Global Warming Denial & Conspiracy Theories - Similarities

[Kitsune]

Global Warming Denialism & Conspiracy Theories - Similarities

I am thinking that there are a lot of similarities between global warming denialism and conspiracy theories. Wondering if you think I am going to far with this?

1. Using of disparate facts / noise in the data: Both science and reporting on an event is usually noisy. You will get data that is wrong, exceptions, and problems with the data. In both cases, those who argue against the consensus use those exceptions as a cornerstone of their arguments.

2. There is a conspiracy to hide the evidence. Global warming denialism will argue that scientists are making up the data or altering. This would mean a conspiracy of thousands of climate scientists all over the world with none willing to go against the group. In many ways, this is like the conspiracy theories with NASA faking the moon landings and / or 9-11 being an inside job.

3. People who argue against global warming have trouble with small and subtle causes having a huge effect. They have trouble with the idea of a comparative small release of CO2 causing a huge effect on the environment. This is similar to the Princess Diana conspiracy where people have trouble that a few items of bad luck ended in her death. Also similar to Lee Harvey Oswald shooting John F. Kennedy. People have trouble with seeing a “loser” managing to kill the President of the United States.

4. Science is self correcting in that when data is found which does not support it, the original theories change. This is often criticized in general with global warming theories being by global warming denialists. In the same respect, the first official statements which come from an event are often wrong. As more time goes on, the official statements often get amended. This is often attacked as well by conspiracy theory supporters.

[Simon_Jester]

Eh, this is old hat.

Ultimately, all human beings start acting more or less the same way when we are firmly determined to deny an obvious, simple truth about the world. We always try to cherrypick our way through the evidence, we always start singling out even vague or superficial evidence 'against' the hated idea and playing it up. We always assume a conspiracy to hide the truth, as it's the only way to explain why 95% of the human race and 99.5% of the credentialed human race disagree with us. We always start to assume that there must be some kind of special, sympathetic magic that prevents an 'unworthy' thing from happening.

[Kitsune]

You are a little wrong in that I think it is only 48% of the US population and maybe 60%/70% of the population worldwide believe that there is anthropogenic global warming.
The percentage who believes that there is something more to the Kennedy assassination is also quite high.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm exaggerating; the point remains that this is how people operate when they decide to reject the facts and substitute a delusion of their own.

[Sir Sirius]

Global warming denialism is a conspiracy theory, hence the similarities.

[Lord MJ]

I would also add the belief that there are many more scientists out there that don't accept "global warming alarmism" that want to come forward, but are in fear of reprisal if they say something contrary to the "global warming cabal".

[Kitsune]

Do you have any sources that gives good information on those arguments?

[Lord MJ]

Not saying I believe it, just saying that people that deny global warming deny it.

I know folks like that, that basically think that scientists that stand up or go before congress and talking about their findings that dispute climate change, are courageous heroes that are risking their livelihood by going against "the global warming cabal."

[Napoleon the Clown]

It is true that global warming denialist papers are less likely to be published by anybody reputable, but that's likely more to do with the use of bad science (re: methodology) than a bias against people who disagree.

[Kitsune]

Not saying I believe it, just saying that people that deny global warming deny it.

I know folks like that, that basically think that scientists that stand up or go before congress and talking about their findings that dispute climate change, are courageous heroes that are risking their livelihood by going against "the global warming cabal."

Didn't think you believed it, just looking for something I could read up on their positions. . . .maybe something written from a non denialist perspective. Did some Google searching but not sure the best keywords to use. Got dome stuff but nothing great.

[Lord MJ]

I'm not a climate scientist so I can not comment on the quality of this, but here is an example of work put forward by someone that doesn't support the "consensus" about global warming.

Of course the comments I've seen about this are.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/16/senat ... tion-plan/

"when you hear people like Al Gore say "a consensus of scientists...", know that that "consensus" is weak and getting weaker by the year as "sky is falling" scientific predictions fail to become reality."

So in the mind of conservatives, it is a case of bias against deniers if not because of liberal ideology, but because those scientist that support global warming don't want to be shown to be wrong. I don't know if this approaches the level of conspiracy theory (except for the belief that Democrats are anti-business and are trying to create a socialist state, with complete ignorance of the fact they are pro big business like the GOP, Dems are just less flamboyant and insane about it.)

