So you think all those scientists who state global warming is caused by man are intentionally lying? I'm asking not saying. Why do you think there is such broad consensus about it amongst the scientific community? I know there are a handful of scientists who think that Global Warming is caused by other effects such as increasd solar activity. As a side question do you think that we can go on fishing and logging at current rates for the next 50 years?
I think the weatherman can't get tomorrow's weather right, it's absurd that they can get the weather right next year. Consensus is a political thing, not a scientific one. They don't vote that e=mc^2 is true. I think the earth getting warmer is due to albedo. The ice caps and glaciers have been receding since the end of the ice age (when they covered the great lakes and then some). The more "white" the world is, the more of the sun's radiation is reflected back into space. You can take a white piece of paper and a black one and leave them sit in the sun. A thermometer held a foot above both will have a higher temperature above the black one. It sure seems like it would have a cascading effect, too. Less white = more heat = more melting = less white, repeat. It's also not been warmer for the past 10 years. Year after year it's getting colder. This past winter was the coldest in a long time (decade plus), and even this spring and early summer, there's been records set for lowest temperature ever in lots of places (in the USA). Some scientists are clearly outright lying. They know where the govt. funding goes. The rest are lemmings, believing what the others write in their textbooks.
What about the fishing and logging at current rates? Think we're good for another 50 or 100 at current rates? Interesting point of view about the warming/climate change and the powerful effect government funding can have even on scientists. Thanks for answering that question and being honest. I don't plan on being snarky in response I just wanted to hear what you thought about these things. By the way I hope I haven't offended you in these threads I know it has gotten heated at times. P.S. I forgot to ask what agenda do you think is being pushed here in order that Scientists in such large numbers would state that global climate change is man made? Or rather what agenda are the politicians that state global warming is man made pursuing in your estimation?
I think we're good for another 300 years on fossil fuel without even trying to reduce our consumption. I do think conservation is a good thing, though. I am a big proponent of nuclear power - it's cheap enough, it's clean enough, and it's plentiful and efficient. Things like solar panels and windmills aren't. Basically, I want all the power I need to run my computer and TV and so on, but I don't want to have to go run on a treadmill to create it. Everything I've read about foresting says the loggers are planting more trees than they cut down and are doing a crop rotation kind of thing to assure they're not just clear cutting away everything. Fishing is a different matter, although we have plenty of farm raised fish. Technology has gotten so good the fish don't stand a chance and we're clearly able to exterminate them all like we did the buffalo. As for the "getting heated" bit, read our forum rules (see link at top of the page). It's our policy to be understanding when discussion gets heated, it's natural. We're not about kicking people off for saying something in the heat of a good argument. It's a far cry from just being an asshole and ruining everyone's fun all the time...
How's that? Our experts at engineering and demolition build buildings that last a long time and blow them up perfectly so they don't damage the buildings next door. The weatherman told me it was going to rain today, yet it was sunny and warm.
to you as well. I thought the Mod staff did an excellent job in these threads. I'm not sure if you saw my last question, I added it after the fact. What do you think is the motivation of politicians who want Global Warming / Climate Change to be considered a man caused event?
The mods (other staff, too) don't get enough credit for all the good things they do, it's nice to get a chance to give them kudos.
So why would this group of politicians be anti-globalization if they want to have more power (socialism I'm assuming from the anti-capitalist part) and why would they want to diminish the power of the country they live and have their political power in (diminish influence)? See I think it's interesting where folks see powerful interests exerting pressure (many here believe that is the case with global warming and Donaghy and refs) and where they don't 9/11. I'm open minded to aspects of global climate change involving a conspiracy it's certainly possible especially if trans-national elites have an anti-industrial or population control agenda. I'm not saying I do believe that but I've heard that theory and it's certainly intriguing. I'm also dead certain that Donaghy wasn't the only NBA official involved with the mafia and/or in fixing game outcomes/point spreads. Do you think maybe you would examine 9/11 differently if Obama had been in charge or perhaps Clinton? I don't think 9/11 has anything to do with republican or democrat although it could. My personal belief is there was a rush to judgement and that further investigation with officials under oath and scientific study needs to be done. Perhpas we made a mistake and say the Saudi government wanted to diminish our influence in the Middle East and the influence of their neighbors by ridding themselves of enemies and also bogging us down in two unwinnable occupations. Let me give an example of that kind of strategy. Zbigniew Brezinski our head of long term strategic thiking at the pentagon had the brilliant idea of arming the Mujahideen - the most millitant and intolerant of all Muslim groups in Afghanistan - in order that there would never be peace with Russia. This mired Russia and broke them economically. How do we know the same trick isn't being pulled on us? Heck it could be the Chinese that did it. They wrote a manifesto in 1999 saying they wanted to break us economically. My point is 9/11 caused such radical and massive policy and economic shifts (the trillion dollar legacy of IRaq and Afghanistan) that it is critically we know exactly what happened that day. I am NOT saying that the US government knowingly colluded with terrorists although I allow for that possibility however unlikely.
