Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

February 8, 2009

So, we’re not all going to drown, or be killed by hurricanes?

by Chris Byrne

This is the single best, and clearest, explanation of the Rationalist Position on global warming I’ve Ever Seen

Key line: “So, why don’t we ever talk about the suns contribution to global warming? …Well, because we can’t regulate it, tax it, or make it feel guilty for what it’s doing“.

Got it in one there friend.

There’s no profit, political gain, or power to be grabbed from acknowledging the real causes, and real effects of whatever global warming there actually is. So, the interested parties simply ignore all that, shout down anyone who disagrees with them, and go about seizing as much power as they can, in a disorderly fashion.

From “What You Oughta Know“, a website with videos explaining an assortment of general, and sometimes esoteric knowledge.

Oh and here are the links he mentioned in the video:

Pacific Research Institute:
the documentary, more information

Reid A. Bryson – scroll down for ice cap article

Solar Activity: A dominant factor in climate dynamics – scroll down read sections in blue

BBC’s The Great Global Warming Swindle

Other possible causes for global warming

Oh and just for fun, here’s the same sites take on “Liberals vs. Conservatives“… which is really a pretty solid explanation of the foundations of minarchist positions:

And a great take on the bailout:

“Because there is no disaster that immediate, decisive, wrong action cannot make worse”

Freedom is sexy, so share!Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit1Digg thisShare on StumbleUpon0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Email this to someone
TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/02/08/so-were-not-all-going-to-drown-or-be-killed-by-hurricanes/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •
  • Miko

    We do talk about the sun’s role: it provides the background amount of global warming necessary to sustain life. By the same token, having a certain amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a good thing. Get to little and you turn into Mars; get too much and you turn into Venus. Since we evolved to exist in an environment like ours, it follows almost from definition that the amount we have naturally is the amount that we want to have. While how much variation is acceptable is a valid question, the vapid proposition that the sun is also a source of global warming just makes you look scientifically illiterate.

    I’ve always thought of the Democrats as the party of economics denial and the Republicans as the party of science denial. It’s sad to see so many libertarians falling from the _actual_ rationalist position into the latter category as well. Yes, you can find one or two “experts” talking outside of their area of expertise who’ll downplay climate change, but you should ask yourself why you’re ignoring the vast consensus in favor of these experts. It doesn’t have anything to do with their arguments really, does it? You just prefer their conclusions.

    There are valid questions as to what (if anything) we need to do about global warming, but if your politics are instead forcing you to completely deny reality, you should consider changing your politics.

  • http://pith-n-vinegar.blogspot.com/ Quincy

    Miko –

    There is absolutely no validity to the concept of scientific consensus. It is fallacious. In science, there is only theory and evidence.

    So far, I see consensus supporting a theory with extremely questionable evidence. The consensus models for proving that global warming is manmade assume constant solar energy coming into the environmental system and completely ignore negative feedback looks in favor of positive ones. Considering these two conditions will *never* happen in nature, I view the theory as yet to be proven. To say it is proven by consensus is to forgo real analysis in favor of a logical fallacy.

    Do you accuse me of science denial?

  • Fred

    USA Endgame.

    Obama clearly wants to stop the vicious ‘spend to stimulate’ cycle, but he can’t. He has no genius plan to save the US.

    He can’t do what Americans loathe, and that is, pain now, gain later. NEVER. INSTANT WALMART GRATIFICATION.

    It’s over, writing is on the wall.

  • Akston

    As my great-grandmother (who was born in 1889) used to tell me, they’ve been predicting the end of the world since she was a child. She ended before the world did.

    But she did see Great Depression I, and many droughts and rainy seasons. I grew up during the Cold War but haven’t thought in apocalyptic terms since the late 1980’s. The more I live, the more I’m starting to agree with her.

    This is not to say that the climate couldn’t possibly be changing, or that the United States isn’t headed for Great Depression II and possibly an adjustment to “second world” status.

    It’s simply to say that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, to quote or paraphrase Sagan, Truzzi, Laplace or Hume.

    Personally, I’m leaning towards: The globe is indeed warming, but most probably due to natural cycles in the climate that have too many variables to predict any wild outcomes. And that the American economy is also extremely complex, but is much more susceptible to short-sighted forceful intervention than a planetary climate.

    The commonality is that groups in both arenas think they can adjust those complex systems to suit only intended and benevolent goals. I think they’re wrong.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML