/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2749446]

Why are libertarians less likely than others to believe anthropogenic climate change is a fact?

[Anonymous No.2749452]

penn and teller changed their minds

[Anonymous No.2749458]

People tend to be more skeptical of ideas that threaten their closely-held beliefs?

[Anonymous No.2749459]

>>2749446
>Oh, that thing that you believe is the key to happiness for all mankind might destroy all of civilization and a good chunk of the environment.

That's why.

[Anonymous No.2749465]

There is a fine line between not believing and not caring.

[Anonymous No.2749466]

If anthropogenic climate change was true, that would likely lead to more regulations regarding what corporations can do.

Therefore it must be false.

[Anonymous No.2749469]

>>2749446
because they fancy themselves more "rational" than everyone else, and thus feel a need be a contrarian to everything, even widely accepted scientific facts like anthropomorphic climate change or peak oil
>regular person: now here's all this evidence why global warming is happening, do you belive me now?
>libertarian: nope
>regular person: why?
>libertarian: uhhhh...
>regular person: oh, it's because you won't feel special anymore, right?
>libertarian: uh, yes

[Anonymous No.2749473]

Libertarian here.

Global Warming doesn't matter, we need to start using green shit anyway, so that the middle east doesn't have us by the balls with Oil, and so we stop polluting the earth.
Pic related.

[Anonymous No.2749482]

>>2749466
That's in fact, quite the opposite argument a libertarian would make.

A libertarian would argue that if anthropogenic climate change was true, companies would change themselves.

They're more deluded than communists.

[Anonymous No.2749483]

>>2749446
because, as far as I am aware (honestly, I dont know any better), the entire definition of libertarian politics is to do/think/act on your first gut instinct and to always act in a way which is "A=A" blatantly self benifiting

[Anonymous No.2749484]

Because you think healthy skepticism is wrong when it challenges closely-held mainstream beliefs?

[Anonymous No.2749499]

Why is OP more likely than others to construct a comment with a blatant straw-man?

[Anonymous No.2749501]

>>2749484
>>implying global warming denialism is healthy

[Anonymous No.2749519]

>>2749501
exactly what health risks are there for denying global warming (or any idea for that matter)?

[Anonymous No.2749528]

anything that speaks ill of capitalism if wrong.

human activity (our markets) are destroying the planet? science must be wrong.

it's also a fraud because most of the studies involving climate change are funded by the government (funded by socialists and communists)

[Anonymous No.2749537]

>They're more deluded than communists.

What else do you expect from an ideology that is just reverse Marxism?

[Anonymous No.2749553]

>>2749528
>>2749537
Communists use fossil fuels as well.

[Anonymous No.2749576]

>>2749537
excellent point

[Anonymous No.2749580]

>>2749537
>>2749576
Same person.

[Anonymous No.2749587]

ITT: no one understands what libertarianism is. Contrary to popular belief you can be a Libertarian Socialist.

[Anonymous No.2749595]

>>2749587
enlighten me then, as previously stated, I have no idea what constitutes libertarianism

[Anonymous No.2749600]

[Anonymous No.2749614]

No one political ideology is always correct.

[Anonymous No.2749624]

>>2749614
yes, but some are actually based on truth, instead of occasionally turning out right

[Anonymous No.2749659]

>>2749624
>political ideology
>truth
>mfw

[Anonymous No.2749667]

Libertarians are very simple. The feel that the government should be limited to the basic needs of a society like property rights, a equal set of laws, and the defense of our boarders. Everything else is gravy. Recently the libertarian party has toned down some of it's ideals since in this modern complex world an individual can do much more destruction than before (toxic waste et al.). In a nut shell a Libertarian feels that the individual should decide on his/hers own path in life. If they decide to excel that is their personal choice, and if they decide to fail that is there choice and not the problem of the government.

[Anonymous No.2749678]

>>2749667
that sounds...selfish and retarded to be honest. What is the argument for such disregard for govt institutions which keep the fucking world turning?

[Anonymous No.2749679]

>>2749667
The Libertarian Party is a bunch of spin-off neocons from the GOP though.

[Anonymous No.2749683]

>>2749678
Last time I checked, regulatory agencies fuck the pooch as bad as the people they were supposed to be regulating. This is the prime example of why a truly free market might be better. All the banking giants would have died, GM would have died. Shitty companies with no excuse to exist would have died.

[Anonymous No.2749695]

>>2749683
...and they would be replaced by equally bastard-tastic companies. You need to regulate man. The problem is not with the system, it is the people who are allowed in it, and that all comes down to the voters. You get what you vote for man.

[Anonymous No.2749706]

>>2749695
I'm not saying you don't need to regulate, I'm just saying that there are not completely bs arguments for the government to step out.

As for getting what you vote for, you're either not from the US or hopelessly naive. Any option you have is one that gets campaign money. Now, more than ever before, that means candidates who toady up to large corporations, who have no donation cap. FYI, that's not party specific. Both parties are equally fucked. And regulators aren't elected. They're appointed.

[Anonymous No.2749712]

>>2749683

>this is what libertarians actually believe

(he thinks market forces will stop companies from polluting and taking shortcuts)

[Anonymous No.2749742]

>>2749706
Still man, the problem is the people. The people are the ones who think they understand things when they dont, who vote for under-qualified assmites, who watch the news for the political opinion of the day, and who raise their kids to be little shitstains just like them.

Honestly, Im a fairly liberal guy, but I still think its a good thing that we have such ignorant people around. If everyone were to actually understand the voodoo that goes on in politics and economics, our system would crumble.

[Anonymous No.2749751]

>>2749446
because they think economic development models > simple thermodynamics

[Anonymous No.2749769]

>>2749683
You're goal might be noble but it's not realistic.

Even on an idealistic level if accumulating material wealth is your primary concern that doesn't sound as a good base for a just and non-disruptive society, IMO.

[Anonymous No.2749775]

The best society is one in which the working class gets to own and control the means of production. Until this happens society will always have problems.

[Anonymous No.2749807]

>>2749775
Libertarian socialism can't happen.

Even libertarian capitalism is more realistic because it partially relies on selfishness "homo homini lupus" social reflexes.

Homo sapiens are predominantly dicks or at least the outstanding individuals that manage to gain some influence over the masses.

[Anonymous No.2749845]

>>2749807
>libertarian socialism

wtf is that? I'm talking about anarcho communism. I can tell you're not working class or else you'd know that capitalism=failure.

[Anonymous No.2749852]

because they are smarter

[Anonymous No.2749869]

>>2749679
>The Libertarian Party is a bunch of spin-off neocons from the GOP though.
Not at all. Libertarians have the economic philosophy of republicans combined with the social philosophy of democrats, give or take some in both categories. There's a reason that people like Ron Paul appeal to people from both parties while holding many core beliefs that are completely opposite the republican base.

As far as libertarians in general, extremists believe that government is necessarily inefficient and should only exist in those areas where it is absolutely necessary, stopping just one step short of anarchists and admitting that governments need to maintain things like the military. Moderate libertarians believe that government is generally inefficient and should certainly be smaller than it is and less invasive in our lives but think there's a wider range of tasks government should tackle though, due to the general inefficiency of government, even in most of these instances government should harness market forces rather than attempt to solve the issue directly. An example of the difference is that an extreme libertarian would think government should stay away from regulating carbon emissions while a moderate may be alright with it if it's handled through a cap and trade scheme where the market sets prices and allocates permits so the government doesn't have much opportunity to screw it up so long as they accept that the problem is real in the first place.

[Anonymous No.2749870]

Libertarians hold civil liberties and economic liberties in equal regard (in my experience a slight preference is given to the former if a choice must be made). If you don't hold them in nearly equal regard then you are a conservative or liberal. Also Libertarians abhor the use of force.
Policy that aims to solve global warming aims to threaten both civil and economic liberties and requires a substantial amount of force to implement.

Libertarians are naturally going to be extremely skeptical of such a premise. Perhaps it isn't very rational from a non-libertarian perspective. That's only because you haven't taken the time to understand their personal values.

I think Libertarians understand the consequences of being wrong on global warming. In their mind the consequences are not worth sacrificing economic and civil liberties in addition to implement a global system of enforcement to implement such policies. If you are going to convince Libertarians to get on board with solutions to global warming you have to address their concerns or ignore them. Since there aren't many you can probably deal with the latter.

Libertarians see governments being granted the power to dictate how people organize their garbage, what kind of lightbulbs they can buy or, worst of all, taxing any activity that produces a GHG. Libertarians feel that governments granted this kind of power will not be restrained to use it within the domain of solving the problem they were intended for.

If you take the time to understand why people feel as passionately as they do about something it actually can make sense. If you then spot a flaw in their rationale you can point it out to them in a non-threatening way. A way that won't make them dig into their position to an even greater degree.

[Anonymous No.2749908]

>>2749869
the Libertarian Party is just Republicans who want no regulation, no government services, and no entitlements. Not much of a difference.

While your statements about libertarians are true, to characterize the Libertarian Party as anything but an offshoot of the far-far right wing is absurd.

[Anonymous No.2749919]

>>2749870
It could also be pointed out that since libertarians by definition mistrust the efficacy of government that they would be highly skeptical about the government's ability to solve global warming which requires not only the efficacy of one government but the proper coordination of most of the world's governments working on concert in a framework where the free-rider problem is a major obstacle as any country that opts out of an agreement has little effect on the overall system while giving their dirtier industries a competitive advantage.

The truth is that scientists are themselves starting to doubt the world's ability to actually solve the problem and are shifting some of their resources away from from prevention and more towards research involving coping with climate change. Given that, can anyone blame libertarians for being skeptical, (about government's ability to solve the problem) especially given their philosophy?

[Anonymous No.2749920]

>>2749845
>anarcho communism.
Hey, comrade... that's a synonym for libertarian socialism (the less scary name of it).

And yes capitalism is fail for me and you and the working class but people with moneys and power are really enjoying it. and honestly they are rather skilled in manipulating the oh-holy-and-wise proletariat into serving their interests unquestionably AND THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.

[Anonymous No.2749936]

>>2749920
>everyone makes up bullshit names
>plebes like the names

cased solved, hercule

[Anonymous No.2749949]

The truth is that scientists are themselves starting to doubt the world's ability to actually solve the problem and are shifting some of their resources away from from prevention and more towards research involving coping with climate change.

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.2749955]

>>2749908
I consider myself a moderate libertarian and identify far more with the democrats than the republicans; this is because as I said libertarians are socially liberal and as far as fiscal policy the republicans have been as much for big government as the democrats. Add in that much of that government spending was in the military and that libertarians are anti-war except when absolutely necessary and the republicans have little appeal for me short of Ron and Rand Paul who republicans will readily admit do not represent main-stream republicanism.

[Anonymous No.2749965]

>>2749955
Don't take us wrong. We know you are a sweet bleeding heart too. You just hate poor and brown people.

[Anonymous No.2749990]

>>2749870
>>2749919

It is generally agreed by all economists (except anarcho-capitalist ones) that the only way to efficiently move our economy towards a carbon-free system is to put a price on carbon emissions. I don't really see where you're coming from, saying that this is even worse of an infringement on civil liberties than government mandates on efficiency standards or what have you. And it also doesn't make sense to completely reject all forms of government involvement. Adaptation will cost a lot of money, (hundreds of trillions of dollars with optimistic assumptions), and this will probably have to be done by government. So what you have is an even greater level of government intrusion anyway.

What do you think of this:

http://www.capanddividend.org/

tl;dr put a price on carbon, starting at $12 per t/C, which slowly gradually increases to give businesses time to adapt. Each US citizen (this plan doesn't require global cooperation) gets an equal share, or dividend, of fees raised from the carbon tax. This will be a net profit for anyone earning less than 60,000 a year, and gives an incentive for people to emit less carbon because it lets them use more of their dividend. It's fair, simple, and has none of the problems of cap-and-trade.

