Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
vanfullofretards

Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

Recommended Posts

"Ron Paul would hold companies and individuals legally liable for any harm they do, to people or their property.

 

When one has a proper respect for property rights, environmental concerns go away. In a society that respects the property of others, it is cause for legal action if someone pollutes your land, or the water coming across your property, or the air which floats above it.... So while a land owner may choose to build a big factory on his land, he must be very careful to ensure that no harm comes to adjacent property owners, or he will face the unmitigated wrath of those neighbors. In the past, big businesses often colluded with government to allow them to pollute their neighbors land, leaving the adjacent owners with devalued property and no recourse."

 

do you have any idea how hard it is to sue a corporation. what do you think would happen if i tried to sue the tobacco industry for second hand smoke that caused me to have asthma?

 

people have tried to sue meat companies that practice factory farming and they failed miserably and have even been countersued for defamation. and im not talking about suing factory farms on an animal rights premise, i mean for farms downstream from factory farms that get infested with animal waste runoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
I don't remember mentioning Alaska... I asked a very general question (yes or no) and perhaps you were too specific in your answer, but whatever the case, I fail to get your reply on several levels. Laws get voted on to become laws, later other laws can be enacted to counter previous laws and those laws must also be voted on... so, yeah, what are you saying there, smiley with the question marks indeed...

 

lol this forum is ridiculous. you didn't ask me anything at all, you twisted my words around and tried to make it come off like i was saying something completely different from what i was actually saying. you're right you didn't mention alaska at all, which is what we're talking about so i don't even know what you're getting at. anywayyyy......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Ron Paul would hold companies and individuals legally liable for any harm they do, to people or their property.

 

When one has a proper respect for property rights, environmental concerns go away. In a society that respects the property of others, it is cause for legal action if someone pollutes your land, or the water coming across your property, or the air which floats above it.... So while a land owner may choose to build a big factory on his land, he must be very careful to ensure that no harm comes to adjacent property owners, or he will face the unmitigated wrath of those neighbors. In the past, big businesses often colluded with government to allow them to pollute their neighbors land, leaving the adjacent owners with devalued property and no recourse."

 

Should justice only be allowed to those wealthy enough to afford a Lawyer? A Lawyer that is capable of battling it out with BIG OIL, BIG BEEF and BIG COAL Lawyers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you have any idea how hard it is to sue a corporation. what do you think would happen if i tried to sue the tobacco industry for second hand smoke that caused me to have asthma?

 

people have tried to sue meat companies that practice factory farming and they failed miserably and have even been countersued for defamation. and im not talking about suing factory farms on an animal rights premise, i mean for farms downstream from factory farms that get infested with animal waste runoff

 

You honestly think that more government regulation would help make any of this easier?

 

If anything it would complicate the problem even further, allowing those people who are so hard to win in court against, even more wiggle room.

 

You have to also understand that our government and military are the biggest polluters, and they also bail people out who can't pay off the damages they cause with pollution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You honestly think that more government regulation would help make any of this easier?

 

YES, now answer my question on whether or not justice would be available to everyone, NOT just those able to afford the legal costs. What about the people of the Nigerian Oil Deltas?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/02/nigerian-oil/oneill-text

How are they supposed to sue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-11-shell-faces-legal-action-over-niger-delta-pollution

 

That's how.

 

Private organizations come down to lend aid. Pollution isn't tolerable. Especially on a scale such as that. However no system is perfect. There is no utopia....

 

I'd like to you explain your response to my question though. YES doesn't really cut it for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool! Thanks for posting that, I hadn't heard about that yet so I'm pretty happy right now that something is finally being done.

 

Its kind of too late though. This has been going on for 50 years, the people there can't even fish their once living rivers for fish. Even if oil pollution stopped there tomorrow, it would still take decades and decades for nature to run its course and clean their home.

 

That isn't getting at the root of the problem either. Getting fucked over and suing later is like putting neosporin and band-aids on your knees all the time. Why don't you just wear knee pads when you skate son?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-11-shell-faces-legal-action-over-niger-delta-pollution

 

I'd like to you explain your response to my question though. YES doesn't really cut it for me.

 

look into the clean air act! it got rid of the acid rain problem in the U.S. through emissions trading. the same could be applied to the entire world for carbon emissions via an international agreement known as..... The Kyoto Protocol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

global warming is a myth. it is too anthropomorphic to think that we as humans have that much of an impact on our world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol this forum is ridiculous. you didn't ask me anything at all...

 

What I said to was:

 

so, you would put laws in front of your individual freedom and safety?

 

So, here's my thing. I was under the impression that, by ending the above sentence with a question mark, I was in fact asking you a question. So, uh, my bad, or whatever.

 

Pardon me for thinking the drilling question was actually larger than the Alaskan refuge, sorry that I realize the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific are full of oil deposits and oil rigs that the petro companies are trying to build close enough to be seen from shore. Forgive me if I took your little Alaskan argument to a national scale or ignored your defense of Ron Paul or whatever the fuck your point is.

 

"Mmm, now that's good passive aggression!"

simpot16.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
global warming is a myth. it is too anthropomorphic to think that we as humans have that much of an impact on our world.

 

Jackass. Global Warming is true and there is no debate even on FoxNews/CNN as to whether that is true. The debate that is currently going on TV is whether or not it is anthropogenic (human influenced) Global Warming. Additionally this debate is ONLY HAPPENING IN AMERICA. Global Climate Scientists are in consensus that our world is changing due to carbon dioxide and methane emissions, deforestation, and poor soil management. Do you understand what that means? People that have gone through years and years of education have been researching these issues globally and have all come to the conclusion that humans have caused this. Now why do you think 1/2 of Americans don't believe in Climate Change? Do you think it could be because they are listening to News Anchors like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh debate with people upon these issues? What do Politicians know about climate science? What does Sean Hannity know about Climate Science? This isn't even a political issue. You can't argue with science. If you really want me to go in depth and explain how greenhouse gases trap solar energy that reflects off of the earths surface i can start a new topic but.....

 

Here's some questions to ask yourself...

What do Corporations (with Politicians in their pocket i might add) have to lose if anthropogenic climate change is True? PROFITS.

And what do Climate Scientists have to gain if anthropogenic climate change is true? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

Can I also ask you, do you have any experience with science past the high school level? Or do you have any form of research that can back up this opinion of yours?

 

I think you need to turn of the fuckin TV and read a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackass. Global Warming is true and there is no debate even on FoxNews/CNN as to whether that is true. The debate that is currently going on TV is whether or not it is anthropogenic (human influenced) Global Warming. Additionally this debate is ONLY HAPPENING IN AMERICA. Global Climate Scientists are in consensus that our world is changing due to carbon dioxide and methane emissions, deforestation, and poor soil management. Do you understand what that means? People that have gone through years and years of education have been researching these issues globally and have all come to the conclusion that humans have caused this. Now why do you think 1/2 of Americans don't believe in Climate Change? Do you think it could be because they are listening to News Anchors like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh debate with people upon these issues? What do Politicians know about climate science? What does Sean Hannity know about Climate Science? This isn't even a political issue. You can't argue with science. If you really want me to go in depth and explain how greenhouse gases trap solar energy that reflects off of the earths surface i can start a new topic but.....

 

Here's some questions to ask yourself...

What do Corporations (with Politicians in their pocket i might add) have to lose if anthropogenic climate change is True? PROFITS.

And what do Climate Scientists have to gain if anthropogenic climate change is true? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

Can I also ask you, do you have any experience with science past the high school level? Or do you have any form of research that can back up this opinion of yours?

 

I think you need to turn of the fuckin TV and read a little bit.

 

 

No, scientists are not in consensus about the causes. What do scientists have to lose? Funding.

 

Didn't the recent three scandals involving climatologists wake you up in the least?

 

Agendas prevail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the recent three scandals involving climatologists wake you up in the least?

 

no, those don't matter they mean nothing.

/sarcasm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
global warming is a myth. it is too anthropomorphic to think that we as humans have that much of an impact on our world.

 

I think you mean anthropogenic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you mean anthropogenic.

 

no anthromorphic is attributing human qualities to objects, such as the atmosphere etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Didn't the recent three scandals involving climatologists wake you up in the least?

 

 

The "climagate" scandal was caused by rival scientists trying to discredit each other, it had nothing to do with the science behind climate change. Look into what was actually leaked, not what politicians and network news anchors are saying about it.

 

other scandals??? what the OMG EPIC SNOWFALL GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH!!?!?! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i find it interesting that the argument has moved from,

 

"Yes the Environment is an important issue with Ron Paul, he just doesnt think regulation will do anything..."

 

to

 

"CLIMAGATE, It's a scandal! Global Warming doesn't exist!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do scientists have to lose? Funding.

Hmm I think you may be on to something Casek... Scientists are a part of a global conspiracy to maintain funding for their studies. The politicians that rest in the pockets of big oil companies have been telling us the truth because they really do care about us.

 

Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming

 

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

 

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

 

The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

 

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

 

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

 

The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers.

 

The project is representing Rick S. Piltz, who resigned in March as a senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research. That office, now called the Climate Change Science Program, issued the documents that Mr. Cooney edited.

 

A White House spokeswoman, Michele St. Martin, said yesterday that Mr. Cooney would not be available to comment. "We don't put Phil Cooney on the record," Ms. St. Martin said. "He's not a cleared spokesman."

 

In one instance in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, "Our Changing Planet," Mr. Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word "extremely" to this sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."

 

In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."

 

Other White House officials said the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global environmental change. Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that one of the reports Mr. Cooney worked on, the administration's 10-year plan for climate research, was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. And Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for "consistency" in meshing programs with policy.

 

But critics said that while all administrations routinely vetted government reports, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions.

