Who's behind The Hoax/Plot/Conspiracy?

I suppose it really is just a short step from NASA faking the moon landing to NASA fabricating a global warming hoax. They are, after all, government employees. Like the military, which also appears to have bought into it. Who will save us?

 

Well, I must say that’s as superb a parody of the typical right wing groupthink as I've seen -- forceful, authoritative, and sure of itself. Most impressive. I particularly enjoyed the subtle dig at one of the right’s most cherished beliefs that their adored yet mythical “left” is given to dramatic emotionality when considering and discussing various issues with your inclusion of “witch hunt” and "worthless scum" which surely points up that particular hypocrisy to a T. Well done!

Of course since your finely tuned satirical mind is obviously appraised of the facts you’ll already be aware of the man’s own words with regards to the matter in hand but for those groupthinkers whose first port of call is always to blunder headlong into an inevitable car-crash of unfeasible ignorance and ideologically driven malfeasance -- not to mention further abusing a man who’s already been through quite enough at the hands of a truly mendacious media -- here they are:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/lennart-be...-cover-no-conspiracy-scientists-claim-1449274

Again, excellent work. Of course there may be some who believe your piece, it's quite convincing! It's a knife-edge for sure, this business of political satire. if I may...perhaps you can follow it up with an equally conniving -- oops, mistype -- convincing piece about how he's been 'got at' by groupthink and is now parroting the party line. That'll slay 'em in the aisles!

 

Hey, that is your conspiracy theory and obsession so why don't you clue us in?

 

No, not really. My best friend is a climate scientist at NASA. I believe that global warming is quite real and human caused. I'm quite comfortable with the belief and don't obsess over it in the slightest. I think mainly because I went to Jesuit schools I do find the paranoia and conspiracy fever fascinating though. Really fascinating in a gape jawed, head shaking way. It must be wild world to live in where you are always surrounded by enemies, plotters and people out to destroy you and yours. Anyway, in answer to your question, Bob is the wizard.

 

Unfortunately for the political sphere of CAGW, evidence is not following the predictions. That should give you a clue, if you say you are educated, to look into all of the science instead of just following the meme.

There are obvious issues, such as protecting the independence of advice, acknowledging the limitations of science and being clear about what we know and do not know, to understand how science informs but does not make policy, and the need to ensure honest brokerage of information. – Sir Peter Gluckman

 

Sure. Whatever.

Obama is set shortly to issue new EPA guidelines which will REALLY drive the wingnuts 'round the bend.

 

Yeah, doing what is political and not what is backed by science. Is that really your argument?

 

Huh?

Hmmmm, do I believe the scientific consensus of thousands of trained atmospheric scientists from a wide variety of backgrounds, countries, organizations and political suasion who have spent decades studying the atmosphere or do I believe a paranoid conspiracy crackpot from an obscure right wing website?

Whoa, tough one! I'll have to get back to you on that. Bob is waiting.

 

Science is a process, consensus is political and your inability to understand the difference is telling.

 

Well you have one thing right. I'm clearly a better word smith than you.

You might think that what Dr. Bengtsson said somehow contradicts me but it does not. It confirms what I said. He doesn't believe that it is "systematic". Which by definition means follows some plan or organization. Instead what we have is a naturally occurring culture of fear and intimidation. Someone like Dr. Bengtsson spouts heresy and the foot soldiers of the AGW orthodoxy spring into action all on there own. There need by no systematic ‘cover up’. The cover up need follow no system as it is ingrained in the culture.

You a lowly foot soldier of the movement are an example of this. No one has to tell you to come here and attack. There is no system. You do it all on your own. Its no more systematic as Pavlov's dog drooling is systematic.

 

It will also drive the poor family that is make ends meat 'round the bend' too as their electricity bills spike. You don't care for other people do you? You might say you do as Obama does. But saying you do is simply self-serving. Your lack of empathy for those who have to pay their electric bills shows that you could give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about them.

 

Why are you here on the attack?

Did anyone come to you and say 'Nat you have to get on political forum and get the word out!!!'

No you do it all on your own because it is in your nature.

Calling the culture of fear and intimidation a conspiracy is like calling Pavlov's dog drooling a conspiracy. Do not confuse nature with conspiracy. Its the hard lefts nature to be bullies they dont need any leadership or encouragement.

 

No one is calling it a plot or conspiracy. It's a difference of opinion. We all agree the weather is changing. The only disagreement is why. We do know all through the earth's life span, the weather has changed. Places that were once green, and lushes is now baron desert. What was once desert is now green. What changed it? We had no automobiles, factories, spewing coal sot. Was it from volcanos or maybe the axes of the earth changed. We know the earth has shifted and once Africa and South America were once joined. Did the changing of the mountain ranges, turn the weather pattern differently? We aren't talking about a few degrees different in temp. around the earth. We're talking of great temp. changes. From frozen tundra to baron deserts and visa versa. We really don't know. Although we believe today that our vehicles and smoke stacks have had some baring on the weather, we have no idea of how much. It's only a guess how much nature and man has made in the small changing of the climate

 

He likely spouts heresy according to your beliefs since he's an advocate of AGW.

I haven't seen any culture of fear and intimidation as a consideration except in the noises emanating from blogs and fora, led chiefly by US right wingers. Granted there's a generalised sense of fear over what may occur due to AGW.

Your "witch hunt" is at odds with his belief that academics' work isn't being suppressed. YMMV according to ideological needs.

You're welcome to your thoughts about why I'm here responding to an attack but FWIW it's because I'm affronted on Bengtsson's behalf for the abuse meted out to him by the right wing in their attempt to make use of his already difficult circumstances for ideological gain. It seems there's more than one way to interpret the "worthless scum of climate science".

Wordsmith is one word, in the second paragraph you'll need a "their" rather than "there" in the phrase "all on there own" and a "be" rather than "by", and you'll need a comma between the "You" and "a" in the last paragraph.

That is if you want to claim linguistic bragging rights. I never recommend doing things like that, though, since it often implies an insecure, battered ego and that's never a good look.

 

Sure it is. Thanks for all of the evidence.

Um, yeah I would. What a strange reply.

 

You are misstating what Dr. Bengtsson. Dr. Bengtsson is an intelligent man. He doesn't preface his statements with important qualifiers for them to be ignored by less intelligent people. Not that less intelligent people wont try their hardest to ignore them.

Dr. Bengtsson is arguing that there is no systematic campaign. In other words there is no conspiracy, no organized campaign. If you have read other statements he has made on the issue he has referred to the attacks against him and others as arising out of a "social construct".

As for wordsmyth, wordsmith, word smith, word-smith,being one or two words I could care less. Such things are best passed off to anal editors who might not be able to write fluid thoughts but sure as hell know when to use a hyphen or not. I find that such anal people are generally jealous that others are able to put their thoughts to paper with such fluidity while their prose is seen by others as clunky. And yes you are a clunky writer, brutally so.

 

"I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life."

This tells the entire world everything we need to know about how the consensus is achieved and maintained, through fear and intimidation.

 

Lennart Bengtsson

http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.se/2014/05/guest-post-by-lennart-bengtsson-my-view.html?m=1

 

Really? Quotes from one guy in a denialist think tank tells you everything you need to know about all research being done? derp. I guess I should thank HIM for all of the evidence.

 

I think I already posted something about this, but again:

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rdoch-media-hypes-lone-climate-denial-big-oil

Yet, another hyped conspiracy.

 

He is one of the worlds most premier climate scientists. He joined the institute as part of an outreach program to try and engage in a dialogue and find some middle ground. Too bad for him there are too many closed minded people in the world as exemplified by your above post.

 

Further analysis this quote says all it needs. Dr. Bengtsson steps off the reservation for a second and AKR grabs his torch and pitchfork. Dr. Bengtsson is quite right that there is no systematic effort at play here. There are plenty of people like AKR in the world both in climate science and the general public who will immediately spring to action and start bullying people to defend their social construct. People like AKR and those who bullied Dr. Bengtsson dont need a systematic effort or a any kind of conspiracy. They go on the offensive and bully people for the same reason a dog drools. Its pure instinct.

I'd also wager that most of these people were bullied as children and its payback time.

 

You were expecting well thought out answers and discussion, weren't ya. Did you forget where you were?

 

He got a thought out answer. He puts forward a false premiss that alarmism has to be conspiracy. That is not the case. Its a social construct that those who support it will vehemently defend at a moments notice with no instruction needed. The trolls on this forum is evidence enough of that.The defense of the social construction creates a culture of fear and intimidation the keeps people in line. Very few young climate scientists will ever be willing to speak out after they have seen what happened to Dr. Bengtsson for daring to reach out to the other side.

Fear and intimidation that is how climate science creates and maintains consensus.

"I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life."

With this the rest of the pack learns what happens to those who stray from the pack.

 

Jumping on the fictional 'thousands of climate scientists agree' bandwagon is simplistic. All climate scientists believe in climate change. Not all scientists believe in what causes global warming or whether it is caused by man and if it is, none agree to what degree. Those that offer hypothesis that disagree with the current meme are labeled as 'deniers' to dismiss their work even though they may be very well established scientists. There is a lot of money at stake and the only way to receive that money is to study 'global warming', not climate science. Science does not take sides.