Could Somebody Please Give Me a Coherent Explanation of Global Warming Conspiracy Theories

I am suspicious that anyone has actually read hundreds of papers in this field.

First, global warming could be and probably has been happening for some period of time before now. The debate is over whether or not man is the cause of any or all of it. From what I have read, there was the little ice age so we are warming out of that. Perfectly natural as the temp of the earth has varied over time.

Some of the papers (like the hockey stick graph) were discredited as sloppy science. Maybe it was intentional. I do not know. I know scientists in other fields who have had papers published and there were errors in the stats.

I think the emails from East Anglia and Penn State folks seriously tarnished the image. When you have one of the leading scientists in the field boasting about changing the rules and that papers that have contrary points will never be published, then you have a real problem.

Also, in the scientific world of published papers, the raw data and methodology are supposed to be made available. The climate folks have not been responsive to such requests. Again the East Anglia folks emails shine an unkind light on that process (they would rather destroy the data than turn it over or would fight to keep it locked away).

I think it is less of conspiracy (although some of the emails do give that impression) than scientists looking to either get grants (one gets no grants if there is not a "problem") or scientists with bias.

On another side, Bjorn Lomborg (who believes in man-made global warming) thinks that the cost is too high for the fixes being proposed when you look at the cost and how many lives would be saved. He argues that if you are concerned about saving lives then there are cheaper and proven things you can do (clean drinking water, sewage, mosquito nets, using DDT again).

There is a faction of the Global warming (climate change is the proper term since it covers all the bases) that just wants government control and does not care much for freedom or capitalism. Not everyone is a watermelon (green on the outside, red--as in Commie---on the inside) but quite a few are.

There are far better conspiracy theories to have fun with and that also do not endanger our freedoms.

Its easy to skim through hundreds of papers focused on aspects of climate change throughout college, and also helps that I took a couple courses focused on climate change. There are scientific journals focused solely on climate change and its affects. Search "climate change journals" on your search engine.From your explanations, you did not adequately explain why thousands of scientists and politicians and environmental activists would unite to perpetuate a climate change conspiracy over a period of decades. Politicians do love power, but they could use other conspiracies to stoke fear and infringe on our rights.

luv2run wrote:

I am suspicious that anyone has actually read hundreds of papers in this field.

I think it is less of conspiracy (although some of the emails do give that impression) than scientists looking to either get grants (one gets no grants if there is not a "problem") or scientists with bias.

There is a faction of the Global warming (climate change is the proper term since it covers all the bases) that just wants government control and does not care much for freedom or capitalism. Not everyone is a watermelon (green on the outside, red--as in Commie---on the inside) but quite a few are.

There are far better conspiracy theories to have fun with and that also do not endanger our freedoms.

So you've stated that you believe in global warming, and you obviously don't think it is a conspiracy. You're also obviously a troll but either way tell me this...

If you think that global warming (climate change) is real then you must think that the hundreds of papers and renowned scientists, writing about, and suggesting that global warming is not caused by man, are conspirators. To you that must be a conspiracy.

SO... please explain your conspiracy theory. Go ahead, give it your best shot... and be coherent

vivalarepublica wrote:

and also helps that I took a couple courses focused on climate change. There are scientific journals focused solely on climate change and its affects.

For starters you can look at possible motivations from these people right there. Would a professor teaching a course on climate change have a vested interest in whether or not climate change exists (or at least is man-made)? Would publishers of journals focused solely on climate change have a vested interest?

What would happen to their jobs/careers if reality isn't quite the story line they are pushing?

Thanks for a well thought out and coherent post.

vivalarepublica wrote:

From your explanations, you did not adequately explain why thousands of scientists and politicians and environmental activists would unite to perpetuate a climate change conspiracy over a period of decades.

Luv2run didn't explain a "conspiracy" because he doesn't think there is one. That doesn't mean there aren't scientists like Michael Mann or Phil Jones who will twist or corrupt data to fit their preconceived conclusions. There are scientists like that in every field. But it doesn't help the case for anthropogenic warming when some of the main support for IPCC claims comes from the research of these two clowns.

Conspiracies are conclusions based on a lack of sufficient evidence available to best analyzers of all, scientists and academic. The ideas usually go against the grain of common belief and available facts. Some sort of secret group influences the outcome of an event (in this case, research and legislation for climate change) in order to gain power and influence. Therefore, few people find them believable and dismiss them because of lack of evidence.

I'd like to know why people think climate change is a conspiracy and see some evidence besides a couple graphs based on insufficient data.

People supporting climate change are not conspirators because their information has been readily available for decades. Climate scientists will openly discuss the certainties and potential errors in their work. A required section on every scientific paper is the methodology section. That West Anglia crap is only a small sample. Find me evidence that every measurement tool in the world has been tampered with, that the majority of climate scientists intentionally skew their data.

This sort of argument can be used for any type of work that people do a daily basis. People have interests in what they do for a living. Any academic and doctorate-level scientist obviously cares a great deal about what they do, considering the time and commitment put forth to reach their position in life. They will do what they can to advocate for their beliefs and research conclusions. Does this mean that every thing we advocate for is simply to push for support of our careers, and do we have other motivations in life?

In addition, every decision we make in life is based on insufficient data. Can we ever have complete certainty and absolute, immovable facts for every action we take and each decision we make? Much research functions in the same manner. It is very difficult to account for all available factors outside of a controlled lab experiment. Are these climate scientists (gasp!) human for reaching conclusions based on data that might have errors and insufficiencies?

Calling a lack of belief in man-made global warming a "conspiracy theory" is a misnomer. A conspiracy theory is usually a far-flung idea that runs counter to a widely established fact, like the fact that astronauts landed on the moon, or that Islamic terrorists brought down the twin towers.

Man-made global warming is a shoddy theory that has had so many holes punched in it, it's ridiculous. In proper science, once facts are presented that call the theory into serious question, they are addressed and, if they can not be refuted, the theory is retracted or, at least, robustly debated until it either prevails against its detractors or is abandoned.

Global warming enthusiasts can not refute the facts calling it into question but, rather than soberly going back to the drawing board, a highly political war of rhetoric rages on... and on... and on...

Well done.

Krayzelburg wrote:

Calling a lack of belief in man-made global warming a "conspiracy theory" is a misnomer. A conspiracy theory is usually a far-flung idea that runs counter to a widely established fact, like the fact that astronauts landed on the moon, or that Islamic terrorists brought down the twin towers.

Man-made global warming is a shoddy theory that has had so many holes punched in it, it's ridiculous. In proper science, once facts are presented that call the theory into serious question, they are addressed and, if they can not be refuted, the theory is retracted or, at least, robustly debated until it either prevails against its detractors or is abandoned.

I agree with your definition of conspiracy theories. I am concerned with why thousands, perhaps millions of usually unrelated individuals (climate scientists, academics, politicians, green business leaders, polar bears and seals, diminishing glaciers) would come together to fib climate data and push for climate change legislation. Why do the climate change deniers make these accusations?

Also, anthropogenic-caused climate change is a very difficult theory to prove because 1. It involves an extremely long time period of hundreds of thousands of years, and a few hundred years of recent anthropogenic activities 2. Factors affecting climate include the entire planet and systems we do not totally understand (atmospheric carbon, carbon retention ability of soil and plant matter, sequestration ability of arctic tundra, the ocean's ability to retain carbon, the future rate of fossil fuel use). Climate change is concerned with the whole planet, and the activities than span centuries. So many factors influence our climate, but it seems that fossil fuel, carbon levels, and temperature levels have been working in harmony. Of course, it is difficult to prove and has many potential errors. Climate scientists will readily admit this. They are the people that I learned about the potential uncertainties, not some random yahoo on a blog.

Dude. Just write: "What possible motives do all of these people have to fabricate things to the level which they are being accused? What do they have to gain?"

Oil companies have a lot to gain by debunking climate change, that's for sure...

Rush Limbaugh will tell you its because a bunch of politicians like Al Gore have invested a lot of money in green technology and stand to benefit financially from it.

I'm not sure that there isn't a shred of truth to that but it can't be the whole reason.

vivalarepublica wrote:

........ Politicians do love power, but they could use other conspiracies to stoke fear and infringe on our rights.

That's the point. They have used other conspiracies throughout the last 100-years. It's a tenet of Fascism to invent a du Jour crisis. Climate Change is the latest in a long line!

I don't believe that there's a conspiracy among scientists to promote global warming and I do believe that human emissions are contributing to it. On the other hand, it's obvious that it has become far too politicized on both sides and people like Al Gore are trying to fear people into change by not presenting the full scope of the issue, but only what suits their needs.

If there's a conspiracy, it's between the Government and the green technology sector who want to expand their industry and reduce the World's reliance on fossil fuels. If we wanted to lower Earth's temperature back to the end of the 19th century we could easily do it for a few million dollars by pumping SO2 into the stratosphere, where it would reside for several years and reflect some of the incoming sunlight back to space. This occurs naturally during major volcanic eruptions like Pinatubo, Tambora, Krakatoa... etc and is not believed to cause any significant ecological damage. There are other methods, that are seen as more eco-friendly that are also far cheaper than the cost associated with reducing emissions if all we want to do is reverse the warming trend.

The fact that many Governments are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars fighting CO2 emissions makes me believe that perhaps the purpose of this money is meant to promote sustainable technology so that, as oil prices continue to go up, we won't be screwed up the a$$ by oil-exporting countries and won't be at an economic disadvantage to countries that have diversified their energy sources. After spending more than a trillion dollars in Iraq to gain access to "secure" oil, spending billions of dollars transitioning towards clean energy is a cost-effective measure. The measures taken under Kyoto and Copenhagen are not sufficient to stop CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere from climbing, but scaring the average person into believing that this is the case probably increases support for green technology, which, in the long run, is a good investment.

Alf Shrubb wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html

I'm sorry, I can't resist responding to every poorly thought out post. I'm having a field day here. Those are only a couple people written about in an opinion column. Your boy Christopher Booker has the same financial interest as any climate change enthusiast, except as a climate skeptic. This was at the end of his article:

Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for

£14.99 plus £1.25 p&p. To order, call 0844 871 1416 or go to

books.telegraph.co.uk

Also, this yahoo doesn't believe absestos causes health problems. I'm not going to find him credible anytime soon.

simple talk for simple folks wrote:

Oil companies have a lot to gain by debunking climate change, that's for sure...

I'm pretty sure the biggest oil companies no longer attempt to deny or debunk climate change. They have a ton of money to gain in alternative energy as well. And the oil companies and coal companies have enough influence on lawmakers that Washington is not going to seriously threaten their existence anytime soon.

Not so sure about the SO2 idea. 1. It's a band aid and doesn't address the root causes of carbon emissions, which are burning fossil fuels, methane emissions (livestock, landfills, natural gas pipeline leaks, rice paddies, other decaying organic matter), deforestation, and thawing of arctic tundra. Eventually we have to deal with those. 2. SO2 eventually becomes sulfuric acid and forms acid rain. Bad news for plants and people that rely on plants (all of us).

And true, reducing military expenditures would really open up funding for other things. That's a great point. But the military-industrial complex is well entrenched. Usually the military are the last thing to go on a great empire, so I don't see that spending going down anytime soon.

vivalarepublica wrote:

Not so sure about the SO2 idea. 1. It's a band aid and doesn't address the root causes of carbon emissions, which are burning fossil fuels, methane emissions (livestock, landfills, natural gas pipeline leaks, rice paddies, other decaying organic matter), deforestation, and thawing of arctic tundra. Eventually we have to deal with those. 2. SO2 eventually becomes sulfuric acid and forms acid rain. Bad news for plants and people that rely on plants (all of us).

And true, reducing military expenditures would really open up funding for other things. That's a great point. But the military-industrial complex is well entrenched. Usually the military are the last thing to go on a great empire, so I don't see that spending going down anytime soon.

SO2 doesn't cause acid rain if it's pumped into the stratosphere, this only occurs in the troposphere. Also, if we cool the planet, we wouldn't have to worry about feedback processes kicking in like thawing tundra and melting ice-caps. Yes, it's a band-aid solution to increasing CO2 levels, but as I said before, even if the talks at Copenhagen were successful, CO2 emissions would still rise well above their current levels. At least, by using SO2 as a shield, we could control Earth's temperature fairly cheaply. I think that the biggest concern is ocean acidification, as sea-life has evolved to live in a certain pH and the oceans are becoming more and more acidic, potentially jeopardizing many species as more and more CO2 is taken up by the oceans. SO2 in the stratosphere will do nothing to address this and I'm not sure where the threshold lies.