Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dishevelled Den]

 

do I have to sell my miggy..


seriously western capitalism and the comfort level they achieved relies upon the exploitation of
African,American(south and north) and East (middle and asia) people's work for many centuries and still ..

so dont let me started how they do it..

you think those armies are there for freedom of Iraqis

seriously western capitalism and the comfort level they achieved relies upon the exploitation of
African,American(south and north) and East (middle and asia) people's work for many centuries and still ..


Hi cem 8-)

Western interests - being far from perfect and caring - without doubt exploited those in less well developed nations.


..............so of course did the governments of those very nations in question where the tribal, caste or system of local convention was very adept in ensuring that those in power remained so.

The 'communist' nations can’t claim the moral high ground either, despite the lofty ideals of their dogma.  They were not only well practised in exploiting third world nations but also their own people where the ruling elite enjoyed a level of comfort far removed from that experienced by the ordinary comrade.

Ask around in the die-hard nations still trying to fly the tarnished banner of communism - Cuba, North Korea to name but many - to see if those removed from the party elite really consider the communist ideal to be worth retaining.

Hi Zulu

being not that fast in your language , need some time to answer, so I'll reply as soon as possible

Forgive me cem, I'll wait your reply with interest - as I always do 8-)  

[Drewomega]

Taken at 9.30 this morning.
Anybody have lower temp than this?   8-) 8-)

http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq119/drooscott/Image020.jpg

[Jimbob]

we got -10.1 at around 7am, which is the coldest it got here.
coldest ive ever seen here.

[Debs.]

Taken at 9.30 this morning.
Anybody have lower temp than this?   8-) 8-)

http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq119/drooscott/Image020.jpg

Oh dear-Lord!

......just a (relatively) balmy -16C. here at 7 a.m.  8-)

[Chris_H]

Taken at 9.30 this morning.
Anybody have lower temp than this?   8-) 8-)

http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq119/drooscott/Image020.jpg

Oh dear-Lord!

......just a (relatively) balmy -16C. here at 7 a.m.  8-)

Time to take the water out of the anti-freeze?

[Dishevelled Den]

I dont really care what any sciebtist or politician wants to tell us all regarding their theories on this or any other subject.The big problem for us "ordinary people" is the fact that they are using this as an excuse to raise all sorts of taxes to ludicrous levels and freely admit that this process is going to accellerate. Current  and predicted gas/electric/petrol prices probably being the more obvious examples.
Now they are planning to give countless bilions to less wealthy countries to supposedly reduce their carbon footprints, which of course means we will have to pay even more ridiculous levels of taxation, where and when is it ever going to stop ?
Possibly when the Marxist Utopia is achieved and everyone in the world is equally poor ?

Marx was not promoting poverty, but aiming at achieving a society where the 'richness' of individuals was in enjoying their creative freedom, away from the allienating capitalist system which chained them to endless demands on their bodies and souls to produce monetary gain for others. In Marxism no one would be poor, no one rich, but everyone experiencing life to the full with their labours fairly rewarded.  What is wrong with that in theory?  Well only the problem with human nature!

Well only the problem with human nature!

Indeed so Ms Z


allienating capitalist system which chained them to endless demands on their bodies and souls to produce monetary gain for others

To be replaced by an equally captive bond to the very system that was supposed to offer freedom and equality - a system that was subsequently found to be dictatorial, exploitive and laden with its own corps of elite who enjoyed an experience far removed from that of the ordinary citizen.

Marxism simply highlighted the fundamental and irreconcilable difference between theory and the harsh realisation of practice and afforded some of the most exploitive dictators in recent history a springboard to practice their dark arts.

As long as there's 'human nature' to be considered in the equation then the lofty ideals of Marx and others will remain an unachievable goal.

[Dishevelled Den]

To keep refering Nick to soundbites, blogs, internet entries, etc, by various people who like to disagree with real, validated global science does not offer a meaningful argument against the FACT that our weather has changed over the last 100 years (a clue to human activity?) and is speeding towards further dramatic development.

At Canterbury University this subject has naturally been discussed, and none of these counter arguments by so called knowledgeable individuals have had their papers on the subject supported by the scientific or academic  community, at true expert level.  But I suppose you Nick will rubbish that as well!

But I suppose the dinosaurs couldn't accept massive change was on the way, and suddenly they were gone!

PS And to prove anyone can use the internet to 'prove' their argument please see the following on the Pacific Island threat:
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Andre-Vltchek/2504

 

"...none of these counter arguments by so called knowledgeable individuals have had their papers on the subject supported by the scientific or academic  community, at true expert level."

Here are 500 papers...enough for you?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html


"...to prove anyone can use the internet to 'prove' their argument please see the following on the Pacific Island threat:
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Andre-Vltchek/2504"

I quote from Morner, who is arguably the foremost scientist on sea levels and you counter by saying anyone can use the internet prove something and go on to link to an interview with someone called Espen Ronneberg - "Climate Change Adviser" for the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP). 

Lizzie, what's become of you? 

 

#


As I have stated before I cannot be bothered to discuss this subject anymore on the OOF as I know that you and others Nick, maybe for all the right reasons, are so convinced the governments of the world, and the scientific community, along with those "people like me" who watch, listen, read and learn about what is happening around us, are involved in some conspiracy to con the world's population over global climate change.  Indeed I am sure you and others think I and others who believe this is very real are stupid and should be shouted down. Never forget the world's politicians have families as well and live on this planet.

As I have other channels open to me for interesting debate rather than a car forum, I will now withdraw from all discussions on the subject of climate change.  You can all believe what you like, as frankly it is not going to make any difference to how the world's leaders will act in our best interests on this matter.  
 

Lizzie, I really don't understand you at all on this. You make a great play in the post, setting out your views and yet when I dare to contradict the theories you put forward, you don't argue the points rationally, but merely refuse to discuss it any more. Odd behaviour, I would suggest, given your interest in politics.
 

It is not Nick when all I read at university, academic papers on the likes of JStor, the beliefs of the professors and doctors I encounter all believe global climate change is a very real problem, that is supported by the specialists they have academic contact with who have stated no-one has yet produced a paper for academic scrutiny to argue successfully against climatic change.  This is in a uni where us political students and our lectures freely discuss some radical political alternatives, and do not usually except anything as being "as it is", with always the thought we could do things very differently.  However, on climatic change we are all united.  It is very real and must be tackled.

Academia is seldom the place to visit in the search for the real world application of so many these theories loftily discussed within those well insulated portals Ms Z.

I do however agree with you, and those very academics it seems that there is evidence of climate change.  I would differ on the causational factors however favouring the non Co2 lobby.

The imperative should therefore be placed in preserving the globe's remaining resources and improving our stewardship of the environment - it's the only one we have after all.

The provision of sufficient levels of food and potable water should concern us more that the apparent excess of C02 in the atmosphere and its alleged drawbacks and of course the astronomical cost of the unrealistic proposals to 'rectify' it.

[jereboam]

As long as there's 'human nature' to be considered in the equation then the lofty ideals of Marx and others will remain an unachievable goal.

This is the fundamental flaw with any form of socialism - it relies on the next man behaving as well as you do. 

And another thing - someone in an earlier post - Banjax, I think -  was equating global warming scepticism with an anti-science attitude.  This is wrong.  As a former science student and mathematician (although I never earned my living as a scientist) I can assure you that the doubts I have about the global warming bandwagon have absolutely nothing to do with value of science to society. 

The information being made available to the public is incomplete and unconvincing.  Most of the Great British Public (including me) aren't qualified to understand all the theory and data that is available to the climate scientists.  But some of do know enough to recognise that we aren't getting "good science" shown to us.  Statistical analysis is insufficient to "prove" the theory while the quantity and quality of the data being analysed is not standardised and is, in any case, changing daily. 

Such analysis can be valid when used retrospectively on a fixed data set, but I, for one, will remain sceptical when every new survey carried out changes the model and the theory.  And for that matter, climate science isn't the only area I am concerned about.  Epidemiology seems to be going the same way.  Half of us are supposed to be in bed with swine flu at the moment, instead of sitting here moaning about the weather.  I suspect that university funding problems are ultimately putting pressure on academics to publish whether they are ready or not, and the same pressure (do I disagree or do I keep my job?) may be affecting the peer review process.

[Dishevelled Den]

As long as there's 'human nature' to be considered in the equation then the lofty ideals of Marx and others will remain an unachievable goal.

This is the fundamental flaw with any form of socialism - it relies on the next man behaving as well as you do. 

And another thing - someone in an earlier post - Banjax, I think -  was equating global warming scepticism with an anti-science attitude.  This is wrong.  As a former science student and mathematician (although I never earned my living as a scientist) I can assure you that the doubts I have about the global warming bandwagon have absolutely nothing to do with value of science to society. 

The information being made available to the public is incomplete and unconvincing.  Most of the Great British Public (including me) aren't qualified to understand all the theory and data that is available to the climate scientists.  But some of do know enough to recognise that we aren't getting "good science" shown to us.  Statistical analysis is insufficient to "prove" the theory while the quantity and quality of the data being analysed is not standardised and is, in any case, changing daily. 

Such analysis can be valid when used retrospectively on a fixed data set, but I, for one, will remain sceptical when every new survey carried out changes the model and the theory.  And for that matter, climate science isn't the only area I am concerned about.  Epidemiology seems to be going the same way.  Half of us are supposed to be in bed with swine flu at the moment, instead of sitting here moaning about the weather.  I suspect that university funding problems are ultimately putting pressure on academics to publish whether they are ready or not, and the same pressure (do I disagree or do I keep my job?) may be affecting the peer review process.

I suspect that university funding problems are ultimately putting pressure on academics to publish whether they are ready or not, and the same pressure (do I disagree or do I keep my job?) may be affecting the peer review process


...a legtitimate and valid concern J.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

As long as there's 'human nature' to be considered in the equation then the lofty ideals of Marx and others will remain an unachievable goal.

This is the fundamental flaw with any form of socialism - it relies on the next man behaving as well as you do. 

And another thing - someone in an earlier post - Banjax, I think -  was equating global warming scepticism with an anti-science attitude.  This is wrong.  As a former science student and mathematician (although I never earned my living as a scientist) I can assure you that the doubts I have about the global warming bandwagon have absolutely nothing to do with value of science to society. 

The information being made available to the public is incomplete and unconvincing.  Most of the Great British Public (including me) aren't qualified to understand all the theory and data that is available to the climate scientists.  But some of do know enough to recognise that we aren't getting "good science" shown to us.  Statistical analysis is insufficient to "prove" the theory while the quantity and quality of the data being analysed is not standardised and is, in any case, changing daily. 

Such analysis can be valid when used retrospectively on a fixed data set, but I, for one, will remain sceptical when every new survey carried out changes the model and the theory.  And for that matter, climate science isn't the only area I am concerned about.  Epidemiology seems to be going the same way.  Half of us are supposed to be in bed with swine flu at the moment, instead of sitting here moaning about the weather.  I suspect that university funding problems are ultimately putting pressure on academics to publish whether they are ready or not, and the same pressure (do I disagree or do I keep my job?) may be affecting the peer review process.

I suspect that university funding problems are ultimately putting pressure on academics to publish whether they are ready or not, and the same pressure (do I disagree or do I keep my job?) may be affecting the peer review process


...a legtitimate and valid concern J.

Or is it really?  Two of my learned lecturers are taking six months off this year to write additional books as they have been given £7,000 each by our university to carry out research in their discipline, without restriction on how they do!  In addition all the professors and doctors I know write their books and paper completely independently from uni dictate.

As for lecturers "towing the university line", I can assure all that mine certainly do not and are very free speaking during their academic teaching, with a mixture of Marxist, capitalist, Hobbesian, Machiavellian, liberal, free market, etc, view points, and no hint of trying to manipulate our beliefs, with fair exposure of the  weaknesses that exist with all ideologies.  They are also very open with their criticism of uni politics and administrative procedures. 8-) 8-) 8-)

[Dishevelled Den]

Sad as it may appear to some, I am a paid up member of the DILLIGAF club as regards global warming and side with the member who commented that, when its upto his knees, he will be concerned.

I know thats not really the way to look at things, most times, but, frankly, I feel its been done to death and I glady watch from the sidelines before throwing my cap in any direction whatsoever....

I would entreaty you to rescind that membership B

The proposals to 'deal' with C02 based climate change – if that is the reason for the change - will fundamentally alter the way we will be able to conduct our personal business should they be implemented in full.

Our movements will be curtailed by way of road use levies and punitive taxation placed on personal transport to discourage use.

Our energy use will be monitored and curtailed if necessary by forcing the use of 'smart' electricity meters onto subscribers who will not only have to pay for their installation and maintenance through additional charges, but also by way of increased tariffs to discourage the use of energy at certain times.

Waste output will be monitored of course with the likelihood of additional charges should a certain allowance be breached.

Personal carbon credits will force everyone to monitor their carbon output and where the allowance is exceeded, oblige us to purchase more to remain within the regulations.

The state will increase its ability to hold data on each and every citizen to ensure their compliance with legislation.

Vast sums of the nation's fiscal holdings will be diverted to a fund intended to assist third world countries deal with the effects of climate change, with all the potential opportunity for abuse that that holds.

No, in my view this debate about climate change is less about the health of the planet but more about the fundamental manner in which our individual way of life will be changed to accommodate the questionable motives of those advocating the need for such change based on the Co2 model presently being sold as the only motivator for this change.

[Dishevelled Den]

As long as there's 'human nature' to be considered in the equation then the lofty ideals of Marx and others will remain an unachievable goal.

This is the fundamental flaw with any form of socialism - it relies on the next man behaving as well as you do. 

And another thing - someone in an earlier post - Banjax, I think -  was equating global warming scepticism with an anti-science attitude.  This is wrong.  As a former science student and mathematician (although I never earned my living as a scientist) I can assure you that the doubts I have about the global warming bandwagon have absolutely nothing to do with value of science to society. 

The information being made available to the public is incomplete and unconvincing.  Most of the Great British Public (including me) aren't qualified to understand all the theory and data that is available to the climate scientists.  But some of do know enough to recognise that we aren't getting "good science" shown to us.  Statistical analysis is insufficient to "prove" the theory while the quantity and quality of the data being analysed is not standardised and is, in any case, changing daily. 

Such analysis can be valid when used retrospectively on a fixed data set, but I, for one, will remain sceptical when every new survey carried out changes the model and the theory.  And for that matter, climate science isn't the only area I am concerned about.  Epidemiology seems to be going the same way.  Half of us are supposed to be in bed with swine flu at the moment, instead of sitting here moaning about the weather.  I suspect that university funding problems are ultimately putting pressure on academics to publish whether they are ready or not, and the same pressure (do I disagree or do I keep my job?) may be affecting the peer review process.

I suspect that university funding problems are ultimately putting pressure on academics to publish whether they are ready or not, and the same pressure (do I disagree or do I keep my job?) may be affecting the peer review process


...a legtitimate and valid concern J.

Or is it really?  Two of my learned lecturers are taking six months off this year to write additional books as they have been given £7,000 each by our university to carry out research in their discipline, without restriction on how they do!  In addition all the professors and doctors I know write their books and paper completely independently from uni dictate.

As for lecturers "towing the university line", I can assure all that mine certainly do not and are very free speaking during their academic teaching, with a mixture of Marxist, capitalist, Hobbesian, Machiavellian, liberal, free market, etc, view points, and no hint of trying to manipulate our beliefs, with fair exposure of the  weaknesses that exist with all ideologies.  They are also very open with their criticism of uni politics and administrative procedures. 8-) 8-) 8-)

You are fortunate indeed Ms Z to associate with such free-spirited and independent individuals, however can this be said about all the learned members of the many other academic instituations within this land? :-/ :-/

[STMO999]

As long as there's 'human nature' to be considered in the equation then the lofty ideals of Marx and others will remain an unachievable goal.

This is the fundamental flaw with any form of socialism - it relies on the next man behaving as well as you do. 

And another thing - someone in an earlier post - Banjax, I think -  was equating global warming scepticism with an anti-science attitude.  This is wrong.  As a former science student and mathematician (although I never earned my living as a scientist) I can assure you that the doubts I have about the global warming bandwagon have absolutely nothing to do with value of science to society. 

The information being made available to the public is incomplete and unconvincing.  Most of the Great British Public (including me) aren't qualified to understand all the theory and data that is available to the climate scientists.  But some of do know enough to recognise that we aren't getting "good science" shown to us.  Statistical analysis is insufficient to "prove" the theory while the quantity and quality of the data being analysed is not standardised and is, in any case, changing daily. 

Such analysis can be valid when used retrospectively on a fixed data set, but I, for one, will remain sceptical when every new survey carried out changes the model and the theory.  And for that matter, climate science isn't the only area I am concerned about.  Epidemiology seems to be going the same way.  Half of us are supposed to be in bed with swine flu at the moment, instead of sitting here moaning about the weather.  I suspect that university funding problems are ultimately putting pressure on academics to publish whether they are ready or not, and the same pressure (do I disagree or do I keep my job?) may be affecting the peer review process.

I suspect that university funding problems are ultimately putting pressure on academics to publish whether they are ready or not, and the same pressure (do I disagree or do I keep my job?) may be affecting the peer review process


...a legtitimate and valid concern J.

Or is it really?  Two of my learned lecturers are taking six months off this year to write additional books as they have been given £7,000 each by our university to carry out research in their discipline, without restriction on how they do!  In addition all the professors and doctors I know write their books and paper completely independently from uni dictate.

As for lecturers "towing the university line", I can assure all that mine certainly do not and are very free speaking during their academic teaching, with a mixture of Marxist, capitalist, Hobbesian, Machiavellian, liberal, free market, etc, view points, and no hint of trying to manipulate our beliefs, with fair exposure of the  weaknesses that exist with all ideologies.  They are also very open with their criticism of uni politics and administrative procedures. 8-) 8-) 8-)

You are fortunate indeed Ms Z to associate with such free-spirited and independent individuals, however can this be said about all the learned members of the many other academic instituations within this land? :-/ :-/

Hmmm.......I could learn from you Zulu.

[jereboam]

As long as there's 'human nature' to be considered in the equation then the lofty ideals of Marx and others will remain an unachievable goal.

This is the fundamental flaw with any form of socialism - it relies on the next man behaving as well as you do. 

And another thing - someone in an earlier post - Banjax, I think -  was equating global warming scepticism with an anti-science attitude.  This is wrong.  As a former science student and mathematician (although I never earned my living as a scientist) I can assure you that the doubts I have about the global warming bandwagon have absolutely nothing to do with value of science to society. 

The information being made available to the public is incomplete and unconvincing.  Most of the Great British Public (including me) aren't qualified to understand all the theory and data that is available to the climate scientists.  But some of do know enough to recognise that we aren't getting "good science" shown to us.  Statistical analysis is insufficient to "prove" the theory while the quantity and quality of the data being analysed is not standardised and is, in any case, changing daily. 

Such analysis can be valid when used retrospectively on a fixed data set, but I, for one, will remain sceptical when every new survey carried out changes the model and the theory.  And for that matter, climate science isn't the only area I am concerned about.  Epidemiology seems to be going the same way.  Half of us are supposed to be in bed with swine flu at the moment, instead of sitting here moaning about the weather.  I suspect that university funding problems are ultimately putting pressure on academics to publish whether they are ready or not, and the same pressure (do I disagree or do I keep my job?) may be affecting the peer review process.

I suspect that university funding problems are ultimately putting pressure on academics to publish whether they are ready or not, and the same pressure (do I disagree or do I keep my job?) may be affecting the peer review process


...a legtitimate and valid concern J.

Or is it really?  Two of my learned lecturers are taking six months off this year to write additional books as they have been given £7,000 each by our university to carry out research in their discipline, without restriction on how they do!  In addition all the professors and doctors I know write their books and paper completely independently from uni dictate.

As for lecturers "towing the university line", I can assure all that mine certainly do not and are very free speaking during their academic teaching, with a mixture of Marxist, capitalist, Hobbesian, Machiavellian, liberal, free market, etc, view points, and no hint of trying to manipulate our beliefs, with fair exposure of the  weaknesses that exist with all ideologies.  They are also very open with their criticism of uni politics and administrative procedures. 8-) 8-) 8-)

I really wasn't trying to cast aspersions on the entire academic community.  But this is nothing new - may I refer you to the works of C.P. Snow, which I read in the 1960s and can't remember much about now?   "Office politics" has always been rife in academia, and the pressure to publish has always existed - look at what happened to Darwin with his On the Origin of Species.

The fact that some peer reviews may effectively just be rubber stamps does not invalidate the entire field of academic research, any more than does the fact that Professor X may not perhaps cite every conceivable reference in his eagerness to see his paper in Nature in place of Professor Y's equally meritorious effort on a similar theme.

[Dishevelled Den]

from Zulu

"so of course did the governments of those very nations in question where the tribal, caste or system of local convention was very adept in ensuring that those in power remained so."

those governments start to loose one by one.. look in south America.. even the mighty CIA cant stop..

and they started the job first by kicking the arse of IMF




"The 'communist' nations can’t claim the moral high ground either, despite the lofty ideals of their dogma.  They were not only well practised in exploiting third world nations but also their own people where the ruling elite enjoyed a level of comfort far removed from that experienced by the ordinary comrade."

I see the point, those systems being far from ideal examples and started the life under the pressure of western capitalism (dont neglect that point, very important) but cleaning capitalism roots from the elite even in those systems not that easy.. :-/


"Ask around in the die-hard nations still trying to fly the tarnished banner of communism - Cuba, North Korea to name but many - to see if those removed from the party elite really consider the communist ideal to be worth retaining."

Cuba , imho is really a better socialist example staying alive behind the arse of USA as a sharp needle 
 
they live under a very heavy embargo , defetaed many problems with US and  and succeeded to solve many of their problems starting with health..


in addition to the things I mentioned above , I wanted to give an example for the desperate ,

a hundred years ago, a day for the worker was 16 hours and now is 8.. who achieved  this ? 

and they let only children to work in their factories..

things change,  if some lazy arses wake up and fight..
 
ps: lunch break ! , need to take one friend for a distant place , see you..

 

those governments start to loose one by one.. look in south America.. even the mighty CIA cant stop..


Where dictatorial rule seems to be preferred methodology.


I see the point, those systems being far from ideal examples and started the life under the pressure of western capitalism (dont neglect that point, very important) but cleaning capitalism roots from the elite even in those systems not that easy..

You can say that again cem, greed will always be greed irrespective of the system in question.


[b]Cuba , imho is really a better socialist example staying alive behind the arse of USA as a sharp needle 
 
they live under a very heavy embargo , defetaed many problems with US and  and succeeded to solve many of their problems starting with health[/b]

I certainly agree with you cem that that successive US administrations have been wrong to continue the very shortsighted policy of this trade embargo.


The question must be asked however, if the system based on the communist model in general and as practised within Cuba in particular is so wholesome, why are there so many people keen to leave and seek their respective fortunes elsewhere?

Cuba would have prospered to a much greater extent under a far-seeing leadership and freed from its recent incumbents.