Frozen Wasteland

[Atticus]

our grammar and spelling problems far outweigh our pollution problem

[Guest Speed Racer]

Calling the guy mental is attacking the messenger.

Dropping all significant points because he believes there is an attempt to form a one world government is childish.

 

The man wrote an article in which he interpreted facts. If you doubt his ability to interpret reality, as some people in this thread have done, why should you believe in his abilities to interpret other facts? I don't see anything childish with that kind of critique.

[Sparky speaks]

No we won’t, because the UN, aka, One World Government, will have taken not only our nation’s sovereignty, but they’ll have control of our thoughts as well, on account of them aliens they’re in cahoots with - fucking no good traitors to the earth.

 

Now you got it.......

[moxiebean]

I would just like to add that I'm glad that no one posting in this thread has used the term "snowmagedden"

[Guest Speed Racer]

You're late. Post #2:

 

not the Washington, DC snowmagedon thread i thought this was going to be.

[Winston Legthigh]

Calling the guy mental is attacking the messenger.

Who called who mental?

 

We do not have a global warming problem created by our cows and cars.

 

So you state. What data (not editorials - we're asking for something derived by a scientist) have you read to support that? The IPCC thinks otherwise. What evidence do you have that negates their claim?

[Guest Speed Racer]

Who called who mental?

 

it wouldnt surprise me if Coleman is experiencing some health or mental issues.

[moxiebean]

You're late. Post #2:

rats!

 

I thought maybe it might've been used in that ridiculously long post on the previous page that I refused to read.

[D-Dogg]

John Coleman's post via D Dog - debunked.

 

http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/john_coleman

 

Excerpt:

 

Mr. Coleman seems to not understand the difference between meteorology and climatology. The study of human caused Global Warming is 'not' predominantly "the science of meteorology". Meteorology has to do with the weather, which involves short term regional events. Global Warming has to do with Climatology which involves long term climate trends and influences.

 

Nasa: The difference between weather and climate.

 

meteorology 1 : a science that deals with the atmosphere and its phenomena and especially with weather and weather forecasting 2 : the atmospheric phenomena and weather of a region

 

It is the science of climatology:

 

climatology, climates 1: a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions2 a: the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b: the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors 3: the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere

 

 

So it is debunked because of semantics?

 

There are plenty of other links I provided that are not by the founder of the weather channel who is now diagnosed by this board as criminally insane.

 

If y'all cannot get past Mr. Coleman there is plenty of other evidence that contradicts the evidence that too much CO2 is going to make the world explode.

[D-Dogg]

So it is debunked because of semantics?

 

There are plenty of other links I provided that are not by the founder of the weather channel who is now diagnosed by this board as criminally insane.

 

If y'all cannot get past Mr. Coleman there is plenty of other evidence that contradicts the evidence that too much CO2 is going to make the world explode.

 

oops my bad, did not see the whole link.

 

Will read later, have to go make dinner.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I didn't see any other links. Of course, that one post of yours was 10,000 miles long and full of whackadoodle, but I didn't see any other links.

[D-Dogg]

Who called who mental?

 

 

 

So you state. What data (not editorials - we're asking for something derived by a scientist) have you read to support that? The IPCC thinks otherwise. What evidence do you have that negates their claim?

 

Unreal.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Unreal.

 

Is this the name of an organization refuting the IPCC's claims?

[Doug C]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40P6_oyCz8o

[Atticus]

"who called whom mental?"

[Winston Legthigh]

"who called whom mental?"

dammit.

[u2roolz]

What?!?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaa5Cgpi6kI&feature=related

[Winston Legthigh]

Unreal.

What, like citing Jesse The Body Ventura's website like you did? (He really did! http://www.climatephysics.com/GlobalWarming/GWScience.htm - click on 'home' to see the site's author)

 

Dude, everyone knows that Jesse's theories have been debunked by Jumpin Jim Brunzel.

[Dude]

So it is debunked because of semantics?

 

There are plenty of other links I provided that are not by the founder of the weather channel who is now diagnosed by this board as criminally insane.

 

If y'all cannot get past Mr. Coleman there is plenty of other evidence that contradicts the evidence that too much CO2 is going to make the world explode.

 

You're confusing two John Colemans, dude. Here's the one-world government guy:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(author)

 

John Coleman (born 1935) is an author and analyst of world affairs. He is a former British Intelligence Officer for MI6[citation needed] who has written several books and numerous papers analysing the power structure of the world. He argues that a relatively small group of people - whom he calls 'The Committee of 300' - constitute a ruling elite who are pursuing a goal of one-world government.

 

Dr Coleman's books have been influential among more well known conspiracy authors such as David Icke and Jim Marrs who quote him in their own works. Coleman argues that the Muslim Brotherhood is a secret Masonic order created, with support from T. E. Lawrence, Bertrand Russell and St. John Philby, to "keep the Middle East backward so its natural resource, oil, could continue to be looted."[1] Coleman has also criticized the Club of Rome, the Giorgio Cini Foundation, Global 2000, the Interreligious Peace Colloquium, the Tavistock Institute, and other organizations.

 

Here's the Weather Channel founder guy:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)

 

The Weather Channel founder guy has been a global warming dissenter. But he's also not what many would consider to be a well-respected researcher in the field. He's a TV weatherman and a businessman, and that's about as far as his science goes. But as far as I can tell, he doesn't believe in this paranoid Illuminati-based "one-world government" theory.

 

They are two different human beings, dude.

 

Here is conspiracy theorist guy:

 

Here's the Weather Channel guy:

 

Different people.

[Atticus]

that doesn't prove anything, except that they are two different people

[Dude]

that doesn't prove anything, except that they are two different people

 

He thinks the Weather Channel founder wrote that paper, though, when it was clearly the crazed conspiracy dude.

[Doug C]

What?!?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaa5Cgpi6kI&feature=related

One world is enough for all of us, brother. But only if it has a single government, of course.

[Dude]

I take it back, the TV weatherman is responsible for this rant:

 

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

 

Maybe being named John Coleman dooms you to be a conspiracy nut?

[Sparky speaks]

For the hell of it because I doubt many will read it.....I don't read any links any one puts in this section, but WTF.....

 

Link....

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/02/ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-focuses.html

 

Here's the actual article just to annoy those who easily get annoyed.....This is becoming fun.

 

Ridicule of Conspiracy Theories Focuses On Diffusing Criticism of the Powerful

 

 

The label "conspiracy theory" is commonly used to try to discredit criticism of the powerful in government or business.

 

For example, just this week - after Tony Blair was confronted by the Iraq Inquiry with evidence that he had used lies to sell the Iraq war - Blair dismissed the entire Iraq Inquiry as simply being part of Britain's "obsession with conspiracy theories". (Not only did Blair know that Saddam possessed no WMDs, but the French this week accused Blair of using of ‘Soviet-style' propaganda in run-up to the Iraq war).

 

Of course, the American government has been busted in the last couple of years in numerous conspiracies. For example, William K. Black - professor of economics and law, and the senior regulator during the S & L crisis - says that that the government's entire strategy now - as during the S&L crisis - is to cover up how bad things are ("the entire strategy is to keep people from getting the facts").Similarly , 7 out of the 8 giant, money center banks went bankrupt in the 1980's during the "Latin American Crisis", and the government's response was to cover up their insolvency.

 

And the government spied on American citizens (even before 9/11 ... confirmed here and here), while saying "we don't spy". The government tortured prisoners in Iraq, but said "we don't torture".

In other words, high-level government officials have conspired to cover up the truth.

 

And Tom Brokaw notes:

 

All wars on based on propaganda.

 

A concerted effort to produce propaganda is a conspiracy.

 

Acceptable Versus Unacceptable Conspiracy Theories

 

Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme was a conspiracy. The heads of Enron were found guilty of conspiracy, as was the head of Adelphia. Numerous lower-level government officials have been found guilty of conspiracy. See this, this, this, this and this.

 

Time Magazine's financial columnist Justin Fox writes:

 

Some financial market conspiracies are real ...

 

Most good investigative reporters are conspiracy theorists, by the way.

 

Indeed, conspiracies are so common that judges are trained to look at conspiracy allegations as just another legal claim to be disproven or proven by the evidence.

But - while people might admit that corporate executives and low-level government officials might have engaged in conspiracies - they may be strongly opposed to considering that the wealthiest or most powerful might possibly have done so.

 

Indeed, those who most loudly attempt to ridicule and discredit conspiracy theories tend to focus on defending against criticism involving the powerful.

This may be partly due to psychology: it is scary for people to admit that those who are supposed to be their "leaders" protecting them may in fact be human beings with complicated motives who may not always have their best interests in mind. And see this.

 

For example, Obama's current head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs - and a favored pick for the Supreme Court (Cass Sunstein) - previously:

 

Defined a conspiracy theory as "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

 

He has called for the use of state power to crush conspiracy allegations of state wrongdoing. See this, this and this.

 

Similarly:

 

Michael Kelly, a Washington Post journalist and neoconservative critic of anti-war movements on both the left and right, coined the term "fusion paranoia" to refer to a political convergence of left-wing and right-wing activists around anti-war issues and civil liberties, which he claimed were motivated by a shared belief in conspiracism or anti-government views.

 

In other words, prominent neocon writer Kelly believes that everyone who is not a booster for government power and war is a crazy conspiracy theorist.

 

Similarly, psychologists who serve the government eagerly label anyone "taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, ... and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook" as crazy conspiracy theorists.

This is not really new. In Stalinist Russia, anyone who criticized the government was labeled crazy, and many were sent to insane asylums.

 

Using the Power of the State to Crush Criticism of the Government

The bottom line is that the power of the state is used to crush criticism of major government policies and actions (or failures to act) and high-level government officials.

 

Pay attention, and you'll notice that criticism of "conspiracy theories" is usually aimed at attempting to protect the state and key government players. The power of the state is seldom used to crush conspiracy theories regarding people who are not powerful . . . at least to the extent that they are not important to the government.

[bleedorange]

This has been a fun thread. By the way, about six inches of snow here in Fort Worth, with no signs of letting up.