ADreamOfLiberty

then you have not taken a moral position against murder; there'd be no functional difference between you and a genocidal despot.

It's more solved than if the only consequence of murder was the equivalent of a civil lawsuit and even then only if you're identified and only if your victim had a lot of people who had both money and shits to give.

Yes, people would have to give a shit. I've never denied that. How is this premise any different than that of any other social organization? As I told Critical-Tim, the only unity necessary is in the respect of individual sovereignty.

There are two different things to volunteer for.

A) Volunteer to support the enforcement of the law

B) Volunteer to obey the law

Or one can volunteer to opt out.

My ideal government can and would (by definition) require (A). How is it materially different from a giant version of what you call mediation organizations?

Because:

Athias Post #37:

operations are not subject to consumer satisfaction--consumers who can opt out--but subject to the determination of a hegemonic organization that provides no real good or service.

If you and the Olmec king seek mediation by having two companies represent your interests, then you either resolve your dispute or you continue it. Presumably, the act of seeking mediation would suggest that killing hundreds more of them, and their burning more of your homes and prospective economic assets isn't your primary goal. How you two come to terms and resolve your dispute is up to the two of you. If no arrangement is satisfactory, then the dispute goes on. If you fail to defend yourself, then your family, friends, or community can seek restitution for your wrongful death, in which case a separate mediation can occur--or they can go to war on your behalf. 

My rule of engagement is that anyone who would resort to murder dies. 95% of people who've seen a murder or been threatened by murderers will agree with me.

Argumentum ad populum.

We will terminate or enslave anyone who dares to opt out of our zero-murder policy.

Then your exercise of policy isn't based in any consistent moral economy; just your presumption to "punish."

Is murder "solved"?

So as long as nobody is forced to pay for it, you'll call in anarcho-capitalism? In that case my ideal government is a subset of your acceptable social constructs.

No, it's anarcho-capitalism if it's voluntary.

First the Olmec were ruled by monarchs

second, there's no moral condemnation in defending oneself even if it results in death. So if savage Olmec cannibals sought to use you in their sacrifices, by all means effectively end the threat. Why would this contradict the concept of liberty? Is it not enhanced?

You can have decentralized enforcement of a single rulebook, there is no problem there; the problem is with a decentralized rulebook insofar as its a diverse rulebook.

You haven't identified the problem. Each individual has their own rules of engagement; if individuals seek to cooperate with each other, then they can create terms that will service a mutual satisfaction. If they are not satisfied with the arrangement, they can choose to not opt in, or opt out. Case in point: Dating. Everyone has their own preferences and behave accordingly. There isn't a single, centralized rulebook. Does one risk STI contradiction, pregnancy, date rape, and broken hearts? Sure. It's vastly paramount to retain one's autonomy and discretion than to entertain the pretense one can avoid or prevent that which isn't (or should not be) under one's control.

At what point do you call it a centralized legal system?

When operations are not subject to consumer satisfaction--consumers who can opt out--but subject to the determination of a hegemonic organization that provides no real good or service.

and in my analysis such a thing is inherently flawed because there is only one right answer and when there is only one right answer leaving room for diversity is leaving room for error.

Please elaborate.

A considerable part of the justice system is geared not towards resolving disputes but punishing crime so that criminality is not a tempting path.

A considerable part of the justice system is jailing individuals for harmless "crimes,"

and in effect, creating de-facto slaves, whose labor is outsourced to crony companies.

A man who has outlived his family and no friends at the moment is murdered. He's dead, and there is no one to complain; but murder has been done and murder must be punished.

Isn't this like "if a tree falls in a forest..."? Murder has to be investigated; murder has to be proven. But let's for the sake of argument consider that somehow this man's murder is properly investigated and sufficiently proven, then the murderer can be exiled or outlawed.

Alexander the Great

[Critical-Tim] How would anarchy deal with the problems of violence, crime, and injustice, without any law enforcement or judicial system?

[Athias] Dispute Resolution Organizations can handle tort and mediate disputes among individual parties; wrongful acts can also make one subject to Outlawry.

[Critical-Tim] Who would decide the law, would it be majority vote or something else?

[Athias] The free market.

You mean like wokeness or transgenderism?

We have had drastic changes in the weather all throughout history.

But we know that can't be true, because it has fluctuated down and up in temperature not just up.

Would you like to have a rated debate on this topic? Resolution is simply “CO2 has been proven to warm the atmosphere.”

...

And how about we handle it this way. You can invite me to a rated debate with the resolution “CO2 does not wake the atmosphere.” We can settle it there and see whose evidence is more convincing.

I’ll debate with you officially but not on here any longer. 

After I asked you for evidence of the quality and caliber I provided in my most recent post, you went silent.  Is it because you haven’t found any math or physics to compete with that last post? Or are you just tired of the conversation?

Also “Speaking of clouds, a slight decrease in clouds could very easily account for the increasing temperature and be nearly impossible to quantify. How much less useful (politically) is "the clouds might be doing something, we don't know why".

This is very easy to calculate and it’s called the libido of the planet and yes it does have an effect on temperature. So does CO2. 

An easy to do this is to do the formula I posted (which all geoscience majors have to do) without the greenhouse effect implemented. Then do it without CO2 implemented. Then check each answer against the average temperature of the earth. You will see it is Lower than it should be unless you account for greenhouse gases and CO2. That alone is enough evidence to say with certainty that CO2 warms the environment and accounts for roughly 1/5 of the greenhouse effect. 

This is the part you need to disprove. 

Now part two of the recipe: how hot will the extra CO2 make us? Most physics students, once they learn about radiative heat transfer (affectionately called sigma-T-to-the-fourth), are tasked with calculating the Earth’s temperature in radiative equilibrium with the Sun. If done “correctly,” the answer is disappointingly cold because the greenhouse effect is not incorporated in the simple calculation.

The way it works is, the sun imbues a radiative flux of 1370 Watts per square meter at the position of the Earth. Given its radius of R = 6378 km, the Earth intercepts 1370 W/m² × πR² of the incident sunlight, since the Earth appears as a projected disk to the Sun. Most of this incident flux is absorbed in the oceans, land, atmosphere, and clouds, while the remainder is immediately reflected back to space so the aliens can see our planet. The absorbed part (70%) heats the earth surface environment and eventually is re-radiated to space as thermal infrared radiation, at wavelengths centered at about 10 microns—far beyond human vision (0.4 to 0.7 microns).

The law for thermal radiation is that a surface emits a total radiative power of A·σT4, where A is the surface area, σ=5.67×10−8 W/m²/K4 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and Tis the surface temperature in Kelvin. For instance, a patch of Earth at the average surface temperature of 288 K (15°C, or 59°F) emits 390 W/m² of infrared radiation. To figure out the temperature of the Earth, we demand that power in equals power out, and radiative transfer is the only game in town for getting heat on and off the Earth.

If we did not have a balance between power in and power out, the Earth’s temperature would change until equilibrium was re-established. Hey—that’s what global warming is doing.  But let’s not get ahead of ourselves…

While the Earth intercepts a column of light from the sun with area πR², the Earth has a surface area of 4πR² to radiate. Considering that 70% of the incoming sunlight is in play, we have an effective influx of 960 W/m² onto one quarter of the Earth’s surface area (why not half? much of the Sun-side of the Earth is tilted to the sun and does not receive direct, overhead sunlight). So the radiated part must work out to 240 W/m², which implies an effective temperature of 255 K, or a bone-chilling −18°C (about 0°F).

Incidentally, if the Earth were black as coal, absorbing all incident solar radiation, the answer would have been a more satisfactory 279 K, or 6°C, but still colder than observed.

We know that 255 K is the wrong answer; off by 33°C. The discrepancy is the greenhouse effect, and to this we owe our comfort and our liquid oceans. The greenhouse gases absorb some of the outbound infrared radiation and re-radiate in all directions, sending some of the energy back toward Earth. Two-thirds of the effect (about 22°C) is from water vapor, about one-fifth (~7°C) is from carbon dioxide, and the remaining 15% is from a mix of other gases, including methane.

Crudely speaking, if CO2 is responsible for 7 of the 33 degrees of the greenhouse effect, we can easily predict the equilibrium consequences of an increase in CO2. We have so far increased the concentration of CO2 from 280 ppm to 390 ppm, or about 40%. Since I have some ambiguity about whether the 7 K contribution to the surface temperature is based on the current CO2 concentration or the pre-industrial figure, we’ll look at it both ways and see it doesn’t matter much at this level of analysis. If CO2 increased the pre-industrial surface temperature by 7 K, then adding 40% more CO2 would increase the temperature by 7×0.4 = 2.8 K. If we instead say that 7 K is the current CO2 contribution, the associated increase is 7−7/1.4 = 2 K. Either way, the increase is in line with estimates of warming—

though the system has a lag due to the heat capacity of oceans, slowing down the rate of temperature increase.

Using a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature change does not constitute a correct treatment

If you could block the entire blackbody radiation of Earth via atmospheric gasses (210-310k, see second curve) that would cool our planet because convection would continue as it always has but that band of solar radiation would be blocked in the upper atmosphere and never reach the surface.

If you look at a temperature graph of the atmosphere you can see hot layers, that is precisely what is happening already and it would only happen more.

Actually this is a better way of putting it. All of your evidence is what’s called negative evidence. Basically saying “I don’t accept this claim because this graph shows this.” What you need to present is positive evidence, which is direct proof of your claim.

Wrong continent, please engage brain dear readers

Read the article genius. It’s happening in North America 

You saying the evidence you have provided is like a flat earther saying “the evidence I have provided is fine I don’t need math”

or someone saying the same thing trying to debunk general relativity.

The quality of your evidence isn’t good enough to make a claim with any level of confidence

Nevertheless straight white males need to stop raping. 

And yet black men are on the sex registry at a rate double that of white men.

PS I would describe gender dysphoria as an even more minor issue than homosexual marriage

No gay marriage sexually assaulted little girls in school bathrooms, or invaded girls spaces with their tallywhacker hanging out. 

It is inevitable that over a longer period of time, Barney will actually rise to the top of the moderator hierarchy. It is not because he is a better person, it is not because he is smarter it is not such things necessarily at all (and IQ wise Whiteflame is above Barney) it is because Barney is the natural alpha male of the website, people respect him without realising it, the way he carries himself and uses silence and absence at other times, makes him unpushable, unattainable and have this weird aura that people can't tame or control.

You can't deliver death online and deciding to kill someone makes you their enemy.

I have no power to kill you whatsoever.

The contention in today’s political climate I think is more about equality of opportunity

Opportunity to do what? (Eat ice cream?)

Are you really being serious?

My slippery slope argument is premised on Precedential slopes, which revolve around the idea that treating a relatively minor issue (gay marriage) a certain way now will lead to us treating a relatively major issue (the sexualizing of children, grooming children, transing children, invading women's spaces, etc) the same way later on.

that slippery slope has become a reality

Equality in the coherent political sense is equality of rights.

The contention in today’s political climate I think is more about equality of opportunity

I refute aggressive or personal. I gave evidence of bigotry to undermine a bigoted argument.

So calling people bigots and racists is back on the menu boyz.

There's a billion bigot and racist sites on the internet, and these geniuses come to a debate site looking for an echo chamber LOL.

FYI snowflakes, you can post all the racism and bigotry you want at Stormfront and nobody is gonna say you are a racist or bigot. 

I refute aggressive or personal. I gave evidence of bigotry to undermine a bigoted argument.

Of course the mass matters dude. That’s literally what regulates the atmosphere is the mass of it.

Which is why I brought up the blanket analogy.

You are the one who made the claim that CO2 doesn’t warm the atmosphere. What is your mathematical, chemical, and physical evidence for that? State sound evidence (that doesn’t fly in the face of established chemistry, physics and math) and you can end this debate. 

Lol, dude I have taken more atmospheric science classes and chemistry and physics classes than you have even considered taking.

Simply put, it is physically impossible for increasing CO2 concentrations to not have a warming effect on the climate.

Enroll in the degree I’m enrolled in. Geoscience with a focus on data analytics

then maybe you will have the ability to talk down to me about speaking to professors about a scientific topic.

I was telling you if you can actually disprove this established science, you should have a scientist look at it to make sure it makes sense.

Until you can provide me with concrete chemical, mathematical, and physical evidence all working in unison that doesn’t fly in the face of established science in each of those fields I will not respond.

If you can do that I will give you the email address to my physical Chemistry, my atmospheric science, and my physics 3 professor for you to speak to about the topic. They’d be very happy to have a conversation with you about it.

Not all LGBTQIA+ think the same about Trans people

Let's agree that heretoforward it is a sufficiently established fact that TWS1405 is a bigot and a racist.

Furthermore, let's agree that no source of information that knowingly lied to the American people about the results of the 2020 election is worthy of any credibilty in Journalism.  These sources must be struck utterly and permenently from the ranks of trustworthy reportage.  One benefit of the Jan 6th  Fool's Coup is that loyal Americans need never pretend the Daily Caller, the New York Post

Dr. Thomas Sowell in his book "Black Rednecks" claims the bell curve exists because of cultural disparities between Blacks in the South and Blacks in the North. It has nothing to do with genetics.

“The density of carbon dioxide is higher on Mars. That is the number of CO₂ struck on average by a photon radiated from the surface is greater than Earth.”

Over simplifying man. Mars’ atmosphere has less than 1% the mass of Earth’s atmosphere. So yes it does have a higher concentration of CO2 in its total mass of the atmosphere but it has a much, much smaller atmosphere. You’re nit  picking and bending evidence.

Yet science seemed to work that way when you said CO₂ concentration and temperature were joined at the hip and posted a graph (of the same data) with only two variables.

Doesn't your own argument here defeat your original contribution to this thread?

No, because you can see they are joined at the hip. When rises the other rises.

If there are disturbances in that pattern, something else caused it, when you are not bringing that secondary cause into the correlation between the two, then you aren’t painting the whole picture.

And you saying “no all of your math, physics and chemistry are wrong look at this anomaly I found”

The response is “yes that is an anomaly but can be explained with X, the variable you didn’t include while making your point is the only reason your point exists.”

And yes there are example of CO2 rising first. They’re called Dansgaard Oeschger events. Temperature rises 5-15 degrees Celsius in under 25 years. That’s what must happen for an event to be labeled as one of those. The latest one was the Bolling-Allerod ~14,000 years ago.

All them have CO2 rising simultaneously with the temp, because it is a self feeding cycle.

Prove the concrete math, physics and chemistry wrong. Using the same parameters they have to use, which are the laws of physics. If it’s so obvious it should be very easy to do.

Also when you’re talking about thousands and tens of thousands of years ago. You’d be very lucky for a single point on the graph not to span a century or two. So you asking for a graph that shows a release of CO2 before a big jump in temperature is a tall ask.

Send it in to a physics of chemistry professor and have them look at it and see what he says. 

However you’re just over simplifying everything and are just blatantly wrong about some stuff. The average temperature of Jupiter is not 24,000 degrees C. I’m not sure where you saw that or who told you that. The average temperature of that planet is -234 degree C. 

You admitted the atmosphere is very thin, so of course it being primarily CO2 won’t cause a warm planet because the atmosphere is so thin It has little effect.

That’s like saying “blankets don’t help warm you up” and using a piece of paper with holes in it as you example. 

also, again, show me math, laws of physics, equations, etc. that support your claim that it’s impossible for CO2 to warm the atmosphere.

Math that is solid enough to over write the many ways of proving it does.

You’re doing what’s called anomaly hunting. Where there’s piles and piles of evidence to support that CO2 warms the atmosphere and you’re finding little anomalies and saying “look see you’re wrong.”

Put particulate matter on the graph, put sulfur in the graph. You have to have every variable accounted for, and there are thousands. You’re only accounting for two and think you are disproving something. Science simply doesn’t work like that.

I wouldnt exactly compare boy changing to girl and wearing a dress and make up to be equal to jumping out a window.

Let me put it this way. Child's body is owned by that child. However, no one is forced to provide a child with surgery. Surgery requires the consent of both child and adult who does the surgery. Therefore, child cannot force an adult to perform surgery on a child.

I have a theory of objective ethics, and I suspect that there is a lower age where almost no child could truly understand it. That is the absolute minimum for the age of maturity.

Sorry, but you dont get to decide when someone owns his own body and when not.

Also, there is no point at which you own a person. Even if person doesnt know anything, it still stands that you dont own that person. Therefore, there is no point at which you can make decisions regarding someone else's body.

Refusing to indulge in a childs dangerous fantasy is not forcing anything on them besides what reality would eventually.

Denying a child the use of own body is forcing your will on the child. Forcing your will on the child is making that child a slave. Slavery is harmful. Therefore, denying a child the use of own body is harmful.

isn't corporate subsidies a right wing position?

Adults do NOT have any "right" to force their debauchery onto non-adults.

So you have no right to force a child to be a boy if a child wants to be a girl.

All that enormous smaug-like wealth off political capital and institutional trust... wasted on mutilation and targeting children... what an absolute shame.

Huh? 

Um, yeah. So in other words, Biden is far more intense and driven behind the scenes than most people think. This article sounds more like a campaign ad.

Is there a point I’m missing here?

Of course CO2 isn’t the only cause of warming, so just saying the temperature doesn’t perfectly match the increase in CO2 doesn’t mean anything.

You can see that CO2 and the global temperature are connected at the hip.

“To warm requires an increase in kinetic energy of gas-on-gas interaction, simply having a modification of the electron cloud energy would be meaningless.”

This isn’t true. [... talking about the concept of insulation ....]

“If you could detect the average altitude of origin for the photons leaving Earth in the carbon dioxide absorbance bands what do you think it would be?”

I’m not really sure what you’re asking here or why it is important. CO2 layers stretch a wide range in the atmosphere. And this reflection of infrared light will be occurring at all levels.

“Correlation is not necessarily causation. From first principles there are always four options:”

You’re right, unless you can prove an action causes another action. It can and has been proven that CO2 causes a warming effect on the earth. 

“Can you think of a way increasing surface temperatures could cause increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?”

Yes, I said it in the sentence you quoted. Glaciers contain CO2, when they melt due to increased surface temperature CO2 is released. that doesn’t mean that the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise

They both influence each other.

And easy way to disprove the idea that CO2 warms the atmosphere is to find a time in ice core graphs where the CO2 rises sharply, but the temperature doesn’t follow.

By that same token CO2 is considered one of the most important gases in our atmosphere because of its ability to trap and release heat, without it, the earth would be much colder and not very hospitable.

You can also look at the planet Venus, that has runaway greenhouse effect 90+% of that atmosphere is CO2 and it’s the hottest planet in our solar system, that isn’t a coincidence.

That doesn’t mean I’m knowledgeable enough to combat every claim you make, that also doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

They don’t even claim the climate is anything to panic over yet, if you read their full reports which I do.

There is a very strong consensus on the mechanisms for CO2 warming the atmosphere, even people like Stephen Kunin who argue we aren’t the driving force, or at least there isn’t enough certainty in the data to make that claim, agrees that we have had a warming effect on the planet.

So trust the physics that are out there for us to read, and I don’t think it’s as easy to disprove as you’re making it out to be. 

Another thing I will say is that it isn’t just one party of scientists coming to this conclusion. Mathematicians, biologists, geoscientists, atmospheric scientists, chemists, and physical scientists all see that CO2 warms the atmosphere and all have proven it using their methods of science.

For example, when I first learned about how CO2 works in my physical chemistry class. It took probably 35 minutes of math to explain why this happens, you have provided no math in your rebuttals, it requires math to prove or disprove physical properties of particles, especially when dealing with heat transfer. If you can find a way to disprove it mathematically then I will value your statements more. 

That’s a very tall ask for people to agree with you, when you’ve provided no science, math, equations, laws, etc. 

Just let them die. You are no business to them, they don't have to be no business to you. You aren't even Canadian, you can't decide for them.

The data have proven that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses warm the environment. That is not arguable.

Let’s take look at how this works physically. CO2 absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers.

Infrared light falls within that spectrum of energy. When the CO2 absorbs the infrared energy it excites an electron into a different shell. When that electron is done vibrating it comes back to its normal state and shoots the infrared in random direction. Not all of it will be shot back towards earth, some will be shot into space. However the more CO2 added to the atmosphere the more infrared will be shot back towards the earth. When that infrared bounces back off the earth it will then be absorbed by CO2 again the cycle repeats. The more CO2 there is the more bouncing between earth and the atmosphere occurs, therefore warming the planet.

Scientists don’t just make up terms like greenhouse gasses because they’re bored, that name was made because of this phenomenon.

CO2 stays the atmosphere for 300-1,000 years.

Also, it is very much proven that CO2 has had a big role to play in warming the climate times in our past. This is a link to a graph that shows the changes in both temperature and CO2 over the past 400,000 years. Using molecular Proxies. You can see that CO2 and the global temperature are connected at the hip. One rises as the other does, at least in the past 400,000 years that has been the case.

https://www.grida.no/resources/6443

1. Coincidence
   
2. A causes B
   
3. B causes A
   
4. A and B are both caused by some common cause C (through some chain of causation)
   

Another reason this cycle isn’t good, is because glaciers trap enormous amounts of CO2 as they freeze. As they begin to thaw, they release that CO2 into the atmosphere.

A) They have a right to do what they want with their body

This has nothing to do with abortion.

B) Many reasonable interpretations of the Hippocratic oath would prevent a healer from promoting or assisting.

Any interpretation that multiplies the original oath ultimately destroys it (i.e. it renders it null and void, useless)!!