[Crossroads Inc.]

See, the problem with people like that, is that the vast majority of them:
A. Do not understand how science works.
and
B. cannot CONCEIVE that their view points are totally incorrect.

The thing you have to understand LordMJ, is that those people who go "The evil Liberal conspiracy is silencing anyone who disagrees with them!!! These Global Warming Hoaxers can't stand to be proved wrong so they will silence anyone who stands against them!!! The thing is, is that to them, they cannot imagine Global Warming NOT being 'a hoax'

The Scientific community rejects their papers, documents and 'science' not because of some conspiracy, but because most of the the time their reports are based on junk science.
If someone had a study that should global climate change WASN'T Happening, it wouldn't be 'hushed up'. It would be seized up[on because such a report would shake the current community to it's core. And science (real science) LOVES That! We LOVE to prove things wrong, thats what science is all about!!!

A lot of these people talk about a "Global Warming Mafia" who are out to ruin the carriers and destroy anyone who gets in their way! How are they "destroying" these people you ask? Well, by (GASP) By telling everyone that these studies saying global warming is a hoax and not happening are WRONG!

So…. Again, going back to how these people do not understand how Science works!
If I come before board of respected scientists and tell them I have a paper showing that Godzilla is responsible for the polar icecaps melting… Well, after they laugh me out of the room, Am I going to say that they are part of an evil conspiracy bent on "covering up" Godzilla? No… Its because my 'Science' was a fucking Joke!

[Kitsune]

I think Lord MJ is afraid I will blame him. . . .Fact is that article he read is being dishonest.
One: I would love for the evidence of global warming to be wrong
Two: The sixteen (or seventeen) year hiatus is wrong. The last decade has been the hottest on record with most of the hottest years ever within that time.
Three: There is also a sampling problem. Some areas there are tons of data points, such as in the continental US for example, while other places such as polar ice, have few. When these are weighted by how much area they represent, the situation gets worse.
Four: Much of the additional heat has been absorbed by the ocean instead of the air and it has continue to warm
Five: Related to three and four, land ice has continued to melt.

[Lord MJ]

I would like to debate the guy that shared that article. But the author of the article is a chaired professor at Georgia Tech, and I'm not a climate scientist.

But this does fit into the conservative mindset. Most of the people that engage in debate about whether climate change exists, are not scientists. So when a conservative pull forth an accredited scientist that disputes climate change, unless you are really an expert at the science involved, anything you say would only serve to cement in his mind that people crying about climate change are driven more by alarmism and liberal ideology than actual science.

[Kitsune]

I would like to debate the guy that shared that article. But the author of the article is a chaired professor at Georgia Tech, and I'm not a climate scientist.

But this does fit into the conservative mindset. Most of the people that engage in debate about whether climate change exists, are not scientists. So when a conservative pull forth an accredited scientist that disputes climate change, unless you are really an expert at the science involved, anything you say would only serve to cement in his mind that people crying about climate change are driven more by alarmism and liberal ideology than actual science.

I know that I would not want to debate him but this is from other scientists who have already refuted them.

[Irbis]

I would like to debate the guy that shared that article. But the author of the article is a chaired professor at Georgia Tech, and I'm not a climate scientist.

Want one or two examples of real scientist "debating"* her?

*if you can call crushing everything she writes that...

[Kitsune]

Did not want to start a new thread but though that this would fit.
Michael Mann is the favorite whipping boy of the denialist (no, not skeptics)
There was an article against him. Decided to sue and instead of using the UK, is suing in US court.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... rt-victory

A Win for the Climate Scientist Who Skeptics Compared to Jerry Sandusky
As the judge green-lights his libel suit, the defendants' lawyers jump ship.

n 2012—after writers for National Review and a prominent conservative think tank accused him of fraud and compared him to serial child molester Jerry Sandusky—climate scientist Michael Mann took the bold step of filing a defamation suit. The defendants moved to have the case thrown out, citing a Washington, DC, law that shields journalists from frivolous litigation. But on Wednesday, DC Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg rejected the motion, opening the way for a trial.

Although public figures like Mann have to clear a high bar to prove defamation, Weisberg argued that the scientist's complaint may pass the test. And he brushed aside the defendants' claims that the fraud allegations were "pure opinion," which is protected by the First Amendment:

Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.

Weisberg's order is just the latest in a string of setbacks that have left the climate change skeptics' case in disarray. Earlier this month, Steptoe & Johnson, the law firm representing National Review and its writer, Mark Steyn, withdrew as Steyn's counsel. According to two sources with inside knowledge, it also plans to drop National Review as a client.

The lawyers' withdrawal came shortly after Steyn—a prominent conservative pundit who regularly fills in as host of Rush Limbaugh's radio show—publicly attacked the former judge in the case, Natalia Combs Greene, accusing her of "stupidity" and "staggering" incompetence. Mann's attorney, John B. Williams, suspects this is no coincidence. "Any lawyer would be taken aback if their client said such things about the judge," he says. "That may well be why Steptoe withdrew."

Steyn's manager, Melissa Howes, acknowledged that his commentary "did not go over well."* But Steyn maintains it was his decision to part ways with his attorneys.

The lawsuit centers on Mann's famous "hockey stick" graph. In 1999, Mann and two colleagues charted 1,000 years worth of climate data, and found a steep uptick in global temperatures beginning in the 20th century. The graph, named for its iconic shape, became a potent, easy-to-grasp symbol of global warming. And it was featured prominently in the landmark 2001 report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which concluded that "the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years."



Courtesy of IPCC

The chart also made Mann a target for climate change skeptics. This was especially true beginning in 2009, when more than 1,000 emails were stolen from Britain's University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), one of the world’s leading climate research institutions. In one message, CRU’s director, Phil Jones, famously described using Mann's "Nature trick" to "hide the decline." He was referring to a technique that Mann had used to control for variations in tree-ring data in a paper for the journal Nature. But Skeptics—among them the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a free-market think tank that has received funding from the Koch bothers and Exxon Mobil—seized on this revelation as evidence that scientists were conspiring to cover up a decline in global temperatures.

Soon, climate researchers found themselves under siege. Mann's inbox was flooded with death threats and messages calling him a "fraud," a "fucking terrorist," and a "one-world-government socialist.” As Mother Jones reported in 2011, "Images of Mann and other scientists were posted on neo-Nazi sites. The CRU's Jones temporarily stepped down from his post; he later said he contemplated suicide."

Pennsylvania State University, where Mann works, and at least six other institutions conducted separate investigations into the allegations of scientific misconduct. An independent probe commissioned by the University of East Anglia faulted the researchers for their bunker mentality, and found their responses "to reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive." But none of the investigations turned up evidence of malfeasance or data manipulation. After completing its inquiry, the US Environmental Protection Agency posted a fact sheet on its website stating:

The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results…Some people have "cherry-picked" a limited selection of CRU email statements to draw broad, unsubstantiated conclusions about the validity of all climate science.

Still, the emails remained a rallying cry for skeptics, some of whom turned their ire on Penn State, which allegedly declined to interview Mann's critics during its probe. In 2012, it came to light that Penn State officials had ignored or concealed evidence that former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was molesting children, including in the university's locker room. That July, CEI scholar Rand Simberg wrote a post for the organization's blog likening the situation to "another cover up," the "Michael Mann affair." Simberg also called Mann "the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data."

Several days later, CEI deleted the passage, which it admitted was "inappropriate." But Steyn, a regular National Review contributor, quoted it on the magazine's blog. He added:

Not sure I'd have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change "hockey-stick" graph.

Mann's attorney fired off letters to CEI and the National Review, calling the fraud allegations "defamatory" and demanding apologies and full retractions. National Review Editor Richard Lowry responded with another post, which dismissed the defamation claims as "transparent nonsense." "In common polemical usage, 'fraudulent' doesn’t mean honest-to-goodness criminal fraud," he wrote. "It means intellectually bogus." At that point, Mann filed his defamation suit against CEI, Simberg, National Review, and Steyn. In July 2013, Judge Combs Greene of the DC Superior Court rejected the defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants appealed the decision. But that December, the appeals court, which was concerned that Mann had filed an amended complaint shortly before Combs Greene's ruling, sent it back to the Superior Court for further review. Judge Weissman took on the case, following Combs Greene's retirement.

Finally, on Christmas Eve, Steyn published his blog post, railing against Combs Greene and her ruling, which contained typographical errors and mixed up the defendants:

Among her many staggering incompetences, DC Superior Court judge Natalia Combs-Greene…denied NR's motion to dismiss the fraudulent complaint while simultaneously permitting Mann’s lawyers to file an amended complaint.

The appellate judges have now tossed out anything relating to Mann's original fraudulent complaint, including Judge Combs-Greene's unbelievably careless ruling in which the obtuse jurist managed to confuse the defendants, and her subsequent ruling in which she chose to double-down on her own stupidity. Anything with Combs-Greene's name on it has now been flushed down the toilet of history.

When asked about these comments, Steyn made no apologies. "I spent the first months attempting to conceal my contempt for Judge Combs Greene's court," he said in an email to Mother Jones. "But really, it's not worth the effort." Wednesday's ruling affirms the thrust of Combs Greene's order, however. It also concludes that "a reasonable jury is likely to find the statement that Dr. Mann 'molested and tortured data' was false, and published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for whether it was false or not."

Steyn, meanwhile, appears to be paying a price for his brazenness. He still has no legal representation. ("My check from the Koch brothers seems to have been lost in the mail or intercepted by the NSA," he wrote. "So for the moment I am representing myself.") And since his Christmas Eve diatribe, the conservative pundit—who had been writing near-daily posts for National Review Online—hasn't written a single item. Neither he nor the magazine's publisher, Jack Fowler, would say why. But Steyn hinted at the reasons in a post on his website: "As readers may have deduced from my absence at National Review Online and my termination of our joint representation, there have been a few differences between me and the rest of the team."

As for Mann, he welcomes the recent ruling. "I'm pleased that the judge has reaffirmed the merit of our case and has allowed it to now move on to the discovery phase," he told Mother Jones. Beyond that, he declined to comment, but he has written about his reasons for coming out aggressively in his own defense. "As the staid scientific journal Nature put it, climate researchers are in a street fight with those who seek to discredit the accepted scientific evidence, and we must fight back against the disinformation that denies this real and present danger to the planet," he explained on the liberal blog ThinkProgress. "The worst thing we can do is bury our heads in the sand and pretend that climate change doesn’t exist."

Correction: A previous version of this story mistakenly quoted Howes as saying that Steyn's commentary did not go over well with the judge. We regret the error.

[Zaune]

I can see where Lord MJ is coming from, actually. This is a hell of a climate (no pun intended) in which to try and be the voice of reason. And it's not just the skeptics that can be shrill, even if they're the better-organised of the extremist camps; anyone coming out with a study that suggests the worst-case scenarios haven't come to pass is at risk of getting lumped in with the "of course Hy-Brazil isn't sinking" crowd.

[PainRack]

I picked up Nate Silver book about forecasts, predictions and picking up signal through the noise and he had an excellent chapter on global warming.

Namely, the difficulty of global warming forecasts, its 'inaccuracy' and the difficulty of matching predictions to reality. Climate predictions are invariably going to have a lot of uncertainty factors fudged into them, from simple reasons like "we don't know that much about climate as we only have Earth, Venus and Mars to base our data off of" and "things are changing even as we speak". Such a complex milieu would make accurate predictions almost impossible and mindboggling complex but to the common laymen, looks more like dodgy science.


Regarding the hiatus itself, remember back in the 90s when the IPCC first predicted that we would have a steady rise in average temperature? The language proposed was a 1 degree rise yearly. We didn't have that and the estimate itself was tampered down, but the increase in average temperature is there.......... but in a seesaw manner. Variations in temperature meant that the rise was not a steady 1 degree or 0.5 degree rise but dramatic swings around the data point.

Its easy to see why people could say where's the beef, even as we show where they're wrong.

[Kitsune]

I don't think they ever suggested a 1 c per year rise?

[Irbis]

I picked up Nate Silver book about forecasts, predictions and picking up signal through the noise and he had an excellent chapter on global warming.

With all due respect to Silver, he is not climate scientist, he is economist, Chicago economist at that. You might be interested in reading this.

[PainRack]

Hmm....... I knew that some of Nate statements were wrong and shrugged it off to non expert opinion, but I didn't realise that about Joseph Armstrong angle.

Thanks for the correction.

I don't think they ever suggested a 1 c per year rise?

Shit. I made a mistake here. I was going to post 1c per decade rise.