Your favorite Conspiracy Theory

[Treefingers]

I have a stole South Park's theory that vampires actually evolved into gingers. Think about it, sensitivity for sunlight, a thirst for human blood, no soul.

Fixed.

I don't ever recall south park saying vampires turned into gingers????

Well, they didn't say they turned into vampires. But Cartman compares a list of ginger traits to vampire traits at the start of the episode 'Ginger Kids'.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The Philadelphia Experiment, with the invisible, teleporting, time travelling vessel that welded people to the deck plates.

That is awesome.

The Bermuda Triangle being Earth's former North Pole is also good.

 

[RangerSERE]

The one about Michael Jordan not actually "retiring" to play baseball, instead was suspended by the NBA for his gambling problems...think about it.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

I have a stole South Park's theory that vampires actually evolved into gingers. Think about it, sensitivity for sunlight, a thirst for human blood, no soul.

Fixed.

I don't ever recall south park saying vampires turned into gingers????

Well, they didn't say they turned into vampires. But Cartman compares a list of ginger traits to vampire traits at the start of the episode 'Ginger Kids'.

Well i did not know that. I suppose I shall have to give due credit to southpark in future.
Bastards still stole my idea XD

 

[Chrono180]

There are no 'opinions/theories' among the vast majority of mainstream scientists, there are only facts and evidence which all points in the same direction. The only debate is the magnitude of the effects. Ironically, the actual effects we're feeling are following the worst-case scenario predicted by the scientists 10 years ago.

Actually, climate change denial, while it may be rejected by most scientists, is a valid position.
While it is certain the earth is heating up, I am not convinced Co2 emission are its cause. I have asked scientists and my teachers to show me the simulations that they claim will synch up with both what we saw in the past hundred years and what is projected in the future. Problem is, no scientist will show me the data. I then have asked them to show me the math they use to come up with their numbers. They won't show me that either. Now, I admit that this does not prove it is not happening, because they may just be believing it without looking at the math themselves, but I have trouble accepting a postulate on something as complex as climate without looking at the simulations myself. Saying that "Co2 emmisions are up, temperature is up, therefor Co2 emmisions cause global warming" is not logical, because you could just as well say "There is more plastic in the ocean now than 100 years ago, temperature is up, therefore plastic in the ocean is causing global warming" in other words, Correlation is NOT causation.

In addition, considering that almost all the evidence about global warming is gathered by computer simulations, it raises a big question mark over the validity of the method when you realize that computer sims are extremely inaccurate. My father's entire career is based around making computer simulations more accurate (specifically, weather sims for air force computers), and if such a field can take twenty people thirty years to work on and still be extremely error prone, then I cannot simply accept on trust alone that the results of computer simulations are automatically valid.
I also sometimes wonder if our science nowadays is really any better than science 30-40 years ago where there was increasing concern about whether the earth was going to have global cooling. I admit I was not alive then, but my parents have told me there was a huge media fevor about us possibly going into another ice age. Now, the scientific method has not changed (as far as I know) that much in 30 years, but the scientific opinion has, so I am not sure if the data we have now is any better than the data we had 30 years ago.
Also, there is so much mud-slinging on both sides of the climate change debate, that I don't know who to believe. The people who say climate change is caused by Co2 say the ones who say otherwise are paid off by the oil companies, while the ones who say climate change is not caused by Co2 say the others are working from inaccurate data. I cannot value one opinion over the other without hardcore evidence that the corralation is valid, but since neither side will show me their core data, I cannot say with any degree of certainty one way or the other.

TLDR version: I am not convince that global warming is caused by humans, because both sides claim the other aide has faulty data

 

[not_the_dm]

There are no 'opinions/theories' among the vast majority of mainstream scientists, there are only facts and evidence which all points in the same direction. The only debate is the magnitude of the effects. Ironically, the actual effects we're feeling are following the worst-case scenario predicted by the scientists 10 years ago.

Actually, climate change denial, while it may be rejected by most scientists, is a valid position.
While it is certain the earth is heating up, I am not convinced Co2 emission are its cause. I have asked scientists and my teachers to show me the simulations that they claim will synch up with both what we saw in the past hundred years and what is projected in the future. Problem is, no scientist will show me the data. I then have asked them to show me the math they use to come up with their numbers. They won't show me that either. Now, I admit that this does not prove it is not happening, because they may just be believing it without looking at the math themselves, but I have trouble accepting a postulate on something as complex as climate without looking at the simulations myself. Saying that "Co2 emmisions are up, temperature is up, therefor Co2 emmisions cause global warming" is not logical, because you could just as well say "There is more plastic in the ocean now than 100 years ago, temperature is up, therefore plastic in the ocean is causing global warming" in other words, Correlation is NOT causation.

In addition, considering that almost all the evidence about global warming is gathered by computer simulations, it raises a big question mark over the validity of the method when you realize that computer sims are extremely inaccurate. My father's entire career is based around making computer simulations more accurate (specifically, weather sims for air force computers), and if such a field can take twenty people thirty years to work on and still be extremely error prone, then I cannot simply accept on trust alone that the results of computer simulations are automatically valid.
I also sometimes wonder if our science nowadays is really any better than science 30-40 years ago where there was increasing concern about whether the earth was going to have global cooling. I admit I was not alive then, but my parents have told me there was a huge media fevor about us possibly going into another ice age. Now, the scientific method has not changed (as far as I know) that much in 30 years, but the scientific opinion has, so I am not sure if the data we have now is any better than the data we had 30 years ago.
Also, there is so much mud-slinging on both sides of the climate change debate, that I don't know who to believe. The people who say climate change is caused by Co2 say the ones who say otherwise are paid off by the oil companies, while the ones who say climate change is not caused by Co2 say the others are working from inaccurate data. I cannot value one opinion over the other without hardcore evidence that the corralation is valid, but since neither side will show me their core data, I cannot say with any degree of certainty one way or the other.

TLDR version: I am not convince that global warming is caused by humans, because both sides claim the other aide has faulty data

Something I always enjoy pointng out to the people who claim that global warming is entirely humanity's fault (see an incompetant inconventiant truth) is that there is a delay between changes in the number of sunspots and the temp. of the oceans (about 120 years if I remember rightly) and that about 120 years ago(?) there was an increas in sunspot activity, thus causing ocean temperatures to be higher now and as such CO[sub]2[/sub] is being released into the atmosphere. Sun spot activity has been decreasing in the last decade however so the CO[sub]2[/sub] levels should drop before too long.

 

[Quid Plura]

There are no 'opinions/theories' among the vast majority of mainstream scientists, there are only facts and evidence which all points in the same direction. The only debate is the magnitude of the effects. Ironically, the actual effects we're feeling are following the worst-case scenario predicted by the scientists 10 years ago.

Actually, climate change denial, while it may be rejected by most scientists, is a valid position.
While it is certain the earth is heating up, I am not convinced Co2 emission are its cause. I have asked scientists and my teachers to show me the simulations that they claim will synch up with both what we saw in the past hundred years and what is projected in the future. Problem is, no scientist will show me the data. I then have asked them to show me the math they use to come up with their numbers. They won't show me that either. Now, I admit that this does not prove it is not happening, because they may just be believing it without looking at the math themselves, but I have trouble accepting a postulate on something as complex as climate without looking at the simulations myself. Saying that "Co2 emmisions are up, temperature is up, therefor Co2 emmisions cause global warming" is not logical, because you could just as well say "There is more plastic in the ocean now than 100 years ago, temperature is up, therefore plastic in the ocean is causing global warming" in other words, Correlation is NOT causation.

In addition, considering that almost all the evidence about global warming is gathered by computer simulations, it raises a big question mark over the validity of the method when you realize that computer sims are extremely inaccurate. My father's entire career is based around making computer simulations more accurate (specifically, weather sims for air force computers), and if such a field can take twenty people thirty years to work on and still be extremely error prone, then I cannot simply accept on trust alone that the results of computer simulations are automatically valid.
I also sometimes wonder if our science nowadays is really any better than science 30-40 years ago where there was increasing concern about whether the earth was going to have global cooling. I admit I was not alive then, but my parents have told me there was a huge media fevor about us possibly going into another ice age. Now, the scientific method has not changed (as far as I know) that much in 30 years, but the scientific opinion has, so I am not sure if the data we have now is any better than the data we had 30 years ago.
Also, there is so much mud-slinging on both sides of the climate change debate, that I don't know who to believe. The people who say climate change is caused by Co2 say the ones who say otherwise are paid off by the oil companies, while the ones who say climate change is not caused by Co2 say the others are working from inaccurate data. I cannot value one opinion over the other without hardcore evidence that the corralation is valid, but since neither side will show me their core data, I cannot say with any degree of certainty one way or the other.

TLDR version: I am not convince that global warming is caused by humans, because both sides claim the other aide has faulty data

Try to find a graph on the world's temperature before and after the Industrial Revolution. Still though, could also be a recovery from the small ice age of the 17th century.

 

[Shadowfaze]

That Barack Obama is actually a "reptoid" as was Bush. Hilarious.

 

[Treefingers]

I have a stole South Park's theory that vampires actually evolved into gingers. Think about it, sensitivity for sunlight, a thirst for human blood, no soul.

Fixed.

I don't ever recall south park saying vampires turned into gingers????

Well, they didn't say they turned into vampires. But Cartman compares a list of ginger traits to vampire traits at the start of the episode 'Ginger Kids'.

Well i did not know that. I suppose I shall have to give due credit to southpark in future.
Bastards still stole my idea XD

Well... great minds and all that.

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

KGB killed Kennedy. Nuff' said

 

[Ishadus]

Holy crap...is that flat Earth thing for real??

They honestly believe that water doesn't flow off the Earth because we're surrounded by a giant circular mountain range and if we kept traveling in the same direction we WOULD in fact fall straight off?

 

[Rhymenoceros]

I have my own, which involves that the Earth does not have a core and that all the world leaders and scientists are simply trying to cover up the fact that instead, there is a massive hamster wheel, which is kept turning by Godzilla.

No, this theory does not explain volcanic activity but.. Shu'p.

Godzilla breathes fire every once in awhile, and that makes lava! And earthquakes happen when he isnt fed enough and throws a tantrum.

It all makes sense now!

That's why I heard strange roars coming from beneath the Grand Canyon and why there's an eye inside the Icelandic volcano!

Thank you, my eyes have been opened

 

[the Dept of Science]

Go to Youtube and listen to gorilla199 [http://www.youtube.com/user/gorilla199]. According to him, every one out of five people is a Freemason, and 95% of all businesses are owned by an alien race called the Tares. Also, the letters O and X are signs of UFO's.

I think this guy has described pretty much every shape as a masonic/satanic/alien symbol at some point. Except the rectangle, he seems pretty cool with the neutral rectangle.

 

[George Palmer]

That and that reason why dogs noses are wet because they used their nose to plug up a hole in the Ark lawl.

HAHAHAHA! Ive never heard that one before! THAT IS AWESOME!!

 

[Rhymenoceros]

I don't know where to start.

Ok, Royal Bloodlines, Mars, Tom Cruise, Star Wars, and the Black Pope is a classic...


But at the end of the day, the timecube [http://www.timecube.com/] is damn awesome.

I just clicked the little "time Cube" link and that webssite is incredibly abusive! To quote (and I would like to emphasize the fact that this is not my thoughts but the website says)

"...White Americans deserve to be hacked to death by the Black Race...Humans are evil bastards...I have SuperNatural Wisdom...the slaughter of the White Race by the Black Race - and Rightfully so...USA ripe for holocaust...More holocaust deserved...damn evil AMERICANS should have their tongue cut out for the heinous hoax they are perpetrating upon their own children... I know now why the Jewsdeserved their holocaust" etc.

Also it is incredibly hard to actually read the sentences. I have a feeling he never passed an English exam!

 

[SnipErlite]

"Baconnaise"

Not on topic at all, but Baconnaise is a fucking genius invention. You are the only other person I know who has heard of it.

Well done, good sir.

 

[TheJwalkR]

There's that women on YouTube that thinks that we are at fault for rainbows. Something about chemicals leaching out of the ground and the government wants to keep it a secret.

 

[johnzaku]

I think the world should know about the conspiracy involving

This submition has been edited

 

[gigastrike]

My personal favorite:

The large hadron collider is actually an attempt by Satan's followers to burn a hole in the Earth's magnetosphere, allowing solar radiation to reach the Earth and cause a gateway to Hell to open and allow Satan and his army to take over the world. The Ancients, being geniouses who had knowledge that was lost over time (because Humans are getting stupider for no reason), knew that this whould eventually happen. In preparation, they created many temples across the world in the form of pyramids (the most prominent of which being the Great Pyramid at Giza). When the time comes, we have to find the hidden "Tomb of the Builder" and...do something...to activate the pyramids, which will then (here we go) fire lazers at the sky to power up the magnetosphere.