PDA

View Full Version : 10:10 mini-movie - No Pressure



glebe digital
10-01-2010, 05:30 PM
Well I'm not going to post a link, but it has some 'sfx' in it......some special, some not.

Don't make me say I told you so.

Hopper
10-01-2010, 05:40 PM
That was hilarious...

It should have been titled "10:10 Or Else" ...

Loved it.

glebe digital
10-02-2010, 01:10 AM
Prepare not to be surprised that your taxes helped pay for it.

The 10:10 Campaign is supported by:
ActionAid (Govt of UK 2nd largest funder in 2009);
The Carbon Trust (surely #1 on the list of quangos-to-go);
The Energy Saving Trust.

Jamie Glover, the child-actor who plays the part of Philip and gets blown up, said: “I was very happy to get blown up to save the world.”

I wonder if anyone misses the tragedy of that statement.........

kyuzo
10-02-2010, 01:15 AM
While the FX may have been convincing, I personally I found it to be an utterly despicable propaganda piece. It's message is simply "we can't persuade you with arguments, so we're going to kill you".

I'm sure anyone who has experienced suicide bombings up close can hardly contain their mirth. And in the interests of fairness, just replace any group (christian, muslim, gay...) and ask them "are you one of us? No pressure.." with the implicit threat of murder. That's not comedy, that's chilling.

It opens a small window into the mindset of many eco-fascists, which they now regret seeing as how they tried to pull the video after about 10 hours because of the outrage it caused.

glebe digital
10-02-2010, 01:21 AM
I couldn't agree more kyuzo.

meshpig
10-02-2010, 03:15 AM
Oh oh, not the freakin taxpayer again? Pretty silly little fart in a gust of wind type video really. Therefore the tax payer ought not to be too concerned.

- Meanwhile the EU is seeking to make the tax payer liable for the errors and follies of the banking industry; "Help, my son the Dentist is drowning":)

glebe digital
10-02-2010, 07:16 AM
Don't get me started on bankers meshpig.... :thumbsup:

http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/banksters.jpg

T-Light
10-02-2010, 11:52 AM
Just found out it was made by Richard Curtis (Black adder / Four wedding and a funeral etc). Even though they've stopped showing the film on their site they say they are not removing or censoring any of the films now freely roaming the internet. One of the versions on youtube has over 62,000 views, amazing when it was only launched yesterday.

As for the vids, I liked them, especially the one with Gillian Anderson, She was very good.

As a low watt bulb using, plastic sorting, recycling junkie, where do I order my button?

glebe digital
10-02-2010, 12:59 PM
Tragically, the first 'spoof' is already online.......in it we have the two children portrayed as Christians poofed out of existence by a teacher requesting conformity to 'another' religion.

Invert this hypothesis anyway you like, towards any belief-group or ethnicity, it is wholly sick.

No doubt T-light you will be able to order a fake button sometime soon....good luck with that.

cresshead
10-02-2010, 01:55 PM
personally i really don't like it...whilst 'funny' the underlying message is hideous.
:cursin:

Jim_C
10-02-2010, 05:24 PM
Where can I buy that button?

meshpig
10-03-2010, 03:09 AM
Don't get me started on bankers meshpig.... :thumbsup:

http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/banksters.jpg

Yeah but what's your beef with "climate change" as it were? We all know Tony Robinson alias "baldrick" really made the Black Adder series.

glebe digital
10-03-2010, 05:10 AM
meshpig - My beef is the position that the body of actual 'science' does not support the quazi-religious notion of 'catastrophic global warming' primarily induced by CO2 as the main driver.

My basic position is summarised here:
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=135
and:
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=89

I suspect that CO2 legislation is primarily about increased political & corporate control, global governance by stealth, greed & shamless profiteering under the guise of 'saving the planet'.

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
Charles Mackay 1841 [Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds]

I wish to make it clear that I completely support the idea that we all need to take care of our environment; but then, I would assume that to be the obvious goal of any reasonable person.

Best regards,
Stu

T-Light
10-03-2010, 11:22 AM
Glebe Digital -

I wish to make it clear that I completely support the idea that we all need to take care of our environment; but then, I would assume that to be the obvious goal of any reasonable person.
That's it in a nutshell. The films targets are those that couldn't care less. I visit political blogs where the attitude against anyone even hinting that they're slightly 'green' is ridiculous (off with their heads etc), when I see people exploding in the 1010 movies, I think of them.

Showed the film to the girlfriend last night, She didn't like it at all, thought it was sick. Each to their own.

Glebe Digital -

I suspect that CO2 legislation is primarily about increased political & corporate control, global governance by stealth, greed & shamless profiteering under the guise of 'saving the planet'.

OK, I see where you're coming from but I see the argument in reverse. At present we (UK) are becoming increasingly dependant on Russian supplies for our oil and gas, this will only get worse if Russia succeeds in it's bid for half the North Pole. The logical way out for each of us in the UK and Europe (individual households and businesses) is to make our own energy. I Believe HM Gov is even bringing in a new subsidised scheme designed to do just that. I see the more we move to self sustinence, the less we'll rely on global bodies and corporates for our energy. Hopefully, advances in power saving home goods and higher yeild solar tech may take us there sooner rather than later.

Glebe Digital -

No doubt T-light you will be able to order a fake button sometime soon
Fake Button? :D

glebe digital
10-03-2010, 12:41 PM
That's it in a nutshell. The films targets are those that couldn't care less. I visit political blogs where the attitude against anyone even hinting that they're slightly 'green' is ridiculous (off with their heads etc), when I see people exploding in the 1010 movies, I think of them.


I care about my environment, but not the nonsense about carbon......the film is about carbon reduction, hence this film is aimed at not only me but anyone else who holds the notion that CO2 is a vital plantfood.

The 'energy security' question is a different subject altogether......global bodies & corporates control the renewable sector as well, when the money runs out you will kiss goodbye to the early-adopter feed-in tariffs....[read the EDF small-print before you buy into that shiny new solar tech].

Best regards. :)

Soth
10-03-2010, 02:02 PM
My basic position is summarised here:
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=135
and:
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=89

I suspect that CO2 legislation is primarily about increased political & corporate control, global governance by stealth, greed & shamless profiteering under the guise of 'saving the planet'.

I care about my environment, but not the nonsense about carbon......
One would have to have half brain to not agree with you on that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1PicT0TMU

All 'for and against' with a lot of science here (almost 2 hours - but it makes GREAT watch - perfect for Sunday evening):
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#grid/user/A4F0994AFB057BB8

littlewaves
10-03-2010, 02:34 PM
.My basic position is summarised here:
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=135
and:
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=89


“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
Charles Mackay 1841 [Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds]


hey Glebe Digital good that you cite such varied and up to date sources for your beliefs:D

glebe digital
10-03-2010, 05:31 PM
Soth - Appreciate the links, thanks.

littlewaves - Isaac Newton published his 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' in 1687.......should I bin my copy of that too? :D

Soth
10-03-2010, 05:46 PM
Soth - Appreciate the links, thanks.
no problem ;)


littlewaves - Isaac Newton published his 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' in 1687.......should I bin my copy of that too? :D
This is not really valid argument but with this book you could call yourself lucky (well... quite lucky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity)), if you would have any of many other Newton publications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies) not relying on them when making sense of world around you would be mere than beneficial.

So littlewaves have valid argument but your re-battle is anecdotal.

I would recommend to gather some more information and try to avoid 'experts' like Al Gore or 'prominent' scientists from Fax News. :)

meshpig
10-04-2010, 01:20 AM
I care about my environment, but not the nonsense about carbon......the film is about carbon reduction, hence this film is aimed at not only me but anyone else who holds the notion that CO2 is a vital plantfood.


Lock yourself in a cupboard sometime and breath the CO2 you exhale... quasi religiosity aside, humans wouldn't be here in the first place if not for plants first having colonised the planet.

From the Stromatolites 3 billion years ago which digested all the iron in the oceans and began the slow gestation of the atmosphere to the rain forests of Sth. America today, Carbon is the key element:)

glebe digital
10-04-2010, 02:41 AM
"Assuming" that everyone (and corporations) are reasonable is highly naive. You seem to think that corporations all want to take care of the environment.

You're putting words into my mouth......I have not assumed that 'everyone/ corporations' are reasonable, my experience would suggest to me quite the opposite in fact.

I said that "taking care of the environment is the obvious goal of any reasonable person".......can you not see what you did there?

Your points regarding lobbyists & corporate greed I wholeheartedly agree with. You appear to think the two viewpoints are mutually exclusive, they are not.
Best of luck finding a buyer for your bridge.

glebe digital
10-04-2010, 03:26 AM
Not really... if you "assume" that the "obvious goal" of any reasonable person is envrionmental stewardship... why would *I" assume that you don't mean corporations who ARE composed of people?

Because you have deliberately [or unwittingly] twisted the statement......why do you leave out the word 'reasonable' from corporate employees? 'Reasonable' is the key element of my statement & I feel you may have missunderstood it's vital relevance in my original statement.



you will know in the next few decades if climate change is a hoax or not. Since more than likely world governments will end up doing NOTHING, we'll see whether or not if sea water rises.


Climate change is not a hoax.
Apocalyptic visions of the future are not science, it's religion.



Yeah, you did not differentiate and therefore neither did I. You apparently assume that we all know what you are THINKING as opposed to what you are typing.

I think I was very clear in my wording....the differential is the word 'reasonable'.
There you go 'assuming' again....... :bangwall:

Soth
10-04-2010, 03:34 AM
Climate change is not a hoax.
Apocalyptic visions of the future are not science, it's religion.
It depends what you call all apocalyptic. For example we - on the west - certainly can survive 200% food price rise, for many people in the world it mean certain death for whole families - it can not get more apocalyptic for an individual than that, can it?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_itPEoTvu3wg/Syo-gKFiYlI/AAAAAAAABFw/r5cxmHDAjaE/s400/091207usatC.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

glebe digital
10-04-2010, 03:50 AM
Soth - I wholeheartedly support the drive against poverty & starvation.
How would de-carbonizing the developed world assist in this area?

Soth
10-04-2010, 04:02 AM
How would de-carbonizing the developed world assist in this area?
That is the problem, you need to do more research - then I am quite sure you will be convinced - that man made global warming is happening.

Then I have to admit too, not all draughts and floods are happening because of global warming (most important - if not only - reason for last Pakistani flood is deforestation) but it will definitely help keep all global warming gases under control.

I mean seriously, please do so more research, start from this YT channel that I posted before, later I can give you some more links.

I am quite sure that for curious and honest person, after dedicating some time to research, fact that global warming is happening will be obvious...

OK I think I shall stop here, cos I do start sound like religious person. :bday:

Soth
10-04-2010, 04:15 AM
...and I do fail to see connection with imposed green burden on society will benefit any particular group of people. Seriously - we passed fat and rich tax collectors era. Will government benefit from collecting more taxes? Did I benefit somehow from switching to more expansive green electricity provider? Me and my wife do not feel like our company is part of global warming scum and any kind conspiracy. Except maybe that we are cyclists. :)

I admit that there are almost unlimited amount of companies that work in green technology areas, but most of them are small and have absolutely no influence comparing to massive multi-national corporations. Governments are following scientists, and I am quite sure that people in Oxford, Yale and MIT are not all bad guys as many paint them. And there is no lobbying on campuses, just the facts.

glebe digital
10-04-2010, 04:32 AM
Soth – I appreciate you post, thank you.

I have done a lot of research [& read literally stacks of peer-review literature]. I too am convinced there is an Anthropogenic component to the variations in Global Mean Temperature.
I also have the benefit of a family member who is a Geophysicist [specializing in carbonate geology], an excellent sounding board for checking research relating to the carbon-cycle & the climate record.

The YT channel you suggested is a good resource.....I'm enjoying it.

Best regards.

meshpig
10-04-2010, 04:45 AM
Soth - I wholeheartedly support the drive against poverty & starvation.
How would de-carbonizing the developed world assist in this area?

That's a bit like saying; "are Human Rights going to prevent Human Rights violations"?

Der... I'm watching with amusement Geoffrey Robertson take on the Catholic Church vis a vis the Pope. I mean you have to put the garbage out at some point:)

glebe digital
10-04-2010, 05:18 AM
Howzat?

Conflating the issues of 'carbon reduction' with 'tackling food-poverty' is a rather emotive tactic.......one could just as easily argue that carbon reduction will lead to greater food-poverty & mass-starvation.

Soth
10-04-2010, 05:21 AM
one could just as easily argue that carbon reduction will lead to greater food-poverty & mass-starvation.
Can you elaborate on this?

meshpig
10-04-2010, 06:05 AM
Howzat?

Conflating the issues of 'carbon reduction' with 'tackling food-poverty' is a rather emotive tactic.......one could just as easily argue that carbon reduction will lead to greater food-poverty & mass-starvation.

One could just as easily argue too the holocaust never happened or the earth is flat:)

Carbon reduction ultimately won't affect the existing poverty and mass starvation for the same reasons posted earlier. On the other hand it will become more
expensive to be merely starving and poor anyway.

glebe digital
10-04-2010, 06:29 AM
One could just as easily argue too the holocaust never happened or the earth is flat:)


Yep, which is the point I was making. :agree: it doesn't follow a logical premise.

Soth - World cyclist conspiracy?
I must have missed that one on Infowars. :D

Jim_C
10-04-2010, 02:01 PM
Gillian Anderson sure did look good.

meshpig
10-05-2010, 02:15 AM
Yep, which is the point I was making. :agree: it doesn't follow a logical premise.


Well it does but politics and the dissemination of ideas doesn't. The science is not the same thing as the politics.

The logical premise is that an overall warming of the planet by a few degrees will dramatically alter food production as it is. Dismissing outright the effects of anthropomorphic carbon emissions is the stuff of no brainer conservatives.

- In Europe you possibly don't get to see what a 2000 km wide desert looks like. If ever you've flown from Bangkok or Denpasar to Sydney you sometimes fly right over 6 hours of pink nothing. Quite amazing but .

glebe digital
10-05-2010, 03:18 AM
Steffen Hentrich of the Liberal Institute at the Friedrich-Naumann-Foundation for Liberty blasted the 10:10 No Pressure clip, calling it a manual for climate terrorism.

Here the term “Liberal” is the (so-called “classic liberal, and not to be confused with the kind one finds in the USA).

He warns that the windmills turning in the wind and shiny solar panels on roofs are the harmless stage for a not-to-be excluded eco-dictatorship that would have zero respect for humanity.

Here are some excerpts of his comments translated in English:

"What do we do with people who do not wish to join in the climate protection movement propagated upon us by environmental activists and politicians? You just blow them up and justify it by claiming these few non-conformists are nothing when compared to the 300,000 people who have supposedly already died because of climate change so far. For this number there is no scientific basis, just climate models.

Just 65 years after the end of National Socialism, under whose dehumanizing ideology millions of human beings were murdered in the most brutal manner, and 21 years after the fall of communism, where its collective Weltanschauung claimed just as many lives, and only 9 years since the attacks on the WTC, which claimed thousands of lives because of religious fanaticism, a radical environmental movement today does not even bother to hide how it would like to deal with people who do not agree with its end of the world scenarios and prefer to opt out of its simplistic world rescue program."

Unfortunately the German mainstream media, big cheerleaders of the climate protection madness, have been completely silent thus far. Surely they are shocked by the clip’s content and are keeping a low profile. They’ve had three days now. Shame shame.

Where is that model of democracy and human rights which Germany has been since the end of WWII? Tragically many have been just too caught up in the eco-zealotry.

Steffen Hentrich in one of the few who has stood up and publicly denounced the clip and its message in Germany.

kyuzo
10-05-2010, 03:39 AM
The logical premise is that an overall warming of the planet by a few degrees will dramatically alter food production as it is. Dismissing outright the effects of anthropomorphic carbon emissions is the stuff of no brainer conservatives.

You would no-dopubt consider me a 'no-brainer conservative' then.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes it is. Does atmospheric water vapour (clouds) act as a green house gas? Yes, and it is much more potent that CO2. Add to that the fact that there is already a high level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it effects are logarithmic, so even a huge rise in CO2 would have a negligible effect on the temperature of the planet.

The IPCC is a closed group of scientists who support each other's theories. Dissenters are not allowed in the club. The IPCC has repeatedly
been shown to have made up scare stories which are baseless in fact. Their data has been massaged and cherry-picked beyond belief, and where possible, hidden or 'lost'. And make no mistake, the whole premise that CO2 from human activity is causing huge chances to our climate is a THEORY, not a fact. Ans so far, it is an unproven theory.



Al Gore exaggerated the official sea-level estimate by around 10,000 per cent; The threat to the ice in the Himalayas was simply wrong; Michael Mann's hockey stick graph has been throroughly discredited every time he's updated it and wheeled it out; The threat to the Amazon rainforest was not based on a peer-reviewed paper at all, but was in fact lifted from a WWF propaganda piece that actually related to forest fires; etc etc etc... Oh and the Maldives are still here: Nils-Axel Morner, the leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project, who discovered "overwhelming evidence that sea level was by no means in a rising mode in the Maldives, but had remained quite stable for the last 30 years"

They also prefer to forget that the earth has always had a changeable climate. The rise in temperatures we saw a decade ago are by no means unique in our planet's history. Surely we should be asking if our current climate is just part of an ongoing trend, and instead of crippling our economies with unjustified 'green' taxes, our governments would be far better directing our efforts to coping and adapting to whatever changes we face.

I'm open to being presented with honest science and non-emotive arguments. I just haven't seen any yet. Instead I am being threatened with disgusting films about exploding children. A year or two ago, we were told that the science was 'settled'. It isn't. It is far from settled, and more and more holes are appearing in their theory.

continued... (damn text limit...)

kyuzo
10-05-2010, 03:40 AM
If the argument is that we should wean ourselves off a diminishing source of fuel, then fine, they should make that case instead. And I would support them. But sadly I can't support any of the green alternatives being offered.
You can cross wind turbines and solar power (for Britain at least) off your list. In the UK these businesses only exist because of insane government subsidies and are the least efficient or reliable methods of generating energy. Yes, the new offshore turbines near Kent have the CAPACITY to power something like 400,000 homes. But in the real world, they will only ever generate around 25% of their 'capacity'. and that's when the wind isn't too weak or too strong.
And battery powered cars..? Really? Where do you think the energy required to recharge them is gonna come from?
When the Government subsidies end, either these energy producers will collapse in on themselves, or we'll be taxed back to the medieval age.

Oh, and someone mentioned biofuel earlier.... It is already causing famine and poverty. In the third world, crops for biofuel sell for much more than grain. So biofuels are grown, food is not.

Anyway, I've rambled on long enough. No doubt some of you will be incensed by my heresy, and want to comment and debate some of the points I've mentioned. I'm not able to post here as often as I would like (work gets in the way unfortunately) so I probably won't be able to get into an ongoing discussion. Doesn't mean I'm hiding from you.. :)

Cheers,

Derek

Lightwolf
10-05-2010, 04:27 AM
Here the term “Liberal” is the (so-called “classic liberal, and not to be confused with the kind one finds in the USA).
Actually, since this a foundation close to the FDP here liberal mainly means "business friendly" (to be polite).
More precisely a party that is known to bend over backwards to please business lobbies (currently big pharma in the health care reform that will make matters worse for all involved, except the pharmaceutical industry) and has no seconds thoughts if there is a decision to be made between being social liberal or market liberal.
In that sense they're a lot closer to republicans in practice (when it comes to business based issues).

Quite a shame really, they were proper liberals a few decades ago, now they're a lobby group for their voters.

Cheers,
Mike

glebe digital
10-05-2010, 04:42 AM
"I think this is a truly immoral movement.
There's no question Al Gore's rhetoric is the retoric of obfuscation & dishonesty, grotesque missrepresentation, always backed by the statement "all scientists agree with me!".
If you look back in history, any politician who's done this in the past has only done it with malice in mind. So anyone who is upset with the Nazis, Stalinists & so on, should recognise you have this kind of idiocy going on now, & that is not moral.
'Morality' is improving the lives of people, that means inexpensive & ready access to food & energy. From that perspective, the policies proposed are the essence of immorality & I find it truly bizzare that here's somebody who's distorting science, following the path of Fascists in the past, who is proposing policies that will be harmful for millions of people, and he assumes he has the moral high-ground & the people who are opposing this don't seem to realize that THEY hold the moral high-ground."
MIT Prof Richard Lindzen.

Lightwolf
10-05-2010, 04:52 AM
'Morality' is improving the lives of people, that means inexpensive & ready access to food & energy.
Morality is what is defined as such by any given society.


MIT Prof Richard Lindzen.
As a smoker I like that guy, he also says that smoking is only weakly linked to lung cancer...

Cheers,
Mike

glebe digital
10-05-2010, 04:55 AM
"We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought."

Ernst Lehmann, Biologischer Wille. Wege und Ziele biologischer Arbeit im neuen Reich, München, 1934

meshpig
10-05-2010, 05:39 AM
You would no-dopubt consider me a 'no-brainer conservative' then.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes it is. Does atmospheric water vapour (clouds) act as a green house gas? Yes, and it is much more potent that CO2. Add to that the fact that there is already a high level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it effects are logarithmic, so even a huge rise in CO2 would have a negligible effect on the temperature of the planet.

The IPCC is a closed group of scientists who support each other's theories. Dissenters are not allowed in the club. The IPCC has repeatedly
been shown to have made up scare stories which are baseless in fact. Their data has been massaged and cherry-picked beyond belief, and where possible, hidden or 'lost'. And make no mistake, the whole premise that CO2 from human activity is causing huge chances to our climate is a THEORY, not a fact. Ans so far, it is an unproven theory.



Al Gore exaggerated the official sea-level estimate by around 10,000 per cent; The threat to the ice in the Himalayas was simply wrong; Michael Mann's hockey stick graph has been throroughly discredited every time he's updated it and wheeled it out; The threat to the Amazon rainforest was not based on a peer-reviewed paper at all, but was in fact lifted from a WWF propaganda piece that actually related to forest fires; etc etc etc... Oh and the Maldives are still here: Nils-Axel Morner, the leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project, who discovered "overwhelming evidence that sea level was by no means in a rising mode in the Maldives, but had remained quite stable for the last 30 years"

They also prefer to forget that the earth has always had a changeable climate. The rise in temperatures we saw a decade ago are by no means unique in our planet's history. Surely we should be asking if our current climate is just part of an ongoing trend, and instead of crippling our economies with unjustified 'green' taxes, our governments would be far better directing our efforts to coping and adapting to whatever changes we face.

I'm open to being presented with honest science and non-emotive arguments. I just haven't seen any yet. Instead I am being threatened with disgusting films about exploding children. A year or two ago, we were told that the science was 'settled'. It isn't. It is far from settled, and more and more holes are appearing in their theory.

continued... (damn text limit...)


Welcome to the inadequate realm of electoral politics. It's not like the IPCC are the Inquisition either.

I think the gyst of environmentalism is just that "adapting to whatever changes we face". No big deal really just that what kills it doesn't make it stronger:)

glebe digital
10-05-2010, 01:31 PM
It's not like the IPCC are the Inquisition either.

You think?
Terrorize the Children - Pachauri's Strategy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McHjZ4tfdLw



I think the gyst of environmentalism is just that "adapting to whatever changes we face". No big deal really just that what kills it doesn't make it stronger:)

I think you're right.

George Carlin - Saving the Planet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 01:40 AM
Unless YOU are a scientist, you have nothing to base your opinion on EXCEPT that of scientists. If the majority of scientists believe that using the data they have there is global climate change - and it is being helped by humans, why would I have cause to believe a sginificantly fewer number of scientists who believe otherwise?

I absolutely agree.......as I've already stated quite plainly, I agree there is global climate change - and it is being helped by humans.

Megalodon – I appreciate you post, thanks for taking the time out from other commitments. :)

It's a shame you didn't look at the second link from my post:

“Temperature changes (from ice cores) match changes in solar activity. Changing solar activity explains the dip after 1940 and the more recent rise. Surprisingly obvious that the Sun is driving climate change and CO2 is less or largely irrelevant. The graphs produced from ice core research seem to show if anything, that C02 rises lag behind temperature rises not the other way round. Probably C02 is being released by warming of the oceans.
However it seems the recent rise in CO2 may well be partly caused by human activity. Carbon 14 levels do appear to show that. Prior to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, decreases in the relative amount of carbon-14 showed that fossil fuel carbon was being added to the atmosphere. (Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests distoyed this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.)However there appears to be no reason to panic as natural systems like the carbon sink have taken care of rising CO2 in the past. In the Devonian C02 was ten times what it is now and the earth didn’t suffer runaway heating. After the last Ice Age the temperature rose 5 degrees in 2-3 decades which caused problems for low lying coastal regions. The climate did not run away uncontrollably.
In all the climate in the geological past seems controlled by solar activity (Milancovitch cycles and cosmic ray changes) and if there is a relationship between temperature rise and C02 rise it is certainly not a simple one. In Mann's 'hockeystick' graph of the recent past he shows a direct relationship but his graph must have been manipulated as I have never seen such a perfect graph anywhere in scientific literature.”

Best regards :)

LightFreeze
10-06-2010, 02:38 AM
This guy makes good videos about climate change (http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610) and he supplys source links too scientific papers if you wish to verify his claims

heres one specifically about the effects of the sun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_930733&v=LMA9D-ZWwrg)

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 02:49 AM
Lightfreeze - yeah. Right. :sleeping:

'greenman' is Gore-funded Eco-Propaganda......I'll stick to peer-review literature thanks, not the political moonshine. :D

meshpig
10-06-2010, 02:52 AM
glebe d... in which case I think we're in agreement about hysterical political figures.

megladon is right too about the dissemination of the science as in even from a philosophical point of view the "environment" is a dubious concept since it can just as easily represent the nation's tidy streets, increased police powers and real estate price rises.

I wonder if you aren't really taking about Politics per se?

LightFreeze
10-06-2010, 03:04 AM
Lightfreeze - yeah. Right. :sleeping:

'greenman' is Gore-funded Eco-Propaganda......I'll stick to peer-review literature thanks, not the political moonshine. :D

so you have links to this peer-reviewed science showing the temperature falling as the sunspot activity falls?

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 03:13 AM
glebe d... in which case I think we're in agreement about hysterical political figures.

megladon is right too about the dissemination of the science as in even from a philosophical point of view the "environment" is a dubious concept since it can just as easily represent the nation's tidy streets, increased police powers and real estate price rises.

I wonder if you aren't really taking about Politics per se?

Yep I agree with Megalodon on more issues than he [possibly] realises.

Yes the 'politics' of climate change is where I see RED.

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 03:20 AM
so you have links to this peer-reviewed science showing the temperature falling as the sunspot activity falls?

You can start here if you like:

"From the actual data we conclude that the graphs from Lockwood and Frölish were flawed:

1. The methodology used by Lockwood and Frölish to smooth the lines was applied only to maxima of R (sunspot number), dismissing the TSI. This practice hides the minima, which for the issue are more important than the maxima. For example, if the minimum of TSI in 1975 was 1365.5 W/m^2, it would contrast dramatically with the minimum of TSI of 1998 that was 1366 W/m^2 (0.033% higher). That would make the Sun in 1975 “colder” than in 1998. However, if we compare minimum values with maximum values, then the Sun would be frankly “warmer” in 1998 -when the solar energy output was 1366 W/m^2- than in 1975 -when the energy output was 1366.1111 W/m^2. Today (21/07/07), the global TSI was 1367.6744 W/m^2); hence, we see that we must not smooth maxima values through movable trends because we would be hiding the minima values, which are more important because the baseline of the “cooler” or lower nuclear activity of the Sun are higher everyday. The coolest period of the Sun happened during the Maunder Minimum when the TSI was 1363.5 W/m^2. The coolest period of the Sun from 1985 to date occurred in 1996 when the TSI was 1365.6211 W/m^2. An interesting blotch is that in 1985 the TSI was 1365.6506 W/m^2 and in 2000 was 1366.6744."

http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html#ancho r_15

OnlineRender
10-06-2010, 03:54 AM
I know one of the writters :BRILLIANT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgYOs71Vwng&feature=player_embedded

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 04:14 AM
"Richard Curtis will have his latest film hanging round his neck like a stinking fish for as long as he is successful enough to be worth mocking"

Dominic Lawson

LightFreeze
10-06-2010, 04:17 AM
You can start here if you like:

"From the actual data we conclude that the graphs from Lockwood and Frölish were flawed:

<snip>

http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html#ancho r_15

that appears to show solar irradiance fluctuating around 1365.65 while the temperature steadily increases.

And I`m sure plenty of people can jiggle numbers around to make them appear to fit their agenda (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf).

I will just have to trust that the majority of scientists are not getting backhanders from SolarPanelGlobalCorp to skew the data for the benefit of SolarPanelGlobalCorp.

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 04:24 AM
LightFreeze - "The game is rigged, but you cannot lose if you do not play."

LightFreeze
10-06-2010, 04:38 AM
could you clarify your meaning?

meshpig
10-06-2010, 04:40 AM
Yes the 'politics' of climate change is where I see RED.

Is it so different from how "Feminism" for example was played out in the public arena? Certainly media hogs like Germaine Greer gave everyone the ****s but who these days would decry equal pay for women Karl Marx's "there never will be equality of wages" notwithstanding?

- "The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy."?
Friedrich Nietzsche

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 05:01 AM
could you clarify your meaning?

"The King stay the King"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bR3T1eThJU

:king:

LightFreeze
10-06-2010, 05:21 AM
awesome clarification.:sleeping:

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 05:26 AM
LightFreeze - Think in terms of a 'Paradigm Shift'.....a change from one way of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It just does not happen, but rather it is driven by agents of change.
:stumped:

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 05:28 AM
Is it so different from how "Feminism" for example was played out in the public arena? Certainly media hogs like Germaine Greer gave everyone the ****s but who these days would decry equal pay for women Karl Marx's "there never will be equality of wages" notwithstanding?

- "The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy."?
Friedrich Nietzsche

Yeah it's that same game all over. :)

LightFreeze
10-06-2010, 05:39 AM
so you think the minority opinion of climate change denial is going to cause a 'Paradigm Shift' in the thinking of the majority of scientists who agree with the evidence for climate change and the majority will change their minds.

Is that it?

LightFreeze
10-06-2010, 05:42 AM
Yeah it's that same game all over. :)

The game that is being played again is the one about how smoking doesn`t damage your health and may even be good for you

meshpig
10-06-2010, 05:53 AM
Yeah it's that same game all over. :)

Well then, why be bothered with the king? He's already dead; long live the king!

- I freakin hate chess too once the queen is sacrificed and you end up twiddling around with pawns and whatnot like who gives a **** just to resolve the game.

Bio diversity on the other hand just flies over the supposed mirth of...:)

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 06:28 AM
so you think the minority opinion of climate change denial is going to cause a 'Paradigm Shift' in the thinking of the majority of scientists who agree with the evidence for climate change and the majority will change their minds.

Is that it?

NO........'climate change denial' & 'climate change apocalypse' are essentially two sides of the same coin. That salted coin is 'quazi-religious belief' rather than 'scientific reason'.

I'm talking about how we 'critically evaluate' the information we are given, and how we need to move away from accepting the polarised [and polarising] media nexus.
For example, all current main-stream-media [be it the BBC, FOX, SKY, you name it] actively push division of one kind or another & all have their own vested interests.......the people who control these outlets are not interested in a critically informed population, but in 'obedient workers'.

As an individual, one sits at the other end of the 'media pipe' & are fed whatever line is deemed ready for consumption.
FOX ran the '10:10 shocker' in a slot the other day, because it fits with their agenda. The BBC has -so far- been trying to keep the lid firmly shut. This is no surprise, for one thing you should look into how their pension fund will be compromised if the green energy sector takes a nose-dive.

The 'paradigm shift' is in shutting that pipe down, refusing to blindly accept the 'recieved wisdom' & in finding out for one's self.

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 06:30 AM
The game that is being played again is the one about how smoking doesn`t damage your health and may even be good for you

Shades of Woody Allen. :)

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 06:37 AM
- I freakin hate chess too once the queen is sacrificed and you end up twiddling around with pawns and whatnot like who gives a **** just to resolve the game.


:thumbsup:

Morphy at the Opera - The Duke's version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7abOJqphn0

Best chess analysis ever.....:D

meshpig
10-06-2010, 07:10 AM
The game that is being played again is the one about how smoking doesn`t damage your health and may even be good for you

Except you're free to spend all day in the sun priming melanomas and drive around in cars but not to smoke indoors. The law is an *** and when the "state" gets rattled and confused it goes to war. No wonder people talk about going to Mars?:D

LightFreeze
10-06-2010, 08:23 AM
Except you're free to spend all day in the sun priming melanomas and drive around in cars but not to smoke indoors. The law is an *** and when the "state" gets rattled and confused it goes to war. No wonder people talk about going to Mars?:D

you mean your free to kill yourself but not to kill another - and you disagree?

LightFreeze
10-06-2010, 08:26 AM
NO........'climate change denial' & 'climate change apocalypse' are essentially two sides of the same coin. That salted coin is 'quazi-religious belief' rather than 'scientific reason'.

I'm talking about how we 'critically evaluate' the information we are given, and how we need to move away from accepting the polarised [and polarising] media nexus.
For example, all current main-stream-media [be it the BBC, FOX, SKY, you name it] actively push division of one kind or another & all have their own vested interests.......the people who control these outlets are not interested in a critically informed population, but in 'obedient workers'.

As an individual, one sits at the other end of the 'media pipe' & are fed whatever line is deemed ready for consumption.
FOX ran the '10:10 shocker' in a slot the other day, because it fits with their agenda. The BBC has -so far- been trying to keep the lid firmly shut. This is no surprise, for one thing you should look into how their pension fund will be compromised if the green energy sector takes a nose-dive.

The 'paradigm shift' is in shutting that pipe down, refusing to blindly accept the 'recieved wisdom' & in finding out for one's self.

so you see conspiracy behind everything?

how would a no conspiracy situation appear different

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 08:54 AM
so you see conspiracy behind everything?

how would a no conspiracy situation appear different

LightFreeze - Do you always jump in at the deep-end with no armbands?

This hilarious tactical ploy of shouting 'conspiracy buff!' is like trying to play the scholar's mate.....

-----------
Definition of conspiracy:

1. a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act, especially with political motivation; plot
2. the act of making such plans in secret
-----------

There is nothing illegal or secret happening.....it's all out there in the public domain....seek & you shall find. :)

LightFreeze
10-06-2010, 09:17 AM
<snip>

For example, all current main-stream-media [be it the BBC, FOX, SKY, you name it] actively push division of one kind or another & all have their own vested interests.......the people who control these outlets are not interested in a critically informed population, but in 'obedient workers'.

<snip>



could you link to the mission statements of these organisations showing these plans or are they perhaps secret, you know like a conspiracy?

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 01:38 PM
could you link to the mission statements of these organisations showing these plans or are they perhaps secret, you know like a conspiracy?

OK but first [& just for the sake of argument] let's do a little experiment; for our subject let's choose Aneurin Bevan.

In 2004, over 40 years after his death, he was voted first in a list of 100 Welsh Heroes, this being credited much to his contribution to the Welfare State after World War Two.

First let’s have the man in his own words:

“You’re not an M.P., you’re a gastronomic pimp.”

“I read the newspaper avidly. It is my one form of continuous fiction.”

“Fascism is not in itself a new order of society. It is the future refusing to be born.”

“The Prime Minister has an absolute genius for putting flamboyant labels on empty luggage.”

“Politics is a blood sport.”

“Poor fellow, he suffers from files.”

“I have enough faith in my fellow creatures in Great Britain to believe that when they have got over the delirium of television, when they realise that their new homes that they have been put into are mortgaged to the hilt, when they realise that the moneylender has been elevated to the highest position in the land… when the years go by and they see the challenge of modern society not being met by the Tories… then we shall lead our people where they deserve to be led.”
Aneurin Bevan, Labour party conference 1959.

“We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over.”
Aneurin Bevan

Does this sound like the Labour Party to you?

Wikipeadia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan
[rather lacking in quotes I think....but check out those external links!! Not with a bargepole].

Some quotes attributed to the man:
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/aneurin_bevan/
[And here below.]
http://www.dictionary-quotes.com/we-know-what-happens-to-people-who-stay-in-the-middle-of-the-road-they-get-run-over-aneurin-bevan/
[I would contend -on current inspection- that these two sites are hosted by the nice [caveat: 'good' or good!] guys].

What would you EXPECT to see at the Guardian regarding this towering figure of ‘Socialism’?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/greatspeeches/bevan/0,,2060115,00.html
[Has Elvis left the building?]

What would you expect to see if you did a search for Aneurin_Bevan in their search window?
http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=aneurin+bevan&sitesearch-radio=guardian&go-guardian=Search
[wtf]

Is it at this point that we start to form a hypothesis?

Thank you for reading. This INGSOC message is brought to you by the following sponsors:

. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .

--------
And now some mission statements & etceterata for you as requested:
--------

“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” – Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization
“We are not going to achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” – Arthur Schlesinger Jr., ‘The CFR Journal Foreign Affairs’, August 1975.

“A world government can intervene militarily in the internal affairs of any nation when it disapproves of their activities.” – Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary General

“Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

“The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control…. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.”
Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”
David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press….They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.
“An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.”
U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917

“The world can therefore seize the opportunity [Persian Gulf crisis] to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind.”
George Herbert Walker Bush

“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”
Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, 1992.

“We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent.”
Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, 1950

“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”
Benjamin Disraeli, first Prime Minister of England, in a novel he published in 1844 called Coningsby, the New Generation

“The governments of the present day have to deal not merely with other governments, with emperors, kings and ministers, but also with the secret societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments’ plans. ”
British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, 1876

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
Woodrow Wilson,The New Freedom (1913)

“The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen….At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties.”
New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, 1922

“From the days of Sparticus, Wieskhopf, Karl Marx, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemberg, and Emma Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the tragedy of the French revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”
Winston Churchill, stated to the London Press, in 1922.

“We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world.”
Professor Arnold Toynbee, in a June 1931 speech before the Institute for the Study of International Affairs in Copenhagen.

“The government of the Western nations, whether monarchical or republican, had passed into the invisible hands of a plutocracy, international in power and grasp. It was, I venture to suggest, this semioccult power which….pushed the mass of the American people into the cauldron of World War I.”
British military historian MajorGeneral J.F.C. Fuller, 1941

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, 1933

“The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes.”
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952

“Fifty men have run America, and that’s a high figure.”
Joseph Kennedy, father of JFK, in the July 26th, 1936 issue of The New York Times.

“Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government – a bureaucratic elite.”
Senator William Jenner, 1954

“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds’ central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups.”
Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University, highly esteemed by his former student, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

“… when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.”
H. G. Wells, in his book entitled The New World Order (1939)
--------

top tune follows.

Thin Lizzy - Don't believe a word
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaGNAL_u-SU

T-Light
10-06-2010, 04:48 PM
Glebe, dude, chill :D

Anti 1010 vid just for you...

Words of warning for everyone following the link.
1) The url is masked because it's a little rude
2) There is bad language (written)
3) It involves a german chap in a bunker

http://tinyurl.com/2efjj75

[Edit] - Just like to add, I didn't make the vid, I don't know the guy who did, I didn't know anything about eyetube before today.

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 04:51 PM
Ok I'm off to bed but this [following] is the type of reporting we we see a lot more of in the coming days......as to whether it's 'good' or not, I am not making any judgements.

What it really means to be Green:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/what-it-really-means-to-be-green/story-e6frezz0-1225935082554

I'm on holiday with my family next week [& off-line] but I'm supposed to be starting a 'renewables' project when I get back [animation of a 'suction caisson' design to replace current 'single pile' off-shore wind turbine founds].

I'm very fortunate to have some breathing space to decide if I want anything else to do with this sector. Is the gold-rush over?

No Idea. ;)

glebe digital
10-06-2010, 04:51 PM
T-Light - I'm very chilled, no worries. :)

btw......good catch. :angel:

:I_Love_Ne

meshpig
10-07-2010, 02:58 AM
you mean your free to kill yourself but not to kill another - and you disagree?

No, but statistically cars are just as inherently dangerous as tobacco (I'm a pedestrian as in no longer drive) as is sun baking.

Glebe... impressive quotes but the mere mention of Henry Kissinger crystallises the notion of world government as improbable rhetoric.

Very few of these statesmen who occupy the podium temporarily ever go down in history for more than simply being there.

- It's the same thing as referring to the "global market" when really markets are local phenomena. Besides, "Capitalism" doesn't require anything more central than the ordinary mechanisms of a given sovereign state to proliferate.

kyuzo
10-07-2010, 03:16 AM
'climate change denial' & 'climate change apocalypse' are essentially two sides of the same coin. That salted coin is 'quazi-religious belief' rather than 'scientific reason'.
Totally agree with you here. Unfortunately, so much that the IPCC puts out is pure emotive propaganda, more and more people dismiss it out of hand. This 10:10 video is simply going polarise opinions even further.
Personally, whenever I hear a new story about how the polar bears are dying, or some such nonsense, I give it a week, then search the web for reasoned arguments about why the IPCC is talking rubbish again. I'm rarely disappointed.

Oh and T-Light, loved the 10:10 vid featuring the incredibly prolific German chap. :) It's just one of several doing the rounds at the moment.


could you link to the mission statements of these organisations showing these plans or are they perhaps secret, you know like a conspiracy?

Well, I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but if you want to take a more critical look at our media in the UK, a good place to start would be here...
http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/


And one term commonly used against reducing our CO2 is that it's a 'scam'. It's hard not to use that term when you discover what the WWF have been up to...

"Today in the Sunday Telegraph my colleague Christopher Booker breaks possibly the most important environmental story since Climategate: a devious plan, truly Blofeldian in its scope and menace, by a hard-left-leaning activist body to gain massive global political leverage and earn stupendous sums of money by exploiting and manipulating the world carbon trading market.
My cynical prediction is that this vitally important story will gain little traction in the wider media, especially not with organisations like the BBC. Why? Because the activist body in question has a lovely, cuddly panda as its motif, and a reputation – brainwashed into children from an early age – for truly caring about the state of our planet. What’s more, this latest campaign by the WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund) is very easy to spin as something unimpeachably noble and right. After all, what kind of fascistic, Gaia-hating sicko would you have to be NOT to applaud a delightful heartwarming scheme to buy up whole swathes of the beauteous, diversity-rich, Na’avi-style, Truffula-tree dotted Amazon rainforest to preserve it for all time from the depredations of evil loggers, cattleranchers and other such profiteering scum?
Hence the understandably cautious tone in Booker’s opening par:
If the world’s largest, richest environmental campaigning group, the WWF – formerly the World Wildlife Fund – announced that it was playing a leading role in a scheme to preserve an area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size of Switzerland, many people might applaud, thinking this was just the kind of cause the WWF was set up to promote. Amazonia has long been near the top of the list of the world’s environmental cconcerns, not just because it includes easily the largest and most bio-diverse area of rainforest on the planet, but because its billions of trees contain the world’s largest land-based store of CO2 – so any serious threat to the forest can be portrayed as a major contributor to global warming.
Only after this nod to fashionable concerns is Booker able to stick in the knife:
If it then emerged, however, that a hidden agenda of the scheme to preserve this chunk of the forest was to allow the WWF and its partners to share the selling of carbon credits worth $60 billion, to enable firms in the industrial world to carry on emitting CO2 just as before, more than a few eyebrows might be raised. The idea is that credits representing the CO2 locked into this particular area of jungle – so remote that it is not under any threat – should be sold on the international market, allowing thousands of companies in the developed world to buy their way out of having to restrict their carbon emissions. The net effect would simply be to make the WWF and its partners much richer while making no contribution to lowering overall CO2 emissions.
WWF, which already earns £400 million yearly, much of it contributed by governments and taxpayers, has long been at the centre of efforts to talk up the threat to the Amazon rainforest – as shown recently by the furore over a much-publicised passage in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s claim that 40 per cent of the forest is threatened by global warming, it turned out, was not based on any scientific evidence, but simply on WWF propaganda, which had wholly distorted the findings of an earlier study on the threat posed to the forest, not by climate change but by logging.
Read the full story here. Then, for even more grisly details – about how, for example, the WWF’s scheme rides roughshod over the interests of native peoples, in way that might rather shock those who think of the organisation purely in terms of that cute panda – turn to Richard North’s comprehensive analysis at Eureferendum. The work North and Booker have done exposing the great AGW scam is quite beyond admiration. Truly they are the McIntyre and McKitrick of British journalism.
But why does the story matter so much? Because it goes to the heart of what is truly the most shocking and evil aspect of the Global Warming Industry: the way democratically unaccountable – but quite astonishingly well-funded – activist groups like the WWF (annual income: £400 MILLION) have been able to subvert the scientific process, and coax and bully politicians into making policies which will benefit the environment barely one jot, but which will fleece the taxpayer, increase energy bills, and make a handful of filthy rich investors even richer. If this scheme ever comes off – and it still might, if Americans are foolish enough to vote for Cap and Trade – then the WWF will have the financial clout of decent mid-ranking economy and a political influence as great as any G8 nation. For WWF, read New World Order."

LightFreeze
10-07-2010, 03:27 AM
No, but statistically cars are just as inherently dangerous as tobacco (I'm a pedestrian as in no longer drive) as is sun baking.

<snip>


pretty much all boils down to risk assessment, do the risks outweigh the benefits, if only people would think of climate change the same way.

glebe - perhaps your not as free from manipulation as you think

"In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an internal “Communications Action Plan” that stated: “Victory will be achieved when ¦ average citizens ‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science ¦ [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” The Bush Administration has acted as if the oil industry’s communications plan were its mission statement. "

source (http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3373%3Acommittee-report-white-house-engaged-in-systematic-effort-to-manipulate-climate-change-science-&catid=44%3Alegislation&Itemid=1)

glebe digital
10-07-2010, 04:17 AM
glebe - perhaps your not as free from manipulation as you think

But of course! :D
I try to weed it out....can you weed it out?

Bob Dylan Interview with Time Magazine 1965
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnl5X5MQKTg

meshpig
10-07-2010, 04:18 AM
:thumbsup:

Morphy at the Opera - The Duke's version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7abOJqphn0

Best chess analysis ever.....:D

:thumbsup: enjoy your trip:)

LightFreeze
10-07-2010, 04:47 AM
But of course! :D
I try to weed it out....can you weed it out?

Bob Dylan Interview with Time Magazine 1965
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnl5X5MQKTg

I do my best, what more can I do :thumbsup:

meshpig
10-07-2010, 05:14 AM
Interview with Time Magazine 1965
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnl5X5MQKTg

That's pretty amusing... as Andy Warhol said at about the same time "you watch, in 40 years time nobody will be looking at my work":)

glebe digital
10-07-2010, 06:14 AM
That's pretty amusing... as Andy Warhol said at about the same time "you watch, in 40 years time nobody will be looking at my work":)

I gotta wonder why that film was called 'Don't Look Back.'

Keep your 'eyes wide shut' & carry on. :cool:

Thanks for the holiday wishes meshpig, no-doubt catch up on these 'developments' sometime after the 17th. :)

Best regards,
GD

btw, get it while it's hot:
http://www.1010global.org/uk/about/inside/team
It may not remain live for long.........know thine enemy.

meshpig
10-07-2010, 07:59 AM
I thought this might round it off nicely... dunno if yer familiar with Steve Hillage? AFAIK he was behind Simple Minds going back a bit too:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHj-JjcAo3k&a=GxdCwVVULXfPKgQx9U8WW3pqcz9JyWAN&list=ML&playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWWnH0BZG5g&a=GxdCwVVULXfPKgQx9U8WW3pqcz9JyWAN&list=ML&playnext=2

glebe digital
10-07-2010, 08:06 AM
Fantastic Hillage!......perfect ;)

Check out the JD blog on the DT.....serial.

10:10's 'No Pressure' exploding kids campaign: why it was such a success
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100057873/1010s-no-pressure-exploding-kids-campaign-why-it-was-such-a-success/#dsq-content

Right, bag is packed I really am off now....

toodle pip