By MARC McDONALD
Browse any right-wing blog or listen to wingnut radio these days and you're confronted by a steady stream of angry voices denouncing "tin-foil hat" liberals and their "conspiracy theories."
The wingnuts are convinced that we liberal "conspiracy buffs" believe in some far-out things.
According to the wingnuts, we believe that Bush lied America into war. And we believe that the 2000 and 2004 elections weren't honest. And we suspect that maybe the White House puts the interests of Halliburton over the American people.
Pretty wacky stuff, huh?
The only problem is that a majority of the American people have similar questions these days. Which I guess means that America has become a land of tin-foil hat wearers.
However, there's a rich irony with the wingnuts denouncing conspiracy theories. After all, these people wrote the book on conspiracies. You won't find a more paranoid group of people in the nation.
The fact is, wingnuts believe that just about everything is part of a conspiracy these days.
Global warming is a liberal conspiracy. The media is a part of a liberal conspiracy. Iraq War opponents are part of a liberal conspiracy. Anyone who questions Bush is conspiring to harm America. And polling companies that show that Bush has a low approval rating are part of a liberal conspiracy.
According to the wingnuts, even the U.S. Navy was part of a liberal conspiracy, when it awarded John Kerry military honors that he didn't really deserve.
And the latest liberal conspiracy, according to the wingnuts, is that we're secretly working to shut down their beloved Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of wingnut radio.
This paranoid behavior on the part of the wingnuts is nothing new. In fact, it reached a fever pitch during the Clinton administration. Back then, talk radio and the wingnuts were constantly embracing every wacky anti-Clinton conspiracy that came down the pike.
According to them, Clinton conspired to "murder" Vince Foster. Clinton also murdered Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, who died in a "mysterious" plane crash. As Arkansas governor, he conspired to murder dozens of people who "knew too much." And when he wasn't busy murdering people, he was raping women left and right.
I rarely can bring myself to admit that the wingnuts do something better than the Dems. But in this case, I'll make an exception. Liberals' "conspiracy" theories are definitely no match for the wacky conspiracy theories on the Right.
And when the wingnuts aren't accusing us of far-out conspiracy theories, they're accusing of something called "Bush Derangement Syndrome."
Apparently, it seems, we hate Bush for no particular reason. And our hatred is therefore irrational. To dare suggest that maybe Bush had something to do with the fiasco in Iraq, we're guilty of a serious case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Here, again, though, the Left simply can't compare to the wingnuts, when it comes to unhinged hatred.
After all, even the fiercest progressive critics of Bush are no match for the foaming-at-the-mouth, mad-dog crazy Clinton haters of the 1990s. We're seeing a revival of these nutcases today, as they prepare to go after Hillary Clinton.
There's a big difference between the Left's hatred of Bush and the Right's hatred of Clinton, though.
We progressives hate Bush for lying America into an illegal, reckless, immoral war that has seriously damaged America's standing in the world.
By contrast, the wingnuts hated Clinton for: what, exactly? Lying about a blow job?
I mean, even the fiercest of Clinton's critics have now quietly tip-toed away from the wild charges they made against Clinton in the '90s.
Are there still wingnuts out there who really believe Clinton murdered Vince Foster? If so, they're strangely quiet about it, these days. After all, immediately after the Clinton era ended, I didn't hear another word about that crazy conspiracy from the wingnuts.
But I get the feeling that, even after the Bush era ends, there will still be many progressives who'll continue to seek answers and justice for the White House's very real crimes in the nightmarish years since 2000.
Posts
Trump And Vance Political Agenda
4 hours ago
31 comments:
Good start, but you left out the rabid "North American Union" conspiracy, authored by Corsi, one of the SwiftBoat thugs. And all of the Federal Reserve conspiracies. And even the no-plane nuttery of the 9/11 twoofers...John Birchers and others are right on board: they can't lay that one solely on the left.
It would take a book-length work to record all the conspiracy theories of the far right wing. About a decade ago I happened upon a "Christian" talk radio show on which, in between the host's rant about a conspiracy to subordinate America to the old "one-world government" (that's a classic one), a caller said he had conclusive evidence that the Clinton administration was preparing a string of detention camps for evangelical Christians. All this stuff would have been funny but for the thought that millions out there believe this stuff, to this day.
Here's a Clinton conspiracy theory that I always thought was one of the wingnuts' real toppers: That the Clintons ransacked and vandalized the Whitehouse before they left, stealing items and trashing the premises. The right has propagated that one for years.
Excellent post, man.
Hi Manifesto Joe: yes, not only do millions believe this stuff to this day, but I think we'll see a big revival of the wacky far-right conspiracy mill if Hillary gets elected.
Hi, SheaNC: thanks for stopping by and thanks for the kind words
Too many swift conspiracy theories and you've laid them down succinctly. The hypocrisy party is beginning to one up themselves.
The sad part about all this is how congress, whether Democrat or Republican continues to act against the will of the majority of Americans. Hence the Congress has a 14% approval rating currently, lower than Bush's 23%. So many people, both left and right wing, are beginning to believe the Congress is conspiring against the American people on issues like Iraq, illegal immigration -- that's still exactly what it is, this week -- and the war on the American citizen, oops, sorry, war on terror.
90% of Americans are against offering amnesty to perhaps as many as 20 million Mexicans and their families. Yet the Congress and the Senate keep trying to sneak the Amnesty bill through which will destroy American soveriegnty and legalize the SPP/NAU initiatives which are well underway. The NAU isn't coming, it's here.
Right in the amnesty bill it allows gang members and convicted felons access to this country, it provides preferential treatment for illegal migrants over American citizens for legal aid and secondary education tuition, and currently police are encouraged to not detail illegals, whereas if you look at a cop sideways now, the average American risks being tazered.
And many states are passing or are in the process of passing anti NAU legislation, and are also starting to pass laws to deal with illegal migrants, because they believe the federal government is adopting a course of action against their wishes. But they are just acting on rumours, right?
And Judicial Watch has documents from a September SPP/NAU progress meeting held in Banff Alberta in 2006 where they outlined policies like "implementation by stealth" and carbon taxes to help fund further implementation.
And what can I say about global warminmg? While our news media and military think tanks scream that global warming is the biggest threat to mankind, many serious scientific minds are pointing out that the science and models used to explain global warming are weak and manipulative. They say we have had periods like the middle ages where carbon levels were much higher on earth with no industrial activity and the world didn't burn up like a matchstick. They say normal solar cycles could account for much of what is going on, and point out that 30 years ago it was global cooling that was going to wipe us all out. Still, that story doesn't get told in the mainstream media much.
The fact of the matter is that politicians throughout the west are conspiring against their populations and acting against their best interests. They are trying to keep us frightened, compliant and controlled. They are also trying to destroy discourse on many of these issues as well, hence their push now to shut down "talk radio." They really are sick of being exposed as the corrupt and immoral hacks that they are.
In America, politicians do not work in the interests of Americans. The clearest proof of that is how Clinton nearly gets impeached for oral sex, while Bush steals two elections -- lots of people now pretty much admit that happenned --takes his country into two illegal wars -- depending on your views of what happenned on 911 -- and basically has just declared himself a dictator, yet Ms Pelosi keeps sqwuaking that impeachment is off the table. She also continues to fund Bush's war, despite a strong mandate from voters for a new direction on Iraq.
All these policies, whether implemented by left and right, seem only to tax, restrict and imprison us in a culture where the state and their partners in business own everything, and we are just feudal serfs, pawns with no power or legal protections.
Instead of examining many of these issues more deeply, all you can write about here is how anyone who believes in and "conspiracy" is clearly a right wingers are wingnuts, basically shutting down any intelligent discourse. This despite the fact that politics is basically rife with conspiracy due to its very nature.
America is in deep, deep trouble, and with it the average man on the rest of the planet. As we speak, political and business elites in this country and basically dismantling national sovreigenty in order to rewrite the rules and take basically anything and everything we have. They are moving at breakneck speed lately -- the amnesty bill being potentially fatal for America. It will serve to lower wages across this country, destroy the middle class, Balkanize large areas of the country -- there are many towns throughout America where whites and blacks are not welcome and they fly the Mexican Flag -- and create racial tensions which can then be used to justify the use of all those lovely camps Halliburton has been building. (That's just another rumour, right?)
Methinks you need to do a little homework, examine these issues dispassionately, ask if people might have a genuine concern about some of the issues you have raised.
