Moderator: Global Moderator
, I'm interested in hearing about the current state of the evidence as far as the anthropological cause for global warming is concerned. I haven't looked at the issue in a couple of years because of how unconvincing the shoddy evidence was at the time (and the creepy religious cult of the true believers, of course).
Many humans beleive that ends can justify the means. They do not have rules that guide their choices beyond just getting exactly what they want.Stewardship wrote: Why do you need propaganda for something you claim is proven?
There is no propaganda in the scientific community. The evidence for global warming is beyond proven. It is in the political arena that the propaganda is occurring because we have a scientific discovery that must be put into action....and as with smoking and cancer there are very powerful groups whose interests are harmed by the science.Stewardship wrote: I like to keep an open mind about human-caused global warming and look for any solid substantiating evidence. I recently scanned through the 3rd U.S. National Climate Assessment at globalchange.gov, which was recently linked to by whitehouse.gov, and found it to be just another propaganda piece reminiscent of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
If the evidence for human-caused global warming is so overwhelming, where is it? Why do you need propaganda for something you claim is proven?
No time... But to throw a grenade of opinion in here, pollution is "stealing." Enforcing exclusive use or profit from otherwise public resources is "stealing."Kshartle wrote:Many humans beleive that ends can justify the means. They do not have rules that guide their choices beyond just getting exactly what they want.Stewardship wrote: Why do you need propaganda for something you claim is proven?
Lying is trying to get something for nothing from others. It's stealing. Some humans do not understand why stealing is wrong or believe that it is.
.
Have a fantastic weekend. Tell your nephew how great things were before the narcissist-in-chief assumed power.moda0306 wrote:No time... But to throw a grenade of opinion in here, pollution is "stealing." Enforcing exclusive use or profit from otherwise public resources is "stealing."Kshartle wrote:Many humans beleive that ends can justify the means. They do not have rules that guide their choices beyond just getting exactly what they want.Stewardship wrote: Why do you need propaganda for something you claim is proven?
Lying is trying to get something for nothing from others. It's stealing. Some humans do not understand why stealing is wrong or believe that it is.
Pollution is "stealing," as well.
Sorry guys I'm in DC trying to instill all my statist beliefs in my 9-y-o nephew, and am planning my tour of tyranny for the weekend
Ooh, that sounds fun! I would totally go on the Tour of Tyranny. Maybe that's what North Korea will be in 100 years: a giant memorial/amusement park.moda0306 wrote: ...planning my tour of tyranny for the weekend
now they are testing "climate disruption" to cover any weather at all, by saying it would have been better if it was different than it was.... and therefor it should have been....Reub wrote: MG, it's not called global warming anymore. They changed it to climate change to cover the cold days too.
"They" don't exist and never have, see http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... arming.htmdoodle wrote: Who is "they"? The same people who killed Jimmy Hoffa and faked the moon landing?
Your strategy makes far to much sense. Like you say, it will never be appealing though, it is not sufficiently alarmist or emotion driven.MangoMan wrote: Regardless of whether 'climate change' is real or not, cutting back on pollution a little can only be a good thing. It just needs to be done in a non-draconian, non-socialist way. Good luck with that.
Well recognizing and taxing externalities is, by it's very nature, a function of government. If you can envision a private-sector method to recognize and charge polluters to drive behavior away from pollution I'd be interested to hear it.MangoMan wrote: Regardless of whether 'climate change' is real or not, cutting back on pollution a little can only be a good thing. It just needs to be done in a non-draconian, non-socialist way. Good luck with that.
Agreed. But Carbon dioxide ain't polution.MangoMan wrote: Regardless of whether 'climate change' is real or not, cutting back on pollution a little can only be a good thing.
This Pefect Day comes very close. I wish Hollywood would make an epic movie out of it (and not screw it up).Pointedstick wrote: Ooh, that sounds fun! I would totally go on the Tour of Tyranny. Maybe that's what North Korea will be in 100 years: a giant memorial/amusement park.
There's probably a pretty decent novel, movie, or video game in that idea.
I think the "they" refers to the journalists that are using "climate change" in place of "global warming". Because I rarely see them use the term "global warming" any more even when they are referring to it.rickb wrote: "They" don't exist and never have, see http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... arming.htm
When you say "government" like that, I think of the three-lettered executive agencies and not the judicial branch which is what originally co-opted the responsibility for externalities away from the private sector. So I don't think externalities were ever originally a native function of "government"; it first stole that "right" to empower itself. There's no reason we couldn't go back to putting the externalities where they rightfully belong and I would certainly prefer to do so because look at the pollution we have had via the tragedy of the commons.moda0306 wrote: Well recognizing and taxing externalities is, by it's very nature, a function of government. If you can envision a private-sector method to recognize and charge polluters to drive behavior away from pollution I'd be interested to hear it.
I don't think there is anything wrong with socializing costs, just that history proves that government is not the most just or efficient approach for doing so.So if the government does it, does that make it "socialist?" If so, bring on a "socialist solution."
I disagree. Taxing consumption will just invoke more corruption, cryonism, political favors, kickbacks and wasted resources. A market-based solution that puts the responsibility on the polluter to clean up their act, such as cap and trade, is far less punitive to the global poor and most importantly, it will actually accomplish the job. That's what's most important, right???Taxing the burning of fossil fuels is very unlikely to carry very damaging consequences, IMO. Oil will still be there if we change out mind.
Yeah, true pollution causes global cooling. I love how it got conflated with global warming. What an incovenient truth.Benko wrote: Agreed. But Carbon dioxide ain't polution.
Food for thought: could there be uncompensated externalities if there was no "public property" or "commons" that the government permitted people to pollute?moda0306 wrote: Well recognizing and taxing externalities is, by it's very nature, a function of government. If you can envision a private-sector method to recognize and charge polluters to drive behavior away from pollution I'd be interested to hear it.
Actually I think "climate change" was adopted to soothe those who agree that the climate is changing (which it is, whether you want to believe this or not) but don't agree that it's the result of human activities. It is true that the climate has warmed (or cooled) markedly in the past, without any human intervention.Reub wrote: MG, it's not called global warming anymore. They changed it to climate change to cover the cold days too.
I think you're largely right, but I feel compelled to point out that private pollution is squarely a problem of governments, which have declaring large amounts of the earth to be "cost-free pollution zones." By monopolizing the air, the oceans, the rivers, and lots of the land, they have prevented private individuals from owning parts of these resources then therefore objecting to their property being polluted. Instead, because governments have set themselves up as the de facto owners, it is up to them to object to the pollution of their property, which they generally decline to do, or do in a cronyistic manner.WiseOne wrote: However, I find it to be too much of a coincidence that the rise in global average temperatures correlates perfectly with greenhouse gas production. And the science has been vetted more thoroughly than just about any other field, so it's kind of hard to imagine that it's all a big mistake.
The problem many of you are having, I suspect, is that a catastrophic side effect of private enterprise like this is very difficult to handle from within the framework of, say, Ayn Rand's philosophy. It's an insoluble problem unless you step in with government intervention. Yes, there are private ways of handling part of it, e.g. the fact that making your house more energy efficient saves you money, but there are plenty of people who don't get that kind of math. An excellent example is my building's coop board, who seem not to believe in the laws of thermodynamics. They have been defying the NYC requirement for an energy audit, which is something that would ultimately SAVE us money, but they don't believe that. Can't wait for the upcoming shareholder's meeting.
Isn't that yet another indictment against the government?WiseOne wrote: True, if you set up some framework for people to sue companies that pollute their personal slice of air, water, or land (e.g. all those oil spill fiascos), that would be far preferable than a top-down "solution". Making one of those "owners" the government is a neat twist. Unfortunately, the average Joe has no chance against, say, BP Amoco...our justice system unfortunately boils down to who can buy the most expensive lawyers.
But it goes both ways too... witness the sham Bolivia trial lawyer thing sueing BP that got shut down for outright fraud that makes us look like its the Old West again, etc. Ught, could we PLEASE just get all lawyers, attorneys and government out of the building? Thank you!WiseOne wrote: True, if you set up some framework for people to sue companies that pollute their personal slice of air, water, or land (e.g. all those oil spill fiascos), that would be far preferable than a top-down "solution". Making one of those "owners" the government is a neat twist. Unfortunately, the average Joe has no chance against, say, BP Amoco...our justice system unfortunately boils down to who can buy the most expensive lawyers.
