What About Global Warming?

is that any mention of religion in political contexts tends to escalate already contentious discussions. (I've done my share of discussing religion, but in threads begun on that topic.) Unless you're a warmonger, escalation of tense situations is not your goal. It is not mine, and I don't really think it was yours. Your post was fairly obviously critical -- of a decision to wage war. But, it was critical, and in a tone that isn't conciliatory. If you were attempting to play 'peacemaker' I think your method was applied, at best, ironically. IMNSHO, people's beliefs about the Creator of the Universe are too personal to form a useful basis for establishing common ground. As anecdotal evidence, just consider the number of Christian 'denominations' and the number of executions that accompanied the most argumentative of those divisions. Didn't somebody named Thomas More get [b]decapitated[/b] for disagreeing with a king's wish for a divorce?

You probably have some good points, but when you bring religious passion into a discussion that isn't already about religion, I stop reading.

to exact a penalty (Global warming tax) on me without:

A. Proving that a crime was committed, and

B. Proving that I am in any way responsible for it.

That violates my rights!

NASA, founded 1958

http://history.nasa.gov/

Billions of Dollars, and growing steadily.

http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/FY_2007/index.html

National Science Foundation founded in 1950

http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/

NSF to request [b]6.8%[/b] raise (Outstanding annual performance review?), for $6,430,000,000 (I believe it disingenuous to abbreviate LARGE amounts of money with words like "million" & "billion", although the Foundation reported this amount as "$6.43 billion". The more money is involved, the more I want to see all the zeroes, and all the commas!)

http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2008/index.jsp

Now, let's see about "Noah"...

www.noaa.gov

$3,480,000,000 for 2008

"Lautenbacher said NOAA's request totals $3.8 billion or an increase of 3.4 percent over the administration's 2007 request."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2789.htm

Environmental Protection Agency, founded in 1970. That would have been during the reign of Mr. "Great Society", Lyndon Baines Johnson, the epitome of the bleeding heart "liberal".

EPA financial assets reported for FY 2005, $18,144,197,000

http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/finservices/fininformation.htm

It was not fun to locate the EPA's "Performance & Accountability Report". The other agencies put convenient links to their present budget requests for the upcoming year right on their main pages. Not the EPA.

There is no [b]social[/b] value in communist totalitarianism. Self-described "socialists" are no more the friends of [b]society[/b] than so-called "liberals" are the friends of [b]liberty[/b]. Words have literal meaningns. If people of your caliber do not defend good ideas at the point of the literal meaning of words, I guarantee you, nobody will, nor will 50% + 1 of voters recognize good ideas as such. I have no other complaint regarding your post.

May the road rise to meet you and the wind be gently at your back,

Intelligently connected, low resistance, low current LED lights would totally bypass the problem TonytheTiger described above.

deep wrote, "The difference between you and sn53 is that you have allowed that one's right to freedom is not exclusive to that of others, that it brings with it the responsibility to not use it to the detriment of others."

I would like to hear from you how a right, for example the right to be left alone, imposes a responsibility on me. Or, if you prefer some of the other recognized rights like the right to speak, to assemble, to bear arms...

"Not only has sn53 yet to do the same, but he has even gone so far as to deny that rights bear commensurate duties."

One you impose an obligation upon me then it is no longer a right. It is merely something the state allows me to do if I pay the state enough. Rights impose limits upon the power of the state. They do not impose limits upon the individual.

deep wrote, "I "get" far more than you imagine."

I don't imagine that you get very much.

I think you are likely smart or at the least clever. I think in another 20 years or so you just might begin to get it. Just not today or tomorrow.

You've certainly heard me refer to the Republicans as baby Democrats -- thus, "in theory".

Nonetheless, if you spend your efforts trying to make the Libertarian Party a major force, you might as well piss in the wind.

Do us both a favor. Instead of looking for that little "something" in my message that you can disagree with, try taking it in its totality.

If you agree that issues such as this should be judged on their factual merits, then you cannot begin by arguing matters of policy. It is only after matters of fact have been settled that those of policy can be properly addressed.

You may wish to begin by consulting a pastor and/or a philosopher.

I could, of course, explain it all to you; but, as I've neither the time nor the inclination to engage in that which you yourself are capable of, I'll leave it to you to educate yourself.

Thanks for the opportunity; but, no thanks.

by your own self-imposed constraints.

