Doug writes in to ask if I've taken The Conspiracy Test. In fact, I haven't! So, let's take it together! And what better topic to test our conspiratorial skepticism on than the Global Warming conspiracy?
The video goes over an online test put out by the School of Thought and the University of Queensland. In this case the topic is climate change. They open with the tired old straw man argument that "too many people would need to be in on a conspiracy to keep it secret." Seeing such an argument is a red flag. Their arguments dealing with the climate are the ones debunked by history, hard (official) data, and expert critics (this is for every single point they raised).
Going over such disinformation ploys, a lot of them psychological tricks, is important to understand how the general public can be misled, especially when the public is not so well informed when it comes to this matter.
Corbett deals very specifically with some of the opening arguments, but lets it run for others. The You Tube channel 'Tony Heller' has specifically dealt with ALL of the rubbish arguments raised here. To many people the points they raised might seem credible but for more experienced observers, expecting a lot more, this is amateur hour (once again). 40mins
ps. They also have a test for 911 which is reportedly equally ridiculous.
Editorial comment:
One excellent point raised by Corbett about academic papers covering climate change is that they are poisoned by modeling that assumes increased temps. The studies will have titles like, "the survival of turtles in an increasingly hot sea" without establishing if the region has heated up, or if other factors (often downplayed) are the cause of any problems. There was that issue with Polar Bears under threat from Sea Ice loss, but the Sea Ice is not going away and there are more bears today than when the alarms were trumpeted. The papers don't ask the question about whether humans have caused global heating. They run on the assumption. The few central climate institutes that do the modeling rig the historical, and current, temp records to make it seem like there is straight line heating, when there isn't, from CO2. And papers are written according to this faulty modelling.
The whole climate change debate, that is said to not exist, is centred around the rigging of the climate temperature data. The academics responsible for the rigging don't want to discuss, and gatekeep dissenting views by blocking publications, not including dissenting publications in reports, plus defunding scientists who challenge the accepted narrative (like the guy who wrote the book on Hurricanes).
I was 'recently' sent a paper about plant growth in a high CO2 environment and whether the increased size of the plants effected their water use/efficiency, and if they would survive as well. Apparently they did not survive very well.
As I read the paper, the increased size reduced the plants biological efficiency in circulating water, but that this was offset by the extra surface area that helped circulation, so that the effect of the extra CO2 on water use was minimal. However, the paper indicated that they would die in the high CO2 environment with increased temperatures based on MODELS. The actual science showed increased yields with little problem. This was where it should have ended.
The science here was then corrupted by the models that caused the authors to say that plants in a high CO2 environment would suffer. But if you looked at the temperature models they injected into the report the heated up growing conditions had the same temperature ranges you would find in a desert. No crop plant would have survived.
The point being raised is about climate studies papers making/injecting false assumptions about projected heat thereby poisoning the well. Good science becomes corrupted.
You have to read things thinking about what is being conveyed in an overall practical sense. Ask what is speculation vs what is proved by data. You have to always ask questions of every point as you read. It's like following footnotes. If a claim is made then you should ask, where is this coming from? This applies the whole way through. Something to think about.
[Posted at the
SpookyWeather2 blog, December 20, 2023.]
No comments:
Post a Comment