are you a "conspiracy theorist"?

[bentom187]

Here is the you tube video with Kennedy saying those exact words.

President John F Kennedy Secret Society Speech version 2
[YOUTUBEIF]xhZk8ronces#t=118[/YOUTUBEIF]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces#t=118

 

[Wiggs Dannyboy]

How long did that take you Wiggs 2min, wiggs these guys don't even have basic critical thinking skills, you see what I mean lol.

It took me maybe 15 to 20 seconds to type the quote into google, it took me that long because I wanted to be sure to type the quote accurately, so I went back to check and make sure.

But, I think for many people, they don't want to go to the trouble of taking even that short amount of time to investigate nowadays. Everybody is in such a hurry, our way of life has been speeding up for years, much of this is due to the internet and modern communication. It's not a good thing.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid many folks who believe in conspiracies will just label any link that is questioning the validity of these quotes as being part of the conspiracy to cover up the conspiracy.

What'cha gonna do? I think one of the important "rules" of critical thinking is employing what is known as Occam's Razor, which basically says that, most frequently, the right answer is the one that is the most simple...the one that has the least amount of variables. If you look at most conspiracy theories they are very complicated, and involve numerous variables, all of which make checking their veracity a real pain in the ass and also hard to prove/disprove.

 

[idiit]

sarah mcclendon's deceased. hard to get her affidavit.

kennedy's "shadow gubmint" speech is beyond doubt. his exact wordings might not be in that speech (perhaps) but kennedy talked to lots of ppl. he's dead now too. hard to get his affidavit.

lot's of solid evidence against the nwo/globalists gets disappeared off the internet all the time.

lots of witnesses get suicided; like the recent banker deaths:

The banker suicide wave that started in late January has now become an epidemic, and it seems to be focusing on one bank: JP Morgan.

Tyler Durden on 02/18/2014

Finally, via Financial Post, here is a chronological summary of all recent banker deaths:

Sunday, Jan. 26: London police found William Broeksmit, a 58-year-old former senior executive at Deutsche Bank AG, dead in his home after an apparent suicide.

Monday, Jan. 27: Tata Motors managing director Karl Slym died after falling from a hotel room in Bangkok in what police said could be possible suicide. Slym, 51, had attended a board meeting of Tata Motors’ Thailand unit in the Thai capital and was staying with his wife in a room on the 22nd floor of the Shangri-La hotel. Hotel staff found his body on Sunday on the fourth floor, which juts out above lower floors.

Tuesday, Jan. 28: a 39-year-old JPMorgan employee died after falling from the roof of the European headquarters of JPMorgan in London. The man, Gabriel Magee, was a vice president in the investment bank’s technology department, a source told WSJ.

Wednesday, January 29: Russell Investments’ Chief Economist Mike Dueker was found dead in an apparent suicide. Police said it appears Dueker took his own life by jumping from a ramp near the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Tacoma, Wash., AP reported. According to Bloomberg, Dueker, 50, had been missing since Jan. 29, and friends and law enforcement had been searching for him.

The week before, a U.K.-based communications director at Swiss Re AG died. The cause of death has not been made public.

Monday, February 3: 37-year-old JPMorgan Chase & Co executive director who died from unknown causes Feb. 3 appears to be the latest in a series of untimely deaths among finance workers and business leaders around the world in the past three weeks. Ryan Crane, a JPMorgan Chase & Co. employee who in a 14-year career at the New York-based bank rose to executive director of a unit that trades blocks of stocks for clients, died in his Stamford, Connecticut, home.

Tuesday, February 18: 33-year old JPMorgan forex trader is the latest in a string of suicides to take his life in Hong Kong.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...death-hong-kong-said-be-33-year-old-fx-trader

lots of whistleblowers suspicious deaths:http://www.thedailysheeple.com/susp...on-the-rise-spread-the-word-of-warning_062013

 

[trichrider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZU0c8DAIU4

[YOUTUBEIF]AZU0c8DAIU4[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[Payaso]

Greetings Cannagraphers!

This thread is becoming a prime example of why we don't allow discussions of politics here on a growing site...not only 'off-topic', but folks start to insult each other and worse.

Sad. It's just a discussion of a theory and some people get a bit too emotional about it all...

I am all in favor of rational discussion without rancor, emotions, and egos flaring. This isn't a pissing contest... or is it? Because if it is, then we will close and remove this thread, just part of running the vacuum cleaner around the house cleaning up the trash.

YOU get to decide if the thread is trash or gold.

Have a GREAT day in Cannagraphics

 

[Wiggs Dannyboy]

Here is the you tube video with Kennedy saying those exact words.

President John F Kennedy Secret Society Speech version 2
[youtubeif]xhZk8ronces#t=118[/youtubeif]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces#t=118

Oh REALLY.....please tell me exactly where in that video he is "saying those exact words." Tell me the minute/seconds point where he says this. I listened to it, didn't hear him say anything like "There's a plot in this country to enslave every man, woman and child. Before I leave this high and noble office, I intend to expose this plot."

Additionally, that speech happens on April 27, 1961. That would make the speech 939 days before he was assassinated...not 7, as that ridiculous poster says.

 

[trichrider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8

[YOUTUBEIF]XY02Qkuc_f8[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[bentom187]

Its not the exact words , you are right, but he confirms there are secret societies that have a agenda and their influence is everywhere, in the press and politics ect.... Its more relevant IMO.

 

[Wiggs Dannyboy]

Regarding that video that was posted by Bentom, the JFK secret society speech...version 2...

And the proper title of this speech is not "President John F Kennedy Secret Society Speech," it's "The President And The Press: Address Before The American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961"

Here is the transcript of that speech, this comes from the JFK Presidential Library And Museum. I have highlighted the point where...version 2...begins, and the parts of the speech that it includes. The parts that got edited out are not highlighted. Note how the editing is attempting to change the entire meaning of this speech.

This speech, if read from the beginning and in its entirety, is very obviously talking about the cold war, and is referring to the communists who were our enemy in that war. Version 2 just happens to edit out the parts about the cold war. It's not about any kind of "secret society conspiracy" of the kind that conspiracy theorists harp on. It is obviously a piece of propaganda meant to influence people who believe in conspiracies. Look at all the comments that accompany the video, almost all of them are people convinced of conspiracies.

Play the video, and then listen while you read the transcript, and see how they edited out the parts on the cold war. Total brainwashing going on here. Scroll down to the highlighted part, which is where the video speech begins.

And...I just wasted an hour of my life trying to point out why this stuff is so very very very often pure unadulterated BS.

[youtubeif]xhZk8ronces#t=118[/youtubeif]

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/...ewspaper-Publishers-Association_19610427.aspx


I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.


.

 

[trichrider]

Exposing the Global Warming Fraud
July 2, 2013
Edmund Contoski

Last week President Obama announced a far-reaching plan to require reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, mandate increased vehicle mileage, and authorize more subsidies for solar and wind power. He plans to make an end run around Congress on these issues by using executive orders. He said science has put to rest the debate over global warming, and he derisively likened those who disagree on this to a Flat Earth Society.

But it is Obama and the other global warming alarmists who, like “flat earthers,” are in denial of reality. The doctrine of human-caused global warming, via carbon dioxide emissions, has already been thoroughly discredited by science. Denying the science or falsifying it cannot change the truth, but that is what has been done for political reasons.

Last month, in a disclosure that drew wide publicity and ominous warnings, it was announced that atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements had reached 400 parts per million and that this was the highest in 3 million years. But as we pointed out in a previous posting (which includes important graphs), there is abundant evidence that this is not true. Between the years 1812 and 1961, there were 90,000(!) measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide published in 175 technical papers.

These show five-year averages of 440 ppm CO2 in 1820 and 1940. Professor Jaworowski says these measurements were ignored “not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by top scientists, including two Nobel Prize winners, using techniques that are standard textbook procedures....The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time.”

Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., was a mountaineer as well as a scientist, studied climate for 50 years and dug into glaciers on 17 research expeditions—11 organized by him—in the Arctic, Antarctic, Alps, Norway, Himalayas, Peruvian Andes, and other mountainous regions. He published many scientific papers, mostly on ice cores. Ice core measurements show carbon dioxide content of over 400 ppm in 1700 A.D. and 200 A.D. as well as 10,000 years ago. Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) stated: “The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm)[!] as determined from ice cores [emphasis added].”

Jaworowski stated that the IPCC AR4 Summary Report was “plagued with improper manipulation of data,” and that this corruption to try to justify the global warming hypothesis extends far beyond the IPCC. Here is an example:

2013-06-28-figure-1

Here's another example, this one from Jaworowski's paper CO2: the Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time. (Click anywhere on the graph to enlarge it to make the caption more readable.):

2013-06-28-figure-2

In another paper, under the heading “How Selection of Ice Core Data Skews Results to Match the Global Warming Theory,” Jaworowski wrote,


In presenting measurements of CO2 concentrations in the pre-industrial ice core from Byrd Antarctica, Neftel, et al., in 1982 showed maximum values of up to 500 ppmv. In 1998, the same authors published measurements for the same section of the Byrd ice core, but left off the high readings previously published, reporting a high of 290 ppmv, in agreement with the global warming theory.

Under the heading “Fudging the Data,” Jaworowski wrote:


Until 1985, the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985, the high readings disappeared from the publications! To fit such a wide range of results to the anthropogenic climatic warming theory, which was based on low pre-industrial CO2 levels, three methods were used: (1) rejection of high readings from sets of pre-industrial samples, based on the credo: “The lowest CO2 values represent the best CO2 concentrations in the originally trapped ice”, (2) rejection of low readings from 20th century samples; and (3) interpretation of the high readings from pre-industrial samples as representing the contemporary atmosphere rather than the pre-industrial one.

Pearman, et al. “on examination of the data,” rejected 43 percent of the CO2 readings from Law Dome, Antarctica core, 39 percent of the CH4 [methane] readings, and 43 percent of the N2O [nitrous oxide] readings, because they were higher or lower than the assumed “correct”' values.

Leuenberger and Siegenthaler claimed that their data from a Greenland ice core demonstrate that the present level of N2O in the atmosphere, 310 ppmv, is an effect of a recent 19 percent increase caused by industrial activity. To reach this conclusion, they rejected 27 percent of the samples with N2O readings deemed to be “too high” for pre-industrial ice.

Etheridge et al. claimed that their ice core results show a pre-industrial N2O concentration of 285 ppbv. This value was calculated after rejection of 44 percent of their measurements! From the remaining analyses, the high readings from the 16th and 17th century ice, ...which were higher than 20th century samples,...were again eliminated without explanation.

The inappropriate manipulation of data in research studies is not the only way of fraudulently promoting anthropogenic global warming. The locations of temperature stations as well as the data they report have been altered to create an artificial historical trend depicting global warming. A stunning 106-page report by two veteran meteorologist, Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts, documents that the global temperature record that used to be based on 6,000 reporting stations now is based on fewer than 1,500.

Beginning about 1990, higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations were removed from the network in order to create a false warming trend. In many cases the stations are still reporting, but their data are no longer utilized. Often the stations have been replaced by others more likely to show warming from lower elevations, lower latitudes, or urban development, which reflects the well-known “heat island” effect of cities. The authors assert that data has been “so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant 'global warming' in the 20th century.”

Russia and Canada are the two largest countries in the world. Russia alone accounts for 11.5 percent of the globe's land surface area. Surely the climate there must be important to an accurate calculation of a global climate trend, but D'Aleo and Watts state:


In the cold countries of Russia and Canada, the rural stations in the Polar Regions were thinned out leaving behind the lower latitude more urban stations. The data from the remaining cities were used to estimate the temperatures to the north. As a result the computed new averages were higher than the averages when the cold stations were part of the monthly/yearly assessment.

In Canada, the number of stations dropped from 600 to less than 50. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at the higher elevations above 3,000 feet were reduced by half. [The] depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a simple average of the available stations shows an apparent cooling.

