EU climate plan raises 'serious issues' for Ireland

[wizzard]

I can safely say that "relatively normal" probably doesn't cover professional demolition experts, and definitely doesn't cover people who are not professional demolition experts but who nevertheless have such an abiding interest that they can "recognise the difference" between a controlled demolition and the only known case of commercial jets being flown into skyscrapers.

the patron saint of these much elevated, in your eyes at least, "experts" Groucho' Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?'Marx.

[Eddiepops]

And Ibis/EP: don't even think of clamping down on the flat earth debate, or the "evolution is lies!" thread either.

I wouldn't dare!

[ibis]

I can safely say that "relatively normal" probably doesn't cover professional demolition experts, and definitely doesn't cover people who are not professional demolition experts but who nevertheless have such an abiding interest that they can "recognise the difference" between a controlled demolition and the only known case of commercial jets being flown into skyscrapers.

the patron saint of these much elevated, in your eyes at least, "experts" Groucho' Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?'Marx.

I wouldn't dream of denying that people see what they see! I'm just pointing out that I certainly don't have the interpretive skills to know that what I am looking at is a controlled demolition - and neither do most other people. Apart from the small number of people who are professionally trained demolition experts, the only people who have the requisite level of knowledge are people who have taught themselves - and in most cases, these people have taught themselves because they believe that 9/11 was a demolition.

I don't put it past the US government to do something so cynical, but I do doubt their ability to keep it secret, and more than that, I don't doubt Al-Qaeda's ability to have done it. Also, Al-Qaeda are far more 'inconvenient' than would be the case for a government conspiracy - there are all these annoying things about them, like being mostly Saudi, although the Saudi's are "good guys" in the extremely specific sense that US interests mean it.

I see no reason for the event itself not to have been exactly what it appeared to be - and I don't find anything interesting about arguing the toss, because it's effectively irrelevant. What's important is the response, which, of course, has been cynical, opportunistic, imperialistic, manipulative, vicious, and criminal.

[carguy]

It's comforting to see that the wacky loonies are now the ones who don't believe in the importance of global warming/climate change.

I guess the "wacky loonies" need to be burnt... ahem composted at the stake for daring to question the infallible Orthodoxy of the international church of man made climate change/global warming (a faith based religion).
In other words, don't bother to argue the case, or examine the facts, or convince people by logic and common-sense. Just lie repeatedly, and everyone will believe you.
And calling it a lie is not an exaggeration!. The fact is that the climate change debate is by no means concluded or conclusive. While it would be foolish to dispute that the weather has changed and is changing, many of the claims by early campaigners have been shown to be mistaken or based on crap "science".
Observations of weather, animals, wild plants and crops show that things are actually improving in many areas, measurements of ice decay and ice growth show that growth currently outstrips decay, sea-level measurements show that in some places levels are rising slowly, in others they aren't, the hole in the ozone layer is getting smaller, and overall temperatures haven't risen for the last eight years!. So while the weather has certainly changed, whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is not proven, and to claim that it is proven, and to try and shape government policy on that basis, is a lie of MAJOR proportions.

Spot on Champa!

The current “consensus” on manmade climate change is a farce.
Numerous scientists and researchers contest the UN IPCC claims that so called “Global Warming” are of human origin.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... nateReport

The most accurate scientific research amply shows the real reason for the natural cycles in the Earth’s temperature see here for a tiny amount of information.
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun- ... blications

And from my favourite previous science editor of New Scientist magazine an essay in the Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 363818.ece

Unfortunately the” Green” Eco-Mentalist Fundamentalists scientific world view is as valid as Creationism. They have a totally blinkered view and if given free reign will totally destroy Ireland’s economy with their half baked high tax ideas to reduce our so called carbon footprint. Ideas like useless Wind Turbines

They simply don’t work as a renewable power source. Quite apart from their unmatched ability to slaughter bird life keep everyone awake within 15 miles with their noise pollution; their power output is virtually useless.

Denmark has built 6,000 wind turbines and while the wind blows it is theoretically possible they can meet up to 20% of Denmark’s power requirements.

Since they came on line not a single one of Denmark’s normal power stations has been decommissioned. They are all running at full capacity because, while the wind turbines are theoretically capable of meeting nearly a fifth of the country’s demands, they produce nothing at all when the wind drops. And the “Green” Fundamentalists think they are a good idea. Denmark’s copes because it uses it interconnectors sucking nuclear power generated electricity from its neighbours.

Of course we can always grow Bio Diesel? This article may change your mind.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 507851.ece

[wizzard]

I can safely say that "relatively normal" probably doesn't cover professional demolition experts, and definitely doesn't cover people who are not professional demolition experts but who nevertheless have such an abiding interest that they can "recognise the difference" between a controlled demolition and the only known case of commercial jets being flown into skyscrapers.

the patron saint of these much elevated, in your eyes at least, "experts" Groucho' Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?'Marx.

I wouldn't dream of denying that people see what they see! I'm just pointing out that I certainly don't have the interpretive skills to know that what I am looking at is a controlled demolition - and neither do most other people. Apart from the small number of people who are professionally trained demolition experts, the only people who have the requisite level of knowledge are people who have taught themselves - and in most cases, these people have taught themselves because they believe that 9/11 was a demolition.

as with GW you talk as if the view is unanimous which it isn't . You also are missing a basic point i.e. that since when did expert mean 'somebody who doesn't lie?

I don't put it past the US government to do something so cynical, but I do doubt their ability to keep it secret, and more than that, I don't doubt Al-Qaeda's ability to have done it. Also, Al-Qaeda are far more 'inconvenient' than would be the case for a government conspiracy - there are all these annoying things about them, like being mostly Saudi, although the Saudi's are "good guys" in the extremely specific sense that US interests mean it.

I see no reason for the event itself not to have been exactly what it appeared to be - and I don't find anything interesting about arguing the toss, because it's effectively irrelevant. What's important is the response, which, of course, has been cynical, opportunistic, imperialistic, manipulative, vicious, and criminal.

whatever you think of course, but I doubt if many "relatively normal people"- particularly in the US - which agree that it's irrelevant if was a false flag attack or not and the official account nothing more than a cover story. If the Truth Movement get anywhere it is probably the best chance of ending US /Zionist- imperialism there is.

[ibis]

I can safely say that "relatively normal" probably doesn't cover professional demolition experts, and definitely doesn't cover people who are not professional demolition experts but who nevertheless have such an abiding interest that they can "recognise the difference" between a controlled demolition and the only known case of commercial jets being flown into skyscrapers.

the patron saint of these much elevated, in your eyes at least, "experts" Groucho' Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?'Marx.

I wouldn't dream of denying that people see what they see! I'm just pointing out that I certainly don't have the interpretive skills to know that what I am looking at is a controlled demolition - and neither do most other people. Apart from the small number of people who are professionally trained demolition experts, the only people who have the requisite level of knowledge are people who have taught themselves - and in most cases, these people have taught themselves because they believe that 9/11 was a demolition.

as with GW you talk as if the view is unanimous which it isn't .

Not at all. I haven't said the view on 9/11 is unanimous. Nor is it with climate change - it's a consensus, not unanimity.

You also are missing a basic point i.e. that since when did expert mean 'somebody who doesn't lie?

Well, it never has meant that, of course. However, when one is talking about nearly all the experts having to lie, you've reached the stage at which you require a perfect conspiracy. I tend to discount any theory that requires a perfect conspiracy, because they can't actually be tested.

I don't put it past the US government to do something so cynical, but I do doubt their ability to keep it secret, and more than that, I don't doubt Al-Qaeda's ability to have done it. Also, Al-Qaeda are far more 'inconvenient' than would be the case for a government conspiracy - there are all these annoying things about them, like being mostly Saudi, although the Saudi's are "good guys" in the extremely specific sense that US interests mean it.

I see no reason for the event itself not to have been exactly what it appeared to be - and I don't find anything interesting about arguing the toss, because it's effectively irrelevant. What's important is the response, which, of course, has been cynical, opportunistic, imperialistic, manipulative, vicious, and criminal.

whatever you think of course, but I doubt if many "relatively normal people"- particularly in the US - which agree that it's irrelevant if was a false flag attack or not and the official account nothing more than a cover story. If the Truth Movement get anywhere it is probably the best chance of ending US /Zionist- imperialism there is.

Maybe. The reason I say it's irrelevant whether it was a false flag attack or not is because the response has not been directed at the perpetrators in any case. You don't need to go to the bother of staging something like 9/11 if you can use a real 9/11 to justify almost anything - which is what the Bush administration have done. They were attacked by Saudi terrorists apparently motivated by "religious conviction" - their response was to attack the secular state of Iraq, and to begin a massive clampdown on the liberty of their own citizens (well, not all their citizens, just the intellectuals and those who travel).

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that 9/11 is exactly as it appeared to be, there's no relation whatsoever between 9/11 and Iraq. Therefore, there is no need for an elaborate false flag attack, because any pretext would have served.