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.
THUMBS UP; RE-POST; TELL FRIENDS!! ACTIVATE ACTIVISM!!
::FAX::CALL::FAX::CALL::FAX::LEAVE_MESSAGE::CALL_ALL::WRITE::
::FRAUD VIDEO::
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDChEDnISOw&context=C40b124aADvjVQa1PpcFOz88TOB8TYXgyksaLA-m4OdjzWPen8Hh4=
MAKE ALL MODES OF CONTACT!! EVERY DAY UNTIL A PUBLIC ADDRESS!! LET THEM KNOW WE AREN’T GOING TO LET THEM GET AWAY WITH FRAUD!! TELL YOUR FRIENDS!!!
Membership Chairman Bill Griffin
frozen foods, work number:706-367-9851 | 1-800-277-9851
lulz
Chairman: Matt Brewster
chairman@athensgop.com
2372 S Milledge Ave, Athens, GA 30605
706-425-4973
Vice Chair: Karen Schwind
kssch2@yahoo.com
168 Grady Ave, Athens, GA 30601
706-548-7546
2nd Vice Chair: Tim Wright
timwright33@hotmail.com
135 Carlton Ter, Athens, GA 30606
706-850-0057
Athens-Clarke county GOP Contact Information
(706) 546-4280
Gail Schrader
Supervisor of Elections & Voter Registration
Phone: 706-613-3150
Fax: 706-613-3840
155 E. Washington St.
Athens, GA 30601
::THANK YOU BROTHERS AND SISTERS:: THEY WILL NOT GET AWAY WITH IT:: VOICE YOUR OPINION, ITS YOUR DUTY!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Having just had a conversation with a commited warmist,I,d like to make the observation that since man started to seriously unrequester carbon and release it into the system starting with the deforestation and resultant desertification of huge tracts of land 5 or 6 thousand years ago ,huge amounts of carbon have been released into the systems.However a large part of this is a one off release like for example,the huge drop in biomass in the sea,the wholesale destruction of old growth forest and the huge drop in organic matter in former prairies and pr eviously well managed land(pre oil).Since we can’t do that again its illogical to extrapolate previous unsequestering rates into the future.In fact its more likely that we will start to resequester the forests oceans and farm land in the years to come and therefore the rates of co2 increase will at the very least decline and may well be reversed by such activities.Therefore,we don’t need global governance over these matters as well as many other matters and like Aussie said,we don’t need to drink the coolaid.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
Thanks for turning me on to Watermelons, Allan. I’ve been looking at the reviews and at Delingpole’s site and I can see it is going to be a good read. More and more of the sheeple are waking up to the realisation that they’ve been conned by the slick, snake oil-selling alarmists. It’s vey encouraging to see them losing the campaign for urgent action. Surveys around the world are showing increasing numbers endorsing thatAGW is all horseshit and that there is nothing to be worried about.
Anyway, am so cold after having the air con running all day. I’m going to go and take a long hot shower, then book some air travel.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
As global warming is threatening property, and as it is not an “act of god”, it means that it should be BETTER defined in tort and liability law. It is not to US gov to regulate, but to the people to settle down, with a new and amended act on property law.
Long story short, those emiting carbon dioxide have a debt to those who are hurt by global warming. So, if a small Alaskan village has to relocate, because sea level is raising, then those responsible for global warming has to pay for the relocation.
It’s relatively easy to determine who is emitting large amounts of CO2. For small emitters, like john doe fuelling it’s Hummer, well, define a product they use and establish tort & liability quota on it. I.e. gasoline tort and liability will be charged in the gasoline price, as the gas company will have to pay for the relocation of the alaskan village or the maldivian people.
Global Warming stress the need to review tort & property law, in view of collective harm on a collectivity. That’s maybe where i’m much more anarcho-socialist than libertarian, but Ron Paul is maybe the closest to what I believe.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
If it were proven that those making co2(in cars planes shipping etc)were causing the second level to rise, then your suggestion would be the best way of tackling the situation.However,firstly, it doesn’t seem to be proven that there is any significant rise in sea levels and secondly if there were to be it would have to be proven that such a rise was caused to a significant degree by Manmade co2(AGW) as opposed to natural forces like electromagnetic radiation from the sun etc.There doesn’t appear to me to be a case proving that either.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
That’s right. Seems to be proceeding from false premises. CO2 is not the main greenhouse gas anyway, assuming that there is a greenhouse effect, which I’m not so certain about in view of the defence by a couple of German physicists of their paper published a while back in the Journal of Modern Physics arguing that the alleged greenhouse effects are forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
At least you think you are an anarcho-something and even it’s not the ideal sort of anarchism it’s perhaps better than not being an anarchist or libertarian at all. I give you credit for that. However, climate change is a statist myth that will llead to the murder of billions and believing in that myth makes you a wanker. Sorry to be so blunt but it has to be said.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
you’re an idiot. i fear for a country whose would-be president doesn’t believe in climate change.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
8 
14
mo writes: “i fear for a country whose would-be president doesn’t believe in climate change.”
Permit me to express my contempt for you, mo, because you’re an asshole who fails to make the distinction between “climate change” as such and ANTHROPOGENIC (i.e., “man-made”) climate change by way of trace increases in a trace gas resulting from the purposeful combustion of petrochemical fuels.
Most particularly when you use the word “believe” in the discussion of phenomena which are susceptible to investigation and proof by way of scientific method.
What the hell else do you “believe” in, doofus? Pixies in your back yard, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny?
Like or Dislike:
11 
5
Aussie,it could be those things but it doesn’t seem like tucci78 somehow.Anyhow if he has found someone they must be a trooper. Good luck to them!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
A Possible Weather Changing Event Indeed
…but certainly not one that we need.
Too close for comfort…be careful how you slide Clyde; but be sure you slide just to the side…of my planet.
http://rt.com/news/paint-asteroid-earth-nasa-767/
T Kosciuszko
Exploration is really the essence of the human spirit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Our country is falling apart and you guys are focused on global warming? This is the one thing keeping you from voting for Ron Paul 100%? We have much bigger fish to fry people. Our government is taking over the world and Ron Paul is the only one who will fight to reduce the size of our government. Ron Paul will make America strong again IF we ALL do our part. Get him elected, then show congress we will stand behind him. I’m so tired of being bullied by the country that is suppose to bring freedom.
Why don’t you start talking about why you are not voting for Obama, Santorum, Romney and Gingrich. They are all the same!!! And talk about why you ARE voting for Ron Paul. You are hurting the man you believe in when you say stupid stuff about him. Quit nitpicking and make the best decision for your country.
Ron Paul 2012
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
We wouldn’t be on this website at all if we weren’t fans of Ron Paul but this is a forum about global warming to be fair.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
You have a point Allan but so does she. There are a lot more important things to worry about than alleged global warming. It really should be down toward the bottom of people’s list of concerns. However, it isn’t and the fanaticism that accompanies advocacy for urgent action on global warming is something we all should be very worried about that. I don’t want to drink the kool aid. Did you ever hear of Jonestown, from back in the mid to late 20th century? The cult of global warming hysteria is far, far, far worse than the Jonestown cult. The cult, which has hijacked high profile polticians and the UN, has a murderous, genocidal agenda, unparalleled iun human history. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that the cult is far more dangerous in the 21st century than Stalin, Mao or Hitler were in the last century, and indeed is perhaps the biggest threat to survival of human life that this planet has ever faced.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Just finished reading Watermelons by James Delingpole.Its a very good read.eg 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water in the atmosphere and approx 3 to 4 % by c02 and manmade co2 is 3 to 4 % of the total of naturally produced co2 so co2 doesn’t appear to be very significant in terms of global warming.
Water in the atmosphere can be seeded by electromagnetic radiation(not mentioned in Watermelons) and also by smoke, dust etc so, on the surface of it these factors may play a much greater role in climate change than man made co2.
What’s happened to tucci 78 I wonder.There’s been not a cheep for ages
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I’ll look forward to getting around to reading Watermelons. A similar point about H2O was made in Freakonomics. Good to see you back again. I like your style and your joined up thinking. Don’t know what happened to Tucci. He was good value too. Maybe Guest one5468 convinced him that unless there are massive tax increases we face imminent catastrophic destruction as this planet transitions to the climate and atmosphere of Venus. Alternatively, perhaps he took the advice of that Maria you were trying to hit on and realised he was up in his own head too much and was going insane and tried getting out and living, got a life, started appreciating the earth, it’s beauty, his connection to it or found someone to be with maybe.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
“What’s happened to tucci 78 I wonder. There’s been not a cheep for ages”
Sorry ’bout that. Other stuff got onto the front burner and somehow my monitoring of this site succumbed to lacktivity.
I’m still having a buncha fun playing Whack-a-Mole on las warmistas’ pointy little noggins in other parts of the virtual universe.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Anyone who’s in denial about our weather being actively modified needs to check out the website http://www.weathermodification.com
You can order up some airplanes spraying the sky yourself if you’d like.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Can anybody tell me whether it has been definitely established whether cloud cover causes a net cooling or a net warming of the planet?,and if so where is the data in support of the hypothesis?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
It depends on the type of cloud. All clouds reflect longwave radiation, which is emitted from the earth’s surface. That’s why if you have clouds at night, the temperature doesn’t drop as much as it could. Low, thick clouds are also efficient in reflecting shortwave radiation from the sun…so during the day these have a net cooling effect. Higher, thin cirrus clouds let more sunlight through, but still are effective at reflecting longwave, so they have a net warming effect.
Bottom line: low, thicker clouds = net cooling effect…high thin clouds = net warming.
As a side note…weather modification is ridiculous. Sure you can seed some clouds to make them precipitate a little. But if we had the ability to harness a thunderstorm’s energy we could power the country for a whole year. Those “planes spraying the sky”…that’s condensation.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Thanks Alex,that’s interesting.Thick low down cloud cooling,thin upper cloud warming.Next question- which kind of cloud is created by electromagnetic seeding of particles from solar activity,and which kind from seeding from other kinds of particulates eg smoke dust etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also Alex,which category would the condensation from jet trails come into ,low.thick clouds or high thin clouds?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is not possible for a rational scientist to extrapolate the climate scenarios and declare them “settled,” as the alarmists have.
We are indeed warming—but the accuracy of this warming trend remains a question we can’t answer with any certainty.
The SRES models are sound; however, they are limited by their minuscule data-sets. The age of the Earth is 4.2 billion years; the SRES data-sets comprise 3.214285714285714 e-8 of the eon.
Unfortunately, too many people look to Solomon to for their wisdom; rather than seeking to find it for themselves. Thus, they do not understand that there are no limits to knowledge and understanding.
Likewise, there are no limits on the evolution of human beings. We humans are not yet perfect, nor are we perfectible; however, our process of evolution has only just begun.
Have you ever stopped to consider that we humans are capable of inventing ourselves out of a global warming catastrophe?
T Kosciuszko
The impostor dooms himself to a life of mediocrity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
My only issue whith the whole energy problem is the move to nuclear, carbon in an common element on earth and eco system.
So i would preferr 1000 cole burning plants over just 1 nuclear plant because the emissions compared to the radiation pollution that will last over many milennia is so amoral and antilife.
If Ron would join me in this opinion he would be an near 100% perfect candidate but even as it is he is the only candidate whith the people,s interrest at hart.
Ron for President 2012!
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
I have seen the devastation that coal brings and that devastation has taking away the lives and liberties of American people. How would you like it if the well that your forefathers drank from only produced black tar instead of the clean water you tasted a child. Modern coal mines devastate the landscape, never mind the emission issue. I’ve heard similar arguments raised against wind power and while they seem somewhat whiney I fundamentally agree that if the sound makes your land unusable your liberty and property is being trespassed upon. I saw some wind farms on the highway the other week and thought it was a brilliant idea, put noisy technology where it’s already noisy (and windy!). I am personally invested in solar technology as it will become increasingly important when oil is no longer subsidized.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
@Lex – “So i would preferr 1000 cole burning plants over just 1 nuclear plant because the emissions compared to the radiation pollution that will last over many milennia is so amoral and antilife.”
Gawd, boy, you are REALLY stupid.
The release of radiation per megawatt-hour of energy generated in the coal cycle is so horrendous (because all coal mined and burned contains radioactive isotopes of the element Thorium) that if the same public health standards were applied – in that regard only – to coal-fired power plants as are imposed upon the operation of currently operating light water moderated fission generators, EVERY coal-burning station in the country would be shut down tomorrow.
Hell, there have been studies undertaken in recent years to determine the feasibility of refining the vast amounts of coal ash – an unavoidable chemically carcinogenic waste product of the coal cycle – in order to obtain fissionable Thorium radioisotopes to fuel nuclear reactors. Neat idea.
Look, Lex, try hitting the used book dealers on Amazon.com to get your hands on a copy of Petr Beckmann’s *The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear*, which is to my appreciation the first and still the foremost analysis of the real risks involved in fission power generation relative to the risks involved in all other forms of electricity creation, including those ridiculous solar panels and the hilarious Teletubbies pinwheels standing motionless and worthless all over the industrialized world.
You’re going to learn why you’re an idiot. Even with the technology prevailing forty years ago, nuclear fission is by far the SAFEST mode of high-density power generation humans have ever devised.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I began this comment and it kept going and going, instead of typing it all out I erased it. I’m a chemist from Oklahoma and I learned alot about this subject during my studies. It would take a few pages to point anyone interested in the subject of man-made “global warming”. Its very simple and easy to show the untruth of this assumption that man can somehow manipulate the temperature of the earth. It just takes a few minutes to type it up, if you’re interested I can point you to the facts. jtb5491@yahoo.com just tell me your replying to my post.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
JohnB – “Its very simple and easy to show the untruth of this assumption that man can somehow manipulate the temperature of the earth.”
Quite so. Jerome J. Schmitt (who writes on *The American Thinker* site altogether too infrequently – see http://www.americanthinker.com/jerome_j_schmitt/ ) has done so, but some of the more interesting efforts have been those of aeronautical engineer Burt Rutan (available – with other information sources accessible as well – by way of http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm ) and physicist Jeff Glassman (see http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/ ).
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Ron Paul is amazing. At a time when so many of the “experts” are out-to-lunch on so many things, he seems to find time for everything, here global warming, and gets to the bottom of them. He must be incredibly smart, or is it that he keeps his mind incredibly clear?
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
It’s because the old Doctor is smoking shit all the time. He’s incredibly stoned all the time. He lights up just before each debate and then giggles and babbels and gets all excited about his 10 seconds in the spotlight. He’s amazing alright. It’s amazing there are fools out there that think this guy belongs in the white house.
Maybe, as the court Jesture, but not any position beyond that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I’m with Ron Paul on this. I absolutely believe something is going on with the earth’s climate, But I cannot help but also believe that the real cause or causes can’t and won’t be truly realized as long as people use climate change as an agenda to make money with misinformation or push it as a religion or the U.N. a chance to usurp governments of the world with global taxes to finance a global government to dictate to the people of the world especially if they are not elected representatives. Too much unfounded fear and “We are all going to die!” mentality because of man-made global warming has been pushed to the people of the world without the true causes studied and explained. Our time span of 5,000 recorded years on this earth is very short compared to the earth’s carbon dated age of 4.5 billions. I understand that ice core samples have revealed that the earth has gone through many climate changes over hundreds of thousands of years as we are experiencing now without humans and machines being on this earth at all. I believe we, as humans, should look for solutions to our pollution and new energies problem, but do it in a sane and logical way the 1965-1995-30 year highway plan to connect all cities in America was realized and planned and not shoved down everybody’s throats in the form of man-made fear, control and taxes. Give the scientists time to study what is real and what is not. Analyze the data. Come up with a realistic plan to deal with what is real and not made up!
Highly rated. What do you think?
11 
0
There is climate change taking place- it’s happening because aircraft and ionospheric toys are being used to interntionally change things.
The Mercedez Benz factory in Germany admits they use weather modification to keep “bad” weather away from their yard.
“Cloud seeding” has been going on admittedly in the US and globally. During Vietnam, weather warfare was used to flood enemy areas and supply lines.
The fact that the mainstream media is not talking about weather modification more should send up a big red flag- while they can’t shut up about weather change.
Weather modification (chemtrails.. systems such as HAARP) are the real reason for the “freak storms” and “strange weather” have you looked at the sun recently? There’s usually a halo around it from all the junk they’re spraying in our sky.. then they go.. Geeze, what could be causing all this weird weather?”..
Haha.. figure it out people.
Like or Dislike:
2 
12
I don’t know the correct term for these “wave” patterns, as some have used on the internet to describe a “ribbing or scalloping effect of the chemtrails supposedly caused by HAARP. I have yet to see normal clouds act this way, but chemtrails having many different nano-sized particulates of harmful substances such as Barium and Aluminum Oxide do appear to be influenced by the enormous energy generated by many HAARP installations around the globe.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
SBS21078-
The cause HAVE been explained, that is the issue. Yes, you are correct that long before we have recorded human history there have been cycles of warm temperatures and higher CO2 levels, without the human factors that are present today. These are the natural cycles brought on by everything from orbital changes to solar activity. The thing about human induced climate change – which is going on right now – is that it is taking us out of the cycle activity and into one of our making – one form which the cycle may be broken and not go down, and in fact continue to rise. That is the prediction of science, that is why climate change is so scary. Scientists HAVE looked at the data for over 40 years now, and the causes are clear – it is manmade introduction of huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, particularly by burning fossil fuel and by burning down forests. Those are the issues and why it is so hard to get people to change – it would effect their liberty to do some things. But liberty is based on doing what you wish, but has to be balanced by other people’s liberties as well – that is, the right to pollute stops when it effects others rights to live as they wish. That’s an over-simplification, but I think you get the point. The reason some sound so strident is that the longer we wait, the more the chances increase that we hit the tipping point where the damage can’t be reversed quick enough to avoid huge results to our way of life. People who deny climate change and man-made global warming (AGW) are not in accord with actual fact. I am reading all kinds of opinion on here, but every time I have asked someone to back up their claims, I have seen nobody respond. As I have said many times on here, I like Dr. Paul, but this issue is key for me, and as long as he refuses to seek scientific opinion and follow that we do have to take some action, he is not a viable candidate for me.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Human activity is indeed causing the “appearance” of “climate change”, “global warming”, or “global cooling” through the use of HAARP and chemtrails. Most people however are not associated with the establishment’s efforts to geo-engineer our planet and therefore should not be confused with the actual people who are affecting this change in order to convince the uninformed and/or ignorant masses that AGW is evil and Earth’s population must be eradicated at all cost.
The following videos serve as good introductions on the subjects.
HAARP video (Jesse Ventura):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDfwHU7Cw6g
Chemtrail video (What in the World Are They Spraying?):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
Glad that there are quite a few people here who know about this.
I got banned from the Daily Paul for talking about this subject (used to be Kentrailer there).. Apparently a lot of other people are getting banned too.. if you read the “Off Topic” section, where they put any talk warning your fellow man about what’s happening.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Oh, and for TOTAL PROOF we’re being sprayed like bugs and not being told.. watch these 2 videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oFomMVBExs
and 8 planes fly side by side spraying something: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S1knFY7MUo
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Most people will only see “clouds” and carry on with their script because they haven’t been told by the media that they are being sprayed like bugs.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Sad, but true. Funny how many people here are still resistant to the idea- there is literally a mountain of evidence.
People think weather modification isn’t happening.. then why is there a website weathermodification.com where you can order some up?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Lets keep it real people.
I like Ron Paul on most subjects. However he should be very careful on this subject, as he takes a big risk. If you want some insight from someone trained in the subject feel free to read on.
I am a young geologist and a paleoclimatologist, and was still in training while the “Climategate” happened and some of my professors were climate skeptics. So to say that this skepticism colored my training is an understatement.
However now a few years later I have come in contact with enough evidence to say that the is most likely an anthropogenic (=human caused) factor in the Global warming. Local variations which is mentioned is not always important to fixate your mind on. Tho we have had cooler winters in northern hemisphere now, do not mean that things are getting cooler on a global average.
the problem is that the few skeptic professors I have come in contact with, do not publish their articles in the proper scientific way and bypass the peer review process. Most of the few skeptic scientists mean well as the situation is very similar to the K-T extinction (harsh) debate during the 1980′s. Alvarez actually could however prove his some “catastrophism” theory to satisfaction.
Scientist do not generally like “catastrophism” ideas like this and by default appose them. This comes from all the bitter struggles during the 50-60′s with Noahs Flood Creationists. So scientists like myself used to be very critical to every kind of idea that meant fast and crtitical change.
It all comes down to that the most bright of the scientists i know of argue that there is an antropogenic effect on global warming. Those that argue against this, are not so bright and also fail in publish proper articles to prove their point.
Lets keep it real people
we have a right to our own opinion but not to our own “facts”.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
16 
12
English is not my first language so please forgive any language errors.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
He is careful. He said that there probably is something going on, but that the government should not be involved.
If you end subsidies then gas goes up in price which leads people to not use it as much and people doing more research to create new energy, which would most likely be renewable/sustainable.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
http://www.ecofascism.com/review11.html
Lindzen is a bit thick and doesn’t publish in peer reviewed journals? And Plimer? And Spencer? Etc. Bullshit – it’s just your opinion.
Lindzen is taking bets on the direction the temperature is heading. Put some of the grant money you scam off governments where your mouth is!
Like or Dislike:
5 
7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mayer_de_Rothschild
Need I say more, by the way the name has been change to climate change as global warming suggested you can only charge carbon credits if it got hotter.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
R. Paul is a little bit right too in this issue too. There are many eras in the history of earth and our planet will come in the phase of glacification. We have made this phenomenon a little bit slowly, but it will come, naturally not now but very, very slowly during epoques.
By the way in the protection of environment, it does not get about ( like proposals of Obama ) increasing taxes for protection of environment, because it is well known, what is done with all money ( wasting for beaurocracy, wars, supporting foreign regimes). It gets about real protection of environment- protecting forrests, stop with deforresting, protecting wild animals in their natural environment etc.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
@Guest one 5468
I haven`t read the entire discussion here, but finding one AGW skeptic or denier who makes an inaccurate claim and then pretending that this somehow legitimizes the AGW fraud is caveman-level debating.
If you would just look at the barrage of lies coming from the side you apparently represent here and apply the same peculiar standard they would be discredited a thousand times more than the other side. They have claimed that sea levels would rise by up to 10m, meanwhile Al Gore bought a multi million dollar beachfront villa in California. They have claimed that rises in temperature follow rises in Co2 concentrations when any moron able to look up a paleoclimatological record can confirm that the opposite is true in about 30 seconds. They successfully claimed that freon gases from refridgerators were destroying the ozone layer, now debunked as nonsense, while the very governments they were working for were detonating hundreds of open air hydrogen bombs for decades.
