Biggest Con

That's right. Each side has the ability to present data in their favor. No doubt about it. Why is this news to you?

 

This is the very reason why we should be skeptics regarding the science...... when there is the intent to prove.... IOW, when those on a project have a favored side:

It is inherrant in our human nature to lean towards, support, interpret, hear and disperse the information which agrees with our position or opinions. Very few of us, if any, are capable of knowing ourselves and our own preconceived notions and ideas to not express them into actions.

A more truely objective science is produced by clear focus on discovery of tests, proving and challenging the proofs and the test, until something drops out of the wash as an unbiased and fully supported observation. In geometry, such truths are called AXIOMs. From this other hypothesis can be made and proven. Without axioms, a theory is just that ............a theory and should be emphasized as such, where ever it is taught or published until it provokes enough counter exploration and testing and all other possiblities are ruled out. Only then can it be established as fact.

Al Gore and his little endoctrinating film on global warming and all the published hype and propaganda which has followed, should be recognized for what it is....... trying to replace good science with the democratic process of public agreement. Just like the years when people believed the earth was flat................ it was backed by popular opinion, but popular opinion is not good science. And science which only test to prove a point but doesn't test to see if that point is the only correct law by a vigourous contest to disprove it, is not good science and when presented as fact instead of theory.... is just propaganda to persuade the masses.......... you know? those ignorant accepting masses like you and me which the 'elite' think are too stupid to think beyond what is 'popular'.

 

If you'll note in post 56, I posted an article that does precisely that.

But science scares these people.

 

I vote for Gore. Madoff is already revealed as a con. Jury will not be convened on Obama for a while yet. And unfortunately it appears that even if Hell (the one in Michigan, of course) itself freezes over there will be enough idiots to believe the 'Global Warming' scheme and keep it going for a long time to come.

 

That was my point about NASA, they too have an agenda to support...

 

Well you have made no point. And it would have been easier to just say that to be sure. Getting to California via NY city is silly.

 

Doesn't matter what the climate is doing if the legislation gives us cleaner air and water. The layer of brown crud that hangs over every major city every summer has been shrinking.

90% of all ocean fisheries have disappeared. This doesn't bother anyone? The dead zones in the pacific are growing. The coral is dying. Is life without clams, oysters, lobsters, crabs, cod, salmon . . . worth the living?

 

Source, source, source, and source, please?

 

Now you're criticizing the scenic route? Just no pleasing you, is it... :thumbs:

 

I like to think when God gave man dominion, man would accept it as a challenge to be responsible steward of what God gave him. I think it's every man's right to hunt for food, but hunting for sport or when you leave the carcase to wrought where you dropped it is a waste.

Same with our environment, I don't know if global warming or ocean pollution is as bad a anyone says, but if any of it is unnecessary then it's wrong.

 

Well, if you are bothered by these things then why are you sitting here on your duff typing a response in a forum instead of jacking up your congressman over real issues which any observer of the skies can see....... and demand some answers for the chem- trails which appear overhead. Demand that they publish just what is HARRP and what is it they're doing in Alaska which makes it so top secret..... and how does it affect us and the environment.

As for CO2 and O2...... both are naturally occurring gases which are necessary for life as we know it....... and to blame global warming on them is not cleaning the environment but it is blaming life forms such as humans, animals, and plants for the exchanges of the very air which we breathe. These gases are not the culprits and they are not the polutants, and they are not a cause for the theory that the globe is warming.:tonofbricks:

 

You make it sound as if only Al Gore and a small group of loonies support the global warming theory. What you fail to say is the the Kyoto treaty which was supported by every UN member in the world except for the US and Somalia supports attacking this problem.

The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 3–14 June 1992. The treaty is intended to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."[1] The Kyoto Protocol establishes legally binding commitments for the reduction of four greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride), and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) produced by "Annex I" (industrialized) nations, as well as general commitments for all member countries.

As of 2008[update], 183 parties have ratified the protocol,[2] which was initially adopted for use on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and which entered into force on 16 February 2005. Under Kyoto, industrialized countries agreed to reduce their collective GHG emissions by 5.2% compared to the year 1990. National limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the United States, 6% for Japan, and 0% for Russia. The treaty permitted GHG emission increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland.[3]

-----------------------------------------------------------------

So you see, we're not talking about Al Gore's con here. We're talking about the con of the entire world. Let's talk about that. OK?

 

So.....?????? You don't think his paws were on this way back when?

 

Yes, really. You don't really think Al Gore convinced every nation in the world except for the U.S. and Somalia that global warming might be a problem do you? He didn't even convince his own country.

 

It's pretty much the case. Man-Made Global Warming is a doctrine that was made up with the specific purpose of bilking the U.S. citizens out of their money and freedoms.

 

In order to feed the insatiable UN monster

 

That kinda' depends-

Not if you are driving a 'hybrid' and start out from Yale U. in New Haven, or The Hamptons. It's actually kinda' hard to find a motor-route to CA that would realistically avoid NYC starting from anywhere on Long Island, unless one wants to actually traverse the L.I. Sound via one of two ferry steamer routes, one of which, depending on the starting point, could send one up to 100 miles east for the supposed purpose of heading west, no less. And then invest significant additional time and miles, as well, far more than would likely be required to put up with even the annoyance of NYC area traffic.

Signed,

Ed, 'Roads' Scholar

 

There is something to be said for the scenic route, I would say. :thumbs:

Consider that every four years, several appear to travel one that starts in Iowa, then to New Hampshire, to Nevada, to South Carolina, to Florida, to California, and so on, with the final destination of Washington, D.C.

Apparently the routing is fairly difficult to follow, however, for most lose their way on the trip.

Ed

 

And to think:

It only took 4 pages and 41 posts on this thread for someone else to notice or mention any of these world wide cons.

And after I only listed five of the largest of them ('US Ponzi' is technically not a world wide con, although it does have huge world-wide ramifications.) over the last century, all the way back in post #31.

BTW, JustChristian, IMO, 'Global Warming' is actually just one facet of the con of the Fear Merchants. It just happens to be the most 'eye-catching' container this is packaged in, for the current market.

[Edited to add!]

I'm gonna' list my top six cons again, in 'shorthand'.

You can see the details back in this Post # 31.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1340860&postcount=31

No. 6. - 'Vietnam'

No. 5. - Iraq 'Intelligence' a.k.a. The "Spooks"

No. 4. - 'Fear Merchants'

No. 3. - 'U.S. Ponzi'

No. 2. - Alcohol and other similar substances

No. 1. - Abortion

And I'm still waiting to see the first comment about this list, even while watching comments on the roles of 'bit players' in some of them

Ed

 

That's pretty witty analogy Ed. I never thought of the campaign trail as the scenic route to the oval office... :thumbs: