(Part 2) Best climatology books according to redditors

Who wants centralized government? (https://www.brightest.io/green-new-deal)
Who wants the removal of democracy? (https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Challenge-Democracy-Politics-Environment/dp/031334504X)
Who wants to eliminate dissenting opinions? (https://www.change.org/p/reddit-com-we-want-reddit-to-quarantinte-r-climateskeptics?recruiter=899626085&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition)

Yes, the radical left are fascists. It's a sad state of affairs when the, "progressives," want to eliminate free thought. Incidentally, this is one of the main reasons I'm here in this sub. The left pushed me here. Most of my views are quite progressive. I'm all about equality, I'm agnostic, I support the idea of limited government services, I am anti-world policing military. But catastrophic climate change is a farce. The data makes this very clear. That this is the entire platform of the Democrats at this point, is a tragedy. The green new deal is going to kill any hope that the Democrats have of taking back the white house.

While I agree with your politics (I vote left), the notion that a Democrat prez from 2000-2008 would have stemmed this result is not realistic. We are, unfortunately, in a fairly sweeping global climate crisis that began with mass CO2e emissions several decades ago. It is likely that there is a lag in the feedback loop, and it is possible (though hard to prove or disprove) that we are now paying for actions taken years ago, instead of actions we take now. In other words, our incremental actions now might not be the ones causing the incremental pain now. They might hit us in the future as we see the changes intensify.

Also, for the hypothetical farmer that is a denier and a dick-Republican (not all Rs are dicks, but dick-Rs definitely exist), then I agree... reap what you sow. But even they are just cogs in a system, fueled by the massive economic engine that governs the world. Change the paradigm, change the cog.

Check out this book if you want a thought-provoking read.

There actually is some push in academic circles that authoritarian regimes are much better at identifying and making important sweeping changes in policy, and might be our only hope to effectively curb climate change. [example]

"Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously" by Richard Lindzen.

Edit: Oh and This and This for LOLZ.

>Roy W. Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, is author of the Kindle e-books "Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed on Global Warming" and "Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People." Follow him on Twitter:@RoyWSpencer

Opinion piece by a guy who now makes his living preaching the controversy.

Is this study acting like it came up with the idea? Because environmental theorists and economists have been suggesting it for years. It is discussed quite thoroughly in Kim Broome's Climate Matters.

This is an excellent summary of what's going on in Alaska with regards to climate change.

I'll recommend Hartmann's Climate book.

If you ever wanted to learn about the climate system and all sorts of fun things this is where I'd start!

"Watermelons" by James Delingpole is one of my favorite books about climate skepticism:

http://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements-True-Colors/dp/0983347409

Here are some other books that I recommend.

The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740

Don't Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change:

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Sell-Your-Coat-Surprising/dp/0615569048

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert:

http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Worlds-Climate/dp/1466453486

The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate/dp/1906768358

Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know® https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190866101/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_zZOADb29KTXEB

pp. 123-127

I didn't forget, they just haven't worked as well.

Have you read this book? It lays out why economists tend to prefer carbon taxes.

I am an undergrad minoring in atmospheric science (hoping to go to grad school for meteorology), and my favorite textbook, hands down, is: http://www.amazon.com/SEVERE-HAZARDOUS-WEATHER-INTRODUCTION-METEOROLOGY/dp/075755041X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304034575&sr=1-2
It's extremely easy to understand and I actually enjoyed reading it.

A better known introductory textbook is: http://www.amazon.com/Meteorology-Today-C-Donald-Ahrens/dp/0495555738/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304035166&sr=1-2
The explanations and pictures are thorough and helpful, but I didn't like it as much. It does come with a cloud chart though!

And for a more technical look into atmospheric science I have this beaut: http://www.amazon.com/Meteorology-Scientists-Engineers-Roland-Stull/dp/0534372147/ref=pd_sim_b_4
The math is pretty straight forward for the most part, and has a lot of examples and practice problems. Plus it familiarizes you with thermodynamic charts, which are a lot of fun (and yes, I am being completely serious).

Hope that helped!

Well I've read a lot of stuff online that takes your view. It's been uniformly unconvincing, and in some cases seems intentionally misleading.

Sounds like you're a reader. One book, that's all I ask. I don't know what you read before, but there are a lot of books out there that don't really go through the evidence very well. Hansen does. Besides, the evidence has gotten a lot stronger in the past few years.

I'll throw in the Patrick Michaels book of your choice on my side. I've got Climate of Extremes on my wishlist already. Also this one. I looked at Ian Plimer's book, but reviews say he talks about "no cooling since 1998" which makes me doubt his honesty.

There are a few books out there about the anti-AGW propaganda machine. If you'd rather read about "community" issues, I can point you to the other side of that. I haven't gotten to these yet though, so far I've focused on the science.

I'm gonna write a whole book about clouds cause clouds are cool.

Edit: Ah man someone stole my idea https://www.amazon.com/Book-Clouds-John-Day/dp/1402728131

You should read these two books.

I don’t think you — and a lot of people — understand how much data we have on what happens to this planet when atmospheric carbon and temperature levels reach the place they’re unquestionably going to. The earth has been through a lot in its billions of years of existence, and it creates a lot of natural experiments that provide us insight. The basic thing to remember is that the entire history of human civilization has existed within one climate pattern that’s prevailed for the last 10,000 years, and we are barreling towards a fundamental phase change. As in, the most likely scenario is that huge swaths of land currently housing tens of millions of people will become physically inhabitable. The most likely scenario is that bony fish will no longer be a resource that can be fished from the ocean. As in, the amount of carbon we’re introducing to the atmosphere rivals that released by the earth’s most cataclysmic events, which themselves presaged massive extinctions that killed 90%+ of the life on this planet.

Yes, there’s a bell curve of uncertainty around specific impacts, but you don’t seem to appreciate that bell curves have two ends—it’s possible that the outcome won’t be nearly as bad as the median models predict, but it’s also equally likely it will be catastrophically worse. As in, the literal end of human civilization as we know it is within the reasonable long-tail outcomes (though is not the most likely scenario). I’ve notice that climate “agnostics” who bring up uncertain don’t actually seem uncertain they seem fairly certain that climate scientists are wrong.

Just as a matter of technical clarification, it's helpful to distinguish between the harms associated with pollution and the harms associated with climate change contributions. While both of them are certainly harms (and many actions, like the burning of coal, will produce both pollution and greenhouse gases), there are subtle differences in the way the two both cause harm and induce moral culpability.

In particular, the harms associated with pollution are significantly easier to track and quantify than are the harms associated with greenhouse gasses (GHG). Pollution, while not as obviously harm-causing as (say) running someone down with your car, is significantly more local and direct in its harms than is the emission of GHG. When someone dumps a bunch of chemicals into a river, or opens a new coal burning power plant that pumps a bunch of soot aerosols into the local atmosphere, it's much easier to see both the causal link between the relevant action and the deleterious effects as well as the concrete harms associated with the activity. Pouring a bunch of fertilizer into a body of water might, for instance, trigger a harmful algae bloom that kills off normal aquatic life in the area, or it might lead to the kind of situation that we're seeing in the Flint, Michigan area right now, where the water becomes too dangerous to drink. It's pretty easy to see how the harms came about, to figure out what exactly they are, and how to go about remedying that.

Climate change harms aren't usually like that. While most GHGs aren't exactly pollutants per se--they don't usually have directly negative consequences on health--they're still certainly harmful. Those harms are extremely non-local and diffuse, though: a quantity of emitted CO2 doesn't lead directly to health problems or deaths in your city, but it contributes to a systemic problem that's literally global, and which is likely to lead to harm (or death), just indirectly. The diffuse and statistical nature of these harms make them very, very challenging to evaluate, and also keeps them from being psychologically salient in the way that most other harms are. It's a lot harder to get people worked up about an infinitesimal contribution to a change to the amount of thermal forcing to the whole globe than it is to get them worked up about turning their water supply brown. Modeling and quantifying the harms directly associated with the emission of a specific quantity of GHG is challenging, and an ongoing project.

With respect to your actual question, I don't necessarily think you're a hypocrite. A certain degree (no pun intended) of GHG emission--and so climate-related damage--is pretty much unavoidable if you're living anything like a normal life in the modern world, and it seems strange to hold people morally blameworthy for activities that they can't plausibly avoid. The extent to which doing something like posting on reddit or turning on a light is immoral is probably loosely comparable to the extent to which buying a cup of coffee every day instead of donating that money to starving people in developing nations is immoral; that is, it actually is probably wrong, but unless we're Peter Singer, we don't usually demand moral sainthood in either ourselves or other normal persons.

At a practical level, I think it's reasonable to attempt to both minimize the harm caused by your actions and to attempt to offset that harm by making positive contributions. The former requirement means (among other things) being aware of things like your carbon footprint, doing your best to not consume extra energy for absolutely no reason at all (e.g. try not to leave all the lights in your house on all the time), making small positive changes where you are able (e.g. set your air conditioning at 76 instead of 72 in the summer), and so on. At the individual level, these things don't make much of a difference, but then the concrete harms associated with most individual actions aren't all that large either; with both the harms and the positive changes, though, small contributions add up in the aggregate.

With respect to offsetting your negative contributions, what exactly you can (or should) do really depends on who you are and what your resources look like. Part of my approach to attempting to make up for my carbon footprint consists in working professionally in climate science and the philosophy of climate science--attempting to make a small (but meaningful) contribution to actually solving the problem. This kind of thing isn't feasible for most people, but there are lots of other things you might do. If you live in the United States, remaining politically engaged and pressuring your elected officials at all levels of government to take meaningful action on climate change is, in my opinion, one of the most important things the average individual can do. Helping to elect people at the local, state, and national levels who take climate change seriously and are willing to undertake meaningful political reform to help solve the problem is hugely important, so make that a central priority in your civic behavior. Likewise, you can (and should) pressure already elected officials to take more meaningful action on the issue: demand support for renewable energy, stronger and more numerous environmental regulations and policies, a reduction in subsidies for fossil fuel industries, and so on. The major plurality of GHG emissions comes from centralized energy production, so moving away from fossil fuel power plants to solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, or any other renewable is among the most important political goals. Support candidates who favor these things, and pressure politicians to take action in that area. It's also possible to vote with your wallet; try to support businesses that practice genuine environmental responsibility, invest (if you invest) in corporations focused on sustainability, refrain from buying products that are produced in places with poor environmental policies, &c. I think these sorts of systemic pressures are, all things considered, probably more meaningful for the average individual than are things like driving a hybrid instead of a regular car.

As far as the philosophical literature goes, environmental ethics is a booming subfield now, and it's only getting bigger. This isn't exactly what I do--I work on the philosophy of science side of things rather than the ethical side of things--but here are a few things that you might want to take a look at for more on this.

• Jamieson - "Global Responsibilities - Ethics, Public Health, and Global Environmental Change"
  
  
• Gardiner [ed.] - Climate Ethics: Essential Readings
  
  
• Gardiner - A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change
  
  
• Oreskes and Conway - The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View From the Future
  
  
• Oreskes and Conway - Merchants of Doubt
  
  
• O'Brien et. al. - "Climate Change, Ethics, and Human Security"
  
  
• Broome - Climate Matters
  
  
• Gordijn - "Ethics of mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering"
  
  
• Nikitina - "Geodiversity, and the geoethical principles for its preservation"
  
  
• Wagner and Zeckhauser "Climate policy - hard problem, soft thinking"
  
  
• Jamieson - Ethics and the Environment: An Introduction
  
  
• Elliott and Resnik - "Science, policy, and the transparency of values"
  
  Hope that helps. Feel free to follow up with anything else; this is my primary area of work. Among philosophers, the people who are doing the best work in environmental ethics right now are (in my opinion) John Broome, Dale Jamieson, and Stephen Gardiner. Anything you can find by any of them is probably worth reading.

I am not American.

If you want to read about the science, then read about the science. My top science book recommendation:"Climate: The Counter Consensus", by Robert Carter https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Counter-Consensus-Palaeoclimatologist-Speaks-Independent/dp/1906768293/

I got in to this issue through energy debates (fossils, renewables, nuclear power). It was clear to me that the people pushing renewables, opposing nuclear power and fossil fuels had a clear political agenda. I ignored climate debates for ages. I just accepted the "middle ground" of climate sensitivity from 1.5 to 3. Eventually I started reading climate skeptic books and am aghast at what I find about the "official science". Climate alarmism is models all the way down. Models build on models; a house of cards.


"It's really hard to take anything here seriously" \<- You will be able to treat all my posts seriously because I will only post about climate in this forum. If the politics worry you they why not begin a moderated forum? (if that's possible?).

Deep Future: The Next 100,000 Years of Life on Earth by Curt Stager is a good read, and addresses your question in several ways.

Dennis Hartmann's textbook is an excellent introduction to Climate Science, with a few concluding chapters on natural and anthropogenic climate change.

