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

Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

Recommended Posts

it is common knowledge that Venus is the hottest planet in our solar system.

 

But how can this be possible? Mercury is the closest to the sun right?

 

On Mercury, all of the sun's energy reflects off of the surface and is radiated back into space because Mercury does not have an atmosphere. Venus on the other hand, has an atmosphere that is mostly made up of carbon dioxide (96%). the majority of the heat that penetrates the atmosphere and reflects off the surface is insulated by a blanket of greenhouse gas. Its kind of like putting more clothes on in the winter. Your coat traps the heat that your body generates and keeps it near you. The only difference being something inside you is generating the heat, it isn't an external source like the sun.

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.
casek can you please explain to me your understanding of the "theory" of climate change. drop the political aspect and just tell me what scientific research you have observed. you have a pretty strong viewpoint, so it would seem that you would have a great understanding of this topic, but i have not once seen you bring any science into this. all of your "research" that you have cited is from google searches. none of them are science related at all, and it goes back to my point that the current debate on climate change is not a scientific debate, it is a political debate. stop listening to what other people have to say about the social aspects of this and read a fucking science book. its pretty simple.

 

 

Look, I've never claimed to be a scientist. My understanding of what is happening is mainstream science, though. It seems to me that we are in a cycle. Both in our solar system

and on our planet.

 

The obvious lack of sun spots, the melting of ice caps on several planets in our solar system, etc. leads me to believe that is affecting the earth much more than mankind's pollutants.

 

However, I do believe we're doing some bad to the planet. I'm obviously not dumb enough to think that there's no affect. I just don't think it's as serious as people claim.

 

I think people like Al Gore and Maurice Strong are taking advantage of people and making themselves much more wealthy.

 

As for my research and what I quote on here: I point people to books, interviews, videos,

whitepapers as much as I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, I've never claimed to be a scientist. My understanding of what is happening is mainstream science, though. It seems to me that we are in a cycle. Both in our solar system

and on our planet.

 

The obvious lack of sun spots, the melting of ice caps on several planets in our solar system, etc. leads me to believe that is affecting the earth much more than mankind's pollutants.

 

However, I do believe we're doing some bad to the planet. I'm obviously not dumb enough to think that there's no affect. I just don't think it's as serious as people claim.

 

I think people like Al Gore and Maurice Strong are taking advantage of people and making themselves much more wealthy.

 

As for my research and what I quote on here: I point people to books, interviews, videos,

whitepapers as much as I can.

 

Basically nothing you have brought up has any scientific merit. Attacking Al Gore because he stands to make a profit isn't attacking the Global Climate Change "Theory". Like someone before mentioned, its attacking the fundamentals of capitalism.

 

What you said about the world going through cycles is very true! But it takes longer than 30 years to go through the changes we have gone through. Try thousands and thousands.

 

And yes global climate change is being sensationalized in the media, but what isn't? It is still a very serious issue though, but the end isn't coming in 30 years, It's coming in a couple hundreds of years if we stay on the same path.

 

Environmentalists are kind of anthropocentric. The environment ain't going no where, if the planet gets too hot for humans to survive there were will still be reptiles, insects, bacteria etc. The main focus is to insure human life on this planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically nothing you have brought up has any scientific merit. Attacking Al Gore because he stands to make a profit isn't attacking the Global Climate Change "Theory". Like someone before mentioned, its attacking the fundamentals of capitalism.

 

What you said about the world going through cycles is very true! But it takes longer than 30 years to go through the changes we have gone through. Try thousands and thousands.

 

And yes global climate change is being sensationalized in the media, but what isn't? It is still a very serious issue though, but the end isn't coming in 30 years, It's coming in a couple hundreds of years if we stay on the same path.

 

Environmentalists are kind of anthropocentric. The environment ain't going no where, if the planet gets too hot for humans to survive there were will still be reptiles, insects, bacteria etc. The main focus is to insure human life on this planet.

 

 

Sun goes through 7 year cycles. No thousands of years for that to happen.

 

Prove to me that we will be gone in a couple of hundred years. You don't know that any more than a scientist. Any scientist.

 

Let me make an outlandish claim: Tomorrow Apothis (the asteroid) is going to be determined to be on direct trajectory to smash the holy mother mary shit out of us.

If we don't start recycling more newspaper right now, we'll go up in flames!

