Page 54 of 111 FirstFirst ... 444495051525354555657585964104 ... LastLast
Results 1,061 to 1,080 of 2209
  1. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1061  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I'm unaware of "doctored reports." I suspect you're exaggerating. Please cite. Thanks.
    There's much that escapes your selective willful ignorance. Fortunately for democracy and the integrity of science, the unqualified, corrupt former Bush appointee who headed the manipulation team at the EPA is now just another Oil lobbyist. How inconvenient for you.

    http://oversight.house.gov/Documents...3153-55829.pdf

     The specific actions by political appointees and others include:
    1. Censorship and suppression of federal science by suppressing or delaying scientific
    reports, limiting media access to government scientists, and placing restrictions on
    the flow of information.
    2. Disseminating inaccurate science-based information by forcing scientists to change
    their data, editing scientific documents to alter their conclusions, distributing
    inaccurate science based information, and distributing curricula with incorrect
    information.
    3. Manipulating scientific advice by subjecting scientific advisory panel nominees to
    political litmus tests; nominating underqualified individuals or individuals with
    conflicts of interest; and ignoring or disbanding science advisory committees
    altogether.



    http://oversight.house.gov/Documents...3813-92288.pdf

    In December of last year, NASA climatologist Dr. James Hansen was threatened with “dire consequences” by a political appointee for statements he made about the consequences of climate change. According to GAP’s legal director, Tom Devine, “Under this so-called reform, Dr. Hansen would still be in danger of ‘dire consequences’ for sharing his research, although that threat is what sparked the new policy in the first place. The new policy violates the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Anti-Gag Statute, and the law protecting communications with Congress, the Lloyd-Lafollette Act. The loopholes are not innocent mistakes or oversights. GAP extensively briefed the agency lawyer on these requirements, who insisted he understood them fully. NASA is intentionally defying the good government anti-secrecy laws.”
  2. #1062  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Most telling in your replies was the matter-of-fact manner in which you accept the possibility that a billion animals may die because of global warming and your expert opinion that 300M people won't die because of global warming.
    I'm telling you that scientists aren't predicting 300 million people dying from global warming. Not just my opinion. Maybe that many people will suffer some consequences.

    As for billions of animals, that's an easy conclusion to make from the IPCC climate change predictions.

    Honestly you talk in circles - you're certain that a majority of scientist cannot make reasonable guesstimates as to how the planet and life on that planet will be affected by global warming but quick to assure me that your expert opinion is that we'll be just fine....unless you're an animal I guess.
    I'm sorry if I'm not making this clear.
    1. Long-term climate predictions are based on climate models which have a great deal of uncertainty baked in. Scientists are fully aware of that uncertainty and are generally candid about it. Non-scientists, including most journalists, politicians, and activists, generally minimize that uncertainty, for example, changing "might" to "will" and dropping any discussion of the limitations of our knowledge. The IPCC reports always highlight the limitations and uncertainties.
    2. The majority of scientists don't back the most dire predictions, the ones warning of the end of the world. For this reason, the IPCC gives a range of possibilities. Then the newspaper articles highlight the worst scenarios, leaving the impression that that's the consensus view.
    3. Even in the scenarios where millions die, they're not talking about Mad Max or The Day After Tomorrow. For most of us, life goes on.
    4. I make no apologies for not caring about the fate of animal species. We kill billions of fish because they taste good, and now we're supposed to worry about the fate of a million kangaroo rats?

    In any event, this is something reasonable people can change. Oil is to blame for many things and it needs to go. Someone has to have the courage - like Brazil did - to ween America off of oil. This is a crisis that is manageable and I know that we have the smarts and resources to do it if we want to do it and don't let the oil companies and the DC cronies convince us otherwise.

    I'm not sure how true this story is, but I once heard that during WWII the Japanese occupied all of the islands from which we got our rubber - rubber that was needed for tires on our airplanes. Do you know what happened then? We suddenly crapped synthetic rubber. We've reached that crisis point in history with oil - whether the impetus be global warming or extremist wack jobs in the middle east - we can and should move to alternative fuels as aggressively as we can.
    I don't necessarily disagree, but what do you suggest we do that we aren't doing? It seems that reducing our dependence on oil has been a goal for a very long time.

    I think replacing coal plants with nuclear is the way to go, but the very environmentalists who are shouting about global warming won't let us go there either.
  3. #1063  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    There's much that escapes your selective willful ignorance. Fortunately for democracy and the integrity of science, the unqualified, corrupt former Bush appointee who headed the manipulation team at the EPA is now just another Oil lobbyist. How inconvenient for you.

    http://oversight.house.gov/Documents...3153-55829.pdf

    The specific actions by political appointees and others include:
    1. Censorship and suppression of federal science by suppressing or delaying scientific
    reports, limiting media access to government scientists, and placing restrictions on
    the flow of information.
    2. Disseminating inaccurate science-based information by forcing scientists to change
    their data, editing scientific documents to alter their conclusions, distributing
    inaccurate science based information, and distributing curricula with incorrect
    information.
    3. Manipulating scientific advice by subjecting scientific advisory panel nominees to
    political litmus tests; nominating underqualified individuals or individuals with
    conflicts of interest; and ignoring or disbanding science advisory committees
    altogether.



    http://oversight.house.gov/Documents...3813-92288.pdf

    In December of last year, NASA climatologist Dr. James Hansen was threatened with “dire consequences” by a political appointee for statements he made about the consequences of climate change. According to GAP’s legal director, Tom Devine, “Under this so-called reform, Dr. Hansen would still be in danger of ‘dire consequences’ for sharing his research, although that threat is what sparked the new policy in the first place. The new policy violates the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Anti-Gag Statute, and the law protecting communications with Congress, the Lloyd-Lafollette Act. The loopholes are not innocent mistakes or oversights. GAP extensively briefed the agency lawyer on these requirements, who insisted he understood them fully. NASA is intentionally defying the good government anti-secrecy laws.”
    Thanks. I wish all of your posts were more like this - except for the off-base inferences. You continue to assume a lot about my beliefs.

    As for doctored reports, I highlighted the item which kinda supports the claim. "Doctored" implies editing without the writer's knowledge, and it's not clear from your highlights that that was the case.

    That said, the level of interference described goes well beyond what I was aware of. That's pretty outrageous.
  4. #1064  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Failure to come clean to what specifically?
    UN SCR 1441.

    You and yours refused to listen to, and took calculated measures to muzzle the prior UN Chief Weapons Inspector, former US Marine, Scott Ritter. Well, isn't that special.
    I think it was Joe Biden who said that opining about war was beyond Scott's paygrade. I agree.

    The same Saddam whom the US hand-picked and placed into power via assassination in the 1950's?
    I think you're confusing Iraq with Iran.
  5. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1065  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    UN SCR 1441.
    The same resolution that Colin Powell now admits was fatally flawed. Got it.

    I think it was Joe Biden who said that opining about war was beyond Scott's paygrade. I agree.
    Ritter was right. Both you and Biden were/are wrong as is now proven.

    I think you're confusing Iraq with Iran.
    No confusion. Brush up on the subject before eliminating all doubt once again as you did regarding Forced False Climate Reports.
  6. #1066  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    The same resolution that Colin Powell now admits was fatally flawed. Got it.



    Ritter was right. Both you and Biden were/are wrong as is now proven.



    No confusion. Brush up on the subject before eliminating all doubt once again as you did regarding Forced False Climate Reports.
    You're back to form with throwaway comments.

    Ritter was right when he said that we needed to enforce UN Resolutions against Iraq. And Biden was right about Ritter's pay grade and about invading Iraq.

    And how old do you think Saddam was? He didn't become President until the 70s.
  7. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1067  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Ritter was right when he said that we needed to enforce UN Resolutions against Iraq. And Biden was right about Ritter's pay grade and about invading Iraq.
    Ritter was also right about there being no WMD in Iraq in 2002, that they were destroyed after our first grand attempt to preserve petrol interests.

    And how old do you think Saddam was? He didn't become President until the 70s.
    Not even a foul tip. Do you even know how to grip a bat?

    And about those manipulated government climate reports ..... <cue the cricket chirps> ... Your silence speaks volumes.
  8. #1068  
    I don't necessarily disagree, but what do you suggest we do that we aren't doing? It seems that reducing our dependence on oil has been a goal for a very long time.

    I think replacing coal plants with nuclear is the way to go, but the very environmentalists who are shouting about global warming won't let us go there either.
    Sounds like we're getting close to some common ground. Although I don't agree at all that we are doing all that we can to ween ourselves off of oil. Aggressive to me means putting a hard timeline in place - on a state by state basis - along with big cash incentives to our dying auto industry to make lots of hydrogen cars. Of course with a half trillion blown over in Iraq that is a lot more difficult to do these days....but we CAN do it if we want to do but it takes leadership (as in someone that can look forward and articluate a plan and build coalitions to move the plan forward) and courage (to stand up to the oil companies and tell them to jump in with both feet or get out of the way) but we both know the current President does not have either the intellect nor intestinal fortitude to do either.

    Not sure about nuclear as I've not kept up on the whole "where do we bury this crap" thing. If things are somehow miraculously improved and we're able to get the waste out of here (as in out into space or something) then I'd be open to it. But again, I admit I am not hip to the latest/greatest in nuclear power plants so maybe it had merit.
  9. #1069  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Sounds like we're getting close to some common ground. Although I don't agree at all that we are doing all that we can to ween ourselves off of oil. Aggressive to me means putting a hard timeline in place - on a state by state basis - along with big cash incentives to our dying auto industry to make lots of hydrogen cars.
    As opposed to cars that run on ethanol? I don't know for sure the state of hydrogen power, but it seems that the technology is still too early to be subsidizing the manufacture of production vehicles. But in general, I think promoting technology research is a good thing.

    Regarding blame, I just know that every recent President, including Clinton, has talked about reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

    Not sure about nuclear as I've not kept up on the whole "where do we bury this crap" thing. If things are somehow miraculously improved and we're able to get the waste out of here (as in out into space or something) then I'd be open to it. But again, I admit I am not hip to the latest/greatest in nuclear power plants so maybe it had merit.
    ANWR seems like a good place for burying nuclear waste. Since few people go there, we might as well get some good use out of it.
  10. #1070  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Ritter was also right about there being no WMD in Iraq in 2002, that they were destroyed after our first grand attempt to preserve petrol interests.
    Ritter didn't claim that. He hadn't been a weapons inspector since Clinton was around so he wouldn't know whether there was no WMD. Ritter argued that it wasn't worth going to war over the unaccounted for WMD. On the subject of what's worth going to war for, his opinion carries as much weight as yours.


    Not even a foul tip. Do you even know how to grip a bat?
    You mix up Iraq and Iran, and you don't show any sign of embarassment.

    And about those manipulated government climate reports ..... <cue the cricket chirps> ... Your silence speaks volumes.
    I'm still waiting for evidence that reports were doctored.
  11. #1071  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I'm still waiting for evidence that reports were doctored.
    Call it "removed or adjusted language", "editing" ,"modified", "negotiating more favorable language" ...whatever you want to call it is fine by me. But it seems clear that Philip Cooney was more than a little busy attemping to downplay the scientific realities of global warming. I've also read quotes of Christine Todd Whitmann basically admitting that EPA reports were modified but that she would rather get the reports out anyway since there was so much other good data in them vs. doing battle with the White House to keep the language and scientific findings in the report unchanged.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0131/p01s04-uspo.html

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/08/news/climate.php
  12. #1072  
    Have any of you been drinking? This sounds like a calm, open-minded, reasonable discussion of issues by people who have been sitting at the bar for a very long time.
  13. #1073  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tastypeppers View Post
    Have any of you been drinking? This sounds like a calm, open-minded, reasonable discussion of issues by people who have been sitting at the bar for a very long time.
    LOL.

    Here is one more link from Foxnews http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...arming,00.html

    And just to remind you all of who Mr. Cooney is - he is the ex-oil industry lobbyist that Bush put in charge of making 181 alterations to 3 different climate-change reports. Once the scandal hit the wires Mr. Cooney resigned and went back to his "base" and took a cozy little gig at Exxon.
  14. #1074  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Call it "removed or adjusted language", "editing" ,"modified", "negotiating more favorable language" ...whatever you want to call it is fine by me.
    Sounds good. I agree that the level of interference was inappropriate.
  15. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1075  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Sounds good. I agree that the level of interference was inappropriate.
    No one has suggested the 'interference' was simply inappropriate. This meets a much higher ethical and likely, legal, standard. A single incident might get away with being characterized as inappropriate.
  16. #1076  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    No one has suggested the 'interference' was simply inappropriate.
    Not true. Plenty of people have called Cooney's actions inappropriate. Check your own pdf links. Please try not to make false blanket statements like this unless you've done the research first.

    This meets a much higher ethical and likely, legal, standard. A single incident might get away with being characterized as inappropriate.
    My objection to "doctored" was that it implied fraud or dishonest intent. I haven't seen a detailed list of all of Cooney's actions, but the few examples I've seen indicate that he was trying to make the language more accurate. I can say this because I agree with some of those changes. It's the sheer volume of his actions and the number of scientists who have complained that convince me that the behavior rises to the level of inappropriateness.

    As for your implication that he broke the law, please cite. Thanks.
  17. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1077  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Ritter didn't claim that. He hadn't been a weapons inspector since Clinton was around so he wouldn't know whether there was no WMD.
    Who better to verify Iraq's weapons production incapabilities after the first Oil War, Part I, while sanctions and dissecting the nation had crippled it?


    You mix up Iraq and Iran, and you don't show any sign of embarassment.
    Distinction of historical clarity is what you lack. I'm quite familiar with Iran's history with the 1953 CIA-infused Shah of Iran, another dime-a-dozen, brutal US-handpuppet-dictator.

    As to Saddam Hussein, who said he was Iraqi President in the 1950's? Only you.

    His CIA-provided rise to the top of the Baathist (anti-communist) Party culminated in 1963, yet his ascension was made certain in 1959 during the failed CIA-led, 6-man team, assassination attempt on Gen. Qassim.

    Qassim had violently overthrown King Faisal II of Iraq the prior year (1958) in his military coup bloodbath. After Qassim had announced Iraq's withdrawal from the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which had insured Iraq would stand as a buffer against Soviet expansion and threatened to nationalize Iraq's oil industry, Saddam was brought back into Iraq from being safehoused and supported in Egypt by the CIA, subsequent to the failed assassination attempt.

    The CIA, with cooperation of the US military 'attache' in Baghdad, William Lakeland, planned lists of 1000's to be 'cleansed', primarily Iraq's professional class. This is where Saddam Hussein earned the nickname, Butcher of Baghdad, as he ordered their executions, according to the CIA/Baathist plan, as the newly appointed head of Al-Jihaz al-Khas, the clandestine Baathist Intelligence agency (CIA's Iraqi farmclub).

    As reported by UPI:
    In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed "close ties" with Qassim's ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party "as its instrument."

    As James Critchfield, then head of the CIA in the Middle East, told UPI, the CIA regarded the Baathist coup against Qassim "a great victory" and also considered it their favorite coup.
    I'm still waiting for evidence that reports were doctored.
    Your selective blindness to explicit evidence is duly noted.
  18. #1078  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Who better to verify Iraq's weapons production incapabilities after the first Oil War, Part I, while sanctions and dissecting the nation had crippled it?
    You said that Ritter claimed there were no WMD in Iraq in 2002. You were wrong.

    0 for 1.


    Distinction of historical clarity is what you lack. I'm quite familiar with Iran's history with the 1953 CIA-infused Shah of Iran, another dime-a-dozen, brutal US-handpuppet-dictator.

    As to Saddam Hussein, who said he was Iraqi President in the 1950's? Only you.

    His CIA-provided rise to the top of the Baathist (anti-communist) Party culminated in 1963, yet his ascension was made certain in 1959 during the failed CIA-led, 6-man team, assassination attempt on Gen. Qassim.

    Qassim had violently overthrown King Faisal II of Iraq the prior year (1958) in his military coup bloodbath. After Qassim had announced Iraq's withdrawal from the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which had insured Iraq would stand as a buffer against Soviet expansion and threatened to nationalize Iraq's oil industry, Saddam was brought back into Iraq from being safehoused and supported in Egypt by the CIA, subsequent to the failed assassination attempt.

    The CIA, with cooperation of the US military 'attache' in Baghdad, William Lakeland, planned lists of 1000's to be 'cleansed', primarily Iraq's professional class. This is where Saddam Hussein earned the nickname, Butcher of Baghdad, as he ordered their executions, according to the CIA/Baathist plan, as the newly appointed head of Al-Jihaz al-Khas, the clandestine Baathist Intelligence agency (CIA's Iraqi farmclub).
    You said that Saddam was "hand-picked" and "placed into power" "via assassination" by the US in the 1950s. All three wrong. He was a 22 year-old kid, and he wasn't hand-picked, he didn't come into power in the 1950s, and the assassination attempt failed.

    0 for 2.


    Your selective blindness to explicit evidence is duly noted.
    You've got nothing.

    0 for 3.


    Keep swinging, Casey.
  19. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1079  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You said that Ritter claimed there were no WMD in Iraq in 2002. You were wrong.

    0 for 1.
    July 20, 2002 Boston Globe Op-Ed

    Do The Google.

    "hand-picked"
    Just a random 22-year old kid, out of the millions of Baghdad residents, whom the CIA chose as 1 of the 6 selected for the assassination mission, I suppose. Golly-gee, ... What are the odds.

    "placed into power"
    Yes, the power of leadership of the CIA's instrument, the Baathist party, to perform the CIA's will of cleansing 1000's of Iraq's professional class.

    "via assassination"
    I didn't specify whether the attempt was successful or not. It is historical fact that this mission triggered Saddam Hussein's CIA-led rise, even by those within the CIA.

    He was a 22 year-old kid, and he wasn't hand-picked, he didn't come into power in the 1950s, and the assassination attempt failed.
    And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, Dorothy.

    Keep swinging, Casey.
    The games over, the lights are out, no one's in the stands, yet you're still standing in right field scratching yourself.
    Last edited by backbeat; 04/15/2007 at 12:01 PM.
  20. #1080  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    July 20, 2002 NYT Op-Ed

    Do The Google.
    Did you even read it??? He did NOT say there were no WMD in 2002. He DID say that there were WMD unaccounted for in 1998.


    Just a random 22-year old kid, out of the millions of Baghdad residents, whom the CIA chose as 1 of the 6 selected for the assassination mission, I suppose. Golly-gee, ... What are the odds.



    Yes, the power of leadership of the CIA's instrument, the Baathist party, to perform the CIA's will of cleansing 1000's of Iraq's professional class.



    I didn't specify whether the attempt was successful or not. It is historical fact that this mission triggered Saddam Hussein's CIA-led rise, even by those within the CIA.
    You said: "The same Saddam whom the US hand-picked and placed into power via assassination in the 1950's?"
    There was no assassination. And you're claiming you meant that he was "placed into power" as a 22 year-old gunman. I guess you never really have to admit that you made an absurdly false claim.



    0 for 3, Casey. 0 for 3.

Posting Permissions