Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura Holds Steady At 1.6 Million Viewers
Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura Holds Steady At 1.6 Million Viewers
The second episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura tallied 1.586 million viewers, effectively even with the premiere’s 1.635 million.
Here are all the episodes for the week:
Date Show Net Day Time Viewers (000s)
12/9/09 CONSPIRACY THEORY TRU Wed 10:00P-11:00P 1,586
12/12/09 CONSPIRACY THEORY TRU Sat 05:00P-06:00P 860
12/8/09 CONSPIRACY THEORY TRU Tue 11:00P-12:00A 774
12/9/09 CONSPIRACY THEORY TRU Wed 02:00A-03:00A 638
12/12/09 CONSPIRACY THEORY TRU Sat 04:00P-05:00P 588
12/8/09 CONSPIRACY THEORY TRU Tue 03:00A-04:00A 369
12/7/09 CONSPIRACY THEORY TRU Mon 03:00P-04:00P 194
Full Information: http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/12/15/conspiracy-theory-with-jesse-ventura-holds-steady-at-1-6-million-viewers/36236
Full Episode Listing: http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/episodes/index.html
And this doesn't take into account the replays as shown above or those who have seen it on YouTube or elsewhere on the web. It definitely had the potential to reach a new audience. Hopefully this popularity will get the series picked up for longer and other networks will start seeing the profit motive in taking on these issues. Great work all around.
- Orangutan.'s blog
- Login to post comments
The Governor is leading now
Let's be like him. A good leader is often a good follower-Don't Ya know.
Now is the perfect time to spread the word about 911 truth.
Persistent inquiry and forgiveness will lead us in change.
Brilliant approach
Jessy is a very savvy guy. He is getting people familiar with the idea that conspiracies really do exist. He has borrowed from existing formats because it is necessary to talk to people in a language they understand. Don't expect everything all at once. Be content for the moment that MSM actually aired his show. Had he gone for the kill it never would have aired. 9/11 was discussed on [semi] MSM without the usual "nut job" connotation. This is a major step forward. Stay tuned.
Watched the global warming episode tonight
It's interesting watching these episodes. I have no expertise or prior research on HAARP or the global warming "hoax." However, I am a seasoned 9/11 researcher who, if I had been in charge of the 9/11 episode, could have done a better job if I'd produced it. Can't say that of the other two episodes so far. So I'm watching these other episodes from the vantage point that an average citizen might come to the 9/11 episode.
Despite any cheesiness, dramatics, X-files style graphics and music, and the like....
....it's very compelling television. After seeing tonight's show, I find it impossible to not believe that global warming is essentially a money making enterprise and a tool for governments to control populaces.
Some people have remarked that it is "sad" that Americans have to be "entertained" like this while being informed.
But right from childhood, we are titillated by the senses when it comes to learning. This is why when we're kids, it's so much more fun to learn our letters and numbers with Bert and Ernie and Big Bird than it is to simply be told the information in a dry "boring" manner without the visuals and music.
And it does continue into adulthood. Back in the early days of the movement, I used to show people screenings of Eric Hufschmid's "Painful Deceptions" (this was long before he became an Apollocaust denier and provocateur) and that film was basically a monotonous lecture with a slide show of pictures. No music, nothing sensational. Just a highly technical analysis of the twin towers' collapse. I noticed, amongst some people I showed it to, some nodding off. Not immediately, of course, and they were even intrigued by the subject matter. But despite the intrigue, the monotone voice served to hypnotically make people sleepier until eventually their eyelids were drooping.
So yes, I'd say it's a simple fact that most people would prefer to have their five senses stimulated while learning new things.
Cheesy graphics and music aside, one can't watch tonight's episode and not notice that they interviewed, in silhouette, a man who lives in hiding on a remote Pacific island, and he lives in fear of his life because he was one of the first people to actively challenge the global warming movement. It's also impossible to watch the whole show and not notice that toward the end, an environmentalist whistleblower, George Hunt, who was involved in the set up of the whole global warming movement, comes out and exposes what he knows.
Just as one can't watch last week's episode and not notice that (1) family members are not satisfied with the official story and (2) that William Rodriguez experienced a huge explosion in the sub basement before any plane hit. No cheesy graphics or music can change this.
I understand the psychological battle when it comes to truth seeking, even among 9/11 activists. Many people wake up to 9/11 and it gets them on this mission to see what else is below the iceberg, what else they've "learned" that is wrong.
Others, however, might see the HAARP, global warming, and other topics, and think to themselves, "Oh, brother, is EVERYTHING a conspiracy?" "How do I know where to stop?" "Gosh, researching 9/11 has been exhausting enough! I'm gonna leave this global warming thing to others and just not take a stand either way."
For awhile now, I've been in that last category with global warming, knowing the debate exists but not looking into it thoroughly enough to come to a conclusion one way or another. But after watching Jesse's show tonight, it's obvious that global warming is being used as an engine for profiteering.
This is where Jesse's show is a good thing. Jesse has ALWAYS had the ability to break down complex issues and present them to the common man in a digestible way (I say this after reading his earlier books), much like Michael Moore.
His show is a net positive for our movement and truth seeking in general.
Insightful
Adam, your comment is very insightful, perceptive, humanistic, easy to read, and just an all around great analysis of Jesse's series. Reminds me why I am a fan of yours here on 911blogger (don't let it go to your head).
I have not watched tonight's show yet. I have it recorded, but I now have even more confidence in the 9-11 Truth episode because of your observation, "So I'm watching these other episodes from the vantage point that an average citizen might come to the 9/11 episode... Just as one can't watch last week's episode and not notice that (1) family members are not satisfied with the official story and (2) that William Rodriguez experienced a huge explosion in the sub basement before any plane hit. No cheesy graphics or music can change this."
I was already very aware of HAARP, but not nearly as aware as I am of 9-11 Truth, and Jesse's HAARP episode was captivating and intriguing even with the distressed style graphics (I disagree with you about the cheesiness of the graphics, they are not overdone and not overkill, I like them) and editing and somewhat contrived script. None of that bothered me because of the intensity of the subject matter. I watched it til the end, because I was compelled to. Most people do not know how difficult it is to produce a TV show that people will actually watch, and I must give credit to Jesse's team, because they put together a great one.
Looking forward to watching tonight's episode on the Global Warming hoax,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
Thank you...
I'll try not to let it go to my head. ;-)
I actually do agree that the graphics and music are not overdone, and I like them too; I was just playing devil's advocate since I realize from reading a bunch of forums that some people did bemoan those aspects, both people in the movement and those fence-sitting observers. (I encourage people to read that thread and see how I deal with 9/11 truth deniers and doubters. It just might put a smile on your face for the rest of the day.)
It's re-airing right now as I type. Another thing we can't not notice is MIT professor Richard Lindzen, world renowned physicist, call out global warming as a scam.
Hoping it's a net positive; still...
' it's obvious that global warming is being used as an engine for profiteering.'
To observe that something is being exploited for profit does not in and of itself mean that that thing has been just made up and is bogus. I don't find it very convincing when deniers of the greenhouse-gas effect seem to put so much weight on this point. Imagine if all the 9/11 truth movement relied on was pointing out that the U.S. government and military has exploited and benefited from the attacks of 9/11 (heck, you can find plenty of antiwar and civil liberties activists who make that point while still subscribing to the OCT). As relevant as that point is for 9/11 truth, there's so much more evidence that we need (and have) to demonstrate that the official story is a big lie.
What I also have a problem with is that deniers of human-caused global warming seem to me to speak as if everything started with Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' in 2006. Whereas for a long time before that, climate scientists who argued for such conclusions were kept to the margins, could not find a favorable audience with government or big business. And in everyday parlance, to speak of needing to become 'green' or 'sustainable' was a ticket to the political margins. Only after much time had passed, once corporate interests had figured a way to coopt the vocabulary of global warming and turn what scientists had long been pleading with them about to their advantage, then Gore came out with his film, and we've since been flooded with rhetoric designed to make us think that these big polluters are really nice and eco-friendly.
I understand that 911blogger is not meant for debates about global warming, but as the topic appeared in the above comment, I felt obliged to weigh in. In my years of political activism, there are certain tendencies I tend to be wary of, and one of these is a basic hostility towards an ecological outlook in general (in the case of LaRouche supporters, and possibly others, this typically takes the form of attributing ecological movements to some kind of Rockefeller-British plot), giving an appearance of dissent and resistance to what is really an adherence to the same old produce-consume-produce-consume-'that's what made America great' ideology. Is that the case with deniers of human-caused global warming? I'm concerned that it may be.
FWIW, I do see your larger, optimistic point about Ventura's show and its possible effectiveness. I hope you are right. But I would still prefer that it doesn't turn out to be basically a TV equivalent of Infowars. I know--such a description would still be much better than what we've had on TV to date. And I do appreciate that Infowars does get out a lot of important information. But I guess I just have this image--picture a part of a garden, where the plants grow nice and tall; but the plants are walled off from the rest of the garden, and the seeds don't have a chance to spread to the rest of the garden. That is sometimes how I think of the Alex Jones effect--those who get turned on to the information learn more and more, but meanwhile, opportunities for spreading outward are inhibited because of this ideological wall that surrounds the forum in which this information is shared. And it's the growth outward that is so critical.
What I also have a problem
What I also have a problem with is that deniers of human-caused global warming seem to me to speak as if everything started with Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' in 2006.
That was one good thing about this episode. It certainly acknowledges Gore's role in the GW movement, but goes way beyond him, right to the "founder" of the movement, Mr. Maurice Strong. And it spotlights certain scientific reports in which he had his handlers simply delete the portions of the report which challenged the GW theory.
I understand that 911blogger is not meant for debates about global warming
In a relatively open thread like this I think it's OK, since that was the Ventura topic this week. ;-)
I will be interested in hearing more peoples' reaction to this episode over the next few days especially as the youtube becomes available.
global warming vs. 911
What I find interesting here is that a global warming conspiracy theory is opposite that of a 911 hoax to gain support for oil wars.
Is it really possible that there is a cartel of people generating any hoax? Of course. However, in the case of global warming they would have needed the weather to cooperate.
In the case of 911 there was no waiting for anything other than to cause the hoax and it would also seem that those who were likely behind 911 (oil companies) would be against global warming legislation.
I have only watched a 10 minute clip of Jesse Ventura's show on Global Warming and have only seen interviews with people who claim it is a hoax to make money. Not very convincing.
I am concerned that doing a show on this will lead to a watering down of belief in a conspiracy on 911.
Lowest Common
I think Jesse's show has definite positive aspects to it. There are potential negative ramifications for any method of speaking about the truth. I am sure we have all experienced that. Jesse's show definitely targets the lowest common denominator audience, but somebody has to try to reach them.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
...
Right.
Notice how important it seemed, to the evident perps, to get an early Popular Mechanics hit piece to spoil the air for valid 9-11 investigation. Jesse reaches the same audience. Maybe that will be important in the long run.
The "Climate Change" episode will help 9/11 Truth
Fortunately, there is a huge audience who feel that the manmade global warming and the carbon tax issue is a scam. I have discovered this aspect of opinion on other message boards where the same people who deny the private nature of The Federal Reserve and who deny that there was any "inside" conspiracy about 9/11 readily agree that the global warming issue is a hoax. I see this recent episode as a show which will strike a chord with those people who already have their minds made up that the global warming issue is a ruse. This recent episode might entice those who agree with the "global warming fraud" perspective to more thoroughly look into 9/11. I see this episode as a benefit.
Just so people are aware: The "CO2 global warming hoax agenda" will be covertly propagated through the monstrous EPA and its regulations. As an Environmental Science major, I watched this Global Warming hoax develop in the University system. The Ag department would always shake their heads at the silliness of the global warming alarmist contingent.
That said...I still think it is wise to focus on the issue of 9/11 Truth. 9/11 Truth is the way.
A Meeting of Minds
Tom
I made the same observation last week. The global warming hoax will help to open the eyes of that segment of society (Republican/Conservative) currently blinded to 9/11 Truth.
Talk about a conspiracy that was known to tens of thousands over the course of several decades, and only now known to be a hoax thanks to leaked/hacked emails! Those who believe climate warming to be a hoax, but don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, can't use the tired 'if 9/11 was an inside job, someone would have talked' canard.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
I think you're being a little hasty
I would never make a decision after being exposed to a single TV program. That guy hiding on an island? Maybe he's a paranoid schizophrenic.
OTOH, I have seen research indicating that the entire solar system is heating up. Not just earth, but the other planets too.
I found the episode interesting and I am leaning towards the idea that global warming is a hoax, but for now I am still undecided. I just don't have enough data. Powerful corporate interests could have reasons for promoting either side of this issue.
hmmmm
A lot of posters are apparently extremely confident that "global warming is a hoax".
Rightly or wrongly, most scientists are not. Most scientists are cautious, and recognize that pumping smog into the atmosphere on a continual basis may -- just may -- have some sort of negative effect on our environment and therefore on ourselves.
Who would have thunk it?
"Global warming hoax" theory and WTC Demo "theory" are not comparable. The latter is backed by hard science, the former is backed by a smattering of science plus ideology: "right-libertarianism", aka the remarkable idea that we should allow corporations to "do as thou wilt", no matter the social or environmental cost. Somehow, someway, the "market" will make everything dandy, even though it has been demonstrated that corporations are the institutional equivalent of a psychopath.
I'm the first to admit the "solutions" being advocated by elites in response to the environmental crisis are no such thing -- and will probably amount to yet another power grab -- but I have a really hard time coming to terms with the idea that the tons upon tons of smog we pump into our environment -- to say nothing of GM Crops, deforestation, extinction and so on -- is negligible. I realize that the above posters are referring exclusively to man-made GW, but I sense an anti-environmentalist bent amongst the libertarian-right wing. This is nonsensical, imo. It's like arguing against the life force.
Cause and effect.
Regardless of whether man-made global warming is "real", I think it is prudent to consider the PROVEN and catastrophic effects consumer society is having on our environment. That means taking a long, hard look at capitalist society as well state capitalist society (S.U., China etc.).
Bubbles pop.
I don't think it is prudent to conflate "global warming is a hoax" with 911 truth.
This is not a...
"Conspiracy Theory" website. This is a site for the cause of 9/11 Truth. In my opinion, Jesse's show for 9/11 is the only show that should be posted here. For the reasons I specified in this thread. Posting about different lies throughout history like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Pearl Harbor, JFK, etc... is good to give people a perspective of just what our Government is capable of, but our primary focus is and should be 9/11.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Agreed
I'm not sure why this story is front page material, since it does not deal with 9/11 (or anything related).
Leave it in the blog section, I say.
What are you guys talking about?
Jesse Ventura did the first show in Prime Time American television that deals with 9/11 Truth and gives it a fair shake. I wanted to know the numbers of viewers of the show to gauge what kind of support we are getting in the larger society. That's what this post is about. I can't believe others wouldn't want to know how many people watched it, since basically we are in a numbers game. The case of 9/11 has been solved. We are right. We have the evidence the story is proved. Now it is a matter of numbers. That is what this post is about. It has nothing to do with Global Warming other than Jesse's future shows deal with it among other things. Re read the post. It has nothing to do with Global Warming. It says the second show, which was on 9/11, got as many viewers as the first show, which premiered at 1.6 MILLION viewers.
Please explain. WTF.
My post...
Was referring to Jesse's "Conspiracy Theory" show in general. That the 9/11 show is the only one that should be posted on a 9/11 Truth site. As for "the case of 9/11 has been solved"... I vehemently disagree.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Yea..
Solved is a far cry from proving the official story insufficient.
________________________
In Their Own Words
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein
Importance of the Show.
I shouldn't of said solved. The proof is obvious that the official story is BS. WTC 7 is an obvious controlled demolition. Nothing in the official story can account for the molten metal flowing at the base of the towers for weeks after the attacks. In that regard we have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the official story is an incomplete and weak attempt at a cover up. Now it is a numbers game from here on out of trying to convince our fellow countrymen that this is the case and that there is a benefit or need to reawakening the debate about what occurred on 9/11 and to pursue this story to a just conclusion.
As far as Jesse goes. I'm glad he did the show on 9/11 and got 1.6 or more million people to view it, especially people who don't research this stuff online like we do. I agree with those who say we have to be careful not to confuse any other issues with the importance of 9/11. I don't even like the other conspiracies. I'm just happy Jesse got a decent rendition of our story on nationwide TV in the American market. This popularity can spur on others to take the risks as well and hopefully they will.
With regards to the molten metal...
Are there examples of other Controlled Demolitions having molten metal for weeks after the buildings were brought down?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Publicity.
I'm done investigating it. I believe Richard Gage, Dr. David Ray Griffin, and the others have done a sufficient job of that. I want to see the case be put to court and people subpoenaed and put under oath. I have moved on to the publicity phase of the movement. I am confident we have a case that deserves to be heard and I'm working on convincing enough others of the same. But I appreciate anyone else doing whatever they want to do to help get this cause heard and get more attention and quality information to the people of this country.
Does anyone know...
If "molten metal" is a common occurrence after a Controlled Demolition?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
How many CDs use thermite?
If we are going to compare CDs for the presence of molten metal, then we should also compare them for what kind of explosives were used in the demolition.
I'm assuming that your question is a rhetorical one,
and that you are well aware that the destruction of the Twin Towers was unprecedented, that commercial controlled demolitions are done very differently and no attempt is made to disguise them, as was the case with the destruction of WTC 1,2 and 7. Even in the case of WTC 7, which came down exactly like a classic, textbook controlled demolition, there was an effort made to reduce the amount of noise normally created by substituting incendiaries (thermite, thermate, nanothermite) for some of the high explosives usually employed.
That said, the answer to your question is no, large amounts of molten iron are not normally found in the debris of most commercial controlled demolitions because they don't employ cutting edge military incendiaries/explosives. Perhaps in ten years they will, but considering the environmental impact of creating large amounts of molten metals cooking with other toxic debris, I have my doubts (however, they may be used as planned commercial controlled demolitions occur after almost all the non-structural toxic elements have been removed).
The fact that large amounts of molten iron are atypical of commercial controlled demolitions does not change the fact that the buildings were brought down with a combination of incendiaries and explosives, or the basic physics involved. Without additional large inputs of energy (i.e. explosives, incendiaries), those buildings do not come down the way they did and probably not at all.
While the exact method of the demolitions remains to be determined, any knowledgeable person who takes an objective look at the destruction of the buildings will conclude that they were brought down with very carefully placed incendiaries and explosives (thus, that case is closed).
Unfortunately, knowing the basics of how the demolitions were done does not tell us who did it (although it does shorten the list quite a bit), and that is what we are really after . This is why I am far more interested in the social networks and financial connections relevant to the 9/11 operation (crime).
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Excellent point
"Unfortunately, knowing the basics of how the demolitions were done does not tell us who did it (although it does shorten the list quite a bit), and that is what we are really after ."
Makes me wonder why my post above was voted down so much .. meh.
________________________
DEFEAT THE NWO!!1!!
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein
bwwaa ha ha
It would be a legitimate question if it were asked fairly. If we only know that no other controlled demolitions have large amounts of molten metal found in the debris, then one might naively believe this is evidence the WTC towers were not brought down by controlled demolition. I didn't vote you down, but others who are keeping an eye on your anti-CD efforts must have.
In fact, the answer to this question, combined with other evidence of controlled demolition, is additional evidence for the use of thermite in the demolition. So you are right, it is legitimate to ask this question. But coming from you, it sounds devious.
You just proved the point
I was willing to let you slide until you said this: "Gee, I would think that if someone could show evidence of molten metal from another Controlled Demolition, that may help the credibility along for a Controlled Demolition on 9/11".
You should expect, as we all do, that most other controlled demolitions will NOT have large amounts molten metal in the debris because there is no reason there should be without the use of something like thermite. So are you suggesting that the lack of molten metal in other controlled demolitions implies lack of support and therefore less credibility of CD in the WTC towers? If so, that shows your subtle attack on CD.
Bringing it back to the subject of the blog, your argument is analogous to suggesting that man-made CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not the cause of global warming because we see many cases where warming occurred naturally without our help or without the involvement of CO2. It is true that, because there are multiple possible causes of global warming, we need to look further into the evidence to determine what is going on in this case. But that is exactly what the climate scientists have been doing for many years.
Jesse should do OCT show
I agree too. I think these shows try to conflate 911 truth with all the other conspiracies out there; just like all the mainstream hit pieces did. I'm really starting to have serious doubts about this show. If Jesse wants to do a show about a conspiracy theory, why doesn't he cover the official 911 story?
I'm not ready to buy the hoax scenerio
So, over 30 years ago, scientists around the world were instructed to begin falsifying data, creating bogus models etc. so that some time in the distant future the New World Order could sweep into power on the back of a secretly nefarious Cap-n-Trade scheme????
Or, Exxon Mobil, which for several years running has posted ALL TIME RECORD PROFITS, more than any corp. ever on the face of the earth, spends some of that obscene plunder to buy a few scientists, a few hackers to swipe some emails, and lots of PR/media to spin it their way.
Prison Planet has just gone way over the top. For the last few weeks, every day its 10, 12, 14 different stories about the secret plot to destroy humanity via carbon credits. I honestly don't get it.
What, Alex, vaccines haven't turned out to be as poison as you predicted? All I'm saying is maybe, just maybe, the off the charts wealthy oil barrons would like to stay off the charts wealthy, even at our planet's peril. Is Alex bought off by Exxon??? Is that more likely than the majority of scientists worldwide being part of a plot over 30 years old?
Those emails are the reddest of herrings. They are from several years ago, but just come out right before Copenhagen???
I'm really flummoxed at this whole thing, do you
really think more coal fired power plants are the answer? Nuclear? Hey, its CLEAN right?
Here at least we all know the real reason we are in Afghanistan....pipelines. We endorse that behavior for the long term?
Even if most or all of the warming is natural, going green is a no-brainer on many levels. Jobs firstly, down the road much, much cheaper energy without killing millions.
Ever stop and consider how much public opinion can be swayed and even created by ALL TIME RECORD PROFITS. We are talking about serious wealth, very serious power. Is what you believe to be true in any way a byproduct of that power's influence?
Couldn't we just pass a law that freezes what Exxon charges we the people while they pay the cost of cleaning up their act, developing solar, wind, geo-thermal, zreo point field, anti-gravity and whatever else?
I mean do they have to make ALL TIME RECORD PROFITS every year, forever, amen? Maybe we should just nationalize the entire energy sector. In fact, that is the only sane thing we can do.
Ad Hominem Attacks
camusrebel,
the emails date back to 1996 and as recent as November 12, 2009.
It wasn't Exxon that hacked the emails, it was the KGB in the "former" Soviet Union. The purpose for the global warming hoax is to curtail the economic development of China. The same reason the USA is in Iraq and Afghanistan: control the flow of oil (yes, the big oil companies have their reasons for wanting the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan).
And if it had been Exxon that paid for those emails, so what?
The University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit where those hacked emails came from is one of the three or four leading institutions backing up global warming. Its research is integral to IPCC conclusions on global warming.
As usual Alex Jones and Prison Planet know that a hoax is being perpetrated (that's easy to see), but, as usual, don't know the true reason for the global warming hoax.
Amazing. The emails prove that global warming is a hoax, and all you can do is talk about Exxon and profits. You do the same thing that opponents of 9/11 Truth do: ad hominem attacks, and stay clear from the evidence, which in this case is the contents of the emails.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Nuclear Power Plants will flourish
Nuclear Power Plants will flourish when the powers that be impose laws, regulations, taxes, etc to control carbon emissions. Nuclear Power Plants have no carbon emissions. I watched Jesse's show :)
I wish he confronted the myths about carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and about carbon in general as a toxic element. Carbon is the most essential building block of all life. All living things are composed of carbon. Could that be the true goal for the Global Warming hoax? Control over all life and resources through laws, regulations, taxes, etc?
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
Just Read The Book, Please!
Bruno,
the West has its reasons for supporting global warming. That is why China walked out of the IPCC assembly several days ago. Also, as the London Daily Mail says today, "Most of Russia's income is derived from oil and gas, which means its economy could be hit by curbs on carbon emissions." -- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236513/Met-Office-manipulated-c...
For about a year now I've been warning you guys about the "former" Soviet Union and its ally China. Well, now we know that the hacked emails came from the KGB in the "former" USSR, and China walked out of the IPCC conference.
Guys, are you beginning to see that 9/11 is not the only massive conspiracy around?
9/11 and global warming are part and parcel of a broader operation going on here.
Again, READ Anatoliy Golitsyn's 1984 book New Lies for Old to learn more:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13022045/Anatoliy-Golitsyn---New-Lies-for-Ol...
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Nuclear power plants are environmental disasters,
and while the closed nuclear fission process may not release additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, building nuclear power plants and mining uranium have massive carbon footprints (in addition to a myriad of other negative environmental impacts).
[Perhaps you are being facetious and I am just not picking it up, you tell me]
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Nuclear Power
I suppose you didn't watch the episode about the Global Warming hoax? Nuclear Power is dangerous. How tragic the world will be if that becomes the energy of choice. Unfortunately, when talking about carbon emissions, Nuclear Power wins because it has no carbon emissions.
It does dismay me that you would use the term 'carbon footprint' my friend. That is yet another propaganda ploy to demonize carbon, which is the building block of life on Earth. What is the carbon footprint of a newborn baby?
Somehow the powers that be have manipulated people to stop speaking out against pollution in general, and instead they use 'carbon' as the evil we must control. What about all those factories that release pollutants that contain no carbon in the structure of their molecules? Such as Nuclear Power Plants, and my guess, the vast majority of factories. How many culprits will get away with dumping poisons into the water because there is no 'carbon footprint'?
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
No, I have not yet watched Gov. Ventura's
show on the "global warming hoax", I plan to but I find the "style " of his show extremely off-putting.
I responded to your post because it was not clear to me from your post if you were pro-nuclear or not, it appears that you are against the construction of more nuclear power plants, as am I. The statement that Nuclear Power wins because it has no carbon emissions is false when you look at everything involved in producing nuclear power ("cradle to grave").
I used the term "carbon footprint" because even using that "logic" nuclear power makes absolutely no sense. Air born carbon particulates are an environmental problem and do have an affect on the surface temperature of the earth, btw. Excess CO2 is also not a good thing, but that is something that has to be viewed in the context of the entire ecosystem, which is extremely complex and not fully understood by anyone (any truly honest climate scientist will readily admit this, btw).
I generally stay out of "global warming" debates because most people don't understand the science well enough to understand what is really going on (and the phenomenon is better described as "climate change" and not "global warming" anyway) and a lot of the "science" has been politicized, as happens more and more with science these days.
Fear about global climate change is being used as a control mechanism, just as fear of "terrorism" is.
The 9/11 truth movement is best served by steering clear of this issue, imo, as it is as divisive as the false left-right paradigm so many people are still immersed in. That doesn't mean that we can't talk about it amongst ourselves, however. Co-mingling any side issues with 9/11 truth will only fracture the movement, which is exactly what the perps want.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
"I used the term "carbon
"I used the term "carbon footprint" because even using that "logic" nuclear power makes absolutely no sense. Air born carbon particulates are an environmental problem and do have an affect on the surface temperature of the earth, btw. Excess CO2 is also not a good thing, but that is something that has to be viewed in the context of the entire ecosystem, which is extremely complex and not fully understood by anyone (any truly honest climate scientist will readily admit this, btw)."
These are very broad strong statements that are at the center of this hot debate, so I would appreciate links and evidence to support them, when you have time. Thanks.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
I think there is a good deal
I think there is a good deal of oversimplification in the case you are trying to make, similar to people who say that 9/11 couldn't be an inside job because too many people would be involved.
30+ years ago global warming created by an increased amount of man made carbon dioxide was a hypothesis in scientific terms. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas so it is reasonable to investigate the extent to which our production of it contributes to global temperatures. During the 30 years of research, the temperatures of the planet seemed to be rising. The people who said the rise in temperature was caused by man made CO2 emmisions had an actionable problem, if they were right. Over the course of time, the scientists who gave worst case scearios got more money because people worried about the issue, or seeing a benefit to themselves from it, gave to those types, similar to the way Alex Jones gets the most money in the truth movement while soft spoken people get less. This snowballed, with true believers rising to the top because they had the most funding. Yes, elements of conspiracy did emerge, though probably not in the beginning. One of the founders of Green Peace said that those with political motives moved in shortly after the organization was founded; it wasn't started by them. Carl Sagan mentions global warming in Cosmos, and I doubt he was in on any great conspiracy (one of his wives is the most prestigious scientist calling for 9/11 truth). Existing organizations with legitimate concerns can be hijacked and made to serve ulterior motives.
Issues like a global warming conspiracy, or 9/11, or many others, have far more gray area than those who take hard line positions want to admit. Does every scientist who has ever talked about man made global warming have a political reason, do they all lie? No, but some do, just like not every reporter or FBI agent who talks about terrorism is knowingly lying, but some are.
People who want to know the truth about things, so we can find legitimate solutions to legitimate problems, have the responsibility to sort hyperbole from rational discussion. Truth will win if we allow ourselves to follow the evidence where ever it leads, not just to places our political ideologies or short term interests take us.
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Please provide scientific evidence to support the statement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The planet and all plant life thrive off of CO2.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
Greenhouse gas doesn't mean
Greenhouse gas doesn't mean poison, it means a gas which contributes to the greenhouse effect. Water is the biggest greenhouse gas, but that doesn't mean it's poison either. Both are required for life, in part because of their greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.
Just to make this clear, when heat comes through the atmosphere from the sun, some radiates back into space and some doesn't. The types an amounts of gases in the atmosphere determine the amount of heat that radiates back. This is a very real phenomenon, which is good for us since the Earth would be around 20 degrees cooler if it didn't happen. The important question is how much each gas contributes to this effect within the whole system of climate. I would say the paltry additions that humans make to C02 in the atmosphere are negligible for changing temperatures, which is what people have found (even the most extreme IPCC estimates are small).
Your general position is correct. CO2 is nothing worth worrying about, but not knowing what a greenhouse gas is hurts your position for debates.
I know what a greenhouse gas is.
I know what a greenhouse gas is. Please provide scientific evidence to support the statement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
Bruno, to better understand
Bruno, to better understand your request, please name a gas you do not doubt is a greenhouse gas, and provide whatever you consider scientific evidence to support your understanding.
----------------
KyleBisMe
Greenhouse gasses would cause Global Cooling, not Warming
Kyle,
carbon dioxide is also a radiating gas (in the infrared range). Now since 75% of the surface of the Earth is water, that means increases in carbon dioxide will cause water vapor/clouds, which would have the effect of Global Cooling!
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
CO2
"Bruno, to better understand your request, please name a gas you do not doubt is a greenhouse gas, and provide whatever you consider scientific evidence to support your understanding."
