Comments by "RadicalRC" (@RadicalRC) on "Polar Bear Man Returns to the Arctic: VICE Reports (Part 1)" video.

  1. These global warming idiots tell us Polar bears are going to suffer, now there are so many they need to build housing for them?  Then out of some leftist sense of self sacrifice, they go into Polar bear country without a fire arm?  These are not the people to run your life or the world.  Smack yourself awake people.
    1
  2. ***** If your best argument is name calling, then I accept your surrender.  Please make strong logical arguments. You were off to a good start.  Going into polar bear country without a fire arm is of course anybody's choice.  I believe in Liberty.  That means I would not stop you.  I would however use the most compelling argument I could to convince you to value your life enough to protect it.  In the end you can do as you please.  I am not a vile person who would call in the state to make you or anybody else do anything so long as you do not harm others.   What this group did was industrial strength stupid.  I ridicule such thinking to the direct benefit of others capable of meaningful intelligence.
    1
  3. ***** A response before I read the rest of your remarks:   "you might want to make yourself sound less like an idiot."  then you say "Nice try in trying to say I was name-calling " The distinction here is I didn't call you a name, as you built your argument, you called me an idiot.   You were doing well and had my attention up to that point.  It weakens your argument to do such things.   As you progress, your argument should build to an indisputable point.  When you use name calling against your opponent, especially late in your point it's essentially a surrender.  The practice is used in place of a missing logical argument.  It makes me wonder "Is this all you've got"?  You may not believe this, but I am seeking people who can make strong opposing arguments.   I want my concepts challenged.  You can help me become right if I am wrong.  And, I'd rather be right than wrong.  You can do better by yourself.
    1
  4. ***** And to the next important point you make: "you should indeed know by now that polar bears have been endangered for years. Polar bears have been brought up in discussions of global warming very often since their territory is what's melting or receding." Certainly I do know they have been "brought up..often".   Chatter and claims does not in itself constitute scientific proof.   What I ask of you is how did the Polar Bears not go extinct during the Holocene?  That was a long period about 11,500 years ago when the ice caps were melted completely.  While you ponder this fact against the "Man Caused" global warming religious doctrine, also consider this was well before high populations of humans on the earth.  Well before the industrial revolution and I'm sure you'd agree; well before the SUV.   Why did the earth warm up enough to melt the ice caps?   How did the polar bears survive?  I do not wish to criticize a religion here.  My point is find out if you believe on faith (if it's a religion) or if your mind is open to the historic record as a logical way of detecting bullshit?  Are you rational?   What I ridicule is the "Man Caused" part of the whole religion.  I have no doubt whatsoever that weather changes by the minute, hour, day month, year, decade, century and eons.   Of course it does.  Nobody is disputing that point.  And of course, the changing weather over the years does have an impact on almost every creature.   No question at all on those points.   Accepted.   I don't believe it's "man caused" and I don't believe any of us tiny insignificant dust specks are ever going to overpower the energy of that massive thing in the sky we call the Sun.  It has many cycles with many effects.  We are nothing measured against that element of natural power.
    1
  5. ***** "We have less smog and pollution, e.g., Los Angeles because of people who fought for the Clean Air Act in the 70s. The smog was awful. There are Superfund towns and houses abandoned because of toxic waste. In the Industrial Age the pollution was so bad in England that the peppered moth evolved from white to black to match its surroundings. In Brazil they keep hacking away the rainforest." So, you think I want to drink dirty water and breath dirty air?   The oft asserted point is a fantasy.  I've never met anybody who wants such things.    "We are over-populated."  Socialists all over the world have killed over 120 million people often with support of ideas like you are expressing.  I reject the notion as ugly.  It's a Socialist / Communist value.   I ask you, in your world, who is worthy to live?   My question is aimed at introspection, no need to answer. "We are over-populated. Rivers in China have gotten so disgusting. I could just go on and on." Yes, the results of Communism / Socialist values where nobody owns anything are ugly aren't they?  Of course.  A country filled with a slave population, government command and control over everything and the rivers are polluted to a disgusting level.  Of course, it's to be expected.  It's the result of many ugly values pushed for the "greater good".  Of course.  I stand with you in disgust but probably for very different reasons. And, you complain about China Industrializing.  Do you want them to remain agrarian?  Living like dirt poor on the farm?  Is this the world we should all be striving to create?  Should we all be forced to return to an agrarian life style?  I think anybody who thinks they have a right to prevent an entire population from developing is dancing well across the line of peaceful moral interactions with other people.    
    1
  6. ***** Stunning. "The point is that you surrendered yourself in your initial comment by making an ad hominem attack and assuming." I do not yeild. " When you talk like that you are likely going to get some caustic remark back." I did not complain about your tone or use the word caustic.   You seem to be wanting to characterize my comments into something I did not say.   I reject your testimony as me as fraudulent.  "Again, think about what you said first" I wrote.  I did not speak.   " and how it would be perceived. I don't need a lecture on argument logic, because I know you moved the goalposts." I hoped to blow into flame the spark of life in your opening statement.  Forgive my presumptuousness.   " (If you understand that argument fallacy.) You did not take responsibility for your initial comment while at the same time making assumptions about people..." Everything I wrote, I wrote.  I never ascribed my words to to any other person nor did I ever claim I wrote them under duress.   I didn't state they were the words of an alien.  I wrote them.   How much more responsibility can you stomach.  I didn't think it was necessary to reaffirm they were my words.    "everything I said in my last reply to you. So call it a draw, if you want. " No, thank you. "If you want to be taken seriously then rethink your opening post, and don't be the pot that calls the kettle black, which is what you did. You can't say, "Well, I'll sound like a jerk first, but everyone else has to reply to me with tactful persuasion." I have no duty to respond to you at all, let alone in a way you approve of.   Remember, it is you who is responding to me.  You are in my thread.  Understand your place.    "When you call "man-caused global warming religious doctrine" how do you expect to be taken seriously? There's nothing religious about it. Scientists are scientists. "I do not wish to criticize a religion." See how you talk? Scientists work on theories, not religion. What's the point of going on with you if you take that tack?" Then your answer is you believe on faith?  Because a scientist said so?  If I presented you with a scientist (or 100) who said no, would you then change your mind?  This is not a proposal.  It is pointing out what you know.   That you believe and you will go on believing.  It's not about evidence. "  "I don't believe it's "man caused" and I don't believe any of us tiny insignificant dust specks are ever going to overpower the energy of that massive thing in the sky we call the Sun.  It has many cycles with many effects.  We are nothing measured against that element of natural power." We have an atmosphere that protects us from radiation from the Sun otherwise we would burn up. You are apparently ignorant about that a hole in the thinning ozone layer takes away from our protection from the Sun, thus warming. If there is a hole, as in Antarctica our rotating planet gets too much sun. It seeps in the holes. We're not trying to over-power the Sun, we're trying to protect ourselves from it! I study astronomy for fun...I have a video on the Sun. You've got it backwards." I thought we were talking about "Man Caused Global Warming" (a stupid sucker hoax) and the nature of going into the Polar Bears world unarmed as being less than.... well, not something our mothers would be proud of.   I've made no claims about the ozone or the hole or it's size or effects.  Find that person who has disagreed with you and go after them.  I'm OK with that. "Everything we do to improve the Earth benefits us, the continuation of other species, and our future." Then end justifies the means?  Who's end?   And who gets to decide the end?  We subject ourselves to who's vision?   Is there a prayer? "Those "leftists" you sneer at" Please.   "sneer" is way too weak a word.  It's pathetic.  It's wishy-washy.  My derision past "sneer" a long time ago.   "Lothe" doesn't even come close.   I consider those who impose their personal choices on others by force the most despicable kind of evil to ever be described as "human".   Get real.   Objectors to Liberty are slavers.   The filth of the planet. A despicable sewer ideology.   "are why L.A. has cleaner air and why there are environmental regulations otherwise corporations and development would be dumping more toxic waste into the ground, rivers, and air, than they do. Scientists figured out how to give you clean water, filtration systems, infrastructure, and understand the physics on how to do that and engineering. There isn't clean water everywhere in the world. This is a planet, not the United States -- we haven't solved all our problems, obviously." I have never denied or accepted these words.  It's so far off the topic of the video and my comments.  A good conversation for another thread on that topic. "Another thing you don't seem to understand is how rapid the changes are in comparison to previous ice ages and such." Are you implying we are in or entering an ice age?  "previous ice ages"?  Make up your mind and choose your words carefully.  "We have done things rapidly. What are you going to do to protect the ozone layer?" Are you asserting the suggested "warm" of today is different than then the poles melted during the Holocene?   This warm is of a different spirit.  This time the Polar bears will die when they didn't before?   Do you have a prior industrial society theory to explain the Holocene?   I realize pointing out the Holocene is blasphemous to the faith.   I do no apologize.  I do not ask for forgiveness. "What are you going to do about how warming affects bees and pollination? That's a lot of missing food. You can throw it all to chance -- you'll be dead by then -- and if coastal cities get flooded people will have to pack in tighter inland, maybe a lot of people will die and curb the over-population, and there you go." Well before the Global Warming Hoax I remember specials talking about high frequency radio transmissions and such possibly effecting Bee's.  Bee's are a subject of interest to me.   I don't step on them and do my best to preserve all pollinators.  Do you suppose there will be more blooming, more nectar production if the earth warms .5 degrees?  Hmmm-mmm. Weird isn't it? "The people who are anti-global warming" Pay attention.  I never said that.  I am anti "man caused".   Please concentrate your argument on the subject at hand and not what you wish I had claimed.  Confirmation bias is not the friend of rationality.   I've been clear. "..have an agenda about living in the 'now' not the future. They really don't know for sure." I'm about living.  Peaceful relations with others.  Against the initiation of force.   I am currently alive. "They're playing craps. They are too interested in how it affects them now, that is, business, money, etc." And how interested 'should' they be?   Should people be forced to comply with your personal decisions?   Would you do that or enlist others to do it on your behalf?   Have you ever considered using only peaceful negotiation rather than the guns of the state to get your way? "Then they made it political engaging their political followers to create a false "war" of ideas and science." Scientists never lie or cheat or produce the results which impact their ability to gain ongoing funding.  Of course not.  They are holy.  These are not humans, not flawed, not capable of initiating force on others to gain their living.  Of course not.   It's only corporations who want money, not scientists who want money who have a capacity for evil.  Of course.  I understand your bigotry completely.  People who make products and provide services for which our fellow citizens line up to trade their money for.  Those damn capitalists and the dummies who buy computers and I-Phones and clothing, and electricity.  Those damn people who over populate the earth.  Do you prefer the Cambodian or German Socialist's methods? "They're taking people for a ride for their own concerns when it shouldn't be political." So, you can discard my words by claiming I am under the control of others.   I am for Liberty.  That is to say, I oppose all ideologies that seek to control peaceful people who do not initiate force on others.   As such, most 'sides' look like the far left to me.   "You and I won't be alive to see who is correct." I hope for both of us that you are in error. "These anti-warming industries are the same ones who are always complaining about environmental regulations.  Since industries still violate regulations, illegally dump waste, strip-mining, etc. it's evident they are living in the now and are arrogant." Industries?  So, it's the industrialists that have brainwashed me into writing these things.   Earlier you were complaining about me taking responsibility.  Then you take it away.    Which way do you prefer?  Both ways? "The polar bears could adapt, but they had a lot more time to adapt during the Holocene period." So you think genetics change enough for that?  Genetically, the Holocene was a mere few seconds.  And, I'm to take your word on science?   Seriously?    "They also didn't have the added problems of many more people." How many more people do you think were in the arctic regions now as opposed to the Holocene?   This is really not making any sense. " They could move inland to eat (like they do from dumpsters), " Seriously?   There were dumpsters during the Holocene? "....mate with a different kind of bear, or die off." I'm no expert on bear mating choices.  I would suspect they are not nearly as choosy as youtubers.  But then, who knows. "But then they would also have competition for food with other kinds of bears. Either way, our population has messed up the natural balance of many species, pushed species into over-developed lands (people's yards)," Is man Natural?   If not, where did we come from?   On what ship?   The argument that man is not Natural is insane.  Pure insanity. "so again, it's the amount of time that is a factor. If global warming is already having effects, then we can try to forestall that. If not, then we will just be battling it out with other humans for resources." It's the natural state of living things to compete for resources.   What doesn't?   I mean really.  Of course. "Over-population is making some places quite miserable to live in by our standards." Do you mean places that wont support the number that live there, so charitable people bring them food and supplies.  Then because of the additional supplies the population grows and needs more supplies and etc... Are you talking about the cruel unintended results of charity?   It's an interesting subject. " It depends how long you want to have a pleasant life" I am all about the pursuit of happiness. "and what you're willing to give up." I will not yield my rights to you.  I will not give you all my money and all my power so you can "save the world".   I refuse.   You will have to kill me. "If people complain about traffic now, go look at photos of the work commutes in India and China." I haven't complained in this thread of such thing.  Off subject. "We're all going to die off one day. " Stating the obvious is wasting space.  Please limit your comments to one paragraph or one question.  It's too confusing for the reader to cover so many things at once. 
    1
  7. Please, go back to Das Kapital and have a good life.
    1
  8. ***** I own some solar, a partially electric car (CMax energi) a Hybrid (Civic) and am currently doing dry wall in a 90 year old house we super insulated the best we could.  It will soon get new windows and after that, a new efficient heating and AC system.  It's in a modestly poor older neighborhood about 200 feet from the railroad tracks.  Should make somebody a nice economical home they can thrive in.  The last home I worked this hard on was in a middle income neighborhood.  Took me about 10 years to really get it efficient while I lived in it.  Wind is the most expensive per KW but if I get to build my off grid or grid tied solar homestead, I'll like to add it for it's sun down potential.  I love this stuff.  My reasons are likely different than yours.  But, that's OK.  You're entitled to your own reasons, and I mine.  None of us are entitled to enlist force to make any peaceful person do anything.  I am for a non-violent world were be begin to interact voluntarily and dispose of notions that force to get what we want is moral.   And yes, the only alternative to Capitalism (defined as voluntary exchange) is subjugation.  I find that alternative; slavery, to be abhorrent.  So, that leaves me with only voluntary peaceful relationships.
    1
  9. ***** My current home is like that, dishes are cold as hell.   I hope to pull the exterior siding off when I retire and add some thickness to the studs, 1.5" foam and some house wrap.     However, my first dream is to move to a smaller place I can take off the grid or as far off as possible.  I don't need to be sold a bill of goods about the end world to do these things.  I like saving the money.  I like resources it frees up to live at lower cost with less stress.  I like the freedom of being less bound to any forced "collective".  I like not giving money to people who hate Liberty.  I enjoy the gizmo factor of making things work better.   There are many good real indisputable reasons to take positive action.   I don't need a "sky is falling" reason to do so.  And, I certainly do not want to cede any more Liberty or any more enslavement of my earnings to anybody.   Those are my reasons.
    1