Podcast: Play in new window | Download
This week on The Gralien Report, to celebrate the kickoff of Bilderberg 2015 (and National Bourbon Appreciation Day), Micah and the Gralien Reverend Matt Oakley indulge in a bit of conspiracy news, as well as strange news relating to marine biology, and an analysis of the new budding relationship between science and religion… or more specifically, Pope Francis and Climate Change.
Then in hour two, we are visited in the Bunker, once again, by a truly “alien” individual: the entity known only as “Victor”, who first came onto our radars in conspiracy circles as a purported employee at the famed – and highly secretive – Area 51. Victor, also hailing from the future, shares information with us about the coming Singularity, and even what role Neil Degrass Tyson may play in the future of humanity. Finally, taking our tongues out of our cheeks, we turn to a frightening World War II incident that has led many conspiracy theorists to believe a nuclear weapon had been tested at Port Chicago, California. But had that really been the case, and is there evidence to support the claim? We tackle this, and much more, on this week’s edition of The Gralien Report.
Want more from the Gralien Report?
Follow The Gralien Report on Twitter, and Like Us on Facebook. For more from The Boys in the Bunker, consider a subscription to Gralien X, which features additional weekly podcasts, monthly Gralien Enigmas, and more fine content (and sorry, but no, we still can’t disclose the whereabouts or identity of “Victor”… not even to our loyal subscribers).
by 
Energy production companies have spent tens of millions of dollars to paralyze discussion of global warming in America by obfuscating the issue. There is nothing “controversial” about anthropogenic global warming. Protestant fundamentalists as well as Catholics need to include it in their end times visions. Pope Francis is great because he proposes taking political action, which can only mean to stop burning so-called “fossil fuels” (with apologies to Freeman Dyson) with all deliberate speed on a world-wide basis.
I have never rejected the appellation “conspiracy theorist” because that is a catch-all label applied to those with compelling evidence mainstream authorities want to suppress, as well as to those with scant evidence. Scientific theory has a function to “explain,” as well as to predict and describe, leaving plenty of room for ontology as well as for fortean phenomena. Why do so many people laugh when someone suggests that two billionaires could put their heads together and plan to commit actions they might wish be kept secret? The way to call anyone a liar is to call her a conspiracy theorist. The right uses this to tar their enemies, and the left refuses to admit that individuals can have any influence on history. So, we might say that the penchant to call everyone with unpalatable or politically incorrect views a “conspiracy theorist” is itself a conspiracy between the right and the left.
Thank you for the information about the “Port Chicago” disaster. I think the racism of the Navy’s response. My research into conspiracy theory has been in relation to how these became the most popular phenomena on the Internet. My suspicion is that a lot of the debunking, as well as the conspiracy theories, are in fact disinformation spread in an organized fashion by factions, such as big oil and black operations, who prefer to keep a cloud of obfuscation over public opinion.
Somehow, my thumb bleeped out:
“I think the racism of the Navy’s response to the “mutiny” is far more important than any conspiracy theory about a nuclear detonation. Nevertheless, The Manhattan Project was the most successful conspiracy in history that was later unveiled. Never let it be said that thousands of people cannot participate in a conspiracy without getting caught.
“Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.”
????????????
The fact that Thomas Jefferson never said that makes it not less true.
Your co-host said something that I often hear. It is something that is generally said with little thought. He said, regarding climate change, “when we start believing the 3% over the 97% we have a problem.” That is a rigid even dogmatic acceptance of scientific consensus. Consensus is not science. How many times throughout history have dogmas masquerading as science been proven false? Let me name one who everyone likes to bring up, Galileo. Had he accepted the scientific consensus of the day we would still be studying an earth centric solar system. How many centuries passed by with mankind’s most brilliant minds believing that maggots spontaneously came from rotting meat? It is the people who question the dogma who make the advances. Do not make the mistake of worshipping at the feet of scientific consensus. After all, your show is dedicated to the study of the paranormal, a subject which scientific consensus has largely written off as nonsense including the study of extraterrestrials.
