Warmists Are Never Wrong, Even When Supporting Genocide

Guest essay by Brandon Shollenberger

Global warming proponents support genocide. That may seem hard to believe, but remember, they’ve said it’d be right to blow up dams and burn cities to the ground:

Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage. If carried out willingly and on a sufficiently large scale, this process would require dismantling many of the key components of civilization; no person would be foolish enough to cut off their own limbs unless they were suffering from some kind of psychotic delusion, and no civilization would be willing to remove many of the pillars of its own existence. Looking from the outside, though, a civilization hacking off its own extremities would seem like exactly the right thing to do.

That view is not from some fringe element global warming proponents shun. James Hansen, arguably the most influential member of the cause, supported the book that statement was written in. Hansen has also suggested “coal trains will be death trains” and GHGs could “destroy much of the fabric of life.” Supporting genocide is incredibly extreme, but clearly extreme is acceptable to them.

But supporting genocide? That’s hard to believe. I’d need some strong data to make me even consider the idea. That’s why I collected some. (Note: several climate blogs were used, including WUWT here – Anthony)

Using the approach of Lewandowsky et al, I created a survey (copy here) which got 5,697 responses (two of which I filtered out for being incomplete). Three items on the survey were:

You believe global warming is a [sic] real.
You believe global warming poses a serious threat.
You believe genocide is…

Respondents were asked to rate their level of disagreement/agreement (1-5) on the first two. For the third, they rated bad/good (1-5).

Table_1

I found statistically significant correlations (at the 99.99% level) for all pairings of these items:

As you can see, people who say global warming is real but not a serious threat are more likely to oppose genocide. On the other hand, people who say global warming is a serious threat are more likely to support genocide. The effect isn’t large, but it is statistically significant. There’s more. The survey also included the item:

You have never been wrong.

Table_2

The effect is small but statistically significant at the 99.99% level. Believing global warming is a serious threat correlates with believing one has never been wrong. Believing you are fallible correlates with merely believing global warming is real. Combine these two findings, and we get:

  1. Believing global warming is a serious threat correlates with believing you are never wrong.
  2. Believing global warming is a serious threat correlates with supporting genocide.

Therefore, global warming proponents believe they are never wrong, even when supporting genocide.


Quick note, Stephan Lewandowsky built upon correlation matrices like mine by using factor analysis and structural-equation modeling (SEM). These cannot change observed patterns; they can only tease out additional ones. I am not replicating those steps.

Caveat: The results are obviously nonsense.  However, they were gotten from the same methodology used by Lewandowsky and others. More to come…

About these ads

142 thoughts on “Warmists Are Never Wrong, Even When Supporting Genocide

  1. Framing bias: This survey is useless, as it does not define what is meant by “global warming”.
    “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms” – Voltaire

  2. @Cheyne Gordon says:
    January 15, 2014 at 4:32 am

    “…..Caveat: The results are obviously nonsense….” and hence so is the questionnaire which is what Mr Shollenberger is showing us, hence paralleling Lewandowsky’s methodologies. Which are nonsense.As is his paper.

  3. I am glad you reported the results this way. I intend to link to the results for the education of the sheeple who have no clue what they are talking about.

    I love it! LOL

  4. Cheyne Gordon says:
    January 15, 2014 at 4:32 am

    “Framing bias: This survey is useless, as it does not define what is meant by “global warming”.”

    And I thought it was attempting to demonstrate GIGO and/or “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”. Obviously my bad.

  5. Can you show us the scatterplots of the genocide responses against some others? Only a histogram of the genocide reponses is also OK.

  6. I appreciate that this is a bit of fun, but : ‘you believe genocide is . . ‘ what? a frog? a bowl of salad? a large building?

  7. Sadly for the rest of us, for a significant portion of the AGW community the results of your survey are actually accurate.

  8. Cheyne,
    Were you this concerned when Lewandowsky and gang not only performed a similar faux survey but got it peer reviewd and published while being paid by a University?

  9. The theme reminds me of my favourite quote of 2013, attributed to Scott Johnson who is coach of the Scottish National Rugby team:
    “Statistics are a bit like bikinis – it shows a lot but not the whole thing”

  10. Cheyne Gordon says:
    January 15, 2014 at 4:32 am
    Framing bias: This survey is useless, as it does not define what is meant by “global warming”.
    “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms” – Voltaire

    I have yet to see a survey which defines its terms. The most important part of designing a survey is using terms that everyone understands without definition. Suppose I define the term “murder” as dancing merily with many people and then ask you in a survey if you approve of murder? Not a good survey! The survey questions always have to have words in them obvious enough so that the definitions denote and connote the same things. I think that “Global Warming” is an obvious enough term to use, especially on the websites on which the survey was conducted.

  11. If one thinks humanity is a swarm of bacteria about to consume to the edge of the petri dish, then yeah, drastic population reduction is “obvious”.

    But such a view seems to affirm Nature as thing worth preserving on one hand, whilst denying that Nature is a creative destructive monster. Evolve or die. Invent or stagnate.

    When we sit watching TV and eating popcorn, that is Nature watching TV and eating popcorn, something Nature evolved to do over and above swinging from trees, and attacking other ape tribes. We are Nature. And Nature’s imperative is to be creative.

    I’m reminded of that Twilight Zone episode where the aliens came and decided to wipe out humanity, not because we weren’t peaceful enough, but because we’d failed as warriors. We project a lot of values and assumptions onto that Nature which we then claim are “protecting”.

    What makes these guys think they speak for Gaia? What makes them think they can predict all that is yet to be invented by our children and their children?

    Why is 1700 the time to declare as the perfect balance of Nature? why not 12,000 years ago? why not 2000 years in the future? Why is a million humans the balance, or why not ten billion? How does one define the point of balance in such a complex system full of emergent creativity?

  12. Brandon,

    I’d like to know more about how the magic trick works. Is the essence of it finding ‘meaning’ in noise, or did you somehow structure the survey to get the result? In other words, was this the bogus correlation you expected or did you just get results and see what you could make of them?
    Thanks!

  13. Environmentalists support genocide since about environmentalism exists. The sainted Cdt Cousteau had himself said:
    “In order to stabilize the world population, we need to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”

  14. Mindert Eiting, I don’t know a quick way to make a scatterplot for counts like you describe. I’m sure it’s pretty easy in r, but I’d have to work out how to do it. In the meantime, here’s a table of responses for the genocide item:

    1 2 3 4 5
    5196 412 58 5 24

    Scott Scarborough, I’ve seen arguments saying defining terms used in a survey is a bad thing. The argument is the survey items aren’t intended to be read precisely. Instead, people’s different views will shape their answers, thus giving more information about their overall mindset. That’s why it’s okay if some respondents give contradictory or nonsensical answers. Personally, I think that’s bunk.

    There is one thing I regret not working into this post. I didn’t make any jokes about the discovery the Skeptical Science team photoshops themselves into Nazi regalia. Oh well. There’s never space for everything.

  15. Mark Bofill, the trick is pretty simple, but I’m holding off discussing it too much for the moment. For now, I figure focusing on the humor of the results the methodology creates is more effective. People will find this more accessible than a post discussing math/logic. Plus, it’s a great talking point. The next time someone says you’re a conspiracy nut, tell them, “Yeah, but you support genocide.”

    Anyway, while I working on a writeup which explains the trick, I can give a brief explanation. Basically, this just involves asking questions you know the answer to. I knew most survey takers would respond as skeptics. I also knew they’d oppose genocide. Picking 1 for both creates a positive correlation between the two. I then hand-wavingly claim that proves a correlation between global warming proponents and supporting genocide. It’s complete nonsense, but it’s the same way Lewandowsky got his results.

    By the way, this was originally posted here. I’ll try to keep up with this thread, but I’ll get an alert whenever someone posts there. That’s a sure way to make sure I see a comment if anyone needs a response.

  16. While I’m sure this is meant to be nonsensical there are likely some inferences that can be drawn here. First and foremost the bulk of the populace sampled will tend to support or deny AGW and CAGW based on their political leanings. Those on left tend to be in favor while those on the right opposed.

    In response to a study regarding right vs. left politics there was an article written in mother jones about why liberals tend to less accurately portray their political counterparts. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/12/we-are-more-alike-we-think.

    The most interesting part of the self analysis comes in part 4 of the potential explanation or hypothesis.
    “a fourth possibility is simply that liberals are wrong. We interact very little with conservative institutions (churches, business groups, etc.) and therefore don’t understand them, while conservatives have no choice but to interact with liberal institutions (Hollywood, academia, etc.).”

    this tracks well with a 2010 study regarding political ideology and the willingness to discriminate against opposing views. The findings of the study were 1 in 6 would discriminate in presentation or review, 1 in 4 for grant applications and 1 in 3 for for hiring. This corroborates the climategate emails and sentiments of conservatives (note recent IRS scandal).

    http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf

    Not only is the left self segregated and inundated in personal media, but at work, and potentially at home as well. With liberals having a strong tendency to cluster together according to a UMichigan study. (I couldn’t get it to work but ths is the purported link.

    http://www.umich.edu/~jowei/florida.pdf

    So if climate alarmism tracks with politics (it does) and if the politics it tracks with is essentially self segregated and isolated, then it stands to reason that the individuals within this category would never hear a critique of their belief structure. If they did there would be plenty of others affirming the beliefs and mitigating the psychological disruption. If you were constantly surrounded with people that agreed with you, the strength of your belief in the infallibility of yourself and those around you would be bolstered. The resultant moral authority, particularly when an individual who subscribes to the ideology is in power, makes even the most heinous actions justifiable.

    Thus the result of this survey, ridiculous as it may be, could be factual. The study simply reflects widespread, undisturbed group think. There are indeed many other ridiculous things you might be able to find assuming that the hypothesis is true. This also explains the climatological debate, US politics (its winner take all after all) and the fundamental disregard for proven alternatives (such as nuclear or molten salt nuclear) to alleviate the problems ascribed in the ideology, if the solutions (and faults) aren’t part of the rhetorical structure they cannot be true.

  17. Atheists-Evolutionists included Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc. The Gaia cult is composed of the same belief system and naturalist-materialism. If the human is just a bunch of chance molecules knocking about why not kill it ? Abortionists claim that the fetus is frog or a clump of meaningless tissue. Fascist theology demands purging, bloodletting and sacrifice for sins. Islam is the same in this regard as the cult of Gaia.

  18. It is interesting how casually some warmists like Hansen (and the Greens before Warmism) support extreme depopulation and accept that their preferred actions (shutting down coal fired power plants, energy rationing) would cause mass starvation, or who argue that Africa should not be helped. I believe it is because they hold Nature (capitalization intentional) as the highest good, and that saving Nature must be done at any cost, as if Nature with no humans would have any one to appreciate “her”.

    • @Craig Loehle – “they hold Nature (capitalization intentional) as the highest good, ”

      And firmly believe that man is not a part of nature, but rather a cancer on it.

  19. Blimey. Some people won’t accept that this is a mockery of Lew’s poor methodology.
    It is ridiculous. Lewandowsky is ridiculous.

    Most people who I disagree with on the subject of Global Warming will be right about many subjects.
    Most people who I disagree with on the subject of Global Warming I will agree with on the subject of genocide or the moon landings or the Elvis Presley’s CIA hit-squad. Because everyone agrees with that.

    Even on the internet everyone sees that the crazies are crazy.

  20. bshollenberger says:
    January 15, 2014 at 5:56 am

    …here’s a table of responses for the genocide item:
    1 2 3 4 5
    5196 412 58 5 24

    I find it unbelievable that nearly 1 in 10 think that genocide is acceptable in any way, shape or form. Even if they were joking it’s a bit much.

  21. Fred Jensen, I think you were thrown off by WordPress stripping the extra spaces used to keep things aligned. I’ll rewrite it:

    1 – 5196
    2 – 412
    3 – 58
    4 – 5
    5 – 24

  22. Thanks, Brandon. This already suffices. Don’t show these figures to the reviewers of your upcoming article. Probably, they will not ask for it.

  23. Headline: Warmists Are Never Wrong, Even When Supporting Genocide

    Caveat: The results are obviously nonsense.

    So why publish a headline that is “obviously nonsense”. Feels like a cheap smear to me.

  24. Steven Burnett:

    Your post at January 15, 2014 at 6:21 am says

    While I’m sure this is meant to be nonsensical there are likely some inferences that can be drawn here. First and foremost the bulk of the populace sampled will tend to support or deny AGW and CAGW based on their political leanings. Those on left tend to be in favor while those on the right opposed.

    That political alignment only exists in North America and nowhere else.

    Many who will have responded to the survey are not Americans.

    And your mistaken assumption concerning political alignment is shared by some American extreme right-wingers who distort discussions on WUWT because they make that mistake.

    Richard

  25. Steven Burnett wrote:

    “Thus the result of this survey, ridiculous as it may be, could be factual.”

    So, Brandon, you correctly anticipated how folks would respond to your survey and how the results could be used to show an absurd correlation. The point is certainly valid, but did you also anticipate that some skeptics who might ridicule Lewandowsky for his methodology would flip over and suddenly endorse the methodology if it supported their world view?

  26. Fred Jensen, only 29 out of 5,695 thought genocide was “good” or “great”. That is 0.5%. Another 1% said genocide is no big deal. (Perhaps they look around and don’t believe they see it happening or about to happen)
    Perhaps you meant to write you are surprised that almost 10% didn’t reject genocide in the strongest term available – “terrible”? I get it: 29 people listing genocide as good or great is alarming. But 98.5% said it was terrible or bad.

  27. Matt Skaggs, this silly exercise has had no effect on my considered opinion that an alarming fraction of Libs are anti-technology, anti-West and anti-Man. And, they are more like Lenin than Marx, in that they are ready to strike out vs. waiting for an eventual inevitable collapse.
    I formed that opinion by listening to them and reading what they’ve written of their own free will.

  28. Richard Courtney, are you saying there are not huge numbers of clueless Leftists in Europe, Canada and Australia that are so intellectualy inbred because of their political tribalism that they are no longer able to recognize their own craziness?

  29. Watch this NASA Presentation I posted earlier to find out playing with the idea of genocide is not limited to warmists but well embedded in UN (Agenda 21) and US Government institutions like NASA.

    One of the fist slides has this to tell
    Space Ship Earth

    The crew are:
    – plundering the ship’s supplies
    – Tinkering with the temperature and life support controls
    – Still looking for instruction manual
    – Engaging in bloody skirmishes in every corner of the vessel
    – Increasing the size of the crew by 2 million PER WEEK

    P. Creola

    There is much more if you take your time to click through all 113 slides including the public slaughter of Americans on CNN. (No joke)

    http://www.slideshare.net/johnkhutchison/future-strategicissuesandwarfare

    Hell, even Obama’s Science Czar is obsessed with the concept of Genocide and can’t wait to bring his idea’s into practice. NAZI’s are particulary fond of the concept of Genocide and we have some people here in the US with roots in Europe before WWII who take their time to warn us for what is happening right now.

    There are indications that NAZI’s pose a real problem in the US as illustrated in a video about
    The Assassination of JFK Jr – Full Version:

    Unfortunately many people I speak think too many people inhabit the planet. This doesn’t make them proponents of genocide but it does tell me we have a lot of explaining to do informing people that 7 billion, 10 billion or even 12 billion inhabitants is not a problem for the future of the planet.

    Apparently the constant stream of information initiated by the Club of Rome about over population (Limits to Growth) and WWF (Three earth’s necessary to serve the current population) have proved to be effective propaganda which is in desperate need to be compensated by some basic sanity. Especially within Government circles.

  30. The author states: “Believing global warming is a serious threat correlates with believing you are never wrong. Believing global warming is a serious threat correlates with supporting genocide. Therefore, global warming proponents believe they are never wrong, even when supporting genocide.”

    The “Therefore” conclusion is fallacious, as correlation does not imply causation – the most that can be said is that a statistically significant proportion of actual respondents to this particular poll answered along these lines. But this exercise was promoted as making a point about the Lewandowsky poll so called out to be gamed by respondents, to have a prank. Personally, I think both polls were equally silly – what information can possibly be obtained by graduated responses to questions such as “You have psychic powers” or “… have been abducted by aliens” other than the response “Utter rubbish” – which wasn’t available.

    May we have the full data on the poll responses please, both to follow scientific method properly and to allow us all to have a good laugh at many of the contrived answers.

  31. Matt Schilling says at January 15, 2014 at 7:31 am

    Richard Courtney, are you saying there are not huge numbers of clueless Leftists in Europe, Canada and Australia that are so intellectualy inbred because of their political tribalism that they are no longer able to recognize their own craziness?

    Speaking for myself, not my father, I would say there are “huge numbers of clueless people in America, Europe, Canada and Australia that are so intellectualy inbred because of their political tribalism that they are no longer able to recognize their own craziness?”

    I don’t see it as a regional thing or a left-right thing.

    Just in, my experience, the English-speaking world is full of people who generalise about those they disagree with and then demonise them.

  32. Jammy Dodger, I published it because the results were gotten via a methodology commonly accepted by global warming proponents. They shouldn’t accept the methodology because it is insanely wrong. As long as do though, I’m willing to use it to mock them.

    Matt Skaggs, I did. However, I doubt many (if any) will. You quoted Steven Burnett, but he didn’t do it. He said the results may be right, but that doesn’t mean the methodology was. I picked that question for this survey knowing James Hansen and other environmentalists have been accused of supporting genocide. That predated my results.

  33. Matt Schilling:

    At January 15, 2014 at 7:31 am you ask me

    Richard Courtney, are you saying there are not huge numbers of clueless Leftists in Europe, Canada and Australia that are so intellectualy inbred because of their political tribalism that they are no longer able to recognize their own craziness?

    No, on the contrary.

    I am saying that in North America there are clueless right-wingers who when they look in a mirror fail to recognise that they are seeing people so intellectualy inbred because of their political tribalism that they are no longer able to recognize their own craziness.

    And, unfortunately, they often pollute WUWT with their craziness.

    So, having got that out of the way, can we please return to the subject of this thread?

    Richard

  34. TimC, I’m glad to hear you think both were equally silly. My goal was to replicate Lewandowsky’s process in a way that made it clear how ridiculous his approach was.

    By the way, I posted a link to the data file on my site a little while ago. You might be surprised at how little gaming there was. It doesn’t really matter though. I intentionally designed my survey so people gaming it would increase, rather than decrease, the correlations I found. Filtering out fake responses actually strengthens my conclusions.

  35. Richard Courtney, ” And your mistaken assumption concerning political alignment is shared by some American extreme right-wingers who distort discussions on WUWT because they make that mistake.”

    You know Richard, I often enjoy reading your posts, as you consistently make cogent and sage comments on science and engineering. I only wish you would refrain from these sophomoric, juvenile, and naive socialist exhortations. It doesn’t become you.

  36. Sorry Richard, but you challenged a particular comment by Steven Burdette vs. the topic of the thread. So, one could say you departed from the thread. Yet, when challenged, you whine, “Can we return to the thread please?” Me thinks you encountered someone outside of your echo chamber – and then proved Steven’s point.

    As Steven Burdette’s comment pointed out, the West is awash in clueless Leftists that live their lives out in a Leftist cocoon that shields them from inconvenient counterpoints to their fatuous day dreams. Sadly, that ‘protection’ leads to the inevitable atrophy of critical thinking skills. We Conservatives are constantly barraged by the daydreams and nightmares of the Left, consistently presented as though they represented reality. We, therefore, have built up some immunity to their craziness. And, we get ample opportunity to work our minds – it takes resistance to build muscle, after all.

  37. Canman says:
    January 15, 2014 at 8:16 am

    Gee, I wonder if there will be a discussion of this survey at Shaping Tomorrow’s World
    ____________________
    That’s a dead link. if it pointed to Brandon’s survey, well… the ideas in this thread speak volumes.

  38. The survey was flawed (purposely?) to demonstrate C&L’s technique, I suppose. I agree that some definitions would have reduced the flaws.
    Do I believe in global warming? Yes, I think there is ample evidence that the globe has warmed since the last ice age, and (before it disappears) since the Little Ice Age.
    Do I believe that man has contributed to global warming? Yes, I think there is creditable evidence that man has contributed in a number of ways. I also think there is no creditable evidence that the contribution has been major.
    Do I think it is a threat: No.
    So, I very likely skewed the survey.

  39. Bob Greene, the second question didn’t ask if man contributed. It asked if humans are responsible for most global warming. I hope you caught that while taking the survey!

    By the way, I didn’t define things because the people I seek to criticize don’t. I’m trying to emulate them, so…

  40. Bob says:

    January 15, 2014 at 8:11 am

    Richard Courtney, ” And your mistaken assumption concerning political alignment is shared by some American extreme right-wingers who distort discussions on WUWT because they make that mistake.”

    You know Richard, I often enjoy reading your posts, as you consistently make cogent and sage comments on science and engineering. I only wish you would refrain from these sophomoric, juvenile, and naive socialist exhortations. It doesn’t become you.
    __________________________________________________________________________
    Well said. Mr. Courtney does better when he sticks to the science.

  41. Bob:

    re your post at January 15, 2014 at 8:11 am.

    My post quoted a question put to me. My response was to paraphrase the question and to throw it back.

    If you think those words were “sophomoric, juvenile, and naive … exhortations” then address the complaint to their originator and not to me.

    This is a link to my post so others can see the veracity of my reply to you

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/15/warmists-are-never-wrong-even-when-supporting-genocide/#comment-1536776

    I concluded my post saying

    And, unfortunately, they often pollute WUWT with their craziness.

    So, having got that out of the way, can we please return to the subject of this thread?

    Sadly, you were unable to fulfill my request because the temptation to add to the pollution was too great for you.

    Can we now please return to the subject of this thread?

    Richard

  42. Bob Greene:

    re your post at January 15, 2014 at 8:29 am

    I refer you to my reply at January 15, 2014 at 8:36 am.

    Richard

  43. Well done, Brandon. More that just satire:
    /An actual replication of Lew’s general results using his methods, as required by the scientific method. This will undoubtedly pass pal review in the same journals as the original research was published. It should immediately be submitted after adding the necessary psychological jargon, since your post above was too easy for anyone to understand. I also suggest you immediately submit it to SKS, as it is the sort of confirmation that they are undoubtedly eager to call attention to. This is shown by the posted critiques of Lewandowsky they had to delete, since they only post comfirming science and not ‘skeptical nonscience’ . They should be especially eager to put this new research up on their site, since you newly demonstrate the connection between belief in AGW reality and positive support of genocide. (Which is a logical solution to prevent additional burning of coal in places like the BRICs. Copenhagen and Kyoto failed to address this possible permanent decarbonization option for inexplicable reasons perhaps nefariously linked to US refusal to play along. SKSers have already demonstrated their fondness for being seen as Nazis and we all know where the Reich stood with respect to ‘Endlossungen”. This new research result provides further confirmation of their public logically consistent positions. /sarc off.

    Truly well done.

  44. Matt Schilling:

    re your ;post at January 15, 2014 at 8:21 am

    I refer you to my reply at January 15, 2014 at 8:36 am.

    And I point out that the words which Bob claims are ““sophomoric, juvenile, and naive … exhortations” were yours.

    Richard

  45. hunter says: @ January 15, 2014 at 5:25 am

    Sadly for the rest of us, for a significant portion of the AGW community the results of your survey are actually accurate.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I was thinking the same thing.

    John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar with his “Planetary Regime” and forced abortions Doesn’t leave me with much faith in the US Government. Add in R.J. Rummel’s DEATH BY GOVERNMENT and it becomes down right scary.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Fred Jensen says:… Actually the number is 2 in 100 (1.7% including neutrals)

  46. Alan Robertson@8:22 am,

    Sorry about the bad link (I put two “http:///”‘s in the anchor, not to mention forgetting the period after the sentence). Here’s Lew’s blog.

    Hey Lew, did you see this new survey?

  47. Richard…they not only don’t see it, they continue to prove your point for you. I hope you are chuckling, I am!

  48. did anyone follow Brandon’s first link to the writings of a Keith Farnish ?

    well, you should read a few pages … pretty loony stuff …

  49. Aphan:

    re your post at January 15, 2014 at 9:32 am.

    Thankyou and, yes, I know. But I fear they are incapable of seeing it.

    Richard

  50. Alan Robertson has a comment listing a lot of prominent people and their belief in Genocide such as:

    ”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” ~ Ted Turner, Founder of CNN and major UN donor

  51. These people are so bizarre. There’s really no other way to put that. There is no possible way that one can legitimately deny that humanity came from Nature. If one is to therefore condemn the existence of humanity, to consider it a blight upon the world, they must condemn Nature as well. There is no way around that. To say that human intellect is implicit in the destruction of the natural world is to say that Nature, which endowed us with that intellect, is complicit in its own destruction. Let us see them try wiggle out of that inevitable conclusion; a conclusion therefore that must be ultimately present in the logic of their beliefs.

  52. Matt Schilling says:
    January 15, 2014 at 8:21 am …

    The west, and the rest of the planet are awash in the clueless, nor is the state of cluelessness limited to any political or scientific persuasion. For instance members of both the left and the right are quite convinced of the infallibility of their views of economic process. The reality is that no theory of economics has ever been shown to be “true,” or even remotely more functional at forecasting the economy than the competing theories No more does any existing climate theory can be used to forecast future weather patterns even within a few years time. The defining characteristic of the clueless is the fact that they are confident they know the “truth.” It is impossible for anyone to learn if they already “know” the truth.

  53. Gail Combs says:
    January 15, 2014 at 9:54 am

    Gail, it is worse than you probably imagine. Take a look at this:

    http://vhemt.org/

    It is the home page of the “Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.”

  54. Gail Combs:

    I am replying to your post at January 15, 2014 at 10:51 am.

    As you know I usually agree with you, but on this occasion you have ‘got the wrong end of the stick’.

    You say

    I am chuckling at BOTH sides since they have fallen for the “Lets you and he fight” promoted in the MSM

    Soory, but NO!
    As Aphan clearly understands (because he said he does in his post at January 15, 2014 at 9:32 am) I am trying to stop the “fight” which American right-wingers repeatedly attempt on WUWT.

    That fight is mistaken and disruptive.

    As I said in my post at January 15, 2014 at 7:08 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/15/warmists-are-never-wrong-even-when-supporting-genocide/#comment-1536729

    The alignment of AGW with left-wing politics ONLY exists in North America and nowhere else. Pretending that such political alignment is other than a purely American phenomenon is divisive of those who seek to promote good science which – I am convinced – can only reject assertions of AGW.

    But – as this thread demonstrates – American extreme right-wingers use WUWT to promote their political views at every opportunity. If they want to promote their politics then I strongly suggest they should do it on a political site and not WUWT which is a science site.

    This thread is about how the method used by Lewandowski is flawed. He used that method to pretend that AGW-sceptics are cranks. Brandon Shollenberger has done an excellent job in demonstrating that Lewandowski’s method is flawed.

    But Shollenberger’s good work is ‘holed beneath the waterline’ if a few political cranks are allowed to use discussion of his work to promote their nonsense. And it is nonsense to pretend that support of AGW is promoted by the political left and not the political right except in North America..

    Richard

  55. Wonder what the genocide to global warming correlation would be like if the interview sample was comprised of entomologists, or those involved in related fields?

    Just an idle thought.

  56. Richard, there are rabid idiots among both “true believers” and skeptics. The aren’t all as knowledgeable and open-minded as you. Yeah, if we ban political cranks, we might first have to define and identify same. And to agree on the definitions and identities. Um, you and I might fit, for different reasons. I don’t, for example, like the positions expressed in the words of Al Franken, Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Al Gore, Neil Young and David Suzuki, whom I consider to be far more dangerous to the health and well-being of the present and future generations of my family and frends than, for example, Gail.

  57. M Courtney says:
    January 15, 2014 at 6:45 am
    “Most people who I disagree with on the subject of Global Warming I will agree with on the subject of genocide or the moon landings or the Elvis Presley’s CIA hit-squad. Because everyone agrees with that.”

    That’s because Leftists have a different word for genocide that they use when they like it. It is “revolution”.

  58. I’m past calling these people warmists or even alarmists. I now consider them Hystericals who have lost all capability of rational thought.

  59. mrmethane:

    I completely agree with your post at January 15, 2014 at 11:41 am.

    I quote it in full so it is clear what I am agreeing

    Richard, there are rabid idiots among both “true believers” and skeptics. The aren’t all as knowledgeable and open-minded as you. Yeah, if we ban political cranks, we might first have to define and identify same. And to agree on the definitions and identities. Um, you and I might fit, for different reasons. I don’t, for example, like the positions expressed in the words of Al Franken, Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Al Gore, Neil Young and David Suzuki, whom I consider to be far more dangerous to the health and well-being of the present and future generations of my family and frends than, for example, Gail.

    I am not, I have not and I do not advocating that ” we ban political cranks”.
    I am call for exactly the opposite.

    I say this is a science site. People of good faith can interact here whatever their politics, religion and philosophy.

    But such interaction is inhibited when threads on this site are used to proselytise religious and/or political ideas.

    Indeed, people are driven away by attacks on their religion and/or their politics.

    Also, such attacks enable propagandists to pretend that WUWT is a political or religious ‘front’.

    Importantly, it is untrue that AGW is a left-wing idea. You mention Gail who has very different politics from me but we are united in our opposition to AGW because Gail understands that AGW is a useful tool adopted by totalitarian idealogues from across the entire political spectrum.

    Do lefties such as me and e.g. Jo Nova have to stop opposing AGW because right-wing nutters claim we must be right-wing to oppose AGW? Please remember that almost all right-wing politicians in Europe promote AGW.

    All I ask is that we deal with the issues and stop WUWT from being used to promote political and/or religious views especially when the promotion takes the form of attacks on sections of the WUWT community. That does not require banning anybody.

    Richard

  60. Now here’s a thing. I believe that man made climate does not exist. I loathe Hansen. He’s a self publicist who a few years ago was warning of the next ice age. Then he said the streets of Manhattan would be flooded due to catastrophic global warming. He jumps ship faster than people on the Titanic.
    I am not a warmist. But I do not subscribe to the opinion observed in this thread from WUWT
    Read it here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/05/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/#comment-1527575

    Therefore, does it follow that the motive for man made climate change cannot be over population?

    Surely it must be something else.

  61. Furthermore, Richard says this:

    All I ask is that we deal with the issues and stop WUWT from being used to promote political and/or religious views especially when the promotion takes the form of attacks on sections of the WUWT community. That does not require banning anybody.

    Richard

    Yet, this, along with Alan Robertson’s views suggest something quite different. Judge for yourself from the thread I have just linked to.

  62. Well, Richard is suggesting that people refrain from making personal attacks on people based on religious / political beliefs.
    I don’t believe in man made climate change at all. However, the motives to me are unclear. I have responded to a thread, which I have linked to above, which is full of religious motives, for which Richard and Alan Robertson take the lion’s share of responsibility for. If Richard wishes to make generalised statements about what people should or shouldn’t do then I might suggest he adheres to his own values. I have subject to a tirade of abuse from the both of them. Both have misconstrued any comments I have made and turned them into a personal attack. I feel it is appropriate to highlight it here given his comments. And generally, the 2 threads do have a connection. Chris.

  63. A very ingenious experiment, my congratulations! A proper Reductio ad absurdum! I think you should seek to have this published as a comment on Lewandowsky’s ridiculous paper.

  64. Kon Dealer says:
    January 15, 2014 at 8:02 am

    “I love the weasel words “ecological unloading”

    Watermelon speak for mass murder.”

    Yes, just like “sustainable solution”

  65. Gail Combs says:
    January 15, 2014 at 9:54 am

    Gail, it is worse than you probably imagine. Take a look at this:

    http://vhemt.org/

    It is the home page of the “Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.”

    Very disappointed to hear they’re still hanging around.

  66. This is a fraught subject all round.

    I (absolutely and of course) do NOT support the concept of genocide. It’s a little sad that one even has to put in such a disclaimer.

    but….I would need convincing that there could not be any tolerable upper limit to the numbers of ANY species including our own…

    I am of course prepared to hear arguments to the contrary

  67. Chris:

    At January 15, 2014 at 1:09 pm you assert

    I have responded to a thread, which I have linked to above, which is full of religious motives, for which Richard and Alan Robertson take the lion’s share of responsibility for

    That is an outrageous falsehood! Withdraw that remark and apologise!

    Indeed, the assertions of beliefs were all yours. In that thread I wrote to you saying

    I have repeatedly asked you to refute my argument in my post at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/05/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/#comment-1526318

    You have studiously avoided doing that.

    Instead, you have misrepresented my words (e.g. I did NOT make “reference to the US being able to support a bigger population”; read what I wrote) and you have added more unsubstantiated assertions which you say you believe.

    That is not good enough. I would be interested to know what you THINK and why, but I have no interest in what you “believe”. Address the points I have put to you in response to your “beliefs” or don’t bother me.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/05/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/#comment-1528440

    Richard

  68. Richardscourtney – I would prefer if people do wish to read it that they read from where I have linked to so that people can observe how both you and Alan have turned an observation by me into serious allegations against me; both of you suggesting that I am supporting mass execution and genocide. The posts from both of you are full of religious connotations. I am happy to be judged on what I have said – are you? If you wish to make ‘holier than thou’ assertions of how people should conduct themselves I would suggest you adhere to that yourself. Otherwise you will end up with egg on your face. Count yourself lucky that I don’t hold both of you to account for your slanderous insinuations.

    Sorry good folk of WUWT but this needs to be highlighted.

  69. Chris:

    Your post at January 15, 2014 at 2:12 pm does not withdraw your lie and repeats it!

    APOLOGISE

    Richard

  70. Chris says:
    January 15, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    Richardscourtney – I would prefer if people do wish to read it that they read from where I have linked to so that people can observe how both you and Alan have turned an observation by me into serious allegations against me; both of you suggesting that I am supporting mass execution and genocide.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The specific connection made by both Alan and Richard was if you believe the earth is over populated you then have to take that idea to the logical conclusion. Even if YOU do not take it to the logical conclusion you are promoting the programs of those who do and thereby give them legitimacy.

    The logical conclusion is either mass execution and genocide OR as I chipped in a totalitarian government like the “Planetary Regime” suggested by Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdern.

    …Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society….

    Toward a Planetary Regime

    Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable….
    …The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits….

    Involuntary fertility control

    A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

    The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births….

    Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock…..

    Since you have consistently rejected any and all suggestions that over-population is not a problem at this time, that the world fertility rate is close to replacement and increasing the standard of living and other factors are already taking care of the problem, the above two choices are what is left even though you refuse to face the logical conclusion of your beliefs.

  71. Chris says:
    January 15, 2014 at 1:09 pm
    ___
    Chris,
    You are saying things about me which are not true. Your action does not surprise me, as I’ve already seen you in action, in another thread.

  72. Gail Combs says:

    January 15, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    “Since you have consistently rejected any and all suggestions that over-population is not a problem at this time, that the world fertility rate is close to replacement and increasing the standard of living and other factors are already taking care of the problem, the above two choices are what is left even though you refuse to face the logical conclusion of your beliefs.”
    ===============
    There are only 2 choices ?,… is that what you just said ?

    If so, you don’t know us.

  73. u.k.(us) says: @ January 15, 2014 at 4:13 pm

    There are only 2 choices ?,… is that what you just said ?….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No what I said is that Chris had already rejected all the other choices given him in the long discussion in Dr Ball’s thread and those were the two choices left for someone who believed the world is over populated.

  74. bshollenberger says:

    January 15, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    Seriously guys? Are you trolling, or are you really so petty and self-centered you’d sabotage a good thread with this drivel?
    ===============
    Threads go off the rails…..
    So, bring it back on…
    You think this is “petty and self-centered “, just wait.
    I’m just getting started.
    So, now this is a serious post about “nonsense” ?
    No one told me.

  75. Richard Courtney, ” Do lefties such as me and e.g. Jo Nova have to stop opposing AGW because right-wing nutters claim we must be right-wing to oppose AGW? Please remember that almost all right-wing politicians in Europe promote AGW.”

    Slow learner I see. Stick with your wonderful science knowledge, and take your socialists rants to other sites.

  76. Like with the Lewandowsky survey in Sept 2012, I have taken a quick look at the data, using pivot tables in Excel. Brandon Shollenberger has managed to replicate many of the problematic features in the Lewandowsky paper. In particular
    1. Analyzing the views of one group through (mostly) surveying the opposed group.
    2. The results being dependent on a small number of, clearly, scam responses.
    3. Having questions that nearly every sensible person will support, so that the scam responses stand out.
    As well as debunking Lewandowsky’s methodology, Brandon Schollenberger has (possibly inadvertently) achieved something else. He has shown that the extreme belief in impending climate catastrophe that justifies policy is held by very few people. About 3% of total responses. Take out the scam responses, and it is an even smaller proportion. Whilst Lewandowsky asked questions to polarize, the reality is much more nuanced.

    http://manicbeancounter.com/2014/01/16/observations-on-the-shollenberger-survey/

  77. “That political alignment only exists in North America and nowhere else.”

    Maybe you should learn about other countries before saying this.

  78. If you really want to get into it, genocide is happening in Iraq, right now.
    Afghanistan, also certain countries in Africa, are in the midst of it.
    Are they included in the stats ?

  79. @bschollenberger;
    The <pre> tag might work to enforce fixed font tables:

    1           2      3    4     5
    5196  412   58    5    24

    Means “preformat”.

  80. Oops; left lotsa viariable font spaces in place which expanded.
    Again:

    1      2     3    4    5
    5196  412   58    5    24
    

    Last try.

    [Easier, and less distracting, and faster, to use the "test" screens. See the top of the WUWT page, click on the "Test" tab. Mod]
    {Also, decide where you want the columns to line up with each other (decimal place, right edge, left edge.)}

  81. It does appear to be a simple arithmetic that the UN with its UNIPCC and UNFCCC is striving to build, institute and achieve. If you check out the UNFCCC website, http://unfccc.int/2860.php, it’s all about ‘Finance’, I would posit as in Romancing The ‘Climate’.

    It is all written in the 2nd “Founding Statement” of the IPCC! All is settled, all is consensus all cause rests with humans.

    Of course, Finances, must be given by people, a portion of the wealth they create!

    Instituting Genocide to achieve reduction of GHG and ‘reverse’ human global warming will be counter productive because, people make money and killing people decreases money (Al Gore’s nightmare on Elm Street [staring Al as Freddy] conundrum).

    Has James E. Hansen [and 'anointed GISS Savior wunderkind' Gavin Schmidt who famously 'does not debate' yet will appear on camera but not in the same frame as a 'questioner'] painted himself into a corner without escape? Granted! Ah. [trimmed.] Fun for the whole family, eh not the ‘nuclear’ family for sure, and leave the kid(s) at home with the nanny, least they not have nightmares like Al and growing up into an image of Barak Obama. E Gads.

  82. Brian H, thanks. I didn’t realize WordPress supports that.

    manicbeancounter, I don’t think you can conclude anything about the prevalence of views on the subject of global warming. The sample wasn’t remotely representative. Also, I’m pretty sure your 3) was supposed to be “every sensible person will oppose.” I asked about things like genocide. I don’t think sensible people will support that!

    By the way, I liked your post.

  83. Run the number.

    If they believe that AGW is real, and we have to do real mitigation, then a reduction of the human population to less than 1.5 billion a single generation is a necessary part of any solution. So they are just being consistent.

  84. Whether AGW politics are Left or Right, more important is whether it is politically Totalitarian or Open. (N.’s were Left and Totalitarian, no?)

    Soros’ point about an Open Society: we recognise knowledge is always imperfect and delusions are self-confirming so nobody tries to impose anything with too much force, because even the best intentions can cause unforeseen bad consequences.

    An Open global governance can’t be for population control because that takes away the distributed intelligence of the people who can figure things out for themselves.

    If you’re sitting in your office writing thoughtful pieces about how you’d rule the world, for the good of all, maybe in consensus with your like-minded friends, for world harmony, “we have to do something”, then that is totalitarian.

    Open systems allow the chaos and distributed intelligence to work it all out as best possible, in ways small groups can’t manage. Empires fail because sooner or later they become too big for any small group to understand.

    An Open answer to AGW is to let people figure out for themselves how to adapt.

    The contradiction is the AGW people who claim they know the facts and the only people who are subject to delusions are the deniers. That’s totally missing the point about uncertainty. An Open society knows it is ALL uncertain, and we don’t impose anything believing ourselves to have got it right.

  85. I haven’t seen much negative response so far, but Greg Laden is amusing me:

    I don’t think he’s caught onto the fact this is all a joke. I hope he doesn’t:

    For additional fun, I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about the idea of people believing something without believing all arguments used to support it.

    I’m starting to wonder if any critics have actually read what has been written.

  86. There are death trains. They carry oil. Warren Buffett owns shares. This accident didn’t kill anyone:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-31/north-dakota-train-fire-adds-fuel-to-keystone-xl-debate.html

    This one killed 47.

    http://freebeacon.com/keystone-pipeline-could-get-boost-following-canadian-train-accident/

    And who is responsible? The people blocking the cross border section of the Keystone Pipeline.

    These folk ask in the comments:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3107473/posts

    Buffett owns the railroads that transport the oil. That is why Obummer won’t build a pipeline. Where are the Commies protesting the greed of Buffett?

  87. bshollenberger:

    Thankyou for your information in your post at January 16, 2014 at 5:33 am.

    Yes, that is amusing, and you are ‘on a roll’. Clearly, Greg Laden is worried.

    Either he accepts that
    (a) the method of Lewandowsky et al provides spurious results
    or
    (b) the method of Lewandowsky et al provides a result which he calls “asinine and offensive”.

    Please keep up the good work. Science progresses by falsification.

    You have falsified the method of Lewandowsky et al in a manner which puts a bomb under it, and Greg Laden can hear a ticking noise.

    Richard

  88. Probably just need a modest UN grant to study the probability of Fukishima blowing a hole in the troppospheric CO2 layer and letting the alien space rays in.

  89. richardscourtney, thanks. The trap you describe was the idea behind this approach. The problem is people like Greg Laden can just keep their mouths shut and avoid it. I’m not sure how to get around that. Maybe just keep hammering at them about the issue until they discuss it?

    In other news, I think I fixed my display name. It was really bugging me.

  90. It is necessary to call attention to the paragraph quoted in the article is preceded by another which says the following:
    “There are two ways to do this: the first is a combination of Unloading and Setting Aside, the second is Active Restoration Within the Culture of Maximum Harm the first option is impossible to Achieve..”
    Ie, the author of the Post in a malicious way removed the previous paragraph to dramatize the discussion, and places as an option Keith Farnish an option he considers impossible.
    Whether or not we skeptics maintain honesty!

  91. I am sorry people – but this article is an absolute joke.
    I don’t believe man made climate change exists, but at the same time I don’t believe people that do support man made climate change are in support of genocide as this ludicrous article clearly suggests.
    Further to that, and here is the irony, despite my views on climate change I also am being accused of supporting mass genocide. And for what – daring to say that the world is overpopulated. I also think Americans are fat and overweight. It does not follow that I want them all to go on a diet. Nor do I believe that the global population should be reduced.
    Everything I read here is about demonstrating some conspiracy theory.
    Meanwhile, any sensible discussion on here that discusses the fallacy of man made climate change will be muddied by silly conspiracy theories.

    At one end of the spectrum you have sites like SKS and Hot Topic that are propaganda sites for man made climate change. Or the blogs on the Guardian, run by John Abraham and his sidekick from SKS. At the other end you have WUWT.
    Apart from a bit of tit for tat I thought WUWT was quite good at refuting man made climate change. But my view over the last few days has been quite different. I have heard enough references to genocide and mass extermination to last me a lifetime.
    There used to be a few sites around that objectively discussed climate change – they simply don’t exist any more. If they do, I haven’t found one.
    I am happy to support the anti man made climate change view, wherever I can, but at what cost. The most recent post to me from Richard Courtney in the other thread I was posting in, where he compares me to something stuck on his shoe demonstrates exactly why this is clearly not the place for me to put posts. You are welcome to it. I won’t waste any more time trying to convince people that can’t be convinced of my beliefs and what drives them.

  92. Richard Courtney, “Clearly, you fail to see the irony in your claiming I am a “slow learner” concerning your red-neck trolling.”
    So, Richard, anyone who is not a socialist is a red-neck troll. I used to enjoy reading your posts but your comment reveal a certain character flaw, i.e. resort to ad hom when all else fails. It is a shame.

  93. rogeriomaestri, that’s just silly. I never claimed the author of the book said that was the only idea to consider. I never even claimed the author said we should do it. I claimed the author said it would be the right thing to do. That’s true even if other ideas exist.

    Accusing me of maliciously taking the quote out of context requires claiming the author didn’t say it would be right to burn down cities and blow up dams. However, the paragraph I quoted clearly says:

    removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine… would seem like exactly the right thing to do.

    Which is what I described. There is no basis for your accusation of dishonesty.

  94. bshollenberger says: @ January 16, 2014 at 5:33 am

    I’m starting to wonder if any critics have actually read what has been written.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I doubt it. It is hard to read with your eyes closed and mind made-up. Also Fanatics generally do not have a sense of humor and certainly not when it comes to laughing at themselves.

  95. Bob:

    re your post at January 16, 2014 at 10:43 am.

    Stop your red-neck trolling. It has become boring.

    Richard

  96. Brandon Shollenberger:

    Thankyou for your reply at January 16, 2014 at 6:50 am which says to me

    The trap you describe was the idea behind this approach. The problem is people like Greg Laden can just keep their mouths shut and avoid it. I’m not sure how to get around that. Maybe just keep hammering at them about the issue until they discuss it?

    In other news, I think I fixed my display name. It was really bugging me.

    I also can’t think of another way to popularise it. But that needs to be done for the reason you say.

    Is there any way you can write it up for a journal? That may help. And the publication would be ammo. for those who oppose promotion of the Lew. paper.

    Any suggestions for ways to popularise it would seem to warrant consideration.

    Richard

    PS I wish I could also solve the name problem.

  97. richardscourtney says: @ January 16, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    Brandon Shollenberger:

    PS I wish I could also solve the name problem.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is the nice thing about being female. My maiden name was so bad the teachers could not pronounce it and I could not spell it. Best thing I got from my ex was a decent name.

  98. Chris says:
    January 16, 2014 at 10:41 am

    “…this is clearly not the place for me to put posts. You are welcome to it. I won’t waste any more time trying to convince people that can’t be convinced of my beliefs and what drives them.”
    __________________
    Nice flounce.

  99. richardscourtney, sadly, there’s no way results like this would get published in a journal. The methodology I used is complete bunk, and it’d be caught if submitted to meaningful review. Results like Lewandowsky’s could pass because people liked them so they didn’t look closely. Those same people would dislike my results so they’d look closely.

    That said, it might be possible to do a paper discussing the methodological problem I’m highlighting which uses this as an example. I’m not sure though. As a non-academic with no publishing experience, I wouldn’t even know how to start that.

    That reminds me. I had originally said I’d be posting about my results somewhere between Monday and Friday. I’ve obviously posted this, but I haven’t posted a serious examination of the results/methodology. Should I try to have that posted tomorrow, or should we take more time to milk the humor first?

    I feel like two days isn’t enough time for laughter before the more serious stuff, but I don’t want to drag things out for too long and make people impatient. Any thoughts?

  100. @ Brandon Shollenberger

    Glad you had your fun.
    Now please p**s-off, back into your low traffic website, that will never see a surge like this again.
    Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
    No one is waiting for your next production, believe me.
    Or, did you expect a different reaction ?
    I mean, that was the point wasn’t it, to get a reaction ?

  101. @Brandon Shollenberger:
    Brilliant! Have you read Umberto Eco’s ‘Foucault’s Pendulum’? Your comment about “teasing out” desired correlations makes me think you are (or would be) an admirer of that story… However, given the writings of many of the Eco-fanatics, who, seems to me, tend to be Progressives or of the Left, sadly, they DO support genocide. It was Margaret Sanger who started Planned Parenthood, originally a Eugenics crusade to help end undesireable bloodlines; i.e, people other than good white anglo-saxon/protestants of European decent like herself. Eugenics was a Progressive program praised by Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells, Teddy Roosevelt, caused the Lost Generation in Oz, and was taken to it’s nadir with the Nazi “Final Solution.” Recently, loons of the Eco-Left (within the last 40 years) have taken up where the Progressives left off (many of the Eco-Left could be described as ‘Red-diaper Babies’ or appear to share sympathies therewith) and have written variously about cannibalism as a way to reduce the planet’s population, and that child slavery would be considered a minor crime next to cutting down a tree (these last two reported in Ian Wishart’s ‘Air Con'; I hadn’t seen them before, can’t recall the criminals which stated them, but they were well documented)…

    The acorns didn’t fall very far from the tree, surprise, surprise.

    I’m afraid that although your little demonstration/comedy was poking fun, you accidentally (or accidentally on purpose?) struck the truth: the Eco-fanatics HAVE supported genocide.

    And struck a nerve, as measured by the bitter snivelling of some recent posts, which would tend to corroborate my belief about Eco-fanatics, Alarmists (as opposed to those who honestly believe that the globe is warming—I don’t: I think it will eventually return to the 22 degrees Celcius average of the last 4.5 billion years, which does NOT mean it’s ‘warming’. The ups and downs we’ve seen are barely noise on that timescale), and Progressives/Lefties. Not that any of THEM would be reading posts on WUWT…

    Of course not. Again, kudos! Terrific bit of fun!

  102. u.k.(us), thanks for making me laugh. If I had wanted to drive traffic to my “low traffic website,” I’d at least have demanded Anthony refer and link to it in the blog post.

    p@ Dolan, I’ve never even heard of it. The one time I tried to read one of Umbert Eco’s stories, I got bored out of my mind by the fifth page. I probably just picked the wrong one to start with.

    Peter Hanely, the lack of data on warmists is sort of a “duh” thing. The demonstration depended on not getting many responses from them. It makes the results meaningless, but it also makes the process in line with what was done by Lewandowsky, Wood and others. They relied on similarly limited data for their results.

  103. Brandon Shollenberger:

    In your post addressed to me you say January 16, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    That said, it might be possible to do a paper discussing the methodological problem I’m highlighting which uses this as an example. I’m not sure though. As a non-academic with no publishing experience, I wouldn’t even know how to start that.

    That is exactly what I was suggesting. Indeed, I thought providing such an example was your purpose.

    It may be useful to your production of a paper if you email me.

    Richard

Comments are closed.