The IEA [Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis] believes the Russian meteorological station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25 percent of such stations in its reports. The Russian station count dropped from 476 to 121 so over 40 percent of Russian territory was not included in global temperature calculations for some other reasons than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The Russians found that the 121 sites used gave mostly warmer reports than the 355 unused sites. In some cases stations records going back into the 19th Century were ignored in favor of stations with less data but which pointed to warming. The IEA team stated, “Only one tenth of meteorological sites with complete temperature series are used.” It illustrates with this example:


Weather station Uchur has a long and almost continuous series of meteorological observations from 1940; the station Toko—an intermittent series of observations from 1946 and continuous only since 1957; however, the trend towards warming in the 20th Century was more pronounced according to station Toko. In the calculations of global temperature, HadCRUT predictably uses the data solely from the station Toko.

Russia and Canada are not exceptions. The same thing was happening all over the globe. Throughout South America the higher elevation stations disappeared, while the number of coastal stations increased. In Europe higher mountain stations were dropped and thermometers were marched toward the Mediterranean, lower elevations, and more cities; the station dropout was almost 65 percent for Europe as a whole and 50 percent for the Nordic countries. Africa is not showing warming despite efforts to make it appear so by eliminating thermometers from cool areas like the Moroccan coast and moving them toward the Sahara. As recently as 1988, over 400 stations in China were utilized in the reporting network. In 1990, only 35.

The raw temperature data show no trend in temperatures in Northern Australia in 125 years. The IPCC, however, uses “adjusted” data. NOAA makes data “adjustments” to remove “inhomogeneities” and for other reasons. The D'Aleo and Watts report says: “We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? NOAA added a huge, artificial, imaginary trend to the most recent half of the raw data.” The raw temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 C. per century. After the NOAA adjustment, the temperatures were rising 1.2 C per century.

In New Zealand, temperatures have been remarkably stable for a century and a half, though the IPCC and others allege warming has been occurring for over 100 years. But New Zealand itself made adjustments to the NOAA climate data. D'Aleo and Watts say, “The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming....There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments.”

In the United States, most of the remaining stations are at airports or other locations unlikely to yield representative results, and most of the higher elevation stations in the West are gone. The only remaining stations in California are in San Francisco, Santa Maria, Los Angeles and San Diego.

There are two weather organizations that provide satellite data and three that publish surface data. Those three are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)'s National Climate Data Center (NCDC), NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit—and all three depend on data supplied by ground stations via NOAA!

The EPA statement in the Federal Register December 9, 2009, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” was followed by “The global surface temperature record relies on three major global temperature data sets, developed by NOAA, NASA, and the United Kingdom's Hadley Center. All three show an unambiguous warming trend over the last 100 years.” The EPA intent obviously was to try to downplay the effect of any Hadley/CRU data manipulations (after the “climategate” scandal of damaging emails was disclosed) by showing the end result was validated by the other two agencies. But since the three agencies all depend on the same NOAA data, their unambiguous agreement demonstrates not validity but their common corruption.

For seventeen years now there has been no global warming—even from the reduced network of reporting stations—but carbon dioxide emissions have continued to soar. This certainly casts doubt on the assertions that higher levels of CO2 cause global warming. At the same time, the evidence has become overwhelming that changes in the earth's temperature are determined by the sun, making the dogma that CO2 causes global warming as obsolete as arguments that the earth is flat. Figure 3 shows the close correlation between the earth's temperature and the sun's magnetic cycle, which is a proxy for its variations in brightness (irradiance). The shorter the magnetic cycle length, the more active, and hence brighter, the sun. Cosmic rays have an even even stronger correlation than irradiance, but I do not have a graph to show this:

glob1ac6FIG3

While orbital changes produce long-term climate cycles by varying the distance of the earth from the sun, shorter term cycles are determined by changes in the surface of the sun itself. The sun's radiation is varied by disturbances on the surface of the sun, called “sunspot cycles.” Magnetic fields rip through the sun's surface, producing holes in the sun's corona, solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and changes in the “solar wind,” the stream of charged particles emanating from the sun. The solar wind, by modulating the galactic cosmic rays which reach the earth, determines both the formation of clouds and the carbon dioxide level in the earth's atmosphere. Sunspot cycles cause only slight changes in the sun's radiation, but these changes are amplified many fold by interaction 1) with ozone in the upper stratosphere, and 2) with clouds in the lower troposphere. Clouds have a hundred times greater impact on climate and temperature than CO2.

“Cosmic radiation comes to the earth from the depths of the universe, ionizing atoms and molecules in the troposphere, and thus enabling cloud formation. When the sun's activity is stronger, the solar magnetic field drives a part of cosmic radiation away from the earth, fewer clouds are formed in the troposphere, and the earth becomes warmer,” wrote N.D. Marsh and H. Svensmark, pioneers in this issue. The process was explained with eloquent simplicity by Theodore Landsheidt of Canada's Schroeder Institute: “When the solar wind is strong and cosmic rays are weak, the global cloud cover shrinks. It expands when cosmic rays are strong because the solar wind is weak. This effect [is] attributed to cloud seeding by ionized secondary particles.” Or, as Jaworowski put it more poetically, “The sun opens and closes a climate-controlling umbrella of clouds over our heads.”

The sun also sets the carbon dioxide level in the earth's atmosphere by the same process. Nigel Calder explains: “The sun sets the level of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere by the cumulative effect of variations in the galactic cosmic rays reaching the earth, as modulated by the solar wind. My results leave no room for CO2 levels due to man-made CO2....nothing to do with emissions from factories or cars (emphasis added.)”

Perhaps we should not be surprised that the global warming alarmists still cling to their CO2/global warming dogma in the face of the contrary evidence: 17 years of no global warming despite a soaring increase in CO2 emissions. There was ample evidence before this that their dogma was incorrect, but they ignored it.

For example, all of the computer modeling of global warming assumes—for sound theoretical reasons—that warming from a greenhouse effect must be 2-3 times greater in the lower atmosphere than at the earth's surface. This is not happening. Both satellites and weather balloons show slightly greater warming at the surface. These atmospheric temperature measurements furnish direct, unequivocal evidence that whatever warming has occurred is not due to the greenhouse effect. Still, the greenhouse proponents cling to their dogma.

According to the greenhouse hypothesis, the warming should occur equally during day and night. But most of the warming that has been observed has occurred at night, thus falsifying the models. The greenhouse believers are undisturbed by this.

Since carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas, computer models predicting environmental catastrophe depend on the small amount of warming from carbon dioxide being amplified by increased evaporation of water. But in the many documented periods of higher carbon dioxide, even during much warmer climate periods, that never happened. During the time of the dinosaurs, the carbon dioxide levels were 300 to 500% greater than today.

Five hundred million years ago, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 15 to 20 times what it is today. Yet the catastrophic water-vapor amplification of carbon dioxide warming never occurred. Today we're told catastrophic warming will result if carbon dioxide doubles. But during the Ordovician Period, the carbon dioxide level was 12 times what it is today, and the earth was in an Ice Age. That's exactly opposite to the “runaway” warming that computer models predict should occur. Clearly the models are wrong; they depend upon an assumption of amplification that is contrary to the climate record of millions of years. Still, the greenhouse proponents cling to their dogma. The facts don't matter.

Hidden in the scare-tactic claims of runaway global warming from increasing CO2 is the fact that its effect is logarithmic. That means each increase of CO2 produces less effect than the previous one. David M. Hoffer offers this very useful explanation: “Consider that you have several pairs of sunglasses, each of which block 50% of the light. If you put two pairs in a row, do they block 100%? Of course not. The first pair blocks 50% and the second pair blocks 50% of what is left, which is 25% of the original light. The third pair would block only 12.5% of the original light. CO2 suffers from the same law of diminishing returns.” But the True Believers still warn of a coming danger of runaway global warming from increasing CO2.

Why is it that the global warming advocates are unfazed by any contrary evidence, no matter how strong? All their claims of disasters and “tipping points” have been debunked. All their computer models have been shown to be false, to be based on flawed assumptions, incapable of being reconciled with observable facts. Vaclav Klaus, former president of the Czech Republic and a university professor before he became president, is the author of a book on global warming and has spoken often on the subject. He says, “What frustrates me is the feeling that everything has already been said and published, that all rational argument has been used, yet it does not help.”

It does not help because global warming alarmism is not based on rational argument. It is not based on science. It is not based on reality. It is based on political ideology. If rational argument doesn't fit, then phony arguments must be invented: the spread of malaria, the loss of biological diversity, polar bears disappearing, etc. If computer models can predict disaster scenarios only by programming unrealistic assumptions, then that will be done. If global warming does not fit the observable temperature measurements, then a new “reality” must be invented to fit the ideology: the actual temperature records must be altered or excised. Ditto for carbon dioxide measurements. The global warming advocates are not disturbed by all this because, in their view, ideology trumps reality!

Patrick Moore, a co-founder and director of Greenpeace, resigned because of its “trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas.” After the failure of communism, he says, there was little public support for collectivist ideology. In his view, a “reason environmental extremism emerged was because world communism failed, the [Berlin] wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-Marxism with them and learned to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalism than they do anything with ecology or science.”

“I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically,” said Judi Bari, principal organizer of Earth First!

James Hansen—the man who started global warming alarmism with his Senate testimony in 1988—revealed his hatred of capitalism in an impassioned email denouncing the attention paid to errors in NASA temperature data. He said attention to those errors “has a clear purpose: to confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change. The danger is that delay will cause tipping points to be passed, such that large climate impacts become inevitable...[T]he ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children.”

On June 23, 2008, exactly twenty years to the day from his Senate testimony that he was 99% sure greenhouse warming was already underway, Hansen appeared before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. There he conjured up images of the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals by claiming the CEOs of fossil fuel energy companies “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

Klaus states:


We succeeded in getting rid of communism, but along with many others, we erroneously assumed that attempts to suppress freedom, and to centrally organize, mastermind, and control society and the economy, were matters of the past, an almost-forgotten relic. Unfortunately, those centralizing urges are still with us.... Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection. Behind their people and nature friendly terminology, the adherents of environmentalism make ambitious attempts to radically reorganize and change the world, human society, our behavior and our values....

The followers of the environmentalist ideology, however, keep presenting us with various catastrophic scenarios with the intention of persuading us to implement their ideas. That is not only unfair but also extremely dangerous. Even more dangerous, in my view, is the quasi-scientific guise that their oft-refuted forecasts have taken on....Their recommendations would take us back to an era of statism and restricted freedom....The ideology will be different. Its essence will, nevertheless, be identical—the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of the common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of the proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea reality.... We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society....It is not about climatology. It is about freedom.

http://news.heartland.org/editorial/2013/07/02/exposing-global-warming-fraud

graphs didn't follow link here.

 

[bentom187]

Regarding that video that was posted by Bentom, the JFK secret society speech...version 2...

Note how the editing is attempting to change the entire meaning of this speech.

This speech, if read from the beginning and in its entirety, is very obviously talking about the cold war, and is referring to the communists who were our enemy in that war. Version 2 just happens to edit out the parts about the cold war. It's not about any kind of "secret society conspiracy" of the kind that conspiracy theorists harp on. It is obviously a piece of propaganda meant to influence people who believe in conspiracies. Look at all the comments that accompany the video, almost all of them are people convinced of conspiracies.

Play the video, and then listen while you read the transcript, and see how they edited out the parts on the cold war. Total brainwashing going on here. Scroll down to the highlighted part, which is where the video speech begins.

And...I just wasted an hour of my life trying to point out why this stuff is so very very very often pure unadulterated BS.

It really didn't change anything ,governments change and so does their management strategy like communism but its mostly through spy networks and funded by banks because they create credit out of thin air, financing whatever wars need to be including the cold war.
To me if you are financing both sides of every war, and every government, you belong to a secret society.

How the Rothschilds became wealthy
[YOUTUBEIF]iVBHQL3f6AQ[/YOUTUBEIF]

still happens today regularly

Gaddafi gold-for-oil, dollar-doom plans behind Libya 'mission'?
[YOUTUBEIF]GuqZfaj34nc[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[gaiusmarius]

i really hope people take Payasos words to heart. discuss, don't argue and specially no insults or politics, religion etc. have deleted a couple of posts to stop things going down hill.

 

[OrganicBuds]

Results from this threads pole will be sent to the white house, good day.

 

[trichrider]

Fallacies about Global Warming Print E-mail

Written by John McLean
Thursday, 06 September 2007 19:25





For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.


It is widely alleged that the science of global warming is “settled”. This implies that all the major scientific aspects of climate change are well understood and uncontroversial, and that scientists are now just mopping up unimportant details. The allegation is profoundly untrue: for example the US alone is said to be spending more than $4 billion annually on climate research, which is a lot to pay for detailing; and great uncertainty and argument surround many of the principles of climate change, and especially the magnitude of any human causation for warming. Worse still, not only is the science not “settled”, but its discussion in the public domain is contaminated by many fallacies, which leads directly to the great public confusion that is observed.

This paper explains the eight most common fallacies that underpin public discussion of the hypothesis that dangerous global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
body of text: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Conclusions
The hypothesis of dangerous human-caused warming caused by CO2 emission is embroiled in uncertainties of the fundamental science and its interpretation, and by fallacious public discussion. It is utterly bizarre that, in face of this reality, public funding of many billions of dollars is still being provided for climate change research. It is even more bizarre that most governments, urged on by environmental NGSs and other self-interested parties, have either already introduced carbon taxation or trading systems (Europe; some groups of US States), or have indicated a firm intention to do so (Australia).

At its most basic, if scientists cannot be sure that temperatures are today rising, nor establish that the gentle late 20th century warming was caused by CO2 emissions, then it is nonsense to propose that expensive controls are needed on human carbon dioxide emissions.

 

[Wiggs Dannyboy]

I don't care what you say...this is interesting:

The Ultimate Conspiracy...

[YOUTUBEIF]zqcHlapZw7c[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[SativaBreather]

Global warming is bullshit invented by the club of Rome http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

 

[candidly]

How long did that take you Wiggs 2min, wiggs these guys don't even have basic critical thinking skills, you see what I mean lol.

Which of "these guys" are you referring to?

I haven't posted any bogus quotes.

I never post bogus quotes....because I always research that type of thing before sharing.

In your mind, all conspiracy theorists must be idiots because a few of them didn't get things exactly right.

But didn't I just finish explaining to you in an earlier post that nobody can be expected to possess the complete truth about anything, especially when the entire society around them is built upon lies? Didn't I explain how and why one would expect errors to be made? So why are you surprised that some guy got one quote wrong?

You cherry pick one error some guy made then take that as your sign to laugh in their faces...but you won't dare take anything I've said and do anything with it....because you can't. You could try arguing logically with me, but after a short period of time when each and every one of your theories is dissected, analyzed, and thoroughly ripped to shreds, you'd inevitably a) know you've been schooled, and shut up, or b) return to insults and other logical fallacies.

So instead you use one guy's error to generalize that ALL conspiracy theorists must be idiots, and leave satisfied with yourself.

One guy makes an error, and he's a fool. But another guy's entire way of thinking is erroneous. So wouldn't that make him profoundly foolish?

 

[candidly]

Here's something that John F Kennedy DID say. Does it support your interpretation of the facts, or ours?

"The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

Today no war has been declared — and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions — by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security — and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed."

"John F. Kennedy made this speech on April the 27th, 1961, before the American Newspaper Publishers Association at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. It contains many famous passages, including those mysterious words alluding to a dark and powerful enemy which is secretively amongst us. Many people speculate that this secretive enemy is the military-industrial complex.

JFK was assassinated about 1 year after this speech and many believe that the reasons for his departure are hidden in these very words. He was trying to expose them, and they decided that it was time for him to go."


Another gem by one of my favorite wise men:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

 

[trichrider]

and I also mentioned I've watched hundreds of theorist videos since then finding nothing credible in them to alter my position, same as you trichrider, same as you.

no stoner, not the same as me. true I've watched loads of videos and read many volumes of literature, but we obviously didn't digest them similarly.


and so when I post a comment & am challenged by someone linking me up to a 3 HOUR video for me to watch I say, "wow! fuck you, tell me where in that 3 HOURS I'll find the answer!"

see that? lazy...that video linked had little to do with what you argue, it wasn't about 9/11 even.

