Crazy conspiracy theories

[ᑎiᖴTყ]

post some crazy conspiracy theories below

[Iron Phoenix]

Ok guys some of you probably are aware of this, but here is some food for thought:

Some conspiricies apparently turned out to be true.
One of them being the CIA testing l.s.d on the population and secretly monitoring them during the "MKULTRA" operations.
Suppoedly the program started in the 1950s and ran until the 1970s.

But based on operation "PAPERCLIP", the adoption of the elite of german scientists at the end of world war 2 into NASA it isnt too suprising for the purposes of military advancement and advanced scientific research.
Operation Paperclip didnt only take Werhner Von Braun, the famed german rocket scientist who worked on the much feared german V-2 rockets (and later an important role within nasa), but also scientists from other fields including chemical and biological warfare.

Supposedly the first recruitment program for Operation Paperclip took place in 1945.
It was a big help for NASA at the time and could be argued it was instrumental in advancing the rocket technology for the early apollo mission booster rockets.


Five years later, the MKULTRA project began.
Maybe the CIA would have commenced MKULTRA anyway but you can do the math.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

Yes, I know its wikipedia but its ok for a rough guide to looking deeper into the rabbit hole using other sources;)

[Hypra]

Messaggio originale di Traror:

Messaggio originale di GM'sU|EvilHypra:

why does your every other word refer to liberalism?

Actually this one is not specifically aimed at liberals.

Congrats.

[Iron Phoenix]

However, I love reading about conspiracy therories, even the wild stuff.

That doesnt mean that I believe everything at face value, but usually I am more interested in why people believe certain things to be true or some version of the truth - and why it would be hidden from the public.

Snopes is an interesting site in itself, even though it may not specialise in conspiracy theories, its a useful starting point for looking doing your own research.

It has a cool "fact check" section, which gives you a half decent starting to any further research

http://www.snopes.com/50-hottest-urban-legends/

[ChaffyExpert]

Messaggio originale di rojimboo:

Messaggio originale di Traror:

Scientists are still people, with the same human flaws which make people not trust the government, why are a bunch of scientists differant if they could get away with it?

The scientific method and peer review isn't perfect by any means.

It has done some small feats though despite that, and happens to be the best we've got.

Enjoying sitting on your arse spouting ignorant drivel about real empirically proven physics? All courtesy of technological advancement brought about by science and the scientific method. Be thankful.

Why is there no credible peer reviewed theory to counter ACC? probably has to do with the fact you are anti-science simply for thinking it isn't true or questoning it. Although i can easily believe that it is due to natural causes.

It's funny because, my understanding is, for top level science, you need controversy. Ever read the headlines or front page of Nature or Science? Controversy sells like hotcakes, it's interesting to read and it advances science to no end.

Trust me when I say, there is no credible alternate theory to the recent warming. All natural causes have been thoroughly debunked. Please say you think it's the Sun so I can point out that we should be cooling at present to solar variability.

Recently even the ~97% consensus estimate was deemed too low, as nobody can find these peer reviewed papers debunking, questioning or minimising ACC.

The debate was over two decades ago. The scientific debate at least. As soon as it became political, great uncertainty was hoaxed into the eyes of the common folk. This, as the Heartland Institute learnt through tobacco lobbying, is the best way to make money for some biased parties.

If i am so ignorant, how come you show no evidence of empirical evidence? The evidence for global warming could potentionally be a coincedence, or maybe it isn't, you can't find out for sure though. Sure you can make theories but in this case there isn't empirical data to support manmade global warming, and that not-empirical data turns out to also be manipulated.

By saying there needs to be Controversy you just prove my point, if Manmade Global warming was true why wouldn't they allow controversy? They are not allowing it though, that is fact as proven by their own words, an actions such as protesting. This is the part which is inconsistant and makes me think something else is going on.

Ya it didn't "hoax" me i think this way and believe what i do based off of questonable behavior. whether everybody else is hoaxed doesn't mean anything to me, nor does the fact they blame China for everything.

[Sirens]

ben garrison is anti-semetic

[mellow]

Messaggio originale di Traror:

Messaggio originale di rojimboo:

The scientific method and peer review isn't perfect by any means.

It has done some small feats though despite that, and happens to be the best we've got.

Enjoying sitting on your arse spouting ignorant drivel about real empirically proven physics? All courtesy of technological advancement brought about by science and the scientific method. Be thankful.



It's funny because, my understanding is, for top level science, you need controversy. Ever read the headlines or front page of Nature or Science? Controversy sells like hotcakes, it's interesting to read and it advances science to no end.

Trust me when I say, there is no credible alternate theory to the recent warming. All natural causes have been thoroughly debunked. Please say you think it's the Sun so I can point out that we should be cooling at present to solar variability.

Recently even the ~97% consensus estimate was deemed too low, as nobody can find these peer reviewed papers debunking, questioning or minimising ACC.

The debate was over two decades ago. The scientific debate at least. As soon as it became political, great uncertainty was hoaxed into the eyes of the common folk. This, as the Heartland Institute learnt through tobacco lobbying, is the best way to make money for some biased parties.

If i am so ignorant, how come you show no evidence of empirical evidence? The evidence for global warming could potentionally be a coincedence, or maybe it isn't, you can't find out for sure though. Sure you can make theories but in this case there isn't empirical data to support manmade global warming, and that not-empirical data turns out to also be manipulated.

By saying there needs to be Controversy you just prove my point, if Manmade Global warming was true why wouldn't they allow controversy? They are not allowing it though, that is fact as proven by their own words, an actions such as protesting. This is the part which is inconsistant and makes me think something else is going on.

Ya it didn't "hoax" me i think this way and believe what i do based off of questonable behavior. whether everybody else is hoaxed doesn't mean anything to me, nor does the fact they blame China for everything.

ya earth cooled down and warmed up itself a bunch by itself before ppl started polluting

[Conway]

I wonder how long it will take for this thread to get locked

[Danksama]

Messaggio originale di Conway:

I wonder how long it will take for this thread to get locked

It was fine before some people started seriously discussing whether something was a conspiracy theory or not

[rojimboo]

Messaggio originale di Traror:

Messaggio originale di rojimboo:

The scientific method and peer review isn't perfect by any means.

It has done some small feats though despite that, and happens to be the best we've got.

Enjoying sitting on your arse spouting ignorant drivel about real empirically proven physics? All courtesy of technological advancement brought about by science and the scientific method. Be thankful.



It's funny because, my understanding is, for top level science, you need controversy. Ever read the headlines or front page of Nature or Science? Controversy sells like hotcakes, it's interesting to read and it advances science to no end.

Trust me when I say, there is no credible alternate theory to the recent warming. All natural causes have been thoroughly debunked. Please say you think it's the Sun so I can point out that we should be cooling at present to solar variability.

Recently even the ~97% consensus estimate was deemed too low, as nobody can find these peer reviewed papers debunking, questioning or minimising ACC.

The debate was over two decades ago. The scientific debate at least. As soon as it became political, great uncertainty was hoaxed into the eyes of the common folk. This, as the Heartland Institute learnt through tobacco lobbying, is the best way to make money for some biased parties.

If i am so ignorant, how come you show no evidence of empirical evidence? The evidence for global warming could potentionally be a coincedence, or maybe it isn't, you can't find out for sure though. Sure you can make theories but in this case there isn't empirical data to support manmade global warming, and that not-empirical data turns out to also be manipulated.

By saying there needs to be Controversy you just prove my point, if Manmade Global warming was true why wouldn't they allow controversy? They are not allowing it though, that is fact as proven by their own words, an actions such as protesting. This is the part which is inconsistant and makes me think something else is going on.

Ya it didn't "hoax" me i think this way and believe what i do based off of questonable behavior. whether everybody else is hoaxed doesn't mean anything to me, nor does the fact they blame China for everything.

I can provide all sorts of empirical evidence about ACC. I am after all a physicist in climate science.

The list is almost endless, mutually corrobarative and expansive, and peer reviewed (i.e. held up to the highest scrutiny we have available and routinely vetted for things like bias).

But to start the de-programming, I usually present these questions and answers to these empirically, independently verifiable physical phenomena:

How can you explain a myriad of physical phenomena that has left a human fingerprint on climate?

Such as the stratosphere cooling, but the troposphere (below it) warming? If the Sun was the cause then the stratosphere would also be warming. Instead of there being a blanket on Earth warming it.

Or that nights are warming faster than days (if it were the Sun, obviously it would be the other way around).

Or that less heat is escaping to space?

Or that more heat is returning to Earth?

Or that the oceans are building up heat?

If you can muster up some kind of explanation for these (which the increased greenhouse effect neatly does explain) other than ACC, I'm all ears.

Once you've conceded defeat on the science basis, the next step is to educate you about scientific consensus in the matter.

[ChaffyExpert]

Messaggio originale di rojimboo:

Messaggio originale di Traror:

If i am so ignorant, how come you show no evidence of empirical evidence? The evidence for global warming could potentionally be a coincedence, or maybe it isn't, you can't find out for sure though. Sure you can make theories but in this case there isn't empirical data to support manmade global warming, and that not-empirical data turns out to also be manipulated.

By saying there needs to be Controversy you just prove my point, if Manmade Global warming was true why wouldn't they allow controversy? They are not allowing it though, that is fact as proven by their own words, an actions such as protesting. This is the part which is inconsistant and makes me think something else is going on.

Ya it didn't "hoax" me i think this way and believe what i do based off of questonable behavior. whether everybody else is hoaxed doesn't mean anything to me, nor does the fact they blame China for everything.

I can provide all sorts of empirical evidence about ACC. I am after all a physicist in climate science.

The list is almost endless, mutually corrobarative and expansive, and peer reviewed (i.e. held up to the highest scrutiny we have available and routinely vetted for things like bias).

But to start the de-programming, I usually present these questions and answers to these empirically, independently verifiable physical phenomena:

How can you explain a myriad of physical phenomena that has left a human fingerprint on climate?

Such as the stratosphere cooling, but the troposphere (below it) warming? If the Sun was the cause then the stratosphere would also be warming. Instead of there being a blanket on Earth warming it.

Or that nights are warming faster than days (if it were the Sun, obviously it would be the other way around).

Or that less heat is escaping to space?

Or that more heat is returning to Earth?

Or that the oceans are building up heat?

If you can muster up some kind of explanation for these (which the increased greenhouse effect neatly does explain) other than ACC, I'm all ears.

Once you've conceded defeat on the science basis, the next step is to educate you about scientific consensus in the matter.

Why should i come up with some groundbreaking theory to not believe manmade global warming? it isn't my job, i just don't buy the theory after all the inconsistancies happening, and just because it cannot be explained in another way right now doesn't mean it won't be later, nor does it mean i have to believe whatever the scientific community says, since sometimes they are wrong.That has actually happened already in science-history. It is not ignorance, it is skepticism.

[Tux]

Messaggio originale di Traror:

Messaggio originale di rojimboo:

I can provide all sorts of empirical evidence about ACC. I am after all a physicist in climate science.

The list is almost endless, mutually corrobarative and expansive, and peer reviewed (i.e. held up to the highest scrutiny we have available and routinely vetted for things like bias).

But to start the de-programming, I usually present these questions and answers to these empirically, independently verifiable physical phenomena:

How can you explain a myriad of physical phenomena that has left a human fingerprint on climate?

Such as the stratosphere cooling, but the troposphere (below it) warming? If the Sun was the cause then the stratosphere would also be warming. Instead of there being a blanket on Earth warming it.

Or that nights are warming faster than days (if it were the Sun, obviously it would be the other way around).

Or that less heat is escaping to space?

Or that more heat is returning to Earth?

Or that the oceans are building up heat?

If you can muster up some kind of explanation for these (which the increased greenhouse effect neatly does explain) other than ACC, I'm all ears.

Once you've conceded defeat on the science basis, the next step is to educate you about scientific consensus in the matter.

Why should i come up with some groundbreaking theory to not believe manmade global warming? it isn't my job, i just don't buy the theory after all the inconsistancies happening, and just because it cannot be explained in another way right now doesn't mean it won't be later. That has actually happened already in science-history.

I can not possible stress this point more strongly

its doesnt matter if its man made or not. It absolutly does not matter.

if a hurricane is coming to your home, it doesnt ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ make one bit of difference what caused it. That was a coversation for 30 years ago, its not a conversation for today. that time is over

[Danksama]

Messaggio originale di Tux:

Messaggio originale di Traror:

Why should i come up with some groundbreaking theory to not believe manmade global warming? it isn't my job, i just don't buy the theory after all the inconsistancies happening, and just because it cannot be explained in another way right now doesn't mean it won't be later. That has actually happened already in science-history.

I can not possible stress this point more strongly

its doesnt matter if its man made or not. It absolutly does not matter.

if a hurricane is coming to your home, it doesnt ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ make one bit of difference what caused it. That was a coversation for 30 years ago, its not a conversation for today. that time is over

Assuming that man-made global warming is more likely than not, it does matter that human action would contribute to rising seas levels, etc that might result in entire islands and low-lying countries like Bangladesh suffering a loss of land. Sure, by that point it's not like we can do anything but the point is that we work out what's causing the issue now so that the effects are mitigated, so IMO it does matter a bit right now.

[ChaffyExpert]

Messaggio originale di Tux:

Messaggio originale di Traror:

Why should i come up with some groundbreaking theory to not believe manmade global warming? it isn't my job, i just don't buy the theory after all the inconsistancies happening, and just because it cannot be explained in another way right now doesn't mean it won't be later. That has actually happened already in science-history.

I can not possible stress this point more strongly

its doesnt matter if its man made or not. It absolutly does not matter.

if a hurricane is coming to your home, it doesnt ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ make one bit of difference what caused it. That was a coversation for 30 years ago, its not a conversation for today. that time is over

Actually, it does matter, as we need to know what started it in order to figure out whether or not crippling the economy and giving companies the middle finger is the way to stop it or if it is completly pointless and going in the wrong way towards trying to solve the problem. (yes, i don't just mean oil companies i mean literally every company).

[rojimboo]

Messaggio originale di Traror:

Messaggio originale di rojimboo:

I can provide all sorts of empirical evidence about ACC. I am after all a physicist in climate science.

The list is almost endless, mutually corrobarative and expansive, and peer reviewed (i.e. held up to the highest scrutiny we have available and routinely vetted for things like bias).

But to start the de-programming, I usually present these questions and answers to these empirically, independently verifiable physical phenomena:

How can you explain a myriad of physical phenomena that has left a human fingerprint on climate?

Such as the stratosphere cooling, but the troposphere (below it) warming? If the Sun was the cause then the stratosphere would also be warming. Instead of there being a blanket on Earth warming it.

Or that nights are warming faster than days (if it were the Sun, obviously it would be the other way around).

Or that less heat is escaping to space?

Or that more heat is returning to Earth?

Or that the oceans are building up heat?

If you can muster up some kind of explanation for these (which the increased greenhouse effect neatly does explain) other than ACC, I'm all ears.

Once you've conceded defeat on the science basis, the next step is to educate you about scientific consensus in the matter.

Why should i come up with some groundbreaking theory to not believe manmade global warming? it isn't my job, i just don't buy the theory after all the inconsistancies happening, and just because it cannot be explained in another way right now doesn't mean it won't be later. That has actually happened already in science-history.

Ok - so I guess that you are brushing aside all the empirical evidence showing ACC?

I have to admit I wasn't expecting magical hand-waiving in this debate.

If I knew magic was allowed, I would have brought my wand.

Don't worry, I wasn't expecting you to actually come up with answers to physical phenomena that have already been explained, through some physical chemistry explanation of your own.

It was in fact, my point.

Nothing other than ACC can explain the recent warming. You take out anthropogenicity, and Earth should by all reckoning be slightly cooling, mostly due to the Sun.

You take into account the vast amount of greenhouse gases emitted since the Industrial revolution (the second coal powered one), and suddenly it all makes sense.

Decades of the most advanced science has tried to discredit it.

Sure. It's still just a theory. So is gravity.

But at this point, there is a consensus, and arguing against ACC might make sound like a flat Earth proponent. A tricky proposition, without evidence no less.

[ChaffyExpert]

Messaggio originale di rojimboo:

Messaggio originale di Traror:

Why should i come up with some groundbreaking theory to not believe manmade global warming? it isn't my job, i just don't buy the theory after all the inconsistancies happening, and just because it cannot be explained in another way right now doesn't mean it won't be later. That has actually happened already in science-history.

Ok - so I guess that you are brushing aside all the empirical evidence showing ACC?

I have to admit I wasn't expecting magical hand-waiving in this debate.

If I knew magic was allowed, I would have brought my wand. :madelf:

Don't worry, I wasn't expecting you to actually come up with answers to physical phenomena that have already been explained, through some physical chemistry explanation of your own.

It was in fact, my point.

Nothing other than ACC can explain the recent warming. You take out anthropogenicity, and Earth should by all reckoning be slightly cooling, mostly due to the Sun.

You take into account the vast amount of greenhouse gases emitted since the Industrial revolution (the second coal powered one), and suddenly it all makes sense.

Decades of the most advanced science has tried to discredit it.

Sure. It's still just a theory. So is gravity.

But at this point, there is a consensus, and arguing against ACC might make sound like a flat Earth proponent. A tricky proposition, without evidence no less.

What are you talking about? do you assume i am actually a scientist because i am not, therefore it is not my job to seek out a better theory than manmade global warming or look at the empirical data, but it still doesn't mean i have to believe everything the science community says since, like i said earlier, sometimes they are wrong.

You also very clearly ignored my point where the majority of the science community believed something to be true, only for very few skeptics to show evidence later which supports a new theory which is better. Why do i have to do that to not believe it? i am sure some time later someone else will do it, and im not a scientist, so it is not my job to do that anyways.

I personally believe it has something to do with the polar switch people thought was going to be what caused doomsday back in 2012, I don't believe it is doomsday, but it may explain things better. As for the the climate difference in the atmosphere, the same thing happns on Jupiter except reversed, nobody really knows why, although a few theories were debunked. Just saying, not everything is known, so who knows if another theory will replace manmade global warming theory.