Does RP believe in global warming?

[Starks]

I had trouble finding reputable information.

[noxagol]

He thinks it is overblown. I think he said it on the google interview.

[risiusj]

I'm pretty sure he's skeptical about it. I can't remember exactly where, but he said something about how we aren't that big of a factor on it. I think it was one his 2 appearances on Bill Maher.

Just my opinion on global warming - It's blown way out of proportion. Yes, it's been hot the past few years. But are you going to take a 30 year sample size of the world's climate and say that it will continue on at this rate forever? It seems laughable. Even more laughable when it's reported that other planets in our solar system are getting warmer as well.

Edit: Now that noxagol mentions it, I'm pretty sure it's on the Google interview.

[fj45lvr]

what difference does that make?? what if he did? or didn't??

and do you mean Antropogenic Global warming or natural warming and cooling??

How much do you trust computer models? When was the last time they predicted anything accurate to date?? Thats how much trust can go there....

This topic is only the little wedge to be used for massive bureaucracy and new taxes and loss of sovereignty.

[peacemonger]

This video should be required viewing for every environmental doomsday believer.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566

The truth is that Al Gore's hedge fund "Generation Investment Management" (GIM) is the one selling carbon credits. Every time Gore buys carbon credits he is paying himself. He thinks it would be a good idea to make others feel guilty so they will do the same. Just another fear monger trying to make a buck.

In the words of Bob Marley: "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds. Have no fear for atomic energies 'cause none of them can stop the time."

People need to focus on battles we can win. Clean water and clean air are possible but to cool the earth you would probably have to launch rockets filled with ice into the sun. Only a liberal would truly put the government in charge of controlling the Temperature of the Earth.

[fj45lvr]

Only a liberal would truly put the government in charge of controlling the Temperature of the Earth.

Its just a new angle by our comrades ;) to achieve utopia.

Plus they get more GRANTS and ability to put all their buds and kids to work with their othewise nearly worthless college degrees....if the private sector doesn't need em the gov. will just up the ante with more regulation and research and make em have to hire more to keep em off their back.


Follow the Money.

[iamso910]

It's often claimed that those who are critical of the claims of coming distaster from global warming, or it's athropogenic origins are merely mouthpieces for vested interests.

However, the GW fearmonging industry is driven by tens of thousands of scientists, journalists and political climbers who gain by spreading fear.

Not to mention the emerging carbon credit trading schemes which threatens to develop into one of the world's largest industries. And it will be an industry that severly lobbies and manipulates governments. Where there is fear, opportunity arises for deals between businesses and government. (Corporatism).

Unfortunately the myth of looming danger is so pervasive among the public, that Ron showing any scepticism will likely hurt his campaign.

[Spike Kojima]

Better safe than sorry.

I have come to the conclusion there is man made global warming and I suspect to a lesser extent Dr Paul thinks the same. He said in an interview/Q and A that we should have more nuclear power plants , rational people know that when it comes to electricity production nuclear power is our best bet at the moment. He also likes the idea of more renewable energy.

But he , as I , trust the free market to solve our fuel problems. Only the free market can create the fuel of the future, the best,most efficient and cleanest. The government will just pick the fuel with the biggest lobbying group.

[cjhowe]

This should be required viewing for anyone regarding the issues of our day...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8730688320934276492&q=TED+talks+global+wamring&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[noxagol]

This should be required viewing for anyone regarding the issues of our day...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8730688320934276492&q=TED+talks+global+wamring&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

good video, makes a lot of sense.

[BenIsForRon]

So does everybody think its just a coincidence that the world started heating up at the same point when carbon emissions were increasing throughout the world?

[peacemonger]

Don't get me wrong. I'm 100% certain that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, but I am still heavily invested in clean energy companies (not ethanol). I will be happy to ride this latest doomsday prophesy all the way to the bank. LOL!!

Gore is an idiot but he is making me money. The truth will come out one day. Just remember I told you so.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566

[akovacs]

I think it's funny, the nuclear plant advocasy now.

In the 60s many companies were trying to build nuclear power plants, and the environmental lobby stopped them. In response to increasing demand, they just built more coal plants instead. Now that those are the problem, look what they want now: The very thing they tried to ban 40 years ago. Had they let the market decide 40 years ago, this wouldn't even be an issue now.

I'm sorry, but I think the environmental lobby is full of idiots whose ultimate goal is to stop industrialization and have us living in huts again. They couch it in topics in such a way that it makes you feel good to join their cause, but not really accomplish anything. You can name just about any environmental scare from the past 30 years and see they were wrong on almost all of them.

Not to say global warming is fake (I really do not know enough about it, and it's politicized to the point where it's difficult to find a good rundown of it), but I would take anything the environmental lobby says with a truck full of salt.

[risiusj]

So does everybody think its just a coincidence that the world started heating up at the same point when carbon emissions were increasing throughout the world?

For the most part.
In the 70s many people believed that we were involved in global cooling. From the 40s to the 70s temperatures gradually decreased.

Now the temps have gradually increased. Like I said before, to use such a small sample size of the earth's history is just plain stupid.

[Spike Kojima]

This should be required viewing for anyone regarding the issues of our day...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8730688320934276492&q=TED+talks+global+wamring&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Bjorn Lomborg is notorious in the scientific community.



Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) investigation

On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[4]

Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

1. Fabrication of data;
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5. Plagiarism;
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/index.php

The scientific consensus ,I'm sorry to says, leans toward man-made warming.

[akovacs]

They also thought global warming was happening in the 1920's when there was a period of steady temperature increases.

The other thing that bothers me is the seemingly large reliance on computer models to simulate what's going to happen. Computer models are VERY crude. There is no way you can model something as large and complex as earth with any large degree of certainty.

[cjhowe]

Bjorn Lomborg is notorious in the scientific community.



http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/index.php

The scientific consensus ,I'm sorry to says, leans toward man-made warming.

You can disagree with the assertions he made in his book all you want. You cannot, however, disagree with the assertion that the problems in the world today involve scarcity of resources. We cannot solve all of the worlds ills. We can solve many of them. We should choose to address the problems where we can do the most good.

[Politeia]

Dr Paul ... said in an interview/Q and A that we should have more nuclear power plants , rational people know that when it comes to electricity production nuclear power is our best bet at the moment. ... But he , as I , trust the free market to solve our fuel problems. Only the free market can create the fuel of the future, the best,most efficient and cleanest.

In a truly free market -- without any government interference at all -- "nuclear" power wouldn't have a chance, as it relies entirely on the government absolving it of responsibility for (a) any harm which may result from a nuclear "accident", and (b) the disposal of its voluminous waste, which is infernally toxic to all life for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of years. As in all cases of government interference in the market, this simply means that a few get rich, while everyone else pays.


The government will just pick the fuel with the biggest lobbying group.
Exactly. Which is why my state, New Mexico, was democratically designated (along with Nevada, another sparsely populated state) as the radioactive eternal septic tank for your nuclear waste.

[Spike Kojima]

You can disagree with the assertions he made in his book all you want. You cannot, however, disagree with the assertion that the problems in the world today involve scarcity of resources. We cannot solve all of the worlds ills. We can solve many of them. We should choose to address the problems where we can do the most good.

I agree but the question is belief in Global warning.I don't wish to use the environment as a political weapon .I just want people to be educated so that in a free market they can make choices that are backed by real science.

Cleaner fuel should not be a problem to solve it should be a choice you make when you chose your electricity provider and buy your new car.

edit..

In a truly free market -- without any government interference at all -- "nuclear" power wouldn't have a chance, as it relies entirely on the government absolving it of responsibility for (a) any harm which may result from a nuclear "accident", and (b) the disposal of its voluminous waste, which is infernally toxic to all life for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of years. As in all cases of government interference in the market, this simply means that a few get rich, while everyone else pays.


Exactly. Which is why my state, New Mexico, was democratically designated (along with Nevada, another sparsely populated state) as the radioactive eternal septic tank for your nuclear waste.

Democracy sucks..
I don't think anyone can have the right to destroy/pollute anyone else's property , so if nuclear power can't work without government interference ,I guess we need other energy sources.

[smtwngrl]

Here's what Ron Paul said in his first interview with Bill Maher (on 3/30).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU

(The discussion about global warming is from 2:28-4:00.)

[cjhowe]

In a truly free market -- without any government interference at all -- "nuclear" power wouldn't have a chance, as it relies entirely on the government absolving it of responsibility for (a) any harm which may result from a nuclear "accident", and (b) the disposal of its voluminous waste, which is infernally toxic to all life for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of years. As in all cases of government interference in the market, this simply means that a few get rich, while everyone else pays.


Exactly. Which is why my state, New Mexico, was democratically designated (along with Nevada, another sparsely populated state) as the radioactive eternal septic tank for your nuclear waste.

Do you have a link to the vote that designated NM and NV the septic tank. I would be interested to know if your representatives voted for it.

[Politeia]

Sure I believe in global warming. I also believe in global cooling. Both have occurred, at various times in the history of this planet, and both will occur again. It may be that human activity has contributed to a current warming trend. Or not. It may also be that there is no current warming trend. Too soon to tell.

However, none of this would be an issue if it weren't that the human species is already living beyond its means. Like the people in New Orleans, we've built this huge civilization below sea level, and simply refuse to acknowledge that one day, sooner or later, the wall of denial we've built will no longer be able to withstand the pressure of reality. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter only of when.

Sure, I've been around the "constitutionalist" "patriot" movement for a while, I've heard otherwise sensible people point out that all the humans on the planet could fit into, say, Texas, so how can you say the planet is overpopulated? I note that none of these people seem to be living in Calcutta, or Jakarta, Cairo, Mexico City, Shanghai, Manila, even the "inner city" of Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. -- any of the rapidly growing examples of what the future will be (at best) if we don't turn it around.

The Federal Reserve, and America's addiction to deficit spending and credit, are not isolated occurrences. They are nearly universal habits of humanity. Everywhere, it's "something for nothing", and put off paying until tomorrow. All the "issues" come down to that: the ultimate, universal drug to which we're all (with no more than a handful of exceptions) addicted.

Not everyone in the "global warming" community is in it for profit; some are in it because they understand that we can't go on like this indefinitely, and the sooner we make an effort to change, the less suffering will result. And since people seem to be more easily motivated by fear than by sense (in fact, people are almost never motivated by the latter), "global warming" seems like it might be a good wakeup call.

Unfortunately, though, it's beginning to look like it's mostly another hoax, such that, even if it's real, not enough people will believe it to make a difference. So -- what to do? I don't know; I only know I'm thankful I have no children.

[Politeia]

Do you have a link to the vote that designated NM and NV the septic tank. I would be interested to know if your representatives voted for it.

In New Mexico it's known as "WIPP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPP)", in Nevada as "Yucca Mountain Repository (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain)"; in both cases many people fought long and hard to prevent them, but were finally outvoted. Yes, many other people in New Mexico were in favor; these are the people who will vote in the next election for Rudy McRomney and Hillary Obama -- and probably prevail again.

As for whether those who represent the corporate "State of New Mexico" in the District of Criminals voted for or against WIPP, I didn't follow it closely; I assume some voted for, some (probably fewer, and/or seldom) against. We have, after all, only three Representatives and two Senators, all of them -- last I checked -- firmly ensconced in the bowels (an apt metaphor here) of the Republocrat Party. None of them "represent" me in any way, shape or form.


Democracy sucks..
I always have to laugh when people talk about "democracy" as if it were some kind of ideal. Democracy is what we already have. The majority rules. Many of my friends are "new age" liberals, so the example of "democracy" I often use is this: There are approximately six million Tibetans. There are over 1.2 billion Chinese. That's a ratio of 1:200. The Chinese want Tibet; the Tibetans are outvoted. That's "democracy".

Then there's also Socrates, who was executed by a legitimate, democratic vote -- which he declined to protest, as a loyal citizen of his polis. (Actually, I suspect he was also just tired of living.) Of course, if he hadn't been executed, we might never have heard of him.... It's a curious world.

[Starks]

Don't get me wrong. I'm 100% certain that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, but I am still heavily invested in clean energy companies (not ethanol). I will be happy to ride this latest doomsday prophesy all the way to the bank. LOL!!

Gore is an idiot but he is making me money. The truth will come out one day. Just remember I told you so.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566

It's foolish to believe that we have zero impact on the global climate.

[risiusj]

But it is foolish to believe that we have very much more than zero impact.

[BenIsForRon]

For anybody that believes in global warming, don't even try to argue with the people on these boards. They want to believe so badly that the global economy can grow exponentially forever that they reject anything that goes against it.

[SeanEdwards]

But it is foolish to believe that we have very much more than zero impact.

The historical evidence of human impact on the environment is overwhelming. Humans have literally moved mountains and eradicated numerous species during our history, frequently in very short time spans. It only took a few years to wipe out the seemingly infinite Bison herds that covered North America. Flocks of passenger pigeons once numbered in the billions. They are extinct now. To deny that human activity can change nature is pure stupidity.

[Starks]

The historical evidence of human impact on the environment is overwhelming. Humans have literally moved mountains and eradicated numerous species during our history, frequently in very short time spans. It only took a few years to wipe out the seemingly infinite Bison herds that covered North America. Flocks of passenger pigeons once numbered in the billions. They are extinct now. To deny that human activity can change nature is pure stupidity.
That and the aerosol-damaged ozone layer.

[DjLoTi]

We're electing a president to put us in the right direction. Not solving the problems that have been building for the last 250 years, exponentially at that.

[fj45lvr]

For anybody that believes in global warming, don't even try to argue with the people on these boards. They want to believe so badly that the global economy can grow exponentially forever that they reject anything that goes against it.

This is kind of a crazy statement....you, nor a "consensus" (meaningless in science) know one way or another right now BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY....what "solution" is being espoused?? You see little things that are energy reduction measures (saving $$ too) but overall the schemes you see laid out are TAXATION and GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE aimed at "punishment" to exact emmission reductions (which naturally will have a LARGE EFFECT on the middle to lower classes around the world).

As someone stated previously there are very REAL and Concrete things that resources can be expended for that will POSITIVELY improve the environment IMMEADIATELY as has been the case over these decades (and these measures are taken in countries that have MONEY) there is a new study on how poor people of asia create brown clouds burning dung, etc. which is heating up the air (this damage wouldn't be there if they were able to have power plants etc. and stepped out of the "stone age")

If you are down on our industrialization (that has brought much good as well as bad) how much of that progress would you like to go back and erase??

This is right back to the premise of this other thread about how the MSM needs to be sued for not mentioning Paul.....people seeking the gov. to intervene to stop the concerted power and dictates of the wealthy: the environmentalists think capitalists always pollute as much as they possibly can get away with to make a buck and in either case of the media or this issue without some kind of intervention you have to boycott.....funny thing is most of these greens I know fail miserably at that...they use electricity, autos, metal, etc. and etc.....they really just want to keep the "natives" in the world in their respective grass huts neatly fashioned with a solar panel....and these natives better not have the nerve to kill mosquitos with DDT either BTW.;)

[mconder]

but to cool the earth you would probably have to launch rockets filled with ice into the sun.

All the rockets mankind could send into the sun wouldn't change it...at all. Of course it will burn out in 5 billion years. Then it will be a lot cooler. Jesus will have come by then though, right?

[max]

The very same forces that seek to silence Rp are the ones who push this global warming nonsense.

It is an excuse for more government and less sovereignty.

Total BS.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ron Paul believes that we don't know for sure either way. He doesn't take sides. He believes in enforcing property law and holding polluters responsible for their action.

[Spike Kojima]

The very same forces that seek to silence Rp are the ones who push this global warming nonsense.

It is an excuse for more government and less sovereignty.

Total BS.

Those forces that try to disprove climate change are also (if not more ) trying to silence Ron Paul.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177380,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172949,00.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605190003

[DjLoTi]

You could launch rockets into space to spread sulfuric dioxide or something like that... the same things the volcanos expel. It lasts for about 1 1/2 years. It reflects more sunlight, and cools the earth about 1-2 degrees.

[SWATH]

I always thought of it this way, whether global warming is man-made or not it doesn't matter. You WILL NOT implement socialism or socialistic solutions to deal with it in this country!

[ThePieSwindler]

from an interview:

Muckraker Report: Especially after the release of Al Gore’s global warming documentary, the environment has been very much on people’s minds. Where do you stand on global warming?

Congressman Ron Paul: Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this process. As a Congressman, I’ve done a number of things to support environmentally friendly policies. I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending, I’ve opposed foreign wars for oil, and I’ve spoken out against government programs that encourage development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood insurance.

Muckraker Report: How about KYOTO?

Congressman Ron Paul: I strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty. Providing for a clean environment is an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn’t do that. Instead it’s placed the burden on the United States to cut emissions while not requiring China – the world’s biggest polluter – and other polluting third-world countries to do a thing. Also, the regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the regulations don’t apply. It’s bad science, it’s bad policy, and it’s bad for America. I am more than willing to work cooperatively with other nations to come up with policies that will safeguard the environment, but I oppose all nonbinding resolutions that place an unnecessary burden on the United States.



---------
humans may or may not have an impact, but the time for debate is NOT over, and the time to go batshit insane is NOT here as many would have you believe. The problem is that even if humans are the problem, most proposed means would do absolutely nothing to change that. Government is the biggest pollutor - KYOTO is a great example of the folly of the environmentalist movement - lets make everyone but china, the worlds biggest pollutor, cut emissions! That'll do the trick. Besides, there are greenhouse gases that are even worse than carbon dioxide - like water vapor, 99% of which is natural. Government is the largest pollutor, not the person driving the SUV or using an incandescant light bulb, and yet they are trying to tax us and use means that won't even solve the problem, it will only line the pockets of the elite to pollute more. Besides, whats so bad about warming? I remember reading a time magazine article about how there are places in the north atlantic that are TEEMING with life, that were once completely barren. Warmth perpetuates life and growth. Humans may or may not have a discernible impact, but its not so much that the world is spiraling into a catastrophe and that we MUST ACT NOW BY TAXING EVERYONE INTO OBLIVION!!!!!!!!!!!!!11one

I think Ron has it right - we need to protect the environment, but the #1 way we can do that is to cut environmentally harmful spending on the government's part. One thing is for sure - socialism and taxation are NOT the answers.

[stevedasbach]

One of the major factors in reducing pollution is wealth. Wealthy societies can afford to adopt cleaner technologies, even if they cost more. Poor societies are focused on survival. If survival means clear cutting rain forests, or burning wood for fuel, then that's what they will do to survive.

