Now let us praise famous men

You think the Man from Abilene had a premonition about the global
warming scam pulled by those arrogant "scientists"?

“Public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-
technological elite ... The prospect of domination of the nation’s
scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of
money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
-- from Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation as
President of the United States

Andre Jute
Now let us praise famous men -- Ecclesiastes

On Dec 6, 11:31 am, Andre Jute wrote:
You think the Man from Abilene had a premonition about the global
warming scam pulled by those arrogant "scientists"?

No, not at all. He had a premonition about science being appropriated
by the war industry. Of course long before he had his 'premonition'
this had come to pass.

In article
, Andre
Jute wrote:

On Dec 7, 9:42=A0am, (Joe) wrote:
In article
, Andr=
e

Jute wrote:
You think the Man from Abilene had a premonition about the global
warming scam pulled by those arrogant "scientists"?

=3D93Public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-
technological elite ... The prospect of domination of the nation=3D92s
scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of
money is ever present =3D96 and is gravely to be regarded.=3D94
-- from Dwight D. Eisenhower=3D92s farewell address to the nation as
President of the United States

Andre Jute
Now let us praise famous men -- Ecclesiastes

I suggest that people read the entire text of Eisenhower's farewell
address, It's not long, and can be found, for instance, at

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle5407.htm

The following line, taken from that address is the one that many if not
most people regard as the key point:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex."

--- =A0Joe

That most people can quote only that line from Eisenhower's wise and
balanced address -- and then ignorantly misinterpret it as an
accusation against Eisenhower himself as "Still Just Me" has done here
on RBT -- is absolutely no reason that whatever else he said shouldn't
be true too. Truth is an absolute, not a pick-n-mix candy counter for
ideologues.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/...20CYCLING.html

You talkin' to me? You talkin' to ME?!

As I said, just read the entire speech. I certainly was not disparaging
anything that Eisenhower said.

If any "pick"ing was going on, it was by you, with a peculiar assemblage
of bits and pieces of his farewell address.

Oh, and I love your "Truth is an absolute". Yeah, right. Sounds like
something Rosie O'Donnell would say. Peculiarly assembled fragments is an
absolute?

--- Joe

On Dec 7, 8:36*pm, (Joe) wrote:
In article
, Andre





Jute wrote:
On Dec 7, 9:42=A0am, (Joe) wrote:
In article
, Andr=
e

Jute wrote:
You think the Man from Abilene had a premonition about the global
warming scam pulled by those arrogant "scientists"?

=3D93Public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-
technological elite ... The prospect of domination of the nation=3D92s
scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of
money is ever present =3D96 and is gravely to be regarded.=3D94
-- from Dwight D. Eisenhower=3D92s farewell address to the nation as
President of the United States

Andre Jute
Now let us praise famous men -- Ecclesiastes

I suggest that people read the entire text of Eisenhower's farewell
address, It's not long, and can be found, for instance, at

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle5407.htm

The following line, taken from that address is the one that many if not
most people regard as the key point:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex."

--- =A0Joe

That most people can quote only that line from Eisenhower's wise and
balanced address -- and then ignorantly misinterpret it as an
accusation against Eisenhower himself as "Still Just Me" has done here
on RBT -- is absolutely no reason that whatever else he said shouldn't
be true too. Truth is an absolute, not a pick-n-mix candy counter for
ideologues.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
*http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/...20CYCLING.html

You talkin' to me? *You talkin' to ME?!

Nope, I'm clearly talking right past you. -- AJ

As I said, just read the entire speech. *I certainly was not disparaging
anything that Eisenhower said.

If any "pick"ing was going on, it was by you, with a peculiar assemblage
of bits and pieces of his farewell address.

Oh, and I love your "Truth is an absolute". *Yeah, right. *Sounds like
something Rosie O'Donnell would say. *Peculiarly assembled fragments is an
absolute?

--- *Joe

On Dec 7, 6:59*pm, Chalo wrote:
Tom Ace wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Thirty billion from various governments for research into "global
warming", thirty million from private industry for lobbying. Gee,
Chalo, I think that's a ratio of 10^6 by which industry are the
underdogs.

10^3. *US billion, not UK.

Okay, so now we know the answer to Chalo's question: "On which side of
this contrived "argument" do you think the preponderance of the money
is aligned?" The answer is, The global warmies have more money, much
more money, tons more money, a thousand times more money to be
precise, 10^3 more money.

But Chalo doesn't apologize for trying to give the wrong impression,
he just moves on to the next installment of blowing smoke:

To say nothing of the difference between spending money on building
scientific understanding of a problem

But that is *exactly* what paleoclimatologists didn't do. They spent
no time or money building "scientific understanding of a problem".
They merely asked what answer their political masters wanted --global
warming with human guilt for it -- and set about selecting and
contorting data to provide that precise answer. That's not science,
that's ideology.

and spending money on
propaganda

In a democracy everyone is entitled to a viewpoint, and to express it.
Liberty is indivisible, and freedom of speech is the fundamental
liberty that guarantees democracy. You cannot pick and choose who will
be allowed to speak. Furthermore, the green propagandists actually
spend more money than industry does lobbying in Washington. I'm
surprised you didn't know that, Chalo.

and corrupt policy to deny there is a problem.

Since the so-called "scientists" invented the problem to political
order, there is no scientific problem, there is nothing to deny. As
for the policy of questioning "science" that made as many unfounded
assumptions as global warming, only one side of this argument was
right, and it was clearly not the global warmies, standing on their
foundation of lies, theft, thuggery and fraud on the taxpaying public.

There has been a lot of outrage over the exposure that a few in the
scientific community have been less that perfectly honest at times,

It's not a few. Wegman identified 43 by name in this malicious
paleoclimatological clique, several years ago already. And they have
not merely been "less than perfectly honest at times" -- each word of
that is a lie. They have been totally and deliberately dishonest for
nearly two decades, inventing data, distorting data to fit a
politically desired outcome. That is "corrupt policy" as you have it
above, for sure.

The outrage is justified. These liars invented a panic, global
warming. Without their sterling work in flattening the medieval warm
period and the little ice age, it is clear to anyone who knows a
little history that there is no global warming and no danger of global
warming, and won't be for a couple of centuries yet. In short, these
liars are the key to the fraud of global warming.

in
light of the fact that their detractors have been almost *perfectly
dishonest all along.

Their "detractors"? I have news for you, Chalo. No science is fixed;
science is *supposed* to be constantly questioned. If that lying scum,
and you, want to state unequivocally that "global warming" is their
and your religion and faith, why of course we won't laugh in your
faces any more. But while they, and you, pretend it is "peer reviewed
science", the only honest thing to do is to kick those guys and their
expensive fraud of global warming across the houses and back again
twenty-four hours a day.

I wonder what would come to light if the reactionary politicians',
media shills' and fossil energy industrialists' private communications
were leaked?

Nothing much. They're too smart and law-abiding to perpetrate the sort
of dumb conspiracy these self-styled "scientists" committed and
confessed to.

Chalo

I don't see why anyone who cares for the environment should be as
bitter as you are about frauds in global warming being exposed. Surely
you stand for honesty everywhere, not excepting in your religion? You
should be grateful those frauds have been exposed.

In any event, exposure of the fraud of global warming just redirects
money into necessary environmental concerns instead of wasting it
stupidly on trying to limit a harmless gas, CO2, with very likely
dangerous unforeseen effects.

Now that it is all over bar the investigations of the criminals and
the sentencing of those fraudulent "scientists" to long jail terms for
defrauding the taxpayer, perhaps we should move on. There are still
hungry people in the world.

Andre Jute
The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has
now lasted twice as long as the Third Reich

Okay, did you learn that in a Turkish prison?

On Dec 8, 7:34*am, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:

Thirty billion from various governments for research into "global
warming", thirty million from private industry for lobbying. Gee,
Chalo, I think that's a ratio of 10^6 by which industry are the
underdogs.

10^3. *US billion, not UK.

Tom Ace

And I'd be very surprised if the global advertising and lobbying
budgets for all oil, gas and coal companies were as little as 30
million.

For the record, just because I only responded to one
error (the most incontrovertible one) in the posting
I quoted from doesn't mean I agreed with the rest of it.

Tom Ace