Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by Boston

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...7/03/swindled/

I'm actually kinda surprised its still being quoted by anyone, the psudo-documentary/disinfomercial has been so thoroughly sued and disgraced I didn't know it was available anymore. Many of the people quoted in it sued for having been taken out of context and it gave just about the entire scientific community a cross between a gag response and indigestion. Deal is that famous piece of agnotology is one misrepresentation after another with a bit of liable thrown in. Hardly qualifies as anything we should bother discussing on a science and physics forum.

Gross exageration AGAIN Boston. Cite where MANY of the people quoted in it sued!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GGWS

Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised by scientific organisations and individual scientists (including one of the scientists interviewed in the film and one whose research was used to support the film's claims[7][8]). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[8][9][10][11]

Later broadcasts corrected three errors which had been found in the original film. The film's producer, Martin Durkin, has asserted that they were minor errors. "

Carl Wunsch
Considered suing and did file a complaint with OFCOM .

Boston, get your facts straight!

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

But again, I don't think you are talking about property rights. I think, you are talking about air polution or CO2 production, or causing global warming. Troy was, with his "flood warning" simile.
My caution is this! Fom Abraham Lincoln.

"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
--January 27, 1838

It's death of our freedom I'm talking about. So was he. Not death by CO2!

That's from Lincoln's Lyceaum Address, when he was 28 years old. It was inspired by an incident where a mob burned a black man to death, for apparently being a murderer. The speech was lamenting disregard for authority and the courts, and people taking the law into their own hands. He continued, "there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice."

He was sounding a warning about mob rule, and its threat to the rule of law and our system of government -- not warning us that government is the threat. Talk about taking things out of context.....

Here's the whole speech: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creat...hes/lyceum.htm

edit: Lincoln called the speech, "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions."

[Yobarnacle]

I'm certainly not advocating mob rule. I'm an 'individualist' thru and thru!
He was warning that citizens inside the United States, could destroy what the founders had established, by not respecting and preserving the founding principles and rule of law.
That applies MOST IMPORTANTLY to preserving the Constitution. Every president, government office holder, legislator, justice, military man, swears to do that!

[Yobarnacle]

The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions

Without the following, we have no institutions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charters_of_Freedom

My view is the institution/s of our government are to preserve our freedoms.
If the institions survive in some modified or corrupted form, but the freedom they were to protect is gone?

Isn't that a little like saying "The surgery was a success, but the patient died!" ?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions

Without the following, we have no institutions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charters_of_Freedom

My view is the institution/s of our government are to preserve our freedoms.
If the institions survive in some modified or corrupted form, but the freedom they were to protect is gone?

Isn't that a little like saying "The surgery was a success, but the patient died!" ?

What freedoms do you think the government has taken from us, or is threatening to take?

[Boston]

his freedom to believe in butterflies and zebras, moonbeams and fairy-tales

of course ;-)

[hoytedow]

It is funny how people are skipping down the road to serfdom, without a care in the world and totally oblivious to the fate which awaits them and us.

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by troy2000

What freedoms do you think the government has taken from us, or is threatening to take?

You and others who believe in catastrophic warming, keep saying I don't have the right to NOT reduce CO2 and pay carbon taxes and comply with any other ecology program you dream up and want to enforce.

am I justifiably worried about erosion of our freedoms? Damn Strait!

And someting more dangerous and unconstitutional
http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...sposition.html

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

We differ. I believe the government has NO right, except the individual rights of it's citizens. So did the founding fathers.
Purpose of government is to protect our rights. NOT to protect us from ourselves.

One of the main purposes of government is to protect us from each other. I'd say that legitimately includes protecting us from people who want to screw up the water we drink, the food we eat and the air we breathe.

And we did not recieve our rights from the government. Freedom was given by our Creator. It's inalienable. Our government was established to protect our freedom, not control it, or limit it!

That's just a wee bit of a problem for athiests and agnostics, because THEY don't know WHERE their rights came from.
I DO!

Seems to me that if God's the one who handed out rights and freedom he was pretty stingy about it, mostly just giving them to Americans. Wonder what He has against the rest of His children?

You can read in the following where we got our freedom:

In the Declaration of Independence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed "

and in the Gettysburg Address
"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

and in the Constitution
" We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "

Problem is, most holding office today forgot and ignore these concepts, though they swore to preserve them, and many voting them into office don't even AGREE with these principles. We need to take our country BACK!

Rest my Case!

The Devil can quote scripture... I'm not impressed.

I'm a little fuzzy on this whole 'take our country back' bit, anyway. The last time I checked, it was still in the hands of Americans who were voted in by their fellow citizens.

So who are you going to 'take the country back' from? The voters who chose Barack Obama for President, because John McCain was so senile he picked Sarah Palin as a running mate?

The independent voters who actually elect most of our politicians, after the Democrats and Republicans each go through the ritual of voting for their own side?

Throw me a line here, I'm drowning.

And by the way, I started out planning to vote for McCain, until I realized his judgment had seriously slipped since 2000.

My wife Cindy is somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun on most issues, and our votes normally cancel out. This time around I was saddened (and worried) by McCain's choice, but Cindy was furious: "does he really think I'm going to vote for him just because he picked some bimbo in a skirt for a running mate? How stupid does he think women are?!?"

[Yobarnacle]

I also voted for Obama in 2008. He made inspiring promises he didn't keep, so 2012, I'll either vote FOR Ron Paul if he's on the ballot, or, AGAINST Obama, for whoever runs against him.

I'm registered independent!

I see Obama doing exactly the same things Bush did, who did exactly the same things Clinton did, ect.

The Washington Country Club, THAT's who I want to take our country back from!

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

You and others who believe in catastrophic warming, keep saying I don't have the right to NOT reduce CO2 and pay carbon taxes and comply with any other ecology program you dream up and want to enforce.

am I justifiably worried about erosion of our freedoms? Damn Strait!

And someting more dangerous and unconstitutional
http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...sposition.html

That's it? You're upset because the government may interfere with your imaginary right to produce as much CO2 as you want? If that's the biggest problem you have you're s****ing in tall cotton, son.

And you're also upset because Presidents issue executive orders? OMG.....

Guess what: the President is an Executive. He's in charge of the Executive Branch of government. When he issues an executive order, he's doing the job we elected him for and pay him to do.

ex·e·cute
   [ek-si-kyoot] Show IPA verb, ex·e·cut·ed, ex·e·cut·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to carry out; accomplish: to execute a plan or order.

By the way, Barack Obama has signed an average of thirty executive orders a year. Saint Ronnie signed almost 50 a year -- even more than Clinton did. And he's the guy conservatives worship in the name of Limited Government....

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by troy2000

That's it? You're upset because the government is interfering with your imaginary right to produce as much CO2 as you want? If that's the only right you've lost you're s****ing in high cotton, son.

And you're also upset because Presidents issue executive orders? OMG.....

Guess what: the President is an Executive. He's in charge of the Executive Branch of government. When he issues an executive order, he's doing the job we elected him for and pay him to do.

By the way, Barack Obama has signed an average of thirty executive orders a year. Saint Ronnie signed almost 50 a year -- even more than Clinton did. And he's the guy conservatives worship in the Name of Small Government....

I object to the government creating kneejerk laws in a panic. Especially object if it's because some hysterical people say we don't have time to wait untill we know more facts. I would VERY much object to any executive order, based on global warming alarmist agendas.

FDR signed over 3700 executive orders and with proclamations, totaled 5000+. George Washington signed a couple.
Mostly, their intent is directing the offices in the executive branch.
They are NOT suppose to repeal the Constitution. Take a look at some Obama executive orders. Look at some of Clintons power grab orders. And Bush too. I'm not going to post them here. Just I'm worried. Check them out.
Dangerous ground.

The presidents job is to execute the will of the people as expressed by congress. Not to rule by edict! Making law is the business and power of the congress, not the president. Read the Constitution.

[mydauphin]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

I also voted for Obama in 2008. He made inspiring promises he didn't keep, so 2012, I'll either vote FOR Ron Paul if he's on the ballot, or, AGAINST Obama, for whoever runs against him.

I'm registered independent!

I see Obama doing exactly the same things Bush did, who did exactly the same things Clinton did, ect.

The Washington Country Club, THAT's who I want to take our country back from!

I don't like any of the above, but I guess I would vote for Ron Paul if he had a chance to win. Apart from that I guess that Mitt Romney is it, anybody that can win against Obama.

The United States will not be recognizable in four years if Obama is reelected. Obama is not only trying to run the US like autocracy but he is also giving away our sovereignty to the UN.

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by mydauphin

I don't like any of the above, but I guess I would vote for Ron Paul if he had a chance to win. Apart from that I guess that Mitt Romney is it, anybody that can win against Obama.

The United States will not be recognizable in four years if Obama is reelected. Obama is not only trying to run the US like autocracy but he is also giving away our sovereignty to the UN.

It also appears to me that he is, bit by bit.

[BPL]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

Don't worry about filling the river in. Everybodies property stops at the waters edge. And the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, won't permit "Filling in"!

Usually, easements were allotted at the time the land was subdivided. Every property I ever owned, already had easements extant. OR, I wouldn't have bought the land.

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

We differ. I believe the government has NO right, except the individual rights of it's citizens. So did the founding fathers.
Purpose of government is to protect our rights. NOT to protect us from ourselves.

The difference is that you don't believe in climate change so you decide government has no right to act and you paint scientists as all biased when it comes to air/atmosphere no matter what the science may or may not say. You've decided that in the instance of atmosphere you don't want anything to change what you do no matter what, even though in cases of water or other things the government does protect one person from other people.