How many sciences are started and then completed in 20 years? Climate prediction is young as sciences go. It's facing no more controversy than other sciences - and it has an advantage over past new sciences in that the controversy is more internal. Climate scientists are the big news both for and against. Sometimes in the middle as well. I find quite credible the arguments that we don't need the fire department, we need a fire extinguisher. That is to say, it'll cost less to cope with global warming using current economic and social paradigms than it will to try and bring new systems into the equation.
Strict constitutionalism mandates a bare minimum of government only on the federal level. With sharp drops in federal regulation, control, and taxes, some states would likely raise taxes and expand their budgets to attempt to replicate formerly federal functions.
Consider that some politicians have made statements that the real issue is they think this particular item shouldn't be funded by the federal government. Constitutionally it probably shouldn't be. Perhaps some of the states should invest in research on stem cells. If current administrative policy blocks that as well, then current administrative policy regarding stem cell research is overly centralized and too controlled by the executive branch.
Law and order provided by the government is supported by Ron Paul and his supporters.
It's also a state-by-state function rather than the business of the federal government. The federal government has jurisdiction over only a limited number of strictly enumerated crimes. Ron Paul would reduce federal efforts to combat crime and return the focus to the several states where our Constitution says that it belongs.
Many state functions should be returned to the state. Decentralization makes it easier to change/improve governments. It makes it easier to escape oppressive ones. It allows for easier comparison of several policies.
Ron Paul isn't a minarchist. He's a constitutionalist. Some of the states would likely have absolutely massive governments - California comes to mind as a state likely to replicate many currently federal functions should the federal government reduce its role.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barrack Obama are lunatics. Hillary is a bit corrupt, but no more so than most politicians. I don't know what Obama is, but he at least puts out the image of a decent person.
The problem here is that in a fire, everyone can see the fire.
In the case of global warming, a group of people is claiming to see a fire that is invisible to another group of people.
In such circumstances, the first thing one does is try to make everyone agree there is or isn't a fire before you take actions. If the disagreement remains then you bring in outside people to see if the outside people can see the fire. If the answer turns out that "it's a fireplace" or "that's supposed to be on fire" then you don't do anything. If the answer turns out to be, "Yeah. Here, let me get my fire extinguisher, that's tiny," you don't call the fire department, you use a fire extinguisher.
When nobody can agree on whether a fire exists, that checklist is exactly what you do. It might be that some people are hallucinating a fire, it might be that others are hallucinating the lack of one, and it might be that there's a real fire but the people who are upset by it are just failing to understand what's going on. Bonfires look really dangerous when you don't know why they were lit, as can some fireplace designs. So does food that bursts into flame, but some foreign cuisines actually have food that's served on fire.
My biggest issues are tax reform and healthcare, two issues where I agree with Ron Paul. I weighted global warming to nearly nothing. I think it'd cost less to adapt to warming than to try to prevent it, but I'm not hostile to environmental regulation.
Ron Paul's famous consistency has come at the cost of voting against popular issues. He has the backbone to always be philosophically consistent. He never allows himself to be swayed by popular opinion. He's a true leader. It actually kind of reminds me of Thatcher. That lady was not for turnin either.
There's a long history of 'conspiracy' thinking in our nation going back to the founding fathers. There is nothing immoral about considering the possibility of people working together to maintain or advance their positions. All such thoughts deserve civil answers as long as they are brought forth by civil people. (Some writers on etiquette go further and hold that even rude people deserve civil answers.)
I think that if some states have low standards, it does not necessarily invalidate a state-by-state system. It is easier for citizens to change states (either in the sense of moving between states or in the sense of changing the nature of their state government) than it is for citizens to change the federal government.
If some states have particularly low or particularly high standards, we can examine them from a distance and see what effects the differences make.
The national solution has advantages, but the heightened chance of innovation from the decentralized solution is lost entirely. Just like we're nowhere near to the limits of communications technology (as I pointed out in another post on this blog), we're nowhere near the limits to knowledge in political science.