On Our Way To Freedom Fest

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
, , ,
81

Out of curiosity, I checked out who else would be speaking at your 2nd conference.  It looks like at least one other somewhat-like-minded person (at least with regard to the Economic "E") will be there; Bob Wiedemer, who co-authored "Aftershock: Protect Yourself and Prosper In The Next Financial Meltdown", and "Aftershock Investor".  It's been a while since I read Aftershock, but I remember having a favorable impression of it. 
It looks like there are a couple of other interesting speakers, like Dr. Vincent Pry, EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security; Ambassador James Woolsey, former CIA Director; and Special Agent (retired) Gregory Coleman, FBI (discussing the Wolf of Wall Street investigation).   

Good luck opening some eyes!  It will be interesting to hear how your message is received by this group.

Reference: http://opalgroup.net/conference/family-office-private-wealth-management-forum/

82

[quote=Mark Cochrane]
Are you promoting an honest debate or an ongoing filibuster to prevent any action coming from the debate? The real debate about the existence of AGW happened years ago, the debate we need now is what, if anything, to do about it?

[/quote]

First off I wasn't trying to debate global warming at all - I was responding to Adams take on the Libertarian stance at Freedom Fest (notice the top of the page where it identifies the topic).  However, the rabid attack you've shown against me for even the thought that I might be questioning AGW speaks volumes.  So let me lay out the points

 

  1. I don't know if AGW is accurate.  I don't think anyone can be absolutely sure with any complex system.
  2. I don't really care, because in my opinion any action to correct AGW is probably useless, because:
    • The root problem is over population.
    • As long as population keeps growing, energy use will keep increasing and as CM has pointed out that means fossil fuels for the immediate future (ie. no way to retool quickly),
    • Because of the depletion of those resources, any of the proposed actions for AGW will probably not be as substantial as the reduction due to resource depletion anyway. 
  3. Due to the reasons in #2, I think any action forced by governments will simply have more of the same effect we have seen in other government actions: it will remove choice, make a few wealthy while probably making the problems worse.
So, examples of why I say #3:

 

  • Subsidies of fossil fuels over many years have hidden the true cost, resulting in over consumption.
  • Other subsidies (such as roads, dams, etc) have led to urban sprawl, componding the problem and resulting it poor decisions to build giant cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix.
  • Subsidies such as those for wind power encourage rapid build out without consideration for longevity.  Build them now while huge subsidies are available.
  • Solar subsidies are just stupid, first hand experience at those.  I nicely got a huge subsidy to construct solar installations on my house.  Do those contribute to others, no, they simply reduced my cost.   In fact it's so perverse that there are times in the summer I should turn on space heaters while running the AC just to maximize my return.
Then we come to the moral issue.  Anything that is funded by the government (that includes much of your research and livelihood working at a state university) means money was forcibly taken from someone else (ie. taxes - including those now defaulting government guaranteed student loans).  I consider that wrong.  Now don't misunderstand, I have suckled from the government teat a plenty, as has everyone else (subsidized housing via loan guarantees, interest tax deductions, child tax credits, solar subsidies, etc), but it doesn't make it right.

Which get's to the last point I tried to make in my last comment, anytime you want government to do something for you it means you are advocating violence.  If your not personally willing to assault someone to get your way, then you shouldn't be asking a government to do it via proxy.  Which brings us back to explaining the Libertarian view (the topic at hand - again NOT AGW!)

83

I didn't really intend for this to turn into another AGW debate either but going tit for tat with you on the subject has ended up creating this offshoot discussion. I don't think I have been 'rabid' about any of this but perhaps you and I are just pressing each other's buttons and reading more into each other's comments than was intended.
We aren't so far off in our thinking as you might think. I agree with your bullet on population and where we differ is in the implications of the depletion of fossil fuels. If we were constrained to what we have at hand, I wouldn't be so concerned because it is getting increasingly scarce but I do not think we will go quietly into the night. There is an even bigger carbon-rich fossil fuel source out there that many are trying to tap right now - methane hydrates. They have much more potential to warm the planet than all of the oil, natural gas and coal combined. The Japanese are most industriously trying to tap them at the moment but many countries are hard at work doing the same thing. In any case, that is what drives my thinking that we won't just run out of fossil fuels any time soon.

As for the subsidies issues you list I largely concur. The real kicker is that if we hadn't had the fossil fuel subsidies, the need for providing subsidies for wind/solar now would be much reduced or unneeded. The quick and dirty manner in which we now are trying to build out wind, solar and hydropower (see the Amazon…) is designed to be inefficient and damaging in many cases. More short term thinking that will create long term problems.

I take your point on 'funding by government'. I find it amazing that the country ran quit well without income taxation right up until central banking got going. That is the worst hybrid of private greed and government inefficiency right there. I can't see a world without any government devolving into anything but anarchy but one with a lot less of it permeating our lives would be a hell of a lot better to my mind.

Peace.

 

84

[quote=Mark Cochrane]

I can't see a world without any government devolving into anything but anarchy but one with a lot less of it permeating our lives would be a hell of a lot better to my mind.

[/quote]
 
I don't think things would be anarchy.  People will always self organize.  Anytime you get a group of people that want to accomplish a task that is bigger than a single person, you get organizations with leaders, followers, etc.  That's what church groups, fraternal groups, businesses, etc.  The difference is only in the use of force.
 
All groups outside of government rely on voluntary cooperation (also known as community).  With individuals free to choose if they want to give money/time and who at anytime can choose to stop and support other groups.  However, government, as it exists is a forced relationship.  If you don't like the way your government spends money or behaves, too bad, men with guns will show up to make sure you do.
 
So many people talk about unregulated capitalism like it's a bad thing.  It's the voluntary exchange by two entities.  What we have now in so many cases are cartels (food, healthcare, insurance, banking, money) which are forced relationships because they use government to limit your choices.
 
That's one of the problems that often pops up when anyone talks about Libertarianism, it's always devolves to "oh - you want anarchy".  No, what I want is the right to make choices as an individual and the right to revoke those choices.  I think we would have many of the good things we have today without the forced relationship and would probably get rid of many of the things we have today require forced participation - ie. war, there is a reason conscription occurs during wars, otherwise people wouldn't fight them.
85

Mark,

You've been embedded in the AGW arena for most of your adult life. I'd really appreciate your thoughts on what should happen now. As I wrote to Doug, I don't expect a fully fleshed out plan, but I'm extremely allergic to marginal solutions (as it won't be sufficient to stem the tide and comes with an enormous price tag.) I'm also wary of anything that requires a "one world government" (OWG) to work. With OWG, there won't be any force big enough to keep the "leaders" in check. You'll either be one of the elites or you'll be a serf. Much different rules will apply to each group. I'd rather take my chances with much higher temperatures.

I just don't see any workable plan short of a massive population crash ~90% reduction. Of course, that will bring a new set of problems to the surface. Who will keep the infrastructure maintained? Who will keep the nuclear plants from melting? Etc. Life won't be as pleasant or leisurely as it is now for the vast majority.

If personal mitigation is the best option to consider, what can be done now to make the transition less traumatic? It would make sense to move to an accommodating area while the machines are still operating. According to models you believe, which parts of the world should get more favorable climate (temps/rainfall/etc.) and which areas would become less hospitable?

If you have a good foundation for a workable plan, I'd love to hear about it! I'd also like your expert opinion of attributes to consider when looking for a more livable area.

Thanks,

Grover

86

Of cause he never had to consider the planet wide commons of the atmosphere.
People respond to incentives therefore taxes need be imposed on CO2 as it sees the light of day.  (A more sophisticated analysis of feedback loops begs to differ,  but I cannot remember the detail.)

 

https://youtu.be/SHsCkinrCPE

87

This farmer uses SumaGrow with RoundUp: https://youtu.be/RobGkjY2jjE Thumbs Down!
So this product is only sold to industrial farmers?  Can't buy it for large home garden?

88

Well, it's been almost a week and the crickets have died. I haven't heard anything from Mark. It either means that he is too busy to address this minor inconvenience or he really doesn't have any answers. I've tried to look into the problem with an open mind and couldn't come up with any palatable answers. As a result, I don't worry about climate change because I can't do anything to stop it. (That feeling is quite liberating!)
I'm going to open it up to the rest of the climate change brain trust. You people are quick to call someone a denier when they question the standard line of climate change. You must have useful thoughts. I'd like to hear your suggestions. What can be done to stop it? Please, don't be shy about coming up with useful suggestions.

