Climate: We Can ALL Agree On Two Things

Whatever you think about the leaked emails showing that "tricks" were used to "hide the decline" in the climate data, and the fact that the original source data showing historical climate information was destroyed, you should agree on two things.
The Carbon Footprint of War
First, as Harvey Wasserman notes, continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will more than wipe out any reduction in carbon from the government's proposed climate measures. Writing about the escalation in the Afghanistan war, Wasserman says:
The war would also come with a carbon burst. How will the massive emissions created by 100,000-plus soldiers in wartime be counted in the 17% reduction rubric? Will the HumVees be converted to hybrids? What is the carbon impact of Predator bombs that destroy Afghan families and villages?
The continuance of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars completely and thoroughly undermines the government's claims that there is a global warming emergency and that reducing carbon output through cap and trade is needed to save the planet.
I can't take anything the government says about carbon footprints seriously until the government ends the unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. For evidence that the Iraq war is unnecessary, see this. Read this for evidence that the U.S. could have taken Bin Laden out years ago and avoided a decades long war in Afghanistan. And for proof that the entire war on Muslim extremists is unnecessary for our national security, see this.
War is also very harmful to the economy. See this, this and this.
Carbon Trading
Second, the proposed solution to global warming - cap and trade - is a scam. Specifically:
- The economists who invented cap-and-trade say that it won't work for global warming
- Many environmentalists say that carbon trading won't effectively reduce carbon emissions
- Our bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley,
Citigroup and the other Wall Street behemoths are buying heavily into
carbon trading. As University of Maryland professor economics professor
and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission
Peter Morici writes:
In other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going to make billions from carbon trading.Obama must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to worthy homebuyers and businesses. Obama must make certain that banks do not continue to squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have announced plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers enjoyed influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign. Now it remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these same bankers and persuade or compel them to act responsibly.
Consensus
Everyone should read the leaked emails and rationally think through what they mean. But whatever one believes about climategate (the leaked emails showing that "tricks" were used to "hide the decline" in the climate data and the destruction of the original source data), we should all be able to agree that:
(1) We should end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; and
(2) We should not let the financial giants who caused the financial crisis to profit off of cap and trade schemes.

on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:13
#146362
End the wars for sure...fight to win or get out. But please don't do it because you are worried about the carbon footprint. It makes your second point less valid.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 23:11
#147213
They never wanted to win in the first place. They just used the wars to get the American taxpayers' money.
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 03:17
#147412
you mean Chinese 'taxpayers'?
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 07:20
#147470
Exactly, the point of the wars is not to win but to place the American citizen in the state of mind of having to rely and depend on government for security. Sort of like in 1984.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:32
#146399
By your logic, would nukes have less of a carbon footprint? Would we get to deduct the average carbon footprint of all that we kill? Perhaps that paradox makes war more palatable, again, using your logic.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:36
#146406
Yea we should just turn around and invite Al Qaeda to fuck us again! This is where most libertarians lose me...this absurd belief that we can afford to not fight against Islam's radical defenders. Apparently they believe that because a war is hard it should not be fought.
Pray tell what is the solution for preventing these barbaric bastards from killing us in the thousands again?
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:47
#146420
There is no solution. That's why it's pointless to be there. Islamic radicals are the least of our problems, are you scared of them???
I'm not.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:35
#146512
Me either.
Stop taking my money and rights away to defend me from things I do not fear.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:48
#146421
The best way to discourage "terrorism" against the US mainland is to stop committing "terrorist" acts against other countries;
a few examples;
1982 - shelling the muslim population of Lebanon by US battleship
1980's shooting an unarmed Iranian airliner down- killing hundreds
supplying the weapons that Arab dictators use on their own people (example saddam, saudi arabia, etc)
invading and occupying Iraq in 2003 - a country that didn't do anything to us
How about getting our bases out of there? how about getting our troops and fleets out of there? We have bases and troops all over the middle east - do they have bases and troops all around us? No.
Turner
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 18:27
#146904
I agree. How would you feel if they came over here and did what we've done there? I wouldn't like it and nor would you...so why is it ok for the US to do these things? Why is it ok to supposedly police the world and take up arms in their country?
We do a tremendous disservice to ourselves when we try to enforce our moral / political agenda with guns. And I believe this is why we were attacked in 93 and 2001.
Ultimately the US will be forced to withdraw...financially. These wars are bankrupting our country and for what. History shows us what happens to nations who engage in war and empire building...and it's not pretty.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 18:50
#146931
That Iranian airliner was full of dead soldiers.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 21:44
#147116
Hal? Is that you? /s
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 22:23
#147167
Now there's an idea worth considering, a Saudi military base in
every state. Think what it would do for the balance of payments.
Probably wouldn't help the local bars much, though, if their
marines are devout Muslims
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:50
#146425
Wars that are just should be fought and for no other reason. Claiming that we "should" fight these wars because by not doing so gives "the terrorists" a reason to attack us is nonsense. How about keeping our nose out of their business, giving them a reason to leave us the hell alone? How about that? Or we could just turn the whole Middle East into a giant glass crater and be done with it. I'm not sure which one I prefer...option number one, I think. I'm being unrealistic, I know. The camel is in the tent, so it's said.
We'll never get out of Iraq or Afghanistan unless we admit defeat, like when we left Vietnam.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:10
#146467
We'll never get out of Iraq and Afghanistan unless we admit defeat, like when we left Vietnam....or we decide to fight to win, like we didn't do in Vietnam.
Our glorious leaders see the economic value in a protracted police action. Hey, why don't we try enemy combatants in civil courts, too.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 15:26
#146609
Didn't win in Vietnam? Nixon said it was "Peace with Honor". What?
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 18:30
#146912
As a side note, that's not a cow...it's a steer.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:38
#146519
and the solution you seek...is to stop killing them first.
google: blowback
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:41
#146525
The solution, it should be obvious to even morons, is to stop letting them into our country.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 15:53
#146656
Hallelujah! And get them out of our military.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:58
#146554
The solution is to stop killing them in the tens of thousands!
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 15:21
#146597
You could start by getting the hell out of their lands!
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 20:12
#147016
"Pray tell what is the solution for preventing these barbaric bastards from killing us in the thousands again?"
By removing our invading troops and our weapons of mass destruction from their towns and villages. By putting an end to the killing of their wives and children.
These wars are not being fought to protect you.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 21:14
#147083
the CIA has been behind the radicalization of islam from the getgo, and if you think islamic extremists brought down WTC after all the evidence to the contrary, you are a hopeless idiot. we've killed over 1 million, thats right million iraqis, over weapons that did not exist. who are the barbaric bastards really?
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 22:50
#147188
If we continue to react as we did after 9-11 then al Qaeda will win. This primarily being a financial site, everyone here should understand ROI. They invested less than a million and made us spend 1 trillion+. They could pass the collection plate around at the average mosque in Pakistan and bankrupt us with 1 more operation. Even if you are not convinced that we are creating more extremists than we are killing, we simply cannot afford to "win the war on terrorism". Fighting fire with fire just makes things burn faster.
My preference is to keep from getting the attention from these nut jobs. Keep in mind as well that most empires that have been defeated were not anhilated on the battlefield, but rather in the bank account. In that respect Al Qaeda is way ahead of us.
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 00:24
#147279
You are easily freightened friend of an external threat, whether real or promulgated, read these quotes:
Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. - Hermann Goering
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure. If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'" -Abraham Lincoln
Never has there been a good war or a bad peace - Benjamin Franklin
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?- Gandhi
I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in. - George McGovern
How fortunate for leaders that men do not think. - Hitler
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses...I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. - Major General Smedley Darlington Butler
War is not as romantic as you would like to think. If you don't understand the motivations for conflict (Israel defense, oil, dollar backed oil, or defense industry angles) you should investigate them and listen again to the quotes above. If Iraq or any other country (including supposed allies) was in fact involved I would clearly support regime changes in those countries.
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 00:31
#147286
#1 -STAY OUT of other countries business and stop instigating, aiding and abetting one side over another like we have done since 1900 and close 95% of overseas bases.. Believe me we would just as irate and vengeful if the showe were on the other foot. We will be safer by far if we stop sticking our nose in everywhere in order to keep a stranglehold on their resources.
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 07:31
#147472
Maybe it was a freudian slip amongst your failboat of a comment but this sort of destroyed your argument before any of the respondees got a chance to do it:
maybe you meant to say that we cannot afford to fight defenders of radical Islan? I don't know. But ask yourself: if we are fighting people that are defending themselves and their way of life, as you so aptly put it, is it the right thing to do? Were American revolutionaries circa 1776 radical defenders of democracy?
We cannot help that beliefs and faiths exist in the human condition. A lot of the time they serve a very good and caluable purpose. But when people defend these faiths and beliefs you should ask yourself, why? Why do they defend and why do we attack?
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 09:20
#147533
Based on factual accounts in the public domain, the CIA and by extension the US-government is the single greatest sponsor of terrorism in human history. Hope that puts things in perspective.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:44
#146416
Btw everyone "knew" Saddam didn't have WMD's? Are these the same clowns who "knew" that Global Warming was REAL? Are these the same bastards who "KNEW" that lending money to folks who couldn't pay it back was a good idea? Same folks who "knew" that we absolutely, positively had to spend trillions of dollars bailing out those godless schmucks on Wall Street...those folks knew???!!!?
Yea they have a lot of credibility...assholes can't find their asses with either hand even if we spot them a cheek.
For a list of why Saddam needed to go check this out.
http://preview.alturl.com/8o7k
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:53
#146435
If Saddam needed to go his own people would've taken him out. Hell, they may have done it on their own by now if we hadn't gotten all up in their business. Saddam was a problem for the people of Iraq to deal with, in my opinion. None of our business. Yes, I know we've been meddling in the Middle East for a century but we could always just, I don't know...STOP?
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:57
#146444
WTF! Thank goodness the French didn't think that way back when we got rid of the British.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:17
#146479
And when former British colonies like South Africa tried to follow in America's footsteps, in the earl 1900s, where was the US then?
And why did the British stop fighting against the Americans so quickly? They followed a SCORCHED EARTH policy on the South Africans, burning down houses and farms, and taking women and children captive.
So please tell me, why was it that the US, good democratic nation looking to spread freedom, was nowhere to be seen when Boers were fighting for their freedom.
And why was it that the British did not use scorched earth policies in the US?
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 18:57
#146938
And when former British colonies like South Africa tried to follow in America's footsteps, in the earl 1900s, where was the US then?
Ron Paul was in power then and we were non-interventionists...oops sorry that was Ron Pauls Great Grandfather.
Maybe they used scorched earth policies against the Boers because they learned in the colonies that being mister nice guy doesn't often win wars.
Btw the proposition that the Brits were a bunch of fun loving long haired hippies in the American Revolution is absurd. They were brutal.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 15:37
#146631
Do you really think that if we just stopped all of our meddling in the Middle East, including foreign aid to all countries, that we'd get pounded by these people? Iraq and Afghanistan were sovereign nations and we just walked in like a bunch of Caesars.
They don't hate us and attack us because we're rich and free and (mostly) Christian. They want us to burn because we're responsible for (likely) over 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, probably more when you consider the decade-long embargo against Iraq after Desert Storm, and we've defiled their holy places. I live in NYC and if some Saudi Arabian F-15E dropped a 1,000 bomb on St. Patrick's cathedral during midnight mass on Christmas Eve, I'd be screaming for blood. So what's wrong with a similar response from some civilian from Kandahar whose entire family was wiped out by a Predator drone firing a Hellfire missile into a wedding party?
We'd win without shedding a drop of blood or expending a cent of our wealth by just getting the hell out and staying out. If another sovereign nation attacks us then we wipe them off the map. But if a non state-affiliated bunch of thugs decide to make trouble, what then? How do you succeed against such an enemy? What drives them to commit these monstrous acts? Simple answer: We Do.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 15:58
#146668
They hate us because we are Christians (and Jews, and Hindus, and Buddhists, etc. . .) Sayeed Qutb and Wabbab told them to. Mohammed told them to kill or convert us all.
We can mind our own business, but they'll keep coming after us. It is a requirement. We were minding our own business, having a nice time in Medieval Europe, and they came in rampaging and such. The Crusades were to push them back into the sandbox.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 16:10
#146698
That sounds a little bit like a ... cough ... crusade:
The Iraq War Really Is a Crusade
Was Torture Really Part of a Religious Crusade?
Senator Praises Inquisition as Proof that Torture Works
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 19:04
#146949
History books are your friend...try reading about Islam's wars of conquest then come back and tell us how the Christians are guilty.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 20:15
#147019
"Then come back and tell us how the Christians are guilty."
The "Christians" are not monolithic. Do you know whether I am Christian? Do you know whether I attend church?
You may be very surprised by the answers.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 21:47
#147120
ding.
on Fri, 12/04/2009 - 14:09
#152733
It's self defense.
http://thereligionofpeace.com/.
Your "Crusade" arguement is hypocritical otherwise your financial work is brilliant and vital.
Remember...we were attacked on 911?
Remember that the attackers were motivated by religion.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 16:15
#146710
Muslim expansion in the 700s and on was as much an opportunistic land grab than some kind of holy crusade to convert everyone to Islam or kill them. The crusaders, while many were motivated by genuine piety, were also out to conquer under cover of religion. The crusades did not end well, by the way. The end of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem came about largely because the presence of the crusaders helped lead to the rise of Saladin, unifying the Muslims and helping to mostly destroy the Crusader States. I wonder what would happen if our presence there leads to the rise of a Saladin-like leader or state?
I just don't see how guaranteeing an endless war by continuing to stomp around the Middle East can possibly help anything.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 19:02
#146948
Islam has always been at war with those who are not...it sucks but it is undeniable. Now you may argue and I may agree that going to war with Islam is a bad idea. But if you argue that we don't go to war with them then you have to explain how we stop them. Claiming that they will leave us alone if we leave them alone just shows your ignorance of history.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 19:21
#146968
Please provide proof for your claim from an independent source (not a Christian fundamentalist or U.S. military source).
Thank you.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 19:37
#146989
My goodness you seem to believe that I can supplement your pitiful grasp of history with snippets from blogs. Hilarious. Put the mouse down and step away from the computer long enough to read a few books about Islamic conquests.
“A moderate muslim is one who has read too little of their Koran. A Jihadist is one who has read too much.”
In 2003 less than 18 months past the attack of 9/11 fully 56% of the "moderate" muslims of Indonesia thought Bin Laden was a good force. Poll by Pew Research...
Thomas Jefferson was absolutely thrilled to be forced to send the Marines "Shores of Tripoli" to stop attacks on those evil imperialistic yankee trade ships.
You Paulians are a dangerous lot.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 20:35
#147012
There is Declining Support for bin Laden and Suicide Bombing - Pew Research ...
And it was the CIA which originally radicalized the Muslims (please see quotes from former high leverl CIA officers like Robert Baer).
And please take a look at this Los Angeles Times Article, reviewing a BBC documentary entitled "The Power of Nightmares", which shows that the threat from Al Qaeda has been vastly overblown (and see this article on who is behind the hype).
And please note that a former National Security Adviser told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative".
By the way, instead of listening to the warmongers in the Dem or Repub parties, you may wish to talk to TRUE conservatives or TRUE progressives ... virutally all of them are against the continuation of the Afghan and Iraqi wars.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 20:55
#147069
If you would to know ANYTHING about Islam and by extension about The Holy Quran you would not be making such retarded accusations. Try reading about the Islamic expansion in Spain and about the position of other religions in the Al-Andalus and, by an extension, in most other Islamic nations in the past and the present. Also; it would be fantastic if you would to read about how Islam treats Christians and Jews and how it had treated them in the past. And if you want to talk about murder, genocide and hatred then i will point you to app. 400 000 000 victims which were murdered directly is a consequence of Christian Theology and Papal Edicts. Also, try read the Talmud; it will make your stomach turn. All in all i can conclude the force of stupidity is strong in you.
P.S. The misconceptions about Islam arise from the actions and preachings of those who know very little about Islam, or a part of some Islamic Theological School (for example; Wahabi) which practically rules them out as true Muslims simply because they interpret the word of prophets (yes, there are more of them; but in short the prophetic lineage of Islam starts with Abraham, goes to Christ and ends up with Muhammad) and not follow it as said in The Holy Quran.
Also, i dont know what the fuck happened here, but the surge in retarded comments correlates with FED QE.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 21:54
#147127
And in the midst of all this, the devil laughs, and flies under our respective "radars"...
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:42
#149694
Lest we forget the millions of hindus, buddhists, christians, and jews killed all in the name of the religion of peace. The abrahamic twins of christianity and judaism are not that much better, however there can only be one world view in islam, that is islamic. See how islam expanded so quickly, and conversion by the sword that took place. It is far from a religion of peace. Mohammed himself was a warlord that encouraged jihad. Non-muslims that were people of the book were considered dhimmis, pagans and other forms of worship were immediately destroyed. Again a stunning example of the religion of peace.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 21:22
#147093
bullshit. islam has no more a history of war than say france, or america. being muslim, does not make them less than us.persia is an ancient culture. far older than europe or us
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 00:36
#147291
if the moors were were in spain than why would they invade through turkey to repel them? This comment makes no sense.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 16:17
#146709
Stop talking sense JOHNICON...
Say did anybody notice as soon as Climategate breaks... Obama changes his mind and wants to fly to Copenhagen to try and cut a fast deal... Harper in Canada quickly follows suit. What do these guys have in common?
Both countries central banks are run by immensely underpaid yet extremely civic-minded and altruistic Goldman Sachs alumni... can you say carbon credits?
I hope that Obama at least flies on a Goldman private jet because to use Air Force One for private business trips could be construed as unethical.
Just sayin'...
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 18:35
#146921
Someone should discuss using depleted uranium munitions - it can expose US troops as well as occupied country's civilians to major birth defects and health issues. If you want genocide, then use uranium munitions.
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 07:49
#147479
So now you're picking a fight with the verb "to know"? You've got to check your premises: your use of the word is incorrect (or at least disingenuously liberal) for most of these.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:50
#146428
Thats too bad you are an Intelligence Agency plant, Pierre, we could have used someone like you over on this side.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:01
#146451
Yes, I can agree with those two things. Both terrific points.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 17:31
#146829
Hey Mad Max, I saw in your presidential campaign, your claim that if Obama was elected, everyone's "guns and ammo would be confiscated."
What happened? I see MORE ammo sold than ever before. So what happened to your phone "confiscation" claim????
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:04
#146454
Don't impose your cultural values on us GW.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:19
#146482
Yes, Bugs, a stable financial system is certainly a "cultural value".
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 16:00
#146672
Smart-bombs don't waste any time worrying about cultural values - they just wipe people of the face of the Earth. No need to ask them their opinion.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:15
#146474
GW- I emphatically agree. In addition, the US Military is the single largest user of oil in the world. If this global warming threat was real (it's not - but it is one of three problem themes that can "only be solved by world government"), that would be the first place to start.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:21
#146487
Global Warming Rhetoric is the Foil to push through policies to deal with Peak Oil, that's reality.
Global Warming is how you "financialize" a reduction in petroleum energy supply daily flow rates.
It's alchemy, it's that simple. HOW ELSE can you turn a reduction in real economic activity do to energy supply constraints into "economic growth"?
Answer is, YOU CAN'T!
Just look at the manipulations in the CPI they have recently added to support this fraud.
Moved consumables from CPI to GDP!
In other words, now when you purchase food that has increased in price (other than from a restaurant, which is now INCLUDED in CPI) or when you purchase gasoline that has gone up in price, IT IS REPORTED AS ECONOMIC GROWTH vs. and INCREASE IN THE COST OF LIVING!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is INSANE (and it has already happend). Check the current GDP and CPI methodology if you don't believe me.
A reduction in economic activity due to increase food and energy input costs IS NOW GROWTH.
War is Peace!
Ignorance is Strength!
Declining Purchasing power is GROWTH!
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:22
#146488
is there any question left that government generated economic data is manipulated as well??????? still waiting for the revolution to start. come on y'all!
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:22
#146489
In europe we already lost tje war against tje muslims. Only tje swiss are brave enough to react. Once hou take the riad back there is nov return. IS hope america wolk once be able to beat tje muslim threath. Never turn your back to the sacrifice of thousands because it somehow affects abu lieve of your luxury!
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:33
#146491
Dear Main Stream Media,
We know you are doing your best to cover this up. It is understandable, but very immoral. Instead of focusing on one of the biggest scientific scandals ever, and identifying the real scoundrels involved, you have given in to both corporate and governmental pressure. A lot of big companies pay you a great deal of money to advertise their products and they really want to continue the lies about the existence of global warming that they have helped perpetuate. Governments have their own shady agendas.
What you must understand is that WE THE PEOPLE are not letting this go! We will get the word out and we will make sure the truth is told, even if you stopped doing that long ago.
Sincerely,
Truth Seeking Citizens of the World
http://www.conservativeforchange.com/2009/11/climategate-storynot-going-away.html
A betrayal of science - and of you
The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly suspected — that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made up. That is, not only are the global warming computer models unreliable, the experimental data upon which these models are built are also unreliable. As Lord Monckton has emphasized here at Pajamas Media, this deliberate destruction of data and the making up of data out of whole cloth is the real crime — the real story of Climategate.
It is an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason against humanity, since it has been used to justify an attempt to destroy the world economy.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_betrayal_of_science_and_of_you/
Geologist 'appalled' at NYT's Krugman
Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook - November 29, 2009
"I've spent four decades studying global climate change and as a scientist I am appalled at [NYT's Paul] Krugman's cavalier shrugging off the Hadley email scandal as 'just the way scientists talk among themselves.' That's like saying it's alright for politicians to be corrupt because that's the way they are."
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4140/Geologist-appalled-at-NYTs-Krugman-Legitimate-scientists-do-not-doctor-datahijack-peerreviewsend-fraudulent-data-to-UN-that-is-used-to-perpetuate-greatest-hoax-in-the-history-of-science
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 16:29
#146726
Mayhem... keep the pressure up... as said by a fellow ZHer... "this turd will not flush!"
BTW did you catch this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hftsk4gWqI&feature=related
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:35
#146493
The Grand Global Priesthood of Global Earth Worship from the Church of Environmental Terrorism continues to shamelessly advance their Malthusian Satanic agenda to rid the world of it's worst enemy. Mankind. See it for what it is. Condemn its very existence because it exists to end yours! Green Movement Continues To Push For One Child Policy - Carbon Credits to Couples That Limit Themselves to One Childhttp://www.prophecynewswatch.com/October22/2283.html Thatcher adviser: Copenhagen goal is 1-world government http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/October22/2291.html "There is a grave danger facing mankind. The danger is not from acid rain, global warming, smog, or the logging of rain forests, as environmentalists would have us believe. The danger to mankind is from environmentalism." Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D. In the environmentalists’ paean to “Nature,” man’s nature is omitted. For the environmentalists, the “natural” world is a world without man. Man has no legitimate needs, but trees, ponds, and bacteria somehow do. The truth about the radically destructive religion of Environmentalism The bottom line: The most consistent, dedicated environmentalists want you, and everyone else you love, to die. It's as simple as that. Any other supposed goals are a means to that ultimate end; the destruction of industrial civilization around the world means the death of the vast majority of current humanity. They know this - you should too. Every single smaller goal of environmentalism is consistent with that ultimate goal; do not be deluded into thinking that environmentalism is about improving your life or any human life. Environmentalism is not about a vacuous desire to have cleaner water and air. It is now a full-fledged religion, and its main tenet is "raw nature" as god-like, and Mankind as a plague infecting it. If you support environmentalism, the fact is that you're supporting an ideology that promotes the destruction of Mankind - and concretely, that includes yourself and everyone you care about. Ideas matter. Support of ideas, matters. Supporting the religion of environmentalism, is supporting, ultimately, a terrorism that dwarfs the actions of 9/11/01. Environmentalism, indeed, promotes fear and terror about all of the actions of humanity - and the most extreme (which means, the most consistent) environmentalists have no problem with committing crimes ranging from vandalism, to personal attacks, to murder (the Unabomber was an explicit environmentalist.) But the main damage that environmentalists have inflicted, and continue to inflict on a growing scale, is the ongoing attack on modern industrial civilization. It is modern civilization - modern technology - that permits you and your loved ones, and the vast majority of the rest of humanity, to live. An attack on industrial civilization, on technology, is a mass attack on humanity. The environmentalists are well aware of this fact. You should be, as well. Rolling blackouts and insanely high land costs in many parts of the United States caused by environmentalist regulations, are only the start. To the environmentalist religion, as long as a single human being lives, the Earth has a problem. "We have been waging this war for far too long with weapons of reason, logic and sanity. Whereas our enemies have long known that our battlefield is being fought in the consciences of a being that is no longer ruled by reason but rather by a wanton reckless attachment to his emotion not his reason. Our very survival requires us to dawn a new armor. We must begin to wage the war where it is actually being fought and we must begin to loudly and publicly identify our enemy for who they really are. The enemies of mankind itself." "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." —John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental." —Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!"I know scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line ... we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.... Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." (source: "Mother Nature as a hothouse flower," Los Angeles Times Book Review, October 22, 1989, p. 10.)—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service "The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state."—Kenneth Boulding, originator of the “Spaceship Earth” concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion—guilt-free at last!—Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue)."If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other." —Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth–Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p.22"I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." —John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing....This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run." —Economist editorial"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight." —David Foreman, Earth First!"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS."—Earth First! Newsletter"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." —Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." —Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund"Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”—Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem." —Lamont Cole"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer."—Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)"Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo Sapiens, not only would the Earth’s community of life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interests, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty “Good riddance!” (Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, p. 115) --Paul Taylor, Patriarch Priest of Environmental Regligion In a glowing review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, biologist David Graber writes:
Such is the naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of people. A more malevolent, man-hating philosophy is unimaginable. The guiding principle of environmentalism is self-sacrifice: the sacrifice of longer lives, healthier lives, more prosperous lives, more enjoyable lives, i.e., the sacrifice of human lives. But an individual is not born in servitude. He has a moral right to live his own life for his own sake. He has no duty to sacrifice it to the needs of others and certainly not to the “needs” of the non-human. To save mankind from environmentalism, what’s needed is not the appeasing, compromising approach of today’s conservatives, who urge a “balance” between the needs of man and the “needs“ of the environment. To save mankind requires the wholesale rejection of environmentalism as hatred of science, technology, progress, and human life. Environmentalism requires a seething audacity and arrogant hatred for God's creation of man. It's roots are embedded in an ancient doctrine of earth worship and to deny the deity of God. Genesis 1:26-30 The Creation of Man and his habitation on Earth [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
[28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
[29] And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
[30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. Such is the nature of this religion of Environmentalism. True consistent environmentalism requires an extreme manmade arrogance and the abject denial of the authority and sovereignty of our Creator. But the day approacheth when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. Isaiah 24:1-3 The Lord's Devastation of the Earth[1] See, the Lord is going to lay waste the earth and devastate it; he will ruin its face and scatter its inhabitants. [2] It will be the same for priest as for people, for master as for servant, for mistress as for maid, for seller as for buyer, for borrower as for lender, for debtor as for creditor.[3] The earth will be completely laid waste and totally plundered. The Lord has spoken this word.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 18:08
#146871
Hello Wise Prophet-
Many do not understand the subtleties: For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
You make a very interesting point that dovetails perfectly with satanism. If you study their beliefs, they have no original thought and it appears that they only promote the opposite of whatever is stated in the christian bible. Because man is cherished by God, they want to destroy it. The dominion of man over nature is attempting to be overturned or flipped. The most important tenent is love, so they have contempt and hate - it is just rebellion in another form against creation from the destroyer. However, the majority of the population would not accept this religion, so it masquerades in sheeps clothing.
Have you ever wondered why secret societies choose to be secret? The history of masonry is very much along the lines of the three part structure of the druid priesthood. The teachings are practically the same as the mysteries concealed as the allegories of blue lodge masonry. One of the long-standing goals of the Masonic New World Order seems finally within grasp. The Masonic orders are the hidden hand guiding mankind into the church of lucifer, those at the lower levels are not yet prepared to be "illumined". Hitler himself underwent a luciferic initiation in an attempt to gain occultic powers.
The word holocaust, comes from a third century Greek word 'Holokaustos,' referring to 'the burnt sacrificial offering of the Jews dedicated exclusively to God. The holocaust was Hitler's fiery offering of human sacrifice to satan, just as in the days of the heathen Amorite god, Moloch. Exoterically, the nation of Germany was led to believe that they were purifying the human race; esoterically understood, however, they were beginning the process of annihilating mankind.
From the Mayas to the Nazis, the shedding of blood to attract the attention of indifferent powers was the magic significance of human sacrifice. He would have sacrificed the happiness of the whole human race if ordered to do so by the mysterious force whose commands he obeyed. This mentality caused Hitler to say, 'Our losses never seem to be high enough.' He believed that satan/lucifers thirst for sacrificial death was unquenchable, and that he would grow in power and be more successful the larger the sacrifice.
Statements of the new age movement, masonic writers, new world order movement / UN, and global climate environmental religion movement look shockingly similar to me as different fronts for the same movement. Assorted New Agers have estimated that two to five billion people will be eradicated to purify the human race. Alice Bailey, president of the Theosophical society stated "Man understands meaning when he identifies with his soul and not his form: then he will deliberately choose to die." The mass suicides of the Jim Jones cult was an example of a sacrifice and twisted thinking, man can easily be deceived.
The malthusian new world order goal of population reduction could be achieved through engineered H1N1 plagues, denying humanity access to necessary resources including energy food and water, and planned economic collapse. Perhaps these individuals do not have our best interests at heart and we should not cede US sovereignty (our protection) to these anti-human psycho-paths. We are battling the spirit of Hitler, whether you believe it to be an occultic influence or a suicidal tendency expressing itself outwardly.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 21:39
#147110
the hatred of humanity almost sounds like it has non-human origins.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:36
#146499
To all of our friends who are arguing that these wars are necessary to fight Muslim terrorists.
You are totally right!!!
Oh, wait ...
A leading advisor to the U.S. military, the Rand Corporation, released a study in 2008 called "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida".
The report confirms what experts have been saying for years: the war on terror is actually weakening national security (see this, this and this).
As a press release about the study states:
And key war on terror architect Douglas Feith has now confirmed Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Wesley Clark in admitting that the so-called War on Terror is a hoax.
In fact, starting right after 9/11 -- at the latest -- the goal has always been to create "regime change" and instability in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon so as to protect Israel. And the goal was never really to destroy Al Qaeda.
As reported in a new article in Asia Times:
Where does Israel come in?
Well, the Asia Times article continues:
As even Newsweek has now admitted, the war on terror is wholly unnecessary.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 16:04
#146685
If all the shit in the Middle East isn't to protect Israel than I'll eat my shorts.For fucks sake lets just give them Florida most of them are there anyways and it's cheap to purchase all the foreclosed homes sitting empty.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 20:20
#147021
You're an idiot. It's clearly about oil. The US only cares about Israel so they can land their planes there and protect Exxon's interest in the Middle East.
Do you really think the WASPs in Langley give two shits about a country that has no natural resources and is about the size of Delaware?
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 21:41
#147112
WASPS in langley, get real, don't you mean the zionists
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 00:16
#147273
Yeah, I've always advocated much the same. Although I've always preferred giving them Utah, or Kansas, or some other small unpopulated state. Buy out all the residents through eminent domain (who cares if its legal) and move the Jews to their new 'homeland'.
p.s. dont forget that Saddam in 2000 was calling for their oil be priced in euros. Oil is the blood of the modern economy. Our empire depends on oil priced in dollars that we are allowed to print to pay for debt. What's the sovreignty of a country when you've got an empire to keep up.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:34
#146507
To begin with there has never been a just war in the opinion of the left. And if they had lived in 1776 they would have belonged to the majority that were against that war. Now they are glad to enjoy the benefits of the freedoms in this country paid for by the blood of those willing to fight for it. As to Vietnam, in the words of their commanding General Giap they were beaten, then they noticed that the liberal press in America was fighting a propaganda war to aid them. This PBS documantary has been shown many times. So that is another myth like Global Warming that has been put forth by the willing liars for the left called the MSM. As to radical Islamists, just total up the damages of 911 and the havoc it wreaked on our economy. Then think about whether or not you would like to live in an environment where you had to worry about a suicide bomber killing or maiming yourself or your family every time you went out to shop, to a movie, to a restaurant or to a wedding. That is what they have threatened to do to us. By fighting them in Iraq and Afghanistan we are preventing that kind of damage. Remember that is what they said that they would do to us, and they have always kept their promises in the past.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 15:11
#146580
In 1776 the British forces were occupying territory for the financial benefit of leaders halfway around the world.
So if it was right to kick them out, by your own logic those in the Middle Eastern countries the US is currently occupying in an attempt to make the world safe for Wall Street to trade oil futures have every right to kick the US right the hell out too.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 17:04
#146781
I have some Tiger repellent* I'd like to sell you.
*will work only where there are no Tigers
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:36
#146515
How does giving corporations a title of Nobility save the earth from overheating? Are they going to put a thermostat on the Sun? The American people need to learn what the Constitution says and begin to insist the National and State governments follow it. Of course, we are dealing with the corporate (fascist) state and not the Constitutional government, but even the Constitutional government cannot endow the corporate state to issue titles of nobility in the form of bank charters, corporate charters, licenses to do what is lawful (a title of nobility is a priveledge, what do they say about driving?) and endow Wall Street and General Electric with the right and ownership of energy consumption. The average Joe in the US in no shape or form should be required or even allowed to pay these guys for this right. Even the world burns all to Hell, the destruction of the Constitution and its protection of the normal American should not be allowed.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:47
#146536
Good article. Don't forget the imminent war in Iran.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:55
#146548
Why is it that so many smart people turn a blind eye to the permanent and irrevocable debt enslavement projected onto the American people which our founders vehemently warned us against in the precise manner in which they have been wraught upon us. Our founders warned against the welfare entitlement state, the powers of the central government and the hellish costs associated with foreign interventionism. Only now are we witnessing the true costs of our lack of Jefferson's vigilance. We have spent $944 billion [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf] in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Indirect costs such as interest on the additional debt and incremental costs of caring for more than 33,000 wounded borne by the Veterans Administration are additional. Some experts estimate these indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct costs.
See http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20081215.Cost_of_the_Wars_i/R.20081215.Cost_of_the_Wars_i.pdf
This is before the effects of the $515 billion defense budget to fund over 130 bases around the world. Spending $2.5 trillion for your protection is one thing when you have the money but we don't have any money. How much security would $2.5 trillion purchase here in America to secure our borders and strengthen our national security? Jefferson and Washington were both right. We should have stayed the hell out of the world's affairs.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 15:08
#146573
Putting to sleep every non-working horse, dog and cat in the United States would eliminate more carbon emissions than stopping the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Search "pets carbon footprint" for a slew of reports, here is one:
http://blog.brighterplanet.com/2009/11/17/add-your-pets-to-your-carbon-f...
10,000 indictments and trials before ANY climate policy goes forth. That is the ONLY rational option given to the scam artists. RICO, treason, national security treason charges related to the campaigns against the DoD and MoD, military tribunals regarding watermelons lawsuits against the DoD, extortion, bribery, fraud, esconcing with publc funds, violation of 501 laws, etc.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 15:12
#146582
Go ahead and take a mulligan GW.
Pure crap, sorry.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 15:18
#146593
Afghanistan is not a nation, and never has been. It is a collection of tribal interests occupying the most brutal terrain on earth, and it will never be tamed in whole. From Alexander to now, one by one, the world's greatest empires have suffered in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is truly a graveyard of giants.
It should be subdivided into manageable pieces and each bordering country should be responsible for their piece. The US can then concentrate on the real problem...stabilizing Pakistan.
If Obama really wants his Nobel justified, this is the sort of thing he should be brokering.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 16:24
#146717
Yeah, that's a great idea! Subdivide it into manageable pieces just like the Great Powers did with the Middle East after WWI. How'd that work out for 'ya!? And we can give the newly-created states nice snazzy names like...oh, I don't know...how about "UN or NATO Mandate Zones"? And we can have individual nations "administer" them, shepherding them to full sovereign status! Yeah, that can only lead to good things!
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 21:49
#147122
if we hadn't gone and de-stabilized pakistan in the first place, things would be a lot simpler. but that is not on the full spectrum global domination adgenda. de stabilization, and conflict generation, are the adgenda, and its all going along splendidly. how many nato nations have we dragged into participating in this repulsive lie, called the war on terrorism. we have now become what we claim to be fighting.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 15:43
#146643
"In addition, the US Military is the single largest user of oil in the world."
I would bet the US Military uses less oil in a year than regular Americans and American businesses and non-DOD government use in one week.
Add up the energy costs associated with:
-- Miles driven in cars, trucks, trains, etc.
-- Commercial air miles flown, passenger & freight
-- Ship miles logged in global trade with USA
-- Energy expended for climate control -- homes, businesses, etc.
-- Energy costs for manufacturing, agriculture, mining, etc.
-- Energy costs for running "Server Farms" and other IT related activities -- Google, DIA, NSA, DOE, etc.
There are probably a lot more energy intensive activities that could be added to the list.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 17:11
#146792
The US Navy is probably also the largest user of Nuclear Energy. Portable nukes!
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 18:16
#146895
What part of single do you not understand?
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 16:30
#146727
You destroyed your argument with the strawman of continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Stick to a valid argument next time. I agree on the Climategate....rest of your argument is not cogent.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 16:33
#146729
1. OK, but for reasons of national security, not the environment.
2. OK, the cap and trade system will be monitored to ensure predatory profits are minimized. Some proposals in the Congress would prohibit anyone other than regulated entities from trading.
There. All fixed. Thanks for playing.
Have a problem confusing red meat vs. red herrings? I guess this is the 'redgreyzone' for this blog.
Climate science: red herring
Climate-related energy policy: red meat
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 09:05
#147514
Jimbo;
You and I both know your only motivation is predatory profits! Check out what happened to your buddy Algore at his book signing in Chicago. Then take a look at what happened to Turnbull. The gig is up!
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 17:12
#146794
Fuck the IPCC. Fuck the UN. Fuck the WHO.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 20:41
#147052
Fuck the WHO?
I saw them at Winterland in '76. Keith Moon passed out right in the middle of a song. They were so fucking loud my ears rang for a week.
It was great! The WHO were great!
Anony, you need to get out more...
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 17:24
#146813
Whatever you think about Climategate, surely there is one thing upon which we can agree:
1) I am morally superior for being antiwar (ahem, not to say morally vain because I AM for war if it is the right, the 'necessary' war, don't you know...that is, until it's time to put up or shut up and then I'm no longer for the 'necessary' war either because it suddenly became unnecessary or something or other changed in between the presidential campaign and now). Oh wait, I was also against the Cold War where 100 million were slaughtered by the same folks who now want to control the world under the guise of 'environmentalism.' Oh well, 100 million fewer CO2 emitters. Where was I? Oh yeah. It's really cool to be antiwar, and all. It's so groovy now, that people are finally gettin' together, yeah, it's wonderful and all, that people are finally living together.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 17:37
#146839
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/services/advising/environmental-markets/bus...
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/environment-and-energy/goldman-sachs/...
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 17:46
#146850
I heard that they did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the problem was that all of them said, "Made in the USA." So, it could not be reported. Saddam was provided with WMD by the US during the Iraq-Iran war. What is it that you think Saddam used to poison gas the Kurds. Courtesy Uncle Sam.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 19:33
#146981
Saddam poisoned the Kurds with German mustard gas ... Einstein
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 21:56
#147131
it was the iranians that gassed those kurdish villages, after occupying and then being driven out. saddam didn't have that type of gas in his arsenal, and we knew what he had, caus he got it from us, or an ally, who reports arms sales to state dept. do a little research, and get some facts, you won't always be right, but at least try.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 17:57
#146863
WWII had quite a carbon footprint I'm sure. Its basically irrelevant. End the war or fight the war on its own merits. If you think war is "bad" because it causes pollution, well, no sh1t. It also kills people. Why not end all wars forever? Give me a break. Or more like a pony and some rainbows.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 18:26
#146902
"What is the carbon impact of Predator bombs that destroy Afghan families and villages?"
Yeah, because as we all know those are their primary targets.
I don't suppose if I point out ONE MORE TIME that this sort of hyperbolic, overheated rhetoric hurts your argument, that you'll stop doing it?!
I wish people like you would stop 'helping' the peace movement.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 18:57
#146940
Mr. George Washington is becoming a one-trick pony with his anti-war rants. It's getting tiresome on a financial blog. Could you folks consider finding another contributor, please. 'preciate it.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 19:18
#146964
October 21, 2009
Here is the letter to members of Congress from 18 top U.S. scientific organizations:
Dear Senator:
As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.
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.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades. [See Footnote #1 below]
If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.
We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.
The footnote reads:
The conclusions in this paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. Global Change Research Program. Many scientific societies have endorsed these findings in their own statements, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, and American Statistical Association.
Here are all the organizations that signed on:
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Biological Sciences
• American Meteorological Society
• American Society of Agronomy
• American Society of Plant Biologists
• American Statistical Association
• Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
• Botanical Society of America
• Crop Science Society of America
• Ecological Society of America
• Natural Science Collections
• Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations
• Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
• Society of Systematic Biologists
• Soil Science Society of America
• University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 00:52
#147302
I don't know much about the rest of these organizations, but I am in the American Chemical Society, and I can tell you that they fall for any piece of propaganda that crosses their desk. It is sad really. The scientists, which are supposed to be bastions of critical thinking and independence have become the greatest participants in group-think.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 19:19
#146966
October 21, 2009
Here is the letter to members of Congress from 18 top U.S. scientific organizations:
Dear Senator:
As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.
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.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades. [See Footnote #1 below]
If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.
We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.
The footnote reads:
The conclusions in this paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. Global Change Research Program. Many scientific societies have endorsed these findings in their own statements, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, and American Statistical Association.
Here are all the organizations that signed on:
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Biological Sciences
• American Meteorological Society
• American Society of Agronomy
• American Society of Plant Biologists
• American Statistical Association
• Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
• Botanical Society of America
• Crop Science Society of America
• Ecological Society of America
• Natural Science Collections
• Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations
• Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
• Society of Systematic Biologists
• Soil Science Society of America
• University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 09:29
#147543
A cabal of ClimateGate deniers! One word "ClimateGate" the KNOCKOUT punch for 30 years of Algore's lies.
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 10:53
#147656
With all these important sounding societies endorsing this letter my mind is finally set at ease. I was afraid that I might have to think for myself but these trustworthy and impartial fellas have lifted that burden off my back.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 19:20
#146967
October 21, 2009
Here is the letter to members of Congress from 18 top U.S. scientific organizations:
Dear Senator:
As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.
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.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades. [See Footnote #1 below]
If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.
We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.
The footnote reads:
The conclusions in this paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. Global Change Research Program. Many scientific societies have endorsed these findings in their own statements, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, and American Statistical Association.
Here are all the organizations that signed on:
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Biological Sciences
• American Meteorological Society
• American Society of Agronomy
• American Society of Plant Biologists
• American Statistical Association
• Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
• Botanical Society of America
• Crop Science Society of America
• Ecological Society of America
• Natural Science Collections
• Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations
• Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
• Society of Systematic Biologists
• Soil Science Society of America
• University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 01:04
#147303
Tell a lie often enough, loud enough, and long enough and people will believe you. - Hitler
Did a cock crow? You posted three times - "before a rooster crows this very night, you will deny me three times."
There are six things the LORD HATES, seven that are DETESTABLE to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
Scientists and organizations have been pressured into accepting this false science and in cases acadamia has been bribed (grants, promotions, positions) to support it with money from the bankers. If the bankers could buy off key authority figures, they could convince the world to back their carbon trading schemes and implement the structure for global governance (including global taxes) tying together the command structure of banks and corporations.
You are trying so hard to try this case in the court of public opinion because you would fail in a real court. In fact, a truck driver in the UK sued because his child was shown the video in school and he argued it was not true. This is what the court had to say:
How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?
In the end, a climate change skeptic in the States must hope that an American truck driver files such a lawsuit here so that a U.S. judge can make similar determinations.
A list of 32,000 scientists that disagree with man made global warming, including 9,000 PHDs, over rules those now discredited organizations, clubs, or shell groups. Those bankers own the media, fortunately we have the internet and alternative media to expose the tyranny. This was not a simple statistical sampling error, it was blatant manipulation and then destruction of the evidence in the face of a FOIA request which is a crime. I am not impressed with your list of sellouts that relied on widely reported FRAUDULENT DATA. They are prostitutes.
You and they have been exposed as liars.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 19:22
#146971
In other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going to make billions from carbon trading....
As was said in `History of the World Part 1'
Leader of Senate: All fellow members of the Roman senate hear me. Shall we continue to build palace after palace for the rich? Or shall we aspire to a more noble purpose and build decent housing for the poor? How does the senate vote?
Entire Senate: FUCK THE POOR!
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 19:30
#146978
Chimp
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 19:31
#146979
It's all Obama's fault
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 19:53
#147007
Agreed that we should end the war in Afghanistan, but only after annihilating(from the air) every Taliban position and thereby sending the survivors fleeing back to the wilds of Waziristan.
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 04:50
#147439
dude... the afghans have never, never lost on their home turf. get the boys out of there.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 20:31
#147037
Most of you are bunch of intolerant fucking morons and day by day you pollute this site with your bigotry and -centrism .....
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 20:35
#147043
Do I have to pay a carbon tax on that centrism?
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 20:34
#147040
Not to mention the massive amounts of aviation fuel for transporting troops to Afghani-nam...
Then the massive increase in aviation fuel for air operations and bombings, then the increase in armoured vehicles.
Diesel and aviation fuel are at the top of carbon particle pollution... third is plowing your field... for opium.
EASY SPARKY...the last one is a joke....
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 21:41
#147113
Hey, while we're at it, let's cap the volcanos. /s
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 21:53
#147126
I am a plant scientist at a major university that has been watching the climate debate mostly from the sidelines, although I have attended climate conferences during my time in academia. I find it frustrating that people with little to no experience in climatology or plant biology would weigh in so heavily on such a contentious debate. Their input too often creates the atmosphere of imbecils shouting at each other, when the reality is that they don't help anything but convince others that they truly are imbecils. Having said all that, let me explain my own position. There are several indisputable facts we all have to accept, whether we like it or not. First, the oil, coal, natural gas etc. that is being extracted from the ground has been there for thousands to millions of years, and we are pulling it out of the ground and burning it at massive rates, putting carbon dioxide in atmosphere. Two, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. When I took my first plant physiology course in 1977 the professor told us that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 0.033% (I still have my notes). Today it is at 0.038%. Three, carbon dioxide reflects infrared radiation. For those who don't know, infrared radiation is heat. So when sunlight hits the ground and reflects, more of the infrared that would be reflected out into space is reflected to the ground. Four, plants are carbon neutral. I know I know, so many people would like to think plants are a wonderful carbon sink, taking up carbon dioxide and putting all that carbon in cell walls, etc. BUT, all carbon based matter is decomposed by microbes ultimately to, guess what, carbon dioxide. The only time that is permanently fixed is over eons of time when soil is mounded up on top of organic matter and it ends up hundreds of feet down, turning into oil, gas, coal, etc. Five, the only way to get rid of the millions of tons of carbon we burn into the atmosphere every year is to put it back into the ground where it came from, and that is not going to be cheap. Having said all that, I'm opposed to cap and trade, it simply won't work because we're still pulling carbon buried millions of years and burning it, and nothing is really pulling it back out of the atmosphere and putting it back into the ground. Ethanol production is carbon NEGATIVE. The cost of fertilizers and other inputs makes ethanol made from corn and ALL other crops carbon negative. Sorry folks, the so-called zero input switch grass is an illusion. A crop like that will exhaust the soil of nutrients eventually if they're not replaced. Think of it this way, besides of C,H, and O, plants are also composed of N,P,K,Ca,Mg,Mn,Zn,Cu,Mo,B,Cl, and S. Everytime a crop is harvested, those minerals are effectively removed (mined) from the soil. They must be replaced or they'll be depleted. The making of nitrogen fertilizers is especially expensive, because so much carbon has to be burned in the Haber process (150–250 bars of pressure and 300 to 550°C!!). So what am I in favor of? First, pull our troops out of every country with oil. Let's face it, that's why they're there, and our tax dollars subsidize the oil industry to have them there. That's why we're in Iraq, that's why Cheney wanted to go into Iran. Get the troops out, save a few bucks, and let the price of oil go to its true market price. Second, create incentives for the wealthy to build electric plants to harness the energy from solar, wind, ocean current, and geothermal hotspots. Third, create tax incentives for the electric companies to upgrade the grid. Fourth, create incentives for the automobile companies to shift to electric power. See where this is going? For as much as Jimmy Carter has been maligned, I'm old enough to remember his push to do all of these things and I knew he was right, and that eventually we'd come full circle. In that way, at least, he was WAY before his time. Ronald Reagan along with the oil industry pumper George H.W. Bush as VP effectively killed those programs and ensured the rise of our oil dependency. Bush Jr. and Cheney ensured our continued dependency by convincing us of the terrible terrorists we needed to kill in Iraq, when even they admit now that it was all deceit. But for what purpose? Why oil of course!!! After all, Cheney was head of Halliburton, and if there's one thing I've learned about Republicans, they live by the motto that if someone scratches your back, you are obligated to scratch theirs back. And to hell with environment, because it's the problem of the children of the little people.
fromthedeepersouth
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 22:55
#147193
Can you provide Cliff Notes for your megaparagraph?
Hint: Keyboards have this fancy "return" key.
Learn it.
Use it.
Love it.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 21:54
#147128
"And if you want to talk about murder, genocide and hatred then i will point you to app. 400 000 000 victims which were murdered directly is a consequence of Christian Theology and Papal Edicts"
You are so full of shit I can smell you from here. How about a little evidence with your bs!
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 22:17
#147159
The Inquisition lasted for 600 years. It would have been easy to kill millions. A number of legitimate sources list the murdered anywhere between 50 million to 200 million.
For example, the Spanish Inquisition, assuredly the most vigorous and corrupt of the various inquisitorial bodies that existed in Europe, held 49,000 trials between 1560-1700 and executed between 3 and 5,000 people.
I suggest that the read Edward Peter's Inquisition for the most up to date analysis of the topic, including the myths that have arisen surrounding the inquisitions.
Correction The Spanish Inquistition was state ministry, not papal organization. Blaming Popes for deeds of Spanish Inquistition is incorrect. However kings of Spain used Dominicans (catholic order) as judges etc. because clergy (especially mentioned monks) were genarally far more educated than ordinal people.
Breif Answer: Talking of 'the inquisition' probably refers to the whole thing ie 'retake' of land for christians and murderous rampage against heretics. It was started by Pope lucius III when he issued a bill against heretic- and the violent mesures against them. It is strongly thought by those who thouroughly study the inquisition that the death toll is indeed in the millions. Which is ofcourse denied by Christian leaders and followers.
After some thought, I'm leaving the last two contributors' responses here to give those interested some idea of the flavor of the controversy. Firstly, it is correct to state that the Spanish Inquisition was a state ministry, but that doesn't remove it from the category of "inquisition." It was authorized by the papacy and thereafter used by monarchs on the Iberian peninsula beginning with Ferdinand and Isabella as the only institution at their disposal that operated across the boundaries of the twin crowns of Aragon and Castille. Many inquisitions functioned in conjunction with secular authorities, such as in 15th century Florence. And needless to say the Roman inquisition functioned under the direct management and control of the Pope, who WAS the secular (as well as spiritual) authority in the city of Rome and the Papal States. All of this simply goes toward explaining why it makes no sense to think of a single inquisition, rather than muliple inquisitions. Again, if you are truly interested in the subject, read Edward Peters or Richard Kieckhefer.
As for how many deaths may be attributed to the various inquisitorial bodies, I'm not certain who the previous contributor refers to when he states that "those who thoroughly study the inquisition" agree that the death toll was in the millions, but he or she is quite wrong on multiple levels. I am unaware of any modern historian who would accept such ridiculous numbers and it has nothing to do with whether or not they are Christian. Again, for a general treatment of the various inquisitions, read Edward Peters' Inquistions, and for a more specialized treatment turn to Richard Kieckhefer's Repression of Heresy in Medieval Germany.
Finally, the previous contributor was correct in pointing to the papal bull of 1184, ab abolendam, which Pope Lucius III did indeed issue the year before his death, as the beginning of the papal inquisition, but episcopal inquisitions had existed prior to this, and indeed the first time heretics were burned was at Orleans in 1022. And again, even with the establishment of the papal inquisition, various judge legates, which is what individual inquisitors were, pursued their duties in differing ways and with differing agendas. In sum, there never was anything one cold refer to as THE inquisition, simply various individual inquisitions.
MORE: According to Henry Kamen's "The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision" it is very difficult to determine, because if people fled - which they usually did - the Inquisition would burn them in effigy, and make no distinction in their records between whether someone was burned in effigy or in reality. According to Kamen, at the height of the Inquistion, they executed a handful of people per year, and the State of Texas executes more people in a year than the Inquisition did in ten.
And this is only in the inquisition, add to that 45+ million North and South American Natives, 2+million in the crusades, 40+ million in the period between 600 AD and 1700 AD ... i think you get the picture here ... plus add 200+ million dead from the implications of various theological doctrines and wars in Asia (particularly China, India, SE Asia)
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 02:43
#147388
Go crawl under a rock. I hate to let the facts get in the way of a good story, but... the population of the whole of Europe at the start of the 15th century was less than 100 million and didn't exceed 200 million till the 19th century.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 22:01
#147137
Iv'e got an idea, no one say anything stupid anymore, that would cut out a lot of talking and breathing, co2 problem solved.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 22:11
#147148
Global Warming Petition Project
31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
"The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.
It is evident that 31,478 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,478 American scientists are not “skeptics.”
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth."
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 22:39
#147178
It is so fun to read these posts and the comments. Makes me think I am back in college, listening to a gaggle of semi-educated (but very earnest) know-it-alls who, after 30 or 40 years of actually learning things, remember those days themselves with the hope that nobody remembers THEM. And their dumb statements.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 23:01
#147201
The STUPID... it BURNS!!!!!!!
Time to delete this LieberTARDian site from my bookmarks.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 23:34
#147237
GW, don't you see that the warmongers are addicts and that each time you write "end the war", you just get them started on another round of manly armchair warmongering? I agree with you, and history agrees with you, but we will just have to let those who run the USA and profit from its wars bankrupt its citizens with those wars, for that's what empires do. But life will go on. Before the fall, chop wood, carry water. After the fall, chop wood, carry water.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 23:48
#147239
WTF! W!T!F! Did you even read what you posted? 1000+ words of conflicting testimony, most of which suggest that the inquisition did not execute more than a few thousand. Then when you're done making my case, you arbitrarily list some unsubstantiated numbers for North and South America and the time period between 600 ad and 1700 ad!? And "various theological doctrines" that suppossedly killed 100's of millions in Asia!? Huh?
You, sir, are a blithering idiot.
It amazes me that people on this site take you seriously.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 23:47
#147250
And you're supposed to be a mathematician or something! How in the hell did you turn three to 5000 people executed in the Spanish Inquisition into 200,000,000 executed because of Christian theology and Papal edicts?!!
What a buffoon. Your credulity is breathtaking.
on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 23:54
#147259
I disagree. I love endless war and wall street greed. Its America to the core.
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 02:44
#147389
What's the carbon footprint of a 25 kiloton ground burst in Manhattan from a smuggled terrorist nuclear bomb?
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 04:51
#147440
Climate study based on carbon is a fraud.
Discussing it no other way gives it credablity
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 06:20
#147455
your site is very nice and useful for me, I Bookmarked your blog
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 08:41
#147495
IMHO - Climate change is an excuse for the formation of UN21 agenda. The signing of the Copenhagen Treaty will officially launch the NEW WORLD ORDER. Our Senate will follow through and Sign the SOVERNTY of the United States away FOREVER.
CLIMATE IS ABOUT TO REALLY CHANGE!!!!!
Great article
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 09:19
#147532
Here's a novel concept:
Let's make all the data (that hasn't been inconveniently disposed of) and all the software source code used to promulgate the AGW contention immediately available so that true science can proceed. Sorry, but we will never trust you again when you say that you 'adjusted' the raw data for a valid reason. Sorry, but we will never trust you again when you say that your algorithm was 'adjusted' in order to augment the validity of the results.
Before we give a few trillion dollars away to a hopelessly corrupt organization (UN) to be disseminated to thugocracies and unliberated countries for our sins against Gaia, how about we let a little open source work produce some real science? Just a thought.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 18:03
#149811
The Inquisition lasted for 600 years. It would have been easy to kill millions. A number of legitimate sources list the murdered anywhere between 50 million to 200 million.
Do not ever confuse the Nimrod Semiramis Holy Roman Babylonian Catholic Empire Church with anything associated with Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church is an apostate institution founded exclusively on pagan witchcraft beliefs spawned in ancient Babylon. Look into the eyes and into the souls of those innocent lives who were ravagedly brutalized in the name of Christianity and you will quickly realize they died purely for their belief in Christ Jesus. So openly corrupt did the fallen church become in the Middle Ages, we can readily understand why in many places men rose up in protest. Many of those noble souls who rejected the false claims of the pope, looking instead to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation and truth. These were called "heretics" and were bitterly persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church. They are called Protestants because of their protests of the teachings of the Pope and doctrine's contrary to the Word of God.
One of the documents that ordered such persecutions was the inhuman "Ad exstirpanda" issued by Pope Innocent IV in 1252. This document stated that heretics (Protestant Christians and Jews) were to be "crushed like venomous snakes." It formally approved the use of torture. Civil authorities were ordered to burn heretics at the stake. "The aforesaid Bull 'Ad exstirpanda' remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or refinforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), NIcholas IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303) and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake. It is to be noted that excommunication itself was no trifle, for, if the person excommunicated did not free himself from the excommunication within a year (usually by paying hefty indulgences) and incurred all the penalties that affected heresy." The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 8, p.34
Men pondered long in those days on how they could devise methods that would produce the most torture and pain. One of the most popular methods was the use of the rack, a long table on which the accused was tied by the hands and feet, back down, and stretched by rope and windlass. This process dislocated joints and caused great pain. Heavy pincers were used to tear out fingernails or were applied red-hot to sensitive parts of the body. Rollers with sharp knife blades and spikes were used, over which the heretics were rolled back and forth. There was the thumbscrew, an instrument made for disarticulating fingers and "Spanish boots" which were used to crush the legs and feet. The "iron virgin" in the statue and form of Catholicism's Mary was a hollow instrument the size and figure of a woman. Knives were arranged in pressure that the accursed were lacerated in its deadly embrace. This torture device was sprayed with "holy water" and inscribed with the Latin words meaning, "Glory be only to God." Smith, Man and His Gods, p. 286
Victims after being stripped of their clothing had their arms tied behind their backs with a hard cord. Weights were attached to their feet. The action of a pulley suspended them in mid-air or dropped and raised them with a jerk, dislocating joints of the body. While such torture was being emplyed, priests holding up crosses would attempt to get the heretics to recant.
Ridpath's History of the World includes an illustration of the work of the Inquisition in the Netherlands. Twenty-one Protestants are hanging from the tree. A man on a ladder is about to be hanged, below him is a priest holding a cross. Vol. 5, p. 304
Why would a murderous blood lusting Protestant Christian execute and hang his fellow Protestant Christian?
"In the year 1554 Francis Gamba, a Lombard, of the Protestant persuasion, was apprehended and condemned to death by the sentence of Milan. At the place of the execution, a monk presented a cross to him, to whom Gamba rightly proclaimed, 'My mind is so full of the real merits and goodness of Christ that I want not a piece of senseless stick to put me in mind of Him.' For this expression his tongue was bored through and he was afterwards burned at the stake." Fox's Book of Martyr's p.103
Does this sound like the handi-work of the teachings of Christ? Why gore out his tongue unless it was Rome's church who will not tolerate truth?
Some who rejected the teachings of the Roman church had molten lead poured into their ears and mouths. Eyes were gouged out and others were cruelly beaten with whips. Some were forced to jump from cliffs onto long spikes fixed below, where, quivering from pain, they slowly died. Others were choked to death with mangled pieces of their own bodies, with urine, or excrement. At night, the victims of the Inquisition were chained closely to the floor or wall where they were a helpless prey to the rats and vermin that populated those bloody torture chambers.
The relgious intolerance of Rome which prompted the Inquisition caused wars which involved entire cities. In 1209 the city of Beziers was taken by men who had been promised by the pope that by engaging in the crusade against heretics they would at death bypass purgatory and immediately enter heaven. Sixty thousand, it was reported, in this city perished by the sword while blood flowed in the streets. At Lavaur in 1211 the governor was hanged on a gibbet and his wife thrown into a well and crushed with stones. Four hundred people in this town were burned alive. The crusaders attended high mass in the morning, then proceeded to take other towns of the area. In this seige, it is estimated that 100,000 Albigenses (Protestants) fell in one day. Their bodies were heaped together and burned.
At the massacre of Merindol, five hundred women were locked in a barn which was set on fire. If any leaped from windows, they were received on the points of spears. Women were openly and pitifully violated. Children were murdered before their parents who were powerless to protect them. Some people were hurled from cliffs or stripped of clothing in the massacre of Orange in 1562. The Italian army was sent by Pope Pius IV and commanded to slay men, women and children. The command was carried out with terrible cruelty, the people being exposed to shame and torture of every description.
Ten thousand Hugenots (Protestants) were killed in the bloody massacre in Paris on "St. Bartholomew's Day," 1572. The French king went to mass to return solemn thanks that so many heretics were slain. The papal court received the news with great rejoicing and Pope Gregory XIII, in grand procession, went to the Church of St. Louis to give thanks! He ordered the papal mint tomake coins commemorating this event. The coins showed an angel with sword in one hand and a cross in the other, before whom a band of Hugenots, with horrow on their faces, were fleeing. The words Ugonottorum Stranges 1572 which signify "The sluaghter of the Hugenots, 1572," appeared on the coins.
Now tell me why would Christians order up a coin of the realm to commemorate their own slaughter?
An further illustration from Ridpath's History of the World shows the work of the Inquisition in Holland. A Protestant man is hanging by his feet in stocks. The fire is heating a poker to brand him and blind his eyes. Vol. 5, p. 297
Some of the popes that today are acclaimed as "great" by the Romish (Romulus) chruch lived and thrived during those days. Why didn't they open the dungeon doors and quench the murderous fires that blackened the skies of Europe for centuries? If the selling of indulgences (the root of the dispute) or people refusing to worship statues as idols or popes living in immorality can be explained as "abuses" or excused because these things were done contrary to the official laws of the church, what can be said about the Inquisition? It cannot be explained away as easily, for though sometimes torture was carried out beyond what was actually prescribed, the fact remains that the Inquisition was ordered by papal decree and repeatedly confirmed by pope after pope! Can any believe that such actions were representative of Him who said to turn the other cheek, to forgive our enemies, to do good to them that despitefully use us, to not seek vengeance and to command us in his first testimony Thou shalt not kill?
The Roman Catholic Church is not now, never has been and never ever will be a Church of the House of the Firstborn. Do not ever forget such and do not ever confuse it with anything to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ. It was, and is and always will be the incarnation of rebellion on earth.
Post new comment