Let's have a serious discussion about conspiracy theories.

[Murky]

The ice core samples from Antarctica are misinformation?

Milankovich cycles are misinformation?

Your point is?

How do the ice core samples from Antarctica disprove AGW?

The Milankovich cycles take thousands of years. AGW is occurring much more rapidly.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Spoiler :

@ Cutlass

You were saying?

Quality post

And them commies are always conspiring.

 

[G-Max]

Your point is?

How do the ice core samples from Antarctica disprove AGW?

The Milankovich cycles take thousands of years. AGW is occurring much more rapidly.

Dude. Look at the data. There are temperature spikes every ~100,000 years. The last one was ~100,000 years ago. Put the two together.

If carbon dioxide affected temperatures as much as some scientists claim, then the CO2 spikes that follow the temperature spikes should drive those temperature spikes even higher and create a runaway effect. But that's not what happens.

Quality post

Yeah, relying on the actual data > "a bunch of scientists looking for research grant money say it, so it must be true"

 

[Traitorfish]

Okay, I just realized that there's no point debating you about this. Bye.

I'm sorry? You've failed to produce a single conclusive scrap of evidence for anything you've said in this entire thread, and I'm the one with the bad attitude?

 

[Cutlass]

I repeat:



Let's go back to discussing the Illuminati demon hybrids, mmmkay?

We're not talking about the science of global warming. We are talking about the conspiracy to prevent the public from understanding and the government from acting on the settled science of global warming.

Now if you don't want to talk about conspiracies in a conspiracy thread, that's just odd.

 

[Murky]

The conspiracy to cast doubt on global warming is very similar to the one to cast doubt on smoking causing cancer.


Link to video.

 

[G-Max]

We're not talking about the science of global warming. We are talking about the conspiracy to prevent the public from understanding and the government from acting on the settled science of global warming.

Now if you don't want to talk about conspiracies in a conspiracy thread, that's just odd.

Oh, okay. That's pretty cool.

I see no evidence of any such conspiracy. I just see scientists who can't agree on the matter, but most of whom support AGW, and data that, to my totally amateur understanding, points toward the conclusion that global warming is exclusively natural.

Basically, I just see a lot of confusion and inconsistency.

The conspiracy to cast doubt on global warming is very similar to the one to cast doubt on smoking causing cancer.

Not at all. The increased disease rates among smokers cannot possibly be attributed to anything other than smoking. The increase in global temperatures could be caused by natural or artificial sources.

 

[Cutlass]

Then the conspiracy has worked on you.

 

[G-Max]

Not quite. During the Cretaceous period, global temperatures were 4 degrees higher, and atmospheric CO2 levels were 6 times what they were in 1800. So there's no denying the link between CO2 and temperature. However, are we really to believe that a mere 30-40% increase in CO2 levels in the past 200 years is to blame for a full one-degree increase in temperature? We're responsible for a quarter of that, tops.

 

[BasketCase]

I'm sorry, I don't follow; how does self-identification decide reality? Surely you're either a conspirator, or you're not, regardless of what you yourself think?

Exactly--but how do other people find out if you are?? There's no way to do it. People can see what you did, but not why you did it. The only way to know the "why" is to know what a person's thinking.

And last I checked, Miss Cleo wasn't available.

Por ejemplo: how do we find out of there was a conspiracy to kill JFK? All we know is that he was shot; that doesn't tell us whether the deed was done by a random nutcase or a group of conspirators.

Por ejemplo dos: suppose a climatologist appears on national TV and announces he was bribed by Greenpeace to doctor his science to exaggerate global warming? Just about everybody in CFC (and a lot of people outside CFC!) would suspect he was a shill planted by the oil lobby. A bunch of people would suspect that the claim of conspiracy was actually a conspiracy (not joking there). But there's no way to prove it.

When you hear an accusation of conspiracy, is the accusation true? Or is the accuser trying to frame somebody? Who is the actual conspirator??? Without jumping into peoples' minds, there's no way to know. Farfetched though this may sound, I've already seen it happen many times--most often in threads concerning Saddam's WMD and Bush's second invasion of Iraq. There were "false flag" accusations flying everywhere, claiming that (for example) Bush's accusation of Saddam's conspiracy with Al Qaeda was the actual conspiracy.

 

[Traitorfish]

Exactly--but how do other people find out if you are?? There's no way to do it. People can see what you did, but not why you did it. The only way to know the "why" is to know what a person's thinking.

I don't follow. Setting aside the fact that this, in itself, utter tosh, "conspiracy" isn't defined by intent, it's defined by action, specifically, by conspiring to do something. That seems fairly self-evident.

 

[BasketCase]

I don't follow. Setting aside the fact that this, in itself, utter tosh, "conspiracy" isn't defined by intent, it's defined by action

Suppose JFK was killed by a stray bullet when some clumsy idiot dropped his rifle?

Intent is the whole enchilada here, dude.

 

[G-Max]

Suppose JFK was killed by a stray bullet when some clumsy idiot dropped his rifle?

Three shots were fired.

 

[BasketCase]

So the guy dropped an assault rifle that was set on semi-auto, same difference.

Point is, conspiracy is defined by intent. Pretty much entirely by intent. Was this or that guy shot by someone with a political agenda? By a crazy nut? By accident? Is global warming real, or are the scientists making mistakes, or are the scientists LYING? (that last one is no hypothetical, either--a lot of people in Third World nations think global warming is a hoax cooked up by developed nations to keep Third World nations down) Scientists making mistakes do not form a conspiracy. The intent makes all the difference.

 

[Riffraff]

Plenty of conspiracies going on, the most sucessfull ones obviously not unveiled.

There aren't only kittens and bunnies out in the wild..

 

[G-Max]

So the guy dropped an assault rifle that was set on semi-auto

That still would have only resulted in one bullet being fired. Do you not know what semi-auto means?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

This thread really ought to go into Humor & Jokes.

 

[BasketCase]

That still would have only resulted in one bullet being fired. Do you not know what semi-auto means?

So the rifle got dropped and the trigger got stuck for three rounds. Mountains out of molehills here. Point is, an accidental shooting is different from a shooting by a crazy nut is different by a political shooting by an angry radical is different from a planned shooting by a group of White House insiders attempting to actual alter federal policy.

Intent what make a conspiracy. In fact, it becomes a conspiracy before the rifle is actually fired.....

 

[G-Max]

So the rifle got dropped and the trigger got stuck for three rounds.

There is no such thing as getting "stuck for three rounds" on a semi-auto gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm

 

[Masada]

So I was a member of the cabal. It's been dissolved. Burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.