One of the funniest conspiracy theories I ever heard was on a far, far right wing radio show somewhere in Alabama. Several years ago I drove through this state and listened to local radio along the way. The host was denouncing George Bush as a traitor to America because (drum roll) he wasn't doing anything about the hundreds of thousands of Communist Chinese troops massing in Mexico, about to invade the U.S.! Wow! I was so sorry when I drove out of range and lost the program.
All of you posters are DINGBATS--try me!--USS Liberty killings--not good enough ? Try this for size--911 wtc--falling fater than gravity speed.
So you nutbags--your exposed as zionist shills. Hello Marvin Bush-- how's your old security business in airports and tall buildings ?? Scumbag !
The "Bush hatred" yapping is a way for the right to ignore criticisms of their leader. This is exactly how cults deal with critics of their 'leaders'. Moonies use the technique quite often, though, like conservatives, the grunts in the movement have no idea what they are doing, just following the group. Anyone critical of Moon and his stated goals are just filled with hatred and can't see straight. If you are a former member who takes the time to warn others of how disgustingly deceptive the Moon organization is, then you somehow just “can't move on" and they hope you get help for "your" problem. This is, simply put, a way to ignore reality and when applied in this manner becomes a mind control technique.
Funny about how the right fears a one world government and yet they embrace Moon, and his cash, and his propaganda paper. This is the same Moon who claims to be THE Messiah, says Jesus was a failure, and who US News Report quoted as saying his goal was the “natural subjugation of the American government and population."
They don’t stop there. Conservatives worked with Moon http://tinyurl.com/398qr to tear down the wall between church and state. Moon’s plan is to gather the world’s religious under his influence in, you guessed it, a unified world theocracy.
My favorite has to be the piece of work Tim LaHaye. Now here’s a guy who has the core right rabidly on the look out for the anti-Christ. You know, beware of someone who claims to be the “savior” but is just misleading them. Yet, Timmy Lahaye not only has taken Moon’s cash and worked with him http://tinyurl.com/3rolo - LaHaye visited Moon when he was in prison for tax evasion. Now, I know what you’re thinking, “Good Christians are supposed to visit the imprisoned. It gives them a chance to witness, to ask the jailed to repent and receive the Lord.”
Well, here is Moon’s right hand man’s account of LaHaye’s prison visit with Moon:
During the drive, Dr. LaHaye said, "It is incredible what our government did to Reverend Moon, to confine Reverend Moon in this kind of place." When we got to Danbury, he met Father, who was wearing humble prison clothes. He held Father's hands and the first words Dr. LaHaye spoke were, "Reverend Moon, I apologize on behalf of my government." Mother saw that Dr. LaHaye's eyes were red and he was crying. What a beautiful union, a beautiful union of brothers, like Esau and Jacob. Father and Dr. LaHaye were embracing. [Chapter 45 Mount Danbury- Belvedere Estate - Tarrytown, New York - Feb. 3, 1985 - Bo Hi Pak - Truth is My Sword, Volume II ]
Today’s conservatism, like Bush, is a huge national security problem.
"many serious scientific minds are pointing out that the science and models used to explain global warming are weak and manipulative. They say we have had periods like the middle ages where carbon levels were much higher on earth with no industrial activity and the world didn't burn up like a matchstick."
calmbutangry, do you have any links to hard data from independent scientists to support your claim? I'm doing some personal research on this issue and it would be helpful to have a link to your sources. Personally I find the evidence for man-made global warming to be very conclusive, but I'd like to understand both sides of the issue. Thanks!
Yeah, the Bilderburg Group is pure imagination. David Rockefeller and CFR luminaries haven't openly declared that US sovereignty must be weakened. The Federal Reserve is not privately owned and does not charge interest to the Treasury.
Thanks for clearing all that up for me. I feel much better, so I guess I'll go see what's on TV.
calmbutangry,
CO2 levels were not much higher in the Middle Ages. The warming then was probably due to increased output from the sun, but I've never seen a definitive statement on that. Please don't underestimate the dangers of climate change. It's just starting and will go on for at least 50 years after we stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And that's not going to happen.
Sorry, I realised I lost track of the real argument. It is really amazing that these right wing nuts can pump out this absolute garbage while the people who know that 2000, 2004 elections were stolen and that 9/11 was an inside job and have massive evidence to back these statements up, are utterly ignored by the MSM. Driving fast, like Thelma and Louise - right for the cliff. But they knew what they were doing.
Happy to oblige ...
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=856
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=5732731
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05262007.html
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=866
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_21b7mdJz2M&mode=related&search
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-5-31/55920.html
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html
This should give you a good cross section of initial perspectives you are interested in, but it is by no means extensive. I also encourage you to view The Great Global Warming Swindle produced by BBC 4. I am sure you could dig that up online quite easily.
Just as the War on Terror starts to lose its power, low and behold we have this new crisis to get everyone focussed on. But the facts just don't line up, so you have to wonder why this idea is being pushed son hard.
And dear endtime Charlie...
I agree that there are serious environmental issues, and that we need to address them, but in my mind a carbon tax is just that, another tax and I am not convinced it will clean the air in any way shape or form. I believe it will simply be used to create new levels of government that create further layers of restriction and mobility in our day to day life. This is based on my observation of how government works and how these types of issues are used to manipulate populations.
You are wrong about the carbon levels of the middle ages, references to that fact may be in one of the numerous links I just posted. That fact is central to some of these arguements because it makes the hockey stick that Gore emphasizes quite insignificant by comparison.
Again, do your homework to ensure your opinions are supported by fact. I understand it is easier to simply label others who disagree with you as wackjobs and misfits, but make sure you can back your arguements or else you really don't know the truth. And remember that ultimately it will be the truth, not your opinions, that sets you free.
I am sorry my views don't line up neatly with yours, but those links I provided to the other open minded individual might be of interest to you as well, unless of course your mind is already made up, in which case you are welcome to be disappointed with me.
In my research into this topic, which I believe has been pretty broad, I have reached the conclusion that one of the reasons this topic gets so much coverage -- as opposed to numerous other stories that should be receiving coverage such as the criminal behavior of the Bush administration -- is because it gives governments another stick to beat us with. If the science added up, my opinion would be different.
calmbutangry, thank you for your reply.
I have only gotten so far researching those links, but already I am suspicious- now, my intent isn't to derail the topic here, but if you will allow me to present this one point that represents my frustration with finding credible independant science that not only contradicts the findings in 'An Inconvenient Truth' but that is also credible. 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', for example, uses Paul Reiter as an expert. Within seconds, I was able to find this information about Mr. Reiter:
Reiter, the Annapolis Centre and Exxon
Reiter sits on the "Scientific and Economic Advisory Council" of an organization called the "Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy. " The Annapolis Centre is a US think tank that has received $763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil and has been very active in playing down the human contribution to global warming. According to a January 16, 1997 Wall Street Journal article, the Annapolis Center was at one time largely funded by the National Association of Manufacturers, one of the largest industry associations in North America.
Reiter, Tech Central Station and Exxon
Reiter is listed as an author for Tech Central Station daily (TCS), an organization that until very recently was owned and operated by a Republican lobby firm called DCI Group.
Research background
According to a search of 22,000 academic journals Reiter has published over 30 pieces of original research in peer-reviewed journals mainly on the subject of infectous disease, with some work on the relationship between disease and climate change. Rieter is currently a researcher with a private research foundation called the Institut Pastuer in Paris, France.
calmbutangry, this is the kind of skeptic-based agenda driven 'science' that I am finding behind every rock that I am looking under in my search to find credible science that contradicts the evidence for man-made GW. I do have an open mind about this, but I am trying to find 'clean', non skeptic REAL independent science that cannot be linked to Big Oil or Big Energy funding. I do appreciate your time, though, and I will continue to go through the links you provided.
Dear Jeremy,
I echo your frustration, in that despite the fact that there are numerous scientists who may echo the perspectives of a Mr. Reiter, whose specific statements about this issue I am not familiar with, who are centered in various places around the world and who have a variety of backgrounds, people seeking to dispute some of the arguments glop onto one individual or perspective on an issue, seek to discredit that individual or perspective and then claim by extension that the whole arguement is without merit because we have proven that person X or perspective X is biased. But I caution you, one does not necessarily prove the other.
You took less than one hour to fashion a response to all the articles and materials I posted, including a recommendation to view a 45 minute documentary. It is hard for you to seriously argue you thoroughly reviewed all the materials. Respectfully I contend that you have a bias going in, and that your real intent was to discredit what I have provided you. Again, the truth, not your opinions, are what will set you free.
The fact of the matter is that big oil has come out rather strangely in favor of carbon taxes, mostly I am sure because they know they will never be impacted. So the fact that this individual's work is supported by Exxon means nothing. It's all a bit of a shell game, theatre to keep us all distracted.
Don't believe me, don't believe anyone, but realize the people pushing the global warming issue may have agendas themselves they aren't communicating, for example research grants to prove global warming or business grants to develop technologies to help battle global warming. But the laws of physics and common sense don't lie. Drop the need to understand the agendas and start looking at the facts dispassionately. I think you will be surprized.
Anyway, I am fully prepared to back up any arguments I make, and you should be too.
Thank you for this post.Of all the conspiracy theories the left is accused of indulging in,the one that annoys me the most is the notion that we simply hate Bush "for no reason".This is the one most fondly embraced by "serious" mainstream commentators.They like to ponder this question in round table forums,sitting with legs crossed hashing it out in a very scholarly way.As if the question is a real "head scratcher" a real "poser".Its just so inherently disingenuous given that these are always the same folks who to this very day hate Clinton with a passion that can only be described as un-healthy at best.
I posted two comments two hours ago. Are you actually there? What the hell are you on about?
Hello, Calmbutangry.
Thanks for stopping by. I haven't really had a chance to do much in-depth reading on global warming.
I noticed you said this:
>>>many serious scientific minds
>>>are pointing out that the
>>>science and models used to
>>>explain global warming are weak
>>>and manipulative.
One problem I see in this issue is that anyone can basically declare themselves a "scientist" or an "expert."
But in scientific circles, you're not taken seriously unless your work has been peer-reviewed.
It is my understanding that thousands of global-warming-is-real-and-caused-by-humans articles have have been peer-reviewed.
Not one article challenging this has ever successfully stood a peer review, from what I've read.
I try to keep any open mind on this and all issues. And, as I mentioned, I'm not that well-read in global warming literature. (Just keeping up with Bush's crimes consumes most of my reading time these days).
But it seems to me that the peer review issue alone that I described above would indicate that global warming is indeed real and caused by humans.
I guess the thing that angers me the most in the global warming debate is Bush's assertion that we "need to further study the issue."
The fact is, Bush doesn't give a f*cking sh*t about the science. His position on global warming is ENTIRELY dictated to him by Big Oil and the rest of the corporations that funded his election campaigns in the first place.
calmbutangry,
"You took less than one hour to fashion a response to all the articles and materials I posted, including a recommendation to view a 45 minute documentary. It is hard for you to seriously argue you thoroughly reviewed all the materials."
I did state that I posted after only few initial observations and I would continue to review all of your links.
I also admitted that I agree with the findings of the established science, that man-made GW is real. Now, my intent is not to discredit- but to learn. That's why I asked you for sources, because I want to be knowledgable as possible on this subject.
Now, first and foremost- If man-made GW is a hoax, what would be the motivations of these scientists to commit science fraud? You contend that:
"the people pushing the global warming issue may have agendas themselves they aren't communicating, for example research grants to prove global warming or business grants to develop technologies to help battle global warming"
Do you have any documentation of science fraud on the part of climatologists who have concluded that man-made GW is real? Is there a funding crisis in the science community for climatologists to have to resort to fraud? If you believe so- and you have stated that you are prepared to back up your arguments- you should have some credible documentation to substantiate that audacious of a claim.
Now I want to address this statement that you made:
"the fact that this individual's (Paul Reiter's) work is supported by Exxon means nothing"
ExxonMobil is actively disseminating all manner of anti-man-made GW propaganda. Logically, wouldn't a member of an organization that is funded by ExxonMobil inherently not be a credible, objective expert? As someone researching this issue for myself, it's obvious to me that I should not take seriously a source that can be traced to Big Oil. For me, his presence in that documentary raises serious concerns as to it's legitimacy. If that documentary is in fact a transparent, objective rebuttal of AIT and does in fact present legitimate science contradicting the scientific evidence for man-made GW, then the documentarists should have been damn sure not to have experts who are funded by ExxonMobil so that it's completely bulletproof. It's just common sense to me.
While on the subject of that documentary, it is worth noting that the wiki entry (I'm aware of the shortcomings of wikipedia, but for the sake of this point it is acceptable) for 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' is filled with controversy and doubt as to its legitimacy. In contrast, the entry for 'An Inconvenient Truth' has but one small paragraph of criticism- and one of the names (that I know of) involved- Dr. Timothy F. Ball- is traceable to oil and gas sector interests.
From the 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' wiki entry:
Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, was featured in the programme and said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed. He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."
Back to my original intent: I'm searching for real, hard data from independant (untraceable to funding by Big Oil and Energy) scientists who do not agree with the findings in An Inconvenient Truth, and who do not agree that man-made GW is real. I'm hoping to learn, as I do not want to be in the wrong on this subject. I'm at work so I won't get around to completely reviewing all of your links until tomorrow- which I will do. I hope you will come back here and continue this discussion.
(I apologize to everyone about the length)
Dear Marc and Jeremy,
"But in scientific circles, you're not taken seriously unless your work has been peer-reviewed.
It is my understanding that thousands of global-warming-is-real-and-caused-by-humans articles have have been peer-reviewed.
Not one article challenging this has ever successfully stood a peer review, from what I've read."
There you have it, you read it, therefore it has to be true. You have given no references to any of the materials that so deeply convinced you, nor have you really done more than express your opinion. And your opinion also believes that my definition of "scientific" doesn't equal yours, which again means everything else I have said can be ignored.
Of course you have the impression that all science has lined up behind this fable. If you rely on the mainstream media for your information and don't cross reference things, it is impossible to believe otherwise because the myth that all of science has lined up behind the Global Warming myth is the only story told. So it must be true, right?
But you ignore the fact that the mainstream media loves to highlight some stories and ignore others, like 911 and all the questions that raises about how our political system works, or doesn't. So when they -- being the politicians and the media - promote this Global warming myth, you have to ask yourself why? I believe, based on how governments behave, that it is an issue that can be used to further reduce mobility, increase taxes and restrict personal freedoms. The articles posted elaborate on the fact that the science doesn't add up, and others, including from the President of the Czech Republic, says that our very freedoms are at risk here. Read them before you attack what I have presented, please, and I am happy to provide other links to additional information should that be of interest.
Marc, your comments are not an argument, and its one of the reasons why the political discourse is so flawed lately. Everyone knows everything already, and facts and references just get in the way. And the common thinking by most people is that anyone who doesn't think like I do is a wingnut, right winger or conspiracy theorist, all terms that have the impact of shutting down any reasonable discussion of issues. Participating in these types of discussions is trying, because no matter what you present, people glob on to one or two aspects and focus the discussion on the minutia instead of the overall body of work.
I agree with you, Bush doesn't give a damn about the environment. But he is now claiming he realizes that global warming is a threat, and if Bush has a nose for anything, it is how he can use an issue to further consolidate his power and control over the rest of us, would you not say? Why would you trust him on this issue? If he is stating he is a supporter of the concept, which he has, you should be asking why?
And Jeremy, lots of "science" can produce a variety of results based on what the researchers are looking for or at. Even quantum physics allows for the concept that what the experimenter is looking for can often influence the outcome of an experiment. It may just be that some of the earlier science done which highlighted earlier phenomenon and was assumed to show that cause X was a result may have been supplanted by further research that has since disproven certain aspects of earlier hypothesis, for example the hockey stick in Al Gore's much beloved documentary. (Which by the way has been discredited by the fact that carbon levels were much higher in the past due to solar activity.)
Start with this article for a sense of the political correctness in achedemic circles regarding global warming.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Again, you haven't really referenced any of the links I posted. You haven't obviously read any views that challenge your deeply held convictions. You are losing sight of the fact that conviction, however deeply felt, does not always equal fact. Your notion that the oil companies won't try to use global warming to their advantage and will only fight it the whole way is also naive. They own the politicians, so they can get the politicians to implement policies that benefit them at our expense while at the same time appearing to get behind the whole global warming initiative. The Iraq war is another example of that phenomenon. Oil companies will always use any issue to their advantage. You can see their "green" advertising and marketing everywhere lately.
Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, if your ideas are so bulletproof, they should stand the test of being cross referenced against other ideas you disagree with. I have provided links to a starting point. Learn to approach ideas from outside the box. Our elites are. They are trying to implement the box as we speak, their vision of us all caged inside.
PS Jeremy -- Watch the documentary first before you discredit the whole production, it was produced by the BBC not the oil companies and if you are interested in counterpoints -- which you claim you are, but I am not convinced -- then your viewing the documentary is the most productive use of your -- and by extension my -- time. Glad to hear what your feedback is after you have viewed it and read the other materials.
>>Methinks you need to do a little homework, examine these issues dispassionately>>
# posted by calmbutangry : 9:04 AM
Excellent work cba, you took the words right out of my notebook on blogging...speak the truth.
Too many people are caught in the right/wrong paradigm and not looking at the facts. Passionate PC talking points, while "well meaning" are not always the "truth" of a situation.
When you understand that it costs more in "oil" to build, buy, and ship a Hybred car then it will ever save in oil consumption, it starts to make sense.
When you research and see that Gull Island and the North slope of Alaska have 200 years of oil supply going untapped because of deals made by Kissenger with the Arabs years ago, it starts to make sense.
Many people with many agendas based on greed and self-absorbed ego behavior don't want the truth to come out, so they lie, spin, and manipulate reality as much as possible.
Now that the Internet has matured and things can go "viral" quite fast, the corporate owned and guided main stream media is becoming irrelavent so along comes Sen Fienstein and gang to bring in the "Fairness" doctrine to shut us up...
or am I just a theorist?
Good article, Marc. Most critics of the "official conspiracy theory" are,as you know, not conspiracy theorists at all. The are, rather, CRITICS of the stupidest and most unbelievable collection of THEORIES to ever come down the pike. Not only is the stuff from Bush self-contradictory, there is absolutely NO HARD EVIDENCE in support of it.
As Conan Doyle's character, Sherlock Holmes, said:
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
Nothing said by Bush is true. Everything said by Bush is false because and can be proven false because it is impossible.
Marc, I posted a comment an hour or so ago and it is not here anymore. Any idea what happened to it?
Hi Jeremy: sorry about that. I had to delete your comment because it was causing a formatting problem on my site.
I still have a copy of your comment, which I saved.
If you post a comment here, it's best if you use HTML to link to any URLs you reference like this
instead of listing lengthy URLs in your comment. Can you do this?
Also, if you'd like, I still have a copy of the comment you posted...if you'd like, I can send it to you...just post your email here.
Sorry about the hassle on this.
Marc McDonald
BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com
Marc,
Sorry for messing that up! Thank you for allowing me to comment here on this issue (and for saving my comment- but since it is so long I typed it all up in notepad first, so I had it saved), I know it kind of deviates from your topic.
calmbutangry,
"the hockey stick in Al Gore's much beloved documentary. (Which by the way has been discredited by the fact that carbon levels were much higher in the past due to solar activity."
Peer review is the only way legitimate, real science is accepted as established science. If a scientist submits their work for peer review, and it does not pass, it is not established science. It is not science that you can use to discredit other peer accepted, established science.
And that's the situation we have here.
The 'hockey stick' is peer reviewed, accepted, established science. If you want to throw the hockey stick out the window, you'd better have peer reviewed, accepted, established science to explain why. The cosmic rays theory did not pass peer review.
Two main players in the cosmic rays theory are Jan Veizer and Nir Shaviv (who was also a contributor to the 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' doc).
news.bbc.co.uk/...
Both are listed on wiki's list of scientists who oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of GW:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...
You'll also find other familiar names in that list, such as Timothy Ball (also a contributor to the'TGGWS' doc). Note that the author of the last link you provided is the very same Timothy Ball I referenced in my earlier post: "one of the names (that I know of) involved- Dr. Timothy F. Ball- is traceable to oil and gas sector interests.".
You are wrong here, calmbutangry. It was not the hockey stick, but the cosmic rays theory that was discredited. By their scientific peers.
Let's go back to Timothy Ball. Your link:
www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...
Here's his opening statement:
"Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth."
That's the kind of emotionally charged statement that should begin an op-ed piece, not a scientific article.
he continues:
"But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology"
Boastful, and false.
scienceblogs.com/...
To continue to dissect his op-ed piece would give this man far too much credit. If Rush Limbaugh were a science hack, this is what his op-eds would read like.
calmbutangry wrote:
"Of course you have the impression that all science has lined up behind this fable."
Let's take this statement apart: "all science has lined up." That is exactly how peer reviewed, accepted science works. It must pass scrutiny by the scientific community. Your next part: "behind this fable." You qualify the 'fable' with 'all science has lined up behind'. Now, this means that you believe that the international scientific community is irresponsible, grossly incompetent, and/or morally and professionally corrupt. A bold statement.
calmbutangry wrote:
"the myth that all of science has lined up behind the Global Warming myth is the only story told. So it must be true, right?"
Having one story is the point of peer reviewed science. Could you imagine having a science textbook with, say, 20 different explanations for earthquakes? Without peer review and a functioning scientific community, 'giants underground are angry' and tectonic plates would be competing for page space.
continued:
"So when they -- being the politicians and the media - promote this Global warming myth, you have to ask yourself why?"
Probably because man-made GW is established, real science- and for the media and our government to ignore the warnings of our science community would be irresponsible and ignorance at it's worst.
calmbutangry wrote:
"your comments are not an argument, and its one of the reasons why the political discourse is so flawed lately. Everyone knows everything already, and facts and references just get in the way."
Not here. Here's where we can get to the core of the facts. I would like to keep this going- and calmbutangry, I'd like nothing more than to be proven wrong- with facts and references of course. Again, I'm looking to get past the skeptic agenda driven deniers and find the real independant, peer reviewed science that disproves man-made global warming.
Now, on to 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' documentary. I watched it last night.
First, a few important points about the people involved in the documentary (the cut and pastes about the contributors are from www.desmogblog.com):
Tim Clark-
'Clark sits on the "scientific advisory board" of a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," The NRSP is lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources.'
The directive of the group is to 'counter the Kyoto protocol and other greenhouse gas reduction schemes'. I'm not making this stuff up.
nrsp.com/...
The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball.
We already covered Dr. Ball.
Patrick Michaels-
'According to a January, 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists called Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: how Exxonmobil uses big tobacco to manufacture uncertainty on climate science, Michaels is connected to no less than 11 think tanks and associations that have received money from oil-giant ExxonMobil to sow doubt about the realities of human-induced global warming. These include the George C Marshall Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Heartland Institute.
Michaels is particulary active with the Cato Institute, where he holds the title of "Senior Fellow." The Cato Institute is a Washington DC-based "think tank" that has received funding in the past from ExxonMobil, as well well-known energy industry-money backed charitable foundations like the Charles G Koch Foundation.'
Now, out of 20 or so contributors to the doc, I have 4 here (Ball, Clark, Reiser, Michaels) that I've looked up that have compromised integrity or a political agenda on the issue. I already mentioned Carl Wunsch in my previous post.
This documentary is the use of peer rejected theories and omission to combat established science. In other words, it is junk. I understand you perceive the group behind this documentary to be like a rebel group of truth seekers fighting the status quo. That is not the case here.
portal.campaigncc.org/...
www.durangobill.com/...
www.medialens.org/...
reasic.com/...
www.thefirstpost.co.uk/...
www.monbiot.com/...
An interesting anecdote about the making of this film and it's producer, Martin Durkin:
'To help him make the programme, Durkin hired Najma Kazi, a highly respected TV researcher and producer who was previously a research biochemist. After two weeks she walked out. “It’s not a joke to walk away from four or five month’s work,” she told me, “but my research was being ignored. The published research had been construed to give an impression that’s not the case. I don’t know how that programme got passed. The only consolation for me was that I’m really glad I didn’t put my name to it.”'
Finally- calmbutangry, I'm back at work but I will get around to the other links you provided. I would like to get your thoughts on my previous post as well.
WOW, did you read any of the comments on the Michelle Malkin webiste. Those are some bitter and angry people. I guess losing your grip on power will do that to ya.
Hi Red Hog,
Thanks for stopping by.
re:
>>I guess losing your grip on
>>power will do that to ya.
Yes, and I guarantee you that, even as we speak, they're plotting to steal the 2008 vote. Reading Greg Palast and others, it's clear that the massive problems in our nation's voting system have yet to be fixed.
Post a Comment