Okay, 5% I can see. Maybe a little fudging, a little rounding up here and there. Heck, I might go as far as 10%, maybe. I'm no math genius, so I might be able to accept 10%...human error, conflicting data, sure, fine.
But 40%??? 40% is LYING.
Now I know I shouldn't be surprised that the U.N. is lying but it just leads me to wonder what else their "scientists" are working on, what else they are asking us to believe, what other lies they are pushing down our throats. And why. (it always comes down to the money, doesn't it?)
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The UN is irrelevant and corrupt. All they really do is threaten state sovereignty and talk alot. They suffer from the same problems that befell the League of Nations.
And yes, the UN is all political. It's all about money and power, and there are no real checks & balances within the UN, hence the corruption.
"But 40%??? 40% is LYING."
Or it shows how incredibly incompetent and inept they are. Either one is a good reason to get the hell out of that waste of time, money, and manpower.
I'm not a doctor nor a medical scientist, and I don't know anything about the AIDS numbers, so I can't comment on the accuracy of their estimates.
I am, however, a scientist by training and am somewhat knowledgeable about climate science by my own personal interest. We can argue about the UN's agenda, but it's not just the UN putting out these climate reports. It's literally the collective effort of thousands of ecologists, biologists, geologists, oceanographers, etc. from all over the world. We can debate whether their projections for the future are accurate, but let's be real about the part where humans are responsible for moving the earth's climate in a warming direction. Because we are. And if we're responsible for the problem, should we not in some way be collectively responsible for the solution?
I am not convinced that a carbon tax is the best path to solving the problem. The advantage of a path like that is that it would make everyone personally responsible for the emissions they create. The disadvantage, of course, is that there's no way to enforce something like that in a way that's fair.
*shrug* I figure that we'll continue to fail to have a serious conversation, or any serious action, in the US, until our 'leadership' gets its collective heads out of the sand. Maybe when the parts of Georgia that aren't in danger of running out of water are underneath a few feet of salt water, we'll wake up.
Raven
This is about the credibility of the U.N. - not a debate about whether or not human beings have anything to do with climate change.
They're lying liars who lay down with dogs have fleas and lies and schemes for oil, traffick in prostitution, and run drugs. They are FOS.
They're lying liars who lay down with dogs have fleas and lies and schemes for oil, traffick in prostitution, and run drugs. They are FOS.
How's that happen? I suppose it bears repeating nonetheless.
dirt - don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
Okay, fine, it's about the cridibility of the UN. The implication I got from your post was that since the UN lied about the AIDS prediction/statistic, they also are 'lying' about other things that are completely unrelated to that statistic--like the issue of climate change, which you linked to up there in the original post. I'm calling b*llsh*t on that implication. When, just as one example, the polar bears in Alaska abandon the ice floes and come ashore? Something is effed, and the fact that we're at least partly responsible is just not possible to deny.
Anyway! Do you think there's a viable alternative to the UN? (Is such a thing even possible?)
Hope you didn't get into *too* much trouble on your pre-holiday-graveyard library shift.
raven albion, the scientific literature of the 19th century was full of carefully-reasoned evidence of why some races were born to be hewers of wood and carriers of water, and the Jews were a biological threat to Europe. That's right, goreslinger, I'm calling "b*llsh*t" on you. Professional scientific researchers fall into just two, and only two, groups: political whores, and rubes. There is nothing for which a "political scientist" will not build a case, if it brings in a grant, supports a departmental promotion, or offers a pitiable shot at prestige. Not only have you losers made asses of yourselves, you may have permanently poisoned the well for future issues that actually require serious inquiry. You've bought a cheap fling on the queen's farthing; party hearty, because the fun's about over and payback is a bitch. Not that too many would mistake your "research" for real science. Your goldfish will be coming back up real soon.
Post a Comment