Ron Paul on Global Warming

[bobbyw24]

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has urged members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of nearly 32,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, who believe humans likely have little or nothing to do with any "global warming."

The Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered, has steadily grown without any special effort or campaign.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117017

[BenIsForRon]

I can't believe Dr. Paul is quoting this garbage. 99% of the people on that list have no expertise in the area of climate or physics.

[jmdrake]

I can't believe Dr. Paul is quoting this garbage. 99% of the people on that list have no expertise in the area of climate or physics.

:rolleyes: I can't believe after the recent email revelations you're still drinking the global warming Kool-aid.

[jmdrake]

Flashback. Founder of weather channel calls global warming the "biggest hoax in human history".

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
November 7, 2007 - 17:58 ET

* Bookmark and Share
* [Printer-friendly version]


If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

Coleman marvelously began (emphasis added, h/t NB reader coffee250):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

[...]

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

Let's hope so, John; let's hope so.

[StilesBC]

I can't believe Dr. Paul is quoting this garbage. 99% of the people on that list have no expertise in the area of climate or physics.

Neither did many of those that signed the IPCC.

[__27__]

I can't believe Dr. Paul is quoting this garbage. 99% of the people on that list have no expertise in the area of climate or physics.

:rolleyes:


http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,804)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)

2. Earth (2,239)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,683)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)

3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)


Yep, no qualifications whatsoever. Clearly big daddy Gore and his years of education in, oh wait, he has no qualifications...


Hey, but don't listen to them, listen to the more than 650 scientists who dissented the UN climate panel in the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works report:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.



But I'm sure you're much more qualified than anyone on these lists. :rolleyes:

The only question is will your world come crashing down when you see how much rhetoric and lies you have been swallowing and spouting?

[sofia]

I can't believe Dr. Paul is quoting this garbage. 99% of the people on that list have no expertise in the area of climate or physics.

One doesn't need to be an "expert" to see that Global Warming is a HOAX!

I'm not an "expert" in economics...but I know that you cant print your way into prosperity with a government printing press.

Same principle. Stop relying on "experts" and use your own common, God-given sense. Global Warming is not science...it's science fiction!

[Dr.3D]

Neither did many of those that signed the IPCC.

^^^^ this.

And the way they are making a mockery of science by 'Peer reviewing' biased and erroneous data and reports, should indicate they are not scientists at all. A real scientist wouldn't do such things.

[bunklocoempire]

As I see it…

Paul has had just a bit of experience in following the money. ;)

As the Euro was sold by “to remove the cost of exchanging currency” and then inflated, so too the carbon credit is being sold as a solution with the undeclared goal to inflate.

The carbon credit, a piece of paper with an imaginary worth used to bolster another piece of paper with an imaginary worth.

I imagine Obama's recent talks with China has dealt with this scam. IMO China would be interested so they’re not left holding our bag of debt.

Soothe everyone’s “global conscience”, controllers retain and gain control, and again make out like bandits. It's a brilliant hoax and a perfectly tailored back up plan for an abused currency.

Establish currency, inflate, repeat.

Bunkloco

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

AGORISM. Read it, live it. It's high time we subvert their agenda.

[LibForestPaul]

What is this global warming that you speak of? It is anthropogenic climate change. :) lol

[Bman]

YouTube - George Carlin - Saving the Planet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw)

[heavenlyboy34]

I can't believe Dr. Paul is quoting this garbage. 99% of the people on that list have no expertise in the area of climate or physics.

The OP misrepresents Paul. Later in the piece, it says

"Paul cited the petition results in his statement to Congress."Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas," Paul said. "They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters."

:cool:

[BenIsForRon]

They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries.That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters."

What Dr. Paul is saying here is that energy policy should be shaped around the technologies that have shaped our modern civilization. I would disagree there, because our modern civilization is built on fossil fuels, except for the few areas that rely primarily on hydroelectric. Do we really want to continue down the fossil fuel road, whether you believe in global warming or not?

And about the IPCC: do any of you have any in depth articles, as in more than a page long, discrediting them? I attended a lecture from a climate scientist from Rutgers who was on the most recent IPCC, and he totally backed the report. He knew his shit too, and I highly doubt he is making all this up just so he can get funding.

[Epic]

What Dr. Paul is saying here is that energy policy should be shaped around the technologies that have shaped our modern civilization. I would disagree there, because our modern civilization is built on fossil fuels, except for the few areas that rely primarily on hydroelectric. Do we really want to continue down the fossil fuel road, whether you believe in global warming or not?

And about the IPCC: do any of you have any in depth articles, as in more than a page long, discrediting them? I attended a lecture from a climate scientist from Rutgers who was on the most recent IPCC, and he totally backed the report. He knew his shit too, and I highly doubt he is making all this up just so he can get funding.

dude, IPCC is based on the discredited hockey stick...

here are some comments by prominent skeptic Lindzen of MIT: http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/1069/IPCC_report_criticized_by_one_of_its_lead_authors. html

And.. a recent report (PDF) by Lindzen and Monckton: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf

O LONGER can it be credibly argued that “global warming” is worse than previously thought. No longer can it be argued that “global warming” was, is, or will be any sort of global crisis. Recent papers in the peer-reviewed literature, combined with streams of data from satellites and thermometers, now provide a complete picture of why it is that the UN’s climate panel, the worldwide political class, and other global warming” profiteers are wrong in their assumption that the enterprises of humankind will disastrously warm the Earth. The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend. More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400 fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That nowprolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale. Not only in the oceans but also in the tropical upper atmosphere, realworld measurements are showing up the caremongers’ computer models as useless. All of the models predict that at altitude in the tropics “global warming” should have happened at thrice the surface rate. But half a century of measurement has shown that that warming has not happened either. That, too, is fatal to the “official” notion. A recent study by Paltridge et al. tells us why the tropical upper troposphere is not warming at thrice the surface rate. The modelers had told their X-Box 360s to predict that “hot-spot” because the Clausius-Clapeyron relation – one of the very few proven results in climatology – mandates that the space occupied by the warming atmosphere will carry near-exponentially more water vapor, which, by its sheer quantity in the atmosphere, is many times more significant than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. However, Dr. Paltridge’s paper demonstrates that subsidence drying carries the additional moisture down to lower altitudes where the water vapor has less effect because its absorption bands are already saturated there. Subsidence drying allows far more outgoing longwave radiation to escape unimpeded to space than the models predict: obsessed with radiative transports in the atmosphere, they tend to undervalue non-radiative transports such as subsidence drying. We not only know why the outgoing radiation is not being trapped as predicted – we now know that it is not being trapped. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has just published a paper – arguably the most important ever to be published on “global warming” – that plots real-world changes in outgoing long-wave radiation, as measured by the ERBE satellite system, against real-world changes in global mean surface temperature. See the startling graph on page 4. Observed reality is entirely different from what 11 of the UN’s models predict. Instead of 6 F warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, only 1 F can be expected, because nearly all the radiation that should be trapped in the atmosphere is escaping to space. The scare is truly over.

[PreDeadMan]

hahah that George Carlin clip basically explains my views on it also :) "we're going to save the fucking planet? we don't even know how to take care of ourselves!."

[__27__]

And about the IPCC: do any of you have any in depth articles, as in more than a page long, discrediting them? I attended a lecture from a climate scientist from Rutgers who was on the most recent IPCC, and he totally backed the report. He knew his shit too, and I highly doubt he is making all this up just so he can get funding.

You do understand that terribly intelligent and learned men and women can be wrong, right? You do understand they are not infallible, right?

He may very much believe something, and he may be very well educated on the subject, but him very much believing something, and being very well educated does NOT make something fact. To believe it does is to spit in the face of the scientific method and the very logic and reason that science is based on. No matter how beautiful and logical a 'theory' may be, if it is not supported by the data it is NOT fact. Climatologists and meteorologists study an infinitely minuscule time scale of our planet. If you want to understand global climate patterns and historical changes, talk to a geologist some time. Geologists study climate based on MILLIONS of years, not based on a few decades. And interestingly enough, you will find that geologists are OVERWHELMINGLY skeptics of AGW. There is FAR more data in the geologic record to support solar activity causing heating and cooling cycles than anything as ridiculous as AGW (especially since the CO2 spike LAGS any heat increases, thus destroying the crux of AGW).

I don't have an agenda, and I don't want anyone's rhetoric. I care about the truth, observable, verifiable and repeatable (that would be the scientific method). You'll also notice that those on the supporting side of AGW talk in absolutes (a trait more closely linked to faith than science), while those skeptical do not say 'there is no warming, never was, and humans never did anything to add to anything', they simply say 'the data does NOT support their theory, and to continue supporting a theory that is not supported by data is antithetical to EVERYTHING science stands for. Skeptics keep an open mind, there is no ultimatum, no 'neener neener you're wrong I'm right', just a quest for the truth, NO MATTER what the truth is. Those who have chosen the agenda of pushing AGW continue to press their agenda in the face of data that does not support their theory, we don't call that science, we call it faith. I would caution you to have a more open mind, because of all the people here you seem to have an intense proclivity to snap to the defense of AGW regardless of anything you are presented with. I am afraid AGW may be bordering on a religion for you, as it certainly is for many of it's supporters.

[bobbyw24]

Ron Paul on Global Warming

Source: YouTube; July 8, 2007

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

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

When asked by Bill Maher if he thinks the Federal Government should be involved in stopping Global Warming, Ron Paul replied:

"Then you have to deal with the volcanoes, and you have to deal with China... so what are you going to do, invade China so they don't pollute? ... But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what we can to slow up the emissions and stop subsidizing big oil companies. I don't like subsidizing oil companies. They've been doing that for years. We go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more oil. So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming -- by subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed. And that's why we're in the Middle East, to protect oil interests."

When asked if efforts to slow down Global Warming should be increased, Dr. Paul replied: "Yes."

Because he does not support any piece of legislation not specifically authorized by the Constitution, Paul votes against most bills that involve government spending or expanded government initiatives; thus he does not seek legislation to combat the global warming. Instead, he advocates reducing emissions, halting subsidies to oil companies, and altering a war-for-oil foreign policy that in itself contributes to global warming.

YouTube - The Ron Paul Revolution: Part Seven (Global Warming) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejtj-dVJ3pU)

[awake]

If one can not beleive that such a distortion of science can occur for political and financial gain, I would just point to the economics profession. It is a wonderful example of a large body of highly educated individuals, in ignorance of economic law, serving as body guards for central banking and government debasing operations.

[fj45lvr]

the "theory" that CO2 causes the planet to warm are false:

this is a good explanation of why: http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm

People should concentrate on REAL issues, not FANTASY of the totalitarian "anointed ones".

[Indy Vidual]

What about the homeless Polar Bears?

http://www.ecorazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/eden_polarbear.jpg

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/imageBank/cache/p/Polar-Bear---LP_e_b531446b815d841fa57ff7ac29559923.jpg
:rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

What Dr. Paul is saying here is that energy policy should be shaped around the technologies that have shaped our modern civilization. I would disagree there, because our modern civilization is built on fossil fuels, except for the few areas that rely primarily on hydroelectric. Do we really want to continue down the fossil fuel road, whether you believe in global warming or not?

And about the IPCC: do any of you have any in depth articles, as in more than a page long, discrediting them? I attended a lecture from a climate scientist from Rutgers who was on the most recent IPCC, and he totally backed the report. He knew his shit too, and I highly doubt he is making all this up just so he can get funding.

That's what floors me about climate change groupies. You attend the lectures of those who agree with your position and dismiss scientists who are just as credible when they don't. Again the FOUNDER of the weather channel has dismissed climate change as a hoax! Do you think he doesn't know his stuff? Why don't you check out:

http://www.friendsofscience.org

YouTube - Climate Catastrophe Cancelled - Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnipKZAhgW4)