Leigh Wrote:
"If you approve of the goals of those persuing this agenda then you would have been delighted had Hitler won and achieved his goal of world domination."
That is completely unnecessary, and demonizes the opposing side in an uncouth and reprehensible manner. What have we become, that we just can't disagree, we have to insinuate that those that disagree with us would be Nazi sympathizers? That is the rhetoric that is unproductive and insulting. If that was directed at me then I'd advise you re-read my post.
Anyone that wants single-party control in this country (Dem or GOP) should get some schooling about the checks and balances put in the Constitution. If the GOP was all that great for the USA then the last 8 years would have produced better results. If the Dems were perfect, they'd never have lost power. Scale back the crazy here.
Andy, you surprise me as I assumed you could read and comprehend so would suggest you go back and re-read my paragraph since it had nothing to do with your adoration of the motives and accomplishments of those you laud as "progressive". What I was pointing out is the agenda of those leading the "climate change" hysteria movement. Google "maruice strong" along with "UN" "corruption" " scam" and you will get some idea of the nature and character of this despicable Canadian who is the real father of the climate scam. The rest such as Gore are just jumping on a conveniently profitable train, Strong was and is the one who got it rolling, and yes, his goal was "world government", same as Hitler's. By the way, NAZI was the National Socialist party.
Check this link for a bit of background on the climate change agenda. It won't hurt you to read this and who knows, it might even open your eyes.
An excerpt from an email between two scientists who have manipulated the data they use to support man caused global warming:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Now andi, this is what I call rude, uncouth, reprehensible behavior....Aren't you outraged? Or is that only reserved for those who expose the hoax?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2009 11:06AM by Ed.
Since when did one instance of outright lying condemn an entire cause? Or even multiple instances? People are fradulent, and more likely to be fraudulent about things they believe in. Should I be outraged?
Nope. People lying about climate change doesn't "outrage" me. It doesn't even meet the bar. Why should I be outraged?
Credible scientists disagree on climate change, and that is a fact. The motivations of the people behind it- on both sides- is also suspect.
And Leigh- "...as I assumed you could read and comprehend..." is very petty. I don't even have to read into that to note the insult. I'm starting to think that someone can't disagree with you without receiving your disrespect.
"Since when did one instance of outright lying condemn an entire cause? Or even multiple instances? People are fradulent, and more likely to be fraudulent about things they believe in. Should I be outraged?"
Well since these are the scientists that algore and his ilk use to bolster their global warming hoax on the world....One would think that someone as "sensitive" as you are to any perceived slight, imagined or otherwise, would be the first to stand up in righteous indignation.
One starts to get the feeling that your sanctimonious feigned outrage is only that, sanctimonious feigned outrage.
Where did you get the idea that I was outraged about anything on this thread? How about where I worte, "Should I be outraged? Nope." Am I outraged at Leigh for being mean to me? Nope. Am I going to let someone know when they are acting immature? Yes, I am. Anyone that is over 18 years old should be grown up enough to realize that insults are pointless, self-serving, and destroys the credibility of the person doing the insulting. Besides, I've dealt with far worse annoyances in my life than some mean people on message boards, and I don't lose sleep over what people think of me here. It's likely that everyone here knows more about me than I know about them.
Also, I haven't even taken a side on the global warming issue in this thread and you're calling me out on it? You are grasping at straws. Here's what I wrote about it:
"Credible scientists disagree on climate change, and that is a fact. The motivations of the people behind it- on both sides- is also suspect."
Whenever global warming is brought up in a discussion it's rarely ever about what may or may not be happening to the planet. The topic of global warming is most often used as a part of a different argument- Is it a power grab by progressives? Is it a giveaway to big business? I don't know that many people actually care about the causes and effects of global warming, except as another example of some vast conspiracy headed up by a Canadian.
I assume Andy that you are gainfully employed and perhaps even fly and perhaps own a plane so this whole climate agenda will impact you in the form of taxes. Surely this should concern you if it is true that the whole thing might be based on false science. If it isn't then why the extreme supression of discussion on the subject?
I do fly, I do own a plane, I am gainfully employed and I pay a truckload of taxes. My job, incidentally, is in Operations Management at a nuclear power plant. I have quite a large dog in the global warming fight, because nuclear power is essentially one ginormous carbon offset, and the waste that's produced is very localized, very compact, and very containable.
However, what kind of integrity would I have if I allowed the prospect of financial gain to influence what I thought was right or wrong? I don't go to work and think to myself, "I'll just look at parameters that tell me the plant's just fine, and ignore all the others." That would be, in an extreme case, homocide. I look at EVERYTHING- every parameter, every indication, every sample, every little hiccup- and I solve problems, no matter what the cost is to my time. It's not about what's convenient, it's about identifying the problems and driving towards the best solution.
Over the entrance to many of our rooms is the placard, "Leave your ego at the door." Problems don't get identified and resolved by being rude, insulting, or derogatory, they only get worse. Like we said in the airlines- "Focus on WHAT's wrong, not WHOs wrong."
Leigh,
"If it isn't then why the extreme supression of discussion on the subject?"
I hope I'm not coming across as someone trying to suppress the discussion. I'm just advocating that we don't tear someone's head off and insult them if they disagree.
Andy Z. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leigh,
> "If it isn't then why the extreme supression of
> discussion on the subject?"
>
> I hope I'm not coming across as someone trying to
> suppress the discussion. I'm just advocating that
> we don't tear someone's head off and insult them
> if they disagree.
Then we do agree on something. I note that it is those who question the "science" using statistics and analysis who are having their "heads torn off" by those who have a financial stake in keeping the ball rolling in this apparent scam. There are a great many very qualified climate scientists who have presented solid evidence that man's activities have essentially no ifluence on world climate but their work is supressed by the group who seem to be able to control the agenda.
Having the job you do I assume that you must be a fairly intelligent individual so I encourage you to read up on Maurice Strong who truely is the father of this whole thing, starting with his organization of the Rio conference which led to Kyoto etc. He is very good at manipulation for his own gain and Canada has suffered financially for many years from his activities going back to the creation of Petro Canada etc. Do not underestimate his ability to damage your economy through his connections in the UN and China.
Andy, are you outraged yet? I know you said that "People lying about climate change doesn't "outrage" me". But doesn't this bit of news make your moral compass do a few 360's?
Now we find that all of the real, original raw data used to prove that "man made" global warming was a real threat, has been destroyed....How convenient.
Climate change data dumped, this is damning
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
Related Links
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate skeptics seeking access to such data.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change skeptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.
Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.
He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.
and Andy, doesn't it assault your sense of righteousness and make you suspicious when you find that the main source of scientific data used to bolster the global warming religious movement says:
"the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements."
You have to wonder why they had non-disclosure agreements in place.
Was it so their work couldn't be checked or disputed? The data after all was no doubt collected and paid for with public funds and should have been public property.
How Convenient
"In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible"
Translation, enough time to manipulate and after Copenhagen
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2009 01:15PM by Ed.
I have been away for the Holiday,
ANDYZ you hit the nail on the head 100% regarding my post.
Thank you for seeing my intent and understanding the point I was making.
I need not say anything further than your responce.
I don't own a television. I don't watch commentary shows. I have an opinion that isn't influenced by the views or spin of a "news" show practicing "advocacy journalism." As such, when I research the goings-on in the world, it gets bounced off of my own personal principles and values.
Global warming- I don't really care if it's a hoax perpetrated by an evil mastermind. There is a debate, the consequences of either side getting their way aren't that bad, and we'll likely know the truth in my lifetime. In the meantime, people feel good about "going green" and driving hybrids.
I will, however give you one example of something I'm outraged over. Iraq. It's a complete and total disaster. We have troops that have followed orders and not come home. There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that are dead because of our invasion. Iran, once held in check by Saddam, is now a prominent nation of power in the Middle East, with a population that hates their government but fears us even more, so they keep electing the crazies and tolerate the A-hole-a. The best and brightest of Iraq have left because of poor war planning, the ensuing civil war (predicted by Cheney during Gulf War Part I) and will not come back. And to top it all off, we have wasted billions of dollars of our money to get those results.
How did we get there? Was it just some post-9/11 WMD scare that suddenly came out of nowhere? No it was not.
Many of the people that were elected/appointed to office in 2000 with Mr. Bush were founding members of PNAC, or signatories to their statements pre-9/11. Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Scotter Libby, William Bennett, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Armitage, and John Bolton to name a few. Before 2000, they advocated war with Iraq to remove Saddam from power and to secure the "interests" (oil) of the U.S.. In the 9/11 Commission Report, it is stated repeatedly by staff that after the attacks, the administration only wanted to look at evidence tying Iraq to 9/11, to justify a war with Iraq. And yes, I've read the whole report.
That a group of people that have never served outside of a candy cane brigade, or made an art form of getting deferments (5 for Cheney) from the Vietnam draft, that those people would take war so lightly, would so flippantly suggest we send our troops in harm's way for oil- that outrages me. That they would exploit one of the great tragedies of our time to make the misleading case that war with an unrelated country is the answer- that outrages me. That a group of people, so indifferent to the idea of proactive aggressive war (also a Nazi trait, Leigh) would also come up with such a bad war plan on top of all that- it outrages me that the peole that suffer are the troops, the Iraqis, and the Iranians- the Iranians, that were SO close to revolution, except for the mass of U.S. troops bounding their borders and making them wonder if they were next.
Ed, global warming doesn't hold two atoms of outrage next to the fury I have over the group of cowards that got us into this. THAT is a real and tangible conspiracy, one that has wasted real lives, wrecked real countries, and set a country (Iraq) back 100 years in it's intellectual and technological development. They have nothing left but their oil, and since their smartest have left, they don't have many people left to bring them back from the edge. That makes me mad beyond belief, and sad that people tell me I should be outraged over a global warming hoax.
Where in the Constitution is it guaranteed that the U.S. will operate under a free-market economy? Socialism is so easily bandied about as a horrible, horrible thing, but are we guaranteed a free-market economy under the founding document of this country?
And what is so wrong about Socialism in certain areas- like health care? If Socialism is the Progressive D's agenda (which I dispute), what's wrong with looking out for one another?
If the people of this country, by a majority vote, elect representatives, senators and a president that advocate elements of Socialism, isn't that the will of the people, and therefore should be carried out? After all, isn't a Democratic Republic not about what's right or wrong, but really about the will of the people?
So andy, I perused your tome. Interesting how you got to throw a bds rant in there, arrowdriverlike without the foul language, very good. However the foul crude one after yours is from some poor soul who has no intellectual arrows in his quiver...You do know bush is no longer president and that obama is commander in chief?
So it does not bother you that the numbers behind the global warming hoax have been made up, because the goal of Copenhagen/cap & trade is a noble one. Since you went off track with the bds stuff, let me go into a tangent regarding the healthcare revamp. Will the proposed healthcare "reform" affect your present plan, or is your union plan under the AFL/CIO exemption from the pelosi/reid "reforms"? I am assuming you are a unionized public employee/or quasi one working for a public utility?
Anyd Z - stand your ground and ignore the nasty remark made.
You are civil and capable of presenting your side. Good Job!
Socialism has been tried many times and is an utter failure. Almost 40 percent do not pay any income taxes at all. That is wrong. There are way too many people in the wagon and they need get out and help push.
If folks that want to pay extra for those that live off the system then there should be a fund set up for those that would like to volunteer some of their hard earned wages.
The Iraq War was signed off by a bunch of Politicians on both sides. History does not need to be revised.
That was a good post and test, pretty much a summary with the data and information in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, should be a required test for all the Earth Muffins and Tree Huggers.
I'm just glad the glacier that covered Ontario Canada down to central Illinois receded by acts of nature 75000 years ago. I wouldn't be living here enjoying nice summers if it didn’t.
