An 'Ignorant Wingnut Conspiracy Theorist' And The Conspiracy Of AGW Wingnut Theorist's Ignorance

It appears that I, apparently suffering from a “personality disorder,” am an “ignorant wingnut conspiracy theorist.” It’s tough work, but I guess someone has to do it, especially when my so-called “theory” is based on the writings of the very scientists acknowledging that they have concocted the fraud called AGW.

It the mind of an ignorant wingnut conspiracy theorist, any level of denial and idiocy is possible.  These are the same people who believe in a magical being that rose from the dead and walked on water, yet are in denial of what our best science and military say is fact.    

How about that?    

If that's not a mental illness, I'd say it's at least a personality disorder.  

Enter another "ignorant wingnut conspiracy theorist":

What’sGoing on Behind the Curtain? Climategate 2.0 and Scientific Integrity

Which brings us to Climategate.  Climategate parts one and two are a series of leaked e-mails from arguably the most prominent researchers promoting the idea that humans are causing catastrophic global warming. The e-mails show the scientists involved to be violating their professional ethics with the result that climate science in particular and science as an institution more generally is brought into question. 

The first group of e-mails released in 2009 showed scientists attempting to suppress or alter inconvenient data, destroying raw data so that others would be unable to analyze it, using tricks to change reported outcomes, conspiring to avoid legally required disclosure of taxpayer-funded data, and trying to suppress dissent by undermining the peer review process.  On the latter point the researchers involved threatened to boycott and get editors fired at journals publishing findings questioning the urgency of the climate crisis. 

Climategate 2 is a second release of e-mails, in November 2011, from the same cabal of scientists exposed in Climategate 1.  There is little new to the revelations—just more hiding data, trying to figure out how to downplay dissent or have papers that would seem to undermine one part or another of anthropogenic global warming theory ignored or discredited. 

To be clear, these e-mails do not disprove that humans are causing potentially catastrophic global warming. Whether or not humans are or are not, in fact, causing or contributing to dangerous climate change, the only thing clear that emerges from the Climategate e-mails is that the scientists claiming that “the science is settled” and that there is “consensus” among scientists that humankind are acting as planet killers, can’t be trusted, nor can their research be pointed to as solid proof of anthropogenic global warming. 

…

The term skeptic has historically been a badge of honor proudly worn by scientists as indicating their commitment to the idea that in the pursuit of truth, nothing is beyond question, every bit of knowledge is open to improvement and/or refutation as new evidence or better theories emerge.  However, in the topsy-turvy field of climate science, “skeptic” is a term of opprobrium and to be labeled a skeptic is akin to being a heretic in the Middle Ages – you may not be literally burned at the stake, but your reputation will be put to flames.  

The Climategate scientists continue to claim that the actions disclosed are not bad as they seem and that nothing contained in the e-mails is really important. But this is like the Wizard of Oz saying “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,” when in fact the real action is going on behind the curtain. 

Of course, this “ignorant wingnut conspiracy theorist” is Dr. H. Sterling Burnett who specializes in Environmental Ethics. As such Dr. Burnett must be suffering from a personality disorder to demand the employment of ethics in science.

I wonder, if Dr. Burnett does not exhibit such hatred as the commenter quoted above exhibits to ideas such as a belief in God, will he be stripped of his title and expelled from science all together?  As political correctness is bureaucratic herding by its very nature Emerson's quote, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" comes to mind since it is foolishly consistent.

How Badly Does Obama Not Want To Be President?

His first first-grade gaffe, that I remember, was his 57 states comment which even school children used to know as wrong. He has had so many that they have become tiresome, but his newest is so ignorant and pandering that it is embarrassing. Many pundits have already commented that his staff should be checking these things before they are put on TOTUS for the One to read, but my comment is that he should have spotted it and fired the moron that slipped this gem into a speech. That he didn't makes him a moron.



Other pundits have spoken of Obama's refusal to utter the words "by their creator" in his speech. That is not news. He omitted the words on purpose.

He spoke of "inalienable rights" as if that was a concept of Mexico, Spain or any other culture in the Americas. First, "Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land," Obama said to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Huh?

Spain got free of Mexico in 1821. For kids currently in school this is important, because 1821 was more than a few years after the founding of the United States of America let alone since the idea of an America first popped into the heads of our founders. Plus, there was that dust up at the Alamo in 1836 where rights were being taken away by Mexico and the different peoples of the land weren't sharing too many values with the dictator of Mexico.

So, was it Antonio de Padua María Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón that spoke of "inalienable rights" as he watched the dead men of the Alamo burned? Possibly Geronimo? Oh, that's right it was Tommy Jefferson and his friends batting around that phrase. And they did so long before anyone else was pandering with phrases like, "Can't we all just get along."

I think our president isn't making any long term plans for more glittery parties post 2012, because he either knows he isn't up to the job of being president or he has already grown tired of it. If he is, whew, whoever bestowed "Constitutional Scholar" on him should be fired immediately. I may be stretching here, but I hope that Obama knows of the link between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Maybe he thinks that if Jefferson thought it important that Jefferson would've put a hyper-link in the Constitution. Just a thought.