'Conspiracies' - oh you really showed me there dude - did you get the latest Newspeak vocabulary from the Minitruth department? You have neither the 'time or the patience'? Yeah, because you have so much useful stuff to do. Like getting involved in an argument about a 'videogame company' and its 'energy efficiency'. On the Internet. ROFLcopter. Hope I didn't take too much time out of your schedule, Mr. VIP.

When you're ever arrested by the police on trumped-up 'conspiracy to commit [blabla]' charges, you go ahead and tell them that all 'conspiracy theories' are ridiculous and therefore you can't be arrested. Go on, I double-triple dare you - see where your smartmouth, know-it-all yuppie attitude is going to get you...

I don't give a bloody hoot about Nintendo - but c'mon, Nintendo is offering only 'conjecture' and 'Greenpeace' isn't?

Did Gaia imbue you today with another couple of energy rays? After doing this good deed - of standing up for the good little NGO that is bringing Communism - oops - energy efficiency worldwide - dId it offset your carbon limits? Good for you. Now, continue on evangelizing, you persuasive neophyte, you. It is Gaia's will, and she demands her pound of flesh!

To eco-warriors, any opposition to their faulty climate religion is likely to be marginalized as 'conspiracy theorists'.

That's how they roll. Acolytes run on slogans, trotted out to them by the thinktanks providing simplified conclusions to them, piece by piece.

Why is it that people from the RAND Corporation, on the issue of ethics and morality, state that these factors never figure into the equation when scientists are confronted with new technology?

I'll give you a quote:
"As early as 1967, Paul Baran of the RAND Corporation, the California think tank that attempts - successfully at times - to make prophecy a science, envisioned the use of exotic surveillance technologies on the domestic law-and-order front. He worried that "by moving in this direction, we could easily end up with the most effective, oppressive police state ever created"; observed that "any new device created solely with a legitimate police activity in mind can and will probably be misused"; cautioned that the "new technologists must be men of high ethics"; and then went on to concede that high ethics have "never been regarded by my technical colleagues as a necessary prerequisite for those in the trade." He predicted that ways would be found to rationalize the development of domestic surveillance devices and, indeed, finally came to the rationalized conclusion himself that "the high payoff possible by investing more in technological development is so great that it would be shortsighted to outlaw the development of many of these new devices."

Granted, that is one person, but there's tons of evidence to conclude that this 'vast majority of scientists' are not really inclined to live up to that standard of the 'men of high ethics' that, in a perfect world where pigs fly and money grows on trees, would require.

Don't take this as a personal judgement, however. I don't know about your work, and it would be premature on my part to do any value judgement on that.

Ohhh - good rebuttal that. Wait, that was a rebuttal?

Correction: 2.68 million unofficial government employees in drag lobbying the real government to push through zero-growth and deindustrialization policies for the West. Little foot soldiers for the Club of Rome.