Talk:Global warming denialism/Archive10

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <11>

, (new)(back)

Vested Interests on the Other Side Denialist Argument

Another argument I've read in a number of places is that it is the climate scientists who have vested interests and that the concensus is formed as a result of the lie that they won't get grant money for their research if they break ranks. Or maybe in a more nuanced form of the same argument that there is no grant money for those with a contrary view to the consensus. Personally I think it's pretty obvious oil companies and other wingnuts would be only too willing to fund such "research" but I am unequipped to answer this question authoritatively and would love to see a good answer on here.--Barryjon (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you expect a "good answer" to look like? It's hard to give specific answers to vague, generalizing assertions. Grants for studying climate and paleoclimate would be granted even if there was no AGW. (This is one of the ways it was discovered in the first place.)

In addition to what you said, my usual answer is that you can use the same logic to dispute anything in modern science, from evolution and relativity to the Moon landings. Indeed, it's a beloved argument of cranks.

You can try asking for examples, and, if provided, investigate them.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The grant money argument I think fundamentally misunderstands the way science works, and at least coming from some sources that very likely might be intentional. The meme rests on two assumptions -- one is that there's no real difference between profit and nonprofit organizations (and therefore it's accepted as a matter of course that the scientists are pocketing the money), and the other is that science in general is an inherently corrupt endeavor, something which not all global warming deniers seem to consciously believe, but which is logical fallout from the implications of climate science being corrupt because of its splashback on corroborating fields. There's also the assumption that science should fit their ideology and not the other way around. EVDebs (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the points made here in the comments would form the basis of a good answer. I'd be happy to try to write it up and include it if I am allowed?--Barryjon (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a very optimistic view. There are lots of worthless departments in the average university which only focus on researching why they should keep getting funds. --81.175.225.92 (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm well aware...

...that I'll get ban because you, lefties, have the banhammer and I'm not. But my aching conscience thinks that it's supposed to be rational wiki and so I just can't resist an urge to join holywar.

Therefore:

I. Eight-point scheme is insufficient. Lefties and alarmists (including but not limited to bureaucrats-from-science) ALWAYS have additional points, which are also implied but not stated in this wiki, such as:

9) humanity has the major part in climate changes;

10) the industry has the major part in total humanity GHG output;

11) the industry-produced CO2 has the major part in total GHG output;

12) more advanced industry emits more CO2;

13) icecaps melts therefore advanced countries are responsible for this;

(at this point politics becoming agitated and loud)

14) therefore capitalism is BAD (because it means advanced industry) and WE ALL GONNA DIE BECAUSE OF THAT (if we won't shut all industry and go back to jungle socialism).

II. There:

while point 9 is disputable, while (10), (11) and (12) are obviously wrong to anyone who have seen actual data (how about methane emissions? How about agricultural and natural emissions, how about oceanic carbonate buffer?), while (13) is obviously wrong to anyone who knows about specific heat capacity of ice/water (it's really a shame that no one of lefties never tried to defrost USSR-made refrigerator, such experience would be very enlightening in matters of ice melting), all this points are considered true by default and therefore used to get conclusion (14), and everybody who disagrees with it considered as The Enemy Of Science.

III. Wiiiiiiide using of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argumentation (as my own favourite example: Tesla godless superweapon OIL PRODUCTION CAUSE EARTHQUAKES, no, really!). The most obvious example here is the part with glaciers (where glaciers degradation must NOT correlate - see earlier in part with heat capacity of ice - with GHG, but they do, and this used as "pro", not contra-argument), less obvious - parts with correlations of temp/GHG, GHG/ecological balance, shameless linear extrapolations (which all failed), et cetera.

IV. BILLIONS PEOPLE ARE GONNA DIE (WHILE YOU CAPITALIST PIGS MAKING MONEY) used as axiom. Do I really need to object on such obviously demagogical statement?

V. "Scientific consensus" used as proof. While I'm not a historian and therefore can't use Reductio ad Hitlerum due to lack of specific knowledge, I'm still Russian and can point out that (a) Trofim Lysenko used exactly same type of "proof" (b) every single noted here organisation is government-funded, just like in case of Lysenko.

Also link [4] is broken (and when it wasn't, it also wasn't even close to be link to peer-reviewed journal).

Feel free to ban, delete, ignore, cry "GIBE ME UR DIPLOMA TO CHECK U R NUN-SAIANTIFIK LIAR!!1", whatever. At least my conscience now can shut up. --77.66.248.145 (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, bang on, it's all a commie plot. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

So, you are complaining that the article doesn't include enough capitalism-bashing, and then complaining of capitalism-bashing? Excuse me, but you are not very clear here.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

RationalWiki takes full responsibility for all the things it has never said or endorsed. Silence speaks volumes, after all — that's how you know we're agents of Satan. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be best if you took one specific point and then ran with that. Your scatter-gun approach leaves people a little confused.--Coffee (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If this was trolling, it kinda worked because I'm so unbelievably annoyed at the drivel you've written. An I am NOT a leftie; quite far from it in fact.--Barryjon (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Barryjon, I assume you think that bullshit about "billions of people are gonna die because of sealevel rise for 3 cm in 2100" is NOT a drivel? Have you seen temperature reconstruction data for periods about 4000 BC - 1000 AD? It is available here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/reconstructions/pcn/pcn-v100.txt Please also take note for Yamal data, that's very indicative to climate processes in Arctica.

ZooGuard, your irony detector is broken, please repair it. 77.66.248.145 (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of Arctica here, because it ceased to exist several hundred million years ago. Doctor Dark (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

BON - your drivel is a poorly written diatribe that his mostly unintelligible except for the gist of you having a serious chip on your shoulder. It's snarky but says nothing constructive. Maybe if you took some time to write clearly, it wouldn't be drivel.--Barryjon (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you have such a problem understanding the IP's writing? It's very clear to me what is being said here.

IP: "There are more points that should be added under 'the argument for anthropogenic climate change goes as follows.', such as: 9)-14)"

And the rest of his/her post is just icing that you can ignore.

(EDIT: Ok, so there is some useful stuff in the rest of the post, like telling us that reference [4] is broken, which it is. Someone should go fix that.) Nullahnung (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I struggle to see through the tone, the assumption we are all lefties, the SHOUTY CAPS, and the repeated expectation of banning or censorship. The bizarre comments implying that people who accept the consensus on global warming all think of capitalism as the evil root cause and that society should therefore aim for some kind of primitive socialism as the only solution doesn't help either. I exaggerated when I said he said "nothing" meaningful, but the constructive content could have been condensed and argued more politely in the expectation of engaging in a rational discussion. I must also share ZooGuard's irony detection failure. In summary, to borrow you metaphor, I fear the icing completely hides the cake.--Barryjon (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nullahnung (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

List of denier congressmen

Is User:Corpse in the bed's reverted addition salvageable by inserting his first sentence in the "external links" sections? I agree that it felt wrong to start the article with a rant (and a call to action) about them (plus very american-centric), but it'd nifty to have such a list handy for american readers who'd like to check where their representatives stand. It's not like those twitter accounts are private, they are political communication tools. I don't know about the website though, and I'm too lazy / not american enough to check it. Is it trustable?--dx (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This is probably a biased option but I have used the website you are talking about. I think its trustworthy, but I am pretty naive about websites, so another opinion would probably be best. If you are worried about the quotes provided being trust worthy, the quotes are linked to somewhere else, which can give you context incase you feel like investigating if the quote is quote mined or something. The website also said that they hope that congressmen will change their view, and if they do they would get removed from the list (actually the website says they hoped congressmen would "clarify" their views to not being a global warming denialist). Admittedly I am not sure if the website has a puts much emphasis on limiting protester's objections to his/her district (or in case of senate, state) representative. I assume there is considerable overlap with those on the list and people that are considered "Entrenched interests and global warming deniers" so maybe we could put it in that section. Or it could be around or in the Notable deniers section. If the only thing wrong with it is it being at the start of the article we could simply put it later. Even if we can't find a good place on this page for it, we might be able to find a good place on the congress page. I'd prefer for it to be on both or to have it on one and the other page getting a link to the previous page's section that mentions it. I am quite certain sure I didn't encourage limiting voicing objections to only the reader's district (or in case of senate, state) representative, which I assume you have a problem with. If there is something wrong with the words that went along with the link, then those can be changed. On a side note tweet messages can probably be effectively extend through paste bin or other websites which would allow the text to be searchable.--Corpse in the bed (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's congress primaries right now in the USA and I would like to have the link up before this batch of elections are over. Considering that I was posted it already and it was deleted, I'll let someone else post it. Corpse in the bed (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Waiting for someone else to do it is taking to long, I am going to do it until someone gets it right. — Corpse in the bed (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Friend's Of Science

I thought you guys might want to see this: http://friendsofscience.org -- Corpse in the bed (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That banner is not even wrong. The effect of ocean currents on the earth's heat deficit is about as close to the "main driver" of climate change that you can get. ^{Don't click here} 01:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That site is not working for me. There is an article for Tim Ball, the proprietor, already though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, Ball was an adviser, not the proprietor of the site. In any case, I have created a page for Friends of Science. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay to cite John Cook and Skeptical Science?

Is it okay to use this guy as a source? According to http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html John Cook is a cartoonist and not a climatologist nor does he have any specialist training in that area.

I understand that Skeptical Science contains many articles written by professional climatologists who are qualified, but given the alleged exclusion of climatologists Patrick J. Michaels and Roger A. Pielke Sr., I would like some confirmation that the site is moderated by a competent team that does not censure qualified opinions.

From science and public policy: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/John_Cook_Skeptical_Science.pdf ^{— Unsigned, by: Forces / talk / contribs} 14:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Both Michaels and Pielke Senior are not exactly respectable climatologists...--ZooGuard (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What prompts you to say that? Forces (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We accept the scientific consensus in our articles. In terms of Global Warming that consensus is described by the IPCC. Asuming that your posts are in accordance with the scientific consensus on any issue then you shouldn't have any problems.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 12:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to try and challenge Skeptical Science, don't do it by linking to the Science and Public Policy Institute.

The University of Queensland wouldn't have made him a postdoctoral fellow if he wasn't just a cartoonist. And read up on SS's list of contributors. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The contributors, in order they are listed on that page: Software Engineering, Environmental Biology, Mechanical Engineering, Physics, Physics, Geology, Entrepreneur, Environmental Sciene, Journalism, Physics (with experience on NASA's satellites), "Climate Communication Fellow," Computer Engineering, Computational Scientist, Computing Science, Geology, Geology, Math and Statistics, wants to get a degree in Climate Science, Geosciences (from online school), Physical Geography, Electrical engineering?, Environmental Chemistry, Geology, Computer Science, Zoo Volunteer, Earth Science/Cartography/Remote Sensing, Environmentalist/Police Officer, "Began phd," Technical Illustrator, Editor/Translator, Geology, Organic Chemistry. It seems like if people are going to lob the general complaint of "x isn't a climate scientist" at critics, they should also reserve it for Skpetical Science also. ^{— Unsigned, by: 69.254.176.105 / talk / contribs}

A number of them are specialists in relevant fields though. Like, environmental chemistry is a very applicable specialization, as is geophysics, and environmental biology, and climate communication(like it or not). I'm not saying they're all great, but I am saying you're coming from an unreasonable place. Ikanreed (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)