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

[rp0x]

I don't depend on Al Gore or Ron Paul to tell me about global warming.

If you don't have time or money to take a course, read peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is absolute consensus among scientists that global warming is caused by human activity.

 

[jamesmadison]

huh?

Please, leave science to scientists.

 

[skiingff]

I'm disappointed too.

Ron Paul needs to address this issue.

What will he do to cut pollution and dependence from OPEC?

First of all, the federal government needs to mandate E-10 gasoline. That is 10% ethanol, 90% regular gasoline. As you know, I'm usually the last person to say the gov't should mandate anything. However, I think this is not only an environmental issue, but a national security one as well.

Please, before you go lamblasting me, look up E-10 (and E-85 while your at it) on Wikipedia.

It's literally fuel made from corn, grown right here in the USA. Soon, cellulosic ethanol will be commercially produced and allow farmers to grow twice as much ethanol on the same amount of land, so land use is not a problem, and wouldn't be a problem with only E-10.

Flex-fuel vehicles (there are millions on the road today) run on up to 85% ethanol, and 15+% gasoline (the gas helps the car start better in cold weather). Check your driver's manual to see if you have a flex-fuel vehicle. If you do, your car could literally run on corn oil! (Although there are limited refueling stations, but that's the beauty, these cars can of course also run on regular gas).

Why are we so scared to mandate E-10 gasoline? The gov't mandates everything else they deem harmful etc.

Again, I've done LOTS of research on this subject. E-10 releases 13%-25% less pollution (from production to use). It has no harmful effects on vehicles and is warrantied. There is plenty of supply, but not enough demand because the oil companies refuse to offer this alternative.

 

[SlapItHigh]

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

It doesn't matter where you begin with this beause this person has no desire to even consider ideas other than his own. I provided a very well written link with many references and he dismisses it without even reading it. You have to be open minded and that person is not.

 

[PaleoConservative]

"Please, leave science to scientists."


What he really meant to say is this: Don't think for yourself. Just trust what the left-wing, wacko, geek, scientists tell us about global baloney. PS--make sure you throw tons of your hard earned cash to solve the problem.

 

[jamesmadison]

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.

Academia is a whole including social sciences (fake science) and biological sciences, physical sciences, etc. The latter two depend on testable and verifable information, the former is not. The theories of the latter two make it difficult for any information, that over time is not verifiable, to be accepted as fact. For the former, the same cannot be said and indoctrination in an ideal system - and we can argue whether it may be beneficial or not - can redily occur.

 

[jamesmadison]

"Please, leave science to scientists."


What he really meant to say is this: Don't think for yourself. Just trust what the left-wing, wacko, geek, scientists tell us about global baloney. PS--make sure you throw tons of your hard earned cash to solve the problem.

The hostility to science is reminiscent of the prosecution of Galileo Galilei.

 

[MGreen]

No one wants to destroy the planet. If there is a less polluting source of energy, it will be adopted by the people.

 

[dspectre]

Academia is a whole including social sciences (fake science) and biological sciences, physical sciences, etc. The latter two depend on testable and verifable information, the former doesn't. The theories of the latter two make it difficult for any information, that over time is not verifiable, to be accepted as fact. For the former, the same cannot be said and indoctrination in an ideal system - and we can argue whether it may be beneficial or not - can redily occur.

I do have a scientific background. I feel that you aren't offering many facts, and you just cast off what other people say.

I really don't know what to say to you.

 

[jamesmadison]

No one wants to destroy the planet. If there is a less polluting source of energy, it will be adopted by the people.

Unless it's too late.

 

[SlapItHigh]

Again, I've done LOTS of research on this subject. E-10 releases 13%-25% less pollution (from production to use). It has no harmful effects on vehicles and is warrantied. There is plenty of supply, but not enough demand because the oil companies refuse to offer this alternative.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7308 - What did you think about this?

 

[J4ck]

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=showname&ID=443

Watch&hear Walter Block on environmental issues. It's pretty good, i think some people could be convinced with that.

 

[jamesmadison]

I do have a scientific background. I feel that you aren't offering many facts, and you just cast off what other people say.

I really don't know what to say to you.

I'm here to attack imagined facts with the same ferocity as the "global warming is fake" crowd. Once people understand that this is a scientific issue, and not a political one, they may go take a course at a university and try to understand the issue themselves as opposed to believing what people like david horowitz and bill o'reilly tell them.

 

[PaleoConservative]

"The hostility to science is reminiscent of the prosecution of Galileo Galilei."

Snicker, yeah sure slappy. Your posts were so friendly early on.

The Scientific community can publish and research anything they want. Just because I fail to bow down and worship their findings doesn't mean I'm being hostile to it.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

I don't see the need to save every animal in the world when you can just make a DNA data bank or have genetic samples. Later on you could bring them back if you so choose. To suggest that the earth must remain static like it was before humans evolved is being short sighted. The whole thing about ecosystems is not relevant today considering how far humans have been removed from nature.

 

[rp0x]

What he really meant to say is this: Don't think for yourself. Just trust what the left-wing, wacko, geek, scientists tell us

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?

The logical thing for me to do is trust on the scientific *consensus*, not on political consensus.

 

[LukeNM]

Thirty years ago it was global cooling, now it's global warming, right!

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

They are after your MONEY!

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Oil and Coal are not here for ever. So there is no real need to regulate it. The case could be argued that oil has already reached it's peak. The market will force people into renewables without the need for government.

 

[jamesmadison]

Oil and Coal are not here for ever. So there is no real need to regulate it. The case could be argued that oil has already reached it's peak. The market will force people into renewables without the need for government.

Markets can also create nuclear weapons, without regulation, that have the potential do destroy the world.

 

[jamesmadison]

Thirty years ago it was global cooling, now it's global warming, right!

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

They are after your MONEY!

It's called science and it operates within a framework of constant change.