"Or we will make your internet network destroyed.”
Too late! Turnbull beat you too it.
Anonymous has threatened to start a cyberwar with Anonymous. The peculiar threat can be traced back to Edward Snowden, who among his many revelations has alleged that Australia and the USA spied on Indonesia during the 2007 United Nations climate change conference held on the island of Bali. Indonesia's government is, …
This post has been deleted by its author
Most masks are not bought from traditional outlets as a lot of places no longer carry them but because of the growing demand there are independent manufacturers and stores like myanonstore and blasted rat that sell your non traditional and royalty free masks and products that they use the profits to go back into freeanons.org to send money and pay legal fees for members that are incarcerated.
People they can rule out immediately:
• those with a decent grasp of the English language;
• those who have ever contributed anything constructive to society;
• anti-bullying campaigners and their sympathisers;
• anybody that thinks, on reflection, that joining a baying mob is a bad idea.
I would do but since Anonymous has been active for several years there's quite a lot of evidence about their hive mind and since this article is about — amongst other things — one lot of them trying to change the global surveillance infrastructure by defacing a dry cleaning company, the criteria you mention would falsely exclude a lot of Anonymous members.
Or maybe you know something we don't? Maybe the dry cleaning company wasn't falsely classified based on no evidence? Maybe the Australian government does all its spy work via cleaning companies?
Because that cartoon strip was, like many things in Mad Magazine, satire which referred to a deeper truth; that the intelligence agencies are unaccountable beasts that spend taxes on fighting one another, so that they can then claim that ever more money needs to be spent on them so that they may more effectively fight the other intelligence agencies. Whether anything really useful comes out of this is another matter entirely. The job creation scheme for social misfits goes on.
Yes, I know we need intelligence agencies, but they need to be kept in check by Parliament. Watching MPs give them an easy ride and then summoning the Editor of the Guardian was a sign of what has gone wrong in this country - privatisation and unaccountable agencies gaining power, and Parliament falling into disrepute because it cannot rein them in for ideological reasons.
Er - 'spy' on a CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE?
AFAIK, They are full of boring left-wing activists proposing grandiose plans to spend other people's money. Anything that is agreed there will be spread all over the green press, and pretty much all of it will be pointless verbiage.
Perhaps this might have been used as a NSA training exercise...?
And the the extreme, right-winged, unholy alliance of religious nuts and the mega rich who either think God has his hand on the Earth's thermostat, or don't give a damn as their only god is money, will twist, warp and inflate that verbiage all for the sake of keeping the ignorant in the dark! And how easy it is.
To neglect the only life support system that keeps humanity alive is a very stupid and dangerous thing to do.
Isn't that novel! Someone who picks and chooses which 'facts' they wish to believe according to their own dogmatic small-mindedness accusing all others with opposing beliefs to be the ones guilty of conspiracy. Even more idiotic when the stakes are so high. That axe murderer you gave evidence against has been released on a technicality and his first stop after drinking 15 pints was the hardware store for a new hatchet. He threatened to do you if he ever got out. There's only a seventy percent chance he's on his way over to split your skull in two, so do nothing. It's not conclusively proven he's gonna harm ya! Do nothing!
And as the aforementioned unholy union of lunatics always spout, follow the money:-
ExxonMobile (largest funder of charlatan climate sceptics): $1billion a day revenue
The 99% of Climate Scientists that agree with AGW: Probably around $1billion per decade
Keep following that trail. Don't stop off at that evangelist church for more fairy tales, or Nigel Lawson's house, so he can pop open a few more £500 blood money bottles of champagne.
Why? Because I don't believe in God, can see the through the Machiavellian agenda of the ultra-rich, and weigh up all scientific evidence before making up my mind, especially with regards to global issues of enormous consequence?!
Shame you don't have any arguments of your own to defend your ignorant and reckless assertions. Ain't it time you were off out for a copy of today's Daily Mail?
Actually, it's you who is projecting. At no time did I claim you believed in God and my dig at the Daily Mail was merely a joke, one that has appeared to go straight over your morose head.
Your pugnacious attitude alludes that you are hostile to the concept of AGW, and that certain makes you ignorant, not to mention short-sighted and reckless. The evidence is overwhelming, at least to those us who still have open minds and are prepared to weigh up all sides of the scientific argument.
Your antagonistic rhetoric also speaks volumes about you, and your nature; people who feel the need to attack and belittle others are almost always suffering from some kind of personality disorder. Therefore you are the person here most in need of professional help. Go on, seek it before it's too late and dispel those demons that implore you to attack others as a surrogate for those who have harmed you in the past.
Steve, Have you taken your medication today? You seem to be suffering from some form of persecution complex as I haven't been remotely antagonistic to you or your beliefs.
Anyway, I have to go and cook the Sunday Dinner now, it not a religious thing mind you, its just that it is nice for the family to sit around a table at least once a week for a communal meal. Roast beef and Yorkshire pudding today. Hmmm.
Ahhh! The all too predictable switch to passive-aggressive behaviour, *the* standard lateral move by those whose overt aggression doesn't appear to be getting them anywhere. And you accuse me of persecutory delusions!!
Which beggars the question, have you skipped your tranquillisers today?!
Now my turn to be facetious, enjoy your meal !
Firstly, Steve, AGW has not been proven at all. Secondly, the split between the scientists that support AGW and those that don't is nowhere near the 99:1 you wish to baaaah-lieve, and the split amongst actual climate scientists as opposed to bandwagon-humping scientists is actually skewed the other way.
Your comment about overt and passive-aggressive behaviour was neatly regurgitated, where did you copy it down from? It only seems to illustrate that you do not have a passive capability.
And finally, it has been fun poking fun at you and the hilariously close-minded way you absolutely accept your baaaah-liefs. I can only assume it is driven by your outrage that anyone would poke fun at your fellow Anonypoopers (oops, not at all sorry, i think i just did). Enjoy!
As I said earlier, Daily Mail. The only reason the Earth is warm enough to support life is the natural levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Add more, and temperatures go up. It ain't rocket science. Even someone as ignorant as yourself could understand it, if they weren't blinded by those playing a dangerous game of misinformation (EXXon and their $1 billion a day revenues to protect). And if you start extracting info from sources other than the DM, Fox News, bought and paid for septic sites, etc, then you'd know the number of credible climate scientists that oppose AGW is tiny, even though the deniers wheel out plenty of bought and paid for charlatans.
"Your comment about overt and passive-aggressive behaviour was neatly regurgitated, where did you copy it down from?" My brain, the place I process and assess all the credible information I gather. Your comment about me having no passive side just illustrates your complete lack of understand of the concept of passive-aggression in the context I used it. You're not the brightest crayola in the pack, are you?!
My mind is wide open to new credible science. It's people like you who are close-minded. I may as well go argue on some crazy American Evangelist site as debate important matters with people as intellectually challenged as yourself and mr anonymous guy (who could well be another of your profiles).
Do you think I'm bother that I've had fun poked at me by imbeciles?! Amazing how idiots think they look clever! In fact, when people are as ignorant as you, they invariable are the ones who look stupid.
"....The only reason the Earth is warm enough to support life is the natural levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Add more, and temperatures go up....." Firstly, clouds are much more of a factor than CO2. Secondly, no-one has clearly demonstrated any actual conclusive link between man and the alleged rise in temperature or CO2, so gutting our own economies to please a bunch of frothing hippies is not going to happen. I also suggest you go Yahoogle "global cooling" as that seems to be what is happening despite the hippies shrieking "wolf!" so loudly.
"....even though the deniers wheel out plenty of bought and paid for charlatans...." Gee, now which side of the argument was it that came out with the infamous Hockey Stick Graph? LOL! You may also want to check into the inconvenient truth of how much money was and is being made by those selling the AGW story.
Look, this thread is for laughing our asses off at the Anontputzs, there have already been plenty of threads on El Reg where we have exhaustively debunked and laughed at the AGW fanatics. Simply slap AGW into the El Reg search tool and get ready to be really upset, and leave us to enjoy our Anon-baiting without your dribbling interruptions, mmmmkay?
> AGW has not been proven at all.
In science, outside mathematics and theoretical physics, nothing is ever proven. Theories based on statistical correlations such as that drinking and driving leads to a higher incidence of car accidents or that the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to rising global temperature, are by their very nature impossible to prove.
In those fields science progresses by consensus, by the preponderance of evidence.
This is the case for climate science, where 98% of scientists feel that the preponderance of evidence shows that anthropogenic global warming is real. That is a normal level for a scientific field -- there's always a few crackpots, the situation is the same with e.g. evolution -- and before consensus was reached there was in the 80's a lively debate on whether AGW was real.
Scientifically the issue is settled: AGW is real and ongoing. That people like you for ideological and financial reasons oppose this, is your problem, not ours.
This is the case for climate science, where 98% of scientists feel that the preponderance of evidence shows that anthropogenic global warming is real.
90%+ of those with a political opinion who call themselves scientists share the same political opinion.
70%+ of the scientists who've written papers on the matter have not expressed a political opinion either way, because, well, they're actually scientists. That includes the majority of scientists whose papers are used by the political activist organizations like the IPCC.
Since you're obviously math-challenged, that means less than 30% of those claiming to be climate scientists (after all this includes many papers from nut jobs like Greenpeace and engineers for the Indian national railway) are actually part of your 'overwhelming majority'
> 90%+ of those with a political opinion who call themselves scientists share the same political opinion.
Are you suggesting that science is subjective? Because it sure sounds like it. Incidentally, 100.0% of scientists have "a political opinion", and when 98% of them agree on a particular issue that should tell you something.
> 70%+ of the scientists who've written papers on the matter have not expressed a political opinion either way, because, well, they're actually scientists.
This is nonsense, as you've clearly arbitrarily defined "political opinon" as "reports findings in support of anthropogenic global warming". I.e. you're committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Don't take my word for it, look up where you're own 90%+ number comes from beyond the mere headline.
People asked those publishing papers on climate what their political opinion was. The majority refused to give one, 90%+ of the minority shared the same opinion. Since that was the narrative the people asking the question wanted to push, that's the number they lead the publication of their results with and what the public media headline writers followed.
Further, not all those publishing papers are in any meaningful way scientists. There's been more than trace amounts of fraud, mostly (but not all) from the believers. Think CRU, Mann's hockey stick, Pachauri's glaciers, Greenpeace and Sierra club as IPCC contributors and on and on.
Less than 30% of total authors of papers (including those such disreputable groups and individuals) is decidedly not 98% of legitimate scientists.
Climate always has and always will change. Whether we can/are influencing that (including whether reversal of any change is possible regardless of whether the original change is man made) is intriguing and worthy of study.
That terms like 'settled science', or 'climate denier' equating temperature swings with mass executions, would even be invented, much less used publicly should be a source of shame. Such Alinskyite terms make it very obvious that the most extreme radical Malthusian left wing of the environmental movement is making a concerted effort to hijack that process of study.
Anyone, therefore, who actually cares even the slightest about scientific process, levels of taxation, state control of individuals or any combination of those, will view such hijacking of science by leftist political interests (and less frequently economic interests on the other side) with greatly hightened suspicion and raise their threshold for the level of evidence they need to support political action on a massively disruptive scale.
This is why the number of agnostics on this issue is growing. Trying to beat people into submission with over-the-top rhetoric and blatantly disingenuous numbers like your 98% is counter-productive as it only arouses their suspicions.
Funny thing about agnostics though. If you stop trying to beat them over the head, and shouting down your opposition, and instead stick to reason and science (not contaminated by being built on the work of the aforementioned charlatans) we can be persuaded.
The more you uncritically bleat regurgitated nonsense like your 98% number, though, the harder that will be. I say that as someone who used to believe AGW was likely rather than merely slightly possible.
It's actually a wonder you have the time to make lunch or respond ineffectively to my comments, the time you must spend creating new accounts so you can childishly downvote other people's posts. There again, they'll stand you in good stead next time someone responds curtly to another of your provocative comments.
".....the time you must spend creating new accounts so you can childishly downvote other people's posts...." LOL, it is obviously far too painful to your ego to accept that more than one person might disagree with what you have been told is The Truth. Get over yourself.
People who post as AC don't have the courage in their convictions to post as their own account. Considering how little AC's add to the quality of the debate in these forums it'd be no great loss to block the lot (oh look, downvotes for that I'm sure!).
As for baaaa-liefs, really? Do you use the word 'sheeple' too? Top tip - using phrases like that (suggesting that all free thinkers hold their belief therefore everyone else is a dumb follower) looks quite, quite unhinged. It won't get the flock of sheep like baaaaa lievers to come round to understand the opinion you hold strongly, just write you off as another internet mentaller. If your point is strong enough, argue it without the bizarre language, innuendo and pseudo superiority and you might help people see the light.
"Considering how little AC's add to the quality of the debate in these forums it'd be no great loss to block the lot "
Strongly disagree. There are some truly good and insightful AC comments, which probably would not have seen daylight in other conditions. Difficult to search for good examples right now, on a bloody touchscreen, but if it is important, I'll find some.
Not to mention a culture of writing anonymous pamphlets, which may be long forgotten by now, but did strongly influence principles set forth in First Amendment. Heh. In modern parlance, founding fathers did not mind anonymous trolling, because they did it themselves.
Anyhow. It is a question of signal-to-noise ratio, and how much noise is someone able to tolerate. I'd say that 1:500 would be a very decent ratio, especially considering that noise is quite easy to filter out. There is really no need to kill the good signal.
Steve, as someone believing sufficiently in the likelihood of human-generated climate change to alter my own consumption patterns quite a bit:
You are not helping. Not one bit.
Not catching flies with vinegar, you know. In fact, folks like you make it all the easier to pass off climate change as the fantasy of a bunch of nutcase greens wanting everyone to wear hairshirts.
Claiming that AGW scientist have only gotten $1B in a decade is disingenuous. I'm sure you can find at least that much $ floating around in AGW-oriented satellite missions.
Which is as it should be. Climate change is likely to turn out to be a real problem. But don't claim that climate change science isn't well-funded. It is. What's lacking is democratic will in many countries and unwillingness in even more individuals to curb their own CO2 emissions.
That's a public relation problem, not a science problem.
"...the time you must spend creating new accounts so you can childishly downvote other people's posts..."
Your foaming at the mouth ain't helping one bit ;-)
Me? Not dogmatic. If Matt Bryant's "science" is ever proven right (hah!), am a-gonna buy mahself a vintage H1 Hummer.
I have to LOL at this comment thread.
The extremist AGW positions on both sides of the debate sound like an argument between religious nuts. Both are absolutely certain that their view is correct, but they do not try to debate, they just shout at the other side, as they are clearly wrong and stupid.
I often wish we could just get on with destroying the planet, and our own species. I think the universe would be better off without us...
> I often wish we could just get on with destroying the planet
We are. Effectively no attempt is made to conserve or manage resources, and "peak everything" is now actually considered a realistic scenario.
> and our own species.
Oh no, our species will survive, our technology could keep our species alive even if Earth is turned into Mars or Mercury. It's just all species which are not of immediate use to us which are SOL.
"am a-gonna buy mahself a vintage H1 Hummer"
You could do that anyway, because most of the environmental damage has been done (and you are not likely to drive it the sort of miles that will have a significant effect).
Driving around in old second hand cars for low mileages is a relatively benign pursuit.
If Matt Bryant is right (as if) then you should buy yourself a new Sunseeker, kit it out exclusively with threatened tropical hardwood species, and power it with the biggest two stroke outboards you can find. (a couple of 150HP Mercurys* should do it). Admittedly you'll just look like a successful US plumber, but the resource consumption will be rather more conspicuous.
*Yes, they still make the things. I wonder if they also donate to the Heartland Institute?
Quite so. The sheer number of over-the-top shriekers and conspiracy theorists on both sides of the debate, but particularly among the AGW believers, only serve to move ever more of the sane people into the agnostic camp. Which is probably an acceptable result for the skeptics, but definitely counter-productive for the believers.
Like the homeless guy on the street corner downtown alternately screaming about religion and 'get these giant spiders off me' probably doesn't convince many to show up to church on Sunday.
Of course he's also hard to distinguish from Greenpeace protesters by appearance or smell.
"Quite so. The sheer number of over-the-top shriekers and conspiracy theorists on both sides of the debate, but particularly among the AGW believers, only serve to move ever more of the sane people into the agnostic camp...." Too true, but the real fun bit is they think their shrieking is actual going to work! Too funny for words!
They should try something a bit more subtle. Think of it in terms of those crack-handed attempts at sex ed at school that were really little more than telling you your tool would turn green and drop off if you stuck it in an indecent number of holes. Did that ever stop anyone? It probably boosted the sales of condoms but it didn't stop my generation being promiscuous. When I was trying to point out the virtues of monogamy to my son I didn't show him pics of diseased members, I simply sat him down and let him watch the clever horror of "Fatal Attraction". He still can't eat rabbit even now but then he was only ten at the time.
This post has been deleted by its author
>When I was trying to point out the virtues of monogamy to my son... let him watch the clever horror of "Fatal Attraction" He still can't eat rabbit even now but then he was only ten at the time.
Matty, you're even dumber than usual here. Hard to believe, but true ;-)
Traumatize a kid to achieve what? I don't aim to have my daughter (or son) be a slut, but I'd rather have either kick a few tires before getting settled. Buddy of mine's brother married the bitch from hell, mostly because she was his first and he dinna know any better.
Then again, I really don't think we'd have anything to say over a beer. Or coffee, if you're a teetotaler.
Dumb a** caricature of right wing stupidity. Just as annoying as the left wing version.
".....Traumatize a kid to achieve what?....." Oh dear, I forgot the majority of the sheeple need sarc tags for every joke. Just try and concentrate on the idea of a subtle moral tale as opposed to the typical "you're all doomed" shrieking of the AGW fanatic sheeple. Oh crap, someone please think of a way to explain "subtle" to the sheeple.....
Aw, is ickle lambkins sulking? Don't worry, if you ever grow up you might be lucky enough to leave the flock and actually find an adult capable of explaining it all to you. In the meantime, please do go join your woolly chums in shooting each other in the hooves and giving plenty of info to help the coppers identify you all.
This post has been deleted by its author
Originally Anonymous was the user community of 4Chan, and was just a shifting rabble which spent its days harassing tween girls. Today's Anonymous is made up of 70% libertarian morons who want to play revolution, 20% law enforcement agents pretending to be libertarian morons, and 10% political fringe activists looking to use Anonymous for their own ends.
The libertarian morons change, but the the fringe activists and the law enforcement agents are permanent and act as leaders. One could call it an organization. Personally I call it "Assange's Private Army".
Your statement is incorrect because your numbers add up to 100%, and the Venn diagram would show considerable overlap. I am sure that there are, for instance, significant numbers of law enforcement agents who are political fringe activists, either of the right or the hard left, and the overlap between libertarian morons and political fringe activists must be close to 100%.
You missed out "hormonally messed up aggressive young men who feel a sense of grievance", and I suspect that they form about 50%.
"Originally Anonymous was the user community of 4Chan" not true
Anonymous was the name used on western chat boards in place of the longer name that was used on Japanese chatboards that basically meant the same thing. There was only one board that enforced anonymous traditionally. So anonymous came from 2ch, as did the general mentality of large groups of nihilistic and generally intelligent people when removed from responsibility and real world sensibilities, they would all act like oinks and follow the fun where it went. Which makes you wonder what SA and Ebaums users excuses were...
Nowadays anon is not the same as the old anon, as the one of the main tenants was "not your personal army" of the main anon that everyone assumes is the only source of anon. People did shit they found funny, examples being, facebook raids when someone had dropped users and passwords on the internets and blocking pools in habbo as they had aids, sharing cat memes, making new cat memes and celebrating caturday. It probably got all moral faggy around the time of Hal Turner, but I'd grown up by then. and endless adorable cats and longcat vs tacgnol was no longer what I wanted to do at night.
Also, you meet them every day and know how annoying they are. For instance, it was hard in closing phases of WW2 for American soldiers to build up a lot of anti-German hatred because they hardly ever met them, usually having shelled and strafed them from a considerable distance. The Russians, on the other hand, knew exactly what the Germans were like from years of combat, which is why they didn't take a lot of prisoners.
This post has been deleted by its author
And so it begins!
this is how the whole 'movement' will go, with no actual aims, strategy or ideas about what they want, all it takes is petty mistakes and interior disagreements to bring the whole thing down, the problem with anarchy is you can’t control it, as soon as you do it is no longer the same, all that is needed is for one section to make a stand against something that another supports and they will descend into splinter upon splinter upon splinter group.
That could just about describe almost any political party. Look at the Republicans and the British Conservatives; fundamentalist Christians, both protestant and catholic varieties, trying to stay in league with libertarians; paternalists trying to stay in league with people who don't believe in society; "economic liberals" trying to stay together with people who would like to use pork barrel to stay electable; isolationists trying to agree with interventionists. And all because they define themselves as "conservatives" meaning "I don't like change, unless it's me getting richer".
I haven't got enough time, patience or space to begin to do the same job for socialist parties.
The difference is that those parties agree (or at least attempt to) on a direction, aim, view point, or policy, they have an elected figure head who represents them to the rest of the public and is in charge of controlling (for want of a better word) the party/group/organisation to ensure that while they might have disagreements they stay on course to achieve the previously mentioned direction, aim, view point, or policy.
And if the elected figure head appears unable to find his arse with both hands and a fully automated arse-finding radar, and one part of his "party" is constantly trying to represent the current policy as being completely different from what another part thinks?
Basically you are describing the theory of the Fuehrerprinzip, but using lots of weasel words to indicate that in reality the ship is merely a flotilla which is more or less drifting with a current, that the person who thinks he's the admiral is merely in the most visible part of it, and that bits of it periodically collide with one another. The only difference from Anonymous is that, presumably, every supporter of Anonymous thinks he is going in the mainstream direction.
what is this?
So, Anonymous which, like al quaida, is a headless organization for the desperate has an Indonesian branch that decides to attack Australian companies for alleged misbehavior of the Australian government on one side and Anonymous Australia that is suggesting legit targets to their Indonesian counterparts on the other.
Now, how is this Anonymous attacking Anonymous ?????? there is no Anonymous, there are millions of Anonymous, some of which team up to fight for what they feel is a legit cause ... Anonymous Australia cannot attack Anonymous Indonesia ... for the simple fact that Anonymous is just a bunch of thousands/millions of DISTINCT hosts ..... Where is the elreg fuck up icon ?
BTW, have you hired the Daily Mail editor in chief or something ?????? I mean, seriously, you are trying headline over content ...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021