10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Presumably now that we've established via generalized statements that we're all tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists we can all go back to discussing global warming as though we all know what we're talking about.

Should probably also stop pretending that we're all open minded on the subject too.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Global Warming theory is a conspiracy theory.

I just about laughed my testicles off.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think it is, but I'm not in a position to prove it definitively - I don't have the specific detailed knowledge of climate science, nor the know how to interpret different studies, their results, or their methodology.

Neither is Gary, for that matter, but he scatter blasts articles as though he is in possession of the facts. Nor is he likely to be swayed by anything that runs contrary to his preconceived view.

All I know for sure is that the professional bodies representing 10s of thousands of scientists, not to mention the governments of most countries endorse the idea.

So I'm not sure I really understand the reasoning as to why GW would be a lie, as it seems to run counter to countries self interest to do that. Because a few people make money on green tech and environmental policies? Seems very spurious to me - much the same as if Philip Morris came out with the smoking causes cancer research in the 50s to stop people from smoking.

Consensus is good enough for me.

[GaryC 7]

Global Warming theory is a conspiracy theory.

I just about laughed my testicles off.

No, the politics behind it is though.

[nowhereman 1]

Global Warming theory is a conspiracy theory.

I just about laughed my testicles off.

No, the politics behind it is though.

That's exactly the problem... GW is NOT a political issue but all too often it is made out to be one. However when you eliminate the political bias (both for & against GW) what remains is pretty strong evidence that GW is real. You don't believe that GW is real & I don't see you changing your mind no matter how many facts are thrown at you. Like I said about 4 threads ago about GW we should all agree to disagree on this topic.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Global Warming theory is a conspiracy theory.

I just about laughed my testicles off.

No, the politics behind it is though.

That's exactly the problem... GW is NOT a political issue but all too often it is made out to be one. However when you eliminate the political bias (both for & against GW) what remains is pretty strong evidence that GW is real. You don't believe that GW is real & I don't see you changing your mind no matter how many facts are thrown at you. Like I said about 4 threads ago about GW we should all agree to disagree on this topic.

In Gary's mind, the politicization of GW includes the IPCC report by climate scientists. He evades the obvious. He believes the whole thing is a conspiracy by left wing scientists in cahoots with liberal commies to take away his gas guzzler and make him drive a Honda.

[alienlovechild 75]

If Cheney made the link then the Bush administration owned it... I don't recall if Bush himself linked Saddam & 9/11 but if his VP did it's pretty much the same thing.

Cheney threw out some tenous links but didn't get too far on the links. From 2003-

"In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January.

But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying

: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...911_challenged/

Now if Bush specifically said Cheney was full of ####### then that would be different, but I don't recall him ever saying that.

It wouldn't have made any difference given your beliefs on Bush go far beyond this issue but you go since you apparently never this one in the last 6 years.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11," Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-03.htm

[lucyrich 20]

To take this in a slightly different direction, NASA just released photos of the Apollo lunar landing sites.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/mult...pollosites.html

Of course, there are conspiracy theorists who say the whole Apollo program was a hoax. For many years, they used the absence of recent photos of the landing sites as evidence of the conspiracy.

But no earthbound telescope, nor the Hubble Space telescope, has enough resolution to see the Apollo hardware on the surface of the moon. That hardware is small and the moon is a quarter of a million miles away. In fact, if anyone claimed to have photos of Apollo from an earthbound scope or from Hubble, it would be easy to prove they were fake. The recently released pictures were taken from low lunar orbit, much closer to the moon than an Earthbound telescope or Hubble.

Now, I'll bet nobody is going to be convinced of anything by these recently released photos. The conspiracy nuts will say the new photos were faked, and the photos are just evidence that the conspiracy is ongoing and getting bigger all the time. In other words, the lack of photos was evidence of the conspiracy, and now the presence of photos is further evidence of the conspiracy. ANY fact that is brought into evidence is always seen as evidence of the conspiracy.

And that's the signature characteristic of a conspiracy nutcase. ANY fact brought into evidence is always distorted to prove the preconceived view.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

To take this in a slightly different direction, NASA just released photos of the Apollo lunar landing sites.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/mult...pollosites.html

Of course, there are conspiracy theorists who say the whole Apollo program was a hoax. For many years, they used the absence of recent photos of the landing sites as evidence of the conspiracy.

But no earthbound telescope, nor the Hubble Space telescope, has enough resolution to see the Apollo hardware on the surface of the moon. That hardware is small and the moon is a quarter of a million miles away. In fact, if anyone claimed to have photos of Apollo from an earthbound scope or from Hubble, it would be easy to prove they were fake. The recently released pictures were taken from low lunar orbit, much closer to the moon than an Earthbound telescope or Hubble.

Now, I'll bet nobody is going to be convinced of anything by these recently released photos. The conspiracy nuts will say the new photos were faked, and the photos are just evidence that the conspiracy is ongoing and getting bigger all the time. In other words, the lack of photos was evidence of the conspiracy, and now the presence of photos is further evidence of the conspiracy. ANY fact that is brought into evidence is always seen as evidence of the conspiracy.

And that's the signature characteristic of a conspiracy nutcase. ANY fact brought into evidence is always distorted to prove the preconceived view.

Yep. I used to get intrigued by the UFO theories and some of it is still thought provoking. However, the burden of proof lies with those who are saying it's true, not anyone else.

[HannahP 119]

Global Warming theory is a conspiracy theory.

I just about laughed my testicles off.

No, the politics behind it is though.

That's exactly the problem... GW is NOT a political issue but all too often it is made out to be one. However when you eliminate the political bias (both for & against GW) what remains is pretty strong evidence that GW is real. You don't believe that GW is real & I don't see you changing your mind no matter how many facts are thrown at you. Like I said about 4 threads ago about GW we should all agree to disagree on this topic.

In Gary's mind, the politicization of GW includes the IPCC report by climate scientists. He evades the obvious. He believes the whole thing is a conspiracy by left wing scientists in cahoots with liberal commies to take away his gas guzzler and make him drive a Honda.

The real issue is how much of GW is man-made and how much is natural? Are we really heading into an ice age, god hope not. Interesting how the GW-deniers have no idea about pollution, apparently. We really did put a hole in the ozone layer. It's over New Zealand these days. We also tend to pollute the air, water, and ground of what is around us. But I think the Christians actually believe that Christ will revert the Earth to pre-humans...?

[SnME 3]

To take this in a slightly different direction, NASA just released photos of the Apollo lunar landing sites.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/mult...pollosites.html

Of course, there are conspiracy theorists who say the whole Apollo program was a hoax. For many years, they used the absence of recent photos of the landing sites as evidence of the conspiracy.

But no earthbound telescope, nor the Hubble Space telescope, has enough resolution to see the Apollo hardware on the surface of the moon. That hardware is small and the moon is a quarter of a million miles away. In fact, if anyone claimed to have photos of Apollo from an earthbound scope or from Hubble, it would be easy to prove they were fake. The recently released pictures were taken from low lunar orbit, much closer to the moon than an Earthbound telescope or Hubble.

Now, I'll bet nobody is going to be convinced of anything by these recently released photos. The conspiracy nuts will say the new photos were faked, and the photos are just evidence that the conspiracy is ongoing and getting bigger all the time. In other words, the lack of photos was evidence of the conspiracy, and now the presence of photos is further evidence of the conspiracy. ANY fact that is brought into evidence is always seen as evidence of the conspiracy.

And that's the signature characteristic of a conspiracy nutcase. ANY fact brought into evidence is always distorted to prove the preconceived view.

NASA also 'lost' the original films of the entire thing. One would think that they would protect and preserve the video films from the first 'manned' landing on the moon...

Funny how no others have been able to make it there yet but were were able to do it AND film it how many years ago...

Oops! We lost that film!!! Right...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Looks like we caught a live one.

[nowhereman 1]

If Cheney made the link then the Bush administration owned it... I don't recall if Bush himself linked Saddam & 9/11 but if his VP did it's pretty much the same thing.

Cheney threw out some tenous links but didn't get too far on the links. From 2003-

"In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January.

But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying

: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...911_challenged/

Now if Bush specifically said Cheney was full of ####### then that would be different, but I don't recall him ever saying that.

It wouldn't have made any difference given your beliefs on Bush go far beyond this issue but you go since you apparently never this one in the last 6 years.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11," Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-03.htm

Well I haven't beaten around the Bush (no pun intended) concerning my opinions of the Bush administration but at the same time I didn't just wake up one day & decide that it's one of the worst administrations in history (certainly the worst I can recall). The right wing (including most of the VJ right) like to chalk negative views of the Bush administration up to liberal bias & apparently that makes them feel better about themselves, but over 70% of the country disapproved of him (and probably only about 20% of Americans are liberals) so that means a whole bunch of non-liberals disapproved of Bush as well.

[kayandnigel 0]

Looks like we caught a live one.

[Peikko 1,575]

Looks like we caught a live one.

it's a whopper too!