It’s not surprising that someone who invents a conspiracy theory to try to rival the tribal savages conspiracy theory will invent harmless nonsense. But it is far from harmless nonsense to assume that the mongrels that have fomented coups and colonial wars for years to murder tens, even hundreds, of thousands of innocent people, and brave people who defended their countries against coups and aggression, from Vietnam to Latin America to the Middle East and North Africa and are still at it, would be incapable of murdering 3000 innocent people in America to achieve the sweeping changes that 9/11 achieved. Drastic regime change in America itself in one hit, and far from being only America.

The open inquiry that the beneficiaries stubbornly resist wouldn’t waste its time examining one wild amateur conspiracy theory after another but would examine the very bad smell under the conspiracy theory that criminals like Cheyney and Powell and Bush and the PNAC Neocons fed the world on 9/11 and thereafter, while nailing home the colossal advantages the murders from New York to Washington yielded them. Let them defend THEIR story, never mind about the crackpot wild guesses.

EmperorJulian,

I’m not sure why you find the idea of well-funded, university-educated hijackers timing their flights; hijacking them (at a time when airport security was far more lax); and then flying them into buildings that would be visible from kilometers away on a clear day, so hard to believe. You are using inaccurate descriptors like “Bush Arabs” and “tribal savages” to make the above scenario sound more unlikely than what it really was at the time.

There is also a difference between openly attacking other countries - deaths 'n' all - under one’s own flag (however thinly veiled the real reasons are), and secretly killing your own citizens on your own soil and dressing it up to look like terrorists. How are there no Edward Snowdons in this instance? Hundreds would have to have known about it and yet no-one says a thing despite how easy it is to anonymously leak information online. The same questions remain for climatologists and ‘Big Pharma’.

And why aren’t the conspiracy theorists being bumped off? ‘Big Pharma’ has apparently fiddled with every test involving vaccines, bought off every government, and bought off every doctor, and yet they can’t even pull down a YouTube video from some crank.

Anyway, that's it for me on this thread, I think. We're way off topic now and I don't think Leo Lane is coming back. Which is a pity. In the next chapter I was going to introduce Damo, and the boys were going to go on a four-wheel-drive camping trip where they see evidence against AGW in the fact that the first morning was really cold.

Craig Minns

Nasty, nasty, nasty. Yuk!

It's a hopeless task to address such vitriol and hate. The problem you see in me is really within you.

I asked AJPhillips for science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. This was his reply: Here’s a couple of hundred thousand for you to sift through… http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1&q=evidence+for+anthropogenic+climate+change

Not one of the links had any reference to science which showed any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
This is an extract from one of them:” spatial patterns of the response to anthropogenic forcing may in fact project principally onto modes of natural climate variability. Here we use atmospheric circulation data from the Northern Hemisphere to show that recent climate change can be interpreted in terms of changes in the frequency of occurrence of natural atmospheric circulation regimes. We conclude that recent Northern Hemisphere warming may be more directly related to the thermal structure of these circulation regimes than to any anthropogenic forcing pattern itself. “http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6730/full/398799a0.html.
Only a time-wasting clown would give such a reply, as he did.
He referred me to sites which baselessly assert human caused warming. The science shows that the human effect is trivial, and not measurable.

I stated what the science is without a reference. Here is what Professor Robert Carter gives as a summary
", with the formation of the IPCC, and a parallel huge expansion of research and consultancy money into climate studies, energy studies and climate policy, an intensive effort has been made to identify and measure the human signature in the global temperature record at a cost that probably exceeds $100 billion. And, as Kevin Rudd might put it, “You know what? No such signature has been able to be isolated and measured.”
That, of course, doesn’t mean that humans have no effect on global temperature, because we know that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas, and we can also measure the local temperature effects of human activity, which are both warming (from the urban heat island effect) and cooling (due to other land-use change, including irrigation). Sum these effects all over the world and obviously there must be a global signal; that we can’t identify and measure it indicates that the signal is so small that it is lost in the noise of natural climate variation."
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/professor-bob-carter/

//Craig Minns

Nasty, nasty, nasty. Yuk!//

Really, Killarney? Craig's views are nastier and yukkier than runner's or Dr Dave's?

Really?