Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse gases; Man's CO2 is 1% !!!

[LoveIsTruth]

Climate Change and Conquest

By Alwin Lowi
May 14, 2014



...

But why pick on CO2? Green plant life cannot get enough of the stuff. After all, there are other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with greater solar interaction and fewer environmental benefits to sacrifice than CO2.

The answer to this question is an example of the streetlight effect:

• A policeman sees a drunk searching for something under a streetlight. He asks the drunk, “What have you lost?” The drunk replies, “I lost my keys.” They both proceed to look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks the drunk if he is sure he lost them here. The drunk replies, “No, I lost them in the park.” The policeman asks, if that’s the case, why are you searching here?” The drunk replies, “This is where the light is.”

Recall that legislation only works on people. People do things that put CO2 in the air. The other gases in the air are not as anthropogenic as CO2. To compensate, government conjured up some studies to show a plausible story connecting human industrial activity and atmospheric CO2. This story sufficed to justify legislation.

As with most stories, this one begins with some facts. It seems some atmospheric scientists recently discovered that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere nowadays is almost twice what it was at the beginning of the industrial age when the burning of fossil fuel began to expand and man’s emission of CO2 into the atmosphere burgeoned. Scientists found the CO2 had increased from roughly 250 parts per million (ppm) in about 1800 to about 400 ppm presently, an increase of about 60 per cent in a little over two hundred years. Sound the alarm.

But hold on. Geologists and meteorologists have determined that, quite coincidently as far as anyone knows, and having no apparent connection with humans, the Earth was coming out of the Little Ice Age during this same period. That’s when the Earth began returning to thermal normality whereupon its great carbon reservoir, the ocean, began to gain some heat and lose some of its vast store of carbon to the atmosphere. This shifting equilibrium between the ocean and the atmosphere at this time in history raises to question how much of the supposedly offending CO2 in the atmosphere can be attributed to human activity. Alas, only the human contribution is subject to human control and that turns out to be minuscule in the face of nature. So the case against humanity for climate alteration becomes debatable. If it is debatable, it is not fit subject matter for legislation. But the wheels of government grind on oblivious to the controversy.

The government’s story got the jump on the public. Already, the “Chicken Little” effect has taken hold:

• A chick called “Chicken Little” believes the sky is falling when an acorn falls on its head. The chick decides to go tell the King and on its journey meets other animals who join in the quest to avoid disaster.

One of the most widely promoted ideas of all time asserts that more human-generated CO2 in the atmosphere means a stronger greenhouse effect and an irreversibly warming climate. This idea is based on tacit assumptions: (1) that the greenhouse effect is the principal determinant of the Earth’s temperature, (2) that the strength of the greenhouse effect is proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and (3) that humans are responsible for the presence offending gas (i.e., CO2 is a pollutant and humans are polluters). It is also assumed that the audience is ignorant of physics and will accept the story as truth ipse dixit (on the authority of the one in charge).

Now riding on the bandwagon of an alleged world-wide consensus of scientists, and impervious to or oblivious to or in denial of the obvious questions raised by skeptics, many are convinced this story is the gospel truth; that a monster heat wave and tidal inundation is imminent unless a promiscuous humanity can be appropriately brought to heel. No typical natural disaster, this public safety crisis-in-the-making is Apocalyptic, and it is attributable to human gluttony, a moral failing that naturally calls for paternalistic government to rein in the offending behavior with broader and more stringent emission regulation and selected life-style changes.

So mankind is treated to yet another scheme for political conquest. Is this one any different from those anticipated by the master whose “Prince” is the generic term for political government? What is political government but the institutionalization of conquest?

• “Of all the defining characteristics of government, the most essential and least avoidable is the origin of government itself: conquest. Conquest is “the action gained by force of arms; acquisition by war; subjugation of a country … by vanquishing; gaining of victory.” The Compact Oxford Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971. Theodore J. Lowi, Incomplete Conquest: Governing America, Second Edition, Dryden Press, Holt, Reinhart, Winston, New York, 1981, p. 7.

Now we know what the carbon abatement program is all about.


Read more: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/alwi ... -conquest/

[survivaldealer]

The only people that worry about it anyway are not believers in God. Those that know God is in charge, have nothing to worry about in any case. If there was an Al Gore back in 1776, the population would have laughed him out of town. They knew that God created the earth and was watching over it. They couldn't have cared less what an Al Gore might say. Only after 40 years of educating God out of students, could such a farce be taken seriously.

[LoveIsTruth]

The only people that worry about it anyway are not believers in God. Those that know God is in charge, have nothing to worry about in any case. If there was an Al Gore back in 1776, the population would have laughed him out of town. They knew that God created the earth and was watching over it. They couldn't have cared less what an Al Gore might say. Only after 40 years of educating God out of students, could such a farce be taken seriously.

Excellent point! Thanks! (Nice truck in the avatar).

[LoveIsTruth]

Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now




If you are making "public policy" based on "science" such as this, you are criminally insane!

[KMCopeland]

This is really a disheartening thread. From "A Marvelous Work And A Wonder" to very recently, members of the church were among the most educated, enlightened, and thoughtful people in the country. And here you are, completely unable to accurately assess the science of climate change -- for your good, and for your children's children's children's good. It's a grave loss, to the church, the country, and the world.

I predict responses that range from garden variety idiotic all the way up to vituperative personal attacks. I'm getting used to it of course. Doesn't hurt my feelings. That would be silly. It just makes the original problem that much more depressing.

[2BFree]

This is really a disheartening thread. From "A Marvelous Work And A Wonder" to very recently, members of the church were among the most educated, enlightened, and thoughtful people in the country. And here you are, completely unable to accurately assess the science of climate change -- for your good, and for your children's children's children's good. It's a grave loss, to the church, the country, and the world.

I predict responses that range from garden variety idiotic all the way up to vituperative personal attacks. I'm getting used to it of course. Doesn't hurt my feelings. That would be silly. It just makes the original problem that much more depressing.

Enlighten us oh great illuminated one...

[KMCopeland]

This is really a disheartening thread. From "A Marvelous Work And A Wonder" to very recently, members of the church were among the most educated, enlightened, and thoughtful people in the country. And here you are, completely unable to accurately assess the science of climate change -- for your good, and for your children's children's children's good. It's a grave loss, to the church, the country, and the world.

I predict responses that range from garden variety idiotic all the way up to vituperative personal attacks. I'm getting used to it of course. Doesn't hurt my feelings. That would be silly. It just makes the original problem that much more depressing.

Enlighten us oh great illuminated one...

Enlighten yourself. It's not only your responsibility and not mine, it's not very hard. If you can figure out who to listen to and who not to of course, which is the beginning and end of becoming actually informed about something. As opposed to misinformed. Always ask: Qui bono? Who benefits? Here's a hint: if whoever you're turning to for information about climate change has some kind of allegiance to Big Oil, you should probably discount what they have to say and move on to someone who isn't similarly compromised.

[LoveIsTruth]

If you can figure out who to listen to and who not to of course, which is the beginning and end of becoming actually informed about something.

That is actually false. Truth can come from all sources. Brigham Young said that truth is found everywhere, and there is truth even in hell, and a lot of it. Truth from hell is as true as the truth from heaven, except heaven has more of it. If the devil says 2+2=4, it is as correct as if God said it. So in point of fact you are wrong. The key is not WHO says it, but WHAT they are saying. That is the beginning and the end. Of course God always speaks the truth, but below him all have errors more or less. Therefore you must accept the truth from whatever source it comes, and discern truth from error by the spirit of God.

Always ask: Qui bono? Who benefits? Here's a hint: if whoever you're turning to for information about climate change has some kind of allegiance to Big Oil, you should probably discount what they have to say and move on to someone who isn't similarly compromised.

Here's a hint: if whoever you're turning to for information about climate change has some kind of allegiance to New World Order Banksters who use "human-CO2-is-the-determining-factor-in-global-warming-fraud,-therefore-let's-tax-everyone-world-wide-for-it," you should probably discount what they have to say and move on to someone who isn't similarly compromised.

[KMCopeland]

If you can figure out who to listen to and who not to of course, which is the beginning and end of becoming actually informed about something.

That is actually false. Truth can come from all sources. Brigham Young said that truth is found everywhere, and there is truth even in hell, and a lot of it. Truth from hell is as true as the truth from heaven, except heaven has more of it. If the devil says 2+2=4, it is as correct as if God said it. So in point of fact you are wrong. The key is not WHO says it, but WHAT they are saying. That is the beginning and the end. Of course God always speaks the truth, but below him all have errors more or less. Therefore you must accept the truth from whatever source it comes, and discern truth from error by the spirit of God.

I didn't say "truth." I said "information."


I too believe that truth is found everywhere. I also believe that accurate information about climate change is found everywhere. As is inaccurate information. If you're praying for guidance about which is which, and you're getting the impression that you should oppose measures to address it, I'd say you're getting that from the devil. Since it's a lie. But you really don't have to take my word for this. You could actually turn to sources other than Brigham Young, or crackpot climate change deniers. You'll be amazed at how easy it is to get right.

Always ask: Qui bono? Who benefits? Here's a hint: if whoever you're turning to for information about climate change has some kind of allegiance to Big Oil, you should probably discount what they have to say and move on to someone who isn't similarly compromised.

Here's a hint: if whoever you're turning to for information about climate change has some kind of allegiance to New World Order Banksters who use "human-CO2-is-the-determining-factor-in-global-warming-fraud,-therefore-let's-tax-everyone-world-wide-for-it," you should probably discount what they have to say and move on to someone who isn't similarly compromised.

Now why in the world would New World Order Banksters bother with that, when Big Oil is doing such a fabulous job of it without their help?


Forget the conspiracy theories. Forget looking for a boogey man under every bush. Help me understand why anyone would object to wind energy. To solar energy. To any renewable energy source that 1) provides jobs that can't be outsourced and 2) reduces our dependence on the oil cartels and 3) puts the brakes on the horrific health costs and environmental damage Big Coal and Big Oil are responsible for. Do you not see that the people who stand to lose if less filthy, less domestically and diplomatically destructive industries are encouraged, and developed, are the ones who have gone all out to hold those industries back? This is so easy. It's so, so easy. If you can just let down your guard against big bad liberals like me, and whoever you're suspicious of who's in favor of addressing climate change immediately, before it's too late, maybe you could see just how destructive your opposition, to something so good, is.

[braingrunt]

I don't know if this has been discussed, because I only skimmed the thread: but I'm afraid I think the video in the OP is garbage. Not necessarily that they are wrong about percentages, or even their final conclusions that our C02 emissions are insignificant.

It's just that the video is not discussing the greenhouse effect! It's discussing the Thermal Mass of water, which according to my guess is a completely different subject. It's what's responsible for smoothing out temperature fluctuations; It was strange to hear them talk about water's effect AT NIGHT, when there is ZERO greenhouse effect possible since the effect only occurs when there is a direct source of EM radiation. EG the sun in daytime!
Anyway, it was disheartening to say the least, to think that the video producer didn't know he was discussing Thermal Mass instead of the Greenhouse Effect. It doesn't set him up well as a source of info.

It's also possible I'm wrong. I'm no climate scientist.

[KMCopeland]

YouTube clips, used in support of almost anything but especially anything political, are a nearly dead giveaway that the poster has no earthly idea what they are talking about.

[LoveIsTruth]

If you're praying for guidance about which is which, and you're getting the impression that you should oppose measures to address it, I'd say you're getting that from the devil.

I am simply pointing out that the “measures to address it” that were proposed are false because they are based on an assumption that is at best unproven and at worst is a fraud.

You could actually turn to sources other than Brigham Young, or crackpot climate change deniers.

Interesting combination that speaks a lot about you. But more to the point: “climate change denier” is a straw man accusation and is therefore a lie. No one denies that climate is ALWAYS changing. It has done so for millions of years. What I am denying is the false claim that human produced CO2 is the driving and determining factor in global warming. That is false, because it is proven by geological record that even when CO2 levels are over 10 times what they are today you can have an ice age, a.k.a. global freezing.

So, CO2 level never was the determining driver of global temperature. In fact there are factors 50 to 100 times more potent in determining global climate than human produced CO2, including the Sun (dah!), water vapor (which constitutes about 97% of all greenhouse gasses), and clearness of the atmosphere (Google global dimming). In fact you can eliminate ALL human produce CO2 from the atmosphere (which is less than 1% of the total greenhouse gasses), and still have global warming because of the overwhelmingly dominant factors listed above. So the “solutions” proposed based on this flawed assumption are a fraud, and will not reverse climate change, but they will cause the starvation of literally millions of people, (which by the way is the true goal of the elites; Google “depopulation” and “Club of Rome” for more info), and the destruction of justice and liberty worldwide via global carbon tax fraud and the world tyranny setup to implement it.

