PDA

View Full Version : Environment: A Plea To Fellow RP Supporters




metadjinn
01-25-2012, 10:11 PM
Let me introduce myself by saying that I am a NJ Libertarian who has avidly supported Paul's campaign. I have donated, spread the word, and will vote for him.

With that said, are there any other RP supporters who would like RP to re-consider his stance on global warming? Specifically the accusation that it's a "hoax" on his official issues page? Look, the solutions to climate change are less than clear. Exactly how it will occur is also up for debate. But to say it's a 'hoax' is more or a less a fringe conspiracy in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and concensus. The reason I distrust the military industrial complex is because of how many times they've betrayed us and lied to us. But hasn't the scientific community been reasonably honest and contributed a lot to society? Hasn't it historically admitted its mistakes and moved human progress further?

Furthermore, when I advocate Ron Paul, people say that he has good ideas but he is an idealogue. I retort that sometimes he sounds like that, but if you dig deeper into his argument there is a lot of truth to that. However, he seems to REFUSE to budge that the free market and property rights could POSSIBLY be an insufficient solution to the environment, even though as someone who studies economics, I would expect RP to understand that the incentives to treat a shared resource well are all screwed up. It's a well studied problem known as the tragedy of the commons. The property rights arguments fails when irreversible damage is done to the environment, or in the cases where powerful lobbying industries can run misinformation campaigns to smear a cause, like we are seeing with the climate change crisis.

As a libertarian, I understand that economic regulations tend to have unintended consequences, be easily corrupted, and hurt the consumer. But we all accept there are some things the free market fails to solve - like protection of property rights or national defense. Why do we refuse to see it might have limitations with the environment? A good example of a system like emissions trading working would be Iceland's fishing population. It was a shared resource where the free market overfished it and hurt everybody. When the government required licenses that could be traded to fish, Iceland's economy grew.

In short, RP looks worse when he sticks to his ideals even in the face of common sense. He looks bad when he chooses conspiracy over science. I want RP to win more than anything else in the world right now! Please help me convince him to become more palatable to the rational, free-thinking scientific community!

Inny Binny
01-25-2012, 10:18 PM
I consider climate denial to be mildly embarrassing but oh well. I don't have a problem with expressing skepticism about future predictions, but it is fairly clear that some of the warming in the past was due to human activity.

Some libertarians support a few environmental regulations. They are consequentialists. Ron Paul isn't one of those, because he considers the use of preemptive force to be inherently immoral. That does make him an ideologue in a way.

Revolution9
01-25-2012, 10:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&feature=related

You oughta listen to this man's presentation. You will feel foolish believing the nonsense you did when confronted with the real science and an opposing set of facts to counterpoint the lies of the Gore clownage. This man, Lord Monckton is a paragon of the free thinking scientific community.

Rev9

metadjinn
01-25-2012, 10:27 PM
Thanks Revolution9, I will definitely watch that whole video as soon as I find 90 minutes. Even if climate change is in fact mostly wrong, I think a lot of my points would still stand. However, I will refrain from expounding further until I have at least watched your video.

Revolution9
01-25-2012, 10:52 PM
Thanks Revolution9, I will definitely watch that whole video as soon as I find 90 minutes. Even if climate change is in fact mostly wrong, I think a lot of my points would still stand. However, I will refrain from expounding further until I have at least watched your video.

I am watching it again. This fellow is better than Sagan at making science interesting and humorous. Even the first fifteen minutes will show you that this man is a true scientist and a better showman than Gore. He is on your side more than you would think and will point the way to maximize the alleviation of your concerns. He shows the nature of the cabal pushing this and goes into others they have engineered which caused more deaths...in the millions...than the enviro probs which they never solved or had blown out of proportion. I think that once you understand the nature of this gambit that you will understand why many well educated and informed people, using the scientific method have come to the opposite or a very different conclusion. The first clue you should have had is there is a psuedo stock market that is already bought into by the big nasty financial players.. You and I know they don't have OUR better interests at heart. So why believe them on this without a full investigation of your own? All those dead polar bears..four of them spread out over 100's of miles of shoreline who died during a storm and high waves. The population is thriving and increasing.

Great video.. I am watching it whilst typing this.

ETA:He just said he challenged Gore to a debate..Gore won't accept and he publicly called him a coward..Heh.. Gotta love this guy..real character.

