(News Links below - JO)
October 19, 2009
Dear Friends of FTW:
The deck was stacked against Mike from the start in the recent sexual harassment ruling against From The Wilderness, Inc. Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) is an executive agency that has unabashedly acted as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and (attempted) collection agent against Michael C. Ruppert even though he is not even the named defendant in this case. In this follow-up letter, I want to point out just a few ways in which BOLI has abused Mike’s rights and treated him unfairly in its Final Order.
To start with, the A.L.J. made numerous errors in interpreting the law. In sexual harassment cases, the act of “retaliation” is a question of whether a defendant improperly punishes a complainant on the job, as for example through demotions, pay cuts, altering job duties, or by firing the complainant. Following the alleged retaliatory act in this case - the job termination - the calculation of damages properly relates to the actual harm caused to the complainant (i.e., the financial harm and emotional distress intended to be caused by the accused employer). Acts or statements made by the defending employer following termination should have no bearing on the analysis of damages for emotional distress, particularly when the job no longer exists and the company is a defunct enterprise, as FTW most certainly is.
Mike, and every citizen, has the 1st Amendment right to speak in their own defense. Nevertheless, BOLI gives weight to completely irrelevant and inadmissible post-termination truthful statements made by Mike to defend himself against these allegations and to protect his reputation, all to conjure some intent by Mike to cause additional “emotional distress”. Mike said nothing after the termination in any form or forum that can be fairly determined to constitute further “retaliation”. Simply put, if the complainant felt damaged by Mike’s post-termination statements, her proper remedy was a libel or slander suit. No such suit was ever filed because Mike’s statements were neither libelous nor slanderous. They were true, as we have come to expect from Mike over many years.
At the hearing, Mike established a clear record that he fired the complainant for cause and no other reason. In complainant's three-month tenure she had become sexually involved with a key staff member, caused one physical altercation between two staff members that Mike wasn't involved in or near, and repeatedly disrupted the office environment and verbally assaulted yet another male employee more than once. She was seen in public displaying open affection towards Mike which made him uncomfortable and caused him to move away, yet a local Ashland resident who appeared and testified to these events was dismissed out of hand in the final ruling for the sole reason that he was friends with Mike and had written for FTW.
Additionally, even though hearsay evidence is authorized to be received in these contested hearings, the A.L.J. refused to admit into evidence affidavits by three witnesses for Mike because they were not present to testify under cross-examination. The A.L.J. further refused to allow Mike to call one of complainant’s witnesses in Mike’s case-in-chief because he wasn’t on Mike’s witness list (even though that witness was previously called by the complainant in BOLI’s case-in-chief!). This same witness – who was a former employee of FTW’s, who was engaged in a sexual relationship with the complainant, and who was allowed only to testify for the complainant – made statements that were acknowledged as discredited by the A.L.J., yet the A.L.J. received as credible the rest of that biased testimony as interpreted against Mike. With testimony this slanted, Mike didn’t have a chance.
The complainant in this case was impeached (discredited) numerous times during the hearing – including by her own mother. Moreover, even though complainant’s witnesses had been impeached by the evidence, the complainant's witness statements were given credibility in the ruling. Mike’s testimony, on the other hand, was only credited by the A.L.J. to the extent it hurt him and not in its entirety or in context. The A.L.J. even included prior consistent statements of Mike in the context of determining an emotional damage award, yet he refused to include those statements in his evaluation of Mike’s case. Talk about cherry-picking!
Even more egregious (and insulting) is the determination by the A.L.J. to discredit portions of Mike’s sworn testimony simply because Mike HAD NOT made out of court statements on those issues. In any fair trial testimony under oath is the preferred method of gathering the facts, and out-of-court statements are only allowed if they fit an exception to the hearsay rule. In order to tarnish Mike, the A.L.J. stands that principle on its head to the point of absurdity.
Another example of legal error is the inclusion by the A.L.J of “evidence” of intimidation in determining emotional damages related to the fact that Mike kept a gun in his office, and the complainant once saw Mike pack a gun for his journey to retrieve the files for the Pat Tillman case. The A.L.J. acknowledges that Mike has had two verified attempts on his life, that he kept a gun in his office for the protection of himself and his staff, and that he is a firearms expert. NOWHERE in the record is there even the slightest allegation that Mike made any physical threats to the complainant or otherwise did anything inappropriate concerning his possession of firearms, yet the A.L.J. determined that Mike’s “…handgun reasonably caused Complainant to fear retaliation by Ruppert”. In this regard, my first question is, “What is reasonable about that?” This whole line of discussion by the A.L.J. in the Order is not only irrelevant but highly prejudicial and inflammatory against Mike. This is also another example of how the A.L.J. held completely irrelevant facts against Mike to enhance the determination of the emotional damages award.
On a personal note, I want people to understand the real importance of what we are doing here. I have been a student of “Peak Oil” and sustainability issues for the last four years, and I count myself among the numbers of people striving toward a sustainable future. I also used to help put sex offenders (juvenile and adult) in prison for their crimes; I have helped employers draft sexual harassment policies and deal with sexual harassment issues; I have a daughter, and a wife in the workforce; and, my own sister has been a victim of both sexual battery and sexual harassment. If I did not believe Mike, in his current appellate case, in his character, and absolutely know the imperative of the message he is trying to deliver, I would not have stepped forward. This is a righteous fight for the right reasons. Make no mistake, however. This will be an uphill battle even in the Court of Appeals. I am confident we can win, but we need your help. Please help us by donating to the FTW Legal Defense Fund.
Sincerely,
Wesley T. Miller
Attorney at Law
(Former Assistant District Attorney, Coos County, Oregon)
----------
HOW TO DONATE
FTW needs funds to support this appeal. What is being defended here is the message in the film CoLLapse and in Mike’s new book, “A Presidential Energy Policy”. Please donate today! Following are PayPal and routing information for domestic and international wire transfers.PayPal – Donations intended for the From The Wilderness legal defense fund can be made by donating to mcrfinaid@gmail.com. -- International Wire Transfers – Please use the following routing numbers for donations from outside the U.S. Your bank should be able to provide conversion rates. Account Name: From The Wilderness Legal Defense Fund; Bank: Wells Fargo Routing Numbers: 121000248 – 3496610480On PayPal transfers please note whether you intend for your donation to be used for my living expenses or for the defense fund. Otherwise we will assume you intend the money to be used for the defense fund. Checks can be made out and mailed to:
FTW Legal Defense Fund
c/o Rubiconworks
10736 Jefferson Bl. PMB 618
Culver City, CA 90232
********************************************************************
From Jenna Orkin:
Collapse/US
The Next Oil Crisis is Just Ahead
Private equity firms trying to cash out of their investments. Uh-oh
Financial Coup D'Etat and the Reaction of Gold
Reports on Stimulus Spending Go Public Today: Wash. Post Link
Geithner Aides Reaped Millions Working for Banks, Hedge Funds
Still on the Job But at Half the Pay
"What this means," said Thomas J. Nardone, an assistant commissioner at the bureau, "is that the amount of money people are paid has taken a big hit; not just those who have lost their jobs, but those who are still employed."
Colorado Minimum Wage Poised To Drop
Foreclosures On Pace To Hit 3.5 Million
FHA Rules Render Condos Utterly Worthless
Time for Baltimore to "Pull a Vallejo" and Declare Bankruptcy
Geithner Says Confidence Will Help Boost Dollar
Don't look down.
Goldman Doesn't Have `Too Big to Fail' Government Guarantee, Viniar Says
Dollar May Decline to 50 Yen, Lose Reserve-Currency Status, Sumitomo Says
Dangerous Unintended Consequences
The only thing we'd quibble with in this article submitted by Rice Farmer is whether the dangerous consequences really were unintended. - JO
Why the market doesn’t fall: The big money needs a winner in ’09
Wal-Mart’s Computers Breached in ’05, ’06 Attacks: Wired Link
Obama's green guru calls for clean coal
Meet the professor who can seemingly predict political events using a laptop (from Rice Farmer)
Europe
Britain's Secret Weapon Against a Fiscal Crisis
In the US, average length of the existing Treasury bonds was, at recent count, 4.7 years and falling. Because this is such a short maturity, it means the debt has to be rolled over far more often, and at every point the government runs the risk of setting in stone any changes in interest rates. In France, the average maturity is 7.1 years, in Italy 6.9 years, in Germany 6.35 and in Japan 5.7 years. In Britain, the weighted average maturity of government bonds is a whopping 14.2 years.
'Monsoon style' floods to hit Britain
One in five black British men out of a job
Could early retirement kill you?
Getting seniors acclimated to the idea of working longer.
A Sterling Crash is a Godsend
Britain's real jobless total 'more than 3m' says new report
Britain will starve without GM crops, says major report
Civil servants first Britons to get ID cards
Mussoline and MI5
French troops died when Italy stopped 'bribes'
The looming threat of terror that comes from the far right
ThyssenKrupp 'Had No Choice' but to Sell Shipyards to Arab Investors
...the financial crisis has forced Germany to be less picky about foreign investors.
Serb Jailed For Spying For U.S.
Sweden Turning Stray Rabbits Into Biofuel
Soylent green isThumper.
German Nuclear Comeback Spells Bad News for Wind Power
German Ship Transporting Arms for Iran (from Rice Farmer)
Middle East/Africa
Qatar Airways Uses Natural-Gas Based Jet Fuel
Al-Qaeda's guerrilla chief lays out strategy
Money and Mandarin lessons fuel China's African invasion (from Rice Farmer)
Science/Environment
Science news
WWF: Five years to stop uncontrollable climate change
Sicily's First Eco-Village Blooms
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
RE "WWF: Five years to stop uncontrollable climate change"
Do people take headlines like this as gospel, without question?
With human activity responsible for 4% of the CO2 in our atmosphere, 4% of 385ppmv comes out to be about 15 ppmv! How could such tiny concentrations of trace gases cause climate catastrophe?
Especially considering water vapour is a more effective greenhouse gas, typical water vapour in the air comes out to 10,000 ppmv!
If any greenhouse gas were responsible for warming, would it be one in concentrations of 10,000 ppmv or 385 ppmv?
This short video is a good visual representation of the issue, it should be compulsory viewing for those who are frightened by the quoted headline above!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI
Richard Heinberg's address to ASPO, with his latest views on getting "the message of Peak Oil out to an ever-wider audience."
Keep the Swell posts coming!!
Gamedog,
Remember everything is accumulative, the Plastic in the ocean is also a small matter!
A few points in MCR's book are ignored, & laughed at, but add all of them up & they become a Killer!
"I don't want to start a Flame in your Heart, I just want to set the World on fire"! A twist of an old
American song.
http://www.casperjournal.com/articles/2009/10/13/editorial/edit17.txt
With several underground Coal mine fires out of control for Yearsss how do they expect to control
these massive Billions of TONS burning, how/when to stop this CLEAN/not Energy!
Poverty Resistance is Several blocks away from us, we donate weekly, "The Red Star" as it is known locally has been reluctant
to admit a problem in WYO., Energy is our foundation!
http://www.trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_e475b672-a7d8-5c60-ad65-7427548425da.html
In line with my last post, strange how these things bunch up!
http://www.trib.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_efba0a66-ca0b-517d-9495-d7c42660e1ad.html
http://www.trib.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_6d3f11c8-4a29-5520-899a-e579e83c7e2c.html
http://www.trib.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_6e25ca09-0e75-51e1-bf8a-cf3cf776895a.html
http://www.trib.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_6e25ca09-0e75-51e1-bf8a-cf3cf776895a.html
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/doonesbury
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/prickly-city
Amae
Donated.
If you add a PayPal donation button it will make the process MUCH easier for people and you'll probably triple your received donations:
https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/xcl/rec/donate-intro
Thanks Agape.
I agree man is poisoning the biosphere with plastic (amongst other oil "products"), destroying ecosystems, and generally "shitting on his own doorstep".
I remember walking in the English Lake District, formed millions of years ago by glaciers, which melted long before man discovered oil. So, I agree the climate changes. However, human influence via CO2 on climate compared to what the main driver of our climate can do (the Sun) is insignificant IMO. The science fails to convince me, I doubt any science that manipulates data and hides methods. If the principles were so sound there would be a level scientific playing field.
Reading your link to "On Hitler and health care" it struck me an apt title change might be "On Hitler and man made global warming" especially in light of TPTB pushing this agenda whilst the planet is in a cooling phase, for profit on carbon trading, which is a tax on every human on the globe.
If the agenda were to "ban" plastic in favour of biodegradable, or "safe" materials, ban culling rain forests, ban ecocide, I could also jump on the bandwagon.
Does anyone believe with conviction that taxes raised in the name of preventing AGW will actually prevent AGW?
As the temps continue to drop in line with the 30 year PDO cycle, will this be claimed as a "victory" by AGW proponants? Will they then stop taxes in it's name?
Do people really believe the Rockefellers are in AGW for the good of the human race?
Cheers, Gamedog.
I think it's great that the World Wrestling Federation is taking an interest in social issues like climate change.
Hey gamedog,
How could a few little aerosol cans cause a hole in the ozone layer several times the size of the Anarctic continent?
How could a few degrees change in mean temperature be the difference between an ice age and a 40 foot rise in the level of the oceans?
How could a tiny steel projectile coming out of the barrel of a gun fell an elephant?
How could the difference between a bull market and a crash be mediated by something as fickle as people's attitudes about it?
How could one cheesy little gram of silver iodide nucleate 15,000 acre feet of precipitation?
How many parts per million, or billion or whatever of ionizing radiation above the background level is enough to melt your brain?
How in the world could a merry yodeler cause an avalanche?
One might be well advised to get ahold of the simple fact that very substantial climate change is already underway. You don't have to take some whacko's word for it. NASA, for one, has been documenting it for years. So you can take that for gospel.
Maybe it has nothing to do with human activity. What's your take, gamedog? Magic??
I'm with gamedog on the subject of climate change. I don't think any of us are really in the position to know whether or not global warming is for real. We're all pretty much left with which scientists and/or experts we choose to believe, as we ourselves are not the actual people conducting all the research.
We all know that a lot of the subjects we talk about in here never get reported in the mainstream media, because the people who really run things control the media, and there are many subjects they just don't want us to know about.
The mainstream media is heavily reporting just one side of the global warming issue. Yet there are over 31,000 American scientists who have signed a petition stating that global warming is a lie, and that they've been pressured to come out in favor of it even when they know it's a lie. In addition, the one scientist who's been charged with keeping all of the data on global temperatures throughout the Earth's history refuses to share the data with the scientific community, stating that he doesn't want to because other scientists will try to disprove his conclusions.
And we're calling this science?
Combine this with the fact that the proposed taxes because of global warming look like they'll exceed one trillion U.S. dollars every year, and you see there's a lot of money for the powers that be to be siphoning out of everyone's pockets, in an economy where tax revenues are going to continue falling.
With this in mind, I really expect that Halliburton is looking forward to becoming deeply involved in working on global warming projects.
OK Gang, this is probably the most important, detailed, easily understood, data I've seen presented.
Monckton's October 14th lecture at Bethel University. His message now extends beyond the global warming lie itself. Rather he is busily sounding an alarm about where that lie will shortly take us if we do not act quickly to stop it.
The first link is a video of his presentation (1h 30mins) the second link is a pdf file of the slides in the presentation, I recommend downloading it in advance so you can follow in real time. (pdf is 17mb)
The 3rd, and 4th link is Monckton being interviewed by glen beck ( less than 10 mins each)
the 5th link is Mocktons closing words from the presentation, which is too long to re-produce here BUT VERY IMPORTANT if you don't have time to view the presentation! If you follow only one link read his closing statements!
last link is a copy of the Copenhagen treaty outline document. I have not had time to read it as yet, but Please, take part in reading and researching this document. If Lord Monckton is correct, this must be made public knowledge as soon as possible!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0 (presentation)
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf
(slides for presentation)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xy5_L1vJKQ (radio interview with glen beck Pt 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY5msesd-2c (pt 2)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf (treaty document)
Monckton is in DC right now working to educate congress prior to December when it will be signed!
Monckton says the agenda is 1)World government, 2) Transfer of wealth to 3rd world, 3% of GDP! as "climate debt" 3)Enforcement of the treaty!
I am convinced this information needs to get out there before December, once it's signed it will be too late!
Cheers all, gamedog.
RE: Climate Change debate
That TPTB are keen on using climate change as the basis for yet another massive wealth transfer (from us to them) does not prove that the phenomenon does not exist. Likewise, the giant scam over vaccinations does not prove that there is no swine flu threat. Nor does the windfall profit of Chevron mean that peak oil is just a scam to drive up oil prices. The financial elite will always be on the lookout for ways to maximize profit, no matter what comes down the pipe.
In the movie The Power of Nightmares, it is noted that Edward Bernays (the father of spin) saw in the Women's Rights movement a chance to double the market for cigarettes, which women were (till then) not supposed to smoke. By attaching an existing momentum to his client's product, he managed to make smoking a political statement by women and sell millions of dollars worth of cancer to the fair sex.
Saying climate change is not real because TPTB are set to profit is like saying Saddam Hussein wasn't really a bad guy, just because the neocons made a bundle overthrowing him. Or Noriega. Or the Taliban.
China is rising, and the world financial elite is all over it, selling them any silly thing they can. Rich farmland is in short supply and the elite is all over that (buying up Africa, Ukraine and -- when property values sink far enough -- the rest of fertile America). The Arctic is melting (no, really, it is) and the new scam is Arctic Sea oil, as well as new routes between trade ports.
I'm not a scientist, and one should admit when one does not have the basis to make a reliable decision. But many of the scientists who nay-say global warming are actually involved with organizations funded by polluters. There's a lot of money against regulation. The financial industry might profit, but the manufacturing sector is likely to suffer by regulation, and they can buy a lot of scientists.
For me, climate change is real. The Pacific Ocean recently dumped 3 meters of rain in 3 days on Taiwan, killing hundreds of people under hillsides that could not have been expected to collapse. And my own town received the all-time rainfall record of 1.2 meters in one day. This is not normal. Everywhere unusal weather prevails. And the Arctic ice cap IS melting. So I dunno, but it looks real to me.
And as we argue about whether it's real or not, or man-made or not, rich people making a buck on global warming has nothing to do with the case.
Oops, missed the link to Moncktons closing statement!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2364493/posts
Hello Mike, Jenna & friends,
After nearly six months in prison, for Political Protest (against various mechanisms of extreme violence, racism & poverty-production in our society), it is quite grand to breathe some fresh air...especially that of your continued good reporting & offerings.
Thanks to all, for your tenacious compassion & for giving me much to read & consider.
Blessings...
Norm Lowry
Leola PA USA
norman.lowry@gmail.com
www.normanlowry.blogspot.com
Gamedog:
You are so often right that I'm disappointed you've been taken in by Lord Monckton, who is a shill for the coal industry and other polluters.
Sourcewatch notes that in late 2007 he spoke “at the "the Eastern Coal States Coalition" conference at the Marriott Griffin Gate Conference Center in Lexington Ky." Just a small amount of net research will show you his colors.
There are many other trails leading back to climate villians: dozens of "Institutes" and "think tanks" devoted to "science" on the subject. As for all those scientists opposed to the mainstream notion, many are on the payroll, but many are not. And to his credit, Monckton was able to find 9 certifiable flaws in Al Gore's movie. It's good to have a lively debate. But global climate weirdness is not some scam. How it is produced and what it will do are perhaps open to debate. But let's not be led by the coal industry in this debate, f'cryinoutloud.
Gamedog, stop!
Minnesota Free Market Institute’s website states “Individuals, foundations, and small businesses and corporations who share our vision of individual freedom bounded by free market principles fund the Minnesota Free Market Institute through voluntary contributions.”
Since it nowhere states who those "…and corporations" are, we can only guess. But the entire site is bent on discrediting global warming. So this is not a disinterested forum, at which Monckton is speaking.
In fact the group is “dedicated to the principles of individual sovereignty, private property and the rule of law. We advocate for policies that limit government involvement in individual affairs and promote competition and consumer choice in a free market environment.”
These are not the people to hold hands with, facing an uncertain future. To me, the scientists warning us about global warming seem generally better qualified than those opposed. The evidence of my senses says hotter summers and bigger storms and massive ice melts are definitely occurring. And the sheer volume of human activity over the last two centuries is unlikely to have no side effects, leaving aside what those might be.
Cap and trade is definitely a scam. It will only enrich the financial elite. But does anybody see an obvious answer to man-made global warming? It doesn’t’ matter how you tax it, STOP DOING IT. Cap and trade is a diversion from the obvious conclusion that we need to stop burning fossil fuels for stupid reasons like running to the store for some chips or making plastic Santa dolls in China and shipping them to America.
This conclusion is anathema to TPTB. And it is the very conclusion we must force from the debate. We cannot profit from opposing the notion of global warming. Here’s a chance to reform human activity and reduce all kinds of poisonous consequences. Let’s not blow this one.
My own pennies worth, for what it’s worth :-)
We have this debate within my own family. My wife is convinced that AGW is a scam by TPTB. I tend not to see these things as black and white, but as risks. I believe there is a very significant risk that the world is warming, that it is caused by humans and the effects will be very dangerous to (all) life on earth. There is ALSO a risk that AGW is a scam by TPTB... but I believe it to be less probable, and the consequences are not so life threatening (at least not to the same extent). To my mind, BOTH risks need addressing, ie we must cut emissions in case we are causing catastrophic global warming, and we need to curb TPTB from using AGW as a weapon against the populous.
Although we don’t agree on the fundamental cause - there is a lot we agree on (as we do here in this forum).
We both believe that humans are destroying this beautiful planet for materialistic greed. And we both believe that TPTB are using AGW to further their aims - which revolve around concentrating wealth and power within a small elite.
Namaste
Hey MCR...on the lighter side...just finished up playing Harold in a production of "The Full Monty". I feel a special kinship with you, having learned the same script and music.
Check out the final scene from the show...it was a gas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ytlTN4d7-M
Eyeballs,
I was involved in online climate debates as far back as 2001, tho back then I was on the other side of the debate. As I witnessed the skulduggery from the IPCC in real time I saw how they conveniently deleted the medieval warm period from the temp chronology! It was the hockey stick debacle at www.climateaudit.org which really made me question my beliefs and weigh the evidence again. I stopped participating in climate debates are they were so circular, time sinkingly so, with no hard data to challenge as the AGW scientists withheld raw data to prevent peer review! (which is only recently coming out – except some of the GISS stuff where they claim to have “lost” the raw data leaving us only their “adjusted” data! )
I knew AGW was a scam back then, but I could not work out why it was being foisted upon us, I was confussed about it for years, until carbon trading. GS and Morgan Stanley et al involvement only became clearer after the “credit crunch” when the whole lie started to make sense. Monckton has made some pretty hard core allegations about the upcoming Copenhagen treaty which has very important connotations for us all, I am researching the document now, but it's 200 pages of UN gobbldygook, I know I can't do it alone, hence todays posting.
A point about “beliefs”. What we “believe” is unimportant, irrelevant, we need scientific facts, not beliefs. I used Moncktons presentation because it is cram packed full of scientific facts, presented in an easy to understand fashion. If you want to debunk, please stick to those facts he presents, challenge them, but don't write it off because of your “beliefs”, don't undermine the mans credibility first based on your beliefs, if you want to do that challenge his statements. Otherwise your procrastinations only make the sand in which your head may be stuck!
If I had “believed” what I was told about MCR from a good portion of the “truth” movement because of supposed links to the CIA I doubt I would be here. I researched MCR's facts way back in the cop vs CIA days, and checked as far as possible some of the jaw dropping FTW articles. Were we all suddenly “taken in” because he was denigrated by those who would call foul, accusing CIA shrill? Should we not even bother to research facts, but simply move on from here because someone takes pot shots at the messenger?
Your link to sourcewatch is not about Monckton, but some place he happened to give a keynote speech, his name, and the text string you quoted failed to come up in a search on that page?
Your subsequent post attacks another venue! Please challenge the science, the facts. Should we research the Commonwealth club and do a hatchet job to challenge MCR's message instead of MCR's facts because he once gave a speech there?
I know Monckton was science policy advisor to Thatcher back in the day, personally I can't stand politicians let alone Tory shrills, but I can't challenge his scientific facts either, can you?
I am surprised you immediately attack the messenger and not the message. Please watch the presentation, attack those facts with full fury, I would love to be convinced otherwise! I would love to “believe” and stop being the weirdest person in the room!
Monckton found 44 factual errors in Gore's film, only 9 were argued in a court of law, where Monckton won the case on all 9 points. Gore has been challenged to debate Monckton on numerous occasions, guess what, Gore refuses every time!
A challenge for you Eyeballs, find one lie in that presentation, just one! If you fail on that, pick any recent article from here http://climaterealists.com/index.php or here http://www.climateaudit.org/ but try to put your beliefs aside when researching science ;)
Have people missed the fact that there has been no warming since 1997, and infact the earth has been cooling since 2002?
P.S. Norm, good to see you back in the fold
Cheers, gamedog
Gamedog & I went through this exchange under "Whereas" on Aug. 16.
Gamedog posted at 1:13 am., & I replied at 1:13 pm., I thought it had
been established that there is Global Warming. The two questions are
how much are we effecting the warming, AND can we affectively change
the trend?
There are Two givens; there will be two extremes which yell at each other,
AND there will always be those positioning themselves to profit by encouraging
the uncertainty regardless if they are helping. History is full of "Patch's" which
didn't work, that is no reason to set back and deny things have to change.
If you are driving 70 mph and see the traffic ahead disappearing into a bank of
fog, you would be wise to slow down, likewise if people are getting sick with
the Flu you should prepare to avoid getting sick, & survive if you do, which will
require education and thinking.
If you put your faith in the fog clearing, or the Vaccine, you are giving your
Determination/Future; you vary LIFE to something you have no control over.
It is always wise to err on the side of prudence/Life/the Future, than on what
did happen! What was the Easter Islander thinking while he was cutting down
the last tree (possibly "It's only one tree")?
Reading Gamedog's 10:18 post; "Rather he is busily sounding an alarm about
where that lie will shortly take us if we do not act quickly to stop it." WHAT IF
he is wrong? 100 years from now it will not make a difference how the wealth is
spread, The Greenlander's starved into extinction rather than live as the natives,
who may be primitive (still), but still alive.
"Monckton says the agenda is 1)World government, 2) Transfer of wealth to
3rd world, 3% of GDP! as "climate debt" 3)Enforcement of the treaty!"
We have been working toward "World" Government for over 2000 yrs.,
do you expect to go back to a Feudal state where every community is
an armed camp? Who else says it's about "World Government"?
There are Hundreds of experts that deny "Peak Oil", when I was young I did
not believe my Gas gauge until my Engine quit, now I prepare beforehand!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=more-tit-than-tat
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=explaining-fiscal-foolishness
Amae.
Second thoughts, lets not waste time on the AGW debate, it's starting to feel a little "gatekeepered" ;)
There is much better analysis of the implications of copenhagen here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/
"Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant."
Cheers, gamedog.
Something wondrous to behold from these quarters is the diversionary instrument which posits whether humankind contributes to climate change or not. Please, you wonderful minds which produce wonderful words of pro & con on such an issue, consider elevating your intellects to focus on why there's any argument regarding this issue in the first place. Does it not occur to any healthily functioning brain with a capacity for distinguishing between what is good and what is not that the issue of whether human behavior plays any part in influencing the environment of which our species is an integral component is invariably ALWAYS going to be hopelessly distorted and compromised by the distinction of objectives which distinguish those whose fundamental focus is numerical profit from those whose objective is exclusively The Universal Common Good.
Moreover, it is also PERFECTLY CLEAR from these quarters that there is a paramount conflict of objectives between these two fundamental standards of existential focus --- and if this fact produced of fully conscious recognition does not become the exclusive focus of those who are concerned exclusively with the future of the human species and the physical environment which makes it possible for human beings exist in the first place, there will soon be no future for humankind on Earth or anywhere else.
Guaranteed.
Eyeballs: Minor correction - the Edward Bernays film series is "The Century of Self." "The Power of Nightmares" is the neocon vs. radical Islam analysis. Both are excellent Adam Curtis (BBC) documentaries. The user here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js39hh9OkpQ
has posted links to nearly all of Curtis' works; click on the "More info" link underneath the user name to see the full list. Highly recommended! Best regards, - Don
Gamedog, peace.
I agree that climate change is being used to justify one-world government. So is just about everything else, from the flu to the phony war on drugs to the phony war on terror to internet hacking. I am just pointing out that the science is unaffected by the politics. It is not a valid argument that, because it's being used politically, climate change is a lie.
Monckton has been challenged on a number of points, just as Gore has been. You can bet they won't stop challenging each other, and that is good. We should check it out, listen carefully, and make up our own minds. I still feel incompetent to come to a final decision on what, exactly, is happening.
However, something IS happening. To assume that it has nothing to do with human activity, when humans have ripped this planet and stomped this planet and poisoned it and stripped it for two rowdy centuries seems unrealistic. Of course there would be consequences. Again, what those cnsequences might be is keeping PhD life-long scientists arguing, so why should I feel obligated to answer the difficult questions myself?
Strong evidence that our planet is warming too fast - because of human activity - suggests that we modify human activity right away. That, not cap-and-trade, is the obvious answer. And if we do not, there will be no forests, no clean water, and new, untested, man-made chemicals will be even more concentrated in human flesh and human brains and human reproductive systems. As long as the public believes that there IS global warming due to human activity, it's a teachable moment: Let's stop acting so stupid and start living appropriately. If not for this reason, which already has traction, why would people change?
The global warming issue is a natural ally to all I consider decent and real. I cannot decide on the science, but I can see - everybody can see - that the climate is morphing in undesirable ways. This is akin to the mountain shaking: the gods are angry. We must change our ways. People are still simple, despite our complex society. If this gets them to change, let's go with that.
Cap and Trade is an obvious boondogle, whereas cutting down on coal and gasoline burning (extremely important for other reasons) truly answers the "human activity" element of the problem. Getting people to see that is much more valuable than opposing world government by dissing global warming science. IMHO.
re “A point about “beliefs”. What we “believe” is unimportant, irrelevant, we need scientific facts, not beliefs.”
I agree wholeheartedly! (If by “Scientific Fact” you mean good scientific methodology, truthful publication of data, repeatability, peer reviews etc.).
However in this - as in so many other areas - Science has been hijacked by vested interest and what we receive is corrupted and biased information that supports whichever agenda is being presented.
In such an environment what can we base our own point of view on (what do we “believe” is the truth?)?
What I was suggesting is that we avoid choosing one or other as “beliefs”, but do as a business manager would do in uncertain times - identify ALL possible risks, ascertain the likelihood of them happening, and assess the consequences - then, prioritise actions accordingly.
Even if you “believe” AGW is a scam with 95% confidence, then the consequences are so huge that even with only a 5% confidence of it happening, you would decide to take action to mitigate the risk.
As agape wins says “If you are driving 70 mph and see the traffic ahead disappearing into a bank of fog, you would be wise to slow down” but would add - even if you were 95% sure there was nothing in the way!
Good debate Gamedog - I appreciate the clarity this is bringing to my thoughts!
Namaste
Regarding Global Warming which by the way, would better be call Climate Change, a very good friend of mine is a marine biologiste. She was already talking to me about it at the end of the 90's.
She has to study the Gulf Stream, how it fonctionne etc. And their is no doubt in her mind: climate change are reals. And human being participe in the process (but are not the main actor).
For her, we should worry more about the glaciation that is coming that the warming part (which is also alarming!).
The latest result she talk to me about was that they now believe that these kind of change appears in less then 50 years (before, they tought the process was taking around 1000 years). Scientists have been wrong in the past so they might be wrong again. But this is not bs propaganda- i know her for more then 15 years, before she become a marine biologiste. So i have a total faith that she believe in the process.
Of course, she doesn't do all the research but at least, she's able to understand what make sens or not when she read some studys on the subject.
And since they do conduct some researchs in the St-Laurent River and the Gulf of St-L, they have data that seems to prove that something is going on.
On my part, i don't think you need a PHD in science to conclude that human being is poluting this planet. And that the process is accelarating.
Climate change is only one manifestation of the mess we're creating. And the planet immune system is reacting to us.
Isn't it ironic that the average North American spend 130% of is year income (i don't know for the rest of the world) and that the WWF (i think it's them) announce earlier this year that we now consume 130% of what the planet can produce in a year?
We live way above our means...
And the result, whatever it is, would be nasty for us.
We need to find balance, and soon.
I would also add that it's sad that the 10 to 20% of BS that is said about climate change discredit the 80 to 90% of truth.
JO - Whether the 'dangerous consequences really were unintended' is pretty much irrelevant. What is somewhat pertinent, however, is the fact that Woodrow Wilson, way back in 1913 - with eventual self-admitted mindlessness ("With the stroke of my pen I ruined my country!") - signed the management of the world's first supposed-to-be free and democratically-operated nation's monetary system over to an entirely profit-oriented corporation. Now - can "we", the presumably free and democratic hoi polloi, justly say we would have avoided getting ourselves into this current global-wide economics facilitated situation if there'd been no Fed?
From my perspective the blame-game's a dead end. I'm sure history (as honestly, fully, openly rendered as possible) will show us we've ended up exactly where we needed to be. And what will no doubt best help get us beyond where we're at is to begin acknowledging our follies both as individuals and as a nation, emphasizing the virtues of moving forward ever more wisely, and relieving ourselves of wringing hands, gnashing teeth, and searching for culprits to tar & feather.
Hey. What are some of your opinions for gold vs. silver? I saw a recent comment here where some believe that you get more bang for your buck with silver.
Great debate on AGW. The level of discourse and valid points on several aspects are interesting and informative. I am trying to sort out what to believe about this and myriad other aspects of our human condition. Ultimately, though, I arrive at the same conclusion that now seems to apply to "knowledge" on several topics: I don't know Dick.
In Psych training I studied George Kelly, who developed Personal Construct Psychology. The main postulate goes as follows: "a person's processes are psychologically channelized by the ways in which he anticipates events".
How we anticipate events depends upon the constructs we have developed through our experiences and acquisition of knowledge. Yet our information sources are tainted by agenda driven mis- and dis- information, so how can one reliably interpret the data to arrive at a valid construct? In other words, "everything you know is wrong".
This debate appears to have valid, reasonable arguments on various aspects regarding AGW, and for that I am grateful.
I continue to be fascinated by the Half Past Human Web Bot project - forecasting future trends based on a linguistic analysis of Internet content.
George Ure has married up their forecasts with other (unconventional) forecasters and found some correlations, which he summarises as:
quote
Interestingly, this also corresponds to the predictive linguistics work that has the big showdown basically between good guys and bad guys [mid 2010]; a time when the global mass of humans will be seeking revenge/change/retribution from the PTB.
If you were sketching out a kind of mid-range path between Crawford's work, Cliff's linguistics work, Robin Landry's Elliott (and then some) and trying to sketch out a trading path, it might go something like this:
• From late October till early/mid December, a good-sized market decline, perhaps testing the March '09 market lows around Dow 6,627.
• Right after the first of the year, I'd be expecting a whole new chorus of "Good times are just ahead" and the 'gloves to come off' in terms of government control, imposition of group-think, and once the mutated swine flu comes out of the Winter Games, then lots of clamping down of people's freedom of movement.
• During this period, I'd be looking for energy to 'shoot the moon' along with the precious metals - oh boy!
• And then as the social order collides with the globalist agenda over July-August, I'd look for the markets to be as bad as at any time in 200-years.
unquote
George/Clif have for some time been forecasting a very significant ‘period of increasing tension’ starting from October 25th for around 10 days. It will be interesting to see if/what occurs.....
Make of this what you will!
Namaste
Thanks chaps,
I really don't want to quarrel! I wasted the best part of 18 months in online AGW debates years ago and I really didn't want to start up again, let alone feel like I am challenging a religious faith! :) I think I am better at understanding the issue (with recent data) but very poor at putting it across concisely. I made an error of judgement using Monckton as an example, there are many many scientists sitting on the “natural cycles” side of the AGW debate, I would say many more than in the AGW camp, more and more cross over from the AGW side as time passes. Read some of the petitions scientists did to remove themselves from the IPCC, lots of them are still petitioning the UN for factual evidence of CO2 induced warming, this is a fact!
I would encourage everyone to spend some time looking at the other side, understand their positions and conclusions, even if only to confirm an opposed position. I remain convinced many of you will start to doubt AGW with a new review of the science. http://climatedebatedaily.com/ is completely unbiased, both sides of the debate are collated daily, if by reading the other side your mind is not changed, it will certainly “raise some eyebrows” of doubt, whilst gaining a fuller understanding of the issues.
There will be a new paper on PDO cycles published on the 28th, I think it will produce some clarity to the debate. The oceans (30yr PDO cycle) are 12 yrs into a cooling phase (The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles), the 22 year sun cycle is at a low, in fact this current low is lower, and more prolonged, than usual, and (as juanito68 points out) could even continue into another ice age, or mini ice as as was the case during the maunder minimum. Historically low sun spot activity produces a cooling climate, as now, the earth has not been warming since the 1998 maximum temp, and in fact the cooling trend accelerated in 2002 and continues today. Those of us who remember the winters in the early 70's (10ft snow drifts in Leeds) can equate the 30 yr PDO cycle (when science was predicting an ice age, remember?), then following (aprox) 30yr warmer winters etc. (where science predicts GW) I predict cold winters here for at least another 5 years as the combination of low sunspot, cooling PDO reaches it maximum effect before cycling to a warmer cycle, which could take another 17 years! The UK is on the same latitude as some pretty cold places, only the oceans keep us warm, and that cycle is in slow mo mode bringing us a lot less heat in winter. Hasn't parts of the US been experiencing unusually large snowfall recently? Forgive my lack of US geography, but some of you who normally benefit from the gulf stream in winter might want to check you latitude in comparison, and compare normal temps in relation to colder parts of the world on the same latitude and get extra fuel in. I have secured 20tons of firewood in this years preps ;) (cont)
(pt 2)
Eyeballs:
“However, something IS happening. To assume that it has nothing to do with human activity, when humans have ripped this planet and stomped this planet and poisoned it and stripped it for two rowdy centuries seems unrealistic.”
Something IS happening, the climate changes all the time, it has done for millennia and will continue to do so. But to assume it is only because of human activity ignores physics, history, and facts. The Co2 level has always followed changes in temperature, NOT the other way around, this is clear from any graph of temp and co2 and should be enough alone to show CO2 is not responsible for warming. Humans contribute around 4% of the total Co2, about 15ppmv, a minuscule amount in the grand scheme, especially considering the most effective greenhouse gas, water vapour at 10,000ppmv.
You do make a very important point however... “As long as the public believes that there IS global warming due to human activity, it's a teachable moment:” I believe this very fact is why so many people do not question the scaremongering headlines, we actually want something we can point at to convince people to stop the ecocide, if we can “tar n feather” Co2, or anything else blaming humans, more people might change to a more sustainable lifestyle. Let us consider what happens when it becomes clear, beyond doubt, Co2 is not responsible. People will rebel against the green agenda and behave much worse IMO.
What happens if the sunspots do not return as in the maunder minimum? What happens to the 3% of GDP we wasted inventing co2 capture when it could have been spent preparing for another ice age? Clearly the science is NOT settled, scientists should remain sceptical, open minded, about potential climate disasters, cold or warm, because either is just as likely, how do we mitigate the risk of an ice age?
“I am just pointing out that the science is unaffected by the politics.” This is a fallacy, the AGW debate has been politicised beyond reasonable doubt!
AGW is classic “problem – reaction – solution” driven by politics and hidden agendas as the Copenhagen treaty points to!
“It is not a valid argument that, because it's being used politically, climate change is a lie.” I think I have been misunderstood, I have not been very good at making this point. I was hasty to post Moncktons presentation, regardless, it was his closing statements about Copenhagen that made me realise the agenda. I thought the agenda was as you pointed out above, high-jacked by environmentalists, a convenient way to appoint blame on the human race and therefore get people to change to sustainable lifestyles. His presentation did not convince me AGW is a scam, I knew that a long time ago, just that I could not understand why it was being foisted upon us.
Personally I would prefer to use Peak Oil as the main driver to change attitudes, clearly the Co2 issue will diminish far quicker because of P.O. than any global undemocratic tax can ever achieve.
Cheers, Gamedog.
gamedog...thanks for all of the information on your original involvement in the global warming movement and the subsequent change in your opinion on the subject based upon all the facts that you've now uncovered.
And eyeballs...congratulations on doing in my opinion a good job of being on the global warming side of the equation, while also understanding the validity of the arguments being presented on the other side, too.
To many, being in favor of reducing global warming has become in some ways like a religion. It's become such a major, important part of people's lives that just the idea that it may be based on completely erroneous assumptions stirs up anger, resentment, and a total unwillingness to even look at the underlying assumptions to see if they're valid.
I'm interested in conclusions on the subject based upon facts and science that support those conclusions, whether or not global warming is for real. I don't really have an investment in whether or not global warming is for real. I just want to get to the truth.
Post a Comment