Do global warming alarmists support genocide?

Question

Using the same method as Stephan Lewandowsky in his conspiracy moon landing papers, one blogger has concluded that global warming alarmists support genocide. What is wrong with this analysis?

http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/warmists-are-never-wrong-even-when-supporting-genocide/

Answer 1

gcnp58 just showed what happens when one is willing to cherry pick. First, he arbitrarily decides to throw out 80 data points. He gives no justification for this other than the handwaving claim "80 joke answers... doesn't seem unreasonable."



Even worse, he concludes "skeptics are really a nasty bunch on average" by handwavingly claiming responses indicating such "are in fact honest responses." That is, he throws out data showing global warming proponents are bad people while keeping data which shows skeptics are bad people without any sort of justification. He just like the results he gets when he does that. This is literally nothing more than:



"Skeptics are terrible people if you throw out data I disagree with but keep data I agree with."



On top of his completely unjustified data manipulation, gcnp58 doesn't even attempt to do any sort of mathematical analysis. All he does is say, "Look at this pretty picture; it proves I'm right." That assumes we all see the same thing he does. People who aren't so biased they pick and choose data to discard just to get results they like may see things differently than those who do.



If gcnp58 wants to make a case, he needs to lay out an objective standard for determining what data was scammed. He also needs to do an actual analysis of the data to see how removing supposedly scammed responses affects the results.



He's welcome to post such on that site so people can see alternative interpretations. Of course, that'd also mean people could check to see if he's wrong. He might not like that given he's currently relying upon blatant data manipulation.



(Of course, that doesn't stop people like Climate Realist from agreeing with him.)



Edit: I see JC edited his answer to say the "'analysis' is not based on a statistical valid methodology." I find this curious as the methodology was taken directly from the work of Stephan Lewandowsky and co-authors (as mentioned in my post). That work was published in multiple scientific journals and widely promoted in the mainstream media. The only practical difference is it criticized skeptics instead of global warming proponents.



Why was the methodology statistically valid when used to criticize one side but not statistically valid when used to criticize the other?



Edit2: gcnp58, nobody has disputed there may be scammed responses. The problem is you arbitrarily pick and choose which ones to label fake. You have no objective standard for any of it, and as such, you are just altering a data set to get results you like. If you want to make a case, lay out an objective standard and do the calculations to see what results one gets with it.



In the mean time, you haven't offered a single objective standard. You haven't done any statistical analysis. You haven't addressed the fact this methodology is directly comparable to methodology used in papers published in multiple scientific journals (even while claiming it couldn't pass peer review). You haven't made a comment on the site where people looking at the results could judge it. You've done nothing to call the results into question other than say, "I don't like some of the data so it must be wrong."



Edit 3: gcnp58, you are completely and utterly full of it. Had you bothered to do any actual analysis, you'd know what you just said was false. I removed the data you said to remove. The correlation between believing global warming is a serious threat and supporting genocide was still positive and statistically significant, though only at the 98% level. For eugenics, pedophilia and human trafficking, it was still statistically significant at the 99.99% level.



You say it is so obvious there is something wrong with the data, yet you just showed you can't be trusted to describe the data. Not only have you approved of arbitrary data manipulation, you're now just making things up about the data. One could be forgiven for believing you're just too biased to examine this issue in an objective way.



By the way, it took me two minutes (and three lines of code) to test your claim . Two minutes and three lines of code is all it takes to prove you're just making things up to get the results you want. It's no wonder you won't post at the site where your BS would be immortalized.

Answer 2

The data are corrupted. he also provides the results of his survey (there is a link in a response). So I took a look at the raw data and it was interesting. I didn't bother doing the correlation analysis. Instead I summed the scores for the "climate" questions and the "social" questions to get a sort of ranking of the average belief of the respondent in each category. The answers rank numerically from 1 to 5, with 5 being a strong supporter of whatever the question was (i.e., a 5 on the questions of pedophilia meant you thought it was "great"). So the maximum possible score for the three climate questions was 15 and the maximum score for the five social questions was 25. For example, I would have gotten a 15 on climate and Joseph Goebbels might have gotten a 20 on the social (I don't think he was into ******* kids but who knows, maybe he would really have gotten a 25). So a score of 25 on the social meant you were a deeply disturbed person, by most objective measures of human decency.



Next, keeping it simple and following my belief that if you can't see it in a plot, advanced statistical tests are mostly pointless, I plotted the social score versus the climate score and sure enough, what you see are there are a lot of high climate scores that also have very high social scores (the plot has been dithered so that points with the same numerical score have had a small bit of noise added to them so that the size of the blob represents the number of respondents with that integer score). If I did a correlation analysis on this data I am sure I would find that all those high values make the correlation between climate change and negative social stuff appear significant. But just for the sake of argument, assume for a moment that of the 80 respondents who got social scores of 13 or higher, most of them were spoofs intending to make climate change people look bad. 80 joke answers out of 5200 doesn't seem unreasonable to me.



However, if you take those away, what happens is the raw data show the opposite of what the blogger is showing, and in fact people who do not believe in climate are significantly more likely to think racism, genocide, eugenics etc. are not so bad (the graph would now show that there was not a lot of "mass" if you will in the upper right part of the graph and lots of mass in the upper left and lots of mass in the lower part of the graph shading towards the center). In fact, I would wager that the high social scores that also have low climate scores (i.e. climate skeptics) are in fact honest responses, coming from the far right-wing climate skeptic contingent who do in fact think eugenics and racism are just fine.



I'll also wager you won't like this answer very much since it kinda shows you skeptics are really a nasty bunch on average. The truth is ugly when all your friends are liars.



edit: Brandon: Are you the author? Because there are a lot of reasons why the data are suspect. For one thing, 90% of the responses have an aggregate climate score of 8 or lower, meaning on average nearly all of your respondents are climate skeptics. So it's a highly biased sample to begin with. Aside from that, the scores of 25 on the social index have to be jokes (I mean come on, if that were real, 1.5% of the population would think pedophelia and human trafficking were "great," and that is delusional). However, I can easily believe that an ultra right-wing climate skeptic could get a social score of 13 or so by saying things like racism, genocide, or eugenics isn't a concern. And if you look at the "mass" on the plot, where most of the answers lie, there is a distinct weight to the lower right, meaning in fact it is people who are climate skeptics who are more likely to accept racism and genocide as not being a concern. If the data really showed what you think, then there would be more mass in the upper right,not just an island of points at the top right. This study would never make it through peer-review as presented because the analysis is wrong.



Brandon: Throw out everything with a social index of 15 or greater and it is clear that there is a very high correlation between climate skepticism and acceptance of racism, genocide, human trafficking etc. Just look at the data. There are only a few points with climate scores of 15 that have a social score greater than 6, but there are dozens of low climate scores with relatively high social scores (greater than 8, less that 15). I don't need a fancy statistical test to tell me that. Face up to it, your climate skeptics can't hide who they are, and as a group they are fairly ugly. I'm sorry that you feel insulted that I pointed this out to you. Really, you should delete your blog entry because it is damning towards climate skeptics.



Think of it another way, people who accept climate change is caused by humans make up 40% of the population. If your data is correct over half of that group, or 20% of the total population accepts that genocide, racism, pedophilia etc. are "great." That is nuts and simply isn't true. So there is something wrong with the data. It's so obvious that for you to not understand it means you should not be doing this kind of survey.

Answer 3

I find it interesting people here are insisting that post is wrong, often while leveling personal attacks they have no basis for, yet nobody has actually pointed out a single thing that is wrong about it or commented on the site.



The data used to justify that post is freely available. If anyone has questions about how it was collected or how the numbers in the post were generated, it'd be easy to ask. You'll get a quick response.



In the meantime, consider this. People hand-wavingly dismiss a post which uses a scientifically accepted method on data it freely shares even though nobody has done anything to show the post is wrong. Those same people call the author (me) a denier. How am I a denier if I am the only one collecting and analyzing evidence?

Answer 4

It doesn't matter what issue you pick, there will always be alarmist and even extremist amongst the supporters and detractors. Denouncing some one who raises the alarm as an alarmist as you do is utter nonsense as even Churchill was widely dismissed as an alarmist in the Thirties. [1]



Sagebrush just makes unsubstantiated claims including that he can read minds, he has no idea who I like, although I make it a point to repeatedly show that I dislike many of the things that Sagebrush stands for.



Sagebrush claims that Prof Richard Parncutt is for killing a certain group of people, if one bothers to read the article titled "Death penalty for global warming deniers? An objective argument...a conservative conclusion" You will note that Richard Parncutt states "I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon." [2] I (being opposed to the death penalty) totally agree with him in that respect.



And it is nonsensical to argue that conservatives do not support the execution of people, as the fast majority are calling for the executing people for lesser offenses then causing the death of a million or more people. Sagebrush himself right here in this section of Yahoo Answers called for the execution of over 60 million Americans for the "crime" of voting for the wrong politician. Despite Sagebrush trying to twist what was written it should be clear that Sagebrush and I strongly disagree on the death penalty.



Your question is a question regarding association fallacies [3] and they are just that, fallacies. To show how silly this is I have posted some quotes by Sagebrush (who frequently quotes Nazi's to further his cause) like:



"Execute all those who voted for OBAMA",

"Sustainability is a codeword for communism",

"Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch"",

"Justice and equality are codewords for communism",

"God has his hand on the thermostat".



So while it is painfully obvious what kind of person Sagebrush is, IF we were to use his "logic" [3] (and we shouldn't) it would make ALL deniers, genocidal Nazi loving, justice, equality and sustainability hating, religious extremists. Although it would not be unreasonable to assume that his fans [4] are, as you have have to make an active choice to become a fan of another member here.



If you want links to the quotes by Sagebrush, I am happy to post those who are still up, I do know that the genocidal one was removed after I reported it to both the FBI and YA.

Answer 5

Of course not, no more than Conservative Republicans support starving children because they are opposed to welfare or are in favor of blowing the legs and arms off Middle Eastern children because they want to keep oil supply lines secure, or support child labor in developing countries to maintain our supply of designer clothing.



These arguments are simply ways of inflaming the general population by making extreme and nasty claims about what other people "believe" in order to undermine their credibility, and therefore influence in any debate by making outrageous claims. Simply putting those claims out there upsets a lot of people to no good end.



They are cheap shots by cheap people who have no substantial argument of their own other than being poor examples of human beings. And as you can see by the examples I offer, nobody is immune from pulling crap like this. Why it is tolerated-and even cheered-in some quarters is beyond me.



And that is what is wrong with this 'analysis.' It is no 'analysis' at all, it is just one more nasty person out there trying to make his mark by being...nasty. It stinks, just like anyone who uses these tactics.



EDIT: This "analysis" is not based on a statistical valid methodology and reaches incorrect conclusions based on this flawed methodology. The remainder of my answer stands, and I did answer your question: These are nasty people saying nasty things about other people that are unwarranted and untrue.

Answer 6

Don't believe denialist lies. Realists support clean energy, not killing people. We want to stop global warming to save lives and because human beings are more important that oil, coal and SUVs.



If I wanted people to die, I would say, let Earth warm. Or I would become a global warming denialist. What better way to commit mass murder than to let droughts and climate wars kill people. If I wanted people to die, I would become just like these two.

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/activity?show=7JG0yAf0aa

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/activity?show=1UX9neAWaa



Perhaps genocide is the agenda of AGW denialists



Brandon







You want the data; just ask C, myself, That Guy tht did that thing, JC, FSM, The Green Machine and gcnp58. The data does not support the claim.

Answer 7

Finding correlations like this doesn't mean anything. It seems to be saying that because Group A mostly believes in C and Group B mostly believes in D, Then Group A believes in D. It is idiotic.

Answer 8

No I do not. One mans claim is not the truth.

Answer 9

The problem with it is alarmist believe AGW causes genocide not that genocide is a solution; unless you could somehow identify who "greedy corporations" are and wipe them out.

Answer 10

We have an expert on this subject. His name is Prico. He likes, Prof Richard Parncutt, who outright states that he is for killing a certain group of people because of their beliefs, “I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers.” Yet all the while twisting the words of others who do not believe such.



Prico, a typical greenie, loves death to others, just like Parncutt. Here are a few other greenies' quotes.



Quote by George Monbiot, a UK Guardian environmental journalist: "...every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned."



Quote by Jill Singer, Australian green and "journalist": "I'm prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics - put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide."



Quote by Maurice King, well known UK professor: “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”



Mortality control is just what greenies like.



Quote by David Graber, scientist U.S. Nat'l Park Services: "We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”



Quote by Ingrid Newkirk, a former PETA President: “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth - social and environmental.”



Notice all these full and accurate quotes come from 'the saviors of the Earth'. I would say 'yes they do' based on these quotes.

Answer 11

Global Warming ended in 2012 confirmed by our Satelite reports November 28/ 2012 ICE accumulation and even todays its still accumulating on earth. Mike

Answer 12

It's a stated goal of the same elitist gang who invented the global warming hoax.

You need to do some research and stop pretending the world isn't run by pyschopaths

Answer 13

It's not genocide, its called Social Engineering. FACT



Humans have been the cause of the destruction of our Earth, we are a biological problem, a virus, a dieases. FACT



But through social engineering: global eugenics, mass abortions, mass drugging, mass forced labor camps can we get the humanity under control.



Then after this global population reduction we can bring all humans into highly developed communal cities so that they can be better managed, tagged and placed under medical/agricultural/education that is approved by the govt.

Answer 14

What's right with it. It's just the deluded ramblings of a right wing nut-cased (like most denialists)

Answer 15

Of course They want to depopulate the Earth , Elimanate

all the poor people and the ones that disagree with them .

Answer 16

Someone would have to be an idiot to think that