The study of climate science is much older than most people realize. For example, that CO2 acts as a "greenhouse gas" was 1st formally hypothesized in 1897.

Policy changes are already occurring or in the process!

Yes, you are right in saying that I've steadfastly eschewed arguing matters of policy; and, for a very good reason.

[i]Good[/i] policy is based on the best possible understanding of the pertinent facts. Such is nothing more than an application of the principle that "Form follows Function."

Having been schooled in the Sciences I well understand this principle, and do not lightly abandon it.

.....totally irrelevant

Like it or not, for better or for worse, one of the major two parties will control Congress and win the White House. By failing or refusing to choose even a "lesser of two evils", you concede possible control of Congress to the worst of two evils. The same applies to third-party presidential candidates without a snowball's chance of wining. By remaining [i]fiercely Independent[/i] by voting for neither major party, again, you run the risk of helping elect your least desirable candidate.

You might claim to be making a statement, but it's falling on deaf ears and you remain an outsider -- and neither party can be changed from the outside. The majority party controls Congress, and that's the reality of our system. And as such, they chair the committees, set the agenda, decide which legislation to bring forward for a full floor vote, confirm judicial appointments, etc.

By remaining [i]fiercely Independent[/i] you render yourself irrelevant, insignificant, and without a real voice.

If you don't like the way things are going, you work to change it. Same with your party.

.....until it becomes fact. This has not become fact. deepsand is a big blowhard!

And his ONLY retort, sn53, is to attack you. That's ALL HE DOES -- attack prople. He's a first-class ASS!

H. Ross Perot was a serious enough contender -- OUT OF NOWHERE! -- that "irrelevant, insignificant, and without a real voice" strike me as a pessimistic exaggeration. He had billions of dollars. Third Party candidates may have more limited financial resources, but they also have (albeit limited) name recognition, if only within their party's membership. There will also tend to be existing journalism of these candidates, from a political perspective, which the subset of voters who attempt to inform themselves can use to learn about "upstart" candidates.

Changing from within is a good idea. So is reform due to competition against third parties, which in some states are of real concern to the Republicans. Whether I register Libertarian or Republican will depend on whether the Libertarians can get their acts together. So, probably R this year.

[i]That's my entire point!
Policy changes are already occurring or in the process![/i]

If you dislike the policy changes, which are occurring because of what is [b]believed[/b] to be fact, don't you want to address the "facts" which [b]are[/b] the basis of those policies?

Reality.

I do not impose on you the responsibility to eat, your stomach does. Our Constitution recognizes that individual liberty is an essential attribute, endowed by the nature of what we are, as our "Creator" made us. Whether that Creator is called Nature or God is secondary. Our fundamental nature is that we are individuals, and as such, free to pursue our happiness individuall, and responsible to care for ourselves individually. Even if I were willing to do you the favor, I could not spare you the necessity of eating.

The ethical argument for collectivism because of global warming is based on the fact that [b]if[/b] the ecochondriacs are right, we will all sink together. I think it's unavoidable that the libertarian argument against global warming taxes and legislation be based on the science.

OK, suppose we keep science out of policy. Do we stop using DNA evidence? Eliminate the entire field of forensic anthropology? Bar the actuarial profession & the insurance industry from testifying before the government?

Of course, I know you don't mean to prohibit the scientific method from being cited in government proceedings, but your literal meaning was, honestly, a bit difficult to understand.

I won't try to put into my own words what I think you mean, but I have enough of a sense of your views to ask this:

If I promised to cite only research that is in no way government-funded, would you be willing to hold the debate? If so, would you also refrain from citing government-funded sources?

PS neilb & deepsand: we can get good carbon emissions data from the petroleum extracted. We don't need government data to present the case, if we're any good at it.

I don't disagree with some "little thing" in your message. I disagree with the idiotic habit of Republicans to treat every item on their social agenda as a "war" -- on crime, on drugs, on abortion. You talk a lot about principle, sometimes, but in other contexts you're awfully emphatic about your expectation of others to compromise ours.

abso wrote, "Rights & responsibilities both derive from the same source:"

Let us try out a few rights. Let me begin by stating that rights limit the power of government to interfere with me. If you went to a government school you probably believe that rights are granted by government and are matched up with responsibilities. To whom am I responsible when I exercise my rights? So let us begin.

I have the right to be left alone. What responsibility do I have? And to whom?

I have the right to speak freely. What responsibility do I have? And to whom?

I have the right to defend myself. I can be armed. What responsibility do I have? And to whom?

I have the right to peacefully assemble with others. What responsibility do I have? And to whom?

I have the right to own property. What responsibility do I have? And to whom?

Let us begin with these rights.

While he did receive a significant percentage of the vote, it was only around 19 percent (If I remember correctly), and he didn't carry one state -- not even one. I remember that election quite well. It was, in part, my support for Perot that led me to my conclusion.

Did he come close to winning? No. Did he ever have a chance of winning? Again, no. Did it send that proverbial message about fiscal responsibility that I "thought" I was sending. Yea, right! All it did was send Bill Clinton to the White House instead of George HW Bush for a second term (A personal and political enemy of Perot, by the way).

It was the most foolish vote I ever cast.

Well, that would be a be a different topic altogether, wouldn't it? :)

Whether you call it socialism or carbon credits, the reason for the political involvement is solely to take from those who earn (please note the use of the word "earn" rather than the word "have" is quite intentional, as those who are running this dog and pony show already have "theirs") and give to those who don't (all the while, of course, being [b]in control[/b] of it).

If they really "[b]believed[/b]" what they claim as fact, they would not continue to do the very things they claim are bad for the planet.

[i]I think it's unavoidable that the libertarian argument against global warming taxes and legislation be based on the science.[/i]

They've created a religion out of this issue and as you know, it's impossible to prove the [b]non-existence[/b] of their god.

If you believe that policy is being altered without sufficient facts to justify such, then it becomes all the more important that you [b]give priority to addressing the facts[/b], not the policy, as without such, you will be unable to affect policy.

Therefore, you must [b]stop debating policy, and chase the facts posthaste.[/b]

"one's right to freedom is [b]not exclusive to that of others[/b], that it brings with it the [b]responsibility to not use it to the detriment of others[/b]."

"Others" includes all those now living and yet to live; and, perforce, it includes the environs in which we live.

You constant injection of terms such as "religion" does not well serve us here.

You have the right to do whatever you want, whenever you want, and to or for whomever you want. Government exists to curtail as many of those rights as much as is necessary to ensure the continued existence of the government. Your "responsibility" is that which is imposed on you by the government in the form of consequences for mis-asserting those (curtailed) rights.

Any discussion of future events requires faith in something.

that's why I [b]vote for the person[/b], not for a Party.

Voting for a Party [b]assumes[/b] that all of that Party's candidates will collectively act in a manner so as to achieve a result that is more desirable than that which would be effected by choosing the best candidate without regard to Party. As I've yet to see any evidence to support the former, I choose the latter.

"Human caused global warming" is the (current) excuse, not the reason.

"[i]The science is manipulated by scoundrels.[/i]"

By scoundrels on which side?

And, where's your proof?

I understand both issues.

You, however, understand but one, and refuse to consider the other.

You're all cart and no horse.

[i]"one's right to freedom is not exclusive to that of others, that it brings with it the responsibility to not use it to the detriment of others."[/i]

Change "others" to "the government".

"People" assert their rights to the detriment of "others" all the time.

[i]"Others" includes all those now living and yet to live;[/i]

Oh no!!!! Not the abortion thread again...

was a Republican who didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination or, as was later proven, the Presidency.

deep wrote, "sn53: Try re-reading, very carefully"

You do the same.

"one's right to freedom is not exclusive to that of others, that it brings with it the responsibility to not use it to the detriment of others."

You are arguing that we have no rights. We will have to agree to disagree. In my opinion your beliefs always lead to tyranny.

""Others" includes all those now living and yet to live; and, perforce, it includes the environs in which we live."

See what I mean? You can create any argument you want once you eliminate any real meaning to that pesky word "rights".

Whether you want to admit it or not, one of the two major parties fall more in-line with your most important sets of values and policy preferences. If goes without saying, of course, that not all party platform issues would agree with any one given person's position preferences, but anyone who knows even the slightest bit about our two parties could clearly choose one with whom he/she is closer aligned.

I prefer the Republican Party of Barry Goldwater, for example, and there's absolutely no way I can do my part to bring about party change towards that end by voting for a Democrat. You're a fool if you think so. And what you said, [i]only people can change a Party[/i], is ONLY true if that person is within the party you'd like to change.

You simply do not make sense with what you said.

.....I'll give it to you.

If I recall correctly, NOAA has the most data on the actual temperature points. What I have in mind is reviewing the thermodynamics and the infrared emission/absorption spectra and the atmospheric composition (which is available to any dork with an elementary school chemistry set!) to prove either that there is so much CO2 being emitted that we're in for it, or that there is so little in comparison to the total mass of the atmosphere that it's delusional to think that automobile exhaust can have any relevant effect, or that it's too close to call without more data.

A valid scientific model should be based on unbiased acknowledgement that each of those three scenarios is possible. So should an honest debate. Finally, an honest debate should begin with the simplest theoretical models, and progress slowly, after proving each point conclusively, not jump from any assertion of fact directly to 'therefore, ride bicycles to work and take the bus to do your grocery shopping'.

As much as environmentalists 'care' about the Earth, they should be motivated to adopt their own advice voluntarily, whether or not the rest of us choose to do so. The very fact that their agenda has been [b]legislated [i]before it began to be[/i] engineered & manufactured[/b] is extremely suspicious.

Hats off to those few who put their effort & their money where their mouth is.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Sincere middle finger to those that just run their mouths.

"The issue you here raise has been amply addressed here and in other discussions; re-raising it will not change anything. So, I'm not going to waste my time with yet another explanation as to why your conslusion is mistaken."

Assuming that both the threat of global warming and the passion for liberty that you claim in matters of religion are valid, 'waste' is the wrong word to use to describe your use of your time. You have taken some time to post the dismissal to which I'm replying. You could have used that time to explain the science you advise others to study. You complain that they are not receptive to your [b]reasoning[/b], which is frequently outstanding.

But, you & I also [b]know[/b] that they do not desire your conclusion. 'Therefore, what?' Does their disinterest in the conclusion you have reached put the burden on them to 'agree' after we legislate our conclusion, or does it put the burden on us, to present the facts on which we based our conclusion, slowly and meticulously enough that their intellect overcomes their wishes, and they are truly convinced? I know which approach is consistent with [b]my principles[/b].

.....because there's no profit in it. Who's going to pay somebody to study the atmosphere or an ice core a thousand feet deep? Where's the profit motive? That's why all such studies are, in some ways, funded by either government of education (which is, in most cases, also funded by government). At best, you might be able to find some private university funding such research, but not much else.

You can certainly find a lot of scientists in the private sector, but they all work to produce some sort of product or service that could generate a profit.

"[b]Don't fall into the trap, Abs.[/b]

[i]I think it's unavoidable that the libertarian argument against global warming taxes and legislation be based on the science.[/i]

They've created a religion out of this issue and as you know, it's impossible to prove the [b]non-existence[/b] of their god."

That's true. This religion also relies for its existence on something whose similarity to the proverbial 'fig leaf' is easy to fathom. It is also [b]easy[/b] to undermine.

The christian church enjoyed better catapults, and other military advantages that early science provided to its affiliated governments. It wasn't until about the time that science [b]proved[/b] that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, or even of the Solar System, that the church began persecuting scientists for 'heresy'. Today, knowing science fact from science fiction is also treated as heresy in some circles of rabid environmentalists.

Today, the unincorporated church of primitivism similarly is attempting to use science to provide to it evidence that technology is the root of all evil -- the modern, ideological equivalent of the catapults that science provided to popes and kings. 'Environmentalism' is aimed directly at the minds of productive people. I'm firing back in kind, and my intellectual ammunition is far greater. The only question now is whether the loudest or the truest voices will win the argument.

I think that SHOUTING makes me close to indistinguishable from my enemy, whose method is to appeal to emotion, particularly to fear & unearned guilt. To defeat my enemy requires that I undermine it at its claims to any semblance of factual & rational validity, and to do so objectively. The worship of primitivism on the basis of science is ludicrous on its face. Yet, a lot of people are voting for exactly that. I don't need to prove [b]non-existence[/b] of this particular god, because all but the most hard-core, nihilist primitivists have been convinced in the 'evil-ness' of technology on the basis of pseudo-scientific dogma. I only need to undermine the dogmas to kill the environmentalists' 'god'. They have fear on their side; I have reality on mine. May the best side win!

I think this has something to do with the fact that I came along so late to this party.

"[i]I think an organized debate among interested adults could be worthwhile.[/i]"
I definitely think that something like this needs to start out with its own thread, or otherwise with its own specialized, from-scratch venue, with some ground rules laid out in advance (i.e., in the original post of the new thread).

This would be especially important if you're going to have me moderate, as I started out lost in this thread and have mostly stayed that way. One of the reasons I don't tend to get involved in discussions here at TR after they get past about fifty posts or so is that the interesting topics fragment into subthreads that have their own discussion histories and contexts, but at the same time interlink through references to each other. It's much easier to grasp all the necessary details as a complete system if you're involved in the organic growth from the beginning than trying to catch up later on, I think.

Is that what you had in mind when you started talking about a more formalized debate structure? That was my initial impression, but there hasn't been much discussion in that regard.

I've got some ideas for how to lay out some ground rules, if you (all) are amenable to them and if the above is pretty much what you had in mind. Let me know, please.

In particular, I think a separate venue that would allow posting of common file formats for graphical presentation of statistics would be ideal.

You sit and think I brought religion into it...when, Maxwell Edison clearly made that first metaphoric assertions?

I was making fun of his comparisons and trying to point out that fanaticism is on both sides...not just the one whose view is opposite his.

Then...yes...I made fun of him quoting Yoda...he quoted the wisdom of [b]a muppet[/b], for God's sake. What isn't there to make fun of there?

Oh well...needless to say...if you're having fun at the expense of the planet's health...I truly look forward to the day that the earth's ecosystem dies off and guys like me becoming alpha males in a more primitive society and hunt down dolts of the world and taking your women for my own.

Darwin rules.

Have a nice day.

I might create a website for it, if you think that'd be appropriate. I'm thinking of invitation-only membership with moderated uploads and members-only discussion forum for the actual debate. It shouldn't take too long to get set up, with the right CMS.

But the sticking point previously was a set of ground rules.

Am I the only one who thinks that apotheon's proposed terms for this debate are close enough to a middle ground to proceed from his suggestion, possibly with some minor modifications?

.

Have you taken leave of your senses? Or, are you just being deliberately obtuse and argumentative?

.

And, while you continue to vote the Party line, I'll continue to very carefully pick and chose those who get my vote, taking into account many more factors than you will allow exist.

For example, I may in fact deliberately choose a candidate whose expected behavior may [i]not[/i] directly well comport with my goals, but will [i]indirectly[/i] result in a change in the behavior of others, such that my desired goal will in fact be advanced.

In short, I take the long view, not unlike that of a skilled chess player.

"... overcomes their wishes."

Been there; done that. It doen't work.

sn53 has repeatedly re-raised the "it's the Sun" argument. I've elsewhere spelled it out in detail for him, to no avail. He will not allow that you or I know anything of the sciences involved; therefore, if he is to come to understand such issue, he must learn them through his own efforts.

He is [b]deliberately obtuse[/b] and deserves no more time spent in repeating that which he [b]does not wish to learn.[/b]

you'll find it hard to even find me, let alone "take my woman."

May the future be kind.

The loudest and most opinionated ones do not represent the mainstream, majority of relevant opinions.

deep wrote, "If you've scientific facts to offer, then do so; otherwise, you've nothing to here contribute."

My, my my. The real deep comes out. Not a pretty picture.

You still think it is about facts? Once you figure out that it is about the power to control and to tax, come back. Until then you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.

I haven't read this entire subthread. I only skimmed parts of it. The word "anarchy" caught my attention, and prompted a response, though.

1. There's nothing ethically wrong with anarchy. Anarchy is nothing more than a lack of governmental "authority". The only problem with anarchy is an engineering problem. That's why I prefer a constitutional libertarian minarchy.

2. Rights do not impose obligations. They are sacrosanct and sovereign. Rights cannot be taken away -- they can only be violated or given up. To violate another's rights with malicious intent, depraved indifference, or willful negligence is to demonstrate a rejection of rights -- to abdicate rights by deed rather than by word. One cannot simply accept rights for oneself: one must accept and honor rights themselves, regardless of the people to whom they might apply, else one rejects rights in principle. Thus, rights in some sense do come with responsibility -- one effectively shoulders the responsibility of respecting the rights of others by accepting the rights one has oneself, because they are one and the same. If you do not treat all rights as equal (barring those who demonstrate their rejection of rights), anything you claim for yourself you essentially claim as a privilege.

Take that and run with it -- fit it into the discussion how you like. I imagine someone will take vitriolic exception to my statements.

[i]I hate the useful idiots who pretend to know, who support the enemies of freedom and liberty. Every generation has had useful idiots. In the recent past they have mostly been liberals, enlightened intellectuals, who were on the wrong side of history. Why is it that some people, like you and deep, are so easily swayed to fall into line with would-be tyrants?

Do you just not know how rare and precious a thing liberty is?[/i]

Partly, I haven't considered climate change as a primarily political question until recently. Partly, I'm unimpressed by name calling, so that when some yokel calls me a "useful idiot" instead of providing [i]data[/i] to support his position [i]on the topic at hand[/i], which is political not personal, I just consider you and other name callers to be [b]useless idiots[/b].

I don't "fall into line" with anybody, including you.

abso wrote, "Partly, I haven't considered climate change as a primarily political question until recently."

It is a start.

"Partly, I'm unimpressed by name calling, so that when some yokel calls me a "useful idiot"

I sometimes forget that not everyone has the same background. The Communist dictator, Lenin, wrote that about the English and French intellectuals who acted as his apologists and primary support in the 1920-1940s. They believed he was creating a paradise when, in actuality, he had devised a brutal dictatorship that resulted in 20 million murders. My use of "useful idiots" was not name-calling but labeling. I believe that people like deep, and you, are today's useful idiots who will apologize for the necessary loss of liberty and freedoms.

"instead of providing data to support his position on the topic at hand, which is political not personal, I just consider you and other name callers to be useless idiots."

What data would you want? Others on this board have called for suppression of global warming dissenters. And at least once I have been told to stick my freedoms and liberties where the sun don't shine. So those who believe as you do are a violent bunch bent upon my suppression. They are useful idiots as they will not be part of the emerging power structure that runs this brave new world that will emerge.

"I don't "fall into line" with anybody, including you."

Maybe. But by all appearances you have. You may choose to be on the right side of history or you may fall in with brutes and tyrants. You cannot have it both ways.

I have been clear from the outset about what I claim to know, and what I claim only to find most likely based on available data.

[i]I hate the useful idiots who pretend to know, who support the enemies of freedom and liberty. Every generation has had useful idiots. In the recent past they have mostly been liberals, enlightened intellectuals, who were on the wrong side of history. Why is it that some people, like you and deep, are so easily swayed to fall into line with would-be tyrants?[/i]

Where did you get the impression that I "fall into line" with the environmentalism culture?

[i]"I don't "fall into line" with anybody, including you."

Maybe. But by all appearances you have.[/i]

You are now selectively omitting data that do not support your assumptions, because there are plenty of appearances to the contrary.

PS I'm familiar with the political significance and derivation of the phrase "useful idiots". But I haven't once argued for reduced liberty, and I wanted you to elaborate enough to show that your assumptions about which "side of history" I espouse are contrary to the content of my posts.

[i]Uh-huh. You may have a few people frightened and intimidated. The truth will come out. It is already coming out.[/i]

I never set out to frighten & intimidate anybody. Your assumptions are inconsistent with your observations.

This is a response to abso.

You seem to want to have it both ways, to be in the camp of the envirofascists and to be in the camp of those who cherish freedom and liberty. I believe these options are diametrically opposed to one another.

Your mileage may vary.

of one against those of another, if neither has the obligation to exercise such in a responsible manner?

For example, under our 2nd Amendment, I've the reight to bears arms. And, as a hunter, I possess and use a number of firearms. Would you hold that I've the right to their indiscriminate use, or that I've the obligation to use them wisely?

Silly rabbit.

Just as you reached the point where you asserted that you had quit trying to engage in rational discourse with zealot44 re. ID, so too here re. sn53 and science.

By your own words, you neither know and understand the underlying sciences here involved, nor do you care to.

Instead, you prefer to simply jump on the bandwagon of those who preach that which you wish to believe.

As for Absolutely and myself, we prefer scientific facts to mere beliefs.

Your persistent use of "facist" marks you as possessing both a small intellect and an even smaller bent toward the use of such.

Your behavior is that of a child throwing a tantrum in an attempt to have his way at all cost.

If 99% of people stand to gain from defrauding only 1% of the populace of our earnings, then the motivation of those entrusted with the secret is exactly equal to zero. Even infinitely recursive multiplication of that probability will leave it unchanged: 0. The exponentiation operator is only shorthand for the aformentioined recursive operation. Like all socialist transfer-of-wealth schemes, the plot need not be secret, but only more beneficial to the many whose production is less than that of the productive few, in order to motivate allegiance to the lie.

I enjoy your dispassionate style even when I disagree with you, and hoped to encourage you to keep arguing. But, I completely understand that with some people there is a point after which communication is irrelevant. More importantly, I think there are more important arenas for this and other political discussions than this technophilic microcosm.

I know you addressed the question to apotheon, but I have an answer of my own for you.

I'm afraid I don't understand your question, in the context of what I said. It seems as though you have the impression that only via acceptance of obligation can a society exist wherein people respect each others' rights, and thus take my statement that an obligation is not necessarily attached to a right as a statement that there's no compelling reason for anyone to respect others' rights. Please let me know if that's not what you infer, and thus what you subsequently intend to imply.

This is, in fact, purely antithetical to the thrust of my comments -- that one respects the rights of others by definition, if one accepts a meaningful definition of one's own rights at all, and that otherwise one abdicates one's own rights.

[b]Absolutely:[/b]
I think he brought up firearms only as a more immediate manifestation of principles of social order and ethics, meant to stand in as an analogy for other matters where one may similarly presume an obligation to respect the rights of others (if one accepts his assumptions about the nature of rights), such as on the subject of pollution and environmental effects.

Knowing deepsand isn't stupid, I must operate on the assumption (unless and until he convincingly disabuses me of the notion) that he chose firearms as the subject of his analogy because he knows I'm a strong libertarian thinker who unequivocally supports a broad interpretation of the protections afforded by the Second Amendment. He's probably aiming to get me to agree to something related that will then relate in turn to the main subject of this discussion, and "score" a point.

Of course, I'm not going to be drawn into the debate much here. I only commented in an opinionated manner because of careless use of the term "anarchy" and the associated discussion of rights -- one of my favorite subjects. I'm willing to be convinced, though, if he has a convincing argument.

I think perhaps the best idea I've had so far for a debate format may be the newest -- and one that occurred to me while I was reading deepsand's reply to me on the subject of rights and firearms above. It's simple:

Two teams are organized (as you've done). Each team takes turns presenting an argument. The chain of logical point and counterpoint related to that argument will continue until a conclusion is reached. My role, as moderator, will be to determine when an argument stands validated or is sufficiently undermined as to be declared a lost point. Each point must begin with a simple listing of premises, valid arguments, and conclusion. For example:

[i]Premises: Cars are capable of causing harm to human beings. The greatest value is human life.

Arguments: Causing harm to human beings reduces the net value of cars. Other forms of transportation also exist, further reducing the net value of cars.

Conclusion: Cars should be outlawed.[/i]

Obviously, the above is full of holes, but it's an example of a clear argument format. Links to related materials may be cited, but there should be no need to read the content from such external resources to discern their value -- they should only be useful for verification purposes, and any "facts" may be disputed on the basis of an absence of cited sources for verification.

Each such argument discussion then becomes its own thread of discussion, and a new one may not be started until the previous is declared concluded (win, lose, or draw).

The whole thing strikes me as an interesting hybridized format, intermingling aspects of standard formal debate with those of a court trial proceeding, adjusted to fit the circumstances of online forum discussion. This being the case, I think I have just the software in mind to use for this. I'll go ahead and set it up, the moment I get the go-ahead from three people -- you, plus one member each of the two proposed teams. I'll need a list of users with desired usernames for membership on the website, then I'll set everything up. I should be able to get it all put together within a day's time when I get started on it -- and we can be ready to begin in earnest the moment all members of both teams are ready.

that's a common factor the GW alarmists routinely ignore as it makes all their claims look fake - which they are.

On another thread I posted a lot of stuff about this and scientific websites. Sure humans have positive and negative affects on the climate, but then, so do beavers and bears. There's no way to properly evaluate the total effect humans have as the natural effects are much bigger, and nature also does a lot to balance out things by herself.

When you've come to understand the political catalyst here involved, then and only then will you be able to engage in an informed and logical discourse on the subject of alleged climate change. Until then, you can do naught but speculate.

.

.

[i]Would you hold that I've the right to their indiscriminate use, or that I've the obligation to use them wisely?[/i]

You have the right to their indiscriminate use. (however you also have the right to bear any consequences for such indiscriminate use).

R12 is a restricted refrigerant in vehicle use. The EPA exceptions are merely there for the sake of retrofitting and leakdown/bleed from SOME applicances but not for automotive recharging. R12 can only be bought with a licence and really shouldn't be used anyway as it can be lethal to humans, forget about the ozone for a minute.

As a certified air care and alternate fuels mechanic I have seen some rather gruesome videos of the REAL reasons R12 is no longer used in automobiles. It is not an issue of emissions control, although that is a small contributing factor behind such legislation.

R12, or Dichlorodifluoromethane to be more specific, contains chemical agents that when burned, produce phosgene gas. Current automotive replcements provide a dozen alternative refrigerants, mainly just proprietary versions such as R-406A (very common) and Dupont's HFC-134A.

Why was this gas changed? Air care and California emissions were not in place at the time R12 was first considered lethal to humans, but when people were left for dead unexpectedly from vehicle accidents, refrigerant was often found to be the blame.

R12, as mentioned earlier, creates a gas when burned (ie, in a vehicle or house fire).
R12 refrigerant (also once used for home refrigerators)creates a gas called phosgene when burned, a chemical agent used in chemical warfare.

Phosgene gas: because R12 has a relatively low boiling point, it was considered the safer gas for refrigerant, when exposed ot air it would boil off and become a heavy, cold steam (like propane does)but as vehicle engines became smaller, temperatures became higher and the possibility of R12 exposure to extreme heat was more and more common.

When an accident occuurred it was more and more common for people to become very ill or die from exposure to phosgene gas withing a day or two.

What is phosgene? In short, nerve gas. Phosgene was used as an early alternative to chlorine bombing in WWI. It is colourles, odourless and cannot be easily detected. This alone makes it an unsafe gas for common use, but when in a vehicle fire or exposed to the high heat of exhaust manifolds, phosgene from R12 is not the only killer, once the emergency vehicles use water to douse the fire, water breaks down the phosgene into other highly toxic gases.

So the use of R12 in vehicles is not only retricted, it is pretty stupid also.

Anyone who feels that a retrofit is too expensive is merely not understanding the reasons that we don't use such harmful gases, it is not just our ozone layer, though that focus is always there, but it is a deadly gas to use and really stupid too when far safer chemical compounds are readily available at a mere fraction of the R12 cost.

Why no R12 now?

It is lethal
It is detrimentaal to the environment
It is far too expensive

Your boss must have an air conditioning ticket or the like that allows him to purchase controlled R12? Many heating and air conditioning contractors do, but it is not to be used in recharging vehicle systems, just refrigerators, and other small home appliances when absolutely necessary.

The R12 certification is designed to allow removal of R12 in such systems to be retrofitted and replaced by other safer refrigerants, it is not designed for people to purchase R12 and start recharging old automobile air conditioning systems.

And since when did Colin not know what he was talking about when it came to cars?

Homework, homework, homework!

OKay this global warming BS is getting offensive now. There are so many people refusing to accept our harmful emissions as a contributor to the depletion of teh ozone layer that it is becoming harder and harder to see reality throuh the smog.

Reasons to NOT control our emissions:

Wildlife will die anyway, polar bears etc. ice melts, it's all a natural phenomenon....we think.

Political fear, it is all a ruse to gain political favour, they need a smoke screen etc.
And many more unrealistic and misguided reasons I am sure.

Reasons to control our emissions:
They kill us at street leel as we cannot safely breath our emissions (CO - Carbon MONoxide for example that causes a loss of white blood cells and literally suffocates the body)

It is a known FACT that these gases DO harm teh atmosphere, proportions are irrelevant. ANy harm to what we know is already a natural depletion is just careless and irresponsible.

So emissions kill us AND it harm the atmosphere. The only ISSUE is the cost or inconvenience of retrofitting and controlling the emissions.

I see no valid excuse for not following suit and becoming a responsible society, the only problem is that it means left must agree with right, and that canot be so in today's political world of distancing one party from the other.

As far as pictures of natural ice cap metls and other "questionable" photos, we cannot deny the absolute fact that astronauts have photographed the ozone layer from space for decades and it is VERY clear that it has thinned.

Are our emissions the cause of this? NO I don't believe so.

Are our emissions contributing to this? Yes, there is little to debate that emissions do add to the natural ozone breakdown.

So why haven't we made a move? Do we need ot see 100% proof that it is unconrtollable before we start to act? If so, why? Stupidity? Laziness? Mere cost?

How much money would be acceptable in order to save the planet from our emissions?