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

[ascent]

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.

[1714105203]

1714105203

[1714105203]

1714105203

[1714105203]

1714105203

[1714105203]

1714105203

[myrkul]

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?

[TheGer]

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]

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

[Jaime Frontero]

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

don't bother.  he's paid.

[NghtRppr]

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]

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.

[AyeYo]

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.

[TheGer]

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

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

[ascent]

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.

[LastBattle]

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.

[ascent]

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.

[LastBattle]

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.

[TECSHARE]

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?

[ascent]

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.

[TECSHARE]

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

[ascent]

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?

[TECSHARE]

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?

[ascent]

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?

[TECSHARE]

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