"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, …
Too late! Turnbull beat you too it.
>"Or we will make your internet network destroyed.”
>Too late! Turnbull beat you too it.
All your base are mine.
Anonymous because, well, it just has to be that way.
But who will know whom to attack?
Posted anonymously, of course...
Anyone sporting a V for Vendetta mask for a start...
(After all, how would 'the man' know you were sticking it to him without buying one of his (Time Warner) licenced products?)
Alan Moore and David Lloyd find this all very amusing and Time Warner supposedly feel very uncomfortable about the association (but not enough to stop taking the money).
Time for a homemade Spy vs Spy mask because it will be panto season soon enough...
>implying they are all legit with royalties paid. Cheap Chinese imports like everything else.
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.
add to that list
people who are judgemental and want to categorise people based on no evidence.
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?
>>>Cheap Chinese imports like everything else.<<<
That'll show 'em! Oppress the sweat shop workers in the name of freedom! Barista logic.
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.
"Maybe the Australian government does all its spy work via cleaning companies?"
... does this all remind me of the Cartoon strip "Spy Vs. Spy"?
Wow! Talk about a blast from the past!
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.
Careful Steve, your conspiracy ideation is showing.
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.
Steve, you need to seek help.
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?
Steve, you are projecting. I have not stated any position on this yet you are claiming I believe in God, am making ignorant reckless assertions and that I read the Daily Mail.
You really do need help. I hope you find it.
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!
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.
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.
"I"? You are posting as AC, and your opinions are of no value whatsoever because we can't see your posting history. Anonymous has no "I"; it's just the views of the mob, or the people who work the mob.
".....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.
"....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.
> 'spy' on a CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE?
Yes. The outcome of climate change conferences potentially count in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and potentially threaten the entire economy of petrocountries such as Russia and Iran.
I played that whole thing through my mind using the voice from the Stanley parable. Encore!
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.
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.
There are other reasons for remaining anonymous.
When 99% of a group follows the guy who lost his supporting data, I kinda lose the faith.
All of the horrible predictions of extreme weather have caused massive brain melt.
I don't know about your extreme weather, but mine has been extremely nice.
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 guess you don't live in the Philippines then.
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...
Ah, its a storm and its big therefore it must be due to climate change.
Perhaps you could point to the scientific literature demonstrating the link? Don't bother pointing to the IPCC report as even they don't go in for this nonsense.
It seems like this thread is for Fat Bryant gathering more downvotes to his grand total. Another one with problems over scientific evidence. Oh well
You've not met our resident troll before? He goes by the name of Matt Bryant. You'll like him.
"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?
I want a popcorn icon! (to go with the beer)
Irresistible force meets immovable object troll vs idiot wars!
> 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.
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.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017