WUWT's "sheeple" conspiracy nuttery - and forecasting God

You might have noticed a comment by Matt Manos the other day. He was about the only person who understood what President Obama was saying, when Eric "eugenics" Worrall wrote his silly article. Matt spoiled it by swerving off into an utter nutter conspiracy.

Matt Manos' "sheeple" conspiracy theory

Well, today Matt's expanded his conspiracy theory (archived here). He's using the "sheeple" argument that's a favourite of crank conspiracy theorists the world over.

The "sheeple" argument goes like this. People don't "believe [insert conspiracy theory of the day here] because they are "sheeple" who are:

• incapable of thinking for themselves
• brainwashed by some unseen, unknown higher power
• in thrall or in fear of authority (variously experts, government officials, common sense)

Matt's article has all the hallmarks of the classic conspiracy theory.

Mythical "facts"

First Matt seems to think that there are some un-named, unreported "facts" that "warmists" won't accept. Matt doesn't say what those facts are, which is not surprising. A conspiracy theory risks falling to pieces once it starts producing "facts", mainly because they are one or all of non-existent, unsupported by evidence, or contradictory.

As a true blue conspiracy theorist, Matt wouldn't be silly enough to discuss all the facts that WUWT-ers won't accept. (Including Anthony Watts, with all his "claim" headlines.)

The "sheeple"

Next Matt introduces his "sheeple" argument, so favoured by conspiracy nutters everywhere. He wrote:

Obama and the Pope are examples of bellwethers; the sheep with the bell that the other sheep follow. 

What he won't say, because it would spoil his conspiracy theory, is that President Obama and Pope Francis are merely communicating what virtually all the scientific evidence points to. That human activities like burning fossil fuel and chopping down trees are what's causing global warming.

Appeal to authority

Matt argues that a person shouldn't look to experts, specialists or evidence. He decides that doing so is just an appeal to authority. And what high RWA denier would appeal to any authority (other than a clown like Christopher Monckton, or a disinformer like Anthony Watts). Matt wrote:

Penetrating rational ignorance is tough because the position warmists have taken isn’t based on logic. Their position is actually based on an appeal to authority. 

It's tough to argue against 97% plus of published science, but Matt dismisses it all in one fell swoop as an "appeal to authority".  

Now Matt doesn't point to any evidence that contradicts mainstream climate science. (The closest he comes is talking "models"). By implication, I'd guess that he regards WUWT as an acceptable "authority" to appeal to. You know, the website that promotes ideas like:

• We're heading for an ice age, or maybe a little ice age very big huge humungous "bounce"!
• Global warming is happening and it's caused by Russian steampipes
• Ice won't melt when it gets hot
• OMG it's insects

Forecasting God

Perhaps this other bit of nuttery tops Matt's conspiracy nuttery. It came via a tweet from Leo Hickman. This is from an article by someone who boasts very similar qualifications to those claimed by Anthony Watts. Karl Spring wrote that:

I spent 25 years as an on-air TV meteorologist and have earned both the American Meteorological Society and National Weather Association Seals of Approval.

It seems Karl Spring doesn't forecast physical phenomenon. He doesn't forecast weather. No. What he's doing, according to him, is forecasting God. He wrote:

Finally, if God made our planet in seven days, do you really think he can’t raise or lower the temperature a degree or two if he wants? I’ve never heard a “scientist” bring that up. But I will.