Global Warming

3096 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.

3,096 responses to “Global Warming”

  1. longshotlouie

    According to Friday’s Washington Times, the legislation (cap and trade) includes language that provides, should it become law, that people who lose their jobs because of it “could get a weekly paycheck for up to three years, subsidies to find new work and other generous benefits—courtesy of Uncle Sam.”

    How generous are these benefits? Well, according to the Times, “Adversely affected employees in oil, coal and other fossil-fuel sector jobs would qualify for a weekly check worth 70 percent of their current salary for up to three years. In addition, they would get $1,500 for job-search assistance and $1,500 for moving expenses from the bill’s ‘climate change worker adjustment assistance’ program, which is expected to cost $4.2 billion from 2011 to 2019.”

    http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/07/06/democrats-admit-that-their-cap-and-trade-bill-is-a-job-killer.html

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/03/energy-job-losers-could-get-windfall/

    »crosslinked«

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. longshotlouie

    Garcon! More Co2, Please.

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. longshotlouie

    “Al Gore today compared the battle against climate change with the struggle against the Nazis,” reports the London Times.

    So presumably anyone who questions climate change is now a Nazi sympathizer – a global warming denier?

    Nowhere will you hear a deeper insult to the millions of people who lost their lives during world war two fighting the Nazis.

    The only thing Al Gore is fighting for is his right to scam trillions of dollars out of us via a cap and trade system that he – along with the Rothschilds and Maurice Strong – partly owns.

    The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.

    The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.

    Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

    While Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.

    HELLOOOOOO !!!!!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Christine

      Going Green alright, more American’s greens right into the pockets of the wealthy.

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/16781569/The-Great-American-Bubble-Machine-GoldmanSachs-and-the-crash

      This article talks about another heist that is due to take place. The article explains that Cap & Trade (Tax) will create a new commodity for Wall Street, investors and scammers and for green companies to get excited about. More damage to the economy? Probably.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Mike

      People just don’t get it. Al Gore is going to get rich off of this scam and we need to stop the bill in the senate. These fake bubbles piss me off.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. Christine

      Ever increasing use of manufactured “crisis” to control the masses. Make them afraid of something, put fear into them, and the masses of sheeple will drop their opposition and responsibility and look for a leader…that allows the government to do whatever it wants (in the name of Saving You). Put a smiling face in front of the people, a smooth, eloquent talker who appears to be thoughtful and sincere, with a pretense of being a caring individual you can trust, who puts hope in your heart…and there you have it, CONTROL OVER THE PEOPLE’S MINDS…so “they” can have their way with the plans for the world, for the NWO.

      Don’t let it happen to you. Don’t contribute to it. Use and protect your own minds. Be creative. Motivate people through honest to goodness love and care. Be sincere, honest and consistent. Ron Paul is a great example of the above. Be informed via the internet. Mainstream media has been bought, it’s toast.

      To manufacture crisis after crisis is on the to-do list of the Bilderberg Group, so we will view the government as our Savior. THEY ARE NOT ALL THAT! They are the cause of what ails America, the corruption, they are the sickness, the terrorists. Remember the saying of when pointing the finger at another (nation), there are 3 fingers pointing back to you(what’s going on in America). We will see it and hear this theme song time and again, like a broken record. Don’t let it disturb you, only use it to inform you that the Natzi idiots are getting ready to pull off another heist. They follow a distinct pattern. Noticed? Do you know how you can tell when they are telling a lie? Their lips are moving.

      As long as everyone plays the part they want them to play in their world game, for those who are not alert and awake yet, the game goes on in their favor. But if you interrupt their game, use your own mind, get control of yourself, do something they don’t expect, then the game changes. They feed off of the money WE make. They are busy creating streams of income directly from the American people to them to make you and our country poorer. Can you hear that sucking sound? They will keep taking until they get down to the lint at the bottom of your pocket. Greed. Good ol’ American Greed. Foreclosed homes, home loans, car sales, green products, health insurance, educational system, insurance companies, …what else have they bought up for income purposes? oh, inflation, hyperinflation, taxes, cap and trade, oil, war….on and on.

      This is the game theme of the Bilderberg Group and elite bankers which permeate our media, financial and political systems, military too. I look forward to the day when the masses stand up to them and say, no! Not my country, not in America! not Anywhere!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Stehenallein

    The Great Global Warming Swindle.

    I do not doubt that mankind is releasing chemicals, and pollutants into our atmosphere that are damaging to both mother nature and her inhabitants.

    But that I am supposed to believe the now pop culture fad movement that has been presented to me in the so called definitive “Inconvienient Truth,” by a man whose technical qualifications boil down to a semester class he took while earning a degree in government is something I find hard to swallow.

    That we are led to belive that by driving this kind of car, and purchasing this kind of lightbulb, or living this way versus another we are somehow contributing to the destruction of earth and mankinds tenure upon it, I find somewhat ill concieving.

    CO2 IS NOT a pollutant. It never has been, and never will be. Furthermore, human beings are not the primary or even secondary source of CO2 levels in earths stratosphere.

    But none the less, we are led to believe these lies. These outright lies, orchestrated and fed to us by a crafty politician who would like to think he is responsible for the internets conception.

    It’s been said that Al Gore may have no invented the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.

    I find what he is doing is not only damming to the cause, but saddening. We now have millions of people on the ‘band wagon,’ ready to start living in a way that they are aware of their impact on their enviornment.

    But instead of being concerned with actual pollutants, many of which aren’t even regulated by our EPA such as nitrogen levels, we want to figure out what our ‘carbon footprint’ is.

    While a politician in a suit hops from city to city in the most fuelly inefficient mode of transport available to tell us all we need to change our lightbulbs, and quit driving our SUV’s. Becaue we are supposedly killing planet earth.

    And meanwhile ethonol production has skyrocketed becaue it’s going to “save our planet” and it creates over 200% the pollution just using gasoline would.

    It doesn’t matter how many qualified climate scientists, or engineering line up to disagree with, or even sue Al Gore for his lies. Gore was unable to validate the films claims in an England court over two years ago yet we are still swalling his crap.

    It all stinks. Anyone who disagrees is thrown out as a heretic. This is supposed to be science, but before we could test our theory a clever man by the name of Al Gore found out how much money could be made, and my friends he has made it.

    If you want to know the impact of global warming on this planet just look at the stocks Al Gore bought before releasing his movie, and what happened to them afterwards. Just look at who owns all of the “green energy” technologies, and who is going to own them.

    We talk about American’s being free’d from oversea’s oil, what a joke. What for? So companies like GE can own us? With their company execs sitting on the boards of our nations illegal central bank? Along with pepsi and home depot, and the list goes on execs?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. brad maynard

    omg, this bill needs to die. if it passes were going to have to pass one here in canada too just to comply with the protectionist aspect of the bill. talk about a massive increase in fuel costs for both countries just due to getting taxed twice, once here for the raw stuff which is then taxed at your border, refinery c&c taxes followed by c&c tax at the pump. my prediction, $7 a gallon gas in the US and $9-11 a litre here by 2012 if this toilet paper bill is taken seriously.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Owe Bama

    Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy.

    Stand Up or Be Trampled

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. No Excuses

    Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to steer through Congress.
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/flashback-obama-intimately-tied-to-carbon-trading-scam.html

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Goldman Sucks

    Cap and Tr8tors Can Change Vote by July 2 Deadline!

    http://www.dailypaul.com/node/97723

    The following republicans voted FOR the largest tax bill ever passed by a session of Congress.

    Any good work they have done has been for naught. Unless they change their votes by the deadline, Wed, July 2nd, they will for ever be a member of the Cap and Tr8tors.

    HR 2454 RECORDED VOTE 26-Jun-2009 7:17 PM
    BILL TITLE: American Clean Energy and Security Act

    #capandtr8tors is the Twitter tag to use on this topic.
    _______

    http://www.teapartypatrio

    1) Click on their link.
    2) Select the ‘Contact’ tab.
    Contact their local office as they are not in DC and home on vacation.

    Mary Bono Mack R (CA)
    Mike Castle R (DW)
    Mark Steven Kirk R (IL)
    Leonard Lance R (NJ)
    Frank LoBiondo R (NJ)
    John McHugh R (NY)
    Dave Reichert R (WA)
    Chris Smith R (NJ)

    Time left for the Cap and Tr8tors to change their vote …
    03 Days, 17 Hours, 49 Minutes, 11 Seconds.

    http://www.teapartypatrio

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. BMSE

    AOL poll with 22,787 respondents
    Question: Do you support cap-and-trade ?
    NO – 86%
    http://www.politicsdaily.com/

    Question: WHO IN THE HELL ARE THEY REPRESENTING UP THERE IN WASHINGTON ?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Mike

      Well dude they are listening to special interests. We need to call the senate and tell them no. We have to stop this bill then 2010 vote out those members of the house who voted yes for the bill.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Herewe Goagain
  11. Herewe Goagain

    Cap and Trade is Law

    This is far worse than just a “new tax” as Republicans are complaining – this is the total takeover of the American economy by private banking interests through the carbon trading system.

    It is also the entrée for the complete and total subjegation of any freedoms we had left and the beginning of nightmare regulation and suffocating control over every aspect of our personal lives by millions of green stasi tasked with enforcing impossible to attain goals of 80% carbon dioxide reduction – all based on the manufactured threat of global warming.

    This bill will also sink the economy and create a new great depression, effectively obliterating America’s first world status.

    Good Night, USA

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. longshotlouie

      It has only passed the house. Now it goes to the senate.

      Don’t see how it makes through there.
      But hey, some arms got twisted this week in the house.
      You never know.

      Still work to do. Phone, Fax, Email, and snail mail.
      Hey senators, here we come.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Mike

    These Republicans should be fired Mary Bono, Michael Castle, Mark Kirk, Leonard Lance, Frank LoBiondo, John McHugh, David Reichert,and Christopher Smith for voting for the bill. HR 2454

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. WTF

    Just look at the Table Of Contents
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111EPQOZB:e1227:
    This is insanity

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. longshotlouie

    IT IS TIME TO MAKE SOME NOISE, PEOPLE !!
    HR 2454 MUST BE STOPPED !!
    http://www.campaignforliberty.com/campaigns/hr2454action.php

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. WTF

      No one has read the bill!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Supposedly there are polls that 70% of citizens in US support the bill.

      WHAT BILL?

      It was 900 pages a week ago, then it was 1,200 pages last night.

      NOW IT IS 1,500 pages long.

      The entire constitution can fit on like 8 pages.

      This bill dealing with just energy (which should be handled by free market enterprise but instead has a huge beaurocracy with multiple anti-constitutional bills corrupting the industry already) is 1,500 pages?!?!?!?!

      IT IS A MORTGAGE/COLLATERAL BILL THAT EXPLAINS IN DETAIL THE PARTICULARS OF REPAYMENT OF ROTHSCHILD/ROCKEFELLER DEBT!

      Speak Up Now !!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Mike

        Well I bet those polls are fake. Get ready for more government control.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. ex-american

    What probably happened is that the military secretly warmed the climate for top secret motives that we are not aware of in this who controls the world secret environment.
    It’s really hard to tell what these ultra powerful extremist are doing with our lives. Europeans have a long history of being so extremely dangerous.
    On the exterior of observation the sun has cooled the entire solar reserves of the oceans since 2005 and the temperature keeps dropping to the point where the non military scientist are telling us that we may see a little ice age.
    Without adding insult to injury we really don’t know what the ultra powers and scientist at hand are doing.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Jan

    A new kind of cloud?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8076000/8076805.stm

    OMNIUS…..A MUST SEE! SCARY!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Fluidly Unsure

    Excuse me for going a little OT but I would like to respond to part of Pistol’s post:

    @Pistol: unfortunately, the wonderful ideas you site don’t always work.

    Even Mahatma Gandhi recognized that sometimes violence was the best way to respond. In ‘Young India’ he said something along the lines of if you weren’t strong enough to respond with Satyagraha then violence was better than using non-violence as a mask to cowardliness. In a letter to his son he expressed a desire to “tear apart” the British general who was responsible for the partition.

    Violence and war definitely needs to be tamed, but it is a part of us and a part of nature. We need to learn to use it, use it well, and not use it too much. There is a reason claws and sharp teeth evolved in Animals. IIRC (it’s been a few years), even the Gita says that we must continue with something that is a part of us. At least that is what I got from Krisna’s advice to Arjuna.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Pistol

    B Berry,

    I agree in part with what ur saying… and yes there are different methods/events that, can/do occur in order for a person/people to become aware.. From what I understand, suffering at some level (perceived differently by everyone) is a common precursor to heightened states of awareness. Similar experiences can be induced by too many things to list but most are temporary as they involve some kind of neurotic obsession. Lasting inner connection is a life long practise for most people and for an increasing number, its very natural. Meditation is by far the most practical. (which should be compulsory at schools..lol)

    The fact that we are even able to discuss the idea of a higher state of being, makes it achievable, not to mention the spiritual movement is gaining so much momentum (maybe not reflected by media or g’ment action) that at a deep level the energy is rising fast.
    Education is the key. We dont know how to read and write until we are taught. Its the most basic of instincts required for survival that is built into our DNA. Mostly everything else is learnt, including the way we behave..
    Yes, we do have certain tendancies and traits regarding personality etc and this is also linked to DNA and collective memory.

    Science has virtually proven that consciousness exists in a continuous stream giving rise to reincarnation, which can explain alot of our unjustified fears, insecurities and even memories that are clearly not our ‘own’ (at least in the current life).
    Governments (especially crime fighters) use ‘remote viewing’ techniques for a good reason, not amusement…… There is hard science fast approaching the point of clarifying what some religion, gurus, spiritual masters and mystics have been telling us for hundreds if not thousands of years. In fact, we dont need a lab or scientist to confirm any of it.. Becoming the silent observor of our own thougths can bring startling revelations about existence.

    So there is much to learn and accept about ‘who’ and ‘what we really are’, and where we fit into the big scheme of things.
    The most common fear of man is that of the unknown, and of mortality or ‘death’. (Unless of course u understand it). Our desire to fight to no end in order to survive is mistaken as ‘the will to survive’, when its probably more a case of the ‘fear of death’.
    If humans could incorporate into their belief system, that we are eternal, that WE can never really die, that NOTHING ever truly dies, that death is just part of the cycle in this illusory reality we call physicality, then much of the insanity would cease. How can something that is ‘everything’ and at the same time comprised of ‘nothing’, ever die?…exactly… it cant. Energy cant be killed, it simply changes form. WE ARE ALL ONE. That is the message and the only message that needs conveying.. That truth alone has the power to transform lives.

    It is these most basic of truths that are denying mankind of the joyous, peaceful, loving lives that every single one of us deserves. In fact, its our duty, our obligation, our purpose, to live full lives as a conscious expression of the ONE true life.
    The vail over our eyes is the illusion of separation..

    Each of us journey here to correct the unconscious thinking that is perpetuating the cycles of pain endured by humanity. So our intentions are mostly noble, however we get caught up in this whole cycle of drama. (the media love to teach us this insane behaviour)
    Most people fit into one of four main ‘control dramas’, and when u consider these you will notice how apparent they are in the -lives of unconscious humans. The passive dramas are the ‘Aloof’ & ‘Poor Me’, whilst the corresponding drama usually on the other side of the insanity are the aggressive dramas, ‘Interrogator’ & ‘Intimidator’.
    All four dramas are used, usually unknowingly by most people in their day to day lives and this is considered normal. To get what they want… Its only through an extreme disconnection with source and lack of education of the subject that causes most of this. Life does not need to be this way but its all we are shown.

    Alot of this arises out of resistance to ‘what is’. People have a hard time accepting ‘this moment’. When ‘this moment’ is all there really is. There is only NOW. Everything that has ever happened, and ever going to happen, is all happening right NOW.

    You mentioned that we need a huge catastrophe or major threat against our existence to bring people to act… Well, acting out of fear (one of the lowest forms of human consciousness), rarely fosters good results. Acting out of love on the other hand, does.

    Yes we have issues that need resolving but I have a massive contradiction for you to consider….
    Everything is already perfect.. how can it be anything but?… since its all GOD, everything is part of the one life, so to label one facet as bad contradicts the whole.. We cant say that one drop of water in the ocean is bad but the rest is ok, especially when its all mixed in together.. You and I and GOD are one. Religion created blasphemy (a sin) to prevent people even considering that last statement, when in fact its the truth.. You and the creator are ONE… YOU ARE GOD, and I love you for it…. The concept of blasphemy and sin is absurd… There is no such thing.. Its just another form of control…

    This is another tough one to swallow.. All the disease, famine, droughts, wars, all of it, is ‘perfect’, since it was all created by us, and since their is only one thing, and that thing is GOD, which makes us god too, which in turn makes us perfect, hence our creations are as such..
    This does not mean we cant create ourselves anew. We can still recognise the error in our thinking that has manifested this reality. Its not too late to change. Besides, even if the world blew up tomorrow, I know for a fact, that I will continue to live on in some other form, chosen by me… Just like I chose this life..

    The true master prefers only what is occurring, its the very preference for that occurrence, that renders the occurrence perfect.
    A peaceful person lives in a peaceful world. An aggressive person lives in an aggressive world.
    Close scrutiny or observation of a persons life and the thoughts/emotions they engage, can be closely matched or correlated to the life that is unfolding for that person… Our thoughts/emotions are 100% responsible for ‘what is’.
    So its all about accepting ‘what is’, and thats where the power comes from to change it. Be a gift to this moment. Be a servant to this moment..
    And its like the old proverb…. Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift, which is why its called the present..
    Another reason why history seems to repeat and we continue making the same errors is because most of humanity is living out their lives based on repetition. Subconscious memories playing over in the mind keep manifesting the same result. We attach ourselves to ‘our story’, and die defending it. We identify with our ‘ego’, which is not who we are… We are not the circumstances and or conditions of our lives. We are so much bigger than that.. We are infinite by nature.

    The true way to live peacefully, is by living based on inspiration and acting accordingly, and by ignoring the memory attached to whatever is occurring, that triggers an automatic reaction within the observor. Most of us are on autopilot majority of the time… Driving home after work is a good example of that, as we often dont think about it, we just somehow arrive home.(dangerous to say the least).
    Living and responding from a place of inspriration/love is the key. Every moment is special and is a gift, so why tainten it by associating the present with a past experience. Every moment is a new moment so give it its space to be as it is…So history is repeating because we are reluctant to ‘surrender’ and ‘let go’. What is as is….

    As far as emotions are concerned: Emotions are our inbuilt guidance system. They exist on a sliding scale ranging from deep depression at the bottom to abundant joy at the top…Our emotions are intrinsically linked with our thoughts… Our thoughts become things. By staying in tune with how your feeling, you can gauge the nature of your thoughts, thus your point of attraction…You have no doubt heard of the ‘Law of Attraction’, ‘like attracting like’, ‘that which is most like itself unto which it is drawn’, etc. If people were taught this concept and are raised in a conscious environment, they would not display the symptoms of a dis-eased mind.

    We have been taught to ignore this in many ways… eg. observe a heated discussion or harsh exchange of words between 2 people (note the ‘control drama’ at play), and ask the passive dramatist…. “How did that word/conversation/person make u feel?” Their usual response is something like….” Oh, I dont think they should have said/acted/behaved, like that (for whatever reason), and completely miss the question…. How did it make u feel?? Its all about what they thought should or could have happened and not the feeling associated with it…. Proof again, that we are out of touch, not just with nature but ourselves too…. We cant possibly ‘fix’ whats happening on the outside if we dont correct the inside, as they are linked. Ive said before, the outside is a reflection of the inside… If you dont go within, you go without… (quite literally).

    I can see how one could argue that the struggle between humans is normal, but that doesnt make it natural. Yes, there was a time when we competed for survival but the fact we are ‘self aware’, separates us from animals, although some would disagree (especially when we view the violent history of our species). It seems most animals adapt physically to their environment, whereas humans have adapted superior mental ability.
    That of course is based along the lines of evolution taking place here and that we evolved alongside animals. So for sake of avoiding the whole debate regarding evolution/intelligent design/creation/invention theories, (at least for now), we will assume we crawled out of the water or some such notion.
    And since we are the dominant force on this planet, we are obligated to care for the rest of its inhabitants. Once again, seeing others, including inaminate objects as separate is the issue. (by the way, there is no such thing as an inaminate object, as everything is life, and the energy binding everything is love, without it, the atoms would simply disperse).. So love is the glue and there is lots of it…In fact, You are love, every single little bit of you is love.. U cant be anything but… Your actions may obscure that, but at core, its who and what u are. Its what we all are… god is love and we are god… yippeeeeeeee.

    When more humans start living their lives, as the next grandest version of the greatest vision, ever they held about ‘who they really are’, we will transmute the current world view, and transcend the current version of reality..
    I have mentioned before that ‘Self I-dentity Ho’oponopono’, is a very useful tool for surrending subconscious memories to the source for transmutation, allowing divinity in, and inspiration to flow.

    I have said in the past that action is required against a corrupt goverment which flies in the face of what I have stated above, but once I delve into it, I can see that the change still needs to occur within ourselves… Many of the laws we follow are inappropriate and need changing, but that wont happen until our perspective changes.
    I disagree that viloence is an answer to any of this.. After all violence is what brought us here.. .Dropping bombs or scaring the shit out of people is not the answer either. Humans dont lack the ability to see into the future… Remote viewing is very real and very effective… Its not that we cant do it… its just most havent been shown how or even aware of the possibility let alone the concept..
    Wars dont bring people together… Sure, it may create a temporary bond between people of the same nation, but it breeds hatred for the opposing side, which of course only enforces ‘separation’, our ‘greatest foe’ (for lack of better description).

    Remember, the answers dont lie outside of us.. they reside inside.. War wont solve it, when its not a cause, its an effect…. we need to get to the root cause… Unconscious human behaviour, and its certainly not incurable…

    So the answer to all of this is a question…. And the question is… What would love do now?…..
    Cheers
    Peace I AM
    P

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. other guy

      Quick testimony, everyone’s favorite :) I would have emailed to avoid “off topic stuff” but I don’t have that option.

      Please allow me to share…

      I appreciate many of your points Mr. Pistol. You said some things I say to my wife all the time, although you said them much better… I enjoyed your writing. I myself am not a good writer.

      I always like to point out to the very wise observation of religion controlling people, that man created the controlling mechanism and perverted the beautiful and free life that is found in Jesus. If you understand the reality or have experienced truly being “born from above” then you would know sin exists. Howerver, there is salvation, and it’s free!(no money) Unlike the teaching of religion (ie catholic rome) though out history… Religion is bad, God is truth, right…

      We can debate history, theology, and reason all day long. Frankly I’m not that smart. What I do have is my simple testimony. I have met the “Jesus” of the new testament face to face. The scriptures teach of being born again. What does it mean. It means we were born in a physical body from our mother. We need a spiritual birth from above to be reconciled to our heavenly father. All you have to do is ask :)… This pure relationship with God has nothing to do with controlling people. I mean, you could see it as God controlling you but that’s not the control you are against? We are against the 15th century papal using God to manipulate and stuff like that…

      Back when I was 19, I read a few pages in the gospel of John and began to cry out to Jesus to save me from myslef. (sounds silly I guess, but something came over me) All I can tell you is I haven’t been the same since. I later read that I passed from death to life in that moment, spiritually speaking. It wasn’t an intellectual awakening of knowledge that changed me. I didn’t decide to be different. It was like Paul on the damascus road. At the time I had no clue what happened. As I continued to read and study I then learned what happened inside me.

      I don’t mean to bore you but I have to testify to the power of the teachings in scripture. I don’t care that the Catholics canonized the books we read or whatever complaint you have about the book. Bottom line, there is power in the words. The world can line up and tell me there is not God. I might believe them had I not met him 10 years ago face to face. The God I know is not controlling or asking for money. These are actually the lies of man to pervert the truth and keep us from knowing the truth.

      If you take away sin, you take away the need for a blood sacrifice. You take away the need to be reconciled with God though the death on the cross. I guess if you dismiss sin you see no need for Jesus. That is a personal belief you are free to have… That is not what I have experienced and I just want to go on record saying that Jesus is who he said he was…

      I also want to say that I am a believer that both parties are a sham and the elite bankers control the world for now… I love Dr Paul and am well aware of the films and literature out there depicting all religion as an agent of control. The sun equalling the son of man and blah blah blah… :) If you meet the “son” then you know He is not a myth… I wish you all the best. Man with religions have controlled people, true. What I experience with my relationship with God is the opposite of that…

      The God of this universe loves you, I’m living proof… pk

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. B Berry

    Pete, you and I should find something to debate. This thread has just about exhausted itself. Population growth? Religion? Something in economics? Gay marriage?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. Pete
    1. longshotlouie

      Good Stuff
      Thx

      My brother gave me ‘Our Dumb World’ for my birthday.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. Ray

    Though I agree with Dr. Paul on all issues, I’m afraid he has no chance of winning if he continues his public stand on abortion and drugs. I believe that pursuing these issues will void any chances of winning the Presidency. So why waste our time and effort. I personally believe more important issues are at stake for our country, where Dr. Paul should concentrate his efforts. Border security, eliminating the Federal Reserve, immigration reform and national security are in urgent need of attention.
    If Dr. Paul persists in making abortion and drug reform part of his agenda, he will find himself as Pat Buchanan did, a loser. Better to keep some personal beliefs to yourself and proceed for the greater good on issues you can win, than damn yourself to sure failure supporting unattainable goals. If your goal is to make an issue out of drugs and abortion, I urge you to continue fighting in your current position and not as a candidate for the United States Presidency.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. B Berry

      He doesn’t choose the issues. He’s expected to have a stance on everything and usually just answers questions.

      Abortion and drugs, as you say, are not priority issues. They are priority reporting for a media which thrives on drama. How some people vote purely on any one issue always amazes me and shows at once how biased Americans appear to be and also how ignorant of both the processes at work and time it takes to become educated.

      For example, I disagree with Ron Paul on two issues (of the 23 I consider a legislator to be responsible given a number of factors including the political climate). All issues are not weighted equally, why should they be? No one issue is a deal breaker or deal maker to an objective person. Now, compared to other candidates, the next best option is a guy who I disagree with on 14 issues. Again, not all issues are weighted equally, but without going into the math, it’s easy to see how Ron Paul would be the best candidate for me to choose if indeed I even decide to vote.

      Next, add the less tangible assets of the man. Ron Paul is qualitatively (this is now subjective), more consistent than any candidate I’ve ever seen running for any office (more than Nader). He speaks about limiting his own power, which helps me trust him because I’m of a mind that most politicians are of the Arlen Specter variety in terms of character. They care about themselves first, party second, people third or fourth. Ron Paul seems to be benevolent (as in, makes decisions that could actually be bad for him personally, but good for his constituents and for the people at large). Imo, he’s the closest thing you’ll find in a Congressman who aspires to what Plato discusses in the Republic or Marcus Aerelius in Meditations. He’s at least read them (you probably eliminate 80% of the field right there).

      So, while it’s easy to just boil down Ron Paul into pro this, against that; you need to appreciate that he has to by virtue of his office have a stance on every issue. Abortion is low priority to me and I’ll admit I don’t even know what Ron Paul says he’d do about it (relegate to the states I imagine), but I do know he’s anti-FED, anti-department of education, anti-homeland security, anti-FDA (I’m not sure about this one actually, but Milton Friedman is against it). He has said though that he would focus on limiting the powers of the military and FED before addressing any of those other departments. He’s both idealistic and practical in as non-political and non-selfish terms as he can be.

      Tell me who is a better candidate.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Pete

        Although I find your discussion interesting, I think it’s off-topic.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. B Berry

          I was making a lot of assumptions about the conclusions Ray came to. Point taken.

          The difference between Ron Paul and Obama/McCain/Clinton/Romney is that he gives direct answers to direct questions on difficult issues like abortion. It’s not, as I said above, that he makes it an issue. The issues exist without Ron Paul. That is, if he runs for president, he will be asked about abortion and drugs. He has to have an answer. The answer can be indirect (or even a lie), which appears to be what regular politicians do, and I think the reason why Ron Paul has the following he does is precisely because he just tells what he’d call the “objective and educated” truth. This ironically, might make victory for Ron Paul impossible. But it’s not a waste of time as Ray suggests. At the very least, he’s raising awareness.

          Not directly to topic: I contend that if conditions deteriorate as Ron Paul predicts, then he would actually have a chance to win, but concede to Ray that as things stand currently, he would lose.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Mike

            Well the reason why I like Ron Paul is that he reminds me of Ronald Regan. He don’t play politics like others do. The political machines dont like cause he is different. So he isn’t a Washington politician so he has my support in 2012.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. B Berry

            He’d be best served probably by a grassroots campaign to amend the plurality voting system for a proportional one. I don’t think I’d even write in a vote for him. Instead I might vote for the least offensive from what’s left.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. Mike

    This global warming thing reminds me of a book I read calls the rules for radicals. Anyone who wants to know what the progressives are up to read this book. So as I was looking threw the chapter called tactics. I saw a rule that reminds me of this so called problem. It was the ninth rule which reads ( The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself). So I’m sure Pete and the other progressives will say something about that.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. Mike

    By saying its manfixed is being pc for manmade. Pete if it makes you feel better to insult me go ahead. You never answered my question why professors get fired for saying global warming is a myth. Did you ever think people give professors money for research. If they don’t like the results they change the formula to the highest bidder. I will still think its a scam.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Pete

      In general, professors can’t be fired. The university system is based on tenure.

      They also don’t really benefit from research money. Their salaries don’t come out of that money. They advance their careers by publishing good papers which can withstand peer review, and make names for themselves by being right. No scientist is out there pulling this “scam” you’re talking about, except an industry scientist. Remember the tobacco scientists? The oil industry has scientists, too.

      Man-fixed is NOT the same as man-made. I have said several times, I think it’s a perfect storm of several causes, including man-made CO2. But we are the only ones who can respond. The sun isn’t going to stop cycling, and neither is the galaxy. We have to gain control over yet another aspect of our environment in order to survive. We have to adapt to the situation. We can fix it, if we can learn to control the shield to keep most of the planet habitable.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Mike

        Ya they can Pete its called if you say this im not going to fund you. http://www.globalwarmingisnotreal.com/co2.html

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. B Berry

          Well that’s not really true (in reference to research professors in the academic setting). One of the main reasons to have tenure for these professors is to free them from concern from outside influence (similar to how justices are appointed for life/retirement).

          This site is about CO2, but the points made are non-sequitur to a debate on global warming.

          Like I said earlier, O2 is toxic, as in if you are missing certain enzymes which deal with oxygen-derived free radicals, you will die. Moreover, what happens to the guy who turns his car on and closes the garage door or to the person who puts the bag over the head? These questions have really nothing to do with global warming, they just get to the point that whoever wrote that article doesn’t really understand basic chemistry and biology or at least how to apply it.
          Incidentally, I’d sooner call into question the author of this site than a tenured professor in matters of intellectual fraud.

          Why does he suggest to take these actions:
          “You can recycle.

          Drive a smaller, fuel-efficient car on a daily basis

          Switch all possible bulbs to fluorescent type energy savers.

          Get rid of your big hot water tank and get a tankless/in line water heater.”

          So the actions he suggests taking are very close to the same as what the environmentalist might suggest but for different reasons?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. B Berry

            I need to add another point. I have some personal experience in academic research. The professors I met were mostly selfish, cut-throat, type A’s. That combination of course isn’t required, but it seems to help a person reach that level of success. They didn’t care much about politics but they did vote. And the ones I interacted with (maybe only 10-15 total) vote, as many people do, lazily. They tend to find the candidate who stays out of their way the most, appealing and ignore the other issues. For example, democrats tend to give more money to the NIH, so professors who receive grants from the NIH will tend to vote democrat. I might do the same thing in their situation. The most important point here is, they don’t care nearly as much about politics, the Fed, abortion, etc. as they about themselves and their research. Once again, this is my experience; anecdotal, not scientific.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Pete

    Peace I AM,

    All well said. I am trying a tactic that I once would have strongly resisted in this conversation, and I agree that it doesn’t seem to be any more or less effective at getting people to step outside of the traditions of the right-wing and reevaluate this issue. I don’t want to be rude to Mike, but I find him very disrespectful as well, and I am quickly losing interesting in continuing to contribute to this conversation. I have put a tremendous amount of time and energy into study and into posts on this forum, and I find it insulting to have all that ignored by someone who admittedly only reviews one source of information. My time is more valuable than that.

    I rewatched the John Coleman piece, and in the third part where he addresses CO2, he doesn’t make any kind of scientific case against the proposed mechanism, but simply says it’s out there. If someone could please locate a reference to what he’s referring to, I will review it.

    For the most part, though, I feel like I’m being steered by a politician much more than I am instructed by a scientist when I listen to him, and I’m not all that inclined to take his word for it when so many other scientists can make such a cogent, scientifically logical case against his position. In particular, where is the smog going? How is increasing CO2 and water vapor with every molecule of fossil fuel consumed supposed to have no effect? But, hey, show me a link, I’d like nothing better than to be wrong about this.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Pete

      I should reiterate that in my view, it doesn’t matter what’s causing the warming, it’s incorrect to state that it’s not happening, and it’s insane if not childish not to respond.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. longshotlouie

        Call Me Insane
        It happened. We’re going the other direction now.

        Would have been nice if we had warmed a few more degrees before the trend reversed, but hey, you take what you can get.

        Now they want to reduce that beautiful Co2.
        Whatashame

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Mike

      Pete why are you claiming to be be the victim. It all comes down to it being a manmade problem by what your side says. The goal of people like Al Gore is to have the government control. So I dont trust progessives cause every time they are in charge they screw things up. Cause govenment cant solve everything.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Pete

        I keep on saying, for me it’s not about man-MADE, it’s about man-FIXED.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. B Berry

        You’ve politicized the issue. Pete is trying to get you to evaluate the ideas and your claims. You shouldn’t be bringing up Al Gore ad hominem if you’re trying to rebut a scientific claim (read your first three posts; you immediately make a retort citing Al Gore instead of what Pete was actually asking about CO2). Al Gore is not a scientist and Pete is not bringing him up. If you don’t know how to evaluate ideas, then remedy it by reading a few books, come back in a month and restart the debate with questions instead of accusations. Pretend you were presenting your case in court. The minute you bring up Al Gore, you’d hear an objection from the other side and the judge would force you to rescind.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. B Berry

          Now I want to be clear on something. Mike may very well have good points to make, but he should make them (answering Pete’s question as to where the extra CO2 goes would be a good start). To focus on character attacks instead of the science/ideas usually indicates a lack of proper research or understanding. It’s too easy.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Mike

            B Berry Al Gore is the spokesman for global warming. Did you think the formula could be wrong. Like the solar cycle they first said it would peak in 2007 now they changed it to may 2013. These are only predictions just like global warming I admit I don’t understand most of this so called science by it but I see the political motivation behind and that what scares me. Plus also why don’t anyone bring up China cause they are the biggest polluter.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. B Berry

        First, I appreciate the Coleman video. I happen to agree with him about the media. The media serves itself best by presenting drama that often doesn’t exist. I haven’t seen Inconvenient Truth, so I can’t really speak on it. If Al Gore is the spokesperson for global warming, then I’m operating independent of him/them.

        I’m not sure of the formula to which you refer, but I’m aware of at least seven variables that factor into global climate (it’s probably more than this, which we don’t yet fully understand). I’d ask for clarification here.

        A lot of people don’t understand the science, and a lot of people who say they do cite ‘science’ when you ask them more involved questions. I swear, some people follow science like other people follow religion. The key of course is to reason through what you can on your own, then research the questions you have, then ask questions of others (experts preferably).

        I’ve asked the same question Pete asked to so many people, and no one gives me an answer, They red herring it away half the time, and the other half I think is just surprised and dumbfounded which leads to the question just being ignored entirely.

        Here’s what seems clear to me. CO2 is maybe not strictly a pollutant but it is toxic. Oxygen is toxic at high enough levels. CO2 levels are rising, not even close to toxic levels, but that’s my point about CO2 as a pollutant. While not absolutely certain, the increase in CO2 over the last 100 years is almost certainly because of man’s contribution. Now, we probably agree CO2 isn’t toxic and that man is responsible for the dramatic increase, but we may not agree on whether CO2 changes the environment. Someone may have already said without greenhouse gases the earth would be at -18C average temp. So CO2, as a greenhouse gas (which I am assuming you agree), can contribute to environmental/climate changes. Now, is the level at which man is changing the concentration, changing the environment. Coleman says no, many others say yes. But the media also says yes and they lie all the time. So now is probably the time to start reading some books and researching. I’ve read arguments on both sides. And I’ve read the arguments for the sun being the climate change driver. You know, there’s no good reason I can think of that the sun is a driver and CO2 is a driver of climate change. So, if you believe the sun is a driver, is it possible that it’s just making a problem from increase CO2 worse? It’s not that simple, but I’m just trying to get you to think about it a bit more.

        No one still has given me a good answer as to where the extra CO2 is going. Trees/algae/plantlife use CO2 like we use O2, so you could bring up deforestation and not just industry as a source for the increased CO2. I ask the question, what if the earth were inhabited by 1/6 the population it currently has. Could the mechanisms in place handle the CO2 load without those people having to change any behavior (= no govt intervention)? It’s like a diabetic who has to urinate all the time. Glucose (sugar) which isn’t being taken into the tissues ends up staying in the blood, going into the kidneys, and instead of being reabsorbed by the proximal tubule, the proteins responsible for carrying the glucose out of the filtrate (=urine) and back into the blood become SATURATED. Guess what happens next. The diabetic has to piss more because of the increased osmotic force in the urine from the sugars. That is an easy analogy for me to make, but I don’t know if you understand it. The point is, something on earth (trees/plantlife) handles CO2 just like transport proteins handle sugar in the kidneys. They are machines in a sense and can reach capacity. Once that happens, glucose concentration can build up in the urine———> CO2 concentration builds up in the atmosphere. Now what a lot of the global warming advocates don’t acknowledge at this point is how the system might react to redevelop homeostasis. You would not believe all of the different mechanisms the human body employs to, once it senses the increased glucose in the urine/blood, re-establish homeostasis. It’s incredibly complex. Our knowledge of the body is much better than it is of the climate but we still can’t make a lot of predictions even in the case of diabetes. The knowledge is still imperfect. So it becomes actuarial at this point. Take what you do know, do cost/benefit analysis and decide whether to take action. I believe it’s naive to think that the earth would have a mechanism to reachieve equilibrium for man-made problems. And I’m defining equilibrium here as what works for man. The earth has no actual sense of equilibrium for man, it has a balance point for itself (maybe extinction of man is the re-establishment of equilibrium). So while not impossible, it is improbable. Let me know if I’m ignoring something.

        Next and probably more importantly, the changes that some people advocate to reset global warming, I would advocate for entirely different reasons. First, we don’t have enough oil in the US and there’s no reason to think we could even if we drill (drilling is just wishful thinking and while I hate to ad hominem, I will in this case- people who have money in oil and jobs in oil want to drill for more oil and that’s why you see commercials for it). We might have enough natural gas to wean ourselves off of oil (although again probably not in the long-term). We might have enough ethanol as well. But we don’t right now. I’m not whole-heartedly opposed to using these on a small scale. But I would suggest we develop batter technology for our cars (here sooner than hydrogen fuel cells) and then a diversified approach using in this order solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal and yes ethanol and natural gas for everything outside of automobiles. Save oil for large trucks only. Again, this would be to gain energy independence as a country while single handedly making the middle east weaker economically. This equals more prone to US leverage = more democracy = less terrorism.

        Next, oil, natural gas, and currently ethanol do not even fit into the category of renewable fuels (research is underway to change this). Let’s learn the less of basing the economy on a finite resource so we don’t have to change from natural gas to something else in 40 years. I read a report in a book at the bookstore (not reputable by any means) that we have huge availability of uranium (someone can dispute me on this), “enough to last until our sun explodes.”

        Finally, China. By virtue of the fact that they are running off of fossil fuels, they will run out. If we develop what Friedman would call ‘green technology’ but I’ll just call alternatives, we would gain leverage over China in the long run since they would have to take the technology from us eventually.
        If you ask a Chinese person your question Mike, what do you suppose he’d say? I have, and they said, you had your industrial revolution, now we are having ours. We have no economic right to force them to change. We can really only set a good example with better technologies and then gracefully and patiently wait for them to buy it from us.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Mike

          Well I do agree with some of things that you said but I still question the formula and the politics involved. We as a country should have other sources of energy but without having Americans lose their jobs. As a country we have so many vast resources to use and we should use them. People like Obama and Gore say that they don’t want to drill or use nuclear power. So we are back where we started which is depending on the spectaculars( which drive the price) and the middle east for oil. But until the price goes down on the other resources the only thing we can use is oil. So until people allow to use resources like nuclear it will never change. So yes its politics.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. B Berry

            Nuclear power is an entire debate of its own. And yes, oil is with us until the market makes alternatives more feasible. But now we can talk about how the government can become involved. It can directly fund research, it can levy taxes on imports (oil), subsidize an alternative (like with ethanol) or do nothing. I’m largely for the markets with as little govt. interference as possible but this is one area where I am confused. Why we import so much of our oil not necessarily because that’s where the markets took us but because of government interference (oil, from including but not limited to Saudi Arabia colluding with the government – again a debate in itself). So would government interference now be justified? Can we justify government interference in the markets only to fix a past probably created in part by government or do we just look at this without any consideration of the past, recognize a problem and allow the government to interfere? Without having addressed the past government error, do we have reason to believe they would do a better job this time (taxing the right industries, not subsidizes the wrong industries)? This is why I’m much more in favor of a diversified plan, propping up what I consider good industries and bad ones and once all have sufficient momentum, exit the market and let the best one win. It’s like oil is Quarter Horse, but it vomits and defecates all over spectators and it kicks children when no one is looking. The other industries are Miniature Horses with no hope of winning. No one likes the Quarter Horse, but the competition is now so weak. Government would be allowing steroids and growth hormone (equal doses) for only the Miniatures and prohibiting the Quarter Horse from using NSAID’s or diuretics (Lasix).

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. B Berry

            Also, unless we remove technological innovation, there will always be a displacement of workers in one industry for another. At one point, people specialized in making typewriters, they’re gone. Government or free market, this is a fact of life. The question that might need to be asked in the case of the government making the change is whether or not it’s for the greater good. You might not want to remove your spleen if you have intravascular anemia (it leaves you prone to all sorts of infections), but conditions might call for it (it’s better than dying).

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Mike

            Well we our own oil here but we cant tap in to it from the environmentalists. We need to keep government out cause anything they get involved with turns out bad. So we need more free market solutions than governments ones.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Pistol

          B Berry,
          Well written with some interesting analogies, and analytical perspective. From a physical standpoint, I agree with some of your points and the thought provoking question, ‘where is the CO2 going’?
          I lovingly disagree with the comment where u referred to gaining leverage over China. I understand that it was motivated by current economic mentallity, but competition for scarce resources is one of the problems we face as a society… China and her inhabitants are not our enemy as such (not that ur implying that), and what we do for her, we do for ourselves, what we fail to do for her, we fail to do for ourselves…
          I am all for healthy competition in business (free market), so dont misunderstand. I just think we need to consider an alternative method for dealing with our issues.. And it begins with not robbing Peter to pay Paul. (raping the planet for short term gain).
          With good planning and foresight, we could implement a wide variety of technologies to replace fossil fuels, and nuclear is NOT one of them as it requires destruction of environment to mine uranium. (dont stand in wet cement-the footprints remain for a long time).

          To change our living conditions as a whole and to prevent/reverse any of the debilitating effects caused by our immature use of technology, then we need to evolve our spiritual understanding of life itself and what is really at cause in any of this…

          I know that my hypothesis will be met with resistance from some, as the mere notion of ’100% responsibility for our actions’, (eliminating the ‘victims & villains’ drama) is a large odd shaped pill that most wont entertain, let alone swallow.
          All matter and all life stems from consciousness. Matter can be viewed moving in and out of viewable existence in a laboratory environment and the effects of human intention can NEVER be removed in an experiment… Without going into explicit detail about this phenomonon, we could argue that its our thoughts (primary) and action (secondary) that is at cause of everything.
          So the problems we are faced with on a physical level first manifested themselves as thoughts, so it makes sense that its our way of thinking about many things that needs to evolve if we are going to commit the appropriate actions.
          Our values, morals and ideals need to align with divinity in order to achieve a divine result. (everyone knows this intuitively at some level) Education, media, parents, teachers (not all),have made us products of society, conditioned into believing we live in a harsh, dog eat dog world, where we compete for scarce resources and human energy (drama) to survive. (vulgar generalization but you see my point).
          We wont stop destroying the earth until we stop destroying ourselves.. The flip side of the status quo needs to be investigated. We are so stuck in the physical cause that we are not seeing the other side… We are not of the earth.. the earth is of us… The environmental changes that are occurring are a reflection of a sick collective human mind. The ‘reality’ that is unfolding around us is only occurring because the bulk of the mind (majority of population) believe that this is the way the world is… (convinced by media for arguments sake)
          So, for ease of explanation, our reality is a placebo effect on the biggest scale. Science has proven the above concept with medication suggesting that thought is the real champion of curing disease etc.
          The condition of our own body and circumstances of our life is a reflection of our personal level of consciousness. The planet is reflecting the condition of the collective consciousness. The same as the solar system is a reflection of a larger ‘group’ of consciousness. The universe is expanding so it makes sense that consciousness everywhere is expanding too and the physical effects we see are a result of this expansion.
          I have mentioned before the teachings of Nikola Tesla. This man was obviously of very high consciousness. He would envision ideas in his minds ‘eye’ and then create them in reality. His life was spent studying electrical energy and created technology for the transportation of data and electricity wirelessly over 100 yrs ago. So we are along way behind thanks to greed and centralization of power. BTW, stationary magnetics and perpetual motion DOES exist and could be implemented immediately into every home. Even Youtube contains many videos supporting claims of free energy devices (regardless of what the physics professors at Princeton, Harvard, Yale etc tell us). As Pete said, they are just theories, even gravity is not proven and flys in the face of other evidence.
          The links below pose some seriously mind boggling questions/answers about todays accepted version of physics/reality.
          Recommended reading.

          http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html

          http://www.thefinaltheory.com/theoryofeverything.html

          The solar system is moving into an area of the galaxy that resonates at a different frequecy to what we have experienced in recent times (20+ thousand years), and being vibrational beings in a vibrational universe, it is no wonder its having an effect..
          Yes, we need more C02 sinks, as we have destroyed the planets ability to deal with much of this. (its like mum and dad used to say – leave it the way u found it). We have NOT done this.. we have raped mother earth and not helped her heal. The only way we will learn to control nature to what extent is feasible, is by aligning with source energy. This is how Tesla knew what he did. This is how average people come up with fantastic ideas, without any education whatsoever. Which says alot about the way/what we are taught.
          This is not to say that the planet does not the ability to heal itself because it can… through us. Here is a bold statement… We can remove the CO2 by thinking about it. (ponder that in light of all evidence)

          So the technology exists for us to completely cease destroying our own back yards, but to implement it on a grand scale may require a shift in human consciousness, not a huge leap, just some new realizations and acceptance of the true nature of reality or unreality as it seems.
          To me, it is so blindly obvious what needs to happen and what WILL happen very soon. A species either grows, evolves and survives, or it shuts down, retracts, and ceases to exist.
          People seem to be concerned with the loss of jobs as an argument or refusal for ushering in a new technological age of common sense and higher purpose. With a sense of higher purpose and education around such truths, people would naturally gravitate towards their desires, interests, etc.
          How many people do you know whom truly love doing what they do for a living,to the point where they would continue even without the money. Not many.. ( I can honestly say that I do)
          So what does this tell you.. People in general, live in fear…(False Evidence Appearing Real) fear of unknown, doubt… doubt in their own ability, hard wired to fit with the 95% of people who work for the other 5%. Anyone who works 40hr/wk and hates doing it is a slave to the system and is denying themselves (not necessarily their fault -although is their resonsibility) of their true purpose.
          Educating our children and adults about the truth will assist them in living their purpose..
          For things to change environmentally, we have to change mentally. Sure there will be jobs lost, but nothing ventured……
          New industries will arise with the appropriate people behind them, changing infrastructure and restoring the balance of power,(which we all have).
          So in summary.
          We have created the circumstances of our lives by our thoughts. Inappropriate thoughts have led to inappropriate action, resulting in an unhealthy self/planet.
          When a critical mass of people begin to realize this, our lives will naturally change.. I believe that as a species and expression of consciousness, we are on the verge of unprecedented change and it will be for the best, regardless of the result.
          Cheers,
          Peace I AM
          P

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. B Berry

            Pistol,

            Interesting post, thoughtful.
            You are more optimistic than me. If I read you correctly, you believe people will come around and change somewhat on their own terms. I think eventually we will have this raised consciousness (this is the kind of thing we would need for world peace), but history as evidence does not support it. People are selfish, they have to be. This makes cooperation very hard; cooperation on a global scale against the inherent human fear and greed seems like a dream. We’ll have to be at the brink of destruction just to prove to everyone that a problem exists. Assuming we survive, we’ll make the appropriate changes. It’s like a kid who just refuses to put his seatbelt on. Then there’s a car accident. If the kid survives, he’s much more likely to wear his seatbelt (probably for the rest of his life).

            But what cooperation do you see now? The greatest weaknesses of both capitalism and democracy that I see are the same: myopia (short-sightedness). Add on top of that, the countries of the world are in competition (at least economically) and it seems difficult to find consensus on just about anything (rational thought has not caught on completely). Humans themselves are full of faulty programming when you look at them in context of the 21st century. We are the same people that we were 50,000 years ago, but the setting has changed dramatically (this is history in a nut shell, just reading about people make the same mistakes). And most people are too stubborn to even admit they might have mechanisms in place allowing them to make bad decisions. For example, if you take a mask that is hollow (convex on one side, concave on the other) and rotate it, it will appear as a full face on that side as well. This is one optical illusion, I’m sure you know of others. The senses are a function of the brain as is the mind. If it appears that perception can be so easily fooled, then we must assume our reason is subject to the same ‘optical illusions’. I could argue that emotions fit this category (anger, love, pick one). They drive people to make bad decisions. Selfishness is just a subtler emotion. And it is not compatible with the long term survival of the species, When the premise of the economy is that people are selfish (“It’s not by the benevolence of the butcher, baker or brewer that you get your dinner, but by their regard for their own self interest”) book 1 of Wealth of Nations), that only acts as a positive feedback on the problem.
            I didn’t like the movie personally (the original I did, not the Keanu Reeves version), but The Day the Earth Stood Still touches on this. The professor (Cleese’s character) says that a species needs to be on the precipice of disaster before it can change, Reeves’ character says few species survive the disaster, and you know the rest. I’m halfway through Story of Civilization and that seems to be the overarching theme so far: Civilized humans have a weak ability to see into the future and plan for the worst. Indeed, it takes a war or a national scapegoat to unify people. The danger has to be palpable. Case in point, the cold war. We’re 3 minutes to midnight for 50 years and 20 years later can’t agree on whether CO2 is dangerous. To really unify people, we probably needed to launch those missiles (we don’t have a Dr. Manhattan to use as a scapegoat).

            So I think we agree that mentally we have to mature, but we disagree on how it’s going to happen.

            I recommend the books:
            Proust was a Neuroscientist – Leher
            How We Decide (we essentially have the same emotional brain as ‘lower’ vertebrates and every decision you make is part rational, part emotional)- Leher
            The Story of Philosophy – Durant (same authors as Story of Civilization)
            Ishmael – Quinn

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. longshotlouie

          OMG

          Where did you come up with this ‘Co2 is toxic’ bullshit?

          I believe we are around 387 ppm in the atmosphere, and we would have to be well over 10,000 ppm to come anywhere close to toxicity.

          Surely you’re not fear-mongering?

          As for the rest of the post, ….. couldn’t get through it after spitting up my beverage over ‘Toxic C02′.

          LMAO

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. Fluidly Unsure

    About the debate degrading … well said!

    While I did join the shouting/pissing/slugging match a couple of times I tried to avoid it. My only defense is that I let my emotions get the best of me which is not what I normally strive to do.

    There were a few people here who seemed more interested in an fair debate and learning. Forensics (not CSI style) is a fun and useful past-time. We get to see our position as others do, discover our weakness, and either hone our argument or abandon it altogether.

    As you’ve probably figured out, I do disagree with somethings you said. But I do appreciate how you took the criticism of others.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Pistol

      cheers mate,
      I figured someone had better say something as it was giving me unwanted flash backs of primary school… and ur right… we all get emotional at times… I guess its part of being human.. The issue I have at times(with myself too) is when emotion takes over and the ability to reason, accept and allow, becomes diminished or evaporates completely.

      Our opinions and beliefs will always vary to some extent even in a highly evolved society (which we are not), but it takes a certain quality as an individual to agree to disagree, to allow others their space to ‘be’, and loving them for it no matter how much it contradicts our own understandings.. Those whom are the hardest to love, need it the most…

      Peace I AM
      P

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. Pistol

    wow… i am surprised to say the least… i find it disappointing to see this debate devolve into a slugging match.. Everyone seems so desperate to have their point understood, that each seems to have forgotten ‘who they really are’.
    ‘Stupid question’:- Since when has a difference of opinion that resulted in a slinging match, ever resolve anything?… wars are started and people die over such behaviour, or hasnt history proven that??
    Sure, we all divert off course occassionally in a bid to have others acknowledge our point of view, but rarely does abuse accomplish positive results. I think its important to remember that ‘right’ & ‘wrong’ are man made perspectives, and dont exist in nature… There is only what works, and what does not work, in relation to what it is, we seek to be, do, or have.

    If we seek to have the cleanest air, water, food, energy, clothing and shelter, then as a so called advanced society, we are failing. We have well passed the point of mere survival when it seemed appropriate and logical to relinguish nature of certain elements/consumables in order to survive, but with modern technology, we are at a stage where we can cease waging war against nature, which wont stop until we stop killing each other..
    The fact we are still arguing over the issues proves we have not yet shed our primitive ways. Instead of arguing over who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’, why cant we agree that we are faced with some big challenges that require ALL of us to come together.. That is the real lesson here..
    Separation and conflict brought us here, so it makes sense that unity and peace will resolve it…

    It doesnt matter who, what or how global warming is caused..
    Our planet is warming up, that is fact.. it may only be incremental, and may be a natural cycle not completely caused or worsened by human activity, but it is still warming up…
    Other planets in our solar system are also undergoing massive surface, polar and temperature changes.

    (see above post as attached) http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/#comment-19648

    Some views relate to human activity (burning fossil fuels), some refer to the sun (solar activity), some say (including myself), that its caused by immense energy releases exploding from the galactic centre (growing evidence suggest this also), and others also believe that human consciousness (or the belief in GW) is also responsible.. (plausible) if enough people believe in an outcome it can manifest.. the same could be said for global warming too.
    Either way, I dont think there are too many educated people(self or institutional), that believe there is zero warming taking place.. With the evidence radiating from so many sources, alot of which are plausible, i find it strange for anyone to completely ignore it…
    Yes, we are going to be faced with many challenges regarding big industry monopolies, goverment bias and corruption, scientific fraud and hidden agendas, but those things have always been there… dating back to Sumeria. That’s not to say it will never change, because it will. Change is the only constant in the universe, perception is the variable.
    Unless we change our perspective of each other and discontinue to see ourselves as separate from each other and nature, we will continue the unneccessary release of chemicals and gases into our environment at whatever cost, we will continue to allow those who govern us to poison our food and water, and we will persist in killing each other in the name of false gods and ideals.

    Lets attempt to move away from who, what, how, an element of warming is transpiring and discuss the various energy systems that can replace our primitive methods. This will not be easy, as we are still faced with the moral dilema of who should initiate the process. If we leave it to g’ment then we can be fairly certain the technology will be implemented by the same faceless shadows, that control it now. So its a huge topic.
    ‘Transparency’ and ‘full disclosure’ need to be the orders of the day. A decrease in the size and areas of g’ment involvement should come first. Most conscious members of our society would agree that our governments are too big in many areas and maybe too small in others, but overall, g’ment should take a step back. Reduce their budget and spending may be an ok place to start..

    I dont have all the solutions but as a successful forex trader, I can certainly spot a trend, and if we dont change the direction of our current trend, then we are in serious trouble.
    So… how about we leave the school yard taunts where they belong (nowhere), and start looking at ways of improving the lives of all inhabitants on this tiny place we call home.. If we cant get it to work on our own turf, then we have buckleys of making it off this patch of dirt in search of others.

    Thanks
    Peace I AM
    P

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Mike
  28. we the people

    Like John Coleman said in that link i posted above. These Global Warmer guys refuse to sustain a debate without having to resort to insults. Its become a cult and these guys are its mouth pieces.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Pete

      The reason for the insults is that after 4 decades of trying to argue rationally, we have all more or less given up trying to explain scientific facts and how they are interpreted to people who think the world is flat. We are fed up, furious, and tired of you people. We want our due. You are making asses of yourselves and the conservative movement.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Pete

        It’s not a cult. It’s the consensus among most educated people. If you can point me to one link were John Coleman says something scientific about the greenhouse effect, I will read it. Everything I’ve heard him say amounts to politicking or is otherwise already addressed here. He is a trained scientist, but I haven’t seen any scientific documents concerning the actual mechanism of greenhouse gas elimination by him or anyone else.

        Use your common sense! WHERE IS THE CO2 GOING? You cannot spew billions of tons smog into the air, remove huge swaths of the natural sink, and escape some kind of effect.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Mike

        I never said I was a conservative. But you seem to miss the logic about the global warming movement. Let me try to tell you again and hopefully you will understand. Its about more government control. Wow I thinks its a problem that you cant read that what John Coleman has said. So since Co2 is the problem maybe you should stop breathing cause Co2 is natural. So why don’t you read the energy bill.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Pete

          I can’t stop breathing. I can buy a hybrid if I get enough money. I can acknowledge the problem and support efforts to address it. I’m not an extremist.

          What is it that you want me to read? I’m sitting here reading John Coleman, finding all the same old stuff.

          I’m trying to be even handed. There are quite a few people better educated than me who disagree with me, but I haven’t yet read one thing that explains away the greenhouse gas problem. Until I hear something that doesn’t strike me as an attempt to ignore that issue, I just don’t see how it could be otherwise. CO2 and water vapor and methane trap heat in the atmosphere, period.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Pete

            It just doesn’t make any sense. The climate overall is a very complicated system, but this part of the equation is very straightforward, and no one from the opposition ever addresses it. So what am I supposed to think?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Mike
  29. Mike

    Well Pete it seems to me you bought what your professors told you. You try to call me uneducated, closed minded, and etc. It matter of facts (not myths) threw posts I read what you typed you can’t debate with out insulting someone. By your previous comments I believe that you want more government control by your progressive beliefs. So you can continue to believe your high priest Al Gore. So why don’t you read up on John Coleman. Cause global warming is a scam.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Pete

      No, it’s not. I bought what my professors told me? That CO2 and water vapor are the only products of hydrocarbon combustion? That CO2 and water vapor are greenhouse gases, which reflect UV light into the atmosphere as IR heat radiation? That trees are the primary sink for CO2? That solar and galactic activity and the melting of the polar ice are only worsening this problem? Those are all simple facts.

      I try not to be insulting, but to be honest, sometimes the best way to get someone to grow the hell up is to tell them to their face what you think of them. You haven’t said anything yet that I haven’t responded to repeatedly, and I’m tired of playing patty-cake with people who don’t know what they’re talking about and won’t shut up or read up.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. we the people

    Hey Sean take a look at this link it may make you think twice about supporting Al whore…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=player_embedded

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. Mike

    Pete who said there was a box. It shows all through history that people like you have been wrong. Once again it seems to me that you want more government control by any means ( aka carbon taxes =global warming). You need to look behind the wizard of oz curtain and see what the true intentions are.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Pete

      I’m saying it. Your mind is in a small box. I am unimpressed and bored by you.

      All throughout history? The American Revolution – a break with Institutions of the Past. The end of slavery? History is almost nothing worth mentioning except examples of progress.

      NO ONE wants more government control. It is a necessity we agree to to stop selfish people. WHY would ANYONE want more government control?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Mike

        Well one again you are counter dicing your self. You need to stop reading textbooks( written by left wing professors who still think this is the 1960′s) and read other sources. Also why is that professors get fired for saying global warming is a myth? Because professors are socialists. The people who believe global warming is real are socialists. So you can still believe that global warming is there but more people around the world are not believing it. So you are one of those so called want to be elites that are out of touch.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Pete

          Counter dicing myself?

          If you had even the most elementary understanding of science, you would realize what an ass you’re making of yourself.

          Are the people who believe the earth is round also socialists? What a rube.

          Do you know what byproducts are created by fossil fuel combustion? Both are greenhouse gases.

          Do you know what removes CO2 from the atmosphere? Trees. Millions of acres have been removed.

          Do you know what contains more CO2? Artic ice, which is melting farther every year.

          Do you understand the fundamentals of the scientific method? That its work is double- and triple-checked?

          Do you literally have anything to offer to this conversation besides calling everyone who disagrees with you a socialist?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Pete

            Do you believe that 2+2=4?

            LIBERAL mathematicians support this claim! SOCIALIST and even COMMUNIST mathematicians STRONGLY BELIEVE that 2+2=4.

            why am I bothering with this again? Get an eduction.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Pete

            Since you’re obviously not willing to read up in the blog or on your own, I will say again that the issue of what percentage of global warming is caused by man is a complete red herring.

            The only thing that matters is that it is (which only the VERY, VERY poorly educated are not willing to accept) and will probably wind up more or less eliminating human society by precipitating a new ice age. We have no real option except to respond by trying to sink greenhouse gases somehow.

            But of course, since you are regurgitating Fox news all over this otherwise worthwhile discussion, I am sure you will now have something loud-mouthed and endlessly rehashed above in this blog to say (to someone whose understanding of the actual, literal science of this issue far exceeds yours). I am sure you will not do any independent reading at all, but will come back with a link to a right-wing blog or otherwise “prove” something you have absolutely no right to be talking about in the first place.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Mike

    Let me show you something Pete. This is you Positive law, Progress,
    Equality over liberty, Benevolent government,Human Perfectibility, and Community. Now this is me Natural law,Established institutions,
    Liberty over equality,Suspicion of power,Exceptionalism, and Individualism. See a difference I do.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Pete

      Natural law – man does not have access to shelter, cannot catch food because he is too slow, has no claws or sharp teeth

      Established institutions – slavery, monarchy

      Liberty vs. Equality – In all things, balance is required

      Suspicion of power – You think conservatives are more suspicious of power than liberals? That’s pretty nuts.

      Individual vs. Community – You’re so dualistic. How can you have one without the other? How can you advance one without advancing the other?

      I am not in any one camp. I can appreciate intelligent arguments in favor of both sides, and only take sides when I have done enough study and thinking to be very sure I should be talking. I am no expert on economics, society-building, international relations, and a host of other things. I do know quite a bit about science, and climate science. I am not a liberal or a conservative.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Mike

        Pete once again you proved my point. Those progressive conservatives are the problems in the republican party or should i say rinos. That’s why I left the republican party cause of people like you cause you spend like a democrat. The problem isn’t global warming. Its all of this government control.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Pete

          I am not for spending. I am for smaller government where appropriate, larger government where appropriate, and to be honest, I am quite sure people who restrict themselves with ideals instead of responding to reality are the problem with the republican, libertarian, democratic, fascist, and every other party.

          How do YOU know global warming isn’t the problem? The only people with the training to determine that have been saying it IS the problem for 50 years. Arrogant baby.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Mike

            Pete how are are those bio lines going. There is no reason for larger government. Larger government equals socialism. So how much of you rights that you want to give to save so called mankind. That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
            Thomas Jefferson

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Pete

            Bio lines?

            The government took away my right to murder innocent children to try out my child-catapult. Is that wrong?

            You’re talking like a small-minded absolutist. Think outside your box.

            The entire reason for government is that people WON’T discipline themselves unless required to. I could list a million examples of this. Government should be both as small and as large as necessary to serve its role.

            We all have to give up rights in favor of responsibilities. I think of what you’re saying as very immature.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Pete

    Fluidly unsure, I should say that I have respect for your even-handedness and willingness to ask questions. I wish you would take my answers more seriously, but I should not direct my comments toward you. You seem to be trying to be fair. There are several other people responding here who are not earning the same level of respect, and I am sorry for lumping you in with them.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Fluidly Unsure

      When you pointed out my mistakes in chemistry, I took that seriously. Chemistry is now on my list of issues to review. Unfortunately it is still behind subjects I am passionate about: CS, music, Hindi, and hiking.

      Looking back, I wonder if my error was that a few years ago I learned some of the basics of smog control and how a cars exhaust system alters the elements. However, the elements probably act different in nature than they do in a Catalyst Converter.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Pete

        All I really wanted to hear. Thanks. I wish you would defer to the experts until you do, but we can’t always get what we want.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. other guy

    global warming” is hilarious when you know how they are going to use it to scare everyone into giving up money and freedom. It you are in the box you won’t see what we see. You will fight and scream because you can’t see the truth past the science. Matrix

    Anyway. Why did Barack Hussein Obama go to the church he did… Think about what Obama is good at.

    Answer. To learn how to move people emotionally. He went there to learn how to speak. How to sell his agenda through the art of speaking. He is hardly a “believer” He’s a joke…

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Pete

      This boogie-man idea that liberals hate personal freedoms is bizarre. Liberals were the original champions of personal freedoms. Everyone enjoys nice things. But mature people can recognize when there is a higher call to sacrifice and give up some luxuries to help out the common human cause of survival. The emotional infants who have taken over the conservative movement are trying to sell sacrifice as a bad thing and a flaw, and loud-mouthed, beligerrent selfishness as saintly.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Fluidly Unsure

        You finished washing your soylent green down with your cool-aid yet? Hey guys, lets not interfere with Pete’s attempt to sacrifice himself.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Pete

          The only sacrifice I’ve ever even suggested here is acknowledging that you don’t know what you’re talking about and getting an education, and you know it.

          I am continually nauseated that the conservative movement has abandoned its morals and become a party of selfish, childish, belligerent sinners just like the social liberals they condemn, however.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Fluidly Unsure

            I think many here would agree that the GOP has gone in a childish direction. At least a few of us resents the implication that all conservatives are alike and that wanting a constitutional government is the same as wanting right-wing religions to rule the land. That is why I refer to myself as “right leaning” or a “conservative libertarian”.

            I assume that like me, you have areas that fall under the conservative category and others that could be called liberal. But in the context of what we are discussing now I only see the liberal.

            As far as sacrifice, it does sound like you are calling for more than reading a book.

            “there is a higher call to sacrifice and give up some luxuries to help out the common human cause of survival”

            But since the ‘luxuries’ of one generation are commonly the necessities of survival in the next, you appear to be calling for humans to sacrifice their ability to survive as an individual for the sake of the tribe. Taking away man’s natural advantage is no less cruel than declawing a wild cat and releasing it back into its natural environment.

            Unfortunately, I respond to calls to sacrifice survival as if they were calls for forced exit or euthanasia. It is probably an over-generalization but it is one that I cannot remove from my psych. You have pressed one of my few (I hope) “hot buttons”.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Pete

            I don’t think of my position on this as liberal or conservative. I think of it as the position supported by science. I consider science a much more useful source of knowledge than politics.

            As far as sacrifice goes, I restrict myself in my own life and in my opinion to luxuries. It’s not reasonable to give up necessities. you have to decide for yourself what is a luxury and what is a necessity; it varies from person to person. In general, I realize that most things people do, apart from NASCAR and mudding trucks, are more or less necessary on some level. Some people need SUVs and trucks, and some have them just out of spite. The only sacrifice I would personally like to see more of is the sacrifice of one’s pride. Just admit that the science and scientists broadly agree that there is a problem that must be addressed (which you have done, but others won’t).

            I wish people would be willing to look “progressive” to their conservative neighbors by getting the hybrid or installing a solar panel, for instance. Why NOT do the right thing? You’re not being forced, and you still won’t, which disproves Mike’s Jefferson quote.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Fluidly Unsure

            I have never owned a place to live, I have never bought a car over $1500, and I can’t afford either one. Neither a hybrid nor a solar panel is in my radar because of reality, not because of ignorance.

            When I have the money I plan to get a bio-diesel car which I don’t think has the problems with alternate fuels a spark-ignited engine would and it doesn’t have the toxic waste of an electric car. If I had the money, if my landlord would let me, and if the mobile home could handle the extra weight, I would get a solar panel.

            I wish everybody would be willing to step out of their comfort zone and break the dualistic attitude of the human race. But I know that is not human nature so I don’t push the issue.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. Pete

    This blog is getting stupider and stupider, and my respect for conservatives as individuals continues to plummit. The level of unthinking buy-in to the right wing agenda, and quite frankly, ignorant ranting, is just too high. You are losing me as a convert. I am ashamed of your teachers and parents and want nothing to do with either of you.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Mike

      Pete thanks for showing your true colors. That all you liberals do is bash, bash, and bash. So you might as well come clean and say you are a liberal. By they was there is no right wing agenda its called common sense. So you guys that believe in global warming can live in hut houses and ride a bike. As for me Ill live in my nice 5 bedroom house drive my F150 and my mustang. So I’m not ashamed either I laugh at you ability to believe the high priest Al Gore and the rest of the left wing loons. I wouldn’t surprise me if the left wing owned branches of government pass a bill that everyone must have solar panels on building. So how much are you willing to give the government for that Pete ?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Pete

        I am not a liberal. I am a conservative.

        You’re an ignoramus.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Fluidly Unsure

          Please quit redefining words. In this case you are insulting everyone who might be slightly right leaning.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Pete

            No, I’m not. I’m insulting Mike. He’s an ignorant loud-mouth.

            How am I redefining any words here?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Pete

        You have bad grammar, you have no scientific education, you only watch one source of news, you have no idea what you’re talking about or which side the science supports, and you need to stop talking until all of these things are corrected.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Mike

          See Pete you cant come up with an argument without basing. Typical liberal class 101 teaching. So you are a progressive conservative which means you are hiding that you are a liberal. So in other words do you want more government in your life or less. Plus it has shown for the past several years that both main parties want more government.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Pete

            No, a progressive conservative is a progressive conservative. Small government, rethinking old ideas, accepting the best of the left humbly and fairly without allowing the excesses of liberals. Or conservatism.

            I am sorry to have to bash, but you are too arrogant and too biased to have a discussion, and I’d rather call a spade a spade. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and I wish you would be quiet until you do.

            I have limited time in my day to respond here, and I can’t keep re-explaining the basic science, so if you’re not willing to read up in the blog or on your own until you know enough about what we’re talking about to talk about science instead of politics, I am going to have to insist that this is your fault, not mine, and that I don’t have to waste my time refuting your crap, which I’ve already had to do for several other people above. An opinion without any basis in fact is worth nothing.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply