George Noory Sucks! - The Definitive Compendium

[Juan Cena]

Am I right to assume "Dave" is Mushmouth?

More like a combination of Mushmouth and Rudy...no class.

[Juan Cena]

These are some stupid callers tonight and the answers they are getting aren't going to do them any good, either.

And Dave wants Elon Musk to build a water plant instead of his LA to SF bullet train.

What good is a water plant when there's no water?

[nooryisawesome]

GN: "If mankind goes extinct,  I'm not sure we can recover. Do you?"

[CornyCrow]

GN: "If mankind goes extinct,  I'm not sure we can recover. Do you?"

Did he REALLY say that?  I listened for small chunks of time when I awoke and fell asleep during commercials.  I remember the guest saying neanderthals interbred with us and had bigger brain cavities.  A guest called in saying maybe they knew enough to treat ladies nicely and brought them flowers.  Noory then said they brought dandelions and probably didn't know what they were.  A BIG silence followed. 

He just HAS to realize that when he says something and that's followed by an awkward silence that he made a faux pas. 

At any rate, I appreciated someone saying that our population growth is part of our problem.  If we had fewer people there would be less damage to the environment.  I'm buying the guy's book. 

My husband and I signed that petition, but I think we are only 47.   

[ShayP]

It has been said already, but damn the program was boring!!!  I didn't even make it through the 3rd hour of the podcast.  I need to cancel my insider subscription.  Then again, I still get to access Knapp's shows and listen to the entire Art Bell's Somewhere in Time archive for the umpteenth time....so I guess it is worth it.
I haven't listened to a complete Noory show in a year or so.  If I don't like the guest(s) I just delete it all together.


*SIGH*

[aldousburbank]

GN: "If mankind goes extinct,  I'm not sure we can recover. Do you?"

Dude is a mental twinkie.

[Charles Daniels]

George can't buy a clue even when the guest tries to hand him an easy one.

How many times do you think George has talked to Richard C Hoagland?

And still, this exchange happened -

"And George. Do you know at what latitude the Ceres pyramid is at?"

"umm..... 33?'

" Nineteen point five!!!!"

[Izintit?]

  What a downer of a pwogram. I didn`t get to hear much but did Mr. Sunshine propose what to do about overpopulation? Complaining about overpopulation to Americans and Europeans,for that matter, is like,well,complaining to Americans about global warning-the causes for the problems lie elsewhere.

[Izintit?]

Petition Filed to Remove Noory from Coast to Coast ...

Petition published by Anonymous on Jun 18, 2015, at Go Petition.com

Remove George Noory

Petition Background (Preamble):
We the undersigned hereby affirm that George Noory is incompetent as a radio talk show host. He is grossly uninformed on the topics. He has dumbed-down the program to where it is no longer enjoyable nor entertaining. His diction is lousy. His grammar is lousy. He is a poor reader. He is rude to guests and callers.

We are not requesting Art Bell to return. But there are many, many much more qualified hosts than Noory. Though our numbers may be small, our passion for the Coast To Coast AM program and the topics covered is great.

What was once an interesting, highly entertaining program has been reduced to an immature, tongue-in-cheek, shoddy, insult to intelligence.

Go Petition.com http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/remove-george-noory.html

Well, I am sure Snoory, Tommy and Pemrat will enjoy this.  I discovered this petition while perusing C2C Facebook page, someone linked to it in the comments thread.

Yeah, I am sure at least "Deep Dish" Danheiser is getting a chortle. With good reason too-it`s poorly written and about two years too late. Everybody is looking forward to Art coming back to forget about Numbskull Noory.

[Robert]

GN: "If mankind goes extinct,  I'm not sure we can recover. Do you?"

He obviously doesn't know what "extinct" means.  He asked another question consistent w that lack of understanding, looking or clarif'n as to the scope of extinction.  (Yes, it's possible to have extinction with qualifiers, such as "in the wild" or geographic, but that's not what the problem was in context.)

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

GN: "If mankind goes extinct,  I'm not sure we can recover. Do you?"

He did say that, or something very similar.  I had the same reaction, but (ignoring the incongruous 'do you') decided he had this idea that if we all died out, at some point in the future another hominid species would evolve and carry on in our place, or not.  This seems to be what the guest assumed George was asking.

The guest also said something about an extinction being defined as a species having more deaths than births, but it would be shocking if George formulated a question based on the content of the interview.

[Morgus]

With the complete George Noory Soundboard that the Gabcast crew have created, it would be fun if it could be used to make a prank call to Noory during some open lines session on the air.
See how Noory responds to himself trying to have a conversation with him...

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

With the complete George Noory Soundboard that the Gabcast crew have created, it would be fun if it could be used to make a prank call to Noory during some open lines session on the air.
See how Noory responds to himself trying to have a conversation with him...

Someone actually did that, years ago.  Their soundboard was pretty limited though, and didn't cue up very quickly.  George kept the caller on long enough to exchange a few comments and ask a couple questions, but never really seemed to address the fact that he was talking to himself.

[Izintit?]

With the complete George Noory Soundboard that the Gabcast crew have created, it would be fun if it could be used to make a prank call to Noory during some open lines session on the air.
See how Noory responds to himself trying to have a conversation with him...

Amazeeeen! A non sequiturpalooza!

[Dateline]

Dude is a mental twinkie.

I am offended.  I like to nibble on Twinkees. Now, if you said a mental Ding-Dong my opinion would change.

[Mike.]

Website lists a David Darling as the second half guest. Astronomer and science writer. Is this guy as full of shit as the usual guest or is he legit?

[albrecht]

Am I right in assuming that they make more from the infomercial than they would by the advertisers of Dave's program?  I don't know much about the business.

I'm guessing so. Since they already have "paid for," I guess C2C it probably was free from them to replay again the next night but it wasn't going over well with listeners or advertisers. Admitted, especially in summer, 7pm is a little early to be listening to some mumbling-stumbling radio host talking to some quack about a supplement and the Nephelim. Most people haven't even left happy hour yet and are not drunk enough to be able to listen to that inane drivel. But still might want traffic and local news updates and, heck, get to know something about investing and our real estate situation....I also suspect a lot of people were like  when they first made the switch to replay C2C since people driving home from work or listening to radio at that time might not be night-people and familiar with C2C and especially Norry.
-GNS

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Website lists a David Darling as the second half guest. Astronomer and science writer. Is this guy as full of shit as the usual guest or is he legit?

I don't really remember what he's like.  Doing a little bit of searching he sounds legit, having written a lot of science books and claiming a B.Sc in physics and a Ph.D. in astronomy and doesn't seem to push the 'Dr.' angle.

From his site:

I was born in Glossop, Derbyshire, England, on July 29, 1953, and grew up in the beautiful Peak District, close to Kinder Scout for those who know the area. I went to New Mills Grammar School and then on to Sheffield University, where I earned my B.Sc. in physics in 1974, and Manchester University, for my Ph.D. in astronomy in 1977.

Around the time I left Manchester I met my future wife and decided to move to the States. I served as manager of applications software for the supercomputer company Cray Research in Minneapolis for several years, and it was during this time that our two children were born. While at Cray I wrote in my spare time for Astronomy magazine and, in 1982, decided to take the plunge into full-time freelance writing. That's been my main occupation ever since, interspersed with appearances on US and UK national radio, lectures, travel, and most recently, singng and songwriting. We moved back to England (Cumbria) around the time of my career change, spent the next 16 years here, returned to the US in 1999, and reemigrated again to the UK in 2004.

[Morgus]

Website lists a David Darling as the second half guest. Astronomer and science writer. Is this guy as full of shit as the usual guest or is he legit?

He has been on several times before, he has sounded fairly legit as a scientist.

[CornyCrow]

  What a downer of a pwogram. I didn`t get to hear much but did Mr. Sunshine propose what to do about overpopulation? Complaining about overpopulation to Americans and Europeans,for that matter, is like,well,complaining to Americans about global warning-the causes for the problems lie elsewhere.

We could start here, at home, had we the intestinal fortitude.  We could try to make it more difficult for inept parents to have children.  If we need to pass a test to drive a car and we need to show proof of steady employment to buy a house, why not mandate training and proof of income to have children?

Yeah, scary stuff - but we are speaking of saving the planet here. 

[albrecht]

We could start here, at home, had we the intestinal fortitude.  We could try to make it more difficult for inept parents to have children.  If we need to pass a test to drive a car and we need to show proof of steady employment to buy a house, why not mandate training and proof of income to have children?

Yeah, scary stuff - but we are speaking of saving the planet here.

I didn't hear last night's show but I know, at least where am I, there is plenty of room. Even in some the highest density countries (Holland, HK, ROC, etc) there is actually a surprising amount of room and even countryside, farms, park, nature preserves, etc. One problem is though most people want to live in cities (for employment, opportunity, etc) and it is the "wrong" people who are having all the babies- the poorer, the 3rd world, etc. Maybe, I think Western nations, Japan, Singapore, HK (if left alone), can handle our population density and birth-rate quite fine, especially with newer technology and will-power to do some non-politically correct things (control our borders and limit immigration of the dregs of the world and only accept the educated, wealthy, and culturally assimilatable.) Especially if we innovate more (for example going to a more 24/7 society where jobs, government services, banking, entertainment, etc isn't "9 to 5", except where necessary (most farming- but not all with hydroponics etc) most of our work can be done at any time. So divide it up, cut down on traffic, more work and study from home, more night school, and so forth. As long as we control our borders and immigration policy, we will be fine.

The real issue with population is in poorer countries and the 3rd world. But, even there, it can be done (Zimbabwe used to feed most all of Africa when it was Rhodesia) with proper management, education, crack down on corruption, and family planning. But I'll say one thing: if the Norry-crowd's (and others like Hollywood) campaign against "no vaccines" and "no GMOs" really takes effect we might not have to worry, much, about the 3rd World people for long anyway......

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

The United States is the World's third most populace country, the first world nation with the third world population.  Having said that, though, the US and most advanced countries do have their birth rates under control.  As developing nations advance, presumably they will get theirs under control too.  That is one reason to aid them in their development.  In the mean time though, we can probably expect a lot of stresses on our crop land and food resources, especially as climate change, urbanization, and destruction of soils due to chemical fertilizers and deforestation continually erode the arable land that is available.

As the guest alluded, I think we are very much like a bacteria culture in a Petri dish, exponentially growing our population until we expend our resources and die off.  Our advantage is that we, thus far, have continuously been able to develop technology to cope with this.  Adapting our dietary habits would be helpful too.  Cattle are an extraordinarily inefficient food source.  But the human condition is to consume and seek ever increasing 'freedoms' and convenience without foresight of the consequences until we are affected personally.

[PB the Deplorable]

He did say that, or something very similar.  I had the same reaction, but (ignoring the incongruous 'do you') decided he had this idea that if we all died out, at some point in the future another hominid species would evolve and carry on in our place, or not.  This seems to be what the guest assumed George was asking.

The guest also said something about an extinction being defined as a species having more deaths than births, but it would be shocking if George formulated a question based on the content of the interview.

The simplest explanation being the one most likely, and his demonstrated (in)ability with the language, I'm going with George not knowing what extinction means

[136 or 142]

George doesn't seem to realize that passage of fast track does not mean that TPP has passed.

[CornyCrow]

I didn't hear last night's show but I know, at least where am I, there is plenty of room. Even in some the highest density countries (Holland, HK, ROC, etc) there is actually a surprising amount of room and even countryside, farms, park, nature preserves, etc. One problem is though most people want to live in cities (for employment, opportunity, etc) and it is the "wrong" people who are having all the babies- the poorer, the 3rd world, etc. Maybe, I think Western nations, Japan, Singapore, HK (if left alone), can handle our population density and birth-rate quite fine, especially with newer technology and will-power to do some non-politically correct things (control our borders and limit immigration of the dregs of the world and only accept the educated, wealthy, and culturally assimilatable.) Especially if we innovate more (for example going to a more 24/7 society where jobs, government services, banking, entertainment, etc isn't "9 to 5", except where necessary (most farming- but not all with hydroponics etc) most of our work can be done at any time. So divide it up, cut down on traffic, more work and study from home, more night school, and so forth. As long as we control our borders and immigration policy, we will be fine.

The real issue with population is in poorer countries and the 3rd world. But, even there, it can be done (Zimbabwe used to feed most all of Africa when it was Rhodesia) with proper management, education, crack down on corruption, and family planning. But I'll say one thing: if the Norry-crowd's (and others like Hollywood) campaign against "no vaccines" and "no GMOs" really takes effect we might not have to worry, much, about the 3rd World people for long anyway......

This fellow said we could stuff a lot more people onto the globe if we all agreed to eat very little, and that mostly rice.  He said most people in the world hold what was once the American middle class lifestyle as the standard.  He said we could not support even the present world population on that standard. 

The problem is that we are pushing nature into smaller spaces and killing off species and polluting.  Any approach to stop this, and we are hardly trying, would also have to be helped by curbing population growth on the other side. 

I sleep at night and just wake up and listen for short amounts of time, but I think that's what he was saying.  I'm all for fewer people.  Oh, someone also suggested, which I liked, to tax people for the children they have so at least they would be contributing more.  People who go childless would be rewarded for that restraint. 

He thought the world would not extinguish humanity from any one thing, but a combination.  As populations grow there will be more disease, and more diseases for which there will be no cure - so the disease plus the sheer number of us will cut our numbers down.

Hasn't nature always responded to too many people by either plague or war?  We are a part of nature.  Our minds are a part of nature.  If we don't shrink our numbers one way, we'll manage with another. 

[aldousburbank]

Someone actually did that, years ago.  Their soundboard was pretty limited though, and didn't cue up very quickly.  George kept the caller on long enough to exchange a few comments and ask a couple questions, but never really seemed to address the fact that he was talking to himself.

this make laugh

[Izintit?]

We could start here, at home, had we the intestinal fortitude.  We could try to make it more difficult for inept parents to have children.  If we need to pass a test to drive a car and we need to show proof of steady employment to buy a house, why not mandate training and proof of income to have children?

Yeah, scary stuff - but we are speaking of saving the planet here.

Your naivete is kind of cute but that world doesn`t turn anymore. At least not for this country.

[CornyCrow]

I didn't hear last night's show but I know, at least where am I, there is plenty of room. Even in some the highest density countries (Holland, HK, ROC, etc) there is actually a surprising amount of room and even countryside, farms, park, nature preserves, etc. One problem is though most people want to live in cities (for employment, opportunity, etc) and it is the "wrong" people who are having all the babies- the poorer, the 3rd world, etc. Maybe, I think Western nations, Japan, Singapore, HK (if left alone), can handle our population density and birth-rate quite fine, especially with newer technology and will-power to do some non-politically correct things (control our borders and limit immigration of the dregs of the world and only accept the educated, wealthy, and culturally assimilatable.) Especially if we innovate more (for example going to a more 24/7 society where jobs, government services, banking, entertainment, etc isn't "9 to 5", except where necessary (most farming- but not all with hydroponics etc) most of our work can be done at any time. So divide it up, cut down on traffic, more work and study from home, more night school, and so forth. As long as we control our borders and immigration policy, we will be fine.

The real issue with population is in poorer countries and the 3rd world. But, even there, it can be done (Zimbabwe used to feed most all of Africa when it was Rhodesia) with proper management, education, crack down on corruption, and family planning. But I'll say one thing: if the Norry-crowd's (and others like Hollywood) campaign against "no vaccines" and "no GMOs" really takes effect we might not have to worry, much, about the 3rd World people for long anyway......

Well, you are mentioning a favorable population control policy by various countries too.  Oh, I think he showed disappointment with the pope, that the man seemed so concerned with the degradation of the planet thought climate issues, but he should have also addressed the issue of population growth, the encouragement of which is another sin of the church.

I agree with you on vaccines.  I read somewhere that Dr. Oz promotes vaccines on his show but his own children are not vaccinated, which he blames on his wife.  Hmmm. 

[CornyCrow]

The United States is the World's third most populace country, the first world nation with the third world population.  Having said that, though, the US and most advanced countries do have their birth rates under control. 

As developing nations advance, presumably they will get theirs under control too.  That is one reason to aid them in their development. 

That last sentence was one that Bill Gates had espoused.  He has since said, though, that that was not happening or not happening fast enough.  He now encourages proactive means to population control.

[albrecht]

The United States is the World's third most populace country, the first world nation with the third world population.  Having said that, though, the US and most advanced countries do have their birth rates under control.  As developing nations advance, presumably they will get theirs under control too.  That is one reason to aid them in their development.  In the mean time though, we can probably expect a lot of stresses on our crop land and food resources, especially as climate change, urbanization, and destruction of soils due to chemical fertilizers and deforestation continually erodes the arable land that is available.

As the guest alluded, I think we are very much like a bacteria culture in a Petri dish, exponentially growing our population until we expend our resources and die off.  Our advantage is that we, thus far, have continuously been able to develop technology to cope with this.  Adapting our dietary habits would be helpful too.  Cattle are an extraordinarily inefficient food source.  But the human condition is to consume and seek ever increasing 'freedoms' and convenience without foresight of the consequences until we are affected personally.

That is my point. fly,  or drive, or being "green" take a train across, the US or Canada, or Russia (!) -or even take a short drive from Amsterdam. There is A LOT of land and room in our "most populous countries." And compared to the world our population could fit into Texas with everyone getting 1000 sq ft apartment. (Of course this is ridiculous  but just saying there is lots of room out there. The problem is water, sewage, logistics, employment, governance, and distribution of the populations, etc in the world.)

I will listen to the show but this is not a new idea; Malthus etc centuries ago (proven wrong of course,) Council of Rome a few decades ago, and just about every UN, Foundation, Charity, etc report in the past decades.

My point was two-fold. Maybe, at some point, it comes down to "them or us." In which case without hesitation I say "us." If we controlled our borders, just in Canada and the USA we would be able to survive without any, or much, problem or privation (at least in terms of the human condition as averaged through-out history.) Include Europe, AUS/NZ, and especially if we could get on good terms with Russia. Survival, and even prospering is no problem. Lots of room, minerals, oil&gas, AG land, water, timber, etc. The global warming even might open some new possibilities and efficiencies in transport, hydrocarbon, and agriculture in our more Northern regions.

But since it is not, yet, a total "us or them" we should still be rational with our immigration policy and control our borders. Because they can harm the very countries we claim we need to save. Encouraging talent, the wealthy, or even the honest people to flee and move to our countries legally leaves the dregs, the criminal, the poor, the uneducated in those countries. Even an open-border and pro-illegal immigration policy, like we have here takes away labor and, in addition to the harm to our country, hurts their countries because wage-earners or in some cases honest people (fleeing corrupt government and cartels) leave.

And the "anti-vaccine" and "anti-GMO" (and associated protests/beliefs against chemicals, etc) will be the BIG thing that will hurt the 3rd world countries (but maybe "solve the problem" in a tragic way.) Western countries could, likely, deal with that (we would have to pay much higher prices and would get more outbreaks of disease but have good enough hygiene and medical facilities that likey be "ok.") But we couldn't feed the world and they couldn't buy or feed themselves.