I am more inclined to trust scientists than oil companies.

I am more inclined to trust scientists than oil companies.

Because every one who disagrees with human made global warming theory is on the pay roll of oil companies? And everyone who fights human made global climate change is ideologically pure of financial incentives?

OK, why do you doubt anthropogenic CC?

Because it's bad science: politically motivated, far too CO2 focused, heavily reliant on often suspect or flawed computer modeling, not supported by direct observations and also at odds with earth's climate history and the observed nature of climate change trends

They know.

The bias you're referring to is most likely just spillover from the mainstream "consensus", global warming is one of the very touchy subjects even on a sub like this.

Man-made global warming is BS and always has been. And I love how it's been re-branded "climate change".

They're two separate terms. The MSM is lamentably poor when it comes to science reporting (or most other forms of reporting!).

Global warming is the term used to describe the current increase in the Earth's average temperature. Climate change refers not only to global changes in temperature but also to changes in wind, precipitation, the length of seasons as well as the strength and frequency of extreme weather events like droughts and floods.

So far, you are the only one who has directly addressed the question of Why does /r/conspiracy/ appear to have a Pro-Anthropogenic Climate Change bias?

For the past several weeks I have noted a large voting bias on any subjects that are critical, even superficially, of ACC.

This is normal throughout the Internet Social Media, so in itself, it's not surprising. But on /r/conspiracy of all places?

A subreddit that questions, parses and argues practically everything?

To be honest, that sounds like a fucking conspiracy to me.

You can't trust the voting anymore man, if anything it's sometimes the comments and threads that get buried which seem to have the most merit and truth in them. I was going to say "especially here on this sub", but then I thought better of it and realized it's probably even worse in the main subs.

In my opinion, it's about manufacturing a false consensus which is so incredibly easy to do on a site like this which is anonymous and relies on voting to determine what people see. How tough would it be for you yourself to make a few fake accounts and artificially upvote each of your own comments and threads 2 or 3 points right after posting them? And then imagine if you actually had access to software that allowed you to control 6, 7, 8 accounts at once - or a team of people with such software - and you can see how easily it would be to manipulate the discourse.

You can see this happening almost anytime a thread is posted on one of the more "divisive" subjects. Oftentimes the top comment will have like 30+ upvotes and be negative towards the OP while most every other comment in the thread will be positive towards the OP and have 10 or less upvotes.

You can't trust the voting anymore man

If only it were just about trust, but this site effectively buries posts (imo worthy of discussion) more often than not.

Reddit is an echo chamber just as Wikipedia has become; it's very disheartening.

A couple reasons.

1. Free thinkers are by definition anti-establishment. If they see corporations supporting one side of an issue they will migrate in the other direction.

2. Brainwashing. If they are under 40 they have been brought up with the guilt of destroying the planet. When something is ingrained from a young age, it is very hard to overcome.

   “Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world.” ― Vladimir Ilich Lenin

3. Because this sub is being brigaded.

OK, good points but...

Free thinkers are by definition anti-establishment. If they see corporations supporting one side of an issue they will migrate in the other direction.

Anti-corporate types may skew to the opposite side by default but free-thinkers should seriously question things when the government as well many politically connected corporations start paying lip-service to a global policy agenda. There should be some serious red flags going up.

Brainwashing. If they are under 40 they have been brought up with the guilt of destroying the planet. When something is ingrained from a young age, it is very hard to overcome.

Very true, the best intentions of the true environmental movement have been hijacked for political purposes a while now. The indoctrination in government schools is so inculcated in the curriculum it can't be avoided.

Because this sub is being brigaded.

If so, it is a well regulated brigade of voters. But, something is seriously awry in /r/conspiracy when topics are getting dv'ed into obscurity by a relative few amount of voters. It doesn't take much in a busy sub like this, keep a post topic at zero for just a little bit of time and it will effectively die.

I post in /r/conspiracy so i can interact with fellows who like to question and parse things out.

When my posts start attracting comments from people vehemently upholding the system or the status quo...I get suspicious because it seems to me that they are like fish out of water.

This is not to say I expect agreement, but this topic is a good example...

Let's Discuss: Why does /r/conspiracy/ appear to have a Pro-Anthropogenic Climate Change bias?

There's something seriously wrong.

Other than underestimating the brigading that is going on, we are in complete agreement.

Randall Carlson. The younger dryas ended with a change in global temp of 15°+ within a decade or two.

I can't deny anthropogenic climate change but I can bring it into a geological context. Volcanoes and asteroids.

One of my favorites heretics of science.

For those who asked:

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

For the intellectually honest among us:

^{-from Trust, yet verify: Searching for the missing pieces of climate change communication}

So, what do climate scientists agree on? Scientists agree that

• Surface temperatures have increased since 1880
• Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
• Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet

However there is considerable disagreement about the most consequential issues:

• Whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes
• How much the planet will warm in the 21st century
• Whether warming is ‘dangerous’
• And whether we can actually do anything to prevent climate change

Why do scientists disagree? There are a number of reasons:

• Insufficient observational evidence
• Disagreement about the value of different types of evidence
• Disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence
• Assessments of areas of ambiguity & ignorance
• And finally, the politicization of the science can torque the science in politically desired directions.

Can you post peer reviewed sources to back any of this up? I don't know if you believe that thousands of academics from nations all across the globe are part of a conspiracy to overwhelmingly support the idea that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a major driver of the warming we have seen in the past century, but your list is completely at odds with what is taught, using peer reviewed observational and model evidence as justification, in university.

Can you post peer reviewed sources to back any of this up? I

No. I don't need "peer review" papers to back up an understanding what scientists are saying in their own panel discussion:

NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change

Let's get one thing straight: the sacred cow of peer review is not a universal panacea for trumping rational debate. It's simply one more man-made institution that can be prone to its own internal politics and corruption.

Now, yes, there are plenty of peer-reviewed papers on both sides of the argument, but one must ask: Does one side get more publicity and funding than the other?

If the answer is one "side or the other" then peer reviewed scholarship is not anywhere as inviolate as has been promoted by some. As a scientific currency, peer review can become corrupted. Blindly accepting the output of the process is part of the current problem facing the scientific progress of today.

None of that matters.

I'm not a "scientist", I am a human being with a brain and the capacity for rational thinking.

As I said before: dissent is necessary, and of all places, this subreddit should have that in spades.

It just seems from my experience that there can be a pretty big gap between what people say about this issue and what they actually have evidence for. Curry for example, sounds very different in public than she does in her actual research. She is part of a small but vocal minority of scientists that publish work that estimates low climate sensitivity, but even her own work stands in huge contrast to the points that she presented to that panel. Richard Lindzen is another example of a scientist who says very different things in his public occupation as a mouthpiece for conservative thinktanks than in his actual published research.

No disagreement here.

Judith Curry is certainly no "climate change denier" but she is what I term an intellectually honest person who happens to be a scientist.

It's also why I posted Dyson Freeman's interview, he encapsulates the climate debate rather well in a balanced and reasoned manner. He touches upon computer modeling, the nature of CO2 in the atmosphere and gives light to the a debate that is far more nuanced than the hyperbolic ravings that commonly fly off the science media's press headlines.

Which scientists are you referring to?

Is there a list of approved scientists somewhere?

Is knowing who it was that said something, more relevant than the content of what is exactly being stated?

I'm just curious that the first stop in analyzing information for some is "Who said it?" versus "What is the information?"

As for the scientists:

• Moderator Dr. Rajnish Barua – Executive Director, NRRI

• Panelist: Dr. Joe Casola – Staff Scientist and Program Dir. Sciences &Impacts, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

• Panelist: Dr. Judith Curry – Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, GIT, and President, Climate Forecast Appl. Networks

NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change

Well get used to it because money and blackmail.

Also suiciding.

It's not that I don't understand why people focus on personal politics, I just think it's a very telling thing concerning what passes for scientific inquiry these days from the science establishment and layman alike.

Everything is compromised when we have this much corruption floating around. None of them are to be trusted. All you really have are your two eyes and a brain. Use them wisely.

CO2 is used in greenhouses to fertilize and feed the crops - not to warm the greenhouse. Three greenhouses in the same field outdoor - one with 150ppm, the other with 1000ppm, and the third with 10000ppm will all have the same internal temperature - I have done the experiment myself under tight controls. CO2 as an agent of global warming is a myth and attacks on CO2 production should rightly be seen as an attack on Earth's plant life.

Its science.

Its denial, not a "debate." And not politics. The politics is in how we deal with it.

Downvoting it doesnt change it.

Its denial, not a "debate."

That's what some man-made climate change advocates would have us believe. It's far more efficient to just blacklist with such broad strokes by decreeing that someone is a "DENIER" instead of actually dealing with or acknowledging a reasoned and validated position of dissent.

Just using two very recent examples of what Judith Curry and Freeman Dyson have stated illustrates the intellectual failure of writing off dissenting opinions as "denial-ism".

The politics is in how we deal with it.

And politics will, and often does, eclipse understanding and truth.

Oh please stop with Judith Curry, her "science" had been soundly debunked on this subreddit many times. Citing a cherry picked outlier does nothing for the discussion.

You can deny all you want the sun rises in the east. You can downvote it as well. But its not gonna rise in the south tomorrow. If it does, science will change to reflect that. So far it hasnt.

Most climate denial is pure organized corporate astroturfing.

Peter Christoff, writing an opinion piece in The Age in 2007, said that climate change denial differs from scientific skepticism, which is essential for good science. He argues:

"Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."[14] The relationship between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism has been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine scientific evidence on the dangers of secondhand smoke, and linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.[20] Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials.[21]

Wikipedia

I'm shocked Judith Curry would be so attacked! /not

her "science" had been soundly debunked

That's hilarious. Tell me, what is Professor Curry's "science" and in what way has it been "debunked"? By debunked you mean, she's pissed some people off because she doesn't resort to hyperbole and personal attacks in defense of ACC?

And seriously, quoting Wikipedia, arguably ground zero for what passes as the pseudo intellectual defensive center for consensus and the status quo on the Internet?

the 'big' debate over climate change is over

You don't see a problem with that statement?

That doesn't send up alarm bells tolling on how ridiculous that statement and position is?

Dont be so lazy Look it up yourself.

There's a lot of information that can be found on search engines, if you have the slightest amount of intellectual curiosity.

Obviously you dont.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/11/miami-drowning-climate-change-deniers-sea-levels-rising

Dont be so lazy Look it up yourself.

Excuse me?

Why would I want to look up that type of criticism which is so juvenile and profoundly deranged?

Once again, another ACC devotee is attacking people and not ideas.

I'm sorry but you don't seem to have a clue what Curry's position is on Climate Change, you are just bandwagoneering onto the consensus mob's crusade against anyone who supports reasonable debate and intellectual honesty.

ACC fanaticism demands an unwavering hysteria expressed in a constant flow hyperbolic rhetoric, any measured approaches or acknowledgment dissent is viewed as heretical.

Judith Curry appears to be an honest scientist, she has a reasoned position on the theory of ACC, she also acknowledges that the debate is far from over or "settled".

Its obviously you didnt read any of the links here:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm

Its only a debate because you say so. Skepticism is welcome. Denial is counterproductive.

I'll go with the consensus on this one.

You're excused.

Yet again, making it an argument on personality. You couldn't even speak to the bullet points detailing actual disagreement between scientists. Instead, you join in the usual tactic of attacking people's careers, cherry-picking quotes and ignoring the actual debate.

The Truth about Skeptical Science

And then links from the shill site.....

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN, right on script.....

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN that was fast....

Ahhh Good OLD Tree-Rat. Always close to a climate change debate.

I'll let you in on his techniques...

1. He will swear that anyone who does not agree with him "Has been disproven"
2. He will worship on the alter of SCIENCE, until the science disagrees with him (which happens remarkably quickly..)
3. He will acccuse of "BIG OIL" being behind it all, somehow ignoring the multi-TRILLION dollar benefits of making up a crisis and those that really benefit (including BIG OIL, but when they benefit from carbon taxes then they are good)...

Did I miss anything?

I see no reason why anyone would doubt anthropogenic climate change. The real debate is about the nature of that change. Are increased CO2 emissions causing global warming? No. Does draining lakes, ponds have an affect? Of course. Ozone depletion, rainforest destruction, destroying mountains for mining operations that can and do affect global wind currents - all anthropogenic sources for climate change. All topics of legitimate concern and discussion - and a foundation for action. CO2 Global warming alarmists are retarded morons however and can not be expected to engage in rational discussions regarding nature, the environment, meteorology, or science in general.

Edit: damn you autocorrect

I see no reason why anyone would doubt anthropogenic climate change.

Really? Not even with the fact that there has maybe been a half degree of fluctuation in the world's avg temp in the past 200 years?

When the Army Corp of Engineers drains a swamp and turns it into a desert, displacing animals, affecting local temperature, etc - that's man made climate change. The emphasis on being Local vs Global and how many local changes can amass to make a global impact. Is a global affect attributable to man? Of course not, that would take us back to being able to solve for impossible multivariable differential equations. In theory, however, the Butterfly Effect would suggest that man has an affect - however - the degree of that affect is a slippery slope of unsolvable mathematics.

Precisely. So with that in mind, why are the common people to blame or responsible for this? Why is the supposed solution in our hands?

That route leads to a dog chasing his tail. We dont have the resources nor the man power to affect any local fluctuation. The government does though. Instead of looking at each other for an answer and some tax money its high time we start staring at the real cause of 'global warming' no wait 'climate change'. This is going to continue until everyone starts taking chemtrails seriously. Carbon in the atmosphere? Greenhouse gases? That is exactly what those chemtrails are doing. No other excuse comes close, not Joe Schmo's old truck, not even factory pollution. Chemtrails are directly injected into where they need to be for the most impact..

My personal view on this matter is that we need further investigation into the effect that our weakening geomagnetic field may have on climate. A virtually depleted magnetosphere can cause a vast number of problems and our geomagnetic field is weakening at an alarming rate.

My personal view on this matter is that we need further investigation into the effect that our weakening geomagnetic field may have on climate

Let's not move the goal posts for the discussion to a completely different topic.

I'd be happy to hear your views and related links over in my very under populated /r/Suspicious0bservers sub. ;)

Here we go again.

Global Warming

no

Climate Change

wait yeah

'Geomagnetic Field Decay'

thats the ticket!

Geomagnetic Field decay is quite real, it is one of countless variables, but because it does have global significance it can be considered. Magnetic field weakening such as the one we experience today has been proven through geological evidence to accompany Magnetic Field Reversal. Geologically, we are many thousands of years behind schedule for a field reversal. Why the long delay? If the shield goes down, how long can it stay down before irreparable damage is done?

These questions have much greater immediate import than CO2.

So youre hoping to prevent a pole shift now? I dont know man, at some point you need to let go.

If the Earth's magnetic field continues decreasing at the current rate, we can expect a (possible) pole shift in around 20,000 years.

Or any day now, geologically speaking.

Not at all, merely suggesting that we make prudent preparations. A loss of the geomagnetic field for several thousand years will provide a brilliant global display of auroral activity punctuated by devastating solar flares that may also cause much of our oxygen to be lost to solar wind. Massive reforestation efforts and the construction of subterranean cities may be worth considering.

subterranean cities may be worth considering.

I think the elite may be a step ahead of you there.

Ideally, you would think everyone as equally pragmatic. Planetary catastrophe events can only be survived by people with rockets and self sufficient space ships.

11 trillion dollars later and theyre living inside of the moon amirite?

They'd have to get there first...

Well, the moon would be even less protected than Earth. Just look at all the craters. Plus, the Earth's geomagnetic field makes it a valuable transporter for life. This is why making the Earth into a spaceship would make far more sense, sure, the moon would make a great weapons platform for shooting down dangerous asteroids, which, I imagine any sensible civilization would do. All spaceships need a deflector array and so does our Earth-Moon system. Earth's Stellar Navigation System sucks balls. Why just a year or two ago a meteor almost blew up Russia. Some conspiracy theorists would even claim that it was done on purpose.

I mean, if down the road the government wanted to set up a penal colony on the moon then fine, but I would hope that there are enough people out there who would actually want to live on the moon and make it the world's top tourist destination. I mean, who the hell wouldn't want to have a moon base? Or a Mars base? Or a huge array of O'Neill cylinders or any fancy stuff we can imagine and bring all of humanity into an age of solar system colonization?

It's a big club and you aint in it.

And they arent on the moon, theyre inside of it.

Also, since were on the subject of spaceships, some people would claim that is exactly what the moon is. It has no natural business being where it is.

But, long term thinking - we should work to convert the Earth into a spaceship that will allow humans to travel between galaxies, take orbit around other stars, planets, etc. A massive project to be sure, but we should consider what we can leave behind for future generation. What if The Ancients had never built the Stargate system? We would still be a single planet with no access to the countless worlds in the Milky Way or the Pegasus galaxy. Humanity would be snuffed out in a cosmic instant for all eternity - trillions of years could pass with no memory that humanity ever existed...

