RichardJensen Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 who brought the ruler? :D As it applies to which OT subject? 1) The fairness of CAFE regs 2) Party affiliations 3) Democratic choices for President 4) Tolerance of religious viewpoints 5) WASPs killing JFK 6) religion (Islam vs. Christianity) 7) Global Warming 8) Al Gore's Carbon Reserve 9) The Federal Reserve Bank 10) Fiat currency 11) The spelling of 'carburetor' 12) Whether you can't win tonight Or the original subject: Was Bill Ford out of line taking Barak Obama to task for remarks on the Detroit fuel economy while recently being the owner of a Chrysler 300C (thus 'rewarding' a company for producing a decidedly less efficient vehicle)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Fiat money came later as a way of dealing with the rather explosive growth brought on by (among other things) the sound monetary policy of central banks like the Fed. The Constitution is quite mute on the subject of what exactly backs the national currency as it is (IIRC) quite mute on the subject of a national currency to begin with. The basis for a national currency is Art. 1, § 8 (the commerce clause)--a national currency issued by a national bank is a form of regulation of interstate commerce. Likewise, the prohibition of the circulation of other bank notes is also a form of regulation of interstate commerce. The FRS was shoehorned into the commerce clause by the precedents given to the previous banks of the United States (as well as precedents supporting currency issuance by these banks and the Treasury). However, the FRS doesn't fit as well into the commerce clause as previously chartered U.S. National Banks (which were owned entirely by the U.S. government) What the FRS does do is provide a much more efficient control over the monetary supply than any previous consortium of individual bankers, with far more transparency and regulation than any previous consortium of bankers. Previous national banks (and the Treasury) had almost no authority over monetary policy. They issued paper money and financed the debt of the U.S., as well as supporting the ongoing activities of the U.S. government. The Treasury also minted coins (it still does, and it prints currency, although currency is always branded as Federal Reserve Notes, and not as paper issued directly by the Federal gov't.) Anyway, back to the FRS..... By mandating deposit of a substantial percentage of the assets of member banks, the FRS is able to extend loans to these banks on extremely short terms (as the member banks require cash/cash equivalents). The interest rates that the FRS charges for these loans (called the Fed Funds Rate) exerts an impact on the rates that member banks charge their customers. These higher or lower interest rates make loans more or less affordable, resulting in money re-entering the economy or not. So the FRS (via the Fed Funds Rate) in one way affects interest rates on loans.... By mandating the deposits of assets, the FRS also protects investor capital--instead of your local bank manager sticking your savings deposits in questionable real estate ventures, the FRS uses these monies to buy, mostly, government bonds. When the FRS invests more or less deposited assets in government, they affect the coupon rate of these bonds. If the FRS buys more government bonds, they drive up the price of these bonds or lower their yield. A lower yield results in, among other things, lower mortgage rates (mortgages and other long term--e.g. commercial capital improvement--loans have interest rates more closely tied to long term government bonds than to the overnight Fed Funds Rate) It is important to realize two things: 1) The FRS merely standardizes, regulates, and openly conducts banking practices that were commonplace before the Federal Reserve Act. 2) Member banks profit from the activities of the Federal Reserve (and it should be clearly stated that profit is not a central goal of the FRS) in direct proportion to the amount of assets they have on deposit. This means that, clearly, larger banks take in a larger share of FRS profits. However, this difference is hardly disproportionate. It is, on the other hand, statutorily proportionate. --- The debate on fiat currency is moot. It exists and the world economy has hardly come crashing to its knees. In fact, fiat currency is far better for the 'little guy' than any previous monetary standard. Going back to the late 1800s, one of the core issues with U.S. monetary policy was the use of gold as the sole basis for the U.S. dollar. This spurred overseas investment in the U.S. when such investment was necessary (as long as the U.S. dollar was backed by a fixed amount of gold, investors knew what their dollar denominated assets were worth in their own currency). However, fixed exchange exerted an undue hardship on small businessmen, farmers, and lower income individuals who were extremely sensitive to changes in the economy (and the prices of goods and services), but who were paid in a very inflexible currency (the gold backed dollar). William Jennings Bryan's famous "cross of gold" speech while campaigning for the presidency in 1896 reflects discontent with the gold standard. Although he didn't advocate a fiat currency, experience has shown that a fiat currency answers the problems with a gold (or silver) backed currency as well as anything. ------- How this all ties together is that ONLY a strong central bank, which has a proven track record of controlling the supply of money (preventing both long recessions and runaway inflation) can provide a fiat currency that can acceptably substitute for a metals backed currency. Why? Because the nice thing about a metals backed currency is that 1) its exchange rate is stable (good for foreign investors) and 2) the investor can be sure that there will not occur a sudden influx of currency (unless there is a simultaneous influx of precious metal). Sound monetary policy has largely eliminated the runaway inflation and the wildly unstable exchange rates that are the risks of a fiat currency (viz. the Deutschemark in the 20s). The great depression is the worst financial disaster ever seen in the world. It affected the whole globe. This is post FRS. It was set up to prevent this from happening. That was the sales line anyway. But it failed utterly. If you know much about the GD you know what it did to the US, companies, families, the world, etc. "I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale" - Thomas Jefferson "All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." - Thomas Jefferson “Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money.” - Daniel Webster "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." - James A. Garfield, 20th US President See Ron Paul, US Cong, Sept 10 2002 speak on the FRS if you like. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. - Constitution Art I Sect 10 VOLTAIRE (1694-1778) "Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value ---- zero." “You have to choose [as a voter] between trusting to the natural stability of gold and the natural stability and intelligence of the members of the government. And with due respect to these gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the capitalist system lasts, to vote for gold.” George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950) "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Frederic Bastiat, The Law "Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Maynard Keynes "I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution - taking from the Federal Government their power of borrowing (from privately-owned corporate banks)." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798 "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild international banking dynasty, 1790 "The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it all back again. However, take this great power away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control credit." - Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England (in the 1920s); reputed to be the 2nd wealthiest man in England at that time The FRS is a Cartel. Those are illegal. Done to keep small banks from getting too big. By the time the FRS was enacted 71% of banks were non-national banks holding 57% of deposits. The big banks owned by the rich did not want this growing even more. Rates then were high enough to discourage frivoulus borrowers but low enought to attract those confident of success. Banlanced debt and thrift. This caused 70% of funding to come from within a company and the govt. Thus companies were less dependent upon banks and so was the US govt. They were paying off the civil war greenbacks as it was stock pilinig gold. Loaning 90%+ of a deposit, then taking the loan back as another deposit and loaning out 90%+ on it again and again is not wise. Period. Banks are creating money out of the borrowers Promis to pay. IOU. What % of our taxes goes just to pay interest? Not even the balance? There is monitarily not enough money to pay of the interest and the balance. That much money does not exist. Trust money is one thing. Can be redeemed. Fiat money is a slow path to destruction. Now it is untrustworthy money. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 (edited) Religious bigotry is no better than any other kind. If by bigotry you being wholly devoted to a belief system - then without bigotry, it's not possible to follow any faith. If by bigotry you mean treating outside groups with hatred, that is not what all religions strive for. Only some. I'll let you figure out what religions do what. Edited June 4, 2007 by SVT_MAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang_sallad Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 First off... yes climates have always been changing. Yes we also seemed to think we were heading into an age of global cooling not too long ago. And yes, an entire planet's climate is a very hard thing to understand, let alone predict what it's going to do over the next hundred years. However, lack of 100% absolute certainty that WE are fucking things up should not be used as an excuse to not do anything about it. Now lets just ignore the thousands of "Top Scientists" on this side or that side of the debate, and just use common sense. Do we really think that the human presence on this planet is all that insignificant? Do we really think that we should be able to burn up chemicals that have been stored over the course of MILLIONS of years without fucking anything up? Anyways, regardless of whatever anybody has to say about the human contribution to the greenhouse effect, there are countless other reasons to reduce air pollution, and reduce the amount of fuel they use. Now a little back on topic. Savetheplanet had some comment on Bill Ford and how he can't pretend to be an environmentalist. Coming from somebody who actually gives two shits about savingtheplanet, i gotta say that's BS. Okay, so Ford's got the most successful truck business, meaning that while they do produce efficient vehicles, people love to buy their trucks and the companies fleet MPG goes through the roof. That doesn't mean Toyota isn't trying as hard as it can to sink its teeth into the big truck segment, just look at its SUV lineup and its current stumbling into the full size pick up market. On a company wide scale, there are hardly any displays of highly respected principles with respect to the environment. A company will go after whatever market has potential, and you can bet Toyota wouldn't pass on a gas guzzler if they thought they could make a decent profit. On a more personal level, Bill Ford has always shown a strong respect for the environment. While he never quite lived up to his reputation in the environmentalist circle, this all comes down to the fact that a CEO can't just go ahead and do whatever he wants with a company. He's at the mercy of a whole bunch of people with a whole bunch of money who for the most part just want to make a whole bunch more money. He eventually convinced these guys that there could be a market for a more ecological vehicle, although he had been trying for a very long time. Bill Ford may not have pleased everybody on this site with his performance overall, but I've got mad respect for the guy. And its great to see he's demanding some respect from a presidential hopeful (or apparently not so hopeful, according to what i'm reading in this thread.) Oh yeah, up yours to anybody who gets a kick out of making prejudice remarks. Way to form your opinion on an entire religion based on the actions of a handful of people. I never did understand how a white man like George Bush could make it to the white house... i mean, he's Christian! Just like the Nazis and the KKK! sorry, back to topic. Bill Ford for prez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 (edited) The great depression is the worst financial disaster ever seen in the world. It affected the whole globe. This is post FRS. It was set up to prevent this from happening. That was the sales line anyway. But it failed utterly. If you know much about the GD you know what it did to the US, companies, families, the world, etc. The Great Depression was not a result of poor monetary policy. It was, rather, a result of poor bank regulation. For instance, you can look at Japan during the 90s and see, more or less, what you saw in the U.S. in the 30s. Banks invested in the businesses they were lending to and no requirements for asset writedowns. The combination of these two factors led to a severe capital shortage. This is how it works: You have $100,000 in deposits. You loan out $95,000 of that to a single borrower, called Acme Widgets, collateralized by some fixed asset (say a piece of plant equipment). Time goes by and Acme Widgets stops paying principal. They're only paying interest, and they're not even paying that on a regular basis. Eventually, Acme stops paying altogether. Months go by. However, you (the bank) have an ownership stake in Acme Widgets. You know that if you foreclose on that loan, Acme Widgets goes out of business, and that will wipe out your investment in the company. So you leave this non-performing loan on the books. That means that the $100,000 in deposits is not available to lend to any other business. Had you been forced (by law) to write off the debt, you would've been forced to recover the collateral, sell it, and while your bank would've most likely lost money, you would once again have capital available to lend (even if it's only $75,000 instead of $95,000) The failure to write off bad debts causes capital to become more and more scarce. As capital becomes more and more scarce, businesses begin to fail, and this begins a spiral of bad debts that conspire to paralyze the economy. Again, and I can't stress this enough, you didn't just see this in the U.S. in the 30s. You also saw it in Japan in the 90s. The reason why the crisis in Japan didn't spread was due to a number of healthy economies elsewhere, as well as modern banking regulations throughout Europe as well as the U.S. (the global economy was already weak in the late 20s due to the aftermath of WWI). Since then, the U.S. has implemented some exceedingly rigorous banking regulations, and through the FDIC, they have been able to regularly have access to bank accounts, and they've had the authority to order banks to clean up their lending practices. Subsequent to that the U.S. banking industry has been fairly healthy (although the much less rigorously audited and controlled thrifts had their crisis in the late 80s). The fact is that the FRS could do nothing to stop the Great Depression, as the Great Depression was not a result of a liquidity crisis (either too much paper, or not enough paper in circulation), but it was a result of a capital shortage caused by banks not having money to lend due to the retention of non-performing loans on their books. Edited June 4, 2007 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 (edited) Loaning 90%+ of a deposit, then taking the loan back as another deposit and loaning out 90%+ on it again and again is not wise. Period. Banks are creating money out of the borrowers Promis to pay. IOU. You have a seriously malformed understanding of the banking industry. Per your example above, banks will not lend money (as a general rule) to people who have no better use for it, than investing it in a bank somewhere else. Regarding the practice of lending out a depositor's assets for interest , this has been going on for years. There are references to the practice in the Bible, for cryin' out loud (Matthew 25:27, Luke 19:23) How do you think bankers two thousand years ago made money off deposited funds? They loaned those deposited funds out. It was the Medici bankers, over four hundred years ago, who 'discovered' the principles of double entry accounting--and began the modern practice of treating deposited funds as liabilities and loans as assets. The 'creation of money' is a fundamental part of any economic system--the only difference is that a growing economy with a metal-based currency creates heavy demand for precious metals, and in a very real sense, the growth of the economy becomes constrained by the growth of available metals. Apart from that, the whole idea of distinguishing between fiat currencies and metal backed currencies is ludicrous. Why? Because gold has no intrinsic value as a medium of exchange. What value it has lies in its relative scarcity. Therefore any object of suitable scarcity can be substituted. For instance, other paper money. The restriction of the circulation of paper money provides its value. Sure, you can *always* print more money, but in practice this never happens (at least not in a healthy economy). Therefore, paper money becomes a viable and far more flexible, substitute for gold. ----- Again, the idea that gold is somehow superior to paper is laughable. Trust me. If it ever comes to a point where you really NEED gold, you aren't going to be able to buy anything with it anyway. ----- And BTW, this isn't going to be like the global climate change debate. Your posts have demonstrated a pretty tenuous grasp of the banking industry, and as such, I'm not going to insist that you adopt my point of view. Rather I'm going to suggest that you do some research with an aim to do more than substantiate your own opinions. Edited June 4, 2007 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Ok buddy, you remember that you asked. Now shut the hell up. This list took all of five minutes on the net to find. Which tells me you haven't really bothered to research the aspect of your argument that disagrees with your point of view. Which pretty much makes you a pundit. Which pretty much makes you irrelevant. hehehe, I can tell you only spent 5 min. doing reasearch on credible scientists who don't believe in ACC! Right off the bat the cut n paste that you posted is not credible as it pertains to, and I quote--"the broad area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in the field related to climate" The Oregon petition and the Leipzig Declaration were found to be a fraud!! Anyone could have filled this out, names on the list included those of characters from Star Wars and from the Spice Girls. Hardly any were scientists affiliated with climate change. Anyone could have gone to this website and filled the form , and they could have signed anyone’s name with any credentials. The report was heavily criticized and the authors stated they would audit the signatories for fraud - that was in 1998, they never did the audit. The author - under pressure - finally admitted that the funding for the petition was provided by "industry groups". The signatures to the 1995 declaration were also disputed by David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times. In an article on July 29, 1996 Check out these links on the Fraud ).http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let08.html http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title..._Climate_Change your other two links are six years old and irrelevent since there has been new reports from the IPCC. the last IPCC report say's that they are 90+% certain that ACC is real. Here is the the current report which came out this year 2007 not 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report So that makes your post pretty much irrelevent since those petotions were found to be a fraud, you should really do more than 5 min. of reasearch before you post false information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 (edited) Why don't you stop name calling and finger pointing and using personal attack tactics on us and instead concentrate on the issue. I like this. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759 Larry King was good to with the MIT guy and Bill Nigh Science Guy and others. Why don't you face up to the fact that Gore's model shows such drastic changes. Changes that project out to such deadly consequences in such a short time. So short a time that even if all Western societies stoped burning All fossil fuels today and we all starved to death we could still not avert Gore's destruction of man kind. Do you know anything about how the Federal Reserve was created? Who runs it? Who profits from it? If you don't I suggest you look into it. Then apply the same model to GW. Because that is what Gore is doing. Soon, if he wins, we will have a Federal Carbon Reserve. And he and his companies and his buddies will be the controllers of it. One does not need to be a scientist to understand this. There is global warming. And global cooling. Ice ages. Jungles that turn into deserts. It has all happened before. It just takes a lot of time. The Only difference is that Gore was not there to profit from it in the past! A simple look at Biology will show how a lake slowly turns into a marsh, to a pond, to a forest and then a lake again. Some people want to control everything. They want to control the economy, interest rates, inflation, employment, how much $ one has, how much land, etc.. Some are starting to go as far as trying to silence others of their opinions, disagreements, and beliefs. Now they even want to control the pollution market. Your opinions are valid. They are yours. Your beliefs are valid. They are yours. At least that is what I believe. Too bad Gore does not. And by the way you lable things as Enquirer type responses and such kind of shows that you and Gore share the same ideas on who's opinions are valid and valuable. Peace and Blessings Name calling? Did I call you a name? personal attacks??? When? Where? If I offended you sorry, didn't mean to. It's kinda funny that you make possibly false acusations against me, yet you were the one who was offensive in an earlier post and had to be put in check by a moderator. And Larry King and Bill Nigh the science guy? I am pretty sure that I will not be researching that show to get solid info on ACC, by the way, do you even know what ACC stands for? without looking it up? And Gore, I don't reasearch his ACC opinion either, so why do you keep bringing him up? He is not our leader!! Edited June 4, 2007 by Savetheplanet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 hehehe, I can tell you only spent 5 min. doing reasearch on credible scientists who don't believe in ACC! Right off the bat the cut n paste that you posted is not credible as it pertains to, and I quote--"the broad area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in the field related to climate" The Oregon petition and the Leipzig Declaration were found to be a fraud!! Anyone could have filled this out, names on the list included those of characters from Star Wars and from the Spice Girls. Hardly any were scientists affiliated with climate change. Anyone could have gone to this website and filled the form , and they could have signed anyone’s name with any credentials. The report was heavily criticized and the authors stated they would audit the signatories for fraud - that was in 1998, they never did the audit. The author - under pressure - finally admitted that the funding for the petition was provided by "industry groups". The signatures to the 1995 declaration were also disputed by David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times. In an article on July 29, 1996 Check out these links on the Fraud ).http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let08.html http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title..._Climate_Change your other two links are six years old and irrelevent since there has been new reports from the IPCC. the last IPCC report say's that they are 90+% certain that ACC is real. Here is the the current report which came out this year 2007 not 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report So that makes your post pretty much irrelevent since those petotions were found to be a fraud, you should really do more than 5 min. of reasearch before you post false information. according to the british channel 4 documentary, the ipcc report was signed mostly by people who have nothing to do with climate, some of who are not even scientists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 First off... yes climates have always been changing. Yes we also seemed to think we were heading into an age of global cooling not too long ago. And yes, an entire planet's climate is a very hard thing to understand, let alone predict what it's going to do over the next hundred years. However, lack of 100% absolute certainty that WE are fucking things up should not be used as an excuse to not do anything about it. Now lets just ignore the thousands of "Top Scientists" on this side or that side of the debate, and just use common sense. Do we really think that the human presence on this planet is all that insignificant? Do we really think that we should be able to burn up chemicals that have been stored over the course of MILLIONS of years without fucking anything up? Anyways, regardless of whatever anybody has to say about the human contribution to the greenhouse effect, there are countless other reasons to reduce air pollution, and reduce the amount of fuel they use. You had me for the first 3 sentances. But then you went into absolutes which are in no way true. Is any one here saying they don't care? Is anyone saying take off all the filters from the coal power plants, burn up all our forests for fuel, only make cars that get 10mpg, etc.? I have not seen anyone post anything close to that. So going off in that direction is an attempt to argue your position by making anyone that does not believe in GW out to be a planet destroyer. Now a little back on topic. Savetheplanet had some comment on Bill Ford and how he can't pretend to be an environmentalist. Coming from somebody who actually gives two shits about savingtheplanet, i gotta say that's BS. Okay, so Ford's got the most successful truck business, meaning that while they do produce efficient vehicles, people love to buy their trucks and the companies fleet MPG goes through the roof. That doesn't mean Toyota isn't trying as hard as it can to sink its teeth into the big truck segment, just look at its SUV lineup and its current stumbling into the full size pick up market. On a company wide scale, there are hardly any displays of highly respected principles with respect to the environment. A company will go after whatever market has potential, and you can bet Toyota wouldn't pass on a gas guzzler if they thought they could make a decent profit. Agreed. Ford is actually spending quite a bit on 'green initiatives' and I back that. Ford may have the lowest mpg average, but Toyota's is actually droping from what I hear because they are trying to enter into the SUV and truck markets so heavely for some time. That does not make them the bad guy all of a sudden. But if one wants to point out Ford's lowest standing, they would be unfair to ignore Toyota's decline. On a more personal level, Bill Ford has always shown a strong respect for the environment. While he never quite lived up to his reputation in the environmentalist circle, this all comes down to the fact that a CEO can't just go ahead and do whatever he wants with a company. He's at the mercy of a whole bunch of people with a whole bunch of money who for the most part just want to make a whole bunch more money. He eventually convinced these guys that there could be a market for a more ecological vehicle, although he had been trying for a very long time. Bill Ford may not have pleased everybody on this site with his performance overall, but I've got mad respect for the guy. And its great to see he's demanding some respect from a presidential hopeful (or apparently not so hopeful, according to what i'm reading in this thread.) Oh yeah, up yours to anybody who gets a kick out of making prejudice remarks. Way to form your opinion on an entire religion based on the actions of a handful of people. I never did understand how a white man like George Bush could make it to the white house... i mean, he's Christian! Just like the Nazis and the KKK! Doh, just lost it there again. So a group of people is OK to condemn, but not a religion, but then you condemned a religion? Huh? Why don't you provide the rules for what one can approve and disaproove of? I hope it won't be the type of rules where you can disparage others but they can not disparage you... sorry, back to topic. Bill Ford for prez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 (edited) Oh yeah, up yours to anybody who gets a kick out of making prejudice remarks. Way to form your opinion on an entire religion based on the actions of a handful of people. I never did understand how a white man like George Bush could make it to the white house... i mean, he's Christian! Just like the Nazis and the KKK!I think the key here is that not everybody who ASSOCIATES themselves with a religion is representative of the religion itself. Counter-intuitively, most Muslims are not representative of the religion itself. The Quran teaches that infidels (read as Christians, Jews, any other Unbeliever) must either convert or be killed. (Does 9/11 make more sense now?) Add that to the fact that Muslim men think that if they die in "battle for Allah" that they have a bunch of virgin women waiting for them. The extremists are some of the few that actually represent the "authentic" Islam. There are a lot of people who think fundamentalist Christians are nuts, but do they do around killing people? Most people who call themselves Muslim believe that the religion is rooted in peace and equality (even though many scriptures in the book do not support this idea). Those "Muslims" tend to be nice, peaceful people. A lot of people probably don't realize that most Muslims don't even learn the Quran in the language they understand. My buddy at school was a Muslim when he was younger (converted to Christianity) and he said he learned the Quran in arabic even though he doesn't know arabic. Mohhamed was the Islamic "leader," and I think he demonstrates pretty well what the actual religion is about. He went from place to place and cut off the heads of people who stood in his way. I have done some research on the subject, and I've found evidence to support most of the above - a lot of it came from my friend though. Just something to chew on ... this isn't black and white like some are making it out to be. For thousands of years, people have used "religion" for power. Politicians in the United States use Christianity as a veil to get elected by WASPs these days. Some church-goers use Chrstianity as a means of expanding their business. I've seen it first hand. All of these actions are dispicable and selfish, but it happens. My personal feeling is that people who utilize the church and Christianity for these means should not be considered Christians. They are merely people who are interested in ulterior motives and they're using the church to accomplish these motives. It's not my place to judge those people for doing that, but they certainly don't help the cause of Christianity. Anyways, regardless of whatever anybody has to say about the human contribution to the greenhouse effect, there are countless other reasons to reduce air pollution, and reduce the amount of fuel they use. I agree entirely. Polluting for the sake of polluting is stupid and irresponsible. Edited June 4, 2007 by SVT_MAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Hey. Religious debates are off limits here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Hey. Religious debates are off limits here. They are? From your post above I gathered that there were many off topic posts occuring in this thread .. ? 6) religion (Islam vs. Christianity) My bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Right, but experience shows, religion isn't a topic that can be debated civilly in a forum like this. OT subjects are fine as OT subjects, but some subjects generate altogether too much bile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Right, but experience shows, religion isn't a topic that can be debated civilly in a forum like this. OT subjects are fine as OT subjects, but some subjects generate altogether too much bile. Okay. I looked back at previous pages and see your warning now. Sorry, I didn't realize what you had said. I'll remember that for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 (edited) Okay. I looked back at previous pages and see your warning now. Sorry, I didn't realize what you had said. I'll remember that for the future. Thanks, I assumed you hadn't noticed the warning. I've added it to the conduct code as well. It just hasn't come up before, but we apparently now have a practicing Muslim on the board (LincolnFan), so we need a few more considerations.... I appreciate the cooperation. Edited June 4, 2007 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 You have a seriously malformed understanding of the banking industry. Per your example above, banks will not lend money (as a general rule) to people who have no better use for it, than investing it in a bank somewhere else. Regarding the practice of lending out a depositor's assets for interest , this has been going on for years. There are references to the practice in the Bible, for cryin' out loud (Matthew 25:27, Luke 19:23) How do you think bankers two thousand years ago made money off deposited funds? They loaned those deposited funds out. It was the Medici bankers, over four hundred years ago, who 'discovered' the principles of double entry accounting--and began the modern practice of treating deposited funds as liabilities and loans as assets. The 'creation of money' is a fundamental part of any economic system--the only difference is that a growing economy with a metal-based currency creates heavy demand for precious metals, and in a very real sense, the growth of the economy becomes constrained by the growth of available metals. Apart from that, the whole idea of distinguishing between fiat currencies and metal backed currencies is ludicrous. Why? Because gold has no intrinsic value as a medium of exchange. What value it has lies in its relative scarcity. Therefore any object of suitable scarcity can be substituted. For instance, other paper money. The restriction of the circulation of paper money provides its value. Sure, you can *always* print more money, but in practice this never happens (at least not in a healthy economy). Therefore, paper money becomes a viable and far more flexible, substitute for gold. ----- Again, the idea that gold is somehow superior to paper is laughable. Trust me. If it ever comes to a point where you really NEED gold, you aren't going to be able to buy anything with it anyway. ----- And BTW, this isn't going to be like the global climate change debate. Your posts have demonstrated a pretty tenuous grasp of the banking industry, and as such, I'm not going to insist that you adopt my point of view. Rather I'm going to suggest that you do some research with an aim to do more than substantiate your own opinions. Little tenuos grasp of the banking industry? Sure, that is what 'I' have. I am not the expert on it that you think you are. That is why I have read up on it and investigated it. I have read and quoted what those on Both Sides have to say. The bankers and the FRS and others. I do not go by what the FRS itself says nor do I go only by what I learned in economics, etc. I look at what Milton Friedman and what others have to say about fiat money and central banks. There were regional clearing house banks that helped prevent 'runs' on the banks prior to the FRS. There were economic upturns and down turns prior to the FRS. But they were controlled by the economy and real money. Not by Policy and artificial expansion and contraction of the money supply. You do remember the recession of the 70's? When the whole world holds with baited breath its reaction to what the Fed Chairman says there is a problem. The Feds, through policy and chosen doctrin run the economies of the world. See Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's 'liguidationist' thesis that the FRS operated by ~30's. "It was a conference to mark Milton Friedman's 90th birthday last month, and who should give the toast to the world's most famous monetarist? A governor from the US Federal Reserve, naturally. The man from the Fed, a monetary expert in his own right, Ben Bernanke, delivered a dense, 10-page tribute to Friedman's contribution to modern economics, then this punchline: "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton ... regarding the Great Depression: You're right, we did it "We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." A couple of weeks later, seemingly following through on this pledge, Bernanke delivered an unprecedented speech in Washington DC. The title: "Deflation: Making sure it doesn't happen here." It was the Fed's emergency plan, the economic equivalent of the The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook Bernanke laid out the extraordinary measures the Fed could take - including buying assets from private companies - if the US economy fell into that condition people associate most closely with the Great Depression - deflation, a fall in the general level of prices, the opposite of inflation. If inflation is too much money chasing too few goods, then deflation is too little money chasing too many goods. How close is the US to deflation? Fed chairman Alan Greenspan told anxious members of Congress in October that "we are not close to the deflationary cliff". But how good are his forecasting skills? The Fed, by its own admission, utterly failed to foresee Japan's slide into deflation seven years ago." Taking a deposit and lending out? I am not against that. I am against banks taking a 10k deposit. Lending out 9k. Taking that 9k as deposit, which is what it does as no one actually takes the money home, they then lend out 90% again, take the next as a deposit,... Mr. Bryan later wrote, "That is the one thing in my public career that I regret -- my work to secure the enactment of the Federal Reserve Law." Sen Aldrich "Before the passage of this Act, the New York bankers could only dominate the reserves of New York. Now we are able to dominate the bank reserves of the entire country." --- The Senate struck out: "To suspend the officials of Federal Reserve banks for cause, stated in writing with opportunity of hearing, require the removal of said official for incompetency, dereliction of duty, fraud or deceit, such removal to be subject to approval by the President of the United States." This was changed by the Senate to read: "To suspend or remove any officer or director of any Federal Reserve Bank, the cause of such removal to be forthwith communicated in writing by the Federal Reserve Board to the removed officer or director and to said bank." This completely altered the conditions under which an officer or director might be removed. We no longer know what the conditions for removal are, or the cause. Apparently incompetency, dereliction of duty, fraud or deceit do not matter to the Federal Reserve Board. Also, the removed officer does not have the opportunity of appeal to the President. In answer to written inquiry, the Assistant Secretary of the Federal Reserve Board replied that only one officer has been removed "for cause" in the thirty-six years, the name and details of this matter being a "private concern" between the individual, the Reserve Bank concerned, and the Federal Reserve Board. --- Mandrake mechanism This is a good site that visually details it. The words and phrases and terms are not ment to explain, but to deceive. Securities Asset, Fed Res Check, Govt Deposit, Govt Check, Comm Bank Dep, Bank Reserves, Excess Reserves, Bank Loans, etc. Fiat money clearly causes inflation. Inflation is a hidden tax on the people. The system, if it were rigged to help the indivividual might be OK. But it does not do that. It is not even neutral. It is a huge negative to the individual. You borrow 10k. Your net assests do not change. You now have to pay 100 a month in interest. You need a job to pay that int. each month. The bank advertises a job. You get the job. They pay you for your labor and you pay them their interest. The labor of the individual goes to pay the interest to those that create Fiat money. Serfdom. --- The constitution says: Congress shall have Power to coin money and regulate the value thereof ... No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts. – Article 1 Sections 8 & 10 --- USA Today again sums it up well: A new inflationary cycle is starting ... The Federal Reserve, desperate to head off recession from 2001 through 2002, flooded the economy with money, primarily by making loans dirt cheap. In addition, we have a massive federal deficit. That, combined with easy money, has weakened the value of the dollar, but driven up commodity prices. All this signals not-so-good news for stocks. The bottom line is that rising commodities prices mean higher expenses for most companies. Higher expenses mean lower earnings, and lower earnings mean lower stock prices. --- So just like GW, there are two sides. We are clearly on differing sides. You can say there is not issue, but I say there is. The world's confidence in the U.S. dollar is faltering, nevertheless they loan us more. The world loans us about $1.8 billion per day, totaling about $7.6 trillion. The U.S. government debt of over $44 trillion – between Medicare and Social Security "trust" fund. The U.S personal debt has grown to a staggering $9.3 trillion. Add it up and we have about $60 trillion in acknowledged U.S. debt. Divided by roughly 100 million employed U.S. households and you get about $60,000 debt per household – up from $25,000 just a few short years ago. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 according to the british channel 4 documentary, the ipcc report was signed mostly by people who have nothing to do with climate, some of who are not even scientists. If I understand correctly. They are not scientists. They are Policy Makers that got the report from a very very limited number and selection of scientists. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Name calling? Did I call you a name? personal attacks??? When? Where? If I offended you sorry, didn't mean to. It's kinda funny that you make possibly false acusations against me, yet you were the one who was offensive in an earlier post and had to be put in check by a moderator.And Larry King and Bill Nigh the science guy? I am pretty sure that I will not be researching that show to get solid info on ACC, by the way, do you even know what ACC stands for? without looking it up? And Gore, I don't reasearch his ACC opinion either, so why do you keep bringing him up? He is not our leader!! Greetings, I don't imply that you are a left wing wacko, a conspiricy theorist, a crank, etc. I do my best to leave the You out of it. Certainly I am not perfect at it. Offensive. Sure. And I appologize right here and now for offending anyone and for attacking anyone. My intent was not to attack anyone. My intent was to Jump and Jerk my Knee when I should not have. I do belive I stayed away from generalities quite well as well as personal attacks. I spoke of what I consider to be the core of a group. The moderator is free to put me in check Any Time. My response should be simply 'sorry'. No, I would not take King or Bill Nigh as much value. However, there were others on there that were part of the discussion. ACC. No I did not. I looked it up yesterday. I figured it was not the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) , American College of Cardiology, Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), or even Headquarters Air Combat Command, but likely Abrupt Climate Change (ACC) Strategy .org Further, I again do care about the environment. I don't know of anyone that does not. Period. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Little tenuos grasp of the banking industry? Sure, that is what 'I' have. I am not the expert on it that you think you are. That is why I have read up on it and investigated it. I have read and quoted what those on Both Sides have to say. The bankers and the FRS and others. I do not go by what the FRS itself says nor do I go only by what I learned in economics, etc. I look at what Milton Friedman and what others have to say about fiat money and central banks. There were regional clearing house banks that helped prevent 'runs' on the banks prior to the FRS. There were economic upturns and down turns prior to the FRS. But they were controlled by the economy and real money. Not by Policy and artificial expansion and contraction of the money supply. You do remember the recession of the 70's? When the whole world holds with baited breath its reaction to what the Fed Chairman says there is a problem. The Feds, through policy and chosen doctrin run the economies of the world. See Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's 'liguidationist' thesis that the FRS operated by ~30's. "It was a conference to mark Milton Friedman's 90th birthday last month, and who should give the toast to the world's most famous monetarist? A governor from the US Federal Reserve, naturally. The man from the Fed, a monetary expert in his own right, Ben Bernanke, delivered a dense, 10-page tribute to Friedman's contribution to modern economics, then this punchline: "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton ... regarding the Great Depression: You're right, we did it "We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." A couple of weeks later, seemingly following through on this pledge, Bernanke delivered an unprecedented speech in Washington DC. The title: "Deflation: Making sure it doesn't happen here." It was the Fed's emergency plan, the economic equivalent of the The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook Bernanke laid out the extraordinary measures the Fed could take - including buying assets from private companies - if the US economy fell into that condition people associate most closely with the Great Depression - deflation, a fall in the general level of prices, the opposite of inflation. If inflation is too much money chasing too few goods, then deflation is too little money chasing too many goods. How close is the US to deflation? Fed chairman Alan Greenspan told anxious members of Congress in October that "we are not close to the deflationary cliff". But how good are his forecasting skills? The Fed, by its own admission, utterly failed to foresee Japan's slide into deflation seven years ago." Taking a deposit and lending out? I am not against that. I am against banks taking a 10k deposit. Lending out 9k. Taking that 9k as deposit, which is what it does as no one actually takes the money home, they then lend out 90% again, take the next as a deposit,... Mr. Bryan later wrote, "That is the one thing in my public career that I regret -- my work to secure the enactment of the Federal Reserve Law." Sen Aldrich "Before the passage of this Act, the New York bankers could only dominate the reserves of New York. Now we are able to dominate the bank reserves of the entire country." --- The Senate struck out: "To suspend the officials of Federal Reserve banks for cause, stated in writing with opportunity of hearing, require the removal of said official for incompetency, dereliction of duty, fraud or deceit, such removal to be subject to approval by the President of the United States." This was changed by the Senate to read: "To suspend or remove any officer or director of any Federal Reserve Bank, the cause of such removal to be forthwith communicated in writing by the Federal Reserve Board to the removed officer or director and to said bank." This completely altered the conditions under which an officer or director might be removed. We no longer know what the conditions for removal are, or the cause. Apparently incompetency, dereliction of duty, fraud or deceit do not matter to the Federal Reserve Board. Also, the removed officer does not have the opportunity of appeal to the President. In answer to written inquiry, the Assistant Secretary of the Federal Reserve Board replied that only one officer has been removed "for cause" in the thirty-six years, the name and details of this matter being a "private concern" between the individual, the Reserve Bank concerned, and the Federal Reserve Board. --- Mandrake mechanism This is a good site that visually details it. The words and phrases and terms are not ment to explain, but to deceive. Securities Asset, Fed Res Check, Govt Deposit, Govt Check, Comm Bank Dep, Bank Reserves, Excess Reserves, Bank Loans, etc. Fiat money clearly causes inflation. Inflation is a hidden tax on the people. The system, if it were rigged to help the indivividual might be OK. But it does not do that. It is not even neutral. It is a huge negative to the individual. You borrow 10k. Your net assests do not change. You now have to pay 100 a month in interest. You need a job to pay that int. each month. The bank advertises a job. You get the job. They pay you for your labor and you pay them their interest. The labor of the individual goes to pay the interest to those that create Fiat money. Serfdom. --- The constitution says: Congress shall have Power to coin money and regulate the value thereof ... No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts. – Article 1 Sections 8 & 10 --- USA Today again sums it up well: A new inflationary cycle is starting ... The Federal Reserve, desperate to head off recession from 2001 through 2002, flooded the economy with money, primarily by making loans dirt cheap. In addition, we have a massive federal deficit. That, combined with easy money, has weakened the value of the dollar, but driven up commodity prices. All this signals not-so-good news for stocks. The bottom line is that rising commodities prices mean higher expenses for most companies. Higher expenses mean lower earnings, and lower earnings mean lower stock prices. --- So just like GW, there are two sides. We are clearly on differing sides. You can say there is not issue, but I say there is. The world's confidence in the U.S. dollar is faltering, nevertheless they loan us more. The world loans us about $1.8 billion per day, totaling about $7.6 trillion. The U.S. government debt of over $44 trillion – between Medicare and Social Security "trust" fund. The U.S personal debt has grown to a staggering $9.3 trillion. Add it up and we have about $60 trillion in acknowledged U.S. debt. Divided by roughly 100 million employed U.S. households and you get about $60,000 debt per household – up from $25,000 just a few short years ago. Peace and Blessings 1) Regarding Fed mea culpas over the Great Depression--the admission, years after the fact, that the Feds 'failed to prevent' the Great Depression does not establish that they could've done anything to prevent it in the first place. If you want proof, look at the YEARS during which the JCB reduced their overnight lending rate to 0% to no effect. The JCB was giving away money, and it didn't end the Japanese recession. On the other hand, when the government enacted banking reforms, for the first time in years, the Japanese economy started to expand. The idea, the belief, the insistence, that the Fed is all powerful and failed to prevent the Great Depression can be seen as fallacious by noting the failures of other central banks to prevent long term recessions due to poor banking regulations. Ultimately, a bank must have capital free to lend, and they must have performing loans to pay decent rates to depositors. If they have neither, there is very little a central bank can do. 2) "I am against banks taking a 10k deposit. Lending out 9k. Taking that 9k as deposit, which is what it does as no one actually takes the money home, they then lend out 90% again, take the next as a deposit,..." What are you talking about? I borrow $10k, I buy a car, the $10k goes to the car dealership, which pays it out to various other people, and thus some of it enters the economy a second time (salesman spends commission on a new watch, say), and some of that money goes into the bank, and some of it again re-enters the economy and on and on it goes. I don't know of anyone that borrows a substantial sum of money for the sole purpose of putting it into a CD or savings account. This is where I become quite confused as to your understanding of the economy and banking--you allege that you are against a practice that simply does not occur except in exceedingly rare occasions. 3) Furthermore, your insistence that things were better for the 'little guy' under a metal-based currency is flat contradicted by the riots, protests, and widespread discontent with metal-based currencies during the 19th century. William Jennings Bryan campaigned basically on that issue alone and got a substantial number of votes, simply by promising to loosen U.S. monetary policy which had resulted in a lengthy period of deflation during the latter 19th century. That's right. Deflation. 4) Finally, the insistence that the cabal of self-interested bankers that prevented runs on assets before the FRS, was better than the FRS is ludicrous. This cabal was answerable to no one other than itself, and it worked primarily based on handshakes, telegrams, and ad hoc arrangements with little to no transparency. The reason why people like J.P. Morgan wanted a central bank was because it was exceedingly demanding and frequently not profitable to provide central bank type services. Not because they saw a way of 'grasping control of the nation's reserves.' I mean the assertion that 1) dismissal from the Federal Reserve Board has been removed from political inquiry and 2) that the Fed is not accountable to anyone simply because it operates independently would both be far more sinister if it could be proven that Congressional oversight of an extremely abstruse subject ripe for political grandstanding has ever been beneficial. That the Fed has succeeded is, IMO, not in question. That the Fed has enable a fiat currency to work, is, IMO, not in question. That this is due in no small part to the independence of the Fed is, IMO, not in question. You are free to assert that the Fed is this insidious organization that is pushing a 'valueless' currency on the U.S., but where is the proof in real cases? Where is the proof that fiat currency (with its inflation) is better than a metal-based currency (with its deflation)? You have furnished many arguments, but none of them say, "Because of 'x', 'y' took place, with the following negative consequences. This is why 'x' led to 'y'." You have merely furnished quotes about the FRS and fiat currency suggesting that each is 'bad', but you haven't provided any logical argument that takes (for instance) the single greatest economic disaster of the 20th century, and breaks it down into a specific sequence of events that begin with the mismanagement of the Fed. Oh, and one other thing, during the Great Depression, the U.S. dollar was still backed by precious metals. Can you explain that? http://cgi.ebay.com/Framed-Silver-Certific...0QQcmdZViewItem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 (edited) That's right, I am NOT a scientist, that's why I defer to the experts like the IPCC just like Governments do, including ours. So since there are THOUSANDS of climate experts disagree with ACC you should have no problem posting a link to a credible group with lot's of PEER reviewed articles on Nature Magazine and other well respected puiblications. And yes, I think climate experts with decades of reasearch understand ACC better than me. Greetings, Providing scientific reviewed papers opposed to GW you know can be 100 times more difficult than providing peer reviews for GW. That would be like searching for papers for research on breast cancer and then trying to find papers opposing how much money is thrown and breast cancer research and what it has given us in 30 years+. And who wants to face the years of personal attacks of scientists and other for stating that they do not see GW and human impact as an issue? The speakers for the cause just attack the person. The left is very skilled at naming thier causes posative things so that those that disagree end up Anti their posative or a Negative. I.e. anti fairness doctrin, anit equal houseing, anti fair housing, anti equal access, anti pro choice, anti help poor people, anti Helping the Homeless, etc. The program may be about giving every homeless person a job paying $100k per year. But to be a dissenter just means your anti helping homless people. So no, it is not easy at all to find Peer Reviews opposing GW'ing. Just like you did not find peer reviews against Hitler, Lennen, or Pol Pot. No, they wont be killed, but they may loose a whole lot. Can they even get them reviewed? You shold want a healthy debate on it. So the science is good. But Every One Agrees? That is always a BAD sign! The climate computer models are broken. We can not predict the Past. How can we predict the future? If it were not for Gore, GW would have No Traction. So do not act like Gore is not the #1 bennifactor of GW. PEace and Blessings >>> Added New Report Finds Red-faced Errors by IPCC and Gore March 2, 2007 An analysis of the United Nations widely-touted 2007 IPCC Global Warming Summary for Policymakers by UK Lord Viscount Monckton has found 31 errors and exaggerations. Since Lord Monckton alerted the UN about its errors, the UN substantially rewrote and corrected the report, Monckton claims in his new analysis. (see http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070226_monckton.pdf ) The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, an aide to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, sent the UN a list of 31 errors and exaggerations shortly after launch of the summary in February 2007 of its latest report on the science of climate change. The UN’s climate-change body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, did not reply directly to Lord Monckton’s criticism, but made many of the corrections nevertheless. “The tradition of elementary but serious scientific errors, of which the notorious ‘hockey-stick’ graph of estimated global temperatures over the past 1,000 years is an example, is alive and well in the UN’s 2007 report,” Lord Monckton said. “The UN has still not corrected or apologized for the ‘hockey-stick’, by which it falsely abolished the mediaeval warm period, when temperatures were 2 or 3C warmer than today, and disaster failed to ensue. But it has been forced to correct several schoolboy howlers – though it has not had the honesty to announce publicly and clearly that it has done so,” Monckton said. “The heavily-corrected version of the IPCC report has been furtively posted on the IPCC’s website, www.ipcc.ch. There has been no public statement by the IPCC admitting to the errors,” Monckton added. The UN has been forced to halve its high-end estimate of the rise in sea-level to 2100, and it has also sharply reduced its estimate of our entire effect on the climate since 1750, according to Monckton. Monckton echoed UK Lord Nigel Lawson’s call that the IPCC be disbanded. “It is too politicized and too incompetent to serve any useful purpose,” Monckton said. Monckton’s new analysis also points out significant science errors in Al Gore’s Oscar winning film “An Inconvenient Truth.” “The IPCC’s exaggerations and errors parallel those of Al Gore in his notorious sci-fi horror film An Inconvenient Truth, now being peddled to schoolchildren worldwide,” Monckton said. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf ----- http://www.ipcc.ch/ Can read about Theories, models, carbon taxing, high levels of agreement, etc. I like these two. Because the future is inherently uncertain, scenarios i.e. internally consistent images of different futures - not predictions of the future - have been used extensively in this report. 33 “Evidence” in this report is defined as: Information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. See Glossary. I am not sure what that means, but I am pretty sure it means its not Evidence. Edited June 4, 2007 by macattak1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 It is all about the spin, and the presentation. Truth and facts are very far down in the criteria. This same manipulation has been played out time and again. Use the eye catching buzz words. Present personal opinion as fact. Use selective quotes and figures. Present a bunch of "experts" with acronym after acronym after their names............. to support your "facts." Belittle and ignore anyone, or everyone who disagrees with you. After all, you know what is best for all of us............... we just don't know it. I have seen this same political play over and again. Some have been on a smaller scale, like with abortion rights, or 2nd amendment rights. Some, like GW, are huge............. and very ominous. We are going to be saved from ourselves, once again. However, all you have to do, to find the real truth................. is chase the power, and the money. The reality is, these are all that are really involved in these debates............... and in these issues. That many of us buy into it, lock, stock, and barrel............... is very frightening. Yes I try to limit my impact on others. Yes I try to be considerate of the environment. However, the forces of this planet are so large, who the hell am I, to think that I have control of it. My God, the ego involved in this debate is unfathomable. Point being, the planet was here long before we were, and it will be here long after we are gone. So, go ahead and let hypocrites like Al Gore, do your thinking for you. Go ahead and think that this debate is all about what is morally right. This will make you feel better, as they slowly pick your pocket dry. BTW, there are a bunch of very well read people on these forums. Whether I agree or disagree, it does make for some fascinating reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 (edited) Greetings, Providing scientific reviewed papers opposed to GW you know can be 100 times more difficult than providing peer reviews for GW. That would be like searching for papers for research on breast cancer and then trying to find papers opposing how much money is thrown and breast cancer research and what it has given us in 30 years+. And who wants to face the years of personal attacks of scientists and other for stating that they do not see GW and human impact as an issue? The speakers for the cause just attack the person. The left is very skilled at naming thier causes posative things so that those that disagree end up Anti their posative or a Negative. I.e. anti fairness doctrin, anit equal houseing, anti fair housing, anti equal access, anti pro choice, anti help poor people, anti Helping the Homeless, etc. The program may be about giving every homeless person a job paying $100k per year. But to be a dissenter just means your anti helping homless people. So no, it is not easy at all to find Peer Reviews opposing GW'ing. Just like you did not find peer reviews against Hitler, Lennen, or Pol Pot. No, they wont be killed, but they may loose a whole lot. Can they even get them reviewed? You shold want a healthy debate on it. So the science is good. But Every One Agrees? That is always a BAD sign! The climate computer models are broken. We can not predict the Past. How can we predict the future? If it were not for Gore, GW would have No Traction. So do not act like Gore is not the #1 bennifactor of GW. PEace and Blessings >>> Added New Report Finds Red-faced Errors by IPCC and Gore March 2, 2007 An analysis of the United Nations widely-touted 2007 IPCC Global Warming Summary for Policymakers by UK Lord Viscount Monckton has found 31 errors and exaggerations. Since Lord Monckton alerted the UN about its errors, the UN substantially rewrote and corrected the report, Monckton claims in his new analysis. (see http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070226_monckton.pdf ) The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, an aide to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, sent the UN a list of 31 errors and exaggerations shortly after launch of the summary in February 2007 of its latest report on the science of climate change. The UN’s climate-change body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, did not reply directly to Lord Monckton’s criticism, but made many of the corrections nevertheless. “The tradition of elementary but serious scientific errors, of which the notorious ‘hockey-stick’ graph of estimated global temperatures over the past 1,000 years is an example, is alive and well in the UN’s 2007 report,” Lord Monckton said. “The UN has still not corrected or apologized for the ‘hockey-stick’, by which it falsely abolished the mediaeval warm period, when temperatures were 2 or 3C warmer than today, and disaster failed to ensue. But it has been forced to correct several schoolboy howlers – though it has not had the honesty to announce publicly and clearly that it has done so,” Monckton said. “The heavily-corrected version of the IPCC report has been furtively posted on the IPCC’s website, www.ipcc.ch. There has been no public statement by the IPCC admitting to the errors,” Monckton added. The UN has been forced to halve its high-end estimate of the rise in sea-level to 2100, and it has also sharply reduced its estimate of our entire effect on the climate since 1750, according to Monckton. Monckton echoed UK Lord Nigel Lawson’s call that the IPCC be disbanded. “It is too politicized and too incompetent to serve any useful purpose,” Monckton said. Monckton’s new analysis also points out significant science errors in Al Gore’s Oscar winning film “An Inconvenient Truth.” “The IPCC’s exaggerations and errors parallel those of Al Gore in his notorious sci-fi horror film An Inconvenient Truth, now being peddled to schoolchildren worldwide,” Monckton said. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf ----- http://www.ipcc.ch/ Can read about Theories, models, carbon taxing, high levels of agreement, etc. I like these two. Because the future is inherently uncertain, scenarios i.e. internally consistent images of different futures - not predictions of the future - have been used extensively in this report. 33 “Evidence” in this report is defined as: Information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. See Glossary. I am not sure what that means, but I am pretty sure it means its not Evidence. Although the first part of your post was nothing but analogies and metaphors, (a good clue to your inability to debate the data) but at least they were your own words. It's not hard to tell. The rest of your post was another cut n paste rant praising the Lord, hehehehehe, sorry I couln't resist. LORD Monckton? wow, a LORD huh, and not just a LORD, but an aid to Margret Thatcher, you have a solid case now. I like the way the author of your cut n paste descibes LORD Monckton, and I quote..........."The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, an aide to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher" So he is not just a LORD, but a VISCOUNT, of Brenchley no less. Who needs a group of cedible scientists to refute ACC? ALL YOU NEED IS ONE MAN!!! THE VISCOUNT!!!! FROM BENCHLEY NO LESS!! COMING TO A G8 SUMMIT NEAR YOU!!! Edited June 5, 2007 by Savetheplanet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 . However, all you have to do, to find the real truth................. is chase the power, and the money. That's all you have to do? Then why don't you do it? Give us a detailed report and site all your sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 That's all you have to do? Then why don't you do it?Give us a detailed report and site all your sources. Looks at oil companies profits and money spent lobbying and funding denial groups like all the junk that's been posted here. Looks at how much money the granola munching hippies have. Well it looks like it is all about the money, and it's all about the oil cartels protecting their multi-billion dollar quarterly profits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.