First off, I’m a he not she. Second, I’m the founding editor and publisher of DV. Third, there are plenty of comments from readers that take a contrarian view to the material published on DV that get posted. All one has to do is take a gander through any number of DV articles to confirm this. We welcome all points of view in the comment section.

Your crying censorship here is absolutely silly. First there was no comment from you per se, just the posting of another article that’s far longer than the DV article here. EIR has a website. It’s a simple thing to merely post the first paragraph of the EIR article and a link to that article so that readers can read the rest of it there. EIR will then get some traffic out of it, and readers might hang around to see what other articles EIR has to offer, which, I would think, should make them and you happy.

And to be honest, I didn’t even read the article you posted. Since it was extremely long and not your own comments, I jettisoned it. I would have done the same if the article was from CounterPunch or any of my favorite publications. I would have kept your post up if the comment/article was your own, but not when it’s a whole — and particularly long — article from another website. It’s an unnecessary waste of space when a simple link will do. It’s simple etiquette, one that plenty of other websites demand also, and you’re perfectly welcome to follow this simple guideline in a followup comment.

So there’s no shutting down of the discussion here, get serious please!

Cheers,

– Sunil

Hardly! I think I was pretty clear: Post a teaser (or a brief abstract) and a link to whatever you want, not an essay that’s 2-10 times longer than the original DV article. No attempt to “obscure” anything. Readers can easily follow the link and read a different perspective to their heart’s content.

Rowan, I’m afraid this discussion has been closed.

I think this is an interesting example of what happens when the older type of economic theory, which regards ‘bankers’ as having shanghai’ed the ‘productive economy’, gains traction. Compare the 1920s and 1930s where you will see exactly the same thing happen.

Agreed. The long comment post has been deleted. Folks need to keep comment posts on topic and relatively succinct. Reposting whole articles from other websites — especially articles that are longer than a given DV article — is downright annoying, a potential page hijacking, and a no-no here. So, if you want to make a (RELEVANT to the topic at hand) point and use some other article(s) for support, please use a little common sense and courtesy and just post a one paragraph (not a long paragraph) teaser and a link.

I think the editors are fairly loose about what can be posted in the comment section — and we really want to encourage feedback, positive or negative — but posts need to be on topic, make sense gramatically (I see a lot of cryptic shit in these comment sections), and cut to the chase.

The appeal of these ideas is that they maintain continuity with the classical reactionary writings of the Catholic intelligentsia of the counter-reformation. It was this Catholic intelligentsia which invented the ‘satanic conspiracy’ meme, which was then adapted by anti-Catholic evangelical propagandists, and even Jewish anti-liberal propagandists, and the US public has not to any great extent outgrown it.

This also explains the fact that most 911-ists turn out to be monetarists, contaminated by the Mises, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard patter into believing more or less what Henry Ford believed (about the inevitable conflict between productive entrepreneurs and their bankers) but politely agreeing not to discuss the bankers in personal terms, instead treating them vaguely as misled keynesians. They never get around to asking who would really benefit if the hard money interest came to power (the fact that Lew Rockwell.com is owned by a gold dealer may have something to do with this).

As for the CCX to which such a coterie of august persons and corporations belong, I say ‘What a Scam’. Invest more money in developing cost-effective vehicles, production processes and power plants instead of trying to find ways to keep the corrupt, foul and inadequate vehicles, processes and power generating facilities we use.

‘Carbon Trading’ is just gaming and brinksmanship. It reflects none of the commitment this nation and the world’s nations require to keep our atmosphere and oceans alive. The corporations and the people in CCX seem committed to their same old destructive behaviors – only this time they’ve added a ‘twist’. The ‘twist’ is ‘trading’ units of imperfection, disregard and underinvestment so as to keep their corrupt, filthy processes going un abated.

Oh well…

Iv’e seen your commentary at other sites and frankly can’t imagine that you would still be on board with Bush’s ethanol mandate, the new generation of nuclear power plants that will result from whichever carbon credit/tax scheme goes forward, or any of the other “progressive” edicts that the republicrats and their think tanks impose as a result of global warming. As for “conspirological method”, let’s recall the title of this article. As long as association is the subject, let’s examine assciations.

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/07/papers-not-published-in-peer-reviewed.html

The subsequent lengthy quotation from the Larouchist EIR demonstrates the conspirological method, which is to sound logic what the undistributed middle is to the syllogism.

First, most science emerges out of a community which is in constant dialog. Little is put to “rest”. I’m reminded of something the eminent evolutionary biologist, Richard Lewontin has said. When he picks up the New York Times and reads the scientific section, he is left totally dumbfounded. As he put it, while eminently qualified to understand and discuss his chosen sphere of knowledge, he is unable to make sense out of public science where the science lacks the detailed forum essential to determine any level of validity. Public discussion of deep science is most certainly made palpable but looses its rigor in making it so. Lewontin goes on to say that he is really not qualified to discuss, in depth science which is out of his sphere of research, except in the most superficial way.

That’s the conundrum. The scientific community relentlessly pushes to “disprove” that which is presented. This vetting is a method that we “ultimately” have faith in (or not); but it is not infallable. It is only through the pragmatic application of science that the lay person can begin to appreciate anything remotely called scientific findings.

My point, it would appear that we can argue the whole enterprise of peer reviews and scientific methods; but it becomes a meaningless academic exercise which provides no insight. And put in the hands of a lay person who’s interest seems to be in winning an argument more than achieving scientific credibility, it’s a rather dumb exercise.

That said, the environmental issue is trivialized when it gets into the “human” vs “nature” cause of global warming. It is clear enough that the human race, for those who do not buy hyper-individualism and the resulting consequence of a fairly meaningless life, suffers in its pathological growth trajectory; in its mis-use of non-renewable “capital”. That that contributes, however large or small to global warming, seems indisputable. That the lose of community, of control over our lives and the lose of quality liveable neighborhoods provides further support for changing course.

Cockburn is only a detractor because he has been a rather dissenting voice against the status quo, but has shown himself, here, to be more contrarian than deep thinker.