could this be a way to scrutinize climate science enough for the skeptics

[Pointedstick]

This UK scientist is convinced not only that climate change is inevitable but that there is absolutely nothing that we humans can do to reverse it at this point. He laughs at carbon taxes and promotes nuclear power, but even then, he thinks it's probably still too late.

I like this guy because IMHO he seems to have taken the theory to its logical conclusion. If you believe the science, I think it's pretty clear that he's right and that change is inevitable and unstoppable.

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/ ... matechange

[Pointedstick]

Totally agree with you on all points, Desert.

In terms of energy, I approach the current alternative energy technologies from a different perspective than most climate-change-worriers: from a micro rather than macro point of view. It's true that there's pretty much no way to generate all the electricity we as a society need using solar and wind, but it's often quite possible to generate all the electricity you as a person need, and the payback periods can be quite short in a climate well suited to the generation technology. A decently-sized 3kw array in a sunny climate can easily generate upwards of 18 kwh per day. That's a lot of kilowatt hours; easily enough to wipe out an low-to-average power bill forever and even provide you with an income stream in many states, not to mention the benefits of increased resiliency in your own life in the face of power outages caused by weather and natural disasters.

On a personal level, I find it interesting how almost none of the liberals I know have done something like this, while several of the conservatives and libertarians I know have, and I plan to do it myself at some point soon. It's almost as if the liberals are so focused on (impossible) macro that they can't see the (practical applicable) micro…

[doodle]

Well, there are some who believe that demand for traditional fossil fuels will Continue to decline as it has year over year in the US. Urban living is on the rise, efficiency is increasing steadily, population is leveling out, alternative energy is improving....there are a host of factors

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy ... 378468013/

[Tyler]

It's almost as if the liberals are so focused on (impossible) macro that they can't see the (practical applicable) micro…

... Or as if energy is simply a politically helpful proxy for a different cause. 

[Mountaineer]

It's almost as if the liberals are so focused on (impossible) macro that they can't see the (practical applicable) micro…

... Or as if energy is simply a politically helpful proxy for a different cause.

I'm not trying to stereotype with this comment as my database is far to small.  With that said, many of my liberal friends who are frequently preaching social justice causes of some type or another stop in their tracks when I ask them, "Have you ever invited a homeless person to have dinner with you?", or "When is the last time you served at the local food pantry?", or "Have you ever talked to a young woman who had an abortion?"  My conservative friends just quietly serve at their local homeless shelter, volunteer at nursing homes or hospitals, read books to the blind, etc.  My conclusion is that for many liberals, "doing good" is a cause and something "other" people should either do or donate money to - not something they want to personally dirty their hands with.  So, I'm on board with Tyler's "politically helpful proxy" comment.

... Mountineer

[Benko]

I'm not trying to stereotype with this comment as my database is far to small.  With that said, many of my liberal friends who are frequently preaching social justice causes of some type or another stop in their tracks when I ask them, "Have you ever invited a homeless person to have dinner with you?", or "When is the last time you served at the local food pantry?", or "Have you ever talked to a young woman who had an abortion?"  My conservative friends just quietly serve at their local homeless shelter, volunteer at nursing homes or hospitals, read books to the blind, etc.  My conclusion is that for many liberals, "doing good" is a cause and something "other" people should either do or donate money to - not something they want to personally dirty their hands with.  So, I'm on board with Tyler's "politically helpful proxy" comment.

... Mountineer

This was pointed out to me by someone years ago as it was his experience, and I have noticed its truth as well. 

Or compare amount given to charity by the Romney the heartless businessman, and Obama. 

[Kshartle]

I'm not trying to stereotype with this comment as my database is far to small.  With that said, many of my liberal friends who are frequently preaching social justice causes of some type or another stop in their tracks when I ask them, "Have you ever invited a homeless person to have dinner with you?", or "When is the last time you served at the local food pantry?", or "Have you ever talked to a young woman who had an abortion?"  My conservative friends just quietly serve at their local homeless shelter, volunteer at nursing homes or hospitals, read books to the blind, etc.  My conclusion is that for many liberals, "doing good" is a cause and something "other" people should either do or donate money to - not something they want to personally dirty their hands with.  So, I'm on board with Tyler's "politically helpful proxy" comment.

