Friday, August 29, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Ayaan Hirsi Ali & The Big Ideas Forum

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - ABC FORA

Thanks to Gordon Wong for the link.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2008/08/14/2335340.htm

Ayaan Hirsi Ali & The Big Ideas Forum

Somali-born writer, activist and feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali is best known for her explosive 2007 memoir, Infidel, which recounts a repressed and brutal childhood in a Muslim family, including being genitally mutilated by her devout grandmother. Having publicly lambasted both Islam and the prophet Mohammed, she has been the target of numerous death threats, and when she spoke recently at the Sydney Opera House, security was so tight that her presence at the event could only be announced that same morning.

Dr Arthur Herman is an historian and author, most recently of Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age, and most famously of How the Scots Invented the Modern World. He has recently come to notoriety with a series of public statements and op-ed pieces arguing that climate change is a myth propagated by zealots, and will be proven by history to be as ideologically driven as eugenics was in the first half of the 20th Century.

Professor Frank Furedi is a sociologist, who founded the Revolutionary Communist party in Britain in 1970 (it was disbanded in 1997). He has written extensively on the sociology of risk, and more recently has turned his attention to an idea that we're living in a fear-soaked, overly cautious society, in which the state is over-regulating emotions such as fear and happiness.

What do these three, plus Chief Justice James Spigelman and University of Canterbury's lecturer in the History and Philosophy of Music's Jonathan Le Cocq, have in common?

They are all part of a panel, assembled by the Centre for Independent Studies, to discuss the topic: "Protecting the Legacy of Freedom: The Ideas of the Enlightenment in the 21st Century."

Check link for embedded video

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, August 29, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 44 of 44 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #239208 by Atticus_of_Amber on August 29, 2008 at 8:43 am

Warning! The CIS is Australia's resident libertarian nutjob thinktank.

Check out the anti-climate change rant engaged in by the first speaker.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

2. Comment #239218 by Matt Heath on August 29, 2008 at 8:59 am

I understand that you are sympathetic to AHA; so am I. That's no excuse for advertising events with GW-denialists and "Spiked Online" bullshitters on a site dedicated to science and reason

Other Comments by Matt Heath

3. Comment #239224 by Atticus_of_Amber on August 29, 2008 at 9:13 am

Message to Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Stop sharing a platform with crazy people!

OTOH, I think that was Jim Spigelman, the Chief Justice of New South Wales on that panel too. What was he *thinking*?

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

4. Comment #239263 by sarah95 on August 29, 2008 at 10:29 am

I didn't like her comment at the beginning about re-naming white people. She was trying to counter the throwing around of racial labels, which was an honorable intent, but it kind of backfired.
Otherise she made some great points.
I fast-forwarded through the video so I didn't have to watch those other guys.

Other Comments by sarah95

5. Comment #239444 by SilentMike on August 29, 2008 at 3:18 pm

There's something annoying about some of the attitudes here. This isn't the first time I've seen this when refering to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her appearances in right-wing forums.

Neither rationalism nor craziness exist exlusively on one side of the left-right political spectrum. The reason that Ayaan Hirsi Ali appears in so many right-wing afilliated events and is a membder of a right-wing think tank is that she is, in many respects, a right-wing political person. She was a member of a european liberal party, she's dead against multiculturalism, she's a capitalist. Those are right-wing agendas.

There's a rational to some aspects of right-wing politics. Liberterains are not the devil. Goodness knows there's plenty of crazy on the so called left-wing (postmodernists, cultural relativists, and those crazy eco-freaks that think global warming is because we pissed of Gaya with our lack of respect towards nature). Of course you could say that this pales in comperison to the religious right (and you would be correct) but one should still be aware that there's plenty of crazy to go around.

I have a suggestion. Let's let everyone have their say and then use our rational faculties to decide what makes sense and what is nonesense? Maybe liberterians have some things to say that are worth listening to. I find they quite often do (position on global warming not withstanding).

Other Comments by SilentMike

6. Comment #239449 by Border Collie on August 29, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Is the first speaker a member of the Bush administration?!

