Haha I'll take that as a compliment.
I'm positive that America will have many enemies if the economy continues to crash to oblivion as it already is beginning to. America owns China a LOT of money, for one. So yeah.
I do too. It's nice ^.^
I wish there were more debaters who were against my opinions. I like putting up an argument. I'm stubborn and I love debating ^.^ Haha, if only my school had a debate team. I would own them XD

XD i just usually pick the less popular opinion and debate for that because it's more fun.

Althought it happens to make me look like a very odd religious old lady. O.o haha oh well it's still fun.

And yes, America owes a lot of money to China, and Obama has made that worse. x.x
Many financial advisers would NEVER advise something like Obama is doing, yet he continues to do it. It makes some wonder if Obama really is trying to take down America so he can rebuild it the way he wants it =/

Yes it is. Means of production is apart of capitalism. You have understand that this was never an ideology dreamt out of thin air, capitalism was put together to describe our economic system of the time by Marx and Engels. You can't disassociate the theory from the practice. Those industries which are apart of the economy are responsible for the deforestation of the amazon basin.



Meh? You've lost me. Globalization means that an American company can outside of the USA to manufacture goods. This becomes apart of the process of manufacturing ect which again is apart of capitalism. China has a capitalist economy so I don't exactly understand how it can become any more capitalist.



I wouldn't even feed that shit to my dog..

The extreme poverty of these people means working is a nessesity. Either they work in a factory or they scavenge the dumps or prostuitute themselves ect. This country is one of the poorest countries in the world. Children do starve death.

This is an LEDC, a very poor country, it cannot afford to build schools ect. The industry is basically exploiting cheap labor and resources so that it can maximize profit. This means the local economy does not benefit from the industry. Yes it provides jobs but it does not pay a living wage so their is not money for expenditure. Also the industry is taking children away from school resulting in a high population of unskilled workers. If factories paid a fair wage then families could support themselves the economy would thrive and public services would improve. Factories providing schools and educating children is the first step towards a better future for the country, even working with aid charities is step forward. Without it these countries will remain is destuition.

I'm sorry but I did mention schooling and living wage did I not- that is a solution. If the American companies are to stingy- shame on them- then the lease they can do is promote better trading conditions aka living wage, fair price for resources ect. In the UK we have fair trade schemes such as The Fairtrade Foundation | Fairtrade
Companies can use their logo on their products to show that the goods were manufactured in a way which benefitted both the farmers and workers and the company itself. Many supermarket stores such as the Co-Op, own brand are fair trade. The solutions are not inexpensive as you think, we're in a middle of a recession but companies can still afford to help LEDCs obtain better trading standards.



This a very 2-D view. Bangladesh is still a very poor country despite industrial activity other many years. Bangladesh has alot of problems. It suffers from seasonal severe flooding- which is getting worse thanks to climate change. It is over populated and crowded. There are many problems that will still be there for decades to come without help.

You seem to think I want the factories to move out. I don't! I want them to pay these people a living wage and help solve global poverty. Why is this such a shit thing to want. Would your pay 10 cent extra for a product that helped solved global poverty? That's how much difference I pay for a bar of fair trade chocolate. You seem to think that this is unattainble without great cost imposed on yourself. Honestly it's not, I only buy fair trade products and it is inexpensive. The difference is not going to break the bank.
Secondly your analogy to the US is incomparible. This country does not have the same resources as your country.

These people work in sweat shop conditions, they work harder then you, longer then you and get less than a dollar a day.


If they are enforced then the industry would simply move to another country. LEDC's do have the luxury to tell it's foreign industries what it can and can't do. So people will continue to live in poverty ect until the industry chooses to change and begin a fair trade movement. Until then global poverty will continue.

NHS is free. I don't pay insurance, I have free health care and I don't get taxed to the hilt. Simply because our healthcare system is cost effective. Firstly everyone should be covered for healthcare, how do you know if you will need healthcare in the future- you don't. One of the leading causes for debt in the US is health care bills. I rather have a fine than have thousands of dollars worth of debt.

And I very much fail to see how capitalism in America has caused Brazil to deforest some parts of the amazon for farms. You're claim was that capitalism in America has caused deforestation, and after I made the point that there are more trees now than there have been in several hundred years, you jump to the amazon.

I know what globalization means. What I'm saying is just because certain companies are outsourcing doesn't mean we're forcing capitalism. China was almost completely communist. They are still partly communist, but they have been moving towards capitalism because capitalism works.

You have yet again, failed to see the big picture. YOU could go to bangledesh and help too. Why is it you deserve what you have when poor kids are starving? If you're saying that companies should be giving stuff to these people than I want to see you giving them lots of stuff as well.

The US isn't in extreme poverty, but if you don't want to be homeless and on the street then you need a job. People need to work, it's life. If you don't work in America then you're house goes through foreclosure, you get you're car taken away when you can't pay the insurance and you're left on the streets. We've got a problem with kids going out and prostituting themselves in the US, so shouldn't we deal with our own people before some other country. It's not our fault their in poverty to begin with!

Again, not our fault that it's poor. The factory is still giving people a place to work instead of scavanging for food and prostituting. Just because their minimum wage is lower there doesn't mean the factory is "exploiting". That term is pretty subjective anyway. It's not the factories job to provide schools and educate children, that's the community and the government's job. If they can't afford it that's not out or the factories fault. It really doesn't take much to sit a handful of kids down and tell them how to add and subtract, but it's not the factories job so they shouldn't have to do it. Have the government tax the factories so they can support some teachers to go around and teach kids, but it's not the factories job to set that kind of thing up.

Yeah so the factory is just going to say "ok we're going to school these kids!" If they're going to do something like that then it does cost money-- money which the companies don't have right now because guess what! We're in a recession. Money isn't available, and it's not the factories job to do so to begin with. Education is a privelage, not an entitlement. And isn't Britain the king of colonialism? You know, exploiting people to get things cheaply.

Climate change is theoretical. Global warming is not happening. If it does(which I highly doubt) then everyone is going to have problems, not just Bangladesh. The US suffers from seasonal hurricanes, snow storms and tornado's. Being "Overpopulated" is again, not the fault of anyone but the country itself. Factories can help the Bangladesh through taxing, it is not their job to set up schools.

Living wage -> Differs from country to country. Unless you go there and see for yourself that the money their getting for a day's work isn't enough to buy food, then you and I really have no way of knowing whether or not it's a true living wage.
Global Poverty -> Not our fault. The US is the most charitable country in the world. Don't you dare say that we're not doing our part as it is. I personally have been to Haiti on trips to help build parks and safe places for kids to be when parents are working. But I did it of my own free will. I was not forced to do it and neither should anyone else be. When was the last time you donated a large sum of money(enough to build a school) to some poor country?

Every country has some resources. Bangladesh has Natural Gas, Coal, Arable land, timber, water, fish. So to say it's unfair because Bangladesh has no resources is inaccurate.

In the beginning of our country we worked like that too. *nods* Worked a lot, and were paid little to no salary. What got us through is that we were independent and didn't give up. We were "given" very little. It's not unfair to ask Bangladesh to do the same.

You just restated what I said in the first sentence. Until you're ready to give up everything you have for Global fairness(which is in terms similar to socialism) then don't expect others too. People are being laid off all over the place in the US. Companies cannot support to have people working for them so they have to fire people. Until the US is out of the recession, Companies should not be expected to do anything that might cause them to go under.

I still fail to see where poverty in other countries the US's fault. Again as I said earlier we are the most charitable country in the world, so why on earth is it our job to fix everything. We're not the only ones outsourcing factories, and guess what, most companies are privately owned. So take it up with the owners whether or not their exploiting people in their factory, which they're not. Now then, since this isn't part of the debate I will not address this issue again.

Many people from England come to America for healthcare because despite yours being free, ours was more effective and up to date. We're also paying for 20 million illegal immigrants.

The population of the UK is a little over 60 million. Imagine having an extra illegal population equal to one-third of you're who don't pay taxes and still get healthcare and education.

We need healthcare reform. But we didn't need this healthcare reform. This reform does not make our healthcare free.
It's an insurance policy run by the government that you are required to have if you do not have an accepted insurance already. Co-ops like mine don't count. That means I'm going to be fined for having my own version of healthcare insurance. People who do not want the insurance will be fined and will not be covered(meaning they'll still have medical bills on top of being fined). Not only are taxes going to increase tremendously, but the government insurance is not included in the taxes, it's a separate fee that will be more expensive than the average insurance fee now. Those who could not afford insurance before will not be fined because they can't afford it. The bill is stupid. Out of 300 million people in the US, only 10 million people cannot afford healthcare insurance who want it. Yet the other 290 million of us are being forced to accept this.

Two points. Firstly cattle industry is not the only industry that is deforesting the rainforest. As I mentioned before deforestion is caused by other industries like oil companies such as Texaco.
Secondly you have to understand that importing and exporting goods is apart of our economy. The Brazil cattle industry is massive and exports to other countries including America. Countries buy their products to either use in their own products or sell to the consumer via the supermarkets. This is all about globalization, global economies and markets, and meeting consumer demands. America and the vast majority of economies in the world are not autarky, so you can not isolate one country's market to one country when that country has international trading and is apart of the global market.

Where did I specifically say deforestation in America? Oh I didn't. I've told you that this is not some local logging factory down the road. And I've explained numerous times about the concept of globalisation. So it should not be such a stretch of the imagination to understand the idea of American manufacturing in foreign countries and do naughty things... like texaco did in the Ecuador ChevronToxico | The Campaign for Justice in Ecuador




Firstly what you are saying doesn't make sense. What do you mean companies are not forcing capitilism? Is it even possible to force capitilism. As I said before America did not invent capitalism and most countries have a capitilist economy. China is complicated, it tried to communist way back in the fifties. It's economy has been a capitalist economy for a long time. It is a captilist society it is not moving towards capitalism, it has been there for a long time. This is common misunderstanding probably because the leading political party in the Communist Party of China, which isn't very communist for various politial reasons one being that it has a capitalist economy.


I failed to see bigger picture? I tell you the average salary for these people is less than a dollar a day and you still can't figure out why these people are poor and can't send their kids to school. Basically, if I paid you a dollar a day would you be able to feed yourself, pay the rent, buy medicine ect?The average household wage is less than $300 a year. How much tax would you be contributing to your country on that type of wage? When you start doing some basic maths like how much it costs to run hospitals and schools ect, you soon realize why these services are few and nonexistent. If industries paid a living wage then the economy and market would improve. The goverment services would improve, more children would be schooled which would mean an increase in skilled workers. It has this snowball effect which escalates. Without this type of intervention then the vicious cycle of poverty will continue. Some industries already particpate fair trade schemes and some do provide schooling. Schooling is not essential- as the idea offends you so much- but being paid a living wage is crucial. A reasonable wage means that a family can afford to send their children to school, buy medicine, food ect. This is a key step to eliminating poverty. Me going to Bangladesh and offering my resources to the people of Bangladesh will not solve their poverty. I was kinda disappointed when you made that remark, frankly that is something I thought would be beneathe you- as a debator.


Again your comparing a MEDC to and LEDC like they are the same things. In America do children die of diahorrea caused by drinking dirty water? Do suffer from major diseases such as Malaria. Does you country have poor sanitation and dirty water supplies? I'm not going to say anymore because I think I've made my point.



The industry is exploiting workers. Why do you think it moved there in the first place! For a taste of the exotic? The industry is taking advantage the country's cheap labor, it wouldn't be there otherwise. Why are you trying to sugarcoat basic facts? These people are paid peanuts. Who are they paid peanuts by? The industry. And why is that bad? Because the industry can pay them more but they rather save the money and maximize profit for themselves thus supporting poverty. Which in the general scheme of things is quite shitty like a Victorian workhouse.
Finally forget the schools, I never met somebody so offended by the idea of charity. Some companies aren't global bastards inc and take an interest in their host country. If they can't even provide schools as a token gesture for all the advantageous economic benifits they are recieving by working in that country then they should at least pay their workers a living wage. Do you know what a living wage is? It is when you are paid a rate that reflects the cost of living in that area. Let me tell Bangladesh is not an expensive place to live so even a living wage would be signifcantly lower than the minimum wage in the US.



Oh yes because the multi-million dollar international companies are really feeling the pinch- lulz. Seriously kids this isn't the great depression, recessions are apart of our economic cycle. We are in a bear market and when people start spending- yes spending- we go into a bull market and the market recovers. The recession is way more complicated then oh noes we gotz noes munniez.


Are you accusing modern day Britain of this? If so please provide sources and references to support your claim that contemporary Britain is colonizing foreign terrorities so that British industry can manufacture goods while using cheap labour. Oh and most importantly please address my intial reply. Companies in Britain are using fair trade schemes to help eliminate global poverty, thus demonstrating to you how capitailism can be postively used between a MEDC and a LEDC. You requested a solution and I gave you an answer. This is what MEDC companies should be doing to held LEDCs to develop.

Climate change is happening, we measure the climate and look at the graphs and say hey since the mid-twentieth century we've noticed a steady increase in the earth's surface temperature. What has caused the change is where the theoretical lies. Now you may want to believe it is not happening, even in the face of the overwhelming evidence. You can say the sea levels are rising because Russia are been dropping stones in the ocean and the glaciers are melting at a rapid rate because the english are pouring tea into the ocean- seriously I have no time for people in camp denial, my advice to them is buy a house by the ocean and stay in it when the water comes over your head. Eitherway because Bangladesh is uber flat and under sea-level so when it floods it really floods. Up two/thirds of the land can flood. Does that happen in America- no. Do you see why I whine at you to stop comparing the US to the Bangladesh. Yes you get hurricanes, but they're are not comparible to the monsoon season ect. You can't keep pretending that the US has the same geography as Bangladesh.


When I want to know about the economical state of a country I go to the country's bureau of statistics website opposed to buying a plane ticket and travelling their personally to conduct some sort of representational sample to access GDP and average wage. Here is the website Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics


I never said global poverty was your fault. For some reason you are taking my arguments way to personally. This is strictly a debate about companies from MEDCs manufacting in LEDCs and exploiting the local population either through underpaying them, using child labor, using slave labor ect. This has nothing to do with Haiti or emergency aid. My premises are not aimed at you or any other American individuals. As I said way back these companies are not a reflection of you.


I never said it did not have resource!! I said it did not have the same resources as you. So for example that arable land in flooded regularly destroying crops. The gas is undeveloped, and the coal is owned by oil Asia. Countries that border the ocean obviously have access to fish stocks. Water everyone has water, in people in the middle of the dessert can dig a well to get water, that's not the important thing. The important thing is that is clean- and as I mentioned before Malaria, diahorrea ect.



You cannot create consumerism without people having the money to expenditure or goods to consume. I suggest reading up on the economically activity of the roaring twenties for a deeper insight.

Fair trade schemes in UK have demonstrated that such enterprises are cost effective and not unreasonable. A company would not engage in such a venture if it would bankrupt it. Plus you are not taking into context what I said earlier. Fair trade items are more expensive. The consumer picks up the deficit so the company still makes a profit. The deficit is usually nothing more than 10p. So a bar of chocolate costs 45p and a bar of fair trade chocolate cost 55p. Companies will not bankrupt themselves as you implied, these fair trade schemes are business models. I assure that we will not have to live like hermits because the cost of things will go up by a few pence/cents.

I think I've explained myself above. If you wish to shorten your reply to a paragraph so we don't get the wall of text effect feel free :)

That is the worst lie in the world. I remember when some ass hole released that video telling everybody how horrible the NHS was. And that Palin who said we had death panels. All of that was lies. Basic common sense tell us that if you need acute care you do not have the time to get on a plane and fly to America. The only time when patients from Britain go to America for treatment is usually for oncology. Even then it would be for interventions that have not been approved by NICE therefore are not availble on the NHS. Whoever told you that was lying. Any questions you have about the NHS or it quality I can answer. It pretty good except for waiting times. We suck at that. If you are bleeding to death then we see you straight away. But if you've broken a bone you see a nurse, get an x-ray then wait 4 hours to see a doctor in A+E.


We have immigration problems too. It upsets me when people claim benefits but accessing healthcare s different. I wouldn't want people to suffer. As a former nurse the idea of turning away a patient for medical treatment is horrendus. I couldn't imagine turning sick patients in need of medical interventions away because they did not have the money.

Your hospitals are businesses. The goverment can not force them to relinquish themselves over too the goverment. So either the goverment spends billions building new hospitals or offers you this. If America really is on it's knees then you don't want to start building hundreds of new goverment hospitals ect. It's better to force the private hospitals to get their act together. Everyone needs medical cover, it's like not wanting to drive without insurance. You cannot predict if you are going to have an accident. People will just have to get used to it.

It was the scientists in Britain who were exposed of skewing evidence because last year was actually one of the coldest years on record. The Earth goes through warm and cold cycles, and if you've noticed, terminology has changed. You can't call it Global Warming anymore because the earth isn't warming. 30-40 years ago they were screaming bloody murder because the next ice age was coming. Am I against recycling? No. Am I against the environment? No. Am I against cleaner air? No. But Global Warming is not happening. I don't trust the "evidence" being shown from scientists who are purposefully skewing the evidence so they don't lose their funding.

I meant for rarer and more complicated procedures, not broken bones and emergencies. And yes, people fly in the US from all over the world because we have amazing health care.

There's a difference because now that the Government is in control of the health insurance, they can basically say "stop smoking or you'll lose insurance", "stop eating that food or you'll lose insurance" "Eat this new health bar or you'll lose insurance". It gives the government a lot more power than Americans wanted them to have. We left Britain because we didn't like being taxed 3% and getting told what to do. Now our own government is taxing us about 50% and the American people are getting things they don't want.

We didn't need the extra debt. Paying for a plan that would only cover the 10 million people that need it would've been a hella of a lot less expensive then deciding to take on the entire country. Plus it's not fair to people like me who have insurance and will still be fined unless I take the government's. If you lose you're insurance for whatever reason, you cannot pick up new insurance, you're required to go to the government. If companies do not pay for benefits they get fined. If companies use co-op insurances they get fined. The government will slowly be driving the other insurance companies out of business. It's one thing for the government to offer an option to allow people to have insurance who can't afford it. It's another to force people to pay for insurance all together. There are also another 17 million people who could get insurance, but don't want it. The expected cost of the bill over a decade is between 2 and 3 trillion dollars. That money isn't going to come out of thin air. At LEAST an extra 1 trillion dollars in taxes will be placed on the American people. On top of that, the insurance prices for the government insurance are not expected to be lower than that of privately owned insurance companies, and there are fines for not having the insurance. Not to mention the insurance doesn't exactly cover EVERYTHING. You still have to pay medical bills, just the super expensive ones are being paid for. Not to mention the additional debt from just that, expensive medical bills and oh yeah I forgot. The government is now releasing "health recommendations" for things like women not having check ups every year and only going to the gynecologist once every 3 years. Medical professionals(not doctor's though) are screaming that this is simply wrong and that cervical cancer will kill a lot more women if this happens.

Obama is not the brightest guy in the world.

That controversy was blown out of proportion. Climate change skeptics delighted in dragging the scientist community through the mud calling them manipulative, liars ect.

Secondly don't make sweeping genarlisations, there were two scientists involed in the scandal, it was not the entire British scientific community. Now, I've heard the entire the earth warms up and cools down argument before. I'm not impressed. I won't waste my time on trying to prove to you climate change, global warming is a reality. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it, the majority of the scientific community believe in it, the signs are there, it is happening. If you want to shut out that reality, fine. If the top 25 leading scientists in your country can't convince you, I doubt I am.

If the proceedure is not availble in the UK then people will fly to America or whatever country offers the proceedure. Usually this is because the proceedure has not been approved by NICE. This basically means those complicated/rare proceedures are pioneering experiments that have not been approved outside the hospital that it is doing the proceedure. This is what happens in the medically biz. Americans will fly to another country to recieve medical care that does not exist in their own too. It's not anything special. The powers that be would like you too think that, but they are the same people who wanted you too believe that those emails about climate change proved that all climate change was false. Challenge assertions, don't take it at face value.

Proof?

It will be fine. There are a lot of people fear mongering at moment. Don't listen to the rumor mill. Peace out :)

So the fact that several scientists were exposed means nothing? No it definitely is an eye-opener to me. This is the way science works. A nation or certain group pays scientists to look into a particular thing. Of course the groups and nations are biased a particular way and the scientists know this. When a scientist says "Nothing's happening, there is no Global Warming" the lose their funding because it's not the "right answer" despite what the evidence that scientist gathered says. Now this scientist is created an example of so all the rest of them will say "Oh yes, we're all in trouble, Global Warming is here!" You can see the flaws in the system when a biased party is paying researchers.

You know if you did the research yourself I might believe you, but since you don't, all you get is a researcher's opinion of the evidence, not the hard evidence itself so I don't believe you.

When Al Gore, one of the leading spokesman for Global Warming is making so much money off of it, it makes people wonder if it's just money-making propaganda or if it's real.

Source

The hypocrite's movie made $49 million dollars in box office worldwide. Not to mention he also runs a company into the massive trade of pollution credits.

I'm wondering if you even read some of the emails released by the way? Maybe you should look it up. A couple of them were talking about how they wanted to beat up a guy who didn't agree with skewing the evidence.

Also, TIME magazine is partners with CNN, both well known left wing medias with left wing bias'. Interesting Example

I also love how on the "Inconvenient Truth" Al gore shows a graph, but no marks on the graph. He could've skewed the graph any way he please and made it look however he liked.

I do challenge assertions. I'm sick and tired of people asserting on me that Global warming is happening when 2009 was only the 43rd warmest year on record... So much for Global Warming, huh?

Source

Most evidence is showing that the earth is about to go through another cooling cycle.

First part is predicted control. There's nothing to stop them from doing it now, so therefore they can do it.

Between income tax, property tax, school tax, sales tax, gas tax, social security tax, the inheritance tax and more(Decently Complete List) yes, Americans pay about 50% of their total earnings of the year in taxes. The rest go to food bills, insurance bills, any interest payments, clothes, living necessities(toilet paper, etc), water, electricity and so on and so forth. Whatever is left over is what get's put in the bank for emergencies, future college payments, or get's spent on luxuries like a car or a new TV. And by the way, I pay taxes, so I know.

Pretty much everything I've said about this is direct consequences of what IS IN THE BILL that was passed. And I find it funny that you're telling me to chill when you don't have 1. the same kind of healthcare plan we're about to get and 2. don't live in the US.

I hate politics.. But I thought "Ehh, wtf.. why not?"
I wanted Obama in the first place. In my opinion.. anything is better then Bush.
I'm sorry Bush lovers.. But for me Obama is FTW.
Ofcourse he hasn't made major changes yet... he is fighting with what the government is supporting I'm guessing.
I'm sure that in a couple year's time everything is going to work out for us all... Hopefully.
I think Obama will do some good (:

McCain was not Bush either.
Opinion

He has pushed the healthcare bill through. I'm not sure what you mean by the second part, but guessing is not something you should be doing with the future of a country.

Seems like even you have some doubts. However I'm not so sure everything will be fine and dandy in a few years. You really have no idea who is president of the U.S.

Well so far his record isn't looking good. Can I also point out his early influences in politics were Marxist people and communists?

There is good and bad sides to every president. I say that many poeple voted for obama because he is black, and that is fine. I also strongly believe he was a better choice than McCain. I think he should have made abortions illigal, though. Obortion is murder. That is a totaly different topic, anyway.

Funny how many people here have quoted the stupid spineless arguements that America's mindless media spews out left and right. :| Our country is going to s*** not because Obama is our president. Obama or McCain, America would adapt. There is only good and bad in the mind of the ignorant. Things will be what they will be, but usually there is a better option than another- one is never "wrong" though.

I usually stand up for the people I am against, simply because I believe- that is democracy. I will fight for the other voice to be heard. Normally, I would fight for McCain because of that, but simply because nobody has made a decent arguement- or even an arguement at all against Obama that is valid, I'm going to stick by the person I have faith in this time.

First off though, we need to open our little minds and try to understand the responcibility of presidency. The stress level is so high just sitting there "behind that desk" (as everyone assumes) that men will often show so many signs of physical aging they will often leave office looking at least 9 years older. This alone says little about the stress of their job.

and someone here rambled that Obama lied. about what? You stated absolutely nothing but a childish outburst with no connection to anything. :|

Anyway what I find important about Obama is really our improved image around the world. God, if I were any other country, I would have blown us to smithereens for being so self centered and so useless as a country. We don't really produce anything. at all. really... its sad. We get all of our goods from other countries and people wonder why we are in so much debt- that's the only thing I really hold against Obama.

Anyway, so, he couldn't fufil a promise. He's human. think about how many times you've asked friends and family or just peers if they would do something for you. You don't always get it. not to mention sometimes we get caught in the moment and ask for stupid things, potentially harmful things, or immoral things- things that we dont realize interfere with other matters at hand.

bleh this is all too much to really cover...

Actually, scratch that all, there's no point arguing- if Obama gets impeached I think I might move to a socialist country. I don't care about the American dream. I'm perfectly happy being poor and humble, and I've known enough people from Cuba to know most the crap we hear is BS =/

Which scientists were exposed as frauds? I'm tired of accussations without any substance. Please provide your sources to back up your premise.
I can tell you already that your understanding of how scientific studies function is flawed. Scientists have to go to a board of scientists to propose their experiments, then they have to get it approved, then they seek funding usually from a university, then do they work, then they publish their findings to the scientific community and invite other scientists to review their literature. They are not paid by any particular group unless they are employed by enviromental health or some seedy oil company trying to reassure the world it's okay to pollute oil and trash the rainforest.
So I look forward to your attempts to debunk the majority of the scientific community.

The scientific community responded to this scandal by saying that

Al Gore won the nobel peace prize. His film raised mass awareness of a very serious issue. You can't reject the man's credibilty simply because his film made money at the box office. Besides neither Al Gore or Bruce Nussbaum are scientists, you are suppose to be debunking the scientist community. Go find their research and deliver your critques seeing that you do not approve of 'researchers'.


I had heard of that but that was latter disproven as the emails were taken out of context by people wishing to confirm their own bias For example:


Fine here is new scientist- Why there's no sign of a climate conspiracy in hacked emails - environment - 04 December 2009 - New Scientist





You live on a planet. Just because you can't see it from where you live in the world does not mean it's not happening else where in the world. Glaciers are melting at an alarming rate, places are suffering from droughts, the permafrost is thawing, ect.

Life, death and taxes are inevitable.

I second that motion.

hahaha ^^^ I third(?) that? XD

well put madam ;)

I like Obama and I love his healthcare bill, but I'm rather neutral on him right now -- mainly because of how he's been saying again and again that he'll work to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, and then, again and again, not doing so, then promising again a month later and expecting us to love him for it and believe that he really will this time. It's very frustrating.

Source

Head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, Dr Phil Jones along with Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann and others.

This is why I reject Al Gore's credibility.
New Scientist has only been around for three years. Because of that, I could not find any critiques available for whether New Scientist is a reliable source or not.

Have you been there to confirm that? Also, 'pictures' could easily be taken during the summer to show a more dramatic effect. I believe there was even a photo in the Inconvenient Truth that had a dated photo of July as the "global warming" picture of a glacier, compared to a winter photo from some years before.
Since this has no relevance to the actual debate, I'm done talking about it.

You asked for evidence, I gave it to you.

Yes, lots of people have been wanting America to fail. And since that's an opinion it's not debatable.


You should vote for someone because of their policies, not their skin color.