... Mountineer

This was pointed out to me by someone years ago as it was his experience, and I have noticed its truth as well. 

Or compare amount given to charity by the Romney the heartless businessman, and Obama.

They are just projecting. Since the liberal is typically unwilling to help others they assume everyone is like that. You can't convince them that other people or most people aren't like them. They probably spend their time with similar people so this is what they think about the world. It also doesn't matter that you can explain how the things they advocate make the situation worse. They will just reply that we need to double the taxes or the handouts or whatever violence-driven effort they are behind. It's heads they win, tails you lose.

The only solution I can see is talking to people about the virtue of not hitting their kids. In time hopefully the kids will grow up smarter and more moral than their parents and that will build over generations. Then the idea that there is virtue in stealing from one to give to another and that this can actually solve problems will be laughed at by everyone.

[Tyler]

many of my liberal friends who are frequently preaching social justice causes of some type or another stop in their tracks when I ask them, "Have you ever invited a homeless person to have dinner with you?", or "When is the last time you served at the local food pantry?", or "Have you ever talked to a young woman who had an abortion?"  My conservative friends just quietly serve at their local homeless shelter, volunteer at nursing homes or hospitals, read books to the blind, etc.  My conclusion is that for many liberals, "doing good" is a cause and something "other" people should either do or donate money to - not something they want to personally dirty their hands with. 

The Onion nailed this phenomenon pretty squarely.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/local- ... own,34860/

[ns3]

many of my liberal friends who are frequently preaching social justice causes of some type or another stop in their tracks when I ask them, "Have you ever invited a homeless person to have dinner with you?", or "When is the last time you served at the local food pantry?", or "Have you ever talked to a young woman who had an abortion?"  My conservative friends just quietly serve at their local homeless shelter, volunteer at nursing homes or hospitals, read books to the blind, etc.  My conclusion is that for many liberals, "doing good" is a cause and something "other" people should either do or donate money to - not something they want to personally dirty their hands with. 

The Onion nailed this phenomenon pretty squarely.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/local- ... own,34860/

I think liberals see themselves collectively giving at the office - in other words taxes. And since their philosophy has been ruling the day for so many years there is probably some truth in this. I mean when I see a sign that says "will work for food" I want to ask the person what is the point - why not just go and get food stamps and you'll already have my contribution to charity.

I think liberals see themselves collectively giving at the office - in other words taxes. And since their philosophy has been ruling the day for so many years there is probably some truth in this. I mean when I see a sign that says "will work for food" I want to ask the person what is the point - why not just go and get food stamps and you'll already have my contribution to charity. the money that was stolen from me, to give to you

calling it charity is what "they" would like us to think it is, i suspect my correction is a more accurate representation of the actual transaction..

[Benko]

I think liberals see themselves collectively giving at the office - in other words taxes. And since their philosophy has been ruling the day for so many years there is probably some truth in this. I mean when I see a sign that says "will work for food" I want to ask the person what is the point - why not just go and get food stamps and you'll already have my contribution to charity.

Thank you for eloquently stating your point of view.  And I am not being sarcastic. 

I would not say that I think your point of view is particularly caring, but I do suspect it a common one in people with your views.

[ns3]

I would not say that I think your point of view is particularly caring, but I do suspect it a common one in people with your views.

How does one determine whether one's point of view is "caring" or not?

[Benko]

How does one determine whether one's point of view is "caring" or not?

We are as we are.  Being honest about where we are, at least to ourselves in an important starting point*.

Before you revised your post, I believe you asknowledged this aspect of yourself.  As a first approximation, if you want to personally help people (to whatever extent you can) one can be viewed as caring.  To the extent one is not moved to personally by your own actions be of assistance to others, one is less caring.  There are others here far more eloquent than I who can refine/explain it better than I, but I hope this is of some help.

*there are ways of shifting this and growing personally, spiritually and becoming more caring for those so inclined.

[Mountaineer]

How does one determine whether one's point of view is "caring" or not?

My perspective is that acting in the manner that 1 Thessalonians 5 and 1 Corinthians 13 suggest would be a good start.  Basically as I see it, that means caring for neighbor as much as caring for self and either having the skill of self-observation, or listening carefully when a trusted person gives you feedback.  For what it is worth, I perceive a majority of those on this forum express their points of view in a caring manner most of the time.

And note to the OP, stone:  We have really hijacked this thread and I think I might have started the hijacking.  My appologies.

... Mountaineer

[Tyler]

It's almost as if the liberals are so focused on (impossible) macro that they can't see the (practical applicable) micro…

... Or as if energy is simply a politically helpful proxy for a different cause. 

Back on topic.

What I was referring to before is that climate change is too often used as a politically popular proxy for something altogether unrelated to the climate -- global wealth distribution, centralized government, and dismantling of capitalist markets.  Same endgame, new play.  That's why you don't hear about "independence from the middle east" as a justification for carbon rationing anymore.  Fracking has the US on pace to be completely energy independent within a few years, but that solution is not the preferred one people were agitating for.

I'd like it if we spent half as much energy scrutinizing the people proposing solutions as we do trying to convince or marginalize the people questioning the justification.

[moda0306]

It's almost as if the liberals are so focused on (impossible) macro that they can't see the (practical applicable) micro…

... Or as if energy is simply a politically helpful proxy for a different cause. 

Back on topic.

What I was referring to before is that climate change is too often used as a politically popular proxy for something altogether unrelated to the climate -- global wealth distribution, centralized government, and dismantling of capitalist markets.  Same endgame, new play.  That's why you don't hear about "independence from the middle east" as a justification for carbon rationing anymore.  Fracking has the US on pace to be completely energy independent within a few years, but that solution is not the preferred one people were agitating for.

I'd like it if we spent half as much energy scrutinizing the people proposing solutions as we do trying to convince or marginalize the people questioning the justification.

If centralized governments and "dismantling" capitalist markets(a sliiiiight exaggeration... governments have been involved with energy policy and pollution for decades if not centuries now) are part of the necessary solution to a global pollution problem, then that's going to be part of the proposed solution, is it not?  I mean, maybe.. juuuust maybe, many liberals advocate for externality recognition and accounting by a centralized government or treaty, and "interfering" with "free" markets because (gasp) that's probably, arguably the most effective way to control an externality problem.  Maybe it's that simple.  I know very libertarian-minded people that think environmental externality management is near the top of the list of "valid functions of government."  I mean they're not anarcho-capitalists, but they definitely would like to see the welfare state mostly disassembled.

Independence from the middle east was dropped as a reason because it's no longer as necessary?  Sounds like a logical reason to no longer discuss it as a major reason anymore.  Further, factoring externalities into our economic activity is a HUGE aspect of why (some) liberals, environmentalists, and realists disagree with fracking in its current state.  So we are dealing with something that is many ways part of the same overall problem as climate change... People want stuff that make their big homes warm and their big cars drive far and fast, and are wanting to push the real costs to someone other than themselves.

Lastly, who is the "we" not spending enough time scrutinizing climate science?  I hear a huge amount of (mostly childish) banter questioning the science behind climate change.  It's just from certain people.  And let's not pretend most of it is all-that well-thought-out.  I understand that others are going to talk about the science being valid, and, in some cases, how kooky or misguided the "denyers" are.  It all depends on who you listen to, and what end of the maturity spectrum you choose to expose yourself to.

[Pointedstick]

Or maybe… the governments created the externality problem by providing public dumping grounds for pollution and passed laws excepting polluters from the consequences of their pollution. Hardly what I'd call a free market. More like a cronyistic, collusive, corporcratic market where the worst polluters are allowed to pollute in exchange for benefits they can grant to politicians.

You're going to love the "environmental protection" chapter of my book. In the process of writing it, I've found that environmentalism is actually a strength, not a weakness of libertarianism.

[Kshartle]

If centralized governments and "dismantling" capitalist markets are part of the necessary solution to a global pollution problem, then that's going to be part of the proposed solution, is it not?

Maybe, many liberals advocate for externality recognition and accounting by a centralized government or treaty, and "interfering" with "free" markets because that's probably, arguably the most effective way to control an externality problem.  Maybe it's that simple. 

I know very libertarian-minded people that think environmental externality management is near the top of the list of "valid functions of government."  I mean they're not anarcho-capitalists, but they definitely would like to see the welfare state mostly disassembled.

This the fallacious argument: Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology): reasoning in a circle. The thing to be proved is used as one of your assumptions. For example: "We must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime". (This assumes it discourages crime.) Or, "The stock market fell because of a technical adjustment." (But is an "adjustment" just a stock market fall ?)

Why do you think we need government to help prevent humans from destroying the environment? That is not clear.

Saying libertarian-minded people agree that government needs to solve polution problems is also not an argument.

I'm not saying you're wrong or disagreeing Moda, but I'd actually like to hear what your support is for the argument. You're just saying it is, and maybe liberals think that because it really is. Ohhh and some people you would call a libertarian agree.

Do you think a world without centralized governments would have more polution?

[Benko]

his website has interesting factual info on climate theories

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/tim ... ing-nazis/

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.

Time to push back against the global warming Nazis
When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”?, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.

I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”?.

The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.

They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!”? in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.

Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).

Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree…even getting journal editors to resign.

[moda0306]

PS,

I'm sure you'll find a way to give the private sector 100% credit for civilization, and government 100% credit for pollution, war, and poverty. 

You'll definitely not find me stating that government always represents the best of what civilization has to offer at all times. Often, it's just another tool of control instituted by the wealthy right along side their arbitrary claims of property that they made (with government support) to build civilization on this continent to begin with.  Same $hit.  Different pile.  Some benefits.  Some drawbacks.

The externality problem is made WORSE by government if it's just going to allow dumping grounds, but it is a problem inherent to "laissez faire" capitalism and civilization.  This Ron Paulian idea that we can just sue everyone else for pollution is ridiculous.  I've heard libertarians try to meander their argument around this before, and I hope your book brings some new ideas to the table, because I've found most of their arguments laughable.

[Kshartle]

Or maybe… the governments created the externality problem by providing public dumping grounds for pollution and passed laws excepting polluters from the consequences of their pollution. Hardly what I'd call a free market. More like a cronyistic, collusive, corporcratic market where the worst polluters are allowed to pollute in exchange for benefits they can grant to politicians.

You're going to love the "environmental protection" chapter of my book. In the process of writing it, I've found that environmentalism is actually a strength, not a weakness of libertarianism.

How much polution comes from wars and nukes?

Pollution is waste. The government doesn't care about waste because it's not individuals seeking profit. Free market capitalism seeks profit by improving the lives of people. This means limiting pollution as much as possible.

Obviously nature has tons of pollutants already like microbes in the water. I'll suffer a little human made pollution to get rid of these so I don't get malaria.

I'll suffer the pollution from burning coal to avoid the pollution of frezzing cold that would kill me.

Mother nature is a mother. She loves to kill humans. Nature only has value if there are humans around to value it. Like or not....we are what matters. Without us to contemplate it nothing matters. So if we drop a little pollution to get rid of the pollution of nature so be it. I prefer it and don't trust government pollution limitations to do anything to improve lives. By outlawing things that the market would do, it makes us poorer. If the free market supports a business that results in some pollution, the profit earned represents that the output is considered worth the pollution.

[Pointedstick]

PS,

I'm sure you'll find a way to give the private sector 100% credit for civilization, and government 100% credit for pollution, war, and poverty. 

Actually, I acknowledge the historical evidence that government created civilization--for better or worse, given the state of humanity in the pre-civilizational era. Rather, my thesis is that civilization has now outgrown government. We simply don't need it anymore, and it increasingly represents a liability to the continuity of civilization, rather than a stabilizing force.

You'll definitely not find me stating that government always represents the best of what civilization has to offer at all times. Often, it's just another tool of control instituted by the wealthy right along side their arbitrary claims of property that they made (with government support) to build civilization on this continent to begin with.  Same $hit.  Different pile.  Some benefits.  Some drawbacks.

The externality problem is made WORSE by government if it's just going to allow dumping grounds, but it is a problem inherent to "laissez faire" capitalism and civilization.  This Ron Paulian idea that we can just sue everyone else for pollution is ridiculous.  I've heard libertarians try to meander their argument around this before, and I hope your book brings some new ideas to the table, because I've found most of their arguments laughable.

The argument only doesn't make sense because of the government legal system that is systemically biased in favor of the powerful. The very notion that it's laughable to imagine it being used to hold the powerful accountable shows that you understand that it doesn't work!

That said, yeah, there are some new ideas.

[Kshartle]

How much polution comes from wars and nukes?

Pollution is waste. The government doesn't care about waste because it's not individuals seeking profit. Free market capitalism seeks profit by improving the lives of people. This means limiting pollution as much as possible.

Obviously nature has tons of pollutants already like microbes in the water. I'll suffer a little human made pollution to get rid of these so I don't get malaria.

I'll suffer the pollution from burning coal to avoid the pollution of frezzing cold that would kill me.

Mother nature is a mother. She loves to kill humans. Nature only has value if there are humans around to value it. Like or not....we are what matters. Without us to contemplate it nothing matters. So if we drop a little pollution to get rid of the pollution of nature so be it. I prefer it and don't trust government pollution limitations to do anything to improve lives. By outlawing things that the market would do, it makes us poorer. If the free market supports a business that results in some pollution, the profit earned represents that the output is considered worth the pollution.

I like the idea that pollution = waste, but I don't think it's generally true.  For example, automotive pollution controls generally add cost and sometimes reduce efficiency.  But without them, our air quality would be much worse.  What would have driven the tremendous advances in automotive emissions technology over the past 50 years in a Libertarian system?

Do you think the free market would choose millions and millions of automobiles as transportation? It is extremely expensive and inefficient. It is the result of the the government robbing everyone including the unborn with debt slavery to pave roads everywhere.

The roads we travel on are almost exclusively state creations. You have no idea what the free market would choose as transporatation. Look at how much it sucks to drive a car in a major city. Do you think it would be an effective business model to buy up all that land and pave roads? The government steals it so there's no cost the them and the market adapts with something inefficiant to travel on it.

One of the first statist arguments against anarchy is always "who will pave the roads"? Well, the intelligent informed response is, how do we know we even want the effing roads? We don't know because they've been forced on us, we didn't choose them. Come drive them in my county. It takes 10 years to add an effing lane. 100 businesses have to go under because they positioned themselves next to the road and now no one can turn left into their parking lot.

The free market would have evolved past this hose5h1t decades ago. City traffic should be high speed monrails or subaways or something efficient and low polution, low cost, fast and convenient. Let businessmen figure out how to make a profit providing transportation. Trust me...that will be a billion times better than letting the local town official hand a road contract to his brother-in-law.

[doodle]

Researching roofing solutions on my house I came across an article saying that if everyone painted their roof white or used reflective metal it would help compensate for reduction in glaciar snow and ice which has acted like a mirror reflecting solar radiation.

[Mountaineer]

Researching roofing solutions on my house I came across an article saying that if everyone painted their roof white or used reflective metal it would help compensate for reduction in glaciar snow and ice which has acted like a mirror reflecting solar radiation.

Why would a white roof be any different than the white snowcaps reflecting radiation?  I do not understand.  Also, think of all the materials that would have to be produced for all that white paint (emissions and resource use).  And, what if we find out global cooling is the big threat like what was thought by a majority of scientists 20 or 30 years ago?  Then we would go through a cycle of painting roofs black.  I guess these cycles would employ people, probably in China so they would have to burn even more coal

... Mountaineer

[doodle]

Should we approach the issue of climate change with the same degree of caution that we approach investing? What I hear from climate change deniers sounds vaguely similar to me to a broker pushing a 100 percent stock portfolio. We are headed full speed ahead into an unknown future, it seems at least sensible to me to have some fallback plans in case 99% of climate scientists happen to be right. The fact that we cannot have an honest dialogue about the risks involved in the "what if" scenario that global warming is in fact happening shows a lack of foresight that historically has destroyed many other human civilizations as Jared Diamond discussed in his book "collapse"

And regarding Kshartles roads comments...I actually couldn't agree more. The prevalence of cars in our society and the range of problems this creates from air pollution to suburban sprawl is definitely a product of government. Had it not been for a government created road system, the car industry never would have grown into what it is today.