Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Revert)
(Revert)
Line 20: Line 20:
  
 
Oh, i am supposed to laugh at the bullshit garbage that is on this site (take [[Global warming]] for example) Well, great website then! [[User:98.17.61.6|98.17.61.6]] 13:20, 8 November 2007 (EST)
 
Oh, i am supposed to laugh at the bullshit garbage that is on this site (take [[Global warming]] for example) Well, great website then! [[User:98.17.61.6|98.17.61.6]] 13:20, 8 November 2007 (EST)
 +
:Actually the purpose of our site is:  ''1. Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people.  2. Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas. 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.'' We often use humor to achieve our ends. We are not NPOV.[[RationalWiki]]--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>bing up</sup>]] 13:28, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Revision as of 18:28, 8 November 2007

I've removed the one below from the list of conspiracy theories. They're wacko enough without actually inventing our own:--Bobbing up 12:07, 8 November 2007 (EST)

From the files of The Question

The Saucer People and the Reverse-vampires in conjunction with the Rand corporation are conspiring with the parents of the world to eliminate the meal of dinner. The objective is to reduce the flatulence of obese children (particularly in the United States). This will then thereby reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. We're through the looking glass here people!

That's alright

I was just using my crazy alter-ego to inject a stupid Simpsons-esque rant. The above is a slight rewording and adding to of what Milhouse states in the episode with the Simpson and Son's Rejuvinating Tonic. --Edgerunner76 12:11, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I see. But there are loads of "real" existing conspiracy theories which we could write up. Inventing our own or putting up fake ones just makes us look a little silly I think. :-) --Bobbing up 12:14, 8 November 2007 (EST)
While what I wrote in the guise of The Question was silly and stupid, there is a grain of truth. Cattle (and everyone else's to a lesser degree) flatulence is a major greenhouse gas. --Edgerunner76 12:18, 8 November 2007 (EST)
The cattle thing is actually interesting. It's not that there is "some animal" out there generating methane - it is that we have huge herds of domesticated cattle, raised for food, that are corn-fed to fatten them up. They can't digest corn very well... so the beef industry is turning fertilizer and rain into methane. Methane = bad. humanUser talk:Human 12:32, 8 November 2007 (EST)
Indeed. I seem to recall reading that there are enclosed pig farms in Holland where the methane is collected and treated as a toxic gas.--Bobbing up 12:36, 8 November 2007 (EST)
Still nothing compared to the methane buildup under the oceans produced by bacteria. One of the larger of those bubbles deciding to float to the top can be rather deadly...rather deadly indeed. 130.113.218.226 12:43, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Are you referring to methane hydrate or something else? And let's not forget the thawing permafrost.--Bobbing up 12:54, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Revert

I do belive the revert was unnecessary. 98.17.61.6 13:13, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I disagree. The purpose of this site is primarily humor. The POV served that purpose. I Eat Glue 13:15, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Oh, i am supposed to laugh at the bullshit garbage that is on this site (take Global warming for example) Well, great website then! 98.17.61.6 13:20, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Actually the purpose of our site is: 1. Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people. 2. Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas. 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. We often use humor to achieve our ends. We are not NPOV.RationalWiki--Bobbing up 13:28, 8 November 2007 (EST)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support