Is Global Warming Denialism a conspiracy theory or a religion?

[bobwtfomg]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

But a recognized authority on Lefty Disinformation. And her quotation as to how to create climate disinformation is exactly what the Chicken Littles of the Marxist Left are all about.

here's a couple of climate disinformation quotes from those well known Chicken Littles of the Marxist Left,

The American Physical Society

Quote:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases

and the American Geophysical Union

Quote:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by bobwtfomg

here's a couple of climate disinformation quotes from those well known Chicken Littles of the Marxist Left,

The American Physical Society

and the American Geophysical Union

Baloney.

"In November 2009, 80 current and past members of the American Physical Society presented a letter to the society specifically objecting to the society's position.[10] A few days later, it was rejected.[11] On April 18, 2010, the APS modified the policy statement significantly toning down the rhetoric.[9]
The following individuals resigned their memberships over disagreement with the society's official statement on global warming:
Ivar Giaever, Winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973, resigned 13 September 2011.[12]
Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara, resigned 6 October 2010.[1"

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

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by bobwtfomg

I did not say mis-translation, I said interpretation. It's all about context, the guy is talking about an effect not a goal, though obviously if your denial of the science leads you to believe that there must be a hidden agenda (or is it your dogmatic belief that there is a hidden marxist agenda that leads you to deny science), I'm guessing the latter, you probably won't understand the difference.

Hidden? Not at all. The Marxists are quite open about it.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Hidden? Not at all. The Marxists are quite open about it.

provide your evidence pls.

happy quote mining.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Hidden? Not at all. The Marxists are quite open about it.

Originally Posted by DC

provide your evidence pls.

happy quote mining.

Previously answered. But here's another:

From The International Marxist Tendency

Global Warming: a Marxist perspective
Written by Chris Burrows
Friday, 06 July 2012

"For environmental issues to be addressed, the development of society must be planned. However, we cannot plan what we do not control, and we cannot control what we do not own. For example, how could we even begin to build a sustainable supply of energy when the electricity industry, mines, and water companies are privately owned, operating solely to make profit? These businesses must be brought into public ownership, and operated democratically. But in and of itself, public ownership of utilities industries would not solve the problem – after all, in the post war period in Britain all of these industries were nationalised. In order to direct investment, private ownership must be eliminated in the banking, insurance and financial sectors. This would allow the proper level of investment in new technology, the development of agriculture, and the development of long term planning. Only then would society’s resources be able to be consciously planned, for the benefit of all."

Nothing new here. Just same ole same ole Marxism 101.

http://www.marxist.com/global-warmin...erspective.htm

[DC]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Hidden? Not at all. The Marxists are quite open about it.



Previously answered. But here's another:

From The International Marxist Tendency

Global Warming: a Marxist perspective
Written by Chris Burrows
Friday, 06 July 2012

"For environmental issues to be addressed, the development of society must be planned. However, we cannot plan what we do not control, and we cannot control what we do not own. For example, how could we even begin to build a sustainable supply of energy when the electricity industry, mines, and water companies are privately owned, operating solely to make profit? These businesses must be brought into public ownership, and operated democratically. But in and of itself, public ownership of utilities industries would not solve the problem – after all, in the post war period in Britain all of these industries were nationalised. In order to direct investment, private ownership must be eliminated in the banking, insurance and financial sectors. This would allow the proper level of investment in new technology, the development of agriculture, and the development of long term planning. Only then would society’s resources be able to be consciously planned, for the benefit of all."

Nothing new here. Just same ole same ole Marxism 101.

http://www.marxist.com/global-warmin...erspective.htm

this guy works for the UN? Is he a climatologist? does he work for a scinetific institution? what is his position?

or is he merely a marxist that talks about how he thinks the AGW problem should be solved?

[aleCcowaN]

We could safely say that global warming denialism is just another advocacy based in the proselytism of false notions that infects people of different colours but with certain mental biases, like anti-intellectualism.

