'Do your own research / I do my own research' has become code for conspiracy theory followers

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Everyone who wanted to keep working in MSM, and wanted to keep their generous pensions.

Thousands of them? And all the people who worked for NASA and all their contractors? How were the signals received in Australia?

[Khabib]

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Everyone who wanted to keep working in MSM, and wanted to keep their generous pensions.

And thats a similar thing to saying "if I told you, I would have to kill you". Please excuse my amusement.

[ozimoron]

17 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Everyone who wanted to keep working in MSM, and wanted to keep their generous pensions.

That's the same as claiming that tens of thousands of climate scientists world wide are faking research because they don't want to lose government grants.

[BritManToo]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

That's the same as claiming that tens of thousands of climate scientists world wide are faking research because they don't want to lose government grants.

I would have faked research if the money was right.

Wouldn't you?

 

Thread topic, do your own research.

But it's impossible for anyone to do their own research as all reliable information sources are edited to remove any uncomfortable/inconvenient facts.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

I would have faked research if the money was right.

Wouldn't you?

Many of those scientists are just on a salary and all of them have to produce peer reviewed work to get published and credibility. It just isn't that simple and you are accusing tens of thousands of scientists of being profoundly corrupt. What are the odds of that being true? Then what happened to the other tens of thousands of scientists who would have called that research into question? Your version of the way science works is rather simplistic I must say.

[Khabib]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Many of those scientists are just on a salary and all of them have to produce peer reviewed work to get published and credibility. It just isn't that simple and you are accusing tens of thousands of scientists of being profoundly corrupt. What are the odds of that being true? Then what happened to the other tens of thousands of scientists who would have called that research into question? Your version of the way science works is rather simplistic I must say.

It could be, he's just following the money, as he sees it. In a way, we all do the same, the alternative is almost starvation.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Khabib said:

It could be, he's just following the money, as he sees it. In a way, we all do the same, the alternative is almost starvation.

The statistical probability that every climate scientists (and not other scientists) are just faking it for the money is impossibly small. Or maybe vaccine scientists are too, I dunno. The mind boggles. Even harder to understand is how rational people believe it's true, like most other conspiracy theories. How did McInerney get to spout obvious lies on a Hannity show?

[Khabib]

Having just done some proper research (in my head) it appears that humanity is enslaving humanity.

[Khabib]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

The statistical probability that every climate scientists (and not other scientists) are just faking it for the money is impossibly small. Or maybe vaccine scientists are too, I dunno. The mind boggles.

Heres an interesting one, what the statistical probability of a room of 20 people, 2 of them sharing the same birthday. That may not be an exact quote of the thing, but very close. The answer is very surprising.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Khabib said:

Heres an interesting one, what the statistical probability of a room of 20 people, 2 of them sharing the same birthday. That may not be an exact quote of the thing, but very close. The answer is very surprising.

That isn't anything like tens of thousands of scientists in a hundred countries all in cahoots. Not on the same planet really ????

[BritManToo]

11 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Many of those scientists are just on a salary and all of them have to produce peer reviewed work to get published and credibility. It just isn't that simple and you are accusing tens of thousands of scientists of being profoundly corrupt. What are the odds of that being true? Then what happened to the other tens of thousands of scientists who would have called that research into question? Your version of the way science works is rather simplistic I must say.

Michael Mann ...... peer reviewed hockey stick.

Almost got jailed for fraud, and he (almost single handedly) started the whole climate change fraud.

 

Where were the tens of thousands of scientists calling his research into question?

All I ever heard were 99% of scientists reached consensus.

And Mann still refuses to show how he acquired his data.

What happened to all your supposed checks with him?

[LomSak27]

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

the whole climate change fraud

Spot on. Although, this years 49.4 C in Lytton British Columbia & Friday night's eighty plus tornado cluster, one growler touching down, moving, for over 300 km were strange anomalies. climate change is looking more fraudulent than ever. 

[ozimoron]

11 minutes ago, LomSak27 said:

Spot on. Although, this years 49.4 C in Lytton British Columbia & Friday night's eighty plus tornado cluster, one growler touching down, moving, for over 300 km were strange anomalies. climate change is looking more fraudulent than ever. 

The tornadoes were stronger and more irregular because of a break down in the gulf stream caused by climate change. This is readily accessible and peer reviewed research.

[ozimoron]

53 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Michael Mann ...... peer reviewed hockey stick.

Almost got jailed for fraud, and he (almost single handedly) started the whole climate change fraud.

 

Where were the tens of thousands of scientists calling his research into question?

All I ever heard were 99% of scientists reached consensus.

And Mann still refuses to show how he acquired his data.

What happened to all your supposed checks with him?

Mann was never charged with anything and totally vindicated. It should not be forgotten that the graph showed a sharp rise in temperatures in the 20th century, a phenomen which has been totally proved beyond any shadow of doubt.

 

The board of inquiry at Pennsylvania State University said it found no evidence that Michael Mann, a leading climatologist, had suppressed or falsified data, tried to destroy data or emails, or misused information. The panel dismissed the charge. "The so-called 'trick' was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field," the panel said.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/03/climate-scientist-michael-mann

[EVENKEEL]

You would figure at some point folks would find a better, stronger way to build structures.

 

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/03/100-years-ago-today-the-omaha-palm-sunday-tornado-of-1913/

[LarrySR]

12 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I would have faked research if the money was right.

Wouldn't you?

 

Thread topic, do your own research.

But it's impossible for anyone to do their own research as all reliable information sources are edited to remove any uncomfortable/inconvenient facts.

Man made climate change is for real. Every country on the planet (except Syria and the USA when Republicans are in charge) or on board. 
google: ‘fossil fuel propaganda’ to see why so many are ignorant on the subject. 
 

[EVENKEEL]

6 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

 

Every country on the planet (except Syria and the USA when Republicans are in charge) or on board. 

 

 China alone generated about the same amount of CO₂ as the next four countries combined. And its carbon output is still rising every year.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-china-climate-change-biggest-carbon-polluters/

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

 China alone generated about the same amount of CO₂ as the next four countries combined. And its carbon output is still rising every year.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-china-climate-change-biggest-carbon-polluters/

What next four countries combined?

[EVENKEEL]

6 minutes ago, sirineou said:

What next four countries combined?

https://climate.selectra.com/en/carbon-footprint/most-polluting-countries

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

https://climate.selectra.com/en/carbon-footprint/most-polluting-countries

interesting that China's population is 4 times that of the USA and yet produces double the co2 emissions and half the per capita rate of the USA.

 

In fact, China produces less CO2 per capita then almost every developed nation. Exceptions are France and the UK who produce much of their electricity from nuclear power plants.

 

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/

[sirineou]

27 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

https://climate.selectra.com/en/carbon-footprint/most-polluting-countries

Now expend that snapshot to the past 100 years and let see who has contributed the most CO2 an has caused global warming.

Do you think the Chinese are stupid? The western powers developed their dominance over decades of a carbon based economy. and now that he Chinese are doing the same we ask them to stop. How about they stop  after they reached our own levels of CO2 measured in decades?  

[Pedrogaz]

Either do your own research or swallow the hogswill the MSM feed you without even thinking.

[Berkshire]

There's another code word for the OP.  Whenever someone refers to the MSM as "fake news" or otherwise unreliable, they are most likely a right wing, QAnon believing, cult following, delusional, certifiable nutbag.  And since they are typically Trump supporters, you can add "serial loser"......5555 

[BritManToo]

41 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Whenever someone refers to the MSM as "fake news" or otherwise unreliable, they are most likely a right wing,

I prefer to call MSM as 'edited news'.

And I'm a Marxist who used to edit MSM into something more suitable for the people to see.

[TropicalGuy]

On 12/12/2021 at 7:02 PM, ozimoron said:

That's the same as claiming that tens of thousands of climate scientists world wide are faking research because they don't want to lose government grants.

Well, it’s proven that they are doing that. Looking at weather data over short periods, distortion to suit their political paymasters.
 

MSM for basic News & Opinion. 
Wikipedia for Facts to form your own Opinion. 
 

[TropicalGuy]

Old school professional accessible impartial balanced journalism long gone.ergo no MSM or any media can be trusted to present proper facts without substantial bias and distortion.
News and Opinion are not necessarily inclusive of balanced impartial  critical Facts. 
Example: “study” finds nothing bad to say about Hitler or Fascism.

study sample turns out to be eight Nazis hiding out in Brazil funded by KKK. So “peer review” then selective and distorted. Similar practices for “ climate change” ……all political games and money ….  
 

Just as you should not get Insurance advice from Banks, NEVER listen to Politicians on Health or Education. Yes it’s their Business but they simply cannot be trusted to advise or act properly.

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, Berkshire said:

There's another code word for the OP.  Whenever someone refers to the MSM as "fake news" or otherwise unreliable, they are most likely a right wing, QAnon believing, cult following, delusional, certifiable nutbag.  And since they are typically Trump supporters, you can add "serial loser"......5555 

Indeed.

But that one is probably more obvious than the do your own research thing at least to people paying attention.

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-tweet-echo-mein-kampf/

[Walker88]

Good topic, and a very dangerous trend in the world, indicating the bad side of 'access to information', when information is manufactured by bad actors (e.g., Performance Artists like Alex Jones or Tucker Carlson, or Russia's GRU working as the Internet Research Agency) or batshoot crazies (like David Icke).

 

There are degrees of ignorance, however. Folks who think Bill Gates is injecting microchips in them via Covid vaccines are simply too stupid to be allowed to procreate, unless the world is short of janitors. On the other hand, sometimes knowledge of people or entities is so limited that things like Hollywood B-fare or pulp fiction can influence opinions. An example of this latter ignorance is many people's beliefs about the CIA, where some consider it an all knowing, all powerful entity existing everywhere, keeping files on everyone.

 

Reality is quite different than many people believe. Views about cabals 'controlling the world' are silly, but those without knowledge or experience might be forgiven for believing such drivel. The fact is there are far too many variables for any person or group to effectively control much of anything. Also, the 'elite' compete with each other, they don't cooperate on balance. Anybody really think Musk likes Bezos? Chinese billionaires like Indian billionaires? Places like Davos are not conferences aimed at controlling the sheeple; they are places rich folks go to show off the interiors of their new Gulfstream. it's a place folks go to compare (nickname for Richard) sizes. Same with 'clubs' like Bilderberg or Bohemian Grove. Heck, Bezos sent (nickname for Richard) pics to his paramour....he's not a demigod, he's quite human with faults most others don't have (unless sending nickname for Richard pictures is more common than I suspect).

 

As for entities like the agency, it is in its interest to be considered BOTH omnipotent and a goofball organization, because that keeps its adversaries guessing. It traditionally is also a fallguy for Administrations who screw up. Iraq and WMD is a case in point. Because a negative cannot be proven, the agency could only give a minimal opinion on the existence of WMD (<15% chance, 85% chance Saddam nixed his stuff after the first Gulf War and just wanted to enjoy his 'booze, broads and palaces' and not be overthrown by outside forces). It was Cheney and the Neocons hellbent on war, and they co-opted then DCI Tenet.

 

Anyway, disinformation and 'research' is likely going to bring about the end of democracy....until such time as autocrats and self-appointed monarchs are again sent to the guillotine and the world tries democracy again. We move in circles, and society is now moving headstrong into a new Dark Age.

[TropicalGuy]

3 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

Well, it’s proven that they are doing that. Looking at weather data over short periods, distortion to suit their political paymasters.
 

MSM for basic News & Opinion. 
Wikipedia for Facts to form your own Opinion. 
 

If 10,000 climate change researchers that tells you it’s only about politics and money….engage top 100 with rest looking at solving hunger, poverty,  war, crime ..  oh but wait, no money there……

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

If 10,000 climate change researchers that tells you it’s only about politics and money….engage top 100 with rest looking at solving hunger, poverty,  war, crime ..  oh but wait, no money there……

You forgot disease. Oh wait, there's money there. Where's the money in climate research? Government grants, please list some of these lucrative cash cows. If anything there's money in producing pseudo science for fossil fuel companies. Giant frauds like carbon capture and storage schemes.

 

https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/11/20/carbon-capture-storage-fossil-fuels/

 

https://reneweconomy.com.au/carbon-captures-litany-of-failures-laid-bare-in-new-report/

 

Here's some of the lucrative cash handouts for climate denier scientists.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

 

https://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/06/13114/peabody-coal-bankruptcy-reveals-extensive-funding-climate-denial-network