BPSDB
I blame Bad Astronomy for this one, which is odd because for this sort of thing Frankbi is the usual culprit. Phil Plait is right though, this is too good not to share with a community plagued by the conspiracy nuts.
Needless to say, just as with Climate Denier Crackpot Index and Denier Conspiracy Theories: More Paranoid Than Thou the description fits perfectly, presumably because the inhabitants of Wingnuttia are more or less of a muchness …
From Cracked.com
Just The Facts
- The average conspiracy theorist will argue with NASA, Nobel-prize winners and every expert in the world despite having fewer qualifications than the average fry cook.
- Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating.
- Like pissing fetishes and tentacle rape comics, conspiracy theories are a problem made much worse by the Internet.
- Never assume malice when incompetence will do.
and so on. Conspiracy Theories | Cracked.com
So there you have it, the one link you just throw in as a response to every conspiracy claim.
However it does point to one glaring omission in Frankbi’s otherwise beautiful climate change conspiracyies genealogy (below); he hasn’t indicated how climate conspiracies have interbred with the related lineages, eg those referencing the Bilderberger Group, etc.
And where is the text of the “Protocols of the Elder Lindzen“?
Since 1960, about 2200 cubic miles of glacial ice has gone into the ocean. This glacial ice contributes about 1.1 mm per year to the overall 3.1 mm per year of sea level rise. Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 280 … still no evidence.
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Greenfyre's 
The inherent problem is that climate deniers attempt to discount the authoritative sources. They say that the IPCC is political, that scientists are just in it for the grant money, that scientific societies are bureaucratic, etc.
—-
Hi Michael.
But not all climate change academia is funded by state sources. The Grantham Institute is funded by capitalism:
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange
> 1. The average conspiracy theorist will argue with NASA, Nobel-prize winners and every expert in the world despite having fewer qualifications than the average fry cook.
To do otherwise would be fallacious appeal to authority. Obviously. Also, all of these so-called ‘experts’ are suffering ‘group-think’ – they all say ACC is real!1!
When I’m made king, I’m going to set this up for each Denier who squawks “fallacious appeal to authority”:
> You’re about to board a ‘plane and 100 aero engineers are stood next to it. 97 tell you it will very likely crash (90%+ chance). 3 say it will be AOK (these engineers are employed by a parachute manufacturer). 20 baggage handlers say it will be AOK.
Let’s see them employ the same line of reasoning then.
“…that scientists are just in it for the grant money…”
– is one of the more ignorant things I’ve heard in the context of AGW. Yeah, scientists make a living doing science. They often need to get grants to fund their research. The only “grants” I’ve ever heard about that come with a requirement that the research should only lead to a certain conclusion, are some of those funded by industry.
Science thrives on competition. The scientist who can demonstrate a better understanding, or prove his or her colleagues wrong, wins the glory – that usually means – yes! more access to grant funding, or even a Nobel Prize. But the work has to convince a majority of experts in the field, not all of them, but most. People who advance this funding argument are clueless about how science progresses.
My apologies to all of you who don’t need this spelled out.
Re: #2 “Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating.”
Chuckle. I think most of them either cannot form logical associations at all, or are incapable of consistently applying it.
Its hard to conspire against the this collection of minds. I think vague denial, ie those that are conveniently putting all the GW static to the back of their mind, will have to face the heat now….
The National Academies ….
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council.
http://americasclimatechoices.org/
In response to a request from Congress, the National Academies have launched America’s Climate Choices, a suite of studies designed to inform and guide responses to climate change across the nation. Experts representing various levels of government, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and research and academic institutions have been selected to serve on four panels and an overarching committee.
But isn’t Earth an organism that can adjust itself to take care of any insignificant activity by gnat-men? 🙂