The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy's Artificial Global Warming Hoax

[Coffee]

It does qualify as a CT. I know some people who believe that it is a conspiracy to undermine and destroy the economy of the US and to install socialism.Other people I know believe that some governments are conspiring with big industries to cover up the effects of global warming by paying off scientists.

It's a CT that goes both ways.

Here's an interesting link to a 1997 article about a conspiracy among US and Australian industries concerning global warming: The International Conspiracy to Overheat the Earth

The article includes these quotes:

Clinton-bashing was a common theme in industry's grassroots appeals, using the usual argument that the global warming issue is another Clinton attempt to replace private property with "socialism," "bureaucracy" and "big government."

Ultimately, however, the orchestrated wrath of the right wing's minions was a diversionary tactic which effectively concealed Clinton's complicity in the effort to prevent any effective regulations on global warming.

 

[peteweaver]

Well the last time I saw a white christmas, here in Yorkshire was 1984.
The climate is definately changing.

Even in 1987, though it didn't snow on christmas day, I can remember there being freezing cold weather, and thick snow for several days. Even went sledging on the local hill. Thats something that just doesn't occur now.

There's loads more rain these days, & more flooding, but far less snow.

 

[BenBurch]

Coffee, agreed. There are CT nutters on both sides, though I cannot think of even one controversial issue that wouldn't be true of.

 

[FactCheck]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/260407irrational.htm

 

[Brainster]

As a conservative, I think the issue is more the hypocrisy that is evident among many on the Left regarding this issue. The most obvious example is Al Gore, who moans about our energy usage, then turns out to use 20 times the average number of kilowatt hours at his residence. A few months ago, Arianna Huffington appeared in an ad called "Join the Huffpost Hybrid Movement". In the ad, she's standing smugly in front of a plate glass window, through which you can see her energy efficient vehicle. And behind that, you can see the other wing of her house, where apparently every light was illuminated despite the fact that the picture appeared to be taken in the late afternoon.



Or John Kerry, who's pushing a "green" lifestyle with a book called "This Moment on Earth", but who answered a Detroit News question about his vehicles thus:

"Well, we have a couple of Chrysler minivans. We have a Jeep . . . and a PT Cruiser up in Boston . . . and we have some SUVs . . . and an old Dodge 600 that I keep in the Senate . . . and I also have a Chevy. A big Suburban."

Or Vanity Fair, which illustrated the problem of global warming on their cover by flying Leonardo DiCaprio and Annie Liebowitz to Iceland (the baby polar bear was photoshopped in).

Or the recent conference on global warming which was held in Bali.

And this whole business of buying carbon credits to offset your footprint strikes me as little different from the purchase of indulgences from the Pope.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a skeptic; see my sig. But I legitimately try to reduce my own energy usage.

 

[Trigood]

A number of Conservatives here and elsewhere assert that there is a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy (VLWC) to pretend there is a scientific consensus proving global warming - motives unclear - but its an immense Conspiracy that involves multiple world governments, NGOs, The Media, Scientists, and thousands of "shills" on "the internets."

Did you mean "teh internets"? If so, I agree.

 

[BenBurch]

Did you mean "teh internets"? If so, I agree.

Ooops! Excuse the typo!

 

[BenBurch]

As a conservative, I think the issue is more the hypocrisy that is evident among many on the Left regarding this issue.

Well, of course you do. Just as I don't like seeing idiots on my side (hence the gatekeeper monicker) you do not like seeing what your side is doing.

But the fact is that the great majority of those who think this is a VLWC are Conservatives.

 

[Brainster]

Well, of course you do. Just as I don't like seeing idiots on my side (hence the gatekeeper monicker) you do not like seeing what your side is doing.

But the fact is that the great majority of those who think this is a VLWC are Conservatives.

Agreed. And the hypocrisy gives them ammunition.

 

[TriskettheKid]

As a conservative, I think the issue is more the hypocrisy that is evident among many on the Left regarding this issue. The most obvious example is Al Gore, who moans about our energy usage, then turns out to use 20 times the average number of kilowatt hours at his residence. A few months ago, Arianna Huffington appeared in an ad called "Join the Huffpost Hybrid Movement". In the ad, she's standing smugly in front of a plate glass window, through which you can see her energy efficient vehicle. And behind that, you can see the other wing of her house, where apparently every light was illuminated despite the fact that the picture appeared to be taken in the late afternoon.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_977747804aef9e75c.jpg[/qimg]

Or John Kerry, who's pushing a "green" lifestyle with a book called "This Moment on Earth", but who answered a Detroit News question about his vehicles thus:



Or Vanity Fair, which illustrated the problem of global warming on their cover by flying Leonardo DiCaprio and Annie Liebowitz to Iceland (the baby polar bear was photoshopped in).

Or the recent conference on global warming which was held in Bali.

And this whole business of buying carbon credits to offset your footprint strikes me as little different from the purchase of indulgences from the Pope.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a skeptic; see my sig. But I legitimately try to reduce my own energy usage.

I think you should do some more research into Al Gore and this supposed "house of waste" that Conservative pundits love to scream about.

For starters, his house is how much bigger than the average home? Would it be fair to, say, compare the energy usage of Mr. Gore's home (which I'm sure is big) to a rancher? Or a studio in the city?

And how much energy would you expect to use when both you and your wife work at home? Probably more than a married couple who are out of the house 9+ hours a day.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hcDkxa5vPOYsh-mZHZdeBShhlZcAD8TGQVP80

I'm just saying, mud is getting thrown around.

 

[kallsop]

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age."

The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool."

Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age."

The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

What I get puzzled by are "the debate is over" pro-(A)GW antiscience disciples. Huge mistakes were made not too long ago but now you are sure?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Well the last time I saw a white christmas, here in Yorkshire was 1984.
The climate is definately changing.

Even in 1987, though it didn't snow on christmas day, I can remember there being freezing cold weather, and thick snow for several days. Even went sledging on the local hill. Thats something that just doesn't occur now.

There's loads more rain these days, & more flooding, but far less snow.

weve had the same thing here in chicago, although in chicago weather style we usually get a foot of snow a week before christmas, it melts for christmas, then we get another foot a few days afterward

BTW an interesting effect of global warming will be that england will get quite a bit colder (due to north atlantic currents stopping/changing)

 

[BenBurch]

What I get puzzled by are "the debate is over" pro-(A)GW antiscience disciples. Huge mistakes were made not too long ago but now you are sure?

The entire difference is the Supercomputer. Back then we could simulate almost nothing. Today we can run extraordinarily detailed simulations by the tens of thousands in parallel, all differing by small changes in inputs and parameters and see how they operate. And we can calibrate these models by starting with known historical weather data and using a genetic algorithm select those simulations whose parameters bet match history to use to predict the future.

See http://www.climateprediction.net/ for one such effort using voluntary donation of idle computing cycles from tens of thousands of personal computer users. And before you ask, any single modern personal computer out-computes any mainframe we had in the 70s or even the 80s by a substantial amount.

 

[Garb]

Is it just me, or isn't it just good sense to be economically friendly, global warming or not?

 

[boloboffin]

I'll admit, it's not normally what one hears from the left. You have this conservative behind you on that one.

Hmm. That might be an interesting poll. How many left-wingers here support nuclear power? Because I certainly do. That would solve the dependency on foreign sources of energy right then and there.

 

[gumboot]

The Elephant in the Room in regards to Climate Change (human-caused or not) and associated resource consumption is the developing world. protocols like Kyoto do not limit the developed world, and nations like China are trying very hard to achieve First World living standards, but without the level of technological sophistication that allows for efficient energy consumption (consider, for a moment, the enormous decrease in relative consumption of oil by US industry due to better efficiency).

An alarming statistic: were the entire earth's population to maintain the standard of living that is enjoyed by myself and my fellow New Zealanders (New Zealand ranks 15th on the Quality of Life Index), it would require five earths worth of resources. If only China and India were to achieve First World status, they would between them require the entire earth's resources.

The options are grim - we either actively prevent the developing world from achieving our standard of living, or our civilisation collapses.

This is the real problem relating to Climate Change. I think strain on resources will result in social collapse long before human activity can destroy the earth's ecosystem. What I find so odd is that no one is addressing this issue - indeed the world is going out of its way to avoid addressing it (by not addressing the developing world in things like the Kyoto Protocol).

It may just be the ultimate example of Political Correctness in the history of ever.

-Gumboot

 

[Garb]

Is it just me, or isn't it just good sense to be economically friendly, global warming or not?

I apologize, that was supposed to say "environmentally friendly."

 

[gumboot]

Well the last time I saw a white christmas, here in Yorkshire was 1984.
The climate is definately changing.

Even in 1987, though it didn't snow on christmas day, I can remember there being freezing cold weather, and thick snow for several days. Even went sledging on the local hill. Thats something that just doesn't occur now.

There's loads more rain these days, & more flooding, but far less snow.

Not that I am specifically doubting your above claims, but too often similar claims "it was never like this before" prove to be a case of selective memory rather than accurate weather records.

Another thing to consider is season shift. There's no reason to think that seasonal alignment matches perfectly with our calendar. In New Zealand, for example, I would say that our calendar is now about a month out in terms of when spring supposedly starts and when spring-like weather settles in. It's now typically still cold and wet in December, with hot Summer sun extending into April, yet "officially" summer in New Zealand is December to February. As a result we get people commenting in December that the "cold wet weather" is a result of climate change (and associated news worthy floods) while only a few months later they're blaming the unusually hot sunny autumn on climate change as well! And so it goes through the entire year (I'm not kidding, I know people who every few months blame the "unusual" weather on Climate Change, based solely on when the calendar says the seasons should change, and ignoring the fact that they've been making the exact same remarks every few months for years).

In reality the weather hasn't changed at all, it just doesn't match our calendar anymore. Likewise, in recent years there's been frequent talk of the terrible floods and storms that have raked New Zealand in the summer months, naturally blamed on Climate change. Yet when you flick back through the history of bad storms in New Zealand you soon realise that such violent terrible storms have been occurring regularly for at least a century or two - and that the most recent ones pale in comparison to many historical examples.

What has actually happened is that scientists have discovered storms they thought were 100 year occurances are actually 50 or 20 year occurances.

-Gumboot

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hmm. That might be an interesting poll. How many left-wingers here support nuclear power? Because I certainly do. That would solve the dependency on foreign sources of energy right then and there.

Not to mention cutting off one of the chief sources of jihadist funding.

 

[gumboot]

Not to mention cutting off one of the chief sources of jihadist funding.

I don't see how wide use of nuclear power would negate the need for oil. Nuclear power is not directly useful in motor vehicle or aircraft propulsion due to weight and size, and electricity from nuclear power is problematic for air and heavy transport propulsion. Then there's petrochemicals, which can't be made from nuclear power, and nuclear material doesn't make the greatest lubricant.

Less than 2.5% of oil consumed by the USA is used for electricity generation.

In reality, widespread implementation of nuclear power would not make a significant difference with current technology.

-Gumboot