Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I've removed the one below from the list of conspiracy theories. They're wacko enough without actually inventing our own:--Bobbing up 12:07, 8 November 2007 (EST)

== From the files of The Question == The Saucer People and the Reverse-vampires in conjunction with the Rand corporation are conspiring with the parents of the world to eliminate the meal of dinner. The objective is to reduce the flatulence of obese children (particularly in the United States). This will then thereby reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. We're through the looking glass here people!

That's alright[edit]

I was just using my crazy alter-ego to inject a stupid Simpsons-esque rant. The above is a slight rewording and adding to of what Milhouse states in the episode with the Simpson and Son's Rejuvinating Tonic. --Edgerunner76 12:11, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I see. But there are loads of "real" existing conspiracy theories which we could write up. Inventing our own or putting up fake ones just makes us look a little silly I think. :-) --Bobbing up 12:14, 8 November 2007 (EST)
While what I wrote in the guise of The Question was silly and stupid, there is a grain of truth. Cattle (and everyone else's to a lesser degree) flatulence is a major greenhouse gas. --Edgerunner76 12:18, 8 November 2007 (EST)
The cattle thing is actually interesting. It's not that there is "some animal" out there generating methane - it is that we have huge herds of domesticated cattle, raised for food, that are corn-fed to fatten them up. They can't digest corn very well... so the beef industry is turning fertilizer and rain into methane. Methane = bad. humanUser talk:Human 12:32, 8 November 2007 (EST)
Indeed. I seem to recall reading that there are enclosed pig farms in Holland where the methane is collected and treated as a toxic gas.--Bobbing up 12:36, 8 November 2007 (EST)
Still nothing compared to the methane buildup under the oceans produced by bacteria. One of the larger of those bubbles deciding to float to the top can be rather deadly...rather deadly indeed. 12:43, 8 November 2007 (EST)
I remember a doc (or a Nova episode or something) about new theories about Bermuda Triangle disappearances, and they suggested that shifts on the ocean floor could send methane up to the surface, changing the buoyancy of objects at the surface and causing boats and even planes to drop like a stone. I think there was some explanation tied in to that for compass anomalies during such events too, but it's been a while. Not really related to GW, but an interesting bit of trivia nonetheless. --Kels 08:41, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Are you referring to methane hydrate or something else? And let's not forget the thawing permafrost.--Bobbing up 12:54, 8 November 2007 (EST)

methane clathrate - WP's WP:Bermuda Triangle article has a bit about it - ah, those where the days, when Karajou and I were on the same side... Totnesmartin 09:04, 17 November 2007 (EST)
Ah, same thing I think.--Bobbing up 10:28, 17 November 2007 (EST)
same thing as what? Totnesmartin 12:38, 17 November 2007 (EST)
Methane hydrate. :-)--Bobbing up 12:43, 17 November 2007 (EST)
Karajou is the same thing as methane hydrate? Actually, that would explain a lot... Totnesmartin 12:49, 17 November 2007 (EST)
Perhaps we are at cross purposes. I asked Are you referring to methane hydrate or something else? the answer came: methane clathrate . Methane clathrate and Methane hydrate are the same thing. :-)--Bobbing up 13:03, 17 November 2007 (EST)

I remember an episode of Dirty Jobs where a farmer used the methane from his farm to heat and light the whole farm. --Edgerunner76 08:00, 9 November 2007 (EST)


I do belive the revert was unnecessary. 13:13, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I disagree. The purpose of this site is primarily humor. The POV served that purpose. I Eat Glue 13:15, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Oh, i am supposed to laugh at the bullshit garbage that is on this site (take Global warming for example) Well, great website then! 13:20, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Actually the purpose of our site is: 1. Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people. 2. Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas. 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. We often use humor to achieve our ends. We are not NPOV.RationalWiki--Bobbing up 13:28, 8 November 2007 (EST)
If it lasts one-hundred years it'll: qualify as a religion, will be mandatory teaching in schools, have a budget of 400 teradollars, the leader of the religion will be the one "really" in charge of the one world government, all the people who post (yes even us wandals) will be considered saints and I, (by this post), will be the first "prophet". TTR 11:17, 17 November 2007 (EST)

His Holiness versus the UN[edit]

Apropos of nothing, the whole setup of an evil genius marshalling the UN to take over the world via global warming theories, opposed by the heroic Dalai Lama, would make an awesome comic book! --Kels 08:37, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, it does paint a dramatic picture. :-) --Bobbing up 10:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Out of one, many[edit]

I fail to understand how that even makes sense. -- 20:14, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Well, your failure to understand something is no reason to continually revert something. "Out of One, Many" is the English translation of "E. Pluribus unum," which is the motto on the Great Seal of the United States. So I imagine using that title in this case is just a poetic way to point out that there are several ways to "explain" the global warming "controversy" that have sort of melded together. Or, one could go out on a limb and use the motto to link the Masonic imagery on said Great Seal to broader types of conspiracy theories, but that may be a stretch - you'll have to ask the editor who put it there in the first place. PFoster 20:20, 23 December 2007 (EST)

That was me! Thanks PF for reminding me where I stoled it from. Turns out it's even perfecter than I thought. humanUser talk:Human 21:08, 23 December 2007 (EST)


Is - "The Great Global Warming Conspiracy Theory refers to the ideas believed and propagandized by global warming denialists" not as good as

"Great Global Warming Conspiracy Theory refers to the questionable ideas bandied about by global warming denialists that global warming either isn't happening" -- 23:16, 23 December 2007 (EST)

1. The grammar in your version is horrible. Ideas are "believed in," not just "believed," and "propagandized" is kind of a clumsy word. 2. "bandied about" does a better job of saying what the article is getting at - that global warming conspiracy theories are ill-conceived and intellectually shallow. As such, they tend to be "bandied about." Clear? PFoster 23:19, 23 December 2007 (EST)

The quotation marks that are there for no reason....[edit]

Are there for a reason - to show, in a lighthearted and subtly lulzy way, how weak those "theories" (see how it works?) are. PFoster 20:46, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Attempt of Governance Over Corporations[edit]

This final snappily-titled section concluded with the paragraph below:

I'm not sure that it makes sense. Theorists of this version is pretty weird, but is it even talking about a conspiracy theory? If so - what exactly is being conspired by whom and for whose benefit?--Bobbing up 14:19, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Eh, some BON dropped that section on us, with instructions not to delete it or else!!! in the header. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:36, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Paralysing fear strikes me. I feel cold sweat running between my shoulder blades. There is dread in my water. What do you think he, she or it will do now?--Bobbing up 16:41, 28 January 2009 (EST)
This site does not negotiate with theorists, er, terrorists. Dictator.gif --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 16:45, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Wreak vengeance on us beyond our puny imaginations' ability to foresee, I would guess. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:46, 28 January 2009 (EST)
You don't get in fights with BoNs. They have powers... Stupid time Hoover! 16:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)
I'll put my tin hat on then.--Bobbing up 16:51, 28 January 2009 (EST)

What a bunch of fucking bullshit[edit]

Oh, pardon me; probably not everyone here speaks French, so apologies in advance.

Let's just say that, for starters, to even attempt comparing a lack of unanimous consent regarding (a) whether global warming is actually occurring independent of chart hockeysticks resultant of carefully massaged Russian tree-ring data courtesy of government grant leeches-for-life and automated US weather boxes no longer coated in lime whitewash and stationed the requisite distance from asphalt parking lots and air-conditioner heat vents, and (b) whether us evil polluting weebles infesting Mother Gais are responsible for it all (and not the almighty solar furnace in the sky which we yet barely understand, or the bears happily shitting in the pristine wilderness when nobody's watching, or whatever) -- to Nazi Holocaust Denial... quite possibly the most deliberately intellectually dishonest irrationality I have ever seen seriously and blatantly attempt to pretend it was the very embodiment of rationality rather than the complete and utter negation of it.

Congratulations! The Endarkenment has arrived at "Rational"Wiki, and strangled the infant in its crib. Centuries' worth of rules of logic embodied within that discipline known as the Scientific Method (which was once taught in elementary school) are fully arrived at the sewage-treatment plant after having been flushed down the toilet decades ago.

(Note: I arrived at this pathetic excuse for a topic after finding "Swastika wankers" affixed to the legend of the otherwise decent Nazism entry, and now observe such puerile infantilism is pretty much shot through the whole place. A whole hour of the one and only life I'll ever live down the drain.)-- (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[citation needed] TheCheatI run on alcohol 21:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
A) Don't blame the weather stations and B) it may all be for nothing! PS I hate hippies too. TheCheatI run on alcohol 21:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I stand by it all...but that's not really the germane issue: the fact that this article even exists, and upon such colossal hubris as to compare the sanctity of its specious position to that of the Holocaust.-- (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Where are you seeing this comparison? Is it simply that the two subjects appear in some of the same categories & navigation templates? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
That's an impressive amount of green-baiting. I think we need a new template as a mirror image for the REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!! one. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The comparason has something going for it. How's TREEE-HUGGERS!!!!, Nebs? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 22:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Ooh, nice. I think we need a Gore-related one too, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Come to think of it, why are we making a new template when nobody's used "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! yet? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 22:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll happily admit that "Swastika-waving wankers" was a failed attempt at comedy on my part. I've changed it to "notable figures". Balaam (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Succeed or fail, the attempt itself is inappropriate.
-- You cannot be simultaneously juvenile and serious.-- (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Um, no. You can be both juvenile and serious. We deal in fact-based snark here. You have a problem with that? Well, we've got a new entry for the drinking game. EVDebs (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
BON writes: "A whole hour of the one and only life I'll ever live down the drain." It took you an hour to read this article?
Anyway, I'm a bit unclear on where you think the individual factual inaccuracies are in the article. Do you think you could write a non-ranting note where you calmly point out something like "x is incorrect because of Y". We may be wrong and everything can be improved.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Considering the tired, wheezing, geriatric PRATTs the BON has spouted, I think it's safe to conclude facts are not their strong suit and you are barking up the wrong tree, Bob. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the conspiracy proven if a conspirator confesses?[edit]

-- Take it away, Peter Gleick, you mahvelous mountebank!

When internal documents from a libertarian think tank – the Heartland Institute, known for its sceptical views on climate change – were published on the internet recently, climate-change activists around the world were elated. The leak seemed to reveal the existence of a conspiracy to distort science and impede political progress on solving climate change, just as activists had claimed. But the celebrations turned sour when one of the documents turned out to be fake....
...The myth of the climate change denier exists in the heads of environmentalists, and seems to prevent them entering into conversation with anyone that dares to criticise environmentalism. The crusade of ‘communicating’ climate change is not a project that involves an exchange of views. To criticise environmentalism is to ‘deny The Science’, no matter how incoherent the environmentalist’s grasp of science or how lacking his or her sense of proportion.
It must be for that reason that, when Gleick was invited to speak at an event held by the Heartland Institute, he refused. Instead of taking the opportunity to bring ‘The Science’ to ‘the deniers’, he created an email account using the name of a Heartland Institute board member. With this, he emailed an administrator at the think tank, requesting internal documents be forwarded to the spoofed inbox ’ a tactic known as ‘phishing’ in bank fraud.
Gleick has now confessed to soliciting the Heartland’s internal documents. However, it was the contents of a strategy document which caused the most interest from environmentalists, and the Heartland Institute claim that this memo was faked. Gleick claims that he was not the author of the faked document, and that it was emailed to him from an anonymous source. He set up the fake email account in order to establish the document’s authenticity, to see if it would be corroborated by the documents he sought.... -- (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Just because someone confesses to something doesn't mean (s)he actually did it. Suspects have been known to confess to crimes they didn't commit. Perhaps the suspect was confused and didn't realize what (s)he was doing, or (s)he may have been convinced (s)he did something he didn't. Or (s)he might have thought (s)he would get off easier if (s)he confessed (which in some cases, like the plea bargain system in america is true if done right). Someone might confess to take the fall for someone else. Torture is considered an ineffective method of gathering information because the victim tends to say whatever (s)he thinks will get the torture to stop, which is not mutually inclusive to with the victim thinks is true. So no, confession proves nothing--Corpse in the bed (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
this is stubborn. Here you are not better than those you accuse: not willing to accept a reality which is not "in line" with your ideology. Sad to see this. MFH (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
How about this: I'm fine with people stealing Heartland's super-duper top-secret budget reports, so I don't care whether or not Gleick did it. In any case, Heartland's denial of AGW is obviously political regardless of Gleick's actions (calling AGW proponents "murderers, tyrant, and madmen" doesn't help your credibility), and they're still the laughingstock of legitimate climate researchers regardless of Gleick's actions. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 17:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

quote suggestion[edit]

I am not sure if there is a maximum quote limit, but I don't like the one by Marcus Brigstocke anyways. We have plenty gain from it. I suggest we use this quote which reflects that. "So-called global warming is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy-independent, clean our air and water, improve fuel-efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!"– Chip Giller Corpse in the bed (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the Brigstocke quote either. I'm fine with replacing it with that. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 23:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

lack of impartiality[edit]

As much as I approuve the purpose of this wiki, as much I am deceived that (1) on some topics you violate your own guidelines of remaining objective and (2) you disregard the arguments of serious scientists (PhD, internationally renowned professors and/or specialists in their field). Concerning "global warming", e.g., you should carefully distinguish what is true and what is wrong, on "both sides". Because there is. Trying to hide or ridiculize the arguments which are "against" what obviously is your ideology is not the thing to do in a place like this one, if it is to keep its usefulness (which is what I'd hope and wish). MFH (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

What are you smoking? RW ain't Wikipedia, there's no Dana NPOV, only Zuul the SPOV (Snarky POV).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 12:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
4/10. Have been concern trolled far more effectively. WalkerWalkerWalker 12:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Balance fallacy as well. Balancing global warming against deniers is like balancing those who think the Earth is a sphere (instead of an abloate spheroid) against those that thing it's a disk riding on four elephants on a turtle. One is reality and one is fiction. Diskworld is a much better fiction than deniers live in. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
You're just biased against anyone who doesn't believe in your geometric ideology! Teach the controversy! --Ymir (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
BOTH SIDES! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
There are Serious Scientists who think vaccines are dangerous, or that laissez-faire capitalism could Totally Work Guys, and we disregard them, too, because people with PhDs can still be wrong. A PhD doesn't mean you have good ideas about everything. If you want to argue against AGW, feel free, but make sure you cite your "internationally-renowned professors and/or specialists" and we can have a discussion about the actual arguments they make, not about whether we're giving them the respect you think they deserve. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 17:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)