Want to see how easily you could be squished like a cockroach?
- Thread starter Kiopa_Matt
- Start date
You know I don't think you're contributing much either, although one of your posts did make me think quite a bit. I'm sorry you're all hot and bothered.
Tell you what buzzy: you temporarily suspend your position on the issue. Come back to this thread and post cliff notes of the following:
- Who founded the Club of Rome and what their 1991 publication stated on uniting the world under a threat of global warming
- Who Maurice Strong is and what his historical and current connections to the issue are
- What Al Gore's relationships to the Chicago Climate Exchange, smart grid contracts and Obama green stimulus monies consist of
- How much turnover carbon trading sees annually
- How much funding has gone to global warming in the last decade
- The major proposals of waxman markey
Til then I'll stop posting bro. Please PM me when I can post again.
In these circumstances, with such clear evidence supporting AGW simultaneously derived in different countries around the world, there is simply no way that 30% to 50% of them could be involved in quackery though.
What you're trying to suggest is too big a jump again, like I said before.
Please look up at my post above, think about it, and answer the question. Only then can we proceed on a common ground that doesn't make huge assumptions.
Can't we all just get along and sing Kumbaya around a big tire fire? I'll bring the Pabst and tequila.
Have you read any of the documents exposed during Climategate? Of course, they're not all on the take. Peer review is very much like an in-group. Go along with your "peers" research and you'll have an easier life and access to funding. Rock the boat and you're bound to find yourself without funding and ostracized. In some cases, your opposition will brand you as a "denier." It's an unscientific term but that doesn't stop scientists from using it. Dr Duesberg has been branded an HIV denier.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-FB9-h1eFA]Faces of Berkeley: Professor Duesberg elaborates on his controversial HIV theory - YouTube[/ame]
EXACTLY. Think about that for a minute.
If someone doesn't make a serious attempt to answer my question then I'm outta here and I'll never return to an AGW thread again. There'd be no point.
Why worry so much? You can't do anything about anything until you accumulate enough power.
So just enjoy life and build up that power big cat!
Warren Buffet doesn't have the kind of power it would take. No one person does, in fact.
I'm not worrying per se, just spreading ideas... You can't kill ideas, and eventually the power will be there if enough accept and act on those ideas.
Damn you newbie.
You totally ruined my "ITT Lukep argues against Government conspiracies" opportunity.
In all seriousness, I don't research this enough to have a real opinion. And if I had one it wouldn't matter, I'm not a big fan of worrying about shit I can't control (which may surprise some people who read my thoughts in other posts).
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JDjz3-Q4v0]Art Bell and Whitley Strieber Today Show Interview 2000 - YouTube[/ame]
Art Bell and Whitley Strieber, while they are not too much like Alex Jones, the "conspiracy theorist" label can be applied to them and they both reached levels of fame higher than Jones.
The position of them and many conspiracy people of the time was that global warming posed even more danger than what scientists were telling us and that the government and oil companies were in cahoots to downplay the dangers even further.
If you think about it, when it comes to many topics dealing with potential dangers, such as with putting fluoride in water, the standard conspiracy response is to be much more worried about it than the government, scientists, or mainstream media.
After Al Gore became the poster child for global warming, it widened the opposite government conspiracy niche.