Because it just demonstrates to all that you are really not very reliable, or the sources that you use can pass snake oil to you and you do not mind.
But that is not a biggie, the biggie is that you demonstrate also that you are not willing to accept that you could be wrong, and learn from your mistakes.
BTW, care to reply about how wrong you were regarding the history about the discovery of global warming?
As far as the Jefferson quote, it has been widely be attributed to him. I have seen it in reputable documentaries, many websites and even a few books. You may be right that it is commonly mis attributed to Jefferson, that is entirely possible. If so, I am certainly not the first person to make that mistake.
I never said I was perfect in every link I post or quote I make in a thread totaling 160 replies. If I make a mistake I am happy to admit to it. It hardly changes my overall point, however. Jefferson was very vocal about his opposition to a central bank and his warnings of the danger bankers pose to the Republic. This is well established history.
As far as a Gold Standard is concerned, Keynesian economists don’t favor a return to a Gold Standard. Austrian economists (you know, the ones who correctly predicted the Great Depression, Stagflation in the 1970s, the Stock Market crash of a decade ago, and the Recent Meltdown in 2008 years before anyone else) DO favor a return to the gold standard. Do you know that from the Revolution through 1913 the dollar actually increased in value 7%? Since then the dollar has lost 96% of its value.
By the way, that is a pretty weak link to dispute the wisdom of the gold standard. Why don’t you read some Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayak, Henry Hazlit or other great Austrian economists? That will dispel any notion of Keynesian economics being the right policy. It will also explain why central economic planning always fails. A Gold Standard would protect the savers, limit the government and prevent inflation. It would also ensure liberty. Why would you not be for those things?
I don’t think its a conspiracy theory. I think plans for world government exist, are being implemented continually and they are very open about this. It is not some secretive, sinister plot. Why is it so hard for you to see this? As I’ve said before, don’t just take my word for it, do some research about global government and see if there is any credible information pertaining to that topic.
On a different note, even if you are not convinced, would you support a vigilant public determined to maintain national sovereignty and an independent government that is elected by the people rather than taking orders from off shore bankers and corporate leaders? Would you agree that it is something we should resist (at least in theory?). Did you read the draft treaty? Why not actually read it. Its right there in the body of that document. I find it funny that you can run your mouth all day about a document you haven’t even read. Just like health care reform or any other bill that is voted on domestically. Nobody ever reads them. If someone actually does and points out what dangerous and harmful things it contains are written off as conspiracy theorists and fear mongers. Yet they are the only truly informed people on this issue. That appears to be the case here. You would rather put your head in the sand and deny reality when those of us who have actually read to bills being proposed and the legislation coming down the pike actually know the contents and the implications of these things. Wise up man.
Meh, I already pointed you to one of the most sourced articles about the history of the discovery of global warming that showed how wrong you were regarding who really fought and won against the scientific establishment and so far no hint of an acknowledgment. Same for the level of acceptance scientists actually have for AGW.
The reality is that everybody else can see who is putting his head in the sand.
Note that America grew even more wealthy after the Federal Reserve was established in 1913.
A good, short, unbiased account of the political history of the central-banking idea in America up to the Fed’s creation is in The Money Men: Capitalism, Democracy, and the Hundred Years’ War Over the American Dollar, by H.W. Brands.
Curious that you’d need to link to a blog containing the draft. Why not just post a link to the draft itself on the United Nations website? But that’s neither here nor there. I freely admit that I’m not going to bother reading all 181 pages but I skimmed it and with some help from my browser’s search function I’ve verified the following: (1) Contrary to your claim about it mentioning an “international police force”, it says nothing about any police force. (2) Contrary to your claim about “massive new taxes”, it says very little about taxes, and clearly states that carbon taxes are just one of many options that might be considered. (3) Contrary to your claim that it demands 700 new bureaucracies, it says nothing of the sort. (4) Contrary to your claim that it would establish one world government, it does nothing of the sort. Hence every claim you made about what’s in the treaty is flat, out-and-out untrue. Moreover, you original said that the treaty “is ready to be signed”, but now you’ve admitted that you were wrong about tht as well. There was no Copenhagen treaty, so even if the draft said what you erroneously claimed, it wouldn’t matter because it was rejected. So your entire conspiracy theory is based on a document that is not and never was approved by anybody. Do you understand that this is why no one takes your conspiracy theory seriously, or do I need to explain it yet again?
Let me ask you a series of questions. (1) Do you understand the different between editorials and articles? (2) Do you understand that there’s no real standard for claims in editorials, and many of them are untrue? (3) Do you understand why posting a bunch of editorials is therefore a bad argument technique? Until you’re able to grasp the difference between editorials and articles, perhaps you should stop accusing me of being “uneducated” and “ignorant”.
I’ve already pointed out twice that these links are editorials, not articles. Were you hoping that I’d forgotten? Try harder.
What’s wrong with a standard world currency? I’ve already asked once and you didn’t answer. Why not? It’s not as if countries won’t maintain their own currencies. It’s merely a matter of not allowing the US government to deflate its currency. If you really believe all these batty conspiracy theories that you’re promoting, shouldn’t you be happy about that?
I’ve already explained that the draft of the Copenhagen Treaty says nothing of the sort, and that no actual treaty was passed at Copenhagen.
Well I do. Just look at post 85 of this thread. You posted two links to videos which you claimed were from “experts in the field” of “the global warming agenda”. Neither video had anything to do with global warming. The second video came from RONPAUL2012, the account (perhaps unofficial) for his Presidential bid, and featured him railing against all kinds of nutty, U.N.-related conspiracies. At roughly the 2-minute mark he declares that the Holocaust is a hoax. It’s perfectly understandable that after linking to something like that, you’d want to pretend that you didn’t. Unfortunately for you, your old posts stick around on this message board and anyone can read them.
He published a series of crazy newsletters full of racist and anti-semitic nonsense, he opposed the Civil Rights Act, he supports the gold standard, he believed in the NAFTA Superhighway, … need I go on? Suffice to say, he’s America’s Conspiracy Nut in Chief.
Saying things like this is going to backfire. If there’s a “large amount of content and facts backing up most of what you’re saying”, then linking to some of that content shouldn’t be difficult. If you can’t do so, I’ll just assume that it’s because no such content exists. As for the “credible people out there worried about world government”, name one of them and then we’ll talk. Please note the word “credible”; I don’t doubt that such people exist, but I doubt that they’re credible. Frankly, though, I’m not worried about you backing up your claims, when post 150 makes it pretty clear that you’d rather just called be uneducated and ignorant.
Eh? Countries with parliamentary systems, such as the UK and Canada, have at least as good a track record there.
:rolleyes: IF ONLY! If it’s all so open, why has nobody heard of it but you and some crackpot bloggers on the Alex Jones level?
I don’t think I ever disputed any articles about the history of the discovery of global warming. I DID make mention of Maurice Strong and the bankers who have financed much of the INTERNATIONAL organizations and the creation of the IPCC and UN involvement. This is separate from the science. I thought I made this very clear.
Do you recognize ANY significant disputes scientists have about global warming? If so, what are they? And, also, from your perspective, what is the “consensus” on the future effects on the planet if we do nothing? The most important aspect of this debate is not whether humans have an effect on global warming, but rather if that will lead to catastrophic changes to our climate. Some scientists believe an increase in Co2 will actually be beneficial to our climate. Also, what is the consensus of how much we could mitigate these effects, assuming we are having a serious negative impact on the planet? Some of the information I have seen claimed that if we were to reduce human emission of Co2 82% of 2005 levels, it would only effect change of less than 0.5% of 1 degree, statistically insignificant. These are the topics I would like to debate. They are the only aspects of this debate that actually matter.
Why don’t you give your opinions on these matters?
Yeah, but it was in spite of the Federal Reserve, not because of it. Also, the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression, allowed World War 1, our involvement in which directly caused the conditions that lead to Hitler taking power, which necessitated our involvement in world war 2. Growth and prosperity generally continued however up until Nixon closed the Gold window in 1971 and we embraced a complete Fiat currency. Our deficits skyrocketed, the corporations took over our government and our prosperity vanished. Now, what would have happened if we stayed on the Gold Standard? It would be like comparing the Flintstones to the Jetsons. Our standard of living would be so much higher, we would have a very low national debt, our government would be smaller and everything our politicians wanted would have to actually be funded. And we would not be continually at war. It would be night and day difference.
There is nothing wrong with posting editorials as well. I do it to establish that I am not the only one who has these concerns about the Copenhagen Treaty. Why would you object to me posting these links?
There is no need for a world currency. All nations should maintain there own currencies which should be based on Gold or tangible assets. We should stay out of international organizations like the IMF. They don’t serve our interests. I truly believe that bankers are the most dangerous people on the planet. We should strive to have transparency of our banking system. The problem is the internationalizing of banking power. If you control the money, you control the people and the government. If it becomes international, it gives way too much power to too few people. Also, these international bodies are not elected. I believe the dollar should be the peoples money, not subject to continual depreciation by a group of men in secret. You don’t acknowledge the validity of any of these arguments?
Okay, I will make the following concession. I shouldn’t have linked to those two videos, and the content does not represent my views. I have seen a few interviews with that man (George Hunt) and he apparently knew a lot about Maurice Strong and the agenda of the UN. He was actually an insider. However, the views expressed in those two videos were not in any way representative of my views. By the way in that post, I provided 21 links on a variety of topics. I just searched the name George Hunt (from an interview I saw elsewhere) and linked to two videos not having watched the entirety of both. An honest mistake, and I don’t think its worth bringing up over and over again.
First of all, he didn’t write those articles, he was not involved in politics AT ALL during that time, and he lent his name to a newsletter that hired and fired people he never met. The worst you could say about him is that he should have been more careful with what went on under his name. Nobody has ever heard Ron Paul say anything remotely racist or antisemetic in his life, so those are obviously not his views. The editor of those newsletters obviously desired to participate in race baiting tactics and should be harshly criticized for that.
Ron Paul didn’t oppose civil rights. He has stated many times that one of his personal heroes was Dr Martin Luther King Jr, who practiced civil disobedience to change oppressive laws and spur societal change. As far as the NAFTA Superhighway, there ARE plans for that. Why would you deny that? Ron Paul actually reads the bills that he votes on and pays attention to where the money is being appropriated. He sees funds being allocated for a highway, and plans to confiscate property through Eminent Domain. Why wouldn’t you believe in the NAFTA Superhighway, if you actually saw the explicit language saying it was planned? Come on.
As far as the Gold Standard and Ron Paul’s economic views, tell me why he was able to predict this economic crisis back in the year 2000, eight years before the crash? Why was he right about the economy? He warned us over and over again, and was ignored. We SHOULD go back on the gold standard. Why do you favor private banks looting the American taxpayer to line their own pockets or secretly bail out favored corporations? Think about what you are endorsing.
By the way, tell me what is wrong about Ron Paul’s economic predictions on September 10th, 2003,
*"As Paul saw the situation some five years ago, the government backing isolated GSE management from market discipline. If Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, he told the committee, investors would demand the institutions held to higher management and accounting practices.
“Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market,” Paul predicted. “This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.
“Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing,” Paul went on. “Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing."*
Sound right to me.
It seems like a waste of time to post link after link. Anything you don’t like will just be called not “credible”. You will just ignore everything that doesn’t fit your world view. I will give a few more, however:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst061305.htm
http://www.constitution.org/col/cuddy_nwo.htm
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/wfcvb/quotesdm.html
You know, apart from anything I have posted or any other website says, why doesn’t it intuitively make sense that there would be a push for world government by bankers and corporations as a consolidation of power? Just listen to the quotes by world leaders about global government. I cannot understand why it is so hard for you to accept the possibility of this being true.
Of course there are disputes, one of the CRU hack victims referred to the inadequacy of finding where exactly the heat caused by AGW is accumulating, mind you, he is not against the science, just that there is a lot of discussion on where and how to do a better job so they can go from general predictions to more specific ones, those ones that will indeed affect how nations will have to deal with the issue.
So AGW is taking place, but important questions about how serious the situation can get are still being discussed; that it will be serious, there is little doubt.
I’m already on record saying that I think it will be a problem depending on where you live.
Unfortunately most of the world is interconnected and trade is bound to the affected, meaning that indeed, we should do something about this.
Again, even I say that there will be advantages; unfortunately it is more likely that the bad will overcome the good.
Again, it would be good to stop all emissions, but no one claims that would be practical, once again “what to to about the problem” is not really much the realm of scientists, but politicians. And I do not have much faith in them.
That beneficial part is part of the reason many think a target of keeping this under an increase to 2 degrees is doable.
Because I already mentioned that skeptical link with the recommendation to read it and to not wring reheated baloney arguments again, you need to show that at least you understand where the scientists and me are coming from.
Cite?
:dubious: Not even you believe that.
How can a banking system “allow” a war? Diplomacy is not the responsibility of bankers.
How do you know any of that? Look around the world. What country has done that well by a gold standard?
What will happen if we do nothing?
There are a range of possibilities for the outcome. If no acceleration of the current trends were to occur, most of the serious consequences would affect semi-tropical and tropical inland regions, and low profile coastal regions including large river deltas. Since that describes the homes of about a quarter of the world’s population, it could be significant. Crop failure would become more common, if not endemic. Drought and flood would both increase, in differing areas, and species would find their habitat either moving northward, or shrinking drastically where northward movement was impossible. This century would probably see the dislocation of half a billion people from newly marginalized human habitable regions. It’s harder than we would like to predict the consequences, though, since the interactions of sea, and air currents are highly sensitive to initial conditions, and specific variations. We lack the computer power to be sure where, and by how much. But the changes would be dramatic, over decades, and cause a lot of economic hardships, malnutrition, and starvation. Those conditions tend to exacerbate human specific problems, like war, insurrection, civil disorder, and genocides.
That is the potential good news. The probability of no acceleration in the trends is pretty much discounted by most models, but rather the arguments abound about how much acceleration we can expect. The rates we have already are far larger than those that thawed out the ice ages of the past. Much of the life of that time never made the adjustment to that rate of change, and the probability that it could adjust to rates of change considerably faster are pure fantasy. Extinctions are very likely, and engineering the ecology is the biggest fantasy of all. Our historic performance in that field is distressing in costs and consequences, and uniformly meager in benefits.
And then there is the really bad news. If the ocean’s stop reaching four degrees Celsius in sufficient quantities, and regular intervals, which is one possible outcome of the acceleration range, the entire worlds oceans will become basically stagnant below the surface. It won’t happen quickly, although it might become noticeable suddenly at some future date, but the consequences are the type of thing that gave us those pesky Extinction Events in the past. That means huge percentages of ocean life will simply die. Sure, over a million years or so, new species will thrive in new environments, but that is a bit long term for our children.
And that is only one of the many possible “tipping points” that no one really knows for sure will, or won’t occur. A “sheaf of possibilities” is what our predictive abilities limit us to at this point. Act now, and start to limit the more drastic ones, and move the less drastic ones into more remediable ranges. Act now, and close off the possibility that nothing we can do will be enough to stop the self reinforcing feedbacks.
But of course, we will not act now. We won’t even stop driving SUVs, and airconditioning every cubic inch of our personal space. We will protect our luxury, because we won’t have to see the results of our greed, and our careless disregard for cost. That gift, we leave our grandchildren.
Tris
You are made specific claims about what’s in the Copenhagen Treaty. I responded by pointing out that no such treaty existed. You acknowledged–belatedly–that the treaty didn’t exist but switched to making the same claims about a draft treaty that never even came close to passage. I looked at the draft treaty and found that it didn’t say what you claimed it said. Now you’re posting editorials with erroneous claims about what was in the draft treaty, as if that made the claims true. Multiple people believe that the moon landings were faked, but they’re wrong.
Some statements are true. Others are false. False statements do not become true just because multiple people believe them. The draft treaty did not call for a global government, an international police force, 700 bureaucracies, or anything of the sort.
Your conspiracy theory about Maurice Strong, Al Gore, and a shadowy group of bankers and others using global warming issues to seize power rested on this treaty. Whenever I called your facts into question, you kept demanding that I “educating myself” and “read the treaty”. Well, now I’ve read the treaty (in part, as I admitted) so I know that your claims were flat-out wrong. Are you willing to admit that (1) there is no Copenhagen Treaty and (2) even the draft treaty did not justify the claims that you made? Please answer yes or no. If yes, then quote the sections of the draft treaty where it says those things. If no, then you’ve basically admitted that this entire thread had a false premise.
Oh my gosh, you actually fell for that one as well? You actually believe that the NAFTA Superhighway exists?!? This is simply too rich. The NAFTA Superhighway is a figment of the right-wing imagination. As conspiracy theories go, this is the one that’s easiest to see through. Just consider what Ron Paul said about it:
Now did you ever stop for a moment to consider that if such a thing were being built, it would be plainly visible? A highway as wide as several football fields would be difficult to miss. I drove across the country and back last summer and I can testify that I never saw any such thing. Furthermore, if millions of people were being forced out of their homes, don’t you think a few of those people would have come forward to talk about it. If entire communities were being displaced, wouldn’t we be able to see that on a map? It’s like you and Rep. Paul were watching the Simpsons Movie and didn’t realize it was fiction. In any case, all legislation that Congress votes on is posted on the internet. If you claim that federal money was allocated to the NAFTA Superhighway, just give us a link to the actual legislation. If you can’t do so, I’ll have to conclude that you were making that stuff up.
Gee, it’s like you can read the future.
That link is utterly irrelevant to anything that’s been discussed in this thread.
Another rant about the UN taking over, also from Ron Paul? I previously asked you whether you could name any power that the UN has over the United States. You didn’t answer, so I presume your answer was no. Given that, why bring the topic up again?
So the BP corporation has a Director of Global Government Relations. So? That means ‘relations to governments around the world’, not ‘relations with a global government’. You didn’t honestly expect that I’d be stupid enough to fall for that, did you?
Those are just bunches of disparate quotes, taken out of context, that prove nothing.
Well then I’ll explain again. You started this thread making a lot of specific statements: the Copenhagen treaty was “ready to be signed”, it would create a world government and an international police force and 700 new bureaucracies, Al Gore is a disciple of Maurice Strong, the NAFTA Superhighway is real, the World Conservation Bank is real, etc… Every single one of these statements and many more that you’ve made has turned out to be false. Not a single substantial statement from you in this entire thread has proven true. That’s why none of us believe you. Or to put it in one simple sentence: we don’t believe you because the things you say are not true. If you want people to believe you, you need to say true things rather than false things. Are you able to comprehend that idea?
I’ve started a new thread on the Federal Reserve vs. gold standard question.
This question goes back a ways…but I haven’t been in this thread til now. The short answer is that this is criticism is not original with me. I am merely explaining the correct criticism that was made against the paper. It basically appeared in a more technical form in Santer et al.
I will also note that a few months ago, I did have a little bit of back-and-forth discussion on Anthony Watts’s blog (I believe) with John Christy, one of Douglass’s co-authors. He did not do, in my view, a very convincing job defending their choice of using the standard error…and basically ended up arguing something like (I’m paraphrasing), “It is still a valid question to ask whether or not the standard error of the models is a good measure of what to expect.” My response was that while it may be a valid question, one is usually interested in asking questions that one might actually get different opinions on. And, since the notion that the real climate system should lie within the standard errors of the model runs is one that nobody I know would subscribe to, they were essentially answering a question that everyone already knew the answer to.
And, by the way, there are plenty of junky papers in various fields that pretty much vanish without a trace, without eliciting a response. The idea that every peer-reviewed paper has to be debunked or it should be assumed correct is silly. Scientists have better things to do with their time than debunk every piece of nonsense that finds its way into some journal or another. I think in climate science there has been a larger attempt than in some other fields to actually respond, rather than just ignore, such junky papers simply because the echo chamber effect whereby these papers are used outside of the (at-least-nominally-)peer-reviewed venues in which they appeared and more for PR purposes than to actually advance science. Of course, there is a greater incentive to respond to papers like Douglass et al. that appear in a decent journal than to respond to a paper that appears in some obscure Hungarian journal (not to name any names).