All the hype is about carbon and carbon dioxide. So I don't know why you are asking me this question. I have never seen scientific evidence that supports the statement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and whenever I ask that question, nobody has an answer, ever. I contend that we hear it on TV, radio, and see in print, and that is why we believe it, but nobody has ever offered scientific evidence to support this statement, a statement that is used as the foundation to propose overhauling the entire world economy.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
Of course global warming is real
But some people here are convinced that a Luciferian cult, which naturally meets at Bohemian Grove in California to perform mock sacrifices of young children while having gay sex with other powerful Luciferians, convinced 90% of the scientific establishment, including every National Academy of Science in the industrialized world, to forge evidence on behalf their Luciferian masters' plan to thwart China and kill 80% of the human race. And naturally, instead of carrying out these plans decades ago when the human population was just a couple of billion, they waited until almost 7 billion of us roamed the earth so that.... well, I'm not sure about that part.
But Alex Jones tells me the rest is true, so I have no reason to interrogate its inner logic or the overwhelming evidence that global warming denial is financed by large oil companies such as Exxon, all documented.
No, I'm going to stick with the Luciferian Theory. That's much more likely.
And oh yes, don't forget carbon is life. Or something. So it's good for you. And scientists are nothing but shills for their Luciferian masters, unlike the good people at Exxon, who have no motive to obscure scientific facts.
Oh, and don't forget all of this known because the masons left symbols in their buildings, like owls and stuff, and on the money, which proves once again that global warming is a hoax.
What proves global warming is real?
How much do you really know, or have you been conditioned through a massive propaganda campaign that even reaches the text in school books? You and I and everyone else tends to repeat what we have been repeatedly exposed to in the mainstream media and all other forms of controlled information flow, but how much do we actually know?
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
Re. global warming: Much of
Re. global warming: Much of the current brouhaha is fueled by a "woe-betide-anyone-who-gets-between-me-and-my-V8" attitude.... or to put it anther way, the greater charges against a "human input" re. global warming are being cheer-led by those of a libertarian political leaning; folks who are incensed by the notion that some faceless global regulators are going to usurp our (US) national sovereignty.
As a former professional meteorologist (I also studied climatology), I have a scientific background. This background prevents me from acknowledging large portions of the official "explanation" of 9/11. It also makes me shake my head in frustration, when the same groups who are pursuing 9/11 truth in such an admirable fashion are being swayed by the likes of *non-scientists* such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, as regards climate change.
Tweak The Data
bloggulator,
how did you manage to get through university without learning how to read? The CRU emails prove that global warming is a hoax! Get someone to read them to you. If the 9/11 truth Movement had hacked emails from the Bush II White House confessing that 9/11 was a false-flag operation, would you be so dismissive?
Why are you bringing up clowns like Hannity and Rush? Why not mention Keith Olberman? A clown on the left.
The question isn't what Rush, Hannity and Olberman say, it's what the emails say, and the emails speak for themselves. I guess that is why people like you don't like discussing what the emails actually say.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Although I am no fan of the
Although I am no fan of the AP (as regards their "weaseldom" on the 9/11 issue), their recent "exhaustive examination" of the offending emails showed no evidence of fraud; the actual science remains intact. I agree with you that the content of these emails reveals an extraordinary degree of immature, inappropriate and thoroughly unprofessional conduct amongst academics who *should* have known better. But this is the same in any walk of life... there will differences of opinion and interpretation which can spill over into squabbling and fighting... it goes with the territory. Unfortunately, some high profile people in the corporate and alternative media are latching onto these 6th grade type interdisciplinary feudings and "turfdom" and using them to push political agendæ which have little or nothing to do with the science, and the hard data which has been collected since before 1900.
Recently, the UK Meteorological Office issued a statement, supporting the evidence of a human input as regards global warming/climate changes: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/uk-science-stateme... It is worth a look to see how many highly qualified people have become signatories (1700 in a few days). The science is decades old, and has not been subject to political pressure until comparatively recently. I find it most unrealistic to acknowledge that these scientists have been coerced by some vast "left wing conspiracy against fossil fuels", into an "overall scheme to cook the books and drylab the reports.
9/11 is a different can of worms, in that much of the scientific community remains unaware of the controversy, on account of the general taboo in the mainstream media, and those who are aware of the drivel that comprises the official version prefer to keep mum, most likely out for fear of being ostracized or fired, especially in these tough economic times.
If A Scientist is Acting "Immature" Then Investigate!
bloggulator,
deleting raw data and refusing to provide raw data results is blatant evidence of a fraud.
AP should have contacted Steve McIntyre for the rest of the story, and learned about the green line in the IPCC hockey stick graph that is abruptly terminated in 1961. Why should AP do that? Because the green line represents CRU's Keith Briffa's data which shows a large and steep DECLINE in global temperature after 1960! We then have a series of emails between Briffa, Michael Mann of Penn State University and CRU's Dr. Steve Jones (currently suspended from CRU) where they discuss what to do about this quandary.
Well Steve Jones comes up with an idea of what to do with Briffa's conflicting data: cut off Briffa’s inconvenient (long tree-ring analysis) data at the point where the decline started, in 1960, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase (in global temperatures).
Since Climategate broke, some of the CRU’s supporters have claimed that Jones and his colleagues made a ‘full disclosure’ of what they did to Briffa’s data in order to produce the hockey stick. But as McIntyre points out, ‘contrary to claims by various climate scientists, the IPCC Third Assessment Report did not disclose the deletion of the post-1960 values’. On the final diagram, the cut off was simply concealed by the other lines.
And what about those actual temperature readings? Well, The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) claimed today that the Hadley Centre used statistics from weather stations in Russian and Siberia that fitted its theory of global warming, while often ignoring those that did not. No kidding!
These academics that support global warming are NOT scientists. They are cheerleaders obviously tweaking data for the purpose of government/foundation research grants.
I very well know that many scientists behave in this "immature" manner. The same "immature" behavior is seen in the HIV causes AIDS debate, where Dr. Peter Duesberg's funding was cut off because he impolitely pointed out that the HIV-AIDS hypothesis was NEVER tested! Duesberg and others maintain that the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis is nothing more than statistical confounding.
Now statistical confounding is easy to understand. It's taught in Statistics 101. In the case of the HIV causes AIDS scenario, it would rule out the possibility that persons who are ill and have HIV are not ill due to other germs in their body (it might be one of those other germs or the effect of multiple germs, including HIV, acting on the immune system that depresses the immune system). To this day no such study has been performed by NIH or the CDC.
You see, persons with compromised immune systems are susceptible to catching germs (including HIV). The compromised immune system can come from drug use (drug addicts), malnutrition (sub-Sahara Africa) or highly promiscuous sexual behavior, which is why the initial impact of HIV here in the United States was so widely exhibited in the male homosexual subgroup.
Whenever you have scientists behaving "immature" that is the first sign that something isn't right. However, the scientists at CRU were caught in the hacked emails not only acting "immature" but conspiring to alter data to fit their global warming hypothesis.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
"I find it most unrealistic
"I find it most unrealistic to acknowledge that these scientists have been coerced by some vast "left wing conspiracy against fossil fuels", into an "overall scheme to cook the books and drylab the reports."
Isn't this the same argument made about how 9-11 coudn't be an inside job, because you couldn't get enough people to go along with it? Science is mainly about a gravy train. It's easy to manipulate the research community. It just takes the right amount of money to grease the right wheels and put the right people in the top positions. If you have ever been an "employee," you will know what I am talking about.
As far as relying on AP, it would not surprise me to find out that the editors of every newspaper in the country are in the pay of the CIA. AP is pretty much printed "as is" in most urban newspapers. It has become a propaganda organ of the State Dept.--CIA. (If you have any doubt about the intelligence services' influence over the media, read Bernstein's piece about it.) I did not read AP's analysis of the emails, but whatever they put out should, in my opinion, not be taken at face value.
It also makes me shake my
It also makes me shake my head in frustration, when the same groups who are pursuing 9/11 truth in such an admirable fashion are being swayed by the likes of *non-scientists* such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity
Jesse's global warming show last night did not feature any popular "right wingers" and even went to great pains to point out that hundreds, even thousands, of scientists believe global warming is a scam.
For example, the show interviewed Professor Richard Lindzen of the most prestigious scientific institution in the world, MIT.
I would NEVER allow myself to be swayed by Rush or Hannity on ANYTHING.
But as a non-scientist, when I hear one of the most renowned scientists like Lindzen speak, I take notice.
"....the most prestigious
"....the most prestigious scientific institution in the world, MIT."
This MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
?
----------------
KyleBisMe
Yes, I know.
There are people within MIT who are vested in holding to the official 9/11 story. Same with the official global warming story. People with agendas (or useful idiots) can occupy key positions in prestigious places. What else is new?
My point was: If "MIT," in conversation, is not a practical byword synonym for "ultra-prestigious scientific institution," what is?
Pond Life
Pond Life
There was a species of small terrestrial creatures who lived in the belief that their planet was a very, very big place indeed. They lived at the bottom of a pond, which was actually a pool of invisible gas. At first, they were as unaware of their pond as a fish seems to be of the water it swims in. Then, when trying to figure out how birds managed to stay so cleverly out of reach, they eventually noticed the invisible stuff and gave it a name - AIR.
It took them much longer to discover how small their pond was.
Not until they themselves were able to traverse the depth of their pond did the creatures finally realise the extent of it. It turned out that a balloon suspended at a height of only 3 miles above the sea had the same quantity of air above it as below, so their ancient myth of an almost inexhaustible air supply turned out to be quite illusiory. Along with all other living things, they realized that their survival depended upon an awesomely thin film of gases.
At that point in it's history, a lesser species might have paused to consider it's options.
Chris Shaw
Feral Metallurgist
Possible source of evidence?
Is it possible that nano thermite spores affect the lung tissue the same as asbestos? Many have questioned the samples of 9/11
dust used in Dr Jones results of nano thermite. Asbestos fibers
remain in the lung tissues for a life time of those exposed. If the
nano thermite spores act in the same manner wouldn't it be possible
to test in the same way they do for asbestos?
Hundreds of first responders have died from cancer and respiratory
illnesses, has there ever been an autopsy where the lungs have been tested to see if there are nano thermite spores larged in the lung issue? If this were possible, I'm certain it would definitely answer the
question of how the Towers actually collapsed. A million or more people were exposed to the 9/11 dust, medical evidence of this kind might cause and outcry loud enough to demand a new investigation.
Just a thought I had after watching the Conspiracy Show last night.