I ain't watching 3 more HOURS in a single video only to hear more of the same stuff just twisted around by some new theorist, I've heard it all before.

you didn't hear anything new because you didn't bother...

If there was something credible contained in those vids then some lucky newscaster can get famous when you send him the link. oh, I know, this kind of inside job information is being smothered by the govt.

not so much...more like you swallowing...

To theorists a new video supporting their side is godlike, it's held in awe, they don't question the facts therein, no, they just quote them! and then they knock on my door like the Jehovah's of 9/11; and just like those Saturday afternoon visits, I ain't buying! I done picked my God & I picked my side of the 9/11 debate.

can't pry yourself away from either to let yourself see,
proving nothing but your resistance to adaptation.



I've got a solid hour of cooking to do, I'll revisit this tomorrow.......

you'll cook for an hour to feed your face, but refuse 3 to feed your soul?
are you so certain of your cognitive abilities and the distinctions you've made that you need not look?

9/11 was just an example. a real good one, but just one.
there have been a score of examples provided of other conspiracies, which is what this thread was about, all of them ignored in favor of focusing on 9/11 which you refused to believe because of the outlandish implications.

many of these conspiracies are closely related and necessary in formulating an informed opinion (let alone a 'belief').

we've heard your denials and protests and logged your vote in the poll. to continue on with your abject interference and insistence against 'theorists' obviates your intention.

thank you for contributing to this thread and may you never have to endure the consequences of your beliefs.

 

[Wiggs Dannyboy]

Here's something that John F Kennedy DID say. Does it support your interpretation of the facts, or ours?

"John F. Kennedy made this speech on April the 27th, 1961, before the American Newspaper Publishers Association at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. It contains many famous passages, including those mysterious words alluding to a dark and powerful enemy which is secretively amongst us. Many people speculate that this secretive enemy is the military-industrial complex.

JFK was assassinated about 1 year after this speech and many believe that the reasons for his departure are hidden in these very words. He was trying to expose them, and they decided that it was time for him to go."


Another gem by one of my favorite wise men:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Damn, Candidly....I think now I see why you are so easily mislead and fall for these conspiracy theories. You don't bother to read stuff thoroughly, or you just don't absorb what you are reading.

Cases in point:

1)That speech by Kennedy that you just posted is the exact same one I posted as evidence that Bentom's video was edited to support a conspiracy. How can you be mistaken about something that is so recent in this threads past? I said in my post that the original, full speech (I posted the official transcript from the JFK Library and Museum) was obviously a speech about the Soviet Union and the cold war. Even your post contains some words to that effect (from paragraph 4 of your Kennedy speech highlight):

"It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions — by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Why not post his entire speech, which takes care of the context problem? I think I know why...

2) You said above... "JFK was assassinated about 1 year after this speech and many believe that the reasons for his departure are hidden in these very words. He was trying to expose them, and they decided that it was time for him to go."

The speech happened on April 27. 1961. JFK was killed on November 22, 1963. Do the math. Never mind, I already did it... it's 939 days (that's pushing 3 years). Do you know how many days there are in a year? I'm guessing you do, but then, why didn't you notice how off the "1 year" claim was?

These 2 things go a long way in pointing out the problem with most people who believe conspiracy theories...they don't bother to approach these theories with any skepticism, they believe whatever gets printed or said to them, and then they go out and spread the word... to other people who have the same problem as themselves.

I'm done responding with my time in this thread. I was trying to point out how/why these conspiracy theories continue to spread, but obviously it is falling on deaf ears. From now on, if I post anything in this thread, it won't be something that requires me to write up sensible responses.... I'll just do what most of the conspiracy theorists do and post videos, links, and copied and pasted BS... except my posts will reflect the opposite viewpoint of the conspiracy theorist. Plus, I'll make sure it adds some levity to this thread...it is awful stuffy in here.

Here ya go:

[youtubeif]VEy5vIWCJLQ[/youtubeif]


.