New interview with Patrick Moore

[John Pretorius]

It's not easy being a global warming sceptic. Even friends and family sometimes give me that look that indulges me as an eccentric but harmless old man when I express any opinion on the subject. One of my favourite arguments to support my view has always been to refer to Patrick Moore one of the founders of GreenPeace who broke with the movement many years ago. He sent out a Tweet last week about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New Deal. Here he defends that Tweet:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/10/significant-interview-with-patrick-moore-on-breitbart-merits-a-listen-and-more-exposure/

John R Pretorius

[Erik Peers]

The responses I receive from otherwise intelligent people are amazing. For instance "Chicago had the coldest winter in recorded history. This proves global warming."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Mark Heaton]

Eric, the logic requires a deeper understanding … not all of which I claim to have … however my non-scientific understanding goes along these lines …

 

The average temperature of the oceans has increased in the tropics … which results in a change to the pattern of the Gulfstream winds.

 

The change in the Gulfstream creates this concept of the “Polar Vortex” which (in my limited understanding) “sucks” in freezing arctic air as a result of the Gulfstream having moved further South.

 

So there is an alleged causal link between higher ocean temperatures and freezing temperatures over Chicago (and elsewhere). I don’t think the logic is to be ridiculed. What is not certain as part of this argument is whether there is any human causal link in the rising of ocean temperatures.

 

Mark

[Erik Peers]

Thanks for the info. However following that logic the increase in the volume of ice at the polar caps is also a result of global warming. Except if one looks at the photo of the polar bear on a melting ice floe then the melting of the polar caps is a result of global warming.

[Mark Heaton]

No, that does not follow.

 

Arctic air is “sucked” down to Chicago latitudes by the Venturi effect caused by a change in the Gulfstream winds.

 

Arctic air is upper atmospheric freezing air that is being relocated to places it does not normally occur … like in the lower atmosphere above Chicago.

 

The changing amount of arctic ice appears to be seasonal – some years it is much more than others. Many people show pictures back to 2014 of the significant increase in Polar Ice during the preceding period and use that as conclusive evidence that meltic arctic ice is hogwash.. That same situation does not hold fast for this year, or last year (in my understanding) where the “North West Passage” is practically ice free.

[Jaco Strauss]

The polar vortex has been around long before the internal combustion engine.

Bottom line, the Climate Change alarmists would use ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to implicate a negative anthropogenic impact on weather patterns. The best is that they do not even know whether it is getting warmer or colder, hence the change from "Global Warming" to the weasel term "Climate Change". Climates Change from hour to hour and day to day, so what a great thing to tax.

And then they have not even been able to illustrate how whatever change is supposed to be taking place is necessarily a bad thing. As Andrew Kenny has pointed out in this forum before, the greening effect of Carbon emissions is a very positive thing.

The alarmist nonsense of 12 years to Doomsday is as funny as it is ludicrous. Great to see all these conspiracy theories and doomsday preppers on the Left for a change though ;-) Remember how the same UN that is now predicting the End is coming in 12 years, gave us 10 years back in 1989.... 

I suppose in a roundabout way, that means that even the Climate Hoax alarmists are acknowledging that things are getting better??

J

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

My take is that (almost) everyone, AGW junkies and denialists alike, have fallen for the meme that global warming is (or would be if it were real) a bad thing.

When people ask where I stand on global warming, I say I'm for it.

When they ask where I stand on climate change, I say it's always happened and will always happen, and of the two directions, I prefer warming.

When they ask if I think it's (anthropogenic) man-made, I say I have no idea which "it" is (warming or cooling), and if "we" make a difference, we should cause all the warming we can.

I have yet to come across compelling reasons for being anti-warming, seriously or at all.

Ocean levels rising, for instance ... well so what. Build dykes like Holland, have more cities like Venice, and have more deep water ports. Over so many years, no one will notice the change.

More "extreme" weather? As Pinker points out, damage caused by natural disasters has plummeted. Even if there is more extreme weather, which is unlikely, it'll make close to zero difference.

Warmer means more evaporation, more precipitation, and a more verdant planet. I'm for that.

Why are greens against a greenhouse? They never tell us. They should be called "greys" or "browns".

It makes no sense for me to stress about a future change that's smaller than the current difference between Johannesburg and Pretoria, or Pietermaritzburg and Durban. I don't see people in the latter two fleeing the the former two to escape the ravages of a warmer climate.

The debate itself bores me. It's, as Shakespeare might have said, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

,

Leon Louw

work:          +27-11-884-0270

mobile:       +27-84-618-0348

www.freemarketfoundation.com

#leonmlouw

[Mark Heaton]

Jaco, “climate” does not change “from hour to hour”.

 

The definition of “climate” is … “the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity,precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.”

 

Therefore a change in climate would be a movement away from the average over a period of time. People are not concerned about daily or hourly fluctuations, it is the long-term and consistent movement away from the mean that is the problem.

[Jaco Strauss]

And yet the alarmists have no idea in which way it is supposedly "changing"... 

As Leon (and Andrew Kenny before) pointed out - even if it were true, greening, and therefore warming, would be better. 

The alarmists should therefore be campaigning for tax CREDITS on carbon emissions, rather than taxing it while bemoaning cow farts and the End of the World literally being nigh! 

Jaco

Sent from phone

[Erik Peers]

There is a confusion between weather, which does change day to day, and climate, which by definition, does not.

The first casualty in propaganda is the meaning of words.

[Stephen vJ]

Normally I would not raise an opinion on something outside my field of expertise, but I think there is one huge, glaring piece of evidence suggesting that the whole climate change hoo-hah is a fear-mongering hoax intent on power grabbing, and that is the fact that these studies almost all omit the number one biggest factor in climate - that enormous ball of F-ING HUGE AND CONSTANT NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN THE SKY.

The sun goes through very predictable 11 year cycles and those cycles are BY FAR the biggest influence on climate (sometimes weather too, often sleep patterns even), so if your model does not adjust for solar cycles, then it must be bullshit... and practically all of them do. Incidentally, we can suck our craft kale ale through all the paper straws we like, it’s unlikely that the sun will notice - that is not an opinion and should not need to be open to informed debate, right ?

The top of the solar maximum in that 11 year cycle has been declining over the last few cycles and the current solar minimum has been on of the lowest in a very long time. How that influences climate is very interesting and sometimes counter-intuitive. If these greenies reported on that, then maybe they would have some shred of credibility, but they don’t and that, as far as I can tell, is the difference between meteorologists and climatologists i.e. if your profession refuses to recognize your clap-trap, just start a new profession under a fresh label. Like, when sociologists don’t like your cherry-picking, just re-brand to gender studies.

And if you can make it sound scary, especially if you can make some policy recommendation to get politicians involved, then you’ll get plenty of funding. Beware the Gluten, the Patriarchy, the Meat, the Plastic... it’s all scare-mongering and power grabbing. Who cares about truth ? When someone omits something that obvious, starts a whole new field of study and has wide-spread support from socialists, it is very, very likely to be bullshit.

P.S. Sometimes the socialists use this in very clever ways. For example, not vaccinating your kids is really dumb. It also puts those around you at risk, so we can’t even say, well, do what you like and carry the consequences, because in this case we all suffer... so by getting people riled up against anti-vaccers, they are getting otherwise sensible people to ask for government to force people to vaccinate for the common good. I would not be surprised if the anti-vaccination movement was actually started by politicians.

Ironically, where healthcare is still private, hospitals and doctors started refusing treatment to anti-vaccers, despite the obvious loss in revenue, because of the risk to other patients and risk of liability / insurance premiums... so the market was dealing with it just fine. But explaining that to people is about as hard as explaining why plastic straws are better than paper, why eating meat is good for the animals or how nothing we do will shift the solar cycle one iota.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Jaco Strauss]

Thanks for the definition of "Climate" Mark. Now please point to any prolonged period in history or prehistory when “the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region's temperature, air pressure, humidity,precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years" has remained contant.

Sent from phone

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, 05:08 Mark Heaton, <mark....@imaginet.co.za> wrote:

[Frances Kendall]

Well you guys seem to have a lot of opinions in a field in which you are not expert. I remain an agnostic. 

Sent from my iPhone

[Jaco Strauss]

You don't need to be a chicken to know how to fry an egg.

As Stephen pointed out very convincingly, basic BS could easily be exposed by applying basic logic... 

J

Sent from phone

[Mark Heaton]

Jaco, do not try to impugn words into what I am saying. You are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. Where does the definition require it to be “constant” ? What matters is whether there is a long-term or consistent deviation from the mean. Currently it is a moving average in one direction … warmer. I read somewhere yesterday that currently, globally, there are 16 new temperature high records on the planet for every single low record per year. If this is true and not “hoax” information – does this not indicate a trend away from the mean in one direction. I am not arguing that this is permanent – and may be part of a huge 1000 year cycle or something. I am not arguing than humans are responsible. All I am pointing out is that it is happening. This current trend away from the mean is having a likely impact on arctic melting, freezing temperatures over Chicago, forest fires in California and Australia, “bleaching” or death of coral reefs, etc

 

It is perfectly acceptable to dispute whether humans are in any way responsible. I am not convinced at all that they are, and even if so, my belief is that there is diddly squat we can do about it. So the response is to adapt … build houses further away from flood plains, on stilts, stop chopping down forests which prevent mudslides, learn to grow more drought and temperature resistant crops. Taxing carbon is NOT a solution – it is a fleece the taxpayer scam.

 

But to put one’s head in the sand and deny that there is a current shift on the grounds that one doesn’t want to be an “alarmist” is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Mark Heaton]

Stephen, I am also a very strong subscriber to the argument that solar cycles play an enormous role on the climate. I am also intrigued by the recent rapid movement of magnetic north, and the decrease in the strength of the earth’s magnetic field. I wonder too what impact this has or might have in the future, on climate.

 

Mark

[Jaco Strauss]

I have responded in red below

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

Le mar. 12 mars 2019 à 09:29, Mark Heaton <mark....@imaginet.co.za> a écrit :

Jaco, do not try to impugn words into what I am saying. You are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. Where does the definition require it to be “constant” ? The definition implies a requirement for the Climate to remain constant as we are being sold a lot of baloney based on the premise that it is "Changing" and therefore per definition, NOT constant!

 

What matters is whether there is a long-term or consistent deviation from the mean. Currently it is a moving average in one direction … warmer. Please provide proof of this. The reason we saw the alarmists moving away from "Global Warming" to Climate Change resulted from the fact that the planet was NOT getting demonstrably warmer.

 

I read somewhere yesterday that currently, globally, there are 16 new temperature high records on the planet for every single low record per year. If this is true and not “hoax” information – does this not indicate a trend away from the mean in one direction. No, because where and when and how it is measured will have an impact. Measurements taken now in any built-up area, for example, is bound to be higher than those taken at the same location decades, or centuries, earlier. But even then, is it really higher now than it had been during the Roman or Medieval warm periods?  

 

I am not arguing that this is permanent – and may be part of a huge 1000 year cycle or something. I am not arguing than humans are responsible. All I am pointing out is that it is happening. What exactly is happening? This current trend away from the mean is having a likely impact on arctic melting It does not seem to happen as reported, freezing temperatures over Chicago happened before, forest fires in California and Australia this has always happened, “bleaching” or death of coral reefs, etc Role of old fashioned pollution?

 

It is perfectly acceptable to dispute whether humans are in any way responsible. I am not convinced at all that they are, and even if so, my belief is that there is diddly squat we can do about it. So the response is to adapt … build houses further away from flood plains, on stilts, stop chopping down forests which prevent mudslides, learn to grow more drought and temperature resistant crops. Taxing carbon is NOT a solution – it is a fleece the taxpayer scam. We are in agreement on this, but almost nobody on the "Climate Change / Global Warming" bandwagon has this view.

 

But to put one’s head in the sand and deny that there is a current shift on the grounds that one doesn’t want to be an “alarmist” is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. There does not seem to be any meaningful "shift on the ground" that would impact me in any meaningful way during my lifetime. Banks are still financing coastal properties and none of the doom and gloom predictions of the UN, Gore, etc have materialised. But perhaps one could use the opportunity to take advantage of higher atmospheric CO2 levels by investing in things like the UK wine industry. After all, the Romans used to produce wines there and the Domesday Book still included dozens of wine estates in the late 11th century...

[Mark Heaton]

Green (appropriately)

 

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jaco Strauss
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2019 1:03 PM
To: Libertarian SA <li...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Libsa] New interview with Patrick Moore

 

I have responded in red below

 

Regards / Groete / Salutations

 

Jaco Strauss

Le mar. 12 mars 2019 à 09:29, Mark Heaton <mark....@imaginet.co.za> a écrit :

Jaco, do not try to impugn words into what I am saying. You are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. Where does the definition require it to be “constant” ? The definition implies a requirement for the Climate to remain constant as we are being sold a lot of baloney based on the premise that it is "Changing" and therefore per definition, NOT constant! No it doesn’t. The definition is “averaged over a series of years”. The moving average will move with time – what is important to view is whether the indicators are leading the average up or down. This is simple statistics.

 

What matters is whether there is a long-term or consistent deviation from the mean. Currently it is a moving average in one direction … warmer. Please provide proof of this. The reason we saw the alarmists moving away from "Global Warming" to Climate Change resulted from the fact that the planet was NOT getting demonstrably warmer. Again I disagree … my understanding was that it was because the impact of the changing climate had different impacts in different places. More and heavier downpours of rain (not temperature) in some places, more hurricanes / cyclones, and unusually warm summers and colder snaps in winter. The concepts of “Global Warming” was misleadingly narrow in its interpretation – whereas climate change can encompass all of the effects. Like you Jaco, I am acutely aware of the left always attempting to manipulate language to suit their ends. However, this time, I think there is a justifiable reason for it.

 

I read somewhere yesterday that currently, globally, there are 16 new temperature high records on the planet for every single low record per year. If this is true and not “hoax” information – does this not indicate a trend away from the mean in one direction. No, because where and when and how it is measured will have an impact. Measurements taken now in any built-up area, for example, is bound to be higher than those taken at the same location decades, or centuries, earlier. But even then, is it really higher now than it had been during the Roman or Medieval warm periods?  I am sure (but I have no proof) that the temperatures would be for similar areas year in and year out. Didn’t Cape Town have its hottest day on record last year 45 or so degrees? It got into the 30s a couple of times while I was at Varsity, but nowhere near 40. Look at the fynbos fires the Cape has had this year and last year. Do they not seem to get worse year-on-year … or am I imagining it? You need to move away from the myopic view that every measurement that anyone does of anything is always aimed at trying to promote a hidden leftist agenda.

 

I am not arguing that this is permanent – and may be part of a huge 1000 year cycle or something. I am not arguing than humans are responsible. All I am pointing out is that it is happening. What exactly is happening? That there is a change to the overall climate and weather patterns and events.  This current trend away from the mean is having a likely impact on arctic melting It does not seem to happen as reported Except for a brief change around 2014 – the pattern is less ice in the arctic, not more. I am not sure about the Antarctic. The article I sent you about the guys who discovered plants in Greenland that had been covered by ice for 40 000 years for the first time because of the thaw, was not a fakenews as you immediately responded. It was a genuine report from a genuine research institution., freezing temperatures over Chicago happened before Yes, agreed. But look to this becoming a sustained pattern in years to come. forest fires in California and Australia this has always happened – not with as much severity and regularity … in either country, “bleaching” or death of coral reefs, etc Role of old fashioned pollution? No, increasing water temperature. The sea is not polluted around the Seychelles, but the coral is dying … and that is not the only place. Are you disputing that warmer seas cause the coral to die?

It is perfectly acceptable to dispute whether humans are in any way responsible. I am not convinced at all that they are, and even if so, my belief is that there is diddly squat we can do about it. So the response is to adapt … build houses further away from flood plains, on stilts, stop chopping down forests which prevent mudslides, learn to grow more drought and temperature resistant crops. Taxing carbon is NOT a solution – it is a fleece the taxpayer scam. We are in agreement on this, but almost nobody on the "Climate Change / Global Warming" bandwagon has this view.

 

But to put one’s head in the sand and deny that there is a current shift on the grounds that one doesn’t want to be an “alarmist” is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. There does not seem to be any meaningful "shift on the ground" that would impact me in any meaningful way during my lifetime. Banks are still financing coastal properties Not so much in Miami right now. And according to a mate of mine who lives there, getting insurance on your property is almost impossible if you are not an existing customer.and none of the doom and gloom predictions of the UN, Gore, etc have materialised. But perhaps one could use the opportunity to take advantage of higher atmospheric CO2 levels by investing in things like the UK wine industry I wouldn’t trust people that like warm beer to produce anything resembling a good Pinot Noir!. After all, the Romans used to produce wines there and the Domesday Book still included dozens of wine estates in the late 11th century...

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I think that is the most sensible approach to just about everything. It's really hard to do when the world is filled with so much crap though. One day something really bad is going to come along and nobody will listen, because we will all be skeptic, agnostic or simply deaf to the alarm bells due to being up to our necks in boys crying wolf.

S.

 

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I'm sorry, but maybe you missed my previous post, Mark, or maybe it was too long... "I read somewhere yesterday that currently, globally, there are 16 new temperature high records on the planet for every single low record per year." <- Does not contain the words "after correcting for solar cycle" and thus I can say with high degree of confidence that this statement is fresh cow dung.

This is just like when you look at GDP or Inflation figures in economics and don't see "seasonally adjusted at constant 2009 dollars" or some such correction. If this has not been done AND you do not see the cyclical fluctuation OR you do not see the inflationary effect over time, then you are looking at something very fishy. If you torture the statistics hard enough, they will confess.

For reference (note the records supposedly being broken, correspond with previous cycles at the same level as the current ones):

which comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Oh... ok, we're both reading and responding chronologically. ;-)

There is a very interesting link between the magnetic field of earth and sun-spots / solar activity. Recently I found out that the magnetic field of earth can tear open and cause aurora from below, not just trap ions and causing aurora from above. What is particularly interesting about this, is that the magnetic field cracks, which affect A-levels, often precede solar mass ejections by several hours... so the earth "knows" that the sun is about to belch, long before we see the sun spew forth gamma rays, solar winds and so on.

I'm not sure the location / direction of magnetic North makes much difference in the bigger scheme of things... well, it could screw up things for us humans a bit in that we've aligned a number of things (compasses, satellites, etc.) with a magnetic directionality which is not fixed and seems less predictable that we previously thought... but our navigation systems are not particularly important in the bigger scheme of things... and I'm saying this in the same sense as your kids and my kids, as individuals, are not important in the bigger scheme of things - of course they are of great importance to us... but we are insignificant ants in the bigger scheme of things. Back to my point, the magnitude of the magnetic field is probably much more important than it's direction.

S.

[Mark Heaton]

Stephen, the observation that there are more new highs than new lows on an annual basis does not imply any causality or statistical correlation. It is (hopefully) an empirical statement of fact.

 

Hence it does not need any correction for sunspot activity. Although it would be very interesting to know how this does correlate.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I just want to respond to this bit: "I am sure (but I have no proof) that the temperatures would be for similar areas year in and year out. Didn’t Cape Town have its hottest day on record last year 45 or so degrees? It got into the 30s a couple of times while I was at Varsity, but nowhere near 40. Look at the fynbos fires the Cape has had this year and last year. Do they not seem to get worse year-on-year … or am I imagining it?"

You are probably not imagining it - Cape Town may well be getting warmer. But how old are you ? Unless you were around in the 1940's when the previous heat record was set or in the late 1800's when the heat record before that was set, your perception is based on a very short time horizon. Things are likely to cool down again over the next 50 years... it could even cool down so much that we start seeing cold records being broken... but it would have to get really super cold to beat the early 1300's. I doubt you recall that period, since you were probably not living in Cape Town at the time - just guessing. ;-)

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

This is what I'm talking about. If someone says, hey, the sun cycles make things warm up and cool down periodically, but since we started eating turtles and stopped praying to Allah, something has gone awry in that predictable cycle. Look, they match all through history right up to the atheist-turtle-chow era and then they diverge... 

Ok. Now you've got my attention. I'm not jumping to our abandonment of religion as a root cause just yet, but you've got my attention. In the absence of this kind of analysis, I'm just going to label your assertions as BS in the exact same class as snail gel, ear candles, detox plasters, homeopathy and sugar-free diets.

S.

[Frances Kendall]

Sugar free diets BS? Lots of properly measured data on this!

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Mar 2019, at 06:00, Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is what I'm talking about. If someone says, hey, the sun cycles make things warm up and cool down periodically, but since we started eating turtles and stopped praying to Allah, something has gone awry in that predictable cycle. Look, they match all through history right up to the atheist-turtle-chow era and then they diverge... 

<image.png>

Ok. Now you've got my attention. I'm not jumping to our abandonment of religion as a root cause just yet, but you've got my attention. In the absence of this kind of analysis, I'm just going to label your assertions as BS in the exact same class as snail gel, ear candles, detox plasters, homeopathy and sugar-free diets.

S.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 21:45, Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

I just want to respond to this bit: "I am sure (but I have no proof) that the temperatures would be for similar areas year in and year out. Didn’t Cape Town have its hottest day on record last year 45 or so degrees? It got into the 30s a couple of times while I was at Varsity, but nowhere near 40. Look at the fynbos fires the Cape has had this year and last year. Do they not seem to get worse year-on-year … or am I imagining it?"

You are probably not imagining it - Cape Town may well be getting warmer. But how old are you ? Unless you were around in the 1940's when the previous heat record was set or in the late 1800's when the heat record before that was set, your perception is based on a very short time horizon. Things are likely to cool down again over the next 50 years... it could even cool down so much that we start seeing cold records being broken... but it would have to get really super cold to beat the early 1300's. I doubt you recall that period, since you were probably not living in Cape Town at the time - just guessing. ;-)

S.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 05:49, Mark Heaton <mark....@imaginet.co.za> wrote:

Green (appropriately)

 

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jaco Strauss
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2019 1:03 PM
To: Libertarian SA <li...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Libsa] New interview with Patrick Moore

 

I have responded in red below

 

Regards / Groete / Salutations

 

Jaco Strauss

 

 

Le mar. 12 mars 2019 à 09:29, Mark Heaton <mark....@imaginet.co.za> a écrit :

Jaco, do not try to impugn words into what I am saying. You are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. Where does the definition require it to be “constant” ? The definition implies a requirement for the Climate to remain constant as we are being sold a lot of baloney based on the premise that it is "Changing" and therefore per definition, NOT constant! No it doesn’t. The definition is “averaged over a series of years”. The moving average will move with time – what is important to view is whether the indicators are leading the average up or down. This is simple statistics.

 

What matters is whether there is a long-term or consistent deviation from the mean. Currently it is a moving average in one direction … warmer. Please provide proof of this. The reason we saw the alarmists moving away from "Global Warming" to Climate Change resulted from the fact that the planet was NOT getting demonstrably warmer. Again I disagree … my understanding was that it was because the impact of the changing climate had different impacts in different places. More and heavier downpours of rain (not temperature) in some places, more hurricanes / cyclones, and unusually warm summers and colder snaps in winter. The concepts of “Global Warming” was misleadingly narrow in its interpretation – whereas climate change can encompass all of the effects. Like you Jaco, I am acutely aware of the left always attempting to manipulate language to suit their ends. However, this time, I think there is a justifiable reason for it.

 

I read somewhere yesterday that currently, globally, there are 16 new temperature high records on the planet for every single low record per year. If this is true and not “hoax” information – does this not indicate a trend away from the mean in one direction. No, because where and when and how it is measured will have an impact. Measurements taken now in any built-up area, for example, is bound to be higher than those taken at the same location decades, or centuries, earlier. But even then, is it really higher now than it had been during the Roman or Medieval warm periods?  I am sure (but I have no proof) that the temperatures would be for similar areas year in and year out. Didn’t Cape Town have its hottest day on record last year 45 or so degrees? It got into the 30s a couple of times while I was at Varsity, but nowhere near 40. Look at the fynbos fires the Cape has had this year and last year. Do they not seem to get worse year-on-year … or am I imagining it? You need to move away from the myopic view that every measurement that anyone does of anything is always aimed at trying to promote a hidden leftist agenda.

 

I am not arguing that this is permanent – and may be part of a huge 1000 year cycle or something. I am not arguing than humans are responsible. All I am pointing out is that it is happening. What exactly is happening? That there is a change to the overall climate and weather patterns and events.  This current trend away from the mean is having a likely impact on arctic melting It does not seem to happen as reported Except for a brief change around 2014 – the pattern is less ice in the arctic, not more. I am not sure about the Antarctic. The article I sent you about the guys who discovered plants in Greenland that had been covered by ice for 40 000 years for the first time because of the thaw, was not a fakenews as you immediately responded. It was a genuine report from a genuine research institution., freezing temperatures over Chicago happened before Yes, agreed. But look to this becoming a sustained pattern in years to come. forest fires in California and Australia this has always happened – not with as much severity and regularity … in either country, “bleaching” or death of coral reefs, etc Role of old fashioned pollution? No, increasing water temperature. The sea is not polluted around the Seychelles, but the coral is dying … and that is not the only place. Are you disputing that warmer seas cause the coral to die?

<image001.jpg>It is perfectly acceptable to dispute whether humans are in any way responsible. I am not convinced at all that they are, and even if so, my belief is that there is diddly squat we can do about it. So the response is to adapt … build houses further away from flood plains, on stilts, stop chopping down forests which prevent mudslides, learn to grow more drought and temperature resistant crops. Taxing carbon is NOT a solution – it is a fleece the taxpayer scam. We are in agreement on this, but almost nobody on the "Climate Change / Global Warming" bandwagon has this view.

[Mark Heaton]

Damn, Stephen …

 

In the mold of a true dishonest climate alarmist, I would want to destroy this chart – as it shows a de-correlation between solar activity and temperature … which kinda disproves my hypothesis (and yours?)

 

Would be interesting to know how the Temperature chart is measured (what is it an average of).

 

Also … as we know correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. And post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

M

[Mark Heaton]

Frances, I think Stephen is being flippant and lumping my “assertions” together with other popular hoo-doo’s that he doesn’t subscribe to, but cannot disprove J

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

There are certainly a lot of people who can benefit from a reduction is sugar intake, but to completely eliminate it cannot possibly be true.

Strong indicators of BS / anti-sugar propaganda;

- It is being, has been, or is proposed to be taxed... sugar tax, carbon tax, etc... interesting how meat is not being taxed (much).

- It has a cult-like following... boy, try to have a sweet snack, drive a big car or eat a pork chop in the presence of lefty friends these days.

- Complete abstinence is being advocated... yeah, I can't just cut down my carbon footprint or eat less sugar - that is seen as a compromise rather than a solution... Total elimination ? No, that makes the alarm bells ring.

- Shaming and villification of those who don't fall for the propaganda... just look at the derogotory way in which climate change skeptics are labelled... or sugar eaters are lambasted.

- Contrary evidence is dismissed off-hand, while supporting evidence is held in high esteem despite glaring holes... so enjoyment of sugar counts for naught, for example.

... and I can carry on, but I'm getting tired now... must be a crash following a sugar high.

Of all the things I mentioned below, snail gel is actually the most likely to have some semblance of credibility.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

No, that chart was just an example which I found by means of a few seconds worth of searching Google Images - I'm pretty sure it is dubious. The chart itself is just an example of the TYPE of thing I was talking about, not actual evidence in itself. What I was trying to say is that a chart like that, which considers solar cycles, would at least have some credibility and might be worth looking at... so we can pull it apart an dissect it, as you started to do below. I'm not going to bother doing that at all with climate related charts which do not consider solar radiation, fluctuation and long term influences of space weather - those are such obvious clap-trap that I'm not even interested in any further analysis. Like Frances said, it's better to be agnostic, but even as an agnostic, some piles of cow dung just reek enough to not bother giving them any serious consideration whatsoever.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

In part, yes... I'm always a little bit flippant... which brings up an interesting point. If I were to make a list of 100 things which I am absolutely sure is nonsense, I'm sure there will be at least one person in this forum who will disagree with one or more of those items. The other way around would work too - if you make a list of 100 things which are total crap, there may well be something on that list which I think it true. And I may well be wrong i.e. the thing on your list which I believe to be true may well be crap. That is what this forum is for, in my opinion - to test ideas with other deep thinking folks and to eliminate the crap from your list of truths and truths from your list of craps.

S.

[Frances Kendall]

We may not think anything should be banned, but that doesn’t mean when an effort is made to ban something it is good for you. Unfortunately for evolutionary reasons we love sugar and it is too cheap & easy to get. It really is a health hazard.

I suggest you don’t take to smoking, junk food & sugary snacks because lefties say they are bad and some people want to ban them. Do it because you want to grow old in good health.

Sent from my iPhone

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

For me personally, simply living longer is not enough. For other people it might be, but I would much rather have a slightly shorter life, if that means it is more enjoyable, exciting and / or eventful. I would definitely not binge on sugary snacks by the bucket-load ONLY because lefties told me not to and I did give up smoking, but I also bought a motorcycle (and subsequently sold it again), often go climbing mountains where there are bears and eat the occasional donut. In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, one should grab life and live it with gusto. That means taking some risks, but they should be calculated risks... erring on the side of danger, because we all tend to be much too conservative with our own lives. So if those things cause me to shave a year or two off my life, then at least I will have motorcycled, climbed mountains, dodged bears and enjoyed some tasty snacks. I cannot imagine living to 95 and having not experienced the pleasures of living in all that time. As it stands, I can die right now and say with complete honesty that my life has been a full and enjoyable one. If I can have another 30 or 40 years like that, great... but my worst nightmare is living the large life for 40 years and then spending the next 40 just sitting around eating kale in an attempt to postpone the inevitable. No thank you - there are too many adventures out there to be precious about living. Of course I'm not going to be dumb and deliberately cut all that short, but sometimes you need to value your life a little less highly in order to properly live it. I'm sure some older folks will say that I'll feel different when my time really starts running out, but I've stared death in the face several times already and was once even dead (heart, breathing and brain activity stopped) for several minutes before being revived (thank the gods for CPR - even though the guy who saved me was inexperience and so I have a number of warped ribs to show for it)... anyway, I've been there, made my peace and uttered my last words... then got another shot at it. This time I'm having the pork chop.

S.

[Frances Kendall]

It is possible to have a fun adventurous life without habits that result in diabetes, heart disease, cancer & mental decline! 

There is a place between living on Kale and cutting out sugar. Quite a nice place!

Sent from my iPhone

[Stephen vJ]

Exactly. Moderation... but not abstinence. I’m happy to try different types of food and to cut down a bit on those that I tend to over do... but a sugar free diet ? That’s left wing propaganda and I’m not falling for it.

S.

[Frances Mary Kendall]

I’m interested that you see the sugar-free thing as left wing. All the podcasts etc I have followed have been from jocks and research docs who seem far from left wing!

Sent from my iPad

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

The best lies are the ones with some elements of truth. When I say, "hey the gods are on our side in this project, just look at how the clouds come across the Eastern horizon", that seems to have some credibility because you can look at the Eastern horizon and witness the clouds coming across them. You can even employ scientifically solid tools like a compass to make sure you are genuinely looking exactly East. How that relates to our project or bodes well for our aims may be entirely unclear, but most people say, "sure, I see your evidence, so all of what you say must be true".

So, I'm sure that some places have been getting slightly hotter lately, the acidity of rain in some US cities in the 1980's really did increase, heaps of fat definitely made some people less healthy in the 1950's and sugar possibly does really contribute to inflammation. Using those elements of truth to concoct a diabolical scheme on is really easy - it makes for a very solid foundation for your mound of crap. Carbon is really, objectively and measurably stinky, so it's just a short leap to getting all car owners to pay a carbon tax, despite there being several extremely questionable steps between the "evidence" and the policy proposal.

Why do I think anti-sugar campaign is leftist propaganda ? Well, not to repeat myself completely...

Strong indicators of BS / anti-sugar propaganda;

- It is being, has been, or is proposed to be taxed... sugar tax, carbon tax, etc... interesting how meat is not being taxed (much).

- It has a cult-like following... boy, try to have a sweet snack, drive a big car or eat a pork chop in the presence of lefty friends these days.

- Complete abstinence is being advocated... yeah, I can't just cut down my carbon footprint or eat less sugar - that is seen as a compromise rather than a solution... Total elimination ? No, that makes the alarm bells ring.

- Shaming and villification of those who don't fall for the propaganda... just look at the derogotory way in which climate change skeptics are labelled... or sugar eaters are lambasted.

- Contrary evidence is dismissed off-hand, while supporting evidence is held in high esteem despite glaring holes... so enjoyment of sugar counts for naught, for example.

... and I can carry on, but I'm getting tired now... must be a crash following a sugar high.

 

S.

[Mike Bowerman]

Globalists/leftists/governments are pro-sugar/pro-carb, and pushing a vegan/vegetarian animal-product-free diet on the world. This will come in the form of a meat tax. For example, the WHO has called meat a "class 2 carcinogen", a recent Harvard-led study (leftist anyone?) published in Lancet is arguing in favour of plant-based diets for environmental reasons (here is a critique), the Canada Food Guide has eliminated meat and dairy as a category in favour of "protein" with a 75% carb-based approach that will accelerate the obesity, diabetes, anxiety, and depression epidemics they have already caused with their high carb advice.

There are no essential carbohydrates, but there are essential fats and amino acids without which you will die. Entire populations live their whole lives with only 99.9% animal foods (Inuit, Samburu, Maasai) and historically civilizations did (the Mongols).

Moderation is completely unnecessary. You can live only on meat, and can in fact thrive on a human carnivore diet, healing conditions ranging from psoriasis to depression to arthritis to IBS and more. And the folks who do so are generally right leaning. 

If you enjoy your plants, and if you enjoy being moderate, go for it. For many people it is not optimal at all.

And in any case -- the government push to plant-based diets is going to be a catastrophe for human health. It will drive people away from nutrient dense animal products and into industrial and processed foods.

<span style="font-si

[Jaco Strauss]

I'll try Black

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

Le mar. 12 mars 2019 à 13:49, Mark Heaton <mark....@imaginet.co.za> a écrit :

Green (appropriately)

 

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jaco Strauss
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2019 1:03 PM
To: Libertarian SA <li...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Libsa] New interview with Patrick Moore

 

I have responded in red below

 

Regards / Groete / Salutations

 

Jaco Strauss

 

 

Le mar. 12 mars 2019 à 09:29, Mark Heaton <mark....@imaginet.co.za> a écrit :

Jaco, do not try to impugn words into what I am saying. You are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. Where does the definition require it to be “constant” ? The definition implies a requirement for the Climate to remain constant as we are being sold a lot of baloney based on the premise that it is "Changing" and therefore per definition, NOT constant! No it doesn’t. The definition is “averaged over a series of years”. The moving average will move with time – what is important to view is whether the indicators are leading the average up or down. This is simple statistics.Nobody seem to care about the indicators leading "up or down" anymore, it is now all about Climate "CHANGE". Hence my challenge to point to a period in history, or prehistory, when the "Climate" did not "change"...

What matters is whether there is a long-term or consistent deviation from the mean. Currently it is a moving average in one direction … warmer. Please provide proof of this. The reason we saw the alarmists moving away from "Global Warming" to Climate Change resulted from the fact that the planet was NOT getting demonstrably warmer. Again I disagree … my understanding was that it was because the impact of the changing climate had different impacts in different places.That is the merely the current pitch and has also been debunked More and heavier downpours of rain (not temperature) in some places, vague more hurricanes / cyclones, and unusually warm summers and colder snaps in winter Already debunked and Stephen also pointed this out. The concepts of “Global Warming” was misleadingly narrow in its interpretation – whereas climate change can encompass all of the effects. No doubt, making it a very handy as an unsolvable scaremongering tool Like you Jaco, I am acutely aware of the left always attempting to manipulate language to suit their ends. However, this time, I think there is a justifiable reason for it. I obviously disagree, this is merely another example and simply par for the course

 I read somewhere yesterday that currently, globally, there are 16 new temperature high records on the planet for every single low record per year. If this is true and not “hoax” information – does this not indicate a trend away from the mean in one direction. No, because where and when and how it is measured will have an impact. Measurements taken now in any built-up area, for example, is bound to be higher than those taken at the same location decades, or centuries, earlier. But even then, is it really higher now than it had been during the Roman or Medieval warm periods?  I am sure (but I have no proof) that the temperatures would be for similar areas year in and year out. Didn’t Cape Town have its hottest day on record last year 45 or so degrees? It got into the 30s a couple of times while I was at Varsity, but nowhere near 40. It is neither here, not there, but I can remember it often hitting the forties over the last half a century. At least twice during basic my basic training in Saldanha. I remember it well for we were not allowed to run on those days! I find it quite cute how people like to bring empirical anecdotes to a debate around multi millennial trends   

Look at the fynbos fires the Cape has had this year and last year. Do they not seem to get worse year-on-year … or am I imagining it? You are indeed imagining it. Two of the most recent big Western Cape wildfires were both caused by human activity, but not of the indirect emissions kind. One was a flair shot into the mountain and the other an accident in which a car caught fire. Fynbos need to burn every decade or so, Kogelberg on the Betty's Bay side has not burned for at least 20 years before this January. This is partly the result of fire fighting efforts, but inevitably that would lead to larger fires down the line - whether caused by flairs, or lightning.  

You need to move away from the myopic view that every measurement that anyone does of anything is always aimed at trying to promote a hidden leftist agenda. Yes, sometimes it could just per definition be meaningless, but still gets highlighted because of the media's confirmation bias

 

I am not arguing that this is permanent – and may be part of a huge 1000 year cycle or something. I am not arguing than humans are responsible. All I am pointing out is that it is happening. What exactly is happening? That there is a change to the overall climate and weather patterns and events.  This current trend away from the mean is having a likely impact on arctic melting It does not seem to happen as reported Except for a brief change around 2014 – the pattern is less ice in the arctic, not more. I am not sure about the Antarctic. The article I sent you about the guys who discovered plants in Greenland that had been covered by ice for 40 000 years for the first time because of the thaw, was not a fakenews as you immediately responded. It was a genuine report from a genuine research institution., freezing temperatures over Chicago happened before Yes, agreed. But look to this becoming a sustained pattern in years to come. forest fires in California and Australia this has always happened – not with as much severity and regularity … in either country, I disagree. See Jarred Diamond's Collapse for reasons why some wild fires are getting worse. Hint: humans play a role, but not through some abstract "climate change", but far more directly   “bleaching” or death of coral reefs, etc Role of old fashioned pollution? No, increasing water temperature. The sea is not polluted around the Seychelles, but the coral is dying … and that is not the only place. Are you disputing that warmer seas cause the coral to die?. Yes, I would dispute that. Bleaching is caused by a shock event that could have numerous causes, warmer (or colder) water being but one of these. It also doesn't necessarily lead to coral dying either and often the coral "heals" over time. It also important to note that this phenomena has nothing to do with Anthropogenic Climate Change either as it has been recorded as taking place over hundreds of years already

Here is a great article on https://www.thegwpf.com/coral-bleaching-goes-back-four-centuries-new-study/

 

So yes, this bleaching red herring actually serves as a great example of confirmation bias alarmism!

[Jaco Strauss]

I agree with you 100% Stephen. I don't drink sugar in my coffee, or on my cereal. BUT cutting it out completely is unthinkable. No more jelly sweets, real Coke or ice cream. Not even Dom Pedros or a Crème Brûlée!  To name but a few treats... 

Sorry, but I am also not interested to swap those treats for a few more years - even if it were to be proven 

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Jaco Strauss]

Yes, we already have "Crazy Eyes" Occasional-Cortex bemoaning "cow farts" as part of her ridiculous "Green New Deal" proposals. The scarier part is how many supposedly mainstream Dems signed up to that madness. Just goes to show how dangerous all this alarmist talk is in the real world where the crazies running the asylum would gladly deploy any additional straight jackets they can get their hands on  

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

--

[Dewald Pieterse]

Best to focus on the true intent, the intent of Agenda 21 all along:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/18/guardian-ending-climate-change-requires-the-end-of-capitalism/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/ending-climate-change-end-capitalism

--

Dewald Pieterse

Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, page 55: "A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police.".

[Erik Peers]

Mike you are exactly right.

The right is pro meat, the left pro sugar.

The correlation is so strong that it supports a case that sugar does indeed affect the brain deletariously.

--

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

You think the Right is right ? You've been eating too much meat my friend.

S.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

The left are not pro sugar.

People like sugar. The left would never condone that. 

[Erik Peers]

Vegans are pro state intervention. That's left.

PS Vegans don't eat meat.

[Jaco Strauss]

The Left are only "pro sugar" as something to tax and/or restrict and/or ban.... 

Sent from phone

[Mike Bowerman]

It is more accurate to say the Left is pro-carb and accordingly anti-meat and pro-vegan. The UN is coming out as anti-animal foods on the premise of it being 'bad' for GHG emissions (false, as pasture sequesters carbon, but that is beside the point as it is just propaganda), and they are spinning a 'health' narrative that meat and dairy are unhealthful - also false.

But the they are getting their way with food guides around the world, and after the indirect 'carbon' taxes on animal products we will likely start to see direct taxes on meat and dairy as unhealthy and bad for the environment.

Tim Noakes' case in South Africa is a classic example. Multiple lobbying sources are pushing against low-carb/keto/paleo/carnivore diets, so junk nutrition science dominates the media and popular culture.

Mike Bowerman
403.461.6079 (Calgary, AB, Canada)

skype: mjbowerman

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/libsa/NxFoWQPhWCc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Jaco Strauss]

As has been pointed out before, "the Right" doesn't really exist other than as a way to describe those who are "not Left". 

So it than logically follows that the "Right" is not delusional, moronic, libtard-level wrong and therefore per definition "right", at least in comparison. 

Sent from phone

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, 16:29 Stephen van Jaarsveldt, <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Erik Peers]

                                Left.            "Right"

Global Warming.  Alarmist.      Pragmatic

Meat.                      Against.       Pro

State Intervention Pro.              Against  

Interesting correlation between diet and political views.

[Frances Kendall]

Many things right are not pragmatic about eg building a wall, abortion etc etc

Sent from my iPhone

[Erik Peers]

Agreed. Still interesting that things that at first glance would be assumed to be independent, aren't eg diet and attitude towards government control.

[Frances Kendall]

Yes! Fascinating. And according to The Gene there are so many attitudinal things that are linked to genes, as discovered in separated twin studies. Which supports my view that we are robots - which I intend to speak about at this year’s libsem. 

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Yeah... but you seem to think that the Left is the opposite of the Right. They both like Big Government, so Left and Right are on the same side <- the dark side. I happily eat both meat and sugar... in fact, I'll put some maple syrup on top of my bacon, thank you very much.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I always find it interesting how they call taxes on sugar a "sin tax"... so obviously the biggest sins are earning an income and adding value.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Several good points Mike. It's really interesting to me how labelling things as "carbs" allowed them to lump sugars, grains, "staples", etc. into one huge pile and vilify the whole lot in one go. Sometimes you have to admire the commies and their clever use of lies to deceive people.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Uhm...

Right:

- Fanatically religious

- Homophobic

- Xenophobic

- Line dances (urgh !)

...

Ok, Jaco, calm down... I'm just being facetious. I don't have any proof for my claims. ;-)

S.

[Frances Kendall]

I love acline dance!

Sent from my iPhone

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I'm trying to offend everyone equally tonight - left, right and centre.

S.

[Jaco Strauss]

Everybody loves walls. Beto stood in enclosed by them while bemoaning them; Obama bought a new house and immediately the big walls came up, etc etc. 

How is the "right" not pragmatic here? Same with their position on late term and post birth "abortion" aka murder? Is Northam simply being pragmatic? 

Sent from phone

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, 08:06 'Frances Kendall' via LibertarianSA, <li...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

[Jaco Strauss]

Thanks for the caveat, but one should point out that the Left is far more "religious", albeit in the secular "religion" of AGW/ACC, equality (of outcome), Patriarchy, white privilege, etc, etc

Sent from phone

[Frances Kendall]

Do you have any idea how completely ridiculous this exchange is?

Sent from my iPhone

[Mark Heaton]

The devil makes work for idle hands.

[Jaco Strauss]

As opposed to?

Sent from phone

[Stephen vJ]

Walls are owned by people, whereas borders are owned by The People. It’s a subtle but important distinction not many people get, but The People clearly do.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Jaco Strauss]

Many things (the) right are not pragmatic about eg building a wall, abortion etc etc - Frances

Hard to know what Frances was getting at, but walls are probably as pragmatic as one can get!

Walls are owned by people, whereas borders are owned by The People. - Stephen   

Whatever you believe about the true owners / originators / builders of any particular wall, it doesn't mean it cannot be part of a "pragmatic" solution. 

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Mark Heaton]

To me, the right (well, the religious ones anyway) are not very pragmatic about their belief in an all-powerful imaginary fairy in the sky.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Yeah... but if darkness is what you want, then Eskom is a pragmatic solution.

S.

[Jaco Strauss]

Unlike the Left's "belief in an all-powerful imaginary fairy" in government?

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Jaco Strauss]

Precisely. That is why walls are pragmatic wherever you want the lights to remain on.  

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Mark Heaton]

It is unlike the Left’s belief in government ...

 

1.       Sadly, government is not “imaginary”, however much their ability to solve problems and provide services might be.

2.       Government, despite being very powerful (in a coercive sense) cannot create planets and stars in 6 days, nor can it resurrect people from the dead … although we have local prophets that seems to have usurped this ability of late J

 

I could go on …

[Jaco Strauss]

Government, civil servants and their buildings - as an INSTITUTION - is "real" in the same way Religion, clergy and their churches - as an INSTITUTION - is demonstrably "real". In both cases, acceptance of what they preach requires blind faith....  

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[jimgee1000]

Hey Jaco. Long time. Hope you are well.

'In both cases, acceptance of what they preach requires blind faith.... '

To me, the difference is this.... only one 'requires' blind faith... or else! (where the real threat of violence exists institutionally)

Jim

...

[Jaco Strauss]

Very good point!

Thanks Jim

Sent from phone

--

[Erik Peers]

Jim, the Or else is explicit in both systems. Physical re the state, yet mild compared to eternal damnation preceded by a life of guilt.

As a Catholic schoolboy I would have traded a weekly beating for being allowed to masturbate guilt free.

[Mark Heaton]

Jim …. Tell that to the victims of the Spanish Inquisition J

[jimgee1000]

Erik,

If the threat of violence is explicit, on the part of any religious institution, in the West, that institution - or rather those actors representing it - is breaking the law.

This has been the case since the Separation of Church and State. It's why there was a separation of Church and State.

The Church was stripped of legal impunity from initiating force.

Still to this day, I know of no exception to this, unless you classify Psychiatry as a religion.... which I suppose one could do but only in the broadest sense of the word religion i.e. a set of beliefs. Psychiatry is the exception because you can be deprived of liberty, force-drugged and/or electrically tortured specifically because your views about the world are not popular (noticeably if those ideas portray the religion, Psychiatry, in a critical light)

As for references to poor parenting, the situation, legally, is very different when talking about adults, compared to minors. Children, as a legal category, are an exception. That's why I think, when talking about principle and law involving private property and self-ownership, it is better to use examples involving adults, not children. 

Jim

...

[jimgee1000]

Hi Mark,

The victims of the Spanish Inquisition would be very happy to learn that the clergy lost the legal freedom to initiate force, if they didn't already know about the Separation of Church and State.

That is the good news.

The bad news is that authoritarians rather than simply going away, instead substituted a medical garb for the exposed religious garb, in order to continue their spree of crimes against humanity.

Jim

...

[Mark Heaton]

Jim – agree completely.

 

However, this conversation is deviating from the point I initially was trying to make … which was that Jaco raised the point that those on the “right” .. (a term I use loosely as an aspirant libertarian) were more pragmatic on many issues than the “left”. I was pointing out that for people who subscribed to logical and analytical interpretations of situations, the religious right show a serious deviation when it comes to their devotion to an imaginary fairy that guides and dictates every part of every day. I am of course a hardcore atheist and cannot understand why practical or pragmatic people can subscribe to this fantasy.

 

So – while “yes” – I agree that the belief in the ability of the fairy to deliver miracles is as impossible as it is for the state to deliver “milk and honey, world peace, freedom and prosperity, etc”, the existence of “the state” is not questionable … we unfortunately have one in every country. However, there is absolutely no pragmatic evidence of the existence of the imaginary fair(ies) to which millions surrender their locus of control. This is what I find hard to reconcile.

 

M

--

[Erik Peers]

You missed my point. Non physical threats matter. Hell is a real threat to believers.

PS re physical threats, although the law has changed in SA, we were physically threatened at school. This creates a culture of religious obedience into adulthood.

In other cultures physical force is still used to impose religious laws. Religion and the state are two sides of the same coin.

--

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Stephen

Because libertarians tend to be economic rather than civil libertarians, most feel more distanced from the "left" and easily feel affinity with the "right".

That gets them very confused, and they end up defending obnoxious "right wing" stuff. 

Humans are hardwired to be binary. That makes it almost impossible to think in terms of a triangle with liberty being the 3rd corner. Or the Nolan Chart. 

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, 08:35 Stephen van Jaarsveldt, <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah... but you seem to think that the Left is the opposite of the Right. They both like Big Government, so Left and Right are on the same side <- the dark side. I happily eat both meat and sugar... in fact, I'll put some maple syrup on top of my bacon, thank you very much.

S.

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 09:11, Erik Peers <erik...@gmail.com> wrote:

Vegans are pro state intervention. That's left.

PS Vegans don't eat meat.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 05:49, Mark Heaton <mark....@imaginet.co.za> wrote:

Green (appropriately)

 

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jaco Strauss
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2019 1:03 PM
To: Libertarian SA <li...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Libsa] New interview with Patrick Moore

 

I have responded in red below

 

Regards / Groete / Salutations

 

Jaco Strauss

 

 

Le mar. 12 mars 2019 à 09:29, Mark Heaton <mark....@imaginet.co.za> a écrit :

Jaco, do not try to impugn words into what I am saying. You are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. Where does the definition require it to be “constant” ? The definition implies a requirement for the Climate to remain constant as we are being sold a lot of baloney based on the premise that it is "Changing" and therefore per definition, NOT constant! No it doesn’t. The definition is “averaged over a series of years”. The moving average will move with time – what is important to view is whether the indicators are leading the average up or down. This is simple statistics.

 

What matters is whether there is a long-term or consistent deviation from the mean. Currently it is a moving average in one direction … warmer. Please provide proof of this. The reason we saw the alarmists moving away from "Global Warming" to Climate Change resulted from the fact that the planet was NOT getting demonstrably warmer. Again I disagree … my understanding was that it was because the impact of the changing climate had different impacts in different places. More and heavier downpours of rain (not temperature) in some places, more hurricanes / cyclones, and unusually warm summers and colder snaps in winter. The concepts of “Global Warming” was misleadingly narrow in its interpretation – whereas climate change can encompass all of the effects. Like you Jaco, I am acutely aware of the left always attempting to manipulate language to suit their ends. However, this time, I think there is a justifiable reason for it.

 

I read somewhere yesterday that currently, globally, there are 16 new temperature high records on the planet for every single low record per year. If this is true and not “hoax” information – does this not indicate a trend away from the mean in one direction. No, because where and when and how it is measured will have an impact. Measurements taken now in any built-up area, for example, is bound to be higher than those taken at the same location decades, or centuries, earlier. But even then, is it really higher now than it had been during the Roman or Medieval warm periods?  I am sure (but I have no proof) that the temperatures would be for similar areas year in and year out. Didn’t Cape Town have its hottest day on record last year 45 or so degrees? It got into the 30s a couple of times while I was at Varsity, but nowhere near 40. Look at the fynbos fires the Cape has had this year and last year. Do they not seem to get worse year-on-year … or am I imagining it? You need to move away from the myopic view that every measurement that anyone does of anything is always aimed at trying to promote a hidden leftist agenda.

 

I am not arguing that this is permanent – and may be part of a huge 1000 year cycle or something. I am not arguing than humans are responsible. All I am pointing out is that it is happening. What exactly is happening? That there is a change to the overall climate and weather patterns and events.  This current trend away from the mean is having a likely impact on arctic melting It does not seem to happen as reported Except for a brief change around 2014 – the pattern is less ice in the arctic, not more. I am not sure about the Antarctic. The article I sent you about the guys who discovered plants in Greenland that had been covered by ice for 40 000 years for the first time because of the thaw, was not a fakenews as you immediately responded. It was a genuine report from a genuine research institution., freezing temperatures over Chicago happened before Yes, agreed. But look to this becoming a sustained pattern in years to come. forest fires in California and Australia this has always happened – not with as much severity and regularity … in either country, “bleaching” or death of coral reefs, etc Role of old fashioned pollution? No, increasing water temperature. The sea is not polluted around the Seychelles, but the coral is dying … and that is not the only place. Are you disputing that warmer seas cause the coral to die?

<image001.jpg>It is perfectly acceptable to dispute whether humans are in any way responsible. I am not convinced at all that they are, and even if so, my belief is that there is diddly squat we can do about it. So the response is to adapt … build houses further away from flood plains, on stilts, stop chopping down forests which prevent mudslides, learn to grow more drought and temperature resistant crops. Taxing carbon is NOT a solution – it is a fleece the taxpayer scam. We are in agreement on this, but almost nobody on the "Climate Change / Global Warming" bandwagon has this view.

 

But to put one’s head in the sand and deny that there is a current shift on the grounds that one doesn’t want to be an “alarmist” is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. There does not seem to be any meaningful "shift on the ground" that would impact me in any meaningful way during my lifetime. Banks are still financing coastal properties Not so much in Miami right now. And according to a mate of mine who lives there, getting insurance on your property is almost impossible if you are not an existing customer.and none of the doom and gloom predictions of the UN, Gore, etc have materialised. But perhaps one could use the opportunity to take advantage of higher atmospheric CO2 levels by investing in things like the UK wine industry I wouldn’t trust people that like warm beer to produce anything resembling a good Pinot Noir!. After all, the Romans used to produce wines there and the Domesday Book still included dozens of wine estates in the late 11th century...

 

 

 

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jaco Strauss

Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2019 9:00 AM

To: Libsa <li...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Libsa] New interview with Patrick Moore

 

Thanks for the definition of "Climate" Mark. Now please point to any prolonged period in history or prehistory when “the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region's temperature, air pressure, humidity,precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years" has remained contant.

 

Sent from phone

 

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, 05:08 Mark Heaton, <mark....@imaginet.co.za> wrote:

Jaco, “climate” does not change “from hour to hour”.

 

The definition of “climate” is … “the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity,precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.”

 

Therefore a change in climate would be a movement away from the average over a period of time. People are not concerned about daily or hourly fluctuations, it is the long-term and consistent movement away from the mean that is the problem.

 

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Leon Louw (gmail)

Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2019 12:49 AM

To: Libsa (googlegroups) <li...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Libsa] New interview with Patrick Moore

 

My take is that (almost) everyone, AGW junkies and denialists alike, have fallen for the meme that global warming is (or would be if it were real) a bad thing.

 

When people ask where I stand on global warming, I say I'm for it.

 

When they ask where I stand on climate change, I say it's always happened and will always happen, and of the two directions, I prefer warming.

 

When they ask if I think it's (anthropogenic) man-made, I say I have no idea which "it" is (warming or cooling), and if "we" make a difference, we should cause all the warming we can.

 

I have yet to come across compelling reasons for being anti-warming, seriously or at all.

 

Ocean levels rising, for instance ... well so what. Build dykes like Holland, have more cities like Venice, and have more deep water ports. Over so many years, no one will notice the change.

 

More "extreme" weather? As Pinker points out, damage caused by natural disasters has plummeted. Even if there is more extreme weather, which is unlikely, it'll make close to zero difference.

 

Warmer means more evaporation, more precipitation, and a more verdant planet. I'm for that.

 

Why are greens against a greenhouse? They never tell us. They should be called "greys" or "browns".

 

It makes no sense for me to stress about a future change that's smaller than the current difference between Johannesburg and Pretoria, or Pietermaritzburg and Durban. I don't see people in the latter two fleeing the the former two to escape the ravages of a warmer climate.

 

The debate itself bores me. It's, as Shakespeare might have said, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

 

 

,

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 22:39, Jaco Strauss <jacos...@gmail.com> wrote:

The polar vortex has been around long before the internal combustion engine.

 

Bottom line, the Climate Change alarmists would use ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to implicate a negative anthropogenic impact on weather patterns. The best is that they do not even know whether it is getting warmer or colder, hence the change from "Global Warming" to the weasel term "Climate Change". Climates Change from hour to hour and day to day, so what a great thing to tax.

 

And then they have not even been able to illustrate how whatever change is supposed to be taking place is necessarily a bad thing. As Andrew Kenny has pointed out in this forum before, the greening effect of Carbon emissions is a very positive thing.

 

The alarmist nonsense of 12 years to Doomsday is as funny as it is ludicrous. Great to see all these conspiracy theories and doomsday preppers on the Left for a change though ;-) Remember how the same UN that is now predicting the End is coming in 12 years, gave us 10 years back in 1989.... 

 

I suppose in a roundabout way, that means that even the Climate Hoax alarmists are acknowledging that things are getting better??

 

J

 

 

Regards / Groete / Salutations

 

Jaco Strauss

 

 

Le lun. 11 mars 2019 à 12:44, Mark Heaton <mark....@imaginet.co.za> a écrit :

No, that does not follow.

 

Arctic air is “sucked” down to Chicago latitudes by the Venturi effect caused by a change in the Gulfstream winds.

 

Arctic air is upper atmospheric freezing air that is being relocated to places it does not normally occur … like in the lower atmosphere above Chicago.

<span style="font-si

--

[jimgee1000]

Mark,

"there is absolutely no pragmatic evidence of the existence of the imaginary fair(ies) to which millions surrender their locus of control. This is what I find hard to reconcile."

There are many things people believe in which are hard to reconcile but the question is to what extent do you even care?

To me, it doesn't matter who they surrender control to, if they are subject to the same laws you and me are i.e. if they violate the NAP (being libertarian I believe this should be the extent of legal violence permitted), then they should be treated no differently to you or me... even if they say 'the Fairy told me to do it' (the stock justification for all religious wars).

I don't require Fairy-believers to furnish proof of fairies. I only require the State to stay out of Fairyland. Not being a Fairy-believer I could even live in Fairyland with Fairy-believers, as long as the NAP was upheld legally. It's called 'Separation of Church and State'.

Jim
p.s. I think the Right is more pragmatic. There is an old Protestant saying: 'God helps those who help themselves.' The Right is slightly more inclined towards self-help, I'd say. The Left is more inclined to get the State involved to get what they want in life. That's my general perception. But the sting in religion was removed in the historical phenomenon known as the Separation of Church and State.... of course, where it hasn't been implemented in law yet, this statement doesn't apply. (Theocratic States e.g. Ireland, Iran, Israel etc.)

...

[Mark Heaton]

Jim, you are spot on.

 

The extent of my caring is limited to where it impacts on me … such as Jehovas Witnesses wanting to discuss shit with me at restaurants (because my gated community tells them to piss off at the security gate).

 

But – it does not affect me to any large extent, other than personally when people try to justify personal tragedies as “God’s Will” simply because they have nothing else intelligent to say and feel they need to say something … or that 1 person surviving a train wreck is “a miracle” when 100 died … well, where was your fairy when the train was careering off the track? Do they realise how stupid they sound?

 

Anyway – it makes me angry. So I shall leave it at that J

 

Mark

--

[jimgee1000]

Erik,

People require more or less evidence for their beliefs. But if no-one is pointing a gun to your head, you don't have to adopt the idea as your own.

I have no answer for the problem of buying a second-hand car without kicking the tyres, opening the bonnet to look at the engine, turning the engine over or taking it for a test drive.

It seems if one is not in the habit of questioning incoming assertions, one is bound for a hellish experience in life. You could say some people take longer to learn this than others, for a variety of reasons. But an absence of compulsion doesn't by itself mean all good things will come to you. It means you can start interacting, voluntarily, with others, to make good things come your way.

Jim
ps. If you are again referring to childhood, please refer to what I said before about the category as a legal exception. If you want to specifically address the problems arising from children being a separate category legally, then fine, I'm happy to have that discussion.

"Religion and the state are two sides of the same coin."

Erik, this is not true legally-speaking. I have to assume you know this. It was true that there was an alliance between Church and State, in the West, against which the legal system did not offer protection. But that changed around the time of the French Revolution. If you think they are two sides of the same coin, in 2019, in the West, then kindly elaborate... in what way are they inseparable?

...

[jimgee1000]

Mark, I hear you ;-)

...