Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists
It may or may be considered a conspiracy, because the definition could be construed several ways. But let us look at the facts.
Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Now who do you see on TV more? Al Gore? Or Will Happer? Will Happer is a credentialed top scientist. Al Gore is an admitted lying politician. Whether or not that proves conspiracy, it does prove a massive propaganda campaign. It tracks right along with Goebbels activities.
Joseph Goebbels,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
There is, at the very least, a very vigorous effort to 'repress dissent'. Don't you agree?
Oh, and as far as using NASA as an accurate source of information just look at this.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...
So anyone who supports those corrupted figures in any way shape or form, would be partaking in a conspiracy, according to the legal definition.
Interesting angle...
You are making a gross generalization which is never a good thing.
The global warming hypothesis is a scientific matter. Why is it that anybody who disagrees with this hypothesis is labeled a denier or a conspiracy theorist or a creationist? Why can't somebody simply disagree without having a label pinned on them. Science is all about open debate. I should know, I am a scientist, and I have often been called to defend my assertions. I don't call my detractors names. I provide further evidence to support my claims. That's how science is supposed to work.
I believe aliens from Xanthar VI are monitoring me via skype but that's not really a conspiracy theory because it's the truth.
Well, there are these people who think the moon landings were a hoax:
http://climatephysics.com/50-astronauts-...
Now be a bit sceptical about the contents of your link.
Which reference does the "97% of scientists agree" come from? Did they ask any scientists in Russia or China? What are they agreeing to exactly? Tell me that more than 75 scientists agree.
How many of the institutions ballotted or otherwise sought the opinion of their members? The American Meteorological Society tried a survey and only 52% said man was mainly responsible.
It is only convincing spin if you choose not to look below the surface.
EDIT: "A recent study showed that climate change deniers are either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists."
I carried out a survey recently and it concluded that you should not believe anything written by people whose name is an anagram of "What Lysenko spawned". But Lewandowsky is good value ...
Lew quote #1: "Another variable that has been associated with the rejection of science is conspiratorial thinking, or conspiracist ideation, defined here as the attempt to explain a signifcant political or social event as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations"
Lew quote #2: Researchers in history and sociology frequently cite the 'manufacture of doubt' by vested interests and political groups as a factor ... For example, over 90% of environmentally sceptical books published since 1972 have been demonstrably sponsored by conservative think tanks ..."
Quite right Lew. It sounds like a conspiracy to me. You really can't make this stuff up. No-one would believe you!
>A recent study showed that climate change deniers are either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists.
Using this same methodology, it has been shown that believers in global warming support genocide.
So if you believe the claim that skeptics believe in conspiracy theories, then you have to accept that global warming believers support genocide.
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/...
I posted it here with no one finding a flaw in the study.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
The idea that global warming is fake could have some credibility to it were it not for the vast number of people that would have to be involved in the conspiracy.
In the US the first warnings of global warming came from the military, presumably they’d have to be part of the conspiracy.
Every government in the world accepts that global warming is real, so regardless of their politics they too must be part of the conspiracy. This means the Israelis and the Iranians, the Americans and the Somalis, the North Koreans and the South Koreans all agree with each other.
Then there’s the fact that not a single scientific organisation on Earth disputes that humans are causing global warming. Irrespective of backgrounds and scientific discipline they too must be part of the conspiracy.
At a meeting in Davos, Switzerland the CEO’s of the world’s largest 1,000 corporations unanimously agreed that global warming was the biggest single threat facing humanity. So you’ve got your oil companies, car makers, computer giants, retailers, manufacturers etc also part of the conspiracy.
Then we have the judiciary. Despite attempts from the sceptics, they’ve consistently failed to get a single indictment against anyone working with the science of global warming. The Judges, juries and the Police must also be part of the conspiracy.
In short, half the world is in on this alleged hoax. Quite remarkable when you consider that a government committee of six people can’t keep a secret yet a conspiracy that involves many millions of people has never had a single person break ranks. Even when the fossil fuel industry were paying bribes of $10,000 a day to get scientists to speak out against global warming, no-one broke rank.
- - - - - - - - -
It certainly seems that the global warming sceptics are more likely to believe other conspiracy theories. Amongst the sceptics past and present are people who believe the world is run by aliens that live in a hollow moon base, that the planet is rules by a secret elite (for secret elite read New World Order, the Illuminati, Club of Rome etc), there are those who believe the moon landings were faked, that we’re controlled by chemicals sprayed into the atmosphere from aeroplanes (chemtrails), that UFO’s regularly visit earth, that vaccinations are a form of mind control, that the world is 6,000 years old, that our water is contaminated with chemicals to keep people under control, that animals such as the Abominable Snowman are real etc.
Global warming is an observation: the cause, claims that bad weather is the result, predictions of bad things to come, attributing all manner of "bad" stuff from prostitution to the shrinking of animals is not a conspiracy, they're baseless conclusions used to instill fear to gain support to push an agenda. While some may call that a conspiracy it's really just a difference in ideology.
I guess you'll just have to adjust your smug little world view if it turns out that the skeptics are right and global warming turns out to be very insignificant.
A lot of very intelligent people don't take global warming seriously.
Well most people don't think that "global warming" is fake, but that those advocating massive disruption in our economy are wrong and some have a hidden agenda. Perhaps that is the same as a conspiracy. I don't see the same thing with say 9/11, but I only see sensible people in general.
If Global Warming if not real then Al Gore and the vast majority of Climate scientists in the world are all in on a huge conspiracy and anyone who believes that is a conspiracy theory believer. Are these people prone to believing in other conspiracy theories as well, such as 9/11 being an inside job?
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Conspiracy theories about AGW make about as much sense the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.
If you look at a flock of birds or a shoal of fish all moving in unison, you could believe that they are being led, coordinated, but it doesn't happen like that, all that happens is each bird/fish watches what his neighbour does and acts accordingly.
There is no conspiracy no master plan, each individual scientist is doing what suits him, if global warming can advance his career that the way he goes, and others follow suit.
Actually we deniers are part of a large conspiracy lead by the oil and coal companies.
If only the planet believed in global warming, it might not be in a cooling phase.
I wouldn't doubt it, if the UN is an evil satanic cabal bent on creating a one world government as most denialist seem to think. Then they probably believe that evolution is a fake, man never went to the Moon and Kennedy was assassinated by shape shifting reptiloid aliens from the constellation of Draco
Yes they do, just like Y2K
Possibly, but not necessarily. Here in the YA global warming category there are several notable examples and a somewhat larger number of prominent seeming counterexamples.
If one is mentally messed up enough to waste one's life on the internet, endlessly repeating 20 year old stock fossil fuel industry disinformation, deceptions, and myths ( see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument... ) concerning a century of climate science, the results of which science having been accepted by nearly every major science academy and university science department in the world for many years, it is child's play to top such crass denial of reality with denial that such crackpotism is logically preconditioned upon some kind of pervasive and supernatural decades-long grand conspiracy of the world's scientists.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cha...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_o...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mckib...
Questor do you think there are no conspiracies in the world?
Allow me to introduce into the record 38,900,000 instances of "Convicted of conspiracy." https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Ahc...
Exactly how naive does a person have to be to think there are no conspiracies in the world?
-----------------------
