New Paper on On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs

King Neptune · Jan 27, 2016

David Robert Grimes has written a paper on analyzing the potential lifespan of conspiracy theories. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905

After reading the thing, I developed the opinion that it is a satire, or he may have over-reached. I think that the author combined theories that vary widely from very specific items to world wide conspiracies. His method might be valid for determining how long the NASA Moon-landing conspiracy might have lasted, but it falls down on the Assassination of JFK and the vaccination conspiracies.

There was a related matter that he didn't touch directly. He determined that the climate change conspiracy could have lasted Climate-change fraud (Scientists only) 26.77 years or 3.7 years if the conspiracy were wider. That's about right. The facts have been out for quite some time, but many people choose to believe the fraud, because it feeds their egos that they might have assisted in warming the Earth.

I was mildly surprised that Mr Grimes didn't put a new and humorous conspiracy into the paper; that would have made it even funnier.

Introversion · Jan 27, 2016

King Neptune said:
There was a related matter that he didn't touch directly. He determined that the climate change conspiracy could have lasted Climate-change fraud (Scientists only) 26.77 years or 3.7 years if the conspiracy were wider. That's about right. The facts have been out for quite some time, but many people choose to believe the fraud, because it feeds their egos that they might have assisted in warming the Earth.

I'm always bemused to hear that climate scientists supposedly have been colluding around the world to perpetrate "fraud". What coercive forces keeps them all in line? If money's all they desire, why aren't more shilling as deniers for Big Oil? (Or better, Big Coal? "Coal, it does a body good!")

Dennis E. Taylor · Jan 27, 2016

Introversion said:
I'm always bemused to hear that climate scientists supposedly have been colluding around the world to perpetrate "fraud". What coercive forces keeps them all in line? If money's all they desire, why aren't more shilling as deniers for Big Oil? (Or better, Big Coal? "Coal, it does a body good!")

Yeah, this comes across as yet another denialist trying to dismiss the overwhelming evidence of AGW with ad hominem attacks, without ever actually dealing with any of the evidence.

The interesting thing is that, although no denialist has ever been able to come up with any actual evidence of an AGW conspiracy, there is plenty of documented evidence of a denialist conspiracy, including huge amounts of money being paid out by billionaires and oil companies for the express purpose of discrediting or burying AGW. I guess their 'skepticism' doesn't extend to examining their own beliefs.

One of the big problems with the denialist talking points is the simple fact that self-interest would lead scientists in the opposite direction from an AGW conspiracy. During the Dubya years, the American guvmint was applying pressure to remove funding from pro-AGW papers and reports. Thus, it made no sense from a self-interest POV for scientists to maintain that stance. Nevertheless, they did.

At one point, (and possibly still), there was an outstanding offer of a quarter-million dollars from the denialist front for anti-AGW papers. There were almost no takers, and the few that did were thoroughly debunked.

And consider countries that are not friends of the USA. Why would they go along with the conspiracy? Yet, even in countries that have no reason to toe the line, the scientists are saying the same thing.

And by the way, there are tens of thousands of universities on the planet, all filled with young, hungry, ambitious budding graduates who would be greatly served by blowing a conspiracy like this wide open. Yet, nada. Why? Am I the only one who thought of it? Of course not. It's because there's no conspiracy to blow open.

Maxx · Jan 27, 2016

Angry Guy said:
Why? Am I the only one who thought of it?

I suppose it is a good thing (somehow?) that the data supporting the strongest possible AGW is so overwhelming. Though there are two ways of looking at that: if the planet was in better shape Greenhouse-wise it might be nice VERSUS given how bad AGW is right now, its just as well the data is massive and rock-solid.

King Neptune · Jan 27, 2016

Introversion said:
I'm always bemused to hear that climate scientists supposedly have been colluding around the world to perpetrate "fraud". What coercive forces keeps them all in line? If money's all they desire, why aren't more shilling as deniers for Big Oil? (Or better, Big Coal? "Coal, it does a body good!")

I think it's a matter of which side they can get the jobs with. Produce enough "data" and you can pull anything you want out of it.

King Neptune · Jan 27, 2016

Angry Guy said:
And by the way, there are tens of thousands of universities on the planet, all filled with young, hungry, ambitious budding graduates who would be greatly served by blowing a conspiracy like this wide open. Yet, nada. Why? Am I the only one who thought of it? Of course not. It's because there's no conspiracy to blow open.

No, you aren't the only one to think of this, but it can easily be spun two other ways: This just shows that they are are young and idealistic. or But the newspeople are in on it, and they are keeping a lid on it.

Dennis E. Taylor · Jan 27, 2016

King Neptune said:
No, you aren't the only one to think of this, but it can easily be spun two other ways: This just shows that they are are young and idealistic. or But the newspeople are in on it, and they are keeping a lid on it.

Uh huh. So, the news people are in on it (all of them), and the universities are in on it (all of them), and the scientists are in on it (all of them), and the governments are in on it, and a very large proportion of the citizenry is in on it (because they have access to the raw data or the equipment, and would know if they were being fooled), and in fact most of the world is in on it, all to fool a very small proportion of the population.

Try to visualize it-- a bunch of college professors, who drive old Volvos, are managing to pull the wool over the eyes of the world and in particular they are managing to outgun a bunch or poor defenseless BILLIONAIRES and industrial giants, who have nothing going for them except infinite money and an endless supply of marketing people, not to mention the ability to buy a newspaper or tv station. Those poor, poor, defenseless billionaires and oil executives. Totally flummoxed and out of their depth.

Give me a break.

On the one hand, (A) you've got a theory that a major portion of the world's population, including people who (as I've pointed out) have every motivation to do the opposite of what you say, including countries that are not friendly to the USA but still for some reason are going along with the gag, are all managing to pull off a scam despite everything that a bunch of multi-multi-multi-billionaires can do.

On the other hand (B) you've got a theory that a bunch of multi-multi-billionaires who've made their money by being able to do whatever they want without consequence, are spending vast amounts of money to convince people that it's a scam because they want to keep making money by being able to do whatever they want.

And you seriously want to argue that option A is the more believable? Without ever actually producing any, you know, actual evidence?

Good luck with that.

King Neptune · Jan 27, 2016

Angry Guy said:
Try to visualize it-- a bunch of college professors, who drive old Volvos, are managing to pull the wool over the eyes of the world and in particular they are managing to outgun a bunch or poor defenseless BILLIONAIRES and industrial giants, who have nothing going for them except infinite money and an endless supply of marketing people, not to mention the ability to buy a newspaper or tv station. Those poor, poor, defenseless billionaires and oil executives. Totally flummoxed and out of their depth.

You haven't been around a university much lately, have you?

On the one hand, (A) you've got a theory that a major portion of the world's population, including people who (as I've pointed out) have every motivation to do the opposite of what you say, including countries that are not friendly to the USA but still for some reason are going along with the gag, are all managing to pull off a scam despite everything that a bunch of multi-multi-multi-billionaires can do.

On the other hand (B) you've got a theory that a bunch of multi-multi-billionaires who've made their money by being able to do whatever they want without consequence, are spending vast amounts of money to convince people that it's a scam because they want to keep making money by being able to do whatever they want.

And you seriously want to argue that option A is the more believable? Without ever actually producing any, you know, actual evidence?

Have you ever heard of Christianity? Or Islam? Or any other religion? Theey are extremely far-fetched, and most people believe in some religion of some sort.

Good luck with that.

Do you really think I should start a religion? I've thought about it in the past, but I'm too cynical do do some of that sort of lying. Do you want to join and spread the good words?

Introversion · Jan 27, 2016

Climate change is settled science, at least in the macro. Average global temperature has been rising, and we understand why: We're altering the makeup of our atmosphere. The physical effects of CO2, methane, etc on temperature are well understood, have been for over a century.

Yes, there are natural climate cycles. Climate researchers know that, and take them into account.

No, we can't perfectly predict the near-term effects of climate change. That's not a basic indictment of climate science, just our imperfect understanding of it.

Yes, climate researchers use models, and yes, they get it wrong. When science understands why, it evolves the models to account for it. That's good science.

So, I'm not seeing where the problem is? I hear this accusation leveled -- "It's a global conspiracy" -- but never any proof of it. The burden of proof's on the denialists who make the claim, not the rest of us.

Oh, and I understand why denial exists. If climate research were about what's happening on uninhabited Mars, no one but extreme cranks would deny what the science is telling us. It's not the science most people really object to, it's the policy prescriptions that stem from it, to try to slow down the change. (I've seen no serious proposals that have a snowball's chance in hell of actually stopping, let alone reversing change that's already happened.)

People don't like the proposed (or implied requirement) to change ("Don't take away my incandescent light bulbs!"), or the cost (which ignores the rising cost of doing nothing), or the politics ("It's all about forcing socialism on us"), or sometimes an inability to really grasp that humans really can effect global change like this (I sometimes hear, "Only God can do that"), or some combination.

Conversely, I would really, really love for the science to be utterly wrong. I've no vested interest in believing that climate change is happening, beyond just not wanting to be lied to. It would be so awesome if there's nothing to worry about! I'd be thrilled! I don't trust science's conclusions because it feeds something in me, some quasi-religious need to kowtow to the lab coats. I'm scared of what the science implies. "Business as usual" for another century is likely to kill my descendants, and maybe most of everything else that lives.

Dennis E. Taylor · Jan 27, 2016

King Neptune said:
You haven't been around a university much lately, have you?

How is this a rebuttal?

King Neptune said:
Have you ever heard of Christianity? Or Islam? Or any other religion? Theey are extremely far-fetched, and most people believe in some religion of some sort.

How is this a rebuttal?

King Neptune said:
Do you really think I should start a religion? I've thought about it in the past, but I'm too cynical do do some of that sort of lying. Do you want to join and spread the good words?

How is this a rebuttal?

I understand that you are attempting to react with mockery. After all,

A) I've been using it, and fair's fair
B) You started out with it in your first post, so why change, and
C) Since you don't have any actual, y'know, "evidence", your only other alternative is to retire.

The problem is that all you have is assertions. Assertions that there's a global conspiracy, assertions that people will act in a way consistent with a global conspiracy (even if it's laughably contrary to the way real people react), assertions that any lack of evidence for your assertions is because of said conspiracy (which is then usually used to 'prove' the conspiracy). I've seen denialists present plenty of 'proofs', from the "arctic ice is getting thicker" to the "polar bear population has doubled" to the "global temperature is going down" to any of a couple dozen other claims that have, upon investigation, turned out to be absolute, total, grade "A" bullshit. NOT ONE SINGLE SUBSTANTIVE CLAIM by denialists has ever been proven. Not one. Yet here you are, trying to make out like you've got the facts.

I don't know you from Adam, so I don't know your motivations for continuing to support a stance that is propped up by 100% lies. Maybe you're gullible. Maybe you own shares in something. Maybe you're just plain old right-wing and determined to toe the party line no matter what. Honestly, I don't care.

I completely support your right to believe in whatever you want. Denialism conspiracies, tobacco conspiracies, 9/11 conspiracies, moon landing conspiracies, vaccination conspiracies, any religion you want. Don't care.

Just don't insult everyone else's intelligence by trying to pretend that it makes sense.

King Neptune · Jan 27, 2016

Angry Guy said:
How is this a rebuttal?

It was rebuttal to this in particular. If you think were trying to use this as a rebuttal by reductio ad absurdam, then it lis clearl that you haven't been paying attention to some of what profesors driving old Volvos have been trying to teach.
"Try to visualize it-- a bunch of college professors, who drive old Volvos, are managing to pull the wool over the eyes of the world..."

How is this a rebuttal?

How is this a rebuttal?

I understand that you are attempting to react with mockery. After all,

A) I've been using it, and fair's fair
B) You started out with it in your first post, so why change, and
C) Since you don't have any actual, y'know, "evidence", your only other alternative is to retire.

The problem is that all you have is assertions. Assertions that there's a global conspiracy, assertions that people will act in a way consistent with a global conspiracy (even if it's laughably contrary to the way real people react), assertions that any lack of evidence for your assertions is because of said conspiracy (which is then usually used to 'prove' the conspiracy). I've seen denialists present plenty of 'proofs', from the "arctic ice is getting thicker" to the "polar bear population has doubled" to the "global temperature is going down" to any of a couple dozen other claims that have, upon investigation, turned out to be absolute, total, grade "A" bullshit. NOT ONE SINGLE SUBSTANTIVE CLAIM by denialists has ever been proven. Not one. Yet here you are, trying to make out like you've got the facts.

I don't know you from Adam, so I don't know your motivations for continuing to support a stance that is propped up by 100% lies. Maybe you're gullible. Maybe you own shares in something. Maybe you're just plain old right-wing and determined to toe the party line no matter what. Honestly, I don't care.

I completely support your right to believe in whatever you want. Denialism conspiracies, tobacco conspiracies, 9/11 conspiracies, moon landing conspiracies, vaccination conspiracies, any religion you want. Don't care.

I posted the initial post to let people know that someone had dreamed up that method for determining the longevity of conspiracies. I also read his paper, and after doing so, I came to the opinion that the paper is a complicated joke. If you disagree, that's fine with me.

You seem to be opposed to denialists (whatever those are), and that's your business, but that has little or nothing to do with predicting the longevity of conspiracy theories.

By the way, the author of that paper, Mr Grimes, asserted that there is some worldwide conspiracy regarding climate change; I was referring to his assertion.

King Neptune · Jan 27, 2016

Please forgive me for having used climate change as one example of how Grime's paper looks like a complicated joke; although it may have some validity.

King Neptune · Jan 27, 2016

Introversion said:
Oh, and I understand why denial exists. If climate research were about what's happening on uninhabited Mars, no one but extreme cranks would deny what the science is telling us. It's not the science most people really object to, it's the policy prescriptions that stem from it, to try to slow down the change. (I've seen no serious proposals that have a snowball's chance in hell of actually stopping, let alone reversing change that's already happened.)

There is evidence available for that also.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992mars.book.1180K
http://www.sott.net/article/287473-...ntists-puzzled-by-wobble-of-Saturn-moon-Mimas

Use search terms "climate change Mars" or replace Mars with Saturn or another planet.

Roxxsmom · Jan 27, 2016

Is the author of the article a climate denier? Reading the summary at the start, it looks like he's listing climate change deniers as an example of conspiracy theorists alongside anti vaccers and people who think the moon landing is faked. But this line quoted by the OP from the body of the paper makes it look like the opposite.

King Neptune said:
There was a related matter that he didn't touch directly. He determined that the climate change conspiracy could have lasted Climate-change fraud (Scientists only) 26.77 years or 3.7 years if the conspiracy were wider. That's about right. The facts have been out for quite some time, but many people choose to believe the fraud, because it feeds their egos that they might have assisted in warming the Earth.

I'm not sure what this means, exactly. I assume it's supposed to be explaining the reason why people cling to climate change fraud theories, but the way it's worded, it actually sounds like it's saying that the hypothesis that climate change is caused by human activity is due to a conspiracy (or fraudulent), and people accept it because it tickles their egos. So this leaves me :Huh:

On an unrelated note, I've never actually encountered anyone who thinks that the government is deliberately withholding "a cure" for cancer. Thinking this would be beyond laughable because 1. "cancer" isn't a single disease, and in fact, even cancers that "look" similar (aka--two estrogen-positive breast carcinomas in 50 year old women) can respond very differently to the same treatment protocol for reasons we're just starting to understand.

