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

[jamesmadison]

You are killing me. You really, honestly believe, that a continuosly exploding, Nuclear reactor, millions of times larger than our entire planet, has no affect, at all.......on climate. What the hell did they put in your coffee?

And if your wondering why there has been a down-trend, and if your wondering why what, only 2 hurricanes were strong enough to make landfall this year, it's because last year, while you guys said there would be 50 catagory 5000 hurricanes blowing children out of the arms of thier mothers, the sun shifted to a minimum, just like it does every 11 years. And so this year, when you said the exact same thing, that 50, Catagory : We're all going to DIE!! hurricanes where well on thier way to wiping out all of us, and it never happened, did you ever wonder why? I can tell you, no sun spots, no massive solar storms, and the sun is in a minimum. You can predict the same thing for next year, and again, nothing will happen. If fact I'll make a prediction, you can come back to me one day and tell me how right I was. In 2011 when the sun starts picking up steam, storms, floods, tempetures, and hurricanes will increase. You will blame it on global warming, or whatever the current "scare the crap out of everyone" term is by then. Doom and Gloom will abound for a while, then the sun will decrease output again and nothing will happen. But you'll say it was because we instituted a global carbon tax, and thats why everything worked out. Yeah, that sounds about right.

Read, read, read...
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Three main mechanisms for centennial-scale solar effects on climate have been proposed. The first is via variations in the total solar irradiance (TSI) which would undoubtedly cause changes in climate if they are of sufficient amplitude. We have no direct measure of TSI variations on century time scales, but reconstructions do vary with the cosmogenic isotope production rate and so this effect has the potential to explain the palaeoclimate correlations (Lockwood 2006). However, the inferred changes in TSI are much smaller than required to cause significant climate change (Foukal et al. 2006; Lockwood 2006). The second mechanism invokes variations in the solar UV irradiance, which are larger than hose in TSI, and mechanisms have been proposed whereby despite the low power in this part of the solar spectrum, they influence the troposphere via the overlying stratosphere (Haigh 2001). The third proposed mechanism is considerably different from the other two—it has been suggested that air ions generated by cosmic rays modulate the production of clouds (Svensmark 2007). This mechanism (Carslaw et al. 2002) has been highly controversial and the data series have generally been too short (and of inadequate homogeneity) to detect solar cycle variations in cloud cover; however, recent observations of short-lived lasting of the order of 1 day) transient events indicate there may indeed be an effect on clean, maritime air (Harrison & Stephenson 2006).

 

[freelance]

In addition to the ineffectiveness of the EPA and the sound property rights arguments, if these individuals are truly for minimizing the carbon footprint, they should be vehemently anti-war since the DoD is the largest consumer of energy, and reigning in the growing military empire is the single most effective way to reduce carbon emissions immediately.

The Department of Defense (DoD) per capita energy consumption of 524 trillion Btu is 10 times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa. Only three countries consume more oil per capita then the DoD.

In 2006 Air Force consumed around 2.6 billion gallons of jet-fuel which is the same amount of fuel U.S. airplanes consumed during WWII (between December 1941 and August 1945). The B52 bomber consumes 3300 gallons per hour, the F16 Falcon burns 800 gallons per hour and the KC-135 Statotanker an aerial refueling tanker aircraft consumes 2650 gallons per hour.

The Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S and the US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world. In 2006 the US Military consumed 117 million barrels or 320,000 barrels per day.

With up to 15 gallons per day per deployed soldier in January 2007 the American GI is the most energy-consuming soldier ever seen on the field of war.

Yeah, I'll take this all seriously just as soon as our gummint does.

 

[QWE]

yeah, that article is not saying that the sun has nothing to do with climate

It's saying the recent changes in climate are the opposite of what would be expected from the recent changes in output from the Sun, so we should be looking to other factors besides the sun as to what is causing these changes.

Jeez, like I said, this topic brings out the worst in RP supporters. Like, the ones who can't even read

 

[Richandler]

yeah, that article is not saying that the sun has nothing to do with climate

It's saying the recent changes in climate are the opposite of what would be expected from the recent changes in output from the Sun, so we should be looking to other factors besides the sun as to what is causing these changes.

Jeez, like I said, this topic brings out the worst in RP supporters. Like, the ones who can't even read

Yah but one things this topic keeps the same, no one ever pays attention to what I've said. Unless of course they can't refute it...

 

[QWE]

Yah but one things this topic keeps the same, no one ever pays attention to what I've said. Unless of course they can't refute it...

I noticed what you posted before and I agree with it. I've made a few posts that actually address the original concern of this topic, but everone ignored it.

NO ONE here seems to be interested in actually answering the question.

 

[StateofTrance]

People who think Global Warming is a fad should go back to their high schools.

 

[aravoth]

yeah, that article is not saying that the sun has nothing to do with climate

It's saying the recent changes in climate are the opposite of what would be expected from the recent changes in output from the Sun, so we should be looking to other factors besides the sun as to what is causing these changes.

Jeez, like I said, this topic brings out the worst in RP supporters. Like, the ones who can't even read

I know what it's saying lol, it's taking studies from 2001, when the sun was in a maximum, and the climate was getting warmer. And so, he grabs his most recent "data" to prove a point, from 2006. When the sun was in a minimum. Then he says, "However, the inferred changes in TSI are much smaller than required to cause significant climate change (Foukal et al. 2006; Lockwood 2006)" Well, no shit, the solar max is over, nothing is happening on the sun's surface. Like I said, you're only going to realiize it during a solar maximum. Not reading a crap study by some fop of a scientist who is is too stupid to realize that in 2000 the numbers where completely different than they are now.

 

[Nefertiti]

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

Now, you finally are starting to get somewhere with your remarks, but your reasoning is still flawed.

For your information, I actually have taken a lot of courses, so many so actually, that I have a PhD. If you are such a wizard scientist, I suggest you share your CV with us so that we know why we should take your judgment of the situation for granted.

In any case, my PhD is not in science, but in Egyptology. However, it is a field that relies heavily on science. It also is a field that looks at history, which you hint at in your remarks above. The only way we can know whether global warming is a possible threat to us, regardless of modern factors, is to look at the geological record over time. In Egypt, we have a very stark indication that severe climate change happened millennia ago, long before anyone was burning fossil fuels etc. At one time, all of Egypt's territory was inhabited by humans and animals-big game etc. The archaeological record demonstrates that the country was largely savannah. And then things started to dry up, and the people migrated to the Nile Valley and settled near the river, which led to the development of the ancient Egyptian civilization. It reached a point where only 4% of the land in Egypt is inhabitable. That indicates a very big change in climate, perhaps not "global warming" but certainly at least a local change that altered the way of life of people forever.

Now, while your remarks above that the trends are going against what we would expect from non-human factors may be true, it still does not negate the fact that even without the modern human factors, the earth does undergo large climate shifts. These might make some areas hotter, or colder, or desert, or frozen, or whatever. The point is that we won't be able to stop it one way or another-1000s of years of history demonstrates that. What we need to focus our efforts on is dealing with the EFFECTS on humans.

 

[literatim]

Is Global Warming a Scam? John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel, Says Yes

 

[Corydoras]

A question to both sides of the debate: Why is it so important to prove one way or the other?

If there IS global warming and it IS human-caused, there is still no reason for the federal government to get involved. Either way, there is still no reason for governments to take a coercive tack toward individuals.

 

[Anti Federalist]

JM wrote:

Once people understand that this is a scientific issue, and not a political one

Then why is a political "solution" called for, in the form of government coercion?

JM wrote:

Markets can also create nuclear weapons

The Manhattan Project was the market?

 

[Nefertiti]

A question to both sides of the debate: Why is it so important to prove one way or the other?

If there IS global warming and it IS human-caused, there is still no reason for the federal government to get involved. Either way, there is still no reason for governments to take a coercive tack toward individuals.

It isn't.

If it causes large movements in population, people losing their livelihood and homes, and perhaps even forced to migrate to other countries as a result, in a world of modern borders and visa requirements, what are people who are affected supposed to do?

 

[rp0x]

Is Global Warming a Scam? John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel, Says Yes

I would rather side with mainstream scientific opinion, and not the opinion of the Weather Channel founder.


The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation

The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[18] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[19] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[20] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

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]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

 

[navi]

I believe in global warming but I refuse to take part in the mass hysteria produced by Hollywood.

Everyone agrees that pollution does more harm than good. Whether or not you believe that humans caused the climate change is irrelevant, imo. It's up to us as individuals to put pressure on companies to reduce waste and pollution. We need to get rid of the subsidies on oil and corn companies so that alternative sources of energy are cheap enough for mass consumption. It'll ease our dependence on ME oil and we won't have to fight wars over it.

 

[4Horsemen]

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

By Noel Sheppard | November 7, 2007 - 17:58 ET

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.


It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

http://newsbusters.org//blogs/noel-...-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.



I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

 

[freelance]

I believe in global warming but I refuse to take part in the mass hysteria produced by Hollywood.

Everyone agrees that pollution does more harm than good. Whether or not you believe that humans caused the climate change is irrelevant, imo. It's up to us as individuals to put pressure on companies to reduce waste and pollution. We need to get rid of the subsidies on oil and corn companies so that alternative sources of energy are cheap enough for mass consumption. It'll ease our dependence on ME oil and we won't have to fight wars over it.

Totally agree with you on pollution! I also WANT to find sustainable forms of energy. They're out there, and they're suppressed.

 

[angelatc]

I agree with that girl! The federal government is so efficient in handling matters like Katrina and Iraq so let's let them handle global warming and health care as well! Carbon taxes and mandatory health care for all!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, they've done wonders with the oil market. We obviously need them to develop alternatives for us so they can divvie up the controls to their cronies.

I'd rather die on an overheated planet than live with the progressive socialism that comes with everything that the left does.

 

[werdd]

i remember even when i was a kid nickolodeon was doing save the earth stuff, i think its great and all but we have been indoctrinated in the past 20 years.

I do think that both us coming out of an ice age, and pouring carbon into the atmosphere is affecting our climate, it's just impossible to tell which is affecting more. Well, atleast no one has found out which is more prevalent.

 

[Richandler]

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

By Noel Sheppard | November 7, 2007 - 17:58 ET

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.


It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

http://newsbusters.org//blogs/noel-...-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.



I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

He should have pointed out how the IPCC is a collection of government appointed scientists. All appointed most likely for political gain.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

You don't want to attack someone's religion when you're campaigning for Dr Paul.

Global warming is a religion.

This is why you have to emphasize the hemp biodiesel issue.