weather

You mean, from the guy that wrote "The Flat Earth" and persuaded CEO's everywhere that moving their jobs from here to there was a good thing, and thereby wasted billions of dollars? Sorry, I have learned better.

Charlie

It's not going to work in Iraq. Our knee-jerk reactions only take a brief time to kick us in the face. Look at our national deficit. Look at how we have wasted both money and lives fighting the latest version of the Crusades. Ideological wars are perhaps popular, but never produce anything but grief.

The Iraq invasion is/was an abomination and we already have paid for it to the extent that it has needlessly killed and maimed far too many of the bravest and most dedicated Americans and Iraqis, and has bankrupt us, and we will pay, pay, pay and continue to pay for it into the future, at a time when we need desperately to invest into solutions for global warming, health care, social security, and our future viability as a nation.

Read some history. It goes back to the Crusades. Military invasion cannot transform untenable foreign cultures and religions. It's not our call. And how did we ever think it was so? 9/11 was the most effective strike against this country, EVER. Pearl Harbor ranks second. Shame on us for letting those bastards manipulate our will and our resolve and our thinking and our strategies. Please, don't let them get away with this. Think! You have a brain and an education. Use them.

Was WWII an ideological war for the US? I think it was. I think FDR and America took sides because it was the right thing to do.

I've read a lot of history, including some about the Crusades. I especially like Barbara Tuchman's book, A Distant Mirror.

Military invasion cannot

It worked in Japan. It has a good chance in Iraq.

It's not our call. And

Our call? Is it our call to do nothing about mega-death genocides, starvation, disease? Do we respect the soverign governments of Pol Pot Cambodia and Rwanda and Zimbabwe?

You seem to think that your brain works better than mine.

Disagree.

John

| >> And, according to my tomato plants this year, it's the worst La Nina | >> since | >> 1994. | >>

| >> That's the whole problem with looking at the weather and dismissing | >> global | >> warming. | >

| > Nobody's dismissing the fact that the climate changes - only the | > assertion that it's caused by humans. | | | Sure Rich, but what about the rate of change - decades is a VERY short | period in terms of climate systems / evolution. | | | | >

| > Fer crissakes, the planet's been warming and cooling since before there | > even _were_ people! | >

| > Cheers! | > Rich | >

| |

Well the Younger Dryas was an abrupt change, over a decade. And most of use we not around.

Cheers

No, AGW was not debunked in SED.

SED does have a lot of political postings, and a lot of them on AGW, and a lot of those attempting to "debunk" existence of AGW. Problem is, most of those of any actual substance had their substance debunked.

Had_CRUT-3, whether annual figures or average of 12 monthly figures for each year or smoothed roughly over 5 years, is not debunked.

Nor is the lower troposphere temperature "channel", or most-global-determined by RSS data thereof. (Excludes areas within 8.5 degrees of the poles or whatever it is that the satellites don't sense well, and areas with elevation above most of the "lower troposphere" - 3 km or whatever.)

Postings arguing against existence of a modern global warming trend are what were debunked more than existence of a modern global warming trend.

Postings against contention that the modern global warming trend is anthropogenic have fared poorly in debate. Such as usage of easily-provably-severely-wrong numbers from the mhieb site, similar to usage of a major bad number used in the "swindle movie". As in faring poorly in debate after claiming that modern global warming is the cause and not the result of the modern rise in atmospheric content of greenhouse gases, or that atmospheric CO2 content increaased more than human activity contributed (it actually increased less but increased).

Preponderance of spouting by one side does not mean that the more-spouting side debunked the other side.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Germany, Italy, Austria, and Japan were hardly uncivilized! Granted, they had been seriously led astray by their politicians. Not wholly unlike the USA today, in fact. If Germany started a war in 1939, it was more because they were *excluded* from sharing the world's wealth. Fortunately, the allied forces did not make that error a second time. Civilization is transmitted by trade and treaty, not by brute force.

Here is a citation from Hermann Goering, from his trial after the end of WWII.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it's the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

... and indeed, it works. Over and over again.

Jeroen Belleman

Ovens? Lethal medical experiments on prisoners? Starvation camps? Blitzkreig attacks on countries who had done nothing, even been allies? Mass murder and mass graves? Genocide? Death marches? Total War?

You call that civilized? When the whole population joins in, enthusiastically, to slaughter those they consider to be genetically inferior? Having airplanes and tanks doesn't make a culture "civilized."

Granted,

The Japanese were. The German people *created* the politicians.

Not wholly

Excuse me, but that's obscene. The US has spent trillions to revive Europe and Japan, even Germany. And the US is the major supporter of the UN and independent/voluntary charities around the world. And whether you approve of the invation in Iraq, it has been a cost, not a plunder, and we are trying to set up an independent democracy, not a colonial vassel state.

If Germany started a war in 1939, it

"Sharing the world's wealth", as in attacking France, Poland, Belgium, Russia, and hauling off all the good stuff?

If people act like fat sheep, they will be herded, and they may get some very unsavory herders.

John

I agree with you, John. Soon he will be telling you to 'up your meds', and 'seek mental health care'. That's his M.O.

All the 'Chicken Littles' came out of hiding just long enough to elect THEIR leader. :(

Just wait till they discover it was all lies & political deceit.

My point was, of course, that they wouldn't have done that if they hadn't been economically suffocated.

I do not deny that atrocious things were done, unworthy of a civilized community. You must admit however that any population contains within it elements that can easily be pushed into unsavory behaviour, and that war provides plenty of opportunity for them to come out. What happened at Abu Ghraib Prison wasn't very civilized either, albeit on a tiny scale as compared to what happened in WWII.

It's also true that the allies, and the US in particular, put the European economy back on the rails after WWII. Yes, we are grateful for that, but that doesn't mean that we should shut up and swallow anything the US may force upon the world.

Iraq is a different matter. You weren't welcome there, and it shows. And the pretext for going there was a pitiful and scandalous manipulation of public opinion. And it demonstrates the truth of Hermann Goering's assertion.

Jeroen Belleman

Or telling him not to think, as he advised that student in the windmill thread. Odd, for a teacher, of all people, to say that.

Cheers, James Arthur

I wonder what he taught. It couldn't have been anything "hard."

John

Why "share" (ie, plunder) the world's wealth, when you can create your own? And even better, give some of it away.

The US was in its Great Depression, and things were terrible, but we didn't attack Mexico or Canada. Nor did we announce that it was our genetic right to do so. Nor did we poke the "undesirables" of our own population into gas chambers and ovens.

Have you no ability or desire to condemn true horrors? Is your sense of morality so ac-coupled that everything becomes morally equivalent?

You seem to be defending the undefendable, a horror that killed 50e6 people or so, in grim and ghastly ways, and set the world back decades. Why?

John

Noise.

Cheers! Rich

True - it was thoroughly debunked in the 1970's.

Cheers! Rich

No, it's always bad - it's just that when the invaders have killed off enough of the invadees, the invaders "win", and call it "good".

Thanks, Rich

Think of it this way: We are adding a dye to the atmosphere that makes it change shade, in a color that we can't see. And we're increasing it at a rate of 0.4% a year.

Hill and Knowlton own your soul. I've got a URL for you.

Mark Zenier snipped-for-privacy@eskimo.com Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

Only if we kill off enough of them that our "friends" outnumber the ones who never wanted us there in the first place.

Thanks, Rich

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:21:14 +0100, Jeroen Belleman wrote: [snip]

I dont think so! - you need to roll the clock back to WWI and follow the time line. The Treaty of Versailles aim was to contain the country's military power and left Germany in a strong industrial, territorial and economic position.