How much pollution does a car produce?

Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
Your example dodo is lying/bearing false witness not propaganda

Propaganda would be more along the lines of someone stealing R1000 from you, but you bringing in his race/upbringing etc to paint him in an incredibly bad light, or neglecting to inform people that he stole R1000 in retaliation for you stealing a painting or something from him.
That is what happened in the OJ SIMPSON case but in the opposite drection, his colour were effectively used to set him free because the prosecutor was white... You have proved my point... thanks...sleep tight... He was and still is guilty as hell...
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
79,700
Did they have enough conclusive evidence to convict OJ according to the rules of law of the SA?

You just think he is guilty, the legal system in the states found there was reasonable doubt and they couldn't convict him. Again, that is not propaganda, that is just using a legal system to his advantage.
 

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,215
I think that we should put some perspective on this so-called propaganda.

Anthropgenic global warming (AGW) is an established scientific FACT. The theory has been comfirmed and supported by thousands of scientists in a wide range of fields. There are climate models that have been built around the theory which are proving to be accurate in their predicitions (for example Hansen's 1998 model has predicted much of what's happening now 20 years later).

The notion of consensus implies that the scientific community as a whole agrees that the theory is correct. Let's look at some of the scientific bodies who endorse the AGW.

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

And:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)


Also, it must be noted that, yes, some peer reviewed skeptical papers are published in scientific journals, but please refer to this thread for discussion on that issue:
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=99046
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
Did they have enough conclusive evidence to convict OJ according to the rules of law of the SA?

You just think he is guilty, the legal system in the states found there was reasonable doubt and they couldn't convict him. Again, that is not propaganda, that is just using a legal system to his advantage.
Did you watch crime investigation?
His blood on the glove, apparently his glove on the crime scene.
Obvious cheating by OJ when he disprove that the glove found on the crime scene belong to him?
Why cheat if you are not guilty? He did not take advantage of the legal he blatantly cheated the jury!

It is easy to open your mouth big it was not your sister that got killed....
But rather stick to your greenie topic...
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
79,700
Explain HOW he cheated the jury?...

Do you not understand the concept of reasonable doubt dodo?

Was it your sister that got killed?....
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
Explain HOW he cheated the jury?...

Do you not understand the concept of reasonable doubt dodo?

Was it your sister that got killed?....
Did you watch a proper discussion of the OJ Simpson trial on Criminal Investigation ?....
If you did not don't even consider reasonable doubt, the defense harped on one thing and one thing only the colour of Simpson's skin... that is not reasonable doubt...
The defense lawyers actually intimidate the jury, only watch the video, and in doing so a murder go free...
The legal systems you adore stink of corruption in anycase pal....
No, but when the court find someone that is guilty that has touched my family not guilty... well he stays guilty in my view...
I will be the next one in court...
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
79,700
I actually don't know how to respond to that.... its a typical dodo tactic tho of trying to derail the thread with completely irrelevant rubbish.

Back to the topic of global warming and stuff, thanks Bluecollar for the list of bodies that endorse global warming. Some rather prestigious bodies there.
 

Teleological

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
836
Regarding the Schwartz paper, there are apparently some problems with his calcs,
I’m going to take the calculations for what they are and accept them for the moment. Is there any reason one should not? You will find problems with calculations in other papers as well (for or against the AGW viewpoint).
I do, however, have no doubt that the greater climate science community is not part of some massive consipiracy out to dupe the public or that the thousands of climate scientist who advocate the "consensus" view of climate change are unwilling to re-evaluate their work simply because of the paycheques that come in.
Or the invested money on “green companies”? These scientists are in a powerful position to push an agenda. Also, science is not a democracy, if there is doubt, any doubt as to the magnitude of GW and the degree to which humans are responsible should be acknowledged and tested.
If anything, the pay should be better for those whose work is in line with what Big Oil wants to hear i.e. CO2 aint a problem.
Maybe some prepare for the future, and make sure that the future goes in their direction?
If some discovery comes along that refutes the consensus, then that's great news, but as I was saying in the other thread, one peer reviewed article doesn't mean much, and a skeptical paper can only act as a seed of change in the juggernaut that's the scientific community.
There are other articles showing the overwhelming importance the sun has on the climate.
Thus, I don't believe it's at all reasonable to all-of-a-sudden dismiss the accepted notion of anthropogenic climate change just because the occasional paper says it's bull**** (especially because up until now, none of these skeptical papers have stood up to any degree of scrutiny, peer review notwithstanding).
None? AGW might not be BS, but the magnitude is important to know. Besides, water vapour is the major greenhouse gas, the more water vapour, the greater the greenhouse effect. Current models include water in calculations, but do they account for increased cloud formation? Won’t clouds reflect incoming sun energy? Has this effect been tested? If confirmed, then there does seem to be a self-regulating element in our climate.
It has nothing to do with control, and everything to do with surviving on this planet, or are you to short sighted to see that we are harming this planet to the point that in the not too distant future it will destroy humanity.
Pollution is harming the planet and water resources, a little extra CO2 in the atmosphere might be good thing for plant growth and contribute only very minimally to warming.
It may being blown out of proportion at this point in time, I do not deny that is a possibility, BUT getting a handle on it now before it becomes a bigger problem
Is it becoming a bigger problem? Where is the warming trend the past 4-5 years? Maybe this year will establish that trend again?

I'd say propaganda is more akin to cherry picking the truth that you want from the facts rather than presenting ALL of the facts...
And you see nothing wrong with this?

I am still trying to figure out how supporting propaganda that has a potentially useful outcome makes me untrustworthy,
Because it has potentially disastrous outcomes as well.


Propaganda in a war scenario is just plain wrong... but using propaganda to promote a cause that will benefit humanity is fine IMO.
Is this the mind of relative morality at work, or do you honestly believe this kind of propaganda will only have a positive effect?

The commercial farming community is running this world indirectly and/or directly IMO. Taxing CO2 emissions will increase food production costs because of increased running costs etc… (the increasing oil prices is already doing that). Putting extra strain on food production is only setting up the scene for economic recession, widespread famine, wars etc. Again, I feel the emphasis should be on securing food production resources, irrespective of the climate change. Whether GW will negatively affect food production is not a clear-cut certainty, the extra CO2 might even be helpful.
Here is an interesting article on research done by South African researchers on water resource management and the synchronous linkage between hydrometeorological processes in South Africa and elsewhere, and solar activity. And no evidence could be found of trends in the data that could be attributed to human activities.
If you are interested in their opinion, why not contact them?

I think that we should put some perspective on this so-called propaganda.

Anthropgenic global warming (AGW) is an established scientific FACT.
And the magnitude of AGW?
 
Last edited:
Top