Global Warming

2943 Responses




Global Warming has come to be a hotly contested issue. Are there valid concerns that we should consider, or is Global Warming just the latest manufactured crisis to cash in on the public’s fears and generate new support for global governance, global carbon taxes and other oppressive policies?

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.

Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.

We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.

Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”

After additional consideration and analysis and shortly before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, Ron Paul identified the artificial panic around Global Warming as an elaborate hoax:

“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

“[The Copenhagen treaty on climate change] can’t help the economy. It has to hurt the economy and it can’t possibly help the environment because they’re totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful. It’s going to hurt everybody.” – Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show, Nov. 5, 2009

For an environmental insider’s view on the “Green Agenda” and its background and motivations check out The Green Agenda. Also read Lew Rockwell’s Anti-Environmentalist Manifesto.

Likes(0)Dislikes(1)

2,943 responses to “Global Warming”

  1. UEBERNERD

    PS: As a foreigner I consider dr.Ron Paul as a typical exponent of classic American aristocracy -he reminds me of eminent teachers I had in my overseas study years - I am glad he is running despite his age. Sort of an integer "conscience"of American political stands over the years in de midst of a tornado of madness. I think chances that he will elected are very slim but what has to be done has to be done. Go dr.Paul.
    Maybe I will live long enough to see his son ascend to the Presidency one day.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

    1. Tucci78

      UEBERNERD, your post has precisely...what?...to do with the subject of anthropogenic global warming?

      But as long as we're here.... An OB/GYN guy (I've only personally encountered Dr. Paul once, at a convention a bunch of years ago) who's spent several decades advocating the subordination of the federal government to strict rule of law under the U.S. Constitution is somehow supposed to be "a typical exponent of classic American aristocracy" in your eyes?

      Hm. Some construe of the word "aristocracy" with which I'm not familiar, obviously.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6

      1. UEBERNERD

        Tucci: I wrote another post -more technical- on global warming, bit it did not get through for some reason. So I wrote the one that was posted to compliment dr.Ron Paul anyways.
        The AGW-discussion is a religious and not a scientific debate.I suspect the majority of alarmists to question Darwinic species evolution , the Big Bang, etc.etc. as well in medieval tradition. A laconic one-liner in Amsterdam bars on AGW goes like this:

        "When the sky falls down, we will all have a blue hat".

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

  2. Philip

    Tucci, you may be aware of Oreskes analysis of all peer-reviewed articles with the term climate change, where out of the 900+ articles, 75% supported the theory that human emissions are the cause of the recent climate change, while 25% studied climate change, but not the cause of the recent climate change.

    Not one peer-reviewed article supported any contrary theories. Not one.

    Now I accept that there may be a conspiracy in that articles proving the contrarion position are being witheld by editors (even from the peer-reviewed geology journals which may be pro-mining), and the editors have been vigilant enough in not even allowing one through!

    So where is this research that didn't make the peer-reviewed journals? Wouldn't the disgrunted authors at least publish it on the web?

    Wouldn't the government representatives reviewing the draft IPCC reports, the ones from the oil producers like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,UAE, Iran, etc. use this research to support their governments' best interests. Wouldn't they have come armed with this research to try and disprove the theory? They did not, for they were part of the team that unanimously agreed to release the report!

    The only logical conclusion I can make is that Oreskes finding is valid, there is no scientific support for any of the contrarion theories (published in peer-reviewed journals or not).

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9

    1. Tucci78

      Philip, what does the phrase "perversion of peer review" mean to you? How about "pal review"?

      The "contrarion theories" have been appearing on the Web for many years as the result of having been denied promulgation in scientific conferences and academic journals from which such works have been blocked over the past several decades.

      When a cadre of like-minded people (the word "conspirators" does seem to fit, doesn't it?) take control of both the editorial positions and the reviewing functions of the scientific literature in a particular discipline, and coordinate the promulgation of their agreed-upon messaging with the exclusion of discourse which disproves that message, there is not only a failure of the error-checking mechanism which the scientific method depends upon but also the diversion of manpower and material away from such "contrarion theories."

      It should come as no surprise to you that a great many of the scientists who have offered the sharpest criticism of the AGW orthodoxy have been retired from academic positions, or have had careers in industry instead of academe. I had mentioned Dr. Jeff Glassman earlier. Take a look at his Web site (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/), or search the Web for comments he's offered on climate-related scientific blogs like Dr. Judith Curry's "Climate Etc." (http://judithcurry.com/).

      The retired academics have no further need of research grants, and can speak their minds without the prospect of being frozen out of the funding required to survive in the "publish or perish" environment the professoriate. Similarly, look to those physicists, statisticians, and other researchers who do NOT have a proximal or distal pecuniary interest in the perpetuation and expansion of the "global warming" duplicity. There have been a generous plenty of people willing to stick a fork in this platterful of rotten eggs and remark on the stench of sulfur and decay.

      These are, of course, the kinds of people who are frozen out of "climatology" periodicals and scientific conferences. They don't hold the right union cards, or are otherwise glibly dismissed as disqualified.

      As for "the government representatives reviewing the draft IPCC reports," just what is it that you don't understand about the bureaucratic imperative?

      And you think that the oil-producing kleptocracies of the Middle East don't know full well that the industrial nations' need for their petroleum cannot abate? The only real effect of the "global warming" hooey will be to increase the prices that the OPEC countries can charge their customers. They could object to this?

      The only thing that's "valid" about Oreskes' findings is the evidence that the discussion of "contrary theories" - genuine challenges to the AGW orthodoxy - has been VERY effectively frozen out by the warmist cabal.

      Well, hell. They've had thirty solid years to assert that censoring control.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

      1. Philip

        Tucci, I accept that it may be more pal-reviewed rather than peer-reviewed, but what about the pro-mining peer-reviewed journals? Why aren't the contrarion studies showing up there?

        Btw, contrarion theories have been everywhere on the web, but where are the actual studies? Where are these studies that have followed the scientific method to disprove the theory?

        And are you essentially saying that the oil-producing countries' did not put forward any contrarion studies to refute the IPCC findings because they knew we would just continue to use their oil? That they didn't see the example of Europe which has reduced its reliance on middle east oil by over 20% as a threat?

        Then why did they go to all the effort of forcing the IPCC to change the statement that the likelihood that human emissions are causing the current climate change is 99% (as the draft report stated) down to 90% before they would approve its release?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9

        1. Tucci78

          Philip, theoretical and experimental work on "contrary theories" debunking the AGW contention have had to be predicated - quite properly - on examinations of the observational data and the methods of analysis used by the warmist priesthood to support their extraordinary assertions to the effect that human emissions of carbon dioxide have been THE driver of global climate change since about 1850.

          When dealing with observational multidecadal observational data, access to the numbers is required both to support a hypothetical contention AND to determine whether that contention can be disproven, and the principal surface temperature datasets have been - for the past couple of decades - firmly under the control of the C.R.U. correspondents so thoroughly exposed in the Climategate "FOIA2009.zip" archive.

          Contrarian climate scientists have had to put in freedom of information act (FOIA) requests for access to these databases, which have been aggregated by government agencies at public expense, and the warmist gatekeepers controlling these information aggregates have stonewalled such requests, often in ways that have been undeniably criminal. See Prof. Jones of the C.R.U. An unbelievably short (eighteen months) statute of limitations is all that kept him from being charged with a criminal offense under the UK law.

          The way real science works is that when an investigator gathers evidence to test a hypothetical assertion, he digests that information, reports it, and then makes all of his data available to anyone who wants to check his methods.

          The response of the honest scientist when asked for such data is always "Here y'go."

          Only somebody with something to hide ever stonewalls.

          The other factor at work over the past thirty years is that getting funding for any kind of research is difficult. If the prevailing tendency is to find the AGW conjecture "sexy," the contrarian is doubly damned. First, he is writing his research grant applications with clear intention to seek out information which tests the AGW contention possibly to debunk it. Despite the fact that this is what a scientist is SUPPOSED to do, this threatens many rice bowls.

          Try submitting a federal or state government grant application for research, the results to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, about the environmental and health hazards (including potentially dangerous ionizing radiation in ash residues) associated with coal-fired power generation while Senator Robert C. Byrd was still alive.

          Second, bear in mind that the AGW contention has had a pretty solid thirty years to set and take hold in academic departments all over the developed world. There are senior people who have invested their whole professional lives in this preposterous bogosity. There's no way that they're going to give traction to any graduate student or aspiring postdoctoral fellow who shows any indication of busting their rice bowls.

          Those who aspire to tenure-track positions understand full well that the route to success does NOT lie through bold and daring investigation which looks to have a good prospect of proving that your department chief has been extolling the quality and fit of the Emperor's New Clothes for the past couple of decades.

          Counting upon "the climate realm" to police itself honestly is flaming idiocy.

          As for "the oil-producing countries" and modifications of the IPCC ukases, I really haven't taken the trouble to look into how the OPEC governments concerned themselves with the Assessment Reports and other ukases of this agency. I have simply inferred that as long as the oil-producing nations get the money they desire to fund what they consider high-priority objectives, it doesn't matter what the European countries do in maintaining or reducing their demand for petroleum products, particularly in light of growing demand in other markets, notably Communist China and India.

          Oil is a fungible commodity, and anyone who thinks that the garbage output of the IPCC matters one little bit to the OPEC governments needs to get a look at spot prices on the global market,which have not correlated to any strength with European demand.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6

          1. Philip

            Hence you simply dismiss the fact that the best and brightest of the OPEC nations didn't bother putting forward contrarion studies because they didn't care about a potential 20% reduction in demand from key markets (and potentially much greater as the Europeans are aiming for an 80% reduction by 2050)?

            I'm sorry, but if I said to my CEO that we're looking at a significant reduction in demand in a significant market, he would expect me to respond.

            For all your assertions of a conspiracy, I find it hard to believe that this was not taken up by the OPEC representatives if there was any truth to it (and this is not just one representative, we're talking about each and every of the 12 reps of the 12 nations not caring).

            And I find it hard to believe that they didn't care as they did push to have the probability statement modified down.

            So if the only logical conclusion that can be made is that they did care, that they needed to fight the threat of a response to climate change, why did these best and brightest of OPEC fail to use your evidence, and in the end agreed to the release of the IPCC report?

            Maybe because your evidence was considered flawed even by OPEC?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10

          2. Tucci78

            Philip, I "dismiss" the OPEC nations' conduct with regard to infighting against the IPCC reports and the Kyoto Protocol because although in 1997 "Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others [had] emphasized the existence of scientific uncertainty and argued that the convention process should move forward cautiously," the people running these governments have largely determined that their best strategy was to avoid direct rebuttal of "the science" and instead work the UN machinery for monetary compensation from the industrial West. See:

            1) http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/SurajeDessai/Will_OPEC_lose_from_the_Kyoto_Protocol.pdf

            2) The November 2005 report, *OPEC and Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities* (available in PDF online)

            3) http://www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch/conferences/climate_policies/working_papers/HaurieOpec.pdf

            IPCC's AR4 "...concludes that any OPEC response will have a modest effect on the loss of wealth to oil producers and the level on emission permit prices in mitigating regions," and in the last of these three references (2008), we read:

            "OPECs exports are relatively insensitive to whether or not the world adopts a strict climate policy (the oil production is reduced in non-OPEC countries in the climate scenario), but OPECs pro ts are lower in the Climate scenario. Thus, based on oil pro ts alone, OPEC may be reluctant to engage in a strict global emission reduction agreement. However, other considerations beside oil profits would come into play."

            So my inference regarding the lack of OPEC concern with European oil consumption in light of growing market demand in China and India more than compensating to keep spot oil prices in the global market high enough to provide satisfactory revenue for them does appear to be correct.

            If they lose in any way as the result of reduced Eurozone petrochemicals consumption, the AGW buy-in of the oil-producing and exporting countries is being purchased by compensatory guarantees devised to disarm their formal resistance to the potential of adverse macroeconomic consequences of the fraud.

            You got a better appreciation of this matter, Philip? Or are you sticking with "hard to believe" and "hard to believe" and an unsupported "only logical conclusion" and a great big "Maybe"?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6

  3. Philip

    Tucci, if this is about fraud and money, why do the climate scientists keep repeating that the science is essentially settled.

    Wouldn't they be saying that there is still a lot of uncertainty, and they need more grant money for further research to be more certain?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3

    1. Tucci78

      Philip, I'd suggest that you follow Anthony Watts' blog (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) for an active aggregating site on the subject of climatology and the character of the AGW contention. There's a bunch of work he and his friends have pulled together on this.

      Watts got into the subject because his observations gave him reason to doubt that the surface temperature monitoring stations distributed across these United States were accurately reflecting real-world climate conditions, with changes in these sites inducing a decided warming artifact - a bias rendering the supposed "global warming" information invalid. He started the surfacestations.org project, which I also recommend to you.

      Turns out that the land and ocean surface temperature measurement systems have a BOATLOAD of instrumental factors degrading their value well beyond the hypothetical limits of error in the vaunted "sophisticated" computer climate models upon which the AGW high priesthood have based their silly excuse for "science."

      Beyond "fraud and money," the catastrophic man-made climate change whoop-la also confers upon the degraded discipline of climatology a great deal of prestige and influence. What morally unsteady and intellectually dubious quasi-meteorologist could resist the temptation to achieve public significance by Chicken-Little-ing to the gullible public the sorts of "We're All Gonna Die!" hysteria upon which the eyeball-grabby mainstream media root weevils batten?

      Keep in mind always that the politicians - who control the sluices that pour taxpayer money into the feeding trough from which these porkers are grunting up their swill - want NO "uncertainty" about how awful and horrible this catastrophic anthropogenic global warming will be.

      Remember outgoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's angry insistence that the debate is over, that the science is settled, and that anybody who treats the AGW contention as anything less than the received word of God is a heretic who must be burned at the stake?

      And need we mention Algore and all his bankster "carbon trading" buddies?

      So the "climatologists" whooping up CAGW stress in their grant applications no more "uncertainty" than the sort of message that they've gotta get millions of bucks to program their computers to model just how bad the consequences of evil man-made climate change is gonna be - unless, of course, we roll back industrial civilization to the same level obtaining circa 1632.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

      1. Cameron

        Anthony Watts is well known for attempting to sow distrust with regard to the reliability of the 1221 NOAA weather stations used to track temperatures across the US.

        The aggregated data from stations Watts HIMSELF considered "optimally located" or "best" were compared with the data from the 1221 total weather stations used by NOAA. The resulting trend in comparison was virtually identical, proving he was full of BS.

        If you're citing Watts as a reliable source, try again bud!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12

        1. Tucci78

          Cameron, you flaming idiot, Anthony Watts has demonstrated repeatedly and continuously that "distrust with regard to the reliability of the 1221 NOAA weather stations used to track temperatures across the US" is eminently justified.

          Have you BOTHERED to check the project's Web site (at http://www.surfacestations.org/), the 2009 preliminary report (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf), or the summaries of the accepted paper (accessible by way of http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/the-long-awaited-surfacestations-paper/), Cameron?

          Or are you still determined to do nothing but regurgitate the propaganda of the AGW fraudsters? Channeling Joe Romm, Cameron?

          ===
          "We found that the poor siting of a significant number of climate reference sites (USHCN) used by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) to monitor surface air temperatures has led to inaccuracies and larger uncertainties in the analysis of multi-decadal surface temperature anomalies and trends than assumed by NCDC.

          "NCDC does recognize that this is an issue. In the past decade, NCDC has established a new network, the Climate Reference Network (CRN), to measure surface air temperatures within the United States going forward. According to our co-author Anthony Watts:

          “'The fact that NOAA itself has created a new replacement network, the Climate Reference Network, suggests that even they have realized the importance of addressing the uncertainty problem.'

          "The consequences of this poor siting on their analyses of multi-decadal trends and anomalies up to the present, however, has not been adequately examined by NCDC."

          (May 11, 2011)
          ===

          You got a citation to support your assertion that "The resulting trend in comparison was virtually identical, proving he was full of BS," Cameron, or are you just regurgitating your usual mess of feculence?

          In a comment on Watts' site, co-author Dr. John Nielson-Gammon writes:

          "[T]here are several warning flags raised by this study. First, station siting is indeed important for the maximum and minimum temperature measurements. Second, the adjustments are only partly correcting the temperature record. Third, since the adjustments use data from all surrounding stations, there’s the danger that the mean trends are dominated by data from the poorer stations. (Less than ten percent of the USHCN stations are sited well enough to be considered appropriate for climate trend measurements.) Finally, and perhaps most important, are we really so lucky that the rest of the world would also have its poorly-sited stations have erroneous maximum and minimum temperature trends that just happen to be equal and opposite to each other?"

          Just what's your incentive to dismiss "Watts as a reliable source," Cameron?

          Have you actually read anything he or his associates have written?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6

          1. Cameron

            Yet again the civility of these exchanges amazes me.

            Yes I have read plenty of Watts' material. It's largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false.

            The climate reference network was put in place for redundancy. Of course such a benign explanation would never placate a conspiracy theorist such as yourself.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10

          2. Tucci78

            Cameron, you just delight in dumping unsupported assertions out for everybody to see, don'tcha? You now claim to "...have read plenty of Watts’ material. It’s largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false."

            Okay. Cite something of his you've found to be "either irrelevant or false."

            If you've really "read plenty of Watts' material," you must have taken note of stuff he's written that you've determined to be "cobbled together pseudoscience," right?

            Hey, we're on the World Wide Web. There are uniform resource locator (URL) codes. Watts archives his stuff so it stays accessible online. You shouldn't have any trouble finding what you've referred to as "cobbled together pseudoscience," Cameron.

            Or are you just blowing it out your distalmost sphincter again?

            Ah, "biomass." More swamp gas from Cameron.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7

          3. Cameron

            Anthony Watts is among others including the Cato Institute (hellooo Koch brothers!), Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Sen. Inhofe (a prolific federal oil subsidy defender AND anti-science extraordinaire), Prof. Lindzen (an ExxonMobil funding recipient via Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy), etc- all of whom have set out with the expressed intent of disproving the AGW hypotheses by any means necessary (including lying) in order to attempt to reconcile the prevailing mainstream public opinion with their own interests. Need I mention the personal attacks on the scientists who are not nearly as rich as their oil industry counterparts.

            I'm surprised you haven't given any thought about the real conspiracy perpetuated by those within the fossil fuel lobby. They've got you so deeply fooled into believing their conspiracy theory nonsense that I wouldn't be surprised to hear you say that flue gas has scientifically proven health benefits.

            I'm sorry you disagree so vehemently with my point of view, and am embarrassed for you for resorting to childish name calling. I find it much more probable that existing industry feels threatened enough by scientific observations that it must go to great lengths to slow down the discovery of the truth- as opposed to an elaborate hoax perpetrated to enrich middle class scientists and prevent clean tech startups from taking away from their bottom line.

            There really is no conspiracy at all on either side. It's all right in front of our faces, and it is up to us to take a stand based on what we think is right. You've made up your mind. I'm still learning- and will always be.

            As for now, I'm tired of spending free time between work arguing in circles with you. That is time better spent doing something productive. I hope you find a job or a girlfriend soon. (Zing!)

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13

          4. Tucci78

            Oh, good. Cameron is now committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, making his fantasy allegations about the persons and supposed motives of Anthony Watts and other folks articulating positions critical of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) contention instead of taking issue with their actual positions on the subject or citing - as requested - what Cameron has claimed to be “either irrelevant or false" about the online offerings of Mr. Watts.

            This in spite of the fact that Cameron - the flaming idiot - had earlier claimed to “…have read plenty of Watts’ material. It’s largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false.”

            Jeez, you'd think that Cameron being so thoroughly familiar with Mr. Watts' stuff that he's well-prepared to condemn it as "either irrelevant or false," the flaming idiot would be well-prepared to lay before the public eye multiple examples of Anthony Watts' irrelevancies and falsehoods.

            Well, Cameron - the flaming idiot - is nothing more than a warmista troll, isn't he? He can't articulate a lucid argument, and hasn't yet come even close to doing so.

            How the dickens, for example, does anybody go about "disproving the AGW hypotheses by any means necessary (including lying)"? To disprove something with a falsehood is to FAIL in that disproof. Efforts to debunk the preposterous bogosity of the "Cargo Cult Science" of CAGW tend strongly to settle upon the address of methodological gaffes, inaccuracies in observational evidence, and the general inability of the warmist pseudoscientists to make their high-priced, jealously guarded, hockey-stick-generating "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" computer climate modeling programs simulate such known historical climate events as the Medieval Warm optimum and the Little Ice Age.

            As I've written here, if a hypothesis has any scientific value at all, it has to reflect the facts of objective reality. Because the computer models which the AGW flim-flam men do their "cork-screwing, back-stabbing, and dirty-dealing" cannot account for the events of the past several centuries, and haven't even been able to explain the "travesty" of the "missing heat" since 1998, those models have ZERO predictive value at all, and therefore no validity as science of any kind.

            I'm sorry that Cameron is a flaming idiot, a complete weasel, and pretty obviously a flagrant liar, unworthy of anything but the hatred and contempt of every honest human being reading here.

            But he's offered nothing other than irrefutable evidence of his duplicity, his malevolence, and his general odiousness. Can't argue with those facts, can we?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

          5. Cameron

            "I’m sorry that Cameron is a flaming idiot, a complete weasel, and pretty obviously a flagrant liar, unworthy of anything but the hatred and contempt of every honest human being reading here."

            Why? Because I called out the fact that you're making assumptions based on faulty observations? I don't agree with you. You don't agree with me. Fine. But there's no need to flame someone because they have a different point of view. You're taking an absolutist stand that I do not agree with because it does not pass the rigors of the scientific method in my opinion.

            As for ad hominem, you've been making the same damn fallacy all along- and claiming an ad hominem is purely subjective if someone's character or motivation IS relevant. Oil money? Political power? Oh gee- those scientists are receiving gov't grants- they must ALL be lying because they want to continue receiving enough funding to keep their middle class lifestyles. At least I don't base my argument on the fact the anti-science crowd gets a lot of funding from oil and coal- or on "shop-talk" emails taken out of context and pounced on by extreme right-wing scavengers. I was merely pointing out that you're basing your eco-conspiracy argument on the same fallacy. That is a fact. If you don't realize it, that is a shame. You're just not listening- like a tantrum-throwing two-year-old with their fingers in their ears.

            What a hypocrite you are.

            If anyone is a troll, it's you, "Tucci." You've got nothing better to do with your life at the current time than post vicious attacks and parrot the same argument that has been debunked several times over. You've managed to come off as bitter, full of hatred, highly egocentric, and a jerk who thinks they are right about everything- contrary to fact. It wasn't I who resorted to name-calling. All that comes across as is projecting one's own self-image. I don't need to sink to that level to get my point across. You did in your very first post- but in my opinion failed to make a coherent argument based on anything substantive, and went on to denigrate me for the position I've taken based on what I know to be the best evidence. You call that a fruitful debate? I say HELL NO.

            If you feel the need to apologize for calling me a "flaming idiot," "complete weasel," "liar," etc, I'll accept it. If not, I'll take satisfaction knowing that you have to live with yourself the way you are.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11

          6. Tucci78

            Cameron, I never apologize for simply making an accurate diagnosis. You're a flaming idiot and a flagrant liar.

            You're also a complete weasel, continually evading a simple "put up or shut up" request about what you've found to be "either irrelevant or false" in the work of Anthony Watts, whose material you have characterized as "largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false.

            Jeez, Cameron, but - like most "Liberal" fascists I've encountered online - you're too bloody stupid even to know the meaning of the term "ad hominem." When you weaselingly evade the responsibility to address the points of argument voiced (and in order deliberately to draw focus away from those points) you present inferences (or even verified factual information) about the motives of any people articulating those points of contention, you have failed. Completely.

            You never did formal debate even in high school, didja, Cameron? As for whatever undergraduate education you might claim, if there was a course in logic in there anywhere, I've got to venture a guess that you passed (if you passed at all) on some basis other than a genuine grasp of the material.

            I've spoken here about the four billion dollars per year in federal and state government grant money (in these United States alone) to fund "research" into catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) as "secondary gain," discussing it as a definite motivating factor for the fraudsters in "the climate realm" and speaking to some extent about that funding's corrupting influence on meteorology, atmospheric physics, and allied scientific disciplines, but that's always been a matter which is properly secondary, and I've treated it as such. It's the "science" of CAGW itself that's been the central issue, and this I have addressed.

            Think of my discussion of "secondary gain" as mere lagniappe, serving to explain the corruption among the High Priesthood of your idiot personal religion, incidental to the failure of their "Cargo Cult Science" ever to approach compliance with either the scientific method or ethical standards in the professions they're malpracticing.

            Their simulacra of "science" are purest quackery. Have been throughout, and I've been merrily hacking away at this fraud since about 1981, when Dr. Petr Beckmann first pushed it across my desk.

            As for your blather about how - in your diseased little excuse for a mind - I've "managed to come off as bitter, full of hatred, highly egocentric, and a jerk who thinks [he is] right about everything," aren't you aware yet just precisely how much you, personally, deserve to be hated by decent, honest people educated in the sciences for pushing the CAGW bogosity being used concertedly to defraud and impoverish and starve millions of real human beings all over the Earth?

            Cameron, you wouldn't know "best evidence" if it took physical form as a pit bull and went after your "Liberal" fascist Weiner.

            Yeah, I do believe that "flagrant liar" and "flaming idiot" are sufficiently precise technical terms to describe you.

            Mustn't forget "complete weasel," too, of course.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5

          7. Cameron

            Dude, you seriously have some aggression problems. I feel bad for you.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12

          8. Cameron

            Here's a prime example of Watt's flawed analyses (note the quips about "alarmists" and sporadic grammatical errors possibly indicating a lack of attention to detail). Essentially he's saying co2 lagging temperature by 800-1000 years is proof co2 is not a climate driver. I disagree.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

            To the contrary, the argument supporting the AGW theory (forget CAGW because I've never argued that in the first place even though you're latched onto it) vitally points out that co2 has quite possibly become a forcing mechanism due to human activity, as opposed to a feedback mechanism within the natural cycle. Hmm, 150 years of burning fossil fuels have anything to do with it perhaps? As I've said before and will say again for the last time, WE DON'T KNOW proportionally how much warming is due to human activity and what the severity is/will be. Yet you idiotically pin me as some absolutist CAGW alarmist. Way off the mark, just like every bit of regurgitated flat-earther troll bile you've spewed all along.

            http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle/overview#section-0

            Can you get that through your thick skull? Or do I need to result to insulting you and your intelligence- oh I'm sorry- that poor excuse for a brain which probably has less of an IQ than the unborn chicken egg that was scrambled, consumed, and up until 3:00 resided in my intestines?

            You don't know anything about me, and you've got the anonymity of the internet to hide behind like the absolutist coward you are. What a horrible example of a Ron Paul "supporter." You're precisely the reason people call us "Paultards" and think we're all a bunch of conspiracy-theory junkie nutbags. We've got diverse opinions on many issues and most of us have civil, substantive discussions and debates on many of them- but not with you. Any vitriol spewed at you, including mine, is well deserved and understated.

            Good night, and good luck living life as a soap dropper. D-Bag.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13

          9. Tucci78

            Yep, Cameron is a flaming idiot. In response to an observation of the fact that paleoclimatic evidence demonstrates how previous atmospheric CO2 increases have invariably lagged indicators of global temperature increases by 800 to 1000 years (a chain of causality phenomenon that blows away the AGW fraudsters' sustained bullpuckey about far less profound man-made increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations as THE critical driving factor in a global warming of which "the climate realm" cartel cannot provide honest, uncorrupted evidence in the instrumental records, Cameron gives us:

            "I disagree."

            And as the Keeling Curve continues to go up and up and up (measuring the anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 levels) over the past decade and more, the global temperature response continues to be flat-to-negative, invalidating the unsupported and unsupportable conjecture that is the AGW fraud.

            The most that Cameron - the flaming idiot - can come up with (heck, ALL he comes up with) in lieu of substantive support for his "I disagree" blank-out is the standard warmist orthodox handwave about how anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) is somehow capable of greater forcing effect than is natural carbon dioxide (nCO2), together with the "explanation" of previous fluctuations in terrestrial temperatures as attributable to the Milankovtch cycles of changes in Earth's orbit, axial tilt, and axial precession.

            All the while, of course, minimizing consideration of variations in the sun's outputs (the Schwabe cycle) and retailing the standard warmist estimations of CO2 radiative forcing numbers while studiedly evading address of atmospheric negative feedback effects, particularly those of clouds.

            Bear in mind that the ONLY thing that the AGW "Cargo Cult Science" presents as "proof" of man-made climate change are computer simulations - climate models - which continue to be notoriously inadequate in accounting for the demonstrated behavior (and effects on heat transfer) of water vapor in the atmosphere.

            These feedback factors are not accounted for in the IPCC-embraced climate models (the received "truth" of which is what we find in Cameron's reference to the OSS Foundation Web page). I would direct readers instead to:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

            In contrast against the AGW caliphate's "practice of building immensely complex and expensive climate models and then making only simple comparisons to satellite data," Dr. Spencer had sought to "Examine the satellite data in great detail, and then build the simplest model that can explain the observed behavior of the climate system."

            Jeez, working from the empirical to devise a theoretical abstraction rather than assembling a "hockey stick" model and then concerting to corrupt the data so as to obliterate ("adjust" away) all the objective evidence which disproves the assumptions upon which the model is based.

            No wonder Dr. Spencer is condemned by the warmistas as a "denier." He adheres to scientific method.

            Those honestly interested in additional reading on the systemic failings of "the climate realm" upon which Cameron fixes his "Liberal" fascist fantasies are directed to:

            http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

            ...in which we find:

            "This paper has attempted to show how changes in the structure of scientific activity over the past half century have led to extreme vulnerability to political manipulation. In the case of climate change, these vulnerabilities have been exploited to a remarkable extent. The dangers that the above situation poses for both science and society are too numerous to be discussed in any sort of adequate way in this paper. It should be stressed that the climate change issue, itself, constitutes a major example of the dangers intrinsic to the structural changes in science."

            This is, of course, in accord with my earlier observation of the corrupting "secondary gain" effects of government funding for "research" conforming to the orthodoxy of catastrophic (the caliphate's desired stirring-up-the-animals descriptor, Cameron) man-made global climate destabilization.

            But back to Cameron's flaming idiot excuse for a "disagree" with Frank Lasner's 2009 guest post observation on Anthony Watts' blog (not Mr. Watts' work at all, but heck, Cameron is a flaming idiot, and can't distinguish authorship) that causality really messes with the peddling of the AGW fraud.

            This leaves us right where we started with regard to Cameron's flaming idiot contention that Anthony Watts' work is "largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false."

            Cameron, y'see, hasn't actually found something written by Mr. Watts to offer as an example of what Cameron claims to be “either irrelevant or false.”

            Pretty pointless, ain'tcha, Cameron? Well, you ARE a flaming idiot.

            Real supporters of Dr. Ron Paul - as opposed to "Liberal" fascist trolls like Cameron - understand that the point made about the corrupting effects of government influence in the sciences is line-for-line in accord with Dr. Paul's regard for the proper (and VERY limited) role which the federal government may lawfully assume within the constraints of the Constitution.

            No taxpayer megabucks for politically corrupted "research," no great big hockey-stick-graphing pseudoscientific AGW fraud.

            And Cameron is still trying to masquerade as a supporter of Dr. Paul?

            Oh, it is to laugh.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

          10. Cameron

            Tucci, you're one stubborn imbecile. You don't listen, and are completely incapable of analyzing anything that doesn't agree with your delusional bias. Not once have I read any shred of understanding of the side you disagree with. Just insults, regurgitated arguments, out-of-context quotations, fallacies, and an unparalleled smug attitude that has gotten pretty damn close to activating my gag reflex. If you're trying to argue a valid point, you killed that chance with your attitude. I can't take seriously anything you say. Someone who speaks with no concept of mutual respect and civility is merely out to denigrate others for not believing what they believe- and oh do you believe it. You're an evangelical anti-science troll.

            Get a life- a job, a girlfriend, a grasp on rational thought and critical thinking. You'd be much wiser and happier- and may actually make some friends someday.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13

          11. Tucci78

            Still nothing from this flaming idiot, Cameron, that backs up his blithering noise about how Anthony Watts - trained and experienced meteorologist and founder of the SurfaceStations.org project - is supposed to have produced online criticisms of the AGW fraud that're "largely a bunch of cobbled together pseudoscience, which has been proven either irrelevant or false.”

            Y'see, folks, that's because Cameron is as wrong about Anthony Watts as he is about the whole ponderous blundering hoax that has suckered the Western world in the guise of "climate science."

            If there was anything in any of my posts above which actually constituted "fallacies," Cameron - the flaming "Liberal" fascist warming idiot - would have indicated them specifically, wouldn't he?

            Well, if he were the sort of person capable of even simulating reasoned argument, you'd think he would. But Cameron is a flaming idiot, and therefore incompetent to conduct reasoned argument. All he can do is howl with rage and spew unsupported, inchoate, senseless imprecations.

            Jeez, if we were unfortunate to be standing outside his cage in the primate house, we'd probably get pelted with his feces.

            Have I seemed "smug" in my exchanges with this flaming idiot?

            Well, mea culpa. My only excuse is that - given Cameron's flaming idiocy - it'd be awfully hard for any honest, reasonable, reasoning person NOT to feel brilliant in comparison.

            Cameron is just so pitiful, the poor senseless, stupid little brute.

            Oh, yeah. No "girlfriend" for me. I'm an old married man with a bunch of grandkids (one more before the end of the year). It's one of the reasons why I'm so determined to prevent "Liberal" fascists like Cameron from pushing the economy-destroying criminal fraud of the "global warming" bogosity.

            I've got family to protect. Cameron...well, I've got to doubt that he's even remotely socialized.

            Socialist and sociopathic, certainly. But socially connected with real human beings? Nah.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

    2. Stefan C. Kosikowski

      Common sense defeats conspiracy douche-baggery every time!

      Philip = 1
      Tucci = 0

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  4. Philip

    Tucci, if this is about fraud and money, why do the climate scientists say the science is essentially settled.

    Wouldn't they be saying that there is still a lot of uncertainty, and they need more grant money to get more certainty?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3

    1. Cameron

      That's all it is about with Tucci. Fraud and money. Good God. At least he could have the decency to present some actual data that may support his opinion. At least UBERNERD based his argument on his interpretation of Dutch sea level records.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10

  5. Cameron

    With it becoming evident that there is a large contingent of people hellbent on labeling AGW a fraud or an absolute truth, I feel it necessary to appeal to reason here.

    I think it is foolish to claim the AGW hypothesis a fraud. Just as foolish to claim that the IPCC projections are 100% accurate. The reasonable position, being that few of us are climatologists and/or scientists with a seasoned track record in the field, would be to admit that we DO NOT KNOW.

    It blows me away how arrogant people can be over this subject. Each side holds themselves up as holier than thou, and accuses each other of lying. Civility? If only!

    Rather than resulting to bullying tactics, let's keep this forum pragmatic and engaging. I think Ron Paul would agree with that, if not some of the positions we present for scrutiny.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12

    1. Tucci78

      I repeat, Cameron, that you wouldn't know what a "fraud" is if every Nigerian who ever perpetrated a 419 scam were to personally present at your domicile, crowd into your living room, and carefully explain to you the details of their variation on the Spanish Prisoner con.

      I don't think that it's "arrogant" to point out that you're position on the AGW fraud is "pragmatic" only in the sense of Mrs. O'Connor's observation that the pragmatist insists upon "...dispensing with all absolute principles and standards—that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth."

      When you come up with a definition of "fraud" that runs contrary to what has been perpetrated by the AGW peddlers passing themselves off as "climatologists and what one finds in legal dictionaries ("a false representation of a matter of fact — whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed — that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury"), you'll get back to us, won'tcha, Cameron?

      ===
      "The two points central to the pragmatist ethics are: a formal rejection of all fixed standards — and an unquestioning absorption of the prevailing standards. The same two points constitute the pragmatist approach to politics, which, developed most influentially by Dewey, became the philosophy of the Progressive movement in this country (and of most of its liberal descendants down to the present day)."

      -- Leonard Peikoff, “Pragmatism Versus America,” May 6, 1974

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6

      1. Cameron

        Get over yourself. It's gone from funny to sad. Your mind is firmly made up. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "flaming idiot" in your mind, which again, says volumes more about yourself than it does your intended targets.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10

  6. UEBERNERD

    The Dutch have records of sealevel to cm-precision since about the year 1600. A matter of survival because more then half of the Netherlands lies below sea level.
    Record over 4 centuries shows there is NO acceleration whatsoever.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

    1. Fluidly Unsure

      Did the Dutch go to Yale or Cambridge to get their doctoral degree? Obviously, we can't trust anybody without a proper piece of paper.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

      1. UEBERNERD

        Not ALL Dutch have "university degrees" -I have, postdoc UCLA USA- but UK-Dutch-German/French universities in general can readily compete with Harvard,Yale,Princeton, UCLA etc.
        I have commented on the so-called "global warming" issue since the 80s,the skeptics have been banned/censored for 20-30 years effectively and even now it is politically risky to come up with critical comments. Opposed? No grants.
        Carbon dioxide/methane/etc. are at ppm level, water vapor 6-7 powers of 10 higher and variable. The natural greenhouse gas that has kept the temperature of the planet in a domain as to allow life-as-we-know-it.The slow rise of the sea level going on for 10 ooo years is NOT accelerating. UK-researchers East Anglia are known to have tampered with the data.Fired in fact.
        The whole discussion has similarities with the classic -then Catholic-Church/modern science controversy after 1600 ,the latter being developed by Copernicus,Kepler,Newton,Galileo proposing the rotating planet is near-spherical and revolving around the sun if one chooses to adopt a heliocentric coordinate system. Galileo got live-long house-arrest for it.
        Since Einstein we know that any arbitrary point can be chosen as the origin
        at rest of a coordinate system. Things move only RELATIVE to one another. So it is perfectly sound to chose a flagpole in your backyard as the centre of the Universe,it only complicates the mapping of the Solar System.
        One can not avoid the suspicion that so-called "Christian""doom-and-gloom" temperaments confuse the GW-issue, at the same time in this era species evolution and Big Bang-theories being requestioned. Science and education are on the decline now, no wonder if one considers the ultime peak it reached in years 1900-1930 with Planck,Einstein,Bohr,Fermi,Curie, etc.etc.etc. when a tsunami of high intelligence set the stage for the material world as we know it now. The party -alas- can not go on forever apparently.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  7. UEBERNERD

    Excellent post Tucci. The major greenhouse gas is water vapor, far above anything else and never mentioned in the "studies".Like counting the number of sodas consumed in a bar and neglecting the numbers of beers.Cheers!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3

    1. Cameron

      Water vapor is indeed mentioned numerous times as a major greenhouse gas- but not necessarily a driver. Increased atmospheric CO2 (among other chemical concentrations) is argued to be largely anthropogenic due to the conversion of fossil fuels to exhaust gasses. It is intuitive that the average water vapor contained in the atmosphere increases due to increased surface temperatures, which causes increased rates of evaporation. Whether or not that water vapor in the form of reflective clouds is enough to offset the rise in CO2 concentrations is an interesting point, but I believe may be itself offset by increased desertification in already dry climate zones.

      That is my own thought on the subject. However, I'll be the first to admit that my statement is based on my own understanding of climate patterns- which are amazingly complex.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11

  8. Tucci78

    One of the most erudite and knowledgeable writers on the subject of man-made (anthropogenic) global warming is literally a retired rocket scientist, Jeff Glassman. I had only recently begun to come across his online comments and Web log (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/), and as I continue to review these offerings, I'm impressed by his thoroughness, his conscientious attention to the principles of scientific inquiry, his implacable honesty, and his familiarity with every weaseling twist and turn of the "Cargo Cult Science" charlatans who've been peddling the AGW fraud for the past several decades.

    I quote Dr. Glassman from a brief article he'd written for non-scientists in December 2007, titled "Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law: The Basis of Rational Argument":

    "Just as intelligent design is a threshold question between nonscience and conjectures, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a threshold question between conjectures and hypotheses. AGW is a centuries-old conjecture elevated to an established belief by a little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate, guardians of the vault of exclusive knowledge. Does this sound familiar? Is the Consensus patterned after the Council of Trent? As a matter of science, as opposed to a matter of belief, the AGW conjecture is gathering more contradictory evidence than supporting. The layman can test it and understand its failings by applying just the few principles outlined here.

    "AGW fails the test because it is proclaimed by a consensus. Science places no value on such a vote. A unanimous opinion, much less a consensus, is insufficient. Science advances one scientist at a time, and we honor their names. It advances one model at a time. When the article gets around to saying 'most scientists believe…,' it’s time to go back to the comics section. Science relies instead on models that make factual predictions that are or might be validated.

    "AGW fails on the first order scientific principles outlined here because it does not fit all the data. The consensus relies on models initialized after the start of the Industrial era, which then try to trace out a future climate. Science demands that a climate model reproduce the climate data first. These models don’t fit the first-, second-, or third-order events that characterize the history of Earth’s climate. They don’t reproduce the Ice Ages, the Glacial epochs, or even the rather recent Little Ice Age. The models don’t even have characteristics similar to these profound events, much less have the timing right. Since the start of the Industrial era, Earth has been warming in recovery from these three events. The consensus initializes its models to be in equilibrium, not warming.

    "And there’s much, much more.

    "Anthropogenic Global Warming is a crippled conjecture, doomed just by these principles of science never to advance to a hypothesis. Its fate would be sealed by a minimally scientifically literate public."
    ---

    The unavoidable intrinsic qualities of the man-made climate change hypothesis (I'm being charitable here) have been evident from the beginning to any honest person with even the most basic appreciation of scientific method. The failures of the "climatologists" who have found in this preposterous bilge a route to popular attention and - more importantly - literally billions of dollars, Euros, yen, and other currency units wrested from taxpayers at gunpoint and sluiced into the feeding trough by politicians and bureaucrats as "research grants" simply cannot be denied.

    The AGW cabal consists entirely of second-rate con artists with third-rate academic credentials, pushing fourth-rate hokum to perpetrate a first-rate hoax that is costing honest human beings their property, their liberties, and even their lives themselves.

    There is no defense for pseudoscientific fraud, and that's what "man-made climate change" has always been, and will always be.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 6

    1. Cameron

      Do you even know what a fallacy is? Apparently not- as evidenced by your post. You blatantly cherrypicked quotations from a "rocket scientist" (wow, impressive, but not a climatologist) who supports your opinion. The fact is that you do not know what is really happening with the climate- and nobody truly knows.

      I can respect an argument based on facts, but not on conjecture and cherrypicked quotations from someone outside the climate realm. Being skeptical is far different from being in denial or being biased. I agree that a consensus isn't a way to base your stance (like the pre-Columbus flat earthers), but a consensus also doesn't necessarily warrant denial.

      Work on your own argument instead of arguing on behalf of a "rocket scientist." Don't leave discovering the truth up to others. Do your own due dilligence. You may be very surprised at what you find.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13

      1. Tucci78

        Yes, Cameron, I know what a fallacy is. Including those you stumbled into in your own post - like argument from authority ("not a climatologist") and implied bandwagon.

        Haven't I seen you encountering Dr. Glassman in other online fora? In the same sense that a decaying Limburger cheese might encounter a spinning buzzsaw blade?

        For your further education, Cameron, "cherrypicking" is not the quotation of a cited individual (particularly when the title and date of the full published article from which the quotation is drawn has been given), but rather the duplicitous practice of deliberately providing incomplete evidence, especially with the suppression of evidence adverse to the position advocated by the disputant perpetrating the lie. I believe the lawyers refer to it as "suppressio veri, suggestio falsi."

        You know. What Dr. Mann did to "hide the decline."

        Were you to aver that I was drawing upon Dr. Glassman's article selectively in order to imply that his overall meaning and intentions were at variance with the quoted passage, then you might be making a real "cherrypicking" accusation.

        Mendaciously, of course, as anyone who reads the full text of the article would readily understand. So you're not even familiar with what the word "cherrypicking" really means, are you?

        In response to your Joe-Romm-Guidebook "not a climatologist" fallacy, there's that instantly recognizable old proverb about not needing to be a hen to know when an egg is rotten.

        The constant bullpuckey about how only the High Priesthood of "the climate realm" can interpret the pigeon entrails and clattering runesticks of your beloved bogosity belies the fact that honest and scrupulous adherence to scientific method is designed to present, step by step, the reasoned argument which - supported by objective evidence - is advanced to test each conjecture, hypothesis, theory, and law (thus the title of Dr. Glassman's article).

        Genuine familiarity with that method, even when it arises in the course of an education and career in other scientific disciplines (engineering, physics, microbiology, medicine, or meteorology, for example), prepares the individual outside "the climate realm" to assess the methods being employed by the AGW cabal malpracticing under the guise of expert qualification, and perceive the failures of these fraudsters to adhere to standards of professional reliability in their "research" as well as their departures from the ethical conduct expected of real scientists.

        As for Dr. Glassman's qualifications - as a rocket scientist - to speak on the subject of atmospheric physics, Cameron, were you aware that the position from which he had retired was that of Division Chief Scientist for Missile Development and Microelectronics Systems Divisions for Hughes Aircraft?

        In response to Dr. Judith Curry's recent request for background from readers and frequent posters on her "Climate Etc." climatology Web log (see http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/12/the-denizens-of-climate-etc/), Dr. Glassman provided an informal vitae which reads as follows:

        "BS, MS, PhD, UCLA Engineering, Department of Systems Science, specializing in electronics, applied mathematics, digital systems, applied physics, communication and information theory. Hughes Staff Doctoral Fellow. Electro Optical Systems scholarship. Masters Thesis: Effects of Digital Computer Parallelism in Solving for the Roots of a Polynomial. Doctoral Dissertation: Efficient Processing of Electroencephalographic Data. Mathematician B, Northrop Corp., performing analog computer circuit analysis, environmental stress and missile reliability studies. US Naval Aviator, aircraft commander, flight instructor, maintenance test pilot. Helicopter bush pilot in Alaska. Hughes Aircraft Company, Division Chief Scientist for Missile Development Division and Microelectronics Systems Divisions, responsible for engineering; engineering development; manufacturing methods and transition to production, on-shore and off-shore; IR&D; and division, product line, and technology investment planning. Cross-trained engineers in basic science, and physical scientists in engineering. Since retiring from Hughes, consulted in various high tech fields, including expert defense witness on communication satellite anomalies in Astrium v. TRW, et al., and CDMA instructor at Qualcomm. Lecturer, Math and Science Institutes, UCI. Member, Science Education Advisory Board. Author, Evolution in Science, Hollowbrook, New Hampshire, 1992, ISDN 0-89341-707-6, a reference on science for educators. Expert modeler of diverse physical phenomena, including microwave and millimeter wave detection and propagation in the atmosphere and in solids; ballistic re-entry trajectories; signal processing; multi-sensor target tracking; missile navigation and guidance; solar radiation; thermal modeling of avionics and microcircuit devices; infrared communication; broadband and secure wire communications; analog and digital signals; large scale fire control systems; molecular diffusion in solids; sonar propagation and target tracking tactics; and real-time orthonormal decomposition of electroencephalographic signals. Inventor, radar on-target detection device, stereo digital signal processor. Author, A Generalization of the Fast Fourier Transform, IEEE Transactions on Computers, 1972. Taught detection and estimation theory, probability theory, digital signal processing, orthogonal transform theory. Peer reviewer, Microwave Journal.

        "While aware of the Keeling Curve from its inception along with the coincidental rise in global temperatures, my interest in climate peaked with the publication of IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, a semi-scientific document directed to World politicians for action, and sounding a public alarm based on immature models. I considered this document ethically challenged. It promotes public action based a scientific model that is less than a theory, lacking validation. It was promoting a model that was less than a hypothesis (1) lacking any prediction for validation other than the ultimate catastrophe, and (2) not fitting all the data in its domain. On inspection, this document revealed incredible naiveté in physics, in data processing, and in system modeling, aggravated by a pattern of misrepresentation of technical information. This professional opinion is equally valid for IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.

        "What I have learned from my climate studies is too extensive to list here. The facts are documented and discussed at length in my Rocket Scientist’s Journal, a repository for technical papers, specializing in climate since October, 2006."
        --

        No "cherrypicking," of course.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

      2. Fluidly Unsure

        A consensus does warrant a denial of its authority that is based on it being a consensus.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

        1. Tucci78

          Fluidly Unsure writes: "A consensus does warrant a denial of its authority that is based on it being a consensus."

          Consensus qua consensus does not automatically disqualify the position advanced thereby, but to claim that a particular conjecture - the AGW fraud in this case - is valid on the basis of no real argument other than that it is maintained by a consensus within what Cameron has called "the climate realm" is not only a formal fallacy of logical disputation but also a violation of scientific method.

          Were the "climate catastrophe" alarmists to state that the AGW conjecture must be accepted because there is absolutely no evidence disproving the hypothesis that the gradual global warming documented at a slow, steady rate since about 1850 (the end of the Little Ice Age) is caused by man-made increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (look up "Keeling Curve"), then we might have an assertion couched in a form worthy of consideration.

          Why don't the AGW alarmists make such a statement?

          Well, the don't do it because - especially with advancements in instrumental evidence-gathering technologies over the past couple of decades (emphasis on both earth-orbiting satellite observation platforms and oceanographic systems like the ARGO buoys) - the preponderance of evidence disproves the AGW conjecture repeatedly and emphatically.

          This is why the exposure of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) e-mail correspondents in the Climategate revelations (17 November 2009) simply provided genuinely undeniable confirmation of what honestly and scrupulously skeptical scientists all over the world had suspected for more than twenty years: that "the climate realm" apparatchiki had been colluding to control and corrupt the key global surface temperature datasets so as to falsely present the impression that the continuing increases of atmospheric anthropogenic CO2 were being accompanied by proportional increases in surface temperature levels.

          This in spite of the fact that real, uncorrupted instrumental temperature measurements since about 1998 had shown either a flattened temperature response (very, very little real increase) or a downward trend in those temperatures in spite of continuing and even accelerating increases in man-made atmospheric CO2 levels.

          The AGW conjecture - man-made CO2 is causing global warming - began to be disproven more than a decade ago, and continues to be emphatically disproven today. According to the man-made climate change contention, global temperatures should be going up and up and up because man-made CO2 levels are going up and up and up.

          No proportional rise in real global temperatures, no man-made global warming. It really is that simple.

          Honest scientists - and here we write completely out of consideration the consensus in "the climate realm" exposed in the Climategate information dump, which consisted not only of their e-mail exchanges but also their computer simulation programming code and their purposefully corrupted temperature datasets - understand full well that the AGW conjecture was a preposterous blunder the moment it was formally advanced by the incompetents calling themselves "climatologists" more than thirty years ago.

          Since then, the blunder has been turned into a fraud picked up by political opportunists like Al Gore, academically credentialed liars like Dr. Michael Mann, and "Liberal" fascists in all areas of public discourse.

          I would not have anyone reading here conclude that the anthropogenic global warming conjecture is invalid ONLY because it is being defended by a consensus within "the climate realm" but rather because no other defense for this spectacular bogosity is being advanced EXCEPT that it is the product of that consensus.

          Hans Christian Anderson might as well have been writing about the AGW fraud when he submitted "The Emperor's New Clothes" to his publisher.

          Those of you who have been suckered by the perpetrators of this fraud are even more to be condemned than the sycophantic fools in the Emperor's court and capital.

          After all, the people in Hans Christian Anderson's fairy tale knew that their vainglorious idiot Emperor was walking down the street Weiner-style, with all his shortcomings on public view, and were only offering up a pretense of admiration for his fine new "garments."

          You unspeakable jerks really BELIEVE this "global warming" garbage, don't you?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6

          1. Cameron

            Tucci, having read your posts (as nauseatingly full of arrogance as they are), I can tell you're failing to make a valid case here, and you're making it very difficult to have an engaging discussion with those who disagree with your positon. You're conclusion is that AGW is a fraud. That is completely different from being rightfully skeptical of various AGW hypotheses. As I've posted in these forums before (specifically and only RonPaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/#comments), I've stated numerous times that nobody truly claims to know what is happening with the climate and what specifically is to blame. The Earth's climate is incredibly complex, and claiming that the mainstream scientific consensus on AGW being either 100% accurate or not is outright FOOLISH. Even more foolish would be dismissing it as a fraud based on the suppositions of those who have done far less than give the subject any serious objective thought- let alone put the many AGW hypotheses through the rigors of scientific method on their own.

            All you are doing is pooh-poohing those who are seriously studying AGW and its causes and effects- or lack thereof. Of course you're cherrypicking. Mentioning "hiding the decline" is a prime example of taking information completely out of context to support your opinion, as is focusing on data collected since 1998. Stick to literature. Science doesn't seem to be a natural fit for you.

            As for my opinion on the subject- I do not believe that AGW is a fraud. However, I have my doubts as to the severity or lack thereof. It may be worse than we are predicting, or it might be that somehow there have been errors in the data collection processes and it is really not much of an issue. Either way, humanity is faced with many issues including population growth, resource scarcity, and environmental degradation.

            I do believe we ought to be adopting alternative sources of energy and transportation fuels, which I absolutely think should not be tied to AGW. Adopting these measures may be a tremendously helpful mitigating factor as a side effect, but energy security and volatility ought to be the primary drivers for this. It already is.

            I think that is a pragmatic stand to take; as opposed to claiming outright that AGW is a fraud without presenting any evidence of your own to back it up. If you want to claim that, you've got your 1st Amendment right to do so, but you're potentially spreading misleading information. I can't respect that. Remember: AGW is NOT a theory, nor a law. It is a hypothesis, and has always been. Calling it a fact (ie a LAW) is as foolish as calling it a fraud.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11

          2. Cameron

            Tucci78- "You unspeakable jerks really BELIEVE this “global warming” garbage, don’t you?"

            Classy. Exactly my point.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11

          3. Tucci78

            Cameron, any nominal "scientist" who is evading the responsibility to open his observational data and methods of both investigation and analysis to critical consideration is not following the accepted practices of scientific investigation. The Climategate revelations confirmed that the Climatic Research Unit e-mail correspondents were concerting to deny such access to people who were not "in" on their coordinated support for the AGW conjecture.

            This is obviously the reason why the person(s) releasing the Climategate datadump to the Internet titled the archive file - containing not only the e-mails appreciable by most readers but also the climate model computer code and the global temperature database information steadfastly refused to law-abiding requesters by Prof. Phil Jones of the C.R.U. in criminal violation of the UK's Freedom of Information statutes - "FOIA2009.zip."

            The "hide the decline" remark in those e-mails was not "cherrypicked." It is simply appropriate to emphasize it as one of the most easily appreciated indicators of what the C.R.U. correspondents were doing to evade their professional responsibilities in presenting support for their conjecture that human action is the cause - THE cause - of catastrophic total planetary warming by way of the greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide.

            I'm happy to learn that you are so thoroughly discomfited by my previous posts, which you find "nauseatingly full of arrogance," because you, Cameron, are proving to be obdurately obtuse to the point of abject cement-headedness.

            You are claiming that you have "...stated numerous times that nobody truly claims to know what is happening with the climate and what specifically is to blame," in spite of continually mounting confirmation of the fact that the participants in the warmist cabal "who are seriously studying AGW and its causes and effects" have been actively colluding to present a coherent support for both megabuck government "research" grants and policy recommendations aimed at coercive government action to violate the rights of millions upon millions of real human beings.

            These members of "the climate realm" have put forward their contentions in ways designed to give every impression that they DO indeed "know what is happening with the climate and what specifically is to blame."

            And you can't perceive this?

            Well, you don't seem capable of perceiving the indications of purposeful coherence in "the climate realm" - which is completely contrary to the professional ethics and methodology of scientific investigation of any kind. I suspect that you couldn't twig to a fraud if you were gulled by the most clumsy variation on the pigeon drop.

            Gotten suckered by any Nigerian e-mails lately?

            Though I've been following the preposterous bogosity of the AGW conjecture for a bit more than thirty years, it wasn't until Climategate that I had my nose rubbed thoroughly in the fact that it was - and continues to be - a fraud. The "science" of it never once EVER passed the smell test, but the stench became absolutely undeniable once the computer modelling code (and that "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" file full of programmer's notes) hit the 'Net.

            Cameron, have you ever once bothered to set that "hide the decline" remark in context? Or are you afraid that you're going to break your teeth on that particular cherry pit?

            You say that you "...do not believe that AGW is a fraud." Oh? Let's see; we have a bunch of grant-seeking "climatologists" working together to push a concept which lacks support in the form of either experimental or observational evidence, deliberately excluding (even actively suppressing) consideration of environmental negative feedback mechanisms which are demonstrated to mitigate global warming AND those temperature increase factors which are beyond the control of human beings, in order to press the case for a "catastrophic" man-made climate destabilization that must demand ever more billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded "research" as well as even more unspeakably costly regulations and restrictions upon people's access to energy.

            And you don't call this "fraud," Cameron?

            Jeez. What DO you call "fraud"? You got some kind of definition that supercedes "a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain"?

            As for your belief (religious belief?) that "...we ought to be adopting alternative sources of energy and transportation fuels," could you please explain why?

            When advances in the technologies of extraction are enabling the economically viable exploitation of massive liquid and gaseous petrochemical reservoirs within the continental United States, so that we hold accessible domestic stocks of both crude oil and natural gas far in excess of ALL the oil ever discovered in the Middle East, sufficient for America to become the world's greatest oil exporter, on just what the hell do you base your belief that "alternative sources of energy and transportation fuels" - which all cost a helluva lot more than either natural gas or petroleum distillates - ought to be adopted?

            Have you paid any attention, Cameron, to what the effects of federally mandated "gasohol" (the diversion of grain like corn to the production of ethanol as a damned poor motor fuel extender) have been on world food prices?

            Because of people like you, with your flaming idiot religious belief in "alternative sources of energy," there are real people in America who are going hungry because they're having trouble paying for groceries, and even more people in Third-World countries who are literally starving to death.

            You're burning their food, Cameron. Nice "alternative" there, boyo.

            God preserve the human race from people who fixate so thoroughly on what they think is "pragmatic" that they can't perceive reality when it whacks them across the mouth.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5

          4. Cameron

            Again, I'm amazed by your class. Your post is full of fluff and suppositions intended to mask your amazing lack of objectiveness on this subject.

            The fact you base your fraud argument on your perception of climate scientists receiving mega-buck grants siphoned from honest taxpayers highlights this firm belief in conspiracy theory nonsense of yours. It comes across as a fantasy. You ultimately may or may not be right, but the amount of resistance to the mere thought of AGW even being a slight possibility is as insanely religious as you claim my so-called "fixation" on pragmatism to be. It is borderline obsessive- and I'm being charitable. Judging by the "flaming idiot" remark, me "buring their food" (as in hungry Americans), the disregard to environmentally destructive fossil fuel extraction methods, etc, there's really no point in attempting to have a substantive argument with you. Doing so is a waste of time. We may as well just start calling each other names. Well, at least I should because you've gotten a nice head start on me there.

            It is plainly obvious that you think people who do not share your point of view are of lesser intelligence- and that speaks VOLUMES more about your character than it does me or anyone else with a differing point of view.

            ----------------
            Tucci78-

            "And you don’t call this “fraud,” Cameron?

            Jeez. What DO you call “fraud”? You got some kind of definition that supercedes “a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain”?"

            No, "Tucci," I call it conjecture because you've offered absolutely ZERO evidence to support your point of view. As you have an evident habit of doing.

            Good night.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12

          5. Tucci78

            Cameron, when doctors deal with patients seeking sedative hypnotic and narcotic drugs beyond what are genuinely needed for the management of anxiety and pain, we speak of "secondary gain," the effects of those psychoactive substances which such patients conceive to be so pleasurable that they will lie, cheat, and steal to obtain them.

            In these United States, federal and state government agencies have for the past several years dispensed an average of four billion dollars in grants for the specific purpose of funding research into "global warming."

            Four billion dollars per year.

            You want to discuss "secondary gain," Cameron? There's more than just that four billion bucks driving the unethical behavior of the AGW caliphate, but that appears to be the pivotal factor. Without funding (as well as the prestige and academic advancements which come with such funding), none of these third-rate credentialed quacks would have found catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) "...the way to promotion and pay."

            With continuing exposure of their concerted efforts to promote each other in the peddling of this "Cargo Cult Science" of man-made climate change - practicing "pal review" of each other's papers while using the extortion of journal editors and the perversion of the peer review error-checking mechanism to suppress the publication of work which presents evidence disproving the AGW contention - how do you, Cameron, continue in your cement-headed insistence that what they're doing is not presumptively evidentiary of a coherent scheme entered into by these participants in "the climate realm" to perpetrate fraud?

            Your facile MoveOn.org dismissal of the mounting manifest of these "climatologists" violations of professional ethical standards and deliberately coordinated duplicitous machinations as "conspiracy theory" would be beneath contempt were it not for the plain fact that you've proven yourself in your substitutes for argument on this forum to be worthy of no other assessment.

            People DO conspire to achieve undeserved and unlawful gain, Cameron. The conduct of the C.R.U. correspondents exposed in the Climategate revelations - both before and after their covers were irrevocably blown in November 2009 - bear all the hallmarks of such coherence of purpose and method, and their communications have confirmed this.

            Just what the hell is YOUR secondary gain in thought-blocking acknowledgement of this fact?

            As for allegedly "environmentally destructive fossil fuel extraction methods," Cameron, put forward some sort of lucid, supported argument to the effect that the methods recently developed to economically draw upon deep, hard-rock reservoirs of natural gas and crude oil are in any significant way more likely to contaminate shallow aquifers, pollute surface water, or otherwise do damage to the environment than are methods that have been in wide use for the past century and more.

            Hydraulic fracturing of oil- and methane-bearing low-permeability rock has been employed since 1947, and the only relatively new development associated with this extraction technology has been dirigible horizontal drilling with fractional perforation of the target-depth concrete casings to increase the efficiencies of the fracturing and extraction undertaken. This reduces the above-ground "footprint" of the drilling and extraction processes, mitigating both monetary costs and environmental damage potential.

            Have you even bothered to read about this, Cameron, or are you just regurgitating the NIMBY/BANANA Luddites' contentions that this is too horrible-awful-nasty to be allowed?

            As for your flaming idiot fixation on "biofuels," Cameron, search the Web for an article in *The Washington Post* by Princeton research scholar Tim Searchinger explaining “How biofuels contribute to the food crisis.” From that article:

            "Biofuels have grown rapidly, from consuming 2 percent of world grain and virtually no vegetable oil in 2004 to more than 6.5 percent of grain and 8 percent of vegetable oil last year. Governments worldwide seek to triple production of biofuels by 2020, and that implies more moderately high prices after good growing years and soaring prices after bad ones."

            I repeat, Cameron: your "alternative" consists of burning poor people's food.

            Any suggestions about what kind of names I should be calling you besides "flaming idiot"?

            I'm always open to suggestions.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

          6. Cameron

            You just blew any and all credibility by claiming I have a flaming idiot fixation on biofuels. Biofuels??? Are you f***ing joking? For Gods sake I think anyone aside from wealthy corn growers would agree that ethanol subsidies have been a total waste of time and money. Again proving my point that your mind is already made up, and that you are a firm believer in your own perceived intellectual superiority.

            What a joke!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9

        2. Tucci78

          But Cameron, you ARE a flaming idiot. What "credibility" have you shown in this forum? What the hell kind of supported argument have you yet made?

          And you've just proved that you will not bother to read a cited reference (Searchinger's article in *The Washington Post* on February 11, 2011) about your beloved biofuels and how:

          "Each year, the world demands more grain, and this year the world's farms will not produce it. World food prices have surged above the food crisis levels of 2008. Millions more people will be malnourished, and hundreds of millions who are already hungry will eat less or give up other necessities. Food riots have started again."

          Who else but a flaming idiot so consistently displays your kind of behavior, Cameron?

          (By the bye, it's not just corn and vegetable oil costs that have been rising. In Brazil, they're converting sucrose - table sugar - to fuel ethanol, and world sugar prices have also been going up. Just as with liquid petroleum, the world's markets in food commodities are fungible. Pull one kind of carbohydrate or lipid out of the chain of supply by way of government-induced pricing distortions, and the consumer costs of other grains and oils must rise in response to the diversions taking place. Jeez, Cameron, you're frequenting Ron Paul's Web site without having any appreciation of Austrian Economics 101?)

          I'm not sure how I escape appreciation of my own relative "intellectual superiority" when you insist on demonstrating your own comparative stupidity.

          Be nice to think that you're "a joke," Cameron, but you quit being funny (except in the "peculiar" sense) five posts ago.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4

          1. Cameron

            What's with the fixation on biofuels now? Not once have I said I support ethanol subsidies. In fact, I just took an opposite stance. All of the hot air coming from your general direction may indeed be the largest source of man-made greenhouse gasses. You ought to be regulated.

            Biofuels currently in use in fact have been proven to cause more harm than good in both an economic and environmental sense.

            If anything I support solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, biomass (much different than ethanol or gasohol), nuclear, and natural gas (although the last two not considered "alternative" or "clean" in terms of extraction).

            You're losing your mind sir. I'm not stooping to your level of childish name calling. You seriously need some rest. You're either completely misreading what I've been saying, or you're lying. Knock it off.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11

          2. Tucci78

            Cameron, when noises are made about "alternative" energy sources, biofuels are effectively automatically implied, particularly with regard to fuel feedstocks for motor vehicles. Your listing of:

            "...solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, biomass (much different than ethanol or gasohol), nuclear, and natural gas (although the last two not considered 'alternative' or 'clean' in terms of extraction)"

            ...does naught but to demonstrate that you've put no real thought into this area, either.

            Solar and wind power are too diffuse (unless you're talking about solar power satellites in orbit around the Earth, in which case I'm with ya) and too variable to serve the needs of an industrial civilization. Geothermal power generation can only be charitably described as in the "pipedream" stage of implementation, hydroelectric generation is effectively saturated (there are only so many places where such dams can be sited), nuclear fission is pestered by NIMBY/BANANA "precautionary principle" opposition, and you don't want natural gas because to get it with any reasonable economy we have to get into deep-rock "fracking," which you oppose.

            I'm surprised you haven't mentioned tidal power generation. That's impracticable, too.

            So you've got nothing to offer that would provide our economy with the fuel needed to keep cars running and commerce from grinding to a halt? You don't want us to frack the Bakken for oil, you probably don't want bituminous coal processed to make gasoline or Diesel oil, and I'd hazard a guess that if you knew anything at all about thermal depolymerization, you'd condemn it out of flaming idiot reflex.

            I've been in favor of building more nuclear power generating stations for the past four decades (with particular interest in the thorium fuel cycle), but there are so very many flaming idiots out there who cannot hear the word "radiation" without turning into gibbering lunatics that I have no confidence in seeing the industry rebound from the unreasoning and unreasonable safety concerns of the botched and the gullible.

            Did I forget "biomass"? Oops. Rotting vegetation and other stuff, generating the same sort of methane (among other, more malodorous chemicals) that comes off manure piles and landfills as a dangerous byproduct of decay. Swamp gas. Yeah, we can power the major metropolitan areas and what few industries are left in America by the time Barry Soebarkah is carted off by the U.S. Marshals for criminal violation of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

            Cameron, without biofuels, have you got an "alternative" energy source that people can put into their cars and trucks to get themselves to and from work?

            If not, and if swamp gas and pipedreams and self-foreclosing impracticabilities are all you've got to offer, why don't you quit talking about energy altogether?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4

      3. Fluidly Unsure

        Why is a physics scientist to be ignored (Glassman)? The process of CC is one of physics. The differences between the two disciplines is probably small and valid arguments of one would probably have an impact in the others. It is like a BMW mechanic that may not know where the bolts holding the break pads are on a Honda Civic, but he does know how a brake system works. He can also diagnose when the rotors are too thin to be safe and when a Honda mechanic is trying to scare the car owner into buying unneeded rotors.

        Why is a mathematician to be ignored (McIntyre)? He probably knows about statistics and how statistics can be misused better than other scientists. Last time I looked, Steve McIntyre's "climate audit" focused on the fallacy of the "hockey stick" which is his specialty, and didn't try to make conjectures beyond his specialty.

        If you don't think scientists can input their feedback then quit using the science/non-science argument. You are making it look like you are hiding something.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  9. Bob

    We need to start by ending ALL energy subsidies; oil, ethanol, solar, and wind. If any of these are worth their cost, the market will push them to the top. If the current progressive government had been in power one hundred years ago, Henry Ford would have found himself competing against a government subsidy for horses. Maybe they would have called it "Government for Horse's Asses and by the Horse's Asses".

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  10. Francis

    "On the general subject of answering skeptics about climate change, here’s a website that shows answers to the biggest claims:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/"

    Quoted for emphasis

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8

    1. Tucci78

      Francis, John Cook's "Skeptical Science" blog (http://www.skepticalscience.com/) is a flagrantly alarmist CAGW site that operates only to push the preposterous fraud whose proponents seek to reduce the majority of the human race to a condition indistinguishable from neolithic hunter-gatherers freezing and starving to death in the dark.

      Ever think about why the global warming "True Believers" have had to make this particular effort to combat skepticism - a scientific virtue - about their "Cargo Cult Science" substitute for honest and open inquiry?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4

  11. Chris

    "We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy."

    This was an intersting point and one I'd like to hear more about. Can anyone expand on it?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    1. Joel

      What's really to expand? America is the top consumer of oil. To keep our prices cheap, we do things like invade other countries to protect our prices and interest in the oil industry.

      The theory says that gas costs what gas costs. If we aren't producing tons of it, then it will cost us more. That cost will be mitigated by American ingenuity. It will be horrible prices for a while, but in time we will cope. Our current practices keep us dependent on a rapidly scarce-growing resource and this has helped keep us in wars and foreign politics we have no business being in. Meanwhile other countries are despising us because they already pay natural prices for their commodities.

      If gas were 10 dollars a gallon, people would make choices to change the impact being had on their lives. This might include dealing with local providers for goods as a means to offset inflation from the transportation of goods. That might get us back on track to producing goods (especially if we invent great means to alternative resources and lower consumption of energy) instead of being the worlds largest importer....

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  12. Chris

    I find it strange that the ONLY environmental problem that Ron Paul has any opinion on, or at least on this site, is global warming. What about the pollution of the seas, the immoral use of cotton, the devastation of rain forests etc? And most importantly, what about the increasing usage of the world's resources? It is impossible to combine increasing growth with an increasing population.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4

    1. Joel

      What are you doing to help combat these issues. Ron Paul might easily look at you and say that is a consumer problem. Because it is. In this case, the only the the government should be doing is educating the public on the problems and encouraging them to find alternative means and ways to get by.

      Regulation causes more issues than it seems to solve. As pointed out in this article- look at hemp.

      Do you recycle? Do you avoid stores that are wasteful and pollute? Do you drive as little as possible? Do you try to buy products that are eco-friendly and avoid ones that are not? Are you educating your friends and family and trying to make a difference?

      If you answer "no" to those questions, then start there.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      1. Joel

        I meant *the only thing the government should be doing. Somehow I botched that pretty bad and it would not let me edit.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      2. Chris

        Yes I actually do that as much as I possibly can. But that does not relieve the government of its responsibility.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  13. robert

    ron paul on the alex jones show about climate change lies

    THE TRUTH IS the climate changes all the time

    GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE LIKE SWINE FLU

    www.infowars.com
    www.henrymakow.com
    www.gigisup.net

    HEY all you bohemain grove owl worshipping scum
    YOUR GOING TO LOSE THIS NEW WORLD ORDER

    because when the peoples idea OF TRUTH comes forward
    NO ARMY can withstand THE PEOPLE

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

  14. jhon

    solar cycles Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
    21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pdf
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/sci_and_techn-glacial_expansion_03-04.pdf

    water vapor rules the greenhouse system
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

    1. Francis

      the sun:http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
      water vapor:http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  15. Chris

    I love everything about Ron Paul's policies except his position on climate change. The scientific consensus is that climate change is being driven by human behaviour and it's frustrating when people deny it just because it calls for solutions that don't fit in with their political ideology. You get to choose your beliefs but you don't get to choose the facts.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10

    1. Tucci78

      Chris, science is not driven by consensus but by evidence susceptible to objective verification. Your "bandwagon" supposition is a hellacious fallacy.

      The facts which should divorce you from your belief in the error that is the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) conjecture - which in truth does not rise to the level even of "hypothesis" much less "theory" - are to be found in the ever-increasing body of evidence which continues to prove that the computer simulations devised by the climatology "consensus" do not reflect what has already happened - much less what is really happening and continues to develop - on the planet Earth.

      The power of a real scientific idea lies in its ability to explain observed phenomena and to predict what will happen in the future. We now have thirty years' worth of AGW "Cargo Cult Science" by which predictions have been made based upon climate models - computer simulations, as I'd said - designed along the lines of the carbon dioxide "greenhouse gas" temperature forcing assumption, and these have not been able to account for recorded instrumental and proxy temperature data even in the years since they began to be presented as "settled science."

      Indeed, this divergence between the predictions and the actual recorded observations is why the Climatic Research Unit e-mail correspondents exposed in the Climategate information release had been refusing FOIA demands to release their data sets for unbiased analyses.

      To the surprise of no honest examiner (which excludes those who embrace AGW for political reasons as well as the High Priesthood of what Cameron calls "the climate realm," who have profound pecuniary interest in perpetuating this fraud), none of the man-made climate change models are capable even of "predicting" past historical events which are well-documented by way of both written reports and objectively verifiable climatic condition proxies.

      Thus we get the infamous "hockey stick" graph, which mendaciously evades acknowledgement of both the well-proven Medieval Warm climate optimum and the Little Ice Age which ended it.

      I regret that you find it "frustrating" when people deny your hard-held religious faith in the AGW fraud.

      I find it "frustrating" that I can't eat a whole banana cream pie and keep my blood sugar levels under control.

      Reality is what it is, and the AGW conjecture is no part of reality. Whatever your reasons for having chosen your unsupported, unsupportable, abjectly uninformed belief in this hideous hoax, you have precisely no facts whatsoever with which to peddle this crap to any honest person even the least little bit literate in the sciences.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

  16. Fluidly Unsure

    One of the reasons many are questioning anthro-CC is chronicled here:
    http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/05/25/polar-ice-rapture-misses-its-deadline/

    Forbes is not a scientific journal, but it does show why many in our society don't accept the claims for anthro-CC. Right now, it doesn't look like a scientific method, it looks like it is being shoved down our throats with strong parallels to the times organized religion tried to shove "the truth" down the throats of others.

    About the "scientific method". I won't accept fossil evidence or computer modelling as reliable evidence until its predictions are both backed-up with other means and it has predicted something we weren't already aware of. Otherwise we are talking about things on the same reliability level as organized religions and calling it a "scientific method" is blowing smoke (CO2) at best. The pro-anthro-CC side of the argument has never used a "scientific method" even though "scientific method" has been used both as a straw-man and a red-herring.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

    1. Jim Roper

      Indeed, Forbes is NOT scientific, and science and facts have never been determined democratically - that is, it just doesn't matter what the majority BELIEVE, but what matters is what is supported by evidence. Take all the polls you want, they won't resolve climate change.

      Indeed it IS scientific method. All good science starts with observations, uses logic, generates hypotheses, tests those hypotheses and generates new observations in so doing - which is exactly what many sources of evidence FOR global warming have done. And, none of the people who are against the idea have ever come up with an alternative explanation for how plants and animals are changing in ways consistent with global warming. Sure, some studies have shown no effect, but no studies have shown patterns that could be due to global cooling!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

      1. Fluidly Unsure

        The issue I was talking about was how people perceive the effort on the pro-CC side. That doesn't need the stamp of approval from the authorities (aka "scientific [sic] community" ). Why people are seeing things the way they are? Human behavior rarely tows a line that can be scientifically analyzed without being contaminated by so many fudge factors that it is only an observation once again.

        Maybe people were seeing things wrong before (by being too pro-consumption and blind to its effects), but that doesn't mean they wont look at CC with a critical eye. In fact, the message against their previous actions could back-fire and turn people away from what the message-carriers intended.

        If the conclusions of the pro-CC crowd are not correct, they have shot themselves in the foot. If they are correct, they have shot humanities foot instead. This is a case where "some" is better than "all or nothing" which currently is being preached.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

  17. fight4freedom

    The planet will change, it will get hot & cold.

    This planet will not sustain at our current population growth forever. Our next big World War will be over food. Maybe we should argue over food too????

    To be honest we don't have enough time to fix what we might have done anyway. I don't know when we will deplete all our resources but when those resources do, we will not worry about how hot or cold it is. We will just say maybe we should have looked at population numbers vs. green house gases. Fix the real problem vs. a bandaid. POPULATION IS THE PROBLEM.. Less earth for every birth...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7

  18. fight4freedom

    This must be the stupidest topic to argue about. Anyone who feels we can change Mother Nature cannot argue unless they solely live off of there own means. (no grocery store, electricity, running water, ect… just you and your garden in the back) Now your making the true re-cycle happen..

    Sure their's some of you that study chemicals and Ozone, but did you study the history of the planet? This planet has changed it's entire life. Why are you now wanting to make more change. I say accept change, not fight it..

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

    1. BEP

      You are correct about population growth being exponential and some people around the world AND LOCALLY are living in horrible conditions. You are also correct about the fluctuations of the earth's climate over time, HOWEVER... Scientists have been measuring CO2 levels in the atmosphere through history (by drilling ice cores) and NEVER have the levels changed so drastically in such a short amount of time. Regardless of CO2 levels, many people (7billion people...) have lost touch of personal responsibility.

      Many of the precious metals that are used in our electronics are mined from the earth in a way that is much like blood diamonds, people kill each other over the raw metals to be used in electronics. What happens after the electronic is outdated? There are E-waste dumps (some of the worst dumps are in China) where the water is so toxic that the people of the community cannot drink it.

      Only looking at CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere is like having tunnel vision. Do you know how CO2 plays into the Carbonic Acid Cycle of the oceans? Do you think that the wide spread bleaching of coral reefs is just one more, “Natural Change,” or do you think that this is a result of human actions? Did you know that the majority of the world’s oxygen comes from the life processes of the organisms in the ocean (NOT TREES)?

      Climate change and human rights are intricately tied together. You don't need to live in the Garden of Eden to make a difference. The bottom line is that YOUR DAILY DECISIONS have an impact on the world, its environment, and its people. You as a SINGLE person have in impact on the world. Like a vote.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

    2. James Joseph Roper

      Nobody is talking trying to change "Mother Nature" (whatever you may think THAT is), but rather the discussion is about how to change US and what we do. We have already changed the planet. And, we could make the planet uninhabitable for many more species. Currently, we are in the midst of a mass extinction.

      The point is, how do we go about having less of an impact and what are Ron Paul's views!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

      1. Fluidly Unsure

        Fight4freedom's first paragraph isn't claiming environmentalists are trying to change nature, but refuting the environmentalist claim that we are changing nature unnaturally and we humans must mend our ways or die.

        If we are in a phase of mass-extinction that has never been seen before, then why are new species being found every year why were 1300 new species found last month?
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/13/new-species-2011-conservation-international_n_848787.html

        For the most part, what those of us who agree with RP are saying is that anthro-CC is refutable (some claim it is already refuted) and the idea we must do something with dire economic and freedom consequences isn't acceptable.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        1. James Joseph Roper

          The new species being found did not just EVOLVE, they just were not yet discovered until recently. But, many species we know about have gone extinct and many are on the verge, and many are declining. So, the idea that we are in the midst of a great extinction has nothing to do with finding new species - after all, the Americas did not suddenly come into existence when it was discovered by the Europeans.

          All good science is based on refutable hypotheses - and global warming has not been refuted, regardless of what some claim. Indeed, the logic for it has never been refuted, and the way plants and animals respond to it have never been refuted. You should not believe things just because you want to.

          The important point is whether Ron Paul believes things just because HE wants to!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

          1. Fluidly Unsure

            For a proponent of anthro-CC to say that it has not be refuted indicates a bias that is not pretty. Neither you or I can simply dismiss an argument against an idea we support by saying the argument doesn't exist or "has not been refuted".

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

          2. Braun

            The example of certain species going extinct is a very bad argument to support global warming. Different species have gone extinct by the thousands and more over the course of the life of this planet sometimes in massive amounts all at once due to natural events. And humans were not even around. You have to make the undeniable connection that it is human actions that are causing these extinctions not that just certain species are going extinct. Also humans are not the only species that have been apart of another species extinction. So you also have to figure out if it's at a natural or unnatural rate or proportional to the success of other species and I would include humans as another species. Not trying to say your wrong entirely or global warming is a myth just saying thats not a solid argument.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  19. Matthew s

    Ozone as a greenhouse gas

    Although ozone was present at ground level before the Industrial Revolution, peak concentrations are now far higher than the pre-industrial levels, and even background concentrations well away from sources of pollution are substantially higher.[21][22] This increase in ozone is of further concern because ozone present in the upper troposphere acts as a greenhouse gas, absorbing some of the infrared energy emitted by the earth. Quantifying the greenhouse gas potency of ozone is difficult because it is not present in uniform concentrations across the globe. However, the most widely accepted scientific assessments relating to climate change (e.g. the IPCC Third Assessment Report[23]) suggest that the radiative forcing of tropospheric ozone is about 25% that of carbon dioxide.

    The annual global warming potential of tropospheric ozone is between 918-1022 tons carbon dioxide equivalent / tons tropospheric ozone. This means on a per-molecule basis, ozone in the troposphere has a radiative forcing effect roughly 1,000 times as strong as carbon dioxide. However, tropospheric ozone is a short-lived greenhouse gas, which decays in the atmosphere much more quickly than carbon dioxide. This means that over a 20 year horizon, the global warming potential of tropospheric ozone is much less, roughly 62 to 69 tons carbon dioxide equivalent / tons tropospheric ozone.[24]

    Because of its short-lived nature, tropospheric ozone does not have strong global effects, but has very strong radiative forcing effects on regional scales. In fact, there are regions of the world where tropospheric ozone has a radiative forcing up to 150% of carbon dioxide.[25]

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    1. Fluidly Unsure

      Let me try my logic and see if it seems reasonable to you. This isn't my specialty and my conclusions are based on a little common sense with a little education. What am I missing?

      Assumptions: Ozone is an unstable element that will continue to exist given enough energy (radiation) and O2 or CO2 to create the fusion process. Take one away and the level drops.

      Scenario #1: more O3 in the lower atmosphere could mean less light is getting through the upper layers. This is the claim of "sun cycle" proponents.

      Scenario #2: more O3 in the lower atmosphere could mean more O2 or CO2 was used in the lower layer and therefore there is less available the upper layer. Less O2 or CO2 in the upper layer would mean less O3 which would mean more excessive sunlight. This is the horror story I hear.

      However, I have a couple of questions:

      Wouldn't ground-level O3 disappear almost immediately since there isn't the excessive sunlight needed? This assumes a healthy upper layer.

      Wouldn't too much O3 be countered/neutralized by higher O2/CO2 levels and couldn't high levels of CO2 be beneficial since it is less of a green-house effect? BTW: I just learned that CO2 was a weaker green-house chemical from your post.

      Wouldn't excessive sunlight that isn't filtered above be filtered from below and therefore excessive sunlight wouldn't get to the ground and isn't a problem? This assumes there is a good supply of O2/CO2.

      On the pro side, wouldn't the fission that create CO from CO2? Since CO is a well established health concern shouldn't this be stressed?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      1. Matt S.

        Actually, O3 in the lower atmosphere is a very destructive pollutant. If there was a way to easily get rid of it, we would implement it, but no such way exists. It also doesn't filter radiation like upper-atmospheric O3 does, but rather it causes crop loss and contributes to a decline in air quality. In addition, it's very difficult to add O3 to the upper atmosphere and the issue is that it's disappearing. O3 is the gas that blocks outer sunlight from getting in, and CO2 is one of the elements that keeps earth's radiation (long-wave radiation, mostly infrared) from getting out. The imbalance is that O3 is disappearing, letting more UV radiation in (perpetuated by chemicals like CFCs destroying Ozone molecules), while the radiation from earth cannot get out.

        Reactive nitrate in the atmosphere, CO2, and ozone destruction are at an all-time high and are growing at levels we've never seen before. While it's true that the global temperature rises and lowers in cycles, it was supposed to start going back down but has somewhat stabilized instead. The temperature hasn't caught up to the imbalance in these chemicals yet, but it will, which is why I think we should take more action now. There are some consequences we can't avoid, and for this humans will have to become adjusted to higher levels or radiation, but in the mean time it's irresponsible to avoid action because some claim that evidence isn't completely conclusive.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        1. Fluidly Unsure

          O3 in the lower layers is destructive? Ok. This is not my specialty and I've decided I'll take your word for it. That is a difficult decision for a skeptic like me.

          You say it is difficult to destroy O3 in one place, but it is disappearing in another.

          You say CO2 and O3 destruction (something that cant be easily destroyed you claim) is at an all-time high? Is that based on computer simulation that requires human assumptions? Or is it based on historic data that was taken by "crude" means and therefore cannot be compared with measurements taken today?

          Analysis like tree rings may say something affected the tree and the effect seems to be temperatures. But it doesn't definitely say what the effect is or caused it. The effect could be global/regional or local like a forest fire or a shift in the water flow of a nearby river.

          Jumping too fast into uncertainties is as potentially destructive as no action when faced with a negative certainty. One way or another destruction is a potential so claiming others are irresponsible for not acting like you do is rather naive at best and xenophobic at worst.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  20. Matthew s

    God I hate impostors, I'm all for find new ways to produce clean energy. Lets take nuclear power for instances: With the current nuclear power plants they are unsafe and do produce waste. but are "clean" in the since that they don't produce Cardon dioxide. Now there is a solution: Thorium, using molten salt and a safer isotope of uranium. This produces very little waste and this power plant does not need a massive cooling unit. Also this plant can use already spent fuel rods. The reaction runs at normal 1 ATM, so you don't need a massive towers. You can literally put this power plant in your back yard. Look it up.

    if this still scares you, look up nuclear fusion. guess what runs off of this? the sun. now if we can harness the power from this our energy problems are solved. thats for another day.

    Here is another problem, the California water crisis. What are we going to do there? enter: Nuclear desalinization.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    1. Fluidly Unsure

      About the California water crisis. I believe moon-beam said it was no longer a crisis. Apparently, the rain was normal for years but they waited until the reserves recovered to declare the end. A water supply is always a concern, especially in the farm lands. I like the sound of the nuclear power plant in your back yard but I wouldn't want to be an early adapter on this one. What is the possibly that a whole suburban community could suffer from the cumulative effects of many plants in a small area?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    2. BEP

      Nuclear Fusion huh? Where and when have they gotten that to work on a large scale? As far as I know it's not a practical science at this point in time... Furthermore over the past 60 years of expensive research (a large portion of which was funded by government grants) very few advances have been made.

      Nuclear Fission now, you are 100% correct about the current reactors being unsafe. What is incorrect is to say that they are, "clean." CO2 is produced in the mining, processing, and shipping of uranium. Furthermore strip mining DESTROYS the environment, nasty.

      Thorium, using molten salt… A major issue with that comes from reprocessing, no? I don’t know much about this science though. Would you elaborate on it please?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      1. Braun

        Livermore Labs in California was actually getting really close on the fusion thing when I lived their almost 2 years ago talking to some of the scientists that worked there. Don't know how it panned out as I haven't followed it and that practical use is still a ways off I am sure.

        But the fear of Fission is just ridiculous. Did you know that they only were able to tie 30 something deaths for sure to Chernobyl. Also a big fat 0 deaths from the plant itself and not the tsunami or something else at the one in Japan.

        I am amazed that the people that fear these things accomplish anything in their lives. Accomplishment is directly tied to hard work and RISK you put into it. More people die from natural gas than probably will ever die from using Nuclear power. Not to mention electricity is just dangerous in general and kills people all the time. People want to wrap themselves in a little protective bubble and not take risks but then complain if the bubble is not air conditioned and heated or gets dark when the sun goes down.

        We have the technology available to minimize risk enough to where its acceptable as well as plenty of space in this country where even in worse case scenarios it wouldn't hurt anything significant. Nuclear is the best possible option we have now and I'm sorry solar and wind are nice and they help but they are like a ban-aid to a gunshot wound and will never support this countries energy needs 100% and most experts say actually 30% at best. So its either nuclear or wait for something better we haven't found yet which could be a long ways off.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  21. John Fallavollita

    The role of government should be left flexible enough to deal with circumstances as they happen on the ground.

    The simplistic view that Dr Paul espouses is just that - simplistic. Let me take just one example. It would be nice to see all doctors give free medical care to the poor. But even if all doctors did that, how would they know that a patient who shows up in the emergency room is poor? Does the doctor spend the next week researching and tracking where the patient lives and check his account balance at the bank? Look, a middle class person would go to great lengths to dress badly and not bath for a week if he or she could get a free heart transplant by being seen as poor.

    The fact is that most people's priorities are (1) take care of themselves first (2) take care of family (3) take care of friends (4) take care of the community (5) take care of the nation. In the example that I gave above, the middle class person who may have the financial means to pay for an operation decides that it would be best if that money were given to his kids for college, so he fakes being poor. Why should he care about the fact that the doctor also has a life and family to feed? In this case we are back to self-preservation as the basis for economic decision making. Is this a desirable outcome? I don't think so.

    The list of counter examples can go on for a long while for almost every policy attitude that Dr. Paul espouses. And that is okay, because most policies are not perfect models of behaviour. But the blind reduction of government influence on the nation should be avoided. A small and insignificant government may not allow America to meet it global obligations and defend its interests.

    Another example to illustrate this point: If China decided to attack the US in 25 years and Dr. Paul has reduced the government by 75% -including the advanced weaponry and size of human resources - then I would like to see how each "Individual" will go about resolving the dilemma of staring down a $50 million soldier landing on Oregon's shore by the Chinese.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

    1. Fluidly Unsure

      The government previously out-stepped both its obligations and defense of its interests. just like the Roman Empire did. The government is obese and has high BP (bureaucratic pressure). If we don't do something soon it will expire from a heart attack. Not reining the government in will result in a 100% reduction.

      Human resource management? Unless their job is to increase unemployment they aren't doing a very good job. Why do you trust them with with our future?

      RP is naive in some of his ideas about the military, but his domestic plans out weight the consequences of them. RP has to learn the same lesson Thomas Jefferson learned about standing armies and weapons, and being ready to respond before an attack. Let's try to find a middle ground now that we are so well established on the pro-military side.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  22. Terra

    I think the point is that it is not up to the Federal Government to mend all of our problems through legislation. People making individual choices and the free market creating alternative options is the solution. The more we lean on the Federal Government to baby sit us and tell us what's good for us and criminalize what is bad for us, the more we are hindered as individuals to make our own decisions based on evidence, i don't understand why we waste time waiting until we all AGREE on "what to do about global warming". If you feel it's a pressing issue, then create an alternative, you don't need the government to hold your hand to do so! The fact is that we may never ALL AGREE on any issue, but we don't have to all act in total solidarity and create federal mandates for every single issue possibly imaginable! Whatever happened to individualism, when did it get replaced by blind nationalism, which is really just a term that means the "idea of America is what i worship". I feel blessed to be born into a country where i enjoy some of the freedoms I do, but I long for a day when every issue doesn't HAVE to be addressed and analyzed and solved by our government. In fact, I do not believe that is the role government SHOULD have in our society, it creates a system in which they can't manage ANY of the programs they have because they have programs for hundreds of purposes, so all we have is wasteful spending on endeavors that fail before we even get them off the ground. Did Henry Ford get a grant or government subsidy to invent the automobile? No, so why does ever person with an idea need the government to finance it now?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

    1. Terra

      And if you don't have the technical knowledge to create an alternative, but it is important to you to find one, then invest, invest, invest your time, money, whatever support is at your disposal. Our federal government should not be our go to solution for every problem, they have proven to us that they are incapable of managing so many different aspects of our life.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

    2. James Joseph Roper

      I sure hope Ron Paul doesn't see things your way. Do you realize how impossible it is for an individual, any individual, to actually do something against a process generated worldwide by industry and governments? I suppose by your logic, some individual should have taken it upon himself to get rid of bin Laden.

      There are issues that are beyond the reach of the individual, but that are still important and should be carried out by those with the power. Tackling a global issue, any global issue, requires more than one concerned individual who has no money nor global power.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

  23. Matt S.

    This may be a dealbreaker for me. My field of study is Environmental Science, and if all Ron Paul has looked at is mere changes in temperature, than I just cannot take him seriously as an analyzer of issues in a modern context. Does he not realize that levels of reactive nitrate, CO2, and CFCs are higher and rising faster than ever in history? Or that one CFC molecule destroys 100,000 ozone molecules? I love his stance on nearly everything else but his policy on global warming is incredibly ignorant, ill-informed, and selfish, and I simply cannot support someone who thinks this way on one of the most important issues in modern history for human well-being.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6

    1. Topher

      I agree with you to some extent Matt; seems like if he looked at the actual science behind it he should come to a different conclusion. On the other hand, would it be all that bad for the environment if his policies were to be enacted? Without subsidies and foreign occupation to deliberately lower the price of fossil fuels, alternative energies would be able to compete with most, if not all fossil fuels. This would in turn encourage fossil fuel technology to become more efficient and therefore less polluting to counteract alternative sources. In the end, we would get a quadruple whammy of solved energy problems, drastically decreased pollution, less wasted spending and less reliance on foreign dictators for oil. In short, cap and trade isn't the key. The key is to remove non-market based advantages from the fossil fuel sector, thereby evening the playing field to what it should be: a free market.

      In a related subject, Dr. Paul mentions doubt when it comes to "climategate." The whole "climategate" fuss was over nothing and anybody who actually listened to the follow-up from the scientists who were involved in the email will show you what the words meant. I hope after hearing such evidence that he's changed his appraisal. Here's a link to a video that demonstrates this:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us&feature=player_embedded

      On the general subject of answering skeptics about climate change, here's a website that shows answers to the biggest claims:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      1. BEP

        I don't know if reduction of U.S. oil subsidies is possible. Then even if it is, what would the impact be? We are hardly a major oil producing country and we have an increasing dependency on foreign oil.

        In speaking of subsides, I'm under the impression that the middle class is the largest groups of people reaping benefit from government subsides? On this assumption, if the government starts removing subsidies on a large scale the middle class could feel it.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    2. lancer

      Do your part to end man-made global warming: commit suicide.

      Otherwise, take a stance of objective, rational thought and realize that half of the world's scientists don't even agree on how climate change is occurring at this time. More research is needed before we can declare that we have the empirical knowledge needed to make the claim that climate change is, in fact, man-made.

      I am not stating that it is not. I am simply stating, much like Dr. Paul that we do not know and it is dangerous to act on something we know so little about.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

      1. Topher

        Lancer, if the commit suicide comment was directed at me, I think I'll pass. :)

        Sorry, but the idea that half the world's scientists don't agree is incorrect. It's more like 3% who disagree on the idea that climate change is occurring and that humans have altered the natural cycles. Basically, if we account for all the factors that we know of, man-made greenhouse gases are the only thing left, which could be causing it. You can check out that info in the link I pasted above.

        We do need more research not to evaluate whether or not we are altering the climate but to evaluate how drastic an effect it is/will be and what are the best ways to mitigate and live with the inevitable changes. So I do very much agree with you that we need to know more before we do something drastic and stupid and that will cause economic hardship.

        Like I said above, the Libertarian solution could work for both environment and business and in the long run helps both.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

        1. Albedo

          Consensus does not make fact. For example. It was consensus that the world was flat and the stationary while the sun revolved around us. We later found out that both facts were wrong. If we assume for a second that Global warming is really occuring, what would be your solutions.
          Wind energy is insufficient and may use more electricity to run than it produces. It also isn't anywhere as clean as proponents would like to admit and it is more expensive. It also is noisy and dangerous for birds and bats.
          At this point, Solar energy is expensive to buy and maintain and too inefficient for it's value.
          Hydroelectric is just as dirty as coal and oil from methane emissions.
          As it is no green energy has been proven efficient enough for price and almost all is just as polluting if not more polluting to produce as fossil fuels.
          Subsidies don't help because the only people who receive them already have enough to afford it already. Hybrid vehicles themselves have their dirty secrets and aren't anywhere near as efficient as they say they are.
          Acting like there is a simple solution sounds nice and being environmentally friendly is cool and all, but there is no way the average joe can afford any of this especially when the benefits take decades to even break even. Add to that the fact that many of the alternatives are no better environmentally and you have yourself a huge conundrum.
          There isn't enough evidence to prove that if gw is occurring that it is occurring unnaturally from human cause. If it is ever proven we still have to come up with a solution because right now we don't have one other than not using electricity and cars. Maybe we should ban breathing since it creates CO2.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      2. Fluidly Unsure

        The death of humans, usually of the old and/or feeble, has been a part of the environmental movement since I was aware of it 40 years ago. I've heard claims that humans are a virus to nature and need to be extinguished, that people must be willing to "step aside" and let the young take their place, calls for eugenics and forced suicide, all go with the recent claim that Ganghis Khan was a "green" hero because of the millions he killed. I'm talking about claims that are attached to whatever environmentalism is trendy at the moment.

        I am biased I'll admit, but I don't expect me to try to correct it. I'm over 50 and my remaining years are even more important to me because of a brain tumor in my early years. It is not a sin for me to try to extend my life and make my senior years the most productive years of my life.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. Matthew s

      That's a over exaggeration, if you look at the chemical formula of a cfc its basic containing some what of 8 atoms. Very simple.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Richard Green

    take me off your list

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  25. Debra Lynn

    Well, I saw that Ron Paul was running in 2012. Not knowing much about him, I decided to check out this web site to see if maybe, just maybe, he was more middle of the road and not a right or left winger.

    Too much to hope for, I guess. I read his stand on the issues, and just another Republican. I can keep hoping someone with some common sense who doesn't pander to the right or left will run. Don't see it yet.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 18

    1. lancer

      Where exactly is this "pandering" occurring exactly?

      I would point out that before you cast a narrow judgement on Ron Paul that you look into his voting record in the congress and you will see exactly where he stands on principle, not rhetoric or on party lines.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  26. Sam

    Global warming is a marxist religion, but you can read Vaclav Klaus for more on that.

    The biggest temperature fluctuations are caused by the sun. The 11 year sun-spot cycle, mixed-in with the 179 year Saturn/Jupiter force momentum cycle. and there probably are others unknown; the point is science is still in its infancy regarding this subject.

    So rather than study, they worship Gaia, get gov't grants and control my lightbulbs.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6

    1. BEP

      Okay South Carolina... Simma down... Check out the Milankovitch Cycles if you are interested in how the planetary system impacts climate, that is if you believe that the sun is the center of the universe and the earth is flat? (P.S. there was a point in time when society didn't believe the later concepts of science but they proved to be true.)

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  27. Deleeuw

    Does Al Gore still have stock in Occidental Petrolemum?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

  28. fight4freedom

    Hot or Cold who knows?

    Are humans an influence on the World’s Climate? That answer is Yes and No with many of you. I can live with that. It’s only a question right?

    The big picture here, is on OIL and NATURAL GAS. After we found use for these great resource we really grew in size. Then we never stopped growing until we now start thinking well what happens when it’s all gone? Depending on a natural resource is very scary. Oh but we must you would say. Nope you’re wrong. You can live without using Oil or natural gas. Just your not going to live the luxury life you have now. So really, the question is do you believe your making the planet hotter, if so stop driving. If you don’t believe it, fill up your gas tank, go on that vacation and enjoy this blue ball we call earth. But mandating rules and arguing if the planet is warming will only give you a headache.

    -You, me, (we) cannot start the warming or cooling of this planet! If we were doing something that does overtime, we still wouldn’t change. If so, all you would go without electricity and say I’m doing my part. Even Al Gore has many houses and drives and flies all the time. But he said we must stop. Well Gore, when you going to stop?

    This must be the stupidest topic to argue about. Anyone who feels we can change Mother Nature cannot argue unless they solely live off of there own means. (no grocery store, electricity, running water, ect… just you and your garden in the back) Now your making the true re-cycle happen..

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3

    1. BEP

      Every little bit counts. The earth is changing in a big way and some factors are out of our control but not all of them. It is like politics or saving up money. Life is intricate and the earth is an asset, you don't have to live in a tent to make a difference. Say one day you walk to the Post Office (if you can) instead of driving. That's like placing your vote or putting money in the savings account. It all adds up into something meaningful. “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      1. Fluidly Unsure

        I doubt if nature is as delicate as you portray. There is a threat that we may make the planet unlivable for humans, but we can't hurt the planet unless we stuff the core of the earth with WMDs.

        It would be completely unnatural for things to not change. Species die and others take their place. Earth changes temperature. Rivers change their flow.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        1. BEP

          Yep, change is natural, but it's not natural for it to change in SOME of the ways that it has. I could have been clearer. The song, "Love That Dirty Water," about the Charles River in Boston said it best. Another example of water pollution is the eutrophication of the Gulf, where fertilizers and nutrients have washed into the ocean. These nutrients change the ecosystem because they provide a nice environment for algae to grow. The algae in turn takes up the oxygen that is dissolved in the water. Lack of oxygen in the water can result in a dead zone, and indeed it has.

          This is not to say that we must halt the use of fertilizers, I don’t know if that is even possible and certainly it would be a largely POLITICAL issue. The situation must be looked at objectively still. Take ethanol production from corn to be used in gasoline. That is turning out to be a big flop. The embodied energy of the production of ethanol is barely breaking even with the amount of energy we gain from using it. Meaning that the amount of oil we use to produce it pretty much equals the amount of oil we are replacing. Then you take into account the aquifer depletion, use agricultural land which could have been used to produce food instead, and of course the fertilizers and nutrients used which end up in the Gulf of Mexico. Now were cooking with fire eh?

          Don’t go pointing the finger now and say that ALL efforts are going to be a burning bridge. There have been many efforts that haven’t fallen flat on their face, like placement of catalytic converters in automobiles in the 1970’s to reduce emissions. You could go from here and ask, well what goes into making a catalytic converter and does it produce more pollution than it saves? Good questions to ask are, “Are we simply moving the pollution from one place to another?” and, “Is this really working?” Sometimes the answer is yes and sometimes it is no. It’s a real science though and some people have it down to a T. This is one of the reasons that there has been an insurgence of, “green products,” on the market. People have realized that this science is legitimate and now they are starting to capitalize on it.

          I’m just saying… We pay attention to who voted for what bill, what campaign money came from which private interest group, or who is lobbying for what. “Global Warming,” has become this easily ignored catch phrase, a poster child for environmental issues who is portrayed as having both hands in the cookie jar. It’s not just about global warming though and this stuff is legitimate, important and fascinating.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  29. William

    Fluidly Unsure-
    Good science is always politicized...Newton, Koch, Pasteur, Lister, Curie,
    Einstein, Watson...dominated the public dialog in their age. This is true for anything that affects peoples lives so profoundly.
    But unlike most scientific disciplines Environmental Science largely conflicts with self-interest, creating a witches brew of intellectual dishonesty. Compounding this, good science generally makes perfect sense but great science often makes perfect nonsense.
    Crichton’s book is an attempt to make a political statement through metaphysical imagery...ie, antiscience. All claims require reproducible proof and
    extraordinary claims require multiply- redundant proof.
    And biology is the science of life...the greatest science of them all...not to
    be confused with medicine, an engineering field. Note James Watson was an
    ornithologist and along with Einstein they made the greatest discoveries of the
    20th century.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  30. Richard C Green

    please take me off this email list

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  31. William

    @Vengeful Fetus, @Matthew s
    In all seriousness indeed, why is it in a nation of scientific middlings,
    every bozo with a pair of lips has an opinion on Environmental science... the most complicated science of them all.
    When you critique articles from the National Academy of Science I will be
    impressed- until then you don't deserve any credibility.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  32. William

    @Matthew s

    You can say whatever you choose, but once again you just puff ideological
    smoke. Gore takes his information from reputable peer reviewed journals,
    not from fiction writers and talk radio blather.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7

  33. Matthew s

    I'm curious on what you guys think of nuclear power.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    1. BEP

      Nuclear power? I'm against it. Too much waste and it can be unstable. I think we should be finding ways to utilize our current resources more efficiently. Yes we are reaching an, "energy crisis," so this resourceful utilization is easier said than done but I don't think nuclear is the answer. It is not as, "clean," as is present to be either. The zero carbon footprint concept is misleading. Nuclear power uses uranium which is mined from the earth and this mining process produces plenty in the way of CO2 emissions.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. William

    @Matthew s

    I see a loose compendium of disparate facts, references to a screenwriter with
    no scientific background and unsubstantiated references to legions of so-called
    scientists. Stop puffing smoke, referencing fiction novels and refer to credible
    scientific journals if you want any credibility.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

    1. Matthew s

      I can say the same thing about al gore

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5

    2. Fluidly Unsure

      I assume you are referring to Crichton's book. He was trying to point out the danger of politicized science. He shows that CC is being treated the same way as the eugenics crisis was. He book was more about how people are using CC than whether or not CC is man made.

      Did you look at the 20 page bibliography in the back of the book? He actually explains where he got the facts and the charts he uses in his book. At least he is honest about the fact that he is using fiction as a media to get his message across.

      Did you read the "authors message" just before the bibliography? He points-out how there are few solid facts, but a lot of opinion- sounds like a religion too me. Just because those at the pulpit have formal educations doesn't diminish what Crichton said.

      Did you realize he graduated from Harvard medical school? You may want to poo-poo the fact that he was only a biologist, but recognize that he was a scientist.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      1. James Joseph Roper

        You may have seen the Union of Concerned Scientists' reply to Crichton's book. In any event, it was as correct about the science as any science fiction book is about its science - sometimes good, sometimes bad. Crichton was NOT a scientist, he was a medical doctor and they are not the same thing. Being a medical doctor does not make one a specialist in other fields - and he clearly wasn't a specialist in climate. But, the point is, reading science fiction does not inform us, but rather entertains us.

        To be informed, we must go to the source. And, I hope Ron Paul is doing just that on these issues.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        1. Fluidly Unsure

          Personally, I hold the people who work in everyday life in higher regard than those in the isolated ivory towers of academia and large corporations. I have more respect for doctors, car mechanics, and construction workers than scientists, car engineers, and architects. Farmers deserve the highest praise than any other occupation.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  35. Matthew s

    I was always against global warming, it is a hoax. on the other hand, pollution is not, look at la for example you see the brown sludge in the sky, and a few decades ago you could barely breath. Now its slowly getting better. WE should fight pollution. but they should not use "scare tactics" on us.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7

    1. James Joseph Roper

      Global warming is not like a political party - where you can be for it or against it. It just is. When someone says that they are against it, I always wonder why that person even has an opinion about it, because it is clearly NOT an informed opinion. Biologists are finding changing patterns of bird migrations, plant phenologies, and other evidence that all points to global warming. The logic for global warming is very good, and if that logic is good, then global warming will continue. It just isn't a matter of opinion.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15

    2. Cameron

      On the supposition that global warming is a hoax- Again, numbers don't lie. However, the way we interpret those numbers can be misleading or erroneous. In this case, the documented increase in average global temperature has been strongly correlated to the rise in co2 emissions. Along with the rise in co2 emissions, we have other greenhouse gases like methane, black carbon, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, butane, tetrafluoroethane, and sulphur hexaflouride. The gases responsible for the majority of global warming (about 70% of it) are co2 and methane respectively. Pointing this out isn't a scare tactic- it is science. What we chose to do about it is a whole different issue with many consequences. This shouldn't be framed as an "us" vs. "them" fight at all. Rather, we should be seeking out pragmatic solutions that involve as many people, groups, and governments as possible to make positive strides. It isn't simple, but it is workable. Just labeling global warming as a hoax without a strong scientific argument isn't sufficient.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11

      1. Matthew s

        I did my research, 17,000 scientist said there is not enough evidence to support global warming. it was temperatures the dictated carbon dioxide rises not carbon dioxide controlling temperature rises. ocean levels are decreasing. WE ARE STILL IN A ICE AGE. Sure the earth's temperatures levels are rising, but its part of a cycle. look at Michal Crichton's "State of fear" for example.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7

        1. James Joseph Roper

          If you had done the research, you would have seen that those 17k "scientists" were not all scientists, and many of the scientists were not specialists in the area. And, those scientists did not address the additional information from biology that supports the global warming hypothesis. But, all this is moot, really, because the same issues that cause global warming are associated with all the issues of environmental degradation. Read the book "The World According to Pimm" to get an image of how the environment is doing these days. The main point is, global warming is only part of the environmental crisis, and addressing the environmental crisis in general must include remediation for global warming. I would like to see Paul actually state, in no uncertain terms, his stance on the environmental crisis, including global warming.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5

          1. Vengeful Fetus

            While you all sit here and bicker over childish things like Global Warming, my brethren are being murdered left and right! We must rise up and kill all of the wretched wenches who've done nothing but vile acts against my superior race!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11

          2. Matthew s

            Why is the hole in the atmosphere over Antarctica? Shouldn't it be over highly populated areas? Where the most pollution should be? not over some unpopulated uninhabitable area? there is no enough evidence to prove that "global warming" is our cause. Carbon Dioxide is highly abundant element in the world. Carbon is the fundamental building block in this world. If you want to stop Carbon dioxide levels in the air release pure hydrogen and light a match.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9

          3. Vengeful Fetus

            In all seriousness though, you yourself should read Beyond Environmentalsim. Illustrates perfectly how the "environmental crisis" is nothing but fear mongering.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8

        2. BEP

          Matthew S,

          Sigh. Yes, the earth is in a period known as an ice age- an ice age is defined as a period where there are ice sheets at the north and south poles. Lack of ice at the poles is known as an, "interglacial period." Life can exist during interglacial periods but the ecosystem of an interglacial is entirely different from that of an ice age. Now, focusing solely on the argument of global warming is like having tunnel vision. There is A LOT going on here but bottom line, human actions do have a huge impact on the world. Here are some major issues to consider: climate change (a.k.a. global warming but in some places the climate is actually cooling so it's more appropriate to call it global climate change), deforestation (real), acidification of the oceans (VERY REAL), pollution (have you been to L.A?)... This list goes on and the impact needs to be looked at as a whole. The question is not IF this is real but WHAT are the implications? After the science of the question comes the philosophy of, but I’m not a philosopher.

          Sincerely,
          Biological Scientist.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

1 12 13 14 15 16 25

Leave a Reply