Tag: conspiracy theory

Categories
rants this shit is fucked up

Sandy Hook "Truthers"

So yeah. This is apparently an actual thing. (ETA: Oh here. Have some more WTF IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE.)

I need a kitty right fucking now okay.

I mean, I know I shouldn’t be surprised, considering the unceasing plague of 9/11 Truthers and Birthers. Though Birthers (you know, the utter crackpots that are convinced President Obama is secretly foreign) seem relatively less disgusting compared to this.

It’s all the usual question begging bullshit, pattern hunting and being bizarrely startled that coincidences and similarities are things that happen despite the fact that they happen constantly every day of our lives. This just makes me extra angry because it’s a bunch of paranoid nuts dancing on the graves of children, mocking the grief of their families because they’ve convinced themselves that it’s all fake and therefore it is all right to be utterly inhumane to other people.

I need a kitten or I’m going to have an aneurysm, I swear to fucking god.

I think what just pisses me off the most about this is that the entire justification for this conspiracy theory is that the government is going to take all our guns away! The way that straw man has been getting shoved down our throats, we’re all going to be shitting chaff for the next three years.

It’s like the making shit up Olympics – creating a sadistically unfeeling conspiracy out of whole cloth to justify something that no one is even proposing. Oh yeah, and being mean to the grieving father of a murdered little girl because that’s totally okay when you don’t live on the same plane of reality as the rest of us. Hey assholes. If you took off your tinfoil hat for five seconds, maybe you could read our brainwaves and get that we don’t want your fucking guns.

Lookit that adorable kitty, helping with the laundry, and his adorable face. Breathe. Breathe.

Perhaps I speak only for myself, but you know what I do want? I want you to grow the fuck up. I want you to develop some empathy. I want you to leave your basement and get some professional help. I want you to have a grownup conversation with the rest of us instead of making like a seagull and shitting everywhere while shrieking at the top of your lungs.

I want you to realize that the world is a scary place, but the way you can truly make it less scary is to grasp reality with one hand, the rest of humanity with the other, and refuse to let go.

Kitten. Kitten kitten kitten.
Categories
conspiracy theory oil and gas

Abiotic/Abiogenic Oil

You know, the stuff I squeeze out of people who ask me what abiotic oil is on Twitter.

Today, shortly after I admitted (gasp) to being a geologist, one of the guys on my judging team asked me about abiotic oil, saying that “there’s been some study in Russia about this.” Which I hadn’t heard about, but he then said that it was a recent thing.

To the best of my knowledge, abiotic oil is a fairly laughable theory. But I decided to do some googling around, just so I don’t get caught off guard by this again.

The first post that I find via google is from FreeEnergyNews.com, which gives me a tingle of apprehension to begin with, just from the website name. Abiotic Oil: This post has a bunch of links for stories from WorldNet Daily, which I’m more familiar with as WingNut Daily, insert logical fallacy here (possibly poisoning the well?). It also posts links to two books from an author whose name I recognize, Thomas Gold. And my recognition of his name comes from this mention of him at the Oil Drum, which is not terribly complimentary. Thomas Gold was also an astrophysicist, not a petroleum geologist.

Now, the post over at the Oil Drum brings up one example where people got all excited about oil being abiotic because OMG IT’S COMING OUT OF BEDROCK, when the facts really looked more like it was oil migrating through faulted horst blocks of the bedrock, since tectonics had partially shifted source rocks so they were under the basement rock in some places. This conclusion comes from this AAPG article, and I will say that AAPG is a professional organization of petroleum geologists and puts out several trusted publications, including the one this article appeared in (Explorer), so I’m going to take their word for it.

However, the “abiotic” oil of Vietnam is not what I’m after here, rather I’m looking for Russia in particular. By adding Russia to my search, I came up with some interesting sites:

An introduction to the modern petroleum science, and to the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins: I think this pretty much outlines the theory, and is in favor of it. As an amusing aside, there’s a link to a discussion of plagiarism of the theory. Specifically Thomas Gold plagiarizing the theory from Russian scientists.

One of the sections in the Russian-Ukrainian theory post talks about refuting a biotic origin of oil. While at this point I could see trying to find some wiggle room to allow for both biotic and abiotic oil, but trying to claim that no oil is biotic makes little sense. As just one example, one thing we look for when exploring possible oil sources are kerogens, which come in different types (dependent upon original depositional environment) and release oil when sufficiently cooked. Trying to take kerogens out of the equation (or claiming they’re not organically sourced) really flies in the face of a lot of well-established science.

I will also note that going on the theory that oil comes from sedimentary source rocks (where you find those kerogens) has proved to be extremely predictive in oil exploration. Which is a good sign for oil coming from dead critters.

On the other side, a post at FromTheWilderness.com examines many of the fields considered to be “abiotic” proof, and finds them wanting. This post also has found a special place in my heart because of this:

While everyone is free to form his or her own opinion, when people start talking about a conspiracy of scientists to cover up the supposed abiotic origin of oil, then all an honest scientist can do is to shrug her or his shoulders and say that he or she is not aware of any such conspiracy. In fact, such a contention makes numerous logical errors; based on the logical fallacies listed at http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html, I can count at least 17 errors of logic frequently made by those who argue that the biological origin of oil is a conspiracy. Such errors of logic are the province of a politician, not a scientist.

Back to the Oil Drum post, they recommend reading Richard Heinberg’s The “Abiotic Oil” Controversy, which I wholeheartedly recommend as well. Heinberg makes a very well-thought out, reasonable argument, and here’s the summation of his take-home point:

There is no way to conclusively prove that no petroleum is of abiotic origin. Science is an ongoing search for truth, and theories are continually being altered or scrapped as new evidence appears. However, the assertion that all oil is abiotic requires extraordinary support, because it must overcome abundant evidence, already cited, to tie specific oil accumulations to specific biological origins through a chain of well-understood processes that have been demonstrated, in principle, under laboratory conditions.

I don’t think it’s possible to, in detail, refute every claim of abiotic oil genesis. Because if nothing else, we don’t know everything there is to know about how most oil is generated, let alone how all of it is generated. And Heinberg makes another good point – even if we eventually reach the conclusion that some hydrocarbons are generated abiotically, this does not really change the energy crisis our dependence on fossil fuels is causing. He says:

What if oil were in fact virtually inexhaustible—would this be good news? Not in my view. It is my opinion that the discovery of oil was the greatest tragedy (in terms of its long-term consequences) in human history. Finding a limitless supply of oil might forestall nasty price increases and catastrophic withdrawal symptoms, but it would only exacerbate all of the other problems that flow from oil dependency—our use of it to accelerate the extraction of all other resources, the venting of CO2 into the atmosphere, and related problems such as loss of biodiversity. Oil depletion is bad news, but it is no worse than that of oil abundance.

To a certain extent, I think the attraction of the abiotic theory is that it means people can ignore the thought that we might some day (some very soon day) effectively run out of oil. But whether we can run out of oil or not changes nothing about the environmental damage we are causing by recklessly burning a natural resource that really deserves to be treated with more care.

Categories
conspiracy theory

Watch a conspiracy theory form

Juggle.com examines how a Wired story started trending on Google as a “brain eating vaccine.” It’s interesting to see just how quickly a story can be misinterpreted and then taken on a left turn to Weirdsville – particularly when the inaccurate version of it supports someone’s rather odd fears. Jonah Lehrer, author of the original Wired story, responds here.

Also in conspiracy nut news, how about a little follow up from yesterday? Susan Greene at the Denver Post points out just how full of winners this year’s gubernatorial race is.

Turns out that Dan Maes stands behind his assertion that the red bike cooperative and Denver’s membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives are signs of a global conspiracy.

“This is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms,” he said.

Most politicians seem to backpedal and distance themselves when someone points out how crazy they sound, but not Maes. I’m thinking he comes from the Michele Bachmann school of nutty politics. This is me, backing away slowly.

What scares me most about Maes’ bicycle theory is that voters may not see its “damfoolishness,” as H.L. Mencken would have called it.

“The central belief of every moron,” Mencken wrote in 1936, “is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights.”

Word.

Categories
colorado conspiracy theory wtf

Cycling our way to a New World Order

This is why I love state/local politics. It’s also why I occasionally feel the need to drink cough syrup until I put myself in an uncaring stupor so that the unceasing bombardment of stupid will just stop for a moment.

Maes said in a later interview that he once thought the mayor’s efforts to promote cycling and other environmental initiatives were harmless and well-meaning. Now he realizes “that’s exactly the attitude they want you to have.”

The ominous they of course are the United Nations, no relation to the giant radioactive ants of Them. (Or ARE they?)

I’m not sure what I find funniest about Maes’ position – that he’s attempting to make the UN some sort of boogeyman for Colorado, or that the UN’s supposed nefarious plot is to (THE HORROR!) get people to whiz around on cute little red bicycles in downtown Denver. Those bastards! Driving an enormous, gas-guzzling car between any two points that are more than ten feet apart is the American way, you know. Curse you Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, you won’t get away with this twisted plot no matter how adorable the little dingly bells on those bicycles are. We’re Americans, damnit!

“At first, I thought, ‘Gosh, public transportation, what’s wrong with that, and what’s wrong with people parking their cars and riding their bikes? And what’s wrong with incentives for green cars?’ But if you do your homework and research, you realize ICLEI is part of a greater strategy to rein in American cities under a United Nations treaty,” Maes said.

Imagine me doing this in my best Glen Beck Voice:
First they came for our SUVs, and I said nothing because I didn’t own an SUV. Then they gave me a bicycle, and I still said nothing, because I thought they were kind of cute. Then they established the new world order in our city and started exterminating anyone that didn’t believe in their twisted socialist agenda and…

I can’t do it. I just can’t. I threw up in my mouth a little just then.

Needless to say, Maes is the “Tea Party” favorite, which I’m starting to think translates out to “we think a strait jacket is a perfectly valid fashion statement.” I find myself actually hoping that he gets the Republican nomination. First off, because I like Hickenlooper, and I think this level of crazy is just the boost his campaign needs. And secondly, there’s something wrong in my brain which means I actually enjoy trying to laugh and cry at the same time, so this man’s campaign literature (which I’ll no doubt be bombarded with since I’m unaffiliated with a political party) would be an amazing resource for me.

Categories
conspiracy theory stoopid

More HAARP conspiracy nuttiness

Chavez says US ‘weapon’ caused Haiti quake

Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez Wednesday accused the United States of causing the destruction in Haiti by testing a ‘tectonic weapon’ to induce the catastrophic earthquake that hit the country last week.

And:

Venezuelan media have reported that the earthquake “may be associated with the project called HAARP, a system that can generate violent and unexpected changes in climate.”

The absolute breadth of the stupid leaves me almost speechless. Almost.

I’d love to know exactly how people think an atmospheric research facility – even if we’re nice and allow the conspiracy nuts the notion that HAARP can somehow effect climate via it interaction with the atmosphere, which it can’t – can manage to effect the Earth’s crust, 10 km below the surface and almost a hemisphere away. You know, we think the atmosphere is pretty awesome, probably because we couldn’t live without it. But let me break it to you – tectonic forces really don’t give much of a shit what the atmosphere is doing. In fact, it’s really the tectonics that get the final say on what the climate is doing, not the other way around.

Otherwise, what kind of tectonic “weapon” are we proposing? Secret injection well that’s putting highly pressurized fluid in to the fault to lubricate it? Nah, too plausible. Underground atomic explosions? These are the sorts of things people would tend to notice.

It makes my brain hurt. But we also know that conspiracy nuttiness of this variety requires no plausible mechanism. And in this case, not even a vague understanding of geology.

Categories
conspiracy theory feminism links science-based medicine

A handful of links

Abortion and breast cancer: The manufacturversy that won’t die – Orac takes a look at this steaming pile of BS. I remember the last time the awful people with the giant mutilated fetus posters were making life miserable on campus, they were pushing this claim. And seemed very puzzled that I was angry they were actively lying to people.

Cruise ships still find Haitian berth – this is certainly one messy issue to think about. On the one hand, there’s the utterly squeamish thought of people being on vacation (and eating their bbq) that close to a disaster site. On the other hand, there’s the aide, the promised proceeds, and at least some money being put in to the Haitian economy. My brain’s chasing itself in circles just thinking about this.

Science project prompts SD school evacuation – from the department of *facepalm*.

The student will not be prosecuted, but authorities were recommending that he and his parents get counseling, the spokesman said. The student violated school policies, but there was no criminal intent, Luque said.

I know, right? Kid wants to play with science and engineering outside of school. There MUST be something wrong with him. Ugh.

Is Refusing Bed Rest a Crime? – This story made me so very, very angry. I understand that there is something of a public interest in babies being born healthy. That said, it’s not your goddamn body, and being pregnant doesn’t mean you give up your fundamental rights as an adult human being. Seeing women treated like public incubators with no rights really scares the crap out of me.

Haiti, HAARP, and conspiracy theorists – an excellent roundup from BoingBoing about the new nutty conspiracy theories about how HAARP somehow caused the earthquake in Haiti, since it’s a death ray. Or something. Mmm, I love the smell of crazy in the morning.

Categories
conspiracy theory

The "birthers" as classic conspiracy theorists.

I’ve been hearing a lot about the “birthers” lately, and it’s kind of driving me nuts for a variety of reasons. If you’ve been living under a rock (yay, rocks!), “birthers” are people who believe that President Obama is not actually a natural-born citizen of the United States. They think he was born in Kenya, and that his taking office as president is part of a conspiracy to allow a foreign national to be in that office.

Here’s a classic example of the birther theories laid out. Expect to be critted by a wall of text, but at least it’s black text on a white background?

In all honesty, I’m not interested in debunking the birther claims. Snopes has a short and sweet page about it that covers all of the important points.

The Birthers seem to be the Truthers for the new presidency. We still get Truthers in downtown Denver on occasion, normally two or three people, holding their signs and looking a little pathetic because they’re so totally ignored by everyone around them. While the Truthers live on, their conspiracy theory has lost a lot of its power and interest because of the simple fact that Bush is no longer president. I have a feeling that the Birthers are going to be with us and just as loud and annoying – up until the end of the Obama presidency.

What puts the Birthers in line with the 9/11 Truthers (other than similar short names for the theorists) and the people who think we didn’t land on the moon? The UK Skeptics have a very good, quick summary of the characteristics of paranoid conspiracies:
– Assumption that they are right
– Their theories cannot be refuted (also known as: evidence against the conspiracy is actually evidence for the conspiracy)
– Acceptance of supporting evidence and offhand dismissal of non-supporting evidence

All of these factors are very much in evidence for the Birthers. For example, the existence of birth announcements in the Hawaii newspapers or the scan of the president’s certificate of live birth are either dismissed out of hand or elaborately debunked. (If you surf around a bit in the site I linked to, you’ll find an… impressive “debunking” of the certificate of live birth scan, which reminded me of nothing so much as the loving dissertations on physics that the Truthers used to purportedly show that the towers fell faster than gravity would allow.) Any attempts to ward off the conspiracy theory have been taken as proof that the theory is right. Obama’s compaign provided the scan of his birth certificate, which was immediately leapt upon as a forgery and further proof. That, or the evidence is simply ignored since it does not fit the conspiracy. The latest round of news reporting about the Birthers was inspired by a woman at a Delaware town hall meeting standing up and demanding to know where the birth certificate is. Well, it’s as much in evidence as it has always been – there are the scans that prove it, and the Hawaiian government confirms it. But that’s either completely ignored or dismissed out of hand.

Another beautiful example of this is the Supreme Court deciding not to hear the birth certificate case in 2008.

Quote from the Examiner:

Before Barack was inaugurated, a New Jersey man named Leo Donofrio bravely created an emergency appeal regarding Obama’s qualification to be an American president and sent it to the Supreme Court to be reviewed. Without explaining why, the Supreme Court turned down the emergency appeal and soon after the media completely hushed about the dilemma.[4] Since then, a slew of other lawyers across the country have also attempted lawsuits without making any real progress.

If you’re at all aware of the process by which the Supreme Court hears cases, them turning down the case is absolutely not surprise. The Supreme Court actually elects to not hear most of the cases appealed to them. Normally, this is because they agree with the lower court opinion and wish to let it stand, or because the case is simply not within the purview of the court or of interest to them. It’s pretty obvious why the Supreme Court wouldn’t consider this appeal worth their time and effort, and it really isn’t big news that the Supreme Court has decided not to hear a case. But rather than taking that as support of the validity of Obama’s presidency, it’s taken as support of the conspiracy. SCOTUS refuses to hear the case and won’t say why, and then it’s hushed up by the media.

Okay, and I have to take one last cheap shot at the Examiner:

If Barack is truly a natural born U.S. citizen, why hasn’t his campaign effectively disproved the claims that he isn’t?

Holy crap, they haven’t effectively disproved that he’s a reptoid either!

Underlying this all, of course, is the assumption that the conspiracy is true, which is what makes it very easy for the theorists to dismiss any evidence presented to them, or interpret it in such a way that it supports their theory. At this point, the Birthers are mentally and emotionally invested in their conspiracy theory, and no amount of arguing is going to convince them otherwise.

Science News just recently published an article about conspiracy theorists, which definitely has bearing here. While the article is more particularly about British 9/11 Truthers, it’s an interesting read.

Goertzel says the new study provides an intriguing but partial look at the inner workings of conspiracy thinking. Such convictions critically depend on what he calls “selective skepticism.” Conspiracy believers are highly doubtful about information from the government or other sources they consider suspect. But, without criticism, believers accept any source that supports their preconceived views, he says.

Any “official” confirmation of President Obama as a US citizen is not going to make a dent in this conspiracy theory. Any websites or people coming out in defense of the president’s legitimacy are attacked as part of the conspiracy, or accused of being blind to the deception. (I haven’t heard the term “sheeple” thrown around yet, but that could be because I’m just not looking hard enough.) Sites like Worldnetdaily, which I’ve often heard lovingly called Worldnutdaily (yes, I admit, sometimes I can’t let an opportunity to poison the well slip by) support the conspiracy theory and are read and supported by the believes. Sites such as DailyKos or other more mainstream news sites don’t support the theory and are criticized for being part of the conspiracy or simply dupes.

“Arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists tell you more about the believer than about the event,” Goertzel says.

This is really what I find most interesting about this. What do the arguments tell us about the conspiracy theorists? In the case of the 9/11 Truthers, the conspiracy theory betrayed a hatred of President Bush so absolute that nothing could put a dent in it, and an absolute distrust of the government. I think the Birthers certainly show the same distrust of the government (though I suppose in this case it’s a liberal rather than conservative government) but the arguments are very focused on Obama’s supposed status as a foreign national – particularly a Kenyan. Maybe it’s xenophobia, or possibly racism. To me it really seems to denote a fear that “foreigners” are in some way taking over the United States. Considering the shifting demographics of our country at the moment, it’s not all that surprising. And the US (like many countries) certainly has a history of xenophobia, for all that our lofty stated goal is to be an all-inclusive melting pot.

And now for a slight rant on my part:

At this point, what I really wish is that the news programs would just drop this. This entry was, in fact, inspired by listening to Countdown from last night. The host (someone filling in for Keith Olbermann) was arguing with his guest about how it was somehow Liz Cheney’s responsibility to distance herself from the Birthers. Frankly, I disagreed with that a lot (She was sticking to her talking points, and basically ignoring the Birthers. So what?) and the guest kept trying to make the point that the publicity that the Birthers are currently being given is what’s giving the movement more steam. It’s not the internets or the politicians, really, it’s the news programs treating the Birthers as if there might actually be some sort of real controversy that’s getting them attention.

I couldn’t agree more. We’ve seen the same thing, over and over and over and OVER with the moon conspiracy nuts. It makes sexy news programming to act as if the theorists are anything other than cranks and treat their claims with even a whiff of validity. Giving them television time with that attitude causes an outbreak of conspiracy maundering, and in the case of the moon landing conspiracy, causes a single tear to roll down the cheek of Phil Plait as he stares nobly off into the distance. I’m sure that it is news that the Birthers are gathering enough steam that their proponents are shouting at politicians in town hall meetings (the Truthers certainly had their day in that arena as well). But if people in the news want to find a villain to blame for the growing popularity of the movement, they ought to be pointing the fingers at themselves, not at the Liz Cheneys of the world.

Yes, it’s news when a nut tries to sue regarding his deployment in Afghanistan (which he volunteered for) because he thinks the President isn’t really the President because of this conspiracy theory. And I admit, it’s even better news when his attorney has the utterly hilarious first name of “Orly” and looks like she wants to be Tammy Fay Baker. So fine. Report on that and move on. Don’t extend an already ridiculous story by making it news that – as shocking as it might be – conservative pundits would rather use their air time to get out their talking points than attack a movement that they either don’t care about or don’t want to directly alienate because its part of their base.

You want someone to dismissively say these people are nut cases and then drop the matter? Start by doing it yourselves. So far, Jon Stewart has dealt with the explosion of Birther news the best out of everyone, and he’s quick to remind us that he’s not actually a journalist.

Yeesh.