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

[ascent]

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.

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.

[1713962514]

1713962514

[1713962514]

1713962514

[1713962514]

1713962514

[myrkul]

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.

[ascent]

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.

[TheGer]

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]

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.

[TheGer]

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]

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]

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.

[GideonGono]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[ascent]

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.

[GideonGono]

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]

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.

[GideonGono]

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:

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]

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.

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.

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.

[TheGer]

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]

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.

[MikesMechanix]

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.

[TheGer]

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.