Talk:Climate change conspiracy theory/Archive 4

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Global warming conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.globalwarming.org/node/160
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110814090420/http://www.cbc.ca:80/fifth/denialmachine/ to http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global warming conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509041910/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Oxford Research Encyclopedia
http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-328# William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Global warming conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/07/by_juliet_eilperin_a_pennsylvania.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18_IG_to_Inhofe.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070320212733/http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/archive/2007/03/14/5960.aspx to http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/archive/2007/03/14/5960.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation
-Appropriate fields were linked to other Wikipedia pages and I felt like the article had citations when necessary. It had sections that that were all relevant to the topic and were pretty evenly divided. The several links I checked all worked. It was interesting to read the talk page thread on why this page was marked for deletion. Several users suggested that this page merge with other Global Warming related topics and become a subsection, but the vast consensus was that this page should remain its own. I agree because there is enough information on this page to be a complete Wikipedia article. Also it has the relevant links to many other pages related to global warming within the article. Chloehyman (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Financial Fraudery
The international pretender lenders need somthing to seize if indebted countries cannot repay the money they pretend to lend them.

They have converted the environment into financial instruments that they can seize.

Their problem is that these nature assets do not produce much money (Nature reserves, marine parks, water, carbon trading assets).

They need the public to buy back these financial instruments.

The stick: "You horrible polluter! we are fining you $1,000".

The carrot: "Don't worry, for only $900 you can buy our cheap, ethical shares to expunge your debt".

The cyclical nature of global warming then cooling over at least the last 10,000 years demonstrates a solar cycle. CO2 cannot be the culprit. CO2 is blamed because it is easier to convert into money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.111.105 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy mental slide
The use of the term 'conspiracy' (especially if accompanied by weird music and fluctuating camera zoom) is meant to smear opponents and to shut down thinking and discussion. Resist! Resist!

Do not trust anyone who uses the term 'denier'. It is also a duplicitous smear word designed to prevent discussion. Resist! Resist!

Science proceeds when individual scientists escape from the general consensus. It is important to focus on their evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.111.105 (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Why no comments on the actual content of this page?
I notice that it's very 'one sided' and promotes the belief of the climate change Apocalypse believers. There is growing evidence that a lot of the data used by the 'Scientists' that were part of the research team that created the report for the Obama admin was sketchy, ignored or manipulated to get the 'conclusions' the admin, their donors and their future employers wanted. Hundreds of Scientists concur with this as well. Report on CO2 effects--2600:6C54:7E00:AC4:5873:7046:3A40:9E9 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

-- The article you cite, if it was ever worth anything, is badly out of date (see annual special issues of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society with articles demonstrating deleterious effects of human-caused climate change). And at least one of the authors, Willie Soon, received extensive funding from fossil-fuel industries, a conflict of interest that should have been but is not noted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweart1 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

That's total CRAP. This report CLEARLY shows the temperature data was manipulated. https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf The HOAX is global warming itself. But this site is run by the CIA so... oh well.. facts don't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.166.65 (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Trump said the Chinese are the ones who put out this hoax, so it looks like from what you say that the Chinese have control of NOAA and the CIA who control things like Wikipedia. Aren't you afraid the CIA are now monitoring you because of your revelations here?
 * I don't really see what's the point of this discussion from your point of view if you think like that, you're not going to convince people who are paid by the CIA to say something else. And how can anyone here provide any evidence otherwise to you if you believe everything said here is part of some conspiracy?
 * Anyway by Wikipedia rules any citations for an article should be from WP:Reliable sources, those you gave would need to be peer reviewed before they could be considered for the global warming. They could be considered in this article as examples of global warming conspiracy but they don't talk about that topic directly and really don't satisfy the standards of the other sources here. Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is so slanted and is good reason to NEVER donate to wikipedia ron paul (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"There is evidence that some of those alleging such conspiracies are part of well-funded misinformation campaigns designed to manufacture controversy, undermine the scientific consensus on climate change and downplay the projected effects of global warming." - Excuse me, this sentence seems to be itself a conspiracy theory too. Isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jüri Eintalu (talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Biased
This article is heavily biased to those who support the idea of Climate Change. Calling people deniers and conspiracy theories degrades wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.250.58 (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree about the bias. Some time ago I added the following section to address some of that bias but unfortunately the section was later deleted by Hob Gadling.

Conspiracy theories in favor of global warming

 * In 2006, the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? and later others claimed that Chevron prohibits the advanced battery technologies (such as large-format NiMH batteries) to be used in electric vehicles (attempting to hide the technology was also claimed). The main evidence behind this theory is the patent infringement lawsuits against auto companies. GM acquired 60% of Ovonics's battery development, then shut it down and later sold it to the oil company Texaco which was later acquired by Chevron. Multiple patent infringement lawsuits were filed by Chevron against auto or battery companies such as Toyota and Panasonic. This claim is more about the financial benefits of oil companies over monopoly of fuel industry but it's indirectly related to its effect on global warming.
 * In 2016, J. Marvin Herndon published an article in the journal Frontiers in Public Health which was later retracted by the journal due to not meeting the standards of the journal. The paper claims that there is widespread governmental effort around the world to do geoengineering and weather modification that can possibly result in global warming among other things. This article contributes to Chemtrail conspiracy theory which was believed by nearly 17% of people in 2011 according to an international survey.
 * In 2017, J. Marvin Herndon claimed that an oily-ashy substance, that was accidently released by an aircraft in 2016 and fell on seven residences and vehicles in Michigan (USA), resembles cryoconite holes observed on melting glaciers indicating a deliberate effort to hasten global warming.


 * Looking at these sources, you're synthesising conclusions not in the sources, contravening WP:SYN policy. Stop doing that. . dave souza, talk 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * dave souza, I would appreciate it if you point out which conclusion is synthesized? I just looked at the sources again, and I clearly see the same conclusions in those sources. Perhaps my wording is causing confusion which can be improved. Please note that this section was deleted from the article using the following argument which is different from what you are saying: ""conspiracy theory against" does not make a lot of sense, a whole section had nothing to do with the subject of this article". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quick.pooya (talk • contribs) 20:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Simple. You collected conspiracy theories, decided that they are somehow connected to the subject of this article, and added them. But the article says A global warming conspiracy theory invokes claims that the scientific consensus on global warming is based on conspiracies to produce manipulated data or suppress dissent. None of your theories does that, so there is no connection. Come back when you find a reliable source that connects your theories with the subject of the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)