Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories

[Quantum Windbag]

LOLOLOL.....so all those websites have to be "conspiracy sites" just because you happen to have a completely delusional belief that Bush never lied.....but of course you would never actually examine the evidence that was presented to you showing conclusively (with citations to the sources) that Bush lied....LOLOLOL.....you are such a good example of the conspiracy theory mentality mentioned in the OP......and of course you're also really retarded and dead ignorant about the basis of climate science.....just like most of the other denier cult retards who post on here.....

You have no idea who you are talking to, do you? I suggest you do a search of "everybody lies" or "all politicians lie" with my name, then come back and sputter some more.

Oh geez, QuantumDirtbag, it doesn't matter if "all politicians" or "everybody" lies or not because that is not the issue you raised here. You basically denied that Bush lied and equated the knowledge (based on abundant evidence) that Bush lied to belief in conspiracy theories. I don't need to do any silly searches to have a very good idea about exactly who I'm talking to here - another rightwingnut retard who imagines that knowing that Bush lied repeatedly and deliberately about extremely vital matters is somehow evidence of a belief in conspiracy theories - another denier cult imbecile who believes that all of the world's climate scientists and many leaders in business, industry and government are all in on a huge world-wide conspiracy to deceive the public about the reality and dangers of AGW for some convoluted reasons that only conspiracy theorists understand. You are one of the duped, brainwashed cretins who work to deny the reality of the climate change crisis we face in order (even if you may not consciously know why) to protect the short term profits of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of all of the rest of the human race and all of the other life forms on this planet, many of whom are going to suffer and die because the human race, in spite of the very clear warnings from the scientists, has been deceived by short sighted greed-heads into delaying the necessary actions to swiftly reduce or eliminate most human caused carbon emissions in time to prevent the worst consequences.

I did not, I was talking about conspiracy nuts who believe that Bush lied about WMDs.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's how science difference from AGW Consensus

The "theory" is that CO2 drive climate; more CO2 means higher temperature. (When Al Gore first proposed this theory in "Earth in the Balance" he actually blamed H2O, not CO2. That's how much this "Theory" has evolved.)

The data on the chart shows CO2 lagging temperature, not just over 30 years but over 600,000 years. Moreover, it lags 100% of the time both on the upside and the down.

 

[whitehall]

What about the alleged 3% of "working scientists" who don't believe that mankind altered the climate? Aren't their opinions as good as the other "working scientists"? I don't know who the Aussie guy called but from what I have seen the 9-11 inside job theory people and the faked moon landing theorists actually support the theory of man-made global warming.

 

[whitehall]

It wasn't hard to dig up information about professor Lewandowsky and guess what? He is a warmer. Professor William Briggs, Adjunct professor of statistical science Cornell, has this to say about professor Lewandowsky's "science". "It's a pathetic example of professor Lewandowsky demonstrating his biases, his anthropogenic warmer nonsense while at the same time clearly demonstrating that he has transgressed his funding activity by producing insignificant work at cost to the taxpayer".

 

[SSDD]

What about the alleged 3% of "working scientists" who don't believe that mankind altered the climate? Aren't their opinions as good as the other "working scientists"? I don't know who the Aussie guy called but from what I have seen the 9-11 inside job theory people and the faked moon landing theorists actually support the theory of man-made global warming.

I believe the fact is that you would have a tough time finding scientists who do not depend on grant money who are onboard with the AGW scam. The vast vast majority of scientists know AGW for the pseudoscience it is. That 97% consensus garbage has already been debunked for the scam it is. The 97% is in reality 75 unnamed, self described climate scientists answering an anonymous survey....nothing more.

 

[RollingThunder]

What about the alleged 3% of "working scientists" who don't believe that mankind altered the climate? Aren't their opinions as good as the other "working scientists"? I don't know who the Aussie guy called but from what I have seen the 9-11 inside job theory people and the faked moon landing theorists actually support the theory of man-made global warming.

I believe the fact is that you would have a tough time finding scientists who do not depend on grant money who are onboard with the AGW scam. The vast vast majority of scientists know AGW for the pseudoscience it is. That 97% consensus garbage has already been debunked for the scam it is. The 97% is in reality 75 unnamed, self described climate scientists answering an anonymous survey....nothing more.

Oh SSooooDDuuumb, you are such a delusional retard. The evidence-based consensus among climate scientists is very real and well documented. Here is only one indication of that consensus.

Survey: Scientists Agree Human-Induced Global Warming is Real
University of Illinois at Chicago - News Release
While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe seemingly contradicts that global warming continues unabated, a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change and its likely cause. A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year. The findings appear today in Eos, the newspaper of earth and space sciences published by American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming. "The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomena."

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists. "They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it." Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[konradv]

What a lame attempt to marginalize people who don't follow in lock-step. I know that Man-caused climate change is complete bull shit yet I don't believe in: 9-11 conspiracy, faked moon landing, any Kennedy assassination conspiracy, alien visitations, alien abductions or any of that non-sense.

In fact, a healthy dose of skepticism is required to sift through the bull shit that is the AGW religion and that same skeptical mind prevents belief in the nut ball conspiracy theories.

Sorry, you lose and the author of that article is an idiot.

The fact that you call it "religion" calls into question your denial that you're a conspiracy theorist. If you use the buzz words, it's like quacking like a duck.

 

[RollingThunder]

You have no idea who you are talking to, do you? I suggest you do a search of "everybody lies" or "all politicians lie" with my name, then come back and sputter some more.

Oh geez, QuantumDirtbag, it doesn't matter if "all politicians" or "everybody" lies or not because that is not the issue you raised here. You basically denied that Bush lied and equated the knowledge (based on abundant evidence) that Bush lied to belief in conspiracy theories. I don't need to do any silly searches to have a very good idea about exactly who I'm talking to here - another rightwingnut retard who imagines that knowing that Bush lied repeatedly and deliberately about extremely vital matters is somehow evidence of a belief in conspiracy theories - another denier cult imbecile who believes that all of the world's climate scientists and many leaders in business, industry and government are all in on a huge world-wide conspiracy to deceive the public about the reality and dangers of AGW for some convoluted reasons that only conspiracy theorists understand. You are one of the duped, brainwashed cretins who work to deny the reality of the climate change crisis we face in order (even if you may not consciously know why) to protect the short term profits of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of all of the rest of the human race and all of the other life forms on this planet, many of whom are going to suffer and die because the human race, in spite of the very clear warnings from the scientists, has been deceived by short sighted greed-heads into delaying the necessary actions to swiftly reduce or eliminate most human caused carbon emissions in time to prevent the worst consequences.

I did not, I was talking about conspiracy nuts who believe that Bush lied about WMDs.

All of this nonsense is very off topic but.....this is fascinating.....do you really believe that Saddam really did have WMD's but after America invaded and occupied Iraq their existence was somehow covered up? By whom, BTW? Or do you just deny that Bush ever claimed that Saddam had WMD's or used Iraq's supposed possession of WMD's as an excuse to go to war and invade that country in violation of international law?

Of course both of those reasons for believing that only "conspiracy nuts" would "believe that Bush lied about WMD's" are completely insane but then again, so are you apparently, you poor retarded reality-denier.

 

[SSDD]

consensus among climate scientists is very real and well documented. Here is only one indication of that consensus.

Survey: Scientists Agree Human-Induced Global Warming is Real
University of Illinois at Chicago - News Release

Do you actually believe your own idiotic posts? Are you that deluded....or shnookered or are you just a big fat liar who knows that most of what he posts is bulls$it? Here is what your idiot post doesn't bother to say about that so called "survey"

Ninety Seven Percent Is Not What You Think - Energy TribuneEnergy Tribune

The 97% figure from the survey comes from a whittling down of the accepted number of responses from 3,146 to 79. The 79 scientist are those that said they have recently published 50% of their papers in the area of climate change. Of these, 76 of 79 answered “risen” to questions one (96.2%). How this number is not 100% is very strange. As to question two 75 of 77 answered “yes” (97.4%). As I have shown above this response does not necessarily mean that the respondent was attributing the significant human activity to the use of fossil fuels. Additionally a “yes” response does not quantify the degree of significance that human activity has on climate change. This can range significantly from person to person.

It is interesting that of the 36 meteorologists who responded to question number two, only 23 of 36 or 64% thought that human activity was a “significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”. The authors dismiss this group of trained atmospheric scientists outright even though their size is almost half of the 79 climate scientists used in generating the 97% figure! Apparently the 64% number was not convincing enough. If the authors of the survey had combined the results of the meteorologists and the climate scientists the “yes” response to question two would have been 98 out of 113 or 87%. That number just doesn’t have the same impact as 97%.

 

[IanC]

I used to wonder why the really wacky conspiracy theorists were such a major part of this anti-science AGW-denial cult-like movement that the fossil fuel industry propagandists astro-turfed up to be their 'useful idiot' foot-soldiers in their campaign to deceive the public about the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes and the urgent need to drastically restrict future carbon emissions.....now we know....someone did a bit of research that demonstrated a clear link between AGW denial and a general belief in the usual crackpot conspiracy theories, like the moon landings were faked....the really, really hilarious thing about that is that the AGW deniers immediately claimed that the study itself was part of a conspiracy against them.

Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories
LiveScience
By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
Sep 7, 2012
(excerpts)

A study suggesting climate change deniers also tend to hold general beliefs in conspiracy theories has sparked accusations of a conspiracy on climate change-denial blogs. The research, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science, surveyed more than 1,000 readers of science blogs regarding their beliefs regarding global warming. The results revealed that people who tend to believe in a wide array of conspiracy theories are more likely to reject the scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up. University of Western Australia psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky based the findings on responses from an online survey posted on eight science blogs. According to the paper, Lewandowsky approached five climate-skeptic blogs and asked them to post the survey link, but none did. Now, climate-skeptic bloggers are striking back with a new conspiracy theory: that the researchers deliberately failed to contact "real skeptics" for the study and then lied about it.

Though about 97 percent of working scientists agree that the evidence shows a warming trend caused by humans, public understanding of climate change falls along political lines. Democrats are more likely to "believe in" global warming than Republicans, according to a 2011 report by the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute. In fact, deniers and skeptics who felt more confident in their climate-change knowledge were the strongest disbelievers. Believing that climate change isn't happening or that it's not human-caused requires a belief that thousands of climate scientists around the world are lying outright, Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote in their new paper. Conspiracy theory beliefs are known to come in clusters — someone who thinks NASA faked the moon landing is more likely to accept the theory that 9/11 was an inside job, for example. So Lewandowsky and his colleagues created an online survey and asked eight mostly pro-science blogs and five climate-skeptic blogs to post a link to the survey for their readers. The respondents were self-selecting, but highly motivated to care about climate science, the researchers noted. The responses came only from the eight pro-science blogs, the researchers reported. Of 1,145 usable survey responses, the researchers found that support for free-market, laissez-faire economics was linked to a rejection of climate change. A tendency to believe other conspiracy theories was also linked to denial of climate change. Finally, climate-change deniers were more likely than others to say that other environmental problems have been solved, indicating a dismissive attitude toward "green" causes. "To our knowledge, our results are the first to provide empirical evidence for the correlation between a general construct of conspiracist ideation and the general tendency to reject well-founded science," Lewandowsky and his colleagues concluded. Psychological research has found that conspiracy beliefs are hard to dislodge, they wrote, but efforts to debunk multiple lines of conspiratorial reasoning at once may help.

Copyright © 2012 - TechMediaNetwork.com - All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

this kind of thing really pisses me off. Lewandowsky was shamed and made to look like a fool for an absolute train wreck of a paper, and yet people like RT can and will cite it without any compunction. there are so many things wrong with that paper I would have to spend 20 minutes typing it out.

if anyone is actually interested I can give a bunch of links to the total destruction it received in web review.

 

[SSDD]

this kind of thing really pisses me off. Lewandowsky was shamed and made to look like a fool for an absolute train wreck of a paper, and yet people like RT can and will cite it without any compunction. there are so many things wrong with that paper I would have to spend 20 minutes typing it out.

if anyone is actually interested I can give a bunch of links to the total destruction it received in web review.

You have to wonder if they are really that misled or if they are just willing to say anything, no matter how dishonest in order to promote the ends they see in thier mind. As much as he cuts and pastes, you have to think that he has seen the complete destruction of lewandosky's paper and the claims he made using it as support. Simple disregard? Ignorance, or deliberate and malicious deception? I have my opinion regarding rt, what's yours?

 

[RollingThunder]

this kind of thing really pisses me off. Lewandowsky was shamed and made to look like a fool for an absolute train wreck of a paper, and yet people like RT can and will cite it without any compunction. there are so many things wrong with that paper I would have to spend 20 minutes typing it out.

if anyone is actually interested I can give a bunch of links to the total destruction it received in web review.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL......too funny....a published, peer-reviewed paper, that demonstrates that many of the idiots who deny AGW tend to believe in wacky conspiracy theories in general, as well as the one that claims that all of the world's scientists are in on a big conspiracy to deceive the public about the causes and dangers of global warming and the consequent climate changes, that paper is "web reviewed" by the deniers themselves and, guess what, they don't like it. Woooweee, big surprise. In fact, the denier cultists think this paper about them being into conspiracy theories is itself evidence of a conspiracy to make them look like idiots (which is hilarious) but actually they don't need any help with that, they manage it quite well all on their own.

Of course, in the real world, the paper is quite sound and uses some standard survey techniques. Just like the science behind AGW, all of the criticism of this paper from the deniers is based on a deep need to reject what they don't want to hear because the facts of the matter are disruptive to their moronic, self-centered view of the universe.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Peer reviewed!" is how Warmers tell you they have no science backing their absurd, failed theory

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmers would have Peer Reviewed! Michelson Morley's Ether, if there was money in it and if it could have been used to drag down Western civilization

 

[Oddball]

"Peer reviewed!" is how Warmers tell you they have no science backing their absurd, failed theory

I've peer reviewed this post and find it totally awesome in its total awesomeness.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Peer reviewed!" is how Warmers tell you they have no science backing their absurd, failed theory

I've peer reviewed this post and find it totally awesome in its total awesomeness.

We have Consensus!

Science = settled!

It's Miller Time!

 

[RollingThunder]

"Peer reviewed!" is how Warmers tell you they have no science backing their absurd, failed theory

I've peer reviewed this post and find it totally awesome in its total awesomeness.

I guess one clueless retarded moron reviewing the brainless drivel spewed by another clueless retarded moron is, in fact, technically, a sort of "peer-review". LOLOLOLOL.

 

[IanC]

this kind of thing really pisses me off. Lewandowsky was shamed and made to look like a fool for an absolute train wreck of a paper, and yet people like RT can and will cite it without any compunction. there are so many things wrong with that paper I would have to spend 20 minutes typing it out.

if anyone is actually interested I can give a bunch of links to the total destruction it received in web review.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL......too funny....a published, peer-reviewed paper, that demonstrates that many of the idiots who deny AGW tend to believe in wacky conspiracy theories in general, as well as the one that claims that all of the world's scientists are in on a big conspiracy to deceive the public about the causes and dangers of global warming and the consequent climate changes, that paper is "web reviewed" by the deniers themselves and, guess what, they don't like it. Woooweee, big surprise. In fact, the denier cultists think this paper about them being into conspiracy theories is itself evidence of a conspiracy to make them look like idiots (which is hilarious) but actually they don't need any help with that, they manage it quite well all on their own.

Of course, in the real world, the paper is quite sound and uses some standard survey techniques. Just like the science behind AGW, all of the criticism of this paper from the deniers is based on a deep need to reject what they don't want to hear because the facts of the matter are disruptive to their moronic, self-centered view of the universe.

rolling thunder- before I continue, do you agree with the methodology, data collection, and conclusions drawn in the recent Lewandowsky paper?

when you are shown just how badly flawed it was, will you publicly admit that simple peer review is not sufficient to assume a paper is correct?

even the funding and approval for the paper was obtained by sleight-of-hand. you may want to do some investigation before you give your full endorsement of this piece of crap study.

 

[IanC]

this kind of thing really pisses me off. Lewandowsky was shamed and made to look like a fool for an absolute train wreck of a paper, and yet people like RT can and will cite it without any compunction. there are so many things wrong with that paper I would have to spend 20 minutes typing it out.

if anyone is actually interested I can give a bunch of links to the total destruction it received in web review.

You have to wonder if they are really that misled or if they are just willing to say anything, no matter how dishonest in order to promote the ends they see in thier mind. As much as he cuts and pastes, you have to think that he has seen the complete destruction of lewandosky's paper and the claims he made using it as support. Simple disregard? Ignorance, or deliberate and malicious deception? I have my opinion regarding rt, what's yours?

I usually just assume they are blinded by the 'Noble Cause' need to exaggerate the whole CAGW issue. when people cant sort through the information and make reasonable conclusions themselves they just pick an authority to believe, and then parrot that viewpoint.

 

[Oddball]

"Peer reviewed!" is how Warmers tell you they have no science backing their absurd, failed theory

I've peer reviewed this post and find it totally awesome in its total awesomeness.

I guess one clueless retarded moron reviewing the brainless drivel spewed by another clueless retarded moron is, in fact, technically, a sort of "peer-review". LOLOLOLOL.

A shame that subtleties like irony are lost to a drooling cementhead like you.