Sometimes it seems like a religion just because the quality of the reactions: starting again from the beginning reciting the creed, exactly what Robert is doing here. You say anything and he goes back "in the beginning there was chaos...".

But we have to consider most denialists are not like Robert. In fact, little people are, thank to Santa for that.

[bobwtfomg]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Hidden? Not at all. The Marxists are quite open about it.



Previously answered. But here's another:

From The International Marxist Tendency

Global Warming: a Marxist perspective
Written by Chris Burrows
Friday, 06 July 2012

"For environmental issues to be addressed, the development of society must be planned. However, we cannot plan what we do not control, and we cannot control what we do not own. For example, how could we even begin to build a sustainable supply of energy when the electricity industry, mines, and water companies are privately owned, operating solely to make profit? These businesses must be brought into public ownership, and operated democratically. But in and of itself, public ownership of utilities industries would not solve the problem – after all, in the post war period in Britain all of these industries were nationalised. In order to direct investment, private ownership must be eliminated in the banking, insurance and financial sectors. This would allow the proper level of investment in new technology, the development of agriculture, and the development of long term planning. Only then would society’s resources be able to be consciously planned, for the benefit of all."

Nothing new here. Just same ole same ole Marxism 101.

http://www.marxist.com/global-warmin...erspective.htm

I'm sure I could quite easily find statements by marxists endorsing the theory of evolution and interpreting it to validate their dreams of a proletarian revolution.
Does that mean that in your mind all the evidence supporting evolution is part of some leftie hoax??
Or is that one wing nut conspiracy theory too far even for you??

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Hidden? Not at all. The Marxists are quite open about it.



Previously answered. But here's another:

From The International Marxist Tendency

Global Warming: a Marxist perspective
Written by Chris Burrows
Friday, 06 July 2012

"For environmental issues to be addressed, the development of society must be planned. However, we cannot plan what we do not control, and we cannot control what we do not own. For example, how could we even begin to build a sustainable supply of energy when the electricity industry, mines, and water companies are privately owned, operating solely to make profit? These businesses must be brought into public ownership, and operated democratically. But in and of itself, public ownership of utilities industries would not solve the problem – after all, in the post war period in Britain all of these industries were nationalised. In order to direct investment, private ownership must be eliminated in the banking, insurance and financial sectors. This would allow the proper level of investment in new technology, the development of agriculture, and the development of long term planning. Only then would society’s resources be able to be consciously planned, for the benefit of all."

Nothing new here. Just same ole same ole Marxism 101.

http://www.marxist.com/global-warmin...erspective.htm

Marxists? There are no Marxists. There are the haves who think that any regulation is the second coming of the French & Russian Revolution combined.
And then there are the rest of us.

If you are familiar with the term Officer's Country that's where the rest of us are not.

[bobwtfomg]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

The only consistent action of yours is trying to swamp and disrupt every thread about global warming. It's like you goal is a political one: have global warming not being dealt with as public actions. And the means to do so are whatever you can use, mainly deceiving and attacking. Those are the only consistencies of yours, other than you never discussing notions -obviously because you are not able to do it-.

I think you've hit the nail on the head Alec.

The denial of climate science stems in a large part from political motivations, some people are simply ideologically opposed to any problems being dealt with by public actions, whether through regulation (Big Guvment), social movements (libral dogooders, commie agitaters and dirty hippies) or international agreements (NWO).
Rather than argueing honestly from their POV in favour of individualistic/free market solutions to problems they prefer to deny reality, (it's not warming) or deny it's a problem (so what if it's warming) and attack the messenger (it's all a commie hoax).

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by bobwtfomg

I think you've hit the nail on the head Alec.

The denial of climate science stems in a large part from political motivations, some people are simply ideologically opposed to any problems being dealt with by public actions, whether through regulation (Big Guvment), social movements (libral dogooders, commie agitaters and dirty hippies) or international agreements (NWO).
Rather than argueing honestly from their POV in favour of individualistic/free market solutions to problems they prefer to deny reality, (it's not warming) or deny it's a problem (so what if it's warming) and attack the messenger (it's all a commie hoax).

nice post, think i'll keep it handy..

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by bobwtfomg

...and of course he's a registered republican which puts another nail in the "climate science is just a commie hoax" coffin.

But Republicans have been already infiltrated!

I suppose it never was clear here that all this meme of lefties and global warming is just an Anglo-Saxon one, maybe a bit extended towards Northern Europe. I'm saying again -and I'm sure I'll be forced to repeat it a hundred more times here- that in most of the planet the "global warming hoax" is a trick of capital and imperialism to subjugate emerging countries. Global warming denial IS A LEFTY THING all over the world, except in the Bible Belt and all the countries and regions that share the same cultural background.

It is such a lefty thing that Maoists are outraged that anybody may try to curb the development of China, and people among "green" groups are saying that GW is a hoax invented to give nukes a new ride. You know, English is not the language of the World, so you easily find blogs in other languages telling you "what's really behind global warming". Everybody thinks that this is an interconnected world, but there's a great deal of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing (pun intended), specially when there are potential "business" for doing so.

[Cuddles]

If you want to have a general discussion about global warming, go and have it in the appropriate thread.

Posted By:Cuddles

[UTLonghorn]

Well if global warming is a hoax, then we have to look at who would be behind it. Virtually every climatologist, scientific organization, intergovernmental bodies like the IPCC, the cooperation of nearly all world governments, etc. This would require the participation of tens of thousands of people. To believe that all of these people are involved in some massive cover up of the "truth" would fit the bill of a conspiracy theory.

[DC]

glaciers and the sea is also in on it they behave as if there was global warming, those bastids.

[aleCcowaN]

I insist global warming denial is just an advocacy. They have to have presence and reach, like Facebook or Twitter, without knowing what exactly is the model of business but they first should amass an audience. The likes of Prey and others are just users of the denial-net who twit tirelessly and occupy themselves in telling you what they like or dislike.

The mass of denialists in the net doesn't define what the likes of Mark Zuckerberg are.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn

Well if global warming is a hoax, then we have to look at who would be behind it. Virtually every climatologist, scientific organization, intergovernmental bodies like the IPCC, the cooperation of nearly all world governments, etc. This would require the participation of tens of thousands of people. To believe that all of these people are involved in some massive cover up of the "truth" would fit the bill of a conspiracy theory.

You mean everybody's wrong but Mr. Prey?

[UTLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

You mean everybody's wrong but Mr. Prey?

Hard to believe, I know, given his impeccable track record on everything else, but even the greatest minds are wrong occasionally.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn

Well if global warming is a hoax, then we have to look at who would be behind it. Virtually every climatologist, scientific organization, intergovernmental bodies like the IPCC, the cooperation of nearly all world governments, etc. This would require the participation of tens of thousands of people. To believe that all of these people are involved in some massive cover up of the "truth" would fit the bill of a conspiracy theory.

No. Just a handful of political hacks and a flock of sheeple.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

No. Just a handful of political hacks and a flock of sheeple.

so those climatologists do not fake all that data? so the data is real?

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

No. Just a handful of political hacks and a flock of sheeple.

The o'le trick of using resounding short phrases, Robert?

♫ Long as you keep 'em way off balance ♫
♫ How can they spot you've got no talents ♫
♫ Razzle-dazzle 'em, and they'll never catch wise ♫

But the thread is still about what is global warming denialism and how it works. When you're not trying to derail the thread you're just providing a monochord, limited example of how denialism communicates.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by DC

so those climatologists do not fake all that data? so the data is real?

Figures don't lie, but liars, figure.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Figures don't lie, but liars, figure.

so you agree that the world average temperature has risen sharply in the later half of the 20th century?
and you agree that CO2 levels have been rising and that humans increase CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels?
you also agree that the world is loosing ice mass?
you also agree that the greenhouse effect as measured by satellites has increased indeed?
you also agree what CO2 has IR absorbing properties as has been measured by spectrography?

those are all measurements done by scientists around the world.
so where are the liars? where is the lie?

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Figures don't lie, but liars, figure.

So Robert that's what you figure eh?

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Figures don't lie, but liars, figure.

Where's that from? your pocket book of handy witticisms? Did it come in a bundle with Dale Carnegie's?

Your inability to express the slightest original idea is noted. That's another characteristic you share with the denialist ilk, like using "they" the same way you did with your previous unoriginal "mouthful"; that basic "they" or the hate speech. However, take into account that short worded derails and/or small talk derails are still derails.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Figures don't lie, but liars, figure.

Punctuation fail.

[bobwtfomg]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

No. Just a handful of political hacks and a flock of sheeple.

No, AGW denial isn't a CT but the only people who accept AGW are hacks and sheeple .. right.. thanks eek:

[aleCcowaN]

The following link, provided by macdoc in the general GW thread, may be interesting to analyse how does the denialist brain work:

http://www globalwarmingskeptics info/thread-1913 html (replace blank spaces with dots; I do not provide link popularity for wacky sites)

That's is a serious case of denialists caught in candid camera.

[DC]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

is this conspiracy theory more realistic than the conspiracy theory that the IPCC and the vast majority of scientists in the relevant field of science togeher with almost all governments around the world conspired to lie to the world in order to create more taxing revenues?

which conspiracy theory does have more supporting evidence?

after my 9/11 trutherism i wanted to stay away from conspiracy theories for a while And while i was already convinced of AGW even during my truther phase, i startet to dislike the idea about speculating about the possibility that big corporations might pay scientists to make flawed studies like Soon and Baliunas and others.
i am totaly sure that there are scientists that are not yet fully convinced that AGW is a problem. and that even some of them might think we should not take any action yet, and they think so no matter who gives them money.

But there seems to be atleast some evidence that shows there might actually be some companies that finance think tanks that publish vrey biased reports and studies.

is this just conspiracy nonsense like most conspiracy theories. or is it slightly more realistic and better supported by evidence than other theories?

[Gawdzilla]

DC, the fact that some companies aren't playing fair does not invalidate the hard science that is being done, it just shows that some folks put profit ahead of honesty.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

DC, the fact that some companies aren't playing fair does not invalidate the hard science that is being done, it just shows that some folks put profit ahead of honesty.

no sure not, not even the funding itself ivalidates the science being done, if science is being done.
while Exxon seems to be one of those that do fund think tanks with bias and pseudoscientific reports and studies. Exxon is also funding good and sound research like here :

http://globalchange.mit.edu/sponsors/all

but i do wonder to what extend is the denial machinery funded by industries that are fearing to loose profit over CO2 regulations.

the denial machinery in the US seems to be so strong that one can even argue that they won the political battle about AGW. in the presidential elections AGW was almost a non topic. while it should have been one of the main topics.
i find this very scary.

[bobwtfomg]

Originally Posted by DC

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

is this conspiracy theory more realistic than the conspiracy theory that the IPCC and the vast majority of scientists in the relevant field of science togeher with almost all governments around the world conspired to lie to the world in order to create more taxing revenues?

which conspiracy theory does have more supporting evidence?

after my 9/11 trutherism i wanted to stay away from conspiracy theories for a while And while i was already convinced of AGW even during my truther phase, i startet to dislike the idea about speculating about the possibility that big corporations might pay scientists to make flawed studies like Soon and Baliunas and others.
i am totaly sure that there are scientists that are not yet fully convinced that AGW is a problem. and that even some of them might think we should not take any action yet, and they think so no matter who gives them money.

But there seems to be atleast some evidence that shows there might actually be some companies that finance think tanks that publish vrey biased reports and studies.

is this just conspiracy nonsense like most conspiracy theories. or is it slightly more realistic and better supported by evidence than other theories?

Is this video even a conspiracy theory?

Well I guess that depends very much on your definition of conspiracy theory, but I would say no, not if you define conspiracy as a secret plot to do something illegal.
While the Kochs may not have sought publicity for and used various front groups to obscure their funding of the denier groups it would be a bit of a stretch to say it was a secret plot, and they're not being accused of doing anything illegal in this video.

Also as you suggest in your last sentence the term conspiracy theory usually implies a paranoid speculation with little or no supporting evidence whereas this seems to be backed by sound investagative journalism, and a quick googling revealed no claims that it'd been debunked or wasn't true.

http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2012/04/0...ing-democracy/

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by DC

no sure not, not even the funding itself ivalidates the science being done, if science is being done.
while Exxon seems to be one of those that do fund think tanks with bias and pseudoscientific reports and studies. Exxon is also funding good and sound research like here :

http://globalchange.mit.edu/sponsors/all

but i do wonder to what extend is the denial machinery funded by industries that are fearing to loose profit over CO2 regulations.

the denial machinery in the US seems to be so strong that one can even argue that they won the political battle about AGW. in the presidential elections AGW was almost a non topic. while it should have been one of the main topics.
i find this very scary.

Research is cheaper than actively trying to prevent pollution.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Research is cheaper than actively trying to prevent pollution.

Doing the former is a part of doing the latter. Or will new ways to actively achieve a goal be a bad thing for some reason? Care to supply your cost analysis?

[DC]

Originally Posted by bobwtfomg

Is this video even a conspiracy theory?

Well I guess that depends very much on your definition of conspiracy theory, but I would say no, not if you define conspiracy as a secret plot to do something illegal.
While the Kochs may not have sought publicity for and used various front groups to obscure their funding of the denier groups it would be a bit of a stretch to say it was a secret plot, and they're not being accused of doing anything illegal in this video.

Also as you suggest in your last sentence the term conspiracy theory usually implies a paranoid speculation with little or no supporting evidence whereas this seems to be backed by sound investagative journalism, and a quick googling revealed no claims that it'd been debunked or wasn't true.

http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2012/04/0...ing-democracy/

how about libel? and onsidering the most likely outcome of AGW, crimes against humanity?

[DC]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Research is cheaper than actively trying to prevent pollution.

and your evidence for this claim is?

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Doing the former is a part of doing the latter. Or will new ways to actively achieve a goal be a bad thing for some reason? Care to supply your cost analysis?

Sure. I've called down to Exxon R&D. Do you know what a discussion is? Do you know what an opinion is?

Do you know what foot dragging is?

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Do you know what foot dragging is?

What you are doing now instead of supplying a cost analysis to show that research projects funded by energy suppliers around the world are cheaper than "actually" doing something about pollution?

Or was your apparent observation not based on any actual fact?
Even if one is cheaper than the other, care to show that nations and corporations do one but not the other?

[bobwtfomg]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Research is cheaper than actively trying to prevent pollution.

This isn't about scientific research it's about lobbying.
How much do denier groups such as Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the Manhattan Institute spend on actual scientific research?

Though ironically,

Quote:

The Charles G. Koch Foundation gave $150,000 to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study in 2011, which was embraced by the denial machine until it redundantly re-confirmed that the surface of our planet has been warming increasingly for decades. While David Koch had previously claimed that “global warming could be good for the planet,” neither Charles nor David has explained how the BEST study they funded contradicts their denial of climate change

[aleCcowaN]

What Clayton Moore said with "research is cheaper than actively trying to prevent pollution" was that some real research may be a product of PR needs and come from a cost-benefit analysis. That is common sense, it's thought as a bit to trigger reflection, yet it doesn't need to be proved nor it depicts a reality where everything is necessarily subsumed by lobbying.

It looks like forums.randi.org did it again: in a sort of "argumentum ad hitlerum" everything "Big Oil" does is malicious and, as he holds some strange opinions and foster some wacky causes, everything Clayton Moore is saying needs to be thoroughly substantiated.

He who said "Lord, protect me from my friends. I can take care of my enemies" was thinking in these fora.