Why do so many believe in fake conspiracies yet ignore the real global warming fraud?

Lisa Simpson: According to Junior Skeptic magazine the chances are 175 million to one of another form of life actually coming into contact with ours.

Homer: So?

Lisa: It’s just that the people who claim they’ve seen aliens are always pathetic low-lifes with boring jobs . . . oh, and you, Dad . . . heh heh.

An Apologetics.com Podcast on logic mentioned how over 70% of people polled believe in some sort of JFK conspiracy, over 30% believe that 9/11 was an inside job and a large amount believe the government is covering up alien activity.

So why don’t people get excited over the very real conspiracy behind the man-made global warming fraud?  The media continues to ignore it.  The Houston Chronicle had an article buried that noted the controversy but focused on the “experts” who still claim that warming is real — you know, the folks whose livelihoods depend on perpetuating the myth.  The Chronicle didn’t bother to list the evidence. Another article didn’t even mention the controversy.

If you only get your news from the mainstream media you are being fooled daily.

—–

Great points by Ann Coulter:

These e-mails aren’t a tempest in a teapot. They are evidence of pervasive fraud by a massively influential institution that has dominated news coverage of global warming.

CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on “global climate analysis” — including by the very news outlets that are burying the current scandal, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming.

. . .

Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated “scientists” were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming, the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and the publications discredited.

This sabotage of global warming dissenters may be more galling than their manipulation of the data. Until now, the global warming cult’s sole argument has been to demand that everyone shut up in response to the “scientific consensus” that human activity was causing global warming.

0 thoughts on “Why do so many believe in fake conspiracies yet ignore the real global warming fraud?”

  1. And now Barbara Boxer wants to prosecute the hackers that exposed this. Classic case of “shoot the messenger”. As I say in my blog today, she is just upset that her mechanism for getting draconian environmental laws enacted just got taken away.

    Like

  2. Boxer is a the quintessential buffoon.

    The inconvenient truth for her is that the raw numbers used to create “cooked” numbers have been deleted, the head of the center has resigned, the science supporting global warming has been finally debunked (again) and the loony left and the scientists in their midst don’t know what to do with themselves. They have all been rightfully disgraced.

    For Boxer to continue to cling to the global warming myth puts her squarely into the same group of “birthers”, UFO enthusiasts, Big Foot hunters and the rest who still beleive in the Easter Bunny.

    So what’s their strategy? Simple. Deflect. Draw attention to some other “crime”.

    The fact is, those involved in uncovering these corrupt “scientists” involved in the such gross distortion of facts, to prove what everyone else already knew as the scam of the century, should be held up as heroes of truth.

    I wonder if Al Gore will update his little Power Point document, now. I suppose to do that, it would rest on the supposition that he is capable of pulling his head out of his own ass.

    Let’s hope this has the correct impact on the pending Crap and Trade Bill which represents the next insult to our intelligence.

    Goddamned liberals are destorying this country.

    Like

  3. Why do so many believe in fake conspiracies yet ignore the real global warming fraud?

    In a word, Media.

    I don’t think we could ever over estimate the influence the media has on a society largely raised and trained to think in our public school system.

    Like

      1. Is anyone going to address this mad zealot’s theological errors, or must I, an atheist, do it?

        I’m disappointed in all of you. Frankly I expected better.

        Like

      2. If you’re referring to Ben’s second link regarding Old and New Testament and the quran, I responded at that link. However, I’m not prepared to call him a mad zealot just yet.

        Like

      1. Ri-iight.

        Show me an equivalent video from the other side which shows them quoting from their holy book of scriptures which espouse killing another race.

        Writing at the Weekly Standard, Robert Satloff takes apart a new book by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, both of them professional pro-Islam propagandists, published by the Gallup organization, where Mogehed is executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. Satloff shows how, through fraudulent definition of the word “radical,” the authors make it appear that a multi-year study of Muslim opinion worldwide showed that only seven percent of Muslims are radical, when, in reality, by any fair reading of the authors’ own polling data, the correct number is 37 percent.

        The authors define Muslim radicals as those who say the 9/11 attack was “completely justified,” which was seven percent of the sample. However, there were two other categories of respondents who said that the attack was at least partially justified, and they are labeled by the authors as “moderates.” The first of those groups comprises 6.5 percent of the sample, the second comprises 23.1 percent. Further, the respondents in that last category, making up 23.1 percent, also said that they hate America, want to impose Sharia law, support suicide bombing, and oppose equal rights for women. Yet Esposito and Mogahed call them “moderates.”

        7 plus 6.5 plus 23.1 equals 36.6 percent of 1.2 billion Muslims, or 439 million radical Muslims in the world. Just a tiny unrepresentative minority.

        Show me the same analysis of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc, etc. which indicates a radicalized element espousing and justifying violence and justified killing of those who do not believe in their religion.

        Like

      2. Youtube; anything with Rabbi Mordechai Friedman, or Israel’s Jihad: rabbis with guns (for starters)

        Like

    1. Didn’t Ann Coutler want to “carpet bomb” the middle east, kill their leaders, and convert the survivors to Christianity?

      There is crazy all over the world.

      Like

      1. Not even on the same scale. She is espousing an opinion not the teachings of a religion.

        C’mon people. Think it through. We are talking about a religion, with printed words and imams who teach from it.

        That ain’t no radio show and it ain’t no talk show host.

        Like

      2. Her opinions are based on the Bible. I’m pretty sure your video shows a guy espousing an opinion as well. Each are interpreting what their holy book says.

        The huge majority of Muslims, like Christians, would not hurt a fly. Even the ones who say they would. Talk is cheap. If those 439 million apparently “radical” muslims really believed that suicide bombs were a path to eternal greatness, they would all be strapping on the C4. As it stands, most of the suicide bombers are lonely kids with no other future that have been brainwashed by others. Sure it’s a big problem, but the problem is with the lack of education and freedom in these countries.

        Like

      3. Ryan, you really need to read the Qur’an.

        Here… try these for starters….

        Sura 5.51:

        O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

        Lesson : Do not befriend Jews, Christians. They are unworthy.

        ——————————–
        Sura 8.12:

        When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

        Lesson : Behead, maim and kill disbelievers

        The holiest book of Islam (61% of which is about non-Muslims) draws the sharpest of distinctions between Muslims and non-believers, lavishing praise on the former while condemning the latter. Far from teaching universal love, the Qur’an incessantly preaches the inferiority of non-Muslims, even comparing them to vile animals and gloating over Allah’s hatred of them and his dark plans for their eternal torture. Naturally, the harsh treatment of non-believers by Muslims is encouraged as well.

        The Qur’an plainly tells Muslims that they are a favored race, while those of other religions are “perverted transgressors”:

        The Ayatollah Khomeini, who dedicated his entire life to studying Islam, said that non-Muslims rank somewhere between “feces” and the “sweat of a camel that has consumed impure food.” Small wonder. The Qur’an dehumanizes non-Muslims, describing them as “animals” and beasts:

        Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)

        Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. (8:55)

        Verse 7:176 compares unbelievers to “panting dogs” with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness. Verse 7:179 says they are like “cattle” only worse.

        Verse 5:60 even says that Allah transformed Jews of the past into apes and pigs. Verse 2:65 continues the theme.

        A hadith says that Muhammad believed rats to be “mutated Jews” (Bukhari 54:524, also confirmed by Sahih Muslim 7135 and 7136).

        According to Islamic law, non-Muslims may be taken as slaves by Muslims, but – in keeping with Islam’s supremacist message – a fellow Muslim should never be.

        Given that Allah hates non-Muslims to the extent that he would prevent them from knowing the truth, cause them to err and then condemn them to eternal torture for their unbelief and misdeeds, it would make little sense if he intended Muslims to treat unbelievers by the same standards that they treat each other here on earth.

