Comments on: Scientific Consensus

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:27:00 +0000

“a man much criticized by libertarians”

And Objectivists. The only one’s praising Greenspan have been Republicrats.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:26:00 +0000

You should’ve asked him for the correlation between asthma prevalence and catalytic converter use. Using his own usual logic, you’d have to blame asthma on catalytic converters.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 04:19:00 +0000

The global warming hysteria, and the entire “green” movement, are merely attempts at bringing back a justification for command economies. It’s political through and through.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:17:00 +0000

No Russ, it’s about a large Power Grab. In the 70s CO2 caused cooling and now it causes warming. No matter which way the weather goes, evnironmentalists state that it’s the wrong direction and man is to blame. The solution always envolves taxing big business. CO2 is necessary for life. Most stupid environmentalists don’t even know the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. CO2 is something we exhale, plants need it to survie and gives us oxygen in return. Great relationship huh? Commercial greenhouses keep the CO2 levels high because of the benefit to plants. What are those benefits you might ask Russ? Thanks for asking, larger, healthier plants that need less water and are more heat resistant. They also yield larger, higher quality fruits and vegetables. Really sounds like a pollutant doesn’t it? Ever hear any of this on the evening news Russ? Me either.

It should also be noted that the planet is currently cooling. Only when one relies on highly incomplete surface data or highly flawed computer models does it seem as that the world might not be cooling. That hasn’t gotten a lot of press either. Here is another link for you:

http://www.hootervillegazette.com/GlobalWarming.html

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:05:00 +0000

I’ve never paid attention one way or the other Russ. When I interviewed Phelim McAleer, his point was that environmentalists are pretty casual about the deaths of black people. I had asked him if the 30,000,000 deaths reportedly caused when environmentalists succeeded in getting DDT banned in most countries was an exaggeration. He asked me how many deaths would be acceptable: a million, two million, etc… His wife Ann McElhinney said she’s seen environmentalists crying over a dwindling lemur population when starving children were only a few feet away. She asked them if they had noticed the starving children and they just looked at her like she was crazy. Here is a clip you need to see: http://www.hootervillegazette.com/evilal.html

As for your original question Russ, I think most of them are spoiled college kids who value animal life and plant life over human life. It really doesn’t matter to me what color they are. Here are two clips of some young clueless evironmentalists:

http://www.liberalmadness.com/video/enviro-1
http://www.liberalmadness.com/video/enviro-2

The second video to me is the funniest, suggesting environmentalist are just out to have a good time.

Warning!!!! These vids were done by Penn & Teller and the language is PG-13, maybe even R Rated. They do however make a strong point.

By: Justin P

Justin P — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:30:00 +0000

I’m sure that must irritate you. There are libertarians working for the government, trying to take it down from the inside. ha ha

Actually, if you must know, it’s the Obama supporters that don’t do anything. I’m an Analytical Chemist…you figure it out…you think your so smart…it should be easy for you.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:05:00 +0000

How am I doing the same thing? I’m not quarreling with you over labeling those who unwarrantedly excite fear over the perceived dangers of a warming climate due to man as alarmists. I’ve called them alarmists on this very post.

The quarrel is over the people who you refuse to label alarmists – the people who cry bloody murder over a few tentative steps to address something that could potentially be an actual problem.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:42:00 +0000

Yep.

It might come as a surprise to you, but blacks like free as much as anyone. When environmentalism offers grants, handouts, loans (that never have to be paid back), etc. you’ll find blacks there with their hands out just everyone else.

By: Sam Grove

Sam Grove — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:00:00 +0000

You are fond of the adhominem.There are plenty of collectivist sects, Democrats/Republicans, mirror images of each other.

IAC, the point is your occasional attempts to smear libertarianism by through very faulty association with a man much criticized by libertarians.

Highly illogical.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:49:00 +0000

Ah… it’s just two sects of the same cult. Like Sunni and Shia or Hutu and Tutsies or Mormans and Jehovah’s. They’re all nuts.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:36:00 +0000

I think we will be. I just hope we are the innovators and marketers of the technology so we can benefit economically. If we continue to be held hostage to the fossil fuel monopoly things will only get worse.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:33:00 +0000

You work for the government. So you must be proof that people who do so take no pride in their work, take 2 hour lunch breaks and are inefficient dullards. Does that describe you…. your work place?

What are we paying you to do?

By: MWG

MWG — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:27:00 +0000

Wow, that’s interesting. I wonder why China won’t join any pacts to reduce emissions.

Still LMAO

Didn’t you say a few days ago that we’d (here in the US) all be driving electric cars and using alternative energy in 10 years? What changed?

By: Sam Grove

Sam Grove — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:20:00 +0000

You support actions that have significant impact on others when it’s the result of “higher level planning”. Like all collectivists, you have no problem disposing of the lives and earnings of others.What do you know about abstractions and nuance, You certainly seem unable to apply those ideas to economics.You answer to most problems is the hammer of government and its armed minions. Lotta nuance there.And you make the dumbest arguments like “Greenspan the libertarian”. Have you any idea of the difference between libertarians and objectivists?Ayn Rand hated libertarians. If we were to follow your nuanced logic, then Greenspan must hate libertarians as well, as he was part of Ayn Rand’s circle.

By: Sam Grove

Sam Grove — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:21:00 +0000

nattering nabobs of negativism

Quoting Republican politicians?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:21:00 +0000

It requires resources to treat children and working adults with asthma and other lung disease.

I would think the Libertarian perspective would demand minimization of ones actions impacting the liberties of others. But it’s an ideology that doesn’t like abstractions and nuance. It was meant for simplification and too black and white the world. Complex issues are bothersome and uncomfortable… you know things like the real world.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:17:00 +0000

Yes I watch Fox News.

From the Science article they project that from 2020 to 2030 ALL of China’s additional demand could/will be met be wind power.

By: Russ Nelson

Russ Nelson — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:17:00 +0000

The War on Carbon is not about rationality. It’s about guilt. We’re guilty of causing AGW. Our penance is poverty by reducing our emission of carbon.

By: Russ Nelson

Russ Nelson — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:16:00 +0000

Ever seen any black environmentalists?

By: Sam Grove

Sam Grove — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:15:00 +0000

Skeptics say AGW is relatively small.

Actually, what they say is that it hasn’t been proven that there is a significant CO2 forcing. And there is evidence to suggest that there is not, including the cooling period in the last century despite increasing CO2 levels, and ice core evidence that show CO2 increases LAG climate warming by 800 years.