Read the book on the greatest fraud of all time, which is their "balancing" energy budget diagrams of flat Earth theory:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07Y6QDLWG

I'm late to the party, but The book's a joke here's the reviews

https://www.amazon.com/Laymans-Guide-Greatest-Scientific-History-ebook/product-reviews/B07Y6QDLWG/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews

I recently read The Ends of the World by Peter Brannon, which is nominally about mass extinction events and their causes.

Most mass extinctions took a long time, by human standards, and all featured climate change as the main killer. What caused the climate change has varied, but suffice to say, an event occurred which threw the carbon cycle out of wack and caused rapid (in a geologic time scale anyways) cooling or heating.

So for example, the Great Dying, the End Permian extinction which destroyed 90-95% of all species, was primarily caused by the eruptions of the Siberian Traps. This is volcanism on a scale we have no concept of. For half a million years, lava and gasses poured out of a large chunk of Siberia, causing temperatures to rise 20 degrees in some places (for perspective, we're concerned about 6)

As for the ice age (which btw, we're still living in, seeing as the polar caps are frozen for the moment) a number of factors led to it.

One of the biggest factors is actually the rise of the Himalayas. In addition to blocking air currents coming off the Indian Ocean from reaching further north, they represent a massive sink of Carbon.

I mentioned earlier that trees and soils are major sinks of CO2, they're not the only ones. They are mostly short term sinks. The ocean is another sink, which is actually not good for us really because it causes the water to become acidic, which kills plankton. However, in the long term, the greatest sink of CO2 is actually exposed rock.

Slightly acidic rain drops, infused with CO2 hit calcium rich rocks, causing erosion. The runoff of the combined Carbon and Calcium go the oceans as Calcium Carbonate. Animals use these minerals to form shells and when they die they fall to the sea floor, eventually creating limestone. The carbon is locked in until tectonic uplift brings the limestone up and the cycle starts again.

When large exposed rock is formed, it represents a massive sink of CO2, which over time causes a gradual cooling if there is no major CO2 input. Once cooling starts and glaciers start to form, the process is accelerated because the White surface of snow reflect sunlight, causing further cooling.

The Himalayas both grew rapidly and are subject to massive monsoons, which likely aided in sequestering more carbon.

Now, in comparison to some epic changes in the earth's climate, what we're doing isn't all that significant, especially in the long run. What we're most likely to do is make the earth uninhabitable for us though. Once we're gone, it will quickly return to it's former balance.

If you really want to get an idea of the "big picture", grab a used copy of Meteorology Today. It's a college level introductory text for meteorology majors. You should be able to understand it without too much trouble. There's info on all the major atmospheric processes, with a lot of diagrams and pictures for visualization.

Most of my information comes from Storms of My Grandchildren. The author, James Hansen, is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

1

2

Pesquise mais, amigo. Não é a idéia isolada de apenas um brasileiro.

What on earth is your basis for that radiation/warmth hypothesis? You're just making stuff up.

My figures came from this interview with Joseph Romm, which is a good and patient overview of these issues. I recommend Romm's book as a starting point as well.

And if you want to balance out your view you should also consider both sides

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/0521173159

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Observed-impacts-Planet/dp/044453301X/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10300308-living-in-denial

http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Global-Warming-Histories-Technology/dp/067403189X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888732&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Uncertainty-William-Stewart/dp/0976729164/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/1597265675

http://www.amazon.com/The-Weather-Makers-Changing-Climate/dp/B001PO66MG/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1

http://knopfdoubleday.com/2012/06/25/global-weirdness-by-climate-central/

http://mark-bowen.com/book_cs.html

http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Flat-Crowded-2-0-Revolution/dp/0312428928/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888779&sr=1-1

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/six-degrees-mark-lynas/1100833125

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15856813-overheated

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/1608193942

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Contact-Sport-Inside-Climate/dp/1426205406/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888885&sr=1-1

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/0822351099

http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Capitalism-Creating-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0316353000/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888939&sr=1-1

Deep Future: The Next 100,000 Years of Life on Earth is an excellent book by paleoclimatologist Curt Stager covering the hard-science of the next thousand centuries in a post-climate-change Earth. (non-fiction)

I don't think you have to go that route. You can offset your footprint fairly cheaply by making minor adjustments to your lifestyle and donating to an organization like Cool Earth or TerraPass. That's what I do.

John Broome's Climate Matters is a nice resource for thinking about these issues.

