No Conspiracies?

[hopeful skeptic]

Then I begin to wonder how much 'evidence' would satisfy your acceptance of anything outside the 'consensual reality'. I suspect that there is no such amount of evidence.

Well, consensus is not proof, so any number of people espousing conspiracy theories without evidence is meaningless. The evidence is what matters, not the nature or volume of the claim.

If you have an extraordinary claim, you must provide extraordinary evidence. If Enron and Arthur Andersen cannot support a "fudge-the-numbers" scheme, I find it unimaginable that a global conspiracy which, by its very nature and scope, must be supported by thousands upon thousands of people, all of whom have day jobs in highly competitive corporations, all at each others' throats, could go on this long undetected, without anyone talking, without anyone leaking a memo, without anyone sneaking a tape recorder into a meeting, without anyone popping a stolen videotape on youtube, without anything at all.

That just beggars common sense. Look at your wikipedia example of a corporation that got in trouble and lied to folks. What's most interesting in that article is that the scandal eventually came to light. Corporations have controls placed on them by governments, stock exchanges, internal mechanisms (boards and the like), and - most importantly - shareholders. If a single corporation can't swindle people without its actions eventually becoming known, how do you imagine these thousands of globalists could do it?

 

[hopeful skeptic]

How do you know that they are the most transparent organizations? If they are acting illegally will that show up in their public records? I doubt it.

Show me an example of any private organization under U.S. law that is as heavily-regulated as corporations.

What if the corporation has close links with the military and wraps all it's operations up in secrecy - how transparent are they then?

They are not closed entities. Corporations have responsibilities - public ones. And if you are accusing a private corporation of something, you have to provide direct evidence. Suspicion is not reasonable without evidence.

What if the CIA is the *real* terrorist organization - would that be apparent to all?

Well, the CIA has been caught any number of times doing bad things. You might say that goes to show that the CIA does do bad things, and I would then say that it also goes to show that even the CIA can't keep secrets, and gets caught.

How did Bush become president?

Well, the first time he won because of the constitutional provision of an electoral college. He is president despite narrowly losing the popular vote. This has happened once before in American history. The second time he was elected, he beat John Kerry in both the electoral college and the popular vote. Kerry's moron of a running mate couldn't deliver his home state, the Democrats failed to secure Florida, and the Republican Party did a fabulous, almost unprecedented job of turning out its vote.

Is he *really* the best person to run your country?

No, but that has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Do you believe that the best person always wins in a popularity contest?

Did you vote for him?

Yes, both times, with my nose firmly held. If he were up for a third term, I would vote against him in the primary and wait for my guy to get the nomination.

Isn't it strange that his father was *also* the US president - two 'brilliant' men born of the same family - now what are the chances of that happening?

Well, in only 43 presidencies, it's happened twice. In the early nineteenth century, the Adamses were presidents. Now we've had another father/son team, which is why George H.W. Bush sometimes teases his son by calling him "Quincy." There is a very good chance - regrettable though it may be - that we might see the first husband/wife team. Is that a conspiracy, and if so, to what purpose?

Probably best not to mention grand-daddy Prescott Bush and his *alleged* links with the funding of the Nazi war machine...

Probably not, since the charges are alleged, and completely unproven. I hesitate to call anyone - dead or alive - a Nazi sympathizer without damned hard evidence to back it up. We can discuss Joe Kennedy's documented affectations toward Hitler, or the documented affectations of some members of Britain's own government for Hitler during World War II, or for the documented affectations for Stalin entertained by some high-ranking members of Britain's and the U.S.'s government. Are those ties evidence of a conspiracy? If so, what conspiracy, and toward what end?

Unreasoning, blind hatred for all things Bush here in America and over The Pond is in fashion, I guess. How the purported "world's most verbally clumsy, stupid, politically inept man" found his way into the devious, cunning globalist conspiracy is beyond me.

...oh look, here's one of your corporations - Union Banking Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

(Addressed in a different response.)

 

[Rick Deckard]

You do seem to be very 'polar' about some topics - I pretty much try to sit in the 'grey' areas. I find neither the official or the alternative realities 100% convincing, whereas you appear to be 100% accepting of the 'status quo' until the day you're wacked around the head with enough evidence to move you from one 'pole' to the other - there's doesn't appear to be any middle ground for you.

I think your 'stance' and mine are incompatible - we'll never get past your demand for conclusive proof and I therefore doubt that you and I can have any productive discussion on these forums. I'll continue to put forward theories and you'll continue to the demand proof for which I have none.

So, I will continue to read your posts with interest, but there's very little point in me addressing your points directly because there is no way for me to give you a satisfactory response.

To me, forums like these are a cheap form of 'therapy' - I like to explore ideas but I don't really expect to find the answers to any of the 'important' questions.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

You do seem to be very 'polar' about some topics - I pretty much try to sit in the 'grey' areas. I find neither the official or the alternative realities 100% convincing, whereas you appear to be 100% accepting of the 'status quo' until the day you're wacked around the head with enough evidence to move you from one 'pole' to the other - there's doesn't appear to be any middle ground for you.

Enough evidence? I'd settle for any hard evidence. I have yet to see a scrap, and have yet to be offered any.

As for being polar in my opinions - well, I can't argue with that. I will say, however, that no opinion of mine is sacred pending further evidence. If, for example, I was presented with evidence that a globalist conspiracy was afoot, I assure you I'd change my tune. It would be unreasonable of me to do otherwise.

I think your 'stance' and mine are incompatible - we'll never get past your demand for conclusive proof and I therefore doubt that you and I can have any productive discussion on these forums. I'll continue to put forward theories and you'll continue to the demand proof for which I have none.

So, I will continue to read your posts with interest, but there's very little point in me addressing your points directly because there is no way for me to give you a satisfactory response.

To me, forums like these are a cheap form of 'therapy' - I like to explore ideas but I don't really expect to find the answers to any of the 'important' questions.

Yep. Fair enough, and I admire your willingness to see the reason for our impasse, and understand that it isn't of a personal nature at all. It's an issue of argumentation only.

I enjoy reading your posts, and hope you continue to offer them.

 

[CapnG]

Hoo boy, is this getting long... I'll attempt to not retread old ground here in the interest of reading responses in less than one hour...

Wow, didn't have to wait too long before someone drops the 'just in case' argument. Prevention is better than the cure, right?

Um, yes? Better to not stick your arm in the band saw's path or spend hours in surgery getting it re-attached? Your choice.

The only sure way to ensure the Earth suffers no further damage is to wipe out the human race. Do you wanna go first, after all *YOU* are pumping out CO2 and water-vapour every time you breath out...

So you're now joining Korman in advocating my suicide? What lovely, friendly people. If this kind of exaggerated, reactionary nonsense is the best counter argument you've got them I'm thoroughly saddened...

That's precisely my point. Many qualified scientists decry the Gore model of global warming because they believe the evidence shows that Gore's followers are making assumptions without evidence.

Back to the pissing contest then. Group A versus Group B, no holds barred this sunday, SUNDAY, SUNDAY!!

Then how does one know global warming is happening at all? If we don't have faith in measurements of global temperature taken 30, 50 or 100 years ago, on what basis can proponents of human-caused global warming say that the Earth is heating up?

Theirin lies the rub. Faith. Are the people we call scientists doing their jobs or not? Most of the rest of this argument essentially drops to the floor the moment you have to say what you're basing the argument on: the word of scientists. Plenty for each side, publically more for the human-caused side but who knows how many against in the wings?

The question is whether all the industrialization in the world can be the sole cause of the planet's mean temperature to climb half a degree.

Nonsense. Obviously the CO2 from volcanoes, forest fires, meteor et al already exists in the atmosphere so the question isn't "are we solely responsible?" it's "how much are we contributing?" You cannot say the earth is the same as it's always been. Humanity's very existence stands proof against that notion.

Well, such a figure would be statistically insignificant, and not account for the 0.5 degree rise in global mean temperatures over the last 30 years. And massively handicapping the leading industrial nations of the world - the nations most responsible for wealth creation, political stability and technological innovation - seems a lot like using a sledgehammer to swat flies - unproven, possibly imaginary flies, at that.

I don't buy the economic argument, I'm sorry I just don't. The industrialized nations of the world would solve the problem the same way they always do- by exploiting the third world.

But you have to prove that the human factor is a significant factor. You also have to prove that the cure isn't worse than the disease.

See bandsaw analogy above.

I worry very much about the real motivations behind Gore's climate control model. I see very little difference between his proposed cure and outright income redistribution. What communism and socialism could not accomplish, the rabid environmental lobby might.

I have no problem with income redistribution at a certain level. Some people have too much freakin money. If limits were imposed, you could watch the rivers of tears that don't flow from my eyes when I learn the CEO of MEGACROP can't afford to buy his own private island. Poor boy, he's only got three.

Anytime someone mentions communism I laugh. Communism is at best a theory and at worst a joke. The Russians? Gone. Koreans? Cubans? Please. China? They're more capatlist in many ways than we are in the west. The reddest of red herrings (You like that? Red herring? Bah, I'm getting tired)

And screw Al Gore. Seriously, I've had enough of that guy.

That's why Galileo suffered as he did.

Stop that right now. Galileo was ONE scientist in a room full of superstitious, religious fanatics. We're talking about an issue being discussed by a room full of Galileos.

This is another straw man argument, CapnG, because the vast majority of scientists who don't believe in human-caused global warming have been asking for one simple thing: evidence. Show conclusive evidence that the planet's slight warming trend over the last 30 years is caused by man, is likely to continue, and can be solved by a change in man's behavior.

A plethora of evidence exists and is rejected. So now what? Flip a coin?

But I do not believe that shelving oil dependency should be done to correct a problem I have no evidence exists, and I don't believe drastic, crippling handicaps should be placed on Western economies to fix it.

Whoa there! Who said anything about shelving oil? I said "Conserve, manage and refine use of existing resources." not "eliminate". It's there, it's an energy source, so we might as well use it until we don't need it; just smarter and better than we are now.

I don't think a real argument can be made for human-caused global warming because the evidence just isn't there and the cure is worse than the disease.

And I disagree, so we're pretty much back to square one. Don't despair though, you have given me a great deal to think about.

 

[Rick Deckard]

As for being polar in my opinions - well, I can't argue with that. I will say, however, that no opinion of mine is sacred pending further evidence. If, for example, I was presented with evidence that a globalist conspiracy was afoot, I assure you I'd change my tune. It would be unreasonable of me to do otherwise.

Well, that is reassuring - I don't know which way is 'up' any more

I enjoy reading your posts, and hope you continue to offer them.

If only everyone would agree with everything I say, life would be so much easier for us all

 

[Rick Deckard]

So you're now joining Korman in advocating my suicide? What lovely, friendly people. If this kind of exaggerated, reactionary nonsense is the best counter argument you've got them I'm thoroughly saddened...

Um, no - I made a flippant remark about the increase of human-CO2 being directly caused by the global population boom. Not really a counter argument, more of an alternative theory with an extreme solution. I obviously shouldn't have bothered...