Other Comments by Border Collie

7. Comment #239503 by LeeLeeOne on August 29, 2008 at 6:50 pm

I am one who is very grateful to RD.net for posting this video. I found it to be quite challenging as well as educational. All voices should be heard, whether we like hearing them or not. If we stick our heads in front of TV's, radios, and computer screens to hear and watch only what we agreed with or felt comfortable with, would any of us learn anything? That is emotionally immature and ill advised; unless of course you willfully wish to become the exact replica of the very people you do not wish to be seen nor heard from on this site. Now stick your fingers in your ears and say "I can't hear you! I can't hear you! I can't hear you." Asking RD.net to not post such events is censorship.

(edited for typo/clarity)

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

8. Comment #239561 by gobbles on August 29, 2008 at 11:36 pm

I agree with LeeLeeOne on this and others above. You'de be suprised by how much psychological research is showing that even when we want to seek what is true through objectivity and reason, we are often biased towards one view without even realising it, allowing us to overlook something that might contain a grain of truth.
That's why i think it's better not to think of ones own views as 'Left' or 'Right' because it's just like saying you belong to a religion.

Just look at how many friends Hitchens lost when he supported the Iraq war, it just shows you how liberals can be just as dogmatic.

Other Comments by gobbles

9. Comment #239583 by Jaffas85 on August 30, 2008 at 12:34 am

My only main problem with the right wing is religion and various social conservative values (and its generally only the right wing in America that are scary with these religious/social ideals, in most other developed countries the right wing is more associated with fiscal and national security conservatism).

Once those irrational positions are removed from the equation then I find it both interesting and appropirate to listen to both views to form a informed and balanced opinion (especially concerning foreign policy because a more right wing approach may be more appropriate in national security concerns such as with Iran and Russia).

Other Comments by Jaffas85

10. Comment #239634 by Kamus on August 30, 2008 at 5:10 am

"Check out the anti-climate change rant engaged in by the first speaker."

He makes a pretty damn good point.
While the climate IS heating up. A lot, if not most of this "green" thinking is soley based on non science related reasons.
A lot of it is about changing your way or life, or paying for your guilt in hurting mother earth, etc.
Just look around you, a lot of these people have done zero research in the field. Yet they claim to know how to make it better by pretty much telling you the following:
Cars are bad.
Hybrids are cool.
Factories are bad.
We're running out of trees and you should stop using paper. (a blatant lie, at least in the US.)
Etc.

I mean, we even have an insurance company now that is "green" because they don't use any paper...
Excuse me? where does this nonsense stop?
(Esurance i think it's called.)
If anything it's to save THEM some cash on postage, not to help the earth.

Think about it, where have you seen a scheme like the one right now about paying your "carbon offsets" guilt before? (there are actually companies that will happily take your "green guilt" money, and then claim to use it on projects to help green house gases come down. i'll give you a hint about who has done this before: the Church.)

I suggest you watch the Penn & Teller bullshit episode on global warming, just so you see how many of these "green thinking" attitudes have very flawed reasoning behind them.

Earth heating up? Yes. Solid evidence for this.

Changing your lifestyle, green guilt, etc?
Most of it bullshit.

A lot of these people claim to have an answer for global warming, most of those reasons however, are not scientific in the least. And there's no reason to belive that following those guidelines (such as banning plastic bags.) will have a positive impact in global warming.

this new "green" trend, shares a lot of characterisics with religion.

Other Comments by Kamus

11. Comment #239635 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 5:16 am

Comment #239634 by Kamus

Yeah, great point, isn't it?

How could anyone suggest that to counter excess CO2 in the atmosphere we should reduce CO2 emissions?
I mean, what the hell, where is the science behind such a wild claim? It surely must be religion.

DUH

Other Comments by decius

12. Comment #239637 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 5:28 am

Comment #239634 by Kamus

I suggest you watch the Penn & Teller bullshit episode on global warming, just so you see how many of these "green thinking" attitudes have very flawed reasoning behind them.

I trust Penn and Teller on the science of global warming as much as I would trust Richard Dawkins to be a skilled conjourer. (On the other hand, he may have not widely known talents)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

13. Comment #239640 by Kamus on August 30, 2008 at 5:42 am

Comment #239635 by decius

Nevermind the fact that 97% of these greenhouse gases come from nature right?

I don't think there is any doubt that global warming is happening.
However, you have missed my point entirely, a lot, if not MOST of these green advocates have no evidence to support their guidelines for "saving the earth." (doomsday all over again..)

Do you really belive in counting carbon miles, and offseting those by paying companies to make you feel "green guilt" free?
I'm sorry, but there IS a lot of nonsense with a lot of these green advocates.

Some of these people even suggest you don't eat meat often, not because it's bad for you. But because of how many carbon miles are involved in carrying the meat to the supermarket, and in the end getting the meat to your mouth costs a lot of carbon miles.
Don't belive me?
Don't take my word for it, just do a green guilt search on google, or carbon miles, etc.
You'll run into all kinds of wierdos with tickets for green redemption.

And again, i strongly suggest you take a look at that Penn and Teller episode so that you see where i'm comming from.

Other Comments by Kamus

14. Comment #239641 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 5:42 am

Comment #239637 by Steve Zara

I trust Penn and Teller on the science of global warming as much as I would trust Richard Dawkins to be a skilled conjourer.

I trust them even less than that. They are among those sceptics who are trying to impose their narrow ideological agenda onto the sceptical movement, treating libertarianism and scientific scepticism as if they were the same thing.
Needless to say, they are deadly wrong. Contrary to scepticism, libertarianism isn't informed by evidence, but by blind ideology, just like all politics.
Unsurprisingly, they are causing division and weakening the movement as a whole. Eventually, Randi and Plait will have to formally distance themselves from those twats.

Other Comments by decius

15. Comment #239643 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 5:47 am

Comment #239640 by Kamus

Nevermind the fact that 97% of these greenhouse gases come from nature right?

Nevermind that you haven't got the fucking clue.

And again, i strongly suggest you take a look at that Penn and Teller episode so that you see where i'm comming from.

Unfortunately, I already did.

Yes, I know where you are coming from: a fantasy world where stage magicians carry more weight than the scientific consensus, and where people can't spell.

Other Comments by decius

16. Comment #239644 by Kamus on August 30, 2008 at 5:50 am

14. Comment #239641 by decius
Ok, i don't care if you don't trust Pen and Teller, you are completley sidestepping my point.

Btw, pretty big of you to start swearing at me and not even adress any of my points.

Other Comments by Kamus

17. Comment #239647 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 5:57 am

Comment #239644 by Kamus

Which point? You made unsubstantiated assertions backed by a reference to the opinion of stage magicians.
If you have an actual valid point, feel free to submit it to the relevant scientific venues.

Other Comments by decius

18. Comment #239648 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 6:00 am

Even if this were true, you think that upsetting the balance of gases by 3% is a good idea?

Comment #239641 by decius

That is very interesting. I have not been following them to that degree.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

19. Comment #239649 by Kamus on August 30, 2008 at 6:11 am

Comment #239647 by decius
What do you mean which point? did you even read my post?

-Carbon mile counting.
-Green Guilt (and redemption.)
-non scientific "green" advocates, that tell you what you have to sacrifice in life to be "green".

I think it's pretty awsome that you conclude that Penn and Teller changed my mind on this subject, i know a crackpot when i see one, and a lot of these green people are nothing but crackpots.

Do you really belive that Cameron Diaz has mostly legitimate arguments for living green?
These are the kind of nutjobs i'm talking about.

Other Comments by Kamus

20. Comment #239655 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 6:21 am

Comment #239649 by Kamus

You are right, there are plenty of crackpots in the green movement, the rhetoric they use is often wrong, and the carbon-offset scheme is ineffective and ill-conceived. In fact, it is little more than a propagandistic move conjured to hide American unwillingness to positively act on excess emissions.

How does any of that detract from the hard reality that man-made GW is damaging the planet, while deforestation is adding to the damage, and immediate action is required?
How does any of that absolve us from our responsibilities?

Other Comments by decius

21. Comment #239659 by Kamus on August 30, 2008 at 6:29 am

Comment #239655 by decius.

I'm all for the scientific understanding on global warming, i don't think i've stated otherwise.

The point i was making, is that a lot of the green movement has very little scientific knowledge behind it, and yet they have a very significant impact on society.

Other Comments by Kamus

22. Comment #239663 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #239659 by Kamus

The facts are already in. Further research will just confirm them and add greater detail. Hopefully, technology will help to ease the problem in the future. In the meantime, we should act as well as we can, both at private and public level.

a lot of the green movement has very little scientific knowledge behind it, and yet they have a very significant impact on society.

The implication that we shouldn't go greener for those reasons is a non-sequitur.
Also, who has more impact, really? The green movement or the oil and industry lobbies?

Other Comments by decius

23. Comment #239666 by Border Collie on August 30, 2008 at 6:43 am

Decius ... If I'm ever in an argument, I want you on my side ...
And now we have a cutesie vice-presidential candidate whose private, now public, mythology or fantasy runs counter to science. I'm really beginning to see the problem even with mild-mannered religion and its faith-over-evidence paradigm. It plays right into the hands of destructive politics and economics. I mean isn't this fairly simple, folks? The more CO2 there is the hotter it gets? Am I incorrect? And we're destroying forests as fast as the chain saws and bulldozers can go. Those seem to be diverging lines to me. So, what's the problem with understanding that global warming is occurring? Do we 'study' it and 'discuss' it until the entire Earth is baked and lifeless or do we take action?

Other Comments by Border Collie

24. Comment #239667 by SilentMike on August 30, 2008 at 6:50 am

I think the first "crackpot" had quite a few points. In fact I think he was dead right except for one thing. Global warming is real.

But why do say that? Don't I except that as an argument from authority as crackpot number 1 said in an answer to a question from the audience? Well yes. Number 1 is correct again. I am not a climatologist so I accept what the climatologists have to say (of course now I'll have to rethink the issue since a historian, clearly an expert in a relevant field, says differently). I do something similar when considering of quantum physics. The fact is there does seem to be a consensus about this, and I accept what the science says. If the climatologists say "Oops! seems we were wrong" I'll accept that. But in the meantime I prefer the climatologist's view on climate change to the historian's view on climate change, even if it's supported by number 1's taxi driver. Sorry number 1. Nothing personal.

Other Comments by SilentMike

25. Comment #239668 by Bonzai on August 30, 2008 at 6:54 am

And now we have a cutesie vice-presidential candidate whose private, now public, mythology or fantasy runs counter to science

Who is that? Sorry, haven't been following the American election dramas lately.

Other Comments by Bonzai

26. Comment #239670 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 6:59 am

Comment #239666 by Border Collie

Thank you very much. It couldn't be otherwise, since you always champions reason, too.

Other Comments by decius

27. Comment #239675 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 30, 2008 at 7:13 am

Comment #239668 by Bonzai

Who is that? Sorry, haven't been following the American election dramas lately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

28. Comment #239677 by SilentMike on August 30, 2008 at 7:26 am

27. Comment #239675 by Oystein Elgaroy

Is she a young earth creationist or something?

Other Comments by SilentMike

29. Comment #239678 by vesihiisi on August 30, 2008 at 7:27 am

Libertarian doesn't need to be a GW denialist, altough most of them are. Libertarian should be a sceptic, but many fail at this. They can have many other unscientific beliefs aswell. Some of them are 9/11 troofers or even creationists like Ron Paul.

The founder of The Skeptics Society, Michael Shermer also considers himself as libertarian (or used to), and has changed his view about GW.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-flipping-point

P&T usually get their info from CATO, and are usualy just glorifying corporaions, but they do have some good episodes and most of the episodes are decent, if you don't believe all that they say.

The GW denialists claims have made me to look up some of the issues, and I have learned much from it, like the creaionists have mede me to look up about the evolution. The denialists usually has as poor understanding about GW as creationists have about evolution (or are just building strawmen for the uneducated)

The root of GW problem is the drilling of oil and gas and mining of coal. All that is drilled will eventually go into air as CO2. By cutting down our use of these products, the price could go down and drilling for more oil would be less profitable. This is very hard thing to do, as Asian markets are rising and demand for oil is higer than ever. More effective would be just to stop drilling for more oil. There will be big effect to the oilproduction as the "Peak Oil" happens, and production will decline. Some say that the peak is happening just now. While we should try to get away from oil just for economical reasons, we should be conserned that that the coal would not become the new energysource.

Other concerns are how the oceans will sink carbon, or will they in fact start releasing more carbon as they get warmer. There is alsoa a fear that unfreezing northern permafrost and seafloor would release massive amounts of frozen methane. Then we might use some artificial cooling, like injecting reflecing micro particles into upper atmosphere.

Other Comments by vesihiisi

30. Comment #239680 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 30, 2008 at 7:40 am

Comment #239677 by SilentMike

I am not sure. At least she seems to think that one should "teach the controversy".

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

31. Comment #239696 by epeeist on August 30, 2008 at 8:05 am

Comment #239677 by SilentMike

Is she a young earth creationist or something?

Quite possibly. She is a member of a Dominionist Pentecostal group the "Assemblies of God" (http://www.alaskaag.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1). They seem to be bible literalists, see the position paper at http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_4177_creation.cfm

Other Comments by epeeist

32. Comment #239697 by Bonzai on August 30, 2008 at 8:07 am

Sounds like Macain is desperate to get the evangelical votes and know that they don't trust him enough.

Other Comments by Bonzai

33. Comment #239702 by epeeist on August 30, 2008 at 8:13 am

Comment #239697 by Bonzai

Sounds like Macain is desperate to get the evangelical votes and know that they don't trust him enough.

That was my thought too. However, would the extreme evangelicals accept a woman in political office? Isn't the idea of women a bit "Kinde, Kuche, Kirche" with them?

Other Comments by epeeist

34. Comment #239703 by SilentMike on August 30, 2008 at 8:15 am

30. Comment #239680 by Oystein Elgaroy
31. Comment #239696 by epeeist

How's that any worse than what the current president?

About "teaching the controvercy", don't even democrats pay lip service to that sillyness? I thought there was some special reason to be afraid of that one.

Wait...

The Biblical Account Shows Distinct Steps of Creation

This Bible record of creation thus rules out the evolutionary philosophy which states that all forms of life have come into being by gradual, progressive evolution carried on by resident forces. It also rules out any evolutionary origin for the human race, since no theory of evolution, including theistic evolution, can explain the origin of the male before the female, nor can it explain how a man could evolve into a woman.

The Creation Account Is Factual and Historical

The account of creation is intended to be taken as factual and historical. Our understanding of God as Creator is rooted in a revelation that is historical in nature, just as our understanding of God as Redeemer is rooted in the revelation of God's dealings with Israel in history and in the historical events of the life, death, and resurrection of His Son. All the New Testament accepts it this way. The first man Adam, for example, is recognized as a historical person (Romans 5:14;1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Timothy 2:13,14).

Oooohhh shiiiiiiiit...

Other Comments by SilentMike

35. Comment #239721 by Kamus on August 30, 2008 at 8:45 am

"The implication that we shouldn't go greener for those reasons is a non-sequitur.
Also, who has more impact, really? The green movement or the oil and industry lobbies?"

What do you even mean by "go greener"?

I'd reply to your post if knew what you meant, but really wtf do you even mean by "going greener"?

By the way, for anyone that cares on what Penn and Teller are critizising about GW:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWt2Rir8OQk&feature=related

Other Comments by Kamus

36. Comment #239737 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 9:23 am

What do you even mean by "go greener"?

To adopt stricter measures directed at effectively curbing CO2 emissions.

Other Comments by decius

37. Comment #239753 by asupcb on August 30, 2008 at 10:00 am

I am a libertarian and I fully accept the fact that humans cause climate change at both the local, regional, and global levels. The solution to the problem is to uphold private property rights against transgression which is what pollution is. I mean who wants their property polluted? The law must lean toward making it as easy possible to prove pollution is occurring and demand that it be stopped immediately.

I remember reading about a case that occurred back in the 1700's that basically legalized pollution. It was an English case of a coal-powered factory versus several owners of apple orchards. The orchard owners sued for damages and violation of their property rights and demanded the owner stop polluting their lands. The judge in that case he ruled that the orchard owners would have had to deal with the problem because he decided that allowing pollution was for the common good of society. I can't find information about that case now so if anyone here can think of it that would most appreciated.

Had property rights been upheld for all property owners and not just the rich ones at the beginning of the industrial revolution we would not be in the mess we are in now. If the early factories had been found in violation of property rights and forced to stop production there would have been a much larger push to discover ways to reduce or eliminate the problem of pollution much earlier on and individuals would have sought cleaner energy sources and methods of production.

Other Comments by asupcb

38. Comment #239768 by vesihiisi on August 30, 2008 at 10:17 am

It seems, that Palin would let creationism be discussed in science class, but not be taught as an alternative.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
...
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

Other Comments by vesihiisi

39. Comment #239772 by SilentMike on August 30, 2008 at 10:23 am

37. Comment #239753 by asupcb

And of course there's another well known court decision of a similar nature. The one about the land owner who sued against commercial planes flying above his land scaring his barnyard animals. He lost, and we got to fly all around (and contribute to global warming in the process of course).

If property rights were absolute I'm not sure there would have been an industrial revolution to begin with.

38. Comment #239768 by vesihiisi

That's a pretty normal view in American politics. According to wikipedia she didn't promote creationism as governor.

Other Comments by SilentMike

40. Comment #239807 by asupcb on August 30, 2008 at 11:08 am

SilentMike

I think there would have been an industrial revolution but it would have occurred in a more gradual fashion and been delayed until the invention of electrical power plants and grids. Factories would have been able to be built but would have been designed differently and been surrounded by plants and/or walls that would have reduced the spread of pollution. Pollution wouldn't be illegal in such a system just polluting someone else's land. But it's hard to pollute your land without it seeping onto someone else's land. Also the factories would have needed to be more spaced out. I also think filtration technology would have been created much more quickly under such a system. People are quite clever when they have to be and back then they wouldn't have been worried about CO2 but soot. But once we discovered CO2 and its effects than precedent would have demanded a clean-up and elimination of such pollution.

What animals get scared of planes? I grew up on farms and unless the crop dusters got just ridiculously low the animals were never frightened of them that I saw except some of the newborns, but most jetliners would never bother them. Although none of the farms I've been on were located close to major airports.

Well I'm off to look at getting a new apartment all afternoon. Have fun ya'll.

Other Comments by asupcb

41. Comment #239828 by Susac on August 30, 2008 at 11:54 am

The big obvious error the first speaker is making is that the idea of global warming does have a clear physical mechanism for it to occure, and it makes predictions that are testable.

This is not at all like the idea that Zeuse makes the lightnig.

Be skeptical about global warming, sure, but don't just assume that it's not happening either. Something is making the ice caps melt. Why should it not be us?

Other Comments by Susac

42. Comment #239838 by SilentMike on August 30, 2008 at 12:20 pm

40. Comment #239807 by asupcb

Of course, due to the capitalism does only good axiom. I don't follow any such axioms so I have to be doubtfull about such predictions.

Lawrence Lessig talks about the plane-crazed chickens (approx 3 minutes in):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs

Have fun.

Other Comments by SilentMike

43. Comment #240320 by Stafford Gordon on August 31, 2008 at 10:48 am

There's a characteristic quality about this seminar which I can't quite identify, but I think it might be that none of the panel or questioners seem to have a clear train of thought; actually, the people from the floor didn't ask questions so much as make speeches.

I found it pretty hard going.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

44. Comment #243426 by gentle71 on September 5, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Not as bad a video as expected - and I didn´t see the first guy as that bad. Might have something to do with the fact that I am kind of on his side in the GW debate. More to the point would be to mention that he is just asking us not to take anything for granted - but instead question authority on all counts.
There are people in the world that have a distinct advantage to gain from denying GW - and there are people advancing public awareness about GW because a political career or financial gains depends upon it.

Other Comments by gentle71

Reload Comments | Back to Top