Exploiting Myanmar

[Conan71]

Didn't take Algore long to exploit this latest tragedy for his own profit motives.

http://www.citizensugar.com/1609388

[iplaw]

What a jackass.  In other unrelated news items, his "carbon credit" hedge fund closed with $683 million in capital investments.

[waterboy]

That's quite an accusation. One would have to believe that he's one of the devil's minions to think that he would cynically exploit a disaster for profit.  I heard the entire interview rather than just that excerpt and he sounded pretty reasonable.

[iplaw]

If he's linking Burma to "Climate Change a.k.a. global warming" then he is profiting from it, indirectly.

When we didn't have the record numbers of hurricanes after Katrina like they predicted, the story changed and hurricanes were no longer directly linkable to "global warming."

Taking specific weather related events and linking them to global warming is not only unscientific, it's flat out dishonest.

[cannon_fodder]

The real lesson to take from Burma is that natural disasters don't kill people: natural disasters + poverty kill people.  Which is made all the worse by an inept dictatorship that refuses international aid.  

We complain about 1,300 people die din Katrina, here 100,000 people are likely dead.  

I heard an NPR interview with Al Gore pimping his book yesterday.  I think the man is foolish in many aspects, but at least he has gained a sense of humor.  Though, his quest for man-bear-pig means he has to associate everything with it and could not ever reverse his position.

[HazMatCFO]

Fire up the carbon credit printer Big Al!

[cannon_fodder]

Now Burma has refused entry to aid workers.

There is a referendum on constitutional changes in Burma next week and they have refused outside observers (who say it is already a sham).  If they let aid workers in, people might be able to witness the referendum and tell the people it is a shame.  Better to have them die than turn against the government...

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

If he's linking Burma to "Climate Change a.k.a. global warming" then he is profiting from it, indirectly.

When we didn't have the record numbers of hurricanes after Katrina like they predicted, the story changed and hurricanes were no longer directly linkable to "global warming."

Taking specific weather related events and linking them to global warming is not only unscientific, it's flat out dishonest.

Global warming is a relatively new phenomenon and we don't know enough about it to predict what is going to happen.  It might cause tornadoes, might cause extreme snowfall, extreme drought, or other types of extreme weather.  And those who see it snow in March and say "so much for that thar globul wahrmin'" are only showing their complete ignorance of how global warming affects the weather.

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The real lesson to take from Burma is that natural disasters don't kill people: natural disasters + poverty kill people.  Which is made all the worse by an inept dictatorship that refuses international aid.  

We complain about 1,300 people die din Katrina, here 100,000 people are likely dead.  

I heard an NPR interview with Al Gore pimping his book yesterday.  I think the man is foolish in many aspects, but at least he has gained a sense of humor.  Though, his quest for man-bear-pig means he has to associate everything with it and could not ever reverse his position.

Al has always had a sense of humor, but it is a very dry sense of humor that not everbody gets.  Did you see him on SNL a few years ago?  He was a riot.  The Stuart Smalley segment about the disputed election was absolutely brilliant.  Al has always had a lot of wit, but while he was VP it didn't show for whatever reasons.  And even "An Inconvenient Truth" had its funny moments.

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Now Burma has refused entry to aid workers.

There is a referendum on constitutional changes in Burma next week and they have refused outside observers (who say it is already a sham).  If they let aid workers in, people might be able to witness the referendum and tell the people it is a shame.  Better to have them die than turn against the government...

It's time for regime change in Burma/Myanmar.  I'm not joking.  I have supported the Afghanistan war for the most part, I've been completely against the Iraq debacle since day one, but I would be 100% behind an attack on Burma, as long as civilian casualties are kept to the minimum.  The Burmese junta would fall very quickly, and the Myanmarese (is that what they are called?) would likely welcome the troops (famous last words, I know) because of their inhumane treatment of its citizens and I doubt they have the hatred of the US and A like many Iraqis do.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Now Burma has refused entry to aid workers.

There is a referendum on constitutional changes in Burma next week and they have refused outside observers (who say it is already a sham).  If they let aid workers in, people might be able to witness the referendum and tell the people it is a shame.  Better to have them die than turn against the government...

Unintended consequences. Most countries are aware of our penchant for sending in information gathering operatives as part of the aid worker staff. They don't want CIA people nosing around their "family business". Sadly, they will sacrifice their own people to keep us out, but from a purely protective stance they are correct in assessing that not all of our help is charitable.

[TulsaFan-inTexas]

So it's "our" fault that they don't want to let in aid from the rest of the entire world? They are obviously a corrupt, corrupt government and you are blaming this on US foreign policiy? Geez, get a GRIP!

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Now Burma has refused entry to aid workers.

There is a referendum on constitutional changes in Burma next week and they have refused outside observers (who say it is already a sham).  If they let aid workers in, people might be able to witness the referendum and tell the people it is a shame.  Better to have them die than turn against the government...

Unintended consequences. Most countries are aware of our penchant for sending in information gathering operatives as part of the aid worker staff. They don't want CIA people nosing around their "family business". Sadly, they will sacrifice their own people to keep us out, but from a purely protective stance they are correct in assessing that not all of our help is charitable.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas

So it's "our" fault that they don't want to let in aid from the rest of the entire world? They are obviously a corrupt, corrupt government and you are blaming this on US foreign policiy? Geez, get a GRIP!

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Now Burma has refused entry to aid workers.

There is a referendum on constitutional changes in Burma next week and they have refused outside observers (who say it is already a sham).  If they let aid workers in, people might be able to witness the referendum and tell the people it is a shame.  Better to have them die than turn against the government...

Unintended consequences. Most countries are aware of our penchant for sending in information gathering operatives as part of the aid worker staff. They don't want CIA people nosing around their "family business". Sadly, they will sacrifice their own people to keep us out, but from a purely protective stance they are correct in assessing that not all of our help is charitable.

Instead of speed reading and guessing what I was saying, try reading it for comprehension. Your response isn't appropriate.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by bugo
Global warming is a relatively new phenomenon and we don't know enough about it to predict what is going to happen. It might cause tornadoes, might cause extreme snowfall, extreme drought, or other types of extreme weather. And those who see it snow in March and say "so much for that thar globul wahrmin'" are only showing their complete ignorance of how global warming affects the weather.

Okay.  You have to recognize the inconsistencies in these two statements. You denigrate people who make statements like the one above, but right before it you complain that we don't know what effects AGW may have on the weather...  How can you say they're being ignorant if we don't know what the effects even are?  How do you know if they're wrong?

***********

Also, you're about six months behind now.  It's called "global climate change" now.  Since claims that the globe is no longer "warming" seem to gaining scientific credibility.  In fact, now these GCC scientists pushing this hyped agenda now say that the world won't warm for the next 8 to 10 years, but then AFTER that, the world is back to melting.

I agree that anyone who takes trend data from less than 10 years, or worse yet, data from specific events is just ignorant.  I.E. Algore (AKA Man-bear-pig)

And BTW, global warming is NOT a "new" phenomenon, it's happened quite a few times in the last billion or so years, even without the influences of EEEEVVVIIILLL people who drive SUVs.

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Originally posted by bugo
And BTW, global warming is NOT a "new" phenomenon, it's happened quite a few times in the last billion or so years, even without the influences of EEEEVVVIIILLL people who drive SUVs.

Global warming influenced by human behavior is absolutely a new phenomenon, considering the earth has been here many times longer than humans.

And I don't believe the major problem is SUVs or any kind of automobile.  It is the factories that have spewed pollution in the air for the last 100 years plus.  It's the factories in places like India and China that still pump untreated smoke and pollutants into the air.  And some of the factories here are gross polluters.  I am an advocate for eliminating as much pollution as possible, but the attempts at banning certain types of cars (CAFE) are misguided and nothing more than a bandaid, while ignoring the larger problem.