal effectively with the resulting crisis."

And the views of Herman Daly. You can watch a video of him here: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/daly-on/

Unfortunately, the Seed Magazine site is down, or I'd point you to two excellent articles, one an interview with Herman Daly, and another an article on biodiversity.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2011, 05:32:17 PM
 #42

Still, we are finding new resources faster than we are using them up. Blubber, horses, coal, oil, uranium, solar, there is no evidence even the usable resources on Earth are decreasing. We are better off using the resources more quickly and developing the technology and prosperity to find more resources than we are trying to slow ourselves down. You don't turn the wheel of the car until you get to the curve.
I disagree with this. I stand behind the statement made by Stanford professor Paul R. Ehrlich:

"The scale of the human socio-economic-political complex system is so large that it seriously interferes with the biospheric complex system upon which it is wholly dependant, and cultural evolution has been too slow to deal effectively with the resulting crisis."

Odd that you would stand by views that have been so thoroughly discredited, but whatever. To the extent you agree with Ehrlich, you should be trying to speed up cultural evolution, not slow it down. The child you don't have could have been the person who figured out how to make fusion power practical.

Ehrlich has claimed that his doomsday forecasts didn't come true because he sounded the alarm and action was taken to avert catastrophes. Exactly. When you get to the curve in the road, you don't freak out, you just turn.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 05:35:05 PM
 #43

at this point, the people who are initiating violence are those who defend one more day's profits of big oil - and who are paid to do so, thinking they'll get to join the club.

You have to show a direct threat. You can't just say that so-and-so doing X will increase my chances of coming to harm. If that argument applies then we need to lock up all teenage males because letting them roam freely increases the chances that I'll get attacked by one of them.

ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 05:52:13 PM
 #44

To the extent you agree with Ehrlich, you should be trying to speed up cultural evolution, not slow it down.

It depends on how you choose to look at it. The statement I quoted is not really a prediction. It's more an assertion about the current state of affairs, which you argue is only an opportunity to make a turn in the road.

Fine. Who decides which way to turn? You? People who are choosing to think like you? Me? People who are choosing to think like me? You clearly admit that a turn likely needs to be made. Is Ehrlich saying anything else? Or Herman Daly? That's exactly what they are saying.

You're advocating the development and use of alternative resources to fuel our growth. This is obvious. But that turn in the road must also incorporate a heightened sense of diminishing natural wealth, and the current turns in the road do not seem to be sharp enough. Determining when and where that turn is, which way it goes, and how sharp it is should be a process which weighs a lot of factors, many of which seem to be conveniently ignored. Unfortunately, many political ideologies benefit from ignoring certain factors.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
3phase
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 313


Third score


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 07:17:39 PM
 #45

Now really, what is the big deal about global warming and environment destruction?

Humans will die en masse, only maybe 10% will be left, and they will live in a different way than we do, to put it shortly.

It is a great hubris, in my view, to believe that humans have the power to destroy their environment (at large scale - meaning he planet) in the first place.

Having destroyed their micro-environment, it is an even greater hubris that they can restore it by their means.

There is overwhelming evidence that the planet we live in is changing, and the chages happening will cause problems for the human race.

There has not been, in my view again, overwhelming evidence that humans have actually caused this. I do not count academic researches and papers written in order to cash out subsidies or tenure positions.

And there is complete lack of evidence that humans could possibly reverse planetary scale changes, no matter how much they wish to, no matter how much funding they have.

I think we had better start thinking about surviving WITH global environment change, instead of spending our wit in order to understand the obscure and do the impossible.
 
If you are out of food for your children, and without a shelter for the night, you will probably stop worrying about whether society is or can be libertarian or whatever else.

Fiat no more.
Δοκιμάστε το http://multibit.org - Bitcoin client τώρα και στα Ελληνικά
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 07:25:18 PM
 #46

There has not been, in my view again, overwhelming evidence that humans have actually caused this. I do not count academic researches and papers written in order to cash out subsidies or tenure positions.

We're supposed to be entering a new ice age, based upon the orbital dynamics of the Earth, the dynamics of its changing axis tilt, and Sun cycles. These are the natural causes of ice ages. Despite that, the last 100 years, coincident with the rise of the industrial age, show a very marked trend like increase in temperatures.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 07:29:06 PM
 #47

You can learn about the natural cause of ice ages here: http://www.amazon.com/After-Ice-Age-Glaciated-America/dp/0226668126/

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
ribuck
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 07:31:29 PM
 #48

If any individual could predict how a voluntaryist society would address environmental issues, they would be well-qualified to lead a planned economy!

The more free a society is, the more possible courses of action its people can choose from, therefore the higher the chance of being able to pursue desirable outcomes.

You can take some comfort from some large-scale experiments. Consider West Germany vs. East Germany. After reunification it was clear that pollution and environmental degradation were much worse in the previously-communist East Germany. Prosperous people like to live in a nice environment, and are more likely to be able to achieve it.

Similarly, we can compare South vs North Korea, or Hong Kong vs Shanghai. In each case, the more free country or city is the less polluted one.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2011, 07:34:39 PM
 #49

Now really, what is the big deal about global warming and environment destruction?

Exactly. As George Carlin put it, The earth is a self-correcting system. If we fuck it up, it will fuck us up, until we are no more, at which point, it will seek equilibrium again. Short of turning the surface into glass via nukes (And I'm not entirely certain even that would get everything), We are nothing more than a hiccup for this planet. You're not worried about destroying the ecosystem, you're worried about making the planet a place hostile to human life. Should humanity make the planet hostile to human life, we will either leave, or die. Either way, Planet keeps on trucking.

At this point, I would like to point out that back before 'the little ice age' British wines were out-performing the French ones. I would also like to point out that the age of the Dinosaurs was considerably warmer than the current climate, So, at least be honest about what you're concerned about. It isn't the planet. It's the coastal cities.


BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 12:19:10 AM
 #50

We've sustained unsustainable growth for centuries simply by changing the way we grow as needed and on schedule.

Centuries is not a particularly long time in human history. We had a brief period of access to nearly free energy because we were essentially granted access to millions of years worth of concentrated solar energy. That energy will quickly start having much smaller EROI over the next century. We could argue that other energy sources - nuclear solar hydro geo etc will take up the slack, but there is at least a fair possibility that they won't/can't.

Unless we redefine growth in terms of "development" rather than increasing of energy throughput, there's certainly a non-zero chance that we will see a reversion to the energy throughput of most of human history.

Exponential growth doesn't occur indefinitely in finite systems.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 12:23:32 AM
 #51

Unless we redefine growth in terms of "development" rather than increasing of energy throughput, there's certainly a non-zero chance that we will see a reversion to the energy throughput of most of human history.

You sound a lot like Herman Daly (which is a good thing): http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 12:35:55 AM
 #52

If people care about it, which they clearly do, they will voluntarily devote their own resources to solving the problem, maybe even try to convince others to join in.

Whenever someone schemes about how to get my stuff in order to solve a problem they see I know they don't care much about it. When someone really cares about something they devote their own resources. It's easy to spend other people's money on garbage plans.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 12:39:51 AM
 #53

If people care about it, which they clearly do, they will voluntarily devote their own resources to solving the problem, maybe even try to convince others to join in.

Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. You can continue to hold this belief, but I challenge you to make a strong case for it here in this forum. I invite you to try though.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 01:30:52 AM
 #54

If people care about it, which they clearly do, they will voluntarily devote their own resources to solving the problem, maybe even try to convince others to join in.

Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. You can continue to hold this belief, but I challenge you to make a strong case for it here in this forum. I invite you to try though.

You think it's right to say that people care about things even if they refuse to work to fix or save them?

I'm not saying that people never lie. You will certainly meet people who claim to care about something, but if they only devote other people's resources to it they are just using the issue as cover.

There is no 'case' I can make. The way I tell what people care about is by watching what they do so I'm just always right on this. What is your way of telling what people care about? Listening to what they say?

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 01:47:56 AM
 #55

What I mean to say, within the context of this thread, and requesting that you make a case for "where if people care about something, they will fix it" is this:

The first thing that is necessary for people to care about something is for them to realize it needs to be cared about. In other words, it needs to be clear that it is a relevant issue. Given the title of this thread, global warming is a great issue to use as an example.

Clearly, some people believe global warming exists and is caused by man. Others acknowledge it probably exists, but is not being caused by man. And yet others don't even believe it exists. So the first problem we have is lack of unity with regard to acknowledging the issue. Let's just suppose for a moment, regardless of your particular belief, that global warming is real and is caused by man. If that is the case, then something needs to be done, but it can't get done if we can't achieve agreement on the subject.

Following from that, we have an example of people wanting something (and trying wholeheartedly to educate others on the issue), but failing to get it. What are the elements that are preventing the people who want it from getting it? Skepticism, lack of education, greed, economic factors, etc.

Let's move on to environmental preserves, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or Patagonia. Let's just presuppose for a moment, that in any given year, 80 percent of the public wants these areas to be preserved. Let's assume that this desire continues from year to year, and allows policy to be enacted which prevents contaminating infrastructure from spoiling these areas. Such a situation might continue for many decades. Then, let's suppose, on some year in the future, public unity on the matter fractures, and there is only 40 percent in favor of preserving the preserves. Politicians, planners, economies, whatever, decide to move in and start doing business, drilling, damming, whatever, to the detriment of the land. Now, let's just suppose, that it was only a three year period in the future that preservation of these areas was unfavorable, and going forward, everyone agrees that, in reality, the areas should not have been encroached upon. Ah, but the damage was done. This is how our planet's natural abundance, complexity and diversity is slowly eroded.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 07:12:32 AM
 #56

Oh no!  Look out for the nasty CO2 that Humans Exhale and Plants breathe!

You want to know how Libertarians would address it?  By letting nature takes its natural course of rising and falling levels of CO2 through the eons.  Because a Libertarian nation is not full of a bunch of fools falling for whatever Al Gore tells them we will get along just fine.  And we'll beat anyone who wants to preach differently to us with they're own Hockey Sticks.

I asked this in a related thread and it didn't get addressed so I'll ask again here. How would a libertarian society address the problem of certain entities emitting enormous amounts of C02, leading to global warming?

An answer I've received elsewhere was that a libertarian society would allow you to sue power companies that output large amounts of C02. I don't like this answer for two reasons:

1) Depending on the type of libertarian society there may not be a court system the power company would agree to be sued in, and they might not obey the decision anyway.

2) Even individual power companies don't emit enough C02 to noticeably affect global C02 levels. Global C02 levels only get measurably affected by the combined output of hundreds of the coal burning plants in the world. You would have to simultaneously sue every power company in the world, which is completely impossible right now and would be even harder still in a world with less centralization.

How would a libertarian political order address this? And more generally, how would it address the problems that arise when a great number of parties each contribute small amounts of pollution into common resources?
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 01:26:03 PM
 #57

Oh no!  Look out for the nasty CO2 that Humans Exhale and Plants breathe!

You want to know how Libertarians would address it?  By letting nature takes its natural course of rising and falling levels of CO2 through the eons.  Because a Libertarian nation is not full of a bunch of fools falling for whatever Al Gore tells them we will get along just fine.  And we'll beat anyone who wants to preach differently to us with they're own Hockey Sticks.

Thank you for making my point. A classic example of how an ideology will destroy the planet.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 01:30:20 PM
 #58

Oh no!  Look out for the nasty CO2 that Humans Exhale and Plants breathe!

You want to know how Libertarians would address it?  By letting nature takes its natural course of rising and falling levels of CO2 through the eons.  Because a Libertarian nation is not full of a bunch of fools falling for whatever Al Gore tells them we will get along just fine.  And we'll beat anyone who wants to preach differently to us with they're own Hockey Sticks.

Thank you for making my point. A classic example of how an ideology will destroy the planet.

It's kind of like how cigarettes don't cause cancer, it's ok to dump heavy metals in the local river, coal dust never hurt anyone, asbestos is perfectly safe, etc.

The ability of dogmatic people to be willfully ignorant and ignore facts should never be underestimated.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 02:14:34 PM
 #59

Since CO2 doesn't cause Cancer, contribute to Heavy Metal Toxicity, Produce Coal Dust or Asbestos does anyone know what this guy in on about?
compro01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 485


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 03:47:24 PM
 #60

If not, how do you know resources are diminishing? It seems we're finding new resources at least as fast as we're using them up.
Sure. The Singularity will arise, and provide us with the technology to build a space faring species, resulting in a solar system wide economy, enveloping first the Asteroid Belt, then the gas giants, then the Kuiper Belt, then the Oort Cloud, then the nearby stars, ultimately resulting in a trans-human diaspora across the Milky Way. The Human Experience will ultimately harness the power of stars, and most of us will live in Dyson Spheres until the heat death of the Universe.

But until such time, the Earth is where it's at.

Oil will be more expensive without government subsidies. Alternate energy sources, no longer with a subsidized competitor, would be competitive in the marketplace and something would take its place, making it obsolete and removing the problem.

you manage to completely ignore coal, which is cheap like borscht, and thus is not going to be functionally competed against by unsubsidized renewable energy.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 04:08:21 PM
 #61

Since CO2 doesn't cause Cancer, contribute to Heavy Metal Toxicity, Produce Coal Dust or Asbestos does anyone know what this guy in on about?

It causes global warming. You're the poster child for global warming deniers, and this is why the libertarian notion that the environment will be fine under a libertarian system is fallacy. Libertarians contend that there should be enough freedom for people to do as they wish on their own watch, without intervention. Given that there will always be deniers, and those who choose to wear blinders (often to gain financial advantage), then things will inevitably go south.

Please read this post I made a little ways above for more information: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg320869#msg320869

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 04:20:38 PM
 #62

Looks like I've caused a Global Warming Cultist to out himself.  My friend you are intellectually lazy if you cannot be bothered to do proper information gathering on the issue.  

Even the people who started this Global Warming farce to make money of Carbon Credits have changed the term to Climate Change now because of being so embarrassed by the facts and being outed as fools and liars.

Get with the time bro your compatriots have left you behind.

climategate-for-dummies: http://www.infowars.com/climategate-for-dummies/

Since CO2 doesn't cause Cancer, contribute to Heavy Metal Toxicity, Produce Coal Dust or Asbestos does anyone know what this guy in on about?

It causes global warming. You're the poster child for global warming deniers, and this is why the libertarian notion that the environment will be fine under a libertarian system is fallacy. Libertarians contend that there should be enough freedom for people to do as they wish on their own watch, without intervention. Given that there will always be deniers, and those who choose to wear blinders (often to gain financial advantage), then things will inevitably go south.

Please read this post I made a little ways above for more information: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg320869#msg320869
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 04:25:43 PM
 #63

Looks like I've caused a Global Warming Cultist to out himself.  My friend you are intellectually lazy if you cannot be bothered to do proper information gathering on the issue.  

Even the people who started this Global Warming farce to make money of Carbon Credits have changed the term to Climate Change now because of being so embarrassed by the facts and being outed as fools and liars.

Get with the time bro your compatriots have left you behind.

climategate-for-dummies: http://www.infowars.com/climategate-for-dummies/

I see you've jumped on that wagon.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 04:56:32 PM
 #64

LOL He just used infowars as a source. hahahahha  Chem trails!!!

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 05:05:29 PM
 #65

Even the people who started this Global Warming farce to make money of Carbon Credits have changed the term to Climate Change now because of being so embarrassed by the facts and being outed as fools and liars.

Honestly, the only people clinging to your vision of Global Warming as being a sham are those who want an excuse to continue to pollute. Back when those emails were being released, here's what really happened:

1. Scientists realized the actions of a few would cast a huge blow to the process of education on the subject, and they realized that those who never wanted to believe in it in the first place, such as yourself, would use it as a means to vindicate themselves.

2. Scientists, climatologists, and in general, everyone in the scientific community knew that all the data still pointed to Global Warming.

3. The term Climate Change was adopted due to bad PR, nothing else.

4. Those who stood a chance to influence policy change in such a way that they could continue to pollute and thus improve their bottom line took advantage of the negative publicity with regard to Global Warming at the time to further their goals, by engaging in various campaigns. Conservatively oriented talk radio jumped on the bandwagon as well, further undermining the support for Global Warming.

5. Individuals such as yourself, eager to be on the bandwagon listed in point number 4 above, still cling to the misinformation which was heavily spun at the time.

6. Those who have a job to do with regard to actual research on Global Warming (err, Climate Change), know it's global warming, and continue to do their work. And the scientifically literate politicians are pretty much in solid agreement over global warming as a real issue that needs to be dealt with.

In other words, your fantasy that some bad PR from some two years ago has rendered Global Warming false is just that, a fantasy. And you have the nerve to accuse me of not keeping up with facts.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 05:21:06 PM
 #66

TheGer,

You should be thankful that I'm willing to write out so many posts to you. I hope you've had a chance to read the one I made above.

Global Warming is a scientific topic. Here's some genuine advice regarding scientific topics: immerse yourself in the scientific literature to better understand it. The academics aren't out to fool you. The peer review process works. So, if you want to discuss the topic and have your opinion respected, then don't restrict your information gathering on the subject to organizations such as FOX news or other such media outlets.

There is plenty of data on the subject. Try and stay with respected scientific sources.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 06:51:36 PM
 #67

Lol Respected ofcourse means those sellout scientists who tout what they are told to by those pushing the Global Warming Scam.  Hence the whole Climategate scandal where they were caught lying and falsifying data.  Sorry I'm not going to pander to your GW propaganda.  Your House of Cards has already fallen I don't know why you bother to defend it.

I've seen and heard both arguments, and seen lies exposed on only one side of that argument(crippling it).  Can you guess which?  You may keep your Hockey Stick.  Oh and you may keep your Darwin Awards as well.
3phase
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 313


Third score


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 07:01:27 PM
 #68

TheGer,

You should be thankful that I'm willing to write out so many posts to you. I hope you've had a chance to read the one I made above.

Global Warming is a scientific topic. Here's some genuine advice regarding scientific topics: immerse yourself in the scientific literature to better understand it. The academics aren't out to fool you. The peer review process works. So, if you want to discuss the topic and have your opinion respected, then don't restrict your information gathering on the subject to organizations such as FOX news or other such media outlets.

There is plenty of data on the subject. Try and stay with respected scientific sources.

I haven't jumped on any train Smiley, but still, the supposed cause-and-effect relationship between human activity and climate change (global warming if you want to call it) is nothing more than a conjecture at the moment. I've read tens of articles in the past few years that make huge assumptions to provide emotional-response reasoning for their undoubtfully true natural findings (ending up in a human-made climate change conclusion).

I don't doubt climate change; I see it happening.

But it seems to me that TheGer's and Ascent's positioning are two sides of the same coin and both do not hold the answer: One goes into denial and will look for anything that will confirm his ideas that the whole thing stinks, and the other goes into self- and collective- blaming of the human race for something that is, IMHO, far bigger than what our mistakes of the last 200 years could have ever caused (thus blame that is unfair).

One is led to not care about the facts which should be obvious, the other is led to carry this burden in him for ever, being that even as a global community we could not possibly change the slightest thing on a planetary scale.

Both will be disappointed and disillusioned in the end.

In the end, it's our passion for learning and finding the whys and the hows that will reveal what is the truth of the matter. And time of course, the tamer of all things (according to an ancient Greek epithet assigned to Time).

I hope I am contributing something into this.

Fiat no more.
Δοκιμάστε το http://multibit.org - Bitcoin client τώρα και στα Ελληνικά
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 09:33:55 PM
 #69

When you intellectual elite discover that Temperature increase causes more CO2 to be produced, not the other way around you'll be on the road to recovery.  Throughout the history of this planet rises in temperature are followed by CO2 increases.  The Oceans and Land exchange CO2 constantly with the Atmosphere at a level dwarfing what Humans produce by magnitudes, so please stop peddling your propaganda so you can cash in on all those Carbon Credits(otherwise known as the Global Tax).

Now will you guys go put your Big Boy Pants on?
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 09:41:01 PM
 #70

When you intellectual elite discover that Temperature increase causes more CO2 to be produced, not the other way around you'll be on the road to recovery.  Throughout the history of this planet rises in temperature are followed by CO2 increases.  The Oceans and Land exchange CO2 constantly with the Atmosphere at a level dwarfing what Humans produce by magnitudes, so please stop peddling your propaganda so you can cash in on all those Carbon Credits(otherwise known as the Global Tax).

Now will you guys go put your Big Boy Pants on?

ho-hum.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

i believe you're looking for #12...
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
 #71

Lol that site is a joke.  Full of pseudoscience, misrepresented facts, and inferences based on falsified data.

Thank you for posting it lol.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 10:16:37 PM
 #72

The Planet, like the Market, is a self-correcting system.

If we cause enough change, it will become uncomfortable to live here. At that point, we either leave, or die off sufficiently that equilibrium is restored. Problem solved.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 10:24:46 PM
 #73

Lol that site is a joke.  Full of pseudoscience, misrepresented facts, and inferences based on falsified data.

yeah.

because everybody knows that actual, working climate scientists are all liars, and getting rich off a secret blockchain started by al gore.  have i mentioned that he's fat yet?

uh-huh.
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 10:29:48 PM
 #74

The Planet, like the Market, is a self-correcting system.

If we cause enough change, it will become uncomfortable to live here. At that point, we either leave, or die off sufficiently that equilibrium is restored. Problem solved.

wouldn't it be nice if the concept of "self-correcting system" included the option to recognize and correct for on-coming disasters, in a non-political fashion?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 10:36:13 PM
 #75

It does. The individuals who recognize this oncoming disaster will curtail their damage, and encourage others to do so as well. Those who agree will avoid the ones who don't, and if enough agree, disaster will be averted. Or it won't. Either way, Planet keeps on chugging, regardless of what we do. It's not 'Save the Planet!'. it's 'Save the Status Quo!!'

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 11:29:17 PM
 #76

It does. The individuals who recognize this oncoming disaster will curtail their damage, and encourage others to do so as well. Those who agree will avoid the ones who don't, and if enough agree, disaster will be averted. Or it won't. Either way, Planet keeps on chugging, regardless of what we do. It's not 'Save the Planet!'. it's 'Save the Status Quo!!'

there's a problem with that.

Quote
The individuals who recognize this oncoming disaster will curtail their damage, and encourage others to do so as well.

those who profit the most...

1.) don't care, because they've got theirs.
2.) are in the upper 1% of wealth-holders on the planet, and want more.
3.) are in the upper 1% of political power-holders, and won't let go of that.
4.) are willing to bribe, steal, kill, lie and cheat to keep their power and wealth.  and
5.) won't get caught, since they write the laws.

did you know that there was actually a law proposed, banning the ownership of geiger-counters (and other, benign detection devices) in New York?

http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-01-08/news/nypd-seeks-an-air-monitor-crackdown-for-new-yorkers/

it's a stacked deck, and your "individuals who recognize this oncoming disaster" have too little power.

i also note, again:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=13344.0

so far (and i'm still looking) there is no way for a site-moderator to recognize when this kind of software is being used.  but there will be.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 11:38:00 PM
 #77

Remind me again what the title of the thread is?

I wasn't talking about current New York. I know how screwed up the current situation is.

In a libertarian/AnCap society, everyone would have equal opportunity to do whatever they want, and no ability to force people to do or not do anything. Which includes sell Geiger counters and other monitoring equipment.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 11:56:52 PM
 #78

Remind me again what the title of the thread is?


Quote
Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?

in a very real sense, i take that question to mean:

How would a libertarian society deal with those who are willfully damaging our lives and the planet we all share, for their own profit?

...because global warming is no longer an idle speculation.  and the immense resources devoted to the denial industry (and it is an industry) simply cannot be looked at as an exercise in free-market capitalism.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 12:07:13 AM
 #79

'k. So, What's with
4.) are willing to bribe, steal, kill, lie and cheat to keep their power and wealth.  and
5.) won't get caught, since they write the laws.
that?

What does that have to do with a Libertarian society?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 12:20:02 AM
 #80

'k. So, What's with
4.) are willing to bribe, steal, kill, lie and cheat to keep their power and wealth.  and
5.) won't get caught, since they write the laws.
that?

What does that have to do with a Libertarian society?

nothing.  but those kinds of people exist in all societies, and always will.  the cream (that is, expressed neutrally) will rise to the top:  the toughest, the most able, or those born with the most advantages, etc.  and that will be the same in any society, from communist to libertarian.  whoever is good enough or smart enough to beat the system, wins.

Disraeli and Stalin were both perfect examples - street punks and infighters.

so again...

How would a libertarian society deal with those who are willfully damaging our lives and the planet we all share, for their own profit?

because that's really the question.

so that's the answer i want.  it should translate to any more-or-less free society.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 12:30:45 AM
 #81

Lol Respected ofcourse means those sellout scientists who tout what they are told to by those pushing the Global Warming Scam.  


Yea, but bro, infowars is totally legit!  Those real scientists don't know anything.  Alex Jones has all the answers.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 12:34:24 AM
 #82

How would a libertarian society deal with those who are willfully damaging our lives and the planet we all share, for their own profit?

Practices such as clear-cutting and pollution are not long-term profitable. If you clear cut all your trees for paper, you can't make more paper next year. If you pollute the crap out of your land, you can't sell it to someone else. Private ownership of resources is the best way to ensure their conservation.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 12:40:11 AM
 #83

How would a libertarian society deal with those who are willfully damaging our lives and the planet we all share, for their own profit?

because that's really the question.

so that's the answer i want.  it should translate to any more-or-less free society.

Sadly, I think the answer is: They wouldn't.

Any economic system which places a heavy emphasis on freedom to earn money without intervention from other sources will always contain a large number of entities who choose to pick the low hanging fruit, until there are no more low hanging fruit, at which point, the fruit that is now the lowest hanging will be picked, etc.

The ultimate libertarian society that likely caused catastrophic worldwide damage existed in the late Pleistocene. The overkill hypothesis states that all megafauna extinctions in Europe and the Americas occurred due to the expanding diaspora of man. To be clear, megafauna refers to animals such as mammoths, rhinos, giant sloths, etc. Cro-magnon culture gave birth to highly efficient hunting in a realm where the megafauna had not evolved along side the hunters, and thus the megafauna did not naturally fear man. This is why the emigration of mankind into Europe and the Americas wiped out these animals. Note that Africa seems to be the only continent in which megafauna still exist, precisely because man coevolved alongside the megafauna there.

For further information:

Paul S. Martin: http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Mammoths-Extinctions-Rewilding-Environments/dp/0520252438/

Peter D. Ward: http://www.amazon.com/Call-Distant-Mammoths-Mammals-Disappeared/dp/0387985727/   

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 12:40:49 AM
 #84

Private ownership of resources is the best way to ensure their conservation.

even non-renewable resources?

i suspect not.  where is the advantage to exxon's CEO - who will get a multi-billion dollar bonus depending on sales - to conserve oil?  he'll only be in his position for five or so years, and he worked all his life to get there.  and the next guy?

we agree, more or less, on renewables.

people who own trees or water or other renewables are essentially farmers - albeit of a different sort than a food-farmer.  but yes - their advantage lies in conservation.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 12:43:15 AM
 #85

Practices such as clear-cutting and pollution are not long-term profitable.
Then why do organizations and societies engage in these activities?

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 12:50:26 AM
 #86

Practices such as clear-cutting and pollution are not long-term profitable.
Then why do organizations and societies engage in these activities?

they don't, for long.

ever been to spain?

the clear-cutting they did there for the Armada still shows...
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 12:54:05 AM
 #87

How would a libertarian society deal with those who are willfully damaging our lives and the planet we all share, for their own profit?

because that's really the question.

so that's the answer i want.  it should translate to any more-or-less free society.

Sadly, I think the answer is: They wouldn't.

Any economic system which places a heavy emphasis on freedom to earn money without intervention from other sources will always contain a large number of entities who choose to pick the low hanging fruit, until there are no more low hanging fruit, at which point, the fruit that is now the lowest hanging will be picked, etc.

The ultimate libertarian society that likely caused catastrophic worldwide damage existed in the late Pleistocene. The overkill hypothesis states that all megafauna extinctions in Europe and the Americas occurred due to the expanding diaspora of man. To be clear, megafauna refers to animals such as mammoths, rhinos, giant sloths, etc. Cro-magnon culture gave birth to highly efficient hunting in a realm where the megafauna had not evolved along side the hunters, and thus the megafauna did not naturally fear man. This is why the emigration of mankind into Europe and the Americas wiped out these animals. Note that Africa seems to be the only continent in which megafauna still exist, precisely because man coevolved alongside the megafauna there.

For further information:

Paul S. Martin: http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Mammoths-Extinctions-Rewilding-Environments/dp/0520252438/

Peter D. Ward: http://www.amazon.com/Call-Distant-Mammoths-Mammals-Disappeared/dp/0387985727/   


Excellent point and example.  The near extention of American Mid-West animals like bison, prairie dogs, and gray wolves are other excellent examples.  According to the libertarians in this thread, the hunters will naturally realize that they're going to kill off all their supply and self-limit their own hunting.  History disagrees, because hunters hunted these animals until they couldn't find anymore.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 12:57:00 AM
 #88

Private ownership of resources is the best way to ensure their conservation.
even non-renewable resources?

Your CEO, maybe not, unless he was paid mostly or partially in stocks. It's then in his interest to keep the company profitable long-term.
And Oil is renewable, just really, really slow...

Practices such as clear-cutting and pollution are not long-term profitable.
Then why do organizations and societies engage in these activities?

Usually, because they're not connected to its continued viability, or there is little to no accountability. For instance, China is one of the worst polluters there is.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
grue
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 01:01:43 AM
 #89

anyone notice this thread is full of strawmans?
In a Libertarian society people would be well educated enough in science to realize that global warming is designed as a tool to push a tax scheme, not environmental policy, and that the earth is heating because of increased solar activity, not because of human activity.
MOAR COAL!  Tongue

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 01:03:28 AM
 #90

Excellent point and example.  The near extention of American Mid-West animals like bison, prairie dogs, and gray wolves are other excellent examples.  According to the libertarians in this thread, the hunters will naturally realize that they're going to kill off all their supply and self-limit their own hunting.  History disagrees, because hunters hunted these animals until they couldn't find anymore.

What's so aggravating is that they are blind to it happening all around them everyday. The "New Normal" becomes the norm, and then further depletion tomorrow brings about the "New Normal", and it continues until there is nothing. As I've pointed out, there are pressures to start exploiting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Patagonia right now. And it just continues.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 01:32:54 AM
 #91

Excellent point and example.  The near extention of American Mid-West animals like bison, prairie dogs, and gray wolves are other excellent examples.  According to the libertarians in this thread, the hunters will naturally realize that they're going to kill off all their supply and self-limit their own hunting.  History disagrees, because hunters hunted these animals until they couldn't find anymore.

What's so aggravating is that they are blind to it happening all around them everyday. The "New Normal" becomes the norm, and then further depletion tomorrow brings about the "New Normal", and it continues until there is nothing. As I've pointed out, there are pressures to start exploiting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Patagonia right now. And it just continues.

That's why it's also the perfect example of a real-world slippery slope.

That free markets DO NOT handle environmental issues is absolutely beyond debate.  There is historical record that proves this, dating back to the first keeping of historical records.  As you correctly pointed out, the free market will always go for the lowest hanging fruit.  Strip mining with blatant disregard for the planet is another good example of companies decimating the evironment because it is the easiest and more profitable way to do business.  It takes active government intervention to force mining businesses to be less invasive and damaging to the environment.

This is why we need government intervention in areas like alternative fuels, because the free market won't give two shits about alternative fuels until oil supply actually become a significant issue - at which point the development of alternative fuel sources will be a day late and dollar short.


Again, this stuff is undeniable.  Just look at WHY companies outsource to third-world countries.  Because you relocate to bumfuckastan, you'll be allowed to dump your waste in the local river, pollute the air as much as you want, decimate forests and local wildlife, no one will care if your facility is dangerous and kills workers, etc.  That's what the free market WANTS, and they relocate to nations that will let them do it.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 03:24:36 AM
 #92

In a libertarian/AnCap society, everyone would have equal opportunity to do whatever they want, and no ability to force people to do or not do anything.

Hence all the low hanging fruit picking.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 04:24:05 AM
 #93

That free markets DO NOT handle environmental issues is absolutely beyond debate.  There is historical record that proves this, dating back to the first keeping of historical records.  As you correctly pointed out, the free market will always go for the lowest hanging fruit.  Strip mining with blatant disregard for the planet is another good example of companies decimating the evironment because it is the easiest and more profitable way to do business.  It takes active government intervention to force mining businesses to be less invasive and damaging to the environment.
Why do you care if a company strip mines their own land? And if they harm other people's land in the process, your gripe is with the legal system, not the market.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 04:34:30 AM
 #94

Why do you care if a company strip mines their own land? And if they harm other people's land in the process, your gripe is with the legal system, not the market.

I can't believe you don't understand why one should care.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 04:37:01 AM
 #95

Why do you care if a company strip mines their own land? And if they harm other people's land in the process, your gripe is with the legal system, not the market.

I can't believe you don't understand why one should care.

Well, because it's not pretty, of course. People have a right to look at pretty land. Even if its not theirs. Especially if its not theirs.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 04:43:49 AM
 #96

Well, because it's not pretty, of course. People have a right to look at pretty land. Even if its not theirs. Especially if its not theirs.

That's one good reason. Here are a few more:

1. Perhaps the owner will die one day, and someone else would like to be the owner of it?

2. Perhaps the vegetation and ecosystem which was stripped off of it contained information in its natural complexity that current technology could not understand, but future technology will.

3. Perhaps the drainage networks that the land depends upon on either side are severely disrupted, resulting in issues downstream.

4. Perhaps it disrupts the migration routes of fauna, which has a disruptive effect on the ecology outside of the owner's jurisdiction.

5. Perhaps his mining equipment pollutes the environment, both in the air and in the water, which flows downstream.

6. Perhaps his mining equipment makes excessive noise for his neighbors.

7. And most importantly, by picking this low hanging piece of fruit, it's no longer there for prosperity. He would've been better off abstaining, and biting the bullet by developing more efficient technologies which would obviate the need to strip mine in the first place.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 04:56:30 AM
 #97

*facepalm*

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 04:58:24 AM
 #98

1. Perhaps the owner will die one day, and someone else would like to the owner of it?
Do you really want to adopt the general principle that people may not damage their own property because others might like it after they die?

Quote
2. Perhaps the vegetation and ecosystem which was stripped off of it contained information in its natural complexity that current technology could not understand, but future technology will.
Sure, and perhaps not strip mining will cause damage that we cannot currently understand. If you're going to get to just make up things based on nothing, well I can make up things in the other direction too.

Quote
3. Perhaps the drainage networks that the land depends upon on either side are severely disrupted, resulting in issues downstream.
If they damage other people's stuff, your gripe is with the legal system, not the free market.

Quote
4. Perhaps it disrupts the migration routes of fauna, which has a disruptive effect on the ecology outside of the owner's jurisdiction.
If they're allowed to damage other people's stuff, your gripe is with the legal system, not the free market.

Quote
5. Perhaps his mining equipment pollutes the environment, both in the air and in the water, which flows downstream.
If they're allowed to damage other people's stuff, your gripe is with the legal system, not the free market.

Quote
6. Perhaps his mining equipment makes excessive noise for his neighbors.
If he's allowed to disturb other people, your gripe is with the justice system, not the free market.

Quote
7. And most importantly, by picking this low hanging piece of fruit, it's no longer there for prosperity. He would've been better off abstaining, and biting the bullet by developing more efficient technologies which would obviate the need to strip mine in the first place.
That's completely pointless. We're much better off making ourselves more prosperous so there will be a prosperity. Delaying technological innovation to conserve resources that are unlikely to even have any use in the future is completely pointless. When we solve fusion, all the coal, oil, and gas we conserved will have been for nothing. And every extra day it takes us to get there is more misery, suffering, and damage.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 05:10:12 AM
 #99

Well, because it's not pretty, of course. People have a right to look at pretty land. Even if its not theirs. Especially if its not theirs.

That's one good reason. Here are a few more:

1. Perhaps the owner will die one day, and someone else would like to the owner of it?

2. Perhaps the vegetation and ecosystem which was stripped off of it contained information in its natural complexity that current technology could not understand, but future technology will.

3. Perhaps the drainage networks that the land depends upon on either side are severely disrupted, resulting in issues downstream.

4. Perhaps it disrupts the migration routes of fauna, which has a disruptive effect on the ecology outside of the owner's jurisdiction.

5. Perhaps his mining equipment pollutes the environment, both in the air and in the water, which flows downstream.

6. Perhaps his mining equipment makes excessive noise for his neighbors.

7. And most importantly, by picking this low hanging piece of fruit, it's no longer there for prosperity. He would've been better off abstaining, and biting the bullet by developing more efficient technologies which would obviate the need to strip mine in the first place.

all yes.

* sigh *

10-15,000 years of civilization, more or less - and we still refuse to do things without burning shit.  even though now the tech exists to conduct ourselves otherwise.

...leaving entirely aside the small matter of 'ownership'.  you can own dirt?  really?  that always kinda gave me pause...

ownership is really the right to borrow a government's capacity for violence against trespassers, no?  until some trespasser with more money than you wants something on your land.  eminent domain.  mineral rights.  water.  easements.  it's all bullshit.

there may be no greater failure of one's humanity than accepting the commodification of The Commons.
Anonymous
Guest

July 05, 2011, 05:11:54 AM
 #100

ownership is really the right to borrow a government's capacity for violence against trespassers, no?

Not if I can help it.

*cocks gun*

The government doesn't even protect us anyhow. Americans aren't entitled to it according to a court ruling.
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 05:16:18 AM
 #101

ownership is really the right to borrow a government's capacity for violence against trespassers, no?

Not if I can help it.

*cocks gun*

The government doesn't even protect us anyhow. Americans aren't entitled to it according to a court ruling.

what do you think ensures your ownership of anything?

your little gun (or my big and well-used one) mean nothing, against what can be brought to bear.

the guns we own are for personal protection against the occasional lone crazy.  they're useless against governments, criminal gangs, etc.  if you think they are, you're sadly deluded.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 01:36:29 PM
 #102

Well, because it's not pretty, of course. People have a right to look at pretty land. Even if its not theirs. Especially if its not theirs.

That's one good reason. Here are a few more:

1. Perhaps the owner will die one day, and someone else would like to be the owner of it?

2. Perhaps the vegetation and ecosystem which was stripped off of it contained information in its natural complexity that current technology could not understand, but future technology will.

3. Perhaps the drainage networks that the land depends upon on either side are severely disrupted, resulting in issues downstream.

4. Perhaps it disrupts the migration routes of fauna, which has a disruptive effect on the ecology outside of the owner's jurisdiction.

5. Perhaps his mining equipment pollutes the environment, both in the air and in the water, which flows downstream.

6. Perhaps his mining equipment makes excessive noise for his neighbors.

7. And most importantly, by picking this low hanging piece of fruit, it's no longer there for prosperity. He would've been better off abstaining, and biting the bullet by developing more efficient technologies which would obviate the need to strip mine in the first place.


Basically this, all of this.


Case in point:  We've got quite a problem ( newfound problem) with bears and an emerging issue with mountain lions in my area (area meaning the entire central part of the state).  This problem is entirely due to excessive new home building in previously heavily wooded areas.  The habitat of the bears and cats is being destroyed in favor of MORE new homes (yup, why not build more new ones when we can't even sell the supply we've got).  The home builders are building these homes on THEIR OWN land, obviously.  However, their poor decision making affects me in multiple ways - the most obvious of which is the wildlife now wandering through my backyard.  So what someone chooses to do on THEIR OWN land, tens of miles away from my land, negatively affects me directly.  It also has more indirect affects.  This increased supply of homes lowers the potential selling price of my home.  It destroys large forest areas that were an important ecosystem to the area I live in.  As more animals wander out and end up getting killed or relocated, the evironment around me changes for the worse.  All because of what someone did on THEIR OWN land.


No man (and no piece of land) is an island unto himself.  The sooner the liberkids learn this, the better off they'll be.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 02:59:39 PM
 #103

Sounds to me like you're free to build a fence.

It also sounds to me like you have no idea what a Libertarian is.  If you do please enlighten us.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 04:17:51 PM
 #104

Do you really want to adopt the general principle that people may not damage their own property because others might like it after they die?

Are we referring to whether you plant a tree or pour a concrete pad on your quarter acre already zoned for residential use? Or are we referring to 500,000 acres (or even 500) of as of yet uncontaminated wilderness? Because although in principle the issue might be the same, practically speaking, they are not. My arguments lean towards the latter, rather than the former. Once we clarify that point, we can continue.

Quote
Sure, and perhaps not strip mining will cause damage that we cannot currently understand. If you're going to get to just make up things based on nothing, well I can make up things in the other direction too.

No, you don't get a pass on that one. Otherwise, I could argue that perhaps me causing destruction at some random location might result in getting the attention of some little kid riding his bicycle, and by doing so, he didn't ride his bike down Crocker Street at the other end of town and get run over by a car. We can entertain hypotheticals all day long if you want.

Quote
If they damage other people's stuff, your gripe is with the legal system, not the free market.

This is a classical reactive stance, rather than proactive. Damage done is damage already done. You may not be in a position to rectify the damages done. Nor is it likely that you will even compensate others for the interim even if you can rectify the damage done.

Quote
If they're allowed to damage other people's stuff, your gripe is with the legal system, not the free market.

See above.

Quote
If they're allowed to damage other people's stuff, your gripe is with the legal system, not the free market.

See above.

Quote
If he's allowed to disturb other people, your gripe is with the justice system, not the free market.

See above.

Quote
That's completely pointless. We're much better off making ourselves more prosperous so there will be a prosperity. Delaying technological innovation to conserve resources that are unlikely to even have any use in the future is completely pointless. When we solve fusion, all the coal, oil, and gas we conserved will have been for nothing. And every extra day it takes us to get there is more misery, suffering, and damage.

Your completely laissez-faire system will continue to pick the low hanging fruit rather than self impose restrictions upon itself. By doing so, it actually delays the solving of problems like fusion, instead of accelerating them.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 04:22:57 PM
 #105

People would have more money to spend on projects they believe in perhaps some even 4 times as much. More money would flow to entrepreneurial projects and also charity. When taxes are lowered, that amount gets higher. You wouldn't have these big state funded corrupt "authority" organizations controlled by few people.

You are correct that more wealth would allow more people to engage in projects beneficial to creating a sustainable economy. But you are incorrect in assuming that more wealth would eliminate the existence of entities which continue to pick the low hanging fruit, and engage in unsustainable activities which ever erode our natural wealth.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 05:09:12 PM
 #106

This is a classical reactive stance, rather than proactive. Damage done is damage already done. You may not be in a position to rectify the damages done. Nor is it likely that you will even compensate others for the interim even if you can rectify the damage done.

Silly libertarians, only wanting to punish crime that has actually been committed.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 05:25:22 PM
 #107

Silly libertarians, only wanting to punish crime that has actually been committed.

Is that really our disagreement? I think it's more along the lines of what constitutes damage and what doesn't. If you believe doing X is not detrimental, and I do, then there exists a difficulty in determining what those laws are governing X. It seems clear to me that both groups are not in disagreement over following laws, but what those laws are and who enforces them. I've been rather clear on what X is, what it does, why it should be prevented, and how.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 05:55:06 PM
 #108

Silly libertarians, only wanting to punish crime that has actually been committed.

Is that really our disagreement? I think it's more along the lines of what constitutes damage and what doesn't. If you believe doing X is not detrimental, and I do, then there exists a difficulty in determining what those laws are governing X. It seems clear to me that both groups are not in disagreement over following laws, but what those laws are and who enforces them. I've been rather clear on what X is, what it does, why it should be prevented, and how.

I think you may be right here. I contend you have no right to sue because I ruined your scenic drive to work. You seem to disagree.

I suggest that if you would like a company to not strip mine a patch of land, that you give that company an economic incentive. I'm sure, if you get enough like-minded people together, you could make up the cost difference between strip-mining and more 'gentle' ways of doing it, with very little individual cost.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 06:01:37 PM
 #109

Silly libertarians, only wanting to punish crime that has actually been committed.

Is that really our disagreement? I think it's more along the lines of what constitutes damage and what doesn't. If you believe doing X is not detrimental, and I do, then there exists a difficulty in determining what those laws are governing X. It seems clear to me that both groups are not in disagreement over following laws, but what those laws are and who enforces them. I've been rather clear on what X is, what it does, why it should be prevented, and how.

I think you may be right here. I contend you have no right to sue because I ruined your scenic drive to work. You seem to disagree.

Unstated assumption: no actual evironmental damange is taking place, the damage is purely superficial.

WRONG


I suggest that if you would like a company to not strip mine a patch of land, that you give that company an economic incentive. I'm sure, if you get enough like-minded people together, you could make up the cost difference between strip-mining and more 'gentle' ways of doing it, with very little individual cost.


You mean like establish a government and regulatory agencies to fine the company if it harms the environment too much?  Sounds like a great idea!  How would we go about getting this new idea rolling?  Oh wait....

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 06:13:11 PM
 #110

I suggest that if you would like a company to not strip mine a patch of land, that you give that company an economic incentive. I'm sure, if you get enough like-minded people together, you could make up the cost difference between strip-mining and more 'gentle' ways of doing it, with very little individual cost.


You mean like establish a government and regulatory agencies to fine the company if it harms the environment too much?  Sounds like a great idea!  How would we go about getting this new idea rolling?  Oh wait....

I advocate asking people who agree with you to help defray the cost of paying off the company for it's extra costs.

You advocate hitting people over the head and taking their money whether they agree or not and using that money to force the company to comply.

See the difference?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 09:02:51 PM
 #111

I wrote before "You wouldn't have these big state funded corrupt "authority" organizations controlled by few people".

So what exactly would you have? Because I'm not clear on this.

Quote
Most species that has ever lived on Earth are now extinct - most of them not due to human activities.

I think we're in agreement that any species that went extinct prior to humans existing on this planet did not go extinct due to humans. Let's refrain from discussing the extinction of species prior to the existence of humans, as I'm sure that if you try, you can find more species extinction events in a period of time spanning billions of years, then say, the last 13,000 years.

However, if you wish to engage in a discussion about species extinction events in any given 13,000 year period, precluding exceedingly rare and cataclysmic events such as asteroid impacts that occur on average every 70 million years, then I think we can have a discussion. Pick your 13,000 year period. I've picked mine. It started 13,000 years ago.

Quote
The planet has been through worse things than humans since its creation.

Yes, it has. Giant asteroid impacts, of which there have been a few. Totally irrelevant within the context of discussing the effects one species, society or civilization has upon the world's ecosystem.

Quote
If by sustainable activities we mean activities that reduce the well being of people and animals, don't you see that happening today even with all the governments, laws, and police forces?

Yes, I do. It's due to human nature and greed. These things are not going to disappear in your fantasy utopia of libertarian governance. And let's be clear on what sustainable activities means. It's not just the well being of people and animals, although that is a part; it is the preservation of ecosystems which enable the natural processes of those ecosystems to continue to function.

I would encourage you to view the ideal economic system as an animal which lives in a symbiotic relationship with its environment, where that animal (the economy) has a digestive system which inputs nutrients into its digestive system and outputs waste which must be reabsorbed into the environment in such a way that the animal can continue its existence without biting the hand that feeds it.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
chickenado
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 522



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 09:39:29 PM
 #112

because everybody knows that actual, working climate scientists are all liars, and getting rich off a secret blockchain started by al gore.  have i mentioned that he's fat yet?

uh-huh.

One thing I learned about my short stint in academia is that most scientists are not so much concerned about truth finding as fulfilling arbitrary publication quotas and intellectual feather puffing.  Forget the pursuit of knowledge. Science is primarily about egos!

The incentives of the whole scientific establishment are screwed up.  Even  scientists themselves admit that the majority of publications are trash. 

In an inexact science like climate science, bias is almost inevitable because there are few rewards for objectivity and big rewards for exaggeration and populism.  I'm not saying that there is some great conspiracy; most scientists are probably biased without even noticing it themselves.

Having said that, there are a few notable exceptions (the true geniuses), and there is some objectivity to the scientific consensus.  It should just be taken with a great deal of skepticism.

Anthropogenic global warming probably is real, it's just far less predictable than climate scientist would like it to be.

           ▄▄███████████▄▄
       ▄▄███████████████████▄▄
     ▄███████▀▀       ▀▀███████▄
   ▄██████▀               ▀██████▄
  ▄█████▀          █ █▄     ▀█████▄
 ▄████▀      ▄     ▄███▄      ▀████▄
▄████▀     ▄▀ ▄▀  ▄██████▄     ▀████▄
█████     █▀ █▀ ▄████████▄      █████
████     ██ ██        ▀███ █     ████
████     ██ ██▄         ██ █     ████
████     ██ ▀██▄        █ ▄█     ████
█████    ██▄ ▀███▄    ▄ ▀ ██    █████

▀████▄    ███▄ ▀▀████▀  ▄██▀   ▄████▀
 ▀████▄    ▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██▀    ▄████▀

  ▀█████▄    ▀▀███████▀▀    ▄█████▀
   ▀██████▄               ▄██████▀

     ▀███████▄▄       ▄▄███████▀
       ▀▀███████████████████▀▀

           ▀▀███████████▀▀
AIRTOKEN█████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
█████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
[AirFOX
BROWSER
][AirFOX
RECHARGE
]█████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
███████
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 09:50:09 PM
 #113


Quote
The planet has been through worse things than humans since its creation.

Yes, it has. Giant asteroid impacts, of which there have been a few. Totally irrelevant within the context of discussing the effects one species, society or civilization has upon the world's ecosystem.

Which is functionally nil, long term.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 09:56:48 PM
 #114

Which is functionally nil, long term.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm certain though that is not the effect one species can have on the environment though, as you and I both know that the human species has had catastrophic effects on the world's ecosystem. We've gone over this.

So what is functionally nil, long term?

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 10:07:36 PM
 #115

Humans make planet unfit for Human life, Human life either moves out, or dies off, Planet returns to equilibrium. Long term effect to planet: nil.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 10:26:24 PM
 #116

Humans make planet unfit for Human life, Human life either moves out, or dies off, Planet returns to equilibrium. Long term effect to planet: nil.

So to be clear then, you're outlining two scenarios and one consequence.

Scenario 1. We die.

Scenario 2. We have to have the tech to go live off the planet, and find satisfaction in that.

Consequence: The Earth heals, but after we're gone.

Neither scenario one or two stand out as desirable solutions, so I can't see how you're winning your case by proposing them. As for the consequence, it all sounds good, but how do we in the here and now benefit from it?

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 10:37:14 PM
 #117

Neither scenario one or two stand out as desirable solutions, so I can't see how you're winning your case by proposing them. As for the consequence, it all sounds good, but how do we in the here and now benefit from it?

No, neither scenario is particularly pleasant. Here's a third: You make a way to do something without damaging the environment, that is as or more efficient than one that does, and make a whole load of money in the process.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
MikesMechanix
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 10:38:47 PM
 #118

Even the people who started this Global Warming farce to make money of Carbon Credits have changed the term to Climate Change now because of being so embarrassed by the facts and being outed as fools and liars.

I doubt scientists had carbon credits reflecting in their eyes in the 1960's when they started actively studying global warming. And the concept goes back even further - Joseph Fourier came up with it in 1824.

In the 1980's global warming was already accepted more or less as a fact, but in general it was thought there would still be plenty of time.

The "sceptic" camp has only been vocal for the past ten years, really, though they slowly started to appear in the 1990's, right around the time it started to look like there would be strong world-wide will to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This would hurt profits from oil and coal badly, so it's no surprise that practically the whole climate sceptic camp is funded by them:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links

Whoever brings up current-day politics into the climate change "debate" doesn't know what he's talking about.


Please send your extra Bitcoins to 17miTorGDBUh3yNTYJtodJPw9wzrcNcf6y. Thank you!

Sign up on TradeHill Instant Bitcoin Exchange using this link to get a lifetime 10 % discount on trades!
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 10:46:05 PM
 #119

Here's a third: You make a way to do something without damaging the environment, that is as or more efficient than one that does, and make a whole load of money in the process.

I agree. So you've come around completely to my view, which is that of ecological economics, as put forth by Herman Daly?

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 11:02:38 PM
 #120

Here's a third: You make a way to do something without damaging the environment, that is as or more efficient than one that does, and make a whole load of money in the process.

I agree. So you've come around completely to my view, which is that of ecological economics, as put forth by Herman Daly?

Hey, as long as you're not knocking heads to get your way, I'm OK with it. Hell, if you run an ad campaign that convinces people to use less efficient methods because they value the Environment. Just don't force anyone to do anything.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 11:24:56 PM
 #121

Hey, as long as you're not knocking heads to get your way, I'm OK with it. Hell, if you run an ad campaign that convinces people to use less efficient methods because they value the Environment. Just don't force anyone to do anything.

These are my beliefs:

  • The ecosystem is an asset, in many ways.
  • Picking the low hanging fruit in excess disrupts the ecosystem in irreversible ways.
  • It is human nature to pick the low hanging fruit, thus education is necessary, and regulation.
  • By imposing stringent regulation, there is a rush to develop efficient alternatives to living off of the low hanging fruit.
  • There is a lot of money and power who have short term goals, and would prefer to pick the low hanging fruit. These are self motivated individuals and entities, and they will prey upon the general ignorance of the masses by creating massive campaigns to lead others to believe that preservation of the world's ecosystems are not a priority. They further have the advantage by arguing that regulations will cause higher prices. It is easy to buy into this, but in the end it is exploitation, both of the public, and the ecosystems.

Note to point number one: it may be reversible over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, but in the shorter term, which is the world we live in, it is essentially irreversible.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 11:31:15 PM
 #122

I'm not sure how you got from my statement to congruence with those beliefs, then.

I suggested that you use your resources to fund a project to improve the ways things are done, in the hope that you will make money.

Never mentioned regulation. By the way, how do you propose to enforce that regulation?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 06, 2011, 01:52:04 AM
 #123

Another example of how Global Warming enthusiasts will say anything to back up what they want everyone to believe in the name of Carbon Taxes.

Asia pollution blamed for halt in warming: study


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 04:14:46 AM
 #124

TheGer,

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html


Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 05:14:00 AM
 #125


don't bother.  he's paid.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 05:58:23 AM
 #126

By the way, how do you propose to enforce that regulation?

Well, at first it'll just be a nicely worded letter. Then the letters will get nastier. Eventually, some people in blue costumes will come kidnap you or kill you if you defend yourself. It'll all be your fault though, for not listening to your betters.
makomk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 12:52:01 PM
 #127

In Denmark you see this in action in the telecommunications industry. A new company is started, is more adaptive to consumer needs, is more efficient, takes away business from the big players, and eventually sells to one of the big players for a lot of money because the big players are losing a lot of revenue. New entrepreneurs notice an opportunity and then does the same.
What would happen if all the big players said to every newcomer "screw you, we're not letting you connect to our network at all, good luck selling your service if your customers can't actually talk to anyone with it"? The newcomer wouldn't last long. This happened in the US to a certain extent, by the way, and is why there are telecom monopolies there.

Fortunately, it appears the telecom industry in Denmark is quite heavily regulated.

Quad XC6SLX150 Board: 860 MHash/s or so.
SIGS ABOUT BUTTERFLY LABS ARE PAID ADS
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 01:26:33 PM
 #128

In Denmark you see this in action in the telecommunications industry. A new company is started, is more adaptive to consumer needs, is more efficient, takes away business from the big players, and eventually sells to one of the big players for a lot of money because the big players are losing a lot of revenue. New entrepreneurs notice an opportunity and then does the same.
What would happen if all the big players said to every newcomer "screw you, we're not letting you connect to our network at all, good luck selling your service if your customers can't actually talk to anyone with it"? The newcomer wouldn't last long. This happened in the US to a certain extent, by the way, and is why there are telecom monopolies there.

Fortunately, it appears the telecom industry in Denmark is quite heavily regulated.

That isn't the only industry in which this is an issue.

How about roads and rails?  How would one go about NOT having a monopoly on roads and rails?  Is there supposed to be ten redundant railroad tracks next to each other, one for each rail company?  Are we going to build redundant road systems for each privately own road company?

How about sewage and water?   Do we need fifteen redundant water lines running through every street for each water company?  Are we going to multiple sewer lines, multiple catch basins, etc. for each sewage company?


This would be such a laughably ridiculous, totally impractal, and wasted resource world.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 06, 2011, 03:44:35 PM
 #129

Ascent.  Those links have nothing directly to do with my previous post to yours, so I can only assume you meant to post it as information.  Please provide a link to the factual data those links present to be true.  I read all 3 and no link is present in any of the articles.

I wonder though, how much of the information presented there is information that was shown to be falsified in Climategate.

What's Climategate?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Isp&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&ei=0YIUTumLNYi3sQKIifnUDw&ved=0CCAQBSgA&q=climategate&spell=1&biw=1429&bih=972

ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 03:57:06 PM
 #130

I wonder though, how much of the information presented there is information that was shown to be falsified in Climategate.
Climategate is old news. Seriously. For the scientific community, it's business as usual, which means that research continues as it has.

If you want to post recent material that isn't from a conspiracy rag that clearly shows that the current consensus on Global Warming is highly questionable, then please do so.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
July 06, 2011, 04:48:01 PM
 #131

In Denmark you see this in action in the telecommunications industry. A new company is started, is more adaptive to consumer needs, is more efficient, takes away business from the big players, and eventually sells to one of the big players for a lot of money because the big players are losing a lot of revenue. New entrepreneurs notice an opportunity and then does the same.
What would happen if all the big players said to every newcomer "screw you, we're not letting you connect to our network at all, good luck selling your service if your customers can't actually talk to anyone with it"? The newcomer wouldn't last long. This happened in the US to a certain extent, by the way, and is why there are telecom monopolies there.

Fortunately, it appears the telecom industry in Denmark is quite heavily regulated.

They would lay down their own lines in a localized area and expand from there.

The US has telecom monopolies because the US government literally gave AT&T a monopoly and only removed it recently (relatively recently, anyway). Also, various regulations regarding the last kilometre, starting a telecom company, etc.

At the turn of the century, the US had thousands of telephone companies, and AT&T only had 51% market share despite having started with practically 100%. There was plenty of competition, and remember that this was back when they had just been invented. Then the US government took over all of the privately run telephone lines and gave them to AT&T.

There was also competition among  electric companies, despite electricity generation being an entirely new industry.

There is no such thing as a natural monopoly.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 05:11:25 PM
 #132

At the turn of the century, the US had thousands of telephone companies...

You're missing the point. Those thousands of telephone companies were not in competition with each other. They were regional.

There is a reason that the government allows one utility to have a monopoly. It's because of economies of scale. It is more cost effective to have one set of lines (gas, water, telephone, cable, power, sewer) then to have multiple. Someone has to invest in that infrastructure. Obviously, you don't believe it should be the government, which is fine. So, some business does it. Now, to prevent them from having power over you, there needs to be some type of regulation.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
July 06, 2011, 05:19:29 PM
 #133

At the turn of the century, the US had thousands of telephone companies...

You're missing the point. Those thousands of telephone companies were not in competition with each other. They were regional.

There is a reason that the government allows one utility to have a monopoly. It's because of economies of scale. It is more cost effective to have one set of lines (gas, water, telephone, cable, power, sewer) then to have multiple. Someone has to invest in that infrastructure. Obviously, you don't believe it should be the government, which is fine. So, some business does it. Now, to prevent them from having power over you, there needs to be some type of regulation.

Yes they were. Most of those telephone companies were regional, but "most" of 4,000 leaves quite a bit of competition. Furthermore, most of those regional telephone lines were branching out when the Federal government took them over (AT&T actively encouraged the government to do so, and if they didn't have any competition they obviously wouldn't bother).

Also, around the same time there was plenty of competition among gas, power, etc companies as well. Baltimore had many such companies, it was only in 1893 when the gas and energy companies were monopolized around a single large competitor that had been lagging behind and used government influence to grant itself a charter. A gas or energy company of the time having power over you (at least in the long term) would have been a laughable prospect. Your argument has no clothes.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile
July 27, 2011, 03:03:15 AM
 #134

I wonder though, how much of the information presented there is information that was shown to be falsified in Climategate.
Climategate is old news. Seriously. For the scientific community, it's business as usual, which means that research continues as it has.

If you want to post recent material that isn't from a conspiracy rag that clearly shows that the current consensus on Global Warming is highly questionable, then please do so.

I wasn't aware that facts become less valid if they aren't brand new news. I also don't know if I would call The new York Times a "conspiracy rag". Your "current consensus" is an illusion parroted all over the media without factual basis. I mean my god man, you are quoting Al Gore's talking points word for word. Ever try thinking for yourself?

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 27, 2011, 03:37:07 AM
 #135

I wasn't aware that facts become less valid if they aren't brand new news. I also don't know if I would call The new York Times a "conspiracy rag". Your "current consensus" is an illusion parroted all over the media without factual basis. I mean my god man, you are quoting Al Gore's talking points word for word. Ever try thinking for yourself?

I don't really care that much for Al Gore, nor do I ever seek him out to listen to or read. Tell me, do you ever immerse yourself into the scientific community, it's journals, etc.? Or do you just selectively seek your news from media which is largely supported by those who support the Republican party, such as Fox news?

Your 'facts' which you claim do not become less valid, were never facts, but big corporations spreading misinformation and capitalizing on some missteps made by a fraction of scientists, who felt compelled to polish the numbers of some studies, because of their frustration in being up against big corporate money.

You have two choices: follow the scientific community, and what they're saying, or big money, which is obviously motivated by the concept of making money.

Take your blinders off, and try and be critical of your idea about global warming, because only about 10 percent in the scientific community actually interpret the data somewhat in line with how you do. Notably, a large percentage of scientists who are petroleum geologists. Hmm, imagine that.

It's amazing how much misinformation can be spread by corporations who have a huge amount of money at stake. However, it doesn't take a brilliant mind to realize that.

I think some people just have a difficult time weeding out the garbage from legitimate material. It helps if you take an active interest in the subject, rather than following your nose in response to seeking out questionable material that dovetails with your political agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of those who fell for the argument that melting ice won't cause sea levels to rise.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile
July 28, 2011, 01:28:50 AM
 #136

I wasn't aware that facts become less valid if they aren't brand new news. I also don't know if I would call The new York Times a "conspiracy rag". Your "current consensus" is an illusion parroted all over the media without factual basis. I mean my god man, you are quoting Al Gore's talking points word for word. Ever try thinking for yourself?

I don't really care that much for Al Gore, nor do I ever seek him out to listen to or read. Tell me, do you ever immerse yourself into the scientific community, it's journals, etc.? Or do you just selectively seek your news from media which is largely supported by those who support the Republican party, such as Fox news?

Your 'facts' which you claim do not become less valid, were never facts, but big corporations spreading misinformation and capitalizing on some missteps made by a fraction of scientists, who felt compelled to polish the numbers of some studies, because of their frustration in being up against big corporate money.

You have two choices: follow the scientific community, and what they're saying, or big money, which is obviously motivated by the concept of making money.

Take your blinders off, and try and be critical of your idea about global warming, because only about 10 percent in the scientific community actually interpret the data somewhat in line with how you do. Notably, a large percentage of scientists who are petroleum geologists. Hmm, imagine that.

It's amazing how much misinformation can be spread by corporations who have a huge amount of money at stake. However, it doesn't take a brilliant mind to realize that.

I think some people just have a difficult time weeding out the garbage from legitimate material. It helps if you take an active interest in the subject, rather than following your nose in response to seeking out questionable material that dovetails with your political agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of those who fell for the argument that melting ice won't cause sea levels to rise.

I took the liberty of putting your logical fallacies in bold so others can learn from your assumptions. So far you have asked for evidence, the when provided with a reputable source, denied it existed, made sweeping generalizations & assumptions about me personally, as well as the scientific community, and attacked me personally rather than the evidence produced. It doesn't take a brilliant mind to see you are presenting emotional motivation as evidence rather than facts.

Interesting related article: http://www.truthwinds.com/siterun_data/environment/weather_and_climate/news.php?q=1311700951

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 28, 2011, 01:36:26 AM
 #137

I took the liberty of putting your logical fallacies in bold so others can learn from your assumptions. So far you have asked for evidence, the when provided with a reputable source, denied it existed, made sweeping generalizations & assumptions about me personally, as well as the scientific community, and attacked me personally rather than the evidence produced. It doesn't take a brilliant mind to see you are presenting emotional motivation as evidence rather than facts.

Oh, okay.

Let's take things one point at a time, then. What is your take on the theory of melting ice and rising sea levels?

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile
July 28, 2011, 01:58:17 AM
 #138

Sorry, I am not going to waste time discussing endless peripheral issues which could be symptoms of any number of causes. Lets get right to the dependent factor of all of these side topics. Does human production of carbon-dioxide significantly raise global temperature? All of your assumptions rest on this one answer.  You say yes, I say no. So far I have seen others here provide you with references - but I haven't yet once seen you provide documentation. It is easy to sit on the side and demand others produce evidence, then deconstruct it endlessly. Why don't you declare some of this evidence you claim you have?

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 28, 2011, 02:01:13 AM
 #139

Sorry, I am not going to waste time discussing endless peripheral issues which could be symptoms of any number of causes. Lets get right to the dependent factor of all of these side topics. Does human production of carbon-dioxide significantly raise global temperature? All of your assumptions rest on this one answer.  You say yes, I say no. So far I have seen others here provide you with references - but I haven't yet once seen you provide documentation. It is easy to sit on the side and demand others produce evidence, then deconstruct it endlessly. Why don't you declare some of this evidence you claim you have?

Based on your remark above, can we assume for starters that you acknowledge global warming, but are hesitant to attribute it to humanity?

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile
July 28, 2011, 12:41:39 PM
 #140

Yes, the globe is heating, but will it have significant impact to our lives? That I find debatable at best. There is far more evidence that this recent temperature increase is a result of solar cycles than human activity. Speaking of evidence, I am still waiting on some documentation, but I fully expect you to provide none and proceed with endlessly deconstructing statements as you have done so far. You are claiming there needs to be a change after all, therefore the burden of proof is on YOU regardless of how much consensus you claim there is.

Interesting related article: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/green-agenda-has-parallels-with-excesses-of-communism/story-e6frfhqf-1226103023674

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
compro01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 485


View Profile
July 28, 2011, 02:16:18 PM
 #141

There is far more evidence that this recent temperature increase is a result of solar cycles than human activity.

I presume by "more" you mean "none at all".

Solar irradiance does not correlate with the change in global temperatures.

TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile
July 28, 2011, 05:40:03 PM
 #142

There is far more evidence that this recent temperature increase is a result of solar cycles than human activity.

I presume by "more" you mean "none at all".

Solar irradiance does not correlate with the change in global temperatures.



That is one of the most ignorant statements I have seen in a long time.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
compro01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 485


View Profile
July 28, 2011, 08:32:33 PM
 #143

There is far more evidence that this recent temperature increase is a result of solar cycles than human activity.

I presume by "more" you mean "none at all".

Solar irradiance does not correlate with the change in global temperatures.



That is one of the most ignorant statements I have seen in a long time.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

i do not see how that is related to your previous statement.  the magnitude of energy capture is less than models predict.  that does not support your assertion that solar cycles are a cause of anything and the fact remains that solar irradiance has fallen while meteorological measurements show temperatures have risen.

as for your link, how about we read what the actual scientist has to say rather than heartland?

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

Quote
The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

in other words - not warming as fast as models predict, but still warming at an unprecedented rate.
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
July 29, 2011, 02:05:15 AM
 #144

There is far more evidence that this recent temperature increase is a result of solar cycles than human activity.

I presume by "more" you mean "none at all".

Solar irradiance does not correlate with the change in global temperatures.



That is one of the most ignorant statements I have seen in a long time.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

i do not see how that is related to your previous statement.  the magnitude of energy capture is less than models predict.  that does not support your assertion that solar cycles are a cause of anything and the fact remains that solar irradiance has fallen while meteorological measurements show temperatures have risen.

as for your link, how about we read what the actual scientist has to say rather than heartland?

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

Quote
The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

in other words - not warming as fast as models predict, but still warming at an unprecedented rate.

I believe what you are trying to say is "Golly gee! Temperatures have been rising pretty fast in the past twenty years or so, compared to the past hundred years in which we have been capable of measuring global temperatures".

Yes, there are ice core measurements, etc but those generally point to mixed conclusions that are somewhat inconvenient for proponents of anthropogenic global warming (for example, it was far warmer during the Holocene Maximum in most of the world, and even the Medieval Warm Period featured warmer climate in most of Europe). "But wait!" you say, "Temperature increases of the time were not constant throughout the world so they don't count!", to which I reply "True, but such increases don't apply now, either. For example, I recall it being noted a while back that large portions of the USA aren't warming at all, and are, in fact, beginning to cool down significantly. This indicates that if humans are affecting the climate at all with emissions, the effects are marginal at best."

True, it might not be solar emissions causing an increase in temperature (though again, these increases are definitely not worldwide at this point, so it isn't even honest to claim that "the earth is warming" at all), but then we aren't exactly far ahead in terms of our ability to understand the climate in a massive way. Personally, I would imagine that what warming there is is being caused by water vapor and ocean currents, which would certainly make some sense. But then, we don't know enough to be able to make strong, accurate predictions either way. There was once a time where the most groundbreaking, revolutionary and accurate belief was that the earth was actually round (true) and that the sun rotated around it (false). This wasn't because the earth was really flat (which was the alternative of the time), but because ancient astronomers were effectively incapable of figuring it out with the instruments at hand. Likewise, our climate models are crude and far off target with predictions. It is a bit silly to claim that we have suddenly understood the mysteries of the climate in their entirety when we obviously haven't.

This is still a pointless argument, though. Assuming there is no global warming, we have nothing to worry about. Assuming there is (and assuming that nothing natural counterbalances the excess of CO2, like how some consider that plants may thrive from the CO2 and absorb more, producing more oxygen and growing faster), we have a very long time before most of the negative effects become prominent (don't give me the Al Gore "flooding Florida" garbage, the most alarmist of AGW supporting scientists predict far milder effects in the worse case scenario over a far longer period of time) by which time we will probably have a more efficient energy source due to a decrease in supply and increase in demand of fuel. However, assuming you are right (and libertarianism is flexible enough to handle the situation even in the worst case scenario), here is a list of things things a libertarian society would do (most of which even apply to lukewarm, beltway libertarians, though I will mention if they don't):

-No more energy subsidies. No truly libertarian society would subsidize oil companies (though a somewhat libertarian society might, but we are talking about one willing to at least go to minarchy along the lines of a Ron-Paul-Sets-All-The-Rules world if not farther), and thus oil would lose a lot of its competitiveness in the market. This would result in far less incentive to use oil, resulting in other energy sources becoming commercially viable without subsidies. Mind, alternative energy would lose subsidies too, but frankly if it can't stand without subsidies it is definitely a poor alternative (the prime example of this is the hybrid car, which requires more energy to make its engine than it saves through efficiency). Ultimately, improvements in technology would result in a superior, probably cleaner form of energy.

-Without government controlled energy grids, a lot of burning electricity plants would be far too inefficient to make a profit (especially without subsidies), while some alternative energy sources might become far more popular due to increased utility (for example, wind turbines and solar panels would be far more prevalent, though their inefficiencies would have to be dealt with to be made viable outside of a handful of areas).

-The road system would probably stop receiving subsidies. Roads would still be present, but they would likely be owned by either landowners (the roads would be auctioned off to those homesteading the land nearby or abandoned altogether depending on the circumstances) or by road companies. The road owners wouldn't want to have to use their own money to pay for "frequent drivers", and thus would charge a fee for driving on them. Competition would keep costs below what they are now (paid in taxes), but those who drove everywhere for no good reason would begin to feel the cost hurting their pocketbook. Meanwhile, those who only drove when necessary would note that the loss of many taxes otherwise used to pay for infrastructure (varies depending on the country, but in my own it is the gas tax) would result in them actually benefiting from their decision, which coincidentally is the "environmentally friendly" one as well. Alternative modes of transportation would become far more viable without subsidized roads, too.

-A minor one, but this would still probably have an effect. The military, no longer needing to go on foreign adventures, would be greatly downsized (if not privatized altogether). They would cease to consume as many resources as when they are maintaining over a hundred bases across the world and fighting many wars, and thus would greatly decrease their emissions.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2011, 05:36:37 AM
 #145

I think it's important to separate the issue in two:

1) How would a Libertarian society handle the case where something people benefited from individually in sum caused massive harm to everyone -- a case where each person individual benefits from "defecting" but where everyone would benefit if they could all "cooperate".

2) Is global warming a problem of this type?

I suggest you try to either work on one issue or the other but not both at the same time. When talking about how a Libertarian society would handle warming, assuming that man-made releases of CO2 have a significant risk of causing a global cataclysm. When talking about the actual scientific issues with AGW, forget about politics.

The one point I keep trying to make is this -- regardless of how well or badly a Libertarian society would address global warming (or similar problems like pollution), democracies have done at best a mediocre job and, more typically, a terrible job. The only thing that seems to address these problems effectively is prosperity and technology.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
July 29, 2011, 06:21:30 AM
 #146

I think it's important to separate the issue in two:

1) How would a Libertarian society handle the case where something people benefited from individually in sum caused massive harm to everyone -- a case where each person individual benefits from "defecting" but where everyone would benefit if they could all "cooperate".

2) Is global warming a problem of this type?

I suggest you try to either work on one issue or the other but not both at the same time. When talking about how a Libertarian society would handle warming, assuming that man-made releases of CO2 have a significant risk of causing a global cataclysm. When talking about the actual scientific issues with AGW, forget about politics.

The one point I keep trying to make is this -- regardless of how well or badly a Libertarian society would address global warming (or similar problems like pollution), democracies have done at best a mediocre job and, more typically, a terrible job. The only thing that seems to address these problems effectively is prosperity and technology.


+1
onesalt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


GET IN - Smart Ticket Protocol - Live in market!


View Profile
July 30, 2011, 12:03:11 AM
 #147

Actually, in a truely libertarian society, no one would give a shit about global warming, since the only person you should be looking out for is yourself, which includes saving money by purchasing the cheapest energy possible.


               ████
             ███  ███
           ████     ███
         ███  ███    ███
       ████     ███    ███
     ███  ███     ███    ███
   ████     ███     ███   ██
 ███  ███     █████████████████
███     ███     ███           ██
 ███      ███     ██          ██
   ███      ██████████      ███
     ███      ██████      ███
       ███      ██      ███
         ███          ███
           ███      ███
             ███  ███
               ████

GUTS
    ███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
   
smart-ticket protocol for events
live product with market traction!
    ███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
   
  BTC ANN
  WEBSITE
  BLOG
   
  SANDBOX
  WHITEPAPER
  BOUNTY
   
JeffK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


I never hashed for this...


View Profile
July 30, 2011, 12:13:54 AM
 #148

Actually, in a truely libertarian society, no one would give a shit about global warming, since the only person you should be looking out for is yourself, which includes saving money by purchasing the cheapest energy possible.

The solution would be for the libertarian feudal lords to build underground bunkers where they can live while the rest of the population dies, and then die themselves, alone.
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
July 30, 2011, 01:36:04 AM
 #149

Actually, in a truely libertarian society, no one would give a shit about global warming, since the only person you should be looking out for is yourself, which includes saving money by purchasing the cheapest energy possible.

The solution would be for the libertarian feudal lords to build underground bunkers where they can live while the rest of the population dies, and then die themselves, alone.

Because we all know that global warming, if real, would resemble a nuclear war  Roll Eyes

Also, nice job ignoring my argument.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 30, 2011, 03:15:37 AM
 #150

Actually, in a truely libertarian society, no one would give a shit about global warming, since the only person you should be looking out for is yourself, which includes saving money by purchasing the cheapest energy possible.

The solution would be for the libertarian feudal lords to build underground bunkers where they can live while the rest of the population dies, and then die themselves, alone.

Because we all know that global warming, if real, would resemble a nuclear war  Roll Eyes

Clearly.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 30, 2011, 05:15:08 AM
 #151

Obviously you people don't have a clue what a Liberty Seeker(Libertarian) is.  You sound like a bunch of Government Trolls, since it's funny you never see the Trolls out posting about how would a Socialist, or Facist, or Communist Society address the Global Warming Hoax.  It's always about a Libertarian stance.  What a joke you people are, and so bloody transparent it's laughable.

A Libertarian is a responsible person.  To himself and those around him.  Why?  Because he believes in his own rights and the rights of others.

If Global Warming existed and wasn't a con job hoisted upon the World and propped up by Trolls around the Globe both off and online a Libertarian Society would accept responsibility on a national scale to ensure the safe conduct of its Inustrial Base.

Now, if you're done trolling on Libertarians and towing the Globalist line so Al Gore can make his billions on Carbon Credits while the rest of us pay world taxes to support the Global Government I'd like to get back to my online poker game...

Thanks.

Actually, in a truely libertarian society, no one would give a shit about global warming, since the only person you should be looking out for is yourself, which includes saving money by purchasing the cheapest energy possible.

The solution would be for the libertarian feudal lords to build underground bunkers where they can live while the rest of the population dies, and then die themselves, alone.

Because we all know that global warming, if real, would resemble a nuclear war  Roll Eyes

Also, nice job ignoring my argument.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 30, 2011, 05:28:31 AM
 #152

Obviously you people don't have a clue what a Liberty Seeker(Libertarian) is.  You sound like a bunch of Government Trolls, since it's funny you never see the Trolls out posting about how would a Socialist, or Facist, or Communist Society address the Global Warming Hoax.  It's always about a Libertarian stance.  What a joke you people are, and so bloody transparent it's laughable.

A Libertarian is a responsible person.  To himself and those around him.  Why?  Because he believes in his own rights and the rights of others.

If Global Warming existed and wasn't a con job hoisted upon the World and propped up by Trolls around the Globe both off and online a Libertarian Society would accept responsibility on a national scale to ensure the safe conduct of its Inustrial Base.

Now, if you're done trolling on Libertarians and towing the Globalist line so Al Gore can make his billions on Carbon Credits while the rest of us pay world taxes to support the Global Government I'd like to get back to my online poker game...

Thanks.
A-fucking-men.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
July 30, 2011, 06:03:15 AM
 #153

Actually, in a truely libertarian society, no one would give a shit about global warming, since the only person you should be looking out for is yourself, which includes saving money by purchasing the cheapest energy possible.
This type of confusion is the reason you have to separate the issue in two. There are two possible cases:

1) Global warming is not a real problem. In this case, as you say, nobody would give a shit about it because it's not going to hurt them. But there's no reason they should care.

2) Global warming is a real problem. In this case, those individuals who are really looking out for themselves would give a shit about it because it's going to hurt them.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the problem is real but that still there's no incentive for anyone to find ways to reduce other people's impact on it.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile
July 30, 2011, 08:10:13 AM
 #154

Finally some intelligent deconstruction of this FUD.

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 30, 2011, 04:00:29 PM
 #155

There are two possible cases:

1) Global warming is not a real problem. In this case, as you say, nobody would give a shit about it because it's not going to hurt them. But there's no reason they should care.

2) Global warming is a real problem. In this case, those individuals who are really looking out for themselves would give a shit about it because it's going to hurt them.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the problem is real but that still there's no incentive for anyone to find ways to reduce other people's impact on it.

1) Global warming is not a real problem. In this case, some would believe it is a real problem and others would not. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it.

2) Global warming is a real problem. In this case, some would believe it is a real problem and others would not. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it.

3) Global warming is not a real problem, with a solid consensus that it is not a real problem. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it, plus even less incentive to decrease pollutants, which would inevitably have unsatisfying results.

4) Global warming is a real problem, with a solid consensus that it is a real problem. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it, with the exception that some fraction of the population voluntarily tries to decrease pollutants, while others take advantage of the decrease in harvested resources to harvest those resources themselves at a lower cost, thus accelerating global warming anyway.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 30, 2011, 04:02:39 PM
 #156

Finally some intelligent deconstruction of this FUD.

I'm more than willing to continue our discussion, but I'm trying to get the details of your position first. I asked you a question. Please answer it and we can continue. The question is about your position on sea levels rising. Basically, will global warming cause sea levels to rise?

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 30, 2011, 04:09:11 PM
 #157

2) Global warming is a real problem. In this case, those individuals who are really looking out for themselves would give a shit about it because it's going to hurt them.

But those who don't give a shit would really make it worse for everyone, regardless of the fact that there are those who do give a shit.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 30, 2011, 05:19:31 PM
 #158

Lol I have no choice but to dub this thread



The only ones left are Agenda Pushers and those who don't have a clue what Libertarian means or that Global Warming is a scam.  I pity both because with your heads buried so deep in the sand, you'll already be on your knees when they finally come for you.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 30, 2011, 05:59:42 PM
 #159

The only ones left are Agenda Pushers and those who don't have a clue what Libertarian means or that Global Warming is a scam.  I pity both because with your heads buried so deep in the sand, you'll already be on your knees when they finally come for you.

I suggest you write some emails to all the scientists out in the field and in the labs doing research on Global Warming. Otherwise, how are they to know that their work is pointless?

Attention everyone: TheGer is going to set all the scientists straight! He has information gleaned from right leaning commentary written by bloggers and such that clearly is based on solid information that the scientists do not have access to.

Note to TheGer: get to it, man! Until the scientists hear from you, they won't know to stop doing their research!

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 30, 2011, 06:02:49 PM
 #160

The only ones left are Agenda Pushers...

What exactly would my motivation be for pushing this so called 'agenda' you seem to think I'm pushing. Look in the mirror and you'll really see an agenda.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 30, 2011, 06:15:20 PM
 #161

4) Global warming is a real problem, with a solid consensus that it is a real problem. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it, with the exception that some fraction of the population voluntarily tries to decrease pollutants, while others take advantage of the decrease in harvested resources to harvest those resources themselves at a lower cost, thus accelerating global warming anyway.


You fail so fucking hard.

You still don't understand it, do you? You can't pick my fruit. If someone decides that a particular resource is important enough to protect, then their ownership of it will protect it. If there is a solid consensus that global warming (BTW, get with the program, the shills are calling it climate change now) is in fact a problem, then most people would protect what they own, and McEvil Co. couldn't get their hands on it. So, please, think before you post, it will prevent that nasty taste of toe-jam you're experiencing right now.

Also, could you please stop replying to the same post twice? That's just retarded. If you want to add something edit your first fucking post.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 30, 2011, 06:25:21 PM
 #162

You can't pick my fruit.

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.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 30, 2011, 06:54:41 PM
 #163

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?

What functional purpose does oil in the ground provide? Is it like the earth's hydraulic fluid? If I really wanted to preserve that resource, I'd put up wells on my land, and suck the reserve dry before you could, then store the oil.

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

So, what are you planning on doing with that water? Going to be irrigating crops? Back into the aquifer. Drinking it? Eventually, back into the aquifer. Washing your house? Back into the aquifer. Honestly, the only thing you could be doing which will actually deplete the aquifer is pump/truck it elsewhere, and it's usually more efficient to get water where you are. So, a very rare case.

I go out onto the deep blue sea and fish.

Not my fish. Not your fish. Nobody's fish.

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

Unless you're putting a net across the river, your fishing would have a hard time affecting me.

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.

Ah! A reasonably plausible scenario! At last! The solution for this, and indeed any negative effects from the other scenarios, is Arbitration or Mediation. You have caused me damage. I can (and will) sue for damages. The cost of damages should out-weigh the benefit of harvesting irresponsibly (versus responsibly), causing you a net loss from your dickish behavior.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 30, 2011, 07:12:08 PM
 #164

What functional purpose does oil in the ground provide? Is it like the earth's hydraulic fluid? If I really wanted to preserve that resource, I'd put up wells on my land, and suck the reserve dry before you could, then store the oil.

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.

Quote
So, what are you planning on doing with that water? Going to be irrigating crops? Back into the aquifer. Drinking it? Eventually, back into the aquifer. Washing your house? Back into the aquifer. Honestly, the only thing you could be doing which will actually deplete the aquifer is pump/truck it elsewhere, and it's usually more efficient to get water where you are. So, a very rare case.

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.

Quote
Not my fish. Not your fish. Nobody's fish.

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

Quote
Unless you're putting a net across the river, your fishing would have a hard time affecting me.

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

Quote
Ah! A reasonably plausible scenario! At last! The solution for this, and indeed any negative effects from the other scenarios, is Arbitration or Mediation. You have caused me damage. I can (and will) sue for damages. The cost of damages should out-weigh the benefit of harvesting irresponsibly (versus responsibly), causing you a net loss from your dickish behavior.

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.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 30, 2011, 07:18:23 PM
 #165

No problem.  I'll be sure to get that list of emails from the Climategate "scientists" lol. 

Your Ideological Agenda is...




"I suggest you write some emails to all the scientists out in the field and in the labs doing research on Global Warming"
bittersweet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224



View Profile
July 30, 2011, 07:27:33 PM
 #166

Libertarians don't address global warming. They also don't address cosmic rays and volcano eruptions.

My Bitcoin address: 1DjTsAYP3xR4ymcTUKNuFa5aHt42q2VgSg
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 30, 2011, 07:53:37 PM
 #167

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.

OR: I use the money I make from pumping out the oil in competition with you to make MORE money, and 20 years from now, my kids are sitting on a fat inheritance.

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.

You damage me, you pay damages. Be a dick, pay the price.

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

Nope, Nobody's fish, until you claim them.

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

Again, Unless you put a net across the stream, you are going to have a hard time affecting the rest of the river. One man with a pole don't make me no nevermind. And again, you do me harm, you pay damages.

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.

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

Aside from that, libertarianism is neutral on Global Warming, resource depletion, etc.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 30, 2011, 08:45:02 PM
 #168

Myrkul, you just can't argue with people who don't value Liberty.  They are to dumb to know any better, or collecting a paycheck to sell out their own race.  Collaborators if you will.  Collaborators get what's coming to them in the end.  When/if the Overlords ever come to complete power the people who got them there are the first ones they get rid of.  This has been proven throughout History.

Let the dead bury the dead.
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
July 30, 2011, 09:46:03 PM
 #169

2) Global warming is a real problem. In this case, those individuals who are really looking out for themselves would give a shit about it because it's going to hurt them.

But those who don't give a shit would really make it worse for everyone, regardless of the fact that there are those who do give a shit.
Sure, in a Democracy that's exactly what happens. Those who don't give a shit simply get the government to set pollution limits that allow them to pollute as much as they want and pre-empt any nuisance lawsuits. But that tool wouldn't be available to them in a Libertarian society.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 31, 2011, 01:30:18 AM
 #170

^^ Lol @ Mr. Obtuse trying to hang onto this thread. ^^
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 31, 2011, 02:22:09 AM
 #171

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

There's a really significant problem here and it's preventing you from thinking logically.  You really and truly believe that it's possible for your single acre of land to look like this:




While everything around you for hundreds of miles looks like this:




That makes you delusional.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 31, 2011, 02:36:11 AM
 #172

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

There's a really significant problem here and it's preventing you from thinking logically.  You really and truly believe that it's possible for your single acre of land to look like this:

While everything around you for hundreds of miles looks like this:

That makes you delusional.
There's a really significant problem here and it's preventing you from thinking logically.  You really and truly believe that that's what I think.

That makes you delusional.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 31, 2011, 02:42:49 AM
 #173

If that's not what you believe, then nothing you've said has a leg to stand on.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 31, 2011, 03:00:55 AM
 #174

If that's not what you believe, then nothing you've said has a leg to stand on.
Oh? How about this?


Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

Aside from that, libertarianism is neutral on Global Warming, resource depletion, etc.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 31, 2011, 03:11:05 AM
 #175

OR: I use the money I make from pumping out the oil in competition with you to make MORE money, and 20 years from now, my kids are sitting on a fat inheritance.

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.

Quote
You damage me, you pay damages. Be a dick, pay the price.

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.

Quote
Nope, Nobody's fish, until you claim them.

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?

Quote
Again, Unless you put a net across the stream, you are going to have a hard time affecting the rest of the river. One man with a pole don't make me no nevermind. And again, you do me harm, you pay damages.

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.

Quote
Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

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.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 31, 2011, 03:20:11 AM
 #176

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.

Good luck eating your oil, or driving your water, or selling those fish.

When word gets out that you don't go to Arbitration, you are the very definition of an outlaw: outside of society.

Enjoy your brief, violent life.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 31, 2011, 03:23:28 AM
 #177

When word gets out that you don't go to Arbitration, you are the very definition of an outlaw: outside of society.

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.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 31, 2011, 03:23:38 AM
 #178

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.

Good luck eating your oil, or driving your water, or selling those fish.

When word gets out that you don't go to Arbitration, you are the very definition of an outlaw: outside of society.

That's not possible unless you have a centralized, relatively single-minded society.  You don't.  You can't be an outcast from a land full of people doing whatever they want and making their own rules.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 31, 2011, 03:26:01 AM
 #179

When word gets out that you don't go to Arbitration, you are the very definition of an outlaw: outside of society.

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.

True on the second point, but then I get your land. In a few years, the rainforest will start to reclaim it.

In the first scenario, perhaps you had better look up what arbitration is. It's not like a State court.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 31, 2011, 03:27:22 AM
 #180

If that's not what you believe, then nothing you've said has a leg to stand on.
Oh? How about this?


Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

Aside from that, libertarianism is neutral on Global Warming, resource depletion, etc.


You can attempt to get them to compensate you all you want, but the damage is done and it's irreversable.  All the lawsuit money in the world is no good if your home is permenantly ruined and you're dying of some horrible disease because of all the pollution you live in.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 31, 2011, 03:31:20 AM
 #181

True on the second point, but then I get your land. In a few years, the rainforest will start to reclaim it.

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.

Quote
In the first scenario, perhaps you had better look up what arbitration is. It's not like a State court.

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

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 31, 2011, 03:39:38 AM
 #182

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.

If you sold it, then the proceeds come to me. You can't have died penniless and landless. And nobody's going to buy land encumbered by an active complaint.

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

Apparently, you don't.

We're done here.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 31, 2011, 03:45:33 AM
 #183

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

Apparently, you don't.

We're done here.

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.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 31, 2011, 04:42:12 AM
 #184

Getting back to the point of this thread.

"Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?"

Simple enough, they would address it by exposing the scam that it is.  Below is a link to one of the better expositions on this scam I have ever seen.  I expect the party line Global Warming Illusionists will not bother to watch it, but to those still on the fence reading this I recommend it.  It lays out in plain 2+2=4 talk what bullshit it is, and makes the Party Liners in this thread look like the Boobs they are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBQYlIikLBM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHQYm9lY1Y8&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKCyk_DhVI&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg5YZipFA2Q&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjo6QUK9lqc&NR=1

ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 31, 2011, 05:19:14 AM
 #185

Getting back to the point of this thread.

"Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?"

Simple enough, they would address it by exposing the scam that it is. 

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.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 31, 2011, 05:48:09 AM
 #186

As I said above.  Party Liners who won't watch the linked videos.

One another note though, one need only look as far as Climategate to see how the scam is played out. 

Here's your Hockey Stick, there's the door....
GideonGono
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602



View Profile
July 31, 2011, 02:24:06 PM
 #187

Getting back to the point of this thread.

"Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?"

Simple enough, they would address it by exposing the scam that it is. 

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.

If you want to believe it's the Gospel, then by all means, seek out those who are on your side. I suppose you have evidence that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was real as well?

You sound like a kool-aid drinker, man. Seriously, do yourself a favor. For one week - just one week - stop swallowing everything you are told by Al Gore and instead look at evidence that does not come from people who are on the government payroll.

ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 31, 2011, 03:11:13 PM
 #188

You sound like a kool-aid drinker, man. Seriously, do yourself a favor. For one week - just one week - stop swallowing everything you are told by Al Gore and instead look at evidence that does not come from people who are on the government payroll.

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.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
GideonGono
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602



View Profile
July 31, 2011, 03:40:01 PM
 #189

The onus is on you to provide credible evidence of significant anthropogenic climate change from sources without a conflict of interest.


IPCC = Conflict of interest, just like the studies done by oil companies.

TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 31, 2011, 04:05:30 PM
 #190

And still he has not watched the linked videos blowing Global Warming out of the water.  And he won't because he can't refute what it points out. 

Sellout, and Paty Line Troll he is.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 31, 2011, 04:09:34 PM
 #191

The onus is on you to provide credible evidence of significant anthropogenic climate change from sources without a conflict of interest.

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.

Quote
IPCC = Conflict of interest, just like the studies done by oil companies.

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.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 31, 2011, 04:10:46 PM
 #192

And still he has not watched the linked videos blowing Global Warming out of the water.  And he won't because he can't refute what it points out. 

Sellout, and Paty Line Troll he is.

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

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
GideonGono
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602



View Profile
July 31, 2011, 04:51:18 PM
 #193

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.

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

Clearly I can never win this debate because I am arguing with a mind reader. If you care to know what my opinion is on climate change is, it's that I don't know. Because I am yet to be presented with conclusive evidence that doesn't come from either a govt mouth piece media outlet or from "scientists" on the government payroll. This is the same reason why I reject "evidence" from "scientists" & "studies" sponsored by oil companies. Both these bodies have a conflict of interest so I reject studies tied to both. It seems you only reject that of the oil companies.


I suggest that you stop your witch hunt and simply read science publications.

I suggest you quote specific evidence or admit that it does not exist. If it does then prove me wrong. I welcome it. saying "read science publications" is useless. There are many studies out there. Which one should I look at? Which page? Not all are credible.

ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 31, 2011, 05:18:26 PM
 #194

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.

I suggest that you stop your witch hunt and simply read science publications.

I suggest you quote specific evidence or admit that it does not exist. If it does then prove me wrong. I welcome it. saying "read science publications" is useless. There are many studies out there. Which one should I look at? Which page? Not all are credible.

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.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
GideonGono
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602



View Profile
July 31, 2011, 05:35:13 PM
 #195

I wouldn't bother reading a study done by an oil company. The chance of bias is too high.

I wouldn't bother reading a study done by a govt linked entity. The chance of bias is too high.

EDIT:

Quote
Govt: Global Warming will destroy the world unless you pay more taxes & let me micromanage your life
Govt Scientist: It's true, govt scientists would never lie to you
ascent: It's true
GideonGono: Prove it
ascent: If I tell you, you won't believe it.
Big Oil: LIES! Noxious fumes are good for you
GideonGono: Prove it
Big Oil Scientist: It's just true. Big Oil Scientists would never lie.

This is the state of the climate change debate. No useful conclusions can be drawn from this IMO.

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.

So you don't have specific evidence? M'kay.

If I provided you with some particular page, document, etc., you would simply claim that I cherry picked that document.

I give up. My logic is no match for your mind reading skills.

The rest... tl;dr. It's useless when you ignore repeated calls for evidence

ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 31, 2011, 05:40:22 PM
 #196

I wouldn't bother reading a study done by an oil company. The chance of bias is too high.

I wouldn't bother reading a study done by a govt linked entity. The chance of bias is too high.

Quote
Govt: Global Warming will destroy the world unless you pay more taxes & let me micromanage your life
Govt Scientist: It's true

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.

So you don't have specific evidence? M'kay.

Quote
If I provided you with some particular page, document, etc., you would simply claim that I cherry picked that document.

I give up. My logic is no match for your mind reading skills.

The rest... tl;dr. It's useless when you ignore repeated calls for evidence

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.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
July 31, 2011, 05:42:38 PM
 #197

Lol you didn't watch any of them who are you kidding?  Any Global Warming fool would be picked apart arguing against that information.  You keep your New Age Religeon buddy, we'll keep the facts and common sense.

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

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2011, 03:27:08 AM
 #198

That's not possible unless you have a centralized, relatively single-minded society.  You don't.  You can't be an outcast from a land full of people doing whatever they want and making their own rules.
What people really want to do, when permitted to make up their own rules, is cooperate and specialize. They will make up the rules that makes that as efficient as they possibly can because the vast majority of individuals expect to personally thrive in that type of environment. You don't need centralization or single-mindedness to ostracize people who treat their fellow men unjustly. Each person finds it in their individual self-interest to ostracize such people.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
MikesMechanix
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70



View Profile
August 02, 2011, 10:11:42 AM
 #199

The onus is on you to provide credible evidence of significant anthropogenic climate change from sources without a conflict of interest.

Why the **** would anyone need to do that?

Almost NOTHING on this planet happens without a conflict of interest, since people need to eat and therefore need someone to pay for what they do.

Researchers working in universities in general DON'T make very good money. And that's where 99 % of climate research is made. If it's a scam it is not going very well, judging from the fact that the ones I know take the bus to work because they can't afford a car.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious when deniers pull out Al Gore and "government scientists" when the concept goes back almost 50 years (though the term global warming wasn't coined until the mid-70s), and the science it's based on is approaching 200 years. That alone says EVERYTHING about the amount of understanding the denier camp has.


Please send your extra Bitcoins to 17miTorGDBUh3yNTYJtodJPw9wzrcNcf6y. Thank you!

Sign up on TradeHill Instant Bitcoin Exchange using this link to get a lifetime 10 % discount on trades!
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546



View Profile
August 02, 2011, 06:56:51 PM
 #200

But you still haven't provided "credible evidence of significant anthropogenic climate change from sources without a conflict of interest."

Why not???

Because it's .....



The onus is on you to provide credible evidence of significant anthropogenic climate change from sources without a conflict of interest.

Why the **** would anyone need to do that?

Almost NOTHING on this planet happens without a conflict of interest, since people need to eat and therefore need someone to pay for what they do.

Researchers working in universities in general DON'T make very good money. And that's where 99 % of climate research is made. If it's a scam it is not going very well, judging from the fact that the ones I know take the bus to work because they can't afford a car.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious when deniers pull out Al Gore and "government scientists" when the concept goes back almost 50 years (though the term global warming wasn't coined until the mid-70s), and the science it's based on is approaching 200 years. That alone says EVERYTHING about the amount of understanding the denier camp has.


TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile
August 04, 2011, 04:03:34 PM
 #201

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/

Also finding it hilarious that the warmistas cant seem to provide any sources even after repeated requests from several posters, yet have no problem playing grand inquisitor demanding sources then ignoring them, and playing Miss Cleo divining poster's belief systems.

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
Mageant
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1121



View Profile WWW
August 04, 2011, 05:02:54 PM
 #202

Simply by ignoring all "truths" put out by institutions that are under centralist control and therefore serve their masters and not the objective search for truth.

PoSToken - First PoS Token|Free Airdrop|No ICO
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 02, 2011, 02:55:16 AM
 #203

Geez, there's a lot of individuals in this thread who are heavily bought into the drivel spewed forth from the brownlash community. To sum up their conclusions: "Yes, my source of information is from Environment & Climate News, clearly the most trusted source in science reporting, even though it's edited by a guy who has no degree in science, and does not ever practice science, but instead is an advocate of property rights."

I'm sure they'll trot out the Oregon Institute petition next.
stevendobbs
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile WWW
September 06, 2011, 02:58:14 PM
 #204

"Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?"

lol - pretty easily -

just deny that it exists at all. slur the science and run a deception campaign.

Steven Dobbs, co founder of thunderworks ltd
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 06, 2011, 03:05:18 PM
 #205

"Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?"

lol - pretty easily -

just deny that it exists at all. slur the science and run a deception campaign.

You are exactly correct. See this thread for examples of how they deceive: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40283.0
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
September 06, 2011, 05:22:56 PM
 #206

There's a huge incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming means a coercive government will place onerous restrictions on people. There is no incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming does not mean widespread economy-killing coercion.

So, on the "head in the sand" front, a Libertarian society would have huge advantages over ones like ours.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
JeffK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


I never hashed for this...


View Profile
September 06, 2011, 07:05:39 PM
 #207

There's a huge incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming means a coercive government will place onerous restrictions on people. There is no incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming does not mean widespread economy-killing coercion.

So, on the "head in the sand" front, a Libertarian society would have huge advantages over ones like ours.

Thanks for your completely theoretical speculation
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
September 06, 2011, 09:31:06 PM
 #208

Thanks for your completely theoretical speculation.
If you think there's something wrong with it, please feel free to say so. But "That's what you think" just isn't constructive.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
stevendobbs
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile WWW
September 06, 2011, 09:38:34 PM
 #209

There's a huge incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming means a coercive government will place onerous restrictions on people. There is no incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming does not mean widespread economy-killing coercion.

So, on the "head in the sand" front, a Libertarian society would have huge advantages over ones like ours.

There is a huge incentive for those who have invested massive emotional capital in libertarianism - to subvert the science as widespread acceptance of the science tends to destroy libertarianism - why? because the libertarians have nailed their ideas to the mast of denialism.

Ecological Services are worth a huge component of the total global economy - yet to value ecological services, you require intervention in the market. libertarian political economy represents economy killing ideas.

Steven Dobbs, co founder of thunderworks ltd
bitconformist
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
September 06, 2011, 09:41:50 PM
 #210

There's a huge incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming means a coercive government will place onerous restrictions on people. There is no incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming does not mean widespread economy-killing coercion.

So, on the "head in the sand" front, a Libertarian society would have huge advantages over ones like ours.
The problem with this is that a more libertarian society would have the denial crowd spreading bigger lies: there's nothing to prevent a polluting industry from paying people for fabrications. There is an incentive to lie because even in an environment without class action lawsuits, industries would still need to maintain a public image.

Besides, simple facts of human nature like negative externalities and the tragedy of the commons mean that while this evil "coercion" would not exist, nor would any other force to prevent global catastrophe.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 06, 2011, 09:46:53 PM
 #211

There's a huge incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming means a coercive government will place onerous restrictions on people. There is no incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming does not mean widespread economy-killing coercion.

So, on the "head in the sand" front, a Libertarian society would have huge advantages over ones like ours.

The problem with this is that a more libertarian society would have the denial crowd spreading bigger lies: there's nothing to prevent a polluting industry from paying people for fabrications.

This already happens on a regular basis, by the libertarian 'think tanks'. See this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40283.0
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
September 06, 2011, 10:43:58 PM
 #212

There's a huge incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming means a coercive government will place onerous restrictions on people. There is no incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming does not mean widespread economy-killing coercion.

So, on the "head in the sand" front, a Libertarian society would have huge advantages over ones like ours.
The problem with this is that a more libertarian society would have the denial crowd spreading bigger lies: there's nothing to prevent a polluting industry from paying people for fabrications. There is an incentive to lie because even in an environment without class action lawsuits, industries would still need to maintain a public image.

Besides, simple facts of human nature like negative externalities and the tragedy of the commons mean that while this evil "coercion" would not exist, nor would any other force to prevent global catastrophe.
I don't follow the argument. Yes, I agree that some of the motivations would exist even in a Libertarian society. But certainly some of the biggest motivations (the fear of a massive, coercive, economy-killing government response) would not. So I don't see why you think it would be "bigger lies".

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
September 06, 2011, 10:45:27 PM
 #213

There is a huge incentive for those who have invested massive emotional capital in libertarianism - to subvert the science as widespread acceptance of the science tends to destroy libertarianism - why? because the libertarians have nailed their ideas to the mast of denialism.
But that's because they see denialism as a way to prevent massive increases in government power. If there was no threat of a coercive government response to global warming, why would Libertarians particularly care one way or the other?

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 06, 2011, 10:49:33 PM