CTs Concerning Global Warming Science

[varwoche]

Specifics would be great.Here's a start:

Woods Hole (http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/index.htm): A beginner's guide to understanding the issue of global warming

British Antarctic Survey (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/our_views/climate_change.php): Climate Change

NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/what.html): What is Global Warming?

Met Office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/): Climate change - the big picture

EPA (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html): State of Knowledge

[Garb]

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=anthropogenic+global+warming&btnG=Search

See you in seven years, when you've gotten your PhD in Climatology...

You seem quite hostile and smug for me asking a question.

Thank you for the links.

[mailman]

More to the point, what's with you? You jumped in with both feet, and vanished. (And you did yourself no favours by Goring your post. That's cult-sign.)
It may come as a surprise to you BUT I do have a life outside of this forum...or is that not acceptable?


There's been no ad hominem, just a request for evidence that supports a claim.
Haha...ok, I cant spel* to save myself!

*deliberate mistake for the humour impaired! :)

What response? Your link is to a website that (from a brief review) is at the Gore-heavy end of the spectrum, and that's never a good sign. As an example of a cultic website, it works, I'll give you that. But perhaps not in the way you want it to.

Sorry, your "excuse" doesnt wash...or are you saying a Global Warming (tm) fan DIDNT threaten "al beeb" over its reporting of fact, that some geezer said something that cast doubt over global warming (tm) over the last decade?

A palpably bad headline, but chosen from three. More cult-sign.

OR is it only a bad headline BECAUSE it doesnt conform to what global warmists (tm) believe? Is it only a bad headline because it casts doubt on the hysteria surrounding Global Warming (tm)?

Do you remember the 70's? I do, since I was there. No climate hysteria was evident.
Well not according to the Times and Newsweek, which only recently recanted a number of stories they ran in the 70's that were going on about global cooling.

I guess at that rate, the next lot of recanting will happen in around 2040, when they recant Global Warming (tm), but will probably have gone back to stories about Global Cooling (tm).

AGW has been a growing issue since the early 80's, and shows no sign of flagging. You seem to be suggesting an equivalence with something that happened within one decade and mostly went unnoticed. Where I live the most notable climate event of the 70's was the Great Drought of '76, which saw a magnificent summer. I remember. I was there.

What I was going on about was that man has a hard enough time predicting the weather tomorrow YET you want me to believe that man can predict something as massive as the weather system of the planet is changing and its all out fault?

Just doesnt add up does it?

And lets not forget all your lovely models didnt predict last years cooling, the snow in April this YEAR.

Mailman

ps. Im out of the country for work for the next week so wont be able to reply until I get back...just in case you think Im running away by not replying.

[volatile]

You seem quite hostile and smug for me asking a question.

Thank you for the links.

I happen to think your initial question was pretty smug and hostile itself. Honestly, how hard is it really to search Google Scholar on your own? :rolleyes:

[Garb]

I happen to think your initial question was pretty smug and hostile itself. Honestly, how hard is it really to search Google Scholar on your own? :rolleyes:

Maybe for the fact I had never heard of Google Scholar to begin with, and I would have never used the keywords you used. If you could show where the question "Where should I look" is smug and hostile, I will apologize for giving you the wrong impression. If not, your response was not warranted in the least.

If you don't want to honestly help a layman who isn't familiar with the concepts of climatology, then don't bother answering.

[CapelDodger]

Sorry, your "excuse" doesnt wash...or are you saying a Global Warming (tm) fan DIDNT threaten "al beeb" over its reporting of fact, that some geezer said something that cast doubt over global warming (tm) over the last decade?

I'm certainly not saying they did. Are you? There are no threats involved that I can see, nor can I imagine what threats there could be. The first email begins

'Please can you correct your piece published today entitled "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"'

and ends with

"Thank you for applying your attention to all the facts and figures available"

which is hardly the format of a threatening letter.

The exchange is a discussion on how the story should present the minority view that global warming has stopped. Jo Abbess argues that it should hardly be mentioned if at all, since it's demonstrably wrong. Harrabin (as a skilled professional) thinks differently, and I think rightly. All that noise coming from right-wing CTers such as Jennifer Marchasy cannot be ignored, but nor can it be presented as being as valid as climate science.

OR is it only a bad headline BECAUSE it doesnt conform to what global warmists (tm) believe? Is it only a bad headline because it casts doubt on the hysteria surrounding Global Warming (tm)?

It's a bad headline because global warming doesn't happen year-to-year, it happens over time, and the WMO prediction is for one year only. It is no way a suggestion that it means global warming is slowing down or stopping. The bad headline suggests that it does.

Well not according to the Times and Newsweek, which only recently recanted a number of stories they ran in the 70's that were going on about global cooling.

A couple of newspapers who ran a few stories on slow news days that bore no relation to what was going on in climate science. I can recall climate scientists complaining about the coverage. (I happened to know some climate scientists in the 70's).

I guess at that rate, the next lot of recanting will happen in around 2040, when they recant Global Warming (tm), but will probably have gone back to stories about Global Cooling (tm).

That's not a good guess, IMO. On the one-hand a nine-day media wonder in the the mid 70's, on the other hand AGW that has, over decades, come to be more and more centre-stage in the public and political mind. And these have been presented to you as being equivalent. More to the point on a sceptics' site, you've accepted them as equivalent. Might I suggest you apply a bit more critical thinking to this subject.

What I was going on about was that man has a hard enough time predicting the weather tomorrow YET you want me to believe that man can predict something as massive as the weather system of the planet is changing and its all out fault?

Climate and weather and different things. I can predict the local weather tomorrow very accurately (it's on the BBC website, from the Met Office) but weather three weeks up the line, not so much. What I can predict is that August around here will be warmer than December was - because that's climate, not weather. Obviously I'll be wrong if a major volcano goes off in the Home Counties, but in that case the weather will probably be the least of my worries.

Just doesnt add up does it?

Yes it does. CO2 is a greenhouse gas so the more of it that's up there the warmer the climate will be. We've increased it by a third in a century, and we're still increasing it. Temperatures are not yet in equilibrium with the CO2 we've already produced anyway, so the climate is going to warm up, just as it has done over the last three decades.

And lets not forget all your lovely models didnt predict last years cooling, the snow in April this YEAR.

Climate models don't predict yearly temperatures, let alone local weather events in particular months. There was snow here and the weather models predicted it, just as they're predicting more in Scotland and the Pennines on Tuesday. Weather models are very good these days, and it helps that with satellites we can see the weather coming.

ps. Im out of the country for work for the next week so wont be able to reply until I get back...just in case you think Im running away by not replying.

Duly noted. Have a good trip. I hope it doesn't involve Heathrow Terminal Five ... :eek:

[CapelDodger]

If you don't want to honestly help a layman who isn't familiar with the concepts of climatology, then don't bother answering.

This is a good starting point http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

If you have any questions about it I'm sure we'll do our best to answer them for you. Some of us can be a tad prickly, but don't let that put you off :).

[Garb]

This is a good starting point http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

If you have any questions about it I'm sure we'll do our best to answer them for you. Some of us can be a tad prickly, but don't let that put you off :).

Thanks. Varwoche gave quite a few good links that I've been looking through.

[TrueSceptic]

We've all seen claims about bias in Wikipedia. Here's one alleging that pages concerning climate change are being controlled by "zealots" (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx). There's a conspiracy to hide the truth!

[varwoche]

We've all seen claims about bias in Wikipedia. Here's one alleging that pages concerning climate change are being controlled by "zealots" (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx). There's a conspiracy to hide the truth! LOL. You should see the wiki edit history for Mcintyre -- my (factual/supported!) edits had a shelf life of about 10 minutes.

[CapelDodger]

LOL. You should see the wiki edit history for Mcintyre -- my (factual/supported!) edits had a shelf life of about 10 minutes.

There's quite a cult building up around McIntyre, isn't there? Obviously some people find him charismatic. Weird, but there it is.

[TrueSceptic]

LOL. You should see the wiki edit history for Mcintyre -- my (factual/supported!) edits had a shelf life of about 10 minutes.
Hmmm. I've just inserted a bit myself. Let's see how long it lasts.

I like the bit in the Oreskes history where Connelley says "Peisers crap shouldn't be in here". :D

[TrueSceptic]

Hmmm. I've just inserted a bit myself. Let's see how long it lasts.

The answer is from 11:10 to 13:52. First 'John Nevard' altered my addition and added other stuff, then removed all of his and my additions. Surely the dates of posts in blogs are not "original research"? I merely provided evidence questioning McIntyre's claim that he started CA in response to being refused access to RC. The dates suggest otherwise.

[Pipirr]

The answer is from 11:10 to 13:52. First 'John Nevard' altered my addition and added other stuff, then removed all of his and my additions. Surely the dates of posts in blogs are not "original research"? I merely provided evidence questioning McIntyre's claim that he started CA in response to being refused access to RC. The dates suggest otherwise.

Questioning the denier's origin myth?

Heretic!

[mailman]

CapelDodger,

The problem you have with predicting climate is that all those predictions made by the IPCC are turning in to the stuff 9/11 conspiracies are made of (in other words, rubbish).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080430/sc_afp/scienceclimatewarming_080430173430;_ylt=Ave1chNzVQ 3tbWrfa.4mLEKs0NUE

Oh but hang on, there is a nice religious type get out clause in that article because global warming (tm) MIGHT start again :)

But again we come back to a major problem I pointed out earlier. All these fancy weather and climate models did not predict last years cooling or this years snow and nor do those models predict the cooling these guys are saying will happen over the next 10 or so years. Now, if these models couldnt predict last years cooling or snow this year or didnt even see a period of cooling over the next 10 or so years, how is it anyone can also claim in the same breath that man is solely responsible for global warming (tm)?

Face it, global warming (tm) is a myth...one I wish would hurry up and get here cause Im sick of having to have my heater on at night! :)

Re the "terrorist" who forced the beeb to change its article on global warming (tm), you must have missed the threats if the editor didnt change the article to something approved by her?

Mailman

[Spud1k]

I guess at that rate, the next lot of recanting will happen in around 2040, when they recant Global Warming (tm), but will probably have gone back to stories about Global Cooling (tm).

The whole 'in the 70s the scientists were predicting cooling' is a good security blanket for climate change sceptics, but unfortunately it just isn't true. (go to realclimate.org and search for an article called 'The Global Cooling Mole' dated 7 March 08 for more info) Yes, there were some people predicting cooling, but there were also ones predicting warming. This is more a reflection of the fact that the science was in its relative infancy at the time. And there was hardly a consensus among scientists at the time, not like there is now.

This is why the idea of there being a climate change conspiracy is a complete fallacy. Scientists love proving each other wrong and in the 60s through to the 80s there was a big rush on for people to nail the definitive climate outlook. Modern climate science is the product of this melting pot of ideas and theories and if any of it was simply made up it would have got shot down very rapidly along the way.

[CapelDodger]

CapelDodger,

The problem you have with predicting climate is that all those predictions made by the IPCC are turning in to the stuff 9/11 conspiracies are made of (in other words, rubbish).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080430/sc_afp/scienceclimatewarming_080430173430;_ylt=Ave1chNzVQ 3tbWrfa.4mLEKs0NUE

Oh but hang on, there is a nice religious type get out clause in that article because global warming (tm) MIGHT start again :)

But again we come back to a major problem I pointed out earlier. All these fancy weather and climate models did not predict last years cooling or this years snow and nor do those models predict the cooling these guys are saying will happen over the next 10 or so years.

What these guys are saying is based on a model. Did you not notice that?

The decadal scale models that are emerging are developments of the earlier models that you describe as "rubbish", yet you embrace this one, apart from their predictions that you regard as "get-out clauses". You'll forgive me if I describe that as an unsophisticated position, since you've never claimed otherwise.

No climate models claim to predict what will will happen in any particular year, let alone a few weeks' snow in China (which melted rapdily). They don't even claim to predict El Nino/La Nina events, which are short-lived noise on a decadal scale.

What do you mean by "last year's cooling"? 2007 was warmer than 2006. It was warmer at the beginning (El Nino conditions) and cooler at the end (La Nina conditions). Is that what you mean?

Now, if these models couldnt predict last years cooling or snow this year or didnt even see a period of cooling over the next 10 or so years, how is it anyone can also claim in the same breath that man is solely responsible for global warming (tm)?

No climate models claim to predict the weather in any particular year. You can take comfort in that but

"Global warming could take a break in the next decade thanks to a natural shift in ocean circulations, although Earth's temperature will rise as previously expected over the longer term, according to a study published on Thursday in the British journal Nature."

Nor has anybody ever claimed that natural cycles won't continue to occur despite AGW - "as previously expected over the longer term". (That, presumably, is what you'd rather think of as a "get-out".) This model may turn out to be accurate, but it's unlikely to be accurate in the first part (which you like, and are crowing about) and not in the later part (which you don't like, and are dismissing).

Face it, global warming (tm) is a myth...one I wish would hurry up and get here cause Im sick of having to have my heater on at night! :)

AGW is a reality. It didn't go away recently, and it isn't going away soon. Every year since 1997 has been warmer, and the next strong El Nino will be warmer than 1998. 2005 was as warm as 1998, without the El Nino, and 2007 was nearly as warm as 2005. The La Nina has faded, and we'll see a strong El Nino in the next two-to-seven years that will seriously erode your comfort-zone. Let alone Arctic sea-ice.

Re the "terrorist" who forced the beeb to change its article on global warming (tm), you must have missed the threats if the editor didnt change the article to something approved by her?

Mailman

I did miss the threats. Point them out for me, since you clearly think you did see them.

[Spud1k]

Throwing rocks at the IPCC predictions is another favourite of the sceptics but all this does is try to undermine the consensus, not offer an alternative viewpoint. And even then, they're largely duff arguments; a point they tend to miss entirely is that the GCMs are used to predict the long-term trends over a number of decades, not the year on year variability (although they are improving all the time). Another key point they miss is that the predictions of the IPCC report, being aimed at policymakers, is geared around best-case-worst-case scenarios and confidence bands rather than specific down-to-the-degree predictions. In short, they're expected to be off a bit.

So none of this can be used to argue that climate change is a big myth or conspiracy. What would lend weight to the argument is if someone produced a credible GCM that doesn't predict warming or even predicts cooling, but to my knowledge that hasn't happened yet.

[CapelDodger]

So none of this can be used to argue that climate change is a big myth or conspiracy. What would lend weight to the argument is if someone produced a credible GCM that doesn't predict warming or even predicts cooling, but to my knowledge that hasn't happened yet.

I've not heard of one, but then GWSceptics don't generally do the work. As you say, they just throw stones at other people's work - and/or misinterpret it (deliberately or ignorantly).

A theme I've noticed recently goes along the lines of "The models didn't predict that snow in China, did they? Eh? Models are rubbish", which is laughable but there it is. There's also a fair bit of noise about the ocean-circulation model that mailman referred to - GWSceptics don't apply a single standard to models, they judge them on what they think they're saying. I can recall when Linzen's Iris Theory was all the rage but you don't hear much about it these days.

By the way, regarding the "they said cooling was coming in the 70's" theme, I was actually at UEA (home of the Climate Research Unit) in the mid-70's, I shared a house with a couple of postgrads who were working there, and I can confirm that "they" were saying no such thing. There was some speculation about CO2-induced warming but I was sceptical (of the impact, not the basic science). Subsequent events have convinced me otherwise.

[CapelDodger]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3674153#post3674153

David Rodale believes in a conspiracy, with Hansen at the very heart of it. Everything goes across his desk before it can reach the wider world.

Whatever happened to Al Gore? He seems to have gone the way of Trotsky. Or perhaps he's too busy stitching up the Democratic nomination for a fellow WASP :).

Something I've noticed about the AGW CT is that it's very centred on the US (aka The World, for the likes of David Rodale). Some credit is given to the UK's Met Office, but definitely in a subsidiary role.

[Spud1k]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3674153#post3674153Something I've noticed about the AGW CT is that it's very centred on the US (aka The World, for the likes of David Rodale). Some credit is given to the UK's Met Office, but definitely in a subsidiary role.

I think that just depends on where you are. A very common one here in the UK is that the government is paying the likes of the Hadley Centre to make all kinds of outrageous predictions for the purposes of creating green 'stealth taxes' or just generally curtail our freedoms. These accusations were going around long before the US government endorsed AGW.

[Spud1k]

Sorry, being a retard. I didn't bother checking your 'location' when I wrote that last post so you already know full well what I'm talking about. It's a lazy bank holiday for me and my second coffee hadn't kicked in at the time...

[CapelDodger]

Sorry, being a retard. I didn't bother checking your 'location' when I wrote that last post so you already know full well what I'm talking about. It's a lazy bank holiday for me and my second coffee hadn't kicked in at the time...

Since I've retired, Bank Holidays just don't seem the same any more ... :) Here I am in Wales, and it's raining. No surprises there, then.

I was thinking principally of the blogosphere, where Hansen, Al Gore, 'Murrican weather stations, the Democratic Party, yadda-yadda feature so widely in the denialist camp. The usual suspects around here - David Rodale, par excellence - go on about them incessantly. The same on ClimateAudit. It's so bloody parochial.

Colonials, eh? :rolleyes: Think the world revolves around them.

(I think those narrow horizons are why CT's in general have more impact in the US. Truthers, Moon Hoaxers, they all assume that the rest of the world is wallpaper.)

We have Lord Munchkin, Bellamy, "Lord" Lawson (is there anything uglier than a thin man in a fat man's skin?), but they seem to be better known in the US than over here.

I think one reason denialism hasn't taken so well over here is that we Brits notice the weather more than 'Murricans do. It's more variable, for a start, and we're not as used to living in a controlled environment. In the US it's quite possible to live without ever stepping out under the open sky. In some places it's advisable not to.

And our climate has changed unmistakably over the last twenty years.

[TrueSceptic]

I think that just depends on where you are. A very common one here in the UK is that the government is paying the likes of the Hadley Centre to make all kinds of outrageous predictions for the purposes of creating green 'stealth taxes' or just generally curtail our freedoms. These accusations were going around long before the US government endorsed AGW.
The US govt has been very slow to recognise climate change, of course. In contrast, it has been accepted in Europe for quite some time.

Notice that the people repeating the CT above tend to be right-wing gobbies (I say "tend" but I can't think of any exceptions unless you count Martin Durkin, who is some odd kind of Marxist).

[mailman]

Alas, mailman got waylaid somewhere between the on-deck circle and home plate. And so another CT goes unsupported.

Another ad hominem attack (have I spelt it right this time?) :)

Anyway, on a recent business trip to New York (yes, Im solely responsible for global warming (tm)), I was surprised to see miles and miles and miles of sea pack ice in an area that was supposedly free of ice?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Some interesting reading, some might even say its heresy! :)

Again my main issue comes back to this. We cant predict the whether with any certainty tomorrow, yet you guys want me to believe that all these fancy models have confirmed without a doubt that man is solely responsible for climate change? :rolleyes:

Now, this brings me back to something a little more disturbing that was alluded to in the last line of Vorws posting. Am I to believe that anything that doesnt conform to the majority view is a conspiracy theory?

Does that mean that anyone who doubts the party line will suddenly be the next anti-christ after our twoofer friends?

Mailman

[mailman]

Alas, mailman got waylaid somewhere between the on-deck circle and home plate. And so another CT goes unsupported.

Another ad hominem attack (have I spelt it right this time?) :)

Anyway, on a recent business trip to New York (yes, Im solely responsible for global warming (tm)), I was surprised to see miles and miles and miles of sea pack ice in an area that was supposedly free of ice?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Some interesting reading, some might even say its heresy! :)

Again my main issue comes back to this. We cant predict the whether with any certainty tomorrow, yet you guys want me to believe that all these fancy models have confirmed without a doubt that man is solely responsible for climate change? :rolleyes:

Now, this brings me back to something a little more disturbing that was alluded to in the last line of Vorws posting. Am I to believe that anything that doesnt conform to the majority view is a conspiracy theory?

Does that mean that anyone who doubts the party line will suddenly be the next anti-christ after our twoofer friends?

Mailman

[mailman]

Alas, mailman got waylaid somewhere between the on-deck circle and home plate. And so another CT goes unsupported.

Another ad hominem attack (have I spelt it right this time?) :)

Anyway, on a recent business trip to New York (yes, Im solely responsible for global warming (tm)), I was surprised to see miles and miles and miles of sea pack ice in an area that was supposedly free of ice?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Some interesting reading, some might even say its heresy! :)

Again my main issue comes back to this. We cant predict the whether with any certainty tomorrow, yet you guys want me to believe that all these fancy models have confirmed without a doubt that man is solely responsible for climate change? :rolleyes:

Now, this brings me back to something a little more disturbing that was alluded to in the last line of Vorws posting. Am I to believe that anything that doesnt conform to the majority view is a conspiracy theory?

Does that mean that anyone who doubts the party line will suddenly be the next anti-christ after our twoofer friends?

Mailman

[mailman]

Sorry, I got excited :)

Double post!

[mailman]

The US govt has been very slow to recognise climate change, of course. In contrast, it has been accepted in Europe for quite some time.

Notice that the people repeating the CT above tend to be right-wing gobbies (I say "tend" but I can't think of any exceptions unless you count Martin Durkin, who is some odd kind of Marxist).

So, what if its the same people that agree with you in general about 9/11 conspiracies?

Are these very same people only "right-wing gobbies" simply because they do not agree with you in global warming (tm)?

If so, then you are no better than them loons who make up the 9/11 movement.

Mailman

[Spud1k]

The distinction regarding a 'conspiracy' isn't whether you agree with AGW or not, it's more to do with whether you believe there is a conscious effort by some party or parties to actively and knowingly promote a falsehood for some end (new world order, undermining the west's economy, North American Alliance, Illuminati, etc, etc.). If you believe that the scientists are simply misguided or that people in general are being alarmist for no reason, I'd disagree with you and possibly accuse you of being cynical (depending on what arguments you came out with), but by no means would I lump you in with the twoofers. They are are a different league entirely.

[mailman]

Sorry, a little bit more heresy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/04/do0405.xml

Mailman

[Spud1k]

Again my main issue comes back to this. We cant predict the whether with any certainty tomorrow, yet you guys want me to believe that all these fancy models have confirmed without a doubt that man is solely responsible for climate change?

In short, yes. Predicting the weather and predicting the global mean temperature are two different tasks that require two different types of model, so citing the shortcomings of one to try to dismiss the other is folly. It's like trying to accuse a doctor of misdiagnosing a cold because they can't predict the sneezing patterns of the patient.

[varwoche]

Another ad hominem attack (have I spelt it right this time?) :) You have utterly no idea what an ad hom is. (And no, this isn't one either.)

Anyway, on a recent business trip to New York (yes, Im solely responsible for global warming (tm)), I was surprised to see miles and miles and miles of sea pack ice in an area that was supposedly free of ice? And yesterday I saw a surly clown with a purple nose, which has almost as much to do with global climate change as your statement.

Now, this brings me back to something a little more disturbing that was alluded to in the last line of Vorws posting. Am I to believe that anything that doesnt conform to the majority view is a conspiracy theory? Of course not.

[TrueSceptic]

So, what if its the same people that agree with you in general about 9/11 conspiracies?

Are these very same people only "right-wing gobbies" simply because they do not agree with you in global warming (tm)?

If so, then you are no better than them loons who make up the 9/11 movement.

Mailman
It was an observation. I have the impression there is a much wider spread of political leanings among believers in JFK, Moon Landing, and 9/11 CTs. Climate Change is much more polarised politically, from what I can see.

[CapelDodger]

It was an observation. I have the impression there is a much wider spread of political leanings among believers in JFK, Moon Landing, and 9/11 CTs. Climate Change is much more polarised politically, from what I can see.

I think that's because AGW has an impact on an established political ideology - a right-wing, laissez faire, anti-regulatory ideology. It doesn't recognise the possibility of externalities and AGW is one humungous externality. The Daddy, so to speak.

Believers in the ideology must of necessity deny the reality of AGW because it fundamentally undermines their world-view. This leads almost inexorably to conspiracy, because the scientific world is so positive about it and it's become widely accepted politically and popularly. That has to imply a conspiracy, primarily of scientists.


Turning to Truthers and Moon Hoaxers and such, they're not a threat to any particular ideology. There's no need for the political right to get on the case, they can just be left to the shiny-hat brigade, who have on average one distinct ideology per person. Left, right, up, down, over there, way over there ... :)

[CapelDodger]

Sorry, a little bit more heresy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/04/do0405.xml

Mailman

You're a very orthodox heretic. Citing a Torygraph op-ed falls far short of iconoclasm, let's face it.

Christopher Brooker is not a science correspondent. He has a classic Humanities education and is a lightweight intellectual dilettantel. This explains why he misreports the German work right from the start. (It doesn't predict cooling, nor does it question the reality of AGW.)

What's remarkable about this theme is the amount of crowing that's going on as if this prediction has already been confirmed. GWSceptics taking refuge in the future, because the recent past and the present have provided them no comfort. One paper (based on a model) predicts that warming will pause for seven years and then start again with a vengeance, and there's a huge sigh of relief from the poor beleaguered souls.

Brooker makes a big thing about the Snowdon icecap, but there hasn't been a Snowdon icecap for ten thousand years. Almost every summer all the snow melts. We're not talking the Alps here, this is in Wales. Just to the right of the North Atlantic Drift. It's too frickin' wet to sustain snowcaps.


This is glorious Brooker stuff :

"Yet virtually no coverage has been given to the abnormally deep spring snow which prevented the completion of a new building on Snowdon's summit for more than a month, and nearly made it miss the deadline for £4.2 million of EU funding. (Brussels eventually extended the deadline to next autumn.)"

A delay of one month and they extend the deadline six months? Does that make any sense to you? Is it not more likely that the project was already well behind time, and the snow was just another excuse thrown into an existing (ongoing, even :) Private Eye reference) negotiation?

What a self-satisifed airhead Brooker is. No wonder he suits the Torygraph so well. (That's not an ad hominem, by the way, I'm belittling him, because he's a fart.)

[mailman]

You're a very orthodox heretic. Citing a Torygraph op-ed falls far short of iconoclasm, let's face it.

Christopher Brooker is not a science correspondent. He has a classic Humanities education and is a lightweight intellectual dilettantel.

Hold on tiger...you need to be very careful here.

Are you saying that only scientists or science correspondents can talk about global warming (tm)? Because if you are, then very few...and I mean VERY few people in this forum should be talking about building collapses etc unless they of course are either structural engineers or structural engineer correspondents (if such things exist?).

This explains why he misreports the German work right from the start. (It doesn't predict cooling, nor does it question the reality of AGW.)
Whats there to misreport? Gerry comes out saying something completely different to the myth to date and suddenly the geezer is misreporting their findings/sooth saying/theory?

What's remarkable about this theme is the amount of crowing that's going on as if this prediction has already been confirmed.
Sounds awefully similar to a certain crowd crowing about man being solely responsible for global warming (tm) dont you think? :D

GWSceptics taking refuge in the future, because the recent past and the present have provided them no comfort. One paper (based on a model) predicts that warming will pause for seven years and then start again with a vengeance, and there's a huge sigh of relief from the poor beleaguered souls.

Golly, is that a bit like global warming (tm) being based on a [flawed] model? Or are you now casting doubt on the gerry report? Because it doesnt fit in with the global warming (tm) dogma?

Mailman

[mailman]

You have utterly no idea what an ad hom is. (And no, this isn't one either.)

And yesterday I saw a surly clown with a purple nose, which has almost as much to do with global climate change as your statement.

Of course not.

Hope you got a photo :)

Because wasnt it the same bunch of chicken littles going on about all the ice melting rah rah rah? Yet in march the only thing going up baffin bay was the a polar beer looking for a feed!

Peow peow! :D

Mailman

[mailman]

In short, yes. Predicting the weather and predicting the global mean temperature are two different tasks that require two different types of model, so citing the shortcomings of one to try to dismiss the other is folly. It's like trying to accuse a doctor of misdiagnosing a cold because they can't predict the sneezing patterns of the patient.

Which is probably a pretty good analogy for the global warming (tm) theory :D

Mailman

[CapelDodger]

Another ad hominem attack (have I spelt it right this time?) :)

Anyway, on a recent business trip to New York (yes, Im solely responsible for global warming (tm)), I was surprised to see miles and miles and miles of sea pack ice in an area that was supposedly free of ice?

"Supposedly" according to what source?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Not that one, obviously, since it dates from February last year. So what was your source?

Some interesting reading, some might even say its heresy! :)

You clearly would. Have you had yourself checked for a martyr complex? Those things can be life-threatening, you know.

Again my main issue comes back to this. We cant predict the whether with any certainty tomorrow ...

Yes we can. Apart from anything else we have satellites and can see it coming. That cyclone didn't hit Burma out of the blue, you know. My local daily weather is generally what I expect from forecasts three or four days in advance.

... yet you guys want me to believe that all these fancy models have confirmed without a doubt that man is solely responsible for climate change? :rolleyes:

No-one has any expectation of influencing your beliefs. You don't know the difference between climate and weather, you spout fifty-year old cliches about weather-forecasting, you cite Christopher Brooker as a credible source ...

We barely have a shared language, let alone a shared understanding of how the world works.

Now, this brings me back to something a little more disturbing that was alluded to in the last line of Vorws posting. Am I to believe that anything that doesnt conform to the majority view is a conspiracy theory?

Belief has nothing to do with it. Read the words.

Does that mean that anyone who doubts the party line will suddenly be the next anti-christ after our twoofer friends?

It's the "party line" that gives you away there. Think about it.

[CapelDodger]

Hold on tiger...you need to be very careful here.

Not really.

Are you saying that only scientists or science correspondents can talk about global warming (tm)? Because if you are, then very few...and I mean VERY few people in this forum should be talking about building collapses etc unless they of course are either structural engineers or structural engineer correspondents (if such things exist?).

I say what I say. Christopher Brooker is not a science correspondent. A Torygraph science correspondent may well have done a better job of it, without the errors and idiocies, but that's not what you've got the hots for. You've got the hots for a Brooker op-ed piece which says just what you want to hear (and heaven forfend you or Brooker check into it).


Whats there to misreport? Gerry comes out saying something completely different to the myth to date and suddenly the geezer is misreporting their findings/sooth saying/theory?

What the paper says (based on a model) is that an oceanic cyclical influence will be out of phase with AGW until about 2015, when it will get back in phase, with rather alarming implications. It doesn't predict cooling, but Brooker (like you) has picked it up through the blogosphere, at third- and fourth-hand. The model takes no account of the solar cycle and has not yet been tested against real-world outcomes.

The paper is in no way challenging AGW as a reality. Brooker reports it as such, and you suck that up like mother's milk, but it ain't so.

Sounds awefully similar to a certain crowd crowing about man being solely responsible for global warming (tm) dont you think? :D

Not even slightly. To the extent that there's any crowing it's about what has happened, not about what's going to happen according to something you picked up fourth-hand from one paper, based on a model.

Golly, is that a bit like global warming (tm) being based on a [flawed] model? Or are you now casting doubt on the gerry report? Because it doesnt fit in with the global warming (tm) dogma?

You're talking to yourself, and out loud.

Mailman

Not mine, thankfully. My SciAms could end up almost anywhere, and I do love my SciAms.

[Spud1k]

Which is probably a pretty good analogy for the global warming (tm) theory :D

Mailman

Erm.... how exactly?

[Spud1k]

Which is probably a pretty good analogy for the global warming (tm) theory :D

Mailman

Erm.... how exactly?

[Spud1k]

Sorry for the double-post. Interweb's being annoying this morning.

[mailman]

Watch out, more heresy, this time from one of the IPCC lead authors himself! :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081331.stm

Some very interesting observations in this bit of heresy;

After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: "We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol."
No, surely these IPCC scientists are above this kind of game arent they? After all, they are scientists?

And what about this clanger? :D



The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: "We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans."

We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don't have thermometers marked with "this much is human-caused" and "this much is natural".
So, I would have written this conclusion as "Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change."

Oh thats right, its already settled that man is the sole cause of global warming (tm) :D

Mailman

[TrueSceptic]

Not really.

I say what I say. Christopher Brooker is not a science correspondent. A Torygraph science correspondent may well have done a better job of it, without the errors and idiocies, but that's not what you've got the hots for. You've got the hots for a Brooker op-ed piece which says just what you want to hear (and heaven forfend you or Brooker check into it).

What the paper says (based on a model) is that an oceanic cyclical influence will be out of phase with AGW until about 2015, when it will get back in phase, with rather alarming implications. It doesn't predict cooling, but Brooker (like you) has picked it up through the blogosphere, at third- and fourth-hand. The model takes no account of the solar cycle and has not yet been tested against real-world outcomes.

The paper is in no way challenging AGW as a reality. Brooker reports it as such, and you suck that up like mother's milk, but it ain't so.

Not even slightly. To the extent that there's any crowing it's about what has happened, not about what's going to happen according to something you picked up fourth-hand from one paper, based on a model.

You're talking to yourself, and out loud.

Not mine, thankfully. My SciAms could end up almost anywhere, and I do love my SciAms.
No probs with what you have said, CD, except that you keep saying Brooker when it's Booker.

There is something odd about this latest paper. Not the fact that the deniosphere is jumping up and down gibbering about it, more that it is not clear exactly what it is claiming. The lead author has either been misquoted or he has misrepresented his own work!

I think I'll pick this up in HTBAGWS as it's not really CT-related.

PS MM must get tired of typing "(tm)" so often.;)

[Spud1k]

No, surely these IPCC scientists are above this kind of game arent they? After all, they are scientists?

Everyone has their opinions. That would only change the emphasis, not the hard figures, which hardly smacks of a conspiracy. Given that the governments (including the US) got to edit the IPCC report before it was published, any idea that the scientists could put an excessive spin on it is absurd.

Oh thats right, its already settled that man is the sole cause of global warming (tm)

Who is saying that mankind is the 'sole' cause of global warming? If you actually read the IPCC report it says "the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2", which adds to a forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W m–2 caused by natural processes. Sole, no, but the biggest, yes.

And anyway, what part of '90% certain' is unclear? If all you're going to do is dwell on the 10%, this should really be taken to the science forum.

[CapelDodger]

No probs with what you have said, CD, except that you keep saying Brooker when it's Booker.

:o

There is something odd about this latest paper. Not the fact that the deniosphere is jumping up and down gibbering about it, more that it is not clear exactly what it is claiming. The lead author has either been misquoted or he has misrepresented his own work!

It's an odd story, true enough. There seems to be a lot of cross-quoting and the old "Chinese Whispers" effect in the GWSceptic realm.

I think I'll pick this up in HTBAGWS as it's not really CT-related.

Best bet. It's classic example of GWS behaviour. An obect lesson for any aspirant.

PS MM must get tired of typing "(tm)" so often.;)

And it was tired before he even started :).


(Lovely weather we've been having. Just as forecast.)

[TrueSceptic]

:o

It's an odd story, true enough. There seems to be a lot of cross-quoting and the old "Chinese Whispers" effect in the GWSceptic realm.

Best bet. It's classic example of GWS behaviour. An obect lesson for any aspirant.

And it was tired before he even started :).

(Lovely weather we've been having. Just as forecast.)
Warmist (tm) early May for years. Proves that global cooling must be over, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

[mailman]

Who is saying that mankind is the 'sole' cause of global warming?
Im sorry, you must have missed the last couple years of Global warming (tm) alarmism :eye-poppi

And anyway, what part of '90% certain' is unclear? If all you're going to do is dwell on the 10%, this should really be taken to the science forum.
Which was based on what? A model that didnt even predict last years cooling or the possibility that there has been no warming since 98 OR the possibility that there wont be any warming for the next 10 or so years?

I mean at this rate, global warming (tm) is going to be so severe we are all in danger of freezing to death! :D

But seriously, you put your "faith" in an organisation that bases its opinions on a model and not observation (as noted by the lead author guy from the IPCC itself).

Again, we cant predict the weather with any great accuracy for tomorrow yet you want me to believe we are so all powerful that we can say without a doubt that man is the sole reason for climate change? :confused:

Mailman

[mailman]

Warmist (tm) early May for years. Proves that global cooling must be over, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Al Beeb followed this line of thought in December, trumpeting that because of man made global warming (tm) December was the warmest December for the last million years.

Sadly the last 10 days of December smashed that so called "true-ism"...which funnily enough meant the story of december being the hottest on record quickly disappeared from the face of the beeb, and all other global warming (tm) conspiracy websites (ie. the msm) quicker than you could say "its all mans fault" :p

Mailman

[mailman]

PS MM must get tired of typing "(tm)" so often.;)

No, everytime I type global warming (tm) it happens automagically :p

Regards

Mailman

[Spud1k]

Im sorry, you must have missed the last couple years of Global warming (tm) alarmism

If someone is misquoting the IPCC report, that's their problem.

But seriously, you put your "faith" in an organisation that bases its opinions on a model and not observation (as noted by the lead author guy from the IPCC itself).


The report uses models to interpret observations. There is no other way of doing it because as pointed out immediately after that statement in the article you linked to, there is not one observation that will give you an unequivocal yes/no answer on AGW (if there was, someone would have checked it by now). Also, as I said further up, climate models are used to predict trends on decadal timescales, not the year-on-year variability.

Besides, it's not just a case of 'faith' with me because I do atmospheric science for a living and I hope I don't flatter myself too much by saying that I understand how the different aspects of the science works on various levels. Also, I happen to personally know a few IPCC authors and are acquainted professionally with a number of others. One even works in the office opposite mine and is probably the last person on earth that would be part of any secret conspiracy.

Of course, you could now accuse me of being part of the conspiracy, but that's your prerogative. Bear in mind you'd have to accuse every other scientist out there while you are at it.

Again, we cant predict the weather with any great accuracy for tomorrow yet you want me to believe we are so all powerful that we can say without a doubt that man is the sole reason for climate change?


It's "90% certain", not "without a doubt". Anyway, this is going round in circles and has little to do with the OP. There are plenty of threads dealing with the details of climate science in the science forum, so I'll see you there if you want.

[TrueSceptic]

If someone is misquoting the IPCC report, that's their problem.

The report uses models to interpret observations. There is no other way of doing it because as pointed out immediately after that statement in the article you linked to, there is not one observation that will give you an unequivocal yes/no answer on AGW (if there was, someone would have checked it by now). Also, as I said further up, climate models are used to predict trends on decadal timescales, not the year-on-year variability.

Besides, it's not just a case of 'faith' with me because I do atmospheric science for a living and I hope I don't flatter myself too much by saying that I understand how the different aspects of the science works on various levels. Also, I happen to personally know a few IPCC authors and are acquainted professionally with a number of others. One even works in the office opposite mine and is probably the last person on earth that would be part of any secret conspiracy.

Of course, you could now accuse me of being part of the conspiracy, but that's your prerogative. Bear in mind you'd have to accuse every other scientist out there while you are at it.

But this is the whole point, isn't it? To support their views, GWSceptics have to believe that there is either a conscious conspiracy to pervert science, or a quasi-religious delusion that has somehow captured the minds of the majority of the scientific community.

If only GWS didn't continually lie, misrepresent the work of others, and show extreme incompetence in basic principles and methodology, we might just have thought they had a point. ;)

[TrueSceptic]

Al Beeb followed this line of thought in December, trumpeting that because of man made global warming (tm) December was the warmest December for the last million years.

Sadly the last 10 days of December smashed that so called "true-ism"...which funnily enough meant the story of december being the hottest on record quickly disappeared from the face of the beeb, and all other global warming (tm) conspiracy websites (ie. the msm) quicker than you could say "its all mans fault" :p

Mailman
Now it could be that you have reported a story fairly, but as you provided no links, we have no way of telling. I'd be impressed if a 31-day period could be isolated in any sort of record going back a million years. I had no idea such precision was possible. :rolleyes:

[Spud1k]

But this is the whole point, isn't it? To support their views, GWSceptics have to believe that there is either a conscious conspiracy to pervert science, or a quasi-religious delusion that has somehow captured the minds of the majority of the scientific community.

If only GWS didn't continually lie, misrepresent the work of others, and show extreme incompetence in basic principles and methodology, we might just have thought they had a point. ;)

I don't know. A lot of people out there genuinely believe that there is a lot more debate going on about the realities of global warming that is being suppressed by the IPCC to perpetuate its jobs-for-the-boys existence. Of course, anyone who is even remotely familiar with the current research scene knows that this is mere wishful thinking. But wacky as it may be, it's not quite up there with faked moon landings and Area 51.

[TrueSceptic]

I don't know. A lot of people out there genuinely believe that there is a lot more debate going on about the realities of global warming that is being suppressed by the IPCC to perpetuate its jobs-for-the-boys existence. Of course, anyone who is even remotely familiar with the current research scene knows that this is mere wishful thinking. But wacky as it may be, it's not quite up there with faked moon landings and Area 51.
I'm not sure. The scale of the conspiracy required is, well, vast.

The other issue is: surely most "jobs for the boys" would be created by 2 or more factions battling it out in the mainstream, not by an overwhelming mainstream consensus on one side and the deniosphere on the other?

[Spud1k]

I'm not sure. The scale of the conspiracy required is, well, vast.

The other issue is: surely most "jobs for the boys" would be created by 2 or more factions battling it out in the mainstream, not by an overwhelming mainstream consensus on one side and the deniosphere on the other?

Hey, I never said I thought it was a rational line of thought. Realistically, if there was no uncertainty about climate change, all the scientists would be out of a job.

[TrueSceptic]

Hey, I never said I thought it was a rational line of thought. Realistically, if there was no uncertainty about climate change, all the scientists would be out of a job.
That leads me to wonder if the "sceptics" are keeping all the mainstream scientists in jobs by emphasising uncertainty at every step. That would be amusing, yes?

[CapelDodger]

Warmist (tm) early May for years. Proves that global cooling must be over, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Nah, it was the local elections. Cold, gloomy Brown/Uncle Ken/New Labour gave way to glorious Cameron/Boris/New Tory summer. It was all arranged before - the "May Surprise", as the Met Office dubbed it. They were deeply involved, of course - it is essentially an arm of the Navy, and we all know how Tory the Navy is

The May Surpirse : "Surprise! You're losing your home, but in good weather for a change".

The world is getting ever more unreal, but at least I can take breakfast under my yellow rose while I read about it.

[CapelDodger]

I don't know. A lot of people out there genuinely believe that there is a lot more debate going on about the realities of global warming that is being suppressed by the IPCC to perpetuate its jobs-for-the-boys existence. Of course, anyone who is even remotely familiar with the current research scene knows that this is mere wishful thinking. But wacky as it may be, it's not quite up there with faked moon landings and Area 51.

Different orders of magnitude, to my mind. When it comes to, say, Truthers, the conspiracy expands minute-by-minute until it quickly takes in a majority of the population. AGW, on the other hand, is slow but inexorable.

If you got your information from Torygraph op-ed and Fox News it might seem plausible that there was this Climate Science Community overseen and directed by the IPCC to provide them with the copy they demanded for their next issue. The conspiracy doesn't have to constantly expand - unless they gain some concept of what the IPCC actually is. Let alone what the scientific world is.

[CapelDodger]

That leads me to wonder if the "sceptics" are keeping all the mainstream scientists in jobs by emphasising uncertainty at every step. That would be amusing, yes?

A positive outcome of the "more research is required" policy has been the funding of much more research. Oceanography has never been so centre-stage before, nor have the ice-guys. We've probably discovered more about how our planet works over the last twenty years as we did in the last hundred, and it's an exponential growth. Graduates are piling into anything climate-related because that's where careers are going to be built.

The CTers would have us believe they're professing AGW "belief" (and IPCC oversight) if they get into anything climate-related - even though they know better, and will be found out very soon. AGW as a scientific fad imposed by Children of the Sixties.

21stCE Planetary Science will be what thermodynamics was to the 19thCE Age of Steam. Biotechnology will slipstream :).

[CapelDodger]

This seems the appropriate place for this :

Investigative Summary Regarding Allegations that NASA Suppressed Climate Change Science and Denied Media Access to Dr. James E. Hansen, a NASA Scientist

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/investigations/OI_STI_Summary.pdf

"After carefully reviewing the relevant facts and circumstances in this matter, we conclude that officials in the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs did, in fact, manage the release of information concerning climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, and mischaracterized the scientific information within the particular media over which that office had control. Further, on at least one occasion, the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs denied media access to a NASA scientist, Dr. Hansen, due, in part, to that office’s concern that Dr. Hansen would not limit his statements to science but would, instead, entertain a policy discussion on the issue of climate change."

(My emphasis)

Signs of a conspiracy there, I think :cool:.

[TrueSceptic]

This PDF (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf) suggests he might be.

He manages to make just about every wacko conspiracy claim you can think of, and he's so brazen with his accusations that I wonder if legal action will ensue.

[Spud1k]

This PDF (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf) suggests he might be.

He manages to make just about every wacko conspiracy claim you can think of, and he's so brazen with his accusations that I wonder if legal action will ensue.

I got as far as the first sentence of the abstract:

For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible.

Anyone who knows the scene will know this statement to be at best, purely opinion-based and at worst, outrageously false (I'd go for the latter). That kind of sums up Lindzen.

[CapelDodger]

If you are told at all. It seems that the contrary evidence is publicly kept localized and suppressed by the major national news media.

(from another place)

That's the way it seems to easycruise, apparently.

My suggestion that Rupert Murdoch might be behind it all fell on barren ground.

[TrueSceptic]

There must be something in the air. Perhaps it's desperation. Lindzen writes a paper alleging all sorts of conspiracies and Munchkin tops that with an article that most satirists couldn't hope to match. See What hockey-stick? (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/what_hockey_stick.html)
These evil pseudo-scientists, through the falsity of their statistical manipulations, have already killed far more people through starvation than "global warming" will ever kill. They should now be indicted and should stand trial alongside Radovan Karadzic for nothing less than high crimes against humanity: for, in their callous disregard for the fatal consequences of their corrupt falsification of science, they are no less guilty of genocide than he.
That's after repeating the usual lies about DDT, of course.

[CapelDodger]

There must be something in the air. Perhaps it's desperation. Lindzen writes a paper alleging all sorts of conspiracies and Munchkin tops that with an article that most satirists couldn't hope to match. See What hockey-stick? (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/what_hockey_stick.html)
These evil pseudo-scientists, through the falsity of their statistical manipulations, have already killed far more people through starvation than "global warming" will ever kill. They should now be indicted and should stand trial alongside Radovan Karadzic for nothing less than high crimes against humanity: for, in their callous disregard for the fatal consequences of their corrupt falsification of science, they are no less guilty of genocide than he.
That's after repeating the usual lies about DDT, of course.

The man is remarkably shallow. He clearly gets all his information from a small clique who repeat the same claptrap to each other in an echo-chamber. Lawson (to whom Munchkin is related, brother-in-law I think) is the same.

Diehard GWSceptics are starting to foam at the mouth, aren't they? Thirty years of the world simply not going their way can do that to people with convictions. Conspiracy is just about all they've got.

The odd thing about Munchkin is that he seems to have got on board just as the ship is going down. A late-life crisis, perhaps?

[CapelDodger]

easycruise proved his conspiracy theory

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4097234#post4097234

to his own enormous satisfaction, and then started showboating before he'd even posted it. Crickets were mentioned. Oh dear.

He still hasn't told us who's behind the conspiracy, Rupert Murdoch is the obvious choice, that guy bestrides international media like a Titan. He was even a Bond villain in effigy.

So here's the thing : in the midst of all that's going on the mainstream media did not find space for a "Cold Summer in Alaska" story. A story which apparently looms large in easycruise's mind, but is "Dog Bites Man" in the normal world.

[1337m4n]

If Global Warming Science was invented by the government, how many people would need to be in on it? Why have none of them come forward as whistleblowers, eg "Okay, I admit it, we made it all up"? What possible motive is there?

[Spud1k]

If Global Warming Science was invented by the government, how many people would need to be in on it? Why have none of them come forward as whistleblowers, eg "Okay, I admit it, we made it all up"? What possible motive is there?

For that matter, why did GWB spend so long rejecting it in the early noughties? Was he standing up to the NWO at the time?

[easycruise]

easycruise proved his conspiracy theory

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4097234#post4097234

to his own enormous satisfaction, and then started showboating before he'd even posted it. Crickets were mentioned. Oh dear.

He still hasn't told us who's behind the conspiracy, Rupert Murdoch is the obvious choice, that guy bestrides international media like a Titan. He was even a Bond villain in effigy.

So here's the thing : in the midst of all that's going on the mainstream media did not find space for a "Cold Summer in Alaska" story. A story which apparently looms large in easycruise's mind, but is "Dog Bites Man" in the normal world.

Dodger is an apt name for you, since you refuse to concede to strong evidence and continually dodge it. I'm still hearing crickets from you. I have no idea who (if any) is behind it and I don't really care, it is what it is and this is a clear example that any cooling news is suppressed. Pure, plain and simple. But now I'm beginning to wonder if AGW fanatics will listen to any logic and reason at all.

[Spud1k]

I'm not going to enter into a scientific discussion here. That's something for a different thread on a different forum. However, your comments are startlingly similar to the sentiments echoed by many other proponents of various other conspiracy theories on this forum. There is clear evidence, the press won't report it, people won't listen to reason, blah blah blah.

I've said it before and I'll say it again lots of times. Of all the demographics out there, scientists are possibly the worst candidates for pulling off a conspiracy. We love proving each other wrong, evidenced by the fact that the community as a whole are constantly having pops at each other in the press regarding all sorts of details of climate science (getting a little bitchy in some instances). If the evidence against AGW is as clear as you make it out to be, someone would have spilled the beans decades ago.

[CapelDodger]

If Global Warming Science was invented by the government, how many people would need to be in on it? Why have none of them come forward as whistleblowers, eg "Okay, I admit it, we made it all up"? What possible motive is there?

Valid questions.

The government would presumably be the NWO, although I'm sure there are some people who can't imagine a world outside the US.

If you dig deep enough you'll probably find some people claiming to be whistle-blowers.

The motive of the NWO is always greater regimentation of people's lives because They Hate Freedom. That said, I have heard the claim that AGW was invented by foreigners because They Hate America, and action on AGW would have its greatest impact on the US.

Ideally an actual AGW conspiracist will drop in to give their answers.

[CapelDodger]

Dodger is an apt name for you, since you refuse to concede to strong evidence and continually dodge it.

You're evidence is weak to the point of helplessness, and I explained why.

I'm still hearing crickets from you. I have no idea who (if any) is behind it and I don't really care, it is what it is and this is a clear example that any cooling news is suppressed. Pure, plain and simple. But now I'm beginning to wonder if AGW fanatics will listen to any logic and reason at all.

No halfway rational person is going to regard your "logic and reason" as sound.

There's a prefect storm of news going on, and the "coolest Alaskan summer since 1980" is going to be spiked. In normal times you'll find every "cooling" event or prediction being covered (start with WSJ editorial archives, those guys will boost any crap). You think this is a significant story, but it isn't.

Here's a thing : if cloudy conditions persist in Alaska it will cause a particularly warm winter. If that happens we'll see if the mainstream media reports it. According your hypothesis it will. According to mine, nobody will give a toss because the prefect storm is set to carry on for a while.

Testable predictions of hypotheses. Life just doesn't get more rational than that, does it?

(Life doesn't get more intellectually lazy than not caring about who's behind a conspiracy you promote and apparently believe in.)

[CapelDodger]

I'm not going to enter into a scientific discussion here. That's something for a different thread on a different forum. However, your comments are startlingly similar to the sentiments echoed by many other proponents of various other conspiracy theories on this forum. There is clear evidence, the press won't report it, people won't listen to reason, blah blah blah.

It says a lot about the mindset of a conspiracist (or any cultist). A lot of it's about believing thay have special knowledge and understanding as part of a mutually reinforcing in-group. It's how they define themselves in a world they find mysterious and threatening. If the conspiracy actually became mainstream understanding they'd be devastated. Lost until they can encyst themselves in a new in-group.

I've said it before and I'll say it again lots of times. Of all the demographics out there, scientists are possibly the worst candidates for pulling off a conspiracy. We love proving each other wrong, evidenced by the fact that the community as a whole are constantly having pops at each other in the press regarding all sorts of details of climate science (getting a little bitchy in some instances).

I agree. The Nazis' "Aryan Science" conspiracy required expulsions and repression, and only worked within the reaches of the Third Reich. Much good it did them :).

Scientists across the world have had to constantly push their concerns about AGW against political resistance. Politicians can do without climate change on top of all the other stuff they have to cope with, as can the general population (and Rupert Murdoch). The idea that scientists could collude to invent and then force AGW onto the world stage is risible.

[TrueSceptic]

easycruise proved his conspiracy theory

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4097234#post4097234

to his own enormous satisfaction, and then started showboating before he'd even posted it. Crickets were mentioned. Oh dear.

He still hasn't told us who's behind the conspiracy, Rupert Murdoch is the obvious choice, that guy bestrides international media like a Titan. He was even a Bond villain in effigy.

So here's the thing : in the midst of all that's going on the mainstream media did not find space for a "Cold Summer in Alaska" story. A story which apparently looms large in easycruise's mind, but is "Dog Bites Man" in the normal world.
It's odd that, in the other thread, he claims that he alleged no conspiracy and that you called it a conspiracy theory. Does he not know that his claim about suppression in the media is an excellent example of that very thing? :confused:

What's that quote about "seeing the world through a straw"? ;)

[TrueSceptic]

If Global Warming Science was invented by the government, how many people would need to be in on it? Why have none of them come forward as whistleblowers, eg "Okay, I admit it, we made it all up"? What possible motive is there?
GWSceptic answer:-

It was invented by lefty eco-fascists who want to tax and control us all. They have infiltrated science, government, and the media throughout the world. The only people who are blowing whistles are the brave sceptics, the ones vilified by the AGW conspirators and their gullible and willing followers.

[Spud1k]

GWSceptic answer:-

It was invented by lefty eco-fascists who want to tax and control us all. They have infiltrated science, government, and the media throughout the world. The only people who are blowing whistles are the brave sceptics, the ones vilified by the AGW conspirators and their gullible and willing followers.

Another one they tout is that AGW was a theory that was favoured by a small number of scientists that managed to con a load of influential people and press into thinking they'd proved it while in reality it flies in the face of the majority of the scientific research. This, of course, is no closer to reality than what you just described, but to paint an image of a handful of crackpot scientists being responsible rather than the hippie version of the NWO is somewhat more digestible to a lot of people.

[TrueSceptic]

Another one they tout is that AGW was a theory that was favoured by a small number of scientists that managed to con a load of influential people and press into thinking they'd proved it while in reality it flies in the face of the majority of the scientific research. This, of course, is no closer to reality than what you just described, but to paint an image of a handful of crackpot scientists being responsible rather than the hippie version of the NWO is somewhat more digestible to a lot of people.
There are many variations, the only common feature being that a significant CO2 GHG effect cannot be allowed to be "real science". ;)

[TrueSceptic]

Ideally an actual AGW conspiracist will drop in to give their answers.
How do you know we they aren't already here, supporting the conspiracy by smearing the sceptics?

[TrueSceptic]

How do you know we they aren't already here, supporting the conspiracy by smearing the sceptics?
I misread that, didn't I? Still, assume I was referring to conspirators and it still works. :o

As for the other lot, we know they're here. They just don't want to be seen in this thread.

[Spud1k]

There are many variations, the only common feature being that a significant CO2 GHG effect cannot be allowed to be "real science". ;)

Oh, it can be. So long as the recent rises in CO2 can't possibly be man-made. But if they are, they can't possibly be responsible for the recent warming. ;)

[TrueSceptic]

Oh, it can be. So long as the recent rises in CO2 can't possibly be man-made. But if they are, they can't possibly be responsible for the recent warming. ;)
Indeed. In case you haven't seen it, I refer you to Wikiality (http://www.wikiality.com/Global_warming), and in particular,

In summary, each and every one of the above has been found to be the true culprit responsible for global warming which does not exist.

[Spud1k]

It all comes down to proving that someone who is saying something you don't like is wrong about something. It doesn't matter what you prove them wrong about, just so long as they are wrong and you are right. I don't know if that is a CT-specific thing but it is something that all CTs have in common and it stinks.

[varwoche]

Easycruise, is this the full extent of the "proof" you posted?
Seems to think? Ha! It's quite clear. Surely even you must realize that the major news media has not mentioned this years very cold Alaskan summer and it was kept local. I checked the following web sites..

NY Times-no mention, but they did mention a warm summer in Alaska back in 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/national/19alaska.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=alaska%20coldest%20summer&st=cse&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/national/19alaska.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=alaska%20coldest%20summer&st=cse&oref=slogin)

Washington Post-in an article of imperiled walrus from receding sea ice, it was briefly mentioned, but was buried well into the story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/28/AR2008082803489.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/28/AR2008082803489.html)

ABC News-no mention
NBC News-no mention
CBS News-nothing
LA Times-nothing
Chicago Tribune-nothing
Philadelphia Inquirer-nothing.

I still stand with what I said in post 658..
"If you are told at all. It seems that the contrary evidence is publicly kept localized and suppressed by the major national news media. "

CT proven! Do I hear crickets coming from the Capel Dodger corner?


And just to make sure we're on the same page, this is supposedly proof of the following...?If you are told at all. It seems that the contrary evidence is publicly kept localized and suppressed by the major national news media.

[CapelDodger]

And just to make sure we're on the same page, this is supposedly proof of the following...?

The key word is "suppressed". Not "ignored" (which would be fine, since the mainstream press ignores most things), but actively suppressed.

Freudian? Inarticulate? Or deliberate, followed by wriggling? We report, you decide. Then we send in the black helicopters :cool:.

[CapelDodger]

It all comes down to proving that someone who is saying something you don't like is wrong about something. It doesn't matter what you prove them wrong about, just so long as they are wrong and you are right. I don't know if that is a CT-specific thing but it is something that all CTs have in common and it stinks.

I think that's a common tactic, and it's essentially ad hominem.

[TrueSceptic]

From Here (http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=tseuga&date=081013).

The Executive Board appears to have acted thus because Lawrence Krauss, a notorious, Marxist political activist who found uncongenial the conclusions of a paper by me that appeared in the July 2008 issue of Physics and Society, came under pressure from his political faction to undermine and repudiate my paper by means other than the usual scientific debate. Krauss was not able to debate the content of my paper scientifically, since it was beyond his expertise.

and

Therefore I invite the Executive Board, however tempted it may be by the lavish taxpayer funding available to those who genuflect to what is no more than a quasi-theological belief that the increase of one-ten-thousandth part in the proportion of the atmosphere occupied by CO2 since 1750 can somehow put the planet at serious risk, to resist the State-subsidized ending of the Age of Reason and Enlightenment, to reconsider the Council's policy declaration in favor of the new faith, and to allow open, scientific debate on alleged (but non-existent) "global warming" and other scientific issues within the pages of its journals without posting silly, unscientific, and mendacious disclaimers over learned papers, such as mine, that its editors have commissioned, reviewed, accepted, and published.

[CapelDodger]

From Here (http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=tseuga&date=081013).

Utterly crazed. And, of course, egomaniacal.

WEBCommentary is in the domain of the deranged. Check out the homepage; they're proud to be associated with Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich.

Of more immediate relevance:
http://www.webcommentary.com/rwcohen.htm

"The following letter is from an APS member, Roger W. Cohen, and is in support of Lord Monckton's paper (http://www.webcommentary.com/monckton.htm) published in the July APS newsletter: "


An "APS member", one of the 50,000 robots that march to the APS drum, remember?

"I have been involved in climate change for nearly 30 years. In 1980, a few of us in the research organization of a large multinational energy corporation realized that the climate issue was likely to affect our future business environment."

He means Exxon, unsurprisingly. http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=942216

"I retired four years ago ..."

Well there's a thing. Another actuarily-challenged champion of The Cause.

"... and at the time of my retirement I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC's case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is."

So he's been involved in climate change for thirty years, and for twenty-six of them he didn't get into the details of the science.

And so it goes on.

[TrueSceptic]

Utterly crazed. And, of course, egomaniacal.

WEBCommentary is in the domain of the deranged. Check out the homepage; they're proud to be associated with Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich.

Of more immediate relevance:
http://www.webcommentary.com/rwcohen.htm

An "APS member", one of the 50,000 robots that march to the APS drum, remember?

He means Exxon, unsurprisingly. http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=942216

Well there's a thing. Another actuarily-challenged champion of The Cause.

So he's been involved in climate change for thirty years, and for twenty-six of them he didn't get into the details of the science.

And so it goes on.
If only it weren't so ****ing predictable. :(

There ought to be a term for this: "Emeritus Syndrome" perhaps? OK, only retired profs get that title I think, but it has general application, yes?

[varwoche]

Well there's a thing. Another actuarily-challenged champion of The Cause. Funny.

We could line up the headliners and have an annual who dies first wager. :boxedin:

[CapelDodger]

Funny.

We could line up the headliners and have an annual who dies first wager. :boxedin:

A Death Pool. And why not? With a modicum of luck we'll outlive the usual suspects, and The Cause has a serious recruitment problem. Scientists with careers ahead of them are reluctant to sign-on to a sinking ship.

Singer, Gray, Baliunas, Soon, Christy, Michaels - all spring to mind. But where are the young and rising stars? Nowhere obvious.

Munchkin and McIntyre aren't scientists, but nor are they spring-chickens. All those keepers of the dying light - no wonder they're exhibiting signs of frustration and dementia.

[CapelDodger]

If only it weren't so ****ing predictable. :(

There ought to be a term for this: "Emeritus Syndrome" perhaps? OK, only retired profs get that title I think, but it has general application, yes?

There's certainly a syndrome, but it's not normally brought into the bright light of day. For instance, the last hold-out against birds being descended from dinosaurs died some years ago still clinging to his belief. The last hold-outs against plate tectonics died earlier, just as convinced. What they didn't get was the publicity that comes with being a hold-out against AGW or anything tobacco-related.

[a_unique_person]

"If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas

She doesn't mind attacking scientists with the cheapest shot you can use. Scientists don't ususally get paid that well, and do it for their love of science more than money. If you've got the brains to do high level research, you've got more than enough brains to be a merchant banker.

[TrueSceptic]

As someone who gets guilty pleasure from observing pompous buffoonery, I'm feeling thoroughly spoilt at the moment. See Munchkin's Open Letter to John McCain (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html).

It will be a radically-tyrannical dictatorship - perhaps the brutal gerontocracy of Communist China, or the ruthless plutocracy of supposedly ex-Communist Russia, or the crude, mediaeval theocracy of rampant Islam, or even the contemptible, fumbling, sclerotic, atheistic-humanist bureaucracy of the emerging European oligarchy that has stealthily stolen away the once-paradigmatic democracy of our Mother of Parliaments from elected hands here to unelected hands elsewhere. For government of the people, by the people and for the people is still a rarity today, and it may yet perish from the earth if America, its exemplar, destroys herself in the specious name of "Saving The Planet".

Also quoted at Deltoid. :D

[CapelDodger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas

She doesn't mind attacking scientists with the cheapest shot you can use. Scientists don't ususally get paid that well, and do it for their love of science more than money. If you've got the brains to do high level research, you've got more than enough brains to be a merchant banker.

It's a stupid statement in itself. Climate change is problem whatever the cause, so just as much money would be spent on it. If it was a natural influence there'd be even more money thrown at it because nobody yet has a clue what that natural influence might be, let alone how it's likely to behave in the near future.

Let's imagine that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. We could exhume and burn all the fossil-carbon we wanted with no effect on climate. But of course the last few decades of climate change have happened, for some unexplained and thus unpredictable reason. Silly government money would have been thrown at any hypothesis, however fringe. The fossil-fuel establishment would have ignored the whole subject, and not a word would we have heard from Baliunas on the matter.

