Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists

[Peter]

Michael wrote: There's nothing in it for me to take seriously and the banter is going to a place I find boring. end quote

Area 51, Mulder? That place? I am reopening the X- Files and we will call it The X+ Files. I remember reading, “Subliminal Seduction,” or was it called, “Subliminal Suggestion” but now I can no longer take discourse or commercials at their face value. The producers have an agenda beyond selling their products. They all must have had the same mutant variation of the left wing college professor mentally living in the USSR. Would someone please update and reissue that book? 

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

14 minutes ago, Peter said:

I am reopening the X- Files and we will call it The X+ Files.

Peter,

I hope this version has room for Spirit Cooking...

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

 

[Ellen Stuttle]

On November 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, william.scherk said:

I made a mistake, then. I read this as general agreement with the four selected items on "The List" ...

 

On November 12, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

#44, #54, #56, #58 are true regarding the AGW scare except that the word "ensure" in #54 is well overblown; "attempt to ensure" would be accurate.

What mistake are you saying you made?

My statement is what I meant, and I haven't changed its meaning in saying that I don't think there's precisely a "conspiracy."

Were you thinking that believing that the statements as worded are true in regard to the AGW scare entails belief in a conspiracy?

I wouldn't call myself a "Lukewarmist," and my understanding of the term is different from yours.  I take it as meaning someone who believes there definitely has been warming over the last half century or so, and that human-produced CO2 has been "significant" ( meaning varies).  I'm agnostic as to whether there's really been warming in that time period.  The data is so contaminated, impossible to be sure.  If there has been, and if CO2 concentration has been a driver, humans have contributed about 1/40 to whatever amount CO2 has driven.

I don't know of anyone who denies that the earth's atmosphere is necessary for human habitability.

Ellen

[tmj]

I recently attended a concert and was subject to a security search, presumably because it was an announced gathering open to the public and given prevailing security concerns of federal and local law enforcement officials the process is deemed prudent. I'm fairly certain this level of scrutiny has evolved out of concern of 'random gun' violence and violence of a less random cause e.g. ' terrorism'.

I saw a story that claimed ISIS has targeted Thxgiving parades, a seemingly large group of scheduled events comprised of soft targets. I haven't seen any concern expressed about any threats that may be posed by the current spat of 'protests'. Is it oversight?

[Wolf DeVoon]

1 hour ago, tmj said:

I recently attended a concert and was subject to a security search

I recently wrote a fictional scene at a nightclub, the guy at the velvet rope made girls lift their skirts, allegedly to check for weapons.

[Peter]

Ellen wrote: I wouldn't call myself a "Lukewarmist," end quote

I would call you *hot.*

anonymous - just teasing.

[Peter]

I was just showing my esteem for Ellen. No innuendo implied. What a brain! 

Peter.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 minutes ago, Peter said:

I was just showing my esteem for Ellen. No innuendo implied.

Peter,

And you think you're going to get off the hook that easily?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Thanks for the compliments, Peter.  Plural intended.  LOL.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

I stated my views on the class 'Lukewarmers' (see also here and here** in OL topics)

16 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I wouldn't call myself a "Lukewarmist," and my understanding of the term is different from yours.  I take it as meaning someone who believes there definitely has been warming over the last half century or so, and that human-produced CO2 has been "significant" ( meaning varies).

That is roughly my understanding, As usual it takes me five paragraphs to sketch it out:

I think your opinions are mostly Lukewarm, but it has been a while since you laid out what/who you believe or trust [..] It essentially means that you understand and accept the effect of the so-called Greenhouse Gases in maintaining a human-friendly climate. That there is a physical mechanism by which the GHGs contribute to making the earth warmer than it would be without them in the atmosphere. 

Further, I'd say a Lukewarmer has spent some time looking at hundreds of items of research and observation -- including temperature 'reconstructions' of the past.  Among that welter of evidence -- especially observations -- a Lukewarmer will conclude that there is a chance or a relative probability that increasing carbon dioxide and other GHGs will have nudged the earth's temperature up, over and above, and visible through so-called 'natural variation.'

Finally, my concept of the Lukewarmer includes that he has found some convincing, persuasive, probative or very suggestive 'signals' in observations of the earth and sea and atmosphere -- that the earth is in general warming (relative to pre-industrial levels) more than it would without the increase in atmospheric CO2, etc.  

So this will usually mean that  discussion can be grounded.  A warming world is at least tentatively accepted. Then the nitty-gritty arguments over who is zooming who can roost.

I see now just where you differ from a generic Lukewarmer.  You surely have spent time with research and observation, even if all contaminated thoroughly.  You do give a 'chance' calculation of  anthropogenic warming, if any warming is detectable by uncorrupted means. But you have no confidence in any 'grounding' as I see it.  You don't yet accept (much/any?) evidence of a warming world.  

 

Quote

I'm agnostic as to whether there's really been warming in that time period.  The data is so contaminated, impossible to be sure.  If there has been, and if CO2 concentration has been a driver, humans have contributed about 1/40 to whatever amount CO2 has driven.

From the thread linked above, some terminology/position discussion at Climate Etc, Judith Curry's climate-related blog. 

•  – Denier: CO2 does not cause any change in temperature 
• – Skeptic: CO2 has an effect, but sensitivity is somewhere in the range 0-1.2 deg C (i.e. negative or neutral feedback)
•  – Lukewarmer: CO2 has a warming effect and feedback is weakly to moderately positive. Sensitivity is probably within the lower part of the IPCC range.
•  – Warmers: CO2 has a warming effect with moderate to strongly positive feedbacks. Warming likely to be around the mid-point of the IPCC range
•  – Catastrophists: CO2 warming with very strong feedbacks leading to rapid warming in or above the upper portion of the IPCC range.

Insert climate deception porn.

16 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

On 11/13/2016 at 1:52 PM, william.scherk said:

Quote

On 11/13/2016 at 10:47 AM, william.scherk said:

What I found interesting here was the 'buy in.'  In other words, one could 'ratify' the generic by adding in the features of the blob that were identified in one's own mind. By design.

I mean, I don't believe that Ellen 'ratifies' the four generic Certain Groups conspiracy notions when it pertains to, say, radio astronomers or epidemiologists or the government-employed scientists who sample your water for coliform and other nasties.

On 11/12/2016 at 8:43 AM, william.scherk said:

• Groups of scientists deliberately attempt to create panic about future risks because it is in their interests to do so
• Groups of scientists [attempt to] ensure that only evidence which supports a pre-determined conclusion is made known to the public
• Government funded scientists manipulate evidence in order to support existing government policy
• Certain groups of scientists fabricate data in support of a particular scientific theory out of self-interest

I don't even "ratify" that there's precisely a "conspiracy" pertaining to climate issues.  There are people who are deliberately trying to put something over.  There are people who go along for money and/or prestige and/or security in their academic positions.  There are scientists who don't know the area but assume that other scientists wouldn't be engaged in deceit.  There isn't some organized "conspiracy."

I made a mistake, then. I read this as general agreement with the four selected items on "The List" ... [inserted above]

Quote

#44, #54, #56, #58 are true regarding the AGW scare except that the word "ensure" in #54 is well overblown

 

What mistake are you saying you made?

I read that you 'ratified' the four bolded statements.  That you believed all four are true.  That your 'ratification' meant you endorsed the conspiracy-tinged fringe who see an international plot that implicates every national science body on earth in deception.

Quote

My statement is what I meant, and I haven't changed its meaning in saying that I don't think there's precisely a "conspiracy."

Right. Not quite a conspiracy.  

A plot by corrupt actors, maybe, with an international crew, and deployed almost everywhere -- from the American Physical Society to NASA, from the Chinese national science superstructure to the Dutch?

 As you generically state, "There are people who are deliberately" deceiving and sowing panic, there are people who 'go along' with that deception and alarmism, and there are scientists who are effectively hoodwinked, shackled, or silenced by their brethren in climatology and beyond, through lures and motives extra-scientific --  prestige, lucre, power.

A plot to deceive and panic, then. A major international plot, and a continuing plot.  

Quote

Were you thinking that believing that the statements as worded are true in regard to the AGW scare entails belief in a conspiracy?

No,  endorsing four out of 59 generic statements isn't -- as you note -- diagnostic, especially if the weight given to the 'true' statements falls nearer the neutral middle of the Likert scale. It depends on the weight of agreement.  When I answered the online version of the Generic survey as Alex Jones, I gave full weight to those claims I think the Infowars conspiracy crank would endorse. Which in his case was every one.  But even he hedged a bit and did not give full weight, and so his 'score' was not 5/5 but a quarter point below.

I am guessing that your 'score' would come in below Korben and my 1.2/5.

Weather porn!  Click to read the lurid details, from the corrupt NOAA

___________________________________

**  A self-labeled Lukewarmer: 

“I am not a 'denier'. I fully accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the climate has been warming and that man is very likely to be at least partly responsible. […] you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be.”

--  a video from four 'corrupt' bodies within the international plan to deceive and alarm. I find it not very alarming at all, but a neat thing to watch thinking about all the kinds of corruption and deception and collusion that went into the making of it.

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by william.scherk

[Peter]

Just don’t forget, William. The hockey stick data to convince us that climatic global warming is real and man-made, was bogus. A scientist uses data, not emotions. The Green ideology and it’s link to extremely radical leftists goes back to the sixties. The conspiracy is on the side of the leftists. You are also speaking like a true believer when you classify others as deniers, skeptics, lukewarm-ers, etc. People who follow the progress of the religion of Man Made Global Warming are put off by it. We do not want them to rule over mankind’s freedoms.

 

In Ian Plimer’s climate book I remember that when the earth warms so do the other planets and obviously, people do not affect the warming on Mars (at least not yet) so something else is warming us all.      

Peter

 

Robert Tracinski wrote about “Climategate,” in realclearpolitics.com: For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in . . . . This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money . . . . This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated.

end quote

 

from the Atlas Society. Why Are We So Worried About the Planet?  April 18, 2009 -- Spring has sprung at last here in Montreal. Leaves are sprouting on the trees, birds are chirping outside my window, and young women are baring their legs prematurely. The arrival of spring also means that in a few days time, millions of people throughout the world will celebrate another Earth Day to express their worries about the state of the planet. Though global temperatures have stagnated and even fallen somewhat in recent years, concern about global warming is still high on environmentalists’ agendas . . . .The environmental movement goes beyond simply urging pollution reduction once more important needs are dealt with. If that were all the greens wanted, they would not have reacted so unreasonably to the publication of Bjorn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist back in 2001. In that book, Lomborg demonstrated in great detail the many ways in which we have successfully dealt with environmental problems over the years. He also explored all of the ways in which we humans are better off than ever before, leading longer, healthier lives. The greens were incensed. Scientific American commissioned four well-known environmentalists to attack the book, and then threatened to sue Lomborg when  he very successfully defended himself online . The reason Lomborg irritates environmentalists so much is that he takes an unemotional look at their concerns. His cost-benefit analyses often end up draining fear from the issues, returning a sense of proportion to the discussion. In his more recent book, Cool It, he argues that global warming is not the looming catastrophe Al Gore and others make it out to be, and that the world’s poor, especially, still have much more pressing things to worry about.

. . . . A Secular Religion. At their worst, environmentalists do not merely lack confidence in our ability to solve our problems and fail to analyze costs and benefits. At the most extreme, they are positively against technological progress. They are not just against the pollution caused by cars; they are against cars. They not only favor energy-saving light bulbs; they favor turning out the lights. They do not merely criticize the ills that accompany our civilization; they criticize civilization itself.

 At this extreme, environmentalism ceases to be even an irrationally fearful concern for the world in which we live, and instead becomes an outright religion. As Robert Bidinotto  pointed out in “Green Cathedrals”, nature is not alone in abhorring a vacuum. As people in developed nations have slowly abandoned Christianity and other traditional faiths, the void left by their absence has been too much for some to bear. God has been replaced by Mother Nature, and a mythical past in which we lived in harmony with Her has taken on Eden-like proportions. Most importantly, man is still fallen, and apocalypse still looms. Guilt and self-hatred are so ingrained in some people that a book celebrating A World Without Us can become a best-seller.

end quote

[william.scherk]

On 11/13/2016 at 1:52 PM, william.scherk said:

What can one do to counter-act the influence of the bad actors in climate science -- since as I mentioned, world-wide every august body adheres to the same set of scientific  'understandings' ... ?

Yeah. We have two answers in. One says "if you don't know already, I won't help you. The other says, "do a purge."

On 11/13/2016 at 2:07 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

On 11/13/2016 at 1:52 PM, william.scherk said:

As for how you think one can 'get at' the bad actors in climate science  ... meaning to overthrow the bad actors, I can guess at what you hold in your heart.  I know the audience is smallish on a Sunday, but there are other Lukewarm readers who would be well advised by you. I mean, even if you have written me off as a dupe or a dolt or an alarmist misinformed or whatever, that leaves a lot of non nitwits still interested in your views.

But I will state it again for the porch. What can one do to counter-act the influence of the bad actors in climate science -- since as I mentioned, world-wide every august body adheres to the same set of scientific  'understandings' ... ?  It seems deeply rooted and to cross all borders.

There are two sides (and more, perhaps) to this story, this debate, this discussion. 

I would start by checking this premise.

"... world-wide every august body adheres to the same set of scientific 'understandings'..."

I am going to start by observing that you have truncated the quote, thus giving no weight to the question I ask.  I understand you want my argument to provide some logical rigour, so that you can be more assured that I know what I am talking about -- when I mention 'august bodies.'

I included the paragraphs containing the argument, and here I quote from my preceding mention of the 'august' bodies.  

To take these blob items out and class them near Everybody Knows or common sense, it leaves off the table an enormous amount of work done to deconstruct untrue claims. 

You see, if only actual 'certain groups' are doing something, we can catch them. If a large blob of blobs is doing it, it is much more difficult work.  I mean, the Climate Conspiracy extends Everywhere -- every national science body, every last august body of rational inquiry. All those countries infected with the same virus, the same conspiracy. 

Premises checked, infectious spread noted.

Quote

Do they?

Do I find that the national science bodies align in general on the topic of anthropogenic global warming?

Yes.

And 'august body of rational inquiry' includes such as the the American Physical Society and foreign equivalents.  I stress is that these bodies comprise part of a 'knowledge producer' class, in terms of prestige and heft: NASA, NOAA, etc. I could add in here half a hundred acronyms and more from the national bodies that align.

What is your finding, Michael?

I note well that the great men or pioneers of climatology have not been debunked. The original 'plotters' have not been dragged from their graves and staked as corrupt or as having delivered tainted goods -- eg, Tyndaihl, Fourier, Arrhenius, Callendar -- even if everything thereafter has fallen into corruption.

For you, Michael, I mean to express the depth and length and heft of what current (possibly-corrupted) climate science is built upon.  I meant for everyone reading to picture the extent and depth of an agreement on basics. 

That is why I invited you and Ellen and anyone else to identify as a Lukewarmer, to do as Ellen has done with her quick paragraph sketching her "understandings."  

I don't know where you stand.  I mean, I know you 'stand above me' in the sense of expert observer, at least in your public posturing, but it still doesn't translate to specifics. Where do you stand on the detail, Michael?  

I think you probably are closest to the more tepid Lukewarmer space Ellen inhabits. You doubt that warming has been detected as anything other than transient and 'natural' ...

More weather porn!

Quote

I find it telling you put "understandings" in quotes. 

You do not explain.  The point isn't to finick over quote marks, but to understand what I am trying to say. I am saying that the plot/corruption is of a large scale and extent, Michael. It has overrun all those bodies, spanned the globe.  If you are spooked by the connotation of 'secret handshakes or deals' ("We have an understanding"), oh well.  

I say by truncating you may avoid the express point of the question, the question that Ellen demurred.  What can the woke people do to counteract the heavy penetration of "The Understandings"?

Do you get me now?

Quote

I believe those who have bought into the manmade climate eschatology myths are ignoring a whole lot of dissenting voices in science--or demonizing them when they get some publicity.

This poisons the well.   By denoting as mythical end times nonsense the output of the august bodies, the argument assumes they are all wrong.  This is just a sweeping denigration of the 'understandings' -- as if you stood on higher, better epistemic ground. You know? -- all the august bodies are corrupt, stained, tainted. As a given. 

That precludes discussion of such things as, oh, details. 

I bet you will not mention names.  And I bet you will not give an explanation of what you believe that does not involve some offstage Them.

Quote

If you want to get rid of the bad actors, start by actually doing something to get rid of them instead of shuffling them from one sinecure to another when they get caught acting bad.

This is so general as to be useless.  I have no idea if you are almost a Lukewarmer like Ellen or a Lukewarmer like Bob or a Lukewarmer like Korben or a Lukewarmer like  Matt Ridley or Richard Lindzen or Judith Curry.  I don't know what you read, what you base your opinions on.

I don't accept that there is a seething corrupt class of Bad Actors. One might call them fallible scientists/advocates if not alarmists (in their public agitations).  But for the sake of argument I asked how to rid the world of bad actors you apparently see across the scientific firmament, shot through the international arenas of inquiry. 

The suggestion to 'get rid of Them' is a start, I suppose.  It doesn't answer my question How, but orients me to a purge.

How is that? Should 'we' purge 'Them'?  If so, again, how?  Where to start, again ...  I guess with bad actors getting 'caught acting bad.'  

 

Weather porn!  

Edited November 16, 2016 by william.scherk
Minor grrrrrammar fixes, spelking.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

This is so general as to be useless.

William,

With all due respect, this is exactly the problem of discussing this with you.

Whenever a solution is offered that questions the credibility of the science storytellers that you like (especially when merited), you dismiss it without even considering it. I, for one, tuned out when those early emails were discovered (the science dudes altering data and lying to the public) and the response from your side was a big fat nothing-burger. You guys even tried to mock people who said lying to the public in the name of science was wrong. (Now you talk about "poisoning the well.")

You may call that critical thinking, but I call it partisan thinking. Biased at that.

I note you consider a lot, but rarely this kind of stuff.

At least you guys have written off Al Gore, that is until you haven't.

 

Maybe I missed it, but did you include the Heartland Institute among your "august bodies"?

I didn't think so...

I guess an "august body" needs government money to be serious, otherwise there's no way for the ruling class to control it.

So that one's for the dismissal without consideration pile, huh?

Michael

[william.scherk]

I thank The Watchers for re-orienting me to the subject of the  thread.   And for entertaining the notion of "What would it take to change my mind?"

I know what it would take to change my mind that the globe is warming, oceans and surface. I would look to the Arctic to give me an unmistakable signal that what I thought I knew was in error.

Let me frame this.  If I accept that data may be suspect, tainted or compromised by bias, and if I accept that temperature reconstruction of prehistoric pasts are too unreliable to consult, and if I accept that there are very very few pure untainted current datasets, I can still consult 'observations' and I can still be grounded in the parts of climate science that were true in the past (ie, the basics that lukewarmers accept).

Why look to the Arctic to ground my change of mind?  

Because, first of all, 'global warming' is expected/assayed to be more pronounced in the Arctic when held against the general average. Its effects are said to be pronounced right now. As a pretty neat place on earth (yay, aurora borealis) both inhospitable and remote, it has all those cool things we don't have down below on the map.  Ice, glaciers, melt, muskeg, permafrost, tundra, ice 'cap' ... It also has a network of modern sensors and the attention of a raft of climate-science. 

Adjacent to that reason is a bottom line: at some point you have to trust some thermometers/measurements as accurate, and so to change a mind means real world data spelling out the unreality of the mental constructs I hold.  

In this scenario, then -- At some point the associated/expected Arctic measurements/effects and feedbacks will decouple from the influence of  CO2 increases. At some point there will be a conflicting trend made apparent. In other words, the Arctic goes back to doing what the Arctic has done, show variations in temperature within a Holocene interglacial bound.  Whatever spikes and portents among the last thirty years of measurement in the Arctic, new measurements will falsify several hypotheses currently reigning.

So, if I can be as climate-skeptic as the OL leader, I would interrogate the recent climatic data that I found reasonably correct and checkable. I would look to see samplings of atmospheric GHGs in the Arctic. I would look at metrics like depth of permafrost over time, the play of sea ice and glaciers, ice-sheets and ice-locked channels.  I would look back as far as reasonable, and scope out what They Say is still to come.

Can I answer in one sentence What would it take for me to begin to seriously question that global warming is tied to emissions of CO2 and other GHGs?

If the levels of GHGs continued to rise in the Arctic (where it is at higher concentrations than lower in the hemisphere), and yet the observed warming began to decelerate, level off, decline. 

This is a screencast of a cool tool for checking premises in regard to the Arctic. It is called Climate Reanalyzer.

I can also throw out here on the porch the Watchers question -- "what would it take to change my mind?" I winged my response here, and hope to see a few others. Maybe there is a way to personalize discussion without snottiness and derision towards alternate opinions.

Edited November 16, 2016 by william.scherk
Inserted link to and screencast of Climate Reanalyzer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

... I can still consult 'observations'...

William,

That's a pretty good idea.

Better yet, do the observing yourself. (Science is supposed to be based on observation.)

Almost everything else is a pile of mush in the climate game, some of it legit science, some of it spin, some of it falsified stuff, most of it slanted toward the money.

Laypeople have no way on earth to untangle all that. It's like finding a saint in a whorehouse. The only thing you can say for sure is that whores let you have sex with them for money. Where the saint is, who knows?

Once scientists start caring about the climate more than they care about sucking up to their money-masters, we might get some decent information.

All the rest is gotcha games to keep the biggest game of all in the casino alive--government funding.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here ya' go, William.

If you can watch this feeling smug, then you don't see the problem.

The fact is Trump likely will appoint Myron Ebell, who is not a yahoo on skates like they insinuate, he does not hate animals like they say, etc., etc., etc.

He's a very serious man. He's a libertarian. And he means it.

His deal is limiting the government, not anything else.

Ask yourself if the rhetoric in that video with Cenk and John will persuade Ebell or anyone around Ebell. They themselves know it won't. Are they interested--in any measure for as small as it might be--in seeing where Ebell is coming from so they can establish some common ground?

Of course not! Hell no!

They're smart and Ebell is stupid. And that's all they believe anyone should know about the whole thing.

Right?

Well... there is that little detail that Ebell will soon be the one in power and they will not...

 

If they're as worried as they say they are, why are they doing it this way--the way they know will not work?

Hmmmmm?

Maybe it's because the game is power, not climate, meaning they are not really all that worried about the end of times? Just look at them. They're having fun mocking Ebell and Trump. Worried people don't do it that way. Worried people worry for real. They seek solutions.

So that fake worried part is a story element for show...

They are just another couple of media hacks playing power games right now--and I say that believing The Young Turks are better than most media.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

12 hours ago, william.scherk said:

below

William says:

"I read that you [ES] 'ratified' the four bolded statements.  That you believed all four are true.  That your 'ratification' meant you endorsed the conspiracy-tinged fringe who see an international plot that implicates every national science body on earth in deception."

You misunderstood what my saying the statements are true (with some editing) means.  I do not think that there's "an international plot," and I didn't say a thing about "every national science body on earth."  Probably the governing boards of most national science bodies are implicated in deception.  Definitely in some cases I know of, but there are a lot of national science bodies, and I don't know details about many of them.

The mistake you made was leaping from my saying that some statements are true as applied to climate-science issues to my making accusations of an orchestrated "conspiracy."  Non-sequitur.  But I think it's just the kind of non-sequitur that that test invites.

Here are the statements I said are true as pertains to climate issues:

"Groups of scientists deliberately attempt to create panic about future risks because it is in their interests to do so.

"Groups of scientists [attempt to] ensure that only evidence which supports a pre-determined conclusion is made known to the public.

"Government funded scientists manipulate evidence in order to support existing government policy.

"Certain groups of scientists fabricate data in support of a particular scientific theory out of self-interest."

William inserted my edit into the second.  Another edit of the third: 

"Some government funded scientists [etc.]."  (Government funding extends into so many aspects of scientific research and university economics, "government funded" is too inclusive.  Only some "government funded scientists" do as described, but in regard to climate issues the "some" I'm thinking of are in positions where they can muck up the data available to other scientists.  Also, the primary goal is to support desired conclusions - policy follows from those conclusions.)

---

On "lukewarmer," Curry's use of the term differs from the way I've seen some others use it.  Her chart pertains to differences of opinion on how much effect CO2 has (what's called climate sensitivity), not to the question of how much, if any, warming there's been over the last half century or century.  In the terms of her chart, I'm inclined to the estimate she calls "sceptic.

Ellen

 

 

[Peter]

What would change minds about man made global warning?

(Noonan, p. 17). Suppose I am told that my brain is to be divided into two and the two halves transplanted into different bodies. Then according to the Revised Psychological Continuity Criterion I know that I will not survive and that two new people will be created by the fission. However, if I can persuade someone to destroy the right brain hemisphere before it is transplanted, thus eliminating the plurality of candidates, I will survive and be identical with the recipient of the left‑brain hemisphere. Thus...my survival is logically dependent upon the non‑existence of someone...who would not be me even if he were to exist. But how can my survival be thus logically dependent on the non‑existence of someone else? end quote

Now, after establishing that undeniable spoof proof, I say that if we have a winter with only a few freezing nights, if the sea level rises from de-frosting without freezer burn, if the bugs are annoyingly buzzing everywhere in January, if the cat does not want to come in at night . . . then and only then will I say, I came, I saw, I believe.

Peter 

[william.scherk]

10 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

23 hours ago, WSS quotes a commenter at Climate Etc, who said:

•  – Denier: CO2 does not cause any change in temperature 
• – Skeptic: CO2 has an effect, but sensitivity is somewhere in the range 0-1.2 deg C (i.e. negative or neutral feedback)
•  – Lukewarmer: CO2 has a warming effect and feedback is weakly to moderately positive. Sensitivity is probably within the lower part of the IPCC range.
•  – Warmers: CO2 has a warming effect with moderate to strongly positive feedbacks. Warming likely to be around the mid-point of the IPCC range
•  – Catastrophists: CO2 warming with very strong feedbacks leading to rapid warming in or above the upper portion of the IPCC range. [link]

On "lukewarmer," Curry's use of the term differs from the way I've seen some others use it.

Judith Curry, in a review of two "Lukewarmer" books (by Thomas Fuller/Knappenberger+Michaels) says this on the subject:

People often try to categorize me as a lukewarmer.  Well, if you are delineating three ‘tribes’ – alarmist, denier, lukewarmer – then I more naturally align with the lukewarmers.

However, I have my own little ‘tribe’, whose figure head is the uncertainty monster.  While the evidence that we do have points in the direction of lukewarming, the uncertainties are sufficiently large that we can’t rule out large sensitivity and catastrophic outcomes.  My preferred approach to ‘solutions’ given this uncertainty – decision making under deep uncertainty – prefers robust decision making frameworks and anti fragility.

In any event, a growing lukewarm movement is a healthy sign for the climate debate.

Quote

Her chart pertains to differences of opinion on how much effect CO2 has (what's called climate sensitivity), not to the question of how much, if any, warming there's been over the last half century or century.

Ain't her chart, but a commenter's.

But your point is well-taken and an important site of discussion. Climate sensitivity (in the literature -- a sensitivity to a 'doubling' of atmospheric CO₂) is an emergent property of global circulation models.

Quote

In the terms of her chart, I'm inclined to the estimate she calls "sceptic.

Fair enough. Thanks for the (third!) clarification.

Weather porn!

[Peter]

William quoted the following. Judith Curry, in a review of two "Lukewarmer" books (by Thomas Fuller/Knappenberger+Michaels) says this on the subject: People often try to categorize me as a lukewarmer.  Well, if you are delineating three ‘tribes’ – alarmist, denier, lukewarmer – then I more naturally align with the lukewarmers. end quote

Thanks, William. I never saved the following letter except in my unanswered email box but I found it interesting when I just came across it. Can rational people coexist with irrational people who insist they are rational too and maybe more knowledgeable than you about their *pet subject* ? Well sure. As long as the irrational don’t initiate force or expect a handout . . . or expect the rational to believe their conspiracy theories. Nice charts.

Peter

Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:07:26 -0800 From: David Friedman Subject: Re: OWL: Re: The Abilities of Man: I would suggest that anyone interested in these questions [of whether any animals grasp concepts] take a look at the book “Chimpanzee Politics,” which describes the result of a lengthy study during which a community of chimps was observed very closely. The impression one gets from reading it is that chimps are more like cognitively limited humans than very smart animals. It seems pretty clear that they do have minds and are capable of what looks very much like rational thinking and planning.

David Friedman.

One can also imagine a situation where either all evolutionary forbearers of humans or humanoid branches are coexisting on Earth or intelligent ETs are currently cohabiting the Earth with humans. While this does not currently exist, it certainly could exist according to the laws of reality and it shows clearly that a complete continuum of reasoning abilities could certainly exist at one time. Therefore, such a thought experiment is instructive to help one to determine and to understand the optimal rules of interaction between species (optimal in the sense of being in the longest-range, widest-viewed best interest of each rational being – note here the use of "being" rather than human ). This is, of course, an extension of Ayn Rand's great insight that "there are no conflicts of interest between rational men", which is a corollary of rational self-interest being the only choice and action proper to the nature of a rational being with the only possible purpose that such a being can have - to maximize his total lifetime happiness. To read about this approach and its additional implications, see the theory of Social Meta-Needs.

Hopefully the above thought experiment shows that, as David Friedman has implied, it is not logically tenable to attempt to construct a theory of "rights" or other rules of social interaction based on clear differences in reasoning ability, free will, consciousness or other advanced mental attributes of humans over all other animals.

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer, MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org

[Peter]

Smugness. Apathy. Disbelief. Derision. To a person who knows the evidence that could be like seeing the tide suddenly retreat for a mile out, exposing the ocean bottom and then sounding the alarm. Tidal wave! Tidal wave! But the fools rush out to pick up flopping fish and shells.

Peter

Just one more tease. The following tale goes back 2,500 years!

From Wikipedia: Henny Penny, more commonly known in the United States as Chicken Little and sometimes as Chicken Licken, is a folk tale with a moral in the form of a cumulative tale about a chicken who believes the world is coming to an end. The phrase "The sky is falling!" features prominently in the story, and has passed into the English language as a common idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent. Versions of the story go back more than 25 centuries; it continues to be referenced in a variety of media . . . . In most retellings, the animals have rhyming names, commonly Chicken Licken or Chicken Little, Henny Penny or Hen-Len, Cocky Locky, Ducky Lucky or Ducky Daddles, Drakey Lakey, Goosey Loosey or Goosey Poosey, Gander Lander, Turkey Lurkey and Foxy Loxy or Foxy Woxy.

The moral to be drawn changes, depending on the version. Where there is a "happy ending", the moral is not to be a "Chicken" but to have courage. In other versions where the birds are eaten by the fox, the fable is interpreted as a warning not to believe everything one is told. . . . Fear mongering — whether justified or not — can sometimes elicit a societal response called Chicken Little syndrome, described as "inferring catastrophic conclusions possibly resulting in paralysis". It has also been defined as "a sense of despair or passivity which blocks the audience from actions". The term began appearing in the 1950s and the phenomenon has been noted in many different societal contexts. end quote 

[william.scherk]

On 11/13/2016 at 9:53 PM, KorbenDallas said:

On 11/13/2016 at 7:27 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

compare high rates of Hillary voters to areas of high rates of crime

Snopes didn't say this.

...

On 11/13/2016 at 7:27 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Democrats take advantage of immigrants to vote blue

In the video, Alex says this represents sedition.  He later says, "...if you look at it, every piece of blue in the sea of red is an admitted command base."   He says he had some secret maps that showed triangulation with military precision where They were going to take over the states.  And at the end he says these are brainwashing camps by the NWO:

 Brainwashing camps?

On 11/14/2016 at 9:29 AM, KorbenDallas said:

On 11/14/2016 at 5:07 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Which is it? Do areas of high rates of Hillary voters line up with areas of high crime rates or don't they? Snopes seems to say they don't except they do.

They expressed the coincidence fallacy.  So to rephrase, it is coincidence that areas of high rates of Hillary voters line up with areas of high crime rates.

On 11/14/2016 at 5:07 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Paul Joseph Watson did not attribute it to anything. He just said it makes you think.

Think!

On 11/14/2016 at 5:07 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Do areas of high rates of Hillary voters line up with areas of high crime rates or don't they? Snopes seems to say they don't except they do.

Snopes attributes this to population density, but that's irrelevant.

Population density is not irrelevant.  The misleading top image in the PJW meme was not a depiction of Democratic voting in 2016. The second image graphically depicted the number of murders by major city.  

Here's the issue:   does one variable 'explain' the other?  

In other words, do  the 146 counties that hold one-half of the US population, does that map 'predict' or explain the other data? Yes, to some thinkers there is an association:  the most populous counties are (roughly) the same localities that report the greatest total number of murders. 

Viewed from this angle, it makes sense.  Where more people are concentrated -- in urbanizations -- then it stands to reason that in absolute terms these urban districts will show higher rates of murder.

Like this: 

Podunk County, population 2591: number of murders: 1

Demon City, population 1,295,000; number of murders 278

-- so Podunk's murders can be made into a sized circle about this size:  •   and the murders in Demon City made something like this: 

OK?  Okay.   Waaaaay more murders in populous Demon City than in peaceable Trumpian Podunk county.

Makes a lot of sense.  Big nasty urban places have waaay more murders that in jurisdictions with a small population.

Yeah.

But what is the actual Murder RATE in the two jurisdictions?  Well, 1 over 2591 for Podunk and 278 over 1.295 million for Hillaryville, I mean Demon City.

Do those figures show us something? Sure, the product is for Podunk, 3.86, and for Demon City, 2.15 ...

But wait! -- what does that mean? Well, it could mean that in Podunk, you have a greater chance of being murdered than in Demon City.

Not so fast:  why don't we use a truly comparative metric, so that we can compare directly both jurisdictions and the variable in question?  If we do that, we have to figure out the arithmetic to show that common metric, number of murders per 100,000.

First, divide  the total number of people by 100,000. In  Demon City that works out to 12.95. There are that many 'groups' of one hundred K there.
Then -- how many murders occur per group of 100K?   Take the number of murders -- 278 -- and divide by 12.95, 278/12.95.

The murder rate in Demon City is  21.47 (per 100K)

Divide the total number of people in Podunk by 100,000 and you get 0.02591

That means there are 0.02591 "groups" of 100,000 people in that population. Now we take the number of murders (1) and divide it by 0.02591.  And the total returned is 38.6. The murder rate in Podunk is 38.6 (per 100K)

So the actual murder rate in Podunk is higher than it is in Demon City. Huh.

Now back to the misleading meme and how it can make us think.  We are invited to make an association between Major Cities (Democratic Hillary Murder Hot Dog Pedophile FEMA camps)  and Mayberry RFD.

*********************

To the real world, I mentioned the tools at Policy Map.   Here is an embedded map of actual county-by-county results from the 2012 Election, by margins of victory.

Data mapped by PolicyMap, an online GIS mapping tool.

-- the map is zoomable, so you can zero in on areas of interest, or your own county or jurisdiction.

Here is a second embedded map from the wonks. This one represents a dataset on Murder, specifically the murder-rate per 100K:

Data mapped by PolicyMap, an online GIS mapping tool.

 

Now we can make a comparison between the two maps. We can zoom in to a particular area or city or state in each map, and probe for relationships or associations -- and outliers.  In other words, the 'association' no longer holds. There is no particularly robust relationship between one and the other, between Hot Dog Pedophile FEMA Soros Party percent and the rate of Killing Crime.

PolicyMap has another feature for registered users:  it lets you put up to three map layers on the same configuration.  Here, for example is a couple of screenshots of my two layer map, which combines the Democratic margin of victory (generally from 2012 and the Murder rate, each by county.  This allows a fine-grained comparison of the two metrics together at the same time.  First example the southernmost counties of Texas, with one county highlighted.

The second example is from Washington state, showing the murder rate and rate of Demon voters in a 'rural' county. 

Conclusion? Not all counties that vote heavily for the Demons are full of murder.  But check for yourself.

Quote

Paul Joseph Watson did not attribute it to anything. He just said it makes you think.

So think if you like.

Or don't think if you like.

I am still thinking. You?

On 11/14/2016 at 0:11 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As for your disapproval of Alex Jones being discussed on OL, I'm not going to discuss it anymore. I will discuss Alex when I find his ideas merit discussing and his role (whatever it is) in the upcoming administration, but not your opinion of him. There's nothing in it for me to take seriously and the banter is going to a place I find boring.

Well, that makes things easier, right? Korben applies a critical lens to fan favourite Alex Jones's output, and his opinions are worth nothing on the subject. Good to know.

Edited November 17, 2016 by william.scherk
Arithmetic fix / minor spelking error spotted

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

22 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Conclusion? Not all counties that vote heavily for the Demons are full of murder.  But check for yourself.

Quote

Paul Joseph Watson did not attribute it to anything. He just said it makes you think.

So think if you like.

Or don't think if you like.

I am still thinking. You?

William,

Yup.

The issue is general trends and you are playing Popper-like falsification gotcha.

I don't buy that method for a general trend. It's the wrong epistemological method for trends. (Ask Nate Silver.  )

That's what I think.

Besides, I live next to Chicago and I almost never go on the south side, although I am sure there are some regions on the south side that are nice...

Why?

I don't want to get shot.

(btw - They love Hillary Clinton out that way.)

22 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

... his opinions are worth nothing on the subject. Good to know.

That's not accurate. Those opinions, after they started repeating the same old same old, are worth nothing to me. It's gotten to the point that I already know what Korben thinks when Alex Jones is involved without even reading his stuff. I disagree and repetition (with variations) doesn't change anything.

I'm pretty sure those opinions are worth something to him, though. That's why he has them.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was going to put this in Humor, but I think it is better here in a conspiracy theory thread.

Now why would all those people in the media conspire on spreading a falsehood about Steve Bannon and bigotry? There are so many people categorically claiming Bannon is a bigot when he obviously is not, I think that satisfies the criteria for conspiracy. 

And for those who believe in this conspiracy, after Milo, one can only stare in wonder. Their blank-out muscle is something to marvel at.

Michael