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

[yongrel]

Global Warming is Real... I just Don't Care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyD9W2v-SME

 

[SlapItHigh]

We cannot think and decide on the global warming issue. There are lots of data over several decades to be analyzed to reach a conclusion. How is it possible to think and reach a conclusion on this without having comprehensive access to all the data and having the knowledge to analyze it?

No one said that we should not access scientific data. No one said we should lack the knowledge to analyze it.

The point is - we absolutely should question the data and the conclusions made. We should think about this from all angles. To say we should just turn a blind eye to all research and how it is conducted and just trust what scientists tell us is exactly the opposite of the spirit of this campaign.

 

[aravoth]

Also, to those that say Global Warming caused by humans is a concensus, I guess then all the scientists studying it don't need any more government research grants then right? Because the science is "settled"... Right?

There is no *&^%ing thing in science called a consensus. There are facts, nothing else.

The morons that threw political terminology into the scientific feild corrupted it. Science is pure. All it does is find the facts. And a bunch of politicians who spew nothing but lies took it over. No wonder people are pissed off.

 

[seapilot]

Exactly. Numbers dont lie....liars lie about numbers.

 

[Arklatex]

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.

Global warming is a fact, but that humans are the direct cause is in question. Remember, mother nature is a such a complicated system with many variables, and it may be a bigheaded of us to think it revolves so much around our actions in our brief existence, mother nature has been here for billions of years handling such things as increasing level of C02. We live in a beautiful system of fluctuations and cycles, the sun is currently at it most intensive stage of it's own 20 year cycle. Are you aware of our Suns natural cycle? How about the fact that vegetation breathes CO2, and higher levels of C02 in an environment is countered by increased growth in vegetation? These are examples of many question you should ask yourself to form your own opinion, before spreading what you've been only told.

 

[paulitics]

there are at least three different issues here

1) is there global warming due to human activity
2) how much that matters?
3) should we trust government to deal with it?

number 1 is the most difficult to argue against. i think it makes much more sense to focus on number 2) - there is global warming but the consequences are not that terrible, actually - it would be more of a nuisance than anything serious. the third issue is also a very strong issue for dr paul. so i would stay out of issue 1, it is too complicated.

also, i heard at the lecture that there is a technology that can take co2 out of the atmosphere. so it is not about lowering emissions, it is about taking it out and that would solve all problems. the technology is patented by a private company.

1) could be, overall effects compared to other factors are overblown. During the 70s they were warning us of "global cooling".

2) Not much, due to the miniscule effects of humans comapared to other factors, like the sun, oceans, methane gas from cows, etc.
Global pollution is much more serious. The bees dying is a rather precarious situation that gets little media attention.

3) The governments solution is a worldwide carbon tax, funding the UN and other global entities. Very bad solution, and shows that there is probably an ulterior motive.

 

[drednot]

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.

You seem to be reasonably intelligent yet you say a lot of strange things.

You called someone a moron for saying ice core data demonstrates CO2 levels lag temperature level by centuries, and that other planets such as Mars and Jupiter are warming. But these are scientific facts, the kind of facts you say you love so much.

Your reference to Galileo is ironic. No scientists are more persecuted today than those who dare to report evidence that the theory of man-made global warming may be overblown. The "Global Warming Crisis" has become a multi-billion dollar industry, and many jobs depend on the continuing perception of impending doom.

Your view of how academia works may also be a tad naive. Scientists must battle for grants just as businesses battle for customers, and the vast bulk of funding comes from government not "oil companies". Government is interested in crisis, if your work involves "saving humanity", you are much more likely to get funded.

You claim that the scientific method punishes falsehood, which is correct, but it punishes some falsehoods more than others. Specifically, it can take decades to prove that climate change theories are correct or incorrect. By the time we learn which theories were correct, many billions of dollars will have been spent and most will have forgotten who made the incorrect predictions.

Furthermore, when one actually reads the scientific papers that are published, one realizes that the data is not nearly as ominous as the activists and journalists publicize it to be. No scientists are publishing papers that suggest sea level will rise 20 feet this century a la "An Inconvenient Truth". Even the heavily politicized IPCC is only predicting rises of a foot or two.

Finally, I just want to add my personal thankyou to the americans of 1900 who did not try to solve in their day the environmental concerns of 2000. Instead, they focussed on economic growth, which has given us standards of living unheard of in history. Imagine the foolishness of the people of 2000 trying to solve the environmental concerns of 2100. We have no idea what amazing technology will be available in 2100, I suspect they'll be laughing at our alarm about a temperature rise of 2 degrees or so

 

[LibertyEagle]

University level scientists are not easly pursuaded by the government.

Ever heard of a grant?

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Ron Paul is for legalizing industrial hemp! And has introduced legislation to that effect. Obama has not. Hitlery has not.

We need to switch our cars from petroleum to hemp biodiesel -- the hemp will absorb as much CO2 while it grows as it does when it's burned. Carbon neutral.

Tell him that.

 

[reaver]

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.

Call me a dimwit. Global Warming has NOTHING to do with people. I'm sick and tired of the "only a dimwit" "anyone with half a brain" comments. Ice caps on Mars are melting- We did that didn't we professor?

 

[QWE]

ok, this thread is pretty ridiculous and most of what people are saying is NOT going turn most people on to Ron Paul. For those who believe Global Warming is some kind of myth thought up by the left, they will already be voting Republican and probably not for Paul, so it hardly matters what Paul thinks. This is an issue that could make or break many moderates votes. What many of you guys are saying is NOT going to win over moderates, independents, or those who formally voted Democratic.

"Climate Change" is a documented fact. "Global Warming" is an archaic term that not many in the scientific community use, it's mostly those in the media. Is Climate Change worth studying and worth worrying about? Yes. Is it known to what extent humans have impacted the onset of the recent climate change? Not really, but very few scientists say humans have no part whatsoever. People still claim "there are plenty in the scientific community who don't believe in those lies!", but that is a complete myth. The amount who dispute climate change or say humans have 0 impact is a small fraction of the scientific community, and there have even been a couple scientists who came out and said they fudged their work to come to that conclusion (much like some scientists did when the effects of smoking was being studied and claimed "smoking is harmless!")

THE FACT OF THE MATTER is you must assume the worst case scenario and then address how Ron Paul would want the problem to be solved. In fact, assume worst than the worst case scenario. If there actually was a major environmental question that needed to be solved ASAP or else humanity as we knew would end in a few years, what would Ron Paul do? Obviously this is not the case, but most presidents would take some governmental action to address it. Would Paul? If not what would solve it? THAT'S what we need to address here, not whether climate change is a myth or not.

 

[southerntrendkill]

I was not arguing whether government should or should not regulate. That's a political issue.

Whether global warming is caused by humans is a scientific issue. And there is consensus on that.

Just because you don't agree with government regulation (I don't agree either) shouldn't be the motive to argue against scientific consensus on global warming,.

Global Warming is caused by the SUN. The Sun is a Star and goes thur changes in output. The energy the Sun produces is not a constant. Also the Earth's orbit around the Sun is not constant. Some times the Earth is closer to the Sun. Our Solar system is in an arm of the Milky Way Galaxy that Orbits around a Really Big Black Hole. In the Milky Way Galaxy are areas of more and less Cosmic Dust and Radiation Particles. Our Solar System goes in and out of these areas. All of these changes affect the temperature of the Earth.

As a side note the Earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is now. Even before Man existed.

Maybe you should do some real research on Global Warming and not just follow along on the "Fear Based Religon of Global Warming" The Religon is about control not Freedom.

And there is NOT a Scientific Consensus on Man Made Global Warming.

Don't take my word on this look it up for your self.

Next I'll hear somebody say Ron Paul dosn't have a chance.

 

[American]

Global Warming is Real... I just Don't Care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyD9W2v-SME

Global warming is real, and its been proven with ice core samples that its happened before. Matter of fact if you study the ice core sampling done in Greenland there is a connection between carbon dioxide and the air but it has nothing to do with human activity.

Just search for ice core sampling in Greenland

 

[Tsoman]

Global warming is to Liberals
as
Terrorism is to Neocons

and both serve the same function

 

[rp0x]

Maybe you should do some real research on Global Warming

I have done my research and I will share it with you
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

And here is the entire list: Climate change: A guide to the perplexed.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

 

[surf]

i have a neighbor in HS. we were talking and he was telling me that the gov't needs to "mandate" hybrids and new light bulbs.... he also told me that the constitution was anachronistic as he learned in his American history(?) class.

it scared me. so little faith and so little understanding of how free markets and civil rights are iimportant.

 

[WillInMiami]

You cannot win over these global warming extremists. They are terminal liberals. There is no cure.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

1) could be, overall effects compared to other factors are overblown. During the 70s they were warning us of "global cooling"..

Fallacy. Science changes with the latest evidence. If something is wrong at one moment in time does not mean what is said now is wrong. Newton also did some stuff with alchemy. Does that make his discovery of gravity less valid? No

2) Not much, due to the miniscule effects of humans comapared to other factors, like the sun, oceans, methane gas from cows, etc.
Global pollution is much more serious. The bees dying is a rather precarious situation that gets little media attention.

It only takes a minuscule amount of a toxic substance to kill a man. This disproves GW how?

3) The governments solution is a worldwide carbon tax, funding the UN and other global entities. Very bad solution, and shows that there is probably an ulterior motive.

The governments solution to Katrina was horrible. Does not change the fact that a hurricane destroyed the city. This disproves GW how?

 

[ForLibertyFight]

Even if global warming is not real we should try to protect and conserve our only home planet earth. I want my children and future posterity to enjoy our beautiful planet.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

You cannot win over these global warming extremists. They are terminal liberals. There is no cure.

Gross generalization. I'm an anarcho-capitalist the furthest thing from a liberal thank you very much.