 

Save the earth, nigga.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon, mainframe, it's the only truth you will get. No one knows when the human race will cease to exist. Whether it be by something we did to our planet or whether it be by the giant asteroid Apothis. No one really knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the study didn't take a carbon offset into account. if the electricity generated from the wind turbines had to be generated by coal (or oil or gas, etc.)

 

what would the temperature change be?

 

the authors themselves note in the article that there are many limitations on the work at present and much more research is needed.

 

casek, you are all over the place man, can't you just admit you were wrong, or at least admit you don't know enough about these topics to really justify having such a strong viewpoint???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the study didn't take a carbon offset into account. if the electricity generated from the wind turbines had to be generated by coal (or oil or gas, etc.)

 

what would the temperature change be?

 

the authors themselves note in the article that there are many limitations on the work at present and much more research is needed.

 

casek, you are all over the place man, can't you just admit you were wrong, or at least admit you don't know enough about these topics to really justify having such a strong viewpoint???

 

 

You're arguing against MIT. Not some guy on the internet. Remember that.

 

I'm sure the good folks at MIT would run circles around you.

 

You greenies point to science a whole lot, but when science goes against you it seems to

be ignored or you try and "kill the messenger".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're arguing against MIT. Not some guy on the internet. Remember that.

 

the authors themselves note in the article that there are many limitations on the work at present and much more research is needed.

 

“We’re not pessimistic about wind,” he said. “We haven’t absolutely proven this effect, and we’d rather see that people do further research.”

-Ron Prinn, TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science

 

Wang and Prinn suggest that using wind turbines to meet 10 percent of global energy demand in 2100 could cause temperatures to rise by one degree Celsius in the regions on land where the wind farms are installed, including a smaller increase in areas beyond those regions. Their analysis indicates the opposite result for wind turbines installed in water: a drop in temperatures by one degree Celsius over those regions.

 

And again not once in the article do they speak of the offset carbon emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“We’re not pessimistic about wind,” he said. “We haven’t absolutely proven this effect, and we’d rather see that people do further research.”

-Ron Prinn, TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science

 

Wang and Prinn suggest that using wind turbines to meet 10 percent of global energy demand in 2100 could cause temperatures to rise by one degree Celsius in the regions on land where the wind farms are installed, including a smaller increase in areas beyond those regions. Their analysis indicates the opposite result for wind turbines installed in water: a drop in temperatures by one degree Celsius over those regions.

 

And again not once in the article do they speak of the offset carbon emissions.

 

 

A temperature reading of 1 degree celsius is equivalent to a fahrenheit reading of (32 + 1.8) = 33.8 degrees fahrenheit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A temperature reading of 1 degree celsius is equivalent to a fahrenheit reading of (32 + 1.8) = 33.8 degrees fahrenheit

 

“We’re not pessimistic about wind,” he said. “We haven’t absolutely proven this effect, and we’d rather see that people do further research.”

-Ron Prinn, TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, besides the noise pollution, there will be a substantial rise in temps? Sounds nice.

All they need now is some emf's from generating electricity....oh, wait,,,,,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

story.jpg

 

forget the youtube videos spewing with emotional rhetoric (obama-like strategery)

anyone who votes should use this site. don't watch ads or network news.

http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm

 

Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)

Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)

Wall Street is dumping its trouble onto Main Street. (Sep 2008)

Federal Reserve creates money and prints it out of thin air. (Jan 2008)

We can’t afford a trillion-dollar war in Iraq. (Jan 2006)

Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage. (Oct 2007)

Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987)

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Opposes death penalty at state and federal level. (Jan 2008)

War on drugs is out of control; revert control to states. (Dec 2007)

Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)

Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

Rated +30 by NORML, indicating a pro-drug-reform stance. (Dec 2006)

Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007)

Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not. (Jun 2007)

Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not. (Jun 2007)

Neglected property rights during the industrial revolution. (Jan 2008)

Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)

Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior. (Dec 2007)

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)

Terrorists attack us for our actions abroad, not our freedom. (Jun 2007)

 

he means well, i actually like him quite a bit, i just think that government regulation may be needed right now to control business on an industrial level.

 

s070_080.gif

 

does anyone know his view or voting record on agricultural subsidies? besides the enviro thats another major issue with me. i can't seem to find anything about it on the net. i'm assuming he's against them as he is with most federal subsidies. corn subsidies are pretty crazy, casek you should look into them if you haven't already. our taxes are going to farmers so they can grow field corn at a production price that is higher than what it's sold at. all to be refined into processed foods, or fed to animals that evolved to eat grass not grain (e.coli, higher fat content). there should either be subsidies for healthy foods to drive the prices down on fresh produce instead of cheap mcdonalds cheesburgers, or there should be no subsidies period. i think affordable healthy food is a fundamental human right. obesity and poverty shouldn't correlate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted against:

$5 billion annually through 2012 for corn, wheat, soybeans, rice and cotton producers

 

cool.

 

this whole libertarian thing really would work if our legal system was better. when joe schmoe uneducated poor guy gets his personal property rights trampled on, how is he supposed to win a lawsuit against a supercorp? there aren't public appointed lawyers for civil suits, so it is up to him to win a court case on his own or try and hire a crappy lawyer with the little money he does have. it seems like whoever can pile the most money onto the table is going to win. the libertarian approach in our current system only allows justice to those with enough money to defend themselves. in my opinion with my current understanding of things of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Voted against:

$5 billion annually through 2012 for corn, wheat, soybeans, rice and cotton producers

 

cool.

 

this whole libertarian thing really would work if our legal system was better. when joe schmoe uneducated poor guy gets his personal property rights trampled on, how is he supposed to win a lawsuit against a supercorp? there aren't public appointed lawyers for civil suits, so it is up to him to win a court case on his own or try and hire a crappy lawyer with the little money he does have. it seems like whoever can pile the most money onto the table is going to win. the libertarian approach in our current system only allows justice to those with enough money to defend themselves. in my opinion with my current understanding of things of course.

 

I think there was probably something unConstitutional in that bill. Might do yourself a favor and read it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
story.jpg

 

forget the youtube videos spewing with emotional rhetoric (obama-like strategery)

anyone who votes should use this site. don't watch ads or network news.

http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm

 

Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)

Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)

Wall Street is dumping its trouble onto Main Street. (Sep 2008)

Federal Reserve creates money and prints it out of thin air. (Jan 2008)

We can’t afford a trillion-dollar war in Iraq. (Jan 2006)

Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage. (Oct 2007)

Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987)

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Opposes death penalty at state and federal level. (Jan 2008)

War on drugs is out of control; revert control to states. (Dec 2007)

Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)

Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

Rated +30 by NORML, indicating a pro-drug-reform stance. (Dec 2006)

Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007)

Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not. (Jun 2007)

Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not. (Jun 2007)

Neglected property rights during the industrial revolution. (Jan 2008)

Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)

Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior. (Dec 2007)

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)

Terrorists attack us for our actions abroad, not our freedom. (Jun 2007)

 

he means well, i actually like him quite a bit, i just think that government regulation may be needed right now to control business on an industrial level.

 

s070_080.gif

 

does anyone know his view or voting record on agricultural subsidies? besides the enviro thats another major issue with me. i can't seem to find anything about it on the net. i'm assuming he's against them as he is with most federal subsidies. corn subsidies are pretty crazy, casek you should look into them if you haven't already. our taxes are going to farmers so they can grow field corn at a production price that is higher than what it's sold at. all to be refined into processed foods, or fed to animals that evolved to eat grass not grain (e.coli, higher fat content). there should either be subsidies for healthy foods to drive the prices down on fresh produce instead of cheap mcdonalds cheesburgers, or there should be no subsidies period. i think affordable healthy food is a fundamental human right. obesity and poverty shouldn't correlate.

 

From what you have mentioned here, I would agree with him on the majority of things, the only issue I would have is the environmental ones, I think the US should be more aware of its impact environmentally.

 

I also agree with your statement about government regulation of business, but in order to have good regulation you need to be able to trust the people in power who are making the decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul's approach to environment is simple, the government should stay out of it.

 

Don't like it? It's probably because you think the government should be involved in almost every aspect of your life. No surprise there though. Most people expect government to provide them with EVERYTHING.

 

Thank you welfare state, for warping generation's of people into assuming there will be a safety net provided for them forever.

 

People act as if this dude promotes pollution. But if you understood Libertarian philosophy, you would understand the approach he has to it, it all comes down to private property rights.

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...