Freedom leads to greater prosperity, which in turn leads to less pollution.

[Politeia]

I think Ron has it right - we need to protect the environment, but the #1 way we can do that is to cut environmentally harmful spending on the government's part. One thing is for sure - socialism and taxation are NOT the answers.

Thanks for posting Dr. Paul's words on the subject. Once again he's on top of the issue. Pretty impressive guy.

[BenIsForRon]

And judging from that interview, Ron Paul isn't against regulations to protect the environment. People confuse taxation and regulation, but there is a difference. Sometimes you have to apply regulations to what a person can do on their property so that they won't be able to harm another person's property. Most of this would be done on a state or local level, but there are places where the federal government is needed, like with rivers.

[Mastiff]

1) Is the earth warming? Probably.
2) Are humans to blame? Maybe, probably some.
3) Why do we care if the earth is warming? Nobody knows. Sea level might rise in the next 100-500 years if nothing changes, which it will anyway.
4) Might good things come from warming too? Probably.
5) Can we do anything about it? Probably not. we don't know how much humans are to blame, and even if we were 100% to blame, making the necessary cuts in carbon output is not feasible.
6) Is the benefit worth the cost? Nobody knows.

The way I see it, we have uncertain science prescribing an enormous sacrifice in our well being to solve a problem that we don't even know is a real problem (and that solution, drastic cuts in carbon worldwide, is not politically, morally, or logistically possible). It could well be that we'd have to grow our carbon output at our current rate for 500 years before we'd see any real problems - and that's not going to happen. Does anyone think we're still going to be driving internal combustion cars in 100 years?

The people really pushing this crap are the ones who can't wait to get national and world governments involved in every aspect of our lives. This is the best tool they've found yet.

[Wyurm]

David Rothschild is fully 100% devoting his life to ending Global warming. That speaks massive volumes to me. Now I'm not saying that just because a Rothschild does something I won't do it, but if I see a Rothschild devote their life to something, I will definitely investigate very seriously to find out what is really going on.

I'm going to include a list of links for global warming websites. These sites believe in Global warming. Just take a good look at how they want to stop it, then ask yourself: Is this socialist / globalist? or is this enviromental concern?

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/
http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/
David's book: http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Global-Warming-Survival-Handbook/dp/159486781X

[Mastiff]

David Rothschild is fully 100% devoting his life to ending Global warming. That speaks massive volumes to me. Now I'm not saying that just because a Rothschild does something I won't do it, but if I see a Rothschild devote their life to something, I will definitely investigate very seriously to find out what is really going on.

I'm going to include a list of links for global warming websites. These sites believe in Global warming. Just take a good look at how they want to stop it, then ask yourself: Is this socialist / globalist? or is this enviromental concern?

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/
http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/
David's book: http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Global-Warming-Survival-Handbook/dp/159486781X

From your first link:

"...demand our leaders freeze and reduce carbon dioxide emissions now..."

I already don't like it. Top down command and control. Have they bothered to figure out the level of devastation to the economy that would result? What about China?

I like the picture of the punk kid with big pants too - exactly who I think of when I think of global warming (after Al Gore).

[DjLoTi]

Thinking we're just going to all of a sudden stop is unrealistic. Also, as Siberia unfreezes, more CO2 is emitted into the air then all the pollution man creates.

What should be the focus is how are we going to FIX it, not how are we going to STOP it. I'm seriously thinking these people are straight-up bogus.

[fj45lvr]

Sometimes you have to apply regulations to what a person can do on their property so that they won't be able to harm another person's property. Most of this would be done on a state or local level, but there are places where the federal government is needed, like with rivers.

States are sovereign and the majority of rivers are "their" waters....though some rivers are "interstate" and some others of them were not given over to the states upon inception into the union (as they were used as highways for commerce). The States are TOTALLY able to set their own regulations without the DUPLICATIVE and unneccessary FEDERAL government attempting to exert their wishes over what is NOT their business. this is another illustration of where the country has strayed from our founders intentions resulting in MASSIVE financial burdens with a large federal government (which will bancrupt us).

I understand that there are instances where someone could "harm" another persons property but this unfortunately is taken to the RIDICULOUS (things like preventing someone from cutting down timber because it would "harm" their neighbors view, etc. Not to mention other restrictions for things like "bug habitat". Things are out of control and a correction needs to occur to stop people with an agenda for "no human influence" anywhere (except where THEY think its ok).

[ecliptic]

This topic is only the little wedge to be used for massive bureaucracy and new taxes and loss of sovereignty.

Very true. Also, just another false conflict to keep the commoners arguing amongst themselves, along with immigration and race and gender and religion.... all the while their rights are slowly dwindling... their slavery is carefully concealed...

Looking back over the last thousand thousand years you begin to see patterns:

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6838/milankovitchvariationsed2.png

One obvious conclusion from the patterns of glaciation shown? It's plainly obvious that we have reached the top of the hotness cycle shown on the bottom - in other words... we should expect global cooling from now on!

The earth has warmed and cooled on a fairly regular cycle... other galactic cycles overlap and sometimes harmonic alignments of multiple cycles can result in more extreme "spaceweather" around our solar system. Currently most of the planets in our system are exhibiting warming. Are the SUV's on earth causing global warming on Mars? Or is the entire solar system entering a region of heavier space dust / etc. ?

Galactic Dust Storm Hits Solar System (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dust_storm_030814.html)

Galactic Dust Storm Enters Solar System (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4021)

Think about the rings of Saturn for a moment. The strong gravity has pulled the massive amount of debris ( source unknown ) into a very flat disc-like plane on the ecliptic of Saturn's axis. The Milky Way Galaxy should be expected to have a similar feature. Imagine an oscillation by our solar system which causes it to cross this ecliptic plane on a regular time period. This crossing of the galactic ecliptic would be preceded by entering into a region of increased space dust.

To summarize, it's a possibility that the recent changes exhibited throughout our solar system are indicative of an influx of energy into our solar system from deep space. Or conversely, indicative of our solar system's entry into a region of increased space dust. Another distinct possibility is that the sun is freaking out.

The Sun is Freaking Out (http://www.handpen.com/Bio/sun_freaks.html)

Strange Clouds (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/19feb_nlc.htm)

The Younger Dryas Impact (http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/134637-+The+Younger+Dryas+Impact+Event+and+the+Cycles+of+ Cosmic+Catastrophes+-+Climate+Scientists+Awakening)

The Man-Made Global Warming Hoax (http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/global_warming/index.htm)

[dircha]

Science is neither liberal nor conservative.

The best scientific evidence, and the overwhelming consensus of the natural sciences community is that significant warming has occurred in the past 150 years as a result of human activity. And this same evidence strongly indicates the likelihood of disastrous effects if we do not change course.

Coming out against plain scientific facts, imagining conspiracies behind every report, and trumpeting nutjob dissenting views makes you look every bit as irrational as the Creationists.

Frankly, the conservatives and most especially the libertarians coming out against the scientific fact of dramatic, human-caused global warming are an embarrassment, and really leave me doubting whether we as a group rise above the general stupidity and apathy of the population.

Rather than boldly stand up to the challenge and demonstrate how their worldview addresses this present crisis, they prefer to put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, and pretend it doesn't exist.

Shame.

[dircha]

From your first link:

"...demand our leaders freeze and reduce carbon dioxide emissions now..."

I already don't like it. Top down command and control. Have they bothered to figure out the level of devastation to the economy that would result? What about China?

I like the picture of the punk kid with big pants too - exactly who I think of when I think of global warming (after Al Gore).

So do you put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist, or do you take the initiative, step up like Ron Paul did, and explain how we solve the problem in our libertarian, freemarket worldview, and solve it better?

[ecliptic]

Science is neither liberal nor conservative.

The best scientific evidence, and the overwhelming consensus of the natural sciences community is that significant warming has occurred in the past 150 years as a result of human activity. And this same evidence strongly indicates the likelihood of disastrous effects if we do not change course.

Coming out against plain scientific facts, imagining conspiracies behind every report, and trumpeting nutjob dissenting views makes you look every bit as irrational as the Creationists.

Frankly, the conservatives and most especially the libertarians coming out against the scientific fact of dramatic, human-caused global warming are an embarrassment, and really leave me doubting whether we as a group rise above the general stupidity and apathy of the population.

Rather than boldly stand up to the challenge and demonstrate how their worldview addresses this present crisis, they prefer to put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, and pretend it doesn't exist.

Shameful cowards.

You sir are flat out wrong. Science is the new religion. Science is totally controlled by entrenched bureaucracy full of indoctrinated self-important research-fund suck-ups who dare not stray from the establishment line. You are a shameful fool to be so easily swayed by the snake-oil salesmen of today's "science".

[ecliptic]

So do you put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist, or do you take the initiative, step up like Ron Paul did, and explain how we solve the problem in our libertarian, freemarket worldview, and solve it better?

You are proposing to "solve" a cycle the earth has repeatedly followed, as indicated by glaciation records taken from ice core samples? How do you "solve" a natural cycle? Would your "solution" be to "flat-line" the hot / cold cycle? Make all temperatures the same from now on? Do you see the impossibility of that? You live in a galaxy, not just a little planet. Your galaxy is spinning around as it hurtles through the universe. All of humanity is as insignificant as a single grain of sand in the Sahara.

Orbital dynamics is what causes global warming. Humans still don't amount to much, and nothing they do or try will make one iota difference against such massive forces.

[ThePieSwindler]

Science is neither liberal nor conservative.

The best scientific evidence, and the overwhelming consensus of the natural sciences community is that significant warming has occurred in the past 150 years as a result of human activity. And this same evidence strongly indicates the likelihood of disastrous effects if we do not change course.

Coming out against plain scientific facts, imagining conspiracies behind every report, and trumpeting nutjob dissenting views makes you look every bit as irrational as the Creationists.

Frankly, the conservatives and most especially the libertarians coming out against the scientific fact of dramatic, human-caused global warming are an embarrassment, and really leave me doubting whether we as a group rise above the general stupidity and apathy of the population.

Rather than boldly stand up to the challenge and demonstrate how their worldview addresses this present crisis, they prefer to put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, and pretend it doesn't exist.

Shame.

except theres really not overwhelming consensus. The majority of scientists do indeed support that man is the primary contributor, but its like 65-35, hardly an overwhelming majority. And there is real debate - because in science, things must be deduced, thought through critically and though experimentation and observation, and must be revised/second guessed. In science there is no such thing as "the time for debate is over". And if it is, we must do something about it that actually works. Like, not taxing the world or making people give up their rights for the "Greater good", when it is government, not the people, who is the greatest polluter.


What i find even funnier is that people think warming means the end of all life or something. It means more life - there was an article recently in Time about how icebergs in the north atlantic that used to be barren for decades are now teeming with life. Is that bad? Sure, sea levels may rise a few inches, waters may become warmer, average temperature may go up. But christ, do people seriously think we will become venus? Carbon on earth is still like 23 ppm or something, whilst venus its the majority of the atmosphere. It would take thousands of years of strictly human emissions to destroy the environment with carbon. Plus, Carbon dioxide isn't even the most prevalent greenhouse gas - water vapor is, by alot, and 99% of it is naturally occuring. So sure, maybe humans do contribute to global warming. But the fearmongers who would declare a worldwide emergency are doing nothing to deal with the problem. And there is hardly overwhelming consensus in the first place.

Personally i think genetic engineering and the GOVERNMENT dumping nerve gas in oceans and rivers, and deforestation and the air force developing antimatter that could cause a chain reaction and create a black hole in the solar system... are larger problems for the environment. There still needs to be scientific debate on global warming, of course, but i hardly see it as the biggest issue of our era.

[Kregener]

Global Warming is Oldspeak.

Newspeak is "Climate Change".

Get with the program or be detained and interrogated...

[fj45lvr]

So do you put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist, or do you take the initiative, step up like Ron Paul did, and explain how we solve the problem in our libertarian, freemarket worldview, and solve it better?

What's to solve?? Many "experts" state that increased warmth and higher CO2 is going to be a big boon for plant growth and agriculture (like when wheat was grown on Greenland)....a warmer planet as evidenced from past records had lush vegetation....cooling is the KILLER.

[Electric Church]

The very same forces that seek to silence Rp are the ones who push this global warming nonsense.

It is an excuse for more government and less sovereignty.

Total BS.

I agree

[BenIsForRon]

States are sovereign and the majority of rivers are "their" waters....though some rivers are "interstate" and some others of them were not given over to the states upon inception into the union (as they were used as highways for commerce). The States are TOTALLY able to set their own regulations without the DUPLICATIVE and unneccessary FEDERAL government attempting to exert their wishes over what is NOT their business. this is another illustration of where the country has strayed from our founders intentions resulting in MASSIVE financial burdens with a large federal government (which will bancrupt us).

I understand that there are instances where someone could "harm" another persons property but this unfortunately is taken to the RIDICULOUS (things like preventing someone from cutting down timber because it would "harm" their neighbors view, etc. Not to mention other restrictions for things like "bug habitat". Things are out of control and a correction needs to occur to stop people with an agenda for "no human influence" anywhere (except where THEY think its ok).

States usually make agreements on how to deal with things like rivers. I'm just saying that's not always the case and you might need the federal government to play a part.

Local governments totally have the authority to protect their environment. When you have wetlands that are a habitat to wide range of important plants and animals, you can't allow suburbs to be built in them. If you disrupt sensitive ecosystems, other people end up paying the price.

[Electric Church]

Coming out against plain scientific facts, imagining conspiracies behind every report, and trumpeting nutjob dissenting views makes you look every bit as irrational as the Creationists.

Frankly, the conservatives and most especially the libertarians coming out against the scientific fact of dramatic, human-caused global warming are an embarrassment, and really leave me doubting whether we as a group rise above the general stupidity and apathy of the population.


...you guys all sound the same, use the same words, speak the same language....you can no longer hide among the crowds....

[Locke_rpr]

I agree w/ Dr. Paul that man does have some small effect on global warming, but that nature probably has more to do with it. All a sensible person has to do is look at the fact that the middle east was at one point a lush and fertile ecosystem. That's why there is so much oil there now. Then it heated up and it's a desert now. Man didn't do that with pollution.

I also love "the ice caps are going to melt and flood everything" argument. While glaciers that are on land can raise water levels, any floating ice which melts has absolutely no effect on levels because it's mass is already displaced. The entire northern icecap could melt and it wouldn't raise the water level a centimeter because it's afloat along with a large portion of Antarctica. (Not saying that's a good thing... i just cringe when i hear people say it.)

We should be more concerned with pollution poisoning us than making us hotter. I'm not a scientist, but I'm not dumb either and it seems to me things like deforestation / concrete-ification would have a larger effect on gas balances and heat retention than pollution does. Also, the millions and millions of cows that McDonald's must have (assuming they still use some real beef in there somewhere) probably produces more "greenhouse" gas than many corporations do. I haven't seen any activists on a "Kill the cows" campaign. I wonder how that one will go.:D

[lucius]

Global Warming is Oldspeak.

Newspeak is "Climate Change".

Get with the program or be detained and interrogated...

:D

[fj45lvr]

When you have wetlands that are a habitat to wide range of important plants and animals, you can't allow suburbs to be built in them.

Thats a matter for the property owner to decide because of LIBERTY..... I only say this because the people that file lawsuits and such HAVE NEVER SEEN A PLACE THAT ISN'T IMPORTANT!!!!

Man is animal apart of the ecosystem.

[SeanEdwards]

. Science is the new religion.

Bullshit. Science is based in quantitative measurement and reproducibility. It is in no way a religion.

There can be bad science. There can be politically biased analysis. These are human errors in the application of science, not fundamental characteristics of science itself. Religion is faith, and makes no pretense of being falsifiable. That is the pure opposite of science.

[ecliptic]

Bullshit. Science is based in quantitative measurement and reproducibility. It is in no way a religion.

There can be bad science. There can be politically biased analysis. These are human errors in the application of science, not fundamental characteristics of science itself. Religion is faith, and makes no pretense of being falsifiable. That is the pure opposite of science.

You've just proved my point! Look at how certain you are that the great SCIENTISTS will provide the "new truth"... see how eager you are to BELIEVE. AMEN, Brother. Just a few more "studies" and we'll have all the answers?

Wait, the new studies have completely reversed the previous ones... never mind that the NEW STUDIES ARE CORRECT! BELIEVE!!! AMEN to the NEW STUDIES!!!

[Kregener]

Is this the same "science" that has n-e-v-e-r proven the religion of evolution? Or banned DDT? Or banned freon? Or created Vioxx? Or scared us kids in the 70's with the impending Ice Age?

Science is like anything else from man.

Fallible.

[Electric Church]

The issue of climate change is not an environmental movement but a political activists movement. Climate scientists need "a problem" in order to get funding so many climate scientists stay silent.

Currently tens of thousands of jobs depend on man-made global warming. It’s become big business, big industry and if the whole theory collapsed a lot of people would be out of work. It’s become like a religion and those who disagree are called heretics.

[fj45lvr]

The issue of climate change is not an environmental movement but a political activists movement. Climate scientists need "a problem" in order to get funding so many climate scientists stay silent.

Currently tens of thousands of jobs depend on man-made global warming. It’s become big business, big industry and if the whole theory collapsed a lot of people would be out of work. It’s become like a religion and those who disagree are called heretics.

the #1 rule is: FOLLOW THE MONEY.

The climate is constantly changing.....if computer models are apart of the predictions ("science") then throw it in the garbage can where it belongs.....they don't have so many different variables so it is of course going to be totally a "crap shoot" and these "models" have already been proven to be wrong in the few years that they have modelled!!

When some dude discovered that gamma rays influenced some cloud formation he was criticized heavily by the U.N. climate change guys!! Really pathetic.

People can think whatever they want to about an uncertainty but one thing is certain in that there is a definite power struggle between conflicting groups seeking different "policy" whether the religious gaia folks, corporate interests, political interests, and people fearful from the scaremongering. Me...I'm just tickled that we avoided the likes of Al Gore (hypocrite that he is) from gaining power (so far).

[ecliptic]

... rational people know that when it comes to electricity production nuclear power is our best bet at the moment. He also likes the idea of more renewable energy.

Please don't call Nuclear power "rational" unless you've solved the problem of storing radioactive waste for the next ten thousand years.... didn't think so.

Windpower is the way. While the "official line" provided for us by the fossil-fuel folks is that windpower can never provide more than a few percent of electric power needs... one country has already installed enough windpower for 20% of their power. We have the solutions today, just need to get rid of the corporate / government cartels...

[SeanEdwards]

You've just proved my point! Look at how certain you are that the great SCIENTISTS will provide the "new truth"... see how eager you are to BELIEVE. AMEN, Brother. Just a few more "studies" and we'll have all the answers?

Wait, the new studies have completely reversed the previous ones... never mind that the NEW STUDIES ARE CORRECT! BELIEVE!!! AMEN to the NEW STUDIES!!!

Rubbish. Science is a process, not an event. It's a methodology for developing understanding. Science never claims to have the final answer to anything. It always allows for revision on the basis of new evidence. I'm not eager to believe anything. I'm eager to refine and improve my understanding so that through my understanding I can more accurately predict the state of the world. It's my opinion that the only valid methodology yet discovered for improving that understanding is through the process of science.

Maybe you think that the only way to improve understanding is through prayer. That is faith. It has nothing to do with science. Nobody can duplicate your prayers to test there efficaciousness, and falsifiability is at the root of all true science.

I'll grant you though that some people do have a religious like fervor for whatever the latest scientific consensus is, but that's not science, it's misplaced faith. Real scientists understand that nothing can ever be proven. Every scientific theory is subject to revision.

[ecliptic]

If you are an honest and dedicated student, get good grades and maybe a nice scholarship... you can make it into the big leagues of science. From there, your research will depend on funding. That funding comes from elitist foundations controlled by wealthy globalists and defense contractors. No straying from the establishment line, or we cut off your funding!

Indoctrination in school... funding blackmail in your career... "peer review" isolates any "free thinkers"... finally you have to get published or you don't exist. That's not a good process, and it DOESN'T provide thorough thoughtful research. Science is right up there with religion as a means to control people. Scientists are a lot like journalists today - spineless suck-ups and me-toos with all the curiosity of a dairy cow.

MOOOOOOO

[fj45lvr]

We have the solutions today, just need to get rid of the corporate / government cartels...

Hard pressed to switch when you're making sooooo much money.

What we really need is better "drilling" technology:


Usable geothermal resources will not be limited to the "shallow" hydrothermal reservoirs at the crustal plate boundaries. Much of the world is underlain (3-6 miles down), by hot dry rock - no water, but lots of heat. Scientists in the U.S.A., Japan, England, France, Germany and Belgium have experimented with piping water into this deep hot rock to create more hydrothermal resources for use in geothermal power plants. As drilling technology improves, allowing us to drill much deeper, geothermal energy from hot dry rock could be available anywhere. At such time, we will be able to tap the true potential of the enormous heat resources of the earth's crust.


And some people don't like the crust....try it you'll like it.

[SeanEdwards]

If you are an honest and dedicated student, get good grades and maybe a nice scholarship... you can make it into the big leagues of science. From there, your research will depend on funding. That funding comes from elitist foundations controlled by wealthy globalists and defense contractors. No straying from the establishment line, or we cut off your funding!

Indoctrination in school... funding blackmail in your career... "peer review" isolates any "free thinkers"... finally you have to get published or you don't exist. That's not a good process, and it DOESN'T provide thorough thoughtful research. Science is right up there with religion as a means to control people. Scientists are a lot like journalists today - spineless suck-ups and me-toos with all the curiosity of a dairy cow.

MOOOOOOO

Einstein made his major breakthroughs in his spare time while working as a patent clerk. No funding from some mythical elitist conspiracy.

You are complaining about the political process of research grants. Something that has nothing at all to do with the scientific method.

If someone has an idea that is true (or at least more useful), that idea has a power of it's own that can overcome any establishment resistance. Lord Kelvin was a great scientist who believed the sun was powered by burning coal. He became a barrier to evolving theories of geology, because he did not believe the Earth and sun had existed long enough for the geological processes to occur, because he calculated that there was not enough coal fuel to keep the sun burning long enough. His influence was such that these new theories of continental drift and so forth were largely suppressed and ridiculed. In time though, evidence accumulated to the point where even such a notable personage could not stand in the way of deeper understanding. That is science. Good ideas win, eventually.

[BarryDonegan]

a lobbyist friend of mine explained the carbon credit system to me today actually, glowing about how it would fix everything. however, how does allowing someone to pollute the environment in exchange for paying someone else to research how to fix it guarantee a solution, or prove that there is a problem? seemed like a money scam, when you could instead just sue them for polluting your air via the libertarian solution.

carbon credit smells of bandaid to me. a big profitable bandaid for lots of special interests.

[BarryDonegan]

oh and for the record, scientists don't research in exchange for a salary, they research because they know when they get an exclusive patent they will be the richest man on earth.

wheres that cure for aids we spend so much on?

pay someone up front for a service that may be impossible.... where if you said, hey man, still working on it, but its not yet possible, noone would be pissed at them...

sounds like free money to me.

[fj45lvr]

That is science. Good ideas win, eventually.

Well lets just hope that addage holds true for "political science".....maybe Ron Would win....eventually.

[john_anderson_ii]

I think global warming, in the sense that the earth is getting warmer, is true. That's something we can measure. However, I'm not sure this is due to human beings. I know a lot of the science points to it, but if a single volcano has a bigger carbon footprint per day than all of humanity combined per year, it makes one wonder if the burning of hydrocarbons really has much to do with it.

From an engineering perspective, getting energy for as close to 0 cost as possible is fascinating to me. So I find solar and wind energy very exciting. As a consumer, I would love the cost factor of renewable energy. How cheap should solar energy be here in Arizona?

[DjLoTi]

wheres that cure for aids we spend so much on?

AIDS uses a biological structure that man hasn't fully figured out yet. It uses a mathematical philosophy that hasn't been understood since the construction of the Egyptian pyramids.

[Electric Church]

If you are an honest and dedicated student, get good grades and maybe a nice scholarship... you can make it into the big leagues of science. From there, your research will depend on funding. That funding comes from elitist foundations controlled by wealthy globalists and defense contractors. No straying from the establishment line, or we cut off your funding!

Indoctrination in school... funding blackmail in your career... "peer review" isolates any "free thinkers"... finally you have to get published or you don't exist. That's not a good process, and it DOESN'T provide thorough thoughtful research. Science is right up there with religion as a means to control people. Scientists are a lot like journalists today - spineless suck-ups and me-toos with all the curiosity of a dairy cow.

MOOOOOOO

excellent

[Electric Church]

Einstein ade his major breakthroughs in his spare time while working as a patent clerk. No funding from some mythical elitist conspiracy.

.

look..can't they teach you guys ways not to blow your cover? You guys keep using the same word to protect the elite: "conspiracy". This is not the days of Einstein and today his "major breakthroughs" are suspect.

[Electric Church]

carbon credit smells of bandaid to me. a big profitable bandaid for lots of special interests.

Less than a Band-Aid...a profiteering venture: Those who can afford the tax penalty for emitting CO2 (a life giving gas) will continue

[Nefertiti]

Sure I believe in global warming. I also believe in global cooling. Both have occurred, at various times in the history of this planet, and both will occur again. It may be that human activity has contributed to a current warming trend. Or not. It may also be that there is no current warming trend. Too soon to tell.

However, none of this would be an issue if it weren't that the human species is already living beyond its means. Like the people in New Orleans, we've built this huge civilization below sea level, and simply refuse to acknowledge that one day, sooner or later, the wall of denial we've built will no longer be able to withstand the pressure of reality. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter only of when.

Sure, I've been around the "constitutionalist" "patriot" movement for a while, I've heard otherwise sensible people point out that all the humans on the planet could fit into, say, Texas, so how can you say the planet is overpopulated? I note that none of these people seem to be living in Calcutta, or Jakarta, Cairo, Mexico City, Shanghai, Manila, even the "inner city" of Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. -- any of the rapidly growing examples of what the future will be (at best) if we don't turn it around.


Agree 100%. I'm an ancient historian. Global (or even localized) warming and cooling is real but it doesn't take industrialization to make it happen. Did you know that in prehistory, Egypt was savannah and people were living on the entire expanse of the land? Then it started to dry up, and people had to go elsewhere-many migrated into the Nile Valley along the banks of the river, where the ancient Egyptian civilization was then born. The dessication continued, and today, Egypt is 96% desert. That is the direct result of climate change over an extended period of time.

I don't think the issue should be WHY it is happening, as it will happen with or without industrialization sooner or later, but WHAT are we going to do about the effects. Sure a lot of people could fit in Texas and in the days before modern states and borders people would just pack up and migrate to greener or cooler pastures. But what do we do now with the millions in Bangladesh who will be under seawater if it rises? Where will they go?

I've lived in Cairo, and am currently living on the South Side of Chicago. Sure you can pack a lot of people into a small space, but in the case of the former at least, the quality of living suffers. After being away from Cairo 15 months (where I had lived for 5 years straight before) and going back, it struck me how much the polluted air had been affecting me. The lowgrade headache and nausea came back-the lowgrade headache that I suddenly realized I had lived with day in and day out for those 5 years. Then there is the issue of noise pollution, and crowds. I could go on. In any case, we still need people in rural areas, as those people produce our food.

To me, this is not so much an environmental issue, as it is inevitable with or without industrialization and we cannot stop the environmental effects from happening, as much as it is a people management issue. Where will people live, where will they get their food and other resources if there is dramatic climatic changes in certain areas that make living and/or food production impossible? We need to stop worrying about how we can stop climate change and start worrying about how we will deal with the need for mass migrations.

[Nefertiti]

Windpower is the way. While the "official line" provided for us by the fossil-fuel folks is that windpower can never provide more than a few percent of electric power needs... one country has already installed enough windpower for 20% of their power. We have the solutions today, just need to get rid of the corporate / government cartels...

Windpower kills birds big time. Solar is really the only completely safe and truly renewable energy there is.

[Nefertiti]

a lobbyist friend of mine explained the carbon credit system to me today actually, glowing about how it would fix everything. however, how does allowing someone to pollute the environment in exchange for paying someone else to research how to fix it guarantee a solution, or prove that there is a problem? seemed like a money scam, when you could instead just sue them for polluting your air via the libertarian solution.

carbon credit smells of bandaid to me. a big profitable bandaid for lots of special interests.

I had been reading about carbon credits a lot but when I actually sat down and read how it works, I was shocked at how silly it seemed. Hire a private jet and then have 10 trees planted in Brazil??? It didn't smell of a bandaid to me, it smelled of a scam! In addition to your questions, I would like to know how they have proven that exchanging one for the other will actually have the desired effect? What of Joe Blow with his gas-powered lawnmower who isn't buying carbon credits? Maybe it will take just his pollution to tip the Jet Stream to flowing in the other direction and all the carbon credit trading will be for naught.

[Nefertiti]

Science is neither liberal nor conservative.

The best scientific evidence, and the overwhelming consensus of the natural sciences community is that significant warming has occurred in the past 150 years as a result of human activity. And this same evidence strongly indicates the likelihood of disastrous effects if we do not change course.


I take it you aren't a scientist because you would have never made this statement if you were. Co-occurrence of industrialization and global warming does not necessarily indicate that the former is the cause of the latter. If you go back a few thousand or even a few million years you will see there is scientific evidence that proves that warming and cooling can occur WITHOUT human activity playing a role. We could just be entering a period during which one of those previous factors in coming to play again. Life didn't stop on this planet because of these previous warming and cooling periods. Yes, certain species may have died out-like the woolly mammoth, but who are we as humans to expect to force the world to conform to our needs and wants?

I am not a conspiracy theorist as you seem to think we all are. I look at this from a scientific perspective-a scientific perspective that takes into account the historical aspect of climate change, one which must be considered in order to make a fair assessment of the current situation.

[Nefertiti]

So does everybody think its just a coincidence that the world started heating up at the same point when carbon emissions were increasing throughout the world?

Possibly, because we have historical precedent for it happening WITHOUT carbon emissions.

On the other hand, have the scientists considered that perhaps the problem is simply the NUMBER of humans? Like they say cow gas is a big problem, perhaps human flatulence has increased with 6 billion humans and we are our own worst enemy!

[lucius]

a lobbyist friend of mine explained the carbon credit system to me today actually, glowing about how it would fix everything. however, how does allowing someone to pollute the environment in exchange for paying someone else to research how to fix it guarantee a solution, or prove that there is a problem? seemed like a money scam, when you could instead just sue them for polluting your air via the libertarian solution.

carbon credit smells of bandaid to me. a big profitable bandaid for lots of special interests.

Not "big profitable bandaid" but BOONDOGGLE!

[LibertyOfOne]

Going by ecliptic's world view the computer he is typing on was created by faith. After all science in his opinion is like a religion, damn that science. Where would we be without Maxwell's equations, Carl Friedrich Gauss, unification of the electric and magnetic force, and quantum mechanics? No computer

[Mastiff]

So do you put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist, or do you take the initiative, step up like Ron Paul did, and explain how we solve the problem in our libertarian, freemarket worldview, and solve it better?

Solve what? I have yet to be convinced that the disease is worse than any possible cure. My position now, until I'm convinced otherwise, is that we're better off not hobbling our economy and letting technology advance away from fossil fuel, adapting some along the way if need be. This is Cato's position, and they are relatively mainstream, IMO.

Can you tell us based on what evidence you are so convinced that man made carbon is the cause of the 0.8 degree warming in the last 100 years (the ice core data turned out to be questionable)? And why is the rate going to accelerate? And why did you chose to believe the most dire predictions in terms of sea level rise rather than the moderate ones?

Why aren't the liberals putting the lost economic growth in terms of additional people starved in Africa, prolonged miserable labor in China and foregone cures to childhood diseases?

[1000-points-of-fright]

So does everybody think its just a coincidence that the world started heating up at the same point when carbon emissions were increasing throughout the world?

You've got it backwards. There is evidence that shows carbon dioxide increasing as a result of the earth warming up.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, watch this movie (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566). If only to balance out Al Gore's movie.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm pretty sure I heard him say that he hasn't seen any proof of man-made global warming.

[ThePieSwindler]

Sean is absolutely right about science - the scientific method when used to deduce and perform experiments, will work to discover truth. However, there is not consensus even in the scientific community, or among meterologist, etc, that man is the primary perpetuator of global warming, or that the earth is even in trouble if there is anthropogenic warming. What bothers me is how it IS being used as a tool to consolidate power, and that people are saying that "science has spoken" and that "the time for debate is over" when in reality, the time for debate in science is never over - one of the major tenants of the scientific method is to always question ones own assumptions and deductions, and to experiment with them with the assumption that one is WRONG, and that one must try to prove oneself RIGHT. Critical thought and skepticism are key components here. There are plenty of rational, skeptical arguements against the anthropogenic climate change theory, and there are plenty for it. The science must be tackled on its own merit. Then, when there is seemingly bad science and you can find contradictions in it, you THEN follow the money to see the motives behind the scientists themselves and why they would champion this bad science. But this i can tell you: don't get your information from politicians, because their motives are much more clear than those of scientists. Approach the science on its own merit without assumptions.

Remember: science is NOT ultimate truth, nor is it even the best tool to discover many sorts of truths. It is, however, the tool that must be used to discover, observe, and explain phenomena that occur in the natural, physical world. Science CAN be blindly followed as some almalgamation of all truth and that all assumptions and corollarys MUST be deduced using science as the only source - however, the very nature of science is neutral in that it does NOT make assumptions beyond observable phenomena. Thus, just because scientific findings generally supports evolutionary theory, does not mean God has been disproved, it simply means certain views of creation have opposing stances that are critical of their basic tenants. The phrase "science is the new religion" is true only when people extrapolate science as purporting a worldview that conforms with their own, and they proceed to proclaim that they "only believe in science" though this in and of itself is a logical fallacy.


So approach the science on climate change on its own merit, then apply solutions. But all solutions that claim they do not have to stand up to criticism must immediately raise a red flag - that is EXACTLY what Al Gore/David Rothschild/ et al. claims about their theories/solutions, and that is why we must all be skeptical of them. Ron is absolutely on top of this - we must apply solutions, but they must be solutions that have real viability and actually target the problem correctly, while at the same time they do not infringe upon the ultimate truth that is the Natural Rights of a man and his ownership of his own fruits of labor.

[Electric Church]

The earth’s climate is always changing and there have been countless periods when it was much warmer and much cooler than it is today when much of the world was covered by tropical forests or vast ice sheets. The climate has always changed without any help from humans.

We can trace the present warming trend back 200 yrs to the end of a very cold period in earth’s history. This cold spell was known as the “little ice age” around 14th Century. Europe was in a little ice age at that time according to old illustrations and prints and pictures.

Back before that time there was a balmy warmer era where temperatures were higher than they are today known to climatologists as the “medieval warm period” around 1200 AD.

When ever there was a warm period in our history it appears to be associated with riches. In Europe there was the great age of the Cathedral builders where vineyards flourished even in the north of England. All over London there are little memories of the vineyards that grew in the medieval warm period.

Going back even further we find more warm spells including a very long period during the bronze age known to geologists as the Holocene Maximum around 6,000 BC where temperatures were significantly higher than they are now for more than 3,000 years. And by the way: POLAR BEARS SURVIVED THAT PERIOD

[ThePieSwindler]

The earth’s climate is always changing and there have been countless periods when it was much warmer and much cooler than it is today when much of the world was covered by tropical forests or vast ice sheets. The climate has always changed without any help from humans.

We can trace the present warming trend back 200 yrs to the end of a very cold period in earth’s history. This cold spell was known as the “little ice age” around 14th Century. Europe was in a little ice age at that time according to old illustrations and prints and pictures.

Back before that time there was a balmy warmer era where temperatures were higher than they are today known to climatologists as the “medieval warm period” around 1200 AD.

When ever there was a warm period in our history it appears to be associated with riches. In Europe there was the great age of the Cathedral builders where vineyards flourished even in the north of England. All over London there are little memories of the vineyards that grew in the medieval warm period.

Going back even further we find more warm spells including a very long period during the bronze age known to geologists as the Holocene Maximum around 6,000 BC where temperatures were significantly higher than they are now for more than 3,000 years. And by the way: POLAR BEARS SURVIVED THAT PERIOD

Here here. I tend to believe this as well, because earth's climate has always been "unstable", and warming is actually much preferable for life on earth than cooling. Species have adapted and survive - such is the natural course of evolution. In fact, i just read a Time magazine article that talks about new havens of life popping up in the north atlantic under large ice floes, because the temperature of the water is warming. These ice floes have previously been barren for hundreds of years. And this is my point, electric church - approach the science on its own merit. To argue that the scientists are corrupt and controlled by the powers that be, while it might be a valid arguement, is to tackle the argument from the wrong angle. Of course, applying that argument to politicians is more viable since politicians deal in power and corruption by nature. But eventhen, one must attack the misconceptions of say, Al Gore, by first being criticial of his science, and then of his hypocrisy and of what he has to gain (very much).

[Starks]

Even if the Earth's climate is going through a cyclical warming period, humans have been polluting the air since the 1850's. All this pollution is bound to have a negative impact on this cycle.

[Electric Church]

To argue that the scientists are corrupt and controlled by the powers that be, while it might be a valid arguement, is to tackle the argument from the wrong angle. Of course, applying that argument to politicians is more viable since politicians deal in power and corruption by nature. But eventhen, one must attack the misconceptions of say, Al Gore, by first being criticial of his science, and then of his hypocrisy and of what he has to gain (very much).

Agree wholeheartedly:

The main push of this manmade global warming hoax is coming from the globalists who run the United Nations. The United Nations founded the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change)

The IPCC is political like other UN bodies where final conclusions are politically driven. They make the fraudulent claim that they have a list of 2,500 of the world’s top scientists who support the theory of manmade global warming. However, if you look at the bibliographies of the people on the IPCC list there are a lot of non-scientists. To build the number up to 2500 they take reviewers, and government officials and anyone close to them and none of them are asked to agree, in fact many disagree. The real specialists who do not agree with the polemic they simply get put on the author list anyway and become part of this 2,500 of the world’s top scientists. To get their name off the list they have to go through the tedious and lengthily task of filing lawsuits so many just don’t bother with it.

[ThePieSwindler]

Even if the Earth's climate is going through a cyclical warming period, humans have been polluting the air since the 1850's. All this pollution is bound to have a negative impact on this cycle.

Certainly - we should always restrict pollution when we can if for no other reason than to improve air quality. This can even fall under private property laws very easy- you have no right to pollute anything that would in turn pollute someone else's property- such as the air or a river, etc. Ron Paul explains it very well in i think the CitizenTube interview, or maybe it was the google interview - one of those.

[Rivington Essex]

1. The physics of global warming are not disputed. If we put more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere it will warm. CO2, methane and nitrous oxide are principal global warming gasses.

2. Ron Paul was wrong on Bill Maher. He said "volcanoes contribute" but what volcanoes do is generally prevent global warming. The ashes they spew generally reflects radiation. Volcanoes are not generally big sources of greenhouse gasses.

3. Ron Paul should make this a winning issue:

"I am a scientist and a doctor and I am going to study this more. You know I am skeptical of the Federal government, and we are starting to see good initiatives out of the states with cap and trade programs. I should watch those and study the science closer."

4. Ron Paul has a general stance on property rights that can be broadened to formulate a global warming platform.

"If a neighbor dumped mercury in the stream up river, I would sue them. If a company spews toxic chemicals into the atmoshere, people will sue them to stop. In theory, and my pediction, what will happen. Eventually, the science will be so certain, I will sue all the utilities to stop. The damages I will seek will be that they remove all of the greenhouse gasses they have spewed."

5. The constitution gives the federal government the power to enter into treaties.

6. Carbon tax could replace the income tax.

7. I read a book, “What it means to be a Libertarian" a long time ago. The book advocated the government should only do what we can't do. Defense and the Environmental protection are two things states can not do.

8. If he really wants to win, he should propose an amendment to the constitution;

Amentment 28: "Congress has the power to establish laws on interstate pollution, contaminants, and radiation."

As a New Yorker I can't stop a company in Texas from polluting my air without the Federal government or courts. Many people on this board hate the federal government, but when it comes to Defense and Environmental Defense we need one.

Ron Paul can win. But he was wrong. He should back track. He has not damaged himself that badly yet. He should study it. He should make it a WINNING issue within his general property rights platform.

[JMann]

Let us keep on Paul's message and stay away from the lunatic fringe of man made global warming or the 9/11 inside job crap. Paul's message is that of freedom and liberty and not your pet project whatever it may be and however insane it is considered. Paul needs to get millions of votes not the couple thousand that buy into Ralph Nader BS. I will correct Paul on one thing... The earth has been warming since the last "Ice Age" not only since the last "Little Ice Age".

[Man from La Mancha]

Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth and retained by the Earth's gravity. It contains roughly (by molar content/volume) 78% nitrogen, (normally inert except upon electrolysis by lightning[1] and in certain biochemical processes of nitrogen fixation), 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases, and a variable amount (average around 1%) of water vapor. Do you really think that this small amount is going influence much?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg/288px-Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg.png

Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 90% [2]. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields).
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. You ain't going to control water vapor baby!
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.


Earth warming is real and is caused by the sun and under water magma releases and there is nothing we can do about so get over it. This kind of stuff has been happening for million of years. Why do think they call the country Greenland, well before our last 300 yr. earth cooling the country wasn't covered in ice.

We all should be so lucky if co2 goes up. That means the plants grow better, producing more food and oxygen for us.

[Man from La Mancha]

Let us keep on Paul's message and stay away from the lunatic fringe of man made global warming or the 9/11 inside job crap. Paul's message is that of freedom and liberty and not your pet project whatever it may be and however insane it is considered. Paul needs to get millions of votes not the couple thousand that buy into Ralph Nader BS. I will correct Paul on one thing... The earth has been warming since the last "Ice Age" not only since the last "Little Ice Age".

Totally agree

.

[ThePieSwindler]

1. The physics of global warming are not disputed. If we put more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere it will warm. CO2, methane and nitrous oxide are principal global warming gasses.

First off, the physics are not disputed, but the magnitude/primary cause is. Sure, greenhouse gases generally contribute to warming, as they trap a larger percentage of the sun's energy in the atmosphere. However, it is a fallacy to say that climate change is a zero-sum game, where there can only be one cause. What is disputed is the claim that humans are the major contributor, and that human contribution will inevitably lead to a *worse* climate. Besides, water vapor is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas, and 99% of it occurs naturally.


2. Ron Paul was wrong on Bill Maher. He said "volcanoes contribute" but what volcanoes do is generally prevent global warming. The ashes they spew generally reflects radiation. Volcanoes are not generally big sources of greenhouse gasses.
Volcanoes also spew out large amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, which are greenouse gases. He is correct in saying that they contribute, but if he said they are the primary contributor, he was wrong.


3. Ron Paul should make this a winning issue:

"I am a scientist and a doctor and I am going to study this more. You know I am skeptical of the Federal government, and we are starting to see good initiatives out of the states with cap and trade programs. I should watch those and study the science closer."

4. Ron Paul has a general stance on property rights that can be broadened to formulate a global warming platform.

"If a neighbor dumped mercury in the stream up river, I would sue them. If a company spews toxic chemicals into the atmoshere, people will sue them to stop. In theory, and my pediction, what will happen. Eventually, the science will be so certain, I will sue all the utilities to stop. The damages I will seek will be that they remove all of the greenhouse gasses they have spewed."

He talks about this in i think either the citizen tube or the google interview, but here is an interview transcript where he talks more about his views on the matter:
Muckraker Report: Especially after the release of Al Gore’s global warming documentary, the environment has been very much on people’s minds. Where do you stand on global warming?

Congressman Ron Paul: Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this process. As a Congressman, I’ve done a number of things to support environmentally friendly policies. I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending, I’ve opposed foreign wars for oil, and I’ve spoken out against government programs that encourage development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood insurance.

Muckraker Report: How about KYOTO?

Congressman Ron Paul: I strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty. Providing for a clean environment is an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn’t do that. Instead it’s placed the burden on the United States to cut emissions while not requiring China – the world’s biggest polluter – and other polluting third-world countries to do a thing. Also, the regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the regulations don’t apply. It’s bad science, it’s bad policy, and it’s bad for America. I am more than willing to work cooperatively with other nations to come up with policies that will safeguard the environment, but I oppose all nonbinding resolutions that place an unnecessary burden on the United States.


5. The constitution gives the federal government the power to enter into treaties.
See the above about treaties.


6. Carbon tax could replace the income tax.
Bullshit. This is a poor solution on two levels. First, Ron Paul wants to remove in the income tax and replace it with NOTHING, not another tax. Two, a carbon tax would not do anything but line the pockets of central banks, while doing nothing to actually tackle the problem at hand[/QUOTE]

7. I read a book, “What it means to be a Libertarian" a long time ago. The book advocated the government should only do what we can't do. Defense and the Environmental protection are two things states can not do.


8. If he really wants to win, he should propose an amendment to the constitution;

Amentment 28: "Congress has the power to establish laws on interstate pollution, contaminants, and radiation."


So in your view, the election is lost if he does not propose this law? Maybe if he was trying to win the Democratic nomination, sure. We need democrats, and I believe his views on the matter are good ones. He identifies that governments are the largest pollutors. not the people.


As a New Yorker I can't stop a company in Texas from polluting my air without the Federal government or courts. Many people on this board hate the federal government, but when it comes to Defense and Environmental Defense we need one.
Again, Ron has said that pollution violates private property rights, and that you have no right to pollute your neighbor's property. Actually go and look up what he has said, and its pretty clear.


Ron Paul can win. But he was wrong. He should back track. He has not damaged himself that badly yet. He should study it. He should make it a WINNING issue within his general property rights platform.

Wrong on what? All you said he was wrong about is that volcanoes contribute. He never said global warming didn't have SOME anthropogenic contribution - read the interview transcript i showed you here.

[Electric Church]

Even if the Earth's climate is going through a cyclical warming period, humans have been polluting the air since the 1850's. All this pollution is bound to have a negative impact on this cycle.

What kind of “pollution” are you talking about and what kind of impact? Sure we pollute, the US navy routinely dumps millions of gallons of nerve gas into our oceans, but the type of pollution were addressing here is CO2, and the suggested impact of this “pollution” is global warming. However, Anyone who says that Co2 is responsible for most of the warming in the 20th century has not looked at the basic numbers:

Since the mid 19th century the earth’s temperature has risen by just over half a degree Celsius. But this warming began long before cars and planes were invented. Most of the rise appeared before 1940 where industrial development was not as significant. After the second war during the post war economic boom global temperatures decreased for 40 years. Was not until the economic recession in the mid 70s did they stop falling. So from 1940 to 1975 Co2 emissions increased rapidly but global warming decreased and started scares of a coming ice age.

So lets take a look at CO2:

Co2, at 0.54 percent, forms a very small part of gasses in the earth’s atmosphere. Oxygen, nitrogen, argon (at 1%) and so on .. Now when we take the portion of CO2 that we humans are supposedly adding, which is the focus of all the concerned, it’s even smaller.

Although Co2 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases themselves only form a small part of the atmosphere. And of all the greenhouse gasses, Co2 is a minor greenhouse gas where water vapor makes up 95 percent of greenhouse gases which is the most important greenhouse gas.

Now how much of that minor greenhouse gas is a result of human activity? VERY LITTLE! In fact humans produce only 6 and a half gigatones of Co2. Volcanoes produce more Co2 each year that all the human Co2 output combined. Animals and bacteria which produce about 150 gigatons of Co2 each year compared to a mere 6 and a half gigatones from humans is still greater. And an even larger source than that of Co2 is from dying vegetation from falling leaves in the autumn.

So we are polluting the earth but not by CO2

[Electric Church]

Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth and retained by the Earth's gravity. It contains roughly (by molar content/volume) 78% nitrogen, (normally inert except upon electrolysis by lightning[1] and in certain biochemical processes of nitrogen fixation), 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases, and a variable amount (average around 1%) of water vapor. Do you really think that this small amount is going influence much?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg/288px-Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg.png

Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 90% [2]. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields).
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. You ain't going to control water vapor baby!
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.


Earth warming is real and is caused by the sun and under water magma releases and there is nothing we can do about so get over it. This kind of stuff has been happening for million of years. Why do think they call the country Greenland, well before our last 300 yr. earth cooling the country wasn't covered in ice.

We all should be so lucky if co2 goes up. That means the plants grow better, producing more food and oxygen for us.


right on:

[JMann]

CO2 isn't a pollutant. It is one of the building blocks of life.

[ecliptic]

Look again at the bottom chart in this graphic:



http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6838/milankovitchvariationsed2.png

( current time period is to the left )

• Notice that the current warming cycle has reached it's topping-out point based on long-term ice core data.

• the warmest point is either about to happen or has already occurred. We can expect a fairly rapid decline in temperatures to take place - almost as fast a decline as the warming rate we are currently concluding.

• the only logical conclusion from this data is that global cooling is expected very soon.

[constituent]

it was a much cooler summer in texas, i'll tell you that much.

[bc2208]

Maybe because of chemtrails.

[constituent]

it's funny you should say that... b/c that what my wife and i were thinking.

we've seen them in abundance this summer.

[Electric Church]

I think the place you guys might want to be when all hell breaks loose is here where I am in Vancouver. Nice weather, nice ladies, good beer, and about as far away from the White House as you can possibly be on this continent.

But with this NAU crap comin down the White House might relocate to here….

[ecliptic]

{ Ski bum } global cooling is going to ROCK!!!

[fj45lvr]

anyone advocating sabotaging modern society and doing serious damage to the middle and lower classes (by losing trillions of dollars in productivity) for a 1/2 degree or even a degree of warming has SERIOUS MENTAL problems.

we've been cooling for more than 6 years now anyhow.

[constituent]

i'd visit... but i'm an absolute texas loyalist and could not phathom living anywhere else for a prolonged period of time. atleast it's not landlocked there, that's my big one. i can't be landlocked.

it's pretty expensive there though isn't it? and canada has banned some of my meds, so that's not good either.

where i'm at it's dessert an hour west, swamp and forest and hour east, rocks and hills an hour north, dirt an hour south, and right next to the gulf... i just don't think it gets any better.

due to the diversity of climates and environments i have a steady supply of wild food year round of all types.. a huge variety.. and i'm a farmer in a squatters sense, so i have vines and all sorts of things i've been tending here for years that i couldn't give up.

[Rivington Essex]

Congressman Ron Paul: Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this process. As a Congressman, I’ve done a number of things to support environmentally friendly policies. I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending, I’ve opposed foreign wars for oil, and I’ve spoken out against government programs that encourage development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood insurance.

* Thanks for this quote. The biggest thing to do it to get us out of the Middle East.

Congressman Ron Paul: I strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty. Providing for a clean environment is an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn’t do that. Instead it’s placed the burden on the United States to cut emissions while not requiring China – the world’s biggest polluter – and other polluting third-world countries to do a thing. Also, the regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the regulations don’t apply. It’s bad science, it’s bad policy, and it’s bad for America. I am more than willing to work cooperatively with other nations to come up with policies that will safeguard the environment, but I oppose all nonbinding resolutions that place an unnecessary burden on the United States.

*Thanks for this quote.

So in your view, the election is lost if he does not propose this law? Maybe if he was trying to win the Democratic nomination, sure. We need democrats, and I believe his views on the matter are good ones. He identifies that governments are the largest pollutors. not the people.

* No, I did not say that the election is lost. I said "if he really wanted to win" and I would do it post nomination. What I do want is for him to make the environment and global warming a winning issue. I think my post and your post both support that. I said make it a winning issue within property rights. The additional comments you provided (which i had not seen) also support it.

Republicans have thrown out many intellectually honest people from their party for a long time. They say small government and grow it faster than Democrats. Ron Paul is the first one I have supported for President becasue of his consistency in thought, word, and action.


Wrong on what? All you said he was wrong about is that volcanoes contribute. He never said global warming didn't have SOME anthropogenic contribution - read the interview transcript i showed you here.[/QUOTE]

* I was only referring to on Bill Maher which is about the only place where he gets press ;)

[Electric Church]

i'd visit... but i'm an absolute texas loyalist and could not phathom living anywhere else for a prolonged period of time. atleast it's not landlocked there, that's my big one. i can't be landlocked.

it's pretty expensive there though isn't it? and canada has banned some of my meds, so that's not good either.

where i'm at it's dessert an hour west, swamp and forest and hour east, rocks and hills an hour north, dirt an hour south, and right next to the gulf... i just don't think it gets any better.

due to the diversity of climates and environments i have a steady supply of wild food year round of all types.. a huge variety.. and i'm a farmer in a squatters sense, so i have vines and all sorts of things i've been tending here for years that i couldn't give up.


I say you are doin well. Actually I'm in serious trouble if stuff starts goin down. I've become so dependent on the system for my food and water I am really pathetic. I don't know how to hunt, plant a garden etc...I only know city life.

[BarryDonegan]

yeah he was careful to say that they are involved in some of the process, and that mindfulness of it is there. not that it is a disaster and a priority. any scientist would say that humans are indeed responsible for SOME global warming. probably on a .00045 scale or something.

[rp4prez]

If you watch the google video RP talks about the free market being the solution to global warming. Because in a free market citizens would have the right to sue businesses that pollute the air we breath, the water we drink, the land we have parks on etc. He also talks about private land owners being able to sue their neighbors if their activities pollute their property etc.

Imagine a system where the citizen could actually stop big business from polluting! :)

[RonPaulIsGood]

Ron Paul is good.

[Suzu]

That and the aerosol-damaged ozone layer.

Independent researchers have found that exposing pure oxygen to excessive radiation makes it impossible to convert oxygen (O²) to ozone (0³). It is much more likely that atmospheric nuclear testing caused the damage to the ozone layer, but aerosols such as freon have been artfully blamed, with no absolute proof that they are the cause. This theory was used to gain support for new regulations which benefitted some and gave cover to others.

[Man from La Mancha]

Independent researchers have found that exposing pure oxygen to excessive radiation makes it impossible to convert oxygen (O²) to ozone (0³). It is much more likely that atmospheric nuclear testing caused the damage to the ozone layer, but aerosols such as freon have been artfully blamed, with no absolute proof that they are the cause. This theory was used to gain support for new regulations which benefitted some and gave cover to others.
The exact time they banned freon is the same time that DuPonts patent expired and they then made the replacement.

.

[ecliptic]

Relevant article in Executive Intelligence Review

`Don't Bet on Man-Made Origins
of Global Warming' (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2007/3422piers_corbyn.html)

Piers Corbyn, an astrophysicist, is the originator of the revolutionary solar weather technique of long-range forecasting and a founder of Weather Action Long Range Forecasters. His first scientific publications were on aspects of meteorology and astronomy. He also carried out astrophysics research at Queen Mary College London and published work on galaxy formation and the mean matter density of the universe.
From his research into the causes of weather change, he totally rejects the carbon dioxide-based theory of global warming and climate change. Corbyn is one of the scientists featured in the wagTV film-produced "The Great Global Warming Swindle," shown on Channel 4 in Britain in March.

[timosman]

bump