Global Warming

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.

(If you’ve found a spelling or transcription error, please notify us anonymously by selecting the misspelled text and then pressing Ctrl+Enter. Thank you!)

  • Chris

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

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

    • Joel

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

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

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


  • Chris

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

    • Joel

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

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

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

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

      • Joel

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

      • Chris

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

  • robert

    ron paul on the alex jones show about climate change lies

    THE TRUTH IS the climate changes all the time


    HEY all you bohemain grove owl worshipping scum

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

  • jhon

    solar cycles Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
    21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pdf

    water vapor rules the greenhouse system

  • Chris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Fluidly Unsure

    One of the reasons many are questioning anthro-CC is chronicled here:

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

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

    • Jim Roper

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

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

      • Fluidly Unsure

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

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

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

  • fight4freedom

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

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

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

  • fight4freedom

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

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

    • BEP

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

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

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

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

    • James Joseph Roper

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

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

      • Fluidly Unsure

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

        If we are in a phase of mass-extinction that has never been seen before, then why are new species being found every year why were 1300 new species found last month?

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

        • James Joseph Roper

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

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

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

          • Fluidly Unsure

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

          • Braun

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

  • Matthew s

    Ozone as a greenhouse gas

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

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

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

    • Fluidly Unsure

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

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

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

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

      However, I have a couple of questions:

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

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

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

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

      • Matt S.

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

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

        • Fluidly Unsure

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

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

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

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

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

  • Matthew s

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

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

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

    • Fluidly Unsure

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

    • BEP

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

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

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

      • Braun

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

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

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

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

  • John Fallavollita

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

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

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

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

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

    • Fluidly Unsure

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

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

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

  • Terra

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

    • Terra

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

    • James Joseph Roper

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

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

  • Matt S.

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

    • Topher

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

      In a related subject, Dr. Paul mentions doubt when it comes to “climategate.” The whole “climategate” fuss was over nothing and anybody who actually listened to the follow-up from the scientists who were involved in the email will show you what the words meant. I hope after hearing such evidence that he’s changed his appraisal. Here’s a link to a video that demonstrates this:

      On the general subject of answering skeptics about climate change, here’s a website that shows answers to the biggest claims:

      • BEP

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

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

    • lancer

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

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

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

      • Topher

        Lancer, if the commit suicide comment was directed at me, I think I’ll pass. 🙂

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

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

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

        • Albedo

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

      • Fluidly Unsure

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

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

    • Matthew s

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

  • take me off your list

  • Debra Lynn

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

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

    • lancer

      Where exactly is this “pandering” occurring exactly?

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

  • Sam

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

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

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

    • BEP

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

  • Deleeuw

    Does Al Gore still have stock in Occidental Petrolemum?

  • fight4freedom

    Hot or Cold who knows?

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

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

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

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

    • BEP

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

      • Fluidly Unsure

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

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

        • BEP

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

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

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

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

  • William

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

  • Richard C Green

    please take me off this email list