Which is actually a more plausible AGW conspiracy?

A question sure to set off the far far right (3 already have in fact) with the usual empty waffle.

Jim uses one, "If you think that governments don't want to increase revenue, then you haven't been paying attention" as usual he misses the logic of his own point, governments already get huge revenues from oil, yet they are trying to encourage us to use less.

1. Scientists are just as human as the rest of us but by training and usually inclination they are working towards finding the truth, so the idea that they would as a group conduct a conspiracy that would in the short term make them a little bit of money for something that (if true) would in the medium term destroy science as a field is ridiculous. Which is pretty easy to see when you ask deniers for any evidence on any of the many many versions of this deniers have created in some it's Al Gore in the one today Mike is blaming Maurice Strong.

2. Corporate greed and a willingness to conduct a misinformation campaign to protect profits is hardly new information and is in fact well documented going back many decades, chemical companies have lied and covered up spills or product safety, auto companies have lied about safety of vehicles, Tobacco corporations used many tricks to delay action on their products to protect their profits and indeed a number of lead deniers worked on that campaign and have now moved to denying AGW, and many of the excuses seem very familiar, tobacco also employ 'experts' who said smoking was not dangerous, while the bulk of medical scientists said it was. there is no doubt that denier lobby groups are lying about AGW and there is no doubt that oil companies funded those groups.

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_busine...

It's hardly a conspiracy when Exxon have admitted they funded these groups

P.S.

Ottawa's answer is hysterically funny

"Who says there needs to be any conspiracy? That in itself is paranoid thinking."

Given the number of conspiracies deniers have invented, blaming Gore, governments, greens, scientists, renewable energy companies, communists etc etc etc.

Who, really does he think he's kidding.

Then we have Kano (which ever denier he really is)

and this

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits, climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.

Cristine Stewart Former environment minister of Canada."

So it's all "phony" but if it is happening then it has "environmental benefits" there's some denier logic for you!, I guess this denier theory gives ice a free ride on the laws of physics on melting of ice, while these "environmental benefits" happen, oh wait deniers forgot about that, again!

Number 1 is as close as the choices can get.

<majority of the world's atmospheric and/or climate scientists>This is a bogus statement. Who defines who is an atmospheric scientist? What does an atmospheric scientist know about physics, for example? Physics is a very important part in the understanding of our environment. Is the head of the IPCC an atmospheric scientist? No he is a railroad engineer.

<and major environmental groups are all lying about the evidence in favor of AGW> They already HAVE been caught cooking the books in favor of AGW.

<Keep in mind that the more people involved in a conspiracy, the harder it is to keep going...>

Correction: the more people involved in a conspiracy, the MORE MONEY it is to keep going...

How did Marcott's paper get published in Science? It looks like he fabricated dates to get a nice big upwards spike at the end of his graph. Do you think the scientists who peer reviewed this even cared if he switched dates on some of the proxies he used? Do you think Science was looking for a flat graph or one they could tout with "The recent temperature increase is unprecedented in over 11.000 years"? The activism by Hansen is troubling, but what is worse in Climatology is the confirmation bias that seems to permeate the field.

I've seen it here on YA by all the alarmists. Somehow less snow, more snow, less rain, more rain, higher temps, lower temps....all seem to confirm the CAGW hypothesis. When you make a prediction like "Global Warming will increase cases of Malaria" and then I state that cases of Malaria have gone down since 2000, I'm met with "You're lying. And if if you're not it doesn't prove anything. Actually lower cases fit in with Global Warming."

When I point out that temps are trending below Hansen's scenario C of no increase of GHG past the year 2000 I get answers like "Well, he was pretty accurate." No he wasn't. Not even close. We've been steadily increasing CO2 since 1988 and temperatures are below his best case scenario.

I have no doubt that oil companies have paid money to some high profile bloggers and may have even paid a few scientists to be more skeptical of Climate Change. I also think a lot of scientists have staked their reputation on CAGW being true and either knowingly manipulate data (Mann, Marcott) or convince themselves that the results somehow confirm their hypothesis.

@CR...."Michael Mann could get hundreds of millions of dollars just by saying that there is nothing unusual about hockey sticks and that they happen every 1450 years. James Hansen could be an instant billionaire."

I'll bite....how?

Impossible to answer. Neither of your options is correct or makes any sense.

Why would you believe that a majority of scientists are in favor of AGW? This is pure nonsense. Actually, those convinced are a tiny minority. The fact that there has been no warming in the past 15 years is one reason that so few are convinced, and even their numbers are rapidly declining.

Right wing radio is an industry unto itself. To be 'relevant' the hosts of these shows require two things...an outside enemy and inside enemy. The inside enemy are the 'liberals' and the outside enemy are the Communists and the terrorists. The industry itself is under the loose command of the current GOP/Tea/Fox/Jesus party. The party itself is controlled by various trans national corporations....that is, really big money.

Basically right wing radio, Fox, the dozens of right wing think tanks, organizations and forums act as a Ministry of Propaganda for corporate capitalism. Of course when science suggests that the data shows that an ever increasing blanket of heat trapping gases generated by the uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels is gradually heating the planet there has to be a reaction from industries that make a living extracting, shipping, processing and selling fossil fuels. After all, coal, oil and gas are massive cash cows...who in their right mind would want to give up a cash cow? Would the various narcotic cartels stop producing, shipping and selling dope to be 'good guys'? Why would the coal, oil and gas mafias do that? Not only no, but hell no!

Of course there is a real downside of filling our paper thin atmosphere with CO2 just as filling the veins of Americans with dope. The cartels can't establish a venue for telling the public how good for society their product is or how law enforcement are a bunch of commies for trying to shut them down, but the fossil fuel mafias can.

Conclusion: Climate change is real, it's caused by burning fossil fuels, it's progressive and in time will effect every human being on the planet in a negative way. The fossil fuel industries know this because ALL of the data and science and the physics of heat and atmosphere agree on the extent of this problem. Still, the point of these industries is to make money and if that takes via the power of money controlling an entire political party and paying big bucks to engage in an ongoing propaganda war against 'the liberals', the 'environmentalists' and the 'scientists'...the inside enemy and the 'communists' and/or 'the terrorists'...the outside enemy' then that's what they will do. This isn't a 'conspiracy'...this is just 'good' business!

I don’t believe conspiracy theories typically explain positions of large human scale and endeavor, especially those that have been blamed throughout history. I take them as a last resort of explaining plausibility, when an understanding of the facts, prejudices, passions, and their errors of opinion, interests, and their selfish views are not withheld.

However, what I do see is a high level of cognitive bias, in that people including many scientist and politicians have been so convinced of AGW that any other though, approach, position, possibility, outside of the so called “consensus” is shoved to the side. Critical thought is no longer allowed – a critical component in science.

I have seen too many very bright people (including corporate executives, engineers, clergy, and yes scientists) confined in the bounds of cognitive bias. It is a very powerful thing, which in many cases makes me wonder if there is a correlation of intelligence level and the susceptibility of being held by its power.

If you think that governments don't want to increase revenue, then you haven't been paying attention. Attempts to exaggerate the statements of scientists simply reveals AGW is a political quazi-religious movement. You believe that fossil fuel industries are funding anti-AGW but you believe environmental groups and politicians don't have any monetary motivations.

Where are these anti-AGW funds?

Neither 1 or 2 is true IMO. You are making incorrect assumptions.

Antarcticice, unlike you I am a scientist so I don't have to wonder what they think. As usual you display your complete ignorance and leftist political bias. What a shock. At least you are consistent.

3. Having successfully polluted the public discourse with their astroturfed disinformation in the 1990s, part though not most of which was indeed "conspired," the fossil fuel industry can "accept" the basic science (even Exxon-Mobil as of 2008) and let an volunteer army of crackpots, semi-free-lance bloggers, con artists and dupes, who endlessly recycle the 101+ myths http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php cooked up over the past 20 years or so, do most of the deceiving and deliberate confusion-sowing.

Sorry, haven't got time to look up specific links right now, but this history is fairly well documented. Much of it is covered in the general links below (under "sources").

P.S. I've been critical of some of your past questions, but in fairness I have to say this one is quite incisive. It is, to be sure, a rhetorical question (as are most by most regulars here, and most of mine too), but is one of the best I've seen: simple, clear, straightforward, yet hits an important nail squarely on the head. Hat's off, Chem!

Edit: A few more specific links here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/1...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/19/exx...

http://www.amazon.com/Exposing-Climate-Hoax-About-...

OM has a point. Who does need a conspiracy?

But, since I'm here, if we were to admit to the possibility of a conspiracy, the second is certainly more plausible. For one thing, any scientists who are for sale could be millionaires just by endorsing the what the resource industry wants us to hear. Michael Mann could get hundreds of millions of dollars just by saying that there is nothing unusual about hockey sticks and that they happen every 1450 years. James Hansen could be an instant billionaire.

And what governments are interested in is votes. If governments ever were motivated to support AGW to promote taxes, that reason would have disappeared the minute that support for the taxes, which AGW is allegedly about, failed to materialize.

But environmental groups are lying. They are lying about nuclear power supposedly being dangerous

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/0...

and about the Keystone Pipeline controversy being about oil vs. renewable energy. In fact it is about the Alberta oil sands vs. OPEC oil. OPEC oil is not green. They flare enough gas to meet the combined needs of Germany and France.

http://www.esmap.org/esmap/sites/esmap.org/files/R...

Researchers pound the global warming drum because they know there is politics and therefore money behind it.. I have been critical of global warming and am Persona non grata.

Dr William Gray.

Professor of atmospheric sciences at Colorado State University, and leading hurricane expert.

Scientist who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to find a way to scare the public... and this you can only do by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.

Petr Chylek

Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science. Dalhousie University Halifax.

It is not a conspiracy, that implies cooperation between conspirators

No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits, climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.

Cristine Stewart Former environment minister of Canada.

It is not a conspiracy, that implies cooperation between conspirators Its just a case of self interest of different groups, and individuals. it's just people jumping on the gravy train.