1. Last day to win a Pax2 Vaporizer! Subscribe on YouTube to be entered to win a PAX 2 Vaporizer! Winner will be announced Sept 1
    Dismiss Notice

What Global Warming?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by aaronman, Jun 11, 2009.

  1. #1 aaronman, Jun 11, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 11, 2009
    Global Warming Petition signed by 31,478 American Scientists

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

  2. but aaronman.. these scientists were not approved by the UN :rolleyes:
  3. 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. in all seriousness.. it amazes me that over 31,000 real live scientists are being completely disregarded on this matter.
  5. Sign me UP!

  6. 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. Yeah say something global warming believers, you dont know nothing about the club of rome or agenda 21!
  8. 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. 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.

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

  11. Exactly, that's what makes it such a convenient lie.
  12. 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. 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. :smoking:

    Attached Files:

  15. How dare you disagree with the all knowing, all powerfull Gore.

  16. Al Gore is to blame for eco terrorism.
  17. 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.
  18. #19 aaronman, Jun 12, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 12, 2009

    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

    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.
  19. You know what I think, Al gore and all of his UN cronies are not sustainable. :p

Share This Page