What facts have you researched to dismiss this as conspiracy theory?nm
Posted By: LVMT on 2006-07-05
In Reply to: She posted this as a - clarifier
z
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Conspiracy Theory..........
Author: Taylor Caldwell
In The Captains and the Kings (1976) Caldwell takes on the global power brokers. In this book we find, running through the story line, a description of the way the international financiers and industrialists (all private consortiums owned by an elite of the world's richest families and persons) hijack governments around the globe; instigating wars and gaining control over the warring countries through manipulation of the enormous debts incurred during a war. Mentioned too is the Council on Foreign Relations; and while a disclaimer states that all persons portrayed in the book are fictional, it is clear that the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as another major organization of the globalists are both very real organizations. Also described is the idea that political systems everywhere, and certainly in the US, are almost totally dominated by the ruling elite; and that no one even gets into the running for a major political office unless the elite believes the person is under their control. It is explained that this can be direct control; e.g., the candidate takes a solemn oath to be true to that organization above all others; or indirect control: the candidate is known to have done something illegal or scandalous. The threat of public exposure can then be used to bend the person to the will of the elite. Politicians can also be compromised through a "set-up". When necessary the elite will play that hand (conform or be ruined by the controlled media). It is further explained that there have been a few who were not under the control of the elite (back in the 40s and 50s) and who had some success on their own. These individuals were not corruptible and in such cases very dirty tricks were employed against them. There is a figure in the book obviously symbolising JFK, who went along with the elitists (his father's cronies), but who once in power went his own way - resulting in his assassination.
conspiracy theory
Economic crisis well controlled so far, maybe to give the republicans a chance at winning and to keep Bush from being blamed. Will they let the flood gates loose in January? Let us go into full blown economic depression? So far, they have only rescued themselves, not ordinary people. Maybe there won't be anything left to help ordinary people?
I call it a conspiracy theory because it is...
You mention scientists, demolition experts, police, eye witnesses...but someone had to be responsible for whatever you think might have happened, and therein lies the conspiracy theory. So who do the scienists, demolition experts, police, and eyewitnesses think is behind whatever they think they know or saw? And do you have any documentation for any of this? Especially since people actually SAW the planes fly into the buildings...unless you are saying the planes were flown into the buildings to cover up the "demolition" Or the "demolition" just happened to be planned at the same time the planes flew into the buildings? And if there were no planes and the eye witneses to that (including most of the world on television) were all victims of mass hallucination...what happened to the people on those non-existent planes? They never existed either?
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. No offense intended...just calling it like it is.
Yay! Another conspiracy theory for your scrapbook.
You can fess up now. You're Michael Moore.
Right?
I think perhaps you are a closet republican because that is quite the conspiracy theory.
x
ah...I see your post below...interresting conspiracy theory....sm
I don't agree. Bush and Cheney will be well out of it in 2009. The changes that come will be all Obamas and dem congress.
Not arguing, though... I won't waste anymore of your time.
you live in a chronic state of conspiracy theory
how sad for you 
Unless it's a crazy conspiracy-theory driven right winger
nm
Care to post the right fringe rumor rag conspiracy theory link
I am not into solving prevarication puzzles. Further comment might be forthcoming if you spit out precisely what you are trying to say here.
I don't dismiss. How many times have I said...
that all of us should vote for who we feel is best for the country? How is that dismissing? Yes, I am conservative, have always been conservative. I have not changed...the parties have changed. That is why I am now independent..independent of any party. That is how I view being an independent. You have to register as SOMETHING to vote in national elections...and independent most closely defines me at this point, not republican or democrat.
Gee wilikers....but the judge won't dismiss
--
SOMEONE RESEARCHED IT.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRxZox4GFoIweckPDP1oRhKBlHOwD94CCDU00
From a Georgia Congressman. Geesh, Obama not even President yet and already starting a Hitler type government.
I have researched Obama.
I do not like him one iota. I don't agree with a lot of the things he has voted for or voted against. I don't agree with his idea of a healthcare system. I don't agree with his stance on abortion. There are just a lot of things I do not agree with. As far as him having white people in his family......so what. The color of his skin has nothing to do with why I would or wouldn't vote for him. I hope and pray that Obama does not win this election. I believe that we will thoroughly regret it and that includes the people who are all for him now. Just wait and see what his "changes you can believe in" really are.
As for McCain and Obama......neither one of them seem to have good plans to give us energy independence. I think our economy needs help but I'm not for robbing the rich to support the poor. I'm not for the government bailing out people who have made poor choices and lose everything. How is that other tax payers fault? Why should we have to pay for it? I'm totally disgusted with people receiving welfare and not even attempting to get jobs. I'm sick of people getting disability who don't deserve it and yet they refuse others who do deserve it. I'm tired of spending money like it grows on trees. Stop giving other countries our money....they hate us anyway.
I am so sick and tired of political parties. Whether or not you are rep or dem......you both suck. The dems are in charge of congress and they have done jack. We have all seen with our rep pres has done. So in my book it doesn't matter what party you are in. They are all about getting elected and I'm sick and tired of hearing all of these fake politicians and all these lies just to get my vote. I want a realistic president who won't be a warmonger but also who isn't afraid to stand up to the bullies. I am just so unhappy with our choices for president.
I haven't researched but
I would imagine it is $250,000 on the bottom line profit since that is what we all pay taxes on. I agree that a business with a gross income of $250,000 is not all that much, as a rule of thumb, probably $125,000 net. On the other hand if it is $250,000 NET that's a pretty darn good income and I say they could well afford to pay a few measly dollars so those making a net of say $25,000 could have a little relief. But the middle or lower class workers are going to get NO relief because the big businesses are going to protect their greed and the small businesses have to raise their prices to survive. Example: We ate at a family owned restaurant the other night. Sirloin steak was $17.95 the last time we ate there was $21.95. The owner posted a sign apologizing for the price increases but said he didn't have any choice if he was going to stay in business because of his wholesale prices going up. THANKS Bush and big oil.
Mabye pubs should have researched
nm
They researched this in 1999 and verified
nm
Ok, read my posts again and researched some more
You are correct, my first post did say this is a transition period. It also said there is no such thing as an "Office of President Elect", and technically he is not yet the president elect. That doesn't happen until the second Wednesday in December after the electoral college votes. So it is still not official that he will be president. We will find out the 2nd Wednesday in December. All this stuff Barack is putting up is props to make him look "official". This is all to feed his ego. Of course I understand that when people are elected they need to start choosing people for their cabinet, etc. Every president has done that, but that is not what is raising everyone's eyebrows. This "Office of President-Elect" was something that was created by the O. Bush did not have an "Office of President Elect" in 2000.
Upon further research I found that Obama created this and it is a new branch of government. Makes me wonder how someone who is not even president-elect yet can create a new branch of government. It states in the article, "the site has a .gov top-level domain (change.gov). That is reserved for "qualified government organizations and programs. The incoming administration technically has no status as a government organization or program until January 20." Here is the link for that.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/president_elect_obama_has_already_created_a_new_branch_of_government/
Here are some other people's comments about this...
Obama’s arrogance is exceeded only by his inexperience and naivete.
"With the economy falling faster than a meteor from space, I can’t wait until he falls flat on his face. Would serve him right."
"On the 4th-we were all given a feces sandwich-open your big mouths wide and take a big bite like everyone else will have to (assuming you’re even from this country).
"Maybe by the time you learn what made this country great you’ll make better choices on future election days. It wasn’t socialism and hand outs from the federal government that made this the country that people literally die trying to get into.
"The egomaniacs are the ones for whom BHO’s election was the highlight of your lives. How sad is that? Most of us won’t fall apart just because the candidate of our choice lost. But this guy is really weird, these aren’t easy times and McCain would have had the best interests of America at heart, not socialist ideology that never has worked anywhere without capitalism to prop it up"
Here's another interesting article. It states If the Constitution is flawed (Obama's words), then how could Obama take office and defend it. And also how could the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court offer the oath to a president elect Obama, knowing his view of the constitution.
http://theamericansentinel.com/2008/10/28/if-constitution-flawed-then-how-can-obama-take-office-and-defend-it/
And yet another commenter said...
"Perhaps the media needs to create a new acronym for President elect Obama. My suggestion is: PeOTUS! His signage should read: From the Office of His Oneness President elect Obama."
Have you by any chance researched Biden's temper?
just wondering.
LOL! Ain't that the truth! "Fair minded"..."well-researched"...
I haven't seen one scintilla of anything that could properly be called 'research' in any of Just Terribly Bad Breath's posts.
Well, I have a theory. sm
And I said a name above, because the L poster is the only one who seems obsessed with who you and I *really* are. Anyhoo, I didn't really even understand the *Original* Observer post, I'm afraid. Suffice it to say, the left has an entirely different reality about what comprises bashing than I do!
what you are saying here, is only theory,
but in reality, in real life, it is quite different, what is also evident on this very forum!
Tit-for-tat fights, posters trying to insinuate negative characteristics on others, and this without any proof at all.
Be honest, everybody tries to hide one's flaws, and please, do not tell me that a low IQ is something to be proud of. Everybody mentioned and accentuates what is positve and hides what's negative, if challenged.
Not 'flashing' it, just 'mentioning' it if it comes up in a conversation.
I never 'boasted' it, that's what this 'low-life' poster, smsg, who post every comment under a different user name, accused me of.
Don't be such a hypocrite!
Facts are facts - sorry you don't like it cos it doesn't support your candidate
You can't change facts. That's what makes them facts. You may not like it but that's the way it is.
yes, very interesting theory....sm
I've heard tell that at least in the old school democratic party, supposedly Bill Clinton had power brokered deals, in the dark back rooms, over brandy and cigars....that Hillary was supposed to be the dem nominee this year......But Obama changed all that, and the powers that be, felt that he would be the better choice, and thus, from what I hear, Bill kind of threw a tantrum...or several, some even out in public.
Anyway, I have no idea where my husband gets some of his political information, but he goes to all sorts of places on the web, and this was the hubbub earlier in the year, and one of the big to-do's this election cycle.
Personally, I find it distasteful if this practice does/did/still occurs, for either party. Shouldn't be, and it pisses me off to no end if it is so. So much for the will of the people, if these things are decided by the big wigs in power.....of either party....
...steps down off soapbox now....
If that's your theory, then the pubs
should have been all for it, but they weren't, were they?
Your theory is twisted
Maybe that's what they teach in the socialized education system nowadays (I heard plenty from my cousin who would tell me what her professors in the university were spewing). But what you stated is not the theory (that after 2 terms of one party the other party is supposed to be elected). What kind of screwed up site did you get that from (probably MSNBC or some other hate-filled station). If that was the case then there would not be a race and the opposite party would just be placed in - which is exactly what the democrats are trying to do.
I do agree that there is both far right and far left wingnuts. That is why the country needs someone who is a moderate. Unfortuntely the country will never elect someone from the Independent, Constitution or other party that is down the middle, but at least John McCain is more down the middle. Obama is the farthest left that you can get. It just astounds me how many Americans would rather have the country move to socialism and live under a dictator rather than have a free country.
Also, people forget that America is a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy. Nowhere in the contitution or Declaration of Indpendence is the word "democracy" even mentioned. Our founding fathers were extremely knowledgeable about the issues of democracy and feared it. They understood that the only entity that could take away people's freedom is their own government (which we will see if Obama is elected).
There are people who are bent on destroying our sovereignty by creating the North American Union (which means Canada, US & Mexico will become a single country). The NAFTA agreement was just the beginning of this. Obama admits to support of this. Obama's policies are that of Stalin's. Stalin's economic philosophy was socialism, which involved taking property from the rich in order to redistribute it to the poor. Sounds exactly like what he was telling the plumber guy and others. I think last night John McCain made a very clear connection that Obama's polices and core beliefs are the same as Joseph Stalin's.
We cannot go down that road. We need to continue on as a free country. To think that now that because you have two terms of one party it's the other parties turn is wrong. Especially if the other party is and believes in socialism.
We need to have a republican (or another party other than a democrat) elected as president as the senate and house already are democrat. This is what they call "balance of power". Americans prefer that the checks-and-balances evisioned by the founders be facilitated by having different parties control Congress and the White House. Put in a democrat president mixed with a democratic congress and a democratic senate and you have tyranny. They will pass every pork filled bill possible, tax you more and the country will go down the same dark road we hit with Carter and Clinton.
Yes, the country is in a state of turmoil one we haven't seen for not sure how long. I wouldn't go back to the depression, as we all know Obama is trying to scare people into believing if he is not elected we're going to hit a depression - another blatant lie of his. That is why we need a moderate in the office. We need someone to keep the democratic senate and house in order, that is why we need McCain.
People should not vote for the other party with your theory that if they vote for McCain we are all wealthy. A lot of us are voting for McCain because we don't want to be taxed over 45% of our paychecks like we were under the last democrat president Mr. "Liar, depends on what the meaning of is is" Clinton. It is a fact that under Bush most American have received tax refunds (not the richest of rich - people like me and others who make around $25K or so). Something I never saw once under any of the 8 years the last democrat president was in. McCain and Palin have more knowlege of how to run the country. How to create jobs, how to not tax the small business people, how to generate income for America, how to win the war and not rush everyone back because you think more people will vote for you if you keep pushing that, when in truth you will turn around and after elected send them all back.
I say if you want to be free. If you want to be able to start your own business or have any money left from your paychecks to build a future for yourselves. If you care that the country is now a safer place since 9/11. If you care that our next president doesn't hang around with people like Wright, Ayers, Farrakan, and has friends in the countries that want to see us wiped off the planet and will do so under an Obama presidency, then vote your conscience and vote John McCain.
After last nights debate no matter who you think won or lost, I'll be voting for a man who has the knowlege and experience to lead the country to better times and will continue to remain free. Otherwise you should learn how people in Cuba and North Korea and other communist/socialist countries feel. Why do you think they're all trying to come to our country. And the ones who immigrated to here to get away from there. I'm sure they will not be voting for someone who will make this country into what they risked their lives to get away from.
THEORY of evolution
Just that, a theory. It has never been proven. Just a cop out so you don't have to believe that someone BIGGER and BETTER created you.
nice theory...
but many companies have closed when unions forced strikes. they simply closed. everyone lost their jobs. Then they re-opened, new name, new company, often in a new location (many out of the US where they didn't have to cowtow to the unions) and those past employes were left with nothing 'cuz when they closed their took all the pension benefits with them, too. I am not talking about firing a union worker. That is a whole different subject. Ask someone who works for a company with a union how it is to be a good worker when all the lazy people around you are not and the company can do nothing about it because they union does not hold the employee to any standard, only the company.
Perhaps companies that don't want union simply don't want the union crap shoved down their throats. Yes, I think unions HAD a place and did a lot of good, but I think it's a thing of the past. Unions now are greedy and care more about the union itself than the worker. don't kid yourself into thinking that's not true. Check into union corruption and greed not to mention union violence.
Interesting theory.
Are you willing to apply it to Democrats, too? (You'll want to be very careful how you answer.)
...and what about Democrats who can't manage their finances or pay their taxes?
And I presume you won't be voting for Obama again if he can't even manage to keep Bo from taking a dump in the White House living quarters?
There's a word for people who think like you, but I can't use it without violating forum policy. Democrats a "shoo-in" next election? Doesn't look like Dodd's doing too well - and we'll throw the rest of them out if we can, too. See link - and then go right on whistling past the graveyard because we're going to send a lot of people from both parties home if we can.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/17/report-dodd-receives-early-donations-just-state-residents/
We don't bring it up to dismiss Bush, we bring it up...
to show that your criticism holds no water. It's not a political thing, it's a human thing. People have shortcomings. Now, if you want to have a statute of limitations on this thing, then I guess Bush is off the table as it's been about 20 years since his last drink, believe it or not (I know that's your next reply, that he still drinks, which you have no proof of so don't even try it).
So true. But it makes it a theory.
And a theory surrounded by corroborating actions in its babyhood can and will eventually grow up to be a fact.
And there is a growing list of corroborating actions, all of which, as I originally said, frighten me.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. Have a nice day.
sounds good in theory
& it's great you can manage to love your neighbors because you are forced to, but it would be great if you could work on the idea that homosexuality should be talked about in the same context as addiction, adultery, or other harmful or evil behaviors.
Homosexuality...is very much about loving another human being, despite everyone's (I daresay prurient) focus on sex. It's a mistake to equate being exactly what the godhead created you to be with evil, & to say that you can love your neighbor "in spite of" this shows such a profound lack of understanding & tacit attitude of superiority that I don't even know where to start.
If you knew the nature of real love and acceptance, you wouldn't have to force yourself to do anything.
Your theory doesn't really surprise
me. I just think it sucks that illegals get so much money from us for education, health care, etc. Now they want to give illegals the right to vote? What is the point of being an American citizen nowadays. You get more rights and benefits being illegal. It just irks me!!!
Nice in theory. Doesn't work well
nm
I don't think it's a conspiracy ....
but the gist, that the FDA did approve it, is true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verichip
There are already things a bit like this now... with implants people get being tagged for identification. (Say your body is burned in a fire. You may be traced with your fake knee.)
But I could see the government coming up with this a a tracking device for say, child molesters. I bet a lot of people would LIKE that.
Facts are facts. No bash intended.
It will be this stellar record from which voters will be assessing her and her running mate.
If you're offended, too bad. Facts are facts...
I know Muslims in this country who have turned from the hateful evil beliefs that were forced down their throats. They did not have the freedom to learn anything else growing up. But after they gained their freedom and came here, they were able to receive the Word of God and they have told me that NEVER were they taught anything about loving others, just other Muslims, and that the God they learned about spoke of nothing but killing and hate... so if Obama is receiving large donations from those middle eastern countries, as you say, and he is grounded in Muslim culture, being taught this in school for years as a child, do you honestly think he doesn't carry some of those beliefs with him? He's never denounced it.
Here ya go.........
http://bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm
stating facts folks, just the facts....if it's getting
xx
Folks want facts, you give'm facts and still
xx
This poster wants facts, facts, facts...
xx
Poster wants facts, facts, facts.....
xx
Not into conspiracy theories....
You hare serious anger issues. And other issues as well.
9/11 and conspiracy theories
For a very long time, there have been people who claimed that 9/11 didn't happen as reported. It's been claimed the black boxes were found by NYC firefighters, yet this was denied by the FBI. It was claimed that the remnants of a plant were never found at the Pentagon. There have been even more *theories* than this.
Up until recently, my common sense told me these *theories* were just ridiculous, and I never EVER gave them a second thought.
Now that I realize that every single thing this president has done has been dishonest, I'm not so sure about 9/11 any longer because I don't think there is anything this man WOULDN'T do, regardless of how heinous, to force Americans to *agree* with his policies by using fear, coercion and intimidation. Most things I used to consider to be simply *unthinkable* are quickly becoming not only thinkable but possible and maybe even likely under Bush.
Lately, when I wake up every morning, I hope I will find that the last 5 years have just been a horrifically bad dream, just like that other famous Texan: Bobby Ewing.
Oh, do I smell conspiracy?
The plot thickens!
No, not a conspiracy....it is a game that...
the poster enjoys...though one of the standard lines is "I won't play your game" and then does exactly that. Frankly, I could not care less. The posts all say the same thing, in the flowery elitist condescending language...should be patently obvious to anyone who would like to go into the archives. But it does not really matter...the poster has made it personal, and the posts are in direct opposition to everything the posterior states are liberal qualities.
I came on this board a few weeks ago and just asked posters to define what they viewed as a "liberal." I got varying descriptions...and then I got a couple of posters who said there were no true liberals in the Democratic party. And based on the description of liberal ideals of other posters, and applying that to how those same posters post...I am left with the idea that that person...the one who said there were no true liberals in the Democratic party...is probably the closest to the truth. LINOs I guess. Liberals in name only.
Have a good day.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but it is odd
that this was posted the same day that one of Dennis Kucinich's brothers was found dead.
Conspiracy theorists will never allow themselves
They are too busy spinning and doubting to embody that concept.
Conspiracy Nuts
Wow, now I know how crazy we must have looked supporting Gore in the recount and steadfastly hanging on to hope since he had won more of the popular vote. It's time to let it go and move on. Obama is the president-elect. Deal with it and focus your energy where it can be beneficial to someone. Yikes, get over it you sound like nut jobs.
You take one conspiracy nutjob
who is obviously a disturbed man who owns guns and you blame Fox News for what he did. Are you kidding me?
I've said this before and I will say it again.....Fox News has the highest ratings....higher than MSNBC and CNN combined. A lot of people are not happy with the way are country is being run and they obviously like what they hear on Fox or they wouldn't be watching it.
Fox News is not the root of all evil. Government corruption, however, is. So why don't you try holding ALL politicians accountable for their actions instead of blaming Fox News and Bush for everything.
I did not say they said global warming as a general theory was not good science...
but that Gore's version in his movie was not good science. And I said it was debunked...but that they said it was bunk.
Here's one....an interview with a noted scientist in the field:
Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.
"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said. "It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."
Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe." Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.
"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.
So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it? "Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.
"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted. And it's not something that he does regularly. "I can't waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do," he said.
But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he'll give it. "And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does."
Up against his students' students: Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"
The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."
Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.
"Well, that professor happened to be wrong," he said. "There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."
While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide. For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.
"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."
Bryson didn't see AL Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." "Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."
Another:
One of the world's leading meteorologists has described the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize "ridiculous".
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at UNC Charlotte and said humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie (An Inconvenient Truth) and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said instead that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - is responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle means a period of global cooling will begin soon and last for several years.
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Gray said.
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Gray said.
He said his beliefs have made him an outsider in popular science.
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
Seeing a link here? They want grants, they have to buy into global warming. Hellooo. Follow the money.
This is from Newsvine (owned by MSNBC, home of Chris Matthews...biased yes, but in your favor), about the "consensus of scientists" who buy into Gore's theory:
Article Source: dailytech.comworld-news, global-warming, study, scientists - of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
Here is another: the scientists quoted are not conservatives.
Gore Slams Global Warming Critics
Reprint Information
Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves
In twin appearances last night former Vice President Al Gore dismissed critics of his global warming theory as a small minority not credible in their opposition.
In an unprecedented, uninterrupted eight-minute monologue on Keith Olbermann’s "Countdown," Gore characterized those scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as part of a lunatic fringe.
Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”
NOTE: Again with the consensus...as stated above, the consensus he claims does not exist.
This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific "consensus" on global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." For speaking the truth he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.
Neither Gray nor Dr. Carter believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.
Nor does famed Oxford professor David Bellamy who sniffs that Gore’s theory is "Poppycock!"
Writing in Britain's Daily Mail last July 9, Dr. Bellamy charged that "the world's politicians and policy makers ... have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credo of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.
"They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.
"As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and rubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic."
Wrote Dr. Bellamy "It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be [$1.3 trillion]. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.
"If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist – money that could be used in umpteen better ways: Fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.
"The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact."
In agreement with Dr. Bellamy were a host of other respected climatologists including the 19,000 who have signed a declaration that rejects Gore’s accusation that the rise of greenhouse gasses is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. As has been pointed out, previous ice ages have been preceded by a rise on CO2 levels long before there were humans or fossil fuels or backyard barbecues.
Commenting on the scientists who support Gore’s thesis, Dr. Carter one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change, says, "‘Climate experts’ is the operative term here. Why? Because of what Gore's ‘majority of scientists’ think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of who know, but feel unable to state publicly, that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April, 60 of the world's leading experts in the field asked Canada’s Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request, wrote Tom Harris in the Canada Free Press.
According to Harris, a mechanical engineer, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball notes that even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
Adds Ball, among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not predictions but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
Canada's new conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his predecessor.
In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the 60 leading international climate change experts who signed the letter, the experts praise Harper’s commitment to review the controversial Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment. "Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.
They emphasized that the study of global climate change is, in Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.
"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.
"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"
The letter is the latest effort by climate change skeptics to counter Gore's demonstrably false claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing alleged global warming.
Listening to Al Gore makes one wonder if he is the one who believes that "the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.”
oh yes -- the vast media conspiracy
to hide the TRUTH from the American public!!!!! That's rich. You're mask of sanity is slip-slip-slipping. PAY NO ATTENTION to the man behind the curtain - we at Faux are the ONLY media you can trust! Really. . . we mean it . . . we would never deceive you . . . we have Rove, Morris, Malkin, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity . . . a virtual treasure trove of impartial commentators.
The left wing conspiracy...Hehe!
nmx
|
