Jump to content

Welcome to Grasscity Forums - Register now for FREE
Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute.
Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Create an Account

What Global Warming?


  • Please log in to reply
 

#1
aaronman

aaronman

    n'wah

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 14,794 posts
Global Warming Petition signed by 31,478 American Scientists

Ron Paul Statement before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009

Madam Speaker, before voting on the "cap-and-trade'' legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:


"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 gases 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.''



Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at Global Warming Petition Project.

The peer-reviewed summary, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'' by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.

Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.

In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz – past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world – wrote:


"The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.''


Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries.

Yet, we will soon be considering so-called "cap and trade'' legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. "Cap-and-trade'' will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of "global warming'' and "climate change'' advocates – claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,478 signatures to Professor Seitz' petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.

It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.

Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people – the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people – including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise – including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.

While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people's freedom.

In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change.


Edited by aaronman, 11 June 2009 - 04:00 PM.

Similar Topics: What Global Warming?     x


#2
Guest_Norma Stits_*

Guest_Norma Stits_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In
but aaronman.. these scientists were not approved by the UN :rolleyes:

#3
aaronman

aaronman

    n'wah

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 14,794 posts

but aaronman.. these scientists were not approved by the UN :rolleyes:


Oh no, you're right!

But I'm sure the UN will allow them into the international debate soon... it's not like they have some established agenda or anything...

#4
Guest_Norma Stits_*

Guest_Norma Stits_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In
in all seriousness.. it amazes me that over 31,000 real live scientists are being completely disregarded on this matter.

#5
wackdeafboy

wackdeafboy

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 7,245 posts
Sign me UP!

#6
aaronman

aaronman

    n'wah

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 14,794 posts

it amazes me that over 31,000 real live scientists are being completely disregarded on this matter.


The consensus among eco-liberals goes; If your funding doesn't come from the state then you must be a lying corporate shill. What a shame. :confused_2:

And if you are a state funded scientist, and you dissent, you will lose your grants.

A good WSJ editorial by climatologist from MIT: Climate of fear

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

#7
Guest_letsgetPOD_*

Guest_letsgetPOD_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In
Yeah say something global warming believers, you dont know nothing about the club of rome or agenda 21!

#8
Mist425

Mist425

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 1,885 posts
So Carbon Dioxide doesn't work as a greenhouse gas? I read Paul's speech and while I can respect the fact that 30k scientists don't believe in this global warming stuff, I didn't get a firm sense of what they believe C02 actually does to the atmosphere..

I guess you can question whether or not the warming caused by C02 emissions via the greenhouse effect is what's causing global warming as a whole, but isn't it pretty well established that greenhouse gases exist? Isn't C02 one of them? (And before you say it, yes I know water vapor is a more heat-trapping gas than C02 but doesn't there exist a whole water cycle that means we maintain certain vapor levels in the atmosphere?)

#9
aaronman

aaronman

    n'wah

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 14,794 posts

So Carbon Dioxide doesn't work as a greenhouse gas?


It does, but it accounts for approx 15% of greenhouse gases, and man only contributes about .2% of that number. Why would we carry out these destructive coercive policies to reduce CO2 emissions by a fraction of a percent?

As per what it does to our atmosphere, it scatters light and traps heat. Both of these are good for plant and thus animal life. The only dilemma of global warming is IF it continues on the current path (which it probably won't) habitats will be changed. Sea levels rise, agriculture will have to relocate... these are the things we should be preparing for, instead of increasing our current suffering.

I guess you can question whether or not the warming caused by C02 emissions via the greenhouse effect is what's causing global warming as a whole, but isn't it pretty well established that greenhouse gases exist?



Yes, but these people argue that there is no evidence to suggest that the current rise in temperature is anthropogenic, or man made. There is plenty of ignored evidence on the contrary though.

CO2 could be rising as a result of rising temperature, as opposed to the other way around. (Correlation does not equal causation)

I believe solar activity (sun spots) and celestial rays play a larger role in our Earth's climate than man.

#10
olmeca

olmeca

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 271 posts
You don't have to be a scientist to realise that mankind is not in some way effecting earth's climate.

#11
aaronman

aaronman

    n'wah

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 14,794 posts

You don't have to be a scientist to realise that mankind is not in some way effecting earth's climate.


Exactly, that's what makes it such a convenient lie.

#12
Mist425

Mist425

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 1,885 posts
So hypothetically, global warming is a ruse; temperatures will rise for a few more years, then begin to sink back down. Let's assume that this progressive energy agenda gets put forward; our nation has switched over to electric cars which get their power from hyrdoelectric, wind, solar, biofuels (let's hope we can find one better than corn, maybe hemp?), and nuclear power.

Global temperatures go back down so so much for that whole end-of-the-world thing, but now we've got large sources of renewable energy that doesn't smog up our cities. Is this such a bad thing?

I mean, who really gets hurt in this switchover? Big oil companies are hurt, that's for sure, and to some extent consumers will be hurt by rising gas prices. What about carpooling? What about public transportation? I think people would be able to survive it...

#13
aaronman

aaronman

    n'wah

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 14,794 posts

Is this such a bad thing?

I mean, who really gets hurt in this switchover? Big oil companies are hurt, that's for sure, and to some extent consumers will be hurt by rising gas prices. What about carpooling? What about public transportation? I think people would be able to survive it...


Well first its about sustainability, will the government be able to create something that it can steal enough money for every year to keep in business? The government took Amtrak in the 70s and hasn't made a buck since, and they have a monopoly on the route.

The government invested in corn ethanol to try and be green, but it turns out to be a scam. More energy is consumed producing it than it creates. It starts as a political favor to appease the farm population and then it remains a freebie for politicians to use to hook the bread basket.

The government blocked electric research and invested in hydrogen. I wonder why they would choose the unrealistic energy source... hm...

Bottom line, I don't trust them with our money.

Secondly, yes, consumers and producers will suffer if more is taken from them by the state. That is just common sense. If it turns out not to be worth all that suffering in the end then that will really suck.


I say just wait until oil supply causes the price to rise and we'll make the switch to rail or electric much faster on our own... basically... we spend our money better because we aren't influenced by a massive complex of industries.

#14
stoned budda

stoned budda

    Smokin weed since 1975

  • Gold Member
  • 7,187 posts

  • maxrule likes this

#15
FreshMeat

FreshMeat

    Grade A Top Choice

  • Bronze Member
  • 463 posts

Attached Thumbnails

  • global-temp-chart-2500bc-2040ad.gif

  • aaronman likes this

#16
stoned budda

stoned budda

    Smokin weed since 1975

  • Gold Member
  • 7,187 posts


#17
Dronetek

Dronetek

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 4,399 posts
Al Gore is to blame for eco terrorism.

#18
CannabisInCanada

CannabisInCanada

    Canadian Journalism/Activism

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,632 posts
It's not called global warming guys, it's climate change now. Whatever way the temperature goes, they're right. Whenever a natural disaster occurs - climate change! I hope people will start to notice how much of a scam this all is.

#19
aaronman

aaronman

    n'wah

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 14,794 posts

I hope people will start to notice how much of a scam this all is.


I doubt it. If you haven't noticed, all the Obama supporters on this forum don't even touch these threads exposing the scams of our current administration (War, Federal Reserve, Civil Rights). Why would people in real life do any different?

I think they would rather leave everything up to the "experts" and not listen to dissent.

edit: let me broaden on this in the words of Murray Rothbard from his Anatomy of the State

Of course, one method of securing support is through the creation of vested economic interests. Therefore, the King alone cannot rule; he must have a sizable group of followers who enjoy the prerequisites of rule, for example, the members of the State apparatus, such as the full-time bureaucracy or the established nobility. But this still secures only a minority of eager supporters, and even the essential purchasing of support by subsidies and other grants of privilege still does not obtain the consent of the majority.

For this essential acceptance, the majority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives. Promoting this ideology among the people is the vital social task of the "intellectuals." For the masses of men do not create their own ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently; they follow passively the ideas adopted and disseminated by the body of intellectuals. The intellectuals are, therefore, the "opinion-molders" in society. And since it is precisely a molding of opinion that the State most desperately needs, the basis for age-old alliance between the State and the intellectuals becomes clear.

It is evident that the State needs the intellectuals; it is not so evident why intellectuals need the State. Put simply, we may state that the intellectual's livelihood in the free market is never too secure; for the intellectual must depend on the values and choices of the masses of his fellow men, and it is precisely characteristic of the masses that they are generally uninterested in intellectual matters. The State, on the other hand, is willing to offer the intellectuals a secure and permanent berth in the State apparatus; and thus a secure income and the panoply of prestige. For the intellectuals will be handsomely rewarded for the important function they perform for the State rulers, of which group they now become a part.[11]



I see the intellectuals of the state dominating the Democrat party ideology more so than the Republican, but the appeal of the Republican party was created covertly by think tank intellectuals.

Edited by aaronman, 12 June 2009 - 08:55 PM.


#20
Guest_letsgetPOD_*

Guest_letsgetPOD_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In
You know what I think, Al gore and all of his UN cronies are not sustainable. :P




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users