Slashdot Mirror

Actually "we" (meaning the human race) has already lived in MUCH warmer global average temperatures than even the prediction fairy brought to al gore when his tooth fell out from laughing about how gullible Americans are.

So "we" would be perfectly capable of living in a "greenhouse warmed" future. In fact, given the historical evidence of human population between the medieval warm period and the medievel "little ice age", it is a VERY safe assumption "we" do MUCH better in warmer climates than in colder. All animals (including polar bears, btw) do better in warmer climates. For any animal heavier than 100 grams or so, you can use the simple rule of thumb that below 52 or-so degrees, any temperature rise is a very positive thing indeed.

Of course, that prediction assumes AGW is correct in the first place. GW, meaning direct causal correlation between co2 levels and temperature, causal in that direction and not the other, GW is disputed, at best and AGW basically has zero supporting evidence, so it's about as well supported as the tooth fairy.

So what is the use of the new taxes again ?

Let's enumerate a few possibilities :

1) AGW is correct (highly unlikely) + Taxes delay output rises by (!) 10 years in America (highly unlikely again)
result : about a 2 year delay for whatever disasters temperature rises cause. Massive cost for the economy. De-industrialization of the US. Enormous job losses.

2) AGW is false (extremely likely), GW is correct (unlikely). This would basically mean something else is pushing athmospheric co2 content, and earth climate is an inherently unstable system (that's the definition of unstable systems : a system that amplifies random variations) + new taxes delay American co2 output increases by (!) 10 years
result ZERO delay for whatever disasters temperature rises cause. Massive cost for the economy. De-industrialization of the US. Enormous job losses.

3) AGW is false (extremely likely). GW is false (likely). Taxes delay American output increases by (!) 10 years
result No (intended) effect on environment. Massive cost for the economy. De-industrialization of the US. Enormous job losses.

So tell me again, why are we doing this ? Because, to be quite honest, I find the "republican" explanation a very good one : Democrats hate the American economy and are so much more concerned about looking good that they knowingly walk into the abyss.

Biofuels for example, are by now responsible for at least 2 million dead by starvation. They also have had zero effect on emissions, and therefore zero effect on the predictions of either AGW or GW. But one effect they did have : 2 million dead.

Democrats : can you please explain why you're starving millions just to feel better about your car fuel ? I wonder if you'll take responsability for the consequences of your politics. Heh. Right.

Democrat - with a "d", like Dumb and Decisions.

OK, your still not seeing it, I will give it another try and I will attempt to be a little more civil this time. But before we get started, I want you to read this article to get an idea of the issues I'm talking about.

It's not that disagree with you about the reasoning behind Kyoto, or the effectiveness of selling carbon credits. But neither of those things have anything to do with what is presently happening. That you fear the political implications does not suddenly transform good science into hype and FUD. It would be better for me if I contented myself with the idea that AGW is some "vast left-wing conspiracy". I have too much to worry about in my own life. But that's not how it works.

The issue is that the science is directly connected to the politics and when you see an attack on the politics, you are taking it as an attack on the science. I originally made no reference to the science behind global warming and even stated it was independent of my argument when I made mention to the "even of it is happening, the so called solutions aren't addressing the claimed problem and all of them have been hijacked for political manipulation and gain" Now those aren't my exact words, but it's close enough. You took that as an attack on the science without any consideration of what was actually said or the context in which it was said.

And it isn't just you, when a journalist quote or represent conclusions or statements of the science and people point out their flaws or unsupported statements, it is taken as an attack on the science. Gwynne Dyer said in an Op-ed back in 2005 over an interpreted a statement from James Lovelock concerning global warming "it would cause a massive human die-off" Lovelock's state actually was "Unless we stop now, we will really doom the lives of our descendants. If we just go on for another 40 or 50 years faffing around, they'll have no chance at all, it'll be back to the Stone Age. There'll be people around still. But civilization will go." So does the science affirm that there _will_be_ a massive human die off or then end of civilization? No, it doesn't those are opinions and interpretations of possibilities. The science doesn't exactly rule it out but it doesn't rule out aliens coming in with some laser refrigerator large enough to cool the planet with technology unimaginable to us and thereby saving the world either. Yet when criticizing those comments, We are labeled as "deniers" and attacked by people like you for being stupid and not knowing science as if the science actually does say civilization will be destroyed in 50 for certain. But some how, we should be prosecuted like Nazi war criminals as David Roberts suggests with this comment. "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."

Now, knowing that in today's environment the politics and the science can't be separated, you end up with scientific conclusions or statements made for the purpose of furthering the politics. Germany's Environment Minister, Jürgen Trittin claimed that Katrina was caused by Global Warming stating the the US had to sign Kyoto and refused to back down on the statement even after the science and scientists said it had nothing specific to do with global warming.

But wait, it gets better because now we only have two months to save the world. Does the Science actually say that if we don't act within two month, we will definitely see the "killing or making refugees of billions of people in Asia, Africa and America"? Does the science even speak of ""The first offers must come from the rich countries lik

[SundayHerald.com]

The article states thats the passwords were leaked via a Microsoft desktop OS compromised by a password sniffing Trojan spread via a virus.

I'm looking at the article at http://sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2432225.0.0.php right now, and the word "microsoft" is nowhere on the page. I have no idea where you're getting your information.

- Microsoft's OS and applications are disproportional at a far greater risk of being compromised than any other platform. That is a fact!

According to who, you?

FUD, FUD, and more FUD.

Mikael is right to say that proportional representation is working in Scotland. Approval ratings for the Scottish Government are on the rise; compare this to the approval ratings of the Labour government in Westminster, which are in free-fall.

The problem is that Labour know that they will lose seats in parliament if they introduce proportional representation (this is not because PR gives an unfair advantage to small parties, as some would say; it is because the current first-past-the-post system gives an unfair advantage to large parties). Even before they lost power in Scotland, they had gone cold on the idea of proportional representation after they were forced to endure coalition government in both Scotland and Wales.

This Hansard excerpt, dated 2006 (while Labour was still in coalition government in Scotland), is very telling of Labour's disregard for the wishes of the electorate (emphasis mine):

I suggest to the Minister and the Secretary of State that we start to adopt the same type of policy and look at things on the basis of party interest, otherwise we will be in great difficulty. The measure now proposed by the Scottish Parliament--the single transferable vote being introduced for council elections--is like turkeys voting for an early Christmas.

- Brian H Donohoe (Ayrshire Central, Labour)

If proportional representation was introduced to this House, would not there be a danger that disreputable minority parties would claim the credit for the good things that this Labour Government have done, in the same way that they do in the Scottish Executive, particularly in respect of the Dunfermline by-election?

- Jim Sheridan (Paisley & Renfrewshire North, Labour)

So getting proportional representation essentially requires Labour to be voted out, and I don't believe for a second that the Tories would be any happier with the prospect of a voting system that diminishes their advantage.

http://www.sundayherald.com/27572

I'm curious what you have to say about this story stating that we did, in fact, sell those materials to Iraq. Just a quick Google but I'm sure there is more where it came from.

Kind Regards

I read the links to the blog -- interesting to see a whole community of "news" ignoring the basic facts: we knew about these old WMDs because *we* sold these weapons to Hussein. That's not a secret, at least not to anyone paying attention to the news.

At any rate, of course the Republicans currently in the white house didn't make a stink abut "OMG! There they are! We are vindicated!" because these aren't the WMD that prompted the US to go into war. These WMD they'd rather you forget, since we gave Hussein *those* weapons. By "We", I mean Reagan, Bush Sr. Rumsfeld, etc., so it'd be especially embarrasing for this administration in particular if we dwell on this.

Remember the mushroom clouds? These are the weapons that publicly rationalized going to war(before the public version became spreading democracy and saving the Iraqis by bombing them) and, as it turns out, and as even Bush readily accepts, never existed.

Pointing out that we found useless remmants of the WMD we provided to Hussein doesn't exactly make us look good -- so of course Bush and co. don't make a stink of it especially since it involved many of the players in power today.

Check out the world you actually live in:

http://www.sundayherald.com/27572

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

In June, trying to persuade Iran to change course, the Europeans, the US, Russia and China offered Iran a package of economic and trading incentives to halt its attempts to enrich uranium. It was a reasonable offer: in return for introducing an open and verifiable nuclear policy and for guaranteeing "regional security arrangements", they would supply Iran with trading and economic agreements that would permit peaceful development of its nuclear industry. A doubting US had to be persuaded to sign up to the offer, but there are still hopes that Iran will respond positively when it publishes its reply on Thursday, the day the UN deadline runs out.

It is an important but often overlooked fact that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were planned before 9/11.

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.as p?recno=10ctg=policy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155036 6.stm

http://www.sundayherald.com/39221

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/43 54269.stm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

It means that they knew about 9-11 before it happened. Mossad knew, and you can bet NSA was monitoring Mossad:

http://www.sundayherald.com/37707

They started monitoring domestic calls about the time Cheney had his oil task force meeting, about the time the planning of the Iraq invasion started (Jan 2001).

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=417&row =0

Let the BDS posts begin ... You guys really need to grow up and start thinking.

• Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Nope.
• Saddam has links to al Qaeda? Nope.
• Katrina victims will receive the support they require in a timely fashion? Nope.
• US citizens will only be spied on using a court order? Nope.

Who sold Saddam those weapons?

Let's not forget more than $100 bucks per vote can get spend by one side on a campaign.

And this is just the elections part of the democratic system, all in all a relatively minor part. (Iraq has plenty of elections)

Lets not forget that the New York Times sat on this very story *for a year* at the request of the white house. Incidentally, this was an election year. (In Iraq you have to pay to decide what gets printed)

The New York Times is the paper that kept Judy miller on the WMD issue after her articles started making less and less sense to experts. The experts complained to the point of getting articles adding nuance to her stories but ignoring most criticism. (Her name later popped up in plamegate (where her jailtime postponed the investigation) and in Rendon group stories).

A democracy can be defined as a system of government where the people can have a meaningful say in they way the country is run. Can you have a meaningful say if you think Cheney just brings Bush fresh pretzels while Bush runs the world?
Can you have a meaningful say if you think the only decisions to be made are pro/con gay marriage and pro/con terrr?

I can think of Weapons proliferation, air pollution killing people directly, air pollution killing our children's children through climate change, the dollar plummeting, oil running out, china becoming a real superpower (which Lockheed martin can do nothing about, despite being the biggest reason the US government points to China), Russia becoming an autocracy (Which Cheney may want to prevent by siding with the Beslan school siege guys... I kid you not!) So what is US TV news reporting on these issues? Any public debate going on?

I would say that the American public didn't know that by electing bush, who looks very handsome when he cuts down trees or rides a mountain bike, that they would get the whole shamrock, Iran contra and PNAC involved Halliburton brand neocon fun pack (now, with free K-street project Abramoff and hookergate). (All of these things pre-date the first Bush election and are the kind of thing one might reasonably look at when deciding trustworthiness)

Lets not forget that Cheney does things intentionally without changing the law because he wants to use 9/11 to re-establish executive power that in his cold war mind has been dangerously taken away by that vicious congress... no really, congress. The people who split up the WMD investigation in a "did the CIA do all of it" part and a "Was the Mushroom cloud part a minor misunderstanding that ended overdoing it a bit or a honest mistake" part. (We are still waiting for the last part.)

But hey, this is just what the European papers make of the story....

Johann Philipp Reis invented the telephone, 10-15 years before Bell .

"While the identities of possible beneficiaries of advance knowledge of the attacks were not known publicly, experts were quick to point to possible candidates -- all presumed to be affluent residents of Arab nations."

There were Mossad agents caught filming the plane crashes into the twin towers as though Israel had prior knowledge:
http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707

So it could have been Mossad raising money for its operations in the US. I don't see why the terrorists would do it, since it makes them easier to catch.

How is that a logical argument? And do you think that any leader of Iraq would be able to reclaim the oil for the Iraq people? A few leaders have done this in the past. Che Guevara. Fidel Castro. The moment they turned their backs on the businessmen and turned to their people, they are history. The oil contracts in Iraq will not be changing hands any time soon.

The US does not fight for democracy any more. I suggest you pick up a history book. One of the CIA's largest functions for the past 30 years or so has been the subverting democratic elections around the world. Mostly South America though. These interventions range from simple funding of the opposing party (even if they are genocidal), through to arming, training and operational support for uprisings (even if they are genocidal). This isn't tin-foil hat stuff, it's documented history now.

The most obvious reason for taking the oil fields is to attempt to make them secure so Iraq can use them to fund their new economy.

Granted, that's a perfectly sound argument, especially as you point out the Kuwait oil fires years ago. Wouldn't the hospitals and schools have also been a wise choice? The distribution of forces in Iraq did not have the welfare of the Iraqi people in mind. The oil was flowing out of the country long before many residents had water and electricity. Those last two are pretty key for maintaining an economy, agreed? They wanted an economy sure, but not for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Take off your tin foil hat and find a new hobby.

You really think this is a paranoid fantasy? Have you looked at the billions of dollars that have been flowing around, and where they are going? Aren't you in the slightest bit worried that your politicans might have other interests in mind than Iraqi democracy? A quick google brings up the following article stating that Iraq is part of a larger plan, which pre-dates 9-11. Emphasis added by me of course.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

source article. If you don't believe me, why not google "PNAC" and look it up yourself, it's no big secret. They even have an offical website.

Just to underline the police's corruption, there was also the false imprisonment of the Guildford 4 and the Maguire 7. Of course, you rarely hear about the times when the security forces are actively involved within the terrorist groups themselves.

can I point you to this article about Joe Foster. He was one half of Creation Records and now runs the Rev-Ola label:

"Of course, Rev-Ola makes money for me. Don't listen to the major corporations - the record business is very profitable. Where you lose money is if you spend it on foolish things. That's what they do; they spend two million to make an album. It doesn't cost two million to make an album. I've made loads of albums, and none of them cost that much, and some of them sold zillions and everybody made a few bucks."

I think the key phrase here is "Everybody makes a few bucks"

First off, yes, there were denials of warming by some neocons. At least until now:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/

Then there's the argument that, oh, the environment will just adjust and absorb the carbon. Nope:

http://www.sundayherald.com/51146
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/umw elt_naturschutz/bericht-47597.html

Oh, and why worry, it's just heat, right?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20 02377292_ocean13m.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29498448 .htm
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2005/08/05/ne ws/community/friloc07.txt
http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/pr/news/2005/news8474. html

Here's another.

Do you have any links or references indicating that there were other sources for the claim that Saddam was trying get uranium from Niger, or are you just making unsupported claims to muddy the water? I recommend that you do a search on the web, not just a few blogs, and read the information that you find from a variety of sources. What I find is that the basis for the Bush Administration's claim that Saddam was seeking uranium from Iraq was information from the British goverment. The British government based it's information on a document that the IAEA was able to determine were forgeries in a few hours. Please note that this link is not from a site I frequent, just one of the first that came up with a goodle search. Also covered in that link is that "Well before the IAEA rained on the pro-war parade, the CIA was telling its masters in the Bush administration that the British intelligence on the Niger connection was nonsense." In otherwords the CIA was telling Bush that the intelligence was bad (as I mentioned), yet bush still included it in his SOTU Address. He lied.

Regarding Europes participation in the War in Iraq, I know it is easier to argue with someone when you put words in their mouth. Much easier than actually providing references and clearly arguing your points. However, I did not say they none of Europe participated. I would say that different countries in Europe made different decisions regarding participation in Iraq, and that some choose to participate with varying levels of committment. The main point I would make is that many of our previously staunch allies did not participate, and that, realistically, only England participated in a significant way. I know some might try to argue that their was a coalition of huge proportion, but only America had over 100K troops, and only America and England had over 10K troops, and everyone else was well below that, measured in the few thousand, a few hundred, or well wishes.

-FL

Yes, they went in against the will of the people and killed many of them in the process, but Saddam wasn't exactly the world's most compassionate man, now was he?

Don't be bought by that arguement. We were supposed to have gone into Iraq because of the imminent threat posed by Saddam's WOMD. As has been widely discussed, WOMD was the banner that the US decided on, and the UK's task was to assist 'fix' intelligence around the issue ... which they did remarkably well. Now that it's clear there were no WOMD and the fabricated 'evidence' is falling apart, our government would love us to all forget their rantings on WOMD, and instead appreciate how much of a better place the world is now that Saddam is gone. If you go around repeating this, you've turned into one of their media outlets. Regime change was never approved by any body, whether the UN, the UK, or even the USA ( officially of course ). The UN resolution which they hid behind was based on letting weapons inspectors in to find their phantom WOMD. They complied, but the US couldn't accept this ( alterior motives ), and jumped the gun. Legally, we have set an absolutely appalling record. Imagine if the tables were turned, and Saudi Arabia accused the US / UK / Australia of having WOMD.

Now back to the "Saddam is gone" arguement. The US & UK have been *best* buddies with Saddam for 2 decades. They have always known what he's been up to, and have given him chemical weapons, and sent US military personnel to examine the results of using them ... on Saddam's own people ... but of course you'll never hear the US adding that they provided the chemical weapons and stood back taking notes. So Saddam is gone. So fucking what? That's not what they went in for. It's the backup excuse now that the WOMD excuse has dried up. Is Iraq a better place now? I just went to a forum with Donna Mulhearn, who was a human shield in Iraq. She's been back 3 times, taking videos, doing interviews with civilians, etc. When she asked people what it was like now that Saddam is gone, their response was absolutely fucking shocking. They all long for the "good old days" when it was safe to go outside, there was electricity, you could buy petrol without queuing for 3 days, there was law and order, and their families were still alive. Not to mention all the stuff like ripping up laws over foriegn ownership of companies, resources ( oil ), media, etc. Not one of them said they were better off now.

You also have to ask yourself: who has replaced Saddam. Have a look at the local police - they're hiring ex-baathist hitmen and long-standing party members. That gives you *some* idea of the atmosphere they're trying to create. But for the icing on the cake, Allawi has widely been reported to have been a hitman himself, and has shot dead blinded prisoners as an example to his forces. Link: http://ww1.sundayherald.com/43458 Please note that I haven't linked to some obscure ultra-leftist site ... the Sunday Herald is a major paper. There are plenty more articles on the topic. So please don't go around claiming that the world is better off without Saddam. Bad as Saddam was, and gone as he is now, the world is not better off, because he's simply been replaced with another carbon copy. The US insisted.

The US & UK have good intentions

You'll never understand world politics while you have that view. The US & UK act in the interests of big business. If they appear to have good intentions, it's because they pay millions to multiple PR firms. That and the media is an extreme right-wing orgy.

And what's this cause you're talking about? I've heard of no manifesto from al Qaeda, other than bringing about the downfall of the evil west.

That's right. We've

It wouldn't really surprise me if there were more to this than meets the eye. It is all rather convenient for those that need to justify their continued war with Eastasia.

History shows us that the corrupt powers make use of public fear of terrorism as a means of rallying public support for their own purposes.

It wouldn't be the first time the British government has artificially encouraged terrorist attacks on its' own citizenry, creating an environment of fear that benefits a larger agenda.

Also see:

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukresponse/story/0,11017 ,751102,00.html
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2115371.stm
• http://observer.guardian.co.uk/Distribution/Redire ct_Artifact/0,4678,0-578140,00.html
• http://politics.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,9174,8 37333,00.html

It wouldn't really surprise me if there were more to this than meets the eye. It is all rather convenient for those that need to justify their continued war with Eastasia.

History shows us that the corrupt powers make use of public fear of terrorism as a means of rallying public support for their own purposes.

It wouldn't be the first time the British government has artificially encouraged terrorist attacks on its' own citizenry, creating an environment of fear that benefits a larger agenda.

Also see:

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukresponse/story/0,11017 ,751102,00.html
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2115371.stm
• http://observer.guardian.co.uk/Distribution/Redire ct_Artifact/0,4678,0-578140,00.html
• http://politics.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,9174,8 37333,00.html

It wouldn't really surprise me if there were more to this than meets the eye. It is all rather convenient for those that need to justify their continued war with Eastasia.

History shows us that the corrupt powers make use of public fear of terrorism as a means of rallying public support for their own purposes.

It wouldn't be the first time the British government has artificially encouraged terrorist attacks on its' own citizenry, creating an environment of fear that benefits a larger agenda.

Also see:

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukresponse/story/0,11017 ,751102,00.html
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2115371.stm
• http://observer.guardian.co.uk/Distribution/Redire ct_Artifact/0,4678,0-578140,00.html
• http://politics.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,9174,8 37333,00.html

your first link doesn't work and your second only shows sales of arms.. which certainly aren't the whole story. Also, by the figures you've presented the US sold a total of 200 million dollars in arms to Iraq.. how does this refute my statement (which for clarity I repeat here: "maybe the people of Iraq before *you guys* gave him millions in support, training and, according to some, bological weapons capabilities...")

Here is some other info for you to chew on:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USmadeIraq.htm l
http://www.sundayherald.com/42648
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/armIraqP2W.htm l

You're kidding yourself if you think your government wasn't complicit in keeping Saddam Hussein in power during the 80s.

Retired in Korea, maybe. But buried in Japan.

Plenty of people, and why are you digging so deep.

I'm not in the pay of anyone, but I reckon you are, proof, digging on stuff below the front page. Big Warming can't loose all that funding in for bogus science. I'm sure they pay you people well to come in push their PR firms.

Both your links are known fronts for enviornmentalists groups. Not only are they PR companies, but they work for PR groups, which is another name for enviornmentalist groups. How much did Greenpeace spend on PR last year? 150 Million? It was 140 Million in 2000.

And By the way both realclimate and altenergyaction are not run by scientists, they are run by enviornmentalists.

I imagine your one of the ones that believes dandruff and farming are also large factors in global warming. You must also believe they cause Tsunamis.

Well you would wouldn't you I mean your paid to believe these things and spread disinformation.

I read them all. Doesn't mean I have to agree with their fear mongering that's not based in reality. For instance just today
New evidence: farming is huge source of greenhouse gases
Snowpack Surveys Bode Well for L.A. Water Supply LADWP Reports Highest Snow Levels in a Decade
Adaptation the key to surviving climate change, scientists say
AFRICA: Climate change becoming a matter of life and death
Oh look, directly to your early point "It was made crystal clear at the UN climate change conference in Argentina last November that the international community won't support global systems to regulate greenhouse gases. The US, China and developing countries decided Kyoto would not extend beyond 2012. Overtures by the European Union to extend it were rejected. Most greens pretend this did not occur. They also ignore the fact that most governments are not persuaded by claims that global warming presents a cataclysmic threat.
" Liberal plan will cost Canadians billions of dollars annually, Tories say /A>


How many do you read?

Did you agree when they said the cause of the Dec 26th Tsunami was Global Warming? Or when they said that Hurricanes were on the rise due to global warming. Most people didn't because Global Warming doesn't cause Earthquakes (Certianly not warming of 1 degree Farenheit on average global mean) and Hurricanes are on the decrease, as our weather records show.

BTW You called me wrong before when I stated how much warming we had in the 20th century, but you still haven't backed that up. You would think if I was so wrong you could easily show how stupid I was, yet you just go on and use insults as a debating tactic. But that's okay, obviously your opinions on this are just fantasy perpetuated byt the Media scare tactics, I don't expect you to deal with reality in the discusion.

You must have missed the memo from your fear mongering friends New evidence: farming is huge source of greenhouse gases

But even without that your plan falls apart. Because your realeasing C02 much faster than your consuming it. Either you have to increase the concentration in the atmosphere, and we all burn up. Or else you will lower the concentration, and we all freeze.

Remember your basic premise is that the earth cannot handle any change in atmospheric CO2, becuase even are realitively minor changes in the past 10 years is leading s to destruction.

Another widely-reported concern.

Hardly. You, and apparently Clinton, Kerry, and Boxer, would like people to THINK it's widespread. Sorry, but it's not.

instead of introducing another bill

And voting fruad is already illegal, so this is just partisan pandering.

Thanks for taking that brave stand against partisan pandering. Now I trust you'll support this otherwise excellent law when it comes up for a vote in Congress.

can you offer any actual proof that this occured in the last election?

1. "actual proof"? But your honor, the squad of police investigators I run couldn't possibly have a case on your desk before Monday.
2. I notice you feel a need to confine it to the last election. What are you hiding? Huh?
3. Here're some links:
   • http://www.sundayherald.com/45159
   • http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/29/news_pf/Decision 2004/Dirty_tricks_litter_p.shtml

How about "altar boy"? The age of consent in the Vatican City is 12, technically not necessarily "teen" sex. That crafty old Pope knows how to run a divine monarchy.

What do we do when the producer of a theoretically copyrighted work says he wants people to download. See for example Michael Moore's comments where he encourages piracy. I find it likely Farenheit 9/11 will still be searched for by the MPAA's program.

Do you have a link for the Chernobyl affecting farms in the US comment?

This page mentions a Star Tribune article from May 17, 1986: "Since radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear accident began floating over Minnesota last week, low levels of radiation have been discovered in . . . the raw milk from a Minnesota dairy." A search at startribune.com's archive seems to confirm that such a story ran, though I didn't shell out the cash to actually download the article.

Also note this story from earlier this year: "14 farms covering 16,300 hectares of southwest and central Scotland are still subject to restrictions on the movement and slaughter of radioactive sheep".

Yes, it's true that Chernobyl was the result of very stupid behavior and that modern reactor design makes such an accident pretty much impossible (at least, in theory). That doesn't change that the accident affected an area a lot larger than a few square miles.

Not that I don't believe you, I just think you believe everything you hear that fits your world view.

I try to keep the BS filter running strong and run everything - including the claims of both foes and fans of electric generation from nuclear fission - through it. Do I have some bias? Sure. It's part of being human.

Terrorist : adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.

So let me get this straight. Someone who employs terror as a political weapon. So...trumping up a threat that you helped create and nuture so as to remain in control of a situation and benefit your friends and supporters...would that person be considered a terrorist?

Or, we could go another way... would someone who uses the famed "Weapons of Mass Destruction" be labeled a terrorist?
"BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction." http://www.sundayherald.com/32522
Here also are some more articles on DU shells:
http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/science.html

All in all and my point being, The United States has been, and is currently engaging in "terrorist" activities even according to it's OWN STANDARDS (i.e. the use of WMD's.) The 'Extremists' that I fear most are in the Gov't, and on the T.V's.

Michael Moore is encouraging people to download his movie. Here's the torrent.

http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2523/Fahrenh eit.911.DVDRiP.XViD-DvP.torrent

That's ok. Old Europe doesen't use it's military.

From the Sunday Herald (link at end of article):

Controversial film-maker Michael Moore has welcomed the appearance on the internet of pirated copies of his anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 and claimed he is happy for anybody to download it free of charge. The activist, author and director told the Sunday Herald that, as long as pirated copies of his film were not being sold, he had no problem with it being downloaded.

"I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that," he said.

Sunday Herald

CMX-1152 a.k.a. ROHLEN seems to be a credible way of relieving oxidative stress. More info here and here.

If people want to go to a radioactive disaster, maybe they should pick a more current one and have a look at what depleted uranium weapons are doing to the locals. Levels of background radiation are 300 times what they were before the 'shock and awe' terrorist campaign.

I don't see what politics have to do with what you say.

Of course for your argument you are going to use a reference provided by the military, which will show no toxicity whatsoever. Perhaps the military has a vested interest in showing those results, same as they've denied for years the gulf war syndrome in veterans.

In fact there is research in the toxicity in DU and there exist guidelines for exposure.

DU is at least as toxic as lead (that much is obvious), with the added problem that unlike lead, Uranium oxidizes very easily upon impact and becomes a fine dust which is breathable. So DU is not very toxic in unexploded ammo, because it is not in dust form. However after use it turns into dust which is quite toxic. Also it can pass into drinking water and become toxic there. As a heavy metal it can concentrate in the body (it is not excreted) and the chemical and radioactive components do have a cumulative effect.

So it somewhat safe to handle but not good for you to visit a battlefield where DU has been used and much less to drink the water there.

Other references: here, here, or here .

> "actual piracy is incredibly rare"

According to a recent news article its not as rare as you'd think. In 2003 there were 445 reported incidents.

Interestingly, in the UK we can now be extradited on a whim by the US, thanks to laws signed in this year by the lovely David Blunkett.

That's because Blunkett wants to ensure that, in the cases of wrongful conviction, it's the U.S. and not the U.K. that will have to sue the innocent men to pay for their food and lodgings while wrongfully held in prison.

I'll say this much, as an American I'm gratified to watch Blunkett's antics, if only because he proves that even Britain's Labour Party can produce a Fascist to rival our Reichsminister Ashcroft -- and even more ironically, one who's literally blind.

As we are talking about this, if you have the chance to watch 60 minutes, on CBS, this sunday, you'll be able to watch the White House counter- terrorism co-ordinator by 11/09, saying:


ON the day of the al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, Donald Rumsfeld urged George Bush to retaliate immediately by bombing Iraq.
Richard Clarke, then the White House counter- terrorism co-ordinator, said: "Defence secretary Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq. We all said, 'But no, no, al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan.' They were talking about Iraq on 9/11."

Rumsfeld responded by saying that "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq".


They just needed an excuse. They were crazy to attack Iraq. They had no excuses, so they fabricated it.

That agreement was with the U.N. Are we the U.N.?

Attempt to assassinate Bush Sr.

Was that a response to us attempting to assassinate Saddam? Or, Kaddafi, or Castro, or [insert long list of U.S. successful and unsuccessful attempts to assassinate foreign leaders from South America to Asia]?

Giving aid and comfort to terrorists

Who? The U.S.? If it were that, then why not invade North Korea, or Iran, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia...etc? The answer is below.

Refusing to cooperate with the UN.

Again, are we the U.N.?

Being a rat-bastard tyrant

Finally, the honest answer. But, only partially honest. His daddy was made a fool by Saddam, and everyone knew that if Shrub got into office, the Iraqis would pay. Shrub's Secretary of the Treasury reports that plans for invading Iraq were in the making only within a few days of Shrub's theft of the election. If it were simply a matter of being a rat-bastard, there are plenty of others further along the road to bastard-hood: North Korea's loony leader for one. The problem is, no oil there, so no business drive to get there. Afghanistan proved a perfect, inarguable cause. Not for the one you think. True, Bin-Loonie was there, but that was simply the inescapable argument for invasion. If we could tame that country (only an asteroid dropped from space could achieve that), we could finally lay that oil pipeline we've been planning on for the past 30 years. Unfortunately, CNN and FauxNews channels don't cover this little bit of history, but we've been in a chess game with the Russians and Chinese for this bit of inhospitable land for quite a while. By the way, this is also why we're "friends" with Pakistan.

Simple failture of Washington/Baghdad diplomacy

No. Simple failure of Shrub Administration/U.N. diplomacy. His daddy was better at it, but this numbskull couldn't control his trigger finger. His only half-way feasable argument (even Powell had to excise some of the outright lies from the deceptive rhetoric he was forced to spew to the U.N.'s collective face) of Weapons of Mass Destruction have vanished into thin air, leaving a unpleasant odor that the rest of the world blames us for.

'they're trying to get nukes'

Again, why not invade Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan? They're the biggest terrorist threats outside of Afghanistan. They've been attempting to get nuclear long before Iraq, and have actual terrorist ties. The reason is this was a personal vendetta and business agenda, and he used to this country to fulfill it. If he should force Iraq's oil wells within U.S. corporate controls in the process of taking revenge, all the better. This monkey has to go come November.

You're right in that Shrub didn't attack Iraq simply for Weapons of Mass Destruction. That's just what he used to sell it.

The truth is, the rest of the world was behind us going into Afghanistan because that's where t

We've already linked Saddam to terrorism many times over; for you to be ignorant of his historical actions paints a poor picture of your knowledge. From him gassing his citizens, to wholesale murder of dissidents, to invading his neighbors, this dictator's done it all, all under the apathetic eye of the UN. "Stop, or I shall have to say Stop again!"

terrorism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

How do any of the things you mention there fall under that category? Yes, Saddam is a very very bad man. But he has no credible ties to any currently active terrorist organisation that I've seen yet (maybe you can point them out). And don't give me that "oh, he traded with someone who also traded with al qaeda" BS. Six degrees of separation make us all terrorists if you start thinking that way.

How is this relevant? If you were to take out everyone as evil as saddam, you'd have to go well past what the US is capable of launching militarily. The world is just not a nice place. It might have been justified to take down Saddam, but it was selective. There are most likely better ways to spend money than on the iraqi war.

Might I also remind you who it was that sold those chemical and biological agents to Saddam in the first place, well past the point when it became obvious saddam was all about evil? Oh, what a coincidence, the same countries who knew that saddam had weapons. Well, ofcourse they did, they should know what they sold.

Freedom of speech is not consitutionally protected in the UK. This came up as an issue in the last week where Robert Kilroy-Silk (a man whos' telly I very much dislike) may be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred in an article in a tabloid newspaper.

The Scottish Sunday Herald did a special investigative report on this: here.

It looks like fodder for future conspiracy theorists, sort of the Sept. 11 version of the grassy knoll. A bit of substance, but also a lot of conjecture.