[OTE29] On the Edge with Max Keiser and Greg Hunter

Stacy Summary:  My internet connection went down and took a few minutes to reboot!  So, I only have first bit with Max and miss a bit at the very top of guest interview. Guest is Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com

215 comments on “[OTE29] On the Edge with Max Keiser and Greg Hunter
  1. Tofu Charlie says:

    @Mep — yeah, it’s incredible the director didn’t get him to cut it short…

  2. AM says:

    I’m want to apologise because i was wrong, it was 5 weeks; and even on a blog. And they did “report” on it, but whats the overall message; man made climate change is real, there’s 1000 fake articles with all sorts of imaginary problems of man made climate change against a couple with destructive evidence for their theory that are put in the background and spinned. Like here a minister spoke out agianst the e-mails saying hackers changed them and they should be arrested, it is ok for an research institute where the IPCC bases its conclusions on to ignore requests of freedom of information act then when it turns out they conciously manipulated data, threatened scientists who didnt support their theory and so on; it’s the hackers fault they are the bad persons. Anyways bbc documentaries/reports can’t be conclusive to “debunk” anything; they actually removed bbc world from the cable recently, haven’t found it and didnt bother i don’t watch more than 20 min tv a day and on the internet much better accurate newssources. Something i spotted while there; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8383869.stm the environmental movement wants to go even further, not adjusting/modifying technology so people don’t have to change their “behaviour” quote:”It’s not going to solve the climate change issue on its own, that’s for sure. That needs government action, taxes.” “That means governments and individuals doing everything they can to reduce their genuine carbon impact” in other words the taxes have to be so high that people can’t drive, fly or heat their house and so on. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8383869.stm maybe as extra add that the oceans are an huge factor for climate as well; which co2 taxes can’t do anything about.

  3. Mep says:

    @ AM – The guy who did that series was actually a scientist. He went through the twists and turns that the global warming debate has taken since the 70s and explained that, indeed, sunspots were dismissed pretty quickly, only for the theory to pop up again and to have no support for it.

    On the e-mails, the University has a response up: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate They do not own the data and so they cannot go along with a FOIA request to publish the data. As far as the rest, I’d want to see the full context of all of the e-mails before making a judgment about pushing others out of journals, etc.

  4. AM says:

    @mep; knock yourself out: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009 but like i said; the science is not settled much of climate is unknown, can’t deny basics like the sun is mainfactor of temprature or that solar radiation/spots have effect on our magnetic field, climate and more. i didnt even want to specially discuss the theory, more the ridiculous solutions which do nothing to help the environment. Copyright patents and fractional reserve banking are the actual underlying problems, beside profit motivation/regulations. Alex jones ofcourse jumped on this like madness http://www.jonesreport.com/article/11_09/20climate_bombshell.html infowars.com prisonplanet.com not that he is perfect, specially about the use of coal; but he is one of the few who focuses on the context and not the hackers. Guess i have to check it out to go more in debt where i disagree (not saying im right) So the context is ok, because the data was known? Well if the data is known to be a fraud, why don’t the climate models work then? and it took over 6 weeks to publise an article? 95% we don’t hide data but 5% is just unkown? i’m actually on none of the sides, yet i do think that nuclear fusion fire ball where hydrogen atoms split in helium million times bigger than earth is most responsible. I plead for a position of we don’t know. I point to my older comments,

  5. frances snoot says:

    Neither politicians or Banks have ever worried about the poor before. Why now?

    It’s part of the fiat currency endgame.

  6. frances snoot says:

    Anyone that says sunspots are not a factor in climate is not a scientist but a priest.

  7. frances snoot says:

    So Youri:
    What’s a fair value for gold?

  8. AM says:

    in the sceptic part; 1940 it stopped to start in 1970, if CO2 is responsible, than in 1940 – 50 a lot of war/production fuel for bombing and so on: then it should consistently increasing. I don’t argue with climate change, we have 4 seasons each year; but the origin of climate change/global warming. MICHEAL MANN is the one involved in “climate gate“. Earth has been cooling the last decade; so can’t disprove solar activity. And the problem is scientist take a position not independent; first it is global cooling, now global warming cause CO2 or solar cycle. What bullshit argument that sceptics don’t want to believe because they want to maintain their lifestyle; with technological innovation/removal of patents/cradle-to-cradle products/good recycling no one has to live with less. Or that sceptics are sponsored by oil companies, while Exxon shell and so on are pushing global warming. The scientist should look at an situation and state the facts; not take a theory and look for proof to support it while pretending it is already an fact. Again we almost don’t know anything about weather/climate and even less about the working of the universe/solar system. the science just can’t be settled; and my comments were aimed at the ridiculous solutions and lack of dealing with real proven environmental issues as toxic waste dumping etc. Anyways I wasn’t discussing the theory but the solutions, just lashing out a little based on my prejudices; since it soon will become an religion and I will be considered anti-semitic/holocaust denier for doing so.

  9. frances snoot says:

    I will be considered anti-semitic/holocaust denier for doing so.

    Yes, AM. Good points.

  10. AM says:

    @frances snoot thnx! critical thinking and caring about what’s in your food is soon not allowed anymore which is basically our freedom; i don’t know what defines freedom more than freedom of thought. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/16/orthorexia-mental-health-eating-disorder Very sad state of the world, not that i thought hitler was good or the holocaust didnt happen, although he was sponsored by bankers and some other strange facts yet i don’t think you can prosecute someone for denying it/expressing his opinion; not that wiki is a good source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial instead of showing people the facts about WW2 and allow them to engage in discussions; free speech is banned. When the line of this is crossed there’s no stopping; climate change, food, with the EU dictatorship probably all criticism of the EU is banned (partially already is when people in the parliament are told to shut up). I don’t know what is worse; the controlled opposition to this or that this is happening. Don’t even get me started about privacy…
    @Mep great discussion again too btw

  11. Supergeek says:

    @AM DRAM
    youze need to spend a little less time on feeling like martyrs and your imagined slurs… IMO… or is feeling sorry for yourself one of the stages (AM DRAM stage gedit!!!) on your ‘Journey’… those people who go ‘I;m not a racist but’ have always made me suspicious!!!!

  12. frances snoot says:

    It looks like we may all get to share the term ‘martyrs’ in future. AM has a good point about freedom to express oneself.

  13. frances snoot says:

    Inquiry should never be made illegal.

  14. AM says:

    @Supergeek im not a martyr just a pessimist. Racism = ignorance all humans come from microbes all the same RACE, someone should be judged on his personality/actions not on the colour of his skin. The holocaust denial is about freedom of even hate speech because you can’t take a little bit of freedom away without destroying all. The line just keeps being removed; some already call for making climate change the same as holocaust denial; http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=1428
    Beside what do you define as holocaust? over a million iraqi people died since 2003, the genocides in darfur/rwanda/khmer rouge/srebrenica and so on; or during the communist era ten of millions were killed. A billion people starving currently. Like i said; i don’t deny the holocaust or say hitler was good/had good policy the point was freedom of speech.

  15. Supergeek says:

    @AM DRAM
    Sorry if I made you cry!!!