Why People Continue To Believe Global Warming Hoax

After you successfully convince the people about the deceptive use of science, you confront a more difficult problem. You must explain the motive to people who can’t believe that scientists would corrupt science, use it for a political agenda, or that a few people can fool the world.

It is 28 years since Channel 4 in the UK produced The Greenhouse Conspiracy.  It covered all the things that were wrong with the AGW theory. They are still valid, but now time-tested. Unfortunately, most people still don’t understand how it disproves the theory, despite all the efforts to educate people about the misuse of science. The bureaucratic technocrats, including those funded by them, who created and promote the deception, rarely respond to scientific challenges. Why bother when the public doesn’t understand? However, they respond when you discuss the motive behind their actions.

There are signs that the skeptics are influencing public opinion, but overall little has changed. The public is in a holding pattern. They know something is wrong as reflected in a growing distrust of science generally, and climate science specifically. A quote from a Pew Center report explains.

Overall, many people hold skeptical views of climate scientists and GM food scientists; a larger share express trust in medical scientists, but there, too, many express what survey analysts call a “soft” positive rather than a strongly positive view.”

This partially confirms the holding pattern. They don’t know whom to trust, so they set it aside. They are afraid of talking about a subject they don’t understand. This follows Mark Twain’s advice,

“It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.”

Figure 1 shows the Pew Center poll of public priorities with “climate change” 18th out of 19.

Figure 1

Figure 2 shows results from a 10 million people UN poll in several countries that reinforces the holding pattern claim. Climate change is 16th out of 16.

Figure 2

People are in a holding pattern for other reasons. One is the failure of skeptics to provide an alternative explanation. The answer is the Sun, but few skeptics explain how and why, because most are unable.

People can’t believe that a small group of people could fool the world, however, as anthropologist Margaret Mead observed,

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

This belief is an extension of the adage that no one person can change the world. In reality, it is always one person, for example, Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Karl Marx. Unfortunately, it is always for the worse.

Another reason the public doesn’t believe the skeptics is because the technocrats effectively marginalize opponents as members of fringe groups, such as global warming skeptics or climate change deniers. Those pejoratives fail because all scientists are skeptics, and nobody denies that climate changes: what they deny is that humans are the cause. The final last-ditch attack is that you are a conspiracy theorist. It works because most don’t like an association with losers or extremists. The reality is conspiracies do occur, otherwise, the word would not exist.

Evolution and adaptation of this as a weaponized term was explained by one author as follows.

“Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate.” 

If you accept the conspiracy argument, you usually believe that it was carried out by a large group. However, one definition dispels that myth.

“An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.”

A few other indicators of public reticence include,

  • The claim that people would react negatively and violently to Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord proved false.
  • Distrust of politicians is at all-time lows, especially in the US.
  • The Kavanaugh hearings were so extreme it opened people’s eyes.
  • They are numbed to the extremism of the media. Even FOX News has “Extreme weather” rather than just, the weather. Public ratings of the media are at an all-time low.

The final reason people are watching is that perpetrators of the false AGW claim had a choice when evidence contradicted their claims and predictions. Admit they were wrong, or double down. They chose the latter. The only option then is to become more extreme in every way, and that only confirms what the public suspect. The role of extremists is to define the limits for the majority, and it is working again as always.

****

Dr Tim Ball is co-founder and inaugural Chairman of  PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (18)

  • Avatar

    Ken Hughes

    |

    Excellent article and good arguments, all of which I agree with. Just a couple of points though. The Channel 4 documentary here in the UK was entitled “The Global Warming Swindle”, and not “The Greenhouse Conspiracy”. It may have been published under a different title in the US though. Secondly, I propose Albert Einstein, George Orwell and Alan Turing as three examples of individuals who have changed the world for the better. There are many more, less famous of course. So I disagree with your statement that individuals only ever change the world for the worse. Other than that, a fine article.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Ken Hughes

    |

    Sorry, it was – “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

    Reply

    • Avatar

      David Wieland

      |

      Tim Ball is referring to a 1990 Channel 4 documentary, not the more recent (2007?) one.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        John O'Sullivan

        |

        Tim often refers to both. On this occasion he was referring to the 1990 television documentary. Tim did actually appear personally on camera in the 2007 ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ (Channel 4).

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    TYPO??
    Distrust of politicians is at all-time lows….. S/B “all time high” or “Trust … etc.” IMO

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dee

    |

    NASA’s latest data demonstrates that there has been no global warming since at least 1972.

    In 1972, Sagan and Mullen stated that the “greenhouse effect” kept the average global temperature between 286 and 288k.

    https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Faint-young-sun-paradox/Segan-Mullen-1972.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwinhsef0Z3eAhWHCsAKHXUGBWkQFjACegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2vaKm-vbZYqQqBYCVjkU0T

    In the interim, there’s been an increase of around 60ppm atmospheric CO2 as far as I recall.

    Many retrospective “adjustments” to temperature data later, and the earth’s surface temperature is still 288k.

    According to NASA, as at 2017, the average global temperature was 288k, less than 15°C

    https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Tim Ball:
    It’s difficult to convince people that the science behind the claim of human-caused global warming is wrong.

    Jim McGinn:
    The reason many cannot fathom climatology being wrong is the same reason many (yourself included, Mr. Ball) can’t fathom meteorology being wrong:

    Are You Skeptical of Meteorology’s Convection Model of Storms and Atmospheric Flow?
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=332973

    Are You Skeptical of Meteorology’s Convection Model of Storms and Atmospheric Flow?

    Yes, No?

    If yes how did you come to be skeptical? Did you notice something that didn’t make sense?

    If No why not? Have you studied the topic? College? Individually?

    What parts of it do you think are perfectly reasonable/sound and what parts do you feel unsure about?

    Here are some subtopics that you might be able to get you teeth into:

    Do you believe warm, moist air is lighter than cool, dry air?

    Do you believe dry layers act as a cap to upwelling of lighter, moist air?

    Do you believe release of latent heat from water describes the origins of the cold gusty winds of storms?

    Are meteorologists being honest with us that they have actually measured, tested this theory or do you think they are pretending to understand and relying on the general confusion of the populace to skirt the issues?

    Do you think they have a good understanding of severe weather. For example, did you know that tornadoes are considered by many to be a mystery. Are they doing all they could do to solve this mystery or are they just pretending to do all they can?

    As you can see in the rest of this thread, people are just as rabid and passionately stupid when discussion meteorology as the worst global warming adherent: (See link above)

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    Tim,
    “It’s difficult to convince people that the science behind the claim of human-caused global warming is wrong”
    I believe a large part of that problem stems from many sceptics’ arguments being levelled at minimising the human effects to some incomprehensible number such as 0.00002oC in X number of years.
    This type of statement leaves the precautionary principle argument wide open. Mr Average is going to infer that we are somewhat unsure and therefore partly responsible, so we better let our leaders get on with the fixing job!
    The only irrefutable argument is along the lines that CO2 level in the atmosphere is 100% controlled by the average sea temperature – over which we have zero control. QED.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      ” ..the precautionary principle.. ”

      Hahahaha … really? … the “precautionary principle” doesn’t work for anything … only an idiot would adopt such a notion.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Alan Stewart

    |

    Belief is derived from the ovine nature of humans to adherence and fear of authority. Emotion has greater control of decision making than rational effort. I saw the question below and added to it with climate change specifically in mind.
    Question from a novel: ‘Why do people make things complicated?’ Answer: ‘If they made things simple then other people would think them unsophisticated. And uninteresting.’

    To add: The more complex the subject pronouncement the more likely those not trained in the disciplines of that subject will believe the words of the person delivering that message.

    As well, there is the concept of higher education imbued within the average psyche as argumentum ad verecundiam. (Fortuitously most people have the innate sense to hire a plumber with his disciplines for a leaky tap rather than Michael Mann.)

    More so, when a complex subject is reduced to simplicity and the emotion of fear exists in that message then belief increases exponentially.

    My emotional fear is that of the Climate Alarmist’s solutions to their message.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Alan and Readers,

      “Question from a novel: ‘Why do people make things complicated?’ Answer: ‘If they made things simple then other people would think them unsophisticated. And uninteresting.’ To add: The more complex the subject pronouncement the more likely those not trained in the disciplines of that subject will believe the words of the person delivering that message.”

      Sagr. “My reason for saying these things has been rather because I wanted to learn whether I had correctly understood Salviati, than because I though Simplicio had any need of a clearer explanation given by Salviati which like everything else of his is extremely lucid, go lucid, indeed, that when he solves questions which are difficult not merely in appearance, but in reality and in fact, he does so with reasons, observations and experiments which are common and familiar to everyone.

      “In this manner he has, as I have learned from various sources, given occasion to a highly esteemed professor for undervaluing his discoveries on the ground they are commonplace, and established upon a mean and vulgar basis; as if it were not a most admirable and praiseworthy feature of demonstrative science that it springs from and grows out of principles well-known; understood and conceded by all.” (Galileo)

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Alan Stewart:
    To add: The more complex the subject pronouncement the more likely those not trained in the disciplines of that subject will believe the words of the person delivering that message.

    JMcG:
    Ball is a hypocrit. So are many AGW skeptics. Meteorology’s storm theory is just as dishonest as AGW. But he wont discuss it. Neither will any of you conservative phoney skeptics. You are all just as big a fraud as Michael Mann.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      David Wieland

      |

      You may well be right about meteorology, but the consequences of having an erroneous theory of weather seem slight in comparison to the AGW juggernaut.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi James and others,

    If you want to read about the mechanisms of a ‘storm’ I suggest the book (The Deadly Wind) by John Dodge. It was conceived near Guam and ended along the West Coast of the USA..

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John Doran

    |

    Thanks to Dr. Tim for this good article & for his little gem of a 2016 book:
    Human Caused Global Warming The Biggest Deception In History.
    In only 121 pages he lays bare the CAGW fraud.
    A must read.

    I also thoroughly recommend geology Prof. Ian Plimer’s terrific book:
    Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science.
    At 500+ pages It is a considerable work of scholarship, containing over 2,000 ref’s to peer-reviewed papers etc.

    These two books are a great grounding toward an understanding of our changing climate & global warming.

    The notion that man-made CO2 is the control knob is risible, ridiculous.

    If anyone could sway Dr. Paul Craig Roberts onto the path of righteousness, they would be doing the World a favour: his is an important voice.
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org

    Thank you.
    John Doran.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    I am saying that none of you are genuine skeptics. You are believers. You are church ladies.

    A church lady is somebody who defends scripture but doesn’t really understand it.

    None of you pretenders has an argument or even bothers to think about any of this.

    Anybody can pretend to understand. It takes no skill, no intelligence, and it involves no work.

    Church ladies are just dumb believers. Lazy. Simple. Dullwitted.

    Meteorology’s storm theory is a hold-over from the nineteenth century when people were generally ignorant and believed plainly stupid things, like the notion that a pot on a stove was a good analogy for storms. And/or they believed the plainly dumb notion that H2O magically turned gaseous (in the atmosphere) making moist air lighter than dry air. And/or they believed that dry air above had magical structural abilities that produced a downward force that trapped convection (this involves meteorology’s dishonest argument to explain why convection doesn’t always happen). And/or they believed H2O’s latent heat magically caused the gusty winds of storms.

    Church ladies are so gullible and so eager to believe that it was not even necessary for meteorologists to conceal the blatant stupidity of these suppositions.

    There is an inexhaustible supply of brain-dead church ladies, eager to pretend to understand all things conventional.

    The reality is . . .

    . . . you got nothing!!!

    Did you hear the one about the guy that goes to buy a suit?
    https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16319

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Squidly

    |

    Great article Tim …

    But I can narrow this down to just one word … “SHEEPLE”

    It is as simple as that.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via