General

Re: A Non-State Solution to Global Warming

Giant_Joe — Tue, 04 May 2010 22:33:26 GMT

GW is a media propagated myth. I've read this excellent book and probably you should too:

http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Warming-Vintage/dp/030738652X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272944211&sr=1-4

I'm having a tough time figuring out what this book is about from reading the reviews.

Re: A Non-State Solution to Global Warming

Jackson — Tue, 04 May 2010 22:01:15 GMT

Nice argumet from authority. Also, what astrophysics has to do with climatology?

totally. and what does chemistry have to do with medicine?

Re: A Non-State Solution to Global Warming

MaikU — Tue, 04 May 2010 21:52:36 GMT

Esuric wrote the following post at Tue, May 4 2010 5:23 AM:

AGW is a myth. Global temperatures are determined by that giant ball of fire in space. There's no need for any kind of coercion. See Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon.

Nice argumet from authority. Also, what astrophysics has to do with climatology?

Re: A Non-State Solution to Global Warming

LeeO — Tue, 04 May 2010 20:36:30 GMT

I think it is extremely difficult to predict how individuals would voluntarily fight global warming if it posed a real and immediate threat. You have proposed a possible chain of events, but there are so many variables here...who knows what would really happen. I would just leave it that freedom is always more desireable than coercion, so the solution would just be to let people do what they want. Free markets have solved countless difficult problems throughout history. Why would it be any different for global warming?

All this is irrelevent once you realize that AGW is a myth, like others have said. It's just a tool to gain control.

The Bill Gates foundation is also a tool of oppression - the perfect example of corporatism at work to enslave us.

Geo-engineering would only serve to put poison in the atmosphere in the name of saving us from poison in the atmosphere.

Re: A Non-State Solution to Global Warming

cret — Tue, 04 May 2010 19:54:31 GMT

if mankinds combustions were actually raising the global tempratures to harmful levels i expect there woudl be more sushi and raw vegatbles eaten so things wouldnt be burned to cook and gasses or pollutants emitted.

otherwise it appears that mankind and not necessarily a govt has determined that buring things bringas about more good than harm. that may be utilitarian...but it history may have shown in to be true. your ancestors could have dies from eating raw meat and you wouldnt be here today.

Re: A Non-State Solution to Global Warming

cret — Tue, 04 May 2010 19:47:53 GMT

we could just uphold property rights. maybe you could.

if someone was going to freeze to death on a cold night and the lit a fire to keep from freezing and teh smoke bothered you what would you do??

offer them bison skin for warmth??? or let them freeze to death??

Re: A Non-State Solution to Global Warming

cret — Tue, 04 May 2010 19:44:03 GMT

"First of all - in an extreme case, assuming imminent, objective catastrophe, I would support strong coercive action (not necessarily "government," but maybe) against greenhouse gas emittors..."

is emittors a typo???

global warming from what i read has ocurred without any help from makind. i guess teh charts i read are reflectign true information. so there may not be a solution to global warming, only a reaction to it in some way.

otherwise i beleive various market schemes have been discussed at length here on air pollution and what i have read called externalities...i can only asume that the discussions were genuine in there stating what they belieed t obe true.

but mankind has also been burning wood in fireplaces for centureis and many seem to keep doing it.

Re: A Non-State Solution to Global Warming

My Buddy — Tue, 04 May 2010 13:20:12 GMT

(A) If it is (as some would say) natural, then we really don't need to do anything.

(B) If it is (for the sake of the argument) entirely true, then the best way to deal with it would be either a growing efficiency rate (which is always happening anyway, regardless of what the government does) and possibly property protection from big polluters who presumably cause it (Read: Lawsuits!)

Re: A Non-State Solution to Global Warming

Jackson — Tue, 04 May 2010 05:28:41 GMT

psh. might as well post a non-state solution to a mole-man invasion. let's not waste time with solutions to fairy tales when there are more imminent dangers.

Re: A Non-State Solution to Global Warming

DD5 — Tue, 04 May 2010 05:15:21 GMT

Cal:

How do you propose we individualize property rights for something like the greenhouse gas emissions or affect on global temperature or share of responsibility for some imminent global catastrophe?

