Freedomain Radio

...and on the 7th day the Lord totally pwned.

This guy is not a climatologist. He is a politician, and his motives are questionable. Please, do not take this guy's word. Check out the scientific literature for yourself. In my non-expert opinion, from the evidence I have been exposed to, it appears undeniably true that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. That does not mean that other factors are not influencing climate. It does not even mean that humans are the primary driver of warming, but to flat out deny that humans have the potential to influence climate change is ridiculous. Practically all climatologists appear to agree that humans are contributing to global warming, but politicians and media spin that little statistic into a "consensus" on catastrophic global warming, which I have not seen any evidence for. There is no indication that most or all climatologists are "catastrophists." 

It bothers me that many libertarians/market-anarchists/agorists are staunchly on the "global warming is a hoax" wagon. To people of other political persuasions it looks like they are manipulating the science to fit their world view. Maybe global warming IS a hoax, but it is a losing game to deny it in policy debates. If debating policy and philosophy, by trying to prove global warming proponents wrong you are already implicitly admitting to your opponent that the climate change policies being considered by governments around the world are the necessary actions for preventing catastrophe. There are other ways that a catastrophic warming could be combatted in a structure of legitimate property defense and voluntarism. Centrally-imposed caps on emissions are not the only solution. In other words, don't debate the science. Debate the solutions.

Furthermore, I would like to consider that emissions caps are not necessarily outside the realm of voluntarism and protection of property. If some people are putting carbon into the atmosphere, and it can be proven that that carbon is contributing to climate changes that will most probably cause some sort of undesirable condition or damage to people's businesses, properties, and lives... wouldn't it be ethical to impose some sort of class action suit against major carbon emitters to get them to reduce their emissions?

He might be completely wrong. I don't know. But I liked his cross-examination of that protester who clearly didn't know anything about it either, and was, by her own admission, taking Greenpeace's claims on faith alone. And yet she's out there clamouring for change..? From my experience, that's typical.

Oneironaut:

This guy is not a climatologist. He is a politician, and his motives are questionable. Please, do not take this guy's word. Check out the scientific literature for yourself. In my non-expert opinion, from the evidence I have been exposed to, it appears undeniably true that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. That does not mean that other factors are not influencing climate. It does not even mean that humans are the primary driver of warming, but to flat out deny that humans have the potential to influence climate change is ridiculous. Practically all climatologists appear to agree that humans are contributing to global warming, but politicians and media spin that little statistic into a "consensus" on catastrophic global warming, which I have not seen any evidence for. There is no indication that most or all climatologists are "catastrophists." 

It bothers me that many libertarians/market-anarchists/agorists are staunchly on the "global warming is a hoax" wagon. To people of other political persuasions it looks like they are manipulating the science to fit their world view. Maybe global warming IS a hoax, but it is a losing game to deny it in policy debates. If debating policy and philosophy, by trying to prove global warming proponents wrong you are already implicitly admitting to your opponent that the climate change policies being considered by governments around the world are the necessary actions for preventing catastrophe. There are other ways that a catastrophic warming could be combatted in a structure of legitimate property defense and voluntarism. Centrally-imposed caps on emissions are not the only solution. In other words, don't debate the science. Debate the solutions.

Furthermore, I would like to consider that emissions caps are not necessarily outside the realm of voluntarism and protection of property. If some people are putting carbon into the atmosphere, and it can be proven that that carbon is contributing to climate changes that will most probably cause some sort of undesirable condition or damage to people's businesses, properties, and lives... wouldn't it be ethical to impose some sort of class action suit against major carbon emitters to get them to reduce their emissions?

 

Have you seen his full speech up on youtube? It's an hour or so long and it covers every argument and aspect, and gives data from original unbiased sources, backed up with references, to the point where it gets really hard to find stuff that proves him wrong.