This Week in Conspiracy (11 April 2012)

It’s that time of the week, y’all, when I mosey up to biggest and baddest in conspiracy theory, size ’em up,  and brand them with humor. Then I run away, trying not to get gored.

Let’s see what’s shaking.

Not exactly the Durham Light Infantry

Twit of the Week:

President @BarackObama claims to be a Trekkie. But where’s the proof? Why won’t he release his fan fiction? — Conan O’Brien (@ConanOBrien)

Conspiracy Theory of the Week:

Well, that’s about all I can take this week folks. I have a backlog of conspiracy theories for you, but a lot of work to attend to in the near future. Also, my brother suckered someone into marrying him this weekend, and I need to write the best man’s toast. But I will keep my ear to the ground, don’t you worry.


By the way, I also write as “The Conspiracy Guy” for the CSICOP website. Visit me there for in-depth coverage of some of the major conspiracy theories. My latest is about the Denver International Airport.

4 Responses to This Week in Conspiracy (11 April 2012)

  1. Pacal says:

    I loved the Conservatives distrust Science link. It linked to a New York Post opinion piece that engaged in selective cherry picking to justify “Conservative” distrust of Science.

    What was really funny was the comment at the end about Paul Erlich’s The Population Bomb and Eugenics. Aside from forgetting about the large number of “Conservatives” who supported Eugenics it ignores that Paul Erlich’s “screed” was not accepted mainstream opinion regarding the population problem. And of course this ignores that population increase was and still is a significant problem. One of the reasons why Erlich’s “predictions” now seem in many respects rather quaint is precisely because measures to reduce the rate of population increase were taken and that the rate of increase has massively slowed down since he wrote his book. I should also point out that the rates of increae have also sharply declined in western developed countries so that predicted levels of resource extraction to maintain piopulations at a high level of consumption were not necessary. I can remember when it was predicted that the population of the USA would reach over 400 million by the year 2000, ot that Europe would have a population of well in excess of 100 million more than it has now. All at very high levels of consumption and reseource extraction. It turned out that rates of increase were massively less than predicted so that the pressurer on resources has been less.

    But then the whole piece is one long screed to justify Conservative rejection of Global warming it seems. Ignoring the rather significant differernces between the Science of Global warming and the “Science” of Eugenics to say nothing of the Science of population increase. Neither Eugenics nor Population Bomb stuff were consensus Science positions unlike the general consensus about Global warming.

    I note the author fluffs away “Conservative” support for Creationism.

  2. Bob says:

    Heh. (I’d say more, but I basically agree!)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: