>the amount of industrialization 150 years ago was trivial compared to today comparable to volcanic activity
And you were doing so well. You almost sounded like what you were saying wasn't complete bullshit... and then you come up with this such and complete and utter fabrication that it's impossible to believe somebody could actually still seriously claim this.
The good news is - we don't have to guess, we have actual numbers. See the American Geophysical Union - who are pretty much the premier experts on volcanoes - actually answered the question. The average annual total CO2 output from volcanoes is 0.025% of what is put out by coal power plants. Just power plants, and just coal. That's not counting cars, or oil plants, or gas plants or any of the other emission generating fossil fuel industries. Just power plants alone put out 4000 times as much CO2 every year as all the volcanoes in the world.
Oh and volcanic climate change, more often than not, is cooling - not heating. Volcanoes are more likely to cover the atmosphere in sun-blocking ash and sulphur, which makes it colder. It was a volcano, after all, that gave Europe it's infamous 19th century year without a summer. Volcanic heating from CO2 is actually extremely rare. It's just not a factor - which is why we believe that most previous major shifts in climate had to do with solar activity or changes in the eath's orbit. Things which are not happening to any significant degree at the moment.
>So then - the rise in temperatures 150 years ago was not a result of man-made global warming,
Firstly, the industrial revolution started in the 18th century, not in the 19th, and was well along by 150 years ago - so your claim about the level of industrialization is another flagrant lie easily disputed by anybody who passed high school history class. Now high school history classes tend to be less than stellar in accuracy, being more obsessed with propaganda than actual history but they do tend to get the damn *dates* right.
Besides which - nobody claims there was a significant rise 150 years ago because there wasn't. What there was, was the beginning of the rise that is significant TODAY. It started then, small, and has been accelerating ever since.
>do you think that a libertarian property owner would have no problem (and no recourse in a libertarian society)
Recourse isn't good enough. Recourse cannot happen until after somebody did something bad - perhaps fatal. The ONLY reason to have recourse at all, since there is neither justice nor any other good served by vengeance, is as a deterrent. Prevention is what we actually need.
It's not GOOD enough to punish the ones who did it for what harm they cause - you need to make it so damn scary that they don't try. Civl lawsuits don't work for that, we have them now - and they are not working (that was what Murray Rothbard proposed and it's pretty much the only well developed libertarian theory on the subject).
And what's worse is that the court system as a whole - and indeed any recourse system - is fatally flawed as a way of dealing with this and property rights even moreso. For several reasons:
1) Poluting your OWN land is STILL evil - because polution doesn't obey land borders
2) Recourse need to exist for people who don't own land as well - in fact, currently, they are the ones most in need of protection, most current toxic polution events happen on land without clear single-person ownership under western law.
3) It's extremely hard to prove, how *do* I prove this poison came from YOUR factory and not your competitors ? What about air polution ? A recent study showed that a sigificant portion of the smog in LA originates from factories in china. Polution not only doesn't obey land borders - it doesn't even obey national borders. All polution is global polution. That brings up matters of jurisdiction, huge costs and difficulty proving the guilty party and then proving that the harm you suffered was from that polution. It's a nightmare and, generally, only rich people get anything. A system that only protects the rich may be a libertarian wet dream (even if they always pretend it isn't really what they want) but the rest of us see it as batshit insane and, rightfully, consider it a threat to our lives and safety which we are justified to defend ourselves against.
I think shooting libertarians in the street should be legal on the basis that what they are doing, even if it's only politically and in who they vote for, the policies they advocate, is a legitimate and immediate threat to your life and the lives of your loved ones. And there is nothing extreme about that view - it's the only logical conclusion and the ONLY mitigating factor is that most of them are not doing so out of actual mallice but out of stupidity. A conclusion which logically follows from the fact that most of them are also endangering their own lives.