conspiracy theories

[user 37518]

PS: I used that Peavey badge to good effect at one trade show by walking around on the last day with a pair of drum sticks and asking dumb questions to get booth people who didn't recognize me to share stuff.  Some people still think I ask dumb questions.  8)

Thats wicked! did they reveal something useful?

 

[Phrazemaster]

That is a good example but you have it reversed. People with expertise outside thermodynamics / climate science feel capable of believing that GHG driven climate change is a conspiracy. Even though a majority of the  experts disagree with the conspiracy theory. (both experts in climate science and those with a background sufficient to understand the 'all encompassing physics'). My background and field of work is energy systems and simulation and I had a lot of course work in grad school on thermodynamics, etc... and the evidence that GHGs provide a forcing effect on climate is conclusive, IMO. Additionally I personally see a consensus opinion among experts on this.

Another bias that contributes to this type of thing is called the confirmation bias. Once you have a 'side' then you continue to see / seek out the facts that support your side. This is easy to do in the age of the internet where your browser goes down a rabbit hole of facts supporting, for instance, climate change denial.
But when you actually study / work in a field, you are confronted with a more broad range of opinions / facts and have more trouble descending into a isolated bubble.

Do flat earthers know they're wrong? no. (or maybe some do and are just trolls, I don't know)

Understanding the limits of your own expertise is one of the most difficult intelligence tasks there is.
Daniel Kahneman had a funny illustration of this called the 'Tvorsky' test, referring to a very intelligent colleague of his (Amos Tvorsky). The test was how quickly a person realized Tvorsky was more intelligent than they were.  The quicker they realized this, the more intelligent they were. 

On the flip side, there is something called an 'appeal to authority' bias used to discredit minority beliefs because a 'expert' disagrees with it. Minority views are extremely important in science and there are many examples in history when a fringe /anti-establishment view turned out to be correct. 

Predicting the future of any chaotic system is impossible and no expert can conclusively say what the climate will be like over the next few decades - but IMO arguing that that fact discredits climate science is foolish. A lot of conspiracy beliefs are argued by getting lost in the details and complexities

Finally, I would urge you to check out the Factfulness by Hans Rosling. It goes over many important issues confronting humanity including some of the most challenging, like population growth. It lays out a fact based world view that is optimistic for the future.

If people are truly interested in understanding the world, we should spend less time arguing for our side, and more time learning the facts - and base our views on those facts.

The problem is -one man’s fact is another man’s fiction. It is categorically difficult to ascertain if a fact is really a fact - even if based on studies. This makes for a slippery slope that makes it easy to adhere to the confirmation bias of which you speak. Few are scientists or qualified to properly evaluate evidence and studies.

Even you referred to “climate change deniers” and by labeling them completely dismissed their point of view.

Our climate is changing, yes. But I watched an illuminating documentary that showed that scientific studies that don’t agree that humans are causing global warming are not funded, or printed in journals. Scientists with the opposing viewpoints (and there are many) simply don’t get to be heard. Follow,the money. It’s by no means “settled science”  (and neither is the science of vaccines but that’s another can of worms).

Cap,and trade. What a ridiculous joke of a way to capitalize on what should be a global effort to reduce emissions. No company should be allowed any credits to pollute, or the ability to buy credits from other companies to pollute. What a racket.

IMO the real issue is not whether or even how much humans are contributing to climate change. The real issue is we need to stop polluting and clean Gaia. This satisfies everyone regardless of climate religious belief.

How funny the media has us quibbling over the wrong questions, which keeps us from just doing what we need to do.

 

[JohnRoberts]

This reminds me of a thing that happened at the auto parts store.  My truck has a small freon leak at the compressor  and I went to go buy one of the small (cheap)  cans of refrigerant . Seems they changed the fittings on the newer style cans so the AC hose I had wouldn't work with them.. they changed the taps to be self sealing so if you remove the hose from the can, any left over wouldn't seep out...
So I had to make the decision to buy either a new $25 hose to fit with the newer style (cheaper)cans I also had to buy, or pay more for the older style can that works with my existing hose because , you can still get the old style cans, but the price has increased dramatically to make it pretty much a null either choice.

.. So they changed the newer cans to be more environmentally friendly I'm guessing but, you can still use the other kind if you pay more.  Wouldn't they just get rid of all of the other style cans instead of selling the last of them at a higher price?
Ultimately, wouldn't they just quit selling them (refrigerant refills) at all because, something else must have  a leak..... not worried about that????

They even have a cute commercial where a dog jumps out and grabs a can for his owner to beat the heat so, it seems the logic is wonky ......I think being greener is obviously a good move but the cash grab opportunities being created in between is frustrating.... at least that's a cheap move..... Silver lining

Perhaps you never heard about the hole in the ozone layer, caused by chlorofluorocarbons?

This was a real immediate problem, identified in the 80s and the world ultimately responded, to mitigate it by using different coolants .


JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

For some fresh fodder for the conspiracy nuts of the world connect the dots for a Japanese oil tanker attacked in the straits of Hormuz while the Japanese leader is in Iran talking with the Iranian leadership.

Of course sometimes coincidences are just that.

JR

 

[dmp]

The problem is -one man’s fact is another man’s fiction. It is categorically difficult to ascertain if a fact is really a fact - even if based on studies. This makes for a slippery slope that makes it easy to adhere to the confirmation bias of which you speak. Few are scientists or qualified to properly evaluate evidence and studies.

Even you referred to “climate change deniers” and by labeling them completely dismissed their point of view.

Where did I do that?  I just searched this thread for that quoted phrase and it didn't come up.

And anyway, that phrase means people deny that the climate is changing, which is ridiculous and can be shown with overwhelming scientific evidence (temp measurements, polar ice cover, migration patterns, etc). 
Some things that are completely contradicted by scientific facts can be dismissed I think (but we certainly don't have to ridicule or insult anyone).
The discussions in this thread have been about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), where Anthropogenic means human caused.  It is a much more difficult question of causation for a complex phenomenon.

Our climate is changing, yes. But I watched an illuminating documentary that showed that scientific studies that don’t agree that humans are causing global warming are not funded, or printed in journals. Scientists with the opposing viewpoints (and there are many) simply don’t get to be heard. Follow,the money. It’s by no means “settled science”  (and neither is the science of vaccines but that’s another can of worms).

I really don't care if people disagree on climate change. There will always be people that think a cold day in summer is evidence against climate change. 
I disagree on opposition research being poorly funded - it is funded by corporate interests and politic hacks. They don't get anywhere in academics or peer reviewed journals, but they have a lot of impact with fringe documentaries, youtube videos, and facebook content. 
I agree that a lot of people have a lot of difficulty determining facts from fiction.
And the thermodynamic concepts required to understand causation factors of climate change are at higher education level than average.

Similarly, the regulation of earlier pollutants that harmed the environment were controversial and had similar anti-science reactions.  The technical concepts were similarly hard to understand for non-scientific people.

Cap,and trade. What a ridiculous joke of a way to capitalize on what should be a global effort to reduce emissions. No company should be allowed any credits to pollute, or the ability to buy credits from other companies to pollute. What a racket.

IMO the real issue is not whether or even how much humans are contributing to climate change. The real issue is we need to stop polluting and clean Gaia. This satisfies everyone regardless of climate religious belief.

Developing technology that reduces pollutants has been most effective in the past. Asking for sacrifices is difficult, especially across nations, and leads to the election of populist manipulative politicians. The USA (and other countries) have effectively mandated reductions in pollutants within the country (CFCs, NOx, Soot, etc...) that forced US companies to develop cost effective technology (combustion aftertreatment devices) and/or replacements (refrigerants, low Sulfur Diesel).  The same is happening for CO2, as solar and other clean energy costs are dropping. It is cheaper to install solar than coal today.

There are still people that think free markets are good and government regulation is bad, so they come up with these free market ideas like cap and trade.  That is an economic argument coming from fiscal conservatives.

 

[Phrazemaster]

Where did I do that?  I just searched this thread for that quoted phrase and it didn't come up.

"This is easy to do in the age of the internet where your browser goes down a rabbit hole of facts supporting, for instance, climate change denial. "

I really don't care if people disagree on climate change. There will always be people that think a cold day in summer is evidence against climate change. 

I mean no disrespect but it is naive to think that we have the ability to understand this in a real way. The simple view is just this: let's stop polluting. We see climate change yes - but who or what is causing it is not what's important. Because we can't prove it.

But even if you think we can - it doesn't change what the right thing to do is: stop polluting the planet. We are not on opposite sides even if we disagree as to causation.

I disagree on opposition research being poorly funded - it is funded by corporate interests and politic hacks. They don't get anywhere in academics or peer reviewed journals, but they have a lot of impact with fringe documentaries, youtube videos, and facebook content.

Since you don't know the source of my information, you can't tell me its fringe science or the best of science. You can't tell me if it's funded by "political hacks" or Mickey Mouse. Or a bona fide scientist. It's too large a brush to paint the opposition with - "it's all funded by hacks." Really? No, not really.

And there's great money to be made on the "for" side of AGW - make no mistake. Your scientists and media are profiting from all this, hugely.

Anytime there's a big brouhaha by the political machine, it's usually time to be skeptical of what's really going on.

It was a really well done documentary - 2 hours - with considerable thought and effort put into it. And it was convincing. Suppressing the opposition's voice is always the tactic when someone is aggressive in their views.

I understand the motivation - people feel so strongly about something that they feel it's almost criminal to voice the opposing viewpoint. But this leads to anarchy, censorship, suppression. The truth loses, and we all become mentally poorer.
I agree that a lot of people have a lot of difficulty determining facts from fiction.

And the thermodynamic concepts required to understand causation factors of climate change are at higher education level than average.

100% agree. It's maniacally complex. But again - I posit that it doesn't matter either way who or what is causing climate change. Climate has changed since forever. And it will continue to do so. Reading tea leaves, even scientific ones, is just that. Guessing. No matter how strongly one believes it. Have you noticed they have started calling it "climate change" instead of Global Warming? Nobody can argue "climate change." Anyone can argue "global warming" because some areas are getting cooler.

In any case - I respect your views. I am not trying to be unkind to you in any way shape or form. Peace brother.

Mike

 

[JohnRoberts]

There are still people that think free markets are good and government regulation is bad,

me, me, me...  8)

so they come up with these free market ideas like cap and trade.  That is an economic argument coming from fiscal conservatives.

Huh... It may be "market" based but not exactly free market.

A free market phenomenon would be our emissions going down because of cheap NG, not from government force but pretty much the opposite... We have so much NG in some oilfields it isn't economic to harvest. 

Cap and trade seems like another scheme from the globalists to extract revenue that they can redistribute, after getting their slice.

JR

 

[dmp]

me, me, me...  8)Huh... It may be "market" based but not exactly free market.

A free market phenomenon would be our emissions going down because of cheap NG, not from government force but pretty much the opposite... We have so much NG in some oilfields it isn't economic to harvest. 

Cap and trade seems like another scheme from the globalists to extract revenue that they can redistribute, after getting their slice.

JR

No, I don't think so - "emissions going down" because of natural gas was more a side effect. It has a higher H/C ratio than coal and burns more cleanly but the energy market moved to Natural Gas because it is cheaper.  So it is not a free market phenomenon that produced lower emissions. Correlation does not imply causation. The market was not optimizing for less pollution, it was optimizing for lower cost / higher profit.
You can see a similar illustration in automobile technology development over the last half century. Technology continuously improved, but targeted performance and other tangibles for consumers UNLESS government mandates were forcing emission reductions or efficiency increases.  The only time consumers drove higher mpgs was when gas prices increased (again cost optimization).

Are there any true market solutions for less pollution (NOx, soot, etc) ?  I don't think anyone who understands economics would say so. Pollution is a classic externality.
If individual's are buying things that directly impact their own property or living space, they will tend to pay more for less pollution, but when it is an abstract effect on 'the commons' people will tend not to (tragedy of the commons in economics). 
There are numerous studies asking people if they would like lower pollution (yes) but how much would you pay extra ($0).

 

[JohnRoberts]

The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics

https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/

of course there are only 5 top skeptics....lol...7.5 would be weird......

But I know of a few more skeptics that aren't on this list...... Seem like pretty smart people.....  Isn't that one scientist who actually discovered methane's negative effects on the atmosphere one of them??? Freed or Reed or something?...I'd have to look....

Try not to be so easily distracted... It  is hard enough to refine this down to the correct question(s) let alone answer it (them).

We can marshal wide agreement on some simple objective "related" questions, but it is dishonest to extrapolate this near universal agreement on say what the temperature is today, to what is the appropriate action...

Science is not a popular vote or a massive PR campaign.

JR

 

[dmp]

The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics

https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/

of course there are only 5 top skeptics....lol...7.5 would be weird......

But I know of a few more skeptics that aren't on this list...... Seem like pretty smart people.....  Isn't that one scientist who actually discovered methane's negative effects on the atmosphere one of them??? Freed or Reed or something?...I'd have to look....

And everything should be a controversy with an equal number of proponents and opponents... flat earth,  etc... /s

1st skeptic, associated with Global Warming Policy Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
A lobbying group trying to oppose policies aimed at mitigating anthorpogenic climate change. The group refuses to reveal its funding sources.  Follow the money (there's a reason it is kept hidden)

I'm not saying there are no well informed people that disagree on the impact human activity has on climate change (and operate in good faith). It is very difficult to determine causality of a complex system like the earth's atmosphere, and the proportion of people with the necessary education to understand the science is small. But I think a significant part of the opposition is operating in bad faith, funded with dark money, and in reality has lobbying goals ($) rather than scientific or search for knowledge goals.
In my opinion, if you can't conclude CO2 has no effect, we should not continue to produce it from fossil fuels. Especially when technology offers such better solutions than fossil fuel combustion.
This basically flips the paradigm.

 

[Matador]

We see climate change yes - but who or what is causing it is not what's important. Because we can't prove it.

Forming it in this way seems nonsensical:  if one day, all of your hair fell out, the correct response shouldn't be, "Well, all that matters is that I have hair on my head, so I need to find someone that sells wigs to fix it."

No, you would go to a doctor, or someone trained to deal with such situations, and they would run diagnostic tests to determine the most likely root cause.  Maybe it's cancer, maybe you were exposed to radiation,  maybe it was an acute allergic reaction, or maybe it's just male pattern baldness.  Every one of these causal factors that resulted in hair loss has radically different remedies, only the last of which might be "It's time to find a wig or live with it."

Do not confuse complexity with comprehension - there are many complex systems that we can reason about, even with large uncertainties.  It's the entire foundation of particle physics.  Concluding it's unknowable  and thus we should act without regard for the cause is placing the cart squarely before the horse.

 

[kambo]

science apologized from EGG
and still some scientists are saying that we shouldnt eat EGG, because there is no nutrition or anything
good for us to eat it!
strange isnt it, even tho you can fact check the nutrition values of EGG in lab for 100$, or
google it for free!
trick is, they are talking about some really nasty stuff we are eating
ie: processed food, which totally makes sense, not to eat that kind of bad food! ( i dont mean  dont ever eat btw)
once you are feeling comfortable, and start to believe those guys, then they slam the EGG in ur face,  and other ideas they have... and by nature, u go
woooaa OMG, i shouldnt eat egg ... egg is bad! i should eat that, thats bad...
until u read about egg or get it tested!

egg is easy to deal with, climate change is not so... we still dont understand most of our climate/dynamics
but,
even if there is no global warming, we still must cut on any kind of pollution anyway!
but money talks as always!
i am hopeful that with in 25-50 years we all have better understanding of our planet,
and we will have very strict new rules...
technology multiplying it self...
it was 1984-5 when i first touched a computer : Sinclair ZX

 

[JohnRoberts]

science apologized from EGG
and still some scientists are saying that we shouldnt eat EGG, because there is no nutrition or anything
good for us to eat it!
strange isnt it, even tho you can fact check the nutrition values of EGG in lab for 100$, or
google it for free!
trick is, they are talking about some really nasty stuff we are eating
ie: processed food, which totally makes sense, not to eat that kind of bad food! ( i dont mean  dont ever eat btw)
once you are feeling comfortable, and start to believe those guys, then they slam the EGG in ur face,  and other ideas they have... and by nature, u go
woooaa OMG, i shouldnt eat egg ... egg is bad! i should eat that, thats bad...
until u read about egg or get it tested!

egg is easy to deal with, climate change is not so... we still dont understand most of our climate/dynamics
but,
even if there is no global warming, we still must cut on any kind of pollution anyway!
but money talks as always!
i am hopeful that with in 25-50 years we all have better understanding of our planet,
and we will have very strict new rules...
technology multiplying it self...
it was 1984-5 when i first touched a computer : Sinclair ZX

Speaking of eating funny stuff the recent faux meat boom is amusing to watch (at arms length)... They figured out how to make it taste more like meat by putting some of the same bad stuff in it... Now they're finding out it may have GMO vegetable matter in it too so not really all that green.  :

But most human decision making does not completely involve rational analysis but intuition and feel... non-meat meat "feels" like it should be better*** for us. 

JR

*** I guess plants don't fart methane 
[edit] but plants do eat CO2 and exhale O2 so a massive conversion from meat consumption to fake plant based faux meat consumption could reduce atmospheric carbon....  We're saved.. make it so #2.  [/edit]

 

[kambo]

*** I guess plants don't fart methane

leave a " half radish" on ur kitchen counter before u go to bed, talk in the morning

 

[JohnRoberts]

leave a " half radish" on ur kitchen counter before u go to bed, talk in the morning

I have a cute miniature flip top garbage can on my kitchen counter to collect vegetable scraps. The lid keeps most of the smells inside between emptying it into my outdoor compost heap a couple times a week. The vegetable waste doesn't smell as rank as meat scraps in my regular garbage.

I eat raw garlic every night so I personally contribute to atmospheric greenhouse gases with human methane (I also routinely exhale CO2 ).

JR

 

[kambo]

I also routinely exhale CO2

JR

good to know that,
some thinks u r an android

 

[boji]

The govt successfully keeps secrets for decades all the time. If they didn't we'd know everything the CIA and NSA knows.

A testament to this is how people always refer to CIA and NSA when dangling conspiracy theories in front of people, but never mention the NRO, which has the lion's share of funding.

As for flat earth popularity, I blame the Russian/Chinese troll factories.

The UFO debate is more fun to argue about than the Van Allen radiation belts.  ;D

 

[boji]

Do you believe government is successful at promulgating frauds and keeping them secret for decades?

Regarding UFO's, probably. Disinfo is the standard chaff deployed when civilian witness testimony/reporting gets anything right about a black budget special-access project detail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertson_Panel

 

[kambo]

this is little odd,
my friend was over my place to work on his short movie soundtrack,
so i received this mic from amazon on door while we were having a break,
then, i unpacked the box, started talk about it...then,... with in
2-3 min he received an email about that specific mic i just received!
i like to call it coincidence... but its odd!
that dude has/had no plans for buying any kind of mic!

 

[cyrano]

Sometimes, it isn't a coincidence.

A while ago, I needed a FB code for developers. Of course, can't get one without a FB account. So I created one. No pic, no info, no real name. Of course, the email address was correct, as it doesn't seem to work with one of the throw-away email services. I have NO FB friends, no events, just a membership of a few audio related groups. And even those are read-only. Only about a dozen people ever got suggested as friends that I really know. All of them have a FB account, obviously and none of them has much sense when it comes to privacy. I didn't "connect".

Fast forward a year or so. Discovered a nice pub while out magnet fishing and drone flying with my son on a sunny Sunday afternoon. The same night, that pub shows up in my friends suggestion list on FB.

Mind you, I haven't got a FB app on my iphone and I didn't use my iphone that afternoon. But even if you don't use it, your location obviously gets reported to FB.

I' wrecked my brain for a few days wondering how this was possible..

So I installed a filtering VPN and, lo and behold. Almost every app on iOS comes with one or more trackers built in. Some of the companies behind these trackers are open about it. Some don't even have a website. Up 'till now, the filter caught about 45 different trackers.

The filtering VPN, called Guardian isn't publicly available yet, but it will be in a few weeks.

Names of these trackers:
Amplitude
AppsFlyer
InMobi
Flurry
App Measurement
MoPub
AppLovin
AppNexus
OpenX
Scorecard Research
...

I do have a few apps that are data collectors themselves, like Shazam. Shazam was recently acquired by Apple and contains yet another tracker: Chartbeat.

And I don't even have 45 apps on my phone, so some obviously have several trackers...