Topic: Global Warming
Al Gore and Bob Barr join their minds to solve "global warming" comments on Statement of Bob Barr After Vice President Al Gore's 'We' Campaignby Jean-Christophe Roux
(Libertarian)
Friday, July 18, 2008
How do you like a Libertarian candidate joining Al Gore and his mad campaign against liberties in the name of a better climate?
Mike Gravel had reached the fourth round of the Libertarian nomination process with the very libertarian "legislation to tax carbon at the source and cap carbon emissions" (http://www.gravel2008.us/issues). Note that the newly elected libertarian Vice Chair Michael Jingozian endorsed that very Mike Gravel. Now, our friend Bob Barr went schmoozing with Al Gore at the "We" Campaign Event. Let's read what our "Libertarian hero" had to say. Quotes come from a press release that can be found at http://www.ibtimes.com/prnews/20080717/bobbarr-we-campaign.htm.
"Former Vice President Al Gore and I have met privately to discuss the issue of global warming, and I was pleased and honored that he invited me to attend the "We" Campaign event." What is Bob Barr be doing at such an event? His he trying to get votes from the liberal / green fascist crowd? He is really proud to meet Al Gore? Al Gore! Why is he there? With the US dollar on the verge of demolition by the US Federal Reserve, Bob Barr had nothing better to do? Instead of getting the time of his life with Al Gore, he should have (re)read Ron Paul's "The Case for Gold: A Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission ", published in... 1982.
"Global warming is a reality as most every organization that has studied the matter has concluded, whether conservative-leaning, liberal oriented or independent." Well, most Libertarians do not buy into that "global warming" crap. Obviously, they do not count for Bob Barr... the Libertarian candidate. Can you believe one second that a Libertarian said the above sentence? The truth is that Bob Barr is running as a Libertarian not because of his "conversion to libertarianism", but because it was this was his quickest and cheapest way to get ballot access in many states.
"I am, however, also aware that scientists differ on its causes, impact and remedies". Obviously, Bob Barr does not want to be aware of those who challenge the reality of global warming. He picked up the Al Gore intellectual dishonesty so fast. Something tells me that Bob Barr had a long training in Washington. I am feeling so sorry for Mary Ruwart who lost against Bob Barr the nomination, who would have been a perfect libertarian candidate.
"I remain firmly committed to free market solutions and innovations to address this issue; not tax-driven policies. " Thank you very much Bob. Some lip service to what he thinks is Libertarianism. What about regulations? Is he against? A convenient omission? What about a word on the Libertarian idea that private property is essential? Well, Bob Barr probably does not care much for private property rights, as a former Republican leader.
"I commend Mr. Gore for his efforts and leadership in this area, and urge Senators Obama and McCain to join me in studying, debating, and finding solutions to the problem of energy needs, consumption and effects." Wonderfu! Political leadership for real-life problems. Soviet-minded Bob Barr wants the greatest minds to unite, think together and solve problems. Woo is he kidding here? By the way, what kind of solutions do politicians come up with? Taxes, regulations...
Next Bob Barr attacks Obama and McCain for not being here and writes: "Mr. McCain, for example, seems to have adopted already the internationalist approach and relying on the cumbersome and costly "cap and trade" formula and he may therefore be unwilling to engage in a real debate that would reveal how flawed that approach truly is. " Well, that's the whole point of the Bob Barr candidacy. Spoiling the chances of the Republicans. Not a bad goal in itself I must say. But, what a pity for those poor libertarians.
Bob Barr is a fraud. Don't vote!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7 thumbs so far
2008 Jean-Christophe Roux, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, July 18, 2008
Last modified: Friday, July 18, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jean-Christophe Roux only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jean-Christophe Roux is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
This is a little creepy since I consider Gore to be a mortal enemy, but I think you're being a little rough on Barr. His subsequent press release, and everything I've read from him says he won't support economy destroying initiatives. He said here that global warming is real, which it is. The disagreement is on whether it is man made, and I haven't heard him say he thinks it is. Bob still has my support, though I was disappointed that he even acted like he had any respect for Gore at all.
If this be true, then it would now appear that Bob Barr is only using the Libertarian Party to help him build a non-libertarian political movement. Well, let him. Libertarians can now use Bob Barr to build a bigger base and elect a real libertarian in 2012 and beyond.
So it is Libertarian to not believe in glabal warming?
He supports free market ideas if people want to combat it. Maybe he talked some sense into Gore. We have to beat this govt solution to global warming idea.
It would be wise Bob offer a real solution if you believe in global warming. One without govt interference.
Posted By: David K. Meller
Date: 2008-07-18 17:36:54
A very foolish and short-sighted article. The choice in voting is NOT between Bob Barr and e.g Harry Browne,Ayn Rand, or Murray Rothbard. the "choice" offered us as voters is between Bob Barr--an imperfect libertarian who nevertheless represents us well on MOST issues--and raging, implacable statists like Obama (Democrat) and McCain (Republican). Those two represent the libertarian movement on absolutely NOTHING!
