epa-and-doj-settle-derive-systems-over-vehicle-emissions-control-defeat-devices
#92
12-12-2018, 06:33 PM
No, it wasn't "bad journalism", it wasn't a hoax. Well it was, but they didn't portray it as such.
I was there my parents subscribed to those magazines. "The Coming Ice Age" as I recall, was the cover. This was a big deal at the time and was discussed extensively, not just in the news magazines, in school, and news documentaries. This was the best guess or predictions by the scientists of the day, not journalists as such. Good try though!
One of the things that's important in this day and age with the rise of 24/7 gaslighting and propaganda is that one is well armed intellectually to weigh various arguments one encounters in everyday life. Keep in mind there's only two ways you can get somebody to do something - you can persuade them, or you can force them. A standard of education in school that used to be routine was argumentation, and debate, formerly known as Rhetoric. Facts, reason, and logic. A related area of study in rhetoric are what are known as Logical Fallacies. These are crucial for anyone to know well, and be able to spot, and recognize, in order to immunize oneself against them. The reason it is so important, is they are used constantly in the press, by politicians, and others. There are many different types of logical fallacies, and generally speaking, it is better that the general public has no idea what is going on, because the last thing many people want in certain fields is an educated, fully informed and engaged citizenry.
One of the classic logical fallacies is known as "Appeal To Authority". Now, I am not anti-intellectual, but I've been around long enough to smell a scam. These folks aren't scientists, they are quacks. Peer review also means that one allows their work to be reviewed and critiqued by others. Strangely enough, this is not the case with Global Warming. It is also considered dirty pool to start with a conclusion, and try and bend the data to make it fit the conclusion. That isn't Science, they have simply declared by fiat that "this is so" and the time for debate is over. Fascism is dangerous because, nobody wants to speak out against it, because they will lose their job. We see this every day now.
If their intentions were good, if they were arguing from a position of integrity, they wouldn't have to lie about the data or manipulate data, or cast aspersions on others.
What you're witnessing is a bunch of control freak authoritarians who want control over everything, and want you to pay for it. It's a shakedown. With a constant bombardment of propaganda, starting at an early age, repeating the same things over and over, working people over, manipulating their emotions, they will be kept constantly in a state of high agitation, worried about imaginary bugaboos and demanding the government "do something".
I was there my parents subscribed to those magazines. "The Coming Ice Age" as I recall, was the cover. This was a big deal at the time and was discussed extensively, not just in the news magazines, in school, and news documentaries. This was the best guess or predictions by the scientists of the day, not journalists as such. Good try though!
One of the things that's important in this day and age with the rise of 24/7 gaslighting and propaganda is that one is well armed intellectually to weigh various arguments one encounters in everyday life. Keep in mind there's only two ways you can get somebody to do something - you can persuade them, or you can force them. A standard of education in school that used to be routine was argumentation, and debate, formerly known as Rhetoric. Facts, reason, and logic. A related area of study in rhetoric are what are known as Logical Fallacies. These are crucial for anyone to know well, and be able to spot, and recognize, in order to immunize oneself against them. The reason it is so important, is they are used constantly in the press, by politicians, and others. There are many different types of logical fallacies, and generally speaking, it is better that the general public has no idea what is going on, because the last thing many people want in certain fields is an educated, fully informed and engaged citizenry.
One of the classic logical fallacies is known as "Appeal To Authority". Now, I am not anti-intellectual, but I've been around long enough to smell a scam. These folks aren't scientists, they are quacks. Peer review also means that one allows their work to be reviewed and critiqued by others. Strangely enough, this is not the case with Global Warming. It is also considered dirty pool to start with a conclusion, and try and bend the data to make it fit the conclusion. That isn't Science, they have simply declared by fiat that "this is so" and the time for debate is over. Fascism is dangerous because, nobody wants to speak out against it, because they will lose their job. We see this every day now.
If their intentions were good, if they were arguing from a position of integrity, they wouldn't have to lie about the data or manipulate data, or cast aspersions on others.
What you're witnessing is a bunch of control freak authoritarians who want control over everything, and want you to pay for it. It's a shakedown. With a constant bombardment of propaganda, starting at an early age, repeating the same things over and over, working people over, manipulating their emotions, they will be kept constantly in a state of high agitation, worried about imaginary bugaboos and demanding the government "do something".
#93
12-12-2018, 08:02 PM
No, it wasn't "bad journalism", it wasn't a hoax. Well it was, but they didn't portray it as such.
I was there my parents subscribed to those magazines. "The Coming Ice Age" as I recall, was the cover. This was a big deal at the time and was discussed extensively, not just in the news magazines, in school, and news documentaries. This was the best guess or predictions by the scientists of the day, not journalists as such. Good try though!
I was there my parents subscribed to those magazines. "The Coming Ice Age" as I recall, was the cover. This was a big deal at the time and was discussed extensively, not just in the news magazines, in school, and news documentaries. This was the best guess or predictions by the scientists of the day, not journalists as such. Good try though!
No, this is what you saw on the internet:
And this is the actual cover from 2007... not 1977:
Funny how you exactly quoted "The Coming Ice Age" as being on the cover... because that matches perfectly with the cover of the hoax Time pic. That's how I could verify precisely what you were referring to. It's funny how easy it is to point out how you were duped into believing a hoax.
And the story you refer to from Newsweek (you specifically called out Time and Newsweek in your other post and still refer to them in this post) is actually from April 28, 1975. Here is the cover of that issue:
Nope, nothing about "The Coming Ice Age" on the cover. However, on page 64 you can find the infamous article titled "The Cooling World", written by Peter Gwynne. Oh, and Peter Gwynne actually retracted his story and said he got it wrong.
One of the things that's important in this day and age with the rise of 24/7 gaslighting and propaganda is that one is well armed intellectually to weigh various arguments one encounters in everyday life. Keep in mind there's only two ways you can get somebody to do something - you can persuade them, or you can force them. A standard of education in school that used to be routine was argumentation, and debate, formerly known as Rhetoric. Facts, reason, and logic. A related area of study in rhetoric are what are known as Logical Fallacies. These are crucial for anyone to know well, and be able to spot, and recognize, in order to immunize oneself against them. The reason it is so important, is they are used constantly in the press, by politicians, and others. There are many different types of logical fallacies, and generally speaking, it is better that the general public has no idea what is going on, because the last thing many people want in certain fields is an educated, fully informed and engaged citizenry.
One of the classic logical fallacies is known as "Appeal To Authority". Now, I am not anti-intellectual, but I've been around long enough to smell a scam. These folks aren't scientists, they are quacks. Peer review also means that one allows their work to be reviewed and critiqued by others. Strangely enough, this is not the case with Global Warming. It is also considered dirty pool to start with a conclusion, and try and bend the data to make it fit the conclusion. That isn't Science, they have simply declared by fiat that "this is so" and the time for debate is over. Fascism is dangerous because, nobody wants to speak out against it, because they will lose their job. We see this every day now.
If their intentions were good, if they were arguing from a position of integrity, they wouldn't have to lie about the data or manipulate data, or cast aspersions on others.
What you're witnessing is a bunch of control freak authoritarians who want control over everything, and want you to pay for it. It's a shakedown. With a constant bombardment of propaganda, starting at an early age, repeating the same things over and over, working people over, manipulating their emotions, they will be kept constantly in a state of high agitation, worried about imaginary bugaboos and demanding the government "do something".
One of the classic logical fallacies is known as "Appeal To Authority". Now, I am not anti-intellectual, but I've been around long enough to smell a scam. These folks aren't scientists, they are quacks. Peer review also means that one allows their work to be reviewed and critiqued by others. Strangely enough, this is not the case with Global Warming. It is also considered dirty pool to start with a conclusion, and try and bend the data to make it fit the conclusion. That isn't Science, they have simply declared by fiat that "this is so" and the time for debate is over. Fascism is dangerous because, nobody wants to speak out against it, because they will lose their job. We see this every day now.
If their intentions were good, if they were arguing from a position of integrity, they wouldn't have to lie about the data or manipulate data, or cast aspersions on others.
What you're witnessing is a bunch of control freak authoritarians who want control over everything, and want you to pay for it. It's a shakedown. With a constant bombardment of propaganda, starting at an early age, repeating the same things over and over, working people over, manipulating their emotions, they will be kept constantly in a state of high agitation, worried about imaginary bugaboos and demanding the government "do something".
Here I thought I heard it all, but as tall tales go - you sir take the prize of tin foil hat conspiracies.
#94
12-16-2018, 06:30 PM
You're pulling stuff right out of thin air. Casting aspersions on me. Putting words in my mouth, that I didn't say. Making arguments I didn't make, and then knocking them down. "Straw Man" argument. Pay attention boys and girls, this is exactly how it's done.
When people can't argue the facts, they attack the person. I was there at the time, again good try!
We heard about "Ice Age" in the news, and popular press fairly regularly. Also "Acid Rain", "Ozone Layer" and "Nuclear Winter". Now keep in mind here - it does not necessarily follow that since they were so spectacularly wrong about an imminent ice age, or completely running out of oil, or mass famine & starvation killing billions of people, etc etc ad infinitum, that they aren't somehow, perhaps, correct with the latest "we're all going to die" schtick. It could happen, it's just it has all the classic hallmarks of a con job when you dig into it.
Carbon taxes, how they were crucial to "global governance" and how to implement them, were all the rage for a while in the rarefied air of academe, "think tanks" and the usual suspects, sometime in the 1980s or 1990s. I was there for that too.
Then that meme kind of went away, and the global enwarmening scare took off not too long after that. Conveniently - turns out now we can save the world by raising taxes on, wait for it, carbon, and give them to unelected, unaccountable foreign entities and bureaucrats. Whew! Aren't we so lucky. Here's what Wiki has to say about the Ice Age meme of the 1970s. Again, I was there, all this stuff, and more, was pounded into us.
The report stated (p. 36) that, "The average surface air temperature in the northern hemisphere increased from the 1880's until about 1940 and has been decreasing thereafter."
It also stated (p. 44) that, "If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of CO2."
The report did not predict whether the 25-year cooling trend would continue. It stated (Forward, p. v) that, "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course [so] it does not seem possible to predict climate," and (p. 2) "The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know."
The Report's "program for action" was a call for creation of a new "National Climatic Research Program." It stated (p. 62), "If we are to react rationally to the inevitable climatic changes of the future, and if we are ever to predict their future course, whether they are natural or man-induced, a far greater understanding of these changes is required than we now possess. It is, moreover, important that this knowledge be acquired as soon as possible." For that reason, it stated, "the time has now come to initiate a broad and coordinated attack on the problem of climate and climatic change."
The article mentioned the alternative solutions of "melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting Arctic rivers" but conceded these were not feasible. The Newsweek article concluded by criticizing government leaders: "But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies...The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate," "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."
--------------
Sound familiar? They like to show photographs of polar bears on a tiny ice floe in the Arctic. The implication of course, is the ice melted and the poor bear is going to die.This is designed to frighten little kids, womenfolk, horses, etc. The truth of course, is polar bears are expert swimmers and nothing of the sort is occurring.
I didn't write this, but it's sort a good 30,000 foot primer on the gaslighting that is being perpetrated in popular culture. If you think this stuff is "wingnut", again, you're not paying attention. If normal people are wondering why it seems like a fair portion of the country are a bunch of nutters, it's your tax dollars at work, Television, movies, etc too. Yes, naturally this makes me a "wingnut conspiracy theorist" for pointing out the obvious.
Broadly speaking, there are two very major different forms of human communications.
We all speak these two forms, often mixing the forms. Its sort of like being bi-lingual, there is the language of the street, language at home, and the language you think or read. They may not necessarily be the same, and the degree to how you use one or the other varies.
One form of communication traffics in words that have specific dictionary definitions, are forms of speech and when arranged in a certain manner or appended with different suffixes conveys facts, thoughts and ideas to others who also understand this form of communication. This is the realm most K strategists live.
There is another form of communication that doesn't appeal to logic but to aesthetics and emotion. The vehicle often is music or other various forms of art. But a major form is "words".
These words often are deconstructed to have near-worthless dictionary meaning. Some are just magic words like "fair", in which the only meaning it can have is highly subjective not only from person to person, but also variable in time and in context.
Words when used in this other form are not meant to convey facts, reasoning and logic, they are to trigger emotions - mostly rage.
This is why you see "food insecurity", "colonize my mind with the patriarchy", "rape culture", "toxic masculinity" and other vapid phrases. These words are not meant to be understood logically they are used to trigger emotions.
You will often see slogans, symbols and chants; they will repeat things over and over again to reinforce certain sounds with certain emotions. Our schools, social media, entertainment, etc. are all conscripted into the effort to take the difficult part of disciplined learning, reasoning and logic and replace it with lizard minded emotional triggering.
This is how mere mentioning of the word "Trump" causes anxiety, fear and dread in large segments of the population because for years the effort to associate the sound/word "Trump" with horrible things is paying off for any manipulator who wants to raise a small army of motivated myrmidons.
If you look over Governor Brown's statements at the recent Climate Confab, you will see lie after lie after lie. It never was about facts. He is further reinforcing bad events: "fire", "drought", "land-slides" to the sound/word "Carbon". So when future manipulators say "Carbon" the NPCs will have their angst emotions triggered. Then associate it with Trump and get their angst mixed with rage - now you have a Mob.[/b]
When people can't argue the facts, they attack the person. I was there at the time, again good try!
We heard about "Ice Age" in the news, and popular press fairly regularly. Also "Acid Rain", "Ozone Layer" and "Nuclear Winter". Now keep in mind here - it does not necessarily follow that since they were so spectacularly wrong about an imminent ice age, or completely running out of oil, or mass famine & starvation killing billions of people, etc etc ad infinitum, that they aren't somehow, perhaps, correct with the latest "we're all going to die" schtick. It could happen, it's just it has all the classic hallmarks of a con job when you dig into it.
Carbon taxes, how they were crucial to "global governance" and how to implement them, were all the rage for a while in the rarefied air of academe, "think tanks" and the usual suspects, sometime in the 1980s or 1990s. I was there for that too.
Then that meme kind of went away, and the global enwarmening scare took off not too long after that. Conveniently - turns out now we can save the world by raising taxes on, wait for it, carbon, and give them to unelected, unaccountable foreign entities and bureaucrats. Whew! Aren't we so lucky. Here's what Wiki has to say about the Ice Age meme of the 1970s. Again, I was there, all this stuff, and more, was pounded into us.
1975 National Academy of Sciences report
There also was a Report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) entitled, "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action".[37]The report stated (p. 36) that, "The average surface air temperature in the northern hemisphere increased from the 1880's until about 1940 and has been decreasing thereafter."
It also stated (p. 44) that, "If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of CO2."
The report did not predict whether the 25-year cooling trend would continue. It stated (Forward, p. v) that, "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course [so] it does not seem possible to predict climate," and (p. 2) "The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know."
The Report's "program for action" was a call for creation of a new "National Climatic Research Program." It stated (p. 62), "If we are to react rationally to the inevitable climatic changes of the future, and if we are ever to predict their future course, whether they are natural or man-induced, a far greater understanding of these changes is required than we now possess. It is, moreover, important that this knowledge be acquired as soon as possible." For that reason, it stated, "the time has now come to initiate a broad and coordinated attack on the problem of climate and climatic change."
1974 Time magazine article
While these discussions were ongoing in scientific circles, other accounts appeared in the popular media. In their June 24, 1974 issue, Time presented an article titled "Another Ice Age?" that noted "the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades" but noted that "Some scientists... think that the cooling trend may be only temporary."1975 Newsweek article
An April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine was titled "The Cooling World", it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article stated "The evidence in support of these predictions of global cooling has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." The Newsweek article did not state the cause of cooling; it stated that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."The article mentioned the alternative solutions of "melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting Arctic rivers" but conceded these were not feasible. The Newsweek article concluded by criticizing government leaders: "But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies...The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate," "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."
--------------
Sound familiar? They like to show photographs of polar bears on a tiny ice floe in the Arctic. The implication of course, is the ice melted and the poor bear is going to die.This is designed to frighten little kids, womenfolk, horses, etc. The truth of course, is polar bears are expert swimmers and nothing of the sort is occurring.
I didn't write this, but it's sort a good 30,000 foot primer on the gaslighting that is being perpetrated in popular culture. If you think this stuff is "wingnut", again, you're not paying attention. If normal people are wondering why it seems like a fair portion of the country are a bunch of nutters, it's your tax dollars at work, Television, movies, etc too. Yes, naturally this makes me a "wingnut conspiracy theorist" for pointing out the obvious.
Broadly speaking, there are two very major different forms of human communications.
We all speak these two forms, often mixing the forms. Its sort of like being bi-lingual, there is the language of the street, language at home, and the language you think or read. They may not necessarily be the same, and the degree to how you use one or the other varies.
One form of communication traffics in words that have specific dictionary definitions, are forms of speech and when arranged in a certain manner or appended with different suffixes conveys facts, thoughts and ideas to others who also understand this form of communication. This is the realm most K strategists live.
There is another form of communication that doesn't appeal to logic but to aesthetics and emotion. The vehicle often is music or other various forms of art. But a major form is "words".
These words often are deconstructed to have near-worthless dictionary meaning. Some are just magic words like "fair", in which the only meaning it can have is highly subjective not only from person to person, but also variable in time and in context.
Words when used in this other form are not meant to convey facts, reasoning and logic, they are to trigger emotions - mostly rage.
This is why you see "food insecurity", "colonize my mind with the patriarchy", "rape culture", "toxic masculinity" and other vapid phrases. These words are not meant to be understood logically they are used to trigger emotions.
You will often see slogans, symbols and chants; they will repeat things over and over again to reinforce certain sounds with certain emotions. Our schools, social media, entertainment, etc. are all conscripted into the effort to take the difficult part of disciplined learning, reasoning and logic and replace it with lizard minded emotional triggering.
This is how mere mentioning of the word "Trump" causes anxiety, fear and dread in large segments of the population because for years the effort to associate the sound/word "Trump" with horrible things is paying off for any manipulator who wants to raise a small army of motivated myrmidons.
If you look over Governor Brown's statements at the recent Climate Confab, you will see lie after lie after lie. It never was about facts. He is further reinforcing bad events: "fire", "drought", "land-slides" to the sound/word "Carbon". So when future manipulators say "Carbon" the NPCs will have their angst emotions triggered. Then associate it with Trump and get their angst mixed with rage - now you have a Mob.[/b]
#95
12-16-2018, 07:08 PM
Post Fiend
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wabanaki Indian Territory
Posts: 18,724
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes
on
31 Posts
The polar bear population is decreasing due to climate change,regardless whether or not you believe that climate change is mans fault or not,so your absolutely mistaken on this one.
https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/polar-bear
If your going to deny climate change all together,and how it's effecting life,then your not even researching anything on your own.This fact is obvious even to children.
That Governor,isn't a scientist.Go seek out what scientists have to say and pay no attention to politicians.In case you haven't heard,they are not reliable sources.
The one with the orange hue is no exception,despite if you like or dislike his last name.
What is the Polar Bear Specialist Group?
Here,you can learn why a sly politician may attempt to mislead you by stating half truths.It's true that some subpopulations are actually increasing.However,it's not likely they'll finish by informing you that others are decreasing and overall they're considered a vulnerable species due to raising sea temps and the ice melting.
A politician will use science when it's benefits him and disregard it when it doesn't.The scientific facts remain stable despite the changes to his corrupted state.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/issues/thre...te-change.html
Scientific methods frequently used on polar bears
https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/polar-bear
If your going to deny climate change all together,and how it's effecting life,then your not even researching anything on your own.This fact is obvious even to children.
That Governor,isn't a scientist.Go seek out what scientists have to say and pay no attention to politicians.In case you haven't heard,they are not reliable sources.
The one with the orange hue is no exception,despite if you like or dislike his last name.
"Polar bears are totally reliant on the sea ice as their primary habitat. If climate change alters the period of ice cover, bears may be forced on shore for extended periods and forced to rely on stored fat. If these periods become excessively long, mortality will increase. Such changes are thought to be occurring in western Hudson Bay. Further, if the ice changes in character such that there is more open water, young cubs which are unable to swim long distances may suffer greater mortality. Sea ice is also used for access to den areas and if ice patterns change, existing den areas may be unreachable. Another factor is that in some areas, warmer temperatures and higher winds may reduce ice thickness and increase ice drift. Because polar bears must walk against the moving ice (like walking the wrong way on an escalator) increased ice movements will increase energy use and reduce growth and reproduction."
What is the Polar Bear Specialist Group?
Under the umbrella of the IUCN Species Survival Commission two specialist groups work with bears. In September 1965 a scientific meeting was arranged at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. This was the first major scientific gathering with the primary task to discuss conservation measures regarding one species, the polar bear (Ursus maritimus). This forum was three years later officially established as the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG). The Bear Specialist Group (BSG) was established in 1988, in response to conservation concerns for the terrestrial bear species. In 1992 the BSG initiated an Action Plan for Bears of the World, and invited the PBSG to participate by developing the section for polar bears.
Here,you can learn why a sly politician may attempt to mislead you by stating half truths.It's true that some subpopulations are actually increasing.However,it's not likely they'll finish by informing you that others are decreasing and overall they're considered a vulnerable species due to raising sea temps and the ice melting.
A politician will use science when it's benefits him and disregard it when it doesn't.The scientific facts remain stable despite the changes to his corrupted state.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/issues/thre...te-change.html
Scientific methods frequently used on polar bears
#96
12-18-2018, 08:57 AM
You're pulling stuff right out of thin air. Casting aspersions on me. Putting words in my mouth, that I didn't say. Making arguments I didn't make, and then knocking them down. "Straw Man" argument. Pay attention boys and girls, this is exactly how it's done.
When people can't argue the facts, they attack the person. I was there at the time, again good try!
When people can't argue the facts, they attack the person. I was there at the time, again good try!
You haven't presented any facts. You said that you were there and claimed Time and Newsweek both had covers talking about the next Ice Age.... I knew it was a hoax because neither of them ever had that on the cover. You were wrong and I pointed it out. Funny part is you are deflecting instead of providing proof of your claims. If those were indeed on the cover, post them up here and prove me wrong. You've had every opportunity to do so.
We heard about "Ice Age" in the news, and popular press fairly regularly. Also "Acid Rain", "Ozone Layer" and "Nuclear Winter". Now keep in mind here - it does not necessarily follow that since they were so spectacularly wrong about an imminent ice age, or completely running out of oil, or mass famine & starvation killing billions of people, etc etc ad infinitum, that they aren't somehow, perhaps, correct with the latest "we're all going to die" schtick. It could happen, it's just it has all the classic hallmarks of a con job when you dig into it.
Your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.
Carbon taxes, how they were crucial to "global governance" and how to implement them, were all the rage for a while in the rarefied air of academe, "think tanks" and the usual suspects, sometime in the 1980s or 1990s. I was there for that too.
Then that meme kind of went away, and the global enwarmening scare took off not too long after that. Conveniently - turns out now we can save the world by raising taxes on, wait for it, carbon, and give them to unelected, unaccountable foreign entities and bureaucrats. Whew! Aren't we so lucky. Here's what Wiki has to say about the Ice Age meme of the 1970s. Again, I was there, all this stuff, and more, was pounded into us.
Then that meme kind of went away, and the global enwarmening scare took off not too long after that. Conveniently - turns out now we can save the world by raising taxes on, wait for it, carbon, and give them to unelected, unaccountable foreign entities and bureaucrats. Whew! Aren't we so lucky. Here's what Wiki has to say about the Ice Age meme of the 1970s. Again, I was there, all this stuff, and more, was pounded into us.
What was the point of that? You took a small snippet from a very large report... a report that designed to solicit more studies into climate change. Because back in the 60's and 70's emerging technologies allowed for greater climate studies, but the funding was needed to be able to get instrumentation and to make more accurate studies than what was being done at the time.
Good job cherry picking.
Two media articles more than 30 years old. <---------- Let that sentence sink in.
Also I pointed out the Newsweek article in my last post that you obviously didn't read. I also said that the author of that article came back and retracted it. By the way, neither of those issues had anything about global cooling or ice age on the covers.
The rest of your post was pointless. What are you trying to do, change my mind with poorly written 30+ year old opinion media articles, claiming you know because you "were there", posting about conspiracies, and your complete lack of knowledge about science and the scientific method? The only thing you've convinced me of so far is that you believe in manufacturered political outrage over the earth's climate and that you'll do anything to spread that outrage by cherry picking and relying on lazy journalism to confirm your bias.
#97
12-21-2018, 08:19 AM
Post Fiend
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wabanaki Indian Territory
Posts: 18,724
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes
on
31 Posts
Canada's climate plan is working for our planet, and it's working for Canadians. Governments in Canada are putting in place measures to cut pollution causing climate change, while creating good jobs and growing the economy. In the past year, we have continued our work with provinces, territories, Indigenous Peoples, cities, businesses, schools, hospitals and Canadians across the country and, together, we have accomplished a lot.Today, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna, provided a year-end update on this progress made across Canada, available in the Clean Canada report.
The federal government is working with provinces, territories, Indigenous Peoples, cities and towns, along with businesses across Canada to fight climate change and set us on the path to a better future for our kids and grandkids. This collective effort shows that people across the country are coming together, rolling up their sleeves and finding new ways to improve our health, our environment and our economy.
Clean Canada comes on the heels of the international climate meetings in Poland, which resulted in almost 200 countries, including Canada, reinforcing their commitment to work together to reduce carbon pollution, report in a transparent way and to tap in to the $26‑trillion global opportunity of clean growth.Year in review: Canada's climate plan delivering results
Do you guys remember back in the day when the US were world leaders?
The federal government is working with provinces, territories, Indigenous Peoples, cities and towns, along with businesses across Canada to fight climate change and set us on the path to a better future for our kids and grandkids. This collective effort shows that people across the country are coming together, rolling up their sleeves and finding new ways to improve our health, our environment and our economy.
Clean Canada comes on the heels of the international climate meetings in Poland, which resulted in almost 200 countries, including Canada, reinforcing their commitment to work together to reduce carbon pollution, report in a transparent way and to tap in to the $26‑trillion global opportunity of clean growth.Year in review: Canada's climate plan delivering results
Do you guys remember back in the day when the US were world leaders?
#98
12-21-2018, 09:09 AM
#99
12-21-2018, 09:26 AM
Post Fiend
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wabanaki Indian Territory
Posts: 18,724
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes
on
31 Posts
If your measure of success is based on leaving behind some clean air and water for your children,that would need to be in favor of others such as Canada.
It's not that your wrong,it's jut that it's much more complicated than that.It's all in ones prospective and priorities I suppose.
In case you haven't noticed,balance isn't a key priority in the US anymore.....Like in anything lol.
“Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish been caught, and the last stream poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money.” ― Cree Indian Prophecy
#100
12-21-2018, 09:37 AM
Well that all depends on how your measuring success right? If you measure purely in money,your likely correct.Though that argument could very easily be made in favor of China.
If your measure of success is based on leaving behind some clean air and water for your children,that would need to be in favor of others such as Canada.
It's not that your wrong,it's jut that it's much more complicated than that.It's all in ones prospective and priorities I suppose.
In case you haven't noticed,balance isn't a key priority in the US anymore.....Like in anything lol.
If your measure of success is based on leaving behind some clean air and water for your children,that would need to be in favor of others such as Canada.
It's not that your wrong,it's jut that it's much more complicated than that.It's all in ones prospective and priorities I suppose.
In case you haven't noticed,balance isn't a key priority in the US anymore.....Like in anything lol.
#101
12-21-2018, 09:41 AM
Post Fiend
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wabanaki Indian Territory
Posts: 18,724
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes
on
31 Posts
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
From 1778 to 1871, the United States government entered into more than 500 treaties with the Native American tribes; all of these treaties have since been violated in some way or outright broken by the US government, while at least one treaty was violated or broken by Native American tribes.
That constitution is worthless paper so long as the treaties are worthless too.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
If the treaties are not upheld,then what makes you think your paper will be either?
#102
12-21-2018, 09:51 AM
whether you think it's a worthless piece of paper or not, that and the bill of rights are the foundation for the laws we go by.
#103
12-21-2018, 09:52 AM
Post Fiend
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wabanaki Indian Territory
Posts: 18,724
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes
on
31 Posts
How about the massive amount of genocide we've yet still to confront and admit? That's cowardice not heroism and greatness.
Perspective and the measure of success my friend.
(I do love America too,I'm playing devils advocate a bit here of course,to help show our failures and imperfections.)
#104
12-21-2018, 10:05 AM
Oh the same bill of rights that call myself and my people "savages". Nice. (correction; Declaration of Independence) Yeah,such a great country we live in isn't it?
How about the massive amount of genocide we've yet still to confront and admit? That's cowardice not heroism and greatness.
Perspective and the measure of success my friend.
(I do love America too,I'm playing devils advocate a bit here of course,to help show our failures and imperfections.)
How about the massive amount of genocide we've yet still to confront and admit? That's cowardice not heroism and greatness.
Perspective and the measure of success my friend.
(I do love America too,I'm playing devils advocate a bit here of course,to help show our failures and imperfections.)
#105
12-21-2018, 10:14 AM
Post Fiend
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wabanaki Indian Territory
Posts: 18,724
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes
on
31 Posts
The Human Freedom Index presents the state of human freedom in the world based on a broad measure that encompasses personal, civil, and economic freedom. Human freedom is a social concept that recognizes the dignity of individuals and is defined here as negative liberty or the absence of coercive constraint. Because freedom is inherently valuable and plays a role in human progress, it is worth measuring carefully. The Human Freedom Index is a resource that can help to more objectively observe relationships between freedom and other social and economic phenomena, as well as the ways in which the various dimensions of freedom interact with one another.
The report is co-published by the Cato Institute, the Fraser Institute, and the Liberales Institut at the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom.
The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark (tied in 6th place), Ireland and the United Kingdom (tied in 8th place), and Finland, Norway, and Taiwan (tied in 10th place).
Human Freedom Index
In October 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners.
United States incarceration rate - Wikipedia
According to BJS data, 19 of the states with private prison contracts incarcerate more than 500 people in for-profit prisons. Texas, the first state to adopt private prisons in 1985, incarcerated the largest number of people under state jurisdiction, 13,692.Aug 2, 2018
You stated opinion.These are the facts. So no,living here with dirty air and dirty water (let me know if you want the stats on these lol.The polluted water map is depressing though,fair warning!) doesn't mean we live with more freedoms as a result.
Your measuring of greatness and freedom here,doesn't correlate with our current low EPA standards.Both are lower than other countries.
Don't go to the lame stream media and politicians for your "facts". Those people say things like "alternative facts" and "truth isn't truth". (no I'm not exaggerating.You can't make this stuff up lol,well they can apparently)
Are you tired of winning yet?
You stated opinion.These are the facts. So no,living here with dirty air and dirty water (let me know if you want the stats on these lol.The polluted water map is depressing though,fair warning!) doesn't mean we live with more freedoms as a result.
Your measuring of greatness and freedom here,doesn't correlate with our current low EPA standards.Both are lower than other countries.
Don't go to the lame stream media and politicians for your "facts". Those people say things like "alternative facts" and "truth isn't truth". (no I'm not exaggerating.You can't make this stuff up lol,well they can apparently)
Are you tired of winning yet?