Student "Turned off" on Dr. Paul's stance on Global Warming

Conclusions of your article


World Data Centre System

Sorry, thought I had more to say, but I'm pretty sure that our solar system is heating up right now what with melting Martian ice caps so I'll just say...
Your link provided me with a good bit of searching on the funding of the study, which led me to, of course "The World Data Center" and "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration".
I'm sorry, but federally funded "science" which focuses on a time-scale of no more than twenty years, is dubious to me. I heard that this guy Ron Paul would phase out some of these self-serving bureaucracies.. I heard it on the grapevine :p.

You should research the scientific method.
 
A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[21] Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,[22] but his attempted refutation is disputed.[23][24][25] Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism, also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."[24]
 
A discussion about the environment is good because it's important and is an issue that affects us all, but the last thing I want to see is our people divided over this. The talking points shouldn't revolve around whether global warming is real or how severe the effects are, but rather about Ron's position and how we can approach people who have a deep concern with the environment with his message in an appealing way. We know the man cares about the environment, there's no argument there, so it's just a matter of helping people understand his method. I'm not 100% sure on this and would like to get feedback, but my understanding is that he believes we would be better care takers of our planet if we had stronger property rights. (you cannot pollute the property or others and vise versa) I'm also wondering how this approach scales to global problems. I think one way to deal with this is setting an example for other countries to follow. Comments?
 
You should research how "science" and polls and "consensuses" are used to control people (unthinking masses), while at the same time ridiculing the minority, labeling them as, say"nutty", as you did in this thread.

If you provide evidence to support your claims that has not yet been refuted people would listen and find evidence that contradicts or validates it. Otherwise, it is nutty.

Only good theories survive the scrutiny of the scientific method which is why most scientists accept the greenhouse theory of global warming. It provides a mechanism to explain the observed phenomenom that is validated as new evidence becomes available.
 
Last edited:
A discussion about the environment is good because it's important and is an issue that affects us all, but the last thing I want to see is our people divided over this. The talking points shouldn't revolve around whether global warming is real or how severe the effects are, but rather about Ron's position and how we can approach people who have a deep concern with the environment with his message in an appealing way. We know the man cares about the environment, there's no argument there, so it's just a matter of helping people understand his method. I'm not 100% sure on this and would like to get feedback, but my understanding is that he believes we would be better care takers of our planet if we had stronger property rights. (you cannot pollute the property or others and vise versa) I'm also wondering how this approach scales to global problems. I think one way to deal with this is setting an example for other countries to follow. Comments?
Tell them that nothing will cut petroleum use more, and faster, than bringing our military home from the 130+ countries they're in right now.
You could also remind them that our national parks are collateral right now for the debt that we're in - tell them that we can save the environment by saving friggin money ..

Tell them that the free market would have solved the energy crisis a hundred years ago, but what we have right now is not a free market, and vested interests profit off of sustained crisis, not real solutions. Ron would let the free market reign, be it in environment, space, or the market place of ideas, greatest of all.
 
fluoridatedbrainsoup: Excellent points.

Don't think there's any argument with Ron's intentions regarding the environment, although I do believe he could stress this point more often to gain more ground.
 
Besides, I heard Ron Paul speak very strongly about pollution being unacceptable. I was surprised to hear him take the position I take, which I've heard nobody else take - ever. He said, and so do I, that no person or corporation has a right to let pollution they produce escape their property - not by air via smokestacks, not by water via pipes and ditches into streams, rivers, or oceans, period. No entity has a right to pollute, period. That's as close as I can remember to his exact words.

Do you know how many billion pipes spew pollution into waterways in the USA? Have you EVER heard anyone say "none of that is acceptable, period"?

Well, I do, and so does Ron Paul. I do not know the Ron Paul exact position on greenhouse gasses or CO2. He may be somewhat skeptical. But I can assure you, he is skeptical because he is not about to turn the country upside down and spend trillions of dollars until he understands (A) what is happening, and (B) why. Given his approach to other pollution, you can be sure he would be a strong supporter of measures to lower any cause of any serious problem. So would I. And furthermore, no other politician will be honest about what they learn. None.

Exactly. I've noticed that no one's talking about pollution these days. It's carbon, buying carbon offsets and MORE taxation. You want to clean up the earth, then get every entity, and I do mean EVERY entity to stop polluting.
 
Global warming is a fact and only a dimwit would argue that it is not cause by humanity. Go take a course at your local university an get an education - quit with the neocon attacks against universities because they only make you look like horowitz worshiping tart.

An upper level Ecology course might help.

Maybe Freeman Dyson, noted physicist and mathematician is a dimwit but I don't think so.

Quote: "My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

How is this relevant to massive government tax and gouge schemes?? The U.S. Congress was contemplating two different variations of these kind of tax schemes (You know they are JUST salivating at a chance to get more $$$$.... how is levying TAXES going to do anything for the environment??? Let the government be able to afford to interfere and create more "red tape" to go through for everyone???

Recognize that right now government spending accounts for HALF the ECONOMY!!! they want to ADD to that staggering amount?? This is not only unsustainable but idiotic.
 
Your statement doesn't make sense to me. using you're logic one could argue you don't need a light bulb, if you do need a light bulb then you're argument is a contradiction.

Ummmm no. He is talking about about making compact fluros to replace standard incandescents . You don't need a law for that. You lower the price of the CFLs more of them will be bought up. Just a case of simple supply and demand nothing more.
 
I've thought about global warming and how it relates to Ron Paul's campaign. I've come to the conclusion that he's our only chance of getting other countries to get along and combat any worldwide problem (global warming, poverty etc).

The Neothugs want to bomb/subsidize everyone that disagrees with us. Clinton offers no alternative to this strategy.....
 
Ummmm no. He is talking about about making compact fluros to replace standard incandescents . You don't need a law for that. You lower the price of the CFLs more of them will be bought up. Just a case of simple supply and demand nothing more.

UM YUM, and when they break, we get to clean up MERCURY! No thanks. I left those CFLs in the dust the minute I found out about that. I now use the 130 V incandescents, because they last around a year. You can also switch to low-voltage fixtures. But mercury? No thank you.
 
UM YUM, and when they break, we get to clean up MERCURY! No thanks. I left those CFLs in the dust the minute I found out about that. I now use the 130 V incandescents, because they last around a year. You can also switch to low-voltage fixtures. But mercury? No thank you.

If you have a fear of mercury there are always LEDs. With a ten year plus life span.
 
Ummmm no. He is talking about about making compact fluros to replace standard incandescents . You don't need a law for that. You lower the price of the CFLs more of them will be bought up. Just a case of simple supply and demand nothing more.

Have you ever looked into how dangerous CFL's are to the environment?

The fact that the global warming crew want to use these is completely ludicrous to me. They are FULL of mercury vapor and most landfills won't even take them because of how hazardous they are to the environment. You usually have to take them to your local hazardous waste site to get rid of them.

You don't hear the global warming crew talking about this, so that really makes me think that they are completely brainwashed. Imagine how much mercury we would be exposed to if they were mandated. You are supposed to put gloves on before handling them! haha These fake environmentalists really tick me off.


Yes there are LED's but that's not what the crazy environmentalists are pushing for.
 
Last edited:
The free market will eventually replace CFLs with larger, brighter, cheaper LEDs, I think (and hope).
 
Have you ever looked into how dangerous CFL's are to the environment?

The fact that the global warming crew want to use these is completely ludicrous to me. They are FULL of mercury vapor and most landfills won't even take them because of how hazardous they are to the environment. You usually have to take them to your local hazardous waste site to get rid of them.

You don't hear the global warming crew talking about this, so that really makes me think that they are completely brainwashed. Imagine how much mercury we would be exposed to if they were mandated. You are supposed to put gloves on before handling them! haha These fake environmentalists really tick me off.


Yes there are LED's but that's not what the crazy environmentalists are pushing for.

Not cheap enough is why no one pushes for them. You don't have to worry about mercury unless you are a dumb ass and break the bulb. I have dropped a CFL once and it didn't break or leak for that matter. Still works to this day. The glass on the CLF is much thicker than the standard light bulb. The amount of mercury used anyways is so minuscule that it's not even worth mention.
 
Last edited:
And what does this have to do with scientific literature that overwhelmingly supports the greenhouse gas theory of global warming? That has to be one of the dumbest things i have ever read.

Quack. Quack.

James Madison-I'm still waiting for you to post your CV here for us all to see why you are so qualified to be quacking at us.
 
A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[21] Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,[22] but his attempted refutation is disputed.[23][24][25] Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism, also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."[24]

Have you taken to plagiarizing articles now without removing the footnote markers?
 
Back
Top