BPSDB
Argumentum ex bardus
Omnologos cannot logically exist
The lottery fallacy
Standing on their heads
Dark Minds
Potentia ex verum
Getting to the point of this post requires walking through some rather tedious Denier thinking and I apologise for that. I ask you to bear with me because I believe the walk through is rather revelatory and I think of some value. Even so, I will try to keep it short and to the point.
Argumentum Ex Bardus
Through October and November Omnologos created a list of events and circumstances related to climate change and climate science that he considered improbably coincidental, and as such offered it as clear evidence as to Why AGW Is Logically Impossible.
Discarding all of the points that are obviously false, pure conjecture, value laden subjective opinion, completely irrelevant and/or just silly (ie most of them) one is left with a small collection of arguably objective facts about our current moment in history. (I should note that whether you chuck any out or not changes nothing … as will be shown it’s all a load of idiotic rubbish regardless.)
His argument is that since these coincidences are extremely improbable, their existence is proof that anthropogenic climate change is not real. Here are three of his examples:
- Relatively widespread availability of computer power is just enough strong to simulate the right climate projections on a multi-decadal scale
- Climate science is developed just beyond the minimal level needed to understand how to simulate the right climate projections on a decadal scale
- Novel statistical approaches devised just in time, and correct from the get-go, for Mann’s Hockey Stick to emerge from the jumble of dendro- and other proxy data
Omnologos cannot logically exist
The flawed nonthinking of this argument is easily shown by applying the same lack of logic to a perfectly mundane subject, eg the existence of Omnologos.
Consider that every ovum and every sperm is genetically unique. To get the precise genetic 
combination that is Omnologos required that one particular ovum of his mother’s 50,000 or so would combine with one particular sperm of the hundreds of millions that his father would produce in his life. How likely was that? OMG … it’s a conspiracy!
Depending on how silly you want to be you then keep asking “How likely was that?” of as many things as you want to be idiotic about.
- Out of 5 billion humans at the time, what were the chances his parents would even meet?
- Given the data above re: ova and sperm, what were the chances his parents would have the right genetic combination from their parents? (take this one right back to the big bang if you like)
Continue the formula for everything that ever happened to Omnologos in his life (schools attended, people met, books read, etc), and the lives of all his ancestors and everyone he ever met.
Do it even for meals eaten because if it hadn’t been exactly that hamburger on that day in that place, his life would have turned out differently! Repeat for every meal ever eaten, every component of every meal (if that potato hadn’t become that french fry …) until you have an improbability as absurd as the argument itself; then conclude “so clearly … Omnologos cannot logically exist!”
The lottery fallacy
It’s a pretty juvenile a posteri logic fail known as the lottery fallacy
The nutshell version goes like this. Suppose we have a lottery where 100 million people each have one ticket. The probability that a particular individual will win is 1 in 100 million, but the probability that someone will win is 100%. Fine, so we hold the lottery and someone wins (100% probability); suppose it was ‘Jane Doe.’
The Nutbar version goes like this: Now ask, “what was the chance that Jane Doe would win?” If they’re easily confused by shiny objects the answer is OMG … 1 in 100 million … it’s a conspiracy!
Of course before the lottery Jane Doe was just “somebody”, so in asking about the chances after the lottery has happened the question is still properly “what were the chance that ‘somebody’ would win?” or put more clearly “what were the chances that the person who wins will be the winner?” 100%, just like before.
To count as evidence for any sort you have to have named Jane Doe as the probable winner before the lottery happens, then you are allowed to be surprised or feel vindicated if she actually does win.
You still haven’t proved anything of course. Rare events that only happen 1 in 100 million times actually do happen roughly 1 in 100 million times purely by chance. That’s what those numbers actually mean.
Anti-evolutionists and Deists love this logical fallacy because they use it to supposedly demonstrate that ‘this precise Universe’ is almost infinitely impossible, hence there must be a God and a design. That ‘this precise God’ is also almost infinitely impossible does not seem to occur to them.
Rich in irony
A diet of Denier tracts may be devoid of just about anything to feed your intelligence, but they are always rich in irony. Omnilogus coins the term ‘Argument Ad Providentiam’ as a “New Logical Fallacy” to describe his insight.
Shockingly the academic world has not rushed to embrace this new name for a simple non sequitor of the deus ex machina variety. Insomuch as science has not committed any logical fallacy, and even if they had it would be of a well known garden variety type, there can be only one possible explanation for academics not adopting this neooigism of his … it’s a conspiracy!
As mentioned, it’s the sort of muddled thinking that fascinates teenagers and which really stoned Sophomores use to jerk around gullible Frosh. It’s transparent nonsense, so naturally the Denialosphere thought it was some kind of joke re-posted it around the net, and that’s just the first of the logic errors in this “analysis” by ‘Omnilogos’ [caution: diets too rich in irony can lead to a build up of cynicism].
Standing on their heads
Our tale of Denier silliness starts to get moderately interesting when you consider another of his logical failures, the assumption that the various conditions he mentions are independent of one another. For example, that a societies’ technological and scientific capabilities in computing, satellites, climate science, mathematics, statistics etc are all completely unrelated.
Genealology of climate change conspiracy theories
He believes a society could be so advanced scientifically and technologically as to develop powerful computers, but be quite backward in it’s understanding of modeling and climate (or vice versa). Not only an unjustified assumption, but almost certainly completely backwards.
Obviously to develop powerful computers a society must have fairly sophisticated mathematics and modeling capabilities, and given those, modeling climate in particular is nothing special.
Equally a society with sophisticated capabilities in mathematics and complex systems (eg climate) could easily develop powerful computers. Actually I can’t imagine developing one without the other. Progressive advances in one will facilitate advances in the other.
Not only do many of these technological and scientific advances develop in parallel, some drive the other. Omnologos’ “Novel statistical approaches” argument is like being shocked that fire pits were devised just in time with the discovery of fire. In fact the entire argument is similar to being shocked to discover that most of the people you meet who have two legs also have two arms! and a head! Obviously … it’s a conspiracy!
Of course if you actually think about it at all, a society sufficiently large to affect climate would have to have a fairly advanced technology, science and social organizational capacity to allow for the huge population and mass activities that an impact on that scale requires.
As such a society so large as to be affecting climate in any significant way will almost certainly be sufficiently advanced to detect it, understand it, and attempt to cope with it. This is not surprising, it is virtually inevitable.
In fact Omnologos’ premise that this convergence is surprising is not just false, it is the most illogical expectation one could have. How could anyone imagine a culture so advanced as to have satellites, but not understand the basic thermal properties of common elements? One with the advanced agricultural technology necessary to feed huge populations, but primitive understanding of the climate upon which that agriculture depends?
His premises make absolutely no sense. Not only does he not draw the logical conclusion, he embraces the most illogical interpretation. This is the part that I find fascinating. The anti-evolutionists etc may use this same logic failure to justify their beliefs, but at least the absurdity of their argument is not so glaring.
In the case of Omnologos and the climate change Deniers, the premises are so obviously false and the whole construct so ridiculous that I can’t imagine even stoned teenagers believing it, yet the Deniers do. Where does that come from?
As is his habit Omnologos never states much of anything that he can be called to account for, and he certainly does not actually state that there is any conspiracy of any sort. [He does wish this clarification brought to everyone’s attention]
He merely supposedly “proves” that all of the circumstances around climate change are too coincidental to be believed, and then leaves it to the readers advanced state of paranoia and boundless credulity to take it as confirmation of a pre-determined conclusion.
Dark minds lost in shadows
” … The earliest stages of delusion are characterized by an overabundance of meaningful coincidences, … ”
” … found that people who endorse conspiracy theories are especially likely to feel angry, mistrustful, alienated from society, and helpless over larger forces controlling their lives.
Conspiracy theorists have a grandiose view of themselves as heroes “manning the barricades of civilization” at an urgent “turning point” in history … Grandiosity is often a defense against underlying feelings of powerlessness.
… people primed to feel out of control are particularly likely to see patterns in random stimuli. Field Guide to the Conspiracy Theorist
Pareidolia “vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant”
“…people who believe some conspiracy theories are more likely to accept new conspiracy theories.” Conspiracy Theorists: Is the Truth Out There?
What this is telling us is that for the more hardcore Denier their behaviour is not a response to climate change and climate science in particular, but is rather is just one manifestation of how they are relating to the world generally. These people aren’t simply more gullible than average, they really want to believe in conspiracies (eg see here and here for how little it takes. Here and here for 30 of the more popular theories).
Indeed it comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with them that the science, the facts, reality itself is completely irrelevant. To the conspiracy theorist the threat has certain attributes viz it is large, they don’t understand it, and it makes them feel insecure and frightened. Their response to things with these characteristics is the same, they reject it regardless of what it is or how obviously real it is.
Deus ex insania
For some of the climate change Deniers it is not that they use a conspiracy to “explain” the obvious flaws in their climate change denial, but rather that their belief that climate change is a hoax is another piece of evidence justifying their belief in conspiracies.
Obviously it is another example of motivated reasoning, but for some there is additional component of inferred justification where the “fact” of the supposed climate deception legitimizes their faith in grand conspiracies.
The irrational rejection of scientific reality with respect to climate is secondary to their faith in conspiracies and merely another prop for it. In that sense we are up against much more than simple irrational rejection of reality to sustain belief in a particular political or economic ideology (the difference between them being muddled at best).
This is more akin to the anti-evolutionists for whom what is at stake is their entire cosmology, embracing politics, economics, social relations, identity … everything.
The appeal of a conspiracy theory is that the complex is made simple, the ‘threat’ isn’t real, the sense of insignificance is lessened knowing that the theorists ‘superior intellect’ has seen through the facade, and a world view is legitimized.
For them it is not a a scientific question at all, it is an existential (ie philosophophical or religious) issue.
That climate change denial is irrational is indisputable. That in some cases it is clinically so is almost certain. Even so, it is both wrong and pointless to pathologize a behaviour shared by a group, all the more so if you are not a medical practitioner, and that is not what is being suggested here.
However it is fair to note that irrational conspiracy theories are quite common among the climate change Deniers, and that the belief in these conspiracy theories is related to their emotional response to the facts and not any intellectual processing of the information.
Potentia ex verum
To the extent that “the Deniers” includes many people who are more correctly understood to be “in denial”, ie they are not Deniers per se, but rather expressing denier based opinions that are not strongly held, this helps us understand how we may reach them. Perhaps 10% of the population are unreachable in that they are too invested in their beliefs to respond to reason, but that is not true of the rest.
The key point is that the rejection of reality is at least partially rooted in a sense of helplessness; no matter how compelling or undeniable the evidence is, frightened people will deny it.
On the one hand this insight may help us to frame our educational attempts in empowering terms to undercut the reflexive response by people to reject reality out of fear. I am most certainly not advocating dumbing down the facts, merely saying that we need to be aware of the emotional consequences of our messages and choose our presentation accordingly.
On the other hand the sad truth is that as climate change proceeds, despair and and a sense of helplessness become increasingly rational, reasonable responses.
Conspiracy lol
In researching this post I stumbled across “Conspiracy lol” a site devoted to collecting funny quotes from the conspiracy crowd. While the site has a number of excellent (ie funny/scary) quotes it is seriously lacking in the climate change department.
Please do help them get up to speed by submitting your favourite bons mots from the Denialophere. Such a rich source of delusional paranoia as the climate change Deniers deserves to be recognized for it’s impressive share of cognitive failure in modernity.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
- 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 
How much are you paid to write these leading articles?
—-
How much are you paid to troll them?
Hold it…this is rather important…let me state something I could be called to account for: I do not believe that climate change is a conspiracy, or a hoax of any sort. I do believe there are way too many people taking advantage of the “climate change” meme for their own earthly goals, sometimes in an organized manner, but that doesn’t make CC or AGW a conspiracy as such.
There are obvious logical flaws in my “impossibility” list but I guess you should rewrite the blog above as it makes no sense to criticize me as a believer in a conspiracy.
—-
Greenfyre – it’s already somewhere else in my blog. Anthropogenic Climate Change has become logically impossible because too many people have jumped on the bandwagon, adding layer upon layer of dubious claims for whatever goal (Revkin calls it a “Christmas tree”). The merits of the scientific theory, and the issues regarding risk management, have been swamped as shown by the results of Cancun, and one doesn’t have to be the Koch Industries PR Director to recognize that.
—-
“[ ]… (Revkin calls it a Christmas tree)”.
Wrong. That is not remotely close to his meaning.
Revkin couldn’t be clearer: he was referring to the need for the first agreement to avoid trying to take on too many of the related (and real) issues that can wait for later negotiation. He was referring to focusing on the primary goal of cutting carbon and his comment was in support of negotiation that would leave as much of the other stuff as possible open, rather than delaying on the primary goal. What’s not so clear is why you spend so much of your time giving completely new and irrational i.e. made up, meaning to what others say, just to suit yourself. Anyone can read Revkin and since he is such a clear and frequent communicator, and you can read, it leaves you looking extremely uninterested in his point of view, despite the pretense of ‘citing’ him. Your behaviour, in this regard, is irresponsible and manipulative.
Negotiation (of anything, but especially multi-stakeholder processes on important issues) is by its very nature a complex process. That doesn’t mean something can’t or doesn’t get negotiated. If your comments were what you hope they are i.e., an argument against seeing negotiation as a process and the reality that issues do get negotiated, then you will have to explain the existence of all the courses of action (policies, services, treaties) that make up your community and the global world.
What is shown in Cancun and previous meetings is that the ethical issues related to justice and ecological resilience are complex, and old frameworks for national agreements don’t work very well without sincere participation, support for clear communication, and the absence of manipulations by major powers, such as the United States.
Your comments, try as you might, don’t change the facts of climate change, the need to respond by curbing emissions, or the well-known complexity of negotiating change.
This piece is brilliant and furthers the goal of rational discussion. By using a denier’s own thinking to examine his thinking, you have executed that most difficult of reflective moves — the hermeneutic turn.
And my God, hilarious! 🙂
“frame our educational attempts in empowering terms to undercut the reflexive response by people to reject reality out of fear. I am most certainly not advocating dumbing down the facts, merely saying that we need to be aware of the emotional consequences of our messages and choose our presentation accordingly”
Yes, I’ve been thinking a lot more about this (the emotional component of learning) lately.
Any time such devotion is seen supporting a particular position, or debunking a particular position, it is SO EVIDENT that it’s of an agenda. [1]
The use of leading words like “conspiracy” are designed to introduce FUD into the argument, and DO NOT relate to real facts, but are tools used to sway without reason or facts. [2]
So many are concerned about the climate, CO2, greenhouse effects, AGW forms in general, and yet no one is pointing out that the huge temperature increases we’ve seen in the past 15 years follow the removal of the majority of global temperature reading stations, and that many of those stations which remain have historically shown the warmer temperatures only. [3]
There is political manipulation at work here, as is wholly evident by this piece regardless of whether or not it is owned up to or admitted. [4]
Massive changes in legislation are coming. The powers who want this are employing great efforts to push it. It’s pretty disgusting and does not pursue science or truth, but rather its own ends.[5]
I have no doubts it will proceed because upon this world the truth is not held of value, but rather agendas. That will not always be the cause, but until that day it will proceed.
My desire is that those who have an ear to hear the truth will look past these espousal articles, and realize the force by which we are receiving the full weight of an agenda applied unto the reading audience.
If you want to know the truth about the Earth, look to the magnetic poles. Go to NOAA and GEBCO and download bathymetry and aging data on the earth’s oceanic crust. Those two items alone tell a different story than ANY OTHER public source of news topics.
As a pregnancy grows from the small to the large, so do the findings there indicate fully. Anyone researching these two data sources will discover what the meaning of that last sentence is.
The agenda will fail in the end. And all efforts to aid in its increase will come to naught. I pray you will reconsider the truth about what you’re after, and look deeply into the fullness of what you’re doing. It is wrong, misleading, damaging to millions, and you’re a part of it.
Consider that. [6]
—-
Apparently John Q. Citizen is not aware of several people showing that the ‘removal’ of reporting stations did diddly-squat to the trend. shown by three independent analysis (Tamino, Zeke Hausfather, and the Clear Climate Code guys). I’m not even bothering to point him to these reports, as “truth” and “fact” do not appear to be his strongest point.
This comment has been moved to “The Dunce’s Corner” for violation of site comment policy.
Actually, IIUC the removal of the surface stations is actually the opposite. It’s actually acaused by filling in the past record with old data as it becomes available, so increasing the number of old stations: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281997%29078%3C2837%3AAOOTGH%3E2.0.CO%3B2 See section 2
And of course, by measuring the temperature anomaly, rather than the temperature, whether stations are “warm” ones or not is moot.
—-
Omnologos sez: “Anthropogenic Climate Change has become logically impossible because too many people have jumped on the bandwagon”
uh, what was that again? the laws of physics change if too many people make money off them? is that why perpetual motion became impossible — because Big Energy was profiteering from it?
Among the things I’ve noticed about Conspiracy Theorists is that they will never believe in a conspiracy if there is evidence it actually exists because the conspirators would take action against them. Only nonexistent conspiracies are safe to believe in.
The belief that a lot of Deniers have in an AGW conspiracy is perhaps the best arguement that such a conspiracy doesn’t exist.
For that matter, if there really had been something to the so-called Climate Gate the Deniers would have run for the hills in terror.
Not sure where we are on my original point…there is an entire blog post about “me” and “conspiracy”, but I simply do not believe in AGW/climate change to be conspiracies. The whole thing doesn’t make much sense.
It’s like finding a blogger fantasizing about me rooting for the Packers, and having to argue that I am more a 49ers person. [1]
ps yes Revkin was talking about the Climate Treaty. And I was/am talking about AGW in general. Therefore Revkin’s Christmas Tree refers to people adding to the treaty, and my Christmas Tree refers to people adding to the science, the politics, and everything else. Evidently I should have specified it. On the other hand it is absurd to think Revkin agrees with my “impossibility” page, so I thought I didn’t have to go into too many details.
pps In hindsight I should have tried to make two lists, one with “the science” and the other with “the politics” of climate change. But I do find them difficult to disentangle. [2]
—-
Omnologos
Conspiratorial, paranoid – whatever. It’s the opposite of the logic of science. I’m not sure it matters what you personally prefer to call it, but you put reason to work in the service of irrationalism. 😦
It seems you are keen to avoid being lumped in with other, ‘vulgar’ deniers. Perhaps as a result, you have apparently progressed — if you want to call it that — and now spend your time more explicitly specifying that you reject that the science tells us about the potential for catastrophic (as distinct from merely dangerous) warming.
I guess it’s good that you may have identified that your previous complete denial was so ill-considered and irrational that you could not sustain it; but now your insistence on only denying the potential for catastrophic impacts, rather than the ones that (only) put the sustainability and natural resilience of regional ecological systems, and millions of lives, at unnecessary risk, curiously narrows your newest arguments. The same science that you say you accept and tells us that the current warming trend is caused by human activity and is having negative impacts, cannot tell us anything compelling or credible about the seriousness of these impacts.
Take your conclusions, examined in this post. I don’t know that it’s possible to help you further, but I would like to, because you are irrational.
