Jump to content

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?


lord_casek

Recommended Posts

The Myth of Neutral Academic Peer Review Exploded

 

by Gary North

 

 

A generation ago, Daniel Ellsberg stole thousands of documents from the Rand Corporation, photocopied them, and gave them to the New York Times, which began publishing them. Ellsberg was prosecuted by the government. So was the Times. The defendants won.

 

Only after the Times broke the story did the mainstream press pick up on it. The Times got its scoop, and the Nixon administration had no way to stop it. This led to Nixon's decision to stop the leaks with the Plumbers squad. That led to his defeat.

 

The Pentagon Papers did not directly undermine Nixon. He was re-elected in 1972 by a landslide. But the papers reinforced seeds of doubt about the war in Vietnam. Four years later, President Ford pulled the plug on the war.

 

What made this possible? Ellsberg's theft, the photocopy machine, and the decision by the Times to publish the papers.

 

Fast-forward a generation. Because of the World Wide Web, the stolen "Climategate" emails were on-line within hours. The mainstream media did their best not to promote the story, but it could not be stopped.

 

The perpetrators' careers are finished. Jones has left the institute that had flourished as a promoter of global warming. Mann is under investigation by his employer, Penn State University.

 

The details of the science are beyond you and me. So are the details of just about everything. The world is complex and growing more complex. What we do understand is deliberate chicanery by experts with a political agenda.

 

The stolen emails have killed the careers of two experts: Mann and Jones. These men are now up there with Janet Cooke, winner of the Pulitzer Prize in Journalism for her faked story for the Washington Post. She never recovered. Neither will Mann and Jones. They are now pariahs. They did the unforgivable in any ideological movement. They got caught. The global warming movement has already cast them into outer darkness.

 

These academic con men got their hands caught in the cookie jar. This has undermined the #1 myth of the global-warming crowd: the myth of peer review.

 

Poor Ed Begley, Jr., the greenest actor in Hollywood, could only repeat the mantra of "peer review, peer review" when he unwisely appeared on television to defend global warming. He told listeners that his scientific views as an actor are irrelevant – a correct observation – but peer review is authoritative. (If his ideas are irrelevant, then why did he consent to be interviewed?) At the end, he was frantic.

 

 

Peer review is the central issue of Climategate – not temperatures. The peers reviewed, then suppressed. The scientific peer review mantra has died for this hotly contended political issue. We non-scientists can read the snippets. The authors of those emails cried "out of context!" Mann can (and has) cried "cherry-picking." This has done him no good. There were cherries to pick. The two are history. Finished.

 

President Obama has announced that he will not attend the opening of the Copenhagen climate conference this week. Neither will other heads of major states. Politicians know which way the political wind is blowing. They are not going to wind up twisting slowly, slowly in that wind.

 

An Australian member of my Website community who has expertise in this area posted an enlightening report on one of the forums last Saturday. He has nailed the issues involved.

 

This was posted on my site's forum by a member.

 

Climategate – Declare Victory and go home.

 

Could it be? Heads of state are changing their schedules: heading to Copenhagen later in the conference.

 

I've seen the climategate data, it is huge. It will kill the Hadley institute. The emails are not fatal, bad but not fatal. They indicate bias, manipulation, junk science, criminal behaviours and fraud but that would not convince heads of state to change their plans. However there's raw data and blocks of code attached to these emails. Forget smoking guns; this is the whole armoury. With bloody finger prints and all.

 

People have now had time to analyze the data and code as well as the emails.

 

Questions are being asked by too many entities.

 

What breakthrough could they possibly have in mind? What sudden glimmer of progress could they possibly see? Are they just rushing to action while the mainstream media is silent? Acting before the majority of old media watchers [victims] catch on?

 

I've done climatology and international environmental law. The process does not adapt well to new information but it does work well when it switches to the blame game mode.

 

I don't think a cover-up will work for several reasons. It may not even be tried.

 

Government hackers in CIA, MI5 and a dozen other intelligence agencies will probably have hacked their way into Hadley and other institutes to check the data for their political masters. Obama, Hu Jintao, Medvedev and even Brown may not like climategate but you can bet your bottom dollar that they are checking to see if the hacked/leaked emails are real and match the data in the institutes hard drives.

Anyone acquainted with Fabian socialism will know that when a Fabians' plot is exposed the networks generally turn on those members sloppy enough to get caught in the act: i.e., Jones and Mann. Obama is very much a master of this fabian socialist tactic, dropping hot potatoes faster than anyone I know.

The British parliament entitlements leak has resulted in a majority of the politicians there not renominating. The parliament after the next election will be clean skins. Untainted with the errors of the past. The election may also go to the conservatives with the Liberal democrats forming the main opposition. Labour could be decimated. All the investigators will probably know this. There's no point protecting the status quo, if its already busted or in flux.

Many of the investigators will be personally more concerned with the economy and keeping their own jobs. Few will be climatologists. All will face carbon taxes. If anthropogenic climate change fades away it costs them nothing. If they cover up and succeed; it still costs them much via carbon taxes. If their cover-up is blown it costs them everything.

To the few 'disinterested' climatologists in the investigation, the fall of Jones and Mann from the top will be of benefit. It raises their chances of promotion. Everyone moves up a rung in the bureaucratic hierarchy.

Lastly there is an internal division within the UN over the Food verses Fuel debate. It's just as bogus as climate change but it's a strongly-held position and climategate undermines one side, those pushing biofuels. The other is waiting in the wings to cry "we need global governance to avoid famine."

There thus good reasons to throw the Hadley institute and its sister institutes to the wolves and cry victim, 'We were conned!' Many more reasons to cover your tail and scapegoat these scientists than to stand by your local 'warmist' and fall with him or her. I think we will see a radical change of direction. With heads of state ordering the IPCC to do a massive review, perhaps acting on the biggest demand of the skeptics and publishing all the data. Declaring that the problem is smaller than expected so after a review we will implement a minimal-cost no-regrets climate plan.

 

Such a plan would cost much less because they could throw out the expensive cap and trade and most of the first-world to third-world subsidies by setting much lower targets. Scrap the taxes and industry-destroying clauses but leave in a small wedge of bureaucracy [Government always grows]. That would turn COP-15 into a giant union deal. One where they come to the table with a huge list of demands, most of which are unreasonable bargaining chips to be thrown on the table, while you manoeuvre your opponent to the position of perceiving your small but still significant demand as quite reasonable.

 

I hope I'm wrong. A cover-up is more fun and, when it comes unstuck, does more damage to the status quo. A massive stuff-up at Copenhagen just as the truth hits the mainstream will be devastation for the players in this global game. Particularly those facing elections soon.

 

While we all agree that governments are somewhere between hopeless and dangerous we all know that the one thing they do best is protecting their own vested interests and positions at the top.

 

As for the perpetrators of the fraud: Jones, Mann, etc., "Bernie" Madoff got 100 years for stealing or loosing a few billion dollars from a few thousand people. The climate mob have ripped off or wasted ten times as much with billions of victims.

 

Or to put it another way: "If someone did a graph like this in a stock prospectus, he would be jailed." ~ Jo Nova, on Michael Mann's hockey stick graph.

 

December 9, 2009

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I certainly cannot defend the scientists for manipulating their data however I listened to an interesting interview on radio 4 with the head of the university of east anglia. He commented on how defensive the scientists get and how attacked they are by people who are lobbyists/associates of companies, so many huge companies get 'scientists' to investigate findings and they constantly manipulate data so the findings are favourable to the companies investments.

 

Science needs to be none political, not financed by companies with agendas to prove because all of the findings will be flawed or manipulated because they are using the science to justify their causes.

 

Science should be used purely factually to prove points whether the findings agree with the initial thoughts on a subject matter or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Science needs to be none political, not financed by companies with agendas to prove because all of the findings will be flawed or manipulated because they are using the science to justify their causes."

 

if you they are to be non political... do you support funding of sciences by the govt? and if so how will they be non political/not attached to a political agenda?

 

 

the danger is not if a private company funds science... these companies have no actual coercive power over the populace, where as govt does have coercive control. the state/science merger is much more dangerous. they can pass laws governing our behavior but a company cannot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well recently there was a scandal in the UK where the scientists were going against government policy on drugs, and it resulted in quite a few scientists resigning from their positions.

 

It is a hard one to balance, sciences need funding and I don't mind them having funding from the government at all hoever the problem lies in the government not allowing the scientists to openly comment on thir findings when it goes against the political stance of the government. You can be funded by the government without being attached to the political agenda of the specific political party. They can still be objective.

