SOAKER

My opinions are not based on conspiratorial ideology, they are based on observations, and the truth be told there are agencies, wealthy individuals and governments who do conspire to take advantage of people to create wealth. If you don't recognize this than your the blind one. CSIRO apparently has attempted to silence their own scientists when they spoke out against the governments and CSIRO on this topic: Australia: Scientists bitter over interference Source: Copyright 2006, Age Date: February 13, 2006 Byline: Jo Chandler Original URL A FORMER CSIRO senior scientist and internationally recognized expert on climate change claims he was reprimanded and encouraged to resign after he spoke out on global warming. Graeme Pearman told The Age that he believed there was increasing pressure in Australia on researchers whose work or professional opinions were not in line with the Federal Government's ideology. His view accords with that of a growing number of scientists concerned about the pursuit of "intensely political" areas of science, such as the debate over climate change, amid fears that views contrary to government policy were unwelcome. Dr Pearman says he fell out with his CSIRO superiors after joining the Australian Climate Group, an expert lobby group convened by the Insurance Australia Group and environment body WWF in late 2003. A core aim of the group was to encourage Australian political leaders to consider carbon trading — where industry pollution is capped and there are financial incentives to reduce emissions — and other measures including a target to reduce greenhouse gases by 60 per cent by 2050. The Federal Government has said it will not pursue carbon trading at this stage. It accepts that global warming is real and poses a threat to the Australian environment, but does not support mandatory targets for reducing carbon emissions. Dr Pearman, who headed the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research for 10 years until 2002, said he was admonished by his Canberra superiors for "making public expressions of what I believed were scientific views, on the basis that they were deemed to be political views". "In 33 years (with CSIRO), I don't think I had ever felt I was political in that sense. I've worked with ministers and prime ministers from both parties over a long period of time, and in all cases I think I've tried to draw a line between fearless scientific advice about issues and actual policy development, which I think is in the realm of government," he said. Dr Pearman is one of three leading climate experts quoted on the ABC's Four Corners tonight who say they have been repeatedly gagged in the public debate on greenhouse gas cuts. Dr Barrie Pittock, who was awarded a Public Service Medal for his climate work, has told Four Corners he was instructed to remove politically sensitive material from a government publication on climate change. And Barney Foran, a 30-year CSIRO veteran, cited a case in August when CSIRO managers told him they had fielded a call from the Prime Minister's Department suggesting he should say nothing critical about ethanol as an alternative fuel. Dr Pearman is one of a dozen senior climate change experts who have left the Melbourne-based atmospheric research division in the past three years — as revealed in The Age on Saturday. The departures have raised concerns about the impact on Australian efforts in the important area of climate research. Dr Pearman believed his involvement might have been "a factor" in his being offered redundancy two years ago. He was also at odds with the CSIRO's emphasis on wealth-generating research, arguing "public good" science was being lost. He was concerned about increasing pressure on researchers whose work or professional opinions were not in line with political ideology. "I don't think it is something that has been specific to (Australia). It's a sign of the times that governments seem to want to get on with the job of making decisions based on the ideology they have presented in their elections, and they are more reluctant to seek open and fearless advice from scientists, from economists, from the judiciary, from groups … (who) might not agree with their position." Dr Pearman's views echo those of James Hansen, the top climate change scientist at NASA, who last month said the Bush Administration had tried to stop him speaking out after he gave a lecture calling for urgent reductions in greenhouse gases. CSIRO's deputy chief executive, Ron Sandland, said that although CSIRO encouraged scientists to talk about their work, it insisted they did not comment on government policy. He said he did not know the details of Dr Pearman's case, but if a scientist were to join a group that argued against government policy — as the Australian Climate Group did on carbon trading — he or she would contravene CSIRO's media policy. The executive director of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, Bradley Smith, said there were increasing tensions between scientists and policy makers, reflecting "a major cultural shift in the relationships between government, industry and science. The driver of all this is the emergence of knowledge economies. Research and development has increasingly become a centrepiece of industry policy." Areas such as climate change were now "intensely political", and the 1950s notion of scientists being free to give frank and fearless advice was now completely naive, Mr Smith said. Graham Harris, former chief of the CSIRO Land and Water Division, said he could not comment whether scientists were being stymied or silenced. But "once scientists worked on neat little esoteric problems no one cared about — now they are working on water and greenhouse and all these highly charged issues," he said. "In the water area, for example, a lot of people hate scientists being advocates for a particular kind of solution. The National Farmers Federation put out a paper saying it wanted 'agreed science'," Dr Harris said. It was an indication of the strong pressure scientists were under. "It happens all around the world. Politicians don't like criticism, so they use whatever levers they can. It's all part of the commodification and politicisation of science."

