Bombers on Xmas, hey lets use CIA resources for fake global warming

Neotrotsky

Council to Supreme Soviet
Dec 12, 2009
10,490
1,281
245
People's Republic
Bombers on Xmas, hey lets use CIA resources for fake global warming

After the al-Qaeda attack on Xmas Day and the intelligence failures that allowed the Underwear Bomber to board the plane, many wonder how our intelligence agencies could have protected and should be protecting the US.

I believe Papa Obama and his "crack team" have hit upon the right strategy. It must be more of that "smart power" Hillary is always talking about
:eusa_whistle:






NYT:

The nation’s top scientists and spies are collaborating on an effort to use the federal government’s intelligence assets — including spy satellites and other classified sensors — to assess the hidden complexities of environmental change. They seek insights from natural phenomena like clouds and glaciers, deserts and tropical forests.

The collaboration restarts an effort the Bush administration shut down and has the strong backing of the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In the last year, as part of the effort, the collaborators have scrutinized images of Arctic sea ice from reconnaissance satellites in an effort to distinguish things like summer melts from climate trends, and they have had images of the ice pack declassified to speed the scientific analysis. …

The monitoring program has little or no impact on regular intelligence gathering, federal officials said, but instead releases secret information already collected or takes advantage of opportunities to record environmental data when classified sensors are otherwise idle or passing over wilderness.

Secrecy cloaks the monitoring effort, as well as the nation’s intelligence work, because the United States wants to keep foes and potential enemies in the dark about the abilities of its spy satellites and other sensors. The images that the scientific group has had declassified, for instance, have had their sharpness reduced to hide the abilities of the reconnaissance satellites.

Controversy has often dogged the use of federal intelligence gear for environmental monitoring. In October, days after the C.I.A. opened a small unit to assess the security implications of climate change, Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, said the agency should be fighting terrorists, “not spying on sea lions.”
 
Jesus. Where the hell is Jack Bauer when you need him?????

I hear you

I like the way the Times uses the WH spin that it will no effect on other tasks

Well, where's the proof of that ?
and

Could not that money be directed to more important issues on security?
 
The monitoring program has little or no impact on regular intelligence gathering, federal officials said, but instead releases secret information already collected or takes advantage of opportunities to record environmental data when classified sensors are otherwise idle or passing over wilderness.

Couldn't the wingnuts around here please read their own links before they post and misrepresent them?

Is honesty that difficult when you're a rightwinger?

oh, okay, yes, it is.
 
Bombers on Xmas, hey lets use CIA resources for fake global warming

After the al-Qaeda attack on Xmas Day and the intelligence failures that allowed the Underwear Bomber to board the plane, many wonder how our intelligence agencies could have protected and should be protecting the US.

I believe Papa Obama and his "crack team" have hit upon the right strategy. It must be more of that "smart power" Hillary is always talking about
:eusa_whistle:



NYT:

The nation’s top scientists and spies are collaborating on an effort to use the federal government’s intelligence assets — including spy satellites and other classified sensors — to assess the hidden complexities of environmental change. They seek insights from natural phenomena like clouds and glaciers, deserts and tropical forests.

The collaboration restarts an effort the Bush administration shut down and has the strong backing of the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In the last year, as part of the effort, the collaborators have scrutinized images of Arctic sea ice from reconnaissance satellites in an effort to distinguish things like summer melts from climate trends, and they have had images of the ice pack declassified to speed the scientific analysis. …

The monitoring program has little or no impact on regular intelligence gathering, federal officials said, but instead releases secret information already collected or takes advantage of opportunities to record environmental data when classified sensors are otherwise idle or passing over wilderness.

Secrecy cloaks the monitoring effort, as well as the nation’s intelligence work, because the United States wants to keep foes and potential enemies in the dark about the abilities of its spy satellites and other sensors. The images that the scientific group has had declassified, for instance, have had their sharpness reduced to hide the abilities of the reconnaissance satellites.

Controversy has often dogged the use of federal intelligence gear for environmental monitoring. In October, days after the C.I.A. opened a small unit to assess the security implications of climate change, Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, said the agency should be fighting terrorists, “not spying on sea lions.”

Do you feel safer, now?

One thing on the global warming: have you ever noticed their 'meetings' weather patterns? It is almost (if you don't believe in repeated coinsidences) like G*d is visiting these meetings with 'bad' weather. It doesn't matter which hemisphere or location, where ever these meetings are, just 'seem' to have unpredictable weather.
 
The monitoring program has little or no impact on regular intelligence gathering, federal officials said, but instead releases secret information already collected or takes advantage of opportunities to record environmental data when classified sensors are otherwise idle or passing over wilderness.

Couldn't the wingnuts around here please read their own links before they post and misrepresent them?

Is honesty that difficult when you're a rightwinger?

oh, okay, yes, it is.

Well, if federal officials said so, it must be true, right?

Does the fact that our government continually lies to us escape liberals? When one is continually lied to, the more intelligent tend not of take what 'federal officials' say at face value.... Is that too hard for liberals to understand?


oh, okay, yes, it is.
 
The monitoring program has little or no impact on regular intelligence gathering, federal officials said, but instead releases secret information already collected or takes advantage of opportunities to record environmental data when classified sensors are otherwise idle or passing over wilderness.

Couldn't the wingnuts around here please read their own links before they post and misrepresent them?

Is honesty that difficult when you're a rightwinger?

oh, okay, yes, it is.


If only leftwing fisters could read and see that was addressed already. Without support, it is a statement of opinion, not fact.

Of course, with state approved MSM outlet like the NY Times, leftwing fisters will always accept their word as truth

Their statement was nothing more than WH spin with no support behind.
Granted, we get that a lot today, but it does not make it any more true

Then again, you may have some source to back up this statement ?
 
The monitoring program has little or no impact on regular intelligence gathering, federal officials said, but instead releases secret information already collected or takes advantage of opportunities to record environmental data when classified sensors are otherwise idle or passing over wilderness.

Couldn't the wingnuts around here please read their own links before they post and misrepresent them?

Is honesty that difficult when you're a rightwinger?

oh, okay, yes, it is.


If only leftwing fisters could read and see that was addressed already. Without support, it is a statement of opinion, not fact.

Of course, with state approved MSM outlet like the NY Times, leftwing fisters will always accept their word as truth

Their statement was nothing more than WH spin with no support behind.
Granted, we get that a lot today, but it does not make it any more true

Then again, you may have some source to back up this statement ?

The burden of proof is on you, Corky. You're the one making the claim.
 
The monitoring program has little or no impact on regular intelligence gathering, federal officials said, but instead releases secret information already collected or takes advantage of opportunities to record environmental data when classified sensors are otherwise idle or passing over wilderness.

Couldn't the wingnuts around here please read their own links before they post and misrepresent them?

Is honesty that difficult when you're a rightwinger?

oh, okay, yes, it is.

Well, if federal officials said so, it must be true, right?

Does the fact that our government continually lies to us escape liberals? When one is continually lied to, the more intelligent tend not of take what 'federal officials' say at face value.... Is that too hard for liberals to understand?


oh, okay, yes, it is.

You mean, since some wingtard on the internet says it's false, it must be false, right?
 
The monitoring program has little or no impact on regular intelligence gathering, federal officials said, but instead releases secret information already collected or takes advantage of opportunities to record environmental data when classified sensors are otherwise idle or passing over wilderness.

Couldn't the wingnuts around here please read their own links before they post and misrepresent them?

Is honesty that difficult when you're a rightwinger?

oh, okay, yes, it is.


If only leftwing fisters could read and see that was addressed already. Without support, it is a statement of opinion, not fact.

Of course, with state approved MSM outlet like the NY Times, leftwing fisters will always accept their word as truth

Their statement was nothing more than WH spin with no support behind.
Granted, we get that a lot today, but it does not make it any more true

Then again, you may have some source to back up this statement ?

The burden of proof is on you, Corky. You're the one making the claim.

Not at all, fister I am asking where is the support to backup their statement of opinion. I am indifferent at this point; thus I can not accept or reject it as fact. I have, rightly so, questioned the validity of their opinion with no supporting backup- that is valid



Since you have appeared to have accepted it as truth, then maybe you have some facts on it.
To accept it without some kind of proof would be invalid

So please share if you do
:eusa_whistle:
 
If only leftwing fisters could read and see that was addressed already. Without support, it is a statement of opinion, not fact.

Of course, with state approved MSM outlet like the NY Times, leftwing fisters will always accept their word as truth

Their statement was nothing more than WH spin with no support behind.
Granted, we get that a lot today, but it does not make it any more true

Then again, you may have some source to back up this statement ?

The burden of proof is on you, Corky. You're the one making the claim.

Not at all, fister I am asking where is the support to backup their statement of opinion. I am indifferent at this point; thus I can not accept or reject it as fact. I have, rightly so, questioned the validity of their opinion with no supporting backup- that is valid



Since you have appeared to have accepted it as truth, then maybe you have some facts on it.
To accept it without some kind of proof would be invalid

So please share if you do
:eusa_whistle:

You're calling them liars, prove it.
 
The burden of proof is on you, Corky. You're the one making the claim.

Not at all, fister I am asking where is the support to backup their statement of opinion. I am indifferent at this point; thus I can not accept or reject it as fact. I have, rightly so, questioned the validity of their opinion with no supporting backup- that is valid



Since you have appeared to have accepted it as truth, then maybe you have some facts on it.
To accept it without some kind of proof would be invalid

So please share if you do
:eusa_whistle:

You're calling them liars, prove it.

Actually the name calling is what you are best at

My statement above stands- I am questioning the validity of a statement of opinion which offers no support- As I stated, I am indifferent at this point

Of course, we may be at the same point here. Perhaps, you don't accept their statement of opinion as fact?

If so, then there is no issue here. It is just a matter of opinion if one feels it is the best use of our resources.
 
Not at all, fister I am asking where is the support to backup their statement of opinion. I am indifferent at this point; thus I can not accept or reject it as fact. I have, rightly so, questioned the validity of their opinion with no supporting backup- that is valid



Since you have appeared to have accepted it as truth, then maybe you have some facts on it.
To accept it without some kind of proof would be invalid

So please share if you do
:eusa_whistle:

You're calling them liars, prove it.

Actually the name calling is what you are best at

My statement above stands- I am questioning the validity of a statement of opinion which offers no support- As I stated, I am indifferent at this point

Of course, we may be at the same point here. Perhaps, you don't accept their statement of opinion as fact?

If so, then there is no issue here. It is just a matter of opinion if one feels it is the best use of our resources.

Now, please, by all means, tell us how they would support their what you call 'opinion' to your satisfaction.

In detail.
 
You're calling them liars, prove it.

Actually the name calling is what you are best at

My statement above stands- I am questioning the validity of a statement of opinion which offers no support- As I stated, I am indifferent at this point

Of course, we may be at the same point here. Perhaps, you don't accept their statement of opinion as fact?

If so, then there is no issue here. It is just a matter of opinion if one feels it is the best use of our resources.

Now, please, by all means, tell us how they would support their what you call 'opinion' to your satisfaction.

In detail.


So you agree it was only opinion then ?
 
What a Socialist Nightmare. When will this miserable Socialist Malaise end. Three more years of this nightmare? God help us all.
 
Actually the name calling is what you are best at

My statement above stands- I am questioning the validity of a statement of opinion which offers no support- As I stated, I am indifferent at this point

Of course, we may be at the same point here. Perhaps, you don't accept their statement of opinion as fact?

If so, then there is no issue here. It is just a matter of opinion if one feels it is the best use of our resources.

Now, please, by all means, tell us how they would support their what you call 'opinion' to your satisfaction.

In detail.


So you agree it was only opinion then ?

No I said WHAT YOU CALL opinion.

I'll repeat the question:

Now, please, by all means, tell us how they would support their what you call 'opinion' to your satisfaction.
 
Now, please, by all means, tell us how they would support their what you call 'opinion' to your satisfaction.

In detail.


So you agree it was only opinion then ?

No I said WHAT YOU CALL opinion.

I'll repeat the question:

Now, please, by all means, tell us how they would support their what you call 'opinion' to your satisfaction.




My statement is that it is one of opinion and spin. It is supported by the fact that no facts were offered to support it.

Now, you are asking me a totally different question-
But if you insist....

any facts beyond the statement itself that would help would one make a decision as if their statement is more than just spin

I hope that helps :eusa_angel:

However, let us not digress from the original question to you :eusa_angel:

Since you have appeared to have accepted it as truth, then maybe you have some facts on it.

Unless of course, you just assume it is correct by default
 

Forum List

Back
Top