Political Theory

Re: Debating Global Warming

Ron Marquis — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:58:18 GMT

Global warming, Ice Ages, Reversing Polar Caps, Magnetic Field Reversals, Giant Astroids, YES, they are coming, they have been here before, and if the human species is so long-lived (which we don't act like we're meant to be), we might enjoy at least in those moments an actual TRUTH. Bless them, everyone, the dinasaurs managed not to eat each other out of existence before their great extinction, what ever the cause. I can only say, I'd be so thrilled to live to see the Apocolypse.

In final address to the endless research submitted with arguments by all individuals concerned, let me say, the experts in science once believed the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, and the Greeks thought a dog swallowed the moon, from time to time. There are no Bruce Willis', who will drill holes in astroids. there are no heros who will zap perfect storms. There will be nothing to prevent any of the global threats to humanity that we so aggressively debate solutions.

Instread there should be volumes for us to read regarding SURVIVING some or most of these possible events. Where's a good place to move to in the event of an Ice Age? What about surviving excessive heat? Can we build cities beneath the seas? Could we replenish the seas with fish after a radio active event proved deadly? Can the magnetic field be stabilized? Can a nuclear blast move the Earth back to its previous tilt??? If not, can we build individual shelters which could provide the necessary magnetic field to protect us and preserve some atmosphere in the event of a solar wind invasion.

Most modern people don't believe in any of this..Not the Apocolypse...not global warming.. not the prevention of any of these events, for that matter. The heated debates among those interested, or just amused at exchanging proof of wit, is evidenced here in these sites where mostly its "can happens" against the "can'ts". And best of luck to both sides who joust on paper horses.

Re: Debating Global Warming

John James — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:04:36 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Also here's a great lecture by Richard Lindzen of MIT.

And another.

Re: Debating Global Warming

xahrx — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:53:50 GMT

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Consensus.htm

I love this link. It even has quotes from current warming alarmists worrying about cooling.

Re: Debating Global Warming

Blueline976 — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:21:02 GMT

Sam Armstrong:
This is my favorite video series on the subject. I'd suggest anyone interested watch it. (I'm of the opinion that GW is real and caused by humans, but that it doesn't matter).

Potholer is great.

Re: Debating Global Warming

Mises Pieces — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:03:29 GMT

Sorry for the old bump, but lately I've been working in the greenhouse gas regulatory compliance field and have been pondering private property-based solutions to the AGW "problem". Though I'm not particularly well-versed on the scientific nuances of the debate, I am nevertheless extremely skeptical of AGW paranoia and to me it seems likely that the climate impact of greenhouse gas emissions is negligible.

However, just for the sake of discussion, let's assume that AGW is real and that CO2 emissions do in fact cause global temperature to increase. Is a property owner whose land has been demonstrably (I realize this would in most cases be difficult to prove) damaged or otherwise adversely affected by this temperature increase entitled, in principle, to any compensation from the polluters?

Since the atmosphere where the GHGs are deposited is, for the most part, unowned and unlikely to be homesteaded in the near future, there are no property owners up there to be damaged, so this is a much different case than air or water pollution where private property is directly affected by the physical presence of the pollutants. But when the property owner on the ground homesteads his land, does he also homestead the exit point for heat (upwards)? If we think about water, I think most here would agree that if a downstream property owner erects a dam on his property and inundates his upstream neighbor under an artificial lake, this would constitute aggression. Would the emission of a GHG greenhouse over someone's land, blocking the natural exit of heat, be a difference in kind or only degree?

Of course, assigning responsibility for the emissions would be a nightmare. Since it's a "global" phenomenon, conceivably everyone on Earth who burned any fuel (or even breathed!) could be considered an aggressor in the matter. Would compensation even be possible without some sort of insidious global carbon tax? Obviously, even if AGW were a real threat, practical concerns like these would make enforcement under property law extremely difficult, and maybe not even worth the trouble. But, conceding that, could the emission of GHGs into an unowned atmosphere ever, even if only in principle, constitute aggression against the property of others?

Re: Debating Global Warming

Sam Armstrong — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 06:56:14 GMT

This is my favorite video series on the subject. I'd suggest anyone interested watch it. (I'm of the opinion that GW is real and caused by humans, but that it doesn't matter).

Re: Debating Global Warming

Redmond — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 03:50:03 GMT

armchair climatology itt

Sorry I didn't put more links in, but I can if you like - anything you would like clarified?

Re: Debating Global Warming

Student — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 03:42:25 GMT

armchair climatology itt

Re: Debating Global Warming

Redmond — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 03:28:37 GMT

I was really interested in legitimacy of this GW thing last year, and now I lost interest, not because I stopped believing (I didn't) in GW, but because I don't really care anymore about it.

That is too bad - it is a real and dangerous threat to our standard of living in the west.

"Green Energy" policies in Spain have destroyed 2.2 jobs for every 1 "green" job created.

In Ontario, our "green" energy act is set to double the price of electricity, and is giving out millions if not billions in corporate welfare

Re: Debating Global Warming

Redmond — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 03:04:24 GMT

Global warming involves a number of questions often entangled up assumptively.

1. Is Global warming occuring?

It is universally accepted that it has been warming for the last 150 years

2. to what extent is it occuring?

we have warmed .6 deg C in that time, but have had warming periods and cooling periods. But you must remember that there are very few places in this world with 100 year temperature records, and even the US Temperature Network - the gold standard of the world is subject to question.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Free from feedbacks, doubling CO2 from pre-industrial times would lead to another .6 deg C

3. If yes would it be beneficial or not?

Even the IPCC admits that up to 2 degree C, warming is net beneficial - but it is doubtful that we will see that in the next 100 years.

4. what is the cause- manmade or natural or a mix?

Humans have some effect on climate, mostly on a local scale - sunspots and solar radiation are correlated to temperature swings.

CO2 has never been a driver of global temperatures, or of climate change - in fact over the last few hundred thousand years, CO2 levels lagged temperature by 800-1000 years, something that Al Gore convieniently forgot to mention in his movie.

5. If it's not beneficial ,can it be stopped? Obviously government cannot help but make the problem worse given what we know about tragedy of the commons,government subsidies to polluters etc.

It is naive and presumptuous to assume that we could stop the world from warming, or cooling for that matter.

We are due for another ice age soon, we should enjoy this warm weather while we can!

6. If it can be stopped but the solution is worse than global warming then is it worth it? Is it worth poverty or starvation? or going back to the stone age?

Can't be stopped - cutting use of fossil fuels is a meaningless gesture that causes undue hardship to millions, and will leave billions mired in poverty, and unable to rise out of it.

China is now building about two power stations every week

Here in Canada, if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, China and India will make up for it in a few months.

Re: Debating Global Warming

AnonLLF — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:56:24 GMT

I've been thinking about this for a long time and recently I settle on Global warming agnosticism i.e. I don't think we know if it is happening or not and possibly we can't know.

Global warming involves a number of questions often entangled up assumptively.

1. Is Global warming occuring?

2. to what extent is it occuring?

3. If yes would it be beneficial or not?

4. what is the cause- manmade or natural or a mix?

5. If it's not beneficial ,can it be stopped? Obviously government cannot help but make the problem worse given what we know about tragedy of the commons,government subsidies to polluters etc.

6. If it can be stopped but the solution is worse than global warming then is it worth it? Is it worth poverty or starvation? or going back to the stone age?

- that question would be tricky if in that situation (a) do something has bad consequences in long term and may not work and (b) do not has bad consequences either in the short term and definately in the long term.

What complicates the matter is scientists receiving government subsidies which ensures a bias which could be carried out to help statism however this does not mean it's necessarily not occuring remember the state co-opts a number of very real problems and claims it is the only solution.On the other side corporations fund studies to say it's not occuring.So there's a large amount of bias on both sides.

Like said above ,it doesn't help for us to just say "oh it doesn't matter" or if it is we have no solution.That makes us look weak and uncaring.

So yes denialists can be just as bad as advocates.Both have false arguments.Both promote myths.Honesty is the key.We should follow logic wherever it leads.

Re: Debating Global Warming

Redmond — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 19:55:55 GMT

The Earth is probably warming on average.

As Phil Jones put it, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, in addition it has been cooling since 2000.

on average since when?

Also, human activity is probably one of the causes of the warming.

There is good research to show that land use changes cause greater swings in local climates than CO2.

IPCC Predicitions are based on models, not observations.

All posit a highly sensitive climate driven by positive feedbacks.

the fact that the earths climate has remained relatively stable over 2 billion+ years means that it is probably governed by negative ones.

Human activity overall is a minor aspect of our climate system - long term ocean cycles probably have a far greater effect.

PDO, NAO, El Nino, La Nina.

Climate science is still very junior...

Re: Debating Global Warming

Solid_Choke — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 19:30:20 GMT

The Earth is probably warming on average. Also, human activity is probably one of the causes of the warming. Reducing CO2 emissions is a problem of civility norms, not of law.

Re: Debating Global Warming

Libertyandlife — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 19:27:12 GMT

People, people. We can't be so arrogant as to think we are going to destroy the earth. That's preposterous. Now the human race on the other hand.....

Re: Debating Global Warming

Redmond — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:45:30 GMT

I figured I'd start a thread where we can place some anti-global warming sources for when we need to debate people about it.

http://climateaudit.org/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.co2science.org/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

All good resources for realistic and rational opinons on CAGW and AGW and for that matter NON-AGW