Rev9

metadjinn
01-29-2012, 12:41 AM
By the way Revolution I'm assuming you watched this?

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

Do you have any thoughts? This Moncton guy is really entertaining but he has a political and journalist background, he's not a scientist and doesn't even have a single publication...

I think we need to seriously stop treating everything Ron Paul says as fact. For example, evolution is beyond a shadow a doubt just a fact of life not even worth debating because it's not a serious topic. Yet Paul considers it "just a theory". I love Ron Paul on a lot of the issues but I think he is not a scientist and just accepting something because he says it is a bit of hero worship. I want a candidate who has supporters who are constantly challenging their own viewpoints and the viewpoints of their candidate to get to the right answer, which I don't see happening with Obama or Bush type candidates who both had zombie supporters who treated their politics like a religion. It's seriously disappointing to see that attitude with some Ron Paul supporters.

Again, let's debate the climate change ideas to death before we do anything drastic. But I'd like to see more evidence that it's a HOAX, which is quite a different view than "I'm not convinced."

Furthermore nobody addressed my central point - is there ANY point where some of you would concede that there are problems that the free market can't solve besides the problems that you already accept the free market can't solve (national defense for example)?

Also something to consider. I notice a lot of the media sources trying to smear climate change science are trying to smear Ron Paul. I think they are all owend by Murdoch (WSJ, Fox News etc). I'm actually more suspicious of an ANTI climate change "hoax" than a climate change hoax.

John F Kennedy III
01-29-2012, 01:13 AM
It is a hoax. Period.

Travlyr
01-29-2012, 03:12 AM
By the way Revolution I'm assuming you watched this?

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

Do you have any thoughts? This Moncton guy is really entertaining but he has a political and journalist background, he's not a scientist and doesn't even have a single publication...

I think we need to seriously stop treating everything Ron Paul says as fact. For example, evolution is beyond a shadow a doubt just a fact of life not even worth debating because it's not a serious topic. Yet Paul considers it "just a theory". I love Ron Paul on a lot of the issues but I think he is not a scientist and just accepting something because he says it is a bit of hero worship. I want a candidate who has supporters who are constantly challenging their own viewpoints and the viewpoints of their candidate to get to the right answer, which I don't see happening with Obama or Bush type candidates who both had zombie supporters who treated their politics like a religion. It's seriously disappointing to see that attitude with some Ron Paul supporters.

Again, let's debate the climate change ideas to death before we do anything drastic. But I'd like to see more evidence that it's a HOAX, which is quite a different view than "I'm not convinced."

Furthermore nobody addressed my central point - is there ANY point where some of you would concede that there are problems that the free market can't solve besides the problems that you already accept the free market can't solve (national defense for example)?

Also something to consider. I notice a lot of the media sources trying to smear climate change science are trying to smear Ron Paul. I think they are all owend by Murdoch (WSJ, Fox News etc). I'm actually more suspicious of an ANTI climate change "hoax" than a climate change hoax.
John Abraham puts far too much faith in government. He discredits himself in the last two slides. Who has the agenda? The government does. The government solution to climate change is tax everyone. That's their agenda. Throw more money at it by taxing everyone. There is no mention of legalizing industrial hemp.

If college professors and the scientific community wants to be taken seriously, then they need to address the facts. Widespread growth of industrial hemp would eat some carbon dioxide, the plastics made from hemp are compostable so that would reduce waste, the fuels made from industrial hemp are clean burning, and the high quality durable products made from hemp would reduce energy use by sidestepping planned obsolesce.

Scientists will completely discredit their entire profession if they don't start telling the truth. After all, this is the 21st century.

anaconda
01-29-2012, 04:10 AM
The Great Global Warming Swindle (mentioned by the introducer in the above video lecture)


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647

Revolution9
01-29-2012, 06:20 AM
By the way Revolution I'm assuming you watched this?

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

Do you have any thoughts? This Moncton guy is really entertaining but he has a political and journalist background, he's not a scientist and doesn't even have a single publication...

No.. I didn't watch any of the climate hypers BS. I already knew the solar system was heating up due to coming into the accretion disc of the milky way galaxy. There is no way anthropogenic warming is heating up every planet in the solar system. As well to claim Monckton is not a scientist is disingenuous. He was science advisor to Thatcher. I think you are bought and sold into the global warming agenda and it causes cognitive dissonance to have it refuted so your brain looks for an out.. In this case Lord Monckton has not qualified in your mind because he was 100% correct in his presentation..yet his proofs and evidence show he well know the scientific method. Do you?

Rev9

Kingfisher
01-29-2012, 06:36 AM
Of course we have climate change!

Just like we have been having for thousands of years!

Danke
01-29-2012, 06:48 AM
climate denial

My brain hurts now.

Sola_Fide
01-29-2012, 06:54 AM
My brain hurts now.

lol...

Ron is right on this issue. The fringe people are the pseudo-science statists who want to subjugate free people.

cucucachu0000
01-29-2012, 07:31 AM
To tell you the truth for this election I don't really care. The eath isn't going to burst into flames in the next 5 years so for now I'm worried about the govt dragging me out of my house to go fight a war in a desert somewhere. Just to ad to this I'm pretty sure he's said he knows the earth has got warmer but he doesn't believe the world is gonna end because of it and all of those Crazy predictions of the world sinking, its just another scare tactic to get people to give up freedom for GOVERNMENT safety.

Publicani
01-29-2012, 07:45 AM
There were and always will be passionately made causes to use force to rob other people. Climate change is one of them. It is a hoax. But it's irrelevant. Ron Paul's position is that you can use any amount of YOUR money for any cause you want or for no cause, but you have no right to force others to pay for what you think is good. Unless it's spelled out in the Constitution.
The Constitution says nothing about climate change. Good look convincing 3/4 of the states to pass an amendment to tax Americans to address global warming.

soulcyon
01-29-2012, 07:47 AM
@hoax: it could be, not entirely sure.

But when it comes to hard scientific evidence, there's no hoax that our planet is becoming a bit toasty ;)


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

Mark37snj
01-29-2012, 07:53 AM
Global Warming is a FRAUD, follow the carbon credits to find out who will be making TONS of money. Do you seriously believe these people are doing it for the environment? Besides, targeting plants for starvation by removing their food is discrimatory and Paul will never agree to that. :p

Kingfisher
01-29-2012, 07:54 AM
Back in the 70's the MSM was spouting "Are we coming into a new Ice Age?"

vechorik
01-29-2012, 08:12 AM
Everyone wants a clean environment (whether global warming is a fact, or not "16 Scientists Have a Message for Elected Officials on Global Warming: ‘Drastic Action’ Unnecessary" http://www.theblaze.com/stories/16-scientists-have-a-message-for-elected-officials-on-global-warming-drastic-action-unnecessary/)

I like Ron Paul's stance and also agree that progressives use the global warming agenda to push one world government, government land grabs, world-wide redistribution of wealth (carbon tax) and violation of civil rights, etc. (Study United Nations Agenda 21 to see the real goal of the "climate change" agenda)

Do you realize that Ron Paul thinks pollution laws should be TOUGHER and that emission standards should be set by states or regions, not Washington (federal).

We can have a clean environment without trashing the Constitution.
If you believe that world government and world redistribution of wealth is a good thing, realize that you're talking about citizens that have an average income of $2 per day and that global government = global poverty. The best thing America can do for poverty (in America, or world-wide) is to be SUCCESSFUL/wealthy.

Immigration by the numbers -- world poverty and gumballs -- updated 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE


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

Welcome to the forum. Hope you find the answers you're searching for -- seek and you will find!

soulcyon
01-29-2012, 08:23 AM
Global warming is a FACT - however the people advocating changes in policy are fraudulent. The science is not a hoax, but the people advocating the change are basically out to make profits and exploit politics. It's basically going to become the next Black Gold (look @ how Rockefeller ran circles around our government).

Mark37snj
01-29-2012, 08:31 AM
Global warming is a FACT - however the people advocating changes in policy are fraudulent. The science is not a hoax, but the people advocating the change are basically out to make profits and exploit politics. It's basically going to become the next Black Gold (look @ how Rockefeller ran circles around our government).

Global warming is a FRAUD!!!
The science of Global warming is a HOAX!!!

http://www.climategate.com/

osan
01-29-2012, 08:34 AM
Let me introduce myself by saying that I am a NJ Libertarian who has avidly supported Paul's campaign. I have donated, spread the word, and will vote for him.

You should have stopped right there. Up to now you were doing swimmingly well.


With that said, are there any other RP supporters who would like RP to re-consider his stance on global warming? Specifically the accusation that it's a "hoax" on his official issues page? Look, the solutions to climate change are less than clear. Exactly how it will occur is also up for debate. But to say it's a 'hoax' is more or a less a fringe conspiracy in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and concensus. The reason I distrust the military industrial complex is because of how many times they've betrayed us and lied to us. But hasn't the scientific community been reasonably honest and contributed a lot to society? Hasn't it historically admitted its mistakes and moved human progress further?

Global warming is indeed a "fact". What is NOT fact are the implications. Why, you ask? Because we do NOT know what the longer term, much less the long term, trend will be and we do NOT know the cause. There has been much talk of "anthropogenesis" as the root cause. It may be so and it may not be. What we are experiencing may well be "natural" spike in the earth's cycles... or not. The point is that without sufficient knowledge, some people are demanding that the rest upset their lives pretty seriously. Those people are demanding to the point of the use of political force which, as we all should be well aware by now, always rests upon threats of physical violence up to and including murder.

I would also point out that the "scientific community" (another conceptual non-entity treated as if it actually existed in and of itself) has indeed been dishonest with us, particularly in this case where they were caught with their pants at their ankles fudging data to fit the theory. This cannot be argued in any serious way. They were dead busted at it and expended little energy trying to cover it up. The fix was (is?) in and the contempt with which those in power hold us is so profound that all they did was to "review" the case and summarily pronounce the culprits innocent. THAT is how little they give a shit about you, about me, anyone in these forums, or the rest of the "surplus" population. May I point out that, first of all, if GW is indeed caused by human activity then those shitty little crooks probably screwed the pants off the human race because not only did they fudge the raw data, they supposedly discarded it, citing the original as "unneeded". WHAT?! Those men should be serving life sentences at hard labor for what they have done, regardless whether they destroyed data possibly crucial to the near-future of human decision making or for attempting to propagate a criminally irresponsible hoax that would upset the lives of several billions of people, not to mention businesses across the globe. What did they get? A free ride and plenty of neeners to all the mundane assholes across the face of the earth. Personally, I would have drawn and quartered them.

The last tidbit to demolish your naive view of this situation is the fact that the great majority of proposed changes, carbon trading as an example, stood to benefit a tiny minority of people in terms of access, money, and political power while the rest were heartily welcome to remain on the sidelines, eating feces. But of course that should not give any reason for suspicion at all, right? After all, that would hint of conspiracy, and we all know that no such thing really exists and that all who suggest otherwise are mentally unsound and should probably be taken against their unsound will to the nut hatch. For their own good, mind you... of course.


Furthermore, when I advocate Ron Paul, people say that he has good ideas but he is an idealogue.

In some capacity we are all idealogues, so that meme holds no validity. Its common, blind, and broad acceptance only demonstrates the pitiful depth and breadth of the general ignorance and intellectual lassitude of people. Generally speaking, people act as if they were more stupid than sawdust. That this is willful behavior is where the great sin lies and wherein I derive my disgust and contempt for such people. They could change, but they refuse because they are comfortable with what they have due to its familiarity. They are, therefore, cowards as well and thereby even more despicable.


I retort that sometimes he sounds like that, but if you dig deeper into his argument there is a lot of truth to that. However, he seems to REFUSE to budge that the free market and property rights could POSSIBLY be an insufficient solution to the environment, even though as someone who studies economics, I would expect RP to understand that the incentives to treat a shared resource well are all screwed up. It's a well studied problem known as the tragedy of the commons. The property rights arguments fails when irreversible damage is done to the environment, or in the cases where powerful lobbying industries can run misinformation campaigns to smear a cause, like we are seeing with the climate change crisis.

You are partly right, partly amiss. If one is free, then one is free to destroy his property. This cannot be credibly refuted. You should NEVER acknowledge that he sounds "like that". This is a losing tactic. Always point out that it is the person who disagrees that is mistaken and then tell them why.

That he refuses to budge is the KEY indicator of his trustworthiness... along with being right, of course. Were he just another two-bit political street whore, he would "compromise" in order that we all (read "he") would benefit. This is the tactic of ALL politicians of note from at least the past 100 years, save the rare sage examples such as Barry Goldwater, whose career really went nowhere in the final analysis precisely because he could not be bought. Times are a bit different now and the true face of tyranny is showing itself almost openly to a population that has become largely inured to its criminal behavior. But there are still those who choose to let their minds do the thinking rather than some other entity and are wising up. Whether it is enough... well, I suppose that will be proven in time one way or the other.


As a libertarian, I understand that economic regulations tend to have unintended consequences, be easily corrupted, and hurt the consumer. But we all accept there are some things the free market fails to solve

There are? How would you know when you have not known so much as a single day of free market activity in your entire life? Free markets do not exist and have perhaps never existed under the rancid and false "authority" of empire.



- like protection of property rights or national defense.

How do you know it would not work when you have never seen it? You might not know a free market it is ran up to you and kicked you in the nuts. What we DO know is that as markets head toward greater freedom, they operate more efficiently, resulting in greater prosperity and opportunity. This relationship between freedom and prosperity has been demonstrated apodictically. There is no room for serious question, which would be valid in a way similar to questioning the force of gravity.


Why do we refuse to see it might have limitations with the environment? A good example of a system like emissions trading working would be Iceland's fishing population. It was a shared resource where the free market overfished it and hurt everybody. When the government required licenses that could be traded to fish, Iceland's economy grew.

What does this have to do with global warming?


In short, RP looks worse when he sticks to his ideals even in the face of common sense.

Oh dear.... there goes that term again, "common sense". Your credibility is sinking rapidly. I hope you're wearing your seatbelt.


He looks bad when he chooses conspiracy over science.

And you look bad when you talk out of your anus.


I want RP to win more than anything else in the world right now! Please help me convince him to become more palatable to the rational, free-thinking scientific community!

You presume that he doesn't. You presume wrong.

Working Poor
01-29-2012, 08:35 AM
I don't think Ron denies climate change. I just think he is not on board with the NWO globalist solution.

I know he is for allowing hemp(not pot) to be a legal crop again and he probably knows about how it helps the environment. Personally I feel that banning hemp has done great harm to the environment and is a crime against humanity and the earth. did you know that ford's first car ran on hemp diesel?

I think he wouldn't put the restrictions on new technology that our government tends to do thru crony capitalism and restrictions and even killing off scientist like has happened in the past. There are many alternative energy inventions that are not being allowed license because of big oil and I think he would stop that kind of restrictions.

soulcyon
01-29-2012, 08:53 AM
Global warming is a FRAUD!!!
The science of Global warming is a HOAX!!!

http://www.climategate.com/

The latest article is from July 2010. Obviously that site is out of commission and maybe completely untrue. The science of global warming is not a hoax (go find scientific evidence to prove otherwise, not troll-mongering links).

eduardo89
01-29-2012, 08:54 AM
It is a hoax. Period.

This.

When you have Al Gore promoting it, but then you find out he's poised to make millions off carbon trading, it should set off alarm bells.

Mark37snj
01-29-2012, 11:13 AM
The latest article is from July 2010. Obviously that site is out of commission and maybe completely untrue. The science of global warming is not a hoax (go find scientific evidence to prove otherwise, not troll-mongering links).

WOW you read that entire site and all the links in an hour! I've been at it for months and still have a long ways to go.
Global Warming is a FRAUD!!!!!
The "Science" of Global Warming is a HOAX!!!!

Dianne
01-29-2012, 11:35 AM
Actually I appreciate what you are saying about global warming; as I believe almost certainly we are doing a lot of damage to our planet. I believe Ron Paul objects more to what the Feds proposed to be the solution; i.e., America will pay the United Nations a global tax each year for the pollutants we release into the air. In my view, that was just another way for the U.S. to justify global bail outs. Additionally the Congress would set up another huge, ineffective, money wasting bureaucracy filled with their brother in laws, or close friends (similar to the TSA) that would soon become intrusive; monitoring how many miles a day you drive and your personal tax for polluting the air. Therein is the hoax that Ron Paul refers too.

Simple
01-29-2012, 11:40 AM
NASA suggests that global warming has ended:
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1ksFzYts3

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Once again, Ron Paul was right!

Mark37snj
01-29-2012, 11:53 AM
NASA suggests that global warming has ended:

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1ksFzYts3

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Once again, Ron Paul was right!

