Student "Turned off" on Dr. Paul's stance on Global Warming

[framecut]

I think it's going to be an uphill battle convincing young people to be 'contrarians'. Global Warming (A new religion) is already being indoctrinated in the education system.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/11/paul_is_not_int.html

Rebecca Romanoski, a UNH student who grew up in Newton, N.H., said she came to see Paul because she heard he was a bit of a "radical". But she was turned off after hearing Paul say he would do very little to address global warming.

In the question and answer period Paul encouraged students to be "contrarians" about global warming and said the federal government really didn't have a role to address the problem anyway.

[freelance]

Is it any wonder since they don't teach any real science in school?

[honkywill]

As soon as they realize that we can not hope to control China through anything but force or educated consumers thinking about their purchases they will understand Ron Paul is a good choice.

We cannot control and influence the world until we stop depending on the government and learn to control ourselves.

[Birdlady]

Global warming is a fraud anyway. Perhaps this woman should do a little research on her own radical views.

I love how getting back to basics and following the Constitution is now radical...:rolleyes:

[jamesmadison]

Global warming is a fact and only a dimwit would argue that it is not cause by humanity. Go take a course at your local university an get an education - quit with the neocon attacks against universities because they only make you look like horowitz worshiping tart.

An upper level Ecology course might help.

[Dustancostine]

I am somewhat agnostic on this subject. I know the earth is warming slightly. But there is nothing to show it is because of hydrocarbons.

[margomaps]

I think it's going to be an uphill battle convincing young people to be 'contrarians'. Global Warming (A new religion) is already being indoctrinated in the education system.

Already? You're kidding me, right? This has been going on for at least two decades, probably more. When I was in elementary school 20-some years ago, I remember when my school celebrated "Earth Day" by excusing us from class for an entire day, and making us do all kinds of stupid stuff to promote environmentalism. We had to make artwork showing how people destroy nature, sing stupid songs about polar bears dying or some crap like that, and take pamphlets home to our parents to shame them into recycling and whatnot.

I'm sure it's only gotten worse since. This is why you see college students today convinced that any human progress is evil, and that we should use government force to stop people from using evil fossil fuels, fine people for not recycling, and so on. It's disgusting.

And I personally am very "green". I compost to reduce my trash output (and make really great soil!), turn off lights that I don't use, buy fuel-efficient cars, etc. These things just make sense to me, personally. But I'm just disgusted about the indoctrination going on in the school system. :mad:

[Goldwater Conservative]

In my opinion, global warming is the new stem cell research. It's a wedge issue that keeps people away from focusing on the real issues, like national defense, fiscal policy, monetary policy, and civil liberties.

Now, I say that as someone who does believe man-made global warming is real and should be addressed. I just don't think it should be more important in a presidential election than those more immediate concerns.

[RevolutionSD]

Global warming is a fact and only a moron would argue that it is not cause by humanity. Go take a course at your local university an get an education - quit with the neocon attacks against universities because they only make you look like horowitz worshiping retards.

An upper level Ecology course might help.

Well there's a major flaw in the global warming caused by humans theory.
In Al Gore's movie, he said that increases in temperature have always been followed by increases in CO2. This is NOT true. Every time the temperature has increased, it is FOLLOWED by increases in CO2! Also Mars and Jupiter are warming. Antarctica is cooling in most parts.

Most of global warming is caused by the sun warming, not us driving SUVs.

[CoreyBowen999]

Im not suprised so many people are like this. In my public school, they pound the Global Warming into us. They promote so much other stuff to. Globalization, Global Warming, the war, and so much more

[LibertyOfOne]

Kill the freemarket will just kill progress. We didn't get anywhere with draconian controls.

[lucius]

Pony up for a carbon tax, here is the true 'inconvenient truth', $30M per year home utility bill, flies on private jets, heir to Occidental Petroleum monies...that 'hoax' 'The Report From Iron Mountain' spun tales as wild as these... :D

[jamesmadison]

Well there's a major flaw in the global warming caused by humans theory.
In Al Gore's movie, he said that increases in temperature have always been followed by increases in CO2. This is NOT true. Every time the temperature has increased, it is FOLLOWED by increases in CO2! Also Mars and Jupiter are warming. Antarctica is cooling in most parts.

Most of global warming is caused by the sun warming, not us driving SUVs.

Nothing you have posted is anywhere in the realm of scientific. Scientists have data, they observe, they make hypothesis and they test their hypothesis based on data. 99.9% of scientists agree that global warming is cause by mankind, provide a mechanism for it and have proof it is happening. The only people we can depend on to prove whether global warming is a) fact and b) man-made are scientists because they are the ones conducting experiments on it every day. So, if you want to listen to Hannity spew rhetoric that global warming is not fact, be my guest. It just makes you look like an ass.

[jamesmadison]

Kill the freemarket will just kill progress. We didn't get anywhere with draconian controls.

Or, kill humanity?

Christ.

How did people get so brainwashed to believe that environmentalism is something that is bad. We are connected to our ecosystem like a spider web and only slight changes within the ecosystem can have a domino effect on humanity.

[Ron Paul Fan]

I agree with that girl! The federal government is so efficient in handling matters like Katrina and Iraq so let's let them handle global warming and health care as well! Carbon taxes and mandatory health care for all!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

[dspectre]

Global warming is a fact and only a moron would argue that it is not cause by humanity. Go take a course at your local university an get an education - quit with the neocon attacks against universities because they only make you look like horowitz worshiping retards.

An upper level Ecology course might help.


Why don't you back up what you belief with facts instead of resorting to ad hominems?

[jamesmadison]

Why don't you back up what you belief with facts instead of resorting to ad hominems?

Why don't you take a course and education yourself?

[F3d]

....

[margomaps]

Why don't you take a course and education yourself?

That's good advice, although you don't know the educational background of the person you're arguing with.

If I might make a suggestion: you're coming across as very combative and surly. If you want to win people over to your ideas, you might try arguing rationally. Provide facts, and back them up with citations. Just a respectful, friendly tip. :)

[dspectre]

Why don't you take a course and education yourself?

All I stated was that I wanted facts for your position and not name calling. If you gave facts, I might be persuaded to your line of thought.

[Birdlady]

Why don't you take a course and education yourself?

I have done my education and I assure you that going to college doesn't mean you are educated.

Most colleges shove globalization, a global tax, and other socialist ideas down their students throats.

The sun is causing the warming. Many other planets in our solar system are warming too. Do you think SUVs are causing that too?

Also there were a whole slew of scientists just a few months ago that have started to ask questions about global warming. Let me find the article I read about that and I will edit my post when I find it.

Well I couldn't find it (of course).
Here's a site that has 19,000 signatures from scientists who reject the idea of global warming.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

[smdesignworks]

99.9% of scientists agree that global warming is cause by mankind

Lol, I am not even touching that one. Hopefully someone sets you straight because I won't be wasting my time since you already display such an ignorant stance.

[jamesmadison]

I have done my education and I assure you that going to college doesn't mean you are educated.

Most colleges shove globalization, a global tax, and other socialist ideas down their students throats.

The sun is causing the warming. Many other planets in our solar system are warming too. Do you think SUVs are causing that too?

Also there were a whole slew of scientists just a few months ago that have started to ask questions about global warming. Let me find the article I read about that and I will edit my post when I find it.

You understand we have an atmosphere which contains compounds that reflect electromagnetic radiation away from earth? Of course the sun is causing global warming, that is implied in the scientific theory of global warming.

Universities are areas of study that contain people of generally higher intelligence than the predominant population. There is very little indoctrination in the scientific field because it deals with ideas that are testable, and continuously verified against new evidence. The social fields are much different and are based on untestable theory. Please do not confuse the two fields.

[MGreen]

Heavy government regulation is not the only way to deal with global warming. We can see right now that the government is FAILING already, with their huge subsidies for corn but not sugar cane or allowing hemp to be grown and used for ethanol.

Besides, didn't Inconvenient Truth end with Gore saying that local communities and states were "stepping up" where the federal government wasn't? That's how it should be. If people in California want to ban SUVs or oil outright, they can go ahead and do it. And President Paul would not fight them.

[adpierce]

Global warming is a fact and only a moron would argue that it is not cause by humanity. Go take a course at your local university an get an education - quit with the neocon attacks against universities because they only make you look like horowitz worshiping retards.

An upper level Ecology course might help.

I took a class with a teacher who was on the committee that just co-won the Nobel prize with Al Gore over this issue. Even he had to admit that it's hard to prove that humanity is the cause for the jump in global warming. They can't even predict what the weather a few days from now because in weather there are way too many factors to be able to accurately determine local weather a few days from now. When you look at the whole world in general it's clear it's getting warmer, but to say that human beings are the major contributing factor even this Nobel winning ecologist recognized that is difficult to prove. He of course thought that the earth was in a cyclical upturn in temperature, but humans made it all the worse. I didn't really come away convinced. ---- Just one guy who took a course at his local university ... and from an authority in the field.

[LibertyOfOne]

Or, kill humanity?

Christ.

How did people get so brainwashed to believe that environmentalism is something that is bad. We are connected to our ecosystem like a spider web and only slight changes within the ecosystem can have a domino effect on humanity.

The wealth an innovation we have today is a direct result of a free society. If you want new technologies to replace the current ones it makes more sense to have an unrestrained market. If you care about C02 emissions than the government would be your biggest concern. The pentagon is the biggest consumer of oil in the world.

[SlapItHigh]

There is very little indoctrination in the scientific field because it deals with ideas that are testable and provable - the social fields are much different and are based on untestable theory. Please do not confuse the two fields.

Not true. Because so much of scientific research is government funded, the government ends up having a huge influence on what specifically is studied. You really have to study many different angles to get the true big picture. This is the same problem we have in politics. If you just point out one area of a topic then you can really scew things. For example - minimum wage increases. Study how many people's salaries were raised and that can make it seem like a good thing to the general public. But, you also have to study how many people lost their jobs or how much prices went up.

[jamesmadison]

The wealth an innovation we have today is a direct result of a free society. If you want new technologies to replace the current ones it makes more sense to have an unrestrained market. If you care about C02 emissions than the government would be your biggest concern. The pentagon is the biggest consumer of oil in the world.

Are you trying to suggest that somehow we are limited our technological ability by using aged technologies rather than advancing new ones?

[MGreen]

The pentagon is the biggest consumer of oil in the world.
That's another good point that should be mentioned. If you think CO2 emissions are destroying the planet, dismantling the military industrial complex would probably reduce emissions far more than subsidizing automobiles with a couple more mpg.

[Birdlady]

You understand we have an atmosphere which contains compounds that reflect electromagnetic radiation away from earth? Of course the sun is causing global warming, that is implied in the scientific theory of global warming.

Universities are areas of study that contain people of generally higher intelligence than the predominant population. There is very little indoctrination in the scientific field because it deals with ideas that are testable, and continuously verified against new evidence. The social fields are much different and are based on untestable theory. Please do not confuse the two fields.

And I hope you understand the simple concept of photosynthesis! The more CO2 in the atmosphere the better it is for life. Tree takes in C02 and convert it to oxygen.

So you can infer from this that global tax is really just a breathing tax or a tax on life.

Even in science they can twist things and make the sample size so small that you make the tests give you the results you are looking for.

[jamesmadison]

Not true. Because so much of scientific research is government funded, the government ends up having a huge influence on what specifically is studied. You really have to study many different angles to get the true big picture. This is the same problem we have in politics. If you just point out one area of a topic then you can really scew things. For example - minimum wage increases. Study how many people's salaries were raised and that can make it seem like a good thing to the general public. But, you also have to study how many people lost their jobs or how much prices went up.

Well, in science we require something that is testable over time - regardless of whether the currency is from government or private institutions if an idea is not scientifically sound it will self destructive.

[jamesmadison]

And I hope you understand the simple concept of photosynthesis! The more CO2 in the atmosphere the better it is for life. Tree takes in C02 and convert it to oxygen.

So you can infer from this that global tax is really just a breathing tax or a tax on life.

Even in science they can twist things and make the sample size so small that you make the tests give you the results you are looking for.

We're destroying habitat, not creating new ones.

[LibertyOfOne]

And I hope you understand the simple concept of photosynthesis! The more CO2 in the atmosphere the better it is for life. Tree takes in C02 and convert it to oxygen.

So you can infer from this that global tax is really just a breathing tax or a tax on life.

Even in science they can twist things and make the sample size so small that you make the tests give you the results you are looking for.

Not that simple. Trees use up oxygen at night and produce C02. They also produce C02 during decay.

[SlapItHigh]

Science in Service to the State

Over the last 60 years a new power structure, the state, has taken control of information. It uses federal tax money to fund and control research through the peer-review grant system. It forms mutually advantageous partnerships with industry and the academic community, which do its bidding. The state holds sway over education. And to round out its control of information an increasingly powerful centralized government bureaucracy has persuaded the mainstream media to accept and espouse state-approved ideas. The Western tradition of information ethics dating from ancient Greece to the 20th century, characterized by freedom of speech and inquiry, has been co-opted by government. Knowledge advances by questioning accepted paradigms (Hillman, 1995). The state thwarts this and requires its tax-funded scientists to conform to the official establishment view on such things as global warming and HIV/AIDS.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller23.html

[jamesmadison]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller23.html

University level scientists are not easly pursuaded by the government.

[SlapItHigh]

University level scientists are not easly pursuaded by the government.

really? Did you read the link, it gave you specific examples:


Government-sponsored scientific research reflects the biases, preferences, and priorities of its leaders (Moran, 1998). The state uses science to further its social and political purposes.

Its actions follow Lang’s First Law of Sociodynamics, where "The power structure does what they want, when they want; then they try to find reasons to justify it. If this does not work, they stonewall it (Lang, 1998, p. 797).


When inconvenient facts challenge paradigms the state promotes, it justifies them by consensus. If polar bear experts (Amstrup et al., 1995) find that the bear population in Alaska is increasing, placing doubt on the government’s stance on climate change, this finding is dismissed as being outside the consensus and ignored. Science magazine supports the prevailing view, stating, "There is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change" that accounts for "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years" (Oreskes, 2004).

[jamesmadison]

really? Did you read the link, it gave you specific examples:

You have to prove something, you can't just state theory and assume fact.

[jamesmadison]

It's bewildering to believe how many have fallen prey of the misinformation campaign prostituted by big oil corporations that attempt to refute scientific evidence with ill reasoned theory.

[SlapItHigh]

huh?


In 21st century America, consensus and computer models masquerade as science. They supplant experimental data. As Corcoran (2006) puts it, "Science has been stripped of its basis in experiment, knowledge, reason and the scientific method and made subject to the consensus created by politics and bureaucrats." Reduced to a belief system, a majority of scientists and groups like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can declare, without having to provide scientific evidence, that they believe humans cause global warming. This alone makes the hypothesis become an established fact and received knowledge (Barnes, 1990). Peer review compounds the problem. It competes with objective evidence as proof of truth.

[dspectre]

You understand we have an atmosphere which contains compounds that reflect electromagnetic radiation away from earth? Of course the sun is causing global warming, that is implied in the scientific theory of global warming.

Universities are areas of study that contain people of generally higher intelligence than the predominant population. There is very little indoctrination in the scientific field because it deals with ideas that are testable, and continuously verified against new evidence. The social fields are much different and are based on untestable theory. Please do not confuse the two fields.

There is very little indoctrination in the scientific field? Have you been in academia? Academia is politically motivated. Everyone in the scientific field knows this.

I don't know exactly where to begin with this, because you are speaking idealistically about how things actually work.

[rp0x]

I don't depend on Al Gore or Ron Paul to tell me about global warming.

If you don't have time or money to take a course, read peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is absolute consensus among scientists that global warming is caused by human activity.

[jamesmadison]

huh?

Please, leave science to scientists.

[skiingff]

I'm disappointed too.

Ron Paul needs to address this issue.

What will he do to cut pollution and dependence from OPEC?

First of all, the federal government needs to mandate E-10 gasoline. That is 10% ethanol, 90% regular gasoline. As you know, I'm usually the last person to say the gov't should mandate anything. However, I think this is not only an environmental issue, but a national security one as well.

Please, before you go lamblasting me, look up E-10 (and E-85 while your at it) on Wikipedia.

It's literally fuel made from corn, grown right here in the USA. Soon, cellulosic ethanol will be commercially produced and allow farmers to grow twice as much ethanol on the same amount of land, so land use is not a problem, and wouldn't be a problem with only E-10.

Flex-fuel vehicles (there are millions on the road today) run on up to 85% ethanol, and 15+% gasoline (the gas helps the car start better in cold weather). Check your driver's manual to see if you have a flex-fuel vehicle. If you do, your car could literally run on corn oil! (Although there are limited refueling stations, but that's the beauty, these cars can of course also run on regular gas).

Why are we so scared to mandate E-10 gasoline? The gov't mandates everything else they deem harmful etc.

Again, I've done LOTS of research on this subject. E-10 releases 13%-25% less pollution (from production to use). It has no harmful effects on vehicles and is warrantied. There is plenty of supply, but not enough demand because the oil companies refuse to offer this alternative.

[SlapItHigh]

I don't know exactly where to begin with this, because you are speaking idealistically about how things actually work.

It doesn't matter where you begin with this beause this person has no desire to even consider ideas other than his own. I provided a very well written link with many references and he dismisses it without even reading it. You have to be open minded and that person is not.

[PaleoConservative]

"Please, leave science to scientists."


What he really meant to say is this: Don't think for yourself. Just trust what the left-wing, wacko, geek, scientists tell us about global baloney. PS--make sure you throw tons of your hard earned cash to solve the problem.

[jamesmadison]

There is very little indoctrination in the scientific field? Have you been in academia? Academia is politically motivated. Everyone in the scientific field knows this.

I don't know exactly where to begin with this, because you are speaking idealistically about how things actually work.

Academia is a whole including social sciences (fake science) and biological sciences, physical sciences, etc. The latter two depend on testable and verifable information, the former is not. The theories of the latter two make it difficult for any information, that over time is not verifiable, to be accepted as fact. For the former, the same cannot be said and indoctrination in an ideal system - and we can argue whether it may be beneficial or not - can redily occur.

[jamesmadison]

"Please, leave science to scientists."


What he really meant to say is this: Don't think for yourself. Just trust what the left-wing, wacko, geek, scientists tell us about global baloney. PS--make sure you throw tons of your hard earned cash to solve the problem.

The hostility to science is reminiscent of the prosecution of Galileo Galilei.

[MGreen]

No one wants to destroy the planet. If there is a less polluting source of energy, it will be adopted by the people.

[dspectre]

Academia is a whole including social sciences (fake science) and biological sciences, physical sciences, etc. The latter two depend on testable and verifable information, the former doesn't. The theories of the latter two make it difficult for any information, that over time is not verifiable, to be accepted as fact. For the former, the same cannot be said and indoctrination in an ideal system - and we can argue whether it may be beneficial or not - can redily occur.

I do have a scientific background. I feel that you aren't offering many facts, and you just cast off what other people say.

I really don't know what to say to you.

[jamesmadison]

No one wants to destroy the planet. If there is a less polluting source of energy, it will be adopted by the people.

Unless it's too late.

[SlapItHigh]

Again, I've done LOTS of research on this subject. E-10 releases 13%-25% less pollution (from production to use). It has no harmful effects on vehicles and is warrantied. There is plenty of supply, but not enough demand because the oil companies refuse to offer this alternative.


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7308 - What did you think about this?

[J4ck]

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=showname&ID=443

Watch&hear Walter Block on environmental issues. It's pretty good, i think some people could be convinced with that.

[jamesmadison]

I do have a scientific background. I feel that you aren't offering many facts, and you just cast off what other people say.

I really don't know what to say to you.

I'm here to attack imagined facts with the same ferocity as the "global warming is fake" crowd. Once people understand that this is a scientific issue, and not a political one, they may go take a course at a university and try to understand the issue themselves as opposed to believing what people like david horowitz and bill o'reilly tell them.

[PaleoConservative]

"The hostility to science is reminiscent of the prosecution of Galileo Galilei."

Snicker, yeah sure slappy. Your posts were so friendly early on.

The Scientific community can publish and research anything they want. Just because I fail to bow down and worship their findings doesn't mean I'm being hostile to it.

[LibertyOfOne]

I don't see the need to save every animal in the world when you can just make a DNA data bank or have genetic samples. Later on you could bring them back if you so choose. To suggest that the earth must remain static like it was before humans evolved is being short sighted. The whole thing about ecosystems is not relevant today considering how far humans have been removed from nature.

[rp0x]

What he really meant to say is this: Don't think for yourself. Just trust what the left-wing, wacko, geek, scientists tell us

We cannot think and decide on the global warming issue. There are lots of data over several decades to be analyzed to reach a conclusion. How is it possible to think and reach a conclusion on this without having comprehensive access to all the data and having the knowledge to analyze it?

The logical thing for me to do is trust on the scientific *consensus*, not on political consensus.

[LukeNM]

Thirty years ago it was global cooling, now it's global warming, right!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

They are after your MONEY!

[LibertyOfOne]

Oil and Coal are not here for ever. So there is no real need to regulate it. The case could be argued that oil has already reached it's peak. The market will force people into renewables without the need for government.

[jamesmadison]

Oil and Coal are not here for ever. So there is no real need to regulate it. The case could be argued that oil has already reached it's peak. The market will force people into renewables without the need for government.

Markets can also create nuclear weapons, without regulation, that have the potential do destroy the world.

[jamesmadison]

Thirty years ago it was global cooling, now it's global warming, right!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

They are after your MONEY!

It's called science and it operates within a framework of constant change.

[MGreen]

Let's have a war on global warming! The federal government has to protect us simpletons from ourselves!

[LibertyOfOne]

Markets can also create nuclear weapons, without regulation, that have the potential do destroy the world.

Yeah and that has nothing to do with the eventual depletion of oil. Post Hoc

[rp0x]

I was not arguing whether government should or should not regulate. That's a political issue.

Whether global warming is caused by humans is a scientific issue. And there is consensus on that.

Just because you don't agree with government regulation (I don't agree either) shouldn't be the motive to argue against scientific consensus on global warming,.

[Birdlady]

I'm disappointed too.

Ron Paul needs to address this issue.

What will he do to cut pollution and dependence from OPEC?

First of all, the federal government needs to mandate E-10 gasoline. That is 10% ethanol, 90% regular gasoline. As you know, I'm usually the last person to say the gov't should mandate anything. However, I think this is not only an environmental issue, but a national security one as well.

Please, before you go lamblasting me, look up E-10 (and E-85 while your at it) on Wikipedia.

It's literally fuel made from corn, grown right here in the USA. Soon, cellulosic ethanol will be commercially produced and allow farmers to grow twice as much ethanol on the same amount of land, so land use is not a problem, and wouldn't be a problem with only E-10.

Flex-fuel vehicles (there are millions on the road today) run on up to 85% ethanol, and 15+% gasoline (the gas helps the car start better in cold weather). Check your driver's manual to see if you have a flex-fuel vehicle. If you do, your car could literally run on corn oil! (Although there are limited refueling stations, but that's the beauty, these cars can of course also run on regular gas).

Why are we so scared to mandate E-10 gasoline? The gov't mandates everything else they deem harmful etc.

Again, I've done LOTS of research on this subject. E-10 releases 13%-25% less pollution (from production to use). It has no harmful effects on vehicles and is warrantied. There is plenty of supply, but not enough demand because the oil companies refuse to offer this alternative.

And the problem with corn is that it is genetically modified.

"Why are we so scared to mandate E-10 gasoline? The gov't mandates everything else they deem harmful etc."
That's pretty poor conclusion or persuasion to want to mandate something. Give me a break!
If it was harmful the government would want it!

[dspectre]

I'm here to attack imagined facts with the same ferocity as the "global warming is fake" crowd. Once people understand that this is a scientific issue, and not a political one, they may go take a course at a university and try to understand the issue themselves as opposed to believing what people like david horowitz and bill o'reilly tell them.

Without even going into scientific arguments, tell me what have you accomplished?
You talk down to people for their supposed lack of education and ignorance(which you presume and don't know), and then expect them to all of the sudden agree with you?

Instead of constructively stating your position, you have effectively annoyed people who may have listened to you, and embolden those that disagree.

You have far from succeeded on what you thought you planned to do, to put it nicely.

[jamesmadison]

We cannot think and decide on the global warming issue. There are lots of data over several decades to be analyzed to reach a conclusion. How is it possible to think and reach a conclusion on this without having comprehensive access to all the data and having the knowledge to analyze it?

The logical thing for me to do is trust on the scientific *consensus*, not on political consensus.

A rational voice in a sea or irrationality.

[LibertyOfOne]

I was not arguing whether government should or should not regulate. That's a political issue.

Whether global warming is caused by humans is a scientific issue. And there is consensus on that.

Just because you don't agree with government regulation (I don't agree either) shouldn't be the motive to argue against scientific consensus on global warming,.

Yes

[jamesmadison]

Without even going into scientific arguments, tell me what have you accomplished?
You talk down to people for their supposed lack of education and ignorance(which you presume and don't know), and then expect them to all of the sudden agree with you?

Instead of constructively stating your position, you have effectively annoyed people who may have listened to you, and embolden those that disagree.

You have far from succeeded on what you thought you planned to do, to put it nicely.

No - i just want to remove the fox noise brainwashing of "global warming is not scientifically sound."

Man made global warming is accepted fact in the scientific community.

[jamesmadison]

Without even going into scientific arguments, tell me what have you accomplished?
You talk down to people for their supposed lack of education and ignorance(which you presume and don't know), and then expect them to all of the sudden agree with you?

Instead of constructively stating your position, you have effectively annoyed people who may have listened to you, and embolden those that disagree.

You have far from succeeded on what you thought you planned to do, to put it nicely.

That's an issue of whether air pollution can have a detrimental effect to the property of the individual. If it does, and is proven - it warrants regulation because the alternative, legislation, is not feasible.

[paulitics]

Global warming is a fact and only a dimwit would argue that it is not cause by humanity. Go take a course at your local university an get an education - quit with the neocon attacks against universities because they only make you look like horowitz worshiping tart.

An upper level Ecology course might help.

sounds like alot of emotion over substance here.

[LibertyOfOne]

No - i just want to remove the fox noise brainwashing of "global warming is not scientifically sound."

Man made global warming is accepted fact in the scientific community.

Yeah C02 is a forcing we already know.

[aravoth]

It's bewildering to believe how many have fallen prey of the misinformation campaign prostituted by big oil corporations that attempt to refute scientific evidence with ill reasoned theory.

Give me a break. Most of us don't even watch TV, or listen to AM radio. I'd like to know what scientific evidence you are talking about. Even you have to agree that the computer models they produce where complete crap. Secondly, you need verifiable results, which we don't have. We have ice core samples depicting Several Past Ice Ages and Warming periods, none of it caused by man. Normally you would test your theory and try to reproduce the same results. Unfortunatly that would require, a star, a planet, and a lot of CO2. Since we don't have those readily available, I'll just go out on a limb and say that everything we have on this topic is speculation.

We do know that CO2 levels rise after a warming trend occurs. Probably because heat increases the rate of decay, and there is a lot of dead things littering the ground. We know that solar output has increased, which it does on a rotating basis, always has, it's just the way it burns off it's fuel. We know our "solar sheild" ie: the magnetisphere has lost a lot of strength, and some specualate that that it is getting ready to flip, which it has done, several times in the past. When that happens there is very little barrier between us and the solar systems oven.

We also know that the same people perpetuating this fear around are the same people selling you carbon offsets. It's a great plan really. Create a panic, and then come to the rescue with your pre-planned solution.

Am I saying that we don't need to reign in pollution? No! Absolutly not, start a litter patrol, use your "scientific" brain and develop an alternate to the combustion engine. Write a book, change peoples minds, but don't get Tyrannical on the entire planet and force the under-developed nations to live in squaler forever, and force the rest of us to pay a carbon tax for all the pollution that China puts out. Good luck forcing them to just "stop the factories".

Conclusion? It was changed from "global warming" to "climate change" for a reason. Even the Al Gores of the world have no friggan clue what is going on. Neither do I, and neither do you. Neither do any of the "scientists" making claims on results that can never be verified or reproduced. There is more going on here than people are telling you. It is not just human interaction that is doing this.

[dspectre]

No - i just want to remove the fox noise brainwashing of "global warming is not scientifically sound."

Man made global warming is accepted fact in the scientific community.

Did you remove them?

[paulitics]

No - i just want to remove the fox noise brainwashing of "global warming is not scientifically sound."

Man made global warming is accepted fact in the scientific community.

no its not, there are plenty of renowned scientists, climatologists, and meteorologists who dispute it.

[cjhowe]

Start with the assumption that man is responsible and that man can do something about it. What then? Do we lobby government for the next decade to do something about it or do we take it upon ourselves to do something? Do we take personal responsibility for our consumption or do we push it off on government to mandate production? Do we have government subsidize industry with billions of dollars or do we create a prize funded by those that care about the issue. If you want 200mpg automobiles to be mainstream, create a billion dollar prize in the private sector and it will happen much quicker than it would happen through government mandates. Newt Gingrich is dead right on this issue. We can no longer sit back and wonder if we're doing harm to our planet. We are. Is global warming the effect, is climate change? It doesn't matter, what we're doing now no matter the measurable outcome isn't good and we know it. The question is, who is more capable of solving it. The sooner Washington washes it's hands on this issue, the faster the free market can do what it does better than any government can.

[Stealth4]

Global warming is a fact and only a dimwit would argue that it is not cause by humanity. Go take a course at your local university an get an education - quit with the neocon attacks against universities because they only make you look like horowitz worshiping tart.

An upper level Ecology course might help.

How much research have you done on this subject to come to this assertion of yours?

Yes the earth is warming - it the 100% of that temperature rise caused by humans? - Very Doubtful.

[thatnerdyguy]

That's an issue of whether air pollution can have a detrimental effect to the property of the individual. If it does, and is proven - it warrants regulation because the alternative, legislation, is not feasible.

What are you talking about? There is a third option: a strong civil judiciary. If people get SUED for poluting others property, and it makes certain level of pollution unprofitable, then the pollution will stop. Federal intervention is a BAD IDEA.

Also, to those that say Global Warming caused by humans is a concensus, I guess then all the scientists studying it don't need any more government research grants then right? Because the science is "settled"... Right?

[LibertyOfOne]

How much research have you done on this subject to come to this assertion of yours?

Yes the earth is warming - it the 100% of that temperature rise caused by humans? - Very Doubtful.

No one is saying 100% of it is caused by humans. The only thing that has been said is that the change in the rate of increase in temperature is likely caused by human activity.

[SlapItHigh]

Start with the assumption that man is responsible and that man can do something about it. What then? Do we lobby government for the next decade to do something about it or do we take it upon ourselves to do something? Do we take personal responsibility for our consumption or do we push it off on government to mandate production? Do we have government subsidize industry with billions of dollars or do we create a prize funded by those that care about the issue. If you want 200mpg automobiles to be mainstream, create a billion dollar prize in the private sector and it will happen much quicker than it would happen through government mandates. Newt Gingrich is dead right on this issue. We can no longer sit back and wonder if we're doing harm to our planet. We are. Is global warming the effect, is climate change? It doesn't matter, what we're doing now no matter the measurable outcome isn't good and we know it. The question is, who is more capable of solving it. The sooner Washington washes it's hands on this issue, the faster the free market can do what it does better than any government can.

Thank you.

We are totally limiting ourselves by expecting suits in washington to solve this problem for us.

[partypooper]

there are at least three different issues here

1) is there global warming due to human activity
2) how much that matters?
3) should we trust government to deal with it?

number 1 is the most difficult to argue against. i think it makes much more sense to focus on number 2) - there is global warming but the consequences are not that terrible, actually - it would be more of a nuisance than anything serious. the third issue is also a very strong issue for dr paul. so i would stay out of issue 1, it is too complicated.

also, i heard at the lecture that there is a technology that can take co2 out of the atmosphere. so it is not about lowering emissions, it is about taking it out and that would solve all problems. the technology is patented by a private company.

[yongrel]

Global Warming is Real... I just Don't Care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyD9W2v-SME

[SlapItHigh]

We cannot think and decide on the global warming issue. There are lots of data over several decades to be analyzed to reach a conclusion. How is it possible to think and reach a conclusion on this without having comprehensive access to all the data and having the knowledge to analyze it?

No one said that we should not access scientific data. No one said we should lack the knowledge to analyze it.

The point is - we absolutely should question the data and the conclusions made. We should think about this from all angles. To say we should just turn a blind eye to all research and how it is conducted and just trust what scientists tell us is exactly the opposite of the spirit of this campaign.

[aravoth]

Also, to those that say Global Warming caused by humans is a concensus, I guess then all the scientists studying it don't need any more government research grants then right? Because the science is "settled"... Right?

There is no *&^%ing thing in science called a consensus. There are facts, nothing else.

The morons that threw political terminology into the scientific feild corrupted it. Science is pure. All it does is find the facts. And a bunch of politicians who spew nothing but lies took it over. No wonder people are pissed off.

[seapilot]

Exactly. Numbers dont lie....liars lie about numbers.

[Arklatex]

Global warming is a fact and only a dimwit would argue that it is not cause by humanity. Go take a course at your local university an get an education - quit with the neocon attacks against universities because they only make you look like horowitz worshiping tart.

An upper level Ecology course might help.


Global warming is a fact, but that humans are the direct cause is in question. Remember, mother nature is a such a complicated system with many variables, and it may be a bigheaded of us to think it revolves so much around our actions in our brief existence, mother nature has been here for billions of years handling such things as increasing level of C02. We live in a beautiful system of fluctuations and cycles, the sun is currently at it most intensive stage of it's own 20 year cycle. Are you aware of our Suns natural cycle? How about the fact that vegetation breathes CO2, and higher levels of C02 in an environment is countered by increased growth in vegetation? These are examples of many question you should ask yourself to form your own opinion, before spreading what you've been only told. :D

[paulitics]

there are at least three different issues here

1) is there global warming due to human activity
2) how much that matters?
3) should we trust government to deal with it?

number 1 is the most difficult to argue against. i think it makes much more sense to focus on number 2) - there is global warming but the consequences are not that terrible, actually - it would be more of a nuisance than anything serious. the third issue is also a very strong issue for dr paul. so i would stay out of issue 1, it is too complicated.

also, i heard at the lecture that there is a technology that can take co2 out of the atmosphere. so it is not about lowering emissions, it is about taking it out and that would solve all problems. the technology is patented by a private company.

1) could be, overall effects compared to other factors are overblown. During the 70s they were warning us of "global cooling".

2) Not much, due to the miniscule effects of humans comapared to other factors, like the sun, oceans, methane gas from cows, etc.
Global pollution is much more serious. The bees dying is a rather precarious situation that gets little media attention.

3) The governments solution is a worldwide carbon tax, funding the UN and other global entities. Very bad solution, and shows that there is probably an ulterior motive.

[drednot]

It's bewildering to believe how many have fallen prey of the misinformation campaign prostituted by big oil corporations that attempt to refute scientific evidence with ill reasoned theory.

You seem to be reasonably intelligent yet you say a lot of strange things.

You called someone a moron for saying ice core data demonstrates CO2 levels lag temperature level by centuries, and that other planets such as Mars and Jupiter are warming. But these are scientific facts, the kind of facts you say you love so much.

Your reference to Galileo is ironic. No scientists are more persecuted today than those who dare to report evidence that the theory of man-made global warming may be overblown. The "Global Warming Crisis" has become a multi-billion dollar industry, and many jobs depend on the continuing perception of impending doom.

Your view of how academia works may also be a tad naive. Scientists must battle for grants just as businesses battle for customers, and the vast bulk of funding comes from government not "oil companies". Government is interested in crisis, if your work involves "saving humanity", you are much more likely to get funded.

You claim that the scientific method punishes falsehood, which is correct, but it punishes some falsehoods more than others. Specifically, it can take decades to prove that climate change theories are correct or incorrect. By the time we learn which theories were correct, many billions of dollars will have been spent and most will have forgotten who made the incorrect predictions.

Furthermore, when one actually reads the scientific papers that are published, one realizes that the data is not nearly as ominous as the activists and journalists publicize it to be. No scientists are publishing papers that suggest sea level will rise 20 feet this century a la "An Inconvenient Truth". Even the heavily politicized IPCC is only predicting rises of a foot or two.

Finally, I just want to add my personal thankyou to the americans of 1900 who did not try to solve in their day the environmental concerns of 2000. Instead, they focussed on economic growth, which has given us standards of living unheard of in history. Imagine the foolishness of the people of 2000 trying to solve the environmental concerns of 2100. We have no idea what amazing technology will be available in 2100, I suspect they'll be laughing at our alarm about a temperature rise of 2 degrees or so

[LibertyEagle]

University level scientists are not easly pursuaded by the government.

Ever heard of a grant? ;)

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Ron Paul is for legalizing industrial hemp! And has introduced legislation to that effect. Obama has not. Hitlery has not.

We need to switch our cars from petroleum to hemp biodiesel -- the hemp will absorb as much CO2 while it grows as it does when it's burned. Carbon neutral.

Tell him that.

[reaver]

Global warming is a fact and only a dimwit would argue that it is not cause by humanity. Go take a course at your local university an get an education - quit with the neocon attacks against universities because they only make you look like horowitz worshiping tart.

An upper level Ecology course might help.

Call me a dimwit. Global Warming has NOTHING to do with people. I'm sick and tired of the "only a dimwit" "anyone with half a brain" comments. Ice caps on Mars are melting- We did that didn't we professor?

[QWE]

ok, this thread is pretty ridiculous and most of what people are saying is NOT going turn most people on to Ron Paul. For those who believe Global Warming is some kind of myth thought up by the left, they will already be voting Republican and probably not for Paul, so it hardly matters what Paul thinks. This is an issue that could make or break many moderates votes. What many of you guys are saying is NOT going to win over moderates, independents, or those who formally voted Democratic.