They both not only agree with Al Gore on "Global Warming" but are enthusiasts about his wretched socialistic "solutions" for it! Even worse, they, and I suspect Al Gore, would be wretchedly statist even if (or although) the truth of Global Warming is in doubt.
One certainly ought to appreciate that Bob Barr informed Mr. Gore that solutions to environmental issues and problems exist which DO NOT involve extensive government regulation and intervention. That Gore responded positively to this can only be all to the good, whether Barr supports "global warming" or not.
If the Barr campaign is to make a difference in this election, and if the Liberarian Party is to become the real alternative to the badly defective Dempublicans, we all are going to have to engage people with whom we strongly disagree. We should not cede our basic principle of non-aggression against persons and property, and we should always emphasize the superiority of voluntary alternatives to government planning, bureaucracy and intervention, but we also should recognise that ours is a very new position to most people, environmentalist or otherwise.
Bob Barr basically did a good job here! Maybe he will do better the next time.
Maybe I'm crazy but I haven't been able to find this press release on Bob Barr's site. If anyone else can find it, would you please post the link. Another site claimed they'd gotten an email with this info from the Bob Barr campaign. I haven't gotten one of those yet either. If no one can come up with it, I will consider this an attempt to sabotage his campaign.
He gives lip-service to libertarian principles, though he has shown his true colors more than once this past week or two.
Remember that he just showed support for bailing out Fannie May & Freddy Mac, and advocated that the FED should have MORE oversight in the housing industry. IS THAT LIBERTARIAN??
He is a career politician. He is NO Ron Paul and no libertarian. Did we all forget that it was we libertarians that took him out when he was the drug-czar?? Have we forgotten to be vigilant and now fall for every cry of "I have changed" in our desperate reach for the liberty-minded? Have we chosen the convenience of the lesser of THREE evils, forgetting that compromising a principle VOIDS that principle??
Any compromise to our core principles and we lose the whole purpose of our fight! If we dilute the integrity of our message; if we start accepting "slightly less than liberty" as acceptable means to our ends, we guarantee our failure.
(1) I could not find the statement on Bob Barr's website. But, the statement has been reproduced by many, many, many news outlets and commented on many blogs and websites.
(2) I could not find a reference to Bob Barr's presence at the "we" Al Gore event on Bob Barr's website.
Should I conclude from (2) that he never attended the meeting? Well, there is a video at:
with Al Gore thanking Bob Barr and spotting him in the audience. Is Al Gore bluffing?
As far as (1) is concerned, if the statement is a fake, it is time for the Bob Barr campaign to say it. And loud. Until that happens, we have to conclude this is another episode of the fascinting political adventures of Bob Barr.
None of the above is a fine choice, and I always endorse it. Not voting is also an acceptable and workable choice. For libertarians who want to vote for a principled libertarian, try Charles Jay of the Boston Tea Party.
Elf Nino's Mom put a list of Barr's issue papers on her site, and I ran through it being as generous as possible. For example, I gave full credit for his issue statement on racism, although I have severe misgivings since reading Barr's eulogy on Jesse Helms. Anyway, all I could come up with was 32% or so.
Which means, to me, that Barr does not represent the libertarian view on most issues.
We're working on getting Charles Jay on the ballot in more states. Colorado and Florida so far, and we should have Louisiana, Tennessee, and some others pretty soon. Our guy Chris Bennett has been reviewing the rules for write-in registrations in states which require it.
This is insane and unfair. Barr has repeatedly stated that global warming may be real though he really doubts it is man-made (the exact position of myself and MANY other libertarians).
You took a positive quote from him (about leaving it up to the free market) and responded with sarcasm and negativity. If that doesn't scream unfairness then nothing does.
Finally, Bob Barr NEEDS to get his name out there. How he does it, I don't care because I know what he stands for and what I am voting for, and that is by far the best candidate, albeit imperfect in several ways in the race.
O yea, and "don't vote???" Are you kidding me? That's is the worst thing to do...voting for the lesser of three evils is better than not voting at all. Use some common sense.
Scott said: "Barr has repeatedly stated that global warming may be real though he really doubts it is man-made (the exact position of myself and MANY other libertarians)."
If this were the case, why would he want to team up with Gore to find a way to fight it? If it is natural, it would happen no matter what he did (and doing anything about it is not the purview of government).
Please don't cling to a candidate on emotion alone. And more importantly, do not vote defensively. You are doing none of us any favors by doing so. Liberty can only riegn supream if our principles are NOT allowed to be diluted or compromised in any way. Any dilution of a principle kills the principle. This is nothing to take lightly.
Barr is a compromiser, as he advocates for the FED to have further oversight over the housing market. Now this bond with Gore. How much will it take for you to NOT blindly support a politician by his words alone? Actions are the true guide. Barr supporters are relying on faith over reason.
Man it sucks knowing there are libertarians like you out there. You take the slightest things that might look the tiniest bit negative and blow them up so much that you think he's a bad person. "Bond with Gore???" Come on! BOND? Are you kidding? He was just being polite, acknowledging the positives (advocating for alternative energies and making climate change known to all)! That's what most good and decent people do. If he were as negative as you would be, there would be absolutely no way average Americans would be attracted to him.
There is however a downside to what I just said. Unfortunately, Bob Barr does seem to be leaning further than I feel comfortable into the idea of modern day politics...saying what's most pleasing to whoever he speaks to. But I'll get over that when he's in office and being a better president than McCain or Obama could even possibly make themselves out to be.
Ron Pauls are one in a million, if you want someone close to his views to become president, you'll vote for Bob Barr. I don't understand how you can think voting letting a McCain or Obama become president is no worse than Barr. That's absurd. Even if you are justified in what you say (which I don't believe is the case) Barr is still WAY better than McCain or Obama. With the latter two, America has little hope, at least with Barr, we are turning into the right direction, even if it isn't the complete 180 degrees you want it to be.
Scott said: "America has little hope, at least with Barr, we are turning into the right direction, even if it isn't the complete 180 degrees you want it to be."
Believe me, I understand what you mean, but I thought that very same way when I voted for Bush in 2000. There are more Ron Pauls out there than you realize. In 2004, I voted for Michael Badnarik. And while Chuch Baldwin may not have a voting record, his message is consistant and his non-record is much more palatable than Barr's record. The problem with voting today is that people don't support those with the principles they charish, with a forward-thinking goal, but they vote in the short-term mindset of voting the lesser of two (or in this case, three) evils. The less support there is for those principled few, the less principled few there are. Defensive voting is paramount to shooting liberty in the foot to get a few more years of 'less taxes than the other guy' rhetoric. History is behind this argument as well as the Founders.
As usual, the peanut gallery has come out in force. Crucify and eat your own. It is all you know how to do. No wonder the LP has lamented with failure these past decades. Burn any villages down lately?
Many of you in reality must be subversive plants from the opposition. Reading the screed posted here surely implies such.
"Well, most Libertarians do not buy into that "global warming" crap."
Libertarianism = commitment to small government. It is a purely political stance. Libertarianism is not about scientific questions.
If "most Libertarians" do not buy into that "global warming" crap, do they also not buy into that "evolution" crap or that "Holocaust" crap or that "moon landing" crap?
Btw, you do not have to buy into the entirety of Al Gore's alarmist documentary (I sure do not), and I would suggest opposing Kyoto protocol. However, to deny that global warming is happening is, quite frankly, idiotic! The fundamental facts that average Earth temperatures are on the rise and have been for years, that this warming trend is largely an atmospheric phenomenon, that carbon dioxide is the principle greenhouse gas, and that human activity (including fossil fuel burning, but also other activities such as deforestation, which affects the CO2 cycle) can and does affect atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are unanimously agreed upon by climate scientists (except maybe for industy hacks).
But just because some fundamental facts about the global climate change are undeniable does not mean there are no controversies. While average temperatures do increase in the long run (an observable phenomenon), to what extent is this global warming trend a geological phenomenon unrelated to human activity? How effective are efforts to curb CO2 and other greenhouse gases? Are rising global temperatures really as bad for the environment as some say it is? Might it be beneficial? (Of course, rapid, grand changes almost always bad for the environmnet.) The basics of global warming are certain, but the details, not so.
Global warming deniers are in the same camp as creationists, Holocaust deniers, and 9/11 truthers. Is Al Gore correct on global warming? He might be. We do not have all the facts yet. I am aware that Al Gore does have an agenda, and that we should take his claims with a grain of salt. We should all be skeptical and apply critical thinking. However, even though Al Gore makes many daring claims, that does not make it right to deny global warming altogether, to throw the baby out with the bath water. Pretending that global warming is not happening is at least as bad as uncritically accepting the claims made in An Inconvenient Truth or urging that we sign the Kyoto protocol.
'Reason' will not work on this crowd as it is lost. So too is 'public civility' towards those who oppose positions. They 'the radicals' will attempt to destroy Barr, just as they tried to destroy Badnarick and Smither.
As such, I would contend that 'they' are not libertarians. Instead, I would contend that 'they' are agent provocateurs with a purpose to cast negative perceptions onto viable LP candidates. As marginalization of the LP only assists the statists desire to deny the people their liberty, those who work to destroy the LP candidates must be working for the statist enterprise. Politics is perception.
I supported Badnarik and would vote for him again in a heartbeat. In fact, I was proud to be a guest on his show on May 1st, speaking about Freedom Force International. However, I will not vote for Barr, as he does not get the principles BEHIND the issues. It is the principles that matter.
Put it this way... If a Martian held the principles behind liberty, and came to Earth. not knowing anything about the issues effecting us, but was asked to look them over and vote, the votes would reflect nearly identicle to an Earthling who holds the same principles.
Barr is inconsistant on the issues and therefore, shows his lack of understanding of the principles. To say the FED should be abolished, then say we need to give them more power... This is what I mean. He is either not yet ready to be a spokesperson for libertarian principles, or he is using the party by pretending to be something he is not. Either way, he should not be supported.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Jean-Christophe Roux, all rights reserved.