NationStates Jolt Archive

http://canadafreepress.com/2005/cover050705.htm

A group of the best scientists in Canada made a half hour long documentary that shows what the Kyoto Protocol really is, a scam, and is funded by their own money and all of the rules to be legit for airing are followed. But since it strongly contradicts the official government position that global warming is a huge threat and the Kyoto Protocol is the solution, it is censored. Also, the only documentaries allowed on the air up there are those crappy, really fictional and biased docu-dramas now.

How contradictory, most of Canada thinks Bush is soooooo evil and yet he tolerated a whole two hour rip-roaring hatefest called Farenheit 9/11 to play in all our theaters and where ever one can buy/rent movies while the Canadian government cannot take a quiet documentary made by some of its brightest citizens that is one sixth the length and will not be sold in stores. To top it off, they allow a bunch of Middle Eastern stations that serve as Al Qaeda's messenger to air on cable....

The word you're looking for is "fascist", not "commie".

They should try ot pitch it to a cable station or two. Given the conspiracy theory stuff that shows up on the History Channel occationally, it shouldn't be too hard to find somebody who who will run it.

I told you there was a conspiarcy, but no..I'm just a crackpot professor with crazy theories.

Where's the censorhip? CBC is not obligated to air it, they simply chose not to do so. The producers can still go and pitch it to anyone else, and if they decide to air it they can do it. There's no censorship at all.

The word you're looking for is "fascist", not "commie".

The two are one in the same, my friend. It is simply that one is commonly and incorrectly used to insult convervatives and christians. Lol.

The two are one in the same, my friend. It is simply that one is commonly and incorrectly used to insult convervatives and christians. Lol.
Actually in Marx's sense its not.

Actually in Marx's sense its not.
In the real world, they are.

I did a little research before I replied. The Heidelberg Appeal the article mentions doesn't say mankind isn't causing global warming, it say's that since man is part of the ecological environment, any changes he causes should be considered natural. I did a little research also on the major players in "Friends of Science". I gave up after the first four I admit, but all of whom I checked out were associated with or funded by lobbyist groups. Not exactly non-biased viewpoints.

In the real world, they are.
True Communism has yet to exist, only attempts as Communism.

The two are one in the same, my friend. It is simply that one is commonly and incorrectly used to insult convervatives and christians. Lol.

They are not one in the same.

Fascism=oppressive government that consolodates economic power in corporations and business

Communism*=oppressive government that claims to distribute economic power evenly but in reality its politicians skim off the top



*Communism as practiced, not as it works in theory.

Edit: Oh, and I should ask, who employs these scientists? Industry front groups? The article doesn't disclose this. :rolleyes:

The word you're looking for is "fascist", not "commie".
indeed

http://canadafreepress.com/2005/cover050705.htm

A group of the best scientists in Canada made a half hour long documentary that shows what the Kyoto Protocol really is, a scam, and is funded by their own money and all of the rules to be legit for airing are followed. But since it strongly contradicts the official government position that global warming is a huge threat and the Kyoto Protocol is the solution, it is censored.

Go back to conspiracy theory land. A bunch of people slap together a little movie and just because they can't get it broadcast on national television when the network dismisses it as not being broadcast quality they're being "censored" by the Canadian government?

Pull the other one.

EDIT: Hey, check out the Friends of Science "membership form":

http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=9 Link at the bottom.

Basically: "Tell us your name and how much money you'd like to give us" and voila, you're a member.

I've never heard of any of these so-called "best scientists in Canada" before reading this article. As another poster pointed out from their digging around, these people aren't unbiased... but honestly, a conspiracy to censor this little opus of theirs? Heh. This is as unique a combination of paranoia and self-entitlement as I've ever seen.

I have worked on various film and video projects here in Canada, and yes - there is a lot of paperwork and headache involved in any production. That doesn't mean there are governmental conspiracies at work to keep anybody from expressing themselves. It means there's a lotta forms to fill out and file with the proper agencies.

http://canadafreepress.com/2005/cover050705.htm

A group of the best scientists in Canada made a half hour long documentary that shows what the Kyoto Protocol really is, a scam, and is funded by their own money and all of the rules to be legit for airing are followed. But since it strongly contradicts the official government position that global warming is a huge threat and the Kyoto Protocol is the solution, it is censored. Also, the only documentaries allowed on the air up there are those crappy, really fictional and biased docu-dramas now.

How contradictory, most of Canada thinks Bush is soooooo evil and yet he tolerated a whole two hour rip-roaring hatefest called Farenheit 9/11 to play in all our theaters and where ever one can buy/rent movies while the Canadian government cannot take a quiet documentary made by some of its brightest citizens that is one sixth the length and will not be sold in stores. To top it off, they allow a bunch of Middle Eastern stations that serve as Al Qaeda's messenger to air on cable....

Could you possibly find a more biased article in such a right wing rag? Nonetheless the article ends with "In fact, the scientists--armed with the truth--are up against government propaganda and censorship.
" which would seem to blow whatever journalistic credibility the CFP I might have assumed it had had I not known the source beforehand.

The two are one in the same, my friend. It is simply that one is commonly and incorrectly used to insult convervatives and christians. Lol.

Feel free to misuse the language in the privacy of your own head. Here, I think we should debate with 'real' terms as much as possible.

Thus - a Fascist and a 'Commie' do not necessarily have any common ground.... in fact, almost representing opposite ends of a spectrum.

Where's the censorhip? CBC is not obligated to air it, they simply chose not to do so. The producers can still go and pitch it to anyone else, and if they decide to air it they can do it. There's no censorship at all.
Quiet you, rational arguments will not be tolerated here.

Also: No one cares if its commuist or facist.

http://canadafreepress.com/2005/cover050705.htm

A group of the best scientists in Canada made a half hour long documentary that shows what the Kyoto Protocol really is, a scam, and is funded by their own money and all of the rules to be legit for airing are followed. But since it strongly contradicts the official government position that global warming is a huge threat and the Kyoto Protocol is the solution, it is censored. Also, the only documentaries allowed on the air up there are those crappy, really fictional and biased docu-dramas now.

How contradictory, most of Canada thinks Bush is soooooo evil and yet he tolerated a whole two hour rip-roaring hatefest called Farenheit 9/11 to play in all our theaters and where ever one can buy/rent movies while the Canadian government cannot take a quiet documentary made by some of its brightest citizens that is one sixth the length and will not be sold in stores. To top it off, they allow a bunch of Middle Eastern stations that serve as Al Qaeda's messenger to air on cable....

I'm not sure which is the more biased, and less evidentially supported.. this post, or the article that inspired it.

First - the Friends of Science organisation presents itself as a collective of scientists, with some civil support - and yet, the Friends of Science website shows only 5 'scientists'... which must mean that most of their membership is laypersons.

Second - the film did not qualify for government funding under the Telefilm slush-fund rules. Why? Because they did not follow the rules for a 'contribution'.

This doesn't mean they are being 'censored'... just that the Telefilm administration doesn't fund ANY programming that doesn't match it's entry criteria... such as gaining permission to film FIRST.

Why is the article suggesting that NOT receiving funding is a form of censorship? The same article says that the film had ALREADY been made, paid for by the 'scientists', themselves.

Third - The article says, "The national broadcasters are not going to run the documentary the scientists have produced". This is not censorship... this is the decision of the broadcast network. Does The Disney Channel run pornographic material? No? What about if the pornographer pays for his/her own costs? What about if the pornographer gets no government funding?

The source of funding is irrelevent. What IS relelvent is if a network WANTS to run a type of programming... they are, after all, looking for viewing figures. They also do NOT want to be victims of legal action. Both reasons will make a network wary to run contentious issues, ESPECIALLY in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.

Fourth - 4000 scientists from around the world, have signed a petition against the Kyoto Protocol. This is presented as a big, impressive number... like the tide is against Kyoto reasoning. It is hardly worth mentioning that, if you think seriously, the average city probably has far more than 4000 scientists, of various levels. Thus, 4000 scientists, worldwide, is an insignificant detail.

Fifth - this post takes the propoganda of the "Canada Free Press" and increases upon it. The article doesn't give enough evidence to claim "all of the rules to be legit for airing are followed".

Neither does the article (or the Friends of Science website) give sufficient data to support: "while the Canadian government cannot take a quiet documentary made by some of its brightest citizens"... and the article CERTAINLY does not give enough evidence to show that the 'government' had ANY impact on the airing/not airing of the documentary.

Sixth - Bush was not involved in deciding whether Farenheit 9/11 played. The Disney corporation paid for it, and dropped it as soon as it's contentious subject matter became common knowledge. Thus - it was purely a matter of another distributor picking up the title... the same as with the alleged anti-Kyoto documentary in Canada.

The difference is... people WANTED to show Michael Moore's film... and nobody has chosen to do the same for the Friends of Science propoganda reel.

Not censorship, my friend... more like Market Forces.

Haha....commies....nah, it wouldn't be even "fascist" in that sense; both words are too much abused.

I think the word "authoritarian" or "statist" would be the best.

There are examples of Communism/Marxist Socialism that were not totalitarian; such as the Paris and Shanghai Commune or the Spanish Revolution in 1936. :)

In the real world, they are.
Just because the world has not seen a successfuly run communist country does not mean that communism is the same as fascism. I suggest you read 'The Communist Manifesto', by Marx and Engels. It's a real eye opener.

Blessings
Cyber

Y'know, anybody with two neurons to knock together can see that Kyoto is is basically bullshit. If even half of the envirorhetoric the environuts spew out is true, Kyoto will accomplish little to nothing even if it is followed to the letter. And if their bullshit isn't true than Kyoto will have minimal effect anyway since the other side says humanity's changeable emissions don't have that much effect anyway.

Fourth - 4000 scientists from around the world, have signed a petition against the Kyoto Protocol. This is presented as a big, impressive number... like the tide is against Kyoto reasoning. It is hardly worth mentioning that, if you think seriously, the average city probably has far more than 4000 scientists, of various levels. Thus, 4000 scientists, worldwide, is an insignificant detail.

That is untrue. You're spouting the same misinformation that the oil company's do.

The truth is that number of Scientists have signed The Heidelberg Appeal. The Heidelberg Appeal is not a petition against the Kyoto Protocol. It doesn't even challenge that the scientific basis of the Kyoto protocol is untrue or unfounded. It simply states that since Mankind is a part of the natural environment that any changes in the environment due to his presence are also natural.

Feel free to misuse the language in the privacy of your own head. Here, I think we should debate with 'real' terms as much as possible.

Thus - a Fascist and a 'Commie' do not necessarily have any common ground.... in fact, almost representing opposite ends of a spectrum.

That is true to a certain extent. However, Facism is also called democratic socialism, which is like diet communism.

That is true to a certain extent. However, Facism is also called democratic socialism

Only by you

However, Facism is also called democratic socialism
no I don't think it is.

Facism is also called democratic socialism

...only on Bizarro Earth.

Me social democrat! Me curtail freedoms and ban free press! Ugh!

The two are one in the same, my friend. It is simply that one is commonly and incorrectly used to insult convervatives and christians. Lol.

No they're not. Even in the authoritarian Stalinist sense communism is opposed to corporations. Facism means that government functions are handed over to corporations so that everything that they do to oppress the people is sanctioned under "free enterprise." Democratic Socialism means that certain functions that could be managed by private corporations are instead run by the government to see to it that they're managed fairly, like electricity and water supply. Communism means that all functions of corporations are taken over by the state. Total opposite of fascism.

That is true to a certain extent. However, Facism is also called democratic socialism, which is like diet communism.

No facism is also called National Socialism.

The word facism does not just mean authoritarian. It means gives power to private corporations, not takes it away. You do not have to have a single insane despotic ruler before you have facist elements in your society.

It starts in ways as innocuous as zoning laws encouraging retail outlets to establish themselves in shopping malls instead of public business districts (commonly called "downtown"). That way protesters can be arrested under the auspice of tresspassing laws and can never draw attention to, oh I don't know... sweatshop labor or the fact that one corporation that tries to make itself look all friendly and progressive is actually owned by one that's all harsh and represive.

See how that works? The government wants to squash dissent, so it stacks the deck so that doesn't look like it's taking your rights away, it just looks like it's trying to balance your rights against those of the mall owner.

An authoritarian socialist government wouldn't bother with that. They'd just claim that the government owns the property and the businesses pay rent to it. If they don't want you protesting they just arrest you for protesting. An authoritarian communist government? There wouldn't be any businesses. Just a state outlet store.

Democratic Socialism means that certain functions that could be managed by private corporations are instead run by the government to see to it that they're managed fairly, like electricity and water supply. Communism means that all functions of corporations are taken over by the state. Total opposite of fascism.
In theory at least. Somehow, that's never quite how the story goes. Instead of private enterprise trying to gyp people, you get government agencies taking their money and then assfucking them using the money as a condom. In the case of communism, you don't even get the nicety of a condom.

In theory at least. Somehow, that's never quite how the story goes. Instead of private enterprise trying to gyp people, you get government agencies taking their money and then assfucking them using the money as a condom. In the case of communism, you don't even get the nicety of a condom.

Well in NYC there's a subway system that the government owns. Mild socialist element, yes. Are the people getting assfucked by it... Well sadly these days yes. But not always. And it would be worse if a private group owned it because it would have to be profitable. Which would mean that the people who need to use it couldn't afford it, so they'd get cheap used cars and parking would become impossible and prohibitivly expensive.

I'm not going to argue that socialism is some sort of ideological panacea. I'm not an idealogue, except on issues of individual liberty (not corporate liberty, I return to pragmatism there). I like to think I'm a pragmatist. If something's proven to work then let it work. If you can make money shipping things from place to place while dealing fairly with people then go ahead. If you can only do it by ripping people off and the country can't function without your services then the government has to step in and provide those services.

An interesting thing is the assumption that 4000 scientists will always be an authoritative and accurate endorsement. These could be cell biologists and astrophysicists for all we know, and therefore be about as qualified to comment on the reality of climate change as laypersons.

The world's 2500 best climatologists make up the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) and they agree that climate change is a human-caused and very real threat to human life. And this is despite the pressure on scientists to declare that they disagree with this view - the fossil fuel lobby will pay them pretty tidy salaries to push the hypotheses which are more favourable to the industry, and the Bush administration is not averse to twisting science to meet its political agenda (the former chairman of the IPCC, Dr Robert Watson of Harvard University, was removed from his position after heavy lobbying from the White House because he was too outspoken, and candidates for US government scientific advisory positions have been asked by officials who they voted for and what they think of President Bush). Despite this pressure, some of the most reputable research yielding results that support the idea that climate change is human-driven and dangerous has been produced by US government-funded projects.

An interesting thing is the assumption that 4000 scientists will always be an authoritative and accurate endorsement. These could be cell biologists and astrophysicists for all we know, and therefore be about as qualified to comment on the reality of climate change as laypersons.

The world's 2500 best climatologists make up the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) and they agree that climate change is a human-caused and very real threat to human life. And this is despite the pressure on scientists to declare that they disagree with this view - the fossil fuel lobby will pay them pretty tidy salaries to push the hypotheses which are more favourable to the industry, and the Bush administration is not averse to twisting science to meet its political agenda (the former chairman of the IPCC, Dr Robert Watson of Harvard University, was removed from his position after heavy lobbying from the White House because he was too outspoken, and candidates for US government scientific advisory positions have been asked by officials who they voted for and what they think of President Bush). Despite this pressure, some of the most reputable research yielding results that support the idea that climate change is human-driven and dangerous has been produced by US government-funded projects.
and those 2500 climatologists don't have a personal agenda either do they (what makes one the best climatologist anyway?).
Face it, neither side has any real, credible evidence one way or the other. I've seen models showing rapid temperature rise in certain areas, yet I've seen models showing no such rise (it all depends on where you measure for your trends). I've seen examples of glaciers retreating (temperature rising) yet that same retreating is revealing tropical flora from prior to the glacier forming (meaning that it was much hotter before, so lends credibility to the natural cyclic idea). Depending on how you measure global temperature, it's hotter now than it was a century ago. Depending on how you measure temperature it's cooler now than it was 1000 years ago.

That all being said, with neither side being able to definitively prove one way or the other, I do have to think that the Kyoto protocol is the wrong way to do it. Alot of flaws in it's reasoning yet no proof that it would actually achieve any real effects.

Should something be done to improve air quality, yes. Is Kyoto that something, no.

No facism is also called National Socialism.


Right, I stand corrected. I just remember once reading "democratic socialism" when researching facist italy.



The word facism does not just mean authoritarian. It means gives power to private corporations, not takes it away. You do not have to have a single insane despotic ruler before you have facist elements in your society.

It starts in ways as innocuous as zoning laws encouraging retail outlets to establish themselves in shopping malls instead of public business districts (commonly called "downtown"). That way protesters can be arrested under the auspice of tresspassing laws and can never draw attention to, oh I don't know... sweatshop labor or the fact that one corporation that tries to make itself look all friendly and progressive is actually owned by one that's all harsh and represive.

See how that works? The government wants to squash dissent, so it stacks the deck so that doesn't look like it's taking your rights away, it just looks like it's trying to balance your rights against those of the mall owner.

An authoritarian socialist government wouldn't bother with that. They'd just claim that the government owns the property and the businesses pay rent to it. If they don't want you protesting they just arrest you for protesting. An authoritarian communist government? There wouldn't be any businesses. Just a state outlet store.

Yet the result is still the same. Lol. I suppose the correct wording would be that Canada is showing off its Totalitarian side; seeing as how both of the terms in question are tied to totalitarianism.

The word you're looking for is "fascist", not "commie".
not really, both are brutally oppressive at their core and ideology (sorry to all those eMarxists out there). he was simply building off the whole socialism (the good kind ;) ) thing going on in canada

Haha....commies....nah, it wouldn't be even "fascist" in that sense; both words are too much abused.

I think the word "authoritarian" or "statist" would be the best.

There are examples of Communism/Marxist Socialism that were not totalitarian; such as the Paris and Shanghai Commune or the Spanish Revolution in 1936. :)


In the spanish civil war the comunists sold out the real revolution and purged many a good man. there was however a great deal of socialism. Marxism itself is a statist philosophy that relies on the idea that the state will relinquish power over time(without being shot at? ahahahahaha!) and i'm not sure if marx even belived it given what an authoritarian douche he was. If Bakunin had just shot him the world we be an better place. However I do appreciate the seperation of socialism and statism and I can't be sure if you meant communism as in "lets all share everything on a national level whether you like it or not" or communism as in "hey lets form a commune"

True Communism has yet to exist, only attempts as Communism.

Oh boy... :rolleyes:

By that logic, there has been no true democracy or true anything...

BTW- even by your definition: Sparta. But they're the only state to not have currency. :D

Right, I stand corrected. I just remember once reading "democratic socialism" when researching facist italy.


last place I read "Democratic Socialism" was George Orwell calling himself a "Democratic Socialist". Socialism is the beleif that the government(or community if you are an anarchist) should take care of the people. US programs like social security and medicare are socialist programs as is the Canadian health care system. Socialism is just a word that was abused by authoritarian marxists, mush like conservatives who call corporatocracy a "free market". both are good ideas, but if anyone with a title in front of their name uses one the're probably full of shit.

In the spanish civil war the comunists sold out the real revolution and purged many a good man. there was however a great deal of socialism. Marxism itself is a statist philosophy that relies on the idea that the state will relinquish power over time(without being shot at? ahahahahaha!) and i'm not sure if marx even belived it given what an authoritarian douche he was. If Bakunin had just shot him the world we be an better place. However I do appreciate the seperation of socialism and statism and I can't be sure if you meant communism as in "lets all share everything on a national level whether you like it or not" or communism as in "hey lets for a commune"

Well to a certain extent he was correct about the state reliquishing power over time, it's just not a sure thing.

When a new government sets itself up it will, in all likelihood, have a lot of instability to deal with. This requires an authoritarian government to keep order.

If the government knows how to run a country and not just a military then eventually things will calm down as rebellious power brokers are either supressed or co-opted and people going on about the business of their lives gradually contribute to an increasingly prosperous country. This will lead to a diminished incentive for the rebellion movement. Even the US had to deal with some of this shit when it got started.

Sure the government will want to keep the power that backs up its authoritarian system, but armies are expensive. Once people are compliant or fat-happy you don't need armies to keep them in control anymore so the government will probably start to ask itself "what the hell are we paying all these soldiers for?" At that point they either wage war on their neighbors or they enact democratic reforms, because until they become totally corrupt administrators are less expensive than soldiers.

But of course all this depends on the people achieving a tolerable level of comfort in one of two ways:
a) Lots of people die so that their stuff is enough for the people left over.
b) There's lots more stuff so that most of the people are happy with it.

and those 2500 climatologists don't have a personal agenda either do they (what makes one the best climatologist anyway?).
Face it, neither side has any real, credible evidence one way or the other. I've seen models showing rapid temperature rise in certain areas, yet I've seen models showing no such rise (it all depends on where you measure for your trends). I've seen examples of glaciers retreating (temperature rising) yet that same retreating is revealing tropical flora from prior to the glacier forming (meaning that it was much hotter before, so lends credibility to the natural cyclic idea). Depending on how you measure global temperature, it's hotter now than it was a century ago. Depending on how you measure temperature it's cooler now than it was 1000 years ago.

That all being said, with neither side being able to definitively prove one way or the other, I do have to think that the Kyoto protocol is the wrong way to do it. Alot of flaws in it's reasoning yet no proof that it would actually achieve any real effects.

Should something be done to improve air quality, yes. Is Kyoto that something, no.

I'd be interested to know what sources you use to inform yourself on science. Because if you read something devoted to communicating science to non-specialists like New Scientist, you'll be given a very clear picture of a scientific community which largely agrees that there is good evidence that global warming is a threat (for instance in the issue of 12 February 2005, which I'll draw from here). The opposition are largely non-scientific, with strong political/economic motives to oppose governmental environmental protection measures:

Most of the prominent organisations making the case against mainstream climate science have an avowed agenda of promoting free markets and minimal government. They often accept funding from the fossil fuel industry. Few employ climate scientists

Of the climate scientists opposing the accepted view, "most...are either retired, outside mainstream academia or tied to the fossil fuel industry".

There is good evidence, such as a 2000 study of satellite data showing that between 1970 and 1997, less and less infrared radiation in that part of the spectrum absorbed by CO2. Similar results were obtained for other greenhouse gases, and we know that there has been an anthropogenic rise in the atmospheric concentration of these gases. This is therefore good evidence that we are causing more radiative heat to be trapped in the atmosphere. 19 of the 20 warmest years globally in records dating 150 years back have occurred since 1980.

There have ben various questions raised about these records, and it is now acknowledged that up to 40% of the climatic variation since 1890 was due to solar cycles and volcanic eruptions. However, "no known natural effects can explain the 0.5 degrees C warming seen in the past 30 years. In fact, natural changes alone would have caused a marginal global cooling".

The vast majority of scientists, even sceptical ones, now agree that our activities are making the planet warmer, and that we can expect more warming as we release more CO2 into the atmosphere.

The real debates arise over how much warming can be expected and the damage it could do. This depends largely on the nature of the feedback from the climate system.

Having spent countless hours of supercomputer time creating and refining models to simulate the planet's climate system, the IPCC concludes that the feedbacks will be overwhelmingly positive.

There are known uncertainties in the models, which sceptics often pounce on, but they "should remember, however, that they cut both ways". The IPCC's eagerness to produce consensus may have resulted in sceptics being dismissed a bit too quickly, but it has also meant that predictions of effects more extreme than generally accepted have also been given little attention.

Overall, there is greater consensus than often thought. Science historian Naomi Oreskes wrote last year:

Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect

Her review of all 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change 1993-2003 showed the consensus to be "near universal" and that even sceptics accept that there will be some anthropogenic warming, but at the bottom of the IPCC's predicted range of a rise between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees C. Even the bottom of this range would probably be the biggest temperature fluctuation in the history of human civilisation.

Err...that's not about censorship, it's about an application for government funding. It seems to me that this article says that Independent broadcasters refused to broadcast it because they didn't think it would be an audience puller AND the government refused to give them funding, which, fair enough, could be seen as biased (although they're not under obligation to fund every rubbishy piece of cinematography that comes under their door), If it is biased, it's unacceptable, but it's not comparable to Bush actively banning Farenheit 9/11.

Y'know, anybody with two neurons to knock together can see that Kyoto is is basically bullshit. If even half of the envirorhetoric the environuts spew out is true, Kyoto will accomplish little to nothing even if it is followed to the letter. And if their bullshit isn't true than Kyoto will have minimal effect anyway since the other side says humanity's changeable emissions don't have that much effect anyway.

Curious... you assert (very strongly) that the Kyoto protocol is a redundant document, and that the Global Warming phenomenon is untrue... and yet you present nothing (but vitriol) by way of evidence for your claim.

I agree with part of your claim... Kyoto IS too little... possibly too late.

But, the moneymakers have replaced a social conscience... so we are just waiting to see if our particular handbasket is going to last long enough to get us to hell, I guess.

That is untrue. You're spouting the same misinformation that the oil company's do.

The truth is that number of Scientists have signed The Heidelberg Appeal. The Heidelberg Appeal is not a petition against the Kyoto Protocol. It doesn't even challenge that the scientific basis of the Kyoto protocol is untrue or unfounded. It simply states that since Mankind is a part of the natural environment that any changes in the environment due to his presence are also natural.

I was basically reiterating what the article said... I didn't say it was my belief.

My POINT was that 4000 people is nothing. In a room... 4000 people is a lot. In a field of endeavour the scope and magnitude of... even just ONE branch of the sciences... it's a drop in an ocean.

That is true to a certain extent. However, Facism is also called democratic socialism, which is like diet communism.

1) Wrong because: The term you are looking for is Nationalist Socialist.

2) Wrong because: Nationalist Socialists (Nazis) in pre-WW2 Germany tended towards Fascism.... but Fascism isn't SUMMED UP by Nazism.

3) Wrong because: At it's route, Fascism really just means 'sticking together'.

In theory at least. Somehow, that's never quite how the story goes. Instead of private enterprise trying to gyp people, you get government agencies taking their money and then assfucking them using the money as a condom. In the case of communism, you don't even get the nicety of a condom.

I'm sorry, this just sounds like re-iteration of Red Menace propoganda...

I'd be tempted to say you've obviously never met a communist you could like... but it seems more likely you've never met a communist... at all.

Communism is an economic and Social system. Even Socialism is suppost to be Democratic. Unfortunatly the conditions for democracy in Russia during the time of the revolution were not favorable. Russia was largely poor and backward. A group of burocrats led by Stalin(he had many mental problems) took control of the Soviet government and eliminated any part of the workers democracy and opposition. Stalin established the Totalitarian government that had nothing to do with Communism,Socialism or the Workers and more to due with staying in power.

It's not communist. But this isn't the first time Canada has failed to have a free press. They just recently leagalized Fox News channel. Up to about 2 months ago, it was blocked and illeagal to broadcast because it wasn't liberal.

not really, both are brutally oppressive at their core and ideology (sorry to all those eMarxists out there). he was simply building off the whole socialism (the good kind ;) ) thing going on in canada

wrong. with communism the people govern themselves. And about socialism…

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/socialism_communism.asp

Oh boy... :rolleyes:

By that logic, there has been no true democracy or true anything...

BTW- even by your definition: Sparta. But they're the only state to not have currency. :D

umm.. he said nothing about democracy. stop making things up. as for sparta; correct me if im wrong but i thought they were militant dictators, the opposite of communism. but i don’t know much about them so i won’t pretend to.


in closing this is a nice site you should check out to see where you stand politically:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I support the Kyoto agreement, but it is for the public good for all sides of a debate to be represented. I am against the censorship of this film.

I support the Kyoto agreement, but it is for the public good for all sides of a debate to be represented. I am against the censorship of this film.

Perhaps an idea to read the thread before posting. The film doesn't appear to have been censored at all, it simply couldn't get funding.

Cheers
Grantwold

http://canadafreepress.com/2005/cover050705.htm



Censoring films, no matter what they have to say, is bullshit.

The Kyoto protocol, however, is not.

umm.. he said nothing about democracy. stop making things up. as for sparta; correct me if im wrong but i thought they were militant dictators, the opposite of communism. but i don’t know much about them so i won’t pretend to.

That's right: I brought up democracy. Making what things up? Go re-read what I posted. His POV is that true Communism has never been tried. My POV is that there is that no true anything can have been tried.
And that (using his ruler) the closest possible "true" Communism ever was the Spartan city state.

Sparta had no currency, everybody had the same thing, and everyone lived to serve the state. It ruled by two Kings (dual monarchy) and 28 nobles, all retired soldiers over the age of 60. Not too far from the the dictatorship of the proletariat, and a couple thousand years before Marx to boot. :)

For more on Sparta:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/SPARTA.HTM

in closing this is a nice site you should check out to see where you stand politically:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I think you should start reading the forums with sigs turned on, then. It's been in my sig for many moons now. :D

Economic Left/Right: 1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56

...it doesn't get much more centrist than this.

Your source is a right-libertarian website. These are the people that believe the UN is spying on them with black helicopters and call Dick Cheney a liberal.

...this isn't the first time Canada has failed to have a free press. They just recently leagalized Fox News channel. Up to about 2 months ago, it was blocked and illeagal to broadcast because it wasn't liberal.

Wow, talk about flamebait.

And hogwash.

Etc.

!

That's right: I brought up democracy.

Not you, him. He was talking about communism not democracy. And he’s right; true communism has not yet been implemented in a country as a whole.


Sparta had no currency, everybody had the same thing, and everyone lived to serve the state. It ruled by two Kings (dual monarchy) and 28 nobles, all retired soldiers over the age of 60. Not too far from the the dictatorship of the proletariat, and a couple thousand years before Marx to boot. :)

For more on Sparta:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/SPARTA.HTM

Thanks, I like Greek history but all I know about Sparta is that they were good at war. It looks long though, I’ll read it later.


I think you should start reading the forums with sigs turned on, then. It's been in my sig for many moons now. :D

Economic Left/Right: 1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56

...it doesn't get much more centrist than this.

How do you turn the sigs on? Sorry I'm new, as you can see from my post count. :)

Not you, him. He was talking about communism not democracy. And he’s right; true communism has not yet been implemented in a country as a whole.

Okay, let me explain it another way: if you don't count the various Communist goverments that have existed to date as implementations (China, USSR, Cuba, et al), then you must take the viewpoint that they are/were not true Communisms. If that is the case, my counter-arguement is that true Democracy/Republic/Capitalism/Dorito manufacture hasn't been tried either.

This is an inherently unsavory line of reasoning, as it really doesn't get us anywhere, and it also doesn't address HOW a "true" anything might be implemented in any event.

Keep in mind: I have been to three Communist countries, two of which my total time exceeds 6 months (Poland & Czechoslovakia). East Germany was no picnic either. So I'm not speaking without at least a little experience.

Simply put, due to human nature, true anything (that is, by the book) can never be implemented. So the statement that "true Communism has never been tried" is spurious. :)

Thanks, I like Greek history but all I know about Sparta is that they were good at war. It looks long though, I’ll read it later.

Enjoy... I'm more a 19th & 20th century kind of guy, but I also enjoy the Ancients.

How do you turn the sigs on? Sorry I'm new, as you can see from my post count. :)

Ah! (I wasn't paying attention, sorry.) Go to your Profile (top left of the screen) and then hit "edit options". It's towards the bottom of the page. :)