Global Warming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mike

    What a typical leftist. I think you should look at this. So all the light bulbs and hybrid vehicles people buy is not going to change anything. The earth changes it’s self all the time. So quick thinking you can save it cause it’s not going to happen. But also you should look at all the companies who will make huge profits based on this fake science. #​gore-admits-making-money-off-global-warming-hoax
    # So why don’t you look at your own people like Al Gore. So its a typical liberal to say do want I say dont do what I do.

    • Pete

      I believe we owe it to our children, our ancestors and our neighbors to try. If we can control atmospheric chemistry, we can control the temperature. We need to buy ourselves a window. I also believe you have no idea what conservative even means.

      Why don’t YOU look at the companies making huge profits off of steering Fox news? There’s big money in green tech because it’s the obvious choice.

      And I’m NOT a leftist. Do you even read?

      As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t go beyond my own needs in my personal contribution, and I vote according to who is willing to steer industry and government toward making positive, pro-life choices available to me.

      You’re just some loud-mouth. You obviously haven’t read this blog or any supporting material from the other side.

      • Mike

        Well liberals never say they are liberal. So what should I call you progressive then. So is it ok for the government to push laws that will cause problems uh. Plus remember you responded to me. Also who said we can control atmospheric temperature that seem people are playing god that isn’t right.

        • Pete

          Is it playing God to drive a car? God didn’t invent cars. Is it playing God to live in a house? Protecting ourselves from the environment and each other is not playing god. It’s basic evolution.

          I am a progressive conservative.

          Is it okay for the government not to push laws, when that will cause bigger problems?

  • Pete
  • Mike

    Well the question is if its man or the earth itself. I think the earth changes itself. So people like Al Gore are making money off of fake science.

    • Pete

      Please read the rest of this blog. That is not the question. The question is, CAN WE SURVIVE.

      Also, you are wrong on your “science.”

      • Mike

        Well Pete show me what the earth has cased and what man has caused. The government is the biggest causer pollution. They need to stop being fake tonic sales people. Plus I dont watch CNN.

        • Pete

          As I’ve said before, that issue is a red herring. We could argue forever about what % is natural cycles and what % is man-made. The issue is that we are in a CRISIS that is ALREADY causing huge problems. We can solve these problems if we move off of carbon-based energy and invest in research to produce superior technology. This is simple evolution.

          If you restrict yourself to Fox news and other right-wing sources, that’s not my fault. A well-rounded intelligent person will evaluate various points of view.

          • Mike

            Who said we are in a crisis ? Do you mean like the crisis to pass the stimulus bill ? It a matter of facts that most of the people that believe in this junk science is the socialists and progressives. I don’t left wing news based on their bias. I only watch the true news which is fox news cause they show both sides and let you make up your own mind. So you need to do some other research on this matter since you think you a so called well well-rounded intelligent person and all.

          • Pete

            Why don’t you follow the link and see if it’s a crisis? Why don’t you do something besides regurgitate the right-wing bias?

            Fox news is EXTREMELY biased. The only way to have an unbiased point of view is to review multiple news sources’ accounts of the same thing, and honestly, to do some @$%@&^@ research. IF you knew anything about climate science, you would understand why people are calling crisis.

            People on the left tend to be much better educated in science than people on the right. I am an independent, and would shift to the right if it weren’t full of simple-minded zealots with no real grasp of reality.

            I HAVE read many, many documents from global warming detractors, most of which amounted to calling in to question the source of global warming, which, as I’ve already said, is a red herring.

            Right-wing people are closed-minded know-it-alls in my experience. Do you have a degree in climate science, or even an education in basic chemistry?

            Otherwise, get bent, no offense.

          • Sean
          • Sean

            LOL! mike, fox news is the most biast news channel ever. That is a known fact; everyone knows that.

      • Fluidly Unsure

        The apparent pseudo-science method used by GW/CC proponents to prove the politically correct theories of climate science have caused my respect for the scientific community to plummet. Those methods are listed below:

        1) Ignore contradictory evidence like whether or not the earth is actually undergoing a constant warming.

        2) Ignore past predictions that have proven false such as the demise of humans in the 80’s.

        3) Perform personal attacks and ridicule those that dare ask politically incorrect questions or study something other than your pet interest. Your constant claim that others aren’t intelligent enough or aren’t educated enough to “see the truth” is one example.

        4) Ignore other potential hypothesis such as other GHGs or the changes in land usage.

        5) Distract the discussion with red herrings such as whether contradictory evidence comes from people interested in proving the current PC theories wrong. The “right wing” and “oil companies” are two convenient targets. Two questions: Wouldn’t an intelligent and well-rounded person also dismiss evidence from people who are trying to prove the PC theories right? Why would an intelligent and well-rounded person care where evidence came from?

        6) Compare earth to other complex systems that are only partially similarity to us. One example; claim earth will have temperatures like Venus ignores the differences such as the tremendous atmospheric density or the weird retrograde spin. (

        7) Use emotional images that have no grounding in reality like penguins basking in the Arctic sun.

        8) Distract the discussion by focusing on issues outside the scope of the matter. The workings of CO2 in a smaller system without the complexities and other interactions is one. Using surface changes in US urban population centers to prove a global trend is yet another.

        9) Ignore how these events in the past have actually affected man. Examples are how climate change allowed North America to be populated from Asia or how global cooling killed a whole society (Vikings)?

        10) Change the ground rules of the argument such as goals so that all arguments against recent comments are invalid. Saying you are protecting man from nature when you used to say you were protecting nature from man is one example.

        11) Repeat your nonsustaining theories and accusations until others believe them. Your claiming I am getting my idea from Fox news (which I have only watch once in my lifetime since I try to avoid any source that is so one-side) and oil companies.

        Sorry, but PC theories have my baloney detect device working overtime. You guys only have yourselves to blame for the negative feelings about you.

        • Pete

          Wrong, ourselves and you, as well.

          If you understood anything about science, you would realize why I am continuing to focus on the CO2 argument. I just don’t have the energy to conduct a point-by-point response. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

          • Sean

            haha ignore science, it didn’t bring us the tv, radio, airplanes, and cars. What good does science do? I’m sure your a scientist. You’ve probably been recording data for years now.

            Lets ignore the fact that we are raping our world, and pretend like nothing will happen beause the world is actually flat, as a mirror in gods image.

  • Jan

    The Emerging Sunspot Cycle 24 and a Weakening Magnetic Field
    What does this mean for our planet and species?

    Alex Ansary
    February 25, 2009


    If you were thinking that the only things we have to be concerned about include wars, famines, and economic crashes, think again.

  • Jan

    China Vows ‘Constructive’ Role in Climate Protection

    China was the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases from burning oil, coal and natural gas in 2006, followed by the U.S., according to U.S. Department of Energy data on Bloomberg.

  • Fluidly Unsure

    Too many deceptions and too much snobbishness usually points to malicious intentions. But I really shouldn’t be presumptuous, maybe you are fooling yourself in addition to trying to fool those around you.

    Thank you for giving me permission to ask questions. Apparently it’s ok as long as you are with any assumptions they make. The attempts to disallow others a word is coming from the leaders of the green movement and not from individual pundits such as yourself.

    As far as politician that push the industry in a direction; the ones we see are promising to do more than push, but to force compliance. There are some very bad side effects of being pushed off a cliff the way want to. But the message is softened somewhat by the fact that it is being pushed by politicians who probably act like a politician.

    Ron Paul’s messages rings true:
    1) “Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources.”
    2) “I hope we avoid those mistakes[, such as letting the government choose our direction instead of the market, while we are] moving forward.”
    3) “I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.”

  • Pistol

    Here is something I found that may be of interest..

    We all know that the Earth is experiencing global warming and other changes, whether the petroleum giants like it or not. Just read the headlines.

    What we may NOT know is the following:

    SUN: The Sun’s magnetic field is over 230 percent stronger now than it was at the beginning of the 1900s, and its overall energetic activity has sizably increased, creating a frenzy of activity that continues to embarrass NASA’s official predictions.

    VENUS: Venus is now glowing in the dark, as is Jupiter’s moon Io.

    EARTH: In the last 30 years, Earth’s icecaps have thinned out by as much as 40 percent. Quite inexplicably, just since 1997 the structure of the Earth has shifted from being slightly more egg-shaped, or elongated at the poles, to more pumpkin-shaped, or flattened at the poles. No one at NASA has even bothered to try to explain this yet.
    MARS: The icecaps of Mars noticeably melted just within one year, causing 50-percent changes in surface features. Atmospheric density had risen by 200 percent above previous observations as of 1997.

    JUPITER: Jupiter has become so highly energized that it is now surrounded by a visibly glowing donut tube of energy in the path of the moon Io. The size of Jupiter’s magnetic field has more than doubled since 1992.

    SATURN: Saturn’s polar regions have been noticeably brightening, and its magnetic field strength increasing.

    URANUS: According to NASA’s Voyager II space probe, Uranus and Neptune both appear to have had recent magnetic pole shifts – 60 degrees for Uranus and 50 for Neptune.

    NEPTUNE: Neptune has become 40 percent brighter in infrared since 1996, and is fully 100-percent brighter in certain areas. Also, Neptune’s moon Triton has had a “very large percentage increase” in atmospheric pressure and temperature, comparable to a 22-degree Fahrenheit increase on Earth.

    PLUTO: As of September 2002, Pluto has experienced a 300-percent increase in its atmospheric pressure in the last 14 years, while also becoming noticeably darker in color.

    Must be all the SUV’s running around the solar system….

    This was an exert from the link below.. This site is a must for all..

    Peace I AM

    • Pete

      As I’ve said, we don’t control the galactic plane or solar activity or any of that. But we can control atmospheric levels of various gases to directly control the temperature or the planet, if we’re given enough time to figure out how.

      Evolution means adaptation to circumstance. It is a fight against entropy and a struggle to remain alive regardless of the threat. I consider it a betrayal of our ancestors to just assume we can’t win because it would mean trying.

      • Pistol

        You are correct, and I am not debating ur argument. Yes, we can have an impact on our immediate environment, but we still need to consider all the evidence.. The fact that global warming on this planet is coinciding with heating (some of which is far worse) in other areas of the solar system suggests that something bigger is at work here..

        Like i have also mentioned in previous posts, I am not defending the oil producers or any of the multitude of environmental assassins, and an immediate release of suppressed technology is a must.
        Geothermal energy is one of the most abundant, however there is another source of energy far greater, limitless and green. Nicola Tesla knew this as I have already mentioned in the past.
        We have no excuses to continue this planetary onslaught and the industrialists ongoing war against nature. Centralization of power needs to be removed before much of this will change.. I believe we can have an immediate impact on the temps on earth to some extent by enlisting the use of advanced techs. It would certainly go a long way in improving the collective phyche on earth related to warming.

        However, we dont need to wait for the globalist to be removed, as we can all take small steps now towards reducing our carbon footprint. Most of which is common sense. It all starts with the individual. Good work mate, keep em comin…
        Peace I AM

      • Fluidly Unsure

        But what about all the claims that it is man’s stupidity and greed that is destroyed the whole planet and caused it to spiral out of control?

        What about the idea that man must be eradicated from mother earth or it she will be destroyed?

        What about the idea that we must not listen to the voices of question which has doomed us by creating the current event?

        If the effect would happen without us then why destroy our main method of surviving? I doubt if the species man could survive very long without man making use of his only advantage to other animals in nature– manipulating the environment around him.

        Suddenly the lines of reason that hit the headline (and the ones I am responding to) are evaporating in thin air and therefor contributing to GW itself by the reason they are forwarding.

        It is the do-now-or-be-damned frenzy people have been negatively reacting to for decades, not the fact that these actions have positive benefits. From what I’m seeing, people in the last two or three generations are much more concerned than those than others. The entropy you speak of seems to be a reaction to that frenzy.

        In fact, if someone really wanted these actions to occur, I don’t see why they are continuing a line of reason that is so questionable that some (like myself) start to wonder about the motivations behind the arguments. Maybe this is a case of the tail wagging the dog and they want the non-science population to come to the conclusion I have.

        • Pete

          You haven’t yet presented even one valid question regarding CO2 and the greenhouse effect, or any understanding of it whatsoever.

          • Fluidly Unsure

            Nowhere in the last post did I even mention “CO2 and the greenhouse effect”. I was talking about the public’s reaction to the claims that come from the MSM and why the argument about anthro-centric gases is relevant to many which you refuse to accept. You continue to chime in with irrelevant facts about the clockwork of CO2.

            Something is causing the tides of opinions to turn and it isn’t a change in how people think CO2 works.

            Other believers in green sciences are noticing that they are starting to lose some important battles in the PR war. No, the war hasn’t been lost yet, the numbers reported are still that a majority believes. But after decades of support, the numbers of cynics are starting to rise significantly.


          • Pete

            What’s causing the tide of opinions to turn is ten years of right wing blathering about alternative hypotheses that do nothing to explain away the greenhouse gas problem, which is completely under our control and completely clear cut. So what about solar cycles? So what about galactic forces? If we’re going to survive, it involves learning to control greenhouse gas levels, and to buy time we have to sacrifice something ourselves.

            Isn’t that a concept conservatives used to embrace? Personal sacrifice for the greater good?

          • Fluidly Unsure

            The question you ask is easy to answer when you are the one defining what’s good, what should be sacrificed, and who should benefit.

            If the issue was as “completely clear cut” as you claim there probably would be few questioners. Absurd questions maybe asked, but we commoners have the right to ask them.

          • Pete

            What’s good is that the human race should survive, what should be sacrificed are unnecessary luxuries, and who should benefit is everyone but the type of person who feels it’s unfair to tax the ultrarich.

            The issue IS that clear cut, if you know anything much about science. And it’s unfortunate in my view that people exercise their rights instead of their responsibilities so often.

          • Fluidly Unsure

            Now I see where you and the greenies want to lead us.

            1) Force the “ultrarich” to bear a “fair burden”.
            2) Destroy what you call an “unnecessary luxury”.
            3) Silence people that disagree with you or don’t have an education that is deemed to be good enough.

            Your plan of action is very clever indeed.
            1) Redefine your goals.
            2) Redefine other people’s rights, responsibilities, and luxuries.
            3) Ignore that very few don’t want to tax the “ultrarich”.
            4) Decide what kind of education is good enough.

            I used to think your ideas weren’t malicious. Thank you for opening my eyes.

          • Pete

            This is tiring.

            1) Yeah, I’m really concerned about the poor, poor ultrarich and their need to buy an additional yacht.
            2) I don’t want to destroy luxury. Luxuries are by definition unnecessary. They can be delayed and sacrificed for the common good.
            3) I don’t want to silence you, I want t convince you, and I have to insist that in your case that’s impossible until you find out what the hell we’re even talking about.

            My “plan of action”
            1) What redefine my goals? It is and always has been to move the country off carbon energy as quickly as possible before the disasters get more out of hand than they already are.
            2) I’m not redefining your rights. Your rights are what they are under the law. Laws get changed, usually because people are too selfish to act in the common interest. I’m not redefining your responsibilities; those should be obvious to anyone of sufficient emotional maturity and patriotism.
            3) The only people I’m aware of who don’t want to tax the ultrarich, are the ultrarich.
            4) If your education is inadequate to understand the issue, that is not my fault.

            What malice? Where’s the malice? I’m trying to avert a catastrophe, and you’re complaining about having to pay a little extra for a hybrid car. Or even acknowledge that you don’t know what we’re talking about and don’t feel like educating yourself.

          • Fluidly Unsure

            utrarich: Unless it is your money then what others decide to spend it on is none of our business.

            luxuries: It wasn’t all that long ago that running water was a luxury. Right now I make a living off of what was a luxury less than a generation ago– a DSL line.

            education: Hard knocks, street smarts, common sense, self-study, and work experience is much more useful than anything you can get from the ivy league.

            Redefined goals (and definitions) of the green movement:
            “saving nature” became “saving humanity” once people started to realize that mankind was much more delicate than nature and we couldn’t destroy nature without her adjusting to it and destroying us in the process.

            Redefining rights: Like all witch hunts, the unwashed (me this time) is being told we can’t ask questions or raise objections.

            Malice: Doing the above and using an improbably catastrophe to justify it.

          • Pete

            luxuries: I understand that. I’ve stated above that in my own life I haven’t found all that many places to improve my carbon footprint. But I will vote for whoever is trying to push industry in the direction that makes those choices practical for me. For instance, I buy wind power from my power company. I am not suggesting you give up necessities.

            education: Then by all means, engage in self-study on this subject. You obviously haven’t done this yet.

            Redefined Goals: so what’s wrong with that? it’s not like we had some amazing plan for when this happened. The response has been ad hoc, improvised and evolving. We have to save nature to save humanity.

            Redefining rights: you are well within your rights to ask questions, and no one is saying otherwise. I am also well within mine to call your questions as I see them: the infuriating pontifications of someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

            Mslice: The catastrophe may be improbable from your uneducated point of view. From mine, it’s the most likely outcome. There is certainly nothing like malice at work; you are being dismissive and paranoid.

  • B Berry


    I’m finding it’s more effective to try to sell the same product with different advertising. You’re at a level of understanding that is beyond probably 95% of the people you are trying to convince. Forget for a moment how troubling that might seem and try a different approach. I have been experimenting with discussions on Saudi/Middle East power through our purchasing of oil and discussions on the nature of fossil fuels. Sell alternative (and don’t forget clean) energy as a means to improve national security and solve an economic problem once and for all. People don’t seem to throw up as much resistance to this. Also, it’s not entirely disingenuous as it might seem. Questions about global warming don’t seem to come up once you frame the debate under these different terms. But if they do or if someone questions your motives, as tempted as I personally am to play naive or even lie, I end up going into the same discourse you have on the scientific underpinnings of climate change and then ultimately losing. Or rather, not winning.

  • Fluidly Unsure

    The arrest was a stupid and overly arrogant move. We need to watch-out for this kind of thing, but that doesn’t verify the thoughts I read on Jones’ web-site:

    I’m worried that is becoming a rallying point for people who want to overtake the government. Quit interfering with Ron Paul’s attempts to do his work through the system and let his ideas pass through the checks-n-balances put into place years ago. If history is an indication then those that call for action outside the system only want to replace one set of bad/questionable/awful policies with another set. Sometimes the government needs to be dissolved, but that is a potentially dangerous move so let us do it with caution and try working with the system first.

    I’ve only read a couple of articles at, but they scare me about as much as GWB does. There seems to be little concern about possible abuse of “pure” democracy and the possibility that dissenters will be bullied into compliance by the majority. The witch burning of the colonial era, lynchings in the south, and school bullying when I was a kid are some of the most pure democratic efforts I know of. I’m not impressed by platonic democracy where I don’t know everyone in the society.

    As much as I disagree with the Climate Change theories, I doubt if it is part of the conspiracy at any level.

    Let’s look at your claims:

    We can’t expect the government to save us? I agree with you here but that kind of “brainwash”‘ng has been going on for a while (AFAICS started in the 60’s), is a tactic used by more than the government, and is now coming from almost all areas that claim to be trying to save us.

    Pesticides and preservatives? With the longer shelf life they create they look healthier to me.

    Aspartame? I avoid it but that is because it may trigger a condition I am already at a statistical risk. I don’t try to justify forcing everyone to abandon it because of my situation. I refuse to drink many “diet” drinks with it, yet it probably creates a healthier food for many. Let them decide.

    Flouride and chlorine? I see two problems here. 1) the backwards idea that food/drugs must be approved before they are sold by mutual agreement. 2) The medical institution’s refusal to accept that many “cures” can cause even more problems as they cure. Again, I assume it depends on the situation but limiting our liberty would be even more deadly.

    Cue “we won’t be fooled again” by the Who.

    • Pistol

      Climate Change is not so much the conspiracy as it is disinformation and a good distraction… Yes it is happening but we lack the technology to reverse or prevent a naturally occurring cycle most probably caused by an energy source not fully perceived by the status quo. Thats not to say we shouldnt clean up our act though and I am not defending the Oil companies. I just think there are bigger concerns that if we tackle, will sort some of the others out in the process.

      No.. pesticides, fungicides and preservatives are not healthy for people and the manufacturers of such know this. Do u honestly think that food that survives on a shelf for 6 months is good for you?..Come on man…ur smarter than that.. dont insult my intelligence please…
      Bacteria, mould, even insects dont eat alot of that stuff, and for good reason.. Its dead already and contains little to no nutritional value. Most processed packaged foods are immortal because they are already dead.. which is how they stay when consumed…Take an eclipse mint loaded with aspartame and put it outside on the ground and watch the ants avoid it like a plague… There are loads of foods in the supermarket that animals and insects wont touch because they are lifeless..

      There is an easy way to know what to eat… Dont eat anything that is advertised… Research what Michael Pollen has to say about this… The best foods are the unsung heroes in the produce section, the brocolli and other greens that farmers cant afford to tell us about.

      Aspartame has been linked to over 30 debilitating illnesses in humans, and actually converts to formaldehyde ( a powerful preservative) when it enters our cells… Yes it is about choice and I am all for it.. Just do the right thing and tell people about the risks, dont bloody lie about it. Diet foods are bad for our health and aspartame only made its way onto our plate thanks to the pulling power of Donald Rumsfeld. The whole sugar is bad ploy paved the way for irresponsible marketing regarding our entire food industry. Like i said, check out Michael Pollen on the following link and I am sure that a person of ur caliber will see reason, logic and evidence to suggest that food is being used as a weapon:

      Chlorine is yellow-green gas used for bleaching. Over time our bodies lose the ability to eliminate this toxic chemical resulting in cell damage. It has no place being in our water supply and is said to kill various harmful bacteria, viruses, chryptosporidium etc. There are far better, efficient ways of treating water without the use of dangerous chemicals.

      Since April 7. 1997 the FDA has had toothpaste containing Fluoride and Sodium Laurel Sulfate include the warning “Keep out of the reach of children under six. If more than a pea size amount is swallowed contact your poison control center immediately.” Unfortunately some manufacturers put it on the box that you throw away before using. Its used as rat poison and is a biproduct of alluminium and fertilizer production..Good for the body.. I think NOT. Oh and Adolf Hitlers choice of mass population control.. yep thats right, Sodium flouride..
      Wikipedia tells a fair history of the discovery of this toxic crap, but will need to delve deeper to uncover the rest.
      Peace I AM

      • Fluidly Unsure

        Thank you for the compliment but I have a few comments and don’t have time to read Mr Pollen’s article right now. If it shows me where I’m wrong then I will post a thank-you notice here.

        When I said that “With the longer shelf life they create[,] they look healthier to me”, I meant that having those substances in our foods make us healthier (or makes us more healthy) because of the longer shelf life. I know of no one claiming that 100% organic food are not better for you than preserved foods. But when the choice is preserved foods, food poisoning, or starvation, which do you think I’ll chose?

        Ants will avoid a mint leaf like the plague too. I use it in my kitchen where I don’t like to spray with insecticides.

        I thought insects wouldn’t eat food with insecticides because it would kill them. Animals and insects seem to have a sixth sense about issues like that.

        Animals will ignore dead foods? Does that mean cows and horses will refuse to eat hay?

        I was wondering about the FDA warning on my Crest tube a few months ago. It says “If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a poison control center” in addition to the warning “do not swallow”. It is not on the trial size tubes I use for travel– you know the ones where you couldn’t write more than six words in the font size and face than the law dictates. Blame the crusader that can be credited with that wonderful piece of legislature that interferes with common sense.

        I don’t think there is anything unusual about a product being good in one application (fortifying tooth enamel) but bad in another (being digested). That is the reason it was removed from our water supply. We can’t completely avoid toxic substances as long as we are alive on this earth. And putting issues that require human choice and compromise only hurts us.

        I’ve wondered about chlorine myself. In the past I made the naive assumption that the alternative was worse. But if there are reasonable alternatives then that is a change we need.

        • Fluidly Unsure

          Oh, I just read the wikipedia article and it didn’t even mention Hitler but said Hitler used it as a tranquilizer in his prisons. While not a good thing, it does not sound like an attempt to kill the prison population as you seem to imply.

  • Pistol

    I think people are being blinded by a miriad of issues that are there to disempower us, and distract us from whats really going on… Some scientists may have our best interests at heart but the government certainly does not. Our governments have been completely hijacked and we cant expect them to save us..

    Everytime we do, they take away more of our freedoms and civil liberties (for our so called protection). If governments were on our side, then we would not have a federal reserve. The FDA wouldn’t approve flouride, chlorine, preservative, aspartame, food additives, colours and flavours for human consumption. Oil producers, pharmaceutical companies, chemical giants and firearm manufacturers would have been brought to justice. You speak of scientific consensus, which is usually established prior to the government cracking its whip on an issue..

    I dont think this is always the case. Governments act when they are told. You only need research the story on flouride, and aspartame. Both are terrible incidences of scientific fraud. Adolf Hitlers choice for mass population control was sodium flouride… So its no mistake its being added to our water and there is no evidence to prove it prevents tooth decay.

    The atrocities committed by our governments go unrecognised, while we scurry around in our busy little lives, trying to make a living whilst being taxed to death, with much of this funding armies and tools of death, population control, invading our privacy, and dumbing us down, etc.

    So while we are busy worrying, debating and arguing about global warming, our children are being brainwashed and turned against us, poisoned by our food, water and air, infected with viruses in vaccines supposedly meant to protect us, Our family members are convinced they are defending our countries against terrorists, hence they fight in wars against invisible threats, The media tells us how to think, what to think, how to act, whats good and whats not..Religions have fed people huge untruths about God, reality, and our place in it… Government and religion controlled education is turning our children into mindless, submissive slaves incapable of an original thought. The list goes on and on…. as people see less and less….

    Sounds horribly pessimistic but its not about outlook, its about the body of evidence pointing towards mass population decreases. It happened in Germany last century, in China today and soon to be the rest of the world unless people start informing themselves. Google the ‘Georgian Guide Stones’, which most have never heard of, which only gives more weight to the debate on depopulation. I have mentioned the Pineal gland in previous posts, which is also worth researching..

    We need to start openly discussing the more pressing concerns. Concerns that most people dont have for obvious reasons or choose to ignore. Most dont want to believe that the integrity of our governements have been severely compromised, and are the mercy of special interest groups, idealists, industrialists hell bent on New World Order…

    And if we dont stand together as one to prevent their plans eventuating, then there will be very few people left to debate global warming… Some of the posters on this site have been gifted with exceptional intelligence and the ability to reason. Dont be blinded by surface issues deliberately distracting you from the real agenda… Americans should be tuning in to Alex Jones’ radio show…At least he is doing his part to lift the veil.. Its not who listens anymore, its who acts…

    Personally, I believe in unity and oneness of all things, with separation being an illusion. Violence is not the answer to stopping these satanic fools. The only way out is through love. If we love ourselves and each other we can conquer all ‘foes’.
    Peace I am…

    • andy

      i prefer democracy now actually. alex jones has soome good points too though

    • andy

      as in the online newscast “Democracy Now!” on

      • Pistol

        yes Andy,
        Democracy now is awesome… there is good interview on the site with Michael Pollen regarding food. Its fantastic and he is so on the money with the points he is making.. America is in serious trouble…
        Alex Jones is more of a warrior, taking on the man head on.. I have seen a video clip where Alex was arrested for simply asking a question… I cant believe this happens in a democracy.

  • Pistol

    Lets face it..Global warming is an issue. Whether its caused solely by unconscious, reckless use of technologies we dont fully understand or invisible cosmic energy enemating from the galactic centre. Personally, due to the fact that an ice Moon around Jupiter is now liquid seas, Pluto which is an ice planet and dervives no energy from our sun is also melting…. then its obvious the heat source is invisible and certainly not caused by the sun or CO2.

    I dont think Pluto has an issue with fossil fuels… Now I am not justifying the use of fossil fuels as there are far better technologies available and suppressed. The oil companies should be stopped. However, the government who I believe is aware of the heating taking place throughout the entire solar system and that humans are not completely to blame…

    In saying that, there is nothing we can do to stop the warming, maybe slow it slightly but not stop it… We have no physical control over energy coming from an apparent invisible source so to speak… So it will get warmer and the gov is going to cash in on it. the only thing capable of stopping these criminals is a well informed public. Convincing sheeple that ignorance is not bliss is tough work… Do ur homework readers… Cheers

    • Pete

      If we can learn to control atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, whether up or down, we can not only correct for our own output, but respond to events caused by the sun and so on.

      The scientific community has humanity’s best interests at heart. If we are to survive, we will have to learn to control the weather, just as we build houses and use fertilizers and otherwise manipulate our environment to our advantage. Governments are responding slowly if at all to decades of continued pressure from the scientific community, because governments are paid off by big oil.

      • andy

        i don’t know about “humanity’s best interests” – i’m sure some of them don’t think that big picture, and are just concerned with gaining mroe knowledge (for its own sake, of course – scientists and academics are interesting tyhpes). but yeah agree with everything you said – right on brotha!

        • Fluidly Unsure

          In addition to zealous knowledge seeking, some are probably responding to the demands of who-ever directs grant applications. I’ve heard grumblings from scientists that don’t agree with the institution they represent.

          Then there is money in alternate energy which will only get bigger as they become more mainstream. The only thing that shielded alternate energy from corporate corruption in the past is the fact that it was on the fringe. That shield is quickly fading.

          Scientists are not the only ones that can claim they have humanities best interest at heart. The Christian church always has; especially during the Crusades. The neo-cons would probably have problems with their recent tactics if they didn’t believe they were right and that they were saving others. CC’s pundits are falling over themselves to get in the same ideological line the NAZI’s formed 80 years ago.

          Let’s get both Ron Paul’s messages and green energy out of the fringe. But let’s also be diligent about not letting the new found popularity corrupt us.

  • Pingback: Ron Paul Signs “No Climate Tax Pledge” « The Invisible Opportunity: Hidden Truths Revealed()

  • Mickey

    I can has cheezburger?

  • andy

    adam smith, after all, pointed out that the “chief architects of policy” are the “merchants and manufactures who have their needs so peculiarly attended to.” that was a piont of emphasis for murray rothbard as well. anyways, keep it up

  • andy

    one quibble i have with ron paul’s environmental stance (which i think is very reasonable) is that he points out that corn ethanol is inefficient. of course it is, no one disagrees on that. but he said that that’s an instance of govt. interference in the market. well, with all due respect, the govt. wouldn’t “invest” in corn ethanol if there wasn’t lobbying from the corn industry – after all, the corn industry benefits the more we use corn – which includes research for corn ethanol. ron paul is right in stating that oil industry interests are guiding govt. policy, and it’s a testament to his integrity that he’s pointing that out when not even democrats will point that out, but he should also point out that this is the case for most industries.

  • Willis

    1) The problem with trying to be objective in the Global Warming debate is that we are forced to base our conclusions on data supplied by people who are already convinced that CO2 based warming is underway. But objective is the right approach. We must push back against alarmism while considering the possibility that the supporters may be right.

    2) Biofuel is great for getting us off foreign oil, but what do you get when you burn biofuel? CO2. The solution to our dependence on foreign oil is right in our hip pocket – algae. One prototype algae farm in New Mexico (yep, private industry) can produce 100,000 gallons per acre. Corn produces about 1000. Also the algae is grown in containment. – You can’t get more bio-friendly.

    3) While we hope for windmills, unrelenting ocean wave action and the Gulf Stream offer unlimited electrical generation production.

    4) A Solar furnace, that reaches 3000F has been operating in the American dessert for years. It melts sodium to transfer the heat to generate steam for the turbines. The sodium stores heat and continues working after the sun goes down. It is simple, effective and a network of furnaces could generate all of Los Angeles power needs.

    The question is can we be green without being stupid?

    Why aren’t these established alternatives being actively pursued with the same enthusiasm that is put into screaming about global warming?

    Ask all of the bought and paid for Democrats and Re[publicans in office right now.

    • fluidlyunsure
    • Pete

      Why the screaming? A lot of people in the support column have become convinced, after several decades, that scientific illiteracy in this country is so widespread that getting the funding to push green technology forward, and getting people to buy it before it’s cheap, is practically impossible.

      So we continue to try and try and try to find some fun, loud, convincing way to explain what’s happening to the American public. The science is straightforward, but after 4 decades half the country remains unconvinced. Somehow they don’t understand they are being played by the oil industry. It’s gotten aggravating.

      Meanwhile, the car companies for some reason made early hybrids the most ridiculous “Captain Tomorrow” egghead-looking things, and now I see people all the time driving Escapes when they could have bought the Escape hybrid, just to spite the left or something.

  • Fluidly Unsure

    It seems that the fact I was originally posting about how we should work together on renewable energy and my support for Ron Paul’s statements have been forgotten. Please try to stick on course if possible.

    Now to get off topic for the moment:

    I assume you aren’t attributing scientific panic attacks (global warming, global cooling, climate change, population bombs, Hale-Bopp’s comet, 2000 crisis, etc) to footwear in space or gravity on the moon. But then I may again be mistaken; an assertion that you supported in the past.

    I would like to re-address your past claims that scientists have no motivation to lie. Ignoring the possibility of human reactions and biases of the scientists themselves, what about those of the grant providers? And then there is the possibility of biases caused by “overconfidence” ( Scientists aren’t immune to human reactions, and money (oil or otherwise) isn’t the only motivator that contaminates human actions.

    As far as the use of complex models to justify a prediction, I didn’t realize modern science was immune to Occam’s Razor. Too often today the prediction comes first and the scientific research comes later, well after it has been tailored to prove the already decided on prediction.

    Why do you keep representing computer programming with a programming statement that has caused much confusion and is the scorn of CS? The more I think of it, the more the entangled logic of climate change is like spaghetti code.

    I may not be as educated on physics as you are, but you could use some logic classes and need to bone-up on scientific methods.

    • Pete

      I am referring to an if-then statement because it’s the simplest computer programming concept I could think of, something that’s totally basic and that anyone with any understanding of the subject would know about. Your statement that it’s out of favor amongst programmers is something I didn’t and shouldn’t know, and a perfect example of my point. As a nonprogrammer, I was making a mistake by even suggesting that that was a fundamental concept. I was out of my element and talking over my head.

      I have had any number of classes in logic. And I don’t believe in Occam’s Razor, per se. Things are as complicated as they are. But there’s NOTHING convoluted about the greenhouse effect. Hydrocarbon combustion has only 2 byproducts, CO2 and water vapor, both of which are greenhouse gases. We’ve removed some huge portion of the sink on CO2 while vastly increasing the supply. That’s very simple to understand.

      Individual scientists are susceptible to bias, which is why science is double checked. A huge number of scientists double checking math and reformulating models over 50 years have not changed their opinions yet. Some tiny minority are suggesting that solar activity is the culprit, but that doesn’t change how we react even if they’re right, and it doesn’t really make sense. Where is the CO2 going?

      I intuitively and scientifically understand what they were saying, and my education in science is nothing like theirs. We’re pouring black smoke into the air, all day every day, for two centuries, and now there’s a problem. This should pass your ‘common sense’ test.

      • Fluidly Unsure

        Ok, I spoke too fast on the programming issue. In my mind “IF THEN” is as it used to be– not structured condition and usually followed by either a GOTO or GOSUB which is what has fallen in disgrace. The only place I know of it being used is assembly and MS-DOS batch files.

        The evidence for climate change involves more than hydrocarbon combustion and that evidence is gathered in a less than simple (convoluted?) manner. Sometime Occam’s razor is a useful tool. I don’t know of any tool that is useful 100% of the time.

        I don’t think anybody ever claimed there was no such thing as a greenhouse effect, that we haven’t been adding CO2 and worse to the atmosphere, or that the earth hasn’t been warming since we’ve been measuring.

        My fear is that in a panic we’ll start putting something even worse in the atmosphere while we destroy the international economy and reverse the gains in health over the last 500 years or so.

        As I pointed out last time, the concerns go much further than individual works. When I hear about a white collar crime I don’t doubt the clerks in the accounting department balanced their sheets correctly and that the error was introduced higher up. Same with questionable scientific theories.

        But since we both agree that alternate energy should be a goal and it is economically viable (which until recently was news to me) why don’t we work together to promote it and quit trying to insult the way the other came to the same conclusion?

        I intuitively put everything up for question (why do you think my pseudonym is “fluidly unsure” instead of “solidly sure”?) including the statements from the scientific community. Blame my past but skepticism is a part of me as much as trust in the scientific method is a part of you.

        • Pete

          I can agree with all that.

  • Pete
  • Fluidly Unsure

    Thank you for telling me why “old ice” is a concern. Your reasoning sounds solid and gives me something to ponder. I don’t know that I’ll come to the same conclusions as you but at least these arguments sound less absurd as they did before.

    I mentioned veg. growth because of the parallels of a possible distracting straw-man. I had heard about “old growth” after there were indications that the Amazon was getting denser. Hence it appeared that old vs new growth was being used to distract the public from the actual argument. Was the same thing being done with old vs new ice?

    I don’t know where you got the idea that I read everything in a conspiracy blog which I rarely visit much less read. I had just read an article in ENN that verified that the idea that old growth is carbon neutral did exist based on scientific studies at the time. ENN may be a “conspiracy blog” but I don’t think it is what you were thinking.

    “In the 1960s, a study using 10 years worth of data from a single plantation suggested that forests 150 or more years old give off as much carbon as they take up from the atmosphere, and are thus carbon neutral.”

    To be fair to ENN.COM, the article was about how new evidence proves the study in my memory as wrong. I assume that for a study to be wrong the study must actually exist and not be made-up at a right wing conspiracy site. They also mention that this study was the reason old forests are not protected by the Kyoto protocol.

    Our arguments are more about epistemology (the study of knowledge and how it is obtained). You seem to feel that an authoritative source of evidence triumphs all personal reason. To me, a source of evidence is only one of many indications that the evidence is acceptable.

    I too am shocked at the level of scientific (il)literacy shown today. Especially in scientific journals and the academia. Theories are based on non-verifiable sources (computer simulations and core analysis) and data taken out of a simpler context (planets and tanks that are not complete biological systems). IIRC, the need for empirically and verifiable evidence is based on Hemple’s “the philosophy of natural science”.

    I bring up the “tin foil hat” whenever a fellow nerd seems to be taking technical facts further than the context. It wasn’t meant to be an insult but a polite jab at someone who wears the same badge of honor I do.

    I missed what you were referring to with “Hatfield and McCoy”. Remember that the forgetfulness comes from both camps (Hatfield/McCoy, and Conservative/Liberal). If I decided to do so I could have taken it as an insulting reference to my roots (Scottish Irish) and the chasm between my family and the progressives. I thought that would be absurd so I decided to not be insulted.

    I don’t think I was suggesting anything. I was coming to you with a specific request. But you are suggesting my doing makes no sense.

    • Pete

      All of quantum theory, for instance, existed only as equations, models and theories, until experimental results slowly confirmed it over the course of more than a century. Models are based on hard science that is well out of your or my league. Please stop being so dismissive of things you don’t have any frame of reference to understand. These people outrank you.

      • Fluidly Unsure

        Quantum theory: Yet more proof that science has a u-turn on the highway of logic and reason. I’m not planning on following them off the cliff as you are.

        I’ll be as dismissive as I wish to be when something makes no sense to me. It is much better to be true to yourself than faking your belief as you want me to. I will not bow down to kiss the feet of someone whom I am having a hard time not throwing my shoes at.

        Saying that I don’t have the education, rank, or birth rights to know is all just a way to say “you are too inferior to comprehend and are not worthy of our superior knowledge”.

        Please quit arguing like the pundit of an arrogant aristocrat. From some of your arguments I know you are more capable.

        • Pete

          I will stick with my argument. I will say again that you sound like someone who has never once programmed arguing that if-then statements do not exist. You are out of your element.

          Just because quantum theory doesn’t make sense to you, it’s not true? That’s insane. They just found a kind of molecule only predicted in quantum theory. I don’t even understand how you can call yourself a scientist if you reject anything you can’t understand. If the math is over your head, and you haven’t devoted decades to understanding it, how can you possibly reject it?

          Meanwhile, DECADES of discoveries STRONGLY support it. But it’s too “out there” for you, precisely because you don’t know anything about it and don’t like to accept that other people outrank you and DO know something about it. Something that can’t be easily explained in words. Something that is normally expressed in equations. It’s over your head, man!

          And I’m sorry, but I DO feel that your knowledge of science is vastly inferior to theirs, that you don’t understand the concepts or theories at play, and that you are not worth listening to. You haven’t demonstrated even an elementary school understanding of science to me.

    • Pete

      As to epistemology, I trust the aggregate opinion of the vast, vast majority of qualified people and my own common sense (again, for the dozenth time, WHERE does the CO2 go in your “theory?”) much more than the voices of a few scientists, especially when there’s such an easy agenda attached to their point of view (oil money).

      • Fluidly Unsure

        The agenda? You don’t think there is money in the alternate energy industry?

        You don’t think scientists benefit from more grants when their ideas and papers are supported by others? There is a motivation to be lenient or outright fake on theories. It is the same as a CEO/CFO’s motivation to “cook the books”.

        Don’t give me any “they wouldn’t do that” *. Scientists are human just like executives.

        I don’t understand why the desire for money is different than the desire for the prestige won by a scientist who is accepted by his/her peers, or the influence of a politician that swoons the right crowd. We are all just maximizing our benefits in life.

        Where is CO2 going? I don’t have any hard evidence but I don’t know that it matters. It is awfully hard to not make a pun about trees and forests right now.

        • Pete

          Scientists are shielded from this by two factors, as I have REPEATEDLY explained.

          1) They have tenured positions with fixed pay.

          2) Their work is double checked. In fact, there’s research money in double-checking other people’s work.

          Yes, there’s money in alternative energy. But not for scientists. For inventors, yes. For scientists, no. The research money goes to fund the research. The scientist gets his salary.

          There is only prestige in research that proves to be correct. There is no scientist who wants to go down in history as “the guy who was dead wrong about x,” except a nicotine industry scientist. Here we are talking about many thousands of university scientists all over the world.

          If you STILL don’t understand how CO2 plays into global warming, after I explicitly explained it at great length, that’s your problem. That’s basic science. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and I’m tired of talking to you.

  • Pete

    Old ice in the Arctic at an all time low

    (Because water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 is most pronounced in cold, dry areas, which is to say, the poles, which means more CO2 released from the ice, worse weather from flooding, and in general a bad deal. Unless we stop thinking with our Hatfield-and-McCoy brains.)

    • fluidly unsure

      That is another thing.

      Mayb you could explain why “old” ice is better than “new” ice, or “old” growth is better than “new” growth.

      As far as plant growth I don’t see why it is worse to cut old growth for the sake of new growth which will gobble up CO2 at a higher rate. While recent studies seem to indicate (in other words not 100% sure) that old growth is more carbon neutral than previously thought. But I haven’t read a study yet that counters the claim that it is less efficient of a carbon sink than new growth.

      As far a ice, I’ve read nothing about the impact of the age of the ice. So separating new ice from old seems like a colloquial assumption (you know what assumption means right?).

      Also explain why a “hatfield and mcCoy” brain is worse than one sheltered by a tin foil hat?

      • Pete

        The age of the ice is an indicator of how much of the shelf has melted. Old ice is ice closer to the core of the shelf. Less old ice at the summer peak means the shelf has melted substantially. There is less new ice – the ice that forms each winter – as well.

        This has nothing to do with old- and new-growth trees. I haven’t read anything about old-growth trees being better co2 exchangers than new growth. I think it’s a shame to cut down such majesties of nature, but as far as the environment is concerned, I’m for planting more trees instead of or after cutting them down.

        If you’re implying I have the tin foil hat on because I understand and accept the last fifty years of science as well as its basic principles, rather than _you_ for assuming some claptrap you read on a conspiracy blog is true (when your overall understanding of this issue is that you don’t even know what CO2 _is_), I’m offended, but whatever.

        The Hatfields and the McCoys forgot why they were fighting. Conservatives and liberals in this country just blindly reject anything at all ‘coming from the other side’ in their opinion, whether it’s good or bad. I can’t believe conservatives were so easily brainwashed by such bad, incoherent science, and really am shocked at the level of scientific literacy in this country

        Where is the CO2 going? When you burn a hydrocarbon, it produces nothing except energy, CO2 and H2O, both greenhouse gases. All we DO is burn hydrocarbons, all day, every day, all around the world. The only sink for CO2 is plant life, and we’re killing all the plant life, too. What you’re suggesting makes no sense.