Why do Libertarians and Conservatives Deny Climate Change?

[juliusaugustus]

In my view climate change represents one the largest failures of government policy imaginable yet were lead to believe that free market policies brought us here.
How the government creates climate change
Energy: the energy industry gets massive amounts of corporate welfare in one way or another whether it be dirty or "green" sources of energy. The US military at this point is a criminal protection racket designed to enrich military contractors as well as protect the oil industry. The US government has also suppressed alternative battery technologies, tesla's wireless electricity transmission, thorium, and tesla's "free energy"
Agriculture - big corporate farms are protected by the FDA and subsidized by the government. These farms use huge amounts of energy do unquestionable environmental damage. Also there is much evidence to suggest that government policies helped created the dustbowl.
Asset bubbles - asset bubbles lead to huge amounts of energy being consumed. All asset bubbles can be chiefly blamed on the federal reserve and its inflationary policies as well as fractional reserve banking.
Transportation - The auto industry itself gets large subsidies and roads are massively subsidized. The "intercity passenger rail" thread points out government policies which killed rail transport. Auto dependence as well as suburbanization can be blamed on government policies such as euclidean zoning and other land use regulations.
The destruction of our environment and our atmosphere represent the most massive failure of government policy imaginable the solution is to release suppressed technologies, end transportation subsidies, deregulate the railroads completely, end the income tax, end land use regulations, end the Federal Reserve, end the FDA, stop fighting wars of aggression, end energy subsidies, end agriculture subsidies and end the FDIC. A stable money supply and free market in those perspective areas would end climate change.

[heavenlyboy34]

lolz :D You've pointed out a lot of problems in the world, but you haven't proved they cause "climate change"-and you won't. There simply is no man-made climate change. It's physically impossible due to the fact that the earth is a closed system.

[kcchiefs6465]

I do not deny climate change. The climate has been changing since we can tell.

Human cause is where we'd probably disagree.

[anaconda]

I agree with EVERYTHING you said except for the "destruction of our atmosphere." The free market would offer terrific solutions to environmental damage. Everything you mentioned is STILL highly relevant regardless of the causes of climate change, because we are indeed trashing the environment and government bears much of the blame. BTW this is a good video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

[JK/SEA]

well, for myself, i don't really deny it, i just think its bullshit.

[Peace&Freedom]

Does the OP realize that the reason the very phrase "climate change" is being invoked is that the prior phrase "global warming" has been demonstrably rebutted? The proponents had to switch branding techniques to describe their view because they had been debunked.

[mad cow]

Because they're not morons?

[QuickZ06]

They see me trollin they hatin.......

[fr33]

Climate change is to blame for most extinctions on earth. Funnily enough most of those happened when there were no humans on the planet. It is quite presumptuous to think humans are causing climate change. This strange belief comes from the indoctrination of the central planners who actually believe they can manage the planet's climate. They never will. Absolutely never.

[heavenlyboy34]

This must be in every "climate change" thread EVARRR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

[shane77m]

This must be in every "climate change" thread EVARRR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

It would have been sweet to see Mr. Conductor talk like that George does in his standup.

[easycougar]

I believe in climate change. I also believe that the government can't do jack crap about it (carbon tax, green energy programs, etc...)

[Working Poor]

I have no doubt that the earth is going thru changes I just don't believe agenda 21 and cap and tax are even close to solving the problem. Not that it can be solved by man. We can't make it stop. Al Gore does not control the galaxy. But nice try...

[The Goat]

central planning doesn't work.

[jtap]

Climate changes every day. I do not deny that.

I also seem unable to control it no matter how hard I try :confused:

[abacabb]

When I was a teenager, I wouldn't even drink soda because it had CO2 in it. Then I did research and found that it was overblown and not fully understood. So, my opinion is until we have several decades of good satellite measurements, I won't even consider the possibility of climate change. Then, whether it is man made, would take extreme changes in cloud cover and temperature, which we're simply not seeing.

When I was in college a professor from a university in Colorado when asked by me why the ice in Antarctica is increasing said "no its not, and if it were, the higher temperatures make more precipitation."

My BS alarm went off.

[juleswin]

My question is this, what if it good for humanity that the earth is warming? what if this will help agriculture, reduces energy consumption, increase liveable areas etc etc. And finally what if the cost to fix it will be more damaging that the best result possible?

These questions have to be answered first before I believe any action needs to be taken


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWDc6lpcqzc

Try and watch the videos above and it will give you a lot to think about

[The Gold Standard]

Why feed the government troll?

[donnay]

The whole purpose for them to be spouting 'Climate Change' is; A. To Control us. B. To tax us with a global tax--to ultimately control us.

It's interesting enough to realize a lot of what is going on with the climate, indeed has been man made, however, it is not by you and I.

Global Weather Modification Assault Causing Climate Chaos And Environmental Catastrophe
http://www.zengardner.com/global-weather-modification-assault-causing-climate-chaos-and-environmental-catastrophe/

The History of Weather Control
http://www.terraforminginc.com/weather-control/

Weather as a Force Multiplier
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: "Owning the Weather" for Military Use
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO409F.html

Weather Modification
http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/?q=weather-modifications

[Cleaner44]

I do not deny climate change. The climate has been changing since we can tell.

Human cause is where we'd probably disagree.

My thoughts exactly. I would guess that the climate of the Earth has always changed. The notion that it is the fault of American citizens or even our government seems quite far fetched to me.

[Natural Citizen]

Why do Libertarians and Conservatives Deny Climate Change?

Bacause most are scientifically illiterate. Many even fear looking to understand science in general for various social reasons. As such, a place for true scientific discussion on such things can not and will not exist among them. Change will pass them by. Is the difference in political science and the real thing.

[Neil Desmond]

Do you really mean climate change denial, or do you actually mean skeptical of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)? Part of what goes with being a libertarian is skepticism. I am a little more than skeptical when it comes to AGW myself, I'm doubtful of it. There's a difference between denial and skepticism. In order for there to be "denial," one must directly observe the existence of something and actively refuse to acknowledge that it does exist. Not only is it judging someone to say that they deny something, it's also misjudging them if they aren't experts or professionals and they have to be in order to be able to recognize its existence. In other words, only climatologists who have complete and direct control over their experiments, observations, etc. ought to even be in the business of accusing each other of being in denial of AGW.

The skepticism stems from the conflicts of interests involved. Even if AGW is real, the ideas being proposed by the very same individuals wouldn't even solve the problem; all they'll do is increase taxes, create artificial (government imposed) monopolies, and make life more difficult for everyone else. An actual solution would be one that solves the problem. The real problem is pollution of our environment, actual pollution - the stuff that you can see, feel, and taste in the food and water; that's what needs to be addressed. I wonder if AGW is a red herring introduced by those who are responsible for the actual pollution we have today. Also, if the government increases taxes, it forces people to have to go to work more often, create more garbage, etc. as a result of trying to keep up with the expenses involved. If you really want to solve the pollution problem, start by reducing taxes & cutting the government down to a small fraction of the size that it is now.

[JK/SEA]

Bacause most are scientifically illiterate. Many even fear looking to understand science in general for various social reasons. As such, a place for realistic discussion on such things can not and will not exist among them. Change will pass them by.

lol

[donnay]

My thoughts exactly. I would guess that the climate of the Earth has always changed. The notion that it is the fault of American citizens or even our government seems quite far fetched to me.



Environmental modification techniques have been applied by the US military for more than half a century. US mathematician John von Neumann, in liaison with the US Department of Defense, started his research on weather modification in the late 1940s at the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’. During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding techniques were used, starting in 1967 under Project Popeye, the objective of which was to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

The US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), is an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems around the world.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561

[Neil Desmond]

Bacause most are scientifically illiterate. Many even fear looking to understand science in general for various social reasons. As such, a place for true scientific discussion on such things can not and will not exist among them. Change will pass them by. Is the difference in political science and the real thing.
Are you scientifically literate? If so, do you believe everything you read or hear?

[ninepointfive]

say, it's not like all these tests could have not only polluted the entire globe with radiation or altered the environment, could they?

it would be better to focus on pollution rather than simple CO2.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS6b2kAk7dI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHfqiyQ9dAM

[Natural Citizen]

Yep. There is far more involved with the facts than the same old tired CO2 narrative that everyone likes to latch onto. But it's what they hear so as such so do we. Is all we hear about. Way to be, ninepointfive. Way to be.

[jkr]

because their assertions, and solutions, are bull$hit.

it all boils down to who decides who needs to be killed off so their progeny can eat- it stems from lack of faith

there are NOT too many people

some folks just want to kill

[jmdrake]

Bacause most are scientifically illiterate. Many even fear looking to understand science in general for various social reasons. As such, a place for true scientific discussion on such things can not and will not exist among them. Change will pass them by. Is the difference in political science and the real thing.

:rolleyes: So why do scientifically literate people deny climate change?

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/weather-channel-founder-wants/30016


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

I agree with you on the need to discuss science. But that, by definition, means that you don't come in with the your own preconceived notion that you must be "right" because media vetted "scientists" agree with you. Those "scientists" have been caught lying. You have to ask yourself "So why are they still being treated as credible"?

[AGRP]

First, its global cooling. Then its global warming. Now its climate change and as of now we almost never hear about it. You think they would get their story straight a long time ago. Isnt it interesting that most of the global warming talk stopped when the chicago climate exchange scam collapsed.

[Natural Citizen]

I don't really care about any of that, jmdrake. That's the same narrative I had mentioned earlier. Is actually comical that you went to find it too. And it's not even the correct argument. Is just busy work to keep people pushing the narrative. I just don't have any interest in it. My spew was in response to the op's question about why some in the political base deny climate change. It wasn't to argue the global warming narrative itself and certainly not to partake in the narrative with those business men on your video or even the narrative of the manufactured opposition they called out to keep the same meme rolling. The physics of the space around us is a far more interesting discussion to me. That's where real change is taking place. And far more relvant to the facts than what the the red eye guy and the ceo and whatever narrative they have going on with their list of opposition to the meme.

If people want to have that discussion then have at it. I've said many times before around here that man is just a speck. And they're the only ones who think they are so important as to place their nonsensical squabbles regarding their own relevance far above the more relevant factors. I'm just as happy to see them do it too. It's how things get done believe it or not.

[The Free Hornet]

Why do Libertarians and Conservatives Deny Climate Change?

Illiberal spin. I deny the likelihood of government intervention - specifically international and national solutions pressed with force - having a positive outcome.

And the US military, beyond being a racket, is among the largest users of oil - if not the largest.

[eating_nachos]

In my view climate change represents one the largest failures of government policy imaginable yet were lead to believe that free market policies brought us here.
How the government creates climate change
Energy: the energy industry gets massive amounts of corporate welfare in one way or another whether it be dirty or "green" sources of energy. The US military at this point is a criminal protection racket designed to enrich military contractors as well as protect the oil industry. The US government has also suppressed alternative battery technologies, tesla's wireless electricity transmission, thorium, and tesla's "free energy"
Agriculture - big corporate farms are protected by the FDA and subsidized by the government. These farms use huge amounts of energy do unquestionable environmental damage. Also there is much evidence to suggest that government policies helped created the dustbowl.
Asset bubbles - asset bubbles lead to huge amounts of energy being consumed. All asset bubbles can be chiefly blamed on the federal reserve and its inflationary policies as well as fractional reserve banking.
Transportation - The auto industry itself gets large subsidies and roads are massively subsidized. The "intercity passenger rail" thread points out government policies which killed rail transport. Auto dependence as well as suburbanization can be blamed on government policies such as euclidean zoning and other land use regulations.
The destruction of our environment and our atmosphere represent the most massive failure of government policy imaginable the solution is to release suppressed technologies, end transportation subsidies, deregulate the railroads completely, end the income tax, end land use regulations, end the Federal Reserve, end the FDA, stop fighting wars of aggression, end energy subsidies, end agriculture subsidies and end the FDIC. A stable money supply and free market in those perspective areas would end climate change.

Take a look at who funds the liberty movement. You'll find all your answers there.

[fisharmor]

juliusaugustus, your original post has some fantastic points in it. They all represent what we CAN do in order to better our living conditions.

The main reason conservatives and libertarians don't buy into the climate change argument is that it boils down to:
Dude, we like, broke the sky, man. The only way to fix it is to wear dirty clothes, not wipe your ass, and bike 15 miles to work!

If the AGW scaremongers would dial back the panic-speak a little bit, they'd get all sorts of people buying in to the green initiative, including libertarians and conservatives. All they need to do is start framing their arguments as you have done in the OP.

No, they can't be bothered - they go directly to the toilets that I have to scrape - literally scrape - shit out of every three days, totally ignoring the fact that I'm walking distance from the dam for the county reservoir which lets tens of thousands of gallons of water just run off into the Potomac every single day... and also ignoring the fact that my house was on a well until 2002 when I bought it, at which point the county mandated that the house be put on county water prior to sale.

The state is the direct cause of all sorts of environmental ills, just as you said. But that's not where it stops, is it? No, we're regularly berated with doomsday prophecies.....

[PaulConventionWV]

Yep. There is far more involved with the facts than the same old tired CO2 narrative that everyone likes to latch onto. But it's what they hear so as such so do we. Is all we hear about. Way to be, ninepointfive. Way to be.

Please take grammar lessons. You're polluting the boards with incoherence.

[Natural Citizen]

Please take grammar lessons. You're polluting the boards with incoherence.

Ah. Yes. You're classic. Ad hominem. Attacking the arguer and not the argument. You're probably way out of your league, junior.

[EBounding]

Even if Climate Change is 100% real, and 100% caused by man, what's never discussed are the economic costs of "dealing with it".

It's like, we could pretty much eliminate violent crime, but at huge financial cost and cost to our personal freedoms. It's the same thing with climate change and other environmental issues.

[fisharmor]

Even if Climate Change is 100% real, and 100% caused by man, what's never discussed are the economic costs of "dealing with it".

It's like, we could pretty much eliminate violent crime, but at huge financial cost and cost to our personal freedoms. It's the same thing with climate change and other environmental issues.

I don't agree with this. The point of diminishing returns is exactly the point where the state gets involved.
You can't eliminate violent crime, period. You can minimize it - by ending state involvement. It's abundantly clear at this point that areas that allow private firearms ownership and have a liberal (classical liberal) approach to individuals protecting themselves and their property have lower crime rates.
You also can't stop pollution. But if we applied the same logic to pollution that we do to self-defense, we'd see a minimization of pollution.

The argument can't center on how to eliminate something. It has to be about minimizing something. And state involvement is the surest way not to minimize something.

When the state takes control over something, the rewards system is exactly the opposite of the market. The market rewards success and punishes failure. When the state apparatus is successful at something, its funding is removed. When it fails, it gets more funding. Therefore anything it undertakes immediately fails, because failure is what is rewarded.

[VIDEODROME]

We must build giant factories running massive air conditioners to cool down the planet.

[brushfire]

Were did Lake Michigan come from? Where did the ice age go? What were the consequences of that change, and why are we still here? What kind of SUV did the cavemen drive?

One of the benefits of this "global warming" BS is the awareness of emissions. All too often the government imposes regulations on only the weak (you and me) while giving special interests an out - incidentally its those special interests who are the biggest emitters, but anyway... The objective here, by the government, is not to save the planet, but to distribute wealth, and create opportunities for key game players. Theres a lot of money to be made, for certain people...all at our expense.

I'd be happy if they just enforced property rights, and quit contaminating our water supplies. I'd like to eat the fish I catch, or any fish for that matter. The rest of this "global warming" horsesh!t, is just horsesh!t - IMO. (3/21/2013 12:40 - 21 degrees F = unseasonably cold)

[K466]

Yup, the free market is the solution, who would have thunk... :D

One thing you did not seem to mention, pollution = trespassing = violation of property rights = illegal in libertarianism. So whatever climate change we cause by pollution is all the fault of statism, once again. Isn't liberty great? :D

Here's my in-depth article on the subject: S@tR: Liberty and Environmentalism: A Reconciliation (http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981100070)

[kcchiefs6465]

Were did Lake Michigan come from? Where did the ice age go? What were the consequences of that change, and why are we still here? What kind of SUV did the cavemen drive?

One of the benefits of this "global warming" BS is the awareness of emissions. All too often the government imposes regulations on only the weak (you and me) while giving special interests an out - incidentally its those special interests who are the biggest emitters, but anyway... The objective here, by the government, is not to save the planet, but to distribute wealth, and create opportunities for key game players. Theres a lot of money to be made, for certain people...all at our expense.

I'd be happy if they just enforced property rights, and quit contaminating our water supplies. I'd like to eat the fish I catch, or any fish for that matter. The rest of this "global warming" horsesh!t, is just horsesh!t - IMO. (3/21/2013 12:40 - 21 degrees F = unseasonably cold)
Great post. QFT.

Exactly my thoughts on it as well.

[thoughtomator]

The basis of "climate change" hysteria has been proven to be an unmitigated fraud time and time again, and that's really as far as the discussion needs to go other than perhaps asking why those who foisted it on us have not been prosecuted for it.

[twomp]

I don't understand why even bring up the question makes the OP a troll? You guys are talking on a large scale but why not bring it back to local areas. Check out the skies above the Los Angeles area or in Beijing China, do you really believe that smog there is not man made? If so, do you really believe it is doing NOTHING to the environment? If that smog is capable of being destructive to the environment below it, how is it not possible that it couldn't do the same across a larger spectrum?

I'm not a troll by the way, just looking for a discussion with people willing to at least to tell me I'm wrong with some actual facts instead the normal, "you must be a liberal troll" insult.

[brushfire]

You guys are talking on a large scale but why not bring it back to local areas. Check out the skies above the Los Angeles area or in Beijing China, do you really believe that smog there is not man made? If so, do you really believe it is doing NOTHING to the environment?

I believe a couple of us had addressed that aspect of the issue, quite well actually. The issue is strictly property rights.

I dont mean to put you on the spot, but I'm still very curious why the climate change alarmists refuse to acknowledge my question about the glaciers/ice age. Where did all of that co2 come from? What was the composition of co2 during the Jurassic period? Compare that to today? These are scientific questions which must have scientific answers. Why are the global warmists so selective in their application of science?

I realize the answers to my questions dont support their argument, but ignoring them doesnt make them insignificant.

The common ground here, again, is property rights. It serves everyone to respect, honor, and enforce, property rights.

[juliusaugustus]

Look folks I don't support a Carbon tax (Ironically Rex Tillerson CEO of Exxon Mobil supports this), Agenda 21, or energy subsidies. You guys keep saying I support central planning but my position is to get RID of government involvement. As for climate change itself well the atmosphere at one time had huge amounts of Carbon content and the planet wasn't exactly a paradise.

[fearthereaperx]

I don't understand why even bring up the question makes the OP a troll? You guys are talking on a large scale but why not bring it back to local areas. Check out the skies above the Los Angeles area or in Beijing China, do you really believe that smog there is not man made? If so, do you really believe it is doing NOTHING to the environment? If that smog is capable of being destructive to the environment below it, how is it not possible that it couldn't do the same across a larger spectrum?

I'm not a troll by the way, just looking for a discussion with people willing to at least to tell me I'm wrong with some actual facts instead the normal, "you must be a liberal troll" insult.

You are conflating co2 with the pollutants in smog. Don't fall for the propaganda.

[heavenlyboy34]

You are conflating co2 with the pollutants in smog. Don't fall for the propaganda.
This^ CO2 feeds the trees and other greens. And you exhale it 24/7.

[XNavyNuke]

I'm not a troll by the way, just looking for a discussion with people willing to at least to tell me I'm wrong with some actual facts instead the normal, "you must be a liberal troll" insult.

If you wish to discuss pollutants rationally then you must not pick and choose your facts. Despite what college professors would have you believe, gasoline regulation predates the Clean Air Act of 1970. Standardized formulation of gasoline and diesel fuels goes back to the turn of the century. Legal definition of the composition of each was required in order to tax it. CAA enabled reformulation based upon this precedent. The reason I cannot legally set up a automobile shop to modify cars to run on methanol ( low emissions, cheaper per mile) has to do with taxation and not the improved environmental benefits of the technology. Taxation requires regulation. Regulation reduces innovation. Megacorporations embrace regulation as an ever increasing barrier to entry for potentially disruptive competitors. This reduces available capital to innovative start ups as the risk is too high for the most innovative. For those that do get funded, their valuation remains low and suceptible to buyout.

XNN

[KingNothing]

lolz :D You've pointed out a lot of problems in the world, but you haven't proved they cause "climate change"-and you won't. There simply is no man-made climate change. It's physically impossible due to the fact that the earth is a closed system.


Well, that is bullet proof logic.

I don't believe or... disbelieve... man-made global warming, but I do know that the argument you made is completely ridiculous.

[pcosmar]

Deny it?

I hope for it.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8112/8577369437_ec42c9f2f1_c.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8238/8578474284_321cdc789f_c.jpg

I am quite ready for a change, These pics were taken on the 18th. We have had a few days of snow since..
I just dug out the car and brought my wife home today..she stayed in town with a friend,, due to weather.

Yup,, I welcome climate change.

[XNavyNuke]

Look folks I don't support a Carbon tax (Ironically Rex Tillerson CEO of Exxon Mobil supports this), Agenda 21, or energy subsidies. You guys keep saying I support central planning but my position is to get RID of government involvement. As for climate change itself well the atmosphere at one time had huge amounts of Carbon content and the planet wasn't exactly a paradise.

And there were times of lower carbon content and the planet wasn't paradise either. The only group that loves regulation more than the government are the megacorporations. Regarding temperatures, you seemed to be convinced that the signal is greater than the noise. I happen to believe that it does not. I got my degree in environmental studies and has professors that honestly believed the solar constant in their models was really a constant. They couldn't even fathom effects of galactic cosmic rays on cloud formation and its resulting change in albedo. Most that I was taught by had more in common with psychologist than any 'hard' scientist.

XNN

[puppetmaster]

The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html#ixzz2OCnl6jpk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html


more science = less climate change proof

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, that is bullet proof logic.
I know. Facts are awesome. :)


I don't believe or... disbelieve... man-made global warming, but I do know that the argument you made is completely ridiculous.
How so? It's not even fallacious.

[puppetmaster]

Deny it?

I hope for it.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8112/8577369437_ec42c9f2f1_c.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8238/8578474284_321cdc789f_c.jpg

I am quite ready for a change, These pics were taken on the 18th. We have had a few days of snow since..
I just dug out the car and brought my wife home today..she stayed in town with a friend,, due to weather.

Yup,, I welcome climate change.

nice location!

[awake]

The government should have nothing to due with climate. We should all be worried about the pollution and environmental protection of our own properties.

[enjerth]

I don't necessarily deny... Anthropogenic Global Warming.

We have too many politicians.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q1wYR7nLA0

[libertygrl]

I do not deny climate change. The climate has been changing since we can tell.

Human cause is where we'd probably disagree.

That's my view as well.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't believe in climate change, but even if I did, the government has no power to do anything about it. "Mother Nature" is neither a victim nor a criminal.

[Liberty74]

"Man made global warming" is a "sick" science and total scam perpetrated by the rapist AL GORE himself to allow him, his buddies and banksters to steal wealth from the American people and create trillions for themselves. It's called the carbon tax credit. In order to get this $11 trillion world wide industry moving, one must first brainwash people into believing something which is not true - man cannot change global temperatures if we tried.

Global warming, coolings and ice ages have been occurring dozens of times within the last 420K years via a simple scientific chart. It is also a FACT that CO2 does not cause global warming, rather global warming increases CO2. Warming is caused by the strength of the sun's rays, not my 2004 Civic or the fact that you breathe. When the sun's rays decrease, a cooling will occur. All the "sick" science created by these idiots and their "models" have all BEEN PROVEN WRONG.

It is also a fact that top environmentalists have come out and stated, "If we eliminated all vehicles and destroyed all factories, there would be no effect on global temperatures."

Why don't we do something for which we can make a change? Strive for better municipality water, recycle to conserve land, use chemical free cleaning products, promote organic farming, etc.

[torchbearer]

the climate changed all day today. I don't deny that. It has changed all my life.

[juleswin]

the climate changed all day today. I don't deny that. It has changed all my life.

Climate is different from weather, the weather changed today but the climate this year changed as compared to last year's climate.

[torchbearer]

Climate is different from weather, the weather changed today but the climate this year changed as compared to last year's climate. I'm not talking about the weather, though that changes too.

[MelissaWV]

The world is getting colder and we are in an Ice Age and it's going to get worse and all the crops will die and there will be humanitarian disasters as people freeze to death! (Global Cooling)

The world is getting hotter and we are experiencing rising oceans and parts of the planet will be underwater within a matter of short periods of time and the ozone is disappearing and people are going to be sunburnt in a horrific way just from going out to get their newspaper in the morning! (Global Warming)

The world is getting hotter in some places, colder in others, the ocean is rising and falling, and there are droughts and floods and strong storms! (Climate Change)

...

The climate hasn't changed this past decade! That's never happened before! (Predicted next crisis: Climate Stagnation)

[torchbearer]

In Louisiana, you get up at day break, its 35, by lunch its 85. its that time of year.

[devil21]

Take a look at who funds the liberty movement. You'll find all your answers there.

What answer can I provide? What answers can the other long-time activists that have donated bunches of money provide?

[Koz]

The climate has changed for millenia, good luck trying to stop it.

[juliusaugustus]

What answer can I provide? What answers can the other long-time activists that have donated bunches of money provide?

The Koch Brothers and the House of Rockefeller

[SewrRatt]

The Koch Brothers and the House of Rockefeller

Yeah. The Kochs and Rockefellers love Ron Paul. Total BFsF. /s

[fr33]

The Koch Brothers and the House of Rockefeller

I wish I could get some funding from them.

[Sola_Fide]

The world is getting colder and we are in an Ice Age and it's going to get worse and all the crops will die and there will be humanitarian disasters as people freeze to death! (Global Cooling)

The world is getting hotter and we are experiencing rising oceans and parts of the planet will be underwater within a matter of short periods of time and the ozone is disappearing and people are going to be sunburnt in a horrific way just from going out to get their newspaper in the morning! (Global Warming)

The world is getting hotter in some places, colder in others, the ocean is rising and falling, and there are droughts and floods and strong storms! (Climate Change)

...

The climate hasn't changed this past decade! That's never happened before! (Predicted next crisis: Climate Stagnation)

And the thread title will be: Why Don't Libertarians Believe In Climate Stagnation?

[ChristianAnarchist]

Funny, I'm pretty old and back in the 60's the craze was that we were about to enter a new "Ice Age" brought on by, you guessed it: consumption of fossil fuels... :D They were also predicting that we would expend all fossil fuels my the 1990's. What a bunch of clowns. Now of course they are saying we will run out fossil fuels by (fill-in-the-date) and I STILL don't believe them. We seem to be swimming in the stuff and I doubt we will run out for another 100 years...

Some of those same "scientists" are still living today and they are promoting the "global warming" scare. Total BS!! I once asked a scientist I knew the following: IF I had access to the total wealth of the planet and IF I spent ALL that wealth doing NOTHING but trying to "create" pollution, would it be possible to pollute the planet enough to destroy the ecosystems. He thought about it for about a week and concluded that no, if you rule out bio-weapons or nuclear weapons, we really couldn't affect the environment much. Of course we could pollute local areas, but in time nature would clear those up.

[juliusaugustus]

I think it is of note that David Rockefeller is on the Council on Foreign relations he is a major shareholder in Exxon, Chevron, and BP. Rex Tillerson CEO of Exxon Mobile is also at the CFR. The CFR is a secret shadow government that decides foreign policy for us.

[Professor8000]

1. Ice caps are melting: Fact.
2. Infra Red Radiation escaping the atmosphere has increased: Fact
3. Atmosphere is increasing in brightness due to increased temperature: Fact
4. Atmosphere expanding due to increased temperatures: Fact

Where is this happening you ask?
1. Mars
2. Venus
3. Jupiter, Triton, and Uranus
4. Pluto(which happens to be moving away from the sun, a time when it should be cooling)

[devil21]

The Koch Brothers and the House of Rockefeller

I knew that was coming. Not sure you realize how dumb that sounds to long time activists in this movement.

[KrokHead]

Why do Libertarians and Conservatives Deny Climate Change?
Probably for the same reason Liberals support saving their environment. Usually out of dogma.

[Neil Desmond]

Probably for the same reason Liberals support saving their environment. Usually out of dogma.
If "deny" is code for "being skeptical" & "climate change" is code for "human-caused global warming" (AGW) well, I don't consider skepticism to be dogma anymore than I consider things like the scientific method & critical thinking to be dogma. But okay; if they're all dogma, then sure, being skeptical of AGW is "dogma."

[klamath]

In my view climate change represents one the largest failures of government policy imaginable yet were lead to believe that free market policies brought us here.
How the government creates climate change
Energy: the energy industry gets massive amounts of corporate welfare in one way or another whether it be dirty or "green" sources of energy. The US military at this point is a criminal protection racket designed to enrich military contractors as well as protect the oil industry. The US government has also suppressed alternative battery technologies, tesla's wireless electricity transmission, thorium, and tesla's "free energy"
Agriculture - big corporate farms are protected by the FDA and subsidized by the government. These farms use huge amounts of energy do unquestionable environmental damage. Also there is much evidence to suggest that government policies helped created the dustbowl.
Asset bubbles - asset bubbles lead to huge amounts of energy being consumed. All asset bubbles can be chiefly blamed on the federal reserve and its inflationary policies as well as fractional reserve banking.
Transportation - The auto industry itself gets large subsidies and roads are massively subsidized. The "intercity passenger rail" thread points out government policies which killed rail transport. Auto dependence as well as suburbanization can be blamed on government policies such as euclidean zoning and other land use regulations.
The destruction of our environment and our atmosphere represent the most massive failure of government policy imaginable the solution is to release suppressed technologies, end transportation subsidies, deregulate the railroads completely, end the income tax, end land use regulations, end the Federal Reserve, end the FDA, stop fighting wars of aggression, end energy subsidies, end agriculture subsidies and end the FDIC. A stable money supply and free market in those perspective areas would end climate change.You can add a few more on there. The railroads were massively subsidised in the 19th century which in turn subsidised the steel and timber industries.
As far as climate change I think you hit the nail on the head. Government through do gooder policies created much of the massive environmental damage with the massive government intervention. What is being pushed to fix climate change? Massive government intervention..
One thing I have noticed is you seem to have bought into the the media and environmentalists meme that if the climate isn't exactly like it has been for the last hundred years the world will be a wreak. You know what, it will just be changed. Take the time to really listen to media coverage of climate change. Bad things will happen and good things will happen but to the media absolutely nothing good will come from a warmer climate. That is flat out false and is pure fear mongering to drive a agenda of massive government intervention.
I mostly believe that the climate is warming but I also know that the world will survive. If you really want to worry about massive extinction look to the asteroid belt or the Ort cloud. That is not a matter of if but when.

[matt0611]

I don't "deny climate change". I don't think you'll find a single person on the Earth who denies the climate changes.

I just don't buy into the AGW eco-facist movement.

[Henry Rogue]

I'm skeptical of an entity that classifies carbon dioxide as a pollutant. I'm skeptical of any science that is funded through hysteria.

[Natural Citizen]

Are you scientifically literate? If so, do you believe everything you read or hear?

I hold advisory positions in the area of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. Among other influence in the area of the sciences, education and communication. So I'd like to think that, yes, I am. Of course scientifically literate doesn't mean that just because one can read or recite some list of knowledge or facts or news commentary that they are scientifically literate. That's only a small part of it. The more relevant factors are how one looks at the world. If you're literate in the area of the sciences then the world looks different to you when you look at it through that lens. Issues that face society that have science as their foundation (like this one we're discussing here) are better understood and one isn't as open to becoming fooled by those who actually do understand the sciences yet choose the political narrative. Most who discuss these things from a purely political narrative and are not literate in the area of the sciences are basically disenfranchising themselves from the democratic process and they don't even know they are doing it to themselves. Which is what I mean when I have mentioned there and about that this is the demograph that change will surely pass right by. They won't even see it. And that isn't particularly a bad thing in my opinion.