Policy Clarification

I have no interest in people who come here to waste time discussing conspiracy theory. That is one thing that will quickly get you banned.

We discuss facts and what we observe here. Conspiracy talk is a device to avoid intelligent conversation. Either things are happening or they aren’t happening. Existential discussions about human motive are for idiots.

It is crazy conspiracy talk to think that millions of Germans would have kept quiet about the atrocities going on in their country.

Shit happens. People engage in bad behavior. Deal with it.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Policy Clarification

  1. James the Elder says:

    Well, is data tampering a conspiracy, or a genetic trait?

    • Data tampering is happening. Arguing that it can’t be happening is for idiots.

      • James the Elder says:

        Missed the point completely. We know (you have consistently proven) that tampering is happening. The question is why and which person or persons gave the order? In my thinking, at minimum, this meets RICO. Grassy knoll, WTC steel can’t melt, and fluttering moon flag barely rise to entertainment. CAGW meets the criteria of “CONSPIRING to commit fraud.”

  2. tom0mason says:

    The Capitol Sympathiser has never seen the UN Agenda 21.
    It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a plan.

  3. _Jim says:

    Tagline I use some places goes like this:

    . . “Conspiracy theories are favored tools of the weak minded.

    I stole that line from a guy named Vick Laroca. Past this point it’s a long story …


  4. Self interested behaviour in society is normative behaviour. Doctors performed hundreds of thousands of unnecessary tonsillectomies for decades because their professional associations endorsed such procedures. But the evidence for their justification was always weak. The operations were, conveniently, of economic benefit to those who performed the procedures. When the public became skeptical about this group behaviour, such procedure became rare (certainly not routine) and now are only performed under very different criteria.

    Now you can argue the above didn’t happen, by declaring that for such things to happen in our societies, “conspiracies” are required. But of course they are not. This is simply a nonsense claim made by people who don’t want to look at the facts of the case but otherwise don’t know how to object. To repeat, self interested group behaviour is the rule not the exception in our societies.

    • _Jim says:

      Didn’t explain the behavior of those in our society like the Michael “ban large softdrinks” Bloomberg or congress critters who are interested in regulating _my_ self-interest (especially WRT the size of toilet flushes, the types of light bulbs I may purchase, etc.) In other words, they have stuck their noses into what I consider my self-interest. if they simply minded their own business we would all be a lot better off instead of encouraging and spearheading the enlargement of an encroaching “nanny state”.


      • I didn’t claim that all social behaviour is based on self interest. Just that it is normal behaviour. There are also, of course, groups driven by morality issues. Occasionally, though, the two cross paths and reinforce each other. An environmental crusader seldom acts in self interest – although we tend to think of Al Gore types or certain southern preachers who crusade and become wealthy through their crusading.

        • What could possibly go wrong? says:

          Self interest is not always monetary. Actually I think most of the time it is neither monetary nor material, but emotional (“I feel good because I do X, but certainly better than those filthy persons not doing it.”), reproductional (“I do it for the cause, not because there is that hot person doing it also, honest!”) or exclusive (in the sense of excluding matters: “As long as I do X I don’t have to think about that bad thing which happened to me.”).

        • Yes in fact, I made a similar comment below, regarding animal rights activism which touches on the same point you made. There is a certain psychological school of thought that argues that all behaviour is self interested behaviour. That is to say, that self sacrifice has a psychological pay-off, therefore it is not actually sacrificial behaviour. I don’t tend to subscribe to that school of thought. Although certainly I would not dispute the observation that people may engage in righteous behaviours because they feel good about their (presumed) righteousness.

        • What could possibly go wrong? says:

          I do subscribe to that school of thought, although not as utilitarian/egoistic as it sounds. You see even in religion you have the “Give, so you will be given.” or “The good deed brings you to paradise / relieves you / enlightens you.” So even the truest altruism has usually a metaphysical payoff component.

          But this doesn’t devalue the gift or the good deed. For the receiver it doesn’t make a difference if the sender is doing it to get into his preferred variety of afterlife. The whole notion that something is only good if it is “truly altruistic” is borked imo.

        • My problem with looking at the issue that way is that it seems to change the definition so that all observations meet the explanatory criteria. Or in other words, it’s not a scientific approach.

      • rw says:

        I’d have to agree. Another relevant example is described in Hollywood versus America by Michael Medved. He shows how Hollywood has chosen against its own immediate self-interests again and again – to the general detriment of itself and society.

        By the way, building up cases like this is a much better way to approach these large problems than by guru-like pronouncements about the Way Things Are.

  5. The Griss says:


    As you say, “Data tampering is happening”

    The big question is “WHY?”

    What has happened that makes these people think …….

    a) they should actually tamper with the data…… and..

    b) they can actually continue to get away with it.

    To me it is totally bizarre that they DO actually do it,…..

    and that they DO appear to keep getting away with it, even when it is becoming so blatantly obvious.

    • rw says:

      Take a look at Barry Rubin’s The Silent Revolution, which is relevant to your questions, though it doesn’t provide anything like a complete answer.

      There’s some consolation in the fact that each year they’re going farther out on the limb – as their pronouncements continue to diverge from reality. One thing seems clear – that these people really are stupid enough to think they can get away with this stuff. And that’s a very interesting disconnect.

  6. KevinK says:

    Will says;

    “Self interested behaviour in society is normative behaviour. Doctors performed hundreds of thousands of unnecessary tonsillectomies for decades because their professional associations endorsed such procedures.”

    Yeah, I had one of those back in the 60’s, totally ruined my future Opera career, so I had to settle for being just an engineer, ha ha ha…..

    I believe the data tampering is a result of “confirmation bias:, the data fiddlers really, really believe that the Earth MUST be getting warmer, so they find all kinds of “adjustments” that (in the words of Capt. Kirk) MAKE IT SO.

    No conspiracy necessary, human nature is all it takes. Besides, given the inefficient nature of government, there is no way in H–L they could coordinate a systematic increase in “reported” temperature readings (above the REAL temperature readings), and cover up all the machinations necessary to pull it off.

    I mean really, do you think Washington DC could figure out how to instruct all the “thermometer readers” to add just 0.01 degrees to the readings every month ? H–l no, the “adjusted reading would be all over the map. Just imagine “Old Henry” taking the readings in East Nowhere Ohio; “Was I supposed to ADD or Subtract 0.01 degrees for July, I can’t keep all these complicated “adjustments straight”, anyway I added 2 degrees just to be sure, I think I forgot to adjust the readings back in March and April, I was drunk and the wife and the dog ran off, then the river flooded, and the repo man came for my truck,,,”

    Cheers, Kevin.

    • Shazaam says:

      That was “East Bug-Tussle” Ohio….. Please keep the locations straight!!!


    • Eric Simpson says:

      Is it just “confirmation bias,” or something a little a lot more sinister?

      Arguably the mastermind of the architecture of the entire global scare, ex UNEP Director Maurice Strong, said this: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Before that, John Holdren (Obama’s current ‘Science’ Czar) said that “a massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States… [we] must design a stable, low-consumption economy.” Holdren said that in 1973, way before the global warming scare. So this is what the leftist elites that orchestrated the global scare have always been wishing for: severe de-industrialization, or at least a substantial cut back in economic activity.

      In 1993 the leftist senator Tim Wirth said: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” And in 1989 a lead IPCC author Stephen Schneider said: “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.”

      SO, combine the Wirth and Schneider quotes, and you get this: “it’s the right thing to do, for the ‘greater good’ … to offer up dishonest scary scenarios.” And we can assume that the type of thinking exemplified in the quotes from Schneider and Wirth has become quietly but firmly ensconced in the warmist scientific and political establishment. Al Gore himself said: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of .. how dangerous it is.” (And btw, Al Gore propagated this little piece of baloney.)

      But how does this relate to the temperature record?

      The temperature record showing runaway hockey stick style warming is in itself a “scary scenario.” Notice that the temperature record before 2000 was not quite so scary. Thereafter, after the “scary scenario” words of Schneider et al had had time to take hold, we start seeing wholesale manipulations of the temperature record.

      A final point. I started by saying that these manipulations are “a little” bit sinister. No, it’s A LOT sinister. Because these fear mongering deceivers want to change the very nature of society to make it fit their leftist mold. The Prophets of Doom want to squash economic growth and hobble energy production, and in the process they would kill or stymie the quality of life of millions, well, actually, billions. This is criminal.

      • I think if you quote a half dozen idiots that may not be representative of the general flavour of idiocy we are dealing with. I agree that Obama’s science “tsar” being one of those extreme idiots is disturbing. I suspect though that most environmentally conscious people live in a world where you can shut down nuclear, freeze hydro development, and scale back hydrocarbons, and wind and solar will make up the difference. Until these groups start struggling to charge their iPads, I suspect the misapprehensions will continue.

        • Eric Simpson says:

          Perhaps there’s different levels of idiocy, or I should say complicity, behind the global warming scare. One thing is clear: the 83% CO2 cuts mandated in the Cap & Trade bill passed by the US House (but not the Senate…) would have had a deathly impact on society, and this loss would not have been made up by marginal gains in efficiency or by financially unsustainable windmills or solar. Certainly the majority of left leaning average Joes that support that sort of policy plan are not aware of that, but the people I quote, at least UNEP Director Maurice Strong, Senator Tim Wirth (who worked closely with Strong, and James Hansen), and lead ippc author Stephen Schneider must be considered to be seminal founders of the scare campaign on global warming. Here’s a piece on that: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/22/the-u-n-s-global-warming-war-on-capitalism-an-important-history-lesson-2/

          And here’s the second of four videos by Glenn Beck specifically on Maurice Strong and the global warming “conspiracy of leftists.” I’ve just starting watching them myself, but note that the first video has too much empty chit chat, but things take off with the second video.
          I quote Glenn Beck from the video below: “The global governance [and de-industrialization] advocates seemed to have settled on achieving their ends through environmentalism.”

        • Irrespective of what certain cranks are aiming for (even unfortunately cranks in powerful positions in governance) your average Joe or Josephine environmentalist, aren’t really of the same mindset. A friend of mine is a strong advocate for animal rights. We have an organisation focused on animals, primarily pets, called the RSPCA. However, my friend is not a supporter of the RSPCA but rather of PETA. When I ask him if he really believes in vegetarianism, or that owning pets is “degrading” to animals or that wearing fur or animal skin is offensive (this includes wool), and so on, none of this matters. PETA has much “moral outrage” and what interests him is the moral issue. The more righteous he feels, the better he feels. The actual agenda is unimportant to him, and he dismisses this with a hand wave. He has no particular concern or belief that the agenda will ever come to pass. That’s not the point. Do you understand?

        • Eric Simpson says:

          Yeah, I get what you’re saying. The “little people” don’t understand, or don’t care because they are just in it too feel good about themselves. As far as everyday people that are global warming proponents, you imply that it is only a bitter reality (like blackouts or truly skyrocketing energy bills or economic failure) that would make them want to take a closer look at whether there is true justification for the crazy greenie policies. In Europe we are starting to get a little bit of a taste of that, but not enough.

        • There Is No Substitute for Victory. says:

          No problem Bill N. They will simply recharge their iPads by using your electricity while you’re away from home. I am surprised no one has told you yet. It’s called fairness or income equalization. Some people call it “Living the Life of Riley While Riley Is Away from Home.”


  7. Katabasis says:

    I’m not sure what prompted this Steve but I think it’s a bit premature – there are demonstrable conspiracies that have, and are, taking place including in the area of climate science and propaganda.

    I don’t know if you’ve read it yet but its well worth your time if you haven’t – a social psychologist’s take on the nutters at “Skeptical (LOL) Science”.


    It’s manifestly clear that the SkS crew conspired together to create and push propaganda in “Duh Consensus Project”. And if that’s what happened, why not describe it as such? It certainly wasn’t an unconscious accident.

  8. Robertv says:

    “We discuss facts and what we observe here”

    So If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

    • Robertv says:

      is this “ We discuss facts and what we observe here ” or ” Shit happens. “

      • Robertv says:

        But then the US Government doesn’t need to provide any evidence.


      • _Jim says:

        Give it a rest Robert “TV”. You weren’t there, and I highly doubt you viewed events in ‘real time’ like a LOT of us did that day either.


      • _Jim says:

        I even doubt you know the structural make-up of Bldg #7- do you? Are you aware of the unusual structure of Bldg #& that allowed that building to also house a power substation? Are you aware of the storage of diesel fuel in the building that was present WITHIN that structure for purpose of powering several diesel generators? Are you aware that the diesel fuel contributed to the fire?

        Are you AWARE of any facts at all surrounding this event?


        • B says:

          The unusual structure of Building 7 would cause a different sort of failure than the one observed. Cantilevered structures* fall over rather than collapse straight down when their vertical structural members that tie them to the ground fail. Government lies. Government intellectuals find ways of supporting the lies, the policies, and so forth so we go along with it. It doesn’t matter what the topic is, the theme is the same. Climate change, building 7, monetary policy, whatever it is government has a self-serving policy for the people who run, are close to, and/or influence government and the intellectual class gives them justification for what they want to do. It’s been that way for thousands of years since the priest class told us that if we obey and sacrifice the snake god won’t eat the sun (eclipse). All we have to do is sacrifice and obey and everything will be fine.

          *Building 7 was cantilevered over the sub station.
          Also note the conditions of WTC 3,4,5,and 6 at the end of that day, subjected to the same conditions but worse than 7.

        • _Jim says:

          ” Cantilevered structures* fall over rather than collapse ”

          Thanks for the laugh. Seriously, I chuckled on that one.

          I guess you just casually ignore everything else that contributed to the collapse of 7?

          I like your simplistic view though, saves thinking about more complicated factors such as where did the various loads shift to as fire weakened the internal load bearing structure of the building.

          Thanks again for the laugh B.

          Say, why did all those other structures down and around the WTC complex burn and or collapse? Were they all ‘pulled’ that day too “B”?

          You have a lot more ‘work’ do explaining ALL that took place that day versus individual;, isolated factors pulled out and analyzed by themselves, you know …


        • _Jim says:

          B, why did you feel compelled to answer for RoberTV anyway?

          Do you think (or fear) that RobertTV cannot be counted on to answer a few rather straight forward questions on this subject?

          At some point, RobertTV has to become more than just a ‘cheer leader’ in the truther support organization, and take a front-row seat in taking-on some of questions directly.


          He’s not ready to ‘solo’ yet? Still needs supervision, training, guidance et al?


        • B says:

          Like most people who believe government, you offered nothing but ridicule and strawmen because I expressed some disbelief.

          As to building 7 it’s simple physics, The weight of the building hanging over the sub-station would have caused it to tip over in that direction once the vertical columns failed. Unless of course you are claiming the horizontal members that tied the cantilever over the substation failed at the same time.

          You can test this with an Erector set or legos if you want to. As I recall the government theory, the vertical columns failed low in the building resulting in the penthouse collapse into the building prior to the rest of the building going. (my memory is correct: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm ) The problem is that results in the building tipping over not coming more or less straight down.

          WTC 3,4,5,and 6 were heavily damaged by debris and fire (what according to the government caused WTC7’s collapse) however did not suffer straight down total collapse. They suffered partial random collapses. These structures behaved as expected for their designs.

          I offered you no explanations or speculations why WTC7 did not fall in a manner expected for the way it was built. Only that the observed is not what one would expect for the uniqueness of the structure. NIST from what I read does not offer a convincing reason why the cantilevered portion didn’t pull the building horizontally. It pretty much ignores the issue.

        • _Jim says:

          re: B says July 25, 2014 at 6:49 pm
          … “As to building 7 it’s simple physics, The weight of the building hanging over the sub-station would have caused it to tip over in that direction …

          NOTHING is simple when it comes to fire (and fire over time) compromising a building’s structural integrity.

          THIS is where you people fail, and fail BIG.

          APPLYING simple HS physics is insufficient WHILE assuming the building’s structural integrity will remain intact WHILE STILL UNDER LOAD and EXPOSED TO FIRE (a heat source; do you not know about the modulus of expansion for steel at elevated temperatures?).

          MAYBE you don’t understand what these terms mean? THIS would explain a lot.

          YOU have been sold a BIG bill of goods regarding what you ‘bought’ in explaining the collapse of Bldg 7.

          YOUR basic knowledge of how concrete and steel structures in ‘stress’, under load, exposed to HOURS of fire/heat (i.e. elevated temperatures) is incomplete. PLEASE get an education in this field before simply repeating, mindlessly, someone else’s unstudied tripe.

          BTW, MORE than just the WTC buildings suffered damage and collapsed in that area.

          YOU conspiracy types are SO limited as to your investigation and analysis you FAIL to examine the ENTIRE picture preferring to ride only your favored HOBBY HORSE CONSPIRACY THEORIES.


        • _Jim says:


          “Properties of Reinforced Concrete Steel Rebars Exposed to High Temperatures”

          – – – – –
          1. Introduction

          Fire remains one of the serious potential risks to most buildings and structures. …

          … without fire protection, steel structures may suffer serious damage or even collapse in a fire catastrophe.

          This is because the mechanical properties of steel deteriorate by heat during fires, and the yield strength of conventional steel at 600°C is less than 1/3 of the specified yield strength at room temperature. Therefore, conventional steels normally require fire-resistant coating to be applied. …

          Especially, temperature increase of steel and concrete in composite steel-concrete elements leads to a decrease of mechanical properties such as yield stress, Young’s modulus, and ultimate compressive strength of concrete. Thus, load bearing of steel decreases when steel or composite structure is subjected to a fire action.

          If the duration and the intensity of the fire are large enough, the load bearing resistance can fall to the level of the applied load resulting in the collapse of the structure. However, the failure of the World Trade Centre on 11th September 2001 and, in particular, of building WTC7 alerted the engineering profession to the possibility of connection failure under fire.

          – – – – – – –

      • Chip Bennett says:

        A Truther? Seriously?

        Is there somewhere else you can troll?

  9. Steve Case says:

    It’s more than just temperature that’s being adjusted. Here’s sea level as reported by Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group in 2004 and 2014

    The graph is generated from the data on the current page and from March 2004 via the InternetArchive’s WayBack Machine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s