• @Blossom Is A Blessing To This Community, Let Us Be A Blessing To Her
    Click Here For More Information
  • Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

What Do You Think About Climate Change?

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Now I'm propping up state violence? That's quite hysterical.

I'm arguing that all sources are not equal. Do you dispute that?

State funding and regulation of science is based on violence, do you dispute that?

All sources are NOT equal, but my assertion is that in climate science, and many other fields besides, the main stream sources have become less reliable than some outside ones.

That's you relying on your credentials, and it's very arrogant thinking to claim that nobody 'outside' of research could possibly understand it like you

I'll ask again- are these people at least trying to publish in journals with much greater readership and reputation? If they aren't then they are in effect asking to be judged by different standards than everybody else. Aka special treatment.

Rhetoric about thought control and conspiracy to suppress truth is mere speculation and rhetoric, unless you can prove it.

I'm not relying on credentials, but actual real life experience. If someone had done 4 years of a 5 year PhD program and quit because of the corruption, they would have the same experience even if they didn't have the degree (the credential itself).

Can you see the difference?

I'm simply saying that not having the real-life experience of being around scientists, and seeing how the decisions are made and how things are controlled and incentivized, causes one to have a naive view of the system. It's not about the credentials, which is why I haven't pointed out my PhD, it's about the experience, which is why I focus on my time spent working in science.

Suppression and conspiracy is publicly available information for those willing to find it. Climategate, and the stories of the scientists I've mentioned that have been on or in the orbit of that podcast are a good start.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
A critique of the peer-review system that you keep referring:

"NSF Flaw #1: Proposals for scientific funding are generally reviewed by anonymous 'peer reviewers. NSF invented the concept of 'peer review', wherein a scientist's competitors would review and evaluate his/her/their proposal for funding, and the reviewers' identities would be concealed. The idea of using anonymous 'peer reviewers' must have seemed like an administrative stroke of genius because the process was adopted by virtually all government science-funding agencies that followed and almost universally by editors of scientific journals. But no one seems to have considered the lessons of history with respect to secrecy. Secrecy is certainly necessary in matters of national security and defense. But in civilian science, does secrecy and the concomitant freedom from accountability really encourage truthfulness? If secrecy did in fact lead to greater truthfulness, secrecy would be put to great advantage in the courts. Courts have in fact employed secrecy - during the infamous Spanish Inquisition and in virtually every totalitarian dictatorship - and the result is always the same: unscrupulous individuals falsely denounce others and corruption abounds. The application of anonymity and freedom from accountability in the 'peer review' system gives unfair advantage to those who would unjustly berate a competitor's proposal for obtaining funding for research and for publishing research results. Anonymous 'peer review' has become the major science-suppression method of the science-barbarians. Moreover, the perception - real or imagined - that some individuals would do just that has had a chilling effect, forcing scientists to become defensive, adopting only the 'politically correct' consensus-approved viewpoint and refraining from discussing anything that might be considered a challenge to others' work or to the funding agency's programs. And that is not what science is about at all. Not surprisingly, there exists today a widespread perception that to challenge scientific results supported by a U.S. Government agency will lead to loss of one's own support."

from this article: The Corruption of Science in America -- Sott.net
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response : Abstract : Nature
Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet
RECENT GLACIER ADVANCES IN NORWAY AND NEW ZEALAND: A COMPARISON OF THEIR GLACIOLOGICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL CAUSES
Earth rotation, ocean circulation and paleoclimate

There is an irony in people who quote tonnes of papers on their private blogs to support a certain position and then crow about suppression of truth and diminishing scientific standards. They publicise their views on a platform where they can pick and choose which critical comments they allow (if they allow any) and which they'll respond to. They don't have to suffer the threat of being challenged.

Unless you've been through all 1350+ of those articles yourself, scrutinised them and viewed them in context with the other thousands of papers of this matter, then you are merely accepting a blogger's opinion that they represent proof positive that AGW is bunk.
I did not rely on the conclusions of a private blog but read through many of the abstracts and every one I read questioned the IPCC dogma in one way or another. This sampling tells me that the vast majority if not all of the 1000 plus papers are also skeptical of the supposed consensus.

What is ironic is that the 4 abstracts you gave that supposedly support the IPCC claims actually do not. Doubly ironic is that the first paper is from Nature, the top science journal out there, so your complaint about the quality of the sources is also incorrect.
Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response : Abstract : Nature “Climate models generally predict amplified warming in polar regions3, 4, as observed in Antarctica's peninsula region over the second half of the 20th century5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn…. Continental Antarctic cooling, especially the seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of climate and ecosystem change.”
Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet “Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2 °C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987. This suggests that the Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend.”
RECENT GLACIER ADVANCES IN NORWAY AND NEW ZEALAND: A COMPARISON OF THEIR GLACIOLOGICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL CAUSES “Norway and New Zealand both experienced recent glacial advances, commencing in the early 1980s and ceasing around 2000, which were more extensive than any other since the end of the Little Ice Age.”
Earth rotation, ocean circulation and paleoclimate “Consequently, we see a causal connection between Earth's rotation, oceanic circulation, ocean/atmosphere heating, atmospheric (wind) heat transport and continental paleoclimatic changes. We propose that the paleoclimatic changes on the decadal to millennial time scale are primarily driven by this mechanism.”
Your initial claim that there were no peer reviewed articles that challenge the IPCC is clearly untrue. I gave you over a 1000. Now your comment about needing to read them in context with other articles is just more changing of the goal posts. Unfortunately this doesn't help your side much either. I have read many of the alarmist's papers. Most are just bad science or outright fraud. Look into the infamous hockey stick paper as just one example.
I addressed this in a previous post:
Was I incorrect when I said "the skeptics won't even attempt (as far as I'm aware) to get any of their ideas published says volumes"? Yes, but publishing something in a journal isn't the be-all and end-all when it comes to establishing the validity of an idea, and I never said it was. Quality amongst journals varies greatly and that matters.
As noted above many of these skeptical papers are from top journals. So yes you were incorrect to make that totally unfounded accusation.
You didn't respond to my request for evidence when you said that these folk weren't publishing in more popular journals because they 'weren't allowed to'.
The suppression of the IPCC skeptics is so widespread I would have thought that you could easily have found the evidence yourself. I am sure you have heard that many scientists and politicians have said that skeptics should be jailed for daring to doubt the IPCC. It's actually much worse than suppression at this point and is bordering on a new inquisition.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10...demand-investigations-against-their-accusers/
The global warming intimidation game exposed
World's leading climate sceptic sees his funding melt away fast
 
Last edited:

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
For what it's worth, I think the ozone hole hypothesis is untenable. The global warming hypothesis has some truth to it, however exaggerrated it may be.

I'll actually agree with Kyle for once if he thinks that egos and special interests get in the way of science. I read a Quora thread where a peer reviewer rejected an article so he could claim the idea as his own. There have been famous examples of this.

Perhaps peer reviewers should not be anonymous and be forced to sign their name to the rejections and admissions. This might create vendettas but it would cut back on idea theft.
 
Last edited:

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
For what it's worth, I think the ozone hole hypothesis is untenable.
Interesting about the ozone hole issue. I had no idea that man-made ozone holes were BS as well. I found a great article that summarizes whats going on. Is there anything left that we are not lied to about?
Ozone; The hole that always was
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
Most clorofluorocarbons were used in the Northern Hemisphere. It is known that air in each hemisphere tends to stay where it is, a sort of atmospheric Coriolis effect can explain this. Nuclear test background radiation confirm it. Radiation counts were always higher in the Northern Hemisphere.

And we're supposed to believe that the World's chlorofluorocarbons just leave the Northern ozone layer alone and somehow manage to migrate down to the South Pole?


Ozone is formed by the photolysis of diatomic oxygen gas. Electromagnetic radiation of wavelength 200-240 nanometers creates two oxygen radicals:

O₂ → O· + ·O

These oxygen radicals are neutral species and are characterized by unpaired electrons. This has been determined to be the case by electron spin resonance. It is better visualized by
:Ö· but this is difficult to typeset.


Highly reactive (·O) combines with another diatomic oxygen molecule forming ozone:

O₂ + ·O = O₃

Ozone is produced every millisecond. A different wavelength (320nm) of UV light does the reverse process:

O₃ = O₂ + ·O

Ozone levels are constantly in flux naturally.

The levels of chorofluorocarbons were calculated, IIRC, to be in the parts per trillion range in the atmosphere.

Atmospheric chemists are the dorkiest chemists. They took this and ran with it. With an ozone hole, these chemists could actually feel important; an ego boost for them and a talking point for clubs and taverns: "Ready to save the planet with chemistry guys! [snorts while simultaneously pushing the taped horn-rimmed glasses up the bridge of his nose]."

The media like to scaremonger. They will take whatever doomsday scenario and run with it.

Fact is, clorofluorocarbons wouldn't be expected to have much impact in ppt levels. If they did, they would be expected to impact the North Pole and not the South Pole. Why focus on the South Pole? That's where the hole is silly.

Derp.

I'm a little teacup.

Whatever. The atmospheric chemists got to feed out the troughs of government grants for a decade or two. I bet some of them even have Porshe's now. At least they made a contribution to gaseous free radical chemistry during their fraudulent scaremongering tenures.
 
Last edited:

thomas00

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
872
State funding and regulation of science is based on violence, do you dispute that?

Yes. It's ridiculous.

All sources are NOT equal, but my assertion is that in climate science, and many other fields besides, the main stream sources have become less reliable than some outside ones.

That's having it both ways. Either all sources are equal or are they are not.

I'm not relying on credentials, but actual real life experience. If someone had done 4 years of a 5 year PhD program and quit because of the corruption, they would have the same experience even if they didn't have the degree (the credential itself).

Can you see the difference?

I'm simply saying that not having the real-life experience of being around scientists, and seeing how the decisions are made and how things are controlled and incentivized, causes one to have a naive view of the system. It's not about the credentials, which is why I haven't pointed out my PhD, it's about the experience, which is why I focus on my time spent working in science.

Suppression and conspiracy is publicly available information for those willing to find it. Climategate, and the stories of the scientists I've mentioned that have been on or in the orbit of that podcast are a good start.

As I said, I'm quite aware of certain ideas and findings being yanked out of journals for purely political reasons. I'm also aware that arguing that peer-review is pure censorship doesn't hold up. There are plenty of ideas that make it into journals that go against the grain. Duesberg and Ravnskov are too examples.

If you are alleging there has been a conspiracy to suppress or reject publications on climate science from reaching the top journals then I would like to know about it. But a couple of people's accusations on a podcast isn't sufficient proof.
 

thomas00

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
872
I did not rely on the conclusions of a private blog but read through many of the abstracts and every one I read questioned the IPCC dogma in one way or another. This sampling tells me that the vast majority if not all of the 1000 plus papers are also skeptical of the supposed consensus.

You made a conclusion about more than 1000 papers based on what you admit was a sampling.

That's as sloppy as relying on somebody else's conclusions.

What is ironic is that the 4 abstracts you gave that supposedly support the IPCC claims actually do not.

You are simply reading what you want into them. None of those papers disprove the entire hypothesis of climate change, nor do they state they are attempting to. The author of one of them even wrote about how he gets sick of skeptic's misusing them

Opinion | Cold, Hard Facts

Your initial claim that there were no peer reviewed articles that challenge the IPCC is clearly untrue. I gave you over a 1000. Now your comment about needing to read them in context with other articles is just more changing of the goal posts. Unfortunately this doesn't help your side much either. I have read many of the alarmist's papers. Most are just bad science or outright fraud. Look into the infamous hockey stick paper as just one example.

As noted above many of these skeptical papers are from top journals. So yes you were incorrect to make that totally unfounded accusation.

Many of the papers that skeptics misuse are from top journals, rather.

Big deal about being peer-reviewed. Thus far, the skeptic's case relies totally on low quality journals, misreading other people's work on blogs, and alleging some conspiracy which they can't seem to prove.

The suppression of the IPCC skeptics is so widespread I would have thought that you could easily have found the evidence yourself. I am sure you have heard that many scientists and politicians have said that skeptics should be jailed for daring to doubt the IPCC. It's actually much worse than suppression at this point and is bordering on a new inquisition.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10...demand-investigations-against-their-accusers/
The global warming intimidation game exposed
World's leading climate sceptic sees his funding melt away fast

That's maybe the most tepid argument for censorship I've ever read. A letter signed by a bunch of people and some dink who used ridiculous research methods, crying about his funding drying up. He didn't even dispute climate change.
 
Last edited:

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Yes. It's ridiculous.

How is it that funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health get their funding, and how would that happen if there wasn't an agent (IRS, police) tasked with violence for non-compliance of the "funders?"


As I said, I'm quite aware of certain ideas and findings being yanked out of journals for purely political reasons. I'm also aware that arguing that peer-review is pure censorship doesn't hold up. There are plenty of ideas that make it into journals that go against the grain. Duesberg and Ravnskov are too examples.

If you are alleging there has been a conspiracy to suppress or reject publications on climate science from reaching the top journals then I would like to know about it. But a couple of people's accusations on a podcast isn't sufficient proof.

You're showing yourself as one of those people that doesn't put effort into understanding new information. Why do you think you can dismiss what I'm saying, someone who has much more real-world experience dealing and observing scientists in academia? What knowledge do you think you have that I don't? Do you not think I have knowledge that you don't? Where does the cockiness come from, the same place Bill Nye (also not a scientist) gets it? If you are ok with dismissing the argument of an intelligent person who has more experience in the area than you, you're close-minded in the way that is extremely useful to people who would want an insular system of prestige and funding for themselves that is not accountable to many outsiders. This is true in all aspects of the world, the people hostile to questioning things are beloved of tyrants.
 

thomas00

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
872
How is it that funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health get their funding, and how would that happen if there wasn't an agent (IRS, police) tasked with violence for non-compliance of the "funders?"

How would they get their funding if not through a social contract? You want all science research conducted with private money after it's been shown that a vast majority of work that use that funding method produce results that are favourable to the donor?

The 'taxation as theft' bogeyman is only trotted out by people who haven't thought the consequences of the alternatives through.

You're showing yourself as one of those people that doesn't put effort into understanding new information. Why do you think you can dismiss what I'm saying, someone who has much more real-world experience dealing and observing scientists in academia? What knowledge do you think you have that I don't? Do you not think I have knowledge that you don't? Where does the cockiness come from, the same place Bill Nye (also not a scientist) gets it? If you are ok with dismissing the argument of an intelligent person who has more experience in the area than you, you're close-minded in the way that is extremely useful to people who would want an insular system of prestige and funding for themselves that is not accountable to many outsiders. This is true in all aspects of the world, the people hostile to questioning things are beloved of tyrants.

Yes, how dare anybody question you! :lol:

You are behaving like the precious sort of intellectual elite you are so critical of. Saying you know more because you work in the field is empty posturing. If you've got a claim to make about the culture of a certain industry or organization then you are free to make it. Others will judge it on the basis of the evidence you can bring to bare, not on your CV.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
How would they get their funding if not through a social contract? You want all science research conducted with private money after it's been shown that a vast majority of work that use that funding method produce results that are favourable to the donor?

The 'taxation as theft' bogeyman is only trotted out by people who haven't thought the consequences of the alternatives through.

Where has this been shown? Have you read Terrence Kealey's "The Economics of Scientific Research?" Or Maybe Jeff Schmidt's "Disciplined Minds?" Perhaps Becker's book "The Body Electric" which shows how the government was getting in the way of his research? Oh no, you haven't read a word on the subject, and you've never been in academia? Please, tell me more about how you know how it works and how it should and must work.



Yes, how dare anybody question you! :lol:

You are behaving like the precious sort of intellectual elite you are so critical of. Saying you know more because you work in the field is empty posturing. If you've got a claim to make about the culture of a certain industry or organization then you are free to make it. Others will judge it on the basis of the evidence you can bring to bare, not on your CV.

I'm telling you evidence I've seen with my own eyes, and I'm asking you why you think I am wrong. What is the thing you believe, and why do you believe it, and why do you believe I'm wrong about what I believe that is opposed to your idea?
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
Where has this been shown? Have you read Terrence Kealey's "The Economics of Scientific Research?" Or Maybe Jeff Schmidt's "Disciplined Minds?" Perhaps Becker's book "The Body Electric" [...]

Hey! I read that one. Nice book.

Both of you are making good points. What Kyle is saying about research is close to the mark IMO. Actual science takes a backseat to money and ego for many scientists. Just look at Paul Offit and Robert Gallo.

However, the best science indicates a slight warming effect with increasing CO₂. Even Rancourt says so. I think the IPCC/denier dichotomy is a product of sensationalist media; I have never seen a scientific paper deny global warming entirely.

Global warming isn't a myth IMO. It may be exaggerated by some, but it isn't entirely a hoax.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Hey! I read that one. Nice book.

Both of you are making good points. What Kyle is saying about research is close to the mark IMO. Actual science takes a backseat to money and ego for many scientists. Just look at Paul Offit and Robert Gallo.

However, the best science indicates a slight warming effect with increasing CO₂. Even Rancourt says so. I think the IPCC/denier dichotomy is a product of sensationalist media; I have never seen a scientific paper deny global warming entirely.

Global warming isn't a myth IMO. It may be exaggerated by some, but it isn't entirely a hoax.

I never said climate change per se is a myth, just what 99% of people say as the next statement about it. And the funding and the scientific standards for it being legitimate ARE a myth (not literally but you get my point I'm sure). Just like campus rape statistics, there is a demand for environmental catastrophe science for use for political purposes that bad, dishonest science will fill in that demand if there isn't good science to fill it.
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
Just like campus rape statistics, there is a demand for [...]

Don't get all Raskolnikov on us, they don't know it's you. Just take the duct tape and rope out of your trunk and you should be fine.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
You made a conclusion about more than 1000 papers based on what you admit was a sampling.
That's as sloppy as relying on somebody else's conclusions.
You must be kidding. Statistical sampling is the basis of virtually all of scientific research work. Based on randomly reading about 20 abstracts, I can safely say that the rest of the 1,000 papers also question the IPCC "consensus" theory in one way or another as claimed. The fact that you can’t find one study out of the 1,000 that doesn’t just raises the confidence level.
You are simply reading what you want into them. None of those papers disprove the entire hypothesis of climate change, nor do they state they are attempting to. The author of one of them even wrote about how he gets sick of skeptic's misusing them
Opinion | Cold, Hard Facts
That is one whopper of a straw-man. No one is claiming that any one of these “papers disprove the entire hypothesis of climate change.” That would be impossible for one study to do. Individually these papers disprove or at least question a specific part of the IPCC man made global warming hypothesis. The sheer number of skeptical papers is what makes the hypothesis suspect. The vast amount of blatant fraud and scientific chicanery of the alarmists makes it criminal. And the idea that 0.04% of an inert atmospheric gas, most of which is natural, has more impact over the climate than the sun, the orbit of the Earth, water vapor, clouds, or any number of more likely drivers of the climate makes it laughable.

The NY Times Op Ed you quote ironically makes the same strawman argument that you do. Again one paper cannot disprove AGW on its own. But just like all 1,000 of the listed papers the researcher does acknowledge that his paper challenges the current IPPC models.
"from 1966 to 2000, more of the continent had cooled than had warmed. Our summary statement pointed out how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change."
Maybe it’s you that is having some trouble with your reading skills.
Many of the papers that skeptics misuse are from top journals, rather.
Thus far, the skeptic's case relies totally on low quality journals, misreading other people's work on blogs, and alleging some conspiracy which they can't seem to prove.
Not true. Again show me one paper of the 1,000 that doesn’t question some aspect of the IPCC. The four that you provided as evidence of misuse show no such thing and as I showed clearly do question the IPCC.
Big deal about being peer-reviewed.
Ahh more changing the goal posts… You were the one who originally claimed that there were no peer reviewed papers that challenge the IPCC consensus.
That's maybe the most tepid argument for censorship I've ever read. A letter signed by a bunch of people and some dink who used ridiculous research methods, crying about his funding drying up. He didn't even dispute climate change.
It’s called eye witness testimony and is actually a very strong piece of evidence that the IPCC goons and their government and university minions are censoring research. The very label of Denier is calculated to enforce self-censorship. As just one more example of the censorship, this is what just happened to a New York Times editorialist who dared to question the AGW orthodoxy. Whack job alarmists, who like their SJW brethren, can't handle the idea of free speech and are calling for his removal.
The New York Times should not have hired climate change bullshitter Bret Stephens
Tell The NY Times: do not enable Bret Stephens to promote climate denial at your paper
http://nypost.com/2017/05/01/times-subscribers-are-fleeing-in-wake-of-climate-change-column/
The New York Times corrected Bret Stephens’s climate column, but not nearly enough of it.
 
Last edited:

NathanK

Member
Joined
May 30, 2015
Messages
678
Location
Austin, TX
Thank you @Queequeg and @Kyle M for your enlightening arguments. I can relate to many things said.

The feminist and religious analogies Kyle stated were particularly eye opening (and spot on, imo). I know many people that feel that deeper guilt over their, mindful and relatively small, environmental footprint. It is indeed a very similar ever-present feeling as original sin guilt held by many Catholics.

I always believed one of the flaws of objectivism was the lack of respect and responsibility to be good stewards of Earth. Every culture before us seemed to hold that responsibility and respect as a core part of their ethos.

Ayn Rand glorified man conquering nature as one of the noblest pursuits, which, quite frankly, seemed like a dated, and often a blindly followed, mindset. As if Rand could forsee the consequences of a massive rapid population rise, exponential technological productivity increases, and the subsequent strain/burden on natural resources.

While that is still partly true, I see how modern environmentalism and our human arrogance has made us believe that we had conquered mother nature. Not just defeated, but now mercillously curb stomping her remains. That is arrogant and lacks hope and faith in humanity.

One viewpoint sees our unique and unlimited potential while the other view ruminates on a glorified past to look for context of "how things should be".

Also, great points on CO2. I'm shaking my head because I wrote multiple papers back in college (pre Inconvenient Truth) on greenhouse gases and the dangers CO2 emissions. Even though I now see things differently on CO2, Im not sure how much it changes my viewpoint on governmental policy. Outside of the massive waste in resources figuring out carbon taxation and the like, we still need protections that ensure corporations limit pollution that fouls our food and drinking supplies.

While human beings have a conscience and generally raised by parents with a sense of ethics, I honestly have little to no faith in the system of shareholder accountability as a strong enough motivator for corporations to "do the right thing". Ive travelled around the world and have witnessed the lack of regard for the environment (drinking and air quality) by business' trying to make a buck. Fcuk them. 2c
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
@NathanK If you're interested in a market rebuttal to state protections being the solution for environmental protection, here is a talk by Walter Block on this issue or if you are more text-oriented here is an article with similar points https://mises.org/library/environmentalism-without-government

I'm sure you can find other, perhaps better, talks and articles that speak directly to your concerns, if you start from those and look at the similar results from Google or YouTube videos. Let me know what you think of the basic argument.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
Also, great points on CO2. I'm shaking my head because I wrote multiple papers back in college (pre Inconvenient Truth) on greenhouse gases and the dangers CO2 emissions.
Been there too. I was quite the good little SJW for a long time. Luckily no videos of me lecturing any republican friends of mine.
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,370
Location
USA
97ed9410fd89013486fb005056a9545d


Dilbert Comic Strip on 2017-05-14 | Dilbert by Scott Adams
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
My nephew just told me that he no longer eats meat because cow farts are destroying the world.

made me think of something Hitler once said.

“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already. … What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
0
Views
367
Braveheart
B
Top