And again, this is why when we did actually become different nations for a small time, remember that? It's why the Federal government will never allow the union to deteriorate to that point again. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for state's rights, I'm legally stoned right now due to mine. But I'm not going to pick up a gun to defend my right to smoke a doobie. At the same time, I don't think Wyoming's going to send the National Guard over the border because my state decided they want to allow adults to make decisions for themselves.
But then, I I'm not exploiting a race of people, and treating them as if they were farm animals for profit either. That's just the most horrific example from American history I can think of (not comparing the situation) that illustrates my point, which is; the Federal government exists to insure that all people within it's collective reach have access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And if one state wants to ban a group of people from starting a family, or living together for that matter because of the gender of their partner, it violates their rights. And often (not saying always) the justification is religious.
I agree except that those things can and should be addressed at the federal level. The benefit of forming a nation come via a common set of laws, currency, government, greatly reduced barriers to trade and migration between regions, etc. The American Civil War is a great example of what happens when you let the state or regional difference become too great.
Here's Paul vs Paul on MR. Valid input from one of the wisest economists around. Its just a transcript but I think you can get an idea of what kind of analysis he does. I'm not a Krugman fan either.
On policy issues, I probably agree like half of them. Issues where I would strongly agree with him is probably the level of state power and funding needed. The issues I strongly disagree with him are at least.
1) Philosophy. I do believe many market failures or rather individual stupidity require government resolutions. Obesity could be one, but there are many, many more. This is very value-loaded question and obviously what works here probably doesn't work there. I do believe conservatives over-estimate the virtues of liberty. I think left-wing has done enormous damage by destroying existing institutions such as strong family and society, and outsourced them to government. Part of the problem is I'd say westernization and nobody's here at fault per se. You can call that progress, but doing away with government and then expecting society to pick-up is idealistic and could do a lot of harm. Given what I know about human signaling, evolutionary psychology and moral philosophy, I think liberty is an instrumental value at best. We derive happiness from some very basic needs, whether we want it or not. If any of those is lacking, liberty is nothing. Our lives are mostly products of nature and nurture. I think every human suffering that can be avoided with moderate costs is a tragedy.
I don't pretend to solve the question of what kind of mix of values is the best for the society. There is certainly not one-size-fits all, or what is even instrumentally useful. One heuristic I would use is just to look at the rationality of the people involved. Given that I spent enough time communicating with libertarians and alike when I was younger, I consider many of them insufficiently intellectual to say at least. Its not just ideological beliefs about economics, but unwillingness to understand the ideas of the left, just as left are unable to understand them. They all buy into this good vs evil paradigm unable to see their own group biases.
Fundamentally, society is made of people. I believe if you leave a lot of societal problems unresolved, you will have externalities. If your solution to crime is higher walls or more police, I can only shake my head. I think modern society faces a lot of coordination problems that are not going to solved with any of the idealism Ron Paul crowd supports. In the long run we are all dead.
2) Health care. I have read quite a bit about where the academic debate is. I think Tyler Cowen put it best on his talk:
I think in health care you have an unholy mix of massive government-driven 3rd party payment, combined with human-imperfection of not thinking rationally about death and choice at the margin, and of what life is really worth, and you bring those two things together, and you just get a huge mess. So doctor tells you ought to have something done, and the doctor has a commercial motive, its very hard to say no to the doctor. You sat in the office, you pulled down your pants, you've said AAA; you are in vulnerable position, you did seventeen things the doctor just told you to do, and now hes telling you, now pay me more, or even better, have the 3rd party pay me more, and you are going to say yes to that too.
Its a big mess, supply-side is all screwed up. The health care problem is not about coverage, its about lack of supply-side incentives, lack of competition, lack of accountability. We're pretty far from fixing it. You can blame regulation but not only, its human imperfection.
While I do believe free markets are great way to solve many coordination problems, I seriously doubt health care is one. I did think so, when I was a teenager but I'm not anymore. Look at Singapore for solutions.
3) Gold standard. I don't have a horse in monetary policy but this world is full of countries where you have central bank and good track record of financial stability. The economists mostly don't agree with gold standard views (understand Bayesian rationality before you start disagreeing with the experts). Gold standard would probably be pro-cyclical and you might end up paying higher real interest rate (eg. higher premium on mortage).
4) Environmental economics. I'm not sure where I stand in regards to these, but I do believe there are many many coordination problems where you need government, climate change being one.
I do agree with his views on occupational licensing, cutting budgets, FDA overregulation, non-interventionist foreign policy, agricultural subsidies, government surveillance and many more that have solid defense in economic efficiency.
The great thing about Ron Paul is that he comes from outside mainstream politic circles and thus lacks their corruption, intellectual or otherwise. He is also motivated more by ideas, not by movements or power. It really lets him step on the feet of current powers like monolithic rent-seekers. I also respect his ability to create basically a lot of genuine support based on his views more than the political party or person.
The ultimate issue I have with Ron Paul is that he is basically too fanatic about his own ideas unable to see how they could be wrong. Quite common among Austrians. This is standard human bias, and dangerous in the long run. I can tolerate bad policy views if I can respect the person on intellectual level. Pragmatism and more common sense. As the interview shows, he lacks intellectual understanding of many issues he talks about and puts up a lot of polemics to cover that. When you engage in long-term circle jerk of ideological ideas without actually learning the profession, whether its economics, dieting, operating systems, natural selection or climate science, you end up developing massive biases based on group signaling.
Just for the record, I doubt Koch have much to do with Ron Paul. He has origins in von Mises, von Hayek, Böhm-Bawerk in the 19th century. In my opinion its just lame left-wing argument. It might be true that they have bought think-tanks and do biased research, but the intellectual origins of Austrians are much more deeper and older. You are confusing the mainstream libertarians with the LvMI and Auburn folks. Might as well say creationism was created by some evil billionaires.
Also as a person, I think Obama, independent from his views, has better leadership qualities.
Almost everywhere where you have ideological pundits too long in power you end up with some sort of black swan event which causes a lot of collateral damage in one way or another. That said, I think a candidate like Ron Paul would probably throw away a lot of rent-seekers which is a good thing. Although in power he would probably not be able to do most of the things he wanted.
I think the question of what is fundamentally important in politics is a really hard one. He may be wrong about a dozen of things but if he ends some useless war and saves 50,000 people is he not the best thing ever? My views on that have changed a lot over time. With any candidate you will be making compromises.
The great thing about Ron Paul is that he comes from outside mainstream politic circles and thus lacks their corruption, intellectual or otherwise. He is also motivated more by ideas, not by movements or power. It really lets him step on the feet of current powers like monolithic rent-seekers. I also respect his ability to create basically a lot of genuine support based on his views more than the political party or person.
I'd have to contest this, since outsider doesn't mean not corrupt or corruptable. Its no coincidence that a lot of political outsiders suddenly become just as corrupt as the people they replaced when they get power. Corruption is a side effect of how institutions are setup and the incentives it provides to people within those institutions.
Also, ironic that you call Ron Paul not motivated by movements or power when the Ron Paul Revolution is a quintessential example of it.
Please explain the Koch brothers? I hear it all the time but whenever i try to look up all the fuss i never see what they are actually doing to cause people to dislike them. It seems like extremism to be honest.
Still not seeing anything to dislike them for. Actually i like them more now. Power to the private enterprise, less government intervention? Yes please. Climate change? It happens, and it's a fact of life. But from a meteorological point of view, it's not man made, so agreed with them again. Stop controlling and taxing people for something they arent responsible for. Doesnt bother me what someone's politics are, seems like all the anti-koch stuff is extremism, and none of the real criticisms are substantial or true. Looks like a mystical boogyman chase.
Please explain the Koch brothers? I hear it all the time but whenever i try to look up all the fuss i never see what they are actually doing to cause people to dislike them. It seems like extremism to be honest.
Still not seeing anything to dislike them for. Actually i like them more now. Power to the private enterprise, less government intervention? Yes please. Climate change? It happens, and it's a fact of life. But from a meteorological point of view, it's not man made, so agreed with them again. Stop controlling and taxing people for something they arent responsible for. Doesnt bother me what someone's politics are, seems like all the anti-koch stuff is extremism, and none of the real criticisms are substantial or true. Looks like a mystical boogyman chase.
I can't tell if you are trolling. Please show me the scientific evidence (peer reviewed) not payed for by the Kochs or other super-ritch industrialists that posits the current, and unprecidented, warming phase the Earth is undergoing is natural?
Please explain the Koch brothers? I hear it all the time but whenever i try to look up all the fuss i never see what they are actually doing to cause people to dislike them. It seems like extremism to be honest.
Still not seeing anything to dislike them for. Actually i like them more now. Power to the private enterprise, less government intervention? Yes please. Climate change? It happens, and it's a fact of life. But from a meteorological point of view, it's not man made, so agreed with them again. Stop controlling and taxing people for something they arent responsible for. Doesnt bother me what someone's politics are, seems like all the anti-koch stuff is extremism, and none of the real criticisms are substantial or true. Looks like a mystical boogyman chase.
I can't tell if you are trolling. Please show me the scientific evidence (peer reviewed) not payed for by the Kochs or other super-ritch industrialists that posits the current, and unprecidented, warming phase the Earth is undergoing is natural?
You mean like the fact that we're coming out of a 'mini ice age' and our global temps are actually slightly below where they should be according to history? -edit, i was wrong, we do emit more co2 than volcanoes end edit - natural causes, oceanic vegetation, volcanoes, etc produce more co2 in a day than man does in hundreds of years. The problem with your question, is that the burden of proof is on the one claiming its manmade. A faulty and proven-to-be intentionally misleading hockey stick chart doesnt cut it. The real big player in global warming = the Sun. Not a soccer mom driving her kids to soccer practice in an SUV.
Still not seeing anything to dislike them for. Actually i like them more now. Power to the private enterprise, less government intervention? Yes please. Climate change? It happens, and it's a fact of life. But from a meteorological point of view, it's not man made, so agreed with them again. Stop controlling and taxing people for something they arent responsible for. Doesnt bother me what someone's politics are, seems like all the anti-koch stuff is extremism, and none of the real criticisms are substantial or true. Looks like a mystical boogyman chase.
I think you can agree with the views of the Koch Brothers but still be concerned with the level of political influence such people have on the U.S. electoral system. If we replace the Koch Brothers with someone like George Soros, you may not be so willing to dismiss their political influence.
You mean like the fact that we're coming out of a 'mini ice age' and our global temps are actually slightly below where they should be according to history? Or that volcanoes, even dormant ones, give of more co2 in one day than we do in hundreds of years at our current rates? This still doesnt include vegetation, oceanic vegetation, occasional eruptions, etc. The problem with your question, is that the burden of proof is on the one claiming its manmade. A faulty and proven-to-be intentionally misleading hockey stick chart doesnt cut it. The real big player in global warming = the Sun. Not a soccer mom driving her kids to soccer practice in an SUV.
And again, no links, not even a citation so that I can verify your opinion is informed by facts and not by industrialist propoganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn prominent scientist who says man does not cause global warming. His only criticisms come not from other scientists, but politically motivated journalists.
Still not seeing anything to dislike them for. Actually i like them more now. Power to the private enterprise, less government intervention? Yes please. Climate change? It happens, and it's a fact of life. But from a meteorological point of view, it's not man made, so agreed with them again. Stop controlling and taxing people for something they arent responsible for. Doesnt bother me what someone's politics are, seems like all the anti-koch stuff is extremism, and none of the real criticisms are substantial or true. Looks like a mystical boogyman chase.
I think you can agree with the views of the Koch Brothers but still be concerned with the level of political influence such people have on the U.S. electoral system. If we replace the Koch Brothers with someone like George Soros, you may not be so willing to dismiss their political influence.
True, i would not be comfortable with sorros, and currently am not, he has huge influence. There's a difference between sorros and koch. Koch influence = limit government influence on people. Soros influence = increase government influence on people. Soros is the lesser in terms of neutrality. As for above post about republicans hating civil rights. Guess who fought for civil rights aganst the democrats and their jim crow campaign. Guess what party lincoln was a part of. Etc etc. That is the kind of influence sorros has, that misinformation, republicans are thought of as racist is an example. He causes action against, rather than lack of action period like koch. I'm not a republican btw,.
I think this climate science debate is waste of time. When a person is not accountable, he suddenly becomes an expert for signaling reasons. Not speaking of any oneself, just generally. Vis-a-vis Bayesian rationality, you're very likely to be wrong when disagreeing with the experts. Most people who have a horse is climate race would probably not bet any of their money on Intrade on climate prediction markets. Try publishing a paper on climate science, understand the models, discuss with other experts and do it for a living.
Its no different from people in stock market investing in businesses they know nothing about and expecting to beat the market. Like in finance, you can always find an expert who agrees with you. There's no reason to believe you are any less biased or that you have any special knowledge to pick the right experts.
This whole Koch thing is just lame in my opinion. The issues are much older then Koch brothers. Maybe they are just ideologically charged people who have a lot of money. Instead of spending it on rockets like Tito, he spends it on his political thoughts. No doubt they would profit for some of the changes though.
RealClimate is also a good source of Climate Change data/links.
Though this page on ScienceBlogs is probably the best way to answer the most common questions/criticisms of climate change.
I'm going to step out and comment here.
First, saying that ScienceBlogs is "the best way to answer the most common questions/criticisms of climate change" is highly self-defeating. That site is, at best, sophistry. The Hockey Stick section alone is utter garbage that completely avoids the specifics surrounding that controversial topic.
Nevertheless, I'm going to assume (for the sake of argument) that Anthropogenic Global Warming is both real and proven. It should then be verifiable just what percentage of Global Warming is being caused by human activity. Which peer-reviewed paper has published this percentage and what would that value be?
RealClimate is also a good source of Climate Change data/links.
Though this page on ScienceBlogs is probably the best way to answer the most common questions/criticisms of climate change.
I'm going to step out and comment here.
First, saying that ScienceBlogs is "the best way to answer the most common questions/criticisms of climate change" is highly self-defeating. That site is, at best, sophistry. The Hockey Stick section alone is utter garbage that completely avoids the specifics surrounding that controversial topic.
Nevertheless, I'm going to assume (for the sake of argument) that Anthropogenic Global Warming is both real and proven. It should then be verifiable just what percentage of Global Warming is being caused by human activity. Which peer-reviewed paper has published this percentage and what would that value be?
I'm going to step out and comment here.
First, saying that ScienceBlogs is "the best way to answer the most common questions/criticisms of climate change" is highly self-defeating. That site is, at best, sophistry. The Hockey Stick section alone is utter garbage that completely avoids the specifics surrounding that controversial topic.
Nevertheless, I'm going to assume (for the sake of argument) that Anthropogenic Global Warming is both real and proven. It should then be verifiable just what percentage of Global Warming is being caused by human activity. Which peer-reviewed paper has published this percentage and what would that value be?
Sadly, for most people that is the best place as most of the major criticisms are based in some sort of sophistry. I posted the IPCC and RealClimate links for those more interested in the underlying science and math involved, but they are typically less understandable to the average person.
I'll also point out that terms like 'very likely' and 'likely' have very specific meanings in the IPCC reports as they directly relate to probabilities (e.g. 'very likely' = more than 90% probability of occurring from here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html).
However, if you're looking for some sort of contribution percentage, then this factsheet has a good graph: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf. Eyeballing the bottom two bar values gives me a roughly 0.2 W/m2 for natural and 1.6 W/m2 for human, giving the human contribution a roughly 90%.
If you don't mind my asking, what cross section of common beliefs has lead to your agreeing with him on this point but disagreeing with nearly all of his other views? Or in another way, what do you believe about things?
Comments
Ron Paul as President
Here's Paul vs Paul on MR. Valid input from one of the wisest economists around. Its just a transcript but I think you can get an idea of what kind of analysis he does. I'm not a Krugman fan either.
On policy issues, I probably agree like half of them. Issues where I would strongly agree with him is probably the level of state power and funding needed. The issues I strongly disagree with him are at least.
1) Philosophy. I do believe many market failures or rather individual stupidity require government resolutions. Obesity could be one, but there are many, many more. This is very value-loaded question and obviously what works here probably doesn't work there. I do believe conservatives over-estimate the virtues of liberty. I think left-wing has done enormous damage by destroying existing institutions such as strong family and society, and outsourced them to government. Part of the problem is I'd say westernization and nobody's here at fault per se. You can call that progress, but doing away with government and then expecting society to pick-up is idealistic and could do a lot of harm. Given what I know about human signaling, evolutionary psychology and moral philosophy, I think liberty is an instrumental value at best. We derive happiness from some very basic needs, whether we want it or not. If any of those is lacking, liberty is nothing. Our lives are mostly products of nature and nurture. I think every human suffering that can be avoided with moderate costs is a tragedy.
I don't pretend to solve the question of what kind of mix of values is the best for the society. There is certainly not one-size-fits all, or what is even instrumentally useful. One heuristic I would use is just to look at the rationality of the people involved. Given that I spent enough time communicating with libertarians and alike when I was younger, I consider many of them insufficiently intellectual to say at least. Its not just ideological beliefs about economics, but unwillingness to understand the ideas of the left, just as left are unable to understand them. They all buy into this good vs evil paradigm unable to see their own group biases.
Fundamentally, society is made of people. I believe if you leave a lot of societal problems unresolved, you will have externalities. If your solution to crime is higher walls or more police, I can only shake my head. I think modern society faces a lot of coordination problems that are not going to solved with any of the idealism Ron Paul crowd supports. In the long run we are all dead.
2) Health care. I have read quite a bit about where the academic debate is. I think Tyler Cowen put it best on his talk:
While I do believe free markets are great way to solve many coordination problems, I seriously doubt health care is one. I did think so, when I was a teenager but I'm not anymore. Look at Singapore for solutions.
3) Gold standard. I don't have a horse in monetary policy but this world is full of countries where you have central bank and good track record of financial stability. The economists mostly don't agree with gold standard views (understand Bayesian rationality before you start disagreeing with the experts). Gold standard would probably be pro-cyclical and you might end up paying higher real interest rate (eg. higher premium on mortage).
4) Environmental economics. I'm not sure where I stand in regards to these, but I do believe there are many many coordination problems where you need government, climate change being one.
I do agree with his views on occupational licensing, cutting budgets, FDA overregulation, non-interventionist foreign policy, agricultural subsidies, government surveillance and many more that have solid defense in economic efficiency.
The great thing about Ron Paul is that he comes from outside mainstream politic circles and thus lacks their corruption, intellectual or otherwise. He is also motivated more by ideas, not by movements or power. It really lets him step on the feet of current powers like monolithic rent-seekers. I also respect his ability to create basically a lot of genuine support based on his views more than the political party or person.
The ultimate issue I have with Ron Paul is that he is basically too fanatic about his own ideas unable to see how they could be wrong. Quite common among Austrians. This is standard human bias, and dangerous in the long run. I can tolerate bad policy views if I can respect the person on intellectual level. Pragmatism and more common sense. As the interview shows, he lacks intellectual understanding of many issues he talks about and puts up a lot of polemics to cover that. When you engage in long-term circle jerk of ideological ideas without actually learning the profession, whether its economics, dieting, operating systems, natural selection or climate science, you end up developing massive biases based on group signaling.
Just for the record, I doubt Koch have much to do with Ron Paul. He has origins in von Mises, von Hayek, Böhm-Bawerk in the 19th century. In my opinion its just lame left-wing argument. It might be true that they have bought think-tanks and do biased research, but the intellectual origins of Austrians are much more deeper and older. You are confusing the mainstream libertarians with the LvMI and Auburn folks. Might as well say creationism was created by some evil billionaires.
Also as a person, I think Obama, independent from his views, has better leadership qualities.
Almost everywhere where you have ideological pundits too long in power you end up with some sort of black swan event which causes a lot of collateral damage in one way or another. That said, I think a candidate like Ron Paul would probably throw away a lot of rent-seekers which is a good thing. Although in power he would probably not be able to do most of the things he wanted.
I think the question of what is fundamentally important in politics is a really hard one. He may be wrong about a dozen of things but if he ends some useless war and saves 50,000 people is he not the best thing ever? My views on that have changed a lot over time. With any candidate you will be making compromises.
Also, ironic that you call Ron Paul not motivated by movements or power when the Ron Paul Revolution is a quintessential example of it.
Still not seeing anything to dislike them for. Actually i like them more now. Power to the private enterprise, less government intervention? Yes please. Climate change? It happens, and it's a fact of life. But from a meteorological point of view, it's not man made, so agreed with them again. Stop controlling and taxing people for something they arent responsible for. Doesnt bother me what someone's politics are, seems like all the anti-koch stuff is extremism, and none of the real criticisms are substantial or true. Looks like a mystical boogyman chase.
I can't tell if you are trolling. Please show me the scientific evidence (peer reviewed) not payed for by the Kochs or other super-ritch industrialists that posits the current, and unprecidented, warming phase the Earth is undergoing is natural?
You mean like the fact that we're coming out of a 'mini ice age' and our global temps are actually slightly below where they should be according to history? -edit, i was wrong, we do emit more co2 than volcanoes end edit - natural causes, oceanic vegetation, volcanoes, etc produce more co2 in a day than man does in hundreds of years. The problem with your question, is that the burden of proof is on the one claiming its manmade. A faulty and proven-to-be intentionally misleading hockey stick chart doesnt cut it. The real big player in global warming = the Sun. Not a soccer mom driving her kids to soccer practice in an SUV.
And again, no links, not even a citation so that I can verify your opinion is informed by facts and not by industrialist propoganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn prominent scientist who says man does not cause global warming. His only criticisms come not from other scientists, but politically motivated journalists.
http://climate4you.com/images/GISP2 TemperatureSince10700 BP with CO2 from EPICA DomeC.gif long term temperature and co2 graphs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion Thorough and data-based debunking of the popular hockey stick graph. news critics say it cripples action so it's bad. lol!
Now your turn. Proof that it's man made please.
True, i would not be comfortable with sorros, and currently am not, he has huge influence. There's a difference between sorros and koch. Koch influence = limit government influence on people. Soros influence = increase government influence on people. Soros is the lesser in terms of neutrality. As for above post about republicans hating civil rights. Guess who fought for civil rights aganst the democrats and their jim crow campaign. Guess what party lincoln was a part of. Etc etc. That is the kind of influence sorros has, that misinformation, republicans are thought of as racist is an example. He causes action against, rather than lack of action period like koch. I'm not a republican btw,.
IPCC: 2.2. Drivers of climate change in 4AR
RealClimate is also a good source of Climate Change data/links.
Though this page on ScienceBlogs is probably the best way to answer the most common questions/criticisms of climate change.
Its no different from people in stock market investing in businesses they know nothing about and expecting to beat the market. Like in finance, you can always find an expert who agrees with you. There's no reason to believe you are any less biased or that you have any special knowledge to pick the right experts.
This whole Koch thing is just lame in my opinion. The issues are much older then Koch brothers. Maybe they are just ideologically charged people who have a lot of money. Instead of spending it on rockets like Tito, he spends it on his political thoughts. No doubt they would profit for some of the changes though.
I'm going to step out and comment here.
First, saying that ScienceBlogs is "the best way to answer the most common questions/criticisms of climate change" is highly self-defeating. That site is, at best, sophistry. The Hockey Stick section alone is utter garbage that completely avoids the specifics surrounding that controversial topic.
Nevertheless, I'm going to assume (for the sake of argument) that Anthropogenic Global Warming is both real and proven. It should then be verifiable just what percentage of Global Warming is being caused by human activity. Which peer-reviewed paper has published this percentage and what would that value be?
Reference: Petit et al, Nature v.399 (6735), pp. 429-436. (1999) This is 414000-ish years of raw data.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/readme_petit1999.txt
And actual the data.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt
No where on there do the CO2 levels rise above 300ppm(v)
According to current measurements from NOAA, that value is currently about 400 and rising at a predictable rate.
Also, the science is mostly based on probability, rather than contribution, since that makes sense in the context of events happening over time. A good example is here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html
I'll also point out that terms like 'very likely' and 'likely' have very specific meanings in the IPCC reports as they directly relate to probabilities (e.g. 'very likely' = more than 90% probability of occurring from here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html).
However, if you're looking for some sort of contribution percentage, then this factsheet has a good graph: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf. Eyeballing the bottom two bar values gives me a roughly 0.2 W/m2 for natural and 1.6 W/m2 for human, giving the human contribution a roughly 90%.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/02/321665/ron-paul-syria-gas-attack-a-false-flag/
If you don't mind my asking, what cross section of common beliefs has lead to your agreeing with him on this point but disagreeing with nearly all of his other views? Or in another way, what do you believe about things?