It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by bobafett1972
It is a biased, slanted, one sided, my way or the highway film.
All you have to do is look and see for yourself. There are people actually saying that the current wild fires in California are GLOBAL WARMING INDUCED!!! Thats just insane. Sorry, since I was a child these things have been going on.
Then to go and teach this to schools kids as gospel?
Originally posted by greenfruit
The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff.
I'm pretty sure that the Judge found in favour of the plaintiff. I think that is what it says above????
Yes, !00%.
The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.
I guess the judge was pretty serious about the 9 errors???
Ummm..... Yeah. You could say he was pretty serious.
the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors.
The judge does explain why only nine of the 35 errors were looked at. Time was the issuse
You are very subtle.
And right on target.
Ruling that the Gov was in violation of it's own laws (an Act of Parliament prohibiting the the political indoctrination of children), is a pretty strong indictment, would you not agree?
Ordering the Gov to pay restitution to the plaintiff is also a pretty strong statement of the finding of guilt on the part of the gov, is it not?
Thanks for the great OP!
Hundreds of researchers from a huge variety of disciplines have compiled, written and analysed its 572 pages; thousands more have reviewed the various chapters
He is a lawyer by training, with no scientific background.
Documents released by the committee show Cooney and other administration officials made at least 181 edits to the administration's strategic plan for the climate change science program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties, as well as 113 edits to downplay the importance of humanity's role in global warming.
In addition, White House documents show similar editing by Cooney and other administration officials to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the health of the environment and an annual state of the planet report submitted to Congress.
Cooney, who resigned in June 2005 following reports of his controversial editing by the "New York Times," defended his actions before the committee.
"I had the authority and responsibility to make recommendations to the documents in question, under an established interagency review process," said Cooney, a lawyer who now works for ExxonMobil.
Originally posted by StellarX
If Al Gore is so sure why does he not start a campaign to sue the largest American corporations on those grounds?
Can we all at least agree that that is never going to happen while Al Gore is busy saving the planet by paying his butlers and maids extra to switch off the light bulbs?
Then again i doubt Tipper is stupid enough to allow maids around him given his apprenticeship to Clinton.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Why don't you?
Who says he won't?
Big Tobacco spent years telling us, via credentialled MDs that smoking didn't affect your health. Hmm, how come they settled out of court so often?
If the anti-smoking lobby can do it, don't think the einvironmental lobby isn't preparing its case.
It will begin with some nutjob suing coal-fired power utilities because the water is now outside his front door instead of the other side of his beach, which has disappeared. It will continue until teh environmental lobby wins. Don't think so?
Wait for Bush to be named in a suit for directly contributing by stalling Kyoto ratification for 8 years.
]Can we all agree that it is never going to happen while you don't have the balls to do something about it?
Typical right-wing crimson fishing.
Hey, let's not actually blame the industry for it and demand action from them, let's blame someone who is doing something
(rather than NOTHING) for not doing EVERYTHING and,
if that won't shift the reader's attention, throw in some unrelated crap about an unconnected issue that can open a different can of worms and make the whole place smell bad.
Now, all together:
"Cast aspersions, obfuscate, spin, shift blame, lie. Talk as much as you can, but for God's sake, don't DO anything."
Of what possible use was any of your post?
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Why don't you?
Because i don't think humanity or even corporations are responsible for global warming
If the anti-smoking lobby can do it, don't think the einvironmental lobby isn't preparing its case.
And you must then believe that the victory of the anti smoking lobby proves that smoking is in fact so horrendously dangerous?
It will begin with some nutjob suing coal-fired power utilities...
You must still believe that sea levels are in fact rising noticeable in any given decade? Why do you believe that given the the fact that it just isn't true?
Wait for Bush to be named in a suit for directly contributing by stalling Kyoto ratification for 8 years.
Signing the Kyoto treaty is basically participation in a crime against humanity and it's no surprise that the world will once again be stood on it's head as Bush gets sued for doing something that BENEFITS Americans and almost everyone else.
Can we all agree that it is never going to happen while you don't have the balls to do something about it?
If you think this has anything to do with the size of either your or mine you are in my opinion quite deluded.
I just thought it was funny but i suppose you can't see that trough all that froth.
Of what possible use was any of your post?
My post were supposed to help the vast majority of simply misguided people
willfully ignorant
More specifically i have no idea what to do with you as i know you are pretty intelligent and could not coincidentally pick the lies over the truth every single time.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Kinda hard to argue with that.
Not necessarily. I did find watching my grandfather die of emphysema fairly convincing. I'm not saying that because a court says it's so that it's so. I'm just saying that people out there will try to use the courts.
Again you're confusing my beliefs with what I attributed to a 3rd party. I'm giving my appraisal (as a legally non-qualified analyst) of what I think somebody will do in the future. Given the kind of lawsuits that are allowed to trial in the US, why wouldn't this one go?
Again, just my view of what an unknown 3rd party will do. You'll have to convince me how Kyoto is a crime against humanity. I'm asthmatic and I don't view a reduction in pollution as a crime against humanity,I regard refusing to reduce pollution as a specific form of discrimination against a human health sub-group.
No, taking the opportunity of your post to spray the group I hate the most, those who demand that "someone" do "something" about it while they continue to sip their cafe lattes. (As was the rest of it)
You caught me at a bad time. My next line was (and is) in response to what seems to be a peculiarly Republican method of debating, no matter what the issue is. The Liberal Party and the Tories certainly seem to be far more willing to actually debate the issues.
As I said, you caught me at a bad time. I contend that I am not "simply misguided". I may be
about this issue in your estimation, but that is because I have availed myself of some info (but not all) and I have chosen the diametrically opposed view.
Now, we know that climate shifts. A mini ice-age froze the Vikings out of Greenland. Krakatoa caused a nuclear winter.
But it's the rate of upward change now that has people (ie me) worried. I'm not saying we CAUSED global warming. But I am willing to say we've put our foot flat to the floor and it's time to pull the handbrake.
Hey, I'll take the compliment...
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Kinda hard to argue with that.
I would like to think so but i have seen you argue with more easily observable facts in the past!
Why don't you just argue for what you believe? Have you become so confused by your defense of various things you do not believe in ( for whatever , hopefully well paid, reasons) that you are now arguing for a party that isn't even rewarding you? Fascinating...
So the devil gained another advocate? Kyoto is a crime against humanity because it will kill millions in the third world by governments proclaiming that they must 'tighten their belts'
Sure we all want have reduced levels of pollution but what does that have to do with C02 and greenhouse gases in general?
Why don't you argue for reduced industrial pollution instead of for restricting economic growth trough scaling back energy conversion altogether?
What do you have against the baby in the bath?
The fact that some people will put so much effort into saving a few trees, animals or water sources while people are actually STARVING sickens me.
I suppose when you arrogantly bought into the propaganda that those hundreds of millions are entirely responsible for their problems you really can get fanatical about protecting cats from their irate owners.
My next line was (and is) in response to what seems to be a peculiarly Republican method of debating, no matter what the issue is. The Liberal Party and the Tories certainly seem to be far more willing to actually debate the issues.
It happens to everyone but you might want to investigate why it happens to you so often.....
As I said, you caught me at a bad time. I contend that I am not "simply misguided". I may be
about this issue in your estimation, but that is because I have availed myself of some info (but not all) and I have chosen the diametrically opposed view.
You know that i did not just come up with my views by reading a few books so why pretend this is a question of who looked at 'information'?
Krakatoa did not cause a nuclear winter ( the sun was not blocked out) as not even a nuclear war can cause nuclear winter! Even if we expended all the nuclear weapons we had at ensured ground detonations it's highly unlikely that we could inject that same volume of material into the stratosphere.
But it's the rate of upward change now that has people (ie me) worried. I'm not saying we CAUSED global warming. But I am willing to say we've put our foot flat to the floor and it's time to pull the handbrake.
Tighten your belt if you feel responsible but please do not expect me to accept these blatant attempts at social engineering and help to advocate even more starvation and suffering for the billion or so people who barely get by as things are.
Originally posted by neformore
If Gore was a Republican, I wonder how many of the people in this thread that are currently criticising him wouldn't be?
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Oh, I can argue with your point of view, but as to why you said it, that you make plain.
No, not arguing for anything, just saying what I think someone will do, my analysis of where this will go. Nothing confusing there. When I told my news crew that Musharraf would declare martial law, that wasn't a defence of his action, it was a prediction (a pretty good one, as it turned out).