2. And it makes no sense why scientists and government officials would collude withhold treatment for "a" disease that costs so much money and could affect anyone at any time, including them and their loved ones.

Now I've run into a number of people who believe science and the government colluded to withhold a cure or vaccine for AIDS. While this is also crazypants, it's more understandable why some people might think it, since it's hard to explain to anyone without a background in immunology why we have effective vaccines for so many viral diseases but not this one, and 2. The first wave of victims in the US and Europe contained many people people from demographics that are, in fact, discriminated against (and where some people were gleefully pronouncing it was a plague from God sent to punish sinners).

King Neptune · Jan 27, 2016

Roxxsmom said:
Is the author of the article a climate denier. Reading the summary at the start, it looks like he's listing climate change deniers as an example of conspiracy theorists alongside anti vaccers and people who think the moon landing is faked. But this line quoted by the OP from the body of the paper makes it look like the opposite.

I'm not sure what this means, exactly. I assume it's supposed to be explaining the reason why people cling to climate change fraud theories, but the way it's worded, it actually sounds like it's saying that the hypothesis that climate change is caused by human activity is due to a conspiracy (or fraudulent), and people accept it because it tickles their egos. So this leaves me

It seems that climate change has become a religious matter for many people. Apparently they know that their opinions are the Truth, regardless of anything else, and the problem exists among most people on either side of the debate.

Roxxsmom · Jan 27, 2016

King Neptune said:
It seems that climate change has become a religious matter for many people. Apparently they know that their opinions are the Truth, regardless of anything else, and the problem exists among most people on either side of the debate.

I think this is definitely true, though I wouldn't say climate denial is always religious.

Some people find the idea that humans could be affecting something as vast (to an individual human's perception) as the earth to be ludicrous. This reaction is more gut level emotional than religious (though I have had students write papers saying that they understand the evidence supporting climate change, but they can't "believe" in it because of their religion).

It's easy to dismiss all climate deniers as people who are too uneducated or pig headed to grasp the basic science, or as nefarious "pro business" types who don't care about what happens long term because they're getting rich from the status quo (or are simply very attached to some of the particular things internal combustion and modern agricultural practices bring us), but it's more complex than that.

The fact is, it's very hard to boil science down in ways that people can understand sometimes, and that's not just about climate change. Even after covering evolution in my courses, for instance, there are still students who don't "get it," who can't internalize the idea that something as complex as a human (or tree, or whale) had the same ancestors as a bacteria if you go far enough back.

While climate change doesn't fly in the face of religion the same way evolution does, it faces similar difficulties. Attempts to make it really simply a result in arguments that can be twisted into straw men and debunked. But more elaborate explanations make people go, "Huh?"

Explaining the whole "degree of uncertainty thing" and what 95% percent probability really means when climate scientists use the term, and explaining the things about climate change that are still uncertain and the fact that we can know what's happening with global temperatures as a whole without being able to make exact predictions about what the effects will be on a particular locale (or whether one individual storm could have been a result of these changes) is another issue. It can be problematic to overstate one's certainty about a particular possible outcome.

My husband is an atmospheric scientist by training, and he sometimes shouts back at the radio when someone says something overly simplistic or makes a sweeping statement, like "This flood was caused by climate change," because this actually hurts the public's confidence in climate science as a whole and makes them doubt the things we are as close to certain about as science ever gets*.

Meaning the idea could still be replaced by another hypothesis that explains everything it does and more.

But doubting the veracity of climate science (or being open to new evidence that could change our current consensus about it) because, hey, scientists can be wrong and maybe there's a piece to the puzzle we're not seeing yet, is another ball of wax than believing that scientists could actually all be colluding in some global hoax (as Michael Crighton presented in a book that was a work of fiction) because they want to destroy civilization or something. Anyone who's spent any time around scientists or on university campuses knows how like herding cats it is to get a bunch of academics on the same page on anything. Even designing something as simple as a new lecture hall that complies with state and local regulations and is actually usable can be ... ACK!

And academic types actually kind of like civilization. It's where we keep our stuff too.

King Neptune · Jan 28, 2016

Roxxsmom said:
I think this is definitely true, though I wouldn't say climate denial is always religious.

I agree. It is an issue about which there is a huge amount of data, but the data supports both sides, and that is why it I do not consider it a closed discussion.

But I didn't mean that it was an matter that religions have taken up to any grat degree. I used the word "religious" metaphorically, as in it is the same sort of truth that needs no proof as religious dogma.

It's easy to dismiss all climate deniers as people who are too uneducated or pig headed to grasp the basic science, or as nefarious "pro business" types who don't care about what happens long term because they're getting rich from the status quo (or are simply very attached to some of the particular things internal combustion and modern agricultural practices bring us), but it's more complex than that.

The fact is, it's very hard to boil science down in ways that people can understand sometimes, and that's not just about climate change. Even after covering evolution in my courses, for instance, there are still students who don't "get it," who can't internalize the idea that something as complex as a human (or tree, or whale) had the same ancestors as a bacteria if you go far enough back.

And the data can be interpreted in more than one way.

Explaining the whole "degree of uncertainty thing" and what 95% percent probability really means when climate scientists use the term, and explaining the things about climate change that are still uncertain and the fact that we can know what's happening with global temperatures as a whole without being able to make exact predictions about what the effects will be on a particular locale (or whether one individual storm could have been a result of these changes) is another issue. It can be problematic to overstate one's certainty about a particular possible outcome.

My husband is an atmospheric scientist by training, and he sometimes shouts back at the radio when someone says something overly simplistic or makes a sweeping statement, like "This flood was caused by climate change," because this actually hurts the public's confidence in climate science as a whole and makes them doubt the things we are as close to certain about as science ever gets*.

Meaning the idea could still be replaced by another hypothesis that explains everything it does and more.

It wasn't that long ago when most climatologists thought that the Earth was approaching a new Ice Age. There probably are a few who have retained that idea.

But doubting the veracity of climate science (or being open to new evidence that could change our current consensus about it) because, hey, scientists can be wrong and maybe there's a piece to the puzzle we're not seeing yet, is another ball of wax than believing that scientists could actually all be colluding in some global hoax (as Michael Crighton presented in a book that was a work of fiction) because they want to destroy civilization or something. Anyone who's spent any time around scientists or on university campuses knows how like herding cats it is to get a bunch of academics on the same page on anything. Even designing something as simple as a new lecture hall that complies with state and local regulations and is actually usable can be ... ACK!

And academic types actually kind of like civilization. It's where we keep our stuff too.

Maxx · Jan 28, 2016

King Neptune said:
There is evidence available for that also.

Use search terms "climate change Mars" or replace Mars with Saturn or another planet.

If you very carefully cherry-pick through anything that might relate to atmospheric changes, you can sort of come up with things that sound like maybe the Earth just happens to be warming up as more and more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate. Because Cherry-picking! However, if you observed any other Earthlike planet and found that something was pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate you would just say, "Hey, whatever is pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate is causing a Greenhouse effect that is warming up that planet."

Introversion · Jan 28, 2016

King Neptune said:
And the data can be interpreted in more than one way.

But not by most climate scientists.

King Neptune said:
It wasn't that long ago when most climatologists thought that the Earth was approaching a new Ice Age. There probably are a few who have retained that idea.

Actually, no. Some mainstream media stories talked about that, but most climate researchers weren't saying it.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Skeptical Science said:
Mainstream Media

What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

Click to expand...

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Click to expand...

