A conspiracy theory of my own (and one that’s not)

If it wasn’t for the fact that I am now (post-Aaronovitch) very wary of invoking conspiracy theories (other than when they are clearly based on facts and not just theory), I would say that James Delingpole himself has ensured that my laptop will not allow me to comment on anything on the Telegraph and My Telegraph websites; but such madness would be worthy of inclusion in the next edition of Voodoo Histories itself. What was that? Oh, you want to know what I mean when I refer to a factual conspiracy to deny AGW is happening; rather than that imagined to claim it all as a myth? If so, you’d be wanting then to read Jacques, P. et al (2008), ‘The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism’ in Environmental Politics, Volume 17 (3), pp.349-85. However, if that sounds too much like peer-reviewed scientific literature for you, please see my “Wake up and smell the coffee” instead.


About Rick Altman

Possibly just another 'Climate Cassandra' crying 'Wolf' in cyberspace. However, the moral of the old children's story is that the Wolf eventually turned up!
This entry was posted in Climate Science, Environment, James Delingpole, Scepticism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to A conspiracy theory of my own (and one that’s not)

  1. Peter Freeman says:

    Ok I read your Jacques et all… My word! Its a deluge of half and total untruth’s, assertions and rhetoric. Let’s compare what Jacques says with what Harrold Lewis and the other 260 members of the APS say. Jacques say that by definition, since Lewis and co question, they are evil, members of a conspiracy, dissidents, sponsored by right wing subversive movements that want to destroy the world. Lewis and co on the other hand are saying ‘look, if what the IPCC says is true, then when we repeat their processes their findings will be confirmed. Let us, a group of independent physicists, examine their science and findings’ Now there is a saying that say ‘No honest man ever minds being asked for proof of his honesty’ So how come the IPCC does not take up Harrold Lewis and co’s invitation, and that of every other similar scientist that has requested the same or similar thing? Surely they would JUMP at the chance to be proved right and gain new support of new scientists and physicists? So here is the burning question: Why don’t they accept the offer… “No honest man EVER, minds being asked for proof of his honesty!”


  2. Rick_Altman says:

    The IPCC’s findings have been examined and – having been watered-down to such an extent by such an exhaustive internal and external peer review process with panels of “experts”, government officials, and fossil fuel lobby stooges – their warnings have so far been ignored. However, why should the majority view be continually, needlessly, questioned? Those who continue (to seek) to deny the reality of AGW are (though they may not realise it) engaged in the same process of perpetuating doubt as were tobacco company executives 50 years ago; despite the overwhelming evidence that there was – and is – no real reason to doubt that smoking causes lung cancer. Similarly, given that we can now be very confident that the burning fossil fuels is causing climate change, the debate about who is to blame should be over; we need to move on to decide what we are going to do about it. It is just not acceptable for AGW deniers to keep moving the goalposts everytime they lose any particular line of argument: Your one-world (“UNSSR”) socialist government conspiracy does not exist; any more than your misanthropic, anti-progress, “take us all back to the Dark Ages” one does… For the record, Jacques et al do not suggest that CTTs are “right wing subversive movements that want to destroy the world”. That is a pathetic parody of their often-stated central argument that CTTs seek only to maintain the “business as usual” (i.e. BAU) status quo.


  3. Peter Freeman says:

    You are just repeating yourself, you are not actually addressing a single thing I have said when it comes to your ‘96% majority’ and ‘peer reviewed’ replies. Who has ‘externally’ peer reviewed the IPPC’s findings? Who? You repeat ‘the debate is over’ but yet more and more evidence and research is being brought to the table all the time. The debate is so clearly FAR from over it is ridiculous to continue make this claim, it is so utterly and obviously a false claim! If you do not see in Jacques’ rant that you referenced in your post that he sees the current ‘business as usual’ as destroying the world then I don’t know what to say… Even YOU state that, repeatedly, the whole AGW argument is a ‘we are destroying the world if we don’t change’ argument… Rick, you last paragraph is just a dishonesty, come now…


  4. Rick_Altman says:

    With regard to your opening question, this has the unfortunate effect of suggesting you are grossly ignorant of relevant facts (or are even further down the conspiracy theorist rabbit-hole than I thought). However, for those who want to know and that are willing to be reasonably objective, I would recommend reading this. With regard to Jacques et al., CTTs are indeed set upon a course that will destroy the world as we know it (or at least make it much harder for us to retain it – because pursuing a BAU strategy will be the ultimate human folly). My point was that, although this may be the reality of the situation, it is not the accusation made by Jacques et al. However, it is the (almost certainly correct) interpretation made of it in your (perhaps slightly guilty) mind. In our “discussion” on my About page, I have been painfully honest regarding who I am and my reasons for believing what I do. However, who are you Peter? What is your (scientific) background? What is your excuse, as George Monbiot has I believe rightly portrayed it, for “climbing over a mountain of evidence [for legitimate cause for concern] to pick up a crumb” [of cognitive dissonance-empowerd comfort]? This reality obviates me from any necessity to unpick the ideological prejudice and cherry-picking of scientific data in any “crumbs” you ask me to look at.


  5. Peter Freeman says:

    Thank you for posting the IPCC link, it goes directly to the source of the argument and provides absolute evidence of the fact the the report is NOT peer reviewed! Let me explain to you what peer reviewed actually is: Laying ALL your data and methodology out in public for ANY scientist or scientific organization to scrutinize and verify. This is the open book policy on would expect from the UN on such an important issue that is so absolutely “clear and beyond doubt”! Surely the data and methodology, in detail, at every stage of the process, is public property, since it has been paid for by public funds and is apparently going to effect every individual on earth? But no. The IPCC page CLEARLY shows that this does not happen, the process they follow has ONLY “nominated experts”, “selected authors” and “government review” which is the very thing that is so widely criticized! So I ask you again: WHO has peer reviewed the IPCC’s findings? Please point out a scientist or organization that is NOT funded by any government, not connected with the IPCC in any way and is truly independent. Can you please show us this and NOT duck the issue! As for your last paragraph, it shows the opposite of a thinking and questioning mind, it shows what is wrong with the IPCC and the entire AGW debate! You simply point to your own findings, refuse to enter into any debate and repeat, like a mantra, “the science is settled”, a statement invented by and according to, yourselves! This is the opposite of science, the opposite of public interest, even the opposite of evidence for what you claim. No wonder the world is disbelieving you, the public is turning away from you, governments of countries like China India and Brazil along with the USA are chucking your lies out! For anyone who is reading this blogg and HAS and enquiring mind enough to review a scientific rebuttal of the IPCC’s ‘findings’ click on this link: http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=df568fcb7e077f90be724a9ad&id=7895729033


  6. Rick_Altman says:

    I think you need to wake up (and stop believing everything you read on denialist blogs such as BishopHill and Wattsupwiththat)… The Chinese are a very long way from dismissing AGW as Western propaganda. For example, see their: 2008 White Paper on Climate Change; and Twelfth Five Year Plan (i.e. for 2011-16). See also this item about China (and my response to it [#2]) on the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) blog. I will deal with your ridiculous APS nonsense in a forthcoming post but, in the interim, are you any closer to telling us all a little more about you and your expertise on this subject?


  7. Peter Freeman says:

    Rick your want to dismiss logic and evidence on the grounds of ‘qualification’ is an inherent intellectual dishonesty and will not hold any water with me. I am as ‘qualified’ as anyone, IPCC fiction writers included.


  8. Rick_Altman says:

    That would be a “No” then? I think I know what intellectual dishonesty is and, I for one, am not guilty of it! Accusing me of dismissing evidence is stupendously ironic but, enjoy your “crumb”; I hope it satisfies you.


  9. Peter Freeman says:

    I think if you think you are not guilty of it, you do not understand what it is. Anyone who simply read this blog could see that, “crumb” bing exhibit A.


  10. Rick_Altman says:

    Re: intellectual dishonesty – See new post: The Ark of the Covenant and the Temple of Dagon.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s