Lets find out *once and for all* if AGW is a conspiracy or not. - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14988524
AGW is basically an American thing. Americans want to keep their gas-guzzlers but at the same time don't want to lose their sense of moral superiority, so they come up with AGW.

Sivad wrote:That seems totally preposterous until you realize that it's already been done with most of our major institutions. Capture is a well established phenomenon that really does occur, there's a shit-ton of scholarship on it. The media has definitely been captured, electoral politics is undeniably captured, and regulatory capture is also a big problem in the US. So given that, the capture of one field of science isn't exactly a stretch. In fact it's only rational to expect that every field of science that impacts national policy would have been immediately targeted for capture by the special interests.


You can't capture an entire field of science, it's far too decentralized for that. It's far easier to capture American national policy and pretend that science has been captured.
#14988545
RepubliConservative wrote:It was already proven with Climategate a decade ago. We saw the manipulation of data. We saw the manipulation of science journals. We saw widespread fraud like we'd never seen before in science.


No.

We saw accusations of data manipulation. We saw accusations of manipulation of science journals. We saw accusations of widespread fraud.

And then we saw that all these accusations were investigated, and all the accusations were dropped because there was no manipulation or fraud.
#14988844
Rugoz wrote:You can't capture an entire field of science, it's far too decentralized for that.


I doubt you know anything about the organizational structure of the field, you're just making shit up. The reality is there are major network hubs like intergovernmental panels, professional societies, high impact journals, and funding agencies that can and do act as gatekeepers, and if you capture the majority of those you capture the field. That's not to say the entire field is under total control by special interests, there is definitely a significant minority of climate scientists who are critical of the establishment paradigm. Some are outspoken critics but many are more reserved either out of consideration for their careers or because they just don't want to become embroiled in a highly politicized controversy.


There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from Federal funding agencies, universities, and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.

In this politicized environment, advocating for carbon dioxide emissions reductions is becoming the default expected position for climate scientists. This advocacy extends to the professional society that publish journals and organize conferences.

Judith A. Curry, Ph.D., Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Prepared Statement

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, AND COMPETITIVENESS


Last edited by Sivad on 18 Feb 2019 11:13, edited 1 time in total.
#14988847
Pants-of-dog wrote:And then we saw that all these accusations were investigated, and all the accusations were dropped because there was no manipulation or fraud.


whitewash: to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data
#14988870
Rugoz wrote: Americans don't even believe in evolution. Fuck those idiots.



Liberals don't "believe in" evolution because they've studied the evidence and understand the science, they "believe in" evolution for the same idiotic reasons the fundamentalists believe in creationism. It's the same with CAGW, they don't even know the basics of it, they just have implicit faith in the institutions. Now I've provided a litany of reasons for why those institutions cannot be trusted but because their belief isn't derived from rational analysis they just call me a denier(heretic) and mindlessly carry on in their faith. Personally I don't really give a shit which narratives or theories the mass of idiots "believe in" but when they start trying to impose their nonsense on the rest of the world then we have a problem.
#14988873
Sivad wrote: Now I've provided a litany of reasons for why those institutions cannot be trusted but because their belief isn't derived from rational analysis they just call me a denier(heretic) and mindlessly carry on in their faith.


You have not provided any rational argument that Anthropogenic Global Warning is as you claim a "conspiracy". On the contrary the only 2 very weak arguments you have posited*, that it is a conspiracy to impose taxes and that corporate special interest groups are behind it, applies to you personally and your country the USA because the US has not ratified Kyoto, has removed itself from the Paris Agreement and the pro-carbon emission argument is very much popular in the US precisely due to these special interest groups capturing people like yourself.

To say I am disappointed is an understatement. The environment is the one and only thing that concerns everybody and a push for a carbon-free and pollution-free environment is a game with no losers, except for a couple of big oil companies.

Much like US creationism, anti-vaxxism & televangelism it's just yet another mind-numbing and dumb American concoction, but even among all those things it is certainly the dumbest and the most dangerous one since it has global consequences rather than personal or familial like the rest of these non-sense that can be safely ignored by average people.

*It should also be noted that even if we accept your arguments as true, it still does not prove your claim correct anyway as you have not shown which studies are factually wrong and that they are wrong due to them being conducted in bad faith due to such a special interest influence. All in all, you have not even made a valid prologue to your argument, let alone provide a 'litany'.
#14988877
Sivad wrote:Yes I have, it's posted in multiple threads all over this board. Obtuse denial is not argument.


Obtuse denial is exactly the exercise you are engaged in at this very moment. The only 2 arguments you have posited in this thread have not only shown beyond any doubt to be false in the USA but even if they were true, they are still a far cry from being sufficient even for a prologue. If you have other arguments you should bring them instead of telling people to go find them themselves.
#14988879
noemon wrote:Obtuse denial is exactly the exercise you are engaged in at this very moment. The only 2 arguments you have posited in this thread have not only shown beyond any doubt to be false in the USA but even if they were true, they are still a far cry from being sufficient even for a prologue. If you have other arguments you should bring them instead of telling people to go find them themselves.



That's all bullshit but whatever.
#14988885
I had previously asked someone who does believe that ACC is a conspiracy to exaplin how the conspirators contol all, or almost all, of the funding for climatologists.

No answer was ever received.

If the funding for climatologists comes from different sources, and these sources are independent, then the funding cannot be used to force climatologists to lie. And if that is the case, then ACC is real.
#14988927
Pants-of-dog wrote:I had previously asked someone who does believe that ACC is a conspiracy to exaplin how the conspirators contol all, or almost all, of the funding for climatologists.

No answer was ever received.



You asked me that and then you totally ignored my perfectly plausible explanation and continued right on with your inane bullshit. I posted speeches and congressional testimony by senior scientists explaining exactly how it works and you just pretend it's not there for everyone to see. Brilliant strategy there, guy. :knife:
#14988930
For example, Canadian climate experts can access funding from the government, or universities, or NGOs, or municipalities, or private institutions.

And this is just one country.

To control all the sources for all the funding for all the world, you would beed to already control the entire world.

And if you already control the world, you do not need to invent a hoax in order to control the world.

—————————————

Edit:

This conspiracy would also have to be over forty years old by now.

This paper came out in 1975:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/189/4201/460

    Abstract
    If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

It was written by Wallace S. Broeker, may he rest in peace.
#14989752
There are 2 [or more] sides to this debate. The question for this thread is ---
Is there a conspiracy on one side or the other to sway the conclusion toward their side using very improper methods?

So, let me summarize the possibilities.
1] On the yes, AGW is going to be a big problem in a few decades side, we are talking about a world wide conspiracy that involves almost every climate scientists and many other scientists who could come forward and undermine the so called consistence. Many of these scientists work for non-US Gov. around the world. Almost every peer reviewed journal in a part of it. Many of the science research funding agencies of many or all nations are part of it.
. . . This must involve many thousands of people. How many of them have come forward and testified in public that they were pressured to join this conspiracy, or were part and couldn't lie to the world any longer?
. . . We have no firm accusations of who is funding this conspiracy and I don't understand just what the world's rich would gain from this. Meanwhile we see big oil on the other side, see below.

2] On the no, AGW is not going to be a big problem in a few decades side, we are talking about a conspiracy mostly in the US. The number of climate scientists would seem to have been led astray is in the scores, less than a hundred I'm sure [but I could be wrong]. We know just who is funding this, the big oil companies, etc. They will lose their biggest asset if we stop burning oil. Their biggest asset is the oil still in the ground that they own or have contracts to pump out. Recently I saw a youtube video that claimed that recently evidence has come out that Exon in the late 70s or very early 80s asked their in house scientists to look in to AGW. The report they produced said it was going to be bad in several decades. Exon suppressed the report and instead started a disinformation campaign about AGW. This [if true] is clear evidence that Exon knowingly conspired to use very improper methods to lead public opinion away from an opinion that would hurt Exon. Is it that big a stretch to think others joined Exon?

Looked at in this way it seems clear to me that there is a conspiracy, but it isn't being done by the scientific community. It is common sense to deduce that the smaller easier conspiracy is the real one. And, that a trumpted up conspiracy by the world's climate scientists is just a part of the smaller big oil funded conspiracy.

Now I know that AGW can scare the shit out of many people. I want us to give those people some understanding. Like a death of a close loved one can lead to denial, this subject can have the same effect. OTOH, I do wish we could ask them to step aside because I'm calling for the world to steamroll right over them if they are getting in the way of saving humanity from Exon-et-all.
#14989816
E-mail Documentation Of The Successful Attempt By Thomas Karl Director Of the U.S. National Climate Data Center To Suppress Biases and Uncertainties In the Assessment Of Surface Temperature Trends

The issues of the conflict of interest illustrated by the sample of e-mails from Phil Jones, as well as the above e-mails from Tom Karl, illustrate the extent that this corruption of climate assessements has permeated climate science.

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ ... re-trends/

Roger A. Pielke Sr., ISI Highly Cited Researcher

professor at Colorado State University (CSU) from 1981 to 2006, was deputy of Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) at Colorado State University from 1985 to 1988, from 1999 to 2006 was Colorado State Climatologist, at Duke University was a research professor from 2003 to 2006, and was a visiting professor at the University of Arizona from October–December 2004. Since 2005, Pielke has served as Senior Research Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at CU-Boulder and an emeritus professor of the Department of Atmospheric Science at CSU. After retiring from CSU and he remains a CIRES emeritus researcher.

Pielke spearheaded development of the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS) with William R. Cotton.

Pielke has served as Chairman and Member of the American Meteorological Society Committee on Weather Forecasting and Analysis, as Chief Editor of Monthly Weather Review, was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in 1982 and a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in 2004, has served as Editor-in-Chief of the U.S. National Science Report to the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, as Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, and as Editor of Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere.
#14989826
3. What is your opinion on the way in which the full range of scientific views is handled?

The 2007 IPCC report failed to be inclusive in its assessement. [...] The IPCC WG1 Report clearly cherrypicked information on the robustness of the land near-surface air temperature to bolster their advocacy of a particular perspective on the role of humans within the climate system. As a result, policymakers and the public have been given a false (or at best an incomplete) assessment of the multi-decadal global average near-surface air temperature trends. The 2007 IPCC WG1 assessment failed to include the full range of peer reviewed papers on climate science.

4. Given the intergovernmental nature of IPCC, what are your views on the role of governments in the entire process?

Governments are necessarily political which is one of the reasons the climate issue has become so polarized and assessment committees have been chosen to perpetuate a particular perspective.

- Roger Pielke Sr.

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ ... rocedures/
#14989834
Steve_American wrote:1] On the yes, AGW is going to be a big problem in a few decades side, we are talking about a world wide conspiracy that involves almost every climate scientists and many other scientists who could come forward and undermine the so called consistence.

You need to update your propaganda talking points. "AGW" or Anthropogenic Global Warming is déclassé. Remember, it recently snowed in Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Since the global cooling that began around 1998, the proper propaganda term has been "climate change."
#14989960
Sivad wrote:E-mail Documentation Of The Successful Attempt By Thomas Karl Director Of the U.S. National Climate Data Center To Suppress Biases and Uncertainties In the Assessment Of Surface Temperature Trends

The issues of the conflict of interest illustrated by the sample of e-mails from Phil Jones, as well as the above e-mails from Tom Karl, illustrate the extent that this corruption of climate assessements has permeated climate science.

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ ... re-trends/

Roger A. Pielke Sr., ISI Highly Cited Researcher

professor at Colorado State University (CSU) from 1981 to 2006, was deputy of Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) at Colorado State University from 1985 to 1988, from 1999 to 2006 was Colorado State Climatologist, at Duke University was a research professor from 2003 to 2006, and was a visiting professor at the University of Arizona from October–December 2004. Since 2005, Pielke has served as Senior Research Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at CU-Boulder and an emeritus professor of the Department of Atmospheric Science at CSU. After retiring from CSU and he remains a CIRES emeritus researcher.

Pielke spearheaded development of the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS) with William R. Cotton.

Pielke has served as Chairman and Member of the American Meteorological Society Committee on Weather Forecasting and Analysis, as Chief Editor of Monthly Weather Review, was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in 1982 and a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in 2004, has served as Editor-in-Chief of the U.S. National Science Report to the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, as Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, and as Editor of Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere.

As far as I can see, this and all the replies below it [and above this one] are about statements by Americans. Since the conspiracy you claim exists is worldwide and my the counter conspiracy claim is for one focused in America and there are more climate scientists who are not American than there are American ones; I'll believe you more when you have 3 scientists who are not Americans who defect from the conspiracy you claim exists. Until the TL;DR. Just as you seem to TL;DR my posts.
Last edited by Steve_American on 23 Feb 2019 11:10, edited 1 time in total.

No, it doesn't. The US also wants to see Hamas top[…]

Israel removed 10,000 Israeli families from Gaz[…]

The Donbas fortifications have been incredibly su[…]

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspir[…]