Winston Peters had a typically rambunctious interview with Patrick Gower on The Nation, but he did give some indications about NZ First bottom lines in any coalition negotiations.
- The Super eligibility age must be a bottom line.
- Peters suggested NZ First has strong asset buy backs, foreign property ownership and foreign fishing policies but there was sufficient vagueness to be uncertain what exactly would be bottom lines.
- Peters ruled out working with UnitedFuture or the Maori Party, the two other parties most likely to be in contention for coalition negotiations whether National or Labour form the next government.
- Peters continues to insist that John Key has lied about Kim Dotcom.
if it is found that key lied about Dotcom or it remains unproven then it’s hard to see how Peters could work with Key – it would be totally inconsistent with his insistence that politicians he has claimed have lied should resign.
What is going to be done about Lecher Len? He is once again getting an armchair ride by his left-wing media supporters and behaving like a thick-skinned mongrel.
Where is a plane to pick up the obese German criminal; has he defaulted on more debt; has he used his returned contributions from Peters and Cunliffe to retire a few bills?
How many unionised paedophiles/criminals inhabit the confines of our teaching profession?
Alan: Labour once made partial sell-downs an election issue, when they lost, continued a crusade with their Green mates, costing us millions of dollars for a worthless referendum, and lost share revenue for investors. Their word on issues is meaningless, unless it constitutes policies of envy, or benevolence for their leeching supporters.
” The final words from the missing Malaysian jetliner’s cockpit gave no indication anything was wrong even though one of the plane’s communications systems had already been disabled, officials said, adding to suspicions that one or both of the pilots were involved in the disappearance.”
Perhaps it is false hope, but if the pilots were involved, then they would have been aware of the fuel limitations of the aircraft, and surely the chances of it being landed safely would be a bit higher – or is that just hopeful thinking?
I had a look at the ipredict markets for this years election and there appears to be a clear divergence between the post election PM market and the party shares market.
The post election PM market, shows a 72% probability of a National PM, yet the party vote share has National at 44%. It’s hard to think given the absence of partners (the market suggests a 70% chance the NZCP fails to win a seat) that they could get over the line at 44%.
you may be interested to see that for the first time, a major Western MSM outlet – Britain’s Daily Telegraph, today published an article saying exactly what the “alternative” media like Zerohedge, RT, Breitbart, Paul Craig Roberts et. al and many of us on blogs have been saying all along:
- Russia is allowed by way on constitutional agreement up to 25,000 troops in the Crimea. Therefore using terms like “invasion” is a blatant lie.
- That the deposed President, Viktor Yanukovich was elected under fair and free elections. Therefore people calling him a “Dictator” are again lying.
- The West was funding and backing the opposition who overthrow the elected President.
- Those who seized power in the coup d’état are Ukrainian ultra-nationalists who pose a potentially deadly threat to the Ukraine’s Russian population.
- There is major uncertainty about who was funding and ordering the snipers during the coup.
That this is now being acknowledged in the MSM goes to show just how discredited most legacy media now is, as well as the rising power of alternative media in holding Politicians to account and speaking truth to power.
We had a fantastic day at Albert Park in Melbourne yesterday at our first ever F1 Grand Prix.
But the 2014 edition of the F1 car is underwhelming. Perhaps they will improve as the season goes on, but the biggest complaint that people around us yesterday had were that they are so quiet; they sound more like chainsaws than state-of-the-art race cars.
I think he’s pretty close to the mark with that. Nothing in politics is as white as milk or as black as Labour skulduggery.
A couple of weeks ago, the election looked just about done and dusted. Cunliffe was screwing up. The polls had taken against the Greens. But what Collins’ escapades reminds us is that even the apparently strongest political figures are still human, and that Governments can lose elections through being stupid, being arrogant, or being incompetent. If National keeps on doing all three at once, then it’ll be game on again.
I don’t think he’s quite right on that – it always was game on, and it will be right through to the election – and probably beyond, into the coalition negotiations.
I cannot agree with your “Andrew Geddis has a thoughtful, fair look at the Judith Collins embarrassment..” . Geddis has wriiten a very wordy piece that is just a continuation of the “making a mountain out of a mole hill” of this issue. He says he doesn’t know much about the business culture in China and then goes on to tell much someone what they should do or have done. whose being arrogant now.
If the issue has done anything on the NZ political scene it is probably turned off more voters or made many more cynical about the politicians in Wellington.
Geddis using the emotive terms describing his own subjective perceptions (stupid, arrogant, incompetent) says more about Geddis than it does about his target. Perhaps he should look very carefully in the mirror before being so ready to buy into a beatup.
By definition.anyone reading him, stranded, or Whale or this esteemed blog, is a political junkie, to a greater or lesser degree.
But out there in the land of the great unwashed, in the provincial towns, and in the rural sector they think the whole Collins business is a load of crap…..with silly TV children letting their mouth run ahead of their brain.
The government of Ukraine has collapsed, amidst destructive civil anarchy edging toward civil war. The people of Crimea have elected overwhelmingly to affiliate with Russia not the EU, which is what the original protests were about. The people have spoken. Amidst a political void they have this right. America and the European Nations should respect this, and stop turning this into an anti-Russian campaign. Like when Russia ‘invaded’ Afghanistaan, only to be followed by America ‘liberating’ Afghanistan. Both nations did exactly the same thing, but it was spun as opposites in international political rhetoric.
On a very rare occasion, I’m actually with Russia on this one and the people of Crimea and Ukraine who want, and have the right, to decide how their nationhood is structured, affiliated, and secured for the future; in this case, as part of the Russia Federation.
So, John Kerry and Barack Obama, its time to back off, and laud the democratic decision cast by the people of Crimea. That they support Russia should be of no consequence.
My god, are we still talking about a fucking dinner?
David Cunliffe is backed by SECRET donors. Who are they? what are they? What do they want? What did he promise them? Would he have won the leadership without them? how indebted to these secret assholes is he? Did they use other leverage to get him elected?
Remember when brash was around an all it took was for fuckhead mallard to say “backed by US boogy men” or whatever the line was. The media went into a frenzy.
Who owns cunliffe? Dime would like to know.
Popular. Like or Dislike: 291 You need to be logged in to vote
We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.
Criminal negligence is normally understood to result from failures to avoid reasonably foreseeable harms, or the threat of harms to public safety, consequent of certain activities. Those funding climate denial campaigns can reasonably predict the public’s diminished ability to respond to climate change as a result of their behaviour. Indeed, public uncertainty regarding climate science, and the resulting failure to respond to climate change, is the intentional aim of politically and financially motivated denialists.
My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech. We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept.
What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.
Wow. And he’s an assistant professor of philosophy huh?
Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life.
Yeah yeah – sure – it’s St Patricks Day or some shit…
Every stinking fucking day is some kind of special retard day…. what is it today? St Fuckwit’s day – cool.
There’s Easter, xmas, mother/ fathers/ secretary/ fifty different disease days / music day / fireworks day / dress-up and beg door to door day / waitangi day / labour day / anniversary day / earth day / think of the children day / save the animals day / royal visit day / big sport event day/ shortest day of winter let’s all get naked jump into the ocean and everyone now has female genitals day…
The Palmerston North branch of NZLP has struck again, through its affiliate, Manawatu Standard. An article on State housing only made a couple of paragraphs, before the socialist views of effeminate and weak Lees-Galloway, took lead in the article. This pisses me off, especially when the editor, a known Labour card carrier, decrees this as editorial policy. Where is the political neutrality of this outlet?
Don’t know if anyone has posted this before (as I haven’t kept up with yesterday’s GD), but apparently, the pilot of the missing Malaysian plane was a “political fanatic who eyewitnessed his Muslim Brotherhood hero jailed for sodomy hours before the flight”. That is according to one site. Another site says that he moved his family out the day before.
b1gdaddynz (253 comments) says:
March 17th, 2014 at 10:48 am
The terms “Climate Change Denier” or “Climate Denier” should be banned; no one denies climate change it is the degree to which it is affected by the activities of man that is the question.
In their starkest warning yet, following nearly seven years of new research on the climate, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said it was “unequivocal” and that even if the world begins to moderate greenhouse gas emissions, warming is likely to cross the critical threshold of 2C by the end of this century. That would have serious consequences, including sea level rises, heatwaves and changes to rainfall meaning dry regions get less and already wet areas receive more
you just denied the science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
Denial, in ordinary English usage, is asserting that a statement or allegation is not true. The same word, and also abnegation, is used for a psychological defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
The subject may use:
simple denial: deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether
minimisation: admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalization)
projection: admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility by blaming somebody or something else.
Experts have warned that the world as we know it could be doomed to suffer ‘irreversible collapse’ in the coming decades.
And no, this is not another conspiracy theory cooked up by the Mayans – this time the warning comes from a study funded by Nasa.
Led by applied mathematician Safa Motesharri, a new study made possible by the Goddard Space Flight Centre warns that global industrial civilisation is doomed to catastrophe because of the overstretched demand for resources.
‘The process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history,’ explains the academic paper set to be published in the Ecological Economics journal.
A combination of unsustainable resource exploitation, unequal wealth distribution and overconsumption could lead to the collapse of industrialed society within a few decades,
Environmental Doomsayers Have Been Wrong Many Times Before.
“At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore’s hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and “in the 1970s … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book “The Doomsday Book,” said Americans were using 50 percent of the world’s resources and “by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them.” In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, “The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000.”
Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, “… civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 “… somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.””
That this is now being acknowledged in the MSM goes to show just how discredited most legacy media now is, as well as the rising power of alternative media in holding Politicians to account and speaking truth to power.
Nope, on this issue, the MSM is dead on. All the link you gave means is that the Russian propaganda machine is gaining traction, buying into internet readers’ skepticism of the media, who quite often seem just parrot a line. But there’s too much information out there for people who care to look that this is an invasion. Heck, the “referendum” didn’t even allow for the status quo!
Griffith- If the science is so concrete then why do they feel the need to stamp out and/or ban any differing opinions? This is the point I’m making. Most of the work of the IPCC is based on computer modeling which however sophisticated are not science “fact”! We simply do not yet understand all the interactions that occur in climate to be certain either way. We had an Ice Age 450 million years ago when the level of Co2 was 10 times what it is today so clearly there is more to it than just Co2 levels. Besides no one is actually coming up with any solutions that will work now and if the AGW proponents theories are correct we are about 30 years too late to do anything about it any way. I’m not convinced either way by the way but I don’t usually tend to favor the side that refuses to debate and tries to silence any decent….
It continues to stagger me how apologists for Putin hang every word and utterance on what spews forth from RT , Voice of Russia and RIA Novesti all tightly controlled by him and the Kremlin.
The referendum is a sham and I wonder if Putin now will consider one for Chechnya.?
Fat chance. !
Well mr mt tinnman your scientist the real ones are where?
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (October, 2009)
American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
“It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases.” (August 2012)
American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change
“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (November 2007)
American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate
“The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.” (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)
American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
“The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (December 2006)
Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change
“The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.” (October 2006)
American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change
“There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century.” (July 2004)
National Science Academies
U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (pdf)
“The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (2005)
International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf)
“Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.” (2005, 11 national academies of science)
International academies: The Science of Climate Change
“Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.” (2001, 16 national academies of science)
National Research Council of the National Academies, America’s Climate Choices
“Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.” America’s Climate Choices, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010
U.S. Climate Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)
“Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.”
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”
Doran surveyed 10,257 Earth scientists. Thirty percent responded to the survey which asked: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? and 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Naomi Oreskes
“Oreskes analyzed 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the ISI database with the keywords ‘climate change.’… Of all the papers, 75 percent either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it; 25 percent dealt with methods or ancient climates, taking no position on current anthropogenic [human-caused] climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level”
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
IPCC defines “very likely” as greater than 90% probability of occurrence.
The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change: Scientists’ letter to the U.S. Congress. Statement signed by 18 scientists.
“We want to assure you that the science is strong and that there is nothing abstract about the risks facing our Nation.” (2011)
Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
Signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences. “… For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. … The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. …Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.” (2010)
U.S. Scientists and Economists’ Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
“We call on our nation’s leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase over pre-industrial levels (i.e. prior to 1860). As temperatures rise further, the scope and severity of global warming impacts will continue to accelerate.” (2008)
Increase Your Leadership on Global Warming: A Letter from California Scientists
“If emissions continue unabated, the serious consequences of a changing climate for California are likely to include a striking increase in extreme heat and heat-related mortality, significant reductions in Sierra snowpack with severe impacts on water supply, mounting challenges to agricultural production, and sea-level rise leading to more widespread erosion of California’s beaches and coastline.” (2005)
Scott Chris, the Egyptair incident at least has an explanation. The Pilot involved was apparently about to be charged in the US for exposing himself to a maid at the hotel he was staying at, and she was a minor (that is I believe under 18 at the time). If so charged he would have basically been fired by the airline and lost all his pay and status which would be considerable in Egypt. That gives at least a believable motive for suicide.
In this one I don’t think there is any particularly strong grounds for believing in pilot suicide, but at the same time if the facts as they are now being presented are correct, I don’t think we have a good explanation for what happened at all, and pilot suicide at least fits those facts better than most explanations.
Taking the information we have at face value, that is there isn’t some massive “false flag” or deception operation involved (and that’s real tin foil hat territory and I’ll leave that to our resident conspiracy addicts), then someone flew that aircraft way off course and there’s no (public) announcement of the reason. So it’s not a political protest, or at least not an overt one; it could be a hijacking to get control of an aircraft, but where would they take it ? There’s no where obvious that they could fly it and land and expect to do so without detection; though I may prove to be wrong on this if it does turn up somewhere in central Asia. So what are we left with as an explanation ?
Pilot suicide is not a good explanation really, but it is an option that at least fits the known facts. There are other explanations around a botched hijack or whatever, and I think it’s pure speculation that we are indulging in. Certainly it seems the strangest incident I can recall in many ways.
What we’re now waiting on is the discovery of the aircraft or its remains. I still think it most likely that it is somewhere deep in the Indian ocean, but that’s just a “balance of probabilities” judgement and I wouldn’t put a lot of money on it.
Guys, it pointless arguing with a fanatic; they don’t arrive at their opinions by rational means and can’t therefore be rationally argued out of it. So just leave Griff to his own little world preparing for the environmentalists version of the rapture.
Just about all you need to know about him is that he puts fat tyres on a Toyota Camry and thinks he out-corners Audits (sic).
Perfect example – Sean Plunkett on Radiolive – so because it’s St Patrick’s Day, what do they do ?
Let’s tell some fucking stupid as all fuck Irish jokes – ya useless insufferable dumbarse drongos. Hahahaha – oh brilliant. Broadcasting gold. Really? Does a radio station really have to sink to primary school level for ratings? How fucking pathetic can you get? St Patricks Day – unfunny squawking airhead unwashed gimps telling Irish jokes. Hilarity as never experienced. Another bullshit theme day somehow makes talkback even worse. Wow – so that is possible.
On a good day it sounds like Sean is being choked to death as he wheezes on air. He’s fat and a heavy smoker apparently. Which might explain why it sounds like his innards are teetering on the brink of exploding in every conceivable direction at all times. Can probably do a decent Darth Vader as a party trick.
Griff, a lot of those stories are old. There is no consensus.
The survey of American Meteorological Society members found that while 52 percent of American Meteorological Society members believe climate change is occurring and mostly human-induced, 48 percent of members do not believe in man-made global warming.
Furthermore, the survey found that scientists who professed “liberal political views” were much more likely to believe in the theory of man-made global warming than those who without liberal views.
Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight
February 25, 2014
“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”
Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.
In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.
After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.
These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.
Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.
Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.
Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.
The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?
It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.
I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.
If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject.
Attached please find the chapter on climate change from my book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”. I would request it be made part of the record.
Conservative media are latching on to the climate change denial of Patrick Moore, who has masqueraded as a co-founder of Greenpeace. But Moore has been a spokesman for nuclear power and fossil fuel-intensive industries for more than 20 years, and his denial of climate change — without any expertise in the matter — is nothing new.
why don’t you find out what Patrick Moore does for a living. And also find out when Greenpeace was started and how long after that your “founding member” mr moore joined.
Keep it up guys keep trying to discredit every major scientific body in the world with links to newspaper stories and lobbyists.
So any of you wingnuts going to admit that mr p Moore is
1 lying about being a cofounder of Greenpeace
2 has no scientific credibility
3 is a paid lobbyist not a scientist .
