Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Eugene Shubert, Mar 21, 2015.
They're the opposite of The Powers That Aren't.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
They are the ones that profit the most from scientific and religious fraud and the propaganda behind self-serving political control. Just follow the money.
So... they are the Republicans that think climate change is a lie, that "pregnancies that result from actual rape self terminate", and that teaching AP American History should be outlawed as it paints America in a bad light.
No. I said follow the money. There's far more money in conventional climate science than what is made by dissident climate scientists.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is just one group... one group that has pledged nearly a billion dollars to sway the 2016 election...
Follow the money? Okay... FOUND IT!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's a very misleading statement. The vast majority of that money goes directly to politicians, both democrats and Republicans.
I assert that you are being played in a false dichotomy. The game is the left and right against the middle. I agree with Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of Atmospheric Science, and other highly respected climatologists:
"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."
So, since the game is rolling back the industrial age versus giving what the Koch Brothers want, it's not surprising that a safe majority will go for Koch, the evil thing.
The principle recently codified into law is that all lessons depicting American heritage must be taught in a positive light, which effectively bans any material that could lead to dissent. So say goodbye to Voices of a People's History of the United States, 10th Anniversary Edition Paperback – November 11, 2014 by Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove. Henceforth, the classroom is for nothing but rote indoctrination and goberment approved political slants.
You are joking, right?
No, Future Generations are going to lament the fact that we, in the early 21st century, were too STUPID to see what we were doing, or perhaps too GREEDY to change it, as more and more of the worlds species continue to vanish.
You're willfully deceived, right? I'm all for assuming that global warming is true and that there is a sensible strategy to follow. So why not invest some time in a free education and listen to what world-renown free thinkers are saying?
I don't have time to listen to an hour long video, but a quick search about the person you posted above turned up this:
So... despite the fact that he admits to not knowing meteorology, or really having any knowledge of climate studies and weather patterns... he is attempting to say that what the models say is wrong.
In essence, this is a fallacious appeal to authority, since the "authority" in this case has no actual credible knowledge in the subject at hand.
So, explain to me why I should believe anything he (or you) says over that of people who have spent YEARS studying and analyzing this information?
Or, would you also recommend I take medical advice from an auto mechanic just because he can go on Google and look up symptoms?
Listening to one paragraph is being far more radical than exchemist, who has been told to not listen to heretics and dissidents because heretics and dissidents don't revere the holy brotherhood of goberment paid lackeys. Nevertheless, we are getting off topic. This thread is really about a distinguished professor of chemistry who only wanted to talk about science and evidence and an irate BBC reporter repeatedly insisting that the scientist speculate about a conspiracy theory.
And because exchemist sees himself as being unquestionably obedient to the established order, he had to report this topic based on his fantasies alone of what the OP might be about. That's comical.
Why would someone who does chemistry be an expert on climatology?
Dr. Niels Harrit in the OP said nothing about climatology. However, Professor Freeman Dyson is an accomplished scientist in many areas. With great humility he said:
"I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."
Why should he be considered credible? Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of Atmospheric Science, says exactly the same thing!
Exactly. Those fat-cat grad students, lighting their cigars with $100 bills, while the penniless but honorable Exxon executives are willing to go without pay or profit just to get the truth out! How the poor oil and gas companies must suffer so the PhD students throughout the country fly their private jets to their exclusive island resorts.
More appeal to authority fallacy...
I confess that I tend to respect credible dissidents above the holy brotherhood of paid lackeys and "the vast majority must be right" fallacy.
Shame you don't respect credible authority and vast swathes of evidence
Professor Niels Harrit and Professor Freeman Dyson are credible authorities and they both discuss vast swathes of evidence. Too bad that you don't have the time to listen and must therefore rely on "the vast majority must be right" fallacy.
So you'd take the word of one person who looked at it as a hobby over who-knows-how-many people who study it as their jobs?
Are you referring to Professor Niels Harrit or Professor Freeman Dyson? There's a huge professional organization of more than 2000 architects and engineers that stands behind Professor Niels Harrit. And Freeman Dyson's many awards and lifetime of work at the Institute for Advanced Studies obviously implies that many keen minds think he's credible. Now go back and listen to what Dr. Richard Lindzen says about universities being dependent on money from the goberment and therefore having to be sensitive to what politicians want.
So do you believe everything that politicians are telling you?
You obviously have great respect for the holy brotherhood of paid lackeys.
Separate names with a comma.