Global Warming

2943 Responses




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


2,943 responses to “Global Warming”

  1. hamster

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  2. flipstone

    the “problem” of high-level “nu clear waste” has
    been given much attention, but this prob lem has been politically created by U.S. government barriers to American fuel breeding and reprocessing. Spent nuclear fuel can be re cycled into new nuclear fuel. It need not be stored in expensive re positories. Reactor ac cidents are also much publicized, but there has never been even one hu man death associated with an American nuclear reactor incident. All forms of en ergy gen eration, in cluding “green” methods, entail industrial deaths in the mining, manufacture, and transport of re -sources they re quire. Nuclear en ergy requires the smallest amount of such resources and therefore has the lowest risk of deaths.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    1. Brad

      that is down right stupid, clean free energy is the only way of the future.
      All nuclear generation and weapons should be sent to the sun and be destroyed.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  3. Brad

    Shucks jhon, have you not heard of the 3mile island fiasco, Chernoble nuclear disaster and most recently the Japanese nuclear disaster. Who was the geiuses that put nuclear generation on a fault line anyways. When there is a problem with nuclear reactors it is always a disaster and is everyones problem, the wind and currents carry it around the world. If I ran the world it would be Illegal punishable by death! Post us a pic of you bathing in oil not mineral oil, moron!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    1. jhon

      Yes I have heard of these disasters brad and you know what I still think nuclear is very good. Here is why. the “problem” of high-level “nu clear waste” has been given much attention, but this prob lem has been po litically cre -ated by U.S. gov ernment barriers to American fuel breeding and reprocessing. Spent nuclear fuel can be re cycled into new nuclear fuel. It need not be stored in ex pensive re positories.Reactor ac cidents are also much publicized, but there has never been even one hu man death associated with an American nuclear re -actor inci dent. Also when you shut down nuclear power plants this creates nuclear waste. When you increase them using fuel breeding and reprocessing like they do in france there is no nuclear waste created or produced. But getting rid of them does not solve anything. All forms of en ergy gen eration, in cluding “green” methods, en tail industrial deaths in the mining, manufacture, and transport of re -sources they re quire. Nu clear en ergy requires the small est amount of such resources (124) and therefore has the lowest risk of deaths. I personally know people who live in chernobyl and three mile Island and they are doing just fine and dont have cancer and are very healthy and they tell me no one living in three mile island or chernobyl has cancer because the type of radiation released from meltdowns from nuclear power plants is called ionizing radiation. This form of radiation people have managed to cope with just fine without determinal health effects. Also I have friends that live in the north of japan in the same exact area that fukishima happened in japan and they had their radiation levels taken and the amount of radiation they had was negligible and the amount of radiation evreyone else had in the area was negligible. I also have a friend who has a blog in japan who took radiation readings of the reactor 3 in fukishima and the area around it before and after the disaster and he said that the reactor did not melt down because he was there and he saw with his own eyes that it did not and the amount of radiation coming it from him before the disaster was negligible and after the disaster was negligible. Also my friends living in the north of japan in the area where fukishima is and happened told me that evreybody is already going about their lives just fine and evreything has already been rebuilt in the north of japan.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  4. jhon

    geothermal energy is bad and not a good source of power because in the proccess of extracting the heat big earthqukes I created evrey single time. the quanity of of nuclear waste by power plants is very small. 25 years of waste from one plant fits under a coffee table. It is safe to bury deep in the earth, but it is better to keep it at power plants where it presently resides which is much safer than shipping it across the country. Nuclear power is the second most effecient and cleanest way to produce electricity after hydro-power dams. The safety record of nuclear power in the west is almost completely without any loss of life or illness. The current un tenable situation in which the United States is los – ing $300 billion per year to pay for for eign oil and gas is not the re -sult of failures of gov ernment energy pro duction ef forts. The U.S. government does not pro duce energy. En ergy is pro duced by pri vate industry. Why then has energy pro duction thrived abroad while do – mestic production has stagnated?
    This stagnation has been caused by United States gov ernment taxation,
    regula tion, and sponsorship of litigation, which has made the U.S. a very un favorable place to produce energy. In addition, the U.S. gov ernment has spent vast sums of tax money sub sidizing inferior energy technologies for politi cal purposes. It is not necessary to discern in ad vance the best course to fol low.
    Legis lative repeal of taxation, reg ulation, incen tives to litigation, and repeal of all subsi dies of energy genera tion industries would stim ulate industrial devel opment, wherein com peti tion could then automatically de termine the best paths.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  5. Brad

