In 2009 the Climategate scandals started breaking from a Wiki-Leaks-like whistleblower exposing the East Anglia University’s distortion of temperature data. (Download and read the actual emails. Then make up your mind.) Now (2016-17) we have NOAA and NASA data manipulations to make each current year the hottest being exposed.
Free Speech
So, far the scientific community, the part funded by climate research dollars, is totally opposed to any discussion of anti-warming ideas. This is a budget in the trillions. For them it is a huge financial threat. Do you know Russia and China are preparing for global cooling? Why are both putting so much emphasis on warm water ports?
If this was just a matter of some people being wrong about warming, get those idiots out there and let the facts embarrass them. Instead the climate community wants laws to stop those that may speak in opposition to their ‘the planet is doomed’ claims. Just give them the money they need and they will stop the 600 million years of the planet’s climate change. Sure.
Hillary Clinton was exposed by Wiki-Leaks. Whether it was the Russians helping Wiki-Leaks (no evidence yet) or as more and more rumors claim the US intelligence agencies (no evidence yet) we can’t know. But, is how the criminal was exposed the real issue? The DNC + Hillary fixed an election to lock Bernie out. At the most the Russians “influenced”. Which is worse?
Exposing facts about politicians is a huge issue. The significance can’t be quantified in dollars as the true measure here is power. But, free speech is not to their benefit. In the political mind the Internet must be controlled, no free speech allowed.
I could go on with more examples.
The Result
There are more and more groups that find limiting of speech on certain subjects is in their best interest. So, it is not surprising that we have a conspiracy of attitude. The idea of conspiracy of attitude is that the conspirators do not have to meet, even know each other, nor agree. They have a common shared interest. Each does their bit to further their interest in the common interest, helping out where they can for their reasons. Each little bit is like the atmospheric micro-influences that build into a hurricane.
The only group who has as an interest in preserving free speech is the individual… citizens.
What do we do? How do we protect our right to free speech? Simply stated we oppose anyone that wants to limit speech for ANY reason.
When someone says ‘oppose that guy because he wants to limit free speech’, do we oppose ‘that guy’? Maybe. But, first we look to see if we are being lied to. Then we look to see what ‘that guy’ is actually doing or proposing. Then decide.
Seeing the Signs
It is important to recognize who is opposing speech. In the 1920’s 30’s the German National Socialist Party created a group we know as the brownshirts. The brownshirts attended political rallies and tried to convince people their ideology should be adopted. Failing to convince people of their ideology they beat the crap out of anyone that didn’t agree or spoke against them or their ideology. The KKK was/is similar. They both silenced their opposition. However, once in power, Hitler killed the brownshirts (Night of the Long Knives) as they had too much power/influence.
Today’s radicals are using brownshirt’s tactics. They stop opposition by force, not superior ideas.
More sophisticated politicians and special interest groups are attacking free speech and using psychologists to sugarcoat proposed legislation in wording people find acceptable. ‘Stop hate speech. Pass a law.’ It is amazing how many people fail to realize such ideas are about squelching free speech.
My point is many parties have an interest in abolishing free speech. Tactics are sophisticated. Blatant attacks (brownshirts) to sophisticated attacks encapsulated in socially acceptable buzz words like: ‘Save the World – silence deniers’. Find me one person that denies climate change… a strawman warrior in the fight against free speech…
Think… research… think some more… act…
“Pain”
Wow. Just … wow. I randomly looked at your blog again and was pleasantly surprised you done a good post intro … and then it just went into weird conspiracy rambles ending in a WW2 stand-off between Soviets and Nazis.
First things first – you are right that both were an image of pluralism and just in a huge power scuffle along with USA which just dropped into war in 1942 just to flex muscles. Indeed, am from Poland aka. the country everyone wanted in central Europe (and now, no one would visit as they would get a brick to the head from neo-Nazis). My area helped Nazis murder local Jewish, Muslim, Greek Orthodox, Russian and Ukrainian people in the majority then. Afterwards Soviets invaded. Then radical conservative neo-Nazis but gladly I left for UK before that.
However, this is only my experience and it is not yours or someone elses’ so on one hand you are right – SL does suffer from lack of free speech and Linden Labs having only USA offices nowadays does mean licking Chinese facist butts like Hollywood does.
However, ISIS gives no fucks about Vatican or Pope – they care about fellow Muslims and their intention is to alienate them from anyone else due to biases created by them via fear, terrorism and media. You are actually a person ISIS would send a gift basket too as you eat their propaganda rather well.
Other propaganda you swallow? Yes, millitiant atheist one – nope, Dawkins and the like are just few people who are loud and popular and still – atheism is not same everywhere. I was atheist in Poland due to not fancying Church and state intersecting, fanatic Catholicism ruling and being judged based on norms fundamentalist politicians created while saying Vatican did.
I do fancy science same as any other person liking to know about the world around them and to me it fits most personal spiritual beliefs and … pretty much is same for majority – no one likes militiant atheists or religious fundamentalists just like no one supports Soviets or Nazis – those are movements only benefiting creators so you again tick the citizen part off.
No idea what you mean about cholesterol and heart attacks as the connection never been denied by someone but am very sorry to inform you that ‘global warming’ does not mean ‘warming’ … Okay, not very sorry as you never research anything as it seems. Essentially we did a number on Earth due to industrialisation, coal mining, toxic fumes, freon use, stomping on various micro-environments and not giving a shit. Temperature and climate changes in cycles and we match predictions with those for now. Earth did not prepare for us littering to hell and back, murdering various species, leaking oils, dropping nuclear waste, exploding nuclear energy plants (Chernobyl was fun), causing ice caps to melt due to ozone barrier destruction and all other nice stuff.
However, it is your right to believe otherwise and write otherwise which is absolutely grand and you do make your own conclusions and share them. Unfortunately, you also written a post on how SL should be separate from politics and here you say we are all affected by our beliefs.
You have a really odd take on historical information. I suppose, depending on your age, that would be from growing up in Poland pre-Walesa. The US entering the war to ‘flex’ its muscles? You should probably read up on that.
SL doesn’t lack free speech. It has more than most US college campuses. But, it is not a public forum where the US Constitution applies its First Amendment. It is a private space where the Lab is entitled to control what happens in its house. The point is to clarify a difference between SL and RL ideas of free speech.
To say ISIS doesn’t care about the Pope is ignoring the Muslims’ primary eschatology. A good reference book is Thomas Horn & Cris Putnam’s The Final Roman Emperor, The Islamic Antichrist. The number of citations and references, religious and secular, is amazing. You find a mountain of material to correct your thinking on Catholic-Muslim beliefs about the end times. You could also consider reading the Hadiths that describe Muslim eschatological beliefs, but that is rather tedious. Or an amazingly simple refutation to your thinking on the subject, just listen to what Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of ISIS, has and is saying.
Your opinion on Catholic-Muslim beliefs reflects mainstream media’s and little if any relationship to reality.
All belief systems have variations. Nowhere did I write any system is homogenous, without variation.
I find the atheist belief system is striking in its disregard of science and history. To say you chose to be because you didn’t like how you perceive government and religion using people, is like ignoring the reality of the speed of light because you want to go faster. Reality exists without regard to what we personally want.
In free countries, we can have Personal Belief Systems. Are you presupposing all religions are made up stories? Without any basis in fact? Therefore, you can make up your own?
The cholesterol connection to cardiac problems is 1950’s & 60’s thought. You thinking no one disagrees with that thinking shows how effective the mainstream news, a propaganda system, is. Do some actual research to provide a foundation for your opinions.
The Mayo Clinic and numerous others in recent studies point out the statistics showing the lack of causation and correlation in cholesterol-to-cardiac issues. My point was to show a facet of our society where the majority has been misled by the system. You step up and present yourself to illustrate my point. Thanks.
As to my never researching anything, I think you are projecting. You seem to have bought into most of the popular propaganda of the day without doing any homework. Gee, everyone says…
A massive propaganda campaign has been waged to support the UN’s Agenda 21. The primary piece started out as global cooling, then warming, and now is climate change. To believe giving trillions in an effort to someone to control climate that has changed for hundreds of millions of years is suddenly going to be altered by humans is absurd. It’s a ‘King ordering the tide to stop’ thing.
At 400+ppm of CO2 we are nowhere near the historic high of 3,000ppm. In Russia and China where scientists are not constrained in direction by the social-political pressure of the West to conform, they are reporting what the minority of Western scientists say: current artic ice levels are at 1940 levels, temperature changes are within the ranges we have seen for 200 years and way less than the historic ice cores recorded. Our most accurate global temperature measure, satellites, show no warming for 20 years. Ocean buoy data, the most accurate, is ignored in favor of way less freighter intake temperatures because the later shows warming and the buoys don’t.
You are a wonderful example of one mislead by propaganda and constrained reporting. Like most you direct your comments at me and never challenge the subjects.
People have to dig for real news. To know who is telling truth and who is faking, they have to verify their information sources and maintain healthy skepticism.
• Summary of climate science: Ice Cap – http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
• Summary of Renewable Energy Failing: Energy Matters – http://euanmearns.com/
• An unspinning of energy facts: JoNova – http://joannenova.com.au/
• News bits to upset everyone: Not a Lot Of People Know That – https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
• Energy Rip-Offs: The Deplorable Climate Science Blog – https://realclimatescience.com/
• Energy crimes: The Green Corruption Files – http://greencorruption.blogspot.com/
• Mostly examining science claims: Watts Up with That? – https://wattsupwiththat.com/
• Challenging all popular beliefs: Manhattan Contrarian – http://manhattancontrarian.com/
These sites provide reference material and information the mainstream won’t report. There are plenty of sites attempting to refute these. Deciding which to trust requires examining the foundations and raw data for each side’s claims.