Gotcha, I see what you're saying. Yep, those are all good points. I think what I was jumping ahead to was that's never going to happen because: capitalism, politics, profit and seat of the pants decision making is just inherent in culture. Kicking and screaming is still the way it will go. I have lots of great ideas like everyone else if people started them 30 years ago but the same barriers are there.

Like I said, any academic that has absolutely concluded that they're sure humans are the main driving force behind climate change are in a wonderland. And even if they did, the hysterical reaction is unintelligible. Is climate change happening? Yes. Is it happening at some completely unreasonable rate? No. Climate change is 100% an issue but the media, government, biased studies and constant misinformation aren't helping anything. People are overreacting about the issue. Like most issues, the general public brings absolutely nothing to the table in this discussion. They listen to the media, politicians, biased reports, people throwing out idiotic 97% figures and they think uhhhh... this must be true! Scientists are skewed with their biased opinions in the exact same way by how they are funded, peer pressure, the conclusions they should reach and who they're working for.

Here are a couple good reads:

Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor

Climate Change: The Facts

I am not saying there is not a bit of bias to these books, every book does but they're laid out well and make you think.

> OK, when you show me PROOF they ARE condensation based "con-trails"
>

http://i.imgur.com/H7FBIDR.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/9u9PIJX.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ShyXbvK.jpg

If you are looking for additional references I would suggest:

The Book of Clouds: John A. Day
http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Clouds-John-Day/dp/1402728131

Clouds and Weather: R.K Pilsbury
http://www.amazon.com/Clouds-weather-R-K-Pilsbury/dp/0713421029

A Field Guide to the Atmosphere (Peterson Field Guides)
http://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Atmosphere-Peterson-Guides/dp/0395976316

There are many other resources describing how planes create condensation trails, but this should be a good start.


> there's plenty of evidence of their chemical composition out there.
>

Are you talking about the balanced chemical equation for the formation of water vapour through the burning of hydrocarbons? If not, please provide the evidence you are talking about:

http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-balanced-equation-for-the-compte-combustion-of-kerosene

> including from the us govt themselves, BUT you'd shoot that down too as some type of bullshit\
>

Please provide a link where the US Govt states that they are dumping chemicals that would appear as contrails.

> otherwise, go troll someone else :D

Not sure that this was necessary ...

The fact that CO2 concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere is literally the definitive consequence of an imbalance in global carbon dioxide fluxes. I'm getting this idea from the observations and my knowledge of the global carbon cycle and basics physics / chemistry. Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this also leads to a measurable energy balance.

Actually, the fact that CO2 emissions are increasing global temperatures has a overwhelming amount of support from climate models and direct observations of the greenhouse effect.

You're making all these wild claims about things we don't know or things you have to account for which I assure you climate scientists are aware of and account for. All of the questions you've asked were covered in my introductory Climate Science course. The literature on this stuff is very well established.

Also, why did you just make up that humans contributed 20 ppm for the current 400 ppm? It is abundantly clear that almost all of the CO2 increase from 310 ppm to 410 ppm between 1960 and 2017 is due to us. We know this from the oxygen isotopes of the CO2 and we know it from doing global carbon budgets. All of you claims are totally baseless and easily debunked by reading an introductory Climate Science textbook, so I will leave it at that.

https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Everyone-Needs-Know/dp/0190250178/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1498603345&sr=8-1&keywords=climate+change+what+everyone+needs+to+know

I’m currently reading this one and it’s really good. Can be read in short bursts but is still thoroughly sourced.

Climate Change: What Everyone... https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190866101?ref=yo_pop_ma_swf

Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming, is awesome. The full text is available online, from the American Institute of Physics.

A brief explanation of climate change in the form of a Reddit comment.

> Can you explain more?

If you believe the primary factor of wealth is hard work, then you are starting from a labor theory of value.

Economists advocate Capitalism for its efficient use of resources, but this seems a distant second to many Libertarians (not you, it seems).

> How am I taking the side of the Marxist?

Marx argued that Property restricts labor and autonomy, and is used to create a monopoly over the resources owned to restrict competition, exploit workers, and consolidate excess wealth. You seem to be agreeing with this view when it comes to IP, but ignoring it when talking about diamond mines.

If I had to bet, this is because IP impacts the "means of production" in your daily life far more than raw materials. If you were a farmer 200 years ago, you might argue that land should be available to farmers, who should be free to produce what they want without paying rent to the Government-selected "owners".

But when we shift to this Socialist position, we are now subject to all of the criticisms. How do you solve the calculation problem and determine what to build? How do you know what to create if you cannot own / sell your creation? How do you make a contract to exchange something you cannot control? Why would companies invest billions to design drugs they cannot own? Are you just going to create a labor-model and pay everyone for their hourly contributions? Are we going to use a centralized database to manage production?

> Farmland isn't naturally socialized, and it certainly isn't the same as natural resources by definition.

Farmland is the standard natural resource used in the classical debates. It was the primary means of production and prior to Capitalism, a Socialized resource local communities shared. Capitalism was usually introduced by a State coming in and granting ownership (usually by force), then converting farmers into wage-laborers while the owner dictated production.

These imaginary concepts of "ownership over land" existed only in the heads of Capitalists, but the State enforced it and it worked.

> Why would a libertarian think that state solutions would be the most efficient?

Classical Liberals like Adam Smith agreed Capitalist nations were the largest to protect property. It was usually the Socialists who disliked Government.

The Anarcho-Capitalists I've read still agree with private-property, but just feel it should be privately enforced.

The size of the State is not the distinguishing factor of Liberals and Socialists - That's where both Anarchists agree with each other. Private ownership over the means of production vs Socialized ownership is the central disagreement.

> Think about the ridiculousness of claiming that you own the idea of making a sandwich

It's ridiculous because I could make a sandwich without your idea. It was something anyone could invent themselves. IP protects things you create with your labor that other people use.

Again, if you create X and I directly need to use it, then I pay you. If I can come up with the concept myself, then I utilize my own labor. If you are copying my software, then a court will have no problem recognizing you did not create the software, but instead took my creation.

Yes, Libertarian Economists popularized the concept of emission credits to utilize markets by privatizing a socialized good. As I explained previously, this allows market mechanisms to to tell businesses where to cut emissions. By owning allowances for emissions, prices allow companies to cut in the most cost-effective places.

Although you can read the history in depth in Professor Shi-Ling Hsu's book, Timothy Taylor has an introductory TTC lecture on contributions of Libertarian Economists, if that is something that interests you. Rothbard's Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto also proposes similar mechanisms of privatizing pollution limits to solve environmental issues.

> This statement is so convoluted and confusing that I'm not sure I can respond.

A lot of Socialists seem to believe Socialism will come about as the economy becomes digital. They see a world in which you can 3d print anything you want or build on existing designs created by others without limit.

Sounds like you wouldn't mind a world in which the "means of production" are completely socialized and free to all workers.

I found this while in my travels online and have read and watched all from beginning to end.
What do you think?
"One thing that we need desperately are politicians that will call BS on the climate change FRAUD.

The entire climate scam is a deliberate attempt to destroy western industrial economies, by attacking the abundant, affordable energy that drives robust economies.

The two main products of the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels are carbon dioxide and water. Since it would be difficult to convince even low information citizens that water is a pollutant, carbon dioxide (CO2) was chosen to demonize. Those pushing the climate scam rely on people not understanding science, and not taking time to learn. Using the words “carbon emissions”, “carbon pollution”, “carbon” or “pollution” when really referring to CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) is part of the propaganda.
Elemental carbon generally exists as a solid, in various forms, such as diamond, graphite, or SOOT, which is what they want you to be thinking of. CO2 exists primarily as a gas, although the solid form is commonly known as “dry ice”. You wouldn’t use just one of the names of the elemental components of the water molecule, hydrogen or oxygen, to refer to water.

CO2 is essential to life on our planet, plants require it for photosynthesis.
CO2 makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere. Only a maximum of about 4% of atmospheric CO2, about 0.0016% of total atmosphere, can be attributed to human use of hydrocarbon fuels. The rest comes from “natural” sources - life processes, ocean outgassing, volcanic venting, and others. Your exhaled breath has about 100 times the concentration of CO2 compared to “normal” atmosphere. Those who believe CO2 to be a dangerous pollutant should do their part and QUIT BREATHING.

Canada’s 1.6% of world wide hydrocarbon fuel usage amounts to a contribution of 0.0000256% CO2 of total atmosphere. Even IF CO2 could somehow magically control all of the hundreds of variables that contribute to climate, in defiance of the laws of physics and thermodynamics, completely eliminating hydrocarbon fuels would have NO MEASURABLE EFFECT on climate.

The real objectives of the pseudo-science global warming crowd are the destruction of western industrial societies, and redistribution of wealth.

The key feature of the Paris Accord is the Green Climate Fund (GCF) - to which western industrial nations are supposed to pony up $100 BILLION per year, and rising up to $$1 TRILLION per year after 2020. Since Trump cancelled US participation in this scam, the GCF is pretty much done.

Over 80% of all energy used world wide is provided by oil, gas, and coal. Virtually 100% of transportation fuel is petroleum based. We could not feed our urban populations without mechanized farming, motorized transport of food, and refrigeration of that food. More than half of electricity worldwide comes from coal fired generation. Modern civilization cannot exist without affordable, abundant, portable, and on demand energy.

Wind and solar power are NOT INVESTMENTS. They cannot provide power on demand, and have to be backed up full time by conventional, dispatchable power. If wind and solar had to survive by billing only for actual delivered electricity, at rates competitive with the real cost of coal fired generation, nobody would build them. They exist only to bilk taxpayers and utility rate payers of billions of dollars. Look at what the Green Energy Act did to electricity prices and the damage to the manufacturing sector in Ontariowe. Look at what the NDP Climate Leadership action Plan (the CLaP) did in Alberta - billions borrowed to hide the costs of a failed ideological experiment with our electric grid. Wind and solar are not useful at grid scales, they provide soaring power prices, grid disruption, and heat or eat poverty.

EVERY JURISDICTION that has forced in wind and solar with subsidies and ridiculous rate contracts has had the same experience - soaring electricity prices, decimated industry, families suffering from energy poverty.

Billions of dollars poured into a non-existent problem could be better spent addressing real issues.

Human Caused Global Warming - The Biggest Deception in History - by Tim Ball, PhD. (Link to Apple store, an electronic version of the easier reading edition of Dr. Ball's work)
https://itun.es/ca/x159eb.l

Human Caused Global Warming - The Biggest Deception in History - Link to Amazon Canada - for the paperback edition - there is also a kindle edition.
https://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/1773021303/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=15044498

From Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace ( check into why he left)
https://youtu.be/WDWEjSDYfxc

Longer version
https://youtu.be/2kIcFIofUHk

From Dr. William Happer
https://youtu.be/U-9UlF8hkhs

https://friendsofscience.org/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

https://realclimatescience.com/

https://www.thegwpf.com/

https://drtimball.ca/

https://stopthesethings.com/"
Be well. Be kind to each other.

The notion that you honestly believe that a teenage girl bankrolled all her own travel and a boat is ridiculous and disingenuous.

Instead of interpreting that comment how it was clearly meant, that she's doing this of her own volition, you would rather insinuate an insidious plot to secretly fund this girl via clearly expensive boats to...promote climate awareness...?

The thought that this girl is right just terrifies you, and you are grasping at straws to try and dissuade yourself from the obvious truth of the situation.

I suggest reading a book on climate science. The information is readily available. Here's a good one on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190866101/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_LLzJDbQ7TVSDR

You could buy one of the starter college books and work your way through it.

Probably buy a used, cheaper version (Meteorology Today)

Its not an isolated idea:

The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Challenge-Democracy-Politics-Environment/dp/031334504X

Please stop using the internet, thanks!

> how we know that the earth is warming and how we came about knowing this

For that, your best bet might actually be this site: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

It's also available in print form, but the web version is more detailed.

https://www.amazon.com/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740

Read this. There's plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise as well.

Try this: https://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-W-Montford/dp/0957313527

And 97% of the scientists once believed that the sun revolved around the earth too. Even the academy of sciences at the time.

I've studied this thoroughly,

Have you? Really? And as proof it's because you say so On Reddit.... LOL

>its super important people understand it and I have nothing better to do so Ill bite your replies.

Aztec priests told people they must cut out their beating hearts to bring better climate for their crops. The people believed them.

Today’s climate priests tell people they must cut out their CO2 emissions and pay penances to other nations, like China, to save our climate. The people believe them.

It’s time for you to think for yourself.

>Why are you being so disingenuous and quoting one-off people?

Because they have far more authority than you or me will ever have, especially here on Reddit.

>Why don't you quote the actual evidence?

Why dont you? After all you are a believer in catastrophic climate change, that only the human species caused and can stop.

As for the 'evidence' that the belief that catastrophic climate change will kill us all and only we can stop it (faux religion IOW) I offer up the mass global hysteria that it has become.

If You Can’t Sell Your Hysteria to Adults, Try Kids:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/american-left-climate-change-hysteria-kids/

Whether it’s fires in California or Brazil, hurricanes like Dorian or your summer hot spell, it’s not just weather anymore but a sign of the impending apocalypse.

This specter of imminent demise tied to the everyday, notes one American Psychological Association study, has induced “stress, depression and anxiety” among a wide part of the population. The Congress’ leading green advocate, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, admits her climate concerns often wake her up at 3:30 in the morning.

Of course, significant changes in the climate could well be afoot, but our “woke” media and its favored go-to expert class seem more prone to hysteric prophesizing than properly skeptical analysis.

https://www.newgeography.com/content/006405-common-sense-versus-climate-hysteria

How The Media Enables Destructive Climate Change Hysteria
Reporters have a responsibility to challenge the assumptions and exaggerations of activists.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/27/media-enables-ludicrous-destructive-climate-change-hysteria/

Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor:

The current frenzy over global warming has galvanized the public and cost taxpayers billons of dollars in federal expenditures for climate research. It has spawned Hollywood blockbusters and inspired major political movements. It has given a higher calling to celebrities and built a lucrative industry for scores of eager scientists. In short, ending climate change has become a national crusade.

https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confusion-Pandering-Politicians-Misguided/dp/1594033455


>Another literal comparison. American Christian radio host Harold Camping stated that the Rapture and Judgment Day would take place on May 21, 2011. It didnt happen. Therefore Christianity cant be true.

FTFY:

American Christian radio host Harold Camping stated that the Rapture and Judgment Day would take place on May 21, 2011. It didnt happen. Therefore American Christian radio host Harold Camping's Christianity cant be true.

>That's the pathetic level of debate you are putting forward.

See above.

All the quotes I posted previously, about how bad climate change is going to be, NOT ONE of these claims of catastrophic disaster happened.

And yet fifty+ years later we still have these claims of catastrophic climate disasters still being made.

How does it go again?
Ahh yes: Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you....

>Quote the science. Quote the evidence. Don't quote irrelevant people to suit your narrative.

What is 'scientific' about the global mass hysteria of the faux religion we see every day in news sound bites on TV, on the Radio, in Newspapers, from politicians with and agenda to get re-elected, scientists touting for yet more grant $$$$$ to prove their 'theories, media personalities aiming to increase the 'influencer status', etc, etc....

Other than being a huge chance to study the psychology of global mass hysteria...

(again)
Aztec priests told people they must cut out their beating hearts to bring better climate for their crops. The people believed them.

Today’s climate priests tell people they must cut out their CO2 emissions and pay penances to other nations, like China, to save our climate. The people believe them.

It’s time for you to think for yourself.

It's not the 19th century anymore. The scientific community's understanding of the relevant phenomena has progressed to such an extent that it's not reasonable to compare modern climate scientists to some medieval plague doctor who thinks that diseases are caused by imbalances of the humors or something equally wacky.

They've understood the greenhouse gas effect, they've learned how to analyze the isotopes of a sample of atmospheric carbon to determine if it came from an older or younger, organic or inorganic source of carbon, they can measure the temperatures of the past by proxy using elements frozen in ice cores extracted from Earth's ice sheets. They know for a fact that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased dramatically since the Industrial Revolution, that the burning of fossil fuels is primarily responsible for that increase, that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat inside Earth's atmosphere, and that Earth's temperature has increased at an unusually rapid pace in recent decades. You know what's bad for the economy? Rising sea levels caused by melting polar ice sheets, increased frequency and severity of natural disasters like drought and tropical storms, the desertification of semi-arid regions of the world including the American Southwest, and the resulting disruptions to agricultural production.

Burying our heads in the ground because the steps that we need to take to slow or stop climate change would be economically costly isn't going to make the problem go away; if anything it will make the problem more costly because the impacts of climate change will be even more severe.

These are widely accepted, mainstream predictions on the logical consequences of climate change. Whether climate change is going to result in considerable consequences for human civilization is not a subject of controversy among most scientists; what is a matter of debate is how severe those consequences will be.

Sources:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/education/

Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know by physicist Joseph Romm

^The linked tweet was tweeted by @Cartoonsbyjosh on Sep 21, 2018 16:19:36 UTC (4 Retweets | 8 Favorites)

-------------------------------------------------

Buy the latest book from @RoyWSpencer "Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People" here https://www.amazon.co.uk/Global-Warming-Skepticism-Busy-People-ebook/dp/B07H57WVYJ/

Attached photo | imgur Mirror

-------------------------------------------------

^^• Beep boop I'm a bot • Find out more about me at /r/tweettranscriberbot/ •