[Anonymous No.2750003]

>>2749949
Took a while to find my source, but here you go.
http://www.economist.com/node/17572735?story_id=17572735
Here's an exert:
Though they are unwilling to say it in public, the sheer improbability of such success has led many climate scientists, campaigners and policymakers to conclude that, in the words of Bob Watson, once the head of the IPCC and now the chief scientist at Britain’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “Two degrees is a wishful dream.”

[Anonymous No.2750014]

>>2749775
USA and the western world has such society. Go and start your worker co-operative or invest in publicly traded stocks.

[Anonymous No.2750016]

>>2749990
You see, I would have to do enormous amounts of crack before I started trusting economists. Cause they are the reason why are economy works like it does. They actually claim that it works well. They are a propaganda control mechanism.

[Anonymous No.2750037]

>>2750003

>ask for source

>on /sci/

>expecting a secondary journal about climate change policy

>get economist.com

>this is why /sci/ sucks

[Anonymous No.2750043]

>>2750016

As in any scientific field, it is extremely difficult to get consensus in economics. But here we have economists of nearly every stripe saying that a carbon price would be the best way to go about mitigating climate change. (Also to be fair, a lot of economists DID predict a housing bubble. A lot of them even said there would be a full-blown Great Depression, which thankfully hasn't panned out)

What's the other ways we have to go about this? Mass-mobilization of government resources and restrictive mandates? Nobody would agree to that. So the economists' solution so far is the only solution. I'm open to suggestions if anyone has a better way.

[Anonymous No.2750054]

>>2749990
I was the second person you quoted and never said that it was an infringement on civil liberty or that there should be no government involvement. In fact, I think there should be a cap and trade system and therefore a carbon price set by the market based on how much pollution government want to allow.

Rather, what I said is that there are serious reason the believe that there will be significant progress made considering that you need most of the world's government to agree to similar systems and carbon prices lend themselves to the free rider problem as the more places have carbon prices the greater the competitive advantage of places that don't for 'dirty' industry. Where I likely differ from many libertarians is that I think it's worth us taking the lead (not that it's really taking the lead after this long) even if it only goes part-way towards solving the problem and costs us a bit.

[Anonymous No.2750072]

>>2750037
Wait... You were expecting a scientific journal stating a slow shift in opinion/funding? That isn't the domain of scientific journals, my friend. If i'd said that scientists were doubting their data, that would be different, but I only said that they were starting to lose hope. That's not something you find in a scientific journal and if you expected one you're a tad foolish.

[Anonymous No.2750073]

>>2750043
Last I checked employment numbers weren't improving very much if at all. Though that doesn't really matter as long as the stock options are increasing in price.

[Anonymous No.2750082]

>>2750054

Oh my bad, I thought you were the same as the first guy

The advantage of cap-and-dividend is that you can put a cap on imports too. So as long as you have a lot of major exporting countries on board, it shouldn't even be an issue of whether we'd lose some competitive advantage.

[Anonymous No.2750088]

Libertarians just don't give a fuck about global warming. If there really is an upcoming crisis, there will be a way to make money off it, incentivising people to come up with a solution.
Face it fags, libertarianism is the only legitimate political style. A government that stays out of your personal life and that doesn't reward the failures of its citizens while punishing its successful= a good gov't

[Anonymous No.2750104]

>>2750073

Employment in the US is still down, but it was never as bad as the Great Depression

If you don't trust any economist at all, then how do we go about mitigating climate change?

[Anonymous No.2750118]

>>2749446
They aren't.

Do you not know the difference between libertarians and conservatives?

STOP WATCHING FAUX. IT IS MAKING YOU RETARDED.

[Anonymous No.2750123]

>>2750088

That doesn't sound like libertarianism

Let's see what Milton Friedman has to say:

"A second general class of cases in which strictly voluntary exchange is impossible arises when actions of individuals have effects on other individuals for which it is not feasible to charge or recompense them. This is the problem of ‘neighborhood effects’. An obvious example is the pollution of a stream. The man who pollutes a stream is in effect forcing others to exchange good water for bad. These others might be willing to make the exchange at a price. But it is not feasible for them, acting individually, to avoid the exchange or to enforce appropriate compensation."

[Anonymous No.2750132]

most environmental issues can be solved by property rights.

[sage No.2750135]

because it isn't

[Anonymous No.2750139]

>>2750123
only because no one owns the stream. If someone owned the stream, most likely they wouldn't want people polluting it.

property rights

[Anonymous No.2750142]

>>2750123
Many libertarians, like people of all political persuasion, have oversimplified views. Therefore people like him who are only very basically educated in economics don't understand or care about externalities.

[Anonymous No.2750145]

>>2750072

>secondary journal

there's two types of literature, primary and secondary. you would find what i mentioned in a secondary journal.

>you're showing how /sci/ sucks

[Anonymous No.2750148]

>>2750123
terrible analogy

[Anonymous No.2750151]

>>2750088

>libertarians don't punish success and don't reward failure
>the rich make more now than they have since before the great depression
>willing to fuck over those on welfare

So republicans with a new name like the tea party?

[Anonymous No.2750152]

>>2750139
Be a good thing when I have to pay to breath bro.

[Anonymous No.2750164]

>>2750088
>A government that stays out of your personal life and that doesn't reward the failures of its citizens while punishing its successful= a good gov't
>i haz internets and a jarb i'm so 1337!

[Anonymous No.2750183]

>>2750139

Massey Energy purchases the stream and dumps industrial effluent into it, poisoning thousands

The townspeople drinking from the stream sue Massey for damages and lose.

Now what?

[Anonymous No.2750187]

>>2750148
Eh, it's not an analogy, bro; it's an example. And to those claiming the simple property ownership will solve it, the problem is what if I own the part of the stream furthest upstream. My pollution them spreads to all those parts of the stream which I don't own. You could say, "well, you can't pollute other people's property!" Congratulations, you just regulated pollution in the stream.

This same thing happens in the atmosphere with all varieties of pollution, except that it spreads out rather than flowing one direction. Similar problems arise in fisheries where if you don't regulate fishing then people will over-fish and destroy the fishery. Here, proper application of property rights can solve it, but once again it means the application of regulations. The simple fact is that regulations are necessary to make proper use of property rights to solve these problems.

[Anonymous No.2750189]

so specifically not our government, which makes risk public and profit private.

[Anonymous No.2750194]

>>2750183
Now they're still fucking poisoned?
Money doesn't buy health. Yet.

[THE FREE MARKET WILL !FIXITuBSJc No.2750209]

It's a gross misrepresentation of libertarian views to say that, "Libertarians believe that the market per se will internalise externalities and stop pollution." Libertarians believe in private property rights. For example, a corporation could not dump toxic waste on public property because public property wouldn't exist, it would be owned by somebody who could take the dumpers to court. It isn't a free market if there is no laws about private property. This isn't an issue of of who enforces the laws either, yet.

[Anonymous No.2750212]

>>2750151
>welfare nigger lover
Fuck people on welfare. If you're really that much of a filthy piece of stupid shit that you can't do well in high school, go to a good college, and get a solid job then you're a fucking piece of scum. Why is it MY job to support THEM, and not the other way around?

Taxes should fund a limited military, police and firefighters, and the court system to prevent the basic rights of people from being violated. None of this welfare/drug war/gay marriage theocratic prohibition bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2750228]

>>2750209

But let's say the company decides to pollute the land owned by the poor. Let's also say that our company is very wealthy and can easily afford all-star corporate lawyers. Then the people owning the polluted land are much likely to lose any lawsuit, and pollution will continue unabated.

[THE FREE MARKET WILL !FIXITuBSJc No.2750230]

For the record, specific government intervention in the realm of water (rivers, oceans etc) and air is permissible and even desirable in some way.

[Anonymous No.2750232]

>>2750209

So a local red winged blackbird that has established a territory for some 6 years has the river it uses for water polluted. Under your ideas, it could sue?

Wait? The bird can't sue? Because only people can "own" land?

You mean we made this shit up and there's truly no such thing as private property?

[Anonymous No.2750233]

>>2750183
If I'm allowed to pollute there and I made it known that the water was unsafe, then my factory isn't at fault for poisoning them anyway. Therefore, the only answer is regulation as they would lose that lawsuit.

[Anonymous No.2750244]

>>2750232
Re-read that guy's post. He says the townspeople lost and don't have any way of being compensated. AKA he's on your side.

[THE FREE MARKET WILL !FIXITuBSJc No.2750247]

>>2750228
It's possible. A solid argument could be constructed for the position that having a productive corporation use that land as a waste dump is more beneficial to more people.
>>2750232
Of course we made it up. There is no innate right to property. It's not desirable in the slightest for any other animals to have any rights whatever.

[Anonymous No.2750272]

>>2750247

That doesn't necessarily follow. Even if our hypothetical business is highly productive, does that mean it should be permitted to damage the health of (or kill) people?

[Anonymous No.2750277]

>>2750247
>Member of in group says it not desirable for member of out group to have rights

There's really no reason for you to say non-humans rather than non-rich or non-white, and thus you seem to be on dangerous ground. If your argument is that the members of your group have no reason to give members outside your group rights you can define your group however you want to justify whatever type of discrimination you'd prefer.

[Anonymous No.2750290]

A) shit is going to happen anyway

B) you have no proof, Earth is millions of years old and all you have is weather reports from the last 200 years.

Its as stupid as judging a stock on one day of performance instead of over 1 or 5 years.

[THE FREE MARKET WILL !FIXITuBSJc No.2750293]

>>2750272
>Even if our hypothetical business is highly productive, does that mean it should be permitted to damage the health of (or kill) people?
Yes. Similarly, a great scientist who has made many great discoveries and is bound to make many more should be spared punishment. Essentially, the exceptional and productive units of society should be treated differently than the rest of us.
>>2750277
Problem?

[Anonymous No.2750306]

>>2750290
Actually, we have climactic information of varying quality going back many thousands of years. There's data based off trees going back about 8000 years, and geological data going back far further. At best, you can only say we have particularly reliable data for the recent past, but we do have many older sources.

[Anonymous No.2750313]

>>2750293

Okay now you're just trolling

>>2750290

>A) shit is going to happen anyway

[citation needed]

>B) you have no proof

[citation needed]

>Earth is millions of years old

You mean billions? What does it matter that the Earth is billions of years old when what we care about are the coming decades? That the Earth used to be boiling and covered in lava and sulfur is not relevant to us in terms of policy.

>and all you have is weather reports from the last 200 years.

lol no

[Anonymous No.2750316]

>>2750277
My in group is humans, ie creatures with sentience. If a human is braindead and lacking sentience then no, he shouldn't have rights. This is both reasonable and emotionally acceptable, it is not a hard concept to understand.

But they guy you're arguing with is a fucking douchebag anyway.

[Anonymous No.2750326]

>>2750293
Aww man, I was really hoping you weren't a troll. It would have been nice to have a reasonable defender of libertarianism rather than someone pretending to be a libertarian to make us all look like classist, racist douchbags.

[Anonymous No.2750339]

>>2750316
I agree about the other fellow, but there are non-human sentient creatures. Does that mean that we should give those select few creatures human-level rights as well?

[THE FREE MARKET WILL !FIXITuBSJc No.2750352]

>>2750326
I'm not trolling, and I haven't mentioned class or race anywhere. In fact, a poor, black, exceptional scientist would be given the aforementioned legal leeway in my world.

Some of you have just accepted "that everybody should be equal before the law" as an unshakeable truth.

[Anonymous No.2750401]

>>2750352

Too bad the poor black scientist will drink poisoned water and be killed

[Anonymous No.2750421]

>go to /sci/
>see tripfags from /new/ arguing about libertarianism
/sci/ was shitty enough before god dammit

[Anonymous No.2750466]

Libertarian Socialist here.

What a Libertarian Socialist is, is someone who believes the Government should be able to pass laws on what I do to myself or my own body unless I am directly affecting others. (end to the war on drug, end to Patriot act etc etc)

I do believe though that most of our Tax money should be taken out of the Military complex and into actual social programs that help people and build a better community.

What I find hilarious about Republicans though is that they always cry smaller Government, then abuse the fuck out their power as soon as they get in.

Cut military spending? Nope, cut whatever social and education programs there are.
Lower taxes? For the rich, everyone elses taxes will stay the same instead this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.
Government out of your Home? Patriot Act and a billion other police state acts passed by the Neo-Cons say what?
More Government Transparency? Republicans constantly block bills for Government transparency.
Better Financial management? Every Republican Government in the past 100 years has run the Economy into the fucking ground.

This doesn't even start that most Republicans are attached to major corporations like Monsanto or Lobby Groups like AIPAC, and give them pretty much free reign on anything.

[Anonymous No.2750485]

we are paranoid of goverment, perhaps to a fault. the back-room dealing going on to establish cap and trade, and the specific peoples such a move would benefit, is not lost on us. it looks very much like more of the same bullshit.

we also have longer memories than most; there is always some bullshit crisis that the government is saying requires an exception to their usual limits. and then once they get the exception it's 'hurry up and wait'. they kick back and take their time setting things up just how they like to benefit themselves the most, while the actual crisis that motivated the public to accept the new order is quietly forgotten.

anthropogenic global warming seems to fit this pattern to a 'T'. it is supposed to have destroyed the world already, several years ago, remember (rising water levels were supposed to have submerged all the major cities by, 2005, was it? 200X, i remember).

[Anonymous No.2750509]

>>2749473
It's not everyday that I agree with someone who declares themselves as any political affiliation but today is one of those days.

[Anonymous No.2750532]

I used to associate with Libertarians, most of the ones I know, and myself, did believe in climate change, we just didn't believe that there needed to be government programs in place because of it.

[Anonymous No.2750558]

>>2750352
So you are supporting libertarianism but think individual property rights should be sacrificed for the "greater good"

[Anonymous No.2750587]

>>2750485

>it is supposed to have destroyed the world already, several years ago, remember (rising water levels were supposed to have submerged all the major cities by, 2005, was it? 200X, i remember).

I doubt that ever happened, unless you're referring to some crazy environmentalist group or a bad news story,

The 2007 IPCC report estimated a maximum of 59 cm of sea level rise by 2100. But this turned out to be too low, and actual sea level rise occurred one-third faster than the fastest projection. The highest peer-reviewed estimate I've seen for SLR is 3.7 m by 2100. But I have never heard of a prediction of cities being submerged by the 2000s

[Anonymous No.2750614]

>>2750313
>[citation needed]
Japan says hello, that earthquake was predicted right?

>You mean billions?
Thought I would go easy on you, either way something 1 billion years old must also be at least 1 million years old.

>What does it matter that the Earth is billions of years old when what we care about are the coming decades?

Really? Because your sample size is tiny. Its is the same as giving one person a survey with the question "do you like cheese" and then telling the world that 100% of the 6 billion people on earth like cheese.

Just look at >>2749484

>and all you have is weather reports from the last 200 years.
>> lol no

So what is the bible a reliable source now? Reliable weather data has only been gathered for the last 200 years. Anything older than that was "it ye was ye cold out today"

[Anonymous No.2750638]

>>2750614

>Japan says hello, that earthquake was predicted right?

Amateur siesmotologists caught it a few days before it happened

[Anonymous No.2750643]

>>2750306
Actually, we have climactic information of varying quality
>varying quality

That is too say, the quality is too poor to be useful because the unit of accuracy is too wide.

I mean whats the variance on the tree's?30 degrees? 50 degrees? and whats the variance on the time of the sample? and whats the variance on the tree's environment?

Shit in--> shit out.

[Anonymous No.2750661]

>>2750638
>Amateur siesmotologists caught it a few days before it happened

Yea and I totally knew yesterdays lottery numbers four days ago, but no one believed me either!

[Anonymous No.2750737]

>>2750614

>Japan says hello, that earthquake was predicted right?

What does that have to do with climate change

>Just look at >>2749484

Looks like bullshit someone cooked up on MS Paint

If you're on /sci/ you use scientific sources, not some presentation given at the fucking Heartland Institute

>Reliable weather data has only been gathered for the last 200 years. Anything older than that was "it ye was ye cold out today"

Ever heard of ice ages? What makes you think we know that ice ages happened?