Where is the injustice? By who, to whom?
So people who believe in ‘scientific consensus’ wich I take it, is mob rule in the realm of science, are real Austrians. These real Austrians also believe the claims of the ecoterrorists to be true.
And people who don’t agree are Marxists. Fine. Sounds very reasonable.
First of all, nobody has taken the stance that “science is bad”. (Must avoid sarcastic commentary…) Now, most certainly science can turn bad when controlled by money, as it has in some cases today. That, however, is not the point here, and nor will I go in great elaboratory detail. I will only say this: when research comes out that makes no sense, follow the lines of funding. If the bulk of funding is coming from an activist group, or some other party that has a vested interest in the research turning out a certain way, then chances are that the research is most likely bunk. (The good old ‘Cheerios’ Test and the “Food Pyramid” are two excellent examples of this.) If, however, the funding is coming from private entities which have no vested interest in the outcome outside of feasible utility of the research, or if the funding is coming from out of the pockets of the researchers (an increasingly rare event), then in all likelihood, the research will be more reliable than if any party were to have vested interest. Regardless of this, any and all scientific research should always be examined in detail from a scientific point of view, especially if the statements made by researchers (or what the media says they say) make no sense.
Second, your assertion (emphasis added) that nobody here has studied the issue from a scientific standpoint is plainly wrong and shows your ignorance and jumping to conclusions quite plainly. I, for my part, have studied the issue from a scientific standpoint, including examing the graphs and mathematics of the change not over the past 100, 200, or even 500 years, but as far back as the past few hundred thousand years. In giving detailed examination of those plots, just like I have done time and again in my college math and signals analysis courses, I have found that there is an overall periodic trend in climate change. Furthermore, a passing examination of the graphs will demonstarte clearly that there are several cycles involved. I came up with this analysis of the available data on my own within a whole five or ten minutes.
Wait, since when is it ignoring science to actually discuss science. Nobody here is saying there’s no change. The only questions are 1) whether or not it’s a bad thing and 2) whether or not mankind is responsible. Bad thing or not aside, there is little to no evidence of human responsibility. The entire crux of manmade global warming is that the amount of solar energy entering the earth’s atmosphere is a constant, which it most clearly is not. Changes in the supposed “Solar Constant” have been measured regularly since the first changes were measured back in the 1970s. It is impossible to say, therefore, that mankind is solely responsible, whilst totally ignoring influx of solar energy. The argument that drastic increases and decreases in solar energy are insignificant is totally assinine.
And nobody here has on the sole basis of who has proposed it, but I will be doing so momentarily. On the other hand, the United Nations has repeatedly put scientists names down on their statements regarding manmade GW, even after said scientists withdrew from proceedings, even when they did so under protest. By the way, I recall reading older texts by the exact same “experts” now pushing global warming warning of the “evils of global cooling caused by mankind” and how we were all going to freeze to death. If a scientist can’t even make up his mind about what phenomenon he or she is observing, then I think it would be extremely prudent for people to take what they say with a grain of salt.
Fully agreed, and many people have done so, only to be met with commentary like this. As soon as a sound refutation is made, we are caled “biased”, “unobjective”, or even “charlatans” and “liars”. Which would you really have it? Sound, scientific refutation (which has already been made) only to be called biased liars? Or conformity to a nonexistent scientific norm?
In actuality, the Libertarian sources happen to be the least biased of them all. Most of the available so-called sources are owned by organizations such as Green Peace and the Sierra Club, or one of their myriad of sister and daughter organizations. Furthermore, even if it is biased, so what? Is it any different from the United Nations illegally keeping the signatures of some 1200 scientist on their formal disclosures even after being formally ordered by US courts to remove the names. As for why they were supposed to remove the names, the scientists had sued the United Nations after the UN had rejected their petition to have their names removed. They had wished their names removed because the UN documents had misquoted them, had added words they did not say, and had grossly misstated their conclusions.
Yes, I am supposed to trust the word of great scientists and experts like Leonardo diCaprio and Al Gore. Seriously, most of the so-called experts I have heard speaking out in favor of man-made global warming and its supposed threats have one of two credentials: politicians or actors. The fact is that most real scientists could really care less. Why? Because the threat is blown out of proportion by fools and charlatans. I know people who have mathematically figured out factors such as ocean rise, and I have even reviewed the math. Sorry, but I don’t see the Empire State Building sinking under a whole 39 inch rise in water levels when it’s ground floor is 15 feet above sea level, unless of course it’s just a model or some really poorly done CGI.
However, I should also point out that climate change is it a threat to the current national establisments and potentially to the current way of life for many people. Climate changes cause shifts in weather patterns which in turn cause shifts in the food supply which can cetainly impact an economy. I daresay an economy that no longer feeds itself because it’s food supply has moved or diminished is not exactly stable. Perhaps Northern England would have once again been growing large grape crops, and become known for its wine. I should also note that large portions of Norse society had their way of life disturbed and were even displaced by climate change during the late 8th Century beginning into the 9th Century. It was the reason why so many of their youth took to Viking, be it as explorers or raiders. However, climate change is most certainly not a threat to mankind’s existence as people have made it look. Things will change, absolutely, but things are always changing.
When the major initial pushers of the warning, however, are government officials and supporters of said officials it should be a major red flag. The first major pushers I remember of global warming were the United Nations, Al Gore, and a bunch of people in Hollywood. Naturally, it’s going to be red flags for me. I should also point out that the person who initially theorized Global Warming was simply contradicting the “scientific concensus” of the 1970s and 1980s that we were all going to freeze to death due to “greenhouse gases” and he was pointing out that, even though the 1970s had seen drops in average temperatures in some locations, there was still an overall warming trend…a trend which has since broken, and will probably turn to a cooling trend.
Let’s assume that their shoddy claim is true: humans are causing catastrophic climate change.
Okay.
Now, which is a larger violation of rights: the temperature increase due to me using a lightbulb, or the government using force to keep me from using a lightbulb?
That’s all there is to wonder about!
Well, if you’re acting unjustly by using the light bulb, then obviously that would be the larger violation of rights. That’s like asking, “Which is the larger violation of rights? Me stealing something from your store, or you chasing me down on the street and tackling me to get it back?”
Let me see if I’m getting this right : Institutionalized violence used against people who dare turning on their lights is, according to your book, an instance of ‘libertarian justice’ ? Perhaps you also think that war is peace and ignorance is strength ?
I think you are all being harsh on Danny. I don’t agree with him in full, but he has a point that if global warming is anthropogenic, liberterianism better have a possible solution to the problems it’ll pose. If we believe firmly in the non-aggression principle, it will not do to say “oh but it’ll do more good than evil!” What happened to the impossibility of interpersonal cardinal utility comparisons and the like? Instead of fighting the hypotheticals, try suggest ways in which the market can solve the problem. There are papers on the list I put together regarding environmentalism - take the time and read them.
He is right. If indeed consuming electricity is a cause of harm, then it is right to use force against this. But the consumption of electricity never produces CO2. It is (though not always) its production. So Danny, even if we take the human cause of a harmful global warming for granted, it is not right to prevent people for using electricity. It would be right to prevent them for producing electricity in a way that is proven to cause damages to other people.
Excuse me ? Using overt violence against people engaging in non-violent activities is a valid approach within the libertarian framework ?
Pollution is a form of violence. That’s why I precised that turning the light on can not in any way be considered as polluting, but that the production of electricity could.
I apologize if this post is scattered.
Breathing increases global temperatures, too. Same with having children. In fact, the very existence of your living body increases global temperatures!
As a non-believer in “natural”-rights, the way I look at government is this: which policy results in the least control being exercised by one individual over another and his/her property?
If I am using an Edison-bulb, breathing, having children, or living, the resulting increase in temperature increase is much less controlling than you storming into my home with a gun, forcing me stop.
It’s impossible to live in a way that has no effect on other people. In fact, if I plant too many trees and produce too much algae, I may end up lowing global temperatures. Should that be stopped? If I breathe directly on someone, even from 4 or 5 feet away, I’m increasing temperatures much more than using a light bulb in my bedroom, as far as they are concerned. Should that be stopped?
However, ff I am billowing out hot, carcinogenic smoke from a factory next to your house, than I am violating your rights more than you if you decided to stop me.
If I rob your store, either by gunpoint or behind your back, than I am absolutely exercising more control over you and your property and person than you if you try to stop me.
The real question is “is CO2 a pollution?” That would mean that just by living you are polluting, that by definition a living being is an agressor. That alone is stupid enough, even without considering the reality of manmade global warming.
What I said in fewer words!
Enviros will of course argue that indeed anything man does causes pollution and so he must be stopped at any cost..
Well I’m not sure how right-libertarians would approach the issue, but a left-libertarian could coherently argue that we have a right to a fair share of the atmosphere’s capacity to absorb CO2 without any objectionable results, and that anyone using only their fair share would be completely absolved of responsibility for harmful climate change. My intuition is that you have every right to emit a quantity of CO2 such that if everyone emitted that amount, no harm would result. If other people emit more, then that shouldn’t mean that you did something wrong. However, that’s just an intuition at this point. It’s probably the most researched and thought out intuition I’ve ever held, but I’m not really prepared to defend it yet.
The world couldn’t handle everyone having 4-6 kids. Should it be illegal?
I’m sorry, how does that relate to anything?
I begin to become weary whenever anyone speaks of a “fair share” to something as abstract as the “environment.”
Why stop at the outer-limits of the sky? Why not a fair share of aesthetic cleanliness? Fair share of clean air in the elevator as one stands next to the guy with poor hygiene?
I don’t think the terminology of left-libertarian particularly comes in hand at all on this issue. Yes, a left-libertarian would suggest that, as all are equal, all have equal rights. However, he must also differentiate between the need to protect rights and the need to enhance aesthetic enjoyment.
You wrote this:
If the criteria for an action’s legality is whether or not any harm would arise if everyone did it, then my children analogy makes sense.
Having 4-6 children would result not only in more CO2, but in likely food and space shortages as well, especially in 2-3 generations. “Harm” would be done if everyone did that, but that doesn’t mean it should be stopped by using force.
Why wouldn’t my children have their own share? I mean, I agree that the size of shares would be inextricably tied to the number of people who live over the entire time my CO2 would remain in the atmosphere. And I agree that that’s a problem. But having children wouldn’t be the issue; the difficulty would be in determining the appropriate size of one’s fair share in light of uncertainties about future population size.