US Suggested ban on conspiracy theories

[hutch]

You forgot the WMD conspiracy.

 

Mainly for Iraq, they had to bring 3 of their own buildings down to create the "WAR ON TERROR".....

How else do you convince a population to allow this?

For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

The actual spend looks even worse here..

http://www.usgovernm....html#usgs30230

How many people die in the US each year from heart attacks? How many people die each year in the US from terrorist attacks?

How many corporations in the US, and around the world for that matter have made gazillions of dollars out of bombing the shit out of people and then "re-building" their shattered lives? How many Gazillions of dollars does the world bank/US federal reserve then loan out to these countries that they will never be able to repay? How many of those countries now indebted to the world banks are bust.

How many of those countries have allowed things to happen within their country because they can't pay off the debt?

I love this conspiracy stuff...I could see why they wouldn't want the public being told the TRUTH...It is out there....

[hutch]

alright, all of you, out of the thread

if you're not on discussion let the thread die

kthanks

bye

 

Man...Woody and I saved your thread We are talking conspiracy even if you can't see it. I accuse him of conspiring and he does the same to me... But, if thats what you want....I will start a conspiracy thread of my own....your welcome to drop by...

[WoodDragon]

WD it doesn't work like this, haven't you read 1984? [written in 1949]

I first read it in 1982. I am intimately acquainted with the book.

However, Western science is not structured as many here seem to think, and it certainly is not controlled from "the top". Those who think this have obviously never worked in real science, or had even any passing experience of it. All hypotheses and data challenged by experimentation and re-experimentation, and there are no directives or expectations broadcast from On High that dictate the results. I can tell you this from first-hand experience, because I have stood in front of company boards and told them that their experimental products did not have the clinical effect that they had hoped for. No one told me to say otherwise; we simply did the experimental trials, analysed the data, and reported the results. As I have done time and again in non-commercial settings.

The scientific method is objective, impartial, and often cruel to people pushing a barrow, but it certainly isn't controlled by a puppeteer. Where hypotheses and data are incorrect, these discreptancies are enthusiastically reported and themselves tested. If the discrepancies are proved, the literature is corrected and science moves on.

Of course, the process is obscured by the involvement of privatised research. In spite of my own experiences, and of those of most organisations, some commercial companies are nevertheless notorious for 'leaning' on their employees, or not allowing their unpressured research to see the light of day. Think tobacco, asbestos, and pharmaceuticals amongst others. The common thread here is the commercial imperative, where real science threatens the profitability of the vested interests. And in every case it is left to impartial, non-commercial science, and nearly always public science, to pursue and correct the commercial bastardisation of the traditional scientific method.

The same thing is happening with climate science. Fossil fuel interested are desperately trying to delay the introduction of effective carbon emissions because every day that they delay such is another day where the industry makes a billion dollars profit. Get that? One thousand million dollars. Every day.

This is not to say that mainstream science has no rogue players in its ranks. It does, just like any other field of human endeavour, and I've pointed this out in posts elsewhere. But these rogues are always caught in the process of checking and rechecking that is inherent in the scientific method. If the discipline is an active one, they'll be caught quickly; if it is an obscure area, scientific misbehaviour can linger for years before being caught. But they're always caught, and innocent errors are also found and addressed.

I would ask again - if there is a conspiracy in climate science, how and where is it occurring? How is it manifesting? If it is not possible to identify the answers to these questions, how then is it that people know that a conspiracy exists in the first place?

Or is it simply the inherent irrefutability of a 'good' conspiracy theory... that it can't be proved because it's a conspiracy? If this is the answer to these questions, then don't ever expect these types of conspiracy theories to be given any credence. It's no different to saying that the world is populated by invisible fairies, but no-one can see them because they're invisible. Riiight...

And for the record 1984 was published in 1949, but the bulk of it was written in 1948.

the scientists are dependent on funding. like the scheme above shows, you only need very few on top, [f.e. Rockfellers and couple more dynasties] which by the way don't always hide their views which they try to opposed to societies.

Scientists are also amazingly competitive, and if they had a chance to so up a rival group's mistakes (or fraud) they would do so in the blink of an eye. And there are plenty of competing funding bodies that would happily fund proper research to demonstrate that the Global Conspiracy of Climate Scientists was real - if it could actually be proven!

That no fossil fuel industry or lobby has ever produced any credible science should speak volumes to the denialists of mainstream climatology. The only stuff that they produce is smear, innuendo, misrepresentation of real science, or scientific bunkum (such as G&T) that is immediately shredded in the harsh glare of real scientific scrutiny. If there was real refutation to be found, it would be standing on it's own two legs, funded by Exxen, Chevron, BP, BHP, Shell, or whomever, and it would be robustly standing up to mainstream science in a way that the media of the world could easily report.

I say again - what is the single best 'killer' challenge that the denialist side has to mainstream climatology. Where is the evidence of the conspiracy?

people and craftsmen always formed guilds. and they will protect them - yep, they will lie, conspire or even kill to protect it.

Climate science is the most intensely scrutinised scientific discipline probably of all time. No "guild" could hide the conspiracy that is ascribed to climatology. Such a conspiracy is a fairytale.

A little example of how things in this world work....

Hutch, I have no intention of disputing your examples, because whether they are real or not (and in at least some of the cases I would not be surprised if they were), the difference with respect to global warming is that the subjects are political or economic.

With climate change the subject is scientific. The responses are political and economic, but these don't change the reality of the science.

Political and economic interests themselves might try to change the perceived reality of the science (and they do so successfully, as this very thread attests), but as much as perceptions might be swayed, it isn't going to change the reality, and the planet will still warm, and the glaciers and ice caps will continue to melt, and the weather will change, and species and ecosystems and agriculture and fisheries will suffer... all completely regardless of what propaganda the actual climate change denialist conspiracy convinced people to swallow.

would he bury information if it showed him to be WRONG....I bet he would...

You are completely wrong, and you would lose your bet.

I would love nothing better than to have some credible evidence that showed that the concern about climatechange was misplaced. It would free me from trying to address this problem, and give me the chance to pursue solutions to so many other ecological challenges that the planet faces.

I think I read people pretty well....

If your reading of me is any example to go by, you're completely hopeless at reading people.

And regarding your list of scientists (and "scientists"...) in post #74, I have previously directed you to detailed and solid demonstrations of their errors of science. They all have had their claims and work credibly refuted.

If you don't like my sources, the internet is a big place, and it has a lot of scholarly (not conspiratorial) material that shows the same thing. All anyone has do to is get off their arses and be smart enough to find it.

But let's try the whole farce again. Pick your favourite person from that list. Pick his best paper, or claim, and let's dissect it.

The single best evidence against anthropogenic global warming. Let's have it, and let's tease it apart.

[Edit:

Spelling]

Edited March 17, 2011 by WoodDragon

[mescalito]

However, Western science is not structured as many here seem to think, and it certainly is not controlled from "the top".

Agree,it's control is monitored from way up above the top.

Western Science is biased on important issues as the past has affirmed many times over.Why is it trusted when there are so many re-calls and changes to suit the desired outcome?

If the discrepancies are proved, the literature is corrected and science moves on.

Whew that's a load off....what if the literature isn't corrected?

Job accomplished and science moves on.

But they're always caught, and innocent errors are also found and addressed.

I would ask again - if there is a conspiracy in climate science, how and where is it occurring? How is it manifesting? If it is not possible to identify the answers to these questions, how then is it that people know that a conspiracy exists in the first place?

Ummm things don't add up,people die from Vaccinations.......

Climate science is the most intensely scrutinised scientific discipline probably of all time. No "guild" could hide the conspiracy that is ascribed to climatology. Such a conspiracy is a fairytale.

Ahh the irony of the word "GUILD" LOL......ummm where's the GOLD?Why is it being hoarded? and who are the ants mining it and for what reason?

It's not worth much money-wise to those that hoard it,there's more to the story.

Political and economic interests themselves might try to change the perceived reality of the science (and they do so successfully, as this very thread attests), but as much as perceptions might be swayed, it isn't going to change the reality, and the planet will still warm, and the glaciers and ice caps will continue to melt, and the weather will change, and species and ecosystems and agriculture and fisheries will suffer... all completely regardless of what propaganda the actual climate change denialist conspiracy convinced people to swallow.

Thank God the Soothsayer can predict the future with numbers....hang on so did the Mayans,The Chinese I-Ching

You must be very gifted thus the work you carry out.One day hopefully it won't sit right for your sake.

It might be important first to understand the meaning of "Conspiracy"

http://www.thefreedi....com/conspiracy

con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)n. pl. con·spir·a·cies 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.2. A group of conspirators.3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.[Middle English conspiracie, from Anglo-Norman, probably alteration of Old French conspiration, from Latin cnsprti, cnsprtin-, from cnsprtus, past participle of cnsprre, to conspire; see conspire.]conspiracy [kənˈspɪrəsɪ]n pl -cies1. a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act, esp with political motivation; plot2. the act of making such plans in secretconspirator nconspiratorial [kənˌspɪrəˈtɔːrɪəl], conspiratory adjconspiratorially advConspiracy a body or band of conspirators, 1386.Examples: conspiracy of graces, 1580; of honesty and virtues, 1538; of things, 1691.Conspiracy hand in glove Intimately associated, on very familiar terms; closely related or connected; in cahoots, in conspiracy. Literary use of the expression dates from the late 17th century when it was properly hand and glove, a form now rarely heard. In contemporary usage the expression often carries connotations of illicit or improper association.

in cahoots In league or in partnership; in conspiracy; also to go in cahoots or cahoot with, meaning to join up with, to become partners; and go cahoots meaning to share equally. This U.S. slang expression, dating from 1829, is said to have derived from the kind of partnership that was expected of early American pioneers who shared a frontier cabin, or engaged in a joint venture. Originally, the phrase may have come from the French cahute 'cabin, hut,' although Dutch kajuit and German kajüte have also been suggested as possibilities.

Oh and you missed a couple of spelling errors

Edited March 17, 2011 by mescalito

[Magicdirt]

`

Edited May 8, 2011 by Magicdirt

[mescalito]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vSzQwv1-Y

[mescalito]

Yep I liked it LOL

Edited March 17, 2011 by mescalito

[synchromesh]

EVERY SCIENCE IS A MUTILATED OCTOPUS

Charles Fort

One measures a circle beginning anywhere.

I cannot say that truth is stranger than fiction, because i have never had acquaintance with either.

There is a continuity in all things that make classifications fictions. But all human knowledge depends upon arrangements. Then all books---scientific, theological, philosophical---are only literary.

In the explanation of coincidence there is much of laziness, and helplessness, and response to an instinctive fear that a scientific dogma will be endangered.

Almost all people of all eras are hypnotics. Their beliefs are induced beliefs. The proper authorities saw to it that the proper belief should be induced, and people behaved properly.

I think we're all bugs and mice, and are only different expressions of an all-inclusive cheese.

The fate of all explanation is to close one door only to have another fly wide open.

If nothing can be positively distinguished from anything else, there can be no positive logic, which is attempted positive distinguishment.

I believe nothing. I have shut myself away from all the rocks and wisdom of ages, and from the so-called great teachers of all time, and perhaps because of that isolation I am given to bizarre hospitalities. I shut the front door upon Christ and Einstein, and at the back door hold out a welcoming hand to little frogs and periwinkles ...

As I see myself, I represent a modernization of the old-fashioned atheist, who so sweepingly denied everything that seemed to interfere with his disbeliefs.

Every scientist who has played a part in any developing science has, as can be shown, if he's dead long enough, by comparing his views with more modern views, deceived himself ... To what degree did Haeckel doctor illustrations in his book to make a theory work out right?

The vagueness of everything---and the merging of all things into everything else, so that stories that we, or some of us, have been taking, as "absolutely proved," turned out to be only history, or merely science.

Every science is a mutilated octopus. If its tentacles were not clipped to stumps, it would feel its way into disturbing contacts. To a believer, the effect of the contemplation of a science is of being in the presence of the good, the true, and the beautiful. But what he is awed by is mutilation. To our crippled intellects, only the maimed is what we call understandable, because the unclipped ramifies into all other things. According to my aesthetics, what is meant by beautiful is symmetrical deformation.

(quotes collected by Joseph Lanz and Michael A. Hoffman II)

[mutant]

WD you're doing the exact opposite I suggested.

I don't know shit about the climatic conspiracy, except from the titles. Like usual, you are very selective in what you reply to me and the way you did it implies that I supported the climatic conspiracy, while I really don't know about it!

I will read more carefully your few general points [and not some specific conpiracy you wanna bash ], which is what I was looking for from you.

If you wanna talk some specific theme, lets do medicine, HIV, vaccines, h1n1 vaccine. Or Zyprexa, the famous antipsychotic. Or Lilly the pharma. Or Merck the vaccine pioneers.

Or the Rockfeller's. Or the Rothschilds.

Edited March 17, 2011 by mutant

[WoodDragon]

Mutant.

I think that the problem might be a language one, more than anything else.

On being selective, well, I can only respond to some of the stuff that's presented (or I'd never get away from the keyboard) so I am trying to figure out exactly what it is that people think is the conspiracy in climatology. It is those points that matter most to me.

On the medical stuff, you should know my stance by now...

1) HIV exists, it causes AIDS, and it was not manufactured by humans.

2) Vaccines do work, but they can have adverse consequences in a proportion of people. If the vaccines are made by dodgy get-rich-quick companies, they can be far below standard for any number of reasons, and definitely put people's lives at risk.

3) On any psychoactive pharmaceutical, you probably couldn't squeeze a sheet of cling-wrap between your thoughts and mine.

4) There's probably not that much difference between our thoughts on Big Pharma, probably none at all on Monsanto and Du Pont, and on any rich person whose name starts with 'R' - well, that could keep the whole forum talking for days.

[Slybacon]

, HIV,

 

There is already a huge discussion WD entered in this topic. Maybe some of your questions are already answered in that thread. Will link later

[Slybacon]

Or the Rockfeller's. Or the Rothschilds.

 

I'll give you a hint.....

You need to look past this, its not the top.

[Distracted]

I'll give you a hint.....

You need to look past this, its not the top.

 

Why did you delete your NWO thread?

[mescalito]

I'll give you a hint.....

You need to look past this, its not the top.

 

What we see as the top they think they are but are not.

Past this...once glazed and hazed Cavity Structures were harmonious and invisible.NOW they have been desecrated,mutilated and decapitated and inactivated.

"Why did you delete your NWO thread? "

Missed it but,

NWO

MON

OWN

NOW

WON

MNO is in the sequence of the current alphabet.

How far down the Rabbit Hole do you want to go?

http://www.closertog...etail/darko.htm

Say these 26 letters in their 3 forms of pronunciation and they are mostly self descriptive:

Here are the 26 letters of the English alphabet, along with their numerological meanings.

@ 2and six make 8 which is the moebius flattened out:

http://www.physlink....perts/ae401.cfm

Check out JZ and R

The letter A —

Positive: Leader. Confident. Adventurous. Determined. Enterprising. Courageous.

Negative: Arrogant.

The letter B —

Positive: Bountiful. Sensitive. Cooperative. Amicable. Needs partner. Outdoors person.

Negative: Belligerent.

The letter C —

Positive: Creative. Social. Good-humored. Extravagant. Dexterous. Orator.

Negative: Negligent.

The letter D —

Positive: Balanced. Secure. Focused. High willpower. Persevering. An authority.

Negative: Stubborn.

The letter E —

Positive: Entertaining. Independent. Freedom loving. Charming. Imaginative. Intellectual.

Negative: Unreliable.

The letter F —

Positive: Domestic. Friendly. Warm-hearted. Compassionate. Planner. Responsible.

Negative: Melancholy.

The letter G —

Positive: Purposeful. Orderly. Imaginative. Instinctive. Intuitive. Acting conventional.

Negative: Doubting.

The letter H —

Positive: Successful. A natural money maker. Business acumen. Nature lover. Self-contained.

Negative: Self-absorbed.

The letter I —

Positive: Inspirational. Genteel. Sensitive. Impulsive. Elegant. Compassionate. Humane.

Negative: Timid. Quick to anger.

The letter J —

Positive: Truthful. Helpful. Intelligent. Well-meaning. Reliable. Clever.

Negative: Lazy.

The letter K —

Positive: Vigorous. Sensitive. Strong willed. Influential. Creative. Unyielding.

Negative: Discontent.

The letter L —

Positive: Balanced. Charitable. Well-adjusted. Managerial. Kind. Intellectual.

Negative: Accident-prone.

The letter M —

Positive: Self-confident. Industrious. Courageousous. Domestic. Intuitive. Psychic.

Negative: Impatient.

The letter N —

Positive: Intuitive. Certain. Writer. Spokesperson. Communicator. Imaginative.

Negative: Covetous.

The letter O —

Positive: Patienct. Studious. Responsible. Intellectual. Community minded. Good student.

Negative: Uncontrolled emotions.

The letter P —

Positive: Shrewd. Thoughtful. Expressive. Influential. Knowledgeable. Spiritual.

Negative: Self-absorbed.

The letter Q —

Positive: Resolute. Energetic. Original. Intense. Natural leader. Enigmatic.

Negative: Boring.

The letter R —

Positive: Sees possibilities. Even-tempered. Stable. Compassionate. Tolerant. Peacemaker.

Negative: Short-tempered.

The letter S —

Positive: Strong feelings. Starter. Magnetic. Attracts money. Energetic.

Negative: Impulsive.

The letter T —

Positive: Active. Emotionally expressive. Restless. Spiritual. Strong. Determined.

Negative: Easily influenced.

The letter U —

Positive: Clever. Collector. Freedom loving. Good social reputation. Creative.

Negative: Indecisive.

The letter V —

Positive: Honest. Reliable. Loyal. Tireless. Efficient. Focussed.

Negative: Unpredictable.

The letter W —

Positive: Self-expressive. Charming. Attractive. Imaginative. Mysterious. Sociable.

Negative: Fond of taking risks.

The letter X —

Positive: Sensual. Unrestrained. Loves comfort. Pleasure quest.

Negative: Promiscuous.

The letter Y —

Positive: Dislikes restraint. Intellectual. Aesthetic. Independent. Pioneering. Enterprising.

Negative: Indecisive.

The letter Z —

Positive: Peacemaker. Trusting. Compassionate. Builder. Practical. Diplomat.

Negative: Headstrong.

Weird huh

Edited March 20, 2011 by mescalito

[Slybacon]

Why did you delete your NWO thread?

 

I never started one ????

[Distracted]

I never started one ????

 

oh nm then...

The thread went somewhere! I can't find it

I think that's a conspiracy, or i'm blind.

[mutant]

OK, cool you say we agree on all these matters, and it seems that indeed we agree on much. It's not much of language difference, but stance, phrasing, and sympathies. You accept science as the ultimate truth, while I can see science for what it is and more importantly whom it is ran by. Science CANNOT be objective for a number of reasons on various fields.

Instead of glorifying science, I glorify my own objective logic & rationalism and argue to expose the fault in glorifying science despite big brother running and funding it. That by no means say I reject science. I just promote science free of political and economical dependence.

For the record, I do believe HIV obviously exists and that it can obviously cause AIDS, but I believe it was obviously [probably?] man made by intention or mistake. You stating that it is definately NOT man made now, is interesting. Care to argue about that? You seem to be pretty certain of this. OK, how was HIV made? And how was it first introduced in people?

But if we agree so much on those subjects, f.e. pharmaceuticals, then how come are you defending science so desperately, while quite obviously scientific method cannot seal off the economic profit driving it at least in this specific corrupt field?

ALso, not only you has been involved in scientific research you know. There's always a conflict of research and fundings if there are economic profits on the opposite direction whatever the gnostic field of the research.

If you're in research in informatics/telecommunication or a variety of practical crafts/sciences, what you search / make must work and be practical, but you will work on what the funders say in every case. If you're paid by Microsoft, you obviously don't work on some platform that will render windows worthless.

Edited March 21, 2011 by mutant

[synchromesh]

If "science-based" organisations like the FDA and WHO can be bought by corporations, than who's to say that other science-based organisations can't as well?

[WoodDragon]

Mutant, my computer carked it today and I have to take my lender back in the morning, so I won't get too far into the matter now.

As far as science goes though, my defense isn't based on desperation. I am only interested in the best science, whether it is in biology, ecology, climatology, physics, or whatever else. The best science indicates that HIV is closely related to the simmian immunodeficiency virus, and that permits a non-conspiratorial explanation.

It's all about Ockham's razor, really.

[mutant]

Hey, there's no hurry dude, take your time.

well I will take the long version, the short won't do.

cause you know "simmian immunodeficiency virus" came into Mercks vaccine labs in the 50's in some monkeys.

so please say more about how HIV is definately NOT man made. And Remember I didn't shout conspiracy about this, I said it could be done by mistake too. You on the other hand said it's definately not man made. Lets hear your arguements, cause you know top biologists who know their HIV agree it was probably [some say just possibly] man made, they just don't say it aloud. And please share your ideas on how AIDS pandemic started.

By desperate I meant you're trying too hard to praise science as an institution, as if we underappreciate it or don't understand it or came from the past. But it's controversial subjects of great economic importance that are the debate's core, and in a wide range of these subject, science's infallibility has collapsed after the pressure of political and economical powers. We only discover too late, when the scandal is long forgotten. Or it passes as a mistake.

I don't know what you mean by being interested in the best science. If you mean the current consensus and the stupid stance that the current consensus is ALWAYS 'better' than alternatives, even if the consensus is totally not 'good science' and THAT is the best science, then this is exactly the core of our disagreement. A great example? Cancer therapy and attitude of medical community to cancer and alternative views in cancer. I assume you regard it as the best of science?

Lets take another example, not from medicine: Nikola Tesla , the history of electricity and direct and alternate current. Do you see a conspiracy against him and his ideas?

Edited March 21, 2011 by mutant

[mescalito]

Lets take another example, not from medicine: Nikola Tesla , the history of electricity and direct and alternate current. Do you see a conspiracy against him and his ideas?

 

Yes Yes please dig deep,it's about the suppression via ridicule and non-believers of his discoveries that's but a big part of The Ultimate Conspiracies.

Anti-Gravity devices to UFO's man, buy outs and pay offs,shut ups and death by "misadventure"

Speak to loud and you're a gonner,reflect for a while and you'll se a pattern.