Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[BerenTebogo]

Well as a closer, I'd love to hear why you think my logic is silly.

I think being optimistic about basic human nature is silly in general therefore relying on an polar shift in human nature as compared to what we've witnessed for a few thousand years as the basis an argument is silly as well.

Dictators, warlords, organized crime, etc all exist for a reason and I don't think there's anything that will ever make them go away.

[Sirrus_Asura]

I think being optimistic about basic human nature is silly in general therefore relying on an polar shift in human nature as compared to what we've witnessed for a few thousand years as the basis an argument is silly as well.

Dictators, warlords, organized crime, etc all exist for a reason and I don't think there's anything that will ever make them go away.

Well once again, I'm not asking for people to shift their views. I pointed out the 4 arrangements of "Bad and Good" and why none of them call for a government. There's nothing about "people" that inherently needs to be changed.

[BerenTebogo]

Well once again, I'm not asking for people to shift their views. I pointed out the 4 arrangements of "Bad and Good" and why none of them call for a government. There's nothing about "people" that inherently needs to be changed.

People make up society and government - it's the actions of people that strictly determine what is needed and what isn't.

Human nature as it is currently requires a certain level of mothering and oversight. Lack of government scares a LOT of people. The average american adult feels like they need to have the government tell them who to like, who to hate, what to believe, etc etc, and if not the government then at least religion.

The 4 arrangements work in a vacuum, as do most "good ideas" but outside of a vacuum there are the innumerable variables waiting behind every corner to fuck altruism in the ass with a spiked baseball bat.

[Max™]

I lost it at Sath realizing HE got sucked into countertrolling, hearty rofling all around.


For every thing Roth says which I agree with, he tosses in something which seems batshit insane... I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or nod my head sagely.


Instead I'll say, more flies with honey.

[Cadsuane]

Man, I think Cadsuane actually believes society is this amalgous form of a being, and not the interactions of sovereign individuals persuing their own self-interests. This we inherently call capitalism and the accumulation of liberty and wealth. A weird thing about this sovereignty and liberty, is that, it generally creates a peaceful "society" because it is in my best interest to provide for my security (peace), wealth (division of labor, free-trade, voluntary transaction, abiding by property rights, etc.), and posterity (to pass on a better future) and that is generally the overriding arch of humanity.

When you start to see "society" as a person, is when you throw out any semblance of morality. There is no such thing as the greater good. There is no such thing as justified aggressive and coercive force to achieve any means, or any ends. It is all immoral. You can keep your social engineering and tinker away somewhere else, and I'll continue to educate people about their inherent rights as humans, and about the only legitimate morality in this existance -- Natural Law.

No, I just believe that the classical liberals you're so enamoured with were onto something when they formulated the concept of citizen's rights; namely, that rights entail duties as well as freedoms (I also refer frequently to Edmund Burke's criticism of the botched liberal revolutions of the time in France and to a lesser extent the US, but I digress). All that history aside, rights are a legal construct, and not an ephemeral quality of man. If you can get past your artifically inflated patriotism over things like the declaration of independence, nature is not an amalgous form of being either to give rise to pat laws which conveniently legitimize revolutionary rhetoric.

I'd also accuse you of taking the enlightenment writers out of context to an embarassing extent, but I don't think you'll be willing to admit that the lines used to unseat decadent and corrupt european aristocrats, monarchs and other beneficiaries of catholocized social hierarchies may not be the best canned argument to bring to bear against democratically elected constitutional modern governments. It's about as compelling to bring up writings from the pax romana to establish stability after globalization.

This also fails to be compelling:

Secondly, the only reason people actually abide by the State is because of it's apparent legitimate authority, however, in it's founding charter it violates this authority, because no one has legitimate authority to enslave another or to violate their inherent rights. Secondly, the American Revolution was a revolution in the hearts and minds of the people. The Founder's speak of this often, not only that, America had a strong tradition of "localism" or what we like to call voluntaryism to an extent which permeated society. This is why the population was adamantly against any centralization of power and why centralization of power can only come through force and monopolization because we are naturally opposed to it, given we know history and are educated. But, you can never expect the State to educate the population against the State. It makes no sense for them to willingly give up power. No one does that.

The State itself is an illegitimate authority, just as our Founders recognized (To an extent), and the people before them recognized (To an extent).

If you are not going to bother to even educate yourself, and instead throw out platitudes and an incorrect version of history then there's no point.

For example, America survived and thrived without an Income Tax, DHS, standing armies, Patriot Act, economic central planning, sales tax, excise tax (Whiskey Rebellion, etc.), "Public" education, etc. My god the people who go through our school system today are SHEEP. They don't know history, they don't know economics, they don't know our formation, they don't know geography, they generally don't know much! Who runs this? Now, how educated in comparison are home-schoolers and private schooled children? I can tell you they are generally a lot more intellectual. This is for a reason....What the hell do you think the ENLIGHTENMENT was? This was the heart of the RENAISSAINCE which brought about the growth of humanity, technologically, and in every other conceivable way because they abandoned the idea of tyranny, and espoused a vast limitation of the State if not outright abolition. Every great Enlightenment thinker was pretty much a Classical Liberal.....

Except for the dim view of the everyman's education which I can sympathize with, though it's unrealistic to think that the general public has ever had a well calibrated social barometre, especially since it's barely been a hundred years since the average citizen could be expected to be literate. But the most obvious bullshit is the fantasy picture you paint of what was actually a country populated by atavistic puritans, illiterate rural communities, both of which would be extremely unsympathetic to anything catholic and/or european, oh and not to mention SLAVERY. Opposition to centralized power has more to do with these things than some fantasy about the grassroots political wisdom of the time.

And yeah, amuurika survived and thrived without all of those trappings of big gumment, but don't you think that maybe, just maybe, industrialization and urbanization and all of the concurrent social phenomena to go along with it should be part of your historical cause and effect tapestry here? Nah.

In what will no doubt be a futile attempt at getting this discussion back to global warming, (and now that it's abundantly clear to everyone here how central libertarianism is for your philosophy), I ask how likely might it be that you would be compelled to lambast climate change because its policies would herald the obsolescence of your ideology as opposed to it being scientifically unsound?

(Rothbardian: "Nothing can herald the obsolescence of LIBERTY, therefore AGW is a myth.")

Oh, and as has been pointed out, when oil and political interests stop being the primary patrons of the global warming "skeptic" movement, you can talk to us about the crooked interests of the IPCC, but until then, shut the fuck up, sers.

[Rothbardian]

No, I just believe that the classical liberals you're so enamoured with were onto something when they formulated the concept of citizen's rights; namely, that rights entail duties as well as freedoms (I also refer frequently to Edmund Burke's criticism of the botched liberal revolutions of the time in France and to a lesser extent the US, but I digress). All that history aside, rights are a legal construct, and not an ephemeral quality of man. If you can get past your artifically inflated patriotism over things like the declaration of independence, nature is not an amalgous form of being either to give rise to pat laws which conveniently legitimize revolutionary rhetoric.

I'd also accuse you of taking the enlightenment writers out of context to an embarassing extent, but I don't think you'll be willing to admit that the lines used to unseat decadent and corrupt european aristocrats, monarchs and other beneficiaries of catholocized social hierarchies may not be the best canned argument to bring to bear against democratically elected constitutional modern governments. It's about as compelling to bring up writings from the pax romana to establish stability after globalization.

This also fails to be compelling:



Except for the dim view of the everyman's education which I can sympathize with, though it's unrealistic to think that the general public has ever had a well calibrated social barometre, especially since it's barely been a hundred years since the average citizen could be expected to be literate. But the most obvious bullshit is the fantasy picture you paint of what was actually a country populated by atavistic puritans, illiterate rural communities, both of which would be extremely unsympathetic to anything catholic and/or european, oh and not to mention SLAVERY. Opposition to centralized power has more to do with these things than some fantasy about the grassroots political wisdom of the time.

And yeah, amuurika survived and thrived without all of those trappings of big gumment, but don't you think that maybe, just maybe, industrialization and urbanization and all of the concurrent social phenomena to go along with it should be part of your historical cause and effect tapestry here? Nah.

In what will no doubt be a futile attempt at getting this discussion back to global warming, (and now that it's abundantly clear to everyone here how central libertarianism is for your philosophy), I ask how likely might it be that you would be compelled to lambast climate change because its policies would herald the obsolescence of your ideology as opposed to it being scientifically unsound?

(Rothbardian: "Nothing can herald the obsolescence of LIBERTY, therefore AGW is a myth.")

Oh, and as has been pointed out, when oil and political interests stop being the primary patrons of the global warming "skeptic" movement, you can talk to us about the crooked interests of the IPCC, but until then, shut the fuck up, sers.

Liberty is never obsolete.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive. -- C.S. Lewis

Secondly, as I pointed out in previous posts I am against the theory of AGW because of the faulty manipulated "science", and the interests intertwined. I also would lambast those who take contributions from the oil companies, because it breaks their objectivity. So, who should fund scientists then? Charity, donation, fundraisers, sympathetic voices that have no inherent agenda, and by the spirit of science itself and our curiousity as a species. However, it is up to the theorists of AGW to prove to me that it indeed has any credibility whatsoever. So far, they are doing a terrible job. Evidence manipulation, poor objectivity with placement of equipment (Temperature meters), faulty equipment or outright obfuscation like the chunk of ice the size of California missing from readings and data, etc.

And then I went on to say EVEN IF all that is true, it still doesn't lead any credence to State intervention. As pointed out earlier. I will elaborate on the rest of your points in more depth and more acuity tomorrow. Just got home from work and I'm tired, and have to hang up some r3VOLution banners tomorrow, so need my sleep. Oh yeah, We Are CHANGE, YAL, Students for Liberty, Free State Project, etc. This Nation has no idea whats coming....

[Tristam]

What would you accept as evidence of AGW?

[Rothbardian]

What would you accept as evidence of AGW?

Data that isn't faulty that follows the trend of the Earth warming and that a conclusive pin-point to CO2 as the cause. So far, the Earth is cooling, and it is coinciding to one of the lowest Sun activity moments since the Maunder Minimum. Lastly, the theory itself doesn't make logical sense or any reasoning. They need to clarify their position. If the theory is that increased CO2 causes increased temperatures, then it goes to reckon that the opposite therefore is an impossibility. Yet, what we are seeing for the past 10+ years with more reliable readings than the readings taken from meters near heat conducive sources is the opposite of the theory. Secondly, it must follow the Scientific Method.

They should be able to recreate in a lab setting the effects of Global Warming. We have no clue what the weather will be like a week from now, let alone the course and intricacy of global climate systems. For me, the theory needs a preponderonce of credible data. Seriously, the theory should be able to stand on its own. When a scientist talks about manipulating data, and instruments to gather the data you should think about rethinking your theory...

[Max™]

This is why you are not a scientist, and part of what makes me wanna cry.

I agree with a lot of your ideas, I'm pretty deep into anarchistic leanings myself.... but some of your data is odd, and some of your points should be presented in a bit more tasteful manner.

Keep in mind, this is from me, mr. faith is dumb... so yeah, perspective check there.


All it takes to show AGW is valid, is to falsify that there is influence from non-anthropogenic effects.


If you see the problem with that, you deserve a cookie.

[Rhinox]

You assholes are a bunch of retards. can't you see we can solve every problem by eliminating Government and relying on social contracts?

Its so easy anarchy is the wave of the future. Just look how well its working in Somalia and Afghanistan.

Instead of a Government bureaucracy they have the extreme privilege of living in a society were they can do whatever the fuck they want. They don't have to pay any taxes to a centralized Government instead they keep it simple and in the local level with tribal War chiefs who turn around with that money and employ thousands of emaciated workers to work in their private militias. See this is how Anarchist would solve the current job crisis as well as keep their local villages safe! Let us not forget the job which is currently illegal in every single civilized society that anarchy creates known as Pirates!

The benevolent dictators that would arise(because in an anarchist society all dictators would be benevolent) would guard the food from filthy riffraff that dare to claim the food was given in aid to them. They would guard the food so much in fact that they would even protect it from us until we profess our undying loyalty to him!

oh and like I said earlier we have contracts to stop people from doing evil. I mean what better way to stop Child rapist then to make them sign a contract promising never to do it again. And if he somehow manages to to muster the will to break his contract we'll make every business sign another contract promising not to do business with him!

[Rothbardian]

SFL and YAL are growing exponentially...be afraid you Statists, be very afraid!

What is libertarianism about?

To this day, I am baffled to see that the AU Students For Liberty (AU SFL) has grown from an unlikely idea into a passionate and ever-expanding club. Two weeks ago we traveled to the Philadelphia Students For Liberty Conference, and I was thrilled to have The Eagle’s Graham Vyse come and shed some light on the philosophy of freedom. In many respects, as Graham wrote, one can say that as “true” libertarians, we “want government out of [our] lives in every respect.”

But what does it really mean to be a “true libertarian” these days? In the sprawling liberty movement, propositions to create a free society are endless; some people invest in a third party, some want a laissez-faire society, some are constitutionalists, and the list goes on. Yet these labels say little about what we have in common.

What motivates us is not merely a desire to fight government policies. For libertarians, capitalism is not a system of power or oppression; it is a framework for government by the voluntary decisions of people and not by the point of a gun. Money cannot be racist, sexist or otherwise prejudiced. It is a means of exchange that gives society more than opportunity and prosperity: the lens of the free market is the most humane way of looking at the world.

Without our consent, we can never be obligated to bow down irrationally to another man for the sake of his whim and we can never force someone to do the same. We own our lives, and no iron curtain, tank or army should ever change that. Liberty is premised on mutual respect, on the greatness of one individual’s potential to make the world better by striving to help himself and his family. Liberty is a celebration of life. It runs in many directions in our think tanks, universities, and policies, but it gains its inspiration from one well: the belief in human dignity, intellect and self-respect.

As an extension of this movement, our club is more than a veneer for philosophical squabbles or petty fantasies. The AU SFL is vibrant and diverse. But at its heart, it is guided by a willingness to protect the most fundamental human life and liberty that we all hold true to ourselves.

Irena Schneider
President, AU Students For Liberty

[Cadsuane]

History lesson:

One of the primary reasons the renaissance happened in Italy and in particular Venice was that Venice was one of the only places in Europe at the time which had a sufficiently strong government and judicial system that would actually enforce legally binding contracts even if the signatories weren't christian, paving the way for modern banking and credit. Much belittled in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice and the at-the-time christian distaste for money lending. The consequences of actually having government enforced and thereby binding contracts and business agreements made Venice the economic and cultural centre of Europe.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

History lesson:

One of the primary reasons the renaissance happened in Italy and in particular Venice was that Venice was one of the only places in Europe at the time which had a sufficiently strong government and judicial system that would actually enforce legally binding contracts even if the signatories weren't christian, paving the way for modern banking and credit. Much belittled in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice and the at-the-time christian distaste for money lending. The consequences of actually having government enforced and thereby binding contracts and business agreements made Venice the economic and cultural centre of Europe.

I have to agree with this. Contracts are complicated and I don't see how you can expect every day people to understand and enforce them under Anarchism or w/e it is. There's nothing wrong with creating a govt., that, at maximum, exists only to protect rights. There's a lot of things reasonable minds could differ on.

[Rothbardian]

I have to agree with this. Contracts are complicated and I don't see how you can expect every day people to understand and enforce them under Anarchism or w/e it is. There's nothing wrong with creating a govt., that, at maximum, exists only to protect rights. There's a lot of things reasonable minds could differ on.

Sorry in and out of sleeping lmao. What do you think third-party arbitrations are, in other words, private contract law and enforcement? At the onset of the contract both parties consent voluntarily to a third-party arbitrator to deal with all contractual disputes. This all ready happens now.

[Cadsuane]

Sorry in and out of sleeping lmao. What do you think third-party arbitrations are, in other words, private contract law and enforcement? At the onset of the contract both parties consent voluntarily to a third-party arbitrator to deal with all contractual disputes. This all ready happens now.

Government (more specifically the judiciary) arbitrates arbitration. In the dark ages (ie. before strong governments) "third party arbitration" could only be accomplished with the tip of a knife. Economy as we understand it in modernity has never existed without the ministrations of some form of government.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Sorry in and out of sleeping lmao. What do you think third-party arbitrations are, in other words, private contract law and enforcement? At the onset of the contract both parties consent voluntarily to a third-party arbitrator to deal with all contractual disputes. This all ready happens now.

And the govt. is the arbitrator. I suppose people could just submit to a third party in anarchism the same way only they're not employed by govt.

[Solefald]

Sorry in and out of sleeping lmao. What do you think third-party arbitrations are, in other words, private contract law and enforcement? At the onset of the contract both parties consent voluntarily to a third-party arbitrator to deal with all contractual disputes. This all ready happens now.

and it's really, really shitty. a lot of big companies have mandatory arbitration clauses in their employment contracts. sure, it's "voluntary" in the sense that the new hire signs the contract, but if you don't sign on to arbitration you don't get the job. and depending on your field, it can be extremely difficult to find an employer that does not have an arbitration clause.

and guess what happens when you file a workplace dispute that goes to private arbitration? the vast majority of the time, the arbitrator finds in favor of the employer because they get a ton of business from that company. if they were to decide against the employer in too many cases, the company would simply find another arbitrator with a more favorable tilt.

now, there is a way to eliminate this problem, i.e. labor unions. but i have a sneaking suspicion that you don't much like those.

[Dimmauk]

I wonder what caused this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091123...climateiceberg


Over 100 icebergs drifting to N.Zealand: official
AFP

Mon Nov 23, 2:09 am ET

SYDNEY (AFP) – More than 100, and possibly hundreds, of Antarctic icebergs are floating towards New Zealand in a rare event which has prompted a shipping warning, officials said on Monday.

An Australian Antarctic Division glaciologist said the ice chunks, spotted by satellite photography, had passed the Auckland Islands and were heading towards the main South Island, about 450 kilometres (280 miles) northeast.

Scientist Neal Young said more than 100 icebergs -- some measuring more than 200 metres (650 feet) across -- were seen in just one cluster, indicating there could be hundreds more.

He said they were the remains of a massive ice floe which split from the Antarctic as sea and air temperatures rise due to global warming.

"All of these have come from a larger one that was probably 30 square kilometres (11.6 square miles) in size when it left Antarctica," Young told AFP.

"It's done a long circuit around Antarctica and now the bigger parts of it are breaking up and producing smaller ones."

He said large numbers of icebergs had not floated this close to New Zealand since 2006, when a number came within 25 kilometres of the coastline -- the first such sighting since 1931.

"They're following the same tracks now up towards New Zealand. Whether they make it up to the South Island or not is difficult to tell," Young said.

New Zealand has already issued coastal navigation warnings for the area in the Southern Ocean where the icebergs have been seen.

"It's really just a general warning for shipping in that area to be on the alert for icebergs," said Maritime New Zealand spokesman Ross Henderson.

The icebergs are smaller remnants of the giant chunks seen off Australia's Macquarie Island this month, including one estimated at two kilometres (1.2 miles) and another twice the size of Beijing's "Bird's Nest" Olympic Stadium.

Young earlier told AFP he expected to see more icebergs in the area if the Earth's temperature continues to increase.

"If the current trends in global warming were to continue I would anticipate seeing more icebergs and the large ice shelves breaking up," he said.

When icebergs last neared New Zealand in 2006, a sheep was helicoptered out to be shorn on one of the floes in a publicity stunt by the country's wool industry.

[Beckwin]

obviously docotored images and mass propaganda by global warmists and their leader, michael e. mann, aka the secret son of george soros

[Cort]

I wonder what caused this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091123...climateiceberg


Over 100 icebergs drifting to N.Zealand: official
AFP

Mon Nov 23, 2:09 am ET

SYDNEY (AFP) – More than 100, and possibly hundreds, of Antarctic icebergs are floating towards New Zealand in a rare event which has prompted a shipping warning, officials said on Monday.

An Australian Antarctic Division glaciologist said the ice chunks, spotted by satellite photography, had passed the Auckland Islands and were heading towards the main South Island, about 450 kilometres (280 miles) northeast.

Scientist Neal Young said more than 100 icebergs -- some measuring more than 200 metres (650 feet) across -- were seen in just one cluster, indicating there could be hundreds more.

He said they were the remains of a massive ice floe which split from the Antarctic as sea and air temperatures rise due to global warming.

"All of these have come from a larger one that was probably 30 square kilometres (11.6 square miles) in size when it left Antarctica," Young told AFP.

"It's done a long circuit around Antarctica and now the bigger parts of it are breaking up and producing smaller ones."

He said large numbers of icebergs had not floated this close to New Zealand since 2006, when a number came within 25 kilometres of the coastline -- the first such sighting since 1931.

"They're following the same tracks now up towards New Zealand. Whether they make it up to the South Island or not is difficult to tell," Young said.

New Zealand has already issued coastal navigation warnings for the area in the Southern Ocean where the icebergs have been seen.

"It's really just a general warning for shipping in that area to be on the alert for icebergs," said Maritime New Zealand spokesman Ross Henderson.

The icebergs are smaller remnants of the giant chunks seen off Australia's Macquarie Island this month, including one estimated at two kilometres (1.2 miles) and another twice the size of Beijing's "Bird's Nest" Olympic Stadium.

Young earlier told AFP he expected to see more icebergs in the area if the Earth's temperature continues to increase.

"If the current trends in global warming were to continue I would anticipate seeing more icebergs and the large ice shelves breaking up," he said.

When icebergs last neared New Zealand in 2006, a sheep was helicoptered out to be shorn on one of the floes in a publicity stunt by the country's wool industry.

GLOBAL WARMING SANK THE TITANIC.