You are masquerading a layman's blog as a source of scientific authority. What is worse is this blog is doing exactly what my source spoke out against in previous post, aka cherry picking emails to misrepresent the work. Secondly I am still waiting for the evidence that these scientists are in fact fraudalent. Tittle tattle from blogs is not what I expect to substanticate such a claim but if you can find There are several official investigations in the various countries that these scientists reside in- US, Australia, UK ect. If the scientists and/or the data was fraudalent then these investigations would confirm that- as of present no investigation has found this to be the case. Dr. Jones has already been cleared by the UK investigation-

You can read the full report here- UK Parliament - Commons Science and Technology Committee

In fact none of the scientists have been exposed as frauds. Some of the ones you mentioned were not even investigated. I suppose that's what get for listening to the ill-informed.



Did you find that out from a blog as well? Simply 'i dun believe him coz he is rich' is not even an argument.


No, The New Scientist has been in publication since 1956. Try again.


In space we have these things call satilites. These satilites take pictures of the earth. From this we can look at a picture of the north pole taken a few years back and compare it with a picture from today- look- http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/a...82_623868a.jpg
Tis magic.


Stop reading the conservative blogs. They want to paint a picture of doom and gloom to the American public to make them look so much better than Obama. I'm sure if you started reading credible sources and got the real facts than it wouldn't seem so bad.



I want America to thrive, that's why I like Obama.

if you wanted to know you coulda clicked the little "source" link. And no, it's not because he's rich. If that's all you got out of it then you're totally blind. He advocates Global Warming and not using as much energy yet his 1 mansion alone(which he does have more than one house) eats up waaaayyyy more than the average person. It's not that he's rich, I could care less. It's that he's a hypocrite.

My mistake, I misread something thinking it was saying that NewScientist has only been online since 2007, when it was saying their posting system had been. That was my bad.

However after a little more research...

I've found NewScientist seems to be leaning left too.

Source. Another Source.

Also from what I've found looking through some of the blogs and articles NewScientist has done is they flip flop every which way. One day they're for global warming, the next day they're not and they go back and forth. I hardly think this is a reliable, un-biased source.

Okay, for one the picture is edited. It looks totally fake, but I don't have the software to determine that, however the picture IS edited. And I'll show you how I know.

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/h...t/theearth.jpg

Here is the image again, only I saved it and made little colored boxes around certain areas.

1. First of all, it's the same image copied twice. The bottom and the top are the same. The pink square outline areas that are identical and it's not just in those pink square. the pink square just outline areas where it's easier to see that the images are identical. According to the pictures, these were taken 6 years apart. If that were so, then the snow patterns would've changed because they aren't the same every year. Yet we see that the snow on the landmasses are in exactly the same positions.

2. The dark blue box at the top shows where they messed up a little in blacking out the stars, because that would make more easily noticed that it was a fake.

3. The yellow squares are showing you where there are land masses in the edited photo that are real and there.

4. The red boxes are showing how the edge of the land looks crisp in comparison to the green boxes where it's fuzzy. This is consistent with a paintbrush tool.

5. The top image was enlarged so it looked like it was a slightly different angle. Probably to hide the pixelation, it was also "misted" or there was a bit of a lighter white added to the land masses to make them look snowier, however they were not consistent with the misting.

6. There is also no clouds or weather being shown, meaning it was either edited out or it is a fake 3d rendering of the earth.

From what I can tell, the bottom one is the original, whether real or fake it's still edited with the stars and everything. The second one then had some white digital paint slapped on it that was textured slightly, but not like the rest of the snow which makes it stand out a bit.

I am a programmer and I'm into graphic manipulation. So the next time you use a picture as reference, at least make sure it's real because the fact that you used a fake image as a source really ticks me. Tis' magic because well... didn't happen. Now then, unless you would like to use MORE fake images to prove you're point, just stop talking about it.

I only listed the ones that me and my family have to pay. So unless you have a tax sheet from America that says I don't have to pay them then shut up.

XD oxymoronish.

There was no hyperlink for a source and even if there was it would be probably have no credibility seeing that you don't even proof read your sources. I'm not listening to some tittle tattle floating about some blog. Do you honestly believe that this source has access to the private energy bills of Mansion Gore.



Wow sources from right wing and anti-climate blog groups. That's non-bias and convincing- not lulz. Seriously are you continue wasting my time or come up with some hard evidence. The fact your even trying to debunk sixty odd years of articles hosted by that single body is mind blowing ludracris. Especially when that single article concurred with a goverment report. By the way have you found any official investigations that has found these scientists to be suspected of foul play?
The answer is no. I keep up with these contemporary affairs and know that these climatologists were not found to be invovled in any fraudelent activity- as the various investigations have proven. This is fact. Now if you want to believe Ed the conservative who has no scientific background, understanding or insight into these matters, then go ahead- just bare in mind that such beliefs will not survive scrunity.

Umm because it is a publisher- you know they publish articles by scientists, they don't have an opinion, they just host articles like any other magazine.


That was a photo to demonstrate my point. You can see a picture of the north pole daily courtsey of NASA here NASA Earth Observatory : Home
How do think met offices monitor the weather. Are you going to try and debunk all of NASA archives now?
EDIT- Even google maps has satilite images. What you are trying to debunk is common knowledge.




That was mature.



Oxymoronic- just because the english language can't get pregnant, doesn't mean you can rape it- I can be immature too XD ;) Seriously though don't read the conservative blogs it's all sugar coated propaganda.

No, the point was you tried to use false evidence and a fake picture to prove your point and obviously you didn't know it was fake because of your arrogant comment

You thought it was real. You can't just turn around and say "that wasn't the point."

Secondly, you think that by my proving the evidence you handed me was fake I'm trying to debunk all of NASA images and satellites? Please. Yeah the earth is going through a warming cycle, so the north pole is warmer than a few years ago. But the earth is now cooling down again. Comparing evidence from recent years does nothing because I already know it was a warming cycle.

Snopes
Snopes. An un-biased place where they check out 'urban legends'. They say that while it's not as extreme as 20 times the average home, it's closer to 12. Still enough to be a hypocrite telling the rest of the world to cut back on energy usage.

About's Take on it

About did a thing on it to. They called it true with a spin.

Hey look, credible sources that say it's not a bunch of lies

hehe, they hire people to write articles for them. They do have an opinion that changes based on who they hire. The point is they're not a reliable source for facts because they could have an article on anything saying whatever they want. They also do choose which articles they publish. I don't have anyone telling me they are reliable. In fact, most of the articles I pulled up where "shame on NewScientist" because of a bunch of mistakes they've made.

I'm debunking the whole site. I'm just saying that according to what I've read on the internet from them, they're flip floppers. Also, the sources I gave you were right wing and were biased. I know that and at least I admit it. I already produced my article from a middle of the road place, you have not.

Funny how it's a "fact" when people say it's still theoretical. If it was a fact there'd be no doubt about it. There are a lot more people out there who disagree with Global Warming than the Law of gravity. There is a difference between a fact and propaganda from scientists over a slightly warmer warm cycle of the earth. Disasters can happen anywhere. Lowest or highest means on record, and according to most scientist's the world's been around for millions and billions of years. There is no way that can prove that it's actually the highest or lowest on record because we haven't been keeping records for that long compared to how long they think the earth is. As far as we know, there's global warming every 10,000 years that wiped the dino's out. Oh wait, that was an ice age. XD I bet human's caused that ice age too.

Yeah for denying that certain taxes exist in America when you don't even live hear. Now THAT was mature.

That is your opinion. The thing is I find more truth in the conservative party. All politicians lie, so the fact that it's the liberal politicians in America crying about Global Warming does not make me want to believe them. I look at both sides of the story and when I see people like you who believe in Global Warming using fake evidence, and scandals about Global Warming, yet I don't see fake evidence that the earth isn't warming. Or that Global warming isn't happening, don't see any scientists fudging data to make that happen. The only reason people would make fake evidence for Global Warming is because there isn't enough real evidence to support it and/or they're trying to hide something.

You asked me if the north pole was really shrinking- then accused whoever of lying by providing photos of the artic in the summer and then idotically asked if I had ever been to the north pole. I said

'These satilites take pictures of the earth. From this we can look at a picture of the north pole taken a few years back and compare it with a picture from today- look'

Where was it ever indicated that given photo was the only one of its kind? You've now changed you stance completely attacking the photo and ignoring my whole premise that satilites can track the shape of the artic. This is not good debating, just another side step to skew the bigger picture which is- The Artic is shrinking proven by photos of the artic taken from space.
In response to your comment that the photo provided was blatant fake I would also like to point out that you can compare and contrast the photo with other existing photos of the artic in 2001, and point two is that what the photo shows is an accurate reflection of what is happening in reality aka the arctic is shrinking. Now would you like to continue on your fake photo campagin bearing in mind that I've already proven my point- the arctic is shrinking?
Finally I would like to say that the earth does go through warming and cooling cycles, and we are in global warming- as I said before and you kept denying until a couple of post ago. But these climatic changes are not magical or natural as you seem to think. They do not spontaneously happen, they are brought about various factors like sun spots or the Earth shifting. This cycle is thought to be induced by man made activities, more carbon dioxide in the air and all that gravy.
Even so if you knew that we were in global warming phase whydid you say in an earlier post it was not happening! Surely you would have asserted that global warming was happening but you did not believe it was induced by man-made activities.



Did you even read your own source? 'The specfic numbers invovled were disputable...' Plus you'll notice at the top of the page the article is a status:

Your article is given a mixture status. Your own source admits that its articles are prone to exaggeration and falsehoods yet you are using them as sources of reliable information.




Again read your sources, this one says what the one above says which is that the figures were exagerrated probably due to the bias nature of the author who suprise suprise was the a conservative- I thought you said these guys were more honest lulz. Either way in page 2 Al Gore responds:





No this is not how they work. They may have regular contributors but you'll find that most articles are written by freelance writers that send it to the publication and the editior will determine if the article is appropiate for the publication and whether they are going to buy it or not. In fact what you are saying completely contradicts your whole stance. Firstly you claim that the source flip flops which makes unreliable and now it is bias. Surely if the source was bias it would not flip flop between opinions.


If you type into google New Scientist LIES! Then that is what you are going to get. Honestly though don't even think about lecturing me on how to source my arguments after all your embarassing failures. You are the last person I would take tips from.
New Scientist will house a variety of articles written by authors which in turn will draw critisism from other authors. These credible authors are not crtitisising the publication but the author of the article in question. This happens in many publications such as newspapers. Authors will even write articles responding to the original article and publish it in the same publication. Which is good.
Any who all of this is paled into insignifcance because the article we were talking about was confirmed by the various official investigations.



The authors views do not represent the publication views. The publication is a medium for authors to express ideas, report discoveries ect. - You cannot debunk the whole site because several thousand authors do not share the same view.

What is 'fact' is that no formal investigations have found foul play. Do not pull it out of context. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. I've discussed cycles so there is no need to re-repeat.

Another claim against my personage which is false- where did I claim that- oh I didn't.



Your'e contradicting yourself. Global warming is happening in the first part of your post and by the second post you've changed your mind. Now scientists are fudging data and all evidence about global warming is fake. I thought we were in a warming cycle- or has that changed. Well when you make up you mind be sure to let me know.

And then continued to produce a fake 'satellite' image. Then after that made said

You think that of all the evidence out there, you happened to refer to some fake stuff?

I never denied that the Globe was warming. I said from the beginning that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. You're response was something to the effect of "That doesn't impress me."

My statements were that Global Warming was 1. Not caused by man and 2. not happening anymore than usual. I know why the earth goes through cycles, and I know that the earth goes through cycles. I was the first one to say so. However last year the warming cycle began cooling. There is no more "Global Warming." And if you haven't noticed, politics is no longer focusing on Global Warming, they now call it Climate change. Why? Because the globe isn't warming anymore. XD

I know it said mixed. It means that it's not completely false like you thought it was though. Also, it was still a pretty big amount compared to the American average.

Exagerrated. Not False. I already admitted that the numbers I quoted before where higher than what these sources said. However these sources still say 12x and 18x the average American home. Still significant.

And I would not be so naive to believe the word of one man who is a hypocrite. He's been caught lying before, and he won't let go that he didn't win the presidential election against Bush.

So it's just the editor's bias then.

XD

Have there even been any formal investigations? The hacker found some foul play pretty quick.
I love how you just skipped over the part where there's no fake evidence saying there is no Global Warming, yet there is fake evidence to show you there is Global Warming. It's interesting.

And even if there was fake evidence against Global Warming, it would probably be a right wing nut.

You've suddenly changed the definition of Global Warming.

When I talk about Global warming I'm talking about the propaganda the human's are causing the earth to warm up beyond anything we've seen before. I'm not talking about a cycle of the earth. Otherwise I would refer to the Warming Cycle, not Global Warming. And seeing that 2009 was a very cool year, yeah I think we're no longer in the warming cycle.

Again I'd like to point out you are purposely taking my argument out of context to try and cover your flawed logic. I don't need to go to the arctic to see the glaciers melt because I can watch them melting from space. Now if you would like to persist with this argument I'm going to tell you bluntly that:
1- You cannot use yourself as your own source
2- To prove that was a fake you would need a geniune photo of the arctic from those time periods to prove that it was indeed a misleading representaion of the arctic.


You denied global warming here:

You consistently claimed global warming was not happening up to post 95. Then it was warming but going into the cooling period and now it is warming? *Looks* below of now we are cooling down. So which is it? You keep changing your view- *unimpressed sigh*...

Where did you say that prior to this post?


I quoted the site which said it could not guarantee the accuracy of it articles. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

What do you mean 12x and 18x the average American home- you can only have one of those statistics- and if you read your source you would know which one is true.
Because exaggeratted is so much better lulz. No it is not significant because as your source said Al Gore uses green sources for energy i.e HEP ect. He can consume as much electritiy as he wants because it comes from a renewable clean source, unlike the rest of us who use energy from carbon emitting dirtypower stations.

So if he told you the grass was green and sky was blue, would you not believe him? Just because you have a personal vendetta against the man does not mean everything he says is false.


Again if there was bias then there wouldn't be flip flopping.



Now I'll demonstrate what happens when you don't read your own sources-

You're the first person I have ever met who used a google search page as a source. Now I'm going to demonstrate why it does not work'...

The spaghetti monster is real, look at my evidence-

Get it?;)



In post 92 I wrote:


What fake evidence? If you are talking about those emails we already discussed it and you dropped it in post 93 and wisely so. Now do really wish to continue flogging a dead donkey?


Why do you label everything with a political slant? You do realize that there are conservative climatologists that believe climate change is happening- heck even John Mccain said that climate change was an issue that needed to be taken seriously.


And where did I define global warming? Oh I didn't. You really need to stop making stuff up about me, it's kinda of creepy.


Global warming is the earth warming. What you are talking about is the green house effect. Proof that the earth is cooling? Please bare in mind that these cycles happen over decades so you would need consistent evidence to prove that the earth has been consistently cooling over the years.
I can already tell that is not happen. Just because you had a mild year does not mean you the scientific authority to announce the world is going into a cooling cycle. I'd love hear your rationale for why the earth is cooling. Cycles don't happen magically so what is cause for this period of intense cooling?

At this point I would like for you to consider taking this discussion into a global warming thread. A moderator can pick the posts out of this one to create the new one if you wish (or merge it into an existing one if it already exists). That way you won't have to lose the ground you have already covered in this topic and start with a brand new thread.

Sorry to be a spoil sport...

:offtopic:

Wasn't talking about the emails. I was talking about the evidence you showed me.

The point was the picture was a fake. It was the same photo copied over and painted to make it look like there was a lot more arctic back in 2001 than there was in 2007. If you have a genuine picture of the arctic then go ahead and show it, of course I would want a comparison of 2001 and 2007 similarly to the fake photo.

*sigh* you take everything I say way out of context. I sourced google to show that I wasn't searching for "NEW SCIENTIST LIES", I was looking for the bias of new scientist when I came across article saying that there were mistakes in NewScientist. Nothing more.

I do not associate Global Warming with a "warming cycle" I associate it with a global warming that is happening because of CO2 in the air, or that's the theory. I assumed that's what you were talking about too. So when you decide that the warming cycle is the same thing as global warming 1. I get confused and 2. yeah things I say don't make much sense because there was a different definition behind them.

It's not intense cooling, but so far the earth has cooled down. Lack of sunspots and the angle of the earth contribute to cooler temperatures. If global warming was still in effect then why was there such a lack of hurricanes being formed outside of the United States? Global Warming would create the perfect conditions for hurricanes all over the place so if it was still increasing why were the numbers so low?

Yeah, and Darwin denounced evolution before he died. Yet most still believe the theory.

I'm done talking about Global warming. If you want evidence of cooling, try looking it up. As Keyori said, this isn't the thread for it so I'm dropping it.

It was fun debating, maybe another time.