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).
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.
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:
- 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.
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…
Gee, I wonder if there will be a discussion of this survey at Shaping Tomorrow’s World
Speaking of those who support genocide, a particularly enlightening debate is still raging over on Dr. Ball’s thread: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/05/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
hunter says: @ur momisugly 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)
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?
Richard…they not only don’t see it, they continue to prove your point for you. I hope you are chuckling, I am!
did anyone follow Brandon’s first link to the writings of a Keith Farnish ?
well, you should read a few pages … pretty loony stuff …
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
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
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.
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.
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.”
Aphan says: @ur momisugly January 15, 2014 at 9:32 am
Richard…they not only don’t see it, they continue to prove your point for you. I hope you are chuckling, I am!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am chuckling at BOTH sides since they have fallen for the “Lets you and he fight” promoted in the MSM by our <a href="http://spectator.org/articles/39326/americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution"ruling class.
That was suposed to be: ruling class.
Gail Combs says:
January 15, 2014 at 9:54 am
______________________
Thanks Gail,
Here’s a much more detailed list of quotes from those who believe in your extinction.
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
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
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
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.