Skip to main content

Climate Conspiracy, Part II

Today's blog follows up on the Climate Conspiracy blog posted last week.  It was based on two conversations I had with a clear climate denialist.  The first entry details a discussion where the other party has direct evidence of bias in funding for climate research... that is, until I call him on it.

Today I'll provide another example.  It is interesting to note the climate denialists follow the same exact scheme as those that deny evolution or the safety of GMO food.  There always is a conspiracy, chocked full of secrets.  There are threats and intimidation, nameless figures and warped senses of victimization.

This is the second part of my discussion with James McGaha.  Again, we had a very nice conversation where I did a lot more listening than talking.  It was a private conversation, he had no idea that I'd write here about it (neither did I), but it is a good case for understanding science denialism.

During the conversation he told me that he knew someone, that must remain nameless, that has concrete evidence that will "blow the lid off of the global warming nonsense".  This alleged figure is a scientist and has this data, data that will contradict the findings of thousands of independent laboratories worldwide, upending data generated over the last three decades.

"Why doesn't he publish it, say in Science or Nature", I said.  Certainly concrete evidence that refutes a well established scientific consensus would be publishable in the best journals.

McGaha claimed that he would publish it, but is afraid of the intimidation that will come to him if he published work that does not agree with the scientific consensus.

Of course I vehemently disagreed, as top-tier journals are where you place the best data that overturn accepted paradigms.  I then had a stellar idea.

"Ask him to write up his data into a paper for Science, then send it to me.  I'll submit it with my name on it," I said.   "I'm a scientist, I can submit that work, then I'll deal with the intimidation (said with mocking sarcasm)."

It was the perfect plan. If this scientist has the data and is just afraid, then give it to a scientist that isn't.  Then when I show up in a shallow grave with a jumbo thermometer up my heiney and a Gore-Lieberman sticker across my forehead, then they can show the world how evil the conspiracy is.  If his conclusive work gets published, then he has accomplished the mission, we change the name on the report from mine to his, and he gets a Nobel Prize, or at the very least a lifetime of interviews on Fox News

Of course, my offer fell on deaf ears, probably because there is no shadowy scientist and equally vacant solid data.

It is a lot like those that cry foul in discussions of evolution.  There always are some alleged scientists that are not allowed to publish their data that prove creation or that the earth is 6000 years old.  They are afraid of intimidation or losing status or their job.  They claim a great conspiracy to suppress the real data.

In the end, there's science and there's non-science.  If we have real data, we publish it.  Real data stand up to scrutiny and are reproducible.  Real data always win.  That's why every nut living in denial of real science has to resort to the conspiracy and intimidation story, because as long as the real data are suppressed and hidden, then they don't have to ever be tested, reproduced or independently verified.

So that was my conversation with a science denialist.  We concluded by me saying, "Science is a put-up-or-shut-up business. If you have the data, show the data, confirm and retest the data, and change the way we think.... that is the way science works."

Popular posts from this blog

Scientific American Destroys Public Trust in Science

This is a sad epitaph, parting words to an old friend that is now gone, leaving in a puff of bitter betrayal. 
When I was a kid it was common for my mom to buy me a magazine if I was sick and home from school.  I didn't want MAD Magazine or comic books.  I preferred Scientific American
The once stalwart publication held a unique spot at the science-public interface, bringing us interesting and diverse stories of scientific interest, long before the internet made such content instantly accessible.  It was our trusted pipeline to the new edges of scientific discovery, from the mantle of the earth to the reaches of space, and every critter in between.
But like so much of our trusted traditional science media, Scientific American has traded its credibility for the glitz of post-truth non-scientific beliefs and the profits of clickbait.The problem is that when a trusted source publishes false information (or worse, when it hijacked by activists) it destroys trust in science, trust in s…

Chipotle's Ag-vertising to Fix their Anti-Ag Image

After years of anti-farmer rhetoric, disgusting anti-agriculture videos, and trashing farmer seed choice, Chipotle now seems to have found a love for the American farmer that is as warm and inviting as the gooey core of a steak burrito.  Their new "Cultivate the Future of Farming" campaign raises awareness of the hardship being experienced in agriculture, and then offers their thoughts and some seed grants in order to reverse it. 

But are they solving a problem that they were instrumental in creating? 

The crisis in agriculture is real, with farmers suffering from low prices, astronomical costs, and strangling regulation.  Farmer suicides are a barometer of the crisis.  Farms, from commodity crops to dairies, are going out of business daily. It is good to see a company raising awareness. 


From Chipotle's website- The "challenge is real" and "It's a hard living"-- and companies like Chipotle were central in creating those problems. 

However, Chipotle&#…

Mangling Reality and Targeting Scientists

Welcome to 2019, and one thing that remains constant is that scientists engaging the public will continue to be targeted for harassment and attempted reputation harm.  

The good news is that it is not working as well as it used to.  People are disgusted by their tactics, and only a handful of true-believers acknowledge their sites as credible. 

But for those on the fence I thought it might be nice to post how a website like SourceWatch uses a Wikipedia-mimic interface to spread false and/or misleading information about public scientists. 

Don't get me wrong, this is not crying victim.  I'm actually is screaming empowerment.  I spent the time to correct the record, something anyone can check.  Please look into their allegations and mine, and see who has it right. 

This is published by the Center for Media and Democracy.  Sadly, such pages actually threaten democracy by providing a forum for false information that makes evidence-based decisions in policy issues more challenging.  It…