Posted by: graemebird | December 1, 2009

The Reality Of SOME Conspiracies And Australian Science-Worker-Collusion, With Hawaii.

“Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?”

Why did the money pour in so quickly?

Conspirational thinkers cannot see behind doors. So conspirational thinkers see more conspiracies then are really there. Conspirational thinkers see more conspiracies than COULD POSSIBLY be there.

But there are conspiracies nonetheless.

“Why did the money pour in so quickly?”

It poured in at one, two, and three steps from various GLOBAL GOVERNANCE conspiracies. Surfing off the club-of-Rome assumptions. Assumptions that needed to be taken on board. But never surrendered to. Not now or ever.*

Now there is another matter we have to attend to. The conspiracy to smooth the rate of CO2 increase by our own people. We have a station measuring CO2. Mark my words. An investigation will reveal skullduggery and the damaging of the data. But if the data is undamaged an investigation will reveal a conspiracy to smooth out the CO2 growth.

An investigation will reveal our guys in collusion with the people running the station above the volcano in Hawaii. This must be jumped on immediately. They have been colluding and they have been faking it.

Mark my words.

And you have to go in with the potential for ubiquitous criminal punishments to get the kids to squeal.




  1. We have to reach out and nail, with at least the threat of the worst punishments, all these research grant whores and the bullshit-artists who directed the funds their way.

    But occasionally we ought to let someone off the hook with a severe scolding. For example Barry Brook. Who was an alarmist and a research-grant whore…. Well his conscious must have gotten to him. And he became the promoter par-excellence of nuclear power. So some mercy is permitted in rare cases.

  2. I’ll get back to you on this one freelander. I think that the empirical evidence for free will is demonstrated to us all in every waking hour.
    I think what is happening is that our mind is made up of robotic elements in committee. And as you would know the outcomes of committees could turn out different if you ran the meeting over again. Maybe a committee isn’t the way to look at it. A game of sport with a non-round ball where the outcome isn’t determined. That the parts of the process are robotic doesn’t mean that the entirety of the mind is robotic as well. A thing is what it is. Not what it is made out of.
    I think its this basic philosophical point wherein the fallacy is being made. People cannot see how it is that inanimate molecules, neurons, and so forth, that truly do not have free will, can come out with a finished product that has free will. But it does not follow that this is not the case.
    Freelander may be made of neutrons. But we don’t say freelander is neutrons. Freelander is Freelander. He is not quarks. Or neutrons protons and electrons. A thing is not what it is made of. A thing is a thing is itself.
    In ethics this comes out a lot. Utilitarians note that natural law theorists use utilitarian assumptions in trying to formulate and discover what is the better natural law. They wrongly think that the building blocks of the natural law systems, being somewhat made by utilitarian supporting structures, are invalidated by being built up partly in that way. This doesn’t follow on the grounds that a thing is what it is (Aristotle: A is A) and not what it is made of.

    Graeme Bird
    December 2nd, 2009 at 06:00 | #30 Reply | Quote
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Let me put it like this before I go into a more fulsome response. One of the great mysteries of life and philosophy is the mystery of consciousness. Now it would seem to be the case that if there is free will it goes hand in hand with consciousness. On the face of things its much easier to understand how we could have almost all of our current behaviours, not excluding aspects of mating rituals, without being conscious. But we are conscious, or at least I am. And I think we can make the assumption that everyone on this forum is. I think that we can lock that one in.
    Now it might be that consciousness does not prove free will in straight direct logic. It may do so intuitively but not in any strict sense. So I don’t think we can say consciousness proves free will. But we can soften the claim and put forward a lesser claim with some stridency. I think we can stridently put forward the claim that any arrogant dismissal of the concept of free will is premature until such time as one has a handle on the mystery of consciousness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: