Originally Posted by justone

It is called red herring fallacy. We are talking about AWG only. Is it difficult to stay on topic?

Originally Posted by justone

All I have to prove is what I claim:
Originally Posted by Gill
If you believe that science doesn't have a huge monetary and political interest in continuing the GW theory, you are indeed naive.

Originally Posted by Gill

Brilliant commentary..

Come back when you have something to add to the conversation.

Originally Posted by justone

science has a huge monetary and political interest in continuing the GW theory because:

1. they don’t do it for free and on their own time, and they bear no monetary loss if their statements are not true. That’s all.
And that is enough. This is the beginning and the end of the proof.

But also the following is true:

In the same way as many of us do:
1.When money don’t matter so much they like fame and higher positions.
2.They don’t like to admit mistakes, as it may cause loosing positions and grants.
3.They like to see themselves to have higher value in society.
4.They act through highly political institutions, such as UN.
5.A voice disproving their life achievements is dangerous and
6. they have worked out an number mechanisms of suppressing such voices and protecting themselves.
6.a. One, but not the only, of such mechanisms is the appeal to the public opinion in highly specific matters, which obviously has grown to be a mere propaganda.

.

Originally Posted by UtahBill

same words can be used to describe religious leaders....interesting parallel...

Originally Posted by Heretic

Oh really? Well, since your massive claims to conspiracy are completely irrelevant to AGW since it provides only a motivation for deception, not proof of one, perhaps you should stay on topic too, eh?

Originally Posted by Heretic

unwillingness to address the issue seems to suggest you do), your skepticism for AGW rests on something other than your BS appeal to conspiracy. Lemme guess... its the usual partisan hackery, the hatred of all things liberal and Al Gore, and not an honest evaluation of the evidence, right? Let's face it. All you're discussing is the potential for conspiracy, not that one actually exists or that what they say is false.

Originally Posted by justone

Not all of them and not in the full extend and you have to really stretch it… but a parallel can be drawn.

Do you see conspiracy among religious leaders?

Originally Posted by justone

Not all of them and not in the full extend and you have to really stretch it… but a parallel can be drawn.

Do you see conspiracy among religious leaders?

Originally Posted by justone

Massive claims? I just made a 3 line comment away from you and you go ballistic with all kinds of insinuations.

Originally Posted by UtahBill

. . . global warming IS happening, but it happened before many times, long before we humans were here to add to it...

Originally Posted by Heretic

See? You haven't thought this conspiracy theory through at all, have you? Of course it's a massive claim. Do you have any idea how many people would have to be involved for this conspiracy for profit to exist?? Do a little homework, would you?

Originally Posted by Gill

Don't be so melodramatic. Of course it's not a conspiracy. It's every man for him/her self. All of these scientists in the organizations you listed are fighting for the billions of dollars available to the scientists willing to buy into the AGW scam and publish some garbage supporting it.

Originally Posted by Gill

They are not working together, they are fighting each other tooth and nail to get as much of the grant money for themselves and their organizations as possible.

Originally Posted by Gill

By the way, NASA has stated that the PDO has made a long term shift and will affect the climate by cooling it for the next 25-30 years. NASA has also organized a conference to discuss the highly unusual lack of activity on the sun. They are saying the lack of sunspots and solar wind will greatly affect Earth's climate, and it won't be making it hotter.

Originally Posted by Gill

Don't be so melodramatic. Of course it's not a conspiracy. It's every man for him/her self. All of these scientists in the organizations you listed are fighting for the billions of dollars available to the scientists willing to buy into the AGW scam and publish some garbage supporting it.

They are not working together, they are fighting each other tooth and nail to get as much of the grant money for themselves and their organizations as possible.

Originally Posted by Gill

By the way, NASA has stated that the PDO has made a long term shift and will affect the climate by cooling it for the next 25-30 years. NASA has also organized a conference to discuss the highly unusual lack of activity on the sun. They are saying the lack of sunspots and solar wind will greatly affect Earth's climate, and it won't be making it hotter.

Originally Posted by jfuh

I think you can now go join the tin foil hat crowd.

Originally Posted by MarkH

Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn't because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it's that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information.

But how could it be possible, for instance, for every nearly every scientist in a field be working together to promote a falsehood? People who believe this is possible simply have no practical understanding of how science works as a discipline. For one, scientists don't just publish articles that reaffirm a consensus opinion. Articles that just rehash what is already known or say "everything is the same" aren't interesting and don't get into good journals. Scientific journals are only interested in articles that extend knowledge, or challenge consensus (using data of course). Articles getting published in the big journals like Science or Nature are often revolutionary (and not infrequently wrong), challenge the expectations of scientists or represent some phenomenal experiment or hard work (like the human genome project). The idea that scientists would keep some kind of exceptional secret is absurd, or that, in the instance of evolution deniers, we only believe in evolution because we've been infiltrated by a cabal of "materialists" is even more absurd. This is not to say that real conspiracies never occur, but the assertion of a conspiracy in the absence of evidence (or by tying together weakly correlated and nonsensical data) is usually the sign of a crackpot. Belief in the Illuminati, Zionist conspiracies, 9/11 conspiracies, holocaust denial conspiracies, materialist atheist evolution conspiracies, global warming science conspiracies, UFO government conspiracies, pharmaceutical companies suppressing altie-med conspiracies, or what have you, it almost always rests upon some unnatural suspension of disbelief in the conspiracy theorist that is the sign of a truly weak mind. Hence, our graphic to denote the presence of these arguments - the tinfoil hat.

Another common conspiratorial attack on consensus science (without data) is that science is just some old-boys club (not saying it's entirely free of it but...) and we use peer-review to silence dissent. This is a frequent refrain of HIV/AIDS denialists like Dean Esmay or Global Warming denialists like Richard Lindzen trying to explain why mainstream scientists won't publish their BS. The fact is that good science speaks for itself, and peer-reviewers are willing to publish things that challenge accepted facts if the data are good. If you're just a denialist cherry-picking data and nitpicking the work of others, you're out of luck. Distribution of scientific funding (another source of conspiracy from denialists) is similarly based on novelty and is not about repeating some kind of party line. Yes, it's based on study-sections and peer-review of grants, but the idea that the only studies that get funded are ones that affirm existing science is nuts, if anything it's the opposite.