Global Warming
Submitted by tombstoneblues1220 on Sun, 11/18/2007 - 11:13I am a Ron Paul supporter, have been for a long time, but I am considering jumping ship because of his environmental stance (or lack of one). First, I believe he acknowledged global warming and says that if each individual is left to protect his own property, there will actually be less pollution. However, has it not been made clear that global warming demands an aggressive, pro-active plan in order to decrease or reverse its affects? Perhaps if libertarianism or constitutionalism, or whatever term you'd like, does not solve such an immense and important problem as this, maybe we need to face facts and adopt a big government strategy. If people are left to their own devices, does anyone honestly expect them to change anything? I can understand Paul's reluctance to enter Darfur (although I think humanitarian aid would be nice), and his warnings against socialized medicine (Cuba is worse off than us), but this issue really seems to hurt his chances.
By the way, if you don't think global warming is real, please don't bother to respond to this.
ron paul on environment
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/
T.
NOT a scam.
This is an intriguing thread. Lots of "spot on" points and contributions and lots of trash...all from hardcore RP supporters. Dr.Paul loves the diversity of his supporters and this thread is yet another example.
RP is a lover of markets, especially how they have feedback systems that solve problems. If one looks at the market for energy right now - worldwide - big changes are taking place. Coal-fired plants are being canceled everywhere. Nuclear is getting a second look in places it has been all but banned. "Green" is in with everyone from Walmart to Pepsi. Why? Because the economic feedback is that conservation of resources is a money maker. Polluting is not only expensive but, with present day technology, unnecessary.
Please don't jump ship :)
h-daddy
How can you say Green and
How can you say Green and Wal-Mart in the same sentence? With all of the Made In China products bloating the aisles of Wal-Mart, how can you possibly call them "green"? Are you sniffing glue?
No glue
Walmart's new stores use far far less energy than their old ones. They sell lots of "green"products and promote some too. Think of their sales campaign to sell 100 million compact fluorescent bulbs...conserves resources and makes 'em some $$. That's how markets solve the global warming problem...
Obviously importing stuff from China doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense but apparently there is a big demand. Free markets don't always behave the way we would like them to.
Just because something is made in China doesn't mean it can'tbe "green".
h-daddy
here ya go ..
http://longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/12/gl...
http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/GlobalWarmin...
http://www.dialup4less.com/~donald/globalwarming5.html
and , I got some Swamp land in Florida for sale if ya want it, anything for a reasonable price :) hehe ... RUNNNN the ice is melting
____ _____ _____ _____ ______ ______ _____ ___
"The time is near at hand which we must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."
George Washington
First President of the USA.
≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make
violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy
charts are junk
A quick glance at the longrangeweather chart shows me it is junk. For example, there is no evidence whatsoever that the "little ice age" was global. Indeed, it had very little effect, if any, on North America. No serious researcher into global temperatures 4000 years ago would post such data.
h-daddy
global warming - don't respond if you don't agree with me!
What do you even mean by "global warming". Over the last 20 years, I would have to say it does appear that the earth has warmed. Two years ago, it was quite hot. This last year it has not been quite so hot. But let's agree that the world has warmed up - even if the south pole seems to have more ice lately. The question is really not the warming, but what is the cause.
Here then are a few questions.
1. What exactly is the cause. If you accept DR. Al Gore's interpretation, then the debate is over, the debate is OVER.
2. Do you really believe that big government would best handle the solution? If you ever truly were a Ron Paul supporter, you must realize that the government always delivers the opposite of anything they promise. So, when you think about the government solving any man-made climate problems, think FEMA.
3. Check out the TED TALKS recent video on climate change. With technology, it might just be possible to cancel out any co2 effects, assuming even that we really do have proof that co2 precedes temperature change, and it's not the reverse, as a detailed look at Al Gore's data would seem to suggest.
4. Consider that even one country, as big and powerful as the US cannot change the entire world. It is most likely that the US response with some other president would be to bomb or bribe other countries. If politics of oil lead to this, can you imagine a real crisis and how our government would handle it.
As you can see, I have not suggested that global warming has not occurred, but I am not convinced that the causes are completely known.
I suggest, if you are open minded, as is Ron Paul, you shouldn’t simply jump on the bandwagon of a political cause without doing your homework just as you should do so with Ron's policies. One fairly obvious possibility is that the cloud layers have changed, which, if true, would so overwhelm any possible changes from co2 that any so called debate that doesn't include cloud studies is certainly flawed. After all, cloudy days are often 10-20 degrees cooler than sunny days, so how can one ignore such a huge affect. And to assume that clouds are always the same from year to year or decade to decade seems to be a stretch.
A good read on this is "The chilling Stars", by Calder and Svensmark. You might also look at the recent 20/20 report by John Stossel, and there is also some discussions on the politics of GW in the “Great Global Warming Swindle”.
Global warming scam
How can you be so smart about IRS, FedRes but swallow Al Gore's junk on GW?
Please read:
Whatever happened to the new glacial age they were warning about in the 60s? I remember that you know, I'm not a young kid. They went marching around with signs saying we would freeze. There were 5,000 polar bears then, and there are 20,000 now. So you can see what nonsense that turned out to be about them being in trouble or headed for 'extinction'.
The planet will do what it wants and even if we pollute it's not going to change the effects of the sun or gravity of the temperature of the air and water, or negligably at all. And the fact that they want MONEY to 'fix' it is suspicious. What is that going to do? It is just lining Al Gore's pocket. What an idiot he is! Does he think we forgot about 40 years ago? I knew then it was bull. They talk about that in the second video.
You should watch these videos and LISTEN to the scientists: global warming is big brother; just as much as wiretaps are, and worse, because they are trying to scare you into obeying them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDi_u0dcig
Also the founder of the weather channel said it's a HUGE SCAM...
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/11338421.html
COMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
By John Coleman (founder of the weather channel)
jcoleman@kusi.com
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 back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko 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.
Environmental extremist, 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 ridicules 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 do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.
However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.
I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.
Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.
And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.
So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.
There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.
I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.
I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.
I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.
The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.
I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.
There have been several threads on global warming ...
This topic has been addressed extensively in other threads, and several people have posted long and detailed comments that don't deny AGW but address an approach consistent with respect for liberty. My own post on the topic was extremely long, and is by no means the best, but will probably appeal to you since it is premised on the validity of the AGW theory and addresses the free market approaches consistent with Dr. Paul's views. That entire thread has a title totally unrelated to global warming (it was a discussion that arose at a UNH Rally), and is at:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/6858#comments
My own comment is easy to find: it is entitled:
"As the only non-scientist on this forum ... [g]"
But please browse that entire thread, as my own remarks were by no means the only ones you might find helpful (you will also, of course, find the posts you have indicated you will not read, and you are free not to read those).
what the fuk
you people got nothing better to do then complain about someone posting something they feel passionate about.
how many duplicate ron paul threads and video's are there ?
how many duplicate complaints about double posting are there, like we need yours added to it.
hipocrits.
you know what political correctness is ? a socialists view of whats right and what's not.
this is america, we have the right to do what we want when we want.
you used up more energy reading the post and responding to it to complain then had you just skipped over it.
thank god ron paul supports the individuals freedom to do as he pleases as long as no-one is harmed.
maybe you should take a lesson from that ?
personally, I'm sick of reading post from people complaining about other peoples posts.
get a life.
kick rocks and move on if you dont like what people do here.
ve va le revolution
what the fuk
there, does that upset you ?
ve va le revolution
Yep .People gotta learn to
Yep .People gotta learn to use the search function.
However here i think the goal was to stir shit as the poster has been around for 3 weeks and has never posted a reply or thread till this garbege
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms is ,as a last resort ,to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-Thomas Jefferson
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms is ,as a last resort ,to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-Thomas Jefferson
As the only non-scientist on this forum ... [g]
In the general election, we're still going to need an approach that sounds plausible to people who think global warming is real as well as those who think it is junk science. Paul is still the best candidate on the issue even if the AGW theory proves true.
Here are several points that might be useful:
(1) Paul supports full liability for environmental harm that can be measured, and the internalization of pollution costs that currently allow some harmful activities to be economically viable because the polluter is able to impose costs on others.
(2) Paul is part of the Green Scissors movement to eliminate government spending on activities that damage the environment.
(3) Government officials never bear the cost of their failures, so entrusting this to such people means placing blind faith without accountability. Regulatory answers normally result in benefits to the largest businesses being regulated, with the public interest way, way down the list.
(4) The largest contributors to this problem are China and India, so draconian measures applied to Americans will not solve the problem at all, even if the American contribution to greenhouse gases is reduced to zero. Treaties will be useless, absent actual economic consequences to violators, and since government officials never bear the costs of their actions personally, no consequences can be applied to violators based on government-to-government agreements.
(5) Unwanted climate changes are not the only possible future disaster. One must always consider the consequences of action as well as inaction. Let's say there is a 5% possibility that ignoring global warming will result in a planetary catastrophe and the death of billions. What if there is a 20% possibility that the economic damage from a successful global limitation on greenhouse gases will result in the death of 10% of the world's population? We must always consider the downside of ALL options.
Okay, now some general free market comments:
(1) Mere persuasion that it is a problem will lead to changes in behavior: people tip cab drivers they'll never see again due to social pressure, and companies give to charities for favorable publicity. More generally, people are not atomistic, selfish beings, and regularly take actions where the effect of their individual input is extremely small. Working on an election campaign, for example. Speaking out on global warming, as another. Buying more expensive "green" products. One of the reasons some people don't want to accept the global warming hypothesis is that they (rightfully) fear that accepting this would empower politicians to take draconian measures with little benefit and much harm. Taking government action off the table would make it easier to convince such people (assuming, once again, the science is all on the side of the global warming catastrophe hypothesis).
(2) The wealthier someone is, the more interested they become in the environment. Poor people and poor countries are worried about survival and basic needs. Increasing prosperity leads to more concern about pollution. We should encourage freer markets that lead to economic prosperity both to increase the number of people willing to make sacrifices for possible environment harm, and to increase the capacity of the world economy to bear the heavy costs of reducing greenhouse gases. All true environmentalists should become radical free market advocates favoring economic growth.
(3) One can never anticipate the genius of the creative mind to solve problems, and markets are more likely to come up with the answer to greenhouse gases if government interference is kept to a minimum. Different people working separately on different hypotheses have a greater chance of coming up with major technological improvements without a stifling government bureaucracy, and with a consensus on the issue, lots of people will want to become THE HERO WHO SOLVED THE PROBLEM by coming up with that solution.
Acknowledging that we cannot predict the market solution, here are 4 ways to increase the possibility of a solution without violating rights:
(1) Climate stability bonds - Bonds would be issued that mature and pay once certain objective measures of the climate are achieved. Those who believe this is the crisis of mankind could issue bonds or contribute to organizations that will issue them, prepared to make payment if the goal is achieved. Different bonds would be issued with different goals, of course. It doesn't matter if the goal is difficult to achieve: the initial trading price in such cases would be low on a free market, and rise as progress occurs. Those who believe the whole issue just represents random fluctuations could buy the bonds and profit with no effort as nature solves the problem, if they're right. Those who have ideas to improve climate stability could buy the bonds, develop their solution, and profit enormously as the bond price rises from the discovery, publicity, and implementation of their solution. Note also that, to the extent an authoritarian Chinese government has the ability to influence global warming more than anyone, they have an incentive to buy these bonds with some of their surplus (no longer going into US bonds since Paul has stopped deficit spending), then take actions that will improve the climate and increase the value of the bonds. The solution doesn't have to be total, as an improving climate will cause the rise of the trading price of the bond with the increasing likelihood of payout. Businesses that wanted to get good publicity could issue these bonds (raising a little money in the process) along with non-profit environmental organizations funded by contributions.
(2) Climate futures contracts - Futures trading can allow people to go long or short on contracts that describe future conditions, allowing a true consensus on the problem to be developed. Some people arrogantly assert that they KNOW climate change is real or KNOW it is fake, but futures contracts will represent people putting their money where their mouth is on the topic, and the ones who profit will be the ones who are right. Thus, wealth will move toward those with the correct hypothesis, leading to more funds for those who are correct scientifically. Professor Robin Hanson of George Mason University has done much good work on how futures contracts can be used for purposes such as fighting terrorism, and these are a good vehicle for fighting global warming, as well.
(3) Climate insurance - Insurance that pays out when certain negative effects occur will allow the gathering of risk into a smaller unit of businesses, who will then have an overwhelming incentive to reduce the likelihood of harm, as it will require major payouts. Again, the premium cost will allow a free market determination of the actual risk, since insurance companies must price for profit, and people who care about this issue will be able to show how much they are REALLY willing to sacrifice for this goal.
(4) Prizes and awards - Annual awards and prizes for those who develop solutions to the problem can be funded by non-profit organizations and businesses. Instead of giving a Nobel Peace Prize to someone for persuading people there is a problem, give prizes and awards to people who actually provide solutions.
One of the advantages of these free market approaches is that many will allow the people who believe global warming is a hoax to benefit financially if they are right, so they cannot object to them as they would to government solutions based on coercion. Of course, the free market approach will also be multi-faceted, unlike the monolithic and bureaucratic approach developed by government. And it will include even more interesting and productive incentives that nobody has currently considered.
Please also note that a few of these ideas will develop even IF government action gets in the way: the voluntary sector of society still manages to create in a world in which the government is constantly in the way. But the solutions will come much quicker in a freer and more prosperous world. And the virtually certain economic destruction from all the government-heavy solutions will have been avoided.
I was accepting the premises for the sake of the argument. I am not a scientist, and am sick of people who aren't scientists giving their uninformed opinion on whether the science is settled or questionable. Free market solutions cause the science and the reality to determine the outcome, and that is what all of us want, regardless of our opinion on whether the Gore-popularized hypothesis is itself true.
Minimum regulation even in worst case
If it can be shown that global warming is caused by human emission of CO2 (let's assume that, there are good arguments on both sides), AND if it can be shown that this is a threat to our environment (actually, this is much more speculative), AND that reductions of CO2 emission would improve the situation (actually, the best for the environment can be to have the economy grow as fast as possible since that makes future solutions more affordable), then we need to talk about how to handle it within a constitutional and libertarian framework.
At most, the government would decide how much CO2 its country will be allowed to emit per year, and sell emission rights to the highest bidder. The market would then take care of how emissions should be allocated between transports, agriculture et cetera. I could live with that.
This WORST CASE rational regulation scenario is completly different from what Al Gore and other environmentalists advocate. They want to use global warming as a pretext for massive government regulation of everything from taxes on air travel, subsidies to research and import quotas on agricultural products. The EU has actually forbidden the use of light bulbs in the name of fighting global warming! How silly is that?
The planned economy which most environmentalists advocate would only worsen the global warming. Once the growth in China has stabilized and the 100+ nuclear power plants under contruction there are comleted, their emissions will fall. Btw, the famous frightening UN report actually assumed that during the next 100 years, the world will burn several times more oil, coal and natural gas than exists! The "peak oil" phenomena might well be a natural solution to global warming. Fossile fuels once existed as CO2 in the atmosphere before it got fossilezed millions of years ago. Burning it is kind of recycling it!
"jumping ship"
I never encouraged anyone not to support Ron Paul. I said I was thinking about changing candidates because of his environmental policy. It certainly seems we should be able to discuss global warming and the libertarian response without being reduced to the idea of a counter-productive liberal who is here to sabotage everyone and take away support. It really is remarkable that some people are so aggressive on this. I've donated a couple hundred dollars to Ron's campaign (a large sum for a college student), written several articles about him in a college newspaper and attended one of his rallys. I still like Ron Paul the best, but the disagreement on this site alone indicates the general dispute over this issue. I apologize for not being an absolutist who thinks Ron Paul is the second coming of Christ. The point here, in general, is to discuss environmentalism with a large audience, not to take away support from Paul's campaign. For a group of people who are suspicious of the media and government, you are very hostile when it comes to even a suggestion that Ron Paul might not be entirely correct about something.
You say "discuss" but...
You say "discuss" yet in your original posting you ask those who don't agree with you not to respond. Oooooooooooooook?!
Again, my own personal stance is that the jury is still out on the issue, however, my comments regarding you posting were related to the "spirit" in which you wrote, not the content. I don't agree with Ron 100% either, but yet I do agree on the majority of issues I think he can realistically affect in a presidential role (i.e. foreign wars, monetary currency, shrinking of governmental departments, etc). He is only a "second coming" if you perceive him as taking on the spirit of our founding fathers, not a Diety. I do believe he is evoking that same spirit in many Americans as well, which I believe to be a good and positive thing.
As far as hostility from the responses, I wouldn't consider mine hostile, only questioning and cautionary. As to others' responses, I cannot speak to those. But when you post on an OPEN forum, you cannot control what you get, so be advised for future postings :-)
consensus
I believe this thread,and the previous thread with the same topic,has to do less with being a RP absolutist,and more about government/state control over issues,alongside the serious differences in belief about what is actually happening with re: to global warming.
You are free to disagree with RP,but the OP requested that only people who agree with global warming should post. If anything,I think that kind of thread is hurting RP more than global warming.
I do not quite understand the point of discussing it only amongst people who agree with you.
RP's position is RP's position. If,after research,you do not agree,fine.
As well,if the majority of people on this thread do not agree with you disagreeing with RP,that is not intolerance. It is opinion.
And the heart of RP's position is limited government and individual liberties. So people who disagree with you may seem impatient or intolerant,but the issue at hand is liberty,regardless of what is happening with global warming. The answer for me is always: well,it might work,but is it constitutional?
I think it is this sentiment that may be contributing to the spirit of the thread.
In any case,RP consistently says he will need a consensus to do anything,and will have to work with congress.
So those of you who are not 100% sold on his environmental position,do not panic. It will not be implmented overnight.
agree
People are obviously free to discuss what they want, but I had hoped to get opinions about how to solve gw as opposed to debating it. That's what I was interested in. None of the incredibly long posts have done anything at all to sway my opinion on the validity of gw and I knew that they wouldn't, hence my interest in those who want to discuss how to combat it.
Net Metering, etc.
If Paul is elected, government subsidies of energy corporations through oil wars and attempts at colonization will end. Clean energy alternatives will have a much better chance in the market.
If Paul is elected and repeals the income tax you will have at least a 15% increase in income. Environmentally concious people will use this money to purchase eco-friendly products, causing the price of those products to decline.
While I have never heard him discuss it, "net metering" seems tailor made for a Paul energy/environmental policy. The idea is that people install solar and wind power devices at their homes and businesses. During peak production times excess energy is put back into the grid and your electric meter actually runs backwards.
Power companies have blocked net metering due to what they call safety concerns, but it is my understanding that the technology already has proper safety measures in place.
Americans could invest some cash in home energy units, reduce their electric bills, personally help end our dependence on foreign energy and reduce pollution. The more people who did this, the more the cost of such units would go down, and so on and so on...
You want to gain opinions
You want to gain opinions that would solve a problem ,without debate?
Say what you really mean ,you want people to agree with you..
LOL
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms is ,as a last resort ,to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-Thomas Jefferson
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms is ,as a last resort ,to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-Thomas Jefferson
the issue
the issue i was interested in was ron paul's approach to global warming. so, no, i was not telling people who didn't agree with me not to express themselves. i am simply not interested in hearing about the gw "hoax" because i have heard it all before and to me, it makes about as much sense as saying 9/11 was an inside job and a conspiracy. it seems distrust has a habit of sometimes making us irrational.
another thing
so, as a result of gw hoax theorists responding to my post, we have entered into an incredibly long and unnecessary debate on gw which deviates from my original concern. this was not meant to be a discussion on gw's validity. if that is what other people are interested in, that's fine, but this whole thing has gotten away from my point. anyway, for those who did actually address the issue, i thank you for your perspective and reading recommendations.
This is the net ,you will
This is the net ,you will never get the excepted.But really tell me ,are you a one issue voter?who would you swim to if you jumped ship.Tell me that and I will take this thread with some seriousness
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms is ,as a last resort ,to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms is ,as a last resort ,to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-Thomas Jefferson
response
I am not a one issue voter and if I was, I would not support Paul in the first place since I am not terribly excited about his environmental stance. I already said that I like John Edwards as an alternative, only becuase I could not bring myself to vote for a social conservative and think guiliani has no business running for president.
Go ahead..
Change if you will....but don't expect us to fall for the TAX on global warming. It is a UN scam.
Science
It is a scientific fact that as time goes on the sun gets brighter and releases more energy than even 10 thousand years ago. Also, in recent years, the ice caps of other planets have melted an unprecedented amount, which has nothing to do with humans. This is not the issue you should be "jumping ship" for, my friend. Realize that there are multiple facets to the issue and that if this is your number one issue, no candidate is enough for you.
"People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people." - V for Vendetta
The biggest polution
The biggest polution producer of world now is this freaking war on terrorism. How many more sub 3miles/gallon tanks, humvees, attack choppers, bombers do you want to see running? What about the sulfur, phospherus, Nitrigen Oxides released into the air from ammos? I should have shout that question to Hillary yesterday.
Interesting closing comment for an "Open Forum"...lol
You cannot post and then hope to have only the people who "AGREE" with you respond...lol. Kind of defeats the purpose of an "Open Forum."
I'm not taking one side or the other, as the jury is still out in my opinion on the Global Warming issue. It is a real, true phenomena to at least "some" extent-- I personally think so. It is a real, true phenomena to the "extreme" extent that Al Gore and others might propose-- for me the jury is still out on that one.
However, to BEGIN you post suggesting that everyone who does not agree with Ron Paul 100% on 100% of the issues should "jump ship" I think is highly counterproductive to this site and a discredit and dishonor to Michael who setup this site as a Ron Paul SUPPORT mechanism.
If you cannot support or abide by that criteria, I would not suggest you "jump ship," but curtail comments suggesting that others should. Fair enough?
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Worry about those, not global warming. Global warming is happening to all globes in the solar system, not just ours.
"People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people." - V for Vendetta
Life Liberty and The pursuit of Happiness
Yes,
And if we are to do those things and follow the constituiton , we need Dr. Paul as president. YOU WILL NOT CONVINCE THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO FALSLY BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING CAUSE BY MAN.
Ron Paul has the most GREEN policy of all the candidates.
Arguing the existence of global warming is a waste of time! Period.
There are millions of people willing go give up their freedoms and vote for Hillory because they are genuilnly afraid. If someone asks for an answer to global warming and they are unindated with , it does't exist, ect, this will not have the desired effect.
AGAIN, WHAT IS YOUR GOAL. DR. PAUL FOR PRESIDENT OR TO PROVE GLOBAL WARMING???
This is a big issue and TO WIN YOU NEED ANSWERS OTHER THAN IT DOESN'T EXIST OR IT IS A SOLAR PHENOMENON IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM..
As I documented in previous post, Dr. Paul really does have the GREENEST platform of all the candidates.