UNH Rally draws most ever for GOP candidate

Bump

I strongly believe that human activity is contributing to global warming, and that the free-market would solve the problem in a Paul administration. Dr. Paul would end corporate welfare, including R&D subsidies for the oil and gas industry. He would bring home all the troops, including those guarding oil facilities in Saudi Arabia. Oil and gas prices would skyrocket as the companies are forced to pay for their own R&D and security forces in dangerous parts of the world. At the same time that consumers are forced to pay the real price of oil and gas, our tax bills will be going down to zero. There will be a huge economic expansion. Entrepreneurs will scramble to come up with green alternatives. Problems solved by free-market capitalism.

I've talked to some people that consider themselves strong environmentalists, and if you dig deep at all you'll find a festering core of misanthropy. These people really believe, in many cases, that humans are a cancer, and that the world would be better without us. Better for who? Some disgusting parasite-ridden critter or other. And trees. We need to consider what is best for HUMANS, not "the environment". We are just as "natural" as anything else. When it comes to humans, nothing is better than LIBERTY.

In any case, these enviro-nuts would be just as fascistic and hateful as the Nazis, if they had their way. Actually, more so. Hitler, at least, had a race that he liked.

Unfortunately, I have to say that on this issue I think the propaganda is on the other side. There is way more evidence supporting the claims of global warming then not. My father is now an independent researcher but he worked for NOAA. My mom for NCAR. I know a lot of the scientists that worked on global warming and them personally discovering the research regarding it..It had nothing to do with government propaganda.
While I agree that the government over mandates and charges to much for taking action. I would have to say that not being involved would be totally negligent on the governments part...although it is some what negligent that they don't enter world treaties.

I don't think most people realize that we literally, I am not joking or sensationalizing, could be wiped out in a decade as a species.

There is a very good book called "The World Without Us." by Alan Weisman
That gives an excellent understanding of what could very likely happen to us.
So if you really don't want the government involved..we need to get as organized as this campaign and be vigilant in doing something about it. It isn't really about cars as much as Air Travel, Methane gas given off from believe it or not Cattle Farms. Yes that is right..cows are one of the biggest threats to our atmosphere. As well as China and India.
I am sure there is going to be a lot of Nay Say to this..but trust me I have very direct information...

The source of "Global Warming" doesn't matter. Nor does it really matter if "Global Warming" exists, per se. What matters is achieving the maximum efficiency with our resources to save and gain wealth.

In a nutshell "going green" is actually a very good thing -as that form of "conservationism" ultimately equates in a more efficient use of resources. Examine hybrid cars. Hybrid cars allow a person to get 55 miles per gallon of gasoline, while a person who does not have a hybrid car will get say, 24 miles to the gallon. Overall, the consumers who achieve a more efficient use of resources will save money (as they expend less capital to purchase resources to achieve the same goals), than those who don't.

Manufacturers and producers save money as well. In most areas using recycled materials is actually cheaper than refining raw resources into semi-finished materials. Thus manufacturers will reduce overhead in the production process.

The danger is in government intervention in the form of taxes and fees. Those who are familiar with the Libertarian philosophy on pollution (www.mises.org/rothbard/la...) understand that pollution is ultimately a form of trespass and theft (i.e. a criminal offense). That is: a manufacturer who pollutes the air do owe those who they injure (those people who inhale harmful particulates and get sick or have their property spoiled) just compensation, just as companies that pollute water tables and damage the property, resources, and wealth must pay just compensation to those they harmed. The danger is the mass-punishment government wishes to impose.

Many Statists want businesses to be penalized just for existing. This is the wrong. However, it's a logical fallacy to assume that simply because the Statists have latched themselves to "environmentalism" that being more conscious about how efficiently we use our resources is wrong. It is not conservationism that is the problem. It's those who wish to impose the Will of the State on the Individual that are the problem.

An analogy:

The Libertarian view: If you crash your car into somebody's house you owe the owner of the house compensation for the damage you caused.

The Statist view: If you crash your car into somebody's house you owe the entire neighborhood compensation for the damage caused to that persons house.

The moral of the story is: Don't shun conservationism -it's a more efficient use of resources that will allow us all to become wealthier. Shun Statism -it's hiding itself in the form of environmentalism.

All,

The IPCC stands for InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.

They say the IPCC claims 2500 signators.. They imply they are all scientists. Anyone who does a little research, will find this is not true.

If you want the truth, go here: http://www.oism.org/pproj...

Here is a petition against the "global warming religion" signed by 19,000 actual verified scientists, all who's names, signatures and degrees have been verified..

If you want to believe Al Gore, that is your right. But if you are skepital at all on his motives, please take a look.

When you have read the petition, ask yourself, how could someone have the gall to say "The science is done"...

Your Milage may vary...

