ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













The Curious Wavefunction

The Curious Wavefunction


Musings on chemistry and the history and philosophy of science
The Curious Wavefunction Home

Climate change denial, laissez-faire economics and conspiracy theories: A productive pairing?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Climate change denial, laissez-faire capitalism and conspiracy theories may have more in common than we think (Image: David Suzuki foundation)

Climate change denial, laissez-faire economics, conspiracy theorizing. A new study suggests that these rather diverse belief systems may lie on a continuum. That climate change denialists don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming is a given, but are there other more general indicators of their belief system that include climate change denial as a subset?

This is the question that a group of psychologists from the University of Western Australia and the University of Zurich sought to answer. They found that climate change denialists also seem to display two other characteristics; a belief in laissez-faire capitalism and more troublingly, a tendency to espouse conspiracy theories. The correlation of climate change denial with free market capitalism was stronger and not completely unsurprising but the correlation with a conspiratorial mindset is more unexpected and intriguing.

To find out more about the psychology of denialists, the researchers queried about a thousand commenters on eight popular climate science blogs about their general beliefs in various conspiracy theories and free market capitalism. Blogs were picked because these are the sources where deniers and skeptics are most commonly found. A questionnaire listing about 30 miscellaneous statements relating to free markets, environmental issues and conspiracy theories of all flavors were pitched to commenters on these blogs. Interestingly the commenters on “skeptical” climate change blogs declined to answer the questions.

The questionnaire included statements about free markets (usually asking whether unfettered free markets are better for human and environmental welfare than regulated markets) conspiracy theories (“9/11 was an inside job”, “The government has covered up UFO landings in Area 51”, “HIV and AIDS were manufactured by the government”) and the perception that previous environmental problems have been resolved. Commenters had to rate the statements on a four-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The results were plugged into a model that calculated correlations between beliefs represented by the various statements.

The results indicated, perhaps not surprisingly, that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change. This free market-dominated rejection of scientific evidence is consistent with denial of important environmental and public health concerns in the past, most notably the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer and the effects of acid rain on the environment. Once free-market ideologues make up their mind that complete government withdrawal from markets is the only way to ensure prosperity, then it’s not surprising to find them inclined to disbelieve even rigorous scientific evidence that would somehow point to more increased government regulation as a solution. This is of course independent of actual government regulation; all that matters is a belief in future government action. Sadly, the study also found that unfettered belief in free markets seems to make deniers skeptical of any scientific consensus involving the government, no matter what the field of study or the level of rigor. Simply put, ideology trumps facts.

What is much more intriguing is the very modest but positive correlation between rejection of climate change and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology. People who reject climate change don’t believe equally in all the conspiracy theories listed in the questionnaire, but the general trend seems to hold. It would have been enlightening to know if denialists seem to believe a particular conspiracy theory more than others, but that kind of trend does not really stand out. Finally, perceptions of whether previous environmental issues are resolved or not also track negatively with denialism. So if you believe that the consensus on acid rain is not well established you are also less likely to believe the consensus on climate change.

It’s important to keep a few caveats in mind, the most important one being the nature of the test subjects. The sample size is small and not entirely representative. An Internet sample is often self-selected and is likely to represent the most vocal sample; as bloggers are well aware, many of the most frequent commenters are also the most polarized and the loudest. Ignored is the vast “silent majority” which may hold very different and possibly more moderate views than the vocal majority. Those who are climate change denialists also lie on a continuum when it comes to government regulation of climate markets, so depending on what exactly they believe they may or may not exhibit much fondness for laissez-faire capitalism. This study also does not prove that all climate change deniers are likely to believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Rather it draws our attention to the fact that the psychology of climate change denial presents some features that are likely to be shared by conspiracy theorists.

The main goal of the study in my opinion is to inspire more detailed studies on how different mindsets intersect with each other. I consider it to be an intriguing starting point rather than a conclusive study. The most interesting thing about these observations is that they point to deeper psychological connections between different belief systems. The rejection of established science because of its perceived failure to conform to preconceived beliefs is a classic case of motivated reasoning. This would be consistent with the incompatibility of an extreme free-market viewpoint with denial of climate change. Since free-market ideology also usually tracks well with conservative politics, it is not surprising to find most denials of climate change coming from the right.

But what about the correlation with conspiracy theorizing? One of the common characteristics of most conspiracy theories is the omniscience and power they place in the hands of the government. JFK was apparently assassinated not by a single gunman but by a vast conglomerate primarily involving government agencies. The small group of industrial scientists who denied the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer pointed to a powerful cabal of government-sponsored scientists who were orchestrating a dedicated effort to discredit tobacco companies. From 9/11 denial to HIV denial, the big nemesis is always the government. Some conspiracies by private corporations (for instance those involving vaccines and autism) are rampant on the left, but these pale in comparison to the number involving the government.

Seen through this lens it’s not surprising to find belief in laissez-faire capitalism tracking well with conspiracy theorizing since proponents of laissez-faire are inherently suspicious of the government. For instance the king of climate change denial, Senator James Inhofe, has constantly called climate change a government-sponsored “hoax”. Inhofe thinks that thousands of scientists all over the world combined with dozens of government agencies have somehow had the brilliance and capability to pull the wool over the eyes of the entire world. Scientists and government officials should feel flattered by the omniscience ascribed to them by climate change denialists if they hadn’t caused so much harm.

Unfortunately it’s not easy to disabuse people of a conspiracy mindset since as the article notes, presenting evidence to the contrary only makes them more convinced of the diabolical success of the supposed conspiracy. The one thing we can do is to at least point out to climate change denialists how their beliefs are in fact conspiratorial. Demonstrate the features that climate change conspiracies share with 9/11 denial and Pearl Harbor revisionism. Explain how a true climate change conspiracy would involve a vast number of people in collusion with each other over an incredibly long period of time, with absolutely no possibility of a leak or a whistleblower exposing the truth. Sadly such reasoning is unlikely to convince die-hard deniers. But by noting the similarity of climate change denial with some of the craziest conspiracy theories in history, you can at least improve the chances of having the denialists perhaps take a hard look at what they believe. And in the war against ignorance, even incremental wins are to be savored.

Reference: NASA Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax; Lewandowsky et al. Psychological Science, 2013, 24, 1.

Ashutosh Jogalekar About the Author: Ashutosh (Ash) Jogalekar is a chemist interested in the history and philosophy of science. He considers science to be a seamless and all-encompassing part of the human experience. Follow on Twitter @curiouswavefn.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 150 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. sault 6:34 pm 05/6/2013

    Wow, I predict this article is going to get over 100 comments. We’ll see…

    Anyway, you summed it up nicely with this: “Simply put, ideology trumps facts.”

    I’ve durectly quoted from dozens of scientific papers in an effort to show the deniers around here where they are wrong. Either they just ignore it or try to change the subject in a hurry. Motivated reasoning is a very powerful thing indeed. I mean, it’s very hard to get through the thick fog of political screeds and polluter propaganda they are constantly exposed to, but at least I don’t let them get away with confusing others on these boards with their misinformation.

    Link to this
  2. 2. Jimmytubes 9:53 pm 05/6/2013

    Thanks to this story I now know must be mentally un balanced. I believe in freedom and the Constitution and am very sure that CO2, man made or natural, has only a mild effect on the Climate and the sun is the key to all earth climate. I can make a very strong scientific case for this, but why bother. I have been proven irrational. Now the fact that the UN IPCC models are failing and the temperature has not gone up in 15 years and the hot spot never appeared in the troposphere, as predicted, well, facts don’t matter. I cannot question Scientific American. I should not question the authorities on high that want to control every aspect of my life. I should believe Obama and Gore and live in fear of ecological disaster. I should feel guilty for all the harm my living is doing to mother Earth, The experts are always right. We need to give up prosperity to save the planet. But Not Me, Im crazy (even if I don’t believe in conspiracies).
    In the next few years when the whole AGW thing is disproved is this magazine or Sault going to apologize to me? I doubt it.

    Link to this
  3. 3. macuser 10:34 pm 05/6/2013

    If I had a dollar for every time the term “denier”, “denialist”, etc., was used, I would be rich.

    Using terms like “denialist” takes the place of rational thinking. Those terms are entirely emotion-based. This polemic even begins with the words “Climate change denial”. But who “denies” climate change??

    The true climate change deniers are those who believe in the thoroughly debunked nonsense emitted by Michael Mann — who has specifically denied, in writing, that the climate ever changed prior to the industrial revolution. He was so wrong that the journal Science was forced to issue a rare Correction to MBH98. And they hate to issue Corrections.

    I cannot believe what a propaganda screed SciAm became, after it was bought by its current owners. There is no longer any objective science in this pop culture magazine.

    Real science requires falsifiability and testability, which are completely absent from ‘climate studies’. There are NO empirical measurements supporting anthropogenic global warming. None. Do you understand what ‘no empirical measurements’ means? AGW is entirely based on assertions, which follow an anti-science narrative.

    No one has been able to measure AGW, which is the reason that the climate sensitivity number cannot be agreed upon. If AGW was testably measured, then the climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 would be known. But the sensitivity number guesstimates are from negative sensitivity, to zero, to the IPCC’s preposterous 3º – 6ºC for 2xCO2.

    It is obvious from this author’s polemic why the climate alarmist crowd refuses to engage in any honest, moderated debates in a neutral venue. Those debates were dropped several years ago by the alarmist crowd for only one reason: they lost every debate! Now, they engage in polemics like this one, bereft of any real science. Instead, emotional pejoratives like “denier” take the place of science, and of rational thought.

    There has been NO global warming for the past sixteen years. And CO2 has risen by ≈40%. Any honest scientist would say that the original CO2=AGW conjecture is being falsified by the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth. There is NO scientific measurement supporting AGW. None. NONE! So instead, you run these silly articles by silly writers. It is sad to see how far SciAm has fallen.

    Link to this
  4. 4. curiouswavefunction 11:42 pm 05/6/2013

    macuser: Looks like you completely missed the point of the post. The post is not about AGW science, it’s about psychology. I urge you to criticize what the post is saying rather than what you think it said.

    Link to this
  5. 5. Cramer 12:08 am 05/7/2013

    MACUSER’S Argument Paraphrased by Swapping AGW with Moon Landing:

    If I had a dollar for every time the term “conspiracy theorizer”, “conspiracy theorist”, etc., was used, I would be rich.

    Using terms like “conspiracy theorist” takes the place of rational thinking. Those terms are entirely emotion-based. This polemic even begins with the words “conspiracy theorizing”. But who “theorizing” conspiracies??

    The true moon landing deniers are those who believe in the thoroughly debunked nonsense emitted by Neil Armstrong — who has specifically denied, in writing, that the moon existed prior to human civilization. He was so wrong that NASA was forced to issue a rare correction. And they hate to issue corrections.

    I cannot believe what a propaganda screed SciAm became, after it was bought by its current owners. There is no longer any objective science in this pop culture magazine.

    Real science requires falsifiability and testability, which are completely absent from the Apollo program. There are NO empirical evidence supporting a moon landing. None. Do you understand what ‘no empirical evidence’ means? The moon landings are entirely based on assertions, which follow an anti-science narrative.

    No one has been able to directly witness a moon landing, which is the reason that the video footage oddities cannot be agreed upon. If moon landing was testably measured, then there would be no video footage oddities. But nobody can explain why there are no stars in the photos or why the flag flutters.

    It is obvious from this author’s polemic why the NASA idolizing crowd refuses to engage in any honest, moderated debates in a neutral venue. Those debates
    were dropped several years ago by the NASA idolizing crowd for only one reason: they lost every debate! Now, they engage in polemics like this one, bereft of any real science. Instead, emotional pejoratives like “conspiracy theorizer” take the place of science, and of rational thought.

    There has been NO moon landings for the past 40 years. And our space technology has risen by 40%. Any honest scientist would say that the original moon landing
    conjecture is being falsified by the ultimate Authority: the US Government. There is NO scientific evidence supporting a moon landing. None. NONE! So instead, you run these silly articles by silly writers. It is sad to see how far SciAm has fallen.

    Link to this
  6. 6. saganista 12:28 am 05/7/2013

    macuser,

    The way I approach these blog posts is that I find some interesting and educational. Dr. Jogalekar’s last post about unified theory was beneficial to me. This post not so much. The bloggers are what they are. I read them for my benefit on science related topics. The political views of the bloggers are unimportant. Why get excited if you disagree with them?

    Link to this
  7. 7. theduke89 1:08 am 05/7/2013

    How does one “pair” three distinctly different phenomena? Lewandowsky’s survey was an insult to scientific integrity and objectivity. Why is Scientific American validating pseudo-scientific garbage?

    Link to this
  8. 8. Leslie Graham 2:08 am 05/7/2013

    Don’t be absurd.
    Everyone knows exactly what is meant by ‘denier’ or ‘denialist’. It has long been part of the everyday vernacular.
    The word denier dates from the 15th and simply means ‘one who denies’.
    The best dictionary definition I’ve come accross is this one.

    “…Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions….”

    That definition fits climate change deniers to an absolute ‘T’.
    There is simply no other word in the English language that is more apt.

    The attempt by deniers to falsely equate the term with the Neo-nazi holocaust deniers is disgusting. It is as cowardly as it is disingenuous.

    That the deniers have such an inflated sense of self worth as to call themselves ‘skeptics’ is absolutely laughable and an insult to genuine sceptics everywhere. The sceptics society themselves issued a public statement saying so.
    A denier is just about as far from being a sceptic as it is possible to get given their naive and gullible acceptance of any and every piece of psuedoscientific junk and lies that they believe fits their selfish personal and political agendas.
    If the cap fits wear it.

    Link to this
  9. 9. syzygyygyzys 2:48 am 05/7/2013

    I really hope venting all this high dudgeon has made some of you feel better and superior. That’s the only point to some of the comments (actually and the blog post itself) that I can see.

    Link to this
  10. 10. Joel454 6:13 am 05/7/2013

    has any one done a similar study of global warming believers.

    Link to this
  11. 11. MojoMojo 6:41 am 05/7/2013

    This study was was based on faked data.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/steve-mcintyre-finds-lewandowskys-paper-is-a-landmark-of-junk-science/

    Link to this
  12. 12. curiouswavefunction 8:18 am 05/7/2013

    Let’s be clear about one thing: there is a big difference between climate change deniers and genuine climate change skeptics. The study itself emphasizes the value of skeptics. We are talking about wholesale deniers who deny even the basic facts regarding climate change

    Also, let me repeat what should have been an obvious point. This post is not about the science of climate change. It’s about how belief systems can intersect with each other. There are other posts on my blog where I have talked about the limitations of climate change models and other related issues, but this is not the place for that discussion. General, extended rants in favor of or against climate change along with random, unrelated comments will be edited or deleted. So please, keep your comments relevant and on topic.