Need I go on?
And even more importantly, the so called solutions proposed for AGW and all the other fraudulent “environmental emergencies” is increased taxation on regular people and none on centralized corporations and other super rich, moving production from nations under assault by environmentalism such as the US to countries in Asia and South America which are exempt from the regulations imposed and in general the most disconnected and oppressive totalitarianism you can imagine. All in the name of “saving the planet”.
When you combine this with the complete and utter disinterest these fanatics and witchdoctors show for the very real environmental problems we face, like radiocative pollution, overfishing, toxic dumping by the same protected corporations that are lobbying for all the fake environmentalism you represent and anyone with a modicum of brainpower should know they`re being scammed. Apparently you don`t qualify since you feel it helps you to spout irrelevant hyper technicalities and strawmen to evade the defeat your side has thankfully suffered.
Get back in the sanity camp man and admit you`ve been had, by Al Gore and the rest of the criminals at the UN he works for.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
And the radioactive pollution is only likely to get worse. I can’t help but wonder how many of the AGW activists are on the payroll of Big Uranium.
Interesting that Gore bought a multimillion dollar seaside villa in California while claiming sea levels would rise. Australia’s leading alarmist, Tim Flannery, also bought a very upmarket seaside residence in Sydney while claiming sea levels would rise. He didn’t get a Nobel but as a consolation prize was made ‘Australian of the Year’. The guy predicted catastrophic drought. What actually followed was widespread flooding. Although he’s a paleontologist, paleontology is apparently ‘climate science’ when you’re arguing for ten metre sea level rises, but it’s not climate science if you’re a sceptic.
A good post, Simon. Glad to see you mentioning the ozone hole scam.
AGW ideology substitutes ‘the planet’ for ‘the Aryan race’ but the goal is still eradication of ‘the useless eaters’, starting with people deemed ‘anti-planet’.
Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it, but the AGW fanatics are even more dangerous than their predecessors in the Third Reich.
No one should underestimate how dangerous these people are and what their murderous, genocidal agenda for this blue planet in green shackles really is.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Ummm…
NOAA – “One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years.”
or
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temperature-change-small.jpg
or
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
and as for ozone, it’s chlorine that destroys the atmospheric ozone, as in the release of nitrogen oxide through manmade chlorofluorocarbons which are broken down by the intensity of the sun’s ultraviolet rays and release chlorine and bromine moleculess – hydrogen bombs are not even close to the same thing, although you are right they’re probably not helping any. It is far from “bunk”, in fact several Nobel prizes have been won based on the science of this issue.
I’ll await the rebuttal, I’d love to see some evidence that refutes these facts.
Sorry, Mr. Paul is on the wrong side on this one – I really do wish he’d speak to some climatologists.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
With all due respect Simon – you do need to read the discussion. Some points – I didn’t find one person making inaccurate remarks, I found over 3000 people many of whom have no scientific training or background making silly, non-provable comments.
You say “They have claimed that rises in temperature follow rises in Co2 concentrations when any moron able to look up a paleoclimatological record can confirm that the opposite is true in about 30 seconds” – please show me the proof of this. If you look at the records over several million years, you will notice that there is a very close tie to levels of CO2 and heat. You will also notice that we’re at record heat levels now (record for the last 10,000 years), and record levels of CO2 – by a factor of three times, but if you can disprove this, I’d like to see it…
You say “They successfully claimed that freon gases from refridgerators were destroying the ozone layer, now debunked as nonsense” – please show me the debunking.
Perhaps I am just being irrational to expect people to actually back up statements they make here, and I am sorry that my “irrelevant hyper technicalities” bother you. Which ones, specifically are too technical, perhaps I can explain them to you in a more clear way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Corn is the cheapest vegetable on the market. It is in EVERYTHING!!!! And dairy cows aren’t suppose to eat corn, so PLEASE make gas out of it and stop producing unhealthy meat from corn fed cows!
Like or Dislike:
6 
10
Or just stop farm subsidies. Or subsidies in general. Also corn is considered a grain.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
We are all taught history as you see even Ron Paul quoted things he learned from history. So I ask why the White house was burned in the war of 1812? Why did we not learn fighting Wars for a commodity is not the right thing to do? What commodity was the hot item then as oil is now? Some maybe shocked what that commodity was, but the moral of this. We came to be INDEPENDENT so why are we so dependant on foreign products like oil?
Highly rated. What do you think?
10 
0
My biggest concern with the whole cult of global warming hysteria is the misanthropy. It is implicit in the deep green notion that the worls is overpopulated and that we need to achieve radical population reduction in order to decrease our alleged anthropogenic impact, or ‘carbon footprint.’ In Australia, Green party activists proselytise for homosexuality and have argued, and have stood for election to parliament arguing, that heterosexuality is morally wrong. But stopping heterosexuals from reproducing is not going to be in itself sufficient to produce the reductions in population numbersthey think is required. The magnitude of reduction that it is argued is necessary to significantly lower global temperatures is in the billions. Death on the scale that these misanthropic greenies apparently think is required would make the combined efforts of Bush, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot etc look like kindergarten stuff. None of this is surprising when you consider that the origins of the environmentalist movement are in the Third Reich. The Third Reich was a radical environmentalist regime. The question that needs to be asked of the AGW activists is: Who do you think needs to die?
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
Aussie4RonPaul –
First of all I’d like to point out that not all environmentally minded people (“greens” if you like) are misanthropic misfits, although admittedly, I do question the sustainability of current global population growth – but I don’t think support of a re-birth as it were of the old “stop at 2″ population campaign would qualify as being filled with misanthropic sentiment.
On the other hand, if what you say is true, that environmental Green Party candidates in Australia argued for mass genocide, that would definitely qualify ! Can you please give us a source for your statement – a platform they used perhaps, or some quotes. I, for one, would be very interested – and perhaps it would put for my fellow Americans the whole “environmental extremism” we think we see over here in perspective. The Prime Minister of Canada just a week or so ago called people opposed to the Oil Sands pipeline “environmental terrorists” – and now you come up with these “misanthropy” statements – could we see some actual quotes or reasoning behind such language please. I agree, it would be very worrying if those who support the environment take it to the extremes some who argue against GW, like Santorum, have.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Well there is this thing called carry capacity. That means that a certain habitat/area can only support a number of organisms. It is all about resource allocation. While I’m not sure what the carrying capacity of Earth is for the human race I am concerned about the exponential growth that the human population is experiencing. It is something you need to be concerned about, while it probably won’t happen in our lifetimes it is something worth thinking about.
And no one is arguing for the death of billions. To keep the population even each couple has to have around 2.3 children. Most 1st world countries have lower than this, it is the 3rd world countries that have high fecundity (birth rates).
There is nothing wrong with environmentalism – would you rather have clean air/water that doesn’t lead to health problems or pollution that gives you cancer? Would you rather have more marshes throughout the country or more floods that cost millions and millions of dollars.
Fix the root of the problems not some temporary band-aid. That is what I think.
Don’t get me wrong though there are some nut-bags out there.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Global Warming
Its so refreshing to read a growing number of people over the last 4 years that have come out of the woodpile and voice their disagreement to anthropogenic (man made) global warming (AGW). The scientific community are definately not in unison for or against AGW – which is not surprising as the base of science is hypotheses, some of which through experimentation migrate to the level of fact whilst others remain disputable. AGW is disputable and therefore should be recognised as such and should not be portayed in any other light just to justify huge sums of money sourced from taxation. Thirty years ago (1970′s) the ‘so called scientific community (SCSC)’ were promulgating that the planet was on the verge of an ice age – Global Cooling, now the same SCSC are promulgating AGW – come on where is the credibility when the SCSC position changes direction 180 degrees in less than 30 years!!!!!
AGW was/is seen as a golden opportunity for some to make money (entreprenuers/governments – even the UN). We must not forget the UN Global Warming IPCC Reports scam – exposed to be a sham to reap in huge sums of money from some nations on the pretext to give to others – plenty of evidence over many years of the fraudalent fiscal activities of the UN when ‘collecting/managing distribution of funds. Remember The infamous Al Gore video depicting imminent disaster because of AGW – pure coincidence is it that Al Gore and many other ‘prominent’ people were set to make millions from cap and trade/carbon trading/taxing.
Here in UK ALL our political parties leaders are ‘confirmed’ AGW believers and all of them want to increasingly tax us the people under the auspice that CO2 levels are increasing due to AGW and that we have to fall in line and suffer the fiscal penalty of AGW taxation. In the UK we have for to pay different bands of road tax for our vehicles dependant upon what the government have decreed as to the level of CO2 a vehicle emits – this brings in a lot of extra revenue but it is not spent in any way aligned to AGW. The UK government also has ‘pressured’ energy providers to calendar deadlines to increase percentage of providing energy from renewable sources – not a bad idea (I am all for reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and switching to renewable energy sources) but guess who is having to pay for this research and development investment of transition to renewable energy – us the people in our monthly bills to these energy suppliers whilst they report ever increasing profits each year to their shareholders. Now come on this cannot be morally right – can it!!!!!
The pro AGW SCSC rely too heavily on recent records taken (the last 100 years) to argue/justify their case and choose to ignore historical records dating back hundreds of years and records in the planets crust dating back thousands of years – which tantermount to dispute/discredit their case of AGW.
So come on you environmentalists (I am for respecting and not abusing the environment) lets play a fair game here otherwise we as a people will not achieve concensus and move forward as one for the benefit of mankind as a whole. I would have thought that ‘environmentalists’ would welcome extra CO2 in the atmosphere, if the science is to be believed that plant and animal life prospers in increased co2 environment therefore faster, bigger plant/tree growth and animals/man the size of prehistoric animals – could be beneficial!!!
Like or Dislike:
11 
7
This is a regularly scheduled post regard nearly 31,500 scientists rejecting AGW conjecture.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
It puts such shame on the AGW alarmists. Look at this link before you cry wolf.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
It would seem that these 31, 487 US science graduates, including 9,029 with PhDs are not AGW sceptics. They are AGW deniers. The website gives an interesting breakdown of numbers of scientists by category of science.
Guest one 5468, interested to know your thoughts. Would you be so kind as to comment?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Thanks for being open to replies – I read the basis for the petition (the “peer reviewed 12 page science” behind it) and here’s the problem– they have all kinds of data in the paper that are just plain wrong, and worse, they mislead people with truly propagandist style mis-statements.
For example – they state:
“Greenland, for example, is beginning to turn green again, as it was 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Climate Optimum (11). Arctic sea ice is decreasing somewhat (75), but Antarctic ice is not decreasing and may be increasing, due to increased snow (76-79).”
Greenland is indeed turning green again, and I agree there are natural cycles – of about a half a degree. However, the temperature right now is well above that “normal cycle”, we are already at almost one full degree higher (0.8 something), and the scientific community states that we are on the way to two or three degrees above, which would be a disaster. The statement that “Arctic ice is decreasing somewhat” for example uses an interesting and valid source, and is I think what may be so misleading about this petition. The authors of the petition, “cite” well respected, peer reviewed scientists, and therefor claim their paper/petition is “peer reviewed” – the gold standard for science. And, the source for the statement above about arctic ice is indeed a peer reviewed paper. But, the lie comes as it’s findings are NOT what has been stated in the petition. That is, Stroeve, J., Holland, M. M., Meier, W., Scambos, T. and Serreze, M. wrote in 2007 that:
“the Arctic ice cap declined to a record minimum size in summer 2007” and that “The unexpectedly rapid change in Arctic sea ice and other climate processes suggests that the climate reacts more strongly to a given amount of global warming than scientists have calculated. As a result, risks from future climate change are likely greater than scientists have generally believed, and existing climate change projections might best be viewed as the minimum changes that humanity should expect.”
This is hardly the finding of “decreasing somewhat” that is made by the petition – in fact it is one of the most horrifying and foreboding aspects of climate change.
I have already mentioned that any paper that talks about Antarctic ice and does not differentiate between sea ice, which indeed is increasing, and land ice, which is shrinking rapidly, is not telling us the whole story, and is in fact misrepresenting the truth.
I could go through the petition and rebut virtually every section in a similar manner. They say the article was peer reviewed, but they don’t tell us by whom, nor where it was published. This stands in stark contrast to scientists who will tell you who reviewed their work and where it is published. If you wish to see a list of organizations, who have scientists as members and who agree that GW is a real threat – try this website:
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
I’m sorry, but a paper full of clearly inaccurate and misleading statements, with no indication as to where they have been published or who did their research is suspect. When they take a statement like Stroeve’s, who was indicating that the ice in the arctic is at record low levels (that’s as in for all time…) and make it into “decreasing somewhat”, well let’s just say I’m not convinced.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Thanks for your reply. I’ll give some thought to it.
I guess what concens me is that there are all of these thousands of scientists who have signed the petition, and thousands more in other countries such as Germany who have signed similar petitions. Looking at the breakdown of signatories, I see that it includes thousands of atmospheric physicists, meteorologists and so on who think that AGW is a crock.
So how can believers say that there is a consensus? Doesn’t this indicate that, at the very least, the jury is still out?
And if the jury is still out, surely the most prudent thing to do would be to not take urgent action but instead wait a few decades, in case we do something rash?
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
No, the jury is NOT out. Here’s the thing – this petition is over 14 years old, and many of the scientists who signed it then (in 1998) were saying that they didn’t think it was human activity that was causing the earth to warm. Very few of them were stating that there was no change, and most agreed that the world was warming beyond the normal – the question was, what was causing it. You’ll notice the past tense – we have learned a lot since 1998, and it’s almost all toward warming made worse and faster by human activity. If we wait, we’ll be at a very real risk of going up the two or three degrees instead of the one were at now – and even 2 degrees above the background cycles would be a calamity. We’re already seeing the effect at both poles – and in many, many other areas – globally.
Not to be blunt about it, but also I looked through the petition signers and you’ve got the vast majority with Bachelor’s degrees – that means someone with a B.S. in Phys Ed. from 40 years ago, who knows nothing of climate can sign and be counted – and I won’t even go to the issue of falsifying names on the list, one article I read claims many of the names were counterfeit (i.e. the named person did not agree to it). 31,000 sounds like a lot until you realize that in the US alone there are probably millions of people with a B.Sc. – you’re really talking about a small number who may have signed for many reasons – politics being one, but maybe money (many work for businesses that would be effected by curtailing CO2 emissions, for example).
The scientific community is VERY much agreed that GW is real and is worsened by human activity. All this type of petition does is to get people to think “well maybe since not all scientists think…” that then we don’t have to act. I am simply saying that Mr. Paul, an otherwise very intelligent man, seems to have missed the boat on this one and is on the wrong side of a very important issue – one that is so important to me that I would not vote for him. But, hey, that’s just my opinion – and 97% of scientists in the world.
And by the way, in this whole discussion, I still have not seen a shred of evidence of anything that counters the fact that the earth is warming due to human actions – nobody has come up with any fact that actually could be inferred to rebut AGW. That’s why it’s science – where’s the proof?
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
By the way – there are 20,000 signatories to the American Geophysical Union’s stand on GW which says GW is real and that human activity is causing all the issues I’ve been describing if that helps make that 31,000 people with any old science degree look less impressive for you – you have to be a climate scientist (Atmosphere, Hydrology or the like) to be in the AGU – like with an M.Sc. or Ph.D. in actual climate related studies…
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
I just looked up some of the so-called “expertise” of some signers – so I go to the A’s and find Dr. George Aggen listed. Interesting.
Dr. Aggen has also signed the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming. It reads in it’s call to action:
“We call on our fellow Christians to practice creation stewardship out of Biblical conviction, adoration for our Creator, and love for our fellow man—especially the poor.
We call on Christian leaders to understand the truth about climate change and embrace Biblical thinking, sound science, and careful economic analysis in creation stewardship.
We call on political leaders to adopt policies that protect human liberty, make energy more affordable, and free the poor to rise out of poverty, while abandoning fruitless, indeed harmful policies to control global temperature.”
If this is representative of the 31,000 signers, I think you can see the issue with trying to make the case that 31000 actual scientists differ from the scientifically proven status of AGW. The above is a religious/political statement (“Biblical thinking, sound science, and careful economic analysis in creation stewardship”) NOT science…
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Yes, you make some good points. There are eminent climate scientists who have signed the petition, whose position does not appear to have changed much in 14 years. An example is Prof Richard S. Lindzen. His credentials and achievements are not disputed are they? I may be wrong, but he seems to be more convinced than ever that there is nothing to worry about.
The presence of evangelicals among the signatories to the petition certainly is disturbing. But they are also in the AGW camp. I had a quick look at:
http://www.answersincreation.rg/global_warming.htm.
It’s a creationist site. The overall conclusion seemed to be that both creationism and global warming are real and compatible.
I also note that climate sceptic and geologist, Ian Plimer, author of ‘Telling Lies For God: Reason vs Creationism’ has attacked both AGW and creationism.
He seems to think they are similar.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi there,
No, I agree that Linzden is a solid researcher. But, he is one of the few who have come to a different conclusion – the total is about 97% in favour of the concept of AGW, where Linzden stands opposed. His findings, however, would not be grounds to “do nothing”. He stated:” estimates of the Earth’s climate sensitivity of less than 1 degree Celsius, based on analysis of volcanic eruptions and satellite data from the tropics.”
A reply from other scientists includes from James Hansen:
“These estimates have been criticized by other researchers and James E. Hansen, a climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, estimated a climate sensitivity of 3–4 degrees Celsius based on evidence from ice cores and this figure is consistent with those derived from other lines of inquiry.”
I understand the desire to not wish to have to deal with AGW – but the real issue is if we wait and do nothing, if AGW is correct the “I told you so” approach will simply be to say “how could they not see this coming?”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I’m intrigued by Richard Dawkins’ refusal to come out with any statement in favour of AGW. However, as I understand it, he has critiqued Gaia theory as intelligent design.
Is AGW really creationism in disguise?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
No intrigue at all – Dawkins is smart – he said “I am not that well versed on climate science and don’t feel qualified (to comment).”
That’s much better than many, many of those folks on the 31,000 list!!!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Ron Paul is absolutely right. AGW is the greatest scam of all time. Forget pseudoscience by consensus. There’s no need for urgent action oon alleged climate change. There’s no need to roll back the industrial revolution, like the unabomber and other deep green luddites advocate. How many people believed Saddam had WMDs in 2003? I didn’t, not for a nanosecond, but a lot of people are dumb and are easily conned. There was consensus. AWG is a scam, just like WMDS was a scam. The origins of environmentalism are in the Third Reich. Environmentalism does have a a lot in common with communism and the environmentalist movement is full of neo-Marxists, but the origins are in the Third Reich. The Third Reich was a radical environmentalist regime. Read Bramwell’s ‘Hidden History of Environmentalism’.
Like or Dislike:
6 
9
WMD was a theory with no corresponding evidence, basically just heresy and “here’s what we think”.
GW is real, it is a scientific (i.e. provable, observable, repeatable) fact, the only issue is what causes it. The answer is becoming more and more clear that human activity must be accelerating it because we are now at the warmest period ever and rising. Read through some links I provided in my previous answer, then show me evidence that points to any other conclusion.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
Actually, Guest one 5468, there was a sh-tload of evidence for WMDs. What about the smoking gun? Sorry, I mean the photographic evidence. The whole world watched Colin Powell as he presented the photos to the UN. It might have been fabricated, but it was stil evidence. And what about that document a few years earlier showing Saddam’s attempts to purchase uranium from West Africa? Wasn’t that evidence? It was later proven to have been forged – gee I wonder what the motivation for that could have possibly been and who could have done it – but it was still evidence. Dodgy, disreputable, discredited evidence, but evidence nonetheless. And my point is, we are seeing a similar pattern emerging with AGW. How did I know that WMDs was all bullsh-t back in 2003? How I knew was because propaganda is detectable. It can be discerned. You have to see beyond the groupthink, beyond the consensus, beyond the Goebbels principle that the bigger the lie and the more often it is repeated, the more people will believe it.
You can’t have science by consensus. Science isn’t a democratic decision- making process. Most scientists, most science, is mediocre. The mavericks can be right. The majority can be wrong. Science isn’t a democracy. IIt’s a meritocracy. It doesn’t matter how big the consensus is. The consensus can be, and often has been, wrong.
You say that we are now in the warmest period ever, and accelerating. Well then, explain the history of Greenland. Grapes were grown there. They are not now. And as I write this, Eastern Europe is freezing, with temperatures in some parts having dropped to minus 35 C. People are dying. This has been the 4th freezing cold European winter in a row. In a row. Sequentiallly. And guess what? The gulf stream hasn’t stopped. It’s pseudoscience when a theory is incabable of falsification. And climate change is incabable of falsification.Whether it gets hotter or colder, to AGM believers, it all ‘proves’ global warming. You say GW is a “scientific (ie provable … fact”. Science doesn’t proceed by proof. It proceeds by disproof, by falsification. And a theory and its hypotheses have to be stated in such a way that they are capable of falsification. GW and AGW get a big FAIL on that count.
AGW is religion masquerading as science. It’s hippy trippy bullsh-t. It’s paganism. It’s pantheism. It’s Gaia worship .It’s a sci fi doomsday cult. People have been sacrificing to the weather gods for too long. Let’s not sacrifice the American and world economies on the altar of this false religion.
America should take no urgent action on climate change. America should remain a world leader in not taking action on climate change. Learn the lesson of what happened when America took urgent action on non-existent WMDs. A nation state needs to behave rationally. If someone has a paranoid delusion that a neighbour in another suburb is stockpiling weapons, and plotting against them, is it reasonable to go to their suburb, do a home invasion, and shoot up their household, leaving a trail of death and estruction in the wake? No? What just happened in Iraq? A nation state needs to behave rationally. Learn the lesson of WMDs. America should take no urgent action on climate change.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
“You say that we are now in the warmest period ever, and accelerating. Well then, explain the history of Greenland. Grapes were grown there. They are not now. And as I write this, Eastern Europe is freezing, with temperatures in some parts having dropped to minus 35 C. People are dying. This has been the 4th freezing cold European winter in a row. In a row. Sequentiallly. ”
Science indeed is not a democracy, but it moves forward, as I stated, on provable, repeatable experiments that prove or disprove a theory. Your above comments are the only “proof” you’ve offered countering my charts and responses below – so let’s go through your proofs:
“You say that we are now in the warmest period ever, and accelerating. Well then, explain the history of Greenland. Grapes were grown there. They are not now. And as I write this, Eastern Europe is freezing, with temperatures in some parts having dropped to minus 35 C. People are dying. This has been the 4th freezing cold European winter in a row. In a row. Sequentiallly. ”
Science indeed is not a democracy, but it moves forward, as I stated, on provable, repeatable experiments that prove or disprove a theory. Your above comments are the only “proof” you’ve offered countering my charts and responses below – so let’s go through your proofs:
“warmest period ever”
I linked to the chart that shows this clearly. It’s here if you wish to look:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/300px-1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
You say they used to grow grapes in Green;land and they can’t now, so that proves, again according to you, that it must behave been warmer in the past. Well, first of all, graoe growth is not a great proxy for proving climate. As one website indicates “While climate clearly does impact viticulture through the the amount of sunshine, rainfall amounts, the number of frost free days in the spring and fall, etc., there a number of confounding factors that make it less than ideal as a long term proxy. These range from changing agricultural practices, changing grape varieties, changing social factors and the wider trade environment.” But, beyond that, they do grow grapes in Greenland today. As well, you are not really talking global warming when you use regiomnal examples. It is the upward trend of the worl averaged that gives concern – As you say, some place are colder right now (the edges of the Antarctic, for example) but that’s due to GW – as the land ice melts it deposits cold water into the ocean around the continent of Antarctica and actually increases sea ice, but the land ice is retreating – alarmingly quickly.
I would make the same note about Eastern Europe – that it is only one small region – except that you are wrong. They did have a cold snap that approached records, but it didn’t last as long as many cold snaps do in Europe, and actually, December and January this year have been warmer than usual. The issue again, though, is general climate trends not a set of one day or two days events. As well, if the temperature did dip, part of the reason might be that that region (again a small localized area) is effected by the Gulf Stream, which is weakened by warming ocean waters, which would then bring less warm air over eastern Europe, making it cooler. You can read about it in Time:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/10/05/coldest-european-winter-in-1000-years-weather-channel-says-not-so-much/
Your sequentially statement is just plain wrong as well. You may wish to read why here:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45461
But forget about your Europe piece ofr a second, and let’s look globally and longer term:
• This year tied 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. The warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005, which were 0.64°C (1.15°F) above average.
•
Separately, the 2011 global average land surface temperature was 0.8°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 8.5°C (47.3°F) and ranked as the eighth warmest on record. The 2011 global average ocean temperature was 0.40°C (0.72°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (60.9°F) and ranked as the 11th warmest on record.
That’s what allows me to correctly state there is an issue – we are warming – we are now above the Warm Medieval (which GLOBALLY (not Greenland or Europe alone) was .5 degrees above “normal cycle” – we are at .8 above right now.
You say science is not a democracy and you are correct, but you can’t disprove a theory with facts that don’t fit the hypothesis. You need to show me evidence of a global trend of any climate data that does not lead to warming. When you find it, please let me know, until then I say that having the highest temperature globally on record, more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever before (by far) and seeing the decreases in large scale land ice (again globally) points to pretty strong eveidence that GW is for real.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Aussie,can you give me any further information on Bramwells hidden history of environmentalism as I cant find it on Amazon or google.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This should point you in the right direction:
http://www.ecofascism.com/review11.html
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Omitted to add in earlier posts but I think it’s also pretty evident that ‘Khmer Rouge’ was a misnomer and that the regime and Pol Pot were Dark Green.
The Greens may be watermelons in that they are green on the ouside and red on the inside but Pol Pot’s lot were red on the outside and green on the inside.
What could be more dark Green than the idea of going back to Year Zero?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is great, makes the GW crowed look pretty bad. It’s about Co2 & how we are brain washed into thinking it’s something poison & bad for us when everything organic needs carbon to live. Amazing how gullible the masses can be, like the guy above “Guest One”, swallows this garbage hook line & sinker. And if you don’t believe, well your just evil. The Earth is not as fragile as you might think, it adapts & changes to accommodate the dynamics of the planet & us. To reduce Co2 levels is bad, Co2 is not a pollutant, it is the 4th most abundant element & the basis for all organic life. The food chain starts at the plant level, animals eat plants they die, turn into plant food. We NEED Co2, to think man could have an impact on the climate is like a fart in a hurricane. The majority of Co2 comes from things other than cars, tracks, trains, etc…it comes from LIFE. It is what plants eat for food! The levels the “powers that be” want to get to will cause massive famine across the world. These nut jobs are just useful pawns in a much bigger idea to control every aspect of our lives. The food we buy is carbon based, it feeds us, we throw it in the trash, we use the toilet, it all gets recycled back into the food chain, it must be regulated. We should not interfere & we shouldn’t worry about the extra Co2 we put into the atmosphere, the planet will adjust & plant life will flourish & we will all be better off.
http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/E_Vindication_of_Carbon.html
Like or Dislike:
7 
7
You’re seriously going to quote Brinsmead as an “authority” on climate change – a guy who I am not sure even completed the B.A. he began, and has absolutely no scientific qualifications at all. Then he goes on that the Arctic ice is not lessening (which is wrong) the earth is cooling not warming (also wrong – see my link in reply to Tucci78 below – we are hotter now than at ANY TIME in recorded history) and CO2 must be benign because we breathe it out (also wrong – it’s the burning of fossil fuels, not our breathing that’s the issue)> Please, Mr. Paul makes a lot of sense otherwise, but on this issue, if one continues to deny what clear science tells us, you’ve missed the point and are actually endangering people’s liberty when the result of run away warming occurs.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Just so you all can see the length Mr. Brinsmead goes to:
His quote and actual facts…
“The evidence is piling up every day that the world is now getting cooler instead of warmer”
Just plain wrong – in fact the last decade is the warmest on record.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/how-fast-is-earth-warming/
“the oceans are now cooling instead of warming, “
Again, just plain wrong – in fact there is evidence that the oceans are right now warming at an alarming rate – faster than previously thought.
http://www.straight.com/article-492211/vancouver/big-chill-ocean-warming
or
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42649
“the ice is returning to the Arctic rather than receding,”
This is not only wrong, it’s backwards. All you have to do is see this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/IICWG_Arctic_Chart_2007_H.gif/220px-IICWG_Arctic_Chart_2007_H.gif
Or read this:
http://www.economist.com/node/21530079
“the sea ice in the Antarctic is at record levels,”
OK, this one is technically true – of course it ignores the fact that the LAND ice in the Antarctic is decreasing rapidly, and so it only looks like a good argument against global warming. So, what’s the deal? The fact is that while the Antarctic loses land ice – which will raise ocean levels globally, the sea ice around the continent does increase, in part because the seawater cools from all that melting land ice. “In Antarctica, the most important ice mass is the land ice sitting on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, and that is shrinking at a very rapid rate.” From:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
“and that rising sea levels have moderated.”
Again, partly true in that yes it doesn’t go straight up, but the sea level has risen dramatically. Check this out to see the extent of a misleading statement Brinsmead made on that one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png/300px-Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
“The sun has recently gone into a less active phase of fewer sun-spots,”
Like we can effect solar activity – so what?
“ and the ocean decadal currents have changed from a warming to a cooling phase.”
Wrong again, sir.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6056/655.abstract
Check out the facts – global warming is real, and Dr. Paul should be taking steps to address it. Liberty has at its root the belief that you can do whatever you like personally, as long as it harms nobody else. Burning fossil fuel at the rate we have been, plus stripping and burning forests, etc. is an attack on every person’s long-term liberty.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
I agree that we should be focusing our efforts on generally resequestering carbon by common sense measures such as. Reforestation without clearfelling and allowing ,through thinning ,the trees to put on bulk.Allowing the oceans to reestablish the biomass through banning fishing for fertilizer,animal food or fishfarm food(industrial fishing) and only permitting selective forms of passive fishing for mature fish.Also required is increasing the organic content of the soil in the former great Plains and other similar lands,back in the direction of previous levels.These measures will all sequester vast amounts of carbon and increase the amount of quality food available without growth hormones etc.However,I live down by the sea and the sea level has dropped over the last 25 years if anything.It certainly hasn’t risen since 25 years ago the high tides used to come over the road and they haven’t done that for years now.Seeing is believing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Only one glaring problem –
Corn should NOT be feeding our cattle – cows don’t eat grains, they eat grass. A cow fed grains is a sick cow . . . and is a sick cow a healthy food choice?
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
“Corn should NOT be feeding our cattle – cows don’t eat grains, they eat grass.”
Now, THERE speaks a man who’s never ever once in his life been close enough to a feed lot to have learned what cow poop smells like.
Little hint, bubbie: you can get a virtual idea of that sensation by putting your nose real close to your post and sniffing.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I wonder what Ron Paul thinks of chemtrailing and its purpose. Would love to find out what he thinks of this. Ron Paul you are my hero!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
Also HAARP. Jesse Ventura made a compelling issue regarding HAARP in his Conspiracy Theory tv show a few years ago. They can be found on the web for those who are not familiar. If you are not familiar with HAARP, it can be used for, among other things, weather modification, which is very relevant to this forum.
I am disappointed that chemtrail wasn’t covered on his tv show yet, but it’s quite interesting that topics like this were ever allowed to air in the first place. All I can think of is the relationship of characters O’Brien and Winston from 1984.
Carnicom.com offers very thorough, “scientific” research regarding chemtrails/aerosol campaigns for those who are not familiar with this phenomena. There’s also a good video called “What in the World Are They Spraying”, which offers some explanation surrounding this phenomena. Both HAARP and chemtrails have references to many patents, some of which are revealed in the above documentaries.
Example of chemtrail:
http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/newspray2.htm
This topic is too “fringe” for Paul’s candidacy.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
“there is no scientific evidence to support their existence.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
If you saw the picture in the link above, then how can you explain that this was produced by the jet turbines if the plane’s course was unaffected by its temporarily “shutting off the engines”? This presents a clear “scientific” evidence, not one’s conjecture. If you can offer a “scientific” explanation to this anomaly, I would be grateful. The establishment’s scientific community, as far as I know does not engage in this study, for whatever reasons, and fail to explain in scientific detail required to answer such anomolies. Carnicom is providing the most thorough scientific study that I can find for now. I wouldn’t trust wikipedia for this type of information.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
“If you saw the picture in the link above, then how can you explain that this was produced by the jet turbines if the plane’s course was unaffected by its temporarily ‘shutting off the engines’?”
Tsk. There speaks the historically (as well as scientifically) illiterate.
Ever seen the photographs of the U.S. Army Air Force’s heavy bomber fleets – all of them propeller-driven, NONE of them with “jet turbines” – leaving hundreds and thousands of contrails over the skies of Europe during operations against the Axis powers in World War Two?
Take a look at:
1) http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/image/2009/specialfeatures/Bomber%20Command/31_CS_26_d_NA_144j%5BBox%5D.jpg
2) http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/contrails/b17-contrails.jpg
3) http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2005/07/320888.jpg
4) http://blogs.discovery.com/.a/6a00d8341bf67c53ef0154339462d2970c-800wi
…for example.
The bomber crews, by the way, HATED those contrails, which served as a great big “Here we are! Shoot us down!” announcement for the Kraut flak batteries and the enemy fighters.
If there had been some way to prevent those contrails from forming at the altitudes they were flying and in the atmospheric conditions prevailing, be assured that the Air Corps would’ve been delighted to do so.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
From http://www.green-agenda.com
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
- Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
Tucci ,it looks like you were right about the cold water ,sorry about that.It was afew years since I read the article.Looks promising in general though if used in combination with other innovations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Tucci,the technology I,m talking about is not related to water flowing from cold to hot zones or anything along those lines.
It is a technology first pioneered by a german inventor in the warm sea off cuba in the twenties whereby he managed to generate 20kilowatts on abarge moored in the sea.
The way this works is that some inital feeder energy is used to produce a partial vaccuum in which sea water boils and produces steam which drives a turbine and produces electricity thus.
The steam then condenses and produces copius quantities of fresh water as a by product.
I mentioned this in previous post but nobody picked up on it.
Obviously,its not something for nothing since its simply recycling the suns heat ,as is every type of energy except geothermal and nuclear,but it does mean that any extra heat we may get from global warming becomes a benefit instead of an environmental holocost.
Thereby allowing us to continue with fossil fuels until atomic fusion ,or something as yet undiscovered comes along.
This technology is already used to an extent on board liquid gas carrying ships so it is quote mainstream in the sense of being practical as opposed to speculative.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
One could look on any increase in sea temperature and atmospheric co2 as a resource,given that we have the technology to convert heat in the tropical sea into electricity and fresh water,ie as an opportunity for participants in free markets to make profits and provide purposefull work for people or you could look at it as an impending disaster requiring global governance by monopolistic forces.
The questions are,which approach is likely to work quickest and most efficiently with the least suffering and death for mankind and which side will extract the most wealth out of the process,whichever alternative we choose,the monopolistic forces or the participants in the free market.
We also need proper anti trust measures including the outlawing of corporations unduly influencing law making to protect their market share by lobbying ,bribery etc,to prevent the monopolistic forces from subverting the free market by preventing competition.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
@Allan from Skye – “…given that we have the technology to convert heat in the tropical sea into electricity and fresh water….”
The questions I have about this supposedly “something-for-nothing” gain of energy pertain chiefly to:
(1) is there really “any increase in sea temperature” of any significance anywhere in the tropics?
(2) is there sufficient energy density in that putative “increase in sea temperature” to make harvesting its potential economically practicable even were it there?
(3) because harvesting that heat energy must employ pumping up from the depths cold water so that we have a ballast into which that heat energy can flow (remember, energy can only be harvested from a “flow”), what will be the energy cost of getting significantly cold water from the deeper waters up to the warm surface, and what will be the ecological effects of this transfer?
Might could be the ecological effects wouldn’t be so bad. The colder waters of the deeps are almost always richer in nutrients, particularly when one compares those waters against the beautiful, crystal-clear. effectively nutrient-bereft warm surface waters in the tropics, but we’ve got to bear in mind that when any change is induced anywhere in the ocean ecosystems, we’ve got the Law of Unintended Consequences working.
What happens down in the deep-water ecosystems when those nutrients are pulled up and out? What happens in the shallows when those nutrients get dumped there?
Remember the effects we’ve seen in both fresh and salt water as the results of farming fertilizer run-off, effluents from wastewater treatment plants, perfectly clean but warmer-than-natural cooling water discharges from coal-fired and nuclear power generating plants? Heck, just think about the phosphates dissolved in treated wastewater as the result of stuff like laundry detergents.
The Watermelons will howl their hysterical rage to the skies, and might could be that they’ll actually have some justification.
As for intrinsically corrupt and stupid government thugs doing the “anti trust measures” dance….
Oh, you so do NOT want to get me started about that.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
@Tucci78@Allan from Skye
“there”
Yep-
http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/sites/default/files/TropNorAtlanSSTindex-Sep-thru2010.jpg
and again – it is by a factor that is beyond any cycle from before…
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
@Tucci78@Allan from Skye
“is there really “any increase in sea temperature” of any significance anywhere in the tropics”yep – Tropical Atlantic:
http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/sites/default/files/TropNorAtlanSSTindex-Sep-thru2010.jpg
and again, it is by a factor beyond any normal cycle and outside the bounds of explanation by anything other than human caused CO2 causing warming.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Tucci78 is way off base. First of all, even Paul concedes that if GW is “natural cycles”, he admits mankind alsobhas an effect. What he fails to understand is that a two degree global rise in temperature would be devastating. Mankind IS having an impact and is bending the temperature upward. W therefor need to do things to reduce human induced GW – things like not using oil as Paul said, but also limit coal. We must invest in alternatives now!
As for President Obama’s birth certificate, if you don’t believe the State of Hawaii,fine- let’s see your long forb bc and see if we ask any questions about yours….
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
@Guest one5467 – “Tucci78 is way off base. First of all, even Paul concedes that if GW is “natural cycles”, he admits mankind also has an effect. What he fails to understand is that a two degree global rise in temperature would be devastating.”
Then the Medieval Warm and Roman Warm climate optima, during which the global average temperature rises were each far in excess of the “We’re All Gonna Die” rise about which you stupidly squeal (“two degree”) were periods of “devastating” adverse climate effects.
Oh, wait a minute. They weren’t. They were, in fact, periods during which the levels of human prosperity – as measured by agricultural productivity, population growth, and the reduction of death rates due to epidemic diseases – were higher than those prevailing before or after.
The fact that human activity can and does have local and regional effect upon many prevailing climate conditions is not disputed. However, the extent to which GLOBAL climate change can be (or has ever been) altered by way of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) released into the atmosphere to effect statistically significant “trapping” of insolation heat energy that’s not quickly re-radiated out into extraterrestrial space is completely without EVIDENCE.
And that’s what I keep hitting. If you, putzie, have access to any EVIDENCE that the “greenhouse” effect of aCO2 has any such effect to any significant extent whatsoever (or that we could possibly achieve global average temperature rises approaching even those prevailing during the lesser Roman Warm, much less the much higher averages encountered sustainedly during the greater Medieval Warm Period), reach into your smelly ass, yank it out, and SHOW THAT EVIDENCE.
Oh, yeah. Ditto for the records supposedly held by the government of the State of Hawaii regarding the happy fiction of Odumbo’s birth anyplace other than in his native Mombasa.
When that “Oops, there it was!” long-form birth certificate (for example) is put into the hands of a panel of trained, experienced, certified forensic documents examiners prepared to testify under oath in a court of law as to their provenance and validity, THEN we will speak about evidence, and not matters of “Liberal” fascist religious bullshit.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
@Tucci78@Guest one5467 They weren’t two degrees above where we are NOW in the Medieval warming. We are currently at the warmest temperature globally and the most CO2 in the atmosphere then at any time in history. A two degree increase from here would be catastrophic.You talk about regional climate change and then use the Roman Warm as an example – please. The Medieval period was less than .5 of a degree above the background normal, just as in the 1700′s it was a half degree below – those kinds of variations are the “normal cycles”. We’re talking two degrees above normal presently predicted, and may be on our way to three. It sounds so little until you put it in perspective. If I have “evidence of something now above the Roman period” – yes, I do – we’re already above that – by almost double and still rising. Think about al the changes in the past, and then triple them – and the speed with which it’s changing is the issue.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
@Tucci78@Guest one5467
See:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
The repugs and PAul supporters won’t believe man-made is occuring until the ocean is in their back yard.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
with reference to the dumbed down nature of some of the people emerging from the state education system in these times as witnessed by the howling frustrated rage of the illiterate/inarticulate/lacking in basic vocabulary/unemployable consumers unable to contribute to reasoned debate after spending twenty years or so in”educational”establishments perhaps it might be pertinent to consider whether
The primary purpose of the education of the masses is indoctrination into the aims and objectives of the state and to divert the young minds away from reasoning for themselves and towards belief in received wisdom .
However,if anyone shows exceptional promise they are either put under the chemical cosh or whisked off to some dreaming spires where their ability to reason can be put to use by the state without infecting the masses with their ability to reason.
THis would be the wolf in sheeps clothing mentality of the Spartan/Platonic/Totalitarian/Fabian approach.
Remember the wolf is always in nice cuddly sheeps clothing just ilke the watermelon is green on the outside but red in tooth and claw on the inside.
Generally speaking though,the aims of private education could be said to be virtue and excellence whereever that should lead.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
In Soviet Russia,scientists who found the politically wrong results were executed.Based on the name of the State scientist who presided over this situation Lysenko the term Lysenkoism was coined.
Lysenkoism is used colloquially to.describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias often related to social or political objectives.
The term neolysenkoism is used to describe this phenomenon in the field of AGW
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
shaman. Credit where credit is due.Tucci78 is obviously a highly intelligent and well read individual who appears capable of joined up thinking which is quite a rare attribute in my experience.
Ad hominem remarks and insults seem unlikely to make any impact on either him or I or the reasoned discussion in progress.
Unless of course we do have afull breakdown of civilisation and find ourselves living in a clearing in the forest,in which scenario it would probably be wise to use less abusive language.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Abba4abba – “I propose that we simply drop a massive ice cube in the ocean each year to counteract the effects of global warming. Problem solved.”
Straightforward and, in its way, undeniably elegant.
May I add to this proposal the suggestion that we chuck in a Greenland-sized orange slice and a paper umbrella about as wide across as Australia?
Neither shaking nor stirring, please. Those sediments in the subduction zones especially shouldn’t be agitated to muddy up the cocktail.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
A valuable contribution. Thank you.
Just checked out the link. Got a better idea now of where Ron Paul is coming from. The man has a high IQ. I seriously doubt that he rejects the theory of evolution, but he’d never get the support of evangelicals if he admitted to it. As for his alleged homophobia, and political incorrectness on a few other issues, I hope it’s all true. I don’t agree with his position on every single thing. I doubt anyone does.
But thanks for providing the link.
All up, I found a whole heap more reasons to support Ron Paul.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Tucci doesn’t believe in GW. Nor does he believe in Obama’s birth cert. Allan from Skye thinks Tucci78 is the love of his life. Ron Paul doesn’t believe in evolution. It’s a match made in all american heaven. Bunch of idiots.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
@Shaman4 – “Tucci doesn’t believe in GW. Nor does he believe in Obama’s birth cert.”
Since when has either issue – the crippled conjecture of anthropogenic global warming (AGW, not “GW”) or Barry Soebarkah’s qualification to have stood for election to the office he criminally usurps at the present time – been matters that anybody is supposed to “believe” in?
Are these matters of fact subject to confirmation by way of EVIDENCE, or are they article of religious faith?
“Shaman4,” you’ve chosen your handle perfectly. You’re a witch-doctor dancing about, chanting and flinging guano all over the place in your ritual dick-beating, invoking nothing more than pure fantasy from start to finish.
In both matters, I’ve simply stated that no EVIDENCE has been produced in support.
None to prove the validity of the AGW contention, and none to prove your Mombasa Messiah’s claim to have been born anywhere other than in Kenya Colony.
Or, for that matter, to have gained U.S. citizenship after having become a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia when he’d been adopted by Lolo Soetoro as a child.
As I’d observed, nothing as yet provided by our TelePrompTer-in-chief to any controlling legal authority in the whole of this “natural born citizen” whoop-te-do is sufficient to get your Kenyan Keynesian a driver’s license in most of the several states in our republic.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Hey Tucci,back on the subject of AGW,carbon trading global governance etc I just saw a pretty interesting video on you tube called the money masters.If you havnt already seen it,its definitely worth a look.It explains a lot of the historical backdrop to all this and offers a really cool solution.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Allan from Skye “I just saw a pretty interesting video on you tube called the money masters.”
I regret to say that I’ve not yet been able to find the video on YouTube, save for a presentation which appears to be concerned with the financial machinations of the banksters generally, emphasis upon the issue of fiat currency (“legal counterfeiting”) in the degradation of the functionality of the media of exchange.
In the process of searching, however, I found some good material on *The American Thinker* Web site, including the following:
“Since the Enlightenment scientific progress has relied upon publication of logical and empirical “proofs” for new theories and theorems. This practice serves to disseminate the new knowledge generated, resulting in peer review. [ERROR! Peer review as it is presently understood is the term for a formal component of the editorial process in scientific publishing.] Specialists in the field have the most interest in reading particular publications; they potentially have the most to gain from the new learning, and they will likely have the most relevant things to say in response. Honest scholars seek the truth and are happy when an error in the record is corrected. However it is not necessarily known a priori who is the most expert among the readership, or who will deliver the best, most cogent replies that might either concur or differ with a proposed new theory. Therefore true scientists seek the widest possible audience for their work. In an intellectual process akin to crowd-sourcing, the most reliable, truthful theories emerge over time.”
(See Jerome J. Schmitt, http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/al_gores_last_theorem.html dated January 22, 2012)
Despite my quibble above (regarding “peer review”), Mr. Schmitt’s articles for *The American Thinker* on the subject of global climate change seem to be well-considered and worth one’s time. I regret to have failed fully to appreciate the value of this site when considering this particular issue until today.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
@Tucci78@Allan from Skye Hey assholes!. Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
@Shaman4@Allan from Skye – Well, at present, your POTUS-With-An-Asterisk isn’t even legally named “Barack.”
Y’see, among Islamic males in the Republic of Indonesia, custom confers a solitary name, to which may be appended a nickname.
When our Hubshi Halfling was adopted by his stepfather , Soetoro (nickname “Lolo”) he was registered as “Soebarkah” (nickname “Barry”) and it was under that name he was registered for school and got named on Stanley Ann’s passport.
To the best of anybody’s knowledge, when he was sent off to live with his Dunham grandparents, he was neither naturalized as a U.S. citizen or had his legal name changed back to “Barack Hussein Obama II.”
It’s even reasonable to guess that when he made his trips to India and Pakistan as a young man, he did so on his Indonesian passport, under the name “Soebarkah.”
People traveling on U.S. passports at that time were not permitted freely to enter and travel in Pakistan as there were diplomatic tensions between our republic and that country. Indonesia being recognized as one of the 57 Muslim nation-states, however, would have had no problem with “Barry” Soebarkah.
Gonna be interesting to get into his college records and see whether he applied for (and got) financial aid as a foreign national, isn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Hi Maria,I take it you think we should just relax and leave it all to the experts.I dont think thats what this forum was set up for.I would be outside enjoying the earth if it hadnt been blowing a 50mph northerly gale with lashing rain and sleet for the last three days and nights with darkness coming at 5pm .As for being with a woman, that doesnt necessarily preclude having an intelligent conversation allthough admittedly such women are a bit harder to find.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
It looks like your attempt to hit on her didn’t get you very far. You may need to go back and re-read ‘The Game’.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
How many pages have duchi78 and Allan filled up here? You guys could actually have a life if you tried getting out and living. Appreciate the earth, it’s beauty, your connection to it..find someone to be with maybe. Good for the soul. you guys are up in your own heads too much and you are going insane.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
@maria s – “How many pages have duchi78 and Allan filled up here?” ….and similar pointless yammering completely off the topic of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fraud and the defense of individual human rights otherwise.
Tsk. When such idiotic attempts at distraction are made in an online forum such as this one, they appear only because these blithering dolts are pounding their empty heads against the bricks in screaming frustration at their own inability to participate in such discourse to any purpose other than demonstrating their own stupidity and viciousness.
Some months ago, I read a comment to the effect that when they encounter writers and speakers able to present effectively online, the “Liberals” desperately want these opponents to JUST SHUT UP!
By contrast, when those of us who defend the U.S. Constitution and the value of individual human rights encounter these “Liberals,” we’re simply delighted to have them keep speaking.
As a matter of fact, we tend reliably (though not politely) to encourage them to keep on shoving their feet into their mouths.
I suspect that with proper respect for her potential, “maria s” should be showing symptoms of an athlete’s foot infection of her duodenum pretty goddam soon.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
@Tucci78 Hey fuckwit Looks like old man creationist Paul is disappearing like yesterdays flat earth theory. How does it feel to back a lame duck. You who’s Oh so fucking smart. Not even the dumbest nation on earth can go along with your bullshit on that one. Creationism anyone??? Doctor Ron Paul? What to have to do to become a doctor in the states, study scientology for a week??. The late great US of fucking A. Adios amigos…
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
@Shaman4 – “Looks like old man creationist Paul is disappearing like yesterdays flat earth theory.”
As Dr. Paul had observed at the close of the South Carolina primary, only 37 delegates have been allocated so far, “something like 1.5 percent,” he said. “This is the beginning of a long, hard slog.”
Asswipe, you’re clearly a “Liberal” fascist with no interest in Dr. Paul’s campaign beyond your (well-justified) terror of his ideas on restoring the U.S. Constitution and cutting back the cancerous overgrowth of federal spending.
Why don’t you quit this site and go over to one where you can suckle at the crotches of the banksters and socialist shit-disturbers and the other National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP) hacks?
You know where you belong, and so does everybody else reading here, and it’s surely not among the partisans of government under the rule of law and the defenders of individual human rights.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
One can usually tell when people are lying in politics, as the repugs and RWers have made global warming a political issue instead of a scientific one as it should be.
There is no doubt global warming is occuring, the questions are what to do to ameliorate its effects long term. Going green is one way, and using renewable instead of non-renewable resources is another. This will also give us clearer air and water, which are issues that need to be dealt with.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
A bit harsh, Tucci. She obviously meant well. The cult of alleged climate change hysteria is perhaps the greatest threat that our planet has ever faced. However, she does have a point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@maria s Tucci doesn’t believe in GW. Nor does he believe in Obama’s birth cert. Allan from Skye thinks Tucci78 is the love of his life. Ron Paul doesn’t believe in evolution. It’s a match made in all american heaven. Bunch of idiots.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
@Shaman4@maria s – Vide supra.
I believe the slang term for this idiot’s dumbfuckery is “copypasta.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Tucci,I read that at the turn of the century in Britain seven eigths of the working families in Britain were adequatley provided with their healthcare and unemployment insurance by friendly mutual societies which were generally very well and efficiently run,but the system of compulsary iniversal national insurance killed them all off when it was introduced.
So,are you off the opinion that voluntary charitable giving would take up the slack of the one eigth and that we wouldnt have beggars and footpads running amok?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Allan from Skye – “So,are you off the opinion that voluntary charitable giving would take up the slack of the one eigth and that we wouldnt have beggars and footpads running amok?”
Not at all. I don’t expect “voluntary charitable giving” to do much of anything except assuage the consciences of those who give.
Moreover, I am emphatically NOT relying upon charitable giving to provide any services as good as could be gotten by people doing for themselves. Remember, charitable undertakings have very poor intrinsic negative feedback mechanisms.
Ever seen the Disney movie of Eleanor Porter’s novel *Pollyanna* (1960)? One of the plot elements is the charitable undertakings aggressively managed by the upper-class ladies of the town in which the story is set. Many of those receiving the charitable gifts – including such dubious goodies as calf’s-foot jelly – were unsatisfied because the ladies’ donations seldom or never addressed the recipients’ needs or desires.
But charitable giving – both anonymous and identified, local or nationwide – has BETTER and more efficiently applied feedback mechanisms than do politically-mandated government “welfare” programs. This means that voluntary charity is intrinsically less wasteful and perverse.
Inasmuch as politician-managed taxpayer-mulcting programs to provide the people in the one-eighth of whom you speak with “their healthcare and unemployment insurance” are by comparison much less effective and much more costly in terms of administrative overhead and bureaucratic inertia, voluntary charitable giving is vastly preferable, and should no longer be degraded and diminished by government thuggery.
Curious as hell that we’re having this discussion on the “Global Warming” thread, isn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
As usual tucci ,you make perfect sense.I do ,however think that it may be necessary to provide some kind of provision for those who,through bad luck,ill health,bad genes,or abandonment,old age arent able to fend for themselves and are not taken care of by the good samaritains amongst us.I think that number of people would be relatively small in a free-ish society with family values.
We would however,need to ensure that it wasnt funded by means of a Mandatory universal national insurance since that would increase the ammount of people becoming dependant on it.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
@Allan from Skye – “I do ,however think that it may be necessary to provide some kind of provision for those who,through bad luck,ill health,bad genes,or abandonment, old age aren’t able to fend for themselves and are not taken care of by the good Samaritans amongst us.I think that number of people would be relatively small in a free-ish society with family values.”
That last isn’t necessarily so. However, it should be understood that voluntary eleemosynary efforts to provide EXTRAFAMILIAL – even completely anonymous – supports and other services tend more reliably to develop as normative political efforts are either withdrawn or never intrude upon society in the first place.
First, it must be understood that when politicians and other government thugs divert spending power from the private sector to politically “sweet” objectively charitable undertakings (Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, the Woman-Infants-&-Children Program, Social Security, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, etc.), citizens in the private sector of society – the productive sector, mark you – are deprived of the use of that spending power, meaning that there is reduction in (a) savings which create liquid capital for borrowing, (b) discretionary spending, which creates demand-driven market activity, and (c) charitable giving.
Diminishing ANY of these activities – even charitable giving – is pernicious.
Second, it is easy to note that people tend reliably to feel MUCH less inclined to undertake charitable giving and even voluntary charitable services if they perceive government to be functioning in that role.
Remember Dickens’ *A Christmas Carol*? Good old Scrooge bitching: “Are there no prisons? … And the Union workhouses. …Are they still in operation? … Those who are badly off must go there.”
Per one commenter’s note (see http://mises.org/daily/573):
“As Scrooge observes, he supports those institutions with his taxes. Already forced to help those who can’t or won’t help themselves, it is not unreasonable for him to balk at volunteering additional funds for their extra comfort.”
So we see that by plundering the productive sector of our society, the mock-”charity” of the politicians does magnified damages.
First, they destroy the means by which economic growth may take place.
Second, they destroy the incentive for the private citizen to take such responsibilities on his own shoulders.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Allan from Skye
I think the main thing must be that the health care is not sponsored through taxation since this just breeds self-perpetuating bureaucracies. According to the hippocratic oath doctors are in any case supposed to do a tenth of their work for free to relieve the poor, which almost no doctors do today. This might in itself be a good start to provide healthcare for the unfortunates.
But in a larger perspective a nation can create whatever money is necessary to maintain essential infrastructure and social services, as long as it`s supported by production. There is no real reason why healthcare and education for example has to be so darned expensive as it is in the states or as centralized as it is in most of Europe. That it is so is more an expression of social control from the top rather than natural market adjustments.
Whether centralized and state run or private and decentralized both can be set up to prevent the poor from getting healthcare and education or to facilitate it. I think this is the real issue and what needs fixing.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
INteresting Friedlon Personally I,m not an anarchist.We dont need to be completely free,just freeer than everyone else withlimited government with properly funded institutions that work well.
Its like the salt in my porridge its not a case of no salt or a kilo of salt but the right ammount of salt.
Without the institutions we wouldnt be able to protect liberty and property and enforce contracts.
Perhaps scandinavia does have something to offer.I must go tjere and learn more about it.
Markets and banking also need regulating effectively.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@Allan from Skye – “Markets and banking also need regulating effectively.”
No disagreement there. What, however, gives you to believe that the officers of civil government are CAPABLE of “regulating effectively” – indeed, of “regulating” at all – those functions of markets including banking?
Keep in mind at all times that the only necessary (indeed, the only legitimate) functions of government can be summed up as “breaking things and killing people.” Put more politely, it’s what the 18th Century political philosophers termed “the police power,” by virtue of which the officers of government pose a reasonable deterrent force to oppose those who violation of individual human rights within those governments’ jurisdictions.
Not only is every other legitimate action of lawful government undertaken only in service to that essential function, but it is the police power which underlies ALL government action, legitimate or not.
Put plainly, the officers of the government are accorded a functional monopoly on the management of retaliatory deadly force. You do what Officer Friendly tells you to do or – to whatever extent you offer resistance – kindly Officer Friendly will kill you.
That simple.
Now, explain please just HOW any honest human being benefits by having the government thugs who “break things and kill people” meddle in the voluntary interactions of folks as they truck and barter in the marketplace?
(Banking, by the way, is simply another subdivision of “markets,” in which specific types of spending power allocations are undertaken. Historically – as today – banking is only “regulated” by government goons in order to debauch the circulating media of exchange by way of issuing fiat currency or otherwise thieving away the valuta of innocent victims trying to participate in the financial marketplace.)
The megalomaniacs of government have almost never any expertise in (or understanding of) voluntary marketplace functions. Their only legitimate role in the markets – and in the rest of society – is to pose a credible threat of retaliation against theft, fraud, and the violation of contractual obligations. They are not supposed to intervene normatively to force upon the market participants outcomes which the government assholes consider politically “sweet.”
The market otherwise very satisfactorily regulates itself according to negative feedback mechanisms as described by the laws of economics.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Further to Keynsianism,the industrial decline started in the fifties but it wasnt until we went off the gold standard completely in1971 that a supercharged version of Kensianism was deployed.
I suspect that Keynes would have been appalled that his name was associated with what came after 1971.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Allan from Skye But he isn’t!! From there on we had the slow takeover of Friedmanite neo liberalism. remember it was Greenspan since Reagan more than a quarter of a century ago!!! He’s no Keynesian is he. I think we’ll just never get anywhere once people use this kind of rewriting of history. Thatcher closed the ship building industry, the coal mining and the steel industry in GB. The labour movement get blamed but they would wouldn’t they. Anyway there’s really only one way to end this argument once and for all and that is to ACTUALLY try the free market as it has never been tried before and therefore we don’t know if it will work or not despite your predictions. The fact remains the wealthiest american citizen lived in the very early 70′s and it looks like it will be a long long long time before he returns. More likely he’ll have to move to Bejing to get there. It would be an interestin social experiment in how to run a country but I fear for you. Still with the likes of FOX news so set against Ron Paul you haven’t much of a hope. Good luck tho….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Freidlon7 I too care about the old weak and elderly in the world.T e argument is about the best mechanism for providing the wealth which can then be spent as part of a balanced budget
Ultimately,Keynesian economics is the management of decline and the spending of wealth over a long period of time,but the problem is once its spent its gone and theres nothing left but debt which must be paid back with no means of production to facilitate this.
Its a bit like harvesting the orchard by cutting down the trees,its a lot easier to pick the apples and you get lots of firewood without going to look for it but once its gone theres no more apples for 10 years.
In the fifties,Scotland was producing 39% of the worlds shipping but constant strikes,ships well over estimates and beyond delivery dates and rising overheads drove the entire industry abroad.
However ,Finland has a very successfull shipbuilding industry and one of the highest standards of living and social provision in spite of being a tiny freezing dark country.
Now,in G lasgow the descendants of the men who came down from their crofts in the highlands and islands to build the worlds ships live in deprevation,heroin,single mothers,drink and unemployment with a life expectancy for men of 55.So Keynsianism didnt work very well for them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Friedlon7 Sweden,Norway and Denmark do sound like they are worth checking out.If only they werent so damn cold!
The huge imbalances in pay between executives and workers getting much worse over the past 15 years or so is not because of free markets.Its because of monopolistic chrony capitalism in bed with government with a direct line to the artificially cheap tap of funny money from the completely unaccountable federal reserve.
The regulations that have been brought in have been brought in to protect the corporations from competition from the wee people.
Its privatisation of the profits and socialisation of the losses.
Its monopolies without accountability.
These are all things that were illegal in the USA until the early part of the 20th century when the monopolist industrialist/bankers got their hands on the levers of power and started to spend americas wealth using the people as collateral and corrupting Americas democracy.
Until then,people were flocking to America from Scandinavia.
I bet they would flock the other way now if they could.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Allan from Skye Lol, although New York in winter’s no joke, been there. So what you are saying is – there has never been ‘free market capitalism’. Well strictly one could argue that and I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you at all so how do we know it’d work? As I said the biggest movement in HUMAN HISTORY of people out of poverty and into the middle classes was under Keynesian economics in the 50′s and 60′s when the rich were taxed 96%!!!! Even I think that’s way too much, right! but it’s a fact…. Now the second biggest movement in History is occurring in CHINA, India, Brazil and the opposite is happening in the states. In India, Brazil and obviously China the governments are playing a very hands on role in this development. What does that show us – that capitalism is not necessary for this kind of wealth creation. Take for instance the USSR. At the start of the 1900′s it was rated alongside African countries as impoverished, famines, a true 3 rd world country and under communism it went to become the 2nd big world super power. Similarly under Fascism Germany made an amazing economic recovery. So there is more than one way to skin a cat. Nobody tho wants to live under Chinese style or Nazi regime’s – right? But we also don’t want to live under corporate tyranny and the bail out shows us that is where we are now. In Europe IMF/ECB is running the show, dislodging democratically elected governments in Greece, Spain, Italy and telling the likes of the Irish how to run their budgets. In the states you have the Fed calling the shots. This is not big government as these are independent unelected bodies but I agree that the political class work to facilitate these and big business corporate interests. This is big business. ‘Politics is the shadow cast by big business over society’. So logically as an extension of that look at Foz and CNN etc and who they are backing covertly. Certainly not Ron Paul. You won’t see Glen Beck calling for an end to foreign intervention. The mass media went along with the bail outs, the wars and in this forums case anti GW propaganda and that proves one thing emphatically. Mass media is the propaganda arm of corporate interests. The ONLY thing they are up in arms about on FOX is health reform!!! Why?? Not because it’s fucking socialism – don’t make me die laughing pleeeeease!! Fuck me in aforementioned Sweden they pay for the heating in the homes of the elderly during the winter. These are not fascist devils with fucking horns running the country… ‘Oh How evil it is for society to give a shit about the elderly!’
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Experience counts2 Have you checked out http://www.petitionproject.org yet?You may change your mind about Ron Paul being delusional once you have.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You can tell a conservative and a liberal by a brief look at lifestyles. A person who drives a Volvo is almost 100% not going to be Rep voter. A person who has holidayed in the jungles of south America is almost 100% going to be a liberal. A conservative likes to go the same restaurant and almost always orders the same thing, a liberal will try a new restaurant and is more likely to try a new dish. These are facts that political researchers use to determine the whereabouts of the small per cent of undeciders – roughly and only about 40to50 thousand Americans. they know this by observing shopping habits. Where does this come from?? Evolutionary science believes that in tribes we had two types of person. Those adventurous types who liked to go over the next hill or into the cave or eat the unfamiliar berry. Sometimes they discovered something advantageous to the group, sometimes they got killed by a bear. The other more conservative type argued that the group should consolidate what it had and not move on or try the new berries. Sometimes this meant they didn’t bump into the stronger tribe over the hill or didn’t all die from the poison berries. Both types were essential to the survival of the group as a whole. Now there’s been created this fake war between ourselves which is actually generated and propagated by mass media who represent two factions of the same business interests with very little difference between them. USA is a two party dictatorship with Obama continuing the Bush admin’s programme – as far as foreign policy, bail outs, corporatism, extension of executive powers. In the 50/60′s with high taxes and lot’s of government projects the US saw the biggest migration of people from working class to middle class in the HISTORY of mankind. In the last 30 years of neo-liberal ideology(right wing) you have seen the exact opposite with the destruction of the middle class and the vast enrichment of the super rich. So ask yourself what is the sign of a countries success? Economy? Well then Chinese cummunism is the best nowadays. Liberty? with the Bush laws and Obama’s it’s not the US. It’s socialist scandanavian countries – lowest crime rates, more equality, best education, health AND (this is very important) in equal societies there is more patents per head of capita – that is more entrepreneurship, business start ups etc. This may not be the American way and that’s fine but don’t call other people fascists or liberal ideologues just cause they have another way of doing things that works great for them. In Sweden CEO of a company earns 13 times the average worker. In US it’s 500 times -think about it? Remember propaganda works best when you don’t think it’s happening. Fox/Beck and all that crap are dividing the nation. Liberals/conservatives each other survive. TALK, don’t scream. DEBATE don’t fight.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
That’s why Ron Paul is such a problem for the mass media but also such a dilemma for the Republican party, because he really does represent ‘change’ to the status quo and therefore in modern terms represents a radical (that is non-conservative) shift in direction. Obviously the mass media does not want the end the US foreign policy on oil Wars, Israel, military protectionism of the likes of the Saudi royalty in return for massive inputs of Saudi money to Wall street. What you really have to come to terms with is that Obama is also a conservative. To Europeans the idea that he’d be called socialist is beyond a joke. So he wants to make health public. After WWII all of European countries (even the defeated) now enjoy universal health care as an expression of societies values. In other words you are judged by how you treat the least of men. The poor, criminals, the handicapped, the very young and the very old. The US is the only modern state that has not had these things even tho you emerged form the War as the richest country on earth. It’s argued that this is the American way – every man for himself. That’s fine but those countries who like to share wealth evenly are very successful, peaceful, rich countries in themselves and in lots of ways far more successful than the US. Ron Paul has attracted lot’s of democrats, young, disillusioned but also this super fractious element that does not know quite were it sits on his social issues – legalisation of drugs etc. Obama didn’t bring in those lwas. Obama didn’t bring in the end to habeus corpus. Obama didn’t bring in preemptive wars. Obama didn’t bring in the right for the president to bypass congress on war. The constitution was descimated by the Republican party under Bush. So what’s the logical conclusion to all this. You have a 2 party system that does the same thing – protects corporate interests against the will and well being of the people – YOU NEED NEW PARTIES. The fucking tea party is a corporate front. Big government???? Bush/Rep’s tripled your spending and national debt in 8 years – Now THAT’s big governement. You’ll never solve it unless you stop killing each other over crap you hear on the fucking radio and see on your ridiculous excuses for news broadcasting. At least in the USSR they knew the news was propaganda but you don’t. That is why without TOTALLY independent/non funded media you have NO democracy – NONE whatsoever. Just look at the way they are ignoring RON PAUL. Last time they literally laughed at him. Now they are simply ignoring him. Free/balanced/democratic?? WAKE THE FUCK UP USA before the nightmare really starts.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
in an american context a conservative could be one who seeks to preserve the constitution of the US whilst being a radical both against the status quo of the Obama administration and the republican party as it stood prior to this nomination process.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
dictionary definition.Conservative =one who desires to preserve the institutions of his country against change and progress.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0