Happycamper's House of Denial brought to you by ExxonMobil

Status
Not open for further replies.

reece

Well-Known Member
stuartambient said:
reece said:
http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

And they provide links throughout as well as sources at the end as evidence to support their conclusions (GASP!). Why would they do that? (scratches head)
LOL , so gullible fools will drink the kool aid.
It's an Annenberg Foundation site . Dig up some dirt on them , there is enough out there on them.
One lies for the other.
Providing sources so you can check it out for yourself is some sort of deception? Yeah, I'm the fool. :lol:

Please show some evidence that Factcheck.org is biased in their reporting. It's easy to sit there and lob accusations.

Here are headlines on their home page:

Climategate
Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don't change scientific consensus on global warming.

Obamas Economic Speech
We deconstruct "shovel ready," "up to" and other misleading phrases.

Truth on the Cutting Room Floor
A YouTube video edits Obama's words to create a false impression.

Health Care and the Economy
Experts say the House bill's employer mandate would have a small impact on jobs.

Court Watch: Pennsylvania Slime
Close contest for a state Supreme Court seat brings misleading charges from both sides.
Oh wait, I got it. They report lies, exaggerations, and distortions by all parties (and provide source information) so that "gullible fools will drink the kool aid." They hide their bias by not being biased. They're evil geniuses. :lol:
 
reece,

reece

Well-Known Member
Frickr said:
why include them at all? if you have to use a trick, thats manipulation. i dont care if it is supposibly a scientific term. if its known and known to not be reliable, then any data that is based on these is also unreliable. only makes sence right? im no scientist and i can figure that much out.
Frickr, seriously, are you not aware that there is more than one meaning of the word trick? Trick (of the trade) is not a scientific term. I would think the phrase is pretty much common knowledge to most in their late teens, or surely in their mid-twenties. Have you ever heard the phrase? Do you really think it has anything to do with deception?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trick
5. a clever or ingenious device or expedient; adroit technique: the tricks of the trade.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/trick?view=uk
trick

PHRASES
tricks of the trade special ingenious techniques used in a profession or craft.
 
reece,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
Just to clear up the Polar bear gate: I think it is English humour misunderstood.

I was meaning to have polar bears riding on that iceberg was wrong in every sense, including where they come from, which was the joke having a dig at some of the inaccuracies that get reported in the press.

I didnt think it was really worth pointing it out before but :lol: (or maybe it just wasnt that funny ;) )
 
Happycamper,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
Reece, it's ok. I wouldn't expect you to think anything else.

They've managed to convince you that the globe is warming, when we are actually on a cooling cycle, which kind of speaks volumes.

But in 10, 15, 30 years? Hopefully in our lifetime when we get told they got it wrong, please remember this thread.
 
Happycamper,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
Has everyone heard the story of Chicken Licken aka Henny Penny aka Little chicken.

You know, the fable where a chicken thinks the sky is falling down, and manages to through hysteria convince a nation as well.

The Chicken jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the unscrupulous fox uses to manipulate them for his own benefit, sometimes as supper

There is a reason why someone wrote that fable a long time ago, traced back to 6th century BC African folk tales. We should listen a bit more to our ancestors in all respects. (including when they tell us they lived through substantially much hotter climates)

This is exactly the same thing that is happening regarding global warming. It's human nature to react the way people do to the hysteria. It's happened many, many times before, since the first day there was a human on the planet.
 
Happycamper,

Cr8z13

Well-Known Member
A better example of Chicken Little would be Glenn Beck. That guy traffics in fear, paranoia and whacked-out conspiracy theories nightly. "Unscrupulous Fox", indeed. :lol:
 
Cr8z13,

stuartambient

Well-Known Member
CrazyCracker said:
stuartambient said:
CrazyCracker said:
:lol:

@ Stuart, come up with your own analogy please.
I didn't write that , it was Purple-Days. I am not even sure what he means by that remark.
Do I need to be concerned though ? :2c:
I am aware purple days wrote that comment, and I dont think it was an analogy.

I am refering to your use of kool aid. The phrase I used twice on the last page of this thread. To soon man, to soon.
The use of the phrase Kool Aid became popular after the Jim Jones / People's Temple incident. It fits perfectly in this discussion.
 
stuartambient,

stuartambient

Well-Known Member
reece said:
stuartambient said:
reece said:
http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

And they provide links throughout as well as sources at the end as evidence to support their conclusions (GASP!). Why would they do that? (scratches head)
LOL , so gullible fools will drink the kool aid.
It's an Annenberg Foundation site . Dig up some dirt on them , there is enough out there on them.
One lies for the other.
Providing sources so you can check it out for yourself is some sort of deception? Yeah, I'm the fool. :lol:

Please show some evidence that Factcheck.org is biased in their reporting. It's easy to sit there and lob accusations.

Here are headlines on their home page..............
Here is a few paragraphs extracted regarding foundations. You might consider Annenberg's work with Bill Ayers, Barack and Michelle Obama. Poverty Pimps Inc. LOL , that wasn't the actual name but basically is what they did. I will look into providing more specifically regarding Annenberg (a Ford Foundation offshoot) when I get to it.

Sorry for the long post.

FOUNDATIONS
Foundations are either state or federally chartered. The first was chartered by Benjamin Franklin in 1790, in Philadelphia and Boston, from a $4,444.49 fund, to make loans to young married artificers (artisans) of good character. In 1800, the JAGCorps: * navyjag-humint.co.nr * jagcorps.co.nr * thomas-j-mcveigh.co.nr 103

Magdalen Society was established in Philadelphia, to ameliorate that distressed condition of those unhappy females who have been seduced from the paths of virtue, and are desirous of returning to a life of rectitude. In 1846, the Smithsonian Institution was established by the bequest of English scientist James Smithson for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men. The Peabody Education Fund
was initiated in 1867 by banker George Peabody, to promote education in the South. Before 1900, there were only 18 foundations; from 1910-19, there were 76; during the 1920s, 173; the 1930s, 288; the 1940s, 1,638; and during the 1950s, there were 2,839 foundations. United Press International (UPI) reported on July 19, 1969, that the top 596 foundations had an income that was twice the net earnings of the countrys 50 largest commercial banking institutions.

According to Rep. Wright Patman, in a report to the 87th Congress, it is because of the existence of foundations, that only one-third of the income of the nation is actually taxed.
Some of the important foundations are: Ford Foundation (Ford Motor Co.), Rockefeller Foundation (Standard Oil), Duke Endowment (Duke family fortune), John A. Hartford Foundation (Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea), W. K. Kellogg Foundation (the Kellogg Cereals), Carnegie Corp. (Carnegie Steel), Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (General Motors), Moody Foundation (W. L. Moodys oil, realty, newspapers, and
bank holdings), Lilly Endowment (Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals), Pew Memorial Trust (Sun Oil Co. or Sunoco), and the Danforth Foundation (Purina Cereals), which all have assets of well over $100 million.
The first Congressional Committee to investigate the tax-free foundations was the Cox Committee in 1952, led by Rep. Eugene E. Cox, a Democrat from Georgia. Its purpose was to find out which foundations and organizations are using their resources for purposes other than the purposes for which they were established, and especially to determine which such foundations and organizations are using
their resources for un-American and subversive activities or for purposes not in the interest or tradition of the United States. Cox discovered that officers and trustees of some foundations were Communists,
and that these foundations had given grants to Communists or Communistcontrolled organizations. A former Communist official, Maurice Malkin, testified that in 1919 they were trying to penetrate these organizations (foundations), if necessary take control of them and their treasuries ... that they should be able to finance the Communist Party propaganda in the United States. During the investigation, Cox
died, and the facts were glossed over in a cover-up.

Another member of the Committee, Rep. Carroll Reece of Tennessee, the former Chairman of the Republican National Committee, forced another investigation in 1953, to see if foundations were being used for political purposes, propaganda, or attempts to influence legislation. The Washington Post called the investigation JAGCorps: * navyjag-humint.co.nr * jagcorps.co.nr * thomas-j-mcveigh.co.nr
104 unnecessary, and that it was stupidly wasteful of public funds. Reece even referred to a conspiracy.

The Eisenhower Administration was clearly against the probe. Three of the four who were selected for the Committee, with Reece, were House members who had voted against the investigation. Rep. Wayne Hays of Ohio worked from the inside to stall the investigation. During one 3-hour session, he interrupted the same witness 246 times. He prohibited evidence discovered by two of its investigators from being
used. Rene A. Wormser, legal counsel to the Committee, revealed why, in his 1958 book Foundations: Their Power and Influence: Mr. Hays told us one day that the White House had been in touch with him and asked him if he would cooperate to kill the Committee. Wormser also revealed that the Committee had discovered that these foundations were using their wealth to attack the basic structure of our
Constitution and Judeo-Christian ethics; and that the influence of major foundations had reached far into government, into the policy-making circles of Congress and into the State Department.
Reeces Special Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations discovered that many foundations were financing civil rights groups, liberal political groups, political extremist groups, and supporting revolutionary activities throughout the world. The Committee reported: Substantial evidence indicates there is more than a mere close working together among some foundations operating in the
international field. There is here, as in the general realm of social sciences, a close interlock. The Carnegie Corporation, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Rockefeller
Foundation and, recently, the Ford Foundation, joined by some others, have commonly cross-financed, to a tune of many millions ... organizations concerned with internationalists, among them,
the Institute of Pacific Relations, the Foreign Policy Association (which was virtually a creature of the Carnegie Endowment), the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International
Affairs and others ... and that it happened by sheer coincidence stretches credulity.

On August 19, 1954, Reece summed up his investigation: It has been said that the foundations are a power second only to that of the Federal Government itself ... Perhaps the Congress should now admit that the foundations have become more powerful, in some areas, at least, than the legislative branch of the Government. The investigation ended in 1955, when funding was withheld.



Stuart
 
stuartambient,

rayski

Well-Known Member
Happycamper said:
Reece, it's ok. I wouldn't expect you to think anything else.

They've managed to convince you that the globe is warming, when we are actually on a cooling cycle, which kind of speaks volumes.
Really? Do you have credible sources for that?
 
rayski,

stuartambient

Well-Known Member
rayski said:
Happycamper said:
Reece, it's ok. I wouldn't expect you to think anything else.

They've managed to convince you that the globe is warming, when we are actually on a cooling cycle, which kind of speaks volumes.
Really? Do you have credible sources for that?
Credible as in soundbyte(s) between American Idol and 90210 ? :lol:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...arming&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq=&fp=b36c7832dbb01be6

http://news.google.com/news/search?...=lord+christopher+monckton&oq=christopher+mon

Those are two "really credible" sources.

The funny thing say with Monckton, as a former science adviser under Thatcher he would have garnered respect for his work and opinions, as an opponent to climate fraud he's labeled a skeptic. A tool of Fox news even.

Stuart
 
stuartambient,

stickstones

Vapor concierge
Purple-Days said:
" And on income tax. Seriously, it is in the Constitution"

I need clarity.

What do you mean by that? I am sure I am not up to date on this whole thread, but, I would like extrapolation on this point, though it's a bit off topic. Just a short side-step of the topic. :2c:
I brought up the income tax as an analogy to global warming. Reece and I are on different sides regarding the legality of the federal income tax. It's another discussion worthy of its own thread if anyone wants to talk about it. That discussion would play similar to this one.
 
stickstones,

stickstones

Vapor concierge
The Chicken Little thing is exactly my point on this topic. The debate about global warming could go on forever, as I don't think it is entirely provable...either that we are warming or, if we are, that we are the cause of it.

But what is absolutely going on, and it is the only thing I care about in this discussion, is that the topic is being used to scare people and push legislation through that either forwards an unrelated agenda or makes someone rich, or both. We need to slow way the fuck down and analyze legislative ideas all the way through to their completion to see the consequences before we enact anything out of a created panic.

It doesn't really matter to me whether or not we are the cause or if global warming exists. The ideas about cleaner energy are good ones and should be implemented. Just not in the fashion that they currently are.
 
stickstones,

stuartambient

Well-Known Member
stickstones said:
But what is absolutely going on, and it is the only thing I care about in this discussion, is that the topic is being used to scare people and push legislation through that either forwards an unrelated agenda or makes someone rich, or both.
That's entirely the consequences ? Have you read what is coming out of China for instance , how their wonderful 1 child policy (while admittedly screwing the balance of the population) was beneficial is reducing x # of tons of CO2. This "legislation" will result in GENOCIDE ! It's already admitted in the numbers. Particularly on the third world. Yet it's couched in the language of doing our grandchildren a wonderful thing by saving the planet.

Seriously this debate is nothing but divide and conquer. Get good people to argue about nonsense while the criminals make their escape . Maybe the debate will continue but if this bizarre draconian casino style cap and trade (already underway) takes off people will find bigger concerns then this, like their day to day survival.
 
stuartambient,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
rayski said:
Happycamper said:
Reece, it's ok. I wouldn't expect you to think anything else.

They've managed to convince you that the globe is warming, when we are actually on a cooling cycle, which kind of speaks volumes.
Really? Do you have credible sources for that?
John Christy (shared the nobel prize with Al Gore) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKOSiYWwcio

Proff Syum Ichi Akasofu director of the (LEADING) International Research Centre in Alaska: Says Nothing unusual happening to the ice caps.

This is very interesting talk by Professor Bob Carter i've not poted on here before.

Professor Bob Carter pt 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
pt 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
pt 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

Bill Kininmonth, the head of Australia`s National Climate Centre from 86 - 98
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPPZNk5ozig

Dr Mitch Taylor has researched Polar Bears for 30 years & talks about many of the issues claimed in the media about their vulnerability to climate change / Global warming http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I63Dl14Pemc

Prof Tim Patterson solar winds and sunspots http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIkQL6K8uY4

Scientist David Archibald http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDX2ExKYyqw


Is that enough to be going on with? I'm bored now.
 
Happycamper,

reece

Well-Known Member
Happycamper said:
Reece, it's ok. I wouldn't expect you to think anything else.

They've managed to convince you that the globe is warming, when we are actually on a cooling cycle, which kind of speaks volumes.

But in 10, 15, 30 years? Hopefully in our lifetime when we get told they got it wrong, please remember this thread.
So trick doesn't have more than one meaning? I have been tricked (pun intended) into believing there is more than one definition? Oxford dictionary is in on it too?

And maybe I missed it but have you provided anything to back up these claims you make?

Listen, I'm old enough to know that what we know, collectively, changes over time. Eggs are good for you, now they're bad for you, oh wait they're good for you again (for example). I also believe I have a healthy skepticism (I am a recovering cynic) of the government. When people say the government wouldn't do x, I say Tuskegee Experiment. I voted Nader in 2000. I vote in every election and I take that right very seriously. Many people were jailed, beaten, had fire hoses and dogs turned on them, and killed so that I could vote in this country. This country where had I been born at a different time I would be legally considered 3/5 of a human being. But I also reserve my right not to vote if I don't like the choices (not out of laziness). Screw the lesser of two evils, on most occasions (I had to vote for the crooked politician over the former Klan leader)

So don't patronize me. This can very easily be turned around.

Happy, it's ok, I wouldn't expect you to think anything else.

They, the polluting industries who are only trying to protect their profits, have managed to convince you that man has no effect on the environment, which kind of speaks volumes.

But in 10, 15, 30 years? Hopefully in our lifetime when we get told they got it wrong, please remember this thread.
 
reece,

reece

Well-Known Member
Happycamper said:
rayski said:
Happycamper said:
Reece, it's ok. I wouldn't expect you to think anything else.

They've managed to convince you that the globe is warming, when we are actually on a cooling cycle, which kind of speaks volumes.
Really? Do you have credible sources for that?
John Christy (shared the nobel prize with Al Gore) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKOSiYWwcio

Proff Syum Ichi Akasofu director of the (LEADING) International Research Centre in Alaska: Says Nothing unusual happening to the ice caps.

This is very interesting talk by Professor Bob Carter i've not poted on here before.

Professor Bob Carter pt 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
pt 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
pt 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

Bill Kininmonth, the head of Australia`s National Climate Centre from 86 - 98
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPPZNk5ozig

Dr Mitch Taylor has researched Polar Bears for 30 years & talks about many of the issues claimed in the media about their vulnerability to climate change / Global warming http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I63Dl14Pemc

Prof Tim Patterson solar winds and sunspots http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIkQL6K8uY4

Scientist David Archibald http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDX2ExKYyqw


Is that enough to be going on with? I'm bored now.
Is it too much to ask for any articles in peer reviewed journals or are they all in on the scam?

And that is my main issue with all of this. The conspiracy. It can't be that reasonable people can disagree. No, it's all a huge worldwide conspiracy to make Al Gore rich. :rolleyes:

And that just makes me shut it all out. So even if you have something valid, it gets washed away with all of the nonsense.
 
reece,

reece

Well-Known Member
stickstones said:
Purple-Days said:
" And on income tax. Seriously, it is in the Constitution"

I need clarity.

What do you mean by that? I am sure I am not up to date on this whole thread, but, I would like extrapolation on this point, though it's a bit off topic. Just a short side-step of the topic. :2c:
I brought up the income tax as an analogy to global warming. Reece and I are on different sides regarding the legality of the federal income tax. It's another discussion worthy of its own thread if anyone wants to talk about it. That discussion would play similar to this one.
Shouldn't we just keep the conspiracies in one thread?


And you and reality are on different sides. Are you really saying it isn't in the Constitution? Or, are you saying it isn't right? That would be different. Many things are/have been legal but wrong, and illegal but not wrong. Like marijuana possession. I don't believe it is wrong, but I know it is illegal. I don't say it is legal because I don't agree with the law.

If you really want to start a thread, go ahead. But I think this can be cleared up pretty quickly. We don't need to debate. I just want to be clear on the thinking.
 
reece,

CrazyCracker

Well-Known Member
stuartambient said:
The use of the phrase Kool Aid became popular after the Jim Jones / People's Temple incident. It fits perfectly in this discussion.
I am aware of where the phrase came from :lol: That is why I used it multiple times in this thread right before you did. ;)
 
CrazyCracker,

stickstones

Vapor concierge
reece said:
stickstones said:
Purple-Days said:
" And on income tax. Seriously, it is in the Constitution"

I need clarity.

What do you mean by that? I am sure I am not up to date on this whole thread, but, I would like extrapolation on this point, though it's a bit off topic. Just a short side-step of the topic. :2c:
I brought up the income tax as an analogy to global warming. Reece and I are on different sides regarding the legality of the federal income tax. It's another discussion worthy of its own thread if anyone wants to talk about it. That discussion would play similar to this one.
Shouldn't we just keep the conspiracies in one thread?


And you and reality are on different sides. Are you really saying it isn't in the Constitution? Or, are you saying it isn't right? That would be different. Many things are/have been legal but wrong, and illegal but not wrong. Like marijuana possession. I don't believe it is wrong, but I know it is illegal. I don't say it is legal because I don't agree with the law.

If you really want to start a thread, go ahead. But I think this can be cleared up pretty quickly. We don't need to debate. I just want to be clear on the thinking.
I'm not doing it here and I'm not starting a thread. One at a time is enough for me.
 
stickstones,
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom