The Factual Argument Against Global Warming, Cap and Trade, and the Copenhagen Treaty

[Yersenia_Pestis]

Check this out:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

By the way, if you consider yourself a reasonable human being, this coming from the bottom of my heart, being a climate change denier (and actively searching for crap to back your illusion) makes you look like a complete wacko. Seriously, take up another hobby because you’re in crazyland right now.

[MrDibble]

@Yersenia_Pestis

Seriously, take up another hobby because you’re in crazyland right now.

I hear it pays well - for a hobby.

[ITR_champion]

@jrodefeld

As far as what you characterize “conspiracy theories”, sometimes people like to denigrate things they don’t understand by labeling them a “crackpot”, “tin-foil hat theory”, or other names to cover for their own lack of knowledge of a subject. Nowhere in my post or in those links (that I saw) made mention of the Illuminati, JFK assassination, 9/11 Truth, Shape Shifting Reptilians, or anything of the sort.

Actually you have linked to a video which says that the Holocaust is a hoax, and to webpage insisting that the government is trying to lower sperm counts by dumping chemicals in the water, and other things ‘of that sort’. I’ve pointed them out specifically in the previous posts. Those things destroy your credibility. Even worse, however, is that a lot of your links go to sources that say nothing at all about global warming and nothing remotely similar to what you claim they say. My guess is that you’re simply copying these links from some other source without even bothering to check what they say. Around here, we always check sources rather than believing your summaries of them.

What is TRUE and documented is the following:

There are plans to create a system of world government. (Whatever you want to call it. New World Order, whatever)

If this is true and documented, you should link us to the documentation. You certainly haven’t done so yet. You’ve given us a handful of editorials, blog posts, and You Tube video full of vague, groundless claims about “secret documents” and such. you have not provided any credible source that backs up the claim that there’s a plan to create a system of world government. Which is hardly surprising, because there is no such plan.

Our financial system is truly international, with our Federal Reserve interacting in secret with central banks around the world. There are plans being made to replace the dollar with a world central bank and world currency. I have already provided links to back this up.

Yeah, so what? That has nothing to do with global warming. Isn’t replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is an entirely sane thing to do? (Also, for what it’s worth, the Federal Reserve does noting “in secret”. The minutes of every Federal Reserve meeting are made public.)

As far as criticisms of the United Nations are concerned, it depends on whether you feel it is an effective and vital organization. I personally feel we have ceded a certain percentage of our sovereignty to the United Nations (we go to war under UN resolutions). I feel this could be dangerous. You have to make your own call.

Can you actually name a single action that the United States is forced to take or banned from taking because of the United Nations? If not, then this paragraph looks rather silly. We certainly don’t go to war because of the UN. When the Second Iraq War started, the entire controversy centered around the fact that the USA was going to war against the will of the UN. Honestly, who do you think you’re fooling here?

I think those links established very clearly that Maurice Strong is th]e most important and influential UN figure in the environmental movement. He was responsible for the Kyoto Protocol, instrumental in the Rio Summit, and established the IPCC.

Actually he was not. The 187 nations who signed the Kyoto Protocol are responsible for the Kyoto Protocol. The idea that one single person is responsible for the Kyoto Protocol is absurd. Similarly for all the other outlandish claims that you’re making about him.

If you really think these things are crazy, why not prove me wrong?

Because I’ve already proved you wrong. Let me just recap what’s been established earlier in the thread.

1.) There is no such thing as the Copenhagen Treaty. The Copenhagen Summit did not produce any treaty. You can verify this by reading the coverage of it in any decent newspaper.

2.) There is no plan to create a single world government related to global warming or anything else. Financial issues related to the declining U.S. dollar having nothing to do with global warming. As for all your secret police forces and bureaucracies that are going to be imposed on us, those are also figments of your imagination.

3.) Maurice Strong has no meaningful relationship with Al Gore or Edmund de Rothschild. (Also Rothschild is dead, in case you didn’t know.) Maurice Strong is not single-handedly driving the environmental movement. Environmental causes advance because large majorities in nearly all countries want them to advance, and governments (democratically elected in most cases) respond.

4.) The United Nations does not possess any power to make or enforce laws in the United States or anywhere else on Earth.

5.) The World Conservation Bank does not exist.

It seems that you’ve conceded on number 5, since you’ve stopped throwing references to the World Conservation Bank into every post. On number 1, 2, 3, and 4, you’re continuing to insist on things even though you can’t produce a shred of evidence to back them up. You appear to be operating under the belief that you’ve provided evidence to back up these claims. In reality, you have not done so. If you’d like to start doing so, I’d be happy to read what you provide. But first you should check to make sure that it’s not a video of Ron Paul declaring the Holocaust a fabrication.

[BrainGlutton]

@jrodefeld

Our financial system is truly international, with our Federal Reserve interacting in secret with central banks around the world.

If it’s secret, how do you know about it?

[BrainGlutton]

@jrodefeld

I am reminded of a classic George Carlin bit he did about “saving the planet”. I think it sums up my views pretty well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

There have been many species of animals of all numbers through many eons of existence which have come and gone. I think we should take a little longer term view of whats going on today.

That “longer term view,” as Carlin expressed it, assumes the inevitable extinction of the human race. I hope you’re not willing to simply accept that.

[jrodefeld]

I’m certainly not going to go read this entire thread, but I decided to check your most recent link, just to see what you were qualifying as a discussion of the actual science. It is a story that claims John Holdren supports forced abortions and mass sterilization. Given the rights propensity for hyperbolic arguments, I really don’t need to read any further to see that the links you are providing in this debate are pure crap.

Okay, just READ Ecoscience. Don’t trust the source. Read the actual textbook John P Holdren authored. It sounds crazy, yet many mainstream sources have picked up on this information in the last couple of years. You are just profoundly ignorant of the facts relating to this debate. Why must you continually categorize anything criticizing Obama as coming from “the Right”, and characterize any piece of information on the motives and the past work of associates of Obama as the product of paranoid hillbilly militia survivalist fringe groups? Just read the source material and see if the facts are true. If you actually did this and put forth just the tiniest amount of effort, maybe you would learn something.

Great. That makes me an expert. The ACS, of which I am a member, fully endorses the conclusions that man made climate change is happening. It has 160,000 members.

I personally can’t stand get into these cite battles. I would like to know what you personally think. What do you think is happening to the energy that is absorbed by CO2 if it is not going to heat?

The problem I have is the blind loyalty to the wisdom of the scientific establishment and the neglect to entertain even the slightest contrary view or counter point made. In an issue as complex as climate change, and the resulting government policy (worldwide policy) and its implications, we must exercise the greatest amount of skepticism. I would bet that most honest scientists who believe human produced Co2 is the problem, would be against Cap and Trade and oppose it on moral grounds as well as practical grounds. Yet this very science is held up as the justification to pursue a massive political power grab and money making scam. Yet we are not allowed to criticize it because they say we are criticizing “established Science”. Given the politically motivated funding that goes into Universities and the carefully controlled media establishment that frames peoples perspectives, it is not at all crazy to think that maybe there is more dispute on the science than what they are telling us. I have read a lot from honest scientists who dispute the Alarmism and much of the IPCC conclusions. I have posting some of those names and links to their works. Yet, nobody will acknowledge that these people may have a point. You all say they are crackpots or in the pay of Big Oil. What about the Scientists and organizations that are in the pay of the financial interests who will we raking in billions in this new carbon credit market? We never hear about the corruption of the proponents of global warming. Lets be realistic here.

For arguments sake, lets assume that a large majority of scientists were convinced of imminent consequences due to Anthropogenic Global Warming, say 70%. That IN NO WAY indicates that they are right, nor does it preclude one from taking very seriously the opinions of the minority scientists and presenting in a fair light all different contrary scientific research. Remember the history of science is a small minority taking on the scientific establishment of their time and leading to a paradigm shift in thinking on a particular issue. Would you grant that if, in thirty to sixty years from now, catastrophic climate change and disruption of the climate threatening survivability (this is what is being claimed by the most vocal proponents) does not occur, then it will be an enduring embarrassment for the field of climate science? We will just have to wait and see. Given how amazingly successful our government has been in solving domestic problems (sarcasm), I’m sure they will be unable to curb Co2 emissions significantly. I AM sure that they will be able to make a massive profit, centralize power and sovereignty to international bodies, and devastate the economies of the industrialized world.

Part of being a man is admitting you were wrong. Are you willing to fess up and admit you should have exercised more critical thinking and skepticism after the doomsday scenarios don’t come to pass?

[BrainGlutton]

@jrodefeld

The problem I have is the blind loyalty to the wisdom of the scientific establishment . . .

:dubious: Look, how long has it been since “the scientific establishment” was seriously wrong about anything?

(Hint: Paul Ehrlich is not an example.)

[BrainGlutton]

ClimateSight sets it out pretty clearly:

The Credibility Spectrum

April 11, 2009 at 12:03 pm · Filed under How Science Works ·Tagged climate change, credibility, global warming, media, politics, science, statements

Let’s face it, there’s a lot of “climate science” out there that’s absolute rubbish.

Whichever side of the debate you’re on. Whether you believe global warming is a political hoax or that all skeptics are funded by Exxon. No matter what your opinions are, chances are that you’ve seen or read claims that you dismiss as outlandish.

Type “climate change” into Google. Within seconds you can find statements that the Earth is warming or that its temperature is stable (or cooling since 1998!). You can find “proof” that the warming is caused by the sun, volcanoes, flaws in the temperature data, or fossil fuel burning. You can read that the Hockey Stick graph is broadly accurate, or that it was manipulated by the IPCC to agree with a predetermined conclusion.

Whatever you read about climate change, chances are that there’s another source saying the opposite thing. It’s not like we’re all climatologists who can see straight through misinformation. So how do you possibly sort out what to believe?

When people ask me this question, I invariably respond with, “Assess the credibility.”

The ”climate change analysis” you read could be from a national academy of science, or from a blogger. It could be from an atmospheric physicist or a economist. It could be from a scientific journal or a political think-tank. If we calculate credibility to be “expertise + objectivity”, it’s obvious that some sources merit more weight than others.

I’ve put together a climate change credibility spectrum, inspired by Greg Craven from the Manpollo Project. This is a basic way to assess credibility and assign weight to a source. Keep in mind that this is only a guideline. The sources in the middle, especially, could be shuffled around based on the situation. The spectrum is also only used for scientific statements, such as “the Arctic is losing sea ice”. Matters of policy, such as ”cap-and-trade is our best bet”, are much more a personal opinion.

• At the bottom of the spectrum we have the individual. This is someone with no formal education in the field of climate science. Bloggers generally fall into this category, which is why I plan to refrain from creating my own “expert analysis” of data on this blog.
• Above that we have he professional. This is someone who is not a scientist, but is in an occupation that requires them to keep up to date with science. High school teachers are a good example, as well as politicians or CEOs.
• Then we have the non-publishing scientist. Someone with a scientific background, but who is not currently publishing peer-reviewed literature, does not necessarily follow methods which are accepted by the scientific community. They have a good knowledge of science, but lack the “peer-reviewed” credential.
• Above that is the publishing scientist in any area, such as medicine, physics, or chemistry. Even if they do not study climate change, they have the basic scientific background to understand it, as well as the “peer-reviewed” check on their scientific methods.
• The publishing Earth scientist specializes in areas closer to climate science, such as geography, geology, or environmental science. They have a more in-depth knowledge of the way the biogeochemical systems of the Earth work.
• The publishing climatologist (or atmospheric physicist/radiative physicist/any other area that’s so relevant to climatology that we can basically classify it as climatology) is the best you can get in terms of the individual professional. They understand more about climate change, and have more widely approved methods, than any other scientist.
• Above the individuals come groups. Universities are generally quite up-to-date in their scientific knowledge, as they are training scientists-to-be, and have a large number of scientific professors behind their statements.
• Peer-reviewed scientific articles are often written by more than one scientist, and have undergone an extensive review process. These articles minimize bias or misconceptions as much as science possibly can.
• Finally, professional scientific organizations employ thousands of publishing scientists, have massive reputations to uphold, and often publish their own peer-reviewed journals. Their statements carry more weight than any others.

This isn’t to say that the NAS is infallible, or that the blogger is always wrong. The credibility spectrum is simply a tool used to decide how much weight to give a statement.

So go do some reading. Do some searching and reading and watching. See what individuals, professionals, groups and scientific bodies are saying about climate change. Assess their credentials. Decide who you’re going to believe.

[GIGObuster]

@jrodefeld

Yet, nobody will acknowledge that these people may have a point. You all say they are crackpots or in the pay of Big Oil. What about the Scientists and organizations that are in the pay of the financial interests who will we raking in billions in this new carbon credit market? We never hear about the corruption of the proponents of global warming. Lets be realistic here.

Yes, lets be realistic, all the evidence shown so far that they were corrupt is crap.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

@jrodefeld

For arguments sake, lets assume that a large majority of scientists were convinced of imminent consequences due to Anthropogenic Global Warming, say 70%.

Say 82 percent.

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

@jrodefeld

That IN NO WAY indicates that they are right, nor does it preclude one from taking very seriously the opinions of the minority scientists and presenting in a fair light all different contrary scientific research. Remember the history of science is a small minority taking on the scientific establishment of their time and leading to a paradigm shift in thinking on a particular issue.

As I did teach history once, sure I do remember, you are way late: G.S. Callendar, Lewis D. Kaplan and Gilbert N. Plass among others took on the scientific establishment of their time. And they did it 60 years ago. Later research vindicated them and changed the positions of many scientists, starting in the 70’s one could see already the beginnings of a consensus, a consensus that was later reached after more than 60 years of efforts by many researchers.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

@jrodefeld

Would you grant that if, in thirty to sixty years from now, catastrophic climate change and disruption of the climate threatening survivability (this is what is being claimed by the most vocal proponents) does not occur, then it will be an enduring embarrassment for the field of climate science? We will just have to wait and see. Given how amazingly successful our government has been in solving domestic problems (sarcasm), I’m sure they will be unable to curb Co2 emissions significantly. I AM sure that they will be able to make a massive profit, centralize power and sovereignty to international bodies, and devastate the economies of the industrialized world.

Part of being a man is admitting you were wrong. Are you willing to fess up and admit you should have exercised more critical thinking and skepticism after the doomsday scenarios don’t come to pass?

Well, can you acknowledge that you were grossly mistaken on your history and that you are also wrong with your evidence regarding the scientist’s corruption?

[jrodefeld]

Because I’ve already proved you wrong. Let me just recap what’s been established earlier in the thread.

1.) There is no such thing as the Copenhagen Treaty. The Copenhagen Summit did not produce any treaty. You can verify this by reading the coverage of it in any decent newspaper.

The treaty was not signed. The DRAFT of the treaty they attempting to push through in Copenhagen was leaked in December and caused a significant amount of controversy. I have read this draft as have many others. Many consider the implications to amount to the creation of a world government.

Here is the link (containing the “treaty”):

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/10/copenhagen-treaty-draft-gender.html

Some links about this treaty:

The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty Draft – wealth transfer defined, now...

The Copenhagen Agreement and a Scary U.N. Power Grab.

Obama’s new world order

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/beware-the-uns-copenhagen-plot/story-e6frg6qx-1225791869745

Whats been established is that I have read the draft of the treaty and you have not. Educate yourself a little bit.

2.) There is no plan to create a single world government related to global warming or anything else. Financial issues related to the declining U.S. dollar having nothing to do with global warming. As for all your secret police forces and bureaucracies that are going to be imposed on us, those are also figments of your imagination.

Again, you display profound ignorance of the facts. See my previous point about world government. Financial issues and the declining dollar don’t have anything to do with global warming, but they certainly have to do with world government. Financial regulations have gotten ever more international in scope, the inevitable conclusion (that has been discussed numerous times) is establishing a world central bank and a world currency. There is proof of that:

http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/02/27/4893048.html

http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/sdrs-a-new-world-reserve-currency-43011.aspx

The National - Latest US news, sport & opinion

As for international police forces and bureaucracies, again, just read the draft of the Copenhagen treaty.

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/the-abcs-of-the-copenhagen-climate-change-treaty-a-world-government-brutal-new-world-taxes-and-the-creation-of-700-new-bureaucracies

3.) Maurice Strong has no meaningful relationship with Al Gore or Edmund de Rothschild. (Also Rothschild is dead, in case you didn’t know.) Maurice Strong is not single-handedly driving the environmental movement. Environmental causes advance because large majorities in nearly all countries want them to advance, and governments (democratically elected in most cases) respond.

I know Rothschild is dead. I never said Maurice Strong is single handedly driving the environmental movement. I said he is one of the most influential internationalists involved in the UN to push environmental concerns. He was hugely influential, you can’t deny that.

On number 1, 2, 3, and 4, you’re continuing to insist on things even though you can’t produce a shred of evidence to back them up. You appear to be operating under the belief that you’ve provided evidence to back up these claims. In reality, you have not done so. If you’d like to start doing so, I’d be happy to read what you provide. But first you should check to make sure that it’s not a video of Ron Paul declaring the Holocaust a fabrication.

I think this is the third time you’ve mentioned Ron Paul in relation to my posts, yet I don’t think I’ve linked to anything related to him. But since you brought it up, what do you have against Ron Paul? What is wrong with his ideas on economics, foreign policy, etc? You seem to be implying that “crazy fringe” people are somehow related to him or his message. I don’t have a super strong opinion on him either way, but I do think on some important issues, he has gotten it right, especially with regards to understanding the economic problems we face.

You know, don’t just read the links I post. If you are at all honest, you could very quickly find that there is quite a large amount of content and facts backing up most of what I am saying. Out of all the credible people out there worried about world government, your ignorance is astounding in your ability to deny any merit to the arguments that are made.

[jrodefeld]

@BrainGlutton

If it’s secret, how do you know about it?

The content of the meetings is in secret. The fact that they exist is not. You know, the Federal Reserve controls the value of all of our money. We need a full audit of the Fed and really expose the way our banking system works. If you think people are pissed off now, wait until they understand how our banking system works.

I am reminded of what Henry Ford said about our banking system:

“It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

[GIGObuster]

**jrodefeld **regarding your Copenhagen silly list of citations. I just see an effort to ensure that there is no fairness for developed nations, and that is not coming from the draft treaty, but by guys like Mike Morano.

And as much as you do not like to hear it: conspiracy theories just do not fly over here at the SDMB.

[BrainGlutton]

@jrodefeld

The content of the meetings is in secret. The fact that they exist is not. You know, the Federal Reserve controls the value of all of our money. We need a full audit of the Fed and really expose the way our banking system works. If you think people are pissed off now, wait until they understand how our banking system works.

I am reminded of what Henry Ford said about our banking system:

“It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

And then what? No country has yet come up with a better way to regulate the value of the currency. Precious metals are too inflexible (and subject to market forces – there were cycles of inflation and deflation even when we had a metal-based currency).

[jrodefeld]

@BrainGlutton

That “longer term view,” as Carlin expressed it, assumes the inevitable extinction of the human race. I hope you’re not willing to simply accept that.

Yeah, I don’t know if I would go that far. I just thought the clip was funny and illustrated a much needed bigger picture on this subject. But its very possible (and likely even, according to scientists) that humans will go extinct at some point. I know we try to think that we are different, but either way its certainly not something I spend much time thinking of. The point was that we are part of larger cycles that we are not even aware of. I do believe there is a natural equilibrium that nature enforces on us. Before we could be able to “destroy” or otherwise permanently harm the Earth, we would be stopped somehow through a plague, a meteor, mass famine, or something else entirely. That is certainly not suggesting we should do nothing. Just a little much needed perspective and a bit of comedy to back it up.

[GIGObuster]

@jrodefeld

I am reminded of what Henry Ford said about our banking system:

“It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

Wikiquote finds that to be unsourced:

Conspiracy - Wikiquote

* It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system for, if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
* Variant: If the American people knew the corruption in our money system there would be revolution before morning.
      o Attributed to Henry Ford. The earliest citation found is the article "In the Mercury's Opinion: How Internationalists Gain Power", Russel Maguire, American Mercury, October 1957, p. 79. (Ford died in 1947.) The quote is preceded by "It was Henry Ford, Sr., who said in substance," which may indicate that it is just a paraphrase, not an exact quote.

[BrainGlutton]

@jrodefeld

You know, don’t just read the links I post. If you are at all honest, you could very quickly find that there is quite a large amount of content and facts backing up most of what I am saying. Out of all the credible people out there worried about world government, your ignorance is astounding in your ability to deny any merit to the arguments that are made.

Why are you worried about world government anyway? The world needs a government, for the same reasons a country needs a government. But there’s no good reason to expect one in your lifetime or mine, because there is, more’s the pity, no grassroots internationalist political movement of any kind. (Communism was, or purported to be, an internationalist movement in its day, but when Communists won power in a country they always acted like nationalists or even imperialists. So it goes.)

[jrodefeld]

@BrainGlutton

And then what? No country has yet come up with a better way to regulate the value of the currency. Precious metals are too inflexible (and subject to market forces – there were cycles of inflation and deflation even when we had a metal-based currency).

Thats not true. We could (and should) have a currency tied to Gold or other precious metals as a unit of weight, with certificates that you can exchange for the actual tangible asset. Banks should be subject to bankruptcy just as every other business in a Capitalistic society is. There should be no lender of last resort. This would eliminate the boom and bust cycle, encourage savings and production rather than consumption and debt, prevent expanding national debt and encourage a surplus and ensure a healthy and vibrant middle class for decades to come. It would also remove the primary means by which corporate power has taken hold over our government and it would limit and restrict the unending expansion of government power. It would also protect our civil liberties.

Our founders spoke out against a central bank. Following their model of decentralized power and honest money, we built up a level of prosperity and wealth never before seen in world history. Then we allowed the banks to take over, our government to expand without end, and corporate america to abuse the public with the help of the Feds. As Thomas Jefferson said,

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

If you don’t think this has transpired then I don’t know what to tell you. Perhaps we should listen to these great men of old who knew of the dangers to the Republic and warned us against our current course of action.

[jrodefeld]

@BrainGlutton

Why are you worried about world government anyway? The world needs a government, for the same reasons a country needs a government. But there’s no good reason to expect one in your lifetime or mine, because there is, more’s the pity, no grassroots internationalist political movement of any kind. (Communism was, or purported to be, an internationalist movement in its day, but when Communists won power in a country they always acted like nationalists or even imperialists. So it goes.)

The world does NOT need a world government. Nations need governments. We can have open and honest free trade, diplomacy and free travel amongst countries of the world. I believe the best government is local government. The most distant government is the one least responsive to the needs of the people. Tell me, if we DID create a world government, how would we get rid of it if it doesn’t work out well? Besides, our country was unique and actually BETTER than other nations due to our Constitution and separation of powers that ensured individual liberty. We should retain our sovereignty and stay independent of needless international treaties and governments. We should lead by example encouraging other countries to follow us and adopt our ways voluntarily, not through force of arms.

So, do you support the idea of a world government and world currency? What do you think would be the implications of this policy?

[jrodefeld]

@GIGObuster

Wikiquote finds that to be unsourced:

Conspiracy - Wikiquote

What does that matter? Many reliable sources have claimed the quote accurate. Even if it was a paraphrase, it is totally irrelevant. I have quotes from everybody from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to Rockafellers and Rothschilds to businessmen and Wall Street executives basically saying that the banking system is a very clever fraud designed to benefit certain favored industry and bankers at the expense of everybody else. Why even quibble about something so unimportant?

[GIGObuster]

@jrodefeld

As Thomas Jefferson said,

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Nope:

Money - Wikiquote

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

* Attributed to Thomas Jefferson, The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809). No such document exists. The book Respectfully Quoted says this is "obviously spurious", noting that the OED's earliest citation for the word "deflation" is from 1920. The earliest known appearance of this quote is from 1935 (Testimony of Charles C. Mayer, Hearings Before the Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, Seventy-fourth Congress, First Session, on H.R. 5357, p. 799)

And I did not check Wikiquotes first, I just used logic, when Jefferson was active in politics there was still no continental USA. They could mostly talk about the nation just reaching the Rocky Mountains.

And few economists think that we should go back to a gold standard.

http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2007/12/ok_im_convinced_the_gold_stand.php

There are moral principles at stake for me, but I am willing to listen to economic arguments showing that losing the gold standard is better for the economy than keeping it.

In that light, Megan McArdle has done several posts that have convinced me. Her largest post – which I recommend reading completely – has this key quote:

In short, you don't get anything out of a gold standard that you didn't bring with you. If your government is a credible steward of the money supply, you don't need it; and if it isn't, it won't be able to stay on it long anyway. (See Argentina's dollar peg). Meanwhile, the limitations on the government's ability to respond to fiscal crises, the necessity of defending against speculative attacks in times of crises, and the possibility of independent changes in the relative price of gold, make your economy more unstable. It's a terrible idea, which is why there are so few economists willing to raise their voices in support of it.