How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Employment Application   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Employment Application

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


25 posted 07-01-2009 02:21 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

No, LR. You really haven't addressed anything. You just throw out links that other people say, while making sure you don't commit yourself to anything.  I think one of the reasons for having the Alley is for people to voice their opinions. I certainly voice mine and will use links when necessary to bolster them. You simply use links and yours opinions are MIA.



If you'd like to start a thread about me Mike I wouldn't mind at all -- in fact I'd find it amusing -- I'm not too sure what Ron would say about that though -- and I'm pretty sure that I'm not the topic of this thread.

Now, if I direct you to a link it is for either one of two reasons -- either it contains the facts -- if we're addressing questions of fact -- or it already contains my opinion without the need for me to type or paste -- or take up Ron's server space, or violate copyright law.

Now -- if you want to take an issue with the content specifically stated in those links that might further require my input then I will.

Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I haven't answered.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


26 posted 07-01-2009 02:23 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Here’s my thoughts Mike.

Do you favor the cap-and trade bill?

Yes, it rewards companies that reduce emissions and penalises companies who do nothing. As long as the initial targets are reasonable and achievable it’s a fair system.

Do you believe in it's immediate need of passage?

Yes, the experts say we need to act now and I don’t have any evidence that they’re wrong.

Do you believe that the House's action of passing it without reading it is beneficial to the country?

In this case yes, if it saves the planet it has to be beneficial regardless of whether the outcome is reached more by blind ignorance than considered thought. The right choice is the right choice regardless of how it was made.

How do you feel about the checks and balances our government was founded on which has now deteriorated,  with congress rubber-stamping whatever Obama claims he wants  done NOW and not even bothering to read the bills, even though they quadruple the national debt?

In this case my reply is as above, in general though I don’t think the checks and balances have changed but if they have then it’s the system that’s wrong. What system do you suggest you replace your current one with?

Do you think it will raise taxes for the average family?

No, I think it will initially raise energy costs which will be somewhat offset by the revenue generated through the cap and trade system which has an inbuilt provision to subsidise low and medium income families.

  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


27 posted 07-01-2009 02:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'm  the king of flawed analogies, grinch

Your comparison of a patient facing death within a week from a burst appendix with carbon dioxide levels that may be harmful within 30-50 years is a good analogy, i suppose, and mine is flawed. Ok...

I would love to see a report from any scientist that states we may die from carbon dioxide within the next year....or even five...heck, let's go to ten. Show me that and your analogy is fine in my book.

LR...expected...and accepted. We can let it rest there.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


28 posted 07-01-2009 03:12 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Interesting answers, grinch, and I thank you for addressing them.

If you don't have any evidence that they are wrong, do you have any evidence that they are right?

I confess it's a little hard for me to believe you feel it is fine to pass without reading it. Are you saying everything in that bill is necessary to save the planet? We are talking about 1200 pages here, grinch. We have a saying over here "The devil is in the details". Perhaps you've heard of it? We may even have stolen it from you!   Anything can be buried in 1200 pages, sir, and you don't consider it being read by the people elected to serve in our best interests as a necessary thing? I must assume you feel the same way about the stimulus package, then. If Obama claimed it was necessary to stimulate the country then that should be enough and it didn't need to be read, either, even if it did triple the national debt? And, at the same time, you don't feel that our system of checks and balances is not in order with this administration?  No, the system is not wrong. Congress is not adhering to the system, which is the problem. The way it stands now, Obama sends a bill to Congress, demands that it be passed immediately, and congress passes it, without even reading it- which you feel is ok. There is no check and balance there.

"Hello. Mr. Grinch. My name is salesman Balladeer and I have an insurance plan that will cover all of your needs for the rest of your life. Just sign here."
"But what kind of policy is it?
"Are you deaf, man? I said it would cover all of your needs. Please sign here."
"Well, I'd like to read the policy first..."
"You don't NEED to read the policy! I've just told you that you need it! I've been selling insurance for 20 years. Are you doubting me?"
"Well, no, but...."
"But nothing! Sign the thing! I don't have all the time in the world here!"
"But how much does it cost?"
"Cost? Cost? It will cost you your life not to have it! That's the cost. Don't try my patience any longer. Sign!"
"Are there any details that I should know about...?"
"Details, schmetails! You have to have it and that's all there is to it. Now stop this bickering and SIGN!!!!!"

Would you buy that policy, grinch? No? But you advocate congress signing bills that will affect all of us, put us in debt, include details we are not privileged to have knowledge of, cost the country and the taxpayers billions of dollars.....and you consider it reasonable that congress not even have the time to read it first.

Subsidize low and medium income families? I've seen low. I haven't seen medium yet. Is this sort of like "Your check is in the mail?" There is talk that the money will be used to suppliment the new health care bill. Surely the taxpayers wouldn't complain if their rebate got diverted to fund health care, could they? That's the altruistic thing to do, right? That money can only go in so many directions....Al Gore's pockets being one of the first. Once the money goes into the government coffers, it is theirs. If you want to believe they are simply going to give it back, I still have 3 acres of swampland for sale cheap. Obama is on record as stating that electricity costs will "skyrocket", (his word). Yet you don't feel household incomes will be affected. Apparently you must feel that that these 'subsidies" that are supposed to be returned will cover the costs of the risen energy bills. An amazing belief...

Know what I believe? I believe you should hoist a Guiness or two and have a great evening!
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


29 posted 07-01-2009 03:27 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I think all this government intrusion, that will effect our pocketbooks and freedoms (from the kind of light bulbs we use to federal home inspections insuring new environmental standards of weatherproofing of windows and higher rated insulation in walls, etc., are met prior to being able to sell your home, and who knows what else is in that bill) is absolutely ridiculous to achieve a 1/10 of one degree decrease in temperature 100 years from now. There doesn't seem to be anything logical about that.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


30 posted 07-01-2009 03:48 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
We have a saying over here "The devil is in the details".


Apparently Mike you aren’t very good at adhering to it.

Your politicians pass bills without reading them, remember.



Your question was would it bother me if the bill passed without being read. The answer is no, I’d rather it passed without being read rather than be kicked out unread.

My personal choice, and probably closer to what actually happened, is that it was passed after being read. You haven’t after all offered any evidence that it wasn’t read

I like it when you turn on the sarcasm Mike, you’re quite good at it, but the reason I like it even more is that I’ve noticed that you’re apt to do it when you realise your argument doesn’t hold water.

Cheers btw.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


31 posted 07-01-2009 04:17 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Your politicians pass bills without reading them, remember.

EXACTLY my point! if the adhered to the checks and balances, adhered to the principles of their office, they WOULD read them. it's not the system, it's the politicians, or the party responsible.

My personal choice, and probably closer to what actually happened, is that it was passed after being read. You haven’t after all offered any evidence that it wasn’t read

Then your personal choice would be wrong, grinch. There is a lot of evidence that they DID NOT read them, including admissions from the congressmen attesting to that fact. Also, you may have missed where ONE copy was given for the entire HOUSE to read before voting, one copy for that many people to read, one copy 1200 pages long....and you prefer to believe they read it and then passed it. Please, sir, please. I understand that you go out of your way to excuse just about anything, but here you go out of the realm of even possibility and still attempt to excuse their actions, or non-actions.

They did not read the bills. By the sheer logistical and time-frame elements involved they could not have possibly read the bills. By their own admissions that they did not read the bills, it's a done deal that they did not read the bills, regardless of what your "personal choice that you feel confident is right" feels like.

You will say you accept immediate action on global warming simply because scientists said it and yet, where all facts dictate here that the bills were passed without being read, you don't care to accept it. Why do I see prejudice showing there?

Believe me, I can understand why you would feel they must have been read. In a civilized congress it sounds almost inconceivable that something like that could take place but guess what? It did. It should be a segment of a fiction novel but it is our president and his congress in action and rules of normalcy have been suspended. Obama says do it and they do it...plain and simple.

Eventually it will change as the congressmen will find that they have to choose between doing Obama's bidding blindly or being voted out of office by voters dissatisfied with results and shoddy practices. We may see that in the Senate as the cap and trade bill goes down in flames. We can only hope....

Btw, there was no flaw in my satirical example at all. That's the way it is, my friend.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


32 posted 07-01-2009 04:48 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

I find it hard to believe that nobody read it Mike because I’ve been reading it since October last year. Or to be more correct I read the original bill when it was first introduced and the subsequent amendments - and I’m not even a politician – or American.

  

I’ll take your word for it though – no politicians read it.

Seems a little far-fetched but hey-ho at least it made it through.

Here’s the original btw, in case you’d like to read it. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s2191is.txt.pdf

There’s not many devils in the final version either. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2191  

  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


33 posted 07-01-2009 05:00 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Your link shows 214 pages, grinch...seems like a thousand or so missing.

Yes, hey-ho. It passed. Forgive me if I hold my cheer.

If you read it through, you are a better man than what we have in congress...congrats.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


34 posted 07-01-2009 05:26 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Your link shows 214 pages, grinch...seems like a thousand or so missing.


Yeah that’s because it’s the original, the last posted version jumps to 550 pages due to the fact that they list all amended text line by line.

And so it continues until you end up with a a massive document where over two thirds is a description of what’s been changed.

1200 pages sounds like hard work, which is why detractors emphasis the number, calling it a 214 page document that’s been available since last October sounds less dramatic than a 1200 page document that politicians only had 3.5 seconds to digest.

quote:
If you read it through, you are a better man than what we have in congress


I’m a little odd in that respect - I like to know a little about what I’m talking about before I debate it.

[This message has been edited by Grinch (07-01-2009 05:59 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


35 posted 07-01-2009 09:06 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

LR...expected...and accepted. We can let it rest there.



Great!  Then you're in agreement with all of the information and opinions I provided.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


36 posted 07-01-2009 10:26 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I think it might be useful to review Chris Moody's 2005 Book, [i]The Republican War on Science[i].

     Flaws?  Yes — it doesn't spent much time talking about what Democrats have done with science that might be less than wonderful; but it was written in the middle of a Republican administration and it was addressing some issues that nobody much wanted to hear about at that time:  About what the then current administration was doing to subvert the proper use of science as a honest counselor for governmental policy and decision making.

     Many efforts at that time were made to bring the issues of global warming and climate change to public awareness, some of them well documented by Moody.  Even a single quick and dirty reading of the book, with a real understanding that it has underplayed Democratic flaws, still shows the notion that efforts to make the changes in government policy that many Republicans now complain are too sudden and totally unexpected and surprising and radical and new to be at the very least a major distortion reality and of the history of these issues.

     It is not only Democrats that have urged the country to look at these issues of climate, but also the great preponderance of not only the scientists but of the scientific evidence that has appeared in peer reviewed scientific journals.

     I urge people not to believe me but to check out the evidence from these places, not from politically biased sources from either left or right.

     Check out Moody as a starting place, see which journals he quotes are peer reviewed, and follow up from there.  Make sure that there is no religious or industrial affiliation to the journal as best you can, left or right.  If you find other sources, do the same.

     I find LR's references fairly convincing here, simply because they seem to be fact-checked.  

     I would find Mike's attacks on Vice President Gore more telling if 1) I thought them true and based on more than hearsay evidence.  I haven't seen such proof yet.  2) If I thought that making a profit was a crime when the well being of others was not on the line. 3) If I thought that Mike was actually upset at the possibility that somebody — anybody — might actually do such as thing when they were out of office, as opposed to his upset being merely a way of displaying anger at a well thought of Democrat.  Mike had shown no such upset about Vice President Cheney's advocating for the company for which he was formerly CEO in its acquiring of many many billions of no bid contracts both related to the Iraq war and to domestic projects having to do with Katrina, or with Donald Rumsfeld potentially making a large windfall from his recommendation of Tamaflue as treatment for a possible flu epidemic several years back.  Had Mike's objection been to all these situations, I might take his anger at Vice President Gore's alleged profit taking more seriously, especially since Gore was not in office at this time, near as I remember.  Perhaps my memory is poor, though.

     The Democrats, being a political organization, will always have things to make amens for.  Suggesting that we do something about energy problems, climate problems and such in a sudden manner is not one of them.  The Republicans have tried to pretend these problems weren't there, didn't exist or weren't important for many years now.  Being put in a position where they can't pretend any more doesn't mean that these things just started to exist with the Obama administration.  Nor does it mean that if the Republican can convince folks to act as though these problems aren't vital now, that the Republicans won't pretend the next time we hold their feet to the fire that they are totally surprised, and why hadn't they been informed of this before?

     Now is better.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


37 posted 07-02-2009 08:09 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Only 52 scientists agreed to IPCC 2007 summary report linking human CO2 to global warming. In contrast, 650 scientists have publicly announced their disagreement with the theory of man-made global warming. In addition, 31,000 American scientists/researchers have signed the Oregon Petition stating their direct opposition to the Kyoto global warming agreement. Approximately 17,000 signers have a PhD or a M.S. (additional details of signers listed http://www.c3headlines.com/quotes-from-global-warming-critics-skeptics-sceptics.html

A recent poll of 530 climatologists in 27 countries showed 34.7 percent of interviewees endorsed the notion that a substantial part of the current global warming trend - which might see temperatures rise by a degree or two, on average, by century's end - is caused by man's industrial activities: driving cars and the like.

More than a fifth - 20.5 percent - rejected this "anthropogenic hypothesis." Half were undecided. The skeptics now include the 85 climate experts who signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration; the 4,000 scientists from around the world (including 70 Nobel laureates) who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, and the 17,000 American scientists who signed the Oregon Petition.
http://www.articlesbase.com/environment-articles/global-warming-silencing-the-critics-562890.html

I had no idea there were so many scientists weighing in on global warming! Let's do the math. Grinch, who always researches his facts, states that 84% of the scientists support the fact that man has a hand in global warming. 85+4000+17000 listed above - including the 70 Nobel laureates - do not.  If 21,085 (at least) do not and they represents 16% of the scientists, then that means there are over 126,000 who have voiced their opinions in favor of it. That's over 147,000, not counting those who didn't weigh in either way. There must be more scientists than there are lawyers! (a mind boggling possibility!)

What do some of these dissenters think?

Quote by  Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”x

Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Physics, Ivar Giaever: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”x

Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Chemistry, Kary Mullis: “Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple.

Quote by Martin Keeley, geology scientist: “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.”x

Quote by Eduardo Tonni, paleontologist, Committee for Scientific Research, Argentina: “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”

Quote by James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist: "Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story."

Quote by Ian McQueen, chemical engineer: "Carbon dioxide is not the bogeyman - there are other causes that are much more likely to be causing climate change, to the extent that it has changed....Carbon dioxide does have a small warming effect, McQueen said, but 32 per cent of the first few molecules do the majority of the warming. The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, he said, is currently at 380 parts per million; if that were upped to 560 parts per million, Earth's temperature would only rise about 0.3 degrees.”

Quote by Art Raiche, former chief research scientist, Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization: “The suppression of scientific evidence that contradicts the causal link between human-generated CO2 and climate has been of great concern to ethical scientists both here in Australia and around the world....The eco-hysteria that leads the Greens, as well as the left-leaning media, to attack any person who attempts to publish science that contradicts their beliefs is a gross example of the dangerous doctrine that the end justifies the means.”

Quote by W.J. “Bill” Collins, professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences-James Cook University: “As the climate change debate moves from the scientific to the political, it is important to stay with the facts. The bottom line is that humans cannot prevent global warming. Therefore, we should not be forced into emissions trading schemes, or any other scheme that sacrifices Australia’s economic advantage and standard of living for the wrong reasons....Sure, let us try to lessen our environmental impact and develop a sustainable economy, but we should not be carried away by misconceptions about what is driving climate change. It’s with the Earth itself.”

Quote by  Roger W. Cohen, physics, American Physical Society fellow: “I retired four years ago, and at the time of my retirement I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC's case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is....I was also appalled at the behavior of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC process and the science process itself.”

Quote by Tom Kondis, chemist, a consultant with practical experience in absorption and emission spectroscopy: “To support their argument, advocates of man-made global warming have intermingled elements of greenhouse activity and infrared absorption to promote the image that carbon dioxide traps heat near earth's surface like molecular greenhouses insulating our atmosphere. Their imagery, however, is seriously flawed....The fictitious ‘trapped heat’ property, which they
aggressively promote with a dishonest ‘greenhouse gas’ metaphor, is based on their misrepresentation of natural absorption and emission energy transfer processes and disregard of two fundamental laws of physics.”

Quote by Bob Ashworth, chemical engineer, 16 U.S. patents, has written 55 technical papers, American Geophysical Union, authored a 2008 technical analysis of global warming: “The lesson to the world here is, when it comes to science, never blindly accept an explanation from a politician or scientists who have turned political for their own private gain. Taxing carbon will have absolutely no beneficial effect on our climate, will hurt the economies of the world, and will be harmful to the production of food because less carbon dioxide means reduced plant growth.”


Now, Bob seems to feel I go after Al Gore because he's a Democrat. Let's see what some others say, far more intelligent than I.

Why is it that Al Gore won’t debate anyone over this global warming oops climate change issue? Why is it Al Gore always responds with a dismissive, “the debate is over the matter is settled” every time he is challenged over climate change? Settled? THOUSANDS of real scientists, which Gore is not in fact he earned a D in Natural Science as a sophomore and a C+ as a junior at Harvard, are either skeptical or completely dismiss this whole climate change nonsense as nothing but a politically driven scam.
Perhaps Gore is afraid of suffering a big dent in his 100 million dollar cash cow if he goes toe to toe with someone that actually knows what they are talking about and gets his head handed to him on live television.

Washington, DC — UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
http://www.just-a-regular-guy.com/2009/04/24/democrat-hacks-deny-uk-global-warming-critic-opportunity-to-confront-al-gore/

LR decided to ridicule Carlin for not being a scientist and yet Gore, who is not even close to a scientist and couldn't even manage better than a C grade in college, supposedly is the man to listen to.  There are many, many other comments from respected people I could list here for Bob, concerning their feelings for the "flim flam" man, but why bother? Gore will run from any actual scientist offering to debate his findings. He is making millions from companies he has set up to benefit from the man-made global warming crisis he has created. I would not care if he were democrat, republican, nazi or one of the original 12 desciples. He is a man to be despised for the hysteria he has perpetrated for his own profit.

Now is better, Bob? You, and the others who buy into that, have my sympathy.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


38 posted 07-02-2009 03:12 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“Waxman-Markey is part power-grab, part enviro-fantasy. Here are 50 reasons to stop it.”


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTc1MmVhMGYxY2UzNzAwMTJlODBjZjg2NDJjNmM2MWE=&w=MA   ==


It’s really obscene . . .
If Bush had tried this he would
have been jailed.


.

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (07-02-2009 08:22 PM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


39 posted 07-02-2009 03:14 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Grinch, who always researches his facts,


It’s generally a good policy otherwise you can easily be misled.

For instance when I was researching I found that most of the lists claiming to contain the views of informed scientists actually contained scientists from fields totally unconnected with meteorology. Some didn’t even contain scientists at all. The online petition for instance apparently allows you to state your profession -  Like nobody makes stuff up on the interweb – right?

I discounted them as being useless.

My figures came from a poll of climate scientists from the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science.

They seemed like the right flavour of experts when it came to global warming.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


40 posted 07-02-2009 03:16 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Oh what the heck -- let's just save some time -- I would just post the link -- but I know how much you like that Mike -- so today I'll irritate Ron by reposting everything instead    

Post 30 me:
quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hmmm...need qualifications to make comments valid, LR? Ok, then....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an opinion is going to be offered as 'expert' -- yes qualifications are required Mike.

You don't really want to get into a numbers game do you Mike?  Naw.  You know you'll lose.  You'd just like to see us earthy green types spend a lot of carbon footprint wasting our time doing research and posting information that you'll promptly ignore.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are right, Tom. There are many experts on both sides on this topic which raises an interesting point. How can something considered to be  so completely factual by the UN, Al Gore, and many governments have so many professional dissenters on the other side? Certainly the fact alone that there are so many on both sides would indicate that it is not as clear as some would have you believe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't interesting at all Mike.  Remeber all those doctors who used to tell us that smoking was healthy?  And then raised 'questions' for decades about the conclusive link between smoking and cancer?  Sure you do.

Oh yeah -- and those 'scientists' who used to say that we didn't know for sure that nuclear radiation was bad for us?  ROFL

You crack me up Mike.

You really do.  



Post 31 me:
quote:

Oh what the heck -- since this is all fun and games -- why not throw out a few links for you to ignore Mike... http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=74   http://www.petroretail.net/uploads/featurearticles/2006/npnMarketPulse/111506_mp2.asp[/UR    L]  

For what it's worth your Heartland Institute takes money from the Tobacco industry too to try to influence Tobacco policy.

You just keep cracking me up Mike.    



Post 33 me:
quote:

Have some more punchlines then Tom! [URL=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science
   http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute  



Post 35 Mike:
quote:

Yep, I remember the doctors, LR, and John Wayne and his cigarette ads....what a jerk he was, the Duke. I also remember using chlordane to treat houses and asbestos to insulate schools. The point? I also remember the scientists in the eighties warning us of the impending global cooling, which has now been revised to global warming. Perhaps one day someone will say "Remember those idiot scientists and doomsayers who warned us of global warming?" Time will tell..

I only ignore you, LR, when you decide to head off in different paths to avoid addressing issues or responses, just as you have conveniently ignored the last posts I made here and poo-pooed the credentialed scientists and their testimonies. The Heartland Institute? What can the scientists who support them know. They accept funding from tobacco companies!   Hey, if you can't trash the message, trash the messenger, right? Your submitting a no smoking campaign thread into a  global warming/Kyoto protocol subject is about as clever as getting a waterboarding link into a pledge allegiance one. Perhaps you think that sarcasm and personal insults will smokescreen out the rest. Well, they always say the best defense is a good offense. The scientists for global warming are geniuses and those against are just amatures with lousy opinions who would probably condone waterboarding.

As for me, I can rest easy in my grave knowing I have brought laughter and amusement to you and your sidekick    I can live with that (until the global warming gets me        



Post 36 Mike:
quote:

Oh, and for the record, I have no friends at the Heartland Institute, do not know any ofthe 60 scientists listed who sent the letter to the Canadian PM, and know no one at the CATO Institute, who submitted the following....

STATEMENT of

Patrick J. Michaels
Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, and Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at Cato Institute

On the Kyoto Protocol before the

Committee on Small Business
United States House of Representatives
Kyoto Protocol: "A useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty"

July 29, 1998

Thank you for soliciting my testimony on the science of climate change as it pertains to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Nearly ten years ago, I first testified on climate change in the U.S. House of Representatives. At that time, I argued that forecasts of dramatic and deleterious global warming were likely to be in error because of the very modest climate changes that had been observed to that date. Further, it would eventually be recognized that this more moderate climate change would be inordinately directed into the winter and night, rather than the summer, and that this could be benign or even beneficial. I testified that the likely warming, based on the observed data, was between 1.0 and 1.5�C for doubling the natural carbon dioxide greenhouse effect.

The preceding paragraph was excerpted verbatim from my last testimony before this House, on November 6, 1997. Since that last testimony, new scientific advances have been published in the refereed literature that have now proven the validity of this position. The key findings include:

    * Documentation that observed climate change is several times below the amount predicted by the climate models that served as the basis for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (Hansen et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that observed changes are largely confined to winter in the very coldest continental airmasses of Siberia and northwestern North America (Balling et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that the variation, or unpredictability, of regional temperatures has declined significantly on a global basis while there was no change in precipitation (Michaels et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that, in the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased (Lins and Slack, 1997),

    * Documentation that carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below the most conservative United Nations� scenarios, because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation (Hansen et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that the second most important human greenhouse enhancer�methane�is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years (Dlugokencky et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated (Myhre et al., 1998), and

    * Documentation that the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will have no discernable impact on global climate within any reasonable policy timeframe (Wigley, 1998).

In toto, these findings lead inescapably to the conclusion that the magnitude and the threat from global warming is greatly diminished. They should provoke a re-examination of the need for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol.

In conclusion, the observed data on climate and recent emissions trends clearly indicate that the concept of "dangerous" interference in the climate system is outmoded within any reasonable horizon. This makes the Kyoto Protocol a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty. It is time to reconsider the Framework Convention.


I don't even know anyone atthe National Academy of Sciences...

From 1998 through 2007 the Oregon Petition ("Global Warming Petition"), sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, was signed by 17,200 scientists including 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists. It urged the US to reject the Kyoto Protocol.



Post 38 Mike:
quote:

Tom, if you bother to re-read the findings of all the scientists which the Cato report made public, you will see that they were made in 1998. Bush was not president and there was a Democrat in the White House. If you are going to yell BUSH and REPUBLICANS at least get your facts a little straighter  

Same goes for the 17,000+ scientists who signed the Oregon Petition, which covered 1998-2007.



Post 42 and 43 Me:
quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I only ignore you, LR, when you decide to head off in different paths to avoid addressing issues or responses, just as you have conveniently ignored the last posts I made here and poo-pooed the credentialed scientists and their testimonies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Mike -- you're the one, by going back to the same old arguments that have been asked and answered that is being personally insulting and sarcastic by ignoring the factual data that's been provided.

You can say -- "but what about this study? or that scientist?" until the cows come home -- but it doesn't matter because dissent is already stipulated -- it is consensus of the Scientific community that is not impressed by the dissenting conclusions -- they aren't peer reviewed and the data isn't persuasive Mike -- 30 National Academy of Sciences around the globe have endorsed the IPCC report on Anthropogenic Global Warming -- until someone can put a dent in that with some conclusive data -- then they are just whistling Dixie.

In fact -- the credentialed scientists who oppose the IPCC report is so short it can be listed:
wiki/List of scientists opposing global warming

Now you may want to say that the IPCC report and the endorsement of it by the scientists of the world is a conspiracy like Micheal Crichton or many others would like to suggest -- Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

but, the problem with conspiracies is that someone always cracks -- like, say -- Scott McClellan in the cover-up of the outing of Valerie Plame; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312349,00.html  


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Heartland Institute? What can the scientists who support them know. They accept funding from tobacco companies!   Hey, if you can't trash the message, trash the messenger, right? Your submitting a no smoking campaign thread into a  global warming/Kyoto protocol subject is about as clever as getting a waterboarding link into a pledge allegiance one. Perhaps you think that sarcasm and personal insults will smokescreen out the rest. Well, they always say the best defense is a good offense. The scientists for global warming are geniuses and those against are just amatures with lousy opinions who would probably condone waterboarding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is something in logic called comparison and analysis Mike.  We can, for instance -- look at two bodies in space and see how they may be different or similar. What we know about one thing can tell us something about the other.

We can also look at the similarities between the way big Tobacco and Big Oil are pursuing the disinformation campaigns -- using the same tactics and even the same organizations like --  Heartland -- You brought them into the thread Mike -- once again -- you want to pick up the marbles when it shoots you in the foot.

Now -- if you think that big oil money funding studies to attempt to debunk the IPCC report doesn't taint  that study then you're not a very good scientist -- or engineer.

But, all of this stuff is so easy to find on the web, and our previous conversations have lead me to wonder if you actually believe all the stuff you're posting here -- or if you're just trying to get a rise out of the audience -- or if you have a portfolio full of Exxon-Mobile and Phillip Morris stocks.  But since I know for a fact that you're you love to make a good joke -- I just assume you aren't serious -- so I'm still cracked up -- just as I used to be at those funny adults who used to think that I couldn't see them when they hid thier eyes from me and played peekaboo --


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also remember the scientists in the eighties warning us of the impending global cooling, which has now been revised to global warming. Perhaps one day someone will say "Remember those idiot scientists and doomsayers who warned us of global warming?" Time will tell..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you actually mean the seventies?
/wiki/Global_cooling

But it wasn't the scientific community -- as there was no consensus -- there were a few indidividual reports that the media distorted out of proportion -- particularly Newsweek.  But, the Academy of Sciences clearly stated they didn't know enough at that time to even form a consensus -- but instead reccomended the issue needed to be studied.

And in recent posts - you even want to go back to Al Gore's house vs. Bush's house -- even though the source you provided clearly outlined Gore's position of carbon neutrality -- it doesn't matter if he uses a billion killowatt hours per month Mike if he isn't producing any carbon.

But, let's once again assume that Al Gore is hypocritical -- it doesn't change the facts of global warming any more than Henry Hyde's or Newt Gingrich's extramarital affairs meant that Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman -- Monica Lewinsky.

And, in regards to post 36 -- do you want to argue whether Anthropogenic Global Warming exists -- as John and now apparently Pete do -- or do you want to talk about the efficacy of Kyoto?  They are two different issues.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's just the kind of garbage all global warming harpies espouse as the argument to cut of discussion. Well, it don't work. There are also plenty of highly respected scientists who disagree. No, the discussion and decision is far from over.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus    




Post 44 Mike:
quote:

We can also look at the similarities between the way big Tobacco and Big Oil are pursuing the disinformation campaigns -- using the same tactics and even the same organizations like --  Heartland -- You brought them into the thread Mike -- once again -- you want to pick up the marbles when it shoots you in the foot.
Now -- if you think that big oil money funding studies to attempt to debunk the IPCC report doesn't taint  that study then you're not a very good scientist -- or engineer.

LR, you can use the big oil and big tobacco fundings to make Heartland and the Cato Instututes prejudiced if you wish, and you may even be partially right, but that has little to do with the reports, unless you are claiming that the 500 scientists Heartland quoted, the 17000 Cato quoted and the 60 that sent their letter and recommendations to the Canadian PM all belong to those institutions.....which they don't. The only thing Heartland and Cato did was to take this information from acclaimed scientists with impeccable credentials and make them public, something the mainstream media failed (call it refused) to do. You label it disinformation so I must assume that you consider it some conspiracy these 18000 scientists are all banded together to fool the public with.

And, in regards to post 36 -- do you want to argue whether Anthropogenic Global Warming exists -- as John and now apparently Pete do -- or do you want to talk about the efficacy of Kyoto?  They are two different issues.

Glad you mentioned that. They are definitely two different issues. Global warming certainly exists. It has existed since the beginning of time, taking turns with global cooling. The question is (1) is the man-made protion of it significant and (2) would the Kyoto protocol help to curb it?  I have addressed this in several replies throughout the thread to point out that the Kyoto Protocol is the subject matter at hand...

Reply 0.......whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

Reply 3.......Tom, I wasn't referring to liberal/conservatives but rather the Kyoto treaty.

Reply 7........Tomtoo, I could go on for hours about the Kyoto protocol but let me just say that (1) it hurts the economy of the developed nations (2) it stunts growth of the undeveloped nations (3) it causes the undeveloped nations to demand compensation from the developed ones for not allowing them to develop (4) it has not been working (5) it tries to solve a non-problem, according to many hundreds of scientists around the world. That's enough for starters....

Reply 14...... the document agreed upon in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December is a flawed one: it has none of the drastic emissions curbs scientists say are essential in averting climate chaos.  Given the long list of caveats, it is no wonder that Greenpeace's Bill Hare labels the Kyoto outcome a 'tragedy and a farce'.

Reply 22.......Yet, this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto, and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based.

Reply 36.......This makes the Kyoto Protocol a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty. It is time to reconsider the Framework Convention.

After all of those references I made, you now ask me if I want to argue global warming or Kyoto? Perhaps it's you who have been doing the ignoring?    The IPCC links you just offered concern global warming only and nothing to do with Kyoto at all.



Post 45 me:
quote:

Nope not ignoring -- just clarifying.

Post 0 you only focus on Kyoto.

Post 15 John goes off into Anthropogenic Climate Change.

I answer him.

You answer me.

Then you switch back to Kyoto.

So -- you've clarified -- you want to talk about both.  I've only talked about anthropogenic climate change and haven't made any arguments pro or con on Kyoto.  - Which is why I don't understand 36.

And, if you choose not to ignore the information -- you'll see that Heartland is actively involved with the Oil and Tobacco industry and has board members from the said same, Mike -- the same companies that fund those scientists -- yep -- that is a conspiracy -- but like all conspiracies it's hard to keep it a secret -- except the mainstream media just doesn't cover it do they?  

It's a good damn thing Al Gore invented the internets!  

This enables you to look further into those '18,000' "scientists" -- the 60 and the 500 -- and see that it isn't above board.

The nature of science is that there will always be variance in opinion -- and there will be a consensus -- but the process is tainted when -- let's say the mainstream media blows a single report out of proportion like Rasool's and Mitchell's because it sells newspapers -- or when the Oil companies fund 'studies' to throw sand in the public's face -- sometimes it reminds me a little of Baghdad Bob -- which is again why I laugh.

It's all amazingly simply laid out at Wiki Mike -- maybe you should write to those 18,000 'scientists' and tell them to add thier names to the list -- they're just scientists after all -- they probably don't know about wikipedia?



post 46 Mike:
quote:

he same companies that fund those scientists -- yep -- that is a conspiracy

So you are saying, then, that either Heartland or the oil companies are funding those nearly 20,000 scientists? Iassume you can provide another link for that?

but the process is tainted when -- let's say the mainstream media blows a single report out of proportion

Now I'm the one who is laughing....no, guffawing and rolling on the floor holding my sides. That's exactly what  the mainstream media has been doing for the past 7 years. If you don't believe me, ask Dan Rather.

maybe you should write to those 18,000 'scientists' and tell them to add thier names to the list -- they're just scientists after all -- they probably don't know about wikipedia?

A typical response, sadly. If you can't refute them, insult and trash them. That's what the left does. They ignore a man's 30 year record in service and, if they don't want him to be a judge, they find a point to trash him, ignoring his record. If General Petrakas (sp) gives opinions they don't want to hear, they ignore his sterling military record for three decades and try to discredit and trash him.  These 18,000 scientist who hold many of the absolute top positions in the scientific world, who have spent their lives in scientific research and matters, if they don't share the same opinions as what you want to hear, insult and trash them. Yes, they are "just scientists", LR. You have the right to wonder if they know Wikipedia exists....why not?

You bring up the Heartland funding again as if that's the key issue which makes everything suspect. I'd like to see the stock holdings of Kerry, Gore, Edwards, Kennedy and the boys to see how much stock they hold in those same oil and tobacco companies.....so what's the point?

If I hate my neighbor and I see him robbing a bank and turn him in, does my dislike of him taint the charge? Will you be the defense attorney who says "You just turned him in because you don't like him, right?" Maybe I did but that doesn't invalidate the action.  You can blast Heartland for their funding all you want and you can insult  the integrity and intelligence of 18000 scientists if you wish....I wouldn't expect any less - or more.



Post 48 Mike:
quote:

it doesn't matter if he uses a billion killowatt hours per month Mike if he isn't producing any carbon.....referring to Gore.

Lr. you have outdone yourself. That is the most incredible statement I;ve seen coming from your golden fingers. The lengths you go to to justify actions by the Gores and Edwards of your world are remarkable.

In an Inconvenient Truth Gore implores the world to cut back on energy use. I didn't hear of him mentioning use all of the energy you want as long as you don't have a carbon footprint.  Why doesn't Gore have a carbon footprint? Simple - he buys carbon-offsets, those handy little items which allow you to use up as much energy and produce as much carbon as you want as long as you donate to companies that are working to reduce carbon in the world. Putting aside the fact that the company he bought the carbon-offsets from he has a major share in which means he was basically paying himself, let me ask you this. Did the carbon-offsets he bought eliminate the carbon that he produced? Did it just up and vanish? Now you see it, now you don't?

I'm sure Gore would be happy to know you have given him your approval  to use a billion per month as long as he doesn't produce carbon.  Problem is, you can't do that without producing carbon and paying yourself for a free pass makes no difference to the environment you claim to be trying to protect.



Post 59 me:
quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't believe the solution to pollution is going to be an appeal to self-sacrifice, but rather, a leveraging of self-interest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ding ding ding ding ding ding -- Ron wins the green star... as it were....

Here again -- the Right wants to paint us into picturing the choices between status quo oil burning (think BP's 'green' advertising featuring a woman who says she doesn't want to give up her car) and becoming luddites.  Granted - we even have a luddite or two at this pub.

Amy illustrates quite well how well the big oil money campaign to just confuse is working -- somehow I don't think she's more concerned about Beyonce's arm pits or Paris Hilton's mating habits -- yet -- the entire scope of trying to understand the science is just overwhelming.

As I've pointed out numerous times before -- the solution to science problems is science.  Unfortunately -- policy becomes embroiled in the issue.  And, when there is a buck to be made -- and a market protected -- it's better to obfuscate and stall and make sure that all the oil gets pumped out of the ground and sold -- Ron -- you really, really, don't believe there aren't any evil people involved here do you?

And Mike -- if you really care about getting to the truth about the Oregon Petition -- I've left the cookie crumbs for you to follow.

Here are your questions for study;

How many of the signatories are climatologists or even in the physical sciences?

What is the National Academy of Science's position on the Oregon Petition?

Who is the principle author of the OP?  What are his credentials?

Who are the secondary authors? What institute are they tied to?  

What oil company do they work for?

Oops -- that last one just slipped out.

Now -- everyone dream tonite of a bacteria that belches hydrogen.....and what do we get when we burn hydrogen?  Ah -- yes -- water -- without carbon......



Post 60 Mike:
quote:

So why all the resistance? Why all the argument? Whether or not "climate change" is the issue, why wouldn't we want clean, renewable sources of energy?

Well said, hush. The question is whether the Kyoto Protocol is the answer or even necessary.

LR, well, you're consistent. Instead of answering questions you throw out links like confetti and bread crumbs and say go find the answers...thanks anyway.


http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/001603.html

More later --
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


41 posted 07-02-2009 04:35 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Lord Christopher Monckton!

I know him, well I know of him, he’s the bright spark that said this:

quote:
.... there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently


He also invented the Eternity puzzle and offered anyone who could solve it 1 million euros – then struggled to raise the money when some unemployed bloke cracked it.

Well that's two good reasons not to listen to a word he says.

BTW he was a policy advisor not a science advisor.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


42 posted 07-02-2009 07:07 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I discounted them as being useless.

Very convenient of you, Grinch. I assume you are referring to "them" as the 650 scientists that publicly announced their disagreement with the theory of man-made global warming.  I assume you are referring to the number of climatologists in the 27 countries that disagreed with the man-made global warming theory. You rely on the American Meteorlogical Institute? Maybe you missed this fellow...

Quote by James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist: "Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story."

Or maybe you just write him off as a renegade dissident.

Me:  Do you believe in it's immediate need of passage?
You:  Yes, the experts say we need to act now and I don’t have any evidence that they’re wrong.


By the experts I assume you mean the ones you want to listen to and the rest of the thousands, regardless of their positions or knowledge can simply be ignored or disregarded. Ok. it's your right to pick and choose the ones you want to follow and even your right to trash the rest if they present dissenting views. Btw, I wonder if  the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union are government-funded? James Spaan hit the nail on the head. Support global warming and hold out your hands to receive your part of the billions of grant money the government is passing out....such a deal!

LR... perhaps a small reduction of caffeine may be in order? Just a thought.....
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


43 posted 07-02-2009 07:55 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

John, that is an exceptional article, regardlesss of the fact that it will probably not be read. I read it, though, and found it very logical and informative. Thank you, sir..
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


44 posted 07-02-2009 08:16 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Mike,


Thank you
I'm also confident it will be ignored.


John

.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


45 posted 07-02-2009 09:59 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Obviously Mike -- you believe in recycling

quote:

Support Deny global warming and hold out your hands to receive your part of the billions of grantblood money the governmentbig oil is passing out....such a deal!



quote:

By the experts I assume you mean the ones you want to listen to and the rest of the thousands, regardless of their positions or knowledge can simply be ignored or disregarded. Ok. it's your right to pick and choose the ones you want to follow and even your right to trash the rest if they present dissenting views.



quote:

Kaysing joined the Navy in 1940 as a Midshipman and eventually was sent to officers' training school which led to his attending University of Southern California [1]. In 1949 he received his Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of Redlands. He later worked for a time as a furniture maker, before working at Rocketdyne (a division of North American Aviation and later of Rockwell International), (1956-1963), where Saturn V rocket engines were built. Kaysing was the company's head of technical publications

Kaysing asserted that during his tenure at Rocketdyne he was privy to documents pertaining to the Mercury, Gemini, Atlas, and Apollo programs, arguing that one does not need an engineering or science degree to determine that a hoax was being perpetrated. Even before July 1969, he had "a hunch, an intuition, ... a true conviction" and decided that he didn't believe that anyone was going to the moon (Kaysing 2002:7). Kaysing wrote a book entitled We Never Went to the Moon, which was self-published in 1974, listing Randy Reid as a coauthor (Plait 2002:157). It was republished in 2002 by Health Research Books, with no coauthor listed. In his book, Kaysing introduced arguments which he said proved the moon landings were faked.

Claims in the book and subsequent sources include:

        * NASA lacked the technical expertise to put a man on the moon.
        * The absence of stars in lunar surface photographs. (Kaysing 2002:20,21,22,23,24)
        * The film used by astronauts on the moon should have melted due to the supposed high levels of radiation.[citation needed]
        * Unexplained optical anomalies in the photographs taken on the moon.(Kaysing 2002:23,25)
        * The undulating flags seen in video clips seem incompatible with a vacuum.
        * The absence of blast craters beneath the lunar modules. Their rocket engines should have blasted away tons of moon dust in the final seconds of descent.

Kaysing also claimed that NASA staged both the Apollo 1 fire and the Challenger accident, deliberately murdering the astronauts on board. He suggested that NASA might have learned that these astronauts were about to expose the conspiracy and needed to guarantee their silence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Kaysing

Kaysing worked as a technical writer for a company involved in the Apollo missions. During this time, Kaysing claims, NASA carried out a feasibility study which found they had only a 0.0017 per cent chance of landing a man on the moon and returning him to earth. Kaysing believes it was impossible for NASA to go from 0.0017 to 100 per cent by 1969. Some people believe Kaysing has a point. If Americans could get to the moon with 1960's technology, it wouldbe easy for us to get to the moon today. However, all nations have extreme difficultly putting an object into a high Earth orbit .All of the missions to the moon had to pass the through the Van Allen Radiation Belt. But the only way to get through it was if you had 6 feet thick of lead covering the ship. They had none. The radiation can pass through many things, especially the ship and space suits. Also I found a site that had a lot of info about the VARB (Van Allen Radiation Belt) and it showed a graph of the amount of radiation was caused by the VARB around 1969. It showed that in exactly 1969 was the time when the amount of radiation was almost at the worst possible. It also said that the Russians sent animals through (they all died) and found that it was impossible to go through and live. The Apollo missions spent about 4hrs. each in the VARB. And Apollo was the only space program that had to go through the VARB. So this shows that could never even get near the moon.
http://www.billkaysing.com/theory.php


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


46 posted 07-02-2009 10:16 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Yes, John, thank you for that informative article.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


47 posted 07-02-2009 10:31 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

THE TOP 40
REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001

... An outline in simple talking points ...
THE DAY ITSELF - EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY

1) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.

2) Air Defense Failures
a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
c. Was there an air defense standdown?

3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

4) Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?

5) Flight 93
Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?


THE DAY - POSSIBLE SMOKING GUNS

6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?

7) Demolition Hypothesis
What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See "The Case for Demolitions," the websites wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.)

FOREKNOWLEDGE & THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS

8) What did officials know? How did they know it?
a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.
b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.
c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

9) Able Danger, Plus - Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers
a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities - including the CIA, the US military''s "Able Danger" program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.
b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another coincidence.

10) Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11
A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration''s order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O''Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)

11) Insider Trading
a. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally - including but not limited to "put options" placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.
b. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks.
c. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).

12) Who were the perpetrators?
a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the "magic passport" of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.
b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had "doubles," all of which is omitted from official investigations.
c. What happened to initial claims by the government that 50 people involved in the attacks had been identified, including the 19 alleged hijackers, with 10 still at large (suggesting that 20 had been apprehended)? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-worldtrade-50suspects,0,1825231.story


THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006

13) Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?
a. Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department''s translation of it is fraudulent.
b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dialysis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)?
c. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?
d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the "base" (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11?

14) All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up
a. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were "disappeared" and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).
c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
d. Officials who "failed" (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.

15) Poisoning New York
The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to an as-yet unknown number of health cases and fatalities, and demonstrates that the administration does consider the lives of American citizens to be expendable on behalf of certain interests.

16) Disposing of the Crime Scene
The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. (See also item no. 23, below.)

17) Anthrax
Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax - which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations - were traced back to US military stock. Soon after the attacks began in October 2001, the FBI approved the destruction of the original samples of the Ames strain, disposing of perhaps the most important evidence in identifying the source of the pathogens used in the mailings. Were the anthrax attacks timed to coincide with the Afghanistan invasion? Why were the letters sent only to media figures and to the leaders of the opposition in the Senate (who had just raised objections to the USA PATRIOT Act)?

18) The Stonewall
a. Colin Powell promised a "white paper" from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th.
b. Bush and Cheney pressured the (freshly-anthraxed) leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 9/11 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year.
c. The White House thereupon attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chief investigator, and acted to underfund and obstruct the 9/11 Commission.

19) A Record of Official Lies
a. "No one could have imagined planes into buildings" - a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush.
b. "Iraq was connected to 9/11" - The most "outrageous conspiracy theory" of all, with the most disastrous impact.

20) Pakistani Connection - Congressional Connection
a. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally to both the CIA and "al-Qaeda," allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to September 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to "al-Qaeda.")
b. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the senator and congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.
c. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was redacted, including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly behind it) was financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the alleged terror network, but that this would only come out in 30 years.

21) Unanswered Questions and the "Final Fraud" of the 9/11 Commission:
a. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.
b. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of "star witness" Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a "scam" and "whitewash."
c.The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods - ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being "of little practical significance."

22) Crown Witnesses Held at Undisclosed Locations
The alleged masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) and Ramzi Binalshibh, are reported to have been captured in 2002 and 2003, although one Pakistani newspaper said KSM was killed in an attempted capture. They have been held at undisclosed locations and their supposed testimonies, as provided in transcript form by the government, form much of the basis for The 9/11 Commission Report (although the Commission''s request to see them in person was denied). After holding them for years, why doesn''t the government produce these men and put them to trial?

23) Spitzer Redux
a. Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York State, snubbed pleas by New York citizens to open 9/11 as a criminal case (Justicefor911.org).
b. Spitzer also refused to allow his employee, former 9/11 Commission staff member Dietrich Snell, to testify to the Congress about his (Snell''s) role in keeping "Able Danger" entirely out of The 9/11 Commission Report.

24) NIST Omissions
After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not clear this up?)

25) Radio Silence
The 9/11 Commission and NIST both allowed the continuing cover-up of how Motorola''s faulty radios, purchased by the Giuliani administration, caused firefighter deaths at the WTC - once again showing the expendability, even of the first responders.

26) The Legal Catch-22
a. Hush Money - Accepting victims'' compensation barred September 11th families from pursuing discovery through litigation.
b. Judge Hallerstein - Those who refused compensation to pursue litigation and discovery had their cases consolidated under the same judge (and as a rule dismissed).

27) Saudi Connections
a. The 9/11 investigations made light of the "Bin Ladin Airlift" during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family fortune. (A company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George Bush Sr., James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.)
b. The issue of Ptech.

28) Media Blackout of Prominent Doubters
The official story has been questioned and many of the above points were raised by members of the US Congress, retired high-ranking officers of the US military, the three leading third-party candidates for President in the 2004 election, a member of the 9/11 Commission who resigned in protest, a former high-ranking adviser to the George W. Bush administration, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, 100 luminaries who signed the "9/11 Truth Statement," and the presidents of Iran and Venezuela. Not all of these people agree fully with each other, but all would normally be considered newsworthy. Why has the corporate-owned US mass media remained silent about these statements, granting due coverage only to the comments of actor Charlie Sheen?


GEOPOLITICS, TIMING AND POSSIBLE MOTIVES

29) "The Great Game"
The Afghanistan invasion was ready for Bush''s go-ahead on September 9, 2001, with US and UK force deployments to the region already in place or underway. This followed the failure earlier that year of backdoor diplomacy with the Taliban (including payments of $125 million in US government aid to Afghanistan), in an attempt to secure a unity government for that country as a prerequisite to a Central Asian pipeline deal.

30) The Need for a "New Pearl Harbor"
Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others) have been instrumental in developing long-running plans for worldwide military hegemony, including an invasion of the Middle East, dating back to the Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. They reiterated these plans in the late 1990s as members of the "Project for a New American Century," and stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of "regime change." After 9/11, they lost no time in their attempt to tie Iraq to the attacks.

31) Perpetual "War on Terror"
9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual "War on Terror," against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11.

32) Attacking the Constitution
a. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the "Shadow Government" were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.
b. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to "render" such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.

33) Legal Trillions
9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the "new" New Economy of "Homeland Security," biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc.

34) Plundered Trillions?
On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.

35) Did 9/11 prevent a stock market crash?
Did anyone benefit from the destruction of the Securities and Exchange Commission offices at WTC 7, and the resultant crippling of hundreds of fraud investigations?

36) Resource Wars
a. What was discussed in the Energy Task Force meetings under Dick Cheney in 2001? Why is the documentation of these meetings still being suppressed?
b. Is Peak Oil a motive for 9/11 as inside job?

37) The "Little Game"
Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?


HISTORY

38) "Al-CIA-da?"
The longstanding relationship between US intelligence networks and radical Islamists, including the network surrounding Osama Bin Ladin. (See also point 13d.)

39) Historical Precedents for "Synthetic Terror"
a. In the past many states, including the US government, have sponsored attacks on their own people, fabricated the "cause for war," created (and armed) their own enemies of convenience, and sacrificed their own citizens for "reasons of state."
b. Was 9/11 an update of the Pentagon-approved "Project Northwoods" plan for conducting self-inflicted, false-flag terror attacks in the United States, and blaming them on a foreign enemy?

40) Secret Government
a. The record of criminality and sponsorship of coups around the world by the covert networks based within the US intelligence complex.
b. Specifically also: The evidence of crime by Bush administration principals and their associates, from October Surprise to Iran-Contra and the S&L plunder to PNAC, Enron/Halliburton and beyond.


REASON NUMBER 41:
RELATED MOVEMENTS AND PARALLEL ISSUES

Ground Zero aftermath movements:
- Justice for the air-poisoning cover-up (wtceo.org)
- "Radio Silence" (radiosilencefdny.com)
- Skyscraper Safety (www.skyscrapersafety.org).

Election fraud and black box voting, 2000 to 2004. (BlackBoxVoting.org)

Lies to justify the invasion of Iraq. (afterdowningstreet.org)

Use of depleted uranium and its multi-generational consequences on human health and the environment.

Longstanding development of contingency plans for civil disturbance and military rule in the USA (See, "The War at Home")

Oklahoma City Truth movement. (Offline, but not forgotten - May 9, 2008!)

Whether you call it "Globalization" or "The New World Order" - An unsustainable system of permanent growth ultimately requires warfare, fraud, and mass manipulation.
http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

911Truth.org Advisory Board

Fred Burks  Before resigning from the US State Department in 2004 due to excessive secrecy demands, Fred Burks served for many years as a language interpreter for presidents and other dignitaries. He interpreted for Bush, Clinton, Gore, Cheney, and many other top officials of the US and other countries. Having participated in numerous secret meetings where the only people allowed were the principles and their interpreters, he has acquired important inside information and contacts.

Mickey S. Huff is Associate Professor of History and Critical Thinking at Diablo Valley College, Associate Director of the Media Freedom Foundation and Project Censored, Project Censored International Affiliates Coordinator, Adjunct Lecturer in Sociology at Sonoma State University, and former Co-director for the alternative polling agency Retropoll (http://retropoll.org). Mickey designed and teaches classes on History of US Media at Berkeley City College and courses on Post-9/11 studies and American Propaganda at DVC

Steven E. Jones B.S. in Physics, Mathematics minor, magna c u m laude with honors, from Brigham Young University in 1973, retaining the Presidential (David O. McKay) Scholarship; Ph.D. in Physics, Mathematics/Electronics minors from Vanderbilt University in 1978, retaining full Tuition Scholarship and Research Fellowship (1973-1978); Ph.D. research conducted at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (1974-1977); course work completed at Stanford University; Post-doctoral research conducted at Cornell University (CESR) and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility; Conducted research at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, 1979-1985 (Senior Engineering Specialist); Principal Investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion 1982-1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects; Spokesman for LAMPF Experiment #727 and co-spokesman for LAMPF Experiments #963 and #1151 (1982 - 1993); Collaborator in several other experiments, including experiments at TRIUMF (Vancouver, Canada), The National High Energy Laboratory, KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory (Oxford, U.K.), and Kamioka, Japan; Associate Director, Brigham Young University Center for Fusion Studies, 1989-1994 Professor of Physics (retired 2007).

Dr. Faiz Khan  Dr. Faiz Khan is a leader in New York's Muslim community, served as a triage doctor at ground zero, and is on the staff of Long Island Jewish Medical Center in Hillside, Queens. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the ASMA Society for Islamic Spirituality and serves as the Assistant Imam at the al-Farah Mosque in Manhattan and at the Islamic Center of Long Island. He has served as a panelist for the United Nations Committee of Religious Non-governmental Organizations and for the New Seminary's Interfaith Retreat on Spiritual Balance.



quote:

Jun 30, 2009  
29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11
— Gregg Roberts and AE911Truth Staff

More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official collapse reports

The facts are in. The evidence is conclusive. These experts lay it all out.

For Some, the Doubts Began Early

"Something is wrong with this picture," thought Nathan Lomba, as he watched replays of the Twin Tower collapses on television on September 11, 2001. A licensed structural engineer trained in buildings' responses to stress, Lomba saw more on the screen than you or I. He puzzled, "How did the structures collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damage was clearly not symmetrical?"
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/64
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


48 posted 07-02-2009 10:51 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

    Edward Hooper, a former BBC correspondent, has advanced the "contaminated polio vaccine" theory for the origins of HIV and AIDS. In his exhaustively researched book, The River[1], Hooper advances the theory that HIV1 (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is a mutation or variant of, or the result of animal-to-human transmission of, SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), a virus found in the chimpanzee. He lays blame on Dr. Hilary Koprowski, a virologist working for Philadelphia's Wistar Research Institute, who allegedly used hastily concocted chimpanzee kidney culture medium from a Stanleyville research laboratory to create millions of doses of oral polio vaccine for a mass vaccination program in the Belgian colony of the Belgian Congo. The experimental vaccine was administered to millions of natives in the Belgian Congo without their informed consent. The research was partially funded by the U.S. Government. Hooper points out inconsistencies in what Koprowski and his team said they did, and what workers in Koprowski's laboratories and at his chimpanzee research camp said was done. He describes Koprowski's single-minded drive to beat Drs. Salk and Sabin in developing the first commercially-available polio vaccine, and posits that this was a factor in the use of the contaminated vaccine.

    The contaminated polio vaccine theory was supported by the influential evolutionary biologist and Oxford University professor, W. D. Hamilton, who died as a result of contracting malaria on one of his trips to Africa to seek proof for the theory. On the other hand, other scientists, such as University of Arizona professor Michael Worobey, have conducted research that contradicts the theory. [2]

    The 2004 Emmy-nominated documentary film, The Origin of AIDS[3], directed by Peter Chappell and Catherine Peix, traces the evidence laid out by Hooper, and shows interviews with Dr. Koprowski that seemed to be contradictory with the interviews with local laboratory workers who had worked at the Stanleyville research laboratory. [4]

    * In an interview by Time magazine with Nobel Peace Prize laureate and environmental activist Wangari Maathai, it was alleged that Maathai had said that "AIDS is a biological weapon manufactured by the developed world to wipe out the black race".[5] Maathai subsequently rejected that in a written statement issued in December 2004: "I neither say nor believe that the virus was developed by white people or white powers in order to destroy the African people. Such views are wicked and destructive." [6]

    * Jakob Segal, a former biology professor at Humboldt University, proposed that HIV was engineered at a U.S. military laboratory at Fort Detrick, by splicing together two other viruses, Visna and HTLV-1. According to his theory, the new virus, created between 1977 and 1978, was tested on prison inmates who had volunteered for the experiment in exchange for early release. He further suggested that it was through these prisoners that the virus was spread to the population at large. He has been accused, however, by KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin as having been disseminating disinformation on behalf of the Soviet Union. [7]

    * Dr. Alan Cantwell, author of AIDS and the Doctors of Death: An Inquiry into the Origin of the AIDS Epidemic and Queer Blood: The Secret AIDS Genocide Plot, says that HIV is a genetically modified organism developed by U.S. Government scientists, and that it was introduced into the population through Hepatitis B experiments performed on gay and bisexual men between 1978–1981 in major U.S. cities. Cantwell claims that these experiments were directed by Dr. Wolf Szmuness, and that there was an ongoing government cover-up of the origins of the AIDS epidemic. Similar theories have been advanced by Dr. Robert B. Strecker, Matilde Krim and by Milton William Cooper.

    * Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz, author of Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola. Nature, Accident or Intentional? and Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare, has advanced the theory that the AIDS virus was engineered by such U.S. Government defense contractors as Litton Bionetics for the purposes of bio-warfare and "population control."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_conspiracy_theories



Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


49 posted 07-02-2009 10:54 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Oh Joy!

Once again, our hero Professor Bob Carter has graced us with his presence giving a free lecture at Waikato University and of course we couldn't pass up this opportunity to get out there to spread the word and recruit as many new Flat Earthers as possible. Where would we be without Bob's army of tireless fighters for truth in a world gone mad with climate change loonies and round earth nutters!? These people truly are a beacon of truth while collapsing ice shelfs, Australian bush fires, vanishing summer sea ice cover over the Arctic are driving everyone away from us! These are the hard-core, our target audience who stay strong and fight tirelessly against the dual conspiracies of anthropogenic climate change and round earthery.

Despite the continual decline of believers, we at the F.E.S. firmly believe that the day will come when our centuries of conspiracy battling experience will combine with your dwindling network of Climate denialists and all the funding they get from the petroleum industry uniting us in our combined struggle against the evil forces of the IPCC, NASA, Google Earth and The News.

Stay strong - its not over yet Bob! We've been through all this before and have persevered throughout thick and thin, keeping the truth alive, still getting out there and fighting the good fight so that everyone may once again know of the true shape of our planet. Yes, its depressing when nobody believes you, but we know better don't we Bob?

Bob, on behalf of all remaining Flat Earth believers we salute you and once again reach out a hand in solidarity in this time of great difficulty for us all. Please get in touch so we can prepare for your initiation ceremony when you will be presented with your very own Flat Earth Society robe and matching staff - oh what a momentous occasion it will be for us!

Stay Strong Bob, we're with you all the way!

[Originally Published; 20th April 2008 ]

We at the Flat Earth Society have spent so many years out in the cold, shunned by Government, science and most of society.


But on Friday night a glimmer of hope appeared for us in the form of the climate sceptic group, the NZ Climate Science Coalition. They were hosting a talk by the Australian climate sceptic (and stratigraphist which is about rock layering) Bob Carter, at the Royal NZ Yacht Squadron in Auckland.

We couldn't afford the dinner, so we got a little appeal letter together for the good chaps of the NZCSC.

We dressed in the outfits from our favourite time – the medieval warm period – and went off down to Westhaven.

Our appeal goes like this: The myth that the earth is round has been the result of a sustained conspiracy by both Governments and the likes of NASA for centuries. Flat Earthers like us have continued the battle, but we've been a lone voice.

We've noticed the same sort of line is coming from the climate skeptics. They, too, see the huge conspiracy by the IPCC and world governments who are trying to tell them that climate change is real and has already begun. So why not get the two organizations together? Why not join forces? This was the intention of our outing.

So how did we get on? The reaction was largely one of confusion, with a both hilarity and anger in equal doses.

People thought we were protestors - HELL, NO, we said – we seek solidarity, we said! We are reaching out in friendship! Some really didn't believe us. Terry Dunleavy (of the international climate science coalition fame] was, for some reason, apoplectic.

It was a real shame we didn't get to see Bob Carter – as an expert in stratigraphy, (rock layers), we thought he'd be quite au fait with a number of our arguments and could be very useful to our cause.


Don Brash was there - which wasn't very surprising. We had already noted how uncomfortable he was (along with a number of other members of the national party, including its leader) with the concept of global warming. It must be a relief that he no longer has to pretend to care.


http://flatearthersnz.blogspot.com/



 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Employment Application   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors