35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie

Originally posted by bobafett1972
It is a biased, slanted, one sided, my way or the highway film.

Which is fine if you're the CinC and prosecuting the war on terror in a country that has never attacked the US, but not okay if you're examining the single most important issue of the next century...

All you have to do is look and see for yourself. There are people actually saying that the current wild fires in California are GLOBAL WARMING INDUCED!!! Thats just insane. Sorry, since I was a child these things have been going on.

What has that got to do with the price of fish in Hong Kong?

Then to go and teach this to schools kids as gospel?

Nice segue there, from a complete red herring to a rebuttal of the entire issue that relies on said red herring...I'm loath to say this (as it will open a can of worms, oops, already did it with the WoT tm), but does that strike anyone else as typical of the American Right?...

By the way, speaking of those bushfires, since you were a child, have they ever been this bad?

Originally posted by greenfruit

The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff.

I'm pretty sure that the Judge found in favour of the plaintiff. I think that is what it says above????

Yes, !00%.

The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.

I guess the judge was pretty serious about the 9 errors???

Ummm..... Yeah. You could say he was pretty serious.

the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors.

The judge does explain why only nine of the 35 errors were looked at. Time was the issuse

You are very subtle.
And right on target.

Ruling that the Gov was in violation of it's own laws (an Act of Parliament prohibiting the the political indoctrination of children), is a pretty strong indictment, would you not agree?
Ordering the Gov to pay restitution to the plaintiff is also a pretty strong statement of the finding of guilt on the part of the gov, is it not?

Thanks for the great OP!

Well, Gores not the only one saying we're screwing up the environment

Humans Failing the Sustainibilty Audit

Which gives an overview of the United Nations Environment Programs Geo-4 Document and can't used as a pointless US political party scoring exercise. Oddly it conveys a similar message about how humans are treating the planet

And for those of you too lazy to read it, or the bloody minded who will dismiss it out of hand

Hundreds of researchers from a huge variety of disciplines have compiled, written and analysed its 572 pages; thousands more have reviewed the various chapters

So we're not talking about some small scale stuff here.

Still, I'm sure someone will try and blame Gores lifestyle or politics for this as well.....

reply to post by neformore


in fact, focusing on CO2 results in less sustainability, by such glorious concepts as biofuels

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and by simply drowining out any other concern, human or environmental by a barrage of 'news' blitz. my only hope at this stage is that people will get bored after a while. considering the history of (other) religious movements otoh, makes me cringe and fear the worst.

reply to post by neformore


I have nothing against environmentalism or conservation - in fact I've been a member of greenpeace for over 15 years, and I hate the pollution, the destruction, the extinctions etc etc.

But what Gore has done is despicable - he's misrepresented an issue for his own political gain and enrichment, there really is nothing more to it than that.
The man is a chancer.

Alfred Nobel must be turning in his grave (causing an eccentricity in the earths orbit which periodically brings us closer to the sun and causes a temerature rise
)

[edit on 30/10/2007 by budski]

reply to post by budski


Really, by focusing the world on what is THE question about the next fifty years, let alone the long-term future, by putting environmental debate squarely in the public view, instead of behind closed doors, Al Gore has acted despicably and for his own benefit.

What did Bush do when he refused to ratify Kyoto? What did Bush do when he appointed a former Oil Lobbyist as a scientific advisor? What did Bush do when his administration demanded editing rights to all climate-change literature released by the department of the environment? How was any of that noble or in the public interest?

www.guardian.co.uk...

observer.guardian.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

I bring your attention to the phrase, used by both Aunty and the Guardian

He is a lawyer by training, with no scientific background.

and this, work by the House to find out just what the hell was going on

www.ens-newswire.com...

From which I give you this evidence of noble work done solely in the public interest

Documents released by the committee show Cooney and other administration officials made at least 181 edits to the administration's strategic plan for the climate change science program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties, as well as 113 edits to downplay the importance of humanity's role in global warming.

In addition, White House documents show similar editing by Cooney and other administration officials to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the health of the environment and an annual state of the planet report submitted to Congress.

And this

Cooney, who resigned in June 2005 following reports of his controversial editing by the "New York Times," defended his actions before the committee.

"I had the authority and responsibility to make recommendations to the documents in question, under an established interagency review process," said Cooney, a lawyer who now works for ExxonMobil.

A lawyer who worked for the oil lobby before being appointed to the White House Council on Enviornmental Quality and is now working for ExxonMobil...

And you say Gore is despicable and acted for his own benefit.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


Well, the thread IS about bore (sorry gore)

Put up a thread about any of the points you raised, and I'll criticise the people there as well.

Gore hasn't just brought something into the public arena - he's brought it in for his own gain.
Also, if he's going to talk the talk, he should walk the walk - not fly by private jet and own 3 palatial homes.
If he was truly the eco-warrior he wants people to believe he is, he should live by his words rather than his attitude of "do as I say, not as I do"

Whichever way you cut it, bore is indefensible.

It gives me a particular kind of pleasure to on occasion join discussions where there is less of a consensus and thus ample opportunity to agree with people i never get the chance to.

I have always found it interesting that the same people who believe in peak oil and no alternatives to oil, a ''''''human nature''''''' that basically 'sucks' ( their words), forced depopulation because there are too 'many' people ( you first, fascist %$&%$ !) , the general non existence of 'conspiracies' ( unless five people plan to rob a bank or there are 'communist'/'terrorist' involved) also seem to be blaming 'humanity' for the little bit of global warming i might agree with on my less contrarian days.

To that i must ask why they are once again holding 'us' responsible when we have so few inputs into the type of governmental and social systems we want and that when our voices are heard and acted on it is never against environmental protection unless our survival and livelihoods are threatened. Why should 'we' once again be held responsible for the heavy industry and corporate policies that have chosen to invest itself so heavily in oil when investment in solar and other technologies would have given us similar gains with but a fraction of the environmental consequences? I can not get to all the responses i wish to but maybe i, and whoever else wishes to, can engage these people as to where the blame must be assigned when we are eventually able to prove, or gain good evidence for, AGW. It still wont be 'us' that did the damage but maybe we can then take them to court for having so ruined our planet. It's interesting that the groups who have sworn to protect the environment have not tried to take a cabal of global corporations to the court in the Hague for human rights violations.

If Al Gore is so sure why does he not start a campaign to sue the largest American corporations on those grounds?

Can we all at least agree that that is never going to happen while Al Gore is busy saving the planet by paying his butlers and maids extra to switch off the light bulbs?
Then again i doubt Tipper is stupid enough to allow maids around him given his apprenticeship to Clinton.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
If Al Gore is so sure why does he not start a campaign to sue the largest American corporations on those grounds?

Why don't you?

Who says he won't? Big Tobacco spent years telling us, via credentialled MDs that smoking didn't affect your health. Hmm, how come they settled out of court so often? If the anti-smoking lobby can do it, don't think the einvironmental lobby isn't preparing its case. It will begin with some nutjob suing coal-fired power utilities because the water is now outside his front door instead of the other side of his beach, which has disappeared. It will continue until teh environmental lobby wins. Don't think so? Wait for Bush to be named in a suit for directly contributing by stalling Kyoto ratification for 8 years.

Can we all at least agree that that is never going to happen while Al Gore is busy saving the planet by paying his butlers and maids extra to switch off the light bulbs?

Can we all agree that it is never going to happen while you don't have the balls to do something about it?

Then again i doubt Tipper is stupid enough to allow maids around him given his apprenticeship to Clinton.

Typical right-wing crimson fishing. Hey, let's not actually blame the industry for it and demand action from them, let's blame someone who is doing something (rather than NOTHING) for not doing EVERYTHING and, if that won't shift the reader's attention, throw in some unrelated crap about an unconnected issue that can open a different can of worms and make the whole place smell bad.

Now, all together:

"Cast aspersions, obfuscate, spin, shift blame, lie. Talk as much as you can, but for God's sake, don't DO anything."

Of what possible use was any of your post?

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Why don't you?

Because i don't think humanity or even corporations are responsible for global warming? I don't think it makes much sense to sue corporations in state ( and thus largely corporate) controlled legal systems? Sure it may eventually work but how many people over how many decades paid with their lives to lay the foundation?

Who says he won't?

I do?

Big Tobacco spent years telling us, via credentialled MDs that smoking didn't affect your health. Hmm, how come they settled out of court so often?

Because they could not win those cases for one reason or another? What does that have to do with how dangerous smoking is? How many MD's claimed for how long that it did not affect your health AT ALL ?

If the anti-smoking lobby can do it, don't think the einvironmental lobby isn't preparing its case.

And you must then believe that the victory of the anti smoking lobby proves that smoking is in fact so horrendously dangerous? Who funds the massive environmental lobby's that are trying to restrict development by preventing energy development? Why do you think this specific lobby has been so far successful when other far more important struggles have gone almost nowhere? Do you think starving people really wish to put the environment first? More, at best, typical middle class reasoning.

It will begin with some nutjob suing coal-fired power utilities because the water is now outside his front door instead of the other side of his beach, which has disappeared. It will continue until teh environmental lobby wins. Don't think so?

You must still believe that sea levels are in fact rising noticeable in any given decade? Why do you believe that given the the fact that it just isn't true?

Wait for Bush to be named in a suit for directly contributing by stalling Kyoto ratification for 8 years.

Signing the Kyoto treaty is basically participation in a crime against humanity and it's no surprise that the world will once again be stood on it's head as Bush gets sued for doing something that BENEFITS Americans and almost everyone else. Why he should not pay for the dozens of REAL crimes against Humanity he has committed is any one's guess!

]Can we all agree that it is never going to happen while you don't have the balls to do something about it?

If you think this has anything to do with the size of either your or mine you are in my opinion quite deluded. This is a question of informing people and since your spreading what i consider to be misinformation i will do my best to counter your claims if you persist in making them.

Typical right-wing crimson fishing.

I am not even American and i don't remember the last time someone called me 'right' of anything.

Hey, let's not actually blame the industry for it and demand action from them, let's blame someone who is doing something

Actually i demand that people become informed before they take action and on this specific issue nothing i can do , short of informing millions, is going to mean much. AGW is a lie of epic proportions and it will take a good deal of time to effectively counter it with the truth.

(rather than NOTHING) for not doing EVERYTHING and,

Since humanity is not in this instance responsible for global warming we should just say thanks and enjoy all the benefits of a very slowly warming planet.

if that won't shift the reader's attention, throw in some unrelated crap about an unconnected issue that can open a different can of worms and make the whole place smell bad.

I just thought it was funny but i suppose you can't see that trough all that froth.

Now, all together:
"Cast aspersions, obfuscate, spin, shift blame, lie. Talk as much as you can, but for God's sake, don't DO anything."

Doing nothing is a great idea but if you do want to do something i suggest you take to the streets and demand that Al Gore sends a delegation to the Sun to demand that it cools down 'or else' .

Of what possible use was any of your post?

My post were supposed to help the vast majority of simply misguided people and i did not expect it to be very effective in helping people such as yourself. It's never a simple thing to help the willfully ignorant of self serving idealist in search of a cause. More specifically i have no idea what to do with you as i know you are pretty intelligent and could not coincidentally pick the lies over the truth every single time. How one deals with the apparently professional critics ( of every nothing they do not fanatically defend) i don't really know but i will keep trying.

Stellar

[edit on 1-11-2007 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Why don't you?

Because i don't think humanity or even corporations are responsible for global warming

Kinda hard to argue with that.

If the anti-smoking lobby can do it, don't think the einvironmental lobby isn't preparing its case.

And you must then believe that the victory of the anti smoking lobby proves that smoking is in fact so horrendously dangerous?

Not necessarily. I did find watching my grandfather die of emphysema fairly convincing. I'm not saying that because a court says it's so that it's so. I'm just saying that people out there will try to use the courts.

It will begin with some nutjob suing coal-fired power utilities...

You must still believe that sea levels are in fact rising noticeable in any given decade? Why do you believe that given the the fact that it just isn't true?

Again you're confusing my beliefs with what I attributed to a 3rd party. I'm giving my appraisal (as a legally non-qualified analyst) of what I think somebody will do in the future. Given the kind of lawsuits that are allowed to trial in the US, why wouldn't this one go?

Wait for Bush to be named in a suit for directly contributing by stalling Kyoto ratification for 8 years.

Signing the Kyoto treaty is basically participation in a crime against humanity and it's no surprise that the world will once again be stood on it's head as Bush gets sued for doing something that BENEFITS Americans and almost everyone else.

Again, just my view of what an unknown 3rd party will do. You'll have to convince me how Kyoto is a crime against humanity. I'm asthmatic and I don't view a reduction in pollution as a crime against humanity, I regard refusing to reduce pollution as a specific form of discrimination against a human health sub-group.

Can we all agree that it is never going to happen while you don't have the balls to do something about it?

If you think this has anything to do with the size of either your or mine you are in my opinion quite deluded.

No, taking the opportunity of your post to spray the group I hate the most, those who demand that "someone" do "something" about it while they continue to sip their cafe lattes. (As was the rest of it)

I just thought it was funny but i suppose you can't see that trough all that froth.

You caught me at a bad time. My next line was (and is) in response to what seems to be a peculiarly Republican method of debating, no matter what the issue is. The Liberal Party and the Tories certainly seem to be far more willing to actually debate the issues.

Of what possible use was any of your post?

My post were supposed to help the vast majority of simply misguided people

As I said, you caught me at a bad time. I contend that I am not "simply misguided". I may be

willfully ignorant

about this issue in your estimation, but that is because I have availed myself of some info (but not all) and I have chosen the diametrically opposed view. Now, we know that climate shifts. A mini ice-age froze the Vikings out of Greenland. Krakatoa caused a nuclear winter. But it's the rate of upward change now that has people (ie me) worried. I'm not saying we CAUSED global warming. But I am willing to say we've put our foot flat to the floor and it's time to pull the handbrake.

More specifically i have no idea what to do with you as i know you are pretty intelligent and could not coincidentally pick the lies over the truth every single time.

Hey, I'll take the compliment...

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Kinda hard to argue with that.

I would like to think so but i have seen you argue with more easily observable facts in the past!

Not necessarily. I did find watching my grandfather die of emphysema fairly convincing. I'm not saying that because a court says it's so that it's so. I'm just saying that people out there will try to use the courts.

Sure people try using the courts as first resort but obviously they are mostly forced to continue to real struggles elsewhere. I am not arguing that smoking has health benefits but that it's a very small risk compared to breathing city air ( or anything else) on your way to work, consuming preservative laden foods, drinking water containing Fluoride or receiving vaccinates that containing pollutants and heavy metals.

Again you're confusing my beliefs with what I attributed to a 3rd party. I'm giving my appraisal (as a legally non-qualified analyst) of what I think somebody will do in the future. Given the kind of lawsuits that are allowed to trial in the US, why wouldn't this one go?

Why don't you just argue for what you believe? Have you become so confused by your defense of various things you do not believe in ( for whatever , hopefully well paid, reasons) that you are now arguing for a party that isn't even rewarding you? Fascinating...

Again, just my view of what an unknown 3rd party will do. You'll have to convince me how Kyoto is a crime against humanity. I'm asthmatic and I don't view a reduction in pollution as a crime against humanity,I regard refusing to reduce pollution as a specific form of discrimination against a human health sub-group.

So the devil gained another advocate? Kyoto is a crime against humanity because it will kill millions in the third world by governments proclaiming that they must 'tighten their belts' thus giving even less back of what they have stolen so far. Sure we all want have reduced levels of pollution but what does that have to do with C02 and greenhouse gases in general? Why don't you argue for reduced industrial pollution instead of for restricting economic growth trough scaling back energy conversion altogether? What do you have against the baby in the bath?

No, taking the opportunity of your post to spray the group I hate the most, those who demand that "someone" do "something" about it while they continue to sip their cafe lattes. (As was the rest of it)

I don't have much to say about the activists who want to 'save the planet' while 50 odd thousand people starve to death every day with another 800 000 being consistently malnourished. The fact that some people will put so much effort into saving a few trees, animals or water sources while people are actually STARVING sickens me. I suppose when you arrogantly bought into the propaganda that those hundreds of millions are entirely responsible for their problems you really can get fanatical about protecting cats from their irate owners. If only they had the same respect for human life we might gain worthwhile allies but until then i can but wonder how much their pockets must be hurt before they realise that they are in fact part of the humanity they seem to have forsaken in protection of their damn pets. Rant done...

You caught me at a bad time. My next line was (and is) in response to what seems to be a peculiarly Republican method of debating, no matter what the issue is. The Liberal Party and the Tories certainly seem to be far more willing to actually debate the issues.

It happens to everyone but you might want to investigate why it happens to you so often.....

As I said, you caught me at a bad time. I contend that I am not "simply misguided". I may be
about this issue in your estimation, but that is because I have availed myself of some info (but not all) and I have chosen the diametrically opposed view.

You know that i did not just come up with my views by reading a few books so why pretend this is a question of who looked at 'information'?

Now, we know that climate shifts. A mini ice-age froze the Vikings out of Greenland. Krakatoa caused a nuclear winter.

That we know as is evident by the medieval warm period and the resulting castle and cathedral building in Europe. Krakatoa did not cause a nuclear winter ( the sun was not blocked out) as not even a nuclear war can cause nuclear winter! Even if we expended all the nuclear weapons we had at ensured ground detonations it's highly unlikely that we could inject that same volume of material into the stratosphere.

But it's the rate of upward change now that has people (ie me) worried. I'm not saying we CAUSED global warming. But I am willing to say we've put our foot flat to the floor and it's time to pull the handbrake.

Tighten your belt if you feel responsible but please do not expect me to accept these blatant attempts at social engineering and help to advocate even more starvation and suffering for the billion or so people who barely get by as things are.

Hey, I'll take the compliment...

Some of us need them more than others...

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Kinda hard to argue with that.

I would like to think so but i have seen you argue with more easily observable facts in the past!

Oh, I can argue with your point of view, but as to why you said it, that you make plain.

Why don't you just argue for what you believe? Have you become so confused by your defense of various things you do not believe in ( for whatever , hopefully well paid, reasons) that you are now arguing for a party that isn't even rewarding you? Fascinating...

No, not arguing for anything, just saying what I think someone will do, my analysis of where this will go. Nothing confusing there. When I told my news crew that Musharraf would declare martial law, that wasn't a defence of his action, it was a prediction (a pretty good one, as it turned out).

So the devil gained another advocate? Kyoto is a crime against humanity because it will kill millions in the third world by governments proclaiming that they must 'tighten their belts'

No, the devil didn't gain another advocate and no, I don't agree with your thesis. I'm living in the third world (Cambodia) at the moment and forcing the government to find alternative routes to energy than diesel will not kill millions here. What it will do is save millions who currently cannot afford fuel because of the recent doubling in oil prices.

Sure we all want have reduced levels of pollution but what does that have to do with C02 and greenhouse gases in general?

erm, just how big a percentage of industrial air-pollution are CO2 etc?

Why don't you argue for reduced industrial pollution instead of for restricting economic growth trough scaling back energy conversion altogether?

Because the one will invevitably force the other and because I don't believe restricting CO2 output automatically restricts economic growth.

What do you have against the baby in the bath?

Nothing, I don't see the same baby you do.

The fact that some people will put so much effort into saving a few trees, animals or water sources while people are actually STARVING sickens me.

Hmm, if I didn't spend so much time in the 3rd world, I might agree. But I'm willing to let people "do what they can, where they can" to make a difference. People in this country (Cambodia) don't starve to death because of western consumerism, they starve to death because of government incompetence and corruption. That story is often true in the third world in general. Forcing the government to ratify Kyoto won't prevent development here. It will force the leadership to actually think about their people's best interests, instead of their own hip pocket. Actually, relying on your model, all it will do is give them another excuse to bash the west for preventing Cambodia's growth, instead of telling us where the $30bn or so they've had is gone and why there are H2 Hummers and Porsche Cayennes wearing military, police and state plates in a country where people do actually starve to death.

I suppose when you arrogantly bought into the propaganda that those hundreds of millions are entirely responsible for their problems you really can get fanatical about protecting cats from their irate owners.

I'll assume that that wasn't actually pointed at me, even 'though I'm perfectly willing to give money to Greenpeace so they can burn fuel in their outboard motors to stop Japanese whaling fleets in the Southern Ocean.

I don't blame the Burmese for their government, but I won't give mney to Burma in the hope that some may go to the people when I know that most will go into propping up the government that is causing the problem. Now, there's a huge ethical debate in there, and I'm more than willing to admit the cost of my policy (if I could acutally enforce it) to the Burmese (and Shan, Karen et al) people, but the cost to them of keeping SCPD in power is far greater, compared to what could happen without them.

My next line was (and is) in response to what seems to be a peculiarly Republican method of debating, no matter what the issue is. The Liberal Party and the Tories certainly seem to be far more willing to actually debate the issues.

It happens to everyone but you might want to investigate why it happens to you so often.....

Actually, I wasn't talking about people attacking me, which is relatively rare, given how often (or not) I post here. I was observing a trend I have noticed in general on this board and in conversation with Americans and even when observing them in discussion with each other. The ability to mention Monica Lewinsky or some other utterly unrelated "fact" or "issue" no matter the subject under discussion as if mentioning the "fact" or "issue" completely undermines the view they are opposing and ends the discussion in a victory for them.

As I said, you caught me at a bad time. I contend that I am not "simply misguided". I may be
about this issue in your estimation, but that is because I have availed myself of some info (but not all) and I have chosen the diametrically opposed view.

You know that i did not just come up with my views by reading a few books so why pretend this is a question of who looked at 'information'?

I'm not. If you read again, you'll see that I am explaining why I am willing to believe, even if you are not. We both have the same info, but have arrived at opposite views.

Krakatoa did not cause a nuclear winter ( the sun was not blocked out) as not even a nuclear war can cause nuclear winter! Even if we expended all the nuclear weapons we had at ensured ground detonations it's highly unlikely that we could inject that same volume of material into the stratosphere.

I wonder why you are taking my words so literally? Okay, so the sun was not blocked out. But a cloud of ash and dust entered the atmosphere and remained in observable orbit for three years and temperatures were recorded to be lower, affecting harvests in several areas. That sure sounds like the described effects of a "nuclear winter", albeit on a much, MUCH smaller scale.

But it's the rate of upward change now that has people (ie me) worried. I'm not saying we CAUSED global warming. But I am willing to say we've put our foot flat to the floor and it's time to pull the handbrake.

Tighten your belt if you feel responsible but please do not expect me to accept these blatant attempts at social engineering and help to advocate even more starvation and suffering for the billion or so people who barely get by as things are.

Yes, I'd say having a world environment for my sons to grow up in that is little different to today's is social engineering. I don't think it's a great sin for us to want to keep ice at the poles, rainforest in the Amazon, the desert in North Africa, instead of Southern Europe, and the islands of Kiribati ABOVE the water.

Millions will starve if we force Kyoto on them? Tell me, where will you put them once their countries have completely desertified? In your home? How will you feed them if the world's arable lands migrate northward into the most densely populated nations on the planet? Is Russia going to welcome them into Siberia?

Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa don't need to industrialise with oil and coal-fired power to support their populations and maybe, just maybe, removing the "resource curse" will actually help billions of people that are currently starving BECAUSE they have oil to sell at $100 a barrel.

And no, I'm not at all in favour of turning cropland over to the production of bio-fuel. The ethanol lobby in the US is lying and bio-fuel proponents want the third-world to take up the production, instead of the over-subsidised 1st world, allowing nations such as France and the US to sell it's food to Asia for profit, while not taking bio-fuel in return.
But that doesn't mean the third world can't benefit from "alternative" fuel sources that are well-established, such as pig farm methane and landfill methane, while maintaining relatively neutral carbon footprints.

There are any number of ways to produce hydro-electricity that don't rely on massive dams which bring massive negative environmental impacts. But they don't make for huge projects, big stories and television documentaries that allow national leaders to show their people how they are "developing" their naitons.

Originally posted by neformore
If Gore was a Republican, I wonder how many of the people in this thread that are currently criticising him wouldn't be?

Personally I think politicians should stick to politics. Before Gore came bumbling in GW was a respectable enough theory. Then he waltzed in and now everyone (myself included) is suddenly suspicious of it's... realness.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Oh, I can argue with your point of view, but as to why you said it, that you make plain.

One can almost always argue a point and i have observed that some people will do it no matter what observed reality and common sense should have shown them.

No, not arguing for anything, just saying what I think someone will do, my analysis of where this will go. Nothing confusing there. When I told my news crew that Musharraf would declare martial law, that wasn't a defence of his action, it was a prediction (a pretty good one, as it turned out).

Seemed like a argument to me but we can leave it there.

No, the devil didn't gain another advocate and no, I don't agree with your thesis. I'm living in the third world (Cambodia) at the moment and forcing the government to find alternative routes to energy than diesel will not kill millions here.

So maybe in Cambodia things are being done that satisfies the corporations while allowing the people to eat just enough to avoid starvation. There are a additional two hundred odd nations and in at least a few dozen of them people have long ago eaten their belts for lack of energy ( or means to acquire what is needed to tap into it) to grow or gain food.

What it will do is save millions who currently cannot afford fuel because of the recent doubling in oil prices.

The recent doubling in oil prices have nothing to do with oil being scarce in the ground or on top of it and everything to do with who is buying it and preventing others from gaining access to it. To suggest that higher energy cost do not harm or that alternative energy 'sources' wont be made horrendously expensive, and thus unaffordable for most, is not accurate.

erm, just how big a percentage of industrial air-pollution are CO2 etc?

Who cares when CO2 constitutes but 0.038% of our atmosphere and the fact that Water vapor has a larger effect and is more than twice as prevalent? Sure it sounds scary when one says it's doubled in so and so many years but not everyone is ignorant and proceeds to panick as they are advised to.

Because the one will invevitably force the other and because I don't believe restricting CO2 output automatically restricts economic growth.

The one will no more force the other than more than enough food in the world economy has reduced starvation. YOu are not including politics and economics and until you consider the implications you are forever doomed to making 'logical arguments' that have absolutely no bearing on political and socio-economic realities. I don't believe reduced C02 output must automatically restrict economic growth but since it's obvious what the real motives behind energy 'conservation' is ( only the developed economies will supposedly be subjected to prosecution) is i know what will in fact transpire and who will suffer most.

Nothing, I don't see the same baby you do.

So you see the baby at least? That's a start and i suggest that while we argue about it's sex/age/etc/etc/etc we not kill it as these environmental/polution restrictions will do while we 'settle' the discussion of who or what are really responsible for global warming.

Hmm, if I didn't spend so much time in the 3rd world, I might agree.

And if you actually knew anything about the third world you would. Maybe you should leave those mid city hotels and go see where the poor you are talking about actually lives?

But I'm willing to let people "do what they can, where they can" to make a difference.

And that's what they would do , thus avoiding starvation, if global capitalism did not rob of them of their means.

People in this country (Cambodia) don't starve to death because of western consumerism, they starve to death because of government incompetence and corruption.

And since they rarely elected them and for the most part have to accept imperial agents and dictators of on or another stripe it's hardly surprising that the people in charge are so frequently incompetent, corrupt or generally unresponsive knowing that their standing in the country is being protected by those who benefit from the exploitation of people.

That story is often true in the third world in general. Forcing the government to ratify Kyoto won't prevent development here.

So you must believe to maintain your faith in the system of global capitalism that is killing people by over exploitation. Kyoto might not prevent development but it will ensure that there are yet more methods to manipulate a foreign economy from the outside.

It will force the leadership to actually think about their people's best interests, instead of their own hip pocket.

Why would they think about anything but their hip pocket when they were not elected by the people and have their positions as result of their support of foreign powers and or corporations? How will responsible people ever get elected while corporations and the US national security state goes around the world destroying democracy thus ensuring that their dominance continues and irresponsible overt/covert dictatorships remains the norm?

Actually, relying on your model, all it will do is give them another excuse to bash the west for preventing Cambodia's growth, instead of telling us where the $30bn or so they've had is gone and why there are H2 Hummers and Porsche Cayennes wearing military, police and state plates in a country where people do actually starve to death.

Why lend irresponsible people , that the CIA or state department chose in the first place, so much money knowing that they will either mismanage it or simply steal it? What would you do with 30 BN in 'foreign aid' when you undemocratic and corrupt intent were clear long before the CIA chose/state department chose you as 'their man' for a given country? Why would you not continue enjoying the free ride safe in the knowledge that you will be bailed out or protected if 'the people' becomes too unruly trough starvation and worse?

I'll assume that that wasn't actually pointed at me, even 'though I'm perfectly willing to give money to Greenpeace so they can burn fuel in their outboard motors to stop Japanese whaling fleets in the Southern Ocean.

Much as i like whales i don't think Greenpeace is going to change the world without having a fleet of missile armed destroyers ready to do battle with the Japanese. I am sure we would find environmentalist misguided enough to man those ships but i am not sure i would want to pay for that. It would however make for good TV so maybe this is the future of reality Tv?

I don't blame the Burmese for their government, but I won't give mney to Burma in the hope that some may go to the people when I know that most will go into propping up the government that is causing the problem.

Which is exactly what foreign governments and agencies from various countries are in fact doing? Who really supports the Burmese dictators?

Now, there's a huge ethical debate in there, and I'm more than willing to admit the cost of my policy (if I could acutally enforce it) to the Burmese (and Shan, Karen et al) people, but the cost to them of keeping SCPD in power is far greater, compared to what could happen without them.

So you just have no trust in 'the people' or do you know what happens to people when they have the audacity to act democratically and succeed at it?

Actually, I wasn't talking about people attacking me, which is relatively rare, given how often (or not) I post here. I was observing a trend I have noticed in general on this board and in conversation with Americans and even when observing them in discussion with each other. The ability to mention Monica Lewinsky or some other utterly unrelated "fact" or "issue" no matter the subject under discussion as if mentioning the "fact" or "issue" completely undermines the view they are opposing and ends the discussion in a victory for them.

I couldn't resist and while i thought it was in fact very much related ( just admit it, dammit!) i can see why that made me look like the average republicrat.

I'm not. If you read again, you'll see that I am explaining why I am willing to believe, even if you are not. We both have the same info, but have arrived at opposite views.

Since i am a bit of a fundamentalist when it comes to human nature ( and how it in now way explains the trouble the world is in) and information and i refuse to acknowledge the possibility that people can look at the same information/facts with the same perspective of human history and arrive at conclusions that are so completely different and opposing.. Maybe i have a naive/romantic view of knowledge but i can't, and frankly wont any time soon, accept the possibility that given OPEN access to information we can and will not arrive at the same conclusions to our major questions.

I firmly believe that they MUST perpetually propagandize us trough their 'school' , their religious institutions and their state/corporate owned media to ensure that the information we receive suitable twists our perspectives and actions. The fact that most people's of the world are quite confused, but never entirely fooled, but manages to continue their resistance says far more about what our human nature might really be like than the vast majority of what you might find in the corporate media.

Continued

I wonder why you are taking my words so literally? Okay, so the sun was not blocked out. But a cloud of ash and dust entered the atmosphere and remained in observable orbit for three years and temperatures were recorded to be lower, affecting harvests in several areas.

Right but that is not nearly as severe as the 'nuclear winter' 'models' claimed a nuclear exchange would be. I take words literally because alternatively i would just end up with wild speculation as to the potential intent of the author. All i can do is advise you to speak for yourself and presume that i will discuss what you seem to be saying and implying.

That sure sounds like the described effects of a "nuclear winter", albeit on a much, MUCH smaller scale.

And that's how they came up with the nuclear winter idea! That does not mean that they have credible models for how a actual nuclear exchange could do anything as severe as the Krakatoa eruption but as always it did not stop them from pursuing their political agenda of scaring people into believing that the 'MAD' ( aptly called given how only misinformed or mad people believe in it) theory were in fact connected with reality.

Yes, I'd say having a world environment for my sons to grow up in that is little different to today's is social engineering.

As long as you are personally doing for your son or in your community that is not a problem but when unelected people make decisions based on the credibility they gained from spreading misinforming trough the controlled media i can't go along with it. As long as we are allowed to act locally and have truly representative decisions on higher levels i wont mind but since they have not even waited for the majority to buy into their lies, simply using the little credibility they gained as cover to dismiss other views, before taking actions on global scale we should in fact all resist their agenda.

I don't think it's a great sin for us to want to keep ice at the poles,

And there is little evidence to suggest that weight of ice at the poles have changed much or at all.

rainforest in the Amazon,

Give depth relief to Brazil based on the understanding that logging must stop, NOW. Since they were already well armed by the US in preceding decades they could probably enforce such a rule and we know the Chinese basically stopped their logging activities ( 90% reduction in workers) when they realised the effect it was having on downstream populations during the wet seasons. These things can be done with prompt political action and the reason it is not being done is because they want to keep destroying the environment so they can blame us for it and demand that we stop driving around, baking our own meals and generally doing the things we WANT to.

the desert in North Africa,

The biggest are shrinking...

instead of Southern Europe,

So it's going to stop raining and we are suddenly going to lose the ability to work the land trough irrigation and fertilizers?

and the islands of Kiribati ABOVE the water.

Where they above water in the first place and by how many centimeters? Why not rather blame those on tectonic activity instead of trying to use it as evidence for rising sea levels?

Millions will starve if we force Kyoto on them? Tell me, where will you put them once their countries have completely desertified?

Why would countries 'desertify'? If we stopped growing cash crops ( tobacco and all that ) and cattle feed we could feed the current world population a few times over and desertification is only a threat if oil runs out ( and we have no evidence of that) or if our governments choose not to implement all the dozens of alternatives. We could desalinate salt water in any volumes if we so chose but since some people have decided that energy must be expensive, for reasons of social control, we are not allowed to properly implement solar and wind power or to use other revolutionary 'sources'.

In your home? How will you feed them if the world's arable lands migrate northward into the most densely populated nations on the planet?

Until there is evidence for such a shift of temperatures and climate we could just focus our attention on important issues and if push comes to shove we could take the western world of it's meat diet and feed a few billion people on the vegetables grown instead. You see problems where they do not exist but it's no surprise given the volume of misinformation that have you accepted as fact.

Is Russia going to welcome them into Siberia?

Probably not but they will invite migrant labour ( US-Mexico) and will be able to increase their own population base as well as export large volumes of food thus moving China and other SEA countries even closer into their sphere of influence.

Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa don't need to industrialise with oil and coal-fired power to support their populations and maybe

No they do not but since few countries have the capitol to move to alternative sources , for which you will not get any investors or foreign aid, that's what they are FORCED to do to prevent their people from starvation.

just maybe, removing the "resource curse" will actually help billions of people that are currently starving BECAUSE they have oil to sell at $100 a barrel.

OIl should not cost not more than 50 USD a barrel ( at worse) but even at 100 a barrel a USD is devaluing fast and thus easier to gain in global trade. People are not starving because oil prices are high but because they are forced into neo liberal capitalist 'development' that destroys jobs and leads to privatization and low wages for those that do manage to keep their jobs. People are working as hard as ever but it's just becoming increasingly hard to gain the capitol to buy food given the fact that you were either driven off your land by your friendly US backed puppet, had to sell your land because you could not pay the 'taxes' due to the fact that cheap US and European agri exports( due to massive subsidies to large corporations that are also destroying family farming in the US and Europe) destroyed the pricing structure of the food you were growing, or not being able to gain sufficient wages or employment in the city slums you had to move to in your search for gainful employment. It's not that people are stupid or lazy but the fact that they have far less control over their lives than the CIA( or the agencies styled on them and funded by the same government) or US state department has.

And no, I'm not at all in favour of turning cropland over to the production of bio-fuel. The ethanol lobby in the US is lying and bio-fuel proponents want the third-world to take up the production, instead of the over-subsidised 1st world, allowing nations such as France and the US to sell it's food to Asia for profit, while not taking bio-fuel in return.

IF you think people are starving now you should give this Bio-Fuel plan a few years to get properly funded by the same old criminals....

But that doesn't mean the third world can't benefit from "alternative" fuel sources that are well-established, such as pig farm methane and landfill methane, while maintaining relatively neutral carbon footprints.

Since no one seems to want to pay them a living wage i would be surprised if anyone would choose to invest in making their 'footprint' 'carbon neutral'.

There are any number of ways to produce hydro-electricity that don't rely on massive dams which bring massive negative environmental impacts.

And your telling this to a person ( crazy according to you) who believes in the fact that vacuum energy extraction devices have existed for a hundred years. I KNOW how to solve the basic problems billions of people face in the world but i also know who is preventing like minded people from achieving their goal of easing the suffering of their fellows.

But they don't make for huge projects, big stories and television documentaries that allow national leaders to show their people how they are "developing" their naitons.

As if the people's choice of candidates would need such propaganda to 'gain respect' from their people. If people were allowed to acted democratically and if some countries in the world allowed these people's candidates to act on sovereign ways starvation would not even be a issue. IT's not that the solutions or their proponents ( with degrees and experience ) do not exist but that they are not allowed to do what will help or given a chance to survive when they prove to be very understanding of how to get the truth out.

Stellar

Well, it seems to be just you and me, so on with the show...

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
What it will do is save millions who currently cannot afford fuel because of the recent doubling in oil prices.

The recent doubling in oil prices have nothing to do with oil being scarce in the ground or on top of it and everything to do with who is buying it and preventing others from gaining access to it. To suggest that higher energy cost do not harm or that alternative energy 'sources' wont be made horrendously expensive, and thus unaffordable for most, is not accurate.

We seem to be at cross purposes here. I have nothing to say about oil's scarcity or otherwise, I'm simply pointing out that relying on deisel for energy in the current market means poor Cambodians will remain poor.

erm, just how big a percentage of industrial air-pollution are CO2 etc?

Who cares when CO2 constitutes but 0.038% of our atmosphere and the fact that Water vapor has a larger effect and is more than twice as prevalent? Sure it sounds scary when one says it's doubled in so and so many years but not everyone is ignorant and proceeds to panick as they are advised to.

Okay, I'm assuming you're following the typical polly's route there by answering a different question.

Because the one will invevitably force the other and because I don't believe restricting CO2 output automatically restricts economic growth.

The one will no more force the other than more than enough food in the world economy has reduced starvation.

Really, by forcing industry to release less CO2 into the atmosphere, we will not affect the level of air-pollution in general that industry creates?

YOu are not including politics and economics

No, I'm not.

and until you consider the implications you are forever doomed to making 'logical arguments' that have absolutely no bearing on political and socio-economic realities.

Why am I and why don't they?

I don't believe reduced C02 output must automatically restrict economic growth

It certainly seemed that was your line of thinking.

but since it's obvious what the real motives behind energy 'conservation' is ( only the developed economies will supposedly be subjected to prosecution) is i know what will in fact transpire and who will suffer most.

Well, don't leave us hanging.

Hmm, if I didn't spend so much time in the 3rd world, I might agree.

And if you actually knew anything about the third world you would.

How much of your "knowledge" comes from being here?

Maybe you should leave those mid city hotels and go see where the poor you are talking about actually lives?

Don't make your "Lords of Poverty" assumptions about me. I am married to a Khmer and have two boys. I rent a two-bedroom apartment for $160 a month. I have no vehicle/driver/travel allowance, I do not drive a Land Bruiser, I receive no housing allowance, if I want to return to Australia I have to purchase my own (and my family's) airline tickets. When my sons hit school age I will have to pay the fees myself.

My in-laws are rice-farming peasants who get by on 1ha of land that is currently four feet under water because it's the rainy season.

I see the poor I am talking about every day. The poor I am talking about are my own family (through marriage). Perhaps you should leave those comfortable Chardonnay Socialist assumptions and find out who you're talking to.

But I'm willing to let people "do what they can, where they can" to make a difference.

And that's what they would do, thus avoiding starvation, if global capitalism did not rob of them of their means.

We were talking about Westerners saving cats and water sources. So, I'm willing to let a bunch of high school kids in the US demand gov't (local or otherwise) clean up local rivers/streams etc and go about organising the clean-up themselves. Those "kids" are highly likely to see the success of their work and decide to go further afield.

People in this country (Cambodia) don't starve to death because of western consumerism, they starve to death because of government incompetence and corruption.

And since they rarely elected them

The government in Cambodia has won 3 multi-party elections since the Paris Peace Accords and UNTAC. Again, don't debate Cambodia with me. While the PM is an ex-KR thug who was originally installed by the Vietnamese, he was wholly and solely elected in '98 and '03 and will be again next year.

and for the most part have to accept imperial agents and dictators of on or another stripe

Yes, if you're talking about Lon Nol. He was both an imperial agent and a dictator. Pol Pot was just a dictator. Hun Sen was VN's agent and dictator and is now a democratically-elected dictator, but make no mistake, those elections are real and he wins them. That's what comes from having an uneducated nation.

it's hardly surprising that the people in charge are so frequently incompetent,

The people in charge are incompetent because the KR offed everyone with a brain. Since 1975 education has been this country's lowest priority.

corrupt or generally unresponsive knowing that their standing in the country is being protected by those who benefit from the exploitation of people.

The one is the other. The standing of the people in charge is being protected by the people in charge. The only time Cambodia has mattered to the world was during the Vietnam War. The government needs no outside backers to remain in power.

That story is often true in the third world in general. Forcing the government to ratify Kyoto won't prevent development here.

So you must believe to maintain your faith in the system of global capitalism that is killing people by over exploitation.

As I said, Cambodians are not being killed by over-exploitation by western capitalism.

Kyoto might not prevent development but it will ensure that there are yet more methods to manipulate a foreign economy from the outside.

Not necessarily a bad thing, given what goes on here.

It will force the leadership to actually think about their people's best interests, instead of their own hip pocket.

Why would they think about anything but their hip pocket when they were not elected by the people

As shown, they were elected, twice.

and have their positions as result of their support of foreign powers and or corporations?

They don't have their positions as a result of their support of foreign powers, they have their positions as a result of foreign powers' previous support of them.

How will responsible people ever get elected while corporations and the US national security state goes around the world destroying democracy

Easily. I'm watching it happen here. The CPP's vote goes down as more young people with a higher level of education reach voting age and see the same things I'm talking about.

thus ensuring that their dominance continues and irresponsible overt/covert dictatorships remains the norm?

US foreign policy has had no effect on this place since the Paris Peace Accords of '91. Prior to that its only discernable effect was to keep the sttus quo, which was VN's puppets in power, not the US'.

Actually, relying on your model, all it will do is give them another excuse to bash the west for preventing Cambodia's growth, instead of telling us where the $30bn or so they've had is gone and why there are H2 Hummers and Porsche Cayennes wearing military, police and state plates in a country where people do actually starve to death.

Why lend irresponsible people , that the CIA or state department chose in the first place,

Again with transposing Central/South American assumptions to Cambodia.

so much money knowing that they will either mismanage it or simply steal it?

Because the roads did get paved, meaning people could get their rice to market faster and cheaper, and the bridges were repaired, again rice-market-faster-cheaper, landmines did get dug up, hospitals did get new equipment, the civil war stopped and soldiers carrying loaded Kalashnikovs, RPG7s and rack-fulls of reloads on teh streets became a thing of the past.

What would you do with 30 BN in 'foreign aid' when you undemocratic and corrupt intent were clear long before the CIA chose/state department chose you as 'their man' for a given country?

I don't know, I'm not undemocratic or corrupt. Also, I'm not the CIA's stooge. But, then, neither is Hun Sen. Again, please learn someting about Cambodia before debating it with me.

Why would you not continue enjoying the free ride safe in the knowledge that you will be bailed out or protected if 'the people' becomes too unruly trough starvation and worse?

Because that "bailing out" won't happen. If "the people" rise against Hun Sen the west will let him swing.

cont'd

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I don't blame the Burmese for their government, but I won't give mney to Burma in the hope that some may go to the people when I know that most will go into propping up the government that is causing the problem.

Which is exactly what foreign governments and agencies from various countries are in fact doing? Who really supports the Burmese dictators?

China and Big Oil.

Now, there's a huge ethical debate in there, and I'm more than willing to admit the cost of my policy (if I could acutally enforce it) to the Burmese (and Shan, Karen et al) people, but the cost to them of keeping SCPD in power is far greater, compared to what could happen without them.

So you just have no trust in 'the people' or do you know what happens to people when they have the audacity to act democratically and succeed at it?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Giving "aid money" to Burma will in no way help "the people" achieve democracy, just the opposite. Which is my point. The Burmese could really, really do with a lot of money and help. But the Burmese could really, really do without their current government, who would steal that money and use it to further suppress the Burmese people.

Should the Burmese people finally manage to rid themselves of the SCPD and Prime Minister-elect Aung San Suu Kyi finally take office then I would be more than willing to give money to reconstruction, education, health, demobilisation, de-mining etc programmes in Burma.

cont'd

I don't think it's a great sin for us to want to keep ice at the poles,

And there is little evidence to suggest that weight of ice at the poles have changed much or at all.

Okay, satellite imaging aside, I guess...

rainforest in the Amazon,

Give depth relief to Brazil based on the understanding that logging must stop, NOW.

Obviously you are assuming destruction of the Amazonian basin is organised logging as opposed to Slash and Burn Agriculture.

Since they were already well armed by the US in preceding decades they could probably enforce such a rule

Why wait for debt relief?

and we know the Chinese basically stopped their logging activities ( 90% reduction in workers) when they realised the effect it was having on downstream populations during the wet seasons.

Cynicism at its best. China stopped logging China and started logging Indonesia.

These things can be done with prompt political action

Yes, Japan did it in the 1800s. Now they, like the Chinese, source their wood from o/seas, Tasmania, in fact.

and the reason it is not being done is because they want to keep destroying the environment so they can blame us for it and demand that we stop driving around, baking our own meals and generally doing the things we WANT to.

Now you're starting to sound like you've been in your log cabin a little too long.

the desert in North Africa,

The biggest are shrinking...

Really, that's a turn around since the 80s.

instead of Southern Europe,

So it's going to stop raining and we are suddenly going to lose the ability to work the land trough irrigation and fertilizers?

Know anything about irrigation agriculture? Know anything about its affect on the environment?

and the islands of Kiribati ABOVE the water.

Where they above water in the first place and by how many centimeters? Why not rather blame those on tectonic activity instead of trying to use it as evidence for rising sea levels?

Kiribati consists of about 32 atolls and one island (Banaba), with at least three in each hemisphere. The groups of islands are:

Banaba: an isolated island between Nauru and the Gilbert Islands.
Gilbert Islands: 16 atolls located some 930 miles (1,500 km) north of Fiji
Phoenix Islands: 8 atolls and coral islands located some 1,100 miles (1,800 km) southeast of the Gilberts
Line Islands: 8 atolls and one reef, located about 2,050 miles (3,300 km) east of the Gilberts.

According to the South Pacific Regional Environment Program, two small uninhabited Kiribati islets, Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea, disappeared underwater in 1999. The islet of Tepuka Savilivili (Tuvalu; not a Gilbertese name) no longer has any coconut trees due to salination. [2] The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that sea levels will rise by about half a meter (20 in) by 2100 due to global warming and a further rise would be inevitable. It is thus likely that within a century the nation's arable land will become subject to increased soil salination and will be largely submerged.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

Millions will starve if we force Kyoto on them? Tell me, where will you put them once their countries have completely desertified?

Why would countries 'desertify'?

Well, from high school geography comes the lesson that goat herders' herds strip vegetation of the very thing keeping it alive, clorophyll and bark (and having owned goats, they are the most destructive animal available) and the herders themselves then burn the wood to create charcoal, stripping the land bare of vegetation. Thus allowing the winds to carry the desert forward.

Now, we've got two problems there, and one of them happens to involve CO2, which, when combined with Global Warming and decreased rainfalls, make it that much harder to contain the desert.

If we stopped growing cash crops ( tobacco and all that)

Many places have.

and cattle feed we could feed the current world population a few times over

Separate topic.

and desertification is only a threat if oil runs out ( and we have no evidence of that)

How? To both.

or if our governments choose not to implement all the dozens of alternatives.

What is stopping us from doing it?

We could desalinate salt water in any volumes if we so chose but since some people have decided that energy must be expensive, for reasons of social control,

What has that to do with desalination? Evaporation is a passive process requiring no energy input other than the sun.

we are not allowed to properly implement solar and wind power or to use other revolutionary 'sources'.

Again, what is stopping you? My mum has solar hot water and a photovoltaic cell on her rooftop.

Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa don't need to industrialise with oil and coal-fired power to support their populations and maybe

No they do not but since few countries have the capitol to move to alternative sources , for which you will not get any investors or foreign aid, that's what they are FORCED to do to prevent their people from starvation.

Okay, and how will Kyoto, which FORCES less CO2 output, not help these countries, which you say are FORCED to rely on CO2-heavy energy sources?

just maybe, removing the "resource curse" will actually help billions of people that are currently starving BECAUSE they have oil to sell at $100 a barrel.

OIl should not cost not more than 50 USD a barrel ( at worse)

Irrelevant argument. But I'll return to it later.

but even at 100 a barrel a USD is devaluing fast and thus easier to gain in global trade. People are not starving because oil prices are high

You just missed my point. Look at Chad, Nigeria, Burma...undeveloped countries with buckets of oil earning them buckets of money (at $100 a barrel). Why are these countries (and their people) poor?

bu because they are forced into neo liberal capitalist 'development' that destroys jobs and leads to privatization and low wages for those that do manage to keep their jobs.

What?

People are working as hard as ever but it's just becoming increasingly hard to gain the capitol

What?

to buy food given the fact that you were either driven off your land by your friendly US backed puppet,

Where?

had to sell your land because you could not pay the 'taxes'

Which taxes?

due to the fact that cheap US and European agri exports( due to massive subsidies to large corporations that are also destroying family farming in the US and Europe) destroyed the pricing structure of the food you were growing,

That's not tax, and Australian farmers have been screaming about that all my life.

or not being able to gain sufficient wages or employment in the city slums you had to move to in your search for gainful employment.

That one is true, but the causes are entirely different. Except the one about land theft, but that has nothing to do with the CIA.

It's not that people are stupid or lazy

Never said they were.

but the fact that they have far less control over their lives than the CIA( or the agencies styled on them and funded by the same government) or US state department has.

Again, get out of the log cabin. You were busy telling me that I can "seem" intelligent, yet argue with obvious truths. You are beginning to sound further and further rational and ever more dogmatic.

cont'd

cont'd

And no, I'm not at all in favour of turning cropland over to the production of bio-fuel.

IF you think people are starving now you should give this Bio-Fuel plan a few years to get properly funded by the same old criminals....

As I said, not in favour.

But that doesn't mean the third world can't benefit from "alternative" fuel sources that are well-established, such as pig farm methane and landfill methane, while maintaining relatively neutral carbon footprints.

Since no one seems to want to pay them a living wage i would be surprised if anyone would choose to invest in making their 'footprint' 'carbon neutral'.

Really, prime ministers and presidents aren't paid a "living wage"? They wouldn't like their countries to be "carbon neutral"?

Perhaps the ordinary people would like to be carbon neutral if someone explained what it was to them. How about this one: Cook your food on your own gas, build a bio-digestive toilet (cheap!) and stop buying cooking gas!

Who wouldn't like to go for that if they knew it was available?

There are any number of ways to produce hydro-electricity that don't rely on massive dams which bring massive negative environmental impacts.

And your telling this to a person ( crazy according to you)

That log cabin-perspective isn't helping.

who believes in the fact that vacuum energy extraction devices have existed for a hundred years.

That's your choice. Personally, I'm willing to say Tesla had some cool ideas that I will soon take the time to examine more closely.

I KNOW how to solve the basic problems billions of people face in the world

I don't, but I know how to solve a few of the problems of some of the people, I prefer to think a little smaller (looks less like megalomania) and if that solution can be replicated in a few hundred places, well, what do you know, problem solved...

but i also know who is preventing like minded people from achieving their goal of easing the suffering of their fellows.

I don't. I know who is largely responsible in my small corner of the world, but that's a different thing and, I suspect, for vastly different reasons than your "powerful interests".

But they don't make for huge projects, big stories and television documentaries that allow national leaders to show their people how they are "developing" their naitons.

As if the people's choice of candidates would need such propaganda to 'gain respect' from their people.

Who said anything about respect? This is about propaganda in a young democracy. The CPP isn't gaining the people's respect, it's fooling them about effectiveness.