Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: global monkeys  (Read 2722 times)

GhengisConrad

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
  • I am human
    • My Resume
global monkeys
« on: June 07, 2007, 05:28:39 am »

Global Warming. Last time it was global cooling. But if what these buisnesss are doing causes harm to other people, theyre using force so....

thoughts?
Logged
"I will not help you to pretend I have a chance. I will not help you to preserve the appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognized. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you to pretend that you are administering justice."- Hank Rearden page 443

dalebert

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: global monkeys
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2007, 10:48:14 am »

Global Warming. Last time it was global cooling. But if what these buisnesss are doing causes harm to other people, theyre using force so....

"These businesses"? You don't release any carbon dioxide? If you're a customer to a business that is releasing "too much" CO2, can I shoot you? For that matter, can I shoot you for breathing?

If a business is doing clear harm and peaceful methods have not been effective, like not buying from them, not working for them, and dragging their name through the proverbial dirt in the press, then I could see the justification for defensive force. What you're talking about is controlling what EVERYONE does on a massive scale. That takes a pretty elaborate scheme of justification. It's far from clear that harm is being done. It's more likely that more CO2 in our atmosphere is a good thing. It has massive benefit. It's not even clear that increased CO2 has a significant or even noticable effect on global temperature, and if it does, the warming will probably do more good than harm. The doomsayers only talk about the potential downsides and exaggerate even those to ridiculous degrees that even most of the believers don't buy into.

Addressing this "threat" with government is a very dangerous proposition that will call for a massive expansion of government's involvement in our lives. Even if it means people who have chosen high risk places to live on the sea shore have to move, I'd prefer that. The cost for that would be cheaper than the cost of stopping global warming. In fact, they haven't presented a plan that would actually work so it's really just a lesson in futility and guilt. Let's just adjust to a warmer climate if that's what it takes to avoid this excuse for more government control over our lives. I can't even support the government subsidized insurance that keeps rebuilding their houses now whenever there's flooding. To the beach house snobs, I say "Live Free or Move".

CA_Libertarian

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 473
  • FSP Member 2007
Re: global monkeys
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2007, 02:08:28 pm »

I have yet to see solid evidence that shows a connection between human activity and global warming.  I read a National Geographic article that showed a global warming trend on Mars that parallels the one occurring here on earth.  Since there is no industrial activity on Mars, this suggests a different cause.

However, as an asthmatic, I do take offense to people causing unnecessary pollution.  Where I live in the central valley of California, between the cows, tree pollens, and smog I have a lot of trouble playing any sort of sports.  So, I do feel that there is an issue with human pollution.  I just think "global warming" may be a fearmongering tactic.
Logged
www.pledgebank.com/Next1000

The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
~Thomas Paine (1737–1809)

greap

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1009
  • What we have here is a failure to communicate
Re: global monkeys
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2007, 05:33:08 pm »

I have yet to see solid evidence that shows a connection between human activity and global warming.  I read a National Geographic article that showed a global warming trend on Mars that parallels the one occurring here on earth.  Since there is no industrial activity on Mars, this suggests a different cause.

However, as an asthmatic, I do take offense to people causing unnecessary pollution.  Where I live in the central valley of California, between the cows, tree pollens, and smog I have a lot of trouble playing any sort of sports.  So, I do feel that there is an issue with human pollution.  I just think "global warming" may be a fearmongering tactic.

Not to mention that the "foremost" body on this issue, the IPCC, has a very interesting way of writing their papers in that politicians write a summary to support whatever point they want to make and then they get "scientists" to write the main body to support the summary.

Ah and the fact the popular environmentalists seem to lie habitually. If human anatomy matched that of Pinocchio we could walk to the moon on just one of their noses.
Logged
_____________________________________________________________

Browning

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
  • I am no llama
Re: global monkeys
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2007, 07:49:54 am »

Oh yes, we have this terrible global warming, caused by the evil capitalist industry of the West... But there is a hope: let the Germans show how to tax the economy to its death! The German goverment programs are very good and thorough at solving problems faced by the humanity! If history teaches us a lesson, than this is the one!

Wait, wasn't there the ozone hole?

Weren't we about to die of mobile phones' radiation?

Weren't the forests of Europe dying?

Reading old news can be refreshing sometimes...


Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: global monkeys
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2007, 08:48:46 am »

Global Warming. Last time it was global cooling. But if what these buisnesss are doing causes harm to other people, theyre using force so....

thoughts?

The “global warming—but last time it was global cooling” counter to the global-warming arguments has already been pretty thoroughly discredited; don’t use this. The global cooling theories in the 1970s were pretty short-lived and didn’t have the sort of broad support that GW does. It’s pretty easy for the GW supporters to simply respond with “yes, we thought it was cooling, we were wrong, this is how science is supposed to work,”  and in a way they’re actually right about this: scientific theories do change and it’s not hypocritical for scientists to be saying something completely different thirty years after they said the first thing.

A far better strategy is to go after all the uncertainty surrounding anthropogenic climate change—the theory that it’s human beings and human activity that’s causing the Earth to heat up. That the Earth was warmer in the past, that the relationship between temperature increase and CO2 increases is actually inverted, (as someone else has already said) Mars is showing evidence of climate change now, and so on.

And then of course, there’s my favorite strategy for discrediting any argument: Always remember to ask, Qui bono? Who benefits? If you can demonstrate a person has ulterior motives in presenting an argument, they’ve a very hard time appearing credible even if what they’re saying sounds good in theory. The GW crowd is very good in painting all opponents as lackeys of the oil industry, so let’s look at who benefits on their side.

Is it any coincidence that the biggest proponents of anthropogenic global warming are UN organs—the very entities who will amass a considerable amount of power and influence if we “do something” about global warming? If we end up with a global carbon tax, guess who gets to collect this tax? Guess who gets to vastly expand their bureaucracy and budget in order to collect this tax? Is it any coincidence that one of the most heavily forested countries in the world, Canada, is also one of the biggest proponents of the Kyoto treaty, a treaty which grants special economic privileges to countries in possession of natural carbon sinks, e.g., forests? (And they accuse the U.S. of opposing action because of economic concerns—tu quoque!) Is it any coincidence that much of the proposed action against climate change amounts to “regulate this or that economic activity; tax this or that,” and many environmentalists are heavily involved in other anti-capitalist activism?
Logged

lasse

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 341
Re: global monkeys
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2007, 10:10:35 am »

Environmentalists are melons; green on the outside, red on the inside.

All environmentalist proposals are socialist solutions to a non-socialist problem.
Logged
(not that lasse, the other lasse)

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil - Isaiah 5:20

Ron Helwig

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 413
    • Shire Silver
Re: global monkeys
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2007, 09:54:39 am »

Saw this thought elsewhere:

Who says that the current temps are optimal? A warmer planet is likely to be a boon for pretty much everyone except those living closest to the oceans at sea level.

Global warming means more trees and other vegetation. It means more, and likely more varied, wildlife. Most likely it will mean more and better farmland.
Logged
Are you a Next 1000 liberty activist?

Rebuild the precious metal economy with Shire Silver

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: global monkeys
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2007, 09:19:30 am »

Saw this thought elsewhere:

Who says that the current temps are optimal? A warmer planet is likely to be a boon for pretty much everyone except those living closest to the oceans at sea level.

Global warming means more trees and other vegetation. It means more, and likely more varied, wildlife. Most likely it will mean more and better farmland.

Global warming means things are going to change, perhaps drastically. And we all know liberals and progressives oppose change and want to keep things exactly the way they are.

…Wait, what?
Logged

Browning

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
  • I am no llama
Re: global monkeys
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2007, 01:34:34 am »

The “global warming—but last time it was global cooling” counter to the global-warming arguments has already been pretty thoroughly discredited; (..)
You are right. But it is sometimes worth to show all this doomsday scenarios that failed to realise, with the media jumping just onto the next threat. What happened to:
- bird flu
- Creutzfeld-Jacobs disease
- mad cows
...and if we dig deeper:
- Halley comet's tail in 1910?
What I miss is a simple statement "We are sorry folks, we were wrong on that one. We shouldn't have tried to set you in panic, we just wanted to sound intriguing."
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up