Global Warming Blog & Ron Paul

BEAUTIFUL!

At the debates, if they ask an environment question, he could say that he is against subsidizing oil companies! That would hit big points with those environmentalists!
 
Yes, it appears that no big oil subsidies and legalizing hemp are policies they are interested in.
 
Someone mentioned: "He's not convinced global warming is real". I wonder how true this is. Comments?
 
I don't think he denies it is a real phenomenon. He has not been convinced of the degree, if any, to which humans are responsible.
 
Sakimoto said:
I don't think he denies it is a real phenomenon. He has not been convinced of the degree, if any, to which humans are responsible.
Click to expand...
That doesn't sound like a good position to me. I don't want to start a debate, but popular scientific evidence points to humans being the cause.

If it's understood that we pollute and it's understood that global warming exists, it should be understood that one follows from the other.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps Ron Paul is aware of that globalist agenda underlying global warming?

Anyways Ron Paul is a politician, not a scientist so I think it's unfair to judge Ron on this subject. Global Warming is very controversial as to whether it's caused by humans. I personally don't think it's caused by humans.
 
Really? I had thought that the only consensus was that it was occurring and that humans have likely played a role. When asked to nail down the degree, there is no consensus.... I haven't been keeping up with it so maybe I'm out of date... :)
 
Sakimoto said:
Really? I had thought that the only consensus was that it was occurring and that humans have likely played a role. When asked to nail down the degree, there is no consensus.... I haven't been keeping up with it so maybe I'm out of date... :)
Click to expand...

I'm not a scientist, but I don't trust Al Gore or IPCC as far as I can throw em. Al Gore is also a hypocrit. He uses more energy a month than the average human uses in a year.

The Great Global Warming Swindle gives the other side if you're curious.

I do support a clean environment, don't get me wrong.
 

Attachments

  • Russian US treasury holdings Jan2014-Feb2015 smaulgld.PNG
    Russian US treasury holdings Jan2014-Feb2015 smaulgld.PNG
    28.6 KB · Views: 0
I seem to recall that he doesn't believe that global warming, as the left describes it, is real. That is, he doesn't believe that anthropogenic climate change is occuring.

But global warming is really a side issue. It's a scare tactic by the left to promote big government policies. We all want to live in a clean environment, and a free society gives us more opportunities to make it clean. Clean nuclear energy wouldn't be forbidden. Strong property rights would discourage industrial pollution. It has been demonstrated that people who can afford it WILL buy "green" products from sustainable sources. And of course, the subsidizing of oil companies would stop, encouraging the development of cleaner forms of energy.

The world shows us that wealthy societies are cleaner societies and have lower birthrates. Free markets and free trade will make us all wealthier. It will result in a cleaner planet without a skyrocketing population.
 
He's right though. Atleast he's honest, he see's two sides fight over it, so, right now, he's undecided BUT He WILL shut down subsidies for oil companies and already blamed government for being careless with pollution, so he is most definately a friend of the environment.
 
The problem with a lot of Ron Paul's stances is that they sound bad on the surface (given the average citizen's perspective currently) but make sense at least to a degree once you consider them, and in many cases make a very high degree of sense. It makes it hard to sell, even if it is correct. But I try anyway.

Nonetheless, I do tend to look at global warming the same way he looks at the monetary system. He expects some pretty bad stuff to go down soon if we don't do something drastic about it. I think the same is the case with global warming. But even still, I think that his policies will be more effective than any other candidates of the two major parties, regardless of what they say they want to do about it.
 
JosephTheLibertarian said:
What specifically is hard to sell? I have found his stances to be right in line with my own.
Click to expand...

Depends on the person, but I know a lot of people have a problem with things such as wanting to get rid of the war on drugs ("you want people to smoke pot?"), legalize prostitution ("what type of values are you trying to promote?"), reduce funding for education ("what, you don't want to educate our kids?"), get rid of the dept. of homeland security ("who will protect us?"), doesn't think the federal government should get involved in global warming as far as regulations and such go, and so forth. Additionally, on things like abortion or gay marriages, some people I know wouldn't like the fact that he wants states to decide; they'd rather have a federal law, but in favor of their opinion, rather than their opponents' opinion. And some people can't imagine that our ecomony might crap out on us any time because of our monetary policies, and think that any significant change is crazy and more likely to cause instability than continuing down our current path.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Anti Federalist
Humans Are Fueling Global Warming By Just Breathing, Study Claims
Replies
10
Views
761
WarriorLiberty
W
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Why Ron Paul Is the Only Politician World Leaders Should Emulate
Replies
0
Views
1K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
osan
The Gordian Knot
Replies
2
Views
25
CCTelander
C
Brian4Liberty
D.O.G.E.: End The Global Engagement Center!
Replies
0
Views
3K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
PAF
Libertarian Angle: The Critical Importance of Civil Liberties with Ron Paul
Replies
0
Views
21
PAF
PAF
Back
Top