Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
PastelNata said:
Blib said:
I'm old, I'll be dead long before anything happens that would affect me. So, ultimately, I don't care either way, when it comes to the climate.
But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Ah yes, the 'stuff everyone else' view of the World. But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Have you not considered that the businesses who are the main drivers behind Global Warming in the first place have more to gain by continuing as they were than those trying to prevent it?
If you want to follow the money, follow it straight to those who don't want the gravy train to stop or tool up to adapt to greener practices. Greedy, selfish human nature.
The amount of greenwashing is astounding and we must be aware of what is actually going on. To think otherwise is naive and foolhardy.
PurplePangolin said:
No. Those businesses “behind” global warming have made your life comfortable. And those businesses will just adapt to make money off the green revolution.
The amount of greenwashing is astounding and we must be aware of what is actually going on. To think otherwise is naive and foolhardy.
The amount of people being paid to advocate is something we should all be aware of.The amount of greenwashing is astounding and we must be aware of what is actually going on. To think otherwise is naive and foolhardy.
Gadgetmac said:
Cold said:
Gadgetmac said:
Yes, global warming is and will continue to be a great boon for human health...said no Scientific Institute on the planet ever.
What are the numbers of Scientific Institutes who think that global cooling will be a great thing for human health? But if stability is good and maybe it will stabilise for the first time ever, what temperature should it be? Pick a number.
AW111 said:
So we've had the COVIDiots parading their ignorance.
Now all the global warming conspiracy f
kwits are having their say.
The answer to the thread title is still an overwhelming YES.
Plus, of course, they are by and large the same people. It's been shown many times that a propensity to believe one CT hugely increases your propensity to believe multiple.Now all the global warming conspiracy f
kwits are having their say.The answer to the thread title is still an overwhelming YES.
robscot said:
I am voting 'yet' going off the replies to https://twitter.com/JacquiDeevoy1/status/163716344... !
Can someone with twitter please ask her if she exists?I reckon she’s a bot.
Seventy said:
robscot said:
I am voting 'yet' going off the replies to https://twitter.com/JacquiDeevoy1/status/163716344... !
Can someone with twitter please ask her if she exists?I reckon she’s a bot.
She's an anti-vaxxer and believes in astrology, too.
Nutty as a fruit-cake.
Edited by Zumbruk on Monday 20th March 11:53
AW111 said:
So we've had the COVIDiots parading their ignorance.
Now all the global warming conspiracy fkwits are having their say.
The answer to the thread title is still an overwhelming YES.
Surely the thread title is a given and we know each posters view. We could just have a poll to clarifyNow all the global warming conspiracy f
kwits are having their say.The answer to the thread title is still an overwhelming YES.
No point in continuing with the thread - unless there are posts which question what is and what is not a conspiracy theory.
PurplePangolin said:
Surely the thread title is a given and we know each posters view. We could just have a poll to clarify
No point in continuing with the thread - unless there are posts which question what is and what is not a conspiracy theory.
If I posted a YouTube vid claiming the moon was made of Wensleydale cheese and "they" were covering it up, you'd be the first to believe it...No point in continuing with the thread - unless there are posts which question what is and what is not a conspiracy theory.
Edited by AW111 on Monday 20th March 12:29
PurplePangolin said:
Surely the thread title is a given and we know each posters view. We could just have a poll to clarify
No point in continuing with the thread - unless there are posts which question what is and what is not a conspiracy theory.
Second time you’ve called for the thread to be closed. No point in continuing with the thread - unless there are posts which question what is and what is not a conspiracy theory.
It’s all rather like when you flounced as purplepenguin because you didn’t like the moderation.
PurplePangolin said:
Surely the thread title is a given and we know each posters view. We could just have a poll to clarify
No point in continuing with the thread - unless there are posts which question what is and what is not a conspiracy theory.
Yes it is a given, but CTs don't realise that. No point in continuing with the thread - unless there are posts which question what is and what is not a conspiracy theory.
Besides if there was a poll, pretty sure that CT's would flood it to respond in a way that supports their world-view thus making it pointless.
This morning I started listening to a James English podcast with David Weiss on flat earth. My god it was hard work but it made the walk to work enjoyable.
The amount of people in the comments siding with Weiss tells me enough about who James English seems to be appealing to now so I'll be unsubscribing soon.
However, the comments did steer me to this; professor Dave dismantling Weiss's arguments. It is so entertaining I just wish they had more time together, and a working IT system.
Please spare an hour.
The amount of people in the comments siding with Weiss tells me enough about who James English seems to be appealing to now so I'll be unsubscribing soon.
However, the comments did steer me to this; professor Dave dismantling Weiss's arguments. It is so entertaining I just wish they had more time together, and a working IT system.
Please spare an hour.
remedy said:
This morning I started listening to a James English podcast with David Weiss on flat earth. My god it was hard work but it made the walk to work enjoyable.
The amount of people in the comments siding with Weiss tells me enough about who James English seems to be appealing to now so I'll be unsubscribing soon.
However, the comments did steer me to this; professor Dave dismantling Weiss's arguments. It is so entertaining I just wish they had more time together, and a working IT system.
Please spare an hour.
Dear God. I gave up after 5 minutes.The amount of people in the comments siding with Weiss tells me enough about who James English seems to be appealing to now so I'll be unsubscribing soon.
However, the comments did steer me to this; professor Dave dismantling Weiss's arguments. It is so entertaining I just wish they had more time together, and a working IT system.
Please spare an hour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothe...
The phantom time hypothesis is a historical theory asserted by Heribert Illig. First published in 1991, it hypothesizes a conspiracy by the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, Pope Sylvester II, and possibly the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII,[further explanation needed] to fabricate the Anno Domini dating system retroactively, in order to place them at the special year of AD 1000, and to rewrite history[1] to legitimize Otto's claim to the Holy Roman Empire. Illig believed that this was achieved through the alteration, misrepresentation and forgery of documentary and physical evidence.[2] According to this scenario, the entire Carolingian period, including the figure of Charlemagne, is a fabrication, with a "phantom time" of 297 years (AD 614–911) added to the Early Middle Ages.
The phantom time hypothesis is a historical theory asserted by Heribert Illig. First published in 1991, it hypothesizes a conspiracy by the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, Pope Sylvester II, and possibly the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII,[further explanation needed] to fabricate the Anno Domini dating system retroactively, in order to place them at the special year of AD 1000, and to rewrite history[1] to legitimize Otto's claim to the Holy Roman Empire. Illig believed that this was achieved through the alteration, misrepresentation and forgery of documentary and physical evidence.[2] According to this scenario, the entire Carolingian period, including the figure of Charlemagne, is a fabrication, with a "phantom time" of 297 years (AD 614–911) added to the Early Middle Ages.
Seventy said:
PurplePangolin said:
Surely the thread title is a given and we know each posters view. We could just have a poll to clarify
No point in continuing with the thread - unless there are posts which question what is and what is not a conspiracy theory.
Second time you’ve called for the thread to be closed. No point in continuing with the thread - unless there are posts which question what is and what is not a conspiracy theory.
It’s all rather like when you flounced as purplepenguin because you didn’t like the moderation.
Edited by PurplePangolin on Monday 20th March 14:34
PurplePangolin said:
PastelNata said:
Blib said:
I'm old, I'll be dead long before anything happens that would affect me. So, ultimately, I don't care either way, when it comes to the climate.
But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Ah yes, the 'stuff everyone else' view of the World. But come on. You don't need a 'conspiracy'. Everyone involved in this knows where the money is and how to get their bread buttered.
It is simply human nature.
Have you not considered that the businesses who are the main drivers behind Global Warming in the first place have more to gain by continuing as they were than those trying to prevent it?
If you want to follow the money, follow it straight to those who don't want the gravy train to stop or tool up to adapt to greener practices. Greedy, selfish human nature.
The amount of greenwashing is astounding and we must be aware of what is actually going on. To think otherwise is naive and foolhardy.
Cold said:
Why shouldn't it cool? It's done it before. Sounds a bit science denier.
Why would it cool? What climate driver is going to kick-in to bring this about and when could we reasonably expect it to happen?Show your workings or even some science to support your "why wouldn't it..." statement.
Cold said:
But if stability is good and maybe it will stabilise for the first time ever, what temperature should it be? Pick a number.
Crikey you really are dredging up the denier tropes now.There is no one size fits all temperature but what we do know is that the human race has flourished at it's current temperature and now it's heating up.
Try this: https://mashable.com/article/what-is-earths-ideal-...
It's from an actual climate scientist but hey, don't let that put you off
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff