the climate change scam

OK now, relax. You are entitled to your own beliefs.

I would ask you though to seriously consider why it is you so easily dismiss the work of countless diligent academics, journalists and other people, and yet credit these two-bit cranks who pump out nonsense.

I can't tell you to trust me, but for the most part, academics are not censored. There's definitely some self-censorship going on, but it's more along the lines of 'don't actively reveal how much you don't like the current state of Feminist discourse in your discipline' and things of that nature.

It would take an inordinate amount of control and organisation to censor individuals across thousands of institutions and in dozens of different states.

Where real censorship occurs, we hear about it pretty rapidly, people start defecting, hiding in foreign embassies, &c.

Yes, there are state secrets, but the 'grand conspiracy' you claim is orders of magnitude more complex and resource intensive to cover up.
 
kinglear said:
the fact is that the people behind those things control the corporate media and education system and through them shape not only what facts you get to hear but how you interprete them

so what i'm saying is your thoughts are not your own, they are given to you

it's called 'perception management'

why don't you go ahead and tell me how you interprete these things...
Click to expand...
Perception management was initially a propaganda for warfare - still is used today though for that and for different reasons. You can also see it yes in media, education etc but can be applied differently!!
Heck, it's used in marketing! just to get someone to buy some bloody phone.
Perception management isn't inherently bad even though initially it wasn't used for 'good' in black and white terms.

I think that the reason for that being more widely implemented was to have a more safe society and to increase growth. So people are more in sync and less conflict arises. Perception management is rather feeling based. However, it's carried out with thinking and some foresight.
Also, what we are given in that perception management is completely different depending on city, state, country, etc - Also, to counteract perception management are different media outlets and travelling (believe it or not). Therefore, the old term of perception management doesn't hold the same meaning. Not all countries are restricting on people making their own views and living their live to their accordance.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
Where real censorship occurs, we hear about it pretty rapidly, people start defecting, hiding in foreign embassies, &c.

Yes, there are state secrets, but the 'grand conspiracy' you claim is orders of magnitude more complex and resource intensive to cover up.
Click to expand...
Lol Julian Assange is suing gov. of Ecuador:tongueout:
 
kinglear said:
i'm not saying we shouldn't stop polluting etc

I'm saying that the people doing all that polluting including plastics (created from the petrochemical industry) are the same people trying to tell us that the big problem we have is carbon dioxide

they are pushing this whole carbon dioxide is causing global warming con because they want to impose their technocracy

I'd love to stop the pollution but that's not what their agenda is
Click to expand...

No...they are people like the Koch brothers...who have spent ridiculous amounts on election rigging and lobbyists to bribe the candidates they got elected who will repeal the environmental regulations stifling their industries.
They are climate change deniers...because it’s good for business to pollute...especially if you’re an old rich white sociopathic fuck.

Have you ever been to a really polluted city?
I mean like really polluted?
I have.
Magnitogorsk, Russia - https://russianblogger.me/20-most-polluted-cities-in-russia/
Air so bad in summer it burned my throat to breath.
Only 5% of the children in the city have no respiratory disease...95% ill from the mill.
You should see the smoke pour out of the stacks there man...one with red smoke, one black, one white, one orange...it’s nuts.
That is the end game for garbage like the Kochs.

Believe what you will (cause I know you will no matter what anyone says or proves to you) I for one happen to think man IS fucking this planet and it’s climate up.
 
Last edited:
Puzzlenuzzle said:
Perception management was initially a propaganda for warfare - still is used today though for that and for different reasons. You can also see it yes in media, education etc but can be applied differently!!
Heck, it's used in marketing! just to get someone to buy some bloody phone.
Perception management isn't inherently bad even though initially it wasn't used for 'good' in black and white terms.

I think that the reason for that being more widely implemented was to have a more safe society and to increase growth. So people are more in sync and less conflict arises. Perception management is rather feeling based. However, it's carried out with thinking and some foresight.
Also, what we are given in that perception management is completely different depending on city, state, country, etc - Also, to counteract perception management are different media outlets and travelling (believe it or not). Therefore, the old term of perception management doesn't hold the same meaning. Not all countries are restricting on people making their own views and living their live to their accordance.
Click to expand...

Yup, when a Edward Bernays was messing about creating 'public relations', mass media outlets were centrally controlled to a much larger extent than they are now. Today it is probably far easier to escape the 'mass message'.
 
kinglear said:
hitler was helping zionism before the war through the haavara agreement where he was facilitating the movement of jews out of germany

they even made a coin to commemorate it:

iu
Click to expand...

Because not just anyone can have a coin made!
Good solid proof!
lol
 
kinglear said:
Climate change ‘consensus’ actually derived from the opinions of just 75 hand-picked U.S. scientists
Tuesday, December 13, 2016 by: JD Heyes

One of the most outrageously false of all the false claims is the one regularly spewed by Left-wing warming alarmists up to and including President Obama is that “97 percent of scientists” believe humans are causing the planet to warm, a figure which forms a genuine “concensus” of “settled science.”

The big problem with that claim is that it is based on incredibly skewed sampling.

As noted by The Last Great Stand website, the 97 percent consensus only makes sense to you if you also believe that nearly 100 million Americans out of about 320 million currently not in the work force really does produce an unemployment rate of just 4.7 percent.

Phony ‘consensus’
Author and frequent on-air political host and commentator Mark Steyn, in a recently published book, A Disgrace to the Profession, documented the fraud surrounding the so-called consensus figure:

Margaret R. K. Zimmerman, MS, conducted an opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change, the results of which were published by the University of Illinois in 2008. This was a two-question survey, and in fact was conducted online. It was sent to 10,258 earth scientists. Of that figure, only 3,146 responded.

Of the responding scientists, an overwhelming number – 96.2 percent – came from North America. Only 6.2 percent came from Canada, so the United States is dramatically over-sampled even within the North American sample.

Nine percent of U.S. respondents were from California, making California very over-represented within not just the U.S. sample, but elsewhere: That figure is twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined. Of the 10 percent of non-U.S. respondents, Canada comprised 62 percent, Steyn noted.

So the sample was very distorted, but apparently Zimmerman wasn’t satisfied yet, so researchers working with her further distorted it by selecting 79 of their sample and deeming them “experts.” Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from an added question, lowering the total number of scientists to 77; 75 of the 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 percent of them were found to agree with the “consensus” claim.

This is where the “97 percent of scientists” claim comes from. So in essence, a handful of scientists, mostly from Left-wing California, get to decide climate policy for the world’s 6.5 billion people.

In addition to this sham, the “researchers” also invited respondents to comment on the so-called “hockey stick” model, which purports to show a dramatic increase in global warming in a very short period of time (the Industrial Age, basically). That drew three comments: one blandly positive, and the other two – not so much.

Hoaxers have had to alter data in order to fool the masses
As scandalous as this is, however, it’s not the only way climate hoaxers have been manipulating the issue. As Natural News founder/editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has reported, the data claiming to support the charge that our planet is warming has been repeated faked. He cited the web site Real Science, which noted in June 2014 that NASA began manipulating its climate data after the year 2000.

Prior to that year, the site reported, the space agency’s climate division had been showing the Earth in a perpetual cooling trend (even The New York Times reported on it, in February 1989):

Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period.

Right after 2000, NASA and NOAA changed data to make it appear much colder in the past and much warming in the present.
https://naturalnews.com/2016-12-13-...ns-of-just-75-hand-picked-u-s-scientists.html
Click to expand...

Yeah no. Thats one study of 7 that I know of. And he didn't even provide references. Where exactly is he pulling this information from? That book he linked from Amazon? Sure, but where are the fucking references? He has none. I checked all of his links and guess what I found? NOTHING.
 
wolly.green said:
Yeah no. Thats one study of 7 that I know of. And he didn't even provide references. Where exactly is he pulling this information from? That book he linked from Amazon? Sure, but where are the fucking references? He has none. I checked all of his links and guess what I found? NOTHING.
Click to expand...

Must Watch: Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink

 
Skarekrow said:
Believe what you will (cause I know you will no matter what anyone says or proves to you) I for one happen to think man IS fucking this planet and it’s climate up.
Click to expand...

you keep building strawmen

I'm not saying that the planet isn't being polluted

I'm saying that the very same people who have most fucked up this planet are the very same people behind this carbon dioxide reduction idea because they need an excuse to impose their technocratic lockdown society
 
kinglear said:
that is an utterly absurd statement. Media has become far more consolidated

iu
Click to expand...

Ownership does not automatically imply editorial control.

Are Twitter accounts subject to editorial control by these big conglomerates? Facebook posts? Forum threads? YouTube videos? (that one is more debatable)

It's not an absurd statement at all. Mass media in the past could be very tightly controlled in terms of message. This is simply not the case today.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
Ownership does not automatically imply editorial control.

Are Twitter accounts subject to editorial control by these big conglomerates? Facebook posts? Forum threads?

It's not an absurd statement at all. Mass media in the past could be very tightly controlled in terms of message. This is simply not the case today.
Click to expand...

ownership DOES imply editorial control because the proprietor is the person who hires the editor

if you started your own newspaper would you care about the political pursuasion of the editor you hired?

Of course you would so why do you think billionaires wouldn't?

anyone ever get banned from forums?

anyone ever had their content censored on facebook, twitter or youtube?

you've obviously not heard about the purge that's been going on
 
kinglear said:
ownership DOES imply editorial control because the proprietor is the person who hires the editor

if you started your own newspaper would you care about the political pursuasion of the editor you hired?

Of course you would so why do you think billionaires wouldn't?

anyone ever get banned from forums?

anyone ever had their content censored on facebook, twitter or youtube?

you've obviously not heard about the purge that's been going on
Click to expand...

But is it easier, more difficult, or equally difficult to exert editorial control over mass media now than it was in the past? Let's say before 1990.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top