Baliunas is one of those people who can't grasp the concept of integrity. Which makes her an extreme outsider in the scientific world. In the wider world she's just an outsider. And stupid.

[CapelDodger]

As someone who gets guilty pleasure from observing pompous buffoonery, I'm feeling thoroughly spoilt at the moment. See Munchkin's Open Letter to John McCain (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html).

Oh ... My ... Word.

He writes to McCain? See "egomaniacal" above :).

The ravings of a shallow old git who made himself a bad education in good institutions. He really thinks he's now in the limelight which he's always felt entitled to. What a fart.

And of course the sad-acts bought into him, even though he was just regurgitating familiar crap from years ago. A figurehead like that says a lot about the ship, and none of it good.

[varwoche]

OMG. Talk about pompous. He actually refers to himself as... An open letter from The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to Senator John McCain about Climate Science and Policy
By The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley You crazy Brits! I never heard of a Viscount before. Are there other Viscounts?

Funny thing. This is the one GW thread where a marxist conspirator such as myself can kick back and relax, seeing as it's the only GW thread that's devoid of the conspiracy crowd. :)

[CapelDodger]

It will be a radically-tyrannical dictatorship - perhaps the brutal gerontocracy of Communist China, or the ruthless plutocracy of supposedly ex-Communist Russia, or the crude, mediaeval theocracy of rampant Islam, or even the contemptible, fumbling, sclerotic, atheistic-humanist bureaucracy of the emerging European oligarchy that has stealthily stolen away the once-paradigmatic democracy of our Mother of Parliaments from elected hands here to unelected hands elsewhere. For government of the people, by the people and for the people is still a rarity today, and it may yet perish from the earth if America, its exemplar, destroys herself in the specious name of "Saving The Planet".

When I say "ravings" I use the word advisedly. Stuff like that could get you put away for your own good in the 19thCE, when we were still free to say "lunatic".

Worse yet, these are ravings that have been gone over and embellished before they've been sent into the light of day. The result is balls-achingly contrived and simply awful (this is Munchkin ostensibly trying to connect with McCain, lets not forget :rolleyes:. The guy that calls Obama an elitist).

[CapelDodger]

OMG. Talk about pompous. He actually refers to himself as...

You bet he does. Munchkin is self-inflating, he needs all the pressure he can get. And the title, to him, represents pressure.

You crazy Brits! I never heard of a Viscount before. Are there other Viscounts?

Suffice to say that the Munchkins are not of ancient nobility. Titles tend to multiply over time . After every tribulation there are people who need to be rewarded better than this but not as high as that. So an in-between title is invented and nobody asks questions.

Funny thing. This is the one GW thread where a marxist conspirator such as myself can kick back and relax, seeing as it's the only GW thread that's devoid of the conspiracy crowd. :)

I feel very much the same. It's like our chill-room, hidden in the last place anyone would look. Those that stumble into it don't seem to stay long :).

[TrueSceptic]

OMG. Talk about pompous. He actually refers to himself as... You crazy Brits! I never heard of a Viscount before. Are there other Viscounts?

European, not just British. See the Wiki description (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount) and list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Viscountcies). This Viscountcy was created as recently as 1957 and Munchkin is only the third holder of the title. One of his many lies is that he has claimed to be a member of the House of Lords despite inheriting the title 7 years after legislation removing that right.


Funny thing. This is the one GW thread where a marxist conspirator such as myself can kick back and relax, seeing as it's the only GW thread that's devoid of the conspiracy crowd. :)
Funny indeed. :D

[TrueSceptic]

As reported at Deltoid (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/10/vincent_gray_has_a_theory.php), Vincent Gray has a theory (http://hot-topic.co.nz/touch-of-gray/).

Environmentalism is just the latest attempt to find a substitute for the theory of evolution and it is paradoxical that it can be so widespread when next year (2009) is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his major work “The Origin of Species as the Result of Natural Selection”.

All of the basic beliefs of Environmentalism are in direct conflict with contemporary understanding of the principles of Darwinism.

Vincent Gray is 86...

[Spud1k]

So all this time I've been a closet creationist in denial? :jaw-dropp

I must admit I've never seen anything like that vector before... "Environmentalism is at odds with Darwinism. Because the theory of evolution is scientific, global warming theory is therefore unscientific." It's like he's taking two (incorrect) ideological inferences from the respective sciences and pitching them against each other. Is there any good word for that kind of logical fallacy?

ETA: Make that any good word that doesn't violate rule 10...

[CapelDodger]

The Club of Rome's behind it, oh yes.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4314197#post4314197

Brought to us by a new player, damien pastaume. Bless 'im.

"My problem is with extremely powerful and influential people misusing this data to sell extremely bad and enormously costly policies to the public. I hope that makes my position crystal clear."

It certainly does.

[TShaitanaku]

[QUOTE=CapelDodger;4314847]The Club of Rome's behind it, oh yes.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4314197#post4314197

Brought to us by a new player, damien pastaume. Bless 'im.
QUOTE]


It always amazes me that CTers never recognize their own pet beliefs as CTs, even when they are hard-core skeptics on other issues, and among the first to spot all the elements and patterns of fringe CT advocacy when it comes to other areas.

Must be like a psychological blindspot, I'm sure we all have them, but it seems so dramatically evident when we see them in others.

[Spud1k]

The Club of Rome's behind it, oh yes.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4314197#post4314197

Brought to us by a new player, damien pastaume. Bless 'im.

It certainly does.

And no prizes for guessing who was first in line (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4315021&postcount=156) to take it that little bit further... ;)

[CapelDodger]

And no prizes for guessing who was first in line (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4315021&postcount=156) to take it that little bit further... ;)

Well of course mahze was on it like a beetle to a pine-tree. What a scary world these people perceive, eh? And damien, bless 'im, introduces the "living in a bubble" metaphor. Boo-yah :)!

[CapelDodger]

It always amazes me that CTers never recognize their own pet beliefs as CTs, even when they are hard-core skeptics on other issues, and among the first to spot all the elements and patterns of fringe CT advocacy when it comes to other areas.

I've known some equal-opportunity CTers in my time, even when the CT's are contradictory. Such people tend to compartmentalise reality - for simplicity's sake, I think.

Must be like a psychological blindspot, I'm sure we all have them ...

Speak for yourself :mad:.

... but it seems so dramatically evident when we see them in others.

True. And often astoundingly evident when there are still people that believe in it and yet go about their daily lives as if the world's normal. Then they get back home to their basements and their real lives.

[Spud1k]

Well of course mahze was on it like a beetle to a pine-tree. What a scary world these people perceive, eh? And damien, bless 'im, introduces the "living in a bubble" metaphor. Boo-yah :)!

From what I've gathered from CTers in general, the mindset isn't so much about what you do believe, it's more about what you won't believe no matter what, i.e. what it is that 'they' are telling you to believe. In the case of global warming, any theory is good so long as it is compliant with the notion that AGW is a lie.

What I've noticed amongst certain subset of deniers (in various places) is that in line with many conspiracy theorists, they are more than happy to insinuate all kinds of stuff and yet they will never actually admit to subscribing to any of it. Deep down, they are fully aware of how divorced from reality the theories are but if pressed on the issue, all they will ever do is say something along the lines of "it still makes more sense than what the government is telling us".

[TShaitanaku]

(...) Deep down, they are fully aware of how divorced from reality the theories are but if pressed on the issue, all they will ever do is say something along the lines of "it still makes more sense than what the government is telling us".

Which I suspect is the real source of most conspiracy theories,
"Eebil Gubber Mint!!"

The only accurate conspiracy I've ever run across with regards to the government, is the persistently prevelant concept that the government is competent enough to actually and effectively conspire toward any end or goal. Any historic examples of such are the result blind luck and accident moreso than careful planning and skillful execution.

Nothing wrong with a healthy mistrust of government, but there is a certain obsessiveness in the extent some carry that mistrust to, and some seem much more partisan in their definitions of government, in that any effort or program one party advocates is evil incarnate, whereas any effort or program the other party advocates has many merits that deserve consideration and support, if for no other reason than which party is advocating the effort or program.

Oh well, whatcha gonna do?

[CapelDodger]

A few random thoughts on conspiracy theorists ...

Companionship. A conspiracy theory gives the believer membership of a group - an elite group, even - which validates them. It provides a venue in which they no longer feel socially inadequate; the prospect of leaving that group must be horrifying, which is why they can accept anything (however ludicrous) that sustains the delusion against the slings and arrows of rationality.

A mysterious world. To those who find the normal world a complete mystery anything might be true, even a conspiracy that encompasses the great majority of the world's population (if not the galaxy's).

Limited horizons (aka Basement Living). Consider the Moon-Landing Conspiracy, for instance. The "evidence" stops at the US media, the US population, and the US gumment. When this fact cannot be ignored, well, step forward the One World Gumment - which is effectively the same thing. With or without The Jews or The Commies.

Right-wingers tend to be more susceptible to conspiracy theories because they are inherently more suspicious of gumment than normal folk.

[CapelDodger]

The only accurate conspiracy I've ever run across with regards to the government, is the persistently prevelant concept that the government is competent enough to actually and effectively conspire toward any end or goal. Any historic examples of such are the result blind luck and accident moreso than careful planning and skillful execution.

The Iraq War fiasco demonstrates a real gumment conspiracy, and look how that turned out.