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

[NghtRppr]

tax undesirable things

Like making lots of money?

[1714482480]

1714482480

[1714482480]

1714482480

[JA37]

tax undesirable things

Like making lots of money?

From an environmental standpoint, no, that's probably not one of the undesirable things.

[FirstAscent]

tax undesirable things

Like making lots of money?

From an environmental standpoint, no, that's probably not one of the undesirable things.

In some sense, it depends on the footprint left on the ground while engaging in making lots of money. Ground is used metaphorically here, meaning the ground literally, and the biosphere, people, everything.

[FirstAscent]

Give an example of systematic change that you are in favor of.

Planning infrastructure to allow for more public transport is one thing, "cap and trade", tax undesirable things and lower tax on things desired (society wise), implement Euro5/Euro6 for vehicles.
There's plenty to do.

Have you read Herman Daly?

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/

This is good stuff too: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/wealth_of_nations/

Google "Herman Daly".

[JA37]

Have you read Herman Daly?

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/

This is good stuff too: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/wealth_of_nations/

Google "Herman Daly".

I've heard the name, but not read anything from him. Perhaps it's time to do so.

[FirstAscent]

Have you read Herman Daly?

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/

This is good stuff too: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/wealth_of_nations/

Google "Herman Daly".

I've heard the name, but not read anything from him. Perhaps it's time to do so.

Yes. He's written a few books, some essays, and there are some videos of him where he discusses the finite resources of the Earth, and how economic theory must factor in those things to actually be meaningful.

[TECSHARE]

http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-is-here/

[JA37]

http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-is-here/

Ah, yes. The big-oil backed sceptics believing that the 90+% of the worlds climate scientists are in some sort of global conspiracy to take over the world. Or something.
Lapse in judgement by individual scientists, out of proportion wrong details and selective quoting goes a long way to establish a good conspiracy theory.

[TECSHARE]

Yes, no one has ever conspired to steal massive amounts of money all over the globe before. Absurd to even think it! Freedom is slavery. War is peace.

[JA37]

Yes, no one has ever conspired to steal massive amounts of money all over the globe before. Absurd to even think it! Freedom is slavery. War is peace.

I missed that part of the conspiracy. How does that happen? Is it the lack of greenhouse gases that makes money evaporate from your wallet, or how does it work?

[rainingbitcoins]

People that plan to steal massive amounts of money all over the world are more likely to be:

A.  A huge group of unrelated scientists whose devious schemes for grant money know no bounds

OR

B. Companies that already make billions of dollars a year and will do anything to preserve those profits and make new ones with as little restraint or regulation as possible

My keen libertarian intellect tells me the answer is A. I mean, think about it: oil companies already have money! What do they need more for? Obviously it's the people who spent half their lives going to school so they could get $50k a year jobs who are trying to take over the world and not the companies that are already halfway there.

If this were the 1960s or '70s, I have no doubt libertarians would be implicating the Surgeon General and greedy doctors in a scheme to unfairly tar the honest scientists at RJ Reynolds who have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that smoking cigarettes is the healthiest thing you'll ever do.

[Hawker]

People that plan to steal massive amounts of money all over the world are more likely to be:

A.  A huge group of unrelated scientists whose devious schemes for grant money know no bounds

OR

B. Companies that already make billions of dollars a year and will do anything to preserve those profits and make new ones with as little restraint or regulation as possible

My keen libertarian intellect tells me the answer is A. I mean, think about it: oil companies already have money! What do they need more for? Obviously it's the people who spent half their lives going to school so they could get $50k a year jobs who are trying to take over the world and not the companies that are already halfway there.

If this were the 1960s or '70s, I have no doubt libertarians would be implicating the Surgeon General and greedy doctors in a scheme to unfairly tar the honest scientists at RJ Reynolds who have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that smoking cigarettes is the healthiest thing you'll ever do.

Winner!  I actually laughed.

[FirstAscent]

If this were the 1960s or '70s, I have no doubt libertarians would be implicating the Surgeon General and greedy doctors in a scheme to unfairly tar the honest scientists at RJ Reynolds who have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that smoking cigarettes is the healthiest thing you'll ever do.

http://www.desmogblog.com/frederick-seitz-dead

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/frederick-seitz.html

http://selections.rockefeller.edu/cms/science-and-society/frederick-seitz.html

http://www.purplexed.org/?p=802

[TECSHARE]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html

[Explodicle]

Is this source spaghetti? Throw it against the wall until it sticks?

This is exactly why we need to create conditional climate futures to quantify the benefit of proposed climate legislation. Enough bullshit. If you're right, you win money from those who are wrong. Repeat it enough, and people who don't understand the science will shut up.

[TECSHARE]

Sorry I thought conclusions on empirical scientific data were formed by reviewing multiple sources. My bad.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html#ixzz1f38D3hFI

[Explodicle]

Sorry I thought conclusions on empirical scientific data were formed by reviewing multiple sources. My bad.

Apology accepted. My point is that there is SOOOOOOOO much bullshit available that anyone who hasn't already figured it out can just use Google and Wikipedia as a starting point. A global warming conspirator could just as easily drown us in links. Yes, use multiple sources, but get those from multiple sources too, not from some forum guy who is just trying to argue a point.

http://xkcd.com/701/

[FirstAscent]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html

So? You're failing to grasp why and instead jumping on the above as evidence of no AGW. Let's examine the likely reason for why. Massive PR campaigns funded by big money to engage in deception have created a very frustrating environment for Global Warming science. As an example, witness the relentless bullshit posted by the likes of you from ridiculous sources. Given that, some scientists feel obliged to fight back with deceptive practices themselves just to level the playing field - if they also engaged in deceptive practices, does that logically follow that AGW is not real? No.

Tell me, are you so gullible that you fell for Oregon Institute Petition?

[Hawker]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html

So? You're failing to grasp why and instead jumping on the above as evidence of no AGW. Let's examine the likely reason for why. Massive PR campaigns funded by big money to engage in deception have created a very frustrating environment for Global Warming science. As an example, witness the relentless bullshit posted by the likes of you from ridiculous sources. Given that, some scientists feel obliged to fight back with deceptive practices themselves just to level the playing field - if they also engaged in deceptive practices, does that logically follow that AGW is not real? No.

Tell me, are you so gullible that you fell for Oregon Institute Petition?

Poor TECSHARE suffers from a conspiracy delusion.  If you tell him that a secret cabal invented the Pacific Ocean to stop decent Americans walking to Hawaii, he'd believe it.

[JA37]

Sorry I thought conclusions on empirical scientific data were formed by reviewing multiple sources. My bad.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html#ixzz1f38D3hFI

I think this is the American problem of trying to be "fair and balanced" or what to call it. Not all sources are equal and should not be given equal weight.
Besides, didn't even the Koch brothers study say that the climate change is probably man made? And I think the term "global warming" is now only used by those trying to discredit man made climate change.

To be fair though, we don't have all the facts and things could change in the future as our understanding increases, but that doesn't mean that we should sit idly and hope that all current knowledge is wrong. You act on the information currently available.