Top Ten Conspiracy Theories

[Spy Bee]

Climate scientist ridicules U.N. report as junk

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/climate-scientist-ridicules-u-n-report-as-junk/#WxYeLRgtOFCTGDcE.99

David Bellamy said much the same years ago. There is evidence of desert land that has changed in to land with plant life and even forestation apparently.

[Anny Road]

I too am a fellow. Infact my next door neighbour is in he 90's and he is a fella too.

He has seen loads of stuff and recons it's either Niggers or Jews. I don't agree but he's a fella

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Climate scientist ridicules U.N. report as junk

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/climate-scientist-ridicules-u-n-report-as-junk/#WxYeLRgtOFCTGDcE.99

Some sub-taxi-driver levels of "analysis" in there.

 

The reporting of it starts with a lie - an emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics is not a "Climate scientist".  The quotes attributed to him are fuckwitted and anti-scientific in the extreme.  Piss poor journalism.

[Russ Atmosphere]

Some sub-taxi-driver levels of "analysis" in there.

 

The reporting of it starts with a lie - an emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics is not a "Climate scientist". The quotes attributed to him are fuckwitted and anti-scientific in the extreme. Piss poor journalism.

This. Why would anyone perpetuate this guy's opinions on the subject of climate change? Barrel scraping.

[Spy Bee]

To believe in climate change (specifically AGW) you have to trust those in power and believe that they have the best interests of civilians of the human race at heart. I don't.

[Spy Bee]

Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics is not a "Climate scientist"

It pretty much is. I don't think anyone actually has the job title Climate Scientist.

[General Dryness]

To believe in climate change (specifically AGW) you have to trust those in power and believe that they have the best interests of civilians of the human race at heart. I don't.

 

Same goes for most things.

[Spy Bee]

Same goes for most things.

Yeah, that's why I am a horribly cynical bastard.

[Russ Atmosphere]

To believe in climate change (specifically AGW) you have to trust those in power and believe that they have the best interests of civilians of the human race at heart. I don't.

That's probably more relevant of the people telling you not to believe in climate change. What's wrong with all the independent research on the subject anyhow, it's far more trustworthy than the rantings of some emeritus chemist. The problem is that conspiracists are the worst representers of information there are; you start with the answer and try to show how it's correct. Any scientist that has been trained properly uses all the available information to posit a theory or agree with one and then finds ways of testing it, being fully open to any outcome.

[Spy Bee]

Science is funded by people or bodies with agendas. Peer approval is flawed because if things don't fit in with the consensus they don't get published. It's a tired old argument, but basically I don't believe anything that 'they' tell us.

[Russ Atmosphere]

Science is funded by people or bodies with agendas. Peer approval is flawed because if things don't fit in with the consensus they don't get published. It's a tired old argument, but basically I don't believe anything that 'they' tell us.

They've got more chance of being both independent and correct than you though.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Whether people believe in man made climate change or not shouldn't the goal be less pollution anyway. Even for just aesthetic purposes let alone health reasons. We should strive for renewable cleaner energy and the use of energy that has less of an impact on the environment regardless of the arguement of climate change. The only way we will progress on this front is when all the profits have dried up. I'm calling for calm measures basically we get all the people who are massively profiting financially from destroying the area their business is in with no consequences to the impact it has on the environment on wildlife and the local populace and we hang them. I don't believe in the death penalty so just hang them from their underpants 40 feet up in the air for 10 hours a day everyday till they die of old age.

[setreal]

Science is funded by people or bodies with agendas. Peer approval is flawed because if things don't fit in with the consensus they don't get published. It's a tired old argument, but basically I don't believe anything that 'they' tell us.

 

This is not correct.

[Spy Bee]

This is not correct.

Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake were both shunned by the scientific community when they chose to take paths outside the mainstream. There is a 'system' in place that doesn't favour more radical ideas.

 

The point is that the media decide which studies reach the general populous, they set the agenda, and the media are controlled.

[setreal]

Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake were both shunned by the scientific community when they chose to take paths outside the mainstream. There is a 'system' in place that doesn't favour more radical ideas.

 

 

Had to look up these fellas because I didn't know them. Turns out they are "parapsychologists"? Well, what is the "scientific community" supposed to do with guys like that? They are not published in scientific journals for the same reason Young-Earthers etc are not published: because their "theories" are unscientific. (unobservable, not recreatable in a lab, no predictions possible etc) 

 

 

 

The point is that the media decide which studies reach the general populous, they set the agenda, and the media are controlled.

 

Well yes, corporate media are controlled by money And most of the money is interested in things going on as they are (Big Oil, Car-industry ,Koch bros etc) . That's why you hardly see any story on the possible effects of climate change. The numbers - escpecially from the US - are staggering. But every "study" coming out doubting the well established climate models (which is in most cases based on false quotemining or lack of scientific understanding from the journo) gets lapped up to no end.

[Spy Bee]

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no benefit in controlling people, raising taxes, restricting liberties by promoting the effects of AGW?  The big companies making big profits will continue to do so regardless. When playing Brag blind the richest man at the table always wins.

 

Radin actually uses meta-analysis so it's entirely measurable.

Anyway, I can't be arsed having this argument because I've had it time and again. I am entrenched in my view and so is everybody I have ever done this with. I'm going to the FF to laugh at Moyes.

[setreal]

Fair enough Bee. Just for the record: I was not suggesting any of the things you said, I was only suggesting what I wrote in my post.

 

And whatever it is Radin has measured with meta-analysis:  if it was scientific, everybody doing the same analysis should come to the same conclusion. Not likely, is it?

 

And now fare thee well.

[Cardie]

Some sub-taxi-driver levels of "analysis" in there.

 

The reporting of it starts with a lie - an emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics is not a "Climate scientist". The quotes attributed to him are fuckwitted and anti-scientific in the extreme. Piss poor journalism.

Conspiracy theorism 101. Always get an expert, doesn't have to be an expert in the field being discussed as long as you can say he's an expert.

 

 

[Cardie]

Fox news are always good value for climate change news. Following the snow storms on the east coast they went on about global warming and how it was proof that it was a lie because it got colder.

 

Theirs also a funny clip on YouTube where a News anchor talks to Bill Nye about pictures of a volcano on the moon. The anchor asked if the existence of a volcano on the moon somehow casts doubt on climate change science saying "It's not like we've been up there burning fossil fuels." Watching Bill Nye have to explain that the volcanoes aren't a result of burning fossil fuels is painful.

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

To believe in climate change (specifically AGW) you have to trust those in power and believe that they have the best interests of civilians of the human race at heart. I don't.

Not true.

 

You can follow the basic premise of the Greenhouse Effect, understand that Carbon Dioxide emissions enhance the Greenhouse Effect and recognise that as population and industrial activity has boomed in the last few centuries, so Carbon Dioxide emissions have rocketed.  The only way trust comes into it is if you choose to trust that the many independent measures of increased global temperatures are genuine and not part of some massive worldwide conspiracy to...err... threaten the world's petro-chemical industries.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake were both shunned by the scientific community when they chose to take paths outside the mainstream. There is a 'system' in place that doesn't favour more radical ideas.

 

The point is that the media decide which studies reach the general populous, they set the agenda, and the media are controlled.

The media decide that fuck all science reaches the public.  The mass media are shockingly bad in their consistent misrepresentation and denigration of science.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It pretty much is. I don't think anyone actually has the job title Climate Scientist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists#R

 

People do spend their careers studying the climate, y'know, in faculties devoted to climate studies, and getting their works published in peer-reviewed climate science journals, where they can be critiqued by other people whose specialised qualifications and experience entitle them to be called "climate science".

[Ginny]

Does anyone else get the feeling that some shit is about to go down? All these conspiracy theories. Every day in work and just in general I hear people talking about conspiracy theories - Rothschilds, manipulation in the media, false flag terrorist attacks, phoney wars, the royal family etc...

 

People I would never expect to be discussing these things seem to be taking a lot about this sort of thing. My Facebook and twitter feeds are alive with this sort of thing. All from really level headed people. Some shit is going down soon. It has to. The world can't sustain his level of corrupted old style system anymore.

[Spy Bee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists#R

 

People do spend their careers studying the climate, y'know, in faculties devoted to climate studies, and getting their works published in peer-reviewed climate science journals, where they can be critiqued by other people whose specialised qualifications and experience entitle them to be called "climate science".

Did I mention that I think peer-review is bullshit?

 

Anyway, I'm taking an apathetic attitude towards life at the moment, so crack on.

[Spy Bee]

Not true.

 

You can follow the basic premise of the Greenhouse Effect, understand that Carbon Dioxide emissions enhance the Greenhouse Effect and recognise that as population and industrial activity has boomed in the last few centuries, so Carbon Dioxide emissions have rocketed.  The only way trust comes into it is if you choose to trust that the many independent measures of increased global temperatures are genuine and not part of some massive worldwide conspiracy to...err... threaten the world's petro-chemical industries.

Hang on, 'warmists' don't even use the greenhouse effect model anymore! Also we've seen bloom in periods of high carbon in the past.