BINGO!!! The amount of energy our Sun hits Earth with every day is absolutely staggering. The Sun hiccups and the Earths medain temperature goes up 0.1 C virtually overnight.

tuggy24g
01-29-2012, 12:02 PM
This article just came out being no global warming, but an ice age coming about from NASA.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Danke
01-29-2012, 12:16 PM
This article just came out being no global warming, but an ice age coming about from NASA.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

That sucks!

http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/

Danke
01-29-2012, 12:17 PM
dupe

John F Kennedy III
01-29-2012, 01:24 PM
@hoax: it could be, not entirely sure.

But when it comes to hard scientific evidence, there's no hoax that our planet is becoming a bit toasty ;)


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

IIRC, it's been cooling since 1995 or so.

Brian4Liberty
01-29-2012, 03:16 PM
However, he seems to REFUSE to budge that the free market and property rights could POSSIBLY be an insufficient solution to the environment, even though as someone who studies economics, I would expect RP to understand that the incentives to treat a shared resource well are all screwed up.


I can't speak for Ron Paul, but I assume that environmental protection would be a State/local issue if the Federal EPA is reduced to simply dealing with Interstate issues. And even then, it could be folded into the FBI.

GeorgiaAvenger
01-29-2012, 03:25 PM
Agenda 21

Butchie
01-29-2012, 03:35 PM
I think their are alot of holes in the Libertarian philosophy when it comes to the environment/business self-regulation, that being said, the things I "fear" about Ron he really would not have the power to influence much, I hope, so to me he is still head and shoulders above the rest and certainly in regard to what we have now.

Freedomluvinmamma30
01-29-2012, 05:50 PM
It is called cyclical climate change and has been happening since the dawn of our planet. Do humans have an impact on the planet, sure. But, government regulation is not going to change that or anything for that matter. I am 30 and when I was 8 years old in 2nd grade we were given an article, entitled the "air we breath won't be there by 2010". I still have it thanks to my mother and here hoarding. Basically it was using so called science to say that we would all be wearing respirators and acid rain would be eating through our building. It urged us to get involved and to push for a healthier planet. I hate to point out that the science actually is proving the world is cooling and that during the meso or certation period their were no ice caps, yet life existed on this planet.

ryanmkeisling
01-29-2012, 06:39 PM
Some much about the planet is unknown and it is very easy for governments to manipulate information to use against the citizenry. These carbon taxes are a prime example. This is even more of a reason Ron Paul should be president, so that freedoms of the entire world can be instituted.

The way cosmic energy affects the planet and the things living on it is only just now starting to be understood, yet people and their ego's want to think human brings are the smartest things in the universe. It is still true that most of what we know is that we know nothing. Welcome to the 21st century, the age of aquarius is now upon us; a time when we must all learn to live again, instead of a collective megalomania...

ZakB
01-29-2012, 08:39 PM
At the original post. I'm looking at Ron Paul's official issues page and I can't seem to find where it says that global warming is a hoax... Here's the full text for energy:

FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS
The free market – not government – is the solution to America’s energy needs.

Unfortunately, decades of misguided federal action have helped lead to skyrocketing fuel prices, making it even more difficult for hardworking families to make ends meet.

Washington’s bureaucratic regulations, corporate subsidies, and excessive taxation have distorted the market and resulted in government bureaucrats picking winners and losers.

In fact, much of the “pain at the pump” Americans are now feeling is due to federal policies designed by environmental alarmists to punish traditional energy production – like oil, coal, and natural gas – in hopes of making energy sources they favor more “economical.”

Sadly, even with $4.00 a gallon gasoline, many are attempting to make our energy crisis even worse by working to impose job-destroying carbon taxes, or a “Cap and Tax” system.

As long as we allow federal regulations and bureaucratic red tape to get in the way of energy exploration, our country will never solve its energy crisis, and Americans will continue to pay the price in high costs.

A PRO-ENERGY PRESIDENT
As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:

* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.

* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.

* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.

* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.

* Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies.

It’s time for a President that recognizes the free market’s power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy.
-http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/energy/

Brian4Liberty
01-29-2012, 10:51 PM
At the original post. I'm looking at Ron Paul's official issues page and I can't seem to find where it says that global warming is a hoax... Here's the full text for energy:

-http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/energy/

Excellent research. We can't let people put words in our mouths!

ryanmkeisling
01-29-2012, 11:03 PM
Excellent research. We can't let people put words in our mouths!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCc5Gk1nops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NiesdWGYJc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqjw2sVZmiA&feature=endscreen&NR=1

LOL, "What about the volcano's!"

Brian4Liberty
01-29-2012, 11:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCc5Gk1nops



Yeah, Ron said hoax in that instance (around the 7 minute mark). I have to disagree with Ron on that. "Hoax" sounds too much like a harmless joke. I would prefer to call it fraud, as "cap and trade" was a fraudulent scam to rip off people. Just a slight matter of semantics. ;)

ryanmkeisling
01-29-2012, 11:31 PM
Yeah, Ron said hoax in that instance (around the 7 minute mark). I have to disagree with Ron on that. "Hoax" sounds too much like a harmless joke. I would prefer to call it fraud, as "cap and trade" was a fraudulent scam to rip off people. Just a slight matter of semantics. ;)

Agreed. I do believe it was a fraudulent scam as well and I also believe we are closer to a pole shift and perhaps a coming ice age than we are to burning up.

Lymeade-Lady
01-29-2012, 11:39 PM
My issue with climate change is, real or not, it is a diversion. GMO's are a much bigger risk to our society than climate change. They are assumed safe and no tests have been done. They are taking over the traditional crops accidentally through cross pollination. GMO crops include vegetables with "built-in" pesticides--that we then ingest. And they are in almost all processed food.

Many unsafe chemicals are being sold for household use, b/c they don't cause big problems in most cases, but the cumulative effect is not tested. And amazingly, there are often natural products available for cheaper that do as good or a better job! (Try baking soda for scrubbing a sink or tub for ex.) Air and water pollution are affecting this generation, not the future ones. I believe fluoride in water is harmful to our health. When I was chronically ill, I could feel the effects of an ordinary cell phone. Even if only have of these things are truly a concern, they are much greater problem than the potential for environmental problems one day in the future. The number of children will serious disabilities and the number of people with chronic illness is increasing. We are doing SOMETHING wrong. If the illnesses continue to multiple at the rate they are, I predict noone will hardly care if they climate change to come true, b/c the health of our nation will be a bigger concern. There are much more urgent environmental problems.

For that reason alone, I think it is a hoax and a distraction from real issues--it protects companies like Merck and Monsanto if we focus our save the earth types on stopping bar-b-que and driving hybrids.

And if you don't buy any of these problems, well you probably agree with me on the fact the economy is more of a problem than climate at the moment.

ryanmkeisling
01-29-2012, 11:45 PM
My issue with climate change is, real or not, it is a diversion. GMO's are a much bigger risk to our society than climate change. They are assumed safe and no tests have been done. They are taking over the traditional crops accidentally through cross pollination. GMO crops include vegetables with "built-in" pesticides--that we then ingest. And they are in almost all processed food.

Many unsafe chemicals are being sold for household use, b/c they don't cause big problems in most cases, but the cumulative effect is not tested. And amazingly, there are often natural products available for cheaper that do as good or a better job! (Try baking soda for scrubbing a sink or tub for ex.) Air and water pollution are affecting this generation, not the future ones. I believe fluoride in water is harmful to our health. When I was chronically ill, I could feel the effects of an ordinary cell phone. Even if only have of these things are truly a concern, they are much greater problem than the potential for environmental problems one day in the future. The number of children will serious disabilities and the number of people with chronic illness is increasing. We are doing SOMETHING wrong. If the illnesses continue to multiple at the rate they are, I predict noone will hardly care if they climate change to come true, b/c the health of our nation will be a bigger concern. There are much more urgent environmental problems.

For that reason alone, I think it is a hoax and a distraction from real issues--it protects companies like Merck and Monsanto if we focus our save the earth types on stopping bar-b-que and driving hybrids.

And if you don't buy any of these problems, well you probably agree with me on the fact the economy is more of a problem than climate at the moment.

I agree, GMO and not labeling products that contain them are the biggest threat around. As an organic farmer this concerns me more than anything else Horizontal gene transfer is very scary indeed. Some RP supporters here think its no big deal...

GunnyFreedom
01-30-2012, 12:12 AM
IIRC, it's been cooling since 1995 or so.

Yes, even hard-core global warming believers agree that the Earth has not warmed in the last 10 years, therefore the video is fiction, even if AGW were true the video would be a fiction because the AGW people say the Earth has not warmed in the last 10 years. Now even East Anglia says it hasn't warmed in 15 years. Vid is agitprop.

GunnyFreedom
01-30-2012, 12:14 AM
My issue with climate change is, real or not, it is a diversion. GMO's are a much bigger risk to our society than climate change.
...snip


I agree, GMO and not labeling products that contain them are the biggest threat around. As an organic farmer this concerns me more than anything else Horizontal gene transfer is very scary indeed. Some RP supporters here think its no big deal...

http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H446

:D

Working Poor
01-30-2012, 03:19 AM
http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H446


Thanks Glenn do you need any help with this? I am calling my rep in the morning.

ryanmkeisling
01-30-2012, 03:32 AM
http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H446

:D

Awesome!!! plus rep. I should have donated more to you. People don't realize by eating this stuff they are changing their own genetics. If the federal government were to require labeling on these products, no one would buy them accept the looney. One could argue it should be a warning label!

soulcyon
01-30-2012, 10:45 AM
+1 Lymeade-Lady

GunnyFreedom
01-30-2012, 03:34 PM
Thanks Glenn do you need any help with this? I am calling my rep in the morning.

It's NC only, and the way the rules are set up it died in committee. Will have to wait until January 2013 to re-introduce, assuming that I am successful in my Senate race. On a positive note, the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot again and again last year, and the specter of a renewed Democratic majority would create a favorable environment for the bill to pass.

GunnyFreedom
01-30-2012, 03:38 PM
Awesome!!! plus rep. I should have donated more to you. People don't realize by eating this stuff they are changing their own genetics. If the federal government were to require labeling on these products, no one would buy them accept the looney. One could argue it should be a warning label!

I very much appreciate everything you have done, in fact, we finally just found a very low-cost method to cut thank-you cards at pennies on the dollar at extremely low bulk rates even for small runs, so those cards should go out in the next 48 hours. :)

Truth is, nobody here could have possibly known if I would stay true to principle once in office, so I understood the lack of motivation for many in 2010. The reality, of course, is I hate hate hate being an elected official, so I have no desire to pander to the power brokers via legislation. That makes it easier to uphold principle because the only reason I am doing this is to save America, and the only way to save America is to obey the Constitution. :D

Working Poor
01-30-2012, 06:06 PM
It's NC only, and the way the rules are set up it died in committee. Will have to wait until January 2013 to re-introduce, assuming that I am successful in my Senate race. On a positive note, the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot again and again last year, and the specter of a renewed Democratic majority would create a favorable environment for the bill to pass.



I thought you knew I am in NC

erowe1
01-30-2012, 06:09 PM
The reason I distrust the military industrial complex is because of how many times they've betrayed us and lied to us. But hasn't the scientific community been reasonably honest and contributed a lot to society? Hasn't it historically admitted its mistakes and moved human progress further?

If by "scientific community" you mean "scientists who are given money from the government in exchange for publishing support for climate change," then, no, they haven't been reasonably honest. They are in the exact same category of intelligence experts who cook up evidence for WMD's in Iraq.

GunnyFreedom
01-30-2012, 07:43 PM
I thought you knew I am in NC

OK outstanding! And I appreciate it. You can get your Rep's position on the bill to help inform your vote, but the way the rules are set up it's not going anywhere until re-introduction in January of 2013. :(

metadjinn
01-30-2012, 07:50 PM
Excellent research. We can't let people put words in our mouths!

I suggest you look again here:

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/


If by "scientific community" you mean "scientists who are given money from the government in exchange for publishing support for climate change," then, no, they haven't been reasonably honest. They are in the exact same category of intelligence experts who cook up evidence for WMD's in Iraq.

Actually I mean the widespread international scientific community and every single scientist I've talked to. Calling it a hoax is incredibly dismissive, and quite a bit different than a disagreement.

erowe1
01-30-2012, 07:56 PM
Actually I mean the widespread international scientific community and every single scientist I've talked to. Calling it a hoax is incredibly dismissive, and quite a bit different than a disagreement.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Take away the people who are given money by the government, and it's not that widespread any more.

Plus, how could calling it a hoax really be that bad? The whole climategate story is about a bunch of scientists getting caught red handed in precisely this hoax.

Working Poor
01-31-2012, 10:14 AM
OK outstanding! And I appreciate it. You can get your Rep's position on the bill to help inform your vote, but the way the rules are set up it's not going anywhere until re-introduction in January of 2013. :(


I called and spoke to my reps secretary about my concern as a mom and and grand mom that children are the ones being hardest hit by GMOs