Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth; Man's CO2 is 1% !!!

[PRB]

PRB, do you take the position that there will be global warming and climate destabilization in the future?

Yes. Any intellectually honest person takes such as position unless he's ignoring evidence of has better reason to believe otherwise.

If you do not wish to answer the question, then describe clearly your argument. Take a stand, and be clear about it.

I answered you, but I'll try to make a clear argument anyway.

Scientists through multiple lines of evidence, continued and repeated testing, observation, have concluded that the globe is overall warming due to industrialization. The temperature predictions made by those who advocate the theory of man made global warming, while not perfect, have been far more accurate than those who deny it. I am open to being wrong, and I oppose any and all policies to regulate and tax carbon emissions. My belief is that knowing the facts and being prepared for natural disasters is generally better than not being prepared. If people of Sandy and Katrina could have known even a year in advance of what they're facing, they'd be much better off.

I do not believe in protecting the environment. I do not believe global warming will destroy civilization or life as we know it, just that destabilization, droughts, hurricanes, extreme snow fall, heat waves, will cause enough inconvenience that people would rather avoid or prepare for if they could. I can tell Sandy & Katrina victims that they're still alive, civilization is still around, the world is still here, and what happened is totally natural, that won't help them any. I could also tell them they deserve whatever happened, because it's natural and nobody should be surprised. If they ARE surprised, then we should ask ourselves if they knowingly ignored warning signs, or had no way of knowing, this would tell us if they deserved what they got.

You cannot say both "it'll never happen" and "it's natural, what's the big deal" in the same breath, they are contradictions. If your belief is that climate WILL be stable, by all means do nothing, just remember if you're ever caught off guard, the government will be the first to greet you, and I'll be the first to laugh at you. If your belief is that the climate will be less stable in the near future, do whatever you think you have to do to protect yourself, because the government will be the first to greet you if something goes wrong, and I won't be donating to your rescue.

I'll say again I'm against carbon taxation. So accusing me of supporting it just won't work, accepting scientific claims does not force me to intervene. If you insist that accepting scientific conclusions justifies regulation policies, YOU are part of the problem and you've accepted the liberal logic.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Scientists through multiple lines of evidence, continued and repeated testing, observation, have concluded that the globe is overall warming due to industrialization.

That is patently and blatantly false. Industrialization was not proven as climate driver. It is a lie. It has been overall warming up for over 200,000 years, and it was not because of industrialization or human-produced-CO2. It used to be an ice age, you know. The earth was frozen from pole to pole, and it thawed out, and not because of SUV's. Get it?

[PRB]

That is patently and blatantly false.

Prove it, and collect $30,000 http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blog...challenge.html

It doesn't need to be your own original study, cite any scientist you like. If he can't refute it (and I know he can, because I have), you'll get your $30,000.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Prove it, and collect $30,000 http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blog...challenge.html

It doesn't need to be your own original study, cite any scientist you like. If he can't refute it (and I know he can, because I have), you'll get your $30,000.

I have refuted this IPCC claim, as also have done at least 50 other PhD's from IPCC.

Who is a judge of the proof? Let everyone decide for themselves. Truth speaks for itself and cannot be overcome. It always conquers in the end.

[buenijo]

PRB, thank you for the lengthy post. Your answering one last question should make clear for me your position:

QUESTION: If a problem exists and the source of the problem is understood, then is not intervention to mitigate the problem a rational action assuming this can be done? Before you answer, please read the previous sentence again carefully, then consider the following. With respect to the particular problem in consideration, many who believe increases in net CO2 to be a problem also consider that we've painted ourselves into a corner so to speak. That is, they take the position that intervention to solve the problem will likely cause more harm to us than not. Do you take this position? That is, do you NOT advocate for government intervention (such as taxation) because you believe it cannot have a NET benefit - or that it's simply not the best approach? Or, have you considered that intervention should be limited to individuals becoming aware of the problem and making personal decisions (such as where to locate, and other actions) to prepare for the expected climate disruptions? NOTE: While the following seems preposterous, I feel the need to ask - do you propose that people do absolutely nothing to prepare (i.e. no intervention whatever)?

NOTE: I am interested primarily in clarity, and not agreement. It seems we will not agree on this matter, so the following statement of my position on the matter will most likely be my last post on this thread.

MY POSITION: I take the position that we do not have a sufficient understanding of the global climate systems to make accurate predictions. Most global warming predictions made in the past have not proven successful (the models have failed to represent reality). Indeed, hundreds if not thousands of scientists argue that the Earth has shown a net cooling (or no net warming) over the last decade despite most predictions having called for a pronounced warming. Furthermore, this cooling (or lack of warming) trend was predicted by many prominent scientists who consider solar activity as the most important single input when considering trends in global temperature changes. While I accept the premise that CO2 emissions from industry can affect the climate system, I emphasize that we do not have the means to quantify or characterize how these effects will manifest. I state with perfect confidence that there is no reason (i.e. insufficient evidence) to expect climate to change in any material manner due to the CO2 emissions by industry. I take the position that many politicians have exaggerated some claims of the underlying science, and that the objectivity of scientists working in the field has been compromised by a resulting public outcry. The institutions that support the science of climate and environmental science in general have expanded many fold in the face of the widely perceived threat of global warming. Today, these institutions are now wholly dependent on the tax dollars derived from this perceived threat. Selection bias has characterized the entire field since this dynamic began. It is not possible for science to be objective under these conditions. Under these conditions, people will see (and have seen) what they want to see. The science of global warming (a.k.a. climate change) is deficient because it has not and cannot perform a controlled and repeatable experiment to test its hypothesis. The climate system presents far too many confounding variables and poorly understood (or unknown) feedback loops. My position is scientific skepticism.

RELEVANT QUOTES:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

VARIOUS RESOURCES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMHwhb8C8to

[PRB]

PRB, thank you for the lengthy post. Your answering one last question should make clear for me your position:

QUESTION: If a problem exists and the source of the problem is understood, then is not intervention to mitigate the problem a rational action assuming this can be done? Before you answer, please read the previous sentence again carefully, then consider the following. With respect to the particular problem in consideration, many who believe increases in net CO2 to be a problem also consider that we've painted ourselves into a corner so to speak.

Assuming it can be done almost sounds like a sure "Ok, great, why not?" If you ignore your sacred ideology of libertarianism, that taxation is ALWAYS theft and government is ALWAYS evil and the environment is NEVER your problem and pollution is NOT your fault. So to answer your question, either it would NOT be rational to do so because libertarianism as a religion comes before all other facts. Or that it would be rational, BUT my freedoms are more important than whatever will happen to other people.

It's true, MOST people believe that IF CO2 is indeed the culprit, then the ONLY rational response is to regulate carbon emissions AS LONG AS it can actually make a difference. But they themselves have limited their thinking into such few options, and deniers are helping them! This is why they deny, because they can't man up and say "I don't care if it's true, I still don't want to pay carbon taxes".

This is no different than the people who deny the 16th Amendment was ratified, when what they REALLY want to say is "Ok, the law says i need to pay income taxes, I'm just personally selfishly emotionally and morally against it". Do you see the point here?

You don't need to deny the facts to get what you want (or at least ask for it). If you insist on arguing facts you can't win on, while not addressing the real point (which is, even if true, you're still not accepting taxes and regulations), you're allowing your opponent to discredit you on dishonesty, ALSO, you're basically saying, IF you can prove that the premise is true, you'll gladly accept taxes and regulations. (As you've heard with a million idiot tax protestors "Just show me the law and I will gladly pay taxes" and they don't mean it).

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Brilliant, buenijo! Thanks.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

If you ignore your sacred ideology of libertarianism, that taxation is ALWAYS theft and government is ALWAYS evil and the environment is NEVER your problem and pollution is NOT your fault. So to answer your question, either it would NOT be rational to do so because libertarianism as a religion comes before all other facts. Or that it would be rational, BUT my freedoms are more important than whatever will happen to other people.

There your true colors are coming out. You misrepresent Libertarianism. All Libertarianism is the Non-Aggression principle. It does not say "environment is NEVER your problem and pollution is NOT your fault". NAP prohibits violation of anyone's property, including polluting your neighbor's land, water or air. So you are lying again, and building a straw-man.

[buenijo]

There your true colors are coming out. You misrepresent Libertarianism. All Libertarianism is the Non-Aggression principle. It does not say "environment is NEVER your problem and pollution is NOT your fault". NAP prohibits violation of anyone's property, including polluting your neighbor's land, water or air. So you are lying again, and building a straw-man.

Yes. PRB has fashioned many straw men during this discussion. I had noted earlier that I would likely stop posting comments on this thread, but it seems what I desire is to no longer reply directly to his posts. He's a sophist - nothing more.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophist?s=t : see definition 2.

[PRB]

That is, they take the position that intervention to solve the problem will likely cause more harm to us than not. Do you take this position?

I too graduated from the Mises Institute for Advanced Libertarian studies, I know that government intervention either always causes more harm or is still morally wrong regardless. So yes, I take the position that we shouldn't have government intervention in form of taxation and regulation.

That is, do you NOT advocate for government intervention (such as taxation) because you believe it cannot have a NET benefit - or that it's simply not the best approach?

Correct, I don't know how much more clear I need to say it. People like Foundation keep accusing me of advocating for taxes or helping taxer's arguments, because HE is the one who thinks like they do (I do not).

Or, have you considered that intervention should be limited to individuals becoming aware of the problem and making personal decisions (such as where to locate, and other actions) to prepare for the expected climate disruptions?

I don't call that intervention, more like just knowing the facts and being prepared for it.

You can't predict earthquakes, but you sure as hell hope to be prepared for it.

NOTE: While the following seems preposterous, I feel the need to ask - do you propose that people do absolutely nothing to prepare (i.e. no intervention whatever)?

Sorry that I wasn't clear, by intervention I automatically think government interference. Preparation done on a personal level, I advocate and do not consider intervention. So I want people to do absolutely everything BUT ask for government to interfere.

[PRB]

There your true colors are coming out. You misrepresent Libertarianism. All Libertarianism is the Non-Aggression principle. It does not say "environment is NEVER your problem and pollution is NOT your fault". NAP prohibits violation of anyone's property, including polluting your neighbor's land, water or air. So you are lying again, and building a straw-man.

the environment is nobody's property, so it follows that it's not your problem and pollution is not aggressing against anybody. Splitting hairs with me is not the same as proving I'm a liar.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Yes. PRB has fashioned many straw men during this discussion. I had noted earlier that I would likely stop posting comments on this thread, but it seems what I desire is to no longer reply directly to his posts. He's a sophist - nothing more.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophist?s=t : see definition 2.

Exactly! (And in all likelyhood he is a paid troll, because no one can be this stupid on their own). Thank you for your BRILLIANT contribution!

[PRB]

NOTE: I am interested primarily in clarity, and not agreement. It seems we will not agree on this matter, so the following statement of my position on the matter will most likely be my last post on this thread.

MY POSITION: I take the position that we do not have a sufficient understanding of the global climate systems to make accurate predictions. Most global warming predictions made in the past have not proven successful (the models have failed to represent reality).

What do you consider a successful one and who are you aware of that have made the most accurate predictions? I can bet you it's not the deniers who say CO2 isn't causing warming.

Indeed, hundreds if not thousands of scientists argue that the Earth has shown a net cooling (or no net warming) over the last decade despite most predictions having called for a pronounced warming.

Published in journals? Or just opinions?

Furthermore, this cooling (or lack of warming) trend was predicted by many prominent scientists who consider solar activity as the most important single input when considering trends in global temperature changes.

Wait, which cooling? Establish the fact first, thanks.

While I accept the premise that CO2 emissions from industry can affect the climate system, I emphasize that we do not have the means to quantify or characterize how these effects will manifest.

What would convince you that we can? What kind of an accurate prediction would you need?

I state with perfect confidence that there is no reason (i.e. insufficient evidence) to expect climate to change in any material manner due to the CO2 emissions by industry.

So tell us what would be sufficient evidence, you sure know what ISN'T sufficient evidence, so you must know what IS. This is the test of whether a person can intellectually honestly argue what he believes, or is just jerking off, wasting time.

Any idiot can say "there is no evidence" with his eyes closed and ears covered, how do you know you're not doing it? (By contrast, I can tell you exactly why I don't take the counter arguments seriously. I DO consider multiple points of view and arguments, I DO hold them to the same standard of evidence and scrutiny)

I take the position that many politicians have exaggerated some claims of the underlying science, and that the objectivity of scientists working in the field has been compromised by a resulting public outcry. The institutions that support the science of climate and environmental science in general have expanded many fold in the face of the widely perceived threat of global warming.

We don't disagree here. Just because politicians exploit 9/11 for war doesn't mean 9/11 didn't happen.

Today, these institutions are now wholly dependent on the tax dollars derived from this perceived threat. Selection bias has characterized the entire field since this dynamic began. It is not possible for science to be objective under these conditions.

Again, find me a more objective, more accurate study and prediction. I admit science can be corrupted and wrong, but that doesn't mean you automatically deny whatever is given, nor does it mean you can cherry pick which scientific points to deny just because you want to.

What scientific institutions ARE NOT wholly dependent on donations, grants and tax dollars? Do we dismiss ALL of them?

Is NASA a complete fraud and everything they say false? Your point about funding influencing conclusions is taken, but we test claims with science, and ANYBODY IS FREE TO PROVE THEM WRONG.

Under these conditions, people will see (and have seen) what they want to see. The science of global warming (a.k.a. climate change) is deficient because it has not and cannot perform a controlled and repeatable experiment to test its hypothesis.

Except it can and has.

The climate system presents far too many confounding variables and poorly understood (or unknown) feedback loops. My position is scientific skepticism.

Skepticism means you set a goal from where you will be convinced. So i'll ask you until you give it to me, or admit you don't know.

What would it take to convince you you are wrong? As for "far too many confounding variables" I welcome you to list any and all you believe we've ignored or failed to study. I don't expect you to know what scientists never heard or or imagined, just the ones you believe they're intentionally ignoring or can study but have not.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

the environment is nobody's property,

What about the air in your house, or water that falls on your lawn? If someone pollutes your land, air or water, they are violating your property. Thus your premise is false.

so it follows

No it doesn't. Because your premise was wrong.

that it's not your problem and pollution is not aggressing against anybody. Splitting hairs with me is not the same as proving I'm a liar.

O, you are.

[buenijo]

Exactly! (And in all likelyhood he is a paid troll, because no one can be this stupid on their own). Thank you for your BRILLIANT contribution!

You're welcome Sir. Thank you for your persistence in dealing with PRB during the course of this discussion. It seems you have more persistence than I. However, I suggest it's time to throw in the towel. His latest post lost all pretense of reason and declined to little more than gibberish. Of course, this is the final avenue of sophism when used to address a sound argument. I fear there is nothing we can do to help him from here on.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

We don't disagree here. Just because politicians exploit 9/11 for war doesn't mean 9/11 didn't happen.

Right. Except it is important to understand what caused 9/11 so that correct actions could be taken. 9/11 was a bonafide inside job. Therefore, the correct action to is should have been prosecution of those in power who facilitated, helped to carry out and then covered it up, instead of promoting them and giving them more money. Thus because the cause was incorrectly determined, the action taken was the REVERSE of the proper one. The same thing happens with global climate change. The cause of it is NOT human-produced-CO2. Therefore trying to regulate and tax it out of existence will do practically NOTHING in terms of global temperatures. Even if ALL human-produced-CO2 was removed, it would not make ANY significant difference. Thus the whole thing is a FRAUD.

Is NASA a complete fraud and everything they say false?

Most of it. NASA is a lie.

Your point about funding influencing conclusions is taken, but we test claims with science, and ANYBODY IS FREE TO PROVE THEM WRONG.

We just did, over and over again, but you would not listen because you are a paid liar and a troll. The honest people, however, have figured it out already. Truth speaks for itself, and is unconquerable.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

You're welcome Sir. Thank you for your persistence in dealing with PRB during the course of this discussion. It seems you have more persistence than I. However, I suggest it's time to throw in the towel. His latest post lost all pretense of reason and declined to little more than gibberish. Of course, this is the final avenue of sophism when used to address a sound argument. I fear there is nothing we can do to help him from here on.

My view is that the more he talks the more the people who read this thread are convinced that we are right and he is wrong. Such is the nature of the truth.

[Anti-Neocon]

What about the air in your house, or water that falls on your lawn? If someone pollutes your land, air or water, they are violating your property. Thus your premise is false.

For this reason I believe that protecting the environment is part of the government's primary role - defense from aggression.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

For this reason I believe that protecting the environment is part of the government's primary role - defense from aggression.

The government has no right to claim such a monopoly, no to rob people for such "protection." Google "protection racket."

[PRB]

Most of it. NASA is a lie.

Ok then. I guess I am not surprised that people who deny global warming or man caused global warming are ultimately 2 kinds of people, one who will have to dismiss all science, or the other, who have to explain why science is reliable almost everywhere else, just not here.

[PRB]

My view is that the more he talks the more the people who read this thread are convinced that we are right and he is wrong. Such is the nature of the truth.

You won't need my help there, you can spam this board with all your own stuff if you just want to repeat and read yourself talk. I can't stop you.

[PRB]

What about the air in your house

It would have to be in your house, not around it

, or water that falls on your lawn?

Water is not yours until it's on your lawn

If someone pollutes your land, air or water, they are violating your property. Thus your premise is false.

But only if the person pollutes YOUR land, anywhere else is none of your business

No it doesn't. Because your premise was wrong.

O, you are.

If you don't own something, you can't control it, what did I miss?

[PRB]

We just did, over and over again, but you would not listen because you are a paid liar and a troll. The honest people, however, have figured it out already. Truth speaks for itself, and is unconquerable.

No, you didn't. Not when you admit you predict warming will happen. Not when you've not made a temperature prediction different than those who predict CO2 has caused warming.

Now go ahead and claim your prize, or tell me who won it first.

http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blog...challenge.html

[PRB]

Even if ALL human-produced-CO2 was removed, it would not make ANY significant difference. Thus the whole thing is a FRAUD.

whether it caused it and whether we can stop it are 2 different things.

[buenijo]

My view is that the more he talks the more the people who read this thread are convinced that we are right and he is wrong. Such is the nature of the truth.

Reasonable.

Allow me to contribute to this end. I recently engaged PRB in a lengthy discussion on economics here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ue-lol/page4&&. PRB noted in post #117 of the linked thread the following:

I will admit I don't know what you mean by malinvestment.

However, in post #790 of this thread he posted the following:

I too graduated from the Mises Institute for Advanced Libertarian studies,...

Contradiction? Lie? You decide. Personally, I can't see how someone can complete a formal study with the Mises Institute without being introduced to the concept of malinvestment. It looks suspicious to me.

[Anti-Neocon]

The government has no right to claim such a monopoly, no to rob people for such "protection." Google "protection racket."

As long as people are dependent on water supplies and the air around them, you really think the government protecting others from polluting those things is "robbing people for protection"?

[PRB]

As long as people are dependent on water supplies and the air around them, you really think the government protecting others from polluting those things is "robbing people for protection"?

Yes, because government by definition is a robber and aggressor, don't you ever get it?! How can government protect property when it must violate property to exist?!!!!!!

[PRB]

Reasonable.

Contradiction? Lie? You decide. Personally, I can't see how someone can complete a formal study with the Mises Institute without being introduced to the concept of malinvestment. It looks suspicious to me.

How about, a joke? I didn't actually complete any formal course or study with the Mises Institute, it was a parody reference to this http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2793963/posts By the way, is it possible I just didn't know what YOU meant by the word? I mean, I've heard the word before and if I had to guess before you told me, I'd have said it probably meant "Unsound, irresponsible, unprofitable allocation of resources or failed return on an investment of time and product" or something like it.

I did however, hear a million times what libertarianism is by people of all sprectra, from religious conservatives to anarcho capitalists and then conspiracy theorists. They can disagree on whether abortion should be a crime or whether borders should be collective, but one thing they never disagree on is whether the environment is ever an individual's fault. the answer is emphatically always NO, UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU POLLUTE AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON'S PROPERTY.

[PRB]

You're welcome Sir. Thank you for your persistence in dealing with PRB during the course of this discussion. It seems you have more persistence than I. However, I suggest it's time to throw in the towel. His latest post lost all pretense of reason and declined to little more than gibberish. Of course, this is the final avenue of sophism when used to address a sound argument. I fear there is nothing we can do to help him from here on.

How is that? I answered what you asked, and responded to your opinions, have you anything to say in return?

[buenijo]

How about, a joke?

I concede that I should have suspected this based on the style of your posts (i.e. vagueness and quibbling).

I'm done with this thread.