Obama: The New George Bush

[SOAKER]

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

[lord_casek]

Decyferon:

 

We Can Do It

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html

[Decyferon]

I agree it is a fast car in a straight line, but again I have seen a review of it and they were very critical of the cheapness of it, it had nowhere near the quality of build as say a Zonda or a Mercedes Mclaren SLR, like I said before I like American cars just the interior build quality are generally rubbish and very cheaply finished. It also is ugly and looks remarkably dated already.

 

Also the review I saw had it on a track and it isn't as good in the corners as it is in a straight line, so what good is that!!

 

The Mercedes Black saloons are faster than that Caddy as well and again every review of the Caddy critises its poor build quality and cheap tacky interior finsh. Also the Mercedes Brabus Rocket sedan is faster than the CTS not to mention a hell of a lot better looking that caddy is vile.

[Decyferon]

Decyferon:

 

We Can Do It

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html

 

It would just be nice to have them do something about it and actually work together and come to an agreement, I am hardly an environmentalist but in order for something like this to work it needs the full backing of the US (and China)

[nsmbfan]

just to get this straight, you are equating being born into a laissez faire capitalist society, where you have to produce something to get something, with slavery?

 

yes. because whatever it is you produce is sold for money. and the Federal Reserve Bank regulates the value of your money. they are the slave masters in this entire equation.

 

inflation of the money supply DEVALUES the currency - as the money is only given VALUE by the existing money supply. print more money, it's worth less because there's more of it in circulation (aka, SCARCITY).

 

add to this the fact that every newly created dollar is attached with INTEREST (a percentage to pay the Federal Reserve back for creating this money for you). this means for every dollar created, it's owed back to the Federal Reserve AT INTEREST.

 

but if the one company who prints this money asks for more in return... where does the money for the INTEREST come from?

 

it doesn't exist. it's a system of perpetual debt. if there weren't any Debt, there wouldn't be any money. ergo, Money is created out of Debt.

 

what do people do when they are in debt? they submit to employment to earn money to repay that debt. and that's what I'm fucking tired of doing. fuck working to pay off my ever increasing debt to a bank.

 

it's slavery by another name.

 

edit: yes i am quoting Zeitgeist: Addendum. aside from the religious aspects, the documentary is pretty sound when describing the sordid state of affairs that we as Americans are left to wonder "What the fuck? How did this all happen?"

[lord_casek]

It would just be nice to have them do something about it and actually work together and come to an agreement, I am hardly an environmentalist but in order for something like this to work it needs the full backing of the US (and China)

 

 

He says that carbon tax is going to fund the global government. That is wrong, dude.

Very wrong. We are being misled.

[El Mamerro]

I love it when people get a comprehensive grasp on the complexities of our capitalist economy by watching a 2 hour movie.

[Decyferon]

He says that carbon tax is going to fund the global government. That is wrong, dude.

Very wrong. We are being misled.

 

at this current moment I don't see what the difference would be every governement is fucking shit and ineffective as would any global body too!! (not for it believe me, but none of our countries agree on anything when it comes to passing laws imagine how completely rubbish they would be if had other countries to consider too)

 

I was reading that the carbon tax was going to be used to help pass money to poorer countries who were unable to finaancially met criteria for reducing carbon emissions just like the financial aid that countries should be supplying towards the copenhagen agreement

[lord_casek]

at this current moment I don't see what the difference would be every governement is fucking shit and ineffective as would any global body too!! (not for it believe me, but none of our countries agree on anything when it comes to passing laws imagine how completely rubbish they would be if had other countries to consider too)

 

I was reading that the carbon tax was going to be used to help pass money to poorer countries who were unable to finaancially met criteria for reducing carbon emissions just like the financial aid that countries should be supplying towards the copenhagen agreement

 

 

Meanwhile Blood and Gore (no shit, that's the name of Al Gore's company) will be selling these carbon credits and making a ton of money....wow...so convenient for him to be involved.....

[Decyferon]

yea I know what you mean, thing is every politician is corrupt to varying degrees and while they say they are in politics for the better of their country that is a lie! They look to make as much money and only look out for number 1.

 

I can't believe his company is called Blood and Gore, to be honest there is nothign we can do about the climate problems, people say we are hurting the Earth which is bullshit, the Earth has been through a lot more than anything us little surface dwellers can throw at it, the Earth will be here doing it's thing long after we are all gone.

[lord_casek]

yea I know what you mean, thing is every politician is corrupt to varying degrees and while they say they are in politics for the better of their country that is a lie! They look to make as much money and only look out for number 1.

 

I can't believe his company is called Blood and Gore, to be honest there is nothign we can do about the climate problems, people say we are hurting the Earth which is bullshit, the Earth has been through a lot more than anything us little surface dwellers can throw at it, the Earth will be here doing it's thing long after we are all gone.

 

 

I agree with this completely.

 

Nothing but Blood and Gore

 

 

http://www.businessday.com.au/business/nothing-but-blood-and-gore-20090717-doaq.html

 

Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html

 

 

 

It's a giant scam. They even talked about it at "The Club of Rome"

http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/new_path/

[Decyferon]

I will save those links and read them later, not long out of bed and waiting for my coffee to kick start my brain!!

 

Governments like to use the climate (along with terrorism and the financial markets) as a tactic to keep the populace scared, nothing more.

[Decyferon]

 

what do people do when they are in debt? they submit to employment to earn money to repay that debt. and that's what I'm fucking tired of doing. fuck working to pay off my ever increasing debt to a bank.

 

it's slavery by another name.

 

 

I am quoting this because of something I read yesterday, the tax liability per family in the UK for bailing out the bank is just under £4500. I worked for one of the banks that was bailed out (in th insurance wing) and when I left I had some debts to the company due to overpayments that they made to me and a loan I needed to finish paying. Now I owe them £2200.

 

My question to them is always well I, as a tax payer, have paid you money to keep you afloat, there is no reason for me to start paying you any money until I start receiving dividends on my tax investment into your company. As my tax liability is higher than what I owe them I should have my debt wiped out.

[angelofdeath]

yes. because whatever it is you produce is sold for money. and the Federal Reserve Bank regulates the value of your money. they are the slave masters in this entire equation.

 

inflation of the money supply DEVALUES the currency - as the money is only given VALUE by the existing money supply. print more money, it's worth less because there's more of it in circulation (aka, SCARCITY).

 

add to this the fact that every newly created dollar is attached with INTEREST (a percentage to pay the Federal Reserve back for creating this money for you). this means for every dollar created, it's owed back to the Federal Reserve AT INTEREST.

 

but if the one company who prints this money asks for more in return... where does the money for the INTEREST come from?

 

it doesn't exist. it's a system of perpetual debt. if there weren't any Debt, there wouldn't be any money. ergo, Money is created out of Debt.

 

what do people do when they are in debt? they submit to employment to earn money to repay that debt. and that's what I'm fucking tired of doing. fuck working to pay off my ever increasing debt to a bank.

 

it's slavery by another name.

 

edit: yes i am quoting Zeitgeist: Addendum. aside from the religious aspects, the documentary is pretty sound when describing the sordid state of affairs that we as Americans are left to wonder "What the fuck? How did this all happen?"

 

this is why i wanted an explanation of where you were coming from. for a minute i thought you were some sort of marxist, but had a feeling you had a deeper dimension to what you were saying.

 

you are correct federal reserve notes = debt. no doubt.

however, i hope that you will concede, absent fiat money, and talking just simply about free markets, capitalism is not any form of slavery, it is freedom.

[angelofdeath]

Meanwhile Blood and Gore (no shit, that's the name of Al Gore's company) will be selling these carbon credits and making a ton of money....wow...so convenient for him to be involved.....

 

which... brings us to Al Gores use of energy!! ZING!

[angelofdeath]

I am quoting this because of something I read yesterday, the tax liability per family in the UK for bailing out the bank is just under £4500. I worked for one of the banks that was bailed out (in th insurance wing) and when I left I had some debts to the company due to overpayments that they made to me and a loan I needed to finish paying. Now I owe them £2200.

 

My question to them is always well I, as a tax payer, have paid you money to keep you afloat, there is no reason for me to start paying you any money until I start receiving dividends on my tax investment into your company. As my tax liability is higher than what I owe them I should have my debt wiped out.

 

in theory you are correct, however its no different than a non qualified welfare recipient/taxpayer seizing a welfare recipients funds because he is simply trying to retrieve his stolen goods.

the govt does not look at it this way. the govt takes our money. it is then THEIR money to do what they want with it. it is no longer 'ours.'

 

im for separation of govt and EVERYTHING

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Yeah. Exactly.

 

The money that you gave them in form of a "bail out" is their money. Aka the governments money. Not yours. Now the money you owe them because of the loan, since they are a bank is technically not theirs either, however good luck convincing them of that.

 

I thought this was interesting...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091111/ts_afp/chinaweathersnow

 

Changing the weather...makes me wonder what else is played with a manipulated.

 

/puts on my tin foil hat

[nsmbfan]

I love it when people get a comprehensive grasp on the complexities of our capitalist economy by watching a 2 hour movie.

 

Point taken.

 

I'm not an economist, I didn't even take economy I high school. I didn't graduate college and I am not very skilled at anything, really. I'm very average, to say the least.

 

But school books don't tell you how to live peacefully with other people. In fact, nothing I've grown up around has even given me the slightest glimer of hope that we as a human race can co-exist peacefully with one another. There will always be trouble and hardships, famine, war, racism, and the generally accepted theory that one group of people is "better" than another.

 

So long as there is greed.

 

The thing I liked about that movie is that it makes you realize that this rat race is in vain. That we as a people have the power through technology to end the suffering, and shed our primitive ways of living. It's called a paradigm shift, and often times people aren't ready. But it's coming. Through forums like these and many others, people readily exchange ideas, sometimes profound, that go on to further shape and mold how we look at ourselves and give us new tools and methods to solving our problems. The internet age is a glorious thing to be apart of. We alone hold the power to make change. We, the enlightened.

[El Mamerro]

That was my problem with the movie... it presented the supposed flaw in economics as if it were something so simple and so obviously flagrant (Look! It says so in this highlighted sentence in this important book!), you'd be an idiot not to agree with it. It doesn't make sense to me however, that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people that have studied and exercised professions in that field throughout the years would have somehow missed that simple detail, unless you believe every single one of them is in cahoots with this evil plan. I'm not an economist either, but that was a glaring flaw in the movie's argument for me, which in turn cause everything else in it to ring hollow, especially the purported solutions presented by the Venus Project.

 

I disagree about schoolbooks, I think (good) education tells you quite clearly how to live peacefully with other people. The problem is that once you're out of school, you realize things aren't as simple as they made it out to be... there will be too many occasions were you will have to choose between being an asshole to one person or the other, and this in turn will trigger a chain reaction of assholery all around.

 

I do agree that there is a paradigm shift looming, probably in this next decade, but I can't for the life of me know what it will be, and whether it will be a positive or negative one.

[SOAKER]

I will save those links and read them later, not long out of bed and waiting for my coffee to kick start my brain!!

 

Governments like to use the climate (along with terrorism and the financial markets) as a tactic to keep the populace scared, nothing more.

 

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.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

OLD

VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long,

building his house

and laying up supplies for the winter.

>

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and

dances and plays the

summer away.

>

> Come

> winter, the ant is warm and well

> fed.

>

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in

> the cold.

>

>

>

> MORAL OF THE STORY:

>

>

>

> Be responsible for yourself!

>

> MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long,

building his house

> and laying up supplies for the winter.

>

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs anddances and plays the

summer away

>

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to

know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed

while others are

cold and starving.

>

>CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN and ABC show up to provide pictures of

> the shivering

> grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable

> home with a table

> filled with food.

>

America

> seems stunned by the sharp contrast.

 

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this

> poor grasshopper is

> allowed to suffer so?

>

> Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and

> everybody cries when

> they sing, "It Isn't Easy Being Green."

 

> Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the

> ant's house where the news

> stations film the group singing, "We shall

> overcome." Jesse then

> has the group kneel down to pray to God for the

> grasshopper's sake.

>

>

>

> Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with

> Larry King that the

> ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and

> both call for an immediate

> tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

 

> Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity &

> Anti-Grasshopper Act

> retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

 

> The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number

> of green bugs and,

> having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home

> is confiscated by

> the government.

 

> The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the

> last bits of the ants

> food, while the government house he is in (which just

> happens to be the ant's

> old house) crumbles around him because of lack of

> maintenance.

 

> The ant has disappeared in the snow.

>

> The

> grasshopper is found dead in a drug

> related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken

> over by a gang of

> spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

 

> MORAL OF THE STORY:

Be careful how you vote in 2010.

[Removed]

This movie, The Great Global Warming Swindle

 

This film has already been debunked in another thread. I wont go into the reasons that it is suspicious in this post. Although I will comment on some of the more general doubt surrounding this issue that I have read in the last few pages.

 

I think it is fair to assume that amongst the average person contributing to this forum most would understand that people in positions of power manipulate situations in order to benefit themselves. However it must also be understood that to entirely fabricate an issue is far more difficult, involving far more complicit parties, than it is to appropriate an existing issue for personal gain. While both possibilities exist, most often it is inflation or distortion of issues that is more likely to be present in politics. Thus recognising political manipulation does not detract from the legitimacy of the issue being manipulated.

 

Understanding this concept would serve most well when evaluating political issues and in this particular case climate change. Al Gore and many others may be positioned well to profit from the issue of climate change, some may even be distorting the issue for personal gain, but this does not distract from it's legitimacy.

 

Climate change and environmental issues are very serious, there is now an enormous volume of information supporting these claims. If you choose to ignore this issue then that is your prerogative, but please don't try actively influence others opinions if yours is based on personal political suspicions and the misinformation presented in a short documentary.

[SOAKER]

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.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

 

Pretty interesting read on this whole Global Warming thing.

[SOAKER]

[SOAKER]

[Removed]

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.

 

Ok my dude, I think I can see the problem here. You seem to be very ready to accept criticism of established thought on this issue, yet you blindly accept the any alternate thought because it fits your conspiratorial ideology. Its great to think critically about issues, but it is important to apply that critical approach to all of the sources of information you come across, not just those most dominant.

 

So in this particular case, you have listed some 'truths'. Well to start with I would like to know to start with where these 'truths' came from, because I am pretty sure that you didn't do the scientific research yourself. Identifying the source is the first step in understanding the inherent agenda behind any piece of information. At a quick glance I can see that all of these 'truths' are claims about disputed specific results of climate change, rather than disputing the legitimacy of the the theory itself. I can understand how disputing particular claims can appear to discredit a theory, but reality is not quite so simple.

 

It is also not particularly important if one of the founders of GreenPeace had, or had not, endorsed this film, or if numerous scientists around the world dispute this theory. Firstly this co founder of Green Peace may, or may not, be an expert in the understanding of global warming. Simply co-founding an NGO does not qualify you as an expert in all related fields. Secondly this guy as well as the rest of these numerous scientists are just as prone to the attraction of manipulating an issue for personal benefit (as per my previous post), as are Al Gore and anyone else with a hand in the issue.

 

Another factor to consider here is that it is a tried and tested tactic to commission dubious research for the purpose of creating doubt in the mind of the public. Think back to the kinds of research that was being produced that disputed the health risks of cigarettes, during a time where there was public and governmental interest in this issue. There are probably still scientists who would doubt the health risks of smoking, so if I wanted to make a film in order to convince people to smoke more, I would look for the most noteworthy of these scientists in order to add weight to my argument.

 

So why would you choose to believe one group of scientists over another? Well the deciding factor in relation to the tobacco debate, as well as environmentalism, is the level of consensus. Of course there is a spectrum of opinion about any given issue, although for example if 8 out of 10 people say that most dogs bark, then it is a reasonable assumption to make that this is true.

 

Also if you are interested, here is a link to a critique of this film by a very reputable scientific body; CSIRO.

 

http://www.csiro.au/resources/GGWS-critique.html

[lord_casek]

Frankie:Club of Rome 1980 or 1981

[SOAKER]

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.

 

[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."