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

[jamesmadison]

......
................
...............................

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!11!!!!!!!!11!!

Rofl, yeah, the sun used to affect the climate, but for some odd reason it has no affect anymore, Global warming has rendered the sun useless.

I'm sorry that your position has no scientific validity.

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

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.

 

[QWE]

Why is it that the only people i hear talking about global warming are the ones that watch TV.

Because you don't take a class that covers it?

 

[QWE]

No one answered this student's concern or my post a couple pages back. Jesus this topic brings out the worst in Ron Paul supporters. Fucking sheep...
I bet plenty of you don't believe in Evolution of any kind either. There's no "consensus"...

 

[Birdlady]

No one answered this student's concern or my post a couple pages back. Jesus this topic brings out the worst in Ron Paul supporters. Fucking sheep...
I bet plenty of you don't believe in Evolution of any kind either. There's no "consensus"...

Nope. I don't believe in evolution.

I am far from being a sheep too. No one has shown me any evidence that absolutely proves man-made global warming, so I must keep my mind open to the idea that it might not be true.

 

[winston_blade]

No one answered this student's concern or my post a couple pages back. Jesus this topic brings out the worst in Ron Paul supporters. Fucking sheep...
I bet plenty of you don't believe in Evolution of any kind either. There's no "consensus"...

Here's the consensus, Al Gore is utterly insane. How often are socialists and entertainers right on anything? Pretty much never. That doesn't mean that global warming isn't real, it just means that I will need indisputable proof and I would also like the leaders of the movement to take it seriously (Al Gore planning concerts that burn tons of fossil fuels, yeah that sounds right).

 

[Ninja Homer]

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/

 

[QWE]

Here's the consensus, Al Gore is utterly insane. How often are socialists and entertainers right on anything? Pretty much never. That doesn't mean that global warming isn't real, it just means that I will need indisputable proof and I would also like the leaders of the movement to take it seriously (Al Gore planning concerts that burn tons of fossil fuels, yeah that sounds right).

I don't like Al Gore. That's not what I'm talking about. Why do you assume I'm relying on TV and entertainers?

Again, like someone has said a few times before... "take a class". Get educated. Learn everything you can about climate change, THEN try and argue against it. There's plenty of people who can, but none of them seem to be in this topic.

 

[jamesmadison]

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/

This has already been demonstrated false. The solar hypothesis is nonsense that is based on old data.

 

[Ninja Homer]

This has already been demonstrated false. The solar hypothesis is nonsense that is based on old data.

Then give us the new data. You ask for facts, but refuse to give any yourself.

 

[aravoth]

I'm sorry that your position has no scientific validity.

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

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.

I'm pretty sure it has scientific validity. Maybe you should be reading the work of people who's job it is to study solar output. Like people in Astrophysics, at NASA. Instead you quote sources from people that work in labratories that were built specifically to study one aspect of the climate puzzle as it relates to global warming. Conflict of interest? Job security? who knows.

You guys wouldn't know scientific validity if it fell out of the sky, landed on your face, and started to wiggle.

 

[American]

focusing on Global warming is just another "war" on something. Its being used as a political tool.

There is however a reason to be concerned for financial reasons. Renewable energy and less dependence on fossil fuels would be in everyones interest. But to declare another war would be counter productive.

 

[jjockers]

Jamesmadison: Please, leave science to scientists.

Right. I'm a a 3rd year graduate student in physics @ unc-chapel hill. There is certainly no consensus here regarding global warming. In fact, several weeks back, a new research paper was dispersed to all physics faculty, staff, and grad students here that detailed the very latest global warming research - and the conclusion was quite different than the one you are falsely spreading around. When I get a hold of that paper again, I'll cite it here for you.

In the mean time, stop pretending you can speak for all scientists.

 

[jamesmadison]

I'm pretty sure it has scientific validity. Maybe you should be reading the work of people who's job it is to study solar output. Like people in Astrophysics, at NASA. Instead you quote sources from people that work in labratories that were built specifically to study one aspect of the climate puzzle as it relates to global warming. Conflict of interest? Job security? who knows.

You guys wouldn't know scientific validity if it fell out of the sky, landed on your face, and started to wiggle.

This is less than 6 months old.

 

[jamesmadison]

Right. I'm a a 3rd year graduate student in physics @ unc-chapel hill. There is certainly no consensus here regarding global warming. In fact, several weeks back, a new research paper was dispersed to all physics faculty, staff, and grad students here that detailed the very latest global warming research - and the conclusion was quite different than the one you are falsely spreading around. When I get a hold of that paper again, I'll cite it here for you.

In the mean time, stop pretending you can speak for all scientists.

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

 

[Richandler]

First to comment on the cosmic ray argument. Less comsic rays = less cloud cover, less cloud cover results in warmer temperatures. Strange I know...

Also I believe in evolution, you can witness the facts that support it with the birth of your child, but I aslo know global warming is happening, however I can not withness it while I'm driving down the freeway.

 

[jamesmadison]

Nope. I don't believe in evolution.

I am far from being a sheep too. No one has shown me any evidence that absolutely proves man-made global warming, so I must keep my mind open to the idea that it might not be true.

 

[aravoth]

I'm sorry that your position has no scientific validity.

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

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.

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.

 

[OptionsTrader]

I think it's going to be an uphill battle convincing young people to be 'contrarians'. Global Warming (A new religion) is already being indoctrinated in the education system.

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 petroleum, and reigning in the growing military empire is the single most effective way to reduce carbon emissions immediately.

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.

 

[freelance]

I'm guessing oil companies?

and/or govt--most of them anyway. But yeah, same idea. Either one expects a predetermined outcomes and edits with abandon.

 

[Corydoras]

Eh, the girl in the original article (remember her?) wanted to go see a "radical," and she wanted to see some ranter from the 1960s left. That's the only reason she was disappointed-- she wanted to gawk at a political dinosaur, and instead she got someone who was pointing out the continued vital importance of a document from the eighteenth century. I don't think we should worry about Dr. Paul's positions losing the youth vote.