Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Modern witch hunts

  1. Nov 23, 2006 #1
    It may be known that I like to discuss in detail why the climate issues as in catastrophical anthropogenic global warming is greatly exagarated.

    It may seem that such a discussion can be conducted in a normal neutral setting, however look at http://www.desmogblog.com/national-posts-corcoran-pops-his-cork and think again.

    I wonder what the reaction would be on my post there.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 23, 2006 #2
    There's too much for me to read right now, but I think I can gather what kind of people are discussing it from that first comment.
  4. Nov 23, 2006 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    So people all across the spectrum have opinions and express them in blogs. Andre, is there any blog at the other end of the spectrum that you think is over the top? Why not bestir yourself and give us a link to it, too?
  5. Nov 23, 2006 #4
    A sceptic blog over the top would mean that we'd have to find one, devoted to personal attacks (ad hominems) on the prominent alarmists like Micheal Mann, Jonathan Overpeck, Kevin Trenberth, Jim Hansen et al, for instance about the grants they make or about the sense of power of the high priests and medicine men, preaching doom unless the people make offerings to avoid those (see the commonality?)

    However that doesn't happen a lot, you cannot command from an underdog position of being demonized. The most "radical" sceptic sites that I know of, both not being always exactly accurate (only most of the time) are those two of late John Daly, managed by his son now and Eduardo Ferreira.

    http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html [Broken]

    Actually it may be an idea to compare the fallacy density of the extremists of both sides.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  6. Nov 23, 2006 #5
    Anyway, when confronted with such a blog as in the openings post, I can't help to think about preconceptual science:


    Disclaimer: any resemblance with hockeystick creating science is unintentional and purely coincidal

    Source: http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/index.phtml [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  7. Nov 23, 2006 #6
  8. Nov 23, 2006 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Andre, how many times you have accused large numbers of climate scientists of complicity in some grand conspiracy?
  9. Nov 23, 2006 #8
    Did I?

    Anyway, shall we try and deduct who may have been the mysterious E-mail writer to http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/StateFear-Deming.htm [Broken]?

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  10. Nov 23, 2006 #9
    Pfff, do we actually need to care about this ?

  11. Nov 23, 2006 #10
    Absoluut, je kan maar niet zo zonder meer ongestraft de wereld op z'n kop zetten. dat wreekt zich zeer zeker.

    translation: yes, definitely
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2006
  12. Nov 23, 2006 #11
    I have serious reason to doubt that particular claim. If it were true what is the motive for not releasing both the email and the name of the person who sent it?

    There are three possibilities

    a) there is no mysterious email-writer and the claim has been invented knowing that it cannot be investigated

    b) there was an email-writer but the email has been misquoted, or quote mined, in which case the motive for not naming the mysterious email writer would be so that said email is not made public which would debunk the claim

    c) The claim is true. In which case there seems no benefit in hiding the person who sent the email. In fact it would be totally irresponsible to help cover up such potential fraud in the scientific community rather than naming the individual and making the email they sent public.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  13. Nov 23, 2006 #12


    User Avatar

    I'll have to agree with the creator of the thread.
    There are certain issues which are being "hunted down" in society because of stereotypes.
    They are generally based on myths or exagerations, for example:

    - the myth of modern society that destroyed the primordial paradise of tribal people leaving in peace.
    You'll see this theme occurring a lot, mainly in random attacks (witch hunts) on "western consumerist/corporatist/greedy/etc society".

    - the myth of iminent doomsday (promoted, of course, by the doomsdaylovers :)).
    Be it global warming, global dimming, asteroids, UFO's, killer bees, what-ever! They're all out to get us, and we HAVE to listen to those that warn us :rolleyes:
    I myself have accepted this and check my closet every night for ManBearPig.

    - the myth of Microsoft = evil.
    Especially linux fans (and nowadays firefox fans) will give you an ankward look if you praise any Microsoft product.
    They'll immediately shut you off and blame you for software patents and starving kids in africa.
    'Nuff said.

    Btw: the "starving kids of Africa" and "poor Africa (in general)" is an important symbol of the western civilisation haters.
    They hate industrialism, they'd like us to go back to an agricultural peaceful society.

    Another witch-hunt is done against GW Bush and the Republicans.
    Basically the believers apply the rule "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and they'll agree with anyone who speaks against their "enemy", even if it's Kim Jong-il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Jews and jew haters. I don't know which one is more fierce: those who want to blame the jews for all the evil in the world or those who want to praise the jews for all the good in the world.

    And now we got to racism: the mother of all modern witch-hunts.

    Of course, as all other memes, modern witch-hunts all are extremely tied with proselytism. Yes, just as bad as the Jehova's Witnesses!
    God, have you ever heard a fan of "An Inconvenient Truth" praise his movie?
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2006
  14. Nov 24, 2006 #13
    I agree that's wishy washy and I don't know the motives of http://eteam.ncpa.org/about/david-deming [Broken], why he stopped at 50%. Perhaps for health reasons? On the other hand he may also feel unable to live with a secret like that.

    Anyway, it is a fact that against all the evidence and without any incentive that the Medieval Warming Period was declared death shortly after that:


    While the evidence for a warm MWP is accumulating every day.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  15. Nov 24, 2006 #14


    User Avatar

    SF! I liked your post. I very much agree.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  16. Nov 24, 2006 #15
    I assume you used a translation software for the Dutch right, because the order of the words is incorrect. But still, it is the reaction that is out of proportion NOT the action.

  17. Nov 24, 2006 #16
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  18. Nov 24, 2006 #17
    let me clarify a little about the causes of the global warming witch hunt.

    On this mega site you can see exactly how the global warming idea was formed. In a word, the ice cores, the correlation between isotopes and CO2 formed the singlemost important factor. However, it's common knowledge that the physics is wrong, something with saturation. Therefore there are sceptics who say it can't be. So there were some constructions with "positive feedback" to bridge the gap but those are equally physically nonsense.

    Nevertheless, if the ice cores were rightly interpreted, dramatic climate changes had occured in the past, hence we needed to change CO2 output and fast. However, the honest concern / alarm continued to meet physical critique. Then there are only two options: Either give up and accept that there is no dramatic climate change associated with greenhouse gasses, or persist and try to reach your targets with other means (bad -pre conceptual- science, hyperbole, demagoguery and witch hunts)

    Meanwhile, it was proven that the CO2 in the ice cores lagged the isotopes considerably and could never have caused those changes. But that's unimportant now, the machinery does not need a cause anymore.

    Anyway, if you try to find out what really happened and observe that things are rather different, you face tar and feathers.

    Just http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/ncsu.pdf [Broken] about what may have happened

    and the http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/extinctions_climate_refs.pdf [Broken], after all, who is entitled to his own facts?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  19. Nov 24, 2006 #18
    I imagine this will be largely settled within the next 30 years as long as solar trends remain the same. In 30 years time if temperature has started leveling off, or even falling, surely that will falsify the AGW theory (or at least as it stands today). On the otherhand if temperature rises 0.5C+ in that timeframe surely that would be good evidence for it.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  20. Nov 25, 2006 #19


    User Avatar

    I'm pretty sure that the temperature changes should be bigger than the error rate in the measurement in order to say anything specific:)
  21. Nov 25, 2006 #20
    That could be happening already, the latest graph of www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2[/URL], measured by satellites:

    [PLAIN]http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/tltgmam-5.2.gif [Broken]

    The hockeystick was made in early 1998, when the temps soared due to a strong El-Nino.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook