@NefariousBanana I agree with you 100% on everything you said. We need to pay attention to Global Warming, but all human beings, not the gov. Vote for Ron Paul! VOTE LP!
ClimateGate? what scandal, the right wing raking things out of context. and we can have debate, as soon as the anti-global climate clan has better evidence for their position
Does anyone else find it funny how the US is pretty much one of the only countries that doesn't want to do anything about global warming because it "doesn't exist"?
How stupid is this person? I hate being disrespectful but the science DOES say that global warming is real and manmade. And the last part? How about the wildfires in Russia? Hurricane Katrina? Droughts and flooding all over the world where they shouldn't be? The coral reefs dying because of absorbing too much CO2? I am disappointed that the Libertarian Party would post this (seeing as it has no scientific or factual backing).
Just look upSkeptical Science and Union of Concerned Scientists
I really hate it when libertarians think that to support the free market side of politics, they have deny or distort the scientific evidence behind climate change. This sort of conflation between politics and science is completely irrational. How about taking the stance of trusting the reliable scientific consensus, but arging that market solutions are the best way forward? After all, big government hinders technological progress, which in turn hinders cleaner, advanced energy sources.
@fermista Yes, let's trust science. As with all scientific theory, there are two sides to the discussion. Something as fundamental as Einstein's general theory of relativity, after all these years, is still just a theory. In science it's very difficult, if not impossible, to prove something to an absolute certainty. So why must we hold one side above another regarding anthropomorphic climate change? Education is key, but should we legislate change based on theory?
@SugarMonkey528 In the real world, the concept of absolute certainty is a red herring - completely impractical outside pure mathematics, so let's ditch that idea, huh? Science is a process, the best process in fact, of zoning in on what's actually going on in the real world. Scientific theories are models constructed on observed facts, not pie in the sky half-baked ideas. Don't confuse polarised political debates with bona fide scientific debates, their nature is very different.
@fermista my point exactly. Global warming is a scientific theory. As is Anthropomorphic global warming. Neither have been proven, so why are world governments pushing it on us? Forcing us to pay homage to their cause in the form of regulations and taxation?
@SugarMonkey528 The scientific evidence for global warming and AGW is strong. Scientific theories don't pop up out of the vacuum, they have to have strong and verifiable evidence to back them up, otherwise they are dismissed by the scientific community as not a good representation of nature. I agree that governments shouldn't be pushing for further regulation and taxation of markets, using AGW as the excuse. But regardless of whether they are, this doesn't mean the scientific theory is wrong.
@fermista I will agree that there is some evidence for global warming, but the "evidence" for AGW is suspect at best. From a purely scientific perspective, the earth must either be warming or cooling at any given time. Science has evidence of multiple ice ages. Had the last ice age not ended, due to global warming, humanity would not exist. So the question is, is global warming such a bad thing?
@SugarMonkey528 Of course there is natural climate change, but carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas, so pumping heaps of it into the atmosphere will obviously have some global warming effect at least. Think of it as unintentional terraforming. You're right that climate change doesn't necessarily mean for the worse. Some things could get better, others worse. A warmer global climate would mean higher sea levels and more hurricanes. On the other hand, new areas of land would be inhabitable.
@fermista Do you drink sweet tea? Here in the South, that's about all we drink. If you do, or if you've ever made lemonade, you'll know that hot liquids hold more sugar than cold liquids. Just try dissolving a cup of sugar in a gallon of ice cold tea ... doesn't work well.
Our atmosphere is much the same. The warmer the air, the more carbon dioxide it holds. Look at the famous hockey stick chart from Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. The temperature actually rises BEFORE the CO2 levels go up.
@SugarMonkey528 So basically you're saying that correlation doesn't imply causation, I totally agree there. However I'm not familiar with the details surrounding the hockey stick. If there is a fundamental problem with the hockey stick graph, I'm sure the scientific community would've addressed it by now. Al Gore isn't a scientist by the way, he's just a contributor to the politicisation of a climate science issue. FYI, I'm a physicist and I loathe the politicisation of science, from both sides.
I find it awesome to hear Libertarians demean science by labeling at "alarmism." This coming from the very group that insists we are victims of "slavery."
Even if you agree global warming is happening, you would have to be insane to think that government has the power to make worldwide changes necessary to do anything about it. Look at the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the government run education system. These are the people the AGW crowd wants to legislate the climate?
There is plenty of room for debate, IF you're a scientist in the relevant field. Go and do some research yourself and publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal.
This is the first LP video I really dislike. Unlike most issues they make videos about, this is a SCIENTIFIC topic. Citing the CATO institute as your source of information on this topic is nonsensical. We can certainly have discussions about the policies relating to this issue, but the LP should leave science to scientists.
Life on Earth is dying, you can pretend it is not humans, but thats just because yall want to drive and fly and use lots of stuff.
Global warming denial is funded by Exxon.
During the first three weeks of July, 12 weather stations have recorded all-time daytime highs. But 93 weather stations have seen their all-time warmest nighttime temperatures, -- NY times 7/22
Ms. Whalen-Cohen: In 1:42 you said "Um/uh" 6 times, "Like" 3 times, "You know" 8 times, and "I mean" twice. All of these are filler words and indicate to a listener that you are reaching for your words and haven't thought the discussion out thoroughly. It's far more powerful and thought-provoking if you sound smooth, sure of yourself, and confident in what you're saying. Just my two cents.
I like what she said. I agree with her. But it sure would be useful if she gave you data instead of words. Didn't she open it by saying she would settle the science of it? I do not see any science in what she is saying. Please post something informative. Thanks. And define "free market fixing it" Either our ice caps are melting or they aren't. I do not think the economic structure of a group of people really has an affect on that. Expound please. Less filler words; more data.
@turlaak ReasonTV has a great post that explains how free market innovation reduces greenhouse gases it's just not measurable because you can't calculate, for example, how many trees are saved through the productivity created through the internet/fiber optic telecommunications. Basically, prosperity via the free market creates the innovation that will reduce the impact of global warming, as opposed to central planning/socialism.
The Earth has done fine before us and will do fine after we are gone. Typical human egocentrism to think we have any bearing on what happens on Earth.
@NefariousBanana I agree with you 100% on everything you said. We need to pay attention to Global Warming, but all human beings, not the gov. Vote for Ron Paul! VOTE LP!
teddypgray 1 month ago
ClimateGate? what scandal, the right wing raking things out of context. and we can have debate, as soon as the anti-global climate clan has better evidence for their position
noliesundead 3 months ago
Does anyone else find it funny how the US is pretty much one of the only countries that doesn't want to do anything about global warming because it "doesn't exist"?
karatewolfpunk 6 months ago
How stupid is this person? I hate being disrespectful but the science DOES say that global warming is real and manmade. And the last part? How about the wildfires in Russia? Hurricane Katrina? Droughts and flooding all over the world where they shouldn't be? The coral reefs dying because of absorbing too much CO2? I am disappointed that the Libertarian Party would post this (seeing as it has no scientific or factual backing).
Just look upSkeptical Science and Union of Concerned Scientists
karatewolfpunk 6 months ago
I really hate it when libertarians think that to support the free market side of politics, they have deny or distort the scientific evidence behind climate change. This sort of conflation between politics and science is completely irrational. How about taking the stance of trusting the reliable scientific consensus, but arging that market solutions are the best way forward? After all, big government hinders technological progress, which in turn hinders cleaner, advanced energy sources.
fermista 7 months ago 6
@fermista Yes, let's trust science. As with all scientific theory, there are two sides to the discussion. Something as fundamental as Einstein's general theory of relativity, after all these years, is still just a theory. In science it's very difficult, if not impossible, to prove something to an absolute certainty. So why must we hold one side above another regarding anthropomorphic climate change? Education is key, but should we legislate change based on theory?
SugarMonkey528 6 months ago
@SugarMonkey528 In the real world, the concept of absolute certainty is a red herring - completely impractical outside pure mathematics, so let's ditch that idea, huh? Science is a process, the best process in fact, of zoning in on what's actually going on in the real world. Scientific theories are models constructed on observed facts, not pie in the sky half-baked ideas. Don't confuse polarised political debates with bona fide scientific debates, their nature is very different.
fermista 6 months ago
@fermista my point exactly. Global warming is a scientific theory. As is Anthropomorphic global warming. Neither have been proven, so why are world governments pushing it on us? Forcing us to pay homage to their cause in the form of regulations and taxation?
SugarMonkey528 6 months ago
@SugarMonkey528 The scientific evidence for global warming and AGW is strong. Scientific theories don't pop up out of the vacuum, they have to have strong and verifiable evidence to back them up, otherwise they are dismissed by the scientific community as not a good representation of nature. I agree that governments shouldn't be pushing for further regulation and taxation of markets, using AGW as the excuse. But regardless of whether they are, this doesn't mean the scientific theory is wrong.
fermista 6 months ago
@fermista I will agree that there is some evidence for global warming, but the "evidence" for AGW is suspect at best. From a purely scientific perspective, the earth must either be warming or cooling at any given time. Science has evidence of multiple ice ages. Had the last ice age not ended, due to global warming, humanity would not exist. So the question is, is global warming such a bad thing?
SugarMonkey528 6 months ago
@SugarMonkey528 Of course there is natural climate change, but carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas, so pumping heaps of it into the atmosphere will obviously have some global warming effect at least. Think of it as unintentional terraforming. You're right that climate change doesn't necessarily mean for the worse. Some things could get better, others worse. A warmer global climate would mean higher sea levels and more hurricanes. On the other hand, new areas of land would be inhabitable.
fermista 6 months ago
@fermista Do you drink sweet tea? Here in the South, that's about all we drink. If you do, or if you've ever made lemonade, you'll know that hot liquids hold more sugar than cold liquids. Just try dissolving a cup of sugar in a gallon of ice cold tea ... doesn't work well.
Our atmosphere is much the same. The warmer the air, the more carbon dioxide it holds. Look at the famous hockey stick chart from Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. The temperature actually rises BEFORE the CO2 levels go up.
SugarMonkey528 6 months ago
@SugarMonkey528 So basically you're saying that correlation doesn't imply causation, I totally agree there. However I'm not familiar with the details surrounding the hockey stick. If there is a fundamental problem with the hockey stick graph, I'm sure the scientific community would've addressed it by now. Al Gore isn't a scientist by the way, he's just a contributor to the politicisation of a climate science issue. FYI, I'm a physicist and I loathe the politicisation of science, from both sides.
fermista 6 months ago
@fermista Spot-on. I'm a libertarian, and I think Global Warming is real. Do I support government regulations like cap-and-trade? Hell no.
NefariousBanana 3 months ago
I find it awesome to hear Libertarians demean science by labeling at "alarmism." This coming from the very group that insists we are victims of "slavery."
larstbone 7 months ago
Even if you agree global warming is happening, you would have to be insane to think that government has the power to make worldwide changes necessary to do anything about it. Look at the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the government run education system. These are the people the AGW crowd wants to legislate the climate?
justintempler 7 months ago
There is plenty of room for debate, IF you're a scientist in the relevant field. Go and do some research yourself and publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal.
pgbollwerk 7 months ago
This is the first LP video I really dislike. Unlike most issues they make videos about, this is a SCIENTIFIC topic. Citing the CATO institute as your source of information on this topic is nonsensical. We can certainly have discussions about the policies relating to this issue, but the LP should leave science to scientists.
pgbollwerk 7 months ago
Life on Earth is dying, you can pretend it is not humans, but thats just because yall want to drive and fly and use lots of stuff.
Global warming denial is funded by Exxon.
During the first three weeks of July, 12 weather stations have recorded all-time daytime highs. But 93 weather stations have seen their all-time warmest nighttime temperatures, -- NY times 7/22
Wake Up, its killing people today.
bostoncommonterry 7 months ago
Ms. Whalen-Cohen: In 1:42 you said "Um/uh" 6 times, "Like" 3 times, "You know" 8 times, and "I mean" twice. All of these are filler words and indicate to a listener that you are reaching for your words and haven't thought the discussion out thoroughly. It's far more powerful and thought-provoking if you sound smooth, sure of yourself, and confident in what you're saying. Just my two cents.
dlleboeuf 7 months ago
I like what she said. I agree with her. But it sure would be useful if she gave you data instead of words. Didn't she open it by saying she would settle the science of it? I do not see any science in what she is saying. Please post something informative. Thanks. And define "free market fixing it" Either our ice caps are melting or they aren't. I do not think the economic structure of a group of people really has an affect on that. Expound please. Less filler words; more data.
turlaak 7 months ago
@turlaak ReasonTV has a great post that explains how free market innovation reduces greenhouse gases it's just not measurable because you can't calculate, for example, how many trees are saved through the productivity created through the internet/fiber optic telecommunications. Basically, prosperity via the free market creates the innovation that will reduce the impact of global warming, as opposed to central planning/socialism.
boristhepython 7 months ago 2
@turlaak Very constructive criticism, though I too agree with her. Thumbs up.
VincenzoB81 7 months ago
But what if all of this global warming is fake and we only make the world a more efficient and clean place?
MrNDSteinbach 7 months ago
@MrNDSteinbach By destroying the economies of the world and losing national sovereignty? No, thanks.
VincenzoB81 7 months ago 8
@MrNDSteinbach stupid hippy
libertariandeist 7 months ago
The Earth has done fine before us and will do fine after we are gone. Typical human egocentrism to think we have any bearing on what happens on Earth.
goldhawkreno 7 months ago 10