No, the devil didn't gain another advocate and no, I don't agree with your thesis. I'm living in the third world (Cambodia) at the moment and forcing the government to find alternative routes to energy than diesel will not kill millions here.
What it will do is save millions who currently cannot afford fuel because of the recent doubling in oil prices.
erm, just how big a percentage of industrial air-pollution are CO2 etc?
Because the one will invevitably force the other and because I don't believe restricting CO2 output automatically restricts economic growth.
Nothing, I don't see the same baby you do.
Hmm, if I didn't spend so much time in the 3rd world, I might agree.
But I'm willing to let people "do what they can, where they can" to make a difference.
People in this country (Cambodia) don't starve to death because of western consumerism, they starve to death because of government incompetence and corruption.
That story is often true in the third world in general. Forcing the government to ratify Kyoto won't prevent development here.
It will force the leadership to actually think about their people's best interests, instead of their own hip pocket.
Actually, relying on your model, all it will do is give them another excuse to bash the west for preventing Cambodia's growth, instead of telling us where the $30bn or so they've had is gone and why there are H2 Hummers and Porsche Cayennes wearing military, police and state plates in a country where people do actually starve to death.
I'll assume that that wasn't actually pointed at me, even 'though I'm perfectly willing to give money to Greenpeace so they can burn fuel in their outboard motors to stop Japanese whaling fleets in the Southern Ocean.
I don't blame the Burmese for their government, but I won't give mney to Burma in the hope that some may go to the people when I know that most will go into propping up the government that is causing the problem.
Now, there's a huge ethical debate in there, and I'm more than willing to admit the cost of my policy (if I could acutally enforce it) to the Burmese (and Shan, Karen et al) people, but the cost to them of keeping SCPD in power is far greater, compared to what could happen without them.
Actually, I wasn't talking about people attacking me, which is relatively rare, given how often (or not) I post here. I was observing a trend I have noticed in general on this board and in conversation with Americans and even when observing them in discussion with each other. The ability to mention Monica Lewinsky or some other utterly unrelated "fact" or "issue" no matter the subject under discussion as if mentioning the "fact" or "issue" completely undermines the view they are opposing and ends the discussion in a victory for them.
I'm not. If you read again, you'll see that I am explaining why I am willing to believe, even if you are not. We both have the same info, but have arrived at opposite views.
I wonder why you are taking my words so literally? Okay, so the sun was not blocked out. But a cloud of ash and dust entered the atmosphere and remained in observable orbit for three years and temperatures were recorded to be lower, affecting harvests in several areas.
That sure sounds like the described effects of a "nuclear winter", albeit on a much, MUCH smaller scale.
Yes, I'd say having a world environment for my sons to grow up in that is little different to today's is social engineering.
I don't think it's a great sin for us to want to keep ice at the poles,
rainforest in the Amazon,
the desert in North Africa,
instead of Southern Europe,
and the islands of Kiribati ABOVE the water.
Millions will starve if we force Kyoto on them? Tell me, where will you put them once their countries have completely desertified?
In your home? How will you feed them if the world's arable lands migrate northward into the most densely populated nations on the planet?
Is Russia going to welcome them into Siberia?
Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa don't need to industrialise with oil and coal-fired power to support their populations and maybe
just maybe, removing the "resource curse" will actually help billions of people that are currently starving BECAUSE they have oil to sell at $100 a barrel.
And no, I'm not at all in favour of turning cropland over to the production of bio-fuel. The ethanol lobby in the US is lying and bio-fuel proponents want the third-world to take up the production, instead of the over-subsidised 1st world, allowing nations such as France and the US to sell it's food to Asia for profit, while not taking bio-fuel in return.
But that doesn't mean the third world can't benefit from "alternative" fuel sources that are well-established, such as pig farm methane and landfill methane, while maintaining relatively neutral carbon footprints.
There are any number of ways to produce hydro-electricity that don't rely on massive dams which bring massive negative environmental impacts.
But they don't make for huge projects, big stories and television documentaries that allow national leaders to show their people how they are "developing" their naitons.
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
What it will do is save millions who currently cannot afford fuel because of the recent doubling in oil prices.
The recent doubling in oil prices have nothing to do with oil being scarce in the ground or on top of it and everything to do with who is buying it and preventing others from gaining access to it. To suggest that higher energy cost do not harm or that alternative energy 'sources' wont be made horrendously expensive, and thus unaffordable for most, is not accurate.
erm, just how big a percentage of industrial air-pollution are CO2 etc?
Who cares when CO2 constitutes but 0.038% of our atmosphere and the fact that Water vapor has a larger effect and is more than twice as prevalent? Sure it sounds scary when one says it's doubled in so and so many years but not everyone is ignorant and proceeds to panick as they are advised to.
Because the one will invevitably force the other and because I don't believe restricting CO2 output automatically restricts economic growth.
The one will no more force the other than more than enough food in the world economy has reduced starvation.
YOu are not including politics and economics
and until you consider the implications you are forever doomed to making 'logical arguments' that have absolutely no bearing on political and socio-economic realities.
I don't believe reduced C02 output must automatically restrict economic growth
but since it's obvious what the real motives behind energy 'conservation' is ( only the developed economies will supposedly be subjected to prosecution) is i know what will in fact transpire and who will suffer most.
Hmm, if I didn't spend so much time in the 3rd world, I might agree.
And if you actually knew anything about the third world you would.
Maybe you should leave those mid city hotels and go see where the poor you are talking about actually lives?
But I'm willing to let people "do what they can, where they can" to make a difference.
And that's what they would do, thus avoiding starvation, if global capitalism did not rob of them of their means.
People in this country (Cambodia) don't starve to death because of western consumerism, they starve to death because of government incompetence and corruption.
And since they rarely elected them
and for the most part have to accept imperial agents and dictators of on or another stripe
it's hardly surprising that the people in charge are so frequently incompetent,
corrupt or generally unresponsive knowing that their standing in the country is being protected by those who benefit from the exploitation of people.
That story is often true in the third world in general. Forcing the government to ratify Kyoto won't prevent development here.
So you must believe to maintain your faith in the system of global capitalism that is killing people by over exploitation.
Kyoto might not prevent development but it will ensure that there are yet more methods to manipulate a foreign economy from the outside.
It will force the leadership to actually think about their people's best interests, instead of their own hip pocket.
Why would they think about anything but their hip pocket when they were not elected by the people
and have their positions as result of their support of foreign powers and or corporations?
How will responsible people ever get elected while corporations and the US national security state goes around the world destroying democracy
thus ensuring that their dominance continues and irresponsible overt/covert dictatorships remains the norm?
Actually, relying on your model, all it will do is give them another excuse to bash the west for preventing Cambodia's growth, instead of telling us where the $30bn or so they've had is gone and why there are H2 Hummers and Porsche Cayennes wearing military, police and state plates in a country where people do actually starve to death.
Why lend irresponsible people , that the CIA or state department chose in the first place,
so much money knowing that they will either mismanage it or simply steal it?
What would you do with 30 BN in 'foreign aid' when you undemocratic and corrupt intent were clear long before the CIA chose/state department chose you as 'their man' for a given country?
Why would you not continue enjoying the free ride safe in the knowledge that you will be bailed out or protected if 'the people' becomes too unruly trough starvation and worse?
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I don't blame the Burmese for their government, but I won't give mney to Burma in the hope that some may go to the people when I know that most will go into propping up the government that is causing the problem.
Which is exactly what foreign governments and agencies from various countries are in fact doing? Who really supports the Burmese dictators?
Now, there's a huge ethical debate in there, and I'm more than willing to admit the cost of my policy (if I could acutally enforce it) to the Burmese (and Shan, Karen et al) people, but the cost to them of keeping SCPD in power is far greater, compared to what could happen without them.
So you just have no trust in 'the people' or do you know what happens to people when they have the audacity to act democratically and succeed at it?
I don't think it's a great sin for us to want to keep ice at the poles,
And there is little evidence to suggest that weight of ice at the poles have changed much or at all.
rainforest in the Amazon,
Give depth relief to Brazil based on the understanding that logging must stop, NOW.
Since they were already well armed by the US in preceding decades they could probably enforce such a rule
and we know the Chinese basically stopped their logging activities ( 90% reduction in workers) when they realised the effect it was having on downstream populations during the wet seasons.
These things can be done with prompt political action
and the reason it is not being done is because they want to keep destroying the environment so they can blame us for it and demand that we stop driving around, baking our own meals and generally doing the things we WANT to.
the desert in North Africa,
The biggest are shrinking...
instead of Southern Europe,
So it's going to stop raining and we are suddenly going to lose the ability to work the land trough irrigation and fertilizers?
and the islands of Kiribati ABOVE the water.
Where they above water in the first place and by how many centimeters? Why not rather blame those on tectonic activity instead of trying to use it as evidence for rising sea levels?
Kiribati consists of about 32 atolls and one island (Banaba), with at least three in each hemisphere. The groups of islands are:
Banaba: an isolated island between Nauru and the Gilbert Islands.
Gilbert Islands: 16 atolls located some 930 miles (1,500 km) north of Fiji
Phoenix Islands: 8 atolls and coral islands located some 1,100 miles (1,800 km) southeast of the Gilberts
Line Islands: 8 atolls and one reef, located about 2,050 miles (3,300 km) east of the Gilberts.
According to the South Pacific Regional Environment Program, two small uninhabited Kiribati islets, Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea, disappeared underwater in 1999. The islet of Tepuka Savilivili (Tuvalu; not a Gilbertese name) no longer has any coconut trees due to salination. [2] The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that sea levels will rise by about half a meter (20 in) by 2100 due to global warming and a further rise would be inevitable. It is thus likely that within a century the nation's arable land will become subject to increased soil salination and will be largely submerged.[3]
Millions will starve if we force Kyoto on them? Tell me, where will you put them once their countries have completely desertified?
Why would countries 'desertify'?
If we stopped growing cash crops ( tobacco and all that)
and cattle feed we could feed the current world population a few times over
and desertification is only a threat if oil runs out ( and we have no evidence of that)
or if our governments choose not to implement all the dozens of alternatives.
We could desalinate salt water in any volumes if we so chose but since some people have decided that energy must be expensive, for reasons of social control,
we are not allowed to properly implement solar and wind power or to use other revolutionary 'sources'.
Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa don't need to industrialise with oil and coal-fired power to support their populations and maybe
No they do not but since few countries have the capitol to move to alternative sources , for which you will not get any investors or foreign aid, that's what they are FORCED to do to prevent their people from starvation.
just maybe, removing the "resource curse" will actually help billions of people that are currently starving BECAUSE they have oil to sell at $100 a barrel.
OIl should not cost not more than 50 USD a barrel ( at worse)
but even at 100 a barrel a USD is devaluing fast and thus easier to gain in global trade. People are not starving because oil prices are high
bu because they are forced into neo liberal capitalist 'development' that destroys jobs and leads to privatization and low wages for those that do manage to keep their jobs.
People are working as hard as ever but it's just becoming increasingly hard to gain the capitol
to buy food given the fact that you were either driven off your land by your friendly US backed puppet,
had to sell your land because you could not pay the 'taxes'
due to the fact that cheap US and European agri exports( due to massive subsidies to large corporations that are also destroying family farming in the US and Europe) destroyed the pricing structure of the food you were growing,
or not being able to gain sufficient wages or employment in the city slums you had to move to in your search for gainful employment.
It's not that people are stupid or lazy
but the fact that they have far less control over their lives than the CIA( or the agencies styled on them and funded by the same government) or US state department has.
And no, I'm not at all in favour of turning cropland over to the production of bio-fuel.
IF you think people are starving now you should give this Bio-Fuel plan a few years to get properly funded by the same old criminals....
But that doesn't mean the third world can't benefit from "alternative" fuel sources that are well-established, such as pig farm methane and landfill methane, while maintaining relatively neutral carbon footprints.
Since no one seems to want to pay them a living wage i would be surprised if anyone would choose to invest in making their 'footprint' 'carbon neutral'.
There are any number of ways to produce hydro-electricity that don't rely on massive dams which bring massive negative environmental impacts.
And your telling this to a person ( crazy according to you)
who believes in the fact that vacuum energy extraction devices have existed for a hundred years.
I KNOW how to solve the basic problems billions of people face in the world
but i also know who is preventing like minded people from achieving their goal of easing the suffering of their fellows.
But they don't make for huge projects, big stories and television documentaries that allow national leaders to show their people how they are "developing" their naitons.
As if the people's choice of candidates would need such propaganda to 'gain respect' from their people.