Is. +1 anyhoo.

That is not entirely true. Recent Pew Research data says that people who are "science educated" are split along party lines on global warming. However, among self-identified Democrats, those who score low on science awareness tend not to accept APG and global warming in general.

RE: 2, Do-Goodism:

A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business. ERIC HOFFER

AR identified the archetypes of the brute and the witch doctor. The brute survives his mental stultification through violence, justified by his fanatical ideological identification with the witch doctor. The witch doctor survives his cowardice though ideological stolen concepts, justified by his fanatical vengeful romanticism around the brute. "Do-goodism" as you describe it is simply the coalescing of the witch doctors of the world. Today, they are called leaders. "Personal financial self interest" as you describe it is just the summation of all the crony capitalist brutes of the world. Today, they are called visionaries.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-acce...

Funniest comment on this post. Thanks.

In the Zen Master tradition, our in-house logician MM uses contrarianism to enlighten.
But surely this time, majorly tongue-in-cheek?

Warning- long maybe boring response follows, if I had more time I would have written less, anyway, as follows.

The context of the subject line is clearly that of anthropomorphic climate change.
But for the strict constructionist- natural events are a great rallying cry whereby the political class gain more power by claiming to act for the common good. The actions are backed by governments and forced.

The theory- depends on putting aside the laws of science and especially of thermodynamics, phony equations assuming flat surfaces ignore the directions of radiation dispersion after interactions with molecules. Faulty solutions to differential equations quantify this supposed energy flow.

The evidence- there is global manipulation of temperature data, actual data has been 'lost', what is called data is largely fake, the word used is homogenization.
Changes in ocean levels are best described by tectonic movements. There are claims of 100 meters per hundred years, some statistical methods could give a figure of 1 meter per hundred years. Many claims of sea level rise are really land subsidence.
Ocean acidification claims are fantasy, oceans are and will remain alkaline.
CO2 is released by oceans, see Henry's Law. No need for concern, in fact CO2 is beneficial for vegetation and therefore animal life.
Governments and universities with substantial government grant income actively suppress criticism, censor dissenters and remove them from employment.

The notorious hockey stick contradicted all current knowledge of global temperatures over the past millennium, no surprise when you find out how it was derived.
Predictions/forecasts based on the scam never eventuate -
profits before subsidies from renewable energy generators, numbers of polar bears, the energy output from wind generators, extent of Arctic and Antarctic ice, amount of snow. Even the 'backcasts' are ridiculous, 'there have been more' hurricanes, more floods, more droughts, no, there have been fewer.
Then there is the preposterous precautionary principle- if there is any claim that something bad can happen then unlimited resources must be spent to stop it.

still not decided This scare has no basis in logic or science and belongs in political activism and psychology. Reducing the power of government would cut the scare. Let us choose what campaigns and delusions we spend our money on.

MM's last two paras are correct- " It is not "Marxist" to participate intelligently in the affairs of your community ",
but it is when stupid participation is compulsory, every aspect was used by Stalin's regime and the recipe is strict Alinsky and Gramsci.

The supporters are in on the scam, or are liars, or dupes, or soft in the head and are furthering state control by destroying individual freedoms and economic wealth.

Minus 1. It is a question. It is a yes or no question. If you answer no, that is how you would disagree. If you answer no, I doubt very much if people on this forum would assume Mike Marotta to be a Marxist. Obviously, the question was disliked enough to warrant clicking and writing several paragraphs. I didn't know there was a problem with "loaded" questions in Objectivism. You've proven me incorrect, sir.

Aside from separating science from politics (which most of the climate hysterics and many conservatives do not), Marxism is not the only kind of statism or collectivism. The viros' worship of an intrinsic value of nature superseding the rights and objective values of man is not following Marx. Some of them are influenced by Marx, but it is mostly against production for the benefit of humans at the "expense" of the rest of nature, not a labor theory of value, economic determinism, class warfare, or other Marxist premises.

" And it is loaded,"
Yes. I am unclear on the meaning of "ideological degree", so I can't say if an concept's ideological degree is proportional to something else.

"Are we the cause (or a significant causal factor)? That is still not decided."
Right, but the evidence is overwhelming. Findings that human activities are not a significant cause of global warming would be shocking. Weirder things have happened in science, but I can't bank on a surprise discovery finding exactly what we wish were true.

"the resistance here and among other conservatives - is what to do about it "
My resistance to taking any radical action to it is I have not seen an estimate of costs of reducing it vs the costs to deal with the effects in the future. If we can come up with even a rough estimate of the net cost of actions to other people's property, there should be some way to account for those costs. Otherwise you have activities that seem profitable but are really just stealing from people somewhere else at some other time.

Unlike the bogus question of whether human activities cause global warming, I think we truly have not quantified these costs.

The main thing I hear from climate change deniers is the straw man argument that some people want to exploit the problem politically. Naomi Klein describes in her book how she used to see signs of climate change, e.g. weather events that are probably a part of climate change, and feel horror. But then she realized that one solution to the problem involves taking money from people who are producing value and CO2 and giving it to people who are not. Well great, she wanted to do that anyway. So then she learned to stop worrying and love climate change. People like that exploiting the issue to sell socialism are doing as much damage as deniers.

"Other people, of course, want the government to make sure that we all do the same thing at the same time."
Let's reject the idea of the gov't making sure people all do the same thing out of hand without comment.

"Within that adaptation is the individualist response that I will take of me and thou carest for thee."
Shouldn't the individualist be responsible if his activities on his own property are travelling and trashing someone else's property?

" you can have a lot of impact on your community"
I completely agree with this. Some climate change denier somewhere has a bogus argument allowing him to profit from damaging others' property. Someone somewhere is milking gov't programs to get a free-ride paid for by my quarterly estimated deposits. I should vote for people who try to stop that, but I can influence my life way more by taking care of myself--- reducing my own emissions, not lying to milk gov't programs, and if I so desire helping others do the same.

Good point +1