Friday, November 27, 2009

The Gibroney Hunter Vs. The Hutch: Global Warming

The Hutch: I was arguing about this with my conservative christian friend. One group of scientists doing bad science does not damn the science itself. There are still mountains - MOUNTAINS! - of good science being done all over the world. Look at the stuff coming out of India, China, and Antarctica, for example.

Fact is, we know we are producing more CO2 than ever. This much is certain. And we know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. These two facts together, paired with a great deal of observed and measured evidence from all over the world leads to a very obvious and ultimate conclusion about Global Warming.

No doubt, you'd point to more than a few outliers that exist. The oft-debated "cooling "stats, for example. And these facts need further exploring. It is certainly possible that all we know about global warming could turn out to be wrong. But considering all that we DO know, we can say, at the moment, that that is highly improbable. It would be very irresponsible not to act accordingly considering the danger involved in Global Warming being a real phenomenon.

There are no 100% knowns in science. Everything is a best guess. Even gravitation is called into question by any physicist worth his salt. We can only gather the best possible evidence and act according to what seems most likely at the moment. The testing and modeling and data gathering continues, and science refines and revises.

I sincerely hope everyone's wrong about Global Warming, but a handful of corrupt scientists does not make that so.

The Gibroney Hunter:
I have no doubt that much good science is done everyday around the world. My intention isn't to attack science as an institution. Quite to the contrary, it's my love and respect for true science that motivates me to try to expose the criminal monied interests that have infiltrated, and now threaten to completely and irrevocably pervert and destroy science.

You're adamant about describing this e-mail situation as a group of rogue scientists who somehow got it into their heads to try to hide evidence of global temperature declines.. as if they weren't instructed by the individuals and groups who oversee their research to do just that.

When a scientist is given funding for specific research, he/she is not permitted very much deviation from the specific task that has been chartered. Sadly, the days of research and inquiry truly being in the hands of the scientist have long since passed us. The point I'm trying to make is that I find it extremely difficult to believe that these individuals attempted to fudge the data of their own volition. That's kind of like believing that the troops at Abu Ghraib decided amongst themselves to begin torturing people, and weren't specifically instructed to do just that. The scientific mind, like just about everything else in our world, is treated by the elite like just another resource to be harnessed and misused for their purposes.

While it's true that we as a species are producing more Co2 than ever before, studies have also shown that the overall levels of Co2 in our atmosphere have actually been much higher during certain periods of geological and human history.
Another point of debate is the issue of causation, regarding Co2. Many credible scientists question which comes first.. temperature increase or Co2 increase. In other words, there's disagreement over whether our Co2 emissions are significantly increasing temperature, or vice versa.. natural climate change is triggering a planetary response of increased Co2.

It's important to mention that no one is truly certain about global warming. It's not like the sabotage attacks of 9/11, which is clear-cut, and presentable in a court of law. This is an issue to be sorted out by honest professionals.. which is why gibronies like you and I can only really get so far, trying to figure it out.

I know of no global warming skeptics who doubt that our planet is very troubled. Oceans, rivers, and streams are poisoned. So is the air. Species are dying, new cancers are cropping up all the time, less and less of the planet remains unmolested and mowed down by profiteers.. the only point that many honest scientists have a burning desire to debate is that of specifically whether or not our activity can be conclusively linked to temperature increases.

Regardless of where you stand, we should all be in agreement that something with such serious implications as "carbon credits" or climate change legislation, should not be primarily in the hands of a reptile like Al Gore. He's a treasonous parasite. He stands to make a killing if his "carbon credit" scheme pushes through.. but i digress.

I'm curious.. what do you think about the fact that much of the global warming raw data is not made available to skeptics who intend to scrutinize it? Commonly, global warming skeptics are refused this data, and told by Establishment scientists that they probably work for an oil company, and to get lost. First of all, no skeptics have ever been exposed as being on oil company payrolls, but even if they were, so what? How can it be truly scientific if the RAW DATA, the very source of studies and calculations, is not shared with professionals on BOTH sides? Also, much of the information presented by Al Gore is based on studies not properly peer-reviewed.

There may be confusion when it comes to the issue of global warming, but there's no confusion whatsoever over what IS and IS NOT good and legitimate scientific practices. These hacked emails are just more evidence that an honest scientific debate is NOT TAKING PLACE HERE.

Another reason why the "you may work for an oil company" argument is bullshit.. is the example of the tobacco industry. They employed scientists left and right, but eventually good science won, and now everyone knows that cigarettes are quite bad. So if the proponents of anthropogenic climate change are so confidently certain of their findings, they should not only offer every and anyone the opportunity to prove them wrong, but indeed CHERISH it, since it's through this exact type of criticism and refinement that scientific progress is made.

The Hutch:
It sounds to me like you're attacking the process than the findings themselves. Which I can't and will not argue with. Any attempt by anyone, regardless of intention, to make good science better will be applauded by me.

However, most of the time, the statements you make are headlined by a disbelief in climate change which I don't think is a valid position based on the good science we do have.

As for people not turning over their data, well, I can't answer for everyone, but I have met more than a few climatologists (working for AAAR [ -- no, I didn't design their page, I Just publish updates on it] on occasion, in particular, grants me the opportunity) I know there's a lot of fear in the community. Fear of their data being stolen or misinterpreted. The measures they make us go through to make their presentation slides undownloadable... (which, mind you, is absurd and incredibly frustrating. When I show them how to take a screenshot, their heads explode).

But every year there are these presentations when the data does come out. I think it's more about completeness more than anything.

But I like the tabacco industry analogy. I may bring that up next time I have a chance to haves a conversation with a AAAR person.

Sorry if this is all over the place. Just trying to get a few tenuous points made before leaving for Thanksgiving stuff. Which I'm now going to do. Later!

The Gibroney Hunter:
Yeah I focus on the improprieties within the bureaucratic/political/funding side of the science, since my knowledge of climatology doesn't go much past the basics.

But don't underestimate the significance of this corruption, evidenced by the immoral and in my opinion criminal activity, exposed in these emails. (i sent you the source code, check it out.) These emails reveal an attempt to unfairly manage and manipulate the facts and the overall debate over global warming. This doesn't seem to fit well with the image of rock-solid science, pushed in our faces by the global warming marketing machine.

The success of the theory of evolution didn't require people sitting around trying to fudge the numbers like sleazy accountants.

I'm definitely highly skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, which is a standpoint not only supported by volumes of evidence, but by the already destroyed reputation of the Establishment, and the elite globalists who own and operate it. In other words, they've committed so many frauds and crimes against the populations they dominate, that I find it entirely rational to maintain the standpoint of deep skepticism and, dare I say, a sober amount of paranoia, toward their agenda.

Anyway, yeah.. have a good thanksgiving.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Common Sense - What Really Happened On September 11th? (part 2)

1. Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex was not hit by an airplane, yet it collapsed at all but exactly free-fall speed. This seems to run counter to ALL PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE of structure fires, and the behavior of steel structures while aflame. Never before or since this event has a steel framed building collapsed into itself at nearly free-fall speed, from fire and only fire. And that, of course, is the official story. Observe the footage of building 7's collapse. Hopefully you're already familiar, as anyone even remotely concerned with what happens in their country should be. Then compare that footage to stock footage of building demolitions. The images will be virtually indistinguishable. There is a tell-tale buckling of the roof (which begins collapse before the rest of the building) toward the center, which is exactly what one would expect during a demolition of a building.

Another very instructive comparison to make is between the footage of building 7 and other high rise buildings that have caught fire. One of the liberty towers in Philadelphia, for example, burned for over 12 hours, if I remember correctly.. officials on the scene described it as probably the worst high rise building fire in American history. The building is lit up like a torch, bright as the sun. The images of this event couldn't be any more different from building 7 on sept. 11. The fire in building 7 is emitting very dark smoke, which indicates an OXYGEN STARVED fire, rather than the thinner type smoke emitted from hotter, oxygen-fed fires. There are other skyscraper fires to compare this event to. There was one in Spain in 2005. Same story. Much bigger, brighter fire, and no collapse. And definitely no collapse at free fall speed, something all but impossible to accomplish unless a building's core support apparatus has been neutralized.

Either NYC has employed the most mediocre of engineers and architects.. or the official explanation of this event, as a fire-caused collapse is simply incorrect. There's much more to bring up regarding building 7, but I'll move on to another point for now.

2. THE TESTIMONY OF FORMER C.I.A AGENT SYBEL EDMONDS. Recently, this brave woman broke a federal gag order by announcing to the press that the agency she was a member of had direct contact with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden all the way up to the very day of September 11th. This is a startling revelation, as there is already a bucketful of evidence linking American intelligence to Al Qaeda, which in Arabic, means "The Base," and is in literal reference to a computer database the military kept in the '80's, of middle-eastern mercenaries willing to do the C.I.A's bidding. Combine this unsettling fact with the fact that Osama Bin Laden was visited by American intelligence officials in a Saudi Arabian hospital just months before the attacks, where he was receiving dialisis treatment, and also the fact that other whistle-blowers have revealed having Bin Laden in the crosshairs, and being ordered not to take the shot.. and the possibility that Al Qaeda is really a patsy organization, under the wing of the C.I.A, becomes more than mere idle speculation.

3. A common response to the obvious discrepancies between the official explanation, and the video footage of all 3 buildings collapsing in a manner consistent with demolition, and inconsistent with fire, is: "Well, there's really no point in going over this, since we'll never know exactly how they fell, until another two planes fly into another two towers.. so let's just forget about it."

It's important to patiently remind people that the one and only reason we are unable to ascertain the exact cause of all 3 collapses is because the federal government, only days after the attack, arranged for the steel debris to be shipped off to China to be melted down and used to make various slave labor products. Obviously excavation should have begun as soon as was possible, but shipping the debris, which would have contained AN ABUNDANCE of forensic and ballistic evidence, to a foreign country just days after the attacks, constitutes tampering with evidence in a federal crime scene, a very serious offense.

4. At least six of the alleged suicide hijackers have come out publicly, declaring that they are alive and not involved in any terrorism. Despite this amazing fact, these individuals remain on the F.B.I's list of the 19 hijackers, and no explanation or acknowledgment of this fact is offered.

5. In the 1950's, a B52 bomber flew HEAD FIRST, in foggy weather, into the empire state buildiing. There was some loss of life, obviously.. and it was quite a challenge for the firefighters at the time. But no big deal. No collapse. And that was a B52 bomber.

6. Samples of Nano-thermite, found at/near the crime scene, within the dust from the debris. Samples acquired and studied by Dr. Steven Jones, Physicist. Nano-thermite is significant, because it's an industrial explosive, commonly used in the demolition industry. It's presence within the debris is extremely difficult to explain, from the standpoint of the official story, since there is really no conceivable explanation for this particular substance to have been present naturally.

7. The Director of the 9/11 Commission, the federal government's excuse for an investigation, is an individual named Philip Zelikow. The problem with Philip Zelikow is that he co-authored a book with Condoleeza Rice, and has close ties and friendships with several members of the Bush administration. This is just one example of the multitude of conflicts of interest within the 9/11 Commission and it's final report.

8. NASA thermographic pictures from MONTHS after the attack show significant amounts of MOLTEN METAL still pooled beneath the rubble. The temperatures of this molten steel far exceed the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel. And that's jet fuel at its MAXIMUM. Forget about jet fuel after months of smoldering, there's no way these temperatures would be at the level necessary to maintain a pool of melted steel. Do you know what is consistent with lingering pools of molten steel, though? EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF THE MILITARY GRADE INDUSTRIAL EXPLOSIVE, NANO-THERMITE, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED.

9, The Project For A New American Century (PNAC). This is a document published by a Neoconservative thinktank in 2000, within which the neocons complain about how their agenda for securing American dominance during the upcoming century isn't progressing quickly enough for them, and that a "NEW PEARL HARBOR" as they put it, is necessary, if the American people are going to be sufficiently galvanized into future wars for empire. About one year later, they got the "new pearl harbor" they were looking for.

Please rigorously fact-check any of this that sounds far fetched or made up.

I believe that exposing the crime of 9/11 is key to putting the brakes on this entire nightmare that has been thrust upon us since then, first by the Neocons, during Bush's eight years, and now, it's become obvious, also by Obama's fake liberal front, and his Wall Street handlers.

It's very difficult to stir the American public into becoming proactive. Very few things have been able to do that. But once it's done it's one of the most insurmountable forces the globe's ever seen. The overwhelming public outcry over Vietnam springs to mind as a powerful example of this. Another is the progress made with workers' rights in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I believe this type of awakening and empowerment is in order once again. And a true realization of the motives and culprits behind 9/11 is precisely the remedy to the sociological disorder that has plagued our nation since that horrible day.

HIgh Fructose Corn Syrup: Toxic, or just pointless and extremely unhealthy?

Some people will try to dismiss the creepiness of this ad by saying that us "crazies" would be making just as big a deal if the makers of HFCS didn't respond to their product's negative reputation. But that misses the point, as the suspicion arises from the type of response offered by the makers of HFCS, not merely the fact that they did respond. In other words, the fact that they chose to use advertising propaganda, rather than an information-rich print ad, or something of that nature, is somewhat disconcerting. I mean, really.. there's barely 10 words spoken in this commercial. It's difficult to see how it could be described as anything but straight propaganda.

And then there's the cheap mind game aspect of it.. how the individual with concerns regarding HFCS is portrayed as a bumbling boob who can't say word 1 when asked what the big deal is. Again, more indication that the makers of this ad are interested not in an open dialogue about their product taking place, but rather, in making people with concerns seem stupid and out of step, socially. This ad is a cheap piece o' bullshit and can only add to people's fears and suspicions of HFCS.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Calling Shenanigans on the Professional Class Propagandists, Once Again

Get a load o' this Gibronasaurus

Yeah I stopped taking this guy seriously as soon as he tried to connect Maher's skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry and the CDC's standards and practices, with "9/11 conspiracy mongering", simply by declaring it so. He draws no comparisons. He gives no fact-based examples. He simply name-drops '9/11 conspiracy theories' and then name-drops vaccine skepticism and then lazily lets his hopefully braindead audience make the unfair connection, without any critical inquiry. Rather than playing politics by dragging up the name of a political movement that may have a certain stigma for the average moron, this dude could have presented a legitimate SCIENTIFIC, not POLITICAL, critique. You'd think that would've been in order, since.. y'know.. he's a scientist, n' all.

Equating the honest and legitimate concerns of parents across this nation to a politically stigmatized movement without providing any support for that claim is just intellectually dishonest.

Reminding us of the basic theory behind vaccinations is a laughable response to skepticism and concern over a fast-tracked vaccine that has undergone utterly inadequate testing. The issue isn't whether or not there is any basis to the concept of vaccinations (there most assuredly is) but rather whether this scientific breakthrough has been politically and economically hijacked by people who, shall we say, haven't taken the hypocratic oath.

"Your brilliant line about how we know that the Bush administration did not orchestrate 9/11 (“because it worked”)"

His description of this line from Bill Maher as "brilliant" says a whole lot about him. Interpreting the "inside job" theory of 9/11 as some ridiculously unrealistic assertion that bush the nitwit is singlehandedly responsible for the attacks, reveals a mind-blowing niavete towards how intelligence organizations such as the C.I.A, MI6, and Moussad operate throughout our world. If anything, the presidency of such a dolt as Bush Jr. clearly illustrates COMPETENCY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.. for surely only a society expertly manipulated and controlled, and pervasively propagandized, could tolerate an 8 year reign from such a stuttering "clown on the world stage," to use one of Maher's more memorable lines.

Monday, November 16, 2009

2012 And The Mainstream Media

The mainstream eunuchs, NPR especially, have really been laying on the adolescent condescension and non sequiturs on the topic of 2012 this week. Here's a couple of points about how their approach to the question was both factually inaccurate and dismissive.

The first problem is the media's seemingly unstoppable urge to falsely compare the Y2K thing with 2012. Generally, the message the Mainstream Media is trying to forcefeed you is this: "Remember that Y2K thing? Well, that didn't amount to anything. So if you think 2012 may amount to anything, you must be foolish like those Y2K people." Y2K was a fad that had nothing to do with the "end of the world," or anything of the sort, so therefore the 2012 question, since it deals with some of the same themes, should be tossed into the wastebasket next to "Y2K" as just another silly fad gobbled up by us gullible westerners, in our neverending and fruitless search for fulfillment.

Sounds like a good argument over the airwaves, especially if you find the right kind of soothing effeminate NPR voice to convey it. The only problem here is that it's one of the more ludicrous arguments you could make, as Y2K was simply unheard of until about 10 months before the year 2000, and the significance of 2012 has been noted by extremely diverse civilizations throughout the last FIVE THOUSAND YEARS of human history, not to mention the fact that the cosmic cycles referred to by the Mayans and others are entirely real, and not disputed by any astronomers, in the west or otherwise.

The debate is not over whether 2012 is real or not, but over the significance of it, and whether or not it will directly influence our societies and collective unconscious. To compare this to a late '90's fad that was relatively easy to remedy, is either quite stupid, or simply dishonest.

My second point is kind of a reiteration of the first.. Another idea that these liars were adamant about was that people got really excited about the Y2K thing, and when that didn't work out, all the "crazies" were desperate to find the next armageddon fad, so they all seized upon 2012. As previously stated, the idea that 2012 is merely a product of fad-seekers is beyond retarded.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Alex Jones VS Snowcat VS The Gibroney Hunter

Brought to you by The Gibroney Hunter. Music by Snowcat. Words by Alex Jones. Images from the Internet.