Ron Paul's new position on "global warming"

[FreedomRings]

I'm glad he is no longer on the fence on this important issue.


YouTube - Ron Paul on Fox Business "Nightly Scoreboard" 11/04/2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_fkKf0PUlg)

7:00 - "The greatest hoax I think has been around in many, many years, if not hundreds of years, has been this hoax on the environment and global warming. You noticed they don't call it global warming anymore. It's weather control."


YouTube - The Alex Jones Show Thu 11.5.2009 (TV) part-8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gQghAJuIDY)

9:02 - "It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they've been using."

[raiha]

There is such alot of scientific data on both sides of the debate which is all beyond me. All I can say, if i am not parroting others, is that i don't know. I veer towards not believing in human responsibility for it, but i cannot knw because i am not a meteorologist and the arguments on both sides are convincing. I have always been aware that all actions have consequences and have lived simply.
Neither do i find anyone het up about the subject (on either side) to be particularly credible, just opinionated. How many of us can genuinely say that through our own scientific analysis, we have reached a scientific conclusion. Or are we just spouting off the usual ill-considered views and opinions regurgitated from some source we find credible?

[specsaregood]

There is such alot of scientific data on both sides of the debate which is all beyond me.

Here is a question to ponder:
How much money has been spent on both sides, proving/disproving and trying to shift blame/point fingers?
Now
How much money has been spent on planning how to handle the effects of global warming/disaster planning for significant sea rises, changes growing seasons/weather...

I know which one I'd rather chip in a few bucks on.

[raiha]

Here is a question to ponder:
How much money has been spent on both sides, proving/disproving and trying to shift blame/point fingers?
Now
How much money has been spent on planning how to handle the effects of global warming/disaster planning for significant sea rises, changes growing seasons/weather...

I know which one I'd rather chip in a few bucks on.

You don't have to convince me..I was just questioning the ill-informed hysteria on both sides of the debate. I suspect changes are more cosmic than human. But what i am saying is I cannot be sure. I know nothing about nothing!Praise be to Uncertainty!

[freedoms-light]

???WTF???? They don't say global warming much these days. Now, it's climate change. But..
Climate has been changing since earth had an atmosphere.
Nothing is new under the sun. Wait, did I say sun??
Since the activity on the sun has lessened, they had to back away from that "global warming".
Where's that "Gore-Chuck" when you need him?
They used to march him out whenever we had a hot spell...
Kinda like the groundhog on Feb. 2nd.

[Cowlesy]

I have received presentations on this for investing and I can tell you that the climate is always changing, and none of it can directly be linked to humans in any solidly quantifiable manner.

It is a money-making hoax, and the joke is on all of us.

[Dr.3D]

"Weather control"... I believe he meant 'Climate change'.

[Joe3113]

http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf

Read that, then tell me you don't believe it's a hoax / scam.

[Working Poor]

The earth is changing it's rotation and this is why the caps are melting. The caps are melting but this cap and trade bill will not change the earth's rotation. I have heard that we are in reality going into a new ice age but the people in this life time will not live to see the new ice form.

It is a good idea to go green regardless of the bill and the tax break for going green does make it worth your while.

[FreedomRings]

"Weather control"... I believe he meant 'Climate change'.

That, or "damage control"

[FreedomRings]

http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf

Read that, then tell me you don't believe it's a hoax / scam.

I agree. Today's "science" is highly politicized, so for an interested and concerned non-scientist, the answer to "is it true or could it be a hoax" is almost certainly to be found in politics rather than science.

It's definitely worth reading the entire Report from Iron Mountain. Here's a quick quote from section 6.


SECTION 6: Substitutes for the Functions of War

[...]

Political

The war system makes the stable government of societies possible. It does this essentially by providing an external necessity for a society to accept political rule. In so doing, it establishes the basis for nationhood and the authority of government to control its constituents. What other institution or combination of programs might serve these functions in its place?

We have already pointed out that the end of war means the end of national sovereignty, and thus the end of nationhood as we know it today. But this does not necessarily mean the end of nations in the administrative sense, and internal political power will remain essential to a stable society. The emerging "nations" of the peace epoch must continue to draw political authority from some source.

[...]

Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species.

Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.

It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.

However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. For this reason, we believe further speculation about its putative nature ill-advised in this context. Since there is considerable doubt, in our minds, that any viable political surrogate can be devised, we are reluctant to compromise, by premature discussion, any possible option that may eventually lie open to our government.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_ironmountain08.htm

[ClayTrainor]

Even TED.com exposed the Global Warming hoax, by allowing Kary Mullis to speak about it to their audience.

Go to 21:30, for the Global Climate analysis.

YouTube - Kary Mullis: Celebrating the scientific experiment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOtiRB3uyk)

[Arklatex]

One major volcanic eruption puts more greenhouse gases into the air than from all the cars in history combined. One eruption! Cycles are part of mother nature, an increase is c02 would be her response to her forests being depleted... plants breath c02 makes them grow bigger and reproduce more. Global warming is used as an excuse for power.

[Chase]

There is such alot of scientific data on both sides of the debate which is all beyond me. All I can say, if i am not parroting others, is that i don't know. I veer towards not believing in human responsibility for it, but i cannot knw because i am not a meteorologist and the arguments on both sides are convincing. I have always been aware that all actions have consequences and have lived simply.
Neither do i find anyone het up about the subject (on either side) to be particularly credible, just opinionated. How many of us can genuinely say that through our own scientific analysis, we have reached a scientific conclusion. Or are we just spouting off the usual ill-considered views and opinions regurgitated from some source we find credible?

Incidentally, the reason that all mainstream economics schools are fundamentally wrong where Austrian economics is right boils down to Austrians better understanding positivism than all the other mainstream schools -- understanding it well enough to reject it for economics, just as all the other schools build from it.

The biggest problem I have with the global warming theory is its heavy reliance on computer modelling. These models have been broken time and time again, and the scientists still seem to think that they are taking the right approach. It flies in the face of chaos theory. The irony is that the case for global warming is sometimes made using chaos theory by pointing out that atmospheric CO2 concentration might be tied to some really big multipliers. But they seem to completely miss the part about the calculation problem. They are applying positivism to a chaotic system, and I won't be at all surprised when the vast majority of mainstream climate predictions are proven totally bogus, just as has happened with mainstream economics.

(Providing that you could get a climate scientist to thoroughly address that question... something tells me you'd hear essentially the same thing the economists would tell you in the same position. :p)

[CUnknown]

I love Ron Paul, obviously, but I don't think he understands the science behind this issue. Not everything is a conspiracy, guys. I agree that Cap and Trade is bogus and not the right way to go about tackling the problem of climate change, but to ignore the problem doesn't help fix it, either. We need a carbon tax. Other taxes should be lowered in roughly equal proportion so our overall tax burden doesn't change, but we desperately need a carbon tax to protect ourselves, moving into the future.

[kathyet]

This kind of says it all..Cap and Trade, The Fed etc...the Banking system our politicians and the words that come out of their mouths..it just goes on and on


YouTube - Fall Of The Republic - The Presidency Of Barack H Obama - The Full Movie HQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNRI_6T8)


Kathyet

[fatjohn]

It's not wise for him to take a position. First of all he's probably wrong. He should just try to make the point that they are using it to implement bigger government, whether it's made up or abused, that's not really the point.

[fatjohn]

One major volcanic eruption puts more greenhouse gases into the air than from all the cars in history combined. One eruption! Cycles are part of mother nature, an increase is c02 would be her response to her forests being depleted... plants breath c02 makes them grow bigger and reproduce more. Global warming is used as an excuse for power.

This is wrong. I've done a simple calculation here on this forum once. We're using 80 million barrels of oil a day, and that's only 40 percent of all fossil fuels we burn. Triple that mass of all that fossil fuels because the carbon adheres with two oxygen atoms from the air to form CO2 which ways trice as much. And then you get an amount that is staggering. And from measurements from mauna kea hawai you could also see that the CO2 rises with 20 ppm per decade, so 3650 days. Now look up the weight of the atmosphere take one fifty thousands of that and compare it with the number you previously calculated. It's a perfect match, if not you have done it wrong. If there is a flaw in global warming, it's not in the rise of CO2, it's not in the rise of temperatures, it's in the connection between both.

[fj45lvr]

it has always always been about creation of NEW TAXES and "redistribution"....

The "green movement" is as totalitarian as it gets with "centralized planning/government"


[/URL][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYl4hkFRdTk"]YouTube - Environ-Mentalism: A New Religion for a New Age (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYl4hkFRdTk)

[oilboiler]

A few sites posting good research that you won;t see in the MSM

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-%20blog

http://www.climatedepot.com/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.iceagenow.com/

[EndDaFed]

???WTF???? They don't say global warming much these days. Now, it's climate change. But..
Climate has been changing since earth had an atmosphere.
Nothing is new under the sun. Wait, did I say sun??
Since the activity on the sun has lessened, they had to back away from that "global warming".
Where's that "Gore-Chuck" when you need him?
They used to march him out whenever we had a hot spell...
Kinda like the groundhog on Feb. 2nd.

It was always called climate change in the scientific papers. The media came up with the phrase "Global Warming" and people latched onto to that.