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.

  • CNG_Oklahoma

    Buy American and get off foreign oil. Support HR#1380 the Nat Gas Act and use AMERICAN domestic natural gas to power our cars at 1/3 rd the price of refined gasoline!!! Natural gas requires no refining. It can be used almost exactly how it comes out of the ground as Methane. This does not affect food prices or will it increase the demand or cost of natural gas for home usage. it will also reduce green house gases as it produces 60% more energy per CO2 produced than gasoline or diesel.

  • Jeff Jacobson

    There was an ice age before the invention of the wheel!

    • Motov

      @Jeff Jacobson

      Must have invented the sled then,…lol

  • Gregor97

    Whether there is man caused global warming or not. The free market and clear property rights are the best suited to handle this situation, not some bureaucrats.


  • Friedlon7

    It’s quite simple. Ron Paul can’t go along with ‘Climate Change’. Unfortunately conceding that it’s real is the same as Copernicus saying that the earth revolves around the sun. It’s a problem that goes to the heart of the fundamental ideology of our time – free market capitalism. The last time science was so vilified for it’s unfortunate findings the church (the outstanding ideology of the time) was apoplectic with fear at the finding’s implications – The Sun does not move. Indeed it did lead to the degenerate influence of religion – particularly as the age of enlightenment quickly followed. Now science is vilified for this unfortunate finding. In every other respect from medicine to quantum physics scientists are the noblest heroes of our age. But when it comes to Global Warming they are up to something evil! Why does climate change effect capitalism so radically as to engender this hatred and distrust of science? Because capitalism is based on infinite growth ignoring the fact that earth has finite resources (unless these evil scientists can harness nuclear fusion). In the end our system will overpower the logic and the recession, wars, starvation, and human suffering will be unlike anything we’ve ever dreamed of before. 3 billion Chinese and Indian’s are entering the ‘middle class’ – that is 2 more planets we need of water and oil. As we all know we only have one planet so something has to give and it looks like the west will concede by destroying it’s own middle classes. Thus Wall Streets investment of the bail out money not on main street Boston but main street Bejing. The explosion of oil usage mirrors population explosion and it will also mirror it in reverse but in a much more brutal way and the suffering will be tremendous. So the likes of Paul have a choice – leave the army bases where they are as you’re going to need them in the race for fuel and food accelerates or bring them home and get on board with changing the monster that is capitalism and it’s consumption of finite resources including the climate. Otherwise he looks like the jolly old amiable captain of the Titanic.

    • @Friedlon7 – Nope. Dr. Paul (like most of us with a sound education in the sciences) “can’t go along with” the preposterous conjecture that global climate change is in any significant way caused by anthropogenic (man-made) increases in carbon dioxide, a trace gas in the atmosphere, regardless of the fact that CO2 has some known capacity for causing a “greenhouse” effect.

      It’s not that Dr. Paul denies that the global climate does change (and is changing), but that the methods used by the incompetent charlatans masquerading as the IPCC’s “climate science” orthodoxy are spectacularly flawed, predicated not on objectively verified (and verifiable) EVIDENCE but instead upon pure speculation.

      Rank and utter guesswork, prettied up by being run through computer programs which will yield a “hockey stick” average temperature graph when it’s been fed nothing more than random numbers. See McIntyre & McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters 2005.

      The “fundamental ideology of our time,’ bubbie, is SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which you’re blotting out with what appears to be psychopathic fervor.

      You want to push the catastrophe caterwaul of the man-made climate change fraud?

      Fine. Come up with some evidence that the very slow, very steady rebound in global average temperatures which has been going on at the very same rate since about 1700 AD (when the Little Ice Age began gradually to end) has accelerated.

      That’s your first obligation, and the principle reason why the C.R.U. e-mail correspondents exposed to the world in the and archives (see “Climategate”) refused lawful Freedom of Information demands to release to the public the raw global temperature data upon which they’d allegedly based their claims of an extraordinary planetary warming trend which came – surprise! – to a crashing halt in 1998 even as the Keeling curve showed a rapidly increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 levels.

      In his refusal to accept fraud masquerading as “science,” Dr. Paul is behaving like the conscientious physician and surgeon he’s always been.

      And you’re a complete damned fool.

      • Friedlon7

        @Tucci78 You are quoting me a climate change study by an economistfrom 2005 – 6 years ago!!!! That exactly proves my point. The church of the economists is under threat. You are taking your scientific pointers from a severely compromised source. In other words corrupted – he’s from a right wing capitalist think tank paid for by rich corporations for Christ sake. That’s like accepting the Taliban’s analysis of 9/11……. It’s an unfortunate fact of life. Noone likes it, including me but don’t quote me crap from interested billionaires ok. Science please NAASA/NASA etc

        • @Friedlon7 – McIntyre & McKitrick (Geophysical Research Letters, 2005) is an analysis of statistical method. Econometricians (like McKitrick) and mathematicians (like McIntyre) are eminently qualified to conduct such analyses, as methods of statistical assessment are key to much of the work such professionals undertake

          You’re trying to disregard McKitrick’s work in this area for no other reason than that his doctorate is in economics?

          Not because there’s anything invalid in the work cited (or his other work in the area of paleoclimate reconstruction), which you do NOT question or even consider, but because he’s an economist?

          Or that “he’s from a right wing capitalist think tank paid for by rich corporations”?

          Er, have you ever encountered the concept in logic known as “argumentum ad hominem” at any time in what we’ll laughingly call your academic career?

          ‘Fess up, putzie. You’re actually a skeptic posing as an AGW alarmist – a blatantly INCOMPETENT, completely idiotic, drooling “Liberal” fascist mental cripple of an alarmist – simply to project a stereotypical image of warmista haplessness.

          I mean, if you were really this hideously screwed up, we’d be discussing how best to part your body out to people in need of organ transplants, ’cause you’d be brain-dead.

        • Friedlon7

          @Tucci78 Wow! Incredible but not surprising how quickly you jumped from debate to sissy-hysterical personal rant. Calm down and stop reaching for the stereotypes. Their professions and motives are severely compromising therefore it’s not ‘pure’ science and have since been discredited by no less than the likes of NASA. Sorry for gatecrashing with the consensus that even these think tanks have now accepted. NewsFlash – Even they have moved the argument from man made which everyone now accepts to the severity of the effects. That was then (2005) and this is now (2012). You are basically saying that the entire academic field of science is either A) involved in giant conspiracy or B) incompetent (although you accept the findings of an economist and a mining lobbyist!!!!). Let’s be reasonable at least and ease off the personal attacks – it’s just too like you. Only a fool accepts the analysis of parties of vested interest. Please refer me to peer reviewed papers and studies by climatologists that support your position and we can discuss it further then.

        • @Friedlon7 – Whenever you get around to engaging in reasoned debate (you certainly haven’t yet, have you?), you’ll find yourself accorded something other than merry contempt.

          Until then, get used to what your conduct warrants.

          When you quit stumbling into the logical fallacies of argumentum ad hominem and argument from authority (burbling that McIntyre & McKitrick’s works, for example, “have since been discredited by no less than the likes of NASA” instead of addressing precisely WHAT there might be in their publications which invalidate their methods and conclusions), you’ll be engaging in debate.

          Until then? You’re just shoveling bullshit.

          Yet another logical fallacy is your hilarious effort to claim that I’d stated “…that the entire academic field of science is either A) involved in giant conspiracy or B) incompetent.”

          Nah. As the Climategate communications (and “cooked” datasets and incompetently doctored climate simulation computer coding) demonstrate, the small minority of entrenched “climate science” charlatans upon whom the IPCC has been relying to peddle its prevarications HAVE indeed been concerting their malpractice and ethical malfeasances. Does that qualify them under prevailing criminal codes for charges of conspiracy?

          Heck, it looks that way, doesn’ t it?

          But taking the C.R.U. quacks as representative of “the entire academic field of science” is ludicrous. They’ve always been a small, tightly-knit cadre of quacks pretending to speak authoritatively on the basis of no EVIDENCE supporting their conjectures.

          That word again, schmucklet. EVIDENCE. As in what you warmist dorks have never had to support your howling and baboon bouncing-about.

          Want “peer-reviewed papers,” idiot? Look up Lindzen and Choi (on the ERBE satellite observations, 2009), Baliunas, Curry, and a bunch of other – honest, methodologically sound – investigators all through the climate science discipline.

          Or don’t. You don’t do well in confronting reality, do you?

        • Friedlon7

          @Tucci78 Ah That says it all – Climategate The greatest red herring of them all and you’re still clinging to it’s coat tails (the scientists cleared of any wrong doing). You are simply out of touch with present state of the debate. I repeat even your ‘side’ of the argument (the non scientific or peer reviewed corporate funded) have now accepted man made global warming. As recently as a month ago the oil industry corporate funded Berkeley study came out with unfortunate findings that it’s happening and even they accepted it. ( As I said you’re miles behind even your own contemporaries. The argument has now shifted to how much the climate will change. Catch up and we’ll talk. A very discernible pattern is emerging here. You have just grabbed desperately at the 3 big skeptics sticks that have been lieing around for years now even tho in reality they’ve all been discredited. Climate gate was the last straw in my respect for your ‘argument’- it’s a fallacy. Well documented. It was a total cul de sac which unfortunately too many people have still not been able to negotiate their way out of. Why? Because their fervent ideology has disabled them. You have therefore brought us right back to my original point. If this were a game of chess the US should leave it’s bases where they are because as the neo con planners realise they’re gonna need them in the coming century to secure the supply of energy to maintain US domination in the turmoil that is about to hit. Energy depletion, Climate change, Wall street’s betting on Asia not America, Overpopulation. A civilisation emerges cause of it’s production of excess energy – Mongols/horses, Egypt/Nile, Rome/Slaves, Inca’s/Canals, British/Coal and the US -OIL. Therefore you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Left wing/Right Wing – all bullshit. The big game is afoot. Who will control the near future will not do so acting legally/fairly/with human rights in mind. If you withdraw your armies and don’t change your uber-consumerist ways you will die as a nation within a decade. Your already on the ropes and china owns you. If it calls in the debt and you don’t have the army to tell them to fuck off your dead. So wake up from the dream of argueing about climate change and get with reality. Cheny/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld were bastards but certainly not stupid. They were playing the big game – ruthlessly. You can hang on to your ideology but the price is US blood, War and more War. You can’t have it both ways.

        • @Friedlon7 – Nah, it’s Climategate the most spectacular exposure of a systematic fraud in the history of human endeavor.

          The revelation of information criminally withheld from public scrutiny by the administration of the Climatic Research Unit in defiance of U.K. freedom of information laws, demonstrating (as if those of us in the sciences ever really needed such demonstration) of concerted efforts undertaken by a small body of politically motivated liars in violation of all professional ethical codes and standards, not only perverting the editorial and peer-review process in the scientific literature but also duplicitously doctoring observational data (a dessert concoction of “fudging” and “cherry-picking”) and faking up computer “climate models” which bear the same relationship to reality as does the CGI fakery used to make Harry Potter fly through the air on his broomstick.

          Yeah, Climategate sticks right up your personal ass like a broken bottle, doesn’t it? Jeez, no wonder you dread the mention of those wonderful behind-the-scenes looks at your Potemkin Village of a pretense of scientific validity.

          Look, let’s get away from your “Liberal” fascist ravings and into the science – or, rather, the LACK of scientific validity – behind the hysterically ludicrous crap of the anthropogenic global warming fraud.

          Yet again, where’s your EVIDENCE that man-made emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere have caused (or could cause) enough trapping of insolated thermal energy to adversely affect the world’s climate?

          Not wishful thinking, not yanked-out-of-your Watermelon ass conjecture, not “let’s destroy industrial civilization ’cause it makes fat-headed Friedlon7 feel ever so much better,” but EVIDENCE.

          Y’know, like the evidence that packs and with rich, delicious proof that you and all the rest of your leftie-luser Luddite co-religionists are the enemies of humanity and deserve to be prosecuted for criminal fraud.

        • Friedlon7

          @[email protected] At this juncture we desperately need rational, depersonalised debate on the right way proceed as all this left/right tribalism has brought us to the edge. Ron Paul seems the best candidate to smash the corporate strangle hold on the US future (which is all our future’s). Even tho half his policies I instinctively can’t agree with, I think at this point in our unfolding trauma as a civilisation we should finally put to bed the argument between state and private sector juristiction so if Paul gets in and does withdraw government influence/spending/bailouts/military/etc,etc, in other words the 100% libertarian philosophy, I would welcome it 100% because it’s time we tried it without compromise and either it works – fantastic and we embrace it, or it doesn’t, we drop it finally and we try another option. Personally I think he’s got principles, intelligence, honour and at least he sees the stagnation of the 2 party dictatorship in the US. He not only sees it but says it – unthinkable for other politicians and that’s inspiring people. Democracy is hanging on by a thread – we all saw it in the way Paul was sidelined and ridiculed by mainstream media the last time around, just as Nader was kept illegally out of the debates etc. It’s proto-fascism – no free media = no democracy. Having said that I believe (and this is what I’m here to discuss) there is a fatal flaw in this hands off approach – we can’t continue to base our societies on unlimited consumerism and the Climate problem goes to the heart of that. When ideology preceeds science you get problems. Anyone, atheist or believer can be a Darwinist but it’s a pre-requisite to be a Godbeliever to be a Creationist. It seems to me it’s a pre-requisite to be a Libertarian to deny the science of GW. The ideology comes before the analysis and therefore the science is made fit with the belief not the other way round. The case of evolution however does not effect our future in the critical way GW does and therefore it’s a matter of urgency to address this problem. How do we reconcile GW (regulation of consumption) with Capitalism (unlimited consumption)? I don’t agree that Capitalism will find the solution alone. After all most of the major developments from the internet to Nuclear power have been state funded and then passed into private hands.

    • Motov

      @Friedlon7 First off we are NOT capitalists, at least not anymore, Corporatism replaced that. Secondly, You would do much better changing this to a pollution problem and how that affects our health. Places like the Love Canal, Chernobyl, etc are far more difficult to disprove. Capitalism will find a cure better than any other system.

      They will make “Green Technology” more efficient, and less costly than any other way.

      Because they are profit motivated, Government is anything but efficient.

      To achieve this we must remove the red tape so they can do what they do best.

      • @[email protected] – Speak for yourself, son.

        I’m sure as hell a “capitalist,” if by capitalist is meant an individual committed to the protection of individual property rights as manifest in a voluntary market exchange of goods and services.

        Curiously enough, both the Love Canal pollution episode AND the Chernobyl radiation release were not the responsibility of private citizens acting as such.

        The Chernobyl fission plants were run by the government of the Soviet Union, of a design only secondarily productive of electrical energy. The real purpose of those graphite reactors was to create fissile materials for the manufacture of nuclear warheads.

        Light water reactor designs (as are developed and used by private companies for generating electricity in these United States) have neither the ability to refine weapons-grade fissile materials nor the susceptibility to fire and containment breech as occurred at Chernobyl.

        And the toxic waste in the Love Canal depository was effectively sealed by the private company which owned the property. It was only after the local government condemned the property in order to build upon it (which the original owners had refused to allow) AND BREACHED THE CONTAINMENT that groundwater and soil contamination occurred.

        In both cases, government officers – acting irresponsibly and without regard for adverse consequences – were the culprits.

        Can’t blame either of ’em on “capitalism.”

        The word you’re looking for, instead, is “statism.”

        • Friedlon7

          @[email protected] It is very interesting also that the poisonous tint to American public debate which verges on the vitriolic also enters your argument so easily and against which, if I’m not mistaken, Ron Paul has railed for years. You can’t be expected to be taken as a reasonable ‘gentleman’ worthy of being taken seriously while flinging personal insults etc. I think it’s a very American trait which is most unsavoury, epidemic on the internet and endemic to US society with the unbelievably combative negative campaigning, and the likes of Coulter being allowed barely concealed violent intentions towards other descent members of your society that happen to have a different opinion. I find it really disturbing and to be honest doesn’t belong on the web site of such an honourable and descent man as Ron Paul.

        • @[email protected] – Is there a point toward which this fat-headed Friedlon7 dickless wonder is aiming?

          Nah! Into a discussion of the difference between capitalism and statism – the actions of private citizens interacting voluntarily versus government officers imposing coercion upon private citizens to impoverish and endanger society as a whole – we get from the fat-headed Friedlon7 purest irrelevant bullshit, spattered freely and indiscriminately all over the place.

          Can’tcha just hear “The Internationale” playing in the background as the fat-headed Friedlon7 caresses an ice axe and dreams of sinking it into Leon Trotsky’s skull?

          Gawd, ya gotta love the “Liberal” fascist, if only in the sense that a herpetologist loves rattlesnakes and cobras and other unthinkingly murderous vipers.

          You’re right about one thing, fat-head. Dr. Paul’s a pretty nice guy. Always has been.OB/GYN specialists tend to be like that

          Me? I’m the guy running the Emergency Department, who has to take care of the homeless people on frozen nights, the battered wives, the sick little kids.

          You want to destroy the civilization created by capitalism upon which these poor people depend.

          Dr. Paul will play nice with you. I’ll just treat you as a malevolent son-of-a-bitch who’s threatening my patients.

          Primum non nocere, fat-head.

        • Motov

          @[email protected]

          Yup,.. if you really want to screw up something,…just allow the government to get involved.

          I was trying to point out capitalism is superior to any other system.

        • @[email protected] – The reason for capitalism’s superiority is that it really isn’t any kind of system at all.

          The best way to understand real capitalism (as opposed to Clyde Wilson’s unsatisfactory characterization of “state capitalism” in his essay *The Republican Charade: Lincoln and his Party*) is as a self-regulated voluntary exchange of goods and services which coheres as a “system” only insofar as these exchanges tend with high reliability to coordinate the purposeful activities of increasing numbers of people who consciously decide to “get in on a good thing.”

          Look up Leonard Reed’ s gentle essay “I, Pencil” online at, from the final paragraph of which I quote:

          “The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society’s legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed.”

        • Friedlon7

          @[email protected]@Motov Climategate has been investigated by the following bodies among others and the scientists involved have been completely exonerated of ANY wrong doing. Penn state University, American Association for the Advancements of Sciene, American Geophysical Union, British Met Office, University of Chicago, London School of Economics, United States National Academy of Sciences, University of Edinburgh, American Meteorological Society, House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, USEPA, United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, Christian Science Monitor, National Science Foundation.

          Those of interested in a first hand account of the incident should watch the following

          Finally a quote from AA Leiserowitz of Yale ‘Climategate had a significant effect on public beliefs in global warming and trust in scientists. The loss of trust in scientists, however, was primarily among individuals with a strongly individualistic worldview or politically conservative ideology. Nonetheless, Americans overall continue to trust scientists more than other sources of information about global warming.’ Which leads us right back to my original point. This case and the death threats to scientists show an ideological impasse such as Copernicus faced with his own unfortunate discovery. Despite the smokescreen and the flat earth theorists the science is overwhelming and eventually we are all going to have to deal with reality, not a world the way we wish it was but as it actually is.

      • Friedlon7

        @Motov Hey Motov. I’d be interested to hear your opinion on the above and didn’t know how to tag…

  • Kentrailer

    I find it quite amazing that this entire thread is devoid of any talk about the obvious geoengineering that is taking place in our sky (more commonly called chemtrails).This large-scale and secret global (NATO) spraying operation has been going on in a large scale since 1996.

    Also, HAARP is known to locally heat areas of the ionosphere- so, why isn’t this talked about when we talk about anthropromorphic global warming?

    • @Kentrailer

      I agree with you, and I did allude to the chemical spraying in some of my posts, but the response was not very good. It appears that those that respond appear to think it’s just condensation vapor, nothing else. I didn’t even want to introduce HAARP for that reason. My belief is that when you shock people, their defenses go up and refuse to even think about it with open mind. Maybe incrementally, they can be discussed and accepted as real man-made phenomenas.

    • swordfish86

      First time I had heard of it, thanks for bringing it up! @Kentrailer

    • @Kentrailer – Support for these assertions, putzie?

      The reason why “this thread is devoid of any talk about…chemtrails” is that there is no EVIDENCE of any such “geoengineering…taking place in our sky.”

      Just as there is no EVIDENCE supporting the fantastical anthropogenic global warming conjecture.

      Why should we discuss the fantasy upon which you’re fixated in a thread crafted to assess an entirely different fantasy – more properly characterized as a concerted fraud – anyway?

  • Peter E

    CO2 constitutes around 0.039% of Earth’s atmosphere, and at worst humans are estimated to contibute around 6% of that total 0.039%, which means we humans are responsible for 0.0024% total. That is such a small amount, it doesn’t seem credible that 0.0024% of Earth’s atmosphere could have such a big effect. No, if climate change is influenced by man it has to be not just CO2.

    • TheReelDeal

      @Peter E soo, if you think that .039% of something is too small amount to hurt anything. What do you think would happen if .039% of your body was poison. Do you think that wouldn’t hurt you? Because it is such a small percentage?

  • DavidAndrewHoward

    Climate change’ was agreed on officially behind closed doors to replace the original ‘global warming’, technically as an abbreviation of the term ‘Climate change due to global warming’, as it described the problem they were imagining. Then when it didn’t warm they realised they couldn’t maintain that any longer although without the associated global warming the term is now empty and meaningless. Climate cannot exist without changing, it’s like saying ‘Temperature change’.

    A quick summary of the statistics, besides the man made CO2 being no more than 3% of the total, and that amount itself not being capable of more than a 1C rise at a doubling without what the climatologists told us would be positive feedback, ie replacement of a mild greenhouse gas with a major one, water evaporated from the sea.

    50% more CO2 is now present than pre-industrial, and we are not even waiting for the feedback to come, we’re packing our bags and going home. The 0.8C rise since 1850 tells everyone who can count there is no feedback, and the studies did not allow for a delay built in. In fact the correlation between the temperature and CO2 rise has been very rough, while incredibly close to solar activity and regardless of CO2 output by man methane figures follow it pretty faithfully as well which is nothing to do with us.

    There are millions (I am not exaggerating here) of factors behind our temperature, major and minor, long and short term. Finally, there is a little known number behind the oceanic oscillation currents which causes endless cooler and warmer cycles. The time is around 60 years. A warm one began around 1978. Michael Mann’s hockey stick diagram did not show temperatures as were, (these figures are protected by a legal injunction and have never been released) but averaged to a point at 1980. This seems innocent enough until you discover he used a 30 year smoothing average which started right when one cycle ended (cool) and another began (warm). The result of these changes meant the graph doubled the rise and fall as it COMPARED THE TEMPERATURES WITH THE LOWEST POINT OVER THE SERIES.

    Of course this meant that by using the lowest spot as your base, all higher temperatures were not compared with the 60 year total, where the warm and cool periods cancelled each other out, but the rises and falls were exaggerated by 100%. Of course, being a climatologist, Mann et al knew about this 60 year cycle so unless extremely negligent (and not just them but the peer reviewers) placing an anomaly point right at the exact spot which would make them look twice as bad was not only almost certainly a deliberate trick (it has been mentioned in passing in the new climategate emails) but has taken this long to be deciphered. The genuine figures in fact are about half what Al Gore tells us as a result as anomalies, unlike direct measurements, can be falsified.

    • @DavidAndrewHoward

      You seem very knowledgeable on this subject matter and I agree with your points. I don’t quite understand why the man-made climate change advocates never address the points such as yours and many others, which are just natural logical expressions from thinking people and scientists who are interested in facts and just explain the reasons behind these other factors and discrepancies rather than just supplant rational thinking with IPCC’s script and ad hominems.

      • DavidAndrewHoward

        @[email protected] Thanks, my discovery is that while we need the scientists to generate the figures and understand how they all interact, if presented clearly anyone can logically work out what the data means themselves. This is not a complicated theory, only the climate itself is complicated. When we both find the scientists themselves disagree, and present clear explanations we can all understand, then like a jury we are all qualified and capable, and as we have two different claims by equally qualified sides then they simply can’t both be right.

        So then we have to use our higher knowledge, logic and common sense as we can hardly trust or rely on scientists when they don’t actually agree themselves, and I’d say there are very few areas beyond something like string theory or dark matter (which is possibly their method of saying ‘we’ve missed something or made a huge mistake and we’d better give it a name so people think we’ve sorted it out) anyone can’t follow in the same way.

        • DavidAndrewHoward

          @SoCold cont

          It is extremely sneaky to take something we can’t judge directly and claim it’s up a gumtree. No one, not even Michael Mann, is able to stand on a single spot on the planet and say ‘I can see the climate’s changed since 1970/1990 or whenever. It’s impossible by definition. So people have to take the trouble to check for themselves. Before the internet this was hardly possible, and now it is how many do? 0.01% maybe? People read the news and if it’s written by a scientist they trust it. Until another scientist says the opposite. Then you check for yourself like a casting vote. I did that after a few years when Hansen’s ridiculous claims had been made and I wanted to follow them up. When I discovered the temperature and sea levels simply hadn’t gone up any more than 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 years ago alarm bells rang. Something didn’t fit and I investigated further. Ten years on and I have a website with pages of data and an article written looking for a publisher of how the whole nasty mess fits together. Science aside, when people realise one by one reading my data how they may have been cheated when enough people resonate with what may have happened to them then there will be a band of angry converts.

          Besides the science, which regardless of what our sponsored friend above from NASA claims is leaving out every single element we learnt at school of observation and deduction, the politics behind it stretches back for decades and believe me has absolutely nothing to do with the climate. If it wasn’t the climate it would be something else found to serve the same function. They want to control the countries of the world to run it as an open prison (the global elite, all names on my earlier link, and all claims published in full by the sources directly) and as the vast majority of people ‘don’t do science’ they have managed to fool many people for a very long time, but as based on junk cannot last forever however much it is propped up by George Soros’ four PR companies (Fenton Communications, Environmental Media Services, RealClimate and Move On. He also has a $811 million stake in Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company. Why? Because the climate policies restrict the use of oil so shoot the price up of a limited asset. They are not stupid and we must be even cleverer to beat them.

  • Motov

    Well, what a lively debate!

    I think that thermonuclear power plant some 93 million miles away has more to do with GW than anything else. The second greatest climate changing force would go to volcanoes, Al Gore is wrong with saying volcanoes increase GW. One only needs to read about the 1815 explosion of Tambora.

    It sent about 36 cubic miles of material into the sky, which dropped global temperatures some 5 to 10 degrees fahrenheit. Tambora’s explosion was 10 times bigger than Krakatoa and more than 100 times bigger than Vesuvius or Mount St. Helens. Approximately 100,000 died in its shadow.

    Krakatoa blew up in 1883, and also dropped global temps. I think we are going to experience a cooling due to the Volcanoes in Iceland, South America, and other places that happened earlier this year. I don’t think man can compete with what both the sun and volcanoes do in terms of GW/GC.

    CO2 is not as dangerous as other chemicals we release into our environment.

    If anything the GW people would do much better if they shift their focus to the pollution problem we create by pointing out smog and toxic substances and how it affects our health,…rather than say our planet is getting too hot. Evidence like the Love Canal, Chernobyl, etc would be more difficult to disprove.

    I remember back in the 1970’s we were told (as fact) we were going into another ice age, and now they changed their minds. This alone tells me they do not have a clue what is going on.

    There are far too many unknowns to make such a claim. If another “Tambora type” volcano blew up,

    GW would not be an issue, instead we would be busy trying to feed ourselves like in 1816.

    • @Motov

      You make perfect sense, it all seems logical. As the volcanic ashes spew, it blocks the solar radiation to dramatically cool the surface temperature. This is what I was suggesting with aerosolized particulates spraying (which I do admit is man-made, however not the men political forces are implicating) These arguments as such are enough to dispute the current man-made connection and displace it behind natural phenomenon like the sun. Obviously more research is required before yelling bloody murder.

  • Could you perhaps, with all your connections within NASA and NOAA, provide links to studies from specific people from NASA and NOAA supporting man-made GW with some information about their credentials?

    My understanding of IPCC is that they don’t submit their research to interested parties outside of their own community. 3rd party researchers who are interested in examining their THEORIES are doing so based on some of the claims IPCC project through the media, journals and documents like Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”. IPCC appears very secretive in protecting their data. Don’t they have confidence in their own work to share with their peers on how they arrived at their theory? Or are they just trying to hide something from the public?

    The link I’ve provided in another comment lists individuals with specific claims which, based on their credentials, should be considered valid and therefore should be scrutinized with IPCC’s data set, but are not. My common sense tells me the third partys’ points seem legitimate enough, but the IPCC’s total disregard for their views says a lot. I thought research is about an exhaustive open-minded journey to reach a common goal. But the goal now appears politically obscured. With nobody from the pro-man-made GW making any rationale arguments for the things I’ve listed before, such as IPCC’s neglect for using solar flares in their research. The ability of H2O to retain much more heat than CO2, and others. But it seems clear that they will never be addressed properly because it will clearly disprove the theory that man-made GW is cause by CO2 as the primary greenhouse gas.

  • ExLonghorn

    Very good points, patrick.

    I think a real problem is that while NASA and NOAA do some very good work (I have friends there as well) they do it at a high cost in most cases. The X PRIZE competition is a decent example of how it can be done more efficiently. We also outsourced our payload launches to other countries. While I don’t like that any more than you do, it IS an option.

  • DavidAndrewHoward

    Agenda 21, degrowth, the Club of Rome, all fully documented and published sources and all set to destroy the world economy and siphon trillions to those we know and don’t know behind the policies who already have more than they could spend if they lived to 5000.

    Ron Paul is indeed one of the only elected politicians worldwide who has seen through and condemned the false scare of man made warming. The figures do not support it, and whatever is or isn’t happening 20 years of taxing energy has not reduced the rise of CO2 one percent so although the policy has had long enough to see it hasn’t worked they ramp it up even higher.

    If he does not get us out of this mess then who will? Do any of his competitors hold such a view? Mitt Romney only weeks ago was repeating the standard IPCC message till he realised skepticism was more popular. You don’t change a long held view like that and mean it. And who made a film about saving the planet from global warming? Newt Gingrich. These leopards change their coats five times a day if required but never the spots underneath. In the end you choose someone you can trust to keep to their plans, like them or not, or someone who can say what enough people want to hear to get them elected and then do the same as Obama and screw you all over. Except Obama said he would. “We will all have to pay more for energy” was his early message, and you all bought it, literally. Ron Paul is the antidote. And what did you gain from Iraq? Anything? And Afghanistan? And were either of them likely to invade your country?

    All big clues someone is not working for his masters but for himself. Look for all the differences, they are the clues. And if everyone else is doing something (eg bailing out the banks) it does not mean it is right. Has that helped any country that did it or have their debts just shot up for the next few decades? If a politician says something different don’t assume they’re mad or wrong, check out the information yourself. Much of world events are not what they seem on the surface and global warming is not even a world event but created to allow a world carbon tax, world government to administer it and a world carbon currency which only lasts a year at a time.

