OK, as promised.

I think it's ridiculous the demagoguing over this issue, on both sides. There is very little rational discussion of "global warming", now usually referred to as "climate change". Those who don't buy into the full-scale socialization of production to counteract this "crisis" are called "climate deniers", or "climate skeptics" (since when is being a skeptic a bad thing?), or if it's Bill Maher doing the demagoguing, "stupid."

I consider myself a rational skeptic about pretty much everything, so I guess that includes the hysterical, even religious dogma of climate change. Here's my thinking:

1. As a scientifically trained person, it does not seem all that well established that unusual warming is happening ("unusual" is an important qualification here).

Recently, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever resigned as Fellow at the American Physical Society because he believed that the climate issue had become politicized to the point where it had reached dogma and no serious rational discussion is allowed on the topic. His resignation letter is worth quoting in part:



We know that the climate of the earth changes significantly over time, and while 50 or 100 years seems like a long time to humans, geologically speaking it is barely noticeable. We're talking about a hundred trips around the sun, out of billions.

So, perhaps the recent data show some warming. Even so, Dr. Giaever makes the excellent point that measuring the temperature of the whole planet is a very iffy proposition, and a rational person would be very reasonable to wonder what is actually being measured here. Most of the climate change fueling the fear mongers is actually anticipated climate change based on computer models, but the earth's climate is such a vastly complicated, chaotic system, that a rational person should be forgiven if they are a bit skeptical of this approach. We can't even reliably predict the weather more than a few days out.

Having said all that, let me, for the sake of argument, concede that unusual climate change IS, occurring. Then:

2. It is almost impossible to establish with certainty that it is caused by human behavior.

The planet's climate is a very complex system of interdependent factors. Most of what I've seen about climate is the same as the nonsense I see in the media about medical studies.

Almost all media reporting of scientific studies confuses correlation with causation. This is the classic "Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" fallacy, and many scientists are not immune. Simply because the earth is a bit warmer over the period of industrialization does NOT mean that the warming is CAUSED by industrialization.

In complex systems, like the human body or the climate of a planet, it is EXTREMELY difficult to establish a causal relationship with a high degree of confidence.

Given that we know of so many other influences over the climate in the earth's geological history (eccentricity in the earth's orbit, volcanism, sun spots, etc, etc, etc), there are many potential, interrelated "causes". I contend that the system is too complex to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the cause is "greenhouse gas" emissions, or even what the effect of these emissions are. 30 years ago, it was fervently believed that these emissions would cause global cooling. It's just very, very difficult to know.

We DO know that the earth's climate fluctuates. And we know this has happened for millions of years. So, it is not necessarily due to human activity. It might be, or it might be simple correlation.

But, it might be the case, so for the sake of argument, let's concede both the point that the earth is getting warmer, and that it's caused by humans (evil capitalists, mostly). Then:

3. It is not at ALL established that a warmer planet is a bad thing.

In fact, the Paleocene epoch was one of the warmest geological epochs and was an amazingly diverse period biologically. Given the huge biological diversity found today at tropical latitudes and in rain forests, it might be the case that a warmer planet would be good for all of us. Certainly a warmer planet would allow vast areas of Canada and Siberia to become food-producing land.

The climate scare feeds on a human tendency to fear change, but it is not well established that the current temperature of the planet is the optimal temperature, or that an optimal temperature even exists. It seems extremely childish to me to assume that the current temperature of the planet is the "best" or "optimal" temperature. What is the evidence for this?

Humans are extremely adaptable. If the ice caps melt it probably will suck to be a polar bear or to own land on the Outer Banks of North Carolina's coast, but it is not clear at all that it would be bad for humanity, or for biodiversity as a whole. It could be a boon. We don't know because the system is too complex to understand at that level.

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume the earth is warming out of control, it's caused by humans, and it's a terrible catastrophe that awaits us. Even then:

4. It's not clear we can do anything about it anyway.

System theory has shown us that complex systems are often unstable. Setting aside the point made by Dr. Giaever that planetary temperature does appear fairly stable, whatever changes may have been caused by humans might not be reversible.

Irreversible systems are the rule in nature. Reversibility is the exception.

EVEN IF, we know for a fact that the earth is warming,
AND we know that it's been caused by humans,
AND we know it's a terrible outcome,

EVEN then, we don't know if we can do anything about it. And one thing that's for certain is that whatever measures the pandering, idiot politicians come up with will do more harm than good. If the system is too complex for scientists to fully understand, there is absolutely no chance that bureaucrats, politicians and diplomats can understand it at all.

So, what we're left with is the current situation:

A large group of (primarily leftist) activists have embraced this controversy because they see it as a tool to advance the agendas they've had for years. Another large group (primarily rightists) automatically disagrees with everything they say. Nobody is thinking rationally, and the entire debate is over social control and what our future society is going to look like.

The biggest red flag to me, as a skeptic and rationalist, is to notice the astonishing alignment of the climate scare with the agenda of the modern Left. One could say that this is the agenda because the concern is so dire, but anybody with a brain and without a dog in the fight will see immediately that the agenda came first. In other words, this whole argument is just an excuse for social control and the struggle to get other people to do what we want them to do. Anyone who disagrees is a "denier" or "stupid", and isn't that just what the do-gooders always believe about those who disagree with their grand plans?

So yes, I'm proudly a "skeptic". That doesn't mean that I'm stupid, and it doesn't even mean that I don't accept the temperature of the planet is changing (as it always has). But it absolutely means that I don't believe we have perfect knowledge of this situation or would know what to do about it even if we did.

As one example, our knee-jerk laws about incandescent light bulbs are just ridiculous. They result from the exact same kind of reactionary thinking that gave us the ridiculous TSA rules, which most people admit now are about controlling anxiety and doing SOMETHING, ANYTHING, so we don't feel powerless. The result is "security theatre". I contend that what we have now is "environmental theatre".

I can hear the argument already that "so what if we don't know everything? We need to do SOMETHING!!!!". That's just irrational, fear- and anxiety-based decision making. The policies that come from that kind of decision making end up costing a huge amount for negligible (or often even counterproductive) result. They impoverish the mass of people to soothe a particular group's anxiety. That's not a good enough reason, as far as I'm concerned.

Let's stop right there. Every reputable scientist in the world agrees that the change is unusual and has been increasing beyond a linear rate. Evidence shows the changes are not simply cyclical either. Even wholesale deniers have now come around.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/10/climate-skepticism-takes-another-hit

There's not really room for debate on this issue. There's room for scientific research. Whomever is spending time debating instead of doing research, is simply wasting time. And producing additional hot air.

Well, this response is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

It may not be unusual (in geological time scales) at all that it be "beyond linear". It's just unusual over the last several decades. There's no reason to declare the last 100 years normal except that we happen to be alive right now.

Not discuss it? Seriously? That's a clear sign of dogma and a bullshit warning if there ever was one.

But even if you're right, my points 2-4 are still valid.


Edit: the main problem with your "argument" is that you simply declare those scientists who disagree as "not reputable". That's just plain nonsense.

Edit 2: argument by appeal to sanctioned authority is really weak, and has a historically very poor track record...

I can muster a sliver of respect for the arguments of those who remain skeptical that warming is caused by humans -- the case for anthropogenic warming has certainly become harder and harder to dispute over the last couple decades, but it's not a settled matter.

However, what we have in this Berkley study is noted climate skeptic Richard Muller validating the findings of the pro-AGW scientific concensus. Despite the email hacking, the personal attacks, and generally unprofessional manner in which the skeptics have attacked good, hard-working scientists, this independent testing, partially funded by sources hostile to the AGW hypothesis, confirms their models were right, and their methods and conclusions sound.

Quoth Muller:



Furthermore, the study doesn't just confirm that temperatures are rising, it specifically undermines many of the lines of attacks coming from skeptics in recent years, including the bogus idea that the urban heat island effect was in any large way responsible for measured temperature changes.

In other words, the arguments of skeptics worldwide have been demonstrated to be lacking merit by a prominent skeptic.

Again, I won't argue that we should accept as gospel that human activities are the main cause of global warming, but the case for it is far, far stronger than the case against it. You can hold out as a skeptic, but any of your fellow travelers who say that temperatures aren't rising, or who try to write it off as a temporary pattern are on thin ice. (No pun intended.)

I haven't said temperatures aren't rising. I believe that they probably are, even though that is far more difficult to measure than most people realize.

My point 3 is by far the hardest for the scare mongers to address. Change is not automatically a bad thing.

I didn't say anything about discussion. I said debate. Discussion is fine, if we're in agreement that the climate is changing. If someone doesn't agree with that, despite all the evidence, then I don't see any point wasting any time since it's impossible to have a discussion. What would there be to discuss? That anyone who agrees is having the wool pulled over their eyes? Not interested in that line. This isn't a discussion about faith. There are hard facts available. There is still opportunity to produce more hard facts. So far no one has produced any to the contrary however.



Which scientists disagree? What conclusive studies have the completed to prove their disagreements? The skeptics I've seen or read about base their opinions on nothing but blind faith - and dollars coming in to make their mouths move. Those who have done the research, who are out in the field, publishing. These people seem to all be on the same page. Just saying.

With regards to your point 3, you assume the temperature increase resulting in this warmer climate will for some magical reason stop and stabilize. The studies don't support that hypothesis. You're generalizing in a big way with regards to change. When you look at what's actually going to change, I can't believe for one second you can, with a straight face, tell anyone it's not a big deal.

I'm not a scare monger and I don't scare easily. I don't view people like Al Gore as scare mongers. But it does make me think very hard about those who would vilify such people with those labels.

A the end of the day, regardless of whether you believe the facts or not, what's wrong with being more socially responsible? What's wrong with producing less greenhouse emissions? Progressively reducing our dependence on fossil fuels? Investing in alternative and clean energy sources? Besides the climate change, there are many reasons to want to do things differently.

Ok, Jimmy, I'll bite.

By the only yardstick we have available, the last hundred or so years for which there are records, the warming we are seeing is indeed quite unusual.

The mechanics of greenhouse gases' effect on the atmosphere are well understood and documented. [Shorter wavelength radiation from the sun goes through the greenhouse gases without effect and hits the earth, is reflected back at longer wavelengths which excite (add energy) to the gases before escaping.] I do not believe it is coincidence that the measurable percentage increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases exactly track the industrial revolution. We humans have put a lot of CO2, methane, et. al., into the atmosphere and we know what that does and how it does it. The detective told the husband, "I followed your wife to a motel where she met another man. I watched through the window ad they kissed and undressed each other, then they turned out the lights and I couldn't see any more." "Damn it," the husband said. "That's what I hate. Always that element of doubt." Feel free to doubt, Jimmy, but the evidence is very much against you.

Jimmy, in Alaska, Canada, and Siberia, the permafrost is melting. "So what" you say? Forget the millions of dollars damage to roads and building foundations. Not important. Really. We are on a knife's edge looking at the tipping point. There are more than 100 billion tons of methane (a greenhouse gas 25-70 times more potent than CO2 depending on duration of measurement) trapped in the permafrost (70+ billion tons in Siberia alone) that even as I write this are escaping into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates, and we are perilously close (temperature-wise) to the trigger point that will start an unstoppable, positive feedback cycle of warming and additional release. God help us if the methane clathrates in the arctic underseas let go. Already nearly 10 million tons a year are escaping from the East Siberian arctic shelf and in 2010, methane levels in the Arctic were measured at 1850 nmol/mol, a level scientists described as being higher than at any time in the previous 400,000 years. Historically methane levels would be at about 600 nmol/mol during "warm" periods, and half that level during ice ages. Oceans are warming, pH levels rising (acidification from increased CO2), and algae which produce 70-80% of the earth's oxygen are decreasing. "...not at ALL established that a warmer planet is a bad thing"? I beg to differ.

You may be right, but maybe, just maybe we can keep from making the situation worse. I have seen estimates that if we stopped using fossil fuels immediately we might see temperatures stop rising in 20 to 50 years. They wouldn't go back down, the CO2/methane genie is already out of the bottle so to speak. But the greater the total rise, the greater the destruction of the habitat, and the greater the likelihood the planet will become unlivable.

There are lots of people thinking rationally, doing research and gathering hard data. Unfortunately the people who might actually be in a position to do something (i.e., our elected "leaders" ) are not included in that group. This is more than a matter of social control, it is a matter of survival of the human race. Quite frankly, I don't think we will make it.

So, instead, let's just stand there with our thumbs up our asses and wait for the impending juggernaut to crush us? At the very least we need to argue less about whether climate change is happening, and work more on a plan for survival.

No doubt our fearless leaders will see us safely through this crisis and we'll all live happily ever after. For a little while, at least.

tanstaafl.

ps: Even though I disagree vehemently with almost everything you said [in this post; generally I am in accord with you] I am greatly appreciative of how organized and well written it was. Please keep up the good work!

db

That's just not good enough for me. There are higher principles involved here, which are the soverignty of the individual, universal rights and justice. In other words, liberty. The "solutions" I've seen all involve what is essentially the socialization of production and the subsequent central planning to achieve some intended result. Call them "carbon credits" if you want, or just outright bans and legislation. Either way, the political system is too corrupt and people are too greedy to just sit back and allow this to happen. Even if it means a warmer climate. Besides, it won't work anyway. Favored industries will have exemptions and lots of money will be made from the corruption. The government isn't capable of managing itself, let alone the climate of the planet.

The fact of the matter is that humans are going to continue to use fossil fuels until they are gone. That's going to happen. Even if the west economically cripples itself by refusing to use cheap, available energy, China and the rest developing world are still going to take advantage of it. Until it's gone. Industrialization and exploitation of fossil fuels have brought too much wealth and prosperity to humanity, and the rest of the world wants that. The oil and coal will be used until it's gone.

If we're realistic about the situation, we're talking about (slightly) slowing the rate of fossil fuel use and extending the use across 200 years instead of 150 years, or something along those lines (at a very optimistic appraisal of what the effect of these regulations will accomplish). I'm just not convinced this matters all that much. One thing I do know is that these regulations will impoverish those nations who won't be able to compete as a result.

I hear some really stupid things from the environmental Left on this topic, who obviously do not understand economics. One very bright person I know (not very knowledgable about economics) told me recently that he wished that gasoline was $10/gallon because "that would create an economic boom of jobs to create energy efficient alternatives."

But this won't work, of course, because nobody wants those products except for the people who saddle themselves with a huge economic disadvantage of refusing to use cheap energy. We can put the entire United States back to work by paying people to dig holes in their back yards, too, but this won't do a single thing for the economy, because nothing is being *produced* that anyone wants. Or, we could chop off everyone's right arm and then create a "boom" in the artificial limb industry. But in all these cases, people are actually vastly poorer.

Rather than the stupidity of lightbulb laws, what we really need is to crack the fusion energy nut.

I consider myself an environmentalist. I love nature and wilderness and the outdoors. I believe that humans do not have the right to poison the planet for their own greedy purposes. Of course someone is being a huge nuisance if they dump chemicals into the river. But this carbon business really stretches that, particularly since we don't know if we can do anything about it, and the rest of the people of the world are going to keep right on burning shit.

Since all human production requires energy, this attempt to control energy use in the name of climate change is nothing short of an attempt to control all human production and consumption. Philosophically, it amounts to the complete elimination of property rights and liberty. Nope, they're going to have to prove that humans will be unable to adapt to a warmer planet AND the measures being proposed will avoid this dire result. Extinction of humanity is MAYBE justification for (temporary) totalitarianism, and I don't believe this standard has been met.


You too! Even though the ideas of liberty, property rights and universal justice are not popular and shocking to most people, I like talking about it here because the people on this BBS are so intelligent.

But doesn't that directly contradict your belief in the sovereignty of the individual? Why shouldn't humans have that right?

Well, he seems to be using scare monger tactics to me. He's certainly a big-governement central planner. Some would say socialist. I'm sure you can accept that some intelligent people would disagree with him philosophically?



Sure. Probably nothing. Go ahead and do those things if you want. But when you use force to compel others to behave according to your own view of what's "socially responsible", then you've crossed the line.

I've thought about this statement long and hard, and my final thought about it is that it is astonishingly similar to what Christians say about things like school prayer: "what's the matter? A little more morality would be good for people. If you don't agree, you can just sit there quietly."

Of course you see this as all good, because you agree with the agenda of those who have embraced climate change. But, you see, I think what you call being "socially responsible" amounts to the destruction of property rights and liberty. I don't think these things are good at any cost. In other words, I disagree with you just like I disagree with the Christians.

I think you should both admit the possibility that you might not have the market cornered on what's "good" and what's "right" and leave people alone to define that for themselves (as long as they don't harm others). That's a position coming from the philosophical principle of universal justice and universal rights. You and the Christians don't believe in universal rights or universal justice. You think it's ok to force others to behave the way you want them to. Our system here in the United States was designed to protect people like me from people like you.

On the contrary, the system in the USA was designed to protect people like me from people like you.

Smokers. They don't harm anyone else.

Carbon monoxide, dioxide and other pollutants from exhaust fumes. Nope, nobody being harmed.

But, not once in this thread did I advocate the use of force or laws to promote an agenda of any kind.

Incidentally, I don't think there should be prayer in public schools. But I also think that time spent on the national anthem is time wasted in schools.

Not at all. They don't because it interferes with the sovereignty of others. This is why the libertarian principles do not allow you to do whatever you want. Because other people have the same rights and it's your duty to protect their sovereignty as much as your own. The overall principle at work is "non-coercion".

Now the obvious argument is that affecting the climate harms others. But this very different from the harm I'm talking about.

That's because you don't see government regulation as the use of force. But it is. If you don't comply, you will be fined. If you don't pay the fine, you will be imprisoned. If you refuse to go to prison, you will be killed. Everything the government mandates is enforced through the threat of violence.

Let's take smoking:

In my view of the world, it's my business whether I want to allow smoking on my property. You might say, sure, smoke in your house if you want. But I'll say that my property includes a business that I operate. If I own a bar or restaurant, and I want to allow smoking in it, then that's my right as the property owner. If you don't like smoking, don't come to my restaurant. Nobody is causing you harm, because you don't need to come.

The prohibition is against inflicting harm on others. Not in harming one's self. If I want to chain smoke and give myself lung cancer, that's my business. If I want to create an emporium for people who want to do the same, then that's my business and theirs. Stay out if you don't like it.

But that's not good enough for the do-gooders. They want to pass a law that says that I can't allow smoking in my own business. If you support that kind of thinking, you are misguided.

Edit: ok, more on the do-gooders. What moral right do you claim to impose draconian taxes on those who want to enjoy tobacco? The justification is that they don't know what's best for them, so we, with our superior moral judgement, will make it prohibitively expensive to let people do what they want. Then we can claim a great moral victory over the vice. But vices are not crimes. Stop this sanctimoniousness and let people live their lives as they see fit. If you don't like it that they get sick, then don't pay their health care. But don't force socialized health care down our throats and then use it as an excuse to meddle in our pleasures because you consider them too dangerous.

Agree! I just want to mind my own business. If you agree to let me do that, then we won't have a problem.

Okay, you've mentioned "stupid lightbulb laws" twice now. What's stupid about them?

Hey, you started this thread.

By the same logic you should be allowed to run a restaurant or bar serving whatever you want. Endangered species. 100% grain alcohol. Spoiled vegetables and meat. Unsanitary kitchens. No fire exits. Over-capacity head count. No exhaust systems. No fire-safety equipment. No insurance (of course).

Sounds like an epic place to visit.

And, incandescent lightbulbs were stupid 100 years ago, let alone now. They were marginally better than the system invented by the cavemen, over 10000 years before.

Oh, I'm referring to the nation-wide ban on incandescent light bulbs. Lightbulbs aren't stupid, they're pretty cool.

In my state — I don't know about elsewhere — smoking bans are specifically excluded from establishments that are centered around smoking. That is, you can freely smoke inside a smoke shop or a cigar bar.

Of course, such a place wouldn't stay in business very long. And if they caused harm by operating an unsanitary kitchen, they'd be violating my principle of not causing harm, wouldn't they?

So, no, you aren't representing my position very well, and maybe that's because you don't understand it. Many people confuse liberty with anarchy, but it's not the same.

As long as it wasn't misrepresented, then sure, I'd support someone opening a business selling rotten meat. Nobody would open such a business, though, because nobody wants to buy rotten meat. Although, that's basically what a rendering plant buys, I guess.

What happens occasionally is that people sell rotten meat and claim it's fresh. That's fraud, and fraud is theft. So we both agree that shouldn't be allowed.

No, I wasn't being silly. As far as I know, there is no ban on incandescent light bulbs. There is a minimum efficiency law now. But companies have started developing incandescent bulbs that meet those efficiency requirements.

But not in a restaurant. What if my emporium wants to serve delicious vittles? Exclusions do not address the principle of property rights and liberty.

You're right. It's California that's banned them here, and also the EU. But lightbulb efficiency laws are the same type of knee-jerk, voluntary economic handicapping that I'm talking about.

You're not harming anyone by serving endangered species at your restaurant. Over-capacity without fire exits also doesn't harm anyone. Why bother with insurance if no one is being harmed?

But the potential for harm exists with a few of those. If there's a fire...

Cigarette smoke is not agreed upon by anyone to be remotely safe, so you can't say you're not harming anyone. You can say those people are choosing to be harmed and I'd agree. But the laws aren't there to protect people from themselves, believe it or not. They're there to protect them from others, even if they're complacent in the injury.

I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to serve human flesh, even if you advertised it prominently, and I'm pretty sure it's not likely to harm anyone if cooked to the right internal temperature (probably similar to pork). Nor would you be harming anyone if you had a huge sign outside your emporium reading "WHITES ONLY."

As far as extra taxation, I don't agree with it either. But it's not there to try and curb consumption. There are many ways to better do that. It's there simply to extract more money from a market you know will pay almost any price for something.

I'm all for fewer and better (clearer, concise, less reactionary, less tangled, twisted, generalized, misinterpret-able) laws.

Hmmm, reading some of the replies, I was getting the sense that at least a few people on the BBS might be shocked by the positively heroic ideas of liberty, property rights, and universal justice that you champion.

I don't see the net gain in this discussion. I used to argue with my buddy's father in law about this kind of stuff, but gave it up. It only generated more heat.

Your heroic, interlocking principles are unassailable. You have a single solution to save us, the fusion nut. Who needs a Plan B?

I won't be around to appreciate it but my thanks to you for saving the future of my nieces, nephews, and the great nieces/nephews including the one we look forward to in November.

So why debate, why discuss, when you know you'll prevail on our behalf?

Sigh, I have to agree with Doug. I don't think we're going to make it. But why worry? I think I'll just kick back and pop my copy of the _Omega Man_ in the VCR.

Sigh. I mostly think you're right. The idea that the human being is a sovereign individual and we have rights above any government is considered passé, naive and idealistic. But it happens to be based in principles of universal morality, non-coersion and justice. I often ask why I bother. I really, really do.



I don't think I've been saying that. I just believe that we (humanity) will use fossil fuels until they're gone, because the benefits outweigh the disadvantages for the overwhelming portion of the planet. Fusion would "solve" things, sure, but probably so would other things, and nobody knows if fusion energy will ever be practical.

I'm not really advocating a particular solution, just an honest acknowledgement of the problem, which as I see it is: we're going to use these fuels until they're gone, and socialist planning under the guise of environmentalism will not change that.



Because a system based on principles and universal morality is important. The ideas matter.



Humans are extraordinarily adaptable. They'll make it, although probably in a different kind of world than we have now, or we had 200 years ago. But what is at serious risk is the experiment in liberty. Actually, that's dead, too, but it's a good idea and it's worth defending. It's easy to despair, but occasionally I'm inspired by others who seem to have an unending optimism for the cause of freedom.

But yeah, I take long periods off of this because it seems so fruitless. I'm about to take another one.

You clearly don't understand my position.

I wrote a lengthy post but got all ranty and decided no-one needed to read that.

summary of my thoughts:

earth - temperature may change - doesn't matter. we either survive or not - in terms of damage to the earth, probably best if we don't survive, but either way we'll still be around in hundreds of years time.

kneejerk laws - are entirely crap and don't solve anything (cf banning incandescent lightbulbs and replacing with ones with a high mercury content! or banning liquids through security at airports!

politicians and greedy powerful corporations - should be burned. even if it does contribute to global warming. They do more damage to my world than pretty much anything else

I understand that your argument is that you don't think that the individual should be subservient to the government, only to the rights of others. I think this is a reasonable stance, until you start thinking about rights that are hard to defend alone.

Let's take a situation halfway between normal tort like vandalism and something like anthropogenic climate change; ground water pollution seems like a decent middle ground.

There is no doubt that corporations sometimes pollute ground water, sometimes inadvertently, sometimes not. I think you would agree that this is an actionable offense. It is unclear to me how you think that this should be handled. A hardcore libertarian would say that this should be handled as a lawsuit between those affected by the polluted groundwater and the polluters. My remembrance of your past arguments leads me to believe that you might be fine with classifying this as a crime that could be prosecuted directly by the authorities. (Then again, maybe you envision a situation where a landowner doesn't care about the pollution of his ground water.) My problem with the hardcore libertarian argument is that it is exceedingly difficult for an individual or group of individuals to win a lawsuit against a corporation, because the corporation can easily outspend the individuals. In my opinion, this is the type of situation where the government is there to protect the underdog by preemptively preventing this sort of abuse. On top of protecting the underdog, it is also beneficial to try to prevent the abuse from happening in the first place rather than being solely reactive. For instance, a corporation may well see the loss of a lawsuit being less costly than the amount they're saving with their actionable offense and merely decide to do it anyway. (Given, there are companies, and individuals, who come to the same conclusion facing criminal rather than legal action anyway.)

What I'm getting at is that I don't see it as unreasonable that the government tries to proactively prevent harm, or in protecting the weak from the powerful. Does this sometimes result in abuses of that power? Sure, but, in my opinion, less so than if corporations were allowed to run roughshod.

If you want to talk about specific laws, I'm more than likely to agree with you. I am as concerned with personal liberty as you are, I just think that many personal liberties are better defended by the government than they can be by individuals. I honestly think that the federal lightbulb law is reasonably well written. It doesn't outlaw any specific technology; it merely requires better efficiency, and I don't think that it's unreasonable for the government to try to prevent the waste of an unrenewable resource. If you want to talk about mercury contamination, that's a discussion worth having: is the increase in possible mercury contamination worth the increase in efficiency in light generation? I'd say yes, but I think it's a reasonable discussion to have.

It's also reasonable to discuss global warming, but that discussion has, at this point, come to most of its conclusions. I personally think it's ridiculous to think that an increase in global temperatures is anything other than bad, but I'll admit to the possibility of being wrong. I won't admit that there seems to be any possibility that the climate isn't changing, though. I also think that it's likely that people are using climate change to their own personal political advantage, but that's true of virtually everything, ever. For example, I think you're using it to your personal political advantage.

Anyway, I think I've gotten to the rambling stage and I'll stop now.

I think if I flipped the pages of the BBS back a year or two, I could find an angry, sarcastic reply to you much like my recent one in this thread.


I ought to be careful of pointing the finger at others and crying "Demagoguery!", but I have to say that I find this statement objectionable, as if environmentalist is unworthy and that subjugated to socialism it all becomes evil. I cherish the more genial expressions of socialism. Like my public library.


You appear to look down on your fellow citizens who do not struggle like Atlas to achieve pure, complete individual rights and "universal morality" (oh, and property rights). You seem to neglect that other people reside on the planet (good people, many of them) who don't share all of your assumptions. Reading some of the posts, I feel like I am reading about the struggle of the pure heroic Ubermensch against the contaminated, deficient denizens of the lumpen underworld.

Yes, your comments remind me a Gary Cooper-esque figure struggling against mediocrity and compromise, but I have to say that I find the purist "big L" position with respect to "rights" (oh, and property rights!) to be dogmatic, vacant, and positively depressing.

Unless you are making some progress on the fusion front, or have some other solutions to offer, I don't quite understand how you can comfortably stand on an exclusivist set of "individual and property rights!" as a defining principle for the common wealth.

Perhaps you can engrave your principles on a gold-plated record and launch them into space (using a private launch company, of course) so that they can be found by some distant civilization who will make better use of them than we are able.

In the meantime, it doesn't look like we are going to make it, but I hate saying so in a forum where members are excitedly announcing the birth of a new child.

But if none of this makes sense to you, don't worry. You don't always have to have a particularly good or cogent position or argument to prevail. I am thinking that, in practical terms. you have prevailed.