Global Warming conspiracy theories

Hat tip John.

;)

And the conspiracy theorists are starting to comment on the article...amazing that Birdie hasn't arrive yet though ;-)

I read the comments so you don't have to:

Search for "germany polls climate change" and you'll see that belief in CAGW has falled 20 percent recently.

All the mumbo jumbo aside, please explain scientifically how the third tower collapsed ?

I notice the granddaddy of conspiracies, the Kennedy assassination, isn't mentioned. The video of Kennedy being shot from the front rather wrecked the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald acted alone, didn't it? Hmm, vested interests, huge agendas: that would never tempt a person to do misdeeds would it?

The Canadian Federal Police have been in touch with Steve McIntyre and he's not sure why. It seems they are also looking for Andrew Weaver.

From the comments, a lot of people don't like anyone making fun of their religious beliefs :(

It's not a conspiracy that Exxon gave money to CEI or that Patrick Michaels has been funded by Western Fuels. Those are called "facts."

AGWseptic @ [6](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/global_warming_conspiracy_theo…),

What about them?

Ahhh. Of course. [Al Gore](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/global_warming_conspiracy_theo…).

In any case your post makes no sense. Are you trying to make a case for something? If so, care to write a gramatically correct sentence for us to read? If you care to revisit your post maybe you can translate into sense for us.

Touché!

Next time I will pay more attention to the quality of my typing, especially when drawing attention to somebody else's mistakes in the area.

That is a curious conflation by Lewandowsky.

Assuming that his thread, and possibly this one now, descend into craziness and name-and-counter-name-calling, type-screaming capitalization and such and such, what is wrong with pondering 9/11?

After all, (can all sane people agree that the reported hijackers were a bunch of Saudi Arabian citizens?), it ended up with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. And so on and so on...

Can anyone give details of, or links to, a large body of peer-reviewed and generally academically accepted science/engineering etc.. study about the 9/11 events?

This is an "apples and oranges" comparison which makes it curious of itself.

For the record, we are "WMD" conspiricists (however anyone wants to construe that)!

If there's one thing I'd like to say about 'AGWSkeptic', it's that their chosen pseudonym is a complete misnomer.

You may be interested in a more elaborate version of that idea, it can be found here: http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/04/delusional-disorder-part-ii…

Lewandowsky has studied Bernays et al.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6vk
He use's these technique's to manipulate thought, it works on the gullible.

I see the makings of a new parlour game here - top marks for getting from any random statement to Al Gore in the fewest steps possible.

It took only 2 steps this time: from [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/global_warming_conspiracy_theo…) to [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/global_warming_conspiracy_theo…)

Thanks for pointer to article Deltoid, have to say the article was great - however the comments are even more revealing. Both 9/11 Truthers and Climate "sceptics" rush in to say that they are not like each other... in their opinion they are the rational ones, the *others* are crazy, but they are rational. The irony is wonderful.

A text book example of cognitive dissonance of if I've ever seen it before.

AGWSkeptic, are you saying that Pat Michaels did not take funding from Western Fuels, or CEI did not take money from Exxon? Do you claim that Exxon have never funded anti-environmental lobby groups? Are you also claiming that Exxon did not alter the conclusions of its own scientific experts' report on climate change? Do you claim that Koch Industries do not fund economic thinktanks and policy groups which are prominent in their efforts to smear those who accept AGW theory and confuse the issue? Do you further claim that Don Blankenship of Massey Energy does not promote anti-environmental policies? That former White House Chief of Staff for the Council on Environmental Quality, Philip Cooney, did not doctor global warming reports to help undercut funding to the science, and that Philip Cooney now works, or has worked since, for ExxonMobil? And finally, do you claim that the fossil fuel industry did not spend $472,000,000 on political contributions, lobbying expenditures, paid advertising and political spending by outside organizations for the first half of 2008 alone?

I look forward to your response. I suspect it may ring hollow, but I do like to be proven wrong.

There are some real doozies in the comments on that blog post. My favorite so far is the fellow who thinks Apollo must be fake because obviously the Van Allen Belts would have frazzled their hard drives, which would in any case have had to be the size of small fridges. And presumably Colombus would have had to turn back as soon as he realised he'd forgotten to pack enough spare batteries for his GPS receiver to last the Atlantic voyage!

Beware of AGWSeptic. The extent of his trolling, and unwillingness to debate any science or stay on topic can be gauged [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2477…).

So, AGWskeptic, are you denying that oil companies have ever funded skeptical think tanks? And are you denying that those think tanks then employ scientists from different fields to advance the case of global warming skepticism to the public? And are you denying that many of these scientsits are also the same scientists who were paid to publicly doubt the link between smoking and caner?

A true skeptic might think to himself "Hmm. That scientist is speaking on behalf of the Heartland Institute about a subject out of his field. Not only that, The Heartland Institute has previously accepted money from oil companies. I don't believe this is the best source for me to get my information."

But not our AGWskeptic, oh no. He knows that government money is tainted because of those secret communist one world government plots.

>So you're saying that I uncritically accept the dogma of AGW?

Oh no, of course not.

You seem to just deny the whole lot (and from an uninformed position, as you demonstrated previously when you wouldn't answer questions asked of you).

A skeptic should also be expected to be skeptical of material from the 'other side' of the debate. Are you?

>>I see the makings of a new parlour game here - top marks for getting from any random statement to Al Gore Big Oil Al Gore in the fewest steps possible.

> All fixed.

All fixed.

I'm struggling to remember AGWskeptic posting any evidence to support an assertion. The tactic seems to be to mindlessly parrot the form of an argument without any substance. It's mildly amusing for at least five or six seconds.

More entertaining trolls please ;-)

OK, for the climate sceptics who thing the comparison is spurious, this is a text book example of the logical fallacy known as "special pleading":

Here's an example:

*Iâm not relying on faith in small probabilities here. These are slot machines, not roulette wheels. They are different.*

To put it into the denial movement's form:

*"Sure, those flat earth guys are real crazy, but when you look at my evidence it makes sense!"*

The denial movement exhibits all the tendencies of conspiratorial worldview. It posits:

- scientists manipulate data (Bolt)
- the greens are behind it in order to create a socialist world government (Monckton)
- is an attempt to destroy industrial civilization (Plimer)

All of the above figures are on record for saying these things. I'm not putting word's into their mouths. They say it again and again... Simply put each one is a conspiracy theory.

[See my analysis of some of the posters on ABC site here.](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/when-conspiracy-theo…)

It is very hard to maintain one's cognitive dissonance when confronted with theories which model your own so closely. The attempt is to distance your views from those "crazy ones' via special pleading.

It's basic, well understood human psychology.

>More entertaining trolls please ;-)

I could post under a poedonym if you like, Lothar

I see the makings of a new parlour game here - top marks for getting from any random statement to Al Gore Big Oil Al Gore in the fewest steps possible.

All fixed.

There. Now is all fixed ;-)

I could post under a poedonym if you like, Lothar

` ` :-)

> See my analysis of some of the posters on ABC site here.

de Brere was fascinating on earlier threads - claims scientific training and lots of experience with "complex systems", but makes huge simplifying presumptions (often having the effect of specifically excluding the dynamics of chaotic and complex systems) and then concludes that the evidence doesn't support AGW because he doesn't see the real world signal he would expect based on his gravely simplified model. That, and seeming to forget or re-dismiss evidence people keep pointing out.

He seems to exhibit many of the traits of the engineers who think they are scientifically competent.

_____ _
|_ _| |_ ___
| | | ' \/ -_)
|_| |_||_\___|
___ _ _ _
/ __| (_)_ __ __ _| |_ ___
| (__| | | ' \/ _` | _/ -_)
\___|_|_|_|_|_\__,_|\__\___|
___ _
/ __|___ _ _ ____ __(_)_ _ __ _ __ _ _
| (__/ _ \ ' \(_-< '_ \ | '_/ _` / _| || |
\___\___/_||_/__/ .__/_|_| \__,_\__|\_, |
|_| |__/

Abstract

Recent work has shown that the global warmist conspiracy is an effort by the Phantom Soviet Empire (Ellison 1996) and the British monarchy (Maduro et al. 1989) to promote the Arrhenius cult of Racial Eugenics (Curtin 1999) and Gaia (Gray 2008), ultimately in order to boost business for nuclear plants (Cockburn 2008), close down nuclear plants (Fox 2008), and boost sales of newspapers (Spencer 2007). This paper further adds to the extant evidence of this vast conspiracy, by showing that British Lord Oxburgh rides a bicycle. We conclude this paper by proposing a technique for combating this conspiracy, based on the scientific methodologies of Information Sharing and Coordinated Local Activism (Harris 2008).

Re: that global warming conspiracy link - the irony of Spencer (presuming it's the same one) saying that "climatologists have confirmation bias due to their politics" is so strong it borders on self-parody (e.g. Spencer's Creationism...and a few years of "there's nothing wrong with my UAH methods - everyone else is wrong when they show greater warming").

Lotharsson: It's the same Spencer. And by the way, the 'reference' (tee-hee) to Curtin should read 2009, not 1999.

(ignores AGW'Skeptic')

...is an attempt to destroy industrial civilization (Plimer)

Libertar[d]ians have been saying this about the entire environmental movement at least since 1980. Sometimes they even thrown in a bit of outright religious bigotry, as in "it's a pagan conspiracy to destroy our advanced Christian civilization." No, I'm not making this up. Some people's hatred of ANY form of environmentalism goes way beyond policy issues.

I've thought of a new descriptive name for them: nutwits.

By the way, who came up with "deniosaur"? It's a clever one, especially for cranky oil people.

AGWskeptic, until you cite something, shut up.

AGWSkeptic, do you have anything substantive to say? You seem intent on pure trollery; your comments are without redeeming intellectual value. I would much prefer to engage in a meaningful discussion, so I'm asking you to offer us something we can discuss in good faith.

engage in our infantile version of 20 questions

We're trying to find out what you actually think AGWskeptic. It appears you're afraid of telling us because you know the response would make you look like the idiot you clearly are.

If expecting substance from you is "infantile", so be it.

Hey John, until you cite something besides AGW alarmist propaganda, why don't you STFU?

Moron.

Looks like I've bruised a fragile ego.

AGWS, any chance of staying on topic?

For example, could I ask you what evidence you might have that the bipartisan (that means consisting of representatives from both sides of politics) Commons Science and Technology Committee report was actually a conspiracy to cover up a conspiracy?

I don't want evidence for the first conspiracy, because I know you don't have any. Just evidence for the second conspiracy. You know - maybe some sort of secret email among committee members that they've agreed in advance that they'll exonerate Jones and climate scientists for any fraud. Anything will do. Crikey, at this point in time I'd even be happy for you to quickly and roughly concoct a fake letter or email, if it hasn't crossed your mind already. At least that would be something to look at!

So John, are you denying that much of the AGW "research" is funded by governments with a particular political agenda?

And what political agenda is that?

It's so sad that you don't apply the same skepticism to your heroes that you do with Al Gore. Have you just revealed that...a business man makes money? You didn't even say how! But he's made money! How dare he!

Congratulations on proving the point of the article with your raving.

Hardly. You were the one who told me to shut up. Your ego was the one that was bruised. Your DunningKruger-worthiness continues to amaze me!

Like El Gordo you make demands you wouldn't keep and hold us to standards you don't have for yourself. Pathetic.

Now answer this.

By spreading AGW hysteria based on junk science and religion.

Oh because that is so much clearer! It's obvious that you don't have any idea about his business dealings.

Quelle surprise!

You haven't told me what political agenda John Howard, George W. Bush or Margeret Thatcher had when it came to global warming. Since they all funded research I assume that they're in on Al Gore's UN one world government plot.

Anyway, back to the questions::

AGWSkeptic, are you saying that Pat Michaels did not take funding from Western Fuels, or CEI did not take money from Exxon? Do you claim that Exxon have never funded anti-environmental lobby groups? Are you also claiming that Exxon did not alter the conclusions of its own scientific experts' report on climate change? Do you claim that Koch Industries do not fund economic thinktanks and policy groups which are prominent in their efforts to smear those who accept AGW theory and confuse the issue? Do you further claim that Don Blankenship of Massey Energy does not promote anti-environmental policies? That former White House Chief of Staff for the Council on Environmental Quality, Philip Cooney, did not doctor global warming reports to help undercut funding to the science, and that Philip Cooney now works, or has worked since, for ExxonMobil? And finally, do you claim that the fossil fuel industry did not spend $472,000,000 on political contributions, lobbying expenditures, paid advertising and political spending by outside organizations for the first half of 2008 alone?

I look forward to your response. I suspect it may ring hollow, but I do like to be proven wrong.

AGWSeptic, pretty sure you were the first to snark about big oil here, presumably believing it to be somehow meaningful or relevant or at least good trolling, notwithstanding it being none of the above. Subsequently, John and J Bowers took you up on that, quite quixotically as it happens (apropos), and your response is to break out the Al Gore, big government boilerplate? WTF?

Now, I'm not as learned as your average commenter here, but I'm struggling to translate from your native tedium to what most of us recognize as english. Perhaps you can help me.

Is it your belief that 1) Big Oil has not been actively engaged in anti-science propaganda and unethical if legal political activism on behalf of deluding the public in the service of its myopic economic interests, 2) that Big Oil's activities in this regard are less than or equal to that of the Al Gore and his axis of evil, or 3) that asking questions is for infants and, presumably, girlie men insufficiently endowed to badly want to drill here and drill now? Just trying to establish first principles here. Also, and I know I'm clearly asking for a lot more self-reflection than you're accustomed to, but do you see how people could find it difficult to take you seriously when it's not even possible to discern what it is you are trying to say?

Presumably you'll want to substitute snark for humor in your reply again, but do try to remember to reply this time.

Masterful thread hijacking.

Okay, now we know how to trap a denialist here and get him to run through his pathetic talking points for our amusement. But this is boring and besides, I'm hungry.

Can we not just eat him? I want the brain--a little on the soft side, perhaps, but a juicy, tender morsel, all the more tasty for its lack of exercise.

I've banned AGWSkeptic for crap flooding. No doubt it will post under different names. Please ignore these as it is more efficient to delete them in batches.

Anyone have any idea how Al Gore caused the platform fire and subsequent largish oil spill in the Gulf?

Thank you Tim.
All that raving was getting tiresome.

I'm just amazed that Tim tolerated those pointless rantings for more than a few posts. Kept us amused for a while I suppose, but it's so much more interesting when they actually engage with you and you get to see the evolution of the troll, a la Brent.

Oh dear, and the troll throws its toys! :)

Thanks Tim, and thanks to Dr. Lewandowsky-- he stated the modus operandi and insanity of those in denial about AGW very well.

I wonder when Sir Russell will release his report? They are probably waiting until the dust has settled after the election.

OK, I think we have a much clearer picture of AGWS's psychological state now - and it's not a pretty one.

But back to the original article, I think Lewandowsky's reference to Andrew Bolt's hypothesis (ie, that bicycle riding is related to global warming coverups) is quite amusing. If there is one positive thing Bolt does as an ultra-conservative tabloid columnist, it's that he makes me laugh a lot.

What I find striking is that the deniers can never actually post any evidence - all they can do is hint at the conspiracy.

Governments fund research... therefore it must be compromised.
Al Gore is a liberal... therefore AGW must be false.

Psychological state, Mike?

Only in the sense that one of Romero's zombies has a "psychological state".

I mean, it's still parroting (endlessly) "hide the decline" as if it didn't understand the concept of 'context' (which they don't, and their handlers don't feel the need to explain).

1) Well, the oil rig problem wasn't Al Gore, it was clearly sabotage by one of those secret Greenpeace submarines :-)

2) As for Lord Ron's bicycle:
a) He lives in Cambridge, where cycling can sometimes be more practical than driving a car, in addition to the health benefits. (My wife did her undergrad work there, I've given several lectures there, we have other friends there. Parking in ~800-year-old university towns can be nontrivial.)
I once spent a few hours following Ron around Tiburon on a hike, as he commented on the geology. Geologists are often vigorous, outdoorsy folks... He was no slouch climbing the hills. Unlike a bunch of the silly folks criticizing him, he was actually a pretty good scientist when he was doing that.

b) He was the long-time Rector (#1 person, really) of Imperial College, London, one of the world's top schools. Think of "MIT of the UK." I used to see him fairly often at alumni meetings (again, connection via my wife, who did her PhD there.)

c)He was *Chairman of Shell* for a year or two, grabbed to straighten out a mess there. Clearly an far-left eco-weenie... :-)
He made his views on climate and Views on peak oil known then and after, in (characteristically) blunt fashion. When I heard he was running that panel, I breathed a sign of relief, as I knew he would say so if they really found problems.

J Bowers,

Whilst you are correct in pointing out that commercial companies spend money to promote outcomes they would like, (as an aside,BTW, don't we all do that to some extent, eg middle class people sending their kids to private school?) you ignore the fact that public funding can sometimes have an equally pernicious effect.

Two examples.

For many years (decades) here in the UK it was impossible to progress in the, then, Department of Energy if you were not committed to nuclear power. Most research and development money was directed to nuclear power compared to other means of generation.

Second, the US Government has thrown $billions at Yucca Mountain over the last 20 odd years or so which has ultimately resolved nothing. Many scientists and others, however, have made their careers on the back of this largesse.

One could say the same is now happening in climate science, although the scale of public funding now is much greater worldwide and far more people are involved in deriving their income from this.

Yes, now Beck and Limbaugh are suggesting that the US government and or some eco-terrorists sabotaged the oil rig off the Gulf coast. Lord Munchkin claims NASA blew up their own satellite which was going up to to monitor. Shouldn't the scientists have blown up CyrosatII? I mean, in April Arctic sea ice extent was near normal! Isn't that the final nail in the AGW coffin? ;)

OMG, the stupidity of the contrarians makes my head hurt.

John Mashey @ 58. Having worked in Cambridge for a while a can vouch for the fact that cycling is a much saner option. Commuting by car there is a nightmare. And besides, Cambridge is so beautiful, why not enjoy it from atop a bike....

I see someone has swallowed the "hide the decline" smear campaign.

What's the point of smear campaigns? [They work](http://www.badscience.net/2010/05/evidence-based-smear-campaigns/) unfortunately...

The Climategate thingy was a bit of a worry, but we pressed all the right buttons and now we can all move on.

I have just bought my dream home right on the water front because I'm confident we can stop global warming in its tracks.

@59, so what's your point Dave?

If the climate scientists were getting paid yet were doing no research, producing no data, making no progress, and no discoveries, then sure this might be cause for concern. This is clearly not the case. So what is the problem?

I mean, cancer research gets billions of dollars thrown at it worldwide by Governments and other organisations. So is it by default all bunkum, tainted, biased, or otherwise unworthy? I'm amazed that so far none of the climate science conspiracy theorists have accused cancer researchers of a grand conspiracy to hide a cure so they can continue getting research grants and funding.

Surely with so many conspiracies and dodgy science allegedly going on in any highly publicly funded science areas, that must be a logical conclusion?

BTW, speaking of the "money" involved: while I wouldn't even blink an eye if I saw a mining company executive driving past in a Ferrari, I would fair dinkum keel over and die from shock if I ever saw a climate scientist driving a 911. This whole "funding" and "income" argument suggesting deep-ridden biases in climate science is just complete crap, IMHO. There's nothing more to be said about it.

Interesting that we're just sitting around discussing denialist conspiracy theories, and while that's happening we witness the birth of the "BP undersea oil gusher was sabotage" conspiracy theory, completely devoid of any substantiating evidence.

I'm amazed that so far none of the climate science conspiracy theorists have accused cancer researchers of a grand conspiracy to hide a cure so they can continue getting research grants and funding.

Oh for goodness sake, Mike, why did you have to say it?

*Sigh.*

> I want the brain--a little on the soft side, perhaps, but a juicy, tender morsel, all the more tasty for its lack of exercise.

"Morsel" is close, but "morsellette" might be more accurate...

> I'm amazed that so far none of the climate science conspiracy theorists have accused cancer researchers of a grand conspiracy to hide a cure so they can continue getting research grants and funding.

I think I've heard that one somewhere already...if not for cancer, then for some other serious condition.

And we've all heard the "oil companies bought up and suppressed the amazingly efficient engine that runs on nothing but water and sunshine and exhausts cleaner air than the intake" line which has the same structure...

> They work unfortunately...

Ouch - that's even worse than an earlier study I saw that showed that some forms of statement of the correction could reinforce the error.

Speaking of that Drum Thread and de Brere, here he explains his oft-cited reason for believing CO2 isn't causing global warming, although he dresses it up with a reference to Popper and various null hypotheses:

> 04 May 2010 11:56:12am ...if you can show good evidence of where, in the absence of other changes to confound this, increased GHGs have not caused global warming, then you have disproved the theory that they do. Try Antarctica; significantly increased GHGs, no other significant changes, no increase in T. What is your conclusion?

I had no success on earlier The Drum threads pointing out that:

a) Other factors *have* changed in Antarctica and they may indeed be significant

b) **Global** warming does not mean **the same warming amount everywhere**

And this is from a guy who claims to be a professional scientist for 30 years "...for a career that has put me in the top echelon of my field in the world..." where he got through "...an entire career working in understanding and explaining what is happening in complex systems..."

Scary.

Somewhat related to conspiracies: can anyone identify the anonymous physicist pushing denial to high school students?
http://www.desmogblog.com/unnamed-physicist-sponsors-hardcore-global-wa…

33 "I've thought of a new descriptive name for them: nutwits.
By the way, who came up with "deniosaur"? It's a clever one, especially for cranky oil people."

Gotta be immodest enough to claim a degree of credit for 'deniosaur'. I was using it over at the ABC until the conservative-appointed current chairman said it wasn't 'objective journalism' to call a deniosaur a deniosaur any more, apparently even in opinion pieces and snipings from /hoi polloi/ such as yours truly.

I /thought/ I'd invented the word, but a poster to the ABC claimed that the term was already being used in North Africa in WW2, among British sappers to describe those of their colleagues who chose to ignore their warnings about the possible presence of enemy minefields in the direction in which they intended to travel.

The parallel is precise, and accordingly I bow to the precedent.

'Nutwits' is good, too, but in the context 'Notwits' might be even better, 'cos it's NOT happening, Right?

Personally, I have much stronger names for them offscreen, but we won't go there, will we?

Well if "deniosaur" dates back to WW2 it must be in the public domain. It's good for the stupid politicians, cranky oilmen and orther corporate deniers,

"Notwits" is good, referring to denialists in general; maybe "nutwits" for the conspiracy theorists in particular.

I like skeptard and denidiot.

What about the conspiracy theories surrounding McIntyre? Even when he condemns a witch hunt against Mann, you guys think it's part of his grant secret strategy to destroy climate science.

Here's a test: when you shoehorn everything into your pre-conceived world view (i.e., "McIntyre is evil"), you are probably a conspiracy theorist.

Hey there ...

Here are some great luminaries of climate change science.

I am so unworthy that I am not even fit to hold a candle to their baby toenails. Hence forth I take my leave. I am a heretic, I shall burn in Hell.

You shall see no more of my vile posts in this hallowed sanctuary

http://www.niep.ca/
http://www.niuniversity.org/

Skippy @68,

"Even when he condemns a witch hunt against Mann, you guys think it's part of his grant secret strategy to destroy climate science."

Uh, no. You are distorting. And you clearly do not know about, or choose to ignore, McI's shady history of attacking science and scientists. That is not a conspiracy, the evidence is on his blog (CA) and elsewhere for all to see. And I don't think anyone here is of the belief that McI could, on his own, "destroy climate science". He is doing his part though...and to continue with that vendetta he has to distance himself from the real nutbars like Cuccinelli.

Make no mistake, this is pure strategy on McI's part. He would have Mann for breakfast if he could. McI's strategy is to play at ambiguous dog-- pretend to be reasonable and fair on one hand, and at the same time libel and attack scientists. He has become very good at it.

So McI et al. get a little nervous when the mobsters like Cuccinelli start going off the rails. That is probably the only reason that McI is distancing himself from Cuccinelli-- so he can continue to play at ambiguous dog and maintain modicum of credibility (just enough to satisfy his followers).

Think about it skippy.

1. I have meet on the internet some people who are truthers and climate change deniers, mostly libertarians.

2. Don't you people read other science or science politics blog? Researchers on vaccines and autism are attacked all the time by anti-vaccers as parts of an big-pharma big-government conspiracy.
And I'm pretty sure the alternative medicine crowd likes to call cancer researchers tools of Big Pharma.

So the joke is, as so often, on us.

Mike @57,

So you disagree that many at USDOE and US universities made a reasonable living for themselves out of Yucca Mountain?

I'm not saying they ended up driving Ferraris, but they were quite happy to go along with the flow because it meant they could pay their mortgages etc. They didn't leave in droves because the science was going nowhere, concentrating on ever more and more esoteric issues.

Why should the vast majority of climate scientists be any different? As far as they are concerned they've got a job for life.

Mike,

"I'm amazed that so far none of the climate science conspiracy theorists have accused cancer researchers of a grand conspiracy to hide a cure so they can continue getting research grants and funding."

Funnily enough a good friend of mine at Oxford, a biochemist, went to work for a well known UK Cancer Charity after he got his PhD. He left after a couple of years, totally disenchanted because he felt the research they were doing was more oriented to maintaining the funding of the Charity than finding cures for cancer!

An unattributed, anecdote with no evidence whatsoever that just happens to match your view of how the world works, eh Dave?

Excuse me for not believing a word of it.

[Lotharsson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/global_warming_conspiracy_theo…):

> And this is from a guy who claims to be a professional scientist for 30 years "...for a career that has put me in the top echelon of my field in the world..." where he got through "...an entire career working in understanding and explaining what is happening in complex systems..."

> Scary.

bah, that's nothing. i have two degrees in metrology, and more than 5 decades of experience as an atmospheric physiologist.

Conspiracy theories is a form of psychology that fascinates me. Consequently, there's a seed of a delusion just planted - the theory is in it's embryonic stage. Oil spill truthers, is it the cabal of environmentalists (the very same that force every climate scientist into fudging their data, moths into breeding more often) or is it Obama's government that planned the oil spill in the Gulf.

I noticed it's not yet in Aus (have been scanning Bolt's columns, ewwwww, but nothing on this as yet).

Do google "oil spill green conspiracy" for a current set of links of this crazy. This crap may have some legs.

Funny you should say that Dave Andrews. My best friend is Al Gore and he told me that he invented global warming to make money.

Post #70: Oh, the irony.

John @77,

Ah, but John, my little anecdote is a true story.

So Dave - exactly how far are we going to take this "they lie cheat and deceive in their careers just for the money" theme?

I mean, are we going to extend it to all working people? Maybe police create their own crimes to keep them in demand? Perhaps your car mechanic smacks some sensitive components with a hammer when it's in for servicing, then tells you they needed replacing? Firemen light their own fires? The military understate the effectiveness of their weapons so they can get new ones?

How far do you want to take it, Dave? Is all of this the "norm", or are career-oriented people by-and-large professional and decent people doing the best they can?

