Thegoal of IQ2 US is to raise the level of public discourse on our most challenging issues. To provide a new forum for intelligent discussion, grounded in facts and informed by reasoned analysis. To transcend the toxically emotional and the reflexively ideological. To encourage recognition that the opposing side has intellectually respectable views. To engage the live audience as active participants who will ask questions and decide which speakers have carried the day by voting on the motions both before and after the debate.
News and comments on global climate change, global warming and greenhouse effect
I guess I hastily mispoke. My point is that wealthy elites control both insttutions. The Canregie Endowment alone makes large contributions to UN programs. Fear is being used to scare people into acting against their best interests, similar to Bush’s WMD false threat. Of the US delegation to establish to UN charter a vast majority were CFR members. The CFR has been funded by elites, including the Rockefeller family. The CFR controls our foreign policy.
Well thats all too conspiratorial to me. We need to understand the UN charter and intentional law, were basically written by the security council (the victors of WW2 and not just the U.S.). the Security council basically has a monopoly over the UN, because they are the only nations which have veto power. Today the U.S. has used its veto to block many resolutions. I wish the U.S. would follow the UN charter, if that were the case we wouldnt be in Iraq.
In the case of global warming, ur beef with the wealthy elites doesnt seem to make sense at all. First of all the idea that over 2000 scientists would be involved in some sort mass conspiracy is questionable, plus just the obvious fact that accepting global warming is much more of a problem the extremely wealthy oil lobby. Why do you think they fund so many global warming deniers research? They want to make it look like there is a credible opposition.
You make it seem as if the UN is some benevolent organization looking out for you’re best interest. The UN has supported dictators and invaded countries as well. Most climate scientists are funded by goverment grants, not private companies. I agree with curbing pollution, such as carbon monoxide and chemicals dumped in our waters. I just can’t agree with you that CO2 is a pollutant. To me, the oil idustry is just a small part of a large group of corrupt organizations.
There are plentyof elites who are part of the environmental movement. Just do some research into the 1001 club, a subsidiary of the WWF. It’s members, (who include royalty and rich bankers among other elites) are highly influential in the environmental movement and the at the UN. I can list dozens of these mega-wealthy, elite members if I really cared to do so.
The UN doesn’t support anything. the UN is a body of nations, in which every nation has a vote. the US supports dictators, as well as the former soviet union did, as well as the EU and Australia do. so nations support dictators not the UN. the UN is what other nations make it, particularly the powerful nations on the security council which have veto power. So in cases of certain criminals like the Saddam Hussien and Iran, you get sanctions.
and in case of other crimals like the U.S., Israel, and the former Soviet Union you get no enforcement, because they can veto any resolution (or in the case of Israel have the U.S. do it). as for climate scientists ist just the ICPP who believes this. its NASA, NAS, NOAA, and virtually all of the major scientific bodies.
the UN has never invaded anyone, and dont have any power to do so. they have peacekeeping collations which will enter combat zones to keep the peace in certain but thats about it.
i would trust gov’t funded research over exxon funded research ha. if your concerned about pollution and resource depletion, the first place to look is at private industry. they are wholly unaccountable, and can do what they want until gov’t tells them to stop. so handing the research to private companies seems absurd
UN forces invaded the Congo in the 60′s to squash popular rebellions against dictator Patrice Lumumba. Call it a peacekeeping mission if you’d like. War is war. The UN supports globalism, plain and simple; it is influnced by elites from various nationswho believe in centralizing global authority. Exxon and the government are controlled by the same wealthy interests, so I wouldn’t trust either. I realize that the US has a far worse record of supporting dictators, and I find it quite deplorable.
In a report published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank whose members included leading politicians such as Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and Al Gore, we find the following statement: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. [...] All these dangers are caused by human intervention. [...] The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
ur history is very distorted. UN peace keepers did not enter the arena until after Lumumba was executed.
this was a decision by the security council, which is composed of 5 nations. the un isnt some abstract force.
the forces which captured Lumumba and were leading the “popular revolutions” your referring to white mercenaries hired by Belgians who were the former colonizers of congo, in which Numumba was seen as hero who drove them out. the UN does not use force unless authorized by the SC.
as far as the quote, i googled it and it seems like a rumor passed along in the blogosphere, no real credible sources on it.
just a hoax of conspiracy theorist who talk about the “green agenda.” Id say say the green agenda is on par with the gay genda which is trying to convert everyones kids into homosexuals ha.
its pretty laughable. ha.
It doesn’t matter when he died. What matter is that it was a proxy war of the cold war in which innocent people were caught between the crossfire of two competing oppressive forces. Expressing disagreement with the UN decision to use force doesn’t automatically mean I agree with Belgian mercenaries’ involvment. Neither side allowed true independence for the people.
ur telling me that when a popular independence movement is being confronted by powerful colonists mercenaries that when the UN tries to restore that independence that its illegitimate? it was a decision by the security council which is five nations. cold war tensions halted UN intervention, bcuz Belguim was a NATO ally, and when the UN did intervene they still allowed for a Belgium secessionist moment. youve got things very backwards.
and the did not “invade” they were there to do what there what they were supposed to do which is keep the peace. they replaced the belgium army, however, they still allowed a Belgium forces movement. this had to do with cold war politics. if the UN did what it was supposed to it would have fully replaced the Belgians, restored peace, than handed sovereignty to the legitimately elected independence movement.
Excellent! — the concensus in the 70s- disaster- global cooling!!!!
@modestryan16 the U.N. invdades by proxy……think Iraq
I would also mention deforestation, CCD, chemical waste being dumped in the ocean, endangered species, extinction, depleted uranium etc.
There are so many other environmental issues which are being largely ignored in lieu of global warming.
I like this guy. He admits that we just don’t know enough.
The first step to knowledge is the admission of ignorance.
Stott is fantastic. He demonstrates common sense, wit, and knowledge. Him and Crichton have it right. Our priorities are absolutely backwards.
I thought that he did pretty well. He did begin with flattery, and he did scare me in the middle, but he finally made his point.
I forgot to mention that he won the argument for the other side.
“This is a political CRISIS…”
Stott can flat out debate.
i love how he brings up the “ice age” scare from the seventies. there were 8 papers for global cooling in that decade, and 44 for global warming. the scientists even knew in the seventies. this debate was settled years ago. these people need to let it go.
Phillip Stott is professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies — ie he knows NOTHING about the science.
Example per wiki
Stott made this error in 2001: “One of the simple, but very important, facts is that the rainforests have only been around for between 12,000 and 16,000 years.
Of course the scientific view is that the Amazon rain forest has been in existence for at least 55 million years
[...] Link: Global Warming Debate – Philip Stott, part 6 of 10 [...]