Evidence is overrated when you're a conspiracy theorist

An excellent and scathing overview of conspiracy theorists and their "contributions" to climate "skepticism", including a CT scenario in which Al Gore is in telepathic contact with the Lepidopterans (and, presumably, their in-laws).


The unsettling thing is that this mode of thought es quickly slipping into the mainstream. Australians are mercifully insulated from Birthers and Death Panels by an entire ocean, but their politics is similar to that of the USA, and they have their own colorful species of wackadoos with whom to contend.

--d!

"Thus, to the 9/11 "truthers", when the U.S. Congress determines in a bipartisan report that the terrible events of 9/11 were perpetrated by a group of terrorist hijackers, this only goes to show that the U.S. Congress was part of the conspiracy to demolish the World Trade Center."

<>

not "part of the conspiracy", but rather a lack of scruples, guts, spine, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera......My feeling is that anyone who believes this was resolved with the 911 Commission Report probably believes the tooth fairy is real too. The attempt at equication if not lost on everyone. Thanks.
quickesst

I don't believe in the tooth fairy, nor do I believe that the 9/11 Commission Report offers the final definitive word on all of the events of September 11, 2001.

I believe that a conspiracy was responsible for the events of that day. It was a conspiracy involving 19 hijackers and several other members of the terrorist group, "al Qaeda."

The conspiracy was aided by the hubris of a new administration which believed that foreign terrorists in general (and al Qaeda in particular) represented no real threat to the US.

That administration subsequently took advantage of the fervor following those events to invade Iraq.

However, I have seen no convincing evidence to support the various fantastic theories involving a conspiracy within agencies of the US government to plan, prepare, and/or carry out the events of that day.

For several years now, armies of irate pensioners have been swarming the countryside, spurned on by feverish websites, taking photographs of thermometers in the belief that this would invalidate concerns about climate change — and seemingly unaware of the fact that the utility of a thermometer derives from the accuracy of its measurement rather than anything captured by a colour photo.

This statement is so ming bogglingly false I have to wonder if the author understands the issue.

I say this as a person who believes that Anthony Watts has proved nothing about the temperature record. Unlike the author however, I understand the legitimacy of what he is trying to prove.

You are an exercise in sophistry. Nothing more.

You know as well as I do that the pictures that have been taken tell a great deal about the accuracy of the thermometer readings.

...or perhaps I give you too much credit and you really don't get it.

You are an exercise in sophistry. Nothing more.

That is besides the point. Who cares if the data sucks? GISS can modify it so that it shows what they "know" it should show.

It doesn't matter because Watts found that only 90% of the sites failed to meet USHCN standards leaving 10% of the sites acceptable and that's enough. We should certainly trust an organization with a 10% success rate. Further Watts can't show what they looked like 10, 20, 50 or 100 years ago so we should assume that the 10% that are in compliance today have always been in compliance. USHCN doesn't know what they were like in the past either because they didn't bother to check them but Watts is an idiot and a liar for not doing USHCN's job earlier. Indeed USHCN installed most of them in violation of their own guidelines but that doesn't matter because Watts is an idiot and a liar because he was stupid enough to look at them and not trust USHCN.

Watts only has documentation. People like kristopher are far smarter then him. They know the art of insults and that trumps all.

Watts might have definitively shown that many (I don't think its 90%) of the USHCN sites are out of compliance, but that is all. He still can't explain why the satellite record shows warming too.

His explanation is that the earth is warming but the satellite data isn't part of Watts' project, the surface data is and he has shown significant issues with the surface data.

Few knowledgeable "skeptics" doubt that the planet has warmed. What they question is; how much has it warmed, how long has it warmed and why has it warmed. That the temperature of the planet changes is not surprising. The temperature has been changing since before life began on earth and will continue to change until the sun expands and engulfs the planet (if it ever actually does).

The 31 year satellite record does indeed show warming and the 2000 - 2009 decade was the warmest of the 3 decades measured but 3 decades aren't very many.

His posted results are significantly out of date (05/31/2009) but show with 78% (948 of 1221) of the stations rated only 10% are in compliance. His results are posted here:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Makes for amazing laughs sometimes

choose them instead of trying to effect change by actually doing something with real world problems and issues.

Conspiracy theorist believe that "The man, the new world order, Bohemian grove", etc are all beyond the power of the average man to stop, so choose instead to complain under the guise of trying to "enlighten" us all to "how powerless we all are!" If we are so powerless, then what's the point in complaining or "enlightening"?

The "enlightening" takes place under the guise of sitting on ones ass. They complain about how the whole thing is a big fix.
Rather than choosing to be active member in society, they snub people who try to effect change has hopeless tools of corporate influence. They feel this elite feeling of superiority of "knowing better". That actually trying to do somethng is for suckers.

Once thing I have noticed is: rarely do conspiracy theorists talk to people, they usually talk AT people. They are just another version of the street corner profit out to save the world from it's own evil.

In my late teens and early 20's I was big into conspiracy theories. I thought everything we plebes did was a futile effort at best, since the lords of industry (fill in your own new world order omnipresent group) controlled it all.

Then rational thought invaded the process, I thought, "why make myself nuts over something I have zero input or control over?"

What does any of it matter to me?

How does complaining and "getting the word out" solve anything? If "the man" controls everything, both complaining and getting the word out will do as just as much as nothing since "the man" controls everything.

I reflected and realized about what it was that was bothering me. Then it dawned on me, It was myself. I was looking for excuses for my inactivity to make positive changes.

So like dipping a toe in the water, I started volunteering. You know what? the crazy ass theories vanished into a haze of rational thought.

You can have a positive effect on peoples lives. You can help those in need. You can make a difference.

But in order to do that, you first must clear out all the psycho babble bullshit that is pushed at us in the form of "news", which, by the way, is nothing more than the national enquirer dressed up as entertainment tonight and passed off as "vital information".

That life sucking industry of hate will do all within it's power to prevent people from believing that they can make a difference. That we have a voice. The the people do have the power.

The drudge's and alex jones' and their ilk do more to destroy our nation as much as the slanted MSM.

Here is a perfect example: alex jones loves to spout off on one conspiracy theory after another, yet, one would think, with his following, he could start a movement, but he doesn't, why? If he starts a movement then he becomes responsible, and has to answer to people. That's the last thing he wants. Right now and probably forever, he will continue to scream into the echo chamber of a once way conversation. Never once taking on a difference of opinion in a sane way because all those who contrast with his views are "part of the problem", "working for the man" or "an agent provocateur" out to get him. Jones just wants to hear himself talk. It's never been about rational informed thought.

So I say unto you, show me a false flag and I ask you, what are you going to do about it other than rant?

But given the fact that I choose to use rational thought, I will now be accused of working for "the man".

Meh.