        The Qur’an says that no true Muslim would ever love anyone who resists Islam, even if it is a family member:

        Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. (58:22)

        There are at least nine places in the Qur’an where believers are warned not to befriend non-Muslims:

        Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors. (3:110)

        These are not interpretations left up to the reader. They are explicit and overt. There is nothing to interpret.

        RE:The huge majority of Muslims, like Christians, would not hurt a fly.

        Writing at the Weekly Standard, Robert Satloff takes apart a new book by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, both of them professional pro-Islam propagandists, published by the Gallup organization, where Mogehed is executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. Satloff shows how, through fraudulent definition of the word “radical,” the authors make it appear that a multi-year study of Muslim opinion worldwide showed that only seven percent of Muslims are radical, when, in reality, by any fair reading of the authors’ own polling data, the correct number is 37 percent.

        The authors define Muslim radicals as those who say the 9/11 attack was “completely justified,” which was seven percent of the sample. However, there were two other categories of respondents who said that the attack was at least partially justified, and they are labeled by the authors as “moderates.” The first of those groups comprises 6.5 percent of the sample, the second comprises 23.1 percent. Further, the respondents in that last category, making up 23.1 percent, also said that they hate America, want to impose Sharia law, support suicide bombing, and oppose equal rights for women. Yet Esposito and Mogahed call them “moderates.”

        7 plus 6.5 plus 23.1 equals 36.6 percent of 1.2 billion Muslims, or 439 million radical Muslims in the world. Just a tiny unrepresentative minority.

        If you feel these are inflated, then take .001%. That still leaves 1.6 million ticked off Muslims.

        Like

      4. Yeah, we’re atheists and pretty much aware of how much they hate us and you. Neither I nor Ryan are defending Islam, just pointing out your hypocrisy and blinkered politicisation.

        Like

      5. The authors define Muslim radicals as those who say the 9/11 attack was “completely justified,” which was seven percent of the sample.

        Only 7%? What a bunch of softies. I’d have thought it was far more.

        Like

      6. Far from teaching universal love, the Qur’an incessantly preaches the inferiority of non-Muslims, even comparing them to vile animals and gloating over Allah’s hatred of them and his dark plans for their eternal torture.

        And happily, the bible never does that……….oh wait…..

        Like

      7. Ben, I’ve read a lot of the Qur’an, and I’ve read the Bible at least twice from cover to cover (the New Testament much more). I admit that the Qur’an is a little more likely to contain violence, but the Bible has plenty of it as well.

        And Racing Boo is certainly right – telling me the Qur’an is full of garbage is preaching to the choir. I’m not defending these guys.

        Like

      8. Nonsense, Ryan. Coulter is not even paraphrasing Christian beliefs, but her own opinion as Ben so says. Anyone who claims that the Bible suggests that they are justified in taking out people of other faiths, or anyone else for that matter, can easily be shown to be idiotically misinterpreting the text. As Ben shows in his response to this comment, the quran teaches the very actions in which the radicals engage. There is NO similarities between Christian teaching and islamic teaching.

        Further, I suspect Coulter’s opinion is largely based on the justified belief that there is no negotiating with the radicals whatsoever. They are not concerned with making peace, negotiating or any form of diplomacy. They are only concerned with making all the world believe as they do or to either subjugate or destroy those who won’t. For the sake of the innocent and liberty loving people world wide, I’m not convinced there’s a better alternative.

        Like

      9. I didn’t say Coulter is right, but she certainly does think that the Bible backs her desire to destroy the middle east, and many agree with her.

        They are only concerned with making all the world believe as they do or to either subjugate or destroy those who won’t.

        The only difference there is that Christian leave the “destroying the unbeliever” to God. It’s all the same in the end isn’t it?

        Both parties are misinterpreting their texts. Most Muslims, like Christians, are opposed to violence, and opposed to imposing beliefs.

        Like

      10. The only difference there is that Christian leave the “destroying the unbeliever” to God. It’s all the same in the end isn’t it?

        Not at all. We aren’t God, and we don’t have his rights.

