CTs Concerning Global Warming Science

[varwoche]

In a number of threads in the Science section, some doubters of the science behind global warming frequently infer, if not out and out claim, that there is a broad conspiracy amongst scientists to willfully mislead the public. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the merits of the science, but rather to (1) itemize the theories and (2) invite the theorists to support their claims with evidence.

There are two recurring themes that I've observed:

(1) GW Science is a marxist/socialist attempt to destroy western economies:

Quote:

What we have in climate science is a failed political philosophy from the past (Marxism) finding a new outlet to cause mass poverty and environmental destruction link

Quote:

a socialist desire to see the destruction of Western free market capitalism link

(2) Scientist are being bribed en masse, or are being threatened with loss of income:

Quote:

There are geologists outside the petroleum industry who say it is AGW funding bribing scientists away from the principle foundations of science. link

Quote:

Comparing the alleged funding from Exxon and others againsts the huge amount of money Government, Foundations, Companies (like Monsanto) and private donors put to stablish AGW as consensus science shows that, if that is a matter of money, AGW activists are the ones bribing scientists. link

Quote:

the sop that the authors put in to placate the global warming industry and make sure they don't get their funding cut off, their research papers blocked and their names put on a list of suspected industry-funded skeptics link

And then there's a myriad of vague pronouncements and inferences, such as:

Quote:

The "Generic" concept of Global Warming is a MYTH. I assert it's a gigantic con, there is so much money to be made from the "Concept" of Global Warming that it's absolutely staggering. link

Quote:

That he [Senator James Inhofe] considers AGW a hoax makes him a nut? No, that makes him rational. link

[a_unique_person]

*crickets chirping*

[1337m4n]

Sam problem as the 9/11 CTs: No whistleblowers. Not one scientist has come out and said he was bribed or that he was part of some conspiracy.

[fsol]

My favorite is that you can't use the GISS figures because they are Hansens figures and he has an "agenda." Of course when you compare the GISS figures to the others...

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/...s-ncdc-hadcru/

[Nick227]

Originally Posted by varwoche

In a number of threads in the Science section, some doubters of the science behind global warming frequently infer, if not out and out claim, that there is a broad conspiracy amongst scientists to willfully mislead the public. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the merits of the science, but rather to (1) itemize the theories and (2) invite the theorists to support their claims with evidence.

There are two recurring themes that I've observed:

(1) GW Science is a marxist/socialist attempt to destroy western economies:

Are there still marxists and socialists then? I thought they were extinct. Actually the main CT around GW I've heard is that it's just a big plot to bring in more and more nuclear power stations. I haven't come across the others you mention.

Nick

[gumboot]

I like the CT that it's a plot by the NWO to use it as an excuse to kill 80% of the world's population.

I wonder how long it will take Alex Jones to realise that if this is true it proves that George W Bush is not part of the NWO.

[CapelDodger]

In http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...62#post3363662

is this :

Quote:

Referring to ....
"that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.”
Several people responded with this comment.
One point of view is that this is a "politically correct" disclaimer. These are often seen in climate science articles. No big deal.

"Politically correct" carries the implication that there's some sort of party-line that scientists must follow if they're to be published, stay employed, and avoid harrassment. "Implication" is generally what we see, although accusations of politically-motivated fraud levelled at Hansen are not uncommon.

Diamond used to accuse Marxists as directly responsible for the IPCC etc., but he seems to have gone to a better-padded place.

Another direct accusation, this time from the neo-Marxist left, has AGW down as a Western Imperialist plot to deny the developing world the opportunities we enjoy in the West.

[Newtons Bit]

I personally think it's been hijacked by politicians who are using it to gain power. I think the whole carbon footprint and carbon credit idea is a crock of bs. But that's just because I think we're already boned at this point and there's not a damn thing we can do to prevent cities from going underwater in the next century or two. Even if we were to cut off carbon emissions today, right now, the next several generations will still be up a creek without a paddle.

And then of course there's the whole methane issue. Global Warming isn't just about carbon, it's also about methane. I don't see anyone coming out against methane emitters. But then, I guess it's easier for politicians to blame the oil companies than the milk companies (as the dairy & cattle industries are big methane emitters).

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

I don't see anyone coming out against methane emitters.

I am! I propose an immediate ban on broccoli!


eta: and this guy!

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

[CapelDodger]

Check out this thread :

NASA reports on two decades of temperature change in Antarctica
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...90#post3379990

Hansen's minions at NASA have given themselves away by fabricating warming in the West Ice Shelf even though it's in East Antarctica! They made a fatal assumption, and the game is up. How much more proof of conspiracy can anybody possibly need?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

I personally think it's been hijacked by politicians who are using it to gain power. I think the whole carbon footprint and carbon credit idea is a crock of bs. But that's just because I think we're already boned at this point and there's not a damn thing we can do to prevent cities from going underwater in the next century or two. Even if we were to cut off carbon emissions today, right now, the next several generations will still be up a creek without a paddle.

It'll be the making of them. Look how the Boomer Generation turned out; coddled, weak and whining. Is that's the future of humanity? If I cared, I'd probably be glad I'm unlikely to live to see it.

Quote:

And then of course there's the whole methane issue. Global Warming isn't just about carbon, it's also about methane. I don't see anyone coming out against methane emitters. But then, I guess it's easier for politicians to blame the oil companies than the milk companies (as the dairy & cattle industries are big methane emitters).

It's easy to blame melting permafrost and landfill-sites that current politicians aren't responsible for, but the crazy thing is that methane is a renewable energy source that's mostly getting flushed down the toilet (so to speak).

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I am! I propose an immediate ban on broccoli!

I'm sensing a reluctance to own responsibility. Which is understandable, but not easily defensible. However distant the fart, methane is methane. Broccoli doesn't fart (somebody would have noticed by now), but livestock does (that was noticed a long time ago).

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

It's easy to blame melting permafrost and landfill-sites that current politicians aren't responsible for, but the crazy thing is that methane is a renewable energy source that's mostly getting flushed down the toilet (so to speak).

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

I'm sensing a reluctance to own responsibility. Which is understandable, but not easily defensible. However distant the fart, methane is methane. Broccoli doesn't fart (somebody would have noticed by now), but livestock does (that was noticed a long time ago).

I can assure you that broccoli will make you fart, but you better not try to attach a collection device to me Mr. Dodger!

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I can assure you that broccoli will make you fart ...

Given my beer-to broccoli ratio I defy anybody to extract that signal from the noise.

Quote:

... but you better not try to attach a collection device to me Mr. Dodger!

The thought never crossed my mind with regard to cats or farmers, but cattle will put up with a lot.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

It's easy to blame melting permafrost and landfill-sites that current politicians aren't responsible for, but the crazy thing is that methane is a renewable energy source that's mostly getting flushed down the toilet (so to speak).

Does that mean we can get the cool-looking methane powered vehicles seen in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome?

I could live without the Thunderdome part though...

[leftysergeant]

I seem to recall watching some old movies about WWII in which there were Citroen vehicles with compressed gas bottles strapped to the top. And older German friend told me that these were mostly methane-powered. Has this technology been forgotten or just discarded as not ecconomicly feasible, given how cheap gasoline has always been?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I seem to recall watching some old movies about WWII in which there were Citroen vehicles with compressed gas bottles strapped to the top. And older German friend told me that these were mostly methane-powered. Has this technology been forgotten or just discarded as not ecconomicly feasible, given how cheap gasoline has always been?

There were vehicles running on coal-gas in the UK during WW2, when fuel was tightly rationed. It was carried in canvas balloons on the roof (most ungainly, and quite impracticable in high winds).

Of course, this sort of thing is only resorted to when there are severe contraints.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Does that mean we can get the cool-looking methane powered vehicles seen in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome?

A beach-buggy is not cool, however much armament and body-parts you slap on it. M'kay? An Aston Martin is cool. A Bentley convertible is cool, and comes with an optional champagne/beer cooler. Ferraris are cool, but Italians aren't.

Quote:

I could live without the Thunderdome part though...

I could live without Mel Gibson, but waddya gonna do? Fate deals the hand, and for every Mel Gibson there's a Nicole Kidman.

[Pipirr]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

There were vehicles running on coal-gas in the UK during WW2, when fuel was tightly rationed. It was carried in canvas balloons on the roof (most ungainly, and quite impracticable in high winds).

That jogs a memory. Wasn't there an episode of Dad's Army about one of those vehicles?

[BenBurch]

Exactly NB - Methane is a huge problem. As long as people eat meat we will have methane being emitted, and nobody wants to tell 4/5 of the world who can still afford meat to become vegetarians.

Methane has a VERY short life in the atmosphere, so if we just stopped making it, we would see a large result quickly.

CO2 on the other hand will take decades to be reduced by organic processes.

However, I think a fully nuclear energy economy would go a long way towards ensuring the future even if carbon is the least tractable issue.

And if we build enough nuclear capability, we can use it off-peak to condense CO2 out of the air...

[volatile]

How did I know more than one of those was from the, errm, mouth of Mr T. Conservative of this parish?

Did anyone else see the report that was on the BBC News website? A journo put out an open call for consensus-busting papers that had been denied publication, or dissenting academics who had been denied a conference platform or job, and there was not one. Not ONE! I'm sure it's been linked from here before - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Nick227

Are there still marxists and socialists then? I thought they were extinct. Actually the main CT around GW I've heard is that it's just a big plot to bring in more and more nuclear power stations. I haven't come across the others you mention.

Nick

Some of them over here, dammit. I found a bunch of them hiding in a political party.

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

And then of course there's the whole methane issue. Global Warming isn't just about carbon, it's also about methane. I don't see anyone coming out against methane emitters. But then, I guess it's easier for politicians to blame the oil companies than the milk companies (as the dairy & cattle industries are big methane emitters).

Fortunately, to offset the Marxists, we're actually onto that.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

A beach-buggy is not cool, however much armament and body-parts you slap on it. M'kay? An Aston Martin is cool.

The F4U Corsair is cooler. As are a number of other WWII fighters. So there!

[portlandatheist]

There's plenty of conspiracy-like thinking on both sides of the coin:
Deniers: Greenpeace, socialists, world government, population control, etc.
Believers: deniers are all right wingers, oil industry insiders, or are otherwise compromised by unseen forces

[leftysergeant]

Some developing nations, especially in Asia are rather skeptical of efforts to cut greenhouse gases because it threatens their food supply. Rice culture produces massive amounts of methane. When I was in korea, the man who pumped our pyonso made money on both ends of his run. We paid him to pump it, and a farmer paid him to dump it.

(Is it any wonder that most adult Koreans have, at some time in their lives been exposed to tuberculosis and hepatitis?)

Going to chemical fertilizers is not a totally satisfactory answer, for both environmental and ecconomic reasons.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

There's plenty of conspiracy-like thinking on both sides of the coin ... Believers: deniers are all right wingers, oil industry insiders, or are otherwise compromised by unseen forces

I've no doubt that such thinking exists. But speaking anecdotally, I've never seen "believer" CT that is remotely in the same league as "denier" CT, at least here on jref. (In fact, I wanted to include such examples in the OP but couldn't locate any.)

Also, it's a fact that Exxon and others have paid lots of money to lobbyists/shills such as CO2 Science, Malloy/junkscience, and the DCI Group, who in turn propagate disinformation on Exxon's behalf. And it's also a fact that these dubious organizations are constantly cited hereabouts. So naturally, when people cite these sort of bozos, they're going to be called on it and rightfully so.

Whereas...

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Pipirr

That jogs a memory. Wasn't there an episode of Dad's Army about one of those vehicles?

The butcher's van, which made the squad Motorised Infantry.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

The F4U Corsair is cooler. As are a number of other WWII fighters. So there!

A P-51 Mustang is cool. Foster Zygote's guitar is way cool. We're cool. Lots of things are cool, but a beach-buggy isn't, however you tart it up. That's all I'm saying.

[GregoryUrich]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

I personally think it's been hijacked by politicians who are using it to gain power. I think the whole carbon footprint and carbon credit idea is a crock of bs. But that's just because I think we're already boned at this point and there's not a damn thing we can do to prevent cities from going underwater in the next century or two. Even if we were to cut off carbon emissions today, right now, the next several generations will still be up a creek without a paddle.

And then of course there's the whole methane issue. Global Warming isn't just about carbon, it's also about methane. I don't see anyone coming out against methane emitters. But then, I guess it's easier for politicians to blame the oil companies than the milk companies (as the dairy & cattle industries are big methane emitters).

Actually, here in Sweden we get reports on national radio saying that eating meat has roughly the same impact as a driving a long daily commute (normal commute in the US). I haven't heard anything regarding the dairy industry. Holy cow I guess.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Some developing nations, especially in Asia are rather skeptical of efforts to cut greenhouse gases because it threatens their food supply. Rice culture produces massive amounts of methane. When I was in korea, the man who pumped our pyonso made money on both ends of his run. We paid him to pump it, and a farmer paid him to dump it.

And I'm thinking you never seriously considered a job-swap, did you?

The farmers are after the nutrients, so with some capital investment both fuel and fertiliser could be retrieved by the same plant, benefiting all concerned. It might even get so the guy that pumps it pays you for it.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by varwoche

In a number of threads in the Science section, some doubters of the science behind global warming frequently infer, if not out and out claim, that there is a broad conspiracy amongst scientists to willfully mislead the public. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the merits of the science, but rather to (1) itemize the theories and (2) invite the theorists to support their claims with evidence.

There are two recurring themes that I've observed:

(1) GW Science is a marxist/socialist attempt to destroy western economies:





(2) Scientist are being bribed en masse, or are being threatened with loss of income:





And then there's a myriad of vague pronouncements and inferences, such as:

Good Thread!
I see it isn't getting much better response than my question over on the other thread. Interesting that many seem so inclined to imply CT but seem to run and hide from clearly enunciating and then supporting their implications.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

Interesting that many seem so inclined to imply CT but seem to run and hide from clearly enunciating and then supporting their implications.

From what I can tell, it seems that many of the folks who imply conspiracy elsewhere simply don't spend time in the Conspiracy Theories forum. That might be why there aren't many replies.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

From what I can tell, it seems that many of the folks who imply conspiracy elsewhere simply don't spend time in the Conspiracy Theories forum. That might be why there aren't many replies.

probably true, and yet, they seem to have the rhetoric down pat!

[The Atheist]

Grrrrrrrr. I'm gonna be nice to deniers here...

I'm not sure the comparison to CTists is fair, no matter how desirable it is.

The problem stems from dyed-in-the-wool CTists jumping on board the bandwagon. The attraction of something like anti-AGW is a red rag to every CTist born - any hint of "cover-up", "denial of rights"*, or any other bollocks which appeals to those minds is bound to be drawn to AAGW.

I feel sorry for the actual scientists as yet unconvinced by AGW, and I think it's actually a bloody good thing that there is opposition to the AGW agenda. The debate is no done deal and there is no question in my mind that many of the proponents of AGW are as loony as some of those who are on t'other side.

Yes, they can be bloody infuriating, but unlike CTists, not all deniers are crazy.

*The Senate report which started the bunfight in the other thread springs to mind immediately. One section, which I thought was pretty revealing, was where the report felt that some scientists had been denied some kind of rights by not being allowed to "vote" on whether an academic body could or should support AGW. Since when was science democratic?

[BenBurch]

Atheist, well, it would not be a CT, it would just be a truculent refusal to accept consensus, if they did not also claim that they have a conspiracy of silence to combat.

Its the claim that they cannot get their papers published, and that the MSM is all owned by people who are green zealots and so is all biased that take it from being truculency to being a CT.

Did I explain that clearly? My head is too full of PHP code to be sure.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Atheist, well, it would not be a CT, it would just be a truculent refusal to accept consensus, if they did not also claim that they have a conspiracy of silence to combat.

Its the claim that they cannot get their papers published, and that the MSM is all owned by people who are green zealots and so is all biased that take it from being truculency to being a CT.

Did I explain that clearly? My head is too full of PHP code to be sure.

Except that's not the attitude of all of them.

The Fart Tax is such a classic of Greenie/Commie tactics that it's now used as a ready "go-to" when the going gets tough. Nevertheless, it did happen.

Take a look at who 911 deniers are forced to use as "celebrity believers" - Rosie O'Donnell? A tired-out dyke who might have ben once famous for 15 minutes through playing Betty Rubble?

AAGW does contain non-lunatic actual scientists and until David Bellamy and his peers all move to support one side or the other, I just think it's an unfair comparison. You'd have to be a slobbering imbecile to think CD brought down the WTC, but not necessarily so to think that the period of warming is natural in origin.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

AAGW does contain non-lunatic actual scientists and until David Bellamy and his peers all move to support one side or the other, I just think it's an unfair comparison. You'd have to be a slobbering imbecile to think CD brought down the WTC, but not necessarily so to think that the period of warming is natural in origin.

I disagree, primarily on the grounds that if they are AAGW they generally aren't legitimate scientists of relevent fields who have completed a thorough examination of the supportive evidence and concluded that anthropogenic effects are irrelevent to the current climate warming. There are numerous legitimate, field relevent scientists who are uncertain as to the the precise level and role of anthropogenic effects upon the climate change or even what the ultimate impact of these effects may be, but they do understand and agree with the general principles of AGW and would not label themselves with anything akin to AAGW.

Additionally there are many AGW proponents who likewise abhor the various pop-media/science sensationalisms of the various potential consequences. not that these consequences aren't possible, or even in some cases likely, if things continue as they are unabated, but rather because the sensationalism is both generally unwarranted and generally fictious. But again being opposed to these aspects does not make them AAGW.

I have yet to run into any legitimate, field relevent scientist or researcher who has carefully examined the available evidence and concluded that Man's impact is irrelevent to the currently occurring climate change. There may indeed be someone somewhere, but I haven't heard of them.

IOW, you are perfectly correct in that being uncertain as to AGW impact and effect, does not and should not automatically equate to woo. But, being AAGW, does not equate to being skeptical or uncertain, it denotes a certain conclusivity that in my experience, is generally little related to hard, mainstream scientific issues.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

I disagree, primarily on the grounds that if they are AAGW they generally aren't legitimate scientists of relevent fields who have completed a thorough examination of the supportive evidence and concluded that anthropogenic effects are irrelevent to the current climate warming.

Well, you may not have met any, but they certainly exist.

The best example I can think of offhand is the late and much-lamented Prof. Augie Auer

But since he's dead, I'll give you James Hansen

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Well, you may not have met any, but they certainly exist.

The best example I can think of offhand is the late and much-lamented Prof. Augie Auer

But since he's dead, I'll give you James Hansen

Prof. Auer, was not in a relevent field and I highly doubt that he had fully examined the available evidence. In fact, even a very simple examination of Auer's claims and the basic and well established mainstream science which he disputed indicates that he is not the type of example to use if you wish to claim that AAGW is not woo-based.

Exactly what do you feel about James Hansen leads you to believe that he has concluded that anthropogenic effects are irrelevent to the current climate warming?

[leftysergeant]

I would, for the purposes of the CT aspect, give greater attention to the reports circulating that political appointees of the Bush administration, with utterly no scientific credentials, redacted some of the government-sponsored research.