climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinking

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24658
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by Wabash » Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:59 pm

kramer wrote:
I supported my beliefs with credible links.

And what were my beliefs in that post? That the US is just 2% of the total area of the Earth and that according to the Met Office, there has been very little global warming in the last 15 years, and that the NOAA adjusts their data as they show themselves.

For this, you connected me to a cherry picking conspiracy theorist.

I love you leftists...., you'all say the darndest things! :D
So do you conspiracy folks. You manage to post links that only support your POV that coincidentally puts down the work of actual scientists committed to researching the issue.

Once again, I'll stay with NOAA.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
tLIB
Posts: 3338
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:35 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by tLIB » Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:38 am

Fordama wrote:Got bad news for you, Kramer. People who consider themselves...

Fordama
It is great to see your posts Fordy!

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by kramer » Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:07 am

kramer wrote:
I supported my beliefs with credible links.

And what were my beliefs in that post? That the US is just 2% of the total area of the Earth and that according to the Met Office, there has been very little global warming in the last 15 years, and that the NOAA adjusts their data as they show themselves.

For this, you connected me to a cherry picking conspiracy theorist.

I love you leftists...., you'all say the darndest things! :D
Wabash wrote:So do you conspiracy folks. You manage to post links that only support your POV that coincidentally puts down the work of actual scientists committed to researching the issue.
You're right in that we support and post links that show our "POV." And our "POV" consists of weaknesses or contradictions in the science.

What is wrong with informing people about them (and the political ramifications of AGW solutions)?

And aren't us skeptics providing a valuable service by providing (in a sense) 'peer review' to their claims and papers?
Wabash wrote:Once again, I'll stay with NOAA.
Again, the article you cited about 2012 being the hottest year ever was only for the United States which is just 2% of the world's surface and, it is from adjusted data.


How about RSS satellite data of 2% of the Earth's surface combined with the other 98% of it?
Image

I see a cooling trend from 1997. That's 16 years of cooling. Is it wrong to point this out or is this just more "massive digital misinformation?"
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18165
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by Fordama » Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:35 am

kramer wrote: You're right in that we support and post links that show our "POV." And our "POV" consists of weaknesses or contradictions in the science.
What you, and they do, is called "anomaly hunting." It's the bread and butter of both conspiracy theorists and science deniers.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24658
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by Wabash » Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:13 am

kramer wrote: I supported my beliefs with credible links.
NOAA is more credible to me than the so called "credible" links you cite.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by kramer » Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:19 am

kramer wrote: You're right in that we support and post links that show our "POV." And our "POV" consists of weaknesses or contradictions in the science.
Fordama wrote:What you, and they do, is called "anomaly hunting."
Isn't this what peer reviewers in a sense do?...
NYTimes, June '12

Indeed, this is an increasingly normal part of science these days. While the blogosphere comes with lots of noise, it also is providing a second level of review — after the initial round of closed peer review during the publication process — that in the end is making tough, emerging fields of science better than they would otherwise be.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... ew/?src=tp
I think your side should be thanking us skeptics for helping to make the 'science that has been settled' since at least 2007 better.

And do you have a link to where you got the "anomaly hunting" info from?
Fordama wrote: It's the bread and butter of both conspiracy theorists and science deniers.

Fordama
So, because I find and post for example a science fact that shows there has been no warming for 15 or so years, it means I'm a conspiracy theorist? --- My take on this response is that your side can't refute what we point out so you play the conspiracy card to try and ridicule us into shutting up.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18165
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by Fordama » Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:35 am

kramer wrote: So, because I find and post for example a science fact that shows there has been no warming for 15 or so years, it means I'm a conspiracy theorist? p.
I merely point out that you use the exact same type of non-scientific thinking that conspiracy theorists use. Plus you would have to believe in a conspiracy of scientists as well.

Combine that with your previous musings on other potential conspiracies and you start to look like a regular devotee of Alex Jones.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Troglodyte
Posts: 16607
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by Troglodyte » Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:42 am

No one is questioning that there have been variations in the Earth's climate..
The big questions are what is really causing it, and can we really do anything about it.
I don't suffer from any mental illnesses.. I enjoy them..

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24658
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by Wabash » Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:26 am

Troglodyte wrote:No one is questioning that there have been variations in the Earth's climate..
The big questions are what is really causing it, and can we really do anything about it.
Learned scientists believe the cause is anthropomorphic and that yes, we can do something about it.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by kramer » Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:31 am

kramer wrote: So, because I find and post for example a science fact that shows there has been no warming for 15 or so years, it means I'm a conspiracy theorist? p.
Fordama wrote: I merely point out that you use the exact same type of non-scientific thinking that conspiracy theorists use.
Which is what, like when I find and point out something that says (for example) a small change in the Sun's EUV output can expand or shrink the upper atmosphere resulting in changes to air circulation patterns below?

And did you know that climate skeptics are generally more knowledgeable on climate science than skeptics? Might not be the case with me but in general, this is true. I think the claim that skeptics are more knowledgeable than you believers may even have been peer reviewed... :wink:
Fordama wrote: Plus you would have to believe in a conspiracy of scientists as well.
Given that 80% of the ozone measurements were either faked or incompletely done, it is not impossible that the small groups of scientists and researchers that track the world's historical temperature record could also be massaging their data.

And regarding their temperature data, it is a fact that scientists have lowered the older temp data and increased the newer temp data several times. And Michael Mann's hockey stick graph (according to Richard Muller in a MIT tech review article for one source) is an artifact of poor math.

So why should we trust it? Seems kind of odd to put a calibrated measuring device in a spot and then decide months, years or decades later that it wasn't really reading the right temperature. I know in some cases, there has been a valid reason for doing this such as when the white paint on the boxes covering the older thermometers decades ago faded away resulting in the boxes warming up more than they accounted for which biased the readings higher. This to me sounds like a valid adjustment (lowering the older data). But many of the adjustments aren't for this reason.

Fordama wrote: Combine that with your previous musings on other potential conspiracies and you start to look like a regular devotee of Alex Jones.

Fordama
I read him everyday. Before you start foaming at the mouth, I only pay attention to the articles he posts that have credible links that actually back up what he says.

I also read motherjones, thenation, democracy now and a number of other left-wing sites regularly as well.
In my view, it is better to read the extreme news sources as well as the MSM news sources in order to get the most information.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by kramer » Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:34 am

Wabash wrote: Learned scientists believe the cause is anthropomorphic and that yes, we can do something about it.
Did you see my latest post in the science section where NASA says the Sun might be playing a bigger role in climate than thought?

(I thought the science was settled back in 2007?)
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24658
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by Wabash » Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:51 pm

kramer wrote:
Did you see my latest post in the science section where NASA says the Sun might be playing a bigger role in climate than thought?

(I thought the science was settled back in 2007?)
I don't read anything you post since you have a rep for cherry picking what supports your narrative. The operative word in your statement is "might." That implies it might be something other than what you claim.

And using your logic it could be a conspiracy to enslave us via SocialistInternational.org.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18165
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by Fordama » Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:45 pm

kramer wrote:
Did you see my latest post in the science section where NASA says the Sun might be playing a bigger role in climate than thought?

(I thought the science was settled back in 2007?)
Which has nothing to do with the actual problem of anthropogenic climate change.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by kramer » Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:23 pm

Wabash wrote: I don't read anything you post since you have a rep for cherry picking what supports your narrative.
I always post the link to my points that I pointed out so the reader can read the entire article if they wish.

And in the case of this article, I posted practically the entire article.


Wabash wrote: The operative word in your statement is "might." That implies it might be something other than what you claim.
And if you've ever read any of the peer reviewed climate papers that support AGW, you'd see most of them are loaded with operative qualifiers.
Wabash wrote:
And using your logic it could be a conspiracy to enslave us via SocialistInternational.org.
My logic (for the most part) consists of pointing out what your side is saying and then getting called a conspiracy theorist. For example...
Co-Chair of the Commission, Göran Persson, former Prime Minister of Sweden, highlighted the urgency of the task ahead of the body, reiterating that the scientific evidence indicated that action on climate change needed to be taken in the next five to ten years before it was too late to halt the environmental damage being caused. The Socialist International’s contribution would be vital, he went on, ensuring that the international agenda for climate change was based on solidarity and linked to eradicating poverty.

http://www.socialistinternational.org/v ... cleID=1845
How about that? Poverty reduction is tied to the international climate change agenda. This is one of the reasons why I've pointed out that AGW would be used as a means to redistribute wealth from the North to the South.


Here's some more reasons to call me a conspiracy theorist:
A global governance concept has to be developed opposing the neo-liberal market ideology, the neo-conservative agenda, and the unilateralist approach. [i.e, the evil Republicans...]

http://www.socialistinternational.org/v ... ePageID=77

. . .

Global Governance and Global Sustainability - The Goals of Global Social Democracy

http://www.socialistinternational.org/v ... PageID=828

. . .

...and my favorite:
"The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government."
http://www.socialistinternational.org/v ... cleID=2133
It'd be one thing if SI was just some hokey little left-wing confab. But it's not. It's a huge organization with many umbrella socialist organizations under it (such as PES) and with a number of prominent people in it such as Joseph Stiglitz, Carol Browner, Gordon Brown, and Tony Blair. And because these people belong to it and because of the influence SI has, I like to post what they say so I can get called a conspiracy theorist.


Here's one more thing for me to be called a conspiracy theorist:
Federal World Government is Ultimate Goal

A goal has been fixed by the major world powers in the outline of the United Nations. That goal is a federal world government composed of elected delegates from every free nation.

. . .

...Churchill and Roosevelt want the new world organization to be firmly built on the foundations of democratic principles.


Toledo Blade, 1945
Last edited by kramer on Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by kramer » Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:26 pm

Fordama wrote: Which has nothing to do with the actual problem of anthropogenic climate change.

Fordama
What that article is saying is that the settled science of anthropogenic climate change is not as big as once thought.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18165
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by Fordama » Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:52 am

kramer wrote:
What that article is saying is that the settled science of anthropogenic climate change is not as big as once thought.
No, it doesn't. Not in the least.

"In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. "

And...

"Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years."


Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by kramer » Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:15 am

kramer wrote:
What that article is saying is that the settled science of anthropogenic climate change is not as big as once thought.
Fordama wrote:No, it doesn't. Not in the least.

"In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. "

And...

"Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years."


Fordama
Wait, "you just gave us an two examples of anomaly hunting" and which you then claimed is the bread and butter of conspiracy theorists and science deniers. Do you realize this? :D

Why is it ok for the left to hunt anomalies but not for the right? Is it because the left has an innate ability to better understand and comprehend the science?




Here is what the article says in the first two paragraphs:
Jan. 8, 2013:  In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star.  While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. 

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.
Doesn't "dawning realization" mean they are starting to realize something new? And this something new is that tiny changes in the Sun can have a significant effect on our climate. And if the Sun is playing a bigger role in our climate than they once thought, then it means that AGW's role isn't as big as once thought.


Who would have guessed that Fordama wears a tin-foil beanie and is either a conspiracy theorist and/or a denier of science. Probably a closet Alex Jones fan as well... :D

And as to your sides 'superior ability' to better understand news articles and the science, don't let the Dunning-Kruger effect lead you astray.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18165
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by Fordama » Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:43 am

kramer wrote:]

Wait, "you just gave us an two examples of anomaly hunting" and which you then claimed is the bread and butter of conspiracy theorists and science deniers. Do you realize this?
Reporting the conclusions that conform to the consensus is completely the opposite of anomaly hunting. You do know what anomalies are, yes?

Once again, that report that you brought in did not reach the conclusions that you have been leading us to believe when you brought it in.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by kramer » Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:34 am

kramer wrote:
Wait, "you just gave us an two examples of anomaly hunting" and which you then claimed is the bread and butter of conspiracy theorists and science deniers. Do you realize this?
Fordama wrote: Reporting the conclusions that conform to the consensus is completely the opposite of anomaly hunting. You do know what anomalies are, yes?
I know what my anomalies are. They are weaknesses or contradictions in climate science. And I like to point them out because I want the climate science to be better. In a sense, I am providing free peer review to climate scientists.
Fordama wrote: Once again, that report that you brought in did not reach the conclusions that you have been leading us to believe when you brought it in.

Fordama
I don't know what I concluded. All I did was point out that climate scientists are starting to realize that the Sun's changes effect the Earth much more than previously believed. And that means that whatever climate changes we have had in the past that have been blamed on AGW are now in question (to a degree) because the Sun has played a bigger role in them than previously thought.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18165
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: climate-change denial linked with conspiratorial thinkin

Post by Fordama » Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:48 am

kramer wrote: Reporting the conclusions that conform to the consensus is completely the opposite of anomaly hunting. You do know what anomalies are, yes? es or contradictions in climate science.
Wrong. Try again,.

By the way, according to your own article that you brought to this forum...

"The inescapable if unfashionable conclusion is that the human use of fossil fuels has been causing the greening of the planet in three separate ways: first, by displacing firewood as a fuel; second, by warming the climate.."

Thank you.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

Post Reply