The Big Picture: Conspiracy Weary
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Iraq wasn't faked, just a criminally ideologically-driven clusterfuck. High-ranking officials have testified that Bush and Cheney 'pushed for war in Iraq to the point of insubordination', despite the only evidence of ties between 9/11 and the Saddam regime being the hearsay of a few shepherds, and the international intelligence community -- including the CIA itself -- telling them that there was little to no evidence that Hussein possessed WMD's.
The truth isn't Haliburton, war-for-oil, etc...it's that we were being led by a criminally retarded wack-job who epitomized that farthest far-right foreign policy agendas of the time, consisting of the exportation of democracy and war.
And as a result of the old-school-right coming to its farthest head in the Bush administration, now we have neo-cons pushing the envelope to even further extremes of batshit whackery!
The truth isn't Haliburton, war-for-oil, etc...it's that we were being led by a criminally retarded wack-job who epitomized that farthest far-right foreign policy agendas of the time, consisting of the exportation of democracy and war.
And as a result of the old-school-right coming to its farthest head in the Bush administration, now we have neo-cons pushing the envelope to even further extremes of batshit whackery!
I welcome the coming reptilian overlords with glee. Hopefully they'll make better use of this pathetic blue marble we call a world than we have.
I mean we let Jersey Shore get more than one episode. We have NO REASON to be the dominant species of this planet anymore if we're going to let that stick around.
I mean we let Jersey Shore get more than one episode. We have NO REASON to be the dominant species of this planet anymore if we're going to let that stick around.
dear bob and the escapist forums,
I have been searching around on the topic of global warming, trying to decide wither it is real or not. To me the global warming(GW) argument breaks down into 4 parts. 1) the globe is warming, 2)CO2 is increasing 3) C02 increase(2) causes warming(1) and 4) global warming is very bad.
Generally 1 and 2 are covered at a normal to fast pace, but agreed upon by both sides. part 3 is then more often than not hurriedly rushed over, relying on the incorrect assumption that correlation implies causation. Finally part 4 is overloaded, and crammed in throughout the entire video.
I've tried searching around a bit for some solid evidence on part 3, however the only people who I really see covering it in depth, are the people arguing against GW. With arguments like "the heating is taking place in the wrong area of the atmosphere", and "temperature increases before CO2"(both made by the great global warming swindle)
Now let me clarify, I am not against going green, in fact I think all the advancements towards protecting are planet are excellent.However I don't believe that we have a need to rush this,or scare people into doing it. We need to make the green way, the best way.
I also like to think that I maintain an open mind. Its not that I'm trying to shoot down GW because it gets in the way of industry, or because it makes things harder on me. I don't believe in GW because I believe that there is a a lack of conclusive evidence.Now I know there are going to be some people who want to bring forward every thing under the sun about GW.
So let it be known, I know that the globe is warming. I know that CO2 is increasing, I understand that global warming can be ban, but I don't know that CO2 causes the increase in temperature. So if you want to argue with me, and prove me wrong, the only way that I can see to do it is to prove part 3 of the argument, without correlation implies causation, because it doesn't.
I have been searching around on the topic of global warming, trying to decide wither it is real or not. To me the global warming(GW) argument breaks down into 4 parts. 1) the globe is warming, 2)CO2 is increasing 3) C02 increase(2) causes warming(1) and 4) global warming is very bad.
Generally 1 and 2 are covered at a normal to fast pace, but agreed upon by both sides. part 3 is then more often than not hurriedly rushed over, relying on the incorrect assumption that correlation implies causation. Finally part 4 is overloaded, and crammed in throughout the entire video.
I've tried searching around a bit for some solid evidence on part 3, however the only people who I really see covering it in depth, are the people arguing against GW. With arguments like "the heating is taking place in the wrong area of the atmosphere", and "temperature increases before CO2"(both made by the great global warming swindle)
Now let me clarify, I am not against going green, in fact I think all the advancements towards protecting are planet are excellent.However I don't believe that we have a need to rush this,or scare people into doing it. We need to make the green way, the best way.
I also like to think that I maintain an open mind. Its not that I'm trying to shoot down GW because it gets in the way of industry, or because it makes things harder on me. I don't believe in GW because I believe that there is a a lack of conclusive evidence.Now I know there are going to be some people who want to bring forward every thing under the sun about GW.
So let it be known, I know that the globe is warming. I know that CO2 is increasing, I understand that global warming can be ban, but I don't know that CO2 causes the increase in temperature. So if you want to argue with me, and prove me wrong, the only way that I can see to do it is to prove part 3 of the argument, without correlation implies causation, because it doesn't.
I understand being from Massachusetts that you're going to be a left-leaning guy, but the Fox News and Bush bashing is a bit old and trite, don't you think?
This.re dir said:
And remember that hole in the ozone layer? That too. Is it just easier to say "humans did it" than to actually prove otherwise? However, I have to agree with re dir on the idea that going green is good. Why be wasteful and inefficient just because you can.
Then again "selling carbon credits" is a load of shit and I dare anyone to disagree.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/re dir said:
This is a great site because it utilizes peer reviewed articles from people who actually know what they are talking about. If you don't believe in global warming, it's simply because of how complex the issue is. The story most people are told is ridiculously simplified, because not everyone is qualified enough to understand the complexities behind global warming. It's hard to do, but you have to concede that maybe people with Ph.Ds (who spend their lives studying these issues) might understand the issue just a tiny bit better than someone like you or me. I mean, hell, I've taken numerous college classes that help me understand some of the science behind it, and even then a lot of the complexity is completely over my head. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just that we can't fully understand it.
We trust doctors to tell us what is wrong with our bodies even though with our limited knowledge they could be flat-out lying to us. Why? Because they are experts in the field of medicine and we concede that they know more than us. Why are scientists treated differently in the public eye?
I know how the green house gas effect works. However if it were an increase in greenhouse gases that was causing the increased temperature then the temperature increase would start in the Troposphere. However it doesn't start in the Troposphere, it starts at the surface for the most part.arbane said:
Now this is quite a long video, and I don't expect you to go digging throught it to find bit of data pertaining to my staitments, so may I suggest you watch from 15:40 to 20:00 at the least, there is a bit more on it, but that covers what I talked about here
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#
Also, I do concede that I am far from an expert on the areas of global warming, and on most of the sciences. However for me to belive in global warming I need to see evidence of the link between them. Thanks for the website, I'll check it out more after dinner(which is happening now)
Funny video, Bob, as usual.
I never got too into conspiracy theories, or as we call it in Spain since March 11th, 2004 (our personal 9/11), "conspiranoia" ("conspiracy" + "paranoia").
If anything, I think that from time to time they are actually true, but they are full of it most of the time. And I think that's precisely what can make them scary: since most of the time they aren't true, they can go away with it when they actually are.
Personally, I am very emotionally distanced from them, so when I see a conspiracy theory I can't help but to find it very entertaining. We have to admit that well thought conspiracies have the same appeal as the best written crime novels. I think that's part of why some people find them so attractive.
For instance, I think "JFK" is a GREAT movie. But that's because I don't believe Stone's conspiracy any more that I believe the plot of "Gladiator". Yes, it is based in real events, but the plot core itself is just fiction, even if Stone believed it himself. Although I admit that the single bullet theory should rise an eyebrow... Oh, well, I better don't get into that.
In any case, it was fun.
I never got too into conspiracy theories, or as we call it in Spain since March 11th, 2004 (our personal 9/11), "conspiranoia" ("conspiracy" + "paranoia").
If anything, I think that from time to time they are actually true, but they are full of it most of the time. And I think that's precisely what can make them scary: since most of the time they aren't true, they can go away with it when they actually are.
Personally, I am very emotionally distanced from them, so when I see a conspiracy theory I can't help but to find it very entertaining. We have to admit that well thought conspiracies have the same appeal as the best written crime novels. I think that's part of why some people find them so attractive.
For instance, I think "JFK" is a GREAT movie. But that's because I don't believe Stone's conspiracy any more that I believe the plot of "Gladiator". Yes, it is based in real events, but the plot core itself is just fiction, even if Stone believed it himself. Although I admit that the single bullet theory should rise an eyebrow... Oh, well, I better don't get into that.
In any case, it was fun.