Slashdot Mirror

Bernays' biography is illuminating.

More light can be found in The Mass Psychology of Fascism", by Wilhelm Reich in 1933.

Note on the last link, it's from a DLC affiliate site and obviously written by somebody who doesn't know who underwrites his paychecks.

As for "one of the problems with the progressive agenda is that they have no idea where the center is"... let's see. Based on polls for the American people and public statements of DLCers:

• The DLC may indeed be in the center, but of the Republican party.
• Iraq War? DLC in favor, the American people opposed.
• National Health Care? DLC opposed, American people in favor.
• Offshoring? DLC in favor, American people opposed.

And how is what is happening in Iraq even CLOSE to terrorism? - what are you talking about? You have totally missed the events when Iraqi population is being destroyed in terrorist attacks, haven't you?

How about a sitting senator that considers naming everything in West Virginia after himself to be his top priority? That, and having his friends in the road business pave it over with your tax dollars.

Ted Stevens is from Alaska.

Ok, as everyone has said on this site A MILLION GODDAMN TIMES. If there is a good chance that we are causing global warming and also a good chance the results could be catastrophic, we should do something about it! The consequences of doing nothing if scientists are right are much higher than those of doing something and being wrong.

Oh and your scientist...there is also a Dissenting view of him.

Of the hundreds of comments attached to this story, yours is by far the most insightful and informative. I disagree with your polite "none very impressive", and think you're wrong about "none in global warming" and "unqualified scientist". That panel is composed of professional Greenhouse deniers. They are "impressive" and "qualified" to testify before a Canadian fake "Conservative" government that's hired by polluters to protect Canada's giant fossil fuel exports to the US (our #1 supplier). And probably dreams of a "warm Canada" their vast real estate holdings can finally cash in on as people "migrate" from uninhabitable regions to the south, while finally getting a year-round passage between East and West hemispheres across the Arctic.

Just look at their actual resumes, of course not quoted by "Canada's Fastest Growing Independent News Source", probably also funded by the Canadian Greenhouse industry and their global Murdoch partners.

Tim Patterson is a geologist, not a climate scientist - exactly the kind of scientist the BS article excludes to fake its conclusion that most Greenhouse scientists aren't qualified.
Boris Winterhalter is also a geologist, not a climatologist.
Geologists mostly work for the oil business, which is where most of the money for the entire science comes from, their peers who review, their "next gig pool".

Bob Carter doesn't even rate a page at his tiny Australian department where he's just an "Adjunct" professor.
Timothy Ball's "EnviroTruth" org is a division of the National Center for Public Policy Research, an front for Exxon Greenhouse denial propaganda and other Vast RightWing Conspiracy players.
Wibjörn Karlén's research supports Gore, but he signs the BS letter anyway.
Dick Morgan doesn't have an Exeter page, nor does he have ">any recorded association with the World Meteorological Association, so he has no credentials whatsoever, apart from lying.

These people are professional Greenhouse deniers. That Canadian panel and its Canadian tabloid (an obvious rightwing rag, just looking at its front page) are cheap fronts for the polluters responsible for the Greenhouse. They're not even trying to hide it more than a couple of googles and clicks deep, they hate us so much. And judging from the hundreds of posts in this story falling for it, we are that stupid.

When someone doubts global warming, I like to find out just how reliable they are... I googled Bob Carter and found that he is not on the Exxon Mobile payrole, but he isn't necessarily properly described in the article either. He didn't step forward in light of the movie, he's apparantly been a skeptic for quite some time.. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Car ter Also, why is canadafreepress.com and not .ca? Something just isn't right... (especially since its hosted out of Herndon, Virginia. Wouldn't a Canadian news site be hosted from Canada?)

CFP is an ultra right wing blog and has an anti global warming science agenda. The have no balancing articles.

But hey, the maybe posting a valid article. Let us see who wrote it.

Tom Harris wrote the article. He is a PR person working for PR/Lobby firm High Park group. They don't say who they are working for, but this guy is paid to have this opinion. I suppose it is possible that he was paid by some concerned for the environment corporation, but I have my doubts.
http://www.highparkgroup.com/services.htm

How about the Scientists:
Bob Carter. First "Scientist" quoted. Known climate change skeptic, Member of Institue of public affairs: Lobby group.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institu te_of_Public_Affairs
Funded by Oil/Gas/Mining/Pesticide/Logging corporations.

Bob wrote this Gem of a piece about protectin Austrailians from the dreaded disease "Mother Earhism":
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3 813

"Compare these tiny changes with the experience of an Australian citizen who moves from Hobart to Darwin to live. Such a person experiences a change in annual average temperature of 18C, which is accommodated quite happily by wearing fewer clothes, drinking more beer and trading in one's heater for an air conditioner."

There you go folks, just wear less clothing and global warming will be a non issue.

I really have to wonder who falls for this stuff.

Not to mention wondering about the sellouts who write this stuff.

From the article:
Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change.

What a weaselly way of putting it. Here's what 30 seconds of Googling says about Professor Robert Carter: He's a member of the Institute for Public Affairs, a corporate-funded think tank.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Car ter

You see, he isn't working for the coal industry per se. He's working for a think tank that is funded by corporate donors that may or may not include the coal industry. See the difference?

In piling up scientist after scientist while failing to refute Gore's arguments, this article is reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda pamphlet "100 Scientists Against Einstein." Einstein's response still applies: "If I were wrong, one would be enough."

• Armstrong Foundation
• Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
• Gordon and Mary Cain Foundation
• Carthage Foundation
• Jaquelin Hume Foundation
• Earhart Foundation
• JM Foundation
• F.M. Kirby Foundation
• Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
• Sarah Scaife Foundation
• John M. Olin Foundation
• Roe Foundation

IPI's president Tom Giovanetti wrote in an email exchange with Australian blogger Tim Lambert that "IPI has an absolute policy of protecting our donors' privacy". [12]

"If you are correct that organizations like IPI are being funded by companies who have an interest in these areas, the more you rail against us and "expose" us, the more heroic you make us appear to our assumed benefactors, and the checks just keep coming," he wrote. [13]

Here's another IPI opinion:

The reality is that open source can trap a customer into an outsourcer relationship more readily than commercial software. This is because commercial platforms expose standard APIs for third party applications and any consultant can develop for them. open source will go the way of other IT industry fads that were once trumpeted as the way of the future, like Macintosh computers, business AI, 4GL programming languages and Y2K.

If you use this as a starting point, you'll find that one of this institute's corporate contributors is Exxon-Mobile. I wouldn't be surprised if companies auch as AT&T are also paying this guy.

FTS:

He says a flood of undiscriminated traffic to and from Youtube, Coldplay, and Victoria's Secret will bring down the Internet

This "think tank" was founded by Republican Dick Armey in 1987.
As usual, you just need to follow the money in these matters and this is very revealing. The last year that records were kept regarding Dick Armey's contributions you'll see that his top contributor was Allegiance Telecom. Other notables in the "Dick Armey" include National Cable & Telecommunications Assn, Verizon, BellSouth and SBC. It's all here at open secrets.

Politicians remain lapdogs to their masters even after leaving the Hill

"Hizb ut-Tahrir (which is so radical that is has been banned in many countries, including Britain and Germany)"

Please cite for me one, and I repeat for emphasis, just one act of terrorism that has been attributed to Hizb ut-Tahrir, but one stipulation first: any claims made by former Bush ally, Islam 'butcher of Andijon' Karimov, or his kleptocratic regime, Uzbekistan, doesn't count.

Even The Nixon Center's Cent.Asia wonk, Zeyno Baran, who I consider to be one of the most knowledgeable tankers regarding them, admits they aren't violent, even though he offers many valid cautions:

Zeyno Baran, Hizb ut-Tahrir: Islam's Political Insurgency, The Nixon Center, December 2004

I am always interested in data about Hizb ut-Tahrir, please give up citations to the literature which led you to believe that Hizb ut-Tahrir is dangerously radical.

(i cited a Nixon realist to counter trotskyite dialectic from neoconservatives. i am going out of my mind...)

DDT isn't banned; the UN, World Bank, WHO and USAID support its use; other insecticides are cheaper; mosquitoes have already evolved resistance. Conspiracy theories about environazis ("They're coming in their biofuel black helicopters!") are not needed to explain DDT's unpopularity.

http://timlambert.org/2005/12/ddt-ban-myth-bingo/

As for JunkScience.com, note:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkSci ence.com

"Prior to launching the JunkScience.com, Milloy worked for Jim Tozzi's Multinational Business Services, the Philip Morris tobacco company's primary lobbyist in Washington with respect to the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke. He subsequently went to work for The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a Philip Morris front group created by the PR firm of APCO Worldwide."

Go away, troll by proxy: the role of a website like JunkScience.com is to provide a distraction while K Street writes legislation.

Tom

It's worth noting that, while Patrick Moore was indeed a significant part of the start of Greenpeace, he's basically been in the pocket of industry for ages. He's run a salmon farm and called claims that they pollute 'hogwash'. (They do, in fact, pollute.) He's been a front man for the lumber company involved in the deforestation of much of Canada for a long time. He was instrumental in persuading the Pew Charitable Trust not to 'waste its money' on funding environmental groups.

He's the one who said "We found that the Amazon rainforest is more than 90 percent intact." Which is, of course, total bunk. He's basically a greenwasher now... someone who you hire who tells you how to make your industry look more green without actually changing your practices, or whom you hire to do damage control when your industry has just been exposed as a gross polluter, or in some cases even when your industry is about to get much worse and you don't want any flack from it.

Moore's clients have included:
B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation
BHP Minerals (Canada) Ltd. (To claim that dumping mine tailings in a river is not harmful.)
National Association of Forest Industries (heavy loggers)
Westcoast Energy and BC Gas (to play down global warming concerns)

Some sources:
http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/liar.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick _Moore

My favorite quote:
Trees and wood are both good! A world without forests is as unthinkable as a day without wood.

Got wood?

-fred

As I posted earlier this week, Lindzen is part of a professional network of Greenhouse deniers. By all means, read his work. And google for rebuttals, cross-reference his citations. And look at the climate you get to see yourself. Then decide whether everything's OK.

Here's a factoid to get you started:

"In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout."

Richard Lindzen is a paid consultant for coal and oil interests. And he's not even willing to put his money where his mouth is.

Seriously, every time I hear some "distinguished professor" spouting facts that seem a little too convenient to be true, I go to Sourcewatch.

Richard Lindzen is a paid consultant for coal and oil interests. And he's not even willing to put his money where his mouth is.

Seriously, every time I hear some "distinguished professor" spouting facts that seem a little too convenient to be true, I go to Sourcewatch.

Wonderful group you share your opinion with regarding Crichton

It is sad how many people actually believe that Crichton writes with a foundation of solid scientific evidence. It is obscene the manner in which distorted facts get bootstrapped into the datastream by faux public policy organizations.

It is pitiful that the State of Oklahoma offered compelling anecdotal evidence indicating the fallaciousness of intelligent design when they elected Jimmy Inhofe to the Senate.

Inhofe is to a very large degree responsible for Crichton's elevation into the upper level of global warming debate. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, he held a hearing on September 28, 2005 titled "The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making", and gave Crichton top-billing as the first speaker.

The last speaker of the hearing was David B. Sandalow, The Brookings Institute's Environmental Scholar, who had previously published a harsh critique of Crichton's environmental views in January, 2006. The Brookings Institute's synopsis of it reads:

"How do people learn about global warming?

That--more than the merits of any scientific argument--is the most interesting question posed by Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

The plot of Crichton's 14th novel is notable mainly for its nuttiness--an MIT professor fights a wellfunded network of eco-terrorists trying to kill thousands by creating spectacular "natural" disasters. But Crichton uses his book as a vehicle for making two substantive arguments. In light of Crichton's high profile and ability to command media attention, these arguments deserve scrutiny.

First, Crichton argues, the scientific evidence for global warming is weak. Crichton rejects many of the conclusions reached by the National Academy of Sciences and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--for example, he does not believe that global temperature increases in recent decades are most likely the result of human activities. In challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton rehashes points familiar to those who follow such issues. These points are unpersuasive, as explained below.

Second, Crichton argues that concern about global warming is best understood as a fad. In particular, he argues that many people concerned about global warming follow a herd mentality, failing critically to examine the data. Crichton is especially harsh in his portrayal of other members of the Hollywood elite, though his critique extends more broadly to the news media, intelligentsia and general public. This argument is more interesting and provocative, though ultimately unpersuasive as well."

Full Op/Ed - David B. Sandalow, 'Michael Crichton and Global Warming", The Brookings Institution, January 28, 2005

Inhofe himself is compelling evidence of American Conservatism's continuing decline. The Sourcewatch Article about Inhofe states that:

On April 28, 2004, Inhofe was honored by the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy -[*]

The Annapolis Center actively argues against the idea that global warming is the result of burning fossil fuels. They also advocate increased logging for better forest health and question rising mercury levels among other things. The Annapolis Center is funded primarily by the National Association of Manufacturers. The Center's founder and COO, Richard Seibert was a former

Don't underestimate the political pull of the Cato Institute and other lobbying institutions founded by the Koch family. They are very influential to the other business-friendly, anti-regulation political think-tanks including those followed by more Republican than Liberatarian politicians. In addition, the David Koch donates an awful lot of money to Republicans. If his think tank gets involved against the DMCA, we might see to chance of progress here.

Don't underestimate the political pull of the Cato Institute and other lobbying institutions founded by the Koch family. They are very influential to the other business-friendly, anti-regulation political think-tanks including those followed by more Republican than Liberatarian politicians. In addition, the David Koch donates an awful lot of money to Republicans. If his think tank gets involved against the DMCA, we might see to chance of progress here.

Like you, when I see a scientist quoted, I often wonder "whose special interest money is paying for this guy?", but I look on http://www.prwatch.org/ and http://www.sourcewatch.org/ to find out if that is actually the case. It is unreasonable to assume that everybody is getting paid off to hide the truth. One problem is that the press report science very badly: have a look at http://www.badscience.net/ for some entertaining views. Most reporters seem to have little science background and want to sell papers, so misunderstanding and sensationalism rule.

Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

Thank God we have unbiased sources like the Heritage Foundation to warn us of the looming threat from the army of bionic poor people!

According to The Guardian's Albert Scardino, Khalid Duran coined the term "Islamofascism": Khalid Durán is a specialist in the history, sociology and politics of the Islamic world. He studied Middle Eastern languages and Islam in Bosnia and Morocco, and sociology and political science at the universities of Bonn and Berlin. In the 1970s, he worked at Pakistan's Islamic Research Institute and traveled extensively in the Middle East and South Asia. He has been a visiting professor at universities in Pakistan, Austria, Germany, Scandinavia and the United States, teaching at departments of anthropology, history, religion and sociology. He is the author of five books and numerous articles on Islamic Religion, the Middle East, North Africa and Central and South Asia, covering both history and current affairs.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Khalid_ Dur%E1n

I believe he came up with the phrase after he wrote a book for the American Jewish Committee called Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Islam for Jews. It was approved by 14 Islamic Scholars and even apparently Prince Hassan of Jordon, but it seems several groups did not approve of it and said that it spread anti-Muslim propaganda" through its "distortions of Islamic concepts." I have not read it myself, so I cannot say if it was true or not, but what I do know is that 'Abd al-Mun'im Abu Zant, a senior cleric in Jordon, declared Durán an apostate and threatened his life.

I would imagine a Mr Durán did not like being declared a non-believer not having himself and his family threatened. My guess is that the fascism part of the name is more related to the Gestapo-like intolerence, and threats of violence to silence all critics rather than tying fascism to corporatism only.

Jonathan Zuck is founder and president of the Association for Competitive Technology. ACT is regarded by many as a Microsoft mouthpiece.

Of course they'd love to drive a wedge between the Free Software and Open Source camps. It's no surpise that this piece insults RMS's Fee Software philosophy by dimissing it as religious, and claims that it has never produced anything (that's why RMS is insistant on the "GNU/Linux" label, to help prevent anti-Free Software FUD like this.)

It's a crock.

This calls his integrity into question because of his employment circumstances.

This calls his integrity into question because of his employment circumstances.

The failure of Television as a medium is obvious.

First, even though your sarcasm is obvious, Television is failing. That is why we are seeing so much product placement.

"product placement in films jumped 44% last year, with revenue topping $1 billion." (Center for Media & Democracy)

"While many shows "still offer non-bought space," more TV producers are "adopting a pay-for-play model that could increase the time period's revenue for a station from between 50% and 100%" (Center for Media and Democracy)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Product _placement (Center for Media & Democracy study)

Television advertising has failed, the big 3 recognize that. They are changing their business model to sell product placement, not commercials.

No that you sarcasm has shown to be based in ignorance rather then fact.

Let me point out the HUGE difference between making millions for a 4 hours TV event (the super bowl) and making 11 cents per view for a system that is prone to abuse and fraud. (see the story below about the 91 million credit settlement)

Any other invalid points you wish to make with sarcasm?

"The NSA is made up of very smart and capable folks. Give them a budget and incentives, and they can probably do a pretty good job of sticking their noses into the public's affairs.

The NSA's motivations are political.

Bright they may be, but the NSA is primarily a politically motivated org that answers to the president. It would be more appropriately know as the NSC (Non-Suborned by the Constitution).

Full faith and credit should also be given the NSA for their integral role in the creation of al Qaeda.

Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, should get his notice as the originator of the plan to trick the Soviet into their own Vietnam, and to use the radical Arab fundamentalists as a blade to bleed them. Reagan's NSA should get their proper attribution for expanding upon this sanguineous plan.

"Under President Reagan, the NSC staff assumed a role beyond that of an advisory or coordinating body: It at times became operational, taking on primary responsibility for the execution of the Iran and contra covert operations."

Walsh, Iran/Contra Report,
Chapter 1: United States v. Robert C. McFarlane

And who can forget the words of the ole gimper himself:

"These Islamic fighters in a faraway land have given new meaning to the words 'courage,' 'determination,' and 'strength.' They have set the standard for those who value freedom and independence everywhere in the world."

Ronald Reagan
Statement on the Fourth Anniversary of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

On a more contemporary note, GW Bush's NSA has been alleged to have pulled an end-around the CIA station chief in Rome, violating the logical protocols which were in place at the time, accepting the dubious Niger Yellowcake to Iraq story from the Italian Intelligence Agency, SISMI, first hand, and then sourcing it into the prewar claims.
(The Italian paper "La Repubblica", ran a good 3-part expose. There is a good English translation available: 1 - 2 - 3 - (decent mirror starts here.)

The NSA was left unscathed by the Silberman/Robb Commission, that one hit wonder recognized for their top 40 silver bullet, "Blaming it all on the CIA".

When actors, orgs and/or segments of the US government, in the dispatch of their official duties, act covertly and extra-Constitutionally, they are rogue, and a criminal enterprise. They should be identified as such, their intelligence, and their stated altruistic rationalizations notwithstanding.

That public men publish falsehoods
Is nothing new.
That America must accept
Like the historical republics corruption and empire
Has been known for years.

Be angry at the sun for setting
If these things anger you.
Watch the wheel slope and turn,
They are all bound on the wheel,
these people, those warriors.
This republic, Europe, Asia.

Observe them gesticulating,
Observe them going down.
The gang serves lies,
the passionate Man plays his part;
the cold passion for truth
Hunts in no pack.

Robinson Jeffers, "Be Angry At The Sun"

Currently funding is much easier to get if your project is geared to "proving" global warming than "disproving" it.

Uh, right. There's no one out there interested in funding research that attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.

Let's look at what the word "Propaganda" means

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaga nda

Call him a troll if you want, but he's right. See here (never mind, article has apparently been removed. It was from September of last year.)

"Federal auditors said Friday that the Bush administration had violated the law by purchasing favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party."

Last year, a FAKE news report was broadcast that essentially praised Bush's Medicare drug benefit plan. It ended with the "reporter" saying "From Washington, this is Karen Ryan reporting."

Earlier this year a new FAKE report was broadcast, talking about the benefits of the No Child Left Behind plan.

How does it end? "From Washington, this is Karen Ryan reporting."

When the first video came out, The Daily Show had a segment about it in which they exposed the fact that there is no reporter named Karen Ryan working for any media outlet in either Washington, D.C. or the state of Washington. These reports were fabricated and funded by the U.S. government. The first was made by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the second by

more articles: #1, #2 (which identifies Karen Ryan as a government contractor who produces and narrates the videos), #3 (which has a picture and background on Karen Ryan)

There were also several "town hall meetings" where obvious plants in the audience asked Bush questions. Example: An episode of The Daily Show featured an excerpt from one such meeting. A child no older than eight asked Bush what policies he was putting in place to help fight the war on terror. Children that young do not ask those questions.

For your archives(the article is disappearing with time's passage):

Speaking of Duplicity

My only comment here is that Henry S. Rowen was one of GW Bush's picks to the "nonpartisan" Silberman/Robb Committee.

You seem bright enough to handle this.

'Repeating things over and over again for "the truth" to sink in' doesn't imply there's opposing propaganda. That inference requires that all information be propaganda - no truth, no personally verified experience, no independent thinking by the receiver.

The repetition is the basic rule of propaganda: repetition gets people to believe something is the truth, even when it's not:

"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." -- Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 184

And the Reagan progaganda policy was "if you tell the same story five times, it's true."

When you look at the Bush administration, you notice that their propaganda has two tiers: constant leaks, press releases, a steady buzz of propaganda from "anonymous sources" to the Press Secretary. Then there's spokesmodel Bush, whose delivery of the propaganda is more like a catapult. The only reason to invent some opposing propaganda in this scene, especially from Bush's words only about himself and his operation, is to insist on the presence of an equal opponent to justify Bush's actions. It's the fake "balance" propaganda, invoked only to defend some Bush misdeed.

>Nope, can't say that I do. Could you source it for me?

My first source for this is in German, but you may use Googles ( :-) )translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F %2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2Fresult.xhtml%3Furl% 3D%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldung%2F67761%26words%3DBush&l angpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&c2coff=1&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&p rev=%2Flanguage_tools

The original article is from the NYT - you may have an account there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.h tml

BTW: Looks also intersting: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_ W._Bush's_domestic_spying

Or is it the Cato revolution?

"But the discussion only begins at Cato Unbound. It ends, if it ends at all, with you. Cato Unbound readers are encouraged to take up our themes, and enter into the conversation on their own websites, blogs, and even in good old-fashioned bound publications. "Trackbacks" will be enabled."

-- So... uhmmm. I may dicuss and Cato "enables" talkbacks.

Cato Unbound will scour the web for the best commentary on our monthly topic, and, with permission, publish it alongside our invited contributors. We also welcome your letters. (Send them to wwilkinson@cato.org.)

--- Ehemm. yieemm. eheemm: Never pay for comments. You are a thinktank, you are paid for propaganda but you cannot buy the blogger community.
Just look at the success of the Campaign for Creativity.... (see: http://www.eulobbyaward.org/)

"Protection . . . against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough," wrote John Stuart Mill; "there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling." Here at Cato Unbound, we aim to do our part. "

--- So Cato wants to balance propaganda with Cato unbounc. Nice. Very Nice. A Think tank donates flowers to slashdot. They let a hippie write weird stuff because they thought we were like-minded.

http://www.cato-unbound.org/about-cato-unbound/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Cato_I nstitute

Please get a clue.

How did this guy get modded up? Granted I may disagree with him, but really where is the insightful part?

I'll get excited when I see the collective realization that just the technology we currently have enables the defeat of many entrenched, obsolete social constructs.

It's the withering away of the state; Lenin forsaw it but mistook it. It turns marxism and capitalism both ass-over-teakettle.

Why not use these techniques to defeat fearful democratic and republican governments, as well? They are equally egregious, just the authoritarian regimes are less duplicitous and a damn sight rougher.

Thank you for pointing to this, very interesting. I found a nice story on that institute: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_ Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Forgot to post the link where I got the 0.27% number from: Global warming--a closer look at the numbers

Forgot to post the link where I got the 0.27% number from: Global warming--a closer look at the numbers

And if Tony Blankley if and the Washington Times say so, it must be true.

If you haven't seen these organizations before, read the Reg or SourceWatch

The IPCC report is published roughly every four years.

From your post it is obvious you have not seen the horse let alone have any evidence as to it's state of health. The credibility problems do not belong to the IPCC, you may find it surprising that a large proportion of the the reaserch in the reports has come from the cream of US institutions. Read or even just skim the reports, find out who wrote them, find out why they are so confident and compare their previous predictions to the actual outcomes. Don't just spam people with "junk science" propagnda, it makes you look nieve.

Thanks for the link but I already knew about the MET conference. I don't know where you got your information about the "presence of a large number of falsifiable hypotheses" at the MET confrence. Can you provide a link that gives a concrete example or perhaps one that points out the "serious proplems" with the 1991 IPCC report.

BTW, due to past experience I consider links that simply parrot the FUD from Fred Singer and/or ExxonMobil as SPAM and will ignore them. Here are a few myth busting links from Real Climate to get you started.

And the curve is flattening...

Curves tend to do that as they aproach their apex. I do agree that the level of starvation has dramatically dropped since the 1960's and it is mainly due to improvements in China. However the world population is still increasing at an unsustainable rate and will eventually crash if it does not correct itself.

You put up a link to the Cato Institute as evidence for decreasing pollution. Do you realise who they are and who funds them? Hint, their psudeo-science is politically and financially motivated bull-shit, changing the leagal definition of pollution does not make it go away. No matter what you or Cato theorise via conservitive ideology, you still need to eat, drink, breath and shit, just like all the other rapidly dissapearing life-forms here on Earth.

Readthis. Make sure you note, "Dozens of huge corporations, eager to roll back government regulatory powers, are among Cato's largest donors." Followed by a long list of the usual suspects.

"What Arctic Warming?
Thursday, October 13, 2005
By Steven Milloy"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_M illoy
http://info-pollution.com/milloy.htm

$90,000 from ExxonMobil would do the trick...

>> Slab oceans are not used in state-of-the-art climate models.

> Climateprediction.net uses a slab model of the ocean

climateprediction.net is a desktop model, not state of the art. I qualified it deliberately. Simpler models have their uses, but if you are focused on models

>> Arrhenius was wrong

While I appreciate your reference's using our U of C gateway, I think his calculation is nonsense. He obtains an emissivity using a fixed temperature profile, then feeds that back into the Arrhenius equation. But, of course that is the wrong temperature profile.

Nobody says Arrhenius was quantitatively right. He was conceptually right and in the right ballpark. A model which didn't have any CO2 sensitivity would be complete nonsense.

> Credentials battle:

I have a PhD in high performance modeling of ocean dynamics.

> Tell me, what is your knowledge of thermal transfer between discrete interhaline countercurrents?

None whatsoever. Google has none either. "Your search - "interhaline countercurrents" - did not match any documents. " What the hell does "interhaline" mean? Google did turn up one hit on the word. Check it out!

>scorecard

I easily identified several points of misinformation...

> Name the risks

Flooding, storms, droughts, pestilence, famine, massive forced migration...

> petition

The "petition" with 17000 names is old news, and rather controversial news at that:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_ Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
and
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/280/53 63/509b

> The IPCC is a political group

You really are a piece of work, you know.

Everyone on the scientific working group is a prominent published scientist.

Their position has been reinforced by other "political" groups like the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The National Academy of Science, The American Meteorlogical Society and the Amereican Geophysical Union.

I really don't understand how people can get things so totally backwards. I try to assume that people aren't willing to maliciously damage the entire planet for short term gain, but stuff like the parent posting makes me wonder.

mt

Considering that Media Research Center (mrc.org) bills itself as "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias", I think they may have an axe of their own to grind. The fellow running the place was also responsible for the manufactured outrage over TV indecency (y'all remember Janet Jackson's nipple, right?)

On your other link, I can't figure out what's being claimed. Is it that the soldiers were "coached" or that they were "pre-screened"? All I see is Scott McClellan denying everything. Now, the administration's habit of appearing only for military audiences or for folks who've signed loyalty oaths... well, that's a bit more troubling.

"The more ridiculous their licensing gets, the more businesses will look to open source solution"

I couldn't agree more, I have to wonder as to if Microsoft has read the marketing manual written by telcos, banks and maybe insurance companies, see: "Confusopoly

I wonder if I can purchase some virtual licenses with my virtual wallet, where I keep my virtual bank card which of course is drawn from my virtual bank, which no doubt is guaraunteed and protected by some virtual regulatory agency...

You really have to wonder about a company that puts version control on their licensing model!

I think Microsoft is going to learn that the only people interested in participating in their ever-changing license strategies are going to be Virtual Customers