7 responses to “Statement on Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists”

  1. RB

    Need to research who these people are, who they work for, and if their science is in the correct field. I went to the website and picked one name with a PhD just for the hell of it. I picked Ross S. Anderson, PhD and googled him. He is a carbon-dating denier talking about the bible and the great flood, that’s not science! So who are some of the other people? How many work for the coal, oil, pharmaceutical, or god industry?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  2. Richard Green

    Regarding Ron Pauls stance on Anthropegenic Global Climate Change, please google and read “Michael MacCracken’s analysis of errors in Robinson, Robinson, and Soon” the article sent out with the petionproject
    “Michael MacCracken of the Climate Institute, in an analysis posted here for the first time, identifies dozens of scientific errors and misleading statements in a 2007 paper by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon entitled “Environmental Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide” – a contrarian effort that exemplifies the sort of work that provides fodder for the global warming disinformation campaign.
    Also please read the book The Climate War by Eric Poole that discusses Hoax petitions based on unacredited and fictitious scientists.


    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  3. The 31 thousand

    Dr. Paul

    Pardon this minor detail about what you said.

    It is my understanding that the Constitution is predicated on the Declaration of Independence, that the Declaration of Independence is the primary instrument of American liberty and sovereignty. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Constitution was the best instrument they could agree on to execute the authority vested by the Declaration of Independence at the time.

    Jefferson also surmised that any generation might need to implement a new interpretation = a new Constitution.

    This distinction is important because the Constitution stipulates the Electoral College, which was formed to provide slave owners more than one vote each. This is no longer relevant, yet the easily corrupted Electoral College increases our vulnerability to political crooks, otherwise useless as an appendix. Considering the last 10 years and the 1878 election scandal (1st Watergate) that was exposed by the Chicago Tribune, and the fact of electronic vote fraud, you can imagine why this is a concern.

    I could be wrong, this is my understanding.

    I also think we should listen when 31,000 scientists call out openly treasonous politicians for lying to get more wealth and power.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  4. KS

    While I support Ron Paul and find his ideas very persuasive, i feel the discussion of Climate Change on this post is disingenuous. Why, for example, do people immediately attack the scientists who deliver the message of global warming? When scientists produce a bigger memory chip that will make your computer better, you don’t attack them, but when they warn of potential catastrophe, the first reaction of republicans and libertarians is to dismiss the research. Everyone feels confident in their personal assessment of the scientific evidence. Why?

    I thought the dismissal of evidence is the province of demagogues. I can’t imagine Murray Rothbard resorting to this sort of frivolous argumentation.

    Let’s even say that Global Warming is a sham. Just for the sake of argument, let’s even devise a different proposition – there is global cooling, let’s say. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that the evidence is irrefutable. The hypothetical issue presents a challenge to the conception that market forces are capable of addressing every problem. Game theory would dictate that in the interests of personal welfare, it would not be rational for an individual to reduce his emissions (or in the case of climate cooling do some other thing which is considered to contribute to the problem).

    The question, given this scenario, is how does the libertarian philosophical framework address an issue of this nature?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

    1. Kieran

      If you believe there is irrefutable evidence of some catastrophe that can only be prevented by forcing others to start doing (or stop doing) certain things, then you have the right to try to convince others of this irrefutable evidence and that it is in their best long-term interest (and/or the long-term interest of our species) to do as you say.

      If they do not comply (and here it gets a bit murky) then I’d say that you have the right to try to force them to the same extent that they have the right to resist.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

    2. longshotlouie

      Scientists are beyond reproach?

      When you are theorizing about AGW being a scam, wouldn’t that point to there not being a ‘problem’.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      1. KS

        I’m not saying scientists are beyond reproach. I’m saying that some people seem to only reproach them when they don’t like what they are saying. Science is not perfect, but it’s subject to a free market of ideas of sorts with peer review, reliance on confirmed theories, etc.
        Again, when drug research leads to certain results, I don’t feel I am competent to dismiss them, because there is a history of science bringing results for productivity, health, quality of life, etc. Why should I put on a meteorologist hat and start contradicting people who dedicate their life to research?

        I don’t like institutional coercion any more than you do, but why can there not be possibilities which present a theoretical challenge? Overcome it intellectually, don’t dismiss it!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3