Popper, Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend are the basics for you, if you are interested in the critique and ongoing development of logic and theory in science (broadly, empiricism). For someone wanting a discussion of how the development of critical reason is related to enlightened scientific practice (beyond early positivism), there is Habermas. Feel free to ask questions.
The internal inconsistency of climate change denier ideas and arguments can be easy to see, when examined.
There is still the question of how paranoid beliefs start up, in the first place.
cheers
Just thought id pop in say this is a wonderful website, it really is! Theres enough stuff on here for literally minutes of faux intelectual entertainment.
You do so much damage to the CAGW cultists cause with this delusional nonsense about ‘deniers’ and ‘conspiracy’. Such wonderful invention and fantasy: perhaps you should have a course or class where you can help people learn ‘the truth’ and charge for it? Just another idea on how to monetise the whole CAGW hoo-ha. Reminds me of scientology for some reason….
I also find the pictures you post representing conspiracy etc. most helpful in judging the somewhat questionable content of this site. They certainly help you make a sound judgement on these issues!
It really is all rather amusing. Please keep on your good work, your contributions to the debate are priceless
Chin chin 😉
—-
Comment moved to “Dunce’s Corner” as per site policy.
‘Henry Brubaker’
You don’t discuss science on a science blog, and visit as a fictional character in an old Bob Redford movie. Is it true you also like to be the professor in your own work-from-home institute? Sounds like fun for you, but not at all relevant to this blog.
p.s. Your utterly frivolous comments about child sexual and physical abuse are so highly insensitive to victims, that I am concerned you would actually be complacent if you were aware of a child in need of protection. Please be advised that in many jurisdictions you are subject to serious criminal charges if you fail to report that a child is being abused.
Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but NASA have just published a paper asserting that as a result of newly observed negative feedbacks, the warming expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration from the present 390ppm to 780ppm is expected to be 1.64 deg C.
Now, if the current rate of increase of carbon dioxide emission of around 2ppm/year is maintained, that doubling will take place around 2205AD, thus producing a rate of increase in temperature of 0.08 deg C per decade, compared to the IPCC4 estimate for the Twentieth Century of 0.74 ±0.18 deg. C, amounting to 0.074 deg. C per decade.
This does not seem particularly alarming.
Any comments?
—–
OK I’ll save you the effort – straight to the “Dunce’s Corner” for me. Cut out the middle-man…….
—-
GF
Notice how you still provide no explanation as to what is going on if the evidence is neither science nor conspiracy?
Scientists believed for decades that there had been no complex lifeforms in the Precambrian. They kept believing it in face of preponderant evidence for the contrary. Finally they changed their mind when a suitable scientific authority was open-minded enough to figure out that the old “truth” had been wrong.
Conspiracy? No. Not by a long shot. Science? Yes. Perfect, textbook science? No. It was science done by humans, and therefore peppered by human shortcomings, and pushed and pulled in all sorts of non-scientific directions. Sheer conformism, a few career choices, strong belief in what one’s Uni professor had said, etc etc.
It’d be truly a miracle if the colossal AGW bandwagon were found to be immune from those problems.
—-
Maurizio, you describe, with your “precambrian” example, exactly what happened to global warming by greenhouse gases. For decades Arrhenius was ignored (Ångström had ‘already shown him wrong’, and Woods had driven in ‘the final nail’). Callendar revived the idea, but also he was largely ignored for many, many years. It’s interesting to note that the greenhouse effect was more widely accepted at the same time as Wegener’s continental drift. Before, “stasis” was the dogma…
I have spent a lot of time studying both sides of the argument, and still take the time to have a careful look through what other folk’s points of view, especially if they are different to mine. I’d like to believe that has given me a broader and more objective view than many.
And, as someone who’s reasonably well educated (in several countries), and who’s travelled extensively (to close on 50 countries now) and who’s lived and worked in many of these, and who’s reasonably well aquatinted
with very broad spectrum of people, I’ve been fortunate to have been able to experience and see a lot with my own eyes and formulate opinions based on more than what is fed to me on television. A lot of what I see doesn’t add up to what’s constantly force-fed to us as “facts” from experts… and although maybe the sceptics group does have some embellishment here-and-there, from what I’ve seen, there is a lot more of it on the pro-Global Warming group’s side- including a lot of data that’s fudged and purposefully miss-represented- which is something that naturally makes me question the real motives of some of the pro-Global Warming institutions.
When I see storied of 500 penguins freezing to death in a small local newspapers, or personally experience snow in London as early as October, or have old friends go skating on the roads in Holland, something that
they haven’t been able to do since they were young, or have family in several countries complaining about the cold and ice and saying that it’s the coldest winter they’ve ever had, or find it’s snowing not far from
Melbourne on Christmas day, or find that I’ve not needed to take the winter duvet off my bed this summer (which had never happened to me before), this all makes me question what is real and what isn’t- when CO2 levels are still going up, but temperatures are coming down at the moment (albeit that perhaps the overall trend has been upwards).
As for seal levels… I have lived by the sea for most of my life, and have relatives who live on lagoons, and even in Fjords- and I can’t say that, even since I was a kid, have I ever noticed that the sea level is any different in any of these places that I frequent. Consequently, I believe the sea level is going up in some places, and down in others- and I suspect this largely depends on whether the particular land mass in question is rising or subsiding. I have read that even Al Gore has (very recently) purchased himself a very big, smart home right on the beach- which only makes me wonder whether he really believe that the sea level is rising.
Maybe there are some places in the world which are warmer… but from what I can tell , it’s generally accepted that it was a very much warmer everywhere in the world only a few hundred years ago – even warm enough for Vikings to farm in Greenland in the middle-ages. The polar bears and every animal species we have with us today survived that warm period- so it seems a bit dramatic to worry about a bit of permafrost melting now, when it would certainly have melted a whole lot more in the middle ages, and that without any industrialised CO2 emissions.
Don’t get me wrong… saving the environment is great and should be encouraged… but all this high-finance and global control and regulation that they are trying to push on everyone somehow doesn’t seem to add up. Just to put it into perspective, absolutely no one seems the slightest bit worried about other massive environmental problems that are happening because of humanity… take these relatively new low-power light-bulbs (CFL’s) that are actively encouraged in many countries now (the old incandescent globes have even been outlawed here in Australia), yet the mercury (being a potent neurotoxin and long-lived environmental contaminant) poses a massive long-term global problem in the making. The ~5mg in a single (small) one of these bulbs is sufficient to contaminate thousands of litres of water… and I’d have a guess that millions of these make their way into rubbish dumps and landfills around the planet every month. Who cares if the planet is a few degrees warmer if all our water and food supplies are contaminated!?
I suspect much of what one believes largely comes down to whether one trusts the main-stream media or not, and if one does have any faith in it, exactly how much one suspects they pander to the people with the money. From my (admittedly limited) experiences, what I’ve found is that out of everything emanating from mainstream media (not only relating to Global Warming), the most trustworthy bits are the advertisements.
—-
Gary, is this a “drive-by” or are you interested in seriously learning something? There are soooo many things wrongs in your comment.
If you don’t dare come back, but do read this, you can start with finding the photo’s of Al Gore’s “beach house” in Montecito. In reality it is “ocean view” and several hundred feets up in the mountains. Even with all ice caps melting (which requires sustained and higher temperatures for many centuries), it would be above water…
Talking about the media, my personal belief, is that the media is brainwashing society (globally) with what suits the handful of very powerful folk who own and control almost everything humanity hears. Needles to say it’s the same very powerful people who already own a large slice of the rest of the world too.
Here’s one website that popped up when I did a quick search for an illustration, but I can’t say that I’ve spent a lot of time looking at it: http://www.corporations.org/media/
There are many other intelligent, socially “elevated” people who have seen what is happening and spoken about this over the years (see below for a few, but there are hundreds of thousands of similar quotes).
The question really, is how can anyone believe that ANYTHING (including Global Warming caused my man/carbon) one sees continually plastered over the media is really fact or whether it’s simply convenient lies that are pushed onto society for other agendas.
Personally, I believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is also just another one of their stream of never-ending lies. No doubt, when their predictions of the warming don’t materialise in the next few years, there will be some excuse for why it’s the doomsday has been delayed a bit… but it’s still coming, so we should all make ready and bend over further in preparation.
As an aside, as an example, compare the mainstream view, as conveniently amended ( http://www.goodplanet.info/eng/Society/Refugees/Climate-refugees/(theme)/289 ) with the reality (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/ ).
——————————————
Quotes of interest (or not):
Spiro Agnew (US Vice-President) 1969 – “The American people should be made aware of the trend toward monopolization of the great public information vehicles and the concentration of more and more power over public opinion in fewer and fewer hands.”
W. Lance Bennett (Author, University of Washington Professor) 1983 – “Perhaps the most obvious political effect of controlled news is the advantage it gives powerful people in getting their issues on the political agenda and defining those issues in ways likely to influence their resolution.”
Ernest Bevin (British Foreign Minister) 1946 – “A newspaper has three things to do. One is to amuse, another is to entertain and the rest is to mislead.”
Oscar Callaway (US Congressman) 1917 – “In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press. … They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.”
William Colby (CIA Director) – “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
David Rockefeller (address to a Trilateral Commission) 1991 – “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”
Mark Crispin Miller – “Media manipulation in the U.S. today is more efficient than it was in Nazi Germany, because here we have the pretence that we are getting all the information we want. That misconception prevents people from even looking for the truth.”
John Swinton (Chief of Staff, New York Times) New York Press Club, 1953 – “There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”
Gary Allen (Journalist) 1972 – “We believe the picture painters of the mass media are artfully creating landscapes for us which deliberately hide the real picture.”
A. E. Newman – “All the news that fits, we print.”
George Orwell – “The people will believe what the media tells them they believe.”
Tania
Your interest in analyzing media is good but your personal filter needs adjustment from simple libertarian myths to complex democratic reality.
Your own list of quotes tells you that you have it mostly backwards. At a glance (minus the dead people)… 😉
W. Lance Bennett is well known to argue that the U.S. media has manufactured false controversies about the science and contributed to public doubt and fear that has delayed necessary action despite the deteriorating global conditions that make the reality of climate change obvious.
David Rockefeller has very publicly supported the brokering of an international climate treaty and has been active in encouraging voluntary corporate and industry responsibility-taking in the absence of legally binding targets, to address the reality of climate change.
Mark Crispin Miller is a well-known democracy activist who argues that mainstream media has fanned climate change denial to the point of disabling democracy and preventing communities from responding to the reality of climate change and acting to ensure a sustainable future.
Etc.
The media knowledge of those you quote claims the opposite conclusion to yours.
Thanks Martha,
It is indeed very complex, but how democratic is questionable. As for reality… that’s largely determined by what one has been conditioned to perceive, is it not?
Have you contemplated what relevance the context these particular statements (the ones you’ve singled out- W. Lance Bennett, David Rockefeller, Mark Crispin Miller) were made in, and particularly to whom they were addressed.
Yes, the Rockefellers are probably one of the biggest driving forces when it comes to countries handing power over to the UN via climate-based treaties.
I would expect these folk to all be very pro-AGW.
What’s in it for Rockefellers to hand power to the UN?
Political Entities (like the UN, CFR, Trilateral Commission, IMF- which the Rockefellers have been very involved in, from these institution’s inception) are simply tools to control and manipulate countries, so having these institutions have more means of control to dictate to different nations (through treaties, which can’t be escaped like normal agreements) are exactly what these big players want.
Why can’t they be escaped like normal agreements? Did you get that from Monckton?
How are these dictated terms enforced? Who benefits from it?
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty to get an idea of how potentially binding an international treaty can be. Imagine one of the EU states deciding it wanted out of the treaty that holds the EU together (a bit like the current talk in Greece)- there is no way they can extricate themselves from it now.
In whoever’s interests the UN decides to act would benefit from it. Have a look at East Timor as a one good example of the UN acting in the interest of certain multinational groups: 1972 East Timor was given its independence from Portugal. Indonesia (who have the other part of Timor) decided to annex it. East Timor population said go to hell! Indonesia then started what really could only be described as a genocide against the East Timor population- shoot/kill/burn anything that they had. This continued for 30 years until oil and gas was discovered in the Timor Sea. Immediately, the UN jumps in to expel Indonesia from East Timor , labelling what Indonesia has done (unhindered for 30 years) as “Humanitarian Atrocities”. Now all the oil goes to Australia and the US- and the East Timor population get some token handouts… like a few schools built for them.
You’re funny, ahem. There already was already a treaty between Indonesia and Australia on the exploitation of the oil and gas fields in the Timor Sea in 1989. Well before the Indonesian invasion the presence of oil was known.
Add the fact that the UN security council never accepted Indonesia’s claim on East-Timor, and one starts to wonder why you are making up things.
A supposed scientist who is a conspiracist, and has it in for the Rockefellers. Hmmm….
I call this a poe.
Marco, don’t kid yourself. Conspiracy theorist poes are not as easy as religious poes.
“Have you contemplated what relevance…”
That’s a good question to ask yourself, since you believe their knowledge is valuable enough to quote yet the living people on your list (still around to apply their own analyses to current issues) hold views on climate change and the media that are exactly opposite to what you tried to imply they hold. This makes you look unable or unwilling to accurately present and understand what you read for purposes of critique, just to suit yourself. No one is interested in that. 😦
“I would expect these folk to all be very pro-AGW”
Perhaps you should expect that you do not share their knowledge of democracy, mass media and climate change.
Regarding all your stuff on the problematic nature of the U.N. …
Many people recognize it is an older power model that made the U.S. both the main rescuer but also a bully, to other nations. The current model reflects the movement of the U.N. towards a more democratic, inclusive and equity-based power model, so it is no mystery why old ideologues in the U.S. don’t support it. The overall needs of international decision-making to address climate change and other issues may give way to a new framework, and has already resulted in the emergence of new forms of multilateral agreement to co-operate on emissions reduction. Don’t confuse the many challenges of co-operation with ignorance or denial of climate change.
The question really, is how can anyone believe that ANYTHING (including Global Warming caused my man/carbon) one sees continually plastered over the media is really fact or whether it’s simply convenient lies…
There’s this thing called…science.
Say it with me slowly.
Science.
It’s not a question of “belief”. Science doesn’t work like a religion. It’s a different beast altogether.
Personally, I believe that…
Nobody cares what you personally “believe”.
Flush your babble about your “beliefs” down the toilet.
Science is the study of reality.
Reality.
(Stuff that is observable and testable and measurable and countable etc.)
You are entitled to your own ignorant, media-fuelled fantasies but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Either there is this thing called carbon or there is not.
Either scientists can measure carbon or they cannot.
Either scientists can demonstrate, using laboratory experiments, that Co2 has on the greenhouse effect or they cannot.
Either scientists can get out there in the real world and measure (e.g) ice lose using satellites etc. or they cannot.
If you say that they cannot do these things plus a whole range of work covering many decades and multiple, independent lines of evidence…then you must provide something a little more substantive that just a good ol’ fashioned “Nuh Uh!”.
NASA didn’t lie to you about the moon landings.
NASA is not lying to you now about climate change.
Konspiracy theories are for suckers.
Step away from the shadows and enter the light.
Cedric,
Let’s see what can we deduce from version of the gospel:
1) You can spell “science”
– Very good, that’s a start. Though you do seem to have an issue with your “Konspiracy”.
2) Your approach is very unscientific.
– Science is BASED on questioning EVERYTHING. Somehow, if you have a problem with what I believe and cannot approach it from an academic perspective, and have to resort to then a personal attack to keep your brainwashing in place, then if anyone doesn’t know or appreciate science, it’s you.
3) Your perception of what this blog is about isn’t well founded.
– This blog certainly ISN’T science… it’s a discussion about whether the “science” is believed, or even whether what we are told is “science” is believed.
4) Regarding your comments:
Either there is this thing called carbon or there is not.
– If you did CHEM1, you’d know a bit about Carbon. It’s the basis of all life. In the past, when there have been very high concentrations of CO2, the periods have been characterized by of very rates of biological growth and diversification.
Either scientists can measure carbon or they cannot.
– Right. For your information, scientists can also measure a whole lot of other things too! If you know anything about climate science, you’ll also know that Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04% of the atmosphere. Also, that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere (averaged for the globe) is about 2.5%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapour in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. This accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (“Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models”, Journal of Geophysical Research 98, Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 1993). So why does everyone have a blinked look at CO2, when there are so many other factors that scientists KNOW also affect, and have always affected temperatures on earth- like water vapour, cloud formation and distribution, solar radiation and sunspot activity, cosmic rays, and the North Atlantic Oscillation to name a few?
Questions like those that arise from the fact that the Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton sunspot minima coincided with the coldest periods of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1450 to 1820 and why the sunspot number during 1861-1989 shows a remarkable parallelism with the simultaneous variation in northern hemisphere mean temperatures need to be explained and addressed in any Global Warming Theory and/or models, and these models need to make sense and actually work at accurately predicting global warming BEFORE any scientist can say that the problem is properly understood and AGW is a done deal. So forget about your “Nuh Uh!”, and do some real scientific reading, and stop blame it on CO2 only when we KNOW that it’s more complicated than just CO2 cannot possibly be considered “scientific”.
Either scientists can demonstrate, using laboratory experiments, that Co2 has on the greenhouse effect or they cannot.
– Sure CO2 has greenhouse properties. But then so do a whole lot of other gasses. If this whole thing WAS scientific, there would be more open debate, and less of these emotive terms like “deniers” and “conspiracy theories” and people with legitimate questions about the theory (which, pretty clearly, is still only a theory because none of the climatic doomsday models seem to hold for very long before they have to be revised – repeatedly) wouldn’t be painted as being bad/evil. Some of us have evolved and moved on from the middle ages – there is no need for demonising people who ask questions.
Either scientists can get out there in the real world and measure (e.g) ice lose using satellites etc. or they cannot.
– Sure. If you do your homework properly, some of the scientists with satellites are saying that the global average temperature hasn’t increased. Take this quote from one scientist (an atmospheric physicist actually), Dr. S. Fred Singer who was also the director of the US Weather Satellite Service (someone who “can get out there in the real world and measure”): “There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050.”
NASA didn’t lie to you about the moon landings.
– What has this got to do with CO2?!? Cut back on the drugs and stay focused.
NASA is not lying to you now about climate change.
– Interesting you say that, because it turns out that they were… call it “finger trouble” or a Y2K bug (which I believe is the official story), or what every you want to, NASA’s GISS have quietly revised their temperature data- see: http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/aug07/article.html?id=WebExtra081607_2.html (entitled “Error in NASA climate data sparks debate”), amongst many other references to this error that was conveniently missed by the mainstream media. The data now looks quite different- strangely better- just like most of the worst data, when one actually takes the time to scrutinize, like Al Gore’s “hockey stick” tale, and the Medieval warm period that disappeared in the IPCC’s reports. Since you seem to swear by NASA, have a look at the data directly from NASA’s Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly data for the years 1880-2010 (though, you’ll need to plot it yourself, if you’re able to): http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt. You’ll see that the highest temperatures NASA recorded were actually 77 years ago.
Konspiracy theories are for suckers.
– WFT are you on about?!
Step away from the shadows and enter the light.
– My advice to you is to step away from your television.
Interestingly enough, I AM a scientist, and have been one for a long time.
I’d have it a guess that you’re not.
Tania, it’s interesting how you claim that climate activists are “brainwashed”…
…while you yourself mindlessly spout a bunch of denialist talking points culled from various denialist sources.
Without the slightest bit of critical thinking whatsoever.
And you claim ‘ooh, me is scientist!’
— frank
What kind of scientist are you?
Electronic engineer
Specialized in high frequency communication systems and data networks by education, but worked on military applications and in a space-physics institute in the past (amongst other positions I’ve held).
Tania, do you work on your communications systems research in the same way as you work on your climate science ‘research’?
As in, does your communications systems research involve merely going around parroting talking points that someone sent you through e-mail and Twitter?
— frank
* your version of the gospel
Let’s see what can we deduce from version of the gospel
That’s stupid. Science is not a religion. There is no “gospel”.
You are just trying on some pejorative framing.
Stop it. It won’t work with me.
Science is BASED on questioning EVERYTHING.
Don’t confuse skepticism with denialism. Questioning is good but after you’ve questioned…you must go with the evidence. Questioning for the sake of just prolonging delay is dishonest.
Somehow, if you have a problem with what I believe…
I don’t care what you “believe”.
Nobody is interesting it your pig-ignorance.
…and cannot approach it from an academic perspective, and have to resort to then a personal attack…
No, there is no personal attack. You are pig ignorant. That’s a statement of fact. You are indeed woefully ignorant.
Remember what you said last time…
Personally, I believe that…
This is not about your “beliefs”. Either you can back up what you say with science or you are just spouting ignorant nonsense.
This blog certainly ISN’T science… it’s a discussion about…
Spare me your opinion about this blog. I don’t care.
I really don’t.
[Carbon] It’s the basis of all life.
So? Do you really think this is some profound statement on your part?
Water is pretty damned important to life too. You can still drown in the stuff.
Think before you babble.
If you know anything about climate science, you’ll also know that Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04% of the atmosphere.
So? What is your point here?
Are you unimpressed with that number because it looks small to you? Dumb.
Tiny amounts of something can have an enormous effect on something else.
Really.
Doesn’t take much arsenic to kill you.
It’s not the raw number that matters, it’s the effect that it has that counts.
So why does everyone have a blinked look at CO2, when there are so many other factors that scientists KNOW also affect…
I don’t know about you but I don’t give a damn about “everyone”. I don’t get my science from “everyone”. I don’t care what “everyone” thinks. I get my science from…scientific communites. Only scientific communities.
Like NASA.
Questions like those that arise from…
…climate denier sites. I know.
Scientists have figured out the whole Co2 and greenhouse gasses thing for a long time now. Decades, in fact.
It’s very old news. They looked at other gasses. They looked at the sun. They looked at the Earth’s orbit. They looked at volcanoes.
They looked at everything.
It all boils down to us and our carbon producing industry.
We are the wild card that most effectively explains what is happening to the Earth now.
All other factors have been considered and factored in.
The scientists have not magically forgotten anything important.
You are not helping at all.
Not even a little tiny bit.
…need to be explained and addressed in any Global Warming Theory and/or models, and these models need to make sense and actually work at accurately predicting global warming BEFORE any scientist can say that the problem is properly understood and AGW is a done deal.
They have been.
Long ago.
This is old news.
That’s why I feel very warm and comfortable calling you pig-ignorant. You are just recyling old PRATT’s that you have mindlessly copied from the internet.
It’s stupid of you. You are not doing anything novel or new. People like you are a dime a dozen. You are not special. Your talking points are shop-worn.
and less of these emotive terms like “deniers”…
No. That really won’t do at all.
Deniers exist.
They really do. It’s a real word to describe real people.
HIV deniers exist. Evolution deniers exist. Vaccine deniers exists. Climate change deniers exist.
…and “conspiracy theories”…
You peddle conspiracy theories. That’s the only way you can justify placidly ignoring the science that’s been gathered over the last fifty or so years.
…it’s simply convenient lies that are pushed onto society for other agendas. Personally, I believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is also just another one of their stream of never-ending lies.
Yeah. “They” are lying to you. “They” have an “agenda”. “They” are pushing it onto society. Oooo, spooky.
And Very Dumb.
Konspiracy theories are for suckers. You are a sucker.
It’s brain-dead and you should be ashamed of yourself.
…and people with legitimate questions about the theory (which, pretty clearly, is still only a theory…
Ha! It’s only a theory?
Only a THEORY?
Wow.
🙂
Feel the deep down dumb.
A creationist could do no better.
If you do your homework properly, some of the scientists with satellites are saying…
I get my science from the scientific communities.
I don’t need to trawl the nursing homes to find some old contrarian that peddled cigarettes to the public to tell me what I want to hear.
Search long enough and lift up enough rocks and you will find some loon with a Phd to tell you anything.
I, however, get my science from places like NASA and the Royal Society and the AAAS and the NAS and the USGS and the RMET and the CSIRO and the British Antarctic Survey and the Royal Society and every single scientific community on the planet. No exceptions.
Since you seem to swear by NASA, have a look at the data directly from NASA’s Contiguous…
I have a better idea.
Why not cut to the chase and go to NASA’s website on climate change? It’s written in plain English and their conclusions are very, very easy to grasp.
No ambiguity. No waffling.
They seem very certain about climate change.
Just like all the other science communities on the planet.
Interestingly enough, I AM a scientist, and have been one for a long time.
Everybody is a scientist on the internet.
What are you? A toothyologist?
(shrug)
“I, however, get my science from places like NASA and the Royal Society and the AAAS and the NAS and the USGS and the RMET and the CSIRO and the British Antarctic Survey and the Royal Society and every single scientific community on the planet. No exceptions.”
Those people are in on the conspiracy, don’t you know that? When you can start thinking for yourself you wouldn’t trust those evil brainwashed scientists trying to make us pay for breathing anymore! Be skeptical and question everything, except when it benefits you!
Plus Al Gore is fat.
😉
All liars are [edit]. I doubt Mr. Poptech is an exception.
What’s with this blog… it won’t let me post a reply to this comment?!?
Quite a refined scientific approach you have there, Cedric- ridicule and shout down anything that doesn’t agree with what you have already decided.
Closed-minded dogma and name-calling are also sure ways to persuade intelligent folk that what you’re saying is credible.
Here’s a video clip of one (of many) scientist who has a reasonably more balanced approach to the subject:
Cedric, you definately come across as a special… though, only in Proof by Stereotyping. Please try to open your mind a little, and try to appreciate that folk being sceptical and questioning don’t always equate to one being a fanatical nutcase (who, strangely enough, are the ones who frequently get media coverage and are painted as representing all of the “illogical opposition”, when they really are just seen as nutters by everyone, including the “opposition”).
Thanks.
Tania,
Why exactly do you think that the scientist in the video is right and all the world’s climate research institutions are wrong?
And, a quick question: Is 2 + 2 = 4, or 2 + 2 = 6?
(Clue: The truth is not in the middle!)
— frank
Seriously, Vincent Courtillot?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/les-chevaliers-de-l’ordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-ii-courtillots-geomagnetic-excursion/
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/how-easily-it-is-to-get-fooled/
and
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/fooled-again/
Just so you know, the Le Mouël-paper has Courtillot as one of its authors.
It is getting more and more clear that you like what AGW deniers say, because they deny AGW.
Quite a refined scientific approach you have there…
Very true.
I get my science from actual science sources. NASA is a good example. That is indeed refined. Not all sources of information are equal.
Closed-minded dogma…
No. There is no “dogma”. Just like there is no “gospel”.
Science is not the same as religion. They are two different things. They work differently. Duh!
…and name-calling are also sure ways to persuade intelligent folk that what you’re saying is credible.
You are pig-ignorant. That’s not me calling you a mean name. That’s just being honest about your level of ignorance. I’m sorry that you are ignorant but a fact is a fact. The truth does hurt on occasion. I gues it just sucks to be you.
(shrug)
Here’s a video clip of one (of many) scientist…
Here’s a good example of what I mean. What kind of a dolt finds a video of some guy and and breathlessly presents it as somehow important?
Think about your methodology.
Engage your critical thinking skills.
What’s the point of you putting up that video?
What’s that guy got that NASA hasn’t got?
I don’t care about some isolated scientist. I don’t give a damn about his personal opinions or his Phds or whatever.
All I care about is the scientific work. The preponderace of peer-reviewed research covering all of the Earth Sciences covering the last few decades.
As I explained to you before, I get my science from the scientific communities.
I don’t need to trawl the nursing homes to find some old contrarian that peddled cigarettes to the public to tell me what I want to hear.
Search long enough and lift up enough rocks and you will find some loon with a Phd to tell you anything.
Please try to open your mind a little…
Keeping an open mind is great but not so much as to let your brains fall out. Get your science from actual science sources.
…and try to appreciate that folk being sceptical and questioning don’t always equate to one being a fanatical nutcase…
Skepticism is a process, not a position. Skepticism and denialism are two different things entirely. You are not being skeptical. A skeptical person would listen to NASA and would have to have extremely good reason to reject what they have to say on the subject of climate change. A skeptical person would be supremely uninterested in the isolated lonely opinion of some guy in a video when they have all the scientific communities on the planet to use as a resource.
Cranks abound. A real skeptic would know that and take practical measures to avoid being suckered into crankdom.
Why settle for the wannabees when you can deal with the professionals?
There’s no need to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
….who, strangely enough, are the ones who frequently get media coverage and are painted as representing all of the “illogical opposition”, when they really are just seen as nutters by everyone…
That must happen to you a lot. You do come across as a genuine nutter. The whole conspiracy theory thing you have going is a dead giveaway.
Yes, the Rockefellers are probably one of the biggest driving forces when it comes to countries handing power over to the UN via climate-based treaties.
(…)
Political Entities (like the UN, CFR, Trilateral Commission, IMF- which the Rockefellers have been very involved in, from these institution’s inception) are simply tools to control and manipulate countries, so having these institutions have more means of control to dictate to different nations (through treaties, which can’t be escaped like normal agreements) are exactly what these big players want.
Dopey konspiracy pap that props up your presuppositions. Woeful.
If you have to resort to conspiracy theories to explain away the scientific findings of all the scientific communities then you need to go back and start engaging with the evidence-based community.
It’s so very sad. The black helicopters are not coming to get you. The Jews (or the Rockerfellers or the Illuminatti etc.) don’t control the UN. Really.
Paranoia will not take you anywhere useful.
Besides, David Icke has the whole Rockerfeller thing sewn up tight. He even throws in the Bilderberg Group and the lizard people for free. It’s old shtick.
Icke argues that humanity was created by a network of secret societies run by an ancient race of interbreeding bloodlines from the Middle and Near East, originally extraterrestrial. Icke calls them the “Babylonian Brotherhood.” The Illuminati, Round Table, Council on Foreign Relations, Chatham House, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the IMF, United Nations, the media, military, science, religion, and the Internet are all Brotherhood created and controlled. The Brotherhood is mostly male. Their children are raised from an early age to understand the mission; those who don’t are pushed aside. Key Brotherhood bloodlines are the British House of Windsor, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, European royalty and aristocracy, and the Eastern establishment families of the United States. At the apex of the Brotherhood stands the “Global Elite,” identified throughout history as the Illuminati, and at the top of the Global Elite stand the “Prison Wardens.” The goal of the Brotherhood—their “Great Work of Ages”—is world domination and a micro-chipped population.
Your rants are becoming boring now.
Maybe try to loosen up a bit, mate.
Tania:
Great. You can’t actually demonstrate that Cedric Katesby or the climate scientists are wrong, so now you accuse them of being “boring”.
“Closed-minded dogma and name-calling”? Projection much, Tania the ‘skeptic’?
You do not have an actual argument which shows that all the world’s climate scientists are wrong or deceiving. All you have are a bunch of inactivist talking points culled from random sources.
— frank
Q: “What kind of scientist are you?”
A: “Electronic engineer.”
Beautiful. Just beautiful.
On the internet, simply EVERYBODY is a “scientist”.
🙂
Engineers and scientists are often confused in the minds of the general public, with the former being closer to applied science. While scientists explore nature in order to discover general principles, engineers apply established principles drawn from science in order to create new inventions and improve upon the old ones. In short, scientists study things whereas engineers design things.
Link
Couldn’t be upfront and honest and describe yourself as an engineer, could you? Oh no.
You just had to reach for the scientist label to make yourself sound more authorative and “sciency”.
How dishonest.
(The whole “theory” nonsense you spouted before was something of a giveaway. No real scientist would talk like that at all. That’s bog-standard classic creationist jargon. That plus the clueless attempts to label science as somehow religious in nature. Puke.)
Funny how often that happens in the climate denier community.
Hmm….
9. Climate Change – Meet the Scientists