Unfortunately - no amendment has *ever* been passed in this manner. Many have been tried, it's never worked.
The option exists, but if it actually happened it would be the first one in history. The simple truth is that amendments via congress are the only kind that's ever actually succeeded.
Has anybody ever considered that the 'cheating' could have been consensual ? Polyamory and similar arangements have been around long before they had a name... and if you were a high profile politician who chose such a relationship structure you sure as hell would keep it quiet. Getting caught in another relationship it would actually be LESS damaging to pretend you were cheating than to say "Hey my wife knew and my girlfriend and her boyfriend are best friends". That this is true is an indictment of the repressive nature of American culture, not of the Clintons. The same culture where one polyamorous man has had the parents of his departed former wife repeatedly have DCS try to take his kids away on the grounds that having a more than one adult in the household in "parent-like" roles is somehow abusive...
Of course - I have no evidence that the Clintons had any form of consensual non-monogamy agreement, but it is actually MORE likely than some of the things Trump supporters say about those events.
1) Secondary infringement is still not a crime in the US - or any other Berne Signatory country. 2) KickassTorrents actually had a better record of obeying DMCA takedown notices than Google - having obeyed 100% of all legitimate takedown requests and no false positives.
In case you were wondering the number of legitimate DMCA takedown requests kickasstorrents have received is zero. None of them could possibly, ever, be legitimate. The DMCA is a US law and does not apply to site owners in other countries. They are not bound to obey it's terms, or to obey any notice issued under it.
The reality is that no crime was committed here - and extradition should be denied. As it happens extradition treaties have a number of specific restrictions which are pretty much universal and all say this must be denied. Firstly extradition can only happen if the alleged activity is a crime in BOTH countries. You cannot be extradited for doing something that is legal in the place where you did it. In this case, the activity is not a crime in EITHER country. It may be a civil infringement - but that is not a crime, cannot be grounds for extradition, cannot be pursued by the state - and importantly, cannot happen across border. You can sue a foreigner only for things which are a infringements in his own country, using his own country's laws in his own country's courts. The plaintiff being the one who has to operate in a foreign court. That isn't what is happening here anyway so the point is moot. Furthermore extradition treaties only apply if the punishment for the aleged crime is similar in both nations. Plenty of non-death-penalty countries for example have a blanket refusal to extradite anybody to a death-penalty country for any capital crime, even if that crime was committed on the soil of the other country. That didn't happen here either. The US punishment for criminal copyright infringement (which this wasn't) is significantly harsher than most other countries so there's a pretty good chance this case doesn't meet the 'similar punishment if guilty' test.
There is no *sane* or just legal system that would approve this extradition request. The case then, becomes a very public test of the sanity, independence and commitment to justice of the Polish judiciary.
Nobody said anything about shutting it down except you. If a business goes bankrupt because they can't generate enough profits to cover expenses - there is nothing oppressive happening. It can often be a sad event - for the owners who invested in the business, the workers who are losing their livelihoods -even the customers who are losing their access to the product, but it's not an *evil* event.
There are plenty of evil forms of business bankruptcy - but this is literally a textbook example of the non-evil kind.
Shutting down implies some nefarious outside power forcing it to shut down. The only outside power involved here is the cost of bandwidth and infrastructure so unless you have some information that proves the ISP was charging 4chan more than they would charge any other site with similar traffic, there is no 'shutting down' being done.
>The FACT is, no other major world power has anything like the First Amendment.in the US constitution.
And you base this on the list of countries you can actually find on a map ? WTF ? Free speech, as is found in the first ammendment, has been enshrined in laws and constitutions since before the US even existed. And, in fact, MOST other countries have something like that. Yes, nearly all of it.
By the way - the US has only ever actually USED this oversight over ICANN twice - and both times it was used to do large-scale censorship. They used it to block the creation of.xxx (which counts as porn censorship) and they used it to take.iq offline when they went to war on the country. Censoring your enemy during a war is still censorship.
It isn't called the first ammendment in most other countries though - because in all the other country's it's not an amendment at all. It's in the original constitutions. We didn't just think 'hey, free speech may be a good thing' as an afterthought - we put it in our constitutions from first publication - generally as one of the very first rights there. There is pretty much no right in the US constitution I do not also have, and quite a lot I have that you don't. You have the 4th ammendment, I have Chapter 2, section 29. They say identical things - but we put it in our constitution on day one. We didn't have to slap it in an amendment some time later when it people complained. Compared to that - having to prove I know how to use a gun and can take care of it responsibly before I'm allowed to own one is a small price to pay. That's the only ACTUAL right Americans have more than the rest of the free world - and that's because the rest of us are not crazy. We don't WANT that one. You couldn't GET it passed as an amendment in the rest of the world because it simply would not have enough support.
If you read the damn article (I know I know) you would know the whole REASON why this was done was because, if it wasn't done, eventually it WOULD end up under the UN run ITU. The US did not want the UN controlling the root DNS tables, but they also knew they could not keep it to themselves forever either - the rest of the world do NOT look kindly on claims that the US is the only country who can be trusted with it - especially since they clearly cannot as the only country who has EVER use the TLD system for censorship WAS the United States (Ironically, under a government from Cruz's party).
Republicans don't want to allow this - but the REAL reason is because it means the next time they go to war on some backwater country it will be a LOT harder to shut down that country's TLD and take every website from that country offline.
To sum up what you said: when you restrict government censorship but not corporate censorship, as in the US, the only people with freedom of speech are those who don't fear financial ruin: which is to say the extremely rich and those with nothing to lose.
It's not surprize that both those subsets have large numbers of members who hold bizarre, even crazy, ideas.
You do know that there were dozens of more advanced routing prototocols developed in between the IP being created and the internet becoming mainstream right ? The most common was X.25 - and frankly if an X.25 network was the Mona Lisa then IP was the drawing on your fridge that your 3-year old did in crayon.
All those massive privately owned large-scale networks (mostly country-wide) which prolifirated in the 1980s under various governments and corporations had their own routing protocols, most made IP look primitive. The success of the internet over those networks was down to one thing and one thing only - the lack of a corporate or government control, which was mostly a result of it being primitive compared to the other networks which were around at the time. It was not the technology, it was the lack of authority and direct profit motive.
Ultimately entities trying to either control content or profit from all content on the network could not compete with a network where all the control and profits went to the person putting it on the network without any publisher's cut. Even if that meant using a less advanced technology.
You are thinking of a decentralized routing protocol using terminology that comes from how it's done now - but why ? The best approach would be to completely ignore everything the internet (and it's routing protocols) did - and frankly everything everybody else did as well - and design it from scratch. Instead of a hierarchical design like IP and DNS uses - use a complete peer-to-peer addressing scheme. A machine joins, requests and address, the network hands out a free one - and it keeps it until it releases it or doesn't use it for a certain time, and then the network simply prolifierates the path to that address over the peer-to-peer network much like DNS updates happen. It's not like swapping out the internet's routing protocols is hard - we've done it 4 times (each new version of BGP essentially obsoleted the old one and replaced it). It was easier to swap out the routing protocols than the IP protocol because there are a lot fewer routers than connected machines on the network and you your need to support legacy systems is smaller.
It may sound insurmountable to build an entirely new network on the same cables that replaces the internet with something better but it really isn't - the internet actually did that to dozens of other networks.
Then we build a new addressing protocol and a new routing protocol that doesn't need any centralized system. A peer to peer addressing scheme where you request one from a pool and you keep the one you got until you release it.
Do you think any part of the internet is not replacable ? We've already replaced most parts several times.
>You misunderstand: That IS the internet. It's really not. There are dozens of protocols for network addressing and when the internet actually became big the IP had long ceased to be anywhere near the best one. It was archaic long before the internet spread off university campusses. The internet's success came from the lack of government or corporate control - not from the technology, there were more advanced large scale networks before anybody outside academia had ever even heard of the internet. It displaced them due to lack of owners - not because of the technology. Cerf himself has said there are things he would do differently if he could do it over now. Many of which he wanted to do even then but the machines which arpanet ran on at the time (mostly PDP10's) simply didn't have the processing power to handle (like built-in by-default encryption). Anyway, IP is not even the lowest level protocol on the internet. What about the routing protocols ? What about the hardware protocols ? Those had improved over the years and, in fact, have proven to be better for a true internet BECAUSE they were easy to swap out.
We are tied to IP only because of the cost of changing, not because it's the best available tool for the job - hell we can't get the world to even adopt the best available version of IP. You overstate and greatly overestimate the important of IP to the internet. If one of the other early large networks with more advanced address protocols had offered the lack of either government or corporate control the early internet had - the internet would have died out before the 1990s even hit. As late as 1991 most computer scientists were convinced an information superhighway was coming and convinced it would not be the internet which was an archaic piece of technology that was simply nowhere near the best we had. The one thing they hadn't counted on was the attraction of a lack of centralized authority.
So removing one of the last vestiges of centralized authority can only strengthen the internet's sole good attribute.
Investing a private company over behaviour that was almost certainly criminal fraud... yeah that's the same thing.
Oh wait... no - that's literally the government's single most important job. It's the one job even the fucking libertarians think the government SHOULD be doing: investigating and prosecuting crimes to defend the liberties of the peoplel
>But for instance Obama & Holder not providing any sort of defence in support of the DOMA act.
You realize that 1) Not defending in a case is CHEAPER on tax payers than defending ? 2) Defending a constitutionality suit against a law you KNOW is not constitutional is an even greater waste of taxpayer money ? 3) Doing so for a law passed by the previous administration which you do not agree with and did not even vote for as a senator is the highpoint of stupidity ?
If anything, failing to raise a defence in that case is a counter-example, it's an example of the Democrats choosing NOT to waste the courts time by arguing a case that resulted from Bush being a fucking idiot.
Isn't it ironic that the stated reason the right wants to block this is 'to prevent governments from censoring the web' (conveniently ignoring that it will REDUCE the power of governments, both foreign and US to do anything - hell now they can't even ask the US to do it via diplomatic means... when literally the ONLY thing the US dept. of commerce has DONE with this oversight- EVER was an act of censorship (they blocked the creation of the.xxx domain).
Such complete bullshit. The US were fairly heavily involved in some of the pre-internet stuff that the internet would later be built on. But the US only contribution to the core of the internet was Vint Cerf's internet protocol. Everything else was collaboratively developed by people from all over the world, much of it with no US involvement at all. Including the internet's killer app - the world wide web, which was built at CERN in Switzerland.
So worst case scenario - somebody tries to cease your IP. Since no governments whatsoever will have any say in this after the fact all the stuff about Iran and North Korea is complete bullshit but maybe some private corporation may really dislike your page telling the world about the cyanide they dumped in your towns' drinking water or something. Somehow this multistakeholder group of non-government actors get convinced to start ceasing IPs in an oppressive manner.
That's the day the IPV6 transition actually happens. We don't have even IANA managing those - they don't need management because the supply exceeds the maximum theoretical demand a thousand times over.
Not one of those people is an expert in the field of climate, which is the first strike-down. Even the best scientists are sometimes wrong about things they believe passionately. Einstein was just plain wrong to reject the uncertainty principle. He was just plain wrong when be considered the cosmological constant his greatest failure - yes you can be wrong about being wrong too.
The reality is that I am not an expert, and I admit that, so I defer to people who are - and I admit that they are also better at evaluating the evidence than I am. In the absence of expertise, the logical and rational thing to do is to listen to experts. The vast majority of experts agree on this. A few rare voices do not. Now perhaps those people will turn out to be prophetic galileos - more likely they, like you, are letting their political views bias their scientific thinking.
If you had said NOTHING about "globalists" or anything else that reveals a political bias - basically your entire last two paragraphs - you may have made me reconsider. The moment you expressed a political opinion - and notably the one that is well known to bias people against research in this field - you made me file you under "too biased to take seriously".
It is possible that a few scientists could be swayed by political bias to make a mistake... what is not possible is that thousands of scientists can silently go along with being bribed. 29 Million dollars you say ? Divided among thousands. Where-as if just one of them publishes the proof that the theory is wrong, that's a guaranteed nobel prize, probably a dozen other prizes like the MacArthur grant, fame, guaranteed tenure and lifelong economic security. Why take a small fraction of 29 million (after division a few hundred thousand per grant at most - all of which is in grants so very little goes in your pocket, most get spent on equipment, the rest divided among the salaries of everybody in that faculty)... when you can get a minimum of 1.4 million for yourself (that's just the Nobel prize) by *not* going along with the conspiracy ? You seriously expect me to believe that scientists are so dumb they would go along with a conspiracy when doing so pays LESS than the reward for whistleblowing ? And not a little less- several orders of magnitude less. When doing so means getting subjected to some of the worst public ad hominem attacks, slanders and outright criminal attacks on a daily basis - while going against it would make you a hero ?
The problem with your conspiracy theory is two fold. One it's too large to be tenable. The odds of a successful conspiracy drops exponentially with every additional person involved. 6 people is a stretch. 60 can happen if the rewards are really, really good. Thousands ? No. Secondly the only thing that can counteract the many people effect is the level of reward for participation - and the maths just doesn't add up. The reward for playing along is so much smaller than the report for going against it, that there is no way none of those thousands of people are sane enough to do the math.
Okay, so what you are saying is that over the past 150 years we've stepped up CO2 production so much that what is considered one of the largest drivers of natural climate change (the largest after orbital shifts and solar changes) is now nothing but noise... and somehow this is an argument for the denier side ?
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately - no amendment has *ever* been passed in this manner. Many have been tried, it's never worked.
The option exists, but if it actually happened it would be the first one in history. The simple truth is that amendments via congress are the only kind that's ever actually succeeded.
Has anybody ever considered that the 'cheating' could have been consensual ? Polyamory and similar arangements have been around long before they had a name... and if you were a high profile politician who chose such a relationship structure you sure as hell would keep it quiet. Getting caught in another relationship it would actually be LESS damaging to pretend you were cheating than to say "Hey my wife knew and my girlfriend and her boyfriend are best friends". That this is true is an indictment of the repressive nature of American culture, not of the Clintons. The same culture where one polyamorous man has had the parents of his departed former wife repeatedly have DCS try to take his kids away on the grounds that having a more than one adult in the household in "parent-like" roles is somehow abusive...
Of course - I have no evidence that the Clintons had any form of consensual non-monogamy agreement, but it is actually MORE likely than some of the things Trump supporters say about those events.
Hey now. That's not fair. Some content on geocities pages were true ! *
*Possibly only by accident but still.
1) Secondary infringement is still not a crime in the US - or any other Berne Signatory country.
2) KickassTorrents actually had a better record of obeying DMCA takedown notices than Google - having obeyed 100% of all legitimate takedown requests and no false positives.
In case you were wondering the number of legitimate DMCA takedown requests kickasstorrents have received is zero. None of them could possibly, ever, be legitimate. The DMCA is a US law and does not apply to site owners in other countries. They are not bound to obey it's terms, or to obey any notice issued under it.
The reality is that no crime was committed here - and extradition should be denied. As it happens extradition treaties have a number of specific restrictions which are pretty much universal and all say this must be denied.
Firstly extradition can only happen if the alleged activity is a crime in BOTH countries. You cannot be extradited for doing something that is legal in the place where you did it. In this case, the activity is not a crime in EITHER country. It may be a civil infringement - but that is not a crime, cannot be grounds for extradition, cannot be pursued by the state - and importantly, cannot happen across border. You can sue a foreigner only for things which are a infringements in his own country, using his own country's laws in his own country's courts. The plaintiff being the one who has to operate in a foreign court. That isn't what is happening here anyway so the point is moot.
Furthermore extradition treaties only apply if the punishment for the aleged crime is similar in both nations. Plenty of non-death-penalty countries for example have a blanket refusal to extradite anybody to a death-penalty country for any capital crime, even if that crime was committed on the soil of the other country. That didn't happen here either. The US punishment for criminal copyright infringement (which this wasn't) is significantly harsher than most other countries so there's a pretty good chance this case doesn't meet the 'similar punishment if guilty' test.
There is no *sane* or just legal system that would approve this extradition request. The case then, becomes a very public test of the sanity, independence and commitment to justice of the Polish judiciary.
He is the sewage big gulp to their turdburger.
Nobody said anything about shutting it down except you. If a business goes bankrupt because they can't generate enough profits to cover expenses - there is nothing oppressive happening. It can often be a sad event - for the owners who invested in the business, the workers who are losing their livelihoods -even the customers who are losing their access to the product, but it's not an *evil* event.
There are plenty of evil forms of business bankruptcy - but this is literally a textbook example of the non-evil kind.
Shutting down implies some nefarious outside power forcing it to shut down. The only outside power involved here is the cost of bandwidth and infrastructure so unless you have some information that proves the ISP was charging 4chan more than they would charge any other site with similar traffic, there is no 'shutting down' being done.
So Shkrelli wants to have one company that causes cancer, so his other company have more people to sell overpriced cancer drugs to.
Dude, I'm trying to help GP win his richly deserved Darwin Award. Show some charity.
Trust me, CO2 will kill you too. Just ask anybody who ever got trapped on a sunken submarine... oh wait, you can't - that's the point.
>The FACT is, no other major world power has anything like the First Amendment.in the US constitution.
And you base this on the list of countries you can actually find on a map ? WTF ?
Free speech, as is found in the first ammendment, has been enshrined in laws and constitutions since before the US even existed. And, in fact, MOST other countries have something like that. Yes, nearly all of it.
By the way - the US has only ever actually USED this oversight over ICANN twice - and both times it was used to do large-scale censorship. They used it to block the creation of .xxx (which counts as porn censorship) and they used it to take .iq offline when they went to war on the country. Censoring your enemy during a war is still censorship.
It isn't called the first ammendment in most other countries though - because in all the other country's it's not an amendment at all. It's in the original constitutions. We didn't just think 'hey, free speech may be a good thing' as an afterthought - we put it in our constitutions from first publication - generally as one of the very first rights there.
There is pretty much no right in the US constitution I do not also have, and quite a lot I have that you don't. You have the 4th ammendment, I have Chapter 2, section 29. They say identical things - but we put it in our constitution on day one. We didn't have to slap it in an amendment some time later when it people complained.
Compared to that - having to prove I know how to use a gun and can take care of it responsibly before I'm allowed to own one is a small price to pay. That's the only ACTUAL right Americans have more than the rest of the free world - and that's because the rest of us are not crazy. We don't WANT that one. You couldn't GET it passed as an amendment in the rest of the world because it simply would not have enough support.
If you read the damn article (I know I know) you would know the whole REASON why this was done was because, if it wasn't done, eventually it WOULD end up under the UN run ITU. The US did not want the UN controlling the root DNS tables, but they also knew they could not keep it to themselves forever either - the rest of the world do NOT look kindly on claims that the US is the only country who can be trusted with it - especially since they clearly cannot as the only country who has EVER use the TLD system for censorship WAS the United States (Ironically, under a government from Cruz's party).
Republicans don't want to allow this - but the REAL reason is because it means the next time they go to war on some backwater country it will be a LOT harder to shut down that country's TLD and take every website from that country offline.
To sum up what you said: when you restrict government censorship but not corporate censorship, as in the US, the only people with freedom of speech are those who don't fear financial ruin: which is to say the extremely rich and those with nothing to lose.
It's not surprize that both those subsets have large numbers of members who hold bizarre, even crazy, ideas.
I look forward to you piping your tailpipe into your car to prove your point.
You do know that there were dozens of more advanced routing prototocols developed in between the IP being created and the internet becoming mainstream right ? The most common was X.25 - and frankly if an X.25 network was the Mona Lisa then IP was the drawing on your fridge that your 3-year old did in crayon.
All those massive privately owned large-scale networks (mostly country-wide) which prolifirated in the 1980s under various governments and corporations had their own routing protocols, most made IP look primitive. The success of the internet over those networks was down to one thing and one thing only - the lack of a corporate or government control, which was mostly a result of it being primitive compared to the other networks which were around at the time. It was not the technology, it was the lack of authority and direct profit motive.
Ultimately entities trying to either control content or profit from all content on the network could not compete with a network where all the control and profits went to the person putting it on the network without any publisher's cut. Even if that meant using a less advanced technology.
You are thinking of a decentralized routing protocol using terminology that comes from how it's done now - but why ? The best approach would be to completely ignore everything the internet (and it's routing protocols) did - and frankly everything everybody else did as well - and design it from scratch. Instead of a hierarchical design like IP and DNS uses - use a complete peer-to-peer addressing scheme. A machine joins, requests and address, the network hands out a free one - and it keeps it until it releases it or doesn't use it for a certain time, and then the network simply prolifierates the path to that address over the peer-to-peer network much like DNS updates happen.
It's not like swapping out the internet's routing protocols is hard - we've done it 4 times (each new version of BGP essentially obsoleted the old one and replaced it). It was easier to swap out the routing protocols than the IP protocol because there are a lot fewer routers than connected machines on the network and you your need to support legacy systems is smaller.
It may sound insurmountable to build an entirely new network on the same cables that replaces the internet with something better but it really isn't - the internet actually did that to dozens of other networks.
Then we build a new addressing protocol and a new routing protocol that doesn't need any centralized system. A peer to peer addressing scheme where you request one from a pool and you keep the one you got until you release it.
Do you think any part of the internet is not replacable ? We've already replaced most parts several times.
>You misunderstand: That IS the internet.
It's really not. There are dozens of protocols for network addressing and when the internet actually became big the IP had long ceased to be anywhere near the best one. It was archaic long before the internet spread off university campusses.
The internet's success came from the lack of government or corporate control - not from the technology, there were more advanced large scale networks before anybody outside academia had ever even heard of the internet. It displaced them due to lack of owners - not because of the technology. Cerf himself has said there are things he would do differently if he could do it over now. Many of which he wanted to do even then but the machines which arpanet ran on at the time (mostly PDP10's) simply didn't have the processing power to handle (like built-in by-default encryption).
Anyway, IP is not even the lowest level protocol on the internet. What about the routing protocols ? What about the hardware protocols ? Those had improved over the years and, in fact, have proven to be better for a true internet BECAUSE they were easy to swap out.
We are tied to IP only because of the cost of changing, not because it's the best available tool for the job - hell we can't get the world to even adopt the best available version of IP.
You overstate and greatly overestimate the important of IP to the internet. If one of the other early large networks with more advanced address protocols had offered the lack of either government or corporate control the early internet had - the internet would have died out before the 1990s even hit. As late as 1991 most computer scientists were convinced an information superhighway was coming and convinced it would not be the internet which was an archaic piece of technology that was simply nowhere near the best we had.
The one thing they hadn't counted on was the attraction of a lack of centralized authority.
So removing one of the last vestiges of centralized authority can only strengthen the internet's sole good attribute.
Investing a private company over behaviour that was almost certainly criminal fraud... yeah that's the same thing.
Oh wait... no - that's literally the government's single most important job. It's the one job even the fucking libertarians think the government SHOULD be doing: investigating and prosecuting crimes to defend the liberties of the peoplel
>But for instance Obama & Holder not providing any sort of defence in support of the DOMA act.
You realize that
1) Not defending in a case is CHEAPER on tax payers than defending ?
2) Defending a constitutionality suit against a law you KNOW is not constitutional is an even greater waste of taxpayer money ?
3) Doing so for a law passed by the previous administration which you do not agree with and did not even vote for as a senator is the highpoint of stupidity ?
If anything, failing to raise a defence in that case is a counter-example, it's an example of the Democrats choosing NOT to waste the courts time by arguing a case that resulted from Bush being a fucking idiot.
Isn't it ironic that the stated reason the right wants to block this is 'to prevent governments from censoring the web' (conveniently ignoring that it will REDUCE the power of governments, both foreign and US to do anything - hell now they can't even ask the US to do it via diplomatic means... when literally the ONLY thing the US dept. of commerce has DONE with this oversight- EVER was an act of censorship (they blocked the creation of the .xxx domain).
Such complete bullshit.
The US were fairly heavily involved in some of the pre-internet stuff that the internet would later be built on. But the US only contribution to the core of the internet was Vint Cerf's internet protocol. Everything else was collaboratively developed by people from all over the world, much of it with no US involvement at all. Including the internet's killer app - the world wide web, which was built at CERN in Switzerland.
So worst case scenario - somebody tries to cease your IP. Since no governments whatsoever will have any say in this after the fact all the stuff about Iran and North Korea is complete bullshit but maybe some private corporation may really dislike your page telling the world about the cyanide they dumped in your towns' drinking water or something.
Somehow this multistakeholder group of non-government actors get convinced to start ceasing IPs in an oppressive manner.
That's the day the IPV6 transition actually happens. We don't have even IANA managing those - they don't need management because the supply exceeds the maximum theoretical demand a thousand times over.
Wow... so ignorant.
No - none of them will be in charge.
Has anybody even READ the proposal ?
After the hand-over there will be one FEWER authoritarian governments in charge of the DNS root then there are now. Not more, less.
No government oversight at all - from any government.
Everybody on the stake holder list is NOT A GOVERNMENT.
Not one of those people is an expert in the field of climate, which is the first strike-down. Even the best scientists are sometimes wrong about things they believe passionately. Einstein was just plain wrong to reject the uncertainty principle. He was just plain wrong when be considered the cosmological constant his greatest failure - yes you can be wrong about being wrong too.
The reality is that I am not an expert, and I admit that, so I defer to people who are - and I admit that they are also better at evaluating the evidence than I am. In the absence of expertise, the logical and rational thing to do is to listen to experts. The vast majority of experts agree on this. A few rare voices do not. Now perhaps those people will turn out to be prophetic galileos - more likely they, like you, are letting their political views bias their scientific thinking.
If you had said NOTHING about "globalists" or anything else that reveals a political bias - basically your entire last two paragraphs - you may have made me reconsider. The moment you expressed a political opinion - and notably the one that is well known to bias people against research in this field - you made me file you under "too biased to take seriously".
It is possible that a few scientists could be swayed by political bias to make a mistake... what is not possible is that thousands of scientists can silently go along with being bribed. 29 Million dollars you say ? Divided among thousands. Where-as if just one of them publishes the proof that the theory is wrong, that's a guaranteed nobel prize, probably a dozen other prizes like the MacArthur grant, fame, guaranteed tenure and lifelong economic security. ... when you can get a minimum of 1.4 million for yourself (that's just the Nobel prize) by *not* going along with the conspiracy ?
Why take a small fraction of 29 million (after division a few hundred thousand per grant at most - all of which is in grants so very little goes in your pocket, most get spent on equipment, the rest divided among the salaries of everybody in that faculty)
You seriously expect me to believe that scientists are so dumb they would go along with a conspiracy when doing so pays LESS than the reward for whistleblowing ? And not a little less- several orders of magnitude less. When doing so means getting subjected to some of the worst public ad hominem attacks, slanders and outright criminal attacks on a daily basis - while going against it would make you a hero ?
The problem with your conspiracy theory is two fold. One it's too large to be tenable. The odds of a successful conspiracy drops exponentially with every additional person involved. 6 people is a stretch. 60 can happen if the rewards are really, really good. Thousands ? No.
Secondly the only thing that can counteract the many people effect is the level of reward for participation - and the maths just doesn't add up. The reward for playing along is so much smaller than the report for going against it, that there is no way none of those thousands of people are sane enough to do the math.
Are you stupid or just lying ?
That's not what the word 'starting' means.
Okay, so what you are saying is that over the past 150 years we've stepped up CO2 production so much that what is considered one of the largest drivers of natural climate change (the largest after orbital shifts and solar changes) is now nothing but noise... and somehow this is an argument for the denier side ?