Vera,

I cannot argue with initiation of force - but does [it] give us the right to destroy without a second thought to who created it and what it was destroyed for?
Rational use of resources should be made mandatory....

Attempting to pass laws that required 'rational' use of resources is in itself irrational.  It is an attempt by the elites to second guess the marketplaces and the desires and abilities of all individuals - replacing their choosing with the dicates of a few.  The free market economists have shown again and again the logical fallacies in that approach.  

The stricture against the initiation of force governs actions in a social context, but the other part of the equation is property rights, and it calls for the absence of government ownership/management of anything... as much as is possible. Property rights provide the understandings of where the boundaries are... the area where we must ask permission, get a contract, etc., as opposed to acting as we wish as a right.

Those two concepts: Non-initiation of force (or fraud or theft) combined with property rights, firmly lock in the best of human nature in a way that it channels our energies in ways that serves not just us, but any portion of the environment that is valued. It ties our drive to create and produce, to form mutually beneficial associations, and to protect all things of value to the degree they are valued.  It results in the explosion of beneficial energies in the permitted areas of action such that we continually create improvements and increases in options (including the elimination of pollution and anything harmful to ourselves or our environment - if you don't believe that just look at the broad strokes of history and see where pollution has been cleaned up and where it has grown worse: Capitalist nations versus Totalitarian regimes?)

Government, on the other hand, by issuing edicts nearly always achieves exactly the opposite of its claimed goals. LBJ declared war on poverty, and now we have far more poor among us.  If we gave the government it's head on 'climate change' (a non-issue) we'd no doubt end up with actual man-made, harmful climate change.  In Bill's thread you can see where the FDA's intervention will actually harm the overall level of health. It isn't an accident that it works that way - the link between our choosing (as individuals) and our well-being (separately and collectively) is broken when we veer from pure Capitalism.  Like cars that are still underway, engines running and in gear (but without that guiding principle of choice restricted only by individual rights and property rights), are cars without steering.  It shouldn't surprise anyone that it will result in wreckage.

Some people want to think that they can make an exception... just in the area special to them.  Like health, or like space exploration, or to help the poor, or to protect the environment.  But it doesn't work.  It is no different in this sense than someone who wants to get an exemption to the laws of gravity... not everywhere, mind you, but just in his favorite area.

Vera,

At first I thought you were advocating some kind of Environmental Socialism.  You said, "the elites as another scarecrow." And I couldn't imagine why you would think that "elites in control" is a scarecrow argument rather than a reality.

But I read further and saw that you don't want government in control.  Sorry to have mischaracterized your intensions.

If there is anyone who doesn't believe we are going down the road of elites in control, please read what some of the Obama czars have written (Cass Sunstein, Todd Stern, Carol Browner, Van Jones and John Holdren would be good examples of elites that are formulating policy and regulations that have been implemented without legislative input). Obama all by himself acts as the chief elite and modifys ObamaCare as he sees fit with waivers, exemptions, delays and other modifications.

Sunstein proposed limiting the access to the internet to only those sites that provided "balanced opinions" as per government regulation. He is specifically in favor of government limiting choices because he believes that too many choices is bad for people.

Holdren has called climate change skeptics “dangerous” members of a “denier fringe.” He has called for government enforced population control, including "compulsory abortion."

There is an elite who see themselves as having superior knowledge to the rest of us and think that is proper to be in control and to regulate every single aspect of how everyone lives. What light bulbs they can use, the size of the soft drink cups they can use, what they can write on the package of a fruit drink, how much water their toilet can use to flush, where they can live, where they can work, what they can watch on TV, what they can eat, and on, and on, and on.

The old definition of "socialism" was a social and economic system characterised by social (i.e., government) ownership of the means of production and co-operative (i.e., government) management of the economy. But that really misses the core issue.  Socialism is about centralized control of the population by an elite group.

Vera,

...in my opinion that elite could only work if each and every individual would aspire to their full potential, to be part of that elite. Otherwise we're stuck with defending our production, our creation, our 'eliteness', from the currently 99.9% sheeple who do not aspire to that elite, who are willing to hand that status over to others to 'elite for them'.

It doesn't take a large percentage to flip the system so the sheeple have no choice but to go along.  (Can't stop them from complaining, but then you don't  have to listen to them either).  What is required is that a significant percentage of creators, producers and just plain honest workers must be morally certain that they are right to reject the sacrifices called for.  And there must be a very small percentage of them who can clearly articulate the reasons why such and such is a scheme and why it is immoral.  These are the required free market economists, libertarian journalists, talking heads, academics, entertainment people, politicians, etc.)

Right now, as Ayn Rand put it, America suffers today from the same fatal inner contradiction that we had from the beginning: An altruistic morality that we attempted to use with Capitalism - when Capitalism requires ethical individualism.  That inner contradiction was the reason the progressives could labor away in the universities and undermine the free market system.  Remember, there were very few of them there were to start with.  But given umpteen generations... well, here they are - tirelessly working away at their collectivist schemes based upon made-up 'moral duties' of the many to make the sacrifice for the whatever (the planet, the poor, society, the fringe-toed lizard, etc.)... as explained and regulated by the elite.  

Give a significant percentage of people a clear understanding that this is just a scheme and that there is NEVER a moral duty to sacrifice, and the elite are done - they'll have to get real jobs.

So I gave the new COSMOS another shot, a rerun tonite.

The host, Neil deGrasse Tyson, knowingly informs us that the reason for global warming is not the Sun.   Part of his reasoning is that 'Global Warming is occurring faster during Winter than Summer, which is the opposite of what we'd expect if the Sun was the cause.

???

Did he mean faster in Winter in the Northern Hemisphere, did he mean faster in Winter in the Southern Hemisphere, or did he not mean 'Global Warming?'

Inclined orbit gives us Winter and Summer but at opposite times of the year at both poles.

Perihelion gives us the Sun closer to the Earth presently during Southern Summer.

(Also, unequal weighting of summer melting and winter freezing, combined with the above, would cause us to expect different trends at both poles if the primary cause was the Sun.)

Which is what is observed; there is currently a greater surplus anomaly of sea ice in the southern pole that there is a deficit anomaly at the northern pole.

Can someone make sense out of Neil's assertion for me?   What does he mean by 'Global Warmoing occurs faster during 'the' Winter?   If he means both Winters, then faster than what?    This seems like a clear blunder, which makes his whole schtick suspect.

regards,

Fred

Merlin:

OK.   So the science of Global Warming concludes that when Global Warming is 'fastest' in the hemisphere with the largest population, that implies that the Sun is not the cause?  I'm still not enlightened as to the science behind his statement.

(I understand what you are saying; he might have meant 'Winter' in the popular regards to what 3 month period of the year that is, but am still struggling to see the 'science' in that as it regards the Sun as likely cause.  Because in fact, the Sun is closer to the earth in Northen Winter than it is Southern Winter, due to Perihelion/due to the eccentricity of the earth's orbit around the Sun.   So why would that make any budding young scientists less suspicious of the Sun as a cause, is my question?)

Is there some new science based on effective hemispherical segregation of atmospheric effects?   Because that would cause a kind of head snap;  I could have sworn we just left a period of convincing ourselves of effective hemispherical mixing in order to explain why CFCs emitted in the Northen Hemisphere(where most people emit)has such a broad  impact on the Ozone over Antarctica.

But Neil said it, and he looked cool while saying it, so it must be science.    That is where we are in pudding head ville these days.

He asserted it with no explanation; none.   Now that would have been actual science.  What he pulled off was political science, period.

Less cool graphics and naked assertions; more science.  

If only it would be at least harmless and meaningless eye candy, but its not.   'Cosmos' is as much science as maybe 5% of the population exposes itself to these days.

regards,

Fred