Rick Santorum winner of the Iowa caucuses has said that if he becomes President, then he will push to add an Amendment to the Constitution that forbids gay marriage. 

1. Rick Santorum didn't win the Iowa caucus.

2. Rick Santorum will not become president.

3. Even if he did become president in some parallel universe, Rick Santorum could not find the votes to pass such an amendment.

4. Even if he did all of that, gay marriage would still not be illegal. It would simply remain unrecognized by the federal government.

Recently CERN was (finally) able to run their CLOUD experiment which, while the results are early, could explain how sunspot activity impacts global temperature patterns through influencing cloud formation. Based on previous estimates, this could explain the majority of the warming that occurred over the past half century.

As any person who understands science, science is not a popularity contest and consensus (even fake consensus spread by groups of activists) is meaningless.

There's also evidence to support that the earth goes through regular waves of high and low temperature trends, as evidenced by geological records (higher temperatures and lower rainfall = less flowing water = less sedimentary deposits) and tree rings (wider rings = more rainfall, narrower rings = less. Trees that are hundreds of years old can tell quite a tale well beyond modern records).

It's very tough to tell at the current moment in time if the recent "global warming" trend is ANYTHING we have any influence on, let alone control over, or just a natural occurance that coincided with our significant increase in carbon emissions.

Even if it's purely a coincidence, yes, we SHOULD still be careful, but honestly, there's no way to tell yet.

The Earth goes through cycles of cooling and warming due to natural increases and decreases in Co2e concentration. The magnitude of which is much smaller than the current level of temperature change, much less predicted future temperature change.  

You can obviously notice two things.

1.) The current level of global warming is unprecedented in scale, since 650k years ago.

2.) There is undeniable correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature. We have a perfectly reasonable, testable model as to why this correlation takes the form of CO2 -> temperature rise.

I am honestly staggered to meet people that are actively trying to delude themselves as such. I would be really interested in finding out the real reason you can't consciously accept it. I am curious. The overwhelming majority of scientists make one claim, and yet you do not believe them? It is their job, to know what they are talking about. Why do you trust your gut instinct over people who have spend collectively millions of man hours researching this topic?

Oh and as for the 'What can a man who hopes to become the most powerful man in the world do to stop climate change?" The answer is, a lot. We could sort this out if it weren't for people like you.

LOL.  You are so blinded by this it's shocking. 

Need we link numerous emails regarding these so called Scientists with agenda's emails?  There is plenty more examples of Scientists trying to fudge their data in an effort towards making themselves not look dead wrong.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/crus-dr-phil-jones-on-the-lack-of-warming/

It's propaganda.   We don't fully understand it.  It's a completely unproven theory.  Many people (Scientists) categorically do not support it.  Since the 1940s the C02 levels have shown a continuing increase.  However, for some unexplainable reason the global temperature was decreasing until 1975.    Since 1975 it's been increasing.

If this is just such a lock it down Science.  This wouldn't have occurred.  More C02  =  More Heat  = Global Warming.   That's not the case here.

The Earth goes through numerous cycles.  Many scientists hypothesize that the Earth was in a minor or lesser Ice Age until the 1850s and that we are coming out of that Ice age currently.  Other more recent studies have shown that Astrological factors (Specifically the Sun)  are primarily responsible for the  temperatures of Earth.    It also stands to reason that the most prominent greenhouse gas on our planet (Water Vapor) contributes far more to the overall temperature of the planet.

And I hate to 'that' guy but back in the 1400s most scientists knew the world was flat.  With no proof ofcourse, just opinions.  We all know how that turned out.

That was a great video! If i was american i would've definately voted for Ron Paul, but he lost me at the end when it said 'he will remove income tax' !? I mean what kind of government could function efficiently without income tax? Just makes him seem like an idealist...

Oh, and what the hell is up with the staring contest at the end...

A warming planet is much less of an issue than a cooling one would be. Most would simply look at National Geographic ice age maps and think "wow, cool, vast new lands!" But land alone isn't worth anything if it's all ice and dust and wastelands where nothing can grow,

The only reason we don't see ice ages for what they trully are - Mars on Earth - it's because most cientists started working on regions that were covered by ice (northern USA and Europe) or the few ones who got wetter in the ice age (american southwest). Overall the cold-and-rainy model is as fake as a three dollar bill. If scientists in the tropics were the ones to research it first most likely we would know it as "dry age". Whenever seas freeze and recede, rains fail anywhere; temperature differences between tropics and poles increase, and the same happens with large scale storms, fed by the steep gradients.

Of course, climate change itself, specially as fast as in our present days, is pretty much birth pains to our planet's ecology, but life would adapt and thrive on a warmer planet - for our world is colder than optimum, or to be more accurate, drier.

Anyways, only a species as stupid as humans would build coastal civilizations, drown it all in a few centuries and have the nerve to whine about it. But hey, it's good for Gaia.

You still could argue that our crops and so on would not thrive in a warmer world, but again, a species that breeds slave species like cows dumb as rocks and turkeys who drown in the rain (It sounds a lot like Reaper Indoctrination inded) shouldn't complain.

1.  If Romney did win the Iowa Caucus, Mormons aren't any more in favor of gay marriage than Evangelicals.

2.  Most likely not, however, Gingrich, Romney, and Perry are almost indistinguishable from Santorum on the matter.

3.  Considering that the Evangelicals have gotten back in control of Congress and they passed such things as the NDAA (that Ron and Rand Paul opposed by the way) with little to no difficulty, it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that they could pass such an Amendment.

4.  It really depends upon how much power the Fundamentalists gain in the upcoming election.  If they gained control of boh houses of Congress and the Presidency they would probably dial the year back to 1692 in this country, so that anybody that didn't fully accept the literal truth of The Bible would probably find themselves standing on a scaffold with a noose around their neck or under a heavy rock.

You're being hysterical. How do evangelicals control Congress now, and what does being evangelical have to do with the NDAA passing with broad bipartisan support and being signed into law by a decidedly non-evangelical president? For that matter, what makes Ron Paul "better" on the issue of gay marriage than Rick Santorum? Santorum wants to prevent the federal government from recognizing gay marriage because he thinks such an arrangement is an affront to his Catholicism, while Paul wants to do so because he thinks the federal government shouldn't be involved in deciding such matters. I know whose instincts I'd trust more as president, but on this issue it amounts to a distinction without a difference, except for the fact that Santorum wants to amend the constitution the while Paul simply wants to keep federal courts from being able to rule on the constitutionality of DOMA. So, if anything, it seems that Paul wants to give DOMA the weight of an amendment without having to muster the votes to do so the proper way.