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.



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

Likes(0)Dislikes(1)

2,943 Comments:

  1. My understanding is that a conservative wishes to conserve the status quo and a radical wishes to change it.Period

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Agreed If I might clarify what I said about right wing ideology.In the dictionary it says that right wing means conservative because tje conservatives sat on tje right side of the president and the radicals on the left.

    Therefor what the ideology of the conservatives is depends on the ideology of the president and the government hence the term neocon.

    In Nazi germany a conservative would sit on the right of hitler and the seats on the left would be empty but equally in Soviet Russia a conservative would sit on the right of Stalin tjere also the left hamd seats would be empty (so to.speak)Same again in Communist China a conservative would have been one 40 years ago who believed in collectivism but now would believe in letting multinationals operate in their country(perhaps similar in a way)

    So,the ideology of conservatism changes with history and the text books are out of date.

    Just look at the way the traditional conservative values of ron Paul are considered to be radical and a threat to the neocon republican party.

    I hope that has clarified things a bit.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. @"Pon Raul" - "Tucci78 is a Birther (meaning he actually believes that the Obama birth certificate is fake)."

    Who said anything about "believes," doofus? As with the gaudy AGW fraud, there is simply no EVIDENCE presented to support the ridiculous contention that Barry Soebarkah (he gave up the name "Obama" when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro to become a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia) was born in Honolulu rather than in his home town of Mombasa.

    Were the obvious fabrications of which you speak (which the public has seen ONLY in the form of computer graphic images) placed physically in the hands of a team of trained, experienced forensic documents examiners prepared to attest under oath in a court of law, then I might credit such expert testimony as EVIDENCE that Barry Soebarkah had been born someplace other than the Coast Province General Hospital in Kenya Colony.

    As it is, what Mr. Soebarkah has shown isn't even enough to get him a driver's license in most of the several states in this republic. Tsk.

    It'd also be nice to see documents pertaining to his naturalization as a U.S. citizen after he was sent as a child to Honolulu to live with his maternal grandparents. Legal papers indicating that his name had been changed back to "Barack Hussein Obama II" would be happy-making, too, don'tcha think?

    And how can I possibly be a "bigot" if it's clear that I hate, despise, and oppose ALL "Liberal" fascists regardless of genetic heritage or phenotype?

    Your Magic Mulatto (heck, he's not even THAT much, as the Luo people of East Africa are considerably intermarried with the Arabs who have settled in that region over the past five or six centuries) is hateful not because of his moderately diminished albedo but in considerable part because he's as much a criminal as are most Cook County machine goons, and rather spectacularly more so since he slimed feloniously into a public office for which he is forbidden by law even to contend in an election.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Tucci78 AH This SAYS IT ALL... You're a fucking dimwit, bigot wanker and I knew from the first sentence I read of your putrid hate filled right wing/fascists bullshit. You are such a piece of shit. PAUL will lose because of people like you. USA is FUCKED because of idiots like you. Good Riddance you dried up old cunt.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • @Shaman4 - [yammer, yammer, spew, hysterical "Liberal" fascist squealing absent any evidence of reasoned content, storming off in a huff (we can only hope)....]

        Uh, huh. I think the expression "quod erat demonstrandum" fits neatly about these shit-for-brains, doesn't it?

        Let's all hear it for the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      • @Shaman4 - @"Pon Raul" - "*Virtual high five*"

        Not unless I double-glove first, asswipe.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @Tucci78 Tucci doesn't believe in GW. Nor does he believe in Obama's birth cert. Allan from Skye thinks Tucci78 is the love of his life. Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. It's a match made in all american heaven. Bunch of idiots.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      • @Shaman4 - Again, see above.

        Definite "copypasta." May I suggest that this warrants removal of the copied-and-pasted repetitions of this horseshit, and possibly the ISP ban of "Shaman4" until he composts?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. @experience - And the actual Livefyre handle of this clumsy asshole is demonstrated.

    How hapless are these Watermelon shit-for-brains?

    "Circumspice" ("look about you").

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. The use of heated and abusive language by participants on this forum suggests to me that belief systems are being threatened.In situations like this it appears to me that belief is inversely proportional to knowledge and the heated nature of the writings indicates a lack of knowledge more than anything else.However, I do think that if a group of people want to remove soveriegnty from the nations of the world they had better first have good scientific data to prove firstly that the planet is needing saved because of our actions and secondly that the united nations,carbon trading ,taxing etc is the only mechanism that can do this,thirdly they need to prove that the UN will have the wherewithal and technology to deliver this potentially mammoth task which by the way could have very nasty unintended consequences for the human race

    It seems to me that the history of collective initiatives in this regard so far would indicate that none of these assertions are proved and that we should therefor keep our soveriegnty intact as the constitution intended.and as most of the people in the world actually prefer.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Allan from Skye - "The use of heated and abusive language by participants on this forum suggests to me that belief systems are being threatened.In situations like this it appears to me that belief is inversely proportional to knowledge and the heated nature of the writings indicates a lack of knowledge more than anything else."

      My language in this forum is NEVER "heated." When I deal with these Watermelon lying scum, I do it in the same merry spirit as a small boy out on a sunny morning squashing stinkbugs.

      Same kind of stench from these "Liberal" fascists, for that matter.

      As for it being allegedly "abusive," that's pure nonsense. They warrant such language, do they not? They've sweated and strained and thieved and lied, they've molested children, impoverished elderly people, done everything they can to destroy the economy of industrialized civilization, precipitated financial panics, triggered the "Arab Spring" uprisings (admittedly not a bad thing in and of itself), defrauded the taxpayers, elected an illegal alien to the U.S. presidency and are trying to repeat the crime, have forced into existence legislature to make the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution null and void, and are in the process of destroying the 1st Amendment (see "SOPA" and "PIPA").

      Heavens, I could hang them, drag them still living through the sewers, tar and feather them, shoot them repeatedly, and finish up with a traditional "drawn and quartered" finish, and they'd still be getting off lightly.

      The old Imperial Chinese "death of a thousand cuts" really ought to be thrown in there someplace, if only we could figure out how to do it without diminishing the agony and humiliation of the other punishments. Maybe right before the tar-and-feathers treatment?

      Please reconsider your opinion of "heated and abusive language," and acknowledge that my conduct here is the very soul of polite restraint and moderation.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @Tucci78 Hi Tucci,I,m so glad that you didnt in fact end it all last night.You had me worried there.It would be a severe loss to us all here back on the forum.I looked up maskirovka on google since you mentioned it and found that it bore a striking similarity to the wolf in sheeps clothing emblem of the Fabians with their gradualistic tortoise that strikes hard when it eventually strikes.

        I do find the deception,dishonesty of these orwellian double speak types very distastefull.Have you checked out the Fabians.Two hundred or so of the mp,s of the British Labour Party are members of the Fabian society including Tony Blair,Gordon Brown and the current shadow leader Milliband.

        I bet theres lots of them in the USA as well.

        Of course the Fabians thought that Stalin was wonderfull and visited Russia in the thirties wide eyed with wonderment at the achievement of it all while millions were dying in slave camps on trumped up charges.

        Thats what weve got to look forward to if we dont change course.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Allan from Skye - "Of course the Fabians thought that Stalin was wonderfull and visited Russia in the thirties wide eyed with wonderment at the achievement of it all while millions were dying in slave camps on trumped up charges."

          Oh, heck, yeah, I'm familiar with the history of the Fabian Society, as well as with its sputniki here in these United States.

          "I have been over to the future and it works." (Lincoln Steffans, 1921, returning from a visit to the Soviet Union)

          "Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda." (Walter Duranty, *The New York Times*, 23 August 1933, reporting on the Holdomor in which Stalin inflicted the deaths of between eleven and thirteen million smallholding family farmers in the Ukraine).

          Other prominent contemporary Western "Liberal" deniers of the kulak murders included George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, and H.G. Wells. See http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/exhibitions/communism/com107.html for some wonderful insight into how these leftie-luser scum cuddled up to "Uncle Joe" Stalin at the height of this particular "enlightened" work of socialism.

          As I've observed before in this forum, the Watermelon types ("green on the outside, red to the core") continue without exception to show themselves bereft of any education or literacy whatsoever.

          If any of them had any kind of informed appreciation not only of how completely bogus is the AGW contention but also how utterly vicious and murderous has been the whole history of socialism as a political movement, I could only think that they would have not only repudiated their idiocies but sought to do penance in efforts to compensate their victims for all the damages they and their co-conspirators have done.

          That they have not done so is an indication that our "Liberal" fascists have the same morality and mindset as any other bunch of serial rapists and murderers, and therefore recommend treating them as enemies of the public peace everywhere and in every way they show themselves.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. pon raul,you make the common mistake of conflating fascism with right wing ideology.Fascism is Authoritarianism as opposed to the rule of law with full separation of powers.Right wing means conservative because the conservatives sat on the right hand side of the president.therefore strictly speaking there no such thing as right wing ideology since a conservative as opposed to a radical who would havesat on the left side of the president,could have any ideology depending who the president was ie Adolf Hitler,Maostetung,Obama or RON Paul.

    There is an element of authoritarianism in every government by its nature so what the argument really is ,is whether we have more authoritarianism or less authoritarianism ie more government or less government.ie more fascism or less fascism.I submit that the answer is obvious.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Anyone with the most basic knowledge of political history knows that far left can result in totalitarianism (China) while far right is fascism or in your recent history the pre-fascist regime of Bush and no doubt what you will get if the likes of Newt get in. To say that right wing has no ideology is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on the internet and that takes some doing. This is all ORWELLIAN double speak. You're posts are reeking of someone who's never travelled, never read, never conversed with anyone that has a different way of looking at the world other than what you get from your propaganda channels on American TV. You don't even know you are living in a 2 party dictatorship!! The ONLY difference between REP and DEM is health and that's cause there is an argument raging in the corporate communities about efficiency of a healthy work force. Obama continued the Bush wars, the Bush bail outs, the Bush corporatism, Bush's Israel/foreign policy, didn't close Guantanemo.... WAKE UP. What is the way we judge success? Economy? - then communism(China) is at the moment far more successful. In all other aspects of society Socialist scandanavian countries are far ahead of the rest. In US history the most prosperous era for the ordinary man was 50'60's when there was high taxes and big government investment. The migration of people from working to middle class was the biggest in history, now after 30 years of NEO-LIBERAL ideology(rightwing) the exact opposite is happening. The middle class has been destroyed by republican corporatism. YOU ALL REEK OF IDEOLOGY. Too much Glenn Beck and not enough travel.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Allan from Skye - "Fascism is Authoritarianism as opposed to the rule of law with full separation of powers."

      There are different types of authoritarianism, and it is best always to bear in mind the definition of fascism as the term was conceived and instantiated in the first half of the 20th Century.

      Bear in mind that fascism is a species of socialism. Always was, from the earliest days of socialist Benito Mussolini's political career in defining his doctrine as "fascismo." This fact really pisses off socialists in general, because most of them in the Western polities today are leftie-lusers without historical literacy, who hanker to define their political opponents (every kind) as "fascists."

      As with their spastic and unthinking use of the epithet "racist!" in any encounter with the fact that their criminal excuse for a lawful President of these United States is not even currently a citizen of our nation (much less "natural born" in the legal definition that satisfies the requirements of the U.S. Constitution), and should be deported to the Republic of Indonesia if he survives the multiple prison sentences that keep stacking up with his every day squatting on the presidential dunnie, our "Liberal" fascists conceive the word "fascist" to be a term of maximum odium, and use it with no more thought or scruple than they exhibit in stealing food from the hands of widows and orphans.

      The fundamental premise of socialism is that "society" (instantiated in almost all cases by whatever clique controls the "break things and kill people" functions of civil government) supposedly has "rights" which are superior in all cases and situations to those of the individual human being.

      Indeed, that the individual person is merely something like a "cell" in the body politic. The individual "cell" may be sloughed or even deliberately killed if it serves the benefit of the organic whole, the "society."

      Really friggin' evil, isn't it? If your standard of moral value is the individual human being, then socialism - however it's called - is so profoundly immoral that hating and opposing socialists becomes an absolute and undeniable necessity. Failure to stop these sons of bitches and thereby rescue their victims is the equivalent of chucking little children to a pack of rabid wolves.

      Because the AGW fraud serves many purposes in aid of individual human rights violation, our modern "Liberal" fascists embrace the concept and scrabble desperately to ram it down the throats of their innocent victims.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. @Experience Counts2 - Continued, quoting from:

    http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/64_07_Conjecture_to_Law.pdf

    "Just as intelligent design is a threshold question between nonscience and conjectures, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a threshold question between conjectures and hypotheses. AGW is a centuries-old conjecture elevated to an established belief by a little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate, guardians of the vault of exclusive knowledge. Does this sound familiar? Is the Consensus patterned after the Council of Trent? As a matter of science, as opposed to a matter of belief, the AGW conjecture is gathering more contradictory evidence than supporting. The layman can test it and understand its failings by applying just the few principles outlined here.

    "AGW fails the test because it is proclaimed by a consensus. Science places no value on such a vote. A unanimous opinion, much less a consensus, is insufficient. Science advances one scientist at a time, and we honor their names. It advances one model at a time. When the article gets around to saying 'most scientists believe…,' it’s time to go back to the comics section. Science relies instead on models that make factual predictions that are or might be validated.

    "AGW fails on the first order scientific principles outlined here because it does not fit all the data. The consensus relies on models initialized after the start of the Industrial era, which then try to trace out a future climate. Science demands that a climate model reproduce the climate data first. These models don’t fit the first-, second-, or third-order events that characterize the history of Earth’s climate. They don’t reproduce the Ice Ages, the Glacial epochs, or even the rather recent Little Ice Age. The models don’t even have characteristics similar to these profound events, much less have the timing right. Since the start of the Industrial era, Earth has been warming in recovery from these three events. The consensus initializes its models to be in equilibrium, not warming.

    "And there’s much, much more.

    "Anthropogenic Global Warming is a crippled conjecture, doomed just by these principles of science never to advance to a hypothesis. Its fate would be sealed by a minimally scientifically literate public."

    ===

    It has never been a question of "who is anti-science" but rather who is adherent to scientific method and who is either ensnared by a terrible blunder or perpetrating arrant fraud.

    Your "ignorance of climate science [is] on display," and you ought to be so ashamed of it that you flee this forum in disgrace.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. @ExperienceCounts2 - Continued -

    Cutting a bit further into your barrage of idiocy, let's get to: "1. Cite a specific scientific paper or a specific data set that has been altered by climate scientists. 2. In your own personal opinion, what evidence would have to be produced in order to convince you that AGW theory is correct?"

    (1) The datasets exposed in the FOIA2009.zip archive (Climategate 1.0) qualify as demonstrating purposeful corruption of surface temperature readings by the perpetrators of the AGW fraud on the payroll of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). Also verified has been evidence of pervasive database "book-cooking" at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); one example is discussed at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/ and there's a great deal more, both as a result of the SurfaceStations.org project and in other honest, open, responsibly skeptical online discussion sites all over the Web.

    (2) My "own personal opinion" is irrelevant, putzie, but in order for the AGW conjecture (because it's NOT a theory, and never has been) to be considered correct, the following must be demonstrated:

    a) The conceptual structure or "model" of how the real world works must be "...based on all data in its specified domain, with no counterexample, and incorporating a novel prediction yet to be validated by facts."

    b) It must be supported by "...at least one nontrivial validating datum."

    c) In the case of an alleged scientific conception upon which basis an unprecedented and unspeakably costly curtailment of the entire world's economy is proposed, the conjecture should be expected to have "...received validation in all possible ramifications, and to known levels of accuracy."

    See http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/64_07_Conjecture_to_Law.pdf

    - Continued -

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. @ExperienceCounts2 - "The science is what the science is and politicians citing Cornwall Alliance/Heartland/API propaganda as reality isn't going to change it. Like all the other candidates Paul tries to twist science into politics. Instead of separating science from policy he goes out of his way to conflate the two. The science is that human caused CO2 emissions are causing the global climate to change. Period."

    Sorry, putzie, but you've missed your "Period." I think it's because you're just plain fucked.

    Permit me to explain that your cement-headed fixation upon Heartland et alia (which have never yet been cited or otherwise referenced in this forum since I began to monitor and participate some months ago) is without pertinence or substance.

    Let's say that there's no scientific expertise informing anyone in any of these outfits so that they have a reasoned handle on WHY the anthropogenic global warming hokum is a flaming fraud, and they're all experiencing one of those "stopped clock" moment when they've reached the correct conclusion but not because they've got a sound notion about why the "man-made global climate change" bullshit you're pushing is nothing but spectacular blunder that grew into a vicious lie.

    But it doesn't matter whether those Cornwall Alliance types have correctly perceived the fact that there is no EVIDENCE supporting the "crippled conjecture" (read physicist Jeff Glassman's articles cited below) that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) is the cause of what piddling little global warming the planet has been continuing to experience at a more or less steady rate for over three centuries now - ever since the Little Ice Age began to wane in approximately 1700 AD, and that there's no signature of such an effect in any of the observational data gathered by anyone working honestly in the climate sciences.

    That's because the skeptical participants in this forum most emphatically DO.

    - Continued, you poor putz -

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Superbly put,tucci.I am in complete agreement with that.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. tucci,I actually agree with you that it need not neccessarily be the realm of government to decide what the risks are and who gets what and where.The fact is that public spending displaces private spending and if we had more of our own money to spend on mitigating what we as individuals perceived to be the risks we,d probably have better provision in place to cope with them if and when they occur.What I meant was that the globalists have spent our resources and lumbered us all with collosal debt and overheads and now theres nothing left for us to make our own decisions re perceived risks.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Allan from Skye - "The fact is that public spending displaces private spending and if we had more of our own money to spend on mitigating what we as individuals perceived to be the risks we,d probably have better provision in place to cope with them if and when they occur."

      Agreed, but it appears that the damage done goes beyond the forcible waste of spending power alone.

      Quite understandably, we tend to focus upon how much spending power (and we must always consider it so, because the universal issue of fiat has removed real money from the world's economies) is stolen from the private sector of our society by the pillaging goons of government.

      We fail, however, to put appropriate focus on the deleterious CONSEQUENCES of government expenditures, which have enormous adverse effects in and of themselves.

      In Austrian School economics, the concept of "malinvestment" is critically important. Not just the expenditure of liquid capital and other resources in activities which are underproductive or UNproductive in terms of yielding returns or performing functions of value, but the allocation of such resources to activities which are objectively DAMAGING both to private individuals and to the common weal.

      Consider, for example, something as well-accepted as politically subsidized flood insurance for homeowners and businesses.

      Without lower-than-market costs for such insurance policies, would people in these United States build homes or businesses in areas which are literally below sea level (e.g., in the regions of Louisiana around New Orleans) or on coastal barrier islands which suffer frequent inundations as the result of even lower-category hurricanes?

      What we have in politically "sweet" flood insurance subsidy is a particularly vicious form of MALinvestment, the allocation of taxpayer spending power to an activity which induces people to take risks which are objectively NOT justified,and would not be facilitated by insurance provided in the purely private sector.

      I'm a doctor. Every time I prescribe treatment, I've got to be aware of the potential for treatment-related (iatrogenic) adverse effects.

      How the hell come we don't take this into consideration when it comes to government spending?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Further to human action.If the sea is warming up then it is a source of heat and a resource for us not nessesarily a disaster,same applies to co2.

    The technology already exists for generating electicity from steam generation in a partial vacuum at sea temperature in the tropics.A very usefull by product of this is copious quantities of fresh water.this could be piped ashore and made to make the desert bloom again thereby locking up the co2 again and producing food and timber and oil into the bargain.

    Calculations have been done by people who have studied in this field and they reckon that 60,000 large oilrig type installations could provide the earths entire electricity and water needs.

    So,heat and co2 are actually resources and opportunities for mankind not disasters requiring global economic martial law.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. robotron,I agree that mudslinging and insults play no usefull part in getting to the bottom of the extent of AGW which is the crucial issue,not whether it exists or not.It appears that there is quite a large body of science that dissagrees with the notion that it is of a catastrophic order(as opposed to warming that may occur from sun activity for example which could potentially have disastrous consequences to some extent and which has already happened many times in the history of the earth)

    I personally doubt that even when we finally master the science fullywe will be able to prevent any consequences from sun activity,although there are some interesting ideas in the geoengineering field.

    However,I think the warmists have a basic flaw in their logic which is that they imply that there is a default setting at a sustainable level which,if we adopt further world government,carbon trading etc and try to set the level of co2 at the right level.

    The history of the earth appears to me to be a lurching from one catastrophy,super volcanic event,asteroid impact,mass extinction etc to the next accompanied by huge variations in temperature and it seems rather unrealistic to think that we will be able to mitigate any of this by our actions.

    Perhaps the collosal recources being spent on carbon taxes and regulationmight be better spent on providing food and shelter for the human race when the next inevitable catastrophy occurs which it inevitably will.perhaps any time.But unless I,m mistaken the movers and shakers already appear to have their shelters already constructed for that eventuality without any provision for us.

    If that is in fact true,then that says something about this whole debate which is essentaily about risk assessment.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Allan from Skye - "I agree that mudslinging and insults play no useful part in getting to the bottom of the extent of AGW which is the crucial issue, not whether it exists or not."

      I merrily disagree. When persistent malevolent thieving, strangling Watermelon fraudsters like our "robotron" critter voice their support for the pillage of innocent people and the destruction of the industrialized civilization upon which most of the world's population depends for our very lives, are we to refrain from assessment of what is obvious in their character simply because plain language employed therein would be "mudslinging and insults" if applied to honest men and women?

      Face it, Allan. This "robotron" putz gets addressed the way he does because he's EARNED it, deserves it, and nothing else can satisfactorily inform other readers that he and his fellow "Liberal" fascist fellahin pose a real and present danger to human rights in their campaign to foist upon the public absolute and incontrovertable fraud as maskirovka disguising their predatory intent.

      Your polite but entirely unjustified (and contrary-to-fact) concession that "Perhaps the colossal resources being spent on carbon taxes and regulation might be better spent on providing food and shelter for the human race when the next inevitable catastrophe occurs which it inevitably will.perhaps any time" is, in fact, MUCH too much of a concession to make when dealing with "robotron" and his ilk.

      Bear in mind that you're STILL granting the officers of civil government - the politicians and the bureaucrats - a legitimate role in prioritizing where those "colossal resources" extracted and otherwise created by purposeful human action should be allocated in anticipation of "the next inevitable catastrophe."

      Do you understand how invidious that attitude is? Who the hell says that popularity contest winners - adept at suckering voters - and career mediocrities on the public payroll are the people to whom we should give control of those "colossal resources" owned and best managed by those of us in the private PRODUCTIVE sector of our economy?

      Even if your argument is for effective and efficient management of those "colossal resources," government goons are the LAST people you want to put in control.

      If the discipline of political economics teaches nothing else, it teaches that political interference in the market interplay of purposeful human action is hideously destructive and wasteful.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. It seems odd that my comment counteracting the hate-filled postings of tucci78 would be stuck in "awaiting moderation" only to disappear. Could it be that my voice is being suppressed, just like others claim the arguments made by skeptics of AGW? Or perhaps this thread has gotten out of hand and someone is putting a stop to it?

    Anyhow, the truth of the matter is that this is an issue with no clear answer, but a lot of evidence suggesting that AGW is real and has consequences to some varying degree. Just that thought expressed here seems to have invoked a reflex response of "its a fraud," a massive conspiracy to steal people's money and/or usher in a new world order, etc etc, and you're a "liberal fascist" for even suggesting it may be true. Lol.

    This forum has degenerated to a divisive mudslinging contest of "I'm right and you're wrong and I hate you and your ilk" rather than generating a healthy debate where ideas and opinions are shared respectfully. Insults and overinflated egos have no place in a healthy debate.

    I firmly believe that there is a fundamental good in people, and that is something I choose to focus on when debating people so that I, as well as anyone participating in the debate, may learn from the experience and become further enlightened.

    I am sorry to say that I am very disappointed in how things have transpired here so far.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @robotron - "It seems odd that my comment counteracting the hate-filled postings of tucci78 would be stuck in 'awaiting moderation' only to disappear.

      [...]

      "I am sorry to say that I am very disappointed in how things have transpired here so far."

      ===

      Yep. You're sorry that honestly skeptical critique of your Watermelon warmista fraudulence isn't instantly expunged from this forum the way you delight in seeing it censored on the AGW propaganda sites.

      Jeez, ain't that too damned bad? A level playing field. How the hell can you scheming scum get anywhere if people are free to speak their minds and hammer you with supported argument based upon objectively verified facts?

