Another Inconvenient Truth -- Global warming is real.

[spacehabitats]

I'm really not doing these just to get flamed.
And I realize that I differ from Ron Paul on this issue, but since we've both been trained as physicians, I think I probably took as many science courses as he did.;)

There really are a lot of things that we (as a liberty movement) need to address that are going to be losing issues for us, especially if we go off half-cocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
(BTW, I am not claiming Wikipedia as a great authoritative source on the subject, but in this case I think they've done a fairly decent job of covering the issue.)

Global warming is real.

Mankind is at least partially responsible for the warming.

The terrible predictions about the effects on the environment may be exaggerated.

The time scale of the predictions and details of the weather models may be way off.

Most importantly, the "solutions" that we are being given (by the MSM, etc.) are horribly skewed toward the agenda of the collectivist/internationalist Conspiracy and, of course, ignore even the possibility of solutions by a free market and truly innovative technological solutions.



I think part of the problem is that it is a terribly complex issue, with intelligent, honest, scientists on both sides of the controversy.

Even scarier, Mother Nature does not give a crap about the constitution!:eek:

But we should not be tricked into falling whole-heartedly for one side just because we don't see a solution without compromising our libertarian ideals.
Personally I see great possibilities in solving the green house gas problem that don't involve destroying our national sovereignty, civil liberties, or economy.
But I think some of our resistance to the whole issue is because these solutions aren't obvious, and we aren't going to hear about them from the MSM.


We need to consider the possibility that the Conspiracy is NOT inventing the global warming problem but is simply using it to their advantage.

I do become concerned that our movement will become so obsessed with discrediting the global warming theory that we will marginalize ourselves and be diverted from the fight over deciding how to react to what will eventually become a real problem (regardless of its cause).


I hate to see us expending so much of our political capital and credibility on a subject so controversial, when there are glaring examples of corruption, tyranny, and illegality that are far more imminent and indisputable.

[JRegs85]

For most of the 20th century, the world temperature was in fact rising (although it has fallen since 1998).

But between any two points in time, the temperature will be either increasing or decreasing - by definition. If between the selected two points the temperature fell, we have "global cooling" as was the fad during the 1970s. Now we have global warming.

The fact that the climate is changing proves nothing.

[aravoth]

I'm really not doing these just to get flamed.
And I realize that I differ from Ron Paul on this issue, but since we've both been trained as physicians, I think I probably took as many science courses as he did.;)

There really are a lot of things that we (as a liberty movement) need to address that are going to be losing issues for us, especially if we go off half-cocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
(BTW, I am not claiming Wikipedia as a great authoritative source on the subject, but in this case I think they've done a fairly decent job of covering the issue.)

Global warming is real.

Mankind is at least partially responsible for the warming.

The terrible predictions about the effects on the environment may be exaggerated.

The time scale of the predictions and details of the weather models may be way off.

Most importantly, the "solutions" that we are being given (by the MSM, etc.) are horribly skewed toward the agenda of the collectivist/internationalist Conspiracy and, of course, ignore even the possibility of solutions by a free market and truly innovative technological solutions.



I think part of the problem is that it is a terribly complex issue, with intelligent, honest, scientists on both sides of the controversy.

Even scarier, Mother Nature does not give a crap about the constitution!:eek:

But we should not be tricked into falling whole-heartedly for one side just because we don't see a solution without compromising our libertarian ideals.
Personally I see great possibilities in solving the green house gas problem that don't involve destroying our national sovereignty, civil liberties, or economy.
But I think some of our resistance to the whole issue is because these solutions aren't obvious, and we aren't going to hear about them from the MSM.


We need to consider the possibility that the Conspiracy is NOT inventing the global warming problem but is simply using it to their advantage.

I do become concerned that our movement will become so obsessed with discrediting the global warming theory that we will marginalize ourselves and be diverted from the fight over deciding how to react to what will eventually become a real problem (regardless of its cause).


I hate to see us expending so much of our political capital and credibility on a subject so controversial, when there are glaring examples of corruption, tyranny, and illegality that are far more imminent and indisputable.

If we want to decrease the amount of CO2 in the air, then lets stop subsidizing companies that provide power. In fact lets stop subsidizing everything, lets deregulate, and allow people to develop clean technologies, and compete with companies that get paid by our tax dollars.

[votefreedomfirst]

I've seen no convincing evidence of man-made global warming, and plenty of evidence showing recent climate changes to be consistent with historical patterns. There is certainly no consensus within the scientific community at-large.

[spacehabitats]

If we want to decrease the amount of CO2 in the air, then lets stop subsidizing companies that provide power. In fact lets stop subsidizing everything, lets deregulate, and allow people to develop clean technologies, and compete with companies that get paid by our tax dollars.

As usual the Conspiracy is capitalizing on a problem that they helped create.

They were behind the squashing of nuclear energy in the United States.

They saw to it that we became hooked on fossil fuel by creating artificially low oil prices for many years.

They have diverted the space program away from development of solar power satellites that could have been producing nearly inexhaustible, clean, and nearly free energy.

[Uriel999]

The thing that causes global warming is this:

http://stardate.org/images/gallery/sun5.jpg

It has also caused Mars, and Jupiter to get warmer too! Hell, Mars has warmed up just as many degrees as Earth has. So what we really have is Solar System Warming! We should destroy the sun!

Besides, global warming would probably be the best thing for our planet. Get rid of the ice at the north pole and the shipping industry will have a 10 foot hard on. All the ice covered lands that see a recession in the ice could finally exploit the abundance of natural resources below. People say the water will rise, so what, build sea walls because those scary images they show of land masses being swallowed by the sea would take years and years to happen. Oh btw, all that heat means colder areas will have longer growing seasons making it easier to grow more food which would lower prices for everybody.

Global warming is a crock, however, if you do believe it is real, read Bjorn Lumbergs "The skeptical Environmentalist." The guy is great. He used to be the president of Green Peace in his native country (don't remember which one, but it is a Scandinavian one) but was kicked out of it and his book was burned because of how he addresses the "litany" as he calls it of the environmentalist religion (okay I called it a religion).

[bhayl]

http://icecap.us

[spacehabitats]

I've seen no convincing evidence of man-made global warming, and plenty of evidence showing recent climate changes to be consistent with historical patterns. There is certainly no consensus within the scientific community at-large.

And you probably will never see "convincing evidence" until it is too late.
It is way too complex for the average person to weigh the evidence intelligently and come to a final conclusion.

But I think that is all the more reason we should not allow ourselves to come down whole-heartedly on the side opposing global warming, because "the bad guys" just might be right.

Personally, I think we are being set up. That is why G. W. Bush has been fighting the Kyoto accord so hard. (You think its because he is so concerned about the American economy?)

When the feces hits the fan (climate-wise), the Conspiracy will be able to paint all of us -- the GOP, conservatives, libertarians, conspiracy "nuts" as the know-nothing Luddites that let us in for the mess.

And even in the meantime, we will still get blamed for every heat wave and hurricane.
Do we really need that political albatross hanging around our neck?

In Summary:

At best we are saddling our movement with an un-winnable position that will be increasingly unpopular politically into the foreseeable future.

At worst the greenhouse gas people are right, we ARE part of the problem, we will lose the chance to be involved in defining our nation's response, and we will still suffer politically.

[spacehabitats]

The thing that causes global warming is this:

http://stardate.org/images/gallery/sun5.jpg

It has also caused Mars, and Jupiter to get warmer too! Hell, Mars has warmed up just as many degrees as Earth has. So what we really have is Solar System Warming! We should destroy the sun!

Besides, global warming would probably be the best thing for our planet. Get rid of the ice at the north pole and the shipping industry will have a 10 foot hard on. All the ice covered lands that see a recession in the ice could finally exploit the abundance of natural resources below. People say the water will rise, so what, build sea walls because those scary images they show of land masses being swallowed by the sea would take years and years to happen. Oh btw, all that heat means colder areas will have longer growing seasons making it easier to grow more food which would lower prices for everybody.

Global warming is a crock, however, if you do believe it is real, read Bjorn Lumbergs "The skeptical Environmentalist." The guy is great. He used to be the president of Green Peace in his native country (don't remember which one, but it is a Scandinavian one) but was kicked out of it and his book was burned because of how he addresses the "litany" as he calls it of the environmentalist religion (okay I called it a religion).

Again, you might be right. (about the causes of the warming anyway).

But your blase attitude about ice caps and sea levels is not shared by the 99% of the people that we need to recruit into the freedom movement.

Its one thing to take an unpopular stance on principle, but we do not need to go out of our way to hang our credibility on a debatable and unprovable scientific theory.

[Acala]

Who ever promised you a stable climate?

As far as we can tell the Earth's climate has NEVER been stable for more than a blink of an eye in the geological time frame.

Unless and until the causes of pre-historic global warming can be understood and ruled out in the current situation, it is NOT SCIENTIFICALLY POSSIBLE to conclude that any part of current global warming is of human origin. Anyone who says conclusively that human activity is causing global warming is doing bad science.

About 95% of the global warming "evidence" is the result of computer modeling. Unfortunately, climate is a chaotic system and computer modeling of chaotic systems ain't worth crap. Especially when few if any of the Earth's macro feedback and buffering mechanisms are understood. Just yesterday I read that brand new research suggests that something like 75% by mass of the Earth's microorganisms live in deep ocean sediments where scientists previously thought there were few if any. Think about that! We JUST NOW DISCOVERED that the majority of the most abundant life form on earth live in a place we didn't even know they existed a year ago. Anyone who thinks they know enough about the Earth's ecosystem to think they can predict long-term climate is not paying attention or has a highly exaggerated sense of his own omniscience.

[hypnagogue]

The global warming issue is an example of a phenomenon which I've noticed generated by all followers of absolute ideologies; when a problem arises which can not be easily dealt with via said ideology, it's adherents pretend it isn't actually a problem. Examples of this can be found in both socialist and free market communities, or authoritarian or laissez-faire, or even into religious sects.

Historical Libertarian philosophy does not have a ready answer to damages done on a planetary scale. Individual ownership is not, and should not, be extended to accommodate such scales. We would be talking literally of owning the planet.

It isn't often allowed around here that libertarianism has faults the same as any other philosophy, and that strict ideological application of any philosophy to nearly any human endeavor will have, in some degree, undesirable results.

What is paramount in choosing a course of action is knowing what ideological tools to use and when to use them. There is no single answer to all problems.

I believe there can be a solution created, which respects each individual's rights to property and self-determination to the greatest degree possible, but still effectively addresses the collective results of our modern lifestyle across all mankind and all the world. It will be difficult, to be sure.

[werdd]

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL.

IGNORE the south pole is getting bigger
IGNORE that the earth has gotten collectively cooler in the past 3 years
IGNORE that sea levels have actually dropped
IGNORE that icecaps on mars are melting
IGNORE that the sun is warming
IGNORE that cows farting produce more carbon than all the cars combined
IGNORE that in the 80's we were talking about global cooling.

If you can IGNORE all of those things, you might be convinced that global warming isn't a totally contrived pathetic excuse for ruining capitalism and taxing you for your "emmisions".

Tax the cows!

[werdd]

Why was the jurrassic period so hot??

Here is your answer he who hugs trees

http://z.about.com/d/space/1/0/p/X/sun2.gif

[dannno]

OP, please consider

Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&q=global+warming+doomsday+called+off+site%3Avideo. google.com&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0



I would still like someone to show, however, that the extra C02 in our atmosphere is not in fact producing carbonic acid in the oceans and killing sea life. I'm fairly convinced that our C02 emissions are not causing destruction as far as sea level rising or going into some super hot climate that the earth isn't supposed to be in.. that is just rubbish.

werdd just made a good point about cows, except that we should be taxing beef eaters, not cows. Those cows are alive because our country eats way too god damn much meat. Now, I don't care if you like meat and want to eat a lot, that is your decision. In fact, a lot of people NEED meat for energy. I, on the other hand, have much more energy when I don't eat meat. There is a book called "Eat Right for Your Blood Type" and it shows how some people thrive off meat diets and others thrive off vegetarian. The specifics of the book are not completely true, IMO, but the general idea, from what I have seen, is spot on. I am type A and they say I thrive off vegetarian diets, and I do. The problem is there are a shitload of people whose diet would benefit from eating less meat, and meat is a big problem because unless your cows are grass fed, they are eating our crops and this is highly inefficient.

There are a lot of people who would be much happier if they didn't eat so much meat, but our stupid society is bent on eating lots and lots of beef, it's all over the fucking TV. It's just wrong. Let the people who need to eat meat do what they need to do and leave the rest of us alone and stop making fun of vegetarians because they are doing a lot of good for this earth, compared to if they ate a bunch of meat.

[dannno]

Why was the jurrassic period so hot??

Here is your answer he who hugs trees

http://z.about.com/d/space/1/0/p/X/sun2.gif

Umm, you really do have to consider that heat both enters and exits our climate. It was actually probably due to volcanos, not just the sun. If we change the make-up of our atmosphere and were to shift it in the wrong direction, we could destroy our earth. I just think that we are being lied to about it.

If you don't at least listen to environmentalists (you don't have to agree with them), it will be at the expense of the earth and maybe yourself or your children. Don't be foolish. Global warming is a scam, though.

[dannno]

I always said that Ron Paul is the biggest environmentalist of all the candidates.

It's all about property rights. Pollution = Destruction of property rights. You do not have the right to dump chemicals into the groundwater even if it is your ground. You do not have the right to pollute the air even if it is over your property. Groundwater and air travel, so these things affect the property rights of others.

[abruzz0]

The thing that causes global warming is this:

http://stardate.org/images/gallery/sun5.jpg

It has also caused Mars, and Jupiter to get warmer too! Hell, Mars has warmed up just as many degrees as Earth has. So what we really have is Solar System Warming! We should destroy the sun!

Besides, global warming would probably be the best thing for our planet. Get rid of the ice at the north pole and the shipping industry will have a 10 foot hard on. All the ice covered lands that see a recession in the ice could finally exploit the abundance of natural resources below. People say the water will rise, so what, build sea walls because those scary images they show of land masses being swallowed by the sea would take years and years to happen. Oh btw, all that heat means colder areas will have longer growing seasons making it easier to grow more food which would lower prices for everybody.

Global warming is a crock, however, if you do believe it is real, read Bjorn Lumbergs "The skeptical Environmentalist." The guy is great. He used to be the president of Green Peace in his native country (don't remember which one, but it is a Scandinavian one) but was kicked out of it and his book was burned because of how he addresses the "litany" as he calls it of the environmentalist religion (okay I called it a religion).


O-sun-a bin Laden. Al Gore's tryna keep us safe from al-Qaeda's secret base on our star.

[Dr.3D]

I don't get it, they claim man is causing global warming. Does that mean man is causing more sun spots? Can man cause less sun spots too?

History shows the increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere lags behind the rise in temperature. As the oceans grow warmer, they release CO2 and the atmosphere has more in it. As the oceans grow colder, they absorb CO2 and the atmosphere then has less in it.

Mr. Gore was correct, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere when the Earth is warmer, but he just got a little confused as to how the CO2 gets there. If he were to just look at the data a bit closer, he would have noticed the lag of almost 200 years after the warming and the increase of CO2. Or the lag of almost 200 years after the cooling and the decrease of CO2.

The oceans take a long time to warm and cool so they release and take up CO2 long after the change in atmospheric temperature.

[noxagol]

Even if global warming is man made or not, the best solution is still strict adherence to full property rights. Then all the environmentalists could actually hold companies accountable for pollution caused to their air or any of their property. As it is right now, you can't really do this because the government says its OK to pollute your land a little bit. This is what Ron Paul supports. Once again, proper installation of rights wins the day over government solutions.

[aravoth]

Even if global warming is man made or not, the best solution is still strict adherence to full property rights. Then all the environmentalists could actually hold companies accountable for pollution caused to their air or any of their property. As it is right now, you can't really do this because the government says its OK to pollute your land a little bit. This is what Ron Paul supports. Once again, proper installation of rights wins the day over government solutions.

this

[jyakulis]

Even if global warming is man made or not, the best solution is still strict adherence to full property rights. Then all the environmentalists could actually hold companies accountable for pollution caused to their air or any of their property. As it is right now, you can't really do this because the government says its OK to pollute your land a little bit. This is what Ron Paul supports. Once again, proper installation of rights wins the day over government solutions.

How are you going to enforce property rights for CO2 emissions? plants breath it and it's by no means toxic for us to breath. Are people going to sue power plants for some hurricane (apparently hurricanes and typhoons are due to global warming now says the church of environmentalism). Anytime we drive in our cars we emit it. when we breath we emit it. what are we going to sue ourselves for when the icecaps supposebly melt? are we going to sue farmers for trying to provide us beef?

i think global warming is a huge scam, but please explain to me how property rights is viable whatsoever in this circumstance. it's one thing for someone to be dumping toxic waste on your land, but there is no way this will work for CO2 emissions.

[aravoth]

How are you going to enforce property rights for CO2 emissions? plants breath it and it's by no means toxic for us to breath. Are people going to sue power plants for some hurricane (apparently hurricanes and typhoons are due to global warming now says the church of environmentalism). Anytime we drive in our cars we emit it. when we breath we emit it. what are we going to sue ourselves for when the icecaps supposebly melt? are we going to sue farmers for trying to provide us beef?

i think global warming is a huge scam, but please explain to me how property rights is viable whatsoever in this circumstance. it's one thing for someone to be dumping toxic waste on your land, but there is no way this will work for CO2 emissions.

Becuase you own the airspace over your land. Just like you own your land down to the molten core of the earth. Real Estate Law 101.

[noxagol]

How are you going to enforce property rights for CO2 emissions? plants breath it and it's by no means toxic for us to breath. Are people going to sue power plants for some hurricane (apparently hurricanes and typhoons are due to global warming now says the church of environmentalism). Anytime we drive in our cars we emit it. when we breath we emit it. what are we going to sue ourselves for when the icecaps supposebly melt? are we going to sue farmers for trying to provide us beef?

i think global warming is a huge scam, but please explain to me how property rights is viable whatsoever in this circumstance. it's one thing for someone to be dumping toxic waste on your land, but there is no way this will work for CO2 emissions.

You first establish that something has entered your property against your will. Second, you establish the amount. Third, you discover the source. Fourth, you press charges and bring said source to court and present your case. Fifth, your evidence is either insuffecient in which case you go home or the source is held liable and owes you compensation in proportion for the breech of your property. This will quickly show the true cost of driving cars, operating coal plants, or what have you, and pollution free alternatives suddenly seem quite cost effective because you avoid all of these extra fees. If such a plant wanted to operate, then they would have to seek permission from each and every property owner within a given radius that could be effected or discover a means of ensuring that they don't expose others' land to their byproducts.

I don't care if it is practical or not, it is right. If it is not your property you cannot do ANYTHING to it without prior approval.

The entire legal process will make it impractical to go after anything but a major source of such a harmless substance.

[Fox McCloud]

I would say the pollution needs to be defined as something that can cause physical harm to another person's property or the individual himself, however....because if you don't define it like this, then you'll have some really bizarre (and stupid) lawsuits on your hands.

[noxagol]

I would say the pollution needs to be defined as something that can cause physical harm to another person's property or the individual himself, however....because if you don't define it like this, then you'll have some really bizarre (and stupid) lawsuits on your hands.

No. Property rights state that only the legitimate owner has the power to say what can and cannot be done on or in his or her property. Anything else is a violation of this right. If you come and magically enhance my house with a perpetual motion machine that could produce all the energy in the world, I could sue you for it, even though you obviously did no damage and even made improvements. It is my property and no one an do anything to it without my permission.

And the cost of making your case in this matter will prevent the "really bizarre (and stupid) lawsuits". No reasonable person would sue another person over the emissions of someone driving past their property in their car because it would be hard to prove that the gases you detected actually came from the car, and the amount of compensation would hardly be worth it. However, it is much easier to prove that a your air is polluted by a large industrial plant not far away that spews out tons of gases a day that just happens to match the gases that have entered your air.

[Acala]

I agree with those posters who say that properly defined property rights are the solution to this problem. But this is probably the single most challenging problem to parse through for us anarcho-capitalists and minarchists. I think unleashing the world's lawyers to resolve environmental problems is hazardous at best. We need to think very carefully about how we are gong to define these property rights or we will unleash a monster.

Suppose I have a factory that emits massive amounts of co2. I think it is easy to say that the guy next door can sue because I am making detectable changes to his atmosphere. But can a guy in Australia sue? There are no detectable changes in HIS atmosphere, but he can argue damage from global warming (assuming he can prove it). I would say no because he can't show an invasion of his property.

Suppose I buy a bare piece of dirt and then plant it with thick vegetation. If it changes the gas composition in the atmosphere of my neighbor, can he sue? I think the answer has to be no from a practical standpoint, but does it hold up philosophically?

Suppose I buy a chunk of jungle in Brazil and proceed to chop down the trees. I am not adding anything to the atmosphere but I am interrupting an oxygen source. There may be a detectable loss of oxygen on my neighbor's property. Can he sue? Probably - it would be the same as if I stopped the flow of a stream that ran from my property to his. He has a property right in the flow. Is it the same with oxygen? Who would have standing to sue? Suppose I just pull a bunch of weeds. Can he sue?

Interesting stuff. Not simple. But not impossible. If we had always lived in a world where no property rights were recognized in the surface of the earth and someone proposed that we now divide it up and resolve disputes in court, people were surely say "this is unworkable!" But, in fact, the system of private rights in real property actually work quite well with a minimum of litigation even though they are complex.

The key is to define property rights, stick to principles, and then work out the details as disputes arise. Saying "this is too hard" and turning the whole thing over to the King is no solution.

[princessredtights]

A really great video (for those interested in seeing what "the other side" of the climate change debate presents is: The Great Global Warming Swindle

I'm not sure if it's available to view online for free but I know it's about $20 from the JBS.ORG bookstore -

[hillertexas]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2130/2084239327_b5079736de_o.gif

[Danke]

A really great video (for those interested in seeing what "the other side" of the climate change debate presents is: The Great Global Warming Swindle

I'm not sure if it's available to view online for free but I know it's about $20 from the JBS.ORG bookstore -



http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php

[Dr.3D]

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php

IMHO, that is an excellent video. :)

[shaunish]

the earth goes through natural cycles, i agree that it is warming, but i am not sure that it is being super-accelerated by humans, although we may have some influence.

it has been shown that there were periods of rapid warming and cooling in the distant past, similar to what we are experiencing now -- long before us.

[mediahasyou]

All skeptics are being silenced by the establishment on this subject.

What happened to pollitics is now happening to science.

All heretics are being silenced.

[Fox McCloud]

No. Property rights state that only the legitimate owner has the power to say what can and cannot be done on or in his or her property. Anything else is a violation of this right. If you come and magically enhance my house with a perpetual motion machine that could produce all the energy in the world, I could sue you for it, even though you obviously did no damage and even made improvements. It is my property and no one an do anything to it without my permission.

There has to be exceptions--for example, let's say there's a cellphone tower 2 miles away from your house or your neighbor has a WiFi router and the signal is on your property--theoretically you could sue both since they're "modifying" your property with the addition of their property onto yours--it'd be nearly impossible to prevent something like this from happening, and once people figured out they could make money simply by suing cellphone companies and their neighbors, well...it wouldn't be pretty.

[hypnagogue]

...once people figured out they could make money simply by suing cellphone companies and their neighbors, well...it wouldn't be pretty. Haha
Victory for the Plaintiff!

Physical Damages: $0
Lost Wages: $0
Mental Anguish: $0

I guess you have to consider effect. Certainly there's a change in the radiation state, but that happens every time the sun rises. Does change without effect constitute a violation of property rights. I'm going to have to say no for all practical purposes.

[drew1503]

Carbon is a building block of life, if anyone here has ever grown plants indoors or in a greenhouse, what happens when you up the carbon? The plants get HUGE. The earth has always shifted in Carbon levels and have been many many times higher than they are now. We do have many real problems facing the environment like polluting the water, food and air. Plants BREATHE carbon dioxide and release Oxygen. Over 31,000 prominent scientists and just the other week:

NASA internal audit: Press office "mischaracterized" global warming studies

http://science-community.sciam.com/b...ice/570003239& (http://science-community.sciam.com/blog-entry/Sciam-Observations/Nasa-Internal-Audit-Press-Office/570003239&)

We need to focus on REAL issues.. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in 100 years, Canada and many other countries are reporting coldest winters in a long time. And what are the answers they have offered, burying trees?? WTF?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0513101652.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080513101652.htm)

I have children and want them to have a planet to live on but the planet is fine, it is the people who are messed up - George Carlin RIP

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusT0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusT0)

Volcanoes and the earth spew much more carbon than we EVER could and the earth is still here, Earth was supposedly born out of a fiery ball.

[spacehabitats]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2130/2084239327_b5079736de_o.gif

Interesting graph.
No question there have been and still are a number of factors that go into the climactic changes on a global scale (particulates, sunspot and other solar cycles, etc.).

Unfortunately, anyone wishing to debunk the theory that humankind is effecting significant changes on the global climate must deal with a few facts that no one disputes:

Fact#1: Carbon dioxide IS a "greenhouse" gas.

Fact#2: Greenhouse gases (all other things being equal) will raise the temperature of a planet.

Fact#3: We ARE burning fossil fuels releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which had been sequestered as solid compounds for hundreds of millions of years.

Fact#4: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev.png

The burden of proof is not on those that would propose that mankind's influence is warming the planet. The facts are rather straight forward.

How much and how fast are debatable. The overall effects on our ecosystem and economy are certainly debatable.

But, the burden of proof rests on those who would claim that such historically unprecedented changes would not warm our planet.

[NH4RonPaul]

I'm really not doing these just to get flamed.
And I realize that I differ from Ron Paul on this issue, but since we've both been trained as physicians, I think I probably took as many science courses as he did.;)

There really are a lot of things that we (as a liberty movement) need to address that are going to be losing issues for us, especially if we go off half-cocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
(BTW, I am not claiming Wikipedia as a great authoritative source on the subject, but in this case I think they've done a fairly decent job of covering the issue.)

Global warming is real.

Mankind is at least partially responsible for the warming.

The terrible predictions about the effects on the environment may be exaggerated.

The time scale of the predictions and details of the weather models may be way off.

Most importantly, the "solutions" that we are being given (by the MSM, etc.) are horribly skewed toward the agenda of the collectivist/internationalist Conspiracy and, of course, ignore even the possibility of solutions by a free market and truly innovative technological solutions.



I think part of the problem is that it is a terribly complex issue, with intelligent, honest, scientists on both sides of the controversy.

Even scarier, Mother Nature does not give a crap about the constitution!:eek:

But we should not be tricked into falling whole-heartedly for one side just because we don't see a solution without compromising our libertarian ideals.
Personally I see great possibilities in solving the green house gas problem that don't involve destroying our national sovereignty, civil liberties, or economy.
But I think some of our resistance to the whole issue is because these solutions aren't obvious, and we aren't going to hear about them from the MSM.


We need to consider the possibility that the Conspiracy is NOT inventing the global warming problem but is simply using it to their advantage.

I do become concerned that our movement will become so obsessed with discrediting the global warming theory that we will marginalize ourselves and be diverted from the fight over deciding how to react to what will eventually become a real problem (regardless of its cause).


I hate to see us expending so much of our political capital and credibility on a subject so controversial, when there are glaring examples of corruption, tyranny, and illegality that are far more imminent and indisputable.


Go away TROLL.

[NH4RonPaul]

At worst the greenhouse gas people are right, we ARE part of the problem, we will lose the chance to be involved in defining our nation's response, and we will still suffer politically.

I'm glad we have smarter people on this forum than you. I suppose we should have socialized medicine too?

June 27, 2008
Second Thoughts About Socialism

Claude Castonguay is the father of socialized medicine in Canada. In the 1960s, he chaired a Quebec commission whose recommendation of a government-run health care system for that province was adopted, and quickly spread to the rest of the country. Now, after forty years of experience with socialized medicine, Castonguay has changed his mind: (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/06/founding_father.html)

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

A novel idea! When the first countries adopted socialized medicine, it was a mistake. For the U.S. to do it now, in the face of disastrous experience wherever it has been tried, would be a crime.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/06/020854.php

[spacehabitats]

Go away TROLL.

How can I argue with such impeccable logic?:rolleyes:

[NH4RonPaul]

How can I argue with such impeccable logic?:rolleyes:

31,000 signees of this petition as well as the founder of the weather channel agree with ME.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

ONLY the megalomaniacs at the UN would be so presumptuous to think they could CONTROL THE CLIMATE!!

Then again, they want to count, control, and tax everything and even be responsible for YOUR HAPPINESS.

People like you scare me and make me go out and buy more guns.

[spacehabitats]

I'm glad we have smarter people on this forum than you. I suppose we should have socialized medicine too?

June 27, 2008
Second Thoughts About Socialism

Claude Castonguay is the father of socialized medicine in Canada. In the 1960s, he chaired a Quebec commission whose recommendation of a government-run health care system for that province was adopted, and quickly spread to the rest of the country. Now, after forty years of experience with socialized medicine, Castonguay has changed his mind: (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/06/founding_father.html)

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

A novel idea! When the first countries adopted socialized medicine, it was a mistake. For the U.S. to do it now, in the face of disastrous experience wherever it has been tried, would be a crime.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/06/020854.php

That's quite a segue.
But just for the record I am probably more opposed to socialized medicine (which we already have by the way) than anyone on this forum.
I'm a doctor and have to deal with it every day.

And as far as the solutions for global warming (and a lot of other things) I have a great free market solution that no one seems interested in talking about or understanding.

http://ssi.org/assets/images/SPS_summary.jpg



Given enough clean, cheap, "carbon-free" energy, we could replace the energy from fossil fuels that we depend upon for our economy, and even reverse the effects the effects of global warming (if we needed to) by using the energy to sequester the CO2 in solid compounds again.

Of course a "side effect" of developing such an extraterrestrial infrastructure would also open up an endless frontier and free mankind from the threat of universal tyranny FOREVER.

[Uriel999]

People like you scare me and make me go out and buy more guns.

Yes, buy more guns! And don't forget about the noble mosin-nagant. You spend a good 1000 bucks and you would have enough of them to provide your friends in a SHTF scenario. Ammo is cheap too, Wolf ammo is like super high quality ammo for them too (all things considered). If they get worn out, just throw them away! Go spend another 900 bucks on a psl which uses the same ammo and you have got a great sniper weapon! LOL, sorry, thats just one of my dreams...

Oh and spacehabitats, I'm not so sure about the solar panels in space sending microwaves to earth...sounds like a surefire way to give people cancer, then again, what don't people claim will give you cancer these days.

[fedup100]

I am just curious about a few things regarding this "global warming". First off everyone knows that cloud cover traps the heat in which is why in the winter, a cloudy night is always warmer than a clear night. Now based on that, someone or something has been spraying the world round the clock with God knows what for at least 10 years. You all know it as "Chemtrails".

I firmly believe this is causing any warming trends and it truly is man made. Unfortunately, it is made by evil men who have an agenda.

Just like the borders of this country being wide open, (there is no war on tur ) this government crowd is using global warming to usher in a world tax and as a control over you and everything you do. This carbon footprint crap is just that, CRAP!

If the world governments were serious about global warming, we wouldn't see tomatoes from Canada in Texas or Chickens in Sams Club form CHINA for Gods sake! Lets see now, correct me if I am wrong but do the math. Figure how much fuel it takes to bring a chicken on a boat from china as opposed to a five mile trip from a local chicken farm in your hometown.

We are being suckered, screwed, blued, and tatoo'd with the so called global warming. This thing is just as phony as the war on drugs or the war on "TUR".

[revolutionary8]

I am just curious about a few things regarding this "global warming". First off everyone knows that cloud cover traps the heat in which is why in the winter, a cloudy night is always warmer than a clear night. Now based on that, someone or something has been spraying the world round the clock with God knows what for at least 10 years. You all know it as "Chemtrails".

I firmly believe this is causing any warming trends and it truly is man made. Unfortunately, it is made by evil men who have an agenda.

Just like the borders of this country being wide open, (there is no war on tur ) this government crowd is using global warming to usher in a world tax and as a control over you and everything you do. This carbon footprint crap is just that, CRAP!

If the world governments were serious about global warming, we wouldn't see tomatoes from Canada in Texas or Chickens in Sams Club form CHINA for Gods sake! Lets see now, correct me if I am wrong but do the math. Figure how much fuel it takes to bring a chicken on a boat from china as opposed to a five mile trip from a local chicken farm in your hometown.

We are being suckered, screwed, blued, and tatoo'd with the so called global warming. This thing is just as phony as the war on drugs or the war on "TUR".

Someone else posted this earlier, on another thread. this part is particulary interesting.



NASA internal audit: Press office "mischaracterized" global warming studies

So, we more or less already knew that, but there's the official document—a mea culpa of sorts—for the agency. Apparently, politics was indeed interfering with NASA's policy to disclose the science it had garnered to the public—especially the data from its Earth Observing System, which includes its "A-Train" string of environment-observing satellites such as Aura, Terra and others. These orbiters monitor on a global scale: various aerosols; emissions and their movements; polar stratospheric clouds and their effect on ozone loss over the Antarctic; and moisture and ice in upper atmospheric clouds; as well as other atmospheric and oceanic changes.
http://science-community.sciam.com/blog-entry/Sciam-Observations/Nasa-Internal-Audit-Press-Office/570003239
It's a scam imo. No doubt there is climate change.
"We" are are innocent until proven guilty. This is America. ;)

[revolutionary8]

O-sun-a bin Laden. Al Gore's tryna keep us safe from al-Qaeda's secret base on our star.

lmao. :D
space, consider for a second that the oceans emit the most CO2, which is what will be taxed and regulated. Then we have volcanoes and they emit a whole helluva lotta carbon dioxide. Shall we drain the oceans and bomb the volcanoes to cut down CO2? This reminds me of Bush's "brilliant" (evil) plan to cut down all of the trees to prevent forest fires.

[Dr.3D]

Oh and spacehabitats, I'm not so sure about the solar panels in space sending microwaves to earth...sounds like a surefire way to give people cancer, then again, what don't people claim will give you cancer these days.

Those microwaves would be beamed down in a narrow beam to the reciever. There would be little danger of giving anybody cancer from that, unless they were to get in the beam. I'm pretty sure there would be rules about flying planes in the areas where the beam is projected down to the recievers. Birds would have to look out for themselves.... lol.

Imagine how great a weapon those would be. Just adjust them to point at the target you want to get rid of and poof, they would be gone.

[Dr.3D]

lmao. :D
space, consider for a second that the oceans emit the most CO2, which is what we will be taxed and regulated. Then we have volcanoes and they emit a whole helluva lotta carbon dioxide. Shall we drain the oceans and bomb the volcanoes to cut down CO2? This reminds me of Bush's "brilliant" (evil) plan to cut down all of the trees to prevent forest fires.

Don't forget to make everybody stop drinking carbonated beverages. :rolleyes:

[revolutionary8]

Don't forget to make everybody stop drinking carbonated beverages. :rolleyes:
You just made me think of fart pants. They have extra insulation for the flatulent sort (in the most efficient areas only of course) for when they go on dates and to other less fart friendly events. Perhaps this will be the "future" trend setter in the fashion industry?