4 his opinion doesn’t carry any weight compared to say that of the royal academy of science.
Of course, some people won’t even bother to read his book before making up their mind on the above, since it’s from Iranian media and therefore not to be trusted, unlike say, Murdoch’s stable, which always tells the truth, without fail, no matter what: e.g. there are WMDs in Iraq…
Some essential background to former Greenpeace co founder and activist Patrick Moore. He was a member of Greenpeace from 1971- 1986 , thereafter started a Salmon farm and PR Consultancy in British Columbia. His PR , Green Spirit firm took on mare and more a distinctly pro Big Business and Industry perspective on the environment. He originally got offside with the Green movement for his increasing autocratic methods and manner.
His firm has currently;y been busy defending Asian Business interests in the clear felling of forests in Sumatra.Thus his Climate Denial stance is nothing new and really old hat something the Climate denial Washington Times or Fox news will not want to reveal.
Just in case people don’t believe an Iranian media source, here’s an American who served in Reagan’s Administration as Assistant Treasury Secretary, maybe he knows what he’s talking about…
Whatever Washington says is truth. Whatever Washington does is legal, in accordance with both domestic and international law. When Washington invades countries and destroys them, sends in drones and missiles, blows up people attending weddings, funerals and children’s soccer games, Washington is practicing human rights and bringing democracy to the people. Whenever a country tries to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity, the country is engaging in terrorism, al-Qaeda connections, human rights violations, and suppressing democracy.
Oh dear, it appears he’s full of bollocks as well. That doesn’t sound at all like the US of A, does it.
The World is heading for another Ice age, according to scientists…….wrong.
The World is heading towards massive food shortages according to scientists….wrong.
Both of those are highly likely to be correct. It’s just the timing that’s questionable.
If we (humans) keep increasing our population, keep changing out environment, and keep using up finite resources and continue with highly destructive and potentially world wrecking weaponry then it increases the chances of a catastrophic and irreversible event or change occurring sooner rather than later.
Look look they made a mistake in a two thousand page long report so because that one sentence is wrong we should discard the entire scientific report. critical thinking is not you strong point is it wingnut.
Your Himalayas covered with water shows your increasingly irrational behaviour brought about by your cognitive dissonance Reids tummy hurt is actually real for you poor wingnut.
This is a prediction of climate science dating from
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.
The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.
However, if you live across the western United States in the winter of 2014, you are finding temperatures well above average with very little rain in the picture. Places such as Los Angeles and San Diego are seeing temperatures nearly 10 to 15 degrees above average. While the eastern half of the United States is experiencing cold and unsettled weather, dry and warm weather continues in the U.S. West. Over 60% of the U.S. West is experiencing extreme drought conditions, with nearly 60% of California in an extreme drought.
“The last IPCC compendium on climate science, published in 2007, left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable.
These include articles from the journals Arctic, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Earth Interactions, Geophysical Research Letters, International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Quaternary Research.”
Pro-Russian demonstrators in eastern Ukraine smashed their way into public buildings and burned Ukrainian-language books on Sunday in further protests following two deadly clashes in the region last week.
Paul Craig Roberts former Assistant Treasury Secretary to the Reagan administration – An enemy of Reason.
“..What I find more troubling than any gullibility of the American people is that there are people like Roberts who prey on that foolishness to promote conspiracy theories which are designed to deceive and mislead the segment of the public which lacks a certain, basic common sense. Some people see a huge event like 9/11 and want it to have a grand and fanciful explanation, and Roberts and his cohorts play to that insecurity. Their opportunistic promotion of these fantasies is far more dangerous than the common and familiar mendacity of politicians….”
SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore.
“The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.”
Up to the top again Muppet and see who we are talking about. Those who are paid to generate the wingnuttery missdirection for stupid sheepie to follow blindly.
All you are doing is emphasising the stupidity of your thinking and fact checking ability. Muppet is significantly more nuts than Reid. Reid is well aware of his irrational connections Muppet on the other hand is deluded as to his reality levels
Some people see a huge event like 9/11 and want it to have a grand and fanciful explanation, and Roberts and his cohorts play to that insecurity.
On the other hand people who prefer to believe 9/11 was about some people who couldn’t even fly performing maneuvers that even professional pilots couldn’t perform and defeating some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world for over 2 hours all directed by a guy in a cave Afghanistan, believe that fantastic nonsense not because it’s true how could it be but simply because they’re insecure about what it would mean to their view of the world, if they didn’t continue that belief.
urgh is there anything more painful than griff posting his scripture?
this is the problems with the warmists – no church to go to.
set up a church griff, people will come along every sunday to hear your amazing sermons:
“and then my children, the great prophets Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell said to griffith in 1981 “the temperature is increasing because of atmospheric carbon dioxide…””
and griffith said “oh my fucking fuck! we better start taxing the living shit out of people”
Kaching again of to the denial echo chamber this time a paid political hack. climate depot is
Tony Soprano Marc Morano is a wingnut propagandist and global warming denier (his fans call him a “climate realist”). He kicked off his career by learning the tricks of the trade as a producer on Rush Limbaugh’s show in the early ’90s. He then went on to work for L. Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center.
In 2004, he was one of the first “reporters” to hype the John Kerry swiftboating “story.” In 2006, preeminent denier and wingnut Jim Inhofe hired Morano to be his “Director of Communications.” Morano’s position got him into a number of climate conferences and policy hearings. He also put out a bogus report about 700+ number of scientists who “disagreed” with the consensus (a la Oregon Petition). Some scientists called for his resignation due to the number of distortions and lies about their work he promulgated. In 2009, Morano left Inhofe and became the proprietor of the website “Climate Depot.” Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, an Exxon funded think tank. Supposedly, he exposes the “lies” of the “warmists” and “scientific McCarthy-ites” (oh the irony!) who do research in that inconvenient thing called science. The site is really more of a denialist-style Drudge Report that links to whatever nonsense it can find.
In 2010, Morano was given the “Petr Beckmann award” by Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. Apparently, he thinks this is something to be proud of.
In Kharkiv, Reuters Television footage showed pro-Russian activists scaling an iron gate, smashing a van and breaking into the offices of a Ukrainian cultural center. Two policemen stood nearby, examining the van.
The footage then showed young men seizing Ukrainian-language books, including a volume devoted to the 1932-1933 man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine, which killed from 7-10 million people.
“Do you see what they print here?” one activist said to another.
The activists then took the books into the street and set them alight in small bonfires, along with posters from the extreme-right wing Right Sector group.
It seems the Soviet famine is to be forgotten. Links with the point I made (and was supported on by others) last week on Russia unable to come to terms with her past. Katyn was my example, but the famine is Ukraine looks to be another sticking point.
And, these “activists” are being bussed in from Russia:
As pro-Russia demonstrations in 11 cities have suddenly erupted where significant populations of ethnic Russians live, the apparent organization of the demonstrators, appearances of Russian citizens and reports of busloads of activists arriving from Russia itself suggest a high degree of coordination with Moscow. At a minimum, Russians are instigating protests by Ukrainians sympathetic to Moscow, helping to create a pretext for a broader intervention if Mr. Putin decides to push things that far.
I think you will find jerky that it is you who hold the religious view “no such thing as climate change”. As already pointed out and proven by the posting of Muppet. I have the majority of science on my side and you have a bunch of wingnuts and oil industry funded shrills.
By June, at the height of the famine, people in Ukraine are dying at the rate of 30,000 a day, nearly a third of them are children under 10. Between 1932-34, approximately 4 million deaths are attributed to starvation within the borders of Soviet Ukraine. This does not include deportations, executions, or deaths from ordinary causes. Stalin denies to the world that there is any famine in Ukraine, and continues to export millions of tons of grain, more than enough to have saved every starving man, woman and child.
“I think you will find jerky that it is you who hold the religious view “no such thing as climate change”. As already pointed out and proven by the posting of Muppet. I have the majority of science on my side and you have a bunch of wingnuts and oil industry funded shrills.”
lmao – for man made global warming = beyond reproach
against = wing nuts & oil industry funded shills.
cause youll find the scientists pushing this arent funded. there is nothing in this for them if its man made or natural, happening or not happening
griffith (137 comments) says:
March 17th, 2014 at 10:11 am
My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech. We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept.
I agree with the IPCC that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that humans are significantly responsible for much of the 20th century warming and that current estimates of climate sensitivity are robust for the purposes of taking whatever action might be justified as a consequence. However, this particular argument is wrong and counterproductive.
Freedom of speech means nothing if your objection is simply that promotion of an idea will affect political trends, thereby affecting policy, and thereby leading to harm. This would be the exact same objection raised by the church in trying to suppress the heliocentric model of the solar system. The purpose of freedom of speech is not to have some authority decide what constitutes “truth” in order to ensure society makes the correct decisions, it is to create a marketplace of ideas from which society can choose openly, on the presumption that superior arguments will tend to win in an open environment.
But this is no guarantee that society will choose correctly and although there are some reasonable restrictions on harmful speech (e.g. defamation) these are the exception and are generally held not to threaten the core requirement to protect political speech.
The fact is people have access to more information now than they ever did. They are fully capable of evaluating “denial” against other viewpoints. Whether they are motivated enough to do so, whether they are intelligent enough to grasp the counter-argument, is irrelevant. If harm results because society embraced the wrong political ideology then that is not a failure of free speech, that is a failure of people.
Now if that doesn’t convince you, I think you would do well to consider that these sorts of suggestions are exactly the type of thing that a “denialist” loves to highlight. It feeds a sense of persecution and of a hidden truth being supressed. It doesn’t convince people of the correctness of your argument because you don’t offer an argument: all you offer is repression, which makes a bad argument seem better than it is.
‘Nothing in this for them’????
I think you would find that a scientist who came up with a credible theory explaining that climate change was unconnected to human activities would find enduring fame and fortune.
Reid, why it was even possible for non professional relatively untrained pilots to fly 11, 175, 77 and 93 the way they did from a former Italian aviator, air force and check airline pilot of 27 years ,
Note also the hijackers did not have to perform the more complex operations like landing and takeoff. Their task was to simply to fly the planes into buildings. This also made more easier due to the fact that the 767s and 757s they flew were largely automated and computer controlled .
The guy in the cave argument is simply nonsense in light of the above.
The maneuvers were not complex or difficult . They were after all merely flying into buildings
…”I think you would find that a scientist who came up with a credible theory explaining that climate change was unconnected to human activities would find enduring fame and fortune.”…..
He’d be taken out the back & kicked to death by the shyster “scientists” who would be filling out forms to claim the dole if it wasn’t for the money governments thieve from us to pay for bullshit info.
nasska (9,164 comments) says:
March 17th, 2014 at 1:31 pm
He’d be taken out the back & kicked to death by the shyster “scientists” who would be filling out forms to claim the dole if it wasn’t for the money governments thieve from us to pay for bullshit info.
Have you heard of tenure?
Why does Lindzen and Spencer (and others) still retain their necks and their employment if what you say is true?
griffith (141 comments) says:
March 17th, 2014 at 1:17 pm
I think you will find jerky that it is you who hold the religious view “no such thing as climate change”
This is what I mean no one claims there is no such thing as climate change it just makes you look dishonest and it isn’t even what the opponents of AGW or ACC are saying. But since you seem only to be able to cut and paste and insult people there is probably no point even discussing it with you.
They were extremely complex and difficult. In all three cases. Which shows how much you’ve done your research, doesn’t it, stephie.Below are two vids just for examples. But I can’t be arsed discussing 911 with someone who hasn’t even done any research, so I won’t be replying to any future 911 hallucinations from you on this thread today, it’s just boring since you can google, but you’re just not interested.
If harm results because society embraced the wrong political ideology
then that is not a failure of free speech, that is a failure of people.
It is not the harm done by the choice of the wrong political system it is the fact that outright lies are being deliberately manufactured to discredit the reality of our position. The Iitalian case gives a glimpse into the future were some of these twats will be held accountable for their deliberate actions to derail any constructive course of action. I am not suggesting dupes like A Watts be prosecuted but the leaders and developers of this campaign of misinformation should be held criminally liable for the consequences of their actions.
I do know that the arguments contained in that post is going to upset the wing nuts. Honestly wehanai do you think that is going to make any deference to the sheep and their irrational rubbish.
The ballot paper for the contest, which was published by parliament, disclosed that Crimean voters will be given two options: either immediate “reunification” with Russia, or adopting the “1992 constitution” — which gives parliament the power to vote to join Russia.
The status quo, whereby Crimea has autonomy within Ukraine, does not appear on the ballot paper. In practise, experts said that this amounted to giving voters the choice between joining Russia immediately or joining Russia after a short delay.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is Not a Scientific Organization But a Political Lobbying Group.
John McLean, author of three peer-reviewed papers on climate and an expert reviewer for the latest IPCC report elaborates on how a Lack of accountability is clouding the climate change debate.
He explains how the “world’s so-called authority on climate change engages in exaggerated science and has become a political tool.”
“The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] charter from the outset has been ”to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”.
The IPCC’s focus is therefore very specific – any human influence on climate. It has no mandate to examine other causes of climate change. IPCC assessment reports claim that the human influence is significant but look closely and we find the claims are based on the output of climate models that the IPCC admits are seriously flawed, that the IPCC often asserts a level of certainty that the data cannot sustain and that as ”Climategate” showed us, a clique of scientists has in the past sought to control the material cited by these reports.
What starts out being a scientific report becomes a political instrument because after a hard-core group of IPCC supporters draft the Summary for Policymakers, government representatives discuss, negotiate and eventually agree on the wording of each sentence. The scientific component of the report is then modified to better align it with the thinking of government representatives.
If the IPCC reports were accepted for exactly what they are – exaggerated science with a large dollop of politics – this would be the end of the matter. Unfortunately, various bodies actively encourage us to believe the reports are entirely scientific, accurate and completely authoritative on all climate matters, this despite the IPCC’s charter and the political interference.”
The UN’s IPCC group is not a scientific body. It is a political lobby group.
The Buying And Selling of Science At The UN IPCC
” not everything that the UN IPCC publishes is quite as laughable as their infamous prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would all melt by 2035. The planet is 0.85°C warmer than 110 years ago. Greenhouse gases are a larger proportion of the atmosphere than they have been for the past 800,000 years. Simple experiments such as firing a laser set to a given wave-number through a chamber of CO2 gas will show the light from the laser being completely attenuated. This implies the energy carried by the photons of light has to go somewhere. Traditional thermodynamics would suggest at least some of that energy would dissipate as heat and warm the CO2 molecules hit by the laser.
However, the terrestrial atmosphere is much more complex than a jar of gas. In the past 15 years, the level of warming has slowed precipitously, while the man-made GHG emissions that the UN IPCC describes as the unequivocal cause of modern climate change are not being reduced in any meaningful way. If the UN IPCC truly understands the terrestrial climate, the Earth should be getting hotter faster. Recent data shows this is not arguably the case.
The track record of previous UN IPCC reports has been less than stellar. The 2007 report, (which printed the Himalayan Glacier claim straight out of an environmental advocacy group’s pamphlet as if it were refereed science) was so totally discredited that it came under fire from other scientific bodies. It’s problems went far beyond merely being empirically wrong.”
Reid, you don’t need 55 mins of bunk from Pilots of 9/11 Truth to understand why it was possible for the hijackers to fly 11, 175,77 and 93 they way they did,
“….And Salon’s “Ask the Pilot” also commented on the issue:
As I’ve explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour’s flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757′s autopilot. Striking a stationary object — even a large one like the Pentagon — at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon’s lawn.
It’s true there’s only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes’ navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won’t be good, but you’ll be good enough.
“They’d done their homework and they had what they needed,” says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. “Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness.”
“As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive,” says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. “Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren’t relevant.”
“The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft,” agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. “In much the same way that a person needn’t be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone.”
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d’Eon, airline pilot and host of the “Fly With Me” podcast series. “It’s the difference between a doctor and a butcher,” says d’Eon. http://web.archive.org/web/20060916205041/http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/index_np.html/
Experienced pilot Giulio Bernacchia agrees:
In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.”
BTW Pilots for 9/11 Truth consist of a small group of about 250 ex airline pilots . Their findings are not supported by the vast majority professional airline pilot and aeronautic associations both within and outside the USA
In this one I don’t think there is any particularly strong grounds for believing in pilot suicide
Ed, it’s not the suicide aspect I take issue with. It’s the homicide aspect.
The psychological profile of these pilots just doesn’t match those of, say, your run of the mill gun-spree murder/suicide perps for instance. And how many bus driver murder/suicides have there been? None that I can find and yet a lot more buses are driven than planes.
That’s why I’m highly suspicious of the pilot suicide/homicide theory. Just doesn’t make any sense to me.
You expect us to sit though a mind numbing blather for 55mins to see wither or not what to say is pure shit or not?
No Lance I don’t give a fuck about what you do, if you’re so stupid you can’t be arsed finding out what really did happen then I put you and others like you into the same category of morons who stood by in the 1930′s while Hitler rose to power and said nothing about it until it was all too late.
Actually you and others like you aren’t even as smart as they were, since in those days they didn’t have the information superhighway like we have.
Besides, that’s why I gave you two movies, one long and one short, but then again if you didn’t notice what really happened on 911 then I’m not surprised you missed that, as well.
Do you think a blog has more authority than the worlds scientific organisations? Do you have any proof besides wingnut blog sites? all the IPCC does is collates the research. It is inclined to be extremely conservative in its findings. The reality is the present scientific view on AGW is far more pessimistic than the contents of the IPCC reports. The IPCC has no projections for permafrost methane release in its conclusions. The accelerating release of permafrost methane is a major positive feedback that is already happening. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-4-1.htmlhttp://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/melting_permafrost.asp
A blog post proves you read blogs. Keep it up Muppet Ignore all authority and go to blogs for scientific information. conspirwhacky thinking. What a nutter!!!!
Conspiracy theories such as the 9/11 theory (whatever variant it is) serve the purpose of keeping intelligent people occupied so they miss the more obvious things that happen in the world, thus effectively taking out a section of the community that pore over the smallest details of events. Better to keep such people distracted. That’s if you want a conspiracy theory reason as why so many conspiracy theories seem to never die.
Wat completely skewered Griff yesterday which is why he is in such a frantic panic today.
wat dabney (3,369 comments) says:
March 16th, 2014 at 5:35 pm
“Wat the whole pause thing is just wingnuts ignoring naturally variably”
Alarmists spent decades lying through their teeth telling us there was virtually no natural variability, and white-washing it from the climate history in order to blame the then recent warming all on CO2. Yet when the warming promised by the AGW theory failed to arrive they reach for natural climate variability as their excuse.
If natural variability explains the lack of recent warming then it can equally explain the earlier warming; and indeed, it does.
If you finally accept the reality that there is, after all, significant natural climate variability then you largely concede the sceptics argument.
“Fuck me wat you still going on about no warming bullshit.
Do you now understand what rss tells us? it says the upper atmosphere is cooling..”
And as I keep explaining to you, such a cooling upper atmopshere contradicts the AGW theory.
You do insist on arguing against yourself (unwittingly, obviously; and so vociferously.)”
“Do you think a blog has more authority than the worlds scientific organisations?”
No, I think the scientists being quoted on those blogs, one of whom is with the IPCC, have credibility. I don’t think those IPCC “scientists” who have been repeatedly caught exaggerating and lying have any credibility.
Just saying “that comes from a blog” is not an argument. But then, I don’t expect tin foil hat morons like you and reid to care about real arguments one way or another.
A lot of climate change deniers like to tout the fact that they were an “Expert Reviewer” for the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a few DeSmog readers have been asking what
exactly if takes to become an “Expert Reviewer.” Well, thanks to our
friend Tim Lambert at Deltoid Blog it turns out that an “Expert Reviewer” really isn’t as exciting and not nearly as prestigous as it sounds. Tim writes:”Expert reviewer for the IPCC” doesn’t mean that they asked him to review material — all it means is that he asked to see the draft report. The only real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft.”I have confirmed this with one of the authors of the updated IPPC report.
It means nothing it’s again an attempt to give a dodgy source legitimacy. Some what of a pattern emerging here isn’t there Muppet. Dodgy website with no authority just like reid in your thinking.
Mikenmild, no sorry, its the climate alarmists who are on the same side as Reid. Didn’t you follow all those former predictions of global catastrophe and how they turned out ? The similarities with the 911 truthers is uncanny; and pointing out just how wrong they were has not stopped those same people jumping onto new scams and being believed all over again.
Once again your avoiding the evidence and sticking your head in the sand. “I don’t care who John Mclean is! He’s saying things I don’t like! He may be a scientist, he may work or have worked for the IPCC, I JUST DON’T CARE UNLESS HE AFFIRMS MY BELIEFS!!!”
The fact that some scientists were wrong about some things in the past does not provide a basis for you to believe in a worldwide conspiracy by the overwhelming majority of today’s climate scientists.
“WHAAAAA…MUMMY, THE BAD PEOPLE ARE MAKING ME READ THINGS I DON’T AGREE WITH….PLEASE MUMMY, MAKE ALL THE BAD PEOPLE SHUT UP SO I CAN JUST BELIEVE WHATEVER I WANT….WHY CAN’T WE JUST SHOOT THE PEOPLE WHO DON’T AGREE WITH ME MUMMY…WHAAAAA”
“The fact that some scientists were wrong about some things in the past does not provide a basis for you to believe in a worldwide conspiracy by the overwhelming majority of today’s climate scientists.”
I think you need to go back and read what I have actually said and posted. As to “overwhelming majority” please, enough bullshit for one day. Read the posts on the conflict within the IPCC.
Muppet its you who refuses to take the word of every major scientific body the un the usa epa nasa the world bank etc etc etc
Having a scientific debate with some one who thinks the daily mail trumps Nasa when it comes to science is really really funny.
The IPCC has far more authority than a web site. Your sources are wingnut. You are irrational in you insistence on a giant conspiracy when the only conspiracy is deliberate miss direction documented as being from your side.
Its also fun watching you make a bigger and bigger dick out of yourself
How many more dodgy links from un verifiable sources will you post?
almost as funny as red and wat yesterday insisting that the green house affect means the high atmosphere should warm. totally nuts.
I know Griff will call this blog BS. but if you look at it all Goddard has done is take previously published data from the GISS and relate it to the data they now show on their website for the SAME time periods to illustrate how they have changed to suit the narrative. Changing data from decades ago cannot be justified in anyway.
Walt Meier, research scientist at the NSIDC, has contacted us disputing the validity of Steven Goddard’s methodology, and of his use of University of Illinois data to question the NSIDC’s charts. We accept that these two data sets are not directly comparable, and that the University of Illinois data does not provide support for Goddard’s charge that the NSIDC data is incorrect. We reproduce Walt Meier’s response below. Walt Meier as provided further detail on the calculation of sea ice area and extent in the comments to this article:
The author asserts that NSIDC’s estimate of a 10% increase in sea ice compared to the same time as last year is wrong. Mr. Goddard does his own analysis, based on images from the University of Illinois’ Cryosphere Today web site, and comes up with a number of ~30%, three times larger than NSIDC’s estimate. He appears to derive his estimate by simply counting pixels in an image. He recognizes that this results in an error due to the distortion by the map projection, but does so anyway. Such an approach is simply not valid.
The proper way to calculate a comparison of ice coverage is by actually weighting the pixels by their based on the map projection, which is exactly what NSIDC does. UI also does the same thing, in a plot right on the same page as where Mr Goddard obtained the images he uses for his own analysis:
The absolute numbers differ between the UI and NSIDC plots because UI is calculating ice area, while NSIDC is calculating ice extent, two different but related indicators of the state of the ice cover. However, both yield a consistent change between Aug. 12, 2007 and Aug. 11, 2008 – about a 10% increase.
Besides this significant error, the rest of the article consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed.
Gee a blog by an Anonymous anti agw campaigner with a long history of being totally wrong trying to cast disputation on peer-reviewed science
After years of disputing the temperature records a new independent study by a skeptic found that their analyzed series matched everyone else
Best temperature analysis the one that A Watts said he would accept untill it came out against his view the temperature record is inaccurate. http://www.berkeleyearth.org/
It is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956, or even earlier, says the lead author of a peer-reviewed paper published in 2009:
Our ENSO – temperature paper of 2009 and the aftermath by John McLean
The paper, by John McLean, Professor Chris de Freitas and Professor Bob Carter, showed that the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), a measure of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions, is a very good indicator of average global atmospheric temperatures approximately seven months ahead, except when volcanic eruptions cause short-term cooling.
The lead author, McLean, points to a fall in temperatures that began in October last year, seven months after the abrupt shift to La Nina conditions, and according to last month’s data is still continuing.
“The delayed response is important for two reasons.” McLean says, “Firstly the high annual average temperature in 2010 was due to the El Nino that ended around March but whose delayed effect on temperature continued until late in the year. Secondly it means that the ENSO conditions can be used to predict with reasonable confidence the average global temperatures up to seven months ahead.”
Professor Chris de Freitas :LOL:
NZ’s VERY OWN NUTWHACK
And another case of CV padding he’s not a professor he is an associate professor and sooo totally wrong in this paper. .
ShawnLH – Lots of populations were deported by Stalin during the second world war, it was a wrong thing perhaps
And Roosevelt interned Japanese Americans during the second world war and that was a wrong thing perhaps
It was a long time ago and has little to nothing to do what is happening today except that it gives ignorant reporters and blog commenters, who had never even heard of Tartars, let alone Crimean Tartars two weeks ago something to witter about.
Bottom line the Obama administration has made yet another foreign policy fuck up, bought civil war to the Ukraine and handed Crimea to Russia because as foreign policy fuck ups go this one has been a doozy
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
Yes, it certainly is (although that is a label I have not heard for many a year), the very same, except now she’s in academia (greater influence on easily-corrupted minds and all that) That specific Leopard has not changed its spots, and, if anything the said spots are larger and more entrenched. The media, and those of a younger generation, of course, haven’t a clue.
Cases of libel generally have appropriate remedies. Suppression of free speech is another thing entirely. Unless speech raises an imminent danger to public safety (the classic shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre) then I would be reluctant to see it criminalised. This goes for such things as holocaust denial too.
Unless speech raises an imminent danger to public safety……. And yelling bullshit no fire when there is one is also a prosecutable offence ask the captain of a certain cruise liner.
The italians prosecuting scientists who failed to properly inform the public of risk http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/22/us-italy-earthquake-court-idUSBRE89L13V20121022
Deliberately misinforming the public has a similar consequences You could be held liable for the result.International corporations would be prosecuted in jurisdictions that allow such cases.
Until last year, claims that prisoners in the “War on Terror” had been rendered through Diego Garcia — leased to the US for a military base that has been described as the United States’ “single most important military facility” — had been flatly denied by the British government. However, on February 21, 2008, the British foreign secretary David Miliband finally admitted that two rendition flights carrying US prisoners had stopped on Diego Garcia in January and September 2002.
Madni, an Islamic scholar, was rendered to Egypt and tortured because, on a trip to Indonesia to sort out his late father’s affairs, he was recorded by Indonesian intelligence with a group of young Indonesian Islamists who were under surveillance, and who, in teir conversation, discussed the shoe bomber Richard Reid, who had been captured the month before.
O’Malley, a plumber by profession, was called by a lady with an emergency in her bathroom. Arriving at the scene, he turned off the water with a sigh, and replaced the faucet washer, ending the emergency. The lady was nice-looking, and lonely to boot, so before long Sean was helping her to heat up the bedroom. About four-thirty, the telephone rang, and after she hung up, the lady told O’Malley: “That was my husband. He’ll be home in about half an hour, but he’ll be leaving on a business trip to Chicago this evening at seven. Why don’t you come back at about seven-thirty, and we’ll continue where we left off?” “Saints!” exclamed Sean, aghast. “On me own time?”
I’m waiting for Shane & Co to explain how AGW became a political not a scientific phenomena without resorting to a conspiwacy theowy. Which of course they can’t do unless they switch sides and agree with the warmists, but it’s going to be amusing to see them try.
I agree with Reid, for once. It’s hard to be ‘skeptical’ about climate change without subscribing to a conspiracy theory; in fact the biggest conspiracy theory of them all. Really puts faking the moon landings and 9/11 in their places.
It has now become fairly evident that the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing is not accidental. In fact, there is a strong possibility that the flight was commandeered to the US military base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. A bizarre “extraordinary rendition“?
In fact, there is a strong possibility that the flight was commandeered to the US military base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. A bizarre “extraordinary rendition“?
Was wondering when the conspiracy theories would kick in
What’s the evidence for a “strong possibility that the flight was commandeered to the US military base at Diego Garcia”?
Surely a quick check on Google Earth at Diego Garcia would prove the existence of the 777 (but no one has spotted one so far … unless the Yanks have secretly developed a top secret massive underground basement big enough to hide one eh)!
Tim and Mick had stepped back into the brush to answer the call of nature. As they were blessing the soil with the golden elixer, Tim said, “Sure, an’ I wish I was hung like you are, Mick. Yours is big enough that ye need four fingers to hold it.” Mick glanced over and said, “Ah, now, Timothy, I see you’re usin’ four fingers.” “I am,” Tim shot back, “but I’m wettin’ on three of ‘em.”
Immediately after shutting off its transponders, Flight 370 made a U-turn and headed in the direction of Diego Garcia, crossing Malaysia in the process.
Malaysia’s Air Force Chief General Rodzali Daud first raised the possibility that the plane had reversed course the very next day (9th March), and he was quoted by a Malay-language paper as saying the jet had been tracked hundreds of miles from its intended flight path, over the Strait of Malacca off western Malaysia, and up to 320 kilometres northwest of the Malaysian state of Penang, after which it either disappeared or Malaysian radar lost capability to track it.
General Daud’s statement was clearly not expected, as all the concerned governments were vigorously pedalling the notion that the plane was lost in the Gulf of Thailand, and all search and rescue efforts got misdirected to the plane’s intended route. The Communist Vietnamese government even produced some eyewitnesses that testified seeing a plane flying low off their coast. There were repeated attempts to identify any piece of floating debris in the vicinity as that of Flight 370. When mainstream media picked up General Daud’s very credible statement, he was pressured into retracting it, and has now issued a formal retraction.
A comment was made on TV by Russian “journalist” Dmitry Kiselyov, reminding viewers that his country, as translated by the wire service AFP, “is the only one in the world “realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash.” … In December, Putin put him in charge of a new state-run news entity called Rossiya Segodnya, which translates as “Russia Today”… The obvious point is that Kiselev wouldn’t have said without Putin’s implicit or explicit blessing.
What’s the evidence for a “strong possibility that the flight was commandeered to the US military base at Diego Garcia”?
motive & opportunity: rendition of a group of people involved in the export of US defence technology to China, and opportunity from a flight path toward a location known for the transfer of prisoners by rendition.
Surely a quick check on Google Earth at Diego Garcia would prove the existence of the 777
Actually not, the plane changed course several times as if to attempt to confuse radar operators, so it would make no sense for them to leave the proof “in plain sight” when they could refuel the T7 and hide in commercial traffic.
If suppose we are to assume that the plane was indeed diverted to Diego Garcia, it is reasonable to assume that the plane and its passengers would not be kept there indefinitely. If we are to follow the logic of some devoted conspiracy theorists who are pursuing this on other forums, the plane and its passengers would be flown to the Eastern mainland of the United States, over the Atlantic Ocean to escape scrutiny (and comparatively less distance than the other way around). Of course, the plane’s livery would be painted over. The plane’s wreckage would later be carefully deposited by (presumably by air) on a location far away from Diego Garcia. But why are we discussing this here? Because the same devoted conspiracy theorists who are pursuing this on other forums have pointed out that four days after the disappearance of MH370, a curious military exercise took place on the Southern-Eastern part of the United States coastline. Fighter jets were reportedly “escorting” a plane. To quote,
“Members of the South Carolina Air National Guard are conducting an air defense exercise along the coast. Guard Senior Master Sergeant Edward Snyder says people might see fighter jets escorting a civilian aircraft Thursday over the North Charleston and Myrtle Beach areas.”
Yeah but so what Lucia? Those of us who know what’s happening knew this was going to be an issue from the minute the US installed its satrap in Kiev. I mean duh. What does anyone who doesn’t naively hallucinate it’s a gwasswotts democwatic spontaneous bursting forth of fweedom, expect?
What would the USA do if Russia installed its own satrap in Mexico? Except there’s one difference. Russia’s not dumb enough to try that on.
The US ably assisted by it’s billion plus outrageously useful idiots sucked in by western media propaganda however IS dumb enough to try it on, with entirely predictable consequences. And you ain’t seen nothing yet. Noticed what’s been happening in the markets? Someone is dumping a huge amount of T-bills. It may be Russia, it may be Iran, it may be China and it may be all three. And it ain’t going to stop. That’s because none of those countries are run by useful idiots, they’re run by people who have eyes that see and ears that hear, unlike most of the western population.
Subject Ukraine: The Russia Factor In Crimea – Ukraine’s “soft Underbelly”?
Origin Embassy Kyiv (Ukraine)
Cable time Thu, 7 Dec 2006 15:49 UTC
However, nearly all contended that pro-Russian forces in Crimea, acting with funding and direction from Moscow, have systematically attempted to increase communal tensions in Crimea in the two years since the Orange Revolution. They have done so by cynically fanning ethnic Russian chauvinism towards Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians, through manipulation of issues like the status of the Russian language, NATO, and an alleged Tatar threat to “Slavs,” in a deliberate effort to destabilize Crimea, weaken Ukraine, and prevent Ukraine’s movement west into institutions like NATO and the EU. While the total number of pro-Russian activists in Crimea is relatively low, the focus is on shaping public perceptions and controlling the information space, so far with success.
Stalcup began with the eyewitnesses and moved onto the investigators who were told to keep their mouths shut — investigators who finally couldn’t keep quiet any longer. What emerges is something so startling that it’s hard to comprehend. Witnesses come forward here who are still shaken and upset at what they saw and also how, they say, they were pressured by the feds into assuming that they “misperceived” what they saw.
Yes cha, this from my 12.23 as an example, there are plenty of others. And please note that if you wish to verify then the way to do it is read the fricking book, a critique of the website that mentions the principle doesn’t count, and if you didn’t know Brzezhinsky was a top FP advisor for Obama, then you’re not alone, but again, easy to verify that too. Have a look esp at the team during Obama’s most recent presidential campaign.
Hmmm, if I mention that I have earth moving equipment and I could flatten your house until there is nothing left – you would say, “So what?”, or would you consider me mentioning that fact a threat. Which if I were to mention it, it would be, otherwise I would say nothing, because I wouldn’t even be thinking of my earth moving equipment or your house.
The rest of your comment could have been lifted straight from “Russia Today”.
¶7. (SBU) Lytvynenko explained to us the historical, ethnic, and political reasons why Crimea represented fertile ground for troublemakers. Up to 70 percent of Crimea’s Slavic inhabitants arrived or were the descendants of those who came from Russia or Russian-influenced parts of eastern Ukraine from 1944, when Stalin ordered Crimea’s Tatars and several other much smaller ethnic groups deported to central Asia, and 1954, when Krushchev transferred autonomous Crimea to Ukraine’s administrative control. Most of the new arrivals were urban poor or had criminal backgrounds and moved into homes vacated by deportees; there was no connection or affiliation to Ukraine proper through 1991, with the possible exceptQn of the Dynamo Kyiv soccer club. Starting in 1990, however, this unfocused “Slavic” community of relative newcomers faced an influx of a dynamic, often well-educated, politically organized community of Crimean Tatar returnees, now numbering close to 300,000, or 15 percent of Crimea’s population.
The final signals from Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 may have been made after the plane landed, according to a senior official
Today, Malaysia’s civil aviation chief Azharuddin Abdul Rahman said that the plane may have been grounded when its final satellite signals were sent.
He said the satellite “pings” that were last read at 8.11am on Saturday, six hours after the military radar last detected the airliner over the Malacca Strait, could have been transmitted from the ground if the plane had indeed landed [...] “The plane can still transmit pings from the ground as long as there is electrical power,” he said.
Meanwhile, Britain’s Sunday Telegraph reports that an al-Qaeda supergrass told a New York court last week that four to five Malaysian men had been planning to take control of a plane using a bomb hidden in a shoe to blow open the cockpit door.
Convicted British terrorist Saajid Badat reportedly said the Malaysian jihadists, including a pilot, were “ready to perform an act”.
Subject Ukraine-russia: Is Military Conflict No Longer Unthinkable?
Origin Embassy Kyiv (Ukraine)
Cable time Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:10 UTC
Recent Russian actions have spurred a public discussion within the Ukrainian elite about Russian intentions toward Ukraine. The most systematic contribution to the debate has been made by former National Security Advisor Volodymyr Horbulin, who believes that internal Russian considerations are pushing Russia toward a confrontation with Ukraine prior to the expiration of the Black Sea Fleet basing agreement in 2017. Some of our contacts have echoed and even amplified Horbulin’s sense of alarm; others have downplayed the risk of armed conflict while remaining concerned about the general trajectory of Russian-Ukrainian relations. The overall impression is that Russian military action against Ukraine, while still unlikely, is no longer unthinkable. End summary.
It’s going to be a big night Steve. Our undercover team managed to snap this shot of UT getting prepared.
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky.
“The protective strategy is, in psychological terms, the well-known process called “denial.” We see it in alcoholics, and we see it in UFO-bashers. It is also quite an efficient way to handle complex data and hypotheses. Simply deny it, make a joke, and move on and away from the challenge. Ridicule is an almost essential part of the denial process. The debunker strives to convince not only his audience that the subject is nonsense, but he must also convince himself.” ~ Richard Butler
What did the government do to investigate the unprecedented collapse of a steel-framed building from fires? It gave FEMA the sole discretion to investigate the collapse, even though FEMA is not an investigative agency.
FEMA assembled a team of volunteer engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), dubbed the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), to write the World Trade Center Building Performance Study . The engineers were not granted access to the site of the catastrophe. Rather, they were allowed to pick through some pieces of metal that arrived at the Fresh Kills landfill. Most of the steel was never seen by the part-time investigators. It had been sold to scrap metal vendors, and was being shipped out to overseas ports as quickly as the newly constructed infrastructure could handle.
On August 21, 2002, with funding from the U.S. Congress through FEMA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced its building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster that occured on September 11, 2001. The NIST WTC Investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act.
The goals of the investigation of the WTC disaster were:
To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the WTC disaster.
To serve as the basis for: improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used; improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials; recommended revisions to current codes, standards, and practices; and improved public safety.
The specific objectives were:
Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location, including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response;
Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7; and
Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.
The mission of the building and fire research programs at NIST is to anticipate and meet the measurement science, standards, and technology needs of the U.S. building and fire safety industries in areas of critical national need. Strategic goals include net-zero energy high-performance buildings, advancing infrastructure delivery and improving construction productivity through information integration and automation technologies, sustainable infrastructure materials, innovative fire protection, and disaster-resilient structures and communities, which includes work on hurricanes, earthquakes, and fires. NIST has specific statutory responsibilities for fire prevention and control, earthquake hazards reduction, windstorm impact reduction, and building and fire safety investigations.,
Political scientist, geostrategist and former United States National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, at 85 highly respected in Washington foreign policy circles, spoke to euronews about the events in Ukraine.
An author of many books, this Polish-born American has been a critic of a number of the superpower’s policies over the years; some of his ideas have rankled both US and European governments as well as Moscow.
Alternately, he has supported international detente, engagement and vigorous intervention in theatres where morality and human rights have been under threat, globally.
Washington euronews correspondent Stefan Grobe asked: “Dr. Brzezinski, you have been warning against a situation in which Russia would bully Ukraine and destabilise Ukrainian statehood for more than two decades. Did Putin’s action now come as a surprise to you?”
Zbigniew Brzezinski: “No, not at all, because he has told us things such as, ‘the Collapse of the Soviet Union is the greatest calamity of the 20th century.’ Just think what that means: World War I – millions killed. World War II – millions and millions and millions killed, plus the Holocaust. The Cold War – the possibility of a nuclear disaster for all of humanity. No, no, all of that is not as important as the disappearance of a state in which he was a secret policeman, KGB type. He wants to rebuild the Soviet Union. And Ukraine is the prize. If he can get Ukraine he can have a crack at that undertaking.”
Grobe: “We know the Russians are good chess players…”
Brzezinski: “Some of them; some of them are very bad.”
Grobe: “But now it looks like Putin is throwing the chessboard against the wall. Does he know what he is doing? Does he follow a master plan for Ukraine?”
Brzezinski: “Well, he is certainly following a calculus, but a rather short-term one in my judgement. For example, he disguised his troopers that he sent into Crimea as, somehow or other, people from Mars: you don’t know where they are from, right. That’s deniability. That’s a little bit like mafia sending in gangsters to kill someone with their faces covered. Okay, so what does that accomplish? Everybody knows that they are from Russia, but still there is deniability. My guess is that, when he did that, he was contemplating the possibility of then going further. If there is no reaction from the Ukrainians in general and if there is no reaction from the West, he can pull these stunts off in eastern Ukraine, take over district by district, and then eventually dismember Ukraine and then impose a government of his choice in Kyiv.”
Just noticed that my Dad would have been the same age as Brzezinski, if he were still alive.
For instance, one serviceman who crashed in a test balloon 10 miles northwest of Roswell suffered an injury that caused his head to swell and resemble the bulbous cranium of the classic science-fiction alien, the report says. This secretive 1959 mishap, it adds, apparently led decades later to tales of a crashed extraterrestrial that walked under its own power into a military hospital.
The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples.
The intelligence office of the 509th Bombardment group at Roswell Army Air Field announced at noon today, that the field has come into possession of a flying saucer.
According to information released by the department, over authority of Maj. J. A. Marcel, intelligence officer, the disk was recovered on a ranch in the Roswell vicinity, after an unidentified rancher had notified Sheriff Geo. Wilcox, here, that he had found the instrument on his premises.
The discovery of the mass graves of Mohawk children, uncovered by ground-penetrating radar at the Mohawk Institute comes on the heels of videotaped evidence by eyewitness William Coombes, who in October 1964 witnessed Elizabeth Windsor, as Head of State of Canada and Head of the Church of England, visit an aboriginal school in Kamloops, British Columbia, choose 10 young aboriginal children, made them kiss her feet, and allegedly took them from the school for a picnic at a lake.
The 10 aboriginal children were never seen again. Mr. Coombes, who was to give evidence at the Tribunal for Crimes of Church and States of Elizabeth Windsor’s child genocide, was murdered in February 2011.
Reid, You really ought to research the people you put up as evidence for your point of view. For instance, Googling ‘Zbigniew Brzezinski’ gave me on the first page a link to this article: Putin ‘wants to rebuild USSR with Ukraine’ – Brzezinski:
What? Lucia if tonight is the very first time you’ve ever heard of Brzezhinsky then I’m afraid your opinion of him counts as much for me as would a primer aged child providing their opinion on the mathematics behind the theory of relativity. Sorry to be disparaging, but it’s geopolitics 101 to know who this guy is and what he’s done. Colour revolutions mean anything to you?
UT, BTW did you know that all Boeings have BUAP (Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot, which allows the military to take control of the aircraft).
To all you other guys, I simply make my usual observation, that I daresay none of you have read the stuff that UT and I have, so how the heck do you think you can assess the veracity or otherwise if you haven’t done that? What. Because it cannot be true? Based on what, if you’ve never even read it?
Which “theories” do you know quite a bit about mm? Just pick the one you know best and perhaps you could tell us about it.
True that Reid. Happy about it too.
Then the logical conclusion Grant is you’re in no position whatsoever to assess the veracity or otherwise of any of it, are you. Or is that not logical? Assuming that is logical, how can anyone ignorant, as you admit you are, be so very confident it’s not the case? Isn’t that illogical?
Now the lunatics are just playing games, but they always did that, just don’t know they are doing it or why.
Mike @ 8.50, so much fun. You don’t have to comment, just read. Have they taken the meds yet? More comments today than any other day since the last full moon.
It’s closed minded thinking to imagine that just because you don’t know how it could be done then it couldn’t be done.
Besides which each issue stands or falls on its own merits.
JFK is not the same as the USS Liberty incident and 911 is not the same as WMDs in Iraq.
Many people conflate the whole field together but why? It’s like conflating biology, astronomy and physics with AGW and hallucinating they’re all the same thing when they’re not at all, in any way whatsoever.
But that’s what people do. So ask yourselves – why do you do that, if you’re one that does?
The US flag planted during the moon landing visibly shakes while it is being handled. This is claimed to be evidence of wind, and therefore proof that it was filmed on Earth on a soundstage, rather than in the vacuum of space.
In fact, and very counter-intuitively, the vacuum of space is exactly why you can see it wave the way it does. When surrounded by air, the flag would be subject to air resistance, and so, while it would flap in a strong wind, it would also settle down very quickly as the air buffers against its motion. In space, where there is no air to prevent this, any slight movement of the flag will continue until the friction of the material alone slows it down. The American flag on the moon, on the other hand, can only be seen to wave and move while the astronauts are handling it directly. The motion comes not from any wind, but from their movements while positioning it. This gives the material a large kick of kinetic energy and, very importantly, there is no air resistance to slow it down. When on its own and not touched for a significant portion of time it doesn’t move, as expected. This is seen with most flapping material on the moon footage, which is often cited as proof of a forgery, but in each case the material is reacting exactly how one would expect it to react in a near vacuum and with a fraction of the Earth’s gravity. Oh, and if it was filmed on a soundstage, why would there be wind?
You’ve got me confused now. What was the point of your iranian link re Brzezinski again? Was it to prove a “Western plot?”
Of course not, because nothing will prove it. I mean, some people still think WMDs in Iraq was an accidental innocent intelligence mistake despite all the evidence like to take only one example from the many, the Downing Street papers, but to some people, those don’t count as “evidence” at all in any way. So I’ve given up a long time ago caring about what those people think and simply give connections to follow. It was to point to the fact that Brzezhinsky was the author of those colour revolutions in the 1990′s, that he has been involved in a high level capacity in Obama’s Administration and at the very same time he came on the scene we got Libya, Syria and now we’ve got Ukraine, all using precisely the same techniques that were pioneered in the colour revolutions. 2+2+2=what? But no, there’s no evidence, go figure.
From the ever-helpful RationalWiki.
You mean you hadn’t looked at it, from the makers of the allegations, but you went straight to a site that would give you the counter “answer” but you didn’t even know what the questions were until one was raised for you? What do you call that mm? Thinking? I hope you don’t do that at work, you won’t last long mate.
The wingnuts hate this paper it may have something to do with them being the joke. or it may be because cook writes for sksc
last time I posted it they went troppo with trying to trash the lead author.
It was to point to the fact that Brzezhinsky was the author of those colour revolutions in the 1990′s, that he has been involved in a high level capacity in Obama’s Administration and at the very same time he came on the scene we got Libya, Syria and now we’ve got Ukraine, all using precisely the same techniques that were pioneered in the colour revolutions. 2+2+2=what? But no, there’s no evidence, go figure.
The article that you linked to doesn’t do any of that. All it does is repeat the same thing that the pro-Russian side has been repeating – that it’s all the West’s fault that there were protests in Ukraine, that the President fled, that Russia is now invading (not in those words, of course). As if Brzezinski agrees with that POV, when he quite clearly does not, as my link to you showed when I told you I googled him.
So, I may not know who the man was, but I do know how to read and how to think.
The article that you linked to doesn’t do any of that.
Yeah I know Lucia, I was addressing it at 12.23 to those who had heard of Brzezhinsky. Since you hadn’t I give you a 100,000 foot overview confined to a tiny tiny facet of his life and work. There is much more to this guy. He’s a major player and he has been since the 1970′s.
Educate yourself on him if you chose, if you don’t, fine. But if you chose the latter then don’t class yourself informed as to whether or not the US is generating Ukraine.
For those who don’t have over 2 and a half hours to listen to Fagan detail Reid’s (10:26) beliefs, a more quickly read transcript seems to be available here - http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/illuminati.htm
(I think it’s the same thing)
I was there today, outside the Northcote Public Library, together with Dick Cuthbert from the LEN BROWN STAND DOWN Coalition – holding a Tui Bill Board banner which said “Mayor Len Brown says people have “moved on” – YEAH RIGHT”
I had to get up and have a leak, and noticed the brilliant full moon.
Then I noticed that as many General Debate contributors had been busy baying at the moon, that there had been no comments on here for nearly six hours.
Small party support in polls this far from the election doesn’t mean much, but Mana look like they might struggle to get enough party vote for an extra MP. This isn’t surprising, the Maori Party have always got a relatively low party vote, they have got all their seats from electorate wins.