I'm posting this Everywhere....
Please watch and spread it around your internet haunts.
Documentary on Channel-4 UK this week.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=900556679281149...obal+warming+swindle

great find gilster thanks for posting it!!!

review the video again its so great..

another portion of our scienctific community being over run by propaganda and special intrest

just wished that these scienctist that were featured in the video would group together and make a stand against all this propaganda and special intrest to bring some dignity and honesty back where it belongs..

This global warming hysteria is another good example of Winston's neo communist action theory.

"Global warming" activists seek to cripple free capitalism, by enacting more restrictions on business, and then heaping similar restrictions upon the general populace.

All different means lead to the same end: gun-control, anti-smokers, global warmers.

They're all cut from the same cloth, and in the end, they all want to dictate how you'll live your life.

They are dangerous.

quote:

Originally posted by gilster:
I'm posting this Everywhere....
Please watch and spread it around your internet haunts.
Documentary on Channel-4 UK this week.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=900556679281149...obal+warming+swindle

Thank you very much!!

quote:

Originally posted by 383rr:
This global warming hysteria is another good example of Winston's neo communist action theory.

Absolutely - It even was stated as such in the movie by Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace. At @ the Minute 40 mark the Neo-Communism factor is glaring. They even showed the Berlin Wall coming down in correlation to the shift in activism.
The same happened with the Antis we're dealing with. They sprung up after the Wall came down.

And right after that, they go into scientists competing for funding and why scientists jump onto Global Warming [Tobacco Control]
It's all for the money - it's a paycheck!!!

Wonderful!

"Follow the money"

Wow, I'm off to watch this one ASAP. Thanks for posting it.

And, yes, you guys are absolutely right, Global Warming, as a sales pitch, is to Neo-Communism what Armageddon is to fundamendalist religion. Also, the parallels between fundamentalist religion and fundamentalist environmentalism are becoming more and apparent.

The real shame in this, in my mind, is that there is a place for some common sense evironmental concern. The essential arguments regarding the environment have a place in more common sense views such as discouraging littering, ending our reliance on foreign oil, and getting government out of the way so free-market capitalism can do what it's always done and create mind-boggling innovations. Instead, we get off-the-wall Global Warming zaniness accepted as common sense.*

Here's the good news. The great news.

The "Global Warming" argument is losing. At this moment, we are witnessing Global Warming "jumping the shark" as a political argument. This bodes well for us and our views on smoking. I'm currently working on one of my "mile long" posts explaining farther on all of this.

*Loosely related and interesting, I think, but you don't have to read what follows.

A year or two ago, an alarmist film called "The Day After Tomorrow" came out and enjoyed some successful box office. The film depicted the world being torn apart in an environmental catastrophe. I watched it (I got it from the library at my girlfriend's request) and it made for good popcorn entertainment.

Here's what most people don't know. The film "The Day After Tomorrow" is based on a book written by Whitley Striber and Art Bell called "The Coming Global Superstorm". Ad Hominem attacks have problems, and anti-smoking and global warming interests use them all of the time. They were conspicuously silent though when it came to Bell and Striber.

Art Bell was the former host of the late night radio talk show "Coast to Coast with Art Bell". The theme of the "Coast to Coast" is the bizarre and supernatural; ghosts, bigfoots, alien visitation, demonic possesion, entity possesion, black magic, near death experience,and encounters with the unexplained. Mr. Bell may be ill, because he has had a guest host for over a year now. I actually listen to "Coast to Coast" sometimes, if I'm in my car late at night, for instance. It's an entertaining radio show. If you watched "The X Files", Mulder loved "Coast to Coast".

Whitley Striber wrote the popular seventies book "Communion" in which he detailed his own alien abduction. It was adapted into a film starring Christopher Walken. My high school football coach actually lived next door to Whitley Striber and he described him as "a nice guy, but you can tell that he's a bit of a kook."

So, my point in this footnote is that when "The Day After Tomorrow" was released, the Neo-Communist media was very quiet about the authors who had written the book the film was based on.

If you're up late one night and feel you can suspend your disbelief, please enjoy "Coast to Coast" if you want to recapture that feeling of a ghost story being told to you at a sleepover. Or, for that matter, check out "Communion" if its on cable and you can't sleep. Bell and Striber, though, are entertainers, and neither their book nor the film based on it, are any reflection of reality.

Taxing Us for Breathing


Last week, the New York Times published an extraordinary editorial complaining that "Right now, everyone is using the atmosphere like a municipal dump, depositing carbon dioxide free." The Times editors suggested that the government "start charging for the privilege" by imposing a "carbon tax."

We all knew it would eventually come to this: the New York Times thinks the government should tax us for breathing.

Of course, the editorial was supposed to be aimed at big corporations who build coal-fired power plants--but why should the logic stop there? Right now, eight million people are walking around on the streets of New York City heedlessly inhaling precious oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide, treating the skies over their fair city "like a municipal dump, depositing carbon dioxide free." Shouldn't they be forced to pay for the "privilege," too?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070309/cm_r...RpU4Yhp1.t55FBjMWM0F

the nannies are getting more and more irrationial..

These idiots need a liberal application of roof cement, followed by an application of feathers, and a flogging threw in for good measure.

Did anyone else hear about aLGore's "carbon credit" idea? I saw a very small amount of info on it, and I wasn't sure if it was a spoof.
And, knowing these folks, it probably isn't a spoof.

quote:

Originally posted by 383rr:
Did anyone else hear about aLGore's "carbon credit" idea? I saw a very small amount of info on it, and I wasn't sure if it was a spoof.
And, knowing these folks, it probably isn't a spoof.

If you're talking about how he offsets his 20x the national average use of electricity by buying carbon credits...I read a story where he's part owner in a company that sells these credits.

Great video! I am forwarding it to my brother who buys into all this Al Gore crap. The same point these scientists make about being outside the "consensus" applies to anti-tobacco too - especially when one of them said how much money and careers depend on global warming and how, if the threat was dismissed, a lot of climate change "experts" would be out of work; if everyone realized what a farce tobacco control is, Stan Glantz would be lucky to find a job at Wal Mart. This is all about money and power and the return of neo-communists following the collapse of the Soviet Union- I think it was 1990 when we first started hearing about global warming, and second hand smoke/big tobacco conspiracy started around that time too Curiously, this is right after the Berlin Wall came down - Michael Crichton alludes to this in his book "State of Fear." My question is why the media here so dutifully reported everything having to do with global warming or smoking - its as if they were taken right out of a Soviet propaganda agency.

I've watched the documentary. It's excellent. Thanks again for posting it.

Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace who left the group in protest of their hysteria, points out that environmentalists are attempting to further a "neo-marxist" agenda. He also notes that the motives of modern environmentalism seem to be actually misanthropic, or, (Moore's words) "anti-human".

For instance, the problem of environmentalism's impact on the Third World is pointed out in the documentary. What the documentary doesn't get into is the larger issue of those with a Neo-Communist agenda exploiting people who have no property rights living under dictatorial governments to impose their environmental agenda. The shack dwelling people shown in the documentary already live under complete centralized government control. This is what a government controlled life looks like, folks.

As troublesome as it is for all of us during this transition period, the exportation of jobs overseas via the free market is the highest form of humanitarian relief and the least costly method of improving Third World conditions. The woman depicted in the documentary would benefit enormously by having a 50 cent per hour job in an exported American factory. That won't happen there, though. Why? Because that woman has no property rights she is likely to have anything valuable she acquires via her labor taken away from her, and maybe her family slaughtered in the process. What does that part of the world get from us instead? Solar panels that require unplugging the refrigerator full of vaccines so someone can turn on the lights. This is what "progressives" call "progress". (Other than mentioning that the nation depicted was in Africa, I wasn't able to find from the documentary which nation it was and offer more specific info).

I was somewhat glad that the film didn't get into great specifics regarding climatology. Our atmosphere and our climate is a vast, sprawling, dynamic and interactive system. To my knowledge, there is no "Environmental Grand Unified Theory". They can't accurately predict rain three days from now. I'm very skeptical regarding long term views on climate.

The film also mentions "the precautionary principle" which basically states that if harm might be caused, then it is the duty of responsible people and institutions to prevent that harm. By definition, this idea is a very slippery slope and no one should even bother getting out of bed in the morning. You can ban almost anything that comes to mind with that sort of thinking and it is the very thinking that has led to the current anti-smoking agenda.

Last, the anti-smoking issue has become a driving force for me and I have acquired more knowledge in the last six or seven years than I did in the later years of my formal education. I've learned so many things, across such a very wide array of subjects, that I'm a bit startled when I try to look back and take it all in. I still don't know where to draw a line, though.

How far does all of this backward thinking reach? Everytime I look, the tentacles of all of this misperception stretch out farther and farther. Could it go back even before I was born? I'm sure it does in some ways, but how much so does this affect the way I see the world today? Look at how this Global Warming fraud has caught on and how much it affects conventional beliefs. How much of that has happened in the past and what does it make us believe today? Is Nightlight correct in his views regarding lung cancer and smoking? Do Creationists have something to tell us that evolutionists are not? Forty years ago people felt that blacks should drink from a separate water fountain. Today, such a view is despicable to almost all. Less than 150 years ago, more Americans died in a war against Americans than any other war, over the issue of slavery. Living in modern times, even the most rigorous historian can't really capture what things really must have felt like at that time. It's difficult to conceive that such a thing actually happened.

I'm begining to think more and more that reality is what we decide it to be.

quote:

Originally posted by NickM_71:
Great video! I am forwarding it to my brother who buys into all this Al Gore crap. The same point these scientists make about being outside the "consensus" applies to anti-tobacco too - especially when one of them said how much money and careers depend on global warming and how, if the threat was dismissed, a lot of climate change "experts" would be out of work; if everyone realized what a farce tobacco control is, Stan Glantz would be lucky to find a job at Wal Mart. This is all about money and power and the return of neo-communists following the collapse of the Soviet Union- I think it was 1990 when we first started hearing about global warming, and second hand smoke/big tobacco conspiracy started around that time too Curiously, this is right after the Berlin Wall came down - Michael Crichton alludes to this in his book "State of Fear." My question is why the media here so dutifully reported everything having to do with global warming or smoking - its as if they were taken right out of a Soviet propaganda agency.

I also forwarded this to my sister who also buys into Al Gore. Some of the scientists interviewed are here at the university that I work at - I'm thinking I should thank them for coming forward and speaking up. And I noticed an interesting similarity - did you notice how many of these scientists said that they were accused by their peers for taking research dollars from the coal industry? Sounds similar to those researchers who are accused of taking money from big tobacco. I guess what I'm pointing out here is that those so called experts who promote the whole global warming thing try to discredit the real experts for speaking the truth! It really makes me angry knowing that the integrity of science has become so tainted. Who can I rely on for the right answer?

I think that misinforming of the public the way Al Gore did, along with BS that the news media is feeding the public, is down right criminal. I wonder if Al Gore is going to respond to this report somehow. I would love to hear what he has to say about it.
Thanks,

In this modern age, with fewer and fewer jobs for working people a lot of our talent pool has remained in pursuit of higher education. As a result we have our most creative people paid to just think up crap. In the long run they also have to eat, so they have applied their talents in building fields of knowledge on useless information. In order to market their skills they have to convince people with money of their own or access to other's money that they on doing valuable work. Each published report is another advertisement for their next study.

It is much the same if you look at the cell phone industry. How many phone calls are made today on cell phones that could have waited for access to a land line? The consumer was convinced that they are so important to mankind that their participation is so critical to decisions effecting millions that they must be available 24/7. How many of us are really that critical?

Anyone want to take a guess who wrote this?

I'll give you a hint; like many very intelligent people (Poe, Newton, Pirsig, Nietszche, Nash, etc.) his ideas got the best of him and though millions of people read his words, what he did made it impossible for others to take him seriously. (This paragraph is also interesting because you can begin to detect where his mind is taking a wrong turn).

"Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else's academic freedom. (This is "political correctness.") The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control."

Would love to say Homer Simpson;but, will go with Clinton.

Theodore Kaczynski also known as the unibomber

quote:

I think that misinforming of the public the way Al Gore did, along with BS that the news media is feeding the public, is down right criminal. I wonder if Al Gore is going to respond to this report somehow. I would love to hear what he has to say about it.

Gore is a politician first and foremost. Thus, his modus operandi is self-aggrandizement. He has long been considered an environmentalist, despite the fact that he was once madly in love with the idea of building lots of nuclear reactors. Anyway, he is simply using the latest unease over Hurricane Katrina and a warmer than normal winter to make himself relevant again. He realizes that he must appeal to the far left Hollywood and Manhattan elites in order to get the money rolling in, so thats why he made the "Convenient Lie." Personally, I would love to see all 300+ pounds of him run for President. There has not been an obese President since Cleveland (or was it Taft?). How would the obesity antis respond to this? Would they make an issue of it like they did Obama's smoking?

quote:

I'll give you a hint; like many very intelligent people (Poe, Newton, Pirsig, Nietszche, Nash, etc.) his ideas got the best of him and though millions of people read his words, what he did made it impossible for others to take him seriously. (This paragraph is also interesting because you can begin to detect where his mind is taking a wrong turn).

It is Ted Kaczynski (aka UNABOMBER) OK, I cheated! I googled some of the text you quoted Winston...Thinking back 10+ years though, and remembering news stories about the unabomber, I never recall anyone mentioning him being critical of the left...they seemed to emphasize that he was a leftist kook who was anti-techonolgy and anti capitalist - maybe it hit to close to home.