Posted by: graemebird | August 31, 2012

NASA/Killer Of Dreams, Destroyer Of The Human Race.

Cambria, if we are to survive as a species we need to build up more and more infrastructure around the solar system. The reason being is that if we don’t an extinction event is going to take us back to the dark ages, supposing that fractional reserve gangsterism doesn’t do that first.

And then from the dark ages we can be made extinct by another extinction event. These being typically close-passing planet-sized comets.

So we’ve got to have kitted out real estate, with a relentless amount of living and working space,  all over the solar system. The poor old guys still holding down a job and leading the good life, but in a weightless environment. The richer old guys hanging out in cool places like the moon. The moon being at that place where gravity exerts its most perfect intensity.

I’m not yet convinced of the benefits of having three 20 year old girls from Pattaya in a totally weightless environment. I think that would be a wasted opportunity. And I”m not fully convinced of the benefits of one-man …. three-girl sex ……. on earth. I think no matter how lovable the idea is, you tend to lose momentum and it just doesn’t really work. Or at the very least its not quite value for money.  You can put up a brave face with enough uppers but the reality is you aren’t so much built to take full advantage of that scenario.

But sex on the Moon? Man that has just got to be the thing that all the teenagers are aiming at. At least as much traction as you are after, and no more weight then you need. And don’t bother trying to get away young lady because I can bound like spider-man across this spacious private “Karaoke” room.

So it was natural to have the young kids, read their comics and if they couldn’t be superhuman they could dream about going to the moon. It was natural for the teenage boys to take this thinking one step further.

The things you think about as kids and teenagers, tend to get locked in to a certain extent, if you have the drive and opportunity to actually fullfil some of your youthful ambitions.

So what I’m saying is that if not for (!@#$%^&*) NASA it was only natural for the motivation to be present to save the species.

Along came APOLLO. With these assholes stumbling around in slow-mo, pretending to be on the moon. The moon. The place with the best gravity for the ideal way to play. Screwing up everyone’s understanding of the possibilities of extra-terrestrial living. Imagine a 19 year old lad telling a 16 year old lad: “You loser. You haven’t lived until you’ve been to the moon with three girls from Pattaya and dropped some acid in the huge “Karaoke” rooms they have there.”

Fucking ay. By that standard, few of us have really, truly lived all that often. Almost none of us who haven’t been to Thailand.

The species will die, because NASA will suck the life out of it.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. […] uncensored on “NASA/Killer Of Dreams, Destroyer Of The Human Race.“ @ A Better World: Graeme Bird For High Office. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe […]

  2. Here Is The Eastwood Speech.
    Lets hope the appearance of Eastwood, and the fact that he came as a surprise, is a sign that Romney has rebellion in his heart.

  3. That blockhead Jarrah practicing maths-conjuring.

    “2. Latest theory – the Big Bang was a phase change in space-time.”

    The maths checks out for the phase change theory, apparently. How’s the evidence for god(s) going? No rush….”

    There was no big bang, no space-time, and unlike matter, space is not capable of phase-changes. Doesn’t matter. The maths checks out. Jarrah in favour of substituting maths priesthood conjuring ahead of the scientific method.

  4. Superb analysis by Steve Keen. Marred only by his fiscal foolishness. The rest of his analysis is brilliant and really quite ground-breaking.

  5. Dmitry Orlov talking about the upcoming collapse of the United States. This WILL happen save only the emergence of an even more compelling bunch of leaders then what we saw when Thatcher, Reagan and the last Pope were working together. The leaders will be determined to bring on partial Jubilee and an end to fractional reserve, as well as culling government departments. Since this won’t happen the US will collapse. We have to start preparing now for keeping our heads above water in the post-US world.

  6. From Elsewhere:

    New
    Momentary

    Fri, 2012-09-07 23:55 — Bird
    0
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    The Professor may be onto something here in 2012. But had he taken the same survey in 2007, he’d likely have found no correlation at all. When I looked into global warming seriously for the first time in 2005 I suspected no conspiracy. I was quite used to the idea of mass-hysteria, the madness of crowds, and this sort of thing. I didn’t think then that this business was being directed from the top. Only later did the top-down direction become apparent. And as for the Apollo hoax, I only started looking into that one a couple of months ago.

    So the Professor may be right in 2012, would probably have been wrong in 2007, but its all besides the point. It doesn’t matter if its stupidity, or wickedness, so long as we stick to science and reason. So long as we worry about the scientific evidence, and block out all pseudo-evidence, then we will wind up with the right idea as a society. I’ve never witnessed either Graham Readfearn or the Professor make a scientific argument once. Not even once.

    Stick with the evidence and the conspirational forces at the top will have little effect.

    reply

    Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1mwBG)

  7. “At large” as Jason often would characterise it:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/09/05/research-links-climate-science-denial-conspiracy-theories-skeptics-smell-conspiracy?page=2#comment-728230

  8. Do you really believe what

    Mon, 2012-09-10 01:13 — Lloyd Flack
    2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Do you really believe what you have been spouting or has this all been a leg pull?

    reply
    “Do you really believe what

    Mon, 2012-09-10 04:12 — Phil M
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “Do you really believe what you have been spouting or has this all been a leg pull?”

    I think you maybe right Lloyd. Surely this has got to be a joke. No one could be that gullible, except if they were mentaly ill, or those on serious drugs. Even deniers probably keep this dude on the outer.

    We have probably fallen for age old advice. Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not know the difference.

    Plus our mate has such endearing debating techniques e.g. you moron, you idiot.

    reply
    He could be a Poe. He could

    Mon, 2012-09-10 04:29 — Lloyd Flack
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    He could be a Poe. He could be schizophrenic or some other mental illness. Or he could be acting out of conceit and ideological wilfull blindness. I don’t know. We’ve had our sport, and he did provide that. There is only a point to arguing with him further if in fact he is in the last group, those acting from immoral motives. There is a chance of getting him to wake up to himself. If he is in the second group we might be able to persuade him to seek help. I think the last group is the most likely.

    reply
    Drooling Mental Incompetent.

    Mon, 2012-09-10 05:21 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    I don’t think anyone so gullible and brain dead as to fall for the CO2-fraud and the big bang ought to be pointing the finger at others.

    Imagine being so mentally incompetent as to believe there is a thing called “space-time”. What next? Unicorn-Aicraft-carrier?

    reply
    Yes. HMS Unicorn was aircraft

    Mon, 2012-09-10 05:56 — Lloyd Flack
    2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Yes. HMS Unicorn was aircraft maintenance ship and light aicraft carrier that was in the Royal Navy during the Second World War and for quite a while afterwards.

    reply
    Space-Time

    Mon, 2012-09-10 06:11 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Right. Good comeback (not). I’d wonder at someone who is so gullible as to think that there is an entity “space-time.” The phenomenon of space is confirmed every waking moment. But “space-time”? Proof that stupid people will believe anything they are told so long as it has been throttled into them that its mainstream.

    reply
    Some people really do believe this stuff…

    Mon, 2012-09-10 10:21 — AnOilMan
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    I used to work with a technician who believed pretty much every single conspiracy theory out there. After a while you just shut them out. He showed up for work one day with a gun… and was summarily escorted from the building. (He was a nice enough guy though.)

    I think Birdy’s paid to appeal to the conspiracy theory crowd out there. Just look at some of his first posts;

    “But major oil interests represent the status quo. The CO2 fraud is a hindrance to new energy development.”

    Sounds very republican to me.

    He also sounds like he’s spitting out the same style of Pseudo Science that Bob Armstrong did.

    http://climatecrocks.com/2012/05/29/richard-leakey-evolution-is-real-des

    “A pox on all religions be they abrahamic or gaian .

    But the prime fact that alarmists who think the molecule which with H2O is the building block of life will kill us all rather than just provably green the planet with very little change in temperature must overcome is that if all the oxygen which allows us animals to exist were not locked up in CO2 until the evolution of photosynthesis , we would not be here to argue the issue .”

    I’d argue that he’s running the same computer program to present this stuff.

    Lloyd I think we could make a BS detector this kind of scam artists, a Turing Detector as it were. I wonder what a Beysian Filter would make of his posts? I also wonder whether a writing analysis program would correlate Birdy to Bob Armstrong.

    reply
    Don’t Be An Idiot

    Mon, 2012-09-10 01:35 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Space has no shape. So unlike an object it cannot be stretched, compressed, warped, tunnelled into or any of that nonsense. Obviously I’m serious. I’m seriously digusted with scientists who don’t practice the scientific method but substitute the cult of personality instead. Time does not exist, but we need it as a concept. We derive time from regular movement and simultaneity. Its hardly something to stretch and mess about with.

    People have to go back to the basics. They have to cast about for other models and they have to stop reinforcing mistakes.

    reply
    I was hoping, in part for

    Mon, 2012-09-10 04:03 — Lloyd Flack
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    I was hoping, in part for your sake, that this was just an elaborate leg pull. I thought that it probably wasn’t. I am writing under the assumption that you mean what you say.

    I could give many reasons why you are wrong but what would be the pont? You have reasons which I can only guess at for wanting to believe in these conspiracies. Any refutation that I give will be looked at, not to understand my viewpoint, not to test your own, not to understand what is going on, but solely to find what you can tell yourself is a weakness. You are unwilling to admit that you might be wrong so you will attack peoples integrity rather than admit that you might be wrong. There are words that describe this behaviour and they are not nice ones.

    Admit that you might be wrong. Admit that opponents have integrity. Respect opponents. Respect those you disdain as supposed puppets. Be prepared to believe what is really uncomfortable to believe. Eschew the satisfaction that you get from thinking you know the truth and others do not. Do these and you mif=gh understand what is happening. Do these and it might be worthwhile arguing with you because you will have something substantial to bring to an argument.

    reply
    Just Come Good With Evidence

    Mon, 2012-09-10 05:27 — Bird
    -1
    vote
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    No you cannot find where I’m wrong. You are just lying. But lets have that evidence for the global warming fraud that you were so gullible as to fall for. Remember what we were looking for.

    We were looking for on the one hand a good apriori-case from the ground up. But on the empirical side we were looking for:

    1. Evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming.

    2. Evidence that a little bit of human-based warming, during a brutal and pulverising ice age ……. is a bad thing …

    3. Evidence that extra-CO2 warms the earth globally, and at sea level, even a little bit.

    reply
    This blog is about the

    Mon, 2012-09-10 05:50 — Lloyd Flack
    2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    This blog is about the politics and the PR. Go to a blog that deals with the science for that. Their moderation is likely to delete personal attacks and attempts to change the topic however.

    I have good reason to believe that providing you with rational arguments would be a waste of time. You are unwilling toi question your paranoia.

    And in an observational science you look for multiple lines of evidence that all tell the same story. But that takes a bit of time to get the knowledge and a willingness to step back and see the whole picture. These are things that I have seen no evidence of you trying to do.

    reply
    The Politics Is Straightforward: Consolidation Of Power.

    Mon, 2012-09-10 05:56 — Bird
    -1
    vote
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    You haven’t got any evidence. You’ve never seen any evidence. The politics is very simple. Its driven from the top down. And you useful idiots who hate the need for evidence in between. Here is a representative of the class of people pushing this anti-science nonsense. They have all the power and they want more, effectively enslaving humankind. They want to control energy and fresh water:

    reply
    Just ask Gozer….

    Mon, 2012-09-10 10:25 — AnOilMan
    2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Gozer the Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms.

    During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor!

    Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

    reply
    Very Nice

    Mon, 2012-09-10 12:21 — Bird
    0
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Yes yes that’s all very good. But it used to be about evidence.

    One day you’ll understand yourselves as the useful idiots and bankers rent-boys that you are. It won’t be when it snows in Sydney in the summertime. But some years after that.

    reply
    Actually…

    Mon, 2012-09-10 14:13 — AnOilMan
    2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Here’s a great review of all the skeptic scientific work;
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Powell-project.html
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Powell-projectPart2.html
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/case-against-AGW-part3.html

    To reiterate the principal conclusions of that series:

    70% of the global warming skeptics identified, including some of the most outspoken, have no scientific publications that deny or cast substantial doubt on global warming.
    None of the papers provides the “killer argument,” the one devastating fact that would falsify human-caused global warming. Each skeptic argument has been debunked in other peer-reviewed papers.
    The skeptics have no plausible theory to explain the observed global warming.
    Even though the evidence for human-caused global warming and the scientific consensus have grown stronger, no skeptic who wrote in the first half of the 1990s has recanted. To be a climate skeptic is to remain a skeptic.

    In short, you got nothing backing you up. Case Closed. Bu Bye!

    More to the point, this is how nature says “Do not touch!”

    http://faculty.ycp.edu/~kkleiner/ecology/lectureimages/Predation/donttou

    reply
    The Rebellion Against Evidence

    Mon, 2012-09-10 23:50 — Bird
    0
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    The rebellion against evidence, and the need for evidence, continues apace. Big news straight from Randi’s internet sewer. Where people huddle together in denial of scientific reality. The (UN)skeptics movement has been co-opted. From the great work it did during the 70’s and early 80’s it has fallen and has become the most pernicious movement in the world today, the jihad not excepted. Being as the skeptics movement pushes every last preference, leftist or rightist, of the banking elite. From global warming, to cancer “cures” that kill tens of thousands every year, looting them and the public at the same time .

    But its a broad church in its own mind this (un)skeptics movement. Some amongst them purport to be of the hard right. Some “skeptics” have even found a love for “libertarianism.” Like that incredible bonehead Michael Schermer.

    Its a bizzare skewed “libertarianism” specifically in favour of current cartelised and government-supported banking arrangements, and a “libertarianism” that never sees private debt that it doesn’t love. Chinese communist nationalisation of Australian strategic goods, under this demonic form of libertarianism, becomes “free trade” as does any cronyist government-to-government deals benefiting chiefly bigshots.

    The (un)skeptics never exercise reason in matters scientific. Never never never. Its like a kind of blood oath that they take. Its just not allowed. Its akin to making a bad smell in public or swearing at the magistrate in court. Never discuss the evidence logically. Never discuss the evidence logically. Never discuss the evidence logically. This is the neural-linguistic programming they rewrite themselves with minute in minute out. Its a 24 hour committment and any excuse will do.

    reply
    “Gozer the Traveler. He will

    Mon, 2012-09-10 14:32 — Phil M
    2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “Gozer the Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms.”

    Ahhh yeemember the phophecy fondly. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes. The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

    People are going to crap themselves when Gozer comes, the rapture, the Mayan cycle and armageddon. They are all lining up.

    We should probably be careful talking about all this stuff. The USA gov has software that flags these words we are talking about in an attempt to warn others of the impending inescapable RFID doom. They probably have our ip’s now, have a dossier and the black ops will be following us. In fact, one dude yesterday stared at me for a considerable length of time. I was going to introduce him to the peoples elbow, but I’m sure his mates were in the tower with scopes on me.

    How Alex Jones isn’t sniped I don’t know. He has it all on them man. His videoes and articles disclose their plan in granular detail! I think maybe it’s because he is just two steps of the shadow gov, two steps man, no gravy for him.

    reply
    I Want To Believe!

    Mon, 2012-09-10 14:52 — AnOilMan
    1
    vote
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Here’s an excellent video by a Barry Bickmore, a Republican Scientist.

    (Wasn’t Christy relagated to a Korean Journal after that debacle?)

    The reason this video came to mind is that Barry mentions what kind of journals you can find denial science in. Statistical analysis of Dog Zodiak signs, potential landing sites for UFOs, etc.

    If that’s where you’re looking, you’re trying too hard.

    I leave you all with Fox Mulder’s immortal office poster;

    http://www.calwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/I-want-to-believe-

    reply
    More No-Evidence. Total Commitment Against Evidence.

    Tue, 2012-09-11 00:08 — Bird
    0
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    So the idea that he shows up A REPUBLICAN is more significant then that he shows up without evidence!!!! Ha ha ha you moron.

    This is also typical of the skeptics. So mentally lazy and scientifically incompetent are the skeptics, that they go on the working premise that if a Republican corroborates a Democrat, its got to be the truth. Experience ought to have taught people that the safest working model is that Democrats are repulsively evil and that Republicans are just repulsive. Or that at any given time one party is stupid, the other is evil, and when they get together they do things that are both evil and stupid.

    reply
    WOW! What a comment thread. Sorry folks

    Mon, 2012-09-10 17:06 — Brendan DeMelle
    1
    vote
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Sorry everyone, I was fishing the past few days and not online. This ‘Bird’ person is clearly not following the comment policy. We’ll deal with this soon, likely by deleting the entire thread since it seems to have been polluted throughout by ‘Bird’.

    So, Bird, this is your final chance – would you please reveal who you are and whether you are paid to troll here (and by whom)?

    Read the comment policy please. If you answer the questions, and promise to abide by the policy, I just *might* let you stick around. Let’s hear the truth about you. If you really believe everything you wrote here, then you should be willing to come forward. Who are you?

    reply
    Just lock the thread. Bird

    Mon, 2012-09-10 18:15 — Lloyd Flack
    1
    vote
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Just lock the thread. Bird provides a useful demonstration of the sheer perverse irrationality of conspiract theorists. Some denialists will say no one could be that foolish. You can point to him. On this thread he has a use. Just don’t let him post elsewhere.

    reply
    Agreed.

    Mon, 2012-09-10 22:52 — AnOilMan
    1
    vote
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Agreed…

    reply
    New
    …… Bird.

    Tue, 2012-09-11 00:11 — Bird
    0
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    You know who I am Brendan. I gave you my last name. What I want to know is how you “scientists” (ho ho) start off with a flat black body that doesn’t rotate, and a model to do with SURFACE TEMPERATURE, and make this leap to GAS TEMPERATURE in a body that is rotating, and is not a black body. I know how you do it. You do it with a series of irrational leaps. Logic-defying leaps of …. unlogic.

    reply
    Good

    Mon, 2012-09-10 18:20 — David B. Benson
    1
    vote
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    lord!

    reply
    Indeed,

    Mon, 2012-09-10 19:16 — David B. Benson
    1
    vote
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    welcome to Area 51.

    reply
    Pages
    « first ‹ previous 1 2 3
    Add new comment

    Your name
    Bird
    Subject

    Comment *
    Source

    FormatFontSize

    Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1mUFM)

  9. Denial

    Sun, 2012-09-09 03:25 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Are you denying that the US Geological society was making that claim? Its the same claim that Terry Jones and George Monbiot used to ambush Ian Plimer on live TV. These two men are simpletons. But even they would have known that this is a lie. Plimer pointed out the thousands of kilometres of live volcanoes under the sea. The claim that undersea CO2 output and above sea CO2 output are “about the same” is ridiculous on its face, and is clearly a lie. Since there are multiple estimates and studies that the two bureaucracies could have used, the fact that they both chose the same ridiculous estimate has to be considered international co-ordination.

    Then we have the NASA dishonest use of the data, and yet the graphs they draw, are roughly similar to NOAA and Hadley. Proving again international co-ordination of misinformation. Then we had this conclusion reinforced by the revelation of the Hadley emails which proved international conspiracy on both sides of the Atlantic.

    I haven’t seen how NOAA gets its graphs. But they are known to be lying since they try and match it to the other two. NOAA also has monopolized on the reading of CO2 levels. Which means no CO2 readings can be independently verified. This must have been decades in the making, this monopoly. You have to hand it to the shadow government when it comes to taking the long view of things.

    reply
    The CO2-Warming Hoax More Expensive Then The Moon Hoax.

    Sat, 2012-09-08 16:48 — Bird
    -4
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!

    Here is some photographic analysis for Apollo 11 showing that the moonwalking was in fact staged. There is nothing to oppose this analysis and no getting around it. If it conflicts with your irrational beliefs see a psychiatrist. But don’t be getting about running cover for the criminals that push these fraudulent and expensive undertakings on the public. These networks haven’t gone away and they are busier then ever. The CO2-warming scam is scientific fraud. And its a far bigger, more ambitious, and more expensive scam then the moon hoax ever was.

    reply
    Bird, are you FatFreddy88 on

    Sun, 2012-09-09 03:11 — Phil M
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Bird, are you FatFreddy88 on Jref?

    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8603013#post8603013

    reply
    No

    Sun, 2012-09-09 03:29 — Bird
    -4
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    No. Does he follow evidence as well? I can see where you are going with this. You are doing everything you can to run away from evidence and logic. This is a feature of global warming hoax supporters. People like Lewandowsky and Graham Readfearn. Never never never talk about evidence. Always be allergic to evidence. This is something to see, this modern hatred of evidence and reason.

    reply
    “Never never never talk about

    Sun, 2012-09-09 03:41 — Phil M
    4
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “Never never never talk about evidence. Always be allergic to evidence.”

    I just got through telling you that the AR4 has several thousand references….to evidence. So far, you have come onto this blog with nothing but rhetoric, for someone pretending to be all about the evidence.

    reply
    No Evidence

    Sun, 2012-09-09 03:50 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    The IPCC has no evidence WHATSOEVER that could justify this scam. None. Clearly you just have no clue as to what you are talking about. The IPCC has not even put together a valid reconstruction of historical CO2 levels. So it cannot even establish correlation let alone causation. They haven’t even got started. We don’t expect to find causation at this late stage since no-one has ever found evidence for it. But also since the apriori case for it is ridiculous. The only thing I can say in favour of the Watts-Per-Square-Metre armchair thinking, is that the Keynesian model may well be even more pathetic.

    reply
    “The IPCC has no evidence

    Sun, 2012-09-09 04:07 — Phil M
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “The IPCC has no evidence WHATSOEVER that could justify this scam. None.”

    Thousands of references to empiical evidence from around the globe, that deniers dont have an answer for is no evidence?

    “The IPCC has not even put together a valid reconstruction of historical CO2 levels.”

    Then by all means, point us to the valid one.

    reply
    No no.

    Sun, 2012-09-09 04:23 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    No no. They have absolutely no evidence WHATSOEVER. You don’t know what you are talking about. They have not a single shred of empirical evidence, that favours this movement. None.

    reply
    2010

    Sun, 2012-09-09 03:32 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    That is from 2010. I already told you I only looked into Apollo over the last two months. I assumed they had gone but I was aware that I didn’t know because I hadn’t looked into the matter.

    You assume you have the gift of second sight. You think you can know that they went, without evidence that they went. Without looking into the evidence either way. I never pretend to have these capacities, and if it comes down to it, I would have to bow down to your astral travelling abilities.

    reply
    “That is from 2010′

    Sun, 2012-09-09 04:12 — Phil M
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “That is from 2010′

    What is. I can’t read your thoughts….you are aware of this aren’t you?

    “You assume you have the gift of second sight. You think you can know that they went, without evidence that they went.”

    Well, I can’t say I have personally been there to take photo’s, but plenty of astronomy enthusiasts have. Not to mention the fact that the Russians and other countries would love nothing more than to bust the Americans….yet haven’t.

    Not to mention the years of paying off various people for the cover up and no one has dobbed them in?

    Think rationally.

    reply
    Putting Sociology Ahead Of Hard Science.

    Sun, 2012-09-09 17:11 — Bird
    -2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Its a fact they kept quiet about it. You cannot overturn solid science with sociological speculation. But the reverse is not true. That the Soviets either were taken in or did not spill the beans tells us something about how the elites of the two societies work together. The Soviet union was bankrolled by Wall Street after all. David Rockefeller could land his private jet at Moscow anytime he felt like it. Every Soviet leader would have been at a small but decisive disadvantage without outside sponsorship.

    The Soviet excuse comes up a lot. But its not a scientific argument. I was only kidding about your capacity to read minds backwards in time, astral travel and so forth. There is a hierarchy of knowledge. You cannot say to yourself … 9/11 cannot be an inside job … how did they get in the building to place the explosives? and try and make this an argument, when its already established that the 3 buildings could not fall in that peculiar way, with the help of two planes alone. Once its proven that the Arabs blood libel is untenable you have to go with the science.

    See there is this ongoing tendency to put the sociology ahead of hard science. But that the buildings did go down tells us something about the shadow government. Likewise with this Moon Hoax. We already know its a hoax, we need to understand what this means in terms of how our elites insinuate themselves into national governments.

    Likewise with this global warming fraud. We know that underwater volcanic activity dwarfes the above ground stuff by many orders of magnitude. So what does the collusion between the US geological society and the UK geological society tell us? It tells us that there is far more collusion and wickedness present then what meets the eyes. Sometimes we are lucky and we get to see this up close, like with the conspiracy revealed by the leaked Hadley emails. But most of the time we simply have to infer it. And it will be the same network every time at the finance wing of it, since you or I could never get away with this behavior.

    reply
    Wow!

    Sat, 2012-09-08 18:40 — David B. Benson
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    A commenter here belongs in the Bedlam birdhouse.

    reply
    No Sorry Benson

    Sat, 2012-09-08 18:47 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    No sorry Benson. The problem is with you. The problem is that you are a moron.

    reply
    The Fact Of Apollo Fraud

    Sat, 2012-09-08 18:58 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    That Apollo moonwalking was a fraud is a fact. Proved totally and to the nth degree. Everyone on this blog and on Randi’s internet sewer could get together and wish upon a star and it won’t change the fact of Apollo fraud. Randi’s people are closet believers in Woo. They think that by their faith they can alter history, and change the nature of physical reality.

    Lying all the time is deeply imbedded into the culture of NASA. They even go so far as to lie about comets being snowballs. They perpetrate crank science like the belief in the big bang. If they can lie about comets being snowballs there is nothing they won’t lie about big or small.

    reply
    All you are doing is showing

    Sat, 2012-09-08 21:52 — Lloyd Flack
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    All you are doing is showing how easily you will swallow abolute twaddle if by doing so you can convince yourself you are smarter than everyone else. You will not let yourself understand why others think conspiracy theories like the ones you support are rubbish. Until you can conquer your conceit there can be no rational argument with you.

    reply
    Flack You Flake.

    Sat, 2012-09-08 23:12 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    No sorry you dope. Already I know you are pulling the leftist reversal. I already know that you’ve bought into the global warming fraud without a scrap of evidence. You’ve brought into the big bang, the greatest embarrassment of modern science. You, like a fool believe in special relativity, you’ve bought into the moon hoax, you may well think central banks and fractional reserve is a good idea, but you definitely have bought into the idea that comets are snowballs. I can tell already that you think there is something in the Keynesian multiplier.

    All these ideas you naively and idiotically buy into because you don’t believe in the need for scientific evidence. This is the absolute twaddle you’ve bought into. Always the reason is the same. You believe in believing what you are told and you have no use for scientific evidence or reason.

    reply
    Leftist? Well maybe by US

    Sat, 2012-09-08 23:32 — Lloyd Flack
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Leftist? Well maybe by US standards I might be slightly left of center but not by the standards of any other country.

    I actually have looked at the evidence. I actually understand the science. I actually have worked in science and know its methods. I have actually abandoned ideological positions when scientific or historical evidence has gone against them. I am actually curious and want to understand what is happening rather than prove others wrong.

    Might I suggest that you not make guesses about my politics and opinions on economics? At least not when I haven’t mentioned them. It only makes you look more foolish.

    But continue. You are providing amusement, abeit unintentionally.

    reply
    Could Be Worse Than I Thought

    Sun, 2012-09-09 00:20 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “I actually have looked at the evidence. I actually understand the science.”

    Stop me if I’m wrong. But do you mean to say that you actually bought into the bogus, ridiculous, flat earth model that these guys rely on? The Watts-Per-Square-Metre model?

    Say it isn’t so. And you a science worker. If you understood their model you would know that they were full of it.

    reply
    You Looked And Failed?

    Sat, 2012-09-08 23:51 — Bird
    -1
    vote
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    You buy into all those things that I claimed that you would buy into don’t you? Therefore you are not capable of following evidence. As for the moon hoax, I’ve only just looked into it. I was at least aware that I hadn’t looked into it, even though I expected to find out that they did make it. But they didn’t.

    You haven’t looked into the CO2-warming fraud if you still believe in it. You cannot think at all if you still buy into the big bang.

    reply
    You Looked And Failed?

    Sat, 2012-09-08 23:55 — Bird
    -2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    So you say you looked into the CO2-warming scam and you found that it wasn’t a scam? Well you must have found some evidence then. Well fire away. Do you even know what you were trying to find evidence for?

    reply
    Evidence That Could Justify The Global Warming Racket

    Sun, 2012-09-09 00:01 — Bird
    -2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    What we are looking for, since we have one doofus here that reckons he’s weighed the evidence and come out in favour of the global warming racket.

    We needed:

    1. Evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming.

    2. Evidence that a little bit of human-based warming, during a brutal and pulverising ice age ……. is a bad thing …

    3. Evidence that extra-CO2 warms the earth globally, and at sea level, even a little bit.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    There may be many ways of proving all three of these propositions. But first off you’d at least expect an effort to reconstruct the CO2 record. As far as I remember no global warming pusher would ever want to go near any valid CO2 record. So I don’t know why you imagine yourself (Lloyd Flack) competent to weigh the evidence in this matter.

    reply
    This blog is about the

    Sun, 2012-09-09 00:22 — Lloyd Flack
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    This blog is about the politics and PR of climate change, not the science. If you want evidence that it is happening there are plenty of other websites to go to.

    And the evidence is voluminous, far too much to put in comments on this website.

    Just a hint, try to understand the science before you criticize it. Start with the intention of proving that everyone else is a fool and you will prove youself to be a fool.

    reply
    You Have Never Seen Any Evidence.

    Sun, 2012-09-09 00:25 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    No you are lying. There is no evidence. And if you looked into it and still buy into it, then you are not competent in science. The politics of this matter is pretty simple. Its being pushed from the top down. Its being pushed from the top and sheeple like yourself are in your role of force-multipliers and useful idiots.

    reply
    “The politics of this matter

    Sun, 2012-09-09 03:10 — Phil M
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “The politics of this matter is pretty simple. Its being pushed from the top down.”

    Again I ask, who at the top are pushing it and why? You seem to have difficulties in producing anything but repetitive rhetoric.

    reply
    You Moron

    Sun, 2012-09-09 00:27 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “Just a hint, try to understand the science before you criticize it.”

    You moron. You complete idiot. So you actually bought into their flat earth watts per square metre model. You pillock. Not only does this movement lack empirical evidence. It lacks any sort of valid a priori reasoning behind it.

    reply
    You said that you do not

    Sun, 2012-09-09 04:27 — Lloyd Flack
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    You said that you do not believe special relativity. Yet calculations based on it are made every day and the results agree with reality. Why are you making this claim? Are you claiming that there is a conspiracy here? For what purpose? What is you reason for disageeing with the science? Is it because it is counter intuitive?

    reply
    Because Its Wrong.

    Sun, 2012-09-09 04:56 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    You don’t need to believe in special relativity to make those calculations, so the calculations don’t constitute evidence for the theory. In fact you won’t find evidence for the theory anywhere.

    Think of the initial public hoo-ha that went to support special relativity. Its 1919, and the lads travelled out to see an eclipse. They didn’t find any evidence for special relativity, and yet they came home to this huge burst of publicity. What they did is they failed to falsify. A failure to falsify is a waste of money. Today most studies are of this nature.

    Newton never claimed that light would bend the way it was assumed. Einstein did a thought experiment to do with lifts, light, acceleration and gravity that was entirely consistent with Newton and did not verify any of his (Einsteins) wild claims. He included a stipulation that his own ideas would be wrong if the light bent by such and such amount. This ought never have implied evidence for his other wild ideas. So it was only a lot of publicity that won this story over.

    I don’t know about there being a conspiracy behind his ideas getting off the ground. There is certainly a great deal of lying keeping them off the ground however. That Wikipedia conspires to keep falsification of Einsteins foolishness off its pages may seem to imply conspiracy since Wiki is a captured site. If you wanted to hog military secrets and technology for sure there could be a reason to keep promoting wrong and dated ideas. Because these wrong ideas get in the way of further development on the part of possible competitors. Stories of experimenters being obstructed and interferred with are legion. You will find that most people in favour of Einsteins system concentrate on lying and the cult of personality to support these ideas. He’s a lovable figure, but many of his ideas were pretty silly. They are pseudo-religious in that they employ “reification.”

    reply
    The 1919 observations

    Sun, 2012-09-09 05:24 — Lloyd Flack
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    The 1919 observations concerned the effect of gravity. That is general relativity, not special relativity. Don’t you think it might be an idea to find out what the terms mean? This is not a little slip. This is gross carelessness.

    reply
    Dummy.

    Sun, 2012-09-09 05:36 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    You idiot. The point is that it was held to be evidence for Einsteins ideas generally, when it was no such thing. Get your act together. The point was that this was when Einsteins ideas were foisted on the public and began to get general currency. Quite independent of the non-evidence that the expedition was responsible for.

    reply
    General Relativity-Fudge Factor

    Sun, 2012-09-09 05:40 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    General relativity sits on top of special relativity and is a fudge factor for it. Its a movable feast. To refute special relativity is to take down general relativity with it. But its special relativity where the nuttiness and woo is concentrated. So thats what I focus on.

    reply
    Every day someone operates a

    Sun, 2012-09-09 06:28 — Lloyd Flack
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Every day someone operates a sychrotron. Every one works. Every day particles inside one follow the paths predicted by special relativity. Every day it is proven that you don’t know what you are talking about.

    reply
    Break The Sound Barrier With A Propeller Driven Plane

    Sun, 2012-09-09 16:02 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Now you are just being silly. In the same way as you cannot accelerate a particle past the speed of light with a sychrotron, you aren’t going to break the sound barrier with a propeller driven plane. Thats why the energy requirement spirals up to infinite. Yet breaking c is more or less routine. Nor was there any reason ever to believe in a light speed barrier.

    reply
    There you go. Responding to

    Sun, 2012-09-09 17:46 — Lloyd Flack
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    There you go. Responding to something that I didn’t say and attributing to me things that I didn’t say. And contradicting yourself too.

    I said nothing about speed of sound or planes. I said nothing about anything being acccelerated past the speed of light. Quite the contrary, particles accelerated by a synchrotron approach but never reach the speed of light. But they undergo the mass changes predicted by special relativity. We know this by their paths and the energy that they have. But nothing has been observed exceeding the speed of light.

    Are you confusing the speed of light with that of sound? c is the speed of light not that of sound. So are you claiming objects can go faster than light or not? You admitted that a particle cannot be accelerated pat c using a synchrotron. but then talked of breaking c being routine.

    reply
    No Mass Changes

    Sun, 2012-09-09 18:08 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    No they don’t undergo any mass changes. How do you think the alleged mass changes they don’t undergo are wrongly perceived? They are perceived by the increasing amount of energy needed to get them closer to the speed of light. This is just our public servants at work.

    If we stuck rigidly to the dogma that the propeller-driven plane we set up in a flying zone in a giant complex in space (ie without gravity) ….. that the propeller-driven plane was gaining mass, as it approached the speed of sound, we would wind up finding out what we wrongly thought we already knew. Because no matter how much energy we poured into the propellers they simply could not make the plane outrun the speed of sound.

    This is how useless public servant science is. Because they steadfastly insist on only keeping one paradigm in mind when they observe data. Whereas science is all about building competing paradigms in parallel. This is how you’ve managed to clench to the CO2 dogma all this time like you were holding a $50 note between your butt-cheeks. You only ever had the flat earth model of watts per square metre under consideration in the first place. Since you only had one paradigm under consideration, it began to look almost axiomatic to you. Whereas in sober cold reality, its a ridiculous model from the ground up.

    Likewise special relativity. Stupid from the ground up and internally contradictory. A simple dogma of velocity absolutism, wrongly named to hide its silly construction. Bad theology posing as science.

    reply
    They know of the mass changes

    Sun, 2012-09-09 18:35 — Lloyd Flack
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    They know of the mass changes by the paths that particles follow. If particles did not follow their expected paths synchrotrons would not work. They have beed designed to work in a universe where special relativity applies. If it did not the particles would follow different paths and strike the walls of the synchrotron.

    reply
    Mass doesn’t change.

    Sun, 2012-09-09 19:26 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    No they don’t know the mass changes. The mass doesn’t change. They merely interpret changing mass because of loyalty to the dogma. They aren’t testing other paradigms at the same time as they make this dogmatic interpretation, so they aren’t conducting any science, any more than continually switching on and off a light is conducting science.

    Even the allegation that they can track the path of a single proton or electron is deeply suspect. What is the evidence that they put forward to claim that they have such a path? A trail of bubbles? Some other practical application of a failure of logic? And what is the logic to say that an altered path means more mass? These are the people whom logic forgot. They are just public servants.

    Any sub-atomic conjecture is open to circular reasoning. If you want to try and justify the self-contradictory idiocy of special relativity, you need something large. The belly-crawling unscientists always grasp at the subatomic for their non-evidence. You need something large. Like a ball of steel. Obviously conjecture about things that no-one can see or observe isn’t going to make the nut. But you will see that relativists will always shy away from real experiments since they know they will be proved wrong.

    reply
    Proof That Lying Is What Keeps Special Relativity Aloft

    Sun, 2012-09-09 18:13 — Bird
    -2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    ” But nothing has been observed exceeding the speed of light.”

    Thats a lie for starters. Everyone knows its a lie. But trained physicists prefer not to talk about it in mixed company. Then they wil go through an whole series of obscurantist steps to confuse third parties when they are fully busted. This series of steps usually starts with some talk about the non-existent tachyon. Really what is needed is a lot of sackings. Mass-sackings so the survivors will begin to behave and actually do real work.

    reply
    Really! When and where have

    Sun, 2012-09-09 18:25 — Lloyd Flack
    2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Really! When and where have thes faster than light particles been observed?

    reply
    When and where

    Sun, 2012-09-09 18:56 — David B. Benson
    2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Yestermorrow in Neveralwaysland.

    reply
    Nice…

    Mon, 2012-09-10 09:59 — AnOilMan
    2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    I think we have a new winner for the Bogdanov award!

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

    reply
    Particles?

    Sun, 2012-09-09 19:01 — Bird
    -2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Who said anything about particles? Obviously when you are using electro-magnetic energy to accelerate something, then that thing cannot be accelerated faster then the electro-magnetic energy that you are using to do the acceleration. You would think that even a dim bulb like Benson could understand such a thing.

    But beating c is routine, as you well know. We used to have an whole page on it at wiki before it was censored. Google it yourself.

    reply
    You didn’t pay attention to

    Sun, 2012-09-09 20:03 — Lloyd Flack
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    You didn’t pay attention to what I said did you? You were too busy trying to prove me wrong so you just seized on what you thought you could refute and th rest didn’t sink in.

    I said if special relativity was false particles would not follow their predicted paths and the apparatus would not work at all.

    Now where are you claiming that faster than light velocities have been obtained? I am not going to look through a pile of Google results most of which have nothing to do with your claims.

    reply
    You’ll Grasp At Anything.

    Sun, 2012-09-09 22:37 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    That is a completely ridiculous claim. You are saying that the engineers built it to work, and it wouldn’t work but for a wrong theory.

    Moronic. The engineers aren’t going to build something in order so that it fail. They aren’t going to callibrate a machine for failure. The theory is wrong because velocity is a relative concept. The theory is wrong because right now you can feel the force of your ass against the chair. Even though there is no space in between to curve. Even though space cannot curve. So the idea that gravity is caused by curvature in space is double dipping since we already know that gravity is a force.

    You cannot gain mass due to velocity since velocity is purely relative. The moving particle and the stationary experimenter ….. neither of the two can be said to be moving or stationary since velocity is relative.

    reply
    I fear

    Sun, 2012-09-09 21:25 — David B. Benson
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    this is hopeless.

    *sigh*

    reply
    It would be nice if

    Sun, 2012-09-09 21:44 — David B. Benson
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Bird would understand what Einstein meant when he said something to the effect that superluminal travel is a way to send messages into the past.

    Of course, no messages have ever been received from the future…

    reply
    More Idiocy.

    Sun, 2012-09-09 22:42 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    If he said that it would be more idiocy. Time is a derived concept. c is not infinite speed. Gravity propagates much much much faster than c or all the orbits would unwind. So this is just total idiocy. And emprically its wrong since there is no speed limit and c is being beaten routinely. I doubt that Einstein said this, but if he did we might consider whether there was too much Mercury in his area.

    Remember I’ve already pointed out that these wrong ideas stay aloft only because of relentless lying and the cult of personality. There is likely to be conspirational action as well, but who would need it? What with all the sheeple and goose-steppers who are willing to go along with proven wrong and baseless theory?

    reply
    I know. It was interesting to

    Sun, 2012-09-09 21:49 — Lloyd Flack
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    I know. It was interesting to see how far he would go to hang onto his paranoid beliefs. I don’t normally have contact even on the internet with anyone like that. And it was amusing, as in “Look at the funny man.”. But I think I’ve had enough of that.

    And I do try to correct what I think are errors and try to get people to reconsider things. I usually present arguments and try more to get prople to seriously consider them than I try to convince. But I know no way to deal with extreme forms of motivated reasoning like here. I know no way to get someone like him to look at what he’s doing.

    reply
    The Problem Is All Your Own

    Sun, 2012-09-09 22:48 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    See you’re an idiot. You are not a scientist. You’ve given up on evidence. You’ve given up on reason. You have no capacity to tell good theory from bad. Can you tell Austrian from Keynesian theory and judge as to which one is useful?

    This is why you are a global warming fraud believer despite absolute crap theory, and no empirical evidence. We don’t even know if the effect of extra CO2 causes net cooling or net warming at sea level. I tend to assume that it will be net cooling. Others sort of think that there will be a tiny bit of extra warming. But what we know for an absolute fact that it is a tiny effect either way. We know this because no evidence has emerged either way so the effect MUST be minimal.

    And your stupidity calling me paranoid means that you’ve thrown scientific judgement and are putting a theory of sociology ahead of scientific evidence.

    Once again, collusion is proven. We don’t need to speculate about it.

    reply
    Yes You Are

    Sun, 2012-09-09 22:53 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    You ARE hopeless. You wouldn’t be supporting this clear scientific fraud … clearer then Piltdown man … if you weren’t hopeless. You haven’t read a single study which has provided evidence that could support this clear science fraud. Not one. Not even one. There isn’t one out there. Last I looked the promoters of this crap were running a million miles from any sort of CO2 reconstruction. It ought to have been a simple data and attribution exercise.

    What is wrong with you man? How is it that you are so mentally deranged that you are particpating in this rubbish movement when I know for a fact that you have no apriori case for it, and you haven’t been presented with evidence for it? This is just derangement.

    reply
    Moving Onto The Climate Model

    Sun, 2012-09-09 23:07 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Now some of you reckon you understand this climate science. No you don’t. If you did you would have rejected their model. Still let us see you build it up on an apriori basis.

    Here we have a flat planet, which complies with the requirement of being a “black body.” This flat planet is twice as far from the sun as the earth. Its not rotating, and therefore its noon all the time. Now build up the climate model from this starting point. You will see that you have to make one irrational leap after another to get to the watts per square metre model.

    reply
    Pages
    « first ‹ previous 1 2 3 next › last »
    Add new comment

    Your name
    Bird
    Subject

    Comment *
    Source

    NormalFontSize

    Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1mQlx)

  10. NWO
    Thu, 2012-09-06 04:55 — Phil M
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    ” All of the catering would be provided by the New World Order.”

    It’s amazing how many times I run into tin foil hat wearing nutters that actually believe that.

    Who would be in charge? Does everyone uber elite have the same say? Is there a power of veto? Is there any chance whatsoever, of countries like Russia, China, Pakistan, Arab countries etc sitting down and agreeing with countries like the USA and using climate change as the tool for them to control the worlds population?

    It’s just so implausible. But sucks so many in who refuse to think, or perhaps smoke too many drugs.

    reply
    So…
    Thu, 2012-09-06 09:40 — AnOilMan
    6
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Climate Science Denial is the new Roswell…. interesting take.

    I’d already concluded that folks like Watts is engaged in ‘conspiracy theory’ work. Its not like his high school education has geared him up to deal with real world science or technical work.

    Of course… before the nutters loose it here, its important to point out some valid statistics that always confound and confuse them. Correlation does not equal causation. Interesting… the deniers are always looking for patterns but seem to miss this important fact.

    I’ve actually been accused of being some sort of plant by a green group. (Pun?) And I won’t deny that I think that a lot of these deniers are paid to do exactly this. Of course, facts support my thinking;

    http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article/58287–harper-government-m

    Corporations aren’t monitored for their activities in the same way the government is, and their PR campaigns are already extensive. How can businesses make more inroads into the public mind? Hmmm?

    How come deniers seem to disappear during elections? My usual crop of cabbage heads has disappeared from Canadian news papers during the Republican presidential ramp up. (Maybe its all in my mind… but I don’t think so.)

    reply
    I’m guessing that most
    Thu, 2012-09-06 15:33 — VJ
    4
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    I’m guessing that most deniers are more interested in politics than science, so maybe they are applying their energy to election efforts (whether paid or volunteers).

    It was interesting on twitter the other night as many Canadians who follow politics were torn between the Quebec election and the US Democratic speeches. I just follow twitter to find out as much as I need to know about the politics.

    I do wonder sometimex if some rightwing trolls commenting on Canadian political websites are Americans, and if they are paid to troll.

    reply
    I hadn’t thought…
    Thu, 2012-09-06 16:34 — AnOilMan
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    I hadn’t thought that they might also be volunteers. But of course that makes sense.

    However… Harper has been repeatedly caught using paid staffers to make it look like he has popular support for his crappy little schemes.

    reply
    ” I just follow twitter to
    Fri, 2012-09-07 03:47 — Phil M
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    ” I just follow twitter to find out as much as I need to know about the politics.

    I do wonder sometimex if some rightwing trolls commenting on Canadian political websites are Americans, and if they are paid to troll.”

    The HB-Gary hack showed us that they have persona management software to fill sites like twitter with mock outrage, pretending to be many people, when really……it’s only one.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All

    reply
    That doesn’t surprise me…
    Fri, 2012-09-07 09:17 — AnOilMan
    4
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    I’ve often accused some posters of being unable to pass a Turing Test. Honestly though… people are hooking up and talking with bots on line. I find that kind of funny.

    If you think about it… Twitter\Facebook bots are to people what viruses are to computers. I’m deadly careful when it comes to computer security, I also double check all email links, etc to make sure I’m not getting phished. I’m not about to start chatting with a bot.

    All this talk makes me wonder if someone couldn’t create a bot detector that works like anti virus software.

    Try new Turing Antibot, and zap those pesky bots from your life!
    reply
    “I’ve often accused some
    Sat, 2012-09-08 02:07 — Phil M
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “I’ve often accused some posters of being unable to pass a Turing Test.”

    Some of them are already able to beat the “captcha” phrase technology. We have seen here on this site. And many sites don’t even have any sort of measures to determine if the commenter is human or not e.g. denier blogs.

    If there is any sort of conspiracy, it is an oil funded, lobbyist, astroturfing manufactured outrage to hold up climate science and to delay action, in the name of fossil fuel profits.

    Deniers accept that the tobacco industry did it, but find it inconceivable, that the collective fossil fuel industry could engage in such thing, despite being hundreds of times larger than the tobacco industries.

    reply
    Wrong Side
    Sat, 2012-09-08 03:00 — Bird
    -6
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Entrenched Oil interests will be working in favour of the global warming crusade. This misinformation will further entrench their position in the energy mix. The net effect of the global warming fraud is to get in the way of competing energy development that actually works and is cost-effective.

    reply
    Just the usual conman we see around here.
    Sat, 2012-09-08 10:34 — AnOilMan
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Attacks… inuendo… no evidence…

    If we’re lucky we’ll get scrimpt of a link from an exceedingly dodgy web site on page 2 of our posts… Then you’ll slink off after making this big stink.

    I just want anyone thinking of reading what you say know this before they waste their time.

    reply
    No point
    Sat, 2012-09-08 18:12 — Bird
    -5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    There is no point in someone as dense as you reading anything I say. It would be like a baboon or a yak wrinkling its forhead in a futile attempt to comprehend. But major oil interests represent the status quo. The CO2 fraud is a hindrance to new energy development. So of course the entrenched interests are quite happy with this science fraud.

    reply
    “Entrenched Oil interests
    Sat, 2012-09-08 23:42 — Phil M
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “Entrenched Oil interests will be working in favour of the global warming crusade.”

    I think I am yet to see an argument from you, which has any logic or rationality.

    If the oil interests are in favour of “the global warming hoax”, then why do they spend so much to oppose it and why do they so openly oppose taxation or regulation that will not only affect their profits, but invite unwelcome competition.

    “The net effect of the global warming fraud is to get in the way of competing energy development that actually works and is cost-effective. ”

    Like what?

    reply
    “Correlation does not equal
    Thu, 2012-09-06 14:15 — Phil M
    4
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “Correlation does not equal causation. Interesting… the deniers are always looking for patterns but seem to miss this important fact.”

    Yes, they are big on the “we have had high CO2 before and there were no SUV’s, therfore, this time it’s the same, it’s all natural.”

    Another conspiracy theory I like is, the scientists are paid to find AGW, so they invent stuff to fit a square peg into a round hole. They don’t consider that the scientists get paid no matter what.

    Or the CT that it’s a socialist political agenda created by liberals…….except the theory was in place before any of these ideological parties existed. And they forget the fact that just as many conservative parties have been involved over the years….duh.

    “I’ve actually been accused of being some sort of plant by a green group. (Pun?) And I won’t deny that I think that a lot of these deniers are paid to do exactly this. Of course, facts support my thinking;

    I remember being passed this last year about a paid internet troll. I’m sure they exist.

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread738780/pg1

    Paid to push conservative ideology on sites like Huffington and Reddit.

    reply
    And they don’t find it ironic
    Thu, 2012-09-06 14:20 — Phil M
    4
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    And they don’t find it ironic, that the deniers use the same proxies to assert their position, as the devices used by AGW realists that they accuse of being rigged. They don’t mind their tax payer dollars being spent on satellites and research etc….if it supports their position. If it doesn’t…..it’s “MY TAXPAYER DOLLARS BEING WASTED!!!”.

    reply
    Who would be in charge?
    Thu, 2012-09-06 16:06 — Ian Hanington
    2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Duh. Everyone knows it would be the shape-shifting lizards from the lower fourth dimension!

    reply
    And we all know…
    Thu, 2012-09-06 16:25 — AnOilMan
    0
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Earth Girls Are Easy!

    reply
    “Duh. Everyone knows it would
    Fri, 2012-09-07 03:36 — Phil M
    1
    vote
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “Duh. Everyone knows it would be the shape-shifting lizards from the lower fourth dimension!”

    David Icke was right all along!

    reply
    Dimensions
    Sat, 2012-09-08 18:08 — Bird
    -2
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Note that this nonsense about “dimensions” comes straight from mainstream crank science. And is here adopted by non-mainstreamers, pretty much holus-bolus. The idea of more than three dimensions has nothing to it. But it fuels all sorts of fantasies, mainstream and otherwise. Mainstream crank science is ubiquitous and is held aloft by relentless lying and the cult of personality. Conspiracy may be present in every case of it or in some cases and not in others. One doesn’t want to take an unscientific point of view towards conspiracy.

    reply
    Momentary
    Fri, 2012-09-07 23:55 — Bird
    -4
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    The Professor may be onto something here in 2012. But had he taken the same survey in 2007, he’d likely have found no correlation at all. When I looked into global warming seriously for the first time in 2005 I suspected no conspiracy. I was quite used to the idea of mass-hysteria, the madness of crowds, and this sort of thing. I didn’t think then that this business was being directed from the top. Only later did the top-down direction become apparent. And as for the Apollo hoax, I only started looking into that one a couple of months ago.

    So the Professor may be right in 2012, would probably have been wrong in 2007, but its all besides the point. It doesn’t matter if its stupidity, or wickedness, so long as we stick to science and reason. So long as we worry about the scientific evidence, and block out all pseudo-evidence, then we will wind up with the right idea as a society. I’ve never witnessed either Graham Readfearn or the Professor make a scientific argument once. Not even once.

    Stick with the evidence and the conspirational forces at the top will have little effect.

    reply
    ” When I looked into global
    Sat, 2012-09-08 01:59 — Phil M
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    ” When I looked into global warming seriously for the first time in 2005 I suspected no conspiracy.”

    So now it is a world wide conspiracy?

    reply
    Hmm… Isn’t treason an executable offence?
    Sat, 2012-09-08 10:24 — AnOilMan
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    The US Navy and Russian Navy are in on it too! And those pesky Canadian ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare) Units are faking all that data too, they even started before there was Climate Change! Imagine that!

    Yup… American soldiers scoff at treason! In yo face they say!

    Phil this guy is just running the usual scam. He says a lot, provides no links, or information of any credible value.

    reply
    The Usual
    Sat, 2012-09-08 18:02 — Bird
    -4
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    The usual gangsters, whom we have seen in other areas, like in the massive banking stealing since 2008 ….. These people appear to have a stranglehold in the US, Great Britain, and the NATO and EU countries. Their influence is felt elsewhere but they really seem to have a grip over the territories mentioned, or the incredible thieving of the bankers couldn’t take place. Nor could you have the US geological survey putting about lies, and the UK geological survey echoing the exact same lies.

    reply
    For Sure
    Sat, 2012-09-08 02:44 — Bird
    -4
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    There is a driving force at the top that is both mutinational and conspirational for sure. This is readily provable. But naturally enough, to explain the entirety of it, you still have to rely on mass hysteria, “the madness of crowds” and this sort of thing.

    The global warming fraud is a particularly nasty sort of evil, since its co-opting and using up legitimate concerns for the environment. For example the other day I just saw a very reasonable tv show about how the sea is breaking down all the plastic, and its being micronised and sent all the way through the food chain via the fishes. This is a disaster. As is over-fishing. But everyone is tuckered out by this warming scam run by the usual suspects.

    reply
    “There is a driving force at
    Sat, 2012-09-08 03:14 — Phil M
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “There is a driving force at the top that is both mutinational and conspirational for sure.”

    Please entertain us with the facts of this conspiracy theory of yours. Who at the top is driving it and what is the ultimate goal?

    “This is readily provable.”

    So prove it.

    “The global warming fraud is a particularly nasty sort of evil”

    So there is a malevolent spiritual force in cahoots with them as well?

    “But everyone is tuckered out by this warming scam run by the usual suspects.”

    Like who?

    reply
    The Lewandowsky paper ties in
    Sat, 2012-09-08 03:06 — Phil M
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    The Lewandowsky paper ties in with various papers and books that point to a well known fact.

    “Researchers in history and sociology frequently cite the \manufacture of doubt” by vested interests and political groups as a factor (Jacques, Dunlap, & Freeman, 2008; McCright & Dunlap, 2003, 2010; Mooney, 2007; Oreskes & Conway, 2010; Stocking & Holstein, 2009). For example, over 90% of environmentally sceptical books published since 1972 have been demonstrably sponsored by conservative think tanks (Jacques et al., 2008). Oreskes and Conway (2010) analyzed the shared ideological underpinnings of organized attempts to question well-established scientic ndings over the last few decades, from the link between smoking and lung cancer to the causal role of chloro uorocarbons (CFC’s) in eroding the ozone layer to, most recently, the ndings from climate science. Oreskes and Conway documented that a small number of organizations and individuals have been instrumental in those contrarian activities, arguably motivated by a laissez-faire free-market ideology that views as threatening any scientic nding with potential regulatory impact, such asMotivated rejection of science 4 interference with the marketing of tobacco products, bans on CFC’s, or a price on carbon (cf. Dunlap & McCright, 2011).”

    Even major skeptic sites are in the majority against the denier position and also treat them as conspiracy theorists, take JREF for example.

    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176635

    reply
    No Skeptics
    Sat, 2012-09-08 03:18 — Bird
    -5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    JREF? You mean Randi’s internet sewer? You won’t find one skeptical person on that place. They just believe what they’re told. They are the most submissive true believers on the planet. Doesn’t matter how stupid the idea is. If it purports to be mainstream dogma, they will believe it. These guys are even fans of the Federal Reserve. They think cancer treatment through poisoning, radiation, and cutting is a roaring success. There isn’t one dumb idea that has the stamp of mainstream on it that they will ever not bow down to.

    reply
    “JREF? You mean Randi’s
    Sat, 2012-09-08 04:07 — Phil M
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “JREF? You mean Randi’s internet sewer?”

    That’s funny. Clearly there is a lot of woo you believe in they that expose. Destroying faith with facts can be painful I guess.

    “You won’t find one skeptical person on that place.”

    But let me guess. Blogs that are not actual skeptic blogs, but are denier climate change blogs with right wing leanings, are classed as real “skeptics” as far as you are concerned? No true scotsman eh?

    “They think cancer treatment through poisoning, radiation, and cutting is a roaring success.”

    Oh gawd, save me from this industrial grade nuttery. You think radiation and chemo therapy do nothing? And what, crystals, incense, power juices and chakra alignment does? Sheeesh.

    reply
    Randi’s internet sewer isn’t
    Sat, 2012-09-08 15:02 — Bird
    -6
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Randi’s internet sewer isn’t a skeptical blog. They will believe anything they are told. They will believe CO2 is a pollutant if they are told CO2 is a pollutant. They will believe that astroNOTS can get around on the moon for two days or two hours or any amount of time without exhaliing from their spacesuits if they are told to believe this. There is no such thing as woo, but they will believe there is a thing called woo if the others seem to be believing in woo. So its a fact that this is not a skeptical blog at all. If NASA tells them that comets are snowballs, no snow, no ball no snowball, no evidence for snow or ice ever, still they will believe what NASA tells them. Even though NASA is a giant ripoff machine that lies all the time

    reply
    Radiation And Chemotherapy
    Sat, 2012-09-08 15:53 — Bird
    -6
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Radiation and chemotherapy are excellent ways to rip the public off. But they are terrible ways to make sick people well. They are a ripoff and mass murder rolled into one. Chemotherapy is so toxic to the sick patient, that he knows for a fact that he’ll be even sicker when he undertakes it. So he goes out and buys himself a wig. This is one of the really big scandals of the last few decades. They keep killing people every year with this old technology. Its not outdated technology since it was never a good idea. Its just old. Yet every year there is more fundraising for research. The money is pocketed, the research is either useless or largely ignored, and the next year they are back to hurting people with sword, fire, or poison (surgery, radiation, chemotherapy). Its medieval except for the money involved which is stupendous.

    reply
    “Radiation and chemotherapy
    Sat, 2012-09-08 23:58 — Phil M
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “Radiation and chemotherapy are excellent ways to rip the public off. But they are terrible ways to make sick people well.”

    Let me guess, Homeopathy is ok though isn’t it?

    I’m sorry, but radiation therapy and chemo has runs on the board. This is a bit like the anti vaxxer argument. A small percentage of ill effects get the light shone on them and the vast majority of successes are ignored. I know personally of 5 friends and family members that have undergone radiation and chemo therapy. One of the 5 didnt make it.

    Your level of drug intake must truly be massive. What’s your poison, pot, or crystal meth?

    “Chemotherapy is so toxic to the sick patient, that he knows for a fact that he’ll be even sicker when he undertakes it.”

    No shit sherlock. Thanks for the newsbreak captain obvious. It’s like anti biotics on steroids. Anti biotics ( anti-life) are prescribed an have successfully saved millions of lives, yet it destroys good an the bad inside you. People don’t stop taking them.

    People know radiation and chemo therapy have runs on the board.

    Yes, it kicks your arse and makes you sick and makes you lose your hair. But it’s a small price to pay for living.

    reply
    Homeopathy?
    Sun, 2012-09-09 00:08 — Bird
    -4
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Don’t be idiotic. I’m for going with a strategy based on reason and evidence. Clearly Homeopathy isn’t going to make that gig. Radiation and chemotherapy have no runs on the board at all. They are carcinogenic in and of themselves. They are only performed for their money-making capacity and to double down on past crimes. They are no better as treatments then destroying a weed-filled garden in the hope that the roses will grow back. Their failure spans over the decades. They fail year in year out for decades.

    But you believe they are valid medicine, since you believe what you are told, and have no time for evidence.

    reply
    ” Radiation and chemotherapy
    Sun, 2012-09-09 02:27 — Phil M
    4
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    ” Radiation and chemotherapy have no runs on the board at all.”

    Clearly, if you read nothing but conspiracy theory sites and smoke copious amounts of drugs, then no.

    reply
    Not Theory.
    Sat, 2012-09-08 03:22 — Bird
    -5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Its not a conspiracy theory. Its demonstratable fact. Plus you’ve shown yourself to be mentally incompetent by implying that conspiracy doesn’t happen. This is untenable since when people wish to do bad things, they will tend to co-ordinate their actions stealthily. So I’ll have a backdown from your wrong point of view for starters.

    reply
    “Its not a conspiracy theory.
    Sat, 2012-09-08 04:16 — Phil M
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “Its not a conspiracy theory. Its demonstratable fact.”

    Then roll on with the facts then buddy, knock yourself out. So far you have produced zero facts. Anytimetime you want to replace the rhetoric with facts, we can address tese “facts” and expose this grand conspiracy.

    “So I’ll have a backdown from your wrong point of view for starters. ”

    Errrr……..hey? Oh yeah wait a minute….I got it…..er,no I don’t….hey?

    reply
    In public or with stealth?
    Sat, 2012-09-08 03:24 — Bird
    -5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Do people achieve political goals alone or in groups? When those political goals are wicked or self-serving do they use stealth or are their actions open.

    Only someone of very low IQ would not know the answer to these questions. Answering these questions honestly brings the inevitability of conspiracy into the human world.

    reply
    “Do people achieve political
    Sat, 2012-09-08 04:23 — Phil M
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “Do people achieve political goals alone or in groups? When those political goals are wicked or self-serving do they use stealth or are their actions open. ”

    Only one problem with your assertion. Thas and there are many conservative governments and politicians who not only believe in, but are acting on the science. So far, I’m not getting it, please unravel the conspiracy more for me.

    reply
    Assertion Or Question
    Sat, 2012-09-08 15:41 — Bird
    -5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Its a question and not an assertion. Its no mystery that someone who would mix up a question with an assertion would have some difficulty in reading comprehension. Its written in plain English and if you are not getting it the fault is all your own, or perhaps your parents fault. Just keep reading it and reading it and reading it and perhaps one day some sort of dim understanding may sink in.

    reply
    “Its a question and not an
    Sun, 2012-09-09 00:09 — Phil M
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “Its a question and not an assertion.”

    True, but it leads to what you are insinuating in your logical fallacy. That because people achieve politcal goals in groups, global warming is a political hoax.

    Like I say, there are those on all sides of the political fence (except mayne Libertarian nut jobs) that agree with the theory. You fail, I’m sorry to break that to you.

    That shipment of fail you ordered last week must be just about there at your house.

    reply
    Lying
    Sun, 2012-09-09 00:15 — Bird
    -5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    I never committed a logical fallacy. I never said what you claimed I said. Thats just you lying.

    Briefly, the global warming fraud is a known racket for two main reasons:

    I There is co-ordinated international misinformation in its favour

    and

    II There is absolutely no evidence which could justify its goals. This after multi-billions wasted and many years having gone by.

    Elsewhere I’ve listed the three propositions that you would need to find evidence for to justify the movement.

    reply
    “There is co-ordinated
    Sun, 2012-09-09 02:33 — Phil M
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “There is co-ordinated international misinformation in its favour”

    For the benefit of whom? Co-ordinated by who?

    “There is absolutely no evidence which could justify its goals.”

    For those with paranoid political confirmation bias problems….no.

    reply
    Demented
    Sun, 2012-09-09 02:58 — Bird
    -5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Good Lord you must be demented. That you have evidence of international collusion doesn’t tell you the names and the addresses of the culprits!!!!! Look I just go with the evidence. I lack your gifts of second sight. If I see clear and incontrovertible evidence of international collusion, I don’t go into a state of zen and divine, out of thin air, the names and the addresses of the people most culpable for it. Were you looking for their names and addresses? Don’t you know what a conspiracy is? A conspiracy is where they won’t tell you their names, motives, addresses and so forth.

    I can certainly speculate about the nature of the networks doing this. I can certainly speculate on their motives. But the evidence only tells me directly the top down nature of this fraud and its international co-ordination. The main evidence for the conspiracy is the lack of evidence for the movement. The movement is an evidence free zone. But the more direct evidence includes this business with the US geological society.

    Now we have the US geological society lying about the level of underwater volcanic CO2 output. And we have the UK geological society lying and using the same excuse. So we assume international co-ordination. Did I claim to be a full-time investigator? I’d have to drop my day job, leave my family, and start looking for the money-trail and the trail of appointments to a string of government organizations.

    In general we see that the shadow government appears to have come out of the union of fractional reserve …. with central banking … and with covert operations. Retrospectively we can see that this was always going to happen. Once you tolerate fractional reserve “all else follows with complete certainty, even in the midst of chaos.”

    The networks that control this nexus are really the only crowd who can carry out major conspiracies in the Western World. Whereas there may seem to be many conspiracies, and six plots before breakfast, the reality is that there is only one conspiracy. Because there is only one network able to carry all these various activities off. The Mother of all conspiracies came with the meeting on Jekyll Island in 1910. Wherein all these financiers with a London connection conspired against the American public.

    If you should ever doubt the reality of conspiracy then read up on the meeting at Jekyll island. You might have to read it each time this demented denial of conspiracy closes in on you.

    reply
    “That you have evidence of
    Sun, 2012-09-09 03:34 — Phil M
    3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “That you have evidence of international collusion ”

    But i don’t have any evidence of that. You supposedly do, but of course, you can’t tell us who it is:

    “doesn’t tell you the names and the addresses of the culprits!!!!!”

    Hilarious.

    “If I see clear and incontrovertible evidence of international collusion, I don’t go into a state of zen and divine, out of thin air, the names and the addresses of the people most culpable for it.”

    No of course not. It makes it hard when there is none. Just one, anyone?

    “Were you looking for their names and addresses?”

    Can’t imagine why I would need to.

    “Don’t you know what a conspiracy is? A conspiracy is where they won’t tell you their names, motives, addresses and so forth.”

    This just keeps getting funnier. Although, i feel a little sorry for you. There are good mental health wards and medicine for your illness, just sayin. Ok, if you can’t supply a name, supply the names of the institutions or who they belong to these people.

    “I can certainly speculate about the nature of the networks doing this.”

    Speculate away.

    “I can certainly speculate on their motives.”

    I have the popcorn waiting, bring on the entertainment.

    “But the evidence only tells me directly the top down nature of this fraud and its international co-ordination.”

    Oh yeah, the one you don’t know any names of or who is invloved? Convenient.

    “The main evidence for the conspiracy is the lack of evidence for the movement. The movement is an evidence free zone.”

    You do realise that the IPCC’s AR4 has several thousand references in it don’t you?

    “Now we have the US geological society lying about the level of underwater volcanic CO2 output.”

    Again, provide the citation.

    ” Did I claim to be a full-time investigator?”

    Did anyone ask if you were?

    “The networks that control this nexus are really the only crowd who can carry out major conspiracies in the Western World.”

    You do realise that America is not the only country in the world don’t you? And that there are many countries that are hostile towards America? How embracive do you think they will be of the idea of these guys running the show or calling the shots?

    reply
    Backdown
    Sat, 2012-09-08 03:26 — Bird
    -4
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Do we have a backdown on the reality of conspiracy in human life? Or are we going to wait for the backdown on this particularly acute form of idiocy that you are displaying?

    reply
    “Do we have a backdown on the
    Sat, 2012-09-08 04:31 — Phil M
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “Do we have a backdown on the reality of conspiracy in human life?”

    I thought by your opening comment, that you understood that correlation does not imply causation. So conspiracies have existed before in the past, therfore every contentious event is a conspiracy?

    reply
    No
    Sat, 2012-09-08 15:45 — Bird
    -4
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Therefore you attempt not to be an idiot and pretend that conspiracies aren’t happening in the face of evidence that implies conspiracy. Like the Hadley leaks for example. That proved conspiracy to mislead the public. Its really that simple. We don’t deny conspiracy when its manifest or even when its likely. The bankers have ramped up their stealing of the US and EU country public since 2008. This is a conspiracy. Its doing wicked things, and the preparation to carry out this massive crime wasn’t done all out in the open. Since conspiracies are in fact normal, the study and the thread are ridiculous.

    We have a “tone of voice” argument. Which is no argument at all. The argument seems to be “ha ha there is no such thing as conspiracy”… But the dopey UNskeptics who think what they are told won’t spit it out what their argument is. Since they have none and hate evidence.

    reply
    Fatal Flaw
    Sat, 2012-09-08 03:33 — Bird
    -5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Here we have a fatal flaw with the study and with the thread. Since its manifest that conspiracy is a normal feature of human life, as all history, and any moments reflection demonstrates ….. then what is the point of the study, and of the thread? Are we to believe that the Senators who conspired against Ceaser did so in public? Or are we to believe that they were each required to bring their own knife and participate in the assassination? The whole thread is therefore moronic.

    reply
    “Since its manifest that
    Sat, 2012-09-08 04:44 — Phil M
    4
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “Since its manifest that conspiracy is a normal feature of human life, as all history, and any moments reflection demonstrates”

    Any more fallacious arguments you can pack in here?

    “then what is the point of the study, and of the thread? ”

    Clearly, if it was pointless, then you would not find the time to come here……and tell us it was pointless.

    “Are we to believe that the Senators who conspired against Ceaser did so in public? ”

    I get it! So therfore the moon landings were faked! Did I win? Did I win the prize?!

    “The whole thread is therefore moronic”

    Stop it, my stomach is sore from the laughing. Ahhahaha.

    reply
    Conspiracy
    Sat, 2012-09-08 15:06 — Bird
    -5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    History if full of people acting in groups and doing evil things. Its atypical of them to be planning these evil or self-serving activities publicly. Therefore conspiracy is a normal part of life and only total idiotis would use the idea that conspiracies don’t happen as an argument.

    Got it so far hey dummy? Not the sharpest tool in the shed right? Sort of got behind the others at school right?

    reply
    Conspiracy Lesson Mark II
    Sat, 2012-09-08 15:18 — Bird
    -5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Since conspiracy is established as a normal part of human life, and since we cannot see back in time, behind closed doors, or at great distances, the idea is to look for clear signs of conspirational action, if we so choose to look for evidence of conspiracies, rather then to be in denial about such evidence. This ought not be something which excites a lot of emotional irrationality from people. But those people who think Randi’s internet sewer is a beacon of good science as opposed to belly-crawling conformism…. this type of person takes an irrational approach to conspiracy. They are full of Woo these people. They are denialists. They deny the need for scientific evidence. They hate scientific evidence and the perceived need for it.

    Are they all stupid? Or are they just evil? This is a healthy argument and I encourage human beings who are real skeptics to discuss this matter in their spare time. But arguments of this sort ignore the reality that movements to do wicked things are made up of many people, some of whom are evil, some of whom are stupid, and when they get together they do things that are both wicked and stupid.

    In this particular case they have decided that CO2 is pollution. This is a very stupid thing to say. And its evil too since CO2 is necessary for a healthy biosphere and for life itself. They aren’t coming down on the Mercury that is released by coal companies. In fact the same type of people think its good to inject Mercury into babies and small children. Why do the (UN)skeptics think CO2 is a pollutant, and that jacking mercury into babies represents good childcare? Because they have been told to believe this and they will believe what they are told no matter how irrational the proposition is.

    reply
    Big Conspiracy
    Sat, 2012-09-08 15:35 — Bird
    -3
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    Here is incontrovertible proof that at the top there is conspirational action going on. The US Geological survey claimed that above ground CO2 release from volcanos was about the same as undersea volcanic release of CO2. Then you go to the British version of that sort of bureaucracy and they are lying in exactly the same way. Using the 1990 study. Or at least they were both lying in identical ways.

    This movement is not without international co-ordination. Likewise with Goddard. Goddard was busted rigging the data. But then NOAA and Hadley were producing similar graphs. So they had to be lying too. We knew that they had to be lying as well, and in a co-ordinated way, even before the Hadley leaks further corroborated that they were rigging the data, in co-ordination with NASA (The Goddard wing). It ought not surprise us that Goddard was lying because lying is what NASA does. But its a serious matter when we have co-ordination which brings in the British as well. So this is definitely a high level shadow government project, this CO2 business.

    reply
    “Here is incontrovertible
    Sun, 2012-09-09 02:38 — Phil M
    5
    votes
    +Vote up! -Vote down!
    “Here is incontrovertible proof”

    Usually, statements like that are accompanied by some sort of citation. I can’t work out whether a) you think rhetoric and opinion is enough or b) you know your information will come from some deranged CT site and will be laughed out of the room?

    “even before the Hadley leaks further corroborated that they were rigging the data”

    You do realie that various panels exonerated Phil Jones and showed that the deniers actually couldn’t understand what they were talking about….don’t you?

    “So this is definitely a high level shadow government project, this CO2 business. ”

    Oh wow, Alex Jones etc have really done a number on you havent they?

    reply
    Pages
    1 2 3 next › last »
    Add new comment

    Your name
    Bird
    Subject

    Comment *
    Source

    FormatFontSize

    Switch to plain text editor
    Notify me when new comments are posted
    All comments Replies to my comment

    Word verification *
    (verify using audio)
    Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can’t read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.
    Search form Search

    FOLLOW US!
    SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-NEWSLETTER
    Get our Top 5 stories in your inbox weekly.

    DESMOG TIP JAR
    Help us clear the PR pollution that clouds climate science.

    DESMOGBLOG SPECIAL REPORT

    How Unconventional Gas Threatens our Water, Health, and Climate
    Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

    There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

    read more

    MOST POPULAR ITEMS
    Conservatives versus Science: A New Scientific Validation of the Republican War on Science (and Republican Brain) Thesis
    Cry Wolf: An Unethical Oil Story
    400 PPM Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Breach The Arctic
    Tar Sands in the United States: What You Need to Know
    The Science of Truthiness: Why Conservatives Deny Global Warming
    ABOUT US
    CONTACT US
    OUR COMMENT POLICY
    SEND US YOUR NEWS TIPS
    MEDIA CONTACT LIST OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERTS
    LINKS TO WEBSITES AND BLOGS WE READ
    LOGIN OR REGISTER
    DesmogBlog

    ChrisMooney_ Can market forces be harnessed to defeat truthiness? @ChrisMooney_ and @truthmarket discuss on the latest episode of @pointofinquiry
    5 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite

    readfearn @Farmer_Fran1 The link won’t open for me
    3 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite

    Steve_Horn1022 RT @UndocuBus: Returning back home to the #SB1070 fight, #Chicago Teachers’ Strike, CA #TRUSTAct, checkpoints in GA. This is why we say …
    about 1 hour ago · reply · retweet · favorite

    readfearn RT @Ha_Tanya: A wedding buffet of conspiracy theories, with climate science salad: http://t.co/kYxz67O8 thanx @readfearn
    yesterday · reply · retweet · favorite

    Join the conversation

    http://www.know-the-number.com
    Our Climate is Changing!

    Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1mwBG)

  11. I look forward to digging further of your quality content.
    Regards!

  12. Howdy! I could have sworn I’ve been to this blog before but after checking through some of the post I realized it’s new to me.
    Anyways, I’m definitely happy I found it and I’ll
    be book-marking and checking back frequently! Bless you!

  13. It is a really good read for me, Should admit that you’re one of the best bloggers I actually saw.Thanks for posting this helpful article. It’s much appreciated!

  14. Hello, It’s like you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, like you wrote the manual on it or something. I think that you can use some pictures to drive the message home a bit more, but other than that, this is excellent blog. A Good read. I’ll certainly be back.
    Cheers!

  15. Good post but I was wondering if you could
    write a litte more on this topic? I’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Thanks a lot!

  16. When people buy and sell bulk wholesale nuts, there are some handling rules
    they need to follow to keep their products fresh. The majority of ladies have many
    purses – one for this outfit or one for these colors and
    another for another color of clothe. With so many proven benefits of oil,
    every bit of its popularity is worth it.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: