Libertarian Party Monday Message: What are your thoughts on global warming?

You may have seen recent headlines that ask whether climate scientists have been open and honest regarding global warming data.

I would like to know your opinion on the global warming issue. Please take our latest poll.

Even when Libertarians agree on principles, they may disagree on which policies will best implement those principles.

If you are interested in the official Libertarian Party position on environmental issues, visit our platform page and scroll to “2.2 Environment.”

In any case, please take our latest poll.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

44 thoughts on “Libertarian Party Monday Message: What are your thoughts on global warming?

  1. paulie Post author

    current results:

    Nov 30, 2009
    Which of the following statements best matches your view of global warming?
    This whole global warming thing is a hoax.
    31% (421 votes)
    I don’t know whether global warming is real, but the government should limit carbon dioxide emissions just to be safe.
    5% (64 votes)
    Global warming is real, it’s a threat, and the government should limit carbon dioxide emissions.
    10% (140 votes)
    Whether or not global warming is real, it doesn’t justify more taxes or regulations.
    27% (370 votes)
    Global warming is mostly natural and there’s not much we can do about it.
    27% (365 votes)
    Total votes: 1360

  2. Don Grundmann

    Libertarians will be smart to see through the fraud/lie of global warming and to denounce the hoax which itself is designed to totally go against professed Libertarian principles by putting into law a fantastic government bureaucracy which will be used to crush the middle class and our manufacturing industry as a whole. The Plantation Masters of the nation ( such as the people behind the FED ) have decided that prosperity will not be allowed in the gulag of their dreams and our intended future. So-called ” Global Warming ” is simply a advertising/marketing plan to induce mass hysteria ( see how well such Social Engineering works? ) in the population so that we cut our own throats in order to ” save the earth.” The plan was developed and written of many years ago in ” Report from Iron Mountain.”

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party

  3. Don Lake, .......

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party [yeah, right, sure]

    Not only is the run away green house affect not a fraud or lie [UCSD’s Roger Revell] but it is so pervasive that it is over riding the mini ice age we have been in for the last half century. The only other thing is, that we are decades past being able to effectively do any thing about it!

  4. Ghoststrider

    I think that global warming is occurring; however, I feel its effects are wildly exaggerated. And in any case, it is by and large just another attempt (by politicians, at least; I’ll give most scientists the benefit of the doubt) to put more power in the hands of corrupt officials. If its happening, well, that sucks, but even so, I won’t support more plans to enlarge the state and engage in social engineering.

  5. Michael Seebeck

    Global warming is a self-fulfilling prophecy–it’s caused by all the CO2 expelled by the Chicken Littles screaming about global warming.

    If they’d just hold their breaths, they’d not only stop it, but give us some rational peace and quiet!

  6. Ghosts Islands ..........

    Wildly exaggerated ??????? Oh like the dozens of islands that are literally disappearing! Like the hundreds of low lands currently threaten ??????

    November 1903, a professor from Harvard: “Heavier than air machines will never fly’ [perhaps the Michael Seebeck award for ……]

  7. Ghosts Islands ..........

    The Smithsonian Institution, and primarily its then-secretary Charles Walcott, refused to give credit to the Wright Brothers for the first powered, controlled flight of an aircraft. Instead, they honored the former Smithsonian Secretary Samuel Pierpont Langley, whose 1903 tests of his own Aerodrome on the Potomac were not successful. Walcott was a friend of Langley and wanted to see Langley’s place in aviation history restored. In 1914, Glenn Curtiss flew a heavily modified Aerodrome from Keuka Lake, N.Y., providing the Smithsonian a basis for its claim that the aircraft was the first powered, heavier than air flying machine “capable” of manned flight. Due to the legal patent battles then taking place, recognition of the ‘first’ aircraft became a political as well as an academic issue……….

    Don Lake, so Mike Seebeck wins the Charlie Walcott, honor my friends and personal ideas, no matter illogical, Award ?????????

  8. Robert Milnes

    My choice, “Global warming is real, it’s a threat, and the government should limit carbon dioxide emissions.” & paulie should invest in oceanfront property live under the boardwalk.

  9. Mik Robertson

    @8 “A stacked far-right-wing poll…you can’t say that you agree that global warming is real without supporting government action.”

    Of course you can. Especially if the phenomenon of global warming is primarily a naturally occurring event. Just because humans are contributing to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and that may be a factor in global warming does not mean it is being primarily driven by human activity.

    I don’t think even the most recent IPCC report is sufficient to merit drastic public policy changes. The conference in Copenhagen has had the expectations reduced so far that failure can now be claimed as success, so Obama can safely show up.

  10. paulie Post author

    LOL. I have nothing to invest and no need for property. My disposable income goes to services and readily consumed goods: restaurants, motels, bars, strip clubs, massages, vitamins, etc.

    I don’t believe the regime is a way to solve any of the world’s problems; it only makes them worse and creates new ones.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    Mik,

    I think what George is saying is that there’s no option on the poll for saying that you agree that global warming is real but don’t support government action. The closest is the “Whether or not global warming is real …”

  12. paulie Post author

    there’s no option on the poll for saying that you agree that global warming is real but don’t support government action. The closest is the “Whether or not global warming is real …”

    To me, that would seem to cover it.

    However, to be consistent, these should also be combined:

    I don’t know whether global warming is real, but the government should limit carbon dioxide emissions just to be safe.

    and

    Global warming is real, it’s a threat, and the government should limit carbon dioxide emissions.

  13. paulie Post author

    Milnes: My choice, “Global warming is real, it’s a threat, pay someone to write a history essay homework images viagra generic substitute source thesis binding carlow disease in the news essay proventil pap source how to write a graduate admissions essay writing introductions https://www.nypre.com/programs/exemplification-essay-sample/37/ https://groups.csail.mit.edu/cb/paircoil2/?pdf=exercise-essay http://mcorchestra.org/8497-esl-problem-solving-writer-services-us/ is 5 mg of celexa effective how to write an essay on my ambition in life is my paper plagiarized https://dvas.org/buy-cialis-certified-pharmacy-1166/ viagra effects 0n pme https://bigsurlandtrust.org/care/buy-viagra-high-street/20/ how to write a short profile about yourself for a job click en donde comprar viagra animal farm essay examples go site https://artsgarage.org/blog/chicago-style-citation-thesis-paper/83/ source article writing in english levitra package insert writing a research paper in apa research paper conclusion example enter kamagra plus and the government should limit carbon dioxide emissions.”

    Me: I don’t believe the regime is a way to solve any of the world’s problems; it only makes them worse and creates new ones.

    Milnes: agreed

    ?

  14. George Phillies

    @11

    Mik, go back and read the choices. If you want to say that global warming is real, you must say you support government intervention. The poll is stacked in the direction of the rightwing fruitcakes.

    George

  15. Mik Robertson

    @14 Ahh. I see. So if there were an option that said Global Warming is real and governments should take no action it would not be a stacked far-right-wing poll. That makes it clearer.

  16. Mik Robertson

    @ 19 Pretty much the whole of the denier/skeptic side of the issue is stacked with right-wing fruitcakes, from Lord Christopher Monckton on down. That doesn’t mean they don’t have some good points, though.

    I do see where that option could be added, and I will add that option to the global warming poll on our LPPA website forum.

  17. Don Lake .......... Prove Me Wrong

    paulie // Dec 1, 2009:

    Whether or not global warming is real, it doesn’t justify more taxes or regulations.

    ——– whether or not global warning is real, it doesn’t mean that the window of opportunity has pasted and any action or neglect will be inconsequential and any action or neglect will be literally meaningless!

  18. paulie Post author

    You fail to make sense, as usual.

    I oppose government action.

    Let’s look at their track record: the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terror…there are lots of real problems in the world. Government makes them worse, not better.

  19. Brian Holtz

    Here are some platform changes I currently plan to propose at the upcoming PlatCom meeting in Vegas:

    2.2. Environment
    We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Pollution of other people’s property is a violation of individual rights, and polluters must bear the full costs of their pollution. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet’s climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocatescy and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

    2.3. Energy and Resources
    While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production. We support the freedom of energy markets to induce consumers to conserve and to spur producers to innovate. Insurance markets and the courts are the proper way to regulate risks and liabilities such as those related to nuclear power.

  20. Brian Holtz

    (WordPress didn’t accept my color style tags, so I edited the comment to use ins and del tags instead. That clarifies the advocatescy change.)

  21. paulie Post author

    Hmmm. That’s a little different. I didn’t really see anything wrong with the portions you are striking out. But them I don’t see anything wrong with what you are adding, either.

  22. Brian Holtz

    My problems with the existing 2.2 language are that 1) in the first and third sentences “sensible use” and “misuse” are meaningless value judgments and 2) the 2nd and 4th sentences ignore negative externalities.

    The first sentence of 2.3 combines a truism with redundancy.

  23. Robert Capozzi

    bh, This:
    “We realize that our planet’s climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.”
    doesn’t ring true. It’s like saying “We realize there are murderers, but anti-murder advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of stopping murder.”

    Consider deleting the sentence. I’d be OK with making the moral suasion point, but to say it’s “most effective” is not demonstrated and probably false. Or, perhaps, make the moral suasion point COUPLED WITH the rule of law.

  24. paulie Post author

    It’s like saying “We realize there are murderers, but anti-murder advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of stopping murder.”

    They’re not?

  25. Robert Capozzi

    pc, I’ve seen zero evidence that says they ARE. It seems a stretch to say “please don’t murder” and expect a murderer to not murder. Near as I can tell, the rule of law signals to the citizenry that murder is verboten.

    But, I’m open. Have there been studies that show murder in Somalia and first-millenial Iceland had appreciably lower murder rates?

  26. paulie Post author

    Dunno. I haven’t heard of any studies that showed that the non-waring parts of Somalia and first-millenial Iceland had appreciably higher murder rates, either.

    But I can be reasonably sure that most people wouldn’t just go out and commit murder if there were no enforcement monopoly against it.

    Social pressure is much more than “asking someone to please not do something.” For example, there is a social taboo against incest; even though there are now effective means of birth control, the taboo remains in effect. There’s even a social taboo against incest which can’t produce offspring, such as with women past menopause, and step-siblings who are not actually closely genetically related. There are probably still some laws on the books against some of these actions, but I don’t think it’s why people generally don’t engage in them.

    Not everything that is bad has to be outlawed, criminalized by a monopoly system, and subject to tax-funded police, courts and jails.

    Nor do these things necessarily stop people from doing what they want to do, either.

  27. Robert Capozzi

    pc, the language is “most effective.” That sure sounds to me like an empirical statement.

    The current language is anarcho-code that goes past even MNR or Triple H. They suggest that a “libertarian society” (a non-helpful construct, IMO) would have alternative law enforcement.

    Now, unless you’re saying that you want eco-terrorists like Earth First to unilaterally protect the environment outside of any generally recognized rule of law, I can’t say I’m buying.

    This language we’re discussing — when read carefully — codifies anarchism in the platform. That strikes me as counter to the St. Louis Accord.

  28. paulie Post author

    the language is “most effective.” That sure sounds to me like an empirical statement.

    The current language is anarcho-code

    If so, it’s well-coded. Most effective to me means just that – it says nothing about not having any form of monopoly government role in the area. What’s wrong with pointing out that monopoly government is not the end-all and be-all of peaceful, mutually respecting relations among neighbors?

    This language we’re discussing —
    when read carefully — codifies anarchism in the platform. That strikes me as counter to the St. Louis Accord.

    You may be reading too carefully. If I say that self-protection is the most effective means of preventing crime, does it follow that I am necessarily an anarchist? If I say that “buyer beware” is still the most effective means of consumer protection, have I thus advocated doing away with laws against fraud?

    You may be getting a bit too jumpy at imagining the spectre of anarchism lurking around every corner..

  29. Robert Capozzi

    pc, you know what, you’re correct. It isn’t necessarily anarcho-code to say what that sentence says. (Recall that I AM an asymptotic anarchist, btw.)

    And, yes, there’s nothing “wrong” with making a case against monopoly government. It is, however, ridiculous IMO to make a claim about effectiveness when there’s no data to back up the claim.

  30. Michael H. Wilson

    Brian if you are still reading this I would suggest that the platform specifically point out that the housing and transportation markets are closed to some extent and that the LP supports opening them to reduce pollution.

    Elsewhere I posted this a couple of days ago.
    It may be a bit helpful.

    “One issue that we should consider is opening the local transit market to competition. It has been suggested that doing so might reduce local urban auto emissions by as much as 50-75%. While I think those numbers are high we should be able to see a reduction of about 30% over time as well as slowing the growth of cities and roadways along with the environmental problems that are associated with them.

    How do we get the LP to put as much effort into this as other issues becomes the question.

    Secondly we need to point out that the U.S. military is one of the largest users of oil products on the globe. Reducing our overseas commitments would help in reducing the military’s consumption of oil products.”

  31. Don Grundmann

    ” Wildly exaggerated ??????? Oh like the dozens of islands that are literally disappearing! Like the hundreds of low lands currently threaten ??????”

    Response – There are NOT ” dozens of islands that are literally disappearing.” This is the common tactic of the Plantation Masters are their doopy/loopy/drone/widgit/leemings – ” The SKY IS FALLING!!!!! DOOM DOOM DOOM!! PANIC PANIC PANIC We have to DOOO SOMETHING!!! ANYTHING!!! NOW NOW NOW NOW!!! Everything is always ” threatened,” ” possibly,” maybe,” ” could be,” studies indicate,” yada, yada, yada because there are NO FACTS – ZIP – NADA – ZERO to back them up as shown by the recently exposed e-mails regarding the cover-up of the true facts. Total mass hysteria for the typical brain dead zombie drone. How easy it is for the Plantation Masters to herd their cattle.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party

  32. Don Lake .......... John Anderson volunteer 1980

    Denial, denial, denial:

    [and on the side of sanity]

    General articles on disappearing island nations include:

    * South Pacific Islands Slip Beneath the Waves by Janine Israel at Straight.com

    * Will rising seas swamp some small island states? at Climate Ark

    * Sinking Islands, Vanishing Worlds by Tamari’i Tutangata in Earth Island Journal

    Articles focusing on Tuvalu:

    * Sinking Tuvalu by Asha Krishnakumar in Frontline

    * Sinking Islands Cling to Kyoto Lifebuoy by Michael Perry at Planet Ark

    Kiribati is featured in Sinking Feeling by Daniel Williams at Time Pacific, and That sinking feeling at InternationalReports.net discusses the Maldives.

    [a] Grundmann is NOT the Vice Chair ………..

    [b] he probably thinks that Jesus was born in the Roma year zero ……….

    [c] he probably thinks that the New Testament was originally written in 21st century English …..

    [d] he probably thinks that the sea is not rising but that the islands are sinking ……….

  33. Don Grundmann

    It is a unfortunate fact of modern life that our national media is the equivalent of the Propaganda Ministry noted in George Orwells novel ” 1984.” They present what we are to believe in our daily lives and more importantly they actually train the populace not only of what to think but how to think; a task made fantastically easier via the public school system which churns out brain dead ” graduates ” who obediently follow the orders of the Plantation Masters of the nation. This is the background for the nitwit belief in so-called ” Global Warming ” and of the articles mentioned by Mr. Lake which ignore basic science – such as the existence of the Sun and its overwhelming control of the global warming and cooling cycles through the centuries – and concentrate on vagueness ( may happen, could possibly occur, appears to be, is projected to, is predicted to occur ) as compared to FACTS. Ocean levels have risen and lowered throughout the centuries. Temperatures have risen and lowered throughout the centuries. There is NO EVIDENCE that the actions of man have contributed to a warming of the earth. NONE. ZERO. Islands have disappeared and risen throughout history. The idea that the actions of humanity are causing the seas to rise and drown out islands within our time is assinine and patently stupid. To project that seas will rise 100 years in the future unless we kill our industrial, manufacturing, and economic activity RIGHT NOW is the work of traitors and the belief of fools. Of course some people ( who know who they are ) are too busy defending fisting children to care about actually thinking rationally in any sense of the word. They are hence prime followers of the Ministry of Propaganda which considers the citizens of our nation as cattle and knows how to herd them.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party

  34. Pingback: Libertarian Party Monday Message: Global Warming LP Poll Results | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *