There is no question in my mind that AGW aka GW was and
is a big hoax to make a couple of frauds like Gore
and Pachauri
very very wealthy. Follow the money
and Org Charts showing who gets rich from Carbon Credits link
John
Coleman explains how the FOIA and several scientist
have dug into the IPPC emails to uncover more fraud in their
manipulating of data to favor the Global Warming Agenda.
The global warming movement as we have known it is
dead. Its health had been in steady decline during the last
year as the once robust hopes for a strong and legally binding treaty
to be agreed upon at the Copenhagen Summit faded away. By the
time that summit opened, campaigners were reduced to hoping for a
‘politically binding’ agreement to be agreed that
would set the stage for the rapid adoption of the legally binding
treaty. After the failure of the summit to agree to even that
much, the movement went into a rapid decline.
The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad
politics.
After years in which global warming activists had
lectured everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific
evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious agencies in the
global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data, and making
inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis
at all. This latest story in the London
Times is yet another shocker; the IPCC’s claims
that the rainforests were going to disappear as a result of global
warming are as bogus and fraudulent as its claims that the Himalayan
glaciers would melt by 2035. It seems as if a scare
story could grab a headline, the IPCC simply didn’t care
about whether it was reality-based.
With this in mind, ‘climategate’
— the scandal over hacked emails by prominent climate
scientists — looks sinister rather than just
unsavory. The British government has concluded that
University of East Anglia, home of the research institute that provides
the global warming with much of its key data, had violated
Britain’s Freedom of Information Act when scientists refused
to hand over data so that critics could check their calculations and
methods. Breaking the law to hide key pieces of data
isn’t just ’science as usual,’ as the
global warming movement’s embattled defenders gamely tried to
argue. A cover-up like that suggests that you indeed have
something to conceal.
The urge to make the data better than it was
didn’t just come out of nowhere. The global
warmists were trapped into the necessity of hyping the threat by their
realization that the actual evidence they had — which, let me
emphasize, all hype aside, is serious, troubling and establishes in my
mind the need for intensive additional research and investigation, as
well as some prudential steps that would reduce CO2 emissions by
enhancing fuel use efficiency and promoting alternative energy sources
— was not sufficient to get the world’s governments
to do what they thought needed to be done. Hyping the threat
increasingly doesn’t look like an accident: it looks like it
was a conscious political strategy.
Now it has failed. Not everything that has
come out of the IPCC and the East Anglia Climate Unit is false, but
enough of their product is sufficiently tainted that these institutions
can best serve the cause of fighting climate change by stepping out of
the picture. New leadership might help, but everything these
two agencies have done will now have to be re-checked by independent
and objective sources.
The global warming campaigners got into this mess
because they had a deeply flawed political strategy. They
were never able to develop a pragmatic approach that could reach its
goals in the context of the existing international system.
The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international
agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in
national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political
economies of most countries on the planet. As it happened,
the movement never got to the first step — it never got the
world’s countries to agree to the necessary set of treaties,
transfers and policies that would constitute, at least on paper, a
program for achieving its key goals.
Even if that first step had been reached, the second and
third would almost surely not have been. The United States
Congress is unlikely to pass the kind of legislation these agreements
would require before the midterm elections, much less ratify a
treaty. (It takes 67 senate votes to ratify a treaty and only
60 to overcome a filibuster.) After the midterms, with the
Democrats expected to lose seats in both houses, the chance of passage
would be even more remote — especially as polls show that
global warming ranks at or near the bottom of most voters’
priorities.American public opinion
supports ‘doing something’ about global warming,
but not very much; support for specific measures and sacrifices will
erode rapidly as commentators from Fox News and other conservative
outlets endlessly hammer away.Without a
commitment from the United States to pay its share of the $100 billion
plus per year that poor countries wanted as their price for compliance,
and without US participation in other aspects of the proposed global
approach, the intricate global deals fall apart.
Since the United States was never very likely to accept
these agreements and ratify these treaties, and is even
less prepared to do so in a recession with the Democrats in
retreat, even “success” in Copenhagen would not
have brought the global warming movement the kind of victory it sought
— although it would have created a very sticky and painful
political problem for the United States.
But even if somehow, miraculously, the United States and
all the other countries involved not only accepted the agreements but
ratified them and wrote domestic legislation to incorporate them into
law, it is extremely unlikely that all this activity would achieve the
desired result. Countries would cheat, either because they
chose to do so or because their domestic systems are so weak,
so corrupt or so both
that they simply wouldn’t
beable to comply. Governments
in countries like China and India aren’t going to stop
pushing for all the economic growth they can get by any means that will
work — and even if central governments decided to move on
global warming, state and local authorities have agendas of their
own. The examples of blatant cheating would inevitably affect
compliance in other countries; it would also very likely erode what
would in any case be an extremely fragile consensus in rich countries
to keep forking over hundreds of billions of dollars to poor countries
— many of whom would not be in anything like full compliance
with their commitments.
For better or worse, the global political system
isn’t capable of producing the kind of result the global
warming activists want. It’s like asking a
jellyfish to climb a flight of stairs; you can poke and prod all you
want, you can cajole and you can threaten. But you are asking
for something that you just can’t get — and at the
end of the day, you won’t get it.
The grieving friends and relatives aren’t
ready to pull the plug; in a typical, whistling-past-the-graveyard
comment, the BBC first acknowledges that even if the current promises
are kept, temperatures will rise above the target level of two degrees
Celsius — but let’s not despair! The BBC
quotes one of its own reporters: “BBC environment
reporter Matt McGrath says the accord lacks teeth and does not include
any clear targets on cutting emissions. But if most countries at least
signal what they intend to do to cut their emissions, it will mark the
first time that the UN has a comprehensive written collection of
promised actions, he says.”
Gosh! A comprehensive written collection of promised actions!
And it’s a first!! Any day now that jellyfish is
going to start climbing stairs. Sure, it will be slow at
first — but the momentum will build!
The death of global warming (the movement, not the
phenomenon) has some important political and cultural consequences in
the United States that I’ll be blogging on down the
road. Basically, Sarah Palin 1, Al Gore zip. The
global warming meltdown confirms all the populist suspicions out there
about an arrogantly clueless establishment invoking faked
’science’ to impose cockamamie social mandates on
the long-suffering American people, backed by a mainstream media that
is totally in the tank. Don’t think this won’t have
consequences; we’ll be exploring them together as the days go
by.
This is like the collapse of a huge global empire like Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union.
The global warming establishment was extensively funded by the U.S. government. The EPA spent five billion dollars a year since the early nineties on "climate science", meaning "proving that human activity causes global warming."
In combination with the rest of the world, probably well over a hundred billion dollars has been spent on promoting global warming.
To see it all come crashing down in such a short period of time, like the collapse of the Berlin wall, is just amazing.
Nonetheless, I expect that like the collapsed empires of the past, there will still be "bitter enders" holding out in their enclaves (mostly universities) for years and decades claiming that human caused global warming is "real", and we shouldn't be blinded by the flaws of a few people.
Since the UN treaty at COP15 didn't get approved (I'm glad to say) the EPA here in the states have put it upon themselves (or Obama instigated) to do what the UN treaty as suppose to do, regulate and collect revenue for carbon tax.
More about that here:
Greenaction mobilizes community power to win victories that change government and corporate policies and practices to protect health and to promote environmental justice. http://www.greenaction.org/index.shtml
California Environmental Justice Coalition Opposes Carbon Trading as Phony Climate Change Solution. Read more at www.ejmatters.org.
THE scientist at the centre of the
“climategate” email scandal has revealed that he
was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he
contemplated suicide.
Professor Phil Jones said in an exclusive interview with The Sunday
Times that he had thought about killing himself “several
times”. He acknowledged similarities to Dr David Kelly, the
scientist who committed suicide after being exposed as the source for a
BBC report that alleged the government had “sexed
up” evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq.
In emails that were hacked into and seized upon by global-warming
sceptics before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, Jones
appeared to call upon his colleagues to destroy scientific data rather
than release it to people intent on discrediting their work monitoring
climate change.
Jones, 57, said he was unprepared for the scandal: “I am just
a scientist. I have no training in PR or dealing with crises.”
The incident has taken a severe toll on his health. He
has lost more than a stone in weight and disclosed he is on
beta-blockers and using sleeping pills. He said the support of his
family, and especially the love of his five-year-old granddaughter, had
helped him to shake off suicidal thoughts: “I wanted to see
her grow up.”
He remains at risk, still receiving death threats from around the world
including two in the past week: “I was shocked. People said I
should go and kill myself. They said that they knew where I lived. They
were coming from all over the world.”
Jones has temporarily stood down as director of the climatic research
unit at the University of East Anglia. He fiercely defends the
unit’s science — “I stand by it
100%” — but now accepts that he did not treat
Freedom of Information (FoI) requests for the data as seriously as he
should have done. Jones believes that the unit was maliciously targeted
with multiple FoI requests by climate change sceptics determined to
disrupt its work.
Last week Graham Smith, the deputy information commissioner, ruled that
by failing to release requested data Jones and his colleagues breached
FoI regulations. The affair is now the subject of a review led by Sir
Muir Russell, former vice-chancellor of Glasgow University.
The
mainstream mediasphere and the alarmist blogosphere has been ignoring
or dismissing the dominos of global warming collapsing as the
fraudulent machinations of the IPCC are exposed, NOAA and NASA and CRU data manipulation is
revealed and their heroes Michael Mann and Phil Jones are being
investigated, and this incredible winter unfolds in many areas of the
United States and Europe and Asia.
China
has had the coldest weather since 1971. Europe and Russia experienced
brutal, deadly cold and heavy snows. Snow and cold surprised delegates
to the UN Copenhagen global warming conference and followed Obama and
congress back to DC.
Florida and
parts of the southeast had the longest stretch of cold weather in
history. Florida citrus areas had the worst damage since 1989.
Washington saw a heavy snowstorm in December and now a record breaking
storm in early February. Another one is on the way and will likely
affect other cities further north.
> Jones has temporarily stood down as director of the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia. He fiercely defends the unit’s science — “I stand by it 100%” — but now accepts that he did not treat Freedom of Information (FoI) requests for the data as seriously as he should have done. Jones believes that the unit was maliciously targeted with multiple FoI requests by climate change sceptics determined to disrupt its work.
What an arrogant S.O.B.
"Yeah, I lied. But you people 'maliciously' tried to expose my lies 'to disrupt' my stupendously important work which you ignorant boobs can't appreciate."
Copenhagen cop-out - "a
historic failure that will live in infamy"
Written by Editorial from February 2009 edition of Socialism Today,
magazine of the Socialist Party (CWI in England & Wales) Monday, 01 February 2010
14:40
The
UN conference on climate change (Cop15), held in Copenhagen 7-18
December, was a fiasco. The Independent called it “a historic
failure that will live in infamy”. After years of
preparation, the representatives of 193 countries discussed and
wrangled for two weeks. In the closing hours, leaders such as Barak
Obama and Wen Jinbao (and Gordon Brown) flew in, supposedly to break
the deadlock. All of them accepted the urgency of reaching agreement.
Unless global warming is limited to 2°C above pre-industrial
levels, the planet faces catastrophe. But no agreement was reached, let
alone the framework for a binding international treaty,
Cop15’s original aim. Backroom discussions between the US,
China and a handful of neo-colonial states (Brazil, India, South
Africa, etc) produced an ‘accord’ – a
brief memo of vague aims and even vaguer pledges. Completely sidelined,
the Cop15 assembly merely ‘noted’ the accord.
Almost immediately, China’s representative, Su Wei, announced
that, as it was not a formal UN agreement, China reserved the right to
repudiate even the accord.
The nonsense title of this thread, is an effort to set aside reality and to keep America backward and poor. If that was the only result I'd say "well deserved".
Sadly since the USA is massively to major contributor to man made global warming, the effects don't stop there.
Some good things have come our of the recent fiasco at Copenhagen, and the attempt by the back to the past crowd to deny reality, by misrepresenting the facts.
The scientists have been forced to get a lot more organised in how they present what they know. There's a key problem, with the science. Global warming is such a complex topic there is NOBODY, who's an expert.
Dr Phil Jones, is a case in point. He's one of the leading experts, but when he was asked some pretty simple looking questions by a reporter, Jones was unable to answer very clearly. The reason was simple enough, Jones's own research doesn't answer that question, AND Jones is not familiar with all the literature.
Moreover, there is research in the pipeline that fully confirms not only global warming, but continued global warming up to the present. The data I'm talking about regards sea temperature. The data series confirmed at present ends at 2003, but efforts are being made to extend this data.
What is obvious from the report I read, was that the air, global ice caps, the surface ocean, and the deep ocean all respond as heat sinks for changes in the amount of HEAT the earth's surface is holding. That store of HEAT is the certain evidence of Global Warming.
So the change in the air temperature is most variable, ice melts or accumulates and is less variable, the surface sea temperature changes slowly and the deep sea temperature very slowly. It appears that rising sea level is the best evidence of global warming.
The idea that any group of scientists might be able to falsify the record is rendered totally foolish when one understands how many different sets of expertise are needed to prove global warming. That's one reason why there can be legitimate debate about the evidence. That's good and completely valid.
Sadly much of what's been said in the debate on this site in the last few months isn't valid, is based on malicious evidence and lies and is best ignored.
Here in New Zealand Rodney Hide, leader of the Act Party gave a speech in parliament that raised almost all of the frivolous arguments raised by Ron Sam and Thomas Holford here. A NZ blogger asks, "How far can a Minister of the Crown go in misrepresenting the facts of a matter before he is guilty of misleading the House?"
> It appears that rising sea level is the best evidence of global warming.
One more time:
Twenty thousand years ago, most of the North American continent was covered with a mammoth ice sheet. Between twenty thousand years ago and eight thousand years ago, that ice sheet melted as a consequence of . . . GLOBAL WARMING . . . and the world's sea levels rose about 160 meters.
About eight thousand years ago, the level of the Black Sea was 160 meters LOWER than it is today. Water spillage from the Mediterranean Sea eroded through the Bosporus and resulted in a cataclysmic flood which brought the Black Sea up to it's current level.
The issue is NOT whether there is global warming or whether sea levels have risen or are rising.
The issue is whether or not human activity is a SIGNIFICANT CAUSE of global warming.
The anthropogenic global warming advocates need to prove their case, WHICH THEY HAVE NOT DONE.
They have spent MORE THAN A HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer money trying to prove it, all they have to show for it is Phil Jones' retractions, Michael Mann's bogus and discredited "hockey stick", Hadley CRU missing data, CRIMINAL obstruction of Freedom of Information Requests, undocumented and unexplained modifications of computer algorithms, and conspiracies to frustrate peer review and discredit and silence critics.
> The idea that any group of scientists might be able to falsify the record is rendered totally foolish when one understands how many different sets of expertise are needed to prove global warming.
All of the "many different sets of expertise" were assembled in the Hadley CRU and under it's control. The Hadley CRU was, apparently, the headquarters of the conspiracy. Dr. Timothy Ball recently reported an analysis of the global warming advocates' activities and identified a core group of 42 "scientists" who routinely peer reviewed and approved each others papers. It was a closed cabal.
Hadley CRU controlled the UN IPCC.
> That's one reason why there can be legitimate debate about the evidence. That's good and completely valid.
I question whether you really believe this. There HAS BEEN NO DEBATE on human caused global warming. Al Gore, the worlds most strident global warming promoter, has declined to participate in an debates, and routinely refuses to appear on the same forum with global warming skeptics.
The global warming establishment declared that human caused global warming was "settled science" and that there was a broad "consensus" of scientists, that it was "real" and that "something has to be done." So arrogant and insulated was the global warming crowd, that they even promoted a slur term for those who did not submit to the "scientific consensus": global warming deniers.
> Moreover, there is research in the pipeline that fully confirms not only global warming, . . .
You mean that after spending a hundred billion dollars on research, it STILL hasn't been confirmed, but there is research "just around the corner" that WILL prove it?
Well, then, why don't we wait until that research is completed, peer reviewed, published, disseminated to the world scientific community, critiqued, debated, and confirmed by mulitple independent and repeatable scientific EXPERIMENTS?
That's the way REAL science works.
> Dr Phil Jones, is a case in point. He's one of the leading experts, but when he was asked some pretty simple looking questions by a reporter, Jones was unable to answer very clearly. The reason was simple enough, Jones's own research doesn't answer that question, AND Jones is not familiar with all the literature.
The first requires a great deal of time, effort, talent and luck with not a lot of chance of ever becoming wise.
The second requires little time, a bit of effort, some interesting talent and far better chance of becoming wise at least in the eyes of your peers.
The first involves discovering truth.
The second involves making up your own information.
It is common today for people to take the second path. Most of the time it doesn't get out of control but it does once in a while take on a life of itself as did the Global Warming Promotion.
What a BUMMER!
Have a good IDea today,
02/17/10 Joseph F. Lynders FTg/M/?
NOTE: Tomorrow will be the sixteenth anniversary of the rebirth of my present immune system.
You claim to be a scientist Thomas but you seem to completely ignore your own observations in favor of continuing to berate those who push to treat this planet with a little more sanity.
Sure billions have been spent and properly so. This is to try and combat the ka-zillions of dollars that have been made by raping the planet.
Intelligent people everywhere are wondering how our grandchildren are going to fare.
IF we go WAYYY back in Earth's history we see that there is a downward trend to global temperatures.
(As explained by Kirk A. Maasch, a professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Maine)
Between 52 and 57 million years ago tropical conditions actually extended all the way into the mid-latitudes (around northern Spain or the central United States for example), polar regions experienced temperate climates, and the difference in temperature between the equator and pole was much smaller than it is today.
Alligators lived in Ellesmere Island at 78 degrees North.
This warm period, called the Eocene, was followed by a long cooling trend. In North America, the mean annual air temperature dropped by approximately 12 degrees Celsius.
Between 20 and 16 million years ago, there was a brief respite from the big chill, but this was followed by a second major cooling period so intense that by 7 million years ago southeastern Greenland was completely covered with glaciers, and by 5-6 million years ago, the glaciers were creeping into Scandinavia and the northern Pacific region.
The Earth was once more released from the grip of the big chill between 5 and 3 million years ago, when the sea was much warmer around North America and the Antarctic than it is today. Warm-weather plants grew in Northern Europe where today they cannot survive, and trees grew in Iceland, Greenland, and Canada as far north as 82 degrees North.
We are still in the midst of the third major cooling period that began around 3 million years ago, and its effect can be seen around the world, perhaps even in the development of our own species. Around 2 and a half million years ago, tundra-like conditions took over north-central Europe. Soon thereafter, the once-humid environment of Central China was replaced by harsh continental steppe. And in sub-Saharan Africa, arid and open grasslands expanded, replacing more wooded, wetter environments. Many paleontologists believe that this environmental change is linked to the evolution of humankind. ----
Now here we are in the middle of a global cooling trend and do we see evidence of this? no.. In fact it is the opposite. The evidence supports increasing temperatures.
And the question is not if mankind is having an effect on global warming. It is if mankind is having a detrimental effect on the environment, and it is a resounding HELL YA!..the environment is suffering from our mistreatment.
As an aside, while there are several factors that affect the temperature of our environment, none is as telling as the carbon cycle.
The position and height of the tectonic plates, the strength and paths of the ocean currents, the distance from the sun, solar activity, and the concentration of elements on land and in the atmosphere (other than carbon) all have an effect.
> It is if mankind is having a detrimental effect on the environment, and it is a resounding HELL YA!..
If a butterfly flaps its wings in the rain forest, does it affect earth's climate?
Well, yeah.
Is it significant?
No.
Likewise, mankind's effect on the environment is NOT significant.
So, what is your point other than you've got a huge load of narcissistic guilt?
Obsessive, pathologic, self-referential narcissism is a fundamental element of the environmentalist/global warming alarmist's personna.
They imagine themselves to be vastly more important in the order of things than the really are.
They imagine that exhaling carbon dioxide, not driving a Prius, or using more than one sheet of toilet paper is going to cause the planet to warm and cause polar bears to drown.
This is, objectively, mental illness.
Sadly, it is documented in the social science research literature that narcissism, or specifically Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), is a virtually irreversible condition. Once a person becomes infected with narcissism, there is no realistic way to "de-program" them.
If you FEEL you are causing global warming, there is no way that I or anyone else can change your feeling. Your destiny is to believe in human caused global warming forever, even if there are snow drifts to the top of the Washington Monument.
Despite what Obama says, change is NOT always possible.
> You claim to be a scientist Thomas but you seem to completely ignore your own observations in favor of continuing to berate those who push to treat this planet with a little more sanity.
I am one of those people who are pushing "to treat this planet with a little more sanity". As a sane inhabitant of the planet, I recognize that the plant is FAR, FAR bigger than me and all of humanity, and we don't neet to worry about our activities causing the planet to heat up.
Like Reg, I find the idea that human activity is having no appreciable effect on the environment clearly evident, both by personal observation and by historical data. The argument that our actions have no appreciable effect ignore a long list of cause/effect cases.
That doesn't mean that all cases of environmental change are linked to human causes. Nor does it mean that all cases of human caused environmental change is necessarily a bad thing.
I don't know that human activity is or is not contributing to global warming which may or may not be happening, or climate change which is always happening.
I do know that what I pave no longer absorbs rainfall, that what I create in runoff becomes concentrated down stream, that what I throw away doesn't simply disappear, and that what I flush isn't gone. I do know that pesticides are not specific, that they can be indiscriminate poisons, and can concentrate as they move up the food chain. I do know that the lights at night wash out the stars light, and that what goes into the air can change the pH of the rain. I do know that electricity does not simple come out of the socket, or water out of the tap.
I wonder about those who feel their actions are without consequence. Is it that they feel so insignificant, or is it arrogance? Neither seems like a poster for mental health.
> I do know that what I pave no longer absorbs rainfall, that what I create in runoff becomes concentrated down stream, that what I throw away doesn't simply disappear, and that what I flush isn't gone. I do know that pesticides are not specific, that they can be indiscriminate poisons, and can concentrate as they move up the food chain. I do know that the lights at night wash out the stars light, and that what goes into the air can change the pH of the rain. I do know that electricity does not simple come out of the socket, or water out of the tap.
Ultimately, it comes down to a question of scale: the planet is large; humanity is small. Very small. Very, very small.
The human ego is large. The human ego has a great deal of difficulty accepting that it is NOT as important as it imagines itself to be.
Humanity at one time believed that the sun revolved around the earth, and that earth was at the center of the universe.
It took the invention of physics and mathematics to help humanity to understand it's relative place in the cosmos: small.
Humanity also has a very self-centered concept of time. Humans imagine that any "mess" they create endures forever. Humanity worries about finding a place to step because someday the entire planet will be covered with human turds.
Not to worry. Humanity is a blink of an eye in the chronology of the planet and of the universe. Great stone pyramids and palaces are swallowed up by erosion or jungle in a few centuries or a few millenia.
Humanity could explode all the nuclear weapons it has, and in a few decades or a few centuries the ecosystem would be back to normal.
The Laws of Thermodynamics say that Entropy increases. Order inexorably disintegrates into disorder. And that is the thermodynamic fate of all human creations. Even pollution.
Thomas is right. The earth will outlast any of us, and our impact will be hardly noticeable in the grand scheme of things.
But I am living in the here and now. I am concerned with my environment, my immediate area, and the area where my children and grandchildren live. My impact on this environment is very real and of great importance to me. _____
The ethic of reciprocity is ignored by the most active on all sides of the discussion. One side says "We'll do whatever we damn well please because in the grand scheme we have no lasting impact" and the other side says "Everyone needs to live our way because we have an impact and you damn well better be like us or else" and on it goes.
Both sides can be a really pain where I sit. One side is busy crapping in my Post Toasties, the other side is taking my Post Toasties away. Is this how either side wants me to act towards them?
Much of the Innovation process depends a great deal on what is called Other Peoples Money, (OPM).
Venture Capital is an important part of OPM.
There are two types of Venture Capitalists.
The first type is willing to risk their money for a reasonable expectation of making big returns on their investments.
The second type is willing to risk their money for a reasonable expectation of doing something really good for humanity with only a secondary desire to get their money back.
It is uncommon today for people to try to run scams with the first type of investors.
It is common today for people to try to run scams with the second type of investors.
Most of the time it doesn't get out of control but it does once in a while take on a life of itself as did the Global Warming Promotion.
The ethic of reciprocity is also known as Golden Rule.
The Golden Rule is an ethical code that states one has a right to just
treatment, and a responsibility to ensure justice for others. It is
also called the ethic of
reciprocity.
It is ignored
for the following reasons:
These obstacles
to living by the golden rule are sometimes cited:
* People dispute the meaning of the golden rule
* Ego involvement
* treating jerks as they deserve to be treated
* self defense
* punishing enemies
* needing to win and defeat rivals
* oppression makes compassion difficult
* People may become disappointed or resentful if
they are not treated as well in return as they perceive they have
treated others
* People may expect to be treated as "well" as they
treat others
Center for American
Progress
It was created in 2003 as a left-wing alternative to think tanks such
as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Its
President and Chief Executive Officer is JohnPodesta.
(2 links)
The Center for American Progress is classified as a 501(c)(3)
organization under U.S. IRS. The institute receives approximately $25
million per year in funding from a variety of sources, including
individuals, foundations, and corporations. From 2003 to 2007, the
center received about $15 million in grants from 58 foundations. Major
individual donors include George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steve Bing, and
Herb and Marion Sandler. The Center receives undisclosed sums from
corporate donors.
Enter: The Nefarious
Left-wing Cabal Behind Climate Research .
George Soros
Regarding Real
Climate November 20, 2009, The CRU hack;
There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George
Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to
‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global
warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no
‘marching orders’ from our
socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put
this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
How interesting. Never mind the dubious veracity of most of
that…nobody reporting on Climategate had even mentioned
George Soros.
Regarding, Daily
Tech: September 2007, Update: NASA, James Hansen, and the
Politicization of Science;
In 2006, Hansen
accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him.
The issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public
affairs intern. It warned Hansen over repeated violations of
NASA’s official press policy, which requires the agency be
notified prior to interviews. Hansen claimed he was being
“silenced,” despite delivering over 1,400
interviews in recent years, including 15 the very month he made the
claim. While he admits to violating the NASA press policy, Hansen
states he had a “constitutional right” to grant
interviews. Hansen then began a barrage of public appearances on TV,
radio and in lecture halls decrying the politicization of climate
science.
Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him.
A report
revealed just this week, shows
the ‘Open Society Institute’ funded Hansen to the
tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign.
OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to
“shape public policy,” is funded by billionaire
George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry’s 2004
Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that
“removing Bush from office was the “central
focus” of his life, has also given tens of millions of
dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.
Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials
have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to secretly receive a
large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about
administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious
— it’s a clear conflict of interest.
If you can connect the dots of the Golden Rule and Neo-Marxist ideology
with junk science, you may understand what is being foisted upon you.
If your post toasties were taken away, the chance to crap in them is
gone, eh?
. "The Golden Rule is an ethical code that states one has a right to just treatment, and a responsibility to ensure justice for others. It is also called the ethic of reciprocity.
It is ignored for the following reasons:
These obstacles to living by the golden rule are sometimes cited:
1. * People dispute the meaning of the golden rule 2. * Ego involvement 3. * treating jerks as they deserve to be treated 4. * self defense 5. * punishing enemies 6. * needing to win and defeat rivals 7. * oppression makes compassion difficult 8. * People may become disappointed or resentful if they are not treated as well in return as they perceive they have treated others 9. * People may expect to be treated as "well" as they treat others" _______
If I may ...
Recently in PS we had a conversation about The Golden Rule.
I must ask here: Where is it "stated" that ...
"one has a right to just treatment, and a responsibility to ensure justice for others"
No such *right* exists of which I am aware.
There is indeed *reciprocity* whether or not it exists as an "ethic".
One does have a *responsibility* to be just, and merciful, to "others" ... but there is no *requirement* to act in such way.
Either one does or does not - and it is at that point where *reciprocity* kicks in.
Just a simple law of nature, sometimes called Karma, among other things.
Just the way it is.
The Golden Rule is an opportunity to set an example for other people, and if it is a good example, those who like the example may choose to follow it.
Not all will like it; not all who like it will follow it.
Not a problem.
The only *obstacle* to "living by The Golden Rule" is in one's own head.
As Ken said there, living by The Golden Rule ...
"... does not insure that anyone will treat me any better. The only person whose actions I control is me."
I agree(d), and add:
"Unless you can be seen holding to the higher standard as a *matter of practice* (what you usually do), then I think it unreasonable to expect that anyone will "look up" to your "example" when all you are demonstrating is that "giving no better than you get" is the way you intend to live."
The
UN conference on climate change (Cop15), held in Copenhagen 7-18
December, was a fiasco. The Independent called it “a historic
failure that will live in infamy”. After years of
preparation, the representatives of 193 countries discussed and
wrangled for two weeks. In the closing hours, leaders such as Barak
Obama and Wen Jinbao (and Gordon Brown) flew in, supposedly to break
the deadlock. All of them accepted the urgency of reaching agreement.
Unless global warming is limited to 2°C above pre-industrial
levels, the planet faces catastrophe. But no agreement was reached, let
alone the framework for a binding international treaty,
Cop15’s original aim. Backroom discussions between the US,
China and a handful of neo-colonial states (Brazil, India, South
Africa, etc) produced an ‘accord’ – a
brief memo of vague aims and even vaguer pledges. Completely sidelined,
the Cop15 assembly merely ‘noted’ the accord.
Almost immediately, China’s representative, Su Wei, announced
that, as it was not a formal UN agreement, China reserved the right to
repudiate even the accord.
