backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by Socalledscient.. on Dec 21 at 4:38 PM


UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, at the Bali Climate Conference
Scientists warn of "tragic" results

Over 100 scientists have signed an open letter to UN Secretary Ban-Ki Moon, warning that the UN is taking humanity in a "tragic" direction with its attempts to blame humanity for climate change.

The letter reads in part, "In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."  
 
The letter raps the IPCC for portraying its climate reports as a "consensus among thousands of scientists," when in reality only a "small core writing team" was responsible for the report text.   It warns that attempts to cut emissions are a "tragic" misallocation of resources that are likely to increase human suffering from climate change, rather than reduce it.
 
The list of signatories on the letter includes such well known names as physicist Freeman Dyson, Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Dr. Reid Bryson, known as the "Father of Meteorology,"  pioneering atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, MIT professor Richard Lindzen and over 100 others.  Most are working in climatology, physics, geology, or a related field; many are present or former IPCC expert reviewers themselves.  
 
The scientists also blame the IPCC for instructing its working groups to ignore recent research studies on climate, which meant the report's conclusions were outdated even before they were published. 
 
Copies of the letter were also sent to heads of major world nations.  A full list of the scientists who signed can be found here.  
 
The letter comes as UN representatives are gathered in Bali for a conference to promote awareness on climate change.   The AP reports that a "global carbon tax" is being advocated by panel members at the conference. 

In April, the AP reported that  52 scientists were involved in the writing of the IPCC's final climate report, along with "diplomats from 115 different nations."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

$$$ -what it's really all about
By mjcutri on 12/13/2007 8:46:00 PM , Rating: 5
If you ever see a government or organization do something that doesn't seem quite right...just follow the money.

The UN has been trying for years to find a way to implement a "Global" tax so that it can "redistribute" wealth from "rich" countries (USA) to poor countries (usually run by dictators.)

The whole global warming climate change disaster scenario just happened to be an ideal opportunity.

The IPCC (see: http://www.dailytech.com/Noted+Sea+Level+Expert+Ac...
and the UN as a whole are a joke. The UN has never prevented a war or conflict, it has only prevented one side from winning, thus prolonging the conflict.




RE: $$$ -what it's really all about
By Ringold on 12/13/2007 9:44:07 PM , Rating: 3
From the article:
quote:
The AP reports that a "global carbon tax" is being advocated by panel members at the conference.


That about sent me in to a conservative seizure.

You're right. There's no way in hell all the money collected from firms would go back to their respective countries, or correspond to lowered tax rates elsewhere to compensate. I even seriously doubt the UN's ability to calculate a price level based on economic and scientific measures rather than politically agreed upon numbers designed to generate a minimum amount of revenue to send to the UN's primary constituents; third-world states looking for hand outs.

It's good in theory. Many things are good in theory. The UN's track record of taking good theories, like being fundamentally opposed to genocide, is rather lacking in success -- such as Rwanda and Srebrenica.

I can only hope if the UN attempted to force this on us, we'd have another Boston Tea Party, except this time it'd be UN diplomats we'd toss in to the Atlantic.

Time to start printing off copies of Paines "Common Sense" again!

quote:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.


http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/singleh...

Recommended reading.


RE: $$$ -what it's really all about
By AlexWade on 12/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: $$$ -what it's really all about
By Moishe on 12/14/2007 10:30:04 AM , Rating: 3
It's not completely toothless.... we GIVE it teeth by allowing it to even act as if it's someone worth listening to.

The U.N. is a great idea, like the League of Nations... BUT also like the League of Nations, the U.N. has become a corrupt committee that is incapable of doing anything except making problems worse... and spending money. There are a few good factual books about the U.N. and what its done.


RE: $$$ -what it's really all about
By Symmetriad on 12/14/2007 12:01:47 PM , Rating: 3
"The UN is trying to make one world government and is trying to be a government. I've been hearing rumors about the UN trying to ban religion or create one universal religion."

Where did you get this information, a Jack Chick tract?


RE: $$$ -what it's really all about
By clovell on 12/14/2007 4:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, not so far off base - they've tried to pass resolutions on corporal punishment, as well.


RE: $$$ -what it's really all about
By sweetsauce on 12/15/2007 2:30:07 PM , Rating: 1
I would think all the christians in this country would love the idea of one world religion, considering it would probably be some form of christianity. Its a simple matter of history repeating itsel. Do some research and you'll see that this is how christianity became the all exclusive "christ" religion it is today.


RE: $$$ -what it's really all about
By clovell on 12/15/2007 4:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't like that idea, and I doubt that if it were to come to pass, that it would be Christianity. Also, there are over 30,000 different factions of Christianity, and many of them don't get along.

I have no idea what you mean by "all exclusive christ religion".


By rdeegvainl on 12/17/2007 6:47:28 AM , Rating: 2
I must inform you, that you think wrong! The majority of Christians I know hate the idea of a mandated religion, that it would take away from religion having any meaning at all. That is anecdotal information, but I can say with 100% certainty that I'm 100% sure that 1 Christian(at least) would be adamantly opposed to this, even if it were the religion that he followed himself. That person is me.


RE: $$$ -what it's really all about
By maverick85wd on 12/17/2007 1:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The UN has never prevented a war or conflict, it has only prevented one side from winning, thus prolonging the conflict.

Indeed!!! War is natural. It decides conflicts, helps control population, and is the cause of a wide array of innovations. I am a peaceful person, but I also understand a need for balance and war is simply a necessary evil. To attempt preventing all war is as foolish and futile as attempting to prevent teenagers from having sex with each other.


RE: $$$ -what it's really all about
By bryanW1995 on 12/17/2007 9:58:40 PM , Rating: 3
teenagers having sex is like the OPPOSITE of war: war lowers the population, teenage sex raises it.


By maverick85wd on 12/18/2007 6:49:16 AM , Rating: 2
yes, and they are both also unpreventable which is my point.


que sera, sera
By jhinoz on 12/14/2007 12:05:46 AM , Rating: 4
Good article.

If we think there's going to be a tsunami, we wouldn't mess with the ocean to try and stop it happening, we'd be building big walls, or moving people out the affected area.

I don't understand why the approach to global warming is so different.

From an Australian perspective, we've just ratified Kyoto, and i'm more worried about the economic impact of that than reducing CO2 emissions.

The whole carbon credit scheme should focus more on actual pollution rather than CO2.

my 0.02 + GST.




RE: que sera, sera
By Pythias on 12/14/2007 11:43:39 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The whole carbon credit scheme should focus more on actual pollution rather than CO2.


I agree. How is paying some hippy to not change his lifestyle so I dont have to change mine going to save the world?


RE: que sera, sera
By goz314 on 12/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: que sera, sera
By grenableu on 12/14/2007 3:00:04 PM , Rating: 3
Its actual news. The scientists are real, and the letter they wrote is a real event.


RE: que sera, sera
By clovell on 12/14/2007 4:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, there's nothing editorial in this article - you might try reading it sometime rather than simply being a midless troll.

I'm wondering why it was even put in the blog section.


RE: que sera, sera
By TomZ on 12/15/2007 1:12:51 PM , Rating: 4
In my opinion, DT doesn't distinguish a clear difference between a news article and a blog post. Most (but not all) of the blog posts here are more like news articles, this one included.


nuts...
By Moishe on 12/14/2007 10:25:12 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
52 scientists were involved in the writing of the IPCC's final climate report, along with "diplomats from 115 different nations."


Personally I think diplomats and politicians should keep their grubby mits off of "scientific" reports. If I want BS, half-truths, and hyperbole I will look for weasels like politicians and diplomats to write it for me. If I want science I'll avoid those types entirely.

Good article in the sense that it provides balance to the almost unchallenged "OMGZ we're all gonna die1!!!" stuff in the media. We NEED to know if there is truly a consensus, if the "final climate report" ignored newer findings, and whether or not the reports were written by scientists and marketing teams or just by scientists. We need balance so we don't get snowed by professional liars.




RE: nuts...
By TomZ on 12/14/2007 10:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
I think the problem is the misperception that the IPCC report is a scientific report. It is clearly a political report, written by politicians for politicians.


RE: nuts...
By Moishe on 12/14/2007 11:26:02 AM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. I think the largest problem with AGW is the murkiness created by politics.

Instead of truth, we get garbage... but we're expected to accept it as truth.


RE: nuts...
By Hacp on 12/15/2007 2:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
Thats what the UN wanted to do. The anti-global warming lobby is playing politics, so the UN is trying to fight fire with fire.


RE: nuts...
By clovell on 12/15/2007 1:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure it's true simply because you say so.


RE: nuts...
By sweetsauce on 12/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: nuts...
By clovell on 12/17/2007 2:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
If the science had ever had a solid leg to stand on, the politicians wouldn't need to spin it.


By Andy35W on 12/17/2007 1:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
Considering this open letter was about the significance of man made climate change it was interesting to note the the letter refered to money.

"We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation."

"the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity"

"On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it"

Maybe there is this fiscal bent to the arguement because of the 100 "climate" scientists who signed up for this, 5% were economists. How long as money been around in relation to climate change for these experts to "know"?

Why is science being linked to how rich the populus will be if science is right or not? Surely science stands on it's own and if the human population suffers then so be it. Bending science to fit in with a viewpoint so the human race can prosper smacks more of politics than science being right or wrong.




By maverick85wd on 12/17/2007 2:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the point the scientists are trying to make (and this is just coming from the few economics classes I have taken) is this: Resources are scarce. This means that they can be exhausted. If a large number of these resources are allocated to such projects as global warming, they will not be going towards things like, say, medical research (for example). So if, 50 years from now, the world pulls it's head out and realizes that global warming is really just the world's natural cycle of heating and cooling that will be 50 years of resources that are not going to other technological advancements and were therefore wasted. So, instead of having a cure for chronic illness, we have research and data that is inconsequential. In this way, humanity would be suffering because of the opportunity costs of our continued global warming research and implementations.


By clovell on 12/17/2007 3:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
Since there is still debate over AGW, it's natural to weigh the costs and benefits of each course of action against how likely AGW is. Only then, can a truly informed decision on how to respond to the evidence be made.

It's a branch of probability and statistics called Decision Theory, and it's used everyday in a variety of situations, including economics, which are an integral part of the quality of human life. This is something that is generally considered when making public policy decisions.

Scientists regularly address the implications of their findings and offer suggestion on how to proceed in publications. Since the decision to reduce CO2 emissions would have widespread economic ramifications, it seems prudent to explore the justification behind such a response.

I think you put the cart before the horse here. This paper isn't conditioning the science of the issue on the politics of it, it's conditioning the political response to the issue on the evidence on the issue. Politics is involved, and that never lends well to clarity, but it's not quite what you think.


By Andy35W on 12/19/2007 8:41:24 AM , Rating: 2
>Since there is still debate over AGW, it's natural to weigh the costs and benefits of each course of action against how likely AGW is. Only then, can a truly informed decision on how to respond to the evidence be made.

It's a branch of probability and statistics called Decision Theory, and it's used everyday in a variety of situations, including economics, which are an integral part of the quality of human life. This is something that is generally considered when making public policy decisions.

Scientists regularly address the implications of their findings and offer suggestion on how to proceed in publications. Since the decision to reduce CO2 emissions would have widespread economic ramifications, it seems prudent to explore the justification behind such a response.

I think you put the cart before the horse here. This paper isn't conditioning the science of the issue on the politics of it, it's conditioning the political response to the issue on the evidence on the issue. Politics is involved, and that never lends well to clarity, but it's not quite what you think. <


"Since there is still debate over AGW, it's natural to weigh the costs and benefits of each course of action against how likely AGW is."

No, that is not how science works, science works by explaining what is actually happening, it should not be tied to it being truthful only if it is worthwhile paying for.

Science should not care about the quality of human life, neither should scientists care how science is then used, as long as what they have presented is scientifically true.

So these so called scientists should not be using a financial argument against global warming they should be presenting a scientific side against it. But no, they use the financial argument because they know the financial side is a worry to a lot of the general public. So it's financial scare mongering more than a rational scientific letter.


By Socalledscientist on 12/21/2007 4:38:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'm one of the supposed "scientists" who in fact signed the letter.

(No I am not making this up. I'm not a "dismal" scientist either - i.e., an economist.)

At this point, I really think I'm more of an idealist than a scientist to endorse the viewpoint that myself and 105 others had.

That viewpoint being, it would cause a lot of people harm if governments carried out actions that may have been planned with good intentions, but in fact would cause a lot of harm to people least able to withstand those actions.

As with anything else, it is always those on the bottom floor of society who pay the most in proportion to what they have to simply exist within that society.

Similarly, a lot of people in developing countries who would like a little better living standard are told told by the UN, in a manner almost worthy of a caste system, sorry, you're going nowhere, because you'll create catastrophe for everybody else.

It's not fair. It's not fair to do that to somebody for what I took about two years to prove to myself - its impossible for people to do anything to the global climate - whether it's with CO2 or bad intentions or anything else.

So I walked my own talk, and signed the letter

I'd do it gain in a heatbeat!


Oooh, I am scared
By Shuxclams on 12/13/2007 9:48:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
when in reality only a "small core writing team" was responsible for the report text.


14,000 Scientists leave the writing to only a few people! It's obviously a fraud! I say it isn't real until all 14,000 write 500 words each and then submit the report.

SHUX




RE: Oooh, I am scared
By grenableu on 12/14/2007 2:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
Where in the world do you get this "14,000 scientists" figure? There's only a handful of scientists actually involved in the report.


RE: Oooh, I am scared
By clovell on 12/14/2007 3:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
A scientist unwilling to write 500 words is hardly a scientist at all. Nice try.


The Full Letter
By porkpie on 12/14/2007 12:25:21 PM , Rating: 5
The full letter itself is even more damning. Here's another part of it.
quote:
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

- Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

- The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

- Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.




Fat Americans
By hubajube on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
Idiocracy
By Sleeperman on 12/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: Idiocracy
By GeorgeOrwell on 12/17/2007 7:58:52 PM , Rating: 1
And this matters?

I don't see anything that says "Idiocracy matters".

You are full of it.


And this talks about technology how?
By lifeblood on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: And this talks about technology how?
By Andy35W on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: And this talks about technology how?
By clovell on 12/17/2007 2:50:30 PM , Rating: 3
> Of course, the twist here is that normally the writer for DailyTech would be pro-tech, but this blog tends towards the Luddite theory, flat earth, King Canute, name it what you want, of rejecting the mass of scientific and technical evidence and instead cherry picking the odd bit here and there as would a creationist or similar in regards to the Bible.

So, Mr. Asher is 'cherry-picking' the IPCC's now-famous and oft-quoted report? Next time try facts and figures, rather than rhetoric.

Questioning current scientific consensus is a big part of science - see Einstein, Hilbert, Galileo, etc.


RE: And this talks about technology how?
By Andy35W on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
By clovell on 12/18/2007 11:39:29 AM , Rating: 2
So, Mathematicians don't count as scientists? Hilbert's ideas released geometric terms like 'point', 'line', and 'plane' from their traditional definitions and generalized them to the point where we could move beyond Euclidean geometry onto more advanced mathematics.

As for the cause of climate change, most of the change seems to lie within the bounds of natural variation. Even if that were not the case, though, I wouldn't jump on the CO2 bandwagon just because the people who disagree with AGW via CO2 can't agree on an alternative.

For cherry-picking, this particular article isn't about some obscure paper or research - it directly relates to the IPCC's report.

As for facts, I was driving at a couple - the IPCC report is not obscure, and neither is the news that surrounds it - Hilbert, Einstein, and Galileo all questioned existing trends in science and moved science forward.


RE: And this talks about technology how?
By lifeblood on 12/17/2007 6:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
Propaganda, as defined by the US Military Civil Affairs people back in the early 90's, was "Telling the truth in a way that is favorable to your position." This includes picking and choosing which facts to present. Both Mr. Gore and Mr. Asher are guilty of this.

Mr. Gore likes to throw around the "100m rise in the ocean surface" scenario, a very remote and absolutely worst case scenario.

Mr Asher likes to blog only about articles either against global warming or against man doing anything about it, ignoring anything in favor of it. For instance, in his 9 August blog Mr. Asher discusses a report of an error in NASA's data, making 1998 only the second warmest year on record rather than the first as was previously reported. Later, In his Sept 13 article, he reports that the University of Illinois has calculated sea ice in the southern ocean is at it's maximum recorded extent. However, a few days later the University found an error in their algorithm and wrote a correction reporting that it was not at it's maximum. Although I have not read all Mr. Asher's blogs, I do not believe Mr. Asher made any mention of this fact or issued a correction.

In short, Mr. Asher only uses facts that support his stance, and ignores opposing facts. Worse, he ignores errors in his facts (something he accuses NASA of doing). Hypocrasy and propaganda.

In techno-speak, I guess that makes Mr. Asher is an anti-global-warming fanboy.


RE: And this talks about technology how?
By clovell on 12/18/2007 11:46:47 AM , Rating: 2
I didnt know that. I'm trying to find a link to read about it, but Mr. Asher's September 13 blog entry didn't include a link to the University of Illinois research. I don't suppose you'd have one handy, then?


RE: And this talks about technology how?
By lifeblood on 12/18/2007 12:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Unfortunately the site does not keep its old posts so the original announcement plus its retraction are now gone. I searched the internet for cached copies or something and could find no reference to it. Kinda shoddy for a academic research web site. However, the site is probably run by overworked and underpaid grad students (something I once was) so I can't be too harsh on them.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2007 4:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
The site did indeed retract their claim a couple of weeks after my blog posting. However, the adjustment was very minor, and the overall trend for Southern Hemisphere sea ice is still increasing.

For anyone who believes there was any intent to deceive, I offer my apologies, however this was not the case. Their correction was widely publicized-- even many news organizations which didn't find the original claim newsworthy (such as CNN's environmental section) found space to print the retraction, so it certainly wasn't worth repeating it again here.

My column is intended as a counterpoint for environmental news which is *not* typically covered by the mainstream media. Parroting the same news stories here is not what it's ever been about.


By clovell on 12/17/2007 3:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
As was mentioned, how data are collected and analyzed are each a very large aspect of how technology advances.


RE: And this talks about technology how?
By onelittleindian on 12/17/2007 5:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
A statement by 100 scientists has nothing to do with science? I don't even want to know what distorted logic path you used to arrive at that conclusion.


By lifeblood on 12/17/2007 6:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
An article on Technology would talk about the equipment used to collect the data, or computers used to run the statistical analysis, or maybe even the analysis itself. But about a letter written in protest of it's conclusions? No, that is not technology.


By HueyD on 12/14/2007 8:55:25 AM , Rating: 3
Remember... the debate is "Man-made" global warming. If it is proven that we (man) are not responsible for global warming and that it is a normal cycle the earth has repeated over the last million years or so, then they will not be able control world governments. It's all about "who has the power and control", "Man-made global warming" is just a means to get it.


By novacthall on 12/14/2007 9:38:10 AM , Rating: 3
To quote Brian, the family dog, from Family Guy: "Can I buy weed from you?"


By andrewsdw on 12/14/2007 7:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
I see someone has read "The Creature from Jekyll Island"


By ziggo on 12/14/2007 9:53:36 PM , Rating: 1
I certainly prefer having a "worthless" piece of paper that is a symbol of some amount of value to trying to convince my grocer that an engineering drawing is worth hundreds of dollars. If said drawing contains sensitive material then I lose my job...


By maverick85wd on 12/17/2007 2:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why you got rated down, I think you had a good point


By JAB on 12/19/2007 2:16:26 AM , Rating: 1
GeorgeOrwell you have some valid ideas but you are so overstating your point of view on others that you sound like part of the tin hat brigade. Not everything is a conspiracy sometimes it is just simple opportunism.


By MrTeal on 12/14/2007 10:50:11 AM , Rating: 2
The worst kind of hippie, the college know-it-all hippie.

"We just spent our first semester at college, and our professors opened our eyes."


By T4RTER S4UCE on 12/14/2007 12:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's the evil corporations man.


By Ringold on 12/14/2007 3:01:13 PM , Rating: 1
College is a breeding ground for liberals, but that's waaay beyond that. Even Ron Paul would blush; he's a gold-standard nut, but this guy also mixes in a tinge of communism.

It's possible if he were at a European college, he actually could be getting exposed to real-life communist professors, but in America, it'd be unlikely to have more then one, if any.

Regardless.. Anyone that's read the Communist Manifesto and combined it with the myriad of online conspiracy websites dealing with the international currency system could repeatedly post what he does. He rails against the organization of our means of production, just like Marx, and against the dollar, just like Ron Paul. He's a.. Parxist.

Gold bugs of the world, unite.


By grenableu on 12/14/2007 3:03:31 PM , Rating: 1
Don't knock Ron Paul main...


By onwisconsin on 12/15/2007 7:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, liberal arts colleges are designed to make you conservative, closed-minded and make you follow the crowd :P


By clovell on 12/15/2007 1:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
Truth isn't as simple as three bullet points. And, you're not presenting facts, you're presenting unsubstantiated and far-fetched theories - hard to argue against something so ephemeral as that, and honestly not worth taking the time to do it.

It's not that you're right; it's that you're not worth the effort.


By sweetsauce on 12/15/2007 2:38:08 PM , Rating: 1
Anyone with half a brain who does some research would see hes telling the truth. Its ok though, its much better for us sheeple to argue amongst ourselves instead of dealing with the real facts.


By TomZ on 12/15/2007 3:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
What facts? Go ahead, get us "half-brainers" started with some links that prove the OP's point.

I think the OP is, like you, just spewing bullsh!t.


By clovell on 12/15/2007 4:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
Now you're just being a jackass. You come in, and without presenting a single shred of evidence, start hurling insults at people who disagree with you. How convincing.


By GeorgeOrwell on 12/16/2007 5:40:43 AM , Rating: 1
I am merely showing you a door. It is up to you to decide to open it and go through it, to explore what is on the other side.

If you are ignorant of how the money system of the world works, go ahead and learn of it. It is not secret although parts of it are difficult to uncover.

"Who owns what?" is perhaps the most interesting question that you can spend time on. If you answer this question, fully and completely, you will experience the greatest enlightenment of your life.


By rdeegvainl on 12/17/2007 7:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
Watch a little much Matrix lately.
If we are ignorant, then please link us the information you speak of?

""Who owns what?" is perhaps the most interesting question that you can spend time on. If you answer this question, fully and completely, you will experience the greatest enlightenment of your life."

You mean, if we come to the same conclusion as you. You mean nothing of answering fully and completely, you have completely written out all other possibilities, you have closed your own mind, and have denied any possible rational rebuttal, and discourse, by not supporting what you have spewed.

You seem to be scared that, others when presented the same information you have, won't believe as you do. You don't flesh out your information, just make vague statements and tell others to "open the door and go through it." Kind of nice when you can write of all disagreement, and just think to yourself, "if only they knew."

But when you are ready to state something and back it up, I will be here, I will be waiting to look at what you have to offer, and make my own decision. Cause my own decision is what I own. Not you, not Masher, or Jason, or dailytech.


By BAFrayd on 12/18/2007 9:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
You want facts? Here you go. Watch and become enlightened to the truth. The only question is: "Are you capable of being objective?"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560...


By GeorgeOrwell on 12/16/2007 5:16:29 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for the compliment and the kind wishes.

"Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained." -- Mohandas Gandhi


By BBeltrami on 12/17/2007 11:01:03 AM , Rating: 2
Since you like quotes, here are two of my favorites:

"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."

- Professor Richard Lindzen, MIT
---------------
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice."

- Dogbert, The Green Consultant


By GeorgeOrwell on 12/17/2007 8:06:32 PM , Rating: 1
The quote from the scientist on the big industry payroll is a good one. Replace caring about the planet with the fear of losing the industrial age.

Maybe you wouldn't have a car, but you'd be healthy, live until 120 years old, work a reasonable number of hours, and live a happy life.

Dogbert's quote is another big industry motto. It is a perfect match for Google. Screw the people out of nice lightbulbs so big companies can build more datacenters. Yeah, that sounds like a good deal.

But, yes, two good quotes ;-)


By dever on 12/21/2007 12:23:15 AM , Rating: 2
"big industry payroll" = money earned by providing private, citizen-approved and consumer-sponsered business with useful information.

The alternative? Researchers/"scientists" living off of government grants stolen under threat of imprisonment from taxpaying citizens, spewing feel-good, politically charged papers that increase there chances of getting their next grant.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki