0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 03:54 pm
Ican's courage of intellect should really be legendary. He does not let mere facts stand in his way.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 03:55 pm
McTag is an expert in recognising such: just being an a second seminar about this topic within one week (in Germany now, after attending the previous in London last weekend) Laughing
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 04:14 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
take a deep breath ican.
sit down
just think about what you say for a while
the IPCC is a bunch of amateurs? is that it?

so who, apart obviously from ican711, do or would you recognise as expert in this field?


I just edited my previous post to answer your question. Please re-read it to get your answer.

Also please re-study the simple graph in the wikipedia reference to which you previously referred.

It only plots Global mean surface temperatures 1856-2004. That is, it only plots Temperature Activity vesus Time. It does not plot Temperatue Activity versus Solar Radiation Intensity or even versus CO2 density in the atmosphere. All we can conclude is that the earth's suface temperature has been warming warming since 1856. We cannot conclude why it is warming. From that graph we cannot even estimate the magnitude of the correlation (e.g., slight, some, or high) between CO2 density over time with suface temperature activity over time.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 04:23 pm
Oh, now I guess I get it! I'm contradicting your religion! Your faith is admirable but misplaced. But why should you be any different than most castroites (i.e., my label for those who think different people should be governed by different rules)?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 04:59 pm
RUBBING IT IN (from the same wikipedia reference):
Quote:
Opponents of the global warming theory
Some of the most visible opponents of the global warming theory from within the scientific community have been

Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Services at the University of Virginia
Robert Balling of Arizona State University
Sherwood B. Idso of the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory [5] (http://www.uswcl.ars.ag.gov/)
S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ross McKitrick
Bjørn Lomborg
Petr Beckmann (anti-global warming treaties)
Lester Hogan (anti-global warming treaties)
Frederick Seitz (anti-global warming treaties, accepts the temperature rise as real, but not yet properly explained)
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 04:15 am
You will always find a few contrarians. Some are paid large consultancy fees by oil companies, some presumably like Ican are not.

But the consensus view among the world's leading climatologists is that global warming is caused primarily by increased concentration in atmospheric CO2 and that that increase is anthropogenic.

And you can keep your insulting remarks about what you think is my religion to yourself.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 04:33 am
ican711nm wrote:
But why should you be any different than most castroites (i.e., my label for those who think different people should be governed by different rules)?


You mean those folks who "engage" China on its communism because they don't want to lose out on the big bucks but then hypocritically bully little Cuba; you mean people like that, right, icanbeahypocritetoo?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 04:49 am
thanks JTT

i had no idea what ican was on about

What a hero Fidel Castro is.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 04:58 am
The temptation to succumb, and attempt to address the idiocy which passes for thought on the part of that individual is strong, i know, i succumb to it as well. But really, Steve, we all ought to know better.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 05:26 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:


What a hero Fidel Castro is.


Do you mean that seriously?

In fact he is just a tired old tyrant who has for 45 years abused his people and country to satisfy his own ego and sense of self-importance. He will die soon, and hs regime will crumble, leaving a Cuba that is a social, economic, and political basket case. A generation or more will have to pass before the delusions he has propogated will wash out of the population and Cubans will begin to produce and decide for themselves again.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 05:36 am
It's a shame that this thread got waylaid by the discussion on climate change though it is incredibly interesting in and of itself.

[Blatham, back in those middle pages, around 7 or 8, was so dead on track, it was scary. I feel, though I may well be wrong, that some papered over those pages as fast as they possibly could.]

The Wikipedia material is awfully interesting and my opinion as to whether GWing is being caused by us is obviously of little consequence but there are a number of reputable contrarians.

I don't offer the following as conclusive proof, but I will suggest that there have been any number of times in history when the majority of scientists have been spectacularly wrong.

==================

http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_29c.html

The phrase "scientific consensus" suggests something approaching unanimous agreement among scientists. However even a rudimentary survey of scientific literature reveals there to be very little agreement on the subject of climate change. The unfortunate and inaccurate characterization of consensus is used as a rhetorical bludgeon of skeptics and is the basis of a push for industrialized nations to "do something" to reduce the atmosphere's greenhouse gas concentration.
==================

Maybe the perceived effects for our own little corner of the world cause us to be lean rabidly one way or t'other.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 06:08 am
Quote:
Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan

Monday, May 09, 2005

8 US Servicemen Killed Over Weekend

The NYT reports that guerrillas killed 8 US servicemen in separate incidents over the weekend. On Sunday, bombings in Samarra and Khalidiya killed 3 US servicemen. In Haditha on Saturday, guerrillas attacked and captured a hospital, killing 3 US Marines and a sailor when the US attempted to take it back.

What is going on in Sunni Iraqi cities, which might account for this violence (which is typically reported curtly and in a shadowy fashion by the US military and American press)? Al-Zaman has a report today (it gives joint credit to Reuters and AFP) that might shed some light on it. Al-Zaman says Ramadi and some of the towns around it were gripped by a civil rebellion on the part of virtually all the townspeople on Saturday and Sunday. It comes in response to the Friday prayers sermons in the city's mosques and calls by the city's clergy, who called for a strike to protest against the US encirclement of the city and against what they called random arrests, which have resulted in the imprisonment of many young men of Ramadi. Everyday life has ground to a standstill. The streets are empty of passers-by, shops are shuttered, and bazaars are closed. Schools, universities and government offices are likewise closed. The US military has addressed the population with loudspeakers mounted on cars, calling on them to end the civil strike and to refuse to obey the armed militias in their midst.

The council of Sunni clergy in the city spread around a pamphlet that complained that ever since the US occupied the city, virtue and honor no longer had any value. The practices of the illegal Occupation were aimed at achieving its illegitimate aims, from daily killings to attacks and round-ups to the imprisonment of free persons in a forest of jails. The latest outrage was the encirclement of the city, cutting it off and isolating it from its environment through barricades, such that all have been grievously harmed. It called on townspeople to protest these practices with a two-day strike over the weekend

If the Al-Zaman report is at all accurate, it suggests that the counter-insurgency campaign in Ramadi to date is a political failure, whatever its tactical successes.

The Washington Post says that US military commanders are putting more emphasis now on combating the foreign jihadis. Seems to me like they should begin with making friends of Ramadi and Mosul, instead.


Source
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 06:18 am
Quote:
On Saturday, Guerrillas in Baghdad targeted a convoy of vehicles of the sort used by notables with a massive bomb that tossed armored SUVs about like toys, and left 29 dead and 54 wounded, as a small mushroom cloud billowed into the sky. Two American security guards were among the dead. A school bus also appears to have suffered damage, but the casualties among the school children had not been reported when this Tribune story was filed.

Few commentators, when they mention such news, point out the obvious. The United States military does not control Baghdad. It doesn't control the major roads leading out of the capital. It does not control the downtown area except possibly the heavily barricaded "green zone." It does not control the capital. The guerrillas strike at will, even at Iraqi notables who can afford American security guards (many of them e.g. ex-Navy Seals). If the US military does not control the capital of a country it conquered, then it controls nothing of importance. Ipso facto, Iraq is a failed state.

Responsibility for the attack was claimed by Mesopotamian al-Qaeda, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. [As readers know, I think the Baathists and old Iraqi military are behind most of these attacks, not Zarqawi.] A pamphlet attributed to Zarqawi is circulating in Baghdad, according to al-Hayat, that threatens an attack on the American homeland. The pamphlet was distributed at Friday prayers at several mosques in Baghdad. The pamphlets called for a jihad or holy war against the Americans and the new Iraqi security forces. One said, "The infidels can expect nothing from us save the sounds of weapons and explosions, until they depart from our land and leave us to live in accordance with our Holy Law. And we shall chase them to their land, so that they will pay the poll tax as a subject population."

0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 06:37 am
"But really, Steve, we all ought to know better."

Smile


....but its SO


.....yeah ok
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 07:03 am
US taxpayer dollars converted to Bremer Bucks yield?

Quote:
Former ministers flee as Iraq begins corruption inquiry
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
09 May 2005


Former Iraqi ministers are fleeing the country because of reports that the new administration may prevent them going abroad while accusations of corruption are being investigated.

The incoming government of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who completed his cabinet yesterday, has pledged to fight pervasive corruption among officials. The outgoing administration of Iyad Allawi was regarded as highly corrupt by Iraqis.

Officials say that some former ministers have left Iraq in the past few days because they fear they will be detained if they try to leave later. "I have heard that [the government] are considering preventing any minister of the former government leaving the country," said Adnan Pachachi, a former foreign minister and veteran political leader. The new administration is able to do this under emergency legislation introduced by Mr Allawi.

Iraqi businessmen say that since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein the government machinery has become corrupt. "I am thinking of pulling out of business entirely in Iraq," said one businessman. "Officials at every level demand bribes just to do their jobs so there is no profit left for my company at the end of the day."
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 07:04 am
JTT found this

"However even a rudimentary survey of scientific literature reveals there to be very little agreement on the subject of climate change. The unfortunate and inaccurate characterization of consensus is used as a rhetorical bludgeon of skeptics..."

Which seems eminently reasonable until you remember that just the same sort of reasoning was used by the tobacco companies to cast doubt on the link between smoking and lung cancer.

The vested interests here are far more powerful.

I think climate change will hit future generations very hard. And I also think there are no practical measures we can take to stop it.

George

Fidel a hero? Not really i was more of a Che Guevara fan in my youth. Although you have to admire a man who can smoke all those cigars without one blowing up.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 07:20 am
What i find ironic is the continued insistence that people are so badly off in Cuba and that theirs lives will be immeasurably better without him. While the latter may be true, i think it an exageration. It seems the right has quickly forgotten Fulgencio Batista and what a nightmare daily life was for Cubans then. Things were so obviously bad that the world initially lionized Castro for ridding Cuba of the Batista regime.

Castro has given the Cubans much better medical care than they had previously had. As they had had no medical care under Batista, that actually would not be much of an accomplishment. That Cubans are able to get any medical care at all, in the face of the poverty imposed on that island by the obsessive American embargo is an accomplishment. The Castro regime has also raised literacy dramatically. Although i have no brief to defend Castro, and do actually think that Cubans will be better off when he is gone, my assessment is based on the likely outcome of a lifting of the American embargo which might result. Given the American track record for displaying a genuine and effective concern for the lot of the common man and woman in Latin America over the last two centuries, the conservative righteousness over Castro has the stench of an old-fashioned outhouse which has been overturned.

Haiti
the Dominican Republic
Nicaragua
Puerto Rico
Mexico
El Salvador
Panama . . .

Just a few of the Latin American nations which have benefited so much from the gentle, civilizing influence of the United States.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 07:26 am
Poverty in Cuba has not been "imposed by an American embargo". I am surprised to see Setanta reciting that nonsense.

Cuba has nothing much to sell to other countries, little money with which to buy the products of others, and it does not produce enough to meet its own meeds. Hard to blame all that on an embargo. The usual response is we hurt them by refusing to lend them money. However they have no basis on which to promise repayment, and their stated policy is to bite the hand that would feed them.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 07:34 am
Cuba's source of significant foreign exchange before Castro was tourism and gambling casinos. The American embargo has assured that the huge tourism industry which previously made Batista and his cronies rich while ordinary Cubans lived in near starvation has now withered on the vine. When you drive through Toronto, you see huge billboards advertising Cuba as a freindly tourist destination. I have not the least doubt that the advertising money thus spent is more than repaid by Canadians who greatly enjoy their tourist experiences in Cuba.

Absent an embargo, it is unlikely that Cuba would have to wait for long for a flood of American tourists eager to enjoy tropical beaches at bargain basement prices.

O'George, really, i have as much right to recite my "nonsense" as you do yours.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 07:44 am
A friend of mine is looking very well after 3 weeks in Cuba. I said so you dont want to visit the States any time soon?

He said they dont stamp your passport for that reason..

Anyway he prefers Cuba.

And the Beueno Vista Social Club is good too
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 10:12:10