[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Don Cicchetti

But Science is done by consensus. Never was.

Don, with all due respect that is not what we are discussing. You implied that it was difficult to find a job in academia if you reject the notion that human activity is causing global climate change. What I am saying is that if that is the case, it's more likely because the consensus favors anthropogenic climate change than conspiracy among the academic elite.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,”

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider | Full Comment | National Post

Did you read the study you're quoting there? Hulme says that that specific claim about the IPCC is disingenuous because it only includes "a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies" and that "other IPCC authors are experts in other fields." Hulme does not argue that there isn't a consensus among climatologists that humans are causing global climate change.

In America alone, 31,000 scientists, more than 9000 of them with Ph.D's have signed the petition below:

Global Warming Petition Project

"Consensus" does not imply that there is no dissent.

I did not dismiss anything as evidence of conspiracy. I rebutted your evidence and showed how the issue is still open.

I didn't say you had. I said you could. The direction your finger points is at some nebulous group of conspirators.

I do not know how anyone could be familiar with the plans put forth at Kyoto and Copenhagen, and not see a conspiracy!

Because you're positing malicious, ulterior motives, shared by secret plotters, manipulating governments on a global scale. You thinking this is obvious is not much different than 9/11 truthers thinking their narratives are obvious.

[JerryLove]

Palin: She got asked "what papers do you read" and managed to smear herself. It hardly takes a campaign.

Meanwhile FOX was still questioning if Obama was an American long after it was establoished.

Moon landing: The Russians would have quickly called fowl. Add to that you can actually reflect a laser of a planted mirror on the moon. Ask your local astronomy club how.

Liberal / Conservative bias: I believe this "the liberal media" is propiganda. Your major players are conservative. Your "liberals" like John Stewart (he's as much a journalist as anything of fox) attack both sides pretty well.

Climategate: Propiganda. Several governments investigates, quite a few private groups, all non-FOX (who still sometimes questions if Obama is American) have found no evidence of an attempt to mislead.

Finally: the assanine idea that science doesn't accept arguments against the status quo ignores that every position science hold was once against the status quo: from helio-centricism, to evolution, to relativity.

Did I forget any?

[ithomas1600]

commenting on Don Cicchetti post on page 1
that is very true and i believe and agrre with everything you say infact i dont watch news period if you watch to much you will be over taken by the media and me "brainwashed" witch is not a term i ever use lightly i believe in brainwashing in the sense that when you hear something often enough you begin to subconciously believe it then it becomes an open belief then you factor in the sublimenal messages that the GOV has put into so many things, items, and commercials. and like i said about science being proven by the Bible then you add in the other conspiracies i dont intend to prove them just to state my beliefs on them its not my place to force anything on any1 just to state my beliefs and hope that people accept me for who i am and possible learn something from them

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Don Cicchetti

We are not going to agree here, but I want to raise this one point again because it is at the core of the issue. Read any synopsis of what was proposed at Kyoto and Copenhagen and you will see a huge power grab, destruction of some economies over others, while some countries are allowed to be gross polluters, and the trampling of our liberty in the name of correcting AGW, which many are not sure exists, and fewer yet think we can fix if it does exist!

How does this not constitute a conspiracy?

Because it's blatant speculation that Kyoto is not what it purports to be, but is rather a means for...who knows what clandestine business. Your only support is a handful of quotes from individuals you allege are co-conspirators. We must be careful not to bear false witness. Not to sully people's names unjustly.

[redbaron]

Dan, I've never seen the actual fox news promoting tea party events, just reporting on them. I have seen a lot of stuff from their op-ed shows promoting the events though. Totally not like the kinds of things that get promoted on the op-ed shows of CNN/MSN/etc

to be fair, at least around here if you have 10-15 people protesting for a liberal cause, there will be tv coverage for it.

If you have several thousand show up to protest something like a horrendously freedom grabbing anti-gunner bill (like this past january) the news can't be bothered to even come out- and that's not even the tea party, just a normal conservative cause- you know, preserving freedoms.

As for the moon landing, iThomas, if you'd like to start a separate thread about that (since this one has gone in a couple different directions) I'd love to address all of your points. You should definitely grab a copy of the mythbusters episode, as it's a good place to start, but they didn't go into serious depth & such with the various conspiracy bullet points, partly because they don't have the time in a 1 hour show.

[Skeeter]

Originally Posted by Don Cicchetti

Nonsense. She is bright, conservative, Christian, and I love the way she makes lefties so deranged...

Actually, most "lefties" simply don't care about her.

Originally Posted by redbaron

Dan, I've never seen the actual fox news promoting tea party events, just reporting on them. I have seen a lot of stuff from their op-ed shows promoting the events though. Totally not like the kinds of things that get promoted on the op-ed shows of CNN/MSN/etc

to be fair, at least around here if you have 10-15 people protesting for a liberal cause, there will be tv coverage for it.

I don't disagree. Quite frankly, I avoid all 24-hour news networks, always have. They're largely useless.

But it's incredibly disingenuous for the op-ed shows to promote the Tea Party movement and then have the news shows call them "grassroots." And I definitely saw clips from their news shows that were actively promoting the movement rather than just reporting on it.

Whatever, I honestly don't care about any of it. None of it personally affects me; the only reason I felt the need to step in to this thread in the first place is the absurdity of the claim that Sarah Palin was smeared by the mainstream media as part of some leftist conspiracy.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Don Cicchetti

Well if her answer to one question constitutes smearing herself, then what has Biden done on a weekly basis?

Neither Palin nor Biden are the topic, but rather the media conspiracy accusation.

The fact that you get to watch thos Biden gaffaws on the news every week proves your left-wing conspiracy theory false.

Nonsense. She is bright, conservative, Christian, and I love the way she makes lefties so deranged...

The left doesn't really care about her, aside from the people who like the celeberty gossip (admittedly many).

Because to millions it is not yet established. Personally I don't think they have a point, but they look sane compared to the Ward Churchills of the world.

To the News Corporation, and FOX, it is well established. The fact that they continue to question publicaly something they know privately is dishonest propiganda.

Stewart, like Bill Maher, and many other comedians, is a left-libertarian. Sorry, that doesn't console me much, although he probably would protest the instituting of Sharia in Beverly Hills...

Personal political leanings are not the topic either. Steward publiclyh attacks left and right politics.

Good! Read this.

So conspiracy theorists continue to ignore reality and hold beliefs on phantom conspiracies? Yes. That would be the topic... and the several investigations have shown no conspiracy.

I never said that. I said that consensus, especially one so compromised and political means nothing in and of itself.

There have indeed been investigations showing US science being politically steered.

They were under Bush Jr and the steering was to the right.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Don Cicchetti

Not in the least. Those events are too visible to be ignored by those wishing to sell advertising time. When something is not as visible, as the current hearings about the DOJ dropping the Black Panthers case, the MSM do indeed go silent.

Then you should have mentioned that, noli, rather than Biden shouldn't you?

Of course: that is a lie
CNN: CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Justice Department drops charges in voter intimidation case « - Blogs from CNN.com

MSNBC: Ex-Justice Dept lawyer says whites' rights ignored - U.S. news - msnbc.com

ABC: Former DOJ Attorney Alleges "Lawlessness" in Civil Rights Division - Political Punch

Washington times: EDITORIAL: A Black Panther sings - Washington Times

And so on and so forth.

The smearing of Palin is very pertinent to this issue.

A media conspiracy to do so would be. That's not what you asked.

Oh yes they do. They are terrified that their smear won't stick. It won't.

Your asserting it does not make it true. I'd ask you to prove it except that a) It's off topic and b) no support exists.

Of course they are important. It is clear that Stewart has a bias, and it certainly isn't a conservative or Christian one.

Bias is not the topic. A media conspiracy is.

They are nothing but logrolling by those with a vested interest in coming to those very conclusions. Did you read the piece? He's right, too late, and these reports make things very much worse. What we know is that Climate Science needs a housecleaning and it's not going to get one.

Again you assertions do not make it so. Several governments and institutions have undertaken investigations of exactly the allegations you are asserting and every one has found no conspiracy or fraud.

It all depends on your assumptions. If you think that no one should even be able to ask questions of evolutionary orthodoxy than I suppose you would feel that way.

You can ask all the questions you like of established fact. Children do it all the time. That's not the topic. The topic is media conspiracy.

I do not share your assumptions of course. Pluralism is the recognition of the right to disagree on fundamental assumptions, without opprobrium and hate, nor disenfranchisement. I believe in pluralism, many secularists do not.

Pluralism and your continued hatred of "secularists" are not the topic noli, the topic is media conspiracies.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Don Cicchetti

This sums it up.

Now you are smearing me.

You should be used to this after all these years. When you put up blatent lies (mainstream media not reporting) from Beck, I'll call you on them.

I'm just getting ready to loeave Vegas. It's been an awesome week.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Don Cicchetti

Tell me, have any of those people disowned those quotes?

It's a disingenuous use of quotes. They're mined, stripped of context, and then framed as ostensible support of a global conspiracy. There's no need to show me any other portions of the alleged iceberg if all it consists of is more of the same. Why? Well, it's utterly unconvincing.

The only false witness here is trying to deny that these people stand for what they clearly stand for.

You keep saying it's clear, it's obvious, etc. It's getting patronizing.

It's not speculation, it's right there in clear language in the Kyoto and Copenhagen accords.

Don, I will take it seriously when you produce this evidence that the language contained therein is actually a shibboleth of climate change conspirators. Merely asserting it to be the case, no matter how loudly or how often, does not make it so.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Don Cicchetti

To me, there is no context in which those statement could look any better.

The point is that because they're stripped of their context it's easy to re-appropriate them for use in whatever story you want. You or I may still disagree with them even in their proper context but that is neither here nor there (since this thread is about conspiracies and not the veracity of claims about anthropogenic climate change).

People disagree on this stuff all the time.

Well, yes. Conspiracy theories are rather controversial. I can't say I've ever heard this one.

Have a nice weekend.

Thanks, Don. I just got caught in a torrential downpour actually. Well, at any rate I was soaked.