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

I don't know if Rand really believes in AGW, but I'm 100% certain that he opposes the watermelons' "solution."

In any case, the best course of action from a practical political point of view is probably to acknowledge AGW and take your stand in the policy debate about what (if anything) should be done to combat it. That fight would take place on economic grounds (cost-benefit analysis), where a politician like Rand has some authority; rather than on scientific grounds which it is assumed a politician is not qualified to speak about.

I don't know if this is what Rand's doing, but it wouldn't surprise me.
 
r3volution 3.0 said:
I don't know if Rand really believes in AGW, but I'm 100% certain that he opposes the watermelons' "solution."

In any case, the best course of action from a practical political point of view is probably to acknowledge AGW and take your stand in the policy debate about what (if anything) should be done to combat it. That fight would take place on economic grounds (cost-benefit analysis), where a politician like Rand has some authority; rather than on scientific grounds which it is assumed a politician is not qualified to speak about.

I don't know if this is what Rand's doing, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

He said in the interview with Bill Maher that one thing he would do is deregulate alternative energy companies to lower their cost of doing business. I hope that if Rand does say that he believes that humans contribute to climate change and that something needs to be done about it, he talks about small government solutions like that. Something else that he could advocate that would help the environment and "fight climate change" is to legalize hemp, as hemp can be used for paper which means that less trees would have to be cut down. (I know that he supports legalizing hemp, but he could tie that in to protecting the environment and fighting climate change.)
 
Traditional Conservative said:
He said in the interview with Bill Maher that one thing he would do is deregulate alternative energy companies to lower their cost of doing business. I hope that if Rand does say that he believes that humans contribute to climate change and that something needs to be done about it, he talks about small government solutions like that. Something else that he could advocate that would help the environment and "fight climate change" is to legalize hemp, as hemp can be used for paper which means that less trees would have to be cut down. (I know that he supports legalizing hemp, but he could tie that in to protecting the environment and fighting climate change.)
Click to expand...

Exactly, it could be used as a springboard for libertarian reforms.
 
Whether or not you think global warming is real, either way there is a free market solution. Doesn't matter.
 
Matt Collins said:
Article in the OP says the vote was 98-1 which is NOT what you just posted.

What is the disconnect?
Click to expand...

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...

Where does it say 98-1?
 
Look, I can't make this more clear.

AGW is the "endgame".

Let this idea take hold, and there will be nothing, absolutely nothing that will not be outside government control from that point on.

Playing political games with this concept is like running around a powder magazine with a goddamn blowtorch.

I don't want to be here twenty years from now, telling everybody "I told you so".
 
Matt Collins said:
Article in the OP says the vote was 98-1 which is NOT what you just posted.

What is the disconnect?
Click to expand...

Most likely one vote was on the amendment and the other vote was on the final bill. The amendment having passed and there being no reason to make a "symbolic stand", all but one senator voted for final passage.

Edit: Did you read the entire article? There were three votes. The WaPo article claims the 98-1 vote was a victory for republicans because it hollowed out what the Democrats were saying about climate change.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-on-democratic-climate-change-is-a-hoax-vote/
It was a nifty, if insincere, bit of politics. There's no question that a vote against a flat statement that climate change is real could have been problematic for candidates down the road -- especially for those various Republican senators quietly preparing for the big election in 2016. With Inhofe's re-framing the question, the Democrats, trying to engineer a gotcha moment, ended up empty-handed on the vote, with neither the satisfaction of nailing down opposition to scientific consensus and without a point of leverage for future discussions of addressing the warming planet.


[Update: Two later votes on amendments linking humans to climate change were rejected. One was introduced by Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who ended up voting against it. A vote to end a filibuster on that amendment failed 59 to 40. Another, from Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), said that humans were "significantly responsible" for climate change. It failed to achieve cloture as well, 50-49, after Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) argued that it placed too much emphasis on human causes. Several Republicans supported it.

Rand Paul voted yes on the Hoeven amendment that failed 59 to 40. The Inhofe amendment is the one that passed 98-1. Rand Paul taking the losing side on a vote not supported by most "republican primary voters" and not really supported by Ron Paul supporters either? Why? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Anti Federalist said:
Look, I can't make this more clear.

AGW is the "endgame".

Let this idea take hold, and there will be nothing, absolutely nothing that will not be outside government control from that point on.

Playing political games with this concept is like running around a powder magazine with a goddamn blowtorch.

I don't want to be here twenty years from now, telling everybody "I told you so".
Click to expand...

If AGW is true, it's not the endgame. There are still the same reasons for people to resist government control -- and appealing to consequences is not a good method to assess the veracity of a claim.
 
"Climate Change" explained.
I just found this today, I thought it was cool.
mebbe someone needs to forward it to Congress? :toady:

 
I think I'm more disappointed he voted for the bill minus the amendment that he said was more important than the bill. :eek:
 
Did he change his mind?

Rand Paul: Science behind climate change 'not conclusive'

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in a recent interview that the science behind climate change is "not conclusive," calling people who tie extreme weather to a changing climate ignorant.

During an interview with former senior adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod, at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics on Tuesday, Paul wouldn't be pinned down as a skeptic, but said the "scientific debate should not be dumbed down to politics."

Paul said the earth goes through periods of time when the climate changes, but he's "not sure anybody exactly knows why."

And "the conclusions you make from that are not conclusive," Paul, a possible 2016 Republican presidential hopeful, said.

Paul made clear that he is against pollution and thinks the country should take measures to cut back, but he doesn't back "alarmist" claims that the earth is headed toward a downward spiral due to increasing temperatures.

"That alarmist stuff really detracts from the case that we shouldn't pollute," Paul said.

When asked if he could be put down as a skeptic, Paul took another route.

"What I would say is someone is an ignoramus who would say, 'Oh yeah, three hurricanes this year, this proves that somehow the climate is warming,' Paul said. "The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and so, you are going to say we had four hurricanes and so that proves a theory? No."

"I'm not saying that theory is right or wrong. What I would say is there is something that all of us should be in favor of and that is we should minimize pollution."

Still, Paul went on to blast the growing amount of "onerous regulations" on emissions.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...-science-behind-climate-change-not-conclusive
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top