Talk:Global warming denialism/Archive5

"...skeptics need to somehow attack the final leg of the argument."
This is true of most of the climate cranks, though some of the more high-level deniers have a final trick up their sleeves. What they do is accept high levels of human contribution and then root around for some kind of magical negative "natural" feedback that cancels out all other feedbacks. Claiming CO2 saturation and massive negative feedback from clouds are probably two of the most common of these tactics. Either that or concoct a spectacularly Rube Goldberg-esque argument like Svensmark's cosmic ray obsession. All of that might be a little too far above the basics of the article, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The trouble with the feedback mechanisms is that they're not understood well enough yet to say exactly what does what. Some pollutants do invoke radiative forcing in the opposite direction - except CO2 doesn't do that, it's primarily sulphur oxides that are involved with that an we're stripping those out of our exhausts because of their association acidic rain. Given that climate change denialists have a strong track record of not knowing the first thing about climatology, whenever they invoke more complicated mechanisms such as the feedback loops I'm inclined to ignore them by default. ADK ...I'll liberate yourdenialists alfalfa!  13:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As with all denialist/conspiracy arguments there are a vast number of contradictory ones. The intro covers the standard position of most of them but there will always be some who are a bit smarter. But it's a good point which should be included somewhere in the article.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @ADK: True to some extent, but the problem is that this denialist argument generally requires a massive unknown negative feedback for it to work. On a side note, there was an interesting study published recently showing that China is de facto geo-engineering through massive sulfur emissions. Also, you have to take into account that not all aerosols are a negative feedback, such as black carbon. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The IPCC should have updated it since I last studied it officially, but the it's the cooling forces that have the largest error bars. It's sort of known, but the magnitude is pretty much up in the air. But the reason I'd be against assuming that 1) such a mechanism could balance out the warming and 2) that we could exploit a mechanism intentionally (i.e., geo-engineering) is that there is almost certainly something we've missed that will go tits up. We release particulates into the air, form clouds, increase the albedo of the Earth and lower the temperature back down. Everyone cheers, but then the side-effect is that the oceans acidify altering their rate of CO2 update, heat capacity, salinity and the temperatures go out of control over the course of a century anyway. The precision for which we need to be able to model and predict the climate in order to do that, and minimise unintended consequences is probably going to be forever beyond us. Trying to correct a fuck up with a supposedly precise fuck up (a.k.a., the Bjørn Lomborg method) is beyond insane. ADK ...I'll ablate your bathtub! 07:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but that's where paleoclimate data comes into the picture. Negative feedbacks (or aerosols in particular) may have large error bars (and remember some aerosol forcing is positive as well), but this magical negative feedback that will swoop in and save the day doesn't exist in the paleoclimate record. This is why the high-level denialists have to use models that include variables and feedbacks that are little more than ass-pulls, besides the fact that they know it will likely go over the low-information crowd's heads anyway. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This also reminds me that there are the mega-cranks at the other end of the scale who deny the greenhouse effect or contend that "there's no such thing as global average temperature." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is the blip at the end of the last ice age, although that was owing to things regarding the ocean currents rather than atmospheric conditions directly, it was a feedback thing. In fact, it's the feedback thing that says global warming could actually drop worldwide temperatures dramatically. But generally, yes, it's a complete ass-pull all based on a few models - but the fact is we don't have models good enough to even want to risk it doing nothing. ADK ...I'll forage your asparagus! 16:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Coroprate shills
Whoever wrote this is. While I recognize that it has been hot recently, Global Warming is made up by "green" companies. What does "green" even mean? Exactly, nothing. It's a scam. Talsley (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Green means energy efficient (as in, light bulbs that don't blow most of their power giving off heat) and with minimal environmental impact (solar panels as opposed to smog blowing factories/recycling instead of massive dumpsters). And I must say there is far more money in being a shill for oil companies than there is in working for green companies or being a climatologist.--  15:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes oil has more money. And I recycle. But labels like "green jobs" and going green are meaningless. Talsley (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't. A green job is a job in the green industry.  Going green means transitioning to green technology.  Kind of like with the whole light bulb scandal (which you may not have heard of if you don't live in the States).  The old model of incandescent bulb gave off most of its energy as heat.  New light bulbs do not do this, and are thus more efficient.  Getting a hybrid car is also green.  These are examples.--  15:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But "green industry" is meaningless, it is whatever the corporatist and communists say it means! And incandescents were much better, they weren't made of mercury! Talsley (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just told you what green industry means. It does not mean whatever.  If ExxonMobil tries calling itself green while destroying the landscape and investing in climate change denialism, not only would no one believe them, but the environmental community would actively decry them.  As for mercury in the new light bulbs, you should be fine so long as you don't try eating them.--  15:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But what if I drop one? The EPA declares my house to be a toxic waste site! Talsley (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Just mop it up and move on.--  15:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it does! I heard it on the radio! And that congressman from Texas, I saw his speech about it on the tv! Talsley (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. You're a parodist.  Shame on me for taking this long to figure it out.--  15:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What? Yes, shame on you, but for being a moron and believing what you see on tv. Talsley (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, as opposed to the radio?-- 15:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Most television is controlled by liberals, except Fox and the local stations. But radio is free of their influence! Talsley (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the word "green" has been taken over by some marketeers, in these cases it can be called "grenwash". But that has nothing to do with the facts of global warming. In fact, the word "green" by itself doesn't even appear in the article. --BobSpring is sprung! 16:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. M, if global warming were true, why do so many scientists deny it? If it was happening, why did climategate occur? It's a fraud for increased regulation, and the "green" companies donate money to Democrat campaign funds so they call sell their products. Talsley (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I'm having difficulty in believing you are serious.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You fool, you know it's a eugenics plot by Maurice Strong. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. M, you still haven't answered me. You can't, can you? 17:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're trying too hard. :-) Are you familiar with our article on Poe's law?--BobSpring is sprung! 17:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I will read it. Talsley (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So. Rather than answering someone, you accuse them of jokeing. Talsley (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The science on the greenhouse effect and global warming is fairly well understood, and the accusation that the conspiracy is on the green side is incoherent. As I've explained to many a denier, it requires not one but several fields of science to be thoroughly corrupt; in addition, the alleged policy goals of the conspirators are entirely at odds with most of the people actually promoting environmentalism. On top of all that, the return on investment for the conspirators seems... unambitious. There's a lot more money to be made in joining up with the polluters. In light of all that, why should we give any credibility at all to the denialist view? EVDebs (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because their environmentalism is simply a cover to implement totalitarianism. The liberal indoctrination at universities has been going on since the 1920s. Talsley (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So your answer is to reassert something I already told you is incorrect (re: policy goals)? And I'm supposed to take you seriously why? I don't really think you belong on this wiki. EVDebs (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is "constructive dialogue" is it not? You being named for a communist is par for the course, and I am here to turn this place to a rational perspective. Talsley (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hang on a second, you say that it is disputed by scientists, then that science is corrupt. Cognitive dissonance much? Robothead.svg dot.svg 17:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, Eugene Debs was a socialist, not a big-C Communist (although quite a few of his allies were), and second, there's a certain irony to my choice of name since he was a fan of the woo. Third, you're not allowed to call yourself rational if you're going to ignore scientific data for political reasons, which is exactly what global warming denial is. Finally, misrepresenting peoples' policy goals without actually trying to prove they're lying about what they think is unacceptable, and Red-baiting is as much a sign of losing an argument as Godwinning. EVDebs (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Socialism is a euphemism for communism. Talsley (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Talsley, it's not. Communism as Marx envisioned it is a form of left-wing anarchism that was to be built by the people under a socialist government, and Soviet communism as we know it was frankly an epic failure by Marx's standards. Neither is inherently totalitarian and a good case can be made that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the Kims were/are communists in name only, especially since Marx was strongly pro-democracy. Do try to make sure you know what you're talking about before making statements like that. EVDebs (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that what they're teaching in history class today? Talsley (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No. History book authors think kids are too stupid to understand things like that. And, once again, Red-baiting is a sign of having utterly lost the argument. Watch it. EVDebs (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't teach history in schools anymore. The Reds replaced it with Mao's Little Red Book. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't crack wise at me. And given the Chinese control of our economy, its only a matter of time. Talsley (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Talsley, you've just earned yourself a shiny new troll block. Have fun with that. EVDebs (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Transparent sock/parodist is transparent. ADK ...I'll confuddle your daffodil! 18:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Have we been visited by the Monckton sock? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Al Gore and Gore's Law
Come to think of it, the entire denialist argument revolves around him (his private jet, the oversized house, whatever). If there was a different spokesman, we would have had progress on this years ago. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it really doesn't, and they'd still have Climategate to yap on about besides. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Climategate is almost entirely refuted. Once they realize they can't use it anymore, they'll go straight back to Gore. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no "almost" about that, but since when has that stopped them? ADK ...I'll drink your gun! 04:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, no I'm pretty sure there are denialist "arguments" that have nothing to do with Gore. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. A quick glance at "Watt's Up with That?" shows a vocal and widespread opposition to the idea of AGW that has nothing to do with Gore.-- 05:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Watts indulges in Al Gore jokes every so often, though his main obsession is with his self-debunked Surface Stations project. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

weasel words - some?
Our text under scientific consensus currently says: I think we need to identify who these "some" are. I don't see it in the references - though I may have looked too briefly at the links.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No national or international scientific body rejects anthropogenic global warming theory. Though some have taken non-committal stances ...
 * Mostly petroleum geologist organizations, notably AAPG which took the denialist position until 2007. Here's the relevant section from Wikipedia. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Make sure we include our famous tumbleweed somewhere in the article, you know, on scientific bodies that reject the theory. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But the Heartland Institute is a perfectly respectable scientific organization! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK - but reading the wikipedia link the AAPG no longer holds that position and anyway claim no authority in the field. So it's still unclear who this "some" are.
 * Let's reword it from- No national or international scientific body rejects anthropogenic global warming theory. to "No national or international scientific body with experience in the area rejects the facts of anthropogenic global warming. and eliminate the "some" caveat. --BobSpring is sprung! 07:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some say this article has weasel words-- 07:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What about having the "with experience in the area" in brackets? Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 07:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And put "impartial" in these somewhere too.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Even the petroleum geologists have switched to non-comittal, but I think that some local geological associations still deny it. What is it with geologists, anyways?  They're like the new engineers, lol--  08:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So perhaps "No impartial national or international scientific body (with experience in the area) rejects the facts of anthropogenic global warming."? Or were you thinking of having the "impartial" somewhere else? Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 08:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with that but we might want to wait for some comments first. For some reason "some" editors seem to be partial to the existing wording - let's give them a chance to comment.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How about we find a list online, link to it, and say most scientific organizations across the globe accept global warming as fact -- 08:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposed rewording is far more weaselly than what's written. (Who are these "impartial" scientific organizations?) You seem to be confusing the word "non-committal" with "rejects" or "denies" when it means "has not endorsed or rejected." No national or international academy or scientific body explicitly rejects AGW. AAPG was the last one, which changed its position from denialist to non-committal (that was even my point in bringing them up). So the statement is true: None of them rejects AGW, though some (like AAPG) have neither accepted nor rejected AGW. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't we procure a credible list of sorts? Where did TOW get theirs?--  09:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a list of impartial scientific organisations in the section in question.
 * What we don't have is any idea of the "some" who are, apparently, unconvinced.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Import from wikipedia?
This page isn't great, particularly the intro. It really needs an import of text from wikipedia, or just a link to same, because there isn't much point reproducing here what they have there William M. Connolley (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If we can improve ours that's fine but please see RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?. Cheers.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we certainly need info about global warming, but it's also a question of the focus of the article. Is it content about the evidence of global warming or the denialism about it?  I would also prefer to have one GW denialism article that subsumes Global warming conspiracy theory. steriletalk 14:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I kinda disagree. The existing article is plenty big enough.  If anything it needs to be cut up.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that WMC is an actual professional no-foolin' expert in this stuff, having him go the hack on this article can only be good for it, and us. Possibly he'll lure the denialists here and we can really have some fun. Welcome to RationalWiki, it is a very silly place - David Gerard (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I get that. But it's never made sense to me to have a separate conspiracy theory article, as conspiracy theories are a subset of denialism, which is in the middle of the global warming article.  It's mixing up issues.  steriletalk 16:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'd probably agree on most other issues, but AGW is such a massive topic that it's easier to keep the straight science separate from the conspiracies. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There conspiracy angle is definitely a different beast entirely. I'd almost say politically motivated denial was also a another angle to come at it from. But either way, these are separate to the evidence say that it is real and is a problem. Adkgraffiti.png...I'll forage your Xbox! 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, I remember you getting topic banned from Wikipedia because you're a socket-puppeting, scheming radical Global Warming activist who abused his admin privileges! Good to see your religious anti-intellectualism migrating here. :-) --192.234.246.206 (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)