Industry-Backed Author: The ‘Vast Majority’ of Climatologists Don’t Believe In Global Warming
Industry-Backed Author: The ‘Vast Majority’ of Climatologists Don’t Believe In Global Warming
Bonner Cohen is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, where he is paid by the fossil fuel industry to distort the facts about global warming and other environmental issues. He works closely with Steve “Junkman” Milloy, who is one of the leading promoters of misinformation about global warming through his website, junkscience.com.
Today, as a guest on C-SPAN’s National Journal, Bonner claimed that the “vast majority” of climatologists are “agnostic” on global warming. Bonner explained that meant they weren’t convinced “there is a causal relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and [warming] the climate.” In the end, climatologists might conclude the impact of greenhouse gases is “the exact opposite.” Watch it:
This is completely false. Thousands of scientists — participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — have agreed that global warming is real and humans are responsible for much of it.
In the video above, a caller challenges Bonner to name climatologists who dispute that greenhouse gas emissions warm the climate. He fails to name a single one.
Transcript:
CALLER: I’ve been listening to your comments, and I’m rather struck by some of your claims. First of all, what I’m hearing is the typical loose logic that people use in arguing against global warming. For example, climate change occurs naturally, therefore, it’s silly to think that we could somehow affect it, which is sort of like saying since cancer exists in nature, it’s ridiculous to propose that cigarettes could also cause cancer. You know, it’s a typical non-sequitur. But I guess the thing that most struck me was your claim that there’s no consensus amongst climatologists. I guess my question would be, what percentage of climatologists do you think disagree with the concept of global warming and how many could you name?
BONNER: Yes. Most climatologists who look at this are saying, ‘we need to study the matter more. We need more data. We know that human activities can, of course, affect the climate, but that other factors, the ones I pointed out earlier, can also be driving the climate.’ If you go to climate scientists, climatologists, the people who look at this, as opposed to the scientific community at large, you will find absolutely no consensus. Some think that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the climate, others do not. The vast majority of them are somewhat agnostic on the whole thing. That is, that they think we simply need to look at more data.
We know what the theory of global warming is, but what you do in science is that you test the theory. You don’t reach a conclusion one way or the other just based upon emotion. It very well may be that after further research we find out that the manmade emotions of greenhouse gases are driving the climate, or we may find out the exact opposite, or we may decide it’s something of all of the above, some mixture of all of the above. But to assume, as some do, that there is a causal relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate—that is the theory of global warming—that is still up to scientific debate.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Right - there’s no global warming, Joe Lieberman is still a Democrat, we’re winning in Iraq, the prescription drug plan is A-OK … did I leave anything out?
August 9th, 2006 at 10:51 amWhat’s a picture of Mr. Magoo doin’ on T.P.?
Look, this is the eve of the downfall of the DLC…wanna cover that?
August 9th, 2006 at 10:55 amhe can’t see the vast majority because Bushco. plucked out his eyes to see with and you can’t believe what you don’t see.
August 9th, 2006 at 10:55 amIF I put my head deeper in the sand, global warming will just go away!
August 9th, 2006 at 10:56 amCaption Contest:
“Where are my eyes.” ?
August 9th, 2006 at 10:58 amCaption: “I DO believe in pseudoscience, I DO believe in pseudoscience!”
Blogwhoring: Joe to Connecticut: What Primary?
August 9th, 2006 at 11:01 amLooks like a good chunk of those record profits went straight to the P.R. people.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:03 amInstead of contantly reporting on the corruption and blatant lies, why doesn’t ThinkProgress focus on the good people and governments are doing instead. That way we might actually get somewhere rather than just pointing out the liars for X years.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:05 amWhat you don’t see in the close-up is the deaf guy to the right and the man with the tape over his mouth to the left.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:05 amAgain, where is the press on this issue. I am tired of the he said/she said mentality of the press. I have no problems withy the wingnuts having their say, however, it should be balanced with comments that this is an increasingly minority position and that no peer reviewed studies support it. I know that C-span would not be the appropriate forum for such a confrontation. But why would they have such a wingnut on in the first place?
August 9th, 2006 at 11:06 amHey, someone give me a hand with this country, it’s stuck in reverse.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:09 amThe earth isn’t getting hotter, sillies. The chemical properties of mercury have changed.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:09 amBen:
I think that’s a good suggestion and we’ll look to do it. I think both are equally important. You have to expose the people who are trying to prevent progress so we can move forward.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:10 am13 - As Jim Hightower says, you can’t clean the stream until you get the hogs out of it.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:16 amYou need to ask the question “Why does the MSM give these hacks a voice at all?”
August 9th, 2006 at 11:20 amI like Ben’s suggestion because when (not if) progressives are able to have the political power, what will there be to discuss? We need to “plan for the success” as well as create it.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:21 am#2 Exactly what I thought, who brought in Mr. Magoo to talk about global warming?
August 9th, 2006 at 11:22 am“The vast majority” — you keep saying that phrase. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:22 amYou are right. They are proving it.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:27 amAs usual these guys exhibit a complete failure to understand the nature of sceince. The idea of proving anything “without a doubt” does not exist in sceince. Plus the idea that climatologists are in the main “agnostic” is an outright lie.
Of course there are a broad range of views, because in practical terms, almost every theory is “wrong†it’s just that some are less wrong than others. For example, Newton was “wrong†about Gravity because Einstein refined the theory substantially. Thus healthy and critical debate in science is highlighted as “disagreement” when the vast majority, barring oil industry outliers, agree on the key point that humans are causing global warming.
It is quite despicable how the right wing turn the very nature and essence of sceince in on itself in this discussion. It really grates, but when they do it, it is the mark of true right winger, and should be a red flag.
No one is claiming that current climatology is perfect, just sufficiently “not wrong†for the purposes of determining the risk of Global Warming. Just as Newtons laws are sufficiently “not wrong†to get you to the Moon and back.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:29 amNever believe anyone who claims to be prescient whose eyeglasses look like the bottom of two Coke bottles.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:30 am“(insert issue here) is still up to for debate” ??? That is a standard Bush talking point in response to questions raised for every White House lie.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:31 amThank you Mr. Boner Con for making things perfectly clear.
The pope does not shit in the woods and a bear is not catholic.
Just as Newtons laws are sufficiently “not wrong†to get you to the Moon and back.
Comment by Brian Coughlan — August 9, 2006 @ 11:29 am
You know I admire anybody who can discuss about Newton. Thank you very much for your well-balanced posts.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:31 am“We need more data. We know that human activities can, of course, affect the climate, but that other factors, the ones I pointed out earlier, can also be driving the climate.’ If you go to climate scientists, climatologists, the people who look at this, as opposed to the scientific community at large, you will find absolutely no consensus. Some think that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the climate, others do not. The vast majority of them are somewhat gnosti….”
- Expanded comments by Bonner Cohen
******Judd, accurate encapsulation of a topic or conversation CAN DO WONDERS “for accuracy in reporting” - FAIR. (I would hate to think YOU attended the Reuters News/Photos Deseminating Class .)
Many conservatives believe in the cyclical nature of global warming AND cooling - we’re just not into progressive self-flagellation. NOT acknowledging the natural progression of climate shifts seems designed to spread MORE “progressive” despair and recruit more “caring” dupes - I mean “caring” Dems. How do you think the planet escaped the devastating “Ice AGE” predicted just 30 years ago? Have the seas never risen? Have temperatures never spiked or plunged? Didn’t wholesale numbers of GIANT reptiles face rapid extinction? WWPD? What Would Progs Do???
August 9th, 2006 at 11:32 amCaption contest:
August 9th, 2006 at 11:33 amNight of the living dead just got executive!
Why argue with these fools over what the cause of global warming is or isn’t? Just regulate greenhouse gases as pollution or some other nuisance. Too much energy is being wasted on whether global warming is real / not real. It doesn’t really matter — the fact is that burning fossil fuels creates a lot of pollution and those that create this pollution should work to clean it up, if not for a planet, then for the communities they live, breath and work in.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:34 amURBAN HEAT MASSES
URBAN HEAT MASSES
URBAN HEAT MASSES
URBAN HEAT MASSES
August 9th, 2006 at 11:37 amModerated by Admin.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:39 amJHM,
August 9th, 2006 at 11:40 amI’m still waiting for you to detail the effect of UHM on glacier and polar ice cap melting.
Until then, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP.
Jason,
I don’t know why you continue to bring up urban heat masses, you take a beating everytime. I am sorry if your belief system is threatened, but at least try to debate.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:42 amNEOCON HOT AIR
August 9th, 2006 at 11:42 amNEOCON HOT AIR
NEOCON HOT AIR
NEOCON HOT AIR
jUST USE GREENER ENERGY FOR THE GOOD of IT
August 9th, 2006 at 11:43 amThe MSM puts the hacks on because they want to brainwash the masses into thinking what they want us to think. If the people start thinking for themselves on mass the people will unite wake up and take the country back stop the war party and end lobbyists, bring back the unions, start a universal health care system, raise minimum wage, find alternative clean energy sources etc… etc… etc… you know panic.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:43 amHey, it didn’t take long for our “Ivy-league” Stanford alumni to show up! Good show, Jason(s)
August 9th, 2006 at 11:44 amHe forgot to mention that Adam and Eve rode to church on a dinosaur.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:50 amHow do you think the planet escaped the devastating “Ice AGE†predicted just 30 years ago?
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 9, 2006 @ 11:32 am
Yes I’ve heard this carnard before.
Climatologists have been wrong, so what? As I pointed out the vast majority of theories are “wrong”, does that mean we allow ourselves to be paralysed? Are we to expect that you think the science of 30 years ago is the same as the science of today?
The computers at our disposal now, are millions of times more powerful than the machines that clunked out the first climate models in the 1970’s, the software that they run on, thousands of times more nuanced and flexible. This is not hyperbole …. but cold stone fact.
To point to the predictions from the 70’s, and say “see, they were wrong then, how can they be right now?â€, is plainly laughable. Given the accelerating pace of change the science of the 1970’s is as far from 2006, as science of 1870 was from 1970.
The consensus is in, the science is good, and besides, why shouldn’t we change? I’m converting to a hyper-efficient wood burning stove for heat, cutting my annual electricity bills by 25%, and growing the fuel locally.
We should change and it’s not that hard, what are you so afraid of?
August 9th, 2006 at 11:51 amYes Jason all those urban areas on the Greenland ice sheet, receding glaciers around the world, the ice cap, etc, are really having an effect.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:53 amThe consensus is in, the science is good, and besides, why shouldn’t we change? I’m converting to a hyper-efficient wood burning stove for heat, cutting my annual electricity bills by 25%, and growing the fuel locally.
We should change and it’s not that hard, what are you so afraid of?
Comment by Brian Coughlan — August 9, 2006 @ 11:51 am
Did I mention the Swedish Government also give me a tasty tax rebate for my trouble? C’mon guys, we need American onboard!!!!
August 9th, 2006 at 11:53 amTURBINE HEAT SPASMS?
I can’t hear you Jason speak up.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:55 amHe must belong to the same school of thought as that idiot who said global warming is a good thing - great for agriculture, less freezing temperatures, etc.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:55 amThere are always going to be nutjobs - obviously this guy is one.
I love the “When you actually talk to climatologists…” type comments so-called experts use. It implies that the speaker has “talked” to climatologists. (despite the obvious fact nothing of the kind has happened - name a guy you talked to, just name one…) It also creates the doublewhammy implication that YOU haven’t and never will speak to a climatologist - thereby leaving only one ‘expert’ to turn to… the buffoon who is implying they are in constant communication with true experts - see first implication for an endless loop…
The War on Science continues…
August 9th, 2006 at 11:56 am36 Brian Coughlan
August 9th, 2006 at 11:56 amSuperb post. Why not, indeed! Maybe because a truly free market would replace oil-based corporations (car manufacturers and oil/gas distributers) with non-oil based corporations. Too much threat, too much money, too much political clout for the oil-based corporations to allow it.
How do you think the planet escaped the devastating “Ice AGE†predicted just 30 years ago?
Comment by mighty aphrodite
You mean the ice age that WAS NOT predicted 30 years ago, but Newsweek ran a story about it anyway, mischaracterizing the peer-reviewed science?
Whew! That was a lucky escape!
August 9th, 2006 at 11:56 am#8 - #
Instead of contantly reporting on the corruption and blatant lies, why doesn’t ThinkProgress focus on the good people and governments are doing instead. That way we might actually get somewhere rather than just pointing out the liars for X years.
Comment by Ben — August 9, 2006 @ 11:05 am
LOL - so we should ignore the liars and they just go away. What an amazingly naive troll you are… If you want to live in denial, that’s your business. Keep it yours and let those who aren’t afraid to speak truth to power do so…
August 9th, 2006 at 11:59 amCheck these babies out. Ensures 80% of the heat generated goes into the house and not up the chimney. I can’t wait for winter!!!
http://www.nibe.se/ brasvarme/ produkter/ taljstenskaminer/ Contura660T.htm
August 9th, 2006 at 12:00 pmJason: URBAN HEAT MASSES - - Jason believes in Urban Turbines and Heathenol.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:00 pmI’d vote for encouraging positive stories on TP.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:08 pmHow about including an article on the Tesla Motors electric car>?
I for one (can’t afford to buy one) would love to get greater exposure of the technology that allows a 3.5 hour recharge, has excellent performance and a decent range per recharge.
Here it is in english. Seriously guys, if you want to make a difference and you heat with electricity, gas, coal or gas then you need to switch. Wood burning stoves suit me because we live in the country side and can grow the trees renewable on our own property.
But NIBE have tons of other great solutions. Um …. I really don’t work for them, I’m just excited!!!!
http://www.nibe.com/ stoves/ produkter/ braskaminer/ contura660T.htm
August 9th, 2006 at 12:09 pmhttp://www.nibe.com/heating/produkter/mvp/mvp.htm
http://www.nibe.com/heating/produkter/fvp/fvp.htm
http://www.nibe.com/heating/produkter/uvp/uvp.htm
#27 - #
URBAN HEAT MASSES
URBAN HEAT MASSES
URBAN HEAT MASSES
URBAN HEAT MASSES
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 9, 2006 @ 11:37 am
Gonna have to agree with you big time on that one Jason… Living in a large urban center in a flat plain can really affect weather patterns. All that concrete and steel are little more than a heat sink sticking out of the earth.
Anyone can see this if they watch storm patterns on the weather radar… where I live there are typically breaks in fronts over highways and storms tend to spread out and around the city rather than just roll over it…
…but we don’t affect our environment, ffffft. Whatta joke.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:09 pmJMH,
PATHETIC
PATHETIC
PATHETIC
MA,
Incoherent as usual
August 9th, 2006 at 12:10 pm#27 - #
URBAN HEAT MASSES
URBAN HEAT MASSES
URBAN HEAT MASSES
URBAN HEAT MASSES
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Catapaultin’ the Propaganda. Unfortunately this doesn’t work with people who seek knowledge from reality.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:12 pmWow. I know Jason gets attacked for just being Jason (I’ve done it, and I’m not saying he doesn’t earn it) but you need to really think about this before you dismiss him. He doesn’t go to much length to explain things until people get all confrontational, so that’s his own fault…
Seriously, what doesn’t make sense about concetrated areas of heat (cities - aka HEATSINKS) changing and influencing weather and average temperatures. The primary reason air moves around our globe is because of heat, so having icecaps affected by cities isn’t that outrageous. He is actually AGREEING with the anti-propaganda crowd… we ARE a cause of global warming.
Stop simply reacting to statements and think about them first… just cause someone is arrogant doesn’t dismiss an opinion (much as I hate to say it).
August 9th, 2006 at 12:17 pmHey, it didn’t take long for our “Ivy-league†Stanford alumni to show up! Good show, Jason(s)
Comment by DRxJ
Wha? I missed this! He claimed to be an “Ivy Leaguer” from Stanford???
That explains a LOT of his dumbed-down mis-information! He’s a liar, and a really BAD one at that!!!!!
August 9th, 2006 at 12:18 pmTo clarify the heatsink comments - there are a lot of cars in urban areas and other producers of greenhouse gasses. I am not saying concrete and steel are responsible for all global warming, but contribute just as greatly to local (and thus eventually global) weather patterns. A concentration of a lot of things create the ‘environment’ for an ‘urban heat center’.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:20 pmStop simply reacting to statements and think about them first… just cause someone is arrogant doesn’t dismiss an opinion (much as I hate to say it).
Comment by Technodaoist — August 9, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Actually I don’t think he is agreeing, but trotting out the oft heard observation that the measurements used to underpin global warming are wrong, because the majority of them are taken in or near cities.
However, you do raise an amusing point that it is actually a validation of the notion that humans effect climate, I just don’t think that was what he meant. I could be wrong though.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:23 pmThere is a ton of grant and research money in “global warming.” I can’t blame any scientist for saying whatever it takes to get some of that money. They know where their bread is buttered, after all. The media and politicians have really grabbed on to “global warming” as an election-year gimmick, too. They too know where their bread is buttered. It’s given Al Gore a “second chance.”
Amazing.
Then these folks who are out to “save the planet,” show the ultimate hypocrisy by opposing clean energy like nuclear power.
Nutballs.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:23 pmUMm nuclear power isn’t that clean, I remember when chernobyl went up, and the near miss at three mile island. Plus if you read through the seattle pi, and look for information on Hanford, well it isn’t that clean.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:29 pm55.Actually I don’t think he is agreeing, but trotting out the oft heard observation that the measurements used to underpin global warming are wrong, because the majority of them are taken in or near cities.
Comment by Brian Coughlan
Last I heard, satellites gathered that info… and a bad orbit skewed decades worth of data.
Its easy to misunderstand Jason - he’s not long on explanation or clarification.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:29 pmI just don’t think that was what he meant. I could be wrong though.
Comment by Brian Coughlan — August 9, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
I already told him that, by mentioning urban islands, he is actually agreeing that climate change is caused by humans but then his response was that the measured temperatures are rising because thermometers are all placed in or near cities. He still has to substantiate that claim (I won’t hold my breath).
What he trying to say is: Humans do impact temperatures, but only in a very localised, limited fashion.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:30 pmThere is a ton of grant and research money in “global warming.†I can’t blame any scientist for saying whatever it takes to get some of that money.
As opposed to the vanishingly small amount of money available from the Oil, Gas and Coal lobby?
August 9th, 2006 at 12:32 pmThen these folks who are out to “save the planet,†show the ultimate hypocrisy by opposing clean energy like nuclear powe
I’m not sure it’s the ultimate in hypocrisy to oppose ‘clean energy like nuclear power.’ Nuclear energy has a few issues we, as humans, haven’t figured out how to deal with. The one that quickly comes to mind is what to do with the waste? It hangs around a long, long time and no one seems to want to live near it.
Clean, as in no greenhouse gases, perhaps; but clean as in clean, no.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:34 pmThen these folks who are out to “save the planet,†show the ultimate hypocrisy by opposing clean energy like nuclear power.
Nutballs.
Comment by muckdog — August 9, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
LOL - define clean. You mean that radioactive waste can be sanitized? Or we should just stick it in a cave in Yuma with signs that have been desgined to ‘warn the future’ of its hazards? And maybe you can help pick up litter at Chernobyl to make it ‘cleaner’.
Idiotic NIMBY… Or are you volunteering to store the world’s nuclear leavings?
August 9th, 2006 at 12:34 pmLast I heard, satellites gathered that info… and a bad orbit skewed decades worth of data.
Comment by Technodaoist — August 9, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
Sure, but we have records going back over 150 years, and Ice cores and whatnot beyond that.
Satellites are pretty recent, and any issues that we have had would be normalised by comparing results to ground based observations.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:34 pmIf climate change is caused by urban heat islands, then the solution is simple:
we level all cities and disperse the population into villages of no more then 200/per village. We also cease using concrete, and plant trees around every building. Factories and manufacturing will have to be torn down, as will generating plants, etc….
I have a feeling that if the ubarn heat mass is true, then the fix is far more difficult, then simply changing our habits, and stop using fossil fuels.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:36 pmThen these folks who are out to “save the planet,†show the ultimate hypocrisy by opposing clean energy like nuclear power.
Comment by muckdog — August 9, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
I’m all in favour of nuclear power … for the Indians. They’re a democracy, if the people go for it, I say great!!!! We are phasing it out in Sweden though.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:36 pmWhat he trying to say is: Humans do impact temperatures, but only in a very localised, limited fashion.
Comment by Gregor Samsa
Then I misunderstood and give him too much credit. He begins to understand the situation, but he doesn’t take it to the logical conclusion. The earth is a closed system. Small changes contribute to big changes.
And besides - “Think Globally, Act Locally”
August 9th, 2006 at 12:38 pmI have a feeling that if the ubarn heat mass is true, then the fix is far more difficult
Comment by Krazny — August 9, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
And you just got to the core of the rationale (IMO) behind pushing that urban island heat bunk: It is so expensive to do anything at all as to make it impracticable, even if by hyping it Crichton et all agree that global warming is anthropogenic.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:40 pmThe republicans are very good in giving a false choice. They have framed the GW debate as, if we do anything we will destroy our economy, and our way of life. I sad statement in my mind.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:44 pmhttp://scienceblogs.com/ pharyngula/ 2006/ 06/ i_think_i_despise_antienvironm.php
Funny ….. :-)
August 9th, 2006 at 12:51 pmIt would be really cool if you would include a video clip of this. Too bad Think Progress doesn’t do video anymore.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:51 pmI can’t blame any scientist for saying whatever it takes to get some of that money.
Comment by muckdog — August 9, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
Oh, I do. Thats not a scientist, then. Its a crook.
The media and politicians have really grabbed on to “global warming†as an election-year gimmick, too.
Just in the US…I wonder why.
Then these folks who are out to “save the planet,†show the ultimate hypocrisy by opposing clean energy like nuclear power.
Comment by muckdog — August 9, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
So nuclear power is clean, now? Did you find a way to dispose safely of nuclear wastes? I am just asking… ´cause you know they will give you the Nobel if you show how.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:55 pmAs the temperature rises, so will the amount of money paid to blowhards like this one to lie about its causes.
August 9th, 2006 at 1:01 pm..Because that would mean that Mighty A would have to admit that she was wrong. Which she / it will never do. If the average US temp shoots above 90 degrees, Greenland melts, and the Gulf Stream shuts off altogether, they’ll blame anything other than the Petrochemical Industry. If you’re betting, place your ‘global warming blame bets’ on the Clintons, the Liberal Media, or the Wrath of God for the Sins of Gays and Flag-Burners.
August 9th, 2006 at 1:03 pmDoes Diebold make a more accurate thermometer?
August 9th, 2006 at 1:17 pmDiebold makes custom equipment, to tell the user whatever he/she wants to hear.
August 9th, 2006 at 1:37 pm#36 - “Are we to expect that you think the science of 30 years ago is the same as the science of today?” Comment by BrianC.
******Are we to expect the science of today is the same as the science 30 years from now?? I think not…
“The consensus is in, the science is good…”
******If it’s not wrong - - again. I’m sensing a tad of the “infallible, noble and thoroughly modern human” syndrome in your rhetoric.
“We should change and it’s not that hard, what are you so afraid of?”
August 9th, 2006 at 1:55 pm******Unlike the doomsday progs - I’m not afraid. I view what happens with the earth’s cyclical changes as PART of the cycle. I find the hubris of progs who sell FEAR far too predictable - those who think they can “save” mankind seem to believe they can change those cycles…Go see “Inconvenient Truth” again - you’ll feel better about your noble efforts.
P.S. Be CAREFUL with that “efficient” wood-burning stove….
Thats not even a human. Its some strange anthropomorphic robotic flesh-being that Big Oil has been cooking up in their research labs to gurgle the latest talking points.
August 9th, 2006 at 1:55 pmI find the hubris of self-rightous regressives who sell fear to be unamerican, and sick.
August 9th, 2006 at 1:59 pmAphrodite,
you missed the point of my post, I was pointing out, that the Urban Heat Mass idea would reguire just such an extreme answer to solve. I was in no way advocating such an action. perhaps you should use my entire statement instead of selectively quoting parts. Of course such intellictual dishonesty comes easy to you.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:04 pmP.S. Kraz - Of course you don’t recognize intellectual honesty - that is a foreign language to progs living in ProgWorld…
August 9th, 2006 at 2:07 pmIf you ever used any intellectual honesty it would be easily recognized. I live on the planet earth, what world do you live on?, or better yet what rock do you live under?
PS you might try to brush up on your reading comprehension, then you would not come across as an angry, hate filled zealot.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:09 pmMighty Aphrodite lecturing others on intellectual honesty? Ha! That is rich….
August 9th, 2006 at 2:11 pm#74, Chaise,
That was very funny.
Ahhhhhh, well, it may have taken days, weeks or even months of reiteration, but at least now some of you have started discussing this topic intelligently:
1) Some have finally admitted that urban heat masses have dramatic effects on local temperatures and weather patterns - some of it due to the replacement of moisture evaporating soils and photosynthesizing plants with heat storing materials, some of it due to higher localized greenhouse gases, causing smog, etc. Yes, all of these things are due to the activities of man.
2) Some even recognize that these many localized changes in weather patterns actually do have a global impact - a butterfly flaps its wings in Texas and it rains in Japan - chaos theory. It shouldn’t take a graduate from a TOP RANKED university to see that identifying the areas with the highest localized effects should give a clue to the cause of global effects.
3) Some have even recognized that to stop or reverse these contributing factors to global climate change, assuming it’s real and assuming it’s caused by man, are going to be too expensive or impractical to ever happen.
I personally believe, that if you use nothing but clean power - nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, wave, with kinetic energy storage (ceramic flywheels), batteries or fuel cells, the impact of urban heat masses will still be a much greater problem than greenhouse gases ever were. Moreover, all these practices will put us at an economic disadvantage to Asian powers, leading to eventual security issue, and with them not participating in clean power tech, there will be no net fix to theorized global warming.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:14 pm- the Right rules with trumped up fear(ex:terra) and downplayed real crises(global warming,environment,healthcare etc.etc)
*****just follow the MONEY
TaTa all………
August 9th, 2006 at 2:16 pm#83 - Actually, it’s incredibly sad.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:17 pmJason,
who are these some people you keep refering too?
We already have a security issue over using oil. Frankly if we replace oil as an energy source, I am unsure why that would place us at a disadvantage. If we produce as much or more energy with clean sources, then it is a win-win. We maintain our standard of living, we pollute less, and we are not dependant on foreign sources of oil. Regardless of Asia’s energy decisions we can still be better. It akin to saying, well my neighbor shits on his lawn, so I might as well shit on mine.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:19 pm******Are we to expect the science of today is the same as the science 30 years from now?? I think not…
I’m pleased you appear to have grasped some part of the post:-) The part you missed is that science progressivley narrows the scope of the error in any given theory. Given the overwhelming consensus, and the risk involved with inaction, and the broad spectrum of energy choices available, inaction is by far the worst of all options. A managed switch to renewables leaves very few losers.
“We should change and it’s not that hard, what are you so afraid of?â€
******Unlike the doomsday progs - I’m not afraid. I view what happens with the earth’s cyclical changes as PART of the cycle.
With all due respect, I couldn’t rely on how you “view” the world, and I’d recommend you don’t either. Neither of us know enough about this subject to form a “view”, we must depend on experts in the subject. If I have an electrical problem in the house, I don’t ask some guy on the street his opinon, I call an electrician.
My view is formed by the consensus emerging from the experts, whats forming yours?
I maintain you are afraid of something. Your position is irrational and extreme, forcing you to resort to patently silly comments about 30 year old studies, which according to another poster are also bunk. So you’ve lost the little wilted fig leave you had.
Seriously though, why not simply use less energy if it can be done with relative ease? Why not wean yourselves from foreign oil? Other nations generate 25% of their energy from renewables, why can’t America at least try?
August 9th, 2006 at 2:23 pm#87, Krazny,
Our security issue with the middle east is the result of Islamo-fascism, which was spawned by oppressive regimes, not US oil dependence.
Clean technologies are less economically feasible than current fossil fuel technologies. If they weren’t, given the clean selling point, they would be winning in the marketplace. The only exception I can think of is nuclear and hydro-electric power, but environmentalists and their rabid attorneys have blocked their construction for years, which, in a sense, adds tremendous costs to their construction, making them again less feasible.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:25 pm#89, Brian,
I have repeatedly heard posters declare that every year climatologists get more and more accurate in their predictions. Yet, last year, the national weather service failed to predict the severity of the hurricane season, and this year, only half way through the season, they had to admit they grossly OVERestimated the severity of this hurrican season.
Yes, your analyses and computer processing power may get better and better, but when your most fundamental assumptions are wrong, no amount of analyses and computers are going to compensate.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:29 pmHey, Bonner! Anyone ever tell you you’re an idiot?
August 9th, 2006 at 2:32 pmMoreover, all these practices will put us at an economic disadvantage to Asian powers, leading to eventual security issue, and with them not participating in clean power tech, there will be no net fix to theorized global warming.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 9, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
The United States puts out more CO2 as a nation by far than any other nation on Earth, including China and India. Considering the relative populations (1 billion+ for each of China and India, 300 million US) the per capita emissions are many times those of either of these other countries. On top of that, this has been the case for the past 100+ years of CO2 pollution.
For the US to refuse to take any steps until India and China do exactly the same, is kind of like the fattest man at the table, apon the realization that the food is running out, continuing to eat more than anyone else and demanding the skinny people to cut back just as much and at the same time. There is no morally sane way to look at the emissions problem that does not place a greater burden on the worst polluter.
How fatalistic, how apathetic you two sound. Very unamerican. This thing can be done, and it can be done economically, the longer you hang about on the sidelines the worse it will be when the changing environment forces you to act.
Keep on pissing about and you’ll be buying green tech from exclusivley European and Asian countries, the EU is already far ahead of the US and sharing the technology with China. The Chinese for all their faults seem to have got the memo on this subject and are already pressing ahead with efforts to reduce CO2.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:32 pmJason,
we wouldn’t give a rats ass about the middle east of they weren’t sitting on huge oil deposits. It would be relegated to the same place as most of the African continent in US foreign affiars. Don’t forget we supported some of those facist regimes.
Frankly if the money and research were put into renewable resources like they should have been during the 70’s then we would be in a better place. Hydro is a great resource, as is wind farms and some other options. I for one would like to see building credits go to those who put solar panels on houses. Have the homeowner generate some of the power.
Despite what you may think rapid enviromentalists have not dictated energy policy. Insurance companies have refused to insure nuke plants. Added to the disposal of waste is a huge nightmare, it isn’t that clean. Look up Hanford sometime, add in downwinders and waste.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:34 pmIf you watched the whole program you would see that TP Judd misrepresents Cohen’s position. Human activity is not driving climate change, in other words, is not the only contributing factor in climate change. Find a scientist that says that the burning of fossil fuel and other human activity is the driving force behind climate change.
…humans are responsible for much of it.
What is “much”? More than 50%? Isn’t there uncertaintly as to how much humans are contributing to climate change within the scientific communtiy? If so, doesn’t this make Cohen’s position valid?
It’s clear that TP Judd is guilty of politicizing the science of climate change, exaggerating the findings and speculations of the scientific community, while ignoring the diversity of opinion among experts. TP Judd, you’re methods are so transparent.
Derived from Pielke,
Politicization of Science 101: How to Use Science to Argue Politics, Manipulate the Media, and Silence your Political Opponents
A recipe for effectively using science to advance political aims:
1. Find yourself in a highly political, high-stakes debate that involves considerations of science (or more generally, intelligence).
2. Seek to turn the political debate into a debate about science or information, that is, scientize the politics.
3. Seek to associate your preferred political outcomes with a clear consensus of the relevant expert community, even if this means oversimplifying the issue. This strategy will work best if you use the term “consensus†(scare quotes!) in an undefined manner. Even if there are legitimate areas of uncertainty or debate, keep the focus on “consensus.â€
4. Disparagingly characterize anyone who disagrees with your preferred political perspective as a “skeptic†or “contrarian†or “outlying perspective.†Don’t allow any distinction between the typically few consensus areas of knowledge and typically many more areas that have some greater uncertainty. If uncertainty is raised as a concern, emphasize the need for preemptive action in the face of uncertainty.
5. Do whatever you can to associate your opponents with Republicans [and the fossil fuel industry].
6. Argue that the media is dealing with mistruths by allowing your political opponents voice because they are not part of the science/information “consensus†(remember, if consensus is undefined you can use it against just about anyone who disagrees with you). Ask the media to favor your political agenda under these circumstances. (If the media can be tricked into thinking that claims about information are the same as political claims, then they just might fall for it, and take sides! Yours!)
August 9th, 2006 at 2:36 pmYet, last year, the national weather service failed to predict the severity of the hurricane season, and this year, only half way through the season, they had to admit they grossly OVERestimated the severity of this hurrican season.
Arguing from a single data point that GW is not happening, is just as bad as arguing from a single data point that it is. Ala Pat Robertson. You are both wrong. You are also conflating short term weather prediction with climate change, not the same thing. I’m sure you know that though:-) Tsk, Tsk …. thought you wouldn’t caught on your little fib?
August 9th, 2006 at 2:38 pmwe wouldn’t give a rats ass about the middle east of they weren’t sitting on huge oil deposits.
That’s why we care so much about Israel. Because they’re sitting on all that oil.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:38 pmActually I am not sure why we support Isreal so much. True there is a large Jewish population in the US, and those who support Isreal typically get that vote. They are one of a very few actual democracies in the middle east. There is also the rapture faction in the extreme right. After all the second coming of Christ cannot occur without Isreal.
You tell me what you think.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:41 pm#94, Krazny,
Actually, as I have posted before, if you took away the Islamo-fascists AND the oil, the US would still be in the middle-east to protect Israel, so to wish “if this” and “if that” is a waste of discussion. The cards that we have been dealt - Islamo-fascists, oil and Israel - all have us in the middel east.
Trial lawyers, representing environmentalists, killed nuclear and hydro-electric power. Insurance companies wouldn’t cover nuclear plants, because there were no settlemen caps to lawsuits that trial lawyers could bring. Trial lawyers and environmentalists are big segments of the Democratic Party, so thank them for the inaction in the last several decades.
There are nuclear plant designs that don’t produce the level of waste that some other designs do, so that isn’t an arguement either.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:43 pm#88,DrxJ, crises, plural, and I think afro was a parody
August 9th, 2006 at 2:43 pmt least now some of you have started discussing this topic intelligently:
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 9, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
Says the man whose first post was a hissy fit on urban heat masses, who says “some have finally admitted” without providing any evidence, and whose only publication to back up his assertions is a science fiction book.
It seems to me you are the least qualified to determine what constitutes an intelligent discussion.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:43 pm#102, Krazny,
There are methods to my madness, which have moved the discussion in a productive direction. You have to first identify the true root causes, then provide feasible solutions. Some here are now on that path.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:46 pm1. Find yourself in a highly political, high-stakes debate that involves considerations of science (or more generally, intelligence).
Oh come on!!! This is so patently what the republican party is doing. There is zero “debate” on global warming and evolution in the rest of the developed world, and precious little about that human caviar the blastocyst.
Yet these are hot topics in the US, why? Why is this the only developed country in the world confused and divided? The answer is crystal clear, the Bush regime in particular, and republicans in general are propped up by a 10 - 15% base of religious fanatics that lap all this nonsense up.
I mean politicians actually articulating a belief in utter unabridged bullshit like the rapture!!!!! Sheeese ….. no were else in the developed world could you get away with that, you’d be rightly dismissed as a lunatic.
The bottom line? The republicans would rather rule based on a pack of lies, than not rule. Thats the root of your problem right there. It has almost nothing whatever to do with the science.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:46 pmJason,
you may think of yourself as intellectual, but mostly you come across as asinine, and childish. No you have not moved the debate in a useful direction to get “people to think”. you have derailed and hurled useless insults.
I think you are a lost sheep, and there isn’t much I can do about it.
P.S. if we only supported Isreal in the Middle East, we would have less involvement, and less naked hatred towards the US at this point.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:53 pmModerated by Admin.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:53 pm#104, Krazny,
Actually, since the muslim world wants to see the destruction of Israel, and Europe and Russia still blame Israel for WWII, our support of Israel would still have America hated.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:55 pm#103, Brian,
Um, take a pill - you’ve been off your meds for awhile now.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 9, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
Excuse me?
August 9th, 2006 at 2:58 pmEurope and Russia still blame Israel for WWII
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
What? Seriously…..WHAT?
August 9th, 2006 at 3:00 pmEurope and Russia still blame Israel for WWII
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 9, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
I don’t even know where this one comes from… I was under the distinct impression that history books across Europe place the blame squarely on the Nazi regime’s ambitions for Lebensraum. Who should take a pill again?
August 9th, 2006 at 3:00 pmIsreal was not formed until after world war two. Unless Mr. Hendler agrees with Mel that the jews are responsible for all the wars.
Jason, looks like you need to take your pills. You like most of your kind have delusions of adequacy.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:04 pmhistory books across Europe place the blame squarely on the Nazi regime’s ambitions for Lebensraum.
Comment by Gregor Samsa
Well, there you go, using facts again
August 9th, 2006 at 3:04 pmOkay Jason, please explain how Stanford is an “Ivy League” college, and now, explain how Russia and Europe blamed Israel for WWII, when, as Krazny pointed out, Isarael was formed AFTER the war.
Thank you for your time
August 9th, 2006 at 3:07 pm#82 - “….an angry, hate filled zealot.” - Comment by Krazny
******Yawwwnnnn….Krazny, you and your playmates need to develope some new material. (Note to Progs: Calling conservatives the following: racists, homophobes, hate-filled, greedy and “mean-spirited” renders your act fit for the corner coffee shop…)
#98 - “Actually I am not sure why we support Isreal so much….”
August 9th, 2006 at 3:08 pmMore Krazny
******Please tell me you’re kidding….We agree on very little - but for some reason, I thought you had a better grasp of history than you have recently displayed. Someone isn’t ‘borrowoing” your screen name like they do mine on occasion? Pity those poor morons - they have such low feelings of self-esteem and zero imagination….
#108 DRxJ & #109 Gregor,
Oops, I meant WWI with the assination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. I don’t remember if it was Nova, Frontline or just a documentary on the history channel, but they stated that the assassin was a Zionist, who was part of a movement that Europe was preventing the creation of a zionist state, so only a European war would give zionists that opportunity to create their own state.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:12 pmI honestly don’t MA, I have an excellent grasp of history as you well know. However I have not spent alot of time reading up on the various reasons for support of Isreal. I can only imagine, that there is not only a large anthology, but also it runs the gamut from mundane to crackpot theories over the edge.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:19 pmAustro-Hungarian determination to impose its will upon the Balkans; a German desire for greater power and international influence, which sparked a naval arms race with Britain, who responded by building new and greater warships, the Dreadnought; a French desire for revenge against Germany following disastrous defeat in 1871; Russia’s anxiety to restore some semblance of national prestige after almost a decade of civil strife and a battering at the hands of the Japanese military in 1905.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:19 pm#116 from FirstWorldWar.com
August 9th, 2006 at 3:21 pmbut they stated that the assassin was a Zionist,
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 9, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
You are treading on really thin ice here. I don’t care what the History Channel says -the assassination has never been depicted in European history books as a Zionist conspiracy. If you have one such book, show it to me.
It is a known fact that the asassin was a Serbian (?) anarchist. It has always been said so.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:23 pm#116, DRxJ,
Yes, you are correct that there were many tensions in Europe. The documentary I saw, discussing the Zionist movement, stated that the Zionists understood the existing tensions in Europe. Further, the Zionists knew European powers influenced / controlled middle eastern affairs, and were blocking the creation of a Zionist state. The documentary stated that the assassine’s expressed intent was to start a European war, so that the Zionists could move closer to creating a Zionist state.
Certainly, it appears, given Arab support by France and Russia, that this appears to be a belief held by some / most Europeans.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:24 pm#118, Gregor,
After the holocaust, Europe has been very careful not to have ANY history books citing anything remotely anti-semitic, so it doesn’t surprise me that you won’t find anything in European history books. Similar to anything in American history books that depict American Indians in any light other than perfectly sympathetic victims of European aggression and American policies of Manifest Destiny.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:28 pmPerhaps Jason,
the only problem with the statement, is the assassin wanted to kill ferdinand to make a political point. I sincerely doubt that he or anyone expected europe to exlode into war over a single shot.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:28 pmSo Jason gets his history from television. Ever seen the Life of Brian? It’s a great resource!
August 9th, 2006 at 3:28 pmThe documentary I saw, discussing the Zionist movement, stated that the Zionists understood the existing tensions in Europe.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 9, 2006 @ 3:24 pmThe Elders of Zion. That book is thoroughly discredited in Europe, and only the loony fringe take it seriously. I am sure the history taught all over Europe does not include this nonsense.
Someone is trying to pin this belief on Europeans for who knows what reason.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:29 pmIt is clear that Technodaoist can do little more than repeat fossil fuel industry talking points. The urban heat island and satellite issues were laid to rest long ago. Of course there is an urban heat island effect, and of course scientists know about it, and have put a lot of effort into understanding it, and interpreting temperature measurements in light of it. In short, this issue has been comprehensively laid to rest by the climate research community, as have any questions about the satellite data. So Technodaoist, please do your own homework before scolding people at this site when they say that Jason is completely full of S**T.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:30 pmThe documentary I saw, discussing the Zionist movement, stated that the Zionists understood the existing tensions in Europe.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 9, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
I apologise for the formatting error, here it goes again
It looks like you and the History Channel get your history lessons from The Elders of Zion. That book is thoroughly discredited in Europe, and only the loony fringe take it seriously. I am sure the history taught all over Europe does not include this nonsense.
Someone is trying to pin this belief on Europeans for who knows what reason.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:31 pm#121, Krazny,
An anarchist isn’t interested in making a point, they want anarchy, strife, war. Again, I am just restating what I saw in the documentary. I was as stunned watching it, as you are hearing me state it here.
#123, Gregor,
… so Germans rounded up and slaughtered 6 million Jews, because they like them so much?
August 9th, 2006 at 3:34 pmAfter the holocaust, Europe has been very careful not to have ANY history books citing anything remotely anti-semitic,
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 9, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
So how exactly would European children be indoctrinated in this belief that Israel is the sole culprit of WWII and not the Nazi regime then?
How would Europeans come to believe WWI or WWII were due to Israel which didn’t even exist at the time?
You make no sense whatsoever. Do you read your own posts?
August 9th, 2006 at 3:37 pmIn any case, Jason doesn’t explain himself well because he can’t. If he did, his arguments would simply vanish into nothingness. Jason believes that a science fiction writer with ZERO qualifications knows more than thousands of accomplished REAL scientists. I rest my case.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:38 pmso Germans rounded up and slaughtered 6 million Jews, because they like them so much?
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Germany does not “most of Europe and Russia” make!
August 9th, 2006 at 3:38 pmso Germans rounded up and slaughtered 6 million Jews, because they like them so much?
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 9, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
Don’t try to change what you said: You said Europeans still believe Israel is guilty of starting WWII.
That was then. This is now.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:39 pmAnd I said “That book is thoroughly discredited”.
Again, that was then, this is now.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:40 pm#127, Gregor,
I mistated my earlier post. A documentary I saw stated that it was a Zionist, intent on creating a European war, that killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, because European nations were preventing the creation of a Zionist state. You bet European history books blame Nazi’s for WWII, although I am curious how far the delve into the seeds of WWII, which stem back to the causes and results of WWI.
I didn’t state that WWI or WWII were caused by Israel. I am stating that I saw a documentary that claimed WWI was started by a Zionist, intent on creating a European war, that killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, because European nations were preventing the creation of a Zionist state. WWII, was the result of the causes and results of WWI.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:43 pm#132
Mr. Jason Hendler -
I was so ‘enjoying’ your global warming musings ….
Are you planning to return to that subject - or are you done for the day?
August 9th, 2006 at 3:50 pmI am stating that I saw a documentary that claimed WWI was started by a Zionist, intent on creating a European war
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 9, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
That is quite the rephrase.
Your original contention was that Europeans still blame Israel for WWII. Just because it is you, I will give you a discount and change that to WWI.
Your assertion still makes no sense. You saw a documentary that made inflammatory claims straight out of an anti-semite how-to book, and you translated that into “This is what Europeans believe”?
Sshhheeess, I didn’t realise you had such a dislike for Europeans. Project much?
As for the causes of WWII in history books (Europeans and otherwise), as I said: Lebensraum, and resentment for the Peace Treaty at Versailles that imposed onerous payments on Germany.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:51 pmGregor,
as a lutheran I share some of the shame for the holocaust during WWII. Martin Luther for all of his teachings, and beliefs was anti-semtic. Sadly because the German culture is predominantly lutheran, those hatreds towards jews, helped in allowing the “final solution” to go forward.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:52 pm#134, Gregor,
Thankyou for finally accepting my mistatement.
Yes, everyone attributes the cause of WWII to Lebensraum (resentment of Vaersailles Peace Treaty), which ended WWI. According to this documetary, WWI was caused by a Zionist who ignited pre-existing European tensions, because European powers were blocking the creation of a Zionist state. To merely say WWII was caused by Lebensraum is to not delve deep enough into the causes. Lebensraum isn’t sufficient to explain the holocaust, but the widespread belief that Zionist anarchists were causing European wars would.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:57 pm#133, Triumph,
Sorry, but unfortunately, we’ve digressed. Some people want to give up oil, so that we get out of the middle-east. I am merely pointing out that the US will remain in the middle-east, if for no other reason, then to protect Israel.
August 9th, 2006 at 4:00 pmJason see my post at #135. Frankly anti-semitism was nothing new in europe before WWII. Sadly both the catholic, and protastent christiandom feed and encouraged such behavior across the Christian controlled sphere.
August 9th, 2006 at 4:00 pmKrazny,
Facts is that, for centuries, many Christian denominations blamed the Jewish for all the ills of the world. Beginning with the killing of their Messiah, no less.
Catholics, being the largest Christian denomination, is not exactly free of guilt when it comes to anti-semite message either. The Catholic church has recently (I don’t recall the exact year & date) apologised for their complicity in silence during the Holocaust.
August 9th, 2006 at 4:00 pm#138, Krazny,
I am not judging anyone regarding WWI, WWII or the holocaust - just repeating what I saw as a means to explain my understanding of the current conflicts in the middle east, and the motivations of European state’s and former Soviet state’s involvement in middle eastern affairs.
August 9th, 2006 at 4:03 pmThe odd bit to me gregor, is as a christian, Christ would not have been the messiah if he had died on the cross. The resurection, and forgiveness is the underpining of my religion. We mourn and celebrate what happened. We should thank the jews for demanding the release of barboros instead of Jesus.
August 9th, 2006 at 4:03 pmJason,
I don’t blame zionists, or Isreal completly. There is so much violent history associated with the middle east, stating one group or another is wholely responsible, simplifies things far too much. I don’t really want to get into the whole thing, western and middle-eastern interaction stretches back over 2000 years, and not much of it has been pleasent.
August 9th, 2006 at 4:08 pm#142, Krazny,
I guess the more interesting question is why the US is so adamant about defending Israel against a massive Islamo-fascist movement across the middle-east and northern Africa. Wars in Somalia, Sudan and Chad involve Islamic militias, leading me to predict sub-Saharan Africa will eventually become muslim, because no European or American powers will bother defending those nations.
August 9th, 2006 at 4:11 pmYes, everyone attributes the cause of WWII to Lebensraum (resentment of Vaersailles Peace Treaty), which ended WWI.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 9, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
And that is exactly what is taught at schools, thank you.
According to this documetary,
You are trying to move the goal posts and I will not let yo do that. I do not, repeat, do not care what in the bleeding h3ll the documentary said. That is not part of the students’ curricula in any European country I know of, or Russia.
If you do know, provide evidence.
WWI was caused by a Zionist who ignited pre-existing European tensions, because European powers were blocking the creation of a Zionist state.
More Elders of Zion-style claptrap.
To merely say WWII was caused by Lebensraum is to not delve deep enough into the causes.
You are right, it is not enough. But then, that was just was one of the causes. We are not gong to discuss them all, are we?
Lebensraum isn’t sufficient to explain the holocaust, but the widespread belief that Zionist anarchists were causing European wars would.
More moving the goal posts. Your contention was that Europeans and Russians still (as in nowadays) blame Israel for WWII -I mean WWI. Or was it the Napoleonic Wars?
At any rate, the Holocaust was then, and this is now. You have yet to provided any basis to your contention that Europeans and Russians still blame Israel for whatever war. The connection between the claptrap in that so-called documentary exists only in your head.
August 9th, 2006 at 4:13 pmSub-Saharan Africa has no resources anyone wants.
Jason, I asked the question about Isreal earlier and got nothing but greif from MA. I am sure there are thousands of likely theorys for defending Isreal, some good and some bad. The current right obsession seems to mostly have to do with the rapture, and the end of times. I was reading some stuff on a rapture watch board, and they were overjoyed about the fighting in Isreal.
August 9th, 2006 at 4:14 pmI love how the neocons are jumping on the “Urban Heat Mass” theory. They think it’s a way to escape from Global Warming and shows that we have nothing to worry about. What they are missing is that in either case (an average temp increase across the world, or isolated heat increases in specific developed regions) is BAD for the environment and will cause climatic change! So be my guest and jump onto the Urban Heat Mass bandwagon. All that is being done is supporting the ultimate theory that humans are affecting climate and will continue to do so as our population expands and we decide to keep using extremely innefficent energy sources that produce a ton of heat and pollutants.
Also, the solution to both problems is essentially the same (more efficient energy that produces less pollution and also less wasted heat). But when has that stopped a republican from spouting lies?
August 9th, 2006 at 4:16 pmI meant to say “The connection between the claptrap in that so-called documentary and what Europeans believe exists only in your head.”
August 9th, 2006 at 4:16 pm#137
Jason -
I see … I was not going to get involved, but something you said caught my attention …
You said “Some people want to give up oil, so that we get out of the middle-east … ”
This implies that you do not want to “give up oil.”
This also implies that you favor the of taking oil via warfare - since the oil of other nations does not belong to us. Unless there is a contract granting partnership.
Am I following your logic correctly, or did something get lost?
Not trying to pick a fight …
Not in the mood …
Too hung over from the “Nixon Resigned 22 Years Ago” party last night.
Just wondering …
August 9th, 2006 at 4:20 pmChrist would not have been the messiah if he had died on the cross.
Comment by Krazny — August 9, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
And he would not have died at all, if he had not been conceived in the first place. I mean, that was the reason why his father sent him, yes? And he is omniscient, so he should have known what would happen, and he is omnipotent so he could have stopped it. So, how’s ultimately to blame again?
But then -I say this with all due respect- i