Could somebody crosspost this to Free Republic?
All the kooky right-wing conspiracy theories boil down to this: people who seek to do evil for its own sake. Not making money, not getting laid; just being gleefully diabolical. Suppose we accept, hypothetically, that the scientists are all lying, that there were bombs in the World Trade Center, that the situation at the U.S. embassy in Benghazi was what you claim. What does it prove? What’s underneath, besides Lex Luthor in his lair?
It only makes sense in comic-book world.
It’s funny because it’s going to kill us all!
Or they make sense to people who are that sociopathic that they think everyone else is the same.
It’s the Templars. They’re at the bottom of everything.
I’m one of the Illuminati, you can trust me on this.
I have a strange sense of déjà vu:
It’s actually even worse than that when it comes to basic physics, though. These jackasses might as well be flat-earthers. If the basic science behind this (statistical thermodynamics) weren’t capable of making incredibly accurate predictions, we wouldn’t be able to put a billion little machines that each operate billions of times a second on a chip the size of a dime and sell it for $50, and they wouldn’t be able to use said machines to post mindless drivel on the internet.
At least all the Bengazi theories could be true. (ie, I can’t prove that they aren’t)
Climate deniers postulate scientists being in the pocket of Big Climate, which is interested in destroying the fossil fuel industry to supplant it with its own windmill-and-solar-cell hegemony, and/or weaken America to the point that the dreaded One World Government can install itself. I suppose some of them may tie that into millenarian End Times stuff, but I don’t have the stomach to dig that deeply into the crazy/stupid, I just get dismayed and depressed.
9/11 truthers are not all strictly right-wing kooks though; there’s an anti-government X-Files paranoid strain that thinks it was an inside job with the purpose of terrifying the populace into accepting an oppressive police state. Which, in hindsight, doesn’t seem all that far-fetched, but then they go off into the weeds with controlled demolition and invisible 767s and JFCMSB and destroy their own credibility. Almost as if they were intentionally discrediting themselves in order to… No. No, that way lies madness.
I still don’t understand what the fuck they’re on about with Benghazi.
If they had a salient point to make, they’d have made it by now.
Didn’t the Repub higher-ups come right out and say they wanted to take Hillary down a peg?
this sounds like a job for Billy Dare, Boy Adventurer!
Wonderful homage to Roald Dahl’s The Witches.
are these so called scientists the same people who defunded anyone who disagreed with them ?
that is when/how the global warming scam began…
First warnings about global warming came c. 1969. That’s one loooooonnnng con.
Businessmen know it’s all just a big power grab to make it harder for businessmen to make a buck dumping their waste in the town reservoir like they used to. Because something something PROFIT.
Astoundingly, not a single person has broken ranks.
I mean, climate scientists get decent middle class salaries if they have tenure, I’m sure. But most of the people doing climate science are bound to be grad students and adjuncts. In other words, these are people who are paid nothing and have huge amounts of debt. And they do statistics for a living – really dry, brutal statistics on temperature and pressure measurements. And there’s not really much chance that they’re going to be wildly successful once they do achieve tenure (assuming they ever do). Comfortable middle class salary is the best most can look forward to. Maybe some of the better writers could sell books for popular consumption.
And the hypothesis is that these people are teaming up to take on the world’s billionaires.
And not a single broke, indebted, bored-out-of-his-mind adjunct climate scientist has flipped sides, confessing the truth of the great global warming conspiracy, despite the fact that his newfound political allies could, without any significant impact on their own finances, reward him better than an entire 50-year career of doing climate science (in a financial sense at any rate).
I don’t think anyone’s ever really accused conspiracy theorists of being capable of having thoroughly thought through any of their hypothesis. Because, yeah, this one is implausible enough to be impossible.
yes, and shortly after that all opposition to the concept was fired/ defunded…
Fox News has been defunded?! Quick, stop the presses! Literally.
Try 1824 for the first (though not by any means identical to our modern understanding of it) derivation of the greenhouse effect from primitive thermodynamics:
or 1917 for the first warning (from Alexander Graham Bell), that burning fossil fuels would aggravate it:
“Coal and oil are…strictly limited in quantity. We can take coal out of a mine but we can never put it back.” “What shall we do when we have no more coal or oil?” “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect.” “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”(1917)