 

In a memorandum sent last week to the top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Mr. Piltz said the White House editing and other actions threatened to taint the government's $1.8 billion-a-year effort to clarify the causes and consequences of climate change.

 

"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," Mr. Piltz wrote. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."

 

A senior Environmental Protection Agency scientist who works on climate questions said the White House environmental council, where Mr. Cooney works, had offered valuable suggestions on reports from time to time. But the scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because all agency employees are forbidden to speak with reporters without clearance, said the kinds of changes made by Mr. Cooney had damaged morale. "I have colleagues in other agencies who express the same view, that it has somewhat of a chilling effect and has created a sense of frustration," he said.

 

Efforts by the Bush administration to highlight uncertainties in science pointing to human-caused warming have put the United States at odds with other nations and with scientific groups at home.

 

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who met with President Bush at the White House yesterday, has been trying to persuade him to intensify United States efforts to curb greenhouse gases. Mr. Bush has called only for voluntary measures to slow growth in emissions through 2012.

 

Yesterday, saying their goal was to influence that meeting, the scientific academies of 11 countries, including those of the United States and Britain, released a joint letter saying, "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

 

The American Petroleum Institute, where Mr. Cooney worked before going to the White House, has long taken a sharply different view. Starting with the negotiations leading to the Kyoto Protocol climate treaty in 1997, it has promoted the idea that lingering uncertainties in climate science justify delaying restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe gases.

 

On learning of the White House revisions, representatives of some environmental groups said the effort to amplify uncertainties in the science was clearly intended to delay consideration of curbs on the gases, which remain an unavoidable byproduct of burning oil and coal.

 

"They've got three more years, and the only way to control this issue and do nothing about it is to muddy the science," said Eileen Claussen, the president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a private group that has enlisted businesses in programs cutting emissions.

 

Mr. Cooney's alterations can cause clear shifts in meaning. For example, a sentence in the October 2002 draft of "Our Changing Planet" originally read, "Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change." In a neat, compact hand, Mr. Cooney modified the sentence to read, "Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change."

 

A document showing a similar pattern of changes is the 2003 "Strategic Plan for the United States Climate Change Science Program," a thick report describing the reorganization of government climate research that was requested by Mr. Bush in his first speech on the issue, in June 2001. The document was reviewed by an expert panel assembled in 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. The scientists largely endorsed the administration's research plan, but they warned that the administration's procedures for vetting reports on climate could result in excessive political interference with science.

 

Another political appointee who has played an influential role in adjusting language in government reports on climate science is Dr. Harlan L. Watson, the chief climate negotiator for the State Department, who has a doctorate in solid-state physics but has not done climate research.

 

In an Oct. 4, 2002 memo to James R. Mahoney, the head of the United States Climate Change Science Program and an appointee of Mr. Bush, Mr. Watson "strongly" recommended cutting boxes of text referring to the findings of a National Academy of Sciences panel on climate and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that periodically reviews research on human-caused climate change.

 

The boxes, he wrote, "do not include an appropriate recognition of the underlying uncertainties and the tentative nature of a number of the assertions."

 

While those changes were made nearly two years ago, recent statements by Dr. Watson indicate that the administration's position has not changed.

 

"We are still not convinced of the need to move forward quite so quickly," he told the BBC in London last month. "There is general agreement that there is a lot known, but also there is a lot to be known."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philip Cooney ended up resigning because of the scandal. He is no longer in politics. Guess what he's doing now? He works for EXXON MOBILE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, scientists are not in consensus about the causes. What do scientists have to lose? Funding.

 

Didn't the recent three scandals involving climatologists wake you up in the least?

 

Agendas prevail.

 

Sorry dude, but your tin foil hat is showing again...

 

TinfoilHat.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "climagate" scandal was caused by rival scientists trying to discredit each other, it had nothing to do with the science behind climate change. Look into what was actually leaked, not what politicians and network news anchors are saying about it.

 

other scandals??? what the OMG EPIC SNOWFALL GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH!!?!?! :lol:

 

 

Uh, did you even read the emails? They discussed the how to's on manipulating and hiding data, they discussed doing whatever it takes to discredit anyone who disagrees, they discussed altering the programming in software they use to swing the data in their favor, etc. etc.

 

I actually read through the whole thing. Maybe you should do the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i find it interesting that the argument has moved from,

 

"Yes the Environment is an important issue with Ron Paul, he just doesnt think regulation will do anything..."

 

to

 

"CLIMAGATE, It's a scandal! Global Warming doesn't exist!"

 

 

'Climategate' Professor Phil Jones 'considered suicide over email scandal'

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7180154/Climategate-Professor-Phil-Jones-considered-suicide-over-email-scandal.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see what relevance that article has to the arguement though Casek, all it shows is that all the media hype and hate mail the guy recieved made him depressed and contemplated suicide. Personally I can see why the scientist were so defensive about the emails and trying to discredit their opposition because the people opposed to climate change certainly would use the exact same tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...