        Like

      11. Yes, of course, but if morality is entirely objective and determined by God, then it must be your opinion that I deserve to go to hell, and that me going to hell is a good thing. Going to hell must be worse than death, since it is for an eternity. So killing infidels is really just accelerating the process. They are obviously mistaken in thinking they have the right to do so, but they are acting on “God’s morals”, not their own.

        That’s the problem with religion. You can absolve yourself from responsibility for your actions by citing an interpretation of a holy book.

        Like

      12. It’s the Christian opinion that all are deserving of death and hell for sinning. However, God desires that none go to hell. Killing infidels is murder, which God forbids. You are obviously mistaken in categorizing Islam with Christianity.

        And it’s not a problem with religion if you interpret things screwy. That’s a problem with you.

        Like

      13. all are deserving of death and hell for sinning

        So everyone on Earth is born deserving to die and go to hell? You don’t have to answer that – I know it’s what you believe. It’s just such a horrible thought to me, and in no way points to the existence of a God, let alone one that loves us.

        God desires that none go to hell.

        I’m pretty sure God, if he exists, can have just about anything he wants.

        Killing infidels is murder, which God forbids

        No he doesn’t. He just has a different definition of infidels. Apparently it’s okay to kill murderers. Muslims just apply that in more cases, like followers of Christianity two hundred years ago. Remember the witch burnings? Pretty much the same thing.

        Like

      14. Ryan, God sends no one to hell. We all make that choice ourselves. Freely. That’s the idea behind free will. It actually does point to a God that loves us because he would rather you choose life freely than be an unconscious robot without free will. Freedom is preferable to life.
        God cannot have whatever he wants. He cannot have a square circle. He cannot have you in relationship with Him if you don’t want it. He cannot have justice and overlook our sins. There is a law. It must be fulfilled, thus the Atonement by Jesus. You don’t seem to understand Christian doctrine that well (and not that I do either!), but that’s good – an opportunity to learn about it.
        And yes, God does forbid murder. Exodus 20:13: Do not do murder. Not sure how you could have missed that one if you read the Bible twice. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malicious intent. The state executing a murderer is not murdering him.
        Nice false dichotomy about the witch trials. I suggest you do some reading on Salem between 1690-1711. The entire trial was found by those who were involved to be a travesty and compensation (an unheard of thing in that period) was awarded to the families of the ‘witches’. Hardly the same thing as the founder of Islam ordering 300 men buried up to their necks and then beheading them because they resisted Allah and his prophet.

        Like

      15. God sends no one to hell. We all make that choice ourselves

        Well, perhaps not, but if what I know of Christian doctrine is true, he puts people in situations where the possibility of “salvation” is virtually zero. If what the Bible says is true, most of the world is going to hell. If I have free will, why will I go to hell for believing what I think is true?

        I was talking about capital punishment, and point out that the person doing the killing is considered by many Christians to be carrying out Gad’s law. That is the same view the radical muslims have when they kill for whatever reason. All of it is morally reprehensible.

        As for witches, Salem didn’t have a monopoly on witch burning.

        Like

      16. If God is supreme, as all the varied religions suppose, then it is for Him to do the destroying. This is where we part ways with islam (among other areas). We seek to convert through evangelism and, hopefully, Christian behavior (as defined by Scipture, not the poorly interpreted understandings of non-believers). Though I may not be accurate in my speaking for Coulter, to carpet bomb the country of our enemies is to break their will to carry on their agenda, which is sound military strategy and, frankly, the only way to win wars. For those who remain, we would seek to convert in the usual manner, and failing that, convert their thinking to one in which the word “islam” is no longer synomous with suffering for non-muslims. This is what we did in Germany and Japan and it worked out very well for us and for Germany and Japan.

        As to the other misinterpretation of yours, both Christian and muslim is commanded to sprea the word. Christians are NOT commanded to do it by force. Muslims are. They are taught three options: convert the unbeliever, subjagate the unbeliever, kill the unbeliever. It’s in their text. There’s nothing remotely like that in the Judeo/Christian tradition. That some Christians think there is cannot be supported in the text. That some muslims don’t abide their own teaching is a good thing for all, but it is part of their teaching whether they believe/abide it or not.

        Like

      17. What percentage of Muslims worldwide act on the “command” to kill unbelievers? Probably close to none. I would let a devout muslim friend of mine take care of my son. Both religious texts have silly things in them – we rely on our morality to guide what we act on, and what we view as simply a story.

        Like

      18. The Koran says to convert them or kill them. Any Muslim that doesn’t act on that command isn’t a good Muslim.

        Islam is not a religion of peace, despite what the PC crowd wants us to believe.

        Like

      19. You have got to be kidding me. you believe that between 1.6 million and 10 million muslims actually kill non-muslims as a rule upon meeting them? That’s insane and you know it.

        I’m sick of defending Muslims. I think their religion is messed up in an extreme way, and I deplore their treatment of women. I’m not defending the religion – I’m saying that the people that follow that religion are no more crazy than the people that follow any other religion.

        If you had grown up in Libya or Iran, you’d probably be a devout Muslim. Think about that.

        Like

      20. Only atheists consider some being taught about and then coming to accept a faith as brainwashing. Funny that you don’t see yourself as having brainwashed your own brain by denying His existence. You want Him to appear before you, or to see his picture and social security number, or some other tangible manifestation, but none will be forthcoming. That would kinda blow that faith thing. There’s evidence enough for those willing to find it, peruse it and then make a judgement. If you think you’ve done that sufficiently, then good luck to you.

        I won’t name a country because I don’t personally have a case for doing so. I have my suspicions, but bombing on suspicion is bad form. Iran comes very close, but there is still time to support those within the country that wish to change their gov’t. My hope is that such evidence becomes available before another 9/11 or something worse. I hope you wouldn’t suggest waiting until something like that happens if a carpet bombing might prevent it, would you?

        Like

      21. I don’t consider evangelism in everyday life to be brainwashing, providing it’s done between consenting adults (I’m serious). I’m referring to your subsequent comment about “failing that, convert their thinking” and considering that you are mentioning this in the context of a recently bombed and traumatised population. I’m also amused at the picture in my head of you sifting through the rubble for survivors, brushing them off and saying “well sorry it’s too late for your family, but would you like to accept the Lord Jesus as your personal saviour?” But that’s probably just me and my (very black) sense of humour.

        I hope you wouldn’t suggest waiting until something like that happens if a carpet bombing might prevent it, would you?

        I bloody well would. You’re not going to prevent terrorist actions by indulging in them yourselves. You might prevent one particular act from happening, but think how many more terrorists you’ll create. And by “waiting” I don’t mean “wait and do nothing”. Surely the correct way to deal with a potential crime is to increase your security and catch the criminal in the act, before any damage is done. You, however, would commit a similar crime in the hopes of preventing it. It seems terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

        Like

      22. RE:ncrease your security and catch the criminal in the act, before any damage is done.

        Well, there goes our freedoms. We’ll needa security card for every door we want to walk through with a camera at the other end.

        I’m not an advocate of that approach.

        Like

      23. So rather bomb innocent people than give up your freedoms. Classy.

        At present I work in the accounts department of a cash-in-transit company. I go through four security doors just to get to my office, and all the corridors have cameras. I’ve never felt safer in my life.

        What’s the big deal, anyhow? The cameras increase security in public places, but they’re not watching you at home or in your bedroom like a certain deity you all revere so much. Are you worried someone will read your emails? That would be pretty ironic right now (don’t you think?).

        Like

      24. Yes. She was incensed by the media coverage of Palestinians “dancing in the streets” after 9/11. She couldn’t understand “why they hate us so much” so she had to make up reasons: they hate our way of life, our freedom etc etc blah blah blah; rather than accept the reason right under her nose, that the US bankrolls their oppression.

        Like

      25. As a state in its current form, yes. As a people, no. There’s a huge difference. And take note that I’m acknowledging Israel as a nation, there are many people, and many of them are your conservative countrymen, who don’t even recognise Israel’s second class citizens as a legitimate people grouping.

        Like

      26. You fool yourself, Boo, in believing their reasons for hating us are based on more than their religion. The people of islam, or in the case of Israel, palestinians, are oppressed by no one but their own leaders. The US has also “bankrolled” Yasser Arafat with more than enough dough to more than lighten the burdens of his people. Since his joyfu death, more money has been poured out for them and the people have not benefitted one bit. The video that Ben presented is from MEMRI, an organization that translates the words of islamic leaders so that the world can know what they say amongst themselves, the “real” islam as it were, as opposed to what they say to the rest of us. I have a link to them at my blog. Well worth a perusal.

        I support any efforts by muslims who wish to distinguish themselves from the radicals, but they really need to stand up against their own if there’s to be any real change.

        Like

      27. The oppressors are the ones with the political power, Marshall, something the Palestinians are constantly denied. Israel is too scared to give them democratic rights due to their numbers, and they drag their feet over the two state solution (the only workable solution, which even Hezbollah supports) every time, with the US holding their hand and letting them get away with it.

        Throwing money at the Bantustans won’t make those problems go away. Only a proper political dispensation will do that. In the mean time, Israel blows them to bits with your weapons.

        And yes, as always, the religious radicals make use of the situation for their own ends. That’s simply a good argument for abandoning religion altogether.

        Like

      28. AGain, you fool yourself. Israel has more than offered to negotiate and work out a deal. The pallies, who are not a real nation or people, but an invented one to further anti-zionism in the region (go back to the ’40’s and study the pallestinian leaders of the time. They admit this.), ask more than they have a right to. The pallies and Arabs living in Israel live better lives than most outside Isreal in the region because they are NOT treated as second class. But to be wary of those from the groups that constantly attack and preach their destruction is necessary to their survival.

        The only fear Israel has is a legitimate one. They live with targets on their backs aimed at by the neighbors that surround them who are intent on their destruction. Your concerned for the people who drink the anti-zionist Koolaid is very misplaced. The fact is that the pallies have no legitimate claim to any of the land, and by their actions, malevolent from the beginning, are in no way entitled to anyone’s sympathies. I agree that throwing money their way won’t change anything. In fact is helped them arm for more attacks on Israel. I agreed with GW Bush when he cut of the funds after they elected Hamas to lead them. Should have been cut off long ago.

        There is a saying that is true from a former Israel leader who said that peace will only come to the region when the pallies love their children more than they hate the Israelis. Another one, equally true and one you should realize is directly based on the truth of the situation is that if the pallies lay down their arms, peace will come, but if Israel lays down her arms, they will be destroyed.

        You need to stop listening to liberal and anti-zionist crap and pay attention to what is really going on. Check out people like Robert Spencer at JihadWatch.com and other sites like Atlas Shrugs, people like Bridget Gabriel, Walid Shoebat (former terrorist), Ergun Kaner and others who speak from experience and intense study of the situation.

        I support peoples’ right to believe in whatever false religion they choose, whether it be islam or atheism. But I demand that they stop killing people and learn to live together.

        Like

      29. I agreed with GW Bush when he cut of the funds after they elected Hamas to lead them. Should have been cut off long ago.

        Of all the in(s)anity in your comment, you just gotta love this one. The election of Hamas was a reaction to the very corruption you were just moaning about before. It is, of course, a US tradition to support democracy when the “right” candidate wins, but to undermine it when your favoured candidates lose, or look likely to lose. Look at Nicaragua in 2004 and Venezuela in 2005.

        Like

      30. Democracy isn’t for everyone. I do not want to see a democracy sprout in Saudi Arabia. For obvious reasons.

        Like

      31. Don’t worry, while there’s still oil in Saudi, you’ve got more chance of falling pregnant than of them becoming a democracy. The US will never allow it. And if you think that’s a bit inconsistent with their messianic zeal to democratise the rest of the Middle East (a goal which suddenly appeared after the no-show of WMD is Iraq) you’re not the only one.

        At least you’re honest enough to admit that democracy’s only allowed where the right guy’s gonna win.

        Like

      32. Democracy is really only encouraged in areas where the locals share some sort of value system with us. I agree with that. I really don’t want to see the Palestinians elect Hamas into power, or the Saudi’s elect Wahhabi’s into power. That would be very bad for eneryone, even teh Saudi’s and Palestinians.

        Republic>democracy.

        Like

      33. I backed Reagan’s decision to continue to thwart the spread of communism which was the basis for his decision to support the contras. I know some conservatives disagree. They are free to do that. I would support an overthrow of Chavez. And yeah, I supported Bush’s decision to cut funding to the pallies after the election of Hamas. Again, I feel we shouldn’t have been giving them a dime anyway, as they are not worthy of our support. But, I have no issue supporting one thug against another doing so serves a higher purpose. Yeah, there was corruption in the pallie leadership. But there is an unabashed and proud determination to extinguish a solid ally within Hamas, who promotes that heinous attitude with extreme prejudice. Supporting the lesser of two evils is a good thing in foreign affairs even if some pretend it is evil itself. It’s easy to posture one’s self in a condescending manner, looking down upon a president for making the hard choices, but its wiser to look at the reality of one decision over another and the likely ramifications thereof.

        Like

      34. Would your overthrow of Chavez, a democratically elected leader, involve violence, and possibly the death of Venezuelans? Then from Venezuela’s point of view you’re a terrorist. Maybe Caracas should bomb Washington.

        But, I have no issue supporting one thug against another doing so serves a higher purpose

        And you would claim to be privy to that higher purpose? You also ignore your precious law of unintended consequences, which has bitten you in the arse so many times over the last few decades that you’d think you’d have learned by now. Bin Laden, Hussein, the Taliban were all your big mates once upon a time, and they’re just a small fraction of the despots you’ve ravished over the years.

        Like

      35. Nothing new at all. We seem to be neo realists. If you find a weapon usefull for killing bears, and bears are attacking, then by all means use it. If the bears are now pacified, why kep the weapon?

        Just change the names around and you’ll find the same strategies being employed by the Americans, the British, the French, the Romans, the Greeks…

        You seem to look down your nose at the Americans, when in reality, they’re the ones persuing economic empire whilst your country went after territorial empire and subjugation. I really don’t think that you are in position to lecture Americans on what they did or did not learn.

        Like

      36. And if there is no God then there is nothing moral or immoral about world domination; just effective or ineffective.

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      37. You’re dead right Neil, there’s nothing immoral about world domination. In fact, the ideal political solution for the world right now is for me to be instated as supreme dictator of a one-world government. That would do nicely, as I know that my way of doing things is what everyone needs.
        Unfortunately, everyone else feels the same, whether they admit it or not, and therefore my position is mutually exclusive with yours and everyone else’s.

        Bugger, and I was so close!!

        If you were the only person alive, would morality make any sense, would it even exist?

        Like

      38. What? Are you serious?

        Because I have British nationality I can’t criticise Americans? Rest assured I criticise my fellow Brits all the time. I’m well aware of our dismal record and responsibilty for many wrongs, past and present.

        This happens to be an American blog with mostly Americans commenting, but I’m sure you knew that. I’m not some rabid American hater, I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of many commenters here.

        Like

  4. love those conspiracy theories. 911 was a govt. plot, men never landed on the moon, etc….

    just don’t know how you can justify calling global warming a theory when the artic ice sheet has retreated. you can even compare pictures.

    Like

    1. Hi John,

      Parts of the globe are warmer at times. Other parts are cooler. Then they change. We even have a word to describe this phenomena: Weather 😉

      We’re getting snow in Houston, Texas tomorrow! Using your definition I’ve got all the evidence I need for global cooling.

      Like

      1. We’re supposed to get snow here in Austin tomorrow, too. I think the cold weather followed me down from Vermont.

        Like

    2. I love the moon landing guys. Even after pictures came out this year of the moon landing site, taken from Hubble (I think) they did not believe it.

      My very favourite site about the moon landing hoax was a guy that put up a parody site that showed how they faked the moon landing. The movie sets could not simulate low gravity, so they need to actually build the sets on the moon itself to fake the landing. It required multiple missions, but the fake was complete!

      Like

    3. John

      Many “deniers” did not go so far as to proclaim dogmatically that the earth was not warming. I guess this is why this debate has been so confusing; and a boon to those who purposely obfuscate. The question has always been centered around “anthropogenic CO2 based warming”- IPCC’s words, not mine- which is akin to blaming morning on light bulbs then accusing all who deny it of denying that it’s getting lighter outside.

      But now the Climate, for whatever reason, is no longer lending its hand to this madness, and in the nick of time I might add, for I do believe with this economically suicidal cap and trade bill, that has already made its way through this democratic congress, the barrel of the gun already rests against the economy’s head, we’re just waiting to see if this democratic controlled senate is going to pull the trigger.

      Like

      1. RE:But now the Climate, for whatever reason, is no longer lending its hand to this madness,

        Personally, I believe it’s because back in 2009, I swapped out all of my 100 watt bulbs and replaced them with 60 watters.

        I’m just trying to help.

        Like

      2. Dang – I just noticed it says 2009 – that’s obviously an error. I did it in 2008, February, I believe… and they were GE bulbs, too.

        Like

      3. I use 100 watt bulbs. I like me some bright.

        I’m putting up a wind mill in my back yard, and solar panels on my roof, so I’ll make it as bright as I want.

        Like

  5. I was just thinking today, with all the wagon circling going on in the media, that this is the very reason I do not buy into these large scale conspiracies involving generations of people. They simply are not able to keep them secret, as this “outing” attests.

    Like

  6. Boo, if you’re still checking in,

    I would love to continue the discussion of when it’s appropriate to take serious action against the despotic leader of another country. Of course there are unintended consequences, or more specifically, consequences not considered beforehand. To the extent that that is always possible, I would say that a good moral foundation limits that to the least troublesome variety. But, to suggest that because consequences might be negative, that no action should be taken in the present is cowardly. Indeed, similar negative consequences are likely after less violent actions are taken.

    Also, the idea that Chavez was elected democratically is to assume that their election was entirely ethical. In your Nicaraguan example, Ortega managed to change the voting laws to allow majorities as low as 35% or so to win elections (could have been lower). Is it really a win when 65% or more voted for someone other than the winner? Shennanigans were likely in Venezuela, no matter what Jimmy Carter-like observers might say. But I would suspend full opinion on the matter until I heard form a Venezuelan or two.

    I would also caution against any suggestion that pre-emptive action takes place after less than serious considerations, or that the support of one thug over another is given without regard to considering the opposite or no action at all. It’s all very well to be cynical about gov’t, but one must do so with real evidence upon which one can fall back, not simply cynicism for cynicism’s sake.

    Like

    1. Hey Marshall, yeah still checking in. Just got a bit sidetracked by watching Youtube videos of WL Craig, and wondering, quite frankly, what all the fuss is about. Snake oil salesman / televangelist are the words that spring to mind.

      I would also like to continue this, but I think it is important that we either agree on, or acknowledge differences in, our interpretation of certain words and phrases. There’s no point, for instance, in discussing terrorism, if we are not in agreement as to the definition of the word. If either of us essentially define it as “things you do to us” but the things we do to you are always benign, and leading to a greater good, then we’re on thin ice to start with. Further, there are historical realities that you do not seem able to acknowledge, namely your rejectionist stance on the state of Israel. Why are you so anti-Israel that you don’t acknowledge the existence of the majority of its population?

      Like

      1. I attempt the definition of terrorism and then I’ll get out of the way.

        Terrorism is a tool of violence with the goal of planting terror in the minds of a populace to entice them to demand from their government certain foreign policy changes with the intent of aiding the political goals or ideology of the terrorists.

        That should be good for starters.

        I yield the floor.

        Like

      2. That’s pretty good, and more or less the official US and British definitions. The US have since rescinded it in practice, presumably because of its obvious implications. The British either didn’t get the irony, or, more likely, just couldn’t care less.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s