  • Those of you who are not familiar with Agenda 21, below is a link which details a quick summary of the consequences of what would and is currently underway if the governments controlled EVERYTHING, especially the environmental aspects. Every candidate is pro-Agenda 21 with the exception of Ron Paul. All our policies reinforce the incorporation of Agenda 21 into our lives, and this “green” movement is perfectly in concert with this movement:

    So the answer to our current environmental dilemma is found within all of us and our persistence to crush tyranny wherever it may rear its ugly head. Don’t rely on information created by the establishment such as the publicly-unelected-by-the-people UN, founded by the members of the CFR, which was the brainchild of the Rockefellers, who also was responsible for the Federal Reserve System, World Council of Churches, American Medical Association, and major share holders for all the major chemical and pollution industries like Dow chemicals, DuPont, Exxon and BP to assess environmental issues for us. If you don’t connect the dots and see the big picture, HUMANITY will suffer.

  • smitley

    I am a huge Ron Paul advocate but I beleive he needs to drastictly reevaluate his stance on protecting our natural environment

    • swordfish86

      I think he’s smart enough to look over the most recent findings; I agree with you and he does need to revisit this topic. @smitley

    • @smitley

      If your solution to the environment is with the status quo, then you are so wrong. Our environment is contaminated beyond belief. All the GMO’s, pesticides, toxins, and the likes of Gulf Oil disaster happened with all these over-reaching arms like EPA, FDA, DOE and other agencies of the bloated US government. This takes the responsibility away from the individuals, and accomplishes nothing substantial to our environment. If Paul is elected, he’ll re-establish the individual’s priority over a violating corporation in a heartbeat, if he’s not, it’s going to be business as usual. The choice is ours and it requires the lazy individuals to get off of their comfy chairs and participate in our government, and stop expecting to be spoon fed. Each person has the right, under the US Constitution to be protected in their person and property. It’s simple, but requires vigilance. Ron Paul may not have the same views as you do, but any other candidate will surely bring more disaster in our ecosystem, especially the contamination of our food supply. Because if I was a farmer and my crop was contaminated by Monsantos franken-plants, I would sue the company out of business, but if you’re status quo, they will just keep mucking up our beautiful planet like they were doing for the past 50 years or so with no concern for the individual.

    • micka


      I agree with you also. This is almost a deal breaker for me, but I trust that pols from states that suffered terribly from pre-EPA pollution will bring him to his senses. There is no way you or I can rely on the courts to address these issues for us unless we are billionaires. It must be regulated at a national level because air and water flow do not respect state borders. Do the regs need revision? Sure. Do they need elimination. NO.

  • micka

    SoCold, you may be too young to remember that prior to the advent of the EPA, there were basically no controls on polluters, and cases brought against the corporations doing the polluting suffered years of obfuscation and delay by teams of corporate lawyers. Individuals harmed by the pollutants simply suffered the damage because no one knew what was in the offending compounds. I have progressive nerve damage from exposure to ag chemicals, which forced my reluctant retirement from a wondreful career. I cannot sue because we don’t know which chemicals were in what, only that those of us working in sprayed areas have this disabling after effect. When the Cuyahoga River caught fire, who got sued? Who paid the damages? No one. EPA forced the cleanup, not law suits. EPA forced the cleanup of smokestacks, too, which was supposedly going to be so expensive and put companies out of business. All BS. Actually it created a whole new industry – a clean one. Note the reduced incidence of deaths from smog.This is where Dr Paul is dead wrong in his proposals.

    • @micka

      It is tragic that you were victimized by this incident. But my contention is that the US Constitution gives the individual the upper hand over any Corporations as long as the individual remains vigilant. US has become a welfare state for everyone to shrug their responsibility towards some government agency which tries to appease certain portions of the population in relegating their individual rights expressed in our Constitution. It is not necessarily the fault of the individual that our government has so crafted itself incrementally into a monolith through many shady dealings with powerful Corporations, so that the public is unaware and feel powerless over it. Because our government is directed by the very corporations which the government is suppose to protect us from, it becomes a moot point to attack a corporation on an individual level because we lost it through the likes of EPA and their blanket solutions which don’t speak for everyone, especially the individual.

      The cleaner air might have something to do with the US’s manufacturing export, which coincidentally came around the same time within a decade or so, but they turned a blind eye on the unconstitutional nano-particulate spraying all over the country and the world. Nevertheless, EPA is useless in bankrupting these environmental violators as they continue to make profits over the safety of people. There are many superfund sites all over the country which has yet to be cleaned up, but these companies still persist. EPA’s slap on the wrist policy is not working. At least with individuals, under Constitutional rule of law, violating companies could be run into the ground, which could set precedents for other companies to follow.

  • ExLonghorn

    Yea, that’s why we have lawyers. But this all assumes that an economic penalty is adequate to prevent pollution, negligence, malpractice, etc. If you’re of a lower economic state, then the penalty for acting poorly is really inadequate because Paul’s views would potentially remove many government regulations that also have criminal penalties. There must be parities between torts and remedies. and in many cases there are economic torts that merit criminal penalties. Also, what if the defendant is unable or refuses to pay the judgement and declares bankruptcy? Sounds like bankruptcy should be eliminated as well. Is this something RP favors? I really want to vote for RP, but some of these things are concerning.

    • @ExLonghorn

      You make a valid argument. It is without a doubt, under the current regime, which has been in place for the last century, created the EPA, FDA and others in order to quell the public into complacency and trust. But people’s perception of the government protecting them from harm is as most Paul supporters realize, is a lie. These alphabet divisions of the government are just PR puppets and agents of the controlling minority from the very corporations and institutions from whom the government was to protect us from. Mr. Paul’s version of the government, a Constitutional one, requires the participants to be more vigilant. To make a case against your hypothesis, I like to offer a hypothetical solution in terms of real world issues. Lets say Monsanto created a neurotoxin in their pesticide called Roundup. This pesticide is sprayed all over the country with complete disregard for the consequences for the populace or the environment. The MSDS for the ingredients does label the compounds as such, but their ability to manufacture and distribute this internationally goes unabated by the government, because most people “trust” the current regime and feel that the government is doing their job and the public does not even think twice about the ill effects from Roundup. In most people’s eyes it’s safe. If we were to take Paul’s case, where Constitution dictates the proper course of action, the people can file a class action lawsuit against Monsanto for creating this toxin which spreads into their foods and water. The cost of such litigation can be substantial. But the lawyers can compete amongst each other for the lowest rates and offer to charge fees only upon winning a case. And there are a lot of lawyers who will take this opportunity. The government needs only to pay for the court system, which I believe was always the case. And if the penalty requires in addition to the monetary amount and outlawing these toxins, then we as a people have won a battle.

      • ExLonghorn

        @SoCold SoCold, I do understand Paul’s point regarding personal property rights and the role of the courts. I question if that’s enough. If I get cancer from Monsanto’s product, no amount of money is going to fix that. I am an engineer, but I can’t understand all the effects of all possible chemical combinations, so I’m left to trust that corporations will not harm me because it’s not in their economic self-interest to do so. This isn’t always the case. There are TONS of cases (PG&E) where corporations do things that knowingly harm some population, directly or indirectly. At times, there’s even a cost-benefit analysis…the cost of cleanup is greater than the expected cost of litigation. This isn’t an acceptable calculus for corporations to make. This is why criminal penalties MUST be allowed. Without laws (regulations) that allow for criminal charges to be brought, how do criminal charges untilmately get filed by those truly responsible for the torts in question. For example, Enron defrauded investors. The power of that case wan’t the fact that Enron went bankrupt (the economic penalty for their actions). Lay and Skilling went on trial for a broad range of financial crimes, including bank fraud, making false statements to banks and auditors, securities fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, and insider trading. Those laws are the result of regulations passed regarding banking and and securities, and the departments (Treasury, SEC, FTC) that enforce them. Can we get criminal penalties as remedies to these kinds of crimes without the regulations and regulatory agencies that propose, enforce, and prosecute them?

        • @ExLonghorn

          It would be unfortunate if you did get cancer from Monsanto. And you are correct, this would not constitute a justice for you per se, but for many others, if you were to bring Monsanto to the courts and win, which you would under the strict rule of Constitution, and not under EPA nor FDA stronghold, you would be seen as a hero. But because FDA and EPA put themselves up on a higher pedestal for the public to trust, this will not happen, and you would not get to take Monsanto to the courts and win. This is because these government offices are superfluous and waste the limited government resources. The small government which protects the individual is minimal but not limited in its power and scope. The bureaucracies which keep layering upon itself, like EPA, FDA, SEC, FTC, and others are all unnecessary to protect the individual, as you have said, even with these oversight in place, we still have a mess like Enron and Corporate abuse like the PG&E, Dow, DuPont, and others. It doesn’t work. Why not just give the Constitution a try before you layer more extraneous laws upon laws. Constitution is simple and easy for people to understand. The SEC regulations are complex and people will relegate their due diligence to others for matters which can be simplified and transparently seen through the Constitutional rule of law. The protection is already there, people need to take more active role in order to make the best use of it. Stop depending on fallible self-interest minded bureaucracies, which does not really serve the public. They’re all broken, People need to start taking responsibility and initiative for themselves in utilizing the excellent document called the US Constitution.

        • micka

          @[email protected]

          The cost-benfit thing has always been an issue. How valuable is your life and health? Not very to a corporate push to do somethng even if it causes morbidity and mortality. It is so easy for them just to “settle” leaving the issue unresolved. Look at the downstream damage done by coal mines, uranium mines, etc. Did anyone do anything when Black Mesa mine started poisoning Navajo sheep, the main livelihood for hundreds of families? Nope.Not enough big money for the lawyers, I guess.

  • micka

    I didn’t say that these diseases are not increasing, they are, although that is in part due to changes in reporting methods and better diagnostic techniques. I do think that you try very hard to be well informed, but you are believing what you read (like wikipedia) without doing your own research. It is the very nature of science to have different opinions and interpret data differently until the same study is repeated so many times, resulting in the same data, that it can no longer be reasonably denied. Conspiracy theory requires that you believe interpretations of data developed by others without doing your own analysis .I think pharmaceutical companies are often ripping us off, and lie about results, but if you look at the actual research their scientists are doing, it is fine work .Insulting their integrity is simply wrong. I do not put any weight on Gore’s graphs because I have not sought out the data and graphed it for myself. Consequently, I don’t care about the hockey stick. It is meaningless to me until I take the time to look at the sources, the analytical methods used, etc. You do seem to think that isvalid and important data. That is the difference in how we see the world, and I don’t imagine either of us will change our basic approach..

    • @micka

      You are wrong about my beliefs, I have an open mind that questions the status quo, and don’t accept anything coming out of the media or the government as truth. Wikipedia, is a good example where you have to use your better judgement. I don’t believe everything I read on wikipedia because they are part of the establishment, but certain things are generally acceptable, like information about certain type of insect for instance. I question the alternative media as well, but generally, there are a few that are trustworthy. But it seems obviously that you base your beliefs from a specific set of data and only trust the “experts” to deem it valid without much debate nor questioning different arguments, and feel very adamant about your stance. I truly feel sorry for you if that is your case. The real world is more complex than even what I have suggested. They’re only the tip of an iceberg. I don’t claim to know all about their agenda, but I have come across many clues to connect the dots. Everyday, I see more and more evidence that a concerted effort is continuing their agenda through every facet of our lives, and if one does not break out of their shell, one will never understand the greater threat that is upon us, and it is not climate change, instead eugenics. Have you read Agenda 21, published by the UN. How about Codex Alimentarius?. Have you heard of Georgia Guidestones? There are countless other information out there in conjunction to the proposed carbon tax, which fit the profile of their overall agenda. You just have to have an open mind and think for yourself, and not let the establishment speak on your behalf. By the way these are not conspiracy theories, they are published by the UN, and it wishes to repress humanity and ultimately cull off more people through their policies. This is what is happening now. Governments of the world are adopting UN’s policies without questions. Prescott Bush and corporation like GE and IBM financed Hitler during 1930’s because they believe in the same principles regarding eugenics. If you believe that these psychopaths were ever prosecuted, then you are uninformed. They still carry their spiel but are less obvious in their approach. Ted Turner recently admitted that he would like to see the population reduced by 95%. Today eugenics goes by the term trans-humanists or bio-ethics. Peace.

  • Barton

    Wait, Santa isn’t real?

  • micka

    You know SoCold, I probably know as much about disease patterns as you do, or maybe more since I have practiced medicine for quite awhile, and I think you are really, really wrong. Additionally, there is absolutley nothing to keep any scientist, grad student, etc from studying global warming and publishing their results. As a matter of fact, you could do this if you want to invest the time and effort. I agree that there are factors trying to influence our ideas and opinions, but I disagree that they are successful on such a wide stage. Most scientists would never, ever put up with having results dictated to them. You can see this, for example, in the number of scientists who refused to work on Reagan’s Star Wars program, because they knew it would not work as he constituted it.Or, look at the number of scientists who, although working at Los Alamos, refuse to work on weapons projects. These folks aren’t mindless puppets.

    • @micka

      I’m not wrong about the increases in the incidence of diseases such as cancer, diabetes,and others. The following site has very well organized these stats, but i’d ignore the statement regarding MSG, although the link may be possible:

      Given the increases in the rates of many diseases, what does it say about the pharmaceutical industry? Does it mean they are saving more lives or treating more patients? Does this imply that medicine is all about profit making instead of curing, and furthermore, is there a possibility that the pharmaceutical industry in the business to make you sick, so that they can sell more medicine? The answers can be found if you research properly, but do not be content with the industry’s PR answer, nor from the FDA for that matter. And again, I cannot stress this enough, Rockefellers with their oil business, uses its petrochemicals to manufacture drugs for the masses. They created the AMA to thwart natural remedies. These drug manufacturers are all either directly or indirectly controlled by the Rockefellers. The chemical industry such as Dow, DuPont and 3M are all aligned with Rockefellers and their cohorts and they create these toxins,carcinogens for the public to eat, drink, touch, and breathe. They have been at it for the past 100 or so years. It is not a coincidence that Rockefeller “conglomeration” serves itself. They are very successful at it. They are worth many trillions, hidden in these corporations, foundations and the like all tax-free, or financed by our tax dollars. This is why this corruption is so pervasive. There are no real competitions amongst the largest industrials corporations, they only create the illusion of competition for the public, just like the dichotomy of Republican and Democrat. If you are awake, you know that this is all for show, Ron Paul excepted. (Continued below)

      • @micka

        I didn’t say these scientist you speak of aren’t publishing their findings, a lot of them are but they are marginalized by the establishment, and their views are then ridiculed, so that the populace will remain in the dark about real consensus, or too lazy and just accept what the media is pushing for, which is the “alarmist” position:

        These are just some high profile scientist, there are hundreds more who disagree with IPCC’s data and methods, and its refusal to be peer reviewed before it becomes dogma. The establishment owned media will not thoughtfully present dissent.

        Finally, I must insist that you address the “Inconvenient Truth” hockey stick graph because this is a core misrepresentation which can end this charade, showing two graphs, separated. When superimposed, the CO2 levels lag the temperature increases. I know why this was done, do you?


  • micka

    SoCold, this is why I say that CO2 is only part of the problem. It is a chicken and egg question. We just don’t have all the input needed and we may never have. This is a black box model. We see output, and we see some of the input but we know we are missing data and interactions. I’m sure that you know this is common in studies of natural phenomena. Consider CO2 as one aspect of the issue.I do not think plant life will be destroyed. That is irresponsible scare tactics. The underlying concern from my standpoint is that there is visible rapid change, more rapid than millions of years of geologic history tells us is “normal”. And, this change has the potential for catastrophic consequences. So, instead of all of these interesting arguments, that no one can win (Tucci78, sKull, etc, )why don’t we take positive action and do something that is readily available to reduce our rate of running through non-renewable resources? We have disappearing glaciers, desertification, a hole in the ozone layer over Argentina and the consequent highest rate in the world of pediatric skin cancers, etc. The causes are arguable -related? unrelated? – but the effects are visible. Why don’t we turn to the new technologies that contribute to none of these problems? It is unconscionable, isn’t it? Its like saying we don’t know what causes a particular cancer, so let’s not try treating it.

    • @micka

      I say CO2 is not a problem at all. Global Warming, if it’s legitimate, should not be a consensus amongst just the UN paid scientists, but should be open to any researcher, especially ones who are not on a policy making organization payroll such as the UN. There are a lot of unanswered questions coming from the outside the establishment and we are conditioned through the media and the government to accept UN’s version as the truth. And when the solution to their hysteria is carbon tax, you have to wonder why and how is this going to curb it. As you said more studies must be done, but IPCC has has fallen on deaf ears as it has the final authority over governments to impose taxes for us to breathe. The global warming and site-specific geological anomalies may or may not be related, but to suggest that it is just tells me that you have already made up your mind.

      My belief is that the aerosol campaign redirects precipitation into a science, and projects droughts and torrential rains onto locations of “their” choosing and has little to do with GW. On the other hand, if there was no rain all over the globe for a long period of time, then I would be very concerned. I am concerned that they are manipulating the weather patterns which disrupt many farmers in the south, and believe much of it was intentional. Of course the people of affected areas would believe that it was indeed caused by GW, and not question that science can ever alter the weather to extort policy making.

      Once again I suggest that you ponder at the relationships around the Rockefellers and their ties to the CFR, UN, Oil, Banks, Pharmaceutical, Petrochemical, Religious, Agricultural, Media and many other institutions and foundations and their ability to forge policy, instigate wars, create harmful synthetic compounds, and on and on, to harm the populace, FDA approved, EPA approved substances which should be banned, but it’s not. It is very telling. And when you follow the money trail, it will lead you to the Rockefellers and the like, and their ambition to reduce the earth’s population down to 500 million. And if you think the death rate from diseases are incidental and have no relationship with those who are running this planet, then you are not well informed on this matter, as it relates to their GW agenda. As i’ve mentioned they planned on using GW idea, back in 1990 by The Club of Rome, “The First Global Revolution”, to control the masses.

      • Lite Load

        Let me point out one example where CO2 may, in fact, be a problem. As concentrations in the atmosphere increase there will be corresponding increases in aquatic environments. These increases can shift the homeostatic balance that exists. The photosynthetic community structure of our aquatic systems has evolved over long periods and provides the foundation of our food chain. Increasing available carbon, especially in conjunction with elevated P and N concentrations (byproduct of our industrialized agro system) generally favors blue-green algae. I won’t elaborate, but there is a wealth of information on the havoc wreaked by proliferation of blue green communities in aquatic systems. One tiny piece of a puzzle that is poorly understood, but will impact us tremendously – I am sure there are many others. Just because you aren’t aware of it, doesn’t mean there isn’t a [email protected] @micka

        • @Lite [email protected]

          You said it yourself, P and N concentrations as a result of Industrial activity is the culprit for algae bloom, as you can see in the China’s Yellow Sea, which is evident that CO2 is not much of or is any factor at all. If it were much of a factor, entire ocean should be mired in it, should it not? So maybe we should focus more on industrial pollution from factories instead of CO2.

  • karl1

    I agree with Dr Paul. We should not take a “sky is falling” approach to resolving this global warming issue. But he does acknowledge that we do effect climate change. We just don’t know how much. So he goes back to his roots, free market economics.