Rand votes YES that global warming is real and mankind contributes to it

Anti Federalist

Anti Federalist

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,537
Rand Paul Joins Al Gore in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) Propaganda

http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/01/rand-paul-joins-al-gore-in-agw.html

Rand is 1 of only 15 Republican Senators (including Graham,McCain and Corker) to vote for an amendment that states:

[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.''; [and] that-- (1) climate change is real; and (2) human activity contributes to climate change..

Fortunately, the psuedo science legislation did not pass, though it came pretty close.)


The vote totals:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00011


This could be some kind of political move:

Jim Inhofe flips the script on Democratic climate-change-is-a-hoax vote

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-on-democratic-climate-change-is-a-hoax-vote/


Either way, sincere belief or Machiavellian political maneuvering, it is wrong.
 
Last edited:
“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
 
Anti Federalist said:
Rand Paul Joins Al Gore in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) Propaganda

http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/01/rand-paul-joins-al-gore-in-agw.html

Rand is 1 of only 15 Republican Senators (including Graham,McCain and Corker) to vote for an amendment that states:

[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.''; [and] that-- (1) climate change is real; and (2) human activity contributes to climate change..

Fortunately, the psuedo science legislation did not pass, though it came pretty close.)


The vote totals:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00011


This could be some kind of political move:

Jim Inhofe flips the script on Democratic climate-change-is-a-hoax vote

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-on-democratic-climate-change-is-a-hoax-vote/


Either way, sincere belief or Machiavellian political maneuvering, it is wrong.
Click to expand...
Could be? More like IS.
FDR said:
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Click to expand...
 
I'm doubtful as to whether this vote will ultimately provide any political benefit, but it at least has the advantage of being an accurate reflection of reality.
 
Inkblots said:
I'm doubtful as to whether this vote will ultimately provide any political benefit, but it at least has the advantage of being an accurate reflection of reality.
Click to expand...

Really? I see it as purely political with no reflection of reality. Whatever. Rand is on his road and he's doing good so far...
 
Technically, there isn't even a debate as to whether humans contribute to climate change. The debate is over the extent to which humans contribute to climate change. So this technically says nothing of significance, and it's not like there is any actual legislation that is being enforced because of it...
 
Here is the amendment in its entirety:
SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

(a) Findings.--The environmental analysis contained in the
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement referred to
in section 2(a) and deemed to satisfy the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) as described in section 2(a), states that--
(1) ``[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and
each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at
the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.'';
(2) ``The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], in
addition to other institutions, such as the National Research
Council and the United States (U.S.) Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP), have concluded that it is extremely likely
that global increases in atmospheric [greenhouse gas]
concentrations and global temperatures are caused by human
activities.'';
(3) ``A warmer planet causes large-scale changes that
reverberate throughout the climate system of the Earth,
including higher sea levels, changes in precipitation, and
altered weather patterns (e.g. an increase in more extreme
weather events).
(4) ``The analyses of potential impacts associated with
construction and normal operation of the proposed Project
suggest that significant impacts to most resources are not
expected along the proposed Project route'' (FSEIS page 4.16-
1, section 4.16.;
(5) ``The total annual GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions
(direct and indirect) attributed to the No Action scenarios
range from 28 to 42 percent greater than for the proposed
Project'' (FSEIS page ES-34, section ES.5.4.2).; and
(6) ``. . . approval or denial of any one crude oil
transport project, including the proposed Project, is
unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in
the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at
refineries in the United States based on expected oil prices,
oil-sands supply costs, transport costs, and supply-demand
scenarios'' (FSEIS page ES-16, section ES.4.1.1).''.
(b) Sense of Congress.--Consistent with the findings under
subsection (a), it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) climate change is real; and
(2) human activity contributes to climate change.
Click to expand...

I thought we all agreed that "climate change" was real. Is anybody arguing that it isn't?
Sure, I think it reasonable that human activity contributes to some degree. The amendment does not argue that humans are the primary cause.
 
Crashland said:
Technically, there isn't even a debate as to whether humans contribute to climate change. The debate is over the extent to which humans contribute to climate change. So this technically says nothing of significance, and it's not like there is any actual legislation that is being enforced because of it...
Click to expand...

Yet.

Your position is dangerously short sighted.

AGW will provide the foundation for a global human control grid, the likes of which the earth has never seen before.
 
Oh FFS, "spin, chaff and flak"?

It was a recorded Senate vote where he aligned with the likes of John McCain, to further an agenda, that, I am fully convinced, will enslave humanity worldwide.

No Spin, Chaff or Flak. It is what it is.

And, no, that is not hyperbole.

I don't know why people have such a hard time seeing where this is going.
 
I seem to remember when Rand authorized the new NDAA (which people mistakenly thought was the controversial one), but then fought against the actual spending afterwards.

I see something similar going on here. The bill is nothing more than a trap, and just like the NDAA (where voting no would have been painted as voting for completely shutting down the military), voting no accomplishes nothing but creating something for them to write a hitpiece about.

But when there comes a time when they want to actually enact legislation, do you really think he's just going to go along with funding expansion of government control? Of course not.

We all know what Rand is doing. He is choosing the battles he can win, and not giving them any ammo to use against him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top