    Finally, a note to all commenters: Enough with all the “OMG Sci Am is so political!!” outrage. These are our personal blogs and it’s entirely up to us whether to deliver science or a mixture of science and politics through them. More importantly, nobody can deny that science becomes intricately entangled with politics, especially when it involves topics like climate change. This has been true since the time of Galileo.

    Now if you read the posts on the site you will notice that 90% of them are about science and perhaps 10% are about politics. If this small percentage of politics-related posts sparks outrage in you then feel free to read other posts; nobody has ever forced you to read anything on the Sci Am site (as they say, if you can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen). And the hypocrisy is also not lost on us when commenters condemn politics which they don’t like but nod enthusiastically when a post takes a political stand which they agree with.

    Link to this
  13. 13. curiouswavefunction 9:35 am 05/7/2013

    Finally, a note to all commenters: Enough with all the “OMG Sci Am is so political!!” outrage. These are our personal blogs and it’s entirely up to us whether to deliver science or a mixture of science and politics through them. More importantly, nobody can deny that science becomes intricately entangled with politics, especially when it involves topics like climate change. This has been true since the time of Galileo.

    Now if you read the posts on the site you will notice that 90% of them are about science and perhaps 10% are about politics. If this small percentage of politics-related posts sparks outrage in you then feel free to read other posts; nobody has ever forced you to read anything on the Sci Am site (as they say, if you can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen). And the hypocrisy is also not lost on us when commenters condemn politics which they don’t like but nod enthusiastically when a post takes a political stand which they agree with.

    Link to this
  14. 14. Sisko 10:03 am 05/7/2013

    Imo, climate science got off the tracks when many climate scientists moved far too quickly to promoting the adoption of specific governmental policies in response to their conclusions about what the preliminary science led them to believe was likely to occur. Initially, the conclusions of these scientists were generally accepted, but as move data became available; much of the data supporting the conclusions was discovered to be flawed and therefore the general conclusions became suspect. As a result, their conclusions regarding government have not, and will not be implemented.

    There is much more know today in climate science than there was 25 years ago, but it is the unknowns that continue to drive discussions and therefore dominate governmental policy decisions worldwide.
    1. How much will it warm (or cool?) over the next 25 years?
    2. What other conditions important to the lives of humans will change in different countries as a result of any changes in temperature?
    3. How will energy be supplied to the roughly 3 billion people who do not currently have access to electricity or personal transportation worldwide over the next 25 years that does not vastly increase CO2 emissions? Who will pay for this energy?

    We do know more than we used to but until the answers to those 3 simple questions can be reliably answered is seems highly unlikely that anything more than minor actions and meaningless discussion will continue. Those who do not like the relative inaction, will continue to call people deniers who do not agree with their conclusions.

    Link to this
  15. 15. sault 10:46 am 05/7/2013

    duke,

    It’s called correlation. People who espouse free market fundamentalism are more likely to think climate change is a hoax. And since holding the belief that climate change is a hoax necessarily entails belief in a massive conspiracy by thousands of scientists, universities, government agencies, every single scientific organization of national or international standing, the United Nations among others for decades means climate change denial does indeed fit in with a paranoid mindset that sees conspiracies everywhere.

    From my discussions on these boards with climate change deniers, it is apparent that the free market ideology is what sparks their motivated reasoning to doubt the multiple lines of evidence that show human greenhouse gas emissions accumulating in the atmosphere and raising temperatures. There are of course, different shades of denial, but accepting the fact that we need to cut emissions in a hurry is just a bridge too far for ANY of the deniers / delayers / etc. that I’ve discussed this issue with.

    Link to this
  16. 16. Shoshin 10:56 am 05/7/2013

    This article and comments that defend labeling particular groups as “deniers” exemplifies perfectly the pathological hatreds and ideological fantasies that link socialist and eco-fascist groupthink.

    Excellent article.

    Link to this
  17. 17. sault 11:30 am 05/7/2013

    Here’s my hypothesis why free market ideology motivates climate change denial. Climate change is the biggest market failure in human history. All the economic models that show unfettered free markets as the most efficient are wrong since they aren’t accounting for the cost of current and future climate change. The deniers are merely striking out against the science and the scientists that do climate change research much in the same manner as Galileo and Darwin were attacked in their time. Free market ideology is such a core part of their being and colors so much of what they see in the world that showing a fundamental flaw in that ideology hits a little too close to home for the deniers to look at the evidence objectively.

    It doesn’t help that free market ideology / climate change denial tends to be espoused by older white men, a key cohort in republican / conservative politics. If you take a sampling of conservative TV / radio or the blogs that were featured in this study, you see an utter disdain for science and scientists, a glaring lack of understanding with respect to how the Scientific Method is supposed to work and a blanket suspicion of ANY government action. This constant reinforcement of pre-existing beliefs and villianization of political opponents leads to a fully-enclosed worldview where facts that undermine the worldview are instantly suspicious or even reflexively attacked.

    For example, when Mitt Romney said that humans are causing climate change during the 2012 primaries, this prompted Rush Limbaugh, who has an audience of between 15 and 20 million, to say in response, “Bye-bye nomination!” Gov. Romney had to walk that statement back in a hurry to satisfy the litmus test of climate change denial.

    While there are many issues that divide the business conservatives, social conservatives and libertarians in the Republican Party, disdain for environmentalists and environmental regulations are one of the few things they have in common. This reflex action can be seen in a recent study where conservative-leaning individuals’ preference for products drops a great deal when a simple environmental label is placed on the packaging. In this study,the product was a light bulb, and when all other factors were kept constant, the environmental label was the largest deciding factor on whether these people would buy the product or not. Price, performance or even aesthetics didn’t matter; they saw the label and instinctively rejected the product:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/26/1218453110.abstract

    This is not about facts or reasoned debate anymore for deniers. This is about tribalism and winning political battles. When you’ve found out a way to bypass a person’s logic centers in the brain and tap directly into the emotional “reptile brain”, you have made it nearly impossible to get through to that person. Aside from key members in the “tribe” coming forward and acknowledging the truth (Mitt Romney tried and failed, but I don’t think he was ever really in the “tribe”), I don’t see how we’re going to get the ideological logjam to break on the right with respect to climate change (and a lot of science in general) short of cohort replacement. However, as we’re hitting 400ppm CO2 already, we don’t have that kind of time…

    Link to this
  18. 18. syzygyygyzys 11:35 am 05/7/2013

    Dr. Jogalekar,

    Exactly! I’m confident you aren’t getting rich with this blog. People should read it or not as they choose. Why anyone should care if you wish to express political views escapes me? Like an earlier commenter, on balance you have something to offer. The battery technology and unified theory posts were particularly interesting. If we only read articles which reinforce our existing beliefs, how can we achieve better understanding?

    Although the authors of the article profess it to be a study of psychology, it could be argued that they reveal a lot about their political leanings by essentially conflating climate denialists, conspiracy theorists, and adherents of capitalism as one large bag of loons. They are of course welcome to their own views. As you say, this isn’t the place to argue competing economic philosophies. I would only observe that the authors seem to have voted with their feet to live in capitalist leaning countries.

    If you think about it, that was a provocative title. It was likely to draw some intemperate comments from fringe vocal advocates on both sides.

    On a separate note, how do you pair three things?

    Thanks for taking time to maintain this blog. Many of us appreciate your efforts. Although I don’t always agree with you, your perspective is interesting.

    Link to this
  19. 19. Backslider 3:52 pm 05/7/2013

    Lewandowsy’s methodology has been thoroughly debunked by numerous people. His latest rant has been withdrawn from publication and Australia is very glad to be rid of him.

    True conspiracist ideation can in fact be found amongst warmists, who regularly label skeptics as “climate deniers” and accuse them of being funded by “big oil”.

    Skeptics only ask for a very simple thing: scientific proof of the things that warmists espouse – this is never forthcoming. All we have is climate modelling, with secret code and manipulated data – this is statistical analysis, not science. We want science.

    Lewandowsky’s ad hominem and attacks on true skeptics displays desperation and are themselves worthy of psychological study.

    Link to this
  20. 20. Quantumburrito 4:34 pm 05/7/2013

    I don’t find the results of this study surprising. Once you are suspicious of any organization – whether it be the government or private corporations – then you are going to see anything they say and do through the lens of this suspicion, no matter how reasonable it is. And you will then always come up with a convenient post facto explanation for why they do it that agrees with your preconceived image of them. Sort of like religious creationists conveniently declaring evolutionary biologists to be sinners because they simply cannot square with the science.

    Link to this
  21. 21. BookSpine 4:35 pm 05/7/2013

    @22. curiouswavefunction,
    “your blog which is like your living room”

    OK. I give up, how is your blog like your living room?

    Link to this
  22. 22. curiouswavefunction 4:39 pm 05/7/2013

    @25, Here’s how: http://tinyurl.com/a6byyex

    Link to this
  23. 23. ComplexFubction 4:48 pm 05/7/2013

    @22. curiouswavefunction

    “in nine years I have probably edited two comments, one of which was just ad hominem.”

    It’s bad enough that you delete posts you dislike. If you edit the posts as you see fit, how can your readers know what are the other posters’ opinions?

    Link to this
  24. 24. Gale Hawk 4:48 pm 05/7/2013

    Well Ashutosh Jogalekar certainly did not bother to do his homework to find out if the Lewandowsky study is valid. Given that it has been discussed all over the internet and even neutral parties can see it is invalid you would have thought he would have a clue.

    With Science Fraud repeatedly making the headlines including headlines about the dean of Tilburg’s school of social and behavioural sciences, Diederik Stapel, who is now facing jail for allegedly falsifying data published in over 30 scientific publications, you would think he and Scientific American would be a bit more careful.

    What makes this even more amusing is that Rolling Stone Journalist Matt Taibbi, has said in his new article, Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever

    “Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right….”

    Perhaps Ashutosh Jogalekar should start reading Matt Taibbi on a regular basis to get a better picture of what is really going on in economics.

    Or better yet stick to chemistry.

    Link to this
  25. 25. BookSpine 4:52 pm 05/7/2013

    @22. curiouswavefunction

    From your link:
    http://tinyurl.com/a6byyex
    “You have no right to be here, no right to say anything – it is up to me to welcome you here, and up to you to ensure you are welcomed.”

    Is that how you run your home?

    Link to this
  26. 26. abolitionist 5:06 pm 05/7/2013

    @27. ComplexFubction

    “If you edit the posts as you see fit, how can your readers know what are the other posters’ opinions?”

    You can’t. The technique is referred to as “silent editorializing”. By selectively deleting and editing what an editor chooses to display, the overall tone or arc of a production can be whatever the editor wants it to be. It is analogous to the cherry picking that the worst of the climate extremists (pro and con) use to support their otherwise untenable arguments.

    Link to this
  27. 27. Backslider 5:26 pm 05/7/2013

    “By selectively deleting and editing what an editor chooses to display, the overall tone or arc of a production can be whatever the editor wants it to be. ”

    This is exactly the policy at Skeptical Science run by John Cook (et al Lewandowsky paper). That Lewandowsky is teamed up with Cook speaks volumes regarding their methodology and bias.

    This paper is not science in any shape or form.

    More remarkable is the number of people commenting here in support of it, having not actually read it themselves or questioned it themselves.

    Link to this
  28. 28. CarefulReview 5:42 pm 05/7/2013

    curiouswavefunction

    An interesting claim, if substantiated.

    OK. If the premises are false, for example, if the climate change “deniers” as you like to refer to them, happen to be correct, and the projected dangerous global temperature increases have/do not actually come to pass, then how would you characterize the correlation?

    Would you agree it follows that (if) they were correct about X, and the self-selecting study you present s reasonable suggests a correlation between X and Y, they are likely to be correct about Y? Replacing X with “climate change denial” and Y with “conspiracy theories”, would you then feel more comfortable that “9/11 was an inside job”?

    As it so happens, there are recent academic, government-funded (i.e. “unbiased”) studies that indicate the IPCC’s projections are higher than the data supports. (http://tinyurl.com/cqnv7xk ) I trust you’ll accept that publication is sufficiently reliable to serve as an acceptable proxy for the raw data.

    Link to this
  29. 29. Cramer 6:11 pm 05/7/2013

    CarefulReview (5:42 pm 05/7/2013),

    Conspiracy theories and denialism is not about being correct. They are about the rejection of overwhelming evidence.

    If an extraterrestrial intelligent being escapes from Area 51 and goes public, the people who believed the US government was hiding ET aliens had still believed in a conspiracy theory that had little evidence. They only became correct by chance; not because they correctly evaluated the evidence.

    The proof of an ET being at Area 51 should have little influence on the belief in a 9/11 conspiracy. They each need to be independently evaluated.

    Link to this
  30. 30. Backslider 7:01 pm 05/7/2013

    @Cramer – You miss the whole point of what this paper is about, no doubt because you have not actually read it.

    This paper designed solely to continue the meme of lumping all CAGW skeptics into a group known as “climate deniers” (which is a flagrant abuse of the English language) and to paint them as being equal to “conspiracy theorists”, who also believe in things such as 911 conspiracies, Roswell etc etc. That is, to paint them as fringe lunatics. This is in and of itself a conspiracy theory.

    The desperation of warmists is remarkable. Rather than openly discuss the science, or lack thereof in support of CAGW they prefer to hide behind ad hominem and argument by authority, not science. Their own conspiracy theories are pitifully obvious.

    BTW, I am here on behalf of big oil…. yeah right, we are all still waiting for our checks.

    Link to this
  31. 31. curiouswavefunction 9:02 pm 05/7/2013

    ComplexFubction, abolitionist and others: Since I have edited only two comments from over two thousand in over nine years, almost every single commenter on my blog knows that I have let their comment through without deletion or editing. Now let me instruct you on how the “editing” process for those two comments worked. I deleted the part of the comments that consisted of pure ad hominem attacks. I then let the rest of the comments stay without changing a single word, precisely because I found those parts of the comments reasonable. Nice try imputing some kind of ominous Orwellian motive to my comment moderation; unfortunately statistics and reality are both in my favor.
    So complain and whine all you want, the reality is that this blog has a very light touch when it comes to editing or deleting comments, those who read it know it, and I intend to keep it that way.

    BookSpine: You ignored what the post said before that. I would not have used the exact same words, but are you saying that you let strangers decide if they are welcome in your living room or not?

    GaleHawk: Perhaps you should stick to reading posts about chemistry. Why bother commenting on others if you don’t think they are worth reading? Again, how hard is it to understand that nobody forces you to read any post or any blog on Sci Am? If you disagree with a post you express your disagreement, but you absolutely can’t tell bloggers what they should and should not write about.

    CarefulReview: Yes, occasionally it happens that people who ignore overwhelming evidence and speak against consensus can turn out to be correct. Nobody’s denying the existence of statistical flukes, but they are flukes after all.

    Link to this
  32. 32. CarefulReview 9:29 pm 05/7/2013

    Cramer

    “The proof of an ET being at Area 51 should have little influence on the belief in a 9/11 conspiracy. They each need to be independently evaluated.”

    OK. So are you agreeing that climate change denial, laissez-faire economics and conspiracy theories should, in fact be independently evaluated?

    Link to this
  33. 33. Cramer 10:29 pm 05/7/2013

    CarefulReview (9:29 pm 05/7/2013),

    Yes, climate change, laissez-faire economics, and conspiracy theories should be evaluated/analyzed separately.

    However, that does not mean that people do not allow their biases to interfere with a rational evaluation/analysis. Many people can have a common bias that puts them on the same side of the “theory” (reject or accept).

    [Note: You included "climate change denial" in your list. I removed denial because it does not logically fit with the other items. It denotes the choice of rejecting the theory.]

    Link to this
  34. 34. CarefulReview 10:36 pm 05/7/2013

    curiouswavefunction

    “CarefulReview: Yes, occasionally it happens that people who ignore overwhelming evidence and speak against consensus can turn out to be correct. Nobody’s denying the existence of statistical flukes, but they are flukes after all.”

    Why have you decided to lump the studies in the article (here’s the link again: http://tinyurl.com/cqnv7xk ) together as “statistical flukes”? (Research Council of Norway, a government-funded body, which was compiled by a team led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo; Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, etc.)

    During the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to increase. Are you suggesting a 15 year sample is a “statistical fluke”? (http://tinyurl.com/d9hfdlv ) If so, why?

    Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice in once said.

    Link to this
  35. 35. CarefulReview 10:48 pm 05/7/2013

    Cramer

    “Yes, climate change, laissez-faire economics, and conspiracy theories should be evaluated/analyzed separately.”

    I’m pleased to read that you too have rejected the proposition that is the headline of this thread, which conflates them.

    “However, that does not mean that people do not allow their biases to interfere with a rational evaluation/analysis. Many people can have a common bias that puts them on the same side of the “theory” (reject or accept).”

    I agree with you about that.

    “[Note: You included "climate change denial" in your list. I removed denial because it does not logically fit with the other items. It denotes the choice of rejecting the theory.]”

    I included climate change denial in the list because it is in the list provided by curiouswavefunction as the headline of this thread: “Climate change denial, laissez-faire economics and conspiracy theories: A productive pairing?” I agree with you that it does not logically fit with the other items. It denotes the choice of rejecting the theory, and is pejorative of the other two items.

    Link to this
  36. 36. BookSpine 11:01 pm 05/7/2013

    @36. curiouswavefunction

    “BookSpine: You ignored what the post said before that”

    And you avoided answering my question, “how is your blog like your living room”. You responded by providing a link to a post which stated: “You have no right to be here, no right to say anything – it is up to me to welcome you here, and up to you to ensure you are welcomed.”

    You wrote your article to be read, and you provided the comment box for responses. Is that how you think you should treat the posters you invite to read and respond to your articles here?

    Link to this
  37. 37. CarefulReview 11:17 pm 05/7/2013

    curiouswavefunction

    “CarefulReview: Yes, occasionally it happens that people who ignore overwhelming evidence and speak against consensus can turn out to be correct. Nobody’s denying the existence of statistical flukes, but they are flukes after all.”

    Are you suggesting the studies in the article (here’s the link again: http://tinyurl.com/cqnv7xk ) together as “statistical flukes”? (Research Council of Norway, a government-funded body, which was compiled by a team led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo; Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, etc.) They reach the same conclusion: the IPCC’s projections do not correspond to the data. This, in turn increases the probability that those who practice “climate change denial” are correct in their assessment. If they’re correct about that, would you then feel more comfortable that “9/11 was an inside job”? That is implied in the title of your piece above.

    During the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to increase. Are you suggesting a 15 year temperature sample is a “statistical fluke”? (http://tinyurl.com/d9hfdlv ) If so, why?

    Link to this
  38. 38. CarefulReview 11:23 pm 05/7/2013

    curiouswavefunction

    Sorry about the repost, I know you dislike these multiple criticle posts, but I though the principle line of criticsm warranted expansion.

    Link to this
  39. 39. Cramer 11:25 pm 05/7/2013

    CarefulReview (10:48 pm 05/7/2013),

    You have either misunderstood what I wrote or you are attempting to put words in my mouth because I do not have a problem with what Jogalekar wrote.

    I believe it is completely valid to study if certain groups of people share the same beliefs. It is a reasonable hypothesis that climate change deniers tend to believe in laissez-faire economics and/or some/many conspiracy theories. Whether or not Lewandowsky’s study is scientifically valid, I do not know.

    I believe Jogalekar chose his title as not to be too verbose. The “belief” in laissez-faire economics and conspiracy theories is implied in the context of his article. In the context of my comment, I decided to eliminate the word denial. So many discussions about climate change become arguments of semantics (that the only argument many people have) — it was my attempt to be as clear as possible as to avoid a debate on semantics.

    Link to this
  40. 40. curiouswavefunction 11:49 pm 05/7/2013

    @40: The operative words from that post are: “My blog is my living room in my home. I set the rules. I determine the tone. I determine the topic of conversation. When you post a comment on my site, you agree to abide by my rules, you stick to the topics I determined, and you keep the tone I deem OK to be used in my home”. Just because I provide the comment box for responses, does that mean I should allow any and all kinds of responses? That’s clearly unreasonable.

    Link to this
  41. 41. Backslider 12:48 am 05/8/2013

    @Cramer – “It is a reasonable hypothesis that climate change deniers tend to believe in laissez-faire economics and/or some/many conspiracy theories. ”

    First you need to find the “climate change deniers”, since I have yet to come across a single one and I mingle daily with CAGW skeptics, all of whom believe in climate change.

    Thus the hypothesis is not reasonable at all, since it has no foundation at all. The people it purports to theorize on do not exist.

    It is however a reasonable hypothesis that a large proportion of CAGW proponents fall into conspiracy ideation, since they believe that anybody who opposes their views is either a fringe lunatic, a free market advocate or funded by big oil.

    Again I will stress the point that the alarmists fall into the above because they themselves lack the science to support their religion, thus the need for ad hominem and even more alarmism.

    Link to this
  42. 42. MARCHER 1:18 am 05/8/2013

    @45

    The only thing you stress is your willingness to ignore facts in favor of your chosen belief system, or religion if you prefer.

    The only religion on this site is the religion of denialism, which resorts to ad hominem attacks and inane conspiracy theories designed to convince people that every scientific institution of national or international standing is conspiring to fool people.

    Just as the article discusses.

    Link to this
  43. 43. Cramer 1:29 am 05/8/2013

    Backslider,

    I was only using the terminology chosen by Jogalekar and used by CarefulReview because I do not use the tactic of twisting people words. Lewandowsky actual used the terminology “climate denial” which makes literally less sense. However, in this context it does not really matter. It was in reference to people that consider themselves “skeptics” by rejecting the science produced in the field of climatology to various degrees. There is GW, AGW, and CAGW. I am willing to accept the description of “CAGW skeptic” because word catastrophic is subjective. What does it mean? Does it mean extinction of humans within a few hundred years? Yeah, I am definitely skeptical of any theory predicting that outcome, but I haven’t heard any rational scientist make that prediction.

    How many people still refer to themselves as GW skeptics? What about AGW skeptics? Are you only a CAGW skeptic?

    Link to this
  44. 44. Backslider 2:00 am 05/8/2013

    @Cramer ” It was in reference to people that consider themselves “skeptics” by rejecting the science produced in the field of climatology to various degrees.”

    I have not seen this either, please show me these people. The biggest problem is the lack of science to support CAGW, or even AGW for that matter. Computer models are not science, they are statistical analysis and we all know what they say about statistics.

    It is the warmists distinct lack of testable science and empirical evidence that leads skeptics to reject their views (that is “views”, not “science”). All the skeptics that I know would welcome scientific evidence with open arms. The problem is that it is lacking.

    It is scientific to be skeptical. It is not scientific to appeal to authority and engage in ad hominem. Skeptics are not deluded people, but rather are scientific minded and expect evidence to presented with the true rigor of science. This is lacking from alarmists.

    Hey, it snowed in Arkansas in May… so much warming.

    Link to this
  45. 45. Gale Hawk 2:19 am 05/8/2013

    I am commenting because I have a high regard for science and the scientific method. I am also uneasy because of the increasing amout of science fraud that is hitting the news and blogosphere. That means when I see scientific fraud that is held up as truth, especially a Lysankoism whose sole aim is to shut down debate by labeling one side as crazy I am going to speak out.

    The fact you have not even bothered to look at this study as closely as Slate Star Codex blog ( http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/#comment-5307) did shows you are completely incompetent to write about it and certainly should not be writing in Scientific American of all places.

    I suggest you go and read what these COMPETENT analysts say about this study. These are not ‘Deniers’ but people who have done a ” bit of social science research” and spotted the problems with this paper right away.

    As the author put it “..Never Attribute To Stupidity What Can Be Adequately Explained By Malice

    But sometimes it’s not some abstruse subtle bias. Sometimes it’s not a good-natured joke. Sometimes people might just be actively working to corrupt your data….” And he is talking about ANY polling study not just this one.

    The author ends with this
    “…The lesson from all three of the cases in this post seems clear. When we’re talking about very unpopular beliefs, polls can only give a weak signal. Any possible source of noise – jokesters, cognitive biases, or deliberate misbehavior – can easily overwhelm the signal. Therefore, polls that rely on detecting very weak signals should be taken with a grain of salt.”

    I am a chemist but at least I had enough curiosity to do a bit of research and came up with The Hawthorne Effect http://explorable.com/hawthorne-effect

    “The Hawthorne Effect is a well-documented phenomenon that affects many research experiments in social sciences.

    It is the process where human subjects of an experiment change their behavior, simply because they are being studied. This is one of the hardest inbuilt biases to eliminate or factor into the design…

    Many types of research use human research subjects, and the Hawthorne effect is an unavoidable bias that the researcher must try to take into account when they analyze the results.

    Subjects are always liable to modify behavior when they are aware that they are part of an experiment, and this is extremely difficult to quantify. All that a researcher can do is attempt to factor the effect into the research design, a tough proposition, and one that makes social research a matter of experience and judgment…..”

    You did not even bother to do that much research. All you have shown in your article is an excellent example of Confirmation Bias – go look it up.

    Link to this
  46. 46. Cramer 2:22 am 05/8/2013

    Backslider,

    And I “would welcome scientific evidence with open arms” that Big Foot exists. So what. You are confusing skepticism and denialism.

    Show me scientific evidence published in a peer-reviewed journal that AGW does not exist or is not significant.

    Link to this
  47. 47. Cramer 2:29 am 05/8/2013

    Backslider,

    Your suspicion of statistics says a lot about your scientific background. Do you also not believe that quantum mechanics and cosmology are not real sciences?

    Link to this
  48. 48. CarefulReview 6:42 am 05/8/2013

    @49. Cramer

    “Show me scientific evidence published in a peer-reviewed journal that AGW does not exist or is not significant.”

    OK. There are recent academic, government-funded (i.e. “unbiased”) studies that indicate the IPCC’s projections are higher than the data supports. (http://tinyurl.com/cqnv7xk ) I trust you’ll accept that publication is sufficiently reliable to serve as an acceptable proxy for the raw data.

    Here is another link to an article about other science discounting – not dismissing – AGW. (http://tinyurl.com/d9hfdlv )

    Link to this
  49. 49. BookSpine 6:54 am 05/8/2013

    @45 curiouswavefunction

    “The operative words from that post are: “My blog is my living room in my home. I set the rules. I determine the tone. I determine the topic of conversation. When you post a comment on my site, you agree to abide by my rules, you stick to the topics I determined, and you keep the tone I deem OK to be used in my home”.

    Ah. So you open your living room to all, invite them to listen to what you have to say, ask them to express their opinions about expensive political programs based upon tentative, debatable science, and then if their opinion fails to satisfy you, feel comfortable silencing them by deleting their posts or changing what they posted.

    Link to this
  50. 50. curiouswavefunction 7:30 am 05/8/2013

    @51: “if their opinion fails to satisfy you” – No, if all they have to offer is personal attacks and irrelevant comments. You can see that there are lots of folks above and in other comment sections whose opinions don’t “satisfy me” who will always be free to comment.

    Link to this
  51. 51. Chryses 8:00 am 05/8/2013

    curiouswavefunction (51),

    Permit me to suggest that you distinguish between the articles of yours where you present Science, as in the one prior to this, and those advancing your political POV, as you’ve done here. Doing so will enable those of us who prefer the former to skip the latter.

    Link to this
  52. 52. curiouswavefunction 8:06 am 05/8/2013

    #49: You got it right. It’s really not that hard to understand that not every post on a blog is going to be of interest to every commenter; if you don’t like it for whatever reason you move on to the next post. However I don’t think I need to distinguish scientific posts from those that present a mix of science and politics since the distinction is usually quite clear in the post itself.

    Link to this
  53. 53. curiouswavefunction 8:15 am 05/8/2013

    Note on comment policy: So this post is actually a good opportunity to make my comments policy explicit. Anyone who has been reading my blog for the past nine years knows that I have been extremely liberal with comments, even letting strange rants through (witness the one from “jimmytubes” above); so the evidence speaks for itself. What’s interesting is that those who want to shout the loudest about comments and the posts themselves are almost always folks who don’t comment regularly or who have shown up for the first time and don’t seem to have anything constructive to offer. If I read something critical about my comments policy from a longtime reader who has productively contributed I will take a moment to think about it, but this has never happened.

    So it’s simple; if all you have to offer is personal attacks, pointless discussions about comment moderation, passive aggressive behavior or grand conspiracy theorizing about my “motives”, you don’t belong here. The beauty of it is that people who do this will be banned and I won’t skip a heartbeat since they are not contributing productively to the discussion anyway. Thanks to patient readers (you know who you are), there will always be a critical mass of people who read and offer constructive criticism and comments. So from henceforth please remember, it’s not hard for me to ban commenters who mostly contribute noise; their absence does not lower the level of discourse on this site even a bit since there are always enough valuable readers.

    That being said, some first-time commenters are naive and may not be familiar with the rules, so henceforth I have a three-strike rule (and I am going to have the moderation policy displayed on the blog). The first time you decide to come in with your guns blazing and think you can say whatever you want, you will be warned. The third time you are gone. That’s a pretty fair rule used by many other blogs.

    Link to this
  54. 54. Gale Hawk 10:07 am 05/8/2013

    Backslider says:
    “….First you need to find the “climate change deniers”, since I have yet to come across a single one and I mingle daily with CAGW skeptics, all of whom believe in climate change….”
    …….

    They are out there but they are few and very far between. One subset who does not believe in CAGW other skeptics call the “Sky Dragon Slayers” or “Slayers” after the book “Slaying the Sky Dragon” by Dr D Weston Allen.

    The basic belief that separates this subset from the majority of CAGW skeptics is ‘Slayers’ deny any greenhouse effect or greenhouse gas and especially any back-radiation because it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Most Skeptics on the other hand look at back-radiation from the molecular level and acknowledge a molecule can absorb and re-radiate energy at certain wavelengths or transfer it via collision. (This means air molecules have interaction with incoming solar radiation too.)

    ‘Slayers’ however do believe in the earth’s changing climate so they can not be correctly labeled “Climate Change Deniers’

    As far as actual ‘Climate Change Deniers’ goes this group has to be a vanishingly small subset, probably a tiny group of religious fundamentalists who believe the earth has been exactly the same since God made it a few thousand years ago. They would have to dismiss the Milankovitch theory, ice,lake and sea core studies, the Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations, Bond events and Heinrich events that cause global temps to change 16C and 8, 10C in dramatically short times. They would not believe in the existence of the Younger Dryas, the Little Ice Age, the Migration Period Pessimum, the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and all they other climate changes that caused the rise and fall of civilizations through history and pre-history.

    Like you, aside from those who do believe in CAGW and deny the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, I have not found evidence of any who deny the earth’s climate changes and I doubt if Lewandowsky managed to actually poll any since they would not be found hanging around science blogs of any stripe since their fundamental belief system is not based on science but on religious faith. He was very much hunting in the wrong area to find ‘Climate Change Deniers’ and would have been better off doing his polling at Christian, Jewish, Islam and other religious fundamentalist blogs.

    The only people that Lewandowsky has managed to find are those whose belief system is based on science and he found the majority of those AFTER he did his poll.

    Link to this
  55. 55. Backslider 12:24 pm 05/8/2013

    @Cramer – Show me scientific evidence published in a peer-reviewed journal that AGW does exist or is significant.

    There is a big difference between scientific evidence and statistics – just ask any particle physicist. Statistics are a tool, not evidence.

    This thread is not a debate about whether or not AGW exists. My arguments above are not headed in that direction, but rather point out the true mindframe of skeptics. Quite different from the warmist ad hom.

    I see that as a typical warmist, you also are unable to resist ad hominem.

    Link to this
  56. 56. Cramer 1:20 pm 05/8/2013

    CarefulReview (6:42 am 05/8/2013),

    You need to read the Economist news articles more closely. See my comment #29 from 4/2/13:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=vegetation-may-speed-warming-of-arctic#comment-29

    Why not show me a model that accounts for 20th century GW that does not require the added CO2 in the atmosphere. Or do you also believe computer models are not science?

    This is why “skeptic” is not an appropriate description.

    ——

    Backslider (12:24 pm 05/8/2013),

    Experimental particle physics requires statistics. What do you think is meant by reaching a significance of 5-sigma when searching for the Higgs boson?

    A true skeptic would not simply claim that statistics and climatology are not science as you have claimed. They would produce better computer models to represent climate change (especially a model where CO2 is not a significant factor if that is their hypothesis).

    Link to this
  57. 57. Backslider 2:06 pm 05/8/2013

    @Cramer – If you care to take the IPCC’s computer model graphs and overlay their projections (the hockey stick) with actual recorded temperatures, you will find that real temperatures now fall outside the lower end of the projections.

    They have already been falsified by real data.

    I will say it again: Statistics are a scientific tool. They help scientists to see where they should look for things. They are not, however, scientific evidence.

    While particle physicists also use statistics and formulate THEORIES based on them, they use experimentation to confirm those theories. What do you suppose the Large Hadron Collider is?

    Scientific evidence must be empirical and testable. When projections such as those made by the IPCC scientists are falsified by real data, then the models and projections may be discarded.

    Link to this
  58. 58. Gale Hawk 2:17 pm 05/8/2013

    “…Why not show me a model that accounts for 20th century GW that does not require the added CO2 in the atmosphere….”
    …..

    Actually I was just reading a paper on that very subject. (I really like geology so that is what I read in my spare time.)

    The role of solar forcing upon climate change by B. van Geel, O.M. Raspopov, H. Renssen, J. van der Plicht, V.A. Dergachev, H.A.J. Meijer

    “… We argue that variations in solar activity may
    have played a significant role in forcing these climate changes. We review the coincidence of variations in cosmogenic isotopes (C14 and Be10) with climate changes during the Holocene and the upper part of the last Glacial, and present two possible mechanisms (involving the role of solar UV variations and solar wind/cosmic rays) that may explain how small variations in solar activity are amplified to cause significant climate changes. Accepting the idea of solar forcing of Holocene and Glacial climatic shifts has major implications for our view of present and future climate….” http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1999/QuatSciRevvGeel/1999QuatSciRevvGeel.pdf

    So yes there are other explanations. This of course then devolves into the debate on whether the sun is constant or variable and the constant TSI vs the changes in ultraviolet.

    There is also
    The Milky Way Galaxy’s Spiral Arms and Ice-Age Epochs and the Cosmic Ray Connection By Physicist Nir Shaviv
    http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages

    Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate
    http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

    ….

    The Gerald Bond et al paper A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates Abstract at
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/278/5341/1257.abstract
    links to several more papers that cite that paper. All look at climate change in the past from the northern Sahara margin to the Sermilik Fjord, East Greenland to Huangqihai Lake in semi-arid northern China to South America to Australia.

    The paper: Abrupt variations in South American monsoon rainfall during the Holocene based on a speleothem record from central-eastern Brazil
    Says “.. the occurrence of abrupt variations in monsoon precipitation is not random…. Our results suggest that these abrupt multicentennial precipitation events are primarily linked to changes in the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC). Anomalous cross-equatorial flow induced by negative AMOC phases may have modulated not only the monsoon in South America but also affected El Niño−like conditions in the tropical Pacific during the Holocene.”
    http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/39/11/1075.abstract

    The paper: Holocene climate change in arid Australia from speleothem and alluvial records
    “…New high-resolution MC-ICPMS U/Th ages and C and O isotopic analyses from a Holocene speleothem in arid south-central Australia provide evidence…. suggesting pronounced moisture variability during the early middle Holocene ‘climatic optimum’…. The broad synchroneity of Holocene climate change across much of the Australian continent with changes in ENSO behavior suggests strong teleconnections amongst ENSO and the other climate systems such as the ASM, Indian Ocean Dipole, and Southern Annular Mode.”
    http://hol.sagepub.com/content/20/7/1093.abstract

    No every scientist is completely stuck on CO2 as ‘the climate control knob’.

    Link to this
  59. 59. Chryses 3:06 pm 05/8/2013

    curiouswavefunction (51),

    “… I don’t think I need to distinguish scientific posts from those that present a mix of science and politics since the distinction is usually quite clear in the post itself.”

    That’s unfortunate to read, as that distinction is often unclear in the post itself; this thread is an example. Although you’ve already dismissed my suggestion, permit me to provide a link to an example page that unambiguously categorizes the expected experience if chosen ( http://www.buzzfeed.com/ ). I’m not suggesting Sci Am adopt this, but as your posts range from the Scientific (prior), through the Philosophical (next), and also include the Political (this one), I and I’m sure others would appreciate it if you’d help us identify those more in keeping with why we read your material.

    Incidentally, why do the numbers on the posts keep changing? It makes a mockery of trying to refer to specific comments.

    Link to this
  60. 60. curiouswavefunction 3:23 pm 05/8/2013

    Chryses: Many of the blogs on Sci Am are about science and its intersection with social issues and politics. A competent reader should be able to skim the post and decide if he or she wants to go ahead and read it in its entirety (most of the times even the title makes the topic obvious). We do this with other articles on the Internet all the time. Obviously Buzzfeed chooses to have categories, Sci Am does not; it’s entirely an individual site’s choice. That being said, it’s probably not a bad idea to add a politics related label in the post. As for the comment numbers, I just freed up a lot of comments which had been caught in the spam filter (mostly ones with links).

    Link to this
  61. 61. CarefulReview 3:38 pm 05/8/2013

    @55. Cramer

    “You need to read the Economist news articles more closely. “

    Below is the first paragraph from the first article ( http://tinyurl.com/cqnv7xk ).
    “OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.””

    Below is the first paragraph from the second article (http://tinyurl.com/d9hfdlv ).
    “IT MAY come as a surprise to a walrus wondering where all the Arctic’s summer sea ice has gone. It could be news to a Staten Islander still coming to terms with what he lost to Hurricane Sandy. But some scientists are arguing that man-made climate change is not quite so bad a threat as it appeared to be a few years ago. They point to various reasons for thinking that the planet’s “climate sensitivity”—the amount of warming that can be expected for a doubling in the carbon-dioxide level—may not be as high as was previously thought. The most obvious reason is that, despite a marked warming over the course of the 20th century, temperatures have not really risen over the past ten years.””

    “Why not show me a model that accounts for 20th century GW that does not require the added CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    Gale Hawk @57 provided four different models for your review. Post your rebuttals whenever you get around to reviewing them

    “Or do you also believe computer models are not science?”

    “also”? About what else in this thread do you think I have claimed is not science?

    Link to this
  62. 62. Chryses 5:14 pm 05/8/2013

    curiouswavefunction (59),

    “… Buzzfeed chooses to have categories, Sci Am does not; it’s entirely an individual site’s choice …”

    Absolutely. Adding that information to your articles for your readers is very much your call. No argument about that.

    “… That being said, it’s probably not a bad idea to add a politics related label in the post …”

    I and I suspect others would be grateful if you can figure out some way of providing that information. Who knows, you could start a trend! :)

    Link to this
  63. 63. Cramer 6:10 pm 05/8/2013

    CarefulReview (3:38 pm 05/8/2013),

    What argument are you attempting to make? What climatologist is denying the temperature record of the past 15 years? Even Jim Hansen acknowledged the
    flat temperatures in your quote. Did you read the entire Economist article?

    The question is why. Did you read my comment from 4/2/13 about the research by Kevin Trenberth that was in the Economist article?

    Trenberth’s study shows the “missing heat” is going to the deep oceans:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

    We also had a 30 year run from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s when there wasn’t much surface warming. It is interesting how well this all correlates with the ENSO cycle:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

    The heat capacity of the oceans is much greater than that of the atmosphere. It seems that would be an excellent area to develop a more accurate model (maybe even one where CO2 is less significant — why haven’t the skeptics produce one?).

    —————-

    Gale Hawk,

    I asked, “Why not show me a model that accounts for 20th century GW that does not require the added CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    What you provided was a straw man argument.

    I have not seen any climatologist claim that there were no other factors such as solar forcing, especially over time periods of 60,000 years as looked at in the van Geel study on solar forcing.

    All the references you provided are millennial scale studies. Please provide a study that focuses on the 20th century (or at least can account for the temperature rise in the 20th century).

    —————-

    Backslider,

    I thought you only wanted to “point out the true mindframe of skeptics” and “not a debate about whether or not AGW exists.”

    Your claim that computer models “have already been falsified by real data” has been debunked many times. One reason (as I mentioned above) is that ENSO cycles are not predictable past a few years into the future. We had a similar period of El Ninos from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s.

    The science of statistics is REQUIRED for analyzing the data produced by LHC (i.e. connecting the theory to observations) in the same way statistics is required to analyze the data produced by telescopes to study cosmology and astrophysics. It works the same way in climatology — it’s science.

    A true skeptical climatologist would develop a model to better explain observations. Please provide that model.

    Link to this
  64. 64. Backslider 10:34 pm 05/8/2013

    “The science of statistics is REQUIRED for analyzing the data produced by LHC (i.e. connecting the theory to observations) in the same way statistics is required to analyze the data produced by telescopes to study cosmology and astrophysics. It works the same way in climatology — it’s science.”

    When it comes to predicting the future, no. That’s known as fortune telling, not science. When the fortune that was told does not fit the future when it arrives, then we know for sure that it was bunk.

    I think an interesting study would be to look at the chronology of explanations (now its “the deep ocean”) as time and again these predictions have failed.

    You are not talking science, you are talking religion. Gaia is your God, is she not?

    Link to this
  65. 65. CarefulReview 10:35 pm 05/8/2013

    Gale Hawk & Backslider,

    There is nothing at all that you can present to denialists that will change their opinions.

    Note that when the question “Why not show me a model that accounts for 20th century GW that does not require the added CO2 in the atmosphere?” is asked, and you supply not one, not two, but four examples of same, the goalposts are moved.

    Note that when the question “Show me scientific evidence published in a peer-reviewed journal that AGW does not exist or is not significant?” is asked, and I provide links to articles listing scientific peer reviewed publications discounting the significance of the pervious AGW claims, the response is “You need to read the Economist news articles more closely”, and “What argument are you attempting to make?”, conveniently forgetting the original question.

    Note that when confronted with a direct challenge to a claim “Or do you also believe computer models are not science?” …
    “also”? About what else in this thread do you think I have claimed is not science?
    … the silence is deafening.

    Note that within the same post “ENSO cycles are not predictable past a few years into the future”, and “It is interesting how well this all correlates with the ENSO cycle” – self-contradictory.

    Still, you can say that you tried to help, shrug your shoulders, and reflect that you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

    You could also remind him that Statistics is a branch of Mathematics, not Science.
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statistics

    Link to this
  66. 66. Backslider 11:06 pm 05/8/2013

    I would invite anybody who reads this blog to Google “Tim Flannery Youtube” and just listen to the rants of a true warmist, then decide for yourself whether the issues are worth investigating further (as governments spend billions of your hard earned on “renewable energy”).

    Most warmists could not even begin to explain just how CO2 supposedly warms the planet. Instead they rely on argument by authority, the mythical 97% consensus and of course ad hominem toward anybody who does not agree with them.

    The major GHG is in fact water vapor. Does anybody at all consider that human activity pumps many billions of tons more water vapor into the atmosphere than CO2? No. Why not?

    You see, the argument is that CO2 “forcing” causes more evaporation of water, thus amplifying warming….. Well, the fact is that we put far more water vapor into the atmosphere than this supposed forcing (it has not been scientifically proven) ever could. End of argument.

    Link to this
  67. 67. Cramer 11:50 pm 05/8/2013

    CarefulReview,

    I will clear up two non-AGW misunderstandings, the rest regarding AGW is not worth my time. It would only lead to a pointless back-and-forth.

    I asked, “Or do you also believe computer models are not science?”

    I meant: do you also believe — in addition to Backslider — that computer models are not science?”

    This miscommunication is understandable — my bad.

    You also might want to read that statistics and mathematics are disciplines called formal sciences:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_science

    Link to this
  68. 68. Backslider 12:03 am 05/9/2013

    @Cramer – “You also might want to read that statistics and mathematics are disciplines called formal sciences:”

    Whatever the semantics, forecasting the future is not science. Clinging to forecasts even when empirical evidence (measured temperatures) falsify the forecasts amounts to religion.

    Link to this
  69. 69. Backslider 1:19 am 05/9/2013

    @Caramer – perhaps you would do well to read up on the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method – then you will understand what we mean by “science”.

    “Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).”

    Shame that the computer models used by IPCC scientists are kept secret, huh? Upon that alone it is not science.

    Link to this
  70. 70. Richard Salisbury 5:40 am 05/9/2013

    “sault” was right. I rarely comment on these or any other blogs or articles, especially the contentious ones, but I couldn’t resist commenting here.
    I can speak only for myself. I don’t fit the pattern described in this article–but I am only one person, statistically insignificant. My father was a physicist, electronic engineer, & inventor. I am very interested in math and science, especially physics, believe that I understand them pretty well for a layman, and believe in their power to find truth–but only a certain sort of truth. They have limitations. I am not a climate-change denier, though I concede legitimacy to skepticism on principle; I just see no reason yet to doubt what I, a nonexpert, have heard from the majority of alleged experts and seen with my own eyes (at least on TV). And I am absolutely not in favor of laissez-faire capitalism, which I see as rooted in greed and fundamentally immoral. (And please don’t say we are headed toward socialism in this country, unless you define your terms; or conflate socialism with communism. We are “socialist” only to people who think that lazy or fraudulent “welfare moms” cost taxpayers more than “corporate welfare,” such as the oil depletion allowance and a lower tax rate on capital gains than on income earned by actual work.) On the other hand I believe in some conspiracies; e.g., the assassinations of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus and Julius Caesar by or at the instigation of the Roman Senate (though the latter probably deserved it); and the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and possibly Martin Luther King, Jr. Any impartial look (without the presumption current when JFK lived that the federal government is automatically to be trusted) at the evidence in the Kennedy assassinations (e.g., the autopsy report on the bullet wound that killed Robert), compared to what passed for honest investigations, should convince anyone that the United States has violent power struggles like every other empire in history. Many Romans thought the Republic and the Empire benign, despite slavery, execution of criminals by crucifixion, and bloody mass spectacles in the Colliseum.

    Link to this
  71. 71. CarefulReview 6:01 am 05/9/2013

    Gale Hawk & Backslider,

    “You also might want to read that statistics and mathematics are disciplines called formal sciences”

    Denialists also often attempt to redefine the meanings of words.
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statistics

    Link to this
  72. 72. CarefulReview 6:03 am 05/9/2013

    @66. Cramer

    “This miscommunication is understandable — my bad.”

    I accept your apology.

    Link to this
  73. 73. rkipling 6:09 am 05/9/2013

    It’s always interesting to review the publication that blog posts reference. This one was particularly interesting. Below is the first paragraph of the abstract for this piece. You can get to it yourself from the embedded link “new study” in the second sentence of this blog post. Please make your own judgments about the methodology of this study. After the abstract I have a couple of comments. I think it best not to prejudice your first read with my comments.

    “Motivated rejection of science 2

    Abstract

    Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ~ .80 between
    latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with
    the perception of a consensus among scientists.”

    I get the impression that they don’t much like free-markets. I’m a bit surprised they didn’t throw in correlations with dog kicking, littering, and stealing candy from babies with laissez-fare conception of free-market economics.

    As I read the paper, it was unclear how they distinguished “denier” blog posts from “skeptics” blog posts. I didn’t see any definitions.

    Anybody else see an agenda here?

    Link to this
  74. 74. CarefulReview 7:37 am 05/9/2013

    @69 Richard Salisbury

    I have read the referenced article. The title is “NASA faked the moon landing — Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”.

    At the risk of becoming the target of semantic outrage, I thought I’d remind all that in statistics, correlation does not equal cause.

    Link to this
  75. 75. Gale Hawk 3:34 pm 05/9/2013

    ……There is nothing at all that you can present to denialists that will change their opinions.

    Note that when the question “Why not show me a model that accounts for 20th century GW that does not require the added CO2 in the atmosphere?” is asked, and you supply not one, not two, but four examples of same, the goalposts are moved……
    ………………
    It is not moving goal posts it is showing evidence.

    Last I heard the laws of physics had not been repealed in the 20th century.

    But if you want information that pertain to more recent times:
    http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-I
    http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-II
    http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-III

    And these three that go together:
    http://www.academia.edu/1097984/The_thunderstorm_thermostat_hypothesis_How_clouds_and_thunderstorms_control_the_Earths_temperature (Download pdf)

    http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-natural-warming-of-the-global-oceans-videos-parts-1-2/

    ….

    OH! Wait a second you want a ‘MODEL’ not scientific evidence. So let me get this straight.

    We started out with ‘Climate Change Deniers’ I already showed most of those labeled ‘Climate Change Deniers’ agree that the climate changes. (Fringe religious fundamentalists sometimes do not.) If by ‘Climate Change Deniers’ you mean those who deny that CO2 intercepts radiation and scatters it, then again we are talking a small subset (Slayers) of those labeled ‘Climate Change Deniers’. Most ‘Deniers’–Monckton, Spencer, Watts, Curry, Nova–agree that CO2 does indeed absorb and re-radiate energy.

    SO what the heck is meant by the term ‘Climate Change Deniers’? From your comments it can be inferred that the real bone of contention is those labeled ‘Climate Change Deniers’ do not agree with the validity of Climate MODELS. This raises the two questions:

    1. Why the subterfuge of calling people ‘Climate Change Deniers’ when you really are talking those who do not accept the validity of your computer models?

    2. Why is the agreement with the MODELS so important when there is more than one model in the first place?

    What is it that ‘Climate Change Deniers’ are actually disagreeing with? Here’s what I see:

    1. Any model is only as good as the data and formulas that go into making it. ‘Climate Change Deniers’ think climate science is in its infancy and all the factors have not yet been identified much less put into mathematical terms.

    2. Chaos Theory – Chaotic systems are not entirely unpredictable, or truly random. But they do exhibit diminishing predictability going forward in time so prediction accuracy will drop off rapidly the further you try to predict into the future.

    3. Feedback – Climate computer models are based on feedback. Within the models, as the amount of CO2 increases the amount of heat in the system increases. Then increase in heat increases the amount of water that evaporates. The model’s result for climate sensitivity when doubling CO2 is multiplied by a factor of three based on the excess water vapor. Instead of a rise of 1C, there is a >3C rise per doubling of CO2.

    There’s one problem with this model: The amount of water vapor has not increased along with the increase of CO2.

    Global Relative Humidity: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg
    Specific humidity at 400 mb pressure level: http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SH400mb.jpg

    So that brings us to the question of why is beefing up the climate sensitivity by using a hypothetical water feedback so important that it is necessary to label those who disagree as ‘Climate Change Deniers’ and then link them with some lunatic fringe?

    To answer that we need to look at why the IPCC was established.

    “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.”
    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

    So the IPCC was never about studying the climate it was always about trying to find a way to blame humans so the United Nations could move forward with “options for mitigation and adaptation.”

    If we go to the writings of Pascal Lamy Director-General of the World Trade Organization we find this:

    “…The profound shock of the recent financial crisis, our inability to face (let alone solve) global warming, the failure to halt nuclear proliferation, even the WTO’s stalled Doha negotiations illustrate that the status quo is no longer good enough….

    …In the same way, climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared. Can we maintain an open trading system without a more coordinated financial system?

    “Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life? These may be complex questions, but they demand answers…

    “The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.

    “All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty…” http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9174

    And from his own words we find the UN and the Bretton Woods system (IMF and World Bank) were put in place to build “…a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty…”

    Lamy goes on to tell us why a financial crisis and an environmental crisis are so necessary to those who want to do away with the ‘sacrosanct principle of sovereignty’

    “… we will only find answers to the other pressing issues on the international agenda — financial reform, the environment, health, taxation, migrations — not by trying to impose solutions (which is impossible), but by constructing consensus from the bottom up.

    “To achieve consensus, we need to strengthen the system’s legitimacy by better reflecting the interests and concerns of citizens….”

    One is reminded of H. L. Mencken’s very appropriate observation about politics

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    Last question.
    Since Pascal Lamy is linking ‘Climate Change negotiations’ and the need for a ‘a new international order’ that removes ‘the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty’ does that make him a Conspiracy Theory Nut?

    Link to this
  76. 76. CarefulReview 3:54 pm 05/9/2013

    Gale Hawk,

    I hope your post above proves my “There is nothing at all that you can present to denialists that will change their opinions.” claim wrong! :)

    Link to this
  77. 77. geoffchambers 5:47 pm 05/9/2013

    There are several errors in this article:
    1) “That climate change denialists don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming is a given..”
    False. 97% of climate denialists accept the existence of AGW, but dispute the catastrophic conclusions drawn by many scientists, journalists and politicians.
    2) “The correlation with a conspiratorial mindset is more unexpected and intriguing.”
    No it isn’t. It is perfectly reasonable that those who doubt the word of governmental authority on one subject are likely to doubt their word on another. No serious social scientist would find such a finding unexpected.
    3) “To find out more about the psychology of denialists, the researchers queried about a thousand commenters on eight popular climate science blogs”.
    No they didn’t. They queried 1300+ readers (not commenters) on two popular climate science blogs and five extremely obscure climate science blogs. (That makes a total of seven, not eight). Then they threw out 200 responses because they were multiple responses from the same IP address (ie they were trying to falsify the survey) or because they recorded ages of 95. (The authors don’t reveal how many six year-olds or 94-year-olds replied)
    4) “Blogs were picked because these are the sources where deniers and skeptics are most commonly found.”
    No they weren’t. They were picked because they were sites devoted to refuting climate scepticism (or denialism, if you prefer). There were late attempts to recruit sceptics at climate science sites considered as “sceptical” (though several of the site owners have publicly rejected this description). These invitations to participate were signed by an untraceable research assistant, and were not surprisingly ignored. On the day that “sceptic” sites were being invited to participate in the survey, the first author of the paper Porofessor Lewandowsky was already presenting the definitive results of the research at Monash University.
    5) “A questionnaire listing about 30 miscellaneous statements relating to … conspiracy theories of all flavors were pitched to commenters on these blogs..”.
    Why “about”? Three, or possibly more, versions of the survey were available on the internet at various times. The professors of cognitive psychology responsible for the paper let the website owners choose whichever version of the survey they wanted. The free survey provider was the victim of a hack and has gone bust. It is therefore not possible to ascertain which informants were exposed to which version of the survey. The responses to a question about a possible conspiracy relating to the war in Iraq have been supressed. It is not normal in a scientific paper to suppress a part of the data.
    6) “Interestingly the commenters on “skeptical” climate change blogs declined to answer the questions”.
    Why is that interesting? Because no sceptical blogs published the survey? So there were no commenters?
    7) “It would have been enlightening to know if denialists seem to believe a particular conspiracy theory more than others…”
    No it wouldn’t. The overall belief in conspiracy theories was minimal. The “Moon Landing Hoax” conspiracy theory which gave the professors of cognitive psychology the title to their paper was believed by just ten out of 1100+ respondents, four of whom were global warming sceptics, two of whom were almost certainly phony responses.
    8) “The main goal of the study in my opinion is to inspire more detailed studies on how different mindsets intersect with each other.”
    No it’s not. The main goal of the study was to accuse all those who question the official view of global warmng of “conspiratorial ideation”. This was achieved via the follow-up paper “Recursive Fury” by Lewandowsky and others which accused us climate sceptics of numerous psycho-crimes, which, shorn of their peer-reviewed shielding, amount to accusing us of being paranoiac fruitcakes.
    This paper has been twice revised and exists currently in a nomansland between publication and withdrawal.
    In this paper, four named individuals have been identified as certifiable fruitcakes. One is Dr. Steve McIntyre, coauthor of a peer reviewed paper which demolishes the Hockeystick papers of Mann et al., an important pillar of the global warming orthodoxy. One is Anthony Watts, owner of the website voted three years in succession best scientific website. One is Joanna Nova, voted best Australasian website. The other is me. I resent being identified in a peer-reviewed paper as a paranoid fruitcake. I reserve the right to explain why in a further comment.

    Link to this
  78. 78. rkipling 6:34 pm 05/9/2013

    geoffchambers,

    I’m not a psychologist, but I do know a bit about setting up experiments and studies. I don’t see why the basics of unbiased data collection should be much different for a psychological study?

    I looked for some rationale for selecting blogs. Maybe if I were a psychologist their approach would make sense to me? Perhaps you can inform me? Wouldn’t you want some defined method for determining if a blog is “denier” or “skeptic”? If the blog’s author says, “I’m a denier.” is that proof enough that all commenters/readers are deniers? Determining who is what for the study seems subjective to me.

    Maybe you can help me understand what I’m missing? A “study” this sloppy wouldn’t get published in any other respected scientific journals I can think of.

    Link to this
  79. 79. Cramer 6:43 pm 05/9/2013

    geoffchambers (5:47 pm 05/9/2013),

    You said, “97% of climate denialists accept the existence of AGW, but dispute the catastrophic conclusions drawn by many scientists, journalists and politicians.”

    Regarding CAGW could you define catastrophic conclusions? A definition would only have value if it included the climate sensitivity specifically due to CO2 (i.e. please specify the temperature change due to a doubling of CO2).

    You said, “The main goal of the study was to accuse all those who question the official view of global warmng of ‘conspiratorial ideation.’”

    I have no idea of the validity of Lewandowsky paper, but comments on conspiracy theories such as the New World Order are quite common on any SciAm article about climate change. Please read the comment just two comments before yours posted by Gale Hawk at 3:34 pm 05/9/2013 (comment #74). She believes the IPCC was created to “blame humans” on climate change so the UN could create a “new international order.”

    Link to this
  80. 80. Backslider 7:02 pm 05/9/2013

    @Cramer – “Please read the comment just two comments before yours posted by Gale Hawk ”

    Why is it, with you warmists, that when people refer to actual facts you call it a “conspiracy theory”?

    The aims of these organisations are well documented and the expression “new world order” or “new international order” is very common from the mouths of high ranking officials within them. Why is mention of them a “conspiracy”?

    I think that the belief or a large proportion of warmists that CAGW skeptics are funded by “BIG OIL” is more in line with a true conspiracy theory.

    Link to this
  81. 81. Gale Hawk 10:27 am 05/10/2013

    ….I hope your post above proves my “There is nothing at all that you can present to denialists that will change their opinions.” ….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And you would be totally incorrect.

    Present actual empirical evidence. Present ALL the information including computer code and the data that was rejected and the reason why it was rejected. If data is ‘Adjusted’ then all reasons and methods should be presented. This is what I was expected to do as a scientist when presenting reports to upper management.

    Unfortunately when asked for why temperature data was ‘Adjusted’ the public get “The dog ate my homework” or the “goat ate my homework” and all sorts of other dancing around the subject but NO DATA and NO METHODS.

    In other words: Follow the actual scientific method and present the data for verification and validation by others.

    Scientists do not say “Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?” as Prof Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit said in an e-mail.

    That’s Lysenkoism, not science.
    ….

    Oh, and for what it is worth I sincerely hope that CO2 does cause warming, a lot of warming. Why? Back to my love of geology.

    Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception

    “….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….”
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107002715

    AND:

    Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?

    “…Comparison [of the Holocene] with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474Wm−2) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240±5 ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012)…”
    http://www.clim-past.net/8/1473/2012/cp-8-1473-2012.pdf

    Lisiecki and Raymo in a landmark paper took an exhaustive look at 57 globally distributed deep Ocean Drilling Project (and other) cores.

    A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed
    benthic D18O records

    “….However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence….”

    http://lorraine-lisiecki.com/LisieckiRaymo2005.pdf‎

    Since we are at half precession cycle when we should be headed back towards glacial conditions… maybe… this is where the real climate discussion should be. Also the descent into glaciation is punctuated by swings to high temperatures so warm weather does not mean a thing.

    Some think we have a bi-stable climate with a cold phase and a warm phase and when the solar insolation is in the transition zone the climate becomes rough with abrupt swings.

    Link to this
  82. 82. Gale Hawk 10:54 am 05/10/2013

    . Please read the comment just two comments before yours posted by Gale Hawk at 3:34 pm 05/9/2013 (comment #74). She believes the IPCC was created to “blame humans” on climate change so the UN could create a “new international order.”….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No, I just quoted what the IPCC said. The IPCC point blank states it was not created to look at climate it was created to determine human influence on climate and mitigation strategies like Agenda 21.

    It is Pascal Lamy, Director General of the World Trade Organization who stated the UN, WTO, IMF and World Bank were created as part of “… building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty…” http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9174

    I am always very careful to back up anything I say with direct quotes from principles.

    If you think bureaucrats and politicians and bankers are altuistic saints with halos around their heads and their hands in their own pockets, I suggest you need to read this article by Matt Taibbi of the Rolling Stone mag:

    Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-is-rigged-the-biggest-financial-scandal-yet-20130425

    Matt Taibbi is one of the few journalists I have respect for and I strongly suggest your read his articles about financial shenanigans:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/matt-taibbi

    Link to this
  83. 83. rkipling 12:43 pm 05/10/2013

    Gale Hawk,

    I believe you mean “principals”.

    Link to this
  84. 84. Backslider 12:56 pm 05/10/2013

    @Gale Hawk – That’s one of the big problems with warmists – just mention any of these things and the fact that there ARE political agendas and you will be branded a “conspiracy theorist”.

    They work on the principle that “mud sticks”.

    That Lewandowsky went so far as to name prominent and highly respected scientists as being nutters speaks volumes for the desperation that warmists find themselves in, since most of their “science” has been falsified. Who really are the nutters?

    Google “Lewandowsky Youtube” and listen to yet another one.

    Link to this
  85. 85. Gale Hawk 4:03 pm 05/10/2013

    ….just mention any of these things and the fact that there ARE political agendas and you will be branded a “conspiracy theorist”….
    …..

    If you have money and power, bankers and large corporations and politicians you’ve got politics. Heck even stuck in a lab in the basement working for a small company you’ve got politics.

    Academia is even worse. Don’t kiss the right rosy red or Lord help you write a paper contradicting the big wig’s pet theory especially before you have tenure and you can kiss your career good by.

    I thing a Samuel Adams quote is especially appropriate for those who are so willfully blind and naive.

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

    And I would strongly suggest that those who ignore politics look at DEATH BY GOVERNMENT By R.J. Rummel
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

    During the 20th century over 169,202,000 citizens were murdered by their own government.

    “…Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5′, then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century….

    ….After eight-years and almost daily reading and recording of men, women, and children by the tens of millions being tortured or beaten to death, hung, shot, and buried alive, burned or starved to death, stabbed or chopped into pieces, and murdered in all the other ways creative and imaginative human beings can devise, I have never been so happy to conclude a project. I have not found it easy to read time and time again about the horrors innocent people have been forced to suffer. What has kept me at this was the belief, as preliminary research seemed to suggest, that there was a positive solution to all this killing and a clear course of political action and policy to end it. And the results verify this. The problem is Power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.” – Dr. R.J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Hawaii and frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Lewandowsky is Dr. R.J. Rummel exact opposite.

    Link to this
  86. 86. rkipling 4:09 pm 05/10/2013

    Gale Hawk,

    For arguments sake, let’s say you are correct. Now give us a plan to stabilize/reduce carbon dioxide concentrations with an estimate of how much it will cost and how long it will take.

    Talk is fairly inexpensive.

    Link to this
  87. 87. macuser 4:15 pm 05/10/2013

    CarefulRevierw says:

    “There is nothing at all that you can present to denialists that will change their opinions.”

    CR does not understand that he is the denialist here. Scientific skeptics know the climate always changes. Always has, alawys will.

    Why do climate alarmists believe in Mann’s chart, which falsely shows flat global temperaturtes from the 1400′s to the start of the industrial revolution? Alarmists are simply denying reality.

    CR also asks, “Why not show me a model that accounts for 20th century GW that does not require the added CO2 in the atmosphere?”

    Earth to CR: models are not reality. Models are not evidence. Models are not data. And climate models have all failed to predict the current stasis in global temperature. The climate models are flat wrong. Every one of them. Despite spending $BILLIONS, climate models have been a total waste of money. They can’t predict their way out of a paper bag.

    CO2 is rising because the oceans have been warming; CO2 outgases due to rising T. But temperature is not rising in any measurable way because of CO2.

    When your premise is wrong, then your conclusion is going to be wrong. And that is what planet earth is telling us. The alarmist/denialists are flat wrong, and the climate null hypothesis has never been falsified. All climate parameters are well within their normal ranges.

    So who should we believe? Planet Earth? Or the True Believers demonizing “carbon”?

    Because they cannot both be right.

    Link to this
  88. 88. CarefulReview 5:35 pm 05/10/2013

    @87. macuser

    While I did post @65, “There is nothing at all that you can present to denialists that will change their opinions.”, I think you’ll find that Cramer, was the author of the other quote.
    @56. Cramer : “Why not show me a model that accounts for 20th century GW that does not require the added CO2 in the atmosphere?”

    “CR does not understand that he is the denialist here.”

    If you’re willing to redirect your target from me (CarefulReview/CR) to Cramer (C), I’ll agree with you. As a matter of fact, I do think that Cramer is something of a denialist. He seems to accept an extremely limited data set as fact, focusing especially on models (although he has never explained why if one is correct there are so many others), and moves the goalposts when confronted with explicit responses to his challenges.

    Link to this
  89. 89. Cramer 5:52 pm 05/10/2013

    Gale Hawk,

    You are obviously very intelligent. I like most of what you have said. I believe I could have a worthwhile dialogue with you. Our thinking is probably a lot closer than you think.

    I am also big fan of Matt Taibbi. However, I am not happy with his “apology” to conspiracy theorists. I believe the apology was actually hyperbole, but many seem to have taken it seriously.

    I do not believe a small group of powerful people are smart enough to rule the world with a “hidden hand.” All the injustices in the world (some of which are well documented by Taibbi) are a result of moral hazards, group think, and arrogance of people; not a cabal (list is not necessarily complete). I don’t trust any government any more than I trust the big banks, drug companies, oil companies, etc. I spent almost over a decade with both the largest drug company in the world (Merck) and the largest bank in the world (BNP Paribas) (they were the largest at the time I work for them). The big banks could be call criminal enterprises. We would have been a lot better off w/o a bailout (at least GS and MS should have went down — they didn’t have insured deposits of normal folks).

    Does that mean I believe that the big drug companies are hiding a cure for cancer? No. If that was the case, some biotech/pharma startup would have exposed that long ago. Does that mean I think drug companies are “altruistic saints” producing best medicines possible? No.

    Same with climatology. Moral hazards, group think, and arrogance are definitely getting in the way of climatologists producing the best research; but I
    don’t believe the truth is being hidden by the power of the IPCC.

    Why do you not attack the comments made by CarefulReview and Backslider? Backslider actually said, “forecasting the future is not science.” If you want to stand up for your beliefs, you must also disassociate yourself from this ignorance even if when it comes from your side. Otherwise, your behavior is not much better than the professors you complained about.

    Link to this
  90. 90. Backslider 5:53 pm 05/10/2013

    @Carefulreview – “moves the goalposts when confronted with explicit responses to his challenges.”

    Don’t you mean “runs and hides”?

    Link to this
  91. 91. Backslider 6:00 pm 05/10/2013

    @Cramer – “Backslider actually said, “forecasting the future is not science.” If you want to stand up for your beliefs, you must also disassociate yourself from this ignorance even if when it comes from your side.”

    And there you go again with your ad hominem. Please explain to the whole World why my statement is ignorance.

    I have already told you what I am talking about when I say “science”. This is not a point for semantic argument. In that context, statistical forecasting is NOT science.

    On top of that, the forecasts that you so steadfastly stand behind have all be falsified. Now THAT is science.

    Link to this
  92. 92. Gale Hawk 6:23 pm 05/10/2013

    For arguments sake, let’s say you are correct. Now give us a plan to stabilize/reduce carbon dioxide concentrations with an estimate of how much it will cost and how long it will take.
    …………
    rkipling, you are making the assumption that increases in carbon dioxide are somehow bad.

    You are ignoring the fact that CO2 increases plant growth, decreases the amount of water C3 plants need and the fact that during the last glaciation CO2 levels had reached dangerously low levels.

    See: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15642948

    And Henry’s Law
    http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L23/web-L23.pdf

    You are ignoring the fact that CO2 is necessary for human health.

    See: CO2, Blood pH and Respiratory Alkalosis
    http://www.normalbreathing.com/CO2-blood-pH-respiratory-alkalosis.php

    You are ignoring the fact the earth is at half precession and many scientists think elevated levels of CO2 are what are keeping us out of the onset to the next ice age as I showed in other comments.

    However if you do not wish to increase CO2, do not want to burn valuable hydrocarbons that have many uses like medicine, then move to gas and then to thorium nuclear and finally to fusion.

    Solar and wind have there place but they cost more in energy than they produce and have been under development for close to a century or more. I do not see much more in the way of a major break through at this time. Also without a good ‘battery’ they are pretty useless.

    Geothermal however for heating/cooling looks good and my husband and I are discussing putting in that type of system.

    Another system that looks interesting is a Methane Digester

    Mother Earth News: L. John Fry: Methane Digester and Methane Fuel Innovator
    http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/methane-digester-methane-fuel-zmaz73sozraw.aspx

    Penn State: Biogas from Manure
    http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/energy/waste-to-energy/biogas/projects/biogas-from-manure

    I would love to see a low cost system designed for homesteaders that used a methane digester to produce fuel for heat,light and cooking. The CO2 produced could be piped into green houses in colder climates and the manure after ‘digesting’ or composting becomes soil for the green house. It is an idea some guys and I are knocking around.

    A very simplified version of this type of system was tried out in India in the 1970′s in an attempt to turn a non-producing farm into a viable one. The researcher used management (penning) of livestock, manure collection and digestion to produce gas for cooking and fertilizer for a garden. However the key was the “bean tree” or Leucaena leucocephala. It is a nitrogen fixer, grows very fast, goats can eat it and it helps reclaim desert type areas.

    Co2 is still going to be produced by China and India who are building coal fired plants as fast as they can The World Bank while advising the US government on how to get people to accept a carbon tax is using tax payer money to fund those coal fired plants.

    Graph of World Bank lending for thermal generation: http://co2scorecard.org/Content/uploads/WB_Exhibit_1.jpg

    Both China and India are also looking at thorium nuclear.

    Link to this
  93. 93. CarefulReview 7:50 pm 05/10/2013

    @89. Cramer (5:52 pm 05/10/2013)

    “Why do you not attack the comments made by CarefulReview”

    Why are you complaining? Your behavior is well documented throughout this thread.

    On AGW:
    Cramer (2:22 am 05/8/2013) “Show me scientific evidence published in a peer-reviewed journal that AGW does not exist or is not significant.”
    CarefulReview (6:42 am 05/8/2013). There are recent academic, government-funded (i.e. “unbiased”) studies that indicate the IPCC’s projections are higher than the data supports. (http://tinyurl.com/cqnv7xk ) I trust you’ll accept that publication is sufficiently reliable to serve as an acceptable proxy for the raw data.
    Here is another link to an article about other science discounting – not dismissing – AGW. (http://tinyurl.com/d9hfdlv )
    Cramer (1:20 pm 05/8/2013) “You need to read the Economist news articles more closely.”
    Cramer (6:10 pm 05/8/2013) “What argument are you attempting to make?”

    On Modeling:
    Cramer (1:20 pm 05/8/2013) “Why not show me a model that accounts for 20th century GW that does not require the added CO2 in the atmosphere.”
    Gale Hawk (2:17 pm 05/8/2013) “The role of solar forcing upon climate change by B. van Geel, O.M. Raspopov, H. Renssen, J. van der Plicht, V.A. Dergachev, H.A.J. Meijer”
    “The Milky Way Galaxy’s Spiral Arms and Ice-Age Epochs and the Cosmic Ray Connection By Physicist Nir Shaviv”
    “Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate”
    “A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates”
    Cramer (6:10 pm 05/8/2013) “What you provided was a straw man argument.”

    On redefining the meanings of words:
    Cramer (6:10 pm 05/8/2013) “The science of statistics”
    Definition of statistics http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statistics

    Link to this
  94. 94. macuser 9:03 pm 05/10/2013

    CarefulReview,

    My apologies if I quoted you in place of someone else.

    Link to this
  95. 95. CarefulReview 9:13 pm 05/10/2013

    @92. macuser

    NP. No one’s perfect. At least you acknowledge the mistake.

    Link to this
  96. 96. Gale Hawk 9:18 pm 05/10/2013

    Cramer,

    I drive everyone nuts because i can not be pigeon holed.

    Believe me I have spent a lot of time trying to explain the concept that back radiation does not violate the 2nd law of thermo. to ‘Slayers’ Unfortunately a lot of them have a very shaky grasp on physics.

    Are the big drug companies hiding a cure for cancer? I do not think so either but I do know that there is a blood test that will tell you if you have cancer and it has been around since the 1970s. This is straight from the mouth of a top cancer Doctor in Germany (1974) and later confirmed by my Mom’s doctor in the USA. (My parents died of cancer.)

    I also know in the early sixties a researcher came up with a method to ‘arrest’ rheumatoid arthritis. The reason I know is because my family doctor was one of his guinea pigs and it WORKED. The Doctor was not in the USA and wanted to have it approved by the FDA. My doctor was very active in the battle as his liaison and even went on ‘The Joe Pyne Show’ to talk about the ‘cure’ I was a kid so I do not remember much more than that except the doctors were unsuccessful in getting the FDA to allow testing.

    More recently I talked to a research vet at Fort-Dodge. He told me the FDA refused to give Fort-Dodge permission to work on a West Nile vaccine at a seminar I attended. Later the FDA did grant permission and there is now a vaccine for horses.

    There is certainly a revolving door between government the corporations and the lobbyists. That is no secret. Add information like I just mentioned stir well and you get some wild stories running around the internet.

    The mercury-based preservative thiomersal in vaccines contributing to the development of autism FRAUD certainly hasn’t help matters. Nor did the Baxter SNAFU where they sent vaccines contaminated with live H5N1 avian flu virus to 18 countries before it was caught.

    As far as a “New World Order” goes I linked to a quote from the top dog at the World Trade Organization who wrote and posted an article on the internet that flat out stated that in the 1930s the decision was made by the then heads of states to move toward ‘Global Governance’ Does this make sense? Yes, if for no other reason that multiple laws and borders are a royal pain in the rear for the international corporations. Throw-in nuclear weapons and it makes even more sense. However it does not mean that is the best thing for the little guy.

    Do governments, politicians and corporations lie and try to manipulate people? Of course. Luckily now a days with the internet we have a half way decent chance of untangling what is really going on if we are careful.

    Link to this
  97. 97. Cramer 1:33 am 05/11/2013

    Backslider,

    What is science or is “not science?” You said forecasting the future is not science. What about predicting the future? What makes it “not science?” Is it about the “future” (i.e. not the past or present) or is it about uncertainty that makes it “not science?”

    Link to this
  98. 98. CarefulReview 6:43 am 05/11/2013

    @97. Cramer (1:33 am 05/11/2013)

    “What is science or is “not science?””

    natural science : noun
    any of the sciences (as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena
    http://tinyurl.com/cpfz5lv

    Statistics : noun
    a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data
    http://tinyurl.com/7t78p77

    Link to this
  99. 99. Backslider 9:11 am 05/11/2013

    @Cramer – ‘Is it about the “future” (i.e. not the past or present) or is it about uncertainty that makes it “not science?”’

    Do you have comprehension problems or what? How can a prediction of the future be falsified? It cannot, therefore it is not science. Statistics are a tool used by scientists, yes, however the actual science is not the statistics (please refer to my comment re. the Hadron Collider).

    Link to this
  100. 100. Backslider 9:35 am 05/11/2013

    @Cramer – “How can a prediction of the future be falsified? It cannot, therefore it is not science.”

    Let me just qualify that statement, so you don’t get too confused:

    I can make a prediction – “next Wednesday in Seattle it will rain 5 inches”. There is no way to falsify this, until of course Wednesday comes around.

    The same can be said for the now thoroughly debunked global warming “hockey stick”. Because some of the future has now come to pass and temperature readings fall so far outside the predictions we can regard those predictions as having been falsified and any future ones not worth regarding.

    Link to this
  101. 101. geoffchambers 3:12 pm 05/11/2013

    rkipling #78
    The blogs cited in the article as having linked to the survey are all what the authors call”pro-science” blogs, that is to say they support the orthodox “catastrophic” view of man-made global warming.
    You don’t need a defined method for determining if a blog is “denier” or “skeptic”. It’s done for you by the mainstream media and the “pro-science” blogs, including the author of this article. It’s not complicated. Anyone who questions the IPCC orthodoxy is a “denier” or “skeptic”.
    You say: “A study this sloppy wouldn’t get published in any other respected scientific journals I can think of.” That’s what I thought. I was wrong. A study even sloppier, and diffamatory to boot, was published by Lewandowsky in Frontiers in Personality Science. Other articles even sloppier have been published by Dr Swami, the expert on conspiratorial ideation who edited and reviewed the second Lewandowsky article. I have given a cogent and I hope definitive criticism of his article on the appreciation of female buttocks (another of Dr Swami’s specialisations) at
    http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/lews-guru-and-the-science-of-a-beautiful-you/

    Link to this
  102. 102. geoffchambers 3:47 pm 05/11/2013

    Cramer #79
    You say:
    “Regarding CAGW could you define catastrophic conclusions? A definition would only have value if it included the climate sensitivity specifically due to CO2 (i.e. please specify the temperature change due to a doubling of CO2)”.
    I dispute your claim that “a definition would only have value if it included the climate sensitivity specifically due to CO2”. The climate sensitivity due to a doubling of CO2 is pretty widely accepted as being of the order of 0.7°C, isn’t it? i.e. roughly the temperature rise experienced in the century before CO2 kicked in.
    But that’s not the point. Catastrophe is in the eye of the beholder. And the CAGW beholders are largely to be found in the developed world, with economic and population growth close to zero, as they observe a developing world experiencing an economic growth of 4-9% p.a.
    I’d define “catastrophic conclusions” as ones which require us to renounce cheap coal and gas in favour of expensive, unreliable wind and solar energy. But this takes us far from Lewandowsky and his proposition that those of us who doubt the wisdom of Dr Pachauri and Professor Mann are batsh*t loonies who believe Prince Philip murdered his daughter-in-law.
    If you’re really interested in learning more on the spectacular science of Professor Lewandowsky (who has just been awarded a medal by the Royal Society for his services to science) see
    http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/category/stephan-lewandowsky/

    Link to this
  103. 103. Cramer 4:09 pm 05/11/2013

    CarefulReview,

    You like to refer to Merriam-Webster. You looked up statistics and saw that Merriam-Webster defined it as a “branch of mathematics.” This was proof to you that statistics is not a science. However, you forgot to look up mathematics to see that Merriam-Webster defines it as a “science.”

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mathematics

    ——–

    Backslider,

    You got one part right. Science does “require falsifiability and testability.” However, it is about falsifiable and testable predictions and explanations. Yes, you have to wait until Wednesday to be able to falsify your weather prediction, but it was still falsifiable.

    Science is primarily about prediction. When an apple falls from the tree, can we predict when it will hit the ground? What if we fail in that prediction because we did not correctly estimate the gravitational constant? Do we not try again? Or do we simply call it “not science.” I guess it was too bad for Isaac Newton, because his theories of motion could not predict the orbit of Mercury.

    Search for the word predict (which will obviously also give the word prediction, predictions, etc):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

    Link to this
  104. 104. Cramer 4:13 pm 05/11/2013

    geoffchambers said, “The climate sensitivity due to a doubling of CO2 is pretty widely accepted as being of the order of 0.7°C, isn’t it?”

    That sound similar to your statement that “97% of climate denialists accept the existence of AGW.”

    0.7 C is widely accepted by who? Could provide a peer-reviewed scientific source? So, you believe climate sensitivity sensitivity is a linear model?

    Link to this
  105. 105. Gale Hawk 5:35 pm 05/11/2013

    Cramer:
    ….0.7 C is widely accepted by who? Could provide a peer-reviewed scientific source? So, you believe climate sensitivity sensitivity is a linear model?….
    ……
    geoffchambers said, “The climate sensitivity due to a doubling of CO2 is pretty widely accepted as being of the order of 0.7°C, isn’t it?”

    The key word is DOUBLING that makes it non-linear.

    Link to this
  106. 106. Backslider 6:40 pm 05/11/2013

    @Gale Hawk ” That’s Lysenkoism, not science.”

    The anagram for Stephan Lewandowsky is “What Lysenko Spawned” :-)

    Link to this
  107. 107. rkipling 8:18 pm 05/11/2013

    geoffchambers,

    I went to the link you provided. I’m embarrassed for the groups that publish such as that. It’s so bad that I’m more saddened than outraged.

    Link to this
  108. 108. rkipling 8:24 pm 05/11/2013

    http://news.yahoo.com/comics/pearls-before-swine-slideshow/

    Link to this
  109. 109. Backslider 10:24 pm 05/11/2013

    @Cramer “You got one part right. Science does “require falsifiability and testability.” However, it is about falsifiable and testable predictions and explanations. Yes, you have to wait until Wednesday to be able to falsify your weather prediction, but it was still falsifiable.”

    I am not going to argue with you about the semantics. Clearly you have little understanding of the scientific method, I shall leave that up to you to rectify.

    Regardless, we will all be happy to see you admit that all the climate models have now been falsified. Even if you won’t admit it, its clear for all to see that you already have, whether you realize it or not.

    Link to this
  110. 110. Cramer 10:44 pm 05/11/2013

    Gale Hawk,

    Doubling is only a definition used for conceptually comparing different estimates. It is typically defined as the doubling of CO2 from a preindustrial level of 287 ppm to 574 ppm. Arrhenius was the first to consider the doubling of CO2 in 1896. Without feedbacks the sensitivity would be linear. With some types of feedback the sensitivity can become non-linear.

    Link to this
  111. 111. Backslider 11:11 pm 05/11/2013

    @Cramer – “With some types of feedback the sensitivity can become non-linear.”

    Feedbacks? Oh goody! Please tell us about feedbacks Cramer, plus whatever figure you think it for CO2 is since you clearly disagree with 0.7C for CO2 on its lonesome.

    Link to this
  112. 112. Cramer 11:26 pm 05/11/2013

    Backslider,

    Do you ever have anything of value to add?

    I will tell you about feedbacks when you tell us more about how science does not include predictions.

    Please tell us about the scientific method. Tell us specifically what in the wikipedia article that you do not agree with. Oh, I guess it was every time the word prediction was used (45 times).

    I bet your friends Gale Hawk and Geoff Chambers also believe that predictions are not a part of science.

    Link to this
  113. 113. Backslider 11:41 pm 05/11/2013

    @Cramer – “I will tell you about feedbacks when you tell us more about how science does not include predictions.”

    I am fairly certain that I did say that scientists use statistical analysis and predictions, so that is just a straw man to avoid answering. I think that you need to review the parts of the Wikipedia article that you clearly have trouble comprehending.

    To quote the article. “The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself,[discuss] supporting a theory when a theory’s predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.”

    Clearly you do not understand the meaning of “prediction” in this context. Its not that that X will happen at some point in the future. Please try harder.

    Link to this
  114. 114. Cramer 11:45 pm 05/11/2013

    Regarding the climate sensitivity, I have no opinion what it is, but I do know that it is not “widely accepted” as being of the order of 0.7°C. Widely accepted by who? Even Anthony Watts posted some research last month by Troy Master showing a likely (67%) range of 1.5–2.9 K for equilibrium climate sensitivity, and a 90% confidence interval of 1.2–5.1 K.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/18/another-paper-finds-lower-climate-sensitivity/

    Link to this
  115. 115. Backslider 11:48 pm 05/11/2013

    @Cramer – here is another one for you:

    “The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct”

    Please tell the World how an experiment can be conducted to falsify or verify a prediction for atmospheric temperature in the future? That is why it is not science young lad.

    Link to this
  116. 116. Cramer 11:51 pm 05/11/2013

    Backslider,

    If you were “fairly certain that [you] did say that scientists use statistical analysis and predictions,” you would be able to provide the quote from one of your comments above.

    Here’s what you did say, “All we have is climate modelling, with secret code and manipulated data – this is statistical analysis, not science.”

    and

    “forecasting the future is not science.”

    Link to this
  117. 117. Cramer 12:02 am 05/12/2013

    And I forgot this gem said by Backslider,

    “How can a prediction of the future be falsified? It cannot, therefore it is not science.”

    Link to this
  118. 118. Backslider 12:13 am 05/12/2013

    @Cramer – I thought that I suggested that you try harder?

    Here are some things I said that you appear to have missed:

    “There is a big difference between scientific evidence and statistics – just ask any particle physicist. Statistics are a tool, not evidence.”

    “I will say it again: Statistics are a scientific tool. They help scientists to see where they should look for things. They are not, however, scientific evidence.”

    “I have already told you what I am talking about when I say “science”. This is not a point for semantic argument. In that context, statistical forecasting is NOT science.”

    “Statistics are a tool used by scientists, yes, however the actual science is not the statistics (please refer to my comment re. the Hadron Collider).”

    Please do try harder. Now, you were saying about “forcings”?

    Link to this
  119. 119. Backslider 12:15 am 05/12/2013

    @Cramer – This also:

    “While particle physicists also use statistics and formulate THEORIES based on them, they use experimentation to confirm those theories. What do you suppose the Large Hadron Collider is? “

    Link to this
  120. 120. Cramer 12:22 am 05/12/2013

    Backslider,

    You have it backwards. Particle physicists do not formulate their theories based on statistics. They use statistics to analyze the results of their experiments (such as at the Large Hadron Collider).

    Link to this
  121. 121. Backslider 12:28 am 05/12/2013

    @Cramer – No, you have it backwards. Scientists use experiments to confirm their theories.

    None of which have ANYTHING to do with predicting the future.

    Now, please move either forward or along.

    Link to this
  122. 122. Cramer 12:35 am 05/12/2013

    Backslider,

    You seem not to understand that there exist uncertainty in the results of all experiments (i.e. the evidence). It takes a lot of data to reach a statistical significance at the level of 5 sigma at the Large Hadron Collider. This is statistics. There would be no confirmation of their theories without the statistics.

    Link to this
  123. 123. Backslider 1:35 am 05/12/2013

    @Cramer – “There would be no confirmation of their theories without the statistics.”

    This is not confirmation of their theories. It is only telling them that their theories are likely correct. They remain theories until they actually find what they are looking for.

    None of which has anything whatsoever to do with climate modelling.

    Are you willing yet to admit that all climate models to date have been falsified?

    Link to this
  124. 124. Cramer 3:24 am 05/12/2013

    Backslider,

    Sorry, but no theory can ever be completely certain.

    In your very first post on SciAm under the name Backslider (3:52 pm 05/7/2013, comment #19 above) you said,

    “Skeptics only ask for a very simple thing: scientific proof…”

    Sorry, there is no such thing as scientific proof.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

    Read and learn. Wikipedia is a good place to start. However, I would not recommend that you attempt to become a scientist. You will never find the certainty that you are looking for.

    I would bet in your case that climate change “skepticism” and conspiracy theory beliefs are not a “productive pairing” for you. Which is a good thing.

    Link to this
  125. 125. CarefulReview 7:15 am 05/12/2013

    @103 Cramer (4:09 pm 05/11/2013)

    Given your claim to success, I found it odd that you didn’t post the definition, so I followed your link:

    the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations

    So the link you provided shows that Statistics is used as a tool as Backslider has repeatedly pointed out, and is not the Science you claimed it was.

    It was only a matter of time until that mistake of yours returned to bite you.
    Nice try at cherry picking your data though – as denialists so often do. Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth.

    Link to this
  126. 126. Gale Hawk 7:26 am 05/12/2013

    Gale Hawk,

    Doubling is only a definition used for conceptually comparing different estimates. It is typically defined as the doubling of CO2 from a preindustrial level of 287 ppm to 574 ppm. Arrhenius was the first to consider the doubling of CO2 in 1896. Without feedbacks the sensitivity would be linear. With some types of feedback the sensitivity can become non-linear.
    …………………

    What????
    “Doubling” has nothing to do with feedbacks. It has to do with saturation of a waveband and The Beer-Lambert Law.

    Link to this
  127. 127. CarefulReview 7:27 am 05/12/2013

    @123. Backslider (1:35 am 05/12/2013)

    “Are you willing yet to admit that all climate models to date have been falsified?”

    Denialists seldom admit they can make a mistake, and are even less likely to admit that they have made (another) mistake.

    Link to this
  128. 128. CarefulReview 8:08 am 05/12/2013

    @122 Cramer (12:35 am 05/12/2013)

    “There would be no confirmation of their theories without the statistics.”

    As you seem to be coming, ever so slowly to the realization that Statistics is, as a mathematical discipline, used as a tool in Science (a very important tool used in a large number of sciences), I thought I’d provide an example of how it is used in the HEP field of the LHC.

    Here is an example for your review: “Introduction to Statistical Issues in Particle Physics”
    (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C030908/papers/MOAT002.pdf )

    The distinction between the natural sciences of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology (each used in the study of AGW), and the mathematical tools (one of which is Statistics) used to analyze the data from the science experiments (what is the temperature, what is the distance between tree rings, what is the concentration of X, etc.) becomes apparent once you categorize these intellectually distinct entities correctly.

    Link to this
  129. 129. CurrentOutlook 12:14 pm 05/12/2013

    Cramer: “What do you think is meant by reaching a significance of 5-sigma when searching for the Higgs boson?”

    “I would not recommend that you attempt to become a scientist. You will never find the certainty that you are looking for.”

    You’re hiding in semantic word games gin. Your 5-sigma = Backslider’s proof.

    Link to this
  130. 130. Backslider 12:34 pm 05/12/2013

    @Cramer – “Sorry, but no theory can ever be completely certain.”

    That is a philosophical question.

    So, you believe that there is no such thing as reality.

    I on the other hand am far more practical. I know for certain that 1+1=2. I feel sorry for you.

    I also feel sorry for you that you feel the need for all this side stepping and not to address the pressing questions at hand. All climate models have now been falsified, have they not?

    Link to this
  131. 131. Cramer 4:45 pm 05/12/2013

    CurrentOutlook,

    5-sigma is NOT Backslider’s proof. His response to my comment about 5-sigma was this:

    “This is not confirmation of their theories. It is only telling them that their theories are likely correct. They remain theories until they actually find what they are looking for.”

    ———-

    Gale Hawk,

    I did not claim that doubling had anything to do with feedbacks. I said doubling was purely a definition used to compare different estimates (whether or not those estimates account for feedback effects). The sensitivity could have been defined as the change in temperature resulting in 100 ppm increase of CO2. Do you believe there would be the same temperature change if CO2 concentrations change from 3000 ppm to 6000 ppm as there is for 300 ppm to 600 ppm? The best we know from the Paleozoic era, no temperature change resulted from a drop from 6000 ppm to 3000 ppm CO2. Other factors dominated.

    Here’s the best I could find from Judith Curry:

    http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/

    Link to this
  132. 132. CarefulReview 6:57 pm 05/12/2013

    @116. Cramer (11:51 pm 05/11/2013)

    “Backslider,
    If you were “fairly certain that [you] did say that scientists use statistical analysis and predictions,” you would be able to provide the quote from one of your comments above.”

    This is probably the post you overlooked …

    Backslider @57: “Statistics are a scientific tool. They help scientists to see where they should look for things. They are not, however, scientific evidence. “

    Another mistake – not that you’ll admit it.

    Link to this
  133. 133. CurrentOutlook 7:17 pm 05/12/2013

    Cramer: “5-sigma is NOT Backslider’s proof. His response to my comment about 5-sigma was this:

    “This is not confirmation of their theories. It is only telling them that their theories are likely correct. They remain theories until they actually find what they are looking for.” “

    That’s not true. That was Backslider’s @123 response to a different post of yours. Here it is, including the quote you conveniently edited out:

    123. Backslider 1:35 am 05/12/2013

    @Cramer – “There would be no confirmation of their theories without the statistics.”

    This is not confirmation of their theories. It is only telling them that their theories are likely correct. They remain theories until they actually find what they are looking for.

    Why are you making stuff up?

    Link to this
  134. 134. Cramer 7:39 pm 05/12/2013

    CurrentOutlook,

    It’s all in writing.

    123. Backslider 1:35 am 05/12/2013

    was responding to

    122. Cramer 12:35 am 05/12/2013

    “You seem not to understand that there exist uncertainty in the results of all experiments (i.e. the evidence). It takes a lot of data to reach a statistical significance at the level of 5 sigma at the Large Hadron Collider. This is statistics. There would be no confirmation of their theories without the statistics.”

    ——
    CurrentOutlook,
    Your comments make little sense and are most likely made to elicit an emotional response. You are now on my ignore list with CarefulReview and Backslider. You three are possibly the same person. You all behave similar to G. Karst.

    Link to this
  135. 135. CurrentOutlook 8:24 pm 05/12/2013

    @133. CurrentOutlook (7:17 pm 05/12/2013)

    “Cramer … Why are you making stuff up?”

    When denialists run out of intellectual maneuvering room, they’ll engage in that type of behavior also.

    Link to this
  136. 136. Backslider 8:26 pm 05/12/2013

    @Cramer – “You are now on my ignore list with CarefulReview and Backslider. You three are possibly the same person. ”

    Ahh, the scoundrel runs and hides when he realizes he has lost all arguments…. with some nice conspiracy ideation to boot!

    Link to this
  137. 137. Bremsstrahlung 8:28 pm 05/12/2013

    @134. Cramer

    “CurrentOutlook,
    Your comments make little sense and are most likely made to elicit an emotional response. You are now on my ignore list with CarefulReview and Backslider. You three are possibly the same person. You all behave similar to G. Karst.”

    Do you always ignore people who show that you are wrong?

    Link to this
  138. 138. BookSpine 8:34 pm 05/12/2013

    @134 Cramer

    “You are now on my ignore list with CarefulReview and Backslider. You three are possibly the same person. You all behave similar to G. Karst.”

    LOL! Now it is a conspiracy! Isn’t that what denialists accuse their opponents of being members of?

    Link to this
  139. 139. CurrentOutlook 8:41 pm 05/12/2013

    Cramer:

    Yes, you are making stuff up. @123 Backslider actually quoted what he was responding to:

    …………… 123. Backslider 1:35 am 05/12/2013
    @Cramer – “There would be no confirmation of their theories without the statistics.”

    This is not confirmation of their theories. It is only telling them that their theories are likely correct. They remain theories until they actually find what they are looking for ……………

    You’re just pretending now.

    Link to this
  140. 140. abolitionist 8:47 pm 05/12/2013

    @134 Cramer

    “CurrentOutlook,
    Your comments make little sense and are most likely made to elicit an emotional response.”

    CurrentOutlook’s comments make all the sense in the world. You’ve been caught out again!

    Link to this
  141. 141. Backslider 8:52 pm 05/12/2013

    Watch out Cramer – people are actually reading all of this and you have lost all credibility. Its here for all to see forever.

    Link to this
  142. 142. CarefulReview 8:54 pm 05/12/2013

    @138. BookSpine (8:34 pm 05/12/2013)

    “LOL! Now it is a conspiracy! Isn’t that what denialists accuse their opponents of being members of?”

    Dismissing the data or observation by suggesting opponents are involved in “a conspiracy to suppress the truth” is the #1 sign of a denialist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

    Link to this
  143. 143. Chryses 9:07 pm 05/12/2013

    OK! OK! Folks, even if Cramer is making stuff up, even if he is in denial, all that doesn’t change the facts. CO2 has now passed the 400 ppm level, and is expected to continue to climb.

    Link to this
  144. 144. Backslider 11:40 pm 05/12/2013

    @Chryses – “CO2 has now passed the 400 ppm level, and is expected to continue to climb.”

    Good, the biosphere loves it! Recent studies show that CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere has caused significant greening globally. Its a win.

    Co2 does not cause “global warming”, so don’t worry yourself about that. All the alarmist climate models have now been falsified… they’ll still keep screaming for a while, until their funding finally dries up.

    Link to this
  145. 145. Chryses 6:07 am 05/13/2013

    Backslider (144),

    “… Good, the biosphere loves it! Recent studies show that CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere has caused significant greening globally. Its a win …”

    Only up to a point. Yes, it is true that the Greenhouse Effect produced by the CO2 in the atmosphere prevents the Earth from freezing (.http://tinyurl.com/bnyjjqc ), but there can be too much of a good thing.

    How much is “enough”, and when does is become “too much”?

    Link to this
  146. 146. rkipling 8:52 am 05/13/2013

    For those of you who may be new to these blog posts, allow me to offer you some commenting tips on how to really impress readers and other commenters.

    1. Be sure to tell us or imply how intelligent people who agree with you are, and how intelligent you are by association. This is always an effective strategy.

    2. A corollary to (1) is that those who disagree with you are, of course, uneducated, ignorant, stupid, and quite possibly clinically insane. This is always a (your) crowd pleaser.

    3. State that only you and your ilk actually know/understand science.

    4. Oh, and this is very important, mention all the published authors who agree with you.

    Follow these basic tenets and you are sure to feel superior to all those dolts on the other side of whatever issue is being discussed.

    Link to this
  147. 147. Backslider 2:35 pm 05/13/2013

    @Chryses – “Yes, it is true that the Greenhouse Effect produced by the CO2 in the atmosphere prevents the Earth from freezing”

    CO2 is only a trace gas in our atmosphere. The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor.

    CO2 is only able to absorb a very narrow band of infra red radiation (much less than water vapor) and this happens within the first 100 meters of the earth’s surface, mainly by water vapor. Because there is only a limited amount of infra red radiation that CO2 is able to absorb it is already saturated. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere does not mean that more IR is absorbed.

    Warmists argue that extra CO2 in the troposphere prevents IR from being radiated so readily into space. This theory requires that there be a tropospheric “hot spot” in the atmosphere as a result of this process. This hot spot cannot be found, which falsifies the theory.

    Warmists also claim that “back radiation” from CO2 cause more evaporation of water, thus causing a warming “feedback”. The fact is that human activity pumps many billions of tons of water vapor into the atmosphere than supposed CO2 back radiation ever could. Does anybody say that water vapor is a “pollutant” as they do with CO2?

    @Chryses – “How much is “enough”, and when does is become “too much”?”

    We are on the lower end of the CO2 that is required in the atmosphere to sustain life. Less than 150ppm and all life forms dependent on the carbon/oxygen cycle (most) would die. Its not going to become too much.

    Link to this
  148. 148. stewgreen 11:14 am 06/4/2013

    What an appalling article.
    - It and most of the comments are a terrible indication of the state of CRITICAL THINKING in 2013 ..with exception of @CRAMER @macuser
    CHECKLIST you can quickly see the item is bunk
    1. the doctored photo power station TRICK *
    2. It uses the term “denialist” *
    3. And the name on the New Paper is Stephan Lewandowsky – 2012 Paper “basically RETRACTED”, & in the 2013 paper is in a similar situation Retraction Watch

    * Both of these TRICKs show the writer is a poor debater & are a form of AD HOMINEM attack attacking a perceived other side rather that making their own case on facts.
    It would seem that the author perceives the climate debate as TRIBAL ..with a Good & a Bad side ..so as you can see who is exhibiting TribalISM. The CONSPIRACY THEORY behaviour ..it is him . This PROJECTION of your own flaws onto perceived opponents is quite typical of people in the climate debate who are CERTAIN beyond EVIDENCE.
    - As @MacUser said We love Science, but Science isn’t science when it is JUST “peer reviewed” it is Science when it is VALIDATED.
    - Ask yourself “could I be trapped in a cult ?” ..then SNAP out of it face up to the difficulty that the world is not B & W simple, but rather Full Colour Complex
    ..So start to think a critically again and help build science.

    Link to this
  149. 149. stewgreen 11:20 am 06/4/2013

    sorry I mixed up the name of the good commenters ..there were thankfully more than I thought.. GOOD JOB

    Link to this
  150. 150. Raymond DeBrane 4:57 pm 08/20/2013

    JimmyTubes sounds like an oil and coal paid climate denier, either that, or he is one of the good people who have been brainwashed by such.

    There must be something right with me because I believe in man made global warming. I also believe 9/11 was an inside job. Micheal Ruppert has a video up on YouTube where he accuses Dick Cheney of being one of the prime orchestrators of the downing of the trade centers. In another video called Collapse, he says he doesn’t deal in conspiracy theories, only conspiracy facts.

    Anyway, the real global warming conspiracy is that the oil and coal industry have put out a lot of disifo, paid a lot of disinfo artists, and have sunk vast summs of money, millions upon millions of $$$ into a climate denial campaign to confuse the public and also to pay off Republican politicians to kill any greenhouse gas legislation and to deny the climate science to their constituents. And the conservative media has also been paid off to convince people that climate change is a hoax and to convince them to vote Republican, and the brainwashed faithful don’t get it that the Republican Party is the go-to party for big business, the Dems less so, but getting worse and worse all the time. The Dems are now nothing more than GOP light.

    Vote for the Green Party if you want to clean up the global warming problem. Even the Dems don’t seem to be of much help, but at least they are not climate deniers.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Special Universe

Get the latest Special Collector's edition

Secrets of the Universe: Past, Present, Future

Order Now >

X

Email this Article

X