Who gave nobel prizes to Jimmy Carter and Al Gore? The League of Nations (Wilson) and then the UN (FDR) were Democrats' ideas. Those kinds of political organizations are fine as a means to let countries talk that normally wouldn't, but the idea of using them to create some sort of global government isn't a new idea. FDR would not have run for another term (had he not died), he wanted to be head of the UN. Democrats love FDR and his policies, don't you think? I have my own theories about Donaghy, a conspiracy theory of sorts, plausible, yet I can't prove it. I don't go around talking about it much. I don't see any reason to doubt other officials and even players are involved with the mafia. I think there was no rush to judgment. 9/11 and the WTC tower collapses were studied for years and by our best experts. As for the Saudis, they pissed of Bin Laden, and the worst of it that was directly involved with the USA was perhaps an uneasy arrangement where we didn't bother them about human rights (women's rights in particular) and they sold us oil and kept the supply plentiful. I don't get why Republicans hated Clinton so much. He was quite conservative on the big things that Republicans care about. He used military force in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia (remember the warlord fiasco, blackhawk down, etc.). He ended welfare as we know it. He let govt. shrink by attrition. He balanced the budget. He signed NAFTA and GATT. And I think he was rather aggressive about going after terrorists (but not so successful). It's no secret that Saddam launched SAMs at Israel, his pilots flew their MIGs to Iran to escape in Gulf War I, the guns used against us were AK 47s, and one of the first missiles fired at us in Gulf War II was a Silkworm. To top it off, the mustard gas he used on his own people was Russian in signature. I understand the logic of arming the Mujahadeen at the time, but foreign policy has to change as the situation does. Reagan was OK doing that, as was Bush I, but a guy from Arkansas with little expertise in much merely kept the Bush policies in place (bomb Iraq, sanctions, claims about WMDs). If Gore were in office instead of Bush, the same things would have happened, perhaps worse in our reactions. I imagine Gore must have been quite frustrated that it wasn't him as president with the 90% approval ratings and all that.
I think you might have missed my point. I'm suggesting that another country may have lured us into the same trap that we lured the Russians into i.e. the Afghan quagmire, while simultaneously offing two of their regional enemies (Iraq, and the Taliban controlled Afghanistan). Certainly, if some country's aim had been to get America to engage millitarily and then get bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq it couldn't possibly have gone smoother. As for a rush to judgement there can be no question that we rushed into the "Osama did it" conclusion reports began within hours about how it was certainly Osama and the relentless drumbeat began. Now whether that conclusion is accurate or not is up for debate (at least in my mind clearly not in yours). What I propose is a foreign power aided the terrorist attackers in evading our intelligence and military apparatus. They did this for the aforementioned reasons. It could have been the Pakistani's -The ISI wired $100,00 to Mohammed Atta here is a source with similar political leanings that you should trust although this is well documented elsewhere - the old adage follow the money and all that. Many respectable sources criticized the 9/11 commision not because it was a coverup of some VAST republican conspiracy but rather that it was incomplete and laid much of the blame for the breach of secuirty of the FAA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report They even mention a possible connection to Iran. The point is that while Bush was in office any investigation into 9/11 could turn up politically inconvenient mistakes which is probably the primary reason that Cheney refused to testify under oath or allow Bush to testify separately. No recordings were made etc. The only explanation that rings true for me is that some significant mistake was made either by Bush/Cheney or by the Military/Intelligence apparatus and THAT is what was covered up. Not fusion bombs not missiles into the pentagon or any of that tripe but good old fashioned beauraucratic mistakes and political hedging. I find it telling that across the board people were promoted and or given medals. Clearly people should have been fired for their mistake. When a mistake costs lives in this case close to 3,000 lives of civilians heads should roll. When they don't but instead promotions are given then something is very wrong. Pakistan has showed itself to be an untrustworthy ally and perhaps the mistake was realized too late. Regardless, I continue to be convinced that we are not getting the whole story. I find it incredible that you believe the UN is a vast international conspiracy for one world government and yet you aren't even allowing for the possibility that there is more to 9/11 then meets the eye. I contend that this would be treated very differently by members of this board if it had happened on a Democrats watch and identical anomalous events occurred and were explained away by lock step democrats or their ally's in the media.
I'm well aware of the desire by some for a World Government aka the New World Order and it's long philosophical tradition in the west both in the body politic and in stranger forms. I guess that I don't believe that if such a group exists and is willing to use the tactics you describe (pressuring scientists with funding cuts and corrupting the political parties of soverign nations) that said group would feel that corrupting both parties would be off limits. Seems a strange limitation to put upon oneself. Indeed if such a group were able to influence so many scientists in so many countries due to controlling the funding of scientific research in such diverse arenas why would they stop there? Surely controlling the political process of countries would be at the top of their agenda. Remember Reagan had a bitter hatred of George H. W. Bush in the 1980 primaries and with good reason. H.W. was considered by many to be a liberal during the 60's and 70's. All I'm saying is if you think there is an international group that is aiming at world government and is using subversive and covert action it would seem strange to assume that they would limit themselves to one party. In fact getting control of the party that is the champion of national sovereignty would probably be at the top of their list. After Barry Goldwater the Republican party began to behave increasingly strangely. Reagan I think believed in America but also was incapacitated quickly after getting into office and slowly but surely his cabinet was replaced by H.W. loyalists. I have no doubt most Republicans are good people and are on guard against World Government and those that push that agenda. I fear that partisan loyalty may have blinded them to the fact that their party has been corrupted as well. Look at the difference between Barry Goldwater and say George W. Bush. One was against big government and worried about a push towards World Government, the other embraces NAFTA and signed on to the Security a Prosperity Partnership. Can you explain to me why you think that the leadership (NOT the constituency) of the Republican party would be immune to the financial and political reach of the World Government types? I respect your intelligence and research abilities but this puzzles me that you seem to not have considered this possibility. I'm very concerned about the sovereignty of the United States and that it may be slipping away. I worry about the influence of foreign powers from both Europe and also in Asia/Middle East. Clinton and the Chinese and of course the Bush family has had well documented business relations with the Saudi's. Let me ask you another question, do you think this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union has any legs? I'm curious to hear your thoughts! I for one am definitely worried about eroding of our national sovereignty.
I am not suggesting some sort of cabal or secret society or whatever is pushing world government. I just think it's a philosophical bent. Many things are vestiges of times gone by. Much of the socialist party ideals were long ago adopted by the Democrats (Wilson era), and fewer by the Republicans (Teddy Roosevelt era). You can see things in the news that bear out this philosophical debate. Judges look to foreign courts for case law, people push international courts, or Newt's recent speech ("I'm not a citizen of the world, I'm a citizen of the United States!"). While I'm reasonably sure the USA won't give up its sovereignty soon, I'm also not oblivious to recent European leaders running on anti-American platforms to get elected, and people acting like sycophants to those people. Hence my comments about the Nobel prize.
But you're suggesting that funding is cut for scientists and the pressure is brought to bear on politicians, the media and the scientific community in the name of pushing for world government. I assume a Socialist World Government. This isn't said publicly i.e. no one is saying "We will cut off the funding of anyone who disagrees and you won't get anymore political funding from us if you don't run on a Green platform, you can consider your media career dead if you go off script" etc. Sure there are green lobbying groups such as the Audubon Society but they can't have any thing like the economic clout of the Oil, Natural Gas and Coal industries. How is it they are so successful in meeting their philosophical goals if on the face of it they don't have the money to wield that kind of influence? My point is you are clearly pointing towards a behind the scenes power play pushing this agenda. Look anyone who thinks that there aren't behind the scenes decision made in politics is simply not a student of history. Plenty of policy decisions are made in the public spotlight through public debate. There are also many that are made behind closed doors due to Lobbyists and Special Interest groups both monetary interests (Oil companies, Banking industry etc.) and social interests (Gay Marriage, Abortion, Creationism vs Evolution). To think that all decisions are made in the public spotlight seems a bit ludicrous to me. Once you grant that decisions are made behind closed doors due to pressure groups then it's just a matter of degree. If what you say about Global Climate Change is true then clearly you believe that profound influence is achieved behind closed doors.
Some politicians want to have higher MPG on cars, scare tactics and stifling the scientists who speak the truth is an ends to a means. It's no secret that lobbyists write bills.