So the point I am making is that legislation based on “human-CO2-is-causing-global-warming” fraud, is criminally insane. Why? Because every prediction made on this flawed assumption turned out to be wrong, including official Pentagon studies, computer model predictions, and Al Gore forecasting ice-free arctic this year; instead it gained over 5 million square kilometers of ice! Evidence speaks for itself: there hypothesis was patently wrong. Human-produced CO2 is NOT the determining driver of global climate change, and never was.

Forget the conspiracy theories. Forget looking for a boogey man under every bush.

That would be extremely unwise, because conspiracies have been the driving force in the world’s turmoil, devastations and corruption from the days of Cain until now. To deny this is to deny thousands of years of history, human nature, and the scriptures. So, no, I will not forget the facts, because they are eminently relevant.

Help me understand why anyone would object to wind energy. To solar energy. To any renewable energy source

I don’t object any of that. I simply point out that point of a gun is not the best way to accomplish it. Free Market, i.e. JUSTICE and private property rights, must decide what people will and will not do. To deny that is to deny self-ownership, private property, Liberty and Justice itself.

that 1) provides jobs that can't be outsourced and 2) reduces our dependence on the oil cartels and 3) puts the brakes on the horrific health costs and environmental damage Big Coal and Big Oil are responsible for.

Big Oil is protected in its pollution by the aggressive violence of the state. That immunity must be removed, because no one should have a right to pollute the property of his neighbor.

Do you not see that the people who stand to lose if less filthy, less domestically and diplomatically destructive industries are encouraged

Encouraged at the point of a gun? Remove government, tax based subsidies from energy industry, and Free Market, i.e. Justice, will decide which energy source gets developed.

This is so easy. It's so, so easy.

I agree. Remove aggressive violence of the state, and let people decide what to do with their own property. This is the only thing that is just. It is so easy! So, so easy!

If you can just let down your guard against big bad liberals like me,

The only thing I am against is the use of aggressive violence, which is a violation of private property, which is a violation of justice and liberty. I am against aggressive violence being used to dictate policy. I believe that VOLUNTARY associations among people are superior to those achieved at the point of a gun. By definition, only VOLUNTARY associations among people are just. Aggressive violence is unjust by definition, and is the definition of evil and injustice.

So, I am against evil and injustice. That is my only point. In other words, I am for Justice and Liberty, which is self-ownership and private property.

If I let the guard down against aggressive violence that you unknowingly advocate, I would let the guard down against evil and injustice, which is the definition of unwise. So, thank you, but no thank you.

and whoever you're suspicious of who's in favor of addressing climate change immediately,

Address to your heart content, but not by putting a gun to the head of every one who disagrees with you, because ANY earthly law is a threat of lethal violence if you resist it enough. Let voluntary interactions among people, i.e. Free Market, which is an expression of justice and self-ownership, address any and all problems that face humanity. Only that is Just.

before it's too late, maybe you could see just how destructive your opposition, to something so good, is.

Aggressive violence that you unknowingly advocate is not good. In fact, it is the very definition of evil. Learn the difference. It is important.

[LoveIsTruth]

I don't know if this has been discussed, because I only skimmed the thread: but I'm afraid I think the video in the OP is garbage. Not necessarily that they are wrong about percentages, or even their final conclusions that our C02 emissions are insignificant.

It's just that the video is not discussing the greenhouse effect! It's discussing the Thermal Mass of water, which according to my guess is a completely different subject. It's what's responsible for smoothing out temperature fluctuations; It was strange to hear them talk about water's effect AT NIGHT, when there is ZERO greenhouse effect possible since the effect only occurs when there is a direct source of EM radiation. EG the sun in daytime!
Anyway, it was disheartening to say the least, to think that the video producer didn't know he was discussing Thermal Mass instead of the Greenhouse Effect. It doesn't set him up well as a source of info.

It's also possible I'm wrong. I'm no climate scientist.

You are wrong. Green house effect works also at knight, because infrared (heat) radiation is prevented from leaving the planet even at night. So the video was spot on, on that point and many others.

[LoveIsTruth]

YouTube clips, used in support of almost anything but especially anything political, are a nearly dead giveaway that the poster has no earthly idea what they are talking about.

That is the dumbest thing I ever heard. What is YouTube? A repository of video. What you are saying is that if video is used to support any idea, it is probably false. That is asinine!

[braingrunt]

I don't know if this has been discussed, because I only skimmed the thread: but I'm afraid I think the video in the OP is garbage. Not necessarily that they are wrong about percentages, or even their final conclusions that our C02 emissions are insignificant.

It's just that the video is not discussing the greenhouse effect! It's discussing the Thermal Mass of water, which according to my guess is a completely different subject. It's what's responsible for smoothing out temperature fluctuations; It was strange to hear them talk about water's effect AT NIGHT, when there is ZERO greenhouse effect possible since the effect only occurs when there is a direct source of EM radiation. EG the sun in daytime!
Anyway, it was disheartening to say the least, to think that the video producer didn't know he was discussing Thermal Mass instead of the Greenhouse Effect. It doesn't set him up well as a source of info.

It's also possible I'm wrong. I'm no climate scientist.

You are wrong. Green house effect works also at knight, because infrared (heat) radiation is prevented from leaving the planet even at night. So the video was spot on, on that point and many others.

Good point. Head slap! I still think some thermal mass effects might muddying the waters and I wish he would have cleared the waters by discussing the contributions both ways. My guess is the thermal mass effect is far more responsible for the temperatures he was discussing, than greenhouse effect. But once again, I'm no climate scientist, and am not afraid to be corrected and admit error.

[KMCopeland]

I am simply pointing out that the “measures to address it” that were proposed are false because they are based on an assumption that is at best unproven and at worst is a fraud.

I don't understand how renewable energy sources are false, or based on false assumptions.

No one denies that climate is ALWAYS changing. It has done so for millions of years.

We could say global warming if you prefer.

What I am denying is the false claim that human produced CO2 is the driving and determining factor in global warming. That is false, because it is proven by geological record that even when CO2 levels are over 10 times what they are today you can have an ice age, a.k.a. global freezing.

I don't understand why it matters so much whether it's Co2 or not.

So the “solutions” proposed based on this flawed assumption are a fraud, and will not reverse climate change, but they will cause the starvation of literally millions of people, (which by the way is the true goal of the elites; Google “depopulation” and “Club of Rome” for more info), and the destruction of justice and liberty worldwide via global carbon tax fraud and the world tyranny setup to implement it.

I googled them. It's going to take a couple hours' reading to get a handle them both. But I promise I will.

Help me understand why anyone would object to wind energy. To solar energy. To any renewable energy source

I don’t object any of that. I simply point out that point of a gun is not the best way to accomplish it. Free Market, i.e. JUSTICE and private property rights, must decide what people will and will not do. To deny that is to deny self-ownership, private property, Liberty and Justice itself.

"At the point of a gun" sounds like an overreaction to me. Call me crazy. You'll have lots of company, at least on this board.

that 1) provides jobs that can't be outsourced and 2) reduces our dependence on the oil cartels and 3) puts the brakes on the horrific health costs and environmental damage Big Coal and Big Oil are responsible for.

Big Oil is protected in its pollution by the aggressive violence of the state. That immunity must be removed, because no one should have a right to pollute the property of his neighbor.

Actually it's protected by an outrageous amount of taxpayer money and congressional influence. Which we should all be furious about. But "the aggressive violence of the state?" I don't understand that.

Remove government, tax based subsidies from energy industry, and Free Market, i.e. Justice, will decide which energy source gets developed.

We should remove the subsidies. The Free Market however, is not exactly a synonym for justice. It's a moot point however. We've never had a truly free market, and I doubt that we ever will.

This is so easy. It's so, so easy.

I agree. Remove aggressive violence of the state, and let people decide what to do with their own property. This is the only thing that is just.

Again, that "aggressive violence of the state." How does that prevent people from deciding what to do with their own property?

I believe that VOLUNTARY associations among people are superior to those achieved at the point of a gun.

I believe that too. However, human beings being what they are, sometimes they do things, voluntarily, that defraud their fellow citizens of their rights. Free agency is an excellent principle. We're just not in the Millennium yet

I am for Justice and Liberty, which is self-ownership and private property.

I have to disagree. I am for Justice and Liberty too. I'm just pretty sure they are not the same thing as self-ownership and private property.

ANY earthly law is a threat of lethal violence if you resist it enough.

If you're talking about police who feel free to shoot you if you don't obey them, I suppose you have a point. I'm just not real sure that's what you're talking about.

Let voluntary interactions among people, i.e. Free Market, which is an expression of justice and self-ownership, address any and all problems that face humanity. Only that is Just.

That can be very unjust. People can voluntarily commandeer your house and propety. Somewhere along the line, in this mortal dispensation, now and then you need someone to enforce the often not exactly voluntary, but necessary to protect your rights, law.

[WarMonger]

I have argued/discussed climate change on LinkedIn on various environmental & geological forums. I even have a bet going ( June 2013) with a warmest (phD student) that within 5 years the arctic ice will be back to pre 1980 levels (last outpost of the warmists). I predicted a mini ice age starting in 2014. Solar activity is very low especial sun spots - NASA has finally agreed that solar output (observed sun spot activity) caused the mini ice age during the dark ages.

What did the warmest predict from Jan 2014 90% chance of El Nino conditions that will substantially warm the planet - this was predicted by US, NASA European weather guys and Australians.

http://www.rtcc.org/2014/06/16/el-nino- ... year-ever/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
El Niño means 2014 could be hottest year ever
http://www.rtcc.org/2014/06/16/el-nino- ... year-ever/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Reality Chance is now 50% of a very mild El Nino and dropping. I can all the experts be 90% certain now the reverse is happening 6 months later - do they even understand the climate - and how do the models match up -failed to predict 18 years hiatus in global warming and antarctic ice has reached all time records which all the models predicted a decrease.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/tracker/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Get the facts from an ex NASA scientist - and still does contract work for them Dr. Roy Spencer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[WarMonger]

Yes it is all due to solar output and moisture vapor and cloud cover gives negative feed back but the warmists climate models do the opposite.

By the way all parties in the discussion agree that volcanic activity causes cooling (despite volcanisim being one of the major CO2 emitters) - earthquakes and volcanoes going ballistic in 2014 - that was part of my bet - lower sunspot activity is usually associated with earthquakes and volcanism!!!

[wompus]

I think all the hot air from Obama and liberals are causing most of global warming.

[WarMonger]

I think all the hot air from Obama and liberals are causing most of global warming.

LOL VERY TRUE: :ymapplause: :ymapplause:

Earth atmospheres is currently close to 450ppm CO2 or 0.04% well above what was predicted and climate is still cooling.
Humans exhale 40,000ppm CO2 so we need to tell all those liberals, Obama types to stop breathing they are polluting the atmosphere - they claim CO2 is a pollutant.

[LoveIsTruth]

Actually it's protected by an outrageous amount of taxpayer money and congressional influence. Which we should all be furious about. But "the aggressive violence of the state?" I don't understand that. …
Again, that "aggressive violence of the state." How does that prevent people from deciding what to do with their own property?

Good and important question. This is key.

Violence is the use of force contrary to one’s wishes. Violence can be aggressive or defensive. They are the opposites of each other. Aggressive violence is defined as violation of private property. It is always wrong. It is always unjust. It is always immoral. Because it violates self-ownership of individuals, private property being a logical and natural extension of such self-ownership.

Justice is defined as non-violation of private property, with the implied right to use equal and opposite force to offset one’s aggression against private property of another. Such force is called defensive violence and is justified, because it is calculated to neutralize and offset the aggression.

Liberty is defined as the right to use your own property in any way you please, as long as you do not violate the property of another.
Both Justice and liberty are completely meaningless and do not exist without private property. In fact, justice and liberty are the attributes that define private property. For more information see The Fundamental Principles of Liberty.

Aggressive violence is the definition of evil and injustice, and is the opposite of Justice and Liberty. For more information also see The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).

Aggressive violence is the INITIATION of force against the property of another, and it is always wrong.

Taxation of private property by the people who do not own it, is the definition of theft, because it is a violation of private property, and therefore a violation of both justice and liberty, as well as of self-ownership of individual.

Because aggressive violence is a violation of private property, it (in your own words) “prevent people from deciding what to do with their own property” by definition. Again, aggressive violence is the definition of evil and injustice itself. Neither good, evil, justice, injustice, aggression, defense, liberty, nor any other concept of human morality has any meaning without self-ownership and consequently private property of individual (which is the natural extension of self-ownership).

In fact, the war in heaven was fought over self-ownership and private property of individuals. This self-ownership is also known as agency or free will. The Non-aggression principle originates from God, and predates the universe. It is the definition of justice. And private property is the definition of good. Violation of private property is the definition of evil and injustice.

The Free Market however, is not exactly a synonym for justice.

Free Market, i.e. the right to transact with your own property as you will as long as you do not violate the property of another is and expression of Justice and Liberty. Liberty being defined as the right to do with your own property what you will as long as you do not violate the property of another. And justice being a subset of Liberty, because justice is defined as non-violation of private property.
So as you can see, Free Market is simply the manifestation of Justice and Liberty in the realm of economics and production. And violation of Free Market is a violation of Justice and Liberty because it is a violation of private property and, by extension, of self-ownership of individuals. Thus, violation of Free Market is evil and unjust.

I have to disagree. I am for Justice and Liberty too. I'm just pretty sure they are not the same thing as self-ownership and private property.

Please define then what Justice and Liberty are. It is IMPOSSIBLE to define them outside of the concepts of self-ownership and private property. Go ahead. Try.

“ANY earthly law is a threat of lethal violence if you resist it enough.”
If you're talking about police who feel free to shoot you if you don't obey them, I suppose you have a point. I'm just not real sure that's what you're talking about.

That’s right. Any government law, however minor, is ultimately a threat of lethal violence if you resist it enough. Therefore it is WICKEDNESS to put ANYTHING into law except the principles of Justice, i.e. the principles of self-ownership and private property. These are the natural laws, and come from God, and cannot be either made or unmade by the politicians, any more than they can abolish the laws of gravity, of electricity or of mechanics, or of math.

“Let voluntary interactions among people, i.e. Free Market, which is an expression of justice and self-ownership, address any and all problems that face humanity. Only that is Just.”
That can be very unjust. People can voluntarily commandeer your house and property. Somewhere along the line, in this mortal dispensation, now and then you need someone to enforce the often not exactly voluntary, but necessary to protect your rights, law.

There is no contradiction between voluntary society and justice. In fact, they are one and the same. If you voluntarily use aggressive violence against your neighbor then the interaction between you is no longer voluntary. Do you get that?

Voluntary, with free consent, means by definition free from aggressive force or fraud. And yes, Defensive violence is perfectly justified to offset/neutralize aggression. So the principle is perfectly sound and harmonious within itself.

[LoveIsTruth]

Yes it is all due to solar output and moisture vapor and cloud cover gives negative feed back but the warmists climate models do the opposite.

By the way all parties in the discussion agree that volcanic activity causes cooling (despite volcanisim being one of the major CO2 emitters) - earthquakes and volcanoes going ballistic in 2014 - that was part of my bet - lower sunspot activity is usually associated with earthquakes and volcanism!!!

Thank you for posting. Good points!

[LoveIsTruth]

Fishy Global WarmingBy Dr. Tim Ball
Dr. Tim Ball.com
September 26, 2014


Free speech is essential to freedom, but with it comes a level of personal responsibility. Supposedly, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes recognized this in his observations about shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre. People assume this meant you can’t do it, but his original comment included the critical word, “falsely”. In the US, your right to shout fire is part of free speech, but Holmes argued that you couldn’t shout fire, if it is false. The trouble is, who decides it is false and once it is said, the damage is done. The question then becomes accountability. Both the need for personal responsibility in confirming there is a fire, and being held accountable, when it is determined there was no fire, and you did not check with a modicum of due diligence. What if you shout fire in a supposedly crowded world?

Who holds the person accountable and how is it done? Lack of accountability is of great public concern. It was an issue raised by engineer Pierre Latour at the recent Heartland Climate Conference. It involved a debate over the difference of opinion between engineers and theoretical physicists using physics in the science of CO2. He said engineers have to belong to a professional organization in order to practice and are legally and professionally liable for their work, unlike many others using physics, including climate scientists.

Only the US makes free speech number one in their Constitution. Some deride the fact that the Founding Fathers made the right to bear arms the second guarantee, to defend the first guarantee. However, it recognized the reality that the greatest threat to the people was their own government. This threat also applies to those who seek total government control through any form of totalitarianism. H L Mencken said decades ago,

• “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

Change the word “humanity” to “planet” and it is equally true today about exploitation of environmentalism for a political agenda.Vaclav Klaus, in his prescient book Blue Planet in Green Shackles wrote,

• “Environmentalism is a political movement that originally began with the intent to protect the environment – a humble and perhaps even legitimate goal – but which has gradually transformed itself into an ideology that has almost nothing to do with nature.This ideological stream has recently become a dominant alternative to those ideologies that are consistently and primarily oriented towards freedom. Environmentalism is a movement that intends to change the world radically regardless of the consequences (at the cost of human lives and severe restrictions on individual freedom). It intends to change humankind, human behavior, the structure of society, the system of values – simply everything.”

These are the same criticism Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, made when he left that organization.

Some refer to people who use environmentalism as a cloak for political activities as watermelons. James Delingpole explains the situation in detail in his book Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors. The damage done by their false claims are virtually incalculable. Paul Driessen was among the first to identify the damage in his Eco-Imperialism. Beyond that, there is the frustration that nobody is ever held accountable.

In advance of the September Climate Conference in New York, the UN, through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), is distributing world wide a series of short videos that are tantamount to shouting “fire”, in what they say is a crowded theater. The first one is a forecast for 2050, full of extreme events including floods, droughts, heat waves and even an indirect threat, by cynically claiming one benefit to the warming, will be easy transit through Arctic waters. They base their position and claims on the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is not just that many scientists disagree, but all IPCC predictions (projections) are wrong to date and the IPCC was created by the WMO. In addition, they use UN money, mostly contributed by developed nations, in their effort to make them pay for causing the problem. But who decided they caused the problem? They did, using scientific methods that are clearly wrong because the predictions are wrong. It is a classic circular argument.

There are leading environmentalists in every country who practice political abuse of environmentalism, as Klaus defined it. These individuals and their organizations have done great social and economic damage with environmental misinformation and false claims, for a political agenda of total government control under the guise of saving the planet. They are effectively a green fifth-column, the enemy within. Sadly, their exploitation and misuse of environmentalism is putting the entire paradigm in jeopardy, as people stop believing anything they’re told. Something about crying wolf.

Most of the organizations, despite a tax exemption that requires them to be apolitical, are used for political objectives. Trying to determine who and what is political is virtually impossible and fully open to abuse by the user and the government making the determination, as the recent IRS scandals in the US have demonstrated. What happens is, taxpayers end up funding organizations with which they completely disagree and those organizations use the money to attack and even eliminate them. The illogic of forcing a taxpayer to pay for a gun that another person uses to shoot them, is obvious.
...

Damage to reputation, financial loss, emotional stress, all those things a court considers damage due to wrongful actions, were suffered by people in various situations. What is even more galling is that their taxes, either directly or through increased taxation to offset these tax-exempt organizations not paying, are used.

The Suzuki Foundation is entitled to its view, and the freedom to express it, but there is a social responsibility that they appear to abrogate. Celebrities and mainstream media, duped by the PR, or a willingness to ignore facts and evidence, support him in this abrogation. Witness the use of Leonardo DiCaprio by the UN Secretary General to promote the New York Climate Conference. The cynicism of the appointment is underscored by his title of Messenger of Peace. Global warming has nothing to do with peace, but they couldn’t connect him with science. No more than the Nobel Committee could connect the IPCC and Al Gore with science, so they got Peace Prize. If the UN climate conference requires a Peace Ambassador and the Nobel Peace Prize is about climate science, it means they have declared war on global warming. This makes the observation of Greek philosopher, Aeschylus, “In war truth is the first casualty.”

It is one matter to get the science wrong, for which there is a scientific culpability. However, when you use bad or deliberately false science to direct public policy, there is a social responsibility for which there should be total accountability. A simple definition of science is the ability to predict. The UN meeting is based on the predictions of the IPCC that were so wrong from the start that they started calling them projections, but even those were wrong. It doesn’t require an understanding of science to know that their predictions (projections) failed, which raises the question, how much “due diligence” did DiCaprio apply in his desire to bring peace? He has the freedom to speak, but as Oliver Wendell Holmes said it must not be a falsity, otherwise there is liability.

Reprinted with the permission from Dr. Tim Ball.


Read more here.

[LoveIsTruth]

In 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned 'with virtual certainty' that high levels of CO2 (carbon dioxide) would cause global crop failures and widespread starvation unless governments were given the power to limit CO2 output from industry. [CO2 levels did increase as predicted but, instead of causing famine, worldwide crop production broke its highest record. CO2 has created a greening effect over the globe, resulting in more robust plants and more food.] CNS News 2015 Jan 6 (Cached)


From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LoveIsTruth]

Al Gore, wrong again – Polar ice continues to thrive
Rolf E. Westgard / January 13, 2015


The South Pole, Antarctic ice coverage is at the highest extent since radar measurement began 35 years ago.



Science is defined as the power to accurately predict future based on current facts.
Human made global warming crowd has been dramatically, grotesquely wrong in practically every prediction they've made, including this one about polar ice.

To base "public policy" on "science" such as this is criminally insane!