Is there a boiler room somewhere where they make this stuff up?

Question

In the questions here, I see clusters of similar arguments around the same times.

It seems unlikely that the same idea just pops into different people’s heads at the same time.

My question is this:

Do you think it’s just because it’s in this month’s issue of the Rush’s newsletter?

Or is there really a boiler room somewhere full of trolls with multiple accounts and a coordinated effort flood the cybersphere with propaganda?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al6KM_IGgBom9pjfZdbf.53sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080513141102AAiXa9Z&show=7#profile-info-AA10064078

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjCgJf3EEYMRHH47TJb_Puvty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080512094055AAS7xoz&show=7#profile-info-LCbCRpV6aa

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkDi5g9k6L0tu.OijVGprETty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080513055635AAc2xU8&show=7#profile-info-LCbCRpV6aa

Answer 1

The boiler room clusters originated with the likes of major oil producers and the ultra-conservative block.  They put this stuff out there and some people glom onto it like tar onto feathers.

I'll ask a question sometimes and the text says, "No similar questions."  I've plugged in some of the questions asked here and there will literally be dozens or even hundreds who have asked the question previously.  Part of that lies in boredom and an attempt to entertain oneself without having to research or ask a question of genuine concern.  But sometimes, I think it's to bog down the questions with fluff.

Mark:  It's called Environmental Science.  In it some of the past and current logging practices are called into question, but it is acknowledged that if biological diversity is factored in, if forests are managed as forests, and not tree farms, there will be minimal impacts to the environment.  But there will be impacts to watersheds, etc., through placement of the infrastructure.  In order to maximize profit, that's usually the way it is.

Answer 2

I think we may be witnessing some form of  Global Unconsciousness,between minds of the same level

Pantagruel must be saying something right to get that many thumbs down .

good on you Amy you are hot with 9

Bob is doing OK ,a healthy 7

But Dana you have to do better than that

nobody hates you any more

Eerie isn't it

Answer 3

No. The AGW ship just got torpedoed by reality, that's all.

The major coordinated propaganda effort is through IPPC, UN , and Algore.

Answer 4

It's getting cooler, Doc.

Y'all look pretty silly.

Now look even sillier by telling us that this cooling is caused by global warming, or that your models predicted this all along.

Answer 5

Since when is correcting misinformation propoganda?  

Isn't the only proof of AGW the fact that a lot of people believe it?

Answer 6

First:  "There is no such thing as global warming."

Then:  "OK, there is some kind of warming it couldn't possibly be caused by what humans do."

Now: "It's somebody else's fault, not ours.  I don't see you solving the problem right this very second, so you're a jerk for even wanting to try.  I don't see what's so bad about this stuff anyway.  Stop making such a big deal."

Just keep on with the good work you do and don't give yourself a headache over it.  These are just growing pains of a group of people who are reluctant to stand up and face a problem.  I don't see anything especially thoughtful coming out of these people's quasi-questions/assertions, just stuff that, like you said, they heard on Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or any one of the conservative windbags spinning their wheels and not suggesting anything useful.

Answer 7

Kinda, but it's not exactly what you say.

There is a massive disinformation campaign going on, with plenty of slogans.  Like "there is no proof" when, of course, there's tons of data proving global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

But the campaign would hardly target this site.  Just not important enough.  People here visit those other sites and repeat the nonsense here.

I actually think the disinformation folks don't make phony posts on forums.  Just put the nonsense out on places like heartland and junkscience.  There are plenty of politically driven people to spread it from there.

Answer 8

Not to be offensive but this question has also been purposed frequently. You did phrase it without pointing a finger @ one individual..."bravo." Instead you just make a blanketed generalizations, that seems to work for both sides of the oratory podium. Regardless of your mindset, I've always wondered why the best questions get deleted/revoke?

ed: (Mark), what Amy doesn't realize, a lot of these contracts are sponsored by Federal and State governments. It's called Land Management and Selective Harvesting. There's been some speculation on the benefits of new growth-vs-old.

Answer 9

I've noticed the same thing.  One day there will be a half dozen questions about warming on Mars, the next day it will be the '800 year lag', the next day it will be solar warming.

I think the right wing blogosphere is mostly to blame.  For example, the infamous DailyTech article which tried to argue that global warming had been 'wiped out' because of a cold January.  Suddenly every global warming denier was linking this article and/or making this argument.  Many continue to make this argument even though global temperatures have returned to their pre-La Nina levels.

The crux of it is that there aren't very many arguments the deniers can make.  It's either 'it's all a conspiracy', 'the data is wrong', 'the sun is to blame', or 'consensus has been wrong before'.  They pretty much just cycle between these lame arguments, and every so often a bunch of them make the same argument on the same day, usually because they saw it in some right-wing blog.

At least they've managed to come up with a new one now, claiming that we're incapable of reducing our emissions sufficiently.  This is another ridiculous argument (for example, in the 2nd link you provide, the asker claims that "You could cover the whole southwest of the US with solar panels and still not have enough production to replace 3 percent let alone 15 pecent", which is patently absurd, as the link below illustrates), but at least it's a new one.

Answer 10

Does the number of people who believe in something make that idea true?

There are over four thousand sightings of Big foot in the national parks where I live.  Most of the reports are from intelligent people with more to lose than to gain by going public with what they saw.  Does this make Bigfoot real?

Over a billion people believ mohammad jumped on a winged horse to fly to heaven to talk with god.  Does this make this story true?

Of course no, and neither should the number and/or prestige of the scientist who believe global warming is real make that real.

Only when we understand the climate enough to say it will be warmer or colder because of the data rather then the opinions of people can we say global warming is true or not.

[Edit] No one is at fault, as there is no problem.

[Edit] You are unblocked.  Please keep your answers civil.

Answer 11

for the past 30 years the environmental lobby has consistantly blocked (or attempted to block)the construction or development of the following.

new nuclear power plants

new coal fired plants

new oil refinery's

development of any of the newly discovered oil fields

wind power farms

hydro electric dams(& are sueing to remove existing ones)

any reasonable person would recognize them as being strictly obstructionist. & would have to question their political motives for attempting to destroy our way of life & form of government.

Answer 12

You mean those environmentalist who call us loggers  criminal and evil, one accused us of the extinction of a bird that in fact is not extinct.  We have more trees today and forest land in Northern Wisconsin then in recorded history.  Yet to listen to environmentalist we are killing trees and causing global warming.  Do you realize harvesting a industrial forest is actually beneficial to us and the forest?  We need the science of our environment taught not the idealism.

Answer 13

I'm with you on that!  I am sure that there is a problem with duplicate accounts on YA. What gets me is the effort they put into their denial of science. Any crackpot idea is just fine with their denials, just to muddy the debate. Some of the more bizarre ideas are posted by children.  Like the idea that if you put CO2 in a jar, put in sunlight, to see if it gets red hot. lol! But the most disturbing premise is the 'belief' that 'man' can't change the Earth.  That seems to come from religious extremists, claiming that only a god of some sort has the power,not 'man'.  I'm sure, that when the climate becomes so deadly that people begin to really notice, they'll just continue to claim it is just an "act of god"!  The everwidening parameters of weather records is a direct result of global warming! Has anyone noticed the increase in severe weather lately? The record for tornadoes gets broken every year! We've had 1,000 tornadoes so far this year!  How hot is too hot? How deep of a flood is too deep?  How drastic of rapid temperature changes can food crops survive. Here in the Pac. N.W. ,we've had way below normal temps. Tommorrow, we'll have record breaking high temps! Today it is just 60, but tommorrow, it'll be almost 90, but then it changes right back to unusually cold weather.  If the issue was the "theory" that the Earth is round, the 'deniers' would all be saying, "But it looks flat where I'm at, so it must be a hoax or something!"