• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

AWG conspiracy, why?

Eddie Dane

Philosopher
Eddie Dane
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
6,681
Just in: 22% of the Dutch population do not believe in man-made global warming.

I realise that AGW is a complex problem and there is a discussion about the validity of the theory.
But there seems to be a strong trend of believing it is faked by the elite or something and this takes it into CT territory.

So scientists conning the public into believing in AWG? Why?
As anyone ever proposed a motivation?
 
Ok, I can create some reasons for you. Some of these are reasons to be against AGW and some are reasons why scientist could be lying.

New World Order: More taxation. Police state with Green Corps and Obama-jugend working as enforcers who will take your house. Eugenics agenda.

Living standards: Losing industry to third world countries, western world being dismantled for ecological reasons. End of prosperity.

Not being convinced by the scientist: What is the effect of the sun? Is global warming really a negative or a positive thing? We can farm more with warmer weather. Scientist are intimidated or their grants are declined unless they parrot the official line.

Other reasons: Backlash against global warming people who are seen as arrogant such as Al Gore, dislike against the new religion of AGW and being green.
 
Last edited:
Three reasons.

First, AWG is hard to understand. The idea that a small amount of CO2 will raise temperatures a small amount and that will somehow lead to widespread disaster in 50-100 years is a hard thing to get your head around. It's not exactly a meteor smacking into the Yucatan, after all.

Second is the behavior of the activists. They have closed off debate and declared that it is time to act right now or the world is screwed. A lot of people don't respond to that kind of tactic. They just aren't going to sign over their lives or lifestyles just because someone tells them too. They want to know the hows and whys, but when they start asking questions they often get labeled as deniers and shouted down.

Finally, there is undercurrent that many of the people who are telling us that we have to suffer to save the planet are people who won't. Whether or not it's an actual CT, it is very easy to get the impression that "the elite" are justifying their lifestyles by hurting ours. If there is, say, an energy tax, some people are going to have to choose between gassing up their car or keeping their houses a comfortable temperature. I doubt Al Gore is going to have to make that choice.

This has been my experience at least.
 
Denial of global warming requires dismissing the work of scientists at our National Labs such as NCAR. As these scientists are in fact experts in this specific field, it's hard to attack them as unqualified. The papers they have written on the subject have been published in peer reviewed journals, making it tough to claim they did shoddy work. So about the only thing left is for the deniers to claim these scientists are part of a massive conspiracy.
 
Rogue1stclass said:
Second is the behavior of the activists. They have closed off debate and declared that it is time to act right now or the world is screwed. A lot of people don't respond to that kind of tactic. They just aren't going to sign over their lives or lifestyles just because someone tells them too. They want to know the hows and whys, but when they start asking questions they often get labeled as deniers and shouted down.
Click to expand...

I think this is the most important point. There are a lot of things surrounding AGW that are woo. There are a huge number of activists misstating, twisting, and flat out lying to push some philosophy, ideology, or agenda, that is simply using AGW. Hell, just look at the loons over at GreenPeace. The anti-human crowd latches on to 'green'. Companies us green screens and greenwash their practices.

The facts of AGW are troubling, and need addressed. The 'how' of addressing them includes a lot of bs. That leads some many people to dismiss the good science. They can't see past the layer of ********.
 
BenBurch said:
There is (sadly) too much woo on both sides, but the actual science is clear.
Click to expand...

Assuming you are qualified to comment, can you recommend a book on AGW that is (at least mostly) woo-free? Oh yes, and comprehensible to the layperson? :)
 
BenBurch said:
There is (sadly) too much woo on both sides, but the actual science is clear.
Click to expand...

Except that then we have people "hiding" the "decline" in temperatures that was showing in tree rings when "real" temperatures went up by inserting those "real" temperatures. Well all find and dandy, except a) if the tree ring temperatures aren't able to be used where we know they don't match the "real" temperatures, how can we know that they actually match the real temperatures were we don't have data to match to them? And b) we don't actually know if the "real" temperatures are right anyway, since the raw data was thrown away and we can't go back and check that the modifidied "real" data we do have was modified justifiably and correctly.

Now it might have been modified correctly, but really, are you going to trust someone that has already shown that they are willing to throw out as unreliable data that doesn't match other collected data when it doesn't agree with their conclusions, but then turn around and use that very same unreliable data when it does agrees with them, yet can't be verified. I'm not.

Add to that circular computer modelling, similar to that which killed 7 Astronuats because foam couldn't break tiles, and the science is far from clear.

Finally, to plagerise from another board, the scientific method has never heard of "Case Closed" while that is what our politicians and enviromentalists are trying to force onto us. Anyone that dares speak out of turn or fail to tow the partyline is instantly labelled a Denier and turned on for "not believing." This isn't the way science is supposed to work. Even today we continue to test our laws and theories, but no-one is allowed to dare question AGW.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Finally, to plagerise from another board, the scientific method has never heard of "Case Closed" while that is what our politicians and enviromentalists are trying to force onto us.
Click to expand...
Yeah, totally. Like personally, I'm still on the fence over that whole "gravity" thing. It's probably just another scheme to institute a weight tax or something. Just the man keeping us regular folk down (on the ground).
 
Peephole said:
Yeah, totally. Like personally, I'm still on the fence over that whole "gravity" thing. It's probably just another scheme to institute a weight tax or something. Just the man keeping us regular folk down (on the ground).
Click to expand...
So I guess CERN might as well pack up their LHC and stop looking for the Higgs Boson particle and how it creates mass and interacts with the environment to cause gravity. After all we need is to drop a few apples, correct any numbers based on where we think our arm should have been at the time of dropping the hammer, and we'll know all there is to know about gravity?
 
Rogue1stclass said:
Second is the behavior of the activists. They have closed off debate and declared that it is time to act right now or the world is screwed. A lot of people don't respond to that kind of tactic. They just aren't going to sign over their lives or lifestyles just because someone tells them too. They want to know the hows and whys, but when they start asking questions they often get labeled as deniers and shouted down.
Click to expand...
Somewhat in this vein, you have some of the people who are protesting in Copenhagen these days. Apparently, their latest slogan is "No borders. No nations. Stop the deportations!" - whatever that has to do with climate change... :rolleyes:
 
PhantomWolf said:
Which graph? Or are you saying that they have never included or used any tree ring data in any claims of warming?
Click to expand...

There was some code in one bit of the stolen software that was going to correct the place where tree ring data became unreliable proxies and then clearly label this on the graph as corrected data. This code was commented out. The final paper that was published did not use the corrected data line.
 
PhantomWolf said:
So I guess CERN might as well pack up their LHC and stop looking for the Higgs Boson particle and how it creates mass and interacts with the environment to cause gravity. After all we need is to drop a few apples, correct any numbers based on where we think our arm should have been at the time of dropping the hammer, and we'll know all there is to know about gravity?
Click to expand...
No, but things like gravity, evolution and AGW are well-accepted theories that aren't going to suddenly radically change. That doesn't mean further refining the science isn't necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom