Climategate Dismissed

Here is an amusing conversation.

Two people were discussing carbon dioxide and global warming.

I mentioned “Did you hear about that climategate scandal?” They replied “That’s false!” They didn’t provide any details. It was an emotional cut-off response. There body language made it clear that they weren’t interested in discussing anything that challenged their pro-State brainwashing.

That is more evidence that “Carbon dioxide causes global warming!” is one big scam. The people emotionally dismissed my point, rather than providing any details.  I was prepared to provide details for “Carbon dioxide causes global warming is a scam!”  They weren’t interested in discussing it at all.

Some people say “All the anti-global warming propaganda was funded by the Koch brothers.”  Most of the pro-global warming propaganda is funded by the government.  I evaluate the details, and not who’s funding it.

Via its grant-making power and by corrupting the peer review process, State funding is biased in favor of the people who want to make government bigger to “solve” the fake crisis.  That was one interesting aspect of the Climategate scandal.  Scientists were bragging about how they corrupted the peer review process to silence their critics, preventing them from getting their papers published or getting funding.

In the mainstream media, there’s a lot of emotional propaganda for “Carbon dioxide causes global warming!” Anybody who disagrees is “not cool”.  Most people follow the propaganda and don’t think for themselves.  It was very interesting that the people dismissed my concern without thinking.  That is evidence that “Carbon dioxide causes global warming!” is one big scam.

17 Responses to Climategate Dismissed

  1. I haven’t investigated global warming (now called climate change [who decided to change the name and why?]) thoroughly enough to talk definitely.

    1) Even if carbon dioxide does reflect heat back to Earth, is its concentration enough to be significant? Maybe the concentration could go up an order of magnitude before it has any warming effects?

    2) Is the increase of CO2 levels just a correlation i.e. cause and effect has not been provided?

    3) Could the increase in temperature be due to sun spots?

    4) Could it be some areas of the Earth are getting warmer and other areas colder?

    5) Is the Earth really getting hotter? Could it just be the thermometers are located near hot cities?

  2. Can we do an experiment i.e. increase carbon dioxide levels on another Earth-like planet and see what heating effects it has?

  3. Do you think regardless of the validity of climate change/global warming, we should have a diverse energy policy that includes solar, wind and more advanced forms of nuclear energy (i.e. with fuel reprocessing potentially getting 60x more energy out of the uranium)?

    Obviously oil and gas is getting harder to extract if companies are having to get it out of deep water and develop new techniques (horizontal fraction, steam heating of heavy oil etc).

  4. Off-topic I know, but I have a solution to the debt problem.

    Jupiter and saturn are made up of a lot of hydrogen which can be used on Earth as clean energy.

    We should issue bonds to raise money backed by the hydrogen on Jupiter.

    This would solve our debt, energy and global warming problems all in one easy step!

  5. A number of people have replaced religion with climate change. You’ll observe the *EXACT SAME* response when you challenge the existence of god as you do when you challenge the legitimacy of climate change.

  6. Two people were discussing carbon dioxide and global warming being a scam.

    I mentioned, “Did you hear that almost all peer reviewed publications by climate scientists supports climate change? Did you know that zero national or international bodies of science hold a dissenting opinion on the issue with few holding neutral opinions?”

    They replied, “That’s false!” They didn’t provide any details. It was an emotional cut-off response. Their body language made it clear that they weren’t interested in discussing anything that challenged their pro-Oil brainwashing.

    • This actually is a common trick. You used it here and it also was mentioned in the node.js flamewar. An evil person uses the language and attitude of an intelligent person, and turns it around. You took the point I made and inverted it. To a clueless observer, the two arguments cancel.

      I have provided details. Peer review is a censorship process. If you have a dissenting view, you can’t get your papers published, you can’t get grant money, and your career is ruined.

      The truth is not determined by a majority vote. Even if every single professor employed in a university believes “Carbon dioxide causes global warming!”, that doesn’t make it true.

      It’s a name-calling contest. If you question “Carbon dioxide causes global warming!”, then you’re accused of being a shill for big oil. If you support “Carbon dioxide causes global warming!”, then I say you’re a shill for the State.

      Even if you believe that “Carbon dioxide causes global warming!” is true, none of the proposed laws are any good. All the “cap-and-trade” and “carbon credit” proposals are huge corporate welfare proposals. They have no merit.

      • Yes your argument of “this anecdote happened therefore climate change isn’t real” is completely valid and intelligent. How could I have been so blind.

        • It was pretty shocking, because the people in that anecdote were otherwise reasonably intelligent.

          I’m getting pretty good at recognizing when people are thinking for real, and when they’re just reciting propaganda. For example, your hostility is also interesting.

  7. Really Cowardly Anonymous December 13, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    (Apologies for the essay, I got carried away with what I wanted to say!)

    Sorry FSK, but I’m going to have to disagree with you here. I am pretty sure (though obviously I can’t be certain myself – I haven’t done the experiments) that climate change is a genuine threat. As far as I am aware most of the science stacks up very well, and I am a chemistry student so I generally like to think I know what I’m talking about here. There are some holes, but they aren’t very large ones and to be honest every theory has holes anyway. Just like with the Climategate business – it seems to be an open secret that scientists tend to fudge their data a bit most of the time. Nobody admits to it because of the whole scacrosanct edifice of science etc, but PhD’s talk. and yet with all that fudged data, chemists have produced a huge number of remarkable discoveries that have vastly advanced human technology since the 50s. So it does work somehow, because bad data doesn’t get corroborated.(Though even so it is jaw-dropping how many were actually made in the 1910s and 1920s, even if they didn’t have the technology to understand what they’d found).

    To get back on topic, who do you think has the most to gain from making people believe climate change is a scam? The oil industry sure has a lot of money to lose if people stop using their products. Remember how viciously the tobacco companies fought against claims smoking is bad for you? How long leaded petrol was standard even though everyone knew it’s an environmental disaster, but the lead companies had the State behind them? The “Climate change is a scam!” argument sounds to me very much like an astroturf created by corporatism to protect their interests.

    Of course you could turn that around and say that it is used by solar panel manufacturers to get more money, or a controlling state as an excuse for more control. But lets be honest, evil corporatism tends to support the status quo as new companies have no lobbying power. And controlling states have much easier ways to get control, like “Terrorists will kill you if you don’t do as I say!”. Besides, the US government seems to be doing staggeringly little about climate change anyway, at least in comparison to Europe. Oh yeah, and carbon trading and all that BS? Just an excuse for companies/the state to make money while nothing changes.

    Finally to attempt answers to the first poster’s questions:
    1) It is believed that yes, the concentrations are enough to be significant. This is perhaps the shakiest foundation of the climate change argument because the Earth is so complex that it’s really hard to be sure. But the climatologist people are pretty convinced based on past records.

    2)There is definitely a correlation (from polar ice caps, which keep a record of atmospheric composition for the past million years or so), and the greenhouse effect is pretty well accepted. It makes sense due to various chemical reasons (vibrational spectrum of CO2) and also there is the example of Venus, which has a metric shitton of CO2 in its atmosphere. I don’t think it’s 100% that the correlation doesn’t go the other way (temperature change causes CO2 release), but no one’s found an alternate cause for the temperature change if that were the case.

    3) No, it’s not sunspots. They just don’t match.

    4) In fact I think that is likely to happen to an extent, especially if the Gulf stream shuts down due to temperature changes (in which case northwest Europe gets a LOT colder). But certainly over the past century or so the whole planet has definitely got much warmer on average. Look at the extent of the Arctic ice cap. It’s shrinking rapidly. Hell, for the first time in recorded history the Northwest Passage is navigable in the summer.

    5) A good theory, and one that was tested. I’m pretty sure in the end they disproved it though.

    • One of my favorite observations is “Climate change may be the modern-day equivalent of eugenics.”

      Here’s another analogy. The banking cartel has nearly completely corrupted mainstream economics. Except for the Austrians, almost every economics professor believes “A central bank is great! Paper money is great! Gold is evil!” In a similar manner, mainstream university discussion of “climate change” has been corrupted.

      That’s why I’m not convinced by “Almost every university professor disagrees with FSK!” That doesn’t convince me. If you apply the same argument to economics, I’m nearly 100% sure that I’m right and mainstream economics is wrong.

      • Since you basically dismiss all of science, because you dismiss the peer review process (and for better or worse that is how the body of literature is grown), what would you accept as proof of, well, anything?

        • Science is not the same as the peer review process. The proof is something that works. I trust the science behind computers, because it works. I don’t trust the “science” behind mainstream economics, because I know it’s a fraud. I don’t trust the “science” behind “global warming”, due to many flaws.

          • I’m with you on economics, because it’s ultimately an unprovable field. It may as well be philosophy (and indeed a lot of the early greats in economics read that way!).

            I’ve been involved in some of the science behind climate change, and indeed there are flaws, of which most people are aware. What you have to realize is that everything in the “global warming” debate is filtered through a media lens. Some of us wish we could live down Al Gore — he had no business speaking for the community before it had reached a solid consensus.

            But it will, one way or another, and it will do that via peer review. There is no other way, because testing theories on climate is not the same is checking that the period of a pendulum is always ~ 2*pi*sqrt(l/g). Without recourse to doing one’s own experiments, one has to pick a third party voice to trust, and people are naturally going to align with the voice that speaks most in line with their interests.

            Mixing science and politics is always a bad idea.

          • By “peer review will reach a consensus on climate change”, do you mean “The majority will make sure that dissenting opinions are not published, and those people never receive research grants.”? That’s what peer review seems to be producing for the “climate change” fraud.

            The truth is not determined by a majority vote.

            Once you include the State monopoly for funding research, peer review becomes a politics game, and not based on genuine merit.

          • I mean what I said, not what you said I meant.

            Dissenting opinions have a greater barrier to publication not because of collusion by a majority, but because it is rather difficult to find publication-quality evidence for something that is simply untrue.

            Yes, there can be some degree of censorship, but this idea that science as an institution is simply one giant echo-chamber is frankly only a point of view espoused by those outside of academia (and by this I mean, those who have not practiced genuine research and had to make a proper investigation of a hypothesis for an audience of skeptics).

            It is cavalier and disingenuous to simply characterize it as “majority vote”.

            Are you suggesting that the truth should be settled by one experiment and one paper, and whoever publishes first gets to decide reality?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>