Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Why is it that when someone else has a belief it's a "prejudice", but when you have a different belief it's through an open mind?
An open-minded person, who has done the research, will see that there is an obvious plan to create a one world government. That much is evident. This is not speculation, this is not conspiracy theory, this is conspiracy fact!
If, like me, you are not actually a climate scientist, then you have a choice.
You can believe the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists, who have looked at all the evidence and facts, and are saying that current climate change is almost certainly a man-made phenomenon caused by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. That's what I've chosen to do.
Or, you can go with the inevitable group of people who disagree. If you decide to take this path, good luck to you.
I have seen a number of televised debates on the issue, and in all cases, the climate scientists were far more convincing than the sceptics.
Namaste
Do you not think that it is possible that the televised debates you have seen were set up against a weak opponent with weak arguments? Perhaps none of the well-researched scientists/debaters were invited to take part in the debates you have seen?
In the debate in the video of the OP, Christopher Munckton (climate change skeptic) demolishes his opponent. Does this mean that climate change is false? Not necessarily. The same applies for the debates you have seen.
Also, many scientists might simply go along with the "man-made climate change" theory because their job/reputation/life depends on it.
I think that scientific studies on the issue point to global warming, although there is some conflicting information, as well.
But, if we found out conclusively tomorrow that global warming is not occurring, I wouldn't call it a hoax. Science is not always neat and conclusive. Sometimes it's wrong.
If data/evidence has purposely been misinterpreted/omitted/exaggerated to achieve a specific agenda, I would call it a hoax. If it is merely a scientific blunder, then okay, fair enough. The fact is that many people's (including scientists) jobs depend on the "man-made global warming" theory, so they have a conflict of interests when we are looking for alternative theories for why climate change occurs.
One of the most obvious and over-looked culprits for climate change would be the sun.
I've been in the Canadian Rockies and seen how the alpine glaciers there are drastically retreating since I was there in the 1960s and again in the 1980s. No doubt about it. But is that conclusive? And how do we explain that there are some glaciers in some areas that are advancing?
I have heard that sea ice in the Antarctic has been steadily increasing.
I think the question is not whether or not there is global warming, but to what degree man's influence is responsible. When I was a geology major back in the early 1970s, my professors all agreed we were in ANOTHER of the global warming periods, which had been going on since long before man had any influence on climate...an interglacial period.
Sure, the average temperature does seem to be increasing, but it is still much lower than it was in the "medieval warming period" which was apparently a very good period for the agricultural industry.
But then, you add man's activity on top of what was probably happening naturally, and you increase the trend.
This still depends on the assumption that increases of CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming. I am not yet convinced of this.
Read the wiki article on Lord Monckton, especially his political views, would you listen to what this guy tells you ?
I know I would'nt :thumbdown:
I listen to everyone and judge each argument on its own merit. So what if you disagree with someone about one topic? Does that mean you should never listen to anything they have to say ever again? That seems a little close-minded to me.
Metta,
Guy
Well before I listen and respect what people say on subjects like this, its good to see the full picture of where they are actually coming from, why they have the opinions they have, do they have any qualifications and evidence to support what they claim. And in this case "Lord Monckton" its clear he fails on all of these counts, reading some of the things he believes in, it clear to me that the guys an idiot, you just need to look at his stance on AIDS suffers to see this.
So why should I waste my time and listen to someone who has such a belief about how to treat AIDS sufferers ? I won't waste my time listening to his drivel. And its not me having a closed mind, its simply me avoiding the unskillful drivel which flows out of his mouth.
And the very fact that he appears so much in this youtube video tells me that the people who made it are most likely giving a one sided inaccurate account of global warming in the same style as the zeitgeist films.
Hi Daozen, Do you not think that it is possible that the televised debates you have seen were set up against a weak opponent with weak arguments? Perhaps none of the well-researched scientists/debaters were invited to take part in the debates you have seen?
In the debate in the video of the OP, Christopher Munckton (climate change skeptic) demolishes his opponent. Does this mean that climate change is false? Not necessarily. The same applies for the debates you have seen.
Also, many scientists might simply go along with the "man-made climate change" theory because their job/reputation/life depends on it.
Metta,
Guy
I think sceptics lost the debates I saw due to poor arguments and lack of evidence.
What was the official topic of the Munckton debate, and where in your 2 hr video is it? I may watch it if it is not too long. However, I find his new world order claims to be ridiculous (and yes, I watched the videos of presidents, and they are not talking about a conspiracy or anything close to it), and so I hope his ideas about climate are more sound, if not, I won't be watching long! But please let me know the time and I will try to watch it, then I can answer with more background.
I think the IPCC scientists day what they say because they believe what they say, not because their jobs necessarily depend on it.
However, I find his new world order claims to be ridiculous (and yes, I watched the videos of presidents, and they are not talking about a conspiracy or anything close to it)
So what does JFK mean when he talks about a "monolithic ruthless conspiracy"?
What exactly do you find ridiculous about his NWO claims? Do you find all claims regarding NWO ridiculous, or just those of Christopher Munckton's?
Well before I listen and respect what people say on subjects like this, its good to see the full picture of where they are actually coming from, why they have the opinions they have, do they have any qualifications and evidence to support what they claim. And in this case "Lord Monckton"...
Okay, if Lord Monckton is not your cup of tea, please fast forward to 1hr:12mins.
I think that scientific studies on the issue point to global warming, although there is some conflicting information, as well.
But, if we found out conclusively tomorrow that global warming is not occurring, I wouldn't call it a hoax. Science is not always neat and conclusive. Sometimes it's wrong.
If data/evidence has purposely been misinterpreted/omitted/exaggerated to achieve a specific agenda, I would call it a hoax. If it is merely a scientific blunder, then okay, fair enough. The fact is that many people's (including scientists) jobs depend on the "man-made global warming" theory, so they have a conflict of interests when we are looking for alternative theories for why climate change occurs.
One of the most obvious and over-looked culprits for climate change would be the sun.
I've been in the Canadian Rockies and seen how the alpine glaciers there are drastically retreating since I was there in the 1960s and again in the 1980s. No doubt about it. But is that conclusive? And how do we explain that there are some glaciers in some areas that are advancing?
I have heard that sea ice in the Antarctic has been steadily increasing.
Metta,
Guy
There are studies which suggest that the total ice mass is decreasing also,
"But the new study signals a reduction in the continent's total ice mass, with the bulk of loss occurring in the West Antarctic ice sheet, said Velicogna."
let me know if there is anything that the youtube video says that is not answered in this link, and I will find a scientific explanation for that question, as I have no doubt there will be one.
let me know if there is anything that the youtube video says that is not answered in this link, and I will find a scientific explanation for that question, as I have no doubt there will be one.
The more I learn about both sides of this debate the less clear it all seems to me. I think I am still a long way from making my mind up one way or the other.
If, like me, you are not actually a climate scientist, then you have a choice.
You can believe the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists, who have looked at all the evidence and facts, and are saying that current climate change is almost certainly a man-made phenomenon caused by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. That's what I've chosen to do.
Or, you can go with the inevitable group of people who disagree. If you decide to take this path, good luck to you.
I have seen a number of televised debates on the issue, and in all cases, the climate scientists were far more convincing than the sceptics.
Namaste
And if you are like me, and believe these same scientists : that man has contributed to warming, then what? Either create a ruling body to deal with the problem ,a new world order so to speak. Or accept that the world may get warmer ( the Chinese want fridges and automobiles just as we have, it is human nature, so the problem of carbon in the atmosphere will get worse). We will need , perhaps, to move in from the coast and plant different crops in our new climate zones(as a result of warmer temperatures). Perhaps too, the new climate zones will open up new and fertile cropland to solve other problems... I prefer the latter position, and hope for new technologies( solar energy and battery technology, geothermal, etc.) which will mitigate the need for the draconian measure of a new world order. I do not want pollution police as global enforcers.
"Nothing is ever as good as you hope or as bad as it seems." This will be true in this situation as well.
The more I learn about both sides of this debate the less clear it all seems to me. I think I am still a long way from making my mind up one way or the other.
Metta,
Guy
Making your mind up into what? I think there is enough evidence to at least adopt green policies. They're typically ripe with other positive qualities as well.
In most animal systems, waste feeds other growth... it seems a good plan to move toward that in my opinion.
Why is it that when someone else has a belief it's a "prejudice", but when you have a different belief it's through an open mind?
An open-minded person, who has done the research, will see that there is an obvious plan to create a one world government. That much is evident. This is not speculation, this is not conspiracy theory, this is conspiracy fact!
Metta,
Guy
See, you just did it again. Those who agree with you are open-minded. Those who disagree with you are not.
First, I'm not going to subject myself to a long speech by a politician on a subject upon which he has no business trying to lecture people about. When it comes to a complicated scientific question, only scientists with expertise in that field get to tell me what the facts actually are and what those facts probably mean.
The entire body of scientific research is telling us the world is heating up as expected from the various changes humanity is making to the world's ecology, and measurements and observations all supposrt this, and the chemical reactions from the carbon and greenhouse gasses can and are being measured and it's not guesswork. Only a tiny fringe element of scientists with no training in the environmental sciences disagrees, and they get trotted out for political reasons.
What is a myth is this politcal and industry led lie that the scientific world is involved in some vast conspiracy to make us afraid of polluting the Earth, when everything is just fine, move along, nothing to see here.
Politicians and "industry experts" don't get to hold views on a scientific question. Only scientists get to have expert opinions. I rather think you should be listening to them.
First, I'm not going to subject myself to a long speech by a politician on a subject upon which he has no business trying to lecture people about. When it comes to a complicated scientific question, only scientists with expertise in that field get to tell me what the facts actually are and what those facts probably mean.
The entire body of scientific research is telling us the world is heating up as expected from the various changes humanity is making to the world's ecology, and measurements and observations all supposrt this, and the chemical reactions from the carbon and greenhouse gasses can and are being measured and it's not guesswork. Only a tiny fringe element of scientists with no training in the environmental sciences disagrees, and they get trotted out for political reasons.
What is a myth is this politcal and industry led lie that the scientific world is involved in some vast conspiracy to make us afraid of polluting the Earth, when everything is just fine, move along, nothing to see here.
Politicians and "industry experts" don't get to hold views on a scientific question. Only scientists get to have expert opinions. I rather think you should be listening to them.
Mostly I agree with you...until that last paragraph. Since when doesn't anyone have the right to hold a view on a scientific question? You can't (and shouldn't) try to limit thought.
I meant people without the education and training to even understand the research should not be given equal weight when it comes to presenting "both sides of the controversy", that's all. A dozen scientists on one side, and a politician on the other? He should not be treated like his opinion is worth anything more than what it is -- an uninformed opinion, no better or worse than yours or mine.
JFK did indeed warn about secret societies and such, Eisenhower did warn about the military industrial complex. I believe they are important warning that have not been heeded. But the fact that any politician says "New World Order" and people go nuts over it is silly. Its obvious when Bush and Rupy say it they arnt talking about a one world fascist government run by banksters trying to eliminate 80% of the population. You know very well what they are talking about. They are talking about governments getting together and finding common ground.
The same way you can point to scientists and say "hey they are making money from all the research so they need to keep the scam going" you can do the same to many scientists who are saying its all a hoax and get money from oil companies. It is also a pretty narrow view of science, as much as there is consensus on this subject, there are real scientists who are trying to debunk it and come up with alternative explanations.
And I think its pretty obvious on where you should stand. We know for a fact that creating any kind of pollution has an effect on the earth, there is no way around that fact. So you really think having millions of factories, cars, farms will have no impact whatsoever on the world? That is just magically does nothing.
Christopher Hitchens said it best,
"We don't have another planet on which to run the experiment. Just as we don't have a right to run an experiment to run an experiment in nuclear exchange on this planet, we have no right to run an experiment in warming it either. So if it turned out to be that there was no severe global warming threat or that it wasn't man-made, then all we would have done would be make a mistake in analysis - which we could correct from. But if it turned out that there was and we didn't do anything about it, then it would be too late to do anything at all. And that would lead to disaster."
Why is it that when someone else has a belief it's a "prejudice", but when you have a different belief it's through an open mind?
An open-minded person, who has done the research, will see that there is an obvious plan to create a one world government. That much is evident. This is not speculation, this is not conspiracy theory, this is conspiracy fact!
Metta,
Guy
Oh I've been open-minded. And I came to the conclusion years ago that it's all a load of pure unadulterated bullshit. Taking a bunch of out of context quotes and clips does not further you argument nor give your claims any shred of credibility. Nor does calling those who don't agree with you "close-minded". Though I'll give you points for not falling back on the old tried-and-true "wake up sheep".
Why is it that when someone else has a belief it's a "prejudice", but when you have a different belief it's through an open mind?
An open-minded person, who has done the research, will see that there is an obvious plan to create a one world government. That much is evident. This is not speculation, this is not conspiracy theory, this is conspiracy fact!
Metta,
Guy
Oh I've been open-minded. And I came to the conclusion years ago that it's all a load of pure unadulterated bullshit. Taking a bunch of out of context quotes and clips does not further you argument nor give your claims any shred of credibility. Nor does calling those who don't agree with you "close-minded". Though I'll give you points for not falling back on the old tried-and-true "wake up sheep".
Just to clarify, I'm not the one who has been using "various quotes" on this topic at all.
Oh I've been open-minded. And I came to the conclusion years ago that it's all a load of pure unadulterated bullshit. Taking a bunch of out of context quotes and clips does not further you argument nor give your claims any shred of credibility.
I have supplied the entire speech given by JFK and Eisenhower, how could it be out of context? Could you please explain to me what JFK means when he talks about a "monolithic ruthless conspiracy"?
global warming doesn't exist; there is global climate change 'tough.
What's the difference?
Metta,
Guy
Actually a lot. There are areas that, as the earth warms overall, will become colder than they currently are. In fact, one theory holds that as the earth warms to a certain point, the Gulf Stream will slow or even possibly stop, plunging all of NW Europe and the UK into a very cold climate. If you compare their latitude and weather (currently) with the weather at similar latitudes further east or west, you'll see how much influence the Gulf Stream has on European weather. Global climate change won't result in anything like global warming.
JFK did indeed warn about secret societies and such, Eisenhower did warn about the military industrial complex. I believe they are important warning that have not been heeded.
Agreed.
But the fact that any politician says "New World Order" and people go nuts over it is silly. Its obvious when Bush and Rupy say it they arnt talking about a one world fascist government run by banksters trying to eliminate 80% of the population. You know very well what they are talking about. They are talking about governments getting together and finding common ground.
I usually believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, but, in the case of mass murderers, I believe it is better to err on the side of caution when interpreting their words.
"By their fruits you will know them"
- Matthew 7:16
Just take a look at the actions of George Bush Senior and his ilk. Do you really want to live in a "New World Order" under their leadership?
The same way you can point to scientists and say "hey they are making money from all the research so they need to keep the scam going" you can do the same to many scientists who are saying its all a hoax and get money from oil companies.
This is a valid point. There are people with conflicts of interest on both sides, no doubt about it.
And I think its pretty obvious on where you should stand. We know for a fact that creating any kind of pollution has an effect on the earth, there is no way around that fact. So you really think having millions of factories, cars, farms will have no impact whatsoever on the world? That is just magically does nothing.
Pollution is a very real problem, I absolutely agree 100%. Does it lead to global warming? I am not sure.
Christopher Hitchens said it best,
"We don't have another planet on which to run the experiment. Just as we don't have a right to run an experiment to run an experiment in nuclear exchange on this planet, we have no right to run an experiment in warming it either. So if it turned out to be that there was no severe global warming threat or that it wasn't man-made, then all we would have done would be make a mistake in analysis - which we could correct from. But if it turned out that there was and we didn't do anything about it, then it would be too late to do anything at all. And that would lead to disaster."
To me that says it all....
This is known as the "Precautionary Argument". The problem with the precautionary argument is that it emphasizes (and perhaps exaggerates) the negative consequences of inaction, but it ignores the negative consequences of taking action.
If we believe that CO2 from human activity is causing Global Warming (and we believe that global warming is as bad as Al Gore says it is, etc.) then the precautions we would have to take to prevent it from getting "worse" (if it's a real problem in the first place) would severely cripple developing countries development and it would also be a huge financial cost for developed countries.
If this is all just "preventative"/"insurance"/"just in case", then we'd want to be fairly certain that the risk multiplied by the consequences of inaction outweigh the inverse risk multiplied by the consequences of action. So, any good insurance assessor would first want to know the risk/consequences involved before advising to adopt the insurance policy. To me, at least, this is not so clear yet.
Actually a lot. There are areas that, as the earth warms overall, will become colder than they currently are. In fact, one theory holds that as the earth warms to a certain point, the Gulf Stream will slow or even possibly stop, plunging all of NW Europe and the UK into a very cold climate. If you compare their latitude and weather (currently) with the weather at similar latitudes further east or west, you'll see how much influence the Gulf Stream has on European weather. Global climate change won't result in anything like global warming.
Thanks for clarifying.
So do you believe that climate change is also man made or is it natural?
I meant people without the education and training to even understand the research should not be given equal weight when it comes to presenting "both sides of the controversy", that's all. A dozen scientists on one side, and a politician on the other? He should not be treated like his opinion is worth anything more than what it is -- an uninformed opinion, no better or worse than yours or mine.
There are scientists on both sides. I'd like to believe that the scientific community is as objective and unbiased as they should be in an ideal world, but they are human, they are not necessarily immune to politics.
Why is it that when someone else has a belief it's a "prejudice", but when you have a different belief it's through an open mind?
An open-minded person, who has done the research, will see that there is an obvious plan to create a one world government. That much is evident. This is not speculation, this is not conspiracy theory, this is conspiracy fact!
Metta,
Guy
See, you just did it again. Those who agree with you are open-minded. Those who disagree with you are not.
When world leaders meet in secret (e.g. Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove) then they are probably conspiring for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else. If they were conspiring for the benefit of everyone, then why meet in secret?
I don't see how anyone who ignores or dismisses the significance of these secret meetings of powerful people can be regarded as open minded. Please explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old.
Making your mind up into what? I think there is enough evidence to at least adopt green policies. They're typically ripe with other positive qualities as well.
I am not convinced that there is "enough evidence" that we should be concerned about CO2. However, I do believe that recycling, renewable energy, etc. are all good ideas that we should adopt if we have the means to do so.
I prefer the latter position, and hope for new technologies( solar energy and battery technology, geothermal, etc.) which will mitigate the need for the draconian measure of a new world order. I do not want pollution police as global enforcers.
If renewable energy technology is to be developed then surely that is a good thing (unless it is somehow monopolized) regardless of whether global warming is man-made or not.
A "New World Order" should be avoided no matter what, in my opinion.
"Nothing is ever as good as you hope or as bad as it seems." This will be true in this situation as well.
Why is it that when someone else has a belief it's a "prejudice", but when you have a different belief it's through an open mind?
An open-minded person, who has done the research, will see that there is an obvious plan to create a one world government. That much is evident. This is not speculation, this is not conspiracy theory, this is conspiracy fact!
Metta,
Guy
See, you just did it again. Those who agree with you are open-minded. Those who disagree with you are not.
When world leaders meet in secret (e.g. Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove) then they are probably conspiring for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else. If they were conspiring for the benefit of everyone, then why meet in secret?
I don't see how anyone who ignores or dismisses the significance of these secret meetings of powerful people can be regarded as open minded. Please explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old.
Metta,
Guy
If there really was some shadowy organization bent on controlling the world in secret do you really think there would be so much info out in public about them? Do you really think they couldn't easily get all these videos removed from YouTube? Do you really think the folks who expose their secrets wouldn't meet untimely ends from auto "accidents" or "natural causes"? So these folks control all the world's governments and militaries, they control the banks and the flow of money, they control the media, yet they can't stop some dude in his basement from exposing them through YouTube videos? Am I seriously suppose to believe this?
So do you believe that climate change is also man made or is it natural?
Both. We know for certain that there have been natural cycles. That's undeniable scientific fact. It's in the fossil, geological, and ice records, plain as day.
I firmly believe that mankind's activities over the past 150 years have drastically accelerated the current cycle, and that it will ultimately lead to mass starvation and depopulation of the planet. The earth simply cannot continue to support a population of 7, 8, 10, or 15 billion humans. Especially not if it continues warming at the rates currently being seen (and accelerating).
In any event, whether you call it a "precautionary argument" or not, I'm simply not willing to bet that the non-believers are right. The stakes are too high. We *know* that dependence on fossil fuels is *ENORMOUSLY* costly in terms of direct environmental damage, war, corporate greed, etc, etc, etc. And that's all over and above any effect the stuff has on the climate. Those things alone are more than adequate reason for me not to want to use it any more than I absolutely have to. If we're pretty certain (and we *are* pretty certain) that their use is causing globally accelerating climate change, that only makes it all the worse.
As Buddhists I think it is incumbent upon us to try to do what we can to *lessen* the suffering of sentient beings. Driving gigantic SUVs and consuming plastic like there's no tomorrow, even if it didn't lead to climate change, causes untold amounts of suffering to lots and lots of beings, from the lowest bacteria to humans. So why do we keep doing it? Many of us don't eat meat because it causes suffering to the animals that are killed for our use. Why is the planet any less deserving of our compassion?
A "New World Order" should be avoided no matter what, in my opinion.
What if it means an end to war, an end to hunger, and an end to suffering? Wouldn't that qualify as a "new world order"? I'd sign up for that in a second!
Anyone who for one nanosecond believes that there is any organization capable of imposing its will on the entire world is *seriously* deluded. We can't even govern ourselves country-by-country, much less on a planetary scale. What would give this shadowy organization such keen insights to allow them to do this? The UN can't do it. The EU can't do it. The US can't do it. The Israelis can't do it. The USSR couldn't do it. It ain't gonna happen.
A "New World Order" should be avoided no matter what, in my opinion.
What if it means an end to war, an end to hunger, and an end to suffering? Wouldn't that qualify as a "new world order"? I'd sign up for that in a second!
Anyone who for one nanosecond believes that there is any organization capable of imposing its will on the entire world is *seriously* deluded. We can't even govern ourselves country-by-country, much less on a planetary scale. What would give this shadowy organization such keen insights to allow them to do this? The UN can't do it. The EU can't do it. The US can't do it. The Israelis can't do it. The USSR couldn't do it. It ain't gonna happen.
Ordo Ab Chao AKA Order from Chaos AKA Problem/Reaction/Solution
I firmly believe that mankind's activities over the past 150 years have drastically accelerated the current cycle, and that it will ultimately lead to mass starvation and depopulation of the planet. The earth simply cannot continue to support a population of 7, 8, 10, or 15 billion humans.
Evidence?
In any event, whether you call it a "precautionary argument" or not, I'm simply not willing to bet that the non-believers are right. The stakes are too high.
If there were no negative consequences of acting to prevent (or limit) a hypothetical man-made global warming, then I would, by all means, support it. But unfortunately, there will be consequences of acting, so we should assess the evidence first. I am still in the process of doing this.
We *know* that dependence on fossil fuels is *ENORMOUSLY* costly in terms of direct environmental damage, war, corporate greed, etc, etc, etc. And that's all over and above any effect the stuff has on the climate. Those things alone are more than adequate reason for me not to want to use it any more than I absolutely have to.
Sure, I can accept the gist of what you are saying here. One problem, however, is that many developing countries have an abundance of coal (or other fossil fuels) which they could be using to help develop their nations to the standard of living that we enjoy. For many developing countries, renewable energy is simply not an option at this point in time.
If we're pretty certain (and we *are* pretty certain) that their use is causing globally accelerating climate change, that only makes it all the worse.
You might be certain, I am not.
As Buddhists I think it is incumbent upon us to try to do what we can to *lessen* the suffering of sentient beings. Driving gigantic SUVs and consuming plastic like there's no tomorrow, even if it didn't lead to climate change, causes untold amounts of suffering to lots and lots of beings, from the lowest bacteria to humans. So why do we keep doing it? Many of us don't eat meat because it causes suffering to the animals that are killed for our use. Why is the planet any less deserving of our compassion?
As a human being, I believe that we should, first-and-foremost, look after this planet for the sake of the survival and prosperity of the human race. Once our fellow human beings are taken care of (which they are not in many places around the globe), then we can start thinking about extending that compassion towards bacteria.
If there really was some shadowy organization bent on controlling the world in secret do you really think there would be so much info out in public about them?
There is a lot of good information out there but there is also a lot of misinformation and disinformation. Not everyone who is "let in" on their secrets is aligned with their ideologies. For example:
Do you really think they couldn't easily get all these videos removed from YouTube?
They (the powers that be) could. I have noticed that a lot of the more accurate and informative videos do get removed from YouTube often in a very short space of time. If all videos of a conspiratorial nature were removed, that would be highly suspicious. Also, I am sure that they like the fact that many of the videos aimed at "exposing" them are, admittedly, poorly made - often these videos unfortunately have the highest view counts.
Do you really think the folks who expose their secrets wouldn't meet untimely ends from auto "accidents" or "natural causes"?
They do.
So these folks control all the world's governments and militaries, they control the banks and the flow of money, they control the media, yet they can't stop some dude in his basement from exposing them through YouTube videos? Am I seriously suppose to believe this?
They know that the majority of people (who form their opinions based on what the main stream media tells them) are not going to listen to "some dude in his basement". Unfortunately, it seems that you need an expensive studio with all the bright lights and one of those scrolling bars of text at the bottom of the screen for most people to listen to you, regardless of the quality or importance of the information being presented.
Comments
Metta,
Guy
In the debate in the video of the OP, Christopher Munckton (climate change skeptic) demolishes his opponent. Does this mean that climate change is false? Not necessarily. The same applies for the debates you have seen.
Also, many scientists might simply go along with the "man-made climate change" theory because their job/reputation/life depends on it.
Metta,
Guy
One of the most obvious and over-looked culprits for climate change would be the sun. I have heard that sea ice in the Antarctic has been steadily increasing.
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
And in this case "Lord Monckton" its clear he fails on all of these counts, reading some of the things he believes in, it clear to me that the guys an idiot, you just need to look at his stance on AIDS suffers to see this.
So why should I waste my time and listen to someone who has such a belief about how to treat AIDS sufferers ? I won't waste my time listening to his drivel.
And its not me having a closed mind, its simply me avoiding the unskillful drivel which flows out of his mouth.
And the very fact that he appears so much in this youtube video tells me that the people who made it are most likely giving a one sided inaccurate account of global warming in the same style as the zeitgeist films.
What was the official topic of the Munckton debate, and where in your 2 hr video is it? I may watch it if it is not too long. However, I find his new world order claims to be ridiculous (and yes, I watched the videos of presidents, and they are not talking about a conspiracy or anything close to it), and so I hope his ideas about climate are more sound, if not, I won't be watching long! But please let me know the time and I will try to watch it, then I can answer with more background.
I think the IPCC scientists day what they say because they believe what they say, not because their jobs necessarily depend on it.
Namaste
What exactly do you find ridiculous about his NWO claims? Do you find all claims regarding NWO ridiculous, or just those of Christopher Munckton's?
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uoca-ais022806.php
"But the new study signals a reduction in the continent's total ice mass, with the bulk of loss occurring in the West Antarctic ice sheet, said Velicogna."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
let me know if there is anything that the youtube video says that is not answered in this link, and I will find a scientific explanation for that question, as I have no doubt there will be one.
GuyC, see item 12 on this page for an answer to the "co2 lags temperature" question.
Namaste
for those who wanted a summary of some of the arguments presented in the video, here you go: http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-not-due-to-manmade-carbon-dioxide.html
The more I learn about both sides of this debate the less clear it all seems to me. I think I am still a long way from making my mind up one way or the other.
Metta,
Guy
Either create a ruling body to deal with the problem ,a new world order so to speak. Or accept that the world may get warmer ( the Chinese want fridges and automobiles just as we have, it is human nature, so the problem of carbon in the atmosphere will get worse). We will need , perhaps, to move in from the coast and plant different crops in our new climate zones(as a result of warmer temperatures). Perhaps too, the new climate zones will open up new and fertile cropland to solve other problems...
I prefer the latter position, and hope for new technologies( solar energy and battery technology, geothermal, etc.) which will mitigate the need for the draconian measure of a new world order. I do not want pollution police as global enforcers.
"Nothing is ever as good as you hope or as bad as it seems." This will be true in this situation as well.
In most animal systems, waste feeds other growth... it seems a good plan to move toward that in my opinion.
The entire body of scientific research is telling us the world is heating up as expected from the various changes humanity is making to the world's ecology, and measurements and observations all supposrt this, and the chemical reactions from the carbon and greenhouse gasses can and are being measured and it's not guesswork. Only a tiny fringe element of scientists with no training in the environmental sciences disagrees, and they get trotted out for political reasons.
What is a myth is this politcal and industry led lie that the scientific world is involved in some vast conspiracy to make us afraid of polluting the Earth, when everything is just fine, move along, nothing to see here.
Politicians and "industry experts" don't get to hold views on a scientific question. Only scientists get to have expert opinions. I rather think you should be listening to them.
JFK did indeed warn about secret societies and such, Eisenhower did warn about the military industrial complex. I believe they are important warning that have not been heeded. But the fact that any politician says "New World Order" and people go nuts over it is silly. Its obvious when Bush and Rupy say it they arnt talking about a one world fascist government run by banksters trying to eliminate 80% of the population. You know very well what they are talking about. They are talking about governments getting together and finding common ground.
The same way you can point to scientists and say "hey they are making money from all the research so they need to keep the scam going" you can do the same to many scientists who are saying its all a hoax and get money from oil companies. It is also a pretty narrow view of science, as much as there is consensus on this subject, there are real scientists who are trying to debunk it and come up with alternative explanations.
And I think its pretty obvious on where you should stand. We know for a fact that creating any kind of pollution has an effect on the earth, there is no way around that fact. So you really think having millions of factories, cars, farms will have no impact whatsoever on the world? That is just magically does nothing.
Christopher Hitchens said it best,
"We don't have another planet on which to run the experiment. Just as we don't have a right to run an experiment to run an experiment in nuclear exchange on this planet, we have no right to run an experiment in warming it either. So if it turned out to be that there was no severe global warming threat or that it wasn't man-made, then all we would have done would be make a mistake in analysis - which we could correct from. But if it turned out that there was and we didn't do anything about it, then it would be too late to do anything at all. And that would lead to disaster."
To me that says it all....
there is global climate change 'tough.
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
"By their fruits you will know them"
- Matthew 7:16
Just take a look at the actions of George Bush Senior and his ilk. Do you really want to live in a "New World Order" under their leadership? This is a valid point. There are people with conflicts of interest on both sides, no doubt about it. Pollution is a very real problem, I absolutely agree 100%. Does it lead to global warming? I am not sure. This is known as the "Precautionary Argument". The problem with the precautionary argument is that it emphasizes (and perhaps exaggerates) the negative consequences of inaction, but it ignores the negative consequences of taking action.
If we believe that CO2 from human activity is causing Global Warming (and we believe that global warming is as bad as Al Gore says it is, etc.) then the precautions we would have to take to prevent it from getting "worse" (if it's a real problem in the first place) would severely cripple developing countries development and it would also be a huge financial cost for developed countries.
If this is all just "preventative"/"insurance"/"just in case", then we'd want to be fairly certain that the risk multiplied by the consequences of inaction outweigh the inverse risk multiplied by the consequences of action. So, any good insurance assessor would first want to know the risk/consequences involved before advising to adopt the insurance policy. To me, at least, this is not so clear yet.
Metta,
Guy
So do you believe that climate change is also man made or is it natural?
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
I don't see how anyone who ignores or dismisses the significance of these secret meetings of powerful people can be regarded as open minded. Please explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old.
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
A "New World Order" should be avoided no matter what, in my opinion. I hope so!
Metta,
Guy
safe countries/regions:
Costa Rica, Italia, California, Japan, India, Tibet, Madagascar, Australia
worst countries/regions:
USA (minus 'Kali), China, North Korea
I'm about to start building a neo-Gondola // +roof (movable) +motor (electric)
I firmly believe that mankind's activities over the past 150 years have drastically accelerated the current cycle, and that it will ultimately lead to mass starvation and depopulation of the planet. The earth simply cannot continue to support a population of 7, 8, 10, or 15 billion humans. Especially not if it continues warming at the rates currently being seen (and accelerating).
In any event, whether you call it a "precautionary argument" or not, I'm simply not willing to bet that the non-believers are right. The stakes are too high. We *know* that dependence on fossil fuels is *ENORMOUSLY* costly in terms of direct environmental damage, war, corporate greed, etc, etc, etc. And that's all over and above any effect the stuff has on the climate. Those things alone are more than adequate reason for me not to want to use it any more than I absolutely have to. If we're pretty certain (and we *are* pretty certain) that their use is causing globally accelerating climate change, that only makes it all the worse.
As Buddhists I think it is incumbent upon us to try to do what we can to *lessen* the suffering of sentient beings. Driving gigantic SUVs and consuming plastic like there's no tomorrow, even if it didn't lead to climate change, causes untold amounts of suffering to lots and lots of beings, from the lowest bacteria to humans. So why do we keep doing it? Many of us don't eat meat because it causes suffering to the animals that are killed for our use. Why is the planet any less deserving of our compassion?
Anyone who for one nanosecond believes that there is any organization capable of imposing its will on the entire world is *seriously* deluded. We can't even govern ourselves country-by-country, much less on a planetary scale. What would give this shadowy organization such keen insights to allow them to do this? The UN can't do it. The EU can't do it. The US can't do it. The Israelis can't do it. The USSR couldn't do it. It ain't gonna happen.
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy