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.

  • micka

    Those of us who live out of the cities, and somewhat closer to nature than many voters, can easily see that there is global warming taking place at a rate more rapid than is to be expected from the natural cycles of warming and cooling. Dr.Paul’s comment about letting oil rise to it’s natural market price to stimulate alternative energy resources sounds very painful, but it has to happen. It is simply stupid to continue to rely on a fossil fuel when there are renewable resources to take up much (not all at this point)of the needs of our country. It is very sad to say that China, France and other countries are way ahead of us in the use of solar. Mexico has been exploring the use of ocean currents to provide electricity. So,where is our leadership?Tied up in money from the oil companies maybe?These countries are using technologies that we developed, but are too dumb or corrupt or lazy or something to make use of ourselves! We will have a warming cycle anyway, but at a natural rate we can deal with it as humans always have. This accelerated rate is pretty scary when you see (just look, it is very visible) the effects on our watersheds. Water is far more important and valuable than oil, and it is time we take action to maintain the snowpacks, glaciers and forests that provide it. This is not just about polar bears!


    • I live in the country-side and it’s getting colder and colder every year. This global warming theory is just a theory, and is not happening over here where I live, and I’m sure the UN climatologists will use our data for current trends in the global warming. Not. The IPCC will ignore “unfavorable” data sets, including the solar radiation from the sun to claim their phony case. Frankly, I want more heat, so I’m all for more CO2 emissions, but unfortunately, CO2 retains very little heat as opposed to water vapor, and will not help me to get more heat. But I agree with you that alternative energy sources should be embraced. @micka

      • micka


        Very interesting, SoCold. Where in the world do you live? I have lived all over the US, and I see a warmer trend everywhere over the last 70 years, varying from year to year, but definitely trending upward. We used to have glaciers from Montana to the northeast slopes of the Sangre de Cristos in New Mexico, but they have disappeared within my lifetime, and my sister saw the same trend where she lived in Argentina. 50 years ago here, we could expect at least 6 feet of snow every year, but in the last 20 years we rarely get more than 2 or 3 fee and often less than one. I don’t know anyone from the Asian countries, so maybe it is different there. Still, the polar ice packs are fading quite quickly, as you can see from historic photos, and they are influenced by ocean temps, so I am puzzled as to how it can be colder, over the long term, anywhere. Short term, yes. Consider the effects of El Nino and La Nina. But, if the weather is not warming, how is it that the oceans are rising…enough to force evacuation of an island nation already? You may know of some other factor that we should be considering. Can you take the time to share your information?

        • @[email protected] I live in the US, Pacific NW. You seem like an intelligent person, so I’ll try my best to describe what Global Warming is all about. It is a plan devised by think-tank organization, an NGO called the Club of Rome. They released a book on global policy-making called “First Global Revolution” ca.1990. In this book they say on pg.75 “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the TREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING,…would fit the bill…The real enemy then is humanity itself.” If you can’t deduce the information contained in this book as the direction in which our public servants are guiding us, then we will once again be duped into policy-making which will cripple the majority even more. I was a victim of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” when it was release in 2007, I believed all of it and would have contributed to organizations such as Sierra Club to combat this phenomenon. Then I watched a documentary called “Global Warming, Global Governance” and made a 180 degree turn. Saving the planet is all good, but to make policies and taxes based on it’s questionable theories are nefarious at best, and serves no purpose to solve this issues, even if it’s legitimate. These taxes will go directly into the hands of the Ultra-wealthy Rothchilds’ who make Rockefeller’s look like peanuts. Rockefeller himself can end poverty, pay off the our national debt and remain a Trillionaire. But you didn’t address the most important aspect of my previous post, which is that the Sun is a huge component for the temperature fluctuation on Earth. If you were to block out the Sun, Earth will freeze, it’s basic science, but IPCC continues to ignore the Sun in its “climate change” model. You will have to ask yourself why? You will have to ask yourself why only IPCC is given credence on this matter according to the mainstream media, and ignores hundreds, if not thousands of climatologists around the globe who think differently? Why do you see all around you “eco” this “green” that? Ron Paul coincidentally is also ignored by the mainstream media. I hope that you can add for yourself.

      • DarrellRoss


        Global Warming refers to the average Earth-wide temperature which is rising.

        Part of the warming process creates bigger seasonal swings. So you get extra-cold winters and extra-hot summers.

        I live in West Texas. Last winter we got 2 feet of snow and the town froze for a week solid. It completely shut down the town… something folks haven’t really seen here before. Then this summer it was over 100 degrees F for nearly 100 days straight in a row.

        Other pretty easy-to-get evidence is the polar ice caps melting and Greenland losing all its ice. Global warming is being exacerbated by humans. This isn’t something that scientists are up in the air about. There is almost unanimous agreement by scientists.

        Mr Paul is in denial about this one.

        • @DarrellRoss

          I don’t remember the poles ever get that cold to melt ice. The other factors beside heat which would shrink the polar ice caps might be ocean current/forces/erosion to chip away at the glaciers, lack of precipitation (mainly due to aerosolized dispersants sprayed all over the planet), natural fractures (caused by many factors other than heat such as impact from icebergs, expansion of ice when it freezes, evaporation), and other physical anomalies. I’m not a physicist, but I am knowledgeable enough to use common sense than to be influenced by pseudo-science propaganda created by the UN’s IPCC who refuse to peer review their work amongst thousands of other scientists who may differ. Besides I can’t find any resources to see the historical progression of the polar ice cap in determining its land area and more importantly it’s mass, which we don’t clearly see in satellite images. Your belief that human beings have a significant effect in “climate change” is partially correct. Some human beings decided for all of us that spraying the skies for over several decades is done in our best interest. But the reality is, the major components of these aerosolized campaigns is Aluminum oxide and Barium, among other things. Aluminum oxide if you don’t know is a toxin and is attributable to brain diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s and Barium is a radioactive element, which emit ionizing radiation. There are limited studies done on the components of these dispersant fallouts, but not from IPCC, nor any other large scientific organizations, but abundant from small independent scientists. These on-going spraying is responsible for, based on its coverage, more reflection of the solar radiation than to act as an insulator by keeping the heat in. It is science that Earth’s heat comes primarily from the sun, when there are solar flares, more heat is generated. These solar flares, which can last years don’t get figured into IPCC pseudo-science. The average temperature you describe is selectively chosen amongst several locations around the planet in order to support their pseudo-science. The more accurate measure of the earth’s temperature comes from the upper atmosphere, where it is more stable and therefore a better indicator of the overall temperature swings, if any. Dr. Paul knows about real science, and to produce peer-reviewed papers is just part of what is required to have a “true” consensus, therefore IPCC is a pseudo-science pandering to policy-making. Taxation based on carbon dioxide, the least heat-retentive particle of all the greenhouse gases is coming our way, like Austrailia. It’s so obvious.

        • DarrellRoss


          “I’m not a physicist, but I am knowledgeable enough to use common sense than to be influenced by pseudo-science propaganda…”

          I’m sorry what? You’re not qualified to pass judgement and yet you claim you are smarter than the people who spend their lives studying it? Good one. A conspiracy theorist through and through eh?

          If you want to be taken seriously, try writing some articles to be published in peer reviewed journals. Better yet, do some actual research where you take measurements. Then you can show these “pseudoscientists” just exactly how far off the mark they are.


        • @DarrellRoss _You don’t like arguing valid points which don’t take a scientist to do so? These are common sense arguments based on the scientific arguments I’ve read about from both sides. I do know how to read and discern for myself, but you are the one who is spewing out IPCC’s broken record as if it was conclusively accurate. But it is flawed, NO PEER REVIEWS allowed should sound some bells. CO2, if you read and chemistry/physics textbooks, cannot retain as much heat as H2O. This is basic science that doesn’t require dogma to understand. First they pushed for global warming, now they say climate change. Climate changes all the time. Its called nature. Our influence, if any is insignificant, as we went through heat and cold cycles every 11,000 years or so. Greenland melted and froze countless times before climategate arrived. I think we make more damage to the environment through the release of concentrated radioactive materials, industrial toxins, pesticides, and genetically modified organisms. Where’s the cap and trade on this? Aren’t you just a little suspicious? It seems so obvious that there is an agenda going on here as I’ve mention in my previous post “The First Global Revolution”, published ca. 1990 trying to use the idea of “Global Warming” to control the public. Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” was released ca. 2007, see the pattern. In the 1970’s the UN fear-mongered on the coming ice-age. IPCC is part of the unelected-by-the-public UN. Their interests are part of an agenda. If you think UN is a peace organization, then their doing a terrible job and should to unrecognized as such.

    • SKull


      Well this is all highly subjective and emotional and totally without scientific foundation of any kind. even if you were right, which you`re not since there`s been little or no warming for at least a decade, there is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that it`s caused by human activity. On the other hand there is ample evidence that Co2 does NOT impact temperatures outside of the greenhouse effect from ALL GASES in the atmosphere, as evidenced by paleoclimatological records which you`ve obviously not looked at for as much as a second.

      All the climate hysteria is in fact nothing more than a genocidal political agenda, scantily camouflaged behind sincere concern but in reality an excuse for totalitarian control. As long as a significant part of the population allow themselves to be brainwashed into supporting it it will continue, but as soon as enough people wake up it will have to stop. One your side billions will die of starvation and lack of resources as the UN and subsidiaries take over and centralize everything to “save the planet”, and on my side the third world gets to develop, power remains decentralized to prevent tyranny and genocide and above all science can remain similarly decentralized to avoid the present cult-like behavior of “climatologists”,

      The evidence that it is in fact a scam like I just said is that huge and real environmental calamities are totally or partially ignored, such as overfishing, radioactive pollution of the atmosphere and water, toxic releases into rivers and oceans, species extinction due to above mentioned and a whole host of subjects which are all totally beyond the politically controlled “environmentalist” movement.

      A thinking man might begin to contemplate why these issues are being ignored and come to the conclusion that it is because no political control can be gained from combating them, no false alibi for world centralization, world government and “austerity” (read state mandated poverty) produced, and no fake reason to increase taxation. If there was you can bet your bottom dollar that Al Gore and all the other hypocrites would be hysterically trying to stop the use of DU, long line fishing of sharks and dumping of toxic chemicals into the sea. But they`re not.

      • Lite Load

        @[email protected]

        I’m not sure where you are coming up with your conspiracy theory approach. First off, you’re not going to find climatologists who disavow the other environmental tragedies that are occurring – it’s simply not their area of expertise. Anyone who contemplates our usage of the planets natural resources clearly recognizes we are on a highly unsustainable path. This is nothing more than a tragedy of the commons, everyone can clearly understand that. The real problem results in that so few choose to change behaviors that would moderate our effects. We have modified our biogeochemical cycles on a global basis which when you think about it is a frightening concept. These systems have operated for millions of years, with periods of episodic upheaval that result in mass extinctions. This time we are that upheaval. Bad times are surely coming.

        Now on to GW. Not sure where you learned your atmospheric chemistry, but emissions have increased lockstep since the industrial revolution and by evaluating radioisotopes we know where they came from. There is no question these emissions are from human behavior – as to the mechanics of planetary warming from CO2, it’s pretty well understood. IR wavelength radiation is reflected back down to the earth by greenhouse gases – so, obviously increasing concentrations increase the likelihood of warming. I have evaluated the core profiles and do understand what historical levels of CO2 have been. I also understand certain threshold levels can potentially set in motion processes that can have tremendous global implications. There is some suggestion that the Permian extinction may have been precipitated by the collapse of global circulation patterns and enormous methane hydrate releases. The bottom line is it behooves us to do everything in our power to lighten our footprint. We know we are on an unsustainable path so why would one argue to continue following it?

        • @Lite Load

          @Lite LoadYou guys stick out like a sore thumb, saying terms such as “conspiracy theory” to discredit dissent was an instrument of the establishment at the turn of the century to ridicule, marginalize, ameliorate the travesties, suppress ideas, ignore facts, research and some theories to the contrary. You are a representative of the UN, whether or not you think so, for spewing their policies based on a handful of their researchers, scientists, and ignoring and discrediting any scientists who have differing views based of their research. All subjected to the direction for which US was established, which was to globalize policy-making using peace as a cover. This planet has not become more peaceful because of UN, therefore UN is defunct and deemed unnecessary for this purpose. But UN still persist because it is the policies which they must convince the public with to carry on the agenda of the very people who control the UN wish, namely the members of the Council of Foreign Relations, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, and many others. CFR was founded by the oil baron Rockefeller, and is intimately wielding his influence through the CFR and the UN, including the global warming theory, which was first proposed by in the Club of Rome publication “The First Global Revolution” in 1990 to be used as a way to control the public. Since IPCC don’t allow peer review of its findings, it is a flawed science, not to be taken seriously. This is a fact. You don’t have to be an expert to understand this fact. Ignoring the issues with ad hominems will just discredit yourselves and draw attention to the unsuspecting truth seekers like so many Paul supporters, because they do their research.

        • @Lite Load

          typo:…UN was establiched…

        • SKull

          @Lite Load

          My “conspiracy theory” is from UN documents and associated think tanks like the Club of Rome, who have argued and are arguing for, in no particular order, reducing the world`s population by anywhere from 50% to 99% depending on who you listen to, using “food as a weapon”, centralizing food, water and energy resources to create “artificial shortage” pushing the prices up and thereby causing genocide ( that`s right, you heard me), creating “scary scenarios” to make the public give up their rights and freedoms, that democracies are “obsolete” and that the dictatorship of “private banks is surely preferable to the auto determination of sovereign states as practised in the past”.

          Of course, when you don`t actually read what these institutions and people are planning and choose to solely focus on their propaganda you will not know of it since it isn`t talked about a whole lot in the media, whose job it is to sucker people like you into believing what you`re supposed to believe while choking your natural ability for independent thought. You should note however, in case you refuse to investigate my claims and read the documents these swine release that every single item I mentioned, and I could list 100 more with ease, are crimes against humanity, planned genocide, tyranny and fraud. All of these crimes are punishable by death. Just in case you believe I make these claims lightly.

          Apart from the non existent science of AGW this is why the AGW agenda is not just a swindle and a scientific fraud but also a crime punishable under the Nuremberg principles established after WW2. Whether you will ever realize this and see how badly you`ve been scammed or whether you`ll continue to regurgitate euphemisms such as “sustainability” without a second thought to the billions who will likely starve to death as a result I cannot tell and will have to leave up to you.

        • Lite Load

          It’s incredible how prescient you are to know so much about me. Your sense of self must be highly inflated that you are able to characterize my background and thinking from reading a few lines of text. As to ad hominems, you may want to revisit your writings. They differ little from John Birch material my uncle was dishing out 30 years ago. How has their campaign gone? It is so easy to cherry pick data and validate your ideology, especially when you can debase another individuals experience by saying they are unaware of the real story. @SoCold @Lite Load

        • Lite Load

          Is it a crime against humanity that many third world infants die of banal diarrheal diseases every day? Is it a crime that natural systems have a way of regulating local populations? One can only subvert the ecological feedback loops for so long before untenable problems emerge. When they do emerge they will be much larger than the problem we were originally trying to regulate – I guarantee it.

          I understand the difficulty involved in making these decisions, it isn’t pretty because you and I are sitting in situations that ultimately make it an intellectual exercise. I say that not to imply that the consequences aren’t horrific, but if you lack supernatural theological underpinnings, they are nothing more than an unrelenting natural process. @SKull

        • @Lite Load

          I’m not familiar with John Birch Society, but understand that they are a “fringe” group according to what I’ve read about them. If I sound like them, maybe I should investigate their principles. Maybe I was a bit harsh, and I do apologize, but I’ve read from many sides of the arguments regarding global warming, sorry, climate change. IPCC is basically run by a handful of people, only a few have any scientific degrees at all. Let’s argue about a few things intelligently without ad hominems, please.

          1) They won’t allow peer review of their now “lost” data which was used to determine their “theory” of climate change.

          2) The graph Al Gore used in “An Inconvenient Truth” was the basis for their climate change theory. If you superimpose the graphs, it is clear that the CO2 levels lag the increases in temperature. Why was the graph separated. Most people show graphs together when they want to show a relationship between two or more factors.

          3) CO2 retains less heat than H2O, which is more abundant of the two.

          4) Sun, including the phenomenon known as solar flare, affects the temperature of our atmosphere, but IPCC doesn’t use it in its calculations.

          5) Many scientists, climatologists, physicists argue something different than what IPCC says, but are ignored and discredited through the media and some of our politicians. If you are a Ron Paul supporter, you should know by now that the mainstream media is biased.

        • @Lite [email protected]

          It is tragic this is the case in the third world countries, but who are we to dictate what they should do as sovereign nations. You sound like you’re all for Global Governance and use of your fear-mongering lead me to believe that your opinions reflect the strategy of the establishment which Ron Paul is being vilified with, especially in regards to foreign policy. But sorry, I like the US Constitution. It’s a matter of principle. By the way these third world nations were fine before they were “conquered” and “industrialized”. Maybe the answer to their problem lies within their roots, because they were ecologically balanced before being industrialized. Go figure.

        • Lite Load

          I guess we don’t really disagree on involvement in foreign, sovereign countries. I think that is one of Paul’s strongest platform points.

          I am all for political and trade interaction, but issues get much more complex when you get down to the nuts and bolts reality. Barring extreme expansionist policies (e.g. Hitleresque) I don’t see a reason to get involved – a harsh, but unfortunate component of life governed by selection. Again, I don’t disagree with you on most third world countries having a more “balanced” society prior to [email protected] @SKull

        • Lite Load

          Intelligent discussion sounds fine to me. Ad hominem = ad nauseum.

          I will say first off I don’t take my dose of GW from IPCC. I am a scientist and know enough about the scientific method to accurately assess data.

          CO2 isn’t really the issue, although it is a part. We can agree that levels are increasing and are lockstep with the industrial revolution, correct (or not)? I fully realize they have been higher in the past (much distant) and there is some question posed by Beck (I don’t believe his analysis holds up in detailed review). My question revolves less around who is most accurate, but about how the dynamics of fossil fuel consumption tie into emissions and the logical potential for tipping points on catastrophic releases of methane (tundra, methane hydrates) and other GW gases. I feel, as a reflective species, we should be able to see the path of least disturbance. Just makes sense to me.

          You also mentioned a comment about sustainability being a euphemism for mass starvation. You’re right that many would starve if we had a sustainable approach to living, but that’s where, I believe, the global conspiracy of population control has utility. Would you argue that encouraging negative population growth is a bad thing when you juxtapose it against unrestrained reproduction? I’d hardly think an individual would feel good about his/her “freedom” when their 20 kids are starving to death, but that is just my opinion. I do know sustainability – at least by USA standards. I produce all my annual KW with a solar system and am in the process of establishing a permaculture yard. So, it is possible, but for a much smaller population.

          Finally, I don’t really care much for Al Gore – he has his own agenda and I am not particularly interested in it. His personal life doesn’t really dovetail with the values he [email protected]

        • @Lite Load

          Great to hear that you are a scientist. I just hope that you are not corruptible like Ron Paul and see the value in honesty and integrity. Correct me if i’m wrong, but isn’t scientific research the search for truth through exhaustive studies which look at as many possible factors/data before a theory presents itself and deemed reliable until a challenge to that theory is introduced (ie non-IPCC scientists’ questioning their findings)? When these questions are not addressed, what does it say about their honesty and integrity? Doe arrogance have any place in science? The intricacies of atmospheric science is a very complex one and I don’t deny that we play some role in its manifestations (probably very minimal compared to plants, sea vegetables, volcanoes above and below sea levels, solar flares, and weather modifications), but from what I’ve read so far, I feel that the IPCC’s theory goes unabated in the media, and goes so far as to influence the recent “carbon tax” inposed on Austrailians. But once a group such as the UN’s IPCC influence the politics of the planet, it goes beyond the ethics of “good” science. It reflects the subversive nature of the entities controlling the unelected bodies of the UN who are not responsible to anyone except their controllers and their oppressive influence is evident all around us, achieved almost overnight.

          Also, I don’t trust any information coming out from UN who is responsible for Agenda 21 for the world to follow without even a hearing from the public to approve (not even a democracy, which they are said to purport). Population statistics come from the UN as well. Agenda 21 and the notion to imply that Earth is over-populated is a conflict of interest, as Agenda 21 outlines a society which would ultimately diminish the population through oppressively taking control of all aspects of our lives. Including using food as a weapon. IPCC is anti-humanity because they want to impose carbon tax, which is what all living things naturally produce.

          I don’t remember saying “sustainability was a euphemism for mass starvation”, but I agree. This term has been hi-jacked by the powers that be and is all around us. It appears innocent and good at first, but it is much in alignment with GW alarmist and Agenda 21. My last point is that GW is still a theory, with many questions not addressed, but policies are running rampant which affect all our lives. It’s premature at best, but as Agenda 21 pointed out 40 or so years ago, it was meant to be, and this agenda will continue whether or not the science is behind it and their policies in agenda 21 is on track.

      • DarrellRoss

        @SKull LOL!

        I can only laugh at conspiracy theorists. So how do you know this and others don’t?

        LOL… get real.

        • SKull


          Learn how to read, then read the UN`s documents and get back to me. Failing that, get a brain.

  • On 13 December, a good article by economist Walter Block went up on the Web at titled “Ron Paul and the Environment.”

    Inasmuch as this “global warming” thread seems to be the site of discussion on Dr. Paul’s environmental policy positions, and Dr. Block knows those positions (and Dr. Paul) quite well, it’s worth drawing a bit upon that article with the recommendation that interested parties here follow the link to review its contents in full.

    Dr. Block argues that:

    “As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:

    > Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.

    > Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.

    > Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.

    > Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.

    > Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies.

    “It’s time for a President that recognizes the free market’s power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy.”

    Seems constitutionally lawful, protective of individual human rights, effective, cost-efficient, equitable, and eminently practicable.

    The “Liberal” fascists lurking here will hate the living hell out of it.

  • pn4381

    I support Ron Paul on all issues except this one.

    Like he said, if there is no global warming and we reduce our carbon footprints, what will happen? Nothing much – less cash in the pocket maybe but cleaner environment.

    But if the global warming proves to be true, and we take no actions, what would happen? Nothing good.

    • @pn4381 – My, but you’re a flaming idiot, too, ain’tcha?

      Let’s look at this slack-jawed stupidity of yours. You say “…if there is no global warming and we reduce our carbon footprints, what will happen? Nothing much – less cash in the pocket maybe but cleaner environment.”

      Now, that’s just plain horsesh_t, and anybody but a limp schmuck like you knows amd acknowledges it.

      The costs of government-commanded efforts to “reduce our carbon footprints” thus far have been up in the hundreds of billions already, and that doesn’t take into consideration the OPPORTUNITY costs (see Bastiat’s “broken window fallacy”) imposed on the American private citizen by all this “CO2=global climate catastrophe” lawmaking and regulation-shoving.

      But wait, there’s more!

      Treating carbon dioxide (also known as “plant food”) as if it were pollution does NOT get us any kind of “cleaner environment.” Have you, pn4381, looked into the incidental pollution impacts involved in manufacturing, operating, and disposing of all the “renewable energy” hardware – the big bird-mangling cost-ineffective Teletubbies’ windmills, the similarly impossible-to-amortize solar photovoltaic panels, the implacably inefficient and wasteful “biofuels” boondoggle – or are you yet another hapless doofus who takes the words of professional liars like Algore without the critical thought most of us devote to thirty seconds on the Shopping Channel?

      Your final line is an example of what educated people – of which you’re not one, pretty friggin’ obviously – call “the precautionary principle,” which you should really look up while you’re on the World Wide Web.

      It assumes that the “actions” you’re vacantly and blitheringly advocating DON’T COST ANYTHING – either in resources or effort of damage to your “environment.”

      Does one have to be a completely contemptible goddam fool like this pn4381 so obviously proves him/herself to be?

      Oh, hell, yeah.

      I support Ron Paul because of everything else he advocates AND most emphatically because he knows that this “man-made global climate change” crap is nothing more or less than a complete fraud, and he’s not suckered by it.

      The way pn4381 and similar brain-damaged scum are.

      • Logic_WINS

        Hahaha you are very intelligent as proven by your comment but wow, you are slightly angry. I understand frustration but our man Paul is more about respect than your comment reflects.

        • @Logic_WINS – Let’s see, not only billions upon billions in direct predation on the public purse in these United States alone to fund “research” into supposedly man-made global climate change (see Joanne Nova’s *Climate Money* [2009] at ) but also hundreds of billions more in “stimulus” spending, further hundreds of billions in Solydra-esque federal loan guarantees and subsidies for “renewable energy” industrial boondoggles supposed to reduce our collective “carbon footprint,” more hundreds of billions in direct and indirect costs imposed upon individual American consumers in surcharges on their utility bills, jobs destroyed, employment opportunities never created (see Bastiat’s “broken window” parable), and all sorts of other muggery, thuggery, mopery, dopery, “cork-screwing, back-stabbing, and dirty dealing”….

          And this burbling idiot of an “Illogical-Luser” wonders why I’m “slightly angry”?

          Hm. How the puck come you’re NOT, dorklet?

        • John T

          @[email protected]_WINS Damn man, you are pathetic. Your stance is so weak that you have to attack someone personal. That says it all for me.

        • John T

          @Tucci78 When your stance is so weak that you have to personally attack the person you’re arguing with I think a real reassessment of you opinion is needed my friend.

        • @John T – What precisely was there in your Illogical-luser beloved’s post that had anything of a substantive nature with which to engage, putzie?

          He/She made noise not about the case for scientific skepticism of the anthropogenic global warming conjecture (for which skeptical regard there is great cause), but rather in a classic example of logical fallacy, the failing called “argumentum ad hominem.”

          In other words, your Illogical-luser snerked about my anger.

          Not about the issue, but about me personally, as you’re doing, you silly dork.

          In response I discussed one of the general categories of reasons – the massive predations perpetrated by the AGW fraudsters masquerading as “scientists” on “Mike’s Hockey Team,” by so-called “businessmen” battening upon the swindle to push the various fantabulous “renewables” confidence games, and by “public servants” indisputably malfeasant in public office – why any and every American citizen should regard these critters with hearty, enthusiastic hatred.

          My own “personal attack” – incidental merry insult addressed to Illogical-luser and now to you (you ever-so-witless jerkwad) – is merely lagniappe which you friggin’ asshats have richly earned.

          Who am I to deny you your just desserts?

          You don’t want correct and pointed assessment of what serves you in lieu of “character,” don’t behave like the empty-headed warmista dog-futterer you so obviously are.

        • micka

          @John [email protected]

          Amen, John T. Isn’t a basic American premise that we can agree to disagree? These personal attacks seem more appropriate to some country that does not respect freedom of speech..

      • Wellwisherworld

        People like you is the reason this country is fracking in it’s face. U need to start respecting people’s opinion. That is one of the conservative values.

        • @Wellwisherworld – Whatever in hell gives you to fantasize that I’m a conservative?

          Ever read the closing chapter of F.A. Hayek’s *The Constitution of Liberty* (1960)? It’s titled “Why I am Not a Conservative” (it’s available at multiple sites online; see

          My political, economic, and social priorities are summed up in what has been termed the “Non-Aggression Principle,” which reads in its entirety:

          “No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation.”

          Also available and further explained at multiple sites online. See, for example, economist Walter Block’s appreciation of the subject at (Mr. Rockwell – a decided partisan of Ron Paul’s campaign – runs a very useful Web site, with a fine “stable” of contributors, including Dr. Paul himself).

          Respecting other human beings’ rights – to their own lives, their liberties, and their property – does NOT require treating politely with them in online fora such as this one when they propose the VIOLATION of other people’s rights.

          For that vicious insanity (or thieving, raping, murdering intent) they get nothing but due recognition and condemnation.

          Recall, please, that old wisdom about opinions being like the distalmost alimentary sphincter; everybody’s got one, but not every such hole is actually functional.

          Dysfunctional opinions not only need not be respected but MUST not be respected.

          Ideas, as they manifest in human action, have consequences.

          Bad ideas lead to bad consequences for real people, and the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept – as is being pushed by “Mike’s Hockey Team” and Algore and Joe Romm and the idiots burbling in its support here – is one of the most spectacularly bad ideas in the history of the sciences, the same I have already explained in this forum.

          Or don’t you get that, putzie?

        • micka

          @[email protected]

          Verbal attacks seem pretty aggressive, and a denial of the rights of others to disagree with you. When you are anointed as the Messiah, then I imagine that most of us will agree that you have all the knowledge and all the answers. But, until then, perhaps you could learn at least a little something from putzies and dorks, or at least accept that they may be knowledgeable in their own fields…which may be different than yours.

      • micka

        @[email protected]

        Please look at geologic history, and then compare that with the current rate of warming of our oceans and disappearance of glaciers. We need those glaciers in the Rockies and elsewhere to maintain our watersheds. Dismissing the issue in a flippant way is foolish. Reading Ibn Browning’s “Climate and the Affairs of Man”, written long before this current debate started may help you see the importance of what is happening. It’s not that we have not always had warming cycles, it is the rate at which warming is now occurring that is the big issue.Historically, the mountains near me have recharged our aquifers annually with melting snow, but this is not happening now. The last 20 year see wells drying up, ponds disappearing, streams becoming ephemeral. We have whole communities with no water except what they can haul from afar.This is too serious to dismiss so lightly. Please inform yourselves.

        • @[email protected]@pn4381 This might have more to do with Geo-engineering than nature. Weather modification has become a science developed in the 50’s, and now made public, can affect where the rain falls, thus affecting your rainfalls and snowfalls and ultimately your aquifer levels. And the appearance of melting glaciers. I don’t think the recent concentrated rainfall in the SE was all natural, as well as the prolonged droughts in SW. There are small commercial weather modification services offered for the public. You can find them online. The prolonged contrails, which the scientists now admit are aerosolized particulates like aluminum and barium, which are sprayed all the time now, so that you will hardly see the deep blue in the sky anymore, is revealed to reduce the so-called “global warming”, but this has been going on since the 70’s, maybe even earlier. But today it’s done with much greater frequency. Why were they spraying this before 2007? And more importantly, in the 70’s when the UN claimed there will be an ice-age on the horizon?

        • micka

          @[email protected]@pn4381

          I am old enough to remember contrails from jets as long ago as the early 1950s. Are you assuming the these were attempts at climate control?That the contrails are do to spraying of chemicals? To what purpose? I know about the rainmakers, and I also know that they are markedly unsuccessful. China has had a recent huge effort in this area, and it was also quite limited in its success. During grad school, I worked as a faunal archaelogist. I saw for myself that the SW has always had drought cycles, but they occcurred more slowly as was obvious from changes in pollen profiles, dendrochronology and animal migration patterns.

        • @micka

          Contrails without any additives to the fuels are nothing more than water vapor as the jet passes through the atmosphere, as I’ve come to understand and they disappear within a minute or two. And serves no useful purpose to combat climate change because of this. Even if this argument was so. What I was referring to was the additives which are present, whether in the fuel mixture itself or not which are released by certain jets that spray in our skies all the time, remain and diffuse unlike water vapor and sometimes have a “striping” effect which I believe is caused by the HAARP frequencies because these nano particulates are metallic. These aerosolized particulates, as has referred to are mainly aluminum oxides and barium. Today, they say they are used to combat global warming because of their reflective properties, but even two years ago, the government denied the claims that they were spraying anything at all, and these so called contrails were just water vapor. These aerosolized trails do affect the climate, because they do reflect incidental solar radiation to a certain degree, hence some cooling of the ocean or land can be witnessed. I will argue that this cooling of the ocean is what gives us in the PNW it lower that normal evening temperatures. Also, If you have color photos of the skies, you will see that it was a lot bluer back then because they sprayed less to none in most areas. I’m not sure what your point is regarding drought cycles in the SW. But you draw up an interesting point, which is weather is cyclical by nature, and the warming/cooling trend is more natural than man-made. So do you think the reduction of CO2 will reduce the plant population? If so, will it affect human population because of less vegetation? When Greenland was in the last green cycle, the population thrived, and as I recall the CO2 level was much higher that what it is today.

        • micka


          Comment about SW drought was in response to your comment above.Contrails have always had a brief cooling effect when they are sufficiently abundant to form cloud effects, and have always contained junk other than water vapor, esp fuel additives. I think it is impossible that combining the volume of burning of fossil fuels with naturally occurring volcanism and other CO2 sources, is not affecting the climate, and causing a more rapid warming of the environment than we are prepared to deal with.The speed of desertification planet wide is very alarming. Hence the threat to our watersheds, and our way of living. Water will be our next disputed, controlled, rationed, and fought over resource. Already is actually. And it does not need to happen, just as we did not need to fight over oil when we are so rich in solar, wind and geothermal resources. US needs to lead, not blindly follow. France, China, and others are way ahead of us. Why?.

        • @micka

          Then why does the rate of CO2 levels in the atmosphere lag the mean temperature increases of the planet? This is also clearly visible if you superimpose the very graph Al Gore used to demonstrate his case in “An Inconvenient Truth”. If you superimpose the two graphs, the CO2 level always lag the temperature increases, therefore CO2 does not contribute to global warming, instead global warming precipitates more CO2. You have to ask yourself why Al Gore’s graphs were separated. Most people that present a case using graphs, superimpose two or more data elements to show a relationship, which makes more sense. Again CO2 has the lowest ability to retain heat amongst all the greenhouse gases, H2O retains the most heat. But I agree that alternative fuel sources should be embraced, but not because of so-called climate change.

          Also, as you pointed out, volcanoes release CO2 as well, and it is true that each can and have unleashed exorbitant amounts of CO2. I have read that all the fossil fuels and CO2 generated since the Industrial Revolution doesn’t even amount to a single volcanic eruption of say Mount St. Helens in 1980, therefore human beings activity therefore are negligible.

    • Wellwisherworld

      @pn4381 Again! you are misunderstanding. Global Warming is not the problem, its the forces of anticapitalism that is at work here. What he is saying is that, if government get’s off the back, then the market forces will drive the oil prices higher naturally, this will force alternative energy mechanics to work. He’s for alternative energy for sure, he just doesn’t want to get government involved in it. Ethnaol is a pretty significant mess and look at us, we’re nowhere. Solyndra, same thing!!!

      • Wellwisherworld

        @pn4381 I will take a moment to also present a counter view. Oil prices are higher in London. How come they don’t have a miraculous alternative. Do they all have to wait for Americans to catch up? So Maybe some government help could be a good thing right. But for now, if we want to get out of this hole with debt, we need Ron paul principles. Then later on we can balance our expenses with revenues and make investments based on Fit/Bet.

        • @[email protected] – Spot prices on commodities markets reflect nothing more than conditions at the particular moment as those conditions are perceived by traders working in those markets.

          A much better reflection of physical reality in the petrochemicals sector of the economy was discussed by Willis Eschenbach in a guest post on Anthony Watts’ top-rated science blog “Watts Up With That?” only yesterday. See

          Mr. Eschenbach begins:

          “In oil, as in other extractive industries, you have what is called the ‘R/P ratio’. In the R/P ratio, ‘R’ is reserves of whatever it is you are extracting, and ‘P’ is the production rate, the rate at which you are extracting and using up your reserves.

          “When you divide the amount you have in reserves by the rate at which you are extracting the resource, you get the number of years the reserves will last at that rate of extraction. Accordingly, I include the R/P ratio in Figure 1 as ‘Years Left’

          “A couple of things to point out. First, the ‘Years Left’, the R/P ratio, is currently more than forty years … and has been for about a quarter century. Thirty years ago, we only had 30 years of proven oil reserves left. Estimates then said we would be running out of oil about now.

          “Twenty-five years ago, we had about forty years left. Ten years ago we had over forty years left. Now we have over forty-five years left. I’m sure you see the pattern here.”

          At the moment of this posting, there are 246 commenters’ responses to Mr. Eschenbach’s post. Considering that Mr. Watts’ site does not censor comments as viciously as do the warmista propagandists at UnRealClimate and Unskeptical Fraudulence, you’ll find not only honest scientific skepticism (such as mine) but also the lunatic ravings of people like you, with your “meme of ‘OMG we’re running out of oil we must change energy sources right now tomorrow!!'” (as Mr. Eschenbach puts it).

          Share and enjoy.

        • @[email protected] Maybe there is a conspiracy by the Oil barons to prevent viable alternatives from happening. Remember when electric cars first appeared in the 70’s? As the Rockefellers said “We hate competition”.

        • micka

          @[email protected]@pn4381

          There may be another factor at work here that I learned about from a petroleum geologist friend some years ago.Are oil companies still taxed on their declared reserves? Are they under-reporting?

        • micka

          @[email protected]@pn4381

          Even worse, in the early 1980s there was an operating hydrogen fuel cell vehicle developed by (I hope I remember correctly)Los Alamos Labs and Urban Systems Research and Engineering. Imagine how much better our lives would be now if the auto and/or oil companies had developed an hydrogen distribution system in tandem with existing service stations and made these vehicles commercially available.Clean transportation with unlimited resources. Gives off only water. Of course, the DOE could have encouraged it with subsidies, but… Follow the money.

        • @micka

          I Agree. Rockefeller family controls the Oil for the most part in the US, if not the world. Rockefellers created the CFR, which controls the UN. IPCC is the left arm of the UN, as well as its Population Control unit. Data is therefore skewed and not to be trusted because as Rockefeller said “I hate competition”. If you read Allen’s “Rockefeller Files”, you’ll better understand these big un-public institutions like the UN which conjures policy after policy, and our so-called elected officials are all to happy to oblige in the unconstitutional policies, generated by Rockefeller and his subjugates. Sound like you are somewhat “awake”.

      • @[email protected] – Insofar as I’ve been able to perceive the political situation as it has developed and is likely to continue, there are not really any “forces of anticapitalism” operating anywhere on the landscape, and never will be.

        “Capitalism” – which places its economic focus on the value of capital goods and the latent spending power instantiated in capital funds within the classic “land, labor, and capital” consideration – is something that all but the most vicious “Liberal” fascist (or Communist) can and does recognize.

        It takes a “Liberal” of the Pol Pot (Khmer Rouge) stripe to go so completely gonzo as to destroy a division of labor economy and slaughter those whose skills and knowledge of capitalism’s value give them the intellectual tools necessary to oppose “Liberal” fascism.

        Even blatant thieving scum like Algore and Bubba and our Fraudulence-in-Chief recognize (and scheme to get their hands upon) the goodies produced by a capital-intensive economy.

        As I’d mentioned in an earlier post today, the dichotomy exists on another plane, and that’s defined by the Non-Aggression Principle (again, see Dr. Block’s consideration at

        The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fraud – or “man-made climate change,” or whatever the Watermelons are trying to term it this week – is merely one of many false flags under which the “Liberal” fascisti are sailing in their campaigns of piracy.

        It’s an excuse for them, a way to “sell” the idea of aggressively violating their neighbors individual human rights.

        As you’ve observed, Dr. Paul is perfectly happy with “alternative energy.”

        Just as long as the government – which always boils down to Officer Friendly and his ninja-suited, sniper-rifle-shooting SWAT squad colleagues – stay to hellangone out of it.

    • If it’s true, i’ll do my part to curb greenhouse gases, but I don’t want to be taxed for it. It’s freedom of choice. If a corporation emits too much mercury into the atmosphere, which is far more detrimental to the environment, we can boycott them instead of relying on the government to provide answers to everything. Where is the green voice against mercury, arsenic, lead, pcb’s, pesticides, GMOs and other industrial wastes which does far more harm to the environment than CO2, which plants love? Ron Paul 2012. @pn4381

      • micka

        @[email protected]

        Dr Mehmet Oz recently addressed one aspect of the arsenic problem and was villified by the FDA, sayng his tests were incorectly done, etc.. Then Consumers Union did the same tests and found Dr Oz was correct, FDA lied. No big surprise unfortunately.

  • rb6283

    If anything, the “green” movement is all about individual liberty- although not perfect. Rather than depending on big oil and big coal to power our lives, those who advocate sustainability would prefer to produce their own electricity via solar or small wind, collect and filter their own rainwater, grow some of their own food (to a reasonable extent), all without having to pay a tranche of their monthly salary to commodity market manipulators and corporate polluters. Our current energy policy is obsolete. Our current environmental policy is also obsolete. Both protect the big guys at the massive expense of the individual. Individuals are giving up their income, as well as their right to clean air and water- by force.

    I can’t believe anyone who would stick up for the status quo. Major things need to change and change soon. Even IF climate change was a major miscalculation, we’re still dealing with the effects of air and water pollution on public health and the economy.

    I’m not one of the “we’re all gonne die!” crowd, but I an PISSED OFF at this current situation and at those who defend it. I will continue to fight the status quo harder and harder until this world becomes a better place for everyone.

    Time for me to get off the soap box for now.

    • @rb6283 – “If anything, the ‘green’ movement is all about individual liberty….”

      Yep. The violation of individual liberty.

      In support of that observation I merrily direct attention to journalist James Delingpole’s recent work *Watermelons – The Green Movement’s True Colors* about which he’s spoken in many interviews (such as one archived online at and at much greater length on C-SPAN 2’s Book TV program, viewed at ).

      Moreover there is a definite sublime idiocy to this rb6283’s maundering about “sustainability” and those who “would prefer to produce their own electricity via solar or small wind, collect and filter their own rainwater, grow some of their own food (to a reasonable extent).”

      Just where does this rb6283 clown live, anyway? Has this rb6283 flaming fool any familiarity at all with the conditions under which an increasingly metropolitan population in these United States live THEIR lives?

      Does rb6283 imagine that an apartment dweller has the time, ability, or other resources with which to “collect and filter their own rainwater” and “grow some of their own food” (to any extent whatsoever)? How about elderly folks living in retirement communities?

      rb6283, do you understand squat about the concept of “division of labor” in an economy? How about “economies of scale”?

      Anything even on how the expressions “energy policy” and “environmental policy” necessarily include the evaded word GOVERNMENT (as in “obey our dictates or Officer Friendly here will shoot you”) as a means of denying the individual any liberty whatsoever?

      There is no argument for coercive government facilitation of consumer victimization by politically “connected” established actors in any segment of the marketplace.

      That’s mercantilist “corporate welfare” at the very least, and an utterly indefensible perversion of civil government.

      This understood, however, there’s no argument for increased GOVERNMENT dirigisme in any fantabulous effort to get at rb6283’s notion of nirvana.

      Too much like taking away the aspartame and substituting potassium cyanide.

      • rb6283

        @Tucci78 You’re an idiot. You’ve proved it yourself. You really buy the BS you’re spewing, or are you just a paid shill for coal and oil- the current and long time recipients of corporate welfare for over a century? You really think that defending the corporate asshats that have been abusing public health, welfare, and economic well-being is the way to preserve and defend liberty? Wow. Poor ExxonMobil. Poor BP. Poor ConocoPhillips. Poor Chevron. Look at the largest companies by revenue. 4 out of the top 5 are oil and gas!

        You’re not only an idiot. You’re a bloody hypocrite.

        Don’t even talk to me about economics. You obviously can’t comprehend simple concepts. The last thing I want to do is waste my time trying to educate someone about the nuances of economics (macro or micro) who is not only unwilling to open their mind, but openly defies proven facts.

        Renewables aren’t a problem. They are a proposed solution to a fossil fuel problem A finite energy problem. An environmental problem. A geopolitical problem. Are they perfect? No, and I’ve never said that. Are they expensive? Not when you consider the externalities produced by our current energy regime. The effects to public health and the wars fought to maintain our access to this s*** is a HELL of a lot more expensive than renewables.

        We’ve spent over a TRILLION over the last decade over oil. That’s a HUGE motherfricking subsidy if you ask me.

        You’ve got blood on your hands. You and all of your lobbyist friends. Go on advocating the rape of our shared environment at the expense of the many for the profit of the Rex Tillerson’s, Bob Dudley’s and Charles/David Koch’s. I’m not backing down.

        The truth is right in front of your face. Quit trying to skirt around it. It’s pathetic.

        **Rant over**

        • @rb6283 – Ah, how typically warmista. You haven’t got squat in the way of rebuttal and there you go down the leftie rabbit-hole marked “argumentum ad hominem,” the logical fallacy in which the fantastically supposed qualities of the person articulating a position (and NEVER the position itself) is the subject of your yammering.

          Do all of you boobs take some kind of online extension course for this, or do you just vomit up anything Joe Romm tells you to spew?

          Most of the “coal and oil” corporations established in the U.S. market, of course, have re-branded themselves as “energy companies” and are as deeply into the financial goodies of the “We’re All Gonna Die!” man-made global climate change scam as are Algore and our Mombasa Messiah himself (who intends to do himself VERY well in the “carbon markets” by screwing the people who elected him).

          Well, hell. Never could stomach the Kochtopus myself, no matter how Vespasian is the quality of their currency.

          The “proposed solution to a fossil fuel problem” about which rb6283 stupidly burbles which can never be found in “renewables” is worthless for two reasons:

          1) We continue to discover that petrochemical fuel feedstocks are far more plentiful and cost-effectively exploitable than abjectly ignorant damned fools like rb6283 and his/her hypemeisters keep trying to claim they are.

          2) Were “renewables” really capable of supplanting or even supplementing petrochemical fuels, their implementation would not require taxpayer subsidization in perpetuity.

          The corporate welfare programs on which these “energy companies” are so lucratively fastened, lamprey-style, are permanent institutional rent-seeking, and will go away more or less at the same time the Department of Agriculture does awy with dairy and sugar subsidies.

          Which is to say, of course, never.

          Any “renewables” capable of taking over when (more accurately IF) America is compelled at gunpoint to cease using liquid and solid petrochemical fuels would be economically competitive with those petrochemicals, right?

          Do you idiots, rb6283, mean to sit there in your own filth and try to claim that those “renewables” will EVER achieve such competitive parity – much less equality – with rock oil and natural gas and coal?

          And there’s rb6283, with his head shoved so far up his own cloaca that even if he could wipe the dung out of his eyes, there’s no light by which he can see.

        • @rb6283 – “We’ve spent over a TRILLION over the last decade over oil. That’s a HUGE motherfricking subsidy if you ask me.”

          No, you economic ignoramus. That’s a COST, paid by the private citizenry (the ultimate consumers of all goods and services) for the liquid petrochemicals and other materials provided by those who explore for, extract, refine, and deliver petroleum fractions to those of us who want to buy these goods.

          In contrast, subsidies (“HUGE motherfricking” corporate welfare disbursements) are shoveled out by politicians and bureaucrats who extract them from the private citizenry under compulsion, involving Officer Friendly and his ninja-suited SWAT squad buddies holding us at gunpoint for the tax collectors.

          And you claim to understand “the nuances of economics,” do you?

          Jeez, you’re just stinkin’ up the joint, ain’tcha?

        • rb6283

          @Tucci78 So let me get this straight. You don’t think that spending over a trillion dollars to defend oil supplies from the middle east is a form of subsidy, and not in the least bit to be considered a cost of doing petrobiz? ROFL. You are way dumber than I thought. It is murderous fools like yourself that advocate the preemptive hostile takeover and occupation of countries unfriendly to us to protect our oil supply- which is a scarce, finite resource that is harming the environment. Oh, and then we give them tax breaks for exploration and extraction of the s***. We do a crapton more favors for big oil and big coal than renewables. If you want to generalize renewables as the recipients of corporate welfare, you better hold your best buddies to the same standard. Well, you’re not.

          And then you go on to say that ExxonMobil (and other big oil co’s) has rebranded itself as an energy company? Have you seen their new ads bragging about the fact they can now “economically” strip mine Canadian boreal forest for tar sands oil? You think SunPower and ExxonMobil are one in the same? Vestas and BP?

          Well damn, I guess the secret is out about that big solar spill we had today. And yesterday. And every day for the last 4.5 billion years. All 174 petawatts of it.

        • @rb6283 “So let me get this straight. You don’t think that spending over a trillion dollars to defend oil supplies from the middle east is a form of subsidy, and not in the least bit to be considered a cost of doing petrobiz?”

          Doofus, you’re on a Ron Paul fan site. What’s Dr. Paul’s policy position regarding American imperialism in the Sandbox?

          Foreign military adventurism for the ostensible benefit of politically “connected” market actors – like the oil companies – is similar to domestic industrial subsidization in that it’s unconstitutional, and those of who support Dr. Paul view it as such.

          Ever read Smedley Butler’s little pamphlet *War is a Racket* (1935), asshat? No, of course you haven’t Lotsa links…. Look here:

          True in 1935, true now.

          Look, you’re really, REALLY pissed off at the thought of somebody else earning money. Even worse, about those people getting to KEEP more of that money from government thugs than you think they should be allowed to do.

          You vapor lock on oil companies’ “tax breaks for exploration and extraction” when in fact what you’re complaining about is that these businesspeople are being allowed to write off costs of doing business.

          Do you get similarly excited over the fact that a guy running a hot dog stand gets to write off his payments for heat and electricity and inventory and employee wages?

          How are those “tax breaks for exploration and extraction” gotten by the oil companies any different in principle or practice? They’re greater in amounts, but then the oil companies tend to be bigger enterprises than that hot dog stand.

          Look a bit more into Dr. Paul’s positions on preservation of goodies like “Canadian boreal forest” and the environment generally, and consider that it’s only when something is controlled by a government – “for the common good” – that it’s likely to get destructively exploited.

          Were that “Canadian boreal forest” owned by somebody who had an incentive to preserve it as YOU want it to be, would it get strip-mined in a way you find objectionable?

      • rb6283

        @Tucci78 BTW. Have you ever heard of hydroponics? It’s useful for growing other things than the dope you’ve been growing.


        • @rb6283 – Have you ever heard of economics, asshat?

          It’s not that you don’t want to expound upon “the nuances of economics (macro or micro)” but that you’re a friggin’ ignoramus insofar as the principles of economics are concerned, and you keep on proving it.

          About all you might know about the subject is that any discussion of those “nuances of economics” leaves you broken and bleeding on the floor.

          A blurt about “hydroponics” – for apartment dwellers and folks in retirement communities? Haw!

          Are you one of those stupid dorks who keeps wearing out your VHS tape of *Soylent Green* (1973) while thought-blocking on the fact that it was based on Harry Harrison’s novel *Make Room! Make Room!* (1966), in which the writer set the action in a desperately overcrowded and resource-starved America…

          …in August 1999?

          Doofus, arrant stupidity like yours really ought to be kept out of the public purview. Dig back down into your manure pile and get back to becoming compost.

          It’s all you’re good for.

        • rb6283

          @Tucci78 You’re feeble attempt at insinuating I advocate people grow ALL of their food in their apartment is ridiculous. Go on with your fecal fantasies in private. There’s a disturbing pattern you should keep out of the public purview in case your’e true identity is ever discovered.

        • @rb6283 – Hey, asshat. Sure, the notion of apartment-dwellers growing all their food in their limited living quarters is “ridiculous.”

          Aren’t YOU the stupid schmuck who wrote about how people would “prefer to produce their own electricity via solar or small wind, collect and filter their own rainwater, grow some of their own food (to a reasonable extent), all without having to pay a tranche of their monthly salary to commodity market manipulators and corporate polluters”?

          I simply observed that the demographic trends in these United States continue to show that the population is growing more and more metropolitan. Rural areas continue to undergo relative depopulation, as is being evinced in the re-drawing of both state and federal legislative districts. What, are you too bloody braindead to have noticed that?

          For a blithering idiot who keeps yammering about the “nuances of economics” while demonstrating that you don’t know dick about economics (such concepts as “economies of scale” and even “division of labor” leap right over your empty little skull, don’t they?), your endless senseless fixation on “renewables” is of a piece with your blind gormlessness.

          You don’t really know anything, and you don’t want to learn anything because that’d make it impossible for you to wallow in the liquid excrement of your Leftie-luser warmista fantasies.

          As for my observations of your feculence, when all you keep pushing is your worthless blivets of pure crap, what else is the perceptive reader to comment upon but your stench?

          I grew up in farm country. I’ve stepped in enough stuff like you to acknowledge it when I’ve got to scrape it off my bootsoles.

        • rb6283

          @Tucci78 Need I narrow it down again for you, idiot? To quote MYSELF, I stated “grow some of their own food (to a reasonable extent).”

          Learn to read. Then analyze facts. Then come up with a reasonable response.

          As for my understanding of economics, I know damn well what economies of scale and division of labor are. They are extremely simple concepts. Dare we start talking about elasticity of demand or marginal propensity to consume. It would be a waste of time, and not the least bit enjoyable with your narcissistic rumpface.

        • @rb6283 – Asshat, to what extent could your “kumbaya” survivalist stupidity make any significant impact upon the economy as a whole or upon most people’s individual quality of life?

          You keep making it so goddam glaringly obvious that you don’t know sh-t about economics, and are determined not to learn. Were that not the case, you’d demonstrate that you UNDERSTAND how a division of labor economy works, and how economies of scale function to provide consumers with real relative cost efficiencies.

          Had you ever engaged in real farming – from rock-picking to plowing to planting to weeding (or, MUCH better, spraying with herbicides), to abatement of insects and other vermin, to harvesting, to marketing, to planning for next year’s operations, with a little meat animal husbandry along the way – you’d know that getting food for a family out of the ground costs like a motherfricker in terms of land, labor, and capital.

          What’s that saying? “Why buy a cow when milk (even with government price supports) is so cheap?”

          Do you even come close to understanding the sense of that old saw? I goddam well doubt it.

          In a free-market economy (which is what Dr. Paul is campaigning to help grow again in our hammered nation), purposeful human action tends with high reliability to result in people performing services – and that includes the production of goods – on the basis of other people’s willingness and ability to pay for those goods and services.

          Not everybody will be good at “produc[ing] their own electricity via solar or small wind, collect[ing] and filter[ing] their own rainwater,” and will therefore do something else at which they ARE effective, thereupon trading in the market for potable water and electricity and everything else they desire.

          Ever read a simple little book by Irwin Schiff titled *How an Economy Grows, and Why it Doesn’t* (1985)? It’s available as a PDF online at .

          Look into that explanation of economics and LEARN SOMETHING about the basics of purposeful human action.

          If you’re capable.

        • Lite Load

          you’re funny. i do believe your parents should restrict your internet time.

        • Lite Load

          you’re funny. although your inflated sense of self suggests you should go outside more frequently and your parents should restrict your internet time.

    • micka


      I agree with you. Good, sturdy soapboxon which to stand.

      • micka


        You two are really entertaining to read, you and Tucci. There are middle roads here. There is a city in France powered primarily by solar.There are cities in China using passive solar for heat of homes, government and commercial buildings. My mother lived in a high rise senior apartment complex where each apartment had an assigned area that they could use for a garden In areas of Latin America, Australia and other countries every dwelling uses harvested rain water as a matter of course. Where I live, the county requires all new construction to have the capability of a grey water system. And many, many of us use anything from old stock tanks to fancy rain barrles to harvest water. It is routine.Not perfect sustainability but a good start.

  • rb6283

    It is a lot easier for skeptics to accuse climate scientists of wrongdoing than it is for the accused to a) do their scientific work, b) ensure integrity in the process, c) defend their work from skepticism- and d) defend their work from self-interested liars and thugs.

    Of course the burden of proof is on the scientific community to prove their findings to be true. However, the burden of proof is on the skeptics who continue to insist that and all of the leaked CRU emails prove wrongdoing- which they have failed to do over and over. They keep on trying- in a way similar to the “definition” of insanity. There is no objective way to prove that. To the contrary- it is MUCH more likely the scientists were trying to figure out ways to fend off damaging and unwarranted criticism. Likely is the key word, since the very nature of the controversy is entirely subjective. There were certainly better ways to conduct themselves, but I completely disagree that this one instance is the smoking gun of a massive conspiracy. What a joke!

    As for the wider issue, more and more proof is coming out every day that backs up the claims of the majority of climate science. Global average temperatures have risen about 1°C in the last century, arctic sea ice is declining rapidly on average, permafrost is melting and releasing methane into the atmosphere, we’re continuing to pump out oil and dig up coal which has been sequestered for millions of years then burning it at a pace never before seen in history. Animals have been moving away from the equator at something like 15 feet per day. Extreme weather events are becoming more extreme. Droughts have been occurring in an intensity never seen before. Glaciers are disappearing. It goes on and on.

    So really now- who thinks this stuff is just made up to scare people into obeying the big green monster? I know! The same people who should really try starting their car and taking a huge bong hit out of their tailpipe. Do the world a favor.

    • @rb6283 – “However, the burden of proof is on the skeptics who continue to insist that and all of the leaked CRU emails prove wrongdoing- which they have failed to do over and over.”

      What wonderful willful ignorance of what “the skeptics” have been saying and writing since the preposterous bogosity of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming first began to surface as the blunder of incompetents (Hansen, Trenberth, et alia) in the late ’70s, and progressed to the vicious predatory fraud that we know today.

      rb6283 speaks of the Climategate information in and the tranche of open to access (there’s still that “all.7z” waiting to be unlocked) has been considered in the absence of more than thirty years’ worth of other evaluation of the great gaudy AGW fraud and the actions of the academically credentialed perpetrators thereof, when in fact what hit the ‘Net on 17 November 2009 was really nothing more than documentary confirmation of the C.R.U. correspondents’ deviations from professional ethical and methodological standards of conduct already evinced by way of scrupulous work done by both professional scientists and scientifically educated volunteers all over the world ever since this ridiculous nonsense first began to gain traction as a basis for government policy and thereby attacks upon the individual rights of real human beings.

      Again and again and again, cement-headed alarmist idiots like this “rb6283” specimen focus on “the leaked CRU emails” – a MINOR portion of the archive – and evade address of the database files and the global climate modeling (GCM) software which made up the greatest part of that information release.

      Thus rb6283 either fails to appreciate or deliberately avoids noting that examination of these elements had proven correct the long-voiced speculations among skeptical scientists that the C.R.U. correspondents – who had called themselves “Mike’s Hockey Team” in merry acknowledgement of their concerted effort to keep pushing the incredibly bogus obliteration of the Medieval Warm climate optimum and duplicitously exaggerated acceleration in recent climate warming presented in Michael Mann’s 1998 “hockey stick graph” – had purposefully corrupted the surface temperature datasets into the control of which they’d inserted themselves, and were presenting as “evidence” the outputs of GCM computer programs which would show such “hockey stick” temperature curves when fed pure “red noise” random numbers.

      – No 30 –

      • rb6283

        @Tucci78 I’m sorry- I shouldn’t have said “skeptics.” Lying self-preservationists are more like it. Either you’re proving yourself to be one of them and you’re exposing your own duplicity, or you have been duped by the petrophylic cretins who are the true reason our freedom is being eroded. Wake the f*** up!

        • @rb6283 – Aw, how nice. The lying, squirming, head-up-his-cloaca climate catastrophist rb6283 projects his/her own hatefulness on those who observe and critique her/his flagrant vicious propaganda.

          You have not one goddam substantive argument to make in rebuttal to a “No 30” post of mine, and yelp like the incontinent bastid you so truly are.

          To hell with you, and with the horse you rode in on.

        • rb6283

          @Tucci78 Lol! Projecting? Have you read anything you’ve written? What a lying hypocrite you are! And how dare you bring my horse into this.

        • @rb6283 – Ooh, rb6283 is sensitive about his/her horse.

          Well, I wasn’t intending to discuss your sex life, but what the hell…

        • micka

          @[email protected]

          You know what, rb6283, this Tucci78 guy is so stuck on his own limited ideas that he isn’t worth arguing with, but some of us might be interested in hearing your opinion, so speak on!

    • @rb6283 – continued –

      As for the “more and more proof” of global average temperature increases regarding which rb6283 babbles (“about 1°C in the last century”), doesn’t this bloody idiot know that this trend has been continuing since 1700 – long before anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 as the result of petrochemicals combustion ever began – in the slow rebound from the Little Ice Age which commenced at that time?

      Further proof of rb6283’s unfamiliarity with the process of scientific investigation is his/her yammering about how “it is MUCH more likely the scientists were trying to figure out ways to fend off damaging and unwarranted criticism.”

      Real scientists – as opposed to confidence men running a fraud – do NOT “fend off” critical response to their assertions.

      All progress in the sciences comes in the course of examining objectively verified physical phenomena, presenting explanatory conjectures as to how those phenomena came to manifest, and then testing those conjectures to determine their reliability as valid explanations.

      An HONEST investigator – a real scientist as opposed to one of these “Mike’s Hockey Team” members intent upon pushing a “message” of policy advocacy which they know to be shaky or altogether false – confronts “damaging and unwarranted criticism” with sound scientific proof that their conclusions are correct.

      Such honest investigators do NOT stonewall Freedom of Information requests for their data, or for computer code paid for by taxpayer funds solicited by way of government grant requests.

      Honest investigators – real scientists – do NONE of the things which the Climategate e-mails demonstrate the C.R.U. correspondents to have planned and done regarding the evasion and suppression of the “criticism” you squeal about.

      – 30 –

      • rb6283

        @Tucci78 Oh boy, the same regurgitated maunder minimum bullcrap we’ve all heard before. Yet another dubious red herring.

        • @rb6283 – Oh, you even acknowledge that big fusing ball of hydrogen 93 million miles away?

          How unlike the usual run of CO2-fixated warmista incompetents we get in here.

        • SKull


          I would just like to interject here that the UN have decided that the sun doesn`t have any impact on climate. In the name of political correctness I must ask you to stop talking about it.

    • SKull


      “It is a lot easier for skeptics to accuse climate scientists of wrongdoing than it is for the accused to a) do their scientific work, b) ensure integrity in the process, c) defend their work from skepticism- and d) defend their work from self-interested liars and thugs.”

      I`m afraid this statement alone proves that you have no idea what science is and that you are in fact a religious cult adherent. They are not supposed to defend their work but attack it, over and over again. This is what Tucci78 and I have been doing, since they themselves are pathological liars and/or deranged followers of the carbon cult.

      Apparently, so are you and therefore I deem it a waste of time to talk to you.

  • @jman – Indicate SPECIFICALLY where I have made a misstatement or otherwise “demonstrated remarkable ignorance concerning the nature of the scientific enterprise.”

    If it’s so friggin’ “remarkable,” you sure as hell have to have something in particular to REMARK upon, don’t you?

    At the very least, pull something from your warmista horsepuckey source and QUOTE that crap as it pertains to what I’ve posted above.

    Gawd, you don’t even put up a link (URL) to your lying climate catastrophist sources. Let me show you how that’s done in this forum, drawing not only upon your hapless, worthless, useless source but also upon works created by Australian science educator Joanne Nova:


    This is *The Skeptic’s Handbook* against which alarmist weasel John Cook posted in 2010 (see ) his link to the superficial and specious “Guide” (see ) you’re currently cement-headedly extolling.

    Incidentally, Ms. Nova beat the crap out of your Mr. Cook’s *Unskeptical Guide* in depth and detail shortly after your fraudulent friend’s stupidity hit the ‘Net. See

    In addition to *The Skeptic’s Handbook*, in 2009 Ms. Nova had also uttered:




    …to neither of which (to the best of my knowledge) had your hypocritical hypemeisters uttered anything remotely resembling rebuttal.

    Though each of these publications of Ms. Nova’s had been completed in 2009 – BEFORE Climategate 1.0 hit the ‘Net – they more than sufficiently stand the test of time and roll over your Pseudoskeptical Fraudulence source like an Abrams over an outhouse.

  • AdamCollet

    This is the issue I disagree with Paul the most on. Very nearly to the point of not wanting to support him. Two key items:1) There is a *huge* consensus in scientific opinion that global warming IS happening, and the consensus is building that man is contributing to that. “Climategate” was an issue of appropriate internal conversation, NOT an issue of any facts being bent – courts have cleared them of this, and it is obvious to anyone reading the emails (and in looking at facts established outside of the CRU).2) Even if one assumes there is no global warming – with or without human impact – consumption of natural resources is a *huge* problem. The more me rely on natural resources, the more of a problem it is. Do we have a ton left? Sure. But there are two important things to keep in mind – that although we have a lot left, the more we use, the more expensive it is to get more out of the earth, and that our consumption is *accelerating*, is *exponential* (this is the key and extremely significant fault with claims you hear along the lines of “enough for a hundred years”).

    This IS an economic issue – not necessarily of today, but most assuredly of the next 5-10 years. Although I definitely thing reigning in government spending, controlling the appetite for war and entitlement, and aboloshing the income tax are more immediately pressing issues, they should be taken care of with the medium-term issue of natural resource scarcity (it’s a finite resource, no matter how you slice it) in mind.

    • @AdamCollet – be advised that you have a dreadfully impoverished idea of the factual underpinnings of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) conjecture are, and have always been.

      Even more lamentable is your understanding of what *science* is, and how the scientific method operates. That you speak of “a *huge* consensus in scientific opinion that global warming IS happening” betrays that wrong-footedness.

      Had you an education in the sciences – and I think it safe to infer that you have not – you’d know that “consensus” matters not at all, not in any way, insofar as the objective and demonstrable validity of a concept is concerned. Moreover, had you examined the AGW fraud in any proper depth or detail – and “fraud” is the only way that this scam can be properly characterized – you would understand that even the so-called “*huge* consensus” in which you repose your faith is really nothing but the equivalent of a Potemkin village, projected before your eyes to sucker you.

      There are literally thousands of educated, experienced, literate and scrupulously honest men and women, many of them in disciplines where they have necessarily studied and investigated phenomena related to those upon which the “climatologists” vested in the AGW fraud have deceitfully pretended to report in order to peddle their elaborate falsehoods, who have not only expressed pointed skeptical criticism of the concept supposedly at the root of “man-made global climate change” but have also spoken out vehemently and with well-supported argument in the refutation of this hideous, wasteful, destructive, pillaging ILLUSION of scientific rigor to peddle what is, from first to last, a lie.

      – No 30 –

    • @AdamCollet – Continued –

      Moreover, you yourself have absolutely no idea of what was contained in the first tranche of documents, data files, and global climate modeling (GCM) programming code – Climategate 1.0 – and what has been further revealed in the second tranche – Climategate 2.0 – which consists thus far entirely of additional C.R.U. correspondents’ e-mail communications setting those in the first tranche into better context and confirming the collusion in which these credentialed confidence men had been taking part for some decades in order to structure and “sell” a program of policy advocacy in which they acknowledged the real absence of factual support for their contentions as well as the defects of the theories upon which they were basing their apparently impressive but actually unrealistic theoretical projections of how the earth’s climate had, would, or could behave in response to anthropogenic increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

      I suspect that you have neither experience nor understanding of the process of publishing in peer-reviewed technical, scientific, or medical journals, and therefore no understanding of what the Climategate correspondence revealed about how these C.R.U. collaborators had systematically and with malice aforethought perverted the editorial process (including peer review) in the pertinent scientific literature in order to evade proper critique of their own assertions and to suppress the publication of investigative results which could tend to cast their carefully crafted “message” – and thus their program of policy advocacy – into doubt as to its validity and certainty.

      Indeed, insofar as the Climategate information is concerned, you’ve pretty obviously leaped for excusatory and dismissive warmist propaganda in order to support your pre-existing delusions about the alarmist position on the subject of climate catastrophe without any critical consideration of the facts whatsoever.

      I would strongly suggest that you look through posts of mine on this thread over the past several months to find further discussion and access to Internet resources by way of which you can abate your ignorance and improve your understanding of the plain facts of this matter.

      You’re wrong, you’re wrong in all regards, and you’ve let yourself get “gulled, cullied, and diddled” by PRECISELY the same liars, cheats, and goons who have wrecked our national economy and violated our Constitution.

      • AdamCollet

        @[email protected]

        Please quote for me, in context and with a source for verification, anything from this “hoax” that is climategate which actually shows collusion to hide information or in any way misconstrue the data to the public. It can’t be done. They have been tried in court, and it has become evident that although they were not professional in their interoffice communications, none of their opinions etc. actually influenced the DATA put out by the center. Burden of proof is on you, the accuser.

        Here’s an interesting article: pretty clear evidence that carbon in the atmosphere does cause and has caused global warming to a drastic extent. A perfect, scientific link between the two. But my main point was that global warming is happening at all, not that it is man-caused or assisted (that has a growing consensus, but not sufficient to declare it fact).How about the Berkley study led by Muller, once one of the strongest climate change doubters, funded by KOCH … which to his great surprised showed that *shocker* the consensus of scientists that global warming is happening, is accurate. Here, explore the DATA for yourself: scientific method: it involves someone testing something. And then others testing it. And then others testing them. It’s about statistical significance. It’s about consensus. It’s NOT about a few people disagreeing. Again, talking about global warming in general, not about the cause of it.


        • AdamCollet


          The links there are


          Some of the other text got smashed into the hyperlink.

        • @AdamCollet – This spectacular obsessive warmista jerk-off says of the C.R.U. correspondents: “They have been tried in court….”

          Oh? You got a docket number, putzie? If they’ve “been tried in court,” there’s some kind of judicial decision on record, right?

          Oops. Maybe you’ve mistaken institutional warmista whitewashes for proceedings in courts of law, no?

          Analysis of the contents of and the unencrypted portion of – including the datasets, the programming code (and the programmers’ notes in the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file), and hundreds of e-mails – has been undertaken extensively honest skeptical examiners over the past two years, with evaluations discussed extensively online at Web sites such as those of meteorologist Anthony Watts (, science educator Joanne Nova (at previously cited), at Jeff Id’s “The Air Vent” (, at Steve McIntyre’s “Climate Audit” (, and climatologist Judith Curry’s “Climate Etc.” site (

          Those sites (and others) have not only aggregated discussion of the unethical and arguably criminal conduct of “Mike’s Hockey Team” (both as demonstrated in the Climategate releases and otherwise throughout their sordid careers) but also the sciences pertinent to study of the earth’s climate, and they do this with an openness that will NOT be found on the AGW fraudster sites about which you keep yammering.

          All of these “Unskeptidal Fraudulence” holes are notorious for obliterating critical comments and refusing guest posts from even professional climate scientists – Lindzen, Choi, Baliunas, et alia – in thoroughgoing “Ministry of Truth” fashion.

          – More to follow, natch –

        • @AdamCollet – as for “in context and with a source for verification,” on the first tranche of Climategate information (jeez, some “hoax” if it’s got you warmista bastiches leaping and squealing and getting spat upon by the voters you’d been trying so sucker, ain’t it?), consider that there are BOOKS which have been published on the contents of the release and the context within which to consider those elements. These include (in no particular order):

          1) The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (A.W. Montford, 2011)

          2) Climategate: The Crutape Letters (Steven Mosher and Thomas W. Fuller, 2010)

          3) Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam (Brian Sussman, 2010)

          4) Climategate Debunked: Big Brother, Mainstream Media, Cover-ups (David E. Robinson, 2010)

          5) The Climate Conspiracy (Dr. Robert, 2010)

          …and with, it’s destined to continue as a sort of growth industry, isn’t it?

          – No 30 –

        • @AdamCollet – continued –

          As well, for consideration of the science itself (as opposed to your cement-headed “CO2-is-Evil” warmista asshattery), there’s:

          A) Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming (Don Easterbrook, 2011)

          B) The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists (Roy W. Spencer, 2010)

          C) Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor (Roy W. Spencer, 2008, 2009)

          D) Climate: The Counter-Consensus – A Palaeoclimatologist Speaks (Robert M. Carter, 2010)

          E) Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition (S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, 2007)

          F) Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know (Patrick J. Michaels and Robert Balling jr, 2009)

          G) Global Warming False Alarm: The Bad Science Behind the United Nations’ Assertion that Man-made CO2 Causes Global Warming (Ralph B. Alexander, 2009)

          H) Climate: The Great Delusion: A Study of the Climatic, Economic and Political Unrealities (Christian Gerondeau, 2011)

          I) Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (Christopher C. Horner, 2008)

          J) Climatism!: Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic (Steve Gorham, 2010)

          …and more and more and more, both antedating the 2009 Climategate release (to demonstrate further that skeptical critique of this fraud didn’t begin on 17 November 2009) and subsequent.

          Also a growth industry.

          – 30 –

      • AdamCollet


        Climate change happens ALL the time, it’s a constant cycle. So, why is it a big deal if it’s happening now? A) it’s knowledge, and knowledge is a good thing to have, B) it has an effect on us, whether it’s natural or not, and we need to understand that effect and decide how to react to it, C) if there is even a CHANCE we are worsening it, we need to take that into consideration, D) whether or not our consumption of resource is effecting the climate (and it’s frankly ridiculous to assume it’s having ZERO effect), said consumption is an issue because accelerating consumption against a finite resource can only end in ONE way – exhaustion of that resource.

        I leave you with a few more science-based links. In other words, they’re from people that do SCIENCE, use the scientific method, insist on repetition and statistical significance (not on who can scream the loudest):

        • @AdamCollet – Anent climate change (which “happens ALL the time” due primarily to insolation energy input variances beyond any human control whatsoever), this asshat yelps:

          “…if there is even a CHANCE we are worsening it, we need to take that into consideration.”

          And there’s the precautionary principle furunculating yet again. Typical warmista con-game crap.

          Jeez, if there is even a CHANCE that a “global killer” planetesimal (asteroid or comet for you science illiterates) might strike the Earth, we need to establish a human presence in space far beyond the orbit of the moon, and implement means by which we can alter the trajectories of such potentially Earth-orbit-intersecting extraterrestrial bodies.

          The difference between this asshat’s noise – about human emissions of CO2 worsening the Earth’s climate in any way – and my concern about an *Armageddon* type event is that asshat is fixating on an impossibility (and the real science of climate research keep trending to the clear demonstration that it’s impossible) and I’m speaking about a very real danger that CAN be mitigated by establishing an economically remunerative presence outside the Earth’s gravity well and mounting “high guard” against incoming comets and other rocks.

          – No 30 –

        • @AdamCollet – continued –

          It’s “frankly ridiculous” to accept the warmista Watermelon horsepuckey that there’s no role played by insolation in Earth’s global climate change, or that NEGATIVE feedback mechanisms (such as have been demonstrated in operation by analysis of ERBE satellite observations) do not operate to radiate into space such miniscule amounts of thermal energy that might be “trapped” by increased atmospheric CO2.

          (Or take out of solution and fix such increased concentrations of dissolved CO2 as they squeal about in their yelps and gyrations over “ocean acidification.”)

          It’s “frankly ridiculous” to accept the idiot whines of damned fools and the snake-oil handwaves of academically credentialed fraudsters masquerading as “climate scientists” who conceive that NO OTHER FACTOR than an anthropogenic trace increase of a trace gas in the atmosphere has – or does, or COULD – cause catastrophically adverse planetary climate change by virtue of such heat trapping.

          Particularly when, in order to “sell” this blithering bullcrap, “Mike’s Hockey Team” has tried fraudulently to make the Medieval Warm climate optimum “go away” in the historical temperature records.

          Because the Medieval Warm (and the earlier Roman Warm) climate optima saw global temperature averages FAR higher than those which the fraudsters have been trying to characterize as “We’re All Gonna Die!” catastrophe for the human race, and both of these climate optima were periods of undeniable prosperity and well-being for the human race all over the Earth.

          – 30 –

  • MattPapke

    Our Website is up please visit and spread the word. There is a letter we need to send to the GOP party members to let them know we want Dr. Paul as our nominee.

  • SKull


    If you said even a single word that isn`t 100& globalist propaganda and proven nonsense we might entertain the idea of politeness and reasoned debate. Listening to such baloney is out of the question, and in any case the same garbage you spew is in all the MSM rags and brainwashing outlets anyway so there`s no reason to assume there is a single person in the world who hasn`t heard it all a million times before.

    Your meaningless beliefs aside it is PUBLIC INFORMATION that Penn State`s Michale Mann and the fraudsters at East Anglia University covered up data, lied, extorted, persecuted opposing views and were conducting pathologic science, if it even merits that word. These are the activities your belief is based upon and they`re as such of as much worth as priests in the Middle Ages who believed that you had to pay the church money to get out of Purgatory. It is the vilest and most oppressive garbage imaginable and until you start using your brain you will meet abuse from people who have seen through the scam of the carbonazi cult.

  • This “Eternalist” offspring-of-venereally-diseased-parentage not only now evades discussion of the anthropogenic global climate change contention itself (also known as the AGW fraud) but also slimes away from the fact that his/her reeking crap about how “98% of climate scientists realize human induced climate change is real” is, in truth, predicated upon an online survey of more than 10,000 scientifically trained and professionally practicing people qualified to speak with arguable expert knowledge upon the validity of the AGW conjecture from which a grand total of 77 respondents had been cherry-picked.

    Out of that 77, seventy-five (75) concurred with the opinion the surveyors set out to endorse, that “human induced [global] climate change is real,” giving this witless, cowardly, stupid “Eternalist” schmuck his/her “98%” (later “97%”).

    And now this “Eternalist” shovelful of liquid manure tries to snerk that “SKull” and myself must be “both freshman in college.”

    Whoopee. Typical dead-from-the-neck-up warmista tactics. “Eternalist” can’t make a reasoned argument, or attack the assertions of his opponents, so he attacks the opponents themselves. LITERALLY the logical fallacy of “argumentum ad hominem.”

    For your information, reader (’cause no warmista is ever interested in factual reality), while I know nothing about “SKull,” I myself had been awarded a doctorate more than 30 years ago.

    The only college freshman in my family at the moment is one of my granddaughters, and while I haven’t shared with her the joyful experience of these online encounters with “Eternalist,” I’m pretty sure that she’d think this inflamed hemorrhoid a sad, sick, silly joke, too.

  • quen10

    I have always wondered why the weather in Atlanta is bi-polar. One day it can be extremely cold and the next day it is hot! It is because of global warming! All of the excessive gases we use is another reason why Global Warming s is a hot topic. We should lessen the use of these gases. Human activity is a substantial cause of Global Warming. Many companies follow the 2 r’s REDUCE, REUSE, AND RECYCLE in order to be environmental friendly.

    • @quen10 – Er, you ARE just yanking…somebody’s…chain, ain’tcha?

      F’ghodsake, put in a [/sarc] tag to let folks know. Some of these warmista cement-heads are literally and sincerely just that friggin’ stupid.

    • SKull


      This is what zombies in Hollywood b-movies would say if they still had their lower mandibles intact. Well done!

    • SKull


      This is what zombies in Hollywood b-movies would say if they still had their lower mandibles intact. Well done!

  • SKull


    Until you learn to separate the meaningless term `conspiracy theorist`, meaning anyone who disagrees with the interminable liars in governments, from the easily demonstrable phenomenon of POLITICAL AGENDAS in modern history you are a joke and unfit for debate.

    A debate takes place in a logical form based on definitions. Your pre-pubertile over-simplification into the two equally idiotic positions of either eveything is fine and Bill Clinton loves me or some fake Hollywood conspiracy.

    Anybody who has read even a page of history will know that the political agendas of power elites is what has turned Europe into a hell of oppression, totalitarianism and war for hundreds of years. Only a despicable moron would claim that it is laughable to talk about the same thing today.

    And for the record, as far as your tiny brain will take you, the political agendas are public and not secret, and include forced population reduction of 90%, de-industrialization, totalitarianism and police state control over a global fascist society. These plans were written as far back as the 70s but were inherited from people like Hitler, Mussolinii and Lenin, who in their turn borrowed them from British imperialism, Napoleon and others.

    As anybody with a brain will understand the Co2 nonsense is just the chosen excuse for totalitarianism, along with the synthetic terrorism carried out by the same institutions and governments, and that it therefore has nothing to do with protecting the environment. Once the people with brains have understood this they no longer feel the need to debate hyper technicalities with the brainwashed adherents to the carbon cult you represent.

    Presuming you can even read I recommend you try some history before it becomes banned under your beloved nazi authority.

  • — Continuation —

    Ms. Nova goes on to quote a journalist reporting on the “survey” as follows:

    “The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

    “The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.”

    So there’s your “97%,” you flaming putz.

    75 out of 77 selected from more than 10,000 survey respondents.

    Gawd, turns out that the C.R.U. correspondents exposed by Climategate 1.0 and 2.0 weren’t the only lying scum “cherrypicking” their data, were they?

    — 30 —

  • Oh, yeah. Just what the hell d’you think an agency called “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (established specifically to publish special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and therefore wholly committed to the political position that the purposeful combustion of petrochemical fuels has caused or will cause adverse global climate change) is NOT “a global conspiracy”?

    It most certainly isn’t a means by which the publication of honest and scientifically rigorous consideration of global climate change has ever been undertaken.

    In reality, your “98%” or “97%” – or whatever numbers you’re pulling out of your smelly hole – reduces to a small number of government-connected con artists. Australian science educator Joanne Nova wrote about this some months ago (see ), saying:

    “It’s true, 97%-of-experts agree the world is going to hell in a handcart. It’s part of the frontline toolkit used by the Big Scare Campaign.

    “Do a google search on ‘97% of climate scientists agree’ and 3,920,000 links turn up.

    “Like everything in the Big Scare Campaign, a tiny semi-dried kernel of truth becomes inflated, distorted and repeated into a planetary group chant. Here’s how one small online survey was distilled to the point where the opinions of 75 climate scientists doing a 2 minute online survey could be headlined up as: “97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real”. (Worse — for those of us with a scientific bent — this mantra to the imaginary Gods of Science is even referred to as ‘Scientific’ evidence.)”

    Ms. Nova went on to write:

    “Firstly, the opinions of 75 climate-related scientists [out of 77 surveyed] is implied to equal a consensus of ALL scientists; secondly, ‘there’s a consensus of evidence’? Since when does evidence form a consensus? Ponder an image of a room full of scientific papers nodding meaningfully at each other, or the local Professorial Fellow of Pseudo-psychology at East Quando College interviewing thermometers.”

    — No 30 —

  • Eternalist, you’re a lazy, stupid, “Liberal” bigot without a brain in that dense knob of bone at the rostral end of your spinal column.

    Citing a National Public Radio source as support for your assertion, when NPR is notorious for avoiding even the favorable mention of Dr. Paul’s name in discussions of the present Republican Party contest for the 2012 presidential nomination (as, for example, when he out-polls their beloved Mitt “the Massachusetts RINO” Romney in voter surveys) marks you as a blind idiot generally, especially when it reports the Yale University Project on Climate Change COMMUNICATION.

    Not the scientific validity of global climate change induced by anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 – for which there has never been any factual support whatsoever – but the communication of this “Mike’s Hockey Team” deceit to the fraudsters’ victims in efforts to claim that overwhelming MAJORITY OPINION among “climate scientists” (which is itself, as I’ve noted, a hilarious fiction) is in any way an indication that this preposterous contention has ever been a valid reflection of physical reality.

    I’ve admonished you to read through my prior posts on this thread because I’m goddam reluctant to go about recapitulating the comments I’ve made to flush your kind of dung off this board. but you’re a witless little git who seems inclined to keep on yammering until somebody crushes you like the vermin you so truly are, so what the hell.

    It’s all here, so I’ll merrily bring it forward and add to it.

    It certainly bears both repetition and amplification.

  • Your “98% of climate scientists” assertion is a canard.

    Hell, it’s a bloody lie. There are a helluva lot of “climate scientists” and people literate and experienced in atmospheric physics, oceanography, astrophysics, geology, geophysics, vulcanology, thermodynamics, and the ghost of Feynman only knows what other allied disciplines who disagree vociferously with – and in detailed critiques of – the concerted deceptions perpetrated by the “98% of climate scientists” to whom the weevils of the leftie-luser “mainstream” media and thugs like Algore and our Mombasa Messiah will peddle to you as the anointed sources of all authority on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

    Or is it “climate change” again this week?

    The majority of those “98% of climate scientists” make up the membership of “Mike’s hockey team” (or simply “the Team”), as they’d named themselves after Penn State University quack Michael E. Mann and his infamous “hockey stick graph,” long since proven utterly fraudulent.

    These members of “the Team” sold to you as experts are actually academically credentialed bunko artists whose efforts to coordinate the most hideous fraud in the history of industrial civilization were exposed in the first tranche of data, computer code, and e-mails in the archive released to the ‘Net two years ago, and given confirmatory context last month in a second tranche – this one consisting entirely of e-mails thus far – in the release.

    Where the hell have you been on this subject over the past couple of weeks? These fraudster-to-fraudster communications (all taken off the Climatic Research Unit servers at the University of East Anglia two years ago) have been the chief subjects of analysis and discussion on the “skeptic” Weblogs since they hit the ‘Net, and the reason for so much crappin’-and-creepin’ on the AGW fraud machine’s own propaganda sites that you’d have to suffer from anosmia not to notice the stench.

    They’re now being called “Climategate 1.0” and “Climategate 2.0,” and the second is, in its own special way, even more damning than the first.

    Look, go back on this thread and read my previous posts. I’ve put up detailed supported arguments dismissing the “man-made global climate change” along with sources of RELIABLE, accurate, and scientifically sound information that blows this preposterous bogosity right to hellangone out of the water.

    You want recapitulation, I can do that, too. But all you have to do is page back.

    Please do not watch MSNBC for your scientific information.

    Or anything else.

  • rb6283
  • rb6283

    I believe climate change is occurring, based on the evidence. I’m not a scientist. If the science said otherwise, there would be no problem for climate scientists to find funding researching otherwise. Petrochemical engineers earn $125,000 a year starting salary out of college, so these “money-hungry” climate scientists are barking up the wrong tree if that is the case. There’s a lot more money to be made defending the status quo than the alternative.

    People are going to get rich either way, so I really don’t give a rats ass about funding. It is a moot point. I’m not trying to be offensive, but that’s how I see it. Doing research takes time and resources, so using that logic, ALL research is tainted by something. Call me crazy, but I find it hard to believe that ALL climate scientists who agree with the majority on climate have a profit motive.

    While I disagree with those who want a cap and trade system or a carbon tax, I do see a need for increased funding for renewables research and development. The oil, coal, and gas lobbies get it, so why not the greenies? Oil tax breaks/subsidies in the US alone are projected to reach $21 billion over the next 10 years. All renewables combined aren’t even close to that.

    How many wars are being fought to protect oil? How many people get athsma and other diseases as a direct result of the air pollution that results from the combustion of fossil fuels? What about the healthcare costs related to that? Who pays? How about the giant garbage patches swirling in our oceans with hundreds of billions of pieces of non-bio-degradable junk?

    Folks, lets get serious here. We are not living sustainably as a society. We can lead by example. We can end these sovereignty-killing trade deals and place tariffs on goods that are detrimental to the environment, while creating jobs making environmentally friendly goods and clean, renewable energy here at home. We can still have trade agreements, but with other nations who get on board with our vision. We have the innovative capacity, so let’s use it dammit!

    We need to make the transition to a cleaner, more sustainable future. We need more innovation, and we need to provide the global leadership in that direction. Otherwise, we’ll keep on this stupid trajectory which is taking us nowhere but down to the dustbin where all of the other former superpowers reside.

  • Motov

    Climate change happens because of a enormous thermonuclear power plant some 93 million miles away, and our orbital fluctuations around it. If man has any influence, it would be a very small influence. I recall in the 1970’s we were supposed to entering another ice age, after having gone through colder than normal winters. They said it was a fact. Now they changed their minds.

    Politicians will use scare tactics to control the masses, it is all about power and who wields it.

    I like clean and green technology but for a more practical reason. Pollution control.

    Using this argument will win more points than saying this planet is too hot. There are more tangible

    evidence for this than watching and recording thermometers. All you have to do is show places like the Love Canal, Chernobyl, Los Angeles, any toxic waste dump, oil soiled places like the BP spill in the gulf and other areas of the world. I know people will be more receptive to cleaning up our mess.

    To levy a tax on CO2 is just utter stupidity, and reveals the true nature of these claims.

    They want our money any way they can get it from us. That has absolutely nothing to do with Global Warming. It has everything to do with how much bullshit can we eat before we realize the government doesn’t care about anything, or anybody as long as their insatiable appetites are met.

  • artistbeing

    I had to read this again, and my goodness, Dr. Paul, it’s so refreshing. Behold, the use of reason in a desert of anti-intellectualism and fear. Now how is one man, should he hold the office of President, even begin to wade through the sea of stupid to effect the needed changes without claiming a dictatorship? Things get so bad, people beg for dictators… how will RP work with the circus clowns, and fend off the corporate influence? Can he get corporate reforms to end the mandate to profit that drives business until it runs itself, and the planet off a cliff? Corporatism is an amoral cancer… short term profits means someone makes a buck even if it means destroying all we hold dear. This is madness.