Thankfully, our visionary leaders in government are wise men who fund science, technology, exploration, and engineering... and so humans are fortunate that we possess the intelligence to consider the Long Now. Why just the other day I proposed to the Planetary Congress to place into a high orbit around the Milky Way a satellite that would transmit telemetry and astronomical data to all civilizations that may arise for billions of years. A means with which to give a leg up to any intelligence so that one day life may reach every corner of the cosmos. The Planetary Congress unanimously approved - and launch of the Trillion Year Milky Way Orbiter is expected soon. Millions and Billions of years from now, unknown civilizations will look back on humanity in awe and wonder and it is all thanks to our efforts here today. /dream

The bad bacteria is overtaking the good. We are a long way from the mindset of the Ancients. We now live in a world where 95 percent of us have nothing and 5 percent have everything. I guarantee you this; we are nothing but in their way at this point. That's why the urgency of truth exists now.

I see no reason why anyone would doubt anthropogenic climate change.

Most people wouldn't state that they don't think people can impact climate, but there's a huge difference as to degree that humans can and do impact climate.

Large cities certainly cause lasting temperature changes for example.

However, founding a global policy on the idea that humans are the major driver of climate on earth is simply bad science and evil politics.

However, founding a global policy on the idea that humans are the major driver of climate on earth is simply bad science and evil politics.

One couldn't very well send 'nature' a bill if more blame was laid there. And there is a LOT of push back from industries that should carry more of the blame. Beef as one example. Laying the blame with humans in general means that the 'bill' can be siphoned split equally among all humans.

One couldn't very well send 'nature' a bill if more blame was laid there.

Well, we don't attempt to charge anyone for rainy days or earthquakes. Obviously such things can have economic impacts but living a life always does.

Climate change happens.

Mankind has witnessed it throughout history. Vast expanses of land once inhabited lies submerged resulting in massive amounts of hidden human history withing to be discovered.

^-more

Any computer model for the environment must have at its basis an extremely complex multivariable differential equation with an outrageous number of variables. Computer programs rely on math. This is how you have things like the Butterfly Effect and Chaos Theory. Climate modelers must first mathematically propose - using logic - a mathematical proof that a multivariable equation containing multiple unknowns can be solved. Their mathematical models most often times do not even have an existence theorem for which an answer can be outputted.

Local climate change can definitely be attributed to man - but evidence for global warming is nonexistant. When I see Environmentalists proposing a draft to the Army Corp of Engineers with the purpose of massive reforestation I will happily join them. When they make proposals to construct coastal reefs, clean up pollution, recycle, etc - I have been signing those petitions since Kindergarten; massive changes in wind currents caused by removing mountajns, building new mountains called skyscrapers, asphalt, reflectivity of cities - are all examples of anthropogenic climate change. As far as CO2 goes, CO2 levels are far too low for Biosphere restoration. This planet needs about a trillion more trees, a massive reforestatio project and to restore countless of animals from that brink of extinction. Humans can affect climate - unfortunately - current plans focusing on CO2 regulation do not address the actual issues.

subterranean cities may be worth considering.

I think the elite may be a step ahead of you there.

OK, good points but...

Free thinkers are by definition anti-establishment. If they see corporations supporting one side of an issue they will migrate in the other direction.

Anti-corporate types may skew to the opposite side by default but free-thinkers should seriously question things when the government as well many politically connected corporations start paying lip-service to a global policy agenda. There should be some serious red flags going up.

Brainwashing. If they are under 40 they have been brought up with the guilt of destroying the planet. When something is ingrained from a young age, it is very hard to overcome.

Very true, the best intentions of the true environmental movement have been hijacked for political purposes a while now. The indoctrination in government schools is so inculcated in the curriculum it can't be avoided.

Because this sub is being brigaded.

If so, it is a well regulated brigade of voters. But, something is seriously awry in /r/conspiracy when topics are getting dv'ed into obscurity by a relative few amount of voters. It doesn't take much in a busy sub like this, keep a post topic at zero for just a little bit of time and it will effectively die.

I post in /r/conspiracy so i can interact with fellows who like to question and parse things out.

When my posts start attracting comments from people vehemently upholding the system or the status quo...I get suspicious because it seems to me that they are like fish out of water.

This is not to say I expect agreement, but this topic is a good example...

Let's Discuss: Why does /r/conspiracy/ appear to have a Pro-Anthropogenic Climate Change bias?

There's something seriously wrong.