View Full Version : What's Rons answer to Global Warming/Kyoto?
Driftar
10-10-2008, 10:38 AM
Hey guys,
The past few years my political views have sharpened and Ron Paul's message has sorta confirmed most of the libertarian/freedom worldview I’ve always liked but didn't know the best ways to argue/debate/give workable solutions to. (If there are other huge threads that have discussed this in detail, i apologize)
One issue I’ve struggled with recently is Ron Paul/Libertarianism and the environment. I have to do a debate next week in business ethics class on the usa and kyoto, and I volunteered to take the side of anti kyoto/anti carbon tax/extreme regulation and cap and trade. The only problem is, this has always been an area where I’ve never felt very comfortable with the libertarian positions. So i started thinking, what would Ron Paul think?
I know he's against international regulations, and big federal regulations, but even if a fraction of what the pro global warming people say is true, don't we have an obligation to future generations to preserve our natural resources? And Ron Paul wisely state that freedom means you can engage in essentially any activity that doesn't hurt other people, but again, if CO2 and Methane are driving up the earth's temperature, aren't we really hurting everyone else, and future generations. I'd love to hear some thoughts, because I lurk on Ron Paul forums all the time during big news stories like the bailout, and find a lot of member posts are more insightful than any of the professional political commentators.
Jeremy
10-10-2008, 10:40 AM
Court. If you can prove that someone is invading your property (polluting with CO2 for example), then you sue etc.
Global warming is a hoax!!!!!
A. No hard evidence that a warming trend is even occuring.
B. Cyclical warming and cooling trends linked to sunspot cycles have been going on for centuries. Greenland got its name because it used to actually be green during the medieval warming period. As far as I know...the Vikings didnt drive cars
hillertexas
10-10-2008, 10:41 AM
..
acptulsa
10-10-2008, 10:43 AM
Global warming is a hoax!!!!!
He asked for Ron Paul's stance, not yours.
Pollution is not victimless. Civil court suits can make the polluters pay. Watch his R4R speech (a little over halfway through, iirc).
RonPaulVolunteer
10-10-2008, 10:45 AM
The truth!
Global warming is a hoax!!!!!
A. No hard evidence that a warming trend is even occuring.
B. Cyclical warming and cooling trends linked to sunspot cycles have been going on for centuries. Greenland got its name because it used to actually be green during the medieval warming period. As far as I know...the Vikings didnt drive cars
Wrong answer.
This is like that arcade game where you "whaqk-a-mole" except this time, randomly, out of nowhere, a little tard popped up.
"Whack" ---down moletard, down.
RonPaulVolunteer
10-10-2008, 10:48 AM
Wrong answer.
This is like that arcade game where you "whaqk-a-mole" except this time, randomly, out of nowhere, a little tard popped up.
"Whack" ---down moletard, down.
No Kade, CORRECT answer.
Anyone that believes in global warming, I suggest you got buy a $5 thermometer from your hardware store.
Global warming stopped in 1998. 2007 was one of the coldest years in the last 150 years. 2008 is going to bust that record.
RonPaulVolunteer
10-10-2008, 10:50 AM
When science is taken over by politicians, distortions and propaganda will be the end result.
We refute man-made global warming based on the evidence, not propaganda.
The data is true. FACTS can't be refuted. There has been no warming since 1998 and 2007 was one of the coldest years in modern history. We will not be taken for fools any longer.
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
hillertexas
10-10-2008, 10:51 AM
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=24
Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda
Environmentalism has become refuge for those opposing liberty and American goals
By US Representative Ron Paul 12/15/97
In blatant disregard for the sovereignty of the United States, the well-being of American families, and even reasonable science, the Clinton administration last week sounded the trumpet blast of victory in signing on with an international treaty dealing with environmental issues.
In Kyoto, Japan, delegates from more than 150 nations gathered to set new, international guidelines for reducing the so-called "greenhouse" gases. As one might imagine, the villain in the eyes of the participants were the "greedy Americans," and as such we will bear the brunt of the treaty's wrath, while communist China and the world's other oppressive regimes can pollute all they want. Those on the radical environmental fringe, who organized this conference, have been using questionable "science" to raise the fear that some environmental collapse is just around the corner unless immediate, radical action is taken.
We've only been able to accurately study the levels of atmospheric gases for some 25 years. To definitively claim today's weather patterns are the result of naturally-occurring cycles, or part of a long chain of natural events, or something man alone is creating, is unsound simply because more data is needed. In the respectable scientific community, there is considerable debate over how to interpret the global climate data. Therefore, urgings for radical action based on claims that the earth is about to boil are wrong-headed. In fact, all available evidence points to the contrary, that the temperatures are getting cooler, on average.
To be fair, many in the environmental movement are honestly concerned about man's impact on our land, air and water, and are sincere in wanting only to do what is right. At a basic level, we all should be concerned about those things. But sadly many in the movement are more guided by a complete, unabashed hatred of free-markets, capitalism and the American way of life, as well as a complete disregard for the well-being of their fellow man.
Using the shrill scare-line of impending natural disaster, the world's opponents to liberty have become the world's radical environmentalists… And the leaders of the international environmental movement. So while science is at best uncertain about "evidence" for eminent global environmental disaster, the radical fringe has not let facts stand in their way. And so we have the Kyoto treaty as a result; after all, no political leader wants to be seen as "anti-clean air," no matter what the science says about the provability of the environmentalists' claims.
Under the terms of this treaty, the US would be required to make big cuts in emissions over the next 15 years, while Communist China – the world's biggest polluter – is not required to do a thing, nor are the hundreds of other polluting Third-World nations.
This treaty will wreck havoc on the US economy if it becomes law. This will force many industries to close their doors here and move to China (or a similar nation) to escape the new regulations, throwing thousands of Americans out of work. Further, limiting the use of coal, gas and related sources will increase energy prices not only for businesses, but the individual consumer as well. So not only will many families be tossed into unemployment lines by these environmental radicals, but many more people will face a reduced standard of living just to heat their homes.
Also suffering under this treaty will be the sovereignty of the US and the agriculture industry. Under the still-sketchy terms of the treaty, the US will cede some control over the day-to-day policy and regulations of the American rice growers and cattle ranchers to United Nations bureaucrats. Why rice and cattle? Because rice paddies and livestock produce methane gas, which the radical environmentalists claim will destroy the planet. I hope this is not lost on anyone; the biggest threat to the planet apparently are not man-made chemicals, but rice and cows.
Further, under terms of the treaty, military action would have to be significantly curtailed. While I am a staunch opponent of policing the world, it is unreasonable that the US government would be prevented from moving troops because of the terms of an "environmental" treaty. Of course, the treaty does exempt military maneuvers which are officially sanctioned by the UN high command.
Perhaps the bottom-line of this treaty is not that polluting is bad, or that we are facing a massive environmental threat. The bottom-line, apparently, is that Americans are bad, and that the notions of free-markets, individual liberty and capitalism are a threat to the radical agenda of the international liberal-left. The treaty makes it clear that anyone can pollute, as long as they are an oppressive regime, a communist dictatorship, or have the approval of the international bureaucrats, though perhaps that is redundant.
Providing for a clean environment is a noble and laudable goal, but this treaty is not about protecting natural resources. This treaty is bad science, bad economics and bad domestic policy. This treaty is nothing more than anti-Americanism masquerading as environmentalism, and it must be stopped.
Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515.
No Kade, CORRECT answer.
Anyone that believes in global warming, I suggest you got buy a $5 thermometer from your hardware store.
Global warming stopped in 1998. 2007 was one of the coldest years in the last 150 years. 2008 is going to bust that record.
Stopped for who?
I love amateur scientists who lecture from the giant ass impressions on their couches.
Grab another tv dinner my fat friend, nom nom nom nom.
hillertexas
10-10-2008, 10:54 AM
..
acptulsa
10-10-2008, 10:55 AM
"Providing for a clean environment is a noble and laudable goal, but this treaty is not about protecting natural resources."--Ron Paul
There's the short version.
RonPaulVolunteer
10-10-2008, 10:56 AM
Stopped for who?
I love amateur scientists who lecture from the giant ass impressions on their couches.
Grab another tv dinner my fat friend, nom nom nom nom.
Sorry Kade my boy, I suggest you start looking at the FACTS, and stop the ad-hominem attacks, which is all you're ever been able to come up with on these boards, which is why so many here wish you'd leave.
hillertexas
10-10-2008, 10:56 AM
Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=150665
This petition has been signed by over 31,000 scientists:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
How a Free Society Could Solve Global Warming
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=8150
Sorry Kade my boy, I suggest you start looking at the FACTS, and stop the ad-hominem attacks, which is all you're ever been able to come up with on these boards, which is why so many here wish you'd leave.
fair enough, answer this: What is Global Dimming?
RonPaulVolunteer
10-10-2008, 10:59 AM
fair enough, answer this: What is Global Dimming?
Well, if I was going to be a smart ass, I'd say it's what happens to people's minds when they listen to Kade... :D
free market allows solar augment charging in laminate construction of hemp based composite to be utillized in structural and decorative elements from race cars to grocery stores, clothes, roads, on and on...IMHO
Well, if I was going to be a smart ass, I'd say it's what happens to people's minds when they listen to Kade... :D
Typical. Ask me to reduce my ad hominem to make room for yours. I should have learned my lesson.
So, now that we are clear that you have no desire to stop the flame wars.
We must all accept that you have read a few articles by "unibased" scientist or others, who for whatever reason have decided to disagree with census. You are openly claiming that you disagree with the following scientific organizations:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies' statement 2008
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Quaternary Association
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
European Geosciences Union
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
American Statistical Association
So, now that we are clear that you have no desire to stop the flame wars.
We must all accept that you have read a few articles by "unibased" scientist or others, who for whatever reason have decided to disagree with census. You are openly claiming that you disagree with the following scientific organizations:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies' statement 2008
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Quaternary Association
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
European Geosciences Union
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
American Statistical Association
I could compose a similar list of economists who support Keynesian theory. Does that make it true????
Sorry to offend your religious beliefs (Environmentalism is indeed a religion)...but Global Warming is a crock of shit designed to get us to accept a global carbon tax...global economic integration...global political integration etc..
it all ties in with what we are now seeing in the markets with global central banking inflation etc.
The absolute scientific evidence of a medieval warming period trumps all the fancy lists of "scholars" that you can cite..
By the way....THOUSANDS of scientists who agree with me too
RonPaulVolunteer
10-10-2008, 11:13 AM
So, now that we are clear that you have no desire to stop the flame wars.
We must all accept that you have read a few articles by "unibased" scientist or others, who for whatever reason have decided to disagree with census. You are openly claiming that you disagree with the following scientific organizations:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies' statement 2008
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Quaternary Association
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
European Geosciences Union
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
American Statistical Association
My gosh, that a joke, NOT an ad-hominem. Pff... And I said I was being a smart ass, whereas you were just being rude.
And it's funny you mention the IPCC at the top of your list. Clearly then you have never READ the IPCC report have you. If you had, you'd know that several times it underscores the fact that there is ZERO evidence that climate change is caused by man. And truly, 'nuff said. Do some basic bloody research and stop promoting lies.
And here's a good starting point. Take very careful note of the scientists in this documentary, who they work for, and what their qualifications are.
http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film. aspx
dannno
10-10-2008, 11:14 AM
UUhhh.. the kid is about to have a debate about cap and trade, not the evil American empire..
Cap and Trade doesn't work. All it does is give more money to industries that pollute more instead of giving tax breaks to industries that pollute less.
Taxing pollution works, and Ron Paul has favored taxing pollution because it gives a basic incentive not to pollute in the first place.
How does an already environmentally friendly company benefit from cap and trade? It doesn't.
dr. hfn
10-10-2008, 11:16 AM
I'm an Anthropologist/Archaeologist and this is what I've been taught basically. The Earth has at times in our very distant past meaning hundreds and tens of millions of years ago, had CO2 levels hundreds of times higher than we do now. The atmosphere changes drastically over time. Yes, we are now one of the main reasons for climate change, we are making it happen faster. However, it is going to happen anyway, we are in a warming period now. Warming is going to happen no matter what, we are just speeding it up a bit. It's not then end of the world if we make the world warmer, our planet has had way more CO2 in the atmosphere before.
In fact if climate change didn't happen, we wouldn't be here now. Climate change drove our evolution and drives all evolution. In the Oligocene (33.7-23.8mya), Africa was tropical and had a huge canopy forest over most of the continent. This was the best time for primates, then cthe climnate changed and the forest got smaller and separated. This was called a "mosaic" forest, because the forests were smaller and separated and getting smaller. The climate had gotten drier and it rained less. This led to the natural selection for bipedalism for locomotive efficiency over long distances. Our ancient ancestors were no longer protected in trees and had to live in the grasslands between the forests. Quadrapedalism was
In fact humans are tropical organisms, we evolved in hot tropical environments when the atmosphere was alot warmer and most of the planet was warm and tropical. The climate is never static, it's always changing and hs been for billions of yrs.
Humans adapt, we survive, if the storms get worse and the land changes, we move, die, or innovate. I guess it's a matter of whether you want massive Federal Governments doing something about it or you want the individuals to do something about it.
dannno
10-10-2008, 11:16 AM
Also protection of Private Property Rights is essential in getting rid of harmful pollution.
RonPaulVolunteer
10-10-2008, 11:17 AM
Yes, we are now one of the main reasons for climate change, we are making it happen faster.
No we are NOT, and even the oft-quoted IPCC report says that there is ZERO evidence of such. Stop adding to the hysteria.
dannno
10-10-2008, 11:19 AM
OP, ask the people you are debating this simple question and you will win:
How does an already environmentally friendly company benefit from cap and trade?
fxmercenary
10-10-2008, 11:21 AM
Global warming is a hoax!!!!!
A. No hard evidence that a warming trend is even occuring.
B. Cyclical warming and cooling trends linked to sunspot cycles have been going on for centuries. Greenland got its name because it used to actually be green during the medieval warming period. As far as I know...the Vikings didnt drive cars
oh bull f*#&%%g crap. Tell you what, when you see the 200,000 year ice core samples and see the massive amount of toxins in the ice today compared to the last 199,940 years your "skepticism" will vanish.
Global warming is 7 billion human beings breeding out of contol and consuming every natural resource carelessly.
Pumping out so much pollution, where do you think it goes? SPACE?
Get real.
This thread is fail. None of you ranting lunatics would be convinced by anything, like the Jesus worshipers, it is a futile endeavor. I have to choose my battles, and this isn't worth it, you can't fight pure stupid. There is only one true preventative method, abstinence.
fxmercenary
10-10-2008, 11:23 AM
We ARE, and i say again ARE the cause of global warming, no financial cover-your-ass institution bought off scientific reports needed.
oh bull f*#&%%g crap. Tell you what, when you see the 200,000 year ice core samples and see the massive amount of toxins in the ice today compared to the last 199,940 years your "skepticism" will vanish.
Global warming is 7 billion human beings breeding out of contol and consuming every natural resource carelessly.
Pumping out so much pollution, where do you think it goes? SPACE?
Get real.
cow, elephant, horse, buffalo, giraffe, zebra, gorilla, wildebeast, pig, hippo, rhino, lion, bear, tiger, wolf and sheep farts & manure put out more co2 than our cars..
by the way...co2 is nothing but plant food
We ARE, and i say again ARE the cause of global warming, no financial cover-your-ass institution bought off scientific reports needed.
wow!....That has to be one of the most convincing and thorough arguments i've ever heard.
where's the substance?
RonPaulVolunteer
10-10-2008, 11:30 AM
oh bull f*#&%%g crap. Tell you what, when you see the 200,000 year ice core samples and see the massive amount of toxins in the ice today compared to the last 199,940 years your "skepticism" will vanish.
Global warming is 7 billion human beings breeding out of contol and consuming every natural resource carelessly.
Pumping out so much pollution, where do you think it goes? SPACE?
Get real.
ROTFLMAO....
(still)
RonPaulVolunteer
10-10-2008, 11:31 AM
This thread is fail. None of you ranting lunatics would be convinced by anything, like the Jesus worshipers, it is a futile endeavor. I have to choose my battles, and this isn't worth it, you can't fight pure stupid. There is only one true preventative method, abstinence.
Yeah, it's pretty difficult to dispute empirical data.
RonPaulVolunteer
10-10-2008, 11:32 AM
For those that seems unable to read the first page...
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
cars ARE the weather machine...go suck on a tail pipe and see how you feel!
kojirodensetsu
10-10-2008, 11:42 AM
There are scientists that believe global warming is man-made. There are ones that think it's not. So why are we spending billions and regulating and going ape shit crazy over it when not even the scientific community can agree on it.
dannno
10-10-2008, 11:50 AM
Why can't we debate cap and trade instead of global warming ?
There are plenty of threads to debate global warming, this one should be about CAP AND TRADE... There are plenty of arguments against cap and trade that have NOTHING to do with global warming being real or not.
There are scientists that believe global warming is man-made. There are ones that think it's not. So why are we spending billions and regulating and going ape shit crazy over it when not even the scientific community can agree on it.
qft
my idea b u i l d s jobs...i hope:D
Driftar
10-10-2008, 12:36 PM
OP, ask the people you are debating this simple question and you will win:
How does an already environmentally friendly company benefit from cap and trade?
You know, that's a good point. At first i just thought Cap and Trade was overly confusing but better than a carbon tax. Now, it seems almost as silly as "carbon offsets"... Thanks for all the information guys... I didn't realize the amount of people who viewed Global Warming like this.
One of the above posters stated that Ron was for taxing pollutants (makes sense, because of private propery arguments i've been reading about. But who would decide 1) what was a pollutant (criteria) and 2) how much to tax it? I'm guessing more of a local or state by state type situation, because ron doesn't seem the type to want to expand the EPA?
nbhadja
10-10-2008, 12:38 PM
Stopped for who?
I love amateur scientists who lecture from the giant ass impressions on their couches.
Grab another tv dinner my fat friend, nom nom nom nom.
Amateur??
It's amazing how some people can understand how corrupt the media is in some areas yet worship and fall for it in other areas....cough GLOBAL WARMING cough...
Driftar
10-10-2008, 12:42 PM
On Cap and Trade, for any who are interested in discussing it:
It seems as if you'd need a universally accepted system, thus a federal (or international) system to make it effective, as allowing each state to create their own cap and trade restrictions and payoff rules would make the entire thing even more confusing... thus, the principle seems to go against local and states rights in the first place, and almost seems destined to tie the United States to international treaties.
And one problem i see with that off the top of my head is it wouldn't take into account the vastly different regional industries and economies.
nbhadja
10-10-2008, 12:43 PM
This thread is fail. None of you ranting lunatics would be convinced by anything, like the Jesus worshipers, it is a futile endeavor. I have to choose my battles, and this isn't worth it, you can't fight pure stupid. There is only one true preventative method, abstinence.
You quote the IPCC yet you do not read their reports hmmm....
Driftar
10-10-2008, 03:26 PM
oh bull f*#&%%g crap. Tell you what, when you see the 200,000 year ice core samples and see the massive amount of toxins in the ice today compared to the last 199,940 years your "skepticism" will vanish.
Global warming is 7 billion human beings breeding out of contol and consuming every natural resource carelessly.
Pumping out so much pollution, where do you think it goes? SPACE?
Get real.
It's interesting though that the United States has more or less stabilized it's population (outside of immigration), without having any goverment mandates like China.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.