digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Google: Ron Paul + Global Warming = Nothing

google.com — Why I won't vote for Ron Paul: he does not even acknowledge (even the possibility of) global warming.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • cashman57, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7Show me one global warming computer model that uses data from volcanic eruptions. If you can't find one you understand why anyone with common sense knows the global warming theory is false. If you need a candidate who pretends that volcanoes don't exist then Ron Paul is not your man, maybe you could go draft gore.
  • cashman57, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4There is no global warming computer model that works without omitting all data from volcanic activity.
  • whch, on 10/23/2007, -3/+6Fine. Vote for Al Gore. Then move to higher ground. But forget to get on line for your national ID card and don't forget to make an appointment for your court appointed physician to implant your RFID.
    • bamapachyderm, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1"implant your RFID."
      You do realize, don't you, that people have been talking about that nonsense for a half a century, right? Still hasn't happened. Funny, that.

      OH *****! BLACK HELICOPTERZ!!!
      /hides
  • fraterm, on 10/22/2007, -2/+4You probably ignore some of the recent findings (and admissions of this fact by the scientists involved btw) that your pet theory on global warming is a conclusion drawn from data that had a severe statistical flaw (in the modern sampling at least).
    Also the premise of global warming rests on an arguably flawed methodology with respect to data from say the 1880s that cast doubt on the findings of those global warming adherents flooding the public with alarm. I worry about global warming, but I worry more about what knee jerk activists and opportunists will do in its name. Apparently the poster will take it as a wedge issue and throw an otherwise acceptable candidate out because he doesn't buy his party line on it.
  • annienyc4, on 10/23/2007, -4/+1Agree, a libertarian isn't going to take a hard stance on protecting the environment because they will be against emissions (and other environmental) regulation. This is one of the reasons I would not want a libertarian, or even republican president, even though I do like hearing what Ron Paul has to say on other issues.
  • cashman57, on 10/23/2007, -2/+4You are wrong in a way and right in a way. The federal government would not be involved in emissions but the civil court would.
    You would not be permitted to pollute the property of your neighbor.
    That sounds like a sound policy and more workable than what the EPA is doing.

    I am not worried about global warming at all. The only way the computer models that predict global warming can work is by omitting all data related to volcanic activity.
    If you don't vote for Ron Paul and you don't support his candidacy we will have more undeclared wars, more deficit spending and more government control over your life and the lives of your children.
    Freedom is more important than some small ideology difference and we need Ron Paul as president to get us back on the right track.
    I switched my voter registration to Republican so I could vote for Ron Paul.
    His candidacy is that important to America.
    Please consider supporting him.
    • rcook18, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3How do you think you will do against Chevron in civil court?
  • Lyrl, on 10/23/2007, -1/+6I believe global warming is man-made and the consequences will be disastrous, especially for developing countries. While Ron Paul has not taken a stand on the global warming issue, the policies he supports relating to the fossil fuel industry are some of the strongest carbon-emission-reduction plans on the table. He wants to remove all government subsidies to fossil fuel companies, and he wants maintaining cheap oil to no longer be a goal of U.S. foreign policy. Requiring users of fossil fuels to pay the actual cost of the stuff is the fastest way to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, and to make alternative energy sources competitive in the market.
    • bluestems, on 10/23/2007, -0/+0So it's passed on to the consumer and the cost of gas sky-rockets. Will Ron Paul help local governments build alternate transportation options, like subways, trains, etc? People cannot simply stop using gas when there are no alternatives available and simply passing on the costs will create huge finanical hardship. Sure people can conserve better (eliminating unneccesary trips, carpooling), but that in itself will not be enough. Our gov't can help with subsidies for improving alternative fuel technologies (eg the fuel cell), and providing alternative transportation.
  • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/23/2007, -2/+4Environment is not the federal government's problem. It is a state by state issue. How is the federal government going to know the best way to protect the deserts in Arizona and the great lakes in Michigan and the mountains in Colorado from thousands of miles away. The government isn't going to understand the first thing about protecting local ecosystems. It is up to the states to protect their own environments. It is up to Michigan to boot out all companies with the intent to pollute their lakes. It is up to AZ to prevent ozone from making the hot sun even hotter. And it is up to Colorado to keep their mountains from eroding from acid rain. The federal government can't be expected or depended on to protect every single one of the large variety of ecosystems in America. And by forcing them to act for the entire country only slows things down through buracracy and people who can't possible understand the issues each ecosystem possesses.
    • Aphelion27, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2At last.. someone who gets what the founders meant when they placed limits on the Federal government and reserved all other powers to the people and the states.
    • bluestems, on 10/23/2007, -0/+0Ecosystems are not contained within state boundaries. We can be much more efficient with environmental regulation on a national level, and internationally (eg Kyoto).
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1States can work together on certain issues. It's not like just because you hand it over to the states it means the states can't work with other states. Of course Michigan could work with Wisconsin or Ohio or Illinois to lower pollution in their lakes. The point is the federal government does not generally consist of people who live in your area and understand your problems.
  • AustinMandi, on 10/22/2007, -2/+2Buried as inaccurate for reasons already stated above. (Not expressly stated as federal jurisdiction in the Constitution)
  • beelzebush, on 10/23/2007, -3/+2I,M SICK OF ARGUING WITH IDIOTS ,GOODBYE DIGG.
  • nalicosh, on 10/23/2007, -2/+2The solution to global warming will not come from the government. It will come from the innovators. The scientists, engineers, architects, etc. Solar and battery technology are both swiftly approaching technological tipping points. The Green Energy Industry is ready and waiting for the ancient petroleum industry to reach price parity. The moment that it becomes less expensive to drive a battery powered car charged by the sun, it will happen. Removing government subsidies from the petroleum industry will speed up this process tremendously. Not to mention freeing up hundreds of billions of dollars in military expenditures that are currently funding our "National Interest" in OIL, and allowing those funds re-enter the market where they will be better used for technological innovation. Our government is not just inefficient. It is backwards. Ron Paul is the solution. How he feels about Global Warming is irrelevant. This is not a moral crusade. Ron Paul will have a greater effect on Global Warming than even your beloved Al Gore would.
    • bluestems, on 10/23/2007, -0/+0How will the billions of dollars in military expenditure be rerouted to fund the innovators until the technology is marketable? Do you think the avg american will dig into the tax returns and invest in these technologies, especially given the reality of global warming skeptics and the power of corporate advertising? Take a look at how well free-market was doing at the turn of the 19th century for the average american, then maybe realize that while we need to curb the corruption in our gov't, we still need our gov't to ensure equality and quality of life.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.