"10 of the Biggest Lies in History" Topic

Well…

link

Amicalement
Armand

I notice that no Soviet propaganda made the cut.

I'll stick with the old standbys--
"It's for your own good"
"I(We) speak for The People."
"We HAD to do it: otherwise Those People would have taken over."

I don't do the whole "next, nex, next" thing !!
However -- here are EASILY the real top three.

1. THE CHECK IS IN THE MAIL
2. ANY GOVERMENT PETTY BUREAUCRAT THAT SAYS: "WE'RE HERE TO HELP.
3. ANY MEDICAL PROCEDURE WHEN THEY SAY: "THIS WILL NOT HURT" OR "YOU WILL FEEL JUST A LITTLE PINCH."

Russ Dunaway

Dumb list, click bait format.

Russ, add "This hurts me more than it hurts you."

"It's for the children".

B

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Agree with Andrew – not much thought went into that one.

Worst, no definition. If propaganda is fair bait, then the NS is rightfull in, but the other nine should probably also be various versions of propaganda warfare. Broken Baby incubators for Kuwait, bayonetted babys by the "Huns", or the evil comunist/capitalist (depending on the perspective) during the various phases of the cold war, just to start.

What about, "Man Caused Global Climate Change" formerly known as global cooling….err global warming???? Well you know?

Agree, von Schwartz. The claim that man has nothing to do with the current climate changes is, on a personal level, the biggest self-delusional lie. Roughly on par with the German "I did know nothing" of Hitlers time.

+1 von Schwartz.

"Anthropogenic Climate Change" is a total corporate con game and absolutely qualifies as a Top Ten historical lie.

B

I see the anti science crowd are out in force.
Global Overheating denial is political, and thus breaks TMP rules.

No, actually it is science, Concensus is NOT science. Consensus is….consensus.

Concensus is NOT science. Consensus is….consensus.

So, when the vast majority of scientists have consensus on an issue, that isn't science? Isn't scientific consensus built on many studies and experiments coming to the same results, conclusions, thus consensus?

Blutarski:

total corporate con game.

How do corporations, particularly the large ones like oil, power companies, insurance etc. etc., the ones who could possibly pull of such a huge con, benefit from the climate change narrative???

No, science is based on science. You develop a hypothesis and then, if you are good and honest scientist, you go about trying to disprove your hypothesis with more scientific exploration.
No, scientific consensus is just a cop-out for the many lazy scientists who don't want to do the work needed to prove or disprove the original hypothesis. Or, if they are honest hard working scientists, they may be saying that more study is needed before a conclusive conclusion can be reached.

No, scientific consensus is just a cop-out for the many lazy scientists who don't want to do the work needed to prove or disprove the original hypothesis.

So every physicist since Einstein and the 1919 eclipse varification has to also test his theory to be 'honest scientists' There can't be any consensus on it's validity???

they may be saying that more study is needed before a conclusive conclusion can be reached.

And when and who decides it's conclusive? From what you've written, it can't be scientists because they don't come to any consensus, not if they're 'honest.'

Its pretty easy to just see what you want to see.

That what makes the difference between science and opinion.

Science allows, no, demands you to see the facts. You can still chose to ignore them, but that does not make them go away. Science usually works within probablities, as absolute thruths are rare outside the mathematical field. When a scientist tells us "we are not sure" he often means "we could not get a 99% significance but just 95%". A politician will be pretty sure long before, and rarely express doubt.

That said, the probability for a climate change caused by humanity is well over 95% (see IPCC), and that we DO have a climate change is no longer under any serious doubt by the scientific community. Where we end is absolutely open, though. It may be just a bit warmer, or we end up with a climate like Venus – meanwhile the latter is more probable then the former.

That there IS no climate change WAS doubt to start with, but became a lie years ago – perhaps the most destructive in human history. (Just to connect this to the original topic again).

No, science is based on science.

Meaningless statement.

You develop a hypothesis and then, if you are good and honest scientist, you go about trying to disprove your hypothesis with more scientific exploration.

Sort of. You have things confused. A hypothesis is an assumption by which you think of a line of experiments and observations to undertake. A theory is the principle or model that best supports the collected data and observations. A theory is not a guess or hunch, like in the common parlance. It is the highest order in science. And it is the theory that you try to falsify.

AGW is the current best Theory to explain the unprecedented rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 levels and the resultant heating of the Earth. And the relative isotope ratios indicate that the source of the carbon is organic, such as wood, and fossil fuels. We should also have seen a consilience in the findings of the small percentage of papers that do not show AGN, if AGN was incorrect. We don't. Suggest a different theory then, we are all ears.

You are correct in stating that the consensus, in of itself, does not prove anything. However, if you have a robust theory, that hasn't been falsified, and has thousands of peer reviewed papers supporting it's claims, then you will naturally have a consensus. Just like the consensus on the Germ Theory, the Heliocentric Theory, the Atomic Theory, the Tectonic Plate Theory, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Gravity, etc.

The consensus exists because AGN is the best Theory we currently have. It is not a good theory simply because there is a consensus. You are putting the cart before the horse.

No, scientific consensus is just a cop-out for the many lazy scientists who don't want to do the work needed to prove or disprove the original hypothesis.

This shows you have no idea what you are talking about. First that's not how any science works. Secondly, nothing in science is "proven". As one unidentifiable wag accurately put it, "Proofs are for mathematics and booze". If you truly are interested, here is a good magazine article by astrophysicist explaining this:

link

Or, if they are honest hard working scientists, they may be saying that more study is needed before a conclusive conclusion can be reached.

I don't think you are in any position to make that claim, or tell the differences between honest and dishonest scientists. Dishonesty or honest errors are always eventually found out, as the published results are shown to be irreproducible.

McLaddie wrote – "How do corporations, particularly the large ones like oil, power companies, insurance etc. etc., the ones who could possibly pull of such a huge con, benefit from the climate change narrative???"

Look into the "carbon credit" market scheme, the MASSIVE governmental "clean energy" subsidies, loan guarantees, special tax breaks and governmental edicts forcing state and municipal power authorities to buy "clean" electricity at rates far above normal market, the manipulation of the various energy and commodity markets through arbitrary environmental decrees strategically leaked to favored players before the fact.

Or you could take a look into "The Community Re-Investment Act" shenanigans that produced the 2008 crash.

Or you could ponder the fact that the officially released estimate (as of 2015) was that the USD 35 billion of illegally laundered funds recovered by the international banking community was estimated to represent rather less than one percent of the total estimated volume of laundered funds annually passing through the international banking system.

Or, have you read the Dodd-Frank Act recently. Are you aware that the money you have in your bank accounts do not technically belong to you? According to Dodd-Frank, by depositing said funds with a bank, you have in effect loaned the money to the bank and your technical status is that of an unsecured lender at the back of the creditor line (there is of course FDIC protection … but check and see how much money the FDIC actually has to cover its bets).

I have worked in international shipping (20 years), international trading (20 years) and international banking (5 years) = 45 years. Over that time, I have come to be acquainted with some "comfortably wealthy (don't a$k)" individuals who are or were (one has passed away) "politically connected" at high national and international levels. Whatever you think you understand about global politics, economics and business is carefully controlled by what the media chooses to present to the public and what they choose to conceal or deny.

Nothing is on the level. And that includes the "4th Estate".

I could go on. But, hey, what do I know?

B

Well I can agree that large corporations can be duplicitous.

Take Exxon for example. One the one hand they are one of the leading founders of anti-AGW funding by donating to think tanks like the Cato Institute, the Hearland Institute and the Heritage Foundation, all who are the business of denying AGW. These corporations then donate to the elections of policy makers.

link

On the other hand, internal reports wthIn Exxon show that they fully understood AGW and have had their own scientists present reports and papers on AGW as early as 1978.

PDF link

On page 1, you'll notice that J.F. Black, the Exxon scientific advisor, mentions that he was concerned that the atmospheric CO2 Levels were 330 ppm. That was in 1978. They are now at 412 ppm.

link

If you have better solutions than the ones undertaken by your various levels of governments, then let's hear them. But before you can determine a solution you have to concede that there is a problem. Doing nothing hasn't been working.

Bowman,
You have absolutely no obligation to believe me, but my opinion is that the entire system is "duplicitous" in an organized fashion. What if Exxon is actually in on the deal? Yes, I know, "conspiracy theory".

Have you ever asked where all the grants and funding come from to support the hordes of "climate science" researchers in every college and university around the world?

Why do you imagine that, if indeed planet earth is facing an imminent global environmental apocalypse, all the efforts are focused upon the imposition of ever more draconian controls upon the west, while the principal polluters (Asia, India, China, for example) are exempted?

Why do you imagine that critics who disagree with the claims and methods (and data) put forth by the anthropogenic climate change lobby are castigated as "climate deniers" and unceremoniously disappeared by the media? Who are these critics? I've a watched lengthy formal presentation by a group of 28 retired NASA scientists, a lecture by a Nobel laureate, a lecture by the original founder of the Sierra Club – just to name a few whose credentials are difficult to dispute. Try and find them on YouTube now. Then there is the recent critical presentation in Germany by 500 scientists which is being attacked by Facebook's paid anonymous internal "fact-checkers".

Let us not forget the gigantic email dump from the University of East Anglia which first let the ugly cat officially out of the bag. Google up 'University of East Anglia Climategate' and witness the huge tidal wave of spin control that cascaded out of the major media.

Nothing is on the level.

B

Have you ever asked where all the grants and funding come from to support the hordes of "climate science" researchers in every college and university around the world?

I assume they have the same funding as computer scientists, geologists, chemics, physics, genetics or biologist or whatever else in the first place.

Some university thinks its worth to research that topic. Apart from that, THIS particular problem has a good chance to wipe humanity (and even all other mammals) from earth, so there may be just a tad bid of interest in other organizations to fund more research to help in understanding and preventing the worst of it.

Of course it can all be just a major coverup where all scientists around the world are in and nobody tells anybody…

"Anthropogenic Climate Change" is a total corporate con game and absolutely qualifies as a Top Ten historical lie.

At least that's what Michael Moore believes:
link

More:
It's OK, I've had a vasectomy, really, you have nothing to worry about.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.

Affordable Housing:
link

We need to listen to the experts and follow the science. It's a scientifically peer-reviewed article so the all of the scientists agree:
link

link

Wolfhag

If you have better solutions than the ones undertaken by your various levels of governments, then let's hear them. But before you can determine a solution you have to concede that there is a problem. Doing nothing hasn't been working.

Lie: I'm from the government and I'm here to give you free energy.

We can't afford free energy.

There is a solution. There is enough energy in my garden to run all of my home energy for the next 100 years. It was proven over 40 years ago. However, the government-industrial complex decided against it. Fortunately, the current US government (headed by a non-government, non-petrochem member), India, and China are looking to get back into it.

Wolfhag

Ask the IPCC, I think their name says it all. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
SERIOUSLY?!?!?!
Like nearly every study on "climate change" it presupposes that it is man caused, catastrophic, and global. None of which have been conclusively proven. Oh and by the way, when has longer growing seasons with the accompanying increase in crop yields been catastrophic. And "man-caused", if it is man-caused what caused the previous 6 ice age cycles? Glacial to temperate, back to glacial, back to temperate, etc. Humans weren't even around for the first five. What caused the glaciers to melt, dinosaur flatulence? And global? what about the southern hemisphere? The Antarctic has been getting colder and the ice caps getting larger.