The Greatest Scam in History
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 xtvpry |
The Greatest Scam in History |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 2123 (26-Apr-2008 22:05:16) |
|||
|
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3524 (27-Apr-2008 00:30:27) |
that it is, and its already starting to unravel. This will end up being the new benchmark for scams in the years ahead.
Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
|
||
|
jim3au |
|||
|
Posts: 1464 (27-Apr-2008 00:35:15) |
There have been a few other scams in history that we can look back on and know that we were scammed.
So far there has been a bit of research on climate change and the mechanisms and drivers of it. I do not see any of the research as being wasted. It has every chance of being as useful as research into ancient Egypt and I do not begrudge that research either. If in ten years time the Arctic is a warm and friendly place with cruise ships packed with tourists sailing backwards and forwards, I would not think that the research is wasted. If on the other hand, the Arctic is frozen solid and talk of the North West Passage is a joke amongst shipping company executives, I would not think that the research is wasted either. Of course, if a big meteor strikes the North Atlantic in the early 2030s and destroys civilisation as we know it, some survivors might argue that the research had been misplaced but that will still only be one point of view. Scam is too harsh a word. Research scientists have forever had to sell their research projects to skeptical investors and that is not going to change any time soon. To call any endeavour to sell research into climate change a scam is just silly because the same epithet could be applied to almost any research at some stage. |
||
|
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3527 (27-Apr-2008 06:39:47) |
jim3au,
I agree that the research is not wasted. the reason I say its a scam is because of the premature rush to a political/economic/scientific solution that is focused on only one theory with all other theories being denigrated in a propaganda campaign. We have pointed out numerous areas were there are, shall we say, questionable assumptions which the so-called science is based in order to push a specific political agenda and financial scam through phony carbon trading. That makes it a scam.
Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
|
||
|
jim3au |
|||
|
Posts: 1465 (27-Apr-2008 10:38:05) |
The weather forecaster fellow did not say that exactly. He complained about people being panicked into wasting tax dollars and he was annoyed at people being
panicked at all given the evidence such as it is. He also raised the very interesting point concerning people pushing their agenda for a world government.
That is not a new idea and different issues have been used to push for a world government over the last century. there is certainly an element of this in the push to limit greenhouse gas emissions, but for the rest, I am not so sure. A few tin pot companies pushing for their solar water heating units or some other individual assuring the world that his solar cell will solve the world's energy problems. These people a re to disorganized to pay bills on time. They are too small time to affect government policy. they certainly cannot out lobby the oil companies, or the coal companies or the aluminium companies etcetera. He said that he did not know of a scientist who felt their tenure was at risk because of their holding a contrary view but he did know of people in the media who felt that they could only espouse the pro-global warming viewpoint. I mistrust entirely the stockbrokers and merchant bankers who get hot flushes and worse every time they see government opening up an opportunity for their particular brand of salesmanship. We have a premier in the state of NSW who is excited to the point of mania over privatising the electricity generating assets presently owned by the state of New South Wales. the thinking is that what used to be worth thirty or forty billion may only be worth twelve billion now. What I know is that the clever merchant bankers who organise the float of those assets will get close to a billion in commissions flowing through their hands. For that there are a lot of rich men who would sell their honour. A carbon credits market could end up being a bigger market than people think. It would be the big commodities market. If it were just politicians involved, I could see it as an [organised] scam. |
||
|
brianm |
|||
|
Posts: 379 (30-Apr-2008 18:25:14) |
Whether or not its a scam, it doesn't come close to religion.
There is the biggest scam in history. |
||
|
kell553 |
|||
|
Posts: 800 (30-Apr-2008 21:15:20) |
Brian: Takes an awful lot of FAITH to come up with a comment like that.
If I'm wrong, I spent some time reinforcing and teaching my children the basic tennets of humanity and humility. If your wrong...well, no ice cream in your future. |
||
|
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3539 ( 1-May-2008 00:52:36) |
it is both amusing and very telling that it is the absense of faith that has largely fueled the rise of the new religion - Radical Evironmentalism.
Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
|
||
|
JBG.historypolitics... |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 59 ( 1-May-2008 11:19:58) |
"it is both amusing and very telling that it is the absense of faith that has largely fueled the rise of the new religion - Radical
Evironmentalism."
and at times quite strange. Hearing a died in the wool leftist atheist talk in religious terms about AGW ( I've posted the accusations previously ) is at first most disconcerting. |
||
|
JNiemczyk |
|||
|
Posts: 6269 ( 1-May-2008 11:29:00) |
Nightwatch2 wrote: As the old saying goes 'once people stop believing in God they'll believe in anything'. |
||
|
JNiemczyk |
Doubt is cast over global warming | ||
|
Posts: 6270 ( 1-May-2008 11:32:35) |
Emily Beament
Researchers attempting to model what might happen to the climate of the North Atlantic over a period of decades suggest that the temperature of the sea and Europe and North America may cool slightly. The researchers said the North Atlantic had variability on a 70 to 80-year cycle and the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) - a giant "conveyor belt" that brings warm water northwards into the area - had an important role to play in driving those fluctuations. When the circulation is strong, it creates warmer temperatures. The study created a model that used sea surface temperatures and attempted to simulate the variability of the MOC in a bid to predict climate over coming decades. The model - tested by comparing retrospective "predictions" against what has actually happened - suggests the MOC may weaken towards a long-term average, leading to slightly cooler temperatures in the North Atlantic. Sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific will remain unchanged, the scientists led by Noel Keenlyside of Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said. Writing in Nature, they said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming." Commenting on the study, Richard Wood of the Met Office, Hadley Centre, said the model suggested the weakening of the MOC would have a cooling effect around the North Atlantic. "Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. "That emphasises once again the need to consider climate variability and climate change together when making predictions over timescales of decades." But he said the use of just sea surface temperatures may not accurately reflect the state of the MOC, which is several kilometres deep and dependent on factors besides temperatures, such as salt content. If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful, but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain, he added. |
||
|
kell553 |
Well isn't that interesting | ||
|
Posts: 803 ( 1-May-2008 16:51:54) |
If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful,
but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain, he added.
|
||
|
DCmontana |
|||
|
Posts: 430 ( 1-May-2008 18:02:17) |
Having students that go out into the world, become very successful, and move into positions of leadership in their chosen professions is most satisfactory.
They also are incredible intelligence assets! Some time ago, at least a couple of years back, I posted that no matter what happened with the weather and
climate over the next few years, it would all be a result of global warming, the man induced kind. This information came to me from sources I deemed to be
85-90% accurate. Now that things are not going just as the members of the First Church of the Global Warming Faithful believe, they come up with models and
explanations that compliment, rather than question the original dogma. Let me see now, current cooling would not be nearly as bad, if it weren't for man
made global warming???? Knock, knock, anybody home???? I don't really think so!
|
||
|
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4631 ( 1-May-2008 20:13:31) |
My opinion is that the greatest scam in American history was the "energy crisis" while Jimmy Carter was President. People were topping off their
tanks and forming long gas lines. There was pleanty of gasoline. Frequently gasoline would run out at stations because gas delivery trucks couldn't get
through the gas lines to deliver at the stations. When Reagan became President the paranoia was no longer being fed by the government and things got better
fast.
|
||
|
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3542 ( 1-May-2008 20:33:25) |
seasick wrote: in other words - Throw the Democrats out, get the Republicans in, and ensure the supply side is working right!
Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
|
||
|
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3544 ( 1-May-2008 23:42:34) |
kell553 wrote: what is also interesting is that these latest revelations about cooling for the next couple of decades means that The SCIENTISTS are actually admitting
that those of us, including our Scientists, have been right all along and that climate change cycles are driven by NATURAL forces!!!
Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
|
||
|
brianm |
|||
|
Posts: 380 ( 3-May-2008 14:21:18) |
@ Kell,
If I'm wrong, I can still look the old man in the eye and tell him I was a good person who never set out to do anyone any harm. If he wants to take away my ice cream then he's no kind of God we should be associating with. If you're wrong, think of the millions (billions?) of people who have (will have) suffered and died in the name of religion for nothing... absolutely nothing. I admit that religion has its uses. God is the ultimate bogey-man, but it's now an outmoded concept. Many of us have now realized this and many more will in the future. The interesting question will be 'will we need to replace the bogeyman?' Is that part of the drive toward environmental awareness? |
||
|
jim3au |
|||
|
Posts: 1477 ( 3-May-2008 15:10:21) |
All of the main religions have traditions of learning and academic study. They also have times and places where they seem to resist change and learning.
Still the fact that many learning institutions have strong religious affiliations suggests to me that religion has not much to fear from a more educated society. I am sure that when a religion is perverted to work against learning, society has much to fear. |
||
|
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4635 ( 5-May-2008 06:33:08) |
seasick wrote: . . . and ensure the supply side is working right! The Reagan administration never fully implemented Supply side. Supply side requires that spending be cut to match the tax cuts. Which wasn't done. Also borrowing is counted as taxation in the concept. Its one of the reasons David Stockman quit the administration. Bill Clinton went back to the concept of paying bills out of current revenue. Which hadn't been done since Eisenhower. He did get some control over the debt. George W. Bush has "cherry picked" some of the points of supply side but in general is fiscally liberal. His tax cuts are ineffective. Much of the "savings" (30%) was picked up by middle class and upper middle class tax payers getting hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax. WBush as also changed taxes into fees, making them undetectable on the income tax, a slickness even Bill Clinton can appreciate. Other sins: 1. WBush went along with the Perscription medicine coverage plan, giving the Federal government new financial obligations. 2. Even after "Mission accomplished" WBush still funds the Iraq occupation with mostly "emergency appropriations", giving him the ability to award "no bid" contracts for spending in Iraq. In the private sector a CEO doing such would be forced to resign by the board and stock holders, and would be subject to legal action by the stock holders. 3. Borrowing like mad. Federal securities have low interest rates because they can't default. That makes them better than AAA rated corporate bonds. As the interest on Federal securities moved up to 5%, corporations were forced to raise rates on their bonds to stay competitive. Smaller companies that can't get BBB or better ratings were forced to raise them more. This increase in interest paid puts pressure on small cap and mid cap companies similar to a tax increase. ---------- Libertarian because some one has to be conservative. |
||
|
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3552 ( 5-May-2008 19:13:55) |
seasick wrote: no argument from me. I will only quibble on one key point; "Bill Clinton went back to the concept of paying bills out of current revenue. Which hadn't been done since Eisenhower. He did get some control over the debt." he succeeded in that only by cutting Federal spending and the payroll. He did that, however, by gutting only the Defense Department. Every other part of the Federal government and spending increased considerably. Within the DoD he through over a million of us out of the military and gutted military procurement. Which set us up for the current impasse where a war was brought to us while we had inadequate forces to meet it. The resulting spending increase has been unacceptable to the Congress and the American people who sent those representatives to Congress. As a result, we are stuck in the band-aid approach of the current administration which absolutely did fail on that point in properly funding the war and expanding the forces needed to meet combat operational requirements.
Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
|
||
|
JNiemczyk |
|||
|
Posts: 6314 ( 5-May-2008 19:42:18) |
As a result, we are stuck in the band-aid approach of the current administration which absolutely did fail on that point in properly funding the war
and expanding the forces needed to meet combat operational requirements.
I can fully sympathise. As far as I can see our MoD is trying to fight a two front war on existing peacetime budgets. Wars are also generally not the time when the army is reduced in size. |
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