    We live on a giant magnet, we should all have access to clean free energy. This was discovered by Nicola Tesla over 90 years ago and has been suppressed til recently. All of our automobiles, homes, cities and earth should be powered by “Clean, Free Energy.” The sun, wind and tides of the waters are clean but expensive. The 13 families controling us and the world must adapt to correct their evil greedy ways now or be destroyed forever! WAKE UP EVERYBODY!
    NO NUCLEAR GENERATORS, NO MORE FOSIL FUELS, NO MORE CORRUPTION!

    IT IS OUR WORLD NO LONGER THE SLAVES OF THE 13 FAMILIES WITH 95% OF THE WORLDS WEALTH. WE ARE ONTO YOU!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    1. jhon

      as atmospheric co2 increases plant growth rates increase. Also leaves transpire less and lose less water as co2 increases so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally. 1,000 to 2,000 year old pine trees have shown a sharp increase in growth during the past half century. Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a re sult of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. The CO2 pro duced from human use of coal, oil, and natural gas does, , ac celerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier re gions. An imal life, which de pends upon plants, also flourishes, and the di versity of plant and an imal life is increased. The United States and other coun tries need to produce more en – ergy, not less. The most practi cal, econom ical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies: http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    2. jhon

      also brad crude oil does not come from the buring of fossil fuels. The crude mineral oil petroleum that is used to prepare the homeopathic medicine by the same name is created from decomposed plant and animal material. It is a natural resource that is obtained from beneath the earth: http://www.herbs2000.com/homeopathy/petroleum.htm
      and solar power is not clean. Because they add high amounts of arsenic along with high amounts of the most toxic chemicals in the world to all the solar cells. And when a solar panel is disposed of if there were plants or crops in the area it is disposed of they all die and there is no more becaue it is so toxic. And wind turbines have caused vertigo to sleep deprivation, migraines, heart disease, stress and tinnitus to people living next to them. last time I was in france I met a small farmer there who told me that he lives next to a wind turbine and that the wind turbines makes a lot of noise only turns half of the time, and stalls and he hates it. It is uneffective. also my grandpa had because he died recently but when he was alive he had a farm in france and after they installed a bunch of windmills next to his farm all the birds hundreds of them that would fly around the farm died. Tidal power is bad because they use a turbine under the water. Political calls for a re duction of U.S. hydrocarbon use by 90% thereby eliminating 75% of America’s en ergy supply, are ob -
      viously impractical. Nor can this 75% of U.S. en ergy be replaced by alternative “green” sources. De spite enor mous tax sub sidies over the past 30 years, green sources still pro vide only 0.3% of U.S. energy.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  6. michael

    Here are many “Peer-Reviewed” articles that should end the belief that “the debate is over” about global warming. It should also destroy the illusion that there is a “consensus” amongst scientists about the causes of global warming. Those propagating the myth of man-caused global warming are simply distorting reality and the facts…..and that is putting it politely: http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  7. michael

    An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  8. michael

    From Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truthto news reports from the popular media outlets and even goverment funded propoganda public classrooms which, in chicken little fashion, seem to be screaming – the sky is falling. But is it really? This film blows the whistle on what may be the biggest swindle in modern history. We are told that “Man Made Global Warming” is the biggest threat ever to mankind and that it may even threaten our very survival; and, if we do not change our ways and reduce CO2 emissions – polar ice caps will melt, coastal areas will flood and hurricanes like Katrina will become common. With nearly Gestapo like tactics we are told not to question! There is absolutely no room for doubt because there is a “scientific consensus.” Anyone who questions the data or conclusion is an enemy of the state and humanity. Well, bring it on because this is exactly what this well documented film does. The Great Global Warming Swindle uses a plethora of leading scientists who will not bend to political or philosophical or ideological pressure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

    »crosslinked«

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  9. jay

    global warming petiton project: 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs: We urge the United States goverment to reject the global warming agreement that was written in kyoto japan in december 1997 and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the enviroment, hinder the advance of science and technology and damange the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earths atmosphere and disruption of the earths climate. Moreover there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plants and animal enviroments of the earth: http://www.petitionproject.org/

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. jack

    beneficial enviromental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, ANDWILLIE SOON
    Oregon Institute of Science and Med icine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junc tion, Or egon 97523 [artr@oism.org] ABSTRACT: A review of the re search lit erature concerning the environmen tal consequences of increased levels of atmo spheric carbon dioxide leads to the con clusion that in creases dur ing the
    20th and early 21st cen turies have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and cli mate. Increased carbon di oxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Pre dictions of harmful cli matic ef fects due to future in creases in hydrocarbon use and mi nor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The benefical environmen tal effects of rapid ex pansion of the nu clear and hy drocarbon en ergy in dustries
    are dis cussed: http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  11. Charles R Spencer

    As much as I love Ron Paul for his legendary integrity and his clear view of many financial realities, I feel he is doing us a great disservice here. Many mini-events and trends can influence the weather but our nasty weather is only half of the story. Growing regions have shifted, pests and diseases are moving from their natural areas. Ancient Coral is being decimated all over the ocean.

    The greatest evidence though, in a world filled with suggestive inclinations is the rise of the oceans. To expand the 3/4 of the world that is not inhabited by humans requires a global force.

    Unfortunatly, Sea level rise is not our only or perhaps even our worse situation.
    CO2 acidification of the ocean may wreak havoc on the primary food supply that has already been decimated by overfishing nurseries.

    Do you want to know if a politician is honest with you and himself? Ask him if overfishing is a problem, how big a problem it is and what should be done about it? No one talks about these problems because it can only involve international governance and the loss of unsustainable profits. Ignoring the problem will return us to the dog eat world that we thought we had left!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    1. ham

      ocean acidification is caused by underwater volcanoes. Ovefishing is not the problem. The problem is that conservationists will introudce sharks that were not there before in that part of the ocean so they eat all the fish and they blame it on overfishing and call it overfishing. you breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Then this carbon dioxide you exhale is used by the plants as oxygen for them. It is part of the cycle of life. My mom learned this in her sceince class in high school in france. So co2 cant and is not a pollutant. Secondly scientists have published studies which have been suppressed showing that co2 along with all the other greenhouse gasses can not and do not trap heat in the atmoshphere. Scientists have also released studies that have been suppressed that show the universe would not exist without all the greenhouse gases and if it were not for all the greenhouse gases it would be to hot on one side of the earth and to cold on the other. I recomend that you read this whole 329 page report and then respond to me: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk Fading “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009 & 2010
      (Updates Previous 2009 U.S. Senate Report: “More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”): https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/400467/original/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  12. mike

    More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk Fading “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009 & 2010
    (Updates Previous 2009 U.S. Senate Report: “More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”): https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/400467/original/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf
    documentary on how a couple of scientists at cern found out that cosmic rays are the major driver of climate and how it took them 10 months to publish the study because of pressure not to by political community: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  13. hancock

    Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold, who argued in his book, :The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels” that micro-organisms found in oil might have come from the mantle of the earth where, absent photosynthesis, the micro-organisms feed on hydrocarbons arising from the earth’s mantle in the dark depths of the ocean floors. Are Coal, Natural Gas, and Crude Oil are not “Fossil Fuels” and Is There no Real Shortage of Oil: http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Are%20Coal,%20Natural%20Gas,%20and%20Crude%20Oil%20Really%20Fossil%20Fuels%20and%20Is%20There%20Really%20Any%20Oil%20Shortage%20of%20Oil.htm

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  14. hancock

    Yes, there is some measured warming of the earth’s surface, about 1 degree C. The warming started approximately two hundred years ago. It has been going up in a steady line since that time (minor year and decade variations).
    Yes, there is an increase in atmospheric levels of Carbon Dioxide, especially since about 1945, when it started to increase logarithmically. These increased CO2 levels are mostly attributable to humans burning fossil fuels.
    Do you see the problem with the Global Warming hypothesis here? The warming itself started two hundred years ago and continues in a linear fashion, but the large CO2 increase started sixty years ago and there has not been an increase in the rate of warming. (A cause has to come before the effect.)
    There is a good correlation between solar activity and earth temperature. The charts align almost perfectly, with increased solar activity directly proceeding increased earth temperature. (Cause and effect)
    There is good science to this. By “good science”, I mean that there are many measurements made in the real world that show this to be true. However, the “science” behind the dramatic Global Warming claims are measurements projected by computer models. Computer modeling is not science.
    There are many reasons not to be worried about the current warming of the earth. The first is that the earth has recently been warmer than now. About 1,000 years ago, the earth was about 1 degree C warmer than at present and that period was the Medieval climatic optimum (a good time for climate). Vikings could settle in Greenland, European populations grew, the Sahara was fertile, etc. History shows us that most of the world (except, perhaps, Venice) would be better off with warmer and more moist conditions.
    Atmospheric carbon dioxide is also re-adsorbed into seawater and the earth. This is happening at a slower rate than is being accumulated in the atmosphere right now, but there is a natural process that tends toward stasis (nature apparently re-balances the CO2 between earth, seawater, and the atmosphere). Natural systems tend to rebalance, not tip out of control.
    Also, carbon dioxide is good for plants. More plants can grow when there is more CO2 available. This is already having a very positive effect on the biomass of the earth (there has been an increase of plants on the earth, very likely because of the increase of CO2). With increased plant life (food), there is a corresponding increase in all animal life, including that of humans.
    Increased levels of carbon dioxide allow plants to thrive in environments where they could not grow with lower levels of CO2. This is especially true for plants that do not have enough water. Increased CO2 allows crops to be grown in dry places and so people with poor farms can grow food.
    Some scientists and many “environmental activists” believe that Global Warming because of human burning of fossil fuels is a danger to the earth. About 2,000 people, a few of them were scientists, signed the “Rio Summit” paper saying that human-caused Global Warming was a problem.
    Many are not convinced. About 30,000 scientists, most with advanced degrees in the “hard” sciences signed a strong paper saying that human-caused Global Warming is NOT a concern and that there are benefits to increased use of fuels (energy) and increased atmospheric CO2.
    (I can give you lots of documentation on all of this.)
    Klaus is a hero because he prefers liberty to tyranny. (I like him also because he wants to get along with other nations instead of anger them, but those are other issues.)
    He (rightly, in my opinion) sees that the “science” of Global Warming is in question (he sees that there is no agreement about its cause, its dangers, or, if it is a danger, the solutions) within the scientific community. Yet he also sees that this issue is being used as a reason to drastically control mankind (carbon credits, etc.) and limit freedom. He compares Environmentalism with Nazism and Communism — personal sacrifices for a fallacious (false) “good”.
    The fact is, many thought those “isms” were good at the time (though we look back at them now with horror). But if the radical Environmental Agenda is successful, there will come a time when we will see it through horror, as well. If energy consumption is reduced, there is less medicine, agriculture, refrigeration, jobs, stability. Rich countries will have a harder time, but it is the poor of the world who will suffer most. With totalitarian restrictions increasing the cost of food, I can eat rice instead of meat. When you only have rice, there will be nothing. The Soviets (Stalin) did this in the Ukraine. Eugenicists (those who select some to die and some to live) are monsters, be they of any color, red (Communist) or green (Environmentalist).

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    1. Brad

      Great well done! I agree, thanks.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  15. apple

    In this eye opening documentary entitled global warming or global governance , we hear from leading scientists and climatologists who refute the current crop of alarmists’ cries. We also hear from congressmen, economists, newscasters and sociologists who believe that something more sinister is involved. It appears global warming alarmists want the United States to give up her sovereignty and her rights, surrendering them to the socialistic mandates of the United Nations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFZv90oHO1E

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  16. flap

    From Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truthto news reports from the popular media outlets and even public classrooms which, in chicken little fashion, seem to be screaming – the sky is falling. But is it really? This film blows the whistle on what may be the biggest swindle in modern history. We are told that “Man Made Global Warming” is the biggest threat ever to mankind and that it may even threaten our very survival; and, if we do not change our ways and reduce CO2 emissions – polar ice caps will melt, coastal areas will flood and hurricanes like Katrina will become common. With nearly Gestapo like tactics we are told not to question! There is absolutely no room for doubt because there is a “scientific consensus.” Anyone who questions the data or conclusion is an enemy of the state and humanity. Well, bring it on because this is exactly what this well documented film does. The Great Global Warming Swindle uses a plethora of leading scientists who will not bend to political or philosophical or ideological pressure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. flip

    People around the world are noticing that our planet’s weather is dramatically changing. They are also beginning to notice the long lingering trails left behind airplanes that have lead millions to accept the reality of chemtrail/geoengineering programs. Could there be a connection between the trails and our severe weather? While there are many agendas associated with these damaging programs, evidence is now abundant which proves that geoengineering can be used to control weather. In this documentary you will learn how the aerosols being sprayed into our sky are used in conjunction with other technologies to control our weather. While geoengineers maintain that their models are only for the mitigation of global warming, it is now clear that they can be used as a way to consolidate an enormous amount of both monetary and political power into the hands of a few by the leverage that weather control gives certain corporations over the Earth’s natural systems. This of course, is being done at the expense of every living thing on the planet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  18. jhon

    More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
    Scientists Continue to Debunk Fading “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009 & 2010
    (Updates Previous 2009 U.S. Senate Report: “More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”): https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/400467/original/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  19. Patricia Bolden

    lets not make a Mittstake #team obama

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  20. Brad

    Eat less beans, plug all the volcano’s around the world, use and demand “free energy” (seiously), drive less, eat less, stay home more! And grow a garden too…

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    1. michael

      geothermal energy is bad and not a good source of power because in the proccess of extracting the heat big earthqukes I created evrey single time. the quanity of of nuclear waste by power plants is very small. 25 years of waste from one plant fits under a coffee table. It is safe to bury deep in the earth, but it is better to keep it at power plants where it presently resides which is much safer than shipping it across the country. Nuclear power is the second most effecient and cleanest way to produce electricity after hydro-power dams. The safety record of nuclear power in the west is almost completely without any loss of life or illness.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. Willful_Tortfeasor

    I don’t get why everyone still has to deny global warming. There’s plenty of evidence that it exists and is being caused by human CO2 emissions and no credible evidence that it’s all some big conspiracy. The real debate is as to what kind of effect it will have and how bad it will be.

    We can acknowledge man-made global warming without getting rid of our trucks and without petitioning the EPA for some economy-crashing regulations. You guys know this, right?

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 12

    1. Ian

      Nope. Theres no rational solution to this. You’re either in total denial or a tree hugging dirty hippy.

      They environmentalists come off as ignorant and whiny, and the corporatists will say anything to minimize their expenses no matter how destructive their actions are.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  22. April

    Face it. Global warming is just another ploy to get people’s money. When I was growing up, we were supposed to be afraid of “another” ice age. Now we’re supposed to be afraid of global warming. Well, these know-nothing scientists are out of their league when they postulate about fictional ages of the earth and their supposed return.

    You know what? The Lord controls the weather. Sure, humans need to be responsible about how they use the Lord’s resources and how they treat the Lord’s planet. But the humans are not in control of it. So throwing money at atheists and evolutionists who deny God is just going to exacerbate any and all problems we have, including the pollution problem. I am against many human practices, including the tendency to use what the Lord has given in irresponsible and evil ways. But let’s be honest here. People aren’t going to fix the problem by denying the Lord exists and doing things their own way.

    Yeah, I’m for a green earth. That’s an earth that produces abundantly, even as the Lord has commanded it. But people who go against the Lord stand between us and prosperity. They aren’t going to fix anything. They’re just going to make it worse.

    Throw money at global warming and you’re just increasing the problem, because the people taking your money are causing the problem. What’s the problem? It’s disobedience to God. Denying the Lord will put you at the mercy of every vagary and every whim. Not only will your pocketbook dwindle, but so will your brain size.

    Don’t be stupid. If you want something changed on this planet, go to the Lord and see what He wants done about it. I guarantee you it will always start with humbling yourself before Him and obeying Him.

    Yeah. Can’t see those global warming guys doing that, can you? So they have nothing to say of any value. Tune them out and get on your knees. Listen to the One who provides for you, not the riff-raff who want to steal from you.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 17

  23. Allan from Skye

    As. Ayn Rand put it brilliantly in her book Capitalism:the unknown ideal,a corporation that achieves a degree of monopoly entirely by making a good product at a good price within the law without help from the government either financially or by protective legislation achieves that in a free market by us the people buying its products voluntarily.
    Without help.from politicians it wilo have to work extremely hard to maintain that position since there will be no artificial barriers to other businesses to come looking for a slice of the action.
    In fact,monopolies can only exist, and continue to survive generally,if they get help from the politicians.
    Free markets are an equallising mechanism a little bit reminiscent
    Of the colt revolver being the great equlizer,so,as long as the politicians are kept out ,free markets will be good for the working man and history shows that the greater the degree of freedom of the markets without rigging by politicians the better off the working man is.
    Ultimately we get the politicians and the government we deserve.If we wont talk about certain issues then politicians wont take any action about them.
    In my opinion,the most radical.thing we can do is to simply discuss these issues calmly,listening to the other persons view and considering it adequatly before responding,then more people will bring these subjects up to their politicians and things will start to happen.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  24. Mother Earth

    Global warming……. That’s what they call it. Where did it come from?????? It has only now become an issue…… NUCLEAR TESTING is the cause! Very simple. Did we have global warming before the Nuclear age??? Answer is no. Nuclear testing is eating up the ozone layer, burning it up more and more with each bomb detonated. The more we test- the more atmosphere we lose. Very simple math here people.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16

    1. Matt

      This is simply false. Ozone has no effect on global warming, it only serves to block UV radiation from the sun. Global Warming with relations to humans is caused by the greenhouse effect, which can be attributed to increased greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans. This is primarily in the form of CO2, released when fossil fuels such as oil, coal, or natural gas is combusted.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3

      1. flin

        People around the world are noticing that our planet’s weather is dramatically changing. They are also beginning to notice the long lingering trails left behind airplanes that have lead millions to accept the reality of chemtrail/geoengineering programs. Could there be a connection between the trails and our severe weather? While there are many agendas associated with these damaging programs, evidence is now abundant which proves that geoengineering can be used to control weather. In this documentary you will learn how the aerosols being sprayed into our sky are used in conjunction with other technologies to control our weather. While geoengineers maintain that their models are only for the mitigation of global warming, it is now clear that they can be used as a way to consolidate an enormous amount of both monetary and political power into the hands of a few by the leverage that weather control gives certain corporations over the Earth’s natural systems. This of course, is being done at the expense of every living thing on the planet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  25. Brad

    Donalddriver you are most certainly proof of what you say.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. Brian

    The “Climate gate emails” were found to be the real hoax. Every scientist that has tried to disprove the science behind climate change has failed.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5

  27. Brad

    Global warming is a total farce, i remember before the “global warming scam” the hotter than normal years blamed solar flares from the sun and the cooler on less sun activity. Have we become so simple in this age of mass information that we can’t think for ourselves and believe whatever our corrupt media and government tell us? Is our life so busy and our food so contaminated and our brains so fat that we can’t remember just 30, 50, 90 years ago. To this to you i say we are brainwashed to believe whatever they want us to believe. Are we a burden to this earth of coarse but we are getting better, as you know this big old earth is much stronger that all of us but we must be better and wizer stewards of it.
    “IT IS BACK TO THE SAME FAT CATS OF THE WORLD THEY DON’T WANT CLEAN ENERGY, THEY DON’T WANT FREE ENERGY SO THEY SUCK US IN TO USING FOSIL FUELS FUELS BECAUSE THEY OWN AND CONTROL THEM = US TOO! Lie to repress for they’re good against the good of the people. The mindset is consitant with every corner of our lives from energy=pollution to health and illness. Ron Paul is just the start of a renaissance of freedom of thought and ideas and reality. It is all here at our fingertips but to do and act upon it has been made “illegal.”

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

  28. ggodlennick

    If your body is physically weak and restricted (low level of flexibility), you will have a minimal chance at playing good golf and staying injury-free as well.
    Tr Outlet Tr Jeans
    Mens True Religion Womens True Religion
    We can know in depth by having a look at the different phases or types of astrology. These all are important and particular types of this science. These are known as;
    http://www.truereligionoutletjeanssale.com
    First, you should know that True Religion Jeans are very, very expensive. There are regular sewing True Religion jeans, T GRANDE sewn (with thick seams) and Super T stitching (with super thick seams.) The Super T is the most expensive, about $ 319 per couple. Your first indication of whether or not the jeans that is sure to want to buy is: PRICE. If you are too cheap, then chances are they’re fake. However, this is not always the case. I’ve seen a number of fakes being sold at very high prices. So beware! Pay attention to details!
    http://shifingearzmag.com/forumsgm/index.php?action=profile;u=123385

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8

    1. sylvain

      Very nicely stated. That is all.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  29. DonaldDriver

    I recommend that people who are arguing this point stay away from taking a flat-out anti-science stance, and rather focus on the appropriate response to the possibility that there is climate change – and that human activity may have something to do with it. There are too many educated people out there that vote who are looking for reasons to align with a given candidate or distance themselves. Mr. Paul should focus on an appropriate governmental response to global warming – which could be ‘nothing’, but I do not think he should trash scientists and data – he is going to lose credibility with an educated demographic, many of whom have jobs, and vote. The anti-science crowd eats this kind of thing up, but you need to broaden your base if you want to get elected. If you want to get elected. I don’t think every politician running wants to win, just to remain relevant enough to sell books, merchandise.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4

  30. Allan from Skye

    Ian,my guess would be that Ron would argue that the market would punish the corporations that were making a worse product at a worse price than the competition in a free market where they wouldnt have the lobbyists writing the laws to create monopolies where the consumers choice is restricted.
    As far as living near mines etc,again,my guess would be that Ron would argue that if a company was damaging the common environment it could be sued in the courts by those affected ,thereby ruining them,without a huge bloated government programme and monopolistic barriers to entry thus created which inturn leads to high levels of unemployment.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Ian

      So we would have to let a facility knowingly pollute until some kids are born with birth defects or people come down with bizarre forms of cancer. Then allow them to be sued. Then a few years after a drawn out court case the company pays up, resturctures, and starts over again.

      I live in northwest Indiana and we have alot of industry here. There is a refinary, 3 active powerplants, and several steel mills. You can taste it in the air. Conincedentally it is also a cancer hotspot radiating away from the lake. Not having any kind of baseline of acceptable environmental controls is simply irresponsible. Free market ideals aside the human cost of a system like you suggest is unacceptable especially when people know better.

      That class action lawsuit wont help the needlessly maimed or killed people live their lives.

      I suspect someone will say I should move but there is also gainful employment here. Alot of which has been building environmental controls along with maintaining the existing facilities.

      This is beside the point but I realize people are going to associate Northwest Indiana with Gary. I live in Valparaiso. There is a world of difference.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      1. Allan from Skye

        Ian,libertarianism isnt anarchy.In other words libertarians dont believe in no state and people riding roughshod over the rights of others,but in limited government with a smaller but,crucially,adequately funded,role to play.
        As part of that role it would be permitted under the constitution to defend property rights without favour to special interests.
        Part of defending property rights is punishing people or companies that damage your property ,for example the air you breathe or the water you drink.since common property is recognised in law.
        There is an opportunity cost associated with big government where the state takes on roles that it is neither authorised under the constitution to do,nor able to carry out properly,and that opportunity cost is that firstly the state is unable to carry out the tasks that it is authorised to do,like defending the borders and protecting liberty and property and of course the bankruptcy and mass unemployment that results when all the industry and money moves offshore.
        These factors have to be taken into consideration when advocating hugely expensive programmes which on the surface sound like a good idea.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        1. Ian

          Oh im totally disgusted by all the waste and inefficiency too. I don’t understand why being environmentally responsible has to be so complicated. But I’m having a really hard time understanding how eliminating the EPA and cutting everyone’s taxes will translate to innovation and corporations seeing a balance between profits and ethics.

          One of my favorite things about libertarians are they are the only people that see that subsidies to private businesses only either encourage a company to make decisions that dont make sense, or prop up an entity that the free market is naturally trying to evolve or eliminate.

          I really do like the libertarian platform. I just have this feeling like the constitutional simplification of it all will somehow benefit the big money a lot more than the average american. Mostly because im a little skeptical of everything.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  31. Ian

    Wait so whats his stance on environmental controls? Lets make the assumption our activity will have no effect on the ice caps or the earth being liveable. Thats still not a good reason to frack in national parks or turn Lake Erie flamable again.

    I guess my last question is does he feel that companies have a reposnsibility to their consumers and the people that live around their facilities?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

  32. Allan from Skye

    To whoever is filling up the columns of this forum with bilge,I ask are you mercenaries or do you really think that by doing this you will further some kind of ethical objective?
    Do you think that low grade cyber warfare or,for that matter ,any kind of cyber warfare will help to win the battle for hearts and minds?
    Do you think that people are too stupid not to see what you are up to?
    Have you no shame?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  33. respebuispart

    The ban on campaign-related activities, laid down within the Supreme Presidential Election Commission on behalf of 48 hours prior to when the exact vote, did little in which to dim excitement to you see, the capital, as an army vehicle rumbled through the use of Tahrir Sq . — all of the epicentre to do with protests which experts claim toppled Mubarak — urging Egyptians with regard to vote. ray ban new wayfarer
    “The participation between citizens for your presidential election is the most suitable guarantee from your transparency as well as a security of a electoral process,” Mohammed al-Assar, a brand new member while using the SCAF, was likely quoted as saying by using state news agency MENA. discount ray bans
    Typically the army, and its vast yet opaque economic power, wants and keep its budget their secret caused by remaining exempt through parliamentary scrutiny, maintain control involving military-related legislation and so secure immunity by prosecution.
    http://www.cheapraybansusa.com

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  34. coachhandbagsv

    coach outlet
    100% Authentic Online Coach factory outlet store Supply Cheap coach handbags, Wholesale coach handbags, Discount coach handbags coach handbags For Sale From USA.All Product is Free Shipping
    coach handbags

    ideal flattering craft to accompany you in any formal or causal occasion,Coach Handbags causal series and business suits, all of which have various fashionable designs for you to choose,Coach Shoulder Bags also by welcome!!!
    Coach Coffee New Tapered Chelsea Tote Bags 52176020

    Coach Grey New Signature Zip Satchel Tote Bags 74575461

    1. Simple elegant tote style with sturdy straps

    2. Inside zip pocket & multifunction pockets

    3. Coach signature sateen fabric with luxurious logo prints

    Coach Black New Alexandra Op Art Joy Handbags 81733555

    Coach Poppy BagsCoach Poppy BagsCoach Poppy Bags

    4. Zip to closure. Fabric lining

    5.Exported Coach Tote Bags

    Customer always buy from Coach Store,you may also like Coach Choocolate Kristin Op Art Handbags

    The newest style of coach mini wallet are supply in our coach store online with fast shipping,High quality!
    Coach Blue Classic Signature "Coach" style Shoes 30987

    Coach Grey Op Art Large Business Bags 66205969

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11

  35. Assodearcadia

    Bepalingen van de die doorgaans regelaars bereikt met behulp van investeringsbanken kan ook bovendien op spelen. Grote Wall Street banken overeengekomen van na wij zijn over met behulp van hun onderzoeks-eenheden als je wilt hype eerste public die zal analisten niet-beursgenoteerde die in lage verband. ralph lauren
    Onder van het feit dat nederzetting, het banken overeengekomen in staat te stellen in de markt de grootste onafhankelijkheid off tussen de onderzoekseenheden. Ze kunnen overeengekomen ter , bijvoorbeeld met oorspronkelijk uit op road shows maar in de markt vragen investment banking activiteiten. supra society
    Als een analist zijn gevonden naar door te werken met uw investment bankers die een bepaalde officiel, dat zou kunnen zijn de nieuwe van de nederzetting, zegt Thomas Gorman, this in de buurt van de het grootste deel van de advocatenkantoor Dorsey & Whitney bovendien op deze SEC Acties blog.
    http://www.suprafootwearsnederland.com

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

Leave a Reply