      As for comments that "disappear," d'you mean to say that this is the first time you've had that happen to you on this site? Gawd, you hapless idiot, but the scripting used in these online discussion venues is anything BUT infallible. It's something of a minor miracle that this RonPaul.com site's programming works as well as it does.

      I've had comments of my own whiffle off into nowhere. What of it? Why the hell don't you make use of a decent Web browser like Firefox, and download something like the Lazarus add-on? Even if you don't back up your "comments" content, such technical means permit you to make second attempts if the scripting messes up.

      As I keep admonishing, dimwit, unwedge your head.

      "What a whiner!"

      --

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @Tucci78@robotron Tucci78 You are a thoroughbred wanker. Aren't you exhausted yet?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Shaman4@robotron - "Aren't you exhausted yet?"

          Oh, heck, no. As I keep saying at Rotary meetings to which I've been invited as guest speaker, "I'm just happy to be here."

          Jeez, at my age, with all the ills to which flesh is heir, I'm happy to be anywhere.

          Especially standing across your throat, fucktard.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Tucci doesn't believe in GW. Nor does he believe in Obama's birth cert. Allan from Skye thinks Tucci78 is the love of his life. Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. It's a match made in all american heaven. Bunch of idiots. @robotron

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. I wish some professor or scientist would come here and argue with you. Your only response would be the same you would use for the refusal of evolution.

    If human have an impact, no matther how small, it should be taken extremly serious.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    • @waste - "I wish some professor or scientist would come here and argue with you. Your only response would be the same you would use for the refusal of evolution.

      "If humans have an impact, no matther how small, it should be taken extremely seriously."
      ===

      This is an open forum, and there are numbers of "professor" types and alleged scientists pushing the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fraud.

      None of them, however, seem inclined to "argue" in online venues like this one, where skeptical critique of their contentions and other lies can't be removed, blocked, or otherwise suppressed.

      For all the yammering noise about "settled science" supposedly supporting the AGW fraud, the credentialed con men you'd like to get involved here know only too damned well that encountering honest and knowledgeable people in a Web discussion site they can't censor will get them hammered.

      They're terrified of that, and so they stick with Watermelon propaganda sites where they know that no one will ever be allowed to voice informed opposition to their preposterous bogosity.

      As opposed to the theory of (and the facts behind) the evolution of species, the AGW fraud is a ploy to perpetrate immediate and immensely damaging attacks upon the individual human rights of real people.

      What the AGW fraudsters seek, on the basis of a wholly "crippled conjecture" (see http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/64_07_Conjecture_to_Law.pdf ) is to punitively tax, forbid with "regulation," and otherwise deny to people all over America the access to energy from petrochemical fuels which is needed for all of industrialized civilization and the division-of-labor economy upon which we depend for our very lives.

      By contrast, the question of whether or not H. sapiens evolved from lower-order primates - like religion - "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

      "waste," if you have ANY valid evidence or even reasoned argument to present in support of the "man-made global climate change" hokum, and not just a blank and drooling idiocy about how "humans have an impact" without understanding or appreciation of the SCALE of reality with which you're dealing when you talk about the whole bloody planet, please put it forward.

      Try thinking for yourself without relying on some "professor" to do your thinking for you.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. On January 18, 2012 at 9:11 pm (see http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/comment-page-14/#comment-421379 ) we have Ace81 yammering:

    "Oh, so you don’t believe we are fighting wars over foreign oil, because we don’t want to dip into our reserve."

    Nope. I refer to the wonderful Lone-Ranger-and-Tonto joke and respond: "What you mean 'we,' Kemo Sabe?"

    The crude oil and other petrochemical fuels reserves available in these United States exceeds those in any other country on the planet - including Russia - and more than three times as much as in Saudi Arabia.

    Heck, more than Saudi Arabia, China, and Iran COMBINED. See http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/6933/US-Has-Earths-Largest-Energy-Resources

    Curiously, you're agreeing with Ron Paul about "fighting wars over foreign oil." They're not only unconstitutional, but they're unnecessary.

    We've got plenty of the stuff right here. Drill, baby, drill.

    So why aren't we Americans being allowed to exploit these reserves? Could it be that the establishment in both parties - Republican and National Socialist - are bought and paid for by the Oil Patch guys and the banksters, who benefit by the current arrangements?

    Yep.

    And when it comes to your being "okay with killing jobs in one area" of the U.S. economy - NOT by way of free market "advancements in technology" but rather by government thuggery shoved down your innocent neighbors' throats to deny people any choice except for what you scheming Watermelon sons of bitches have dictated for them - yeah, you're a vicious, arrogant enemy of humanity, intent upon the aggressive violation of peoples' rights to their lives, their liberties, and their property.

    There's a difference, shit-for-brains, between people CHOOSING to act according to their perceptions of better options and people being COMPELLED by "Liberal" fascist government goons to struggle along at higher cost, denied what they consider preferable ways in which to conduct their lives, just to satisfy your own personal lying asshole AGW fraud.

    Such adaptations as we may need to undertake in the face of natural, NON-anthropogenic regional and global climate change will require access to energy, as inexpensively as it can be gotten. This means the efficient exploitation of domestic U.S. petrochemicals reserves and a complete end to taxpayer-subsidized, politician-mandated, and economically nonviable bullshit like Solyndra-style photovoltaic boondoggles and those negative-output bat mangling Teletubbies windmills.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  17. Tucci78 and others, you need to calm down and realize that there are some people you will never convince. I didn't read everything but I see you making tons of comments and not stepping back. If you want to make an argument, try citing things from wikipedia or a reputable source that show you're point. Wikipedia articles use objective language, (you will not find “WTF?” in there), and are civil and non-assuming. Go there, and read the articles on global warming, including the current theory that some warming is caused by greenhouse gases emitted by human activity, as well as the criticisms to this theory and other theories.

    "idiocy about anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions." You do realize that humans are emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, right? Now, posit a theory on how increasing the amount of energy trapped by the sun will not lead to an increased temperature on the earth.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    • @Bilbo Baggins

      "Tucci78 and others, you need to calm down and realize that there are some people you will never convince"

      Maybe you missed this post:

      http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

      You're right, 31,000 scientists says AGW is a fraud, and don't need to be convinced by the likes of us for their positions. They can obviously think for themselves.

      "You do realize that humans are emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, right? Now, posit a theory on how increasing the amount of energy trapped by the sun will not lead to an increased temperature on the earth."

      There are some links below which can answer your questions if you're really looking for them in earnest. You know, you can also try to contact one of these 31,000 scientists to answer your questions as well.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  18. One thing I cannot stand is blatant hypocrisy- made even worse by a delusional and severely over-inflated ego. Tucci78 is a perfect example. He is dismissive of any bit of evidence that may even remotely suggest AGW is not only possible, but probable. Then, he presents his often previously discredited holier than thou "evidence" as proof that AGW is a massive fraud. A fraud! That's a pretty fucking bold statement for ANYONE to make without having done any of the hard research firsthand- let alone some hack internet troll.

    Cretins like this Tucci78 do untold damage to real science. Scientists themselves are far from perfect (some are genuine assholes, and others make mistakes), but to accuse a massive contingent of them of an outright fraud while large corporations are pumping untold millions of dollars into our political system to gain billions in favors while "green" businesses are barely on the radar is RIDICULOUS. This guy is a shill for the oil and gas industry, which has been defrauding hard working Americans for about a century now. THEY have been collecting massive tax breaks. THEY have been spilling oil to the detriment of local economies in the US and around the world. THEY have quashed competition through hostile takeovers and divestitures. THEY have been buying politicians en masse through campaign contributions and lobbying, who have then voted to send our young people to WAR to defend THEIR overseas assets! And he's accusing scientists of something even remotely comparable to this!? Anyone else see what is wrong with his logic? This is a very dangerous, murderous, anti-liberty, anti-science and anti-truth stand to take. We had a wonderful, robust light rail system throughout Los Angeles until the oil, tire, and insurance companies bought it all up and turned the trolleys into artificial reefs! Now we have persistent smog and gridlock, no place to lay new rail inexpensively, and are locked into high gas prices until electric cars get cheap or the government pulls eminent domain and forcibly removes people and businesses from their properties which NOBODY wants. Not even the most pro-rail environmentalists like myself want that.

    I would be VERY surprised if Tucci78 is anything but a paid shill for oil and gas. A country GP?? Anyone spouting the kind of venom this man does to those he disagrees with has no business saving lives and managing people's health and well being.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Unfortunately for me, somehow my email settings have subjected me to the rantings af a mad "associate professor of family medicine." The bigoted comments are too numerous to even try to document, and if there are many more Ron Paul supporters like you, tucci78, I'd almost rather live with the 1% Wall Street and empire building oil military industrial vermin.

    And before you blow your top and start screaming epithets, I'm an NRA member, there have been guns in my family here for 300 years, and I can carry my Remington 700 with a sweet Leupold up a mountainside and down with no trouble at age 65.

    So get real, you talk about the scientific method, but spout bias after bias, the exact opposite of the immense foundations of modern science. But I suppose that fits. A family medicine doc knows a little about everything, but never enough about anything to make any important contribution to furthering our scientific understanding.

    The true radicals are assholes like you who want to do uncontrolled experiments on our planet with no fucking clue about what's really going to happen. I have no idea where you grew up or where you live, but I grew up in fantastic farmland that is now covered with housing developments and outlet malls, and humans burning fossil fuels. Do you know how thin our atmosphere is? And you think all the energy being burned all over the planet isn't going to cause any impact at all?? Jeez, try to get a couple of your neurons to work at least a little bit, dude.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6

    • @rhess595 - "...I'm an NRA member, there have been guns in my family here for 300 years, and I can carry my Remington 700 with a sweet Leupold up a mountainside and down with no trouble at age 65."

      Ah, the National Rifle Association. As one writer describes it, "...nothing more than the world's oldest, largest victim disarmament (gun control) advocacy."

      I've long wondered why social and other types of pseudoconservatives think that they're automatically "washed in the blood of the lamb" anent the defense of individual human rights by virtue of membership in the NRA.

      Membership in JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership; see http://jpfo.org/smith/smith-friends-like-nra.htm ), on the other hand....

      Well, hell. One can only expect so much.

      If my advocacy here of scrupulous scientific method is perceived by you to be naught but "bias after bias," consider that it's because you yourself know vanishingly little about how such method structures the dispassionately honest investigation of objective reality in order to devise and confirm abstract models describing how the physical universe works, and thereby provide the means for making reliable predictions about how the universe will function in the future.

      Certainly that comes across in your witless whine about "...uncontrolled experiments on our planet with no fucking clue about what's really going to happen."

      In actuality, the absence of honest investigation - defined as congruent with factual reality - on the side of the AGW fraudsters is precisely what should be the focus of your rage.

      If you were in any way genuinely scientifically literate.

      The problem you're having is that you desperately WANT to believe that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) can, does, and has caused significant adverse effects on the global climate despite the fact that you've been forced to confront the fact that the alarmists have no EVIDENCE that such is possible (or has happened) and all the evidence gathered and confirmed by way of honest investigation runs to the contrary.

      All of it.

      -- Continued --

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

    • @rhess595 - Continued -

      There's nothing in the way of "uncontrolled experiments" on the skeptical side of this discussion, but rather much hypocritical demand for absolutely unwarranted constraints upon purposeful human action (and thereby violation of the rights of real human beings) on the part of the Watermelon alarmists who keep pushing the flagrant nonsense of the crippled conjecture we call "man-made global climate change."

      "And you think all the energy being burned all over the planet isn't going to cause any impact at all??"

      Nope. Just nothing significantly adverse (remember the Medieval Warm climate optimum, pal?) in the way of causing any statistically significant anthropogenic global climate warming by way of aCO2.

      Look, NRA-boy, consider the critical differences between honest scientists and the AGW fraudsters who've got you so completely suckered.

      Honest, methodically sound REAL scientists:

      1) Hold empirical observation as superior to theory

      2) Don't violate rules of logic and reason

      3) Retain observational data scrupulously

      4) Report their investigative and analytical methods fully

      5) Provide their data freely and fully to anyone seeking to assess the validity of those data and seek to replicate the study's analyses

      6) Can (and do) explain what findings would falsify their theories

      7) Modify - and even discard - their theories in the face of factual findings.

      - Continued -

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

    • @rhess595 - Concluded -

      Charlatans masquerading as scientists - the AGW fraudsters, for example:

      A) Refuse to abandon or modify their theoretical models when contravened by empirical evidence

      B) "Adjust" their reporting of observational data to prevent the contravention of their theories

      C) Refuse to provide detailed information on their investigative and/or analytical methods

      D) Refuse to share their data, and even destroy records to prevent the examination of those data by potentially "hostile" critics

      D) Refuse to answer questions about their methods and conclusions

      E) Refuse to engage in open debate about their findings and conclusions

      F) Commit major fallacies of logic in their work, especially in their interactions with critics, including circular reasoning, argument from ignorance, the precautionary principle, and argumentum ad hominem

      G) Demonstrate "faith" in systems, institutions, and authorities (the logical fallacy of argument from authority is found throughout their noise)

      (Kudos again to Joanne Nova; see http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/help-how-do-i-know/ )

      You yourself are demonstrating many of these same charlatan characteristics, and aren't you just fucking ashamed of yourself yet?

      - 30 -

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

  20. tucci178 who or what are the little acorn elves?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Allan from Skye - "who or what are the little acorn elves?"

      ACORN is an acronym for a "Liberal" fascist organization called the "Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now," inextricably linked with the criminal conduct of Barry Soebarkah (or "Jean Paul Ludwig" or "Harrison J. Bounel" or "Barack Hussein Obama" or whatever alias he's currently using), including flagrant voter fraud during the 2008 elections.

      See (among other sites online) http://rottenacorn.com/

      ACORN was spectacularly exposed by James O'Keefe's Project Veritas, which has been responsible for a number of sting operations in which these critters have been recorded in sound and video perpetrating all kinds of crimes. See http://biggovernment.com/author/jokeefe/

      Though ACORN was defunded by the Congress in the wake of O'Keefe's exposes (see http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/eric_holder_acorn_and_cloward_1.html and http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/supreme_court_refuses_to_hear_acorn_appeal_of_defunding.html ), the personnel and organizational components of this criminally corrupt organization continue in operation, and their intimate association with our Fraudulence-in-Chief has been sustained throughout Odumbo's usurpation of the presidency.

      Their role in the campaigns of the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP, because they quit all association with the word "democratic" when they enacted Obamacare against the strenuous objection of a majority of their own core constituencies in 2009) continues.

      They are among the many "off-the-books" goons working on behalf of our Mombasa Messiah against the law-abiding citizens of these United States.

      What, did you think that those bribes - er, "campaign contributions" - were only being used by Barry and his co-conspirators for nothing but crooked "opinion surveys" and television advertisements?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


six − 1 =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>