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

[Birdlady]

Why don't you take a course and education yourself?

I have done my education and I assure you that going to college doesn't mean you are educated.

Most colleges shove globalization, a global tax, and other socialist ideas down their students throats.

The sun is causing the warming. Many other planets in our solar system are warming too. Do you think SUVs are causing that too?

Also there were a whole slew of scientists just a few months ago that have started to ask questions about global warming. Let me find the article I read about that and I will edit my post when I find it.

Well I couldn't find it (of course).
Here's a site that has 19,000 signatures from scientists who reject the idea of global warming.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

 

[smdesignworks]

99.9% of scientists agree that global warming is cause by mankind

Lol, I am not even touching that one. Hopefully someone sets you straight because I won't be wasting my time since you already display such an ignorant stance.

 

[jamesmadison]

I have done my education and I assure you that going to college doesn't mean you are educated.

Most colleges shove globalization, a global tax, and other socialist ideas down their students throats.

The sun is causing the warming. Many other planets in our solar system are warming too. Do you think SUVs are causing that too?

Also there were a whole slew of scientists just a few months ago that have started to ask questions about global warming. Let me find the article I read about that and I will edit my post when I find it.

You understand we have an atmosphere which contains compounds that reflect electromagnetic radiation away from earth? Of course the sun is causing global warming, that is implied in the scientific theory of global warming.

Universities are areas of study that contain people of generally higher intelligence than the predominant population. There is very little indoctrination in the scientific field because it deals with ideas that are testable, and continuously verified against new evidence. The social fields are much different and are based on untestable theory. Please do not confuse the two fields.

 

[MGreen]

Heavy government regulation is not the only way to deal with global warming. We can see right now that the government is FAILING already, with their huge subsidies for corn but not sugar cane or allowing hemp to be grown and used for ethanol.

Besides, didn't Inconvenient Truth end with Gore saying that local communities and states were "stepping up" where the federal government wasn't? That's how it should be. If people in California want to ban SUVs or oil outright, they can go ahead and do it. And President Paul would not fight them.

 

[adpierce]

Global warming is a fact and only a moron 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 retards.

An upper level Ecology course might help.

I took a class with a teacher who was on the committee that just co-won the Nobel prize with Al Gore over this issue. Even he had to admit that it's hard to prove that humanity is the cause for the jump in global warming. They can't even predict what the weather a few days from now because in weather there are way too many factors to be able to accurately determine local weather a few days from now. When you look at the whole world in general it's clear it's getting warmer, but to say that human beings are the major contributing factor even this Nobel winning ecologist recognized that is difficult to prove. He of course thought that the earth was in a cyclical upturn in temperature, but humans made it all the worse. I didn't really come away convinced. ---- Just one guy who took a course at his local university ... and from an authority in the field.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Or, kill humanity?

Christ.

How did people get so brainwashed to believe that environmentalism is something that is bad. We are connected to our ecosystem like a spider web and only slight changes within the ecosystem can have a domino effect on humanity.

The wealth an innovation we have today is a direct result of a free society. If you want new technologies to replace the current ones it makes more sense to have an unrestrained market. If you care about C02 emissions than the government would be your biggest concern. The pentagon is the biggest consumer of oil in the world.

 

[SlapItHigh]

There is very little indoctrination in the scientific field because it deals with ideas that are testable and provable - the social fields are much different and are based on untestable theory. Please do not confuse the two fields.

Not true. Because so much of scientific research is government funded, the government ends up having a huge influence on what specifically is studied. You really have to study many different angles to get the true big picture. This is the same problem we have in politics. If you just point out one area of a topic then you can really scew things. For example - minimum wage increases. Study how many people's salaries were raised and that can make it seem like a good thing to the general public. But, you also have to study how many people lost their jobs or how much prices went up.

 

[jamesmadison]

The wealth an innovation we have today is a direct result of a free society. If you want new technologies to replace the current ones it makes more sense to have an unrestrained market. If you care about C02 emissions than the government would be your biggest concern. The pentagon is the biggest consumer of oil in the world.

Are you trying to suggest that somehow we are limited our technological ability by using aged technologies rather than advancing new ones?

 

[MGreen]

The pentagon is the biggest consumer of oil in the world.

That's another good point that should be mentioned. If you think CO2 emissions are destroying the planet, dismantling the military industrial complex would probably reduce emissions far more than subsidizing automobiles with a couple more mpg.

 

[Birdlady]

You understand we have an atmosphere which contains compounds that reflect electromagnetic radiation away from earth? Of course the sun is causing global warming, that is implied in the scientific theory of global warming.

Universities are areas of study that contain people of generally higher intelligence than the predominant population. There is very little indoctrination in the scientific field because it deals with ideas that are testable, and continuously verified against new evidence. The social fields are much different and are based on untestable theory. Please do not confuse the two fields.

And I hope you understand the simple concept of photosynthesis! The more CO2 in the atmosphere the better it is for life. Tree takes in C02 and convert it to oxygen.

So you can infer from this that global tax is really just a breathing tax or a tax on life.

Even in science they can twist things and make the sample size so small that you make the tests give you the results you are looking for.

 

[jamesmadison]

Not true. Because so much of scientific research is government funded, the government ends up having a huge influence on what specifically is studied. You really have to study many different angles to get the true big picture. This is the same problem we have in politics. If you just point out one area of a topic then you can really scew things. For example - minimum wage increases. Study how many people's salaries were raised and that can make it seem like a good thing to the general public. But, you also have to study how many people lost their jobs or how much prices went up.

Well, in science we require something that is testable over time - regardless of whether the currency is from government or private institutions if an idea is not scientifically sound it will self destructive.

 

[jamesmadison]

And I hope you understand the simple concept of photosynthesis! The more CO2 in the atmosphere the better it is for life. Tree takes in C02 and convert it to oxygen.

So you can infer from this that global tax is really just a breathing tax or a tax on life.

Even in science they can twist things and make the sample size so small that you make the tests give you the results you are looking for.

We're destroying habitat, not creating new ones.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

And I hope you understand the simple concept of photosynthesis! The more CO2 in the atmosphere the better it is for life. Tree takes in C02 and convert it to oxygen.

So you can infer from this that global tax is really just a breathing tax or a tax on life.

Even in science they can twist things and make the sample size so small that you make the tests give you the results you are looking for.

Not that simple. Trees use up oxygen at night and produce C02. They also produce C02 during decay.

 

[SlapItHigh]

Science in Service to the State

Over the last 60 years a new power structure, the state, has taken control of information. It uses federal tax money to fund and control research through the peer-review grant system. It forms mutually advantageous partnerships with industry and the academic community, which do its bidding. The state holds sway over education. And to round out its control of information an increasingly powerful centralized government bureaucracy has persuaded the mainstream media to accept and espouse state-approved ideas. The Western tradition of information ethics dating from ancient Greece to the 20th century, characterized by freedom of speech and inquiry, has been co-opted by government. Knowledge advances by questioning accepted paradigms (Hillman, 1995). The state thwarts this and requires its tax-funded scientists to conform to the official establishment view on such things as global warming and HIV/AIDS.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller23.html

 

[jamesmadison]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller23.html

University level scientists are not easly pursuaded by the government.

 

[SlapItHigh]

University level scientists are not easly pursuaded by the government.

really? Did you read the link, it gave you specific examples:

Government-sponsored scientific research reflects the biases, preferences, and priorities of its leaders (Moran, 1998). The state uses science to further its social and political purposes.

Its actions follow Lang’s First Law of Sociodynamics, where "The power structure does what they want, when they want; then they try to find reasons to justify it. If this does not work, they stonewall it (Lang, 1998, p. 797).


When inconvenient facts challenge paradigms the state promotes, it justifies them by consensus. If polar bear experts (Amstrup et al., 1995) find that the bear population in Alaska is increasing, placing doubt on the government’s stance on climate change, this finding is dismissed as being outside the consensus and ignored. Science magazine supports the prevailing view, stating, "There is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change" that accounts for "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years" (Oreskes, 2004).

 

[jamesmadison]

really? Did you read the link, it gave you specific examples:

You have to prove something, you can't just state theory and assume fact.

 

[jamesmadison]

It's bewildering to believe how many have fallen prey of the misinformation campaign prostituted by big oil corporations that attempt to refute scientific evidence with ill reasoned theory.

 

[SlapItHigh]

huh?

In 21st century America, consensus and computer models masquerade as science. They supplant experimental data. As Corcoran (2006) puts it, "Science has been stripped of its basis in experiment, knowledge, reason and the scientific method and made subject to the consensus created by politics and bureaucrats." Reduced to a belief system, a majority of scientists and groups like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can declare, without having to provide scientific evidence, that they believe humans cause global warming. This alone makes the hypothesis become an established fact and received knowledge (Barnes, 1990). Peer review compounds the problem. It competes with objective evidence as proof of truth.

 

[dspectre]

You understand we have an atmosphere which contains compounds that reflect electromagnetic radiation away from earth? Of course the sun is causing global warming, that is implied in the scientific theory of global warming.

Universities are areas of study that contain people of generally higher intelligence than the predominant population. There is very little indoctrination in the scientific field because it deals with ideas that are testable, and continuously verified against new evidence. The social fields are much different and are based on untestable theory. Please do not confuse the two fields.

There is very little indoctrination in the scientific field? Have you been in academia? Academia is politically motivated. Everyone in the scientific field knows this.

I don't know exactly where to begin with this, because you are speaking idealistically about how things actually work.