its a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theorists!!! thats one hell of a conspiracy. the master conspiracy if i dare say!

I’m just relieved that at least your comments, Prof. Bardon, aren’t sarcastic by any means. It would be disappointing for an associate professor with a doctorate in philosophy to berate a student’s opinion like a grown-up going to a play ground to beat up a little kid just to make himself feel better. Professional. Well done.

No fears Gary. I’ll be responding to Prof. Bardon’s argument, which is in fact almost entirely faith-based, when we get back from break.

A discussion if this article is taking place here – http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/wake-forest-professor-joins-attack-on-libertarianism

This professor arguments come off as elitist, narcissistic and naive. Have fun with him YAL, try not to leave too many bruises on his ego!

I can’t believe the University of Massachusetts gives out PhD’s to people who like express their views with out checking the facts from both sides. Isn’t the whole point of earning a PhD to demonstrate that you can methodically present your argument with evidence obtained via a rigorous criteria that adequately addresses criticisms? Here’s a counter-argument that is sourced-http://thefreepressfsu.blogspot.com/2010/02/climate-gate-all-about-science-or-just.html

Bardon says “Climate experts the world over would be ecstatic if someone showed that climate change doesn’t exist or isn’t a problem. No one appreciates better than they do what great news that would be.” He is actually incorrect here, at least to some extent. The ClimateGate emails show the top scientists of the IPCC actually want the most alarmist notions regarding climate change to be true. Apparently, Bardon either hasn’t read those emails, or is lying.

“Radical libertarianism has many of the characteristics of a religion: it is internally incoherent, in that it is founded on a notion of absolute property rights that is indefensible according to its own moral principles,” – Bardon. This is a rather unique claim – most observers, whether libertarians or not, grant that libertarianism is uniquely internally consistent. Also, the claim that libertarianism’s moral principles contradict… its own moral principles is dumbfounding.

Bardon says “The column in question describes a vast conspiracy among all the world’s national and international climate research centers, tens of thousands of individual scientists and the United Nations to consolidate power over those who love freedom.” – Bardon. Actually, all he claims is that humans react to incentives. And, with the dozens of climate scandals and inaccurate IPCC claims being withdrawn, it seems that the IPCC scientists have indeed been swayed by the incentives of prestige and power.

Bardon says: “The helpless oil, gas and coal industries, along with all the other corporate interests opposed to environmental regulations, are being crushed under the iron heel (panda paw?) of the World Wildlife Federation.” Here, Bardon employs hyperbole to make his point. Was it really needed? Why can’t he argue honestly and straightforwardly? The bottom line on this point is that over the past two decades, governments have spent 80 billion dollars promoting AGW, while private companies have spent 1/4000 of that amount – just 23 million dollars.

“The essay claims that the evidence for warming and climate change has been debunked.” – Bardon. Actually, the essay claims that the hockey stick graph has been debunked, which is true.

Bardon also uses the phrase “climate change denialism” – but this too is inaccurate. Elliot didn’t deny that climate changes. In fact, Elliot’s article barely even discussed climate science – it only said that remote bureaucracies often take on a life of their own. As public choice economists know, politicians and bureaucrats have incentives that are not aligned with the public interest. I was also shocked to see this disingenuous, quasi-Holocaust invoking phrase (climate denialism) wielded by a professor against a student. Shocking behavior.

Bardon says: “Like “birthers,” “truthers” and other conspiracy theorists, climate change deniers paint themselves into a corner of irrefutability. ” Again – guilt by association. And the comparison has no basis in reality – those are different subjects. When you can’t argue the facts… just create ad hominem arguments! My ideological opponents are… really mean and crazy!

Bardon says: “The point is that the poor reasoning, contempt for evidence and paranoid style of this column provides a perfect illustration of the ideological credulity I have been talking about.” Again, Elliot’s column was about the fact that humans respond to incentives, and government employees and climate researchers are not immune to that fundamental fact of human behavior.

Bardon” libertarians “often exhibit the blind fervor of those in the grips of religious mania.” This is unsubstantiated, and I think it’s a weird way of painting their enthusiasm for liberty in a bad light. But I think the ironic thing about the claim is that Prof. Bardon’s entire column was full of knee-jerk ad-hominem claims, guilt by association attempts, and his failure to at least acknowledge the recent Climate scandals which underpin Elliot’s thesis demonstrate a sort of “religious belief” (in climate change). In short, Bardon comes off as a faith-based, knee jerk ideologue who ignores evidence and makes scathing personal remarks against a student in a desperate attempt to further a variety of disconnected causes: atheism, AGW hypothesis, modern liberalism.

