Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Oh dear. They may have murdered AGW

Rate this topic


Maarten
 Share

Recommended Posts

If they start arresting us for being against them, that will be the time to shrug. Free speech is the key.

I guess you missed Post #159 Where Lord Monckton was shoved to the ground.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=240014

or Post #122 Where a journalist was muzzled and arrested for questioning "climate data".

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=239463

And how is it any less oppressive if a qualified scientist loses his career for questioning the data upholding "what everybody knows"?

Won't it be too late if we wait for Khristalnacht??

<Φ>aj

Edited by aristotlejones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First they came for our incandescent light bulbs, and we did not speak out—because it was just light bulbs...

Not so fast. I replaced all our incandescent light bulbs with compact florescent lights; Result: a five percent reduction in my electricity bill and I haven't had to replace a glow lamp in over a year. Can you match that? It is a win, win, win registered in my wallet and bank account. There is no downside to it at all.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so fast. I replaced all our incandescent light bulbs with compact florescent lights; Result: a five percent reduction in my electricity bill and I haven't had to replace a glow lamp in over a year. Can you match that? It is a win, win, win registered in my wallet and bank account. There is no downside to it at all.
There are many downsides, but they've been discussed elsewhere on the forum, so I won't hijack this topic. Search and post, if you like.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so fast. I replaced all our incandescent light bulbs with compact florescent lights; Result: a five percent reduction in my electricity bill and I haven't had to replace a glow lamp in over a year. Can you match that? It is a win, win, win registered in my wallet and bank account. There is no downside to it at all.

Bob Kolker

Bob, the problem isn't with incandescents per se but the fact that in some places someone has "come for them" i.e. made it illegal for you to make the determination for yourself that they were a "good" or a "bad" thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how is it any less oppressive if a qualified scientist loses his career for questioning the data upholding "what everybody knows"?

Won't it be too late if we wait for Khristalnacht??

Well, yes, I think it will be too late if we wait until free speech is totally canceled. But police roughing up protesters and reporters being kicked out of a conference, being very bad and even evil, are still not a legal silencing of rational protests. In other words, it is not against the law to say something differently than the status quo, when that point becomes rather obvious, then more drastic action will have to be taken. No government official is trying to shut down this website or others that are against global warming or climate change hysteria. Free speech is still recognized in the United States and some other countries. Besides, at a conference, those running it can kick anyone out. The police got out of hand in Copenhagen, and ought to be reprimanded, but it is not as if you have to worry about being arrested for holding your views. As far as I know, there was no police action taken against the Tea Party protests, for example. So, one still cannot be arrested for being against government policy in speech.

Regarding scientists who are against the global warming hysteria, sure their jobs might be more difficult to keep, but under a private business agreement one could be fired for disagreeing with the boss too much. The State run science institutes are the problem, as one ought not to be fired for disagreeing with policy of the politicos.The solution is to get government out of science and let the free market decide who does and who does not get to keep their job. And, yes, rational scientists have always had opposition, so that is nothing new to global warming or climate change.

What I'm suggesting is that we don't blow it out of proportion that the global warming crowd is trying to silence us, for so long as we have free speech, they won't be able to do that. We might not be able to use "official channels" but the word can still get out, and the Internet is a great bastion of freedom. So, keep speaking out.

I think it is horrible about Wikipedia, but I'm never fully trusted it as a source anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
This is a result of post-modernization of science. They call it post-normal science.

I was reminded of this anti-concept by a recent discussion with a local skeptics group mailing list, when someone posted the following.

What's ridiculous is that he first supports the politicization of science, then later claims it is wrong to politicize science (see bold).

The reason some scientists may have exaggerated the global warming problem, saying it was a certainty, is because otherwise very few people in this country would take it seriously. It's always easier to disprove something than it is to prove it. Not everyone who disagreed with evolution was a religious nut. In the mid 1800's, some actually found legitimate holes in it which were later disproven. However when science blends with politics, its so easy for any view that is unpopular to be attacked and for those attacks to be supported by real scientists.

We may not know where the cliff is, but we know that the speed at which we are traveling to it is increasing every year. The amount of carbon dioxide released by humans is accelerating at an exponential rate. This causes an imbalance in the carbon cycle in which old carbon dioxide is trapped beneath the earth as fossil fuels as new carbon dioxide is released from volcanoes.

The idea that there is no cliff and that we can continue to burn fossil fuels that have accumulated over hundreds and millions of years in a time span as short as a few hundred years and expect to have no consequences is ridiculous. Stopping this problem will take full cooperation from everyone, which is why it's something the free market cannot do by itself.

The reason America is the only country that doesn't use the metric system is because other countries had to pass laws preventing companies from using more primitive measuring system because otherwise companies that use feet would vastly out compete companies that use the metric system since the transition would be painful for people. We couldn't do that in this country because we trust the free market to solve everything. But there are some cases where that simply doesn't work.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

According to the Latin American Herald Tribune, an Argentine couple shot both of their kids and killed themselves because of their terror of global warming:

Baby Survives 3 Days in Argentina with Bullet Wound in Chest

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=...ategoryId=14093

BUENOS AIRES – A 7-month-old baby survived alone for three days with a bullet wound in its chest beside the bodies of its parents and brother, who died in an apparent suicide pact brought on by the couple’s terror of global warming, the Argentine press said Saturday.

The incident, reported by the daily Clarin, occurred in a modest dwelling in the city of Goya in the northeastern province of Corrientes, where Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 22, lived with their two small children.

According to sources cited by the Buenos Aires morning paper, the couple’s neighbors smelled a strong odor coming from the Lotero’s house on Thursday.

Police entered the home and found a Dantesque scene: the lifeless bodies of the couple, each shot in the chest, and their 2-year-old son, who had been shot in the back.

In another room, police found a 7-month-old baby still alive but covered in blood from a bullet wound in the chest. It was taken to hospital immediately and its condition is improving hourly, according to doctors’ reports.

The cops found a letter on the table alluding to the couple’s worry about global warming and their anger at the government’s lack of interest in the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • 6 months later...

A scientist resigns from the American Physical Society, over their stance on GW.

Absorbing stuff.

As a side-bar to the GW scientists chasing the huge bucks he has seen, what is also interesting to Objectivists is his one statement: "Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption..."

A trillion- dollar 'industry'?

And physicists selling their souls to get a piece of it?

It's now past time for a fully formulated Oist philosophy/ethics of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for sharing that link. Though the subject is grim, I enjoyed the letter quite a lot. That man has some spunk, especially for an old as dirt physicist. :P I think my favorite line is, "The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

A new NASA model which more accurately takes into account the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on plant growth estimates that doubling CO2 would only increase global temperature by 1.64°C. This is much less than the IPCC AR4 estimate that the temperature change would "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C."

(Journal article link)

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming was always more about politics than science. Here is the world government proposal.

Monckton’s Mexican Missive #3

Posted on December 9, 2010 by Anthony Watts

The abdication of the West

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Cancun, Mexico, Dec 9th, 2010

I usually add some gentle humor to these reports. Not today. Read this and weep. Notwithstanding the carefully-orchestrated propaganda to the effect that nothing much will be decided at the UN climate conference here in Cancun, the decisions to be made here this week signal nothing less than the abdication of the West. The governing class in what was once proudly known as the Free World is silently, casually letting go of liberty, prosperity, and even democracy itself. No one in the mainstream media will tell you this, not so much because they do not see as because they do not bl**dy care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...