"Climate Change" is a documented fact. "Global Warming" is an archaic term that not many in the scientific community use, it's mostly those in the media. Is Climate Change worth studying and worth worrying about? Yes. Is it known to what extent humans have impacted the onset of the recent climate change? Not really, but very few scientists say humans have no part whatsoever. People still claim "there are plenty in the scientific community who don't believe in those lies!", but that is a complete myth. The amount who dispute climate change or say humans have 0 impact is a small fraction of the scientific community, and there have even been a couple scientists who came out and said they fudged their work to come to that conclusion (much like some scientists did when the effects of smoking was being studied and claimed "smoking is harmless!")

THE FACT OF THE MATTER is you must assume the worst case scenario and then address how Ron Paul would want the problem to be solved. In fact, assume worst than the worst case scenario. If there actually was a major environmental question that needed to be solved ASAP or else humanity as we knew would end in a few years, what would Ron Paul do? Obviously this is not the case, but most presidents would take some governmental action to address it. Would Paul? If not what would solve it? THAT'S what we need to address here, not whether climate change is a myth or not.

[southerntrendkill]

I was not arguing whether government should or should not regulate. That's a political issue.

Whether global warming is caused by humans is a scientific issue. And there is consensus on that.

Just because you don't agree with government regulation (I don't agree either) shouldn't be the motive to argue against scientific consensus on global warming,.

Global Warming is caused by the SUN. The Sun is a Star and goes thur changes in output. The energy the Sun produces is not a constant. Also the Earth's orbit around the Sun is not constant. Some times the Earth is closer to the Sun. Our Solar system is in an arm of the Milky Way Galaxy that Orbits around a Really Big Black Hole. In the Milky Way Galaxy are areas of more and less Cosmic Dust and Radiation Particles. Our Solar System goes in and out of these areas. All of these changes affect the temperature of the Earth.

As a side note the Earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is now. Even before Man existed.

Maybe you should do some real research on Global Warming and not just follow along on the "Fear Based Religon of Global Warming" The Religon is about control not Freedom.

And there is NOT a Scientific Consensus on Man Made Global Warming.

Don't take my word on this look it up for your self.

Next I'll hear somebody say Ron Paul dosn't have a chance.:D

[American]

Global Warming is Real... I just Don't Care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyD9W2v-SME

Global warming is real, and its been proven with ice core samples that its happened before. Matter of fact if you study the ice core sampling done in Greenland there is a connection between carbon dioxide and the air but it has nothing to do with human activity.

Just search for ice core sampling in Greenland

[Tsoman]

Global warming is to Liberals
as
Terrorism is to Neocons

and both serve the same function

[rp0x]

Maybe you should do some real research on Global Warming

I have done my research and I will share it with you
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

And here is the entire list: Climate change: A guide to the perplexed.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

[surf]

i have a neighbor in HS. we were talking and he was telling me that the gov't needs to "mandate" hybrids and new light bulbs.... he also told me that the constitution was anachronistic as he learned in his American history(?) class.

it scared me. so little faith and so little understanding of how free markets and civil rights are iimportant.

[WillInMiami]

You cannot win over these global warming extremists. They are terminal liberals. There is no cure.

[LibertyOfOne]

1) could be, overall effects compared to other factors are overblown. During the 70s they were warning us of "global cooling"..

Fallacy. Science changes with the latest evidence. If something is wrong at one moment in time does not mean what is said now is wrong. Newton also did some stuff with alchemy. Does that make his discovery of gravity less valid? No


2) Not much, due to the miniscule effects of humans comapared to other factors, like the sun, oceans, methane gas from cows, etc.
Global pollution is much more serious. The bees dying is a rather precarious situation that gets little media attention.
It only takes a minuscule amount of a toxic substance to kill a man. This disproves GW how?



3) The governments solution is a worldwide carbon tax, funding the UN and other global entities. Very bad solution, and shows that there is probably an ulterior motive.
The governments solution to Katrina was horrible. Does not change the fact that a hurricane destroyed the city. This disproves GW how?

[ForLibertyFight]

Even if global warming is not real we should try to protect and conserve our only home planet earth. I want my children and future posterity to enjoy our beautiful planet.

[LibertyOfOne]

You cannot win over these global warming extremists. They are terminal liberals. There is no cure.

Gross generalization. I'm an anarcho-capitalist the furthest thing from a liberal thank you very much.

[rp0x]

You cannot win over these global warming extremists. They are terminal liberals. There is no cure.

..

[southerntrendkill]

I have done my research and I will share it with you
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

And here is the entire list: Climate change: A guide to the perplexed.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

So the concesus is that it is a Fact but not Caused by Man right?

[jamesmadison]

So the concesus is that it is a Fact but not Caused by Man right?

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html
"However, according to Drew Shindell, a climate researcher from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, NY, the most recent studies have confirmed that changing levels of energy from the Sun are not significant enough to be a major cause of global warming: "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues." For more details, see Link Between Solar Cycle and Climate is Blowin' in the Wind "



http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ1.html
Where are the data that show global warming is largely attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases in the Earth's upper atmosphere caused by human burning of fossil fuels?

"The statement is described and justified by quite a number of scientific studies and detailed in several places. The most thorough and extensive studies have been by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group of scientists associated with the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations. A summary of their 2007 report is available at Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (Summary for Policymakers)

The IPCC summary details both the data indicating the existence of global warming as well as potential causes. After examining various possible natural causes, the data seem to rule them out. The determination from the committee is that the causes are anthropological. A good number of summary graphs, charts, and tables of data are included, with pointers to sources of original data. The IPCC complete reports are available through several pointers at IPCC Assessment & Special Reports. One example is: Technical Summary. "

[jamesmadison]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

'No Sun link' to climate change
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

[aravoth]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

'No Sun link' to climate change
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

Ok, the sun has nothing to do with heat on planet earth, makes perfect sense to me :rolleyes:

[Birdlady]

If any of you are interested in looking at information about this, I would like refer you to this blog.
http://www.climateaudit.org/ (http://www.climateaudit.org/)

Steven McIntyre is the author of this blog. He was the first to discover that the mean temperatures NASA gathered were incorrect due to a "Y2K" bug. Which put the highest mean temperatures at 1934 rather than 1998.

Now does this prove there is no global warming, nope. But I think this shows how dependent a lot of the arguments and "facts" are on a small amount of data.
We just don't have enough data to make a conclusive theory.

From my research I feel that climate change or global warming is just another way of centralizing government. The solutions that these groups want is quite ridiculous, such as a carbon tax and switching to fluorescent lamps. Fluorescent lamps are FULL of mercury and cannot be disposed of in landfills. How's that for helping the environment!?

[jamesmadison]

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

[QWE]

Ok, the sun has nothing to do with heat on planet earth, makes perfect sense to me :rolleyes:


it does...

the sun's output has decreased slightly, yet temperatures are rising...

what do you think is the problem? How is the sun the problem?

[libertyordeath]

Global warming reminds me of my parents telling me once the government claimed we were running out of oil, so gas prices jumped to $5.00 a gallon. (back when it was normally 89 cents/gallon)

[ksuguy]

Taking care of the environment is a worthy goal. However, much of the global warming movement isn't about that. It's about power and control. They want to tell me what I can drive, how I can live, and then steal even more of my money in the form of BS carbon taxes. These people have the vision of some wonderful green socialist utopia where all the cute little animals will be frolicking and everyone will be happy. The reality is that we will get a totalitarian nightmare where powerful people will do whatever the fuck they want where average people will be harassed and persecuted for every little environmental "crime" they commit.

[leipo]

Why is it that the only people i hear talking about global warming are the ones that watch TV.

[jamesmadison]

Ok, the sun has nothing to do with heat on planet earth, makes perfect sense to me :rolleyes:

Read the study.

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

[freelance]

I am somewhat agnostic on this subject. I know the earth is warming slightly. But there is nothing to show it is because of hydrocarbons.

Back in the 70s, they tried to scare us to death by telling us that we were going to freeze to death. Many have forgotten, many more weren't around then.

For those who are concerned about their carbon footprint, you can go buy a few boatloads of carbon offsets.

http://www.bigbluecarbon.com/?gclid=CKuptMGR048CFSQYZAodDWQB8w

I'll buy a few extra plants.

[Ron Paul Poker]

Lets get on the same page here. Lets quit wasting time debating global warming and focus on why Ron Paul's platform is good for the environment. I believe the prime cause of pollution is our current monetary policies. The large central banks love to loan money to build power plants. It gives them a reason to create money out of thin air.

[aravoth]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm



It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

......
................
...............................

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!11!!!!!!!!11!!

Rofl, yeah, the sun used to affect the climate, but for some odd reason it has no affect anymore, Global warming has rendered the sun useless.

[winston_blade]

Global warming is a natural thing. I haven't studied the issue a lot, but I do study history and I know for a fact that the previous statement is true. I also know that Al Gore is insane. That doesn't bode well for the validity of global warming.

[freelance]

researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

Any idea WHO pays those researchers???

[Richandler]

I think the thing that is scariest about Global Warming is all the energy we could potentially be taking out of the atmosphere through these "renewable" energy sources. Windmill farms do change wind patterns and so do solar panels. Instead of energy remaining in the wind and in the air it becomes electricity for us. For right it's next to un noticeable but on a mass scale it could have unintended consequences. Might I add to a post from earlier that Nuclear weapons were not free market projects, they were mass scale projects from governments similar to what we are proposing for Global Warming.

Global warming is real the earth temperature rising 0.5 degrees across the globe proves that. However, it's man amplified not man made. CO2 is a result, according to scientific charts of data, of temperature and similarly is Methane. Of course humans produce more methane than CO2 which is a shame because even though we produce far more the graphs remain consistant with each other. Right now we are just as much above average world temperature as we were below it 150 years ago. So natural flucation could be a lot more easily arrived than man made gases, which aren't man made. Which leads me to the fact that the earth produces more CO2 itself than we will for a very long time. Dead leaves love doing that.

Onething that is that is beneficial about more CO2 levels in the air is that plants grow faster and strong. This has been scientifcly proven through controlled tests. We'll see plants growing abnormally fast before we see disasterous weather. Plants taken CO2 based on how much there is not how much they feel like. Also if northern ice is melting that does two thing, one in increases the amount of CO2 the oceans can absorb, which by the way there is more CO2 in the ocean than on the surface of the planet, and number two the bigger the ocean the longer it will take to heat. All of these factors are scientific facts.

Scientists are not stupid and there are hundreds of facts that back non-man made global warming and there is pretty much a documentary and study by world governement elected "scientists." The IPCC report, read it. No seriously because it's every alarmists' defense, but they have never read it. They don't know which scientists are credibile or if the people doing the study are even scientists to begin with. Not to mention the abundant ignorance of a variety of other unknown not applied to the equations the mention.

The temperature will drop sooner or later and the movement will be renamed climate change. The concepts been around since before all of us were born. It's a cash cow. Go to treehugger.com and try to find a page where you are not being sold something.

[jamesmadison]

Any idea WHO pays those researchers???

I'm guessing oil companies?

[Ron Paul Fan]

So we can go on and on about whether or not global warming exists. But can we all agree with Ron Paul that the federal government shouldn't be involved? I'm guessing none of you want a national carbon tax placed on you.

[jamesmadison]

......
................
...............................

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!11!!!!!!!!11!!

Rofl, yeah, the sun used to affect the climate, but for some odd reason it has no affect anymore, Global warming has rendered the sun useless.

I'm sorry that your position has no scientific validity.

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

[QWE]

Why is it that the only people i hear talking about global warming are the ones that watch TV.

Because you don't take a class that covers it?

[QWE]

No one answered this student's concern or my post a couple pages back. Jesus this topic brings out the worst in Ron Paul supporters. Fucking sheep...
I bet plenty of you don't believe in Evolution of any kind either. There's no "consensus"...

[Birdlady]

No one answered this student's concern or my post a couple pages back. Jesus this topic brings out the worst in Ron Paul supporters. Fucking sheep...
I bet plenty of you don't believe in Evolution of any kind either. There's no "consensus"...

Nope. I don't believe in evolution.

I am far from being a sheep too. No one has shown me any evidence that absolutely proves man-made global warming, so I must keep my mind open to the idea that it might not be true.

[winston_blade]

No one answered this student's concern or my post a couple pages back. Jesus this topic brings out the worst in Ron Paul supporters. Fucking sheep...
I bet plenty of you don't believe in Evolution of any kind either. There's no "consensus"...

Here's the consensus, Al Gore is utterly insane. How often are socialists and entertainers right on anything? Pretty much never. That doesn't mean that global warming isn't real, it just means that I will need indisputable proof and I would also like the leaders of the movement to take it seriously (Al Gore planning concerts that burn tons of fossil fuels, yeah that sounds right).

[Ninja Homer]

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/

[QWE]

Here's the consensus, Al Gore is utterly insane. How often are socialists and entertainers right on anything? Pretty much never. That doesn't mean that global warming isn't real, it just means that I will need indisputable proof and I would also like the leaders of the movement to take it seriously (Al Gore planning concerts that burn tons of fossil fuels, yeah that sounds right).

I don't like Al Gore. That's not what I'm talking about. Why do you assume I'm relying on TV and entertainers?

Again, like someone has said a few times before... "take a class". Get educated. Learn everything you can about climate change, THEN try and argue against it. There's plenty of people who can, but none of them seem to be in this topic.

[jamesmadison]

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/

This has already been demonstrated false. The solar hypothesis is nonsense that is based on old data.

[Ninja Homer]

This has already been demonstrated false. The solar hypothesis is nonsense that is based on old data.

Then give us the new data. You ask for facts, but refuse to give any yourself.

[aravoth]

I'm sorry that your position has no scientific validity.

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

I'm pretty sure it has scientific validity. Maybe you should be reading the work of people who's job it is to study solar output. Like people in Astrophysics, at NASA. Instead you quote sources from people that work in labratories that were built specifically to study one aspect of the climate puzzle as it relates to global warming. Conflict of interest? Job security? who knows.

You guys wouldn't know scientific validity if it fell out of the sky, landed on your face, and started to wiggle.

[American]

focusing on Global warming is just another "war" on something. Its being used as a political tool.

There is however a reason to be concerned for financial reasons. Renewable energy and less dependence on fossil fuels would be in everyones interest. But to declare another war would be counter productive.

[jjockers]

Jamesmadison: Please, leave science to scientists.

Right. I'm a a 3rd year graduate student in physics @ unc-chapel hill. There is certainly no consensus here regarding global warming. In fact, several weeks back, a new research paper was dispersed to all physics faculty, staff, and grad students here that detailed the very latest global warming research - and the conclusion was quite different than the one you are falsely spreading around. When I get a hold of that paper again, I'll cite it here for you.

In the mean time, stop pretending you can speak for all scientists.

[jamesmadison]

I'm pretty sure it has scientific validity. Maybe you should be reading the work of people who's job it is to study solar output. Like people in Astrophysics, at NASA. Instead you quote sources from people that work in labratories that were built specifically to study one aspect of the climate puzzle as it relates to global warming. Conflict of interest? Job security? who knows.

You guys wouldn't know scientific validity if it fell out of the sky, landed on your face, and started to wiggle.

This is less than 6 months old.

[jamesmadison]

Right. I'm a a 3rd year graduate student in physics @ unc-chapel hill. There is certainly no consensus here regarding global warming. In fact, several weeks back, a new research paper was dispersed to all physics faculty, staff, and grad students here that detailed the very latest global warming research - and the conclusion was quite different than the one you are falsely spreading around. When I get a hold of that paper again, I'll cite it here for you.

In the mean time, stop pretending you can speak for all scientists.

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

[Richandler]

First to comment on the cosmic ray argument. Less comsic rays = less cloud cover, less cloud cover results in warmer temperatures. Strange I know...

Also I believe in evolution, you can witness the facts that support it with the birth of your child, but I aslo know global warming is happening, however I can not withness it while I'm driving down the freeway.

[jamesmadison]

Nope. I don't believe in evolution.

I am far from being a sheep too. No one has shown me any evidence that absolutely proves man-made global warming, so I must keep my mind open to the idea that it might not be true.

:(

[aravoth]

I'm sorry that your position has no scientific validity.

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

You are killing me. You really, honestly believe, that a continuosly exploding, Nuclear reactor, millions of times larger than our entire planet, has no affect, at all.......on climate. What the hell did they put in your coffee?

And if your wondering why there has been a down-trend, and if your wondering why what, only 2 hurricanes were strong enough to make landfall this year, it's because last year, while you guys said there would be 50 catagory 5000 hurricanes blowing children out of the arms of thier mothers, the sun shifted to a minimum, just like it does every 11 years. And so this year, when you said the exact same thing, that 50, Catagory : We're all going to DIE!! hurricanes where well on thier way to wiping out all of us, and it never happened, did you ever wonder why? I can tell you, no sun spots, no massive solar storms, and the sun is in a minimum. You can predict the same thing for next year, and again, nothing will happen. If fact I'll make a prediction, you can come back to me one day and tell me how right I was. In 2011 when the sun starts picking up steam, storms, floods, tempetures, and hurricanes will increase. You will blame it on global warming, or whatever the current "scare the crap out of everyone" term is by then. Doom and Gloom will abound for a while, then the sun will decrease output again and nothing will happen. But you'll say it was because we instituted a global carbon tax, and thats why everything worked out. Yeah, that sounds about right.

[OptionsTrader]

I think it's going to be an uphill battle convincing young people to be 'contrarians'. Global Warming (A new religion) is already being indoctrinated in the education system.

In addition to the ineffectiveness of the EPA and the sound property rights arguments, if these individuals are truly for minimizing the carbon footprint, they should be vehemently anti-war since the DoD is the largest consumer of petroleum, and reigning in the growing military empire is the single most effective way to reduce carbon emissions immediately.

In 2006 Air Force consumed around 2.6 billion gallons of jet-fuel which is the same amount of fuel U.S. airplanes consumed during WWII (between December 1941 and August 1945). The B52 bomber consumes 3300 gallons per hour, the F16 Falcon burns 800 gallons per hour and the KC-135 Statotanker an aerial refueling tanker aircraft consumes 2650 gallons per hour.

The Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S and the US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world. In 2006 the US Military consumed 117 million barrels or 320,000 barrels per day.

[freelance]

I'm guessing oil companies?

and/or govt--most of them anyway. But yeah, same idea. Either one expects a predetermined outcomes and edits with abandon.

[Corydoras]

Eh, the girl in the original article (remember her?) wanted to go see a "radical," and she wanted to see some ranter from the 1960s left. That's the only reason she was disappointed-- she wanted to gawk at a political dinosaur, and instead she got someone who was pointing out the continued vital importance of a document from the eighteenth century. I don't think we should worry about Dr. Paul's positions losing the youth vote.

[jamesmadison]

You are killing me. You really, honestly believe, that a continuosly exploding, Nuclear reactor, millions of times larger than our entire planet, has no affect, at all.......on climate. What the hell did they put in your coffee?

And if your wondering why there has been a down-trend, and if your wondering why what, only 2 hurricanes were strong enough to make landfall this year, it's because last year, while you guys said there would be 50 catagory 5000 hurricanes blowing children out of the arms of thier mothers, the sun shifted to a minimum, just like it does every 11 years. And so this year, when you said the exact same thing, that 50, Catagory : We're all going to DIE!! hurricanes where well on thier way to wiping out all of us, and it never happened, did you ever wonder why? I can tell you, no sun spots, no massive solar storms, and the sun is in a minimum. You can predict the same thing for next year, and again, nothing will happen. If fact I'll make a prediction, you can come back to me one day and tell me how right I was. In 2011 when the sun starts picking up steam, storms, floods, tempetures, and hurricanes will increase. You will blame it on global warming, or whatever the current "scare the crap out of everyone" term is by then. Doom and Gloom will abound for a while, then the sun will decrease output again and nothing will happen. But you'll say it was because we instituted a global carbon tax, and thats why everything worked out. Yeah, that sounds about right.

Read, read, read...
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Three main mechanisms for centennial-scale solar effects on climate have been proposed. The first is via variations in the total solar irradiance (TSI) which would undoubtedly cause changes in climate if they are of sufficient amplitude. We have no direct measure of TSI variations on century time scales, but reconstructions do vary with the cosmogenic isotope production rate and so this effect has the potential to explain the palaeoclimate correlations (Lockwood 2006). However, the inferred changes in TSI are much smaller than required to cause significant climate change (Foukal et al. 2006; Lockwood 2006). The second mechanism invokes variations in the solar UV irradiance, which are larger than hose in TSI, and mechanisms have been proposed whereby despite the low power in this part of the solar spectrum, they influence the troposphere via the overlying stratosphere (Haigh 2001). The third proposed mechanism is considerably different from the other two—it has been suggested that air ions generated by cosmic rays modulate the production of clouds (Svensmark 2007). This mechanism (Carslaw et al. 2002) has been highly controversial and the data series have generally been too short (and of inadequate homogeneity) to detect solar cycle variations in cloud cover; however, recent observations of short-lived lasting of the order of 1 day) transient events indicate there may indeed be an effect on clean, maritime air (Harrison & Stephenson 2006).

[freelance]

In addition to the ineffectiveness of the EPA and the sound property rights arguments, if these individuals are truly for minimizing the carbon footprint, they should be vehemently anti-war since the DoD is the largest consumer of energy, and reigning in the growing military empire is the single most effective way to reduce carbon emissions immediately.

The Department of Defense (DoD) per capita energy consumption of 524 trillion Btu is 10 times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa. Only three countries consume more oil per capita then the DoD.

In 2006 Air Force consumed around 2.6 billion gallons of jet-fuel which is the same amount of fuel U.S. airplanes consumed during WWII (between December 1941 and August 1945). The B52 bomber consumes 3300 gallons per hour, the F16 Falcon burns 800 gallons per hour and the KC-135 Statotanker an aerial refueling tanker aircraft consumes 2650 gallons per hour.

The Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S and the US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world. In 2006 the US Military consumed 117 million barrels or 320,000 barrels per day.

With up to 15 gallons per day per deployed soldier in January 2007 the American GI is the most energy-consuming soldier ever seen on the field of war.

Yeah, I'll take this all seriously just as soon as our gummint does.

[QWE]

yeah, that article is not saying that the sun has nothing to do with climate :rolleyes:

It's saying the recent changes in climate are the opposite of what would be expected from the recent changes in output from the Sun, so we should be looking to other factors besides the sun as to what is causing these changes.

Jeez, like I said, this topic brings out the worst in RP supporters. Like, the ones who can't even read :eek:

[Richandler]

yeah, that article is not saying that the sun has nothing to do with climate :rolleyes:

It's saying the recent changes in climate are the opposite of what would be expected from the recent changes in output from the Sun, so we should be looking to other factors besides the sun as to what is causing these changes.

Jeez, like I said, this topic brings out the worst in RP supporters. Like, the ones who can't even read :eek:

Yah but one things this topic keeps the same, no one ever pays attention to what I've said. Unless of course they can't refute it...

[QWE]

Yah but one things this topic keeps the same, no one ever pays attention to what I've said. Unless of course they can't refute it...
I noticed what you posted before and I agree with it. I've made a few posts that actually address the original concern of this topic, but everone ignored it.

NO ONE here seems to be interested in actually answering the question.

[StateofTrance]

People who think Global Warming is a fad should go back to their high schools.

[aravoth]

yeah, that article is not saying that the sun has nothing to do with climate :rolleyes:

It's saying the recent changes in climate are the opposite of what would be expected from the recent changes in output from the Sun, so we should be looking to other factors besides the sun as to what is causing these changes.

Jeez, like I said, this topic brings out the worst in RP supporters. Like, the ones who can't even read :eek:

I know what it's saying lol, it's taking studies from 2001, when the sun was in a maximum, and the climate was getting warmer. And so, he grabs his most recent "data" to prove a point, from 2006. When the sun was in a minimum. Then he says, "However, the inferred changes in TSI are much smaller than required to cause significant climate change (Foukal et al. 2006; Lockwood 2006)" Well, no shit, the solar max is over, nothing is happening on the sun's surface. Like I said, you're only going to realiize it during a solar maximum. Not reading a crap study by some fop of a scientist who is is too stupid to realize that in 2000 the numbers where completely different than they are now.

[Nefertiti]

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

Now, you finally are starting to get somewhere with your remarks, but your reasoning is still flawed.

For your information, I actually have taken a lot of courses, so many so actually, that I have a PhD. If you are such a wizard scientist, I suggest you share your CV with us so that we know why we should take your judgment of the situation for granted.

In any case, my PhD is not in science, but in Egyptology. However, it is a field that relies heavily on science. It also is a field that looks at history, which you hint at in your remarks above. The only way we can know whether global warming is a possible threat to us, regardless of modern factors, is to look at the geological record over time. In Egypt, we have a very stark indication that severe climate change happened millennia ago, long before anyone was burning fossil fuels etc. At one time, all of Egypt's territory was inhabited by humans and animals-big game etc. The archaeological record demonstrates that the country was largely savannah. And then things started to dry up, and the people migrated to the Nile Valley and settled near the river, which led to the development of the ancient Egyptian civilization. It reached a point where only 4% of the land in Egypt is inhabitable. That indicates a very big change in climate, perhaps not "global warming" but certainly at least a local change that altered the way of life of people forever.

Now, while your remarks above that the trends are going against what we would expect from non-human factors may be true, it still does not negate the fact that even without the modern human factors, the earth does undergo large climate shifts. These might make some areas hotter, or colder, or desert, or frozen, or whatever. The point is that we won't be able to stop it one way or another-1000s of years of history demonstrates that. What we need to focus our efforts on is dealing with the EFFECTS on humans.

[literatim]

Is Global Warming a Scam? John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel, Says Yes (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/443020/is_global_warming_a_scam_john_coleman.html)

[Corydoras]

A question to both sides of the debate: Why is it so important to prove one way or the other?

If there IS global warming and it IS human-caused, there is still no reason for the federal government to get involved. Either way, there is still no reason for governments to take a coercive tack toward individuals.

[Anti Federalist]

JM wrote:


Once people understand that this is a scientific issue, and not a political one

Then why is a political "solution" called for, in the form of government coercion?

JM wrote:


Markets can also create nuclear weapons

The Manhattan Project was the market?

[Nefertiti]

A question to both sides of the debate: Why is it so important to prove one way or the other?

If there IS global warming and it IS human-caused, there is still no reason for the federal government to get involved. Either way, there is still no reason for governments to take a coercive tack toward individuals.

It isn't.

If it causes large movements in population, people losing their livelihood and homes, and perhaps even forced to migrate to other countries as a result, in a world of modern borders and visa requirements, what are people who are affected supposed to do?

[rp0x]

Is Global Warming a Scam? John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel, Says Yes

I would rather side with mainstream scientific opinion, and not the opinion of the Weather Channel founder.


The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation

The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[18] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[19] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[20] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[21] Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,[22] but his attempted refutation is disputed.[23][24][25] Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism, also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

[navi]

I believe in global warming but I refuse to take part in the mass hysteria produced by Hollywood.

Everyone agrees that pollution does more harm than good. Whether or not you believe that humans caused the climate change is irrelevant, imo. It's up to us as individuals to put pressure on companies to reduce waste and pollution. We need to get rid of the subsidies on oil and corn companies so that alternative sources of energy are cheap enough for mass consumption. It'll ease our dependence on ME oil and we won't have to fight wars over it.

[4Horsemen]

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

By Noel Sheppard | November 7, 2007 - 17:58 ET

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.


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.

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

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.

[freelance]

I believe in global warming but I refuse to take part in the mass hysteria produced by Hollywood.

Everyone agrees that pollution does more harm than good. Whether or not you believe that humans caused the climate change is irrelevant, imo. It's up to us as individuals to put pressure on companies to reduce waste and pollution. We need to get rid of the subsidies on oil and corn companies so that alternative sources of energy are cheap enough for mass consumption. It'll ease our dependence on ME oil and we won't have to fight wars over it.

Totally agree with you on pollution! I also WANT to find sustainable forms of energy. They're out there, and they're suppressed.

[angelatc]

I agree with that girl! The federal government is so efficient in handling matters like Katrina and Iraq so let's let them handle global warming and health care as well! Carbon taxes and mandatory health care for all!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, they've done wonders with the oil market. We obviously need them to develop alternatives for us so they can divvie up the controls to their cronies.

I'd rather die on an overheated planet than live with the progressive socialism that comes with everything that the left does.

[werdd]

i remember even when i was a kid nickolodeon was doing save the earth stuff, i think its great and all but we have been indoctrinated in the past 20 years.

I do think that both us coming out of an ice age, and pouring carbon into the atmosphere is affecting our climate, it's just impossible to tell which is affecting more. Well, atleast no one has found out which is more prevalent.

[Richandler]

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

By Noel Sheppard | November 7, 2007 - 17:58 ET

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.


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.

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

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.

He should have pointed out how the IPCC is a collection of government appointed scientists. All appointed most likely for political gain.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

You don't want to attack someone's religion when you're campaigning for Dr Paul.

Global warming is a religion.

This is why you have to emphasize the hemp biodiesel issue.

[OptionsTrader]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK-QR88yfOE

IF YOU VOTE FOR RON PAUL, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO PROTECT YOU FROM YOURSELF ANYMORE. THINK OF YOUR FAMILY, YOUR DUTY TO US, AND YOUR SAFETY. WE PROTECT YOU FROM DRUGS, TERRORISM AND POLLUTION. WE ARE YOUR SAVIOR. DO NOT VOTE FOR RON PAUL. YOU ARE SAFE WITH US. WE PUT EVERYONE IN JAIL SO THEY CAN'T HURT YOU. WE KILL EVERYONE SO THEY CAN'T HURT YOU. DO NOT VOTE FOR RON PAUL.

VOTE NO ON RON PAUL. VOTE YES FOR SAFETY

[jnpg]

Maybe real- maybe not-
Maybe caused by humans- maybe cycle of nature

If it happens we will just have to deal with it. I am not too concerned- I do think we pollute and consume WAY too much - I struggle with this personally on a daily basis. I try to do small things to help- but our consumer society is so hard to work around.

$10/gal gas will force Americans to focus on new energy sources. The mother of invention will step in.

Hemp should be completely legal- stupid it is not.

We will survive- but will we be free?

[jnpg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM


Any of you seen this before? don't know if it's real- but if it is - Amazing.

[Corydoras]

If it causes large movements in population, people losing their livelihood and homes, and perhaps even forced to migrate to other countries as a result, in a world of modern borders and visa requirements, what are people who are affected supposed to do?

When a refugee movement is large enough, there is no stopping people at borders.

[OptionsTrader]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM


Any of you seen this before? don't know if it's real- but if it is - Amazing.

It's a gimmick for wowing people that do not understand physics and chemistry. More energy input than output. You cannot defeat conservation of energy.

[framecut]

The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation

Oh goodie! So that's how scientific theory is turned into scientific fact: BY MAJORITY RULE!

It's like when all those German scientists got together and denounced Einstein's theory of relativity. I mean, there was a 'majority of scientists' at the time who agreed Einstein was wrong. So I guess that makes it correct?

I want to make something incredibly clear: SCIENCE IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.

[framecut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM


Any of you seen this before? don't know if it's real- but if it is - Amazing.

Hey, if you think that's amazing, check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj_0XEv7TBg

And if you believe in this garbage: HAVE I GOT A DEAL FOR YOU!

[Hope]

Brilliant. Let me sum up.

Question: "How do we get citizens concerned about global warning to Ron Paul's side?"

Answer: "Tell them they're very, very stupid for believing such filthy lies and then kick them in the shin!"

[Richandler]

You don't want to attack someone's religion when you're campaigning for Dr Paul.

Global warming is a religion.

This is why you have to emphasize the hemp biodiesel issue.

I agree with this.

[Ninja Homer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM


Any of you seen this before? don't know if it's real- but if it is - Amazing.

Yeah, it's interesting. You can find out just about anything publicly known about it here:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:John_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_from_Salt _Water_Using_Radio_Waves

[Corydoras]

Brilliant. Let me sum up.

Question: "How do we get citizens concerned about global warning to Ron Paul's side?"

Answer: "Tell them they're very, very stupid for believing such filthy lies and then kick them in the shin!"


I agree with you, Hope, this is not a productive approach. What would you suggest? I can't get into the heads of people who care about global warming one way or the other so much that it would affect their presidential choice. Do you have any insights?

[Hope]

I agree with you, Hope, this is not a productive approach. What would you suggest? I can't get into the heads of people who care about global warming one way or the other so much that it would affect their presidential choice. Do you have any insights?

I think you have to point out that the government cannot enforce morality. The government tried for years to get people to use alternative energy, they were practically giving money away by the thousands to anyone who would buy a hybrid or pledge to use energy efficient lights, etc. But people wouldn't do it. Why? Because it wasn't in the market place. People either felt that they simply didn't need to do those things or they didn't trust an investment in alternative energies. But once the American people catch onto something -- and that trend is already heavily underway from the numbers in recent yaers -- then things change quicker and more efficiently than they ever could have with the gov't involved.

Insofar as corporations, you can see the same trends there. No on forces BP Gasoline to spend millions of dollars every year making sure they have good envionrmental policies and spend millions more investing in enviornmentally friendly causes. They do it because it's common sense. When government tries to force businesses to do these things, they do in such a clumsy, corrupt way that it causes businesses to go bankrupt and creates the mega-corporation atmosphere that arises when only the richest businesses can basically buy off the gov't. We already have laws securely in place that crack down on corporations that violate envionrmental laws, but we can't enforce them because gov't has gotten so big that they are practically the last to know in almost every case.

Lastly I would argue that we cannot fight a global issue unless we are a global nation. We've been isolated for the past eight years under Bush and it is only through Ron Paul's foreign policy of free trade and diplomacy that we can hope to reinsert ourselves into the global swing of things. It's very important to RP that we set an example that the world wants to follow...when we become a nation worthy of respect and emulation, China and India will begin to see how our enviornmental policies are working, sound policies. Who's going to listen to us about anything when we're trying to police the world and our dollar is dropping like a rock? It's all tied together, and unlike other politicians who make flimsy promises to one special interest group or another, Ron Paul realizes that it is only through real reform of our system that we can accomplish the things we want to do for the world.

[Ninja Homer]

I agree with you, Hope, this is not a productive approach. What would you suggest? I can't get into the heads of people who care about global warming one way or the other so much that it would affect their presidential choice. Do you have any insights?

Shhh... this is a big secret, so don't tell anybody, but Al Gore is going to be Ron Paul's VP. :rolleyes:

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

Because it looks sorely needed in this thread:

The Great Global Warming Swindle, 1 hr. 16 minutes
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-31944410825346433&q=global+warming+swindle&total=198&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

Educate, please.

[Hope]

And by the way, global warming is not one of my big issues. Doesn't make it in the top five, really. I've read up on the issue and while it's my personal opinion that it's probably occurring at least in part due to human influence, I don't think there's much our government can do about that. And I think it's an issue that the Republican Party has foolishly handed to he Dems on a silver platter, as if to say, "No, please -- you take this and use this as a weapon against us. We won't even PRETEND to care about the enviornment. Really. We don't mind if you take those votes away, if we lose elections because we're not even willing to discuss it, well, at least we had honor. Yeah."

[framecut]

Shhh... this is a big secret, so don't tell anybody, but Al Gore is going to be Ron Paul's VP. :rolleyes:

You're kidding right?

[Corydoras]

I really like your long post, Hope, and I agree with you about Republican stupidity on this issue. Consumer demand for environmental efficiency and shareholder pressure on pollution have indeed done a great deal.

I'm not sure that anything can persuade people who are foolishly looking for a "radical" like the disappointed person described in the original post, but I'm grateful to have something to tell anyone who asks me about it.

[paulitics]

I want to make something incredibly clear: SCIENCE IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.

+ 1

[angelatc]

I want to make something incredibly clear: SCIENCE IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.

Heh. And history always remembers the sole person that proved accepted theories to be absolutely wrong.

[Birdlady]

Just because I don't believe in global warming doesn't mean I don't care about the environment. That's a nice little assumption people make.

I see all the damage pesticides, pharmaceuticals and genetically modified foods are doing to our environment, yet when I try to tell a so-called "environmentalist" about this stuff they say it's not important. They say it's not important because it's not what their college professor is talking about nor is it on the shiny bright TV.

Look at Starbucks. Environmentalist love this company. They think they are being responsible. Yet they use over 2.3 billion cups a year that cannot be recycled due to the plastic coating inside the cups. That company promotes all those annoying global warming movies to kids and how everything is made with recycled paper. However, their own cups cannot be recycled. Talk about complete bull.
Here is the article for reference. I didn't just make this up out of no where.
Coating on Coffee Cups Puts Lid on Recycling (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/09/17/starbucks.ART_ART_09-17-07_A1_IF7U38O.html?sid=101)

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

Heh. And history always remembers the sole person that proved accepted theories to be absolutely wrong.
+1

[Trance Dance Master]

Global warming sounds like a good thing.

Global=all encompassing
Warming=comfort

[ButchHowdy]

I'm inclined to believe in man-made global warming simply because Sean Hannity preaches against it!

But really folks, the moment I heard UN reps use the words "Carbon Tax" in the 1990s, the agenda became quite clear to me.

Google: "Leipzig Scientists" There were a 100 or so that were the first to debunk this myth but received little attention, of course.

[Richandler]

The mere fact that global warming is approach exactly as the war on terror with no debate and with us or against us mentality shows its propigated roots.

[framecut]

Just because I don't believe in global warming doesn't mean I don't care about the environment. That's a nice little assumption people make.

I see all the damage pesticides, pharmaceuticals and genetically modified foods are doing to our environment, yet when I try to tell a so-called "environmentalist" about this stuff they say it's not important. They say it's not important because it's not what their college professor is talking about nor is it on the shiny bright TV.

Look at Starbucks. Environmentalist love this company. They think they are being responsible. Yet they use over 2.3 billion cups a year that cannot be recycled due to the plastic coating inside the cups. That company promotes all those annoying global warming movies to kids and how everything is made with recycled paper. However, their own cups cannot be recycled. Talk about complete bull.
Here is the article for reference. I didn't just make this up out of no where.
Coating on Coffee Cups Puts Lid on Recycling (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/09/17/starbucks.ART_ART_09-17-07_A1_IF7U38O.html?sid=101)

So why are you supporting Ron Paul?

You realize he'll get rid of the EPA which basically means such things like pesticides will grow in use.

That companies like Starbucks won't have to adhere towards any national recycling mandates.

Why are you supporting Ron Paul?

[kaligula]

While there is no doubt that the average temperature has increased by around .6C the last century, and there is no doubt there is an anthropogenic component, I find the likes of Al Gore flying around caliming we have only a few years to act before it's too late completely absurd and hysterical. Gore's claim that there is overwhelming scientific consensus is not correct(and Gore has been quoted that any dissent should be censored in popular media). Gore is only correct that there is a definite consensus that the earth is getting warmer, but there is significant dissent on the extent of the anthropogenic causes, the predictive modeling of climate change, and the proper and reasonable course of actions to take.

For example, , Henrik Svensmark and his team will be testing their cosmic ray hypothesis at CERN later this year. You don't get time at CERN testing out crackpot theories.

My background is physics in college and I've noted that such an eminent scientist like Freeman Dyson has mocked the hysteria of the likes of Al Gore. Another pre-eminent physicist, David Deutsche(btw, a libertarian, and who recently just proved that the Many World interpretation is likely the correct interpretation of Quantum Mechanics) argues that human adaptation to a warmer climate is the only proper course to take.

One for sure, central economic planning and command economies is not the way to go. The EU has had their carbon credit trading scheme in place and it has failed miserably. All the countries cheat. Some UN enforced international carbon emission scheme to 1990 levels is a joke. Countries would cheat and then how would you enforce it? Would you support the use of US military to enforce some global carbon restriction treaty? Would you like if it the UN imposed sanctions on the US if it violated it's carbon quota?

In any event, Dr. Paul's message of bringing our troops home and ending the American Military Empire overseas(our military spending dwarfs the rest of the world) is certainly an environmentally friendly message, given that the US government and the Pentagon is among some of the world's worst polluters. Our neo-mercantilist use of our military overseas is certainly, without doubt, the biggest subsidizer of fossil fuel energy. Dr. Paul, in connecting with environmentally conscious voters, should make this case, that it's specious to talk of a reduction in the global carbon output while the US military is being used, in a very real sense, to protect it.

[Fox McCloud]

it's a shame that people don't see the truth.

Global Warming is yet another con that the elite of this world have thought up to control the people. Ironically enough, there's a bit of a clash of ideologies at hand between the elites...some want one world government through global warming (everyone uniting around one massive, yet false, cause) and some want war (which as a plus to them...of slaughtering off hundreds of people while causing instability in general).

for those of you who want to find out more about Global Warming, I suggest you take a look at this documentary: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6772058898203776825&q=%22the+global+warming+swindle%22+video&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

everything about it is a con, in essence....even the so called scientists who support it (many of which are totally against it).

[SlapItHigh]

So why are you supporting Ron Paul?

You realize he'll get rid of the EPA which basically means such things like pesticides will grow in use.

That companies like Starbucks won't have to adhere towards any national recycling mandates.

Why are you supporting Ron Paul?

Getting rid of the EPA does not mean that pesticides will grow in use. Starbucks makes "green" attempts to please its customers so that they will shop there. That incentive won't change with Ron Paul in office.

[American]

If I'm not mistaken this isnt the first attempt at this "green" movement. If memory serves this was also tried in the late 60's early 70's without success.

This is nothing more then an attempt to control industrial production for small companies to rival with competing products and services.

[Birdlady]

So why are you supporting Ron Paul?

You realize he'll get rid of the EPA which basically means such things like pesticides will grow in use.

That companies like Starbucks won't have to adhere towards any national recycling mandates.

Why are you supporting Ron Paul?

Starbucks isn't following them now and they are looked upon as this great environmentally friendly company. That's my whole point. The environmentalists don't actually care about the environment. All they care about is the image. Those who truly research the environment and look into what's causing problems are "kooks".

I would imagine another better coffee shop would come into Starbucks place that would be MORE environmentally friendly (for real). And you bet I would go there over Starbucks! Starbucks is the fake environmental crap that I just can't stand. They sell their coffees in bleached cups haha. That's funny enough!

Every thing should be done on a state level, so why are you questioning my support for Ron Paul? I don't want mandate and regulations on a federal level. It just doesn't work, however I don't see use going up at all.

I love Ron Paul on every issue. My big one is 2nd amendment rights. :D

[mavtek]

Yes this is scary to me as well, as my Uncle has reported that his step son is turned off by that. Of course my idiot Uncle impressed this into him.

[mavtek]

Maybe we should pass out some endgame DVD's at universities :)

[rp0x]

for those of you who want to find out more about Global Warming, I suggest you take a look at this documentary: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6772058898203776825&q=%22the+global+warming+swindle%22+video&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


So, you see a documentary posted on Google video and decided man made global warming is hoax ? Have you researched who made this movie and what their motives could be ?

Here, I will give you the starting point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

[VRP08]

I personally believe that global warming is happening. I would like to see anyone to do something to help.

[Fox McCloud]

I personally believe that global warming is happening. I would like to see anyone to do something to help.

global warming is happening...everyone unanimously agrees with that, it's whether or not its caused by humans. And there-in is the lie.

I encourage anyone and everyone to watch that video...it's a very scientific and straight-forward video that'll probably answer all (or nearly all) of your concerns/questions.


that said, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to keep things clean...because, if we didn't, we would damage private property (not to mention people).

[mjt]

Global warming is real......but not solely cause by humans. the best conservationists are hunters and farmers(me!). Be good to the environment and it will be good to you.

[max]

I personally believe that global warming is happening. I would like to see anyone to do something to help.

Global warming is a massive hoax brought to us by the globalists...The numbers come from NASA...

We know government lies about inflation figures and unemployment and WMD's.....so what makes u think they wouldnt lie about Global warming???

Tons of research debunking it but the media only reports the hype

[parke]

The good thing is.. that if we rely on Government we see what happens.

The bad thing is.. more people need to realize it.

Wal Mart made it to New Orleans before FEMA and the National Guard.

Which one makes more sense? Free Market or Government?

[bmcosti]

Global Warming results in more biodiversity, more biomass, better living conditions for humans. Carbon dioxide is an airborn fertilizer for many plants. Let them discover more on this position at www.heartland.org

[Fox McCloud]

Global Warming results in more biodiversity, more biomass, better living conditions for humans. Carbon dioxide is an airborn fertilizer for many plants. Let them discover more on this position at www.heartland.org

precisely! It's been shown that given more carbon dioxide, plants grow faster, become bigger, and are more resilient...thus, more food for people, more food for animals, more shelter for animals, more plants to use for projects/etc.

[GoPaul]

The good thing is.. that if we rely on Government we see what happens.

The bad thing is.. more people need to realize it.

Wal Mart made it to New Orleans before FEMA and the National Guard.

Which one makes more sense? Free Market or Government?

Thank You parke!!!

I'd bet the split, down the center of even the forum is 50/50, whether you believe it or not.

As much as we'd like it to, and media makes it seem, the issue won't be decided by who's elected into office. It would give us options though.

Another poster mentioned, we cannot/won't convince China to change their growth. They're the equal to our Industrial Revolution. If someone told us to stop growing then...LOL.

Our current EPA already tried to decline regulating CO2. With any of the other candidates, I still fail to see a solid plan. I hear sound bites paid to it. Nothing substantial.

When your in control of your value, as with the free market. You're more than welcome to donate/contribute to such causes. But who should force you, in the way of taxes? State vote should determine that.

[Jojo]

Global warming is to Liberals
as
Terrorism is to Neocons

and both serve the same function

+1

[alien]

Global warming is a fact and only a dimwit would argue that it is not cause by humanity. Go take a course at your local university an get an education - quit with the neocon attacks against universities because they only make you look like horowitz worshiping tart.

An upper level Ecology course might help.

Then why is Jupiter and Mars warming too? Jupiter used to be all ice but now it has large bodies of water. I guess the aliens in the SUVs did that huh? There is global warming but we have little to do with it and only a dimwit would not do the research and find out the truth about global warming.

[framecut]

Then why is Jupiter and Mars warming too?

Shhhh!!!!!!!

Don't bring FACTS to a debate! Are you CRAZY?????

[jamesmadison]

some people are nutty

[steph3n]

some people are nutty

and some base their opinions on reality :)

[jamesmadison]

and some base their opinions on reality :)

Others, on science.

[nexalacer]

University level scientists are not easly pursuaded by the government.

This is a curious statement. Universities are typically public, and even the private ones get some public funds. Public implies the government. Therefore, the employees of said universities, including the scientists, are persuaded by the government every time they take their paycheck or grants. If their entire lively hood depends on the government, what incentive would they have to not be persuaded?

[peruvianRP]

I am somewhat agnostic on this subject. I know the earth is warming slightly. But there is nothing to show it is because of hydrocarbons.



Look, I don't know if we are the number cause for global warming... it could just be a process from the earth itself. but don't tell me that we are doing nothing that harmful to the environment.

When I say we I don't mean U>s only I mean the human pop.

[LibertyOfOne]

Shhhh!!!!!!!

Don't bring FACTS to a debate! Are you CRAZY?????

Cherry picking.


Dr. Phil Plait Astronomy
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

[jamesmadison]

Cherry picking.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

How about a link to a peer published journal which i provided?

[jamesmadison]

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis

[jamesmadison]

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

[LibertyOfOne]

How about a link to a peer published journal which i provided?

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read what I posted? You can't be this retarded?
A doctorate in Astronomy would know more than enough to anwser the question about warming planets.

[kimosabi]

Global warming is the biggest scam ever. It's an excuse for a tax on breathing and using energy to make us even more enslaved than we already are.

Do some research on HHO etc, people have already developed ways of producing more Hydrogen/Oxygen energy than they put in to split the Hydrogen and Oxygen from water.

The people that devolop these technogies are either paid off by the oil company's and the technology suppressed or killed if they won't comply.


Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Intro by Joe D’Aleo, Icecap, CCM

I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time. John currently works with KUSI in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.
By John Coleman

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 an illusion 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 environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

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. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend. See John’s full blog story here. (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JC_comments.doc). See John’s forecast blog on the KUSI site here. (http://www.kusi.com/home/11131801.html)

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

[jamesmadison]

Global warming is the biggest scam ever. It's an excuse for a tax on breathing and using energy to make us even more enslaved than we already are.

Do some research on HHO etc, people have already developed ways of producing more Hydrogen/Oxygen energy than they put in to split the Hydrogen and Oxygen from water.

The people that devolop these technogies are either paid off by the oil company's and the technology suppressed or killed if they won't comply.

Well, very few in the scientific community actually believe what you are saying. You cannot just make a claim without substantiating it. If you have evidence for your claim, in peer published fashion, present it. Otherwise, no one will believe you.

[jamesmadison]

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read what I posted? You can't be this retarded?
A doctorate in Astronomy would know more than enough to anwser the question about warming planets.

It's certainly possible but i would like it to be published. Does this author have any published work?

[LibertyOfOne]

It's certainly possible but i would like it to be published. Does this author have any published work?

I take it you didn't read it. He sources enough material to make the case.

[jamesmadison]

Global warming is the biggest scam ever. It's an excuse for a tax on breathing and using energy to make us even more enslaved than we already are.

Do some research on HHO etc, people have already developed ways of producing more Hydrogen/Oxygen energy than they put in to split the Hydrogen and Oxygen from water.

The people that devolop these technogies are either paid off by the oil company's and the technology suppressed or killed if they won't comply.

What you are presenting is a logical fallacy: an appeal to authority. It's irrelevent that x,y,or z believe so and so - the only relevance is the facts and the interpretation of them. Mr. Weatherman is also probably many years removed from the university system where he has access to peer published journals on the subject. I don't really expect him to understand the issue, while, the current university professors studying it show clear mechanism and are validated by factual data.

[pcosmar]

What you are presenting is a logical fallacy: an appeal to authority. It's irrelevent that x,y,or z believe so and so - the only relevance is the facts and the interpretation of them. Mr. Weatherman is also probably many years removed from the university system where he has access to peer published journals on the subject. I don't really expect him to understand the issue, while, the current university professors studying it show clear mechanism and are validated by factual data.

The "Global Warming" scam reminds me very much of this,
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm


"Deprogramming the masses since 1547"
Mission Statement

For centuries, mankind knew all there was to know about the shape of the Earth. It was a flat planet, shaped roughly like a circle, with lots of pointy things hanging down from the underside. On the comparatively smooth topside, Europe sat in the middle of the circle, with the other continents scattered about the fringes, and parts of Africa hanging over the edge. The oceans lapped against the sides of the Earth, and in places ran over, creating currents that would pull over the edge ships that ventured too far out to sea. The space beyond the edge of the world was a dark realm inhabited by all sorts of unholy beasts. Fire and brimstone billowed up from the very depths of hell itself and curled 'round the cliffs whose infinite length jutted straight down to the darkest depths . . . .

Then, in the year of our Lord fourteen-hundred and ninety-two, it all changed. For decades a small band of self-proclaimed "enlightened" individuals had been spouting their heretical nonsense that the Earth was in fact round. Citing "proof" based on nothing more than assumptions, half-truths and blind guesses, they dazzled the populace with their " . . . undeniable mathematical and scientific evidence . . . that the world is shaped not like a pancake, but an orange!"

Rightly wishing to dispel notions regarding the alleged citrus-like shape of our planet, the Church was able to either silence or execute nearly all the fanatics. But a small handful remained, continuing to spread their blasphemous speeches and to promote their heretical ideals involving the very center of the universe. One of their number, who called himself Grigori Efimovich, would later be known to the rest of the world as Christopher Columbus. Using an elaborate setup involving hundreds of mirrors and a few burlap sacks, he was able to create an illusion so convincing that it was actually believed he had sailed around the entire planet and landed in the West Indies. As we now know, he did not. What Efimovich actually did was sail across the Atlantic Ocean to a previously undiscovered continent, North America, and even then only to a small island off the coast. It took him several years more even to "discover" his blunder and claim it as a " . . . new world". But the damage had already been done, and mankind entered into what we now call its "Dark Ages" . . . .

Enter the Flat Earth Society. For over five hundred years humanity has believed the "round Earth" teachings of Efimovich and his followers. But all hope is not lost. For through all that time, a small but diligent band of individuals have preserved the knowledge of our planet's true shape. And now, after centuries in the Dark Ages, we believe that mankind as a whole is once again ready to embrace the truth that has forever been the Flat Earth Society. Using whatever means are deemed necessary and relying heavily on a callous disregard for the lives and well-being of our members, we have slowly but steadily been spreading the news.

But why? Why do we say the Earth is flat, when the vast majority says otherwise? Because we know the truth.

See: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

[purepaloma]

Who was big into "Global Cooling" a few decades ago ?

[alien]

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read what I posted? You can't be this retarded?
A doctorate in Astronomy would know more than enough to anwser the question about warming planets.

I agree that what you posted makes alot of sense now that I see more facts on the subject. I never thought we did not have anything to do with it but I think the main reason is outside sources.

[pcosmar]

Don't forget these ;
http://www.2012.com.au/hollow.html

http://skepdic.com/hollowearth.html

hollow Earth

The hollow Earth theory holds that Earth is not a solid sphere but is hollow and has openings at the poles. Furthermore, an advanced civilization, the Agartha, exists within Earth. Their people include advanced spiritual and technological masters who sometimes foray into the atmosphere in their UFOs.

Come on folks. Get Real.

[quickmike]

I think it's going to be an uphill battle convincing young people to be 'contrarians'. Global Warming (A new religion) is already being indoctrinated in the education system.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/11/paul_is_not_int.html

Rebecca Romanoski, a UNH student who grew up in Newton, N.H., said she came to see Paul because she heard he was a bit of a "radical". But she was turned off after hearing Paul say he would do very little to address global warming.

In the question and answer period Paul encouraged students to be "contrarians" about global warming and said the federal government really didn't have a role to address the problem anyway.


Funny how these same people realize that the government cant even do a decent job at helping hurricane relief in New Orleans, yet they somehow think they government CAN solve something on such a grand scale as GLOBAL warming . HAHAHAHA

what idiots.

[LibertyOfOne]

I agree that what you posted makes alot of sense now that I see more facts on the subject. I never thought we did not have anything to do with it but I think the main reason is outside sources.

I see you didn't read what was posted. The warming of Mars if it is occurring could simply be explained by small shifts in the orbit. There is only evidence to suggest that mars is warming in certain parts like changes in the weather and not globally. But as of now there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that Mars is warming globally. The rest is explained here.


http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

[JMO]

Sorry if this has been mentioned. there are some items like the energy saving light bulb, why have these not been made mandatory. they are a little more expensive than regular light bulbs, but the savings by buying these bulbs is felt immediately in the form of your Electric bill is considerably cheaper.

California and many other states are being stalled by the EPA from enforcing stricter energy standards because the standards of the state is larger than the standards of the Government.

We can force every house to have HI DEF TV but not energy saving light bulbs?

[LibertyOfOne]

Sorry if this has been mentioned. there are some items like the energy saving light bulb, why have these not been made mandatory. they are a little more expensive than regular light bulbs, but the savings by buying these bulbs is felt immediately in the form of your Electric bill is considerably cheaper.

California and many other states are being stalled by the EPA from enforcing stricter energy standards because the standards of the state is larger than the standards of the Government.

Don't need it when places like Wal-mart have made deals with manufacturers to make compact fluros super cheap. No one should be forced to buy anything be it light bulbs or HD TVs.

[alien]

I see you didn't read what was posted. The warming of Mars if it is occurring could simply be explained by small shifts in the orbit. There is only evidence to suggest that mars is warming in certain parts like changes in the weather and not globally. But as of now there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that Mars is warming globally. The rest is explained here.


http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

Actually I did read it. What I said was for Earth I still think the warming that is occuring is from outside sources more so than anything we could do to this planet. Not just the Sun heating up but any other possible factors as well. If our breathing is causing major changes in global warming, then God help us because the only solution is mass population reduction to stop this one factor of global warming. (Not taking in to account other factors that could be reduced.)

[ConstitutionGal]

Well there's a major flaw in the global warming caused by humans theory.
In Al Gore's movie, he said that increases in temperature have always been followed by increases in CO2. This is NOT true. Every time the temperature has increased, it is FOLLOWED by increases in CO2! Also Mars and Jupiter are warming. Antarctica is cooling in most parts.

Most of global warming is caused by the sun warming, not us driving SUVs.

Absolutely!! Also, back in the dark ages when I was still in school, the 'scientists' were crying about 'global cooling' and the next ice-age!! Give me a BREAK!! There's always going to be a 'cause du jour' to try and keep the masses' attention diverted and this global warming junk is just that.

[winston_blade]

Founder of Weather Channel or Al Gore?

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=24227

We report, you decide.

[leipo]

Doesn't this belong in Hot Topics? Al Gore's view on Global Warming is much like a crazy conspiracy with a lot of hypocrisy thrown in the mix.

[paulitics]

Dr.Grey, a renowned expert on hurricanes, meteorology, climatology is a global warming myth buster. And this guy is well known for being a genius. Al Gore? hmmm

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21636036-5012769,00.html

[JMO]

Don't need it when places like Wal-mart have made deals with manufacturers to make compact fluros super cheap. No one should be forced to buy anything be it light bulbs or HD TVs.

Your statement doesn't make sense to me. using you're logic one could argue you don't need a light bulb, if you do need a light bulb then you're argument is a contradiction.

[jamesmadison]

Founder of Weather Channel or Al Gore?

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=24227

We report, you decide.

Some people will always be dumb?

[Vvick727]

whether or not you believe in global warming, we should still try our best to have the least amount of negative influence on the environment.

that being said, i still hate that gore is such a hypocrite.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

[JMann]

It is always hard work to convince people that have no ability to think rationally. Let him be and move on to a thinking person.

It is my view that I would rather live in a growing economy, that uses more energy each year and produces more goods and services each year so that the people prosper. If others want to try and conserve their way into prosperity, fine with me but I think they will find themselves living like those in Central America. Anyone think China is trying to conserve? Better to use resources and develop new ones than to fill your house with mercury filled bulbs. Break on of those near your child or better yet call a government agency and see what they tell you need to do after breaking one.

[freelance]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article2843983.ece

[fj45lvr]

Isn't that precious that these little ROBOTS of the "globalist" scam of world government (via. the global warming TAX and GOUGE and CONTROL).

We have actually significant problems and they focus on a 1/2 degree temperature rise?? If these folks are so damn gullable there will be nothing that the DEMAGOGUES won't be able to get away with under this "RED HERRING".

FOLLOW THE MONEY

[freelance]

FOLLOW THE MONEY

And when you follow it, you can usually determine, "WHO BENEFITS?"

[winston_blade]

Some people will always be dumb?

You were a big global cooling guy a while back too, weren't you?

How did that work out?

[daviddee]

...

[winston_blade]

Countless pages later and the Global Warming debate has done its job.

People, this is another scare tactic in a long list to keep you in line and sacrifice liberty for the "good of planet". Carbon Taxes "for the good of the planet"... Gas Taxes "for the good of the planet"... etc etc

In my few decades on this planet I have been fed so much fear to keep me in line that it becomes very easy to see through the haze...

Let's recap the fear:

Global Ice Age
The Soviets and Nuclear War
Quicksand
Y2K
AIDS
SARS
DDT
Terrorism
Global Warming
Killer Bees
The Japanese, Then the Mexicans, and now the Chinese
Holes in the Ozone

Feel free to add to this list...

Whenever an issue becomes the domain of a political party... it is usually a huge warning sign that it is -bullshit- and is going to be used as a tactic to keep you in line. Keep the serfs fighting about meaningless issues while we grab more of their money and rights...

Game, set, match.

[framecut]

Game, set, match.

I'm gonna have to 'borrow' this list and post it in the 'Hot Topics' Forum.

Great minds think alike!

[bootstrap]

Besides, I heard Ron Paul speak very strongly about pollution being unacceptable. I was surprised to hear him take the position I take, which I've heard nobody else take - ever. He said, and so do I, that no person or corporation has a right to let pollution they produce escape their property - not by air via smokestacks, not by water via pipes and ditches into streams, rivers, or oceans, period. No entity has a right to pollute, period. That's as close as I can remember to his exact words.

Do you know how many billion pipes spew pollution into waterways in the USA? Have you EVER heard anyone say "none of that is acceptable, period"?

Well, I do, and so does Ron Paul. I do not know the Ron Paul exact position on greenhouse gasses or CO2. He may be somewhat skeptical. But I can assure you, he is skeptical because he is not about to turn the country upside down and spend trillions of dollars until he understands (A) what is happening, and (B) why. Given his approach to other pollution, you can be sure he would be a strong supporter of measures to lower any cause of any serious problem. So would I. And furthermore, no other politician will be honest about what they learn. None.

[Jordan]

Add bird flu. :D

[jamesmadison]

Countless pages later and the Global Warming debate has done its job.

People, this is another scare tactic in a long list to keep you in line and sacrifice liberty for the "good of planet". Carbon Taxes "for the good of the planet"... Gas Taxes "for the good of the planet"... etc etc

In my few decades on this planet I have been fed so much fear to keep me in line that it becomes very easy to see through the haze...

Let's recap the fear:

Global Ice Age
The Soviets and Nuclear War
Quicksand
Y2K
AIDS
SARS
DDT
Terrorism
Global Warming
Killer Bees
The Japanese, Then the Mexicans, and now the Chinese
Holes in the Ozone

Feel free to add to this list...

Whenever an issue becomes the domain of a political party... it is usually a huge warning sign that it is -bullshit- and is going to be used as a tactic to keep you in line. Keep the serfs fighting about meaningless issues while we grab more of their money and rights...

And what does this have to do with scientific literature that overwhelmingly supports the greenhouse gas theory of global warming? That has to be one of the dumbest things i have ever read.

Quack. Quack.

[winston_blade]

And what does this have to do with scientific literature that overwhelmingly supports the greenhouse gas theory of global warming? That has to be one of the dumbest things i have ever read.

Quack. Quack.

I think I read in some book that the sky is falling. I think I'm going to put more effort into stopping that from happening rather than global warming, because let's fact it, it's cold as balls outside today.

[william wallace]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/09/eaweather109.xml

There are many more respected scientists who agree. Do you really believe Al Gore? He is a liar and a hypocrite.

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

Global warming is to Liberals
as
Terrorism is to Neocons

and both serve the same function
The most concise statement of truth..
in the entire thread.

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

And I'll also add that the user jamesmadison has some of the most hateful posts in this thread, operating on emotion and not logic. Don't bother reading them.