Climate Denialism paid by Exxon

[lordbt]

Thank you, lordbt, for stating your position so clearly. Your freedom trumps the good of the community each and every time. If the actions of a person or person is a detriment to the world around them, it is only up to the individual to determine if they should continue that action.

Clearly, you should also support the removal of laws against murder, as that behavior - which has an detrimental impact to those around them - should be up to the individual to decide. Does the state have the authority to limit or regulate my behavior to address the problem? That answer, if you remain logically consistent, is not.

In the case of murder, there is a victim and an assailant. The actions of the assailant are measurable, quantifiable, and provable. If I kill you, there is a direct link between my actions and your injury/death. Can you make the same linkage between my driving to work, say, and demonstrable harm to you, your property or even the global environment? Of course not. My individual actions, even over the course of my entire lifetime, have no impact whatsoever on future sea levels or temperature fluctuations. Since my actions cannot be shown to harm anyone, then the state has no role in regulating those actions. I am not a servant and the state my master, I am a free man with rights that the state is bound by law to secure. If I am not violating the rights of another, then the state has no authority to regulate my behavior.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Here is my take on global warming, FWIW. Is the climate changing? Sure, it is always changing and would be changing if man were not even around. Is the change we are seeing caused by man? I am not a scientist, so I have no idea. But I do not rule out the possibility that the activities of 6 billion people may have an impact. For me, the question is: Does the state have the authority to to limit, regulate or alter my behavior to address the "problem?" The answer to that is no.

Those of you convinced that humans are having a negative impact on the climate are free to alter your own personal behavior as you see fit. You have no authority to compel me to alter mine; and, by extension, neither does the state on your behalf.

OK. Excellent answer.

But by so clearly stating you have clarified that you do not deserve a place among human society.

That may sound harsh but it is sadly quite true. Human society is made up of humans, and just like any other "social animal" (like dogs or ants) you are "compelled" by the mutual rules of the group to act in a certain way.

Let's hypothesize you are a dog. You clearly state that you will not act in a way that the alpha agrees with. You do not hold your place in line eating the "kill".

How long do you think your "personal freedom" allows you to remain part of the dog pack? You will initially be severely treated by higher level animals.

Then ultimately you will driven out of the pack.

So I'm curious why you think humans are any less "social" than say dogs.

And why you think you are so special as to wholly stand against society when you so choose.

Interesting.

Now, why does this particular topic (AGW) compel you to act like a "human"? Well, it is precisely because everyone's actions will ultimately be required to "fix" the problem. It is "global" in extent and "global" in its amelioration.

You may think you will not be compelled and that no one has any right to do so, but they can and will.

And as another poster already pointed out: we already compel people to do things in order to maintain a stable society. You don't have the freedoms to do certain other things, why should you have the freedom to not take part in this particular topic when arguably it is far and away one of the major issues we might have to deal with as a society?

 

[thaumaturgy]

In the case of murder, there is a victim and an assailant. The actions of the assailant are measurable, quantifiable, and provable. If I kill you, there is a direct link between my actions and your injury/death. Can you make the same linkage between my driving to work, say, and demonstrable harm to you, your property or even the global environment? Of course not. My individual actions, even over the course of my entire lifetime, have no impact whatsoever on future sea levels or temperature fluctuations. Since my actions cannot be shown to harm anyone, then the state has no role in regulating those actions. I am not a servant and the state my master, I am a free man with rights that the state is bound by law to secure. If I am not violating the rights of another, then the state has no authority to regulate my behavior.

Actually you are incorrect. We can, indeed, calculate your direct impact on the climate!

We know the relative "climate forcing" of a given amount of CO2 and we know the mileage of your vehicle, ergo we can calculate how much CO2 you generate on your drive to work. We also know that you are directly responsible for an admittedly small but quantifiable amount of change seen and reflected in the stable isotopic composition of carbon in the atmosphere (13-C/12-C ratio).

Let's go back to your "killing example". Let's say instead of outright shooting someone you and 100 other people walk around town every day with guns firing randomly outward from the crowd. Each day as you and your 100 friends walk around town people are shot and injured. You all have the same caliber of gun and interestingly you also have the same bore of the guns so the bullets cannot be individually identified as to who among the 101 of you the bullet came from but you all generate bullets flying through the air wherever you go.

Are you thus freed from responsibility for any given injury or death that occurs around you? Is not the city correct in locking you all up?

Are you of the opinion that only those members of your 101 crowd whose bullets are clearly shown to kill or injure are the only ones who should be stopped from shooting?

 

[Gawron]

Let's hypothesize you are a dog. You clearly state that you will not act in a way that the alpha agrees with. You do not hold your place in line eating the "kill".

How long do you think your "personal freedom" allows you to remain part of the dog pack? You will initially be severely treated by higher level animals.

Having debated this topic with you before I know you are serious with this comparison. But I doubt few will accept your blanket equivalence between dogs and men. We as men should simply do as we are told because another man happens to be bigger than us? Or wield more power? Political power should be given to the alpha male because he managed to subjugate all below him? You are advocating a dictatorship. But then you have done that before.

 

[Gawron]

Let's say instead of outright shooting someone you and 100 other people walk around town every day with guns firing randomly outward from the crowd. Each day as you and your 100 friends walk around town people are shot and injured. You all have the same caliber of gun and interestingly you also have the same bore of the guns so the bullets cannot be individually identified as to who among the 101 of you the bullet came from but you all generate bullets flying through the air wherever you go.

Good thing man was blessed with reason. That is why no group of any amount of people will be able to own weapons all of which have the same bore.

 

[Vylo]

Having debated this topic with you before I know you are serious with this comparison. But I doubt few will accept your blanket equivalence between dogs and men. We as men should simply do as we are told because another man happens to be bigger than us? Or wield more power? Political power should be given to the alpha male because he managed to subjugate all below him? You are advocating a dictatorship. But then you have done that before.

You either do as you are told, find a way to make others do as you tell them, or ignore them and face the consequences.

I suggest mostly the second choice .

 

[thaumaturgy]

Having debated this topic with you before I know you are serious with this comparison. But I doubt few will accept your blanket equivalence between dogs and men.

Again the point being that humans are "social creatures" which means that we will always form societies. No different from any other animal that is social. We derive survival advantage from social groups. ERGO it is incontrovertible. Unless, of course, you think that shorn of all advantages of our social construct over the millenia that you could, on the savannah, naked and without weapons still be a "top predator" in that ecosystem.

So you may disagree with the comparison, it is no less true.

We as men should simply do as we are told because another man happens to be bigger than us? Or wield more power?

Or we could develop a "democratic" system but it still mandates a "contract". The "social contract" while not explicitly signed is indeed what maintains cohesion in any social group.

Political power should be given to the alpha male because he managed to subjugate all below him? You are advocating a dictatorship. But then you have done that before.

Actually you are quite incorrect. Society itself can (and currently does, even in fully democratic systems) make mandates clearly outlined. Even in fully democratic systems we have police who lock up and "disenfranchise" those who go against the accepted rules.

If you find "laws" to be "dictatorial" then clearly I am unsure how you fit in society. Are you perchance an anarchist?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Good thing man was blessed with reason. That is why no group of any amount of people will be able to own weapons all of which have the same bore.

I am pleased that your hyper literal reading has allowed you to miss the point. My comparison was more in relation to isotopes of carbon. On 12-C cannot be differentiated from another 12-C. But the fact that we burn billions of tons of 12-C enriched fuel which biases the population of natural ratios of 13-C/12-C toward one of 12-C enrichment.

But again, I love to talk stable isotope chemistry because usually the "skeptics" have no or limited response. It is well outside of their area of expertise so they usually just ignore it! It's fun because it shows the general level of scientific ignorance the "opposing" side has!

It is refreshing.

 

[eclipsenow]

The exact opposite of God is not the devil, because the devil actually exists.
He has actuality and existence with God.
the exact opposite of God is that which does not actually exist,
and "chance" fits the bill.
Macro-evolution is premised on the spontaneous increase of complexity and available information.
Absolutely every material process observable operates in exactly the opposite way.

I have no idea what you are trying to prove with your 'opposites' schtick above, and it makes no logical contribution to this debate. And your schtick about 'chance' completely ignores the fact that I said evolution ran without chance — God set it up. The early chapters of Genesis are a polemic against the worldviews of the Ancient Middle East and in particular, the Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish. This is pretty standard Sydney Anglican theology.

"Global warming" is calibrated based on the assumption that material processes operate in a way not observable.

Absolute rubbish - the physicists tell us the absorption spectra of any greenhouse gas are repeatable, demonstrable physics in any lab with a Fourier device. We know the mechanisms, we observe the world warming, and we see the consequences.

The "science" of today is, in many ways, as futile as it has been since those state of the art Egyptian resurrection machines.

Show me evidence that the Egyptians used double blind tests, attempted to eliminate all other variables, and built iPads, microwave ovens, and sent a man to the moon!

As to climate, (please forgive my spelling) Bijorn Lormborg seems to me to have the best perspective.

He's not a scientist but is only a 'political scientist'. He's trained in the humanities; in spin; in manipulation.

Try reading the peer-reviewed science for once in your life.

I recommend that you read his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist".

I recommend that you don't waste your time and brain space on such rubbish. He has zero credibility. Bjorn has not published a single scientific paper in the peer-reviewed literature.

 

[eclipsenow]

Here is my take on global warming, FWIW. Is the climate changing? Sure, it is always changing and would be changing if man were not even around. Is the change we are seeing caused by man? I am not a scientist, so I have no idea. But I do not rule out the possibility that the activities of 6 billion people may have an impact. For me, the question is: Does the state have the authority to to limit, regulate or alter my behavior to address the "problem?" The answer to that is no.

This is the same argument used by any greedy corporation that just wants to dump toxic lead or asbestos or even radioactive waste in the river! Who is the State to tell us what to do, to limit their profits?

Those of you convinced that humans are having a negative impact on the climate are free to alter your own personal behavior as you see fit.

What gives you the right to live a lifestyle that KILLS other people?

You have no authority to compel me to alter mine; and, by extension, neither does the state on your behalf.

The state already rules your life; you're just blind to it. Who decided the shape of the way human beings are deployed in the landscape? The State town planning authorities. Who decreed that you would have to DRIVE everywhere you go because the chances are, you or some of your friends live in suburbia? The State. Who decided that you would have to drive to church, to school, to work, to the shops, and be enslaved by the car based lifestyle, inhaling all that carbon monoxide in traffic and particulate matter into your lungs? The State.

The State ALREADY controls you and demands that you buy into the car-based lifestyle. This lifestyle is poisoning Americans and making them fat.

Go 'freedom'! You don't really have any. And neither do I. I live in Australia, and we've (mostly) copied the American town plan. Suburbia uses 5 to 10 times more land than New Urbanism; precious arable land that could be sustainable forestry and local agriculture and provide jobs. New Urbanism gives people the choice to live without a car! Everything they need is within a 5 to 7 minute walk. They lose weight. They wave to their friends as they walk to work, or walk to the tram that will take them to work. They walk 10 minutes and they could even be out of town, in a park. Many would live in a trendy apartment with parks nearby, but some would even live in homes with a backyard. New Urbanism doesn't mean giving up the good life, it gives it back to those of us who have been confined by State planning authorities to live an expensive, time wasting, car dependent life that drains your wallet and time and forces you to drive home from work to a boring box that you sleep in, but otherwise has no other connection to the local community.

New Urbanism is the cure for social isolation, for global warming, for exploding obesity and public health costs, for peak oil, and for a sense of alienation from our often bland and incredibly ugly neighbourhoods. New Urbanism increases beauty, functionality, and personal freedom.

And you know nothing about it, but rant about your 'freedom' being impinged on by town planners! Mate, you've got it EXACTLY the wrong way around! (And I haven't even mentioned the fact that Suburbia forces America to import $600 billion worth of oil each year, often buying it from countries that don't like you very much!)

What's YOUR solution for all these problems mate? Mine is nuclear powered New Urbanism, and maybe a few extra electric cars. Done. Solved. An extra $6 trillion a decade pumping through the American economy would REVOLUTIONIZE your economy.

And you think solving global warming would 'impinge' on your freedoms? It would give them back to you... you don't even know what you're missing.

 

[lordbt]

OK. Excellent answer.

But by so clearly stating you have clarified that you do not deserve a place among human society.

That may sound harsh but it is sadly quite true. Human society is made up of humans, and just like any other "social animal" (like dogs or ants) you are "compelled" by the mutual rules of the group to act in a certain way.

Let's hypothesize you are a dog. You clearly state that you will not act in a way that the alpha agrees with. You do not hold your place in line eating the "kill".

How long do you think your "personal freedom" allows you to remain part of the dog pack? You will initially be severely treated by higher level animals.

Then ultimately you will driven out of the pack.

So I'm curious why you think humans are any less "social" than say dogs.

I think Gawron addressed this accurately. We arent dogs, or bees or ants or lions whose survival and social structures are instinctual. We are men whose survival and social structures are volitional, so there is really nothing a rational creature like man can learn from how irrational animals behave.

And why you think you are so special as to wholly stand against society when you so choose.

I think this because I am a free man endowed with certain unalienable rights. The whole concept of rights subordinates society to the individual. If you believe the individual must bend to the whims of the society, then check your rights at the door.

Now, why does this particular topic (AGW) compel you to act like a "human"? Well, it is precisely because everyone's actions will ultimately be required to "fix" the problem. It is "global" in extent and "global" in its amelioration.

The trouble is, I am a free man living in (ostensibly) a free country. What gives you the authority to compel my obedience to your will on this matter? If you wish to reduce your emissions, go right ahead. If you and every other human voluntarily goes along with your "fix" it wont matter what I do will it.

Your solution, just like every solution from the left to every perceived 'problem,' involves forced compliance to your commands. So grave is this problem that only a global despotism can save us. Sorry, I would rather be free.

You may think you will not be compelled and that no one has any right to do so, but they can and will.

A call for tyranny if ever there was one.

And as another poster already pointed out: we already compel people to do things in order to maintain a stable society. You don't have the freedoms to do certain other things, why should you have the freedom to not take part in this particular topic when arguably it is far and away one of the major issues we might have to deal with as a society?

The Soviets had a "stable society" so do the North Koreans. A "stable society" is not the objective. A free society is.

 

[lordbt]

This is the same argument used by any greedy corporation that just wants to dump toxic lead or asbestos or even radioactive waste in the river! Who is the State to tell us what to do, to limit their profits?

False. It is not the same argument at all.

What gives you the right to live a lifestyle that KILLS other people?

Who has my lifestyle killed.

 

[lordbt]

Actually you are incorrect. We can, indeed, calculate your direct impact on the climate!

We know the relative "climate forcing" of a given amount of CO2 and we know the mileage of your vehicle, ergo we can calculate how much CO2 you generate on your drive to work. We also know that you are directly responsible for an admittedly small but quantifiable amount of change seen and reflected in the stable isotopic composition of carbon in the atmosphere (13-C/12-C ratio).

And this change I am responsible for impacts whom and how?

 

[Vylo]

False. It is not the same argument at all.


Who has my lifestyle killed.

OUR lifestyle (let's not pretend anyone here doesn't produce more waste then they could) hurts and kills our own each year in significant numbers. The things we buy are produced in ways that dump hazardous waste onto our land, and into our water and air. Some times the results are more overt such as in Love Canal, other times they are more subtle, like the increasing asthma rates in the East. Nevertheless, reckless consumption and production does harm and even kill people. Then again, so can unhealthy lifestyles and poverty, which can result from an economy dragged down by draconian environmental laws. You have to strike a good balance.

 

[lordbt]

OUR lifestyle (let's not pretend anyone here doesn't produce more waste then they could) hurts and kills our own each year in significant numbers. The things we buy are produced in ways that dump hazardous waste onto our land, and into our water and air. Some times the results are more overt such as in Love Canal, other times they are more subtle, like the increasing asthma rates in the East. Nevertheless, reckless consumption and production does harm and even kill people. Then again, so can unhealthy lifestyles and poverty, which can result from an economy dragged down by draconian environmental laws. You have to strike a good balance.

And an example of a human lifestyle that didnt, according to you, hurt or kill people would be what? Humans require energy, they produce waste, your argument seems to be with reality, not me.

 

[acropolis]

And an example of a human lifestyle that didnt, according to you, hurt or kill people would be what? Humans require energy, they produce waste, your argument seems to be with reality, not me.

Some forms of energy production kill more people than others. You yourself are breathing in little bits of radioactive material which occurs naturally in coal. That's just one of the many chemicals and elements you're breathing as a result of combustion-based energy sources, many of which are carcinogenic. The harm being done isn't to some far-away group of people, but to everyone, yourself included. Sadly for you, and everyone else who suffers as a result of atmospheric pollution, it's impossible to trace the cancer to a particular bit of uranium from a particular plant, so you have no recourse in the event of an untimely death or serious illness. You'll certainly spend a lot of money fighting it, but the free market will not compensate you for these costs.

 

[lordbt]

Some forms of energy production kill more people than others. You yourself are breathing in little bits of radioactive material which occurs naturally in coal. That's just one of the many chemicals and elements you're breathing as a result of combustion-based energy sources, many of which are carcinogenic. The harm being done isn't to some far-away group of people, but to everyone, yourself included. Sadly for you, and everyone else who suffers as a result of atmospheric pollution, it's impossible to trace the cancer to a particular bit of uranium from a particular plant, so you have no recourse in the event of an untimely death or serious illness. You'll certainly spend a lot of money fighting it, but the free market will not compensate you for these costs.

Nor should it. Perhaps you would prefer the picture of mankinds existence in the absence of combustion based energy sources--frozen corpses by the millions each spring thaw. Environmentalism is not a love of nature, but a hatred of man.

 

[eclipsenow]

Because we are not willing to live in a totalitarian state based simply on the word of a few scientist who are becoming rich off of promoting AGW.

So, as a Christian, you're comfortable slandering the personal integrity of thousands of climate scientists and EVERY National Academy of Science on the planet are you? Without any evidence that this is what is actually occurring?

I think you really need to watch the introductory videos in the opening post. There is money and corruption in this game, but it comes from big oil and king coal. The scientists are just busy discussing their science, and hardly any of them EVER become 'rich'. But if you want to see the power of BILLIONS of dollars to corrupt people, go back and watch the first video in the opening post. It's short. Then get back to us hey?

 

[eclipsenow]

In the case of murder, there is a victim and an assailant. The actions of the assailant are measurable, quantifiable, and provable. If I kill you, there is a direct link between my actions and your injury/death. Can you make the same linkage between my driving to work, say, and demonstrable harm to you, your property or even the global environment? Of course not. My individual actions, even over the course of my entire lifetime, have no impact whatsoever on future sea levels or temperature fluctuations. Since my actions cannot be shown to harm anyone, then the state has no role in regulating those actions. I am not a servant and the state my master, I am a free man with rights that the state is bound by law to secure. If I am not violating the rights of another, then the state has no authority to regulate my behavior.

Oh the irony if some future climate & peak oil catastrophe pits nuclear nations against each other and we nuke ourselves back to the stone age. Who will guarantee your personal freedoms then? In some future State-less post-climate crash, everyone is 'free'. Free to kill and be killed; as in Mad Max or the Book of Eli.

Anyway, stop abstracting. This is about power supplies and sensible city design. We could change them without too much cost and make a better world for ourselves. What on earth is wrong with that?

 

[eclipsenow]

Wouldn't it be great to be the person who gets to define what 'detrimental' means?

Think of the POWER!

Funny, I don't remember the right-wing getting this foaming-at-the-mouth paranoid and hysterical over laws to ban lead pollution. The legislation was passed in the public good, and people accepted that.

But with energy supplies it's something else entirely, it's the end of personal freedoms, it's the end of democracy, it's the introduction of a totalitarian dictatorship. Why is that? Where does this absolutely mental mindset come from?