Phil Folkler
folkler@cablespeed.com

The response that I am using when asked about Dr.Paul's views on global warming and the environment is as follows:

I point out that Ron Paul is an advocate of individual liberties, which also requires personal responsibility in ALL areas of our lives, and over ALL our resources, not just money!

The Bible says, "To whom much is given, much is required." Dr.Paul stresses that our freedom and liberty, as protected by the Constitution, requires that we continuously fight to preserve that freedom, and use our resources wisely.

Dr. Paul continuously points out that the waste and misuse of ALL our resources will only result in collapse of our economy and our freedom, and that focusing on the symptoms (such as global warming) instead of the cause is NOT a solution.

Thus, the real question for Ron Paul and all Americans to answer is NOT if global warming is real, but if we want to stop wasting our time and our money on resources which are inefficient, wasteful and destructive of our way of life and our freedoms.

Register Republican To Vote in your State's Primary!

Thresh

Global warming is not a political concept. Gravity is still a theory. All sciene supports it. I'm sure Ron Paul believes in some higher being. No science supports it. Science overwhelmingly backs the onset of global warming. Some even go to extremes (James Lovelock theorizes 500 million people left on earth by 2100).
Also, global warming is not something to believe in. It probably just is, like a knock on the head. What the campaign should understand is that no one is running on the elimination of all factory and auto pollution, which is the ONLY way we know of to halt its "progress."
That being said, Dr. Paul could answer any question very simply with a challenge to ALL candidates. "If the science is true, then we must stop the means of production immediately, and form sustainable Pygmie societies. Anyone willing to do that? Of course everybody rode their bikes to this venue? And prepared their chicken dinner in a solar box..?"
Congress passes laws. It is the executive's job to enforce them.
Unless he is prepared to run on the "end of society as we know it" ticket, then he would do well to trump these warming questions with the same answer he gives to the abortion "problem".
The Federal government should not use tax dollars to support unconstitutional programs.

Now if he wants to talk about revoking all corporate charters... Yippee. But I doubt that prize will come until we are all treading in salt water.

Lots of good commentary on this topic! Antboy in particlular.

I'll add that Dr. Paul can certainly claim that market forces are already offering up solutions to this problem. These solutions have very very little to do with central governments rather they are the result of industries seeking better economics and individuals making rational choices. If we could get rid of federal energy policy etc.the markets would do even better. Apparently the markets believe in global warming and the possible consequences. I am hopeful that this problem is well on its way to being solved.

I looked over the petition and the accompanying information. Much of it is fine but some of it is suspect in the same way that some supposedly credible research is suspect. I teach my students to be skeptical of anyone who is 100% certain that something is "wrong" or "right". Valid science doesn't work that way.

Man, where did this guy who wrote the seacoastline article go to school? Did you all notice that he puts Dr. Paul at 74? And a major typo here: He writes "Paul, the only Republican candidate who voted authorizing the war in 2002 and has continued to oppose it as unconstitutional..." Say what?! Seriously, check the article yourself. It should read "Paul, the only Republican candidate who voted against the 2002 Iraqi War Resolution..."

I don't know if global warming is a scam or not. I do know that it's short sleeve weather here in Utah and we usually have snow by the middle of October. I lean toward natural weather patterns, maybe because of my profound distrust of our government. No matter the reasons, I think the government is going to stick it to the middle class over this issue.

I know that WHEN Dr Paul gets elected, he'll sort it out and do the right thing. I've been around for a lot of elections and the one common thread has been.... they all promised change and all we got was more of the same. Now is the time to put aside individual issues and cast a vote for freedom. We are being offered an opportunity like we've never had in my life time and maybe in my father's father's life time either. We have the opportunity to vote for an honest man that will do the right thing according to that great document handed down from the founders of this once great country. We may never have an opportunity like this again, not in my life , the lives of my children or the lives of my grand children's children. We had better put aside our differences and get this man elected. We can go back to pi**ing and moaning at and about each other afterward.

Global warming indeed. If we are causing it, then why is Mars getting hotter? http://www.chron.com/disp...
Are we making Venus hotter, too?
http://uk.answers.yahoo.c...

Maybe we are causing the Sun to heat up. Oh, brother. I think the Ron Paul Rallies are heating things up!

Vali

'...truth is loved in such a way that those who love some other thing want it to be the truth, and precisely because they do not wish to be deceived, are unwilling to be convinced that they are deceived." --- St. Augustine, Confessions (10:23), 5th cent.

yes its real, but it's called "the weather" it changes, who knows next year might be the coldest we've ever seen. i can never belive its man made. and if it was, then it's probably too late to do anything about it and there is no way a global tax will stop it. come on, there has been plenty of events in history that have been similar to this. drought is not an uncommon natural disaster. polar bears are in danger? are you kidding me? they can swim for a hundred miles. i saw a polar bear kill and take a pilot whale out of the water on discovery channel. they will thrive under these conditions. i saw a clip of a polar bear on a floating iceberg and the narrarator was saying this polar bear will die, total bullshit! he could swim to florida if he wanted (ok i'm exagerating but you get my point)

If they survived the last big hot/cold climate cycle, then should be able to get through this one. But, if they're on the brink as some claim due to vanishing sea ice, then maybe there's something to what Gore et al. are saying. If the polar bears go extinct, then I'll agree with Gore. By that time, I imagine it will be too late.

Ron Paul does not take sides on the global warming issue.
But I would rather die free from global warming then live without liberty.

The last two articles both included a statement from a student that was not impressed with Paul's answer on Global Warming. Two different article and out off 300 students they both included 2 different students with the same incorrect summary of what Ron said. One had a JEWISH girl complain about his answers in regards to Isreal and Darfur. YEAH, good choice. The first article explained his view on global warming which is correct, but for the other two..... something smells fishy.

*lets stay focus. History is expecting us Tomorrow.

don't hold with global warming. All each of us can do is cite various "authorities", ad infinitum. It seems to me to be a national argument that releases more unproductive hot gas than gramma's chili. I think the crucial underlying environment/resource issue is oil, and peak oil in particular (which has its own contending authorities, of course). Has Dr. Paul taken a position on peak oil?

I hope I'm not off on a tangent with this question, I am just curious. Thanks.

How is the global warming issue taxing and controlling us? I'm just curious.

Politicians shouldn't do science. Just look how Al Gore has made an ass of himself by taking on stuff way above his head. Ron Paul certainly must never argue about climate science in his capacity of a politician!

Politicians should represent ideas. Ron Paul has to hypothetically accept the possibility that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a real threat and formulate a solution which is consistent with the idea of liberty which he represents. If AGW occurs, then it is a market "failure", or rather, the market is absent. Because those who damage others property by emitting CO2 need not pay for it. That is a problem, and a free market requires that a mechanism is put in place which allocates the costs to the ones who cause them. Non-regulation of greenhouse gas emissions which do cause damages to others property, is a non-market. Damaging emissions into the atmosphere is much like overfishing in the oceans. It is the result of the oceans / the atmoshpere not being private property, the result of the absence of a market mechanism.

And it seems to be extremely impractical to use traditional litigations since everyone emits CO2 and everyone is affected by it (if, as we assume for sake of discussion, AGW is real). It might be a good idea for the state to arrange sales of emission rights, much like the state arranges a police force and a court system to uphold a free market.

A state auction of emission rights would be the minmum possible regulation. The market would then allocate emissions according to demand. Politicians would not care about whether emissions are allocated to farming, cars or air travel.

The actual scientists are in fact much more skeptical:

Oregon Petition / Global Warming Petition (signed by over 19,000 American scientists):
http://www.oism.org/pproj...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Heidelberg Appeal (signed by over 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
"We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development."

Leipzig Declaration (signed by 80 Scientists and 25 Television News Meteorologists):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...

Sixty scientists (accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines) call on (Canadian Prime Minister) Harper to revisit the science of global warming:
http://www.citizenreviewo...

Anthropogenic global warming is partly like a conspiracy theory (sort of "the evil markets want to melt the Earth!" - when it's of the kind of fear mongering done by Al Gore and the followers of his cult), and partly politics & the efforts of the governments (when it is the government-sponsored "research" or even the "research" done directly under the control of the (inter)government bodies, like the IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to use it primarily for political purposes (like increased regulation, control, spending and taxation). However, it is definitely not science.

Attendance for the Paul visit to UNH are respectively (in the order of your links) 300, 350 and 350. The University's own student newspaper has an article about an Edwards visit that net'd 400 in attendance. Not that the numbers are that much different but we need to be able to grasp the reality in order for each one of us to be able to grasp the task that lays before us. Now if you said Republican candidate I would suspect that you would be correct.

http://www.tnhonline.com/

thanks for the links!

h-daddy

I'm glad the rally at UNH went well and I'm equally glad that the students are asking questions about Dr. Paul's position on global warming. Students, by definition, are in the process of learning. And, indeed, we are all students when it comes to climate change. One thing we all should have learned by now is that atmospheric pollution by humans is a major contributing factor to global warming. What we don't know is if there is anything we can do about it. It may be simply too late to halt the process. Even if we didn't dump even one more ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere the average global temps may climb anyways. If you want to read some useful information read Bjorn Lomborg on the economics. Dr. Paul needs to get educated on this topic but I agree with you folks that Al Gore's book is far too sensationalized to be useful.

and it's amazing how many people seem to "know" it's true!

http://icecap.us/index.ph...

...however numbers dont lie and the earth is getting hotter and we are not helping it with our polution. I support Al Gores attempts to fund farms of wind turbines. I also support a woman that lives on a highway near me that put up 4 wind turbins. Lets remove the Saudi oil leverage on our country shall we?