Ancient Aliens

I cant even comprehend how some people can deny what happened. There are tons and tons of documents, photos, there are countless witnesses, holocaust survivors. Even where I live, couple of tens of kilometers on the east is Treblinka, where they transported jews from Warsaw to gas chambers. The stories from that area would boil listeners blood. One must be very ignorant to ignore all this evidence. Even when its hard to believe how cruel human creature can be.

Ignorant is not the word; Believer is.

Holocaust deniers can be cathegorized as:

  • true bastards who know they’re wrong but push an agenda (these are a minority)
  • crackpots who believe seriously and are unable to change their mind (a large chunk, and they usually buy other drivel not just holocaust denialism)
  • stupid people who think they’re very smart because “they know the truth and the rest only know lies” after reading and buying wholeheartly whatever drivel they found first (quite many people)
  • trolls
  • people who honestly think that denialism is the truth and are open to change their minds if shown the actual truth (I’ve never encountered one)

These 5 cathegories roughly apply to every piece of antitruth drivel: professionals, crackpots, useful fools, trolls and misguided innocents

1 Like

Looks like people ability to learn is compromised. If it all comes from beliefs, then from where the beliefs come? Is denialism just the childs senseless NO! projected into adulthood? Need for independence?

Maybe the need to learn is driven by curiosity like in WHY? Freedom to search and build.

Or is that just about who have the most rigid mind there?

It could be Nana that cause they wheren’t there, it couldn’t have happend. And since many operates in groups they sort of fuel eachother, also you do not want to split from the group cause then you become one of those the group are against.

1 Like

Eh, looks like there may be so much reasons for people to believe into something. Our mind build to survive is one of them.

Also building beliefs is one, and keeping those beliefs is something completely else.

Well sure, outright stupidity is a big reason. Oh and stubborness, which i suppose goes under ridgid mind.

I saw show once where they debunked the claims of one moon landing conspirasist, but even when faced with scientific facts he refused to budge.

Maybe he also feared to be called a stupid person? Ostracism?

Everyone makes mistakes sometimes.

Mind is like a ball of tangled neurons that fights back because of strange reasons (beliefs, fear, suspicion etc) when it faces the facts.
Upset because it needs to learn something new!
Childrens are so easy to tech new stuff, adults not so much. Brain changes when growing into adulthood.

Well many are very comfy in their beliefs, to be told that the universe is not how they have thought for so many years. Can be very upsetting, like being told out of the blue that the persons you have called mom and dad are your kidnappers or adoptive parents.

Think how you should feel if i told you that Poland was never an independent nation, we have just been scamming you this whole time. Infact you where never free of swedish rule :slight_smile:

Well, without diving into personality types (some of which are more prone to blind belief than others), many people just believe what their parents told them. Others rebel and learn and hold true the exact opposite of what their parents told them; and in the process of building our world vision, many things can go wrong, even some people just never build their world vision -useful fools usually have this issue.

If a person is raised, grows and matures as a fanatic, that is nearly irreversible. Most people who are fanatics at 30 will be so forever; once prejudice and beliefs shape the world vision, they’re usually unreachable to reason and truth.

As the saying goes, “you can’t reason someone out of a place he didn’t reason himself into”.

:thinking:
image

1 Like

Well, its not true now, but there was a time when it was truth.


Actually he was Commonwealth king and Sweden and claimant king of Jerusalem even. All united. I think it would be better that way.

1 Like

And you, mine. But I’ve not even remotely begun challenging you.

I’m sure it doesn’t. :wink:

Funny . . . I feel the same about myself and my opinions and beliefs. Odd, that.

Very telling statement. You already knew more than what was shown on the film? But, but, but . . . you’ve never seen the film.

Ok, here is where you run off the rails and then double-down stating it to be “true”. Where you first came across as somewhat educated and articulate, albeit a little pompous . . . now you are exposing yourself as a narcissist.

You’ve restored my belief in your level of intelligence again, or at least your level of perception . . . I’m impressed that you picked up on this - as the odd example was provided on purpose. What, prey tell, do you think many - many - many people believe is the underlying reason for the MMGW myth carrying on for so long?

Can we just agree to call it ‘done’ now? How about this, I agree that you believe you know everything (even though don’t) and I agree that I don’t know everything (even though I believe I do) . . . so there . . . you win. LOL.

Cheers!

Wikipedia is your friend when everybody is talking about a documentary film and you haven’t seen it. I started discussing GW around 2005.

How would I say this… your comments in this thread point that my chances to be right are comfortably high, else I wouldn’t talk about it.

You’ve restored my belief in your level of intelligence again, or at least your level of perception . . . I’m impressed that you picked up on this - as the odd example was provided on purpose. What, prey tell, do you think many - many - many people believe is the underlying reason for the MMGW myth carrying on for so long?

Sorry if you think that your sentence made sense when you wrote it, but it doesn’t makes sense from here.

You just insist calling global warming a myth, but you haven’t even attempted to prove your words. If you think that it is related to vaccines, well, congratulations, I’ve never seen a GW denial argument built like that.

Can we just agree to call it ‘done’ now? How about this, I agree that you believe you know everything (even though don’t) and I agree that I don’t know everything (even though I believe I do) . . . so there . . . you win. LOL.

Cheers!

I know everything I talk about because usually I don’t talk about things I don’t know. And we aren’t discussing modern art or sports here, are we? :wink:

I have seen ufo. As in unidentified flying object.

But people see them everyday. They just dont know what it is, unidentified, thats all. Can be bird, can be plane, can be superman.

Amount of things we dont know is ASTONISHING! Unknown is even amount of things we dont know. :joy:

Oh, for pity’s sake . . . ok . . . I didn’t say it was related to vaccines themselves - I gave an example that you picked up on as being related to money. Same for MMGW . . . follow the money.

As for GW, again, I never disputed GW. I know, for a fact, the planet has warmed. The planet has been warming and cooling since day one. I dispute MMGW. There is a vast difference between the two. One being fact and the other largely fiction.

Seeing as you’ve self-described to “know everything” you talk about, and this is a sincere question . . . What percentage of GW is caused by man?

Listen, I am happy to hear you’ve been talking about GW since 2005. Good for you. I’m not sure how old you are, but I was around in the 70’s when the big climate story in the news was the coming of the next mini Ice Age. It was right around the corner, we were all going to freeze to death. A lot of “scientists”, “climatologists”, universities and businesses made a lot of money off that one too. So, forgive me for being a “denier”. I also do not want to hijack this thread, which started out interesting and fun, by turning it into a MMGW debate. if you want, start a new post and I will gladly join in to provide some color. I’ll start by outlining the benefits of a warming planet (and they are VAST) and we can go from there. K?

Finally, a voice of reason. :wink:

There is this theory that when the climate gets warmer, there will be a weaker Gulf Stream and It will cause Europe to have slightly colder climate. Its enough for me to care, as I like it warmer. :sunglasses:

And humans have affected nature for thousands of years already. We hunted down mammoths, we made rivers change their ways. Indians planted wild orchards in jungles. Where was water is now land in holland. We extracted so much fuel from the ground its silly. More is coming our way. Industrialization will continue, as the developing countries start to get wealthier. It calls for some balance. Nature can provide it, but it also have some limits, where humans start to suffer. Have you ever woke up and smelled the smog in winter? Its things like these that make you really think about what is wrong with our technology. :thinking:

Joe throws a large boulder at the top of a hill slope. The boulder hits another one, tipping it off balance, and then both boulders hit more boulders, and eventually there’s a landslide and half the hillside collapses.

What percentage of the landslide is caused by Joe? It’s a wrong question without a right answer. What we know for sure is that the landslide was caused by Joe’s action of throwing the boulder. It was a Joe Made Landslide.

By the way, warmer weather is great for all things that thrive with warmer weather. Like tropical cyclones, rising sea levels, droughts, desertification and carriers of tropical diseases.

Addendum:

It only requires undergraduate chemistry and physics, and the ability to connect the dots, to understand how increasing the concentration of IR absorbing gasses in the atmosphere affect the average surface temperature.

Oh, and it was Svante Arrhenius who first worked out the effect of raising CO2 concentrations on average temperatures.

LOLOL . . . that’s great. So, we know - for a FACT - that GW (and cooling) has been going on since day one. That is absolutely indisputable. And, yet, you think asking what percentage of GW is attributable to man is a ‘wrong question’? Your example is foolish on its face. In your example, Joe caused the landslide - so he is 100% the reason. It also may have occurred naturally on its own at some point, which would mean it was not caused by Joe at all. Man, however, did not cause GW. Therefore, we need to answer the question - to what degree can we attribute the slight temperature increase to Man.

You really don’t see the distinction, do you? Oh, I forgot . . . “I am open to listen and change when my opinions and beliefs are challenged… but that doesn’t happens very often . . .” So, I can continue to waste my time (because I am stubborn) or stop responding (which enforces your ‘belief’ that you are correct). Hmmm . . . I need to think on that a bit. OK . . .

Wow, there is really a lot there . . . where to start . . . well, for one, you can thank GW (whether you believe it to be MM or not) for an increase in the greening of the planet. Yes, that means more food and stronger ecosystems overall. Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented, using three decades of satellite data, 31 per cent of the global vegetated area of the planet has become greener and just 3 per cent has become less green. This is a result of the Carbon Dioxide levels more so than the actual temperature. This translates into a 14 per cent increase in productivity of ecosystems and has been observed in all vegetation types. Greening is especially pronounced in dry areas like the Sahel region of Africa, where satellites show a big increase in green vegetation since the 1970s. There has been a significant decline of famines in the Sahel in recent years is partly due to more rainfall caused by moderate warming and partly due to more carbon dioxide itself. And this is but one area.

But, but, but . . . what about the drowning Polar Bears? Nonsense. Polar Bears are also thriving, though this is mainly because of the cessation of hunting. None the less, it’s worth noting that the three years with the lowest polar bear cub survival in the western Hudson Bay (1974, 1984 and 1992) were the years when the sea ice was too thick for ringed seals to appear in good numbers in spring. Bears need broken ice.

Well, as you argue, what about all the weather disasters caused by climate change? Entirely mythical — so far. The latest IPCC report is admirably frank about this, reporting ‘no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency offloads on a global scale … low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms’. In fact, the death rate from droughts, floods and storms has dropped by 98 per cent since the 1920s.

I get the “well, even if MMGW is overblown, it doesn’t hurt to be better stewards of the planet”. On its face, that makes sense. But the thought that man can control the climate is ludicrous to the bone and the actions being taken in a feeble attempt to do so cause far more harm than good. Consider: it is driving regions of the world into fuel poverty. I am referring to third world countries that are trying to claw their way to second-world status and need fossil fuels to do so. It makes industries uncompetitive, drives up food prices, actually accelerates the destruction of forest by turning to wood sources instead of coal in power stations, etc… It is estimated, globally, nearly 200,000 people are dying every year because we are turning 5 per cent of the world’s grain crop into motor fuel instead of food. In Britain, 65 people a day die during the cold months because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly, yet the government is planning to double the cost of electricity to consumers by 2030.

The European Union will pay £165 billion for its current climate policies each and every year for the next 87 years. Britain’s climate policies — subsidising windmills, wood-burners, anaerobic digesters, electric vehicles and all the rest — is due to cost us £1.8 trillion over the course of this century. In exchange for that Brobdingnagian sum, we hope to lower the air temperature by about 0.005˚C — which will be undetectable by normal thermometers.

I could go on and on . . . but, you see, I can give you actual facts. Percentages. Monetary values. You give me 'Joe throws a large boulder . . . ’

You seem to ‘believe’ it is appropriate to hurt people financially, even starve them to death, in the cause to fight MMGW . . . with the possible hope to lower the temperature by a factor so small it will be virtually undetectable. Given we know the planet warms and cools naturally . . .

I ask you again: What is the percentage of GW caused by Man? Is it 1 percent, 10 percent, 99 percent?