Just so we're clear, the climate scientists have already been investigated three (3) times so far and have been found to have no case to answer in respect of accusations that their work/data/research is somehow being fabricated. Tax dollars are paying for these investigations, and so far you have zip, nix, nada to show for it. It seems that a darn sight more of your tax dollars are headed that way too. So how many $$$ are you prepared to spend in an attempt to find improprietry, Dave? How many?

Will there ever come a day when you throw your hands up in the air and say "well shoot, maybe this really was genuine data and maybe this research really was what they found"? Or are you too hell bent on disproving it to consider that?

Shorter Dave Andrews,

The perverse dominance in the profit motive (enshrined via neo-liberal policies) is perverse, therefore all the scientific result that I don't like is corrupt.

Another Shorter DA:

>Profit driven scientist are after the money, while corporatist "think tanks" funded by big oil are truth seekers.

Skip, McI doesn't need to be part of conspiracy for his results to be blow out of proportion by conspiracy theorists.

Take his one published result in a credible journal, it was based on a minor error that [didn't significantly alter](http://laymans-guide.com/temperature-reconstructions/) the results of Mann et al 1999. Yet the coverage he got was equivalent to the 'hockey stick is broken'.

Even resulting in a Republican sponsored [Wegman report](http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/22/wegman-and-rapp-on-tree-rings-a-diver…), who's terms of reference didn't even look at the [overall effect](http://laymans-guide.com/images/temperature-reconstructions/mann08-tree…) of McI's finding on the Mann result.

The fact that so many want to believe McI has overturned Mann's result, despite the lack of enquiry into the question, and [despite the contrary evidence](http://laymans-guide.com/images/temperature-reconstructions/ar4-reconst…) says much.

It also says much that you changed the subject.

> ...it was based on a minor error that didn't significantly alter the results of Mann et al 1999.

And it should be noted that McI's "correction" - which he stated somewhere in the fine print wasn't intended to be a temperature reconstruction, but was quite happy to have appear widely in PR efforts as if it were one because it had a prominent hump somewhere near where he thought the MWP should be - was [botched **much more badly** than the original hockey stick](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-…).

If McI had actual auditing integrity he'd have acknowledged his error and squashed that meme...but it seems he's more interested in dog-whistling and pretending that he's more competent than the scientists he "audits".

Changed the subject skip? You raised McI.

RU normally this inaccurate?

The subject of this thread is conspiracy theories.

The subject was clearly McI, and Skip was clearly the one who raised it, and Jakerman and Mapleleaf were quite clearly commenting on that - as a glance back through the thread will show.

Which leads me to ask: what in the hell are you rambling on about, Skip?

No-one here said McI was involved in a conspiracy. They just said he has a very public history of attacking climate science and personally attacking climate scientists. The evidence is on his blog for everyone to see. However it seems that the current lynch-mob frenzy whipped up among denialists who want to see scientists prosecuted and imprisoned (never mind the fact they might actually not be guilty of anything other than telling you what you desperately don't want to hear) might even be too much for McI.

And that's saying something.

@87 - Skip, YOU were the one who first brought up McI, back in post #68. Remember? Just scroll up and you'll see.

So quit bleating when others respond to your comments.

You appear to have the memory of a goldfish. Although that might be unkind to goldfish.

Re-read post 68.

What about the conspiracy theories surrounding McIntyre? Even when he condemns a witch hunt against Mann, you guys think it's part of his grant secret strategy to destroy climate science.

Where did we say he was out to destroy climate science?

Re-read post 70.

[Skippy](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/global_warming_conspiracy_theo…),

Re-read post 70.

What, the bit where [he specifically says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/global_warming_conspiracy_theo…):

And I don't think anyone here is of the belief that McI could, on his own, "destroy climate science".

I don't have the patience to play word parsing games with bitter losers.

Not one response to my posts has managed to grasp my point. I don't see any point in wasting more time here.

> ...bitter losers.

[Once more](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/the_republican_war_on_science.p…) Skip's superior powers of Remote Emotional Perception (possibly related to "ESP") detect the state of a commenter more reliably than I do, and perhaps even more reliably than the commenter themself. Shame he's leaving and depriving us of this valuable facility.

> Not one response to my posts has managed to grasp my point.

Perhaps you might entertain the hypothesis that your chosen form of expression might have contributed to this outcome?

Nah, I'm sure it's all due to the bitterness and frothing rage everyone here [swims obliviously in](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/the_republican_war_on_science.p…).

>Not one response to my posts has managed to grasp my point. I don't see any point in wasting more time here.

Neat trick, you don't even need a point to make this claim Skip!

Perhaps you felt you had some point (in your gut), but were perhaps unable to articulate it, so instead you externalize your problem and accuse others of changing the subject.

BTW I re-read your post [@68](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/global_warming_conspiracy_theo…), my reply [@83 ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/global_warming_conspiracy_theo…) holds.

Skip @ 94,

Word parsing games? Bitter losers? Oh, my...

Have you read [post 70](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/global_warming_conspiracy_theo…)? Care to dispute my quote?

As to not grasping your point...

What about the conspiracy theories surrounding McIntyre? Even when he condemns a witch hunt against Mann, you guys think it's part of his grant secret strategy to destroy climate science.

Here's a test: when you shoehorn everything into your pre-conceived world view (i.e., "McIntyre is evil"), you are probably a conspiracy theorist.

Care to link us to instances of where we talk about "secret grand strategies"? Or are you suggesting you're psychic and know what we actually think?

Would you say where anyone here has personally attacked McIntyre? Specifically where anyone says "MacIntyre is evil"?

We all grasp your point perfectly: to troll without one single supporting fact or reference.

[Mike @80](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/global_warming_conspiracy_theo…), Might I suggest that Dave Andrews is a construct of Tim Lambert's. Used to show bunk denialist arguments -> attract an educated demographic, all in order to push the advert banners on scienceblogs.

In fact all the rotten denialist memes are constructs of the warmist, who's strategy is to discredits and distract from genuine skeptical skeptics.

Oh, I see Skip. It's not that you were comprehensively proven wrong, it's that we're "bitter losers".

> Or are you suggesting you're psychic and know what we actually think?

Well, on another thread he's suggesting [he perceives our emotions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/the_republican_war_on_science.p…) - and [better than we do ourselves](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/the_republican_war_on_science.p…), so maybe mind-reading is part of his repertoire...

Mike,

""they lie cheat and deceive in their careers just for the money""

I did not say that. Some may, of course, but as in most walks of life the vast majority will persevere in their chosen path because it pays the mortgage etc and suits them.

Not all scientists produce groundbreaking work you know!

jakerman,

You obviously have a problem about corporate funding which is odd, since I'd wager that if you look at most universities these days they all receive a considerable amount of corporate funding and this includes departments undertaking climate research.

No Dave, but there is a very clear implication of some sort of "money-driven bias" from climate scientists in much of what you said.

Furthermore, there is a gaping chasm between what the climate scientists are saying, and what many "sceptics" are saying, so that "money-driven bias", if it were to exist, must be very severe.

Of course, that's not to mention the plethora of direct accusations by the "sceptic" community of improprietry at all levels which have been squarely and publicly aimed at climate scientists recently. That certainly doesn't seem like it will stop any time soon, now matter how many inquiries we have.

Dave Andrews writes:

>*You obviously have a problem about corporate funding which is odd, since I'd wager that if you look at most universities these days they all receive a considerable amount of corporate funding and this includes departments undertaking climate research.*

Another non-sequitur Dave (par for the course Andrews). Why is it odd that both 'A' and 'B' can occur concurrently, where 'A' is 'I have a problem with the perverse dominance of the profit motive, and 'B' the perverse dominance of the profit motive is spreading deeper and deeper into universities and research organisations?

Please explain.

BTW Dave, would you expect the independace of science to improve or worsen as researchers have an increasing pressure to establish partnerships with commercial and profit seeking organisations?

Will you have more or less confidence in scientific processes and science's ability to get close to independence, if science is made more dependent on partnership with the dominant sector industries (ie. those with most resoruces [profit] and most vested interest)?

jakerman,

There is risk in everything but it seems to me you want things to be as you would like them to be not as they actually are. You cannot turn the clock back, you have to deal with the situation as it is.

BTW, how independent was science in the USSR?

>*it seems to me you want things to be as you would like them to be not as they actually are.*

[Pot here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…), looking for a Kettle.

Global warming is not due to greenhouse gases, its due to the earth's orbit around the sun destabilizing, you have been lied too. Please read my blog at: orbital-decay1.blogspot.com.

Willie, which particular conspiracy theory do you subscribe to?

-- frank

Frank, that's easy. He belongs to the camp that thinks the Earth's orbit is destabilizing but the world's scientists have conspired to keep this information from the public. This he claims is because, "The oil companyâs crude oil extraction process is causing less crude oil to reach the core, causing the core to cool, which causes the earth gravitational, and magnetic fields to weaken, which is causing the earth orbit around the sun to destabilize." Yeah. He's probably on meds (or should be) so I'll refrain from commenting more on someone who most likely is mentally ill. Needless to say, there's no *there* there in his claims.