Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 8
This article is pretty good if you must argue with denalists. I prefer to argue with those who are not closed minded. This article might help.

"As a general rule, it is not wise to engage with these people. They have already demonstrated that rationality is not a strong suit, so attempting to reason with them will only bring stress and pain to you both. But if you do want to engage with them — you have eight hours to kill; you are a masochist — we put together this handy, step-by-step guide for you to do so. Remember: speak slowly and, if necessary, draw pictures."
How to respond to people who say the cold weather disproves global warming
http://grist.org/news/how-to-respond-to-people-who-say-the-c...
Why abnormally cold weather doesn’t “disprove” global warming

1. It is winter. More specifically, it is January.
2. There’s a weird weather pattern that’s making it colder than it would otherwise be.

Climate Central notes the unusual “stratospheric warming event” that is causing the current cold temperatures. Be warned: This will likely confuse and frighten the person with whom you’re speaking. Take it slow.
3. For advanced listeners only: Researchers expected a colder winter — thanks to global warming.
4. But most importantly: Weather is not climate.

It’s hard for all of us, dim-witted coworkers and relatives aside, to differentiate between a hot or cold day and the concept that the climate is changing over time. One of the best, clearest explanations of the difference comes from this now-famous video: (see article)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I enjoyed some of the comments:

The writer needs to learn physics.
.
The earth is closest to the sun during Northern Hemisphere WINTER, and NOT, as he suggests, during summer.
.
The earth is farthest away during NH summer. During winter, the earth is about 91.5 million miles from the sun. Around July 4, it is 94.5 million miles.
.
The NH is in winter because of the tilt of the axis, and the sunlight is less direct. But we are about 3 million miles closer to the sun.
.
It would be a stretch, to take science advice from someone who gets such a basic concept wrong.


Can we use the same same reasoning to say that abnormally hot weather doesn't prove global man-made global warming.

Would Grist please compensate for this article by publishing another one entitled "How To Respond to People Who Condescend to Those With Whom They Disagree About Climate Science While Simultaneously Demonstrating Utter Ignorance of Why the Seasons Change"?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
heh heh ........poisoning your post with pejorative made up words like denialists.....


wow....

typical liberals......

typical greenies....

Even your famed institute in England (the one that hid all the email) admitted there has been no warming for 10 years.

Same for the US folks...no warming for ten years...


Yet, YOU insist there is warming. YOur a 'warmist'.....an 'eco-loon' out to impose your global warming hoax upon the rest of us to wrest trillions in 'reparations' for having emitted carbon, and then sloshing it into the Swiss bank accounts of 3rd world tyrants and their business tycoon buddies, with 10% getting stuck in commissions to hands of ilk like Al Gore and the rest of the 'carbon brokers'.


Sorry, we aren't drinking your Kool-aid.

The world 'may' be getting warmer due to natural cycles. We'll adapt.

We don't need a Nanny State to regulate every aspect of our lives, tax and tax and tax everything we do, send us back to the 1820s so they fell good, or tell us what we can eat for dinner.



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Obviously, if it is cold in her apartment, she needs better windows or better insulation, and probably should look for a more 'Gaia' friendly place to live!


I'm surprised she is wasting so much carbon keeping the place warm!......


Once carbon taxes kick in, she won't be able to afford the heat and will have to sell her iPad to pay for the heat bill....



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Yup... say goodbye. There isn't anything of value in your posts. Just political BS, politically inspired and counter to actual science and actual facts. Ten years is nothing in the raw surface temperature data, and failing to understand the difference between science and politics is YOUR fault, not anyone else's.

The contempt that you are held in for holding that sort of view is a very natural one, held by ANYONE who sees but cannot stop, his neighbour emptying his trash by tossing it over the fences, into other people's yards.

You, the libertarian, are advocating the continued wholesale violation of other people's property rights. You can't accept THAT so you have to deny that there is rubbish in the first place. Despite the science. FYWAFS.

Be that as it may, I am quite weary of your non-contribution and denials of reality.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Seems the article is a copy/paste lie-brary for the warmist that don't have a brain. It is aimed at the gullible and naive.

Up is down, warm is cold, day is night... and of course, anything that happens is worse. This coming spring, they will take credit for the nice weather.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You, the libertarian, are advocating the continued wholesale violation of other people's property rights.

Which property right? Is there a CFR you can reference?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Yeah mate... you too... and that IS the point.

You miss it because there isn't any LEGAL way to assert ownership of your share of the atmosphere. Because the law is limited in that respect and you are by your argument, asserting that it should remain so.

Nothing like a libertarian for making a complete botch of a basic and even philosophically attractive principle. As soon as it becomes inconvenient the two-faced nature of the philosophy becomes apparent.

Fill your boots with the legal catch-22 AND the risible logic.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
You miss it because there isn't any LEGAL way to assert ownership of your share of the atmosphere. Because the law is limited in that respect and you are by your argument, asserting that it should remain so.

There are many valid criticisms of libertarianism, but I'm not sure this is an accurate one.

You do not have ownership of 'your share' of the atmosphere. This is not merely the lack of a legal vehicle to assert that ownership - you do not have any property rights in the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is (for the most part) unowned. It is not owned the way a person can own real estate or chattel property. It isn't even owned the way that public parks or beaches or police cars are owned, with title vested in a governmental body that might hold it in 'trust' for the public. It is simply unowned.

We might speak of people having a 'share' in the atmosphere, or an interest in it - but that interest is not in the nature of a property right. It cannot be sold, conveyed, bartered, inherited, or devised. There is no right to control, no right to possess, no right to exclude others, and no right to consume. The atmosphere is a true commons, in which no one has a property right.

The irony is that libertarianism is often criticized (correctly IMHO) for arguing that commons should be subject to ownership as a way of getting more efficient use.

But it is wrong to accuse libertarians of being inconsistent by supporting the violation of "property rights" in the atmosphere in their resistance to climate change regulations. No one has property rights in the atmosphere, so there is no inconsistency.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"But it is wrong to accuse libertarians of being inconsistent by supporting the violation of "property rights" in the atmosphere in their resistance to climate change regulations. No one has property rights in the atmosphere, so there is no inconsistency."

Yet the commons IS destroyed, and there is NO response from any libertarian voice except to advocate fanciful ownership and lawsuit schemes (that was years ago) or deny that there is a problem. Injuries are thus indirectly done to people, to their children and even more to their children's children that would if done directly, justify the use of deadly force against the perpetrators.

The point I am making IS that libertarian philosophy cannot be applied to this problem, and is incapable of dealing with it. I probably should have called that "libertarian market" philosophy, as that is where the unreasonableness seems to be rooted.

A reasonable libertarian and I knew a few of those before climate change turned most of them into demented anti-scientific lunatics, would accept the necessity of an exception and look for the least intrusive/safest ways for the state to act. That search I enthusiastically support. I mistrust the corporations more than I mistrust the state, but have no trust in the government of the USA any more. It is a failed democracy.

http://boards.fool.com/quotthe-people-have-been-threatened-b...

You are correct that I use too broad a brush, but the last time I encountered an actual reasonable libertarian seems to me to be at least a decade ago. :-) I have come to the belief that libertarian principles are valuable but that as a philosophy it fails in much the same way as communism (which also has valuable insights) fails. It requires certain ideal qualities of individual people that no individual can be relied on to possess... and our society and its governments must be made up out of imperfect people.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
A reasonable libertarian and I knew a few of those before climate change turned most of them into demented anti-scientific lunatics, would accept the necessity of an exception and look for the least intrusive/safest ways for the state to act. That search I enthusiastically support. I mistrust the corporations more than I mistrust the state, but have no trust in the government of the USA any more. It is a failed democracy.

A valid criticism, but not one that involves inconsistency in protecting property rights.

That said, this just highlights the problems that you and I (and others) have discussed in the past. You can't just "look for the least intrusive/safest ways for the state to act," for two main reasons.

- There isn't a 'state' on the level at which action needs to be taken, at the global level. The UN (as an institution) isn't powerful enough to do it. You'd need to set up a new (and very powerful) international institution to fill this role.

- This state cannot just look for the "least intrusive" or "safest" ways to act, since it also has to balance fairness and justice. The fundamental question in reducing emissions is not how to do it, but who has to do it (and by how much).

You are correct that I use too broad a brush, but the last time I encountered an actual reasonable libertarian seems to me to be at least a decade ago. :-) I have come to the belief that libertarian principles are valuable but that as a philosophy it fails in much the same way as communism (which also has valuable insights) fails. It requires certain ideal qualities of individual people that no individual can be relied on to possess... and our society and its governments must be made up out of imperfect people.

Libertarianism may not have an answer to this debate, but neither do any other economic or social models based on nation-states. As I've said before, I think that the idea of an international treaty on climate change also requires certain ideal qualities of national governments that no national government can be relied on to possess - namely, a willingness to impose significant costs on its own citizenry for the benefit of people in other countries.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You miss it because there isn't any LEGAL way to assert ownership of your share of the atmosphere. Because the law is limited in that respect and you are by your argument, asserting that it should remain so.

So you're asserting a "right" that no country on earth recognizes?

Good luck with that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The fact that the right is moral rather than legal is not an impediment to its existence. The market fundamentalist religion that has seized hold of the US and has its people by the throat is a remarkably useless and irresponsible faith based enterprise.

When it has killed enough people it will be terminated by the survivors and it will not re-emerge until the generational memory of those survivors and their children, has dissipated. It is a mistake of epic proportions and it will generate a catastrophe to match.

I observe only that the followers of the religion, the free-market fundamentalists, are largely libertarian and remarkably free of any limitations of morality. Social darwinism is their guiding light. It is going to end badly? Yes. Do I feel contempt for the followers of the religion? Yes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The fact that the right is moral rather than legal is not an impediment to its existence. The market fundamentalist religion that has seized hold of the US and has its people by the throat is a remarkably useless and irresponsible faith based enterprise.

Is my right to the atmosphere diminished every time the population increases?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You persist on thinking of reasons why other people have NO right to the atmosphere. Yet if you were to take or destroy it all you'd be guilty of genocide... so there IS a right. Your questions expose a flaw in the way you view the world. I am sure you can explain it somehow... :-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The atmosphere is (for the most part) unowned. It is not owned the way a person can own real estate or chattel property.

How interesting. Why is this? Is there anything else that cannot be owned? You can own water rights and mineral rights. You can own air rights over your property. Is that different from owning the atmosphere above your property? Why can't you own part of the atmosphere? Where did this idea come from? Has it been tested in court?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
How interesting. Why is this? Is there anything else that cannot be owned? You can own water rights and mineral rights. You can own air rights over your property. Is that different from owning the atmosphere above your property? Why can't you own part of the atmosphere? Where did this idea come from? Has it been tested in court?

A good question, but the main reason you can't own part of the atmosphere mostly because no property system (at least, none that I'm aware of) provides for ownership of part of the atmosphere. You can own the volume of space above real estate (air rights), and you can prevent people from entering that space up to a certain height - but you don't own the physical gases within that space until you 'take' them (similar to downing a wild bird). Most commonly that's done by breathing, but if you fill a container with compressed air drawn from the column above your land, that would be the same thing.

There's lots of things that can't be owned. You can't own the color red. You can't own Beethoven's Fifth Symphony (that I'm aware of). You can't own the idea of a wheel. You can't own the sun or the stars in heaven. You can't own a person. The reason for this is, as with the atmosphere, "ownership" is a creation of law - and none of our legal systems currently embrace ownership of those things.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You can't own a person.

--

Legally maybe you can't own a person. But there are slaves today.

So if one can't own the air in total, can one pollute the air even if it is illegal? I say we can and we do because it is hard to deal with over 7 billion people polluting the air. We - all of us - are changing our climate by polluting our air (and of course myriad other ways of changing earth) and even if it might be illegal in some places, it still happens. Just like slavery.
Print the post Back To Top