Frank your arguing for the sake of arguing, and that is all. You've said nothing on the issue that is relevant. Your dismissing research since I didn't do the research, which is idiotic. This is a discussion forum so citing information or indicating all sources of information is not necessary. If you feel the need to discredit these facts then offer something substantial, not just your opinion on fact gathering. Have you watched the film? have you read research on global warming? All of the propaganda that is being feed to use is a lie. The oceans warming in the past 50 years? Ice caps melting? The manipulation of data is egregious. Al Gore, whom is seen as the leader on this issue, fabricated nearly all of the information he put out. The link between carbon and temperature is over 800 year gap. This is a fact, not speculation or my opinion. What I've read is scientific information, reading of graphs and objective research. Even this information that was posted earlier is compelling. http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html How does this relate to Obama or Bush is the question. What are their agendas? Does Obama have a reason to raise taxes on emissions? Is his goal to raise revenue for the IRS or is he concerned about pollution? Gore is certainly profiting from this, and Clinton as well. Now the IRS will gain untold amounts of revenue from putting new taxes out. During the 70's the earth was going to enter an ICE AGE, now were all going to hell in a hand basket. Seems like a lot of bull shit to me. CSIRO is positioned as well to take advantage of this debate and from what I've read they are already profiting from tax money in Australia, endorsing genetically modified food.

Climate Change is not a serious issue and if there were any factual information out there then show it. Everything that is perpetrated as being factual is a lie or misrepresentation of the truth. The Great Global Warming Swindle has ot been debunked, and if it was debunked on 12oz I doubt its credible. One of the Founders of Green Peace endorsed this film, and numerous scientists from around the world duspute the legitamcy of the global warming THEORY! If those whom are pushing this issue are going to become excedinlg ywealthy then its doubftul its truthful. You can complain and be slick about trying to convince people otherwise but Global Warming is being used so the beuracrats all around this world can fill their pockets. As I said there are serious environmental issues taking place. And that is the issue at hand. These more relevant and important issues are being sidelined becuase Washington wants to raise taxes. Here are some truths. The claim: Melting in Greenland or West Antarctica will cause sea levels to rise up to 20 feet in the near future. The truth: The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change concluded that sea levels might rise 20 feet over millennia -- and it waffled on that prediction. The IPCC envisions a rise of no more than 7 inches to 23 inches by 2100. Gore's claim is "a very disturbing misstatement of the science," John Day, who argued the British case, says in Not Evil Just Wrong. The judge said Gore's point "is not in line with the scientific consensus. The claim: Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim farther to find ice. The truth: Justice Burton noted that the only study citing the drowning of polar bears (four of them) blamed the deaths on a storm, not ice that is melting due to manmade global warming. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, furthermore, found that the current bear population is 20,000-25,000, up from 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s. Day says in Not Evil Just Wrong that the appeal to polar bears is "a very clever piece of manipulation." The claim: Global warming spawned Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The truth: "It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that," Burton wrote in his ruling. A May 2007 piece in New Scientist refuted the Katrina argument as a "climate myth" because it's impossible to tie any single weather event to global warming. The claim: Increases in temperature are the result of increases in carbon dioxide. The truth: Burton questioned the two graphs Gore used in An Inconvenient Truth. Gore argued that there is "an exact fit" between temperature and CO2, Burton said, but his graphs didn't support that conclusion. Recent data also do not support it: The global temperature has been declining for about a decade, even as CO2 levels continue rising. The claim: The snow on Mount Kilimanjaro is melting because of global warming. The truth: The melting has been under way for more than a century -- long before SUVs and jumbo jets -- and appears to be the result of other causes. Justice Burton noted that scientists agree the melting can't be blamed primarily on "human-induced climate change." The claim: Lake Chad is disappearing because of global warming. The truth: Lake Chad is losing water, and humans are contributing to the losses. But the humans in the lake's immediate vicinity, rather than mankind as a whole using fossil fuels, are to blame. Burton cited factors like population, overgrazing and regional climate variability. The claim: People are being forced to evacuate low-lying Pacific atolls, islands of coral that surround lagoons, because of encroaching ocean waters. The truth: By their very nature, atolls are susceptible to rising sea levels. But Burton said pointedly in his ruling, "There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened." The claim: Coral reefs are bleaching and putting fish in jeopardy. The truth: In his ruling, Burton emphasized the IPCC's finding that bleaching could kill coral reefs -- if they don't adapt. A report released this year shows that reefs already are thriving in waters as hot as some people say ocean waters will be 100 years from now. Burton also said it is difficult to separate coral stresses such as over-fishing from any changes in climate. The claim: Global warming could stop the "ocean conveyor," triggering another ice age in Western Europe. The truth: Once again, Gore's allies at the IPCC disagree with that argument. Burton cited the panel in concluding that "it is very unlikely that the ocean conveyor ... will shut down in the future." The fact that the scientific understanding of how the conveyor belt works remains unsettled further exposes the flaw in Gore's claim.

This movie, The Great Global Warming Swindle, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeY8oqAGhyA, gives a lot of insight into the political corruption that has surrounded the Global Warming Agenda. Apparently all starting with Margaret Thatcher from the UK in an effort to advocate nuclear energy, and recently used by the Obama administration and the Green Jobs Czar Van Jones to expand the bureaucracy. Although there are legitimate forms of environmental pollution and other climatic changes occurring. These forms of pollution are not related to climate or the changes are either localized due to desertification or are related to natural cyclical changes on the planet. The Inconvenient Truth produced by Gore is a terrible fabrication and manipulation of the truth. From doctored and falsified photos of polar bears to the blatant misrepresentations of scientific data, Global Warming, as you've said is being used to put fear in to the hearts of men so the government can pass new taxes and intrude more into the private sector. This is a political action movement and although is seen as indisputably factual, the fact of the matter is all of these predictions are theoretical. This is certainly an issue where Bush and Obama differ, although I imagine their differences are both motivated by financial gain or power.

The fastest sedan in the world...Stock 556 hp V8/ 0-60 in 3.8 seconds...Modified in this picture with over 700 hp...

The Ultimate Aero is an American-built mid-engine sports car by Shelby SuperCars more commonly known as SSC. The SSC Ultimate Aero,[1] is currently the fastest production car in the world, with a fastest recorded speed of 413 km/h (257 mph).[2] This speed was reportedly achieved during tests on September 13, 2007 in West Richland, Washington, United States and verified by Guinness World Records on October 9, 2007.[3] In 2004 the company‘s less powerful version called the Aero SC/8T was used in development but did not go into production.

Indentured servitude? Really? How can you compare working for some company say in retail or construction, with all of the government mandated programs and social services we have, to INDENTURED SERVITUDE? This servitude was basically a contract between laborer and owner, and although this type of contract labor could be abused, it does not mean it was or is an abusive practice. On the contrary this agreement afforded some opportunity that otherwise might not be available. Personally, I've worked and currently as a sub-contractor and I'm legally bound to abide by certain restrictions that are set forth in the contract that I've signed. On the issue of Japanese vehicles verse American? Really there is no comparison, and as an American I'm going to advocate the use of American products, for those of you that are not American, then I understand your difference of opinion. But the fact is that American vehicles offer more power, more trucks, construction vehicles, delivery, tractor trailers, and are quickly moving to overtake japanese and european manufacturers in fuel economy. As a matter of fact a great deal of European autos are actually owned by American companies, and in addition the cost to maintain a German car in America is outrageous. And when it comes to racing or power vs. cost, german, european or Japan can't hold a candle to American muscle.

AGREED!

Ouch that's classic...is that in the ATL?

War crimes? What the fuck is a war crime? We gotta be nice to people that we want to kill? What liberal bullshit...

First OF all THERE Is not a "CHEVY BONNEVILE" OK....ITS a Chevy Caprice... Or the Ford Crown Victoria or Mercury Grand Marquis....Chevy Bonnevile...Its a Pontiac Bonneville and it wasn't used by the government Japanese cars are pieces of shit and if you buy one your un American, but I'd expect someone like SMART to be into that Jap shit...

The country is divided and the republicans knew they were probably going to lose the election, so as angelofdeath suggests, this was an attempt to stir up the conservative and libertarian base, and a stab at trying to get some independent voters. For the most part its worked and a lot of the traditional conservative political ideologies are becoming the base for a lot of new and incumbent politicians talking points.

hell yea buff that graffiti...hahaha...wtf

It really seems that country is polarized a great deal more so than any time that I can remember. The conservative democrats are really the only moderates left.

yo that character toss reminds me of the boy from IGO that did them snails...JYST?...he was killin it in the 90s...no pics tho...

exactly so they should take the spot back...its fair game...