PDA

View Full Version : Ron's Achilles Heel = The Environment




InRonWeTrust
12-10-2007, 09:44 PM
Ron has one major Achille's Heel. He does not support moves to limit pollution. WTF. We need to do everything we can to protect the Earth and stop this shameful exploitation and poisoning of our Earth. I guarantee you that 90% of young people are bummed out by the fact that Ron has no plan to reduce pollution.

Mister Grieves
12-10-2007, 09:46 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=51214

maxmerkel
12-10-2007, 09:46 PM
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977200038

Ginobili
12-10-2007, 09:47 PM
Intill alt., cleaner energy is more mainstream, you cant FORCE them on corps and people. All it would do is piss people off and probally, in the end, doing more harm then good.

maxmerkel
12-10-2007, 09:47 PM
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

ctb619
12-10-2007, 09:47 PM
Do some research on Ron Paul's environmental position.

DirtMcGirt
12-10-2007, 09:47 PM
that's were we step in down the line we need a RP environmental day. Shirts and signs while we clean up parks and maybe highways... just a thought

brandon
12-10-2007, 09:47 PM
nope I'm not bummed out.

It's not the federal governments job. Local communities would be a million times more effective at reducing pollution then the federal government trying to make a one size fits all type of rule.

forsmant
12-10-2007, 09:48 PM
I forget, is it global cooling or global warming now?

Ron LOL
12-10-2007, 09:49 PM
I don't buy it. I like the private property approach. It's very logical. Get off my lawn! :)

bobmurph
12-10-2007, 09:49 PM
Ron has one major Achille's Heel. He does not support moves to limit pollution. WTF. We need to do everything we can to protect the Earth and stop this shameful exploitation and poisoning of our Earth. I guarantee you that 90% of young people are bummed out by the fact that Ron has no plan to reduce pollution.

Global warming is a myth. I applaud Ron Paul for his position. I GUARNTEE YOU that 90% of young people are not bummed out by his position. 90% of young people probably don't even know who Ron Paul is. Of those young people who DO know who he is, I'm sure some (nowhere close to 90%) are bummed by his position. It's sad that the environmentalist propagand has penetrated MSM and academia as much as it has. The environmentalist movement is a tool of the collectivists....nothing more...nothing less.

ChickenHawk
12-10-2007, 09:49 PM
I forget, is it global cooling or global warming now?


I think we have moved on to "climate change".

thomj76
12-10-2007, 09:51 PM
The real issue here for me personally, is freeing up the government to be able to take action when there is damage that is done to private and public property. As a property owner, if you are downstream from some factory polluting the river, you have every right to address your grievances to the government to rectify the situation.

This entire movement is predicated upon people being more informed of their surroundings.

Think about it some. When you subsidize oil companies, etc, what real incentive do they have to become more efficient?

Kregener
12-10-2007, 09:52 PM
*sigh*

Ron Paul Fan
12-10-2007, 09:53 PM
Ron Paul is not running for the nomination of the Democratic Party. I don't even think the issue has come up in a Republican debate yet. It's not an achilles heel, it's a non issue when running for the nomination of the Republican Party.

Paul4Prez
12-10-2007, 09:57 PM
Ron has one major Achille's Heel. He does not support moves to limit pollution. WTF. We need to do everything we can to protect the Earth and stop this shameful exploitation and poisoning of our Earth. I guarantee you that 90% of young people are bummed out by the fact that Ron has no plan to reduce pollution.

Ron Paul has made it clear in numerous interviews how he would limit pollution -- by holding polluters responsible for the damages they do to the property of others.

It is the federal regulatory state that grants polluting businesses a free pass to pollute, by writing rules to protect big business from new, more environmentally friendly competitors, while grandfathering in the polluting factories of the incumbents. Comply with the rules you helped write, and you can keep on polluting the environment.

Andrew-Austin
12-10-2007, 09:57 PM
Okay, go ahead and believe global warming is a myth. I'm not sure myself.

We are STILL cutting off the hand that feeds us in a ton of other ways. Our civilization is truly unsustainable on a multitude of different levels. We're steadily wiping out ecosystems and extinguishing entire species.

You can dismiss global warming, but to say the environment in all its entirety is a non-issue is both ignorant and insane.

The environment is obviously not Paul's primary focus. I'm confident he has the integrity to address this issue sometime in his Presidency though.

jasonoliver
12-10-2007, 10:01 PM
Ron has one major Achille's Heel. He does not support moves to limit pollution. WTF. We need to do everything we can to protect the Earth and stop this shameful exploitation and poisoning of our Earth. I guarantee you that 90% of young people are bummed out by the fact that Ron has no plan to reduce pollution.

Sounds like you have been brainwashed by Al Gore.

Humans are only responsible for 3% of the CO2 released, the rest comes from natural sources.

Do you really think that Volcano's that are so large that they cause a Volcantic Winter for a few years every millenium puts out less Greenhouse gases than humans?

In the 70's it was "Global Cooling". On that note I will do as Glen Beck and leave the lights on and celebrate Coal Week!

dircha
12-10-2007, 10:01 PM
Ron has one major Achille's Heel. He does not support moves to limit pollution. WTF. We need to do everything we can to protect the Earth and stop this shameful exploitation and poisoning of our Earth. I guarantee you that 90% of young people are bummed out by the fact that Ron has no plan to reduce pollution.

Ron Paul's position on pollution makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot more sense than giving executive branch agencies wide ranging, unconstitutional unilateral powers as we do now.

The existing system of appointing executive branch agencies undermines the constitutionally prescribed judicial process for resolving these grievances.

Under a Ron Paul presidency, those suffering or likely to suffer damages from pollution would take the offender to court, where they would present their case using factual arguments, standards of evidence, and expert testimony. Resolutions would range from redress, to court orders halting polluting activities.

This is the proper role of the judiciary. While you first instinct might be to say, "government should take care of this," what that means and has meant in practice is that an executive branch agency should be delegated unconstitutional unilateral power to regulate this. This undermines justice and undermines our Constitutional government.

Congressman Paul has outlined this position in the Google talk interview and elsewhere.

Paul4Prez
12-10-2007, 10:03 PM
Global warming is a myth. I applaud Ron Paul for his position.

Ron Paul does not call global warming a myth, though. He only doubts that the government would be any good at managing the weather, and that the Kyoto protocol is ineffective, since it wouldn't limit emissions from China (the biggest CO2 producer) and other developing countries that are exempt.

dircha
12-10-2007, 10:03 PM
Sounds like you have been brainwashed by Al Gore.

Humans are only responsible for 3% of the CO2 released, the rest comes from natural sources.

Do you really think that Volcano's that are so large that they cause a Volcantic Winter for a few years every millenium puts out less Greenhouse gases than humans?

In the 70's it was "Global Cooling". On that note I will do as Glen Beck and leave the lights on and celebrate Coal Week!

But this really has nothing to do with Congressman Paul's position.

The point is that these arguments would take place before a court of law, and be subject to standards of evidence.

Whether we as onlookers or even as politicians agree, is irrelevant. The resolution to these issues lies within the judiciary.

hard@work
12-10-2007, 10:04 PM
Ron has one major Achille's Heel. He does not support moves to limit pollution. WTF. We need to do everything we can to protect the Earth and stop this shameful exploitation and poisoning of our Earth. I guarantee you that 90% of young people are bummed out by the fact that Ron has no plan to reduce pollution.

Find me a stronger environmental statement than "no one has the right to pollute the land you walk on, the water you drink, or the air you breathe". Pollution is a violation of one's life which is one's property. To restore property rights is to eliminate all transmissable forms of pollution completley. The only weakness is in explaining this concept. It's hard for people to understand this or even that the number one polluter in this country is the U.S. government.

Also, one of the strongest environmental groups in the nation are the 2nd amendment rights advocates. Something about conservation of wildlife appeals to people that enjoy owning guns (and using them).

;)

Paul4Prez
12-10-2007, 10:04 PM
Here's a more developed argument on Ron Paul and the environment:

http://paul4prez.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-paul-and-environment.html

And here's the video version:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=f2BeqUPqz98

Andrew-Austin
12-10-2007, 10:05 PM
Sounds like you have been brainwashed by Al Gore.

Humans are only responsible for 3% of the CO2 released, the rest comes from natural sources.

Do you really think that Volcano's that are so large that they cause a Volcantic Winter for a few years every millenium puts out less Greenhouse gases than humans?

In the 70's it was "Global Cooling". On that note I will do as Glen Beck and leave the lights on and celebrate Coal Week!

So you doubt Gore's scientists but have faith in Beck's?

Regardless of whether global warming is real or not, its incredibly ignorant to be celebrating "coal week". Hopefully that was a joke.





Okay, go ahead and believe global warming is a myth. I'm not sure myself.

We are STILL cutting off the hand that feeds us in a ton of other ways. Our civilization is truly unsustainable on a multitude of different levels. We're steadily wiping out ecosystems and extinguishing entire species.

You can dismiss global warming, but to say the environment in all its entirety is a non-issue is both ignorant and insane.

The environment is obviously not Paul's primary focus. I'm confident he has the integrity to address this issue sometime in his Presidency though.

jasonoliver
12-10-2007, 10:05 PM
The hell with the "Global Warming" myth.

I think its a great thing! I'm dreaming of a green Christmas in Chicago! Who gives a damn what happens in 200 years - the future people can figure that one out.

I think I'll buy a big SUV for my next vehicle! :D

Voodoo
12-10-2007, 10:05 PM
Private property rights.

No government rules, regulations, or meddling can help (in fact, not surprisingly, they hurt the cause). Only property owners can claim and prove injury. Only property rights give consumers the incentive to conserve and protect.

dircha
12-10-2007, 10:06 PM
Find me a stronger environmental statement than "no one has the right to pollute the land you walk on, the water you drink, or the air you breathe". Pollution is a violation of one's life which is one's property. To restore property rights is to eliminate all transmissable forms of pollution completley.

Spot on! Was this quote from the Univision debate? Congressman Paul said something very similar again last night.

InRonWeTrust
12-10-2007, 10:06 PM
Global warming is a myth. .

You are a fucking idiot. Look at Venus. Based on it's proximity to the sun, its surface temp should be about 250 degrees Fahrenheit. But it's actual temp is nearly 900 degrees! That is because of the greenhouse effect. This was discovered by Carl Sagan and other scientists the 1970s. Greenhouse gases warm planets. That is a fact.

jasonoliver
12-10-2007, 10:07 PM
So you doubt Gore's scientists but have faith in Beck's?

Regardless of whether global warming is real or not, its incredibly ignorant to be celebrating "coal week". Hopefully that was a joke.

Coal is a WONDERFUL thing!

Coal provides MOST of American energy - I love it. Al Gore hates humans - he would have us go back to the stone age. There is a direct link to prosperity & amount of energy used.

Al Gore is an Elitist that wants YOU to cut back while he tools around in his Private Jet.

literatim
12-10-2007, 10:08 PM
I forget, is it global cooling or global warming now?

It's global neutral. Not a warming of the earth or a cooling of the earth, but global neutral.

:D

bobmurph
12-10-2007, 10:08 PM
Ron Paul does not call global warming a myth, though. He only doubts that the government would be any good at managing the weather, and that the Kyoto protocol is ineffective, since it wouldn't limit emissions from China (the biggest CO2 producer) and other developing countries that are exempt.

You're right. I didn't intended to link Ron's position to my belief that global warming is a myth.

Ron's position (private property rights) is the most effective way to combat pollution.

jasonoliver
12-10-2007, 10:10 PM
You are a fucking idiot. Look at Venus. Based on it's proximity to the sun, its surface temp should be about 250 degrees Fahrenheit. But it's actual temp is nearly 900 degrees! That is because of the greenhouse effect. This was discovered by Carl Sagan and other scientists the 1970s. Greenhouse gases warm planets. That is a fact.

In 2020 it will be global cooling again. Remember all the dumb hype about the OZONE LAYER? Global Temperature has been going DOWN since 1998 according to the scientists.

ANYWAYS - Nobody knows what the average temperature of earth is. You cannot measure every point on earth constantly.

Antarctica has been experiencing PROFOUND cooling in recent years.

bobmurph
12-10-2007, 10:10 PM
You are a fucking idiot. Look at Venus. Based on it's proximity to the sun, its surface temp should be about 250 degrees Fahrenheit. But it's actual temp is nearly 900 degrees! That is because of the greenhouse effect. This was discovered by Carl Sagan and other scientists the 1970s. Greenhouse gases warm planets. That is a fact.

Where exactly did I say that I didn't believe in the greenhouse effect?


Those aliens on venus must be polluting like f*cking crazy! Venusian alien bastards!

PINN4CL3
12-10-2007, 10:11 PM
I also agree this is not an Achilles Heel.

Ron has a platform, and all his positions are just logical extensions of that platform. Since he is for reduced government, and a return to constitutional principles, all of his answers then will come from things he can realistically do from within the context of that platform. The other candidates should take a lesson from this.

Anyone can say they are for reducing carbon emissions, or that they are for protecting the rain forests, but in a 30 second soundbyte that's all you need to say. You don't ever hear candidates say how they will pay for these things. You don't ever hear them answer the tough questions.

So in the end if someone asks Ron an environmental question, he simply says what he CAN do, and that's reduce our military empire. He can spearhead Congress into limiting the monopoly of the utility companies, thus giving alternative energy sources a chance to survive in the market.

Those are real things. Not just 30 second soundbytes, and any true environmentalist would respect him for that, if nothing else.

BillyBeer
12-10-2007, 10:11 PM
You are a fucking idiot. Look at Venus. Based on it's proximity to the sun, its surface temp should be about 250 degrees Fahrenheit. But it's actual temp is nearly 900 degrees! That is because of the greenhouse effect. This was discovered by Carl Sagan and other scientists the 1970s. Greenhouse gases warm planets. That is a fact.

Dont waste your time...I disagree with the proposed globalist UN solution to global warming, and I understand why some instinctively dismiss the overwhelming evidence. The solutions proposed ARE a sham to just go through the backdoor with international government. But that does not mean we should dismiss the science outright.

jasonoliver
12-10-2007, 10:12 PM
global Warming Is A Myth Started By Radical Leftists To Usurp The Authority Of Nations In Order Advance The Nwo!

AlexMerced
12-10-2007, 10:13 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j3SLqDs7fsc this answers everyones statements in this thread

Luther
12-10-2007, 10:13 PM
On Global Warming

by Ron Paul

December 10, 2007 06:15 PM EST


I support private, scientifically rigorous study to identify the underlying causes of global warming, and I also believe that excessive government regulation has delayed, rather than hastened, development of alternative energy technologies.

I have cosponsored H.R. 550 and H.R. 1772, legislation providing tax credits for investment in solar and wind power. I oppose government subsidies to big oil, and vote against spending taxpayer dollars to facilitate logging in national forests. I am also part of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition, devoted to ending taxpayer subsidies of projects that harm the environment for the benefit of large corporate interests, and I have been named a "Treasury Guardian" by Taxpayers for Common Sense for my work against environmentally-harmful government spending and corporate welfare.

Faced with environmental, economic, and security concerns—all tied to our dependence on fossil fuels—the only good, constitutional method is the one we have not tried for nearly a century and that no one in DC seems to be willing to talk about: an energy market driven by supply and demand and backed by rigid enforcement of property rights.

Once we end federal energy subsidies and stop invading countries to secure our oil supply, the price of fossil fuels will begin to reflect the reality of a limited resource that is mainly obtained from the unstable Middle East.

The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while upping the costs of polluting. I strongly believe in the concept of “the polluter pays,” meaning that if your land, water, or air is being polluted, the proper response is to sue the polluter; the damages awarded cost the company money and end up reflected in increased production and sale prices. The current system of preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes does nothing but favor those nimble and wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance.

Only a free market, with real penalties for causing harm, can bring about change. As president, I would fight to end oil subsidies, to stop giving preferential treatment to big energy lobbies, and to stop abusing our military by risking their lives to line corporate pockets.

I believe this approach would go a long way in helping us to deal with global warming.


http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977200038

dircha
12-10-2007, 10:13 PM
You are a fucking idiot. Look at Venus. Based on it's proximity to the sun, its surface temp should be about 250 degrees Fahrenheit. But it's actual temp is nearly 900 degrees! That is because of the greenhouse effect. This was discovered by Carl Sagan and other scientists the 1970s. Greenhouse gases warm planets. That is a fact.

That may be, but as I and others have explained, whether or not we or even politicians agree with these arguments for or to the contrary, is irrelevant, because power over these issues should not be unconstitutionally delegated to unilateral executive branch agencies.

The proper, Constitutional place for resolution of these disputes is the judiciary, where arguments, evidence, and testimony, perhaps much like that you present, will be given a fair hearing, subject to standards of evidence, and a decision will be reached through the robust Constitutional process.

BillyBeer
12-10-2007, 10:13 PM
global Warming Is A Myth Started By Radical Leftists To Usurp The Authority Of Nations In Order Advance The Nwo![/size]

No. It is not a myth. It is very real. But it is being used as a tool to set up international authority. Denying the science behind it just plays right into their hands.

Andrew-Austin
12-10-2007, 10:14 PM
People seem to jump all over the place in regards to global warming. Some immediately say that its a myth that humans speed up the global warming effect. (when really they don't much about the issue at all)

Some scientists have good theories to support global warming induced by humans. Others have valid counterpoints.

I do know that a lot of oil companies buy out scientists and have them say certain things against global warming though.



But it is being used as a tool to set up international authority. Denying the science behind it just plays right into their hands.

Exactly. Just because it works well for these types of shadowy groups, does not necessarily mean they fabricated science out of no where. X_x

I'm sick of people being so quick tempered on this subject. Just another subject that polarizes the American people.

kmforpaul
12-10-2007, 10:15 PM
There is a way we can turn this in to a plus, and it'll give us major media attention:

Build a solar farm somewhere in Iowa or another place that is relatively sunny (doesn't need to be big) sell the electricity to the power company, and turn the profits over to the campaign. This would work fastest with a 10,000 to 100,000 dollar budget. I know that the 2,300 limit a problem for most of us, but we could just start a PAC which will allow us to spread the profits evenly. Possibly, more people could max out. If nothing else, use it to fuel the blimp and other projects.

Not only could this be a great media stunt, it'll show the whole country the power of free markets, private property, and leadership. We will show them how global warming (whether it exists or not) could be solved with just a little bit of investment and patriotism.

dircha
12-10-2007, 10:16 PM
On Global Warming

by Ron Paul

December 10, 2007 06:15 PM EST


I support private, scientifically rigorous study to identify the underlying causes of global warming, and I also believe that excessive government regulation has delayed, rather than hastened, development of alternative energy technologies.

I have cosponsored H.R. 550 and H.R. 1772, legislation providing tax credits for investment in solar and wind power. I oppose government subsidies to big oil, and vote against spending taxpayer dollars to facilitate logging in national forests. I am also part of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition, devoted to ending taxpayer subsidies of projects that harm the environment for the benefit of large corporate interests, and I have been named a "Treasury Guardian" by Taxpayers for Common Sense for my work against environmentally-harmful government spending and corporate welfare.

Faced with environmental, economic, and security concerns—all tied to our dependence on fossil fuels—the only good, constitutional method is the one we have not tried for nearly a century and that no one in DC seems to be willing to talk about: an energy market driven by supply and demand and backed by rigid enforcement of property rights.

Once we end federal energy subsidies and stop invading countries to secure our oil supply, the price of fossil fuels will begin to reflect the reality of a limited resource that is mainly obtained from the unstable Middle East.

The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while upping the costs of polluting. I strongly believe in the concept of “the polluter pays,” meaning that if your land, water, or air is being polluted, the proper response is to sue the polluter; the damages awarded cost the company money and end up reflected in increased production and sale prices. The current system of preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes does nothing but favor those nimble and wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance.

Only a free market, with real penalties for causing harm, can bring about change. As president, I would fight to end oil subsidies, to stop giving preferential treatment to big energy lobbies, and to stop abusing our military by risking their lives to line corporate pockets.

I believe this approach would go a long way in helping us to deal with global warming.


http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977200038

Said so much better than anyone else! Thank you Dr. Paul!

hard@work
12-10-2007, 10:16 PM
Spot on! Was this quote from the Univision debate? Congressman Paul said something very similar again last night.


Nah, I just understand property rights. We can build a much cleaner world with them and the economy would boom as we'd be building new technology to keep everything nice and sparkly.

;-)


I will grant that Paul's arguments for property rights are weak. Because he does not speak out enough in defense of individual health as a solution to "global warming". We also cannot deregulate safely without restoring property rights. And there will be much fear here he should address.

literatim
12-10-2007, 10:16 PM
Over 17,000 scientists signed a petition to request the government to reject the Kyoto Accord and any similar treaties.


We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/


"The treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful."

This freely expressed vote against the warming scare propaganda should be contrasted with the claimed "consensus of 2500 climate scientists" about global warming. This facile and oft-quoted assertion by the White House is a complete fabrication. The contributors and reviewers of the 1996 report by the

UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) actually number less than 2000, and only a small fraction -- who were never polled -- can claim to be climate scientists. Many of those are known to be critical of the IPCC report and have now become signers of the Petition.

"The 'silent majority' of the scientific community has at last spoken out against the hype emanating from politicians and much of the media about a 'warming catastrophe.' The Petition reflects the frustration and disgust felt by working scientists, few of whom have been previously involved in the ongoing climate debate, about the misuse of science to promote a political agenda," said Dr. Seitz.


http://www.sepp.org/Archive/Publications/pressrel/petition.html

BillyBeer
12-10-2007, 10:20 PM
Over 17,000 scientists signed a petition to request the government to reject the Kyoto Accord and any similar treaties.




Kyoto was bunk. Even those who want global controls on greenhouse gases thought it was highly flawed because it did nothing to limit emissions from China and India.

Andrew-Austin
12-10-2007, 10:21 PM
Once again I'll quote myself.

"Global warming" is not the only issue regarding the environment. Its not even the most important issue.


Okay, go ahead and believe global warming is a myth. I'm not sure myself.

We are STILL cutting off the hand that feeds us in a ton of other ways. Our civilization is truly unsustainable on a multitude of different levels. We're steadily wiping out ecosystems and extinguishing entire species.

You can dismiss global warming, but to say the environment in all its entirety is a non-issue is both ignorant and insane.

The environment is obviously not Paul's primary focus. I'm confident he has the integrity to address this issue sometime in his Presidency though.

Charles Wilson
12-10-2007, 10:21 PM
Folks global warming is not a myth. Global warming started millions of years ago, long before humans learned how to make fire and burn fossel fuels. It is cyclical whereas the earth goes from global warming back to an ice age where the cycle starts all over again. The cycle varies from hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years. The great lakes were formed by a receding glazer (at least that is what I was taught). Polution may be speeding up the process but it is a natural occurence.

dircha
12-10-2007, 10:28 PM
Folks global warming is not a myth. Global warming started millions of years ago, long before humans learned how to make fire and burn fossel fuels. It is cyclical whereas the earth goes from global warming back to an ice age where the cycle starts all over again. The cycle varies from hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years. The great lakes were formed by a receding glazer (at least that is what I was taught). Polution may be speeding up the process but it is a natural occurence.

And what's so wonderful about Congressman Paul's position is that he says in response to that, I think essentially, "Great research! If there are legal grievances, present that evidence and those factual arguments in a court of law where they will be tried and tested according to standards of evidence in accordance with our established judiciary process just as the Constitution intends!"

With Congressman Paul's position, we don't need to be having this debate here.

Congressman Paul's position comes down to, as I see it: let's give a fair and thorough hearing to all the facts and evidence.

It's so simple.

Ron Paul Fan
12-10-2007, 10:29 PM
I think jasonoliver is right! It's a myth started by the radical leftists. It's always scare the people, and they'll succumb to the government taking care of them! It's like when the Federal Reserve started the Great Depression to scare the people into accepting the New Deal. Now look what a mess we're in. Now, the left is preaching global warming. The neo-cons are downplaying the NAU and we're going to be left with a one world government!

beobeli
12-10-2007, 10:34 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6772058898203776825

This documentary present a scientific argument that CO2 is not a cause of global worming. According to the scientists, the change in temperature is most likely to changes in energy activities on the Sun's surface. CO2 is a result of the increased temperature not the other way around.

Global worming should not be confused with pollution. Pollution is bad. The slight warming we are experiencing now have been encountered in the past and are normal fluctuations.

Watch the documentary.

Generally, it seems to me that this big hype created by Al Gore is another "theme" around which a "racket" on the people will be organized. Did you know that Al Gore is now a partner with a Venture Capitalist firm who is getting ready to invest in what they call alternative energy. Al Gore's function is -- we know what -- to call his contacts in Washington and swing the regulation and bring huge subsidy to co-fund these new private startups.

Are we going to continue being stupid and taken for a spin. Beware...

Visual
12-10-2007, 10:37 PM
I think jasonoliver is right! It's a myth started by the radical leftists. It's always scare the people, and they'll succumb to the government taking care of them! It's like when the Federal Reserve started the Great Depression to scare the people into accepting the New Deal. Now look what a mess we're in. Now, the left is preaching global warming. The neo-cons are downplaying the NAU and we're going to be left with a one world government!

I find it amusing how the people promoting the thought that global warming is only because of humans are mostly non-scientists. Actual scientists in climatology and geosciences among many other disciplines actually have common sense and realize the fact there are tens if not hundreds of variables that affect the earth such as volcanoes, earth's magnetic field, solar instability, solar magnetic field, cosmic radiation, solar radiation, water currents, etc etc. Not to mention the things that will change such as more water and warmer temperature will cool the earth off.

Do I want pollution? Not really for health problems. But it's not the sole cause of global warming.

gerryb
12-10-2007, 10:45 PM
Ron has one major Achille's Heel. He does not support moves to limit pollution. WTF. We need to do everything we can to protect the Earth and stop this shameful exploitation and poisoning of our Earth. I guarantee you that 90% of young people are bummed out by the fact that Ron has no plan to reduce pollution.


Tell me, how much money do big oil and big energy get in subsidies again? Ron Paul will veto any bill that has these in them.

Look up Ron's record on tax credits for alternative energy (Rural Wind Energy Development Act)

max
12-10-2007, 10:47 PM
global warming is a hoax

Visual
12-10-2007, 10:48 PM
global warming is a hoax

Global warming isn't a hoax. Go out, measure, and plot a trend and it's going up. The cause of it is debateable though.

azminuteman
12-10-2007, 10:50 PM
Ron has one major Achille's Heel. He does not support moves to limit pollution. WTF. We need to do everything we can to protect the Earth and stop this shameful exploitation and poisoning of our Earth. I guarantee you that 90% of young people are bummed out by the fact that Ron has no plan to reduce pollution.

No, the major issue is the legalization of drugs.
The Christian right and suburbia that don't pay attention do not want drugs legalized because that is what the War on Drugs teaches them.

jgmaynard
12-10-2007, 10:51 PM
Does the government take care of public lands?

No. No one has any incentive to do so. It's a phenomena that was known to the ancient Greeks as "The Tragedy of the Commons". If everyone is allowed to have their cattle graze on public land, but they pay the same amount of taxes if their cattle graze a lot or a little, then everyone has incentive to graze as much as possible and soon the grass on the commns is dead. We can bring that into the modern world with the question: "When was the last time you washed a rental car?"

JM

therealjjj77
12-10-2007, 10:51 PM
Ron Paul is more for the environment then any other candidate. He's the only one who has a real solution. Making some bureaucracy in charge of that is NOT a solution. It only produces more of a problem. But when you enforce law suits by the people against their neighbor who has polluted their air, land, water; then a from the ground up system forms to deal with the problem. These from the top down systems do not work and have not worked. Take Ron Paul's campaign, for instance. With all their efforts to be organized, the grassroots has done infinitely better at running his campaign then anyone he could have paid to do it. The grassroots is what allows his campaign to reach my parents table during Sunday afternoon dinner. That's worth way more then an ad on TV and didn't cost his campaign anything.

So it's more effective and the costs are virtually zero.

Andrew-Austin
12-10-2007, 10:51 PM
Global warming isn't a hoax. Go out, measure, and plot a trend and it's going up. The cause of it is debateable though.

You can go one step further and say causes instead of cause. There could very well be more then one thing contributing to global warming.

Andrew-Austin
12-10-2007, 10:54 PM
I think jasonoliver is right! It's a myth started by the radical leftists. It's always scare the people, and they'll succumb to the government taking care of them! It's like when the Federal Reserve started the Great Depression to scare the people into accepting the New Deal. Now look what a mess we're in. Now, the left is preaching global warming. The neo-cons are downplaying the NAU and we're going to be left with a one world government!

I suppose ecosystems and species dying out across the planet is also a myth just because its inconvenient.

Visual
12-10-2007, 10:55 PM
You can go one step further and say causes instead of cause. There could very well be more then one thing contributing to global warming.

cause, causes... potayto potahto.

Ron Paul Fan
12-10-2007, 11:03 PM
Some of you are doing exactly what the government wants you to do! They want you to be scared so that you'll accept giving them more power! Don't you understand that this country is run on scaring the people? Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Iraq War, WMDs, Iran, New Deal, Federal Reserve, and now Global Warming! If I left any out, please feel free to add them! We must not fall for any more of these dirty tricks or a one world government is what we're going to have!

Arek
12-10-2007, 11:15 PM
Funny thing is there's less CO2 in the air now than there was 100 years ago. The earth's overall temperature has remained constant rising and declining a percentage of a degree here and there.

Ron Paul Fan
12-10-2007, 11:21 PM
Exactly. It's just a cycle. And all of this global warming garbage is fear propoganda. Watch this video by avaroth to see how these politicians work and what the people do as a result of their fear mongering...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSk4SUpWVuY

therealjjj77
12-10-2007, 11:23 PM
The human race with all of our factories, SUVs, breathing, and jet planes only contribute 0.28% of the global warming gases on our planet. That is zero point two-eight percent. Ask any environmentalist how much we contribute and they will throw out some high pie in the sky number. I used to be one while getting a subsidized public education. However, when I went looking for hard numbers I could only conclude that we are a needle in a haystack when it comes to global warming.

saahmed
12-11-2007, 01:02 AM
I would argue that Ron Paul has a better pro-environment policy than many other candidates. Personal property rights and free markets. The government should not be regulating. They should not be subsidizing certain products such as an ethanol which have not been proven to be better for the environment, but should instead allow the market to determine the best solution. I also believe the global warming issue is blown out of proportion.

Ron Paul Fan
12-11-2007, 01:05 AM
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977200038

Here's Ron Paul's stance on global warming which was posted in the News Forum. Use it to recruit your scared little liberal buddies. Ron Paul's position is much better than letting the federal government screw things up again.

sunghoko
12-11-2007, 01:15 AM
why is this in grassroots? It's not like RP will change his stance. unless there is a plan of action or something positive that shows RP's stance on the environment, this shouldn't be here

jasonoliver
12-11-2007, 03:58 PM
ICE CAPS ENLARGE

On the same day Al Gore received his share of the Nobel Prize for his work on climate change — one of his main arguments is being challenged by a scientific fact.

Gore has said that the northern polar ice cap could be completely gone in as little as seven years. But Brazil's MetSul Weather Center reports the ice and snow cover in the Arctic have recovered to within one percent of normal — even though the official start of winter is still more than a week away.

And it says the southern polar ice cap actually has an additional 772,000 square miles of ice now — compared to a year ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316377,00.html

jasonoliver
12-11-2007, 04:00 PM
IPCC FALSIFIES SEA LEVEL DATA

http://www.dailytech.com/Noted+Sea+Level+Expert+Accuses+IPCC+of+Falsifying+ Data/article9978.htm

Claims IPCC estimates are bunk; Observational data shows no sea level rise trend

Note: Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner has been studying sea level change for 35 years. He is the former head of Stockholm University's department of Paleodeophysics and Geodynamics. Dr. Mörner is and an expert reviewer for the IPCC, leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project, and past president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes.

A noted expert in sea level change has accused UN's IPCC panel of falsifying and destroying data (PDF) to support the panel's official conclusion of a rising sea level trend. The accusations include surreptitious substitution of datasets, selective use of data, presenting computer model simulations as physical data, and even the destruction of physical markers which fail to demonstrate sea level rise.

The expert, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, also raps the IPCC for their selection of 22 authors of their most recent report on sea level rise (SLR), none of which were sea level specialists. According to Mörner, the authors were chosen to "arrive at a predetermined conclusion" of global warming-induced disaster.

Sea level changes can be detected by a number of methods. Rotational timing is a very precise method, and is based on the fact that a change in the earth's radius will cause minute differences in it's rate of rotation. A rise in sea level increases the radius slightly, and can therefore be detected by precisely timing when the sun rises and sets. This method can detect changes in sea level as small as one millimeter. Data collected in this manner has shown the ocean to have risen and fallen slightly several times since the early 1900s, without any definitive trend.

Satellite altimetry is another method. Mörner says that, in 2003, The IPCC's altimetry dataset, which had previously displayed no clear trend, suddenly changed, with past readings modified to show a strong uplift. Though corrections to datasets are supposed to be clearly announced and identified, this was done secretly, and not labeled. When Mörner inquired about the discrepancy, he was told the readings had been adjusted by a "correction factor".

Where did this factor come from? The least precise method of measuring sea level is tide gauge records. These are problematic as the land under the gauge may itself be rising or falling. Hong Kong maintains six tide gauges, five of which show no trend. The sixth, located on land where compaction is causing the ground to sink, was chosen by the IPCC as the correction factor for global altimetry data.

Tide gauges kept in the sensitive areas of Pacific and Indian Ocean islands show a different story. In Vanuatu, Tegua, and the Tuvalu Islands, gauge records show no trend at all. In the Maldives, tide gauges kept from the 1950s show a small drop in the 1970s, and no change since.

More shocking is Mörner's claim of the destruction of evidence. A famous low-lying tree in the Maldives has long been a marker for sea-level change, and noted in several research papers. But when an Australian team visited the island on a data-gathering trip, they saw the tree and pulled it down, according to local eyewitnesses. Mörner's team later replanted the tree in the same spot.

Climatologist and IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr. Madhav Khandekar, contacted by DailyTech in regards to this story, also believes SLR is being exaggerated by the IPCC. Khandekar says SLR over the next 100 years will be "insignificant" and pointed to recent research demonstrating SLR had actually declined in the latter half of the 20th century.

Dr. Mörner also had harsh words for the Maldives government. When the Maldives Sea Level Project concluded there was no threat to from rising sea levels, a documentary was made to reassure residents. The government, however, banned airing of the film. According to Mörner, the rationale for the ban was financial. The Maldives stands to gain hundreds of millions of dollars in climate change aid from Western governments. "Because they thought that they would lose money." He said, "They accuse the West for putting out carbon dioxide, so they wanted the flooding scenario to go on."

Mörner says it's becoming increasingly hard to perform objective climate research. In the European Community, a prerequisite for research grants is that the focus must be on global warming. Papers which don't support global warming aren't funded. "That's what dictatorships did, autocracies." He added, "They demanded that scientists produce what they wanted."

brandon
12-11-2007, 04:00 PM
ICE CAPS ENLARGE

On the same day Al Gore received his share of the Nobel Prize for his work on climate change — one of his main arguments is being challenged by a scientific fact.

Gore has said that the northern polar ice cap could be completely gone in as little as seven years. But Brazil's MetSul Weather Center reports the ice and snow cover in the Arctic have recovered to within one percent of normal — even though the official start of winter is still more than a week away.

And it says the southern polar ice cap actually has an additional 772,000 square miles of ice now — compared to a year ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316377,00.html

Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but I dont believe anything that comes from Fox news. Get a better source

Goldwater Conservative
12-11-2007, 04:03 PM
No, his Achilles' heel is misinformed potential voters. :)

jasonoliver
12-11-2007, 04:03 PM
Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but I dont believe anything that comes from Fox news. Get a better source

Unfortunately the Liberal Media is blacking this story out.

Elwar
12-11-2007, 04:08 PM
Ron Paul has zero tolerance for pollution.

I'd say that's the most hard core environmental stance you'll see of all candidates.

You pollute my property...I sue. End of story. No passes for Washington cronies.

dmspilot00
12-11-2007, 04:12 PM
Ron Paul is the best candidate for the environment.

- The Pentagon uses more oil than many nations
- Fighting needless wars, blowing up stuff, and DU ammunition all cause severe environmental harm
- He realizes the importance of property rights
- He is the only one advocating monetary reform

Why is monetary reform important? Because the monetary system in this country is a pyramid scheme. Money is only created when it is lent by the Federal Reserve or the banks. All money is debt. But the borrower has to pay compound interest on their debt, and the money to pay the interest does not exist until even more money is borrowed into circulation. The economy has to grow exponentially year after year to keep the system from collapsing. An exponentially growing economy requires the exponentially increasing use of natural resources. See Money as Debt (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279)

Todd
12-11-2007, 04:12 PM
Ron has one major Achille's Heel. He does not support moves to limit pollution. WTF. We need to do everything we can to protect the Earth and stop this shameful exploitation and poisoning of our Earth. I guarantee you that 90% of young people are bummed out by the fact that Ron has no plan to reduce pollution.

People....I don't think that issue will be something front and center that loses an election especially in these current times.
Never has..probably never will, unless there is some Chernobyl incident here.

jasonoliver
12-11-2007, 04:15 PM
Ron Paul has zero tolerance for pollution.

I'd say that's the most hard core environmental stance you'll see of all candidates.

You pollute my property...I sue. End of story. No passes for Washington cronies.

Pollution is not equal to CO2 emission. Global Warming is entirely unproven and false.

Of course we don't want anyone dumping trash into water, that is REAL pollution.

SeanEdwards
12-11-2007, 04:19 PM
Ron has one major Achille's Heel. He does not support moves to limit pollution. WTF. We need to do everything we can to protect the Earth and stop this shameful exploitation and poisoning of our Earth. I guarantee you that 90% of young people are bummed out by the fact that Ron has no plan to reduce pollution.

The largest single consumer of fossil fuels on planet Earth is the U.S. military.

DrNoZone
12-11-2007, 04:22 PM
There is a way we can turn this in to a plus, and it'll give us major media attention:

Build a solar farm somewhere in Iowa or another place that is relatively sunny (doesn't need to be big) sell the electricity to the power company, and turn the profits over to the campaign. This would work fastest with a 10,000 to 100,000 dollar budget. I know that the 2,300 limit a problem for most of us, but we could just start a PAC which will allow us to spread the profits evenly. Possibly, more people could max out. If nothing else, use it to fuel the blimp and other projects.

Not only could this be a great media stunt, it'll show the whole country the power of free markets, private property, and leadership. We will show them how global warming (whether it exists or not) could be solved with just a little bit of investment and patriotism.

Now here's someone with their brain-on! I love this idea. Can you imagine the impact this might have on public perception?

sirachman
12-11-2007, 05:07 PM
Do some independant research. Global warming is not human directed but a cyclic process that has been going on since before the dinosaurs. This planet is not some god made island, there is a whole universe out there. If you think the planet is going to be uninhabitable then spend billions/trillions on getting us to another planet/to space not on saving the planet because as high and mighty you might think human beings are we cant direct the entire planets climate at least not realistically. I could go on and on about the destructive effects of a carbon cap etc on technology production and world economy but if you want to educate yourself do some research beyond what you hear at the altar of Al Gore.

As for pollution and destruction of rainforests etc I am against that but the whole co2 cap global warming fad is a load of crap designed by socialists to destroy capitalism and redistribute wealth.

aravoth
12-11-2007, 05:45 PM
Global warming is no myth. No one is arguing that temperatures fluctuate. What people disagree on is the direct cause of it. I don't believe humans are responsible for it, but to say we have no impact on the environment is ridiculous. But if you are worried about Ron's environmental stance you needn't be. The current problems with the environment is that it is regulated. For example, under the current system, It is OK for a company to dump a "certain amount" of pollutants into a water source. A little here and there, this much sewage, that much waste. They are authorized to release "x" amount of air pollutants. Even though allowing "x" amount to enter a water source is detrimental to your health you have no recourse.

If you were to sue a company because they are contaminating your water supply, your case would go no-where, because the laws allow for the company to pollute. If there were no laws on the books, if there was no regulation. The you could sue the living crap out of them, and they would be left with 2 choices, shut down, or adapt.

Ron Paul is also the only candidate I have seen talk about ending subsidies for all corporations. Which to me makes perfect sense. We all pay for Oil companies to find new wells, and even to process petrol. And then, we pay again when we go to the pump. We get hit twice. And environmentalists don't see that. They don't realize that the money they spend to "save" the environment actually participates in it's destruction. The subsidies grants the current corporations a huge advantage over the rest of the market place. Because they have a seemingly endless supply of tax payer dollars to continue the use of their products. This leaves alternative energy crowd in the dust. They are unable to compete.

But if all regulation and subsidies we're gone, it would bring everyone down to the same level. Giving the market (you and me) the chance to decide what to purchase. With the advent of a cheaper more reliable energy source the market would naturally shift in that direction. Think what would happen if we where growing hemp en mass in this country, with no regulation. Environmentally friendly homes, threads, and oils. The people that made the electric car would have perfected it's design by now. Hydro Cars might be a reality, the list goes on.

Even the logging industry would thrive. Allowing the private companies total control over their lands would benefit not only the consumer, but the environment. Timber is a cash crop, and the industry is well aware of this. Which is why they developed a system of logging to maximize growth and reproduction of the trees they cut down. The forest was thinned, preventing wildfires, the water sources were pristine. Private companies always take far better care of their own land than any government agency could. Here in Oregon, a lot of that power was taken from the timber companies, and as a result, our fires are more extreme, our wildlife in more danger, and our rural communities are becoming ghost towns. Counties have lost a lot of revenue, so much so that the Federal Government subsidizes them in order to keep those counties functional. So even people in different states, that have no idea what happened to the timber industry in Oregon, are forced to pay for the State governments over regulation.

Government regulations cost the consumer more, limit our options, increase our taxes, and ruin our marketplace. And for what? So a few companies are allowed to pollute a little bit here and there, no matter what the consequences are. And since it's OK by law to do so, we the people have no recourse.

Thats the way I see it.

lasenorita
12-11-2007, 06:46 PM
Should the government have a role in encouraging development of energy-efficient technologies and sustainable energy resources? If yes, how would you do it?


By repealing government subsidies and policies that artificially lower the price of fossil fuels, I will be able to encourage development of energy-efficient technologies and sustainable energy resources. When access to Middle Eastern oil is no longer a central component of our foreign policy, my administration will provide new incentives for private investors to devote more resources into alternative energies such as ethanol, and for consumers to voluntary seek out opportunities to use ethanol. An energy market driven by supply and demand will certainly reward renewable and alternative fuel producers as well as consumers who will benefit from cheaper and more abundant energy sources.


Do you think climate change is caused by human activity? If not, what is your view on the issue? What, if anything, would you do to deal with climate change?


When the federal government facilitates polluters, subsidizes logging in the National Forests, and otherwise rewards those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance while committing economic wrongdoings, it certainly seems that there is a connection between climate change and human activity. The key to sound environmental policy is not bureaucratic regulation, but respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.

In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. A sensible policy like this will aid in combating human environmental wrongdoing.

Voluntaryist
12-11-2007, 06:59 PM
Who plants the most trees? Logging companies! Who restocks the most fish? Fishermen and fisheries! Who produces the most "clean" transportation technology? Automobile and gasoline companies!

Private industry and customer demand is THE solution to pollution.

Rob
12-11-2007, 07:28 PM
I realize that what I'm about to say will be extremely controversial here, but I feel obliged to post it.

First of all, I'm extremely happy to read that article. I believe that it clearly states Paul environmental position, staying true to his overall philosophy and logic.

However, there are certain situations where the defending private property rights approach fails, and widely dispersed pollution is one of them.

The main problem is that the people who benefit from polluting, benefit a lot from it, but the people who are hurt by it, are very minimally inconvenienced. If a pollutant from a company disperses relatively equally throughout the whole US or perhaps world, then that company has great incentive to increase pollution. The majority of people hurt by that pollution probably won't even realize that the pollution around them has increased. Would you even know or care is some pollutant increased one part per billion in the air above your front lawn due the the actions of a powerplant 1,000 miles away?

The problem though, is that all that pollution has considerable aggregate effects on the environment. It's nearly impossible to do much about it by simply protecting property rights. Exactly how much should I be entitled to anyway because some pollutant went up 1 part per billion over my front lawn? However, hundreds of millions of other people also live in an environment that has been polluted by the said remote powerplant, yet individually they're all more or less in the same spot I am. I suppose we could organize a class action lawsuit, but even collectively it would be difficult to prove exactly what damages have been done to us.

However, that pollution from the power plant killed 2 out the hundred million people exposed to slightly increased levels of the pollutant. But it isn't clear without God-like knowledge that the pollution actually killed them. However, valid science shows that a few deaths scattered across the country is the likely outcome.

Given the situation, protecting property rights is horribly inefficient at addressing the problem.

I love Ron Paul and I admire his logical consistency, but libertarian ideology doesn't have an answer for every problem.

voisine
12-11-2007, 08:06 PM
The main problem is that the people who benefit from polluting, benefit a lot from it, but the people who are hurt by it, are very minimally inconvenienced. If a pollutant from a company disperses relatively equally throughout the whole US or perhaps world, then that company has great incentive to increase pollution.

...

I love Ron Paul and I admire his logical consistency, but libertarian ideology doesn't have an answer for every problem.

This is true. Libertarians don't promise a perfect world. What we promise is the best possible solutions to all our problems that human society can accomplish. We are not perfect however. The problem you mention is real, but I'm not aware of any solutions to this problem that don't have far worse long term consequences than the problems they attempt to solve. The prevailing environmentalist solution to widely dispersed pollution is global government. This government would have ultimate authority little accountability. I am severely skeptical that such a government could solve these problems better than an admittedly less than perfect, but free market. There are so many improvements that we can achieve through truly free markets, lets give it a try before we pass judgement. What we have now in super-national governmental organizations has clearly failed.

Meatwasp
12-11-2007, 08:24 PM
The hell with the "Global Warming" myth.

I think its a great thing! I'm dreaming of a green Christmas in Chicago! Who gives a damn what happens in 200 years - the future people can figure that one out.

I think I'll buy a big SUV for my next vehicle! :D

I have to agree

Ron Paul Fan
12-11-2007, 08:28 PM
Politcians shouldn't promise to manage our lives. They should promise us liberty! It's time that we brought liberty to this country and enforced the Constitution! I don't know how many times I can say it. The whole global warming scare is a scam! It's nothing but propoganda to scare the people into the government taking care of them! I'd think of all people, Ron Paul supporters would realize this. Create the federal reserve, take over health care, take over the environment, put carbon taxes on everybody, crash the dollar, create the amero and NAU, create a one world government. Don't be fooled again!

lasenorita
12-11-2007, 08:30 PM
We also have to keep in mind that there needs to be more research done about the human effect on global warming. Just today, for example: Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c)

Meatwasp
12-11-2007, 08:52 PM
I know I posted this in another thread but Dixie L Raye a scientist in 1970 was writing how they checked huge tree rings and found Globle warming was a natural accurence

LBT
12-12-2007, 12:14 AM
Okay, go ahead and believe global warming is a myth. I'm not sure myself.

We are STILL cutting off the hand that feeds us in a ton of other ways. Our civilization is truly unsustainable on a multitude of different levels. We're steadily wiping out ecosystems and extinguishing entire species.

You can dismiss global warming, but to say the environment in all its entirety is a non-issue is both ignorant and insane.

The environment is obviously not Paul's primary focus. I'm confident he has the integrity to address this issue sometime in his Presidency though.

Actually, what you have heard and been taught about depletion of resources is not how the world works at all. Resources and productivity are essentially inexhaustable. The atoms don't disappear....it is simply a matter of technology ad economic ability that allows us to create and transform resources.

It is true that pollution exists and that it puts costs onto certain parties which they would prefer not to have. Almost all pollution is in the areas owned by government. It is a complex task to manage unwanted chemicals, not to mention lands, seas, rivers, air in a way that best suits various needs.

I expect privatization of these properties will lead us to better ways to manage them. Putting an international central government (UN / Kyoto) in charge of them is absolutely the worst solution. It will be swarming with rats and lobbyists.