First, you have to relieve yourself from the usual nirvana fallacy, always employed by Statists.

Cal:

These are externalities that cannot realistically be internalized. If you have a proposed method by which such property rights could be defined and enforced, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Government itself is one big externality. Once you realize this, you will see how ridiculesly absurd it is to use the "externality" claim to advocate for government intervention.

There is no rational method by which government can act other then by arbitrary and political calculations. If it is the people of the world that you are concerned about, then I shall inform you (or remind you) that all governments lack any method by which they can ascertain the value of their action as against their costs. So it is not just that there are incentive problems, but also major knowledge problems. This makes any regulations illusory. All central planning is illusory.

The idea behind your government proposal to regulate green house gases, for example, It based on the false notion that there are some objective measures regarding the proper level of greenhouse gas emissions, or worst, that they can be controlled by a central authority. There can be no such objective measures as long as there are costs involved. Every cost-gain analysis is subjective on the part of the individual and no small minority of politicians can possibly know what's best for all of us. It is only through the voluntary action of the decentralized market economy with its price system, that such green house emissions can be controlled in any rational manner, that is, without sacrificing more urgent needs of the vast majority of the public.

Re: A Non-State Solution to Global Warming

al gore the idiot — Tue, 04 May 2010 04:36:31 GMT

GW is a media propagated myth. I've read this excellent book and probably you should too:

http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Warming-Vintage/dp/030738652X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272944211&sr=1-4

Re: A Non-State Solution to Global Warming

Bert — Tue, 04 May 2010 04:18:17 GMT

How do you propose we individualize property rights for something like the greenhouse gas emissions or affect on global temperature or share of responsibility for some imminent global catastrophe? These are externalities that cannot realistically be internalized. If you have a proposed method by which such property rights could be defined and enforced, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Well, first of all, I don't really see these as being real problems. Temperatures, for example, fluctuate over time. There is no standard temperature. If temperatures change over time it's more likely a natural occurrence than from our activity (see my article). If there's a global catastrophe the best thing to do is insure yourself against it. Not sure what kind of global catastrophe there could be besides the typical volcano or hurricane (which isn't really global - maybe another ice age?), so it seems pretty drastic to go out your way and do something to stop or slow down the possible occurrence of a global catastrophe (since it's the Earth we are dealing with). As far as greenhouse gas emissions that can be directly traced to individuals and their actions, I'll let the market handle that.

Re: A Non-State Solution to Global Warming

Zavoi — Tue, 04 May 2010 04:05:45 GMT

Suppose it were shown that the Earth can handle X amount of anthropogenic emissions per year, more than which would cause property damage (by raising sea levels, causing droughts, etc.). Then this amount X is just another scarce, homesteadable resource, and anyone who polluted in excess of this amount would either have to offset it or be subject to an incredibly messy class-action suit (for which, ideally, they would also have to pay the administrative costs). In effect, it's cap-and-trade, except without a central body collecting payments year after year.

Esuric:
AGW is a myth. Global temperatures are determined by that giant ball of fire in space. There's no need for any kind of coercion. See Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon.

I don't know whether that's true or not, but it's helpful to consider the hypothetical case to show people that libertarianism is not so rigid that it would be debunked by a simple matter of scientific fact. Otherwise, it comes across as "There is no libertarian solution to AGW, but we got lucky this time because there is no AGW, there is no AGW, there is no AGW..." We must take reality as we find it, and a robust political ideology should not come crashing down on account of it.

Re: A Non-State Solution to Global Warming

whakaheke — Tue, 04 May 2010 03:41:07 GMT

We could just uphold property rights

How do you propose we individualize property rights for something like the greenhouse gas emissions or affect on global temperature or share of responsibility for some imminent global catastrophe? These are externalities that cannot realistically be internalized. If you have a proposed method by which such property rights could be defined and enforced, I'd be interested in hearing it.

(Again, I'm not supporting the AGW alarmism here, just trying to detail a non-state solution to the problem hypothetically)

Re: A Non-State Solution to Global Warming

Esuric — Tue, 04 May 2010 03:38:24 GMT

Also, Richard Lindzen > Willie Soon.

I'll look into his work. Thanks.

I stated this in the op...

I didn't read the whole thing >< (or any of it really).