A Shot at Libertarians Re: Global Warming

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, there are not plenty of scientists that back the libertarians position. In fact, there are not plenty of scientists that back Al Gore's position. A scientist does not back political positions concerning the science he does. He simply seeks the correct answers to questions that his research reveals.

Given that the vast majority of scientists belong to scientific societies, and that virually all of those societies, as well as all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities state that global warming is real, and that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary contributor, I would say very few scientists, and very little evidence supports the Libetarian view.

In fact, the evidence supporting the Libertarian view on the matter of global warming is so scant as to be non-existant. As stated ealier, the Libertarian view is the triumph of ideology over the evidence of reality. And, like all such fairy tales, will end.

Well many libertarians, along with many scientists, believe that the only fairy tale is global warming. Now you can hold whatever opinion you want on global warming, but the fact that many scientists back up the position of many libertarians that global warming is a hoax is evidence enough that libertarians aren't simply making things up because we think we know more than the so-called "authority" on a subject. The majority libertarian position on global warming is backed up by science just like anybody else's position.

 

[Oddball]

The charge in this thread concerns the Libertarians ignorance of global warming at the most basic level. And resistance to any attempt to address what is already beginning to cause major problems for a great many nations.

Another completely spurious and presumptuous charge.

Disagreeing with the ignorance of people who let others do their thinking for them -you for instance- isn't ignorance, it's independent thinking.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

No, there are not plenty of scientists that back the libertarians position. In fact, there are not plenty of scientists that back Al Gore's position. A scientist does not back political positions concerning the science he does. He simply seeks the correct answers to questions that his research reveals.

Given that the vast majority of scientists belong to scientific societies, and that virually all of those societies, as well as all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities state that global warming is real, and that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary contributor, I would say very few scientists, and very little evidence supports the Libetarian view.

In fact, the evidence supporting the Libertarian view on the matter of global warming is so scant as to be non-existant. As stated ealier, the Libertarian view is the triumph of ideology over the evidence of reality. And, like all such fairy tales, will end.

First of all the libertarians dont have a set position on global warming. They are about as divided as the scientists with half thinking man made warming is a hoax and the other half thinking its is legit or not sure Is human-generated global warming a myth? | Libertarian Party

Secondly.....a list of over 30,000 scientists who don't think our contributions to CO2 are having a signifigant impact on the climate Global Warming Petition Project

Thirdly, where did you get the information telling you what the libertarian point of view is? I suggest searching this site Libertarian Party | Smaller Government | Lower Taxes | More Freedom if you are truly curious about libertarians.

 

[Old Rocks]

PP, have a look at the source of that 'petition'. There are not 30,000 scientists on that list. And some of the people supposedly on that list vehemetly deny ever signing it. It is a product of OISM, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. A very small looney tunes outfit ran from a farmhouse near the grand metropolis of Cave Junction, Oregon.


Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

 

[JD_2B]

I think that the question is not whether Libertarians believe in global warming, per se, it is whether Libertarians are sold on the idea that global warming is fueled by human use of fossil fuels, and whether global warming is a terminal condition at this point. Both of these ideas are acceptable from any side (totally a non partisan thing) and are being researched further to be sure we are not being duped and therefore racketeered into some kind of new money making scheme by the big energy companies, aka big oil.
I have seen a lot of information from all sides (published information, not my own research of course) and it just seems that the world is getting warmer..

There are other, bigger fish to fry here though.. certain other dynamics are at work with no explanation, such as the rapidly declining bee population..

I just want to know why this global warming opposition (by anyone) has to suddenly become a partisan issue? Libertarians hate partisanship, I think. It's almost a trollish thread to begin with, just because it is attacking libertarians as a whole. You don't think that there are a million conservatives, a million moderates, a million libs, and maybe hundreds of scientists out there that don't believe in global warming either??

 

[Old Rocks]

In the field of geology, in spite of the paradign shift that occured with Plate Tectonics, there are still some that just do not accept that theory, in spite of how well it is supported by evidence. Same for global warming. Of course that are a few hundred scientists that do not accept the theory of AGW. However, there are millons that have viewed the evidence and regard it as suffiecient to warrant action on the issue.

You are correct, Global Warming should be judged only on it's scientific merits. Having followed the issue now for over 40 years, the evidence is overwhelming that the globe is warming, and that the use of fossil fuels is the primary driver of that warming.

We have periods in geologic histroy that are similiar to what we are seeing happening right now. The driver then was trap volcanics on the ocean floor, causing massive releases of CH4. That was the driver of both the P-T extinction, and a smaller extinction in the PETM. What we are doing today is not unprecidented. It has happened before.

As for the science behind the issue, you can judge that for yourself in this American Institute of Physics article on the history of the research into the role of CO2 and other GHGs in our atmosphere.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Paulie]

I'm a libertarian and I have no position on global warming. I don't believe it's a threat that will matter during my lifetime, or even my children's.

I expect a world-ending asteroid to hit this planet before global warming ever causes any kind of climatological crisis that threatens all of humanity.

I do try and live as greenly as possible though, without going overboard about it.

It would also be nice to see people stop being morons and lumping everyone into a label.

 

[Bern80]

PP, have a look at the source of that 'petition'. There are not 30,000 scientists on that list. And some of the people supposedly on that list vehemetly deny ever signing it. It is a product of OISM, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. A very small looney tunes outfit ran from a farmhouse near the grand metropolis of Cave Junction, Oregon.


Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

Many scientists who are cited in the IPCC reports vehemently deny supporting the IPCC postions as well.

 

[Bern80]

In the field of geology, in spite of the paradign shift that occured with Plate Tectonics, there are still some that just do not accept that theory, in spite of how well it is supported by evidence. Same for global warming. Of course that are a few hundred scientists that do not accept the theory of AGW. However, there are millons that have viewed the evidence and regard it as suffiecient to warrant action on the issue.

You are correct, Global Warming should be judged only on it's scientific merits. Having followed the issue now for over 40 years, the evidence is overwhelming that the globe is warming, and that the use of fossil fuels is the primary driver of that warming.

We have periods in geologic histroy that are similiar to what we are seeing happening right now. The driver then was trap volcanics on the ocean floor, causing massive releases of CH4. That was the driver of both the P-T extinction, and a smaller extinction in the PETM. What we are doing today is not unprecidented. It has happened before.

As for the science behind the issue, you can judge that for yourself in this American Institute of Physics article on the history of the research into the role of CO2 and other GHGs in our atmosphere.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Rocks, for gods' sake quit posting that stupid link. It doesn't help your case and isn't evidence of man causing anything. You claim to be this objective guy so you'd think you could at least post something semi relevant. What is the point of posting something that pretty much everyone accepts INCLUDING those that DON'T believe man is the driving force of the current warming trend.

If you want to continue a constructive debate on the issue than you need to stop being a disengenuous chicken shit and concede that there is a big difference between the people that don't believe AGW is a major part of the warming trend and those that don't believe there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect.

What is important to discuss is how much man contributes to the greenhouse effect. Which is at best in the high single digits as a percentage and yet we are told by the likes of Gore (who was on The Daily Show promoting another piece of shit book last night) and yourself that our minscule contribution is irrecovably changing earth's climate. If you are such and objective person you should be forced to admit that is tough pill to logically swallow.

Here's a hypothetical question Mr. objective. WHEN the next ice age hits, should man try to stop it?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm a libertarian and I have no position on global warming. I don't believe it's a threat that will matter during my lifetime, or even my children's.

I expect a world-ending asteroid to hit this planet before global warming ever causes any kind of climatological crisis that threatens all of humanity.

I do try and live as greenly as possible though, without going overboard about it.

It would also be nice to see people stop being morons and lumping everyone into a label.

Awesome post man, if i wasnt out of rep i'd hit you up right now.

 

[Paulie]

I'm a libertarian and I have no position on global warming. I don't believe it's a threat that will matter during my lifetime, or even my children's.

I expect a world-ending asteroid to hit this planet before global warming ever causes any kind of climatological crisis that threatens all of humanity.

I do try and live as greenly as possible though, without going overboard about it.

It would also be nice to see people stop being morons and lumping everyone into a label.

Awesome post man, if i wasnt out of rep i'd hit you up right now.

On the real, global warming has GOT to be the lowest ranking issue in politics, IMO.

It's lower than stem cells and gay marriage, if you ask me.

 

[Old Rocks]

In the field of geology, in spite of the paradign shift that occured with Plate Tectonics, there are still some that just do not accept that theory, in spite of how well it is supported by evidence. Same for global warming. Of course that are a few hundred scientists that do not accept the theory of AGW. However, there are millons that have viewed the evidence and regard it as suffiecient to warrant action on the issue.

You are correct, Global Warming should be judged only on it's scientific merits. Having followed the issue now for over 40 years, the evidence is overwhelming that the globe is warming, and that the use of fossil fuels is the primary driver of that warming.

We have periods in geologic histroy that are similiar to what we are seeing happening right now. The driver then was trap volcanics on the ocean floor, causing massive releases of CH4. That was the driver of both the P-T extinction, and a smaller extinction in the PETM. What we are doing today is not unprecidented. It has happened before.

As for the science behind the issue, you can judge that for yourself in this American Institute of Physics article on the history of the research into the role of CO2 and other GHGs in our atmosphere.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Rocks, for gods' sake quit posting that stupid link. It doesn't help your case and isn't evidence of man causing anything. You claim to be this objective guy so you'd think you could at least post something semi relevant. What is the point of posting something that pretty much everyone accepts INCLUDING those that DON'T believe man is the driving force of the current warming trend.

If you want to continue a constructive debate on the issue than you need to stop being a disengenuous chicken shit and concede that there is a big difference between the people that don't believe AGW is a major part of the warming trend and those that don't believe there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect.

What is important to discuss is how much man contributes to the greenhouse effect. Which is at best in the high single digits as a percentage and yet we are told by the likes of Gore (who was on The Daily Show promoting another piece of shit book last night) and yourself that our minscule contribution is irrecovably changing earth's climate. If you are such and objective person you should be forced to admit that is tough pill to logically swallow.

Here's a hypothetical question Mr. objective. WHEN the next ice age hits, should man try to stop it?

There are new people here, and that is an American Institute of Physics link, with the history of the research that has been done on GHGs, complete with links to additional information. It is a site done by scientists, not political hacks such as the Heritage Foundation.

Since when is 40% single digits? That is how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere. And we have added enough CO2 to the oceans to make a measurable differance in it's acidity.

We have already stopped the next ice age. We should be slowly, over thousands of years,descending into an ice age right now. Instead, we are rapidly heating up. And that heating is accelerating. With about 50 years of inertia built into the system.

The people that say there is a warming but no AGW were the same ones that a decade ago were stating categorically that there was no warming. In fact, they would still be stating that, were it not for the fact that the changes are now readily observable to the man in the street. And look at what the dingbats are contiueing to state. That we are in cooling trend. And in that cooling trend we have had the ten of the eleven warmest years on record.

 

[Bern80]

Since when is 40% single digits? That is how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere. And we have added enough CO2 to the oceans to make a measurable differance in it's acidity.

I have come to the conclusion that you really aren't the person to debate this seeing as how you are unable to differentiate a not so subtle difference in terminology. Do you understand that the percentage of man's contribution to the greenhouse effect is different than how much CO2 levels have risen?

We have already stopped the next ice age. We should be slowly, over thousands of years,descending into an ice age right now. Instead, we are rapidly heating up. And that heating is accelerating. With about 50 years of inertia built into the system.

A) You didn't answer the question B) Where are you getting your information as to where someone thinks the temperature should be at this point in time and into the future? Last I checked the geological record indicates we should still be coming out of the little ice age.

The people that say there is a warming but no AGW were the same ones that a decade ago were stating categorically that there was no warming. In fact, they would still be stating that, were it not for the fact that the changes are now readily observable to the man in the street. And look at what the dingbats are contiueing to state. That we are in cooling trend. And in that cooling trend we have had the ten of the eleven warmest years on record.

You seriously don't see how those two things actually CAN happen at the same time?

 

[Old Rocks]

Bern;

I have come to the conclusion that you really aren't the person to debate this seeing as how you are unable to differentiate a not so subtle difference in terminology. Do you understand that the percentage of man's contribution to the greenhouse effect is different than how much CO2 levels have risen?
...................................................................................................

Do you understand that the analysis of radioisotopes shows that the totality of the increase is low in C14? You do understand what that is, do you not?

Here is the reality, analysis of the CO2 says that virtually all of the increase is from the burning of fossil fuels.

And I have come to the conclusion that you are pretty damned ignorant of basic science.

 

[Oddball]

Fuck you, Old Rocksinthehead.

You don't know jack shit about science.

You may have forgotten this admission, but I haven't:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1365297-post56.html

 

[elvis]

Bern;

I have come to the conclusion that you really aren't the person to debate this seeing as how you are unable to differentiate a not so subtle difference in terminology. Do you understand that the percentage of man's contribution to the greenhouse effect is different than how much CO2 levels have risen?
...................................................................................................

Do you understand that the analysis of radioisotopes shows that the totality of the increase is low in C14? You do understand what that is, do you not?

Here is the reality, analysis of the CO2 says that virtually all of the increase is from the burning of fossil fuels.

And I have come to the conclusion that you are pretty damned ignorant of basic science.

in other words, he refused to swallow Gore's semen, and you insist on doing so.

 

[Bern80]

Bern;

I have come to the conclusion that you really aren't the person to debate this seeing as how you are unable to differentiate a not so subtle difference in terminology. Do you understand that the percentage of man's contribution to the greenhouse effect is different than how much CO2 levels have risen?
...................................................................................................

Do you understand that the analysis of radioisotopes shows that the totality of the increase is low in C14? You do understand what that is, do you not?

Here is the reality, analysis of the CO2 says that virtually all of the increase is from the burning of fossil fuels.

And I have come to the conclusion that you are pretty damned ignorant of basic science.

Good god it's like talking to a fucking 5 year old. Let's try basic english. That CO2 levels have risen is not in debate either you moron. It stands to reason that as a we industrialized more there is going to be more CO2 in the air.

I'm not sure what you think the point of C14 is. It is an isotope used for carbon dating. What has been observed is that when solar activity is high, the concentration of this isotope is low. That is during warm periods there should be a low concentration.

And I wouldn't doubt that much of the CO2 increase has been caused by man. Also not a point of debate the debate is how releveant it is to climate change. You claim to be this science guy yet you essentially use CO2 concentration and temperature increase as one in the same. Yes one is a factor of the other, but it is a mere fraction of the entire picture.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bern;

I have come to the conclusion that you really aren't the person to debate this seeing as how you are unable to differentiate a not so subtle difference in terminology. Do you understand that the percentage of man's contribution to the greenhouse effect is different than how much CO2 levels have risen?
...................................................................................................

Do you understand that the analysis of radioisotopes shows that the totality of the increase is low in C14? You do understand what that is, do you not?

Here is the reality, analysis of the CO2 says that virtually all of the increase is from the burning of fossil fuels.

And I have come to the conclusion that you are pretty damned ignorant of basic science.

in other words, he refused to swallow Gore's semen, and you insist on doing so.

Sheesh, your closet and fixation is so transparent, you just as well come on out.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fuck you, Old Rocksinthehead.

You don't know jack shit about science.

You may have forgotten this admission, but I haven't:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1365297-post56.html

You are about a stupid ass, Dooodeee......... It would take evidence that would convince scientists before I would be convinced. So, present the evidence, idiot child!

Come on, you can do it, just show us where all the evidence is that states that global warming is not happening, or that we are not the primary cause of it. From scientific journals, of course, not wingnut political rants.

Dooodeee...... all you have ever present is idiocy, change a bit, and show us something worthwhile. Are you capable of that?

 

[Oddball]

IOW, you aren't coming to any conclusion based upon any thought in your own head, and just blindly following the say-so of people with a bunch of letters behind their names, for no better reason than their political biases align with yours...AKA the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Nobody has claimed that the Earf hadn't warmed slightly over the course of the last 20-odd years....However, the claim that industrial man's activities are the cause is absurd, once you look at all the historical information, rather than cherry picking that which gives you the result you want to get.