Peer-Reviewed Literature

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

WriterDude · Feb 3, 2016

Deniers. Denialists. That's the problem. These are not words of science. How about simply not convinced in the truth of the "science" ?

Let's not forget this is climate modelling. Modelling isn't science, it's modelling. If it were science there would be independent observations and peer review. There isn't because there can't be. We can't measure the temperature in 1900 and compare it to today. We have to look for other methods to determine the temperature. Historical records, ice cores, tree rings and such, then make a couple of assumptions and adjust accordingly. It's not homogeneous or consistent data, and it's wide open to a confirmation bias feedback loop.

People like me would engage more with the theory if we weren't bullied into accepting it as truth. I have nothing to gain by ignoring it and the burden of proof is on the climate modellers to convince us otherwise.

Maxx · Feb 3, 2016

WriterDude said:
Deniers. Denialists. That's the problem. These are not words of science. How about simply not convinced in the truth of the "science" ?

Let's not forget this is climate modelling. Modelling isn't science, it's modelling. If it were science there would be independent observations and peer review. There isn't because there can't be. We can't measure the temperature in 1900 and compare it to today. We have to look for other methods to determine the temperature. Historical records, ice cores, tree rings and such, then make a couple of assumptions and adjust accordingly. It's not homogeneous or consistent data, and it's wide open to a confirmation bias feedback loop.

People like me would engage more with the theory if we weren't bullied into accepting it as truth. I have nothing to gain by ignoring it and the burden of proof is on the climate modellers to convince us otherwise.

There are more measurements and data confirming that AGW is happening (and has been happening) than for any other thing happening on Earth. Anyone who is not convinced simply has not taken an good look at the measurements and data.

Maxx · Feb 3, 2016

WriterDude said:
Let's not forget this is climate modelling. Modelling isn't science, it's modelling. If it were science there would be independent observations and peer review.

Models are part of scientific methods. They do get tested and reviewed. Have you looked at any of the actual work going on with all of this?

Maxx · Feb 3, 2016

WriterDude said:
We can't measure the temperature in 1900 and compare it to today.

There are direct records of temperature measurements that extend well back into the 19th century. Temperature is just temperature. For that matter, direct CO2 measurements extend back to 1960 at least. Good measurements of atmospheric Co2 were made in the early 19th century and these can be confirmed (290ppm, by the way) by ice core samples.

WriterDude · Feb 3, 2016

Maxx said:
There are more measurements and data confirming that AGW is happening (and has been happening) than for any other thing happening on Earth. Anyone who is not convinced simply has not taken an good look at the measurements and data.

That's a rather sweeping statement and I'd be interested to see if you could quantify it.

Maxx said:
Models are part of scientific methods. They do get tested and reviewed. Have you looked at any of the actual work going on with all of this?

I looked at the science for about a decade. It's not my field anymore and I'm simply not that interested. What does catch my attention though is that climatology is the only discipline where I hear statements such "the science is settled" and where scepticism is a bad thing.

I'm not even suggesting it's not happening, but the whole thing sets alarm bells ringing. I don't get that with any other field but religion.

Maxx · Feb 3, 2016

WriterDude said:
People like me would engage more with the theory if we weren't bullied into accepting it as truth. I have nothing to gain by ignoring it and the burden of proof is on the climate modellers to convince us otherwise.

There's no "burden of proof" for billions of measurements. Some kind of burden would be part of showing that some specific description of the atmosphere had some good, long term systematic observational support. For somebody like you, I would recommend you start reading up on planetary atmospheres and energy in those atmospheres. You may not find the scientific analyses convincing for Earth, but it doesn't hurt to know something about planetary atmospheres.

New Paper on On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!

Get it off! It burns!

Got the hang of it, here

Get it off! It burns!

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!

Get it off! It burns!

Beastly Fido

Beastly Fido

Got the hang of it, here

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!

Writer?

Got the hang of it, here

Got the hang of it, here

Got the hang of it, here

Writer?

Got the hang of it, here