Finally, the funniest line of the piece was this one: “You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.” A case of Orwellian doublethink? Yep. Apparently, Bardon likes to traffic in innuendo and smear, yet claims allegiance to “facts”.

Most shocking in general is Bardon’s ludicrous, sanctimonious, and demeaning writing style (especially considering he is responding to a student – a customer – of the university). But it can’t cover up Bardon’s lies.

(and methinks Bardon would be surprised to know that there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years, and there are plenty of scientific studies giving people good reasons to be skeptical of the AGW hypothesis)

I found this delightful diatribe by virtue of a facebook link (I don’t attend Wake Forest), and am inspired to say a few things:

I find absolutely remarkable the tone of derision and condescension that permeates the article (the more so because of the “maturity” and position of it’s author). Such scorn is indicative of genuine contempt for those possessing opposing views. This, in turn, reflects a more disturbing, because broader, problem with this type of political polemic: it proceeds from the belief that opponents of its view are incapable of reason, and so directs itself to ridiculing them for the benefit of third parties. That is, the basic premise from which it proceeds is that there is in fact no evidence controverting claims of climate change. As any good professor of philosophy knows, this is “begging the question”: assuming as a premise that which requires proof.
Of course, this requires our goodly professor of philosophy to cast his “radical” student in with the likes of other, more qualified “climate deniers” (as though global is akin to the holocaust), including professors of atmospheric science, meteorology, oceanography, etc.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Believe or (as is more likely for some) not, these credentialed, gentle folk raise real objections based on considered opinions! Perhaps we might dismiss these positions as part of a vast “anti-global warming” conspiracy.
It is, of course, much easier (if much less intellectually honest) to resort to the vague “appeal to authority” implicit in the derision of view points as “conspiratorial” and devoid of logic (while hypocritically engaging in a few conspiratorial assertions of his own about nefarious Republicans in the service of evil corporations). Claiming there is none, one needs not address what logic a position might hold. Rather, simply talk over their adherents as quaint articles of irrationality. We might hope that a professor writing in a student paper would show more interest in engagement than ridicule.
Let me end with a few excerpts from the noble professor’s article which, I think, speak for themselves, yet deserve a little good-natured illumination:
“Radical libertarianism has many of the characteristics of a religion [including that] its followers often exhibit the blind fervor of those in the grips of religious mania.”
“I don’t want to beat up on a student, whose views, I hope, are still in the process of development. But attempts to obscure or deny the facts about our environmental crisis are no joke.”
One wonders if, though there are valid scientific hypotheses in support of anthropogenic climate change, the advocates might have among their numbers their own frothing partisans?
One might suspect that, precisely because these matters are “no joke,” they call for precisely more sincere, deliberative exchange, and not the nauseating bile that so commonly confront the “skeptics.”
One might think that “skepticism” is a scientific virtue such that those sundry Ph.D.s in atmospheric science and the like who demur at too-hasty conclusions might escape the vituperation of a incensed professor of philosophy.

Bardon would do well to actually follow the money trail:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm

“Sceptics are fighting a billion dollar industry aligned with a trillion dollar trading scheme. Big Oil’s supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking. “

I think you (Bardon) have missed an overlying point in the piece you have attacked and that is the use of demagogy by politicians. You can question research and statistics all you want about the falsehood of man-made climate change just as someone can question the truth of it, but you miss the real danger of the power to be gained through fear. I mean, the Patriot Act passed on fear and I hope few believe it is completely virtuous in purpose. So, while climate change is a significant debate that may (or may not) have serious implications in the future, it should not be done by Washington politicians, lobbyists, or their friends. Just think of the effect a scientist funded by government grants (in order to find a way to combat climate change) would feel if the research uncovered with absolute certainty that climate change was natural and safe. Is it a leap to assume that the scientist might have more than objectivity in mind when reporting facts that could possibly remove funding from his work?

So, you can call us libertarians crazy, or imply it, all you want, but where you see us as zealots for complete personal liberty just as we could see you as stubborn and naive to the point where you are discredited. The point I gathered from Elliot’s article was simply that man-made climate change isn’t absolute fact (which it most definitely is not and you are naive if you assume all evidence pointing this out is manipulated by stubborn right-wingers) and that we should keep an eye open for politicians using it as a means to get elected. It’s funny that you paint libertarians as radical when the most aggressive legislation against climate change (Cap and Trade) would literally destroy the American economy. That is radical, not the championing of liberty.

That is, in FACT, the most unprofessional personal and collective attack in writing, of any sort, that I have seen from ANY educator in my sixteen years of public school. During those years I have witnessed three teachers fired because of harassment. The faculty and students of Wake Forest should be ashamed to employ such a condescending, pretentious, narrow-minded jackass.

Some question why the youth are looking to different political philosophies and why they are so passionate about their involvement and about opening other individuals’ minds.

This professor could not be a more suitable example.

Wow, there is one way you can be sure that Bardon is trying to be a jerk to you. If you had written a letter claiming something absolutely ridiculous and morally repugnant – the holocaust didn’t happen, or we should sterilize these people – one would not write in hiding behind sarcasm (a product of fear) and ridicule if they were sincerely concerned about your ability to reason or analyze “the facts.” They would call up your department head, possibly coach or program director to get a hold of you. They would ask to set up a date w/ some profs help you answer questions and look at who is refuting the evidence – they would turn you into Hoffer’s “True Believer” so you could be an activist and proponent for their side – because every true believer knows the extremist is going to be an extremist for one end or the other.

I would seriously consider having a discussion w/ him in front of his department head and your student affairs board. He did not engage the material – he engaged the student – Straw Man fallacy – w/ his ridicule and supposed psychological analysis. His department should be VERY concerned w/ the level of discourse occurring in that teacher’s classes.

But you must remember – this man has never worked in the private sector – and w/ that degree – most likely never will. The only reason a job like his exists is because the state allows it to – subsidizing everyone’s college aid – and the college giving degrees to students who will not be able to see a fair amount of return on the investment. Regardless, he did not address the cost of climate reform. I reject the notion that the next greatest technology that will put everyone to work, get us off fossil fuels, and save the planet – will ONLY occur because the tax dollars stolen from me have subsidized it. Bardon is partaking in one of those logical fallacies that I can’t exactly name – but it’s the one where “I can’t think of the solution to the problem because I’m not smart enough – therefore I revert to my old standby – the government should do it.”

The evidence has been provably debased, doubt beyond reasonable doubt has been established regarding the source data as well as the objectivity of the investigators.
Professor, you can no longer wield the sword of credibility. Your weapon has been reduced by truth to one of limp papier mache.
History will show the “climate change/global warming” pseudopanic as ludicrous, equal to the “coming ice age” hysteria of the 1970s.
Contempt for evidence? Absolutely. The evidence is contemptible, the investigators corrupt, and their disciples duped. That would be you, Professor Dupe.
You have no first-hand knowledge of this topic, nor, in fact, do the very investigators who portend to investigate this question.
You are frauds, one and all.

Does he realize that Elliot – as a student – is essentially his customer?

How do you talk to somebody like that?

Adrian Bardon says:

“A key point, so often ignored, is that one side has a gigantic economic interest in confusing the issue, while the other side would like nothing better than to be proven wrong!”

Thus Engstrom’s mention of the symbiotic relationship between public intellectuals and the government. When most of your research funding comes from the government… you’d better find a problem in order to perpetuate you funding.

This research is far more bias than even the Tobacco industries research concerning their product. The relationship of a public intellectuals research to the mechanism of theft that funds his research tends to justify the mechanism of theft’s existence.. even romanticizing it.

That being said, any real intellectual battle must be fought with evidence and not just “bias” mudslinging. Though Dr.Bardon himself may be paid largely in part from the institution he is defending, his arguments must be defeated on an empirical and logical basis.

Unfortunately, there is no empirical or logical arguments made in this argument. It is largely straw men and accounts of Dr. Bardon’s recent television watching experience.

The debate should be well defined. We are not debating whether there is global warming or whether carbon dioxide causes warming. The latter is an established fact while the former could be questioned only using statistical hypothesis testing rather than the simpleton use of raw date. The real issue is as follows:

“Is Global warming caused by man? Can it be reversed? Is government an institution that is capable of handling such complicated problems?”

Instead of attempting to embarrass a truth seeking student through some major logical fallacies (all those straw men)try addressing the issue as defined above.

Bardon, you are behind the times. Condescend all you want, but don’t ignore history, especially when your readers do not:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger177.html

I love this article, I really do. And the comments really seal the deal.

There’s really only one reason to read either Lew Rockwell or Young Americans for Liberty-to laugh at them. Really, it is absolutely hilarious that any group could truly be that stupid/gullible. The people who follow Rockwell/YAL really do seem incapable of forming a rationale thought. Instead must listen and follow to the letter every idiotic opinion spouted by your precious movements and leaders. Instead of free thought, YAL have traded one figurehead for a god (call it Ron Paul or the Market or Lew Rockwell) that veers even more strongly towards shocking stupidity than that of the previous object of adoration.

To say it another way, these libertarians have swallowed the whole package of bullshit, line hook and sinker. Bardon is right on the money when he calls YAL religious-any suggestion that there may be a disagreement is blasphemous.

And they claim to want free speech? Really? The only thing I see is a desire to have free speech but only in agreement with your side in view. Sorry, but that’s not true free speech. I’ve seen messages about “outing a Keynesian professor” and links about “oh, this guy insults our lord and savior Dr. Paul by even suggesting that there could be contrary opinions-we must comment on his article informing him how stupid he is.” Once again, how is this free speech?

In the end the Rockwell/YAL fanatics are the true hypocrites in this situation-they cannot even give opposing views the decency of respecting that side’s opinion. All I can say is thank god these people are too stupid and naive to ever seize any sort of power.

I’m going to be presumptuous here and say that “Dr. E” gets most of his funding from the state while supporters of Lewrockwell.com and others have to earn there money in voluntary relationships with other humans.

If there were any God a free marketeer of the Austrian descent “worships,” it is found within the first 200 pages of Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. Those pages outline the Austrian methodology based on individual subjectivism and the logic of human action (praxeology).

If Dr. E is just another University professor failing to engage the issues of this particular debate while throwing up straw men about what is on a particular website that is unrelated to this issue, then it is a sad day for academia at one state funded institution.

The “Dr.” says “In the end the Rockwell/YAL fanatics are the true hypocrites in this situation-they cannot even give opposing views the decency of respecting that side’s opinion.”

Well, obviously Dr. E doesn’t respect what he calls “stupid and naive” but what makes me wonder is why he calls YAL and Lewrockwell.com “hypocritical.” Are they big advocates of respecting opinions they disagree with? I know i’m not.

Free speech includes engaging someone in methodological debates (hence the outing of Keynesian) and arguing with other people’s ideas. Now, if they were arguing to forcibly stop speech through government intervention then they would be violating the idea of free speech.

However, it is the tax feeding University Professor who uses a Bureaucratic system of property theft in order to “speak freely” to society. Does free speech include reducing one groups ability to speak so a more privileged group can do so? I’ll just leave that question out there, surely to be unanswered, so those frothing at the mouth for their tax funded benefits can call us productive folks “loons” for holding an opinion.

“Dr.” E seems not to know what “free speech” means, because there haven’t been any cries for censorship. Also, “free speech” generally concerns the act of government censorship. For example, if the “oldgoldandblack” deleted a comment on this website, it wouldn’t violate the First Amendment – that applies to the Federal Government.

“Dr. E” claims: “they cannot even give opposing views the decency of respecting that side’s opinion.” However, there is little to respect when the author engages in deceitful ad hominem, straw-man fallacies, and demagoguery.

As for the little substance in the article, commenters have addressed his claims one by one.

Are many professors at Wake Forest really this petty and stupid?

…Wow

Haha-wow!-George Edwards your powers of deduction are truly magnificent. Really? All I did was call your group stupid and pointed out the inconsistencies with your message, and you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I work for the government. That is almost too funny! I should probably create a real believeable job for myself like leader of the Illuminati…but you would probably be gullible enough to believe. Now I’ll also have to add delusional to the mix.

I also like the fact that you think just because you read a book by Mises you suddenly understand all workings of the universe. Wow! Go use that intellectual powerhouse of your brain! Maybe eventually you can understand the concept that-gasp!-other people’s opinions are different than yours.

You are wrong on many levels. I said it was likely that you are funded by the government. Despite my sentiments I challenged you to debate on the relevant issues rather than getting personal.

Still waiting.

And… observations are inductive, not deductive. So rather than copying random catch phrases you should think about what you’re saying.

Or, rather, drawing conclusions from observations is an inductive practice.

There’s no way Dr. E is actually a professor. And also, if he’s unwilling to say who he is, I wouldn’t bother arguing with him. Thanks for all the comments. I rarely get the opportunity to play t-ball with a professor’s brain, but Bardon has just set this up too perfectly. I’ll be writing an article about Bardon and his arguments after our spring break next week.

Sorry, but this article isn’t about global warming. It’s about blind faith. There’s nothing to be discussed; you’ve already demonstrated both what Bardon and I both suspected-these radical libertarians are zealots of a narrow selection of leaders whose message is sacrosanct not because of its meaning but because of who said it. If we follow assumptions than I will say that many of these libertarians have never read a word of Keynes or Marx in their lives and yet feel the need to burn them because your leaders tell you to. Until you actually accept that you must challenge your conventional wisdom with works that you may disagree with (and critiques do not count) you will never free yourself from the mental prison you’ve constructed.
And for the record, I have not read Human Action, but plan to someday further down the road. Until then though I abstain from any judgment on him or his writings.

Once again, begging the question.

You assert that there is nothing to be discussed; global warming is a proven fact. But many, many scientists disagree. People with scientific credentials no doubt more valid than yours are skeptical.

Provide some evidence instead of ad hominem attacks. Until you do, you’re not a serious debater, you’re just a flake.

Evidence that global warming is a statistically significant phenomenon caused by human action, and able to be controlled with top down planning.

I never said I was a professor.

It should also be obvious to anyone that the purpose of this article is not about global warming. I’m surprised that no one else has noticed this. Because everyone else here fails to understand what the paper’s purpose is, any argument I use will be worthless (and for the purpose of being succinct, you can refer to my arguments as “ad hominem,” “straw man” or whatever other buzz words you want to use to describe me). All I can say is that I am even more surprised than I was previously. You guys really are hopeless. Still I wish you the best at someday becoming smarter, but you have to remember that progress is only made through contraries, not listening to the same side every time.

And I don’t understand why my unwillingness to say who I am should be the determining factor in any arguments.

Exactly, the purpose of the article was to ridicule and condescend to a student for holding certain beliefs under the spurious pretext of a discussing “theory” about how people are irrational, without bothering to provide any reasoning.

This is an exercise in Class A Douchebaggery.

The problem with listening to your side is that you don’t make arguments, just sling mud.

Who’s hopeless?

I guess it is hopeless to argue with someone who only wants to use red herrings and straw men. Maybe, one day, students for liberty will be intelligent enough not to bother with evidence and arguments.. but simply claim everyone is irrational and be done with it.

Even the Atheists among us (like myself) religiously cling to the idea of liberty… so only ad hominems and other fallacious arguments should be used to defeat us. All the good arguments should be kept a secret… and not wasted on us.

Wrong again, but I wouldn’t expect anything less.
I’ve thought about this and have reached a new conclusion that whenever a disagreement arises the YAL members can just spout that it’s an argument on false premises-this is what I find amusing-any argument is immediately a conspirarcy and that is what Bardon is trying to get here. No one has demonstrated any critical thinking skills here (myself included) and instead simply repeated whatever the so-called “experts” on one side proclaim. Whoever said that “experts” weren’t infallible and given to the occasional lack of judgment or conflict of interest? To push forth the idea that the “experts” are automatically angels just based on their position is both naive and stupid. This is what Bardon is speeching of. He is not attacking a student, but rather the student’s inconsiderate action of writing in which an entire side of evidence and experiments, which is equally valid as the other side, is immediately thrown out because it does not conform with the narrow view the student has placed on the topic. Instead of the student viewing the world as it is, he views the world as he wants it to be. The global warming example is simply the closest at hand that Bardon can give. He could have just as easily discussed economics or freedom and have shown a very similar and convincing case.
I have faith that if you tried, everyone at YAL will see how stupid many of their arguments truly are. Either through time or experience, I would be surprised if any of you have the same opinion in five to ten years.

Also thanks for calling my arguments red herrings, straw men, etc. I take it as compliments. You all wouldn’t call them that if they weren’t in some way working.

Unfortunately for we benighted fools, people like you just won’t SHOW us how our positions are wrong. Assert, yes. Vilify, yes. Provide reasons and evidence, well, too much work. Besides, we’re too stupid to get it anyway, right?

god libertarians are exhausting…..

Okay Lorin, I’m going to once again turn the tables on you and the others. What sort of reasons and evidence have you all provided? (Hint: it has nothing to do with global warming)

And thank you Matt, now you know how I feel! Still you shouldn’t hold all libertarians as being this way-there are many wonderful thoughtful ones. These aren’t them.

Well, I provided a link to the wikipedia page that indicates that there is enough evidence for people more qualified than myself (and both you and Dr. Bardon) to be “deniers.”

But of course, I wasn’t seeking to prove that global warming doesn’t exist, but only to show that there is enough reason to be skeptical that skeptics shouldn’t be derided as irrational zealots.