There is no doubt that the climate is changing. The climate is always changing as the earth moves and wobbles around its axis. The debate is the impact man has on the climate. It appears man has little control over what mother nature can throw our way.
Can we predict global climate change? Hell, my weather man can’t predict next week’s weather with certainty, what kind of arrogance is required to think some computer programmed by a weather man can model a centuries worth of climate?
The hundreds of millions spent by big oil to create doubt about global warming in the public mind and paralyze public policy were obviously not wasted on you. I consider Carl Sagan’s take on science to be scientistic, an actual religion, not acknowledging its own metaphysical presumptions. An important goal of science is in fact explanation, which has not been met by QED at all, as even the high energy physicists acknowledge. Quantum reality is indeed fortean, and intersects with mind in ways we cannot even begin to understand. NASA is, to my way of thinking, clearly dominated by Nazis, almost surely by Freemasons, and possibly even in contact or even run by aliens. I never believed Carl Sagan’s statement that no “alien contactor” had ever offered him information not already well known to humankind.
Global warming, however, is a different matter. The reason for the scientific consensus on the subject is that the mathematical models on which the predictions are based are the best available. Anthropogenic global warming is an acknowledged fact as well as theory, as also is evolution. Just as with evolution, the pathways through time are still fortean, but the basic fact that it exists, and the theory on which it is based, are well grounded in evidence and well explained by theory. The 2012 conversion of the greatest nay-sayer who ever researched the subject, from all of the angles you suggested, with all the funding the Koch brothers could provide, should help anyone understand the issues. His new Website is a now a national treasure, and will certainly receive even the attention of policy makers now that the Pope has weighed in with his moral authority.
You have provided no counter-arguments, any more than Michael Crichton did. All you are doing is sitting on the fence, with nothing more than bought and paid for Republican Party and Tea Party propaganda for guidance. What I love about this Website is that the master is in fact skeptical, but not to the point of nihilism or solipsism. Try it sometime. As the zombie on the police microphone in “Night of the living dead” said on the police microphone, bring more police.” Metaphor: “police” = “knowledge to the table.” I am not suggesting that you do not think critically perhaps in other areas, but critical thinking requires knowledge and wisdom. The more you know, the more more you can figure out. In this case, a little effort may will bring you outstanding intellectual rewards. This is not an ad hominem attack, but you cannot show intellectual weakness in any intelligent discussion.
I used to be all in with the climate change doomsayers.
Recently, however, I have begun questioning simply due to the endless supply of bad predictions. A computer model is only as good as your understanding of the subject, and in that, I believe us humans have a long ways to go…
Lots of money is being spent on both sides of this issue.
I would speculate that 97% of scientists also want grants from the federal government. I would also speculate that the naysayers have their own interests involved. Neither side of this debate can be completely trusted.
Anyone considered that a lot of this may be simply related to the solar cycle? Who would possibly think of link solar maximums to extreme weather events?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum
This said, I am sure humanity is having some effect on the climate. My personal predictions would put it at a much lower level then that giant star that heats our planet.
I think we should absolutely invest in “clean energy” (more because it is just good practice then to prevent any imminent doomsday), however, I take all the current research on both sides with a very, very large grain of salt.
I do think that if we continue to populate the planet at the current rate, and as our race increases it’s technology levels, however, the human effect will increase greatly.
I do wonder how much it would lessen humanity’s effects on the climate if more people were simply able to work from their computer at home rather then all that excess travel each day. My guess is that this would do more for our climate then any of the other silly ideas the elites have to make money out of it.
In the morning!
You have gotten a lot of that right. There is, in fact a conspiracy, institutional bias, or call it whatever you will, on both sides of this “issue,” if you want to call it that. It is no thought crime to take issue with the policies and programs of the IMF, the World Bank, and the “Free Traders,” who all claim to be flying a flag of green revolution. I do not think we can avert immediate crisis unless and until we all start working on solutions, without regard to the false gods of the elites. “Think globally, act locally” seems to be the earth response to this problem.
“I will not hesitate to terminate this interview(hobbs)!” I busted out laughing at work!