As I noted earlier, I'm very allergic to partial solutions or "one world government" (1WG) type solutions like a carbon tax. (How can you keep sovereign nations from cheating without 1WG?) Partial solutions may get the ball rolling, but where does it go from there? If it just goes over a cliff, is it really good to just get the ball rolling? Do you really think a carbon tax will actually work? Who will administer it? How will it function? 

That's why this discussion is appropriate for this thread. Do you really think you'll have any freedom whatsoever with 1WG?

Grover

PS - I saw one of Mark's posts on the climate thread where he said that sea levels are changing. The title of the post was "Drip, Drip, Drip - Head For Higher Ground". Frankly, that title has lots of good personal advice. If you live near sea level (or below as New Orleans mostly is) it would behoove you to move before it is common knowledge that the real estate won't be as habitable going forward. It won't stop sea level from rising, but you won't get soaked if you heed his advice. That's a positive way to connect dots and give a warning. What likely will happen in other parts of the world??? I'd really like to know.

89

Man made chemicals like Glyphosate are harming animal life and soil creatures and reducing overall Biodiversity.  Write to your politicians to ban that stuff!  Glyphosate is probably the main driver of the material increase in Appendix Cancer.  The Appendix stores good bacteria to re-seed the colon so if you lose it then odds of other medical problems increase greatly.   

90

In a political system that is as completely corrupted, captured and rigged as is presently, what is the expected gain from continued attempts at interaction?
At what point is it better to just live life and accept collapse as the predictable outcome?
No disrespect intended Kugs.

91

I'd like to report to Chris that some of the insects he missed on his windshield during his recent trip to the beach have shown up here. Unfortunately, I don't even hear crickets. It's been another week since I asked for a plan to combat climate change … I'm really disappointed in the climate change worriers.

[quote=Mark Cochrane] The real debate about the existence of AGW happened years ago, the debate we need now is what, if anything, to do about it?

[/quote]

If there isn't any solution, why agitate people with the constant drumming? So, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing. What can be done about it? So, sea levels look like they're rising. What can be done about it? So, species are going extinct at phenomenal rates. What can be done about it?

Do you think I enjoy harping about it? No! I really want a solution that is attainable. My problem is that I just can't see one! I'm convinced that the earth (Gaia) will find a solution to this problem. I suspect it will be something similar to advice my mother gave me: "Feed a fever. Starve a cold." As soon as the infection (human overpopulation) is under control, the fever will stop. It might take centuries for the fever to subside, but that isn't even a 24 hour bug to Gaia.

If the real problem is human overpopulation, then any society wide solutions will fail. Perhaps we should focus on individual solutions. What can you do to avoid the peril that will strike the masses? Isn't that better than nothing? For instance, Mark wrote a post on the Climate Change thread pertaining to sea level rising 1.2 meters and impacting 1 billion people who live that close to current sea level. If I lived that close to sea level, I'd seriously consider moving to higher ground before the herd realized it and real estate values plummeted. It isn't going to change the end result, but it will save me the expense of having worthless real estate that is (literally) under water.

If it were as innocuous as that, I wouldn't waste my time writing about it. Unfortunately, the worry warts keep the angst machine running at full speed. Other chicken littles are drawn to the doomer porn like moths to a candle. Because they can only wring their hands and sweat bullets, they're prime fodder for a charismatic charlatan who claims to know the way out of this predicament - it will be based on smoke, mirrors, and hope … and naive fools will swallow it. The answer will include One World Government with the charismatic charlatan in control. If that happens, kiss freedom goodbye forever.

I've kept this discussion in this thread because of the freedom aspect. I'll give the climate change brain trust another week to at least address my concerns. If crickets are the only sound, I'll move the show to the climate thread.

Grover

92

The katydids, crickets and that night insect that makes the buzzy click (much less noticable than the katydid chorus, but comes out at the same time) are in full swing and as loud as ever.
Last week, I drove home at night in my Prius on a rural highway at 50-60 mph.  There were lots of moths in my headlights, but none on the windshield.  This is supporting evidence for my theory that today's cars with much lower aerodynamic drag impact far fewer insects than the cars of the 60s and 70s.