 

I disagree with your comment about private companies funding scientific research, say Shell fund scientists to research something that backs up Shells corporate views and that research flies in the face of the general scientific community then you have people being given majorly conflicting information and it causes problems then. The company will only fund the research if it is going to back up the company's agenda, if not then they just pull funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who cares if funding is pulled? isnt this a free exchange? why would shell hire 'scientists' at all if they already know the results? this doesnt affect people one iota. scientists are free to work how they want to... if they contract with a company to work in a totally unbiased fashion, that is their decision.

if a scientist promotes shoddy research in the market place, they will in effect go broke and/or be totally discredited. if science is only funded by the state, what competition to do they have? the incentives are backwards, it is more in their interest to drag their feet, and fail at their research than to succeed. after all, you must fail in the govt sector to receive more funds. this is true with everything they do. from road maintenance to pentagon budgets.

govt funded 'science' can do what it wants, suppress all contrary data, etc. its no different than saying we need to have state funded media, because after all, if a private company has a news station they might say something that is false. we all know the new york times and fox news stories and 'facts' must all be taken with a grain of salt. how do you expect to have 'definitive' scientific research without some sort of competition?

 

with all government funding, comes government control. there is no escaping this.

 

the best way to fund scientific research? voluntarily. all the oil companies fund their research and all the al gores fund their own research. if govt funds the research it controls it, no way around this. it is especially dangerous if govt funds this research and also has the power to enact totalitarian measures based on this research. do we really trust the govt? anyone with half a brain doesnt trust the govt. we cant trust the govt to defend us or protect even our basic rights, how can we trust the govt to be the final decision maker on 'climate' change that can produce legislation to totally abolish every aspect of our lives if they want to, in the name of defending the collective against an idea that they might of concocted out of thin air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't trust big business, they are all about monopolies and closing down freedom of choice this is why they buy out their competitors and push out the little business.

 

I trust government as much as big business, not at all. Why would anyone trust big business? they are only about making money for themselves, not providing the best service or doing what is best for the consumer, we don't live in a completely free market, big business has bought out enough of it's competitors and has monopolised the markets to the extent that they don't have to worry about consumers going elsewhere because they have already cornered the market. I wouldn't trust any scientific findings from a huge multinational company like shell because all they are doing is justifying their own means.

 

To put more faith in business than government is silly, they are as bad as each other, at least some government funding is for the progression of science.

 

I understand you don't like government AOD but they aren't always out to completely control and manipulate, sometimes they are trying to progress areas of science etc for the betterment of their countries fuutures, unlike big business which is solely doing it to line their own pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Myth of Neutral Academic Peer Review Exploded

 

by Gary North

 

I would be highly skeptical of anything this man has to say on scientific practices. He is the founder of the Institute for Christian Economics and is a Christian Reconstructionist. "Christian Reconstructionism is a religious and theological movement within Protestant Christianity that calls for Christians to put their faith into action in all areas of life."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I choose to persecute the man for his intentions, which are probably tied to religious beliefs (whatever they may be), and not his religious beliefs per se.

 

The concept of peer review is yet another complicated science methodology that has been distilled into a simple, easy to digest soundbite whose power can then be discredited or exaggerated at will. It is just one of several components that maintain scientific integrity, it doesn't hold the final authoritative answer.

 

In any case, mountains out of molehills. It has already been explained that thousands of independent reviews of the same papers and data have been carried out and the conclusions are the same. Dude is like "People have now had time to analyze the data and code as well as the emails"... that's right, and it's becoming increasingly clear that we're dealing with a severely manipulated non-issue.

 

Also love the digs at Jones and Mann's career futures. How convenient he fails to mention the careers of some of the scientists who wrote the "suppressed" papers... they were fired long ago for how atrociously flawed their papers were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't trust big business, they are all about monopolies and closing down freedom of choice this is why they buy out their competitors and push out the little business.

 

who said any thing about having to 'trust' big business?

that is the beauty of allowing research to be funded voluntarily. you do not have to believe it and a govt. will not enact policies to force people to act a certain way on the populace. if you believe something it will be on merits, not on coercion.

 

I trust government as much as big business, not at all. Why would anyone trust big business? they are only about making money for themselves, not providing the best service or doing what is best for the consumer, we don't live in a completely free market, big business has bought out enough of it's competitors and has monopolised the markets to the extent that they don't have to worry about consumers going elsewhere because they have already cornered the market. I wouldn't trust any scientific findings from a huge multinational company like shell because all they are doing is justifying their own means.

