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

[MGreen]

Let's have a war on global warming! The federal government has to protect us simpletons from ourselves!

 

[LibertyOfOne]

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

Yeah and that has nothing to do with the eventual depletion of oil. Post Hoc

 

[rp0x]

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,.

 

[Birdlady]

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.

And the problem with corn is that it is genetically modified.

"Why are we so scared to mandate E-10 gasoline? The gov't mandates everything else they deem harmful etc."
That's pretty poor conclusion or persuasion to want to mandate something. Give me a break!
If it was harmful the government would want it!

 

[dspectre]

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.

Without even going into scientific arguments, tell me what have you accomplished?
You talk down to people for their supposed lack of education and ignorance(which you presume and don't know), and then expect them to all of the sudden agree with you?

Instead of constructively stating your position, you have effectively annoyed people who may have listened to you, and embolden those that disagree.

You have far from succeeded on what you thought you planned to do, to put it nicely.

 

[jamesmadison]

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.

A rational voice in a sea or irrationality.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

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,.

Yes

 

[jamesmadison]

Without even going into scientific arguments, tell me what have you accomplished?
You talk down to people for their supposed lack of education and ignorance(which you presume and don't know), and then expect them to all of the sudden agree with you?

Instead of constructively stating your position, you have effectively annoyed people who may have listened to you, and embolden those that disagree.

You have far from succeeded on what you thought you planned to do, to put it nicely.

No - i just want to remove the fox noise brainwashing of "global warming is not scientifically sound."

Man made global warming is accepted fact in the scientific community.

 

[jamesmadison]

Without even going into scientific arguments, tell me what have you accomplished?
You talk down to people for their supposed lack of education and ignorance(which you presume and don't know), and then expect them to all of the sudden agree with you?

Instead of constructively stating your position, you have effectively annoyed people who may have listened to you, and embolden those that disagree.

You have far from succeeded on what you thought you planned to do, to put it nicely.

That's an issue of whether air pollution can have a detrimental effect to the property of the individual. If it does, and is proven - it warrants regulation because the alternative, legislation, is not feasible.

 

[paulitics]

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.

sounds like alot of emotion over substance here.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

No - i just want to remove the fox noise brainwashing of "global warming is not scientifically sound."

Man made global warming is accepted fact in the scientific community.

Yeah C02 is a forcing we already know.

 

[aravoth]

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.

Give me a break. Most of us don't even watch TV, or listen to AM radio. I'd like to know what scientific evidence you are talking about. Even you have to agree that the computer models they produce where complete crap. Secondly, you need verifiable results, which we don't have. We have ice core samples depicting Several Past Ice Ages and Warming periods, none of it caused by man. Normally you would test your theory and try to reproduce the same results. Unfortunatly that would require, a star, a planet, and a lot of CO2. Since we don't have those readily available, I'll just go out on a limb and say that everything we have on this topic is speculation.

We do know that CO2 levels rise after a warming trend occurs. Probably because heat increases the rate of decay, and there is a lot of dead things littering the ground. We know that solar output has increased, which it does on a rotating basis, always has, it's just the way it burns off it's fuel. We know our "solar sheild" ie: the magnetisphere has lost a lot of strength, and some specualate that that it is getting ready to flip, which it has done, several times in the past. When that happens there is very little barrier between us and the solar systems oven.

We also know that the same people perpetuating this fear around are the same people selling you carbon offsets. It's a great plan really. Create a panic, and then come to the rescue with your pre-planned solution.

Am I saying that we don't need to reign in pollution? No! Absolutly not, start a litter patrol, use your "scientific" brain and develop an alternate to the combustion engine. Write a book, change peoples minds, but don't get Tyrannical on the entire planet and force the under-developed nations to live in squaler forever, and force the rest of us to pay a carbon tax for all the pollution that China puts out. Good luck forcing them to just "stop the factories".

Conclusion? It was changed from "global warming" to "climate change" for a reason. Even the Al Gores of the world have no friggan clue what is going on. Neither do I, and neither do you. Neither do any of the "scientists" making claims on results that can never be verified or reproduced. There is more going on here than people are telling you. It is not just human interaction that is doing this.

 

[dspectre]

No - i just want to remove the fox noise brainwashing of "global warming is not scientifically sound."

Man made global warming is accepted fact in the scientific community.

Did you remove them?

 

[paulitics]

No - i just want to remove the fox noise brainwashing of "global warming is not scientifically sound."

Man made global warming is accepted fact in the scientific community.

no its not, there are plenty of renowned scientists, climatologists, and meteorologists who dispute it.

 

[cjhowe]

Start with the assumption that man is responsible and that man can do something about it. What then? Do we lobby government for the next decade to do something about it or do we take it upon ourselves to do something? Do we take personal responsibility for our consumption or do we push it off on government to mandate production? Do we have government subsidize industry with billions of dollars or do we create a prize funded by those that care about the issue. If you want 200mpg automobiles to be mainstream, create a billion dollar prize in the private sector and it will happen much quicker than it would happen through government mandates. Newt Gingrich is dead right on this issue. We can no longer sit back and wonder if we're doing harm to our planet. We are. Is global warming the effect, is climate change? It doesn't matter, what we're doing now no matter the measurable outcome isn't good and we know it. The question is, who is more capable of solving it. The sooner Washington washes it's hands on this issue, the faster the free market can do what it does better than any government can.

 

[Stealth4]

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.

How much research have you done on this subject to come to this assertion of yours?

Yes the earth is warming - it the 100% of that temperature rise caused by humans? - Very Doubtful.

 

[thatnerdyguy]

That's an issue of whether air pollution can have a detrimental effect to the property of the individual. If it does, and is proven - it warrants regulation because the alternative, legislation, is not feasible.

What are you talking about? There is a third option: a strong civil judiciary. If people get SUED for poluting others property, and it makes certain level of pollution unprofitable, then the pollution will stop. Federal intervention is a BAD IDEA.

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?

 

[LibertyOfOne]

How much research have you done on this subject to come to this assertion of yours?

Yes the earth is warming - it the 100% of that temperature rise caused by humans? - Very Doubtful.

No one is saying 100% of it is caused by humans. The only thing that has been said is that the change in the rate of increase in temperature is likely caused by human activity.

 

[SlapItHigh]

Start with the assumption that man is responsible and that man can do something about it. What then? Do we lobby government for the next decade to do something about it or do we take it upon ourselves to do something? Do we take personal responsibility for our consumption or do we push it off on government to mandate production? Do we have government subsidize industry with billions of dollars or do we create a prize funded by those that care about the issue. If you want 200mpg automobiles to be mainstream, create a billion dollar prize in the private sector and it will happen much quicker than it would happen through government mandates. Newt Gingrich is dead right on this issue. We can no longer sit back and wonder if we're doing harm to our planet. We are. Is global warming the effect, is climate change? It doesn't matter, what we're doing now no matter the measurable outcome isn't good and we know it. The question is, who is more capable of solving it. The sooner Washington washes it's hands on this issue, the faster the free market can do what it does better than any government can.

Thank you.

We are totally limiting ourselves by expecting suits in washington to solve this problem for us.

 

[partypooper]

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.