What is environmentalism, really?

[FirstAscent]

This thread arose out of a discussion between TheBitcoinChemist and myself. It's so we can continue our discussion, with the participation of others, regarding what it means to be green, how people perceive environmentalism, what the benefits of it are, how it should be implemented, whether it's important, why it fails or succeeds, the character of those who embrace it or call it foolishness, and the science behind it.

I could begin by explaining what the point of contention between TheBitcoinChemist and me was, but I'd like to get a fresh start. I'll let BitcoinChemist begin, unless I choose to write a second post before he gets to it. Also, anybody else can jump in right now if they wish.

[1715666535]

1715666535

[Taz]

There is a lot of hypocrisy involved,
expecting everyone else to make measures we're not always wiiling to make ourselves.

[FirstAscent]

There is a lot of hypocrisy involved,
expecting everyone else to make measures we're not always wiiling to make ourselves.

Do you mean at the individual level, or at the level of a business, or at the level of one nation vs. another?

[dree12]

There is a lot of hypocrisy involved,
expecting everyone else to make measures we're not always wiiling to make ourselves.

If society as a whole takes measures, humanity will continue its Golden Age.

If too many individuals are not willing to take measures themselves, we will likely witness a collapse akin to the fall of Rome.

I believe that Environmentalism represents the idea that the society as a whole is more important than individuals, but individuals make up society as a whole. The Green movement aims to extend the lifetime of exploited resources of our environment.

[Taz]

Do you mean at the individual level, or at the level of a business, or at the level of one nation vs. another?

I think on all of those levels, we hold others to a higher standard than ourselves.

Individuals blame the government, government blames the idividuals.
Business doesn't give a shit, if they are forced by law or expectation to adopt new measures the can always use it as good publicity that they do so.

The Green movement aims to extend the lifetime of exploited resources of our environment.

Wow, never thought of it that way.

[FirstAscent]

I would contend that environmentalism begins with understanding the basic ecosystem services provided by the ecosystem naturally to us.

As long as we don't disrupt natural ecosystems, they will provide everything listed below:

- Freshwater supply and flood control
- Generation and maintenance of soils
- Ocean flood protection
- Natural pest control
- Amelioration of the weather
- The cycling of nutrients
- Pollination of plants

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, published in 2005, breaks it down like this:

Supporting Services:

- Nutrient cycling
- Soil formation
- Primary production
- Preservation of genetic resources

Regulating services:

- Climate amelioration
- Flood control
- Agricultural pest control
- Water purification

Provisioning services:

- Food
- Timber and fiber
- Fresh water
- Fuel

Cultural services:

- Esthetic
- Spiritual
- Educational
- Recreational

What disrupts the above?

Reduction in the number of top level predators. Top level predators, such as raptors, wolves, cats, etc. regulate the ecosystem by preventing overgrazing of vegetation, which plays a role in providing habitat to the smaller organisms, all the way down to the microscopic level, which in turn plays a role in nutrient cycling, water purification, soil formation, etc. In other words, top level predators ultimately affect the health of the entire ecosystem.

Edge effects. See this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92952.0. The fracturing of an ecosystem disrupts its viability, by inhibiting migration, reducing territorial area needed by top level predators (see above), and this ultimately reduces biodiversity, which reduces genetic information, a resource required for medicine, material science, engineering, computer science, etc.

Other disruptive effects to the ecosystem services enumerated above include harvesting resources (collateral damage), toxic waste, atmospheric pollution, garbage waste, over harvesting (fish), pesticides, noise, etc.

I could go into much greater detail, and I hope to, but I have little time right now.

[FirstAscent]

Ever heard of the Spotted Owl and the controversy surrounding it? What was all that about?

The Spotted Owl is a top level predator in the northwest. It was declared an umbrella species (otherwise known as a keystone or flagship species), and listed as endangered. The timber industry had an issue with this. Here's why. The purpose of listing the Spotted Owl as an umbrella species was because in order to preserve the Spotted Owl population, the old growth forests in the northwest would have to be preserved as well. That meant the timber industry would not be allowed to harvest existing old growth forests.

Why are old growth forests important? Because they offer all the ecosystem services outlined in my last post. Secondary growth forests do not offer all those ecosystem services, nor at the same level that the old growth forests do. And that's it in a nutshell. It has been demonstrated that the Spotted Owl can live in secondary growth forests, but it cannot viably breed in secondary growth forests.

Thus, species such as the Spotted Owl are declared umbrella species to act as a protective umbrella for their respective environments as a way to protect those environments in perpetuity, because once they're all gone, the possibility of regaining all those ecosystem services that those ecosystems provide is pretty much nil.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

The Green movement aims to extend the lifetime of exploited resources of our environment.

Wow, never thought of it that way.

It's also not true, at least not in any practial sense.  In my own experience, those who "wish to be green" and are willing to use government to compell others to also do as they would wish are religious zealots, not scientists.  They, as a rule, are impervious to new facts or data that may not have been available (or not widely available) at the time of their religious conversion.  I'm no less committed to the environment than I ever have been, I've just come to the conclusion that most of the actions that are proposed by the Green movement are ineffective at best, and terriblely counterproductive otherwise.  Even one of the founders of Greenpeace has done an about face concerning civil nuclear power, and nuclear power was one of the scientific issues that started me down my alternate path.  I love watching "Stossel" on Fox Business Network each thursday, and this past one had a bit on the EPA that I agree with compeletly.  Stossel (himself a well known former liberal turned libertarian) stated the issue well for myself, by saying that when the EPA was founded, there was much need for it, but since all of the low hanging fruit has been dealt with over the past 40 years, all remaining gains are economicly very costly and thus result in job losses.  I also agree with his libertarian position that, although it's true that in a libertarian world the public could class action sue major industrial polluters, in practice our justice system is too screwed up for that to be a practial solution.  Thus the EPA must continue to exist as a reflection of our society's collective desire to restrict pollution to the economicly necessary minimum possible but no further.  My greatest complaint about the EPA is that they have no authority over the greatest pollutors within the USA, namely government institutions themselves (particularly the US Military), so further gains from federal actions cannot be expected.

[dree12]

The Green movement aims to extend the lifetime of exploited resources of our environment.

Wow, never thought of it that way.

It's also not true, at least not in any practial sense.  In my own experience, those who "wish to be green" and are willing to use government to compell others to also do as they would wish are religious zealots, not scientists.  They, as a rule, are impervious to new facts or data that may not have been available (or not widely available) at the time of their religious conversion.  I'm no less committed to the environment than I ever have been, I've just come to the conclusion that most of the actions that are proposed by the Green movement are ineffective at best, and terriblely counterproductive otherwise.  Even one of the founders of Greenpeace has done an about face concerning civil nuclear power, and nuclear power was one of the scientific issues that started me down my alternate path.  I love watching "Stosseld" on Fox Business Network each thursday, and this past one had a bit on the EPA that I agree with compeletly.  Stossel (himself a well known former liberal turned libertarian) stated the issue well for myself, by saying that when the EPA was founded, there was much need for it, but since all of the low hanging fruit has been dealt with over the past 40 years, all remaining gains are economicly very costly and thus result in job losses.  I also agree with his libertarian position that, although it's true that in a libertarian world the public could class action sue major industrial polluters, in practice our justice system is too screwed up for that to be a practial solution.  Thus the EPA must continue to exist as a reflection of our society's collective desire to restrict pollution to the economicly necessary minimum possible but no further.  My greatest complaint about the EPA is that they have no authority over the greatest pollutors within the USA, namely government institutions themselves (particularly the US Military), so further gains from federal actions cannot be expected.

I'm of the opinion that job losses cannot result from doing something, and the government simply uses it as an excuse to continue its useless propaganda campaign. We don't need a government or a Greenpeace to run the green movement, and I oppose both parties. I believe that the only Green movement that can succeed is the collective cooperation of individuals, not the fascist regulations or harmful acts of terrorism. The true Green movement involves people who care, not organizations concerned more about self-preservation and conflict.

[Vitalik Buterin]

I'll bring in another point of discussion. here is an insightful piece on environmentalism in general that I found a few months back:

Checking out at Tesco, the young cashier suggested to the older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologised and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."

The assistant responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

She was right – our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soft drink bottles and beer bottles to the shop. The shop sent them back to the plant to be washed, sterilised and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs because we didn't have a lift or escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocers and didn't climb into a 200-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's nappies because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 2,000 watts – wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back then. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right. We didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV or radio in the house – not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, not a screen the size of Yorkshire. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the post, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn petrol just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working, so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right. We didn't have the green thing back then.

When we were thirsty, we drank from a tap instead of drinking from a plastic bottle of water shipped from the other side of the world. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor when the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their mums into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical socket in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest fish and chip shop.

But isn't it sad that the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish, grumpy old git who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart-arse young person.

Remember: Don't make old people angry.

We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off!!!

It seems like the environmentalist movement in general is biased toward activist solutions - implement wind and solar power, throw half our waste into a fancy recycling machine, buy the latest new electric car, and we're heavily promoting these types of solutions on both a governmental/economic (ie. subsidies) and cultural level. In the midst of all this, have we forgotten the art of, you know, actually not being wasteful?

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Back then, we washed the baby's nappies because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 2,000 watts – wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back then. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right. We didn't have the green thing back in our day.

My kids had fitted cloth diapers, hand made in Canada.  They weren't cheap, either.

The overall cost was cheaper though.

Back then, we had one TV or radio in the house – not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, not a screen the size of Yorkshire.

I've never owned more than one television at a time, although my current one does have a screen the size of Yorkshire.  It also only uses 70 watts to do much more than what used to take 450 watts, so I'm okay with that.

In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the post, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

I've never had a newspaper subscription, and I've never known a Millinial who did either, whether they were inclined to be green or not.

Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn petrol just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.

Those are still made, BTW.  I've got two of them.  They actuall cost more than a cheap gas push mower, but last a decade longer at least.

We exercised by working, so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right. We didn't have the green thing back then.

I have a Trek 7.1 that I commute 8 miles each way one whenever I can.  I did it exclusively for 3 years from May of 2008 to Aug. 2011; and I've had other jobs in the past that I commuted by bike too.  Over my working adult life, I'd say I've owened a car to commute with a bit over half the time.  Not owning the car at all is the money saver, as most of the costs of a car are maintaince & insurance, not fuel.

When we were thirsty, we drank from a tap instead of drinking from a plastic bottle of water shipped from the other side of the world.

They don't really come from the other side of the world, they come from a small bottling factory with an industrial reverse osmosis unit in your downtown district.  It's tap water, just read the label.

We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor when the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then.

This one's bullshit.  Very few people reused pens or razors unless they had too.

Back then, people took the bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their mums into a 24-hour taxi service.

You meet some really interesting people on public transit

We had one electrical socket in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances.

That changed for valid code & human safety reasons, not because people had more things to plug in.

And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest fish and chip shop.

Wow, total ignorance about how cell phones work.  The only signal beamed from space is GPS, and every bit of that is solar powered.

Remember: Don't make old people angry.

We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off!!!

You guys would do well to take this one to heart.

[FirstAscent]

It seems like the environmentalist movement in general is biased toward activist solutions - implement wind and solar power, throw half our waste into a fancy recycling machine, buy the latest new electric car, and we're heavily promoting these types of solutions on both a governmental/economic (ie. subsidies) and cultural level. In the midst of all this, have we forgotten the art of, you know, actually not being wasteful?

This is related to behavior. Paul Ehrlich addresses this issue in this speech he gave at The Long Now Foundation in San Francisco: http://longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/

Consumption is also heavily dependent on media and advertising. What you've completely overlooked though is where environmentalism starts. It begins with the study of the biosphere, and I addressed that within my post about ecosystem services. In fact, I barely scratched the surface. Hopefully I will address this in more detail as the thread develops.

[FirstAscent]

I'm of the opinion that job losses cannot result from doing something, and the government simply uses it as an excuse to continue its useless propaganda campaign. We don't need a government or a Greenpeace to run the green movement, and I oppose both parties. I believe that the only Green movement that can succeed is the collective cooperation of individuals, not the fascist regulations or harmful acts of terrorism. The true Green movement involves people who care, not organizations concerned more about self-preservation and conflict.

I think you're largely wrong here. Yes, it's true that initiative at the individual level is important, but I'd say you're largely unaware of just how successful government programs have been. Most likely, you're confusing your perception of environmentalism with environmentalism in practice.

[FirstAscent]

Environmentalism is simply a ploy to destroy industrial capitalism, communism failed so they try something else.

There is no reason to conflate what environmentalism is with some ideology whose purpose is to defend or protect an economic paradigm. It's like stating there is a conspiracy to eliminate washing machines because new kinds of fabrics for clothing are being developed. Start with the basics. What are the environmental issues, and how are entities going about to address those issues.

[dree12]

I'm of the opinion that job losses cannot result from doing something, and the government simply uses it as an excuse to continue its useless propaganda campaign. We don't need a government or a Greenpeace to run the green movement, and I oppose both parties. I believe that the only Green movement that can succeed is the collective cooperation of individuals, not the fascist regulations or harmful acts of terrorism. The true Green movement involves people who care, not organizations concerned more about self-preservation and conflict.

I think you're largely wrong here. Yes, it's true that initiative at the individual level is important, but I'd say you're largely unaware of just how successful government programs have been. Most likely, you're confusing your perception of environmentalism with environmentalism in practice.

I don't oppose government programs, no, not at all. Governments and organizations like Solar Energy International are crucial leaders in environmental change. But the government, one must admit, is not fully focused on environmentalism; after all, the richest party sponsors happen to be oil companies. Its regulations tend to hurt; they secretly drive alternative energy prices up by creating monopolies. Greenpeace has the opposite problem: they tend to focus on extremist campaigns that damage the reputation of the environmentalism.

I believe in societal environmentalism, and that involves action by people who care, through the collective cooperation of individuals. This can, of course, be bolstered by properly-run campaigns, not by parties interested more in self-preservation.

This thread arose out of a discussion between TheBitcoinChemist and myself. It's so we can continue our discussion, with the participation of others, regarding what it means to be green, how people perceive environmentalism, what the benefits of it are, how it should be implemented, whether it's important, why it fails or succeeds, the character of those who embrace it or call it foolishness, and the science behind it.

I could begin by explaining what the point of contention between TheBitcoinChemist and me was, but I'd like to get a fresh start. I'll let BitcoinChemist begin, unless I choose to write a second post before he gets to it. Also, anybody else can jump in right now if they wish.

Environmentalism is simply a ploy to destroy industrial capitalism, communism failed so they try something else.

There is no ploy to destroy industrial capitalism. In fact, a large portion of environmentalism requires "industrial capitalism": alternative energy, sustainable housing, etc.

[herzmeister]

I don't think environmentalism has to be enforced top-down.

Quite the contrary, wars for oil and climate havoc is not possible in the first place without high authoritarian top-down organization like today's oil industries and the military industrial complex.

Renewable sources of energy are cheaper than fossil resources, especially when the latter become more and more scarce. Thus, in a free world, people would naturally prefer renewable resources.

Hemp is a great substitute for fossil oils and plastics, but largely outlawed (by whom...).

A German village already produces 321% more ("green") energy than it needs.

[nedbert9]

This thread arose out of a discussion between TheBitcoinChemist and myself. It's so we can continue our discussion, with the participation of others, regarding what it means to be green, how people perceive environmentalism, what the benefits of it are, how it should be implemented, whether it's important, why it fails or succeeds, the character of those who embrace it or call it foolishness, and the science behind it.

I could begin by explaining what the point of contention between TheBitcoinChemist and me was, but I'd like to get a fresh start. I'll let BitcoinChemist begin, unless I choose to write a second post before he gets to it. Also, anybody else can jump in right now if they wish.

Environmentalism is simply a ploy to destroy industrial capitalism, communism failed so they try something else.

Well, you can't blame us for trying.

[nedbert9]

Biggest environmental risk

population growth + energy requirements + traditional technology.

MIT's artificial leaf is ten times more efficient than the real thing
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-03/28/artificial-leaf

MIT's Nocera outlines energy requirements 40+ years and advent of sustainable personal energy
http://vimeo.com/8194089

[teknomunk]

Like most things in life, there is a wide range of people involved in environmentalism.  Trying to paint us all with a single brush just doesn't work.  For the most part, I want to be more self-reliant, which involves me producing as much of what I use as I reasonably can (currently working on learing food production).

Personally, I think a lot of environmentally sound practices will return and/or be developed regardless of what we do now, purely out of need.  And when it does, it is going to be very painful for everybody that doesn't have an eye to the future.  I am not sure exactly what form the future will take, but I believe it will involve less fossil fuels and more renewables, simply because it will become more expensive to obtain and extract as supplies get smaller.

[FirstAscent]

Biggest environmental risk

population growth + energy requirements + traditional technology.

These taken together, absolutely.

[FirstAscent]

Most of the posts here indicate that most of you think environmentalism is akin to the idea of "putting a brick in your toilet tank." And maybe that's why some of you (TheBitcoinChemist, perhaps?) think environmentalism is crap. That's too bad, because environmentalism really is an aggregation of all of the following:

- The study of island biogeography
- The study of trophic cascades
- Stopping deforestation
- Declarations of umbrella species
- Climate research
- Dam removal
- Proactive business practices, like those of Patagonia
- NGOs in cooperation with governments at an international level for conservation
- The application of ecological economics
- Regulations (yes, regulations)

Now, with regard to the "brick in your toilet tank", it's explained starting at 6:55 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEnOcJpVA88

[Tim Johnson]

Rainforests were created by man centuries ago.

[dree12]

Rainforests were created by man centuries ago.

?

Honestly, how is this relevant, even ignoring the fact that it is completely false?

[Tim Johnson]

Rainforests were created by man centuries ago.

?

Honestly, how is this relevant, even ignoring the fact that it is completely false?

If it's true, it means man isn't a complete retard that needs to be put on a tyrant's leash.

[dree12]

Rainforests were created by man centuries ago.

?

Honestly, how is this relevant, even ignoring the fact that it is completely false?

If it's true, it means man isn't a complete retard that needs to be put on a tyrant's leash.

If it is true, we are effectively destroying a resource that past generations must have toiled to create. Perhaps, we should mine limestone from the Pyramids? Maybe create electric wires from the Statue of Liberty?

[Tim Johnson]

Rainforests were created by man centuries ago.

?

Honestly, how is this relevant, even ignoring the fact that it is completely false?

If it's true, it means man isn't a complete retard that needs to be put on a tyrant's leash.

Perhaps, we should mine limestone from the Pyramids? Maybe create electric wires from the Statue of Liberty?

I don't see a problem.

If you have a problem, maybe you should buy these monuments out and protect them.

[FirstAscent]

I think we're all getting the pleasure of witnessing willful ignorance in action in the last few posts here.

[FirstAscent]

Most of the posts here indicate that most of you think environmentalism is akin to the idea of "putting a brick in your toilet tank." And maybe that's why some of you (TheBitcoinChemist, perhaps?) think environmentalism is crap. That's too bad, because environmentalism really is an aggregation of all of the following:

- The study of island biogeography
- The study of trophic cascades
- Stopping deforestation
- Declarations of umbrella species
- Climate research
- Dam removal
- Proactive business practices, like those of Patagonia
- NGOs in cooperation with governments at an international level for conservation
- The application of ecological economics
- Regulations (yes, regulations)

Now, with regard to the "brick in your toilet tank", it's explained starting at 6:55 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEnOcJpVA88

Regarding dam removal:

Trailer of Damnation: http://video.patagonia.com/video/DamNation-Trailer

Essay: http://www.patagonia.com/us/patagonia.go?assetid=75082

[Factory]

[removed as to not detract from the focus of this topic.]

[FirstAscent]

This looks to be a great book on ecosystem services:

http://www.amazon.com/Natures-Services-Societal-Dependence-Ecosystems/dp/1559634766/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324452097&sr=1-1

I haven't read it (yet). It was recommended by MAHB: http://mahb.stanford.edu/

[RodeoX]

I fear our biggest challenge is to get a commitment from the world. The changes we must make to live another 500 years on Earth may be more than people are willing to do. Recycling, buying a hybrid car, those things are like dripping water on a house fire. We would need to stop burning anything for at least a few hundred years. No cars, no heating your home, no cooking.  Even then it would continue to hotter for centuries.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

We would need to stop burning anything for at least a few hundred years. No cars, no heating your home, no cooking.  Even then it would continue to hotter for centuries.

Expecially since those activities are not the predominate causes of climate changes. 

[myrkul]

We would need to stop burning anything for at least a few hundred years. No cars, no heating your home, no cooking.  Even then it would continue to hotter for centuries.

Expecially since those activities are not the predominate causes of climate changes. 

You know what is?

[dree12]

We would need to stop burning anything for at least a few hundred years. No cars, no heating your home, no cooking.  Even then it would continue to hotter for centuries.

Expecially since those activities are not the predominate causes of climate changes. 

You know what is?

This wouldn't cause it to "continue to hotter" for centuries, though. Maybe it will in millions of years when it becomes significantly more intense, but not in centuries.

[myrkul]

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/42006-harvard-astrophysicist-sunspot-activity-correlates-to-global-climate

[TheBitcoinChemist]

We would need to stop burning anything for at least a few hundred years. No cars, no heating your home, no cooking.  Even then it would continue to hotter for centuries.

Expecially since those activities are not the predominate causes of climate changes. 

You know what is?

This wouldn't cause it to "continue to hotter" for centuries, though. Maybe it will in millions of years when it becomes significantly more intense, but not in centuries.

Dude, the Sun's output varies over an 11 year cycle, and a longer ~300 year cycle; and those are the two that we are aware of.  The Sun occilates, and it takes less than a 1% variance to swing the entire planet from an ice age into the Medieval Warm Period.  You have heard of that, correct?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

While the claims on Wikipedia are that the MWP were not as warm as the modern era, the facts say something different.  For example, it's a known fact that there were grape vineyards & wineries north of London in Britain, with legacy streets still named "Vine Street" that harken back to that age, while grapes won't grow in those same regions today.  Also, north of Canada is a wide expanse of islands hidden in the permanent ice beyond the arctic circle; the roots of trees have been found on many of those islands, hundreds of miles from where trees grow today.  The Norse settled Greenland during the MWP, and for decades children were taught in school that it was named as a fraud in order to get settlers to join the founders.  In reality, it would have been pretty green in the southern end of Greenland during the MWP, and we now know that those settlers fared pretty well for generations on grassfed sheep before the Little Ice Age slowly killed off their grasslands & sheep and drove them into the sea in order to survive.

[dree12]

I'm not sure if arguing with you is productive. Certainly others have done so already, and your refusal to change your point of view indicates that you'll probably deflect any arguments I might make. I tried debating a creationist on evolution once, and it's really the same problem. If you genuinely don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, that's your opinion. I believe such an opinion to be excessively ignorant.

Back on topic: Cessation of those activities might be going too far. What we really need is for governments to stop subsidizing oil. Between 2002 and 2008, 36+ billion dollars were directly used to increase oil (okay, total fossil fuel) profits and production. Even worse, if taxpayers didn't pay that money in the first place, it would more than offset the tiny increase in energy prices. Plus, think about the resulting bonus to alternative energy if the government stops sponsoring the companies that try to kill it.

[FirstAscent]

Hey guys,

This thread is about environmentalism, and that certainly includes climate change. However, as I've pointed out in an earlier post, the bulk of environmentalism is scientific study and proactive conservation (as opposed to turning in plastic bottles behind the supermarket), and as such, denying anthropogenic climate change with material sourced from the latest libertarian websites really doesn't qualify as climate science, and by extension, doesn't qualify as science in any respectable way.

If you guys truly want to debate this issue, feel free to start a thread about it. Before doing so, I would earnestly suggest both of you get up to speed on the following topics so we have a baseline to start with:

- Climate change induced precipitation patterns and how it will affect agriculture
- Milankovitch cycles and ice age patterns
- Ice albedo feedback loops
- The Oregon Petition, Frederick Seitz, and various libertarian documents masquerading as science

For this thread, I'd prefer we stick to real science. Thanks.

[myrkul]

denying anthropogenic climate change with material sourced from the latest libertarian websites

http://www.tgdaily.com/about

Launched in 1998, TG Daily is a leading news site online today. We strive to provide technology enthusiasts edgy, compelling, and independent news on a variety of topics: science, entertainment, business, and, of course, technology. Tapping into the talents of our independent, impartial and trustworthy human contributors, we publish dozens of new items everyday.

Just 'cause I link to it, don't make it libertarian.

And you'll note, that was a Harvard Scientist. Not a C4SS staffer.

[FirstAscent]

denying anthropogenic climate change with material sourced from the latest libertarian websites

http://www.tgdaily.com/about

Launched in 1998, TG Daily is a leading news site online today. We strive to provide technology enthusiasts edgy, compelling, and independent news on a variety of topics: science, entertainment, business, and, of course, technology. Tapping into the talents of our independent, impartial and trustworthy human contributors, we publish dozens of new items everyday.

Just 'cause I link to it, don't make it libertarian.

And you'll note, that was a Harvard Scientist. Not a C4SS staffer.

Sure. You'll even find that Richard Lindzen is an MIT professor. There are bad apples in every organization.

As for your paper, let's analyze Dr. Willie Soon:

- He's associated with the Marshall Institute, a libertarian think tank founded by Frederick Seitz (I mentioned him above).
- He has largely been funded by the oil industry
- All grants to him since 2002 have been from oil and coal interests
- He's a speaker for the Heartland Institute

I have made a statement in several threads over the past year that every time (and I mean every single time) someone posts an article relating to denying anthropogenic climate change, it's a trivial matter to tie the author to libertarian think tanks and Big Oil. Please read this post I made in June very carefully: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83931.msg981373#msg981373

Oh, and regarding Willie Soon, all you need do is google his name. Really, I thought you'd be more careful before posting such material.

Carry on.

[myrkul]

Wait, I'm confused. I thought it was the website you were attacking, not the researcher.

[FirstAscent]

Wait, I'm confused. I thought it was the website you were attacking, not the researcher.

Arguing silly semantics again because you don't have a leg to stand on? Funny.

I'm attacking your posts, as you're linking to articles written by Willie Soon, libertarian anti-science crackpot, speaker for libertarian think tanks, funded by Big Oil, promoted by libertarian think tanks (his only real venue).

I'll just post what I said in that other thread in June, because it sums up your actions and the analysis of your "science" so well. Here's what I wrote back in June:

By the way your refractory type of rhetoric is all too familiar. Sock puppet much?

Ok this is way too good to resist, sorry everyone else.

Whose sock puppet am I?

I don't know, but Fritz Vahrenholt (TECSHARE's link) is a chemist, affiliated with energy companies, and sat on the board of Shell. He has never published a paper on climate or climatology in a peer reviewed journal.

I have said over and over: all claims made by these charlatans can be refuted, and they can be tied to Big Oil or other organizations of ill repute, such as the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, etc. Think tanks are what they call themselves, and what they really are are nothing but fronts for conservative thinking masquerading as organizations which claim to be experts on climate.

It pretty much began with Frederick Seitz and his claims that tobacco smoke does not cause cancer, when he was on the payroll of RJ Reynolds, and then later, when he went on the payroll of Exxon/Mobil, where he then made claims about climate change. These windbags have continued spouting their fictions ever since.

Individuals such as TECSHARE find what they believe to be these earth shattering news items, and gleefully post them as though they were real science. Pretty sad.

The sooner you tuck your tail between your legs and extricate yourself from this, the better you'll look.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Hey guys,

This thread is about environmentalism, and that certainly includes climate change. However, as I've pointed out in an earlier post, the bulk of environmentalism is scientific study and proactive conservation (as opposed to turning in plastic bottles behind the supermarket), and as such, denying anthropogenic climate change with material sourced from the latest libertarian websites really doesn't qualify as climate science, and by extension, doesn't qualify as science in any respectable way.

If you guys truly want to debate this issue, feel free to start a thread about it. Before doing so, I would earnestly suggest both of you get up to speed on the following topics so we have a baseline to start with:

- Climate change induced precipitation patterns and how it will affect agriculture
- Milankovitch cycles and ice age patterns
- Ice albedo feedback loops
- The Oregon Petition, Frederick Seitz, and various libertarian documents masquerading as science

For this thread, I'd prefer we stick to real science. Thanks.

I, for one, do not deny that the climate is changing.  Nor do I deny that the trend is towards a warmer climate.  I won't even contest that human activity contributes in that general direction.  What I will deny, because I actually understand the sciences involved and how complex they are, is that we actually understand enough about the biosphere or the global climate to make the claims that some people will do.  I most certainly oppose the efforts to use the force of governments to compel people to alter their behavior under the claims that "the science is settled".  The science is not only not settled, the best & brightest openly admit that they don't really understand it all well enough to make a solid determination.  It's the politically minded hacks that compare climate change skeptics to holocaust deniers.  And even if the science were actually settled, there is very little evidence that we could actually slow that warming trend to any significant degree without killing off a large percentage of the population of the planet either by starvation or warfare.  

And all that before we even consider the possibility that a moderate rate of change (which is what we have actually been getting despite decades of climate change histeria, yes I'm old enough to remember the early 80's and the claims that Mexico and some of the Southernmost US states would actually be inhabitable by now) might actually be a net positive for humanity at large, even if it does prove to be a net burden on people who live in sub-tropical coastal regions.  There are massive tracts of arable land that could be opened up to productive agriculture and human settlement in the northern-most latitudes, predominately in Canada, Greenland & Russia.  See, there is one thing about global warming predictions that are not often talked about by those who warn against climate changes; and that is that the rising temp trends are not going to be evenly distributed across the latitudes.  Because of the way that greenhouse gases work (i.e. shortwave infrared light from the sun passes through mostly unattenuated to strike the Earth's surface, while longer wave IR tends to be 'refracted' back towards the Earth like shortwave radio waves are reflected by the E-level of the ionosphere, thus functioning like one of those mylar emergency blankets) the retained heat tends towards spreading across great distances.  So while the equater does get most of the sunlight and would warm somewhat, higher latitudes would tend to receive more IR heat from warmer latitutes than they radiate back.  Thus, most of the warming is going to occur in regions where a slightly warmer climate could make the difference between only growing winter wheat, or growing corn instead.  The climate is always, always changing.  As recently as 400 years ago there was still an inland sea in the Western US states, where the salt flats are today, that contributed to a wetter climate in that region than exists today.  Things change and populations migrate.  There is no reason to expect that it will be different after the Industrial Revolution, in that regard, than it was prior.

Also, keep in mind that the Earth is a closed system, and any externally gained carbon is less than trivial even over millinia.  At some point in Earth's history, it was a molten ball of rock surrounded by a mixed gas atmostphere.  There were no trees, and oxygen is never found free under such conditions unless all of the available carbon was already consumed.  So, at one point in Earth's history, all of the carbon (or nearly all) that we worry today about being released into the atmostphere was actually in that old Earth atmostphere.  So the idea that there is some point at which the amount of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere starts a positive feedback loop within this closed system to destroy life on Earth is both rediculous and provablely false on that data point alone.  For if it were true, how in the hell could live ever have evolved to start with?  I'm not saying that humans  are going to want to live that way but we are little more than a minor infection to the Earth's biosphere.

EDIT: I got the short & long wave IR's reversed in the above description, but other than that it is correct.

[FirstAscent]

Myrkul,

I'll tell you what is so hilarious. I never clicked on your link when I raised my first objection to your post. I confidently stated my position, predicting with 100 percent accuracy what I would find.

I'm laughing because when I finally checked out your link after your attempted defense of it and googled the author, I got exactly what I predicted, matching nearly word for word what I surmised.

[myrkul]

Wait, I'm confused. I thought it was the website you were attacking, not the researcher.

Arguing silly semantics again because you don't have a leg to stand on? Funny.

I'm attacking your posts, as you're linking to articles written by Willie Soon

Wait, now you've got the author wrong. The article was written by Rick C. Hodgin. It says it right under the title. What is your problem tonight? You can't seem to keep anything straight.

[FirstAscent]

Wait, I'm confused. I thought it was the website you were attacking, not the researcher.

Arguing silly semantics again because you don't have a leg to stand on? Funny.

I'm attacking your posts, as you're linking to articles written by Willie Soon

Wait, now you've got the author wrong. The article was written by Rick C. Hodgin. It says it right under the title. What is your problem tonight? You can't seem to keep anything straight.

Digging your hole even deeper in an effort to save face? Nobody's buying it. Nobody gives a crap about Mr. Hodgin.

Note to everyone: here's the article myrkul linked to. Decide for yourself whether Mr. Hodgin or Willie Soon's work is what the article is about: http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/42006-harvard-astrophysicist-sunspot-activity-correlates-to-global-climate

Myrkul, run along. At least TheBitcoinChemist can put together something a little more sincere and thoughful.

[FirstAscent]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Thank you for your post. However, there are some serious issues with it, and I can't give it the attention it deserves right now. But I will address it soon, I can assure you. As a preview, one of the serious issues with your statement is related to the inability for habitat relocation to occur due to barriers as species migrate northward. The consequences are grave, and it will affect the viability of some of the positives you see in global warming.

[nimda]

I must advise you that Ad-Hominem and condescension are tools I rarely see used successfully, and they never work for an educated audience.

[myrkul]

Myrkul, run along. At least TheBitcoinChemist can put together something a little more sincere and thoughful.

Aww, But you're so much fun to fuck with!

FWIW, I agree with TheBitcoinChemist. Global Warming, anthropogenic or not, is no big thing. Earth has been significantly warmer, even within human history, than it is now. Life will carry on. New York may not, but Life will.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Thank you for your post. However, there are some serious issues with it, and I can't give it the attention it deserves right now. But I will address it soon, I can assure you. As a preview, one of the serious issues with your statement is related to the inability for habitat relocation to occur due to barriers as species migrate northward. The consequences are grave, and it will affect the viability of some of the positives you see in global warming.

I wasn't referring to the migration of all species, I was referring to the migrations of human populations.  Once upon a time, the middle east was a cooler & wetter climate, and supported a much larger population than it does today.  It supports what it has today because of the ability to import food in trade for oil.  Without that, those populations will fade away in one manner or another.  The same is true for cities in the US such as Los Vegas or Reno.  The region cannot support the population that resides there, and without modern industry (with oil as a major industrial input) society would be unable to continue to move food grown in the plains states to those western cities.  For that matter, the plains states are plains because they were too dry to support natural tree growth, so even much of the water used there to grow crops wouldn't be possible without machines capable of drawing water from deep aquifiers and pumping liquid fertilizers hundreds of miles through pipelines.  Our greatest near term problem isn't climate change (particularly if it is actually caused by CO2) because our modern world runs on fuel with a diminishing return-on-energy investment.  Although there remains much oil in this world, the "low hanging fruit" of easily removed oil is almost depleted.  We depend upon ever more technically complex methods of extraction just to maintain the system as is.  By definition, that which is unsustainable will not continue indefinately.  When the (energy) costs of removing more oil out of the ground exceeds that which the oil can provide, no more will be removed and the great CO2 threat ceases to continue to be a threat.

I don't know when 'peak oil' really becomes a bigger threat, but I know that it must; eventually.  At least the climate change fanatics can rejoice that the resulting resource wars and population die-offs due to starvation will finally reduce the impact of humanity on the environment.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

I must advise you that Ad-Hominem and condescension are tools I rarely see used successfully, and they never work for an educated audience.

I'm confused, so I going to ask this...

Which one of them are you talking too?  Or are you talking to both?

[FirstAscent]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Thank you for your post. However, there are some serious issues with it, and I can't give it the attention it deserves right now. But I will address it soon, I can assure you. As a preview, one of the serious issues with your statement is related to the inability for habitat relocation to occur due to barriers as species migrate northward. The consequences are grave, and it will affect the viability of some of the positives you see in global warming.

I wasn't referring to the migration of all species, I was referring to the migrations of human populations.  Once upon a time, the middle east was a cooler & wetter climate, and supported a much larger population than it does today.  It supports what it has today because of the ability to import food in trade for oil.  Without that, those populations will fade away in one manner or another.  The same is true for cities in the US such as Los Vegas or Reno.  The region cannot support the population that resides there, and without modern industry (with oil as a major industrial input) society would be unable to continue to move food grown in the plains states to those western cities.  For that matter, the plains states are plains because they were too dry to support natural tree growth, so even much of the water used there to grow crops wouldn't be possible without machines capable of drawing water from deep aquifiers and pumping liquid fertilizers hundreds of miles through pipelines.  Our greatest near term problem isn't climate change (particularly if it is actually caused by CO2) because our modern world runs on fuel with a diminishing return-on-energy investment.  Although there remains much oil in this world, the "low hanging fruit" of easily removed oil is almost depleted.  We depend upon ever more technically complex methods of extraction just to maintain the system as is.  By definition, that which is unsustainable will not continue indefinately.  When the (energy) costs of removing more oil out of the ground exceeds that which the oil can provide, no more will be removed and the great CO2 threat ceases to continue to be a threat.

I don't know when 'peak oil' really becomes a bigger threat, but I know that it must; eventually.  At least the climate change fanatics can rejoice that the resulting resource wars and population die-offs due to starvation will finally reduce the impact of humanity on the environment.

This is a great post, because it's true!

But regarding species migration, species are being forced to migrate northward (in the northern hemisphere) at a rate that is not sustainable and far exceeds their ability to adapt. They will hit barriers (mountains, cities, bodies of water) and will not be able to migrate further. They thus become extinct. This reduces biodiversity, and most importantly for the discussion here, deplete the ecosystems their ability to provide ecosystem services, one of which is pollination. In short, everything goes to hell. By the time the northern latitudes become temperate for agriculture, so much bad stuff has happened that it is decidedly not a good thing. Furthermore, precipitation patterns will change in an unpredictable way.

[myrkul]

In short, everything goes to hell.

In the short term. Long term, unfilled niches will be filled, the world will adapt. If it does so without, or with far fewer, humans, so be it. Though man comes and goes, Earth Abides.

[FirstAscent]

In short, everything goes to hell.

In the short term. Long term, unfilled niches will be filled, the world will adapt. If it does so without, or with far fewer, humans, so be it. Though man comes and goes, Earth Abides.

Everyone knows what will happen long term. The point is not to throw away what we have near term. It's such a ridiculous argument to say that long term everything will be fine.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Thank you for your post. However, there are some serious issues with it, and I can't give it the attention it deserves right now. But I will address it soon, I can assure you. As a preview, one of the serious issues with your statement is related to the inability for habitat relocation to occur due to barriers as species migrate northward. The consequences are grave, and it will affect the viability of some of the positives you see in global warming.

I wasn't referring to the migration of all species, I was referring to the migrations of human populations.  Once upon a time, the middle east was a cooler & wetter climate, and supported a much larger population than it does today.  It supports what it has today because of the ability to import food in trade for oil.  Without that, those populations will fade away in one manner or another.  The same is true for cities in the US such as Los Vegas or Reno.  The region cannot support the population that resides there, and without modern industry (with oil as a major industrial input) society would be unable to continue to move food grown in the plains states to those western cities.  For that matter, the plains states are plains because they were too dry to support natural tree growth, so even much of the water used there to grow crops wouldn't be possible without machines capable of drawing water from deep aquifiers and pumping liquid fertilizers hundreds of miles through pipelines.  Our greatest near term problem isn't climate change (particularly if it is actually caused by CO2) because our modern world runs on fuel with a diminishing return-on-energy investment.  Although there remains much oil in this world, the "low hanging fruit" of easily removed oil is almost depleted.  We depend upon ever more technically complex methods of extraction just to maintain the system as is.  By definition, that which is unsustainable will not continue indefinately.  When the (energy) costs of removing more oil out of the ground exceeds that which the oil can provide, no more will be removed and the great CO2 threat ceases to continue to be a threat.

I don't know when 'peak oil' really becomes a bigger threat, but I know that it must; eventually.  At least the climate change fanatics can rejoice that the resulting resource wars and population die-offs due to starvation will finally reduce the impact of humanity on the environment.

This is a great post, because it's true!

But regarding species migration, species are being forced to migrate northward (in the northern hemisphere) at a rate that is not sustainable and far exceeds their ability to adapt. They will hit barriers (mountains, cities, bodies of water) and will not be able to migrate further. They thus become extinct.

Only if humanity choses to do nothing.  I find this rather unlikely.  We already capture and move wolves for lesser reasons.  How difficult would it be for us to introduce species to the northern side of a mountain range?

This reduces biodiversity, and most importantly for the discussion here, deplete the ecosystems their ability to provide ecosystem services, one of which is pollination. In short, everything goes to hell.

That is an unsupportable assumption.  There is literally no evidence to suggest that any species cannot migrate fast enough to outpace global warming.

By the time the northern latitudes become temperate for agriculture, so much bad stuff has happened that it is decidedly not a good thing.

Again, you assume.  I shall again mention that tree roots have been found on islands north of the Canadian tundra under several feet of permafrost.  I have thousands of years of cliamte history to suggest that nature adapts quite effecively.  I doubt that you can find a single data point that says otherwise, unless you are going to claim that the islanders who lived on Easter Island to be part of nature.

Furthermore, precipitation patterns will change in an unpredictable way.

So what?

[myrkul]

In short, everything goes to hell.

In the short term. Long term, unfilled niches will be filled, the world will adapt. If it does so without, or with far fewer, humans, so be it. Though man comes and goes, Earth Abides.

Everyone knows what will happen long term. The point is not to throw away what we have near term. It's such a ridiculous argument to say that long term everything will be fine.

Not at all. Environmentalists claim to care about the Earth. That's a load of bull, and I'm just showing that fact. If you only cared about the Earth, you wouldn't be worried. It's going to take a lot more than a few degrees one way or the other to sterilize this ball of rock we live on. What you're worried about is the status quo. Shit changes. That is the only constant. Deal with it.

[FirstAscent]

The last two posts are beginning to show the limits to the depth of your investigations into the environment. No more for now.

TheBitcoinChemist: you need to learn more about species, extinction events, and biodiversity. In your last post, you definitely showed a limit to your understanding. I can recommend some books for you later. Oh, and as for habitat relocation, it's not about outrunning - it's about hitting insurmountable barriers while moving. On a mildly related note, are you familiar with The Great Amphibian Dying?

Myrkul: Anyone can brush aside Global Warming with a statement such as the one you just made. It's rather absurd though, and not worth discussing.

[myrkul]

Myrkul: Anyone can brush aside Global Warming with a statement such as the one you just made. It's rather absurd though, and not worth discussing.

translation: "You're absolutely right, but I prefer my illusions, thank you."

Very well, I will leave you to your illusions, carry on.

[RodeoX]

This thread is what I'm talking about. Powerful energy interests have joined the "debate" for their own profit. I can't understand why people would listen to the likes of paid oil industry shills and loudmouth idiots like Rush, while ignoring real scientists who actually study this stuff.   Why do you think the energy companies pay them? Because they want to build a better future? Please, they never look past the next fiscal quarter?

Real scientists are paid to find the truth. What that truth may be is not important, science is the process. But, for enough money I could find you a "scientist" who believes smoking is good for you.

[FirstAscent]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.

[dree12]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.

It's easier to refer them to this. If they don't bother reading it, don't bother arguing. People oblivious to science will remain in their religious bubble no matter how much persuasion attacks them.

[nimda]

I must advise you that Ad-Hominem and condescension are tools I rarely see used successfully, and they never work for an educated audience.

I'm confused, so I going to ask this...

Which one of them are you talking too?  Or are you talking to both?

I was talking to FirstAscent

[TheBitcoinChemist]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.

It's easier to refer them to this. If they don't bother reading it, don't bother arguing. People oblivious to science will remain in their religious bubble no matter how much persuasion attacks them.

This entire site is well written bunk.  Let me just address the first 20...

"Climate's changed before" Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.  

Based upon what assumptions?  Their links don't really say, the larger link is just more conjecture.  

2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions  

Again, they produce no evidence for this statement, and it's provablely false.  Long distance IR measurements of Mars by NASA says that the surface of Mars has warmed over the past 30 years or so also.  Did we do that too?

3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.  

"The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. "

Yes, the impact of climate change may be catastrophic, but very few scientists consider the effects of climate change on the economy.  It's simply not their field.  So the reaosn that there hav been very few benefits projected is actual economists consider predicting the effects of warming over  a century to be futile, so very little has been published on the matter at all.

4 "There is no consensus" 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.  

To be precise, 97% of climate experts do not contest that humans are a cause of global warming.  That does not conclude that they all agree thathuman activities are the predominate cause.  Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus, even if true, represents reality is historically false.  This is just a short list of the crackpots who truned out to be correct, contrary to the scientific consensus of the age.

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

5 "It's cooling" The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.  

I won't contest this, but that data point isn't actually an argument for human caused global warming.

6 "Models are unreliable" Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

While it's true that the models were tweeked until they could accurately reproduce measurements we have seen in the  past, it's not true that those same models were able to predict the warming over the next several years, much less decades.  This is the great failing of the models, they simple arien't good enough

7 "Temp record is unreliable" The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.  

Yes, and they don't agree with each other.  Traditionally, the surface measurements are used in the computer models because there is simply more data than sats, but the surface monitors can be screwed with by changes in the immediate environment they reside, which is why they are the unreliable set to use.  Sat data does not, and has not, reported the same degree of warming, although they have reported some warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

8 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.  

Says who?  Who has the expertise to say that animals cannot adapt over a century by migration?  And so what if they can't?  More species go extinct yearly than we have ever caused.

9 "It hasn't warmed since 1998" For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.  

No contest here.

10 "Antarctica is gaining ice" Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.  

Sure, does not mean that climate change is human caused.

11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  

CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age.

12 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.  

The vast majority of the climate papers in the 1950's predicted cooling, which wasn't a bad bet since even at the time the global average was over teh long term mean.

13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.  

 And contradicted by many others.

14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.  

The Little Ice Age, while not technically a true ice age, dropped the average temps by half a C in under that time frame.  Tens of thousands died of starvation directly, or due to complications of desiese related to malnourishment as a direct result of the fall in agricultural productivity during this time frame.

15 "Ocean acidification isn't serious" Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains.  

Sure, and so did Acid Rain when I was a younger man.  Didn't really pan out, did it?

16 "Hockey stick is broken" Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.  

But not over the past 10,000 years.  Again, roots have been found on islands north of Canada under several feet of permafrost.

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

18 "Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming" There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.

No contest here.

19 "Glaciers are growing" Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.  

Most being the oparative word.

20 "Al Gore got it wrong" Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.

 According to whom?  The movie "An inconvient truth" was so full of provablely false data points that a court ordered that it could not be shown to public school students because it might ingrain falsehoods into their education.

[RodeoX]

Here is what an actual world class climate scientist says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-is-here--and-worse-than-we-thought/2012/08/03/6ae604c2-dd90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html?hpid=z3

[TheBitcoinChemist]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.

That would require research into my own education over the past 30+ years.

[TheButterZone]

Making up whatever shit it takes to justify harming humans.

Much different than conservationism.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Here is what an actual world class climate scientist says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-is-here--and-worse-than-we-thought/2012/08/03/6ae604c2-dd90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html?hpid=z3

I won't justify this feeble attempt at 'appeal to authority' logic fail.

[FirstAscent]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.

That would require research into my own education over the past 30+ years.

Well, let's just deal with your education since the year 2000. I'm patient. Please provide me a list of people, scientists, authors and books related to the fields of ecology and climate science which you feel have most influenced you.

Don't be shy.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.

That would require research into my own education over the past 30+ years.

Well, let's just deal with your education since the year 2000. I'm patient. Please provide me a list of people, scientists, authors and books related to the fields of ecology and climate science which you feel have most influenced you.

Don't be shy.

I'm not patient, and don't have the will or time to commit to such an endeavor.

[nimda]

FirstAscent, could you please address this, one by one?

If you can't find yourself able to stoop to that level, then I'm afraid I will have to side with his yet-unrefuted claims.

[TheButterZone]

Blank quote?

[nimda]

Blank quote?

Yes, because the post is long. You're supposed to click on the quote.

[FirstAscent]

FirstAscent, could you please address this, one by one?

If you can't find yourself able to stoop to that level, then I'm afraid I will have to side with his yet-unrefuted claims.

Oh, now I understand what you're saying - since you didn't quote it. Honestly, I didn't read his post, except for a quick scan. All that stuff has already been refuted many times.

Do me a favor. Pick one at random, and I'll discuss it.

[FirstAscent]

Making up whatever shit it takes to justify harming humans.

Much different than conservationism.

What is your position? Be clear.

[dree12]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.

It's easier to refer them to this. If they don't bother reading it, don't bother arguing. People oblivious to science will remain in their religious bubble no matter how much persuasion attacks them.

This entire site is well written bunk.  Let me just address the first 20...

I've got some extra time. Here are my responses.

"Climate's changed before" Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.  

Based upon what assumptions?  Their links don't really say, the larger link is just more conjecture.

Climate has changed before, which the argument does not deny. There is, however, an undeniable correlation between temperatures and the industrial revolution.

2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions  

Again, they produce no evidence for this statement, and it's provablely false.  Long distance IR measurements of Mars by NASA says that the surface of Mars has warmed over the past 30 years or so also.  Did we do that too?

Mars's climate is likely to vary greatly when compared to other planets, especially Earth. Dust storms seem to cool down surface temperature, but increase upper atmosphere temperature. While Mars's surface temperature decreased in 2001 during a planet-wide dust storm, the upper atmosphere heated by 30 °C. This "dust storm" effect indicates that some unknown Martian cycles are likely present that dwarf solar activity in Martian climate change.

3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.  

"The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. "

Yes, the impact of climate change may be catastrophic, but very few scientists consider the effects of climate change on the economy.  It's simply not their field.  So the reaosn that there hav been very few benefits projected is actual economists consider predicting the effects of warming over  a century to be futile, so very little has been published on the matter at all.

Barring anything else, sea level rise is likely a major economic factor. If New York becomes submerged, economic damage could result.

4 "There is no consensus" 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.  

To be precise, 97% of climate experts do not contest that humans are a cause of global warming.  That does not conclude that they all agree thathuman activities are the predominate cause.  Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus, even if true, represents reality is historically false.  This is just a short list of the crackpots who truned out to be correct, contrary to the scientific consensus of the age.

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

Crackpot isn't the right word; "heretic" is. Many famous scientists of yesteryear were heretics, as your list gives. However, unless one is a scientist oneself, it's probably better to listen to consensus than to isolated heretics. As your article states itself, "99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem".

5 "It's cooling" The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.  

I won't contest this, but that data point isn't actually an argument for human caused global warming.

It isn't an argument for human-caused global warming, true. But, it does indicate that some kind of global warming is occurring.

6 "Models are unreliable" Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

While it's true that the models were tweeked until they could accurately reproduce measurements we have seen in the  past, it's not true that those same models were able to predict the warming over the next several years, much less decades.  This is the great failing of the models, they simple arien't good enough

I'm not contesting this point, partly because I believe in the Bitcoin motto: "past results do not imply future performances". Models or not, however, the past 10-20 years are already a cause for alarm.

7 "Temp record is unreliable" The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.  

Yes, and they don't agree with each other.  Traditionally, the surface measurements are used in the computer models because there is simply more data than sats, but the surface monitors can be screwed with by changes in the immediate environment they reside, which is why they are the unreliable set to use.  Sat data does not, and has not, reported the same degree of warming, although they have reported some warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

Surface monitors can be screwed in both directions equally. Satellites are now reporting the same degree of warming, because corrections to bias due to shifting orbit times were made. This quote, from this report, is significant:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near
the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the
reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming.
Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while
early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming
above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors
in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New
data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

8 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.  

Says who?  Who has the expertise to say that animals cannot adapt over a century by migration?  And so what if they can't?  More species go extinct yearly than we have ever caused.

Some animals cannot migrate. Polar bears, Arctic seals, and Antarctic penguins are examples. Species are going extinct because we are in a period of mass extinction, the Holocene mass extinction, that began due to the end of an ice age. If temperatures continue to increase, it is assumed that this mass extinction event will be continued.

These extinction events tend to cause severe upsets in the balance of nature. The past three events have usurped insects (to the advantage of amphibians), amphibians (to the advantage of reptiles), and finally reptiles (to the advantage of warm-blooded birds/mammals). After many mammals have already gone extinct due to the end of the ice age, mammals and birds like the polar bears, Arctic seals, and Antarctic penguins are in jeopardy: they may likely end up similar to the woolly mammoth.

9 "It hasn't warmed since 1998" For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.  

No contest here.

Okay.

10 "Antarctica is gaining ice" Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.  

Sure, does not mean that climate change is human caused.

Okay.

11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  

CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age.

Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat.

12 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.  

The vast majority of the climate papers in the 1950's predicted cooling, which wasn't a bad bet since even at the time the global average was over teh long term mean.

The 1950's were characterized by cooling, so the climate papers were not incorrect.

13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.  

And contradicted by many others.

Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high.

14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.  

The Little Ice Age, while not technically a true ice age, dropped the average temps by half a C in under that time frame.  Tens of thousands died of starvation directly, or due to complications of desiese related to malnourishment as a direct result of the fall in agricultural productivity during this time frame.

Due to the increase of that much in the past 40 years, I think it's safe to say another Little Ice Age is not a problem. In fact, because of 1.5 K warming in the past 200 years, we could survive three Little Ice Ages. That would be enjoyable to many of the Pacific islands that are sinking.

15 "Ocean acidification isn't serious" Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains.  

Sure, and so did Acid Rain when I was a younger man.  Didn't really pan out, did it?

I'll give you this.

16 "Hockey stick is broken" Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.  

But not over the past 10,000 years.  Again, roots have been found on islands north of Canada under several feet of permafrost.

Most technological advances occurred in the last 3000 years. The rest of the 7000 years in your timeline probably have nothing to do with human activity.

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

I'd just point out that although more scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming than scientists who don't, just as much data has been fabricated on both sides.

18 "Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming" There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.

No contest here.

Okay.

19 "Glaciers are growing" Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.  

Most being the oparative word.

There's a direct causality between a warming planet and most glaciers retreating. Some glaciers grow due to local variations.

20 "Al Gore got it wrong" Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.

 According to whom?  The movie "An inconvient truth" was so full of provablely false data points that a court ordered that it could not be shown to public school students because it might ingrain falsehoods into their education.

Al Gore is not a magical leader. His economic policies and personal self-righteousness are despicable, in my humble opinion. The person's shortcomings does not impact the theory's validity.

Besides, most contrarian movies are also not allowed to be shown to public school students because they are just as inaccurate.

[FirstAscent]

8 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.  

Says who?  Who has the expertise to say that animals cannot adapt over a century by migration?  And so what if they can't?  More species go extinct yearly than we have ever caused.

Says who? Is that what you're asking? I'll tell you who says who. People who know what they're talking about. Your ignorance on this matter demonstrates that you are not qualified to discuss this. You have the opportunity to remedy this by reading real scientific publications as opposed to recommended reading by your favorite libertarian.

You obviously are not knowledgeable in this area. I already explained this. Animals hit barriers. Those barriers are suburban and urban areas, bodies of water (or lack of bodies of water), mountains, etc.

Read this article to understand fully what is happening. If you don't, then I have proof that you wish to keep yourself within your own manufactured bubble of ignorance.

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

[FirstAscent]

19 "Glaciers are growing" Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.  

Most being the oparative word.

What's wrong with the word "most"? Do you understand what ice albedo feedback loops are?

[FirstAscent]

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

Are you familiar with the Oregon Petition? Can you defend it's existence, if there was solid science behind denying AGW? What are your views of Frederick Seitz? Do you understand the nature of his activities?

[FirstAscent]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.

That would require research into my own education over the past 30+ years.

Well, let's just deal with your education since the year 2000. I'm patient. Please provide me a list of people, scientists, authors and books related to the fields of ecology and climate science which you feel have most influenced you.

Don't be shy.

I'm not patient, and don't have the will or time to commit to such an endeavor.

I'm sure you can come up with something! Nothing comes to mind? You seem rather proactive about giving the standard libertarian answers regarding global warming. Please share.

What books or websites do you study to learn about the environment, ecology and climate change? I'm getting a sense that you're hesitant to share. Is that the case?

[TheBitcoinChemist]

I've got some extra time. Here are my responses.

2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions  

Again, they produce no evidence for this statement, and it's provablely false.  Long distance IR measurements of Mars by NASA says that the surface of Mars has warmed over the past 30 years or so also.  Did we do that too?

Mars's climate is likely to vary greatly when compared to other planets, especially Earth. Dust storms seem to cool down surface temperature, but increase upper atmosphere temperature. While Mars's surface temperature decreased in 2001 during a planet-wide dust storm, the upper atmosphere heated by 30 °C. This "dust storm" effect indicates that some unknown Martian cycles are likely present that dwarf solar activity in Martian climate change.

Other planets have displayed relatively similar results, further implying that very small variations in solar output appears to have an outsized effect upon such things across the 'water band' of the solar system.

3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.  

"The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. "

Yes, the impact of climate change may be catastrophic, but very few scientists consider the effects of climate change on the economy.  It's simply not their field.  So the reaosn that there hav been very few benefits projected is actual economists consider predicting the effects of warming over  a century to be futile, so very little has been published on the matter at all.

Barring anything else, sea level rise is likely a major economic factor. If New York becomes submerged, economic damage could result.

Which could be outsized by the gains in valuable land mass in Canada.  Lets not make such conjectures, okay?

4 "There is no consensus" 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.  

To be precise, 97% of climate experts do not contest that humans are a cause of global warming.  That does not conclude that they all agree thathuman activities are the predominate cause.  Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus, even if true, represents reality is historically false.  This is just a short list of the crackpots who truned out to be correct, contrary to the scientific consensus of the age.

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

Crackpot isn't the right word; "heretic" is. Many famous scientists of yesteryear were heretics, as your list gives. However, unless one is a scientist oneself, it's probably better to listen to consensus than to isolated heretics. As your article states itself, "99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem".

Do you believe this alters my point?

5 "It's cooling" The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.  

I won't contest this, but that data point isn't actually an argument for human caused global warming.

It isn't an argument for human-caused global warming, true. But, it does indicate that some kind of global warming is occurring.

I never claimed that it wasn't.

6 "Models are unreliable" Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

While it's true that the models were tweeked until they could accurately reproduce measurements we have seen in the  past, it's not true that those same models were able to predict the warming over the next several years, much less decades.  This is the great failing of the models, they simple arien't good enough

I'm not contesting this point, partly because I believe in the Bitcoin motto: "past results do not imply future performances". Models or not, however, the past 10-20 years are already a cause for alarm.

In true bitcoin fashion, it's also a cause for exploring Canadian REIT's

8 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.  

Says who?  Who has the expertise to say that animals cannot adapt over a century by migration?  And so what if they can't?  More species go extinct yearly than we have ever caused.

Some animals cannot migrate. Polar bears, Arctic seals, and Antarctic penguins are examples.

Three examples of species that won't need to migrate, for they can all live in much warmer climates than they currently do.

11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  

CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age.

Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat.

And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either.

12 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.  

The vast majority of the climate papers in the 1950's predicted cooling, which wasn't a bad bet since even at the time the global average was over teh long term mean.

The 1950's were characterized by cooling, so the climate papers were not incorrect.

And this alters my point, how exactly?

13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.  

And contradicted by many others.

Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high.

And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too.  Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative.

14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.  

The Little Ice Age, while not technically a true ice age, dropped the average temps by half a C in under that time frame.  Tens of thousands died of starvation directly, or due to complications of desiese related to malnourishment as a direct result of the fall in agricultural productivity during this time frame.

Due to the increase of that much in the past 40 years, I think it's safe to say another Little Ice Age is not a problem. In fact, because of 1.5 K warming in the past 200 years, we could survive three Little Ice Ages. That would be enjoyable to many of the Pacific islands that are sinking.

I've little concern for a few small island nations that are losing dry land.  Much more inhabitable land is being opened up than is being lost.  Cities are just collections of people.  Move.  Venice is not going to sink into the ocean like a modern Atlantis, it's still going to take a century or more before the sea level rises more than a meter.  If your city cannot adapt with that kind of advance notice, it doesn't desrve to exist.

16 "Hockey stick is broken" Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.  

But not over the past 10,000 years.  Again, roots have been found on islands north of Canada under several feet of permafrost.

Most technological advances occurred in the last 3000 years. The rest of the 7000 years in your timeline probably have nothing to do with human activity.

Thank you for making my point.

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

I'd just point out that although more scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming than scientists who don't, just as much data has been fabricated on both sides.

Okay, but it is the data on your side of the argument that is being listened too, so it matters that some of it is falsified.  It shouldn't really surprise anyone that counter-data is falsified by oil companies.

20 "Al Gore got it wrong" Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.

 According to whom?  The movie "An inconvient truth" was so full of provablely false data points that a court ordered that it could not be shown to public school students because it might ingrain falsehoods into their education.

Al Gore is not a magical leader. His economic policies and personal self-righteousness are despicable, in my humble opinion. The person's shortcomings does not impact the theory's validity.

Besides, most contrarian movies are also not allowed to be shown to public school students because they are just as inaccurate.
[/quote]

Still doesn't alter the point.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

8 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.  

Says who?  Who has the expertise to say that animals cannot adapt over a century by migration?  And so what if they can't?  More species go extinct yearly than we have ever caused.

Says who? Is that what you're asking? I'll tell you who says who. People who know what they're talking about. Your ignorance on this matter demonstrates that you are not qualified to discuss this.

Neither do you.  And if qualfications mattered in any such way, 70% of the signers to IPCC and all of Congress wouldn't have any say in it either.  That would actually be ideal, but unfortunately for the realists in this world the opinions of the unqualified most certainly matter.

You have the opportunity to remedy this by reading real scientific publications as opposed to recommended reading by your favorite libertarian.

I have read exactly zero on this matter published by anyone that I know was a libertarian.

You obviously are not knowledgeable in this area. I already explained this. Animals hit barriers. Those barriers are suburban and urban areas, bodies of water (or lack of bodies of water), mountains, etc.

So now I'm not knowledgable?  Keep digging.

Read this article to understand fully what is happening. If you don't, then I have proof that you wish to keep yourself within your own manufactured bubble of ignorance.

I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.

That would require research into my own education over the past 30+ years.

Well, let's just deal with your education since the year 2000. I'm patient. Please provide me a list of people, scientists, authors and books related to the fields of ecology and climate science which you feel have most influenced you.

Don't be shy.

I'm not patient, and don't have the will or time to commit to such an endeavor.

I'm sure you can come up with something! Nothing comes to mind? You seem rather proactive about giving the standard libertarian answers regarding global warming. Please share.

What books or websites do you study to learn about the environment, ecology and climate change? I'm getting a sense that you're hesitant to share. Is that the case?

Google, Wikipedia, hundreds of websites & blogs, just to name a few.  Much of it collected by my own intellect.  I am not an authority, this is true, but nor am I some talking head with no independent thought.  Just keep thinking that I'm echoing libertarian thought, because if I am, then perhaps they are right?

[FirstAscent]

I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.

I'm sure you have the time to lessen your ignorance. Didn't you just say that in your last post that you use Google, Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites?

[TheBitcoinChemist]

I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.

I'm sure you have the time to lessen your ignorance. Didn't you just say that in your last post that you use Google, Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites?

Over the course of a decade.

[dree12]

2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions  

Again, they produce no evidence for this statement, and it's provablely false.  Long distance IR measurements of Mars by NASA says that the surface of Mars has warmed over the past 30 years or so also.  Did we do that too?

Mars's climate is likely to vary greatly when compared to other planets, especially Earth. Dust storms seem to cool down surface temperature, but increase upper atmosphere temperature. While Mars's surface temperature decreased in 2001 during a planet-wide dust storm, the upper atmosphere heated by 30 °C. This "dust storm" effect indicates that some unknown Martian cycles are likely present that dwarf solar activity in Martian climate change.

Other planets have displayed relatively similar results, further implying that very small variations in solar output appears to have an outsized effect upon such things across the 'water band' of the solar system.

Few solar system planets have a greenhouse similar to Earth. The ones that do tend to vary less in temperature naturally (see: Venus).

3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.  

"The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. "

Yes, the impact of climate change may be catastrophic, but very few scientists consider the effects of climate change on the economy.  It's simply not their field.  So the reaosn that there hav been very few benefits projected is actual economists consider predicting the effects of warming over  a century to be futile, so very little has been published on the matter at all.

Barring anything else, sea level rise is likely a major economic factor. If New York becomes submerged, economic damage could result.

Which could be outsized by the gains in valuable land mass in Canada.  Lets not make such conjectures, okay?

If there is economic gain possible, maybe we should accelerate global warming. I'm sure that is an excellent idea.

4 "There is no consensus" 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.  

To be precise, 97% of climate experts do not contest that humans are a cause of global warming.  That does not conclude that they all agree thathuman activities are the predominate cause.  Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus, even if true, represents reality is historically false.  This is just a short list of the crackpots who truned out to be correct, contrary to the scientific consensus of the age.

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

Crackpot isn't the right word; "heretic" is. Many famous scientists of yesteryear were heretics, as your list gives. However, unless one is a scientist oneself, it's probably better to listen to consensus than to isolated heretics. As your article states itself, "99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem".

Do you believe this alters my point?

I agree with this part of your point:

Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus always represents reality is false.

But not with this part of your point:

Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus if true represents reality is historically false.

Historically, most heretics were wrong.

5 "It's cooling" The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.  

I won't contest this, but that data point isn't actually an argument for human caused global warming.

It isn't an argument for human-caused global warming, true. But, it does indicate that some kind of global warming is occurring.

I never claimed that it wasn't.

Good.

6 "Models are unreliable" Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

While it's true that the models were tweeked until they could accurately reproduce measurements we have seen in the  past, it's not true that those same models were able to predict the warming over the next several years, much less decades.  This is the great failing of the models, they simple arien't good enough

I'm not contesting this point, partly because I believe in the Bitcoin motto: "past results do not imply future performances". Models or not, however, the past 10-20 years are already a cause for alarm.

In true bitcoin fashion, it's also a cause for exploring Canadian REIT's

Go ahead and invest in Canada. If anything, this is a feedback loop: maybe everyone will move to a country where per-capita emissions are exceptionally high.

8 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.  

Says who?  Who has the expertise to say that animals cannot adapt over a century by migration?  And so what if they can't?  More species go extinct yearly than we have ever caused.

Some animals cannot migrate. Polar bears, Arctic seals, and Antarctic penguins are examples.

Three examples of species that won't need to migrate, for they can all live in much warmer climates than they currently do.

Sure. Tell that to them when rabbits arrive in Antarctica.
I know it isn't that bad, but it'd be naïve to say penguins wouldn't need to move.

11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  

CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age.

Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat.

And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either.

12 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.  

The vast majority of the climate papers in the 1950's predicted cooling, which wasn't a bad bet since even at the time the global average was over teh long term mean.

The 1950's were characterized by cooling, so the climate papers were not incorrect.

And this alters my point, how exactly?

I'm making my own point. Climate science has been accurate for a long time. There's no reason it should become inaccurate now.

13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.  

And contradicted by many others.

Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high.

And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too.  Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative.

Unnecessary change is probably not good.

14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.  

The Little Ice Age, while not technically a true ice age, dropped the average temps by half a C in under that time frame.  Tens of thousands died of starvation directly, or due to complications of desiese related to malnourishment as a direct result of the fall in agricultural productivity during this time frame.

Due to the increase of that much in the past 40 years, I think it's safe to say another Little Ice Age is not a problem. In fact, because of 1.5 K warming in the past 200 years, we could survive three Little Ice Ages. That would be enjoyable to many of the Pacific islands that are sinking.

I've little concern for a few small island nations that are losing dry land.  Much more inhabitable land is being opened up than is being lost.  Cities are just collections of people.  Move.  Venice is not going to sink into the ocean like a modern Atlantis, it's still going to take a century or more before the sea level rises more than a meter.  If your city cannot adapt with that kind of advance notice, it doesn't deserve to exist.

"Much more" is debatable. There is relatively little land that will become useful in Canada (compared to, say, the areas to be desertified in Asia and Africa), no cold land in the Southern Hemisphere, and not much Siberian land that won't just melt into a desert.

16 "Hockey stick is broken" Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.  

But not over the past 10,000 years.  Again, roots have been found on islands north of Canada under several feet of permafrost.

Most technological advances occurred in the last 3000 years. The rest of the 7000 years in your timeline probably have nothing to do with human activity.

Thank you for making my point.

Then I guess we agree on this.

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

I'd just point out that although more scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming than scientists who don't, just as much data has been fabricated on both sides.

Okay, but it is the data on your side of the argument that is being listened too, so it matters that some of it is falsified.  It shouldn't really surprise anyone that counter-data is falsified by oil companies.

If 10% of data is falsified, what about the 90% that isn't?

20 "Al Gore got it wrong" Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.

 According to whom?  The movie "An inconvient truth" was so full of provablely false data points that a court ordered that it could not be shown to public school students because it might ingrain falsehoods into their education.

Al Gore is not a magical leader. His economic policies and personal self-righteousness are despicable, in my humble opinion. The person's shortcomings does not impact the theory's validity.

Besides, most contrarian movies are also not allowed to be shown to public school students because they are just as inaccurate.

Still doesn't alter the point.

I don't intend to alter the point.

What I fail to understand is why people like me shouldn't exist. I am a libertarian, and believe in anthropogenic global warming. Moreover, I believe that a smaller state is the best way to solve it: after all, twice as much subsidy money is going towards oil companies as that going towards renewable energy.

[FirstAscent]

I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.

I'm sure you have the time to lessen your ignorance. Didn't you just say that in your last post that you use Google, Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites?

Over the course of a decade.

Read the article, as it clearly will provide you some insights that you are currently lacking.

[FirstAscent]

19 "Glaciers are growing" Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.  

Most being the oparative word.

What's wrong with the word "most"? Do you understand what ice albedo feedback loops are?

Please address this.

[FirstAscent]

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

Are you familiar with the Oregon Petition? Can you defend it's existence, if there was solid science behind denying AGW? What are your views of Frederick Seitz? Do you understand the nature of his activities?

Please address this.

[nimda]

FirstAscent, I'll say it again. However educated you believe yourself to be, ad-hominem and condescension do not win debates.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

19 "Glaciers are growing" Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.  

Most being the oparative word.

What's wrong with the word "most"? Do you understand what ice albedo feedback loops are?

Please address this.

I'm aware of the effects of white ice on reflecting solar IR back into space.  Again, the regions near the poles could stand a great deal of warming and are likley to get most of it anyway.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

Are you familiar with the Oregon Petition? Can you defend it's existence, if there was solid science behind denying AGW? What are your views of Frederick Seitz? Do you understand the nature of his activities?

Please address this.

I am not familar with any particular petition.  I do not know, or care, who Fred Seits is.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.

I'm sure you have the time to lessen your ignorance. Didn't you just say that in your last post that you use Google, Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites?

Over the course of a decade.

Read the article, as it clearly will provide you some insights that you are currently lacking.

I will not accept homework assignments from my students.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions  

Again, they produce no evidence for this statement, and it's provablely false.  Long distance IR measurements of Mars by NASA says that the surface of Mars has warmed over the past 30 years or so also.  Did we do that too?

Mars's climate is likely to vary greatly when compared to other planets, especially Earth. Dust storms seem to cool down surface temperature, but increase upper atmosphere temperature. While Mars's surface temperature decreased in 2001 during a planet-wide dust storm, the upper atmosphere heated by 30 °C. This "dust storm" effect indicates that some unknown Martian cycles are likely present that dwarf solar activity in Martian climate change.

Other planets have displayed relatively similar results, further implying that very small variations in solar output appears to have an outsized effect upon such things across the 'water band' of the solar system.

Few solar system planets have a greenhouse similar to Earth. The ones that do tend to vary less in temperature naturally (see: Venus).

That has zero to do with the point.

3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.  

"The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. "

Yes, the impact of climate change may be catastrophic, but very few scientists consider the effects of climate change on the economy.  It's simply not their field.  So the reaosn that there hav been very few benefits projected is actual economists consider predicting the effects of warming over  a century to be futile, so very little has been published on the matter at all.

Barring anything else, sea level rise is likely a major economic factor. If New York becomes submerged, economic damage could result.

Which could be outsized by the gains in valuable land mass in Canada.  Lets not make such conjectures, okay?

If there is economic gain possible, maybe we should accelerate global warming. I'm sure that is an excellent idea.

I question whether or not you even could accelerate it.  Again, if global warming is due to carbon-dioxide from long sequestered non-renewable fuels, then the problem is going to resolve itself soon after the global Hubbert's Peak.

Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus if true represents reality is historically false.

Historically, most heretics were wrong.

Fair enough, but most scientific consensuses were also wrong.

11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  

CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age.

Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat.

And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either.

12 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.  

The vast majority of the climate papers in the 1950's predicted cooling, which wasn't a bad bet since even at the time the global average was over teh long term mean.

The 1950's were characterized by cooling, so the climate papers were not incorrect.

And this alters my point, how exactly?

I'm making my own point. Climate science has been accurate for a long time. There's no reason it should become inaccurate now.

It's entirely possible to predict a trend without having a complete understanding of why the trend continues.

13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.  

And contradicted by many others.

Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high.

And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too.  Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative.

Unnecessary change is probably not good.

You're guessing.  It seems to have turned out prety good for them so far.

14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.  

The Little Ice Age, while not technically a true ice age, dropped the average temps by half a C in under that time frame.  Tens of thousands died of starvation directly, or due to complications of desiese related to malnourishment as a direct result of the fall in agricultural productivity during this time frame.

Due to the increase of that much in the past 40 years, I think it's safe to say another Little Ice Age is not a problem. In fact, because of 1.5 K warming in the past 200 years, we could survive three Little Ice Ages. That would be enjoyable to many of the Pacific islands that are sinking.

I've little concern for a few small island nations that are losing dry land.  Much more inhabitable land is being opened up than is being lost.  Cities are just collections of people.  Move.  Venice is not going to sink into the ocean like a modern Atlantis, it's still going to take a century or more before the sea level rises more than a meter.  If your city cannot adapt with that kind of advance notice, it doesn't deserve to exist.

"Much more" is debatable. There is relatively little land that will become useful in Canada (compared to, say, the areas to be desertified in Asia and Africa), no cold land in the Southern Hemisphere, and not much Siberian land that won't just melt into a desert.

  Wow, there's a whole lot of claims there.  got any support for those?  The idea that the entire land surface of the Earth will turn to deserts is rediculous, it's going to rain somewhere no matter how hot it gets.

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

I'd just point out that although more scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming than scientists who don't, just as much data has been fabricated on both sides.

Okay, but it is the data on your side of the argument that is being listened too, so it matters that some of it is falsified.  It shouldn't really surprise anyone that counter-data is falsified by oil companies.

If 10% of data is falsified, what about the 90% that isn't?

What about it?  How do I know that it isn't tainted too?
[

[dree12]

2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions  

Again, they produce no evidence for this statement, and it's provablely false.  Long distance IR measurements of Mars by NASA says that the surface of Mars has warmed over the past 30 years or so also.  Did we do that too?

Mars's climate is likely to vary greatly when compared to other planets, especially Earth. Dust storms seem to cool down surface temperature, but increase upper atmosphere temperature. While Mars's surface temperature decreased in 2001 during a planet-wide dust storm, the upper atmosphere heated by 30 °C. This "dust storm" effect indicates that some unknown Martian cycles are likely present that dwarf solar activity in Martian climate change.

Other planets have displayed relatively similar results, further implying that very small variations in solar output appears to have an outsized effect upon such things across the 'water band' of the solar system.

Few solar system planets have a greenhouse similar to Earth. The ones that do tend to vary less in temperature naturally (see: Venus).

That has zero to do with the point.

The original point was that "it's the sun". Planets like Venus and Earth respond relatively little to solar forcing, while other planets respond greatly.

3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.  

"The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. "

Yes, the impact of climate change may be catastrophic, but very few scientists consider the effects of climate change on the economy.  It's simply not their field.  So the reaosn that there hav been very few benefits projected is actual economists consider predicting the effects of warming over  a century to be futile, so very little has been published on the matter at all.

Barring anything else, sea level rise is likely a major economic factor. If New York becomes submerged, economic damage could result.

Which could be outsized by the gains in valuable land mass in Canada.  Lets not make such conjectures, okay?

If there is economic gain possible, maybe we should accelerate global warming. I'm sure that is an excellent idea.

I question whether or not you even could accelerate it.  Again, if global warming is due to carbon-dioxide from long sequestered non-renewable fuels, then the problem is going to resolve itself soon after the global Hubbert's Peak.

I assume that launching large amounts of CFCs will do the trick. These aren't produced anywhere anymore.

Water vapour is easier to produce, but has a shorter lifetime. Carbon dioxide has a long lifetime, but is relatively weak.

Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus if true represents reality is historically false.

Historically, most heretics were wrong.

Fair enough, but most scientific consensuses were also wrong.

In hindsight, most things are wrong. But they tend to be useful approximations: after all, Columbus reached America without the Coriolis effect even theorized.

11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  

CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age.

Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat.

And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either.

What if it is a bad thing? Isn't this an unnecessary risk?

12 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.  

The vast majority of the climate papers in the 1950's predicted cooling, which wasn't a bad bet since even at the time the global average was over teh long term mean.

The 1950's were characterized by cooling, so the climate papers were not incorrect.

And this alters my point, how exactly?

I'm making my own point. Climate science has been accurate for a long time. There's no reason it should become inaccurate now.

It's entirely possible to predict a trend without having a complete understanding of why the trend continues.

Point ceded.

13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.  

And contradicted by many others.

Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high.

And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too.  Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative.

Unnecessary change is probably not good.

You're guessing.  It seems to have turned out prety good for them so far.

Can you speak for them? Are you a Torontonian yourself?

14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.  

The Little Ice Age, while not technically a true ice age, dropped the average temps by half a C in under that time frame.  Tens of thousands died of starvation directly, or due to complications of desiese related to malnourishment as a direct result of the fall in agricultural productivity during this time frame.

Due to the increase of that much in the past 40 years, I think it's safe to say another Little Ice Age is not a problem. In fact, because of 1.5 K warming in the past 200 years, we could survive three Little Ice Ages. That would be enjoyable to many of the Pacific islands that are sinking.

I've little concern for a few small island nations that are losing dry land.  Much more inhabitable land is being opened up than is being lost.  Cities are just collections of people.  Move.  Venice is not going to sink into the ocean like a modern Atlantis, it's still going to take a century or more before the sea level rises more than a meter.  If your city cannot adapt with that kind of advance notice, it doesn't deserve to exist.

"Much more" is debatable. There is relatively little land that will become useful in Canada (compared to, say, the areas to be desertified in Asia and Africa), no cold land in the Southern Hemisphere, and not much Siberian land that won't just melt into a desert.

Wow, there's a whole lot of claims there.  got any support for those?  The idea that the entire land surface of the Earth will turn to deserts is rediculous, it's going to rain somewhere no matter how hot it gets.

Yes in fact.

• More total area of Earth is near the equator than near the poles. This is because the Earth is round.
• This also applies for land area.
• No cold land is usable in the Southern Hemisphere. The only lands that exist are: 1) a huge mountain range and 2) a huge ice sheet (that probably isn't going away anytime soon).
• The part of Canada that will melt does not have soils suitable for agriculture anyways. Because of the acidic Boreal forest, it likely won't develop the necessary soil in a reasonable timeframe either.
• Siberia is already pretty much a desert. If it melts, it probably won't become arable land.
• The Gobi desert is growing. Many other deserts are likely to do the same.

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

I'd just point out that although more scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming than scientists who don't, just as much data has been fabricated on both sides.

Okay, but it is the data on your side of the argument that is being listened too, so it matters that some of it is falsified.  It shouldn't really surprise anyone that counter-data is falsified by oil companies.

If 10% of data is falsified, what about the 90% that isn't?

What about it?  How do I know that it isn't tainted too?

Wouldn't you agree that there is more untainted data on this side than the other?

[FirstAscent]

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

Are you familiar with the Oregon Petition? Can you defend it's existence, if there was solid science behind denying AGW? What are your views of Frederick Seitz? Do you understand the nature of his activities?

Please address this.

I am not familar with any particular petition.  I do not know, or care, who Fred Seits is.

Is that an example of willful ignorance?

[FirstAscent]

19 "Glaciers are growing" Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.  

Most being the oparative word.

What's wrong with the word "most"? Do you understand what ice albedo feedback loops are?

Please address this.

I'm aware of the effects of white ice on reflecting solar IR back into space.  Again, the regions near the poles could stand a great deal of warming and are likley to get most of it anyway.

Why would someone say they need to be warmed?

[myrkul]

I assume that launching large amounts of CFCs will do the trick. These aren't produced anywhere anymore.

Water vapour is easier to produce, but has a shorter lifetime. Carbon dioxide has a long lifetime, but is relatively weak.

CFCs deplete Ozone. You'd raise skin cancer rates, but not significantly increase temperature.

[FirstAscent]

I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.

I'm sure you have the time to lessen your ignorance. Didn't you just say that in your last post that you use Google, Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites?

Over the course of a decade.

Read the article, as it clearly will provide you some insights that you are currently lacking.

I will not accept homework assignments from my students.

I don't care about your students, except for the fact that given how you let your ideology influence your study habits, it's a crime you would have any students.

What I'm witnessing here is a classic case of willfully putting on blinders for fear of putting a chink in your view of the world. The article is a reasonable and solid rebuttal to your silly conception of species migration. I must only assume that your refusal to read the article is a clear example of your general approach to things which disagree with your belief about various things.

[dree12]

I assume that launching large amounts of CFCs will do the trick. These aren't produced anywhere anymore.

Water vapour is easier to produce, but has a shorter lifetime. Carbon dioxide has a long lifetime, but is relatively weak.

CFCs deplete Ozone. You'd raise skin cancer rates, but not significantly increase temperature.

They're also a very potent greenhouse gas in the short term.

[myrkul]

I assume that launching large amounts of CFCs will do the trick. These aren't produced anywhere anymore.

Water vapour is easier to produce, but has a shorter lifetime. Carbon dioxide has a long lifetime, but is relatively weak.

CFCs deplete Ozone. You'd raise skin cancer rates, but not significantly increase temperature.

They're also a very potent greenhouse gas in the short term.

Ah, so they are. Still, bad idea. Bad idea to try and intentionally muck with any self-regulating system, frankly.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.

I'm sure you have the time to lessen your ignorance. Didn't you just say that in your last post that you use Google, Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites?

Over the course of a decade.

Read the article, as it clearly will provide you some insights that you are currently lacking.

I will not accept homework assignments from my students.

I don't care about your students, except for the fact that given how you let your ideology influence your study habits, it's a crime you would have any students.

I was refering to yourself, young man.

What I'm witnessing here is a classic case of willfully putting on blinders for fear of putting a chink in your view of the world.

What you are witnessing is the refusal of an old man to bend to the will of some young asshole who want's him to watch some youtube video that the young one thinks will change his mind.

The article is a reasonable and solid rebuttal to your silly conception of species migration. I must only assume that your refusal to read the article is a clear example of your general approach to things which disagree with your belief about various things.

Assume what you want, but even if it is as you claim, it doesn't make much difference.  I don't believe that global warming is predominately caused by humans, so I don't believe that it's our fault whether some spotted lizard can't make it over the mountians.  If it concerns you, you are free to join others like yourself and capture, then transport and release, whatever species you believe deserves the aid.  If you believe that I could only hold that viewpoint because of some personality fault, mental block, or simply because I haven't had the benefit of reading the same articles as yourself; I care not. 

[TheBitcoinChemist]

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

Are you familiar with the Oregon Petition? Can you defend it's existence, if there was solid science behind denying AGW? What are your views of Frederick Seitz? Do you understand the nature of his activities?

Please address this.

I am not familar with any particular petition.  I do not know, or care, who Fred Seits is.

Is that an example of willful ignorance?

It's an example of willful defiance.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

The original point was that "it's the sun". Planets like Venus and Earth respond relatively little to solar forcing, while other planets respond greatly.

Okay, granted.

Fair enough, but most scientific consensuses were also wrong.

In hindsight, most things are wrong. But they tend to be useful approximations: after all, Columbus reached America without the Coriolis effect even theorized.

And even Columbus's own theories were incorrect.  He was lucky enough to survive the trip at all, and wasn't looking for a new land.  Thus, his approximations were not useful.  Had he not landed in America, he & his crew would have starved to death before making it to their original destination, India, because his approximations were that far off.  Sometimes a guess is just a guess, but that doesn't qualify as science in my view.  Columbus was a fail.

11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  

CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age.

Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat.

And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either.

What if it is a bad thing? Isn't this an unnecessary risk?

Compared to what?  A 30 ton metor strike would be a bad thing too, should we be pooring billions into a planetary defense system?  If not, isn't that an unnecessary risk?  There is no way to really know the actual risks, or even if the warming can even be avoided.  Whether it's the Sun or carbon-dioxide,  warming is a distant risk and there are much bigger issues worthy of destroying economies over.

13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.  

And contradicted by many others.

Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high.

And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too.  Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative.

Unnecessary change is probably not good.

You're guessing.  It seems to have turned out prety good for them so far.

Can you speak for them? Are you a Torontonian yourself?

No, I'm not.  I'm speaking as an observer from distance.  However, my own winter past was pretty mild also.  Hard winters kill as many people as hard summers, maybe more.  Thousands of homeless freeze to death every year, but how often do you hear of some homeless man who died from lack of air conditioning? Usually a decent supply of drinking water is enough to remedy that, but nothing short of heat and warm clothing will keep the homeless vet alive in Toronto during a hard winter.

Wow, there's a whole lot of claims there.  got any support for those?  The idea that the entire land surface of the Earth will turn to deserts is rediculous, it's going to rain somewhere no matter how hot it gets.

Yes in fact.

• More total area of Earth is near the equator than near the poles. This is because the Earth is round.
• This also applies for land area.

The first is true, the second is not.

http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm

Just Russia & Canada together are three times the size of the US.  This doesn't consider the size of Greenland, which is itself larger than Texas & Alaska combined.  Then there is, of course, Alaska & Iceland.

• No cold land is usable in the Southern Hemisphere. The only lands that exist are: 1) a huge mountain range and 2) a huge ice sheet (that probably isn't going away anytime soon).

Conceded.

• The part of Canada that will melt does not have soils suitable for agriculture anyways. Because of the acidic Boreal forest, it likely won't develop the necessary soil in a reasonable timeframe either.

While this is true, it misses the main point.  It's not about how much of the permafrost zone might actually be able to grow something later, it's about the increases in the growing seasons of portions of Canada that already can grow something.

• Siberia is already pretty much a desert. If it melts, it probably won't become arable land.

Siberia is a wide area, the majority of which is actually a frozen swamp, not desert.

• The Gobi desert is growing. Many other deserts are likely to do the same.

Slowly, and the processes involved are almost certainly unrelated to carbon0dioxide concentrations in the atmostphere.

Wouldn't you agree that there is more untainted data on this side than the other?

Perhaps, but why should I trust either side?  Both has shown a willingness to spread falsehoods & propaganda to achieve a political end.  What should we do, if the outcomes are uncertian?  Should we "do something even if it's wrong"?  What if we're wrong & the something destroys the fragile economy at present?  Is it okay that millions would starve to death in the next couple decades because we meant well?

[FirstAscent]

Is that an example of willful ignorance?

It's an example of willful defiance.

It isn't very productive, is it? You're (as you've put it) willfully defying to improve your knowledge about the mechanics and messy details about species extinction, species migration and habitat relocation as it applies to climate change, which only serves to limit your ability to carry on an intelligent discussion on the matter.

You're really not in a position to discuss the subject (and very definitely not in a position to speculate on the contents of the article) until you've read the article.

[FirstAscent]

Read the article, as it clearly will provide you some insights that you are currently lacking.

I will not accept homework assignments from my students.

I don't care about your students, except for the fact that given how you let your ideology influence your study habits, it's a crime you would have any students.

I was refering to yourself, young man.

I quite know what you were referring to, according to the way you see the world. As for our age differences, I neither find it relevant, and I think your speculations are, shall we say, a little too speculative.

What I'm witnessing here is a classic case of willfully putting on blinders for fear of putting a chink in your view of the world.

What you are witnessing is the refusal of an old man to bend to the will of some young asshole who want's him to watch some youtube video that the young one thinks will change his mind.

No. What I'm witnessing is someone who thinks he's a stubborn old man speculating about whom he is talking to and thinking wrongfully that I'm posting links to youtube videos.

The article is a reasonable and solid rebuttal to your silly conception of species migration. I must only assume that your refusal to read the article is a clear example of your general approach to things which disagree with your belief about various things.

Assume what you want, but even if it is as you claim, it doesn't make much difference.  I don't believe that global warming is predominately caused by humans, so I don't believe that it's our fault whether some spotted lizard can't make it over the mountians.  If it concerns you, you are free to join others like yourself and capture, then transport and release, whatever species you believe deserves the aid.  If you believe that I could only hold that viewpoint because of some personality fault, mental block, or simply because I haven't had the benefit of reading the same articles as yourself; I care not.

I'm not making many assumptions here. I'm simply observing your behavior, as admitted by yourself as 'willful defiance'. When you want to stop willfully defying, and actually studying research and results, let me know. 

[TheBitcoinChemist]

I'm not making many assumptions here. I'm simply observing your behavior, as admitted by yourself as 'willful defiance'. When you want to stop willfully defying, and actually studying research and results, let me know. 

You invited me into this debate only to begin to insult me after you began to have your worldview challenged.  I understand that you think that you know all and that the perspectives of others who disagree are worthy of contempt, but this will only lead to conflict in your life.  I, for one, will not be participating in your delusions of grandeur.  You now have the honor of becoming the very first person I shall ignore on this forum.

[FirstAscent]

I'm not making many assumptions here. I'm simply observing your behavior, as admitted by yourself as 'willful defiance'. When you want to stop willfully defying, and actually studying research and results, let me know.  

You invited me into this debate only to begin to insult me after you began to have your worldview challenged.  I understand that you think that you know all and that the perspectives of others who disagree are worthy of contempt, but this will only lead to conflict in your life.  I, for one, will not be participating in your delusions of grandeur.  You now have the honor of becoming the very first person I shall ignore on this forum.

My worldview hasn't changed. You have in fact, reinforced my worldview, by witnessing how you approach these issues. You yourself summed it up quite nicely: "Willful defiance", a term you used to justify not reading a scientific article. As for invitation, you messaged me to create the thread. I then created the thread as a place to (as defined in the title) discuss what environmentalism is. From there, it became rather obvious that many, if not most, thought of environmentalism as recycling bottles and such. I was the first in the thread to provide a categorical list of much larger environmental endeavors, much of it falling under what I would call scientific research. From there, it wasn't long before "scientific" (note the quotes) rebuttals to climate change started showing up, taken right from what would appear to be the standard libertarian playbook. I pointed out issues with regard to the sources, even predicted it, and then demonstrated it.

I then asked you several times to cite where the bulk of your learning came from with regard to ecology, the environment and climate change. Each time you refused. That's very strange, as most people who actively research are quite proud of where they have obtained their knowledge.

[dree12]

Fair enough, but most scientific consensuses were also wrong.

In hindsight, most things are wrong. But they tend to be useful approximations: after all, Columbus reached America without the Coriolis effect even theorized.

And even Columbus's own theories were incorrect.  He was lucky enough to survive the trip at all, and wasn't looking for a new land.  Thus, his approximations were not useful.  Had he not landed in America, he & his crew would have starved to death before making it to their original destination, India, because his approximations were that far off.  Sometimes a guess is just a guess, but that doesn't qualify as science in my view.  Columbus was a fail.

Would the world have been better off without Columbus?

11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  

CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age.

Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat.

And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either.

What if it is a bad thing? Isn't this an unnecessary risk?

Compared to what?  A 30 ton metor strike would be a bad thing too, should we be pooring billions into a planetary defense system?  If not, isn't that an unnecessary risk?  There is no way to really know the actual risks, or even if the warming can even be avoided.  Whether it's the Sun or carbon-dioxide,  warming is a distant risk and there are much bigger issues worthy of destroying economies over.

Why would economies need to be "destroyed" to help this planet? The US government gives tens of billions of dollars as subsidies for fossil fuel production, so that the citizens can enjoy reduced energy prices (which only lead to overconsumption). If anything, our economy would make more sense if we stopped funding destructive practices.

13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.  

And contradicted by many others.

Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high.

And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too.  Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative.

Unnecessary change is probably not good.

You're guessing.  It seems to have turned out prety good for them so far.

Can you speak for them? Are you a Torontonian yourself?

No, I'm not.  I'm speaking as an observer from distance.  However, my own winter past was pretty mild also.  Hard winters kill as many people as hard summers, maybe more.  Thousands of homeless freeze to death every year, but how often do you hear of some homeless man who died from lack of air conditioning? Usually a decent supply of drinking water is enough to remedy that, but nothing short of heat and warm clothing will keep the homeless vet alive in Toronto during a hard winter.

I live in the area, and I can tell you that there was an abhorrent lack of snow. Ski areas were terrible, and the hardware stores were replacing ski equipment with golf clubs. Sure, change is possible, but this is hurting many businesses if anything.

Toronto issues cold alerts that open up many shelters to homeless people, so it is rare to hear of a homeless person dieing. During the heat wave of 2011, however, the Great Lakes warmed considerably. This is hypothesized to have contributed to the deadly and destructive tornado.

Wow, there's a whole lot of claims there.  got any support for those?  The idea that the entire land surface of the Earth will turn to deserts is rediculous, it's going to rain somewhere no matter how hot it gets.

Yes in fact.

• More total area of Earth is near the equator than near the poles. This is because the Earth is round.
• This also applies for land area.

The first is true, the second is not.

http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm

Just Russia & Canada together are three times the size of the US.  This doesn't consider the size of Greenland, which is itself larger than Texas & Alaska combined.  Then there is, of course, Alaska & Iceland.

The Tropics, that will not benefit, include most of Africa and South America, two very large continents, and northern Australia. The Middle Latitudes, that will benefit include the largest continent in the world Eurasia, and third largest North America, as well as southern Australia. The Polar regions include Antarctica, and will not benefit significantly if at all. I would say that this is roughly equal, and any net benefits are not worth disrupting the status quo.

• The part of Canada that will melt does not have soils suitable for agriculture anyways. Because of the acidic Boreal forest, it likely won't develop the necessary soil in a reasonable timeframe either.

While this is true, it misses the main point.  It's not about how much of the permafrost zone might actually be able to grow something later, it's about the increases in the growing seasons of portions of Canada that already can grow something.

Sure, this is a net benefit of warming.

• Siberia is already pretty much a desert. If it melts, it probably won't become arable land.

Siberia is a wide area, the majority of which is actually a frozen swamp, not desert.

A frozen swamp will melt out to none more than a thawed swamp, which is still a swamp.

• The Gobi desert is growing. Many other deserts are likely to do the same.

Slowly, and the processes involved are almost certainly unrelated to carbon0dioxide concentrations in the atmostphere.

Even if unrelated, if we're losing land to desert, shifting the usable land is hardly useful.

Wouldn't you agree that there is more untainted data on this side than the other?

Perhaps, but why should I trust either side?  Both has shown a willingness to spread falsehoods & propaganda to achieve a political end.  What should we do, if the outcomes are uncertian?  Should we "do something even if it's wrong"?  What if we're wrong & the something destroys the fragile economy at present?  Is it okay that millions would starve to death in the next couple decades because we meant well?

What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.

[TheButterZone]

What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.

Humans acting like gods... that never ends well.

[FirstAscent]

What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.

Humans acting like gods never ends well.

You've got a completely wrong take on the matter. And when I say wrong, I mean really wrong.

The real solution (as everyone who is educated on the matter) is to not act like gods, but to do less. Less means less pollution, less suburban sprawl, less population growth, less resource extraction, less consumption, less deforestation, and so on. That's not acting like gods. That's being informed, and unifying the public on the matters.

[TheButterZone]

If you're going to be condescending, don't come up with Quixotic, godlike "solutions". Just admit that the final solution for environmentalists is THE Final Solution, part deux ("lessening" until eventually homo sapiens is made extinct, because even a single human left harms the planet, all living organisms on it, including himself).

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Would the world have been better off without Columbus?

Impossible to know, but I would have to say yes.  All Columbus managed to do was terrorize an island tribe and improperly end up credited with discovery of a land that he wasn't looking for, didn't believe in and died with the idea that he actually made it to India.

There is a good reason that we don't call this landmass "Columbia".

Why would economies need to be "destroyed" to help this planet? The US government gives tens of billions of dollars as subsidies for fossil fuel production, so that the citizens can enjoy reduced energy prices (which only lead to overconsumption). If anything, our economy would make more sense if we stopped funding destructive practices.

That would be a fine first step.  It's going beyond that, that is my concern.

I live in the area, and I can tell you that there was an abhorrent lack of snow. Ski areas were terrible, and the hardware stores were replacing ski equipment with golf clubs. Sure, change is possible, but this is hurting many businesses if anything.

The ski industry might be hurting, but the local tourism will adapt in time.  Who knows how many people didn't freeze to death this past winter?

Toronto issues cold alerts that open up many shelters to homeless people, so it is rare to hear of a homeless person dieing. During the heat wave of 2011, however, the Great Lakes warmed considerably. This is hypothesized to have contributed to the deadly and destructive tornado.

Well, that is interesting.

The Tropics, that will not benefit, include most of Africa and South America, two very large continents, and northern Australia. The Middle Latitudes, that will benefit include the largest continent in the world Eurasia, and third largest North America, as well as southern Australia. The Polar regions include Antarctica, and will not benefit significantly if at all. I would say that this is roughly equal, and any net benefits are not worth disrupting the status quo.

As already noted, the tropics will not benefit, but nore will they significantly be effected unless they live on the shore.

A frozen swamp will melt out to none more than a thawed swamp, which is still a swamp.

Even swampland has value to mankind, moreso than deserts.

Even if unrelated, if we're losing land to desert, shifting the usable land is hardly useful.

Depends on the relative rates.  I'm guessing that the rate that  the growing seasons of northern nations outpaces the growth of deserts, but I can't know that either.

What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.

How do you know that?  "Nothing" is what we've been doing for 6000+ years, and the planet has managed to take care of itself.  The question is, is there anything that we can do to help mankind in the long run that won't cause significant harm in the short run?  So far, the correct answer to that question is, "Not that we know of."

[FredericBastiat]

What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.

Humans acting like gods never ends well.

You've got a completely wrong take on the matter. And when I say wrong, I mean really wrong.

The real solution (as everyone who is educated on the matter) is to not act like gods, but to do less. Less means less pollution, less suburban sprawl, less population growth, less resource extraction, less consumption, less deforestation, and so on. That's not acting like gods. That's being informed, and unifying the public on the matters.

How are you going to go about implementing your nature protection suggestions? Persuasion or force? Education or statism? Individual choice, or authoritarian central planning?

You see I'm not going to discuss your views on proper stewardship of the environment, you will probably have the upper hand in that knowledge department, but I will definitely defy you every step of the way if you think you're going to lord over me by participating in the rampant theft and plunder of private land so you can have your utopian nature preserve.

Some of the science is questionable, some of it is not, but your implementation methods are definitely what's at stake here. I could be the smartest "god/man" on earth, but I'm not about to make you my serf, subject, minion, or liege because I know what's the "best" use for your land.

[byronbb]

I used to be fairly cynical towards greenpeace etc. But really, these guys were doing their thing in the 1960s and everyone thought that they were just crazy hippies, now they rake in revenues of nearly 200million. It's impressive.

[FirstAscent]

What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.

Humans acting like gods never ends well.

You've got a completely wrong take on the matter. And when I say wrong, I mean really wrong.

The real solution (as everyone who is educated on the matter) is to not act like gods, but to do less. Less means less pollution, less suburban sprawl, less population growth, less resource extraction, less consumption, less deforestation, and so on. That's not acting like gods. That's being informed, and unifying the public on the matters.

How are you going to go about implementing your nature protection suggestions? Persuasion or force? Education or statism? Individual choice, or authoritarian central planning?

You see I'm not going to discuss your views on proper stewardship of the environment, you will probably have the upper hand in that knowledge department, but I will definitely defy you every step of the way if you think you're going to lord over me by participating in the rampant theft and plunder of private land so you can have your utopian nature preserve.

Some of the science is questionable, some of it is not, but your implementation methods are definitely what's at stake here. I could be the smartest "god/man" on earth, but I'm not about to make you my serf, subject, minion, or liege because I know what's the "best" use for your land.

I'm curious. Consider:

Let's say someone hires you on the East Coast. They pay you wages to fulfill their vision for their land. By doing so, the "improvements" to the land are environmentally neutral. However, we could consider the cases where the "improvements" are positive or negative as well. After years of toil, you have saved up your money from these labors, and you set out for the West Coast, money in tow.

You have converted your labor to money, possibly at the expense to the environment. However, we won't hold it against you.

You arrive at the West Coast and purchase land, becoming a proud property owner, whereupon you commence in creating your own "improvements" to the land you purchased. Let's assume that your "improvements" have a negative environmental impact to your land, but not the surrounding land. This, incidentally is unlikely, due to how the environment interacts, but for the sake of argument, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

So, let's summarize:

- Your labor (and the desires of your employer) resulted in a net neutral effect of the environment on the East Coast.
- Your labor granted you the rights to receive compensation in the form of money.

Thus, a net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast resulted in you having money.

- Your money afforded you the right to travel to the West Coast and purchase land.

Thus, a net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast resulted in you owning land on the West Coast.

- Your ownership of land now provided you the ability to make "improvements".
- These "improvements" have a net negative impact on the land you own, environmentally.

Thus, your net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast, according to you, provides you with the right to negatively affect the environment on the West Coast.

Now, imagine if your labor on the East Coast actually resulted in a net negative effect on the environment. Whatever the case, your argument appears to be that labor, which earns you money, then earns you the right to purchase land, own the land, and harm the land. This is not a sustainable model, yet it's one you support.

Regulations can and do help alleviate this.

Let's examine other models you support:

1. Being born to rich parents provides you the right to negatively affect the environment.
2. Being given money provides you the right to negatively affect the environment.
3. Inheriting land from your parents gives you the right to negatively affect the environment.

And, as described in detail above:

4. Labor, regardless of what type and where performed, affords you the right to negatively affect the environment.

In all cases, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt such that your "improvements" actually don't extend beyond your property boundaries, which would be a rare case. However, that really doesn't seem relevant.

The issue then, is what defines effective stewardship of land, and the consistent application of it through individual ownership among thousands.

[FredericBastiat]

I'm curious. Consider:

Let's say someone hires you on the East Coast. They pay you wages to fulfill their vision for their land. By doing so, the "improvements" to the land are environmentally neutral. However, we could consider the cases where the "improvements" are positive or negative as well. After years of toil, you have saved up your money from these labors, and you set out for the West Coast, money in tow.

So far so good, except that what I do to the land I own, whether I "affect" positive or negative things to it, is perfectly fine. It's my property. You must prove I have negatively affected the property of others. To wit, you must demonstrate direct harm, not inconvenience. If I can't do what I want to my property (including burn it to the ground) only means that my property, becomes your property. My property rights are destroyed, and yours are automatically improved. Do this on a grand scale, and you have communism all over again. I'm seeing red.

You have converted your labor to money, possibly at the expense to the environment. However, we won't hold it against you.

Glad you agree with private ownership, assuming it's only the environment constrained by and within my property boundaries, we're good. Again demonstrate actual harm, trespass, or vandalization of your property, and we have something to "fight" over. Otherwise, bugger off.

You arrive at the West Coast and purchase land, becoming a proud property owner, whereupon you commence in creating your own "improvements" to the land you purchased. Let's assume that your "improvements" have a negative environmental impact to your land, but not the surrounding land. This, incidentally is unlikely, due to how the environment interacts, but for the sake of argument, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Everything affects everything in some way, including your environmentalism. It's unavoidable. Shall we all just prostrate ourselves upon the earth and die now? It seems Humans are less than the dust of the earth these days. Sometimes I feel I'm on par with the snails.

So, let's summarize:

- Your labor (and the desires of your employer) resulted in a net neutral effect of the environment on the East Coast.
- Your labor granted you the rights to receive compensation in the form of money.

Thus, a net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast resulted in you having money.

- Your money afforded you the right to travel to the West Coast and purchase land.

Thus, a net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast resulted in you owning land on the West Coast.

- Your ownership of land now provided you the ability to make "improvements".
- These "improvements" have a net negative impact on the land you own, environmentally.

1. So what? Neutral doesn't mean anything to me. Define it. Put context to the words. Do it concisely.
2. Who cares whether or not I received money. That's not the issue.
3. I purchased land. Again, who cares. Not the issue.
4. Net neutral meaning what? Affecting who, or what?
5. Improvements??? Ok, whatever.
6. A negative impact on my land is my business, not yours.

Thus, your net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast, according to you, provides you with the right to negatively affect the environment on the West Coast.

No it doesn't. Never implied that. Your just reaching now. Your logic is now fallible. Having achieved a transfer of land does not accord anybody the right to use that land to affect changes (specifically negative changes) to other persons' property.

Now, imagine if your labor on the East Coast actually resulted in a net negative effect on the environment. Whatever the case, your argument appears to be that labor, which earns you money, then earns you the right to purchase land, own the land, and harm the land. This is not a sustainable model, yet it's one you support.

Purchasing, transfering, or assigning of land, does not give anybody rights to destroy the property of others, including affecting their environment (whatever that might actually mean). However, if it is my property, then I can do with it whatever I want, with the exception that I can't use it to harm others, or from proscribing the right of others to use their property how they choose. Define "sustainable". Very crafty you are...

Your putting words in my mouth I never uttered. Nice try. Caught you, careful next time, or you might make an fool of yourself. Your much smarter than that. You've got the right scientific knowledge, but your political leanings are extremely dangerous, if not borderline sociopathic.

Regulations can and do help alleviate this.

False. It assists the statist/elitist/corporatists in fradulently obtaining property that was never theirs to begin with. Or at a minimum, it confuses and obfuscates who actually owns what, who is responsible for the stewardship thereof, or at the very least, distorts the markets attempt to evaluate the utility of the land in question.

Let's examine other models you support:

1. Being born to rich parents provides you the right to negatively affect the environment.
2. Being given money provides you the right to negatively affect the environment.
3. Inheriting land from your parents gives you the right to negatively affect the environment.

1. False. Your 'ass'uming. Never said that. Those are your words.
2. Also false. Similar premise to 1, just reworded.
3. False again. See 1 and 2.

Your leaving out critical information. It's like saying it's okay to kill somebody. Hmm.... Well that depends. Are you being attacked by a vicious mugger, in your home with a large knife? Well duh!! It's called self defense. Pick up your side arm and put a bullet in him center mass. However to kill with no provocation, well that's a very different story now isn't it? Keep your facts straight, and at a minimum, include all the relevant criteria. Makes you look stupid if you don't.

And, as described in detail above:

4. Labor, regardless of what type and where performed, affords you the right to negatively affect the environment.

In all cases, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt such that your "improvements" actually don't extend beyond your property boundaries, which would be a rare case. However, that really doesn't seem relevant.

The issue then, is what defines effective stewardship of land, and the consistent application of it through individual ownership among thousands.

Labor does not equate to "damaged" environment. All physical activities (that would include everything, in case you were wondering) will always affect the environment around you, including your manipulation of the environment thru "environmentalism". The only thing that matters, is whether or not the environment I affect within the boundaries of my property, somehow "spill/effuse/emit" physical material matter onto your land. If I do that, you have yourself a potential lawsuit.

Anything beyond that only means you don't like what I've done with my microenvironment, and so instead of trying to convince me that I could find a better use of my resources, thru education, you use the long arm of the law to try to plunder me. In which case, you now believe you have a right to take my property from me, and keep it for yourself, or give it to others (likely your government cronies who've crafted laws to ensnare me in some purported "criminal" environmental activity).

It is the only thing that's relevant here. Don't be so snide to think that your utopian environmentalist world won't just end up being the private playground of the rich, the famous, and the politically inclined. I'm not interested in destroying the environment for me or my successors, but I'm certainly not going to quitely let my life become overridden by elitist ego-maniacal highwaymen, who have nothing better to do with their time but play gods on earth, and pretend to be do-gooders, when they just want more slaves to play with.

Your must think I'm as dumb as a rock.

[zveda2000]

So should there be any limits to private property, then? Can somebody in theory buy the oceans, the atmosphere, the underground water systems? In the Nordic countries there is the law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam which places limits on ones' rights even within their private property. There is a difference between having freedom to live your life as you want on your own ranch, say, and controlling so much resources that allows you to impudently affect the lives of millions of people, and even a significant portion of the earth, under the protection of private property laws.

The fact is there are hardly any non-chlorinated lakes or rivers left in the world where one could safely swim. Here in Sydney, Australia, fishing is banned in Sydney harbour due to DDT poisoning, and the Parramatta river has turned brown and is lifeless. Whatever laws allowed this to happen, libertarian private property laws or government misusing public property, to me seems like a crime against humanity and against nature in general.

My view is that not everything in this world should be for sale. Should a successful investor, beyond having the capital to direct resources and labour in the economy, also have the right to make decisions that will affect the earth for thousands or even millions of years ahead? This kind of decision should be beyond any individual's right to make.

In answer to a previous posters' question regarding how to enforce an 'environmental paradise', I would suggest direct democracy; i.e any project that affects the earth (which we and our descendants all share whether we own this piece of land or not) in any significant and non-reversable way, has to come before a referendum, giving every person on earth the option to vote. If you don't care, you don't have to vote. But since your children and your children's children ewill likely end up being affected by this project, you should have a say in it, regardless of your financial clout.

The trouble with government regulation, the court system, or any other centralised form of government is that inevitably it can and will be manipulated - as all bitcoiners understand. The power to create money is too great for any individual or group to have, but the power to destroy the earth, acquired by private means or otherwise, is even more important to decentralise.

[dree12]

So should there be any limits to private property, then? Can somebody in theory buy the oceans, the atmosphere, the underground water systems? In the Nordic countries there is the law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam which places limits on ones' rights even within their private property. There is a difference between having freedom to live your life as you want on your own ranch, say, and controlling so much resources that allows you to impudently affect the lives of millions of people, and even a significant portion of the earth, under the protection of private property laws.

The fact is there are hardly any non-chlorinated lakes or rivers left in the world where one could safely swim. Here in Sydney, Australia, fishing is banned in Sydney harbour due to DDT poisoning, and the Parramatta river has turned brown and is lifeless. Whatever laws allowed this to happen, libertarian private property laws or government misusing public property, to me seems like a crime against humanity and against nature in general.

My view is that not everything in this world should be for sale. Should a successful investor, beyond having the capital to direct resources and labour in the economy, also have the right to make decisions that will affect the earth for thousands or even millions of years ahead? This kind of decision should be beyond any individual's right to make.

In answer to a previous posters' question regarding how to enforce an 'environmental paradise', I would suggest direct democracy; i.e any project that affects the earth (which we and our descendants all share whether we own this piece of land or not) in any significant and non-reversal way, has to come before a referendum, giving every person on earth the option to vote. If you don't care, you don't have to vote. But since your children and your children's children ewill likely end up being affected by this project, you should have a say in it, regardless of your financial clout.

The trouble with government regulation, the court system, or any other centralised form of government is that inevitable it can and will be manipulated - as all bitcoiners understand. The power to create money is too great for any individual or group to have, but the power to destroy the earth, acquired by private means or otherwise, is even more important to decentralise.

In ideal anarcho-capitalism, someone can't own something unless they either buy it from someone who owned it or can persuade the market to accept their ownership (this is done by producing value from it). If people disagree, they won't have the rights to own it unless they can economically convince those people to agree.

Of course, direct democracy is an excellent solution if and only if it is scalable. It doesn't seem so yet.

[myrkul]

So should there be any limits to private property, then? Can somebody in theory buy the oceans, the atmosphere, the underground water systems? In the Nordic countries there is the law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam which places limits on ones' rights even within their private property. There is a difference between having freedom to live your life as you want on your own ranch, say, and controlling so much resources that allows you to impudently affect the lives of millions of people, and even a significant portion of the earth, under the protection of private property laws.

No, there should not be any limits whatsoever to what one can own. Private ownership is, and will likely remain, the single best way to ensure that the resource is not damaged or depleted. You can't really own the atmosphere, being as it is entirely fluid, and not something you can really "fence off". What you can own is the air above your land, or at least insofar as it affects the quality of your life. The oceans are a special case, since while you cannot alter the surface aside from some buoys or the like, the seabed certainly can be farmed or otherwise improved. What private ownership of these resources means is that should someone harm it, you will have recourse to seek damages from them.

If I own a lake, and you come along and dump chlorine in it, and I don't want chlorinated water (who would?!?), Then I can seek damages, which would certainly include the cost of cleanup, as well. If I own land, and you pollute the air above it, you are damaging my property, and I can seek damages. If I own a river, and you dump DDT into it, I can seek damages, which again, would include the cost of cleaning up your mess.

This provides economic incentive not to pollute, at least in such a way as is felt outside your property (and honestly, what pollution really keeps itself contained?) Furthermore, the desire to retain the value of your land (in the economic sense) will provide incentive to not pollute your own property as well, if for no other reason than to have a good resale value. Historically, it has been governments that have allowed (or even, in some cases, perpetrated) the greatest pollution, not private individuals. Just look at the air quality in China.

The trouble with government regulation, the court system, or any other centralised form of government is that inevitable it can and will be manipulated - as all bitcoiners understand. The power to create money is too great for any individual or group to have, but the power to destroy the earth, acquired by private means or otherwise, is even more important to decentralise.

Which is exactly what private ownership of all land and water would do.

[zveda2000]

The trouble with government regulation, the court system, or any other centralised form of government is that inevitable it can and will be manipulated - as all bitcoiners understand. The power to create money is too great for any individual or group to have, but the power to destroy the earth, acquired by private means or otherwise, is even more important to decentralise.

Which is exactly what private ownership of all land and water would do.

So if I have bought North America, say, how is that not centralisation? I can now decide to mine the entire state of Alberta for oil export. If my profits for doing this are greater than the perceived advantages of maintaining the environment, what would stop me?

This idea of providing incentives after power is conferred, is similar to say, providing incentives to the central bank to not debase the currency, as it would reduce the value of its legal monopoly powers over said currency. Once power is conferred, it is too late for providing incentives IMHO.

[zveda2000]

Of course, direct democracy is an excellent solution if and only if it is scalable. It doesn't seem so yet.

With the power of the internet and public key cryptography, it doesn't look like such a difficult task? There are already a number of movements of this kind all over the world.

[myrkul]

The trouble with government regulation, the court system, or any other centralised form of government is that inevitable it can and will be manipulated - as all bitcoiners understand. The power to create money is too great for any individual or group to have, but the power to destroy the earth, acquired by private means or otherwise, is even more important to decentralise.

Which is exactly what private ownership of all land and water would do.

So if I have bought North America, say, how is that not centralisation? I can now decide to mine the entire state of Alberta for oil export. If my profits for doing this are greater than the perceived advantages of maintaining the environment, what would stop me?

This idea of providing incentives after power is conferred, is similar to say, providing incentives to the central bank to not debase the currency, as it would reduce the value of its legal monopoly powers over said currency. Once power is conferred, it is too late for providing incentives IMHO.

Well, I suppose if you could manage to buy all of North America that would indeed be centralization. You could, then, strip-mine Alberta. Of course, where are you going to get all that money? And how are you going to convince everyone to sell? Buying an entire continent would require massive amounts of capital. Even if your plan is to strip mine entire provinces, I doubt the profit could ever outweigh the capital expenditure of buying all that land. Remember, the more you buy, the more expensive the next purchase is.

Of course, direct democracy is an excellent solution if and only if it is scalable. It doesn't seem so yet.

With the power of the internet and public key cryptography, it doesn't like such a difficult task? There are already a number of movements of this kind all over the world.

And Tobias Buckell has an idea what might (almost certainly would) happen:
http://www.johnjosephadams.com/seeds-of-change/?page_id=66

[zveda2000]

Well, I suppose if you could manage to buy all of North America that would indeed be centralization. You could, then, strip-mine Alberta. Of course, where are you going to get all that money? And how are you going to convince everyone to sell? Buying an entire continent would require massive amounts of capital. Even if your plan is to strip mine entire provinces, I doubt the profit could ever outweigh the capital expenditure of buying all that land. Remember, the more you buy, the more expensive the next purchase is.

Obviously this is an extreme example, but your argument was that private ownership will decentralise control of nature. This seems clearly untrue.

Bitcoin is designed to limit the accumulation of power of any individual -- one needs 51% of network power just to reverse transactions. This is important because reversing transactions potentially affects everyone in the network. However there is nothing about private land ownership that limits accumulation of power. Even if I own a small plot of land, I can affect thousands of future generations that will inhabit it, and all of the earth's systems that come into contact with it. Yet you suggest that I should have no limit on the power I have over this plot.

Besides this, with regard to bitcoin mining, even if I have 40% of hashing power I still cannot reverse transactions, whereas controlling just North America, or even a couple of states, I have already significantly centralised and consolidated my power. It is inevitable that some people will control exponentially more land than others - as is already true with bitcoin mining.

And Tobias Buckell has an idea what might (almost certainly would) happen:
http://www.johnjosephadams.com/seeds-of-change/?page_id=66

I don't really want to read the entire story. Could you summarise it for me?

[myrkul]

Well, I suppose if you could manage to buy all of North America that would indeed be centralization. You could, then, strip-mine Alberta. Of course, where are you going to get all that money? And how are you going to convince everyone to sell? Buying an entire continent would require massive amounts of capital. Even if your plan is to strip mine entire provinces, I doubt the profit could ever outweigh the capital expenditure of buying all that land. Remember, the more you buy, the more expensive the next purchase is.

Obviously this is an extreme example, but your argument was that private ownership will decentralise control of nature. This seems clearly untrue.

Bitcoin is designed to limit the accumulation of power of any individual -- one needs 51% of network power just to reverse transactions. This is important because reversing transactions potentially affects everyone in the network. However there is nothing about private land ownership that limits accumulation of power. Even if I own a small plot of land, I can affect thousands of future generations that will inhabit it, and all of the earth's systems that come into contact with it. Yet you suggest that I should have no limit on the power I have over this plot.

Besides this, with regard to bitcoin mining, even if I have 40% of hashing power I still cannot reverse transactions, whereas controlling just North America, or even a couple of states, I have already significantly centralised and consolidated my power. It is inevitable that some people will control exponentially more land than others - as is already true with bitcoin mining.

Except that land is fundamentally different from Bitcoin mining. It is more closely analogous to Bitcoins themselves. Buying lots of them is increasingly expensive, and is only possible currently due to the relatively low price. Land is already expensive, and I would wager there simply does not exist enough capital to purchase an entire continent, or possibly even a few states, and certainly, that much capital isn't in a single person's hands. You are fearing something that is, frankly, impossible. And even if it were, the answer to a feared concentration of power is not a concentration of power.

And yes, your actions on even a small plot of land do indeed affect all future owners of that land. This is reflected in the reduction, or increase, in the value of the land. A blasted wasteland is not worth as much as a verdant forest, even assuming that the creation of that blasted wasteland from the verdant forest doesn't effect - and thus, incur damages from - other people's properties. (Which is not a valid assumption.)

And Tobias Buckell has an idea what might (almost certainly would) happen:
http://www.johnjosephadams.com/seeds-of-change/?page_id=66

I don't really want to read the entire story. Could you summarise it for me?

TL;DR version: Techno-democracy devolves to techno-dictatorship because direct democracy takes up too much time.

[dree12]

Well, I suppose if you could manage to buy all of North America that would indeed be centralization. You could, then, strip-mine Alberta. Of course, where are you going to get all that money? And how are you going to convince everyone to sell? Buying an entire continent would require massive amounts of capital. Even if your plan is to strip mine entire provinces, I doubt the profit could ever outweigh the capital expenditure of buying all that land. Remember, the more you buy, the more expensive the next purchase is.

Obviously this is an extreme example, but your argument was that private ownership will decentralise control of nature. This seems clearly untrue.

Bitcoin is designed to limit the accumulation of power of any individual -- one needs 51% of network power just to reverse transactions. This is important because reversing transactions potentially affects everyone in the network. However there is nothing about private land ownership that limits accumulation of power. Even if I own a small plot of land, I can affect thousands of future generations that will inhabit it, and all of the earth's systems that come into contact with it. Yet you suggest that I should have no limit on the power I have over this plot.

Besides this, with regard to bitcoin mining, even if I have 40% of hashing power I still cannot reverse transactions, whereas controlling just North America, or even a couple of states, I have already significantly centralised and consolidated my power. It is inevitable that some people will control exponentially more land than others - as is already true with bitcoin mining.

Except that land is fundamentally different from Bitcoin mining. It is more closely analogous to Bitcoins themselves. Buying lots of them is increasingly expensive, and is only possible currently due to the relatively low price. Land is already expensive, and I would wager there simply does not exist enough capital to purchase an entire continent, or possibly even a few states, and certainly, that much capital isn't in a single person's hands. You are fearing something that is, frankly, impossible. And even if it were, the answer to a feared concentration of power is not a concentration of power.

And yes, your actions on even a small plot of land do indeed affect all future owners of that land. This is reflected in the reduction, or increase, in the value of the land. A blasted wasteland is not worth as much as a verdant forest, even assuming that the creation of that blasted wasteland from the verdant forest doesn't effect - and thus, incur damages from - other people's properties. (Which is not a valid assumption.)

And Tobias Buckell has an idea what might (almost certainly would) happen:
http://www.johnjosephadams.com/seeds-of-change/?page_id=66

I don't really want to read the entire story. Could you summarise it for me?

TL;DR version: Techno-democracy devolves to techno-dictatorship because direct democracy takes up too much time.

It's well known that direct democracy doesn't scale, true anarchy is not sustainable, and structured anarchy (no matter the structure) is unfair. That's why all those governments will eventually be obsolete (after all, Monarchy was the preferred government in the past; look how well that works now).

But none of this really matters. What matters is that the current states that ruin the Earth by warring over it, scorching it, deforesting it, and mining it to oblivion are eliminated.

[myrkul]

It's well known that direct democracy doesn't scale,

True.

true anarchy is not sustainable,

True.

structured anarchy (no matter the structure) is unfair.

False.

[dree12]

structured anarchy (no matter the structure) is unfair.

False.

Structured anarchy, by definition, has certain "norms" or "rules". AnCap, for example, has a strong sense of possession. There are people who won't agree with those "norms" or "rules". It's therefore unfair.

[myrkul]

structured anarchy (no matter the structure) is unfair.

False.

Structured anarchy, by definition, has certain "norms" or "rules". AnCap, for example, has a strong sense of possession. There are people who won't agree with those "norms" or "rules". It's therefore unfair.

I see. AnCap is unfair, because some people will want your stuff, and they can't just take it.

Well, that sounds like my kinda unfairness, frankly.

[dree12]

structured anarchy (no matter the structure) is unfair.

False.

Structured anarchy, by definition, has certain "norms" or "rules". AnCap, for example, has a strong sense of possession. There are people who won't agree with those "norms" or "rules". It's therefore unfair.

I see. AnCap is unfair, because some people will want your stuff, and they can't just take it.

Well, that sounds like my kinda unfairness, frankly.

I don't mind it, but it is unfair because of that. Probably only a insignificant minority will think it is unfair, which is why it's such a good choice now. But the same was said about Monarchy back then: everyone thought it was great (or, was forced to think it was great). AnCap is excellent for today, but would not suffice for decades to centuries in the future.

Think about it this way: all governments were invented, and we haven't invented all of them yet. From chaos came despots, and then monarchs. Then came direct democracy, then capital, then representative democracy and republics, then socialism. What next? Clearly, we haven't discovered it yet.

[myrkul]

structured anarchy (no matter the structure) is unfair.

False.

Structured anarchy, by definition, has certain "norms" or "rules". AnCap, for example, has a strong sense of possession. There are people who won't agree with those "norms" or "rules". It's therefore unfair.

I see. AnCap is unfair, because some people will want your stuff, and they can't just take it.

Well, that sounds like my kinda unfairness, frankly.

I don't mind it, but it is unfair because of that. Probably only a insignificant minority will think it is unfair, which is why it's such a good choice now. But the same was said about Monarchy back then: everyone thought it was great (or, was forced to think it was great). AnCap is excellent for today, but would not suffice for decades to centuries in the future.

Think about it this way: all governments were invented, and we haven't invented all of them yet. From chaos came despots, and then monarchs. Then came direct democracy, then capital, then representative democracy and republics, then socialism. What next? Clearly, we haven't discovered it yet.

Well, that's the beauty of AnCap. As long as they don't hurt anyone, they're welcome to share and share alike among themselves as much as they want.

[dree12]

structured anarchy (no matter the structure) is unfair.

False.

Structured anarchy, by definition, has certain "norms" or "rules". AnCap, for example, has a strong sense of possession. There are people who won't agree with those "norms" or "rules". It's therefore unfair.

I see. AnCap is unfair, because some people will want your stuff, and they can't just take it.

Well, that sounds like my kinda unfairness, frankly.

I don't mind it, but it is unfair because of that. Probably only a insignificant minority will think it is unfair, which is why it's such a good choice now. But the same was said about Monarchy back then: everyone thought it was great (or, was forced to think it was great). AnCap is excellent for today, but would not suffice for decades to centuries in the future.

Think about it this way: all governments were invented, and we haven't invented all of them yet. From chaos came despots, and then monarchs. Then came direct democracy, then capital, then representative democracy and republics, then socialism. What next? Clearly, we haven't discovered it yet.

Well, that's the beauty of AnCap. As long as they don't hurt anyone, they're welcome to share and share alike among themselves as much as they want.

Beautiful now, but not centuries later when people shift their beliefs. Capitalism is just a concept, and it can wane just as quickly as monarchy.

[myrkul]

Beautiful now, but not centuries later when people shift their beliefs. Capitalism is just a concept, and it can wane just as quickly as monarchy.

And when and if it does, those small communes will take up more and more of the people, and capitalism will die a slow, peaceful death. I don't care how people organize their society, so long as it's voluntary.

[dree12]

Beautiful now, but not centuries later when people shift their beliefs. Capitalism is just a concept, and it can wane just as quickly as monarchy.

And when and if it does, those small communes will take up more and more of the people, and capitalism will die a slow, peaceful death. I don't care how people organize their society, so long as it's voluntary.

Exactly.

Though, your process is off. Communes are also unsustainable as we know them. It will be a form that is yet undiscovered that will replace capitalism.

I'll just leave a quote here:

Everything that can be invented has been invented.

This was 1899.

[FirstAscent]

Fractured ownership, different values, different agendas, different levels of understanding, etc. lead to a checkerboard effect, which really devalues everything. Best to have commonly designated areas as being treated uniformly.

As an example, Los Angeles can stay the concrete jungle it is. Change it if you want. Improve it if you want. Rebuild if if you want. But don't go create a new Los Angeles in Oregon old growth forests. It seems almost inevitable, and one has to recognize the possibility and understand the importance of such things happening, and be aware that such things happen in a creeping almost invisible way.

[dree12]

Fractured ownership, different values, different agendas, different levels of understanding, etc. lead to a checkerboard effect, which really devalues everything. Best to have commonly designated areas as being treated uniformly.

As an example, Los Angeles can stay the concrete jungle it is. Change it if you want. Improve it if you want. Rebuild if if you want. But don't go create a new Los Angeles in Oregon old growth forests. It seems almost inevitable, and one has to recognize the possibility and understand the importance of such things happening, and be aware that such things happen in a creeping almost invisible way.

I think every human should have the opportunity to live in a forest for a while, so they can appreciate how important they are. And I mean live in one, not participate in commercialized, noisy camping grounds.

[myrkul]

Beautiful now, but not centuries later when people shift their beliefs. Capitalism is just a concept, and it can wane just as quickly as monarchy.

And when and if it does, those small communes will take up more and more of the people, and capitalism will die a slow, peaceful death. I don't care how people organize their society, so long as it's voluntary.

Exactly.

Though, your process is off. Communes are also unsustainable as we know them. It will be a form that is yet undiscovered that will replace capitalism.

Communes are unsustainable as we know them now. Perhaps in the future, that will change.

[zveda2000]

Except that land is fundamentally different from Bitcoin mining. It is more closely analogous to Bitcoins themselves. Buying lots of them is increasingly expensive, and is only possible currently due to the relatively low price. Land is already expensive, and I would wager there simply does not exist enough capital to purchase an entire continent, or possibly even a few states, and certainly, that much capital isn't in a single person's hands. You are fearing something that is, frankly, impossible. And even if it were, the answer to a feared concentration of power is not a concentration of power.

And yes, your actions on even a small plot of land do indeed affect all future owners of that land. This is reflected in the reduction, or increase, in the value of the land. A blasted wasteland is not worth as much as a verdant forest, even assuming that the creation of that blasted wasteland from the verdant forest doesn't effect - and thus, incur damages from - other people's properties. (Which is not a valid assumption.)

In many places of the world, land is extremely cheap. Right now China, Western Europe, the US -- basically the rich countries of the world are buying up farmland in Africa, Ukraine East Asia -- basically the poor places. Private hedge funds are buying up large chunks as well. See this. So some people will control large amounts of land - and even today land is distributed very unequally. I don't see how one can dispute this.

The reason why land is more analogous to bitcoin mining rather than to bitcoins, is that through controlling mining, you can affect the entire bitcoin community. If you just have a lot of bitcoins, you could play with the price to some extent, but you cannot cancel people's transactions. However when you control land, you have a very direct control over many other peoples' lives. You could poison their water supply for example. Sure people could go live somewhere else, and if land had an infinite supply then my argument would be bunk, but the earth is limited and we all have to share it. Your actions on your piece of land affect the community at large. Spending your privately owned bitcoins is not the same.

If you have ever shared a small house with a number of people, you would see where Libertarianism breaks down. Your argument about providing incentives to maintain land value is IMO not very strong. What if I can make more profit from destroying the land than maintaining it? What if I am old and I have no children and I don't care about it? What if I am just a psychopathic person who likes destroying things? What if I am just selfish and don't care about others or the future? There are many reasons why someone could choose to destroy a piece of land. Wasting money in some irrrational way is not the same.

[FirstAscent]

If you have ever shared a small house with a number of people, you would see where Libertarianism breaks down. Your argument about providing incentives to maintain land value is IMO not very strong. What if I can make more profit from destroying the land than maintaining it? What if I am old and I have no children and I don't care about it? What if I am just a psychopathic person who likes destroying things? What if I am just selfish and don't care about others or the future? There are many reasons why someone could choose to destroy a piece of land. Wasting money in some irrrational way is not the same.

There's too many people on the planet as well. I really don't see anything but globally respected laws and regulations to prevent a spiral cascade from destroying everything. It's called creep. Put down your defenses and the destruction just slowly creeps onward.

[myrkul]

But don't go create a new Los Angeles in Oregon old growth forests. It seems almost inevitable,

Why? Cities are placed where they are for reasons. It's highly unlikely that a city would be placed in the middle of nowhere, simply because there was land available.

[zveda2000]

It's well known that direct democracy doesn't scale

Could you show me some evidence or discussion of this somewhere? I don't see why it shouldn't scale with the advent of the internet. You could do all of your voting in five minutes every day, and only on issues that are important to you.

[FirstAscent]

But don't go create a new Los Angeles in Oregon old growth forests. It seems almost inevitable,

Why? Cities are placed where they are for reasons. It's highly unlikely that a city would be placed in the middle of nowhere, simply because there was land available.

It starts with the suburbs, which are outlying areas of wilderness purchased by developers. And it just creeps outward from there.

[zveda2000]

Las Vegas is an example of a city in the middle of nowhere. Also Dubai.

[myrkul]

Las Vegas is an example of a city in the middle of nowhere. Also Dubai.

A trade caravan of 60 men led by the Mexican merchant Antonio Armijo was charged with establishing a trade route to Los Angeles. By following the Pike and Smith routes through a tributary of Colorado River they came upon the Las Vegas Valley described by Smith as the best point to re-supply before going onto California. The travelers named the area "Las Vegas" which was Spanish for "The Meadows".

Las Vegas: not in the middle of nowhere. Resupply point along a trade route.

The earliest written mention of the area of Dubai was in 1095, by Abū 'Ubayd 'Abd Allāh al-Bakrī, in his Mojam Ma Ostojam men Asmae Al belaad wal Mawadhea, in which he describes many places of the world compiled from other accounts of them,. It was not until 1799 that the town had its first record. However the Venetian Gaspero Balbi, a renowned pearl merchant, when visiting in 1580, remarked on the area and how many Venetians were working there in the pearl industry.

Dubai: Not in the middle of nowhere, important trade hub for the pearl industry.

It starts with the suburbs, which are outlying areas of wilderness purchased by developers. And it just creeps outward from there.

True enough, but what forces would drive sprawl into the redwoods?

[myrkul]

However when you control land, you have a very direct control over many other peoples' lives. You could poison their water supply for example. Sure people could go live somewhere else, and if land had an infinite supply then my argument would be bunk, but the earth is limited and we all have to share it. Your actions on your piece of land affect the community at large.

And if you negatively affect other people's quality of life or property values, you can be held liable for the damages you've incurred.

[FirstAscent]

It starts with the suburbs, which are outlying areas of wilderness purchased by developers. And it just creeps outward from there.

True enough, but what forces would drive sprawl into the redwoods?

Population growth, logging towns, resorts, non-protected lands receiving proposals for new highways, which brings in gas stations, etc. Land is then parceled, and it never stops. This of course, is the classic case of edge effects pushing out native species, which has an effect on trophic cascades, and an ever spiraling progression towards a weaker environment. And as history shows, it never gets reverted back to true wilderness.

That is the history of the world, essentially.

[FirstAscent]

However when you control land, you have a very direct control over many other peoples' lives. You could poison their water supply for example. Sure people could go live somewhere else, and if land had an infinite supply then my argument would be bunk, but the earth is limited and we all have to share it. Your actions on your piece of land affect the community at large.

And if you negatively affect other people's quality of life or property values, you can be held liable for the damages you've incurred.

Not necessarily. Most people aren't aware of what they lost. Class action lawsuits can bring it to their attention though. Your proposed system sounds like a great system for lawyers. Instead of taxes and regulations, we'll be subjected to paying lawyer fees.

[myrkul]

It starts with the suburbs, which are outlying areas of wilderness purchased by developers. And it just creeps outward from there.

True enough, but what forces would drive sprawl into the redwoods?

Population growth, logging towns, resorts, non-protected lands receiving proposals for new highways, which brings in gas stations, etc. Land is then parceled, and it never stops. This of course, is the classic case of edge effects pushing out native species, which has an effect on trophic cascades, and an ever spiraling effect progression towards a weaker environment. And as history shows, it never gets reverted to true wilderness.

That is the history of the world, essentially.

If you're concerned, protect the lands. Buy them up.

Instead of taxes and regulations, we'll be subjected to paying lawyer fees.

Only if you're a polluter. (or otherwise end up on the wrong side of an arbitration)

[FirstAscent]

It starts with the suburbs, which are outlying areas of wilderness purchased by developers. And it just creeps outward from there.

True enough, but what forces would drive sprawl into the redwoods?

Population growth, logging towns, resorts, non-protected lands receiving proposals for new highways, which brings in gas stations, etc. Land is then parceled, and it never stops. This of course, is the classic case of edge effects pushing out native species, which has an effect on trophic cascades, and an ever spiraling effect progression towards a weaker environment. And as history shows, it never gets reverted to true wilderness.

That is the history of the world, essentially.

If you're concerned, protect the lands. Buy them up.

You yourself recently stated the difficulty in buying up large tracts of land (I believe it was in this thread). Try not to be more consistent in your statements, as everyone can see you talk outside both sides of your mouth. A lot of us try and remain consistent and truthful in what we say and we don't have time to defend our arguments against the likes of you. That's about three times in 24 hours that your statements have been called out by me alone*. Please, there exists the possibility for intelligent discussion here, but it gets watered down and polluted with a lot of your dumb tactics.

* 1. Beavers and technology. 2. Malignment of case 3 regarding the harvesting of resources. 3. Contradictory statements about the ease of buying up land.

[myrkul]

It starts with the suburbs, which are outlying areas of wilderness purchased by developers. And it just creeps outward from there.

True enough, but what forces would drive sprawl into the redwoods?

Population growth, logging towns, resorts, non-protected lands receiving proposals for new highways, which brings in gas stations, etc. Land is then parceled, and it never stops. This of course, is the classic case of edge effects pushing out native species, which has an effect on trophic cascades, and an ever spiraling effect progression towards a weaker environment. And as history shows, it never gets reverted to true wilderness.

That is the history of the world, essentially.

If you're concerned, protect the lands. Buy them up.

You yourself recently stated the difficulty in buying up large tracts of land (I believe it was in this thread). Try not to be more consistent in your statements, as everyone can see you talk outside both sides of your mouth. A lot of us try and remain consistent and truthful in what we say and we don't have time to defend our arguments against the likes of you.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were concerned with protecting a forest, not entire continents. You're right, you can't buy up a whole continent to protect it. But, you can certainly buy up enough forest to defend it against encroachment by suburbs.

[zveda2000]

myrkul, you tell me to go clean up the environment myself or go sue those that pollute. Well if you're concerned about government debt, then go help to pay it off. Some people in Greece are actually trying to do that - buying their government debt and forgiving it. Also if you think the Fed is abusing your savings and negatively affecting your quality of life, then go ahead and sue them. You see there is no problem with croney capitalism since you just create the right incentives and let the regulators punish bad behaviour. But we both know how it really works.

About Dubai and Las Vegas; well sure there had to be some reason for them to spring up there as opposed to some other place, but if you look at both of them, they are not just supply stations but big cities in the middle of the desert. They have to pump in all of their water supply and they are both completely unsustainable projects. I guess we meant different things by "middle of nowhere".

[myrkul]

myrkul, you tell me to go clean up the environment myself or go sue those that pollute. Well if you're concerned about government debt, then go help to pay it off. Some people in Greece are actually trying to do that - buying their government debt and forgiving it. Also if you think the Fed is abusing your savings and negatively affecting your quality of life, then go ahead and sue them. You see there is no problem with croney capitalism since you just create the right incentives and let the regulators punish bad behaviour. But we both know how it really works.

About Dubai and Las Vegas; well sure there had to be some reason for them to spring up there as opposed to some other place, but if you look at both of them, they have to pump in all of their water supply, they are both completely unsustainable projects. I guess we meant different things by "middle of nowhere".

There is a decided difference between crony capitalism and free markets. I advocate free markets, not crony capitalism. I'm also not the least bit concerned about government debt, I don't know where you got that. My plan is to let them choke on their debt. You can start addressing my actual points any time you like.

And yes, we do indeed mean different things by "middle of nowhere". I mean in the wilderness, not on the route to somewhere, not on the coast of the sea or a river, in other words, the very pristine wilderness that FirstAscent is so worried about. You seem to prefer the definition "in the desert"

[zveda2000]

There is a decided difference between crony capitalism and free markets. I advocate free markets, not crony capitalism. I'm also not the least bit concerned about government debt, I don't know where you got that. My plan is to let them choke on their debt. You can start addressing my actual points any time you like.

And yes, we do indeed mean different things by "middle of nowhere". I mean in the wilderness, not on the route to somewhere, not on the coast of the sea or a river, in other words, the very pristine wilderness that FirstAscent is so worried about. You seem to prefer the definition "in the desert"

This is not what I mean. I will try to be more clear. I am not arguing about crony capitalism or debt. My point is that your prescription for protecting the environment under Libertarianism is as pointless and futile as trying to regulate our current financial system. Once a party has monopoly power over creation of money, no amount of carrot-and-stick incentives or regulations is going to have any effect. Suing the Fed or the big banks for abusing your savings is about as hopeful as suing Coca Cola for destroying ground water in India or for Rio Tinto strip mining half of Australia. The mistake is letting them get that power in the first place.

So when you say let an individual have private ownership over large amounts of land and let them do whatever they want, but sue them if they negatively affect you, or appoint some kind of regulators -- this is a completely impotent strategy.

[myrkul]

So when you say let an individual have private ownership over large amounts of land and let them do whatever they want, but sue them if they negatively affect you, or appoint some kind of regulators -- this is a completely impotent strategy.

How? I agree trying to take the Fed to task for destroying your savings or Rio Tinto for strip mining Australia would be futile, but that's because the way to do that would be through the government courts. And in the Government courts, companies with a government license to do exactly what they have been doing will ultimately win. Take that government license away, and take them to a private court, and you'll have a better chance.

[mufa23]

What is environmentalism, really?

Richfags feeling bad about not doing anything, so they save the earth with a sense that they are super heroes.

Search your feelings, you know this to be true.

/thread

[zveda2000]

How? I agree trying to take the Fed to task for destroying your savings or Rio Tinto for strip mining Australia would be futile, but that's because the way to do that would be through the government courts. And in the Government courts, companies with a government license to do exactly what they have been doing will ultimately win. Take that government license away, and take them to a private court, and you'll have a better chance.

Well then why does bitcoin need strong ownership? We should just have a central payment processor or a single web wallet, and just go to bitcoin court if something goes wrong. All those hard disks full of blockchains, and miners running 24/7 just to take away a few jobs from some lawyers.. ? What a waste.

[myrkul]

How? I agree trying to take the Fed to task for destroying your savings or Rio Tinto for strip mining Australia would be futile, but that's because the way to do that would be through the government courts. And in the Government courts, companies with a government license to do exactly what they have been doing will ultimately win. Take that government license away, and take them to a private court, and you'll have a better chance.

Well then why does bitcoin need strong ownership? We should just have a central payment processor or a single web wallet, and just go to bitcoin court if something goes wrong. All those hard disks full of blockchains, and miners running 24/7 just to take away a few jobs from some lawyers.. ? What a waste.

Dude, you are all over the map. WTF are you even talking about?

[FirstAscent]

What is environmentalism, really?

Richfags feeling bad about not doing anything, so they save the earth with a sense that they are super heroes.

Search your feelings, you know this to be true.

/thread

I already stated what environmentalism was much earlier in this thread, and it was more detailed than your description. However, I'd like to point out the following about your own assessment:

- If gay people are effective at that, then that's fine.
- If it's wealthy people doing it, that's fine.
- If people feel bad about not doing anything, and that motivates them, that's fine.
- If they save the Earth, then not only would they probably feel like super heroes, they, in some sense, are.

[FirstAscent]

So when you say let an individual have private ownership over large amounts of land and let them do whatever they want, but sue them if they negatively affect you, or appoint some kind of regulators -- this is a completely impotent strategy.

Just as dangerous (and this is what makes libertarianism so dangerous to the environment) is the idea of the land being divided up into small parcels and owned by many thousands and millions of individuals. In the libertarian environment, where there exist no regulations, each parcel is subject to the random whims of the individuals, some knowledgeable, some ignorant, some who care about the environment, some who don't. Each individual has their own agenda and view of life and the world. You'll get a classic checkerboard of damage and preservation, which is equal to less than the sum of preserved checks.

[dree12]

So when you say let an individual have private ownership over large amounts of land and let them do whatever they want, but sue them if they negatively affect you, or appoint some kind of regulators -- this is a completely impotent strategy.

Just as dangerous (and this is what makes libertarianism so dangerous to the environment) is the idea of the land being divided up into small parcels and owned by many thousands and millions of individuals. In the libertarian environment, where there exist no regulations, each parcel is subject to the random whims of the individuals, some knowledgeable, some ignorant, some who care about the environment, some who don't. Each individual has their own agenda and view of life and the world. You'll get a classic checkerboard of damage and preservation, which is equal to less than the sum of preserved checks.

If you do something stupid on your parcel, there will be coalitions of people to sue. If you reject arbitration, there will be severe sanctions applied. If you do something stupid again, good luck keeping your land.

Think about it: if a forest is in your land, but by cutting it down you will have caused damage to the thousands of landowners adjacent to you, how will you win?

[myrkul]

So when you say let an individual have private ownership over large amounts of land and let them do whatever they want, but sue them if they negatively affect you, or appoint some kind of regulators -- this is a completely impotent strategy.

Just as dangerous (and this is what makes libertarianism so dangerous to the environment) is the idea of the land being divided up into small parcels and owned by many thousands and millions of individuals. In the libertarian environment, where there exist no regulations, each parcel is subject to the random whims of the individuals, some knowledgeable, some ignorant, some who care about the environment, some who don't. Each individual has their own agenda and view of life and the world. You'll get a classic checkerboard of damage and preservation, which is equal to less than the sum of preserved checks.

If you do something stupid on your parcel, there will be coalitions of people to sue. If you reject arbitration, there will be severe sanctions applied. If you do something stupid again, good luck keeping your land.

Think about it: if a forest is in your land, but by cutting it down you will have caused damage to the thousands of landowners adjacent to you, how will you win?

Prediction: he calls all the other owners idiots by implying or stating that they won't know that their land has been affected.

[FirstAscent]

So when you say let an individual have private ownership over large amounts of land and let them do whatever they want, but sue them if they negatively affect you, or appoint some kind of regulators -- this is a completely impotent strategy.

Just as dangerous (and this is what makes libertarianism so dangerous to the environment) is the idea of the land being divided up into small parcels and owned by many thousands and millions of individuals. In the libertarian environment, where there exist no regulations, each parcel is subject to the random whims of the individuals, some knowledgeable, some ignorant, some who care about the environment, some who don't. Each individual has their own agenda and view of life and the world. You'll get a classic checkerboard of damage and preservation, which is equal to less than the sum of preserved checks.

If you do something stupid on your parcel, there will be coalitions of people to sue. If you reject arbitration, there will be severe sanctions applied. If you do something stupid again, good luck keeping your land.

Think about it: if a forest is in your land, but by cutting it down you will have caused damage to the thousands of landowners adjacent to you, how will you win?

Prediction: he calls all the other owners idiots by implying or stating that they won't know that their land has been affected.

Your prediction exists in part because you've actually learned the mechanics of the situation. As for a large part of the owners being idiots and being ignorant of the real damages caused by other owners, I think it's very clear from the responses to my posts in this forum that the majority do indeed not understand the consequences of others.

[dree12]

So when you say let an individual have private ownership over large amounts of land and let them do whatever they want, but sue them if they negatively affect you, or appoint some kind of regulators -- this is a completely impotent strategy.

Just as dangerous (and this is what makes libertarianism so dangerous to the environment) is the idea of the land being divided up into small parcels and owned by many thousands and millions of individuals. In the libertarian environment, where there exist no regulations, each parcel is subject to the random whims of the individuals, some knowledgeable, some ignorant, some who care about the environment, some who don't. Each individual has their own agenda and view of life and the world. You'll get a classic checkerboard of damage and preservation, which is equal to less than the sum of preserved checks.

If you do something stupid on your parcel, there will be coalitions of people to sue. If you reject arbitration, there will be severe sanctions applied. If you do something stupid again, good luck keeping your land.

Think about it: if a forest is in your land, but by cutting it down you will have caused damage to the thousands of landowners adjacent to you, how will you win?

Prediction: he calls all the other owners idiots by implying or stating that they won't know that their land has been affected.

Your prediction exists in part because you've actually learned the mechanics of the situation. As for a large part of the owners being idiots and being ignorant of the real damages caused by other owners, I think it's very clear from the responses to my posts in this forum that the majority do indeed not understand the consequences of others.

BitcoinTalk Forum ≠ General Public.

Just because 90% of BitcoinTalk users won't care doesn't mean 90% of the public won't. In fact, it's quite likely 90% of the public will.

[myrkul]

Scenario:

I own land which I have kept a forest because I like old-growth forests. My new neighbor doesn't like old-grown forests, he likes cows. So he cuts down the forest on his land, which, as you stated, causes the border area to have thicker undergrowth, a different sort of wildlife, and generally no longer act like old-growth forest. Now, as stated, I kept my land forest because I like old-growth forest. If suddenly, large tracts of my land aren't acting like the old-growth forest that I bought, I'm going to be upset. Why would I not be?

[FirstAscent]

Scenario:

I own land which I have kept a forest because I like old-growth forests. My new neighbor doesn't like old-grown forests, he likes cows. So he cuts down the forest on his land, which, as you stated, causes the border area to have thicker undergrowth, a different sort of wildlife, and generally no longer act like old-growth forest. Now, as stated, I kept my land forest because I like old-growth forest. If suddenly, large tracts of my land aren't acting like the old-growth forest that I bought, I'm going to be upset. Why would I not be?

It's a little bit late though. And your neighbor will probably counter sue you claiming that your suit against him affects his liveleyhood, which it does, to some extent. A more uniform policy named in advance with reasons set forth has more strength with regard to protecting lands.

[dree12]

Scenario:

I own land which I have kept a forest because I like old-growth forests. My new neighbor doesn't like old-grown forests, he likes cows. So he cuts down the forest on his land, which, as you stated, causes the border area to have thicker undergrowth, a different sort of wildlife, and generally no longer act like old-growth forest. Now, as stated, I kept my land forest because I like old-growth forest. If suddenly, large tracts of my land aren't acting like the old-growth forest that I bought, I'm going to be upset. Why would I not be?

It's a little bit late though. And your neighbor will probably counter sue you claiming that your suit against him affects his liveleyhood, which it does, to some extent. A more uniform policy named in advance with reasons set forth has more strength with regard to protecting lands.

You and your neighbour are not the only people who own the old-growth forest. Everyone else affected will join your lawsuit. People aren't stupid, and one can never beat a thousand.

[FirstAscent]

Scenario:

I own land which I have kept a forest because I like old-growth forests. My new neighbor doesn't like old-grown forests, he likes cows. So he cuts down the forest on his land, which, as you stated, causes the border area to have thicker undergrowth, a different sort of wildlife, and generally no longer act like old-growth forest. Now, as stated, I kept my land forest because I like old-growth forest. If suddenly, large tracts of my land aren't acting like the old-growth forest that I bought, I'm going to be upset. Why would I not be?

It's a little bit late though. And your neighbor will probably counter sue you claiming that your suit against him affects his liveleyhood, which it does, to some extent. A more uniform policy named in advance with reasons set forth has more strength with regard to protecting lands.

You and your neighbour are not the only people who own the old-growth forest. Everyone else affected will join your lawsuit. People aren't stupid, and one can never beat a thousand.

Concessions, counter suits, and randomness will all lead to a less than consistent outcome. And it will all cost everyone money just as taxes would. Not that the current situation works perfectly either. Help me work out a solution that would work.

[myrkul]

Scenario:

I own land which I have kept a forest because I like old-growth forests. My new neighbor doesn't like old-grown forests, he likes cows. So he cuts down the forest on his land, which, as you stated, causes the border area to have thicker undergrowth, a different sort of wildlife, and generally no longer act like old-growth forest. Now, as stated, I kept my land forest because I like old-growth forest. If suddenly, large tracts of my land aren't acting like the old-growth forest that I bought, I'm going to be upset. Why would I not be?

It's a little bit late though. And your neighbor will probably counter sue you claiming that your suit against him affects his liveleyhood, which it does, to some extent. A more uniform policy named in advance with reasons set forth has more strength with regard to protecting lands.

Let me introduce you to a phrase: "Due Diligence". If the new neighbor had done some of that before cutting down the forest, or, better yet buying forest with the intent of cutting it down, it wouldn't have happened. Because of that, his countersuit would fall flat. I agree though, once the damage is done, it's too late. Thus why you should do the due diligence, so as to not do damage.

[zveda2000]

How? I agree trying to take the Fed to task for destroying your savings or Rio Tinto for strip mining Australia would be futile, but that's because the way to do that would be through the government courts. And in the Government courts, companies with a government license to do exactly what they have been doing will ultimately win. Take that government license away, and take them to a private court, and you'll have a better chance.

Well then why does bitcoin need strong ownership? We should just have a central payment processor or a single web wallet, and just go to bitcoin court if something goes wrong. All those hard disks full of blockchains, and miners running 24/7 just to take away a few jobs from some lawyers.. ? What a waste.

Dude, you are all over the map. WTF are you even talking about?

Again I will try to be more clear. Bitcoin is designed exactly in such a way as to avoid needing to use courts in the first place -- and to avoid placing your trust in any individual. Every user has strong ownership of their coins, such that no court can take them away, and all transactions are final. If we are going to trust courts, public or private, to enforce justice and solve disputes, then the whole design of bitcoin is pointless. We can just have a centralised payment system and just sue someone if we are wronged. Alternatively we don't need every user to run a full node, we can just have a web wallet that everybody trusts, and just sue it if something goes wrong. Bitcoin is designed exactly to avoid all trust in any court or system or even any other individual. The only thing that is trusted is that 51% of the network is going to be honest.

You on the other hand suggest to trust individuals with large amounts of power over the environment, even to the point where they can seriously harm the entire world, but to use the threat of courts and regulations to keep them in line, and to provide them with positive incentives to make them good custodians of the environment. Do you see how this is totally inconsistent with the philosophy of bitcoin?

[zveda2000]

So when you say let an individual have private ownership over large amounts of land and let them do whatever they want, but sue them if they negatively affect you, or appoint some kind of regulators -- this is a completely impotent strategy.

Just as dangerous (and this is what makes libertarianism so dangerous to the environment) is the idea of the land being divided up into small parcels and owned by many thousands and millions of individuals. In the libertarian environment, where there exist no regulations, each parcel is subject to the random whims of the individuals, some knowledgeable, some ignorant, some who care about the environment, some who don't. Each individual has their own agenda and view of life and the world. You'll get a classic checkerboard of damage and preservation, which is equal to less than the sum of preserved checks.

That's a good point as well. Owning a piece of the environment seems like just too much power to not be decentralised, for me. Should a private individual be able to run his own nuclear power station station on his parcel of land? Then his neighbours can sue him if he has a meltdown? Then I guess they will be compensated financially and all will be well...

[zveda2000]

One other point is that most of the time people are interested in short term profit and are not going to care about their property value 150 years from now. If I can build a chemical weapons factory and make a large profit today, someone else is going to inherit the hole in the ground in a few decades. Yet a lot of environmental damage is lasting and it is easy to externalise the economics of it. Financial incentives to protect the environment are complete bunk.

[myrkul]

How? I agree trying to take the Fed to task for destroying your savings or Rio Tinto for strip mining Australia would be futile, but that's because the way to do that would be through the government courts. And in the Government courts, companies with a government license to do exactly what they have been doing will ultimately win. Take that government license away, and take them to a private court, and you'll have a better chance.

Well then why does bitcoin need strong ownership? We should just have a central payment processor or a single web wallet, and just go to bitcoin court if something goes wrong. All those hard disks full of blockchains, and miners running 24/7 just to take away a few jobs from some lawyers.. ? What a waste.

Dude, you are all over the map. WTF are you even talking about?

Again I will try to be more clear. Bitcoin is designed exactly in such a way as to avoid needing to use courts in the first place -- and to avoid placing your trust in any individual. Every user has strong ownership of their coins, such that no court can take them away, and all transactions are final. If we are going to trust courts, public or private, to enforce justice and solve disputes, then the whole design of bitcoin is pointless. We can just have a centralised payment system and just sue someone if we are wronged. Alternatively we don't need every user to run a full node, we can just have a web wallet that everybody trusts, and just sue it if something goes wrong. Bitcoin is designed exactly to avoid all trust in any court or system or even any other individual. The only thing that is trusted is that 51% of the network is going to be honest.

You on the other hand suggest to trust individuals with large amounts of power over the environment, even to the point where they can seriously harm the entire world, but to use the threat of courts and regulations to keep them in line, and to provide them with positive incentives to make them good custodians of the environment. Do you see how this is totally inconsistent with the philosophy of bitcoin?

Ah. I think I see your problem. You're assuming I am referring to a centralized court system. I am not.

[zveda2000]

Ah. I think I see your problem. You're assuming I am referring to a centralized court system. I am not.

I thought this is what you meant. So how does a decentralised court system work? Is it going to be akin to direct democracy by any chance?

[dree12]

Ah. I think I see your problem. You're assuming I am referring to a centralized court system. I am not.

I thought this is what you meant. So how does a decentralised court system work? Is it going to be akin to direct democracy by any chance?

Basically, anyone can set up a court. Whether others support the court depends on its PR, strategy, and previous decisions. If the court wishes to employ direct democracy, it can.

[myrkul]

Ah. I think I see your problem. You're assuming I am referring to a centralized court system. I am not.

I thought this is what you meant. So how does a decentralised court system work? Is it going to be akin to direct democracy by any chance?

Free market arbitration firms offer dispute resolution to people. These decisions are binding because the parties involved have agreed ahead of time (sometimes long before even the dispute) to be bound by the decision.

[zveda2000]

Right so basically like bitcoin court. So since we have entities like bitcoin court, why do we need strong ownership in bitcoin? Why not just use the courts?

From wikipedia's article on decentralisation:

"A central theme in decentralization is the difference between:

    a hierarchy, based on authority: two players in an unequal-power relationship; and
    an interface: a lateral relationship between two players of roughly equal power.

The more decentralized a system is, the more it relies on lateral relationships, and the less it can rely on command or force."

But in the case of libertarian private land ownership, you have the land-owner party that has power to physically affect the lives of many others, and then you have private courts that you hope to use to control this. Doesn't seem like decentralisation to me. Why would the land owner agree to be arbitrated by some private court?

[myrkul]

Why would the land owner agree to be arbitrated by some private court?

For the simple reason that if he did not, he would not be protected by that court system. Along the same lines, he might have difficulty entering into any private contract, since he's already violated one, or at the very least, demonstrated his willingness to refuse arbitration in the face of having caused damages.

[zveda2000]

Why would the land owner agree to be arbitrated by some private court?

For the simple reason that if he did not, he would not be protected by that court system. Along the same lines, he might have difficulty entering into any private contract, since he's already violated one, or at the very least, demonstrated his willingness to refuse arbitration in the face of having caused damages.

Well I suppose this makes sense. But you have to trust the courts and the individuals that work there. You have to trust the land owner to abide by his contract. What if he can make a lot of money by breaking the contract? For eg. how many of the ponzi scheme operators on these forums are going to abide by all of their contracts? Will the bitcoinica customers get any restitution?

Probably a decentralised court system is better than the traditional one, but it not true decentralisation. In this model, the land-owner has an unequal power relationship with all his neighbours (unless you count that they can fight him by destroying their environment as well -- something that happens a lot in neighbourly disputes). The court has a concentration of power. I guarantee you that in practice this will never work and the environment will just continue to degrade, while we squabble about money.

[myrkul]

Probably a decentralised court system is better than the traditional one, but it not true decentralisation. In this model, the land-owner has an unequal power relationship with all his neighbours (unless you count that they can fight him by destroying their environment as well -- something that happens a lot in neighbourly disputes). The court has a concentration of power. I guarantee you that in practice this will never work and the environment will just continue to degrade, while we squabble about money.

Then what do you propose instead?

I would argue that if there is any unequal power relationship, it's the neighbors who have power over the landowner, not the other way around. He is very narrowly confined in what he can do without negatively affecting his neighbors, and as soon as he does, he'd be in deep trouble, to pay all those damages to his neighbors. As for the concentration of power, I would say you'd be hard pressed to say that a single arbitrator has any concentration of power.

[zveda2000]

Then what do you propose instead?

I would argue that if there is any unequal power relationship, it's the neighbors who have power over the landowner, not the other way around. He is very narrowly confined in what he can do without negatively affecting his neighbors, and as soon as he does, he'd be in deep trouble, to pay all those damages to his neighbors. As for the concentration of power, I would say you'd be hard pressed to say that a single arbitrator has any concentration of power.

So if I hold a gun to your head, you have the power because you can sue me? Are all of the ponzi scheme operators at a disadvantage because they face legal repercussions if they lose their clients' money? They have the money now, and it's a whole struggle to get justice after the fact. Just look at all the recent cases of fraud and negligence. With Madoff, the court found him guilty but still the clients didn't get their money back. How would a private decentralised court get a different result?

My proposition is simply that not everything should be for sale. Land ownership should be thought of more like long-term renting, and projects that can affect the community at large should go through a democratic approval process.

[myrkul]

Then what do you propose instead?

I would argue that if there is any unequal power relationship, it's the neighbors who have power over the landowner, not the other way around. He is very narrowly confined in what he can do without negatively affecting his neighbors, and as soon as he does, he'd be in deep trouble, to pay all those damages to his neighbors. As for the concentration of power, I would say you'd be hard pressed to say that a single arbitrator has any concentration of power.

So if I hold a gun to your head, you have the power because you can sue me? Are all of the ponzi scheme operators at a disadvantage because they face legal repercussions if they lose their clients' money? They have the money now, and it's a whole struggle to get justice after the fact. Just look at all the recent cases of fraud and negligence. With Madoff, the court found him guilty but still the clients didn't get their money back. How would a private decentralised court get a different result?

My proposition is simply that not everything should be for sale. Land ownership should be thought of more like long-term renting, and projects that can affect the community at large should go through a democratic approval process.

You don't seriously equate detriment to your property to holding a gun to your head? Violent situations are different. The problem with the Ponzi scheme operators is that they're anonymous. Give your money to someone you don't know, whose fault is it when they run off with it? With Madoff (and other Ponzi schemes), people don't get their money back because it's already gone. But holding the perpetrator responsible for paying them back will eventually result in them getting their money back - if he's held to it. Simply finding him "guilty" and tossing him in a cage doesn't help anything, especially if you then force his victims to pay for the cage. You need to make him pay restitution, and that's how a private decentralized court would get a different result.

As for the property, renters have historically been much worse on their property than have owners. And I propose that projects that would impact more than just the owner of the land require not just a democratic approval (simple majority, usually), but approval of all affected people. Due diligence, remember? If you don't get approval of someone who is affected, you have to pay damages.

[zveda2000]

You don't seriously equate detriment to your property to holding a gun to your head? Violent situations are different. The problem with the Ponzi scheme operators is that they're anonymous. Give your money to someone you don't know, whose fault is it when they run off with it? With Madoff (and other Ponzi schemes), people don't get their money back because it's already gone. But holding the perpetrator responsible for paying them back will eventually result in them getting their money back - if he's held to it. Simply finding him "guilty" and tossing him in a cage doesn't help anything, especially if you then force his victims to pay for the cage. You need to make him pay restitution, and that's how a private decentralized court would get a different result.

As for the property, renters have historically been much worse on their property than have owners. And I propose that projects that would impact more than just the owner of the land require not just a democratic approval (simple majority, usually), but approval of all affected people. Due diligence, remember? If you don't get approval of someone who is affected, you have to pay damages.

In fact I consider damage to property or to the environment in general as even worse than having a gun to your head. If I can poison a water supply, I can kill a million people. What legal restitution can there be then?

I don't really understand your second point. They confiscated all the money they could find from Madoff. They even took all the money from his wife. However there were tens of billions of dollars, and most of it will never be found. A lot of it was already paid to early investors, or lost in the market. He is being held responsible, but the money is gone. So again what will a private libertarian court do different to get the money back? Obviously fear of the law did not have much effect.

I would have to disagree about renters as well. For example, the native peoples of Australia see their land as being 'borrowed from our children', as corny as it sounds. Their civilization was sustainable for a long time and they contributed a lot less environmental damage than our private land ownership model.

Finally, all affected people agreeing to a project seems like a good idea; my only difference to you here is that they have to agree before the project is put into action rather than after -- since by that time profits could already be booked and somebody could be on their way to the Bahamas with a suitcase full of cash while we get to deal with the consequences. This has happened so many times that it's not even worth giving examples.

[zveda2000]

Just to clarify by 'renting' I don't mean renting from another private owner, but rather renting from nature. I don't mean this in a legal sense, but rather just to show that land shouldn't be seen as a possession with which one can do whatever they want, IMO.

[myrkul]

You don't seriously equate detriment to your property to holding a gun to your head? Violent situations are different. The problem with the Ponzi scheme operators is that they're anonymous. Give your money to someone you don't know, whose fault is it when they run off with it? With Madoff (and other Ponzi schemes), people don't get their money back because it's already gone. But holding the perpetrator responsible for paying them back will eventually result in them getting their money back - if he's held to it. Simply finding him "guilty" and tossing him in a cage doesn't help anything, especially if you then force his victims to pay for the cage. You need to make him pay restitution, and that's how a private decentralized court would get a different result.

As for the property, renters have historically been much worse on their property than have owners. And I propose that projects that would impact more than just the owner of the land require not just a democratic approval (simple majority, usually), but approval of all affected people. Due diligence, remember? If you don't get approval of someone who is affected, you have to pay damages.

In fact I consider damage to property or to the environment in general as even worse than having a gun to your head. If I can poison a water supply, I can kill a million people. What legal restitution can there be then?

I don't really understand your second point. They confiscated all the money they could find from Madoff. They even took all the money from his wife. However there were tens of billions of dollars, and most of it will never be found. A lot of it was already paid to early investors, or lost in the market. He is being held responsible, but the money is gone. So again what will a private libertarian court do different to get the money back? Obviously fear of the law did not have much effect.

I would have to disagree about renters as well. For example, the native peoples of Australia see their land as being 'borrowed from our children', as corny as it sounds. Their civilization was sustainable for a long time and they contributed a lot less environmental damage than our private land ownership model.

Finally, all affected people agreeing to a project seems like a good idea; my only difference to you here is that they have to agree before the project is put into action rather than after -- since by that time profits could already be booked and somebody could be on their way to the Bahamas with a suitcase full of cash while we get to deal with the consequences. This has happened so many times that it's not even worth giving examples.

Well, you have a point with the water supply, intentionally doing something like that ranks up there with Hitler-level of evil, and all you can really do at that point is erase that shit-stain. Of course, I don't need to own the headwaters of a river to do that, I could simply dump a barrel of poison into a water reservoir.

The second point is holding him financially responsible for repaying his victims, not just tossing him in a cage. Put him to productive work, and let him pay off his debt, not to society, but directly to his victims.

As to the renters, it's a proven fact that people are rougher on things that aren't theirs. I agree that considering the land you own to actually be on loan from your children is a pretty good way to look at it, though, because it drives home the fact that you have to retain the value of the land for your kids. (also, loaned items get treated differently than rented ones, so there's that working in the benefit, as well)

And lastly, due diligence happens before you do something, not after. You get the approval of everyone, but if you missed someone, or your project has greater or wider effects than you anticipated, then you'll end up paying damages. And if you run off to the Bahamas with a suitcase full of cash, there'll be someone behind you looking to bring you back to pay up.

Just to clarify by 'renting' I don't mean renting from another private owner, but rather renting from nature. I don't mean this in a legal sense, but rather just to show that land shouldn't be seen as a possession with which one can do whatever they want, IMO.

So you would be a proponent of this, then?

[zveda2000]

Well, you have a point with the water supply, intentionally doing something like that ranks up there with Hitler-level of evil, and all you can really do at that point is erase that shit-stain. Of course, I don't need to own the headwaters of a river to do that, I could simply dump a barrel of poison into a water reservoir.

The second point is holding him financially responsible for repaying his victims, not just tossing him in a cage. Put him to productive work, and let him pay off his debt, not to society, but directly to his victims.

As to the renters, it's a proven fact that people are rougher on things that aren't theirs. I agree that considering the land you own to actually be on loan from your children is a pretty good way to look at it, though, because it drives home the fact that you have to retain the value of the land for your kids. (also, loaned items get treated differently than rented ones, so there's that working in the benefit, as well)

And lastly, due diligence happens before you do something, not after. You get the approval of everyone, but if you missed someone, or your project has greater or wider effects than you anticipated, then you'll end up paying damages. And if you run off to the Bahamas with a suitcase full of cash, there'll be someone behind you looking to bring you back to pay up.

I mostly agree with you, but OK let's keep Madoff financially responsible. How is he going to pay back the tens of billions of dollars that he lost? That's a lot of manual labour. Or maybe he can run a new ponzi scheme in order to pay back the losers of the previous one?  

So you would be a proponent of this, then?

This actually looks very interesting to me at first glance. I will look into it more. However I question the idea of 'improvements'. Rather to me it seems almost any effect we have on nature tends to be a negative impact, or at best neutral. The idea of improvements seems subjective anyway.

[myrkul]

I mostly agree with you, but OK let's keep Madoff financially responsible. How is he going to pay back the tens of billions of dollars that he lost? That's a lot of manual labour. Or maybe he can run a new ponzi scheme in order to pay back the losers of the previous one?  

Yes, that is quite a lot of manual labor. Hopefully, he has more marketable skills than that, though.

So you would be a proponent of this, then?

This actually looks very interesting to me at first glance. I will look into it more. However I question the idea of 'improvements'. Rather to me it seems almost any effect we have on nature tends to be a negative impact, or at best neutral. The idea of improvements seems subjective anyway.

Well, unless you would have us all live in caves... It is, however, perfectly possible to build in such a way as to not negatively impact even the local environment.

[FirstAscent]

The return of the Jaguar to the U.S.: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=kitty-corner-jaguars-win-critical-habitat-in-us

[FirstAscent]

Arctic sea ice recedes to record low faster than before: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-sea-ice-likely-to-hit-record

I absolutely love the first comment on the article in the comments section.

[zveda2000]

Ha ha yes that is an excellent comment. Anyway we cannot win the propaganda war, that much is clear. Whatever happens next is not going to be good..