 

i think your problem with this gov. vs business thing is that you dont understand how our situation evolved. you just know what is going on today, what is reality, and dont know how we got to where we are. there is plenty of big business that is nothing more than an arm of the state. there is plenty of big business that were hardly the work of free enterprise. the only power they have is the power they get from govt, such as various contractors, monopoly privileges, etc.

sure business is only 'in it for themselves.' why do you work? because you are in it for yourself. but you make the assumption that if a business sells a product to someone, the other person isnt benefitting. business is 'in it for its self' by providing consumers with products that they want. consumers are also ' in it for themselves. '

 

you have to realize that companies like microsoft are as big as they are, because people have voluntarily contracted with them to buy their products. they have out beat their competitors, not by govt mandate or coercion, but by simple competition in the market place. they do their job the best. since their size was brought about by total free exchange, it must be that the size microsoft is, is the size it is supposed to be.

 

you also miss one huge assumption. while it seems impossible to shut down microsoft, if it was really true that microsoft was tyrannizing the market place, and that everyone actually believed this nonsense, they simply would refuse to buy, bringing the company to its knees. the same with a church or a private school. if people dont show up, they go belly up. try this with a government. if everyone withdraws their consent to be governed or refused to pay taxes, the govt will ultimately kill us or atleast try to reaffirm their power. now, who is more of a threat? business with no coercive power over us or governments that can tax you, regulate you, conscript you and send you to war, and take away your natural rights? no private company can legitimately do this. govt claims this right.

 

you are may be right about 'trusting' research from shell. but what makes you think govt funded (which means govt control) is any better? as i pointed out, it doesnt matter at alll what shell comes up with in this scenario because they are not about to institute plans to attack the rights and liberties of all americans and ultimately world citizens the way these govts and world bodies are.

 

To put more faith in business than government is silly, they are as bad as each other, at least some government funding is for the progression of science.

 

no one is putting more faith in anything. im just saying, that competition always wins out. different research facilities would compete on their credibility. if you only have govt funded research labs, you reduce the effectiveness of this competition.

how will the research be unbiased if the govt appoints certain research offices to do this research, like say... that have already pledged their lives liberty and sacred honor to defending al gore-ism to the death regardless of what is actually true? how is this any better?

atleast in a privately funded world, research will be judged on peoples free choice and merits, not on govt coercion.

 

I understand you don't like government AOD but they aren't always out to completely control and manipulate, sometimes they are trying to progress areas of science etc for the betterment of their countries fuutures, unlike big business which is solely doing it to line their own pockets.

 

i disagree vehemently with this.

all governments grow and take more power. show me any meaningful instances govts have ceded power back to the people voluntarily? they always seek to further control and regulate. always. unless they are brought down by the govts own internal collapse (like socialism/communism) or by revolution / war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get over myself? Easy there. It's a perfectly valid concern.

 

because the guy is a christian, you are going to totally disregard the article? if anyone would of pointed out that one of these researchers was jewish and that this some how discredits them, dont you think yall would be saying something?

its makes no difference whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I choose to persecute the man for his intentions, which are probably tied to religious beliefs (whatever they may be), and not his religious beliefs per se.

 

 

actually gary north is what most would consider a 'crazy' christian. but in no way does this affect his economic and political outlook. he is decidedly libertarian in all these matters and his personal beliefs in no way affect his commentary on these matters. for what its worth. i posted it to get a different perspective. i dont agree with the guy on religious matters, but neither do i agree with obama on religious matters, jewish people on religious matters, farrakhan on religious matters or mccain on religious matters. but i dont automatically discredit anything these guys say BASED on their religious preferences on matters that dont pertain to religion, as long as they arent pushing an overtly religious agenda in the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

companies like microsoft are so big because they have destroyed the free market and taken out their competitors, we are only now after many years of having personal computers seeing a slight backlash against them, you had the choice to either use microsoft or not have a computer, that is no choice.

 

A government is voted into power, if they do not do what they promise or make decisions people dont like then they can vote them out of power it is simple as that. I have more choice over goverment that I do over certain huge corporations.

 

I am sorry AOD but I just disagree with your ascertians that the government is always out to coerce and manipulate that seems more of a business mandate than anything else. What about government fundung into say stem cell research, what is the government benefitting from this, it annoys a hell of a lot of people but it would improve the scientific understanding for the country. It isn't about ceeding power or anything like that it is about creating the right facilities etc for the country to prosper as a forward thinking scientific community.

 

There should be a split of private and government funding that is the best way it can work, then no one particular body has an agenda that can then be manipulated to suit their own means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually gary north is what most would consider a 'crazy' christian. but in no way does this affect his economic and political outlook.

 

C'mon son.

 

---

 

 

Science should be funded by business AND government, but never just one of the two. Governments coerce, but business manipulates, unfairly influences, and deceptively persuades its way to obtain the same net results as coercion.

 

A key thing to keep in mind is that government funded science is inherently much more open and accessible than privately funded science. Private industry can withhold the research behind its findings under the guise of protecting it's IP, but public science, and to a greater extent global science such as climate, is much more transparent and independently verifiable... so in essence you could say government science is more reliable than private science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

companies like microsoft are so big because they have destroyed the free market and taken out their competitors, we are only now after many years of having personal computers seeing a slight backlash against them, you had the choice to either use microsoft or not have a computer, that is no choice.

 

how in the hell have they 'destroyed the free market' when people are constantly and continually stacking up shopping carts every day with microsoft products??????? this IS the free market. someone provides a service/product, people buy it. the good providers do it super cheaply.

 

for what its worth, im a Mac guy.

 

 

A government is voted into power, if they do not do what they promise or make decisions people dont like then they can vote them out of power it is simple as that. I have more choice over goverment that I do over certain huge corporations.

 

sir, HITLER WAS VOTED INTO POWER. obviously we have all the recourse in the world to simply vote them out, right? it happens all the time. why is it a bad thing? because even if ONE person disagrees with a policy, rights have been violated. but hte policy is in place anyway. if you disagree with a company or a product, you dont use it or buy it. its that simple. if you do, you must benefit from it.

 

look. voting doesnt validate a damn thing. suppose a bunch of nut balls come to you house. they walk in your door. they tell you they are going to rape your wife and steal your tv. you say get the fuck out. they say...tut tut... wait a second here, lets put it to a vote. the 3 robbers vote on such matters, and well, gee, majority rules. shut up and take it like a man! this is the summation of govt.

 

if a bunch of kooks in the capital of the nation get together and vote to kill every 3rd male at random, is this justified? after all, we elected them, we can easily just vote them out, right? its as simple as that.

 

What about government fundung into say stem cell research, what is the government benefitting from this, it annoys a hell of a lot of people but it would improve the scientific understanding for the country. It isn't about ceeding power or anything like that it is about creating the right facilities etc for the country to prosper as a forward thinking scientific community.

 

There should be a split of private and government funding that is the best way it can work, then no one particular body has an agenda that can then be manipulated to suit their own means.

 

thats fine with. split it however you want.

however, if you start trying to throw me in jail because i refuse to pay taxes to fund whatever pet projects you have that you want the govt to fund, that is when the problems start.

 

as always this is the issue. governments have no wealth other than what they seize from the population, borrow, or create out of thin air.

 

the collective wealth at some of these environmental conferences by these rich socialists could fund these projects many times over, yet they all want the PEOPLE, the masses, the middle class to fund it. when in reality, everything would work out fine, if people just put their own money, where the mouth's are.

 

this reminds me of ron paul when he voted against giving mother thersea a congressional medal. he said that there is no clause in the constitution to vote for funding on such matters, and he pulled out his wallet and held out money and said but he would be glad to fund it with his own private money. needless to say... no one else did the same.

these people are professional squanderers of other peoples money. why should they get more money and why should they control it at all?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A key thing to keep in mind is that government funded science is inherently much more open and accessible than privately funded science. Private industry can withhold the research behind its findings under the guise of protecting it's IP, but public science, and to a greater extent global science such as climate, is much more transparent and independently verifiable... so in essence you could say government science is more reliable than private science.

 

well, there is nothing wrong with this... private science withholding information

no harm no foul.

but i dont have a problem with ideas being protected as intellectual property by law.

however, if you simply withhold ideas, you are not violating any rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, there is nothing wrong with this... private science withholding information

no harm no foul.

but i dont have a problem with ideas being protected as intellectual property by law.

however, if you simply withhold ideas, you are not violating any rights.

 

 

I wasn't trying to say that's a bad thing as much as I was trying to describe why government science is also desirable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK while they may not have destroyed the free market they have completely monopolised the market and it wasnt because their product was better it was becaue they made it impossible for anyone else to gain a foothold and compete against them, I don't see how your view of the free market works, if business was run with morals then maybe yea people would do what is best for the customer but they dont it is ONLY about profits.

 

If someone has been voted into power by the people of that country then that is the people putting their faith in them to follow through on their election promises, if we didnt have elcted officials then we would be run into the ground because people would only look out for themselves and no one else.

 

The analogy of the people breaking into the home is nothing like government, they are breaking into the homes they were not voted into power they are more like a dictatorship not a democratically elected government.

 

A for using the product sometimes you are forced to use a particular product not by choice but because they have more power and money and have driven out the competition, for example smaller independant petrol stations that supplied fuels to small communities, Shell or BP or however then moves in can afford to undercut them, pushes the competition into bankruptcy then once the competition is gone they start raising prices, that isnt a free market that is a monopoly. What can the people of the village do, nothing they have to use the fuel but their choice of supplier has been completely eradicated.

 

We live in democratically elected countries, if you don't support the winning party then yes I admit it is pretty much tough, I grew up under a conservative government and watched as they ruined this country. I understand you don't like taxes I understand your stance on government but I have to say that I see no problem paying taxes, I don't want to pay some private company to eventually screw me over for services rendered and have no recourse against them, whereas at least in government I can vote against them.

 

If you don't like living under a certain government then you can always move somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, there is nothing wrong with this... private science withholding information

no harm no foul.

but i dont have a problem with ideas being protected as intellectual property by law.

however, if you simply withhold ideas, you are not violating any rights.

 

but withholding their findings is no different to the east anglia university manipulating the data, they are not giving true findings and are creating illusions to suit their own means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK while they may not have destroyed the free market they have completely monopolised the market and it wasnt because their product was better it was becaue they made it impossible for anyone else to gain a foothold and compete against them, I don't see how your view of the free market works, if business was run with morals then maybe yea people would do what is best for the customer but they dont it is ONLY about profits.

 

how have they monopolized the free market? it seems to me that they only control a large portion of it. what is wrong with this? i run exclusively on apple products. (without intel chips, by the way)

what about someone not being able to compete with them? boo hoo, man up boys, you have to get your game on to compete with the big boys! you have to find some way to innovate and beat microsoft. this is free market economics 101. it just so happens that microsoft, that started out in a garage mind you, has satisfied countless consumers and make hefty profits doing so. there is not a damn thing wrong with this. the market will punish microsoft if they screw up, people wont buy from them.

 

how are the consumers being discriminated against? i keep hearing these abstract arguments with no elaboration. because microsoft exists, people are being exploited? people are lining up buying new computers every day, i would say they love microsoft.

 

i never understand this ideology. people say how much they hate walmart and microsoft, how the 'people' are being exploited and tyrannized on, but yet the when a new walmart opens up, the lines for employment wrap around the building. you cant even go into a walmart without having seeing atleast a couple hundred people shopping. people get mad when companies sell things cheap. prices go up. then people get mad when they go up. then they go back down, then they get mad at health insurance not being provided for workers, yet this decision is totally up to the employer and employee and frankly is no one elses business. its damned if you do, damned if you dont. prices go low, then people complain about 'monopoly.' govt busts up 'monopoly' then people complain about high prices. its never ending.

it would just be easier if these people complaining just out and out said they want to over turn freedom and capitalism and just be done with it.

 

If someone has been voted into power by the people of that country then that is the people putting their faith in them to follow through on their election promises, if we didnt have elcted officials then we would be run into the ground because people would only look out for themselves and no one else.

 

The analogy of the people breaking into the home is nothing like government, they are breaking into the homes they were not voted into power they are more like a dictatorship not a democratically elected government.

 

i didnt mean the analogy literally, but the intent remains the same.

that is what government is.

if you want to get literal about it, fine. the robbers didnt break into your house.

they just stood outside and voted on it.

why do you hold democracy up so high? why dont you comment on my hitler analogy?

democracy is a group of people voting on things. govt doesnt get some legitimacy simply because they are the 'government.' they are just legalized thieves.

i dont care about democracy, majority rule or democratically elected governments, i care about my rights, your rights and everyones rights. rights are not secure in democracy. they can easily be voted away. im here to tell you, my rights are absolute and cannot be voted away. just because a handful of people vote to put a few people into a state capital doesnt mean that all of a sudden these 'elected' people can start taking away my freedom of speech, taking my property or taking any other of my nearly unlimited negative rights.

 

A for using the product sometimes you are forced to use a particular product not by choice but because they have more power and money and have driven out the competition, for example smaller independant petrol stations that supplied fuels to small communities, Shell or BP or however then moves in can afford to undercut them, pushes the competition into bankruptcy then once the competition is gone they start raising prices, that isnt a free market that is a monopoly. What can the people of the village do, nothing they have to use the fuel but their choice of supplier has been completely eradicated.

 

predatory pricing is a myth.

show me actual instances throughout the 20th century where this has actually happened. it cant be done. it is 100% myth. a team of economists set out to document predatory pricing throughout the 20th century and failed.

see you want your cake and want to eat it too. the people go to the 'big stations' because they are cheaper than the mom and pops. then the mom and pops cant compete, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE GO TO THE BIG STATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE GREEDY SELFISH PRICKS AND WANT CHEAPER GAS! right? the consumer is to blame, the company is merely providing the service. they cannot exist without customers.

then you complain when the mom and pop goes out of business all the while you were getting gas at the cheaper competitor. if you want the mom and pop, shop at the mom and pop.

given that predatory pricing is a myth, how are you hurt by this take over by the bigger company? you are getting cheaper gas. you must like it, because you are shopping there.

 

this also leaves out the fact that even the mom and pop was getting gas, most likely from shell and bp to begin with. its not like they a fuel refinery in their back yard.

 

We live in democratically elected countries, if you don't support the winning party then yes I admit it is pretty much tough, I grew up under a conservative government and watched as they ruined this country. I understand you don't like taxes I understand your stance on government but I have to say that I see no problem paying taxes, I don't want to pay some private company to eventually screw me over for services rendered and have no recourse against them, whereas at least in government I can vote against them.

 

the company holds no power over you. they cannot tax you, regulate you, conscript you, debase the value of your money... and kill you if you resist shopping at their establishment.

 

If you don't like living under a certain government then you can always move somewhere else.

 

voting with your feet is a semi legitimate option.

however, the US is probably the healthiest patient in the cancer ward and we are not in remission. there is no recourse except to stand and fight.

however, we are talking about rights violations.

its sort of like if you move to bad neighborhood and your house gets robbed. sure, you pretty much knew it would happen, but its still a rights violation. so you have to concentrate on that, you still have your rights violated. its still an injustice to have my rights violated even if i might happen to live in one of the freer countries on the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climategate: Gore falsifies the record

 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_gore_falsifies_the_record/

 

Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and dismissed them as mere piffle:

Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?

A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but
the most recent one is more than 10 years old
. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.

And in case you think that was a mere slip of the tongue:

 

Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.

A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So
an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago
including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.

In fact, thrice denied:

These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make
this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails
kind of silly.

In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 - just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.

How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all? Was he lying or just terribly mistaken? What else has he got wrong?

(Thanks to readers Sinclair and Peter.)

UPDATE

Reader Barry:

Actually the e-mail archives are named by Unix timestamp, ranging from Thu, 07 Mar 1996 14:41:07 GMT through to Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:17:44 GMT. This is a strong indicator they are extracted from an enterprise archive, probably by the FOIA Compliance Officer and not hacked from individual’s workstations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economic sense or predatory pricing it is the same thing, obviously most people don't shop with a conscience they just want the cheapest prices, some people don't do that they try and support local businesses and create a healthy market, I am sick of shops like Tesco opening about 3 or 4 stores in one area and using their buying power to drive down prices were smaller companies cannot compete and go bust. I am then forced to use the Tesco store otherwise I wouldn't be able to get the goods I need. To me that is predatory pricing, pricing out the competition until you have no competition. I would rather pay a bit more money to use a local shop and support the community but I am having that freedom of choice taken away. My right to shop where I want is being violated.

 

With your Hitler analogy, yep he was voted into power, I am sure the vast majority of germans at the time who voted for him were happy with him as a leader unless you were a Jew or disabled etc etc (we all know of his strocities), he was trying to progress the nation, he then turned into a dictator and they didnt have the democratic recourse available and at that point there was nothing they could do.

 

I hold democracy up high because I don't believe that without government a country wouldnt run properly, it would be a free for all with people just looking out for their own, no one to make sure companies werent monopolising a market and once that monopoly was inplace screwing the consumer, whether through fuel or healthcare.

 

As for a company holding no power over you, they do, they bind you into legal contracts to supply you energy, they get rid of the competition so you have no choice where to shop, once a company has the monopoly of the market they dont need to think of the consumer because the consumer then has no choice.

 

Anyway enough of this, it has nothing to do with climate!! always good disagreeing with you tho AOD you do have a good discussion in you!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economic sense or predatory pricing it is the same thing, obviously most people don't shop with a conscience they just want the cheapest prices, some people don't do that they try and support local businesses and create a healthy market, I am sick of shops like Tesco opening about 3 or 4 stores in one area and using their buying power to drive down prices were smaller companies cannot compete and go bust. I am then forced to use the Tesco store otherwise I wouldn't be able to get the goods I need. To me that is predatory pricing, pricing out the competition until you have no competition. I would rather pay a bit more money to use a local shop and support the community but I am having that freedom of choice taken away. My right to shop where I want is being violated.

 

you have a flawed analogy of 'rights.'

your rights are not being violated at all. you do not have some mythical right to have a mom and pop store on your corner to buy your food. it is your right to shop there if someone decides to open one, and it is your right to open one, but by logical extension you would curtail freedom of choice by some sort of law either requiring a 'mom and pop' shop store to exist in a certain location or curtailing the markets free choice to shop where they want by denying the right of the bigger supermarket to exist.

 

the free market solution? start your own company and compete against the big boys.

 

its pretty silly to think the way you do though. in america we have a chain called whole foods. it is in my opinion over priced gourmet organic hipster food. but people LOVE it. they are in all the hipster neighborhoods and they love paying twice as much for a pineapple.

more power to them.

 

voting in the market place with your dollars is in a sense like voting in the political arena, however, the market place offers no initiation of violence or coercion on you at all, where as govt, no matter how you vote, does initiate violence against you in one form or another.

 

With your Hitler analogy, yep he was voted into power, I am sure the vast majority of germans at the time who voted for him were happy with him as a leader unless you were a Jew or disabled etc etc (we all know of his strocities), he was trying to progress the nation, he then turned into a dictator and they didnt have the democratic recourse available and at that point there was nothing they could do.

 

this is the nature of all governments.

you see how it is though and you described it perfectly, you just dont want to acknowledge the evil in it. the majority persecuted the jews through elections and democracy. i am against this violation of rights tooth and nail.

 

I hold democracy up high because I don't believe that without government a country wouldnt run properly, it would be a free for all with people just looking out for their own, no one to make sure companies werent monopolising a market and once that monopoly was inplace screwing the consumer, whether through fuel or healthcare.

 

which is why when it comes to government i tend to favor the classical liberal idea of republicanism. which is what the US was supposed to be. limited local control, a weak central government to provide for the defense and local governments that defend rights instead of taking them away.

 

you still have yet to convince me of how exactly the consumer is being screwed in these fantasy monopoly situations like you talk about other than an ass backwards interpretation of 'rights.'

people obviously love the transactions they engage in otherwise they wouldnt engage in them.

 

as for fuel and healthcare... there are so many factors that play into this, including but not limited to inflation of the monetary supply which leads to higher prices, govt manipulation of markets with things like opec, and a whole host of things with healthcare that doesnt need to be gotten into right now.

 

As for a company holding no power over you, they do, they bind you into legal contracts to supply you energy, they get rid of the competition so you have no choice where to shop, once a company has the monopoly of the market they dont need to think of the consumer because the consumer then has no choice.

 

you are describing monopoly situations with govt granted monopolies.

how do they force you into contracts?

do they hold a gun to your head?

im confused.

in teh US the govts grant 1 or two power companies monopoly of over the power supply of a certain grid area. the govt is at fault with this by limiting competition. they do this with cable, phone, internet, etc as well. also water supply, sewage, etc, if they dont run these things themselves.

 

you are correct in saying that a govt protected monopoly is unjust... but you are some how trying to pin this on the free market, when it is govt's fault.

 

Anyway enough of this, it has nothing to do with climate!! always good disagreeing with you tho AOD you do have a good discussion in you!!

 

as of late you are my favorite dude to argue with on here

and of course i read that you wanted to end the discussion, after i typed a reply to the whole thing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...