I think Disinformation likes to milk the term "conspiracy theory," while offering relatively little of the facts and information that back some of them up. Quit coddling the mainstream, Disinfo. It's no longer necessary.
http://www.disinfo.com/2010/05/pakistan-and-conspiracy-theory/
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
A Visit From Our Possible Future
Mexican dictator Felipe Calderon lectures the U.S for not having stricter gun laws, meanwhile more people die from guns in his own country, which has enacted a "total gun ban."
He then criticizes the Arizona immigration bill, while his own country maintains a much more aggressive illegal immigrant policy toward Guatemala, and central/south America.
While senator Lieberman proposes legislation to strip Americans of their citizenship and detain them indefinitely in places like Guantanamo, McLiberals everywhere are up in arms because illegal immigrants in Arizona are being asked for their I.D
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Dr. Wakefield
http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2010/05/facts-in-case-of-dr-andrew-wakefield.html
The standards for conflicts of interest were different in '98. That's why Wakefield didn't disclose the fact that he was involved with litigation. Was it the right thing to do? Probably not. I advocate being as honest as possible in as many situations as possible. But the $68,000 question is did he violate the rules for conflict of interest within the scientific community at the time? And the answer's no. The real breach of ethics lies with the "scientists" who broke their own rules by applying the current standard for conflict of interest retroactively.
Also, the tests on the children were approved in '96, but because they didn't take place until '98, the people in charge of this witch hunt had enough ambiguity on their side to claim that this was another breach of ethics. It was not.
Another bit of nonsense here, is the assertion that these studies have been accurately reproduced. They have not. While studies involving the comparison of children with and without the MMR vaccine took place, and did indeed find no correlation between the shot and autism, the method of using only test subjects for whom said symptoms were reported, as was the case for the Wakefield report, has not been replicated.
There are, however, many examples of what I would call nature's own double blind studies, that support the claims of Dr Wakefield. Here's one: There are zero (0) reported cases of autism within Amish communities in the northeast. This is striking because, location wise, the Amish are in the heart of "autism country". Obviously Amish children receive no vaccinations, yet are among the healthiest in America.. and %100 autism free. They also don't suffer from any measles outbreaks, as your little cartoon vaguely and baselessly alluded to. The drawings are fitting, though. Certainly reflective of the level of maturity associated with blind faith in science, and denial of the blatant reality that it, too, can be corrupted.
The standards for conflicts of interest were different in '98. That's why Wakefield didn't disclose the fact that he was involved with litigation. Was it the right thing to do? Probably not. I advocate being as honest as possible in as many situations as possible. But the $68,000 question is did he violate the rules for conflict of interest within the scientific community at the time? And the answer's no. The real breach of ethics lies with the "scientists" who broke their own rules by applying the current standard for conflict of interest retroactively.
Also, the tests on the children were approved in '96, but because they didn't take place until '98, the people in charge of this witch hunt had enough ambiguity on their side to claim that this was another breach of ethics. It was not.
Another bit of nonsense here, is the assertion that these studies have been accurately reproduced. They have not. While studies involving the comparison of children with and without the MMR vaccine took place, and did indeed find no correlation between the shot and autism, the method of using only test subjects for whom said symptoms were reported, as was the case for the Wakefield report, has not been replicated.
There are, however, many examples of what I would call nature's own double blind studies, that support the claims of Dr Wakefield. Here's one: There are zero (0) reported cases of autism within Amish communities in the northeast. This is striking because, location wise, the Amish are in the heart of "autism country". Obviously Amish children receive no vaccinations, yet are among the healthiest in America.. and %100 autism free. They also don't suffer from any measles outbreaks, as your little cartoon vaguely and baselessly alluded to. The drawings are fitting, though. Certainly reflective of the level of maturity associated with blind faith in science, and denial of the blatant reality that it, too, can be corrupted.
Monday, May 17, 2010
The Gibroney Hunter VS The Hutch: Global Warming (2)
The Hutch: NASA: hottest April (and hottest Jan-Apr) since we started tracking. Will Fox News bother reporting this? http://bit.ly/d6zzy6
The Gibroney Hunter: So record snowfalls in winter mean nothing, yet a statistically hot month is supposed to prove something? I love it. Classic Hutch tail-chasing. The reality is that neither of these facts really mean anything, in terms of proving or denying "climate change" (something that has always and will always occur on our planet).
And really, if you're going to let Anne "the cunt" Coulter be the authority on ANY issue, then you're probably beyond any sort of help.
Temperatures have been declining since 2002. This fact directly contradicts official global warming theory, since according to the (demonstrably fraudulent) models temperatures should only be steadily increasing, since after all, our rate of consumption for fossil fuels is consistently increasing. A nearly decade-long decline in temps becomes problematic, if we're to believe that human-caused greenhouse gasses (which amount to only 3% of all greenhouse gasses) were the driving force behind temperature increases during the nineties.
Surely, you must find it curious that of all the many steps that could be taken to address environmental degradation, the only thing being hyped by the sellout media is this vague banner-waving over pseudoscientific claims, meant only to push through legislation for political purposes, not environmental. The establishment would much rather you waste your time with nonsense like "climate change" (or the artist formerly known as "global warming") than focus on real environmental issues, like cleaning up our air water and food. (which ironically has been tainted by the very same corporate interests now selling you global warming, with billions in funding)
I'll leave you with one more inconvenient truth: recently scientists discovered the fossilized remains of trees within certain glaciers, dating back to the mideival warming period. The same medieval warming period that global warming advocates claim didn't exist. This would seem to indicate that not only were temperatures significantly warmer then than they are now, but they were so much warmer as to actually turn what are now glaciers into forest. Maybe it was all the methane from their horses.. or maybe those co2 emitting wheelbarrows.
The IPCC = The InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. A political body, not a scientific one.
The Hutch: Statistically hot _year_. Read the friggin' article. We're talking about climate, here. Not weather. Weather is localized. Climate is global. It reflects a larger period of time, not isolated patterns. One of the hallmarks of greenhouse gas heat entrapment is that all sorts of things go out of wack as weather patterns change. So while the ... See Moreoverall amount of heat being trapped in our atmosphere increased overall, the pressure systems that control the flow of hot and cool air over the surface of the earth caused desertification in some parts of the world, and massive snowstorms in others. The end results? CLIMATE CHANGE. On a long enough time line? The globe warms. One might be so inclined as to call it "global warming."
The Gibroney Hunter: So record snowfalls in winter mean nothing, yet a statistically hot month is supposed to prove something? I love it. Classic Hutch tail-chasing. The reality is that neither of these facts really mean anything, in terms of proving or denying "climate change" (something that has always and will always occur on our planet).
And really, if you're going to let Anne "the cunt" Coulter be the authority on ANY issue, then you're probably beyond any sort of help.
Temperatures have been declining since 2002. This fact directly contradicts official global warming theory, since according to the (demonstrably fraudulent) models temperatures should only be steadily increasing, since after all, our rate of consumption for fossil fuels is consistently increasing. A nearly decade-long decline in temps becomes problematic, if we're to believe that human-caused greenhouse gasses (which amount to only 3% of all greenhouse gasses) were the driving force behind temperature increases during the nineties.
Surely, you must find it curious that of all the many steps that could be taken to address environmental degradation, the only thing being hyped by the sellout media is this vague banner-waving over pseudoscientific claims, meant only to push through legislation for political purposes, not environmental. The establishment would much rather you waste your time with nonsense like "climate change" (or the artist formerly known as "global warming") than focus on real environmental issues, like cleaning up our air water and food. (which ironically has been tainted by the very same corporate interests now selling you global warming, with billions in funding)
I'll leave you with one more inconvenient truth: recently scientists discovered the fossilized remains of trees within certain glaciers, dating back to the mideival warming period. The same medieval warming period that global warming advocates claim didn't exist. This would seem to indicate that not only were temperatures significantly warmer then than they are now, but they were so much warmer as to actually turn what are now glaciers into forest. Maybe it was all the methane from their horses.. or maybe those co2 emitting wheelbarrows.
The IPCC = The InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. A political body, not a scientific one.
The Hutch: Statistically hot _year_. Read the friggin' article. We're talking about climate, here. Not weather. Weather is localized. Climate is global. It reflects a larger period of time, not isolated patterns. One of the hallmarks of greenhouse gas heat entrapment is that all sorts of things go out of wack as weather patterns change. So while the ... See Moreoverall amount of heat being trapped in our atmosphere increased overall, the pressure systems that control the flow of hot and cool air over the surface of the earth caused desertification in some parts of the world, and massive snowstorms in others. The end results? CLIMATE CHANGE. On a long enough time line? The globe warms. One might be so inclined as to call it "global warming."
Friday, May 7, 2010
Iraq-style S.W.A.T team raids in the U.S, over tiny amounts of marijuana.
Most people would feel like a piece of shit lowlife after getting a bunch of their buddies together to break into a stranger's house, hold them down and force their child to watch their dog get shot to death. Not these cops though. They seem to enjoy it.
Over a plant. Over a plant. Over a plant! The only people behaving like crazy people and destabilizing society are the cops (most of whom do drugs themselves anyway)
When the people of this country finally wake up, gang members like these cops will be brought to trial for their crimes against our Republic.
Over a plant. Over a plant. Over a plant! The only people behaving like crazy people and destabilizing society are the cops (most of whom do drugs themselves anyway)
When the people of this country finally wake up, gang members like these cops will be brought to trial for their crimes against our Republic.
The elite get off on making you laugh along with them at their satanic jokes.
Hahah! See, it's funny cuz Obama's actually overseeing two illegal wars in which predator drones really ARE killing children on a regular basis! HAH! Soo hilarious!! Armchair Liberals are now chuckling along with the same tasteless jokes that would have had them oh so upset when the previous puppet president was in office! The only thing funnier than this joke is our inability to realize that Obama and Bush are identical! LMAO!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Oh, and that glacier forest thing? Yeah, I read alla bout that. The scientists who discovered them point them as evidence of artificial global warming! But you've already made up your mind, Lou. Global Warming is just another way the government is out to get us all. The very idea the a government body is supposed to exist to help us is all the proof you need. And like Darren alluded to, any facts that dispute what you believe aren't to be trusted. So it goes.
http://www.sciencedaily.co
The Gibroney Hunter: That's not the "discovery of tree remains" that I'm referring to.
http://www.co2science.org/
Guess you haven't read all about it...
As I said, these recent findings are dated back to the MEDIEVAL warming period (roughly 1000-1300 a.d) not 7,000+ years ago, and strongly indicate that overall temperatures in the area were warmer than in the second half of the twentieth century.
Jan-April is a year?
"The very idea the a government body is supposed to exist to help us is all the proof you need."
Actually, this was the last point that was made, after listing multiple facts supporting my opinion. The fact that you're so closed-minded as to make such an obnoxiously false statement like, is further indication that you're more content to feel like you're right, than to actually do the homework necessary to have any sort of real confidence in your opinions. Also, it's not the fact that the IPCC is a governmental body that causes me the most concern. It's more from facts like, i dunno.. shucks.. like, for example, that they've been exposed as intentionally HIDING the declines in temps since 2002 in their statistical models. How you can rationalize this as anything other than criminally fraudulent behavior, I have no idea. Must require some real mental acrobatics.
And that really cuts the heart of it, doesn't it? No matter what evidence is presented to you, your response is to ignore it, and, like some sort of computer program with a gliche, simply repeat the mantra "you've presented no evidence."
You are aware that there's this other course of action you could take, called responding.. to counterarguments, correct?
"Climate is global. It reflects a larger period of time, not isolated patterns."
How long? How long do our records of climate go back? I'll give you a hint: nowhere near far enough to confidently state that this year is the hottest ever. You can say "hottest on record" and call it a day, as you McLiberals are fond of doing, but what you should really be saying is "hottest, based on our woefully brief and inadequate record"