Global warming. Fact or bullshit?

[Proletar]

Your thoughts please.

 

[SMO]

Probably, caused exclusively by mankind probably not. I know that is ambiguous answer, I just didn't want your post to sit here all alone on such an interesting topic (not being smarmy).

 

[TriflinThomas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtY8DpA_XNE

 

[BridgeOfSighs]

The earth has natural patterns of heating and cooling. I do think we've had a hand in speeding up the global heating process. Do I think we can reverse the side effects? Probably not without changing most everything about our daily routine. And even though we do know how to curb the heating I don't think most people, including myself, would actually change habits all that much to slow down the process.

Besides, most of us will be dead in 60 years.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I think anthropogenic global warming is BS.

 

[Analyzer]

I think anthropogenic global warming is BS.

definitely

 

[Architect]

Happening for sure.

Probably - this time - it is due to us.

Don't understand why people get their panties in a bind if it is our 'fault'. Suspect a anthropocentric/religious mindset.

Not overly worried about the consequences. Look for a technological solution to problem.

 

[Intellect]

Happening for sure.
Look for a technological solution to problem.

Exactly.

When Thomas Malthus proposed the law of diminishing returns and the fact that population growth would create a demand for food that couldn't possibly be met, he failed to account for scientific innovation.

Since Malthus and his contemporaries died, the population has grown exponentially -- probably more than he could have realistically predicted, but we've managed to solve that issue. I have no reason to think global warming will be any different.

Human's may be harmful for the planet -- but we're also great problem solvers.

 

[Absurdity]

I hate how global warming/climate change has become a political topic rather than a scientific one. It is not up for debate like capital punishment or whatever, it should be studied and assessed according to the scientific method. Oftentimes people are afraid to broach the subject because, god forbid, it might ruffle the feathers of one's idiotic belief system.

I was at a talk given by a professor (engineering) at my school in another professor's (history) apartment. The engineering professor was about to bring up the topic of climate change but paused to make sure he wasn't stepping on any toes and asked us if we "believed" in it.

Without a pause, I responded, "It operates independent of belief."

I think all of the climate change deniers should be marooned on remote islands of miniscule elevation and be forced to slowly drown as the rising sea level closes in around them.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Happening for sure.

Probably - this time - it is due to us.

Don't understand why people get their panties in a bind if it is our 'fault'. Suspect a anthropocentric/religious mindset.

Not overly worried about the consequences. Look for a technological solution to problem.

I agree with all points except the last one. Technological salvation has historically been and always will be luck, and I even argue that a specific technology isn't even necessary.

At this point we have a pretty good idea of what to do, it's just that the threshold to action has yet to be breached. Specific tech merely lowers the threshold.

 

[DreamMancer]

People who doubt that it's happening, or that it's caused by human activities, strike me as being either ignorant of the science or blinded by certain ideological commitments. Fossil fuel companies are engaging in the same low tactics used by the tobacco companies when they were confronted by evidence linking smoking to adverse health outcomes.

It does not take an advanced degree to see how acidifying oceans, increased CO2 in the atmosphere, etc, are the result of burning fossil fuels. A while back Tom Murphy, a physicist at the University of California San Diego, published a short piece that provides some back-of-the-envelope calculations which easily account for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 as a result of human emissions. It's very straightforward and easy to follow:

A Recipe for Climate Change

 

[travelnjones]

fiction: matter does not exist

 

[EditorOne]

"At this point we have a pretty good idea of what to do, it's just that the threshold to action has yet to be breached."

Undeniably true. However, it is possible that the threshold to action is somewhere beyond the threshold of irreversible change, is it not? That is, irreversible in terms of the survivability of average individuals - imagine a climate that changes faster than the ability of our species or most species to adapt and which requires many lifetimes to correct.

Be a good dystopian novel.

 

[DreamMancer]

"At this point we have a pretty good idea of what to do, it's just that the threshold to action has yet to be breached."

Undeniably true. However, it is possible that the threshold to action is somewhere beyond the threshold of irreversible change, is it not? That is, irreversible in terms of the survivability of average individuals - imagine a climate that changes faster than the ability of our species or most species to adapt and which requires many lifetimes to correct.

Be a good dystopian novel.

But an awful dystopian reality.

 

[Analyzer]

Ice age is coming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ucpzabzFM&feature=plcp

 

[DreamMancer]

Ice age is coming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ucpzabzFM&feature=plcp

Corbyn's predictions have proven erratic over the years. His company has been wrong about as often as it's been right.

Me, I think the NOAA is a more accurate source of information on the climate.

We can continue to trade links, of course, but this "debate" is pointless in the face of increasing climatic instability and the general trend of warming. Those of us who look at the facts will continue to hold to what the evidence points to, unless and until new evidence suggests otherwise. Deniers, of course, will continue to ignore the majority of evidence because it does not fit with their worldview.

As Max Planck said, truth never triumphs, its opponents just die out. For the sake of our species, I sincerely hope it's not too late when the last of you deniers are moldering in the ground.

 

[Analyzer]

Isn't the majority evidence proven wrong time and time again in history?

Also, you have to look at the effects for pushing global warming agenda. Carbon taxes, regulations, Agenda 21, and overall central planning. Being led by authority figures and majority opinion has always been the approach in the world.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

 

[nanook]

my vote is always for: it's irrelevant. reducing pollution and inventing sustainable ways is utterly urgent simply for humanitarian reasons and also for the love of elegance and coherency, which i consider to be headstones of collective sanity. the whole discussion often looks like a distraction to me. make it appear like the necessity of those (required) changes depends on whether something, that can never be proven to the individual, is true or not (who can sort out all the stories - most can't, if anyone can) - make sure people will be feel unable to choose/vote for/demonstrate for action.

 

[nanook]

i mean, people don't realize that they are getting more plastic than vitamins with their diet. who cares about the ozon layer, when you get your cancer not from the sun, but from your mother's milk?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

i mean, people don't realize that they are getting more plastic than vitamins with their diet. who cares about the ozon layer, when you get your cancer not from the sun, but from your mother's milk?

I've just got to point out for clarification purposes: There's no reason that multiple problems can't be attacked from multiple fronts. The main issue is that most of those problems are in the life sciences, which leads to the amount of collective human attention able to be devoted to them is disproportionately smaller than the amount of devotion required to fix them. The real solution is increasing scientific literacy instead of only adjusting the priority of specific problems. We're approaching it... slowly... (?)

 

[Vrecknidj]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-causes

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/

 

[PhoenixRising]

In 2006, I took an astronomy class. My professor (one of my favorite teachers ever) had some associates that were doing research on global warming at the time. He told me that the entire solar system, not just the Earth, was heating up. Jupiter had expanded to be a bit larger than usual because it's a gas planet, and the ice caps on Mars had melted. This was due to the solar cycle causing the sun to release an unusually large amount of energy. The sun then quieted in 2010-2011, causing some cooler than usual temperatures, and resulting in the severe winter storms and longer cold seasons that were seen. This is when politicians decided to call it "climate change" instead of "global warming" because there were both warmer and cooler temperatures.

Then there was climategate. I mean, how much more obvious can it get that the social issue of "anthropogenic climate change" is nothing but political smoke and mirrors? Green energy is a good thing. However, the reason politicians are promoting such an idea is because the people who fund their campaigns and control the Federal Reserve and Wall Street are highly invested in green energy. Solar, wind, biofuel, these are all very rich investment opportunities that corporate tycoons have preemptively taken advantage of.

I agree whole heartedly that "climate change" should not be a political topic. Scientific evidence for or against it should be released to the public by accredited scientists who are not being paid by special interest groups. I also agree we should pursue clean energy solutions because it's the right thing to do.

 

[redbaron]

I don't know what to call it, but am I the only one who doesn't really care all that much about the issue?

As far as I know, life as we know it is going to be extinct eventually. Maybe by then we'll have developed the technology to travel to other habitable zones in the universe, but if the human race becomes extinct in 100 or 10 billion years it's ultimately not of great consequence.

I just don't have that real desire or feeling that the human race, 'needs' to continue to exist.

 

[Architect]

I don't know what to call it, but am I the only one who doesn't really care all that much about the issue?

apathy?

I just don't have that real desire or feeling that the human race, 'needs' to continue to exist.

That's unfortunate. That feeling would lead to a pointless and listless life - for me.

 

[redbaron]

That's unfortunate. That feeling would lead to a pointless and listless life - for me.

It's more just to do with the issue of global warming. I would like to learn about it, but don't care enough to wade through the sea of misinformation in order to expand my knowledge.

So yeah, apathy I guess in relation to what happens to the human race as a result of, 'climate change'.

Besides, if Ice Age has taught me anything, it's that I can always find a talking woolly mammoth named, 'Manny' to keep me safe.

 

[crippli]

Something I rarely see mentioned, if ever, is that it could be smart to burn and release fossil fuels steadily as happens now. It's just waste products from biological material. And if this stuff continued to accumulate for millions of years more, we could be sitting on quite the fire bomb. I wonder if we are not doing just what nature wants us to do, doing the dirty work. A bit more dirty work and carbondioxide is again made into biomass. I presume one will see a shift in the life forms when more Carbon is brought into circulation, as Carbon is the main building block of life.

I am not worried the planet is going to fail in transforming CO2. At some point earlier there was probably much more CO2 in the atmosphere then we can ever manage to release. And see what lovely creatures emerged from that, well, that is us.

I feel like we are having, gentle actually, sex with nature, and new children will be created.

 

[Vidi]

Global warming. Fact or bullshit?

Bull$hit with dollar signs. The campaign would have never gained such a widespread exposure and backing if it weren't quite so financially profitable and rewarding scheme with the added advantage of supposedly eco-friendly image fronting the whole idea, making it quite easy to manipulate public with minimum hassle in any direction required. Overused saying, but.. money makes world spin here, or rather melt.


The most entertaining piece of advice I've ever heard in regards to global warming was to ditch your more 'powerful' light bulb in preference for something more economical... right, that's of course after they did all their military nuclear testing in deserts and oceans..

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Carbon is the main building block of life.

I feel like we are having, gentle actually, sex with nature, and new children will be created.

The reason carbon is the building block of life is because it's not a limiting resource.

As far as sex with nature, that only happens after you understand her systems. Otherwise it's about as effective as a dog dry humping a pillow.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Bull$hit with dollar signs. The campaign would have never gained such a widespread exposure and backing if it weren't quite so financially profitable and rewarding scheme with the added advantage of supposedly eco-friendly image fronting the whole idea, making it quite easy to manipulate public with minimum hassle in any direction required. Overused saying, but.. money makes world spin here, or rather melt.


The most entertaining piece of advice I've ever heard in regards to global warming was to ditch your more 'powerful' light bulb in preference for something more economical... right, that's of course after they did all their military nuclear testing in deserts and oceans..

The notion of an oncoming global catastrophe vs profiteering scheme isn't exactly a false dichotomy.

 

[Vidi]

^ I omitted to mention, but it was assumed that I don't hold with global catastrophe scenario. I just picked up from there and specified the category where I thing this particular brand of bullshit belongs.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

^ I omitted to mention, but it was assumed that I don't hold with global catastrophe scenario.

You also can't rule it out. Climate data + the history of modern man's existence, specifically the conditions under which we've existed.

 

[Architect]

Bull$hit with dollar signs. The campaign would have never gained such a widespread exposure and backing if it weren't quite so financially profitable and rewarding scheme with the added advantage of supposedly eco-friendly image fronting the whole idea, making it quite easy to manipulate public with minimum hassle in any direction required. Overused saying, but.. money makes world spin here, or rather melt.


The most entertaining piece of advice I've ever heard in regards to global warming was to ditch your more 'powerful' light bulb in preference for something more economical... right, that's of course after they did all their military nuclear testing in deserts and oceans..

Do you seriously believe this? The evidence for global warming is real and very physical. The size of the polar ice cap, the loss of glaciers and rising sea levels which are already causing trouble for low lying countries. Deniers had some room in the past but nobody - nobody in the public eye pretends to believe otherwise now. All they do now is to argue whether we caused it or not, an extraordinarily stupid waste of time but is the best form of passive disagreement they could come up with.

The deniers seem to dislike it on religious grounds, yours seem to be monetary. In point of fact conservation is financially rewarding to both the seller and the consumer.

 

[Vidi]

Global temperature fluctuations been happening for centuries, there's nothing new in it, and it hardly constitutes or implies immediate global catastrophe, just business as usual. In the case if the cause were of our making, and there were any real danger of us floating off the globe, I would expect situation to be on red alert and much more serious measures taken through out industries and governments. Anyway I believe our ingenious industry will just as sooner poison us then drown

 

[Velo]

Chiming in as an actual scientist, though admittedly of the non-climate researcher type, the evidence for global warming comes in as factual.

Global temperature fluctuations been happening for centuries, there's nothing new in it, and it hardly constitutes or implies immediate global catastrophe, just business as usual.

Yes, temperature fluctuations have happened in the past, but this does not discount global warming. If global temperature suddenly rose 5, 10, or 20 degrees (C or F, doesn't matter in this example), would this be ignored because temperatures fluctuated in the past? My point here is that the changes beeing seen today fall far outside the range of past fluctuations. Plus we can further correlate the temperature data with models of the influence of greenhouse gases on the climate.

... I would expect situation to be on red alert and much more serious measures taken through out industries and governments.

Industry and government don't seem to treat this as a "red alert" situation, so therefore it's not? When the established industries benefit financially from the status quo, and the same industries drive government to keep the status quo, it's very difficult to make progress on the issue.

Isn't the majority evidence proven wrong time and time again in history?

Also, you have to look at the effects for pushing global warming agenda. Carbon taxes, regulations, Agenda 21, and overall central planning. Being led by authority figures and majority opinion has always been the approach in the world.

Yes, the vast majority has been proven wrong in the past. In fact, the earliest theories of global warming were met by the established research community with skepticism at best, and with ridicule at worst. After years of data analysis, modelling, and research, the majority opinion in the climate research community has shifted sides and now believes global warming is real. That's the way science often works when overturning established theories.

One often-used argument against global warming is that the scientific community has a vested financial stake in perpetuating it, but the money on the scientific side is dwarfed by the money on the industrial side pushing to ignore the problem. Now we are seeing some of the investment money move to the side to deal with global warming.

In fact, any scientist who is driven purely by financial gain should take his/her intelligence and apply it to the fields of law or business where the real money is. Among the reasons for getting into science, the least heard are:

1. Money
2. Groupies
3. Political power
4. Fame

Sure, scientiests are human, even the INTP types, and we can be influenced by worldly temptations, but compared to what goes on in industry and government, I'll trust the motivations of scientists first.

-Velo

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Chiming in as an actual scientist

What flavor? And don't tell anyone, but I'm totally in it for the groupies.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

What flavor?

Eggnog.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Eggnog.

Hands off the groupies

 

[Velo]

What flavor? And don't tell anyone, but I'm totally in it for the groupies.

Flavor: Physics, with a speciality in optics. Lots of climate researchers in town, though.

Groupies: Since I met my wife in grad school, maybe this should be higher on the motivational list.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Do engineers get groupies?

 

[DreamMancer]

Do engineers get groupies?

Not if they deny climate change is happening or primarily caused by humans

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Not if they deny climate change is happening or primarily caused by humans

Well, that would only eliminate potential environmentalist groupies. I suppose that be more a gain than a loss.

By the way, use the proper term which infers the hypothesis. In case you have forgotten it is 'anthropogenic global warming' not 'climate change'.

 

[DreamMancer]

By the way, use the proper term which infers the hypothesis. In case you have forgotten it is 'anthropogenic global warming' not 'climate change'.

Oh my, I do apologize. I didn't realize there was "proper" term for the phenomenon of fossil fuel induced radiation entrapment (which, in case you had "forgotten" is well beyond the point of being a "hypothesis" and is more along the lines of a "working assumption" for climate research, as it is an extremely well characterized physical process). I will be sure to consult the Deniers' Academy of Obfuscation next time before posting to ensure that my verbiage is up to their high standards.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Do engineers get groupies?

Perhaps you can join the er... harem (?). Right now I officially have 7. Always recruiting

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Oh my, I do apologize. I didn't realize there was "proper" term for the phenomenon of fossil fuel induced radiation entrapment (which, in case you had "forgotten" is well beyond the point of being a "hypothesis" and is more along the lines of a "working assumption" for climate research, as it is an extremely well characterized physical process). I will be sure to consult the Deniers' Academy of Obfuscation next time before posting to ensure that my verbiage is up to their high standards.

The primary goal of language is to convey information with clarity. When you use language in a perverse way, as you have, you diminish its efficiency of its purpose. The next thing we know, we're living in a world where people's minds can only be characterized as being the result of explosive defecation.

Principles of INGSOC:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 

[DreamMancer]

The primary goal of language is to convey information with clarity. When you use language in a perverse way, as you have, you diminish its efficiency of its purpose.

Kindly explain how my use of language was "perverse", or my meaning unclear in the following statement:

Not if they deny climate change is happening or primarily caused by humans.

Incidentally, "global warming" refers primarily to the increase in average surface temperature of the earth due to rising levels of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity. In this context, "climate change" refers to the long term changes in the earth's climate brought about as a result of increasing average global temperature.

Now in a scientific context, these terms refer to distinct phenomena. In a scientific paper which was exclusively focused on average surface temperature increases, "global warming" would be the preferred term; in a scientific paper exclusively focused on broader trends in climate, "climate change" would be the preferred term. However sometimes "climate change" is used inclusive of the phenomenon of "global warming"; this is how both NASA and the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change often employ the latter term. Thus if "climate change" is understood to be broader than but inclusive of the phenomenon of warming, it is a perfectly acceptable term.

All of this is quite irrelevant, however, since in a colloquial setting both terms are readily interchangeable. The statement in question here was a one-line joke, not a statement made in the context of a scientific paper. Moreover, the meaning of my words should be readily apparent to anyone with a basic familiarity with the subject and the English language.

All of this is to say that your objection to my use of "climate change" and charges of "linguistic perversity" are petty, ill-informed and tedious. Your invocation of themes from Orwell's 1984 is both cliched and quite ridiculous, given the nature, content and context of the statement that seems to offend you.

In short, my good sir: please get over yourself.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

It is well established that the climate of the earth changes; it is common knowledge. When I remember back to being four years old watching a documentary on various ice ages throughout history, they refer to this phenomena of the climate changing as climate change. This common knowledge has always been referred to as climate change until very recent years when a clever bunch of PR people, started to refer to your hypothesis by this term but at the same time the term maintains its original meaning; double think. The goal of their actions is to impede the conveyance of ideas. To obfuscate the fact that the climate has always changed. To make today's relatively small fluctuations seem unnatural.

The goal of using the phrase 'denier of climate change' is to associate the state to a holocaust denier and to additionally make someone look like a fool for not believing the original meaning of the term. This is a very disingenuous political ploy. It is an embodiment of the principles of INGSOC. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this. Well, apart from the ignorant masses that you people are trying to appeal to.

In short, stop being a propagator of a political ploy and use language properly.

 

[DreamMancer]

It is well established that the climate of the earth changes; it is common knowledge. When I remember back to being four years old watching a documentary on various ice ages throughout history, they refer to this phenomena of the climate changing as climate change.

Childhood anecdotes, while no doubt sentimental, aren't science. Neither is "common knowledge".

And the fact that the earth's climate has changed in the past is not an argument against the reams of evidence that the present changes in climate are due to global warming caused by increased concentration of greenhouse gases, which are in turn caused by human activity (primarily the burning of fossil fuels).

This common knowledge has always been referred to as climate change until very recent years when a clever bunch of PR people...

Really? I wasn't aware that the world's climate scientists are "a clever bunch of PR people". The last time I checked most of them had degrees in climate science, not marketing or public relations.

This is a common meme circulated by deniers; unfortunately it has no basis in fact. My last post explained the correct uses of "global warming" and "climate change" in both scientific and colloquial contexts; I also included a link to NASA's website where they explain their usage of the term "climate change".

But perhaps you think NASA are simply a bunch of clever PR people. Do you believe the clever PR people at NASA faked the moon landing, too?

...To make today's relatively small fluctuations seem unnatural.

The majority of climate scientists do not regard the fluctuations as "small" or in keeping with previous patterns of warming. They regard them as being the result of burning fossil fuels. If you looked at the science, instead of relying on common knowledge, anecdotes, and ideology, you would understand this.

T

The goal of using the phrase 'denier of climate change' is to associate the state to a holocaust denier and to additionally make someone look like a fool for not believing the original meaning of the term.

Actually, the goal is much simpler than that: it's to denote those who deny the large and increasing body of evidence regarding man-made climate change, its extent and its origins. You deny the evidence, thus you are a denier. If there is an association with holocaust deniers, it's that in both cases the evidence is simply ignored because it doesn't fit in with one's beliefs.

As for climate change, again: there is no "original meaning of the term"; climate change is climate change, and the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that the most recent changes in the earth's climate are effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

Denying this in the face of scientific evidence is pretty foolish, although it's hardly unexpected: the tobacco companies and many smokers did all they could to deny the scientific evidence that smoking is linked to pulmonary disease, heart disease, cancer, and other negative health outcomes. People are remarkably good at ignoring and obfuscating evidence when it threatens them financially or ideologically.

In short, stop being a propagator of a political ploy and use language properly.

"Political ploy"? This is quite rich coming from somebody with a Young Rothbard icon. I'm sure there are no political or ideological biases in your assessment of climate change, right? And the fact that every Austrian and anarchocapitalist I've ever engaged with has been a vigorous denier of the scientific evidence on this issue?

There is really no point in engaging you on this issue, since you perceive your ideology to be at odds with the scientific evidence and prefer your ideology to reality.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Childhood anecdotes, while no doubt sentimental, aren't science. Neither is "common knowledge".

By 1993, it was common knowledge that the earth's climate changes.

And the fact that the earth's climate has changed in the past is not an argument against the reams of evidence that the present changes in climate are due to global warming caused by increased concentration of greenhouse gases, which are in turn caused by human activity (primarily the burning of fossil fuels).

Well thank god I never made that argument.

Really? I wasn't aware that the world's climate scientists are "a clever bunch of PR people". The last time I checked most of them had degrees in climate science, not marketing or public relations.

I said PR people not climate scientists.

This is a common meme circulated by deniers; unfortunately it has no basis in fact. My last post explained the correct uses of "global warming" and "climate change" in both scientific and colloquial contexts; I also included a link to NASA's website where they explain their usage of the term "climate change".

But perhaps you think NASA are simply a bunch of clever PR people. Do you believe the clever PR people at NASA faked the moon landing, too?

Well shit, you learn something new everyday. NASA also uses the politically loaded term.

The majority of climate scientists do not regard the fluctuations as "small" or in keeping with previous patterns of warming. They regard them as being the result of burning fossil fuels. If you looked at the science, instead of relying on common knowledge, anecdotes, and ideology, you would understand this.

Maybe these scientists have a problem with using statistics. I am an engineer and I have worked in the field of statistical analysis for many years. I can help them out. Of course, I am expecting to be paid for my work.

You know? It always an engineer's job to make sure scientists are doing theirs right.

Actually, the goal is much simpler than that: it's to denote those who deny the large and increasing body of evidence regarding man-made climate change, its extent and its origins. You deny the evidence, thus you are a denier. If there is an association with holocaust deniers, it's that in both cases the evidence is simply ignored because it doesn't fit in with one's beliefs.

As for climate change, again: there is no "original meaning of the term"; climate change is climate change, and the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that the most recent changes in the earth's climate are effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

Denying this in the face of scientific evidence is pretty foolish, although it's hardly unexpected: the tobacco companies and many smokers did all they could to deny the scientific evidence that smoking is linked to pulmonary disease, heart disease, cancer, and other negative health outcomes. People are remarkably good at ignoring and obfuscating evidence when it threatens them financially or ideologically.

You sound exactly like that Green Peace PR representative I saw on television the other day; kudos!

"Political ploy"? This is quite rich coming from somebody with a Young Rothbard icon. I'm sure there are no political or ideological biases in your assessment of climate change, right? And the fact that every Austrian and anarchocapitalist I've ever engaged with has been a vigorous denier of the scientific evidence on this issue?

There is really no point in engaging you on this issue, since you perceive your ideology to be at odds with the scientific evidence and prefer your ideology to reality.

Amusingly, the realization that your hypothesis is dubious preceded my inquiry into economics.

 

[DreamMancer]

By 1993, it was common knowledge that the earth's climate changes.

And your point is.....what, precisely? We already established this doesn't amount to evidence or an argument. So good for you. By 1993 it was also common knowledge that human activities were contributing to a "greenhouse effect" that was warming the earth's climate.

I said PR people not climate scientists.

Yes, I know what you said. It is a conspiracy theory. It has no basis in reality.

Well shit, you learn something new everyday. NASA also uses the politically loaded term.

They use a scientific term in the context of scientific research. If you find this term threatening because of your political affiliations or beliefs, that is your problem. There is nothing political whatsoever about "climate change", although people bound by ideology or financial incentive are making it into a political issue.

ou sound exactly like that Green Peace PR representative I saw on television the other day; kudos!

And you sound exactly like every other randroid/Austrian/libertarian/anarchocapitalist/Alex Jones fan I've ever encountered on the internet, so really, the kudos should go to you.

I think we're done here.