extremely Alarming

[Lindsay Joyce 2]

http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998

this concerns ALL of us- listen and pass it on- I have

[Lindsay Joyce 2]

http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998

this concerns ALL of us- listen and pass it on- I have

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen

Hi Everyone,

A concerned friend sent this information to us with a MUST LISTEN TO order.. After listening to the fifteen minute recording of Alan Jones of radio fame interviewing and talking with a very learned and much titled British Parliamentarian who was advisor to Margaret Thatcher we believe we have a lot to be worried about. This gentleman is advising people from all Countries not to allow their Prime Ministers to sign this Global Warming agreement coming up at the Copenhagen World Conference in December. He claims that once Countries commit to this they can't get out of it and worse still it is being used as a stepping stone into forming a One World Government which will control what happens in all Countries involved which includes affluent Western Countries giving money to the third world countries because they supposedly contribute less to Co2 emissions and mire that will effect us personally.

It sounds to us like a very communistic approach and one we wouldn't want to see at all costs.

Click on the link TOP (in quote) and spend just fifteen minuites (approx) listening to this and maybe you would like to share it with your friends and family as well.

take care

[Philocon 1]

Think you are on the wrong forum with this one Lindsay. Really belongs in the General Forum http://www.racecafe.co.nz/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=1 where you'll also get a wider audience and plenty of climate change sceptics not to mention conspiracy theorists over there too.

Personally I disagree - because one person comes up with a conspiracy theory and predicts dire outcomes doesn't mean it is true. Perhaps a look at the speakers background before taking what he says at face value would be in order too. However important and all as the issue is and much and all as I suspect I would disagree with your views expressed here and enjoy debating them, it does belong in a different forum not this one.

[Lindsay Joyce 2]

Think you are on the wrong forum with this one Lindsay. Really belongs in the General Forum http://www.racecafe.co.nz/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=1 where you'll also get a wider audience and plenty of climate change sceptics not to mention conspiracy theorists over there too.

Personally I disagree - because one person comes up with a conspiracy theory and predicts dire outcomes doesn't mean it is true. Perhaps a look at the speakers background before taking what he says at face value would be in order too. However important and all as the issue is and much and all as I suspect I would disagree with your views expressed here and enjoy debating them, it does belong in a different forum not this one.

Incorrect sorry Phil

it concerns all

[Philocon 1]

Incorrect sorry Phil

it concerns all

Of course it concerns all, which is why it should be discussed on the general forum where all have the chance to go and discuss and debate such issues. This forum is specific to greyhound racing and while the topic concerns all of us including those of us in the greyhound code, it has no direct bearing on greyhound racing. There are climate change sceptics, political right wingers, world govt conspiracy theorists, flat earth believers etc with whom I would have no common ground but I may have common ground with some of them when it comes to our shared interest in greyhounds. There are many other things that are also critically important but if we discussed all those here as well, then greyhound racing would not get a look in on its own forum.

[Lindsay Joyce 2]

Of course it concerns all, which is why it should be discussed on the general forum where all have the chance to go and discuss and debate such issues. This forum is specific to greyhound racing and while the topic concerns all of us including those of us in the greyhound code, it has no direct bearing on greyhound racing. There are climate change sceptics, political right wingers, world govt conspiracy theorists, flat earth believers etc with whom I would have no common ground but I may have common ground with some of them when it comes to our shared interest in greyhounds. There are many other things that are also critically important but if we discussed all those here as well, then greyhound racing would not get a look in on its own forum.

OMG phil !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ive put this on here to help inform the Greyhound family. I didnt have to do it, I felt bloody compelled to.

If I didnt put it on here, like myself I hardly visit the other codes/sports on here.

So if you cant get your HEAD around that- sorry for you Phil.

ps: there wouldnt be any greyhound racing as we know it !

"because one person comes up with a conspiracy theory and predicts dire outcomes doesn't mean it is true"

umm phil even for your standards

[Philocon 1]

OMG phil !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ive put this on here to help inform the Greyhound family. I didnt have to do it, I felt bloody compelled to.

If I didnt put it on here, like myself I hardly visit the other codes/sports on here.

So if you cant get your HEAD around that- sorry for you Phil.

ps: there wouldnt be any greyhound racing as we know it !

"because one person comes up with a conspiracy theory and predicts dire outcomes doesn't mean it is true"

umm phil even for your standards

What you've put up is not informing the "greyhound family" but providing just one side of an argument that requires much more space than it is likely to get on this forum, dedicated as it is to greyhound racing. Providing one side of an argument without any of the scientific or other background is not informing but proselytising. You don't have to visit the other codes or sports forums. I must admit I don't look at the other code forums as often as I do the longtails but the general forum is another matter. It is the appropriate forum for major issues like this to be properly discussed.

If we are concerned about this issue and others of a social and political nature, then the general forum is where it should be. If people are not going to bother to get off their whatsoevers to go to the general forum for a discussion and debate with all aspects covered, then you won't get a fair and balanced discussion with just one side being put up as fact here.

Telling people to listen and pass it on is asking them to ignore the huge body of scientific evidence on the other side of the argument and just act on what you are providing. Lord Monckton is not a "much titled British Parliamentarian" as you say but an hereditary peer (that is he only has the title -3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - because his Dad had it and it was passed to him on his father's death). He claims to be a "peer of the House of Lords" but in fact is not a member of the House of Lords. He was an unsuccessful candidate for a Conservative seat in the House in a March 2007 by-election but didn't even get 1 vote. So his own party didn't even support him. He has led people to believe at times that he is a member of the British Parliament but has never been an MP either.

His claim to fame is he invented the game Sudoku and was a member of a conservative think tank that supported Margaret Thatcher and her conservative govt. He also campaigned unsuccessfully to have Al Gore's film on global warming banned from British Schools.

So he represents one small strand in an argument that warrants more than a one sided urging here to support him. Claiming credentials he doesn't have is not a good start to establishing his credibility in an argument.

I still say the general forum is the place to have a proper debate on this if you wish to pursue it.

[teletubby 1]

you do what your told lindsay..GOD has spoken

[Renee 0]

am I going nuts or at the top of the page do I see "General Chat" - or am I imagining it??

Just what do you perceive to be the 'general' forum Philocon?? :confused: :confused:

[Breeder 609]

A few cracks ( maybe that should be huge craters ) are starting to appear in the Gore & co argument

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

[Philocon 1]

am I going nuts or at the top of the page do I see "General Chat" - or am I imagining it??

Just what do you perceive to be the 'general' forum Philocon?? :confused: :confused:

This was originally posted on the greyhound forum which was when I replied to Lindsay on it.So I was suggesting at the time it belonged here not there. Looks like the moderators agreed with me. Maybe when threads are moved from the wrong to the right forum a post from the moderator at the time of moving might help avoid such confusion.

[Philocon 1]

you do what your told lindsay..GOD has spoken

No one that I know of including myself claims to be God teletubby.I just try and do my homework unlike some who rely on suspicion and gut instincts.

However the moderators seem to have agreed with me that global warming and global conspiracy theories about world government were not specific to greyhound racing but part of a wider debate. Global warming and Lord Monckton's fears of a world govt being set up in Copenhagen didn't play any part in Winsome Bucks winning this year NZ Greyhound Cup.

[Philocon 1]

A few cracks ( maybe that should be huge craters ) are starting to appear in the Gore & co argument

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Not really. No research is flawless and Gore's presentation is a conversion of the scientific arguments into language most people can understand. The emails hacked taken out of context don't show anything apart from conversations between scientists on particular individual projects and individual debates and seminars. Without the full context of the debate and discussion they happened in they mean little apart from what people want to read into them. They haven't as yet been verified.

The debate within the scientific community between the majority who accept various aspects of the research in global; warming and the small minority who don't is a strong sometimes bitter one. So internal emails between the participants are not an indication of anything at this stage.

It is also a huge leap to go from the debate about global warming to an assumption of world govt being instigated at the upcoming Copenhagen Conference and some sort of world communist conspiracy involving all the Labour, Green and Socialist and Social Democratic parties of the world in collusion with the many right wing, Conservative, Liberal and Centre parties of Europe and the western world. That just leaves the extreme right and left wing fringe groups and flat earth nutters outside of the conspiracy and they are a really credible group aren't they?

These nutty theories of world govt, Zionist conspiracies for world govt, communist conspiracies for world govt and all these diametrically opposed groups getting together to take over the world etc have been around for decades and nothing has yet come of them let alone any genuine evidence of their existence.

All that has happened now is they have found a new hatrack to hang their theories on.

[Breeder 609]

Phil --you should update yourself on Gore's latest and how he is changing his mind on carbon dioxide.

[Philocon 1]

Phil --you should update yourself on Gore's latest and how he is changing his mind on carbon dioxide.

No he hasn't. He has simply said that based on latest research excess CO2 doesn't account for the vast majority of human influenced climate change but 40% the balance being other greenhouse gases and other factors. That's still a significant percentage he's arguing and doesn't show an about face or change of mind as the climate change sceptics anticipated or assumed. It simply changes the estimated percentage.

Also doesn't change what I said about the one world govt movement and them finding a convenient new vehicle to blame their conspiracy theories on. Even if Al Gore sticks to what he said or changes his mind doesn't change the existing research available on the matter.

I guess Gore at least doesn't invent prestigious job titles for himself as his counterpart Lord Monckton does to try and shore up his credibility. Gore really was a vice president of the USA whereas Monckton has never been a member of Parliament or of the House of Lords as he has at times pretended.

[Renee 0]

This was originally posted on the greyhound forum which was when I replied to Lindsay on it.So I was suggesting at the time it belonged here not there. Looks like the moderators agreed with me. Maybe when threads are moved from the wrong to the right forum a post from the moderator at the time of moving might help avoid such confusion.

for clearing up my confusion Philocon and of course you are quite correct that it belongs in here.

Of course, posting it in every forum would have commanded a much wider audience :

[teletubby 1]

yes right on both accounts philocon..

it doesn't belong in the dog thread..

and

no your not god...

god is far better looking than yourself..

and he goes more on suspicion and gut feelings

but then again.. I don't beleive in god

so i really don't know do i..

just wanted to see if my rubber band was still working..lol

[Philocon 1]

yes right on both accounts philocon..

it doesn't belong in the dog thread..

and

no your not god...

god is far better looking than yourself..

and he goes more on suspicion and gut feelings

but then again.. I don't beleive in god

so i really don't know do i..

just wanted to see if my rubber band was still working..lol

I am starting to worry teletubby. This is the second time in a very short time we have agreed on something. I hope we are both OK. I'm booking my doctor's appointment today and suggest you do the same just in case.

Good to see you are still contradicting yourself and confusing us with odd statements though. Shows you can't be as ill as I first suspected. You say that God is better looking than me and then say you don't believe in him/her. Exactly how do you work out that someone who doesn't exist is better or worse looking than someone (as far as I am aware) you have never seen? I don't believe in God either so it looks like I'm worse looking than something that doesn't exist. That means I am worse than nothing. So logically I'm actually really good as you are saying that nothing's better than me. Thanks for that compliment.

Oh dear I do have a problem. You've agreed with me several times within a few days and paid me a compliment. As the guy in the ASB ad says "...the world really is changing..."

[zak 0]

Anyone who buys into this global warming b/s is naive.

What do I base this on?? The temperature.

[Philocon 1]

Anyone who buys into this global warming b/s is naive.

What do I base this on?? The temperature.

Very scientific approach indeed. I suppose you regard the news item on TV news tonight about the NZ glaciers and ice/snow content on the Southern Alps & NZ wide reducing by 50% in the past 20 years as naive and inaccurate too.

Suppose your not so naive as to heed the weather forecasts & storm warnings either - just put your hand out the window as a more reliable guide; especially before going out in a boat.

[owen 0]

If we all disagreed with scientists we may as well just scrap university and save money.Spend it on burgers and magazines,perhaps.

I think not

[zak 0]

And the fact that we have just had the coldest October since the mid forties is naive and inacurrate too I suppose.

[zak 0]

So Owen which scientists should we agree with?

Those that go along with the global warming hysteria or those that dont.

[Philocon 1]

So Owen which scientists should we agree with?

Those that go along with the global warming hysteria or those that dont.

Historically movement in science has been slow and a majority even consensus emerges after one or two scientists have stuck their neck out and differed from the conventional wisdom. Then as the evidence becomes apparent and more and more of it becomes available scientists review their earlier understandings. Then so do the rest of us who rely on their expertise same as we all rely on other trained experts in other fields. This pattern has been repeated through Galizzz and his original theory of gravity, in astronomy, geography and original belief that the world was flat etc. All through this there has always been a small body of scientists, religious fanatics, and others resistant to change who clung to what was earlier believed despite the evidence to the contrary.

The arguments on climate change and global warming has followed a similar pattern. Those so called "sceptics" are in this category. They are doing just what the body of oppossitionists and deniers to scientific change have done in the past - clinging rigidly to what was the previous conventional wisdom and trying to find evidence to support their position.

The so called "sceptics" are not sceptics at all. I regard myself as a sceptic. A sceptic trusts no one until evidence is produced to back up the assertion, looks at all evidence with an open mind and is prepared to change that mind if the evidence is strong enough to change it.

These so called "sceptics" are simply oppositionists as they have made it clear they will reject even not consider evidence they don't like and cling to previous assumptions. That's not scepticism. It may be oppositionism, resistance to change whatever you may want to call it but not scepticism. true sceptics don't reject bodies of evidence at the outset. You can be a sceptic and still reject or accept the evidence on climate change to date. It's how rationally you approach it that determines whether you are one or not.

Linking changes in climate science to secret conspiracies of world governance and similar things is not new. Galizzz and others before & after him were subjected to charges of heresy by the then one world govt of the Catholic Church. So conspiracy theories about a one world govt are nothing novel - we had it for several centuries. Maybe the conspiracy theorists really have a hankering to return to it.

[Rooboy 1]

Very scientific approach indeed. I suppose you regard the news item on TV news tonight about the NZ glaciers and ice/snow content on the Southern Alps & NZ wide reducing by 50% in the past 20 years as naive and inaccurate too.

Suppose your not so naive as to heed the weather forecasts & storm warnings either - just put your hand out the window as a more reliable guide]

Come on Philcon, don't be naive. Those glaciers have never been trustworthy and are clearly in on the conspiracy. Plotting and planning amongst themselves. The fact they all look the same and are retreating equally, leads me to conclude they are probably communist glaciers.