Posted on Are climate sceptics more likely to be conspiracy theorists? - 'being moderated'
Your headline tells us more about the Guardian writer than it does about 'climate sceptics' - which I take to mean people who are not convinced that man-made CO2 is a driver (or significant driver) of changes in modern day Climate.
I get the impression that you (Guardian) regard climate change scepticism as a conspiracy theory (because of eg sceptic claims of connections between those who have been fiddling temperature data around the world). If that is so then obviously the headline holds but does that mean climate change scepticism (CCS) is less justified.? What you are really saying is CCS is a CT (Conspiracy theory) and therefore wrong. This is of course a stupid argument because not all CT are wrong. Take the case of claims about the govt's intentions and the 1984 miners strike. Arthur Scargill was denounced as a conspiracy theorist yet subsequently EVERYTHING he claimed turned out to be true.
Suppose you do establish that more climate sceptics than AGW believers accept some conspiracy theory or other; what does that tell us about climate scepticism? Nothing! Example, maybe most CCS would have been supporters of the conspiracy theory that the banks were fiddling the Libor rate (before it was widely accepted that they were), what does that tell us about CCS? Nothing! CTs can be good?
Article continues below this advert:
To me the headline means the Guardian's mortal enemy - evidence, or to be more precise lack of it - is getting stronger and the Guardian is turning to its only friend - baseless innuendo.
You say that (man-made) climate change is "a scientific theory supported by thousands of peer-reviewed papers.." Well I say that these papers are of the nature 'dogs chase cats and we believe in man-made climate change' ie they contain findings and statements of belief which do not follow from the findings.
So a challenge to you. Produce for me ONE scientific paper that shows, using as reasonably large data sets as possible that changes in CO2 levels in the recent (ie last million or so years) DRIVE changes in world temperature (and if also possible circulation patterns). I am not talking about 'it must be so', 'models show', type of arguments. These flights to authority are but conspiracy theories in other clothes. I am talking about observed facts (or accepted proxies for observations) in the real atmosphere and real world. You have one month - ie to SEPT 1st.
Thank you, Piers Corbyn astrophysicist, WeatherAction long range weather and climate forecasters email email@example.com