Thank you very much Al Gore....or how America was taken down!  

Sorry I didn't make it clear that these were the words of:

Lord Christopher Monckton gave this speech about the UN Climate Change Treaty at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN.

Well if you knew me better then you'd know you have just disqualified totally your source, the opinions of titled people really don't carry any credibility.
But you used the words in your introduction so surely you must believe them or do you now say that part of your introduction was way off the mark?

I'm in the middle of this and unfortunately have to leave for work. Though I do respect your right to discount him based only on the fact that he is 'titled' I have no such predjudices. It means little to me that he is 'lord' anything. (I do find the practice absurd). I am going to judge his words on the merit of their either being true or bogus. Back with more after eight hours on my feet, I promise!

How can an opinion be true or bogus, his words are simply his opinion. The facts speak for themselves and sorry to spoil your new world order theory but the EU is not a left wing regime.

The UE is socialist and therefore Left Wing... so the term Left Wing Regime is accurate...

Destiny - EOE has already covered this point fully in box 7 if I can refer you down there. But I reiterate the EU is not a left wing regime, it is more conservative if anything but it is not one body, it is many countries with different outlooks.

Thea...what does the word UNION mean?

The EU cannot realisitically be described as a left wing regime - unless you hold very right wing beliefs. Barosso, the newly reappointed president of the Commission is centre-right and so is the majority in the European parliament. Indeed, the left is in retreat in most member states, though not all like Greece for instance.

However, the EU is not very democratic - ie only 1 country, Ireland, had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Deals are stitched up often without consulting the European electorate. The EU is rather corporatist and there seems to be a cosy consensus between the centre right EPP grouping and the socialist grouping. This leads to moderation in policy making, that is not a bad thing

Perhaps left wing means something different to Americans than it does to Europeans?

Debi

America is so right wing that, to Americans, everything outside of America appears left wing. You have been beaten about the head with the communist/coldwar big stick for so long that MOST Americans have no conception of any political ideologies other than the competitive capitalism that is America.

I'm sorry, but I do disagree. Our government is more left than it is right. What I meant by defining the terms was to be clear on what we are sayint when we say these words. To me, left is more government, less liberty. Right is less government, more liberty. To you, these words may mean something entirely different. I am all for throwing them out and finding new ones! lol

What we have here is a mis-match of terms being used to define socio-political structure. Time to put my political sociology head on and see if I can clarify things a bit. Europeans view political dynamics within society in terms of socialism v capitalism, or left and right wing. Unfortunately, socialism only appears in American dictionaries as a sub-heading under communism. That only leaves you with capitalism to play with so you need new terms to define political dynamics. The ones you have 'adopted' are authoritarian v libertarian as left and right wing respectively.

To you as an individual, authoritarian means big government which impinges upon personal freedom and libertarian means small government which doesn't interfere with personal freedom. From an individual's perspective these terms are plausible. But let's look at them from a corporation's perspective. Big government means more regulation which impinges upon the unscrupulous corporation's freedom to exploit people and despoil the environment in pursuit of greater profits. While small government means less regulation to interfere with unscrupulous corporations' freedom to exploit etc.

I think you should also consider the words themselves. Libertarian is derived from liberty or freedom so your brain makes a subconscious association between libertarian and freedom, but only sees it from an individual's perspective, not a corporation's. Authoritarian is derived from authority which your brain connects with submission to authority and loss of personal freedom, again seeing it only from an individual's perspective, not a corporation's.

Are you still with me Debi and can you see the dichotomy yet? By taking a libertarian standpoint you believe you are pursuing the goal of personal freedom when what you are actually doing is making it possible for unscrupulous corporations to do what they like. And please don't try to tell me that corporations have high standards of morals and ethics and that they all work within a perfect market because that simply isn't true.

Now contrast this with the European view of political dynamics i.e. socialism v capitalism. Socialism is derived from society or people; and capitalism is derived from capital or money. A clear distinction, no dichotomy and no subconscious trickery - this is why I placed the word adopted inside ' ' earlier. Yeah I know, I've made you think again, but that's why I'm here; not to provide answers, but to give you more questions.

Yea, I'm thinking. I'm thinking real hard.

Friday late, or eary Saturday morning...Obama declared a state of emergency concerning the swine flu 'epidmeic' in America. Never mind that at least 25 people have died from the vaccine, now, under this 'emergency' order...he can order people in the healthcare field to take the vaccine. If I refuse (if it comes to that) I will loose my job. Now what? This flu is not as dangerous as they are saying. I have never taken a flu shot, and I won't take this one especially.


Now to your explanation. I will read and re read it and try to wrap my head around it. But, at the same time....I really am focused on what I see as the immediate danger to MY country.

Read the emails I sent you, help me out and do a little digging for me. Then email me back and let me know what you think. Thanks.

I'd like all of you to read this very informative article my Michael Chrichton on global warming. I know..Thea hates links. But there is just no way I can copy and paste this whole thing for you dear. And a synopsis would take me ages. Humor me: http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html

I'm already on it!

I am sure we will all have to make that decision soon. For myself, I would stand up and die, for my 13 grandchidren and five children....I am afraid.

Just a note, I will restist and refuse to comply with, by force if nessesary, any treaty which violates the U.S. constitution or my state consititution and laws.

Here's a link to a list of scientists who have spoken out on what they call the global warming hoax:

http://www.globalwarmingh...

And here is the document itself, I couldn't get it to open as it apparently is very large, perhaps you will have better luck. I'm sure if you google it you can find it if this one doesn't work:

http://www.globalclimates...

ooh just saw this one debra. now you are onto something i can bang on about for hours. lets just say for now it is not a hoax but if you would like to set up a discussion about this then i will be happy to spend plenty of time, well minutes, looking into who these scientists are.

might be helpful if you have links to slightly less biased sources though. right now i am kind of busy with something else but feel free to bring along links to a discussion i will probably start about climate change in the next few days.

Thea sent you, didn't she!

Got to go to work jb....will return in about nine or ten hours.

Just think! you get the honor of first blood~

nope. don't think she is either interested much in the environment or even on at the moment. however this is something i bang on about all the time - as you may have noticed.

Well actually jb I did say you'd most likely be along later due to your extreme and unquestionable knowledge on environmental issues, plus your science backgroud, to look into the sceintfic side of this, as I was only interested in correcting the false statements being made about Europe. I told you after you'd been in though but probably Debra was expecting you earlier.

I am first, an environmentalist. I want to say that up front.

I believe we ought to re educate ourselves to practices that actually do lessen our impact on the earth and it's resouces.

But from what I've read...this is fear mongering at it's worst. Designed to make the elite rich, and to do away with any rights the American public may have left. I have to go to work now....but I will return with a more detailed post on my opinion of the 'science' of it all.

Well at least you agree that the basis for this treaty if flawed. Glad for that, anyway.

I do disagree slightly..you say that the banks have been centralizing and reinforcing their power since the Reagan years....I say it began in 1913, or even way back when this country was founded....Remember Hamilton? Andrew Jackson, The Federalists?

Or even further back in Europe when banking was first invented?

Shucks..EofE, I wasn't even born then...yet you say 'you'?

I did the research you recommended, EofE.

The author of the speech is from Europe, isn't he? Can he not have an opinion on what their politics are? I will have to investigate this now! Darn it, will you quit making me THINK!

To deny that global warming is taking place would be foolish, because it is happening. But the premise that AGW is mainly responsible is not backed up by the science. Al Gore's big graphic of earth temperature v atmospheric CO2 content was highly misleading and has been easily debunked several times over. Any climatologist should be able to tell you that CO2 is not the main driver of climate change. It does have an effect yes, but mainly in a secondary feedback loop.

You're right, banks have been working behind the scenes for an awful long time but in your country the big step was, as you say in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act. That got their little club together over there, but a lot of their current power comes from the deregulation of the financial industry during the Reagan years.

Apologies when I say 'you', that was meant to refer to America as a whole, not you personally.

Lord Charles Monckton is a titled aristotwat and to him, anyone whose house doesn't have 30 bedrooms is a communist. He is correct about global warming but his political views have no value.

you need to explain further your idea of what drives climate change eoe. yes of course there are a number of factors (all nothing whatsoever to do with us) but the idea that rise co2 levels will not have, and have had substantial, and devasting or potentially devasting impact has not actually been debunked several times over. and i don't think there are many climatologists who will say it has. i have never paid any attention to al gore because it is fairly pointless and i will agree that something like this is dead easy to manipualate for political ends but i would like you to explain your idea of the science in a bit more detail.

this has now been done. coming back later.

The initial case for AGW being the cause of global warming was based on data from ice core samples taken at Vladivostock and covering thousands of years. Al Gore used this data in his famous big graph which he used as the centrepiece of 'An Inconvenient Truth'. What he said was that when there were high levels of CO2 there were high temperatures and that the relationship was complicated. What he didn't say was that there was a 600 year lag between rising temperatures and increased CO2 levels, i.e. surface temperature increased first and 600 years later CO2 levels increased. And that is what the whole AGW premise is based upon, a twisted use of scientific data. Now I'm not saying that all of the rise in surface temperature is not caused by CO2 because once large amounts of CO2 begin to accumulate in the upper atmosphere then they can cause a rise in surface temperature by way of a secondary feedback loop; but the initial rise in temperatures in the past is not caused by a rise in CO2 levels.

You have to think of the earth and it's atmosphere as one large thermodynamic system, whose primary energy input is the sun. Any change in solar activity will have an effect on earth surface temperatures in general. The sun is a colossal nuclear furnace whose energy output fluctuates. These fluctuations can be seen in the level of sunspot activity. There is in fact an almost perfect correlation between the levels of sunspot activity and earth surface temperatures over thousands of years. Support for this comes from Professor Piers Corbyn who has successfully used solar cycles to predict the weather for a nunber of years. The Met Office uses traditional climate drivers like the jetstream, which moves weather systems around the globe, to forecast the weather. Corbyn uses sun cycles and he has consistently been more accurate in his forecasts than the Met Office, indeed he's won several bets with Ladbrookes against the Met Office's predictions. I'll dig up more supporting evidence for you this week if you like, this is just off the top of my head, or wait until your discussion.

If you can spare a moment EOE pop into box 1 and give your take on the EU being a left wing regime.

I've already done that in this box

I'm going to let you to hash out the science part. I read some of the papers listed as links on the webpage link I posted. But I do not feel qualified to discuss this with any intelligence. I know that sunspot activity WAS discussed way back when I first got interested in the seventies...and then the discussion shifted to CO2 being the cause of climate change. I know I was surprised when a politician suddenly became a scientist (so to speak) and wondered why and how he got into that role. Anyone know?

So, would you say that this treaty, along with the banks centralizing their power over econmoics worldwide, and the UN's involvement with the World Monetary Fund...the World Health Oraganization, and their many other arms of influence, all lumped together constitues a NEW WORLD ORDER? Especially since the experts out there say America will soon have a currency much like the Euro. Are we looking at global government by the elite?

ok eoe i am not in the least surprised that al gore used bad science in whatever gumph he produced. and this undermines the fact that carbon emissions are having an effect (politicians, pah, should be shot) and changing the climate far faster than it would normally which means that species cannot adapt fast enough (forgot people, i am interested in beasties) but i will write a more detailed answer for you shortly - i have some phone calls to make first. i am aware that sunspot activity has an effect on climate change btw and that climate is complicated.

had to double check this one. well yes sunspot activity is associated with climate, and prior to the industrial age it seems that temperature changes could be closely like to solar activity. but in the last 40 years temperature changes have not been associated with solar activity. now i am not a climatologist and neither are you but i'm inclined to think there is a good reason that most climatologists think that climate change is almost certainly associated with human activity.

Then why did temperatures not rise dramatically following the industrial revolution and the huge industrial expansion following WWII, but fell instead?

PS

When you say 'most climatologists', would that be referring to the IPCC (which doesn't consist solely of scientists), or to those climatologists who subscribe to the AGW premise and receive funding for their work, at the exclusion of those scientists and climatologists who disagree with the AGW premise and who now are refused funding. And what about the climatologists who have asked, but been refused to have their names removed from the IPCC report on climate change, and who have now asked the IPCC to substantiate their claims of AGW - a request which has been ignored.

From the reading I've been doing it seems that those who disagree that CO2 emissions as the cause of gloal warming aren't saying that we aren't seeing climate change. They disagree as to the reason for it happening.


http://www.nipccreport.org/

In part:

The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). NIPCC traces its roots to a meeting in Milan in 2003 organized by the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), a nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington, Virginia. SEPP, in turn, was founded in 1990 by Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, and incorporated in 1992 following Dr. Singer’s retirement from the University of Virginia.

•“Climate Change Reconsidered,” by S. Fred Singer and Craig Idso

I don't pretend to understand completely the science of all this. I have read that we are experiencing a cycle of cooling, that the sunspot cycle is responsible, and that data that would prove this has been suppressed by the EPA and IPCC.

The way my mind works, lol....when big wigs start 'suppressing evidence' as is charged by the detractors of CO2 theory...they have an ulterior motive. What could that motive be? Perhaps to upset the balance of economies worldwide and make a few rich guys richer? I am not a scientist. And I have to trust the experts. Just seems to me that trusting those who stand to profit from climate change is a little dangerous. I tend to trust the guys who have nothing to gain from the data they present.

to eoe - no i am not.

ok - had a quick look for figures - only ones i could find came from new scientist (which as far as i am aware is not biased) and they came up with 97% of active climatologists think it is being caused by human activity. incidently i am as likely to trust those with an obvious political agenda as i am to get facts from the greenpeace website. so there. btw with regard to your other points - a) there is a delay and b) carbon emissions have been steadily increasing, dramtically so since the 70s, and that is not disputable.

to debra - global warming is occurring, that is not a matter of dispute either. what we're discussing is whether or not it is caused by human activity.

From the reading I've been doing it seems that those who disagree that CO2 emissions as the cause of gloal warming aren't saying that we aren't seeing climate change. They disagree as to the reason for it happening.

Thought I said that.

was just replying to your bit about the cooling cycle debs.

I think the key thing to be considered here is the treaty is based on science that even the scientists can't agree on. Only one point of view, one hypothisis was allowed to be considered...and I learned in grade school...that that is BAD science. Why throw out another hypothisis if you don't already have an outcome decided? Do you see my point, jb?

Found this piece on cap and trade figures:

By Kevin C. Donnelly

Leftists were adamant that opponents to the Cap and Trade bill were lying, that cost would be minimal and that opponents of this legislation were stating a falsehood when we noted that this bill would lead to a large tax imposed on every American and have very negative effects on our economy. Guess who was correct:

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.


http://toourrepublic.com/...

So, this says to me WE ARE being lied to. If they'd lie about this, are they lying about the need for it?

I am going to do some research into just how a UN treaty IS handled by Congress. I read that we are part of a world wide treaty with the WHO, and that I never heard of either, being ratified by Congress. Does anyone know JUST HOW these UN treaties are ratified?

I believe they are ratified by the individual member states under the Vienna Convention on Treaties (1969). I think that ratification is done by government, unless there are specific provisos for either parlimentary majorities or public referendums such as the recent amendment to the Irish constitution so that the EU constitution could be ratified.

So we're all probably stuffed and at the mercy of our respective governments. And people wonder why I detest politicians and don't vote. What is there to vote for, realistically?

I figured it was done at an international level and not a national level.

I agree...there is no reason to vote anymore. I've said elsewhere on the lot that "IF" we have an election in 2010 and 2012, I'd vote out both parties and go totally independent.

Am I looking at the death of America? While that may excite some across the world due to their dislike of past administrations, it really has little to do with presidents or governments, more to do with the death of hope and the death of the liberty worldwide. If anyone thinks that it is a good thing, I cannot agree. Not that I think America was better or that we had a monopoly on liberty or hope...rather that the American people themselves had in the past more hope for a better world, more liberty to acheive that better world. We've allowed it to slip from our hands. I'm with you EofE, I am quickly beginning to hate politicians and governments.

Debi

Both your idea of America, and mine, died a long time ago. Your country was once a bastion of freedom and a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. Sadly that is no longer the case. You are no longer a free country, you are a corporate state. What was once a Republic has become that which your founding fathers fled from: Empire.

Call them up and ask them WHY....tell them YOU expect them to cover matters of national importance. I think it is very telling that we do NOT hear of these things until they are accomplished. That is just not the way America is supposed to work.

Thank you for that. You inspired me. I just did write our newspaper, but I can only guess at who's at the recieving end of my letter, and I doubt it'll go far or be taken seriously, let alone the obviousness of what I state ever being researched.
dr...

My way of looking at that...is we have to, in the end, live with ourselves. Perhaps our words and the thoughts behind them are not taken seriuosly...but I know I can live with myself a whole lot better if I say what I think. And we can never really know for certain they didn't have an impact. And what that impact meant to someone else.

Kind of an update: I have let a lot of people know, including congress, political candidates, so-called liberty groups, what's up concerning Copenhagen and other issues... I just wish I had more time on my hands to deal with...

Me too....right now I am concentrating on getting my son well. I will have little time to be online. First things first....

There's many people who think so. I for one have studied Revelation quite extensively....and he'd have to fulfill some pretty heavy duty prophecies.