The conspiracy theorist and the pile of money

submitted by christnmusicreleases from files.catbox.moe

all 73 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (58 children)

There's conspiracy theories. That some people in a room made a plan.

And then there's grand conspiracies. Every researcher in every academic or private research institution in the world are faking climate change.

One is credible. The other is not.

[–]TheJamesRocket 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (27 children)

And then there's grand conspiracies. Every researcher in every academic or private research institution in the world are faking climate change.

A strawman attack. Almost none of the people who are labelled as 'climate change deniers' actually believe this.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (26 children)

Not exactly. I'm pointing out the difference between a plausible and implausible conspiracy theory.

That aside, the people who don't believe in climate change do most commonly deny the science by saying that the scientific community are all committing academic fraud, in my experience.

How do they approach refuting the scientific consensus in your experience?

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (18 children)

Every researcher

Bullshit.

deny the science

Bullshit.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

Precisely ... I think ...

Well, tbh, I'm having some difficulty taking your meaning.

Could you be more plain?

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (16 children)

Not all researchers agree on all things, much less to promote climate change, faked or not.

"Denialism" is extremist rhetoric to shut down discussion about things like exaggerations with the Holocaust narrative or the climate change scam and vaccine skeptics. Authentic science is about open discussion. Everything else is the "scientism" dogma a blind-faith in corrupt "experts", corporations, government, and media - all proven liars for profit$.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Not all researchers agree on all things

Agreed.

much less to promote climate change

"promote" climate change? What's that when it's research?

faked or not.

Faked?

"Denialism" is extremist rhetoric to shut down discussion about things like exaggerations with the Holocaust narrative or the climate change scam and vaccine skeptics.

It's a word to differentiate between engaging in an informed discussion and people just repeating a falsehood without legitimate evidence.

Authentic science is about open discussion.

Yeah but there's limits to how open you should be when there's large groups of amateurs demanding that the facts are wrong.

Allowing flat earthers to talk at a cartography conference is just going to waste everybody's time, and reduce the usefulness of the conference for sharing of advances in the field that have been made.

Similarly, there's no benefit in engaging in a scientific discussion people who claim that the greenhouse effect doesn't work, or that the world's not warming, or the CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

Neither is it useful to allow the discussions on vaccines to include the view that vaccines cause autism.

Nor should the WTO or united nations spend time discussing whether the world is run by lizard aliens.

all proven liars for profit$.

Certainly vaccine and climate science denialism comes from Wakefield, who had an interest in a competitor vaccine to the MMR Vaccine and by fossil fuel interests.

But not all reporting of science is manipulation of facts. And nearly no science done by mainstream academic or research institutions is dishonest. You don't progress a career in science very well by being refuted all the time.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

You're shilling like socks.

Try skepticism instead of binary language like "denialism". Be skeptical of all "facts", yours and theirs and everyones.

Vaccines ARE problematic. Pretending they aren't is absurd. Every. Single. Food. Has people who are allergic to it. Why wouldn't vaccines have the same issue? Get real.

Skepticism is not denialism. Check your words.

You don't progress a career in science very well by being refuted all the time.

You don't progress science very well by being a career yes-man all the time.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Vaccines ARE problematic. Pretending they aren't is absurd. Every. Single. Food. Has people who are allergic to it. Why wouldn't vaccines have the same issue? Get real.

People get allergic reactions sometimes. They solicit an immune response, which can bring out underlying issues and initiate an autoimmune disorder.

But they confer immunity to a disease.

None of which I denied above. What I said is that they do not cause autism.

Skepticism is not denialism. Check your words.

I'm not using them as synonyms.

Skepticism is a pro-scientific movement that I strongly support. Some of the highest profile skeptics in the world at the moment contribute to the "Science-based medicine" blog, that has many articles on vaccines. Particularly relevant is Legislatures and litigation: anti-vaxxers continue attacks on COVID mitigation

Denialism is different. It requires flatly not accepting one or many scientific truths, even after having them pointed out.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

But they confer immunity to a disease.

Allegedly. There's no shortage of professionals who are challenging the fundamental presumptions of all this "established" scientism.

Further the "vaccines" they're pushing on the populace are not even vaccines. They are experimental injections that claim to relieve symptoms. Worse is the push for them to be mandatory with absolutely no proof they work nor are effective nor that the lockdown or freedoms are remotely tied to this scamdemic.

If I don't have symptoms then I don't need relief from them. Why take a chance for nothing to gain?

Denialism is different. It requires flatly not accepting one or many scientific truths, even after having them pointed out.

It's good you recognize the difference, however there is a problem with "scientific truths".

[–]TheJamesRocket 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

You commit some hefty errors here.

That aside, the people who don't believe in climate change

The issue in question with most skeptics is not climate change in general, but anthropogenic climate change in specific.

do most commonly deny the science

Why does disagreement equal denial? Why do you conflate these two things?

by saying that the scientific community are all committing academic fraud

Making scientific mistakes is not the same as deliberate fraud. Its not uncommon for scientists to make honest mistakes.

How do they approach refuting the scientific consensus in your experience?

They do so in many different ways. One of the more credible ways they criticise the scientific consensus is by taking aim at the ruling paradigm in climate science. Of course, to understand this critique, you need to be familiar with Thomas Kuhns book on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The issue in question with most skeptics is not climate change in general, but anthropogenic climate change in specific.

Yes, that's the climate change that I'm talking about. Primarily the increase in atmospheric CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels.

The increase has been measured quite directly, and the greenhouse effect is well understood.

Why does disagreement equal denial? Why do you conflate these two things?

I don't think I'm conflating them.

Does the flat earth movement disagree that the moon is the other way up when viewed from the other hemisphere? Or do they deny it?

I would say deny is correct in that case. Similarly global warming deniers are disagreeing with the measured increase in atmospheric CO2. (Or that the optical properties of CO2 are not what we know them to be). It's a disagreement that doesn't have a rational basis.

Making scientific mistakes is not the same as deliberate fraud. Its not uncommon for scientists to make honest mistakes.

I agree with that. Depending on how you define "mistakes" they're probably more common than not making a mistake. About 80% of scientific papers on the cutting edge of a new field are refuted within 5 years. But they generally still contain information from which the knowledge of the field grows.

But we've known CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the fact that it will warm the planet has been known since the late 1800s. The cutting edge of climate science is far beyond "we're making it warmer" now.

One of the more credible ways they criticise the scientific consensus is by taking aim at the ruling paradigm in climate science.

What ruling paradigm is that?

Of course, to understand this critique, you need to be familiar with Thomas Kuhns book on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Of course.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But there is a ruling paradigm called common sense. Not much to boast about it aside from two facts:

  • It usually ain't what you expect it to be
  • it is in fact easily derived but beats some of these "common knowledge" observations.

Hence it isn't a thing one can explain. Either you have the sense for it or you haven't.

It is like with these Jedi: Either you know the Force or you don't.

Since we now are in questions of religion i don't expect an answer but thats ok.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

But there is a ruling paradigm called common sense.

Increasing greenhouse gasses increases the greenhouse effect. If you find that common sense rejects that, then your common sense is wrong.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think you got me wrong...

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ah sorry.

I'm starting to assume that everyone's a crackpot. To be fair in here it seems kind of likely.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No. Especially here it isn't. To be honest.

[–]Akali 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (25 children)

The thing is a lot of these research are building up on one another and tend to have many many assumptions. When you actually take a look at them you realise they have large margin of error which is the standard for prevision and forcast multiple decades in the future. The problem with those margin of error is that they are so gigantic that you cannot scientifically conclude anything. You can say the margin of error seem to be moving into a trend over time, but mathematically speaking you could be making a type 1 error by rejecting a true null hypothesis so theses ''studies'' are causing a clash with the scientific method.

What the pro climat change argue and they might likely be correct, altought it isn't a certainty, is that the worst case senario in these margin of error keeps happening years after years. Which as a strawman argument is quite convincing, but a margin of error is still a margin of error and history has proven many time that the past correlation don't nesserserly hold for the future.

So doing a forecast on climate change for 100 years is really at the complete opposite of what any reasonable scientis would do and is more of a mediatic show off than anything else.

Again, I'll just end this by mentionning that I believe in climate change, but that I think the main issue is overpopulation which the green media tend to simply forget. The population is growing exponentially and with each individual, their needs is following and it's not by dooming your own economy that a country will ever achieve to end climate change because they won't be adressing the main issue which is over population.

So, yes, you are correct, one is credible and the other isn't, but it's not that simple. It never is that simple.

[–]crackerjack 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

it isnt all about "climate change", but instead it is more about how the climate or environment is changing..

for the previous hundred years, we have been pumping oil out of the ground and spewing oil into the air and into the oceans and onto the ground. we have been pumping various chemicals and plastics into the oceans. the fish drink the chemicals and eat the plastics and you eat the fish.

when there is not enough water to drink, humanity will die.

one day, all of our world's rivers will look like the river in this video.

video: the world's dirtiest river

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkSXB-lRAp0

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (13 children)

Climate change is an astroturfing campaign to distract from authentic environmental issues including pollution and toxicity issues, plus it's an excuse for the Carbon Tax Scam to make the poor worse off and a few billionaires. Who doesn't want to save the world?

[–]crackerjack 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

that is nice, mr carswell..

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

It's not nice. It's propaganda that fools and distracts a lot of people.

[–]crackerjack 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

most likely the exxon valdez oil spill is simply propaganda that is intended to fool a lot of people.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

https://youtu.be/5R0a2lY6A-k

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Outrageous proof for that outrageous claim?

" Video unavailable
The uploader has not made this video available in your country. "

[–]crackerjack 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

climate change is absolutely not an astroturfing campaign.

some people, like mr carswell, seem to think that the many massive oil spills that we have had around the world dont affect our lives at all... this is all made up by scammers that want to push the fake global pollution issues...

you should take a look at the environmental damage that was caused by the exxon valdez spill, it was catastrophic.

and the british petroleum spill, of course that was a scam also..

video: british petroleum spill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iim-2KbPHcA

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Oil spills are pollution, not climate change. Do not conflate the two.

Climate change is a distraction from the real pollution issues that actually affect lives.

Oil spills have evidence. Climate change has very flawed selective computer models.

[–]crackerjack 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

mr carswell says that climate change is simply an astroturfing campaign.

watch this video and you will see mr carswell's astroturfing campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkSXB-lRAp0

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

That's pollution, not climate change.

It's okay as I once believed in climate change too. In fact it was the hardest red pill I ever swallowed. Learning about other scams was much easier.

FYI, the top result on https://DuckDuckGo.com/?q=Jason+Carswell is my IMDb page: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0141389/ where you'll see I was animation supervisor on the Dustin Hoffman narrated our climate change documentary, "Belonging" (aka "Ilauniq" the original Inuit word) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1470016/. I really liked the director's other work in 2006-2007 and it just happened that I was moving from Oakland to Victoria/Vancouver at the end of 2007 and he lived in Seattle, so we collaborated. Not only did 2008 bring rough times but sadly that documentary turned out to be weak at best. Around 2016 I actually dove into the idea that climate change could be a scam and it took me about half a year for my heart to come around to my head.

[–]crackerjack 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

That's pollution, not climate change.

yeah i know... next you will be telling me that transgender is different from being a fag.

please dont give me the red pill, i am gonna pass on that.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

If you know then why are you making that disingenuous argument?

Remain ignorant if you prefer, but until you look deeper you'll never know if you're just an unintentional liar, another disinfo tool, and shill of the establishment.

[–]crackerjack 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

new saidit forum rule: any person that disagrees with jason carswell is a shill of the establishment.

i am a bit unclear which establishment i am a shill for.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

By declining to take a red pill, by default you chose the 'normie' world and everything you say will be biased, paid or not, intentionally ignorant. Both sides of the bullshit left-right corporatocracy are pushing climate change and it will be the next existential threat after and tied into COVID hysteria - thus providing an excuse for greater tyranny.

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

🤢

[–]crackerjack 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

is that funny, airbus?

i am actually having a conversation with someone named airbus, lol..

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

the main issue is overpopulation

Hysteria, just as manufactured as the COVID and climate change scams. Instead of socially engineering fear and consumerism along with shitty education and ignorance in people they could be teaching folks how to live more fulfilling sustainable lives. Meanwhile they're telling you that it's not their systems but you are the problem and you need to behave better by buying the proper light bulb while feeding you McDonald's instead of authentic solutions like getting rid of McDonalds and centralized paradigms like our reliance on controlled energy.

They will fuck with our energy and food until we comply completely or die.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

There's a lot of climate science that's not about predicting the future.

There's temperature reconstructions from the past. There's studies noting the impacts of climate change on biological systems, including the changing timing of spring events, changes to migrations and changing species ranges. There's studies on ice mass loss, on glacier retreat, and on sea level rise. There's research into oceanic acidification, and the detection of anthropogenic CO2 as it migrates into the ocean. There's human health impact studies, there's work on changing viability of various crops, and on economic impacts.

There's some famous work looking at attribution of the current temperature rise to anthropogenic causes. But this "When you actually take a look at them you realise they have large margin of error which is the standard for prevision and forcast multiple decades in the future." claim doesn't apply to much of the climate science that's done.

so theses ''studies'' are causing a clash with the scientific method.

Yeah. Science in general clashes with the scientific method. If you're testing a new vaccine, you can apply it. But if you're investigating the nature of gravitation or uncovering how the earth has responded to climate change in the past, the scientific method isn't what happens.

but that I think the main issue is overpopulation which the green media tend to simply forget.

Partly disagree. There are problems with overpopulation. We're depleting the worlds resources. But climate change is due to the combustion of fossil fuels. That's a technology problem. We'd be doing it at a slower rate if there were fewer people, but that doesn't solve it. You need to get your energy from other places than ancient forests.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

FYI, they keep "adjusting" the past numbers.

Ice has been melting since the last ice age - that's why we're not under 2km of ice.

Change is the only constant.

There are only problems with overpopulation in centralized cities and with land exploited by centralized industries determined to exploit as much as possible for profit regardless of the impacts.

Decentralize humanity and you'll solve most problems.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

FYI, they keep "adjusting" the past numbers.

Yeah, they keep making improvements as the knowledge gets deeper.

Ice has been melting since the last ice age - that's why we're not under 2km of ice.

"Ice Age" is an awkward term. Sometimes it's used to mean "glaciation", as in the movie "Ice Age". Sometimes it means a period of time at which the earth has significant ice sheets in both poles.

The warmest part of the current interglacial (not counting the warming of the past 100 years), was about 8000 years ago. So the ice had been growing since then, overall.

Change is the only constant.

Deep. But that doesn't refute that if you stick a whole lot of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere you get more greenhouse effect.

There are only problems with overpopulation in centralized cities and with land exploited by centralized industries determined to exploit as much as possible for profit regardless of the impacts.

There are ecological problems too.

Decentralize humanity and you'll solve most problems.

Not climate change. You have to use an energy source that doesn't involve releasing carbon from an ancient era into the atmosphere.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Anthropocentric climate change is questionable. There's MUCH more coming from natural sources like volcanoes. Nature is resilient.

I've got bigger issues with factory farming, resource extraction, pollution, chemical toxicity, etc. Climate change is a distraction from those.

Importantly you must look at who is telling you to be afraid. Same liar folks as behind the scamdemic and to believe in their science, which is never settled.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Anthropocentric climate change is questionable.

It's really not. Increasing greenhouse gasses increases the greenhouse effect. It's not really rocket science.

There's MUCH more coming from natural sources like volcanoes.

Not even close. Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year..

Volcanic forcing is negative, because it is primarily the shading effect of volcanic aerosols that can be ejected into the upper atmosphere during very large eruptions.

Nature is resilient.

And yet the population sizes of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles have seen an alarming average drop of 68% since 1970..

Importantly you must look at who is telling you to be afraid. Same liar folks as behind the scamdemic and to believe in their science, which is never settled.

Academics from a wide range of organisations across a wide range of fields in a wide range of countries. It's not plausible that they're lying. And I can understand the physics, and can tell you that they're not with respect to the current global warming being anthropogenic.

Who is encouraging you to destroy the ecosystems of the planet? The same liar folks behind the fossil fuel industry campaigns.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's not really rocket science.

Actually the climate is faaaaaar more complex that rocket science. I designed and built rockets as a child. My teacher thought I was odd because rather than go play at recess I would draw rockets with internal schematics.

There's MUCH more coming from natural sources like volcanoes.

Not even close.

You and whatever selective sources you may have are full of shit.

Back to your greenhouse gasses, besides the methane that humanity is releasing there's an abundance of it naturally and methane among other gasses are FAR more problematic than the natural carbon dioxide (((they))) want us all to fear.

Nature is resilient.

And yet the population sizes of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles have seen an alarming average drop of 68% since 1970.

I didn't say wildlife was man-proof.

Yes, among many other things, dead oceans by 2050 is a serious fucking problem that climate change is distracting us from.

It's not plausible that they're lying.

LOL

Their grants and paychecks depend upon them not choosing to be skeptical and to not stand up to authority.

And I can understand the physics

I understand shills too.

Who is encouraging you to destroy the ecosystems of the planet? The same liar folks behind the fossil fuel industry campaigns.

Those are the same liar folks who have FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE over ever aspect of our lives, industry, supply, security, media, government, banking, etc, etc, etc.

They are the ones who tell you that we need to change a lightbulb to save the world. They blame the individual instead of the entire rigged system that externalize for profits, pollute, and drive our consumerist culture.

We must change the culture and change the systems. Start by rejecting their bullshit first.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even if sme denies man-made climate change there obviously is a steady and continuous increase in climate volatility.

E.g. :

  • The number of hurricanes in the western hemisphere set a new record in 2020. Again

  • Two so-called century-floods in Eastern Germany in less than 20 years

  • Peat burning for months near Moscow, because of perma-frost unknown until lately.

  • New South Wales burns in 2019 and then gets a disastrous flood in 2020. Both for weeks.

  • Deep soil drought in Central Europe increasing (even though there were floods) . The soil in Poland e.g. became so dry in the last few years that it seems almost impossible to recover the loss in crop yields. Ever

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's a hivemind. They just have to be on the same page, not just meeting in a castle during a thunderstorm.

One of the most damning reveals from the climategate scandal was a participant who said of a journalist: "he'll know what to do without asking." And that's what it's about.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's a hivemind.

Not in the case of climate science. There's way too many independent fields from which it is studied.

Planetary science, geophysics, optics and thermodynamics, atmospheric physics and weather modelling, paleontology, ecology, phenology, oceanic physics and a lot of biology.

One of the most damning reveals from the climategate scandal was a participant who said of a journalist: "he'll know what to do without asking." And that's what it's about.

That doesn't read as remotely damning to me. But all the "scandals" that I heard about from "climategate" at the time needed to be taken way out of context to be considered a "scandal". Basically a few of the usual suspect trying to cause a storm in a teacup, with some success in the biosphere. But not if you looked at it.

What do you think is "damning" about that?

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not in the case of climate science. There's way too many independent fields from which it is studied.

That's the way a hivemind works. People do what needs to be done without being told. Think of the Linux project, same thing.

That doesn't read as remotely damning to me.

It means they were conspiring to create a panic with the goal of large-scale left-wing social change. Remember Kilimanjaro was going to have no snow on it by 2015? 2007: act now, we only have 8 years to reverse climate change! Oops it's too late already. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/may/05/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment

If leftists really thought that man made climate change is the biggest existential threat to the world they would not be in favor of people from the lowest carbon per capita producing countries immigrating to the the highest carbon per capita producing countries. Why would anyone turn a low energy consuming person, and their future children, into high energy consuming ones? The future of the world is at stake!

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's the way a hivemind works. People do what needs to be done without being told. Think of the Linux project, same thing.

Okay.

1) What's your problem with Linux?

2) People working on the same project communicate. People studying in different fields in different languages and in different countries don't always.

It means they were conspiring to create a panic with the goal of large-scale left-wing social change.

No it doesn't. It means that they had a reporter who understood scientific press releases without having to be spoon fed.

Remember Kilimanjaro was going to have no snow on it by 2015?

No, I don't recall that.

Do you recall how the increasing CO2 was going to lead to an increase in global mean surface temperture.

It certainly seems to be panning out as predicted

Which is more key to global warming? The warming of the globe or the ice cover on a particular 0.0007% of the globe?

If leftists really thought that man made climate change is the biggest existential threat to the world they would not be in favor of people from the lowest carbon per capita producing countries immigrating to the the highest carbon per capita producing countries.

Wouldn't they merely be in favour of transitioning to sources of power that aren't fossil fuels?

[–]christnmusicreleases[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Or you could always ask, "Would telling the judge he's a conspiracy theorist be a good defense against charges of conspiracy to commit murder?"

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Is it a conspiracy that only people who believe in authority with a belief they know better willing to force their views on others become judges? All systems are rigged, via conspiracies and bad habits.

[–]filbs111 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The safe option is pile A, which contains about £240k, but since human history wasn't explicitly specified, pile B could contain nothing or £260 billion.

[–]Sendnoodles 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

It's not that I don't believe in conspiracies, as this post rightly points out, the powerful have been doing throughout history. I just don't believe the current popular conspiracy theories.

The government spying on everyone is plausible, the government hiding proof of intelligent life outside of earth is plausible, the powerful secretly running the world through financial manipulation is plausible. The greatest philanthropist in human history secretly conspiring with baby eating Jews to create a fake disease in order to force people into taking a fake vaccine that implants microchips that make you go into the basement of pizza restaurants and rape children who implant thought control into your mind to make you believe the earth is round so you won't vote Trump because the democrats are secret subterranean reptoids.......not as plausible.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (8 children)

That long Q-tard wet-dream you very easily said is "not as plausible" is not what most people here believe. Go to thedonald if you want that shit. You can't just combine crazed ideas like flat-earth with normal issues like powerful globalist pedophiles.

[–]Sendnoodles 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I see people making claims like that all the time. This site is full of Q-tards.

This is one of the top posts on the site right now

https://saidit.net/s/technology/comments/7ww1/the_coverup_continues_the_truth_about_bill_gates/

https://saidit.net/s/conspiracy/comments/7wvt/whitney_webb_now_from_wales_uk_explains_the

https://saidit.net/s/politics/comments/7wyi/will_president_trump_return_to_the_oval_office/

https://saidit.net/s/technology/comments/7wtd/the_original_coincidence_detector/

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Did you even watch the Whitney Webb video or read her article? What beef have you with her content?
The Hagmann Report with 2 votes is a "top post"?

You seem as phony as socks.

[–]RightousBob 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Socks, sendnoodles, and actuallynot are all bad actors. If they are paid to do this, their employer is a bigger moron than them as their motives are easily deduced. Shills, each one of them.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

We know that but all they have to do is sew doubt in the minds of newbies and random readers.

What's truly scary is that there are people like them that are not paid to do this shit. They actually need authority and their lies.

[–]Sendnoodles 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Anything that starts with "The Truth About Bill Gates" isn't not going to be some conspiracy theory bs.

The Hagmann Report with 2 votes is a "top post"?

It's on the front page like 5 links down from the top.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Double negative.

Do you even know what a conspiracy is?

Bill Gates didn't accidentally make billion$. Everything is planned. It IS a conspiracy, and it's not secret.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

lol, two of those are from the carnold dude, who is hilarious, another one is from christianmusicreleases, who is also hilarious. Low hanging fruit, man.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

^

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Your pejorative bullshit doesn't make some of it less true. For a contextual understanding read this https://infogalactic.com/info/Pedophocracy and watch these https://saidit.net/s/CriticalThoughts/comments/7f6v/Dr_David_James_Carswell_my_father_died_of_COVID/ryxb, then come back with questions.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Could you cite that last theory? You made it up.