Global warming lie...

[renard_ruse]

loser issue for the liberal establishment. These folks are really trying to snatch defeat from victory with these loser issues. From the polls we read, the majority of people agree with liberals on just about everything except a handful of issues for example gun control and man-made global warming. Seems pretty dumb to risk elections with things the public doesn't agree with you on when you supposedly have massive support on everything else.

 

[renard_ruse]

The problem is Bilderberg has decided that fighting imaginary global warming will be the excuse for building the nucleus of a world government. This was decided quite a while ago, and they are notorious for inflexibility once they make a decision.

 

[Skiddles2014]

The problem is Bilderberg has decided that fighting imaginary global warming will be the excuse for building the nucleus of a world government. This was decided quite a while ago, and they are notorious for inflexibility once they make a decision.

Retard say what.

 

[Sean Renaud]

One world government is going to happen sooner or later whether we like it or not but there really isn't a major upside to not letting it happen.

That said global warming is real and if the public doesn't believe in it oh well.

 

[phrodeau]

Have you been talking to the gas station attendant?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Have you been talking to the gas station attendant?

I think he's been huffing the gas fumes for fun.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The problem is Bilderberg . . .

Bilderberg?

 

[phrodeau]

Bilderberg?

Code for "powerful Jews".

 

[KingOrfeo]

Code for "powerful Jews".

New wrinkle, that.

"I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I hate being even pushed toward that, but I think there is a consensus conspiracy that’s going on."

—Tim Ball[1]

"Apparently, global warming is a liberal conspiracy. You know, because of all the things we have to gain from it, like, uh...um...you know, things like...um...NOTHING AT ALL, YOU LYING BASTARDS!"

—Marcus Brigstocke[2]

The Great Global Warming Conspiracy Theory refers to the questionable ideas bandied about by global warming denialists that global warming either isn't happening or is being over-hyped by a group of people who feel that they have some advantage to gain by promoting the evidence for global warming.

Besides the general nonsensical nature of many of these theories, they generally fail to answer how the conspiracy reaches back to John Tyndall's discovery of the greenhouse effect in 1859 (perhaps Al Gore invented a time machine after he was done with the Internet).[3]

Out of one, many

As is typical of many conspiracy theories, there is not one theory but several contradictory ones. Some of the ones identified here are now a little out of date, and no doubt conspiracy theorists have now invented some other tortured reasons for people backing the "conspiracy."

Because of the multiplicity of contradictory theories it is a good idea to get a global warming denialist to explicitly state which particular "theory" they are backing. There are two reasons for this:
##Amateur conspiracy theorists are usually not very bright and frequently don't know much about their own theory, and consequently can't give a direct answer - only that there must be a conspiracy.
##In the event that the person does have a clear idea, you obviously must know which one so as not to waste your time talking about another one.

The following are some of the many specific conspiracies identified regarding global warming. Note that this lists conspiracies rather than flat-out denials, though they often go in tandem.

It's an attempt by the UN to take over the USA

Apparently, an individual named "Maurice Strong" is behind an attempt to use the United Nations and its Framework Convention on Global Climate Change to...well...take over either the world[4] or the United States.[5] He is apparently assisted in this by World Economic Forum, the Club of Rome, the Aspen Institute, the Fabian Society and Communist China - he is, however, opposed by none other than The Dalai Lama![6] Christopher Monckton loves this one.[7]

It's that nasty Jacques Chirac

It's an attempt by former French President Jacques Chirac and the secret Bilderberg Group to use the Kyoto Accords to take over the world.[8]

It's the scientists

It's an attempt by scientists, politicians and environmentalists to take over the world. According to William M. Gray, they wish to find "a political cause that would enable them to organize, propagandize, force conformity and exercise political influence.'" Apparently Al Gore has something to do with it.[9] Muahahaha!

It's because scientists are denied funding

It's all a hoax invented by all the world's climate scientists to get funding.[10] The "evil" scientists have managed to fool the UN, the European Union, and the entire world.[11] This angle is also rather ironic considering that a sinecure at a denialist think tank can easily pay better than an actual post as a climatology professor.

It's a green scam

All climate scientists obviously own stock in green and renewable energy companies and they're pushing the theory to inflate their retirement funds and the green energy companies will make out like bandits.[12]

It's the environmentalists

It's a plot by those nasty environmentalists who want to prevent Africa developing a carbon economy. Alternatively, it's a plot by environmentalists who want to promote a carbon economy in Africa while damaging the USA's industrial output.[13] Two "theories" for the price of one!

It's a plot by left-wingers to destroy the industrialized world

This one suggests that it's associated with the anti-globalisation movement and it's an attempt to cripple the world economy.[14] How accepting international treaties while being against globalization is a good question to ask.

It's an attempt to promote nuclear power

According to this "theory," it's all about an attempt by Margaret Thatcher, and presumably her successors, to make the people of the world accept non-CO2-producing nuclear power.[15] It's not exactly clear what Phase 2 is, but Phase 3 seems to be "profit." This was promoted in the film The Great Global Warming Swindle.

As it becomes clear that "politically correct" renewable energy sources such as wind and ground-based solar are unable to meet the needs of civilisation, expect this one to be uttered more often by fossil fuel industry opponents. It is noteworthy that the UK nuclear power industry has been handed over to the French! (see Jacques Chirac above)

It's the Weather Channel

Follow the money. Who profits from extreme weather? The elite cabal of the Weather Channel, of course. By manipulating the climate for better ratings, the CEO stands to make literally thousands hundreds tens of dollars. This conspiracy may or may not be entirely serious and may be ranked among the likes of the conspiracy that Princess Diana was murdered by florists who wanted to boost sales.

It's a government attempt to control corporations

This theory claims that a carbon emissions tax (as proposed again by Al Gore, OMG!) would allow the United States government to gain substantial influence over industry (which, after the way they've managed to facilitate a global recession, wouldn't be a bad thing, if the recession wasn't mostly caused by problems in the housing market, of course).[16]

Exactly why Al Gore would benefit from the US government controlling corporations is unclear. Furthermore, with all the investment the government is presently being forced to make in industry, it may end up controlling a lot of it whether it has a carbon tax or not.

It's a Commie plot

Supported by, among others, Frederick Seitz and Eric S. Raymond, this claim is that global warming was a Soviet plot meant to undermine capitalism.[17] Terms like "memetic weapon"[18]. and "leftover KGB psyops" have been thrown around, making this one of the loonier approaches.

It's a global eugenics and/or depopulation scheme

This brand of the conspiracy theory states that global warming is a front for the implementation of a worldwide eugenics program or a scheme to depopulate the planet and kill off the "useless eaters."[19][20] Quotes from nutty hard greens (Pentti Linkola is a perennial favorite) often come in handy for "proving" this. A particularly amusing if little-known variant of this conspiracy theory posits that the depopulation plan was initiated by the anthropologist Margaret Mead at a 1975 conference on overpopulation.[21] This theory is more popular in the conspiracist pro-life circles due to its connection with the issue of abortion and it also makes for some good red-baiting material due to China's one-child policy, and you don't want to end up like those dirty Reds now do you?

The real conspiracy

There actually is a conspiracy surrounding climate change, and it's not what you'll hear from most conspiracy theorists: between 2003 and 2010, more than $7 billion were spent by conservative billionaires to fund anti-AGW organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.[22] Follow the money, indeed.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Guardian: Climate-change denialism is not "skepticism," it is "motivated reasoning.

So given the evidence is so strong against them, then why do these beliefs garner such passionate, vocal support? It's tempting to say the problem is a simple misunderstanding, because increasing average global temperature can have paradoxical and counterintuitive repercussions, such as causing extreme cold snaps. The obvious response to this misunderstanding is to elucidate the scientific details more clearly and more often.

The problem is that the well-meaning and considered approach hinges on the presupposition that the intended audience is always rational, willing to base or change its position on the balance of evidence. However, recent investigations suggests this might be a supposition too far. A study in 2011 found that conservative white males in the US were far more likely than other Americans to deny climate change. Another study found denialism in the UK was more common among politically conservative individuals with traditional values. A series of investigations published last year by Prof Stephan Lewandowsky and his colleagues – including one with the fantastic title, Nasa Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science – found that while subjects subscribing to conspiracist thought tended to reject all scientific propositions they encountered, those with strong traits of conservatism or pronounced free-market world views only tended to reject scientific findings with regulatory implications.

It should be no surprise that the voters and politicians opposed to climate change tend to be of a conservative bent, keen to support free-market ideology. This is part of a phenomenon known as motivated reasoning, where instead of evidence being evaluated critically, it is deliberately interpreted in such a way as to reaffirm a pre-existing belief, demanding impossibly stringent examination of unwelcome evidence while accepting uncritically even the flimsiest information that suits one's needs.

The great psychologist Leon Festinger observed in 1956 that "a man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." This is the essence of the problem, and sadly, Festinger's words ring true today: the conviction of humans is all too often impervious to the very evidence in front of them.

Motivated reasoning is not solely the preserve of conservatives. While nuclear power has been recognised by the IPCC as important in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, staunch and uninformed opposition to nuclear power arises often from the liberal aisle. In the furore over the Fukushima nuclear disaster (which has claimed no lives and probably never will) many environmentalists lost sight of the fact that it was a natural disaster, very possibly exacerbated by climate change, that cost thousands of lives. Instead, they've rushed to condemn nuclear power plants.