the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

On Conspiracy and Fake Solutions

Posted by Jeff Id on December 20, 2009

Faith, the final frontier.

These are the voyages of the human enterprise.

It’s hundred year mission, to predict new strife and constrain civilization;

To boldly hold, such that no man can expand before…..

Bah waaah da da da da daaaaaah

I (and actually we) have often been accused of promoting conspiracy theories in climate science. It’s meant to be an automatic disqualifier of tAV opinions, which from the large number of us who gather here, are shared in some part by much of the public.

First, to clear the air, conspiracies exist everywhere, so at least I’m guilty as charged. People collude though, for a common goal as part of our normal social structure. We are stronger in groups than individually – a basic fact which has led us to organize most everything we human demons do. When our views align, we work together toward our goal, often with unspoken intent to demonstrate what we believe is right. If you don’t agree with this basic point, consider that political parties are a conspiracy by definition, as are businesses, militaries, police forces, religions etc. Fortunately, there’s nothing wrong with most conspiracies.

The nice thing about businesses conspiracies is that you always know the motive- Money! You already know what the other guy wants to do before you begin negotiation. You also know that if it doesn’t work out for either one of you, the relationship won’t last. What you don’t know is, whether the other party gives a crap whether you make a dime or survive as a company at all. That’s where we get into gray areas.

In the case of science, the motive is supposed to be the continued advancement of knowledge. In practice, scientists ARE motivated by that common goal, but they also have pressure from money, the future ease of publication, acceptance by peers, and in the case of climate science – easy fame.

Politicians have different motives. They experience all kinds of monetary pressures, group pressures and rewards for decision making. The pressures and rewards are so great that when listening to a politician, we non-braindead know that the words we hear are an expression of their individual pressures more than a belief in their truth.

So then we come to climate science. In normal science, the literally trillions of dollars are NOT on the line. In normal science, theories are provable, money is minimal, and fame comes when you do something truly unique. In climate science, proof of correctness is probably 20 years out as a minimum. There is massive and immediate money on the line, and perks for concluding unprecedented global warming include, huge fame, easier publication, financial rewards, and control over government policy. Therefore, it should be no surprise that the politics of the situation have thoroughly corrupted the science of climate.

The evidence for this corruption is everywhere, but it does not mean that all of the science is bad. Climate scientists like to claim the emails represent a small problem in a local group of people. The global warming isn’t proven wrong they say. They contend that we still have disasters looming and we need to address them. It’s true that climate science wasn’t proven wrong, but it was proven corrupt. The very fact that climatologists sit in groups and insist/believe they have full agreement of their peers demonstrates, not the quality of understanding the science, but rather the quality of the penetrations of politics into an uncertain and VERY YOUNG science.

Do the scientists who are at the top of their fields realize the above, not all. But guys like Keven Trenberth, Michael Mann and Phil Jones do. They understood the need to maintain a perfect consensus to achieve the IPCC goals. Do they believe in what they do? I dunno. I don’t think Mann does, but how can you tell what another thinks?

What further complicates the situation, is that scientists like all people, come to opposing conclusions. In the case of politics, choosing the right scientists affects the outcome far more than actually committing fraud. Fraud is not the keystone of a good conspiracy, subtleties of choice are.

Here’s an email which like many others, makes the point:

Dear Phil
Just finished reading your paper with Mike M in Rev of Geophysics which I
very much enjoyed – will let you know when it hits the Mission Beach
Hope all is well
best wishes
Janice M. Lough

Dr. Jones reply’s with this email.

Most of the data series in most of the plots have just appeared on the CRU web site.
Go to data then to paleoclimate. Did this to stop getting hassled by the skeptics for the
data series. Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are
just trying to find if we’ve done anything wrong. I sent one of them loads of series
and he barely said a thankyou. It seems they are now going for Tom Crowley, Lonnie
Thompson and Gordon Jacoby as most of their series are not on web sites.
Below is a link to an awful piece by Legates. He told me he is a writing a paper, but
wrote the press release first ! The pdf is worth getting for a couple of sentences, when
said that MJ restricted their use of paleo series to those that had correlations with
instrumental data ! It is a classic. ‘Our uncertainty estimates are based solely on how
the proxy records match the observed data’ !
The Legates piece must have been sent to loads of environment correspondents across
the world and a number of op-ed pieces appeared. Some were awful. Most have had
responses from Ray Bradley, Caspar Amman and others.
Hope all is well with you and all the best to all. Glad you enjoyed the paper.
PS Do you want to get involved in IPCC this time? I’m the CLA of the atmospheric obs.
chapter with Kevin Trenberth and we’ll be looking for Contributing Authors to help the
Lead Authors we have.
Paleo is in a different section this time led by Peck and Eystein
Janssen. Keith is a lead author as well.

Is there anything wrong with that? Not really, but you see the scientist sorting mechanism in action. It does exist, and pretending it doesn’t is for fools. Another point which is not spoken is that the scientists at the top are of a far left political persuasion as well. You almost have to be in order to feel good about working for the IPCC.

Remember these scientists and politicians just got on the world stage and literally screamed at the world that, if we don’t let them tax us hundreds of billions of dollars and send it to small generally communist, ‘undeveloped’ countries , the world will die. As an ignorant conservative, you couldn’t get me to do that except by gunpoint. Of all things we know, we know the solution presented, was a FAKE!

And as this allegedly apolitical group of “scientists” took the world stage they smiled while standing hand in hand with the politicians. They expressed joy as they politicians peddled what can only be described as socialist global wealth redistribution, combined with the voluntary destruction of our capitalist world economies. All accomplished through FACTUALLY unreachable emission standards.

So the politicians and scientists, in a single unified voice, demand for us to believe. They don’t ASK for faith in the consensus, it’s demanded!! And they won’t even share the DATA!! They don’t want to share the data so badly, Phil Jones said he would destroy it rather than share it. In fact, they actually did delete all Email conversations related to the IPCC, simply to prevent the possibility of disclosure of what was written during the creation of the IPCC consensus.

In the face of multi-trillion dollar political insanity, we would do well to remember these ‘scientists’ are nothing but glorified weathermen. The same as the much derided group of science minded individuals who tell us if it will rain next week. These ‘climatoknowledgists’ claim to know the average temperature a hundred years in the future within two degrees C, yet can’t nail down the temp of St. Louis within 5C in two weeks.

If there’s anything I’ve learned in the past year, I’ve learned that the science of climate isn’t settled. The politics however, are a different story.

Reason seems to be winning the day now, but a multi-billion dollar political adventure won’t be going away anytime soon.

21 Responses to “On Conspiracy and Fake Solutions”

  1. boballab said

    Jeff You completely nailed one section that most people don’t understand and that is on Conspiracies. Most people when they hear that word automaticlly assume and conflate it to mean Criminal Conspiracy and the “Smako filled backroom with shadowy figures”. What they fail to understand is that conspiracies happen everyday, its normal and most are not very earth shattering.

    When Becky Sue tells Robin Mae that Billie Jean’s boyfriend Bobby Joe has been running around with Suzie Q behind her back but don’t tell Billie Jean, that is a conspiracy. Nothing sinister, no smokefilled backroom and it isn’t earth shattering.

    Everytime you read Confidential, eyes only, don’t pass this on or any of the other euphemisims that the Team used in the E-mails is a conspiracy in action and as shown they even conspired against each other. An example of that is when Briffa Emails Jones talking about Mann and Briffa not wanting Jones to tell anyone else.

    So did they all sit around a table and form a conspiracy to take over the world? NO.

    Did they Conspire with each other? Without a doubt.

  2. stan said

    Check out this conspiracy.

  3. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Important, I think, not to confuse what the word conspiracy means and everyday evidence for the existence of conspiracies, both with malign and not so malign intentions, with the more problematic conspiracy theories.

    Conspiracy theories like the Communist conspiracies thrown around in the 1950s and the theories about a conspiracy in assassinating Jack Kennedy and even the right wing conspiracy that Hillary Clinton defended her husband’s dalliances with. Those examples of the uses of the word stem from lazy thinking and impugning those that you already do not like by attempting to connect a reality with the thinking that the conspirators are capable of the acts of which they are accused by conspiracy.

  4. dearieme said

    “In normal science,…”: I sometimes worry about other patches of science too. Nutrition? Drug-testing? Anywhere that people can’t perform, and replicate, proper controlled experiments is a worry; anywhere that they depend on just observation and modelling is vulnerable. I hope that not all these areas have been distorted by zealotry and huge incentives. But Nutrition? Drug-testing?

  5. […] of this centuries moral equivalent of the “Pentagon Papers”. There was a posting at . In this posting the author develops some thoughts viz the process of dissembling dissent. It is […]

  6. Jeff Id said

    #3, You’re right, at least until we come up with a new word to represent people working together to a common goal.

  7. Manmade global warming is certainly a conspiracy, in the sense that the preferred and official science is, as Jeff says, linked to a political and economic agenda—which, in this case, is sweeping.

    And the action agenda implies that all of us will be compelled to bankroll enormous wealth transfers and make other sacrifices. Nations will be forced under a disastrous carbon cap.

    There would be no volunteering here. The fraudulent studies lead directly to forced political/economic brutality. Fraud plus force certainly smacks of conspiracy.

    There is a history of science-political conspiracies, and in the cases I have investigated, there is always a forcing-compulsory aspect somewhere in the mix. Ot at least an attempt to make it so. This is accompanied by at least one boggling non-sequitur.

    As I detailed in an earlier post, the intense demand to “rescue Third World nations” (not including China and India), when those nations are not big carbon emitters and when, they, like every other nation in the world, would be utterly destroyed by the predicted flooding of the planet—this makes no sense. This is a non-sequitur. It points to another agenda not connected to warming. Hidden agenda comes close to defining “conspiracy.”

    (For example, in what amounts to a mild 2009 flu season, where mortality numbers don’t begin to match the official numbers of a regular flu season (CDC states 36,000 people in the US die every year, like clockwork, from run of the mill flu), vaccine manufacturers have managed to conspire with governments, or have forced governments, to state that no legal liability can be attached to cases where people die from, or are injured by, the H1N1 vaccine. This is also a non-sequitur. Why should manufacturers be awarded this exclusion, especially when governments are paying in advance for millions of vaccine doses, whether they are subsequently used or not?)

    It’s surely no accident that top players in the warming-science fraud are hooked tightly to top political players who seek to impose their agenda on us all.

    When Gore looks at Mann and Mann looks at Gore, they don’t need to spell out the game to each other. Each understands his role in the overall plan.

  8. John F. Pittman said

    The correct word is confederacy.

    However, it appears some are part of a confederacy of dunces. An exceelent book by Kennedy.

  9. Pouncer said

    conspiracy? collusion? alliance? mutual admiration society? social network? clique?

    It seems to me the use of the term ‘conspiracy’ is intended to convey illegality — a strong claim that may be difficult to establish under criminal justice standards: ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.

    I have little if any doubt the hockey team was cheering for their own side and hostile to all competitors — in a way beyond scientific manners expects. I don’t know that the enthusiasm for this cooperative endeavor rises to the level of conspiracy.

  10. boballab said

    Here is the definition of the word Conspire:

    –verb (used without object)
    1. to agree together, esp. secretly, to do something wrong, evil, or illegal: They conspired to kill the king.

    2. to act or work together toward the same result or goal.

    –verb (used with object)
    3. to plot (something wrong, evil, or illegal).

    Now Is what the Team did in the past meet the second definition listed there? Yes.

    Now here is the definition for Conspiracy:

    –noun, plural -cies.
    1. the act of conspiring.
    2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
    3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
    4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
    5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

    Is what the Team did in accordance with Definition 1 and 5 listed? Again Yes.

    It doesn’t have to be illegal, immoral or evil to be a conspiracy, it just has to be a group of individuals working to bring about a given result.

  11. Mark T said

    Collusion sounds about as sinister as conspiracy. Cooperation, however, does not.


  12. De Vivar. said

    I suppose you’d call me a right winger, I think people who work hard should be allowed to do what they will with their money.
    Less tax, less government control are my tenets.
    Reading on WUWT this morning about William Connolley, of his ‘editing’ of Wikipedia these guys are control freaks and they should do a little reading, start with Orwell’s 1984.
    As you affirm in the above article, there is more than a whiff of Lefty “nannying, obfuscating, and downright lying” which would make Old Joe Stalin proud.
    How is that scientific? – and do they know/are they aware, of the idea of genuine research, where results are shared and peers criticise, comment and replicate published results?
    It is the solemn duty of blogs like this one, to now maintain the considerable pressure on the ‘cabal’ and increase and unerringly bring the spotlight onto the bent IPCC and all politicians who promote the AGW line and are so blindingly, bovinely hooked.
    They must be dried out and weaned off the AGW fix, pun intended.

    The truth will out Jeff.

  13. Jeff Id said

    It’s definition #5 but conspiracy is not by necessity evil.

      /kənˈspɪrəsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA
    Use conspiracy in a Sentence
    See web results for conspiracy
    See images of conspiracy
    –noun, plural -cies.
    1. the act of conspiring.
    2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
    3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
    4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
    5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

  14. telecorder said

    In the face of multi-trillion dollar political insanity, we would do well to remember these ’scientists’ are nothing but glorified weathermen. The same as the much derided group of science minded individuals who tell us if it will rain next week. These ‘climatoknowledgists’ claim to know the average temperature a hundred years in the future within two degrees C, yet can’t nail down the temp of St. Louis within 5C in two weeks.

    I must, somewhat, take you to task for the above purported equivalence. While there are probably fewer PhD-weather forecasters than PhD-Climatologists in their separate endeavours, I’d submit there’s more hard science being utilized and practiced by weather forecasters each and every day.

    As a former ‘USAF weatherman’ in the early 1970’s – we had just experienced access to two (2) dedicated weather satellites that gave us visual images of cloud cover over the US. We, at that time, relied primarily on synoptic surface observers/observations (I was one for 4-years), teletyped reports and hand drawn synoptic maps to base our forecasts on.

    We had limited Rawinsonde upper air data reported that were usually scattered over hundreds of miles between limited reporting stations and usually were only taken once-twice per day. If we were lucky, we also had limited Pireps – pilot reports to fill in limited data holes. On the West Coast of the US, we were lucky to have 4-5 ‘shipreps’ or synoptic weather reports from ships in the Pacific to know what possible storm was headed our way. At least we could sort of watch changes in storms heading for the East Coast by ‘tracking’ the storms across the US land surface via hourly weather reports from interspersed civilian and military sites.

    My responsibilities included preparing in flight forecasts for military pilots that covered the gamut for weather/winds/temps ranging from the surface to levels at 30,000′ AGL anticipated for everything from training/practice sorties to cross-country/cross oceanic deployments and, yes, weather/winds/temps over hostile military targets in hot war zones where our pilots and ground troops were at personal risk.

    While weather forecasters today enjoy a myriad of additional, sophisticated technologies, ‘weather forecasting’ is still a mixture of experience, art and science. In the 1970’s, we were thrilled to have more ‘hits’ than ‘busts over an 8-12 hour forecasted range; forecasts over 72-hours were little more than SWAGs in a lot of cases.

    Today, it’s my understanding that weather forecasters are now pretty good out to 72-hours and fairly good in their 5-day forecasts due to the technology available. Piers’ documented weather forecasts are seemingly showing an increase in short term local area climate forecasting accuracy in the 1-2 month ranges. Hurricane and tracking forecasts have dramatically improved over the recent few decades.

    I’d submit that it would be more appropriate to illustrate the fallacy of any attempt to ascribe any degree of scientific accuracy to long term Climate forecasts based on the experiences of weather forecasters’ historical track record. The fact that weather forecasters utilize actual science – ‘directly measured’ data and not questionable ‘proxy data’ is much more relevant to the comparison.

    In summary, I have more faith in the science of our weather forecasts than I do in the pseudo-science of Decadal/Century intervals of Climate Forecasts as currently practiced. After all, weather forecasters are well aware that actual lives are on the line with each weather forecast while it can be argued that climatologists’ ‘forecasts’ have only to deal with satisfying guidance-requests for long term political policy making.

    Maybe this was the intent of your ‘comparison of supposed equivalents’ but I’d argue that Climatology ‘science’ and practitioners aren’t even in the same league with today’s weather forecasters when it comes to practicing bonafide science…

  15. Phil A said

    “Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are
    just trying to find if we’ve done anything wrong.”

    And there, summed up for all to see, is the fundamental reason why these people are NOT acting like scientists. A scientist would want to know as soon as possible if he had done something wrong if only so he could minimise embarrassment by a prompt correction. One would presume that somebody supposedly caring about the future of the planet would also want to know if he’d done anything wrong as they’re trying to build the science on which future planetary decisions and the lives of millions may hang.

    But no. They’re right, even if, especially if they’re wrong. What other reason could there be why mistakes pointed out in one paper are quite deliberately left uncorrected into the next? It’s pure la-la-la-I’m-not-listening isn’t it? With a touch of “and we control the literature so who cares?”.

  16. Peter said

    Unless and until we have total transparency with all aspects of climate science, it’s worse than a conspiracy. It’s a pseudo-science no unlike astrology. Hence climate science should be treated as such. Sure, there are some climate scientists who are transparent and real but by and large they are ignored by mainstream media and to some extent even mainstream science due to their silence. This brings up another saying. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. So, as long as all the good scientists stay silent about the “corrupt” aspects of IPCC, Al Gore, etc., the more likely they will win in the long run. After all they have most of the governments on their side with limitless resources. The longer all good scientists stay silent the more disrespect I will have for them, and they have nothing but themselves to blame for the final victory by those climate scientists that are corrupt in their findings.

  17. Dagfinn said

    There are different sizes and degrees of conspiracy. Pardon me for bringing in a potentially hot off-topic subject, but I find it an enlightening example: I don’t believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but those who do are correct in pointing out one thing: The official version is also a conspiracy theory. The important difference between the two (except for the evidence) is that the official version is smaller, more restricted and therefore much more plausible. People who share a powerful belief system will often get together and conspire.

    In climategate, there is the conduct of the involved scientists and then there is the belief system that justifies it: all skeptics are evil or stupid “deniers” who should be silenced if possible. Since the belief system appears to be widespread, there’s reason to suspect similar behavior elsewhere also.

  18. Ric C said

    I’ve never posted here but have been following the discussion on your site and CA for the past year or so. I’m a teacher and have seen how error becomes the accepted truth. It’s easy, just like bias on the news, don’t give the opposing side any air. Thanks for your hard work. Keep it up.

  19. Enn said

    The word you guys are looking for is guanxi.

  20. Glenn said

    I have a hard time understanding the reasoning behind warmist’s denial of conspiracy. Playing to the unthinking masses for support, I suppose. Governments, religions, businesses, there are tons of conspiracies. Warmist’s believe in their alarmist message for one reason or another, and it’s not unusual to assume they conspire together to advance that message.

  21. Craigo said

    In some circles you have insider trading, in others, collusive behavior and engaging in either can get you locked up.

    In climate science, you have “peerreviewedpublished in all the right journals” which is best summed up by this:

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: