Tara & Tanya Climate Presentation NASA Faked the Moon Landing...

8/12/2019 Tara & Tanya Climate Presentation NASA Faked the Moon Landing...

1/93


2/93

Presentation Overview

Tara

- Overview of paper

- Methodology- Results- Implications

Tanya

- Response to Article

- Criticisms of theArticle- Controversies in the

Climate Debate


3/93


4/93

Climate Blogs

- Each blog can attract >700,000 views per

month

- Can be used for supporters or deniers to seek

each other out and affirm each others beliefs

- Enable anybody to share their beliefs and

opinions on global warmingno scientific

background needed


5/93


6/93

Definitions

Conspiracist ideation: the attempt to explain a

significant political or social event as a secret

plot by powerful individuals or organizations

Free-market economy: A market economy is an

economy in which decisions regarding

investment, production and distribution are

based on supply and demand, and prices ofgoods and services are determined in a free

price system

Free-market ideology: Seeing scientific findings

with regulatory impacts as threatening


7/93

Question Examples

- Free Market Ideology: The preservation of thefree market system is more important than

localized environmental concerns

- Climate Science: I believe that burning fossilfuels increases atmospheric temperature to

some measurable degree

- Other problems are solved: The problem ofchlorouorocarbons (CFCs) is no longer aserious threat to the ozone layer.


8/93

Question Examples

- Conspiracist Ideation: The assassination ofMartin Luther King Jr. was the result of an

organized conspiracy by U.S. government

agencies such as the CIA and FBI.

- Other Sciences: Smoking causes lung cancer- Scientific Consensus: Out of 100 climate

scientists how many do you think believe thathuman CO2 emissions cause climate change.


9/93

Results

1) People were more likely to accept sciencewhen

they perceived scientific consensus.

2) Conspiracist ideation positively correlated with

rejection of climate science

3) Free-market Ideologywas an even bigger

predictor of climate science rejection than

conspiracist ideation.

4) Perception that other environmental problems

were solved predicted rejection of climate science,

and was linked to free market ideology


10/93


11/93


12/93

Why is climate science perceived differently

to other sciences?

1)Climate science is highly politicised2)Large amount of debate about global warming in the

media and online

3)The importance of fossil fuels for our currenteconomy and the fact that climate science may

threaten our use of them

4)Potentially suggest the need for implementation of

taxes and increasing gas or electricity bills


13/93

Conspiracist Thinking

Lewandowsky finds that conspiracist thinking is a

personality characteristic, and that believing

one conspiracy increases the likelihood to

believe other conspiracies, such as:

- There is no link between HIV and AIDS

- There is no link between smoking and negative

health effects

- NASA faked the moon landing


14/93

How can this studies findings

benefit us?


15/93


16/93

http://youtube.com/v/gwH17QoXWHQ
http://youtube.com/v/gwH17QoXWHQhttp://youtube.com/v/gwH17QoXWHQ


17/93


18/93

- Denial of human contributions to climate change isdisplayed in politics and the media, therefore:

- Conspiracies about climate science are more likely tospread

- Reduces the appearance of a scientific consensus- Makes people less likely to actively prevent global

warming, as seen following vaccination conspiracies

Consequences of Climate Conspiracies


19/93

Consequences of Climate Conspiracies

- Evidence has found that mere exposure toconspiracies can influence peoples beliefs even

if they are trying to disprove these conspiracies.

- Researchers succussfully induced people tobelieve a fictituous conspiracy that a particularsoft drink raises dopamine levels (Swami et al.

2011)

- Vested interest groups and political figures maytherefore induce people to believe climate

science conspiracies


20/93


21/93


22/93

IPCC Confidence Terminology

Taken from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

Confidence Terminology Degree of confidence inbeing correct

Very high confidence At least __ out of 10 chance

High confidence About __ out of 10 chance

Medium confidence About __ out of 10 chance

Low confidence About __ out of 10 chance

Very low confidence Less than __ out of 10 chance


23/93

Likelihood

Terminology

Likelihood of the

occurrence/outcome

Virtually certain > __% probability

Extremely likely > __% probability

Very likely > __% probability

Likely > __% probability

More likely than not > __% probability

About as likely as not __% to __% probability

Unlikely < __% probability

Very unlikely < __% probability

Extremely unlikely < __% probability

Exceptionally unlikely < __% probability


24/93

Taken from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

Confidence Terminology Degree of confidence inbeing correct

Very high confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance

High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance

Medium confidence About 5 out of 10 chance

Low confidence About 2 out of 10 chance

Very low confidence Less than 1 out of 10 chance


25/93

Likelihood

Terminology

Likelihood of the

occurrence/outcome

Virtually certain > 99% probability

Extremely likely > 95% probability

Very likely > 90% probability

Likely > 66% probability

More likely than not > 50% probability

About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability

Unlikely < 33% probability

Very unlikely < 10% probability

Extremely unlikely < 5% probability

Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability


26/93

'Main players' in the Global Warming

debate

Sceptics: may prompt the revision of a scientific

claim on the basis of evidenceand reasoned

theorizing.

Rejectors of climate science: dismiss wellestablished scientific results for reasons not

scientifically grounded.

Alarmists: Express concern regarding globalwarming beyondwhat is suggested by

scientific evidence.


27/93


28/93


29/93

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4GUMMx4sK8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4GUMMx4sK8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4GUMMx4sK8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4GUMMx4sK8


30/93

Opinions on the article?


31/93

Problems with the article?

* sampling

* extreme views (alarmist or deniers)


32/93

Responses to the article....

"ignorant fools who spitefully attempt to smear realists

with Holocaust denial tendencies with his under-

handed use of the term 'denier'. This article should be

removed, it is a disgrace"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

"Its a bit like comprehensively losing a football match 7-

nil, but to only include in your retelling of the game

one successful tackle. And thats being generous to

Lewandowsky"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/


33/93

Responses to the article, contd..

"We might reasonably be allowed to speculatewhat the reasons for the paper not making it to

print were. One reason may be that it was, as

has been widely observed, utter BS"http://www.climate-resistance.org/2013/02/blognitive-dissonance.html

"He commits the freshman mistake of only

seeking evidence for his beliefs, and for none

that would contradict him (and of which there isplenty)"


34/93

views on climate change, bloggers'

responses

Unfortunately, the evidence Apollo landed on the Moon issimpler to mentally process than the evidence that

climate change is 1) real, 2) a problem, and 3) human-

caused.http://www.telegraph.co.uk"..segments of the public remain

unconvinced by the scientific evidence"Obviously then

the scientific evidence is unconvincing.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/lewandowsky-backs-down-removes-denier-citation-from-paper/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/


35/93

bloggers responses cont'd

Some just accept whatever is spoon fed to them

and some question. That the author uses the

term "conspiracy theories" suggests to me that

he was never objective and this wholeendeavor is just a hit piece and not real

research


36/93

cont'd..

"Not to mention the climate scientists who would

lose ALL of their funding if they didn't have

AGW to panic people, or that the biggest AGW

groups are heavily funded by... oil companies.Oops"

wtf?? this can't possibly be right!?!

http://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-

this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geek
http://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geekhttp://m.fark.com/comments/7310875/Research-links-climate-science-denial-to-conspiracy-theories-Climate-science-deniers-point-to-a-conspiracy-in-this-research?startid=79199123&from_page=geek


37/93

Controversy surrounding the paper

1. the skeptic blogs were never contacted


38/93

* 8 pro-science blogs posted the Q'aire, N=1147

Lewandowskys researchers emailed five popular

skeptic blogs, but none of those approached

posted the link to the questionnaire.

Did Lewandowsky actually fabricat the claim he

had emailed five sceptic blogs?Anthony Watts

(blog editor, meteorologist),Jo Nova(sciencewriter, blogger, author)and others smelt a

conspiracy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/paging-dr-stephan-lewandowsky-show-your-invitation-list/http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/lewandowsky-shows-skeptics-are-nutters-by-asking-alarmists-to-fill-out-survey/http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/lewandowsky-shows-skeptics-are-nutters-by-asking-alarmists-to-fill-out-survey/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/paging-dr-stephan-lewandowsky-show-your-invitation-list/


39/93

L's response...

So now theres a conspiracy theory going around that I

didnt contact them. Its a perfect, perfect illustration of

conspiratorial thinking. Its illustrative of exactly the

process I was analysing. People jump to conclusions on

the basis of no evidence. I would love to be able torelease those emails if given permission, because it

means four more people will have egg on their faces.

Im anxiously waiting the permission to release this

crucial information because it helps to identify peoplewho engage in conspiratorial thinking rather than just

searching their inboxes.


40/93


2. The Condon-Lewandowsky debate


41/93

Condon-Lewandowsky debate

"...climate deniers believe that temperature

records have been illegitimately adjusted to

exaggerate warming" (e.g., Condon, 2009) (p5)


42/93

Condon's response

"The accusations by Dr. Lewandowsky were allowed by theeditorial review of the Journal of Psychology yet claimsthat Im a climate change denier and that I believetemperatures were illegitimately adjusted are clearly

false".

I wrote first to Lewandowsky regarding the error and

received an automated reply:Note that although I endeavour to keep all email

correspondence private and confidential, this does notapply to messages that are of an abusive nature.


43/93

Condon:

"this is astonishing, even comical, as it showsa

tendency to receive large numbers of

abusive messages....It challenges the

imagination to understand why you shouldhave participated in writing the paper...it will

surely generate more of the abusive messages

which you don't enjoy...I'm confident that, if

you stop abusing others, they will stopabusing you"


44/93

Condon

They make a promise.....

the complete data are available on request.

"An idea is coming to me... No, I'm being coy. I've

asked Stephan for the data".


45/93

you decide.......

Global Temperature Records Above

the LawPosted by Jeff Condonon November 29, 2009

As a young man doing research, the first thing we learned was to record our raw data in detail. Resultsmust be reproducible from scratch or you are not doing science. Requests by people to see thisdata are always granted to a reasonable degree because reproducibility is key. The reason that

people are so interested in global temperatures is that the large positive adjustments tothe records provide most of the signal in the GISS global temperature record. In the case of thecase of the more popular, higher slope CRU record, we dont know whatadjustments were madeto these records.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/


46/93


3. "believers" conspiring to make deniers look

like "whack jobs"


47/93


48/93

Is there any problems with their

Questionnaire?


49/93

What did the p's think of the Q'aire?

"I would have thought that inviting Deltoid readers to

participate in a questionnaire of this sort is likely

to produce statistically skewed results since it

likely to encounter a preponderance of respondents

who are pro-science rather than skeptical of

science".

"I needed a dont know choice rather than beingforced to say probably one way or the other who

was involved in assassinating who".


50/93

"At first, I thought the survey was bogussome of the

questioned seem rather ill-posed. And why no 5-point

Likert scale? The whole online survey format is also

methodologically suspect".

"Not very well-written.

What on earth is that question about Coca-Cola all

about? I dont even care enough to Google it".


51/93

"I disliked the word believe. I dont believe in CO2

trapping IR causing AGW. I trust the science

experts, their differing voices speaking in unison,

their research, and their evidence. Belief doesnt

come in to it".


52/93

"The survey is very poorly written. It has a number of

what we call double barreled questions in which

there are two propositions asserted; you might

agree with one but not for the reason proposed, or

agree with one half but completely reject the other.One cannot answer these items without being

misleading about what one really thinks".

"Im too busy to take this survey, what with reds

under the beds and sightings of Elvis to follow up...

Is this Lewandowsky person even real?"


53/93


54/93

"I guess theyre trying to use those surveyquestions to identify the nuts haha"

"Yeah, those conspiracy theory questions werepretty funny, but does anyone think thathardcore deniers are going to be fooled by such a

transparent attempt to paint them asparanoids?"


55/93

Their article about deniers believing in conspiracytheories was met by a conspiracy theory. AsLewandowsky and colleagues came across

responses they started collecting relevant blogposts & used them to write another article:


56/93

Recursive fury: conspiracist ideation in

the blogosphere in response to researchon conspiracist ideation

survey responses "scammed"

-can't be ruled out, esp. since on the internet; its

unfalsifiable


57/93

sceptic blogs not contaced

on September 10, 2012 L. revealed the names of

the sceptic bloggers. This hypothesis was then

abandoned, however, a new one emerged:

that it was obvious that most (or all) of the scepticblogs would refuse to post it, since it was

posted by an alarmist hence distorted to try &

harm sceptics.

this shows unreflexive counterfactual thinking(non-existent, counterfactual state of the world, even

though knowledge about the true state of the world was

demonstrably available at the time)


58/93

sceptic blogs contacted after a

delay- sceptic blogs contacted 1 wk after believers

blogs posted Q'aire

- doesn't impact the study because they didn't

post them anyway

this shows suspicious thinking & attribution of

nefarious (wicked; criminal) thinking


59/93

different versions of the survey

-sceptic blogs received different versions to

scientific blogs

-Q orders were merely counterbalanced

-this theory lasted 1 day

this shows a belief that something must be

wrong, reflexive counterfactual thinking, &

nefarious intent of the researchers

duplicate responses from same IP


60/93

duplicate responses from same IP

number retained

Those with same IP address were deleted;

however, bloggers took it to mean that if there

was slight variation it would be retained;

This is false

-the theory lasted 2 days

this shows considerable suspicion

blocking access to authors'


61/93

blocking access to authors

websites

2 authors were inaccessible for 9 hrs.

Blogger: blocking his IP address, which turned

into a consipiracy of blocking & unblocking to

show being paranoid

this theory lasted 1 day

assigning intentionality to random events,

conspiracy theorist as a victim

beyond recursion: global activism &


62/93

beyond recursion: global activism &

government censorship

- UWA a base for global climate activismoperation

- Ringleader for conspirational activities

- Gov. funded L. & colleagues to run TheConversation

- This shows widening scope of conspiracy

- L. has received over $2 mil worth of ARCfunding to support his efforts to equate climate

change scepticism with mental disorder


63/93


64/93

The IPCC concluded in 2001 that there is strong

evidence to believe that climate change in the

last 50 years is attributable to human activities;this is also the view of a large body of domain

experts (Antilla, 2005)


65/93

If anthropogenic global warming is

happening, why so many deniers???


66/93


67/93

http://mediamatters.org/video/2009/05/04/beck

-claims-its-been-cooling-ever-since-

1998/149820

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_

embedded&v=8Mf1b_y8rxE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_

embedded&v=m3o-dc0kwHo#!

http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/12/08/c


68/93

Climate deniers

Glenn Beck(producer, radio host, author,

conservative) says global warming is the

greatest scam in history.

He gives air-time to Christopher Monckton

(journalist, conservative political speaker) to

attack the work of climate scientists asfraudulent


69/93

"Note the close correlation between CO2 concentration

and temperature: but it was temperature that changed

first".

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/temperature_and_co2_change

_briefing.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoG

U "chasing ice"

Is being a climate scientist


70/93

Is being a climate scientist

dangerous?

Climate scientists have been known to receive

death threatseg:

Will Steffen (ANU),

Andy Pitman (UNSW)

David Karoly (Melbourne University)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LiYZ

xOlCN10 funny video


71/93

Marc Morano

Fox regular Marc Morano, (founder of anti-

science blog ClimateDepot.com) said climate

scientists deserve to be publicly flogged

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-cyber-

bullying&page=2


72/93

How many watch fox news?

Fox news has been the most watched news

channel in the country for ten years and

according to Public Policy Polling, is the most

trusted television news sourcein the country

-January 2012, average of 1,942,000viewershttp://press.foxnews.com/2012/01/fox-news-channel-marks-decade-as-the-

number-one-cable-news-network/


73/93

Pew Research Center for People & thePresscited a sharp decline over the pastyear in the percentage of Americans who

say there is solid evidence that globaltemperatures are rising.http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming
http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warminghttp://people-press.org/report/556/global-warminghttp://people-press.org/report/556/global-warminghttp://people-press.org/report/556/global-warminghttp://people-press.org/report/556/global-warminghttp://people-press.org/report/556/global-warminghttp://people-press.org/report/556/global-warminghttp://people-press.org/report/556/global-warminghttp://people-press.org/report/556/global-warminghttp://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming


74/93

Marc Morano

When Morano singles out a climate scientist for

attack on his website he includes their email

addressestelling people to get in touch.

Which they do, with death threats.

Dr Kevin Trenberth(head of analysis at the


75/93

National Center for Atmospheric Research,

Colorado)

19 pages of extremely foul, nasty, [and] abusive

emails in the four months after the Climategate

storm broke in November 2009.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-cyber-bullying

Another prominent climate scientist had a dead

animal dumped on his doorstep and as a result

now employs bodyguards.

Another has contemplated suicide


76/93

Paul Ehrlich(Stanford University, ecologist):

Everyone is scared shitless, but they dont know

what to do. The bullying and threats intensify

after anti-climate science rants from the media.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7286/full/464141a.html


77/93

Michael Mann(physicist, climatologist, author)

also received hate mail:

"the emails come in bursts, and do seem to be

timed with high-profile attack pieces on talk

radio and other fringe media outlets such asRupert Murdochs Fox News

They have been told to "go gargle razor blades"

and described as "Nazi climate murderers"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/05/hate-mail-climategate


78/93

deniers in Congress have used their offices to

send intimidating letters threatening dire

consequences to scientists working on climate

change.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-cyber-bullying


79/93

Although Tony Abbott does not directly attack

scientists he has signalled to climate deniers

that he is one of themhttp://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692

Monckton (journalist) believes that climate science is a

communist plot, promoted by the Hitler youth.

He denounced Australias climate scientists as cheats,

frauds and communist dupes on ABC.
http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692


80/93

The Australian

While claiming to accept the science and the

need for carbon-reducing policies, the

Australian has conducted a long campaign of

undermining, ridiculing and misrepresentingclimate science, including giving regular

space to conspiracy theories.

http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-

1692

An analysis of The Australians coverage ofli h l h l i bi
http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-war-1692


81/93

climate change reveals overwhelming biastowards denialists

180 articles dedicated to action against climate

change versus 700 articles (4:1)

many columns written by non-experts such as

politicians

of the scientists, majority were deniers, minority

were those published in climate science

journals

How many people read "the


82/93

y p p

Australian"?

The Weekend Australian: 895,000

the weekday edition: 436,000

(December 2008 figures)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/breaking-news/newspaper-

readership-strong/story-e6frg90f-1111118905994

The murdoch paradox: bias in


83/93

p

climate reporting

BY SIMON COPLAND, WHO WORKS FOR SCIENCE COMMUNICATION AT THE ANU

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/09/24/the-murdoch-paradox-bias-in-climate-reporting/

Research has found more than 80% of stories on

climate change from selected US News Corpoutlets are misleadingand the problemseems to extend to Australia

In the real world, scientists accepting the climateconsensus view outnumber denialists by more than 99 toone. In the Alice in Wonderland world of [The]Australian,their contributions were outnumbered 10 toone.


84/93

Polls in Australia show that despite the steady

accumulation of scientific evidence, Australians with

conservative politics views are now much more likely

to reject the science.

Like those whose opinions they valueshock jocks and

television demagoguesclimate deniers are

disproportionately older, white, male and conservative

those who feel their cultural identity most

threatened by the implications of climate change.


85/93

information that does not fit one's worldview is nowdiscounted or rejected.

"In science there's a whole lot of facts and basic informationon the nature of climate change, but it's being treated as

opinion."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-cyber-bullying&page=2

Free-market ideology and environmental


86/93

Free-market ideology and environmental

degradation. The case of belief in global

climate change (Heath & Gifford, 2006)

600 questionnaires delivered to random houses in a

Canadian city. 185 were returned completed. Agesranged from 18-88 yrs old. 73% of respondents had a

university or a college degree.

factors influencing belief in climate


87/93

g

change:

- greater levels of ecocentrism & perceived

knowledge about climate change, and

decreased levels of apathy led to greater

belief in climate change


88/93

greater apathy led to belief that climate change

is not caused by humans

less apathy & more perceived knowledge led to

consequences perceived as more negative

environmental apathy had the strongest negative

correlation (>free market ideology) with

causes & consequences & the intention to act


89/93


90/93

ego-environmentalism, but not income, predicted

support for policies reducing greenhouse

emissions despite being costly to the

individual.

climate of scepticism: US newspaper

f th i f li t h


91/93

coverage of the science of climate change(Antilla, 2005)

Studied 255 US newspapers to assess media

coverage on climate change

The newspapers mostly used climate sceptics

that had ties with fossil fuel industries to

address the issue


92/93

so why are so many politicians hard-line

deniers?

Many politicians receive funding from large

corporations that profit from large amounts of

fossil fuel consumption (eg Exxon Mobil)

(Antilla, 2005)Food for thought..


93/93

Thank you for listening!

Tara & Tanya Climate Presentation NASA Faked the Moon Landing...

Documents

Transcript of Tara & Tanya Climate Presentation NASA Faked the Moon Landing...